EVANS, A Note on the Consuls From 69 to 60

8/12/2019 EVANS, A Note on the Consuls From 69 to 60

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/evans-a-note-on-the-consuls-from-69-to-60 1/11

CT CLASSICA XXXI 1988) 95 105 ISSN 1XJ65-1141

NOTES • KORT BYDRAES

PROPERTIUS 3.3.7

1 Visus eram molli recubans Heliconis in umbra,

Bellerophontei qua fluit umor equi,reges, Alba, tuos et regum facta tuorum,

tantum operis, nervis hiscere posse meis,

5 parvaque tam magnis admoram fontibus ora,

unde pater sitiens Ennius ante bibit

et cecinit Curios fratres et Horatia pila

regiaque Aemilia vecta tropaea rate. . .

12 anseris et tutum voce fuisse lovern,

cum me Castalia speculans ex arbore Phoebussic ait.

The Renaissance emendation cecini in 7 has gained widespread, though far from

universal, support. The reasons adduced in its favour are:

(1) Some of what Propertius says does not seem to correspond to the content

of the Annals ofEnnius: (a) i 8 refers to the triumph of Aemilius Paulus after the

battle of Pydna in 167 B.c. Ennius could not have described this, since he died in

169 B.c.: (b) in 12 Propertius follows the usual version in which the Capitol was

saved from the Gauls by the geese in 390 B.C., whereas Ennius seems to have

described it as actually captured (227-8 Skutsch; see his commentary pp. 407-8and Studia Enniana (1968) 138-141).

(2) The sequence' I laid my lips to the great springs from which Father Ennius

drank; and he sang (catalogue) when Apollo addressed me seems

unworthy of Propertius' (Skutsch Stud Enn 141 n.10); to similar effect, 'How,

after Virgil's when I sang ofkings and battles I was stopped by Apollo could the

younger poet say He sang when I was stopped by Apollo ?' (Skutsch BICS

27, 1980, 108 n.2).

These difficulties may be answered as follows:

(1) (a) The reference is probably to the victory of Aemilius Regillus over theSyrian fleet at Myonessusin 19 B.C. (XIVfr . x Skutsch): (b) as Skutsch himself

admits in his commentary 1.c. (he is somewhat more positive on pp. 15-16),

there is room for doubt here; it is hard to be certain either that the fragment in

question refers to 390 B.C. or that it necessarily implies the heterodox version

95



(see Jocelyn, Ani del Convegno inlernazionale di Studi properziani, Bimillenario

della Morte di Properzio, Assisi 1986, 127-8). Even i f it does, I doubt if

Propertius refreshed his memory of the Annals before he wrote this poem.

Heyworth CQ 36 (1986) 201 argues on similar lines.(2) Skutsch has misunderstood the construction, which is rightly understood

by Jocelyn 116 (to his references add Housman on Manii. 4.695). It is not

admoram ora fontibus (untie Ennius bibit) et cecinit cum Phoebus ail, but

admoram ora fontibus untie Ennius bibit et cecinil) cum Phoebus ail, with the

second verb in the relative clause unattached to the relative pronoun, as often

happens in Latin; another way of putting the same thing is to say that we here

have a paratactic method of expressing having drunk from which Ennius sang .

As Jocelyn says, this wayofconstruing gives a much smoother pair ofpluperfects,

visus eram and admoram, leading up to the inverse cum ait; the interposition of

cecini or cecinit into this sequence would be most disruptive. Again see

Heyworth 200 for similar arguments.

There are two other arguments which decisively refute the conjecture:

(1) It would mean that Propertius represented himself as having actually

composed epic; this is impossible. In a similar situation Vergil Buc. 6.3) says cumcanerem (conative imperfect) reges et proelia, Horace Odes 4. 15. 1) volentemproelia me loqui, and, with Quirinus instead of Apollo as the remonstrating god,

cum Graecos facerem (another conative imperfect) versiculos (Serm 1. 10.

31); these and other passages are compared by Heyworth 201. This is the

somnium of the Roman Callimachus; the Greek Callimachus, just before his

dream at the beginning of the Aetia (fr. 1.3) says positively that he did not write

about kings or heroes. Moreover, as K Sara Myers has insisted to me, in 43-6

Calliope forbids to Propertius topics from post-Ennian Roman history. These are

surely meant to be regarded as Propertius potential epic themes, and it would

not make any compositional sense to have two lists of his potential epic themes.

(2) In his dreamon Helicon Propertius is reproducing the shape ofCallimachus

dream there (fr. 2):

1 T t 1 ~ V l l.ti'lAu vtlJ.ovtt TtUP' ixvtov 01;00<; iTtTtOll'H01.6 p MOllO'trov ScrIJ O<; 0. iJvtiUCffiV

IJ ltv of. Xaso<; 1 \1£0'[

]eTti Tt'ttPVT)<;Mu[

5 't UXrov d><; t ttpcp n<; p ICUICOV t;Ttun 't VX t.

That is, Callimachus makes the Muses impart ( the beginningof3 is supplemented

iTt lJ.]tv by Pfeiffer) to Hesiod the content of the Theogony (3) and the Works

nd Days (5, with allusion to Hesiod 265 ot t uu'tCP lCUICU 't vxet civtlP a AA cp lCUlCU

teuxrov; the reference of Callimachus adaptation was so clear that two later .

sources, for which see West s apparatus ad Ioc., ascribe his wording to Hesiodhimself). Callimachus, like Propertius, did not sing of these things himself; it is ct

summary of Hesiod s poetry, as the Propertius passage is a summary of that oli

Ennius. Likewise Archias P 9. 64, reflecting the passage of Callimachus, says

that the Muses gave Hesiod a drink from Hippocrene (evidently referred to in

96



Callim. fro 2.4)

oiS c ro KopecrcrUJlEvo<; IUlKUproV y V O ~ fpya te J 1 O A . 1 t J . \ ~Kai y V O ~ o.pl-airov f y p a < l > ~ ilJ1t9wv

Apollo and the Muses direct Propertius to quite a different kind of poetry(though oddly enough this, like the Annals seems to be inspired by the waters of

Hippocrene, 32 and 51-2 , as they directed Callimachus to hisAetia (Schol. Flor.

p.ll Pfeiffer, anon. P 7.42).

It is a pleasure, and something of a relief, t:1 find the manuscriDts of Propertius

right for once.

E.COURTNEY

Stanford University

A NOTE ON THE CONSULS FROM 69 TO 60 B.C.

by Richard J. Evans

(University of South Africa)

The consuls between 69 and 60 are an interesting. group of politicians and,according to E.S. Gruen, of the twenty-one elected during this decade, no less

than seventeen had ancestors in the same magistracy. His statement suggests

that the citizen body at Rome preferred to vote for old and established families

rather than elect to the highest office of the cursus honorum newcomers or

relative newcomers to politica1life. Closer inspection of the individual consuls

and their families, however, produces a somewhat different perspective of

Roman politics in the middle of the first century B.C.l

It is certainly true that the three Caecilii Metelli who won the conSUlship

between 69 and 60 were all directly related to Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus,consul in 143, who represented the third generation of his family to achieve this

honour.3 Q. Caecilius C.f. O.n. Metellus Creticus, consul in 69, and L Caecilius

C.f. Q.n. Metellus, consul in 68, were both sons of C. Caecilius Macedonici f

Metellus Caprarius, consul in 113. Q. Caecilius OJ. O.n. Metellus Celer, consul

in 60, was a grandson of O. Caecilius Metellus Baliaricus, consul in 123, and son

of the consul of 98, Q. Caecilius MeteUus Nepos, but had been adopted by a

politician who is not known to have progressed further than the tribunate.4 None

of the Caecilii Metelli of the 60's, moreover, had descendants in the consulship,

since Q. Caecilius MeteUus Creticus Silanus, consul in A.D. 7, the last CaeciliusMetellus in the tasti was an adopted great-grandson of the consul of 69.5

It is also an undoubted fact that L Aurelius MJ. Cotta, consul in 65, was the

third member of his immediate family to win the highest magistracy in the space

of ten years. But the three Aurelli Cottae, the consul of 65 and his brothers, the

97



consul of 75, C. Aurelius M.f. Cotta, and the consul of 74, M. Aurelius M.f.

Cotta, although from a family with a consular presence since the middle of the

third century, were not themselves sons of a consul. Their father, perhaps the

monetalis of about 139, M. Aurelius Cotta, is not known to have risen beyond this

junior status in the senate.6 Furthermore, the relatiocship between this politician

and the consul of 119, L. Aurelius Cotta, cannot be determined with any

certainty, although they may have been brothers.7 The proliferation of Aurelii

Cottae in the mid-first century was not maintained; they were the last of their line

to reach high office, and M. Aurelius Cotta Messallinus, consul in A.D. 20, was,

as his nomenclature indicates, a Valerius Messalla by birth.8

AM . Aemilius Lepidus gained the consulship for 66, and he, of course, came

from one of the most ancient and famous patrician families in the Roman senate.

Nevertheless, this politician was also not the son of a consul. is putative fatherwas the moneta/is of about 114, who is not known to have progressed to any other

magistracy in the cursus honorum. Either the consul of 126, M. Aemilius

Lepidus, or the consul of 137, M. Aemilius M.f. M.n. Lepidus Porcina, may be

regarded as his grandfather.10

Two Calpurnii Pisones, consuls in 67 and 61, represent a family which achieved

its first consulship in 180 11 but which provided only one consul between 133 and

67. 11 This suggests that from two of the three known branches of this family one

generation failed to advance to high public office. C. Calpurnius Piso, consul in

67, was perhaps a grandson of the consul of 139, Cn./L.? Calpurnius Piso, or the

consul of 135 O. Calpurnius Cn.? f. Piso. Because he displays no filiation on the

Jasti however, this must remain a conjecture. 13 Of his father absolutely nothing is

attested, and so early death, a career outside politics, or even service in the senate

at a more humble level are all possible. M. Pupius Piso Frugi, consul in 61, was

adopted into a family which had senatorial representation throughout the second

century, but he was the first Pupius to win a consulship. 4 His natural grandfather

was presumably the consul of 133 L. Calpurnius L.f. Cn. Piso Frugi,15 and his

father the praetor of about 112 who died while proconsul in Spain.16

M . Acilius Glabrio, consul in 67, was a descendant of the novus homo of thesame name who won a consulship for 191 and so was indeed a nobilis. He was,

nevertheless, only the third Glabrio to achieve the senior magistracy of the res

publica, since his father, responsible for the lex Acilia de repetundarum does not

seem to have advanced beyond the tribunate. ? The consul of 67 was praetor in

70, however, and so oUght to have been born about 110, which suggests that his

father may have gained further public offices, though these remain unattested.

O. Marcius Rex, one of the consuls of 68, although his cognomen suggests an

association with Rome s regal period, was, in fact, just the second consul of his

family. His grandfather had reached the praetorship in 144 and had ensured thefamily s fame by completing the Aqua Marcia and that politician s son became

consul in 118. 18 The first known Marcius Rex was a legate, with the praenomenPublius , and is dated to only 171/ but he was not a direct ancestor of the later

Marcii Reges since the consul of 118 has the filiation OJ. O.n. . No further

98



Mardi Reges attained high public office at Rome after the consul of68, who died

in 61 (Cic. dAtt. 1.16.10). The stemma of this family is as follows:

P. Marcius Rex

leg. 171

MarciusRex

Q. Marcius Rex

Q. Marcius Rex pr.l44

Q. Marcius Q.f. Q.n. Rex, cos. 118

Q. Marcius Q.f. Q.o. Rex, cos.67

Another member of the g ns Marcia achieved a consulship in the 60 s. C.

Marcius FiguIus, who was consul in 64 (Cic. dAtt. 1.2), also came from a family

with just one consular ancestor, viz C. Marcius C.f. Q.n. FiguIus, consul in 162

and 156 :It Since so few Mardi Figuli are attested in the Roman republic, the

father of the consul of 64 was probably the praetorius who is known to have

received a repulsa in a consular election (Val. Max. 9.3.2). This politician is dated

to about 130, but since the evidence provided by Valerius Maximus is so vague,

he may well have been a candidate for the consulship at least a decade later.:II

Thus:

C. Marcius FiguIus, cos.162, cos.II 156

C. Marcius FiguIus, praetorius ca. 120)

C. Marcius FiguJus, cos.64

Although the generations in this family s stemma may appear a trifle long, they

are certainly neither impossible nor unprecedented. Thus, a comparison may be

drawn with, for instance, D. Iunius Brutus, the consul in 77, who was a son of the

consul of 138, D. Iunius Brutus Callaicus, and grandson of the consul in 178, M.

Iunius Brutus.21 The consul of 64, if he held the consulship suo anna, was born no

later than 107; his father the praetorius could easily have been born after 160.

Q. Hortensius, Cicero s famous rival in the law courts, was elected to one of

the consulships of 69 23 He may be a son or nephew of the consul designate

Hortensius who won a consular place for 108, but who was condemned, possibly

for ambitus, before he took office. l4 The exact relationship between the consul of

69 and the earlier Hortensius is not known, and Cicero never refers to this rather

unsavoury episode in this family s history. Of course, t is quite possible that the

consul designate for 108 was only a distant relation of Q. Hortensius, but this

means that he was, in effect, the first member of his family to enter the office of

99



consul and he had, therefore, no consular ancestors.

L. Caecilius Metellus, elected to the consulship of the following year, died

either while still consul designate or very early in 68, and, states Dio (36.4.1), a

successor with the cognomen Vatia was chosen, but he also died before he couldassume his duties.15 With the name Vatia, he can only have been a younger

brother, or perhaps a cousin, of the consul of79, P. ServiliusCf. M.n. Vatia. t s

most improbablf;l that the suffect consul of 68 was this politician s son, although

the consul of 79 experienced a considerable delay to his career, having possibly

received a repulsa in the consular elections in 88 (Plut. ulia 10.3). IIi Although the

Servilli Vatiae had senatorial representation in the late second century, if not

before, P. Servilius Cf. was their first consul.1 7 Thus, the consul of 68 could

hardly lay claim to ancestors in the consulship,

Besides M . Aemilius Lepidus, the consul of 66, three other patricians achieveda consulship between 69 and 60, and each is, in his own way, worthy of some

discussion. L. lulius L.f. L.n. Caesar, consul in 64 and perhaps praetor in 70, was

the son of the consul of 90.28 He was also a great-grandson of the consul of 157,

Sex. lulius Caesar who was the first Caesar to win the consulship in a historically

verifiable period,19 although this family liked to trace its origins back to the

earliest days of Roman history. The lulli Caesares, a family with two very distinct

and separate branches, were not especially prominent in political life at Rome

and, in fact, the consul of 64 was just the fourth Caesar to occupy the office of

consul. Moreover, he was related only in a rather distant way to the consul of 91,Sex. lulius Cf. L.? n. Caesar, and to his more famous relative the consul of 59,

C lulius Cf. Cn. Caesar. Thus:

Sex. lulius Caesar (pr.208)

Sex. lulius Caesar (cos. 157)

Sex. Caesar

(pr.123)

L.Caesar

(cos.90)

L. lulius Caesar

(cos. 64)

L.Caesar

(pr.120?)

C Caesar Strabo

(aed.90)

100

L.? C Caesar (pr 166)

C. lulius Caesar

Sex. Caesar

(cos.91)

C.Caesar

(pr. ca.92

C. lulius Caesar

(cos. 59)



L. Manlius Torquatus consul in 65, came from a patrician family with

longstanding representation at the highest levels of public life. Nonetheless, this

Manlius Torquatus was the first of his family to win the consulship for a hundred

years. is immediate consular ancestors were the brothers T. Manlius A.f. T.n.

Torquatus and A Manlius A.f. T.n. Torquatus, consuls in 165 and 164

respectively.30Two generations, at least, ofthis family appear to have missed high

public office, and either died prematurely or failed to make an impact with the

voters. The relationship between the consul of 65 and his second century

forebears is uncertain, but his father may be the quaestor of about 113,.

L. Manlius Torquatus, who is not known to have attained a higher magistracy. 1

As for the consul of 65, he was also the last member from his family to gain

consular honours.3

An interval of a hundred years also separated M. Valerius Messalla Niger,

consul in 61, from his nearest consular ancestor M. Valerius Messalla, consul in

161.33 Although the Valerii Messallae had fairly consistent success in elections to

the consulship during the third and the first half of the second century, two

generations probably missed high office between the consuls of 161 and 61 34 t

was left to Messalla Niger and his cousin M. Valerius Messalla Rufus, consul in

53, to restore consular prestige to their family honours.

C. Antonius, consular colleague of Cicero in 63, is usually designated a

nobilis, 5 and since his father M. Antonius, the orator much praised by Cicero de

Orat 1.7.24; Brut. 36.138-38.142), had won a consulship for 99, this view iscertainly correct. But it should be remembered that M. Antonius was the first of

his family to achieve this exalted position, and so the consul of 63 could not claim

a long line of ancestors of consular dignity.36 The consul of63 was the younger son

of the consul of 99; his elder brother M. Antonius Creticus, father of the triumvir,

had been praetor in 74, but had died suddenly in 71.37

D. Iunius M.f. Silanus became consul in 62, having almost certainly received a

repu/sa in the consular elections in 65. f this assumptiom, based on Cicero s

reference to Silanus ad Att.1. 1.2), a consular candidate in 65, is correct,31 then

the consul of 62 was praetor by 67, and his birth may be dated to about 107. As hisfiliation shows, he was a son of the consul of 109, M. Iunius Silanus who, like

M. Antonius, consul in 99, was the first of his family to win the most senior office

of the cursus honorum. 9 Therefore, the consul of 62 could, likewise, not point to

a profusion of consular ancestors.

The four remaining consuls in this decade are generally considered either to be

newcomers to senior public office or to be entirely without predecessors in the

senatorial order. Thus L. Volcatius TuUus may not have been a novus homo, but

his senatorial ancestors are obscure, and presumably held only relatively junior

magistracies in the cursus hpnorum. Although he was the first Volcatius TuUus toachieve the consulship, he was not the last, for his son gained the same magistracy

as consul suffectus in 33 411 L Afranius, consul in 60, was certainly the first, and

last, of his family to win a consulship; he may also have been a novus homo.

Senatorial Afranii are attested in the second century, however, and it is possible

101



that the consul of60 was related to one of these politicians.41 L. Licinius Murena,

elected to the consulship for 62, may have been the first of his family to win this

particular office, but he was certainly not a novus homo. His three immediate

ancestors in the paternal line had each held a praetorship.41 Finally, M. Tullius

Cicero, consul in 63, was a novus homo since his father was an eques Romanus.But through his mother Helvia he was perhaps related to C. and M. Helvius who

had held the praetorship in 198 and 197 43 While Cicero made much capital in the

consular elections in 64 of his lack of consular, or even senatorial ancestors

Comm. Pet. 2.7), he must in fact have been much less of an outsider than he

claimed.

It may be correct to assert that the Roman electorate preferred a familiar name

when it came to voting at consular elections, and it may have been useful for a

politician who aspired to the consulship to have family or adoptive fame at his

disposal. t is apparent, however, that, although seventeen of the twenty-one

consuls between 69 and 60 technically possessed some relative in the consulship

beforehand, very few of them could actually claim a long and unbroken family

representation in that magistracy. Of course, many of these politicians may have

been related to past consuls through their marriage connections or through the

maternal line of their families, all of which, no doubt, they used to their

advantage in an attempt to impress the voters. Unfortunately many of these

relationships are unclear, and without finn evidence it is difficult to draw a

definite conclusion about the effectiveness of these ties when employed by apolitician in his candidacy for an office such as the consulship.44 The Roman

electorate may have been aware of the direct ancestors of a politician, but it

seems unlikely that the more distant relations, however famous, would

necessarily have impressed the voters overmuch.The successful candidates in the consular elections in this decade were,

therefore, a rather heterogeneous and disparate group of politicians. Some

possessed only recent consular ancestors, thus Q. Marcius Rex, C Antonius, and

D. Iunius Silanus. Some could claim only a distant and rather faded memory of

family consular glory, thus L. Manlius Torquatus and M. Valerius MessallaNiger. Others were without a previous consul in their families, thus Q. Hortensius,

Servilius Vatia, L Volcatius Tullus, M. Tullius Cicero, L Licinius Murena, and

L. Afranius. Six of the remaining consuls were not themselves sons of consuls,

although their families had provided consuls in the past, thusC Calpurnius Piso,

M . Acilius Glabrio, M . Aemilius Lepidus, L Aurelius Cotta, C Marcius

Figulus, and M. Pupius Piso Frugi (in fact the first, and only, Pupius in the

consular fasti). This leaves just four consuls: Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus,

L Caecilius Metellus, Q. Caecilius Metellus Celer and L lulius Caesar, who

were able to point to some continuity in their families acquisition of theconsulship, and only three of these, the aecilii Metelli, with whom I began,

actually had consular ancestors in each generation from the middle of the third

century through to the 60 s.

The result of this study suggests that the mere existence of consular ancestors

102



had, in fact, little obvious positive impact on the electorate. All politicians

ambitious for the consulship had rather to campaign vigorously and to indulge in

vast expenditure in order to win the favour of the voters. The generosity of the

candidate exhibited by his lavish gifts may in the last instance have been more

important than simply the possession of a famous name. Cicero, who did not

possess a famous name but who presumably fulfilled all the obligations expected

of a consular candidate, says that the electorate at Rome could be extremely

fickle and volatile when it came to bestowing its favours on a candidate.45 This

also seems to indicate that the results of the consular elections were, at least as far

as the 60 s were concerned, more dependent on the availability of a fortune than

on the availability of an inherited name.

NOTES

1. E.S. Gruen, he Last Generation of he Roman Republic, Berkeley 1974,140.

2. I realise, of course, that the resultsof this study may be construed as reflecting an atypical decade

in Roman republican politics. My th nks to Professor H.B. Mattingly on this point. This article

does, however, form a small part of a larger examination of consular elections and the successful

candidates between 218 and 49 B.C., which will, I hope, appear in due course.

3. Thus, see R.I. Evans, 0. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus , Acta Classica 29 (1987) 99-103.

4 For the three Caecilii Metelli of the 60 s see T.R.S. Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman

Republic, New York 1951-1952,2.538-539, hereafter MRR; MUnzer, RE Caecilius nos. 87,74

and 86; R. Syme, he Augustan Aristocracy, Oxford 1986, Table 1 following 504; T.P. Wiseman.Cinna the Poet and other Roman Essays, Leicester 1974, 182-183; D.R. Shackleton Bailey,

Cicero s Letters to Atticus, Cambridge 1965-1970, 1.328.

5 For the relationship between the cos. A.D.7 and the cos.69, see Syme, (above note 4) Table 18

following 5046. M.H. CraWford, Roman Republican Coinage, Cambridge 1974, 1.263, no.229; MRR.2.432.

7. F. MUnzer, Romische Adelspaneien und Adelsfamilien, Stuttgart 19632, 323; RE Aurelius no.105,

suggested that the moneyerwas a brother of the cos.119. A problem exists with this identification,

however, since, i Crawford S date for this moneyer is correct, (above note 6) no.229, he would

have been born not much later than 165, while the cos.119, supposing his consulship to be suo

anno, would have been bom in 162. The moneyer must, therefore, have been an elder, not a

younger brother of the cos.119 ,i

they were brothers, a fact which cannot be proved. C. Cotta,cos.75, the eldest of the three Cottae, was born ca. 124, Cit. Brut. 48.182, 88.301; G.V. Sumner,

he Orators in Cicero s Brutus : Prosopographyand Chronology, Toronto 1973, 109, and

reached the consulship late. A delayed career must also apply to the cos.65, since he was praetor

in 70, MRR.2.127; his birth probably predates 110.

8 A. Degrassi, Fasti Consolari dell Impero Romano, Rome 1952, 8; Syme, (above note 4) 150,

177-178,230-231.

9. Crawford (above note 6) no.29l; R.I. Evans, Missing Consuls 104-100 B.C.: a study in

prosopography , LCM IO (1985) 76; d. Syme (above note 4) 105: the parent ofManius Lepidus,

the consul of 66, is beyond recovery .

10. For the coss.126 and 137 see MRR.1.508, 1.484.

11. C. CaJpurnius C.f. C.n. Piso in m(agistratu) m(ortuus) e(st) , A. Degrassi, Fasli Capitolini,

Rome 1954, 65; MRR.1.387.

12. The consul of 112 was a son of L CaJpurnius Piso Caesoninus, cos. 148, who was adopted by the

consul of 180. The Caesonini show a direct line of magistrates from the cos .l48 to the cos.58,

MRR.2.541, although the latter s father failed to reach the consulship, pr.90?, MRR. SuppJ 2

(1986) 48. In this study I am concerned only with the other branches of the CaJpumii Pisones.

13. For the coss. 139 and 135 see Degrassi (above note 11) 70, 73; MRR.1.482,I.488.

103



14. Syme (above note 4) 276; MRR.2.609, L Pupius, pr.183, M. Pupius M.L, senator 129/101? The

latter was a memberof the eonsilium on the S. C. de Agro Pergameno and may be the man who

adopted, in his old age, the cos.61, Cic. de Dom 13.35 , H.B. Mattingly, 'The Date of the De

Agro Pergameno , AJP 93 (1979) 42l.

15. Degrassi (above note 11) 73; MRR.l.492.

16. Cic. 2 in Verr. 4.25.56; MRR.1.538; Suppl.' (1986) 48. His elder brother was L. Calpumius Piso

Frugi, pr.74, MRR.2.102, who did not become consul. M. Pupius Piso was praetor in either 70 or

71, MRR.2.117 and n.1; Suppl.'(1986) In hence bominca.111. He reached theconsuJship after

a considerable delay, though this was surely not caused by his being a Pupiusand not a Piso. He

may, therefore, have received a repulsa in the consular elections in 68 or 67 and left a second

consular candidacy until he considered his chances of success much greater. Since his natural

family was undoubtedly more famous than his adopted gens he presumably exploited the name

'Piso' to its fuJ advantage, as his nomencla ture illustrates: M. Pupius Piso Frugi (Calpumianus),

Inscr. Ilni. 13.1170; CIL.l 352; Cic. Brut. 67.236: 'M. Piso . However, the fact that he did not

win a consulship until the elections in 62 indicates that the name alone did not impress the voters.

17. The son of the cos.191 wassuffect consulin 154, MRR.l.449. The lex Aeilia is to be dated to 123or 122, MRR.1.517, n.4.

lB. MRR.1.471 , for the pr.I44; MRR.1.527, cos.llB.

19. Livy 43.1.12; MRR.1.41B.

20. MRR.L441,1.447.

21. MRR.1.502.

22. Evans (above note 9) n.23. Cic. in Verr. 1.7.17; pro Cluent. 64.179; MRR.2.131.

24. Degrassi (above not¢ 11) 73; MRR .1.548; E.S. Gruen, Roman Politics and the Criminal Courts,

Harvard 1968 307.

25. MRR.2.137.

26. The praetorship of P. Servilius Vatia is usually assigned to about 90, MRR.2.26, and n.5. Theconsul of 48, P. Servillus P.f. C.n. Vatia Isauricus, was certainly the son of the cos.79, Cic. dAtt.

6.1.16; Shackleton Bailey, (above note 4) 3.249, suggests that the cos.79 died about 44.

27. MRR.2.fJ20, C. Servilius Vatia, pro or promag. before 100 ; MUnzer, RE. Servilius no.91;

Crawford (above note 6) no.264; MRR. Suppl.' (1986) 196.

28. For the cos.90 see Degrassi, (above note 11) 74; MRR.2.25. H.B. Mattingly, L. Julius Caesar ,

Governorof Macedonia', Chiron, 9 (1979) 156, suggests 70 as the date of the praetorship of the

cos.64.

29. Degrassi, (above note 11) 66; MRR.1.446.

30. MRR.1.438-439.

31. Crawford (above note 6) no.295: L. Manlius Torquatus quaestor .

32. Manlius Torquatus, pr.49?, was probably a son of the cos.65, MRR.2.257; R Syme, Marriage

Ages for Senators , Historia 36 (1987) 321, assigns ca.no as the birth-date of the cos.65.33. For the cos.161, Degrassi (above note 11) 66; MRR.l.443.

34. Thus, the Valerii Messa1lae won consulships in 263, 226, 188, and 161, MRR.2.63O. Note,

however, the repulsa received by M. Valerius Messa1la in the consular elections in 190, Livy,

37.47.7-B.

35. For instance, E.S. Gruen (above note 1) 136; R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, Oxford,

1939,81.

36. The Antonii evidenl\l.y had senatorial status throughout much of the second century, although

they held only more Junior places in the eUTSUS hcnorum. Thus, leg. 168, trib.167, MRR.1.531.

37. Cic. 2 in Verr.3.91.2lJ; MRR.2.123; L. Hayne, 'The Political Astuteness of the Antonii', Acta

Ciassica 19 (I97B) 9 ;38. Shackleton Bailey (aloove note 4) 1.292.39. Degrassi (above note 11) 73; MRR .1.545. Iunii Silani had been present in the senate from the end

of the third century, at least, with a praetor dated to 212, MRR.1.268. D. Iunius Silanus

Manlianus, pr.141, MRR.14n was presumably the grandfather of the cos.62.

40. MRR.2.414.

41. MRR.2.528, C. Afranius SteUio, pr.185, Sp. Afranius, mono ca. ISO; ct. Crawford (above note 6)

1 4



1.252, where SAFRA is preferred to the reading S(P) AFRA(nius) .

42. Cic. pro Mur.7.15; MRR.2.58lJ pro ca.147 ca.101 ca.88. A.C. Licinius Murena, perhaps a

younger brother of the cos.62, was aedile about 59, MRR.1.189 and n.4, but no later Licinii

Murenae are attested in high public offices.43. MRR.2.572.

44. For instance, C. Iulius Caesar, cos.59, was related to C. Marius through his aunt Iulia, Suet. Jul

6.1; Pluto Caes 1.2,5.2, and certainly exploited this fact when he gave her funeral euolgy in 68. t

may have made him popular, but whether this popularity alone was responsible for his success in

later elections is a moot point. f he was so confident that his family connections could win him

election to high office, why did he find it necessary to give such extravagant aedilician games, SaIl.

Cat.49.3; Suet. Jul.9.2; Pluto Caes 6.1-31 Furthermore, while T.P. Wiseman, Factions and

Family Trees , L M 1 (1976) 3, rightly observes that many we known political families were

related to one another due to the frequent incidence of divorce and remarriage, it is debatable

whether overriding importance should e attached to that fact.

45. Cic. pro Mur.17.36: nihil est incertius volgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominwn, nihil faIIacius

ratione tota comitiorwn .

105

EVANS, A Note on the Consuls From 69 to 60

Documents