Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:15:35.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Pisones in Tacitus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Ronald Syme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At this late date there is not much prospect of producing new and cogent emendations in Tacitus. ‘Hoc artificium periit.’ Past excesses counsel sobriety, and there has been a strong revulsion. Among the items which scholars unjustly impugned and prematurely corrected were a number of proper names, their sole offence often being rarity or an unusual shape. However strange a name may look, it should not lightly be altered. The vast and vivid nomenclature of ancient Italy invades the lower orders of the Roman Senate well before the Republic ends, and proliferates under the Caesars.

Names of a more familiar contour can still be a source of perplexity. The senatorial annals of Tiberius' principate carry a plethora of persons, among them the recurrent and aristocratic members of a few families. The consular historian, however, was adequately equipped for his task. He knew the methods of documentary inquiry, he was ferociously accurate, and he was interested in all the characters of his narrative, down to the most obscure—‘originem non repperi’ (VI, 7, 4). That being so, two Aemilii Lepidi, a Marcus and a Manius (the consuls of 6 and of 11), gave him no trouble. That he could avoid error everywhere, too much to hope. There are slips. And he might be held guilty of inadvertence. For example, it is an annoyance that the same person should appear as ‘Cotta Messallinus’ in the year 16 (11, 32, 1), as ‘Aurelius Cotta consul’ in 20 (III, 17, 4).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 46 , Issue 1-2 , November 1956 , pp. 17 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Ronald Syme 1956. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

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

1 For examples of premature correction, JRS XXXIX (1949), 6 ff.

2 cf. the argument developed in JRS XLV (1955), 22 ff.

3 Thus ‘Latinius Latiaris’ (IV, 68, 2) and ‘Latinius’ (71, 1), but ‘Lucanius Latiaris’ (VI, 4, 1). The correct gentilicium is probably ‘Lucanius’, but the discrepancy ought to be retained in the text, for the historian himself may be responsible, cf. JRS XXXIX (1949), 13. Different sources, perhaps.

4 JRS XLV (1955), 157 (discussing the homonymous Messallae, the consuls of 61 and 53 B.C.).

5 Thus H. Furneaux (ed. 2, Oxford, 1896); Halm-Andresen (ed. 5, Teubner, 1913); E. Koestermann (Teubner, 1934).

6 viz., M. Lenchantin de Gubernatis (Regia Academia Italica, 1940); Fuchs, H. (Editiones Helveticae, 1946); Koestermann, E. (Teubner, 1952)Google Scholar.

7 E. Groag in PIR 2, C 287: ‘incertum num etiam Tac. 1, 79 Piso hie significetur (in cod. praenomen excidit).’

8 He occurs, to be sure, among the ‘capaces imperii' (1, 13, 3). That passage is patently an accretion on Tacitus’ main source—and might even be a subsequent insertion by the author, cf. JRS XLV (1955), 32.

9 Groag voiced grave misgivings, among which ‘neque probabile mihi videtur Cottam Messalinum a. 16 sententiam dixisse inter praetorios’ (PIR 2, A 1488). He lists the consul of 20 separately (A 1487). Against, and for identity, de Laet, S. J., Ant. Class. VI (1937), 137 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Degrassi, A., Epigraphica VIII (1946). 38Google Scholar.

10 Inscr. It. XIII, 1, p. 297, where Degrassi reads ‘]s […]a per.’ One might speculate with the cognomina ‘Cotta’, ‘Galba’, ‘Nerva’. But recourse to Degrassi's drawing (the photograph does not help) would justify ‘Cot[ṭ]a’’.

11 The encouraging exception is G. H. Walther (Halle, 1831), the scholar who refused to alter the praenomen of Lepidus, M. in Ann. I, 13, 2Google Scholar. Obdurate against ‘L. P«iso»’ and against other names, he firmly printed ‘L. P.’ in his text. The exact lectio of the Codex Mediceus is ‘L. p.’ (with the stops after each letter).

12 For the augur, Nipperdey; Ph. Fabia in his Onomasticon Taciteum (1900); PJR 1, C 233 (with no warning). For the pontifex, Furneaux; Groag in PIR 2, C 289.

13 For the augur, Nipperdey; Fabia; PIR 1, C 233. For the pontifex, Furneaux; Groag in PIR2, C 289.

14 It can be noted, as of antiquarian relevance, that Freinsheim suggested ‘Publius’, ‘Paullus’, or ‘Plancus’ (in that order): see his note cited in the edition of J. F. Gronovius (Amsterdam, 1672). The first two are ruled out.

15 ILS 41: ‘L. Plancus L. f. cos./imp. iter. de manib.’

16 Seneca, NQ IV, praef. 5: ‘Plancus, artifex ante Villeium (Vitellium, O. Hirschfeld) maximus, aiebat non esse occulte nee ex dissimulate blandiendum: “perit,” inquit, “procari, si latet,” ’ The Plancus of Seneca is registered as PIR 1, P 335: no reference under M 534 f., or in P-W XVI 545 ff. He is assumed to be the great Plancus in Rom. Rev. (1939), 501, worthy to be named with L. Vitellius (cos. 34; II, 43; III, 47).

17 Seneca, Epp. 70, 10.

18 That is, having swallowed up another consular as well.

19 PIR 1, G 133 adds ‘e coniectura Lipsi non certa’, but there is no adequate warning in PIR 2, G 206. That entry also fails to indicate the source of the ‘Q.’, or allow for the man's being a senator.

20 Observe that Ritter had suggested the desirability of reading ‘Pisonemque «.» Granius’, supposing a praenomen to have fallen out.

21 For his career see now AE 1953, 251, the remarkable inscr. detected at Rome by A. E. Gordon and published with full commentary, Univ. of Cal. Pub. in Class. Arch. II, 5 (1952), 231 ff. For his age and promotions, E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953), 1 ff.

22 Tribune of the Plebs in 41, Veranius carried messages between the Senate and the candidate of the Praetorian Guard (Josephus, AJ XIX, 229 ff.). When legate of Lycia-Parnphylia (? 43–47) he conducted operations against mountain tribes in Cilicia, to the east of his province: Tacitus in the extant books did not neglect the recalcitrant Cietae (VI, 41, 1; XII, 55, 1 f.).

23 PIR 2, C 293, cf. especially Pliny, Epp. III, 7, 12.

24 PIR 2, C 292: ‘ante legationem fasces gesserit necesse est.’ Cf. A 1130 (on the date of the governorship of L. Arruntius).

25 Degrassi stated ‘é altresi poco probabile che non sia stato console’ (Epigraphica VIII (1946), 39); but in I Fasti consolari (1952), Piso is entered below the line with a note of doubt ‘se fu governatore della Spagna citeriore’. The expulsion of Piso will ease some of the problems inherent in the Fasti of the years 13, 21, and 22.

26 Lamia's governorship must have been mentioned, for Tacitus writes ‘administrandae Suriae imagine tandem exsolutus’ (VI, 27, 1). And Arruntius came into the story of the year 31, cf. PIR 1, A 1130: Dio has the incident, but not the name (LVIII, 8, 3).

27 Three legates under the consular, cf. Strabo III, 166 f. One of them had no legionary command. In Syria Pacuvius, one of the legionary legates, was deputy for Aelius Lamia (Seneca, Epp. 12, 8, cf. Ann. II, 79, 2).

28 Asconius 2: ‘tamen non puto vos ignorare hunc Pisonem ex ea familia esse quae Frugi appellata sit.’ Groag in P-W III, 1396, attached ‘Frugi’ to the name of the pontifex; also R. Syme, Rom. Rev. (1939), Index. See, however, Groag in PIR 2, C 289. (Cassius Dio is also apparently an offender, cf. the Φούρτιος after the name of the pontifex in the Index to Book LIV).

29 IRT 319.

30 Thus the table in PIR 2, vol. in (facing p. 54), or Table v in Rom. Rev.