I must record my gratitude to Sir Ronald Syme and Dr. M. Winterbottom for many helpful criticisms and suggestions. Dr. Winterbottom also brought to my attention Whitehorne's, J. E. G. ‘The Elder Seneca: a Review of Past Work’, Prudentia I (1969), 14 ff.Google Scholar

¹ Polybius III, 13, 7; X, 8, 1. Diodorus V, 38, 2 probably gives a typical Poseidonian exaggeration when he says that none of the Roman mines were new, all having been opened by the Carthaginians, but Pliny, NH XXXIII, 96 does report that many of the silver mines opened by Hannibal were still in operation. Livy XXIV, 49, 7–8; XXVIII, 13; XXVII, 38, 11; Polybius XI, 31.

² Florus 1, 34; Appian, Iber. 95–96; Strabo III, 4, 17–18.

³ Sutherland, C. H. V., ‘Aspects of Imperialism in Roman Spain’, JRS XXIV (1934), 38Google Scholar; Grant, M., From Imperium to Auctoritas (1946), 472–3.Google Scholar

⁴ Strabo III, 2, 15; cf. Tac., Ann. IV, 45.

⁵ For a summary of the whole process, see Garcia y Bellido, A., ‘Latinizacion de Hispania’, Archivo Español de Arqueologia XL (1967), 3 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ At Emporiae, for example, Greeks and natives lived in two separately walled cities surrounded by a common wall for protection (Strabo 111, 4, 8) and were only united some time after Caesarian colonists were sent there in 45 (Livy XXXIV, 9). For problems about the unification, see Brunt, P. A., Italian Manpower (1971), 603–4.Google Scholar

⁷ Pliny NH 111, 8. Thouvenot, R., Essai sur la province romaine de Bétique (1940), 74–5.Google Scholar

⁸ Diod. Sic. XXV, 12; Livy XXIV, 41, 7.

⁹ Vives y Escudero, A., La Moneda Hispanica (Madrid, 1926) 1, 51–67Google Scholar; in, 9 ff.

¹⁰ Cicero, Pro Balbo 51 reveals a Hasdrubal of Gades in 81 B.C.; the derivation of Balbus' name from Baal is dubious.

¹¹ For the various factors in the process from 218 B.C. to A.D. 14, see J. M. Blazquez, Causas de las Romanizacion de Hispania (1964), and Spanish work there cited.

¹² Gabba, E., ‘Le origini della Guerra Sociale’, Athenaeum XXXII (1954), 297 ff.Google Scholar, Wilson, A. J. N., Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (1966), 22–27Google Scholar; 29–40. Brunt, o.c. 210 doubts the evidence of Diodorus V, 36 (from Poseidonius) about Italians emigrating to work the mines, but Poseidonius must have known, for he visited Spain and Italy and the process may still have been going on in his time.

¹³ There is no evidence. Brunt, o.c. 215–216 thinks Gracchuris was a native settlement. He omits Tarraco (‘opus Scipionum’ in Pliny, NH III, 21) and argues for a mixed settlement at Metellinum, which may be right.

¹⁴ Appian, Iber. 38. The ancestors of Hadrian, originally from Picenum, were presumably among these (SHA Hadr. I, 1).

¹⁵ Gabba, , ‘Ricerche sull'esercito professionale Romano da Mario ad Augusto’, Athenaeum XXIX (1951), 219, n. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Livy XLIII, 3, 1–4; Strabo III, 2, 1.

¹⁷ Wilson, o.c. (n. 12), 40–42.

¹⁸ Frank, T., ‘Financial Activities of the Equestrian Corporations, 200–150 B.C.’, CP 28 (1933), 7Google Scholar, suggested that the silver mines were first run by the government directly, but were leased by the censors from 179. Brunt, , ‘The Equites in the Late Republic’, 2nd Intern. Conf. of Econ. Hist. I (1962)Google Scholar, Appendix 1, 239, would date the control by the publicani to Cato's institution of vectigalia in 195. Strabo III, 2, 10 records that silver mines in his day were privately owned, by contrast with the public ownership he found in Polybius. As some silver mines appear to have been worked by publicani under the Empire (ILS 8708), it is possible that what Strabo says was true of some mines which had run low and were no longer profitable to the government. This suggestion (made by M. I. Henderson in her Arnold Prize Essay of 1930, pp. 48–51) seems preferable to taking the societas argentariarum fodinarum in that inscription as a private company, as did M. Rostovtzeff, Diz. Epig. II, 583 s.v. conductor, followed now by Domergue, C., ‘Lingots de plomb romains de Carthagène’, Arch. Esp. de Arqueol. XXXIX (1966), 66–67Google Scholar.

¹⁹ The flight to Spain of Sertorius and the Lepidan remnants was preceded by that of M. Junius Brutus and others after Sulla's first victory, and that of Marcus Licinius Crassus before his second: Wilson, 29–31.

²⁰ Bell. Hisp. 8.

²¹ Wilson, o.c. 10–11, 39; Brunt, o.c. 230–231.

²² Gabba o.c. (n. 12), 32; Syme, R., Tacitus (1958), 11Google Scholar, Appendix 80.

²³ Catullus 37; 39; Bell. Alex. 52, 4 (‘Mercello’ is Hübner's reading, based on CIL 11, 2226); Schulze, LE 301, 425, 450–1.

²⁴ Varro, LL v, 162.

²⁵ Val. Max. 111, 7, 8; VIII, 6, 4; Asconius in Scaur. 20; Quintilian v, 12, 10; Vir. Ill. 72, 11.

²⁶ cf. Pliny NH VIII, 213. Hybrida was a nickname for animals, signifying the product of a mixed union, of which one member was wild. The explanation of Varius' dubious status given by Baumann, R., The Crimen Maiestatis in the Roman Republic and Augustan Principate (1967), 64–67Google Scholar seems less likely, and is not necessary to explain his conviction or the penalty under his own law; see Badian, E., ‘Quaestiones Variae’, Hist. 18 (1969), 462 ff.Google Scholar Varius' uncertain status must have been shared by many others, Brunt, o.c. (n. 6), 206–7.

²⁷ He later went over to Sertorius after being proscribed (Sallust, Hist. III, 83M). On the distinction between Hispanus and Hispaniensis as one of Spanish blood vs. Spanish domicile, the basic texts are Charisius (Gram, hat., ed. Keil, 106) and Veil. Pat. II, 51, 3 (where the ms. reading is corrupt).

²⁸ Apparently his Latin was good, as all the poet finds to criticize is his dentifrice and his long hair, a style he probably took over from the gay blades of the city (Cicero, Cat. II, 22)—on him see de la Ville de Mirmont, H., “Les déclamateurs espagnols au temps d'Auguste”, Bulletin hispanique XIV (1912), 342.Google Scholar

²⁹ De Orat. 1, 183. At the date Cicero indicates, most Spanish Roman citizens would not be enfranchised natives. On the legal points about divorce and legitimacy raised by the case, see Watson, A., The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic (1967), 9, 53.Google Scholar

³⁰ Badian, E., Foreign Clientelae (1958), 256–7Google Scholar. Compare the later strictness of Claudius who forbade peregrini to assume Roman gentile names (Suet., Cl. 25, 3).

³¹ ILS 8888; Cicero, Arch. 25; Balb. 50. Such grants only became common after Marius established the custom which permitted generals to make them, as shown by Badian (above n. 30) and supported by Brunt, o.c. (n. 6), 205.

³² Brunt, 208, discusses such recruitment and also usurpation of citizen rights abroad.

³³ Something of the kind seems to be indicated by Strabo III, 2, 15 for Pax Augusta (Pax Julia), Augusta Emerita and Caesaraugusta (αἵ τε νῦν συνῳκισμέναι πόλεις): he says that these towns illustrate the changeover of Spaniards to the Roman way of life. For the variety of Roman solutions in dealing with native residents of colonial sites, see Levick, B., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967), 68–75.Google Scholar Brunt, o.c. 250, doubts if many natives were enfranchised in the two Lusitanian colonies, but Strabo seems to mean more than simple physical residence.

³⁴ On its status, see below, Note A.

³⁵ BH III, 1.

³⁶ e.g. Cicero, II Verr. 4, 56; Fam X, 31–33.

³⁷ Pliny, NH III, 7 and 10.

³⁸ Syme, Tacitus, App. 80.

³⁹ Seneca, Suas. 2, 18; Schulze, LE 237.

⁴⁰ Though common in Spain, the cognomen Seneca is found on inscriptions also in Umbria, Picenum, Cisalpine Gaul, Africa and Narbonensis where, however, the variant Senecio is more common. Tovar, A., ‘Sobre la estirpe de Seneca’, Humanitas II (1948/1949), 249Google Scholar, thinks the name was acquired in Spain. The cognomen of the youngest son Mela is common in Baetica, but occurs as a nomen at Tarquinii (CIL XI, 3377) and as a cognomen elsewhere in Italy (ILS 917, 8530). For the oldest son's cognomen Novatus, see n. 83. I am indebted to Professor Syme for help on these problems.

⁴¹ Fr. 98–9 Haase. Compare the ancestral back ground in Tacitus' Agricola.

⁴² The correct praenomen is probably Lucius (not Marcus). See H. J. Müller's edition of 1887, pp. VII–VIII; Edwards, W. A., The Suasoriae of the Elder Seneca (Cambridge, 1928), XXIII.Google Scholar

⁴³ Suas. 3, 7. Suet., Tib. 73 cannot be used as supporting evidence, since Suetonius is probably citing the younger Seneca, see below pp. 9–10. Some support, however, comes from the fact that he outlived Cassius Severus, described in the past tense in the preface to Controversiae, Bk. III. Jerome (Chron. Ol. 202, p. 176b) puts his death in the 25th year of his exile in A.D. 32. Helm, R., ‘Hieronymus' Zusätze in Eusebius' Chronik”, Philol. Suppl. XXI, 2 (1929), 75Google Scholar, argued that the exile began in A.D. 12 (Suet., Gaius 16; Dio LVI, 27, 1; Tacitus, Ann. I, 72) and Jerome's figure of 25 years was more likely to be right than his year of death; that puts the death of Cassius Severus in A.D. 37. For his conviction, see further n. 158 below.

⁴⁴ Contr. 1, pref. 10; Suas. 6, 19; 23. Seneca could, of course have read the works in a private copy (Cons. Marc. I, 3–4) but he could hardly have hoped to publish excerpts while the works were under an imperial ban. While Tiberius lived there was little hope that the ban would be lifted and Seneca was too old to count on outliving Tiberius and publishing after his death.

⁴⁵ Tacitus, Ann. IV, 35, 5: Suet., Gaius 16.

⁴⁶ See below, p. 8; Cons. Helu. 2, 4–5.

⁴⁷ Bonner, S. F., Roman Declamation (1949), 31.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ This inference is made by Edwards, The Suasoriae of the Elder Seneca XXIV, who derives from it a birth date c. 50.

⁴⁹ This assumption is made both by Bornecque, H., Les Déclamations et les déclamateurs d'après Sénèque Le Père (1902), 10Google Scholar, and by de la Ville de Mirmont, H., ‘Les Déclamateurs Espagnols au temps d'Auguste’, Bulletin Hispanique XII, 1910, 1 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, though they come to different conclusions about Seneca's birth. Bornecque's limits of 58–55 are better, though based on his belief that Hirtius and Pansa were practising in 43; those of la Ville de Mirmont, i.e. 63–59, rest on the assumption that 15 to 17 was the normal age for learning rhetoric. But Persius at least started at 11/12, according to the Vita Persi. 55 appears to be the standard date for Seneca's birth now, e.g. A. Momigliano, Quarto Contributo alla Storia degli Studi Classici 242.

⁵⁰ As is shown by ‘ait secum declamasse’. In the surviving letters Cicero is often facetious, calling his friends discipuli and himself magister (Att. XIV, 22, 1; Fam. IX, 16, 7.)

⁵¹ See below p. 6.

⁵² Contr. IV, pref. 2–4. The passage following shows that more than two occasions are meant, against the contention of Hess, R., Quaestiones Annaeanae (1898), 33.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cicero, Fam. X, 31–33.

⁵⁴ Contr. II, 3, 13; IV, 6, 3; Suas. 6, 27.

⁵⁵ As does La Ville de Mirmont, , Bull. Hisp. XV (1913), 159.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Contr. IV, pref. 3.

⁵⁷ Suas. 6, 25; Contr. IV, pref. 5–6.

⁵⁸ It was probably in his atrium libertatis that Pollio instituted formal public recitations (Dalzell, A., ‘Asinius Pollio and recitations at Rome’, Hermathena LXXXVI (1955), 20–28Google Scholar). There he read the history in which he praised Brutus and Cassius.

⁵⁹ III, 5, 3. His connections in high places suggest that he was not merely an eques by census, but equo publico. There is no proof.

⁶⁰ Pliny, NH XXXIII, 118; XXXIV, 4.

⁶¹ Pliny, NH XXXIII, 118; XXXIV, 165; Sextus Marius owned the famous copper and gold mines near Corduba (Tacitus, Ann. VI, 19). For silver, p. 2, n. 18.

⁶² Strabo III, 2, 6.

⁶³ Contr. X, pref. 16. The passage does not show that he ran a school of rhetoric (cf. La Ville de Mirmont, , Bull. Hisp. XV (1913), 155Google Scholar). His interest in declamation (Contr. X, pref. 15) would be natural in a professional advocate.

⁶⁴ If he had, some reference to his pupils, some anecdote about a distinguished visitor to his school would surely have appeared even in the incomplete version of his work that we have, though modesty might have prevented him from quoting his own sententiae.

⁶⁵ Cons. Helv. 14, 3.

⁶⁶ Compare the supervision of Agricola's estates in Narbonensis by his mother after the death of his father (Tacitus, Agric. 7, 2).

⁶⁷ Pliny, NH XIV, 51; Columella, RR III, 3, 3; NQ III, 7, 1; Ep. 112, 1; 12, 1 ff.; 86, 14 ff.

⁶⁸ Cicero, Div. in Caec. 39; Cons. Helv. 19; PIR² A 611.

⁶⁹ Contr. 1, pref. 2. Suet. Gramm. 3 reports that in the first century B.C. the study of grammatica had penetrated the provinces.

⁷⁰ Contr. 1, pref. 22. Bornecque, Les déclamations 179.

⁷¹ The name is found frequently, though not exclusively, in Spain, e.g. CIL II, 2144, 2150, 4332, 3265, 1995. The name of Hadrian's ancestor, Aelius Marullinus is a variant. Marullus occurs as the name of a local magistrate at Osca, Grant (above, n. 3), 167–8.

⁷² Contr. I, pref. 3.

⁷³ Contr. I, pref. 1, 3.

⁷⁴ Contr. II, 2, 8. For the date, see Bornecque, Les déclamations 188.

⁷⁵ Contr. III, pref. The date of Passienus' death is Jerome's and therefore far from certain. But the anecdote in any case belongs around this time, as Passienus is said by Cassius (14) to be the orator ‘qui nune primo loco stat’ in comparison with Asinius Pollio and Messalla Corvinus, who must then have been past their prime. Evidence for Seneca's stay in Rome is often found in his account of Latro's faux pas in 17 B.C. (Contr. II, 4, 13), but there is no reason to assume Seneca's presence. Despite his claim to be reporting from memory what the declaimers said (Contr. I, pref. 4–5) he reports sayings known only through others (e.g. the remarks of certain Greek rhetors (Contr. 1, 2, 23; 1, 8, 15; X, 5, 26; Suas. 2, 11; 2, 14) and of Marcius Marcellus (Contr. IX, 4, 15; IX, 5, 14; IX, 6, 18) on which see Bornecque, 29. Notice also Contr. IX, 4, 20—a speech before the senate which he introduces with ‘dixisse memini’). Usually, only the presence of an audivi or memini with the present infinitive can guarantee that a report is first-hand (Madvig, Latin Grammar chap. 7, para. 408, obs. 2).

⁷⁶ Suas. 3, 6.

⁷⁷ For the place, Cons. Helv. 19, 2; evidence for the date in PIR² A 617.

⁷⁸ Novatus is always named first in the dedications to the various books. That this fact shows that he was the oldest son is suggested by the case of Mela, who is always named last and who was clearly the youngest of the three, the one whose future is not yet decided, who is still studying in Contr. II, pref. 3. Statius, Silvae, II, 7, 30 may show that Novatus was also born in Spain (see below, n. 131). The praenomen of Novatus is unknown, of Mela uncertain as between Marcus and Lucius (PIR² A 613). The younger Seneca gives his own, Lucius (Benef. IV, 8, 3).

⁷⁹ Bornecque, Les déclamations 188–89.

⁸⁰ Contr. IX, pref. 3. Votienus Montanus introduces the story: ‘hoc quod vulgo narratur, an verum sit, tu melius potes scire,’ which shows that Seneca was present.

⁸¹ We know of her only from Cons. Helv. 19 where she is called soror, and her husband avunculus noster. She cannot be Helvia's sister, in the strict sense, as Helvia was her father's only child (18, 9). Another possibility is that she was an uterine sister by the mother in an earlier marriage. The use of avunculus here to mean aunt's husband is unparalleled (this passage is the only exception in TLL, II, 1609, 11): ‘carissimum virum…, avunculum nostrum’ (19,4) may conceal some double relation ship.

⁸² The identification of C. Galerius (PIR² G 25)with Seneca's uncle in Cons. Helv. 19, 2–7 was first made by Cantarelli, L. in Röm. Mitt. XIX (1904), 15–22.Google Scholar The family origin was identified by Birley, E., Gnomon XXIII (1951), 443.Google Scholar

⁸³ Mirmont, La Ville de, Bull. Hisp. XIV (1912), 20Google Scholar suggested that the name derived from M. Helvius, a general in Hispania Ulterior in 197 B.C. The cognomen of Helvia's father is unknown—perhaps Novatus, which would explain the cognomen given to Seneca's oldest son: Mela's son Lucan derived his cognomen from his maternal grandfather, Acilius Lucanus, and Helvii Novati are attested in an inscription seen in Baetica CIL II, 999.

⁸⁴ For Asellius Sabinus (PIR² A 1213), Contr. IX, 4, 20 gives an indication of date. Vibius Rufus (PIR V 396) was consul in A.D. 16, Junius Otho (PIR² 1788) was made a praetor by Sejanus (Tac, Ann. III, 66).

⁸⁵ Contr. I, 3, 10. Unless one of the two infants who died (Suet., Gaius 7) was female, Germanicus' eldest daughter was born in A.D. 15 so that, even if betrothal to an infant is meant, A.D. 16 is the earliest possible date. PIR² 1674 date the incident to after A.D. 18, the birth of the youngest daughter.

⁸⁶ Contr. IX, 4, 20.; Contr. X, pref. 9. Contr. X, pref. 3. (This man, the praeceptor of Germanicus' son Nero according to Contr. II, 3, 23 is more likely to be M. Lepidus, cos. A.D. 6, than M.' Lepidus, cos. A.D. 11, for M. Lepidus' daughter was married to Nero's younger brother (Tacitus, Ann. VI, 40 and Syme, JRS 1955: Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 44–5). M. Lepidus died in A.D. 33 (Tacitus Ann. VI, 27); ‘novissime’ puts the incident shortly before that.

⁸⁷ Contr. X, pref. 13, 15–16. Latro died in 4 B.C.

⁸⁸ Helvia or a messenger made the journey in about that time (Cons. Helv. 2, 5, cf. 15, 2).

⁸⁹ Seneca, and probably Novatus too, were senators in 39 and preparing to stand for office in 37 and 38. Mela may well have been in Rome before Lucan's birth, returning there with his son in the summer of 40 (Vacca Life).

⁹⁰ Bornecque, , Les déclamations 12 and La Ville de Mirmont, Bull. Hisp. XIV (1912), 11Google Scholar think he was on a voyage to Spain.

⁹¹ TLL V, 2, p. 142, 34.

⁹² For the type of occasion on which Seneca heard the teachers, ‘no mere gathering of school-boys’, see Bonner, o.c. (n. 47), 39–40. The excellent discussion in this book of the declaimers has induced me to concentrate here on other aspects of Seneca's life and work.

⁹³ Contr. X, pref. 1.

⁹⁴ Contr. III, pref. 12. For the notion that in difference to municipal office was not uncommon in Spain see van Nostrand, J. J., ‘Roman Spain’ in Economic Survey of Ancient Rome III (1937), 211–212Google Scholar commenting on Chap. 51 of the Lex Municipii Malacitani (ILS 6089); Rostovzeff, SEHRE² 215 adduced the poverty and the slow growth of a city bourgeoisie—hardly applicable to Corduba.

⁹⁵ e.g. by O. Rossbach, P-W 1, 2237; Bornecque, 13; Waltz, R., La Vie politique de Sénèque (1909), 21.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Contr. II, pref. 3–4.

⁹⁷ Seneca, Fr. 99 Haase.

⁹⁸ Suas. 6, 16 ff.

⁹⁹ Suas. I, 5. See Edwards, Suasoriae ad. loc., pp. 91–2.

¹⁰⁰ Suas. 2, 11. contains an erroneous attribution to Herodotus; Contr. IX, 1, 13 one to Thucydides.

¹⁰¹ Note Suas. 6, 21 on the ‘quasi funebris laudatio’ invented by Thucydides.

¹⁰² Suas. I, 7.

¹⁰³ Contr. I. pref. 5. ‘seriam rem agenti’ may also show that his work on the history was contemporary with that on his rhetorical treatise.

¹⁰⁴ For the debate on the meaning of bella civilia, see Peter, , HRR II (1906), cxviii.Google Scholar For the use assumed here, see Suet., Claudius, 41, 2 and Seneca's own usage in Contr. I, pref. 11.

¹⁰⁵ Suas. 6, 14 ff.; Contr. VII, 2, 8.

¹⁰⁶ Quintilian in listing Seneca's work (X, 1, 29) does not mention history.

¹⁰⁷ Haase, fr. 99 n; Peter, HRR II, 91. For the Lactantius fragment, see Note B.

¹⁰⁸ A. Klotz, who first put the case for non-publication in full and convincing form (Rh. Mus. LVI (1901), 429), subsequently revised his view that no fragment of the history survives, and in Berl. Phil. Woch. 1909, 1527 admitted Suet., Tib. 73, because, he said, it did not fit with the philosopher's consistently hostile view of Caligula, but by exonerating Gaius from the charge of suffocating Tiberius justified his accession. In fact, the story only rules out one form of murder by Gaius, for it is perfectly consistent with the other rumours of slow poison or starvation in Suetonius. It sounds like one of the philosopher's moral exempla (cf. Brev. Vit. 20, 3), and accords well with his dislike of Tiberius.

¹⁰⁹ Martial, Epig. I, 61, 7; IV, 40.

¹¹⁰ Grisart, A., ‘Suètone et les deux Sénèques’, Helikon I (1961), 302.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Dio LIX, 19, 7.

¹¹² Ep. 122, 11. He is mentioned by the Elder Seneca in Contr. VII, 1, 27.

¹¹³ The passage about Julius Montanus in the life of Vergil, is the likeliest candidate for a fragment. Bornecque, Les déclamations 30 has rightly assigned Quintilian IX, 2, 98, to the son; VIII, 3, 31 which Haase (fr. 99 note) also assigned to the father certainly belongs to the son, who was contemporary with Pomponius the tragedian. Bornecque allowed that Quintilian IX, 2, 42 might be a citation from a controversia delivered by the Elder Seneca, but the son must also have declaimed in the period when he was a prominent orator.

¹¹⁴ Bornecque, Les déclamations 30–32. Winterbottom (OCT Quintilian 11, p. 508). notes the similarity of Quintilian IX, 2, 91 and Contr. II, 3, 6 which Quintilian may have used; but the scepticism of Bornecque, 25 seems justified.

¹¹⁵ Hahn, I., ‘Appien et le cercle de Sénèque’, Acta Antiqua XII (1964), 169 ff.Google Scholar has renewed the theories of Rossbach and Piganiol, who thought that Seneca's history was a major source for Florus and Appian respectively. His case rests on three suppositions, all of which are dubious: (1) that the Lactantius fragment is the work of the Elder Seneca; (2) that the history treated of bella civilia from at least the struggle of Marius and Sulla; (3) that similar ideas and expressions common to either or both of the authors and Lucan and/or the younger Seneca go back to the history of the Elder Seneca. But these are explicable either as direct borrowings from the poet and philosopher or as part of the fund of phrases and arguments developed in the rhetorical schools, where the figures of Sulla, Pompey, Cato and Cicero figured often in declamations. (1) and (2) are dealt with below in Note B and above n. 104.

¹¹⁶ Quintilian X, 1, 104. (The emendation of Nipperdey which gives us ‘Cremutius’ in the text is virtually certain).

¹¹⁷ Schendel, H., Quibus auctoribus Romanis L. Annaeus Seneca in rebus patris usus sit (1908), 50.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Even in the softened version of Cremutius Cordus, the author's audaces sententiae were there. For Claudius, see Suet., Claud. 41, 2: two volumes of historiae post caedem Caesaris dictatoris, forty-one a pace civili.

¹¹⁹ As he calls them in Contr. I, pref. 11.

¹²⁰ Contr. I, pref. 10.

¹²¹ Bornecque, Les déclamations 24–5. Edwards (above, n. 48), xxvi–xxvii does not prove that the compositions started many years before publication.

¹²² Above, p. 4, nn. 43–44. Bornecque, 24.

¹²³ Contr. X, pref. 5.

¹²⁴ Suas. 3, 5; 6, 22: Suet., Gaius 34 2.

¹²⁵ Tac., Ann. IV, 52, 66; Dio LIX, 19.

¹²⁶ Contr. X, pref. 8; Tacitus, Ann. VI, 3.

¹²⁷ Ann. VI, 2. On his origins, Syme, Tacitus 563, n. 5.

¹²⁸ PIR² I 344.

^128a For the rhythm, see now Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.–A.D. 14 (1971), 8–2.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Syme, , ‘Caesar, the Senate, and Italy’, PBSR XIV (1938), 14Google Scholar; Tacitus 603 (warning against excessive confidence in SHA Hadr. I, 2). For other possible Caesarian provincial senators, see Wiseman, o.c. 8, n. 7

¹³⁰ PIR²C 1331; Levick, o.c. (n. 33), 107, n. 5.

¹³¹ De Laet, S. J., De Samenstelling van der Romeinschen Senaat (1941), nos. 651, 804, 607, 812, 646, 719, 853 “Umbonius Silo’Google Scholar (corrected now by AE 1955, 161); Syme, Tacitus App. 79–80; Wiseman, o.c. 228. Perhaps we should add as a Spanish senator under Tiberius, C. Sertorius Brocchus (PIR S 394), a provincial governor under Claudius, who may be identical with Brocchus, trib. pl. in 41 (Josephus, AJ XIX, 234); but see below on ‘Brocchus’, n. 142. His talented colleague, Q. Veranius, had been quaestor in 37. That Gallio was Spanish is a conjecture, P-W X, 1035 ff.: the Gallio in Statius, Silvae II, 7, 30 is probably his adoptive son, to whom the epithet ‘dulcis’ was appropriate (cf. Seneca, NQ IV, pref. 11).

¹³² Martial, Epig. I, 61.

¹³³ Contr. X, pref. 14–15.

¹³⁴ Contr. I, pref. 13–20.

¹³⁵ Contr. X, pref. 16.

₁₃₆ For the identification of these, see La Ville de Mirmont, , Bull. Hisp. XV (1913), 154.Google Scholar I omit Catius Crispus, as ‘municipalis rhetor(?)’ in Suas. 2, 16 does not seem to mean the same as ‘municeps meus’ used in the immediate context of Statorius Victor. For another possible Spaniard, see p. 16.

¹³⁷ Contr. X, pref. 13; Bornecque, Les déclamations 173; La Ville de Mirmont, o.c. 255 ff.

¹³⁸ Suas. 2, 17. The cognomen is not sufficient evidence for his origins, but the remarks that his name may have reached his sons suggests a possible connection with the family.

¹³⁹ Contr. X, pref. 2; PIR² F 57. The author of the Institutio Oratoria took his revenge on Seneca's literary son X, 1, 125 ff.

¹⁴⁰ Suas. 2, 18.

¹⁴¹ References to him listed by Bornecque, Les déclamations 167. For his origin, Syme, R., ‘Pliny the Procurator’, HSCP LXXIII (1968), 232, n. 116.Google Scholar The rare cognomen is found twice on inscriptions of Tarraconensis, and appears on a coin of Osca as the name of a local magistrate (Grant o.c, (above, n. 3), 167–8), while the nomen Fulvius is common in Spain, Syme, Tacitus App. 78.

¹⁴² Contr. 11, 1, 23; Bornecque, 156; La Ville de Mirmont divined his origin from its appearance on inscriptions in Spain, e.g. CIL II, 3203; 1199; 5726. Though Brocc(h)us may be an indigenous Spanish name, the Sabine family of the Brocchi from Forum Novum, attested in the Republic (Syme, , ‘Senators, tribes, and towns’, Hist. XIII (1964), 110Google Scholar) raises doubts.

¹⁴³ Bornecque, 164. The cognomen is the only evidence for his origins, and that is not a reliable indication; see Syme, o.c. (n. above), 105.

¹⁴⁴ Suas. 6, 27. On his cognomen see FHA VIII (1959), 145.

¹¹⁵ Contr. II, 4, 8. Bornecque, 191 and Leeman, A. D., Orationis Ratio (1963) 1, 222,Google Scholar see this as an allusion to Spanish expressions, but Seneca does characterize Messala here as ‘Latini utique sermonis observator diligentissimus’.

¹⁴⁶ Note the Spanish accent of a Hadrianic rhetor from Spain (Gellius, NA XIX, 9, 2). A study of the inscriptions of Roman Spain by Carnoy, A., Le Latin d'Espagne d'aprés les inscriptions I, 11 (1904–1906)Google Scholar, reveals two phenomena present even in early Spanish Latin: (1) archaisms conserved from the speech of the original Italian colonists, and found even on correct and official inscriptions, e.g. 1, pp. 109–114; 11, pp. 15–17, 47); (2) tendencies in pronunciation and vocabulary distinctive in the Latin of that province, e.g. 1, pp. 27–28 (i for e in Dillius, found only in Spain as a form of Dellius); 11, pp. 40–41, preference for iste and ipse rather than ille, hic, is.

¹⁴⁷ Contr. I, pref. 16–17.

¹⁴⁸ Contr. I, pref. 7–9, esp. 8.

¹⁴⁹ Contr. II, pref. 1; IV, pref. 5–6.

¹⁵⁰ Cons. Helv. 17, 3–4.

¹⁵¹ ibid. 16, 3.

¹⁵² See n. 192.

¹⁵³ Contr. I, pref. 9–10. In Ann. III, 55, 3 Tacitus speaks of the domestica parsimonia imported in the Flavian period by men from remote parts of Italy and from the provinces. That quality did not characterize the younger Seneca nor his Narbonensian brother-in-law (Pliny, NH XXXIII, 143).

¹⁵⁴ cf. Suas. 2, 12 on ‘Romani animi magnitudo’.

¹⁵⁵ Contr. I, pref. 6; X, 5, 28; X, 4, 23; Gellius, NA XIX, 9.

¹⁵⁶ Contr. II, 4, 13; X, pref. 5. Cremutius Cordus had similarly praised Augustus, according to Ann. IV, 34; his accusers emphasized the lack of superlatives (Dio LVII, 24, 3.)

^l57 Contr. X, pref. 3 ff. On the family, Syme, , ‘The Allegiance of Labienus’, JRS 28 (1938), 113.Google Scholar The family was remarkable for tenacity of political allegiance (Cicero, Rab. Perd. 22).

¹⁵⁸ According to Dio LVI, 27, 1, Augustus in his later years punished some writers in this way though the burning was ordered by the senate (Suet., Gaius 16, 1): presumably the Princeps took the initiative. Seneca also omits the fate suffered by the works of Cassius Severus, though he mentions his comment on the fate of Labienus' (Contr. X, pref. 5), and devotes the entire preface of Book III of Controversiae to Cassius. Only in Contr. II, 4, 11 does he refer to a trial of Cassius, and he never tells of his conviction. This may be the same trial as that noted in Ann. I, 72, 4, where Tacitus holds the Princeps responsible. But recently Baumann (above, n. 26) 257 ff. has denied that the trial in Ann. I, 72 is the same as that which produced Cassius' exile and the burning of his books because Ann IV, 21, 5 names an s.c. This is strange, as he accepts the connection of Dio LVI, 27 with the senatorial book burnings. His arguments for the identification of the trial in Ann. I, 72 with one in Dio LV, 4, 3 are unconvincing: maiestas plays no obvious role in the Dio context.

¹⁵⁹ BC 11, 21; BA 55.

¹⁶⁰ cf. the attitude of L. Cornelius Balbus of Gades, whose personal loyalty to Caesar in conflict with earlier obligations to the Cornelii Lentuli and Pompey seems to be what determined his conduct in the Civil War (Cicero, Att. IX, 7b, 2).

¹⁶¹ Varro in BC 11, 18; Caesar in BH 42.

¹⁶² II, in Spain since 54, and the legio vernacula (BA 49, 53).

¹⁶³ Corduba, BH 34; Ategua, BH 13; Ucubi, BH 21; Urso, BH 22; Hispalis, BH 35; Carteia, BH 37. For the participation of Roman residents in this resistance, Wilson, Emigration 37 – 8.

¹⁶⁴ Münzer in P-W XVIII, 2061–2. Caesar took over Crassus' client. The Paciaecus who served with Crassus in Parthia (Plut, Crassus 32) probably belongs to the family of his old protector too.

¹⁶⁵ Contr. X, pref. 16.

¹⁶⁶ Strabo III, 4, 19.

¹⁶⁷ Vacca, Life of Lucan; Cons. Helv. 2, 5; 15, 3.

¹⁶⁸ For Serenus, Ep. 63 and several dialogues; Fabius Rusticus, Ann. XIII, 20, 3. Syme, Tacitus 179; Marullus: Ep. 99. For the name, see above, n. 71. Perhaps identical with the suffect cos. of 62 for whom possible Spanish origin is noted by Syme, Tacitus App. 80.

¹⁶⁹ ‘Vir excellentis ingenii atque doctrinae’, RR III, 3, 3 which is more flattering than Pliny's parallel description of Seneca's viticultural achievement in NH XIV, 52.

¹⁷⁰ Seneca, Tranq. An. 2, 13: ‘Tarentum petatur laudatusque portus et hiberna caeli mitioris et regio vel antiquae satis opulenta turbae.’

¹⁷¹ The eastern provenance of the legionaries in Nero's new colonies was noted by Ritterling in P-W XII, 1264, 1595, who suggested that Columella was in charge of Nero's deduction as military tribune (despite Tacitus Ann. XIV, 27 ‘sine rectore’). But PIR² I, 779 rightly prefers the date of A.D. 36 for the military tribunate, as established by Cichorius, RS 417.

¹⁷² Epig. 4, 40; 12, 36. For Martial's success in Rome, under Nero, Friedländer, L., M. Valerii Martialis Epigrammaton Libri (1886), 1, 4–5Google Scholar; Allen, W., ‘Martial: knight, publisher and poet’, CJ 1970.Google Scholar There is no space here to explore the more indirect evidence of Seneca's attitude to Spain via the advancement of Spaniards in his period of power or his views on provincial government and the extension of the citizenship.

¹⁷³ Syme, , HSCP LXXIII (1968), 222.Google Scholar

¹⁷⁴ Badian, Foreign Clientelae 309, 314, 318. Since then more Papirii have been discovered in the province of Corduba, AE 1965, nos. 59, 60.

¹⁷⁵ The Elder Seneca heard Fabianus (Contr. II, pref. 5), when he had already become a follower of Sextius and was studying with Rubellius Blandus—most likely, then, before father Seneca returned to Spain in 8–5 B.C. Fabianus was then half Seneca's age and past adulescentia (Contr. II, pref. 1) so that a date c. 10 B.C., when Seneca would be forty, should be right.

¹⁷⁶ e.g. Suas. I, 9; Contr. II, pref. 2; 11, 1, 10 ff., 11, 6, 2.

¹⁷⁷ Seneca, Epist. 100, 12, 9; Brev. Vit. 10, 1. Lucilius was reading Libri civilium. Libri Causarum Naturalium and De Animalibus were used by the Elder Pliny.

¹⁷⁸ Contr. II, pref. 2; cp. Ep. 100, 10.

¹⁷⁹ Contr. II, pref. 2; cp. Ep. 100, 5, 8.

¹⁸⁰ His fluency: Epist. 40, 12; 100, 1; for his sincerity and modesty, Contr. II, pref. 2; Ep. 52, 11; 100, 11.

¹⁸¹ Contr. II, pref. 2; Ep. 100, 1–2, 11.

¹⁸² This is the verdict of Leeman, Orationis Ratio I, 261–271, 282, who analyses the judgments of both Senecas on Fabianus in detail.

¹⁸³ They are collected in FHA VIII, 145–8.

¹⁸⁴ De Ira I, 11, 4.

¹⁸⁵ References to Spain in Martial are collected in FHA VIII, 250–267; in Columella, ibid., 163. To the latter add RR III, 12, 6 and VII, 1, 2.

¹⁸⁶ RR V, 5, 15.

¹⁸⁷ Another Spaniard, Quintilian, in Inst. Or. I, 5, 8. and 1, 5, 57, includes Spanish examples among foreign words that are sometimes used by Latin-speakers. In the latter passage, ‘et gurdos, quos pro stolidis accipit vulgus, ex Hispania duxisse originem audivi’ his ‘affectation of not knowing much about a certain local word’ (Syme, Tacitus 618) is probably the unwillingness of a professor of Latin to show familiarity with Spanish slang current among the Roman lower classes.

¹⁸⁸ Cons. Helv. 7, 9, cf. Cons. Polyb. 18, 9. See Cosimi, J., ‘Sénèque et la langue des Corses’, REL 32 (1954), 111 ff.Google Scholar Seneca's explanation is an actual immigration from Spain, but cf. FHA VIII, 147 and Tovar (above, n. 40), 249–253.

¹⁸⁹ RR VIII, 16, 9; X, 185. Critical remarks in IV 14, 2; 111, 2, 19 and perhaps 11, 2, 23 but cf. Pliny, NH VIII, 179.

¹⁹⁰ RR I, pref. 20.

¹⁹¹ Cons. Helv. 6–7.

¹⁹² Haase, fr. 88. There are good grounds for attributing this fragment to Seneca, but its assignment to the particular work De Matrimonio is conjectural: see Bickel, E., Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta (1915), 288, n. 1.Google Scholar