Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T21:14:54.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two unidentified senators in Josephus, A.J 19

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. R. Birley
A. R. Birley
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, birley@phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Names of Romans in Josephus are notoriously liable to corruption. Two minor characters in his account of the assassination of Caligula have so far defied plausible emendation, ‘Timidius’ in A.J. 19.33–4 and ‘Bathybius’ in 19.91. The sources of Josephus’ account of this dramatic episode were unquestionably high class—two, rather than one, Latin historians, as Wiseman has demonstrated, the main one (rather than the only one) being Cluvius Rufus, the other possibly Fabius Rusticus.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 2 , December 2000 , pp. 620 - 623
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wiseman, T. P., Death of an Emperor (Exeter, 1991)Google Scholar, xii ff., 11 Iff. He attributes to Cluvius 24–61, 62–7, 70–93, 96–105, 109–57, 161–96, 198–211, 269–73, to the other source(s) (?Fabius Rusticus) 2–14, 17–23,94–5, 158–60, 212–36, 237–45, 246–68, with minimal additional comment by Josephus himself (1, 15–16, 61, 68–9, 106–8, 196–8). He identifies in the second source ‘a particular hatred of Claudius’ over-powerful freedmen, and a disenchanted view of the rapacity, arrogance and incompetence of senators which contrasts conspicuously with the attitude of the main source’ (xiii). If this is right, could not 62–7, or even 62–9, also come from this source, sc. Fabius Rusticus? The anti-Claudian freedmen motif is very pronounced here; and the whole section looks rather like an insertion.

2 Swan, P. M., ‘A consular Epicurean’, Phoenix 30 (1976), 54–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar, followed by PIR 2 P 754. The story is also in Dio 60.26.4, who calls this man ‘Pomponius’, and Suetonius, Cal. 16.4, who does not name him. The identification is not cited by Wiseman (n. 1), 51, who notes that ‘Pompedius’ is ‘sometimes identified with the Pompeius Pennus mentioned by Seneca (De Beneficiis 2.12)’. He suggests ‘Poppaedius’ as a possible correction, comparing Diodorus, 37.2.9 for this name being transmitted as ‘Pompaedius’.

3 Cf.Schulze, W., Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin, 1933 2), 242Google Scholar, who compares this passage.

4 HA Comm. 4.7, cf. PIR1 T 146, and AE 1971. 534 (the tabula Banasitana). Note also ‘Tibidius’, Schulze (n. 3), add. to 374 (a single case), and ‘Titidius’, ibid. 198.

5 On him most recently,Dabrowa, E., The Governors of Roman Syria from Augustus to Septimius Severus (Bonn, 1998), 49–53.Google Scholar

6 Thus Munzer, F., RE 9A.1 (1961), 597Google Scholar; rejected by D. R. Shackleton Bailey in his Commentary, ad loc.

7 As reported by Weiskopf, H., P. Cornell Taciti Annalium libri XI–XII adnotationibus criticis ex omnibus codicibus qui exstant haustis (Vienna, 1973), 102.Google Scholar

8 The fullest apparatus available seems to be that in the Bude edition, vol. 4, Annales (livres XIII–XVI), ed. P. Wuilleumier (1978), 10,93.

9 In the Budé edn, vol. 2 (livres IV–VI), ed. A.-M. Guillemin (1967), 109.

10 This might be a misreading of ‘M. Umm<id>ium’, since this man, nephew of M. Aurelius and cos. ord. 167, was Marcus.

11 Budé edn, vol. 3 (livres VII–IX), 35.

12 Syme, R., in his paper ”The Ummidii’, Roman Papers 2 (1979), 659–93Google Scholar, at 661, repr. from Historia 17 (1968), 72–105, at 75, the first of two major contributions of his on this family (following a brief item in ‘Missing persons HI’, Historia 11 [1962], 146–55, at 154 = Roman Papers 2.530–40, at 538): cf. also ‘Ummidius Quadratus, capax imperii ’, HSCP 83 (1979), 287–310 = Roman Papers 3 (1984), 1158–78. The Ummidii crop up again often in Roman Papers 4–7.

13 It may be registered that the form ‘Numidius’ must have been responsible for the naming of a Rome Metro station—Linea A, on the via Toscolana—as ‘Numidio Quadrato’. It is difficult to see how this could be justified. Even if the name were correct, surely none of the Ummidii deserve this accolade, otherwise given to e.g. ‘Furio Camillo’ and ‘Giulio Agricola’. One's first inclination might be to enquire whether an inscription naming an Ummidius Quadratus had been found at the site. But Silvio Panciera kindly writes as follows: ‘Numidio era evidentemente per Ummidio e forse per confusione con nomi come Numa Pompilio, Numanzia, Numidia. I miei allievi mi fanno notare che si trova in un quartiere (il Quadraro) la cui toponomastica e tutta derivata da personaggi della storia romana, piu o meno noti. Non credo che abbia rapporti con particolari rinvenimenti.’ Perhaps the name ‘il Quadraro’ made ‘Quadrato’ seem particularly attractive.

14 PIR2 C 1202,1206; R. Syme, Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), 287.

15 Wiseman (n.l), 59.

16 Thus PIR1 V 208;RE VIIIA.l (1955), 520, no. 5. The conjecture goes back to J. Hudson (1720).

17 R. Syme, ZPE41 (1981), 130 = Roman Papers 3 (1984), 1380; PIR2P46.