The Pompeius Macer whom prosopographers have discerned among the friends of Ovid boasts connections as stellar as anyone in Ovid's ambit. His induction into the Roman establishment was preceded by the achievements of his father Theophanes of Mytilene, who for two decades had been one of Pompey's closest confidants. Macer himself served Augustus first as equestrian procurator of Asia and then as director of state libraries in Rome, and when the phil-Hellene Tiberius replaced Augustus, his position at court grew (...) firmer still. He lived to see his son gain a seat in the Roman senate, to become the first known senator of Greek origin. And while tending to his political career, he made a name for himself in Roman literary circles and maintained a long-lasting friendship with Ovid. (shrink)

For E. Badian the story of Pompeius Strabo's desire for a second consulship in 88, though implausible, was too well documented to require citation of sources. In fact it is not well documented and seems to depend solely on one disputed passage: Veil. Pat. 2.21.2. Others, far less cautious than Badian, have not scrupled, however, to accept it as uncontested fact and on it to build unlikely hypotheses, despite the long scholarly controversy as to whether it refers to 88 (...) or 86. It is my belief that it can be shown that the passage almost unquestionably refers to the ambitions Pompeius Strabo entertained in 87 with regard to the consulship of 86. (shrink)

Journal Name: Philologus Issue: Ahead of print.

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch , the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle . The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra (...) miseria tu es magnus’. Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’ . In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem. When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’ . So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’ . Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’ . We will return later to this complex of ideas. (shrink)

At the age of twenty-five, Gn. Pompeius acquired the spectacular cognomen of Magnus. According to Plutarch, the name came either from the acclamation of his army in Africa, or at the instigation of Sulla. According to Livy, the practice began from the toadying of Pompeius' circle. The cognomen invited play. At the Ludi Apollinares of July 59, Cicero tells us, the actor Diphilus won ‘a dozen encores’ when he pronounced, from a lost tragedy, the line ‘nostra miseria tu (...) es magnus’. Four or five years later Catullus scored a fine hit, filching Pompeius' cognomen and giving it to his zealously competitive father-in-law: ‘Caesaris uisens monimenta magni’. In Lucan's Bellum Civile such plays on the cognomen are elevated into something of considerable power, testifying to a consistent controlling design, of the sort which many still deny the poem.When Pompeius first appears he is compared with Caesar, to his detriment: ‘nec coiere pares’. So much for Pompeius' vaunted intolerance of an equal, of which we have just been reminded: ‘nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarue priorem | Pompeiusue parem’. Many of the images in this introductory section have a programmatic power, and will recur. With ‘nec coiere pares’ Lucan presents the two as an ill-matched pair of gladiators. The metaphor is ubiquitous. Note, in particular, 5.1–3, and 6.3, ‘parque suum uidere dei’. We are further told that Pompeius seeks ‘fama’, is a ‘popularis’, indulges the people, basks in the applause he receives from the mob in his theatre: ‘famaeque petitor | multa dare in uolgus, totus popularibus auris | impelli plausuque sui gaudere theatri’. We will return later to this complex of ideas. (shrink)

In his Bellum Ciuile, Caesar reports the events of 1 January 49 with these words : misso ad uesperum senatu omnes qui sunt eius ordinis a Pompeio euocantur. laudat Pompeius atque in posterum confirmat, segniores castigat atque incitat.When the Senate had been dismissed towards dusk, all who belonged to that order were summoned by Pompeius. He praised the determined and encouraged them for the future while criticizing and stirring up those who were less eager to act.This meeting has (...) not attracted much scholarly attention and admittedly for a good reason: other circumstances of the outbreak of the Civil War are, perhaps, more significant for understanding the events as well as the intentions and decisions of the political actors. The importance of this gathering lies, however, not so much in what its role might have been in the developments of the year 49 but rather in the context of the phenomenon of the promagistrates’ interference in the domestic politics of Late Republican Rome. (shrink)

Research questions asked about Pompeius’ cura annonae – often termed “grain command” – dwell mainly on what made it more like any other promagistracy. Scholars tend to approach this office as if it were a kind of military command, albeit innovative. However, unlike promagistrates before him, Pompeius was endowed with the task which concerned the sphere domi. While not neglected, this aspect of Pompeius’ power becomes even more significant if appreciated through the lens of a more general (...) problem of late-republican promagistrates’ interference in the sphere of domestic politics. This paper aims to supplement scholarly observations on the cura annonae, including F. Vervaet’s recent findings, by reconsidering especially the evidence on Pompeius’ making or revising a list of grain recipients. (shrink)

That Cn. Pompeius Magnus (cos. 70, II 55, III 52) was charged with the Roman cura annonae in September 57 is a fact quite well known to Roman historians and all interested in the history of the late Republic. Although Pompeius’ grain commission in many respects represented a novel development, relatively few have bothered to study the fine detail of what happened to be the third and final extraordinary proconsulship of his remarkable career, signifying that several important questions (...) remain largely unanswered1. After a brief discussion of the political context of the late summer of 57, this study therefore endeavours to cast a new light on his powers under the constitutive statute, the issue of the terminus of his tenure as superintendent of the grain supply, and its wider historical ramifications. (shrink)

Numerous ancient sources attest that Artemisia of Halicarnassus, a fifth-century BCE tyrant whose polis came under Persian rule in 524 BCE, figures prominently in Xerxes’ naval campaign against Greece. At least since Pompeius Trogus’ first-century BCE Philippic History, interpretations of Artemisia have juxtaposed her “virile courage” (uirilem audaciam) with Xerxes’ “womanish fear” (muliebrem timorem) primarily as a means of belittling the effeminate non-Greeks. My paper argues that although Herodotus is aware of such interpretations of Artemisia, he depicts her primarily (...) as an excellent counsel, a woman who is not only brave in battle, but who is a wonder primarily because of her intellectual excellences in deliberative rhetoric and “geo-political” strategy in the Greco-Persian world. (shrink)

A Previous article made a linguistic study of municeps. The present examines the Roman discussions of the word. I hope further to discuss the definitions of Verrius Flaccus, the history of the ius, and the juridical concept. Roman historical and legal discussion of municeps is to be found in the Digest , in the Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius , and in the De verborum significatu of Sextus Pompeius Festus and its epitome by Paulus . It comprises legal definitions, (...) which must have had at least contemporary validity, historical definitions of what the word meant at different periods in its history, and the citation of precedents with or without historical detail. Of these the last two are the most important. (shrink)

El objetivo de este trabajo es observar el tratamiento que se ofrece en la Institutio Oratoria de Quintiliano y en las artes de Donato, Diomedes y Consencio, como también en el comentario de Pompeyo a la obra de Donato, de los ejemplos estándar de singularización de pluralia tantum: scala, scopa, quadriga. El análisis de la ambigüedad de los nombres tantum cobra relevancia desde que trasciende la mera discusión automatizada de un lugar común de las artes grammaticales, convirtiéndose en un problema (...) de descripción lingüística, al plantearse su coherencia para la descripción de toda la lengua. The purpose of this paper is the study of the treatment offered in Quintilian's Institutio Oratoria, in the artes of Donatus, Diomedes and Consentius, and in Pompeius's commentary on the work of Donatus, of the standard examples regarding the use of pluralia tantum in singular: scala, scopa, quadriga. The analysis of the ambiguity of the pluralia and singularia tantum gains relevance as it transcends the mere automated discussion of a commonplace of the artes grammaticales, becoming a problem of linguistic description, when the issue of its coherence for the description of the entire language is raised. (shrink)

Caesars "Bellum Civile" ist als Dokument römischer Geschichtsschreibung und als Quellenwerk über den Bürgerkrieg für jeden am antiken Rom Interessierten von außerordentlicher Bedeutung. Dennoch führt er neben dem "Gallischen Krieg" fast ein Schattendasein: zu Unrecht, wie sich erweist. Denn an Klarheit der Diktion und Prägnanz des Gedankens steht der "Bürgerkrieg" diesem nicht nach. Dazu ist der Zweikampf um die Macht zwischen Caesar und Pompeius ein erregender historischer Stoff, selbst dort, wo er weniger objektive Historiographie als eine Rechtfertigung für Caesars (...) Handeln darstellt. Es liegt Caesar daran zu beweisen, dass ihm der Krieg, den er gern vermieden hätte, vom Gegner aufgezwungen wurde und dass er selbst schuldlos daran sei. Wie abenteuerlich in Rom intrigiert wurde, wie Caesar stets edel ist und die anderen üble Rechtsbrecher und Staatsfeinde sind, das lohnt sich auch 2000 Jahre später noch nachzulesen. (shrink)

The first sentence of the Annals reads urbem Romam a principio reges habuere. Commentators observe the echo of Sallust, Catiline 6.1 urbem Romam, sicuti ego accepi, condidere atque habuere initio Troiani, and of Claudius, ILS 212 quondam reges hanc tenuere urbem. In a stimulating recent contribution David Levene also compares the first sentence of Justinus' Epitome of the Histories of Pompeius Trogus: principio rerum gentium nationumque imperium penes reges erat. A fourth potential model may now be taken into consideration: (...) Ἀθηναῖοι τὸ μὲν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐχρῶντο βασιλɛίαι. (shrink)

Sisenna Historiarum lib. iii: Lucium Memmium, socerum Gai Scriboni, tribunum plebis, quern Marci Livi consiliarium fuisse callebant et tune Gurionis oratorem … . Erat Hortensius in bello primo anno miles, altero tribunus militum, Sulpicius legatus; aberat etiam M. Antonius; exercebatur una lege iudicium Varia, ceteris propter bellum intermissis; cui frequens aderam, quamquam pro se ipsi dicebant oratores non illi quidem principes, L. Memmius et Q. Pompeius, sed oratores tamen, teste diserto utique [Jahn: MSS. uterque] Philippo, cuius in testimonio contentio (...) et vim accusatoris habebat et copiam. Reliqui qui turn principes numerabantur in magistratibus erant cotidieque fere a nobis in contionibus audiebantur …. (shrink)

Little, if anything, in Justin scholarship has been as controversial as the dating of the so-called Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus. Suggested dates have varied from the time of Antoninus Pius through the third century to the end of the fourth. The latter was proposed in 1988 by Sir Ronald Syme, but has in fact received little support in subsequent literature on Justin, which has tended to accept the earlier dating . An exception is T. D. (...) Barnes, who has voiced support for a later dating based on a linguistic parallel to Justin in the Historia Augusta. Barnes observes that Oscar Hey, author of the article ducatus in TLL , drew attention to the similarity between Justin 30.2.5 Agathocles regis lateri iunctus civitatem regebat, tribunatus et praefecturas et ducatus mulieres ordinabant and HA Heliog. 6.2 militaribus… praeposituris et legationibus et ducatibus venditis. Hey, he notes, refers at the head of that particular section of the article to Seeck's article on dux. Seeck had demonstrated—and this is now taken for granted by scholars—that from the time of Diocletian dux is used technically as a formal title, and, in drawing attention to the parallel between HA Heliog. 6.2 and Justin, Hey must have been intimating that Justin is, like the author of Heliog. 6.2, using ducatus as a formal title. He then seems to suggest that Hey was right and Justin is to be dated to at least some time after 260. (shrink)

Although much of great interest has been written recently about the period of the socalled Peace of Philocrates, little or nothing has been said of a passage which provides important information in Justin's Epitome of the Historiae Philippicae of Pompeius Trogus. This passage, 8.3.12–15, comes between the destruction of Olynthus and the arrival of the Athenian envoys at Pella . In subject matter it corresponds with ‘the subjugation of Thrace and Thessaly’ in Prologue 8 of Pompeius Trogus – (...) a topic which Justin began in 8.3.1–6 and continued in our passage, 8.3.12–15. (shrink)

At Aen. 6.562–627 the Sibyl gives Aeneas a description of the criminals in Tartarus and the punishments to which they are condemned. The criminals are presented to us in several groups. The first consists of mythical figures, the Titans , the sons of Aloeus , Salmoneus , Tityos and Ixion and Pirithous . Next Virgil turns away from mythical figures to particular categories of criminal. He mentions those who hated their brothers, who assaulted a parent, who cheated a cliens, who (...) gloated over wealth they had acquired without setting aside a part for their family, who were put to death for adultery, and those who, breaking their masters' trust, made war on their country . The reference to the contemporary scene is unmistakable. The mention of a cliens indicates that we have moved from Greece to Rome. Moreover, ‘quique ob adulterium caesi’ brings to mind Augustus' concern over moral standards, the subject of legislation in 28 B.c., 18 B.c. and A.d. 9; the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis gave to fathers of adulteresses the right to put to death both guilty parties. Thirdly, ‘arma...impia’ is an obvious reference to civil war , which as Servius argues is more narrowly defined by ‘nee veriti dominorum fallere dextras’ so as to exclude Caesar and Octavian: undoubtedly the allusion is to the war against Sextus Pompeius, which Augustan propaganda chose to represent as a war against runaway slaves. Virgil continues by sketching the penalties paid in Tartarus by such men . While doing so, however, he retreats once again into the realm of mythology: the punishments he describes are those more normally associated with Sisyphus and Ixion . This reversion is completed at 617–20 where, confusingly, Virgil denies that he has been alluding to events of contemporary significance by naming two mythical personages, Theseus and Phlegyas . Virgil therefore implies, but then denies, contemporary relevance. It is this kind of protean elusiveness which makes the contemporary allusions in Virgil so difficult to pin down. (shrink)

Summary This article revises the existing explanations for the marriage between Octavian and Scribonia, which emphasised the young Caesar’s desire for an accommodation with Sextus Pompeius, including a mutual normalization of relations and even an alliance. In reality, such actions were never on the agenda of either politician. The marriage to Scribonia was primarily a message addressed by Octavian to Antonius during a period of tense relations in the year 40 BCE, but also to the Roman plebs and to (...) the veterans. (shrink)

Die „Wahl“ des jungen P. Cornelius Scipio zum Prokonsul in Spanien im Frühjahr 210 - mitten im Hannibalischen Krieg - stellt in der römischen Geschichte in mehrfacher Hinsicht eine Einmaligkeit dar: Nur hier wird eigens ein Promagistrat für einen außeritalischen Kriegsschauplatz vom Volk direkt gewählt, zudem ein Amtloser, der keinerlei Erfahrung in der Führung von Legionen hat. Zuerst ist die früheste Quelle für diesen Vorgang, Livius, auf ihren historischen Gehalt zu untersuchen (I). Die dortigen staatsrechtlichen Unwahrscheinlichkeiten empfehlen eine Analyse der (...) späteren Berichte des Silius Italicus, des Appian und des Cassius Dio/Zonaras (II). Deren Abweichungen von Livius deuten auf die Existenz einer Ursprungsversion von Scipios „Wahl“, deren inhaltliche Hauptlinien, Tendenz und sogar vermutlicher Autor sich durch einen Vergleich der Parallelberichte rekonstruieren lassen (III). Dabei hilfreich ist die Einbeziehung zweier anderer Fragmente aus Cassius Dio über Scipio, die ebenfalls auf denselben Autor zurückgehen könnten (IV). Die Entstehungsbedingungen und Motive dieser rekonstruierten Ursprungsversion werden insbesondere im Umfeld von Pompeius’ Imperien gegen die Piraten und Mithridates gesucht (V). Weiteren Aufschluß bietet auch die Klärung der Frage, welchen Rang M. Iunius Silanus, der Mitfeldherr des Scipio in Spanien, einnahm (VI). Schließlich verhilft Ciceros Verschweigen von Scipios „Wahl“ dazu, einen terminus post quem für die Verbreitung der rekonstruierten Ursprungsversion zu bestimmen (VII). (shrink)

In an otherwise convincing article Mr. T. P. Wiseman argues that this passage ‘seems to mean that L. Memmius and Q. Pompeius were principes, i.e. outstanding orators, and that they were not among those who spoke in their own defence in 90 B.C.’. But he rightly refuses to believe that Cicero can have intended this, since, apart from other considerations, it is clear from Cicero's previous references to Memmius and Pompeius that he did not consider them to be (...) outstanding orators. (shrink)