No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Silanus 〈and〉 Murena (I.Priene 121)*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
An inscription from Priene, first published at the beginning of this century, honours a local citizen who had among other accomplishments conducted a series of embassies to Roman officials in Asia. The text was originally published by Hiller von Gaertringen, though (as we shall see) his interpretation of it was unsatisfactory in at least one respect.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1996
References
1 I.Priene 121, lines 21–4. This text uses epigraphical conventions different from those in the editio princeps. Here [ ] indicate supplements to lacunae; 〈 〉, letters left out of the text by the lapicide by accident; {}, letters that in the editor's opinion have been erroneously inscribed and must therefore be deleted.
2 Sumner, ‘Governors’, 147–53.
3 Stumpf, G.R.,‘C. Atinius C.f., Praetor in Asia 122–121 v. Chr., auf einem Kistophor’, ZPE 61 (1985), 186–90; idem, Numismatische Studien zur Chronologie der roöischen Statthalter in Kleinasien, 122 v. Chr.-163 n. chr. (Saarbröcker Studien zur Archäologie und alten Geschichte 4, Saarbröcken, 1991), pp. 6–12; MRR 3.27–8. On Ephesus' civic era, cf.Google ScholarRigsby, K.J., ‘The era of the province of Asia’, Phoenix 33 (1979), 39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 The nine-year interval between Macerio's tribunate of the plebs in 131 and a praetorship in 122 is somewhat longer than the average, which is five or six years, but not problematic: cf., e.g. the eight years between the tribunate of the plebs (99) and praetorship (91) of Q. Pompeius Rufus (MRR 2.2, 20) and the decade interval in the career of Piso Frugi (tr. pi. 149, pr. c. 138, MRR 3.159).
5 MRR 1.500, 503, 504, 506, 509.
6 F.Munzer, RE 10 (1919), col. 1095 s.v. Iunius no. 170; MRR 2.60.
7 MRR 2.94.
8 I. Priene 121, line 32: 
The suggestion of Sumner (‘Governors’, 150) that Seleucus is not called king because Priene refused to recognize him as such is not attractive: what difference would it make to a Greek city in a Roman province who was king of Syria? In any case, that the people of Priene sent an embassy to the crown prince belies any suggestion that they were hostile to him, as does the fact that the embassy is later cited as a highlight of the honorand's career.
9 Wiseman, T.P., ‘Factions and family trees’, LCM 1 (1976), 1–3,Google Scholar at p. 2. D. R. Shackleton Bailey (Roman Nomenclature, p. 76), followed by Keaveney, A. (‘Who were the Sullani?’, Klio 66 [1984], 114–50, at 120), confuses the reading on the stone and Gaertringen's emendation. See especiallyCrossRefGoogle ScholarCrawford, M.H., ‘M. Silanus Murena ’, LCM 7 (1982), 124. Shackleton Bailey corrects his mistake at p. 97 of the second edition of his monograph (Atlanta, 1991).Google Scholar
10 Bailey Shackleton, Roman Nomenclature, pp. 50–86, 97–8.
11 Salomies, O., Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 97, Helsinki, 1992).Google Scholar
12 Shackleton Bailey, Roman Nomenclature, p. 55.
13 On the family, see now Arkenberg, J.S., ‘Licinii Murenae, Terentii Varrones, and Varrones Murenae’, Historia 42 (1993), 326–51, at p. 333.Google Scholar
14 Wosnik, B., Untersuchungen zur Geschichte Sullas (Diss. Wurzburg, 1963), pp. 1–9. The query in 
is mine (any normal praenomen is possible).Google Scholar
15 The lapicide made at least one other non-orthographical error in the text: a dittography of the words 
in lines 27–8.
16 The praetorship in Spain that Broughton (MRR 1.535) ascribed to him should probably be rejected, as was argued by Sumner (Orators, 78) and as Broughton himself has recognized (MRR 3.114).
17 Wosnick, op. cit. (n. 14), p. 8.
18 Crawford, RRC no. 285; for the date, see pp. 65–8, 71.
19 The only shorter interval is C. Vibius Pansa, moneyer in 48 (RRC nos. 449,451) and consul in 43. He is obviously exceptional, however, since his career was accelerated by Caesar: it seems that he became consul without ever having held the praetorship (RRC p. 711 and n. 2); cf. Sumner, G.V., ‘The lex Annalis under Caesar’, Phoenix 25 (1971), 246–71, 357–71, at p. 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A more typical interval between moneyership and consulship is illustrated by the cases of T. Didius (mon. 113 or 112, cos. 98) and C. Claudius Pulcher (mon. 110 or 109, cos. 92).
20 As suggested by Crawford (RRC pp. 710–11, 729) to explain cases where less than a decade separate moneyership and consulship.
21 The range of intervals between moneyership and praetorship is illustrated by the cases of P. Licinius Nerva (RE 135), who was moneyer in 113 or 112 (RRC no. 292) and praetor 104 (MRR 1.559), and C. Claudius Pulcher (RE 302), moneyer in 110 or 109 (RRC no. 300) and praetor in 95 (MRR 2.11).
22 RRC no. 220; that his cognomen was Silanus seems to be indicated by the ass's head on his coinage.
23 Syme, R., ‘Marriage ages for Roman senators’, Historia 36 (1987), 318–32 ═ Roman Papers, vol. 6 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 232–46;Google ScholarSailer, R.P., ‘Men's age at marriage and its consequences in the Roman family’, CPh 82 (1987), 21–34.Google Scholar
24 For his adoption, Cic. Fin. 1.24; Liv. Oxy. Per. 54, Per. 54; Val. Max. 5.8.3. For the purpose of adoption in Roman society,Google ScholarCorbier, M., ‘Divorce and adoption as familial strategies’, in B., Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome (Canberra and Oxford, 1991), pp. 47–78, esp. p. 66.Google Scholar
25 RRC p. 259; lex repet. (A., Lintott [ed.], Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic, Cambridge, 1992)Google Scholar line 74, cf. line 23. The suggestion of Lintott (op. cit., p. 154) that the author of the lex lunia was a Brutus is not impossible, though he is probably wrong to suggest that he is the famous jurisconsult: the filiation of the tribune was D.f., while the jurist was probably a son of M. Iunius Brutus, cos. 178 (Münzer, F., RE 10 [1919]Google Scholar, col. 971 s.v. Iunius no. 49; MRR 1.480).
26 This stemma should be compared with that offered by Crawford (RRC p. 159), which incorporates two assumptions that I prefer not to follow: first, that the praef. soc. 196 died without issue and second that D. Silanus (RE 160), the translator of Mago, was the son of the D.Iunius Silanus, who was father of the moneyer of c. 145. This, however, makes the moneyer of c. 145 (RE22) the uncle of the praetor of 141 (RE 161), despite the fact that he seems to have been his junior by several years. While this is not strictly impossible, especially if we imagine a second marriage for their putative father, the difficulty can be avoided by supposing that the translator of Mago (RE 160)—who, if father of Manlianus, must have been born in the late third century anyway—was the son of the praefectus sociorum.
27 Cic. Mur. 15.
28 MRR 3.123, following Keaveney, A., ‘Young Pompey, 106–79 B.C.,’ AC 51 (1982), 111–39, at 123–4.Google Scholar
29 Broughton, MRR 1.571; Münzer, F., RE 13 (1927), col. 444 s.v. Licinius no. 121.Google Scholar
30 Cf.Arkenberg, op. cit. (n. 13), 326–51.
31 Since the minimum age for candidacy for the quaestorship was effectively 27 (Astin, A.E., The Lex Annalis before Sulla [Coll. Latomus 32, Brussels, 1958], pp. 42–5)Google Scholar, while that for candidacy for the praetorship was 39 (ibid. 41), an interval of twelve years between these magistrates might be regarded as typical. Obviously, however, one office or both could be held after the minimum age had passed. For comparison, consider the eleven years between the quaestorship and praetorship of M. Antonius (RE 28; q. 113, pr. 102, cos. 99); thirteen years for C. Sempronius Tuditanus (RE 92; q. 145, pr. 132, cos. 129); at least fifteen years for C. Claudius Pulcher (RE 302; q. 110 [see MRR 3.57], pr. 95, cos. 92).
32 Cic. Brut. 237; his death in 82 is reported at Cic. Brut. 311.
33 On the chronological structure of the work, see Sumner, Orators, 151–4.
34 Cic. Brut. 229–39; Sumner, Orators, 153, cf. 24
35 See above, n. 31.
36 The suggestion of Keaveney (Klio 66 [1984], 121) that he was quaestor of C. Cassius in the late 90s can be left aside, since it is predicated on the dating of the series of embassies in I. Priene 121 to the nineties and the identification of Murena as M. Iunius Silanus (pr. 77).
37 Balsdon, J.P.V.D., ‘Roman history, 65–50 B.C.: five problems’, JRS 52 (1962), 134–41, at 134–5.Google Scholar
38 The most famous cases are Cn. Calpurnius Piso in 65 B.C., who went to govern Nearer e Spain as quaestor pro praetore, where he was killed (Sail. Cat. 19.1, ILS 875; MRR 2.159), and P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus, who was sent in 75 or 74 B.C. to organize the new province of Cyrene (Sail. Hist. 2.43 [Maurenbrecher], MRR 2.97, 3.69). Also noteworthy is M. Antonius (cos. 99) in 113 B.C. (MRR 1.539; IDélos 1603).
39 I accept the interpretation of the phrase 
(lex Pirat. Cnid. col. 3, 11.35–7 at JRS 64 [1974], 202) of M. Hassall,Google ScholarCrawford, M. H. and Reynolds, J. (JRS 64 [1974], 209, 211), despiteGoogle ScholarSherwin White, A.N., Roman Foreign Policy in the East: 168 B.C. to A.D. 1 (1984), 97–101.Google Scholar Cf. also Lintott, A., ZPE 20 (1976), 81–2.Google Scholar
40 Brennan, T.C., ‘Sulla's career in the nineties: some reconsiderations’, Chiron 22 (1992), 103–58, esp. 137–44.Google Scholar