¹ On the Tabula Hebana and Tabula Ilicitana (Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius,² nos 94a–b) see especially Tibiletti, G., Principe e Magistrati Repubblicani, Roma, 1953Google Scholar (with bibliography); Jones, A. H. M., JRS XLV, 1955, 9ff.Google Scholar = St. in Rom. Government and Law, Oxford, 1960, 27 ff. (a valuable essay, to most of which I assent); Syme, R., Tacitus, Oxford, 1958, 756 ff.Google Scholar

² Cic. Plane. 49; Phil. 11, 82; cf. Appendix II, 3.

³ e.g. Plin. Ep. II, 9, 2; III, 20; IV, 25; Paneg. 95; for comitial formalities Paneg. 63–4; Dio LVIII, 20.

⁴ Dio LVIII, 20.

⁵ ILS 944. I agree with Jones (p. 12) that commendatio was at this time exercised informally and not in virtue of a legal right such as was conferred on Vespasian.

⁶ Ann. I, 15; II, 51.

⁷ Of the honours voted to Germanicus Tacitus says (Ann. II, 83): ‘pleraque manent; quaedam statim omissa sunt aut vetustas obliteravit.’ The procedure of destinatio continued at least till 23 (as shown by the Tabula Ilicitana), but if it had already become a mere formality, few senators or Equites will have attended; acclamation probably soon replaced voting, and Tacitus can reasonably ignore as unimportant this part of the law honouring Germanicus.

⁸ Reign of Tiberius, Oxford, 1931, 43; 62 ff.; 86–7.

⁹ Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1939, 372–3; 434 ff.

¹⁰ Tibiletti o.c. (n. 1) 247 n. 2 refutes another view, that Tiberius favoured new men at the expense of nobles.

¹¹ Wirszubski, Ch., Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome, Cambridge, 1950, 39 ff.Google Scholar gives a sound account.

¹² For his aristocratic friends and kin see Syme, Tacitus 384; his uncle, Junius Blaesus (cos. suff. A.D. 10), and other partisans (Ann. v, 8; VI, 3, 7, 14; XIII, 45) were new men. Opponents and victims came from both categories (Syme, I.c.; Ann. IV, 18–19, 68; VI, 2, 48, etc.). The article by Stewart, Z., AJP LXXIV, 1953, 70 ff.Google Scholar is highly speculative.

¹³ But Jones, , JRS XLI, 1951, 112Google Scholar (= Studies, p. 3) is wrong in saying that Augustus did not employ men of Republican nobility as legates. Note (1) M. Aemilius Lepidus in Pannonia, A.D. 8–9, Tarraconensis, c. 14; (2) Q. Caecilius Metellus, Syria, c. A.D. 12–17; (3) Cn. Calpurnius Piso (cos. 7 B.C.), Tarraconensis, ann. inc.; (4) L. Calpurnius Piso, who commanded in Homonadensian and Thracian wars, c. 15–10 B.C., and was perhaps later legate of Syria (Syme, JRS L, 17, n. 68); (5) P. Cornelius Dolabella in Dalmatia at Augustus' death; (6) Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (the consul of either 18 or 14 B.C.) who commanded in a Dacian war of unknown date; (7) L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, on Danube and Rhine, c. 6 B.C.-A.D. 1; (8) Paullus Fabius Maximus in Tarraconensis, 3–2 B.C.; (9) M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, probably in Tarraconensis, c. 10 B.C. (Syme, JRS L, 13–14); (10) P. Quinctilius Varus, Syria, 6–4 B.C., Rhine, A.D. 7–9; (II) M. Valerius Messalla Messalinus, Illyricum, A.D. 6. It is no doubt true that such nobles enjoyed a far lower proportion of military commands than of consulships; thus of eight known legates of Syria, 13 B.c.-A.D. 14 they provide only three. Syme, Roman Rev. 329–30 documents neglect of this class in 27–3 B.C., cf. also 396–401. But there are large gaps in provincial Fasti under Augustus, and some places for other such nobles could thus be conjecturally found.

¹⁴ Tibiletti, o.c. (n. 1), 239 ff.

¹⁵ Die Nobilität der r. Rep., Berlin, 1912, 21 ff.; cf. Syme, Roman Rev. ch. 11; H. Strasburger in P-W s.v. Nobilis and Novus homo.

¹⁶ Cicero, ‘equestri ortus loco’ (de leg. agr. 1, 27), claims that he was the first new man, almost in living memory, to reach the consulate (ibid. 11, 3), i.e., probably the first of non-senatorial origin since C. Coelius Caldus (cos. 94); cf. Comm. Pet. II. Men of praetorian family could be styled ‘novi’ (Phil. IX, 4; Veil. 1, 13, 2), but there had been many such in the few years before Cicero made his boast, cf. n. 17.

¹⁷ e.g. from 94 to 49:—P. Rutilius Lupus (90), Cn. Pompeius Strabo (89), since he was not descended from the consul of 141, C. Norbanus (83), C. Scribonius Curio (76), L. Volcacius Tullus (66), L. Licinius Murena (62), M. Calpurnius Bibulus (59), who is not known to have been descended from Calpurnii with different cognomina, A. Gabinius (58), and perhaps M. Herennius (93) and M. Tullius Decula (81), since their descent from earlier bearers of the same nomen is unattested and improbable. L. Afranius (60) and perhaps Norbanus may have been upstarts to the same extent as Cicero. Of the rest some were certainly and all probably of praetorian families.

¹⁸ e.g. Curio, whose son ranked as ‘princeps iuventutis’ (Cic. Vatin. 24, cf. Fam. II, 7, 4, ‘nobilissimo adulescente et gratiosissimo’), and Bibulus.

¹⁹ Hermes L, 1915, 399 ff.; cf. W. Otto, ibid. LI, 1916, 73 ff. (dissenting); E. Stein, ibid. LII, 1917, 564 ff.; Syme, Tacitus 654 (cf. 369), who accepts Stein's modification of Gelzer's thesis. Consulates down to A.D. 9 certainly conferred nobility, since nobility is ascribed to descendants of L. Munatius Plancus cos. 42 B.C. (Ann. II, 43, 3), L. Scribonius Libo cos. 34 (Suet. Tib. 25), M. Lollius cos. 21 (Ann. XII, 1), P. Silius Nerva, cos. 20 B.C. (Ann. XI, 28), L. Volusius Saturninus, cos. suff. 12 (ibid, XIV,46) and Poppaeus Sabinus, cos. A.D. 9 (ibid, XIII, 46), all of whom were in some sense new men. Cf. Sen. Controv. 11, 4, 12: ‘erat M. Agrippa inter eos qui non nati sunt nobiles sed facti.’ (Gelzer explained away the nobility of Q. Volusius, attested in Ann. XIV, 46, by supposing that he inherited it from his mother, a Cornelia, Pliny NH VII, 62.) Even Stein's moderate theory cannot be regarded as definitive. Pliny, Paneg. 69, 5–70, 2 seems to support Otto's contention that the consulate always conferred nobility, though gradations of nobility were recognized (Otto, pp. 82–3). It may be difficult for both Gelzer and Stein that Sextius Africanus (cos. A.D. 59) was nobilis (Ann. XIII, 19; XIV, 46); he was presumably descended from T. Sextius, a Caesarian governor of Africa, never consul and not known to have been of consular family; a perhaps fictitious descent of the Sextii Laterani (coss. A.D. 94, 154, 197) from L. Sextius Lateranus cos. 366 B.C. might be surmised, but no connection between them and the consul of 59 is established; and nobility on the mother's side is mere conjecture. This case may fit the view of Groag, E., Strena Buliciana 1924, 253 ff.Google Scholar that in the Principate all descendants of families which had been senatorial in the Republic ranked as noble. (If that were granted, the tables in the text would require much amendment.) But Sextius Africanus' nobility could be explained, if T. Sextius were among the men to whom Caesar gave consular ornamenta (Dio XLIII, 47; Suet. Caes. 76).

²⁰ e.g. Att. 11, 21, 1 (59 B.C.); Qu. fr. 111, 5, 4 (54).

²¹ Observe the pride of birth in ILS 935: ‘[Sex.] Appuleio Sex. f. Gal. Sex. n. Sex. pron. Fabia Numantina nato, ultimo gentis suae’; presumably son of the consul of A.D. 14, grandson of the novus homo, consul in 29 B.C., and great-grandson of Augustus' elder sister (PIR I,² 186–7), he is ‘nobilis utrimque’, his mother being a Fabia (PIR III,² 112). Cf. Ann. XIV, 40, 2 (Asinius Marcellus).

²² Mommsen, StR l,³ 574; for a higher average age see Syme, Tacitus 652–6. On Gallus' age see PIR 1,² 247.

²³ Little is known of the posthumous honours paid to C. and L. Caesar (cf. Gardthausen, V., Augustus u. seine Zeit, Leipzig, 1904, 1127, 1146–7)Google Scholar, but I assume, in view of Tiberius' well-known habit of following Augustan precedents (n. 53), that they provided the model for those voted to Germanicus and Drusus, and that the institution of the ten centuries was part of a context similar to that of the Tabula Hebana.

²⁴ StR III,² 461, n. 3, citing Hor. ep. 1, 1, 58; Ovid, Fasti II, 198; RG 35, 1, etc.

²⁵ StR III,² 894.

²⁶ ibid. 887–8.

²⁷ ibid. 513–4.

²⁸ ibid. 515.

²⁹ ibid. 514–9; 892, cf. Stein, A., Der röm. Ritterstand, München, 1927, 31–41Google Scholar, who shows (a) that the gold ring was originally a senatorial privilege, but that (b) in the late Republic it was extended to men of equestrian census (Cic. Verr. II, 3, 187; Fam. X, 32, 3; Hor. Sat. II, 7, 53, etc.), provided that they were of free birth (Dio XLVIII 45, 8, which also proves that it was still worn by senators). It is characteristic of the social views of the imperial government that by a SC of A.D. 22, it confined the right to men of free birth for three generations (Pliny NH XXXIII 32); cf. also the Lex Visellia of 23 (CJ IX, 21, 1; 31, 1). Contra Staveley, E., Rh. Mus. 1953, 201 ff.Google Scholar, it seems to me clear that Pliny (NH XXXIII, 29–30) is denying that in Augustus' time all Equites were entitled to the gold ring, if by Equites we mean citizens of free birth and equestrian census; in Pliny's view even the name of Equites was reserved for holders of the public horse, and even iudices of equestrian census were only entitled to iron rings. But Pliny is refuted by contemporary evidence; the use of the term ‘equites’ and the right to the gold ring were not so restricted. (I also cannot accept Staveley's contention that tribuni aerarii lacked equestrian census, see contra Strachan-Davidson, J. L., Problems of Rom. Crim. Law, Oxford, 1912, 11, 90 ff.Google Scholar, or that Caesar abolished the third decury; Cic. Phil. 1, 19–20, shows only that Antony proposed to admit ex-centurions to the panels of indices, even if they lacked the census qualification the law still required.)

³⁰ StR III,³ 887–92.

³¹ ibid. 894–5.

³² ibid. 893, n. 3.

³³ Stein o.c. (n. 29), 23, n. 1; ‘restored’, Cic. Mur. 40.

³⁴ Pliny NH XXXIII, 32. Augustus let men of equestrian birth retain their right, even if they had lost their property, Suet. Aug. 40, 1; for a parallel, cf. 35) 2; Dio Lrv, 14, 4.

³⁵ Lex Ursonensis 127; Suet. Aug. 44.

³⁶ See next note, cf. Dio LX, 7, 3–4; Suet. Claud. 21, 3.

³⁷ Dio LV, 22, 4: καὶ τὰς ἱπποδρομίας χωρὶς μὲν οἱ βουλευταὶ χωρὶς δὲ οἱ ἱππῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ λοιποῦ πλήθους εἶδον, ὅ καὶ νῦν γίγνεται; Pliny NH XXXIII, 29: ‘anuli distinxere alterum ordinem a plebe…sicut tunica ab anulis senatum’; Ann. XIII, 54, 3: ‘discrimina ordinum’; Livy XXXIV, 54, 5: ‘discrimina talia quibus ordines discernerentur’; 44, 5: ‘(censores) aedilibus curulibus imperarunt ut loca senatoria secernerent a populo; nam antea in promiscuo (cf. Val. Max. IV, 5, 1; Suet. Claud. 21, 3) spectabant.’ Roscius' law restored to the Equites ‘dignitatem’ (cf. Val. Max. l.c.) and ‘voluptatem’ (Mur. 40).

³⁸ Cato, ORF,² fr. 85; Comm. Pet. 33.

³⁹ Stein, o.c. (n. 29), 1–3; for the change, cf. Cic. Rep. rv, 2, with Plut. Pomp. 22, 4–5.

⁴⁰ Ant. Rom. I, 3, 2; 7, 2.

⁴¹ ibid, VI, 13.

⁴² Aug. 38: ‘mox reddendi equi gratiam fecit eis qui maiores annorum quinque et triginta retinere eum nollent.’ Mommsen, StR III,³ 492, n. 1, amended ‘nollent’ to ‘mallent’, holding that ‘gratiam fecit’ must mean ‘exempted’; but the sense ‘permitted’ is well authenticated, cf. Thes. LL, s.v. gratia. cf. Dio Liv, 26, as interpreted by Jones, 9–10.

⁴³ Dio LVI, 23, 2.

⁴⁴ Jones, 15–16. The conclusion does not depend on a doubtful supplement in the Tabula Hebana, nor even on ILS 6747 (where the words may be garbled). It is obvious that the 500 Equites of Gades and Patavium (Str. III, 5, 3; v, I, 7) did not turn out at annual reviews at Rome. Gaius sent for men of good birth and wealth from the provinces and enrolled them in the τέλος of Equites, Dio LIX, 9, 5. In a broad sense, these men were clearly Equites before they came to Rome (like those mentioned by Strabo); the τέλος must denote the ‘turmae equorum publicorum’, to whom Pliny with archaic correctness reserved the name of Equites. The distinction thus persisted between equites equo publico and Equites in a broader sense, men who did not actually possess the public horse, though qualified by birth and wealth. Stein, o.c. (n. 29), 57, taking the view that all Equites were now equo publico, remarks that from Augustus there is no trace of equites equo privato. But when do we hear of this class, as such, even in the time of Cicero? The fact that in countless inscriptions some describe themselves simply as Equites and others as equo publico (ILS Index III, pp. 361–3) is best explained by assuming that the old distinction continued (cf. especially ILS 6630: ‘eq. Rom., patriduorum eq. pub.’). The public horse was an honour that only some Equites enjoyed (ILS Index III, p. 362, for such phrases as ‘equo publico ornatus’); later, indeed, it did not imply presence at the review, since it could be bestowed on children (e.g. ILS 6305).

⁴⁵ cf. n. 29. Stein should never have cited Pliny's statement that under Augustus ‘equitum nomen subsistebat in turmis equorum publicorum’ to sustain the view that throughout the Principate all Equites were equo publico, since on Pliny's own view (mistaken about the time of Augustus) in A.D. 22 ‘in unitatem venit equester ordo’, and the term then came to embrace men who had previously been correctly described not as Equites (since they lacked the public horse), but as tribuni aerarii, selecti, iudices or nongenti (NH XXXIII, 31–2). In reality, both before and after A.D. 22, Equites included all citizens of the requisite birth and wealth, and not just the members of all these classes.

⁴⁶ ‘Equites omnium decuriarum’ shows that they could be enrolled even in that decury for which the minimum property qualification of 200,000 HSS (Suet. Aug. 32, 3) was less than equestrian.

⁴⁷ Ann. II, 83: ‘equester ordo cuneum Germanici appellavit, qui iuniorum dicebatur.’ Stein o.c. (n. 29), 24, n. 2, supposes that this was one of the cunei equestres in the theatre, Stat. Silv. III, 3, 143, cf. Suet. Domit. 4, 5.

⁴⁸ Suet. Aug. 32, 3. A minimum age of thirty was prescribed for iudices by the Gracchan repetundae law (FIRA I, no. 7, 13) and for local magistracies under the Republic (ibid. no. 13, 89; Cic. Verr. II, 2, 122–3), but one of twenty-five for iudices in Cyrene by Augustus (FIRA I, no. 68, 16) and also for local magistracies (ibid. no. 24, LIV; but in Pliny Ep. X, 79–80 XXV is a rash correction); cf. the similar reduction under Augustus in the legal age for the quaestorship (StR 1,³ 560–74). See Stroux, J.-Wenger, L., Die Augustus Inschrift … Abh. Bay. Akad. XXXIV, 1928, 98 ff.Google Scholar; Stroux, J., SB Bay. Akad. 1929, 19 ff.Google Scholar (where his interpretation of BGU 611, 1–7, must be considered uncertain). Hence we should posit an error by Suetonius, or (better) amend XXX to XXV.

⁴⁹ Centuries: Suet. Aug. 38, 3; 37; Ovid, Tr. II, 89 f.; 541 f.; ILS 9483, etc. Decuries, Suet. Aug. 29. 3; 32, 3; Ann. III, 30, etc.

⁵⁰ Dio LV, 34, 2.

⁵¹ l.c., cf. Suet. Aug. 56, 1. See n. 5.

⁵² Ann. I, 81 (contrast 15).

⁵³ ibid. 1, 72, 3; 77, 3; III, 68; IV, 37, 3; Agric. 13, 2. For Augustus' control of consular elections, cf. Ann. III, 75; Antistius Labeo's alleged refusal of the consulship in Dig. 1. 2. 2. 47, does not ring true.

⁵⁴ Ann. IV, 68, 2.

⁵⁵ Dio LVIII, 20, not contradicting Ann. 1, 81, which refers to an earlier time.

⁵⁶ Cic. Sest. 97–8.

⁵⁷ I am grateful to Mr. A. N. Sherwin-White for discussion of an earlier draft of this paper. R. Sealey in an article which appeared too late for consideration here (Phoenix xv, 1961, 97 ff.) has anticipated some of my arguments and conclusions; I could not accept his main thesis on Sejanus' party.