Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
It would be worth knowing whom the historian married. His wife's name might disclose some local tie in the Sabine country; or it might permit a guess about alliances with families at the metropolis, whether ancient in repute or newly risen to influence. Marriage is a normal device for advancement – ‘decus ac robur’. Cicero did well for himself when, about the year 79 B.C., he married Terentia. She was the half-sister of a Fabia, who was a Vestal Virgin. The Fabii are not only noble but patrician, albeit in temporary eclipse (no consul between 116 and 45).
1 Jerome, , Adv. lovinianum 1.48.Google Scholar
2 Pliny, H.N. 7. 158.Google Scholar
3 That is the standard view about the two marriages, cf. Hanslik, R., RE viii A, 134. Various uncertainties subsist, however.Google Scholar
4 Not but that Sallust's marriage has found believers: Meyer, E., Caesars Monarchic und das Principat des Pompejus 3 (1922), p. 164;Google ScholarPareti, L., La congiura di Catilina (1934), p. 204;Google ScholarMazzarino, S., Il pensierostorico classico II. i (1966), 392; II. ii, 17.Google Scholar
The matter is dismissed as ‘ebenso sch wer verizierbar und zugleich unerheblich’ by Buchner, K., Sallust (1960), p. 384.Google Scholar
5 Pliny, , H.N. 7.61; Plutarch, Cato 20.Google Scholar For a more recent specimen of confusion see Miltner, F., RE xxii, 168. He assigns the Jerome passage to Cato's son and incorrectly prints it as ‘habuit uxorem Aemiliam Paullam, humili loco natam’, etc.Google Scholar
How and why Jerome called the lady ‘Actoria Paulla’ baffles curiosity (‘Actorius’ is a very rare nomen). One can see why Papiria, the mother of Scipio Africanus, is styled ‘Maecia Papiria’ (Ep. 108.1): contemporary Maecii in the Christian aristocracy.
6 Seneca, , N.Q. 4, praef. 6.Google Scholar
7 Dio 57. 15. 6 f.
8 Dio 46. 18. 3 f.
9 PIR1V 396.
10 ILS 5925.
11 Inscr. It. xiii.l, p. 185.
12 Inscr. It. xiii.l, p. 303.
13 As the consul is registered by Degrassi, A., I Fasti consolari (1952), 8;Google ScholarHanslik, R., RE viii A, 1979.Google Scholar
14 CIL vi. 1539; 9005 = ILS 1975. The colleague is to be presumed the jurist Nerva (cf. Groag in PIR2 C 1225), hence the pair should go in 21 or 22. Some scholars raise dispute and put them c.40.Google Scholar
Vibius Rufinus can be identified as the Rufinus of Ex Ponto 1.3 and 3.4, cf. my History in Ovid (1978), Ch. V.Google Scholar
15 CIL xiv. 2556.Google Scholar
16 Eph. Ep. 9, p.407, no. 679 = AE 1907, 78.
17 Pliny, , Ep. 3. 7. 8.Google Scholar
18 Martial 11. 48. 2.
19 CIL xiv. 2653 = ILS 7339.Google Scholar
20 Jerome, , Chron. p. 172 H.Google Scholar
21 Tacitus, , Ann. 4. 61.Google Scholar
22 Thus Rowland, R. J., CW 62 (1978), 134. He admits both marriages, with the terms ‘reasonable to think’ and ‘quite likely’.Google Scholar
23 Ann. 3. 30. 1.
24 Pseudo-Aero on 2.2: ‘Sallustium Crispum adloquitur, historiographum, equitem Romanum, Augusti amicum.’
25 In Sallustium 19: ‘hortos pretiosissimos, villam Tiburti C. Caesaris, reliquas possessiones.’
26 Büchner, K., Sallust (1960), p.91: ‘wohl ausPietat’, cf. p.398 (the same phrase).Google Scholar
27 The declaimer was perhaps influenced by the Tiburtinum of Metellus Scipio, which Antonius occupied (Phil. 5.19, cf. Ad fam. 12.2. 1).
28 Dio 54. 3. 5.
29 PIR 1, p 736. He is disclosed as ‘L.f.’ by the coins he struck on the Ionian islands, cf. Grant, M., FITA (1946), 66 f.Google Scholar
30 Thus, cursorily, in Sallust (1964), 277.Google Scholar
31 ‘Proculeius’ is registered, but with no specimens, in Schulze, LE 458. In CIL ix-xi it occurs on three inscriptions only, in each volume: one in xiv, none in v.
32 CIL xi.1943 = ILS 6617: ‘L. Proculeius A.f./Titia gnatus/IIII vir, II vir.’
33 CIL ix. 4205 = i2 1857 = ILLRP 530. Amiternum has also the gravestone of ‘Proculeia P. f.’ (ix. 4289).Google Scholar
34 Compare the grandson of Ummidia Quadratilla (Pliny, Ep. 7.24.2). Patently C. Ummidius Quadratus (suff. 118), but he must have possessed another gentilicium, that of his father. Therefore a polyonymus, but there is no need to postulate an adoption.