Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:44:41.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poet Cn. Naevius, P. Cornelius Scipio and Q. Caecilius Metellus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2015

H.D. Jocelyn
H.D. Jocelyn*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It was many years after the last premiere of a Terentian comedy that the first attempts to write the history of Latin poetry appeared. Scholars had available little documentary material regarding the poets of the late third and early second centuries except the texts of poems, dates of performance of so-called carmina in priestly archives and of so-called fabulae in magisterial archives, and inscriptions on tombstones. These poets were without exception slaves or non-Roman clients of the great aristocratic families and their persons were not well regarded in the community at large. Neither the attitude to poetry of Roman society nor the example of Greek historiography permitted the chroniclers of Roman public life to take account of them. The poets who wrote for the theatre of fifth-century Athens came for the most part from well-regarded citizen families and practised an honoured craft. Although those of them who wrote comedies had much to say about Athenian public life and although their prejudices tended to correspond with his own the great Thucydides had ignored them. Their first biographers found themselves as badly off for contemporary documentary material as Roman writers were to be and yet by the exercise of judgement and fancy in interpreting the extant texts succeeded in constructing extensive narratives. The Roman writers took over Greek methods here as in other areas.

Type
Research Article
Information
Antichthon , Volume 3 , 1969 , pp. 32 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1969

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 Nothing survives of these attempts except fragments of poems by Accius, by Porcius Licinus (apparently dependent for information on Accius [see Cic. Brut. 60, 72; Gell. xvii 21.45]) and Volcacius Sedigitus. Terence’s last comedy was first performed in 160 (see Adelph. didasc.) and Accius’ first tragedy in 140 (see Cic. Brut. 229). One can only make guesses about the exact dates of Accius’ scholarly writings.

2 See Livy xxvii 37.7–11 (from the records of the decemuiri for 207), xxxi 12.9–10 (from the records of the decemuiri for 200). Cf. CIL vi 32323 (acta of the ludi saeculares of 17).

3 The aediles seem to have recorded some details of the festivals under their immediate control. Whether they always recorded the names of the Latin translators of Attic tragedies and comedies is not certain. Likewise uncertain is whether they recorded the details of ludi funebres and special ludi uotiui held during their terms of office. Investigators may have had to consult a number of archives, private as well as public.

4 For the civil status of Naevius see below, p. 34.

5 They were ranked at best with scribae and histriones (see Festus, p. 446, s.v. scribas), at worst with grassatores (see Cato, Mor. 2). The action of M. Fulvius Nobilior, consul of 189, in taking a poet on his staff to his province brought hostile criticism from traditionalists (see Cic. Tusc. i 3). Things had not changed so very much a century later, to judge by Cic. S.Rosc. 46, Sest. 119, Pis. 70–71.

6 In general see Leo, F., Die griechisch-römische Biographic nach ihrer literarischen Form (Leipzig, 1901, PP. 85ff.Google Scholar

7 On Ennius’ Saturae see most recently Coffey, M., Wiss. Zeitschr. d. Univ. Rostock 15 (1966), 417f.Google Scholar

8 See Varro ap. Gell. xvii 21. 43, 45.

9 Cf. the aside about the actor Pellio at Plaut. Bacch. 214–15.

10 Contrast the prologue of a mime performed during Caesar’s dictatorship which Macrobius records at Sat. ii 7.1–5.

11 The most recent general account of any pretension, that by Beare, W., The Roman Stage2 (London, 1955), pp. 23Google Scholar ff., is vaguely sceptical.

12 Cf. Scullard, H.H., Roman Politics 220–150 B.C. (Oxford, 1951), pp. 76,Google Scholar 253–4; Cassola, , I gruppi politici romani net III secolo a.C. (Trieste, 1962), pp. 52,Google Scholar 328–30, 427.

13 See Cic. Brut. 60, 72–3; Gell. xvii 21.42–5. Two passages of Livy, xxxiv 54.3 and xxxvi 36.5, suggest that the early annalistic tradition was equally astray. Hupperth, W., Horaz über die scaenicae origines der Römer (Diss. Köln, 1961), pp. 5Google Scholar ff. and Dahlmann, H., Abh. Ak. d. Wiss. u. d. Lit. Mainz, Geistes-u. Sozialw. Kl., Jahrg. 1962, 581Google Scholar ff., however, try to limit severely the error of Accius and the early biographers. Mattingly, H.B., CQ n.s. 7 (1957), 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar ff., tries to argue that Accius was not in error at all.

14 For the date of the liber de poetis see Dahlmann, op. cit. 653 ff.

15 See Gell. i 24.2 and for the interpretation Rowell, H.T., Mem. Amer. Ac. in Rome 19 (1949), 17 ff.Google Scholar

16 See Gell. xvii 21.45. Cicero (ap. Aug. Ciu. ii 9) speaks of him as a contemporary of Plautus and as producing plays in the time of Cn. and P. Cornelius Scipio, the consuls of 222 and 218 respectively.

17 Those who put Naevius’ death in this year (see Cic. Brut. 60) could have been able to find no mention of him in the festival records of later years. Varro either found in the Bellum Punicum a reference to a visit to Africa after the end of hostilities in 201 or was guessing on the basis of an imagined exact contemporaneity of Naevius and Plautus. See below, p. 42.

18 See Varro, , Ling. 7 107,Google Scholar ix 78. It is possible that the anonymous Marcellus referred to by Diomedes (Gramm. Lat. i 490) is the same play.

19 See Haupt, M., Philologus 1 (1846), 375–6Google Scholar ( = Opusc. i, p. 191).

20 See Livy xxvii 27.13 on the laudatio pronounced by the young Marcellus.

21 See Livy xxvii 25.6–10, xxix 11.13.

22 Marcellus’ colleague in the Gallic campaign of 222 was the elder Publius’ brother Gnaeus. It is interesting to observe how Polybius, the client of the Scipios, plays down the part of Marcellus and magnifies that of Gnaeus Scipio (ii 34–5 ∼ Plut. Marcell. 6–7).

23 Cf. Marmorale, E.V., Naevius poeta2 (Florence, 1950), pp. 21,Google Scholar 24f.; W. Beare, op. cit. p. 24.

24 The matter is not entirely clear and certain; on the ciuitas sine suffragio see Sherwin-White, A.N., The Roman Citizenship (Oxford, 1939), pp. 36 ff.Google ScholarDe Sanctis, G., Storia dei Romani 4 2 i (Florence, 1953), p. 7,Google Scholar gives no reason for assigning Naevius to the tribus Falerna except the ‘Roman’ character he detects in the fragments of the poems.

25 See v. 86.

26 Cf. Pseud. 23–4 quaerunt litterae hae sibi liberos: alia aliam scandit, 614 haec mihi incus est: procudam ego hodie hinc multos dolos, 747 anguilla est: elabitur, Trin. 851 pol hicquidem fungino genere est: capite se totum tegit.

27 In his Tractatus de historicis Latinis (Leiden, 1627). See Barchiesi, M., Nevio epico (Padua, 1962), p. 181.Google Scholar

28 As does Mattingly, H.B., Historia 9 (1960), 422 ff.Google Scholar

29 See Reitzenstein, R., Verrianische Forschungen (Breslau, 1887);Google ScholarStrzelecki, L., Quaestiones Verrianae (Warsaw, 1932).Google Scholar

30 E.g. Artemo, Astraba, Carbonaria, Condalium, Dyscolus, Faeneratrix, Friuolaria, Hortulus, Neruolaria, Parasitus piger, Saturio, Sitellitergus.

31 E.g. Lambinus, D., (Paris, 1576)Google Scholar ad loc.

32 See Amph. 155–62, Asin. 131–2, Aul. 416–17, Persa 68–74. None of these passages is likely to have been based on a reference to in the Attic original.

33 Cf. Bacch. 121, 123 (to a slave with the name Lydus), Rud. 583 (to a ‘Siculus, Agrigentinus’) ∼ Menander, Georg. 56, Sicyon. 393, frs 349, 385.

34 Cf. Asin. II, Capt. 492, 884, Cas. 748, Curc. 150, Most. 828, Poen. 598, Stich. 193, Trin. 19, fr. ap. Fest. p. 512.

35 See Athenaeus xiv 13.

36 Cf. Curc. 76 anus hie solet cubitare custos ianitrix.

37 Cf. Brix—Niemeyer—Köhler (ed.4 Leipzig, 1916) ad loc.

38 Cf. Lambinus ad loc.

39 Cf. Lambinus ad loc. (reporting another view).

40 Cf. Lorenz, A.O., (ed.2Berlin, 1886)Google Scholar ad loc; Allen, F.D., HSCPh 7 (1896), 37 ff.;Google ScholarMarx, F., Ber. Verhandl. säcks. Ges. 63 (1911), 75 ff.Google Scholar

41 The common view (cf. Ramsay, W. ad Most. 620 [London, 1869])Google Scholar that it is sometimes used of the caput in comedy will not stand up to examination. Plautus cannot, therefore, at Mil. 211 be referring either to the furca or to any kind of stocks.

42 Cf. Plautus. Mil. 189; Ter. Eun. 597, 807, 838.

43 On these see Leumann, M., Lateinische Laut– und Formenlehre (Munich, 1926), p. 227.Google Scholar

44 Cf. Bacch. 781 ferratusque in pistrino aetatem conteras.

45 Cf. Cic. Cluent. 39 (of Q. Manlius IIIuir) ad earn columnam ad quam multorum saepe conuiciis perductus erat turn suffragiis populi peruenerat, Diu. in Caec. 50 uobis tanta inopia reorum est ut mihi causam praeripere conemini potius quam aliquos ad columnam Maeniam uestri ordinis reos reperiatis; Pseud. Ascon. ad loc. uestra defensione condignos uelut fures et seruos nequam qui apud triumuiros capitales ad columnam Maeniam puniri solent.

46 See Gaius, Dig. xlvii 9.9.

47 See Pliny, Nat. xviii 12.

48 See Val. Max. vi 1.13.

49 For an account of the guessing see Schutter, K.H.E., Quibus annis comoediae Plautinae primum actae sint quaeritur (Diss. Groningen, 1952), pp. 94 ff.Google Scholar

50 See Augustine, Ciu. ii 9, and for the interpretation of si quis occentauisset siue carmen condidisset quod infamiam faceret flagitiumue alteri Fraenkel, E., Gnomon 1 (1925), 187Google Scholar ff. ( = Kl. Beitr. ii, pp. 400 ff.); Momigliano, A., JRS 32 (1942), 121 ff.Google Scholar

51 Two prosecutions are known; see Anon. Herenn. i 24, ii 19.

52 iii 3.14.

53 This work is named at i 24.3 and xvii 21.43, 45.

54 First in detail by Leo, F., Hermes 24 (1889), 67Google Scholar n. 2 ( = Ausg. kl. Schr. i, p. 283 n. 2), Plautinische Forschungen2 (Berlin, 1912), 77 f. (for an important methodological argument see E. Fraenkel, RE Suppl. vi [1935], 625). Mattingly, H.B., Historia 9 (1960), 421Google Scholar f., strikes a sceptical pose but does not further the argument.

55 First by Marx, F., Zeitschr. öst. Gymn. 49 (1898), 385 ff.,Google ScholarBer. Verhandl. Sächs. Ges. lxiii (1911), 39 ff. E.V. Marmorale, op. cit. pp. 104 ff., tries to have things all ways.

56 Gellius’ diluisset is generally interpreted as if it were excusauisset (cf. Leo, Plaut. Forsch.2, p. 77 and J.C. Rolfe’s 1927 translation of Gellius). This, however, would be a unique use. The phrase delicta sua … diluisset is pai alleled by Ovid, Rem. 695 nec peccata refer ne diluat, Sen. Thyest. 512–14 diluere possem cuncta, nisi talis fores, sed fateor Atreu fateor, admisi omnia quae credidisti, Anon. Laus Pis. 43 seu capitate nefas operosa diluis arte and easily explicable with the aid of Gell. xii 12.1 haec quoque disciplina rhetorica est collide et cum astu res criminosas citra periculum confiteri, ut, si obiectum sit turpe aliquid, quod negari non queat, responsione ioculari eludas et rem facias risu magis dignam quam crimine, sicut fecisse Ciceronem scriptum est, cum id, quod infitiari non poterat, urbano facetoque dicto diluit.

57 The tresuiri capitales were lowly officials concerned with crime among the servile and working classes. See Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht ii3 (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 594 ff.;Google ScholarKunkel, W., Untersuchungen zur Entwicklung des römischen Kriminalverfahrens in vorsullanischer Zeit (Munich, 1962), pp. 71 ff.Google Scholar

58 M. Claudius Marcellus was one of the tribuni plebis in 204.

59 Cf. Plaut. Bacch. 795–862, Epid. 680–731; Ter. Andr. 860–956.

60 Cf. the binding and release of the soldier caught in apparent adultery, Plaut. Mil. 1394–1437.

61 See Cic. De orat, ii 271, Off. i 104.

62 Hermes i (1866), 163, 191 n. 3 ( = Röm. Forsch. ii, pp. 421, 466 n. 98).

63 See Gell. iv 18.3–6; Livy xxxviii 56.2, xxxix 52.3.

64 Cf. Curcio, G., RFIC 26 (1898), 608–10;Google ScholarFraccaro, P., Stud. stor. ant. class, 4 (1911), 237Google Scholar (= Opusc. i,p. 237).

65 Cf. Plaut. Cas. 240, 244, 534, Most. 137, Trin. 132, 165.

66 Cf. Plaut. Capt. 262, Most. 856, Trin. 926.

67 Cf. Naevius, Com. 92; Plaut. Bacch. 544, 556, Merc. 133, 662; Ter. Andr. 277, Eun. 239; Pacuvius, Trag. 348.

68 Cf. Plaut. Men. 973, 976, Poen. 846, Pseud. 133; Ter. Eun. 777.

69 Cf. Plaut. Men. 924 (of doctor), Mil. 1045 (of professional soldier), Persa 850 (of harlot), Poen. 1282 (of procurer); Ter. Eun. 662 (of eunuch); Accius, Trag. 559 (of fire god in his capacity of smith)

70 In the dubiously authentic speech of defence reported by Livy (xxxviii 56) Scipio uses the terms nebulo and nugator of Naevius.

71 amica Ϛ : amico V

72 Gellius actually names Hyginus twice previously, i 14.1 and vi 1.2, on the latter occasion quoting from his account of Scipio.

73 Leo, F., Geschichte der römischen Literatur (Berlin, 1913), p. 78Google Scholarn. 2, makes Valerius the ultimate source.

74 For commentarii on Naevius see Varro, Ling, vii 39.

75 Cf. Schol. Eur. Orest. 772, 903, 904. Commentators on Terence’s Adelphi named Scipio Africanus, Laelius Sapiens and Furius Philus as the homines nobiles of v. 15 (see Donatus ad hoc).

76 The notion of Kroll, W. (Hermes lxvi [1931], 472) and Robinson, L. (Freedom of Speech in the Roman Republic [Diss. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1940], p. 3)Google Scholar that the verses come from something like a soldiers’ camp-fire song is untenable. One has only to ask how such a song could have been transmitted to the scholars of the late Republic.

77 Vv. 317–18.

78 Vv. 1139–41.

79 Vv. 686–8.

80 For the matter of cum pallio uno cf. Bacchylides, , fr. 19 (Snell) and Warnecke, B., Philologus 71 (1912), 567.Google Scholar

81 Cf. the fifth-century comic attacks on Pericles over Aspasia and other women (Plut. Pericl. 13.10–11, 24.6, 30.3) and the fourth-century jokes about Harpalus (Athenaeus xiii 67–8).

82 E.g. Frank, T., AJPh 53 (1932), 152 ff.,Google ScholarAnatolian Studies Presented to W.H. Buckler (Manchester, 1939), 85 ff.; Hermann, L., AC 17 (1948), 317.Google Scholar

83 Mommsen, (Römische Geschichte7 [Berlin, 1881 (ed. 1, 1854–6)], p. 901)Google Scholar thought that they would have applied to Scipio only after the victory at Zama. From this position only one deduction is possible: that the ancient scholar erred either in attributing the play to Naevius or in referring the verses to Scipio.

84 For gentes, ‘the whole world’, cf. Plaut. Rud. 1, 10. Greek and are regularly turned by ubi gentium and quo gentium in comedy. See Fraenkel, E., ‘Die Welt im alten Latein,’ RFIC 96 (1968), 176.Google Scholar

85 See the accusations reported by Livy (xxviii 42.22, xxxviii 51.4, 54.6) and the studied defence of Scipio’s republicanism by Polybius (x 38.3, 40.2–9).

86 Cf. Scipio Aemilianus, Or. fr. 17 (Malcovati); Cic. Font. 37–9.

87 Cf. Polybius x 19.3–7; Val. Max. vi 7.1; Plut. Mor. 196 b.

88 Cf. Valerius Antias ap. Gell. vii 8.6 ∼ Polybius x 19.3–7; Livy xxvi 50; Val. Max. iv 3.1; Gell. vii 8.3; Frontin. Strat. ii 11.5; Cassius Dio, fr. 56.43; Ammian. xxiv 4.27.

89 xxix 19.11–12.

90 See Ritschl, F., Parerga zu Plautus und Terenz (Leipzig, 1845), pp. 621 ff.;Google ScholarReifferscheid, A., C. Suelonii Tranquilli … reliquiae (Leipzig, 1860), pp. 363 ff., 423;Google ScholarRostagni, A., Suetonio de poetis e biografi minori (Turin, 1944), pp. 5 ff.Google Scholar

91 Brut. 60.

92 Cf. Helm, R., Philologus Suppl. 21 2 (1929), 13 f.Google Scholar Jerome made 200 the year of Plautus’ death, although Varro was aware that he produced a play in 184.

93 The burial places of poets were regularly reported in their Whether anyone had seen a tomb-stone in Utica is another matter. Some reference to the topography of North Africa in the Bellum Punicum could have excited a biographer’s imagination. But see H. Dahlmann, op. cit. 609 ff. for an attempt to show that Varro did not even mention Utica.

94 See Caesius Bassus, Gramm. Lat. vi 266; Pseud. Ascon. ad Cic. Verr. i 29.

95 See Plut. Mor. 177 b, 334 b.

96 See p. 38.

97 Gramm. Lat. vi 266.

98 Pseud. Ascon. ad Cic. Verr. i 29 (p. 215 Stangl).

99 The extant commentary on the Verrines is a miserable piece of work as a whole but not completely devoid of ancient learning. The Leiden scholia give a slightly better impression of what was once written about the Verrines.

100 See Diomedes, Gramm. Lat. i 512.

101 On the source of Diomedes’ metrical knowledge see Leo, , Hermes 24 (1889), 281 n. 2,Google ScholarDer Saturnische Vers (Berlin, 1905), pp. 7 ff.

102 As do Leo, , Der Saturnische Vers pp. 7 ff.,Google Scholar and H. T. Rowell, op. cit. 25 ff.

103 verr. i 29 (speaking of Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus, the consul-designate).

104 Cf. Hor. Epist. ii 1.161–3. For a different view see Dahlmann, op. cit. 586 n. 1.

105 For another smart saying attributed to the consul of 206 see Val. Max. vii 2.3.

106 For the interpretation of proposuerunt Fraenkel, RE Suppl. vi (1935), 624, quotes Cic. Att. ii 21.4, Propert. iii 23.23, Lexap. Brans7 112.14, Ulp. Dig. xlvii 10.15.27.

107 Cf. Suet. Iul. 80.3, Aug. 70.2,Ner. 39.2.

108 Vespasian’s posting up of replies to anonymous pasquinades(Dio Cass, lxv II) was of a piece with his general vulgarity of manners.

109 Cf. for stage insults Suet. Aug. 68, Tib. 45, Cal. 27.4, Ner. 39.3, Galb. 13; for privately circulated oral and written insults Suet. Iul. 20.2, 49.1, 4, 51.1, 80.2, 3, Aug. 70.2, Tib. 59, Claud. 1.1, Ner. 39.2, Galb. 6.2, Oth. 3.2, Dom. 14.2; Gell. xv 4.3 (based on Suetonius’ account of Ventidius Bassus).

110 Ap. Aug. Ciu. ii 9.

111 See above, p. 37.

112 See above, p. 39.

113 The variation between malum dabunt and dabunt malum has no importance.

114 Verr. i 29. Cf. Fam.xiv 1.1, Vatinius ap. Cic. Fam. v 9.1; for a parallel distinction between casu and consilio see Cic. Fam. v 2.8 (writing to Metellus Celer about his clash with Metellus Creticus).

115 See Wende, M., De Caeciliis Metellis commentationis pars I (Diss. Bonn, 1875), p. 32;Google ScholarFrank, T., AJPh 48 (1927), 106 f.;Google ScholarFraenkel, E., RE Suppl. 6 (1935), 623.Google Scholar

116 SeeZumpt, C.G., M. Tullii Ciceronis Verrinarum libri septem (Berlin, 1831), Vol. 1, p. 72;Google ScholarWissowa, G., Genethliakon C. Robert (Berlin, 1910), p. 53. On this interpretation the verse would apply to several of the Metellan consuls of the late second century but hardly to the consul of 206, who had been preceded only by his father and by a L. Caecilius Metellus Denter (284) in the office.Google Scholar

117 See F. Marx, op. cit. 61 ff. For criticism of Marx’s account of the evidence see Jachmann, G., ‘Naevius und die Meteller’, Festschrift J. Wackernagel (Göttingen, 1923), pp. 185 f. Google Scholar

118 For that of See the passages quoted above in note 114; for that of see Anon. Herenn. iv 55, Catullus 64.326, Cic. Catil. iii 19, Phil, i 10.

119 See Cic. Verr. ii 2.8 nisi C. Marcellus quasi aliquo fato uenisset ut bis ex eadem familia salus Siciliae constitueretur.

120 See Lucret. ii 254, 257.

121 See Anon. Herenn. ii 50; Cic. Catil. iii 1,17.

122 See Cic. Mur. 60 ff., which must reflect a shrewd advocate’s balanced estimate of senatorial knowledge and attitudes.

123 Cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 62 and for the ordinary Athenian attitude to and success see Plut. Sull. 6.3.

124 Cf. Polyb. x 2–11 (on the elder Africanus); Plutarch, Fab. 5.1 (on Fabius Maximus), Mor. 326 d ff. (on Alexander).

125 See Plut. Mor. 318 d ff.; Latte, K., Römische Religionsgeschichte (Munich, 1960), pp. 176 ff.Google Scholar

126 See Latte, op. cit. pp. 233 ff. These deities were preceded and accompanied by community attributes like Salus, Victoria, Concordia et al.

127 See Cic. Sen. 11 (on Fabius Maximus),Diu. i 77 (on Flaminius), ii 51 (on Porcius Cato), ii 77 (on Claudius Marcellus).

128 V. 657. See the parallels collected at TLL ii 1547.15 ff.

129 See Polyb. x 2.5–13, 7.3, 9.2–3, 11.7–8. Even Polybius at times, perhaps under the influence of the climate of feeling about him, deserts his own rationalism and makes a provident and admirable factor in the successful growth of the Roman empire (cf. i 4.5).

130 See Anon. Herenn. ii 36 (Pacuvius 366ff. Ribbeck).

131 Cf. Menander, frs 348, 463, 464, 630.

132 Sull. 6.

133 Manil. 47 ff.

134 Op. cit. 63.

135 Op. cit. p. 186.

136 Many of the ablatives discussed by Priscian, , Gramm. Latt. 3 68,Google Scholar and by Hofmann, J.B. and Szantyr, A., Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik (Munich, 1965), pp. 117, 141,Google Scholar should be classified, at least in origin, as indicative of attendant circumstances rather than as modal. Haud auspicato at Ter. Andr. 807 certainly means ‘unfortunately’ but it would be misleading to interpret inauspicato at Livy xxi 63.7 and Cic. Diu. i 33 exactly so; the verbal force remains strong in these and many similar passages.

137 Cf. Cic. Mur. I die quo auspicato comitiis centuriatis L. Murenam consulem renuntiaui, Nat. deor. ii 11 qui et consul rogaui et augur et auspicato, Livy xxi 63.7 consulem ante inauspicato factum (Flaminium).

138 On the procedure see Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht i3 (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar

139 For the plural cf. Plaut. Bacch. 649;Catull. 14.18, 45.22.

140 See Livy xxv 1.8, xxxix 8.3, 16.8; Sail. Hist, i 77.3.

141 Apollo–s medium at Delphi is reported to have been consulted in 216 (Livy xxii 57.5) and 205 (Livy xxix 10.6).

142 The fata of the Sibyl of Cumae guarded by the decemuiri were frequently consulted during the war with Hannibal; also those of a local Italian ‘Marcius uates’ (Livy xxv 12.2–12; Pliny, Nat. vii 119).

143 Answers were commonly couched in the form malum auertetur si … (cf. Livy xxiii 11.2, xxix 10.5).

144 Cf. Cic. Diu. i 68. Second sight sometimes allowed them to report disasters as they happened (cf. Gell. xv 18).

145 Cf. the way in which Plautus records the prophecy concerning Troy: Bacch. 953–5 Ilio triafuisse audiuifata quae illi forent exitio :/signumex arce si periisset; alterum etiamst Troili mors;/ tertium quom portae Phrygiae limen superum scinderetur. Such prophecies had to be kept secret from enemies who might try to hurry disaster on by releasing the precursors.

146 See Gell. xv 4.3.

147 For the tone of malum dare see Plaut. Amph. 563, Poen. 928, Trin. 1045; Livy iv 49.11. On the absurd interpretation of T. Bucciarelli, BFC xvii (1907), 35 ff., resurrected by E. V. Marmorale, see O. Skutsch, CR i (1951), 175.

148 Cf. Cic. Diu. i 103.

149 See Ennius, Ann. 213–14; Cic. Brut. 71, Diu. i 114; Varr. Ling, vii 36; Festus, p. 432, s.v. Saturno. The Naevian verse will scan as a common type of early Latin iambic trimeter; since it does not give expression to a fatum but simply refers to one there is no reason to consider it designed as a Saturnian rather than as an iambic trimeter.

150 Fraenkel’s theory of a ‘Hausliterat’ (RE Suppl. vi [1935], 624) seems unnecessary. Metellus’ ability with the language was admired by later ages (see Cic. Brut. 57; Pliny, Nat. vii 139–41).

151 Leo (Der Saturnische Vers, p. 32), Marx (op. cit. 59, 66) and others make it a comic verse without suggesting a context.

152 Marmorale (op. cit. pp. 66 f.) takes it as being in origin a complimentary reference to the consul of 251 and 241.

153 See above, p. 38.