No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Towards the end of his list of colonial foundations, writing with apparent precision, dating the event not only by the consuls of the year but back from his time of writing, and using it as a means of fixing the colonization of Eporedia, Velleius Paterculus records the foundation of Narbo Martius: ‘Narbo autem Martius in Gallia Porcio Marcioque consulibus abhinc annos circiter centum quadraginta sex, deducta colonia est. Post duodeviginti annos in Bagiennis Eporedia Mario sextum Valerioque Flacco consulibus.’ If this is the offering of a gift horse, it has not always been graciously received. Velleius’ date has been questioned and rejected in a searching article by Mr. H. B. Mattingly, and more than once Mr. Mattingly's conclusions have been quoted with approval by Professor E. Badian. Mr. Mattingly began his attack by casting doubt on the authority of Velleius’ list as a whole: Velleius did not consult Livy at first hand, or any semi-official list, but used sources of differing value, one of them perhaps Greek. Nor is his testimony really confirmed by any of the later writers who seem to agree with him: they lazily follow him without looking for independent evidence.
page 170 note 1 1. 14. 5; cf. 2. 8. 1.
page 170 note 2 Mattingly, H. B., ‘The Foundation of Narbo Martius’, Hommages à Albert Grenier (Brussels, 1962), iii. 1159 ff.Google Scholar
page 170 note 3 Badian, E., JRS lvii (1961), 229Google Scholar: ‘Like many true and obvious discoveries, this one will no doubt take time to penetrate the crust of vulgate opinion’; Roman Imperialism in the late Republic 2 (Oxford, 1968), 98 n. 32Google Scholar: ‘almost decisive against the traditional view’. However, while Mattingly dates both foundation and speech to 110, Badian seems to put foundation in about 115 and speech in 113. Gruen, E. S., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, 149–78 B.C. (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), pp. 137, 143CrossRefGoogle Scholar, holds a similar view.
page 170 note 4 Mr. Mattingly cites Benedict, C. H., ‘The Romans in southern Gaul’, AJP lxiii (1942), 41 n. 10.Google Scholar
page 170 note 5 Mommsen, Th., Ann. dell'Ist. di corr. arch. xxxv (1863), 55 f.Google Scholar; Gesch. des röm. Münzwesens (Berlin, 1860), p. 562, no. 178Google Scholar; cf. (tr. Blacas, ) Histoire de la Monnaie rom. ii (Paris, 1870), CIL i2. 200Google Scholar; cf. Münzer, F., RE iii (1899), 2856, no. 302.Google Scholar
page 170 note 6 Mattingly, H., ‘Some historical coins of the late Republic’, JRS xii (1922), 230 ff.Google Scholar; ‘The Roman “Serrati” ’, Num. Chron. ser. v, vol. iv (1924), 31 ff.Google Scholar
page 170 note 7 Sydenham, E. A., The Coinage of the Roman Republic (London, 1952), pp. xxix, 63 ff.Google Scholar
page 171 note 1 Contra Sydenham, op. cit. 63 n. 516.
page 171 note 2 Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coin Hoards (London, 1969), p. 5.Google Scholar
page 172 note 1 Crassus' publications came out when he was ‘adulescens’ {de Orat. 2. 2. 8), and the passage makes it clear that this was up to the age of thirty-four.
page 173 note 1 Sall. BJ 37. 2.
page 173 note 2 So A. E. Douglas ad loc. (briefly). One must regret with Badian (JRS loc. cit.) that Mattingly's arguments were not known to the editor; but Mattingly concedes the point: Num. Chron. ser. vii, vol. ix (1969), 96.Google Scholar
page 174 note 1 Cf. Cic. Phil. 5. 17. 48: Africanus and T. Flamininus became consuls ‘admodum adulescentes’ (Africanus was about thirty). For the exaggeration, see below.
page 174 note 2 They are not even exact grammatical equivalents. In de Orat. 1. 34. 154, ‘adulescentulus’ is certainly contrasted with ‘adulescens’, but the latter may have full force as a participle (‘as I grew older’; ‘j’étais alors un peu plus mûr’, E. Courbaud). The passage is by no means favourable to Mattingly's interpretation of ‘adulescens’ in the sentence about Narbo. Cicero's usage in the pro Caelio is illuminating. He regularly refers to Caelius, who was 25 years old, as ‘adulescens (e.g., 1. 1); when Caelius, at the age of 22, prosecuted a consular, he was ‘admodum adulescens’ (19. 47); as the experienced and mature Clodia's lover, at the age of about 22 to 24, he was ‘adulescentulus’ (14. 33, where R. G. Austin remarks, ‘the word gives no clue to Caelius’ age’; Clodia was about thirteen years older than Caelius).
page 175 note 1 Cf. Cic. Brut. 24. 91: ‘pleraeque enim 73, scribuntur orationes habitae iam, non ut habeantur’. The whole passage is instructive.
page 175 note 2 Cic. pro Clu. 51. 140.
page 175 note 3 Cic. de Orat. 1. 51. 221; Badian, E. cf, JRS xlvi (1956), 94 n. 28.Google Scholar
page 175 note 4 For the practice, see Cic. pro Cael. 30. 73, and below, p. 176, n. 3.
page 175 note 5 See Gruen, E., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, pp. 108 ff.Google Scholar For the boni, see Cic. de Leg. 3. 16. 35.
page 175 note 6 Cic. 2 Verr. 3. 1. 3. We do not have to accept the reason for regret that Cicero adduces.
page 176 note 1 It would be interesting, however, to know the birth-dates of M. Atilius Serranus, colonial commissioner in 190 and probably identical with the praetor of 174, and of Q. Fulvius Nobilior, commissioner in 184, aedile 160, consul 153, censor 136. An unduly retarded career is an implausible solution when we are dealing with a Fulvius whose elder brother was aedile in 166 and consul in 159.
page 176 note 2 Badian, E., ‘Notes on Provincia Gallia in the late Republic’, Mélanges … offerts à André Piganiol (Paris, 1966), ii. 901 ff.Google Scholar
page 176 note 3 See Münzer, F., RE v (1905), 1324 ff., no. 21.Google Scholar For his motive in introducing the Lex Domitia of 104, and Crassus’ comment on him (‘os ferreum, cor plumbeum’), see Suet. Nero 2; for his quarrel with Crassus during their censorship in 92, see Cic. Brut. 44. 164. Even his coinage is eccentric: see Grueber, H. A., Coins of the Roman Rep. in the Brit. Mus. ii. 258 n. 1.Google Scholar On the recklessness of young men in undertaking prosecutions, see Cic. 2 Verr. 3. 1.3.
page 176 note 4 Gruen, E., Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts, p. 108.Google Scholar Gruen draws attention to the Gracchan connections of Licinii Crassi, ibid. 51 f. Perhaps those connections were an important part of Crassus’ attraction for the Metelli.
page 176 note 5 I would not insist on the possibility that Crassus, having successfully prosecuted a man who was at the time a triumvir agris dandis or coloniis deducendis (the Gracchan land commission or a special African commission), was thought to be entitled to a comparable position. The evidence for Carbo's position, a fragmentary inscription, does not preserve the praenomen (see Broughton, , MRR i. 522 n. 5Google Scholar, and Gruen, E., Roman Politics, pp. 99 f.Google Scholar).
page 176 note 6 Crassus had no right to address the Senate in 118, and if it was then that ‘quantum potest, de auctoritate senatus detrahit’ one must think of a speech to the people.
page 177 note 1 Plut. Vit. Marii 4. On the politics of these years see especially Badian, E., ‘P. Decius P. f. Subulo: an Orator of the Time of the Gracchi’, JRS xlvi (1956), 91 ff.Google Scholar, and Gruen, E., Roman Politics, pp. 106 ff.Google Scholar I do not believe that Marius returned tamely to the Metellan fold as early as some scholars (e.g. T. F. Carney, A Biography of Marius [Proc. Afric. Class. Assoc, Suppl. 1, 1961], 21) have held.
page 177 note 2 See especially Brunt, P. A., ‘The Equites in the late Republic’, Deuxième Conf. intern. d'Hist. écon. (1962), pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar; Badian, E., Roman Imperialism, pp. 26 f.Google Scholar; Gruen, E., Roman Politics, pp. 140 ff.Google Scholar
page 177 note 3 Sall. BJ 65. 4.
page 177 note 4 See E. Badian, op. cit. 24, and Brunt, loc. cit. The name, like Cicero's charac-terization in the pro Font. 5. 13, stresses the military aspect of the town. But a dogmatic approach is to be avoided. Levick, B. Cf, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford, 1967), p. 3Google Scholar, and Gruen, E., Roman Politics, pp. 112 and 136.Google Scholar
page 177 note 5 Bloch, G. et Carcopino, J., Hist. rom. ii (Paris, 1929), 297 f.Google Scholar One is reminded of the incident recorded by Livy iii. 64; but that attempt at continuatio is usually connected with the propaganda surrounding Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus’ tribunates: see R. M. Ogilvie's commentary ad loc. I hope to deal with that topic elsewhere.
page 177 note 6 Cic. Brut. 34. 128.
page 177 note 7 Sall. BJ 39. 4.
page 177 note 8 Cic. pro Clu. 51. 140.
page 177 note 9 e.g., by E. Badian, op. cit. 98 n. 32. It is of course perfectly legitimate to identify the speeches if neither is considered to date from the discussion that preceded passing of the lex.
page 178 note 1 So Badian, loc. cit.
page 178 note 2 Asc. in Milon. 46 C. On the identity of the Vestals, see Gruen, op. cit. 128 f. Q. Marcius Rex was consul in the foundation year. Colonies were still being named after deities (Narbo significantly is full in the Neptunia, Minervia, Junonia series), but Marcius may not have been displeased with the resemblance to his own nomen (but cf. Benedict, C. H., A History of Narbo (Princeton, 1941), p. 26 n. 4Google Scholar: ‘the similarity is coincidental’). A Q. Rex was defended by M. Antonius (Cic. de Orat. 2. 28. 125).
page 178 note 3 Dio, fr. 87. 5 (ed. Boissevain i. 332): Μάνιος τις According to Plutarch, Quaest. Rom. 83, he was the slave of Betutius Barrus.
page 178 note 4 Val. Max. 3. 1.9.
page 178 note 5 Oros. 5. 15. 22: L. Veturius eques Romanus; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 83: Βєτούτιος 
; cf. Porph. and Acr. ad Hor. Sat. 1. 6. 30. T. Betucius Barrus the orator: Cic. Brut. 46. 169.
page 178 note 6 Plut. Vit. Marii 5. 3 ff.
page 178 note 7 Val. Max. 6. 9. 14; Plut. Vit. Marii 6. 1.
page 178 note 8 Plut. loc. cit.; Cic. 2 Verr. 3. 90. 209. See Broughton, , MRR i. 535 n. 3.Google Scholar
page 178 note 9 See Gruen, , Roman Politics, pp. 125 f.Google Scholar
page 178 note 10 See Cic. ad Fam. 9. 21. 3. He suffered prosecution by M. Antonius after his defeat by the Cimbri.