F1 Porricere is the technical term for the offering of sacrificial entrails on the altar (Macr. 3.2.2–5) and the relevant form should probably be restored here, although MSS of other texts also offer forms of proicere in such contexts (TLL 5.2.1964.64–75; cf. 10.2. 1796.38–51). The meaningless exuis must conceal an ablative plural since Nonius cites this extract to illustrate the use of singular praesente ('in the presence of') as a quasi-preposition followed by plural noun. This rare usage (TLL 10.2.838.55–68), like that of absente (TLL 1.213.54–6), appears primarily in earlier dramatic texts, especially comedy, and is apparently regarded as characterizing an impoverished and ignoble style in rhet. Her. 4.11.16, although by Fenestella's day it may simply have appeared old-fashioned (cf. Donat. Ter. Eun. 4.3.7); on its possible origin see Th. Birt, RhM 51 (1896), 248; it was discussed by Varro in the De sermone Latino (Donat. l.c. with Dahlmann, RE Suppl. 6. 1217).
The only known episode of early or mid-republican history in which presence or absence at a sacrificial rite was critical is the failure of the Pinarii to attend the initial sacrifice at the Ara Maxima. In most versions (see esp. Livy 1.7.13; DH 1.40.4; Plut. mor. 278E–F; Veranius ap. Macr. 3.6.14; OGR 8.1–4) only one sacrifice was involved, but Serv. Aen. 8.269 preserves a version in which there were two separate sacrifices, in the morning and evening, and the Pinarii arrived late for the second of them, after the entrails had been offered (extis iam redditis: cf. TLL 5.2.1964.75–82). If Fenestella refers to that here, ex(s)uis may conceal a simple et eis (cf. Lindsay ad loc. for ex as a corruption of et): 'in their presence (i.e. of the Pinarii) also'. However, the first person form of porrecissem ('I had offered') would then imply a narrative of past actions delivered by Hercules that is implausible in a historical work and should probably be emended to porrecissent ('when they [sc. the officiating priests] had offered') or porrecisset ('when he [Hercules] had offered'). This would have the further advantage that Fenestella need not have focused on the pre-foundation period in book 2 but like Livy could have incorporated the myth retrospectively, perhaps in connection with the revision of arrangements for the supervision of the cult attributed to Ap. Claudius Caecus (cens. 312), which are often recorded in this context.
F2 Taken from Fenestella's narrative of the political intrigues of 57 bc over the restoration of Ptolemy Auletes to the Egyptian throne after he had been ousted by the people of Alexandria, and if correct, refuting the assumption (e.g. J. Linderski, Roman Questions (Stuttgart, 1995), 80) that the consul P. Lentulus Spinther had already left Rome to take over the province of Cilicia and restore the king (cf. L. R. Taylor and T. R. S. Broughton, Historia 17 (1968), 169 n. 15). C. Cato, who entered office as one of the new tribunes on 10 December, sought to deprive Spinther of this commission pg 572and his initiatives ushered in a period of complicated political manoeuvring over the restoration of Auletes in early 56 (see e.g. P. A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988), 484–6). Itaque ('hence') clearly links to a preceding narrative of the events that prompted C. Cato's attack on the king and on Spinther (cos. 57). Those events must be principally the murder of members of the rival Alexandrian delegation, including their leader Dio (Cic. Cael. 23–4; har. resp. 34; Strabo 796; Dio 39.13.2; 14.2–3), together with the senate's failure to investigate the assassinations (cf. Dio 39.14.1–3), allegations of bribery of senators (cf. Cic. fam. 1.1.1; Rab. Post. 6; Dio 39.14.1), and perhaps the resentment (inuidia) of Spinther in some quarters, in part because of his role in securing Pompey his corn commission (Cic. fam. 1.1.3; 1.4.2; etc.). On C. Cato see in particular Linderski, Roman Questions (Stuttgart, 1995), 115–36, esp. 122–3 n. 42 on Fenestella's description of him here as adulescens (correcting 'praetorship in 59' to 'praetorship in 55'). His 'headstrong character' had already been evidenced in his attempted prosecution of Gabinius and denunciation of Pompey in 59 (Cic. ad Q. f. 1.2.15 (adulescens)), but clearly this was his first appearance in Fenestella.
Language and style owe much to Cicero and Livy. Turbulentus ('unruly') is a favourite Ciceronian designation of 'populares' not found in Sallust (and used by Livy of individuals only in 7.39.1), audax a stock epithet (e.g. Sisenna 26 F72; 81; C. Wirszubski, JRS 51 (1961), 12–22). Dicendum ('public speaking') is a necessary emendation for the meaningless deiciendum ('dislodging'): dicendum will have been written as deicendum (cf. TLL 5.1.967.27–32) and this then interpreted as an error for deiciendum (cf. DS Aen. 9.266). The two positives followed by a negated negative have a Ciceronian parallel in Tusc. 1.15; in the process imparatus acquires the novel generalizing sense of 'ill-equipped' (not noticed in TLL s.u.; cf. and contrast Cic. Brut. 139), through the equivalence of the whole phrase to the positive paratus ad dicendum (cf. esp. Ascon. Mil. 37St=42C of T. Munatius Plancus, tr. pl. 52 (from Fenestella?)). Inuidiam concitare ('arouse hostility': a compelling emendation of the meaningless inuideat cogitare) also has good Ciceronian credentials (Verr. 2.5.21; Phil. 2.33; Brut. 164). Livian influence may be detected in ut magistratum tribuni inierunt ('when the tribunes entered office') and guarantees the correction of the meaningless adsiduis initionibus to adsiduis contionibus 'succession of speeches' (cf. esp. Livy 3.19.4 (Cincinnatus): is ut magistratum iniit, adsiduis contionibus …, 'when he entered office, in a succession of speeches he …'). A poetic, and perhaps specifically Ennian, touch is provided by secundo … populi rumore, 'with roars of popular approval' (cf. Ennius ann. 244 Sk. ( … populi rumore secundo) with Skutsch ad loc.).
F3 Cited by Nonius to illustrate the masculine form reticulus (for which he also misleadingly quotes Cic. Verr. 2.5.57) as an alternative to the neuter reticulum (for which he adduces Quadrigarius 24 F32). Pectoralis ('of the chest') is commonly assumed to qualify reticulus ('a small net') and refer to some kind of vest (cf. TLL 10.1.907.43: OLD s.v. reticulum), but there is no clear evidence for such a usage (the reference in Festus 364 is quite uncertain). Müller's emendation of the apparently purposeless fascem gives cohesion to the citation and better word order: the two nominatives in asyndeton then refer to different items of women's dress, the
breastband (fascia pectoralis: cf. Mart. 14.134tit.; TLL 6.1.296.81–297.27) and the hairnet (reticulus); cf. Cato 5 F109. However, the context is irrecoverable.
F4 Obseq. 22 records an androgynus at Luna in 142 bc, accompanied by a plague of Thucydidean proportions; Oros. 5.4.8–9 has a similar account but transfers the portent and its consequences to Rome for his own purposes (D. Engels, Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v.Chr.) (Stuttgart, 2007), 538). Presumably Livy recorded these events in some detail, and Fenestella may well have done the same (Peter showed that commentator annalium here means simply 'author of annals' (2. cxiii n. 3; cf. TLL 3.1862.28–39)). He can, however, hardly have regarded the Luna hermaphrodite as unique since androgyne prodigies are frequent (list in B. MacBain, Prodigy and Expiation (Brussels, 1982), 127–32). Tertullian's citation of Fenestella is therefore best interpreted as an ironic (and rhetorically exaggerated) comment on his opponents (cf. OLD s.u. ne 11b): they made Bythus both male and female just in case historians like Fenestella should suppose that hermaphrodites were confined to the case at Luna. That would have additional point if Fenestella had elaborated the Luna example as a particularly striking instance or identified it as a type of hermaphroditism otherwise unknown (on the varying significance of hermaphrodites at Rome see Pliny nat. 7.34; V. Rosenberger, Gezähmte Götter (Stuttgart, 1998), 229–32 with bibliography). If hermaphroditus is Fenestella's term, rather than Tertullian's, this may be its earliest occurrence in Latin as a generic description rather than proper name (in Titin. com. 112 the reference is uncertain). Livy was clearly uncomfortable with androgynus in historical prose (Livy 27.11.5; it is rare in earlier texts (TLL 2.37.72–38.6)) and prefers circumlocutions (27.37.5; 31.12.6) and/or semimas (31.12.8; 39.22.5), but hermaphroditus had replaced androgynus by the time of the elder Pliny (nat. 7.34), perhaps popularized by Ovid's memorable elaboration of the relevant myth in met. 4.285–388.
F5 Censorinus almost certainly derives from Suetonius' lost work on the Roman calendar, the De anno Romanorum (cf. fr. 119 Reifferscheid). Macrobius, probably drawing on the same source, cites Macer as also attributing intercalation to Romulus (1.13.20=Licinius Macer 27 F11). Despite Macrobius' silence Fenestella may have attributed this fundamental element of the pre-Julian calendar to Romulus as well and Suetonius could have drawn his knowledge of Macer from him (or Varro). Fenestella's view here notably contradicts the tradition reputedly going back at least to (Q.?) Fulvius (Nobilior?) (ap. Censor. 20.2) and adopted among recent or contemporary writers by Varro (ap. Censor. 20.2; cf. ling. 6.33–4), Livy (by implication: cf. 1.19.6 with Ogilvie ad loc.) and the dominant tradition in Ovid's Fasti (1.27–8; 3.71–134), that the Romulean year comprised ten months. On these traditions in general see Michels, Calendar, 121–5. Attempts at reconstructing the early history of the calendar from these accounts (e.g. L. Pedroni, PBSR 66 (1998), 39–55) are perilous.
F6 Plut. Publ. 11.6–7 ('they still call their property by the term peculia derived from livestock [i.e. pecus] and stamped on their earliest coins a bull, sheep, or pig; they also gave their children the names Suill<i>us, Bubulcus, Caprarius, and Porcius, calling goats caprae and pigs porci') is closely similar and, despite the reservations of pg 574S. Verdegem (in A. G. Nikolaidis (ed.), The Unity of Plutarch's Work (Berlin and New York, 2008), 177 (with further bibliography)), the last clause at least must also come from Fenestella. Varro, rust. 2.1.10 adduces a similar list of names to the same purpose, although only Porcius appears in both authors. For the derivation of Bubulcus from bos ('ox') see also perhaps Crawford, RRC 337.1a (91 bc) with commentary; Pliny nat. 18.10.
Neither Fenestella's list nor Varro's takes account of the actual antiquity of the names in question: Fenestella's inclusion of Suellius/Suillius (alternative forms of the same name and taken to derive from sus ('pig')) is particularly notable. Two Suellii are attested in municipal contexts in the late republican/Augustan period (CIL 12.1731 (Beneventum); 3265 (Fontecchio)) but Fenestella's other names are associated with established political families or individuals, and the first attested Suillius at Rome is P. Suillius Rufus, the husband of Ovid's stepdaughter and quaestor to Germanicus (?ad 15), who was to enjoy a chequered political and forensic career (Syme, RP 2. 805–14). This might support the hypothesis that Fenestella wrote principally under Tiberius, particularly as the passage is likely to have come relatively early in the work, perhaps in connection with regulations governing fines (Plut. Publ. 11.6–7 records it in connection with an otherwise unattested law of Publicola in which the penalties were supposedly fixed in terms of cattle and sheep), although Alfisi's attempt (CSDIR 6 (1974–5), 9–29) to construct from it a general account of the history of Roman finances in Fenestella lacks any solid foundation.
That Fenestella also included the evidence of coin types is not explicitly stated but likely: the supposed appearance of livestock on early Roman coinage had already been adduced by Varro to a similar purpose (Varro rust. 2.1.9; cf. de uita populi Romani 1 fr. 11 Rip., 292 Salv.=Non. 189M 278L; Pliny nat. 18.12). This was not based on the early coinage itself (on which sheep do not appear) but was presumably an inference from the tradition that fines had originally been levied in terms of sheep and cattle (Varro rust. 2.1.9; cf. Cic. rep. 2.16; 2.60; etc.). The inclusion of the pig in both Plutarch passages is probably a subsequent addition and in F6 transforms the type into a representation of the suouetaurilia. Whether that specific detail is owed to Fenestella we cannot say, although Plut. Publ. 11.7 suggests that Fenestella included at least one significant name (Caprarius) derived from an animal not identified as an early coin type.
F7 Fenestella evidently discussed the institution of the quaestorship in some detail, thus filling a gap in Livy's account (and that of Dionysius). The derivation of the name from quaerere was obvious and commonplace (R. Maltby, Lexicon of Latin Etymologies (Leeds, 1991), 514: add Zon. 7.13; Paul. Fest. 247L; cf. Festus 310L), but there was no agreement on whether it referred to financial or judicial responsibilities (or both), on the date that the office was instituted or on the relationship (both in terms of identity and function) between the financial quaestors and the quaestores parricidii charged with trying particular types of murder (evidence assembled in Mommsen, Staatsr. 23. 523–5, 537–8; cf. most recently J. D. Cloud, Chiron 33 (2003), 93–120). Mommsen (Staatsr. 23. 537 n. 1) interpreted Ulpian's statement that, according to Fenestella and others, the title derived from the type of enquiry they conducted, to mean that the different quaestors were given their names on the basis pg 575of their different responsibilities and therefore that all three authors differentiated the quaestores parricidii from the financial officials, although Ulpian's 'originally' might rather imply that the quaestores parricidii later acquired other (i.e. financial) duties (and perhaps a different basis and form to their title). Ulpian's exposition may also suggest (but similarly does not prove) that Trebatius and Fenestella were amongst those who attributed the creation of the first quaestores to Tullus Hostilius: that version was clearly based on their identification with the officials who presided over the comitial trial of Horatius (Mommsen, Staatsr. 23. 525; R. A. Bauman, The Duumviri in the Roman Criminal Law and the Horatius Legend (Wiesbaden, 1969), 22–5; for parricidium as the charge in this case cf. DH 3.22.3; Festus 380L; Florus 1.3.5; Schol. Bob. 113St). If Fenestella believed that 'appeal to the people' was permitted under the kings (cf. comm. on F8), he may, like Livy (1.26.8; cf. Festus 380L; Schol. Bob. 113St), have supposed that Horatius' comitial trial resulted from such an appeal, though disagreeing on the charge and presiding officers.
F8 The purport of the citation of Fenestella can be illuminated from the overall structure of the passage. Seneca here discusses the distinctive approach to reading the De re publica adopted by the scholar (philologus) as opposed to the student of language and student of philosophy. He cites three sets of data from the De re publica, illustrating what would attract the attention of a philologus and, in the first two cases at least, adds in his own person further explanatory detail from the De re publica. Thus Cic. rep. 2.37 reports a tradition that Servius Tullius was the son of a Tarquinian slave-woman, and the uncertainty about her identity is presumably an inference from Cicero's ferunt ('they say'), whilst the silence about Ancus Marcius' father is taken from rep. 2.33. Likewise Cicero's datum about the dictator's original title comes from rep. 1.63, and citation of the supporting evidence of the augural books is an explication of Scipio's 'in our books' (Mommsen, Staatsr. 23. 143 n. 2); the inference from the title magister equitum does not appear in our (lacunose) text of the De re publica and may (or may not) be a contribution of Seneca himself (imitating the typical reasoning of a philologus). The death of Romulus and availability of appeal to the people (prouocatio) are both implicit citations of Cicero (rep. 1.25; 2.17). Cicero also adduces the pontifical books as evidence for the availability of prouocatio in the regal period (rep. 2.54). This implies that, despite the apparently lacunose state of the text, id ita <inueniri?> in pontficalibus libris ('this <is found?> so in the pontifical books') continues the rehearsal of Ciceronian material and that, however the rest of the sentence is to be restored (no current proposal convinces), Fenestella is adduced here as the kind of historical source a philologus might cite as supporting evidence, not as such a pedant himself (as Peter 2. cxi; Accornero 55). Presumably Fenestella's account of prouocatio, if not also of Romulus' death, mirrored Cicero's by citing the pontifical books. If so, he may of course simply have relied, directly or indirectly, on Cicero himself.
F9 For Theophrastus see HP 6.2.4; cf. 4.4.1. As certainly with the dating of Theophrastus, the interval of 173 years from the foundation of Rome is probably Pliny's own addition. Chronologies of the regal period varied (L. Holzapfel, Römische Chronologie (Leipzig, 1885), 250–9) and Pliny may use a scheme in which the period pg 576to the end of Priscus' reign lasted 173 years. However, the chronology used by Livy and Dionysius would put the end of this interval two years before Priscus' death, raising the possibility that Fenestella discussed the matter in connection with some event late in the reign (perhaps the inclusion of Minerva in the Capitoline triad: cf. Varro ant. diu. fr. 18 Cardauns with commentary for the chronology). At all events, the citation suggests that Fenestella may not have followed Cicero (rep. 2.34–7) in seeing Priscus as responsible for the introduction of elements derived from Greek culture. He may not have been alone in his supposition about the olive (Diod. 13.81.4–5 (from Timaeus?) records its absence from Libya as late as 406 bc), but even if he refers only to the cultivated variety he is in error, at least as far as central Italy is concerned (G. Vallet, in M. Renard (ed.), Hommages A. Grenier 3 (Brussels, 1962), 1554–63; C. J. Smith, Early Rome and Latium (Oxford, 1996), 104).
F10 Pessinus (Barrington Atlas 62 G3), a 'temple-state' initially of Phrygia and later Galatia, was famous primarily for its cult of Cybele (Magna Mater). The alleged Gallic defeat must be associated with their settlement in the hinterland of Anatolia, perhaps in the 270s (e.g. K. Strobel, Die Galater 1 (Berlin, 1996), 241–3, 252–3), certainly by the end of the 260s (e.g. S. Mitchell, Anatolia (Oxford, 1993), 1. 19; on the conflicting literary evidence see Briscoe on Livy 38.16.13), but its historicity is questionable. Brennus, who led the initial Gallic invasion of Macedonia in 280, committed suicide when severely wounded in an attack on Delphi in 279/8 (Diod. 22.9.2; Justin. 24.8.11; Paus. 10.23.12). His appearance here (conceivably due to garbled over-compression by Lydus) is therefore as fictitious as in Clitophon's adaptation of the Tarpeia story to a Gallic attack on Ephesus in this same period ([Plut.] mor. 309B–C with Momigliano, Quarto contributo 483). The Gallic defeat itself may have been invented to explain Pessinus' preservation of its independence (for a different explanation of which see Strobel, Die Galater 1. 260–1; Klio 89 (2007), 378–9, 395–6) and/or to facilitate the puerile etymology of Pessinus from πεσεῖν ('to fall'): it is not recorded elsewhere and the Gallic invasion was a ready source of legend (F. Stähelin, Geschichte der kleinasiatischen Galater (2nd edn., Leipzig, 1907), 8–9). The context in which Fenestella introduced the etymology is unrecoverable: rather than that of Sisenna (cf. comm. on Sisenna 26 F143), it may, for example, have been the transfer of the sacred stone of Magna Mater in 205/4 bc or Clodius' assignation of Pessinus to Brogitarus in 58 bc.
No matter what chronology is adopted for Fenestella, he cannot have been used by Varro in the Antiquitates rerum humanarum (cf. Accornero 50–2). Even if Lydus had some knowledge of Varro (E. Flintoff, Atti congr. int. studi Varroniani (Rieti, 1976), 2. 365–77), he will have taken these names from an intermediary source (he admits to having no personal knowledge of Fenestella or Sisenna here: see further A. Klotz, RE 13. 2215) and presumably translated a simple list of authorities into one of sources (there is another probable instance, also involving Varro, in the prologue to the De magistratibus (=de mensibus 1.37): cf. C. Wachsmuth, Lydus, de ostentis (Leipzig, 1897), xxiv–xxvii; S. Weinstock, PBSR 5 (1950), 44–9; see also Lydus mag. 1.24 with J. D. Cloud, Chiron 33 (2003), 108 n. 49). This 'Roman' tradition on the origin of the name Pessinus is found only here and differs from those in Greek sources (cf. Ruge, RE 19. 1105). Given Lydus' habitual inaccuracy and invention in such citations pg 577(J. D. Cloud in M. Humbert, Y. Thomas (eds.), Mélanges de droit romain et d'histoire ancienne: hommages à la mémoire de André Magdelain (Paris, 1998), 91–108), implicit reliance on his testimony may therefore be misplaced. If he is right, however, the distinctive character of this version clearly implies Fenestella's dependence on Sisenna and/or Varro.
F11 Mommsen's text ('he could not have been brought to Rome and sold there'), like that of Schopen, must at least represent the sense of the original. The transmitted text of ATV has Fenestella denying that Terence could have come into the hands of a Roman general, but a Roman general has no place in an argument that a prisoner of the Gaetulians or Numidians could not have ended as the slave of a Roman senator because of the absence of trade between Italians and Africans before 146 bc, especially since Lucanus himself is not attested in such a military capacity (cf. M. Broẓek, Eos 50.1 (1959/60), 115–16). By commercium here must be meant trade in a general sense (cf. M. Kaser, Ausgewählte Schriften (Naples, 1976), 276), not the technical right of commercium (as e.g. TLL 3.1873.78; T. Frank AJPh 54 (1933), 271; Accornero 62); since that would apply to transactions involving Romans specifically rather than Italians in general, the absence of such a right would not preclude trade in captives as such. There is no evidence for the institution of such a right after 146 as this interpretation would imply, and coepto ('begin') more naturally refers to the development of trade than the establishment of a right. Even so, Fenestella's argument is implausible, particularly given Massinissa's ties with Rome, Numidia's development (Pol. 36.16.7–8; Strabo 833; App. Lib. 106.499) and acquisition of the Carthaginian emporia on the Lesser Syrtes, and the known traffic of goods between Italy and Carthage in this period (S. Lancel, Carthage (Oxford, 1995), 404–9; cf. W. V. Harris, War and Imperialism in Republican Rome 327–70 bc (Oxford, 1979), 99 n. 2). We do not know what alternative explanation of Terence's origins Fenestella offered nor whose account he was attacking, although the supposition that he was a war-captive may be as much a conjecture as Accius' similar account of Livius Andronicus (Cic. Brut. 72–3 with e.g. W. Beare, CQ 34 (1940), 11–14).
The accusation that Terence was a homosexual favourite of the younger Scipio and Laelius appears elsewhere only in the lines of the (late second-century?) poet Porcius Licinus that Suetonius cites immediately after this passage (cf. Courtney, FLP 87–90). Fenestella may have referred to this, but Suetonius' quotation of Porcius can hardly be owed to him (as tentatively A. Rostagni, Suetonio De poetis e biografi minori (Turin, 1944), 30; cf. G. D'Anna, RIL 89 (1956), 35–6). Scipio was almost certainly born in 185, shortly after Laelius (Sumner, Orators, 44). Fenestella may have argued (perhaps correctly: Jachmann RE 5A. 599) for Terence as their senior on the basis that his first play was produced in 166, or have been influenced by his contemporary Santra's contention that it was not Scipio or Laelius that were the noble friends referred to in Ter. Ad. prol. 15–21, but men of the previous generation (Suet. uita Ter. 4; cf. H. B. Mattingly, RCCM 5 (1963), 35–7): so Broẓek, Eos 50.1 (1959/60), 119–20. On the problems of Terence's career, including the variant manuscript traditions on Suetonius' figure for his age at death (implying that he was born in 195 or 185 bc), cf. e.g. W. Beare, Hermathena 59 (1942), 20–9; G. E. Duckworth, The Nature of Roman Comedy (Princeton, 1952), 56–61; pg 578Broẓek, Eos 50.1 (1959/60), 114–20; P. Kruschwitz, Terenz (Hildesheim, etc., 2004), esp. 9–11.
F12 Despite the uncertainties of the text in the preceding passage (see Rodgers ad loc.), it is clear that 'these projects' refers not only to the construction of the Aqua Marcia but also to the repairs to the Aqua Appia and Anio (cf. Pliny nat. 36.121). Schultz's emendation of the meaningless figure in C is palaeographically easy and may receive some support from Pliny nat. 36.122, where the Bambergensis gives 300,000,500 sesterces (emended plausibly by von Jan to 350 million) for the combined cost, two centuries later, of the Aqua Claudia and Anio Novus; their combined length was some 60 per cent greater than that of the Marcia, taking account of their shared structures above ground (cf. D. R. Blackman, PBSR 47 (1979), 12–18). However, allowance has to be made for differences in construction strategies and techniques as well as the cost of materials and labour, and none of these can be estimated with any precision (cf. e.g. P. Leveau in D. R. Blackman, A. T. Hodge (eds.), Frontinus' Legacy (Ann Arbor, Mich., 2001), 93–4). As a result, no control of Fenestella's putative figure has been established, although it represents a vast expenditure by second-century bc standards (perhaps Fenestella's reason for specifying it); cf. Blackman and Hodge, o.c. 81; Leveau l.c.; on the questionable reliability of many such figures in literary sources in general see W. Scheidel, CQ 46 (1996), 222–37. Nor can Fenestella's source be securely identified: if the statue of Q. Marcius on the Capitol (CIL 3.846=16.5) celebrated our praetor, its inscription might have recorded the figure, but the identification depends on the (disputed) interpretation of Crawford, RRC 425 (cf. e.g. M. Sehlmeyer, Stadtrömische Ehrenstatuen der republikanischen Zeit (Stuttgart, 1999), 57–60) and Frontinus may have derived the figure from elsewhere (most obviously the senatorial records).
Peter followed Bücheler in deleting est, with the implication that Fenestella is also cited for the (highly exceptional) prorogation of Marcius' praetorship, presumably to conclude the initial preparations for the work (M. G. Morgan, Philologus 122 (1978), 46–7; cf. also Brennan, Praetorship, 219; F. del Chicca ad loc.). However, the transmitted text, although less smooth, is not obviously impossible and should be retained (W.-W. Ehlers' defence of sed (RhM 126 (1983), 77–8) is less compelling: both halves of the sentence emphasize the magnitude of the undertaking and hence are complementary). This direct citation of a named literary source is unique in the De aquaeductu and may here be a supplementary addition, but Frontinus gives an unusually detailed account of the politics of the Aqua Marcia, including a reference to different traditions about the subsequent pronouncement of the Sibylline Books (7.5; cf. R. H. Rodgers, CQ 32 (1982), 174–7), and may have used Fenestella more extensively (cf. D. Engels, Das römische Vorzeichenwesen (753–27 v.Chr.) (Stuttgart, 2007), 537–8).
F13 The evidence for the trials of the Vestals in 114–113 is conveniently assembled by Gruen, Roman Politics, 127–31; see also Cornell in Le Délit religieux dans la cité antique (Rome, 1981), 27–37; R. G. Lewis, CQ 51 (2001), 142–3 (on the procedural implications of our fragment). Fenestella refers to the initial proceedings before the pontifices: since they convicted Aemilia, her case was not heard by the quaestio set up pg 579subsequently by a bill of the tribune Sex. Peducaeus (cf. Ascon. Mil. 39–40St=45–6C). As the latter took place in 113 (Cic. Brut. 160 with ibid. 161), the pontifical trials must belong to the close of the previous year. The Licinii Crassi (cf. F16) were deeply involved: Licinia was perhaps the daughter of the tribune of 145, her brother may also have been accused (Dio 26 fr. 87.4), and both were clearly related to L. Crassus (cos. 95) who defended her (Cic. Brut. 160): F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), 243. However, there are no positive grounds for attributing to Fenestella the critical account of the later trials in Ascon. l.c. (as B. A. Marshall, RhM 123 (1980), 351).
Fenestella apparently employed a spare style at this point, using specific dates as the framework. Not only does the italicized citation (sequebantur eum diem Saturnalia) represent Fenestella's own words but, given Macrobius' need to demonstrate from Fenestella that the Saturnalia occupied only one day and his own subsequent explicit inference that the thirteenth day before the Kalends was not a festival day, the final citation, including the clause 'this was the thirteenth day before the Kalends of January', must also reproduce Fenestella's wording (apart probably from its transformation into an accusative-and-infinitive construction). This apparent artlessness must be a conscious device, advertising the sobriety and factual character of his record, and perhaps its derivation from pontifical records. It may have contrasted with an elaborate and perhaps sensational account of the whole episode in Livy (per. 63; cf. Obseq. 37; Oros. 5.15.22; also perhaps Plut. mor. 284A–C; Dio l.c.).
F14 For A. Manlius as Marius' legate in 107–105 see Sall. Iug. 86.1; 90.2; 100.2; 102.2–4; 102.15; Appian Num. fr. 4.1–3: as no Manilius appears in that role, the correction of the name here is certain. 'Calpurnius' is problematic. Pliny's context provides no clues, other than a dating to the early first century, but the bare and uninformative family name presumably reflects inadequacy in his excerpting: perhaps the original context in Fenestella focused on Calpurnius (making evident his identity) and introduced Manlius simply as a parallel. Syme, RP 1. 277–8, rejects the possibility of a Piso on the grounds that Pisones are not normally called simply Calpurnius. Given the garbled nature of Pliny's excerpt, perhaps further exemplified in the fact that elsewhere he consistently includes the cognomen of any Calpurnius he mentions, that is not conclusive: Fenestella shows some detailed knowledge of the family of the consul of 58 (F22) and the Piso who was praetor in 112 had a replacement gold ring made for him publicly in the forum at Corduba as a demonstration of his integrity and perhaps his temperance (Cic. Verr. 2.4.56–7; F. Münzer, Römische Adelsparteien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), 390–1; cf. also Val. Max. 4.3.10; Pliny nat. 33.38=Piso 9 F23 (L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, cos. 133 bc)). Another Piso may well have contented himself with an iron ring to advertise his restraint and his lack of ostentation (a tradition continued by the consul of 58). That was in any case presumably the point of Fenestella's notice: he was not the only contemporary to comment on developments in the wearing of rings as an instance of luxuria (cf. Ateius Capito ap. Macr. 7.13.12–15=fr.12 Strzelecki) and the issue also had considerable contemporary socio-political relevance (cf. e.g. I. M. Henderson, JRS 53 (1963), 67–8; S. Demougin in C. Nicolet (ed.), Des ordres à Rome (Paris, 1984), 228–31; R. Hawley in E. Bispham et al. (eds.), Vita Vigilia Est: Essays in Honour of Barbara pg 580Levick (London, 2007), 103–11), but it may be significant that Fenestella noted that instances of an older and supposedly less ostentatious fashion could still be encountered at so late a date. Münzer's identification of Stilo as Fenestella's source (Beiträge … Plinius, 344–5) is implausible, given Fenestella's apparent ignorance of Stilo in F25. So also is Reitzenstein's attempt (Festschr. J. Vahlen (1900), 414) to attribute much else of Pliny's discussion of rings to Fenestella; whether he even recorded Marius' retention of an iron ring until his third consulship (Pliny nat. 33.12) must remain uncertain.
F15 The emphasis here on Rome is due to Pliny, who has just recounted a contest between a Roman captive and an elephant organized by Hannibal. Gran. Lic. 36.6–7, p. 25 Criniti is very close to Fenestella (who like him may have recorded this in a comment on the aedileship of the Luculli); he implies that Claudius staged a fight between elephants and bulls, but does not specify this as the first elephant fight at Rome. Fenestella's contemporary, Verrius Flaccus, claimed that elephants had been hunted down in the circus in 250 bc (Pliny nat 8.17), but Piso (9 F32) had already given a different account, which Fenestella may have preferred. Elephants had also appeared at the games at Rome in 169 (Livy 44.18.8; cf. Pliny nat. 8.64 with MRR 1. 423 n. 6; Lucilius 14M with F. Pontani, MD 47 (2001), 165–70 (speculative)), but apparently only for display. Fenestella's account is otherwise credible: the aedileships of C. Claudius Pulcher (his colleague is consistently ignored) and the two Luculli were celebrated (Cic. off. 2.57; cf. Verr. 2.4.6; 4.133; har. resp. 26; Val. Max. 2.4.6; Pliny nat. 35.23; also Rawson, Roman Culture, 114). On this topic Asconius (Scaur. 20St=16C) notably ignores Fenestella and assumes that the famous elephant fight at Pompey's games in 55 was the first. So does Seneca (dial. 10.13.6), who is therefore unlikely to have had Fenestella in mind in his mockery of those (perhaps like Hemina: I. 223) who were obsessed with 'the first inventor' (πρῶτος εὑρετής) theme (as Peter 2. cx–cxi), even if what he and Asconius refer to was in fact the first occasion on which men, rather than other animals, fought elephants (Münzer, Beiträge … Plinius, 382). In any case, Fenestella's interest, like Livy's (l.c.), was not necessarily in such trivia for their own sake but in the escalating magnificence of public spectacles that had reached new heights under Augustus.
F16 The principal features of this entire narrative must clearly come from Fenestella, even if Plutarch has probably elaborated it in detail. Fenestella will also be the source of Plutarch's information (6.1) that Crassus remained in hiding for eight months, since this leaves well over a year unaccounted for in Plutarch's narrative of the period between the deaths of Crassus' father and brother in late 87 and his mustering of a force in Spain after the death of Cinna in early 84. Presumably Plutarch has taken the figure of eight months from Fenestella and then characteristically telescoped the time-scale.
Crassus clearly took refuge in Further Spain, perhaps near Malaca (cf. Plut. Crass. 6.1: for a proposed identification of the cave near Cuev de Nerja see D. M. Cano, Rutas de España: Ruta No 2 (Madrid, 1963), 43, as reported by P. O. Spann, Quintus Sertorius and the Legacy of Sulla (Fayetteville, NC, 1987), 188 n. 69). The strong links of Marius and his family with Further Spain (where Marius himself and perhaps his pg 581brother had served as governor) no doubt in part explain Crassus' difficulties there: it was to Spain, for example, that M. Junius Brutus and others had fled in 88 (Gran. Lic. 35. 7 p. 13 Criniti; cf. App. b.c. 1.60.271). However, as Plutarch notes, Crassus' father, P. Crassus (cos. 97), himself had governed Hispania Ulterior (from 96 to 93), and the Licinii developed considerable local patronage (cf. E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958), 258). It is likely that Crassus' benefactor came from a prominent local family, the (Vibii) Paciaeci (for the view that in our case Vibius is a praenomen and Paciaecus the family name see Syme, RP 6. 467–8; but cf. L. Vibius Paciaecus below, identified by Münzer, RE 18.2. 2061–2, with the son of our man). Similar manuscript disagreement and uncertainties over the form of the name to those found here reappear in Plut. Sert. 9.5 (a Vibius Paccianus/Pacciacus who met his death attempting to assist the Mauretanian chief Ascilis against Sertorius in 81 or 80) and in Plut. Crass. 32.2, where, after their victory at Carrhae, the Parthians chose a Gaius Paccianus/Pacciacus to dress as a woman because of his close resemblance to M. Crassus. Paccianus is an occasionally attested cognomen (I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki, 1965), 152), but Pacia(e)cus is the lectio difficilior (T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.–A.D.14 (Oxford, 1971), 248 no. 300). Paciaeci appear in Val. Max. 5.4 ext. 3 as an obviously powerful Spanish family (perhaps in the early–mid first century bc: cf. Syme, RP 6. 469; also CIL2 2.7.438 (Corduba: mid-first century ad)), and the L. Vibius Paciaecus who served as Caesar's prefect in Further Spain in 45 was a significant local figure (BHisp. 3.4; Cic. fam. 6.18.2; Att. 12.2.1; cf. CIL2 2.7.372 (Corduba: first century bc)). Plutarch's text should probably therefore be emended accordingly (Münzer, RE 18.2. 2061–2; Syme, RP 6. 467–8; C. F. Konrad, Plutarch's Sertorius (Chapel Hill, NC, 1994), 112; cf. MRR 3. 153). Various other consequences also follow from this material: the young Crassus' benefactor may be identical with the victim of Sertorius (Wiseman l.c.); the parentage of C. Paciaecus invites speculation; and Syme (RP 6. 469) conjectures that Fenestella was Valerius Maximus' source for the story about the Paciaeci who avenged the death of their father at the hands of a (Mauretanian?) chieftain Etpastus. There are, however, no grounds for supposing that Fenestella was Plutarch's primary source for all the opening chapters of the Crassus (as Pelling, Plutarch and History, 36 n. 80): the Vestal Licinia of Plut. Crass. 1.4–5 is distinct from that of F13.
F17 Plutarch's principal version of the battle of Sacriportus depicts the younger Marius as overconfident but in the vanguard of the attack (Sull. 28.11). This almost certainly depends ultimately on Sulla's memoirs (as e.g. Münzer, RE 14. 1813–14), particularly given Plutarch's probable general debt to them in this life, the specific reference here (28.7–8; 12) to the fulfilment of one of Sulla's dreams, and the explicit citation of Sulla's casualty figures for the battle (28.15=Sulla 22 F25; cf. I. 285). Other accounts of Marius' conduct in the engagement, with no obvious prejudice in his favour, comment on his courage (Diod. 38/39.15; Vell. 2.26.1; cf. 2.27.5; App. b.c. 1.87.397), and the circumstances of the battle reveal no particular grounds for his supposed exhaustion. Plutarch's introductory formula here is not good evidence that he found this allegation in other sources besides Fenestella, whose version is clearly secondary, tendentious, and hostile; it cannot serve as a basis for historical argument (as tentatively E. Rawson, CQ 37 (1987), 172). The same version reappears (only) in pg 582uir. ill. 68.3 (in a passage generally critical of the elder and younger Marius), but the precise relationship between this and Fenestella cannot be determined (the attempt of Delvaux, LEC 61 (1993), 13–23, 115–30, to argue for a wide–scale use of Fenestella by Plutarch and the De viris illustribus is self-evidently adventurous). Antony levelled a similar accusation at Octavian (Suet. Aug. 16.1–2 (Naulochus); M. P. Charlesworth, CQ 27 (1933), 174–5): whether it influenced Fenestella here we cannot say. Cf. and contrast Diod. 17.56.1–4; Plut. Alex. 32.1–3; Justin 11.13.1–3; Curt. 4.13.17–24 (Alexander before Gaugamela).
F18 Gellius' immediate source for Asconius and (through him) Fenestella may be Suetonius' Life of Cicero, but his knowledge of Nepos, cited immediately before this (Nepos 45 F12; cf. comm. ad loc.), is probably direct (cf. Holford-Strevens, Aulus Gellius2, 161–2, 167 with n. 48), and there is therefore no evidence that Fenestella himself referred to Nepos. Asconius probably discussed the question in a lost commentary on the Pro Roscio Amerino (cf. Marshall, Comm. 11). Internal evidence from that speech and the Pro Quinctio supports Gellius' dating of them to 80 and 81 respectively (15.28.3; cf. Quint. inst. 12.6.4; T. E. Kinsey, Mnemosyne 20 (1967), 61–7; J. Platschek, Studien zu Ciceros Rede für P. Quinctius (Munich, 2005), 2, 279), when Cicero (b. 3 January 106) was 26 and 25 respectively. Rather than suppose that Fenestella put Cicero's birth a year late (B. Twyman, SLLRH 1 (1979), 201 n. 113), we may attribute his error to the common confusion (or identification) of the 'born n years' and 'in his nth year' formulae (cf. E. Badian, Hermes 83 (1955), 107, 117 n. 3; G. V. Sumner, Latomus 26 (1967), 415, 418–9; id., Orators, 134; Twyman, l.c. 195–9): the same confusion (in reverse) appears in Gellius himself here (15.28.3; cf. Kinsey, l.c. 61–2; Twyman, l.c. 196). The Pro Roscio was Cicero's first public case and established his reputation (Brut. 312). Fenestella perhaps also saw it as an attack on Sulla; although Cicero himself only claimed (much later) that the prosecution enjoyed powerful Sullan backing (off. 2.51), this interpretation is found in later sources and some modern accounts (cf. Sen. suas. 7.2; Plut. Cic. 3.4–6; uir. ill. 81.2; D. H. Berry, Mnemosyne 57 (2004), 80–7; F. Hinard, Y. Benferhat, Cicéron Discours (Tome 1.2): Pour Sextus Roscius (Paris, 2006), xxv–xxviii; contra, e.g. A. Dyck, CQ 53 (2003), 241–3, 245; P. B. Harvey, BMCR 2007.03.35) and would be enhanced by emphasis on Cicero's youth.
F19 Lactantius inserts F19a into a long account of the Sibyls drawn largely from Varro (below); it is unclear whether he knew Fenestella at first hand, since he cites him only for this episode. The Capitoline temple had been burnt down on 6 July 83 bc, destroying the Sibylline Books that were housed there (DH 4.62.6; Plut. Sull. 27.12–13). Reconstruction was presumably well under way by 76 but can hardly have been completed as Lactantius implies: the new structure was not dedicated until 69 and had probably only been recently completed in 70 bc (cf. Cic. Verr. 2.4.69). The introductory 'speaking about the quindecimviri' in our fragment may imply that, if this extract derives from the Annales, Fenestella recorded the action taken in 76 in the course of a digression on that priesthood: the quindecimviri were in charge of the books and the three envoys were probably themselves members of the college (see esp. Münzer, RE 8A.1. 31). Similarly, Varro's elaborate discussion of the Sibyls pg 583and their books appeared in the section of the Antiquitates rerum diuinarum which concerned the quindecimviri (Lact. inst. 1.6.7; see fr. 56a–c Cardauns) and included mention of this same embassy (DH 4.62.6 (=fr. 60 Cardauns); Lact. inst. 1.6.11, 14). However, although Fenestella evidently discussed the special status of the Sibyl of Erythrae, there is no warrant for supposing that he gave a comprehensive account of the Sibyls, still less that he is the source of the Anonymus oraculorum Sibyllinorum (as E. Maas, De Sibyllarum Indicibus (Berlin, 1879), 37–42). That he drew on Varro is likely, but if Dionysius' wording and that of Lactantius can be trusted, Varro's account differed from that attributed to Fenestella here in that he distinguished the oracles collected from Erythrae by the senatorial commission from those acquired (elsewhere) from private sources, and specified that oracles were assembled not only from Erythrae but from Italian (and other) cities (cf. also Tac. ann. 6.12.3; J. Gagé, Apollon Romaine (Paris, 1955), 445–64; G. Radke, Gymnasium 66 (1959), 225–9; F. Graf, Nordionische Kulte (Rome, 1985), 343–4; H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London and New York, 1988), 138–40; Crawford on RRC 464 (46 bc)). However, Lactantius may well be (misleadingly) abbreviating a more elaborate account in Fenestella (just as he oversimplifies if he implies that a formal proposal to send the commission was moved by a serving consul). The issue of sifting and control of (allegedly) Sibylline material was of continuing importance in the period of Augustus and Tiberius (Suet. Aug. 31.1 (12 bc); Dio 57.18.4 (ad 19); Tac. ann. 6.12.1–3 (ad 32); cf. also 1.76.1 (ad 15)), as was the housing of the Sibylline Books themselves (Suet. Aug. 31.1 with Parke, o.c. 149–50 n. 11). If Fenestella correctly referred to the quindecimviri, rather than decemviri, in the context of 76 bc, this is the earliest attestation of the enlarged college and reinforces the case for Sulla as the author of that enlargement: cf. J. Rüpke, Fasti Sacerdotum (Stuttgart, 2005), 3. 1640 with n. 124.
On the Sibyl of Erythrae (identified by some with the Sibyl of Cumae as early as the fourth or third century bc: [Arist.] mir. 838a5 ff. with Parke, o.c. 78–9), see Rzach, RE 2A. 2084–7; Radke, l.c.; Parke, o.c., esp. 51–3, 64–6, 107–10. For Fenestella's own connections with Cumae see T5; I. 489.
P. Gabinius is presumed to be the praetor of 89 (MRR 3. 98 with bibliography). Cichorius, RS 179–80, identified Otacilius with a legate in the Social War (Sisenna 26 F47) and the father of the M'. Otacilius M'. f. who appears as an eques in the Asculum inscription (ILLRP 515) and hence emended his praenomen to M'. (Marcus is not certainly attested for any republican Otacilius, whereas the consul of 263 and 246 and his grandfather were also Manii; cf. also I. 333 on (?)M'. Otacilius Pitholaus (29)). L. Valerius may be L. Valerius Flaccus, the future praetor of 63 (cf. Münzer, RE 8A.1. 31). For Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78) see Münzer, RE 13. 2082–94 (n. 8).
F20 The meaningless and lacunose MS text has been corrected principally on the basis of Ascon. Corn. 61St=78C (cf. also Sall. hist. 3.48.8M; ps.-Ascon. 255St). Asconius' discussion does not strictly prove that Fenestella recorded the bill concerning the tribunate, but he can hardly have omitted this landmark in the progressive removal of the Sullan restrictions (and the probability would become a virtual certainty if, not implausibly, we read neque … significant ('they [sc. Livy, Sallust, and Fenestella] do not suggest') rather than neque … significat ('he [Cicero] does not pg 584imply')). Taken literally, Asconius implies that Fenestella passed over Cotta's bill concerning private lawsuits whose abrogation in 74 he records in Corn. 54St=67C; but Asconius implicitly excludes that measure from the discussion here, probably because he believed Cicero was referring to laws actually abrogated during Cotta's consulship (J. T. Ramsey, CPh 83 (1988), 173; cf. M. T. Griffin, CR 37 (1987), 189). If so, however, that was a false inference from Cicero's text: a relatio does not even imply that Cotta proposed abrogation (as Griffin l.c.), still less that any such proposal was implemented (as Ramsey l.c.).
F21 It is not clear whether the wording in F21b implies that Fenestella showed some caution in his claim that Cicero had actually defended Catiline (so Reitzenstein, Festschr. J. Vahlen (1900), 421–2), but Asconius convincingly refutes it, on the basis both of the internal evidence of the In toga candida (tog. cand. 66–7St=85–7C) and of the absence of such a speech from the collections of outlines and opening passages of Cicero's speeches (tog. cand. 67–8St=87C). He could easily have added other passages that are difficult to reconcile with such a scenario (e.g. Cic. Cael. 10) or where Cicero (or his enemies) might have capitalized on it (e.g. Sull. 81). No trace of Fenestella's claim is found in later accounts of the period.
Syme (Sallust, 297; cf. Mercklin, De Fenestella (1844), 9) suggested that Fenestella was duped by a fabricated mock-Ciceronian Pro Catilina circulating in the Augustan period. It is not, however, easily believed that a speech so apparently counter-historical would either have been concocted or, if it was, have deceived Fenestella; and Asconius' failure to expose it also needs explanation. A more attractive explanation (C. Lichtenfeldt, De Q. Asconii Pediani fontibus ac fide (Breslau, 1888), 25) is that Fenestella drew a hasty inference from Cic. Att. 1.2.1 (summer 65): 'at this point I am planning to defend my rival Catiline: we have the jury that we want, with complete compliance on the part of the prosecutor [sc. Clodius].' That Asconius does not refer to or discuss the passage is intelligible, even supposing that Fenestella cited his source (cf. e.g. E. Meyer, Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus (3rd edn., Stuttgart, 1922), 22–3 n. 2; contra see esp. Shackleton Bailey, Cic. ad Att. 1. 66–8): there was no need to point out that the passage was inconclusive when he had positive counter-arguments to deploy. The case for Fenestella's dependence on Att. 1.2 can perhaps be strengthened. Immediately after his running confrontation with Fenestella, Asconius records that Catiline's acquittal was due to the collusion (praeuaricatio) of the prosecutor, since the choice of jurors appeared to have been conducted in the interests of the defendant (tog. cand. 68St=87C). The charge of collusion was levelled much later by Cicero in two passing references (har. resp. 42; Pis. 23), but in neither case is the accusation developed, it is not cited elsewhere, and it may well be false (E. S. Gruen, Athenaeum 49 (1971), 59–62). Whilst Cicero might have expanded on it in a passage now lost, notably in his attack on Clodius and Curio of 61 bc, there must be at least a possibility that Asconius here followed Fenestella, who himself relied on Cicero's statement about the jury selection in Att. 1.2.1. In that case, he had the piquant scenario of Cicero, Catiline, and Clodius all co-operating towards a common end in proceedings that did none of them credit. The principal obstacle to this hypothesis is the supposition that the Letters to Atticus were published only in the Neronian period (cf. e.g. Shackleton Bailey, Cic. ad Att. 1. 59–73; pg 585Marshall, Comm. (1985) 47–50, with bibliography), but as J. Nicholson argues (SLLRH 9 (1998), 63–73), even if that was so, it may have been possible to consult them earlier or use material drawn from them at second hand. Whether that was true of Fenestella we cannot say.
F22 The redundant second nomen Atilius will be the result of dittography. No Atilii Nudi are attested, whereas the Nudus who served under M. Cotta (cos. 74) and failed to withstand Mithridates' forces at Chalcedon (App. Mithr. 71.300–4) appears to be identical with the P. Rutilius recorded as commander in the same encounter by Oros. 6.2.13, and presumably with the P. Rutilius Nudus honoured as quaestor at Aigion in Achaea (ILLRP 370; cf. MRR 3. 183). Whether he was the Rutilius sent by Sulla to negotiate with Fimbria in 86 (App. Mithr. 60.246; E. Badian, Gnomon 33 (1961), 492–3) is more doubtful. Rutilius probably served as quaestor in the province (Macedonia) which his son-in-law, L. Calpurnius Piso, cos. 58, was to govern (D. van Berchem's supposition (BCH 87 (1963), 322–3) that he was Cotta's quaestor in Bithynia is difficult to reconcile chronologically with the marriage of his presumed granddaughter to Caesar in 59 and with Dio's evidence that P. Oppius served as Cotta's quaestor (36.40.3)). Rutilius may well also have provided a link between Piso and his son-in-law Caesar through Rutilia, the mother or aunt of Caesar's own mother Aurelia (Cic. de orat. 1.229; Brut. 115; nat. deor. 3.80; Münzer, RE 1A. 1280–1; Syme, RP 1. 167). The context in Fenestella is obviously irrecoverable, though Ascon. Pis. 17St=10C shows that he did not provide the name of Rutilius' wife; presumably, as Asconius implies, only distinguished women were named in his narrative.
F23 Cic. Mil. 27 indicates that (as Clodius knew) Milo was due to depart for Lanuvium on 18 January and ibid. 45 that he did so. If Fenestella's error was conscious, it might be attributable to incautious reading of Mil. 28, where Cicero does not clearly indicate the transition from 17 to 18 January. However, a more plausible explanation of Fenestella's 'error' is a slip of the pen, perhaps by a copyist (a possibility Asconius is happy to entertain in the case of Cicero himself: Corn. 60St=76C). In any event, Asconius gives no hint that Fenestella undermined Cicero and Milo's whole case by putting his departure the day before Clodius' murder, with the implication that Milo then deliberately waited overnight to ambush Clodius. What he gave was (also) the date for the murder, as a useful chronological starting point for his subsequent narrative. There is unfortunately no means of determining whether Asconius used Fenestella more extensively here, and in particular whether Fenestella's account supported the detached assessment of the events of early 52 that Asconius offers, but Asconius evidently found in the acta material ignored by Fenestella and other sources (see esp. Mil. 38–9St=44C; 42St=49C).
F24 Münzer (Beiträge … Plinius, 345–6) showed that the citation of Nepos (fr. 31 Marshall) extended only to the data on dining-couches (already a moralizing preoccupation in Piso (9) F38; Antias (25) F67), and the initial references to the addition of silver to repositoria and use of tortoiseshell appear to be Pliny's extrapolation from what Fenestella represented as the final stages in the elaboration of these serving-stands. However, Fenestella's personalized manner of tracing progressive pg 586development, in part dated by reference to stages in his own life, is strikingly reminiscent of Nepos (45) T10a (=Pliny nat. 9.137; Nepos fr. 27 Marshall), and reflects the antiquarian tendency to cite personal experience and observation (cf. Rawson, Intellectual life, 239). Even on the higher dates for Fenestella's career (cf. introduction, I. 490) his chronology is significantly lower than that of Pliny nat. 9.39, which ascribes the introduction of tortoiseshell veneer for repositoria to a Carvilius Pollio, who apparently antedated the Sullan civil war (ibid. 33.144; cf. Münzer, Beiträge … Plinius, 346–7). On the developing fashion for citrus (already denounced by the elder Cato: orat. F185 Malc., 139 Cugusi=Fest. 282L) and maple at Rome cf. R. Meiggs, Trees and Timber in the Ancient Mediterranean World (Oxford, 1982), 286–92. Our fragment appears to be the earliest attestation of the use of wood as a veneer at Rome (ibid. 297).
Fenestella's comments on terminology (also a characteristic preoccupation of antiquarians and grammatici) are presumably separate and supplementary (so that 'when he was a young man' does not necessarily imply that the addition of silver decoration had occurred earlier). The word repositorium does not otherwise occur before Seneca and Petronius (OLD s.v.), so it is no surprise that different terms had been used earlier (though this is the only evidence for tympanum in such a sense), but the final comment on the word lances is puzzling. It appears that Pliny has over-condensed Fenestella, who asserted that serving–dishes acquired the name lances, in place of the earlier Graecising magides, at the same time as tympana was used of serving-stands (what name had earlier been given to the stands themselves Pliny does not state). This is curious on two counts: lanx had been used as a term for table service, at least occasionally, well before Fenestella's 'youth' (TLL 7.2.938.48–51 (cf. 30–47)), and the use of the term for a scale pan may be secondary, occurring first in Cicero (ac. 2.38; fin. 5.91–2; Tusc. 5.51; TLL 7.2.939.10–940.18). Either Fenestella fell into (serious) error or Pliny has misrepresented his source. However, the information that magides was once the term for dishes, which also presumably derives from Fenestella despite the use of the indicative, is probably correct: Varro ling. 5.120 (its only earlier occurrence, here in the form magida according to the MSS) similarly implies its earlier use (alongside lancula, the diminutive of lanx).
F25 Immediately before this passage Pliny has recounted how Cleopatra won a wager with Antony (overseen by L. Munatius Plancus) by dissolving a large pearl worth 5 million sesterces in wine vinegar and then drinking it (nat. 9.119–22; cf. Macr. 3.17.15), a feat supposedly earlier performed at Rome by the son of the tragic actor Aesopus (Pliny l.c. 122; cf. Hor. sat. 2.3.239–41; Val. Max. 9.1.2) and in sharp contrast to the transformation of a second large pearl of Cleopatra into earrings for the statue of Venus in the Pantheon (Macr. 3.17.18; cf. M. B. Flory, Historia 37 (1988), 502–4). This suggests that the 'subjugation of Alexandria' refers to Octavian's conquest in 30 rather than that of Caesar in 47, and it is attractive (but highly speculative) to suppose that the (apocryphal?) story about Cleopatra, which presaged Antony's defeat and was presumably circulated by Plancus after his defection (Flory, l.c. 502), also derives immediately from Fenestella, who saw Cleopatra's huge pearls as setting a fashion at Rome (cf. Reitzenstein, Festschr. J. Vahlen (1900), 418). Strictly, Aelius Stilo's observation (cf. Pliny nat. 9.112), presumably based on personal knowledge, pg 587contradicts only Fenestella's statement about the first appearance and size of pearls at Rome, but Fenestella certainly underestimated their popularity and the value attached to them in the early–mid first century bc (see e.g. Varro, Men. 283B=279C; 382B=378C; Cic. orat. 78; Laudatio Turiae (ILS 8393) 2.2; cf. Vitr. 8 praef. 3; ILLRP 797); Caesar allegedly purchased a pearl worth 6 million sesterces for Servilia (Suet. Iul. 50.2), in 46 he dedicated a breastplate fashioned from British pearls to Venus Genetrix (Pliny nat. 9.116; whence Solin. 53.28; for the symbolism see Flory, l.c. 499–500; for allegations that he invaded Britain in the search for pearls cf. Suet. Iul. 47.1), and in his dictatorship he attempted to restrict their use for adornment (Suet. Iul. 43.1). Others attributed the fashion for pearls to the effects of Pompey's triumph in 61 (Pliny nat. 37.12; from Varro according to Münzer, Beiträge … Plinius, 211, 283), a tradition that (if he knew of it) Fenestella conspicuously ignored.
F26 'In the final years of the Deified Augustus' could be Pliny's recasting of the chronological indication in Fenestella and does not necessarily imply that Fenestella was writing under Tiberius, though that is probable. For Martial 2.85.3–4 the toga with a smooth-cut nap (toga rasa) is specifically summer wear and hence evidently light (cf. H. R. Goette, Studien zur römischen Togadarstellungen (Mainz, 1990), 4, 6–7): Fenestella presumably saw it as a sign of degeneracy and perhaps effeminacy (cf. the galbina rasa of Juv. 2.97). 'Phryxians' otherwise appear as an alternative to closely woven garments (spissis) in Seneca benef. 1.3.7, apparently as an idiosyncratic poetic dress for the Graces that contrasted with their normal loose, transparent drapery. They are perhaps included here specifically as luxury winter wear. The name supposedly derives from the Phrixos who fled to Colchis on the ram with the golden fleece, and may refer to the exquisite qualities of the wool used rather than its colour. Although Martial (12.98.1–2; cf. 9.61.3) claims gold-tinted wool as a product of Baetica, it was probably in fact reddish (Pliny nat. 8.191; cf. Col. 7.2.4) and used for cloaks (lacernae: cf. Mart. 14.133.1–2), not togas (though cf. Mart. 8.28.5–6 (a toga potentially of Baetic wool); Strabo 499 (on the origin of the golden fleece)). As the specific male citizen dress (on whose use in the Forum and its environs Augustus insisted: Suet. Aug. 40.5) and a potential source of display (e.g. Cic. Cat. 2.22), the toga carried ideological overtones exploited by moralists (cf. e.g. Sen. epist. 5.3; 114.21; Quint. inst. 11.3.137): Fenestella may well have seen this development as symbolic of the more general insidious effects of luxuria and its threat to traditional Roman (male) identity and values.
F27 Others, apparently correctly, derived the name of the shoe (mulleus) from that of the fish (mullus): Isid. orig. 19.34.10; Gloss. Lat. (edd. Pirie and Lindsay) 4.16 (ps.-Plac. M 16); Schuppe, RE 16. 496; a different etymology in Festus 128. Fenestella perhaps supposed that since the term mulleus was often used specifically of the patrician shoe (cf. TLL 3.132.78–138.11; comm. on Cato 5 F108), which some traced back to the Alban kings (Festus l.c.), the name (already in Cato 5 F108) must be older than that of the mullet, which came into fashion only in the late republic and whose name is first attested for us in Cicero and Varro: TLL 8.1578.23–49. In addition, this offered scope for moralizing comment on the adaptation of such a term to an item of luxury (as did the alternative derivation of mullus from mollis: CGL pg 588(ed. Goetz) 2.587.50; cf. Col. 8.17.7; Isid. orig. 12.6.25), particularly since the mullet was cultivated by Roman aristocrats, not least as a pet fish (see e.g. Cic. Att. 2.1.7; parad. 39; Varro rust. 3.17.5–9; Pliny nat. 9.171), and owed much of its culinary popularity to the rich red colour it assumes on death, an effect which Fenestella's gourmet contemporaries went to considerable lengths to enhance (see esp. Pliny nat. 9.66; Steier, RE 16. 500–1).
F28 The immediate context in Pliny focuses on the use of earthenware dishes, in this instance serving the purposes of luxuria. Presumably Fenestella had specified the material used, but that may not have been his primary interest: fish and their consumption were an abiding index of social change, especially for moralists. The imperfect appellabatur ('was called') suggests that Fenestella was contrasting an earlier period with his own day, although 'when conduct was, of course, already going downhill' is evidently a comment by Pliny himself. There is, however, no ready means of identifying the period in question from the fish involved (both moray and bass remained table luxuries in the imperial period: e.g. Mart. 2.37.4–5). Moray is already identified as a South Italian delicacy in Archestratus fr. 17 Olson–Sens, and appears as a luxury fish from Plautus on (Amph. 319, etc.; cf. TLL 8.1668.43–84). Nepos and Laberius supposed that sturgeon preceded bass and hake as the fish of choice (Pliny nat. 9.61), and not all bass was to the fastidious taste of late republican gourmets (cf. Varro rust. 3.3.9), but that caught 'between (the) two bridges' of the Tiber (cf. D. Degrassi, LTUR 2. 219) was already a delicacy in the mid–late second century (Macr. 3.16.16 (=C. Titius, ORF4 51 F2); 18 (=Lucilius 1176M)). The ability to serve a variety of fish was itself an index of wealth, advertisement of generosity (or decadence), instrument of social self-promotion, and earnest of culinary sophistication (cf. e.g. Val. Max. 9.1.1); for fish as a symbol of power—and expression of social hierarchization—see e.g. N. Purcell in J. Wilkins et al. (eds.), Food in Antiquity (Exeter, 1995), esp. 136–7. There is no other evidence for the word tripatinium itself.
F29 Corruption runs deep in the citations adduced here to illustrate verbs that appear in both active and deponent forms (cf. also Prisc. GL 2.396.18). The immediately following discussion of adsentio/adsentior suggests that the initial quirito is a rubric introducing examples of the active forms and was probably balanced by a subsequent quiritor to introduce the example(s) of the deponent forms. It also suggests that the defective quirit<..> is the citation not from Varro (Goetz–Schoell) but from 'Livius' (cf. Keil ad loc.), as Diomedes' usual practice would in any case suggest (although the reference to 'Livius in the Atticus' is certainly corrupt unless it refers to e.g. a lost philosophical work by Livy). 'Varro to Cicero' refers to the De lingua Latina. Goetz–Schoell restore the full title but that does not normally appear in the grammatici and a book number is to be expected (cf. esp. Diom. GL 1.377.12–13: Varro ad Ciceronem tertio); de in our text may therefore be corrupt. Peter (2. cxiii n. 4) accepted Mercklin's punctuation and interpretation, which identifies de fenestella quiritatur as a quotation from the Varronian work ('(s)he appeals to the citizens from the little window'), but in the preserved instance of the verb from the De lingua Latina (6.68) the MSS have an active form (quiritare, admittedly easily corrupted from the pg 589passive quiritari), and although the name Fenestella might itself be a derivative of fenestra, the diminutive fenestella first appears as a common noun in Columella (1.6.10, etc.). The strong probability is, therefore, that there is a lacuna before 'Fenestella', who is cited for the rare deponent form, otherwise attested only in Nigidius Figulus fr. 33 Mazzarino=fr. 58 Swoboda and 'old writers' in Donatus on Ter. Ad. 2.1.1. It may be an (archaizing?) affectation and probably, in the historic present, part of a graphic narrative (cf. e.g. Livy 2.23.8; 2.55.4–11; 3.44.7). On the custom of appealing to one's fellow citizens for assistance, to which the verb commonly refers, see W. Schulze, Kleine Schriften (Göttingen, 1934), 160–79; A. W. Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome (2nd edn., Oxford, 1999), 11–16.
F30 The cheating of hopes or expectations (e.g. Sisenna 26 F105: opinione frustrata: the first attested passive use of the word (comm. ad loc.)) or the motif of hopes deceiving the individual (e.g. Sall. Iug. 101.3: Iugurtham spes frustrata) were familiar historiographical notions, but the combination of frustror in a passive sense (for which Priscian cites this fragment) with a personal subject and the agent spes ('hope') semi-personified is an innovation, probably modelled on Livy's destitutus a(b) spe ('abandoned by hope': 22.15.2; 25.27.13, etc.: TLL 5.1.763.37–42). Deuinco, used in formal contexts of a comprehensive victory, was much loved of Cicero and of Livy (TLL 5.1.861.48–862.25), who favours the past participle. The juxtaposition of spe deuictus and (unless a collective enemy is the subject) the personalizing interpretation of conflict point up the dramatizing and moralizing contrast. Whether the context is external warfare or civil conflict cannot be determined.
F31 Diomedes' citation of Plautus as it stands in the manuscripts makes no sense and we have therefore restored, exempli gratia, the original text of Plaut. Capt. 496–7 to which Diomedes clearly refers (F. Winter, Plauti Fabularum Deperditarum Fragmenta (Bonn, 1885), 16). For the plural epitomarum cf. e.g. Col. 1.1.10; OGR 18.3; 18.4; TLL 5.2.692.39–56.
Diomedes here assimilates two different verbs (cf. TLL 18.104.22.168–56; 57–63): decolo (which he interpreted as 'cheat' but more literally means 'drain away'), sometimes written decollo in MSS, and decollo ('behead'). He clearly differentiated between the two uses or senses of what he took to be the same verb and, correspondingly, between the usage of the 'old writers' (such as Plautus and Lucilius) and that of Fenestella. A lacuna must therefore be posited after his examples of the first usage in which he introduced the alternative sense 'behead' that the quotation from Fenestella exemplifies.
The uncompromising decollo otherwise first occurs in the elder Seneca (contr. 9.2 pr.; 9.2.4; 9.2.10), but may be owed to the epitomator, if he is not Fenestella himself. Nearly all other accounts of this episode that record the form of execution specify crucifixion (Vell. 2.42.3; Val. Max. 6.9.15; Plut. Caes. 2.7; cf. Suet. Iul. 74.1; on Polyaenus 8.23.1 cf. A. M. Ward, CPh 70 (1975), 268). They may derive ultimately from a single source (cf. H. Drexler, Klio 51 (1969), 235–7 with bibliography), but although beheading was apparently the standard method of execution for pirates in Sicily in this same period (Cic. Verr. 2.5.67–8, 71, 73–4, 79, 156–7; cf. also L.-M. Günther, Chiron 29 (1999), 334 n. 36, with bibliography, on the restricted use pg 590of crucifixion), the paucity of primary sources for Caesar's early career makes it questionable whether Fenestella drew on a different (and more reliable) tradition. His version may be either an exculpatory rewriting of the original account or an elaborating inference from a simple statement that Caesar executed his captives. On the problem of the episode's date see Ward, AJAH 2 (1977), 26–36; Pelling, Plutarch and History, 76–7, 93 with 109 n. 3; id., Plutarch, Caesar, 139; also Günther, l.c. 321–37 (uncritically favouring Plutarch). On the possible contemporary ideological and political resonances of the episode cf. U. Schmitzer, Velleius Paterculus und das Interesse an der Geschichte im Zeitalter des Tiberius (Heidelberg, 2000), 171–2. Velleius Paterculus 2.43.3–4 may suggest that previous historians had not usually covered the episode itself in great detail.
F32 This passage largely repeats and interprets Fulgentius' preceding account of how Perdiccas fell in love with his mother and was reduced to extreme emaciation as a result (on the legend see E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorlaüfer (4th edn., Hildesheim, 1960), 55–9; Vollmer, RE 5. 1644). 'Fenestella' is presumably cited for more than the fact that Perdiccas was a huntsman and 'initially' suggests a contrast with his later lifestyle, but how much of the following account Fulgentius attributes to Fenestella remains uncertain. The version of the story Fulgentius rehearses offers a characteristic demythologizing interpretation in which Perdiccas' passion for his mother is explained as a metaphor for his new-found devotion to the earth, itself symbolic of the transition from hunting to agriculture. The citation of Policaste (rather than the similarly semantically significant Castalia of the aegritudo Perdicae) as the name of his mother (cf. Claudian, carm. min. 8 inscr.) and its interpretation as implying fertility presumably also belongs to this version. Fulgentius himself may be responsible for its fusion with the myth of Perdix, nephew of Daedalus and inventor of the saw, of which he also offers a symbolic interpretation (E. Baehrens, Unedirte lateinische Gedichte (Leipzig, 1877), 6; contra, Höfer in Roscher, Myth. Lex. 3. 1953).
The attribution to Fenestella, and in particular to the Annales, of any of this is difficult to defend. The Greek 'title' archaica would be a bizarre distortion, and the symbolic interpretations are clearly owed principally to Fulgentius himself. Some reworking of the story (originally recounted of the son of Alexander I of Macedon: [Soranus?], uita Hippocratis 5) by Fenestella to illustrate the development of human civilization cannot perhaps be excluded entirely but, unless the reference is to another work by Fenestella, perhaps in verse, this should be added to the instances in which Fulgentius has invented his authorities (cf. M. Zink, Der Mytholog Fulgentius (Würzburg, 1867), 79–80; Skutsch, RE 7. 219–20; B. Baldwin, Traditio 44 (1988), 37–57; General Introduction, I. 69).
F33 Helm's text and punctuation ('[he was] bonded under his control, his friendships were held by a little knot') yield poor sense and worse style. Pizzani's interpretation and punctuation is supported by the passages in Plautus and Cicero from which the 'fragment' has been created. L. Lersch, Fabius Planciades Fulgentius, De abstrusis sermonibus (Bonn, 1844), 75, saw the debt to Plaut. Bacch. 181 (ita me uadatum amore uinctumque attines, 'you have me bonded so and bound by love' pg 591(Barsby)). This has been combined with the image of friendship as a knot in Cic. Lael. 51 (cf. Porph. Hor. carm. 3.21.22). The resulting jarring combination of metaphors should be ascribed to Fulgentius rather than Fenestella, especially as Fulgentius creates such compound citations elsewhere (see esp. Skutsch, RE 7. 219–20). The precious diminutive nodulus (not attested before Pliny nat. 21.26 and favoured especially by Apuleius, an author familiar to Fulgentius) supports this, and the combination of penes with teneo or its compounds is not found in the classical period (TLL 10.1.1058.25–44). That F32 and F33 both include a legal metaphor will also be due to Fulgentius.