We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In her recent discussion of ILLRP 311 Kirsteen Moir draws attention to the discrepancy between the epitaph's apparent claim that young Publius had before him a brilliant career, had he but survived, and the description which Cicero provides of Africanus' son, Publius, who is usually identified, with varying degrees of conviction, as the subject of this inscription. As Moir points out, the son of Africanus, though remarkably erudite, was incapacitated by poor health from achieving the military and political distinction predicted by the necrology. Within the actual text of this inscription, one might add, there is another discrepancy: the Publius here commemorated was flamen Dialis, and the taboos which restricted the daily life of the priest of Jupiter effectively barred him, regardless of his powers or inclination, from fulfilling the promise voiced by his memorial. Moir proposes a solution which will solve both problems. She suggests that the gloria to which Publius could look forward was literary celebrity. The son of Africanus, after all, composed works known and read by Cicero a century later, works which documented his literary capabilities. Such attainment was well within the grasp of the flamen Dialis. And this interpretation of the inscription, if correct, would solve both discrepancies.
1 Moir, K. M., ‘The Epitaph of Publius Scipio’, CQ 36 (1986), 264–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The only serious challenge to the traditional identificaton is that of Sumner, G. V., The Orators in Cicero's Brutus (Toronto, 1973), pp. 36–7Google Scholar, whose arguments, based primarily upon chronological considerations, are countered by Moir. This is not to say that Sumner is necessarily wrong; rather, as Moir demonstrates, chronology is not the means to settling the issue. Cicero on Publius Africani f.: Sen. 35; Off. 1.121; Brutus 77.
2 Velleius (1.10.3) also mentions Publius' vigor eloquentiae. Publius was an historian (Schanz-Hosius 1.176), which renders Cicero's positive judgement of his style all the more remarkable (cf. De orat. 2.51ff.; Leg. 1.6–7).
3 ILLRP 314, the epitaph of Cornelius Scipio Asiagenus, who died at sixteen, is succinct.
4 e.g. CIL 1.12.15; Plaut, . Trin. 642f.Google Scholar; 655f.; Cic. Off. 1.116; Verr. 2.79; Livy 1.22.2.
5 Das Denkmal als Garant des Nachruhms: eine Studie zu einem Motiv in lateinische Inschriften (Zetemata 75: Munich, 1980), 106Google Scholar.
6 This quality, even if present, does not justify the introduction of Ennius as the (possible) author of the epitaph.
7 Subjectivity, though unavoidable and even necessary, is extremely problematic in the reading of Latin epitaphs. See Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge, 1983), 220–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 That ingenium is used only here in the Scipionic epitaphs is not per se relevant; the same can be said for fama and gloria. But the word's overall rarity in Latin inscriptions is noteworthy.
9 e.g. Lucr. 2.11; Cic, . Top. 73Google Scholar; Fin. 5.69; Livy 4.3.12. See Hellegouarc'h, J., Le Vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la république (Paris, 1963), 298Google Scholar.
10 The Moral and Political Tradition of Rome (Ithaca, 1967), 52–3Google Scholar.
11 Such as painting and singing (see below).
12 I have relied on the indices verborum to each volume. The count of sixteen does not include Publius' epitaph (CIL i2. 10). The sixteen are CIL i2. 1547; 1732; CIL vi. 1724; 1759; 6182; 7898; 7946; 9649; 14831; 19007; 22112; 25982; 30134; 32031; 33929; 33976.
13 CIL vi. 30134 is too fragmentary to reveal the age of its subject.
14 CIL vi. 6182; 7898; 7946 (21 years of age, but buried by his parents); 9649; 14831 (two brothers who died ‘ante suos annos’ and were buried by their mother); 19007; 22112; 25982; 33929; 33976. Of the exceptions to this trend, two are interesting: CIL vi. 1724 and 1759, both of which are very late, use ingenium with a youthful association (1724: ‘…a crepundiis…ingenium…exercuit’; 1759: ‘…cuius primaevitas officio sedis urbanae advocationis exercito fidem iuncxit ingenio…’). (Two other inscriptions known to me fit the trend of these ten, viz. CIL xi.3194 and CIL xii.765, but they do not come to me from a systematic review of either volume.)
15 TLL 7.1423–4.
16 e.g. CIL vi.7946 (singing); CIL vi.1724 (swordplay).
17 CIL vi.33976. Selections from the departed's poetry are appended in order to prove his talent.
18 Buecheler, F., Kl. Schr. i (reprint Osnabriick, 1965), 381–2Google Scholar.
19 Cf. ILLRP 314. Publius is the only flamen Dialis of the republican period for whom there is any epigraphic evidence at all, so no pattern can be known. Coarelli's belief (DdA 6 [1972], 86) that for the tombs of Scipio Barbatus and his son the painted titulus and the epigram are necessary complements does not accord with the evidence since the epitaphs provide all the information (though admittedly with less chronological precision) conveyed by their respective tituli.
20 Szemler, G. J., The Priests of the Roman Republic (Brussels, 1972), 96–7Google Scholar. M. Cornelius Cethegus (cos. 204) was forced to resign as flamen Dialis in 223, then went on to become pontifex in 213 and, ultimately, consul.
21 Livy 40.42.11.
22 C. Valerius Flaccus (pr. 183) was forced against his will to become flamen Dialis by P. Licinius Crassus Dives, who was Pontifex Maximus 212–183. The incident is recorded by Livy (27.8.4–10) and Val. Max. (6.9.3). Münzer, F., RE 8A (1955), 4–6Google Scholar considered Licinius' action a purely political manoeuvre, while Szemler, , op. cit., 98–9Google Scholar, argues that ‘tradition-based considerations prevailed’. Valerius' irresponsibility made him an acceptable choice from his family's perspective. The reforming effect of the priesthood was evidently serendipity. Politics were clearly at play in the nomination of Julius Caesar for the flaminate, but Caesar, so far as we know, was not openly unwilling; see Gelzer, M., Caesar: Politician and Statesman, trans. Needham, P. (Cambridge, MA, 1968), 19–21Google Scholar.
23 Family history in Rome was notorious for falsification: Cic, . Brut. 62Google Scholar; Livy 8.40.4; Sen. Suas. 6.21.
24 DdA 6 (1972), 36–106Google Scholar. Coarelli believes that the first line of ILLRP 311 was added during this process, op. cit. 95. As Coarelli points out, Aemilianus was not the first to practice revision on this mausoleum.
25 Livy 40.42.13.
26 Hahm, D. E., TAPA 94 (1963), 75Google Scholar. It is the unusualness of the dual priesthoods which decides Sumner, , op. cit. 36Google Scholar. Szemler, , op. cit. 142Google Scholar, in arguing against the identification, seems also to reject the possibility.
27 We may assume that the son of Africanus, if he is the flamen Dialis, was not flamen in 180 when he was coopted as augur, otherwise Livy would surely have included that information (Livy 40.42.13).
28 Hahm, , op. cit. 73–85Google Scholar. Again, the augurate might have found mention in a titulus.
29 Moir, , op. cit. 265Google Scholar.
30 Moir suggests that honos in the inscription might refer to the augurate, which is possible, but imprecise to say the least.
31 Publius Africani f., though only potentially ‘disertus’ in Cicero's Brutus (77), possessed vigor eloquentiae in the view of Velleius and could claim at least the hope of gloria dicendi in his epitaph. Gloria dicendi was clearly an aristocratic virtue: e.g. Livy 30.1.5; Pliny, NH 7.139.3. On the prestige of the augurate see Szemler, , op. cit. 21–6, with further referencesGoogle Scholar.
32 Hahm, op. cit.
