UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A historical commentary on Plutarch’s Marcellus Clark, Edward Dale 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1992_spring_clark_edward_dale.pdf [ 15.95MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086643.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086643-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086643-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086643-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086643-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086643-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086643-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086643-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086643.ris

Full Text

A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON PLUTARCH'S MARCELLUS By EDWARD DALE CLARK B.A., The University of Washington, 1983 M.A., The University of Washington, 1984 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of C l a s s i c s ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1991 ® Edward Dale Clark, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. 1 further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allovk^ ed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date D e c , lû^ m\ DE-6 (2/88) A HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON PLUTARCH'S MARCELLUS ABSTRACT M. Claudius Marcellus won m i l i t a r y renown during Rome's wars with the Gauls and the Carthaginians i n the l a t t e r h a l f of the t h i r d century B.C. As consul i n 222 B.C. he earned the rare honor of the spolia opima by slaying i n single combat the opposing G a l l i c c h i e f t a i n . In the dark days following the d i s a s t e r at Cannae i n 216 B.C., he showed himself to be the only Roman commander capable of standing up to, i f not a c t u a l l y defeating, Hannibal i n I t a l y ; for t h i s he gained the t i t l e of 'The Sword of Rome.' Plutarch, writing at the turn of the second century A.D., came near the end of the development of the h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n about t h i s famous general. When he came to write t h i s biography, he had available to him a wide range of sources, both favorable and h o s t i l e to Marcellus. The purpose of t h i s study i s to provide a commentary on h i s account and to assess the accuracy of the p o r t r a i t offered. Plutarch's text has been compared with a l l the evidence that has survived. Its s i m i l a r i t i e s to and divergences from other versions have been examined, although the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s hampered by the loss of much of the source material that had been a v a i l a b l e to Plutarch. Through t h i s analysis i t i s hoped that a more accurate picture of Marcellus and of the events i n which he was involved have emerged. Plutarch set out to prove that Marcel lus was not only a brave and energetic warrior but also a humanitarian and an admirer of Greek culture. This study concludes that he i s only p a r t i a l l y convincing. Although there i s no doubt about Marcellus' m i l i t a r y prowess, h i s humanitarianism and love of Greek culture are open to serious questions. As the record shows Marcellus adopted measures that were both harsh and c r u e l , while the extent to which some of h i s actions appear humane i s due i n large part to p r a c t i c a l necessity. In addition, h i s admiration of Greek culture seems to have been only s u p e r f i c i a l . Plutarch i n presenting t h i s p o r t r a i t appears motivated by h i s notion of virtuous ideals rather than by h i s t o r i c a l r e a l i t y . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i TEXT AND ABBREVIATIONS v i i INTRODUCTION Plutarch's L i f e 1 The Parallel Lives and Plutarch's aim 7 Plutarch's Methods 12 Plutarch's Sources 20 COMMENTARY Chapter One 37 Chapter Two 44 Chapter Three 56 Chapter Four 77 Chapter Five 94 Chapter Six 104 Chapter Seven 117 Chapter Eight 125 Chapter Nine 137 Chapter Ten 146 Chapter Eleven 153 Chapter Twelve 161 Chapter Thirteen 174 Chapter Fourteen 197 Chapter F i f t e e n 217 Chapter Sixteen 230 Chapter Seventeen 234 Chapter Eighteen 240 Chapter Nineteen 256 Chapter Twenty 274 Chapter Twenty-one 281 Chapter Twenty-two 291 Chapter Twenty-three 298 Chapter Twenty-four 310 Chapter Twenty-five 321 Chapter Twenty-six 329 Chapter Twenty-seven 334 Chapter Twenty-eight 340 Chapter Twenty-nine 349 Chapter Th i r t y 369 BIBLIOGRAPHY 379 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank Professors W. J . Dusing and A. A. Barrett fo r t h e i r cooperation and supervision without which t h i s t h e s i s would not have been possible. I would also l i k e to express my gratitude to Professor P. E. Harding for h i s timely e f f o r t s and he l p f u l suggestions. To my family I s h a l l always be indebted fo r the patience shown me and the support given during my many years of study. E.D.C. TEXT The e d i t i o n of Plutarch's text used i s that of K. Z i e g l e r (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1968). ABBREVIATIONS Standard abbreviations are used for c i t i n g ancient authors and texts. Abbreviations used for many modern works of scholarship can be found i n L'année philologique or The Oxford 2 Clssical Dictionary . In other cases shortened t i t l e s or the following abbreviations may be employed ( f u l l c i t a t i o n s f o r modern works can be found i n the Bibliography): Barrow PT Cassola GPR De Sanctis SR Eckstein SG Ernout-Meillet Hamilton PAC Heath HGM Hesselbarth HKUDDL Barrow, R. H. Plutarch and His Times. London, 1967. Cassola, F. I gruppi polit ici romani nel iii secolo a. C. T r i e s t e , 1962. De Sanctis, G. Storia dei Romani. Florence, 1967-1968. Eckstein, A. M. Senate and General: Individual Decision Making and Roman Foreign Relations, 264-194 B.C. Berkeley, 1987. Ernout, A. and A. M e i l l e t . Dictionnaire Étymologique de la Langue Latine. P a r i s , 1959. Hamilton, J. R. Plutarch, Alexander, A Commentary. Oxford, 1969. Heath, S i r T. L. A History of Greek Mathematics. Oxford, 1921. Hesselbarth, H. Historisch-kritische Untersuchungen zur dritten VI1 Inscr. It. Jones PR LandeIs EAW Marsden GRATT Marsden GRAHD Mommsen Str. Mommsen Strafr. Nissen It. Land. PECS Peter HRR Picard TR RE Schwenn MGR S c u l l a r d RP Syll. T h i e l SHRSPRT Dekade des Livius. Halle, 1889. Inscriptiones Italia. Ed. A. Degrassi. Rome, 1937. Jones, C. P. Plutarch and Rome. Oxford, 1971. Landels, J. G. Engineering in the Ancient World. Berkeley, 1978. Marsden, E. W. Greek and Roman Artillery: Historical Development. Oxford, 1969. Marsden, E. W. Greek and Roman Artillery: Technical Treatises. Oxford, 1971. Mommsen, T. Romisches Staatsrecht. Graz, 1952-1953. Mommsen, T. Romisches Strafrecht. B e r l i n , 1955. Nissen, H. Italische Landeskunde. B e r l i n , 1883-1902. The Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites. Ed. R. S t i l l w e l l . Princeton, 1976. Peter, H. Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae. Stuttgart, 1967. Picard, G. C. Les Trophées romains: Contribution à l' histoire de la Religion et de l ' Art triomphal. Paris, 1957. Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenshaft. Ed. A. Pauly et a l . Stuttgart, 1893-. Schwenn, F. Die Menschenopfer bei den Griechen und Rômern. B e r l i n , 1966. Scullard, H. H. Roman Politics 220-150 B.C. Oxford, 1951. Sylioge Inscriptionum Graecarum. Ed. G. Dittenberger. Leipzig, 1960. Th i e l , J. H. Studies on the History of Roman Sea-Power in Republican. Times. Amsterdam, 1946. Walde-Hofmann Walde, A. and J . B. Hofmann. Lateinisches etymologisches Worterbuch. Heidelberg, 1965. References to the commentary begin with "Chapter..." (with a c a p i t a l C) , otherwise the word chapter r e f e r s to the t e x t of the Marcellus. INTRODUCTION Plutarch's L i f e Plutarch was born i n the fourth decade a f t e r C h r i s t of a well-to-do family resident i n the Greek c i t y of Chaeronea. His 2 family had resided there for generations. I t was evidently w e l l - o f f , since h i s father, Autobulus, kept the f i n e s t horses and engaged i n hunting."^ Plutarch undoubtedly had a very good education. The chronology for his studies i s uncertain, but i t i s known that he was a student of the philosopher Ammonius i n A.D. 66/7 and a f t e r going through a period of intense i n t e r e s t i n mathematics, . . . 4 coined the Academy i n Athens. However, before coining he must have received a thorough t r a i n i n g i n r h e t o r i c . This i s evident '^RE 21,1 [1951], "Plutarchos, " no. 2: 636-962; a more precise date f o r h i s b i r t h i s d i f f i c u l t to determine since i t i s based on Plutarch's writings from which we learn that he was a student of Ammonius during Nero's stay i n Greece and about ready to j o i n the Academy (A.D. 66/7; Wor. 385b, 387f, 391e). 2 Plutarch (Ant. 68.7-8) reports that h i s great-grandfather Nicarchus used to t e l l how a l l the c i t i z e n s of Chaeronea were pressed into service by Antony's agents to transport grain down to the Corinthian gulf at Anticyra i n the year of Actium. ^Mor. 642a, 959b; Plutarch never t e l l s us h i s father's name, but i t has been inferred from Moralia 964d (see Barrow PT 15 and Z i e g l e r RE 21.1 [1951]: 643-644). 4 Mor. 385b, 391e; i t i s reported that Ammonius came from Egypt and held the p o s i t i o n of stratèges at Athens three times (Eunap. VS p. 454 Clear ius: èv otç 'A|i|aa>vtôç xe rjv ô AtyuTtTOU, IlÀouxàpXou ToO Gstoxàxou yeyovàç StSàaKaA,oç; Plut. Mor. 720c; see Jones HSPh 71 [1966]: 205-213).^ Mor. 387f: ^ àTiV ènet xrivtKttuxa TtpoasKeturiv xoCç paGrjiJiaotv è)XKaQ5>Q, xà%a ôx] |aé?iÀcDV eiç Ttdvxa xtM^ioetv xô ^riSèv ayav' âv 'AKaSr||aetg ysvô|isvoç. i n some of h i s early works. His l a t e r mistrust of r h e t o r i c was probably derived from his stay at the Academy.^ As a young man Plutarch went on t r a v e l s . I t may be assumed that he toured widely throughout Greece. But he also went on more distant journeys, going to the province of Asia, most l i k e l y v i s i t i n g the c i t y of Smyrna, and t r a v e l l i n g to Egypt, 7 v i s i t i n g Alexandria. He married young, taking Timoxena, the daughter of Alexion, as h i s wife. The marriage, which appears to have been a happy g one, produced at least f i v e children. While s t i l l a young man, he was chosen as part of a two-man delegation to go to the proconsul of Achaea, probably i n order to represent the interests of Chaeronea.'^'^ This was the beginning of h i s o f f i c i a l contact with the Roman governing c l a s s , among whom he was to make many friends. During h i s l i f e Plutarch made several t r i p s to I t a l y and Rome, where he not only performed p o l i t i c a l duties as an ambassador of Greece, but also was i n high demand fo r 5 E.g., the two speeches De for tuna Alexandri. ^Jones PR 14, Hamilton PAC xiv, x x i i - x x i i i ; see Krauss Die rhetorischen Schriften Plutarchs und ihre Stellung im plut archisChen Schriftenkorpus. 7 Mor. 501e-f; Jones PR 14-15; cf. Barrow PT 36, who believes that Plutarch delivered a lecture at either Sardes or Ephesus. That Plutarch was a young man when he went to Egypt i s indicated by the presence of his grandfather Lamprias at the party given fo r him on h i s return (Mor. 678c-e; Jones PR 15). ^Mor. 608c, 611d, 701d. 9 Mor. 608c; cf. Hamilton PAC x i i i - x i v . •"•^ Wor. 816d; Jones PR 15. philosophical lectures and discussions.^''" The e a r l i e s t datable t r i p to Rome appears to have been during the l a t e r years of 12 Vespasian's reign (A.D. 69-79). Also datable to t h i s reign may be h i s t r i p to northern I t a l y with the consular Mestrius Florus. There he v i s i t e d Ravenna, Otho's tomb at Brix i l l u m , and the b a t t l e f i e l d at Bedriacum. ^"^  In addition, there are in d i c a t i o n s that he may have been i n Rome during Domitian's reign, i n the 14 winter of A.D. 88/9, and l a t e r i n the years A.D. 92-93. However, with advancing age he seems to have c u r t a i l e d h i s t r i p s to I t a l y and to have remained i n Greece, usually i n h i s native c i t y of Chaeronea or at Delphi.''"^ During h i s t r i p s to I t a l y , Plutarch became acquainted and made friends with many important Romans. He was on good terms with L. Mestrius Florus, who received a s u f f e c t consulship from Vespasian (ca. A.D. 75) and the proconsulship of Asia some 15 years l a t e r (A.D. 82/3 or perhaps 89/90).''"^ I t was through Mestrius' intercession that Plutarch obtained Roman c i t i z e n s h i p , p o s s i b l y from Vespasian.'''^ On account of t h i s favor, Plutarch ^^Dem. 2.2: èv Sè "Pwnri Kat xatç nepi xriv 'lxaA,{av Staxptpatç où oxo7^f\Q o\jor]ç. . . vno %pet©v jtoÀtxtKwv Kat xwv 8tà cptÀooocptav rtA-r|at aî^ ô vxcov ; see Moralia 522d-e where Plutarch mentions an incident which occurred during one of his lectures at Rome; c f . Jones PR 20-21. ^^Mor. 973e-974a. ^^Mar. 2.1, Otho 18.1-2, 14.2; Jones PR 22. 14 For winter of A.D. 88/89 see Aemilius 25.5-7; Jones PR 22; f o r years A.D. 92-93 see Moralia 522d-e, 632a, and Publicola 15.5; Jones PR 22-23. ^^Mor. 384e, 727b, Dem. 2.1-2; c f . Jones PR 28. •"•^ PIR^ M, no. 531; Otho 14.2; Jones PR 49. 17 3 Syll. , 829A = Smallwood Documents Illustrating the Principates of Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian, no. 487; Jones PR 22. appears to have adopted Mestrius' name as well as to have passed 18 i t on to h i s sons. Another one of his Roman friends was Q. Sosius Senecio, to 19 whom Plutarch dedicated h i s Parallel Lives. Sosius was a quaestor i n Greece i n the late 80's where they may have f i r s t met. In o r i g i n he may have been from the Greek East. He was 20 also perhaps as much as 20 years younger than Plutarch. Upon Domitian's assassination he was promoted to the governorship of G a l l i a Belgica. In A.D. 99 he received the ordinary consulship and l a t e r held high commands i n the Dacian Wars. Possibly on account of h i s services i n these wars he received from Trajan 21 the d i s t i n c t i o n of a second ordinary consulship for A.D. 107. I t may be due to Sosius that Plutarch received the ornamenta 22 consularia from Trajan. Among Plutarch's other important Roman friends and acquaintances were Avidius Nigrinus and Avidius Quietus, Arulenus Rusticus, J u l i u s Secundus, L. Herennius Saturninus, and 23 C. Minicius Fundanus. 18 Plutarch does not mention h i s adopted name in h i s writings, but i t has been found on an i n s c r i p t i o n ( S y l l . , 829A; Barrow PT 12-13). Of Plutarch's sons, one was evidently named-L. Mestrius Autobulus and the other L. Mestrius Soclerus (Syll. , 844A; IG, IX, 1, 61.41-42; Jones PR 22). 19 RE 3a.1 [1927], no. 11: 1180-1193; see Theseus 1.1, Demosthenes 1.1, 31.7, and Dion 1.1 for mentions of Sosius' name i n the Parallel Lives. Jones Pi? 55. ^•'•Jones PR 55-56. Suda, s.v. UXovTapxoQ, Xatpcoveijç: nsxaôovQ Sè aùxw Tpatavoç Tfjc x©v ÔTtàxcûv à^iaç Tipooéxa^e pr|Séva xSv Kaxà xriv 'lÀÀuptSa àp%ôvxGùv Tcapè^ xfjc aùxoO yvœpriç xt St aTrpàxxeoGat ; Jones PR 29. ^^PIR'^ A, nos. 1407, 1410; Mor. 478b, 548a; PIR^ 1/3, no. 730; His t r i p s to I t a l y and Rome and the number and importance of h i s Roman friends provide an obvious s o l u t i o n f o r the means by which Plutarch gathered material on the Romans portrayed i n h i s Parallel Lives. Not only would he have had access to the l i b r a r i e s of these Romans, but also he would have been able to c o l l e c t anecdotal material from his friends either o r a l l y or through correspondence. For most of h i s l a t e r l i f e , the period to which belongs the bulk of h i s writings, Plutarch was content to reside i n h i s native c i t y of Chaeronea, having put aside those duties req u i r i n g extensive t r a v e l , but s t i l l engaging i n l o c a l 24 p o l i t i c s . Also, he spent time at nearby Delphi, where he was 25 one of the two permanent p r i e s t s of Apollo f o r many years. Plutarch l i v e d on into the reign of Hadrian, who honored him by making him procurator of Greece (A.D. 119/20) , but t h i s 2 S p o s i t i o n he probably only held i n a nominal capacity. Also during the early part of t h i s reign, Plutarch was the executive o f f i c e r of the Amphictyonic council, the ^èm^xeXr\Tr]Q, ' and as 27 such supervised the s e t t i n g up of a statue to Hadrian. However by A.D. 125 Plutarch was probably dead. I t has been pointed out that he, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , had dedicated the statue by v i r t u e Mor. 522d-e; PIJ?^ I/J, no. 559; Otho 9.3; PIR^ H, no. 126; PIl?^ M, no. 612. See Jones PR 48-64 for a more extensive account of Plutarch's Roman acquaintances and friends. ^^Dem. 2.1-2, Mor. 811b-c. ^^Mor. 384e, 792f. Eus. Chron. ab Abr. 2135 = A.D. 119: IlÀo\Jxap%oç Xatpoùvsùç cpt^ôoocpoç ejtt xpoTTsuet V 'EA,A,àSoç hub xoO aôxoKpàxopoç KaxeaxaGri yripatôç; Jones PR 34. '^'^Syll.^, 829A. of h i s p o s i t i o n as the senior p r i e s t at Delphi, and when a s i m i l a r statue was set up i n A.D. 125, the dedicator was a 28 c e r t a i n T. Flavius Aristotimus. I f the Amphictyonic c o u n c i l had not changed i t s practice i n the meantime, then Plutarch had 2 9 died, and Flavius had succeeded him as senior p r i e s t . Plutarch at the time of h i s death was probably less than 80 years old, as his absence from the l i s t of Ps.-Lucian's Macrobioi suggests. "^ ^ ^^Syll.^, 835B. ^^Jones JRS 56 (1966): 66; see Ziegler RE 21.1 (1951): 641 f o r references to scholars who would place Plutarch's death a f t e r A.D. 125. ^°Hamilton PAC x v i ; see Ziegler RE 21.1 (1951): 640-641. The " P a r a l l e l Lives" and Plutarch's Aim The Marcellus forms part of Plutarch's Parallel Lives, a work consisting of a series of biographies i n which a famous Greek i s paired with a well-known Roman. The people selected were e s p e c i a l l y noted as either p o l i t i c i a n s or generals, and Plutarch attempted to show the virtuous q u a l i t i e s of t h e i r p e r s o n a l i t i e s through t h e i r actions. The o r i g i n a l series consisted of 23 pairs of which a l l survive except the f i r s t p a i r , Epaminondas/Scipio. Appended to 19 of these pa i r s i s a short comparison (ouyKptotç). Whether the other pa i r s had s i m i l a r comparisons i s not known; i t i s generally assumed that 3 they were written, but have become l o s t . I t i s not known when Plutarch began w r i t i n g the Parallel Lives, but from i n t e r n a l evidence i t appears probable that the 4 whole serie s was begun afte r A.D. 96. He dedicated t h i s work 5 to h i s f r i e n d Q. Sosius Senecio. Jones suggests that Sosius' consulship of A.D. 99 might have furnished the occasion f o r ""•Although usually each pair consists of two persons, there i s one exception i n which a pair consists of two sets of persons (Agis/Cleomenes coupled with Tib./C. Gracchus). 2 This i s the case for a l l of the l i v e s except those of Demetrius and Antony whom Plutarch chose as examples of p e r s o n a l i t i e s which, despite having certain good t r a i t s , turned out bad. 3 See Hamilton PAC xxxiv. ^Jones JJ?S 56 (1966): 68-70. This i s conjectured from Plutarch's address to h i s f r i e n d i n several of the l i v e s (Thes. 1.1, Dem. 1.1, 31.7, Dion. 1.1.). The actual dedication would have been i n the f i r s t p a ir, Epaminondas/Scipio, which has not survived. t h i s . ^ Plutarch says that the i n s p i r a t i o n f o r undertaking the composition of these l i v e s came from others, but that his own continuation of the work was due to himself.^ This suggests that he had not o r i g i n a l l y planned such a series, but that a f t e r g w r i t i n g one or more pairs he was inspired to continue. This would explain the apparently haphazard arrangement seen by some scholars i n t h i s work. What was Plutarch's aim i n writing the Parallel Lives? Some scholars maintain that he wrote to show the Greeks that the Romans were not barbarians, and conversely, to show the Romans that the Greeks were not contemptible Graeculi.'^^ However, he does not state such a purpose for his work. In the preface to the Aemilius/Timoleon pair, he reveals that h i s research was aimed at h i s own moral improvement. He asserts that he i s attempting to fashion his l i f e according to the v i r t u e s of those 12 about whom he i s writing. The theme of moral improvement i s also found i n h i s Pericles, where Plutarch maintains that the ^Jones JRS 56 (1966): 70. ^Aem. /Tim. , pref. 1: 'E|aot [|aèv] Tfjç TWV ptwv a\|/aa9at |aèv ypacpfiç at)vépr| 3t ' â-cépouç, eTrtiaévetv Sè Kat (pt A,o%(opet v fiSr| Kat St ' ê|aat)TÔv. g Barrow PT 52. 9 See Jones PR 104 and Palm Rom, Rômertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit 42; see Theseus 1.4-5 and Demetrius 1.5 f o r examples of haphazard arrangement. •'"^This view i s put forward by Ziegler RE 21.1 (1951): 897; see Jones PR 103 for bibliography on t h i s problem. 1 ^ 5 . 12 e ^ s s r c ^ r Aem. /Tim. , pref. 1: ©ojcep êv âaÔTCXpcD xfj toxoptg jcetpwiaevov an&Q ye K(ùQ Koofaetv Kat à(po|iotoOv T t p o ç xàç èKetvcùv àpexàç xôv ^tov. appreciation of works of v i r t u e impels one to emulate the doer of such deeds. "'••^  This suggests that the aim of moral improvement was meant not only for himself, but even f o r h i s readers. But who were his intended readers? F i r s t , i t must be noted that throughout the work there are indications that Plutarch had in mind a Greek audience. In the p a r t i c u l a r case of the Marcellus, he explains for the benefit of h i s readers the Roman spolia opima, triumph, ovation, and attitude towards r e l i g i o n . These explanations would have been unnecessary for a Roman 15 audience. Further, he d i d not have i n mind a l l Greeks, but only a se l e c t group, those knowledgeable enough not to share i n the erroneous views of the many."*"^  These were Greeks who had s u f f i c i e n t wealth and le i s u r e to spend time studying philosophy, and would be i n a pos i t i o n to pa r t i c i p a t e i n p o l i t i c s , i n s p i r e d by the examples of virtuous action presented i n these biographies. ^^1-2, but note esp e c i a l l y 2.2: à%%' r\ y ' apexr) xatç TCpà^eovv eùGùç oijxo) Staxt9r|otv, waG" apa GaupdCeoGat xà epya Kat CriA-oOoGat xoùç et pyaopévouç, and 2.4: xo yap KaXov êcp ' aôxô TcpaKxtKôùç Ktvet Kttt TcpaKXtKriv eùGùç ôpprjv evxtGrjotv, riGoTcotoOv ov) xfi pvpfioet xov Geaxfiv, àx%à xfj toxoptg xoO spyou xr|v Ttpoatpeotv Tiapexopevov. •"•^S-l-lO, 22.1-8, 3.6, 4.7-5.7, 6.11-12; Plutarch also t r a n s l a t e s Marcellus' name giving the Greek equivalent {Marc. 1.1) as he does f o r several other Roman names (Cic, 1.4, PuJbl, 10.9, Cat. Mai. 1.3, Fab. Max. 1.2), but he never does t h i s i n reverse, giv i n g the L a t i n equivalent of a Greek name. 15 This i s not to deny that Plutarch knew Romans would read h i s work and ac t u a l l y desired i t , but nonetheless, the work was composed with a Greek audience i n mind. ^^Cras. 27.6, Cor. 21,1-2. •"•^Plutarch often refers to philosophical ideas which he expects h i s readership to comprehend (e.g.. Ages. 5.5, Lys. 25.5, Lyc. 29,1, Agis 2.1-6). See Wardman Plutarch's Lives 37-48 f o r discussion on Plutarch's intended readership. The Marcellus was paired with the Pelopidas. In the Pelopidas Plutarch explains his reasons for l i n k i n g these two l i v e s together. Both men fought against formidable adversaries, Marcellus against Hannibal, Pelopidas against the Spartans, but more importantly both rashly threw away t h e i r l i v e s i n b a t t l e 18 When i t was most important for them to stay a l i v e . This p a i r also has a comparison appended to i t i n which not only the s i m i l a r i t i e s , but also the differences between the two men are pointed out. The Pelopidas/Marcellus pair i s among the f i r s t few sets of biographies written by Plutarch for h i s Parallel Lives. The Marcellus i s already c i t e d i n the Fabius Maximus, which formed 19 the Roman ha l f of the tenth pair (Pericles/Fabius Maximus). Since the p a i r s which occupy the f i r s t p o s i t i o n and positions 6-9 appear c e r t a i n , the Pelopidas/Marcellus p a i r must f a l l 20 within positions 2-4. This early positioning of the Pelopidas/Marcellus p a i r helps to explain some of the digressions and excursuses which are found i n the Marcellus. Plutarch i n h i s Marcellus makes a 18 1-2, more s p e c i f i c a l l y 2.9-12: TaCxa Sé [lot Ttapeoxri TTpoavacpcûVTïaat ypàcpovxt xôv neÀoTctSou ptov Kat xôv MapKeÀA-ot), lieyà^ cùv àvSpwv TrapaA-ôycoç jceoôvxwv. Kat yàp xstpt %pfjo9at laaxt iiwxaxot yevo^evot, Kat oxpaxriytatç è m (pavsaxàxat ç Koonrjoavxeç à|i(pôxspot xàç TiaxptSaç, êxt Se xwv papuxdxoav avxaycovt oxôv, ô faèv 'Avvtfîav dtrixxr|xov ovxa Tcpcôxoç wç Àeyexat xpev|;à|aevoç, ô Sè yfïç Kat^ GaÀaxxrjç apxovxaç AaKSÔat|iovt ot)ç SK Tcapaxà^ecùç vtKrjoaç, ri<pe^Sr|aav éauxcâv oùv oùSevt Àoyta|a©, 7cpoé|ievot xôv ptov ÔTcrivtKa |adA.toxa xotouxwv Katpôç riv àvSpôùv acûCoiiévcDV Kat ap%ôvx(ûv. StÔTcep ril^ etç é7cô|aevot xatç ôjaotôxriot KapaXXr]XovQ àveypdv|;a|aev aùxwv xoùç ptouç. •"•^ 19.2, 22.8. ^°Jones JRS 56 (1966): 67-68. point of explaining Roman customs, which give the impression that h i s Greek audience was unfamiliar with them and required instruction.^"'' Inclusions of these remarks would be e a s i l y understandable i n the e a r l i e s t l i v e s written, since these would be the f i r s t occasions when elaboration would be needed, unlike l a t e r l i v e s when i t could be expected that h i s readers were now f a m i l i a r with these things. •^"•See, f o r example, 3.6, 4.7-5.7, 6.11-12, 8.1-10, and 22.1-8. Plutarch's Method Plutarch attempted to portray the virtues (more r a r e l y , the vices) of h i s subjects' p e r s o n a l i t i e s i n the Parallel Lives. He believed that an individual's character manifested i t s e l f i n action, and i t was t h i s b e l i e f that guided him i n the s e l e c t i o n 52 of material for h i s p o r t r a i t s . Plutarch at the beginning of the Alexander gives h i s cle a r e s t d e s c r i p t i o n of what he i s doing. He states that he i s wri t i n g biographies, not h i s t o r i e s , and v i r t u e or vice i s not always evident i n the most conspicuous actions, but often a t r i v i a l thing l i k e a phrase or a j e s t w i l l make more manifest one's character than bloody f i g h t s , great b a t t l e - l i n e s , and sieges of c i t i e s . Therefore, just as painters who i n t h e i r p o r t r a i t s derive likenesses from the face and the shape of the eyes, i n which character i s revealed, but take l i t t l e account of the remaining features, so he must be allowed to concentrate on the signs of the soul i n fashioning the l i f e of each, and to 53 leave to others the narration of great actions and struggles. Although the d i s t i n c t i o n he makes here between biography 52 This b e l i e f corresponded to the Per i p a t e t i c view of character (see Hamilton PAC x x x i i i - x x x i v ) . 1.2-3: ovxe. yap taxoptaç ypdcpopev, àT^Xà ptouç, ovxe xatç èTEtcpaveaTaxatç Ttpd^eot^ Ttdvxcùç eveoxt Sr\K(ùotQ àpsx^ç fi KaKtaç, à'kXà Trpâypa 3pa%ù noTiXaKtQ Kat pfjpa Kat 7cat8td xtç ëppaatv fi9ot)ç eTTotrias pâ?i^ov fi pd%at puptôveKpot Kat jcapaxd^etç at péytaxât Kat TCo^topKtat izoXecùv. (oansp ouv ot Çwypdcpot xàç ôpotôxrixaç d j c ô xoO TEpoaôùTcot) Kttt xwv Ttept xf|v ov|/tv etSûùv otç èpcpatvexât xô rJQoç ava?iappdvouat V, âA,d%toxa xSv A,ot7Eâv pepâv cppovxtCovxeç, OÎJXCÛÇ fiptv Soxéov etç xà xfjc v|/u%fïç oripeta [xâ'k'kov èvSueaGat, Kat Stà xouxœv etSoTtotetv xov eKdoxou ptov, èdaavxaç éxépotç xà peyé0r| Kat xoTjç àycùvaç. and h i s t o r y i s an attempt on his part to j u s t i f y h i s decision not to narrate i n f u l l the events of Alexander's l i f e , for which he had too much material, s t i l l i t indicates h i s c r i t e r i a f o r se l e c t i o n : he chose incidents which showed character. But as other l i v e s reveal, t h i s did not necessarily mean that he avoided large events. Great incidents could also contribute to the portrayal of character. The individuals whom he was writing about played a prominent part i n the major happenings of the day, and since action revealed character i t would be only natural f o r him to use these. In the p a r t i c u l a r case of h i s Marcellus, unlike h i s Alexander, he appears to have had a d i f f i c u l t time fi n d i n g s u f f i c i e n t material, and to leave out large events would have been impossible. Therefore, to supplement t h i s lack he adds numerous digressions which have nothing d i r e c t l y to do with Marcellus. He derived the basic frame-work and fa c t s f o r h i s l i v e s from the hist o r i a n s and with additional information acquired elsewhere, t r i e d to elucidate the characters of h i s subjects. He investigated the events of the past i n a manner s i m i l a r to the h i s t o r i a n s , and his biographies have been c a l l e d an offshoot A of ancient historiography. Conversely, the h i s t o r i a n s themselves did not avoid character-study. But although there i s much s i m i l a r i t y between Plutarch and the h i s t o r i a n s , the o v e r a l l •^Cf. S c a r d i g l i Die Romerbiographien Plutarchs 38. ^At Nicias 1.5 he labels his work a toxoptav; see Wardman Plutarch's Lives 1. aims of each were d i f f e r e n t . Plutarch's purpose was much narrower; he attempted to portray character and judged the importance of an event mainly by i t s a b i l i t y to do so. The h i s t o r i a n s , on the other hand, took a more comprehensive view and recorded events which were memorable f o r any one of a 5 v a r i e t y of reasons. Plutarch o f f e r s a further refinement on the nature of h i s biography i n h i s Cimon. Here he compares the biographer to the p o r t r a i t painters, who, he says, believe i t proper, i f they f i n d some small annoying thing i n t h e i r subject, not to leave i t out e n t i r e l y , but also not to render i t too exact, since i n the f i r s t case i t would not be true to l i f e , while i n the second the appearance would be disgraceful. In the same way, the biographer, having a proper regard for human nature (knowing that no l i f e i s free of blame) , ought to choose out the good q u a l i t i e s to form his p o r t r a i t , while i t i s c e r t a i n l y not necessary to concentrate on the bad aspects.^ These p a r t i c u l a r remarks i n his Cimon are used to j u s t i f y the p o r t r a i t which he w i l l produce of Lucullus, the Roman h a l f ^See Wardman Plutarch's Lives 2-10 for a comparison between Plutarch's biography and character-study i n the h i s t o r i a n s . ^2.3-5: cùOTcep yàp TOVQ xà Ka^à Kat KoXXr]v ëxovxa %àptv stSri CœypacpoOvxaç, av Tcpoofi xt iitKpôv aîjxotç Sv)o%epéç, à^toû|aev nfixe napa^tTueCv xoOxo xeXéwç \Jir\z' è^aKptpoOv xô |ièv yàp atoxpàv, xô S ' àvo|j,ot av Tcapâxsxat xryj ov|/t v • OÎJXÛÙÇ èîcet xaA-eTtôv èoxt, [XôLXXov s' tawç à}afi%avov, à(ie|i(pfj Kat KaGapov àv8pôç eTctÔet^at ptov, sv xotç Ktt^otç àvanÀripcùxéov (ùonep ô|aotôxrixa xr|v àA,fiGetav. xàç S' S K TcàGouç xtvôç r\ KO?i,txtKTiç àvàyKTiç êntxpexot)oaç xatç npà^eotv àiiapxtaç Kat Kfjpaç èA,Àet niiaxa ^âXXov dpexfïç xtvoç fj KaKtaç 7tovripet)(iaxa vo|atCovxaç où Set nâw TtpoGuiawç èva7roor||iat vet v xfi toxopta Kat lisptxxwç, àXX' cSonep atSounévouç vnèp xfiç àvGpwTrtvr|ç çuoeoùç, et KaA.ôv oùSèv et^tKptvèç ot)S' àvançt apfixr|vov etç àpexrjv r|Goç yeyovoç aTcoSt Scoot v. of the p a i r , whose l i f e , he knew, contained much that was disreputable. But t h i s comment also has relevance for the Marcellus, since Plutarch d e l i b e r a t e l y leaves out actions and events i n t h i s l i f e , where he i s able to do so without greatly a f f e c t i n g the narrative, which show the harsh, c r u e l or 7 treacherous side of Marcellus' personality. Plutarch generally arranged his material i n chronological order, s t a r t i n g with his subject's early l i f e and progressing from there to h i s death, unlike, for example, Suetonius who tends to arrange his material t o p o l o g i c a l l y . However, h i s concern for portraying character can induce him to disregard chronology when i t su i t s h i s purpose. A cl e a r example of t h i s i s found i n h i s Solon when he deals with Solon's meeting with Croesus. He rejects the notion that a story which i s so well-known and so apt to Solon's character should be disregarded on account of any chronological canons, which have yet to be g agreed upon. Although he knows how to use h i s sources to f i x dates, he often displays a lack of interest i n chronology and at g times f a l l s into error. Gomme, af t e r analyzing several ^For example, Plutarch does not report Marcellus' execution of 70 condemned t r a i t o r s at Nola i n 216 B.C. (Liv. 23.17.1-3), h i s treacherous attack on the enemy given leave by Fabius Maximus to depart from Casilinum (Liv. 24.19.8-10), and h i s acquiescence to the slaughter of the inhabitants of Henna by one of h i s subordinate o f f i c e r s (Liv. 24.37.1-39.9). 27.1: Triv Sè T t p ô ç Kpotoov êvxeu^tv auxoO SoKoOatv svtot xotç Xpôvotç ©ç nsnXao[iàvr\v è^eÀeyxetv. èy© 3è A,ôyov ev8o^ov ouxca Kat xooouxouç pdpxupaç ê%ovxa Kat (ô petCôv êaxt) npénovxa x© SÔA,(ûvoç fi9et Kat xfjç eKetvou peyaTioqppoouvriç Kttt aocptaç a^tov, ov pot SOKS TcporioeoGat %povtKotç xtot Àeyopévotç Kavôotv, oCç puptot Stop9o0vxeç, axpt^ arjpepov etç oùSèv aùxotç ôpoA,oyot)pevov Suvavxat Kaxaoxrîaat xàç àvxtA,oytaç. 9 For example, at Aristides 5 the archon l i s t i s used to prove instances of chronological d i f f i c u l t i e s i n Plutarch's Greek l i v e s , cautions that one must be ca r e f u l i n deducing any chronological inferences from him.''"^  Plutarch c i t e s no fewer than 151 authors i n h i s writings. This vast number has led some scholars to question whether he had consulted them d i r e c t l y or had acquired h i s information 12 through an intermediary. But Gomme, by pointing out Plutarch's wide reading and statements on whom he had read, has shown persuasively that Plutarch must have been f a m i l i a r with the large majority of those c i t e d . "'•"^  Among the the writers c i t e d , 40 wrote i n L a t i n . In the Demosthenes Plutarch relates how he came to learn the Lat i n language. He says that he began h i s study of L a t i n l a t e i n l i f e , and i t was h i s knowledge of a f f a i r s which helped him to recognize the words and not vice versa. However, he did not have the time to devote himself to acquire an appreciation of 14 La t i n s t y l e . that A r i s t i d e s was archon i n 489/8 B.C., at Cimon 17.8-18 and Pericles 10 Plutarch shows a disregard f o r what Cimon was doing between 457-450 B.C., and at Lysander 14-15 Plutarch mistakenly puts the surrender of Samos before that of Athens. '^^Thucydides 1: 56-69; see Chapter 13.3. T© MapKeXA,©. . . concerning a possible chronological error i n the Marcellus. •'••'•Ziegler RE 21.1 (1951): 911. 12 See Meyer Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, the most extreme supporter of t h i s view. •'••^ See Gomme Thucydides 1: 54-84, e s p e c i a l l y 54-56 and 78-80 and Hamilton PAC x l i i i - x l v i , who agrees with Gomme's assessment. •'•^ 2.2-4: èv Sè 'Pa)|ari Kat xatç Tcept xf|v 'lxaA,tav Staxptpatç où a%o^fïç ouor|ç yujivd^eoGat Tcept xrjv 'PcùiiatKrjv StdA-eKxov vno %petSv TTO^txtKCùv Kat xôôv Stà (pt Àooocpt av TcÀriata^ôvxoùv, ôvj/s Tioxe Kat Tcôpp© xfiç fi^tKtaç fipÇdfjeGa 'PcofiatKotç ouvxdyjiaotv èvxt)y%dvetv, Kat Tcpâyiia Gauiaaoxôv |iév, àXX' àXriGèç è7rào%o|aev. oô yàp OÎJXCÙÇ This passage has been taken as i n d i c a t i n g that Plutarch, although knowing many Latin words, lacked fluency i n the 15 language. He, no doubt, picked up the language as he pursued his research (this would explain the mistakes which he makes with the l a n g u a g e ) . H o w e v e r , Plutarch's statement was made i n order to j u s t i f y h i s f a i l u r e to compare the speeches of Cicero to those of Demosthenes i n th e i r p a i r of l i v e s . He i s not declaring that he could not read Latin, but that he i s not an expert i n Lat i n s t y l e . His comment on the beauty, quickness, metaphors, harmonies, and other aspects of the language strongly suggests that h i s knowledge of i t was s u f f i c i e n t f or h i s purposes. ^ '^  Besides published works, Plutarch also mentions other eK XÔV ôvopàxcûv xà Ttpàypaxa ouvtévav Kat yvcoptCet,v ouvépatvev r)ptv, ©ç ÈK xSv TtpaypàxcùV, <wv> àpSç yé TCOÙÇ et%opev epjuetptav, è7caKoA,ot)Gstv 8t ' aûxà Kat xotç ôvôpaat. nàXko\}c, Sè 'PœpatKfjç ttTiayye^taç Kat xà^ouç atoGàveoGat Kat pexacpopâç ôvopàxwv Kat àppovtaç Kat xc5v aXXoùv, otç ô ÀÔyoç àyà?iXexat, %aptev pèv riyoupeGa Kat OÙK àxspTréç- f] Sè npoç xoDxo pe?k,sxr| Kat aoKTiatç OÙK et)%epriç, àXX' otoxtot nXsicùv xe oxoXx] Kat xà xfjç ©paç ext [ T c p o ç ] xàç xotaOxaç eTct^copet cpt A-oxt pt aç. 15 Jones (PR 82-84), who doubts Plutarch's fluency with L a t i n , supposes that Plutarch could well have had help with the language either through consultations with h i s Roman friends or from t r a n s l a t i o n s or extracts made by an assistant. He adduces further proof of Plutarch's ignorance of the language from Moralia lOlOd: ©ç 3oKet p o t [T iep t 'P©pat©v] ë%etv ô °P©pat©v, <©> VÛV ôpoû xt ndvxeç avGpwTtot xp©vxat • TcpoGâaet ç xe yap dtpflPTlKe TiÀriv ô^ty©v aTtàoaç (but see Cherniss, trans., Plutarch's Moralia 13.1 [Loeb]: 115, n. c for explanation of t h i s statement). •"•^ See Barrow PT 150-151. 17 . . . Dem. 2.4; concerning t h i s question of Plutarch's knowledge of La t i n see Jones PR 81-87, Barrow PT 150-151, Sickinger De Linguae Latinae apud Plutarchum et Reliquiis et Vestigiis, Vornefeld De Scriptorum Latinorum Locis a Plutarcho Citatis, Rose The Roman Questions of Plutarch 11-19, and Theander Plutarch und die Geschichte 68-69. sources of information. In the Nicias he re f e r s to the use of 18 dedicatory i n s c r i p t i o n s and public decrees. Elsewhere he 19 mentions o r a l sources. How did he go about composing the Parallel Lives? In the beginning of h i s Demosthenes he sets out what a research writer needs i n order to produce a work which i s not d e f i c i e n t . The es s e n t i a l requirement i s that the writer should l i v e i n a famous and populous c i t y which esteems the arts, for there he w i l l f i n d an abundance of books and w i l l be able to learn a d d i t i o n a l facts from conversation. But Plutarch confesses that he l i v e s i n a small town, and he does so i n order that i t may not become smaller s t i l l . T h i s admission suggests that he may have run into d i f f i c u l t i e s i n composing his work while at Chaeronea, and here he i s o f f e r i n g an apology for any defects which i t may contain due to incompleteness. However, i t should not be doubted that he owned a reasonable sized l i b r a r y at Chaeronea, containing not only the so-called c l a s s i c s , but also a number of less common books, which he had picked up during h i s t r a v e l s or 1.5: t'va \j.r] TtavxctTcaat v àneA,riç SOKS Kat àpyôç et vat, xà Stacpeuyovxa xoùç KOXXOVQ, t)cp' exépoûv S' etprméva o7copà8r|v fi Tcpôç àvaBfipaotv r\ v|/ri(pta^aatv eùprjuéva ica?oatotç Tcenetpaiiat ouvayayetv, ot) xrjv axpnoxov dOpot^wv toxoptav, àXXà xriv npôç Kaxavôriotv fiGouç Kat xpÔTCou jtapaSt Souç. 19 He mentions the importance of or a l sources at Demosthenes 2.1; an example of hi s use of an or a l source i s found at Numa 8.20. ^^Dem. 2.1: Tô |iévxot o{)vxa<|tv vnop>e^Xr]\xé\}(^ Kat toxoptav, où 7rpo%etp0V ot)S' otKStcov, àXXà ^évwv xe xSv noXXS>v Kat St eoTiapiaévcùv èv éxepotç ouvtoOoav àvay voaoïaàxcûv, x© ovxt XP^iv Ttpcùxov ÛTtdpxetv Kat iid^toxa ^xàv nôXtv et)SÔKt)aov' Kat (ptA-ÔKaÀov Kat 7to^ t)àv6p(D7rov, ©ç ptpxtcov xe 7tavxoSa7cc5v à(p0ovtav ê%ot)v, Kat oaa xoùç ypdcpovxaç Stacpuyôvxa ocoxripta |avri(ariç èictcpaveaxépav et^rjcpe T t t o x t v , ÙTto^ aiipàvGov aKori Kat Sta7Ct)v0avôjievoç, i^ riSevôç xôv àvayKatcov èvSeèç àïioStSotri xô ëpyov. fnaetç Sè |itKpàv |aèv otKoOvxeç noXtv, Kat t'va jar) ntKpoxépa yévrixat (pt X,o%a)poCvxeç. had been given to him by h i s distant friends. In addition, he doubtless read a great number of books which he found while on 21 hi s t r a v e l s and had made extracts or taken notes from them. A l l of t h i s material he would have had at hand i n composing hi s work. But the precise way i n which he gathered and organized h i s information i s unknown. He probably read through the relevant material for a p a r t i c u l a r l i f e f i r s t , then sat down to write, r e l y i n g to a great extent on h i s own memory to r e c a l l 22 the basic f a c t s . This would not have been d i f f i c u l t for him, since the ancients depended to a much greater extent on memory 23 then we do today, and t h e i r schooling emphasized i t s use. I t has even been suggested that he r e l i e d almost s o l e l y on h i s 24 memory, but t h i s assumption i s hardly necessary. Plutarch c e r t a i n l y depended heavily on his memory, but he could and l i k e l y did r e f e r to his books, extracts, and notes during the 25 process of composition. 21 In the Moralia he mentions the use of such material which he had c o l l e c t e d for himself (464e-f: pfixe Sè %pôvov ë%a)V, éç 7cpoTipoijpr|v, yevéoBat rcpôç otç è^ovXov pr)0' ûïtopâvcov Kevatç TiavxdTcaat xôv avSpa %epatv ôcpBrïvat oot Tcap' f]\iS>v àcptypévov, àveÀe^dpriv nepi eùGuptaç ÈK XÔDV ûnopvripdxcûv 5v êpaux© TusTcot ripsvoç èx6y%avov) . 22 In the Pericles Plutarch refers to h i s memory s p e c i f i c a l l y as the source for the material presented (24.12: xaOxa pèv èTceÀGôvxa xfj pvrjpri Kaxà xriv ypacprjv) . 23 See Seneca the Elder Controv. 1.1-5 where he discusses h i s a b i l i t y to remember. ^^See Zimmermann RhM 79 (1930): 61-62. 25 See Gomme Thucydides 1: 84, Hamilton PAC x l i v , x l v i , and Wartmann Leben des Cato von Utica 39. Plutarch's Sources In the Marcellus and the accompanying Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli, Plutarch c i t e s seven d i f f e r e n t authors as sources. In addition, there are indications which suggest that Plutarch u t i l i z e d other authorities whom he does not mention. A l l of t h i s has attracted the attention of s o u r c e - c r i t i c s from the middle of the nineteenth century to shortly before the Second 2 World War. But despite the work done, the r e s u l t s have produced l i t t l e consensus among scholars on what sources Plutarch used. This i s due not only to the various presuppositions about Plutarch's working method and what the c i t a t i o n s i n the l i f e imply, but also to the loss of much of the ancient evidence.'^ Therefore, no d e f i n i t i v e answer to t h i s •"•Posidonius (Ware. 1.1, 9.7, 20.11, 30.7), Livy (Marc. 11.8, 24.5, 30.5, Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.8), Cornelius Nepos (Marc. 30.5, Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.8), Valerius Maximus (Marc, 30.5), Augustus (Marc. 30.5, Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.8), Polybius (Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.7), and Juba (Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.8). 2 The major studies on the sources of the Marcellus are Buchholz Quibus Fontibus Plutarchus in Vitis Fabii Maximi et Marcelli Usus Sit (1865), Peter Die Quellen Plutarchs (1865) 74-80, Soltau De Fontibus Plutarchi in Seconde Bello Punico Enarrando (1870) , Heyer Die Quellen des Plutarch im Leben des Marcellus (1871) , Millier De Auctoribus Rerum a Marcello in S i c i l i a Gestarum (1882) 29-38, Hesselbarth HKUDDL (1889) 533-541, Arendt Syrakus im zweiten punischen Krieg 1 (1899): 47ff., Schiibeler De Syracusarum Oppugnatione Quaestiones Criticae (1910), Kahrstedt Geschichte der Karthager 3 (1913): 140-362, De Sanctis SR 3 .2 (1916, 2nd ed. 1968): 366-373, Muhl KIass. Phil. Stud. 4 (1925): 5-35, Zimmermann RhM 79 (1930): 55-64, and Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 289-318 (for further studies see the references given i n these works). 3 . . . . . In regard to the c i t a t i o n s , for example, opinions d i f f e r over whether Plutarch had read a l l the authors he c i t e s , or whether he derived some of the names from an intermediate source. problem has been put forth i n t h i s commentary. What follows i s 5 an assessment of the l i t e r a r y sources. 1. Posidonius was a Stoic philosopher o r i g i n a l l y from Apamea on the Orontes i n Syria.^ He was a student of Panaetius 7 at Athens, but l a t e r resided at Rhodes and became a c i t i z e n . Jacoby dates h i s residence at Rhodes from 90 B.C., at the Q l a t e s t , to at least 60 B.C. We know that Posidonius was an ambassador at Rome i n 87/6 B.C., and the notice i n the Suda of hi s coming to Rome i n the consulship of a M. Claudius Marcellus i s generally dated to the year 51 B.C., at which time Rhodes reaffirmed her treaty with Rome, an event with which Posidonius 9 may have been involved. He died soon a f t e r t h i s at the age of 4 Although no ^ e f i n i t i v e answer i s proposed, the views of De Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 366-373) appear to o f f e r the most p l a u s i b l e hypothesis. De Sanctis proposes that Plutarch used a b r i e f biography of Marcellus written by Cornelius Nepos f o r the out l i n e of his own work, and then fleshed out t h i s o u t l i n e with material drawn mainly from the works of Livy, but also adding smaller portions derived from Polybius, Posidonius, V a l e r i u s Maximus, Juba, and a biographical work on Archimedes. In the main body of the commentary points of disagreement between source c r i t i c s are discussed when they have p a r t i c u l a r relevance, but no attempt has been made to be exhaustive. 5 Not a l l possible sources used by Plutarch which have been postulated by scholars have been l i s t e d here, but only those which are s t i l l maintained by the most recent research ( i n p a r t i c u l a r , an assessment of Coelius Antipater has been l e f t out, concerning whom see Zimmermann RhM 79 [1930]: 55 and De Sanctis SR 3.2: 371) . ^RE 22.1 (1953), no. 3: 558-826; Jacoby FGrH, no. 87. •7 Panaetius died ca. 110 B.C. (Cic. De Or. 1.45) ; Suda, s.v. noaetScùvtOÇ; Strab. 16.2.13. ^FGrH 2 C: 154. Q P l u t . Mar. 45.7; Suda s.v. Ilooet Swvt oç ; e.g. f o r date of Posidonius' a r r i v a l , Jacoby FGrH 2 C: 154; Cic. Fam. 12.15.2.; see Kidd Posidonius 2: 4. 84.1° Among his philosophical and s c i e n t i f i c works Posidonius i s known to have written a universal history i n 52 books, s t a r t i n g with the year 145/4 B.C., which was to be a continuation of Polybius' work.l""" According to Jacoby i t was l a r g e l y f i n i s h e d before 60 B.C., but i t s termination date i s uncertain. The weight of evidence points to the mid-eighties B.C. f o r the conclusion of t h i s history."'""' The four c i t a t i o n s of Posidonius i n the Marcellus and the b r i e f notice i n the Suda have induced some scholars to postulate that Posidonius had close t i e s with the M a r c e l l i and wrote a sp e c i a l work for the family. """^  Munzer believes that Posidonius, near the end of h i s studies at Athens (ca. 110 B.C.), developed a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p with a M. Claudius Marcellus, who was eagerly 15 pursuing philosophical studies there. This Marcellus made ava i l a b l e his family archives to Posidonius (just as he d i d f o r Coelius Antipater, an acquaintance through t h e i r common f r i e n d the orator L i c i n i u s Crassus), and induced him to take up a l^Ps.-Lucian Macr. 20; see Jacoby FGrH 2 C: 154-155. ^^Suda, s.v. IloaetSwvtOÇ; see Edelstein-Kidd Posidonius: The Fragments, v o l . 1, Theiler Poseidonios: Die Fragmente, or Jacoby FGrH 2 A, no. 87 for remains of t h i s work. •""^Cic. Att. 2.1.2; FGrH 2 C: 155. •""^ See Kidd Posidonius 2: 277-280 for the most recent discussion on t h i s problem. ^^Marc. 1.1, 9-7,^  20.11, 30.7; Suda s.v. IloaetSffivtoç: rj^Ge Sè Kat etc "Pcbpriv èni MdpKot) HapKéXXov. •^^RE 3.2 (1899), no. 227: 2760; Cic. De Or. 1.45, 57. defense of h i s family against the defamations of Polybius."'"^ Miinzer bases t h i s conjecture on Polybius' bias against our Marcellus during the G a l l i c War of 225-222 B.C. i n favor of Cn. Cornelius Scipio Calvus, h i s c r i t i c a l comments about our Marcellus' death, and his bias against the consul of 152 B.C., who was probably the grandfather of the Marcellus whom Posidonius met i n Athens."*"^ Several scholars besides Miinzer have proposed that Posidonius undertook to compose a work for the M a r c e l l i . The major discussion among these scholars i s over what form t h i s composition took. The suggestions have ranged from a monograph about our Marcellus to a wide ranging excursus appended to h i s 18 h i s t o r y . However, some scholars have c a l l e d into question the 19 existence of such a work. F i r s t , there i s nowhere mentioned a composition by Posidonius for the M a r c e l l i . Second, i n the examination of the c i t a t i o n s of Posidonius i n the Marcellus there i s no i n d i c a t i o n of such a work. In the c i t a t i o n at 1.1, nothing more can be inferred than the provenance for the explanation of the name Marcellus (= 'Apfitoç) , since Bauer has •'•^Livy (27.27.13) mentions a laudatio given by the son of our Marcellus which Coelius Antipater had come upon. •^^Polyb. 2.34-35, 10.32, 35.2ff., f r . inc. 102 Hultsch; Gnomon 1 (1925): 98-99. 18 See Toepelmann De Posidonio Rhodio Rerum Scriptore 39, Heyer Die Quellen des Plutarch im Leben des Marcellus 8-11, Miiller Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum 3: 252, 270, Wilamowitz Glaube der Hellenen 2 : 403, Muhl Klass. Phil. Stud. 4 (1925): 35, Munzer Gnomon 1 (1925): 97-98, Jacoby FGrH 2 C: 189, and Malitz Zetemata 79 (1983): 361-362. •••^ See De Sanctis SR 3^.2: 368, Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 292-293, and Kidd Posidonius 2: 346. shown that Plutarch owed t h i s c i t a t i o n to a long discussion on Roman names which Posidonius had given i n the introduction to hi s h i s t o r i c a l work.^° Likewise, the c i t a t i o n at 9.7, which re f e r s to Fabius being c a l l e d ^The Shield' and Marcellus ^The Sword of Rome,' appears to be merely an i n s e r t i o n by Plutarch of one of h i s many gleanings gathered from h i s r e s e a r c h . A s f o r the c i t a t i o n at 20.11, Posidonius i s credited with the story of Nicias of Engyion, but as the story i s presented, Marcellus 22 plays an i n s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e . Also, i t i s placed a f t e r the conclusion of the S i c i l i a n events as an appendix, i n d i c a t i n g 23 that i t was separate from the preceding events. I t i s therefore d i f f i c u l t to see how t h i s story would have been derived from a work dealing with Marcellus. The l a s t c i t a t i o n , found at 30.7, deals with an i n s c r i p t i o n on the base of a statue of Marcellus found at Lindos on the i s l a n d of Rhodes. But i t i s not possible to es t a b l i s h why Posidonius had quoted the epigram on the statue, and the comment on i t ( i t i s supposed that the e d i t o r i a l remark of Plutarch was derived from Posidonius) does not show a very accurate knowledge of Marcellus' l i f e . The epigram says that Marcellus held consular power seven times, and Plutarch comments that the composer of t h i s epigram added the proconsular o f f i c e , which Marcellus held twice, to h i s f i v e 20 Philologus 47 (1889): 242-273; see Plutarch Marius 1 where i n a discussion on Roman names the addition of Posidonius' comments makes i t cl e a r that he had dealt with t h i s topic at length. ^•"•Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 292. ^^Kidd Posidonius 2: 346. ^•^Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 293. consulships to obtain t h i s number.^'* We know, however, that at l e a s t two more proconsulships must be counted, and one could hardly c r e d i t Posidonius with t h i s e d i t o r i a l statement i f he had 25 a very close acquaintance with the M a r c e l l i . F i n a l l y , i n regard to the notice i n the Suda, nothing about a written composition should be inferred from i t . Although i t has been suggested that Posidonius dedicated a work to the Marcellus mentioned i n i t , the consul of 51 B.C., Klotz says t h i s ignores 2 S doubts which make the notice i n the Suda suspect. Even Miinzer admits that the notice i s an awkward abridgement of i t s source 27 and a l l attempts to r e c t i f y i t remain uncertain. Consequently, there i s no s o l i d evidence that can l i n k Posidonius to the M a r c e l l i or to a composition of a work fo r them. Although t h i s makes i t questionable to claim that Posidonius was the main source, Plutarch was c e r t a i n l y f a m i l i a r with him, but he i s c i t e d only for extracts which are c l e a r l y 2 8 detached from the main narrative. 2. Titu s L i v i u s was born at Patavium (mod. Padua) i n 29 northern I t a l y . Jerome puts Livy's b i r t h i n 59 B.C. and h i s ^^30.8: enxaKt xàv vnâxav àp%àv êv 'Apr|t cpvXà^aQ, 9: xriv yàp àvGuTtaxov àp%fiv, TIV 8tç rjp^e, xatç Tiévxe jupooKaxript 0|ir|oe v t)7iaxetatç ô xô è7itypa|a|ia 7cotf)oaç. ^^Cf. Kotz RhM 83 (1934) 292-293. ^^RhM 83 (1934): 292. ^^Gnomon 1 (1925): 99. ^^See Mvihl Klass. Phil. Stud. 4 (1925): 5-35, who i s the most recent proponent of the hypothesis that Posidonius was Plutarch's main source for the Marcellus. ?9 RE 13.1 (1926), no. 9: 816-852; Quint. 1.5.56; Asc. Corn. 68; Mart. 1.61.3. death i n A.D. 17."'^ But these dates are apparently too high, and 31 Livy's l i f e - s p a n should be from from 64 B.C. to A.D. 12. Livy spent time i n Rome enjoying the acquaintance of Augustus and even encouraging the youthful Claudius to undertake 32 the w r i t i n g of histo r y . He probably l i v e d most of his adult l i f e i n the imperial c i t y , but r e t i r e d i n h i s old age to h i s home town of Patavium where he died."'"' I t i s said that Livy wrote philosophical dialogues, but he i s best known f o r his monumental hi s t o r y of Rome, Ab urbe 34 condita, i n 142 books. While there i s no i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s project was undertaken before 29 B.C., he appears to have 35 completed the f i r s t f i v e books between 27 and 25 B.C. Plutarch c i t e s Livy three times i n the Marcellus and once i n the Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli .'^^ These c i t a t i o n s along with the close contacts found between Livy's work and the Marcellus have led several scholars to postulate that he was one 37 of Plutarch's main sources. 3 8 3. Cornelius Nepos was born i n Transpadane Gaul. He ^^Ab Abr. 1958. 31 . . See O g i l v i e Livy 1. 32 Tac. Ann. 4.34; Suet. Claud. 41.1. 33 Walsh Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods 18-19. •'^Sen. Ep. 100.9. 35 O g i l v i e Livy 2. ^^Marc. 11.8, 24.5, 30.5; Comp. Pel. et Marc. .1.8. •'^See, for example, Hesselbarth HKUDDL 533-541, Kahrstedt Geschichte der Karthager 3: 140-362, De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 366-373, and Zimmermann RhM 79 (1930): 55-64. 3 8 RE 4.1 (1900), no. 275: 1408-1417; Peter HRR 2: xxxx-lvi, 25-40; P l i n . Ep. 4.28.1; P l i n . MH 3.127; Aus. Ed. 1.9. appears to have spent the greater part of h i s l i f e i n Rome, but to have avoided public l i f e , devoting h i s time l a r g e l y to 39 l i t e r a r y pursuits. He was on intimate terms with A t t i c u s and 40 exchanged l e t t e r s with Cicero. His dates are not c e r t a i n , but he appears to have l i v e d a long l i f e and to have died during the 41 early years of Augustus' rule (ca. 99-ca. 24 B.C.). He i s known to have composed a biographical work i n at 42 least 16 books e n t i t l e d De viris illustribus. Of t h i s work, only the book on great foreign generals. De excellentihus ducibus exterarum gentium, survives. This book was paired with 43 a corresponding book, now l o s t , on Roman generals. The c i t a t i o n s of Cornelius Nepos at Marcellus 30.5 and at Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.8 suggest that one of the l i v e s of the Roman generals i n Nepos' work was that of 44 Marcellus. The presence of the l i f e of Pelopidas i n the De excellentibus ducibus exterarum gentium and Nepos' statement that he intended to compare the foreign generals with Roman commanders strengthen t h i s hypothesis, since Plutarch himself l i n k s these two men together as a pair and may even have been 39 See, f o r example, Hieronymus Adv. lovinian. 12 Hierosol, P l i n y Ep. 5.3.6, and Fronto Ep. ad M. Caes. 1.7. 40 Nep. Att. 13.7; Cic. Att. 16.5.5; Macrob. Sat. 2.1.14; Suet. Ju l . 55. 41 2 Rolfe Oxford Classical Dictionary 728. 42 Char. Gramm. 1.141.13 K e i l : Cornelius Nepos inlustrium virorum l i b r o XVI... 43 Nep. Hann. 13.4: Sed nos tempus est huius l i b r i facere finem et Romanorum explicare imperatores, quo f a c i l i u s c o l l a t i s utrorumque f a c t i s , qui v i r i praeferendi s i n t , p o s s i t i u d i c a r i . 44 ? Cf. De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 367, Wissowa RE 4.1 (1900): 1416. induced to compose t h e i r biographies from Nepos' example. The length of such a biography by Nepos i s d i f f i c u l t to estimate, but judging from the length of those l i v e s which do survive, one would guess that the composition ranged anywhere from a tenth to a quarter of the length of Plutarch's own work on Marcellus. As for Nepos' source, i t may well have been a work written by h i s intimate f r i e n d A tticus on the h i s t o r y of the M a r c e l l i . Plutarch's use of Nepos i n his Marcellus has been dismissed by some s o u r c e - c r i t i c s , but maintained by o t h e r s . T h e major argument used by those who believe that he d i d not consult Nepos d i r e c t l y i s that the c i t a t i o n s of sources at Marcellus 30.5 and at Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.7-8 contain inaccuracies. The s p e c i f i c instance which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t s Nepos i s i n the Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli. Here Plutarch indicates that Nepos was one of those who reported that Hannibal suffered defeats and reverses at Marcellus' hands, while Nepos reports i n 45 Nep. Att. 18.1-4: Moris etiam maiorum summus imitator f u i t antiquitatisque amator, quam adeo d i l i g e n t e r habuit cognitam, ut eam totam i n eo volumine exposuerit, quo magistratus o r d i n a v i t . n u l l a enim lex neque pax neque bellum neque res i l l u s t r i s est populi Romani, quae non i n eo suo tempore s i t notata, et, quod d i f f i c i l l i m u m f u i t , s i c familiarum originem subtexuit, ut ex eo clarorum virorum propagines possimus cognoscere. f e c i t hoc idem separatim i n a l i i s l i b r i s , ut M. B r u t i rogatu luniam familiam a s t i r p e ad hanc aetatem ordine enumeraverit, notans, qui a quo ortus quos honores quibusque temporibus cepisset: p a r i modo Ma r c e l l i C l a u d i i de Marcellorum, Scipionis C o r n e l i i et F a b i i Maximi Fabiorum et Aemiliorum. quibus l i b r i s n i h i l potest esse dulcius i i s , qui aliquam cupiditatem habent n o t i t i a e clarorum virorum. ^^For example, Peter (Die Quellen Plutarchs 75-76) and Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 289) believe Plutarch did not use him as a source, while Zimmermann (RhM 79 [1930]: 58) and De Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 366-368) believe that he did. h i s Hannibal that as long as Hannibal remained i n I t a l y , no one opposed him i n b a t t l e or placed t h e i r camp opposite h i s a f t e r 47 the b a t t l e of Cannae. But whether the c i t a t i o n of Nepos i s an inaccuracy can not be proven, since his l i f e of Marcellus has not survived, while the p o s s i b i l i t y that Nepos contradicted himself i s something to be seriously considered given what i s 48 known about hi s scholarship. Also, i f the De viris illustribus a t t r i b u t e d erroneously to Aurelius V i c t o r can be shown to have been derived from Nepos' work, then the c i t a t i o n s of Nepos can 49 be affirmed as correct. 4. Valerius Maximus composed a handbook of examples fo r orators, Factorum ac dictorum memorabilium l i b r i IX, which he 50 dedicated to the emperor Tiberius. The dates of h i s b i r t h and death are unknown, but h i s work was probably published a f t e r the f a l l of Sejanus i n 31 A.D.^ "'" Although Plutarch c i t e s Valerius Maximus concerning Marcellus' death and funeral, some s o u r c e - c r i t i c s deny that he consulted him d i r e c t l y concerning these events or that he even 4 7 Plut. Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.8: rjiaetc Sè At^t© <Kat> Katoapt, Kttt NejccuTt Kttt "^côùv^  "EA-ÀrivtKCùv 'lépa xô Ç>ao\.Xex 7ttoxeuo|aev îixxaç xt vàç Kat xpoTcàç t)7to MapKéÀÀot) xôv oùv ' Avvt pa yevéoGat ; Nep. 5.4: quamdiu i n I t a l i a f u i t , nemo e i i n acie r e s t i t i t , nemo adversus eum post Cannensem pugnam i n campo castra posuit. 48 ? ^°Cf. De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 367. 49 . 2 See De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 367 and Zimmermann RhM 79 (1930): 58; see, also, Wissowa RE A.l (1900): 1416 for references to modem works dealing with the source(s) of the De viris illustribus a t t r i b u t e d erroneously to Aurelius V i c t o r . ^^RE 8a.1 (1955), no. 239: 90-116; Val. Max. 1, pref., 5.5.3. ^•"•Val. Max. 9.11, ext. 4; cf. Helm RE 8a.1 (1955): 90-93. used him at a l l . Their position rests on the argument that the c i t a t i o n i s incorrect since Valerius Maximus only says, Hannibal M. Marcellum in agro Bruttio, dum conatus Poenorum cupidius quam consideratius speculator, interemptum legitime funere extulit punicoque sagulo et corona donatum aurea rogo inposuit, while 53 Plutarch's account i s much longer. But i t cannot be denied that Valerius Maximus' description agrees i n general with Plutarch's, and to deny the use of him because he does not have 54 a l l the d e t a i l s contained i n Plutarch's version i s unsound. 5. Augustus, the f i r s t emperor of Rome, was born i n 63 B.C. and obtained the supreme mastery of the Roman world i n 31 B.C. with h i s v i c t o r y at Actium. In 27 B.C. the Principate was established, and he was given the t i t l e ^Augustus.' He ruled u n t i l h i s death i n A.D. 14. Plutarch c i t e s Augustus at Marcellus 30.5, concerning the death and b u r i a l of Marcellus, and at Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.8, concerning Marcellus' successes against Hannibal. I t i s known that Augustus gave the funeral speech f o r h i s nephew and son-in-law, M. Claudius Marcellus, who died i n 23 B.C.^^ This speech has not survived, but i t l i k e l y contained the e x p l o i t s of our Marcellus, since he was the most i l l u s t r i o u s of 52 Marc. 30.5; see Peter Die Quellen Plutarchs 75-76 and Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 289; Klotz (op. c i t . 317) even suggests that Plutarch may have made a mistake here and should have written ^Valerius Antias' instead. ^^Val. Max. 5.1, ext. 6. 54 Cf. Zimmermann RhM 79 (1930): 58; see, also. Chapter 5. for a discussion of Plutarch's possible use of Valerius Maximus there. ^^Dio 53.30.5; Serv. Aen. 1.712; Cons, ad Liv. 441-442; see Peter Geschichtliche Literatur iiber die romische Kaiserzeit 1: 456. Augustus' nephew's ancestors. I t would be t h i s work for which Plutarch c i t e s Augustus. 6. Polybius was born near the end of the t h i r d century 5 6 B . c . at Megalopolis. Lycortas, h i s father, was active i n Achaean p o l i t i c s , being a follower of P h i l o p o e m e n . P o l y b i u s followed i n his father footsteps, and i n 182 B.C. he had the 5 8 honor of bearing the ashes of Philopoemen for b u r i a l . In 180 B.C. he was appointed an envoy to Egypt, although he never went, and i n 170/69 B.C. he served as a hipparch of the Achaean Confederation.^^ After the ba t t l e of Pydna i n 168 B.C., he was deported to Rome with 1,000 other distinguished Achaeans f o r inv e s t i g a t i o n and detained without t r i a l i n I t a l y . H e r e he made the acquaintance of Scipio Aemilianus, and as a close f r i e n d he accompanied Scipio on h i s p o l i t i c a l assignments, witnessing, for example, the destruction of Carthage i n 146 B.C.^ "*" After the sack of Corinth he was involved i n helping to s e t t l e Greek a f f a i r s . He died sometime a f t e r 118 B.C., alleged l y due to a f a l l from a horse. ^"^  Polybius wrote a history of Rome i n 40 books which narrated Rome's r i s e to power during the t h i r d and second centuries B.C. ^^RE 21.2 (1952), no. 1: 1440-1578. ^^Polyb. 22.3.6. C O Plut. Philop. 21.5. ^^Polyb. 24.6.5, 28.6.9. ^°Polyb. 30.13, 32.1-12; Paus. 7.10.11; L i v . 45.31.9. ^•"•Polyb. 31.23.1-25.1, 38.19-22; App. Pun. 132: Diod. 31.26.5; V e i l . Pat. 1.13.3; Plut. Mor. 199f. Polyb. 39.5; Paus. 8.30.9. ^•^Ps-Lucian Macr. 22; see Walbank Polybius 1:1-6. The f i r s t books of t h i s work, describing events up to the b a t t l e of Pydna i n 168 B.C., were written before 146 B.C., but the date of t h e i r p ublication i s uncertain. Plutarch c i t e s Polybius i n the Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli f o r h i s view that Hannibal was never conquered i n 2 ba t t l e u n t i l he faced Scipio Africanus. But except p o s s i b l y for events i n S i c i l y , Plutarch does not appear to have made 3 . . . extensive use of him m h i s Marcellus. There are i n d i c a t i o n s which suggest Polybius was biased against Marcellus, and t h i s may have contributed to Plutarch's f a i l u r e to use him to any 4 great extent. Also, Polybius' opinion that Hannibal remained unconquered while i n I t a l y may have induced Plutarch to prefer other versions which asserted that Marcellus had some success 5 against the Carthaginian commander. 7. Juba I I , king of Mauretania, was the son of Juba I of Numidia.^ In 46 B.C., while s t i l l an infant or young c h i l d , he was led i n Caesar's triumph.^ Brought up i n I t a l y , he became an •"•See Ziegler RE 21.2 (1952): 1485-1489. 1.7: 'Avvtpav Sè MàpKsXXoç, ©ç pèv ot Ttept HoÀuptov ^éyouotv, ot)S' ana^ âvtKrjoev, àXX' àf)TxriToç àvrip SoKet StayevéoGat pé%pt SKt T t t W V O Ç . 3 For example, i n comparing the accounts of the G a l l i c War of 225-222 B.C. by Plutarch (Marc. 3-8) and Polybius (2.21-35), only two minor cases of Polybius' d i r e c t influence on Plutarch can be found (see Chapters 3.5. è8r\Xov. . . and 7.8. xàç 8' aXXaQ. . .). ^See Chapter 8.1. "Pr|(ptaapévr|ç. . . ^See Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.8. ^RE 9.2 (1916), no. 2: 2384-2395; Jacoby FGrH, no. 275. ^Plut. Caes. 55; App. BCiv. 2.418; Suda, s.v. 'lôpaç. g associate of Octavian, from whom he received Roman c i t i z e n s h i p . Juba was restored to his father's kingdom, Numidia, but l a t e r i n 25 B.C. when i t was turned into a Roman province, he received g Mauretania as compensation. He married Cleopatra Selene, the daughter of Cleopatra and Mark Antony. Juba's rule lasted u n t i l h i s death, most l i k e l y i n the year A.D. 23.'^'^ According to Pliny, Juba was memorable more for h i s 12 l i t e r a r y pursuits than for h i s kingship. He wrote much, and the s p e c i f i c works which may have been used i n t h i s l i f e are the "PoùnatKri toxopta (or perhaps c a l l e d the 'PwnatKr) àp%atoÀoyta) , i n two books, and the ' O)iot ôxr|xeç (or perhaps c a l l e d Ilept 'onotoxfixcùv) , i n at least 15 books, which compared the s i m i l a r i t i e s of customs and i n s t i t u t i o n s between, f o r the most 13 part, the Greeks and Romans. While Juba i s c i t e d at Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli 1.8, concerning whether Hannibal was ever defeated by Marcellus, he i s not c i t e d i n the Marcellus, although there are some 14 indicat i o n s that he was used. However, considering the s i z e of the 'PcDnatKri toxopta and the subject matter of the 'O)jotôxr|xeç, 8 2 Dio 51.15.6; Avien, Or. mar. 279; see PIR I/J, no. 65 concerning Roman c i t i z e n s h i p . ^Dio 51.15.6, 53.26.2; cf. Strab. 6.4.2, 17.3.7, Tac. Ann. 4.5.2, Aur. V i c t . Caes. 4.2. •^°Plut. Ant. 87.2; Dio 51.15.6. 11 2 See PIR I/J, no. 65 concerning the extent of reign and year of death. 12 NH 5.16: studiorum c l a r i t a t e memorabilior etiam quam regno. •'••^ Steph. Byz., s.v. 'Apoptytveç, 'fioxta, No)aavxta; Ath. 4.170e; Hesych. , s.v. Kapxri; Jacoby RE 9.2 (1916): 2394. 14 See, f o r example. Chapter 22.9-10. i t seems improbable that Juba was used to any considerable extent. Besides the authors whom Plutarch c i t e s by name, there are indicati o n s that he made use of other writers. These other possible sources are mentioned below. 8. Various source c r i t i c s have postulated that Plutarch used a l o s t biography of Archimedes f o r those sections of the Marcellus dealing with the great s c i e n t i s t . W e know that a biography of Archimedes was written by a H e r a c l e i d e s . T h i s Heracleides may well have been Heracleides of Tarentum, an acquaintance of Archimedes and accredited with the invention of 18 the sambucae used by Marcellus against Syracuse. I t would not be unreasonable to suppose that Plutarch u t i l i z e d t h i s 19 p a r t i c u l a r biography. 9. M. Terentius Varro was born i n 116 B.C. probably at 20 Reate i n Sabine country. He was the student of L. Aelius •"•^ Cf. Jacoby RE 9.2 (1916): 2393. •"•^ See De Santis SR 3^.2: 371-373, Klotz RhM 83 (1934): 303-304, and Soltau De Fontibus Plutarchi in Seconde Bello Punico Enarrando 67-68 and 105. Eutoc. i n Archim. 3 : 228 Heiberg: àXX' ëaxt pèv TOOTO TO Pî,p?itov, ffiç cpriatv 'HpaKÀetSriç èv xô 'Ap%tpfiSouç Ptw, Tupôç xàç xoO ptou xpetaç àvayKatov. 18 RE 8.1 (1912), no. 63: 497-498; Archimedes names Heracleides as the d e l i v e r e r of correspondence from himself to Dositheus (2 :2 Heiberg: T5v Ttoxt Kôv©va à7EoaxaA.évx(i)v Gscùpripàxcûv, vnèp Sv at et xàç ànoSet^taç èittaxéTi^etç pot ypàv|/at, xôv pèv Ti^etaxcov èv xotç vno "HpaKA-etSa KoptoGévxeaot v è^etç yeypappévaç, 4 Heiberg) ; see Chapter 17.1. xoùç oùv éauxô... concerning the a t t r i b u t i o n to Heracleides of the invention of the sambucae. 19 See Chapters 17.2. and 19.11. for indications which support t h i s hypothesis. ^^RE, supp. 6 (1935), no. 84, pp. 1172-1277; Peter HRR 2: xxxii-xxxx, 9-25; Hieron. Ab Abr. 1902; Symm. Ep, 1.2; c f . S t i l o , a great Roman scholar, and of Antiochus of Ascalon, a 21 philosopher of the Academy. He rose to the rank of praetor and 22 was a follower of Pompey during the c i v i l wars. Pardoned by 23 Caesar he was given the task of organizing a l i b r a r y . Although proscribed by Mark Antony, he escaped death and following the 24 c i v i l wars devoted himself to l i t e r a r y studies. Varro wrote on nearly every subject of science and history, but of his many 25 works only two have survived m any substantial form. He i s reported to have died i n 27 B.C. while writing. 10. Dionysius of Halicarnassus came to Rome i n 30 B.C. and 27 remained there f o r at least 22 years. L i t t l e else i s known about h i s l i f e . Plutarch probably used Dionysius' 'PcûiaaiKrj 'apxatoXoyta, which began to appear i n 7 B.C. Consisting of 20 books, i t traced Rome's origi n s and history down to the s t a r t of 29 the F i r s t Punic War. August. De civ. D. 1.4, who perhaps wrongly places h i s b i r t h at Rome (cf. Dahlmann RE, supp. 6 [1935], p. 1173). 21 Cic. Brut. 205; Aul. C e l l . 16.8.2; Cic. Acad. Post. 1.12; August. De civ. D. 19.3. 22 Themist. p. 453 Dind. ; App. BCiv. 4.47; the date of h i s praetorship i s uncertain, but was probably soon a f t e r 76 B.C. (Broughton MRR 2: 466); Caes. BCiv. 1.38, 2.17-18; Cic. Div. 1.68, 2.114. ^•^Suet. lul. 44; I s i d . Etym. 6.5.1. ^^App. BCiv. 4.47; Cic. Phil. 2.103-105; Aul. C e l l . 3.10.17. 25 These are the De lingua latina and the Rerum rusticarum l i b r i i i i . V a l . Max. 7.3; Hieron. Ab Abr. 1990; see Chapters 8.7.10. and 8.7. àno XOV... for indications of Plutarch's use of Varro. ^^RE 5.1 (1903), no. 113: 934-971; Dion. Hal. 1.7.2. p Q Dion. Hal. 1.3.4. 29 See Chapters 8.8. and 24.12-13. for indications of Plutarch's use of Dionysius. 11. Valerius Antias was a Roman h i s t o r i a n of the post-Sullan period. •'^  L i t t l e i s known about hi s l i f e . He wrote a h i s t o r y of Rome i n at least 75 books, which was used by Livy as one of h i s main sources, but nothing of i t survives beyond b r i e f fragments. Although Plutarch c i t e s Antias i n other l i v e s , he does not 32 do so here. However, Klotz, who has done the most recent work on the sources of the Marcellus, believes that Antias was the main source. Despite the fac t that Livy i s c i t e d by Plutarch i n t h i s l i f e and that large t r a c t s of i t c l o s e l y resemble Livy's history, Klotz maintains that where the texts are si m i l a r , i t i s due to the use of a common source, which i s Antias. This b e l i e f i s based on the fact that, although large portions of the text of the Marcellus resemble Livy, there are s t i l l small 33 discrepancies. But Klotz's argument i s too narrow i n i t s focus, there are other, easier, ways of explaining the discrepancies without bringing i n Antias, of whose use there i s no d i r e c t i n d i c a t i o n i n the text. He has f a i l e d to take i n t o consideration what ro l e Plutarch's memory may have played i n these v a r i a t i o n s from Livy, and he has overlooked the p o s s i b i l i t y that Plutarch may have added information gathered from elsewhere. ^^RE 7a.2 (1948), no. 98: 2313-2340; Peter HiîJÎ 1: c c c v - c c c x x x i i i , 238-275; V e i l . Pat. 2.9.4; see Ogilvie Livy 12-13 concerning h i s floruit. •'•'•Aul. C e l l . 6.9.17. 32 E.g., Rom. 14.7, Num. 22.6, Flam. 18.8 •^-^RhM 83 (1934): 289-318. CHAPTER ONE 1.1. MâpKOV 3è KXavôtov tov TcevxaKtç vnaxsvoavxa °Pconatcav: M. Claudius Marcellus (RE 3.2 [1899], no. 220: 2738-2755) held the consulship f i v e times, i n the years 222, 215, 214, 210, and 208 B.C.; t h i s t o t a l i s mentioned numerous times i n the ancient sources (Liv. 27.22.1; Plut. FaJb. Max. 19.5, Flam. 18.1, Marc. 28.6, 30.6, Comp. Pel. et Marc. 3.4; Val. Max, 1.1.8; App. Hann. 50; De vir. i l l . 45.7; Nep. Hann. 5.3; Cic. Div. 2.77; Chron. 354; Idat. ; Chron. Pasch. ; Cassiod.; Asc. Pis. p. 11 K i e s s l i n g - S c h o e l l ; Marcellus i s designated as having been consul f i v e times on the coins of P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus: Marcellus cos. quinq. [Sydenham The Coinage of the Roman Republic, no. 1147; Crawford Roman Republican Coinage, v o l . 1, no. 439.1]). The holding of t h i s many consulships was rare i n the Republican period. Marcellus' contemporary Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus also attained t h i s t o t a l , and i t was not surpassed u n t i l the time of C. Marius, who held seven consulships (the f i r s t i n 107 B.C.). The Romans were both suspicious and jealous of anyone who held an o f f i c e more than once, e s p e c i a l l y consecutively. A p l e b i s c i t e passed i n 342 B.C. required a ten year i n t e r v a l between tenures of the same magistracy (Liv. 7,42.2, 10.13.5-13; although c f . Mommsen Str. 1"^ : 519, who suggests t h i s may have happened i n 330 B.C.). During the Second Punic War, however, following the d i s a s t e r at Lake Trasimene i n 217 B.C., a law was passed that allowed the people the r i g h t for the duration of the war i n I t a l y to r e - e l e c t as consuls whom they pleased and as often as they pleased from among those who had been consuls (Liv. 27.6.7; See Mommsen Str. l " ' ; 519-521 and Kiibler RE 4.1 [1900], "Consul": 1117). Rome had need of experienced generals for t h i s c o n f l i c t , and Marcellus was one of the chief b e n e f i c i a r i e s of t h i s law. 1.1. MotpKou psv TJtov yeveoGat Aeyouot : Nothing i s known of Marcellus' father except that his praenomen was Marcus. Besides Plutarch here, Marcellus i s named M. f. on a tessera hospitalis 2 (CIL, I , 611 = X, 6231; i f the person named here i s indeed our Marcellus and not one of his descendants) and M. f. M. n. by the Fasti Capitolini and the Acta Triumphorum for 222 B.C. His grandfather was M. Claudius Marcellus (RE 3.2 [1899], no. 219: 2738), consul with C. Nautius Rutilus i n 287 B.C. (Chron. 354; Idat.; Chron. Pasch. ; Cassiod.; Fast. Hyd. ). His great-grandfather was M. Claudius Marcellus (RE 3.2 [1899], no. 218: 2737-2738), consul with C. Valerius Potitus i n 331 B.C. (Liv. 8.18.1; Diod. 17.74.1; Gros. 3.10.1; Fast. Cap.; Chron. 354; Idat.; Chron. Pasch.; Cassiod.; Fast. Hyd.). This ancestor was appointed d i c t a t o r for the holding of elections i n 327 B.C., but h i s appointment was declared i n v a l i d (Liv. 8.23.14-17). Munzer (RE 3.2 [1899]: 2737-2738) suggests that the account of t h i s dictatorship may imitate that of Marcellus' second consulship i n 215 B.C., from which he, l i k e h i s ancestor, was forced to resign. In both instances t h e i r plebeian status was alleged as the r e a l reason for t h e i r forced abdications (see Livy 23.31.12-14 and Chapter 12.1. sKa^iet. . . et seqq. fo r our Marcellus' consulship of 215 B.C.)- Marcellus' great-grandfather was the f i r s t of the C l a u d i i M a r c e l l i to obtain the consulship. 1.1. K^riQfjvat sè T © V àno Tfjç otKtaç Tcpwxov MdpKS^Àov, oTcsp èoTtv 'Apf)l*ov: The cognomen Marcellus does not s t a r t with our Marcellus, but i t appears already a hundred years e a r l i e r i n the Fasti. Also, the etymology of the name i s not to be connected with 'Apf|l'ov = Martius, but rather with the praenomen Marcus (cf. Fest. p. 112 Lindsay: Marculus deminutivum a marco). The praenomen Marcus i s foreign to the p a t r i c i a n C l a u d i i i n h i s t o r i c a l times (cf. RE 3.2 [1899], "M. Claudius," nos. 24 and 25: 2670), but i s used so frequently by the M a r c e l l i that at times the i n d i v i d u a l Marci M a r c e l l i are hard to d i s t i n g u i s h . Aside from Marcus, the praenomen Gaius i s also used by the M a r c e l l i . They were a plebeian family (Asc. Scaur. 22; L i v . 8.23.16, 23.31.13), who were probably o r i g i n a l l y connected with the p a t r i c i a n C l a u d i i (Cic. De Or. 1.176: i n t e r Marcellos et Claudios p a t r i c i o s centumviri iudicarunt, cum M a r c e l l i ab l i b e r t i f i l i o s t i r p e , C l a u d i i p a t r i c i i eiusdem hominis hereditatem gente ad se redisse dicerent; see Mommsen Str. 3^: 74-75). They belonged to the t r i b e Arnensis (SC de Oropiis; Syll.^, 747.6: utôç 'ApvTioor|ç HaàpKe'kXoQ) . A f t e r the time of our Marcellus, the family was hardly i n f e r i o r to the p a t r i c i a n C l a u d i i i n fame and reputation (Suet. Tib. 1) , and A t t i c u s , Cicero's fr i e n d , investigated and wrote t h e i r h i s t o r y (Nep. Att. 18.4; RE 3.2 [1899], "Claudii M a r c e l l i " : 2731-2732). 1.1. (ùQ (priât Hooet ScDvt oç : See Introduction, pp. 21-25, concerning Plutarch's use of Posidonius as a source. The only thing that can be firmly attributed to Posidonius i n t h i s chapter i s the explanation for the name Marcellus (= 'Apfitoç) . Bauer (Philologus 47 [1889]: 242-243) has pointed out that Plutarch derived t h i s c i t a t i o n from a long discussion on Roman names which Posidonius had given i n the introduction to hi s h i s t o r i c a l work (in Plutarch's Marius 1 there i s a discussion on Roman names i n which Posidonius i s c i t e d f or h i s comments. These comments make i t obvious that Posidonius had dealt with t h i s topic at length). Miihl (Klass. Phil. Stud. 4 [1925]: 6-8) would a t t r i b u t e not only the c i t a t i o n for the provenance of Marcellus' name, but a l l of t h i s chapter except perhaps the words xov jcevxdKtç ÛTraxeuaavxa 'Pœpatoùv MdpKOt) pèv utôv yevéoBat Xé-yovot to Posidonius. He bases his argument on Posidonius' own a f f i n i t y f o r the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Marcellus and Marcellus' contemporaries which are enumerated here. But Munzer (Gnomon 1 [1925]: 96) has pointed out that nothing can be in f e r r e d about Plutarch's use of Posidonius from the characterization of Marcellus and even less from the characterization of h i s contemporaries. For instance, concerning the phrase Kax' eùyévetav Kat àpexr|v at Marcellus 1.5, which Miihl would a t t r i b u t e to Posidonius, Miinzer points out that such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are attributed so often to Roman n o b i l i t y that Plutarch, for example, i n h i s biography of the Gracchi repeats them, although with s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t wording, no less than four times (Ti. et C. Gracch. 1.7, 10.6, 29.5, 40.4). 1.2-3. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s l i s t e d here form the basis of Plutarch's own assessment of Marcellus' personality, and around these he constructs the biography. However, these p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were not f i r s t deduced by Plutarch, but were the r e s u l t of a long t r a d i t i o n . For example, Cicero describes Marcellus as acer et pugnax (Rep. 5.10), but also moderate (temperavit [Verr. 2.2.4]) towards h i s enemies, showing mercy (misericordiam [Verr. 2.2.4]) to those conquered. Nevertheless, the l i s t e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s represent Plutarch's own s e l e c t i o n , since several examples of actions which reveal Marcellus' unpleasant t r a i t s which can be found i n Livy (23.17.1-3, 24.19.8-10, 35.2, 37.1-39.9), who appears to have been used as one of the main sources, form l i t t l e or no part of the biography proper. 1.3. oûxpptov, cptÀavepwTtoç: Miihl (Klass. Phil. Stud. [1925]: 6) sees d e f i n i t e Stoic coloring i n the characterization of Marcellus i n t h i s chapter, es p e c i a l l y i n oaxppwv and (pt^àvGpwTioç, which he terms the most important goals of Stoic ethics (see Babut Plutarque el le Stoicïsme concerning Stoic influences i n Plutarch). 1.3. ° EA,Àr|vt Kfjç 7cat3etaç Kat Xbycùv — ê p a o x f i ç — : Plutarch gives two incidents which reveal t h i s aspect of Marcellus' character. At Marcellus 19.8-12 i t i s reported that Marcellus was greatly affected by the death of Archimedes, who was k i l l e d by a Roman s o l d i e r during the f i n a l assault on Syracuse. Plutarch r e l a t e s that Marcellus sought out the r e l a t i v e s of Archimedes and honored them. Archimedes would be one of the KttTopGoOvxaç admired by him. In t h i s respect, we learn from Cicero (Rep. 1.21) that out of a l l the booty taken from Syracuse the only item kept by Marcellus himself was a c e l e s t i a l sphere, which delineated the motions of the heavenly bodies, constructed by Archimedes. This item was probably kept as a memento of the great s c i e n t i s t . The other incident i s found at Marcellus 21 where i t i s reported that Marcellus spoke with pride about the art treasures brought back from Syracuse with which he decorated Rome, declaring that he had taught the ignorant Romans to honor and admire the beau t i f u l and wonderful things of Greece. I t i s doubtful whether these cases prove that Marcellus was a true lover (epaoxric) of Greek culture. His admiration of Archimedes was probably due to that s c i e n t i s t ' s mechanical ingenuity i n thwarting the Roman assaults on Syracuse, while h i s boastful pride i n embellishing Rome with the art works taken from Syracuse may have been a reaction to the censure he received from h i s enemies at Rome over i t s importation. 1.4. (ùOKSp "Ofaripoç ei'pr|Kev. . . : This i s taken from the Iliad (14.86-87). 1.5. TOÎQ xoxe T t p c û x e ù o u a t 'P(ù[xai(ùv: Among these Romans would be Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus {RE, no. 116; cos. 233, 228, 215, 214, 209, d i e t . 217 B.C.), about whom Plutarch wrote a separate biography. Plutarch sees i n Fabius and Marcellus a close connection, r e i t e r a t i n g (Ware. 9, Fab. Max. 19) the t r a d i t i o n , which he found i n Posidonius, that c a l l e d Fabius ^The Shield' and Marcellus ^The Sword of Rome.' Also included among these Romans should be men such as Q. Fulvius Flaccus {RE, no. 59; cos. 237, 224, 212, 209, procos. 211, 210, 208, 207, pr. 215, 214 B.C.), T. Manlius Torquatus {RE, no. 82; cos. 235, 224, propr. 215 B.C.), P. Furius Philus {RE, no. 80; cos. 223, pr. 216 B.C.), C. Flaminius {RE, no. 2; COS. 223, 217, pr. 227 B.C.), and T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus {RE, no. 12; pr. 217, 215, 214, propr. 216, promag. [propr.?] 213, 212, 211 B.C.). See Broughton MRR, v o l . 1 for references. 1.5. K e p t ZtKEÀtav KapxriSovtotÇ : This i s the F i r s t Punic War (264-241 B.C.). 1.5. raAdxatc vnsp avxfiQ 'ixaXtaç: This happened i n the G a l l i c War of 225-222 B.C. 1.5. 'Avvtpg naXtv ouvetxovxo Kat KapxriSovt ot ç : This r e f e r s to the Second Punic War (218-201 B.C.). CHAPTER TWO 2. This chapter covers Marcellus' l i f e up to, but not including, his f i r s t consulship i n 222 B.C. Plutarch's portrayal of the early l i f e i s both scanty i n events and b r i e f due most l i k e l y to a lack of information. The numerous excursuses and discussions i n t h i s l i f e (e.g., a l l of Ware. 5) suggest that he sought outside material to f i l l up t h i s biography i n order to make i t of suitable length (cf. S c a r d i g l i Die Romerbiographien Plutarchs 38) . I f t h i s i s so, then i t would seem l i k e l y that he would have included more d e t a i l s about Marcellus' e a r l i e r l i f e and career i f they had been a v a i l a b l e to him. 2.1. MdpKeÀA,oç Sè npôç oùSèv |aèv rjv |ad%r|ç etSoç. . . : Plutarch s t a r t s o f f h i s narrative proper with a general and vague statement. The only form of f i g h t i n g s p e c i f i e d i s sing l e combat, but no examples are given here. Later, however, i n chapter seven he does r e l a t e the duel between Marcellus and Britomatus, king of the Gaesati. I f he deduced from t h i s incident alone that Marcellus engaged i n multiple duels, he i s going beyond his evidence. But i f he derived h i s information from elsewhere, h i s source may have been j u s t as vague. I t i s u n l i k e l y that Plutarch would have l e f t out d e t a i l s which would have supported t h i s assertion. 2.2. èv sè StKsÀta X O V dSe^cpôv 'OxaKtXtov Kt vS\jveuovxa StéocDOEv: This i s probably T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus (RE 18.2 [1942], no. 12: 1862-1865). He i s l i k e l y the son of the consul of 261 B.C. T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus (RE, no. 11) . If these two assumptions are correct, then he would have been the half-brother of Marcellus. Marcellus himself was born ca. 269 B.C. (see Chapter 28.6. vnèp yap s<^riKovxa. . . ) , and h i s father apparently died young since he held no high o f f i c e , which one would expect from consideration of the careers of h i s forebears (see Chapter 1.1. MapKou p è v . . . ) - Marcellus' mother w i l l then have married again, t h i s time to T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus (RE, no. 11) . O t a c i l i u s , the son, was l i k e l y born before h i s father's consulship (261 B.C.), since both brothers were serving i n S i c i l y during the l a s t years of the F i r s t Punic War, perhaps under the command of O t a c i l i u s ' uncle, M.' O t a c i l i u s Crassus (RE, no. 10), who was holding his second consulship i n 246 B.C. (see Zonaras 8.16 f o r O t a c i l i u s ' uncle's command i n S i c i l y ; c f . Munzer RE 18.2 [1942]: 1862). O t a c i l i u s became both an augur and p o n t i f f (Liv. 26.23.8, 27.6.15; see Broughton MRR 1: 284, n. 6 concerning p o s s i b i l i t y that O t a c i l i u s did not, i n fact, hold both priesthoods) and married a niece of Q. Fabius Maximus (Liv. 24.8.11). During the Second Punic War, O t a c i l i u s was stationed i n S i c i l y i n command of a f l e e t from 217-210 B.C. with h i s headquarters at Lilybaeum (pr. 217, 215, 214, propr. 216 B.C., promag. [propr.?] 213, 212, 211; see Broughton MRR, v o l . 1 for references). O t a c i l i u s ran for the consulship of 214 B.C., but he l o s t due to the intervention of Q. Fabius Maximus, who managed to have himself elected with Marcellus as h i s colleague (see Chapter 13.1. 'O Sè MàpKSÀA,oç. . . concerning these e l e c t i o n s ) . In 211 B.C. O t a c i l i u s sent a large quantity of grain, which he had captured on a r a i d to A f r i c a , to Marcellus at Syracuse, which had been recently captured by the Romans, but where a famine was raging both among the v i c t o r s and vanquished (see Chapter 19.7. Kat yàp xfiv. . . ) • According to Livy (26.22.2-15) O t a c i l i u s ran f o r the consulship of 210 B.C. The elections were s i m i l a r i n many ways to the ones i n 214 B.C. except that i t was T. Manlius Torquatus, not Q. Fabius Maximus who intervened i n the voting i n which Marcellus and M. Valerius Laevinus were elected. But O t a c i l i u s apparently died before these elections, which has led some scholars to suspect Livy's account of them (see Chapter 23.1. ToO Sè MapKéX,A,ot). . . concerning these elections) . 2.3. oxécpavot : These oxécpavot are coronae civicae. Made of oak leaves, they were awarded to s o l d i e r s who had saved the l i f e of a fellow c i t i z e n ( P l i n . NH 16.7-14). 2.3. yâpa Ttapà xôv oxpaxriyôv: These are dona militaria, which consisted of awards such as torques, armillae, phalerae, hastae, coronae aureae, murales, and obsidionales (see Polybius 6.39 for a discussion of m i l i t a r y awards; for an example of a s o l d i e r winning such awards, see Valerius Maximus 3.2.24, P l i n y NH 7.102, 22.9, and Aulus G e l l i u s 2.11.2, who l i s t the awards won by a L. Si c c i u s Dentatus, tribune of the plebs i n 454 B.C.)* 2.3. dyopavopov. . . xfjç èjctcpaveoxépaç xdÇeœç: Broughton {MRR 1: 229) gives 226 B.C. as the l a t e s t possible date f o r Marcellus to hold t h i s o f f i c e of curule aedile i f Marcellus was also to hold his f i r s t praetorship (this would have to have been i n 224 B.C. [see Broughton MRR 1: 231]) before his consulship of 222 B.C. 2.3. ot S' tepetç auyoupa: Marcellus was co-opted into the college of augurs. Broughton {MRR 1: 230, 283) believes that Marcellus became an augur about the time of h i s aedileship (226 B.C.). He held t h i s o f f i c e u n t i l his death i n 208 B.C. (Liv. 27.36.5). Cicero (Div, 2.77) c a l l s him augur optumus and reports that he wholly ignored m i l i t a r y omens ex acuminibus (e.g., e l e c t r i c a l discharges from the points of spears). He recounts that Marcellus used to say he was accustomed to t r a v e l i n a closed l i t t e r i f ever he wanted to do something and d i d not want to be in t e r f e r e d with by omens {Div. 2.77: nam ex acuminibus quidem, quod totum auspicium m i l i t a r e est, iam M. Marcellus i l l e quinquiens consul totum omisit, idem imperator, idem augur optumus...et quidem i l l e dicebat, s i quando rem agere v e l l e t , ne impediretur a u s p i c i i s , l e c t i c a operta facere i t e r se s o l e r e ) . 2.4. xoOxo S' èoxtv iepwavvriQ. . . : This explanation of the priesthood of augurs i s for the benefit of h i s l a r g e l y Greek audience (see Introduction, p. 9, concerning Plutarch's intended readership). 2.5. rjv y à p a\)T(ù naÎQ Ô\I6}W\XOQ. . . vno xSv TtoÀtxSv: This i s M. Claudius Marcellus (RE 3.2 [1899], no. 222: 2755-2757). The a f f a i r involving C. Scantinius Capitolinus i s the e a r l i e s t event known about t h i s Marcellus' l i f e (cf. Val. Max.6.1.7). If S i l i u s I t a l i c u s ' mention of him at the siege of Syracuse (15.356-358) i s discounted on the grounds of p o e t i c a l li c e n c e , then he i s next heard of as a m i l i t a r y tribune i n 208 B.C. accompanying his father, who was pursuing Hannibal i n southern I t a l y between the towns of Bantia and Venusia (Marc. 29.1). He was wounded i n the ambush which claimed h i s father's l i f e , but managed to escape (Marc. 29.11, 16; Polyb. 10.32.6; L i v . 27.26.12, 27.7, 10; S i l . I t a l . 15.353-376). Hannibal, a f t e r celebrating our Marcellus' funeral, sent the ashes to h i s son (Marc. 30.2; App. Hann. 50; see Chapter 29. et seqq. concerning these events). Coelius Antipater reports the existence i n h i s time of a laudatio which the son presumably gave at h i s father's memorial service i n Rome (Liv. 27.27.13). In 205 B.C. he carr i e d out the dedication of the temple of Virtu s vowed by h i s father (Liv. 29.11.13; see Chapter 28.2. concerning t h i s temple). Like h i s father, he went on to have a distinguished career. He became a plebeian tribune i n 204, curule aedile i n 200, praetor i n 198, and consul i n 196 B.C. During h i s year as consul he won a triumph for his exploits against the Gauls i n northern I t a l y and was made a p o n t i f f . F i n a l l y , he became censor with T. Quinctius Flamininus as his colleague i n 189 B.C. (see Broughton MRR, v o l . l for references). He died i n 177 B.C. (Liv. 41.13.4). 2.5. KajieTwA-Cvoc ô xoO MapKeÀÀou a \ j v d p % a)v: This i s C. Scantinius Capitolinus (RE 2a.1 [1921], no. 3: 352), who i s elsewhere mentioned only by Valerius Maximus, who re l a t e s the same incident (6.1.7). Plutarch simply c a l l s him a fellow magistrate (a \ Jvdp%(Dv) of Marcellus, while Valerius Maximus labe l s him a plebeian tribune (tribuno p l . ) . Plutarch's designation of Capitolinus as a ouvdpxwv has led to the assertion that Valerius Maximus i s probably wrong i n c a l l i n g him a plebeian tribune, because i f o D v d p x w v i s equivalent to the La t i n term collega, which i s defined as a colleague holding the same magistracy, then Capitolinus could not have been a plebeian tribune, since Marcellus was a curule aedile. Also, i t has been pointed out that Capitolinus' appeal to the plebeian tribunes (Ware. 2.7: TOVQ Sripdpxouç sTctKaA-oupevoç; Val. Max. 6.1.7: et ob i d tribunicium auxilium inplorante) shows that he could not have been one of them, since they were not l i a b l e to prosecution during t h e i r tenure of o f f i c e due to t h e i r personal i n v i o l a b i l i t y (sacrosanctitas). However, Capitolinus does seem to have some sort of personal i n v i o l a b i l i t y to prosecution since he makes use of i t (Ware. 2.7: T t a p a y p a c p à ç èpr|%avâTo; Val. Max. 6.1.7: quia sacrosanctam potestatem haberet). For t h i s reason Mommsen postulates that Capitolinus was one of the plebeian aediles, since they had a type of sacrosanctitas (Fest. p. 422 Lindsay; L i v . 3.55.6-10), and that Valerius Maximus had confused the l i t t l e known sacrosanctitas of the plebeian aediles with the well-known sacrosanctitas of the plebeian tribunes (see Romisches Staatsrecht 1"^ : 706, n. 6, 289, n. 2, 2^: 472, n. 2, 493, n. 4). Mommsen's solution appears to resolve the crux of Capitolinus being a ouvap^wv of Marcellus, but at the same time possessing a type of sacrosanctitas. But t h i s s o l u t i o n i s doubtful, since for one thing the use of the term ouvap^wv here has no bearing on the determination of Capitolinus' o f f i c e . Plutarch's use of ouvdp^cùv cannot always be equated with the Lat i n collega. For example i n his Antonius, Plutarch c a l l s both a praetor and a plebeian tribune o u v d p x o v x a ç of a consul (15.5: K t t t TOiXXa S' e T T p a T x e v a u x o K p a x o p t K © Ç Ô ' A v x c D v t o ç , a û x ô ç )j,èv vnaxeixùv, x o ù ç S' àôeXcpovQ ë^wv o u v d p ^ o v x a ç , rdtov | a è v o x p a x r i y ô v , AsÙKtov Sè Sfi|aap%ov) . But i t might be supposed that i n the present chapter ouvdpxcùv i s used as the equivalent of collega i n the r e s t r i c t e d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l sense. However, i f t h i s were the case, then Capitolinus should have been a curule aed i l e . Even Mommsen admits that a plebeian aedile i s not a colleague of a curule aedile, since they do not belong to the same collegium (Str. 2^: 486), and Plutarch was c e r t a i n l y aware of the d i s t i n c t i o n between the two o f f i c e s (Marc. 2.3: d y o p a v o ^ o v . . . x f j ç è r c t c p a v e o x é p a ç x d ^ e w ç ) . Consequently, how the term o u v a p ^ c o v was intended to be used here i s unknown, and i t cannot help i n determining Capitolinus' o f f i c e (see also Marcellus 28.5 where i t i s apparent that the term i s used i n a broad sense). The only argument l e f t to support Mommsen's hypothesis i s that Capitolinus made an appeal to the plebeian tribunes, which he believes would have been unnecessary, i f Capitolinus was i n fact a plebeian tribune. But t h i s case may be an exception to the r u l e . Although we know of only one other instance of a tribune being prosecuted, that of L. Cotta i n a c i v i l s u i t with h i s creditors (this too i s found i n Valerius Maximus [6.5.4]), the reason why these two incidents were recorded i n the f i r s t place may have been because they were unprecedented. In the case of Capitolinus, the nature of the crime i t s e l f probably brought about a suspension of a tribune's normal immunity by common consent (the Romans seem to have been e s p e c i a l l y prudish i n t h e i r early days [see, f o r example, Cato Maior 20.7-8] and therefore intolerant towards anyone suspected of pederasty). Therefore, i t appears reasonable to suggest that Plutarch found Capitolinus i d e n t i f i e d as a plebeian tribune i n h i s source. Although Valerius Maximus recounts t h i s episode (6.1.7) and i t i s known that Plutarch made use of him (see Introduction, pp. 29-30) , whether he i s the source here has been questioned. Peter (Die Quellen Plutarchs 75) thinks i t very u n l i k e l y because of the discrepancy between the two accounts i n regards to what o f f i c e Scantinius held and because Plutarch adds a concluding d e t a i l which i s lacking i n Valerius Maximus' version: the imposition of a f i n e and the dedication of s i l v e r bowls to the gods. However, Zimmermann (RhM 79 [1930]: 58-59) believes that Plutarch did use him, although inexactly, and that the d e t a i l missing from Valerius Maximus' account was added by Plutarch from elsewhere. 2.5. êpcDV XoyovQ T i p o o f i v e y K e : This i s one of the few references to pederasty which occurred during the time of the Republic (Mommsen Strafr. 703, n. 3) . A Lex Scantinia against pederasty i s mentioned by Cicero i n 50 B.C. (Fam. 8.12.3, 14.4; c f . Suet. Dom. 8.3, Juv. 2.44). Munzer (RE 2a.1 [1921], "Scantinius," no. 1: 352) maintains that t h i s law would not have been named a f t e r C. Scantinius Capitolinus, the one convicted of pederasty, but rather a f t e r the proposer of the law, who belonged t o a l a t e r period. There i s some evidence to suggest that t h i s law was passed i n 149 B.C. (Liv. Oxy. Per. 50.115-116: M. Sca[n]tius / [ ]am t u l i t i n stupro deprehensi..; although c f . Munzer loc . c i t . , Broughton MRR 1: 460). That both the person convicted of pederasty and the proposer of the law against i t would have the same name i s suspicious because the name Scantinius or Scantius i s rare (besides those already mentioned, there i s only a P. Scantinius, a p o n t i f f , who died i n 216 B.C. [Liv. 23.21.7; RE 2a. 1 {1921}, no. 2: 352] and a M. Scantius, a plebeian tribune of 293 B.C. [Liv. 10.46.16; RE 2a.1 {1921}, no. 1: 352-353]; c f . Munzer loc. c i t . ) . Perhaps the person named C. Scantinius Capitolinus by Valerius Maximus (6.1.7) and simply Kajcexcu^tvoc by Plutarch was only i d e n t i f i e d by his cognomen in the o r i g i n a l version of the story, but l a t e r acquired the nomen, Scantinius, due to an ancient author's erroneous b e l i e f that the Lex Scantinia received i t s t i t l e from the person accused i n t h i s incident. Upon f i n d i n g the accused named simply C. Capitolinus i n h i s source, t h i s author conjectured that the nomen must have been Scantinius and consequently added i t to h i s own version of the story. I f the Lex Scantinia was only passed a f t e r t h i s incident involving Capitolinus, under what law was he accused by Marcellus? There are recorded e a r l i e r known incidents of pederasty which were brought to t r i a l (e.g., L i v . 8.28; Val. Max. 6.1.3; Dion. Hal. 16.4-5.), but there i s no i n d i c a t i o n that these were done under any s p e c i f i c law (lex) . Whether these incidents are true or not, a law against pederasty may not have been necessary, since i t was probably considered an offense i n i t s e l f and the case would have been heard before the people (before the establishment of quaestiones perpetuae, beginning i n the mid-second century B.C., few offenses were covered by s p e c i f i c leges [see Jolowicz Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Lav 329]). 2.6. ô HàpKsX'koQ T t p o o r i y y e t x f j PouA,ri xov avGpcoTcov: The use of the term ^ovXr\ here and at Marcellus 2.7 causes d i f f i c u l t i e s . The term p>ovXr\ i s frequently applied by Greek writers to the Roman senate, and the t r i a l of Capitolinus i n Plutarch's portrayal appears to take place before t h i s body. But the senate did not act as a jury i n criminal cases during the Republic, and the corresponding passage i n Valerius Maximus c o r r e c t l y places the t r i a l before the people, as was the usual procedure (6.1.7: M. Claudius Marcellus a e d i l i s c u r u l i s C. Scantinio Capitolino tribune p i . diem ad populum d i x i t ; see 3 Mommsen Str. 3 : 354-358 concerning t r i a l procedures). I t does not seem probable that Plutarch intended to use pouA,rj to s i g n i f y the Roman people i n assembly (either as a comitia or consilium plebis), since appropriate terms were ava i l a b l e (e.g., àp%atpéata, èKKA,r|ota) . And although he applies another term, ouyKÀr|Toç, to the senate elsewhere i n t h i s l i f e (e.g., 4.4), t h i s i s only an abbreviation of oùyKA-rixoç pouA-f] (see Moralia 313d for an example of Plutarch's use of t h i s extended form; see Mason Greek Terms for Roman Institutions 121-123 fo r discussion of po\jA,r) and ouyK^rixoc) . I t appears then that Plutarch intended to use pouÀri here as a term for the senate because that i s where he believed the t r i a l took place. But the t r i a l would not have taken place here which suggests that Plutarch had misread h i s source. Although the senate d i d not t r y cases, i t did pass resolutions c a l l i n g f o r prosecution and punishment, and t h i s may have caused Plutarch to assume i n c o r r e c t l y that the t r i a l had taken place before t h i s body, (e.g., L i v . 29.19.3-20.10, 39.8.1-19.7; see Jolowicz Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 322-331 and Mommsen Str. 3^: 1063-1070). 2.7. Tcapaypacpàç è|ar|%avâTo: A Tcapaypacpf) i s an exception taken by the defendant to the a d m i s s i b i l i t y of a s u i t (LSJ) . The corresponding passage i n Valerius Maximus i s eoque asseverante se cogi non posse ut adesset, quia sacrosanctam potestatem haberet (6.1.7). Capitolinus i s claiming h i s freedom from prosecution because of h i s o f f i c e as plebeian tribune (see 3 Mommsen Str, 1 : 705-708 on the r i g h t s of magistrates against prosecution; the s p e c i f i c case here may be an exception to the r u l e [see discussion at Chapter 2.4. KaTrexwAtvoç. . . ] ) . 2.7. TOVQ 3ripdp%ouç eTitKaXoupevoç: See discussion at Chapter 2.5. KaTtexcù^tvoç. . . 2.8. 5v ô MâpKeXXoQ apyvpa Xot^eta notriodpevoç xotç Geotç KaStépcûoev: "Apyupâ A,otpeta i s an emendation of àpyupapotptav (see Ziegler's apparatus criticus). The only other use of A-otpstov i s i n Plutarch's Aemilius (31.2: Xotpeta) , but t h i s i s an emendation of Xotpta (see Ziegler's apparatus criticus f o r Aemilius 31.2). A Àotpetov i s a cup f o r pouring l i b a t i o n s (LSJ). CHAPTER THREE 3. With t h i s chapter begins the narrative of the G a l l i c War (225-222 B.C.), which continues to chapter eight. Aside from the digressions, most notably the discussion on the Romans' scrupulous observance of r e l i g i o u s practices i n chapter f i v e and on Jup i t e r Feretrius and the spolia opima i n chapter eight, the d e t a i l s of the war appear to have been derived from a continuous h i s t o r i c a l narrative. This would exclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that Plutarch u t i l i z e d i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way a monograph on Marcellus f o r t h i s section, as i t has been argued, since many of the events narrated have nothing at a l l to do with Marcellus (e.g., the campaign of 223 B.C.), and i t i s d i f f i c u l t to imagine how they would have been incorporated into such a monograph (cf. Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 295; see Miihl Klass. Phil. Stud. 4 [1925]: 5-35, who argues that a monograph on Marcellus by Posidonius was the main source for t h i s l i f e ; see Introduction, pp. 21-25, concerning Plutarch's use of Posidonius as a source). The most extensive surviving account of t h i s war i s found i n Polybius (2.21-35). But although Plutarch had read Polybius (he c i t e s him at Comp. Pel. et Marc. 1.7), he made l i t t l e , i f any, use of him for the narrative of t h i s war (see Chapters 3.5. âSfiA,OTJ. . . and 7.8. xàç 8' aXXaQ. . . concerning possible influences by Polybius). Since Livy's work (excepting the Periocha) i s missing f o r these years, the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n of t h i s war i s most f u l l y preserved for us i n the condensed versions of Zonaras (8.20.1-9) and Orosius (4.13.3-15). Plutarch's own narrative of t h i s c o n f l i c t has much i n common with t h i s a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n , which suggests that Plutarch derived most of h i s material from t h i s source, possibly using Livy or another a n n a l i s t i c h i s t o r i a n (see, for example. Chapters 4.2. tocpBr). . . on the portents and 4.5. xaOxa. . . on the l e t t e r , d e t a i l s which are found i n the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n but not i n Polybius). 3.1. XÛÙV KapxrjSovtwv 7toÀ,é|aa)v: These are the three wars fought between Rome and Carthage (264-241, 218-201, 149-146 B.C.). 3.1. exet Seuxépffl Kat stKooxS: The F i r s t Punic War began i n the l a t e summer of 264 B.C., when the consul Ap. Claudius Caudex crossed the s t r a i t s separating I t a l y from S i c i l y with a Roman army i n order to r e l i e v e the c i t y of Messana from the besieging armies of the Carthaginians and Syracusans. I t ended i n 241 B.C. a f t e r 23 years and some months with the r a t i f i c a t i o n of the peace treaty by the Roman assembly following C. Lutatius Catulus' naval v i c t o r y over the Carthaginians near the Aegates islands i n the same year (see Eutropius 2.27.3 f o r the date of t h i s b a t t l e ) . The oldest preserved testimonies, that of Cato ( f r . 84 Peter: bellum, quod quattor et v i g i n t i annos f u i t ) and that of Polybius (1.63.4: exr] KoXB\ir]QeiQ etKoot Kat xéxxapa auvex^ç), are i n agreement i n ca l c u l a t i n g the duration of the war at 24 years (likewise Diodorus Siculus 24.14, 25.2, Appian Sic. 2.5, and Livy 9.19.12, 21.10.7). Zonaras says that the war ended i n the 24th year (8.17.7: '0 |aèv oùv Trpcôxoç xotç KapxriSo vt ot ç jcô^epoç xotç 'Pojpatotç etç xoOxo Kaxé^ri^e xexàpxw ëxet Kttt etKoaxw), and other late authors c a l c u l a t e 23 years (Eutr. 3.1: F i n i t e i g i t u r Punico b e l l o , quod per XXIII annos tractuiti est; Oros. 4.11.4: bellum per annos très et v i g i n t i gestum). But no writer apart from Plutarch here a t t e s t s to the war ending i n the 22nd year, and i t has been suggested that Seuxépco i s a corruption i n the manuscripts. The scribe apparently misunderstood S', the alphabetic symbol f o r xexdpx©, r 2 as an abbreviation for Ssuxép© (see De Sanctis Si? 3 .1: 244 f o r suggestion and 243-246 for the dating of the beginning and for the c a l c u l a t i o n of the duration of the F i r s t Punic War). 3.1. àp%at Tcd^tv FaA-axtKÔv àyoùvoùv SteSé%ovxo xriv "Pobpriv: According to Polybius (2.21) the f i r s t incident a f t e r the F i r s t Punic War occurred i n 237 B.C. when an advance to Ariminum by Transalpine Gauls summoned by the chiefs of the B o i i ended because of i n t e r - t r i b a l f i g h t i n g . The Romans had dispatched an army, but i t turned back upon learning of the Gauls' s e l f - i n f l i c t e d losses (see Walbank Folyhius 1: 191-192 for chronology). The a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n (Zon. 8.18.2-6; Gros. 4.12.1), i n opposition to Polybius, reports a three year war with the Gauls beginning i n 238 B.C., i n which year P. Valerius Falto gained an astonishing v i c t o r y a f t e r a serious defeat. Two scholars, Lippold {Consules 122-123) and Harris iyiar and Imperialism 193-194), accept the main out l i n e of the a n n a l i s t i c version of events and maintain that Rome was the aggressor, discounting Polybius' portrayal of the Gauls as the ones i n i t i a t i n g h o s t i l i t i e s . Their claim i s l a r g e l y based on what Zonaras says concerning the outbreak of h o s t i l i t i e s (8.18.2: laexà Sè xoOxo è7ro?i,é|ir|oav aÙBtç noXs\JiovQ npôç xe Booutouç Kttt Tipôç TaXàxaQ èKetvotç nXr^otox^povQ Kat npoQ AtyucDv xtvàç). In addition, Lippold (Consules 123) believes that the e l e c t i o n of L. Cornelius Lentulus Caudinus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus to the consulship of 237 B.C. was not by chance, since they were both men from gentes which favored aggressive p o l i c i e s , and Harris (War and Imperialism 194) maintains that i t was probably the Romans who began the war since i t occurred "at a s i n g u l a r l y convenient moment" for them. Eckstein (SG 8) has shown the weakness of these arguments. He states that i t i s highly questionable to prefer a l a t e and rather minor source over Polybius. Also, he points out that Zonaras' statement (8.18.2) does not a t t r i b u t e the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the outbreak of the war to Rome, but merely states that the Romans fought against the Gauls, and i f a l a t e r statement by Zonaras i s considered (8.18.4: è T t t xoùç "Pwnatouç aùetç êxwpTioav) , i t would appear that the Gauls were the aggressors; Zonaras would then agree with Polybius on t h i s point (Orosius' statement on the events of 238 B.C. can f i t i n well with t h i s view [4.12.1: eodem anno G a l l i C i s a l p i n i novi e x s t i t e r e hostes]). In addition, Eckstein argues that a t t r i b u t i n g aggressive p o l i c i e s to an e n t i r e gens i s questionable (why should d i s t i n c t f a milies within the same gens have s i m i l a r aims?) and doubts whether 238 B.C. could possibly be "a s i n g u l a r l y convenient moment" for the Romans, when t h e i r attention was directed towards problems i n L i g u r i a (see Zonaras 8.18) and a c r i s i s with Sardinia may have been at hand. Eckstein (SG 8-9) claims that the most important argument i n favor of the Gauls being the aggressors " i s the basic pattern of the f i g h t i n g " (p. 9) . There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of the undertaking of a grand campaign of conquest deep inside G a l l i c t e r r i t o r y by the Romans; instead, the main event of the war was the Gauls' attempted siege on the Latin colony of Ariminum i n 236 B.C. The implication of t h i s , as Eckstein sees i t , i s that the war was e s s e n t i a l l y undertaken by the Gauls "to overthrow the long-existing status quo on the f r o n t i e r " (p. 9) by destroying Ariminum, and t h i s i s exactly what Polybius says (2.21.3). Plutarch makes no d i r e c t reference to these events, but begins h i s narrative proper of the c o n f l i c t i n the t h i r d year of the G a l l i c War which began i n 225 B.C. (see Chapter 4.1. Ot pèv oCv...)• 3.1. ot sè Tr]v vnaXneiav vepopsvot Tfjc 'Ixa^taç "Ivaopppeç ...Ka0' éauTOÙç ovxeç Suvdpet: The C e l t i c t r i b e of the Insubres (RE 9.2 [1916]: 1589-1593) dwelt south of the Alps and north of the Po r i v e r , with t h e i r t e r r i t o r y l a r g e l y c o n s i s t i n g of the area between the Ticinus and Addua r i v e r s . They had t h e i r c a p i t a l at Mediolanum (mod. Milan; Marc. 7.6-7; Polyb. 2.34.10). Polybius c a l l s them the largest of the C e l t i c t r i b e s i n the Po v a l l e y (2.17.4: o peytoxov ë9voç rjv aùxwv) . This i s t h e i r f i r s t known involvement with the Romans where they are designated s p e c i f i c a l l y as ^Insubres,' although i t i s possible they had contact with Rome during e a r l i e r incidents, where only ^Celts' or ^Gauls' are mentioned without any s p e c i f i c a t i o n as to t r i b e . 3.1. raA-axav xoùç [xt o9o0 oxpaxeuo|aévoTjç, ot Tat oaxat KaÀoOvxat : This reference to the Gaesati (RE 7.1 [1910]: 462-463) f i g h t i n g for pay i s also found i n Polybius (2.22.1-2: Ta^àxaç, 7ipooayopet)0|aévouç Sè Stà xô latoGoO oxpaxeùetv Fatoàxouç- r\ yàp Xé^tQ axjXT] xoOxo oripatvet KuptcDç, 2.34.2: auStç ©p|ar|aav èni xô UtoGoOoGat xôv Tiept xôv 'PoSavôv Tatoàxcûv Fa^axôv e t ç xpt o|it)pt ot)ç ) and likewise i n Orosius (4.13.5: maxime Gaesatorum, quod nomen non gentis sed mercennariorum Gallorum est) . The source of the information i s at t r i b u t e d to Fabius P i c t o r (Walbank Polybius 1: 194; Heuberger Klio 31 [1938]: 65-66; Peter HRR 1: 36), who i s said to have written on the war (Eutr. 3.5: traditumque est a Fabio h i s t o r i c o , qui e i b e l l o i n t e r f u i t ; Oros. 4.13.6: si c u t Fabius h i s t o r i c u s , qui eidem b e l l o i n t e r f u i t , s c r i p s i t ) . The word Tatoàxat (Lat. Gaesati) appears to be an adjective derived from the noun yatooç (Lat. gaesum), a word of C e l t i c o r i g i n for a p a r t i c u l a r type of throwing spear used by the Gauls (on etymology see Holder Altceltischer Sprachschatz 1: 1517-1519 and Much Germistische Forschungen 26). These Gaesati according to Polybius l i v e d i n the Alps and Rhone v a l l e y (2.22.1: xoùç Kaxà xàç "AÀTcetç Kat Tuept xôv 'PoSavôv Tcoxaiaôv KaxotKoOvxaç Fa^àxaç, 28.3, 34.2). Strabo (5.1.6, 10) l i s t s the Gaesati as l i v i n g i n the Po v a l l e y , but he i s probably mistaken; a l l other sources report them as dwelling across the Alps (Plut. Marc. 6.3: xàç "AXnetQ Ô7rep|3aA,ôvxeç; Zon. 8.20.1: S K XÔÙV vizèp xàç "AA-Ttetç ôpocpuXcov; Oros. 4.13.5: ex u l t e r i o r e G a l l i a ) . That the gaesum was used i n these regions i s indicated by V e r g i l , who i n speaking of the Gauls attacking the Capitoline h i l l says, duo quisque Alpina coruscant / gaesa manu (Aen. 8.661-662), and by Caesar {BGall. 3.4.1), who uses the word gaesa to describe the spears used by the Seduni and Veragri who inhabited the Valais (Upper Rhone v a l l e y ) . But i t cannot be i n f e r r e d from these two references that t h i s spear was pec u l i a r to these peoples. The gaesum was a national weapon of the Gauls (Serv. ^len. 7.664: pilum proprie est hasta Romana, ut gaesa Gallorum) , and derivatives of the word i n the form of proper names appear everywhere i n the C e l t i c world (e.g., Gaesatorix, Gaizatorix, Gaizatodiastos, Gaesatius; Heuberger Klio 31 [1938]: 64-65). The statement i n Livy about semi-Germanic people occupying the V a l a i s (Lat. Vallis Poenina; 21.38.8: utique quae ad Poeninum ferunt obsaepta gentibus semigermanis fuissent) and the mention of Germans i n the Acta Triumphorum of 222 B.C. for Marcellus' triumph over the Insubres and Gaesati (de G a l l e i s Insubribus et Germ[an].) have led some scholars to argue that the Gaesati were Germans (Much Germistische Forschungen 26-61 among others; see Heuberger Klio 31 [1938]: 60). But the Germani of the Acta Triumphorum may be incorrect, having been introduced during the time of Augustus as a r e s u l t of h i s t o r i c a l speculation of those r e - e d i t i n g the Fasti. However, i f i t was present o r i g i n a l l y , i t may s t i l l not r e f e r to the German people but to a p a r t i c u l a r t r i b e of Gauls who happened to be named Germani (Mommsen Romische Geschichte l " * " ^ : 555, n. 1; see Walbank Polybius 1: 194). In regard to Livy's reference to Germans i n the V a l a i s , t h i s may be an anachronism, since the term Germani was not used extensively before the f i r s t century A.D. (Stahelin Die Schweiz in romischer Zeit 33, n. 1; see Walbank Polybius 1: 194) . Heuberger dismisses Livy's reference by asserting that the Gaesati did not come from t h i s v a l l e y i n the f i r s t place (JCIio 31 [1938]: 61, 76-80). I t i s generally assumed that the term Gaesati came to mean ^ C e l t i c mercenaries' (e.g., Walbank Polybius 1: 194), but t h i s has been c a l l e d into question by Heuberger (Klio 31 [1938]: 65-72, 80) who believes that i t rather ought to mean ^heroes' (Helden) or ^warriors' (Kriegers) . However, i t seems more probable that some C e l t i c t r i b e s dwelling i n the Alps and Rhone v a l l e y acquired the designation Gaesati (spear-warriors), i n place of an ethnic name, because of t h e i r habit of j o i n i n g themselves to expeditions for plunder. This designation would not have been used generally for C e l t i c mercenaries, but only i n the case of these people (see Walbank Polybius 1: 195 f o r further bibliography). 3.2. Gau|aaoTÔv |aèv èSÔKSt. . . 7cpoKaA,etoGat o^oÀriv ayovxaç: Polybius records that the Gauls remained at peace with Rome for 45 years a f t e r having endured a number of defeats (2.21.1: raA - d x a t S° SK TC5V Trpoet prmevoov ê X a T T C o p à x c û v ë x r i pèv jcévxe K a t xexxapttKOVxa xr^v f|aij%tav ëoxov) . This would be from 282 B.C., when the B o i i were defeated and made peace with Rome, to 237 B.C., when the Gauls advanced towards Ariminum (Polyb. 2.20-21; see Walbank Polybius 1: 191 for chronology). In contrast to Plutarch's s i m p l i s t i c view of the Gauls as t h i r d party contestants p a t i e n t l y awaiting t h e i r turn to do b a t t l e , Polybius states h i s own view that peace lasted only u n t i l a new generation of Gauls had grown up who were unfamiliar with the past su f f e r i n g and p e r i l and became exasperated with the Romans on the smallest pretext (2.21.2-3; êicet ô' ot pèv aùxÔTtxat yeyovôxeç xSv Setvwv ÈK XOO CÎÏV è^e%6pr|aav Stà xov Xpôvov, snsyévovxo Sè véot, GupoO pèv aÀoytoxou nA-fipetç, ajtetpot Sè Kttt dôpaxot Tcavxoç KaKoD Kat icàoriç itept axàosœç, au6tç fip^avxo xà KaGeaxwxa Ktvetv, o (puotv ë^et ytveoGat Kat xpa^uveaGat pèv èK xôv xuxôvxcav npoç ' Pcopat ouç ) . 2 De Sanctis {SR 3 .1: 278) considers Polybius' explanation why the Gauls remained inactive i n s u f f i c i e n t . He says that although the memory of recent disasters could account f o r the Gauls keeping quiet during Rome's c o n f l i c t with Pyrrhus, i t would carry less weight during the F i r s t Punic War, e s p e c i a l l y when the defeat of Regulus' army i n A f r i c a , Rome's subsequent naval disa s t e r s , and her constant employment of considerable numbers of troops i n S i c i l y s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced the forces which Rome could deploy i n central I t a l y . Also, the suppositions that t h i s news only reached the Gauls with d i f f i c u l t y and that they were unable to appreciate i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e are i n s u f f i c i e n t . De Sanctis suggests that Carthage neither undertook nor was able to r e - i g n i t e the Gauls' hatred against Rome, while Rome i n the meantime followed a p o l i c y of appeasement with the Gauls. Eckstein (SG 7) gives more cr e d i t to Polybius' explanation than De Sanctis. He says that the wars the Romans fought against the Gauls (especially the Boii) i n the 280's B.C. c e r t a i n l y weakened the Gauls i n both numbers and morale. As well, the founding of the Latin colony of Ariminum i n 268 B.C. probably acted as a r e s t r a i n t (this i s seen i n the fa c t that when the Gauls i n 225 B.C., and l a t e r Hannibal, attempted to cross the Apennines, they avoided the route guarded by Ariminum and used the more d i f f i c u l t passes to the west). 3.3-4. ot) uriv àX%à laéyav r\ xe xwpa Ttapet^e <cpôpov>. . . xriv nÔÀtv vn' auxfflv dTTopa^ôvxeç: Polybius also reports the Romans' fear of the Gauls (2.23.7: ot 8' èv xrj 'Pa>nri ndvxeç TieptSeetç rjoav, laéyav Kat cpopspôv aùxotç t)7toA,a|apdvovxeç èTtt cpépeaGat KtvSuvov. ë7tao%ov 8è xoOx' etKÔxoùç, ëxt Tiept TaÀaxwv èyKa0r||aévot) xatç v|/t)xatç at)x©v xoû naXatov cpo^ov) . This fear originated from the capture of Rome by the Gauls i n 387/6 B.C. (trad, date 390 B.C.; see O g i l v i e Livy 629 for dating) , and i t appears to have remained unabated up to t h i s point due to subsequent encounters with these t r i b e s . Polybius says that the Romans were unable to know or expect anything more t e r r i f y i n g than what had been done to them by the Gauls (2.20.8: xoO yàp KaxaKÔTcxeoGat ouvrjeetav èoxnKÔxeç vno TaXaT&v oùSèv qSùvavxo 8etvôxepov t8etv ovSè TcpoaSoKfjoat TÔÙV aùxotç r\Sr\ TteTcpaypévœv) . 3.4. èKetvoTJ Sè Kat Gépevot vôpov. . . : The date would be 387/6 B.C. (trad, date 390 B.C.). This law i s also mentioned by Plutarch i n h i s l i f e of Camillus ( 41 .7 : OUTW S' OVV Ô (pôpoç f jv ta%t)pôç, ffloxe eéoGat vôpov àcpetoGat TOVQ tepetç oxpaxetaç, %CDptç av pri ra:\-axtKÔç fj TcÔÀepoç) . I t appears that Roman p r i e s t s were reg u l a r l y exempted from m i l i t a r y service (Cic. Luc. 121: sed cum sacerdotes deorum vacationem habeant, quanto est aequius habere ipsos deos) , and t h i s was apparently due to t h e i r 3 sacrosanctity (see Mommsen Str. 3 : 241-243). This immunity from m i l i t a r y service, however, did not prevent some p r i e s t s from serving v o l u n t a r i l y (e.g., Marcellus was an augur [see Chapter 2 . 3 : ot S' tepetç...], h i s son, M. Claudius Marcellus, was a p o n t i f f [see Chapter 2 . 5 . fjv yap auxw. . . ], and h i s half-brother, T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus, was both an augur and po n t i f f [see Chapter 2 . 2 . èv Sè EtKeA,{g. . . ] 3.5. èSri^ou Sè Kat xôv cpôpov aùxôv r\ xe TcapaoKeurj. . . : Polybius also comments on the preparations which the Romans made under the influence of t h i s fear ( 2 . 2 2 . 7 - 8 : etc cpôpouç èveTctnxov ouvexetç Kat xapa^àç èjct xoooOxov, ©oxe noxè pèv oxpaxôneSa Kaxaypdcpetv Kat otxou Kat xc5v èjct xr|Set CÙV TcotetoGat T t a p a o K e u d ç , Tcoxè sè Kat xàç Suvàpetç è<^àyetv èict xoùç opouç, wç fiSr; T t a p ô v x c o v etç x f jv Xû)pav xwv 7to;\.eptcov, oôSéTt© KeKtvr|KÔx(ov eK xf^ç otKetaç xôv KeÀxôv). According to Klotz (RhM 83 [1934] : 295) the statement lauptàSeç yàp âv oTcÀotç apa Tooaûxat "Pojiaatcov oùxe npôxepov oij0' uoxepov yevéoGat A,éyovxat i s apparently a misunderstanding on Plutarch's part of a m i l i t a r y census ordered by the Senate i n 225 B.C. which he found i n h i s sources (see Polybius 2.23.9, 24.1-16 [see Walbank Polybius 1: 196-198 f o r h i s comments on Polybius' account of t h i s census], Livy Per. 20, Orosius 4.13.6, and Eutropius 3.5; Fabius Pictor i s the ultimate source for t h i s census [Oros. 4.13.6; Eutr. 3.5]). I t may be possible that Polybius' estimation o f t h i s G a l l i c War may have influenced Plutarch's comment here (2.35.2: Kaxà xàç |aà%aç Kat xô nXriQoQ xcov èv aùxatç àKO'kXv\jisv(ù\; Kat 7tapaxaxxo|aév0V oùSevôç KaxaSeéoxepoç xcôv t oxoprinévcov ) . 3.5. xà Tcept xàç Guotaç Kat voxo|aot)|aeva : This could r e f e r either to s a c r i f i c e s which had to be renewed because they had been improperly performed (e.g., L i v . 41.16.1-2) or to the retaking o f the auspices u n t i l favorable omens were obtained i n order that the business at hand could proceed (e.g.. Marc. 29.8-10). 3.6. Plutarch i s pointing out to h i s Greek audience that the Romans were very similar to them i n regards to r e l i g i o u s p r a c tices. He then gives an instance when the Romans performed a barbaric r i t e that had been forced upon them (rjvayKaoGrioav; see Introduction, p. 9, concerning Plutarch's intended readership). 3.6. TÔxe ToO TtoÀénot) au|i7ieaôvoToç rivayKào9r|aav. . . : Livy, remarking on an i d e n t i c a l s a c r i f i c e which took place a f t e r the b a t t l e of Cannae i n 216 B.C., says, i n locum saxo consaeptum, iam ante hostiis humanis, minime Romano sacro, imbutum (22.57.6). The phrase iam ante hostiis humanis...imbutum most l i k e l y r e f e r s to the incident reported by Plutarch here dated to 228 B.C. (see Chapter 3.6. el'J^avxeç... for dating), while the phrase minime Romano sacro i s intended to show the foreignness of t h i s r i t e to the Romans. But how a l i e n was human s a c r i f i c e to Roman r e l i g i o n ? Although c e r t a i n other r e l i g i o u s r i t e s may have o r i g i n a l l y involved human s a c r i f i c e which i n h i s t o r i c a l times substituted other victims f o r humans (e.g., on the 15th of May straw mannequins, c a l l e d Argei, were thrown into the Tiber as a p u r i f i c a t o r y s a c r i f i c e [Varro LL 7.44]), the l i v e b u r i a l of Greek and G a l l i c couples was c e r t a i n l y a r i t e of human s a c r i f i c e p r acticed by the Romans i n h i s t o r i c a l times. However, i t appears to have been performed for the f i r s t time only i n 228 B.C. and then, l a t e r , on only two other occasions during the Republic (in 216 and 114/3 B.C.). The l a t e date of the f i r s t occurrence, the infrequency, and i t s o r i g i n from the S i b y l l i n e books (see Chapter 3.6. el'J^avxeç. . . ) may have occasioned the comments of Plutarch and Livy on the foreignness of human s a c r i f i c e to the Romans. But an analogous act of l i v e b u r i a l was the customary punishment of Vestal V i r g i n s f o r breaking t h e i r vows of chastity. This form of punishment was commonly employed during the time of the Republic and appears to have been thoroughly incorporated into Roman practice. Excavations near the so-called Equus Domitiani i n the Roman Forum have uncovered the remains of three human skeletons, one of a woman about 14-15 years old, another of a three month o l d baby, and a t h i r d of a man about 25-30 years old. From the p o s i t i o n of the arm-bones i t appears that man had been bound, while the p o s i t i o n of the woman's skeleton also seemed unnatural (Gjerstad Early Rome 1: 49-52). C o a r e l l i believes that these could be the remains of a l i v e b u r i a l , perhaps of a Vestal V i r g i n and her paramour which would explain the presence of the baby. These remains are dated between 800-600 B.C. (II foro romano: periodo arcaico 294-295) and help to affirm the antiquity of l i v e b u r i a l among the Romans. This suggests that the comments of Plutarch and Livy are a r e s u l t of defensiveness on t h e i r parts. 3.6. ett^avxeç Xoytotç xtotv ÊK TÔV Tt^vXXsicùv: These were the S i b y l l i n e books, a c o l l e c t i o n of oracles acquired, according to t r a d i t i o n , by Tarquinius Superbus from the S i b y l of the Euboean colony of Cumae (e.g., Dion. Hal. 4.62; Aul. C e l l . 1.19; Zon. 7.11.1-4; Tzetzes i n Lycophr. Alex. 1279). They were kept i n the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus and consulted i n times of c r i s i s by the decemviri sacris faciundis (at t h i s time period) on the i n s t r u c t i o n of the senate for ascertaining by what steps the gods might be appeased (e.g., L i v . 36.37.4). From the nature of some of the things suggested by them, the oracles appear to have been mainly of Greek o r i g i n (e.g., the i n s t i t u t i o n of the c u l t of Liber, Libera, and Ceres, [Dion. Hal. 6.17; L i v . 2.41.10], the foundation of a temple of Apollo [Liv. 4.25.3]; t h i s i s the opinion of Ogi l v i e [Lii^y 654-655]; see Wissowa RK 534-543 for further information). 3.6. Suo pèv "EXXry^aQ, avSpa Kat yuvatKa, Suo Sè TaXaxac ôpotwç èv xfi KaA,ot)pévri powv àyopâ Kaxopu^at Côvxaç: In Zonaras i t i s recorded that t h i s was done i n response to an oracle, which said that Greeks and Gauls would seize the c i t y , i n order that by t h i s means destiny might appear to have been f u l f i l l e d (8.19.9: Aoytot) Sé TToxe xotç "Pwpatotç è^Gôvxoç Kat "EA,Àr|vaç Kat raA,àxaç xô aoxt) KaxaÀfiv|/ea9at, TaA-dxat Suo Kat "EXXryvsQ ëxepot eK xe xoû appevoç Kat xoû 9fiA.eoç yévouç Côvxeç èv xfj àyopg Kaxcopuynoav, t'v' ouxcùç èTctxe^èç xô neTrpwpévov yevéa9at SoKfj, Kat xt Kaxe^etv xfiç KoXeoiQ KttxopcDpuypévot vopt^wvxat ) . A scholion of Tzetzes i n Lycophron's Alexandra places t h i s event i n the time of Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (603: 'Ent <I>aptou yap Ma^tpou BepoKOooou fixot ttKpoxopSovcùSouç 'Pffipatot xoûxo èTtotrjoav, 'EÀ?ir|vtKÔv Kat TaÀaxtKÔv àvSpôyuvov Kpuv|/avxeç èv péori xfj àyopg, èK xpiiopoû xtvôç Set pax(û9évxeç, Àeyovxoç "EXXr]va Kat ra:\,àxriv KaxaÀfiv|/ea9at xô aoxu). This would be i n 228 B.C. during Fabius' second consulship as a passage i n Orosius suggests (4.13.2-3: Sequenti anno...Fulvio Postumioque consulibus [ i . e . 229 B.C.] ...Tertio deinceps anno [ i . e . 228 B.C.] miseram civitatem s a c r i l e g i s s a c r i f i c i i s male potentes funestavere p o n t i f i c e s ; namque decemviri consuetudinem priscae s u p e r s t i t i o n i s egressi Galium virum et Gallam feminam cum muliere simul Graeca i n foro boario vivos defoderunt; see Broughton MRR 1: 228 f o r references to the consulships of Fabius, Fulvius, and Postumius). Schwenn (MGR 148-150), r e l y i n g on what Plutarch says (3.6: TOTE XOO 7roÀé|aou ov\ineo6vxoQ fivayKào6r|oav) , dates t h i s event to 226 B.C., but t h i s i s probably due to his desire to place i t r i g h t before the G a l l i c War of 225-222 B.C. Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 295), Cichorius (Romische Studien 15-16), Latte (RR 256), and most recently Eckstein (AJAH 7.1 [1982]: 69-70) a l l concur i n dating the event to 228 B.C. A second known instance of the l i v e b u r i a l of a G a l l i c and a Greek couple occurred i n 216 B.C. a f t e r the Roman defeat at Cannae (Liv. 22.57.6: Interim ex f a t a l i b u s l i b r i s s a c r i f i c i a a l i q u o t extraordinaria facta, i n t e r quae Gallus et Galla, Graecus et Graeca i n foro bovario sub terram v i v i demissi sunt i n locum saxo consaeptum, iam ante h o s t i i s humanis, minime Romano sacro, imbutum). The instructions f o r t h i s s a c r i f i c e according to Livy came from the fatalibus libris (22.57.6) which are to be equated with the S i b y l l i n e books (see Livy 22.9.8-9). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that these oracular works were consulted the previous year aft e r the disa s t e r at Lake Trasimene (217 B.C.) under the d i r e c t i o n of Q. Fabius Maximus who was d i c t a t o r at the time (Liv. 22.9.7-11). Although the i n s t i g a t o r i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r instance i s not known, Fabius would be the most l i k e l y candidate. Livy (22.55) portrays him as being prominent at the f i r s t meeting of the senate a f t e r Cannae, while Plutarch says he persuaded the senate to meet and was himself the mainstay of the state (Fab. Max. 17.7: pouÀriv xe ouve^Getv eTietoe Kat jcapeSapouve xàç àp%àç, at)xoç Sv Kat pa)|ar| Kat 80va|atç àpxf[Q 0Lnàor\Q T t p ô ç âKstvov àno^XeKovor]Q) . Fabius would most l i k e l y have followed the same po l i c y which he had advocated a f t e r Trasimene, that of enquiring of the gods themselves how they might be appeased (Liv. 22.9.7: quaeque piacula irae deum essent ipsos decs consulendos esse). This suggests that, i f Fabius was involved with the i n s t i g a t i o n of the human s a c r i f i c e s i n 216 B.C., he was probably also involved with the human s a c r i f i c e s of 228 B.C., the year of his second consulship. A t h i r d instance of t h i s r i t e i s reported by Plutarch i n his Quaestiones Romanae (Mor. 283f-284c). This occurrence has been dated by Cichorius (Romische Studien 7-12) to 114/3 B.C. F i n a l l y , Pliny states that t h i s r i t e had occurred even i n his own days (NH 28.12: boario vero i n foro Graecum Graecamque defossos aut aliarum gentium, cum quibus tum res esset, etiam nostra aetas v i d i t ) . This performance Cichorius (Romische Studien 13-14) would place e i t h e r i n the reign of Ca l i g u l a (A.D. 39-41) or Nero (A.D. 54-68). He believes that a trace of t h i s incident may even survive i n Suetonius' Caligula (29.2: G a l l i s Graecisque aliquot uno tempore condemnatis gloriabatur Gallograeciam se subegisse). Plutarch places the s i t e of the b u r i a l of 228 B.C. i n the Forum Boarium (èv xfj KaXov\iévr\ poSv à y o p â ) , and Orosius confirms t h i s (4.13.3: i n foro boario). Although Zonaras (8.19.9: èv xrj dtyopâ) and Tzetzes (in Lycophr. Alex. 603: èv [xéor] xfi otyopâ) only specify ^forum' t h i s ought to r e f e r to the Forum Boarium and not to the Forum Romanum. From Livy's notice of a s i m i l a r b u r i a l which appears to have happened i n the same spot, we read that the area was enclosed with stone (22.57.6: i n locum saxo consaeptum). But so far no archaeological remains have yet been discovered which can be d e f i n i t e l y linked to t h i s structure. The meaning of the r i t e has been the subject of much debate. From a passage i n Pliny (NH 28.12: boario vero i n foro Graecum Graecamque defossos aut aliarum gentium, cum quibus tum res esset, etiam nostra aetas v i d i t ) , i t has been assumed that i t was a war-sacrifice, the magical destruction of one's opponents c a r r i e d out on t h e i r representatives (see Latte RR 256 and Cichorius Romische Studien 13). But i t has been pointed out that i n none of the three known instances which occurred during the Republic was Rome at war simultaneously with the Greeks and the Gauls (Cichorius Romische Studien 14-16). Therefore, i t has been suggested that the r i t e was taken over without change from the Etruscans, who had suffered from G a l l i c attacks i n the north and Greek attacks i n the south (Latte RR 257; see Cichorius Romische Studien 19-20), or that i t was an autonomous creation of the Romans i n the fourth century B.C. at a time when Rome faced dangers from both the Greeks ( i . e . Dionysius I of Syracuse) and Gauls simultaneously (Fraschetti Le délit religieux dans la cité antique 78-115; see, also. De Sanctis SR 2 2 .1: 320 for a further suggestion alone t h i s l i n e ) . Cichorius has pointed out that the performances of the r i t e i n 216 B.C. and i n 114/3 B.C. are linked i n our sources to the discovery and punishment of Vestal Virgins f or breaking t h e i r vows of chasti t y i n such a way as to suggest that the offense of the Vestal V i r g i n s was the cause for the consultation of the s i b y l l i n e books which demanded the r i t u a l (Liv. 22.57.2-6: tum quod duae Vestales eo anno, Opimia atque Floronia, s t u p r i compertae et a l t e r a sub tera, u t i mos est, ad portam Collinam necata fuerat...Hoc nefas cum in t e r t o t , ut f i t , clades i n prodigium versum esset, decemviri l i b r e s adiré i u s s i sunt...; Plut. Mor. 284b-c: epfivuae Bappou xtvôç tJtKtKoO BepdTioav xpetç TcapBévoTjç xôv âaxtdScov, AtptÀtav Kat AtKtvtav Kat MapKtav, vno xaûxô StecpSappévaç Kat ouvouoaç noA-ùv xpôvov àvSpdot v. . . SKetvat pèv ouv eKoA-doGriaav eJ^eA-eyxSe^^crat, xfiç Sè npd^ecoç Sstvfiç (pavetoriç ëSoÇev dvepéoGat xà StpuA-Àeta xoùç tepetç. . . ) . In regard to the performance of the r i t e i n 228 B.C., Cichorius would l i n k the notice of a condemned Vestal V i r g i n i n Livy Periocha 20 to t h i s event (Tuccia, virgo V e s t a l i s , i n c e s t i damnata e s t ) . Therefore, because of these connections and the s i m i l a r i t y of the two types of events ( i . e . both involving l i v e burial) , he believes that they may have been expiatory s a c r i f i c e s to atone for the death of the priestesses (Romische Studien 16-18; i t i s inter e s t i n g to note, i n t h i s connection, that following the discovery and punishment of the Vestal V i r g i n s i n 228 [or 230/29 as suggested below] and 216 B.C. the next case known i s that of 114/3 B.C.). Eckstein (AJAH 7.1 [1982]: 75-77), i n rebutting Cichorius' arguments, has pointed out that the matter concerning the Vestal V i r g i n reported i n Livy Periocha 20 occurred i n 230/29 B.C., at lea s t a year and a half before the b u r i a l of the Greek and G a l l i c couples i n 228 B.C., and therefore any linkage between the two events would be highly suspect. Also, i n the other two instances, he sees no connection because the Vestal scandals were "merely...great prodigia which, i n combination with other portents, led the Senate to order a consultation of the S i b y l l i n e Books" (pp. 81-82), and i t was that which was reported i n the oracular writings which led to the l i v e b u r i a l of the Greek and G a l l i c couples. But even admitting t h i s he does not see the l i v e b u r i a l as a simple war s a c r i f i c e , since the victims did not correspond to the peoples with whom Rome was at war at those p a r t i c u l a r times and because the purpose of the s a c r i f i c e was not to ward o f f the current enemy, but to prevent some future m i l i t a r y disaster. However, he does concede that, i n a way, the r i t e can be viewed as a war-sacrifice with the victims representing i n a symbolic manner external threats to the Roman state (p. 82; see Briquel REL 59 [1982]: 30 f o r further bibliography). Whatever the meaning of the l i v e b u r i a l of Greek and G a l l i c couples, the proximity of the Vestal scandals and the r e s u l t i n g punishment of l i v e b u r i a l , despite the objections of Eckstein, s t i l l suggest some connection. Our lack of knowledge concerning how the S i b y l l i n e books were consulted and interpreted by the decemviri sacris faciundis leaves room for conjecture. Might not Q. Fabius Maximus i n 228 B.C., who was known for h i s concern for r e l i g i o u s matters, inspired by the punishment of a Vestal V i r g i n i n 230/29 B.C., have suggested to the Romans, who were i n a high state of alarm, the re-introduction of a defunct archaic r e l i g i o u s r i t u a l at t h i s time and l a t e r , also, i n 216 B.C.? 3.7. <ê(p'> otç ext Kttt vOv...: S i m i l a r l y Plutarch, i n a discussion on the l i v e b u r i a l of Vestal Vi r g i n s , mentions that even i n h i s own days p r i e s t s made offerings to the dead at the place where Vestal Virgins g u i l t y of unchastity were buried {Mor. 287a: àXXà Mé%pt vûv èvaytCouotv ot tepetç S K e t paStCovTsç èni xôv xÔTtov) . Both of these ceremonies were probably meant as expiatory s a c r i f i c e s to atone f o r the deaths of those buried a l i v e . However, the two ceremonies d i d not take place i n the same spot since the Greek and G a l l i c couples were buried i n the Forum Boarium (see Chapter 3.6. 8v)o jièv. . . ) , while the Vestal Virgins were usually buried near the C o l l i n e gate (Liv. 22.57.2: sub te r r a , u t i mos est, ad portam Collinam necata fu e r a t ) . The Romans i n 97 B.C. passed a decree forbidding human s a c r i f i c e ( P l i n . NH 30.12: DCLVII demum anno urbis Cn. Cornelio Lentulo P. L i c i n i o Crasso cos. senatusconsultum factum est, ne homo immolaretur, palamque f i t , i n tempus i l l u t sacra prodigiosa celebrata; the r i t e s mentioned here by Plin y may be atonement s a c r i f i c e s [Latte RR 257]). CHAPTER FOUR 4. Plutarch begins the narrative proper of the G a l l i c War with the year 223 B.C. But t h i s chapter, which deals with the actions of the consuls C. Flaminius and P. Furius, has no connection with Marcellus. Plutarch could j u s t as e a s i l y have l e f t out these events, as he had the events of the f i r s t two years of the war ( i . e . 225 and 224 B.C.), with no d i s c e r n i b l e a f f e c t on h i s portrayal of Marcellus. However, the reporting of Flaminius' contempt for the auguries (4.6: ê v u ^ p t a e K a t K a x e c p p o v r i a e ) gives him the opportunity to add an excursus on the Romans' att i t u d e towards the gods. This top i c forms the end of t h i s chapter and takes up a l l of chapter f i v e before the narrative of the war resumes at chapter s i x (see Marcellus 3.5-7, 6.10-12, 28.2-3, and 29.8-10 for other examples on t h i s theme). 4.1. Ot p è v o t ) v TcpcùTOt T â v o t y w v c o v . . . è v â y K a v x e ç : This i s a t r a n s i t i o n a l statement which allows Plutarch to bypass the e a r l i e r events of the war i n order to deal with the struggle i n 223 and 222 B.C. However, t h i s t r a n s i t i o n a l statement i s a d i s t o r t i o n of preceding events. According to Polybius (2.23.1-31.6) i n 225 B.C. the Insubres and B o i i , accompanied by the Gaesati who had crossed over the Alps, advanced with t h e i r forces (50,000 infantry, 20,000 cavalry and chariots [ o u v c ù p t S e ç ] ) into E t r u r i a . Before departing they stationed a guard i n t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s as a protection against the Cenomani and Veneti, who had a l l i e d themselves to Rome. The Romans, i n the meantime, had sent the consul L. Aemilius Papus with his army to Ariminum to await there the attack of the enemy, while a praetor was sent to cover E t r u r i a (the other consul, C. A t i l i u s Regulus, had already gone to Sardinia with h i s army). The Gauls crossed over into E t r u r i a and advanced as far south as Clusium before they met the Roman praetor with h i s forces. The Gauls withdrew northwards and attacked the pursuing forces of the praetor near Faesulae. A b a t t l e ensued, i n which not fewer than 6,000 Romans were k i l l e d , while the r e s t took f l i g h t and found refuge on a naturally strong h i l l where they held out. L. Aemilius Papus, who had headed out on hearing of the G a l l i c invasion of E t r u r i a , arrived on the scene i n time to rescue the surviving Romans. The Gauls, on Aemilius' approach, decided to r e t i r e . They did not go back along t h e i r o r i g i n a l tracks, but by a route along the sea-coast through E t r u r i a . Just at t h i s time the other consul, A t i l i u s , landed at Pisa with h i s army from Sardinia. Near a place c a l l e d Telamon the Gauls' r e t r e a t was blocked by A t i l i u s ' forces, while Aemilius' army was i n pursuit from behind. In the ensuing b a t t l e the Gauls were wiped out, with up to 40,000 k i l l e d and not l e s s than 10,000 captured. However, the success for the Romans was marred by the death of A t i l i u s . Aemilius, the surviving consul, a f t e r t h i s b a t t l e crossed through L i g u r i a into the t e r r i t o r y of the B o i i , which he ravaged before returning to Rome. The s p o i l s and prisoners acquired i n t h i s campaign he used f o r the adornment of his triumph (cf. Acta Tr. for 225 B.C.: L. A i m i l i u s Q. f . Cn. n. Papus cos. an. DXXIIX / de G a l l e i s III nonas Mart.). Polybius (2.31.7-10) says that t h i s success induced the Romans to hope for the entire expulsion of the Celts from the Po region. Consequently, i n 224 B.C. the consuls Q. Fulvius Flaccus and T. Manlius Torquatus with a large force invaded the t e r r i t o r y of the B o i i , compelling them to submit to Rome, but the remainder of t h e i r campaign had no further success due to heavy rains and an epidemic which broke out among t h e i r forces. 4.1. etc oùsèv èTe?ieuTr|aav juépaç pépatov: The events of the war so f a r can hardly be c a l l e d indecisive as Plutarch states, and there may have been a part of the senate which thought the war s u f f i c i e n t l y successful to consider ending i t . This i s indicated by the r e c a l l of Flaminius and Furius to Rome when they were on the point of attacking the Insubres (cf. Cassola GPR 220-224; see Chapters 4.4. eûGiJç. . . and 6.2. kXajBr]. . . ) . 4.2. 3>A,apt vt ou : This i s C. Flaminius (RE 6.2 [1909], no. 2: 2496-2502) consul for 223 B.C.. As plebeian tribune i n 232 B.C., he managed to pass a law i n the teeth of se n a t o r i a l opposition to d i s t r i b u t e i n in d i v i d u a l allotments (viritim) the land which had formerly belonged to the Senones (Polyb. 2.21.7-8; Val. Max. 5.4.5; Cato f r . 43 Peter; Cic. Sen. 11, Inv. 2.52, Acad. 2.13, Brut. 57, Leg. 3.20; Li v . 21.63.2; Flaminius' tribuneship i s dated to 232 B.C. by Polybius [2.21.7-8], but to 228 B.C. by Cicero [Sen. 11]. Cicero i s i n er r o r ; see Broughton MRR 1: 225, N i c c o l i n i I fasti dei tribuni della plebe 89, Bleicken Zetemata 13 [1955]: 28, n. 4, and Yavetz Athenaeum 40 [1962]: 330). Polybius (2.21.7-9) declares that t h i s p o l i c y of Flaminius was the cause of the G a l l i c War, since many of the Gauls, e s p e c i a l l y the B o i i , who bordered on Roman t e r r i t o r y , now believed that the Romans made war against them not f o r supremacy and sovereignty, but for t h e i r t o t a l expulsion and extermination (2.21.9: voiatoavTEç ovx vnèp fiye|aovtaç ëxt Kat Suvaoxetaç °P(û|jatot)ç xôv Ttpôç at)xot)ç TcotfjoaoGat nôA,s|aov, àXX' vnèp ôXoox^povQ à^avaoxâaecùQ Kat KaxacpBopâç) . But i s Polybius correct i n h i s interpretation of G a l l i c b e l i e f ? The Romans had held the t e r r i t o r y which they were s e t t l i n g as f a r back as 283 B.C., when they had i n f l i c t e d a serious defeat on the Senones and had driven the rest from t h e i r country (Polyb. 2.19.10-11). Also, i n 268 B.C. Rome had founded the colony of Ariminum to oppose the B o i i (Vel. Pat. 1.14.7). Likewise, the Gauls had already attempted an attack i n 236 B.C., which ended because of in t e r n a l f i g h t i n g (Polyb. 2.21.1-6). The v i r i t a n e d i s t r i b u t i o n s , on the other hand, occurred 51 years a f t e r the conquest of t h i s t e r r i t o r y and were located south of Ariminum (Cato f r . 43 Peter: c i s Ariminum). I t has been suggested that the migration of large numbers of Romans to s e t t l e i n t h i s area may have caused some alarm among the Gauls (Cassola GPR 212) . But placing a l l the blame for the r e s u l t i n g war on Flaminius' land b i l l i s a d i s t o r t i o n . As Eckstein points out, i t was a l l "part of a process of escalating tensions that had, i n f a c t . begun about 238" (SG 12) . Polybius was writing i n a t r a d i t i o n which was h o s t i l e to Flaminius, and the view given by him was probably derived from that of Flaminius' opponents and therefore must be regarded with suspicion (see Walbank Polybius 1: 192-193 concerning h o s t i l e attitude towards Flaminius and f o r bibliography. Modern scholars are divided on the v a l i d i t y of Polybius' accusation; see Cassola GPR 212, n. 8, f o r bibliography; see, also, Eckstein SG 12-13, Harris War and Imperialism 197-198, and Scullard A History of the Roman World 753 to 146 BC 188). The e f f e c t s of Flaminius' land b i l l may have exacerbated tensions, but who were the aggressors i n t h i s war? In respect to the events before 235 B.C., i t appears that the Gauls were the aggressors (see Chapter 3.1. àp%at. . . )• As f o r the events leading up to the war i n 225 B.C., Roman actions can be interpreted as being due to an intense fear of a possible G a l l i c invasion (this was how the ancients themselves interpreted the s i t u a t i o n . For example, according to Zonaras [8.19.2] the Romans around 230 B.C. prohibited trading i n s i l v e r and gold with the Celts fearing that these precious metals might be used against them, and Polybius [2.22.7-8] states that the Romans were i n a constant state of alarm, sometimes e n r o l l i n g forces and gathering supplies and at other times moving troops up to the borders as i f the enemy had already crossed over into t h e i r t e r r i t o r y , although, i n fact, the Celts had not yet even moved from t h e i r own country). The Gauls, on the other hand, a c t u a l l y i n i t i a t e d h o s t i l i t i e s i n 225 B.C. by t h e i r crossing of the Apennines and t h e i r penetration into central I t a l y (cf. Eckstein SG 11-13, who believes that Roman p o l i c y was p r i m a r i l y defensive, while Harris [War and Imperialism 197-199] states that the war was due i n part to Roman aggression). What were the Roman war-aims i n northern I t a l y , e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r the successful campaign of 225 B.C.? Polybius says that t h i s success induced the Romans to hope for the entir e expulsion of the Celts from the Po region (2.31.8: àjcô Sè xoO KaxopGoùnaxoç xoùxou KaxsÀTct oavxeç 'Pcùijatot SuvfioeoBat xoùç KeÀxoùç SK xôv XÔKCOV xôv rcept xôv nàSov ôA-oo^epôç èKpa?ietv; see Harris War and Imperialism 111, who largely accepts Polybius' statement). However, even i f t h i s was the o r i g i n a l intention of the Romans, the course of the war and t h e i r subsequent a c t i v i t i e s do not indicate that they c a r r i e d out t h i s p o l i c y . In f a c t , a f t e r the campaign of 224 B.C., i n which the B o i i surrendered, but the Celts north of the Po were s t i l l l e f t i n t a c t , there were many senators who f e l t that the r e s u l t s of the war up to t h i s point were s u f f i c i e n t (see Chapter 4.4. eùGùç...). Also, a f t e r the successful campaign of 223 B.C., peace proposals from the Insubres were taken s e r i o u s l y (see Chapter 6.2. è?iéx9r|. . • ) • Even at the end of the war i n 222 B.C., the Insubres obtained a moderate peace with the Romans, which l e f t them i n possession of most of t h e i r t e r r i t o r y (see Chapter 7.8. xàç S'... et seq.). After the war, i n 219 B.C. Rome did decide to es t a b l i s h two colonies i n the region, Placentia and Cremona, on opposite sides of the Po near the confluence of the Addua r i v e r , but t h e i r purpose appears to have been mainly defensive i n nature: to control communications and movements between the B o i i and the Insubres (see Asconius Pis. p. 3 Kie s s l i n g - S c h o e l l concerning Placentia and Tacitus Hist. 3.34 concerning Cremona). Lastly, even a f t e r the f i g h t i n g i n the 190's B.C. when Cisalpine Gaul f i n a l l y came under complete Roman domination, the Celts of t h i s region retained possession of much of t h e i r land with the exception of the B o i i . So, Roman aims appear to have been more limited than Polybius claimed. Although there may have been a group at Rome who favored the conquest of the region, Roman p o l i c y appears to have been b a s i c a l l y defensive. Many i n the senate were concerned to ensure that the Gauls would not be a threat i n view of the upcoming c o n f l i c t with Carthage (cf. Cassola GPR 219-228, Dyson The Creation of the Roman Frontier 30-41, 51-54, Eckstein SG 14-23). 4.2. <I>o\jptoij: This i s P. Furius Philus (RE 7.1 [1910], no. 80: 361) Flaminius' colleague i n the consulship of 223 B.C. Both Scu l l a r d (RP 54) and Cassola (GPR 296-297, 378-379) believe that Furius was not i n the same p o l i t i c a l group as Flaminius. Sc u l l a r d places him i n the Aemilian group, while Cassola (GPR 378-379) suggests that he may have belonged to the Sc i p i o n i c c i r c l e . 4.2. peyaTttttc èKOTpaTsuaàvxwv Suvdpeatv èni TOVQ "Ivoopppaç: Polybius (2.32.1-8) reports that the consuls, a f t e r having procured an a l l i a n c e with the Anares, crossed into Insubrian t e r r i t o r y at the junction of the Po and Addua r i v e r s . However, af t e r sustaining losses the Romans made a truce and withdrew. The consuls then, taking a circuitous route, marched for several days and crossed the Clusius r i v e r into the t e r r i t o r y of the Cenomani. Accompanied by the Cenomani, who were t h e i r a l l i e s , the Romans again invaded Insubrian t e r r i t o r y from the d i s t r i c t s at the foot of the Alps and began to ravage the countryside. The Insubres, deciding to undertake a decisive b a t t l e , c o l l e c t e d a l l t h e i r forces (up to 50,000) and took up a threatening p o s i t i o n opposite the Romans. The Romans, however, excluding t h e i r G a l l i c a l l i e s , whom they mistrusted, were much fewer i n numbers than t h e i r opponents. Polybius gives the number of combatants i n the consular armies as they existed before the beginning of the G a l l i c War (2.24.3-4: jaexà |aèv Srj TCDV vnaxdiv è^eXriXvQev xéxTapa oxpaxÔTceSa 'Poùiaal'Ka, TcevxdKtç |aèv %tA,to\jç Kat StaKootouç iteCoùç, ticTcetç Sè xptaKootouç ê%ov eKaoxov. ov\x]iaxot Sè |ae6' SKaxépfflv rjoav ot at)vdfj(pa) Tre^ot |aèv xptojaùptot, Sto^tA^tot S' tTtTtetç) . From Polybius' report one can assume that the t o t a l s f o r the combined consular armies i n t h i s year may have been as high as 20,800 Roman infan t r y and 1,200 Roman cavalry i n four legions accompanied by 30,000 a l l i e d foot and 2,000 a l l i e d horse. But t h i s would be the upper l i m i t (the normal s i z e f o r a Roman legion at t h i s time was 4,000-4,200 infan t r y and 300 cavalry; see Walbank Polyjbias 1: 199-200), I f Polybius (2.32.7-8) i s correct i n s t a t i n g that the Roman forces with t h e i r G a l l i c a l l i e s excluded were much fewer i n number than t h e i r opponents (32.7: acpâç sA-àxTouç OVTSÇ Tcapà noXit TÔV êvavxtcùv) , then i t appears that Rome's G a l l i c a l l i e s made up a s i g n i f i c a n t part of the normal a l l i e d complement accompanying the legions at t h i s time. 4.2. "I voopppaç : See Chapter 3.1. oi 5è xfjv vnaXnei av. . . concerning these Gauls. 4.2. wcpGr) pèv atpaxt pewv...: Orosius and Zonaras also report the portents f o r t h i s year (Oros. 4.13.12: namque i n Piceno flumen sanguine e f f l u x i t et apud Tuscos caelum ardere visum est et Arimini nocte multa lucem claram obfulsisse ac très lunas distantibus c a e l i regionibus exortas apparuisse; Zon. 8.20.4: Ttoxapôç xe yap èv xS HtKriv© atpaxd)Sr|ç èppuri Kav xfj Tupar|vtSt KateoGat xoO oupavoO noXv ëSo<^e, Kat èv x© 'Aptptvw cpcùç vuKxwp fipépg TcpoaeotKÔç èA.ap\|/e, Kat noX'kaxoQt xfjç 'ixaA-taç xpetç aeA,fjvat VUKXOÇ ècpavxàoGrioav, Kav xfj àyopg yùvj/ ècp' fipépaç 7cA.etovaç êvtSpuGri) . I t i s clear that the reports of Plutarch, Orosius, and Zonaras are a l l based on the same material. The v a r i a t i o n s found i n Plutarch and h i s misplacing of the l a s t portent to Ariminum are due to h i s carelessness i n abridging h i s source (Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 296). Klotz assumes that Orosius drew upon Livy and that Zonaras' account may have been derived from Valerius Antias transmitted through Dio. I f t h i s i s correct, then Livy, rather than Valerius Antias, would be the more l i k e l y source for the material here, since Plutarch includes both the f i r s t and the l a s t portents reported by Orosius (see Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 295-296, who maintains, however, that a decision on the source i s not to be forced here). 4.2. ô Stà Tf\Q ntKrjvtSoç %oùpaç noTayioQ: The t e r r i t o r y of Picenum as defined under Augustus (P l i n . NH 3.46) extended along the A d r i a t i c coast from the Aeternus r i v e r north to the c i t y of Ancona reaching inland to the Apennine mountains ( P l i n . NH 3.110-112; Strab. 5.240-241). O r i g i n a l l y i t may have extended as f a r north as Ariminum encompassing the region once occupied by the Senones (Polyb. 2.21.7: KaxeKXr|pou;;tTlcfav èv FaXaTiq. 'Pwjjatot xfiv IltKevTtvriv 7rpoaayopet)0|aévr|v xcôpav, è^ fjc vtKfioavxeç è<^épa?uOV xoùç Zrjvwvaç Tipooayopeuoiaévouç TaTtàxaç; L i v . Per. 15: coloniae deductae Ariminum i n Piceno). The r i v e r mentioned here could be any one of several which flow i n the region. 4.2. 'Aptjatvov: Ariminum (mod. Rimini) located on the A d r i a t i c coast halfway between Ancona and Ravenna was founded as a La t i n colony i n 268 B.C. (Vel. Pat. 1.14.7) to be a strong-point against the Gauls of the Po va l l e y (cf. PECS 93-94). 4.3. ot S'. . . tepetç.. .xàç xôv ùiiàxtov àvayopeùoetç: These p r i e s t s formed the college of augurs (collegium augurium) who were nine i n number at t h i s time (Liv. 10.6.6, 9.2). They were responsible for determining whether a course of action was approved of by the gods by watching for signs {auguria) either d i r e c t l y sought (impetrativa) or a c c i d e n t a l l y met with (oblativa) . In elections chickens (called merely otcovoùç by Plutarch) were used for the purpose of obtaining signs. Whether and how the birds ate determined the f a v o r a b i l i t y of the augurium. The best sign (tripudium solistimum) was when they ate so greedily that some of the food f e l l from t h e i r beaks to the ground. To ensure t h i s r e s u l t they would be starved beforehand (Cic. Div. 1.27-28, 2.72-73; see Wissowa RK 523-534 concerning augurs). Usually f o r normal administrative business one augur was selected to observe the signs, and there would be no appeal to hi s colleagues against his decision (Cassola GPR 338). However, the ancient sources make reference to group decisions (e.g., Marc. 4.3, 12.2, Liv. 22.31.13: vocati augures v i t i o creatum v i d e r i pronuntiaverunt), which implies that the augur i n charge consulted the other members of the college before rendering h i s decision (cf. Staveley JRS 53 [1963]: 186). During the l a s t decades of t h i r d century B.C., the augural procedures were often employed i n the p o l i t i c a l struggles f o r personal ends (Cassola GPR 336). In these struggles a p o l i t i c a l f a c t i o n could dominated the augural college since membership was by co-option. I f t h i s happened, then i t appears reasonable that the dominant group would ensure that an augur favorable to i t s views would be appointed for important s i t u a t i o n s (cf. Staveley JRS 53 [1963]: 186). The composition of the augural college at t h i s time i s not f u l l y known. The only cer t a i n member i s Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, augur since 265 B.C. and, as i t s senior member, probably the head of the dominant p o l i t i c a l f a c t i o n i n the college. However, i t can be reasonably assumed that M. Claudius Marcellus had been a member since 226 B.C. The other possible members are T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus (RE, no. 12), M. Aemilius Lepidus (RE, no. 66), P. Furius Philus (RE, no. 80), C. A t i l i u s Serranus (RE, no. 62), Sp. C a r v i l i u s Maximus (Ruga; RE, no. 10), M. Pomponius Matho (RE, no. 18), Cn. Cornelius Lentulus (RE, no. 176) , and Q. Mamilius Turrinus (RE, no. 12) or C. Mamilius Turrinus (RE, no. 11; see Broughton MRR 1: 202, 210, 230, 245, 252, 266, 276, and 283 for references; see, also, Szemler The Priests of the Roman Republic 64-100 and 139-141). There i s good reason to believe that the negative signs observed here for the public proclamation of the consuls (|ao%er|pàç Kat SuoôpvtGaç. . . xàç xwv ÛTcàxwv àvayopeuoetç) were p o l i t i c a l l y motivated. The augur assigned to the e l e c t i o n can not be determined, but he appears to have had a change of mind a f t e r the completion of the elections when the consuls were on the point of invading Insubrian t e r r i t o r y f o r only then were the auguries judged i n v a l i d (see Chapter 4.4: evQvQ... concerning possible p o l i t i c a l motivations; however c f . Develin RhM 122 [1979]: 274, who believes that there were r e a l r e l i g i o u s issues involved here). 4.4. eùGùç ovv ETreiJV'ev r| ovyKXrfcoQ èni oxpaxÔ7ie3ov ypàiapaxa. . . : The e l e c t i o n of Flaminius and Furius, which at f i r s t did not seem to have encountered any opposition, was judged i r r e g u l a r when the two consuls were on the point of invading Insubrian t e r r i t o r y . This use of the augural procedures may have been an attempt by the senat o r i a l majority to stop the war, the continuation of which they opposed. The successes obtained up to t h i s point may have seemed s u f f i c i e n t to many senators, e s p e c i a l l y to those interested i n confronting Carthage i n the Western Mediterranean, but to go further meant not only the tying down of Rome's m i l i t a r y forces i n a campaign thought superfluous, but also the r e - d i r e c t i o n of Rome's economic strength and p o l i t i c a l p o l i c y towards a program of colonization which would require many years to complete. Consequently, the senatorial majority may have convinced the augur i n charge to change h i s mind i n order to obstruct the consuls' a c t i v i t i e s (cf. Cassola GPR 223). I t i s also possible that Marcellus, an augur himself, on seeing that the consuls were on the point of ending the G a l l i c War by a decisive v i c t o r y which he desired f o r himself, convinced the augur i n charge, i f i t was not o r i g i n a l l y himself, to declare the e l e c t o r a l auguries i n v a l i d (see Chapter 6.2. ô nàpKSXXOQ. . . ) . 4.5. xaOxa Se^àpevoç xà ypàppaxa «îA-aptvtoç ov Tcpôxepov eÀuaev: Flaminius, being well aware of the h o s t i l i t y i n the senate (Fab. Max. 2.3; L i v . 22.3.4, 13) and suspecting the contents of the l e t t e r , did not open i t u n t i l a f t e r the b a t t l e was fought, possibly i n order to plead ignorance (Zon. 8.20.5: pexà 8è xriv pà%riv àvay vfflaGet ar|ç xriç èntoToXr}Q ô pèv «touptoç èxotpcùç êTtetBexo, ô ôé ye <ï>?ia|itvtoç âjEatpônevoç xfj vtKTi xr\v xe atpeotv aùxœv (XTteSetKvu St ' aùxriç ôpBôç ëxouoav Kat Stà xov jcpôç aùxov cpGôvov èveKetxo Kat xoO Qeiov xoùç Suvaxoùç Kttxavj/euSeaGat ) . Plutarch seems to indicate that the l e t t e r was opened and read only a f t e r the campaign had been completed, but the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n represented by Zonaras (8.20.5-7), that the l e t t e r was read r i g h t a f t e r the batt l e and before further campaigning, i s to be preferred. Plutarch has misrepresented the sequence of events by his condensation of the subject matter. Polybius does not include the l e t t e r i n h i s narrative, but Livy i n h i s books on the Second Punic War does make references to i t (22.63.12, 23.3.13). 4.5. pà%riv auvàv|;aç xpév|/aa0at xoùç pàp^apouç: Polybius i n h i s account of the f i g h t i n g asserts that Flaminius had mismanaged the b a t t l e (2.33.7: ô pèv yàp oxpaxriyoç <E)A-aptvtoç OÙK ôp0©ç SoKet Ke%pfïa0at xô rcpoet pripévcp KtvSùvco) , but v i c t o r y was obtained through the foresight of the m i l i t a r y tribunes and the bravery of the soldi e r s (2.33.1: AoKoûot S' èpcppôvcoç KexpfjoGat xfj pà%Ti xaùxri 'Pcopatot, 6: Stécp0etpav xoùç 7cA,etaxouç xôv Tcapaxa^apévoùv Stà xriv xôv %tA-tàp%a)v Ttpôvotav, 9: où priv àXXà ye noXXôù vtKrjaavxeç xatç o(pexépatç àpexatç) . In Polybius' account (2.32.8-33.9) the Romans, d i s t r u s t i n g t h e i r G a l l i c a l l i e s , sent them across the r i v e r , which was i n t h e i r rear, and demolished the bridges. Flaminius then deployed the Roman forces, which were i n f e r i o r i n numbers to t h e i r opponents, alongside the r i v e r bank, but did not leave room to allow the maniples to perform t h e i r customary withdrawal during b a t t l e (2.33.7: T r a p ' aùxriv y à p x r i v ô c p p ù v TOO TcoTaiaoO Tcot r | o à | a e v o ç xriv e K x a ^ t v 8 t é ( p 0 e t p e x ô xîîç 'P(û|aaïKfiç nà%riç l'Stov, o ô % ùiTo^et itône v o ç XÔTCOV Tcpôç x f jv èni TcôSa x a t ç o T c e t p a t ç à v a % t t > p r i o t v ) . For t h i s Polybius censures Flaminius since, i f the Romans had been even s l i g h t l y pushed back i n the f i g h t i n g , they would have had to throw themselves into the r i v e r . The m i l i t a r y tribunes i n the meantime had equipped the front ranks with the spears of the t r i a r i i and had ordered the men to use t h e i r swords only a f t e r the spears had done t h e i r work (Walbank [Polybius 1: 208] says that t h i s innovation appears to have been invented to contrast with Flaminius' incompetence [see De 2 Sanctis SR 3 .1: 306 concerning t h i s innovation and Walbank Polybius 1: 192-193 concerning h o s t i l e t r a d i t i o n against Flaminius]). Orosius records that 9,000 Gauls were k i l l e d and 17,000 captured during the war i n that year (4.13.14: eodem anno Flaminius consul contemptis a u s p i c i i s , quibus pugnare prohibebatur, adversum Gallos c o n f l i x i t et v i c i t . i n quo b e l l o novem m i l i a Gallorum caesa, decern et septem m i l i a capta sunt). 4.5. x f | v xwpav atjxôùv è T r t 8 p a | i e t v : Polybius makes no mention of further campaigning. However, according to Zonaras (8.20.5-7), a f t e r the b a t t l e the l e t t e r sent by the senate was read. Furius was f o r obeying promptly, while Flaminius was anxious to remain. In the end Furius stayed with Flaminius, but took no active part, persuaded to remain by those who were going to be l e f t behind with Flaminius who feared that they might s u f f e r some disa s t e r at the hands of the enemy i f l e f t alone. Flaminius proceeded to ravage enemy t e r r i t o r y and to reduce some strongholds before returning home (8.20.7: $A,a|atvtoç 8â Tteptvooxwv xr)v x^pav exejive Kat èpt)|iaxd x t v a Kaxsoxpév|/axo) . 4.6. laexà noXXcbv Àacpùpcùv: Polybius mentions that the Romans returned to Rome with much booty and many arms taken as s p o i l s (2.33.9: noXXiù v tKr joavxeç x a t ç ocpsxépatç à p e x a t ç . . . K a t 7ca|j7c^ r|0oOç |aèv ^ e t a ç , OUK ÔÀtycùv Sè oKt)A,©v K p a x f i o a v x e ç èTcavfîÀGov e t ç xfjv 'Pa)nr|v) . The arms would come i n handy during the Second Punic War. After the defeat at Cannae i n 216 B.C Rome o u t f i t t e d a force of 6,000 men with these s p o i l s (Liv. 23.14.4: Ea sex m i l i a hominum G a l l i c i s s p o l i i s , quae triumpho C. Flamini t r a l a t a erant, armavit). Also, i t i s recorded that Flaminius erected a golden trophy to Jupiter from the booty (Flor. 1.20.4: de torquibus eorum aureum tropaeum l o v i Flaminius e r e x i t ) . 4.6. ot)K ctTcfivxrioev ô Sfjnoç: Cassola (GPR 224, n. 39) suggests that t h i s does not r e f e r to the attitude of the common people but to the o f f i c i a l greeting which the a u t h o r i t i e s were accustomed to give accompanied by the people. Dionysius of Halicarnassus describes such a welcome on Romulus' return to Rome a f t e r a successful campaign (2.34.2: o t S' èK xfjç TiÔÀewç uTïfivxcov aôxotç apa yuvat^t xe K a t x e K v o t ç Tiap' aiacp© x à pépri x f î ç Ô8o0 xrj x e vtKr] ot)vri8ô|ievot K a t xfjv aA,A,r|v aTtaoav èv8etKvt)|ievot (pt ?i,o(ppoot)vr|v ) . 4.6. TÔv GptanPov: From Zonaras (8.20.7) and Livy (21.63.2) i t appears that the senate denied Flaminius the honor of a triumph, but that i t was given to him by a resolution of the people, perhaps by a p l e b i s c i t e (Cassola GPR 224; c f . N i c c o l i n i I fasti dei tribuni della plebe 89). Cassola proposes (GPR 224, n. 39) that Plutarch's account of the granting of the triumph i s inexact perhaps because i t i s very condensed (Acta Tr. f o r Flaminius: C. Flaminius C. f. L. n. cos. anno DXXX / de G a l l e i s VI Idus Mart., for Furius: P. Furius Sp. f. M. n. Philus cos. anno DXXX / de G a l l e i s et Liguribus IIII Idus Mar[t].; i t i s not known what a c t i v i t y Furius undertook against the Ligures f o r them to be included here). 4.6. â^opôaaoGat xfiv unaxetav pexà xoû ouvdpxovxoç: The abdications of both C. Flaminius and P. Furius are not mentioned i n the Fasti Capitolini, but Livy does r e f e r back to Flaminius' abdication i n his f i r s t book on the Second Punic War (21.63.2). 4.7. ouxco Tcdvxa xà Ttpdypaxa "Pcopatotç etç xôv Geôv à v f i y e x o . . . : See the discussion at the beginning of t h i s Chapter. CHAPTER FIVE 5. This chapter i s completely made up of examples of the Romans' scrupulous observance of r e l i g i o u s practices, a subject that has been introduced by Plutarch's c l o s i n g statement i n chapter four (see discussion at Chapter 4.)-This chapter, which interrupts the narrative of the G a l l i c War (225-222 B,C.)f i s an in s e r t i o n by Plutarch taken from a source d i f f e r e n t from the one used for the surrounding events. The surrounding events appear to have come from a continuous h i s t o r i c a l account of the war i n the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n (see Chapter 3.). The f i r s t example given here would have had no place i n that source since i t i s chronologically too la t e (162 B.C.), and i t would be d i f f i c u l t to understand why a Roman annalist would have added i t here for the benefit of a Roman audience. But t h i s d i f f i c u l t y would not apply to Plutarch i f he was wr i t i n g f o r a largely Greek audience (see Introduction, p. 9) , and i t would be reasonable to suppose that he has turned to another source for t h i s example, and as i t w i l l be seen, for the following ones as well. The probable source of these examples i s Valerius Maximus, whom we know Plutarch made use of since he i s c i t e d at Marcellus 30.5 concerning Marcellus' death and b u r i a l . Not only do the four examples of scrupulous r e l i g i o u s behavior occur i n Valerius Maximus (1.1.3-5), but also they occur i n the same order of 2 presentation (De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 368). The presence i n Valerius Maximus of the account of Marcellus' d i f f i c u l t i e s i n constructing the temples of Honos and V i r t u s (1.1.8) immediately following the examples of scrupulous r e l i g i o u s behavior suggest that Plutarch noticed these examples during h i s search for material on Marcellus. The a n n a l i s t i c source used by Plutarch for t h i s war may have recorded the two examples involving M. Cornelius and Q. Sulpicius (Ware. 5.5), placing them i n the year 223 B.C. Although we can not firmly establish t h i s date, i t i s suggested by what i s known of M. Cornelius' career (see Chapter 5.5. Kopvrj^toç. . . ) and by Plutarch's phrase at Marcellus 5.5 (nepi Sè TOVQ avTovQ èKetvouç xpôvouç). Besides the a f f a i r involving Flaminius' disobedience (see Chapters 4.4. eùGùç..., 4.5. xaOxa. . . , and 4.5. xr|v xa>pav. . . ) / the discovery of these two cases (plus possibly, l a t e r on, the l a s t case [Marc. 5.6], involving Flaminius) i n h i s h i s t o r i c a l source, may have inspired Plutarch to turn to Valerius Maximus as h i s main authority f o r t h i s chapter. Some scholars (Zimmermann RhM 79 [1930]: 55; Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 297-298) have denied Plutarch's use of Valerius Maximus here basing t h e i r arguments p r i m a r i l y on the differences between the two accounts (see the appropriate sections for explanations of differences). 5.1. Ttpéptoç yoOv SejaTcpwvtoç. . . : This i s T i . Sempronius Gracchus (RE 2a.2 [1923], no. 53: 1403-1409). The incident which he i s involved i n here occurred shortly a f t e r h i s second consulship i n 163 B.C. with M'. luventius Thalna as colleague. Valerius Maximus also reports t h i s incident (1.1.3: a T i b e r i o enim Graccho ad collegium augurum l i t t e r i s ex provincia m i s s i s , quibus s i g n i f i c a b a t se, cum l i b r e s ad sacra populi pertinentes legeret, animadvertisse v i t i o tabernaculum captum c o m i t i i s consularibus, quae ipse f e c i s s e t , eaque re ab auguribus ad senatum r e l a t a iussu eius C. Figulus e G a l l i a , Scipio Nasica e Corsica Romam redierunt et se consulatu abdicaverunt). This appears to have been a well-known event among those dealing with Roman r e l i g i o u s practices (Cic. Nat. D. 2.10-11, Div. 1.33, 2.74-75; see A s t i n Scipio Aemilianus 36 concerning t h i s i n c i d e n t ) . 5.1. SKtTctwva NaatKâv: P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica (Corculum; RE 4.1 [1900], no. 353: 1497-1501) was elected consul f o r 162 B.C. with C. Marcius Figulus as colleague. 5.1. rdtov MdpKtov: C. Marcius Figulus (RE 14.2 [1930], no. 61: 1557-1559) was elected consul for 162 B.C with P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica as colleague. He i s i d e n t i f i e d only as C. Figulus i n Valerius Maximus (1.1.3). I f Plutarch used Valerius Maximus as h i s primary source here, one has to ask where he found the nomen, Marcius, for him. He may have found Figulus' nomen from Cornelius Nepos, who had written a series of biographies on famous Romans and was used by Plutarch i n t h i s l i f e (see Introduction, pp. 26-29). In the De viris illustribus f a l s e l y a t t r i b u t e d to Aurelius Victor, which i s thought to have been derived from Nepos' own work of the same name (see Introduction, p. 29, n. 125), the biography of Marcellus immediately follows that of Scipio Nasica, Figulus' colleague as consul i n 162 B.C. (chapters 44 and 45 respectively). I t i s reasonable to assume that these biographies followed the same order of presentation as those of Nepos' more extensive work. Also, since Scipio's biography i n the De viris illustribus includes h i s abdication from the consulship (44.2: Is cum adversum auspicia consulem se a Graccho nominatum comperisset, magistratu se abdicavit), i t i s l i k e l y that Nepos' more extensive biography would have i d e n t i f i e d by name Scipio's colleague, who had also abdicated. If these two factors are taken into consideration, then one could postulate that Plutarch came across Figulus' nomen, Marcius, i n h i s reading of Nepos' work. However, t h i s i s not the only p o s s i b i l i t y . He may have picked i t up elsewhere i n h i s research, since the event described here was well-known i n discussions on Roman r e l i g i o u s practices (see Chapter 5.1. Ttpéptoç. . . )• 5.1. fi3r| S' èxôvxcov aùxcDV êitapxtaç: Scipio had already gone to h i s province of Corsica, while Figulus had gone to h i s province of Gaul (Val. Max. 1.1.3). 5.1. |aavx>tKoCc ÛTroiavfnaaotv: I f t h i s emendation i s correct, then these works would correspond to the libros ad sacra populi pertinentes i n Valerius Maximus (1.1.3). They are probably to be i d e n t i f i e d with the commentarii Servi Tulli, manuals of procedure gi v i n g instructions for the proper holding of elections (see Ogilvie Livy 231-232, Voigt Ueber die Leges Regiae, and Rohde Die Kultsatzungen der romischen Pontifices 62-64). 5.2. o x a v àpxcùv en" ô p v t o t K a G e^opevoç ë^ ca KOXSCUQ...: This may be an elaboration by Plutarch of his probable source, Valerius Maximus, w h o has o n l y vitio tabernaculum captum (1.1.3). De 2 Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 368) maintains that Plutarch was not a mere copyist and that although Valerius Maximus's account would be quite c l e a r to a Roman, some explanation would be required to make i t comprehensible to h i s Greek audience, and therefore he was constrained to have recourse to other a u t h o r i t i e s . 5.3. d v f i v e y K e T c p ô ç x r ) v o T j y K A - r i x o v : Plutarch may have misrepresented the sequence of events through h i s abridgement of his source. According to Valerius Maximus (1.1.3) T i . Sempronius informed the college of augurs and not the senate and then i t was the college of augurs which referre d the matter to the senate. 5.5. KopvrjÂ^toç p è v Ké0r | yoç . . . : This i s M. Cornelius Cethegus (RE 4.1 [1900], no. 92: 1279-1280). Valerius Maximus also records t h i s incident (1.1.4: Consimili ratione P. Cl o e l i u s Siculus, M. Cornelius Cethegus, C. Claudius propter exta parum curiose admota [deorum inmortalium aris v a r i i s temporibus b e l l i s q u e d i v e r s i s ] flaminio abire i u s s i sunt coactique etiam). Broughton (MRR 1: 232) te n t a t i v e l y dates t h i s incident to ca. 223 B.C. and suggests that Cethegus may have been a F1 amen Dialis l i k e C. Claudius (Liv. 26.23.8; see Chapter 23.1. ot è%9pot... concerning Cethegus' relationship with Marcellus). 5.5. Koxjtvxoç Sè ZouA,7ttKtoç. . . : This i s Q. Sul p i c i u s (RE 4a.1 [1931], no. 16: 736). Valerius Maximus also records t h i s incident (1.1.5: At Q. Sul p i c i o inter sacrificandum e capite apex prolapsus idem sacerdotium a b s t u l i t ) . Broughton (MRR 1: 232) t e n t a t i v e l y dates t h i s incident to ca. 223 B.C. Munzer (RE 4a.1 [1931]: 736) suggests that Sulpicius may have been a Fiamen Dialis and that the r e a l grounds for h i s dismissal were p o l i t i c a l : he may have wanted to extract himself from the constraints of t h i s priesthood i n order to pursue a p o l i t i c a l 2 career (see Marquardt Romische Staatsverwaltung 3 : 328-330 concerning prohibitions for p r i e s t s ) . 5.5. TttÀov, ov ot Ka^ot)|aevot (pÀantvtot cpopoOot : This i s an explanation by Plutarch fo r the Latin apex. This word i s also used by Valerius Maximus i n h i s description of t h i s same incident (1.1.5; see Chapter 5.2. oxav... concerning Plutarch's elaboration of h i s source) . 5.6. MtvtKtot) Sè StKxdxopoç tTCTiapxov àjcoSet J^avxoç ràtov <I)î\-a|at vt ov. .. : These are M. Minucius Rufus (RE 15.2 [1932], no. 52: 1957-1962) and C. Flaminius (RE 6.2 [1909], no. 2: 2496-2502). This incident ought to f a l l between 221-219 B.C. for which the Fasti are missing. Since Flaminius was censor from 220-219 B.C., t h i s incident would be best placed i n 221 or the early part of 220 B.C. (Broughton MRR 1: 235, n. 3; see Cassola GPR 262 for references to modern opinion on the dating and Mommsen Str. 1^: 513-515 concerning the p o s s i b i l i t y of holding o f f i c e s concurrently) . Neither the reason f o r the appointment of a dictator nor the designating consul i s reported i n the sources (Scullard [RP 274] states that the d i c t a t o r s h i p would have been comitiorum habendorum caussa). This incident i s also reported by Valerius Maximus except that instead of Minucius, Fabius Maximus i s named as d i c t a t o r (1.1.5: occentusque s o r i c i s auditus Fabio Maximo dictaturam, C. Flaminio magisterium equitum deponendi causam praebuit). The orthodox view maintains that Valerius Maximus i s i n error here and that Plutarch's version i s to be preferred primarily on the basis that Fabius Maximus and Flaminius are thought to have been p o l i t i c a l enemies (e.g., Zimmermann RhM 79 [1930]: 55-56, Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 297). However, Cassola (GPR 261-268) argues f o r accepting Valerius Maximus' version. F i r s t , i t i s more l i k e l y that a Greek rather than a Roman writer would have had a mental lapse concerning Roman names. The names of Fabius Maximus and Minucius Rufus were c l o s e l y linked together i n the h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n , and Plutarch may have gotten confused when r e c a l l i n g t h i s incident from memory. Second, i t i s improbable that one of the names was corrupted through a copyist's error. Not only the corruption of Ma^tpou into MtvouKtou (in Plutarch's t e x t ) , but also the corruption of Minucius into Fabius Maximus (in Valerius Maximus' text) i s u n l i k e l y . Third, an i n s c r i p t i o n dealing with Fabius Maximus (CIL, I^, elogium 13 = Inscr. It. , XIII, 3, 80) a t t r i b u t e s two dictatorships to him, and his famous d i c t a t o r s h i p of 217 B.C. i s stated to have been his second by both the Fasti Capitolini and Livy (22.9.7), while no d i c t a t o r s h i p i s documented for Minucius Rufus before the one of 217 B.C. Cassola, also, maintains that even the i n s c r i p t i o n dealing with Minucius Rufus (CIL, I^, 607: Hercolei / sacrom / M. Minuci(us) C. f. / d i c t a t o r vovit) cannot be used as proof for Minucius i n t h i s incident because there would have been no time f o r a dedication to Hercules, since the d i c t a t o r under discussion appears to have abdicated immediately a f t e r appointing h i s Master of Horse. Therefore the i n s c r i p t i o n belongs elsewhere. The dedication would most l i k e l y have been for some m i l i t a r y incident which would f i t i n well with the events of 217 B.C. (concerning the d i f f i c u l t i e s surrounding t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n regard to whether Minucius was r e a l l y d i c t a t o r or merely held power equal to that of a d i c t a t o r i n 217 B.C. and i n regard to the lapse of time before the abdication, see Dorey JRS 45 [1955]: 92-96, whose views are opposed to Cassola's, and Develin RhM 122 [1979]: 270-273, who favors Cassola's views). Staveley i n a review of Cassola's book (JRS 53 [1963]: 182-187) has not been convinced by these arguments. He maintains that a strong p o s s i b i l i t y that Minucius was d i c t a t o r before 217 B.C. i s "suggested. . .by the fa c t that dictator i s a far more natural restoration than consul i n the lacuna at Livy XXII,49,16 (Livy must be supposed not to be repeating himself but to be o f f e r i n g new information i n h i s parenthesis)." Given t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , he believes that Dorey's solut i o n i s s t i l l the best (p. 186; see Chapter 5.6. auGtç... for Dorey's s o l u t i o n ) . Although Scullard (RP 21 A) accepts Valerius Maximus' version, he merely says, "a curious p a i r , " but does not draw any important conclusions from t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p . But the r i g h t of the d i c t a t o r i n choosing h i s subordinate o f f e r s a unique opportunity to be able to confirm that the choice was done 3 according to h i s w i l l (Cassola GPR 264; see Mommsen Str. 2 : 174-175). Therefore, i f Valerius Maximus' statement i s accepted, then the p o s s i b i l i t y that Fabius Maximus and Flaminius were p o l i t i c a l a l l i e s has to be taken s e r i o u s l y and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p re-assessed, since the p r e v a i l i n g view has been that these two were p o l i t i c a l adversaries (e.g., Munzer RE 6.2 [1909], 2496, Scullard RP 54; see Develin RhM 122 [1979]: 268-277 fo r a re-assessment). 5.6. xptapôç riKoùoGri puoç ov oôptKa KaÀoOatv: This i s an explanation for the Latin sorex. This word i s also found i n Valerius Maximus' version of the incident (1.1.5; see Chapter 5.2. oxav... concerning Plutarch's elaboration of h i s source). The inauspicious squeak of a sorex was one of those items commonly reported by the Roman annalists ( P l i n . NH 8.223: nam sauricum occentu d i r i m i auspicia annales r e f e r t o s habemus). 5.6. avQtQ éxépouç Kaxéaxrjoav: Those who replaced M. Minucius (or perhaps Fabius Maximus) and C. Flaminius are unknown. I t has been suggested that the d i c t a t o r who was forced to resign was Minucius, but that his place was then given to Fabius. This would make Plutarch's version correct, while Valerius Maximus' account (1.1.5) would be the r e s u l t of confusion over the two sets of magistrates (see Zimmermann RhM. 79 [1930]: 56 and Dorey JRS 45 [1955] 93, who gives a poss i b l e p o l i t i c a l explanation of the motives behind t h i s whole in c i d e n t ) . CHAPTER SIX 6.1. â ^ c o p ô a a v T O . . . O t jcept x o v $À,a|atvtov: This r e f e r s t o C. Flaminius himself and t o P. Furius Philus ( s e e Chapter 4.3. o t S'... et seqq.). 6.1. Stà xcâv. . . peaopaotÀÉODV UTtaxoç àjcoSetKvuxat HàpKsX'koQ: I f there was no magistrate who could hold the elections, the senate appointed an interrex who selected two candidates and submitted t h e i r names t o the comitia centuriata for r a t i f i c a t i o n . I f these names were rejected, the interrex or h i s successors, since each interrex held o f f i c e for only f i v e days, continued to submit names u n t i l the candidate ( s ) were accepted (see O g i l v i e Livy 409-410). In t h i s instance only one candidate, Marcellus, received enough votes to be elected. 6.1. TtapaÀapœv x r j v d p ^ r i v àjcoSetKvuot v . . . Tvatov KopvfjA-tov : Marcellus and Cn. Cornelius Scipio Calvus (RE 4.1 [1900], n o . 345: 1491-1492) w e r e elected consuls for 222 B.C., both f o r the f i r s t time. Livy (22.33.9-35.4) records s i m i l a r elections f o r the consulship of 216 B.C. In these C. Terentius Varro was elected f i r s t and then h e held the e l e c t i o n f o r h i s colleague, L. Aemilius Paullus. I t has been suggested that the new consuls entered o f f i c e o n the Ides o f March ( i . e . the 15th), w h i c h remained the regular date of entry u n t i l 153 B.C., rather than o n the former date o f May 1. This i s based o n the fact that the Fasti for 223 B.C. record no consules suffecti to replace the consuls who had abdicated before the entrance into o f f i c e of Marcellus and Scipio, and that according to Livy (22.1.4) by 217 B.C. the consuls were entering o f f i c e on the Ides of March (see Mommsen 3 Romische Chronologie 102, n. 180, Str. 1 : 599, Broughton MRR 2: 2 638, and De Sanctis SR 3 .1: 307, n. 122). However, there i s a problem with t h i s suggestion. Even i f the consuls, C. Flaminius and P. Furius, resigned immediately a f t e r t h e i r triumphs (March 10 and 12; see Acta Triumphorum for 223 B.C.), there could have been only one interrex before the f i f t e e n t h (see Chapter 6.1. Stà T S V . . . ) , but according to Mommsen (Str. 1 : 658, n. 4) there was always at least two interreges, since the f i r s t interrex could not hold the f i n a l e l e c t i o n . I f one follows t h i s view, i t does not seem possible to have two interreges here i n the i n t e r v a l between the abdication of the old consuls and the entry of the new into o f f i c e on March 15. I t might be supposed that an interrex was appointed immediately a f t e r Flaminius' triumph and abdication (one would have to assume, of course, that Flaminius resigned on the same day as h i s triumph and not l a t e r i n conjuction with his colleague). This would allow enough time to have two interreges, but then the problem a r i s e s of having a consul, Furius, and an interrex holding o f f i c e simultaneously. Accordingly, the view of Errington (Latomus 29 [1970]: 54) seems a t t r a c t i v e . He suggests 218 B.C. for the change to the new date of entry brought about by the c r i s i s with Carthage. Even i f t h i s i s so, the date when Marcellus and h i s colleague entered o f f i c e may not necessarily have been the former one of May 1, since Plutarch's account s e e m s to indicate that Marcellus upon his e l e c t i o n immediately took o f f i c e a n d then proceeded to hold the e l e c t i o n f o r a colleague (this could have occurred at a n y time, n o t necessarily on May 1). 6.2. àxéxQv] nèv O U V . . . x f i ç pouÀfjç etprjvata pov)?i,euonévr|ç : The peace proposals of the Insubres may not have b e e n genuine (see Chapter 6.3. a v a K a t v t o a t . . . ) , but Plutarch's account implies that many of the senators w e r e w i l l i n g to negotiate f o r peace. These senators would probably have b e e n those who wanted to prepare for the forthcoming c o n f l i c t with Carthage (cf. Cassola GPR 223-224, Harris War and Imperialism 199). 6.2. ô HoLpKGXXoQ S(^ eTpàx,v)ve x ô v ôfjiaov éni x ô v jiôXeiaov : Plutarch portrays Marcellus as the main proponent f o r continuing the w a r , while Polybius says that both consuls urged that peace should not be granted (2.34.1: sonevaav o t K a x a o x a 9 s v x e ç U T i a x o t MàpKoç KÀauStoç K a t Tvàtoç KopvfiA,toç xoO nr) o t ) y%(Dpr i9 f i va t xr)v e t p f i v T i v a t ) x o t ç ) . However, Polybius' statement appears to be an attempt on h i s part to increase the ro l e Cn. Scipio played i n the campaign at the expense of Marcellus (Cassola GPR 224, n. 41; see Chapter 8.1. Tr|(ptoa|aévr|ç. . . ) . Also, i f Cassola (GPR 227) i s correct i n assuming that the C o r n e l i i Scipiones, including Marcellus' colleague, Cn. Scipio, w e r e opposed to the G a l l i c War, then Polybius' remark i s a l l the more suspect. Although Marcellus m a y have b e e n the p r i n c i p a l i n s t i g a t o r t h i s year f o r continuing the war, whether because he was a member of a p o l i t i c a l group i n favor of conquering the region (see Cassola GPR 222-223) or possibly out of a desire to win m i l i t a r y glory, Eckstein (SG 17) believes that s e n a t o r i a l suspicions concerning the extent of p a c i f i c a t i o n i n the Po va l l e y helped. But these may not have been necessary since the Insubres may have been intent on war anyway (see Chapter 6.3. avaKttt vt oat...). 6.3. K t t v yevopevriQ etprivr|ç: Ziegler emends the Kat of the manuscripts to KSV. This emendation would bring the text i n t o accord with Polybius (2.34.2) and Zonaras (8.20.8) who say that peace was refused. 6.3. dvaKatvtoat xov jtoA-epov ot Fatodxat 6oKo0at. .. : In Polybius' account these Gaesati did not a r r i v e f o r t u i t o u s l y , but on the summons of the Insubres. Polybius says that the Gauls, f a i l i n g to obtain peace and judging t h e i r l a s t hopes to be dashed, hastened to hir e the Gaesati (2.34.2: ot 8' ànoxuxovxeç Kttt Kptvavxeç è^eXéy^at xàç xeÀeuxataç àXniôaQ, auGtç ©pprjoav eTit xô ptaGoOoGat xwv Ttept xôv 'PoSavôv ratodxcov FaXax&v etç xptopuptouç; see Chapters 3.1. raA^axov. . . concerning the Gaesati and 3.1. ot 8è xrjv. . . concerning the Insubres). The h i r i n g of large numbers of mercenary Gauls (Ware. 6.4: xptopuptot yàp ôvxeç) from across the Alps would have required time and strenuous e f f o r t . This suggests that i f the Insubres r e a l l y d i d summon the Gaesati, i t probably occurred before the peace proposals were rejected. If t h i s i s the case, then t h e i r overtures to Rome were used merely as a ploy to gain time (cf. Eckstein SG 17). 6.4. T p t o | a ù p t o t y à p ovxeç: This number i s also reported by Polybius (2.34.2; see Chapter 7.6. Kxevvaç... concerning Orosius' figure of 30,000 Gaesati s l a i n at Clastidium). Although Heuberger (Klio 31 [1938]: 69) believes that t h i s number i s exaggerated, nevertheless the forces of the Gaesati must s t i l l have been s i g n i f i c a n t . 6.4. e ô 9 ù ç £71° 'AKÉppaç cupiarjoav: Polybius says that the C e l t s kept the Gaesati i n readiness and awaited the Roman attack (2.34.2: ovQ TcapaXapôvxeç e t%ov èv exotn© Kat TtpooeSoKoov xr|v xwv noXe\xi(jii\} ë(po8ov) . 6.4. ' AKéppaç. . . TtÔÀt V t )7 tèp TcoxajaoO IlàSot) o u v w K t o|aévriv : According to the Tabula Peutingeriana, Acerrae was situated 22 miles from Laus Pompeii (mod. Lodi Vecchio) and 13 miles from Cremona. I t was situated on the banks of the Addua r i v e r s l i g h t l y north of i t s confluence with the Po (Walbank Polybius 1: 210; see Nissen It. Land. 2: 192). Here, at the confluence, the Romans had attempted i n the previous year to invade Insubrian t e r r i t o r y , but were unsuccessful (Polyb. 2.32.2; see Chapter 4.2. laeyàXatç. . . ) . 6.4. èKEtSev 8è yxvpiovQ xôv Fatoaxôv ô (iaotÀe6ç. . . àvaT^apàv xr^v Tiept ndSov %6pav èTtôpGet : This was done i n order to draw the Romans away from Acerrae as Polybius' account (2.34.3-5) makes cl e a r . The Romans had l a i d siege to the town, which was i n Insubrian t e r r i t o r y , and the Insubres, unable to come to i t s rescue, as the Romans had seized a l l the advantageous positions, attempted to draw the Romans o f f by a diversion. They crossed the Po with part of t h e i r forces, entered the t e r r i t o r y of the Anares, who were a l l i e d to the Romans (Polyb. 2.32.2), and l a i d siege to a town there c a l l e d Clastidium. 6.4. BptTÔpaxoç: In h i s Romulus (16.7) Plutarch uses the form BptTopàpToç. The name i n Lat i n has come down to us i n several forms of which the most common are Virdomarus or Viridomarus (Liv. Per. 20: Vertomaro; Prop. 4.10.41: Virdomari [or] Virtomane; Oros. 4.13.15: Virdomarum; Eutr. 3.6.1: Viridomarum; Serv. Aen. 6.855: Viridomarum; De vir. i l l . 45.1: Viridomarum; F l o r . 1.20.5: Viridomaro; Ampel. 21: Viridomaro; Fest. p. 204 Lindsay: Viridomaro; Acta Tr. tor 222 B.C.: 2 Virldumaro], concerning which see CIL, I , p. 47). A c l o s e l y r e l a t e d name, Bptxôpaptç, i s used by Appian (Sam. 6, Gall. 11) of one of the Senones (cf. Fl o r . 1.20.3: Brittomaro) . De 2 Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 367) believes that the forms Viriomatus, Briomatus, and Briomacus which are found i n the various manuscripts of De viris illustribus (45.1) may r e f l e c t the form of the name used by Plutarch. Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 299) suggests that the form may have been the r e s u l t of Plutarch approximating the Latin version to Bptxôpapxtç, the name of a Cretan nymph. According to the Periocha 20 of Livy, Britomatus was the leader ( i . e . king) of the Insubres (M. Claudius Marcellus cos. occiso Gallorum Insubrium duce, Vertomaro, opima s p o l i a r e t t u l i t ) . Likewise, i n Florus (1.20.1-5) he i s considered the king of the Insubres. However, i t seems more probable that Britomatus was the king of the Gaesati. This i s indicated by the fa c t that he led a contingent of the Gaesati to Clastidium (Ware. 6.4), and when the remaining Gaesati received news of h i s death, they l e f t the Insubres (Ware. 7.8). Also, Propertius considered him the king of a Transalpine t r i b e , but the Insubres dwelt i n Cisalpine Gaul (4.10.39-41: Claudius at Rheno t r a i e c t o s a r c u i t hostes, / Belgica cum v a s t i parma r e l a t a duels / Virdomari). Although Orosius' text seems to indicate that he was king of the Gaesati, i t i s , nevertheless, ambiguous (4.13.15: Post hoc Claudius consul Gaesatorum t r i g i n t a m i l i a d e l e v i t , ubi etiam ipse Virdomarum regem i n primam aciem progressus o c c i d i t : et inter multa Insubrium, quos ad deditionem coegerat, oppida Mediolanium quoque urbem florentissimam c e p i t ) . Most ancient writers appear to have been unsure over which people Britomatus ruled since most designate him as merely king of the Gauls (Ware. 7.1: ô xâv raA-axov paotÀeùç, Rom. 16.7: raÀaxcùv paatÀécùç; Val. Max. 3.2.5: Gallorum regem; De v i r . i l l . 45.1: Gallorum ducem; Serv. Aen. 6.855: Gallorum ducem; Eutr. 3.6.1: regem Gallorum; Ampel. 21: rege Gallorum). 6.5. MàpKEÀA^oç. . . xôv pèv ouvdpxovxa npoQ "AKÉppatç ànéXtne: Only now does Plutarch indicate where the Romans are, but we are not t o l d when the Romans got there and what they are doing. This suggests that he has given us a condensed and confused rendition of h i s source (see Chapter 6.4. SKeCGev...)• 6.5-6. xwv iTtTcéoùv laspoç xptxov.. .xoùç ^otTcoùç inneZQ àvotlapàv: Polybius says that Marcellus took the cavalry without any i n d i c a t i o n that he l e f t any part of i t with Cn. Scipio (2.34.6: àvaÀapàv xoùç tnnetQ MdpKoç K^aùStoç). Since the consuls probably had t h e i r f u l l complement of forces (four legions plus a l l i e s ) , Marcellus would have taken with him a l i t t l e more than 2,000 cavalry based on Plutarch's account, and at most 3,200 based on Polybius' (these figures would be the upper l i m i t s ; see Chapter 4.2. jieyaTtatç. . . concerning the si z e of Roman forces at t h i s time). 6.6. xoùç âXacppoxdxouç x©v ÔTCA-LXSV nept â<^aKootouç: Polybius gives no exact figure, saying only that Marcellus took with him some infan t r y (2.34.6: (xtvaç) xôôv TteCtKwv) . I t appears that Marcellus set o f f with a force of s l i g h t l y more than 2,600 (2,000 horse and 600 foot) to at most 3,800 (3,200 horse and 600 foot) combatants to confront a G a l l i c force of 10,000 (Marc. 6.4) . 6.6. OÎ5G' fiiaépaç oùxe vuKxôç àvtetç x ô v Spô| a o v . . . : Part of Marcellus' haste was to r e l i e v e those besieged at Clastidium, who were Roman a l l i e s (see Chapter 6.6. K;\,aaxtStov. . . ) , but i t may also have been because i t was one of the Roman supply bases for t h i s campaign (Victumulae was another [Liv. 21.57.9-10: ad Victumulas oppugnandas i r e pergit. Id emporium Romanis G a l l i c o b e l l o f u e r a t ] ; Victumulae may be a corruption of Vicus Tannetis = Tannetum [Dyson The Creation of the Roman Frontier 33]; c f . Frank CAH 7: 814 concerning Clastidium; i t i s known that i n 218 B.C. Clastidium was betrayed to Hannibal before the b a t t l e of Trebia, and the grain which the Romans had gathered there was used to feed his army [Liv. 21.48.8-10; Polyb. 3.69.1-4]). Nevertheless, the speed of h i s march and the unexpectedness of hi s a r r i v a l would be key factors i n enabling Marcellus to overcome an enemy force vastly superior i n numbers. 6.6. ëûjç ènàÇiaXe xotç puptotç ravodxavç. . . : According to Zonaras, Marcellus f i r s t came upon the Gauls as they were f l e e i n g from a l l i e d t e r r i t o r y (8.20.9: Kat MdpKeÀA,oç pèv ènt xoùç Àr|tCopévouç xrjv aùppa%ov Stà xa^écùv èXQàv où KaxéXape acpâç èKet, cpeùyovxaç S' STceStcu^e Kat ùicoaxàvxaç êvtKr|ae; see Chapter 7.6. Kxetvaç... concerning the s i t e of the forthcoming b a t t l e ) . 6.6. K^aoxtStov...: Clastidium (mod. Casteggio; PECS 226-227), situated i n the t e r r i t o r y of the Anares (Polyb. 2. 17.7, 32.1-2), i s located south of Milan bordering on the northern f o o t h i l l s of the Apennine mountains and about 8 miles from the Po r i v e r . I t controlled the route across the Po north to Ticinum (mod. Pavia; Nissen It. Land. 2: 271). I t had recently become an a l l y of the Romans during the campaigns of C. Flaminius and P. Furius i n the preceding year (Polyb. 2.32.2). It i s roughly 33 miles west o f Acerrae, and Marcellus could have reached i t i n a day and night t r a v e l l i n g l i g h t l y , even i f we take into consideration that the Po had to be crossed on the way. 6.8. KpdxtoTot yàp ovxeç tTrnoiaaxetv: Strabo says that the Gauls were better as cavalry than as infantry, and that they formed the best part of the Roman cavalry i n h i s day (4.4.2: Kpetxxouç s ' iTETtôxat r\ ne^ot , Kat eoxt °P(0|aatotç xfjç tTCTtetaç f\ dptoxri Tcapà xoùxoav; see RE 7.1 [1910], " G a l l i " : 634-635). 6.8. et)9t)ç oCv en' at)xôv. . . èqjépovxo: The recklessness of the Gauls i n attacking Marcellus' outnumbered force i s not evident i n Polybius' account of the battle. He reports that the Gauls broke o f f the siege, went forth to meet the Romans, and formed up f o r b a t t l e (2.34.7: ot Sè Ke^xot TEuGonevot xrjv Tcapouotav xôv t)7cevavxttt)v, ?i,t)oavxeç xrjv ico^topKtav ûjtrivxwv Kat Tiapexà^avxo) . I t appears that the s i t e of the b a t t l e should be located near the banks of the Po rather then near the walls of Clastidium (see Chapter 7.6. Kxetvaç. . . ). 6.9. ô Sè MàpKeA-A-oç, ©ç \ir] (pGatev. . . : Polybius' account d i f f e r s g reatly i n i t s portrayal from Plutarch's account, pri m a r i l y i n leaving out Marcellus' e x p l o i t s (2.34.8-9: xôv Sè 'Pœiaatcùv aôxotç xotç tTCjreOatv è^ ècpôSou xoÀ|ir|pôç ocpiot TipooTreoôvxcov, xàç |aèv àp%àç àvxet%ov laexà Sè xaOxa Ttept t oTaiaévoùv Kat Kaxà VCÙXOU Kat Kaxà Képaç, Sua%pr|axot)pevot xfj pàxti xé^oQ êxpaTtriaav vn' aôxcùv xc5v tTtTtécov. Kat TcoÀA,ot pèv etc xov Tcoxapôv èpTieoôvxeç vno xoû peùpaxoç StecpGapriaav, ot Sè TcA.eto\jç vno xc5v icoA^eptcov KaxeKÔitrioav) . Marcellus' t a c t i c of extending h i s l i n e to prevent his outnumbered forces from being surrounded, as described by Plutarch, appears i n Polybius' account to be one of the major reasons for the Roman v i c t o r y . 6.10-11. This incident i s also related by Frontinus (Str. 4.5.4: Claudius Marcellus, cum i n manus Gallorum imprudens i n c i d i s s e t , circumspiciendae regionis qua evaderet causa equum i n orbem f l e x i t ; deinde cum omnia esse i n f e s t a v i d i s s e t , precatus deos i n medios hostis i n r u p i t ; quibus inopinata audacia p e r c u l s i s , ducem quoque eorum t r u c i d a v i t atque, ubi spes s a l u t i s vix superfuerat, inde opima r e t t u l i t s p o l i a ) . The source from which Frontinus derived his version i s unknown, but Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 299) believes that Plutarch's version i s the e a r l i e r , since i t stresses the r e l i g i o u s factor ("Jedenfalls macht die plutarchische Fassung den urspriinglicheren Eindruck, well s i e das r e l i g i o s e Moment hervorhebt"). According to him i t i s easier to understand how t h i s factor was exchanged for a commonplace one rather than the reverse. 6.11. èK SetotSatpovtaç: One of Plutarch's secondary aims i n t h i s l i f e i s to point out the Romans' attitude towards the gods, and therefore i f he had read several versions of t h i s episode, he would probably have opted for the one with the r e l i g i o u s motive (see Chapter 4. concerning Plutarch's emphasis on the r e l i g i o u s element). 6.11. T O V T i ^ t o v . . . T u p o a e K U v r i o e v : The Romans believed that they had worshipped the sun from very early times. The legendary Titus Tatius, co-regent with Romulus, i s said to have vowed an a l t a r to the sun (Varro LL 5.74; Dion. Hal. 2.50.3; August. De civ. D. 4.23). However, Wissowa (RK 315-317) believes that the actual p e r s o n i f i c a t i o n of the sun was introduced much l a t e r . The f i r s t indications he finds are t e n t a t i v e l y dated to around the time of the Second Punic War. 6.12. O U T ® yàp eGoç è o T t 'P(ù\saiotQ T c p o o K u v e t v TOÙÇ Geoùç T i e p t o T p e c p o n é v o t ç : Plutarch i n his Camillus also mentions the Roman custom of turning around (5.9: KaGàjcep è o T t 'PQ)|aatotç eGoç èjceu^aïaévotç Kat TcpooKuvfjoaot v è j c t S e ^ t à è^eÀtTTetv) , while i n h i s Numa (14.7-9) three possible explanations for t h i s custom are presented. The f i r s t i s that the turning around was an imitation of the rotary motion of the universe (14.8: ajtoiat [iTiot Ç e t vat TTÎÇ TOO KÔOJJOU Tteptcpopâç) , the second i s that since temples faced east towards the r i s i n g sun, the worshipper, who entered a temple with his back towards the sun, turned around to l i n k the f u l f i l l m e n t of the prayer through both gods ( i . e . the one worshipped i n the temple and the sun; 14.8: KVKXOV Ttotôv Kat ouvaTCTtov T r i v ê j E t T e ^ e t c o o t v TTÏÇ e ô % r ï ç St' à | a c p o t v ) , and the t h i r d i s that i t hinted at and taught the i n s t a b i l i t y of human a f f a i r s (14.9: wç oùSevôç éoTCÔTOÇ TWV àvGpwTctvwv) . Plutarch himself favors the second explanation (see Appel De Romanorum Precationibus 212ff.). 6.12. npooeù^ttoGat. . . KaGtepcboetv: Elsewhere i t i s learned that Marcellus had vowed a temple to Honos and V i r t u s during t h i s G a l l i c War (Liv. 27.25.7, 29.11.13; Val. Max. 1.1.8; see Chapter 28.2.). 6.12. TO ^epsTptw Att: See discussion on etymology of Feretrius at Chapter 8.7-10. et seqq. CHAPTER SEVEN 7. This chapter begins with the only example of Marcellus f i g h t i n g i n single combat (7.1-4), which Plutarch (Ware, 2.1) declares was the form of f i g h t i n g at which Marcellus was best. 7.1-4. The s t r i k i n g scene portrayed here of Marcellus' encounter with and v i c t o r y over the G a l l i c king f i t s i n well with other v i v i d elements of t h i s episode: the hastening of Marcellus to r e l i e v e Clastidium (6.5-6), the sudden reckless attack of the Gauls against the vastly outnumbered Roman force (6.7-8), Marcellus' turning of his horse and worshipping of the sun (6.10-11), h i s vow i n the thick of b a t t l e (6.12), and h i s triumphal procession to the temple of Jupiter Feretrius (8.1-4). These features taken as a whole possess a dramatic q u a l i t y which may r e f l e c t the influence of Naevius' play Clastidium sive Marcellus on the presentation of t h i s b a t t l e i n Plutarch's sources (see Marmorale Naevius poeta for what i s known about t h i s play and Varro LL 7.107, 9.78 for two remaining fragments of t h i s work). 7.1. ô TSV raA-axov paotXeùç: This would be Britomatus, king of the Gaesati (see Chapter 6.4. Bptxôpaxoç concerning over which t r i b e he was king). 7.1. àvrip peyéBet xe acapaxoç. . . oxtÀpouor]: Livy i n h i s account of the famous duel between T. Manlius Torquatus and a Gaul of enormous s i z e i n 361 B.C. describes the Roman opponent i n very s i m i l a r terms (7.10.7: Corpus a l t e r i magnitudine eximium, v e r s i c o l o r i veste pictisque et auro c a e l a t i s refulgens armis). This s i m i l a r i t y suggests that Plutarch's description, i f i t was not derived from Livy, came from the a n n a l i s t i c t r a d i t i o n i n which Livy was working. 7.4. xptxoç apxcov. . . K T S t vac : Marcellus was the t h i r d and l a s t Roman commander, afte r Romulus (according to legend) and A. Cornelius Cossus, to k i l l with h i s own hands the opposing enemy general i n combat and thereby win the honor of the spolia opima ( i . e . the r i g h t of dedicating the arms of the enemy commander to Jupiter F e r e t r i u s ; see Chapters 8.6. np&xoQ \ièv yàp... and 8.10. â)Q S K e t v c D V . . . ) . 7.5. ÈK Tovxov ouvé|atayov: Marcellus' v i c t o r y over the G a l l i c king must have greatly increased the morale of h i s numerically i n f e r i o r force and, conversely, greatly disheartened h i s opponents. 7.5 àXXà K a t Tcpôç Tue^oùç ô^ ioO Tcpoocpeponévouç naxôfaevot : Polybius, i n h i s version of the engagement, gives no r o l e to the Roman infantry (2.34.7-9). According to him i t was only the Roman cavalry which routed the Gauls (2.34.8: xé^oç âxpà7cr|aav vn' a t)x©v x© v innécùv) . Plutarch also seems to believe that the Roman infantry took no part, and the infa n t r y mentioned here (xoùç TceCoùç) r e f e r s only to Gauls, since he l a t e r states that the Roman cavalry (leaving out any mention of Roman infantry) conquered both the G a l l i c cavalry and infantry (7.5: t n n e t ç yàp t T t T c é a ç K a t TCSCOÙÇ apa. . . v t K f j o a t A,éyovxat). 7.5. tTCTietç yàp innéaç Kat TteCoùç apa xoaoûTot... : The r a t i o would have been approximately 1:4 or 1:3 Romans against Gauls (see Chapter 6.6. xoùç XotnovQ.. . et seq. concerning sizes of the forces involved). 7.6. Kxetvaç Se xoùç 7cA,etaxouç: The only ancient author who records the number of Gauls s l a i n at Clastidium i s Orosius, who reports the figure of 30,000 (4.13.15: Post hoc Claudius consul Gaesatorum t r i g i n t a m i l i a delevit) , but t h i s i s c l e a r l y a confusion with the t o t a l number of Gaesati who had joined the Insubres i n t h i s year's f i g h t i n g (Ware. 6.4: xptopùptot yàp ôvxeç; Polyb. 2.34.2: Fataàxcov FaA-axSv etç xptapuptouç) . Plutarch reports that only 10,000 Gaesati went on t h i s diversionary expedition across the Po (6.4: puptouç x©v FatoaxcDv) . Polybius adds a d e t a i l , lacking i n Plutarch, that many of the Gauls f e l l into a r i v e r and perished, but the i d e n t i t y of t h i s r i v e r i s not clear (2.34.9: K a t noXXoi pèv e t ç xôv T t o x a p ô v è p T c e o ô v x e ç ÙTTÔ XOO p e ù p a x o ç StecpGàprioav; see Walbank Polybius 1: 210). In Zonaras' account (8.20.9; see Chapter 6.6. ëcaç è r t é p a À e . . . ) Marcellus came upon the Gauls as they were f l e e i n g and when they offered b a t t l e defeated them. I t i s reasonable to suppose, i f Zonaras i s followed, that the Gauls would have gone northward f r o m Clastidium towards the Po, and t h i s r i v e r ought to be the o n e mentioned by Polybius. Valerius Maximus i n h i s report of the b a t t l e mentions that i t occurred by the Po (3.2.5: ut apud Padum Gallorum regem ingenti exercitu stipatum cum paucis equitibus invaderet), but h i s designation apud Padum may mean only that i t occurred somewhere i n the v i c i n i t y , which could include the s i t e of Clastidium i t s e l f . However, the only r i v e r of s u f f i c i e n t size i n the region to have caused a large number of G a l l i c combatants to perish i n i t s currents i s the Po. Placing the s i t e of the b a t t l e near t h i s r i v e r makes sense, since the Gauls' object i n invading the t e r r i t o r y of the Anares was to draw the Romans away from Acerrae, and i f they had learned that a Roman force was approaching, they probably would have set out to meet i t . Therefore, the Gauls were not f l e e i n g as reported by Zonaras (8.20.9), but had d e l i b e r a t e l y set out to meet Marcellus, and Polybius' account f i t s t h i s scenario, i f s u f f i c i e n t l a t i t u d e i s given to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of i>nr]MT(ùv i n the passage ot Sè Ke;\.TOt 7rt)9ô|aevot xriv T i a p o u o t a v x w v urcevavxt © v , À ù o a v x e ç xfjv jto^ t o p K t a v t)7rfivx©v Kat napexdJ^avxo (2.34.7). 7.6. STcavfiXSe npoç x ô v o t )vdp%ovxa . . . : In Polybius' version (2.34.10-35.1), a f t e r taking Acerrae, the Romans advanced to Mediolanum (mod. Milan), but no further mention i s made of Marcellus; instead, Cn. Cornelius Scipio takes the l i m e l i g h t , portrayed as the conqueror of the Gauls. Plutarch d o e s not mention the taking of Acerrae. However, Zonaras reports that Scipio captured i t and made i t a base fo r the war since i t was favorably placed and well walled (8.20.9: Z K t T i t c D V sè K t t x à %û)pav p e t v a ç " A K É p a ç è T c o À t ô p K e t , K a t Xa^àv a ù x à ç ôppr |x f |pt ov xoO 7coA,épou T c e j c o t r | K e v, o u o a ç è j c t K a t p o u ç K a t e ù e p K E t ç ) . Polybius adds the d e t a i l that the Romans found i t well stocked with grain (2.34.10: èA , a p o v Sè Kat x à ç ' A ^ é p p a ç o t 'Pcopatot o t x o T j y e p o ù o a ç ) . 7.6-7. po%9r|pSç 7roA,epoOvxa KeA,xotç. . . à v x s T c o À t ô p K o u v xôv Kopvfi^t ov : Scipio, advancing upon Mediolanum without h i s colleague, found himself i n d i f f i c u l t i e s when the Gauls s a l l i e d f o r t h and attacked him. His predicament was probably due to a lack of s u f f i c i e n t cavalry, since Marcellus had taken at l e a s t two-thirds of the Roman cavalry to Clastidium. I f t h i s i s correct, then Scipio's advance was premature and reckless, and Polybius' account of t h i s incident i s an attempt by that h i s t o r i a n to cover up Scipio's rashness. Polybius states that Scipio, a f t e r he had vigorously pursued the Gauls to Mediolanum, and when he was now returning to Acerrae since the Gauls within the c i t y d i d not come out to meet him, was suddenly attacked from the rear. Then a f t e r having suffered heavy losses and with a portion of h i s forces actually i n retreat, Scipio managed to r a l l y h i s men and force the Gauls to r e t i r e (2.34.11-15: otç EK TtoSôç èjraKoA-ouGfiaavxoç xoO Tvatot) Kat 7cpoapaA,ôvxoç acpvw Tipôç xô MeStôA^avov, xô pèv Ttpôxov f i a u % t a v èo^ov ànoXvonévov S' aùxoO nâXtv etç xàç 'A^éppaç, è7Eet^eA.9ôvxeç Kat xfjc oùpaytaç àv|/àpevot Gpaoécùç KoXXovQ pèv vsKpoùç ènotriaav, pépoç Sé xt Kat (puyetv aùxôùv rivàyKaoav, ëcoç ô Pvàtoç àvaKaÀeaàpevoç xoùç èK xfiç TrpoùTOïtopetaç n a p w p i a r i a e oTfjvat Kat at)|apaA,etv xotç Tco^ejatotç. ot laèv OUV 'Pconatot net 0ap%fioavxeç xô oxpaxriyô Ste|aà%ovxo npoç xoùç è7ttKet|j.évouç eùpcùoxcoç. ot Sè Ke^xot Stà xo T t apov eùxùx,r||aa laetvavxeç ènt TCOOÔV eùQapoôç, |aex' où TTOA-Ù xpajcévxeç ëcpeuyov etç xàç Kapwpetaç ). However from Plutarch (7.8) we learn that i t was only with the a r r i v a l of Marcellus that the s i t u a t i o n was ret r i e v e d (see Chapter 8.1. Tr|(ptoa|aevr|c. . . concerning Polybius' treatment of Cn. S c i p i o ) . 7.6-7. noA-tv (aeytoxr|v. . . XÔV T a ^ a x t K ô v MeStô^avov. . . voptCouot v: Mediolanum (mod. Milan) was the Insubrian c a p i t a l (Polyb. 2.34.10: XÔ MeStoA-avov x ô v Ta^ a x ô v , o o T i e p èoxt K u p t w x a x o ç XÔTCOÇ xfjç x ô v 'ivoôuPpcov x w p a ç ) , which was located on or near the s i t e of the Etruscan town of Melpum, which was sai d to have been destroyed by the Gauls i n 396 B.C. ( P l i n . NH 3.125; RE 15.1 [1931], "Mediolanum," no. 1: 91-95; see Nissen It. Land. 2: 180-182). 7.8. è7ceA.0ôvxoç Sè xoû MapKeÀÀou.. . : Despite what Polybius (2.34.11-15) says, i t was only with the a r r i v a l o f Marcellus and the departure of the Gaesati that success i n c l i n e d towards the Romans around Mediolanum (see Chapter 7.6-7. |ao%0r|pôç. . . ) • 7.8. xo |aèv MeStÔÀavov àA,toKexat: Polybius mentions only Scipio at the taking of Mediolanum (2.34.15: ô Sè Fvàtoç è7caKoA-ou0fioaç xfiv xe %a)pav è7côp0et Kat xô MeStôA^avov etA-e Kaxà Kpdxoç), but h i s account i s suspect since he seems to favor Scipio at Marcellus' expense (see Chapter 8.1. Trjcptaapévr|ç. . . concerning Polybius' bias against Marcellus). Zonaras indicates that both Marcellus and Scipio were involved i n the taking of t h i s c i t y (8.20.9: KavxeOGev o p p w p e v o i , xô xe Me3t6A,avov Kat K(DpÔ7toA,tv exépav èxetpcboavxo) . Orosius (4.13.15) and Eutropius (3.6.2) mention only Marcellus, but t h i s i s probably due to t h e i r abridgement of t h e i r sources. Zonaras adds that another town (8.20.9: K(DpÔ7to?i,t v éxépav) was taken, a f a c t that i s not reported either by Plutarch or by Polybius, although Polybius does add the d e t a i l that Scipio l a i d waste the surrounding countryside (2.34.15: xrjv x e xwpav eTCÔpSet ). Munzer (RE 3.2 [1899]: 2739) suggests that t h i s town was modern Como. 7.8. xàç S' aXkaQ TtÔÀetç...: Zonaras reports that the Insubres came to terms, giving the Romans money and a portion of land (8.20.9: o t À o t T C O t 'ivooOppot ©poÀÔyriaav aûxotç, xpilP^ 'ca Kat pépoç x f j ç y f î ç Sôvxeç) . Polybius reports that the Insubres turned over everything to the Romans, using phrasing which almost exactly p a r a l l e l s Plutarch's (compare Polybius 2.35.1: Tcdvxa xà KaG' aûxoùç e7céxpev|rav xotç 'Pcopatotç, to Plutarch's: xà KaG' âauxoùç èntxpeTtouat Ttdvxa 'Poopatotç) . This strongly suggests that he was used by Plutarch here. 7.8. xouxotç p è v fjv etprivri pexptwv XD^oOot : Although Plutarch says that the terms of the treaty were moderate, t h i s did not prevent the Insubres from revolting and going over to Hannibal l a t e r during the Second Punic War (Liv. 21.25.2, 39.1; Polyb. 3.40.6-8, 60.8-11). CHAPTER EIGHT 8.1. Triqjt aa|ié vriç Sè Tfjç ovYKXryzov |iôvcû KapKsXXcù Bptaia^ov: Plutarch's statement that only Marcellus gained the honor of a triumph i s confirmed by the Acta Triumphorum f o r 222 B.C., since Cn. Scipio's name does not appear there (M. Claudius M. f. M. n. Marcellus an. DXX[xi] / cos. de G a l l e i s Insubribus et Germ[an]. / K. Mart, isque s p o l i a op[ijna] r e t t u [ l i t / d]uce hostium Vir[dumaro ad CI]astid[ium / i n t e r f e c t o ] ) . I t has been suggested that Scipio did not receive t h i s honor because of severe losses he had sustained before Mediolanum (Eckstein SG 18, n. 60; see, for example, Orosius A. 12.1 f o r mention of a Roman commander not being given a triumph because of h i s losses; see Chapters 7.6-7. |ao%9r|pc5ç. . . concerning events before Mediolanum and 3.1. FaXaxibv. . . concerning the Germani recorded i n the Acta Triumphorum). Polybius makes no mention of Marcellus' triumph, just as e a r l i e r he had made no mention of his duel with the G a l l i c king or of h i s winning of the spolia opima i n h i s account of t h i s G a l l i c War (2.21-35). After reporting the submission of the Insubres, he concludes the narrative portion of h i s account simply with '0 |ièv o ù v Ttpôç x o ù ç KeXxovQ TTÔÀSHOÇ TOIOOTOV ëoxs xo xéXoQ (2.35.2). I t i s strange that Polybius does not include Marcellus' triumph since i t marked not only a b r i l l i a n t v i c t o r y but also the end of the war, es p e c i a l l y since he (2.31.6) does think i t worthy to mention L. Aemilius Papus' triumph for h i s v i c t o r y at Telamon i n 225 B.C. Polybius' silence about Marcellus' exploits when contrasted with h i s simultaneous enhancement of the r o l e of Cn. S c i p i o , e s p e c i a l l y h i s a t t r i b u t i o n to him of sole r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the capture of Mediolanum (2.34.15; see Chapters 6.2. ô MàpKeÀA,oç. . . , 7.6. ènavfiWe. . . et seqq.), suggests that Polybius was biased against Marcellus i n favor of the family of the C o r n e l i i Scipiones, who were his benefactors. Likewise, l a t e r on i n h i s work (10.32), Polybius singles out Marcellus f o r e s p e c i a l l y harsh c r i t i c i s m for f a l l i n g into an ambush and being k i l l e d . While other sources also censure Marcellus f o r imprudence for f a l l i n g into a trap, only Polybius charges that the cause was m i l i t a r y incompetence. Even Polybius' own account does not e n t i r e l y j u s t i f y t h i s charge (cf. Cassola GPR 327; see Chapter 29. et seqq.). Consequently, h i s account must be held suspect where i t d i f f e r s from other versions regarding the j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s of Marcellus and Cn. Scipio (cf. Cassola GPR 224-226, Munzer RE 3.2 [1899]: 2738, Klotz NClio 5 [1953]: 247; see Bung Q. Fabius Pictor, der erste romische Annalist 158, who would l i k e to a t t r i b u t e Polybius' neglect of Marcellus to h i s source, and Lippold Consules 56-57, who maintains that he can f i n d no deliberate neglect of Marcellus i n Polybius' account of the G a l l i c War). In h i s analysis of the G a l l i c War, Polybius (2.35.2-3) says that i n respect to the desperation and daring of the combatants, the b a t t l e s , and the numbers who took part and perished, i t was i n f e r i o r to no war i n history, but i t was contemptible i n respect to the s t r a t e g i c plans and the want of judgment i n t h e i r execution: not most things, but everything was decided on by the Gauls i n the heat of passion rather than with c a l c u l a t i o n . Cassola {GPR 225-226) believes that Polybius, although he attempted to give an honorable r o l e to Cn. Scipio, preferred to deny the importance of t h i s war. 8.1. 9ptan3ov, etofi^auve: The Romans believed that the triumph was of Etruscan o r i g i n (Strab. 5.220; Flor . 1.1.5.6; App. Pun. 66; although c f . Serv. Aen. 4.37). The L a t i n word for t h i s ceremony, triumphus, formed from the shout ^io triumphe' of the s o l d i e r s accompanying t h e i r v i c t o r i o u s general, i s thought to have come from E t r u r i a , although i t s o r i g i n a l d e r i v a t i o n may be from the Greek word Gptaia^e or an even e a r l i e r pre-Greek form (Varro LL 6.68; see Versnel Triumphus 11-55). The triumph was considered the highest honor which the state could bestow on an i n d i v i d u a l (Liv. 30.15.12: neque magnificentius quicquam triumpho apud Romanes...esse) and was greatly sought a f t e r . The ceremony b a s i c a l l y consisted of a procession {pompa) to the Capitoline h i l l by the triumphator accompanied by h i s army where he made a s a c r i f i c e to Jupiter Optimus Maximus (see O g i l v i e Livy 272-273, Versnel Triumphus, and Ehlers RE 7a.1 [1939], "Triumphus," no. 1: 493-511). 8.2-4. Plutarch i n his l i f e of Romulus (16.4-5) describes the trophy and the procession of Romulus i n s i m i l a r terms. 8.2. 5puôç yàp eÙKxeàvou 7upé|ivov. . . : The Roman trophy was a borrowing from the Greeks as i s indicated by the Lat i n word tropaeum i t s e l f , since i t i s simply a t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n of xponatov (Picard TR 103). Although the dedication to the gods of arms taken as booty was a r i t e common to many peoples, the trophy, co n s i s t i n g of arms arranged on a cross-shaped frame i n such a way as to resemble a human and erected on the f i e l d of bat t l e by the vi c t o r i o u s army, was of Greek o r i g i n (Picard TR 16-17; see Picard TR and Lammert RE 7a.1 [1939], "xpÔTcatov," no. 1: 663-673). 8.5. xov veàv xoO <I>epexp{ou Atôç: Unlike the normal triumph i n which the procession ended at the Capitoline temple of Jupit e r Optimus Maximus, the goal of t h i s procession was the diminutive temple of Jupiter Feretrius nearby. Some scholars have seen i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r ceremony an older form of the triumph which existed before the establishment of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus by the Tarquins (see Versnel Triumphus 312 and Picard TR 133). I t has been suggested that Livy's account of Romulus dedicating the arms of Acron, king of the Caeninenses, may contain traces of t h i s e a r l i e r ceremony (1.10.5: s p o l i a duels hostium caesi suspensa fabricate ad i d apte ferculo gerens i n Capitolium escendit; ibique ea cum ad quercum pastoribus sacram deposuisset; Fowler CR 30 [1916]: 153). According to Livy (1.10.3-7) t h i s was the f i r s t temple consecrated at Rome, established by Romulus on the Capitoline h i l l when he dedicated the arms of the king of the Caeninenses, whom he had k i l l e d i n combat. Although i t was said to have been enlarged by Ancus Marcius (Liv. 1.33.9), i t was very small i n s i z e , n o t measuring more than 15 feet on i t s longest side (Dion. Hal. 2.34.4). A denarius minted by P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus around 44 B.C. (Sydenham The Coinage of the Roman Republic, no. 1147 = Crawford Roman Republican Coinage, v o l . 1, no. 439.1) apparently shows t h i s temple. On the coin Marcellus i s shown, with t h e spolia opima i n his hand, standing on the h i g h stylobate of a rectangular t e t r a s t y l e temple possessing a p l a i n pediment (Planter-Ashby 293). There i s no mention of a statue i n t h i s temple, but i t did contained a scepter and s i l e x (Fest. p. 81 Lindsay: ex cuius templo sumebant sceptrum, per quod iurarent, et lapidem sil i c e m , quo foedus f e r i r e n t ) . The scepter was symbolic of m i l i t a r y success, while t h e s i l e x , evidently a meteorite, was probably an o l d n e o l i t h i c c e l t venerated f o r i t s antiquity a n d sacred function which came to be regarded as a thunderbolt sent by Jupiter (Ogilvie Livy 70, 112; Li v . 1.24.3-9; P l i n . NH 37.135; see Cook CR 18 [1904]: 365 a n d Rose JRS 3 [1913]: 238). Propertius (4.10.48) mentions t h e existence of an a l t a r , but Platner a n d Ashby (294) suggest that t h i s i s merely a reference to indicate t h e o r i g i n a l shrine (see Platner-Ashby 293-294). 8.6. Tcpcôxoç (ièv yàp à v f i v e y K e . . . p a o t A-écoç raA,axSv : The story of Romulus winning the spolia opima i s narrated by Livy (1.10), Plutarch (Rom. 16), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2.33-34) a n d mentioned numerous times by ancient authors (e.g., Ampel. 21, Fest. p. 204 Lindsay, Serv. Aen. 6.859, Prop. 4.10). The story of A. Cornelius Cossus winning the spolia opima i s also t o l d by Livy (4.19-20) and mentioned numerous times by ancient authors (e.g., Rom. 16.7, Ampel. 21, Fest. p. 204 Lindsay, Serv. Aen. 6.855, 859, Prop. 4.10, Manil. 1.787-788). Marcellus' winning of the spolia opima i s recorded numerous times i n the ancient sources (Rom. 16.7; Acta Tr. for 222 B.C.; Liv . Per. 20; Prop. 4.10; De v i r . i l l . 45.1-2; Val. Max. 3.2.5; Frontin. Str. 4.5.4; Flor . 1.20.5; Ampel. 21; Fest. p. 204 Lindsay; Verg. Aen. 6.855-859; Serv. Aen. 6.855, 859; Manil. 1.787-788; S i l . I t a l . 1.132-133, 3.587, 12.278-280). 8.6. pexà Sè MàpKEÀA-ov oùS' e t ç : Plutarch obviously discounts M. L i c i n i u s Crassus' claim, i f he was at a l l aware of i t , to the spolia opima i n 29 B.C. Crassus, as proconsul of Macedonia, had defeated the Bastarnae and k i l l e d t h e i r chief, Deldo, i n b a t t l e (Dio 51.24.3-4; see Chapter 8.10. © ç S K e t v o u v povwv. . . for the reason used by Octavian to refuse Crassus' claim). 8.7-10. Plutarch i n his Romulus (16.5-6) has a s i m i l a r discussion on Feretrius and opima i n which M. Terentius Varro i s named as one of h i s sources (16.6: ontpta 8è xà oKvXa, cprjot Bàppcùv, KttBôxt Ktt t xriv Ttept ouotav OTcep A , é y o u a t ) . 8.7. aTcô xoO cpepexpet)opévou xpoTiatot). . . AaxtVCÛV: This explanation of Feretrius may have comes from Varro (LL 5.166: Lectus mortui <quod> fertur, dicebant feretrum n o s t r i , Graeci cpepexpov) . S i l i u s I t a l i c u s believed that a b i e r (feretrum) was used i n the ceremony of the spolia opima (5.167-168: guis opima v o l e n t i / dona l o v i portet feretro suspensa cruento). Modern scholars are of the opinion that the t i t l e Feretrius cannot be from feretrum, which i s a borrowing of the Greek word cpépexpov and that t h i s explanation given by Plutarch i s merely the ancients' folk-etymology of the word (see O g i l v i e Livy 70, Walde-Hofmann, and Wissowa RK 119). 8.7. Atôç. . . KepauvopoÀoCvToç: In the temple was kept a silex (Fest. p. 81 Lindsay) which was probably a meteorite revered as a thunderbolt sent by Jupiter (Ogilvie Livy 70, 112; see Chapter 8.5. TOV vsfflv... concerning silex). 8.8. aXXot Sè Ttapà TTJV TOV3 KoXe\xiov JtA,ri7fiv. .. : Plutarch i n h i s Romulus says that the t i t l e Feretrius came from ferire and that Romulus vowed to s t r i k e and overthrow h i s man (16.6: TO Sè TpoTtatov àvàGriiaa <I>epeTptot) Atôç èjtcovoiaàoQri—TO yàp nXf\^at cpeptpe "Pcùiaaîot KaA,oOotv, eu^aTo Sè 7tA,fi^ at TOV avSpa Kat KaTa|3aA,et v) . Besides deriving Feretrius from ferire the ancients also thought i t might have come from ferre (Fest. p. 81 Lindsay: Feretrius Juppiter dictus a ferendo, quod pacem f e r r e putaretur; Prop. 4.10.46-48: omine quod certo dux f e r i t ense ducem; / seu, quia v i c t a suis umeris haec arma ferebant, / hinc F e r e t r i d i c t a est ara superba l o v i s ) . Dionysius of Halicarnassus (2.34.4) states that other t i t l e s were thought appropriate f o r J u p i t e r Feretrius, such as "Bearer of Trophies" (TpoTtatoOxov) , "Bearer of S p o i l s , " (oKtJA,o(pôpov) , or "Supreme One" (t)7tep(pepéTr|v) . A l l these t i t l e s indicate that Dionysius was deriving Feretrius from f e r r e (Cary, trans.. The Roman A n t i q u i t i e s of Dionysius of Halicarnassus 1 [Loeb]: 411, n. 1). Plutarch must have been aware of t h i s passage of Dionysius since he c i t e s him at Romulus 16.7 f o r h i s statement (2.34.20) that Romulus used a chariot i n hi s triumph and t h i s immediately precedes h i s discussion on the various t i t l e s of Jupiter Feretrius. Modern scholars are i n disagreement over whether Feretrius was derived from f e r i r e or ferre (see O g i l v i e Livy 70, Walde-Hofmann, Ernout-Meillet, and Wissowa RK 119, n. 6). 8.9. xà sè oKOA-tt. . . ÔTCtpta xaOxa KaXova^: Plutarch i n h i s Romulus discusses the derivation of opima which he believed was more l i k e l y from opus than from opes, as Varro claimed (16.6: oTctpta Sè xà oKvXa, (pr\ai Bàppcùv, KaGôxt Kat xr)v Ttept ouotav oTcep Xeyo-uot. TctBavwxepov S' av xtç etTtot Stà xr|v TcpaJ^tv bnovQ yàp ôvopàCexat xô ëpyov). But besides Varro, Festus also derives opima from opes, saying that spolia opima i s derived from Opes, the wife of Saturn (Fest. p. 202 Lindsay: Opima s p o l i a dicuntur originem quidem trahentia ab Ope Saturni uxore). Modern speculation on opima has produced d i f f e r i n g opinions on i t s derivation. Walde and Hofmann derive opima from *opi-pimus = "Fiille-strotzend" {2^: 212), but Versnel (Triumphus 311-312) believes that the word should be derived from ops = energy, and that consequently spolia are opima, ^ f u l l of power,' and not to be touched by anyone except the v i c t o r since they are taboo (see Ernout-Meillet and Stehouwer Étude sur Ops et Consus 78-80). 8.9. SV Totç Ù7CO|avfi|aaat No|aâv IIo|a7tt A,t o v . . . jiVTiiaoveuet v : These would be the commentarii pontificum, manuals o f procedure giving i n s t r u c t i o n s f or the proper performance of r e l i g i o u s r i t e s and ceremonies (see Ogil v i e Livy 231-232, Voigt Ueber die Leges Regiae, and Rohde Die Kultsatzungen der romischen P o n t i f i c e s 62-64). Works containing r e l i g i o u s instructions were commonly att r i b u t e d to Numa. For example, a number of books ascribed to Numa and dealing with p o n t i f i c a l law were alleg e d l y found buried i n a f i e l d near the Janiculum i n 181 B.C., but were subsequently burned on the recommendation of a praetor because of t h e i r contents (Numa 22.2-8; L i v . 40.29.3-14; Val. Max. 1.1.12; P l i n . NH 13.84-87; August. De civ. D. 7.35 ). 8.9. xà nèv 7tpffl-ca A,r|(pGévTa. . . xov Sè x p t x o v éKaxôv: These s p e c i f i c a t i o n s enumerated by the p o n t i f i c a l manuals (commentarii pontificum) are also reported by Festus (p. 204 Lindsay) and Servius (Aen. 6.859). Although Servius l i n k s the three c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s to the three h i s t o r i c a l occurrences of the winning of the spolia opima (secundum legem Numae hunc locum accipere, qui praecepit prima opima sp o l i a l o v i F e r e t r i o debere suspendi, quod iam Romulus fecerat; secunda Marti, quod Cossus f e c i t ; t e r t i a Quirino, quod f e c i t Marcellus), they are instead to be considered d i s t i n c t i o n s between varying grades of spolia (Versnel Triumphus 307-309; Ogilvie Livy 71). Versnel (Triumphus 310, n. 5), r e l y i n g upon Festus (p. 204 Lindsay: C qui ceperit ex aere dato) , but admitting that the text i s corrupt, suggests that the 300, 200, and 100 asses, which Plutarch assumes were to be given to the winner of the s p o l i a opima, are, i n fact, a kind of f i n e (multa) which the winner had to pay, as i n CIL, I^, 366 = XI, 4766: Honce loucom / nequ[i]s v i o l a t e d /.../ seiquis scies / v i o l a s i t dolo male, / l o v e i bovid piaclum / datod et a(sses) CCC / moltai suntod (Let no one damage t h i s p l a c e . . . i f anyone knowingly damages with malice aforethought, l e t him give an ox to Jupiter as atonement and l e t there be 300 asses as a f i n e ) . 8.10. ©ç è K e t v c û v p ô v o ù v ÔTctptwv o v T C ù v . . . : By the time of the la t e Republic, i t was held that only a general with f u l l imperium could win the s p o l i a opima, and t h i s was the t e c h n i c a l i t y used by Octavian to deny t h i s honor to M. L i c i n i u s Crassus, proconsul of Macedonia i n 29 B.C., a f t e r he had s l a i n i n b a t t l e Deldo, king of the Bastarnae (Dio 51.24.4: K a t x o v y e paatA,éa avx&v àéXôcùva avxoQ ô Kpàoooç d j u e K x e t v e - KSV xà oKvXa avxov x& <I>epexpt(p Att Ù>Q K a t oTutpa àvé0r |Kev , e t n e p a ù x o K p d x c D p o x p a x r i y ô ç è y e y ô v e t ; see Chapter 8.6. p e x à Se. . . ) . Octavian may have done t h i s because he believed that the granting of the s p o l i a opima to Crassus would have threatened h i s own p o l i t i c a l p o s i t i o n (see O g i l v i e Livy 72-73, Dessau Hermes 41 [1906]: 142-144, and Syme HSPh 64 [1959]: 44-47). But the requirement that a commander had to have f u l l imperium i s not uniformly maintained i n the ancient t r a d i t i o n (see O g i l v i e Livy 563-564 on the o f f i c e held by A. Cornelius Cossus when he won the s p o l i a opima). 8 .11 . n\j9t© xpvaovv Kpaxfïpa àno A,t,xpSv *** etç AeA,cpoC)ç à7toaxetA,at xapt oxfipt ov : During the f i n a l assault on V e i i (trad, date 396 B.C.) Camillus had promised a tenth of the s p o i l s to Pythian Apollo. For the f u l f i l l m e n t of t h i s vow, the Romans dedicated a golden bowl to Apollo at Delphi (Liv. 5 . 2 1 . 2 , 2 3 . 8 - 1 1 , 2 5 . 4 - 1 0 , 2 8 . 1 - 5 ; Val. Max. 5 . 6 . 8 ) . The use of %aptoxfiptov here indicates that the Romans were discharging a si m i l a r vow made during t h i s G a l l i c War. The person who had made t h i s i s unknown, but i t was probably not Marcellus since he had vowed a temple to Virtus and Honos during t h i s c o n f l i c t , and i f he had made another to Pythian Apollo, i t should have been reported alongside with t h i s one i n the ancient sources (Liv. 2 7 . 2 5 . 7 , 2 9 . 1 1 . 1 3 ; Val. Max. 1 .1 .8 ) . 8 .11 . xfflv Àacpùpoùv xatç xe ot)|a|aaxtat laexaSoOvat 7côA,eot A,a|a7tpc5ç: In t h i s G a l l i c War, alongside Rome's older a l l i e s , the Cenomani, the Veneti, and the Anares, recent a l l i e s of Rome i n the Po region (Polyb. 2 . 2 3 . 2 , 3 2 . 2 ) , may have been r e c i p i e n t s of t h i s booty. 8 .11 . Tipôç 'lépoùva noXXà né\i\\iat xôv SupaKOotwv paotA-éa, cptÀov ovxa Kat ounnaxov: Hiero II (RE 8.2 [1913], no. 13: 1503-1511) , king of Syracuse from 270-215 B.C., had been a f a i t h f u l a l l y of Rome since 263 B.C. af t e r i n i t i a l l y opposing her i n the early stages of the F i r s t Punic War. From Plutarch's notice here i t must be assumed that Hiero had helped the Romans i n t h i s war. Livy (22.37.1-8) reports that, af t e r the Roman defeat at Lake Trasimene i n 217 B.C., Hiero, of h i s own accord, sent to the Romans not only a gold statue of Victory weighing 200 pounds but also 300,000 measures of wheat, 200,000 of barley, and a contingent of bowmen and slingers numbering 1,000. Hiero may have supplied Rome with s i m i l a r material during t h i s war. CHAPTER NINE 9. In t h i s chapter Plutarch introduces us to the Second Punic War, which w i l l continue to be the arena of action f o r Marcellus for the remainder of t h i s l i f e . 9.1. 'Avvtpot) S' êppaÀÔvToç etç 'ixaA-tav: Hannibal crossed the Alps into I t a l y i n either late September or l a t e October of 218 B.C. (Polyb. 3.54.1; Liv. 21.35.6; Walbank Polybius 1: 390). 9.1. è7cép(p0r| pèv ô MàpKeÀÀoç ènt St KsXi av axôA,o v aycov : Marcellus was elected praetor (his second time) f o r 216 B.C. and assigned to S i c i l y (Liv. 22.35.6). This i s the f i r s t we hear of him since h i s consulship of 222 B.C. A l l of the ancient sources are s i l e n t about his a c t i v i t i e s during the s i x previous years. Although i t i s not recorded that he p a r t i c i p a t e d i n any of the major b a t t l e s of t h i s Punic War which had occurred up to t h i s point, Livy's remark that a l l of the magistrates elected f o r 216 B.C. were absent from Rome suggests that Marcellus was serving i n some o f f i c i a l capacity (22.35.7: Omnes absentes c r e a t i sunt). Marcellus' absence from the h i s t o r i c a l record from 222-216 B.C. suggests that a f t e r his consulship he receded into the background of p o l i t i c a l l i f e . What may have caused t h i s i s unknown. Having gained the consulship, and having won the rare honor of the spolia opima, he may have decided to r e s t on h i s l a u r e l s and not to take a leading r o l e i n subsequent p o l i t i c a l struggles. However, the misfortunes of Rome i n the early years of the Second Punic War created a need for him since Rome required experienced men (cf. Liv. 22.35.7), and he was thrust back into the forefront. 9.2. ènei S' f] nepi Kdvvaç dxuxta ouvéjceoe: According to ancient t r a d i t i o n the bat t l e took place on 2 August 216 B.C. (Aul. Gel. 5.17.5; Macrob. 1.16.26). However, the Roman calendar at that time was ahead of the solar year, and with an adjustment made for t h i s , the date of the b a t t l e would be put 2 back into June or July (De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 130). 9.2. 'Pwjaatcov OVK oXiyat jauptdSeç. . . StecpGdprjoav: Plutarch i n his Fabius Maximus records that 50,000 Romans perished i n t h i s b a t t l e , while at least 14,000 were captured either during the f i g h t i n g or shortly thereafter (16.9: Àéyovxat Sè j c e o e t v |ièv èv x r i l^axu 'Pojiaatcov T c e v x a K t o|at)pt o t , C^vxeç S' àx&vat x s x p a K t oxt Xt o t , K t t t [iexd xf)v nd%r|v o t ÀrjcpGévxeç èn " à | a c p o x é p o t ç xotç o x p a x o T c é S o t ç |at)ptcDV OVK àxâxTovQ; see De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 126-130 f o r discussion on figures and Walbank Polybius 1: 439-441 f o r discussion and bibliography). 9.2. oXiyot sè oooGévxeç e t ç Kavuotov ouveTiscpsùyeoav: According to Livy's text (22.50.4-12, 52.4) i t appears that up to 4,000 infantry and 200 cavalry escaped during the night from the two Roman camps (of which 600 were from the smaller camp) and made t h e i r way to Canusium. Later the consul Varro transferred the forces which had c o l l e c t e d at Venusia, about 4,500 men, to Canusium and i n a l e t t e r sent to the Roman senate reported that he had about 10,000 men (Liv. 22.54.6, 49.14, 54.1, 56.1-2). In Appian's account (Hann. 26.113) about 10,000 men from the larger camp made t h e i r way to Canusium, and Livy i n at le a s t one place appears to accept t h i s figure (22.54.4; c f . L i v . 60.19-20, V a l . Max. 4.8.2). Although t h i s has caused some scholars to postulate that there were 14,500 men at Canusium, the figu r e reported by Appian may have been the the r e s u l t of confusion over the t o t a l number of those who eventually made t h e i r way to t h i s town (see Cornelius Kilo, supp. 26 [1932], 51-63 and Hallward CAH 8: 55 who accept the lower figure and De Sanctis SR 3^.2: 128-129, Klotz Philologus 88 [1933]: 62, n. 43, and Walbank Polybius 1: 440 who accept the higher). Canusium, an important town i n ancient Apulia, i s located on the r i g h t bank of the Aufidus r i v e r (mod. Ofanto) approximately 24 kilometers from i t s mouth. I t came under Roman control i n 318 B.C. (Liv. 9.20.4) and remained l o y a l to Rome during the Second Punic War (Liv. 27.12.8: see PECS 192-193). 9.2. rjv 8è TcpooSoKta. . . ÈTCt x f i v 'Pojpriv èXâv: According to Livy (22.55.1-2) the senate was summoned to discuss the security of the c i t y because of t h i s expectation that Hannibal would march on Rome. There i s an anecdote (Fab. Max. n .1-2; L i v . 22.51.1-4) that Hannibal was urged to march immediately upon the c i t y . When he hesitated, he was t o l d that he knew how to gain a v i c t o r y , but did not know how to use i t (Fab. Max. 17.2: ^aù v t K â v otSaç, v t K r i Sè xpfjoBat, OVK otSaç'; L i v . 22.51.4: ^Non omnia nimirum eidem d i dedere. Vincere sois, Hannibal; v i c t o r i a u t i n e s c i s ' ) . This delay was thought by the ancients to have been Rome's salvation (Liv. 22.51.4: Mora eius d i e i s a t i s creditur s a l u t i fuisse urbi atque imperio). But Hannibal was well aware that an attack on Rome would be f u t i l e without the necessary siege equipment and hazardous while the L a t i n a l l i e s remained l o y a l to Rome. 9.3. TtpSxov \XGV 6 MàpKe9v-A,oç. . . Se^à|aevoç: Marcellus was s t i l l at Ostia preparing a naval expedition to S i c i l y when the news of the d i s a s t e r at Cannae reached Rome, In Livy's version of events, the decree of the senate (22,57.1: censuere patres> M. Claudium, qui c l a s s i ad Ostiam s t a n t i praeesset, Canusium ad exercitum mittendum scribendumque consuli ut, cum p r a e t o r i exercitum t r a d i d i s s e t . . . ) preceded Marcellus' dispatch of troops to Rome (Liv. 22.57.7: M. Claudius Marcellus ab Ostia m i l l e et quingentos m i l i t e s quos i n classem scriptos habebat Romam, ut urbi praesidio essent, m i t t i t ) . 9.3. etc Kavuotov n:apfjA-9e: Marcellus had sent on ahead to Teanum Sidicinum the legion with i t s m i l i t a r y tribunes which had been assigned to his naval expedition, and a few days l a t e r , a f t e r turning over the naval command to h i s colleague P. Furius Philo, he hurried to Canusium by forced marches (Liv. 22.57.8: ipse legione c l a s s i c a — e a legio t e r t i a erat—cum t r i b u n i s militum Teanum Sidicinum praemissa, classe t r a d i t a P. Furio Philo collegae paucos post dies Canusium magnis i t i n e r i b u s contendit; Livy i n t h i s passage c a l l s the naval legion the ^Third, ' but at 22.53.2 the ^Third Legion' was one of those which had fought at Cannae. While Brunt [Italian Manpower 648] does not consider the numbering credible, Foster [trans., Livy 5 {Loeb}: 387, n. 2] suggests that either the naval legions were numbered separately or, more probably, the legions had now been renumbered; c f . Klotz Philologus 88 [1933]: 65; see RE 12.1 [1924], "Legio," no. 1: 1204-1205 concerning the numbering of legions). According to Appian, Marcellus, having gathered a force of up to 10,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry composed of c i t i z e n s , a l l i e s , and manumitted slaves, marched to Teanum where he watched to see what Hannibal would do next (Hann. 27: avTOÇ Sè TOVQ ôovXovQ aycov Kat ooouç aXXovQ êSùvaxo TWV 7coA-tx©v r\ auppà%(ûv, yevopévouç anavxaç sç puptouç jteCoùç Kat StoxtA-touç tTCTiéaç, âç xô Teavôv napf(kQe Kat, o xt npd^etv ô 'Avvtjiaç péÀA-ot, TiapecpùXaaaev) . But Appian seems to have confused the a c t i v i t i e s of Marcellus with those of the d i c t a t o r M. lunius Pera. According to Livy (22.57.11, 23.14.2-4, 32.1) the armed force of 8,000 manumitted slaves composed part of Pera's army which was stationed at Teanum. The accounts of Plutarch and Livy are preferable to Appian's, since at t h i s time of c r i s i s there would have been i n s u f f i c i e n t time to r a i s e and properly t r a i n a force of manumitted slaves; i t would have been imprudent to send such an unreliable force with Marcellus as front l i n e troops, when other forces, although meager, were a v a i l a b l e (see Brunt Italian Manpower 648-651 concerning d i s p o s i t i o n of forces a f t e r Cannae). 9.3. xoùç sKet ouvetA^eynsvoTjç TcapaA^apàv: In a dispatch to the senate C. Terentius Varro, the surviving consul, reported that he had up to 10,000 men at Canusium (Liv. 22.56.1-2; see Chapter 9.2. ÔÀtyot...)• 9.3. êÇfiyaye xSv êpunàxwv. . . xf|v x^^pav : Upon taking over the Roman forces at Canusium, Marcellus must have pu l l e d them back at the f i r s t opportune moment to Casilinum, where envoys from Nola found him with his army (Liv. 23.14.10). At t h i s time Marcellus' naval legion may have been transferred to the consul C. Terentius Varro (Liv. 23.22.11; c f . Brunt Italian Manpower 649; Livy [23.38.9] records that i n 214 B.C. Varro's forces were assigned to M. Valerius Laevinus who was now i n command of a f l e e t of 50 ships. This i s reasonable, i f Varro's forces were, i n fact, s o l d i e r s trained to be marines; see Chapter 12.4. StaSoùç. . . for further speculation on t h i s naval legion). Plutarch's statement ©ç où Tuporioônevoç xrjv xwpav i s an exaggeration, since Marcellus would have been i n no p o s i t i o n to assert control over the surrounding t e r r i t o r y with the troops at his disposal. Even i n his subsequent march to Nola, he avoided the Campanian p l a i n i n which Hannibal's forces were operating and took a c i r c u i t o u s route through the f o o t h i l l s to the east (Liv. 23.14.13). Plutarch here i s t r y i n g to emphasize the daring and vigorous nature of Marcellus' personality and strategy as an introduction to the comparison between Marcellus and Fabius Maximus that follows. 9.4-7. Plutarch i n his Fabius Maximus (19.1-6) has a s i m i l a r comparison between the per s o n a l i t i e s and strategies of Marcellus and Fabius Maximus. I t had been thought that they were p o l i t i c a l r i v a l s (Munzer RE 3.2 [1899]: 2740), but the general view now, based largely on the r e s u l t s of the e l e c t o r a l proceedings of 215 and 214 B.C., i s that they were p o l i t i c a l a l l i e s (see Chapters 12.2. èpcpavSç. . . and 13.1. "O 8è MàpKeA-A,oç. . . f or the interpretation of the r e s u l t s of these e l e c t i o n s ) . Although doubts are s t i l l r a i s e d concerning t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p (for example, Eckstein [SG 157, n. 3] believes that there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t information available to enable one to determine who Marcellus' friends were), the conjecture that they were p o l i t i c a l partners i s s t i l l tenable (see Chapters 10.9. xaOxa. . . , 24.2, 25.3. Z\Jv9épevoç. . . , and 28.2. f o r further indic a t i o n s of Marcellus' and Fabius' r e l a t i o n s h i p ) . 9.4. xc5v riyepovtKôùv Kat SuvaxSv àv5p©v: Aside from C. Flaminius (cos. 223, 217, pr. 227), who was k i l l e d at Lake Trasimene i n 217 B.C., most of the Romans referred to here would have perished at Cannae i n 216 B.C. Along with the consul L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 219, 216), two quaestors of 216 B.C. and 29 m i l i t a r y tribunes perished, some being of consular, praetorian, and a e d i l i c i a n rank, among whom were Cn. S e r v i l i u s Geminus (cos. 217) and M. Minucius Rufus (cos. 221, mag. eq. 217, d i e t . 217?); i n addition, 80 men either of se n a t o r i a l rank or e l i g i b l e to enter that order having held a q u a l i f y i n g magistracy, who had volunteered to serve as s o l d i e r s i n the ranks, had also died (Liv. 22.49.15-17, 56.2). 9.4. $a|itov) Sè Ma<^ t|Jou: This i s Q. Fabius Maximus Verrucosus (RE 6.2 [1909], no. 116: 1814-1830), nicknamed Cunctator, ^The Delayer.' Plutarch wrote a separate l i f e on him, composed a f t e r t h i s l i f e of Marcellus (Fab. Max. 19.2: (ùonep sv xotç Tcspt auxoO [sc. MapKsA.A,oTj] ysypajinévotç etprjxat ; 22.8). 9.6. x ô 0appaA,éov aôxoO Kat Spaoxfiptov: In h i s Fabius Maximus Plutarch mentions that he had discussed these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Marcellus' personality (19.2: ô |j.èv yàp, © o j u s p sv xotç Jtspt aùxoO ysypaniasvot ç si'prjxat, nspt Xa\JinèQ x ô Spaaxf)pt ov sx©v Kat yaOpov, axe Sf) Kat Kaxà %etpa nXf]KTr\Q àvrjp Kat (puoet xotoOxoç ô3v otouç "O|ar|poç jadA^toxa KaA-et cpt A,07toA,énouç Kat àysptt)%ot)ç, sv x© napa^6X(ù Kat txan© Kat n p ô ç avSpa xoÀ|ir|pôv x ô v 'Avvt^av àvxt To?i-n©vxt [xS] xpÔTc© noXà\iov ouvtoxaxo x o ù ç J t p c ù x o u ç àyôvaç; compare with Marcellus 1.2). 9.6. Tcoxè [iGV àji(pox6pot)ç ttjaa xetpoxovoOvxeç ÙTcdxouç: This occurred i n 214 B.C. (see Broughton MRR 1: 258-259). 9.6. TToxè S ' sv liÉpet, xôv nèv ÙTraxov xôv S ' àvSÙTtaxov è^ S T t s i a n o v: This occurred i n 215 and 209 B.C. when Marcellus was proconsul and Fabius Maximus consul (see Broughton MRR 1: 254-255 and 285-287). 9.7. Ô Se noaet8a)vtôç (pr|at xov |aèv <I>àptov Gupeôv KaXsta9at, xôv Sè MdpKEÀÀov J^tcpoç: This characterization i s repeated i n Plutarch's Fabius Maximus (19.4: Stô xoOxov [sc. ^ d^tov] pèv ô Ilooet Scùvt ôç (p r iâ t Gupeôv, xôv Sè MdpKeA-?iov <^t(poç vno XCDV " Pompât COV KaA.et oGat, Ktpvapévr|v Sè xriv <I>aptot) pepatôxrixa Kat àa(pd?istav xfj MapKéÀA,ou o u v x o v t g aoùxriptov yevéoGat xotç 'Pcopatotç) , and i t appears to have been a well-known metaphor (e.g., F l o r . 1.22.27: Hinc i l l i cognomen novum et r e i publicae salutare Cunctator; hinc i l l u d ex populo, ut imperii scutum vocaretur). The c i t a t i o n o f Posidonius here appears to be a n i n s e r t i o n by Plutarch of one of h i s many gleanings gathered from h i s research (Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 292; see Introduction, pp. 21-25, concerning Plutarch's use of Posidonius). 9.7. aôxôç S' ô 'Avvtpaç sA^sye. . . : Plutarch i n h i s Fabius Maximus has a variant of t h i s supposed saying which has been altered to a description of the a f f e c t Marcellus and Fabius had o n Hannibal (19.5: ô S' 'AvvtPaç xS pèv ©ç péovxt acpôSpa Jtoxap© noXXaKtQ d T c a v x û v , è o s t e x o Kat T c a p e p p r i y v ù e x o x r i v Suvaptv, vcp' ov S' dn/o(pr|xt Kttt Kttxd ptKpôv ÙTtoppéovxoç Kat jcapepict nxovxoç èvSe?iex©ç ÔTcepet nôpevoç Kat SanavSpevoç èA,dvGave, Kat xeÀeuxwv etç ànoptav Kaxéoxri xoaauxriv, ©axe MapKéA,A,(û pèv djcoKapetv pa^ôpevov, $dptov Sè (popetaGat pf] pa%ôpevov) . CHAPTER TEN 10.1. Livy does not report any such a c t i v i t i e s on the part of eit h e r Hannibal's s o l d i e r s or Marcellus. According to him (23.1.1-10.13, 14.5-10) Hannibal was engaged i n winning over the c i t i e s of Campania, while Marcellus was stationed at Casilinum. This report i s to be preferred to that of Plutarch, who i s at pains to emphasize the daring and vigorous nature of Marcellus' personality and strategy (see, for example. Chapter 9.3. â^fiyaye. . . concerning t h i s emphasis of Plutarch) . 10.2. NsanoXixaQ nèv ènâppcùoev: Livy makes no mention of Marcellus helping Neapolis, but l a t e r he reports that the Neapolitans themselves had summoned M. Junius Silanus to t h e i r aid (23.15.2: ceterum postquam Neapolim a praefecto Romano ten e r i accepit [sc. Hannibal]—M. Junius Silanus erat, ab i p s i s Neapolitanis a c c i t u s — N e a p o l i quoque, s i c u t Nola, omissa p e t i t Nuceriam). I t i s possible that Silanus was sent to Neapolis by Marcellus at the request of the Neapolitans at the time of h i s advance to Nola. But whether or not t h i s i s true, Plutarch's statement here was probably derived from a source other than Livy. 10.2. etc Sè N©A,av etoeÀGàv oxàotv eupe...: According to Livy (23.14.5-13) Hannibal moved into Nolan t e r r i t o r y , but refrained from attacking the c i t y , since he s t i l l had hopes that i t would be surrendered to him v o l u n t a r i l y . Meanwhile the Nolan senate sent envoys to Marcellus, who was at Casilinum with h i s army, to inform him that they were making a pretense of favoring Hannibal i n order to slow down the commons' defection to him and that the c i t y needed help. Marcellus instructed the Nolan senate to maintain the pretense. He then set o f f from Casilinum f o r Nola. He took a ci r c u i t o u s route to reach Nola, staying i n the h i l l - c o u n t r y east of the Campanian p l a i n , presumably to avoid Hannibal's army (Liv. 23.14.13: Ipse a C a s i l i n o Caiatiam p e t i t atque inde Volturno amni t r a i e c t o per agrum Saticulanum Trebianumque super Suessulam per montes Nolam pervenit). Livy (23.15.1) reports that on Marcellus' a r r i v a l Hannibal withdrew from the Nolan countryside and headed f o r Neapolis. In his account Hannibal had made two e a r l i e r unsuccessful attempts to seize t h i s town, because he wanted to obtain a sea-port as a base f o r ships a r r i v i n g from A f r i c a (23.1.5: oppugnaturus Neapolim, ut urbem maritimam haberet; 15.1: cupidus maritimi oppidi potiundi, quo cursus navibus tutus ex A f r i c a esset). His f i r s t attempt was soon a f t e r the b a t t l e of Cannae, but the defenses of the c i t y deterred him from assaulting i t (Liv. 23.1.5-10). The second attempt was a f t e r h i s taking of Capua and r i g h t before h i s advance into Nolan t e r r i t o r y (Liv. 23.14.5). On h i s t h i r d attempt he was deterred by finding the c i t y defended by the Roman prefect M. Junius Silanus. So he bypassed i t and headed for Nuceria (Liv. 23.15.1-2; Silanus must have arri v e d while Hannibal was before the walls of Nola, probably sent there by Marcellus; see Chapter 10.2. NeaTcoA-t xaç. . . ) . 10.3-11.1. This episode about Lucius Bantius i s also r e l a t e d by Livy (23.15.7-16.1), Frontinus (Str. 3.16.1), and Dio Cassius ( f r . 57.32). Plutarch's version most c l o s e l y resembles Livy's, 2 and De Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 370) believes that the differences can be a t t r i b u t e d to Plutarch's freedom i n adapting Livy. However, Plutarch may have gotten the incident from elsewhere. In h i s Fabius Maximus (20.2-3) he describes a s i m i l a r episode involving Fabius' favorable treatment of a Marsian s o l d i e r which i s not found i n Livy, but i s found i n the De v i r i s i l l u s t r i b u s . I f the De v i r i s i l l u s t r i b u s was derived from Cornelius Nepos, as has been proposed (see Introduction, p. 29, n. 125), then i t i s possible that Plutarch derived both incidents from Nepos and not Livy (see Introduction, pp. 26-29, concerning Plutarch's use of Nepos). 10.3. Livy says, Erat iuvenis acer et sociorum ea tempestate prope nobilissimus eques (23.15.8). 10.4. Livy says, Seminecem eum ad Cannas in acervo caesorum corporum inventum curatumque bénigne, etiam cum donis Hannibal domum remiserat (23.15.8). 10.5. a|jetpôpevoç oSv xauxriv xriv x«P^v. . . 7tpo9u|a(ùç: Livy says, Ob eius gratiam mer i t i rem Nolanam in ius dicionemque dare voluerat Poena (23.15.9). 10.5. TÔV Sfjiiov ta^ucav è^r]yaye T t p ô ç dtTcôoTaotv: Livy says, quem conscientia temptatae defectionis...stimulabat (23.15.7). What t h i s action may have entailed i s not s p e c i f i e d by our sources, but i t probably involved secret negotiations with Hannibal, and i t may have been due to these that the Nolan senate sent envoys to Marcellus for help (see Chapter 10.2. SIQ 3è NcûA^ av. . . ) • 10.6. ô 8è MàpKeA,A.oç. . . où% oatov r j y e t T o : Livy says, Ceterum cum aut poena cohibendus esset aut bénéficie conciliandus, s i b i adsumpsisse quam hosti ademisse fortem ac strenuum maluit socium (23.15.10). 10.6. npoQ Sè T © cpCoei, cptTk^ avSpwTicp: Plutarch i s emphasizing here one of the main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Marcellus, which he outlined at Marcellus 1.3. 10.6. 7uv9avôç 0 V ôptA,tg [Kat] 7tpooàyeo9at cptÀÔTtpov ri9oç: I f these t r a i t s were not mentioned i n his source, Plutarch may have deduced them from the way the episode was presented i n that source. 10.6. à o T t a o à p e v ô v TCOTS. . . : This i s the f i r s t important deviation on Plutarch's part from the way the episode i s presented by Livy (23.15.10: accitumque ad se bénigne a p p e l l a t ) . 10.7-8. The dialogue which takes place here i s remarkably d i f f e r e n t from that given by Livy, e s p e c i a l l y the remark on Bantius' defense of Aemilius Paullus at the b a t t l e of Cannae, which i s lacking i n Livy. Livy has: multos eum invidos i n t e r populares habere inde existimatu f a c i l e esse quod nemo c i v i s Nolanus s i b i i n d i c a v e r i t quam multa eius egregia facinora m i l i t a r i a essent; sed qui i n Romanis m i l i t a v e r i t c a s t r i s , non posse obscuram eius virtutem esse, multos s i b i qui cum eo stipendia f e c e r i n t , r e f e r r e qui v i r esset i l l e quaeque et quotiens pe r i c u l a pro salute ac d i g n i t a t e populi Romani adisset, utique Cannensi p r o e l i o non prius pugna a b s t i t e r i t quam prope exsanguis ruina superincidentium virorum equorum armorumque s i t oppressus. ^Itaque macte v i r t u t e esto' i n q u i t . ^Apud me t i b i omnis honos atque omne praemium e r i t et, quo frequentior mecum f u e r i s , senties eam rem t i b i d i g n i t a t i atque emolumento esse' (23.15.11-14). The d e t a i l given by Plutarch of Bantius defending Aemilius (10.7: a>ç nôvou IlaOÀov At|itA,tov. . . Kat àvaSe<^a)aévot)) i s more v i v i d than Livy's g e n e r a l i t i e s about Bantius' e x p l o i t s . Plutarch's departure from Livy here ( i f , indeed, Livy i s h i s source) may be a product of his own imagination as De Sanctis 2 {SR 3 .2: 370) believes, but i t i s s t i l l possible that he had found t h i s variant elsewhere (see Chapter 10.3-11.1.). 10.9. xaOxa cptAocppovriGetc. . . : With t h i s statement Plutarch comes back into agreement with Livy (23.15.15: Laetoque iuveni promissis equum eximium dono dat bigatosque quingentos quaestorem numerare iubet; the Ôpaxfiàç àpyuptot) are the bigatos i n L i v y ) . Livy adds that Bantius was given permission to approach Marcellus whenever he desired, a p r i v i l e g e not mentioned by Plutarch (Liv. 23.15.15: l i c t o r i b u s imperat ut eum se adiré quotiens v e l i t patiantur). Marcellus' p o l i c y of tr e a t i n g a l l i e s l e n i e n t l y when i t was possible to win over t h e i r l o y a l t y to Rome was one also followed by Fabius Maximus (Fab. Max. 20.1; see Dio f r . 57.31 and Plutarch Fab. Max. 20.4 concerning Marcellus' and Fabius' treatment of the men under t h e i r commands). Plutarch ascribes to Fabius a very si m i l a r incident (Fab. Max. 20.2-3: Xeyexat yàp oxt oTpaxt cuxriv avSpa Mapaov, àvSpetg Kat yévet TÔÛV ouppà^wv TcpSxov, atoGôpevoç St e t A,eypévov xtot xâv èv oxpaxoTiéS© jcept àTtoaxdaewç ov Str|pé9taev, àXX' ôpoA,oyriaaç r]\ieXr]o9at nap' à^iav aùxôv, vOv pèv ë<pri xoùç fiyepôvaç atxtâoBat Tipôç xdptv \iQ,XXov r\ Tcpoç àpexriv xàç xtpàç vépovxaç, uoxepov S' èKetvov atxtàoeoBat pr| cppà^ovxa pr|S' èvxt)y%àvovxa npôç aùxôv et xou Séotxo. Kat xaOx' e tT icùv tTinov xe 7toA,ept axriv èSwprioaxo Kat xotç aÀÀotç àptoxetotç èKÔoprioev, cSoxe ntaxôxaxov eKetvou Kat 7cpo9t)pôxaxov etvat xôv avSpa; t h i s incident i s also found i n Frontinus Str. 4.7.36 and De viris illustribus 43.5). Not s u r p r i s i n g l y t h i s s i m i l a r i t y i n p o l i c y led to confusion i n our sources over who was responsible for the treatment i n the various episodes of t h i s type. For example, Valerius Maximus (7.3.7) l i n k s Fabius, not Marcellus, to the episode concerning Bantius. Also, while Dio Cassius ( f r . 57.33) names Marcellus i n an episode concerning the favorable treatment of a Lucanian s o l d i e r , Plutarch (Fab. Max. 20.5-9), the De viris illustribus (43.5), Valerius Maximus (7.3.7), and Frontinus (Str. 4.7.36) assign i t to Fabius. The s i m i l a r i t y between Marcellus and Fabius i n t h e i r treatment of Roman a l l i e s suggests that they may have been p o l i t i c a l associates (see Chapter 9.4-7.)• CHAPTER ELEVEN 11.1. °EK TOÙTOU pepatoxaxoc...: Livy reports a s i m i l a r assessment of Bantius (23.16.1: Hac comitate M a r c e l l i f e r o c i s iuvenis animus adeo est mollitus ut nemo inde sociorum rem Romanam f o r t i u s ac f i d e l i u s i u v e r i t ) , but he does not portray him as the most feared (Setvôxaxoç) informer and accuser of the conspirators, as Plutarch does. This further p i c t u r e of Bantius by Plutarch f i t s i n well not only with the disclosure of a p l o t to Marcellus before the f i r s t b a t t l e at Nola (Marc. 11.2-3; L i v . 23.16.5-7), but also with the subsequent events there when Marcellus rounded up and executed over 70 conspirators (Plutarch leaves out t h i s incident, which Livy reports at 23.17.1-3). However, i t i s probably not a conjecture by Plutarch deduced from Livy ( i f Livy was his main source) , but a portrayal he found elsewhere (see Chapter 10.3-11.1 concerning possible sources use by Plutarch for the Bantius episode). 11.2. r\oa\? Sè noXXoi : Livy reports that over 70 conspirators were executed by Marcellus af t e r the f i r s t b a t t l e at Nola (23.17.2: Supra septuaginta damnatos p r o d i t i o n i s securi p e r c u s s i t ; see Chapter 12. concerning why Plutarch omits mention of these executions). 11.2. StevooOvxo XCÙV 'Pû)|aatû)v. . . : Plutarch's portrayal of the conspiracy i s much abbreviated. According to Livy (23.16.5-6) the leading men of Nola informed Marcellus that the commons were holding nocturnal conferences with Hannibal, and not only was i t planned to plunder the Roman baggage, but also to receive Hannibal himself into the c i t y . Livy (23.16.2-5) reports that before t h i s revelation Marcellus had withdrawn into the c i t y on Hannibal's approach, not out of fear, but to prevent any betrayal of the c i t y to the enemy. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n both sides formed up d a i l y f o r battle, the Romans before the walls of Nola and Hannibal i n front of his camp, but a general engagement was avoided and only l i g h t skirmishes took place. 11.3. Sto oTJVxd^aç. . . xrjv Suvaptv ê v x ô ç : Unlike Plutarch, Livy (23.16.8) gives a detailed description of the d i s p o s i t i o n of the Roman forces. The army was divided into three d i v i s i o n s , one for each of the three gates which faced the enemy. The main body, consisting of the Roman legions and the Roman cavalry, was stationed behind the central gate; the r e c r u i t s , l i g h t infantry, and a l l i e d cavalry were posted behind the two flanking gates; while the camp followers, s o l d i e r s ' servants, and u n f i t s o l d i e r s were appointed to defend the ramparts. Marcellus' forces at t h i s time probably consisted of only the survivors of the Cannae army, since i t i s l i k e l y that h i s naval legion, which he had sent e a r l i e r to Teanum Sidicinum from Ostia, had now been either transferred to the consul C. Terentius Varro or returned to i t s ships (cf. Brunt I t a l i a n Manpower 649, Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy 2: 527-528; see Chapters 9.3. Kavuatov. . . and 9.3. è^fiyays. . . ; see, also. Chapter 9.2. oA - tyo t . . . concerning numbers) . 11.3. Tcapà x à ç TEÙÀaç ë o x r i a e x à o K e u o c p ô p a : Livy reports a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t arrangement for the baggage (23.16.8: impedimenta subsequi i u s s i t [se. Marcellus]; 16.9: subsidiaque destinata impedimentis data, ne occupatis p r o e l i o legionibus i n ea impetus f i e r e t ) . 11.4. rjv OUV oTiÀœv ë p r | | a a . . . : According to Livy, when Hannibal saw the absence of Roman troops, he supposed that his conferences with the conspirators had been betrayed, but believed that i f he pressed the attack, the commons would bring about an uprising. For t h i s assault he sent part of his s o l d i e r s back to camp i n order to bring up into the front l i n e the necessary equipment for attacking the c i t y (23.16.10-11). This a c t i v i t y explains Plutarch's comment that Hannibal advanced i n a somewhat disorderly manner ( T t p o o d y e t v à x a K x ô x e p o v ; Livy has in sua quisque ministeria discursu trépidât ad prima signa [23.16.12]). 11.5. xôDv tTtTcoxcùv xoùç A,a|a7tpoxàxouç : Plutarch makes no mention of the Roman infantry stationed at t h i s gate and portrays Marcellus as at f i r s t rushing out to the attack with only the cavalry. Livy reports that Marcellus ordered f i r s t the infantry, then the cavalry to charge from t h i s gate (23.16.12: patefacta repente porta Marcellus signa canere clamoremque t o l l i ac pedites primum, deinde équités, quanto maximo possent impetu i n hostem erumpere iubet). 11.6. laex' oXiyov S° ot Tce^ot. . . : Plutarch makes the two d i v i s i o n s of the Roman army, positioned at the flanking gates, attack i n succession, while Livy makes them attack simultaneously. Livy, also, names the commanders of these two d i v i s i o n s , P. Valerius Flaccus and C. Aurelius (23.16.13: S a t i s t e r r o r i s tumultusque i n aciem mediam intulerant, cum duabus c i r c a p o r t i s P. Valerius Flaccus et C. Aurelius l e g a t i i n cornua hostium erupere; see Broughton MRR 1: 251 concerning legates). Livy (23.16.14) adds that the shouting of the camp followers, the s o l d i e r s ' servants, and those d e t a i l e d to guard the baggage created the appearance of a large army to Hannibal's men who were contemptuous of the smallness of the Roman forces (cf. Frontin. Str. 2.4.8). Two ancient sources give s l i g h t a d d i t i o n a l d e t a i l s about the b a t t l e which are not found i n the accounts of Plutarch, Livy, and Frontinus. Ampelius says, Marcellus qui primus Hannibali aput Nolam restitit et inclinata<m> eius aciem penitus trucidavit (46.6), while the De viris illustribus says, Hannibalem apud Nolam locorum angustia adiutus vincl docuit (45.4; what angustia adiutus refers to i s unclear). But more important than these d e t a i l s i s that both authors report that Marcellus taught h i s forces how to withdraw from b a t t l e i n an orderly fashion (Amp. 18.10: Claudius Marcellus qui Hannibalem primus i n Campania pr o e l i o v i c i t ; idemque docuit i n b e l l o quomodo équités sine fuga cédèrent; De vir. i l l . 45.3: Primus docuit, quomodo m i l i t e s cédèrent nec terga praeberent). The close proximity of these remarks to notices on the b a t t l e at Nola suggest that Marcellus instructed h i s forces i n t h i s maneuver before t h i s b a t t l e . Although we hear no more about t h i s t a c t i c , i t may have been the reason why Marcellus was able to engage Hannibal on numerous occasions throughout t h i s war without a serious defeat. After Cannae the Romans avoided a l l - o u t set-piece battles with Hannibal, p r e f e r r i n g instead to wear him out with smaller actions. This new strategy would on occasion produce indecisive engagments, and being able to withdraw from these i n an orderly manner would be v i t a l , since Hannibal's possession of a superior cavalry force would have enabled him to annihilate an opponent who did not do so. The Romans with t h e i r new strategy could not hope to confront Hannibal successfully without such a c a p a b i l i t y (see Chapter 12.4. ÔtaSoùç... for the p o s s i b i l i t y of another t a c t i c a l innovation by Marcellus. Vegetius' Epitoma rei militaris appears to contain traces of s t i l l a t h i r d [1.15: et Claudius pluribus iaculatoribus i n s t i t u t i s atque perdoctis hostem, c u i prius inpar fuerat, superavit]). 11.7. KavxaOSa TrpSxov ot oùv 'Avvt^a "Pwnatotç êvéSoùKttv: Besides Plutarch several other ancient writers report Marcellus' v i c t o r y over Hannibal's forces at Nola (Cic. Brut. 12; L i v . 23.16.15-16; Val. Max. 1.6.9; Flor . 1.22.29; Ampel. 18.10, 46.6; Oros. 4.16.12; De vir. i l l . 45.4; Zon. 9.2.12; possibly V e r g i l Aen. 6.857-858 and De viris illustribus 42.6 also r e f e r to t h i s event; see Chapter 11.8. KXéoQ ôè... concerning the importance of t h i s b a t t l e ) . In the Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli (1.7) Plutarch reports Polybius' claim that Hannibal remained undefeated u n t i l he faced Scipio. This t r a d i t i o n i s also echoed by Cornelius Nepos (Hann, 5.4: quamdiu i n I t a l i a f u i t , nemo e i i n aci e r e s t i t i t , nemo adversus eum post Cannensem pugnam i n campo castra posuit). Plutarch, however, follows the t r a d i t i o n that Hannibal's forces suffered some losses and reverses at the hands of Marcellus, although he admits that Marcellus was never able to i n f l i c t a decisive defeat on Hannibal (Comp. Pel. et Marc. I. 8-9: fipetç Sè Atjitcp <Kat> Kaiaapt Kat Nenwct Kat XCÙV 'EÀ?ir ivtKwv 'lôpg xS paotÀet ntoxeuopev îixxaç xtvàç Kat xpojcàç vno MapKeÀXot) xôv oùv ' Avvt Pg yevéoBat • peyà?i-riv S ' aùxat poT i r i v oùSeptav è T T O t r i a a v , àXX' èotKe v|/euSô<7rx(ù>pà xt yevéoGat icept xôv At^uv èv xatç o\jp7iA,OKatç èKetvatç) . Modem assessments of t h i s b a t t l e maintain that the d e t a i l s as reported i n the ancient sources are u n r e l i a b l e and the v i c t o r y of Marcellus was small. They concede as c e r t a i n nothing beyond Marcellus' success i n preventing the capture of Nola by Hannibal's forces (see Munzer RE 3.2 [1899]: 2740-2741, De 2 Sanctis SR 3 .2: 225, n. 47, and Lippold Consules 57-58, 169-170). II. 7. vnèp TcevxttKta%tA,tot)ç ànoGaveCv: Livy (23.16.15) gives the f i g u r e of 2,800 of the enemy k i l l e d , and he even hesitates to a f f i r m t h i s . The divergence between Plutarch's and Livy's figures has been used as an argument against Plutarch's use of Livy as the main source for t h i s b a t t l e (e.g., Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 301-302, Peter Die Quellen Plutarchs 77-78), but Plutarch's f i g u r e of 5,000 may be a confusion on h i s part with the number of enemy k i l l e d at the second b a t t l e at Nola (Marc. 12.5: v s K p o ù ç | i s v yevoijévouç Tce v x a K t o^t A,{ ouç ; L i v . 23.46.4: 2 Hostium plus quinque m i l i a caesa eo die; De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 368-369). The casualty figures given by the ancient sources f o r t h i s b a t t l e are, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , unreliable. 11.8. ô Sè Atptoç O U T © l a è v oô StapepatoOxat. . . : Plutarch's c i t a t i o n of Livy here, along with his own ren d i t i o n of Livy's assessment of the e f f e c t of t h i s b a t t l e makes i t obvious that Plutarch had read t h i s section of Livy (23.16.15-16: Vix equidem ausim adfirmare, quod quidam auctores sunt, duo m i l i a et octingentos hostium caesos non plus quingentis Romanorum amissis; sed, sive tanta sive minor v i c t o r i a f u i t , ingens eo die res ac nescio an maxima i l l o b e l l o gesta s i t ; non v i n c i enim ab Hannibale [vincentibus] d i f f i c i l i u s f u i t quam postea vincere). Although the idea that Livy was Plutarch's main source f o r t h i s b a t t l e has been denied (e.g., Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 301-302, Peter Die Quellen Plutarchs 77-78), the s i m i l a r i t y i n structure between the two narratives makes i t c l e a r that Plutarch was c e r t a i n l y f a m i l i a r with Livy. His de s c r i p t i o n of the b a t t l e , which he could have derived completely from Livy with no outside help, i s immediately followed by a version of the assessment of the b a t t l e that appears r i g h t a f t e r the de s c r i p t i o n of the ba t t l e i n Livy (cf. De Sanctis SR 3^.2: 368-369). 11.8. KXBOQ ôè néya MapKéA,A,co. . . : Although Marcellus' v i c t o r y at Nola was undoubtedly small, nevertheless, the ancient sources stressed i t s psychological importance (Liv. 23.16.15-16; Cic. Brut. 12: atque ut post Cannensem i l l a m calamitatem primum M a r c e l l i ad Nolam proelio populus se Romanus e r e x i t ; Gros. 4.16.12: primusque post tantas reipublicae ruinas spem f e c i t Hannibalem posse superari; De vir. i l l . 45.4: Hannibalem apud Nolam locorum angustia adiutus v i n c i docuit). That the v i c t o r y of Marcellus had r e a l psychological s i g n i f i c a n c e i s proven by h i s successes at the consular elections for 215 and 214 B.C. (see Chapters 12.1. aKaXst... et seqq. and 13.1. 'O Sè MàpKeA,A-oç. . . concerning consular elections) . CHAPTER TWELVE 12. After the narration of the b a t t l e at Nola i n chapter 11 Plutarch immediately proceeds to the consular e l e c t i o n held to replace one of the consul designates of 215 B.C., who had died before entering o f f i c e . In doing so Plutarch leaves out the subsequent actions of Marcellus at Nola, which are reported by Livy. In Livy's account, a f t e r the b a t t l e Hannibal moved o f f towards Acerrae, while Marcellus conducted an in v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o those who had held secret negotiations with the enemy. He executed over 70 conspirators and confiscated t h e i r property. Then he led h i s army to a camp positioned above Suessula (Liv. 23.17.1-3: Hannibal spe potiundae Nolae adempta cum Acerras recessisset, Marcellus extemplo c l a u s i s p o r t i s custodibusque d i s p o s i t i s ne quis egrederetur quaestionem i n foro de i i s qui clam i n conloquiis hostium fuerant habuit. Supra septuaginta damnatos p r o d i t i o n i s securi percussit bonaque eorum i u s s i t publica populi Romani esse et summa rerum senatui t r a d i t a cum exercitu omni profectus supra Suessulam c a s t r i s p o s i t i s consedit). Plutarch's c i t a t i o n of Livy at Marcellus 11.8 f o r h i s comments on the f i r s t b a t t l e at Nola makes i t highly probable that he was also f a m i l i a r with t h i s section of Livy's work. We have to conclude, therefore, that although he appears to have been hard pressed for information on Marcellus (cf. S c a r d i g l i Die Romerbiographien Plutarchs 38), he chose to exclude t h i s incident from h i s work because i t c o n f l i c t e d with h i s attempt to portray Marcellus as a humanitarian (Marc. 1.3: cpt A,àvGp(07coç) . Although he was too honest to deny the cruelty of some of Marcellus' actions, which he admits i n the Comparatio Pelopidae et Marcelli (1.3: MàpKSÀÀoç pèv èv TcoÀA-atç TcÔÀeatv Û7to%etptotç yevopévatç acpayàç ênotriaev) , he purposely l e f t out of the main body of the biography any description or mention of them i f he thought that i t was possible to do so without harm to hi s narrative. 12.1. Gaxépou TCùV UTcaxcov dKoGavôvxoç: L. Postumius Albinus and T i . Sempronius Gracchus had been elected consuls f o r 215 B.C. (see Broughton MRR 1: 253-254 for references) . But before they could enter o f f i c e , Postumius along with h i s army were ambushed and wiped out by the B o i i i n Cisalpine Gaul (Liv. 23.24.6-13; Zon. 9.3.3). 12.1. eKaXet MdpKeÀ,A.ov ô 8fipoç...: Marcellus wintered with h i s army i n camp above Suessula (216/5 B.C.; Liv. 23.17.3, 19.1-4). He was summoned to Rome near the end of winter to report to the senate (Liv. 23.24.1-2, 25.5), a f t e r which he was ordered to lead a new army into camp above Suessula, while the army already there was to be transported to S i c i l y (Liv. 23.31.3-6). According to Livy, when men saw that Marcellus, whom they greatly desired to el e c t as consul because of the outstanding way he had handled a f f a i r s as praetor, had been sent away, as i f on purpose, discontent sprang up i n the senate. The new consul of 215 B.C., T i . Sempronius, put o f f the elections u n t i l h i s return (23.31.7-9: T a c i t i primo expectaverant homines u t i consul comitia collegae creando haberet; deinde ubi ablegatum velut de i n d u s t r i a M. Marcellum viderunt, quem maxime consulem i n eum annum ob egregie i n praetura res gestas c r e a r i volebant, fremitus i n c u r i a ortus. Quod ubi sensit consul, ^utrumque' in q u i t ^e re publica f u i t , patres c o n s c r i p t i , et M. Claudium ad permutandos exercitus i n Campaniam p r o f i c i s c i et comitia non prius e d i c i quam i s inde confecto quod mandatum est negotio r e v e r t i s s e t , ut vos consulem, quem tempus r e i publicae postularet, quem maxime v o l t i s , haberetis.' Ita de c o m i t i i s donee r e d i i t Marcellus silentium f u i t ) . I f discontent arose i n the senate as Livy says (23.31.7: fremitus i n c u r i a ortus), i t c e r t a i n l y was not from the senatorial majority that would have been running a f f a i r s . What may have happened was that the sena t o r i a l majority appeared to many of the commons s u f f i c i e n t l y h o s t i l e towards Marcellus to inspire them to r i s e up i n h i s support, since they e s p e c i a l l y desired him as consul as the subsequent e l e c t i o n showed (Ware. 12.2; L i v . 23.31.13; Marcellus had enjoyed the support of the commons on an e a r l i e r occasion, at the time of h i s f i r s t consulship, when he won over the people to h i s side f o r the continuance of the G a l l i c War of 225-222 B.C; see Chapter 6.2. ô MàpKeÀÀoç. . . ) . As f o r Sempronius, h i s delaying of the consular e l e c t i o n u n t i l Marcellus' return indicates that he may have been on the side of the commons against the senatorial majority (cf. Cassola GPR 405). 12.2. nâaatQ fisv àTceSetxGr). . . TO orinetov: Livy's report concurs with Plutarch's account of the voting and of the augurs' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the thunder (23.31.13: Creatur ingenti consensu Marcellus qui extemplo magistratum occiperet. Cui ineunti consulatum cum tonuisset, vocati augures v i t i o creatum v i d e r i pronuntiaverunt). 12.2. êpcpavôç 3è K w î i u e t v ÔKVOUVTWV. . . : Livy makes no mention of t h i s h e s i t a t i o n or fear of the augurs, but instead reports that the senators were spreading a rumor that i t was displeasing to the gods that for the f i r s t time two plebeians had been made consuls (23.31.13: volgoque patres i t a fama ferebant, quod tum primum duo p l e b e i i consules f a c t i essent, i d dels cordi non esse). I t was not u n t i l 43 years l a t e r that the f i r s t p a i r of plebeians became consuls (C. P o p i l l i u s Laenas and P. Aelius Ligus were elected consuls for 172 B.C.; Fasti Capitolini for 172 B.C.: C. P o p i l l i u s P. f. P. n. Laenas, P. A i l i u s P. f. P. n. Ligus / Ambo primi de plebe; see Broughton MRR 1: 410-411 f o r references). A f t e r Marcellus' abdication, Q. Fabius Maximus was elected as suffe c t consul for 215 B.C. (Liv. 23.31.14; see Broughton MRR 1: 254 for references). I t has been proposed that the negative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the auguries was p o l i t i c a l l y motivated. Munzer (Adelsparteien und Adelsfami lien 74) suggests that t h i s was done to prevent the consulship from going to two plebeians, and i t was brought about by Fabius Maximus, who had the most to gain from i t . Lippold {Consules 170-171), concurring with Munzer, believes that Fabius used h i s influence as augur and the aversion among the se n a t o r i a l n o b i l i t y to both consulships going to plebeians to prevent Marcellus' consulship and to make way f o r himself, since the continuation of his own strategy would hardly have been guaranteed with Marcellus as consul (cf. Crake Phoenix 17.2 [1963]: 125: "more probably i t was a c o n f l i c t between the conservatism of Fabius and the impulsiveness of Marcellus"). I t i s possible that t h i s incident was p o l i t i c a l l y motivated, since the senatorial majority may have been against Marcellus (see Chapter 12.1. èKâXet...), and the manipulation of the auguries f o r p o l i t i c a l ends was not unknown fo r t h i s period (see Chapter 4.3. o t S'...). However, i t i s not c e r t a i n that Fabius Maximus was the prime in s t i g a t o r behind the p o l i t i c a l maneuvering. I t would only make sense i f Fabius and Marcellus were p o l i t i c a l opponents (as Miinzer [RE 3.2 {1899}: 2741] believes) . Scullard (RP 57-58) would go so f a r as to maintain that Fabius was the augur involved, even though Marcellus was his p o l i t i c a l a l l y . But to j u s t i f y t h i s assertion, he has to postulate that the whole a f f a i r was staged by Fabius and Marcellus " i n order to moderate the ambitions of the People" (p. 58). But a farce of t h i s type seems u n l i k e l y . If the incident was p o l i t i c a l l y motivated, what can be reasonably conjectured i s that after Marcellus' abdication, which had been forced on him by h i s opponents, Fabius was elected to replace him since he was h i s p o l i t i c a l a l l y . I t i s not l i k e l y that the commons i n the state of mind they were i n at the time would have turned around and elected a candidate h o s t i l e to Marcellus (Cassola GPR 316-318, who believes that even i f other proof i s lacking, t h i s incident would be s u f f i c i e n t to prove the p o l i t i c a l t i e s between Marcellus and Fabius; c f . Lippold Consules 171, 383; see Chapter 9.4-7. concerning the relationship between Marcellus and Fabius Maximus). The p o l i t i c a l interpretation, however, i s not the only p o s s i b i l i t y ; the incident may have been due to r e a l r e l i g i o u s considerations. On the one hand, the uproar caused by the dispatching of Marcellus to Campania before the elections for a s u f f e c t consul may have caught many senators by surprise. The assignment was p e r f e c t l y reasonable to them because Marcellus was a plebeian and would not normally have been considered a candidate since the surviving consul himself was plebeian. On the other hand, Marcellus, due to h i s popularity, may have been sent away de l i b e r a t e l y to avoid the p o s s i b i l i t y of there being two plebeian consuls, something which may not have been desired eith e r for p o l i t i c a l or r e l i g i o u s reasons (see Chapter 12.1. SYiâXet. . . ) . However, l a t e r , when thunder was heard upon hi s entry into the consulship, i t would have been f a i r l y easy for t h i s negative sign to be interpreted as the gods' displeasure at there being two plebeian consuls, since i t was an innovation which had not occurred before (cf. Miiller-Seidel RhM 96 [1953]: 245-246, Crake Phoenix 17.2 [1963]: 124-125). 12.3. Ov pévTot xrjv oxpaxetav. . . àvQÙTcaToç dvayopeuGetç . . . oxpaxÔTceSov : In Livy's text the grant of proconsular power had been given to Marcellus by a resolution o f the people f o r the way he conducted a f f a i r s i n 216 B.C. (23.30.19: M. Marcello pro consule imperium esse populus i u s s i t , quod post Cannensem cladem unus Romanorum imperatorum i n I t a l i a prospère rem g e s s i s s e t ) . This occurred before his departure to lead a new army into camp above Suessula and the holding of elections f o r a s u f f e c t consul (see Chapter 12.1. âKaÀet...)• Scullard (RP 57, n. 3) questions whether proconsular power was not granted to him a f t e r h i s abdication of the consulship as a consolation p r i z e . Apart from t h i s , Livy's version agrees with Plutarch's (Liv. 23.32.2: M. Claudius pro consule ad eum exercitum qui supra Suessulam Nolae praesideret missus). Although Marcellus holds the t i t l e pro consule at Livy 23.30.19 and 32.2 and i s c a l l e d proconsul at 48.2, he i s c a l l e d propraetor at 39.8 and 42.10 and praetor at 43.12. Since there are no other indications that a change of source has occurred, t h i s inconsistency may be due to eit h e r confusion or carelessness on either the part of Livy or h i s source(s) (cf. Klotz Livius und seine Vorganger 157-158; see Mommsen Str. 2"^ : 647-650). 12.3. K a K ô ç ènoiet x o ù ç f|pr||aévo\jç x à xoO ^ o t v t K o ç : In Livy these would be the H i r p i n i and the Caudine Samnites, into whose t e r r i t o r i e s Marcellus made frequent raids (23.41.13-14: Eadem aestate Marcellus ab Nola quam praesidio obtinebat crebras excursiones i n agrum Hirpinum et Samnites Caudinos f e c i t adeoque omnia fer r o atque i g n i vastavit ut antiquarum cladium Samnio memoriam renovaret). 12.4. (BÇ s ' ô^eCav. . . fJKe: According to Livy (23.41.13-43.5) Hannibal l e f t T i f a t a , where he was stationed, and advanced against Marcellus at Nola at the request of the envoys sent by the H i r p i n i and the Caudine Saitinites. At the same time Hanno came from Bruttium with reinforcements and elephants brought i n from Carthage. The envoys had portrayed Marcellus' excursions into t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s as the incautious raids of brigands (23.42.10: nunc propraetoris unius et parvi ad tuendam Nolam p r a e s i d i i praeda sumus; iam ne manipulatim quidem sed latronum modo percursant t o t i s f i n i b u s n o s t r i s neglegentius quam s i i n Romano vagarentur agro), but on h i s a r r i v a l Hannibal found the s i t u a t i o n much d i f f e r e n t (23.43.7: N i h i l enim Marcellus i t a egerat ut aut fortunae aut temere hosti commissum d i c i posset. Explorato cum firmisque p r a e s i d i i s tuto receptu praedatum i e r a t omniaque velut adversus praesentem Hannibalem cauta provisaque fuerunt). According to Livy's account (23.43.8-44.3), on Hannibal's a r r i v a l Marcellus held his forces within the walls of Nola and ordered the Nolan senators to walk up and down the wall and to observe the a c t i v i t i e s of the enemy. Hannibal attempted to persuade these senators to hand over the c i t y , but he was unsuccessful. 12.4. TipoKaA^oupâvcù. . . OL)K riPouÀriGri StaycovtoaoGat : Livy (23.44.3-6) does not report any hesitancy to f i g h t on Marcellus' part. Instead, on Hannibal's approach to the walls, h i s forces burst f o r t h and attacked. The battle was only broken o f f due to a heavy r a i n storm. Hannibal l o s t not more than 30 men, the Romans 50 (Liv. 23.44.5: tamen Poenorum prima eruptione p e r c u l s i ceciderunt haud plus quam t r i g i n t a . Romani quinquaginta). I t has been suggested that the small number of Carthaginians k i l l e d i s due to an error of the copyists (see Moore, trans., Livy 6 [Loeb] : 152, n. 1, and Walters' and Conway's apparatus criticus). This supposition seems to be based on the idea that the sudden attack by the Romans should have produced more Carthaginian than Roman c a s u a l t i e s . Marcellus' command at t h i s time consisted of two urban legions which had replaced the survivors of Cannae. The Cannae forces had fought at Nola i n the previous year, but had now been transported to S i c i l y (Liv. 23.31.3-6). 12.4. Tpévi/avxt. . . K t t t lariKExt TtpooSexofiev© |aà%r|v ène^r(kQe: Livy (23.44.6-7) reports that on the t h i r d day a f t e r the i n i t i a l encounter, Hannibal sent out a part of h i s force to ravage Nolan t e r r i t o r y . Learning of t h i s , Marcellus led out h i s forces and Hannibal did the same. 12.4. StaSoùç Sôpaxa xôv vau|aà%a)v ^xeyaXa: The source of these spears may have been from the naval legion which Marcellus had commanded i n 216 B.C. at Ostia, and which he had sent to Teanum Sidicinum shortly after the Roman defeat at Cannae (Liv. 22.57.8). This legion, which appears to have been stationed now i n Apulia or possibly amalgamated with the garrison force at Tarentum (cf. Brunt I t a l i a n Manpower 649, 651, and Chapter 9.3. èJ^fiyaye. . . ; although c f . Toynbee Hannibal's Legacy 2: 527-528), may have exchanged t h e i r weapons i n Campania and l e f t the naval spears there before departing for t h e i r new assignment. These spears, then, could possibly be the ones which Marcellus now made use of. The use of these arms may not be due to a t a c t i c a l innovation on Marcellus' part but to a shortage of weapons, which may s t i l l have existed since the Roman defeat at Cannae i n the previous year [Liv. 22.57.10, 23.14.4]). This notice on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of naval spears i s lacking i n Livy's account of the battle (23.44.6-46.4). Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 302-303) believes that t h i s notice i s not l i k e l y to be an embellishment by Plutarch, and that nothing indicates that i t has been taken from other contexts and inserted here. Therefore, he concludes, Plutarch must have been using Livy's 2 own source, Valerius Antias. De Sanctis (SR 3 .2: 370-371), on the other hand, believes that t h i s notice i s an i n s e r t i o n by Plutarch into a L i v i a n context derived possibly from either Cornelius Nepos or Polybius. 12.5. SoKoOat Toxe Set^at xà vwxa 'Pcapatotç: Livy describes the b a t t l e as occurring around the walls of Nola on a l l sides (23.44.3: Itaque corona oppidum circumdedit ut simul ab omni parte moenia adgrederetur, 44.7: M i l l e fere passuum i n t e r urbem erant castraque; eo s p a t i o — e t sunt omnia campi c i r c a Nolam—concurrerunt). He reports (23.44.8) that the noise of the b a t t l e brought back the nearest of Hannibal's men who were out plundering. Also, he (23.44.9) adds that the Nolans made up part o f Marcellus' force, serving as reserves. According to Livy (23.46.2-3) Hannibal's forces were driven back to t h e i r camp, and although the Roman forces were desirous of attacking i t , Marcellus led them back into the c i t y . The phrase SoKoC3ot x o x e Ôet^at x à vôxa appears to be a t r a n s l a t i o n o f the Latin terga Poeni dederunt (De Sanctis SR 3^.2: 370; see Livy 23.46.2). 12.5. àitopaÀÔvxeç eauxwv. . . : Plutarch's figures on casualties are a shortened version o f Livy's. Livy reports that more then 5,000 o f the enemy were k i l l e d , 600 captured (the conjecture at %na?i-a>xov)ç ô' s J ^ a K O o t o u ç i s based o n Livy; see Ziegler's apparatus criticus), 19 m i l i t a r y standards and 2 elephants taken, and 4 elephants k i l l e d i n b a t t l e , while the Romans l o s t less than a 1,000 men (23.46.4: Hostium plus quinque m i l i a caesa eo die, v i v i c a p t i sescenti et signa m i l i t a r i a undeviginti et duo elephanti; quattuor i n acie o c c i s i ; Romanorum minus m i l l e i n t e r f e c t i ) . Like the f i r s t battle at Nola (see Chapter 11.7. KavxaOBa...), the v i c t o r y o f the Romans over Hannibal's forces i s exaggerated. Munzer (RE 3.2 [1899]: 2742) believes that out o f t h i s whole episode one can only reasonably conjecture that Marcellus retained Nola, the Romans made some plundering raids, and they perhaps had a successful engagement against small parts 2 of Hannibal's army (cf. De Sanctis SR 3 .2: 244, n. 104, Lippold Consules 57-58). 12.6. o s ' rjv n é y t o T o v , r i p é p g T p t x r ] . . . ÙTcèp xoùç xptaKootouç: Livy (23.46.5) reports that on the f i r s t day a f t e r the b a t t l e both sides buried t h e i r dead and Marcellus burned the s p o i l s of the enemy as a votive o f f e r i n g to Volcan. Livy agrees with Plutarch that some of the Numidian and Spanish cavalry deserted to the Romans, but h i s text gives the figure of 272 men (23.46.6: Tertio post die ob iram, credo, aliquam aut spem l i b e r a l i o r i s m i l i t i a e ducenti septuaginta duo équités, mixti Numidae <et> Hispani, ad Marcellum transfugerunt). I t has been conjectured, based on Plutarch's report, that CCCXXII (322) should be read i n the manuscripts of Livy at t h i s point (see Walters' and Conway's apparatus c r i t i c u s ) . The phrase tTCTtstç 'ipripcDv Kat NopdSwv ptyàSeç appears to be a t r a n s l a t i o n of the Latin équités mixti Numidae et Hispani (De 2 Sanctis SR 3 .2: 370; see Livy 23.46.6). 12.6. o\jn(ù Tipôxepov 'Avvtpa xoûxo TiaGôvxoç: Unlike Livy, Zonaras' report of these operations does contain a s i m i l a r observation (9.3.6: 7uoA,A,ot pèv yàp "ipripeç, noXXoi Sè Kat xc5v Atpùoùv èyKaxsÀt TtoV aùxov Kat rcpoç xoùç 'Papatouç r|ùxopô?ir|aav, o ouTccû Trpwriv ënaQe) . Klotz (RhM 83 [1934]: 303) believes that since t h i s statement i s not found i n Livy, but i s found i n Zonaras, Plutarch owes i t to Zonaras' source, Valerius Antias (see Klotz RhM 83 [1934]: 296 concerning Zonaras' source). This i s not the only p o s s i b i l i t y . Plutarch may have found i t i n another source, possibly Cornelius Nepos, whose material could ultimately have been derived from Valerius Antias or even older a n n a l i s t i c h i s t o r i a n s . 12.6. àXX' S K T t o t K t À œ v Kttt TcoÀuxpÔTtcùv. . . : This comment by Plutarch i s not found i n Livy. I t i s c l o s e l y t i e d to the previous statement, OXJTTÛ) npôxepov 'Avvtpa xoOxo JtaGôvxoç;, and therefore i t may have come from the same source as that statement, or i t could be Plutarch's own r e f l e c t i o n on i t . 12.7. o u x o t . . . K t o x o t 7taps |astvav. . . : Livy reports s i m i l a r l y and adds that a f t e r the war land was given to them f o r t h e i r heroism (23.46.6-7: Eorum f o r t i f i d e l i q u e opera i n eo b e l l o u s i sunt saepe Romani. Ager Hispanis i n Hispania et Numidis i n A f r i c a post bellum v i r t u t i s causa datus e s t ) . After t h i s b a t t l e Hannibal sent Hanno back to Bruttium with the forces which he had brought, while he himself sought winter quarters i n Apulia near Arpi (Liv. 23.46.8). Near the end of t h i s year, Marcellus was ordered by the consul Fabius Maximus to dismiss his troops a f t e r an adequate garrison had been l e f t at Nola for safeguarding the c i t y , l e s t they be eith e r a burden for the a l l i e s or an expense for the state (Liv. 23.48.2). CHAPTER THIRTEEN 13.1. '0 8è HâpKsXXoQ à7co8etx9etç UTraxoç xô xptxov: The elections for 214 B.C. were held by Q. Fabius Maximus at which he was re-elected consul for the fourth time, while Marcellus was elected for the t h i r d time, in absentia, as h i s colleague (see Broughton MRR 1: 258 for references) . According to Livy (24.7.11-9.3) the l o t for voting f i r s t had f a l l e n to the junior century of the t r i b e Aniensis, and while they were voting for T. O t a c i l i u s Crassus and M. Aemilius Regillus, Fabius stopped the proceedings, objecting to the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s of these two candidates, to Aemilius, because he was a flamen, and to O t a c i l i u s , although related to him by marriage (he had married a niece of Fabius), because he lacked s u f f i c i e n t m i l i t a r y experience. Over O t a c i l i u s ' strong objections, the praerogativa centuria voted again and chose Fabius and Marcellus, which s e l e c t i o n the remaining centuries followed without deviation. I t i s well-known that the centuries tended to follow the lead of the praerogativa centuria, and i f Fabius wanted to change the outcome of the voting, he had to convince i t to a l t e r i t s vote (Cic. Plane. 49, Mur. 38, Div. 1.103, 2.83; see Taylor Party P o l i t i c s in the Age of Caesar 56). The annulling of a vote already cast i s otherwise known f o r c e r t a i n only f o r the consular elections of 210 B.C. (cf. L i v . 10.22), which has s i m i l a r i t i e s to t h i s incident, e s p e c i a l l y i n that O t a c i l i u s was the loser on both occasions (see Chapter 23.1. Toij sè HoLpKsXXov. . . concerning t h i s e l e c t i o n and Broughton MRR 1: 278 f o r references). Scullard (RP 59) believes that Marcellus' e l e c t i o n to the consulship was a repayment by Fabius for Marcellus' exclusion from that o f f i c e i n the previous year, and that O t a c i l i u s received a second praetorship as a consolation p r i z e f o r being denied t h i s same po s i t i o n (see Chapter 12.1. eKaXBi... et seqq. concerning elections for 215 B.C. and Scullard RP 57-58 for h i s view of what happened). Cassola (GPR 320) believes that t h i s incident shows the h o s t i l i t y of both Fabius and Marcellus towards O t a c i l i u s , although Fabius was related to him by marriage and Marcellus was h i s half-brother. He suggests that the h o s t i l i t y may have been due to a desire on O t a c i l i u s ' part to enlarge the s t r a t e g i c objectives of the war by a landing i n A f r i c a which both Fabius and Marcellus were against. Whatever may have been the behind the scene maneuverings which took place among the various p o l i t i c a l f actions, one of the consulships of 214 B.C. could hardly have been given to anyone other than Marcellus i f one considers the popular support he had for the consulship of 215 B.C. from which he had to resign (see Chapter 12.1. eKaXex,. . . et seqq., Munzer Romische Adelsparteien und Adelsfami lien 74, Taylor Roman Voting Assemblies 93-94, and Staveley JRS 53 [1963]: 186). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the century which voted f i r s t was composed of those from the t r i b e Aniensis, which was Marcellus' own (SC de Oropiis; Syll.^, 747.6). Plutarch leaves out e n t i r e l y the events of Marcellus' consulship of 214 B.C. before h i s departure f o r S i c i l y . According to Livy (23.46.8, 24.12.3-5, 13.8-11) Hannibal set out from Arpi where he had wintered and returned to Campania. While he was ravaging the t e r r i t o r y of Neapolis, envoys from the Nolan commons summoned him with a promise of surrendering the c i t y , but Marcellus summoned by the leading men of Nola anticipated t h i s undertaking. In one day he marched from Cales to Suessula and that same night sent 6,000 infantry and 300 cavalry into Nola as a garrison. Livy (24.17) says that when Marcellus learned of Hannibal's approach to Nola, he summoned the propraetor Pomponius with the army which was i n camp above Suessula, and prepared to meet the enemy without delay. He sent C. Claudius Nero with the best part of the cavalry out of Nola at night with orders to c i r c l e around the enemy unseen and to f a l l on t h e i r rear when he saw that the b a t t l e had begun. In the battle, although the Romans had the upper hand, the cavalry f a i l e d to appear, and Marcellus, not daring to pursue the retreating enemy, r e c a l l e d h i s troops. More than 2,000 of the enemy but fewer than 400 Romans are said to have f a l l e n that day. Near sunset Nero returned with the cavalry, having f a i l e d to make contact with the enemy, and was st e r n l y rebuked by the consul. On the following day the Romans formed up f o r bat t l e , but the enemy remained i n camp. On the t h i r d day, i n the dead of night, Hannibal set o f f f o r Tarentum. Doubts have been raised over the authenticity of t h i s t h i r d b a t t l e at Nola, which i s reported nowhere else i n the h i s t o r i c a l sources except i n Livy. At Livy 23.48.2 i t i s reported that Marcellus was ordered to dismiss his army except for a garrison of s u f f i c i e n t s i z e to defend Nola (this would be near the end of 215 B.C.)/ t»ut the existence of t h i s garrison i s completely forgotten i n the narrative of Marcellus' actions i n 214 B.C., and the s i t u a t i o n at Nola appears s i m i l a r to that i n 216 B.C. Also, the Pomponius mentioned by Livy (24.17.2) here should be the propraetor M. Pomponius whom Livy (24.10.3) mentioned e a r l i e r as being i n command of Gaul (see Munzer RE 3.2 [1899]: 2742-2743 for a more det a i l e d exposition of the arguments against the authenticity of t h i s b a t t l e ) . According to Livy (24.19.1-7), while Marcellus was at Nola, Fabius, h i s colleague, who was i n camp near Casilinum, summoned him. Leaving behind a garrison of 2,000, Marcellus duly brought the r e s t of his forces up to Casilinum. Upon hi s a r r i v a l both consuls undertook the siege of the town, which was being held by a garrison of 2,000 Campanians and 700 of Hannibal's s o l d i e r s . A f t e r an unsuccessful attempt on the town, during which the Romans suffered many casualties, Fabius wanted to r a i s e the siege, but Marcellus convinced him to carry i t through. Later, while the Romans were bringing up siege equipment, the Campanians begged Fabius that they be permitted to leave s a f e l y for Capua. But aft e r a few of the Campanians had gone out, Marcellus seized the gate through which they were departing, and a general massacre ensued around t h i s area; then a f t e r the Romans had broken into the town, i t began there also. About 50 of the Campanians who had managed to leave Casilinum f l e d to Fabius, who gave them safe escort to Capua. Meanwhile the town was captured, and the enemy prisoners consisting of both Campanians and Hannibal's s o l d i e r s were sent to Rome f o r c a p t i v i t y , while the inhabitants of the town were d i s t r i b u t e d among the neighboring peoples for internment. A f t e r the capture of Casilinum, Marcellus returned to Nola, but engaged i n no further a c t i v i t i e s there because of i l l n e s s (Liv. 24.20.3: Marcellus r e t r o unde venerat Nolam r e d i i t , 7: Marcellum ab gerundis rebus valetudo adversa Nolae t e n u i t ) . Why d i d Plutarch skip over Marcellus' a c t i v i t i e s as consul i n 214 B.C. i n Campania and immediately proceed to h i s a c t i v i t i e s i n S i c i l y ? The account of the siege of Casilinum by Livy (24.19; i t i s assumed that Plutarch was f a m i l i a r with Livy) portrays Marcellus i n a poor l i g h t . Marcellus took advantage of Fabius' assurance of safe conduct to the Campanians to seize the town; consequently, only about 50 of the Campanians reached Capua s a f e l y under an escort provided by Fabius himself (24.19.8-10: Campanique Fabium orarent ut abire Capuam tuto l i c e r e t , paucis egressis Marcellus portam qua egrediebantur occupavit caedesque promiscue omnium c i r c a portam primo, deinde inruptione facta etiam i n urbe f i e r i coepta est. Quinquaginta fere primo egressi Campanorum, cum ad Fabium confugissent, praesidio eius Capuam pervenerunt). Plutarch chose to exclude t h i s incident of Marcellus' treachery from h i s work because i t c o n f l i c t e d with h i s attempt to portray him as a humanitarian (Marc. 1.3: (ptÀdvBpcDTroç) . Also, Plutarch may have chosen to exclude the t h i r d b a t t l e at Nola (found at Livy 24.17) because i t was very s i m i l a r to the two previous ones, and i t added nothing p o s i t i v e to h i s portrayal of Marcellus' character. In f a c t , Marcellus' berating of his subordinate would hardly have f i t into Plutarch's conception of him (Liv. 24.17.7: S o l i s fere occasu Nero diem noctemque nequiquam f a t i g a t i s equis hominibusque, ne viso quidem hoste rediens, adeo g r a v i t e r est ab consule increpitus ut per eum s t e t i s s e diceretur quo minus accepta ad Cannas redderetur h o s t i clades). However, the p o s s i b i l i t y that he excluded t h i s b a t t l e on sound h i s t o r i c a l grounds, judging that i t never took place, can not be excluded, but t h i s i s u n l i k e l y . I f one takes these two incidents into consideration, then i t seems reasonable to suggest that Plutarch, although he appears to have been hard pressed f o r material on Marcellus (cf. S c a r d i g l i Die Romerbiographien Plutarchs 38) , found i t more to his purpose to leave out Marcellus' a c t i v i t i e s i n Campania i n 214 B.C. and to proceed immediately to h i s actions i n S i c i l y . 13.1. etc ZtKeA-tav enXevaev: Marcellus a r r i v e d i n S i c i l y e i t h e r l a t e i n 214 or early i n 213 B.C. while he was s t i l l consul, presumably a f t e r recovering his health at Nola (Liv. 24.20.7, 21.1; Polyb. 8.1.7; S i l . I t a l . 14.110-113; see De 2 Sanctis SR 3 .2: 317-322 and Eckstein SG 345-349 concerning chronology of Marcellus' a c t i v i t i e s i n S i c i l y ; Marchetti [BIBR 42 {1972}: 20-21] would l i k e to place Marcellus' a r r i v a l much l a t e r , a f t e r the f a l l of Leontini and the a r r i v a l of the Romans before Syracuse, but see Eckstein SG 139, n. 20 who points out the improbability of t h i s view; see, also, Lippold Consules 258-259 and Eckstein SG 144-145 for the reason why Marcellus was sent rather than h i s colleague Fabius Maximus). 13.2. at yàp 'Avvtpoxj. . . Tfjç vf|oou: According to Polybius' account (7.2-5; the account i n Livy [24.4-6] i s derived from Polybius [see Walbank Polybius 2: 31]) the i n i t i a t i v e which induced the Carthaginians to conduct m i l i t a r y operations i n S i c i l y came from Hieronymus, the new r u l e r of Syracuse, who had succeeded Hiero II i n 215 B.C., and was persuaded by Zoippus and Adranodorus, sons-in-law of Hiero, to send envoys to Hannibal. The Carthaginians would have been only too happy to deprive Rome of a valuable a l l y , to gain back t h e i r former possessions i n S i c i l y , which they had l o s t i n the F i r s t Punic War, and to have an easier access for supplying Hannibal i n I t a l y (see Eckstein SG 135, n. 2, Hoffmann Hermes 89 [1961]: 481, and Marchetti BIBR 42 [1972]: 5 concerning stategic importance of S i c i l y for sending reinforcements to Hannibal from A f r i c a ) . 13.2. paA-toxa xexapaypévcûv. . . : After Hiero's death i n 215 B.C., h i s grandson Hieronymus, a boy of only 15, succeeded to the kingdom of Syracuse (Liv. 24.4.1, 5). According to Livy (24.4.1-7.9) the three advisors of Hieronymus were Adranodorus, Zoippus, sons-in-law of Hiero and pro-Carthaginian, and Thraso, who was pro-Roman. After Thraso was eliminated, Hieronymus was persuaded to send envoys to Hannibal i n I t a l y . Hannibal sent to Syracuse Hippocrates and his brother Epicydes, who were born at Carthage, but were Syracusan i n o r i g i n . With these two men an a l l i a n c e was concluded. Ap. Claudius Pulcher, the governor of the Roman province of S i c i l y , learning of t h i s immediately sent envoys to Hieronymus i n order to renew the a l l i a n c e which the Romans had had with h i s grandfather, but they were dismissed by the king. Hieronymus then sent ambassadors to Carthage to make a treaty according to the a l l i a n c e made with Hannibal. A f t e r sending Hippocrates and Epicydes i n advance with 2,000 men to attack those c i t i e s held by Roman garrisons, Hieronymus went himself to Leontini with up to 15,000 infantry and cavalry. Here he was assassinated by a conspiracy which had been formed against him. Appius, i n the meantime, informed the senate o