Suo Anno

[Sextus Pompey]

Как Вы оцениваете главы 57-59 2 книги "Об обязанностях"?
Неужели все перечисленные там люди не занимали консульство в "свой год"?

 

[Sextus Pompey]

{56} The generous, on the other hand, are those who employ their own means to ransom captives from brigands, or who assume their friends' debts or help in providing dowries for their daughters, or assist them in acquiring property or increasing what they have. And so I wonder what Theophrastus could have been thinking about when he wrote his book on "Wealth." It contains much that is fine; but his position is absurd, when he praises at great length the magnificent appointments of the popular games, and it is in the means for indulging in such expenditures that he finds the highest privilege of wealth. But to me the privilege it gives for the exercise of generosity, of which I have given a few illustrations, ...

the populace. "If people in time of siege," he says, "are required to pay a mina for a pint of water, this seems to us at first beyond belief, and all are amazed; but, when they think about it, they make allowances for it on the plea of necessity. But in the matter of this enormous waste and unlimited expenditure we are not very greatly astonished, and that, too, though by it no extreme need is relieved, no dignity is enhanced, and the very gratification of the populace is but for a brief, passing moment; such pleasure as it is, too, is confined to the most frivolous, and even in these the very memory of their enjoyment dies as {57} soon as the moment of gratification is past." His conclusion, too, is excellent: "This sort of amusement pleases children, silly women, slaves, and the servile free; but a serious-minded man who weighs such matters with sound judgment cannot possibly approve of them." And yet I realize that in our country, even in the good old times, it had become a settled custom to expect magnificent entertainments from the very best men in their year of aedileship. So both Publius Crassus, who was not merely surnamed "The Rich" but was rich in fact, gave splendid games in his aedileship; and a little later Lucius Crassus (with Quintus Mucius, the most unpretentious man in the world, as his colleague) gave most magnificent entertainments in his aedileship. Then came Gaius Claudius, the son of Appius, and, after him, many others — the Luculli, Hortensius, and Silanus. Publius Lentulus, however, in the year of my consulship, eclipsed all that had gone before him, and Scaurus emulated him. And my friend Pompey's exhibitions in his second consulship were the most magnificent of all. And so you see what I think about all this sort of thing.

{58} XVII.

Still we should avoid any suspicion of penuriousness. Mamercus was a very wealthy man, and his refusal of the aedileship was the cause of his defeat for the consulship. If, therefore, such entertainment is demanded by the people, men of right judgment must at least consent to furnish it, even if they do not like the idea. But in so doing they should keep within their means, as I myself did. They should likewise afford such entertainment, if gifts of money to the people are to be the means of securing on some occasion some more important or more useful object. Thus Orestes recently won great honour by his public dinners given in the streets, on the pretext of their being a tithe-offering. Neither did anybody find fault with Marcus Scius for supplying grain to the people at an as/a the peck at a time when the market-price was prohibitive; for he thus succeeded in disarming the bitter and deep-seated prejudice of the people against him at an outlay neither very great nor discreditable to him in view of the fact tha he was aedile at the time. But the highest honour recently fell to my friend Milo, who bought a band of gladiators for the sake of the country, whose preservation then depended upon my recall from exile, and with them put down the desperate schemes, the reign of terror, of Publius Clodius. The justification for gifts of money, therefore, is {59} either necessity or expediency. And, in making them even in such cases, the rule of the golden mean is best. To be sure, Lucius Philippus, the son of Quintus, a man of great ability and unusual renown, used to make it his boast that without giving any entertainments he had risen to all the positions looked upon as the highest within the gift of the state. Cotta could say the same, and Curio. I, too, may make this boast my own — to a certain extent;/a for in comparison with the eminence of the offices to which I was unanimously elected at the earliest legal age — and this was not the good fortune of any one of those just mentioned — the outlay in my aedileship was very inconsiderable.

 

[Aelia]

Я думаю, just mentioned - это только Котта, Филипп и Курион.

Впрочем, Гай Клавдий, по-моему, тоже был консулом не в свой год.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

В AHB была опубликована статья, автор которой пишет о том. что данная фраза распространялась на всех.
В интернете сейчас я ее не нашел, так что приведу здесь текст со своего компьютера.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

The Birth-Dates of Domitius and Scipio

F.X. Ryan
The Ancient History Bulletin 11.2-3 (1997) 89- 93


— 89 —
Publius Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (Cos. 57), Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (Cos. 54), and Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio (Cos. 52) had several things in common: each was a consular, each was a pontiff, each was a Pompeian, and each was ambitious. None of the three acquired the gift of prophecy along with the priesthood: their inability to foretell the future is demonstrated by their decision to follow Pompey rather than Caesar in the civil war; their inability to descry the outcome of the most imminent events is shown by their actions on the eve of Pharsalus, when daily they contended with each other over the succession to Caesar as pontifex maximus. The passage of Caesar describing this struggle (BC 3.83.1), in conjunction with a passage of Cicero (off. 2.57-59), can be used to delimit the birth-dates of Domitius and Scipio; beyond that, the birth-dates established by the text of Caesar actually provide some help in interpreting the text of Cicero.

The birth-date of P. Lentulus, not a mere terminus but the precise year of his birth, can be extracted from de officiis 2.57. In that passage Cicero names ten men who held the aedileship; although every one of these men conducted an aedileship more memorable than that of Cicero (splendor aedilitatum), no one of these men matched Cicero in attaining both the praetorship and the consulship nostro anno. What Cicero has left us is not a complete list of the splendid aedileships of the late republic, nor even a list of splendid aediles who failed to reach the consulship at the minimum age, but a list of all the splendid aediles of the late republic who were aediles at an age which permitted them to go on and hold the praetorship and consulship suo anno, but who nevertheless failed to do so.1 Like the other nine men in Cicero’s list, Lentulus must have taken up the aedileship at age thirty-six or thirty-seven, so that he could still become praetor at thirty-nine and consul at forty-two after laying down the aedileship.2 Lentulus was curule aedile in 63, praetor in 60,3 and consul in 57; his aedileship in 63 means that he was born either in 101 or 100, and the fact that he was not consul suo anno in 57 proves that he was born in 101.

The passage from the Bellum Civile was of no chronological significance so long as the birth-date of Lentulus remained unrecognized.4 That passage now takes on such significance: iam de sacerdotio Caesaris Domitius, Scipio Spintherque Lentulus cotidianis contentionibus ad gravissimas verborum contumelias palam descenderunt, cum Lentulus aetatis honorem ostentaret, Domitius urbanam gratiam dignitatemque


— 90 —
iactaret, Scipio adfinitate Pompei confideret. Domitius and Scipio were younger than Lentulus. A lower terminus for their births was of course known from their respective careers; Domitius was praetor in 58 and so born by 98, and Scipio became praetor by early 55 and so was born by early 94.5 We are now in a position to state the upper terminus for their births: Domitius was born in the period 100-98, and Scipio was born in the period 100-94.

Unlike Lentulus, neither Domitius nor Scipio is included in Cicero’s list of ill- starred aediles. Domitius is credited with an unqueried aedileship6 and Scipio is credited with a queried one.7 The question confronting us is whether the omission of these two men from Cicero’s catalogue can be explained, and more specifically, whether their omission from the catalogue allows us to be more precise about their birth-dates: at first glance it seems possible that Domitius was omitted because he held the aedileship too late to become praetor suo anno, and that Scipio was omitted because he in fact did hold the praetorship suo anno.

Scipio might have been curule aedile in 57,8 was praetor in 56 or 55, and consul in 52; this cursus suggests that he was born in 95, that he held the praetorship and consulship suo anno, and that he held the aedileship one year late.9 We must now ask whether his omission from Cicero’s catalogue tends to prove that he was born precisely in 95. If he did reach the praetorship and consulship suo anno, he would necessarily be excluded from the list, but equally credible explanations of his omission from the list are at hand. If he was born in 96, he was thirty-eight when he took up the aedileship, too old to go on and hold the higher offices suo anno, and he was excluded from the list for that reason. If it were not possible to think of any other reason for his exclusion from the list, the a priori likelihood that he was born in 95 could be judged strengthened by the fact that he was omitted from the list. But in fact Scipio might have failed the basic requirement for inclusion in the list, tenure of an aedileship more splendid than Cicero’s: undoubtedly Scipio would have spent more in his aedileship than Cicero had in his,10 but the ludi Romani over which he would have presided were wrecked by a mob protesting the shortage of grain (Cic. Att. 4.1.6; Dio 39.9.2). On this ground Cicero might have deemed the aedileship of Scipio less

— 91 —
than splendid, and so omitted him from the list. And Scipio might have failed to meet another prerequisite for inclusion in the list, tenure of an aedileship: despite the eagerness with which scholars place him in the fasti of one year or another, it remains quite possible that he never held the post. The cursus of Scipio makes it likely that Scipio was born in 95, but his omission from the list of ill-starred aediles cannot be adduced as confirmation that he was born precisely in 95.

Since Scipio held the praetorship two years after his aedileship, he might have been praetor suo anno even if he took up the aedileship at age thirty-seven rather than thirty-six. The case is quite different with Domitius. He has been credited with a curule aedileship of 61, was praetor in 58, and consul in 54: even if he was aedile at the lowest legally permissible age, he would have reached the consulship at least one year late. How is the absence of Domitius from the list of ill-starred aediles to be explained? Domitius certainly failed to reach the consulship suo anno, but one might argue that his absence from the list reveals nothing about his age, and that he was passed over because Cicero did not deem his aedileship impressive. Since there is no direct evidence to the contrary, it is possible to maintain that Cicero judged the games of the curule aedile of 61 quite ordinary, but the argument would not be verisimilar: the ludi Romani of the curule aedile of 61 were still famous in the elder Pliny’s day, because of circus games in which 100 Numidian beasts faced 100 Ethiopian beast- fighters (NH 8.131). Although no record of the outcome of the contest is preserved, one supposes that some of the venatores lived to fight another day; at any rate, the important point is that the curule aedileship of 61 was both memorable and remembered.

Since the curule aedileship of 61 was splendid, we must find some other ground upon which the aedile was excluded from Cicero’s list. If the curule aedile of 61 was the famous L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who definitely reached the consulship late, he must have been excluded on the basis of his age at the time of his aedileship: he must have taken up the aedileship of 61 when aged at least thirty-eight, and so must have been born by 100; but we know from Caesar that Domitius was younger than Lentulus, and so not born before 100. In short, the combination of his cursus and the fact that he was younger than Lentulus means that Domitius was born in the period 100- 98; his omission from Cicero’s list is proof that he was born precisely in 100, if it be correct to identify the curule aedile of 61 with the famous L. Domitius Ahenobarbus.

Stated another way, if L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was born in 99 or 98 rather than 100, it would have been possible for him to be praetor and consul suo anno after serving as curule aedile in 61, and in that case he should have been enregistered among the ill- starred aediles, since his aedileship was splendid and his consulship was late. Doubt attaches to the service of Lucius in the aedileship because Solinus (26.10) alone provides the curule aedile of 61 with the praenominal initial ‘L.’; the text of Pliny (NH 8.131) denominates the aedile simply as ‘Domitius Ahenobarbus’. If L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was born in 99 or 98, then the curule aedile of 61 was another man, perhaps an older brother of L. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, named ‘Gnaeus’. This man might have reached the praetorship but never held the consulship,


— 92 —
and would have been included in Cicero’s list on this accounts11 unless he was at least thirty-eight at the beginning of 61, and so born by 100.

The identity of the curule aedile of 61 can never be placed beyond all doubt. The splendid aedile could be identical with the famous L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, but only if he was born precisely in 100; if the consul of 54 was born in 99 or 98, then he was not aedile in 61. Put another way, there is only a one-in- three chance that the consul of 54 was aedile in 61. Beyond simple mathematical probability, the fact that Domitius was quaestor in 6612 favors one of the lower birth-dates: if he was born in 100, he was quaestor three years late, and while a delay of one or two years does not seem to have been uncommon, a delay of three years would have been unusual.13 One might add that the ground upon which Lentulus laid claim to the chief pontificate, aetatis honorem, would be the more compelling if he had two or three years on Domitius, not merely one. It is then not certain, but nevertheless probable, that L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was born in 99 or 98, and that the curule aedile of 61 was another man.14

To insist that Domitius was born in 100 and that Scipio was born in 95 would be to sacrifice accuracy to precision; what emerges with certainty from the evidence of Cicero and Caesar is that neither Domitius nor Scipio was born before 100. Cicero inscribed the name of neither on his roll of ill-starred aediles, but from this fact all that can be known with certainty is that neither man both reached the consulship late and conducted a splendid aedileship. It is possible that each man held the aedileship too late to become praetor suo anno, but for their omission from the catalogue more cogent explanations are available. Scipio was probably born nearer 94 than 100. Scipio might have held the higher offices suo anno, in which case Cicero might have considered his aedileship splendid, or Cicero did not think that the aedileship of Scipio was splendid, in which case Scipio might have held the praetorship and consulship late. Domitius was probably born in 99 or 98, and so should have been included in Cicero’s list if identical with the curule aedile of 61: in all likelihood he

— 93 —
conducted an aedileship so devoid of splendor that every testimonium for it has perished, or he never held the aedileship at all, and was excluded from Cicero’s list on one ground or the other.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

Footnotes



1 This interpretation of off. 2.57-59, and the dates of the magistracies and the dates of birth of the men named there, is set out in another place: ‘Ten Ill-Starred Aediles’, Klio 78 (1996) 68-85.

Return to text

2 Though the point is not proved nor even implied by Cic. fam. 10.25.2, it is certain that a biennium between curule aedileship and praetorship was not mandatory in Cicero’s day; hence a man could be curule aedile at thirty-seven and praetor at thirty-nine. Cf. ‘The Biennium and the Curule Aedileship in the Late Republic’, Latomus (forthcoming).

Return to text

3 The year 61 is excluded by Dio 39.6.2. Cf. ‘The Praetorship of P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther’ (forthcoming).

Return to text

4 The RE articles on Domitius and Scipio neither cite BC 3.83 as bearing on the ages of these men, nor provide any comment at all on their birth-dates.

Return to text

5 His birth- date terminus would be 96 if he was a suffect aedile in 60, but he was not; cf. ‘The Quaestorship of Favonius and the Tribunate of Metellus Scipio’, Athenaeum 82 (1994) 505-21.

Return to text

6 T.R.S. Broughton, MRR 2.179, 560.

Return to text

7 Broughton, MRR 2.201, 207 n. 1, 540; 3.41-42.

Return to text

8 If he served as aedile, then he served as curule aedile: the bequest which required him to change his name did not change his agnatic standing (cf. C.F. Konrad, ‘Notes on Roman Also-Rans’, in Imperium sine Fine (Stuttgart 1996) 124-6); that he did not undergo adrogation in the curiate assembly after accepting his inheritance is shown by his service as interrex in 53 (cf. J. Linderski, ‘Q. Scipio Imperator’, ibid. 149). Since he remained a patrician, the curule aedileship alone was open to him.

Return to text

9 It is possible that Scipio held the aedileship suo anno in 57, that he was born early in 94, and that he was enabled to hold the praetorship and consulship in the calendar year prior to suus annus because the elections for 55 and for 52 were delayed beyond the end of the preceding year.

Return to text

10 In 57 Scipio gave a munus in honor of his adoptive father, not a workaday munus, but one dignum of both father and son (Cic. Sest. 124; cf. Schol. Bob. 137 St.); the aedilician expenditure of Cicero on the other hand was sane exiguus (off. 2.59).

Return to text

11 Scaurus was praetor suo anno, but was included in Cicero’s list because he never won the consulship.

Return to text

12 Cf. ‘The Date of the Quaestorship of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus’, Athenaeum 83 (1995) 270-4.

Return to text

13 P. Cornelius Lentulus Sura (q. 81, Cos. 71) was either thirty- two or thirty-three when he took up the quaestorship, M. Terentius Varro Lucullus (q. 81, Cos. 73) was thirty-five when he became quaestor, and a certain Cornelius (q. urb. in the period 49-44) was no less than forty-five; but the careers of the first two were delayed by the civil war, and the career of the third is obviously the sort of exception which can never prove a rule; cf. ‘The Minimum Age for the Quaestorship in the Late Republic’, MH 53 (1996) 37-43. L. Aemilius Paullus (q. 60/59, Cos. 50) would have been at least thirty-three upon entering office if he was quaestor in 59, but he was probably quaestor in 60.

Return to text

14 This paper provides the third occasion for comment on the curule aedile of 61. The conclusion has not changed, that the aedile was probably an older brother of Lucius named ‘Gnaeus’. At first it appeared that the exclusion of Lucius from off. 2.57 by itself proved that Lucius was not aedile in 61; cf. ‘Senate Intervenants in 61 B.C., and the Aedileship of L. Domitius Ahenobarbus’, Hermes 123 (1995) 88-90. Later it was recognized that his age might possibly explain his absence from the list; cf. ‘Ten Ill-Starred Aediles’ (above, n. 1) 75 n.15. Now that the upper terminus for the birth of Lucius has been determined, it is more likely than ever that he was only thirty-six or thirty-seven at the beginning of 61, and that he should be distinguished from the Domitius Ahenobarbus attested as aedile in 61.

 

[Aelia]

Отвечу позднее, когда прочту.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

Буду ждать.

 

[Aelia]

Интересная статья. Но, к сожалению, там ведь не приводятся доказательства в пользу того, что все перечисленные Цицероном были консулами не в свой год. За этими доказательствами нас отсылают к какой-то другой статье "Ten Ill-Starred Aediles", Klio 78 (1996) 68-85 А здесь это принимают за доказанное.

 

[Aelia]

Вот что мне не понравилось:
If L. Domitius Ahenobarbus was born in 99 or 98, then the curule aedile of 61 was another man, perhaps an older brother of L. Domitius Cn. f. Ahenobarbus, named ‘Gnaeus’. This man might have reached the praetorship but never held the consulship, and would have been included in Cicero’s list on this accounts11 unless he was at least thirty-eight at the beginning of 61, and so born by 100.
Что еще за Гней? У Броугтона никого такого нет. Точнее, у Луция Агенобарба действительно был старший брат Гней, но он погиб в Африке еще в гражданскую войну Суллы. Кстати, он был зятем Цинны. Больше никаких Гнеев Агенобарбов в это время я не наблюдаю.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

По-моему, в статье слишком много натяжек. Этот эдил 61 г. - наверняка наш Луций Агенобарб.
Смотрите:
эдил - 61 г.
претор - 58 г.
консул - 54 г., но известно, что он выставлял кандидатуру на 55 г.

 

[Aelia]

Да, я тоже так считаю. Не было там никаких других Агенобарбов. А Луций действительно был консулом не в свой год, это точно.

 

[Aelia]

Если все-таки двухлетний промежуток между эдилитетом и претурой был обязательным - тогда непонятно, почему Цицерон включил в свой список Лентула Спинтера. У него все как положено:
эдил в 63
претор в 60
консул в 57

Либо Лентул был консулом в свой год. Либо он был эдилом позже, чем положено - и тогда уже неважно, насколько блестящие игры он устроил, все равно стать консулом в свой год ему по-любому не светило.
Зачем тогда Цицерон его упомянул?

Я все-таки думаю, что just mentioned - это только Филипп, Котта и Курион. К тому же, других персонажей Цицерон упоминает не по порядку: после упоминания об эдилитете Лукуллов, Гортензия, Лентула, Скавра и других, Цицерон говорит о Помпее, устраивавшем зрелища во время второго консульства, и о Мамерке Лепиде, отказавшемся от эдилитета.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

Я тоже так думаю. Скорее всего, автор просто не разобрался в источнике (или автор той статьи, на которую он ссылается).

 

[Aelia]

Скорее всего, автор просто не разобрался в источнике (или автор той статьи, на которую он ссылается).

Я думаю, что эта статья - того же автора.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

Да, действительно...

 

[Aelia]

Consuls with a Delay Between the Praetorship and the Consulship (180-49 B.C.) Richard J. Evans (University of South Africa) The Ancient History Bulletin 4.3 (1990) 65-71
— 65 — In normal circumstances the minimum age requirement for the consulship was forty-two in the year of a candidate’s election (Cic. Phil. 5.48).1 Moreover, according to law and to mos maiorum, the consulship was held only after the office of praetor (Cic. Phil. 11.11);2 and between these two most senior magistracies in the cursus honorum an interval of two years or a biennium was obligatory.3 Discussion regarding the ages at which a Roman politician achieved high public office has, in the past, been wholly concerned with whether or not an individual managed to circumvent the various leges annales and become consul earlier than was usual.4 Even Cicero (Phil. 5.48) comments on the great deeds of men such as the elder Scipio Africanus and Titus Quinctius Flamininus who were consul while still comparatively young (‘adulescentes consules’). Indeed such has been the tendency among scholars, prompted understandably by the limitations of the sources, to concentrate on the outstanding and extraordinary careers of the so-called great men of the Republic that the vast majority of politicians have somehow become coralled into a rigid career pattern within which there was always conformity — or so it is assumed. Little attention has hitherto been paid, therefore, to the evidence which suggests that many political figures became consul later than the minimum age, and that some of these in fact experienced often considerable delays between the praetorship and the consulship. Thus in the first of two tables set out below, all consuls between 180 and 49 who are known to have been delayed between the praetorship and consulship are listed in chronological sequence. In the second table all those politicians who are known not to have experienced any delay are given. Praetorship and consulship dates are noted in both tables, and in Table I the number of years delay over and above the legally required biennium is also stated.
— 66 — TABLE I Consuls with Delays Between Praetorship and Consulship CONSUL PR COS DELAY
1.C. Calpurnius C.f. Piso 186 180 6 3
2.Q. Fulvius Cn.f. Flaccus 187 180 43
A. Postumius A.f. Albinus Luscus 185 180 24.
L. Manlius L.f. Acidinus Fulvianus 188 179 65.
M. Iunius M.f. Brutus 191 178 106.
A. Manlius Cn.f. Vulso 189 178 87.
Q. Petillius C.f. Spurinus 181 176 28.
P. Mucius Q.f. Scaevola 179 175 19.
Q. Mucius P.f. Scaevola 179 174 210.
Sp. Postumius A.f. Albinus 183 174 611.
L. Postumius A.f. Albinus 180 173 412.
P. Licinius C.f. Crassus 176 171 213.
A. Atilius C.f. Serranus 192 170 1914.
A. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus 180 170 715.
Cn. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio 174 169 216.
C. Licinius C.f. Crassus 172 168 117.
M. Iunius M.f. Pennus 172 167 218.
T. Manlius A.f. Torquatus 170 165 219.
M’. Iuventius T.f. Thalna 167 163 120.
C. Marcius C.f. Figulus 169 162 421.
Cn. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus 170 162 522.
L. Anicius L.f. Gallus 168 160 523.
A. Postumius A.f. Albinus 155 151 124.
M’. Manilius P.f. 155 149 325.
L. Calpurnius C.f. Piso Caesoninus 154 148 326.
L. Mummius L.f. 153 146 427.
Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Aemilianus 149 145 128.
L. Hostilius L.f. Mancinus 149 145 129.
Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba 151 144 430.
Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus 148 143 231.
C. Laelius C.f. 144 140 132.
M. Aemilius M.f. Lepidus Porcina 143 137 333.
Q. Calpurnius Cn.f. Piso 140 135 234.
L. Calpurnius L.f. Piso Frugi 138 133235.
L. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus7 137 130 436.
C. Fannius M.f. 127 1222
.L. Opimius Q.f. 125 121 138.
M. Aemilius M.f. Scaurus 119 115 139
.Cn. Papirius C.f. Carbo 117 113 140.C.
Caecilius Q.f. Metellus 117 113 141.
L. Cassius L.f. Longinus 111 107 142.
C. Marius C.f. 115 107 543.
P. Rutilius P.f. Rufus 118 105 10
44. Q. Lutatius Q.f. Catulus 109 102 4
45. M. Antonius M.f. 103 99 1
46. C. Coelius C.f. Caldus 99 94 2
47. L. Marcius Q.f. Philippus 95 91 1
48. L. Iulius L.f. Caesar 95 90 2
49. L. Cornelius L.f. Sulla 94 88 3
50. L. Valerius C.f. Flaccus 93 86 4
51. Cn. Papirius Cn.f. Carbo 89 85 1
52. C. Norbanus 87 83 1
53. Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Pius 89 80 6
54. Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher 89 79 7
55. P. Servilius C.f. Vatia 90 79 8
56. Mam. Aemilius Mam.f. Lepidus 81 77 1
57. C. Scribonius C.f. Curio 80 76 1
58. L. Licinius L.f. Lucullus 78 74 1
59. L. Gellius L.f. Poplicola 94 72 19
60. Cn. Aufidius Cn.f. Orestes 77 71 3
61. Q. Caecilius C.f. Metellus 74 69 2
62. L. Manlius L. f. Torquatus 69 65 1
63. L. Aurelius L.f. Cotta 70 65 2
64. D. Iunius M.f. Silanus 67 62 2
65. M. Pupius M.f. Piso Frugi 72 61 8
66. L. Afranius A.f. 71 60 8
67. Cn. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus 60 56 1
68. L. Marcius L.f. Philippus 62 56 3
69. L. Domitius Cn.f. Ahenobarbus 58 54 1
70. M. Valerius Messalla Rufus 62 53 6
71. Ser. Sulpicius Q.f. Rufus 65 51 11
72. L. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Crus 58 49 6
TABLE II Consuls with No Delay Between Praetorship and ConsulshipCONSULPRCOS
1. Q. Fulvius Q.f. Flaccus 182 179
2 C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher 180 177
3. Ti. Sempronius P.f. Gracchus 180 177
4. Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. Scipio 179 176
5. C. Valerius M.f. Laevinus 179 176
6. M. Popillius P.f. Laenas 176 173
— 68 — CONSULPRCOS
7. P. Aelius P.f. Ligus 175 172
8. C. Popillius P.f. Laenas 175 172
9. C. Cassius C.f. Longinus 174 171
10. Q. Aelius P.f. Paetus 170 167
11. C. Sulpicius C.f. Galus 169 166
12. M. Claudius M.f. Marcellus 169 166
13. Cn. Octavius Cn.f. 168 165
14. A. Manlius A.f. Torquatus 167 164
15. Q. Cassius L.f. Longinus 167 164
16. P. Cornelius P.f. Scipio Nasica 165 162
17. P. Cornelius L.f. Lentulus 165 162
18. L. Cornelius Cn.f. Lentulus Lupus 159 156
19. P. Mucius P.f. Scaevola 136 133
20. C. Sempronius C.f. Tuditanus 132 129
21. Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus 124 121
22. Q. Fabius Q.f. Maximus Eburnus 119 116
23. Ser. Sulpicius Ser.f. Galba 111 108
24. Q. Servilius Cn.f. Caepio 109 106
25. C. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher 95 92
26. Q. Pompeius Q.f. Rufus 91 88
27. M. Terentius M.f. Varro Lucullus 76 73
28. P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus Sura 74 71
29. Q. Hortensius L.f. 72 69
30. M’. Acilius M’.f. Glabrio 70 67
31. M. Tullius M.f. Cicero 66 63
32. C. Antonius M.f. 66 63
33. L. Licinius L.f. Murena 65 62
34. M. Valerius M.f. Messalla Niger 64 61
35. Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Celer 63 60
36. C. Iulius C.f. Caesar 62 59
37. M. Calpurnius C.f. Bibulus 62 59
38. Q. Caecilius Q.f. Metellus Nepos 60 57
39. P. Cornelius P.f. Lentulus 60 57
40. Ap. Claudius Ap.f. Pulcher 57 54
41. Cn. Domitius M.f. Calvinus 56 53
42.L. Aemilius M.f. Paullus Lepidus 53 50
After the consular iterations of twelve politicians are removed,8 the total number of consuls between 180 and 49 B.C. stands at two hundred and fifty-two.9 Of these seventy-two or
— 69 — 28.5% experienced a delay between the praetorship and the consulship, with a handful enduring a substantial and prolonged spell of inactivity before they achieved their ambitions.
Forty-two or 16.5% of consuls are certainly known to have progressed from the praetorship to the consulship within the minimum time prescribed under the law. Table I indicates, therefore, that rather fewer than one in three of successful candidates in consular elections were older than forty-two on reaching the most senior office of the res publica.
A study of this sort is, of course, hampered by the lack of information which characterises republican scholarship, and which means that neither Table I nor Table II will ever be complete. Nevertheless, a statistical analysis based on 45% of all consuls between 180 and 49 can arguably be expected to provide a reasonably firm base from which to advance some hypotheses. Thus, while it is possible that many or most of the politicians who fail to figure in the sources won their consulships immediately after the stipulated biennium, it is certainly plausible to suggest that consuls were, as often as not, older than the minimum age requirement. In support of this contention those years for which there is the most fully documented evidence deserve closer examination. Livy’s history breaks off in the mid-160s, but provides the names of praetors and consuls from 180 through to 162. Cicero’s works, frequently informative about elections, are available for the 60s and 50s. Thus if delayed and non-delayed consuls are compared in four decades: 179-170, 169-160, 69-60 and 59-50, the following emerges. In the 170s nine politicians obtained their consulships without a delay while eleven consuls (including one suffect) were delayed for between one and nineteen years over and above a biennium. In the 160s eight consuls were delayed for between one and five years while eight other consuls reached their office two years after their praetorships. No information exists for six consuls in this decade. In the 60s six consuls were delayed for between one and eight years, seven men won their consulships on time, and for the remaining seven no information is available. In the 50s five politicians were affected by a delay of between one and eleven years while seven consuls won their office without delay. The consular iterations of Pompey and Crassus have been excluded from this decade and for five consuls there is no information. This evidence may also be illustrated thus: 179/70 169/60 69/60 59/50 Consuls with delays 118 65 Consuls with no delay 98 77 No information available 0675 These results indicate beyond any doubt that a substantial number of consuls at any time were subject to delays in their careers.10 Equally clear is the fact that reverses were not confined to
— 70 — any ‘class’ among the senatorial order. It seems that nobody, whether patrician or plebeian, nobilis or novus homo, was immune from setbacks in his career. And while an extension to a provincial command, official senatorial business overseas, internecine strife, or even illness may account for a delay in a politician’s rise in the cursus honorum, a much more common factor affecting a man’s fortunes was the competitive nature of Roman politics for which both Cicero (Phil. 5.47: ‘Itaque maiores nostri veteres illi admodum antiqui leges annalis non habebant, quas multis post annis attulit ambitio, ut gradus essent petitionis inter aequalis’) and Livy (35.10.1-4, 37.47.6-8, 39.32.5-13, 40.37.4-7, 41.28.4) provide ample evidence. It is abundantly clear that there was often a surfeit of candidates in consular elections; and for those who suffered repulsae the setback could be serious, involving some in a long stay in the political wilderness. Of those politicians listed in Table I several are attested as having experienced one or more defeats in consular elections. Q. Fulvius Flaccus, suffect consul in 180, was one of the beaten candidates in the elections in 181, and had been defeated twice before (Liv. 40.37.6-7). Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, suffect consul in 162, is also likely to have been one of the losing contenders in 163. Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus narrowly clinched the consulship at the third attempt in 144 (Val. Max. 7.5.4; de Vir. Ill. 61.3). C. Laelius, consul in 140, was defeated by the novus homo Q. Pompeius in the elections in 142 (Cic. de Amic. 77). L. Opimius was defeat for the consulship of 122 by C. Fannius who was himself delayed before winning the consulship (Plut. C. Gracch. 11.2). M. Aemilius Scaurus, later princeps senatus, failed to win election to the consulship in 117, and, when a year later he was successful, he defeated P. Rutilius Rufus who had to wait another ten years until he too was eventually successful (Cic. pro Mur. 36; Brut. 113; de Orat. 2.280). Q. Lutatius Catulus became consul in 102 at the fourth attempt (Cic. pro Planc. 12), and L. Marcius Philippus, consul in 91, was defeated at his first attempt in 94 by M. Herennius (Cic. pro Mur. 36). Mam. Aemilius Lepidus Livianus, consul in 77, failed to win election in 79 since M. Aemilius Lepidus was preferred by the voters (Cic. de Off. 2.58). L. Aurelius Cotta, consul in 65, won his place by sucessfully prosecuting the winners of the electoral contest of 66 for ambitus (Sall. Cat. 18.5). D. Iunius Silanus, consul in 62, was probably the ‘Silanus’ mentioned by Cicero as a candidate in the elections in 65 (ad Att. 1.1.2). Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, consular candidate in 63, also tried to prosecute one of his more fortunate competitors, L. Licinius Murena, but failed and had to wait another eleven years for a second chance (Plut. Cato Min. 49-50). Finally L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, in his initial attempt at the consulship, was driven from the voting comitia by the supporters of Pompey and Crassus, who were seeking a second term as consuls (Cic. ad Att. 4.18a.2).
— 71 — Competition for the consulship was clearly very intense, and if that office was attained at all it was always as the result of supreme effort (Comm. Pet. 56: ‘Et plane sic contende omnibus nervis ac facultatibus ut adipiscamur quod petimus’). To be a Roman consul was surely the greatest honour imaginable to a politician whether he achieved his ambition at the earliest opportunity or after many setbacks. Still, to win this office, as Cicero did for 63, was indeed something to be proud of and his boasts (in Pis. 2; in Cat. 1.28; de leg. agr. 2.3-4; Brut 323; de Off. 2.59) celebrating that fact may now be placed in a somewhat more sympathetic context. No longer the pride sprung from the inferiority complex of a country gentleman made good in the city, but rather the celebration of a well-planned and well-fought assault on the pinnacle of the cursus. Cicero joined an illustrious set when he won his consulship suo anno, and all his public offices sine repulsa; in the light of the evidence presented here, it can be seen that he could be justly pleased with his endeavours.
Footnotes 1 A.E. Astin, ‘The Lex Annalis before Sulla’, Latomus 17 (1958) 59.
2 Astin (n.1, above) 63-64.
3 Liv. 40.44.1; Astin (n.1, above) 63: ‘a biennium was required at least between curule magistracies’, 63-64: ‘. . . previous tenure of the praetorship was a necessary qualification for the consulship’.
4 Thus A.E. Astin, ‘The Lex Annalis before Sulla’, Latomus 16 (1957) 609; id. (n.1, above) 51-56, with reference to earlier discussions; E. Badian, ‘Caesar’s cursus and the Interval between Offices’, JRS 49 (1959) 81-89.
5 For confirmation of names and dates consult T.R.S. Broughton, Magistrates of the Roman Republic, (New York 1951-52) Volumes 1-2, and Supplement Volume 3, (New York 1986).
6 The beginning of this study coincides with the lex Villia annalis which enforced age requirements for all curule magistracies. It is interesting to note, however, that a delay to a career was not a new phenomenon. Thus the plebeian consuls for 182 and 181, Cn. and M. Baebius Tamphilus, were very late in obtaining their consulships, having been praetor in 199 and 192 respectively. Lest anyone should imagine that patricians were more likely to win consulships ahead of plebeians, note that L. Aemilius Paullus, cos. 182, had been praetor in 191, and had campaigned on several occasions before he was successful.
7 The filiation as postulated by G.V. Sumner, The Orators in Cicero’s ‘Brutus’: Prosopography and Chronology, (Toronto 1973) 143.
8 The twelve are: Ti. Sempronius Gracchus, cos.II 163, C. Popillius Laenas, cos.II 158, C. Marcius Figulus, cos.II 156, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, cos.II 155, M. Claudius Marcellus, cos.II 155, cos.III 152, P. Cornelius Scipio Aemilianus, cos.II 134, C. Marius, cos.II-VI 104-100, cos.VII 86, L. Cornelius Cinna, cos.II-IV 86-84, Cn. Papirius Carbo, cos.II 84, cos.III 82, L. Cornelius Sulla, cos.II 80, M. Licinius Crassus, cos.II 55, Cn. Pompeius Magnus, cos.II 55, cos.III 52.
9 M. Aemilius Lepidus, cos.187, cos.II 175, Q. Marcius Philippus, cos.186, cos.II 169, and L. Aemilius Paullus, cos.182, cos.II 168, are treated here as if they held the consulship only once since their first tenure of this magistracy occurred before 180. The decision to treat these three politicians as ‘first-time’ consuls in 175, 169, and 168 has not, in my opinion, affected the results in either table of this examination.
10 Cicero, pro Planc. 51-52, gives the names of some politicians who suffered reversals at earlier stages in their careers: Ap. Claudius Pulcher, cos.79, L. Volcatius Tullus, cos. 66, M. Pupius Piso Frugi, cos.61, P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, cos.138, C. Marius, cos.107, Cn. Octavius, cos.87 or 76, and M. Tullius Decula, cos.81, all failed to secure the aedilate. P. Rutilius Rufus, cos.105, C. Flavius Fimbria, cos.104, C. Cassius Longinus, cos.96 or 73, and Cn. Aufidius Orestes, cos.71, failed to be elected to the tribunate, and C. Coelius Caldus, cos.94, was unsuccessful in his attempt to win the quaestorship. Several of these may have had no delay between praetorship and consulship, but may well have been older than forty-two in the year of their election as consul. Furthermore, it is evident that politicians such as L. Licinius Crassus and Q. Mucius Scaevola, consuls in 95, were older than forty-three in their consulships, Cic. Brut. 161, but do not figure in this particular discussion since they either entered on a political career a year or two late or experienced a delay prior to the praetorship. Note also D. Iunius Brutus, cos.77, son of the consul of 138, praetor perhaps in the late 90s, Sumner (n.7, above) 103; R.J. Evans, ‘Missing consuls 104-100 B.C.: a study in prosopography’, LCM 10 (1985) 77.

 

[Aelia]

Комментарий. Я не знаю, как интерпретировать последнюю колонку первой таблицы. Дело в том, что в имеющемся у меня варианте статью обе таблицы выглядят как сплошной текст без пробелов. Но мне удалось вычислсить, что во второй колонке идет дата претуры, в третьей - дата консульства. Что в четвертой - я не знаю. Вероятно, там не одно число, а два или три без проблема. Для консулов начиная с Рутилия Руфа это явно задержка. А вот что для предыдущих - непонятно. Видимо, задержка плюс какие-то еще числа.

 

[Sextus Pompey]

Может быть, номер примечаний?

 

[Aelia]

G.V. Sumner. Orators in Cicero's Brutus - о том, действительно ли для римских политиков так важно было занимать должности suo anno.

Evidence can easily be accumulated that many politicians, from nobiles to new men, were not particularly preoccupied with this consideration. Of those in the Register, observe, for example, C. Laelius (R 33), unsuccessful consular candidate for 141 (at least one year 'late'), Ser. Sulpicius Galba (R 3 5), cos. 144 (at least 4 years), L. Mummius (R 37), cos. 146 (at least 4 years), M'. Manilius (R 66), cos. 149 (at least 2 years), M. Aemilius Scaurus (R 6), unsuccessful consular candidate for 116 (at least 3 years), C. Memmius (R 97), assassinated consular candidate for 99 (at least I year, probably more), M. Antonius (R 103), pr. 102, cos. 99 (i year), L. Licinius Crassus (R 104) and Q. Mucius Scaevola (R 105), coss. 95 *(2 years), C. Claudius Pulcher (R 111), pr. 95, cos. 92 *(at least 1 year, probably more), C. Aurelius Cotta (R 143), cos. 75 *(6 years), C. Scribonius Curio (R 147), cos. 76 *(at least I year, probably 4 or 5), L. Licinius Lucullus (R 155), cos. 74 *(at least 1 year), Q. Hortensius Hortalus (R 171), pr. 72, cos. 69 *(2 years), M. Licinius Crassus (R 172), cos. 70 (at least 1 year), M. Pupius Piso (R 176), cos. 61 (at least 7 years), Q. Arrius (R 193), potential consular candidate for 58 (at least 3 years, possibly 12), P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther (R 210), pr. 60, cos. 57 *(at least I year), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (R 199), cos. 56 (at least I year, probably more), C. Memmius (R 200), unsuccessful consular candidate for 53 (at least 2 years), M. Claudius Marcellus (R 202), cos. 51 (at least I year), L. Cornelius Lentulus Crus (R 211), cos. 49 (at least 6 years). This list does not include cases where the interval after the aedileship in itself suggests "lateness" in reaching the higher offices. (* denotes men who, according to Cicero [De off. 2. 57-9], gave splendid games as aediles, yet did not reach the highest offices suo anno.)
It would take a remarkable and improbable plethora of repulsae to account for all these delayed careers, especially those of the eminent nobiles and outstanding non-nobiles in the list (e.g. Laelius, Antonius, the Crassi, Scaevola, Hortensius), if every candidate always tried to gain election suo anno.