Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:22:19.153Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nundinae and The Chronology of the Late Roman Republic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. W. Lintott
A. W. Lintott
Affiliation:
King's College, Aberdeen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In a previous article (C.Q. N.S. xv [1965], 281 ff.) I argued that the promulgatio trinundinum, regularly necessary before a vote in a legislative assembly, an election, or a iudicium populi during the late Roman Republic, was not the declaration of an interval of time (either seventeen or twenty-four days) but a publication of the proposed business which had to be made over three market-days or nundinae. These market-days occurred continuously at eight-day intervals, and no fresh start was made at the beginning of a year or other period. So the identification of nundinae near the time when a law or other piece of public business was being transacted should provide evidence for or against my view, and further, if this view is sound, suggest more precisely the dates on which certain events occurred.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , May 1968 , pp. 189 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 189 note 1 Ancient sources: Macrobius, 13–14Google Scholar; Censorinus, , 18–20.Google Scholar Of modern authorities see especially Holzapfel, , Römische Chronologie (Leipzig, 1885)Google Scholar; Kubitschek, , Grundriβ der Antiken Zeitrechnung, pp. 99 ff.Google Scholar; DrumannGroebe, , iii. 753 ff.Google Scholar

page 189 note 2 Macr, . I. 13. 9–12.Google Scholar The month was inserted either one or two days after Terminalia (23 February), depending presumably on whether the month was of 22 or 23 days. Contrast Livy 43. 11. 13 with 45. 44. 3.

page 190 note 1 Macr. 1. 13. 13.

page 190 note 2 ap. Cic. Rep. I. 25.

page 190 note 3 Holzapfel, , 129 ff., 304–6.Google Scholar

page 190 note 4 290 ff. Holzapfel in fact seems to misuse Livy to suggest a discrepancy of 3½–4 months in 202–201 B.C., but his earlier arguments for errors up to 203 show a discrepancy of about two months by that time.

page 190 note 5 Macr. I. 53. 16 ff., who states that the pontifices were also allowed to insert an intercalary day to avert this (19). However, we have no evidence of their doing so.

page 190 note 6 Macr. I. 13. 21; Holzapfel, 310.

page 190 note 7 Livy 44. 37. 8.

page 190 note 8 Id. 43. 11. 13; 45. 44. 3; Fasti Triumphales 166 s.c. (Inscr. It. XIII. r, p. 83).

page 190 note 9 Holzapfel, 3 xr ff., citing App. B.C. 1. 14; 50; 87; Cic. Verr. 2. 91–96Google Scholar; 3. 36; cf. id. Quint. 79 for intercalation in 83 B.C., when it might easily have been neglected.

page 190 note 10 Id. Div. I. 17. The planet Jupiter would have filled the whole sky c. 3 Dec. (Julian), 64 B.C.

page 190 note 11 Suet. Aug. 5 and 94. 12.; cf. Gell. 15. 7.3; Holzapfel, 316 ff.

page 190 note 12 Manilius 4, 547 ff. with Housman's note (iv, p. 68). Housman also argues (iv, p. 104) that Augustus was born when the moon was in Capricorn.

page 191 note 1 Holzapfel, 320 ff.; cf. notes to the table in Drumann-Groebe, , iii. 794 ff.Google Scholar

page 191 note 2 Cic. Mil. 27. Asconius (31c), though his text is corrupt, rejects Fenestella's a.d. XIV. Kal. Feb. because of the evidence of the Acta and Cicero's speech.

page 191 note 3 Cic. Att. 5. 13. 1. The emendation quingentesimo for quinto seems certain.

page 191 note 4 Given the emendation a.d. VI Id. Apr. in Asc. 40–41c for the date of the last day of Milo's trial, the same conclusion can be drawn from Cicero's remark (Mil. g8) that it was the 102nd day after Clodius' death.

page 191 note 5 Cic. Att. 4. 3.4.

page 191 note 6 Dio. 40. 47. 1.

page 191 note 7 Cf. Holzapfel, 331 Drumann-Groebe, iii. 778.

page 191 note 8 Cic. Fam. 8. 6. 5; Dio 40. 62. 1.

page 191 note 9 CIL i2. 324; Caes. B.C. 3. 81. 3.

page 191 note 10 43. 26. 1.

page 191 note 11 20. 9—the figure must be preferred to Macrobius' 443 (1. 14. 3), since Dio is unlikely to be in error, and in this case 443 is an inexplicable total.

page 191 note 12 Cf. the strictures in Cic. Legg. 2. 29, Suet. Ful. 40.

page 191 note 13 The table in Drumann-Groebe, , iii. 780 ff.Google Scholar is a convenient reference, though I shall suggest one deviation from it.

page 192 note 1 Cic. Sest. 72 ff.; Dom. 68 f. Atilius Serranus probably removed his name from the list of proposers before it was promulgated and a copy entrusted to the aerarium.

page 192 note 2 Sest. 75.

page 192 note 3 Cic. Pis. 8–9; Asc. 8c.

page 192 note 4 Though Clodius' bill was to make all dies fasti in the future comitiales (Sest. 33; Pros. Cos. 46).

page 192 note 5 Cic. Att. 2. 20. 6.

page 192 note 6 Cf. C.Q.N.S. xv (1965), 282 ff.

page 192 note 7 For the earlier suppression of the colleges see Cic. Pis. 8; Asc. 7; 75c.

page 192 note 8 Cf. Taylor, L. R., A.F.P. lxxii (1951), 254 ff.Google Scholar; Ch. Meier, , Historia x (1961), 68 ff.Google Scholar

page 193 note 1 Dio 38. 6. 1–4.

page 193 note 2 Cic. Att. 2. 1. 1 and 9. Cicero had read Atticus' commentary on his consulship by the time he replied.

page 193 note 3 Suet. Ful. 18. 2.

page 193 note 4 Asc. 36c.

page 193 note 5 Id. 38–39c.