BADIAN_Notes on a New List of Roman Senators

8/12/2019 BADIAN_Notes on a New List of Roman Senators

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/badiannotes-on-a-new-list-of-roman-senators 1/15

Notes on a New List of Roman SenatorsAuthor(s): E. BadianSource: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, Bd. 55 (1984), pp. 101-113Published by: Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184017 .Accessed: 12/09/2013 09:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn (Germany) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend accessto Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194 .214.27.178 on Thu, 12 Sep 20 13 09:13:34 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=habelt

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184017?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/20184017?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=habelt



101

NOTES ON A NEW LIST OF ROMAN SENATORS *

The publication of a new and much more complete text of the SC de

2Aphrodisiensibus in Joyce Reynolds's Aphrodisias and Rome (London 1982) has

added so much to the fragmentary list of (now) more than twenty senators who

scribendo adfuerunt that we may regard it as practically a new list. Miss

Reynolds's careful publication deserves our gratitude, and students of Roman

prosopography of the period will no doubt be working on, and with, this list

for a long time. This note aims at giving some preliminary comments on some

of the names, after an important preliminary warning. Only names where I have

something to add to the discussion in the book will be mentioned. Miss

Reynolds, in her commentary on the names, has numbered them, but not repeated

the line numbers. (See pp. 67-72.) I shall use her numbers, but, for the sake

of convenience, add the line numbers according to her transcription. Unfor

tunately two different characters have accidentally been numbered 12. I shall

assign them the numbers 12a (C Hedius Thorus) and 12b (L.?

Capito), so as

to be able to retain the rest of the numbers.

First, the preliminary warning. It must be noted that the drawing in

serted between pp. 54 and 55 is not up to the standard of the editor's dis

cussion. It is, in fact, so misleading that one cannot help wondering, at

times, whether the artist consulted a photo or squeeze while doing it. What

we are particularly concerned with here is the beginnings of the surviving

fragments of the lines containing the list: the left edge of the top frag

ment on the drawing. This is rendered in so arbitrary a fashion that in dis

cussing the names whose parts are lost in the gap at the beginning of the

lines the drawing ought simply to be ignored. Fortunately, Plate XIII offers

good photos of the right of the top course of the actual stone and of a

squeeze of what stood to the left of this. The squeeze, like many squeezes,

deteriorates round the edges, but both it and the photo seem to be of excel

lent quality, certainly good enough to control the fanciful drawing. (Indi

vidual differences will be mentioned where they matter here.)

1. My thanks are due to the generous hospitality of the German Archaeo

logical Institute in Berlin, at whose G?stehaus this was written as a

parergon of a short stay; to Professor Dr. Walter Eder, for ready help with

books; and to Professor T.P. Wiseman, for checking the final draft and pre

serving me from some errors and infelicities. (He bears no responsibility,of course, for those which remain.)

2. Document 8, pp. 54-91, with Plates XIII and XIV (for the part here

treated). The illustrations are of unusually good quality. For the physicalfacts regarding the text, Reynolds's careful introductory discussion should

be consulted.







102 E. Badi?n

Obviously, no akribeia should be claimed for suggestions based on these

aids, whatever their quality. But the suggestions are nonetheless worth

making, to be checked (in due course) by those with access to the stone.

Next, a general point about how to approach the beginning of these

lines when trying to restore the names. The obvious step seems to be to take

names of which the supplement is certain and work back from them to those

largely conjectural. Now, it will be seen that the only name that may be

regarded as certain is that of C Hedius Thorus: as Reynolds points out, it

is assured by the SC de Panamareis (RDGE 27), where it survives undamaged.

At the end of a line, in a document of this sort, one can never be sure how

close to the right edge the mason stopped, since there is not necessarily an

even margin (see, e.g., line 8). But at the beginning of a line we must

assume that a proper margin would be observed and that the mason would align

the first letters as best he could. Of course, there are known cases of a

vacat at the beginning of a line for no discernible reason. But they are

very few, and it is never proper method to assume one in the one line, out

of a large number, that can be confidently restored?

not unless there is

evidence making such an assumption inescapable. (There is none at all here.)

Hence the name of C Hedius Thorus provides a firm starting-point for supple

menting the other names partly lost in the gap.

Reynolds, of course, correctlyrestores his

name,but

then, oddly,remarks that this gives rather a short line compared with the others she has

restored (to be precise, since the total length of line is not relevant:

rather a short supplement at the beginning of line 9, compared with her

others). But the answer is surely that the other supplements must be reduced

to fit in with this one, within the limits of permissible irregularity on

this stone. That the first line was clearly laid out quite differently on

the left (and, strictly speaking, we do not know what ? or how much ? to

restore in lines 2 and 3) does not affect the list of witnesses, which is

consistent within itself and should be treated as having been engraved with

a regular margin.

Comments on individual names follow.

7 (lines 6-7): Whether (as Reynolds suggests) Syme hinted at identifying

this man with L. Sergius, the associate of Catiline (Cic. dorn. 13f.), as a

L. Sergius Plautus is debatable, though it does not matter much. Syme very

properly stressed (Roman Papers I 286) that there is no evidence for the

Sergii Plauti of Imperial times as early as this, and that the man in our

text should not, at any rate, be identified with the corrupt senatorial

juror Plautus, mentioned by Cicero in another context. Nor may the juror be

identified with Catiline's associate, since among all the crimes of which

Cicero accuses Sergius there is not a word about judicial corruption. Thus







Notes on a New List of Roman Senators 103

there is no reason to assign upper-class status to Catiline's mob leader,

taken over by P. Clodius. Similarly, his associate M. Lollius is presumably

not a member, but a freedman, of the senatorial Lollii. These men are accused

of leading attacks on the Senate from outside, and they belong with the likes

of the doubly infamous Sex. Cloelius and of Q. Sextilius. Sergius should

obviously be regarded as a freedman of Catiline, as he is by M?nzer (RE, s.

v. 15).

Hence the henchman of Catiline and Clodius should not be rashly identi

fied with the senator in this text. Admittedly, at this one period of Roman

history, servile birth would not necessarily have been an absolute bar to

his obtaining that status, if he had made himself useful to powerful friends.

In that case, it could be assumed that he had arrogated an aristocratic

cognomen? an action which, even before the Civil Wars, was apparently not

4regarded as utterly inconceivable. But it would nonetheless be safer, unless

powerful evidence to the contrary should turn up, to regard this man as a

character not previously known to us, even though a praetor in the fifties.

That is, alas, far from impossible. We know remarkably few of the praetors

of that (by the standards of the Roman Republic) very well documented period,

and almost every major new document proves our ignorance of senators of the

age of Caesar and Cicero (there are several new names on this list), and of

the careers of those we do know.

That this man is a Sergius Plautus should, however, not be seriously

doubted. There is simply no other likely name that will fit. M. Serrius M.f.,

of Sherk, RDGE 12, line 41, should be mentioned for the sake of completeness,

but in view of the difference in praenomina is presumably irrelevant. How

ever, that he cannot be L.f. (as Reynolds conjectures) seems clear, and it

is only the inaccuracy of the drawing that conceals it. In the drawing, the

letter 0, at the beginning of Plautus' tribe Falerna, in line 7, is aligned

with the first letter (K) of C Hedius Thorus* tribe Claudia, two lines

below; even so, the filiation L.f. can hardly be accommodated. Plate XIII

shows that the O is in fact pretty well aligned with the preceding letter?

the final S of YIOS in Thorus1 filiation? so that we must deduct one

moderate-sized letter-space from what the drawing shows for the filiation of

Plautus. It will at once be seen that only a short praenomen (Aulus, Gaius,

Titus) can be considered.

3. Sex. Cloelius is notorious not only for the part he played in political terrorism, but because of his prolonged and persistent disguise as

'Sex. Clodius1 in modern scholarship. (On the persistence, see D.R. Shackle

ton Bailey, who had first revealed his true name, in Ciceroniana n.s. 1

(1973) 23ff.) On Q. Sextilius, on the other side in political terrorism, see

AJPh 101 (1981) 107: in his case, unlike that of L. Sergius, M?nzer failedto recognise the man's class.

4. See, e.g., Cicero's charges (whether true or not) against two of his

enemies, Aelius Ligus and Sex. Atilius Serranus (Sest. 69 and 72).







104 E. Badi?n

As Reynolds carefully points out, a C Sergius Plautus has, in fact,

long been known. He appears as praetor in 200 B.C. (RE, s.v. 36) in texts of

Livy, though the tradition is apparently not unanimous on the form of the

name: it is said to appear in this form in 31,4,4, but to have been restored

by emendation (which, in principle, could have been done the other way) in

31,6,2. A reconstructed L. Sergius Plautus on our stone may now be taken as

both legitimising the old conjecture and deriving a needed patronymic from

that distant ancestor: the restoration L. Sergius Cf. Fal. Plautus seems to

me all but certain. Whether this family is related to the Sergii Plauti of

the Empire will now have to be argued afresh; but it would take us too far

in this place.

8 (line 7): C M? Pom. The conjecture C Messius, modestly described as 'a

very long shot1, is attributed to T.P. Wiseman by Reynolds. It is indeed at

tractive in various ways and can gain rather unexpected support from Cicero;

but in the end it seems to me doubtful whether it can be maintained. The

argument, however, must be set out in full, so that others may be able to

debate the question further.

We are obviously looking for a man with the right praenomen and first

letter of the nomen, and lacking a cognomen. Moreover, C Messius was a col

league of P. Sestius in the tribunate in 57, and association here would be

an easy conjecture. As to the tribe, that depends on a complex argument that

must be approached circuitously.

In 55, C Messius was aedile, and he was prosecuted in connection with

his election to this office, it seems, under the lex de sodaliciis passed by

M. Crassus in his second consulship in 55, clearly ex senatus consulto. He

was recalled for trial when about to join Caesar in Gaul, late in July 54.

The law of Crassus provided for the prosecutor to select four tribes (the

defendant could then reject one of them), from which the jurors were to ben

chosen. A short time after C Messius' case, Cicero had to defend Cn. Plan

cius on a similar charge; and he complains that the prosecutor has violated

the spirit of the law by not selecting any tribe that has any connection

with the defendant. It had been the Senate's intention (he claims) in devis

ing this odd procedure that the tribes most closely associated with the ac

5. See MRR I 323 and 326 n. 2 (not entirely clear). To judge by theolder editions, the name appears as Plautus the first time and as Plancus

the second. But A.H. McDonald's Oxford text gives Plautus in both passagesand has no textual note on it. I have not been able to follow this up, and

it no longer matters, except to specialists in Livy's text.

6. See MRR II 216.Perhaps, however,

curule aedile,despite

MRR's argument: see Shackleton Bailey's note on Cic. Att. 4,15,9.

7. Cic. Plane. 36ff. gives the only full description of this unique

procedure.








cused, and most likely to have been solicited and corrupted by him, should

be chosen to try him, because they would be most likely to know the facts of

the case. Hortensius, speaking as one who had been a principal auctor of the

law in the Senate, had earlier appeared for the defence and had confirmed

this interpretation.

This was obviously special pleading by two advocates for Plancius' de

fence. It is difficult to believe that this had indeed been the intention

behind the law. But what we must believe is that they both made this point

and that Hortensius asserted special auctoritas in the matter, as Cicero re

ports. We must also believe that what was asserted to have been the Senate's

intention corresponded to what the jury knew to have been recent practice.

In other words, it must in fact have been true that at least one or two

tribes close to the accused had been included among those selected in recent

cases ? even if we may be inclined to ascribe this to the general omert? of

the Roman upper class, which would insist on giving its own members a fair

chance. Had it not been true in fact, then Cicero could not have made such a

major issue out of this argument and developed it at such length: had it

been simply silly, it would have been self-defeating and would merely have

damaged his client. (It is relevant to remember that, although no one tells

us so, it is safe to assume that Plancius was acquitted, since Cicero pub

lished hisspeech.)

Now, the case of Plancius was tried in late August or early Septemberoof 54. The case of Messius had come to trial about a month before, as we

noted; and there must have been other cases as well. We must therefore as

sume that cases like that of Messius would be well remembered by the jury

(for these prosecutions were among the major events of political life), and

that they must at least to some extent have fitted in with the 'principle'

developed by Cicero.

In the case of Plancius, he argues that the first tribe it would have

been aequum and exspectatum to select would have been Teretina ? which was

Plancius' own tribe (for he came from Atina). As it happens, Cicero gives,

in order, the three tribes that were to try Messius a month before (we doQ

not know the one he had rejected): they are Pomptina, Velina, Maecia. It is

a tempting conclusion that Pomptina was Messius' own tribe. And since our

man, according to the transcription of the text, has this tribe, this would

strongly support the proposed identification: it would join the indications

for it that we noted above, and one might argue that mere coincidence could

be excluded.

8. See the dating in Gelzer, Cicero 198f.

9. Cic. Att. 4,15,9 is the only source on the trial and (unfortunatelyfor the historian) deals only with this preliminary stage.










designate followed consulars (as M. Valerius Messalla's place shows). But I

have set out the relevant facts as fully as possible, in case an explanation

that has eluded me can be found by a colleague.

However, the actual reading must first be verified. Without the tribe,

there would be no really strong argument for the identification of C M?

with Messius, and we could abandon it instead of wondering whether it might

be made acceptable. The tribe is therefore crucial. The drawing shows half

an omega clearly present as the first surviving letter. In view of the gene

ral quality of that drawing, this cannot be regarded as trustworthy evidence.

I have been unable to see any trace of this letter either on the photo of

the text of the second part of the line or on the photo of the squeeze (?)

of the first part of the line in Plate XIII. This point can only be cleared

up on the stone and the squeeze, and I hope that, now that the question has

arisen and its importance recognised, this will be urgently done. It is

interesting that in Reynolds's transcription the omega is dotted: in view of

the care normally shown in the transcription, this suggests that the drawing

is once again seriously misleading; for if the traces were as there shown,

the letter should not be dotted.

If it should turn out that the omega is not actually secure, then we

should think about the whole matter again and give up the idea of identifying

C M? with Messius. One obvious candidate for identification, in that case,

would be C Marius Tromentina (which would have an omicron)?

father (we

might assume) of a monetalis who appears in the next generation (RE, s.v.

18). That family might be conjectured to come from Aesernia, where Marii are

plentiful. (But, of course, the name is too common for certainty.)

In any case, it is to be hoped that the facts about this letter, on

which so much depends, will soon be made available, preferably with a good

photo of the letter itself.

Meanwhile, as an appendix to this discussion, it ought perhaps to be

noted that M?nzer thought C Messius a Campanian (which would exclude Pomp

tina), since other Messii can be localised there. This might only show, once

again, that conjectures of this kind, however well-founded they may be and

however eminent their authors, can be overthrown by the first piece of solid

evidence that turns up. On the other hand, so far no Messii have (to my

knowledge) been found in Pomptina towns, to set against those cited by

M?nzer. Again: much hinges on the identity of this one man, and in fact on

the exact traces of a single letter.

9 (lines 7-8): Cn. Asinius Cn.f. We have already found this stone interact

ingwith historical literature

(seeon no. 7

above).Here we find it inter

acting with poetry. Reynolds identifies this man with 'Marrucinus ..., elder

brother of Asinius Pollio who was consul in 40'. His lower rank is rightly







108 E. Badi?n

explained as due to his being 'politically undistinguished'. (As he stands

just above P. Sestius, he is presumably a praetor of the middle or late

fifties who hascertainly got

nofurther.)

If wemay indulge

in fanciful

projection from Catullus 12, it is just possible that his powerful brother

did not like him enough to press for his advancement.

However, what is important is that this text yields two facts about

Catullus' friend and Pollio's brother. First, that he was indeed the elder.

This cannot be deduced from Catullus 12, for the addressee of the poem may

be no less puer than his brother. Nor does it irrefutably follow from his

bearing his father's praenomen, though that makes it probable and it was a

legitimate suggestion. (No more, since we know many cases of a younger

brother named after the father, presumably because an eldest son died in in

fancy.) However, C Asinius Pollio was praetor only in 45 (MRR II 306); so

we may regard the point as settled.

So, although only negatively, is the matter of his cognomen. Reynolds

unquestioningly calls him Marrucinus, although she admits that there is no

room for that name on the stone. She thinks it has been omitted; but it will

not do to assume that a cognomen has been omitted on this stone, for most

men are given one and not one certainly used is omitted. (This, indeed, is

to be expected by this period.) Marrucinus' had in fact been far from certain,

though long conventionally repeated. Klebs ignored it (RE, s.v. 1), and

perceptive critics have pointed out that the emphatic initial vocative is due

to the poet's emphasis on the addressee's 'rustic' behaviour {s?rdida and

inuenusta) , by contrast with his brother's polite wit. The most that could

hitherto be maintained (though literary commentators have rarely worried

about akribeia) was that Asinius' having that cognomen was not excluded:

Catullus might well have used his actual name in this way, to point the irony.

Our text has now at last settled the question, and it is to be hoped that

commentators on Catullus 12 will be informed. Cn. Asinius did not have the

name Marrucinus. It cannot even be maintained that he perhaps had it, but

allowed it to be omitted. Reynolds thinks that the available space is

'reasonably well filled' without a cognomen. I fear she must have been misled

by her unquestioning assumption that no other name was conceivable. In fact,

even the drawing shows a space of 5 letters vacant at this point; inaccurate

as usual, it understates. The photo shows that the n that begins the next

name in line 8 is precisely aligned with two letters we have had to discuss

before: the 0 of Plautus' tribe Falerna and the final E of Thorus' filiation.

The latter (our yardstick here) shows that we have c. 6 letters for Asinius'

cognomen? far too much to have been left blank; though it excludes Marru

15cinus and, for that matter, Pollio. We must be content to exclude, and at

15. The latter was hardly to be expected, as Catullus seems to use the

name in order to distinguish the younger brother. It was in any case not a








least to have measured the physical extent of our ignorance. No guess can be

advanced. Yet epigraphy?

not for the first time?

has shed some light on

a poet's technique.

12b (line 9): L. ? Arn. Capito. Reynolds hesitantly suggests that he is not

connected (i.e., not to be identified?) with L. Ateius Capito, a quaestorian

known from Caelius' lists of witnesses to two senatus consulta in 51 (Cic.

Fam. 8,8,5-6), 'since the known Ateius Capito was tribu Aniensi, as Profes

sor Syme warns me'. This man is presumably a recent praetorian (especially

since praetorships were cheap during the Civil Wars), and that would fit the

career of the quaestorian of 51 as well as the family stemma: the quaestorian

known from Caelius' lists has always been identified as the father of the2

consul of A.D. 5 (PIR I A1279), who reached the praetorship (Tac. Ann.

3,75,1). Before we discuss this further, we must consider a really basic ob

jection raised by Reynolds: if 'the space available [for the name] is very

small' (on p. 57 she calculates it as c. 9 letters for nomen plus father's

praenomen), that would irrefutably exclude L. Ateius Capito, no matter what

the tribe. Nor is the fact that the space looks larger on the drawing a

serious argument. The photo of the squeeze, on which I must therefore depend,

is hard to use at this point. Nonetheless (and I must say this with all due

caution),it seems to show rather more than has been

putinto the transcribed

text, viz. the letters KI (hardly even needing dots) belonging to the prae

nomen AEYKI[0S], standing in an alignment about half a space to the right of

the AEYKIOY in the line above. If this reading should be confirmed by those

with access to the stone and the squeeze (and perhaps even seen by others on

this photo), then, since we can estimate the space between that AEYKIOY and

the final S which, on the Plate, is the only letter visible of Cn. Pompeius'

praenomen at (clearly) 17 letters, and the fragment in the line just below,

which is the one we are investigating, starts (if I have seen it correctly)

one space earlier to the left (it offers the last two letters (OS) of Capi

to's filiation, with the S aligned with that of Pompeius' praenomen), 17

letters can readily be fitted into the gap in Capito's name. Since only two

(YI) are needed to complete the filiation and (on my reading) only two (OS)

to complete the praenomen, we have about 13 letters left for nomen plus

father's praenomen, instead of the c. 9 that Reynolds estimated. Even if my

suggested reading should not be confirmed, I think it will be found that her

estimate is much too low. If this man is Ateius, then 13 letters are requir

ed in this gap: ATEIOSAEYKIOY (the praenomen, of course, would be given by

family cognomen, since C Asinius Pollio did not pass it on to any of his

sons:?it was only his son Gallus who bestowed it on a son of his own (seePIR I p. 253). It is here mentioned only for the sake of completeness. (Allthis was seen by Klebs, I.e.)







110E. Badi?n

the filiation of the consul of A.D. 5, whose grandfather was Lucius). And

given the irregularity of the lettering, which hardly permits us to quibble

even over an approximation, in such a long gap, this is a remarkable.

I think the technical objection, from the amount of space available for the

name, can be overcome.

We must now more closely inspect the tribe, here given as Arnensis. It

is here written, correctly, APNHSSIE; but just above, APNIHSEIS. (See

Reynolds's comment on no. 11: it is certainly odd that it should be written

differently on the same stone.) In both cases the same tribe was intended?

or so we must presume. But we have no way of telling whether the mason (or

his ordinator, if a different person) had ever heard of Aniensis, or knew

the difference between the two. Since he wasextremely

careless incopying

and knew nothing about Roman nomenclature (see Reynolds's comments on nos.

2,3 and 6), it would have been a relatively trivial offence for him to have

confused these two tribes, which he evidently did confuse in his actual

spelling. Of course, the manuscripts of Cic. Fam. are also less than impres1 6

sive: these same two sections (8,5-6) contain innumerable errors over names

and the fact that the tradition offers An. for the tribe of Capito would not

by itself carry much weight. It is therefore very useful to have epigraphic17

confirmation, and there is no doubt about what should be the correct tribe.

But in view of all the considerations set out above, I would have no hesita

tion in conjecturally restoring the name of L. Ateius Capito here, in a place

that seems to suit him. (See also on no. 18 below.)

16 (line 10): Reynolds seems to hanker after a Pomponius Rufu? for this -nius

Arn. Rufus, suggesting that, although that family seems to be firmly attested

in another tribe, the mason may have engraved 'Pomponius' here for a 'Pom

peius', who would in fact be in his correct tribe. She only mentions this as

a random suggestion, without laying any weight on it. But in point of method

it should simply not be considered at all. The cognomen is far too common for

us to be justified in tying it to any particular family, and the tribe is not

of the rarest. In fact, the cognomen is of the kind that could be added as

an individual name (in which case it might or might not get into official

documents) where it was not a family cognomen: see, e.g., M. Valerius Messal

la 'Rufus', or C Sempronius Rufus (RE, s.v. 79). To draw a senatorial family

at random, we find the cognomen among the Annii (a consul of 128 B.C.), and18

a branch of the family is attested in Arnensis. Although I am not suggest

16. See Shackleton Bailey's comments ad loc. (no. 84 in his edition).

17. See AE 1978, no. 145: he served on the commission for recording thetext of that important SC.

18. See L.R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (1960)p. 190.









112 E. Badi?n

of Sherk, RDGE 27, lines 10-11. The identity of tribe (Fabia) and presumablyof cognomen (unique among senatorial families in the Republic) seems to war

rant identification. Both the texts are careless in detail and full of spel

ling errors and the slight variation in the cognomen is insignificant. The

difference in nomen is a more serious matter. But in view of the appalling

carelessness shown by the engraver of this text (see, again, comments by

Reynolds on 2, 3 and 6, and add my comments on 12b and 19), the obstacle is

not insuperable. I have not been able to find a photo (or even a reference

to one) of RDGE 27: if at all possible, the nomen should be checked on that

text (not very well published) before we can say much more. But the cognomen

was presumably correctly transcribed (it would be difficult to misread N for

NN), and this must account for the editors' transcription 'Turanus', which

Sherk took over from his predecessors. It is difficult to make sense of that

name, and of its spelling in the Greek. On the other hand, the TYPANNOS of

fered by the present text makes a perfectly acceptable version of 'Tyrannus',

which should have been conjectured in RDGE long ago. The hybrid 'Turannus'

should certainly be discarded.

Harvard University E. Badi?n

20. To be quite precise, it should be noted that what survives on this

stone is ]?INNI0E: we do not know what stood before, except that there

appear to have been two letters. 'Licinius' is certainly a reasonable resto

ration. But it should be pointed out, for the sake of completeness, that two

T. Sicinii (RE, s.v. 13 and 14) are prominent in the early Republic, and

that Sicinii (though, as far as we know, no T. Sicinii) were in the Senate

in the late Republic (see RE, s.v. 3, 9, 12). However, there were no T. Li

cinii known before this text, and it is an obvious conjecture that the mason

repeated the name he had engraved three lines before (no. 13) in error for a

similar-looking one. If so, T. Atinius (as in RDGE 27) has a better chance

of being correct. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that T. Lici

nius T.f. must himself be a little suspect, although there is obviously

nothing we can do about him.








?S&

uXIHM-l

idEH

s







TAFEL I

m

b)

a) P. Strasb. inv. 2676 Bd (vergr??ert); zu W. Luppe S. 7f.

b) c) Senatus consultum de Aphrodisiensibus; zu E. Badi?n S. 10 Iff.

Documents

BADIAN_Notes on a New List of Roman Senators