Papers of the British School at Rome

http://journals.cambridge.org/ROM

Additional services for Papers of the British School at Rome:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Acta Antiquissima: A Week in the History of the Roman

Republic

Andrew Lintott

Papers of the British School at Rome / Volume 54 / November 1986, pp 213 - 228
DOI: 10.1017/S0068246200008904, Published online: 09 August 2013

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0068246200008904

How to cite this article:

Andrew Lintott (1986). Acta Antiquissima: A Week in the History of the Roman Republic. Papers of
the British School at Rome, 54, pp 213-228 doi:10.1017/S0068246200008904

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ROM, IP address: 128.122.253.228 on 29 Apr 2015

 ACTA ANTIQUISSIMA
A WEEK IN THE HISTORY OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC
'. . . ut nunc verius quam aetate ulla alia dici possit "OMNIS HOMO MENDAX"'
(J. L. Vives in a letter to his father).

Barry Baldwin, in a recent article on the acta diurna (Chiron 9, 1979, 189—203),
when commenting on the lack of surviving fragments, remarks in a note:

a frustration that no doubt helped to inspire the eleven spurious fragments

published in 1615 byPighius (in his Annales II, 378). Defended only by Dodwell,
Praelect. Camden., Oxford 1692, 665, and Lieberkiihn, Vindiciae librorum iniuria
suspectorum, 1844, 1, they have been frequently unmasked as a fifteenth century
forgery. See in particular H. Heinze, De spuriis actorum diurnorum fragmentis,
Greifswald 1860; C. Zell, Uber die £eitung der alten Romer, Ferienschriften
Heidelberg 1857, N.F. 1, 109.

It will be apparent from what follows that, whether one shares Baldwin's
scepticism about Pighius' Acta or not, this comment is false or misleading on a
number of points.1 What perhaps is more remarkable and has a certain irony is that
the Acta seem to have lain in oblivion for about a century, unknown to scholars in
general and neglected by those concerned with the nature of the historiography of
the Roman Republic.2 They deserve to be taken out and dusted rather than to be
pushed even more firmly to the back of the bookshelf. Indeed it is arguable that they
have never been properly edited. My aim in this paper is to clear up some of the
complexities that have bedevilled their transmission since Pighius, to illustrate the
evidence on which the arguments for and against a humanist forgery rest and to
consider the implications of their being not a forgery but a genuine legacy of some
kind from antiquity. It will be seen that, if nothing else, they provide a diverting
chapter in the history of classical scholarship. The current standard text printed
among the Falsae Urbis Romae in CIL VI.5.3403 is deceptive in that it links material
which does not have the same provenance. I therefore begin by setting out the text
published by Pighius and noting the variants printed by Thomas Reinesius, which
will be found in part to correspond with those employed by J. G. Graevius in his
Suetonius, although Graevius claimed a different origin for them.

'ACTA URBANA'

S. V. Pighius, Annales Romanorum (Antwerp 1615) II, pp.378-80, sub anno 585 A.U.C. ('exemplum
exscriptum inter schedas Lodovici Vivis olim repertum').
T. Reinesius, Syntagma lnscriptionum Antiquarum (Leipzig/Frankfurt 1682), Classis IV, nos. 2—8,
pp. 339 ff.
J. G. Graevius, C. Suetonius Tranquillus-Caesarum XII Vitae2 (The Hague 1691), pp. 777-8.

'Inter alia, Zell's final judgement was 'non liquet'.

2
For example, B. Frier, Libri Annales Pontificum Maximorum, Rome 1980; H. J. Erasmus, The Origins
of Rome.
214 ANDREW LINTOTT
The following text is that of Pighius:

V. K. APRILEIS
FASCES. PENES. AEMILIVM.
BENE. MANE. SACRIFICAVIT. AD. APOLLINIS.
OVE FECIT. LAVREATUS
5 HORA. OCTAVA. SENATVS. COACTVS. IN. HOSTILIA.
S.C. FACTVM. EST. VTI. PRAETORES. EX. SVIS.
PERPETVIS. EDICTIS. IVS DICERENT.
Q. MINUCIVS. SCAPVLA. ACCUSATVS. DE. VI.
A. P. LENTVLO. APVD. CN. BAEBIVM. PR. VRB.
10 DEFENSVS. A. C. SVLPICIO.
SENTENTIIS. CONDEMNATVS. XV
AMPLIATVS. XXXIII
IV. K. APRILEIS
FASCEIS. PENES. LICINIVM
15 FULGVRAVIT. TONVIT. ET. QUERCVS. TACTA. IN
SVMMA. VELIA. PAVLLVM. A. MERIDIE
RIXA. AD. IANVM. INFIMVM. IN CAVPONA. ET
CAVPO. AD VRSUM. GALEATVM. GRAVITER
SAVCIATUS
20 C. TITINIVS. AEDILIS. PL. MVLCAVIT. LANIOS
QVOD. CARNEM. VENDIDISSET. POPVLO
NON. INSPECTAM
DE. PECVNIA. MVLCATITIA. CELLA. EXSTRVCTA
AD. TELLVRIS. LAVERNAE
25 III. K. APRILEIS
FASCES. PENES. AEMILIVM
LAPIDIBVS. PLVIT. IN. VEIENTI
POSTVMIUS. TRIB. PL. VIATOREM. MISIT
AD. COS. QVOD. IS. EO. DIE. SENATVM
30 NOLVISSET. COGERE
INTERCESSIONE. P. DECIMI. TRIB. PL.
RES EST. SVBLATA
Q. AVFIDIUS. MENSARIVS. TABERNAE. ARGENTARIAE.
AD. SCVTVM. CIMBRICVM. CVM. MAGNA.
35 VI. AERIS. ALIENI. CESSIT. FORO
RETRACTVS. EX. ITINERE. CAVSSAM. DIXIT
APVD P. FONTEIVM. BALBVM. PRAET.
ET. CVM. LIQVIDVM. FACTVM. ESSET. EVM
NVLLA. FECISSE. DETRIMENTA
40 IVSSUS. EST. IN. SOLIDVM
AES. TOTVM. DISSOLVERE
PRID. K. APRILEIS
FASCES. PENES. LICINIVM
 ACT A AJVTIQUISSIMA 215

LATINAE. CELEBRATAE. ET. SACRIFICATVM

45 IN. MONTE. ALBANO. ET. DATA. VISCERATIO
INCENDIVM. IN. CAELIOLO. INSVLAE. DVAE
ABSVMPTAE. SOLO. TENVS. ED. AEDES. QVINQVE
AMBVSTAE. QVATUOR.
DEMIPHON. ARCHIPIRATA. CAPTVS. A.
50 CN. LICINIO. NERVA. LEGATO.
IN. CRVCEM. ACTVS
VEXILLVM. RUBEVM. IN. ARCE POSITVM
SACRAMENTO. NOVO. ADEGERVNT. IVVENTVTEM
IN. CAMPO. MARTIO
55 KAL. APRIL.
L. AEMILIO. PAVLLO II
C. LICINIO. CRASS. COS.
PAVLLUS. COS. ET. CN. OCTAVIVS PRAET. PALVDATI
EGRESSI. SVNT. VRBE. IN PROVINCIAM.
60 MACEDONIAM
PROFECTI. INGENTI. ATQUE. INVSITATA
FREQVENTIA. PROSEQVENTE
CV. //. ////////////////////////////////////• TOTA. SACRA. VIA
EX. AEDIBVS ////////////////////////////// VSOJJE. AD
65 CARINAS. ET. SACELLVM. STRENIAE
MAGNA. CONSTERNATIONE. VICINORVM
FVNVS. MARCIAE. SEX. F. CVM. MAIORE. POMPA.
IMAGINVM QVAM. FREQVENTIA. HOMINVM
PONTIFEX. SEMPRONIVS. EDIXIT. MEGALESIA
70 IV. NON. APRIL.
VER. SACRVM. VOTVM. DE PONTIFIC. SENTENTIA.
A. BAEBIO. PRAETORE
LAUTIA. LEGATIS. AETOLVM. DATA.
/?H / ^ AER. GRAVIS. IN. SINGVLOS
75 DIMIDIVM. EIVS. COMITIBVS
M. AEBVTIVS. IN. PROVINCIAM. SVAM
SICILIAM. PROFECTUS. EST
EPVLVM. IN. FVNERE. MARCIAE. POPVLO. DATVM
A. FILIIS. EIVS. Q,. ET. L. METELLIS.
80 ET. LVDI. SCAENICI. FACTI
CLASSIS. CARTHAGINIENSIS. OSTIAM. INGRESSA
CUM. TRIBVTO
III NON. APRIL
C. POPILLIUS. LAENAS. C. DECIMIVS. C. HOSTILIVS
85 LEGATI. MITTVNTUR. AD. REGES. SYRIAE
ET. AEGYPTI. AD. BELLVM. INTER. IPSOS
COMPONENDVM
LEGATI. BENE. MANE. CVM. TVRBA. CLIENTIVM
216 ANDREW LINTOTT

ET. PROPINQVORVM. SACRIFICARVNT

90 AD. CASTORIS. DIS. PENATIBVS. P. R.
TAVRO. FECER. ET. PERLITARVNT
PONT. MAX. II III III II III III II IN. AEDE. VESTAE
//////////////////////////// L. L. V. V.
Line 1: Graev. APRILES. (1 ff. Gr. derived 'ex perantiquo codice comitis de Carbury'.)
6: Graev. SC. FACTVM. Rein.Graev. Praetores.
7: Graev. MINUTIUS; Rein.Graev. A. P. LENTULO on this line.
12: Graev. XXXII.
13: Graev. APRILES.
14: Graev. FASCES.
19: Rein.Graev. SAUCIATUS on line above.
20: Graev. MULTAVIT.
21-22: Rein. POPVLO NON / INSPECT AM. Graev. NON INSPECT AM on line above.
23: Graev. MULTATICIA.
29-37: Rein.Graev. AD COS.-DETRIMENTA: each has own line division, different from that of
Pighius.
38-9: Rein.Graev. IUS EST IN SOLIDUM AES TOTUM.
(42 ff. Graev. derived 'ex annalibus Stephani Pighii'.)
45-8: Rein.Graev. IN MONTE-QUATUOR: each has own line division different from that of Pighius.
53: Graev. ADLEGERUNT.
57: Rein.Graev. join with 56. Graev. CLINIO for LICINIO.
59-65: Rein.Graev. EGRESSI-STRENIAE: each, has own line division.
63: Rein.Graev. omit CV.
72: Rein.Graev. BOEBIO.
74: Graev. AERIS.
76-82: Rein. Graev.: each has own line divison.
83—89: Rein.Graev.: each has own line division..
91: Graev. FECERUNT.

COMMENTARY PARALLELS AND PROBLEMS

The text is given as of an inscription with lacunae (lines 63—4, 92-3), printed in
lines of an uneven length in capitals, but editors after Pighius felt no need to observe
his line divisions precisely or his indication of lacunae. Although Pighius in
particular preserves some spellings appropriate to the second century B.C., the word
forms in general seem no earlier than the late Republic.
Line 2: Fasces penes Aemilium. The difficulty of supposing that fasces alternated
between consuls on successive days was first pointed out by Reinesius p. 342
(countered by Lieberkiihn p. 21). It contradicts Suet. Jul. 20.1. However, daily
alternation oifasces is attested in the second Punic War (Pol. 3.110.4—Cannae;
cf. Livy 28.9.10 for the alternation of the auspices at the Metaurus). 3
Line 3: Bene mane should mean 'early in the morning', arguably too colloquial (Cic.
Alt. 4.9.2; cf. de Oral. 2.64.259—'bene ante lucem').
Lines 6-7: S.C.factum est. This measure was enacted as zplebiscitum by C. Cornelius in
67 B.C. (Asc. 59C) and is treated as a popularis reform. This difficulty is not
insuperable, if we assume a growth of corruption after Sulla (cf. Lintott, CQ,n.s.
3
On the consul majorjminor terminology see L. R. Taylor, T. R. S. Broughton, MAAR 19, 1949,
1-14; Lintott, ZpE 20, 1976, 67-8; Ferrary MEFR 89, 1977, 647-50.
 ACT A ANTIQUISSIMA 217

27, 1977, 184-6). A greater problem is whether the edictum perpetuum had
developed to this extent so early, see A. Watson, Law Making in the Later Roman
Republic (Oxford 1974) ch. 3.
Lines 8-12: Q. Minucius Scapula . . . The cognomen Scapula is not otherwise found
among Minucii. The quaestio perpetua de vi developed from a lex Lutatia of 78 B.C.
(Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome, Oxford 1968, 107 ff.). An ad hoc quaestio is
conceivable in this period (see e.g. J. Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Roman
Criminal Law, Oxford 1912, I, 225 ff.; W. Kunkel, RE 24, 720 ff.), and such a
quaestio might be assigned to the praetor urbanus—an example in 172 (Livy
42.21.8). For Baebius cf. Livy 44.17.10; he seems to have been the praetorian
Baebius who died after asking his slave the time (Pliny NH 7.182). C. Sulpicius
Galus was pr. urb. 169, trib. mil. or legate in Macedonia later this year.
P. Lentulus (cos. 162) was aed. cur. 169, ambassador later this year. Ampliatio was
in evidence in the trials of the governors of Spain (Livy 43.2.10).
Lines 15-16: Quercus tacta. Cf. Livy 45.16.5—'aedes deum Penatium in Velia de coelo
tacta erat'—in a report on prodigies discussed by the senate at the outset of the
following consular year.
Line 17: Adlanum Infimum. Ianus infimusjimus is only known from Hor. Ep. 1.1.54 and
Porphyrion on Ep. 1.20.1. For possible identification with the early Ianus
Quadrifrons of the Forum Boarium see L. A. Holland, 'Ianus and the Bridge',
Papers & Monogr. Am. Ac. Rome 25, 1961, 38 f.
Line 18: Ad Ursum Galeatum. Reinesius noted, 'Ursus autem pileatus via Portuensi ad
Portam Portensam in Esquiliis fuit'. This confusion is unravelled in Platner-
Ashby, Topographical Dictionary, s.v. Ursum. The 'Bear in Helmet' was the site of
the burial of the martyrs Abdon and Sennen on the road to the Claudian
harbour (Chron. Min. I, 71).
Line 20: C. Titinius is otherwise unknown. He is unlikely to be the tribune of 192.
Mulcavit: such procedure by aediles is common (Lintott, Viol. Rep. Rome 96-8),
but there is no other example of butchers being penalised.
Lines 23-4: Cella exstructa ad Telluris Lavernae. A cella dedicated to Laverna was to be
placed next to a temple of Tellus. Two sites are given elsewhere for shrines to
Laverna—near the porta Lavernalis on the Aventine and near the porta Collina on
the via Salaria (Platner-Ashby, s.v. porta Lavernalis). J.-V. Le Clerc (Des
journaux chez les romains, Paris 1838, 299 ff.) thought that it was a forger's joke
that the money should be given to a goddess of thieves (cf. Plaut. Aul. 445).
Relevant here is Plut. Sulla 6.11 = Sulla F. 8P: Sulla related in his memoirs that
as he set out for the Social War there was a great chasm in the earth about
Laverna, a point recalled in Vives' Declamationes Syllanae I, p. 4 (Basel 1538).
Line 27: Lapidibuspluit. Cf. Livy 44.18.6 (referring to 169-8 B.C.): 'bis exitu anni eius
lapidatum esse nuntiatum est, <(semel) in Romano agro, semel in Veienti'.
Line 28: Postumius trib. pi. Not identifiable. Two Postumii are found serving with
Aemilius Paulus later this year as trib. mil. and envoy.
Line 31: P. Decimi trib. pi. Also unknown. C. Decimius is ambassador to Egypt this
year (infra). For the tribune's use of his viator cf. Cic. Vat. 22; Font. 39; Livy
2.56.11.
Line 34: Ad Scutum Cimbricum. The scutum was famous for its use by C. Julius Caesar
 218 ANDREW LINTOTT

Strabo to score a point offHelvius Mancia (Cic. de Oral. 2.66.266; cf. Quint.
6.3.38). It was a sign by the Tabemae Novae (Livy 3.48.5; 26.27.2) which
allegedly had first been decorated with bronze-plated shields in 309 (Livy
9.40.16). However, this shield was Cimbricum and Cicero says that it was
Marianum, which seems decisive evidence of an anachronism, even if we accept
that the Romans did know about Cimbri before c. 113 as seems implied by
Poseidonius {FGH 87 F31 = Strabo 7.2.1 ff.) and Ephorus (FGH 70 F132),
contra Tacitus Germ. 37.2.
Line 35: Cessitforo. Cf. Plaut. Persa 433 ff. and Sen. Ben. 4.39 for welshing bankers.
Line 37: P. Fonteius Balbus had Spain for his province. All praetors with foreign
provinces except C. Papirius Carbo went there in 168 (Livy 45.12.13), but this
trial may have happened before Fonteius' departure.
Line 40: Iussus est / ius est in solidum. We might have expected sol(i)dum solvere as in
Tabula Heracleensis (CIL I2, no. 593) line 114, Cic. Rab. Post. 46, but Pighius' text
is not unreasonable legal Latin. Reinesius assumed a supplement, 'ius <remis-
sum) est in solidum aes totum': the creditors were only to get part of their debts
repaid, cf. Quint. 5.10.105 for an imaginary law by which argentarii were owed
in full, but themselves owed only half the sums lent.
Line 44: Latinae. Livy 44.19.4 shows Paulus fixing Prid. Id. Apr. as the date for the
Latin festival, but it appears from 44.22.16 that in fact the consul and praetor
left for their provinces immediately after performing the Latin sacrifice on the
Alban mount on prid. k. April., as provided in an earlier S.C. (44.21.3).
Line 45: Visceratio. Cf. Livy 8.22.2; 39.46.2 (funerals); Serv. ad Aen. 1.211.
Line 46: Incendium in Caeliolo. See Varro LL 5.46 and Platner-Ashby s.v., also Tac.
Ann. 4.64 for a fire on the Caelian in A.D. 27.
Line 50: Cn. Licinio Nerva may be identified with the C. Licinius Nerva, then legate of
Anicius, who was sent home with the news of the Illyrian victory (Livy 45.3.1).
Line 51: In crucem. Le Clerc wondered if the execution was reconcilable with, feriae
because of the pollution. He might have cited the story in Livy 2.36. However,
gladiatorial games and the execution of criminals in the arena would by this
argument also have brought pollution.
Line 52: Vexillum rubeum. Cf. Serv. ad Aen. 8.1; Macr. 1.16.15-19. Servius says that
the red vexillum was raised on the Capitol for the infantry in a coniuratio, that is
an emergency levy usually following a declaration of tumultus. A blue flag was
used for the cavalry. According to Macrobius the red vexillum was kept aloft on
the Capitol for thirty days after the army was first summoned. It is not clear
whether we should suppose a hasty levy or the more leisurely regular
procedure, which would have continued after Paulus left. Crassus had already
been given the task of organising supplies and reinforcements and sending them
on to Paulus (Livy 44.19.5). The combination of the levy at Rome and the
festival is difficult to explain (Varro ap. Macr. 1.16.19; Le Clerc 313), but we
are told later by Livy (45.12.12) that the Roman legions enrolled that year
stayed at home 'quod vitio dies exercitui ad conveniendum dicta erat'.
Line 59: Egressi. For magistrates departing for their provinces immediately after the
sacrifice at the Feriae Latinae see Livy 25.12.1-2.
Lines 61-2: Ingenti. . . prosequente. Cf. Livy 44.22.17: 'traditum memoriae est maiore
quam solita frequentia prosequentium consulem celebratum'.
 ACT A ANTIQUISSIMA 219
Line 65: Carinas . .. Cf. Varro LL 5.47; Festus 293M = 372L; Aug. Civ. Dei 4.16.
Carinae and the sacellum Streniae (on the Fagutal, the south-west extremity of the
Esquiline) were regarded by the antiquarians as the starting-point of the old line
of the via Sacra.
Line 67: Funus Marciae. The Marcia married to a Metellus {infra) is otherwise
unknown. The Marcii Philippi were an established consular family by then, but
the Reges and Censorini were to produce praetors and consuls within a
generation. Suet. Caes. 6.1 (discussed by Vives at Civ. Dei 3.3) and Tac. Ann.
3.76 provide late examples of grand funerals of noble women, to which may be
added the funeral of Sulla's wife, Metella (Plut. Sulla 35.2). According to
Cicero, the first funeral laudatio of a woman was that by Q. Catulus of his
mother Popilia in 102 B.C. (Cic. de Or. 2.44).
Line 69: Pontifex Sempronius. M. Sempronius Tuditanus (cos. 185) was co-opted
pontifex in 183, but died in 174 (Livy 39.46.1; 41.21.8). Nothing, however,
excludes the co-option of another Sempronius then (the name of the successor
has dropped out of Livy's text). Megalesia were originally celebrated on 4 April
and, according to Livy, were made a dramatic festival in 194. However, the day
of the dedication of the temple of Magna Mater at the western extremity of the
Palatine (10 April) was also made an occasion for ludi scaenici (Valerius Antias
thought that these were the first ever inaugurated), and eventually the festival
covered the whole period. See Livy 29.14.14; 34.54.3; 36.36.4; Val. Max. 2.4.3;
CIL I2, p. 314. Interestingly, Livy's text at 29.14.14 gives Pr. Id. Apr. as the
festival date—an error in transmission which Pighius noted. However, Vives in
his commentary on Aug. Civ. Dei 2.4 seems to have accepted it as true.
Line 71: Ver Sacrum. Cf. Livy 22.9.10 for the vowing of a ver sacrum on the advice of
Fabius Maximus after Transimene in 217—this was to be conditional on
Roman recovery in the war. The rite was not performed until 195 (Livy
33.44.1~2).
Line 72: Baebio praetore. The praetor urbanus, cf. line 9.
Lines 73-5: Lautia legatis Aetolum. There is no other evidence for an Aetolian embassy
at this time, although it would have been opportune from the Roman point of
view at this critical stage of the Third Macedonian War. See Pol. 28.4; 30.11;
32.4; Livy 43.17.5; 45.28.7 and 31.2 for the conflicts between pro- and anti-
Roman factions in Aetolia at this time and the ruthless measures taken by
Romans to help their own supporters. There are many parallels for lautia or
munera being made to foreign ambassadors in bronze in this period, but none
involving aes grave. In 205 (Livy 28.39.19—Saguntines) iocus inde lautiaque
legatis praeberi iussa, et muneris ergo in singulos dari ne minus dena milia aeris'.
In 203 Masinissa's ambassadors received 5,000 asses each and their companions
1,000 (30.17.4). Sums attested in the period about 168 include 100,000 asses
together with aedes liberae and sumptus for a legate of Antiochus IV in 173
(42.6.11) and at least 2,000 asses a man for Thracians (42.19.6). See also 43.5.8;
43.6.10-14; 43.8.8; 44.14.5. A sum of 20,000 current sextantial asses for each
Aetolian ambassador would not have been implausible, though 10,000 for each
companion seems high, unless the retinue was very small. In any event the
reference to aes grave must be an error of some kind.
220 ANDREW LINTOTT

The figures used for the sum, however, are potentially an important argument
for the derivation of this text from some period in antiquity. As far as I can tell,
the only inscriptions containing these figures known in the sixteenth century are
on the column of Duilius (CIL I2, 25, discovered 1565), on the E fragment of the
so-called tabula Bembina (CIL I2, 583, 48—in Paris from c. 1560, recorded by
Boissard in MS of 1559 and printed edition of 1599), in CIL XI, 5276 found in
1595 and in CIL IX, 4977, copied by Pighius himself for Smetius c. 1550 and
appearing also in the MS sylloges of Metellus and Ligorio about this time. All
of these examples appeared too late to be of any use to Vives, if he was a forger,
though early enough for Pighius.
Lines 78—80: Epulum in funere . . . This celebration of a woman's death would be
striking at any period. Epula are associated with games in Livy 25.2.10; 27.36.9;
29.38.8; 30.39.8; 31.4.7; 32.7.13; 33.42.11. In 183 (39.46.2) an epulum and ludi
funebres were held at the death of the pontijex maximus. Q. and L. Metellus would
be Macedonicus (cos. 143), later this year with Paulus' army (Livy 44.45.3;
45.1.1), and Calvus (cos. 142) respectively.
Line 82: Tributum is an unusual term for the money paid directly by tax-paying allies
(stipendiarii) outside Italy under the Republic. Its appearance in Livy 45.29.4 is
perhaps explained by the fact that the regular domestic tax paid to Macedonian
kings was then being paid as tribute to Rome. Hence an argument against the
composition of this text under the Republic.
Line 84: C. Popillius Laenas . . . Livy (44.20.1) dates the departure of the Alexandrian
embassy intra triduum of the discussion on the Ides of March and some time
before the last day of the Quinquatrua on March 23rd (on which see Varro LL
6.14; Festus304-5L).
Line 90: Ad Castoris Dis Penatibus. Why should the consuls sacrifice to the Di Penates
at the temple of Castor, when there was a temple specifically of the Penates on
the Velia? It was struck by lightning the next year (Livy 45.16.5; cf. Varro LL
5.54). Wissowa thought that this shrine was small and unimportant (Religion und
Kultus der Romer 164 f), but this was connected with his belief that the cult was
subsumed in the cult of Vesta. Interestingly, Vives himself in a note on Aug. Civ.
Dei 1.3 concludes that the Penates are Castor and Pollux and suggests that the
temple to the Penates was small and obscure. On the relationship of Penates and
Dioscuri see Weinstock, JRS 50, 1960, 112-14; Crawford, JRS 61, 1971, 151-2.
Line 93: L. L. V. V.—lubentes laeti votum voverunt.

HISTORY OF THE TEXT

Pighius in his commentary on the departure of L. Aemilius Paulus for the Third
Macedonian War immediately after the Latin festival in 168 remarks: 'So Livy says
correctly that the Feriae Latinae were on the day before the Kalends of April that
year, a fact which is itself attested by a fragment of a most ancient tablet eiusdem anni
dierum septem acta urbana repraesentans, cuius exemplum exscriptum inter schedas Lodovici Vivis
olim repertum, nobis communicavit vir eruditione singulari antiquitatisque investigandae studio
non minus quam nobilitate commendandus Iacobus Susius.' Pighius concluded that the
earlier passage in Livy, according to which Paulus fixed pridie Idus Apriles as the day
 ACT A ANTIQUISSIMA 221

of the Latin festival, was corrupt (see comm. on line 44 supra). More importantly, he
subjoined the text, because he believed that it both contributed to the understanding
of the history of that year and showed the form in which 'tarn senatus quampopuli diurna
actapriscis Mis saeculis confici in tabulasque referri ac publicari solebant'. He sees no conflict
here with Suetonius' statement that Julius Caesar had laid down in his first
consulship 'lit etiam tumfieref. 'Diaria vocat has tabulas Gellius', he continues, 'Diurna
Cornelius Tacitus, Graeci Ephemerides appellant.''
Stephanus Vinandus Pighius (1520-1604) was an antiquary from Campen in
the Netherlands, whose Annales Romanorum from Romulus to A.D. 70 are a precedent
for modern works of reference like Brough ton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic and
the Fasti Consulares. He had studied antiquities in Rome for eight years around 1550
and retained intermittent contact with Italian scholars after he returned to his native
country.4 It is not surprising that he was sent this text, since his project was well
known (he was, for example, sent a copy of the fragment of the Fasti Triumphales
found on the Esquiline in 1563).5, Susius, a painstaking and apparently honest
scholar, may not have been the only intermediary. Justus Lipsius cited these Ada for
the fire on the Aventine in his 1581 edition of Tacitus' Annals (Book 15). It was also
known to Marc Welser, the scholarly mine-owner from Nuremburg, who refers to it
in two letters of 1597, treating it as a typical Spanish forgery and indicating that
Abram Ortels, the Antwerp geographer and cartographer, had been involved in its
circulation.6
The most interesting figure behind the Ada is Juan Luis Vives himself (1492—
1540). He left Spain in 1509 to pursue his studies at Paris (where he disliked the
logicians) and at Bruges. He became a pensioner of Katharine of Aragon and
through the advice of Sir Thomas More went to Louvain in 1520 to meet Erasmus.
He lectured there on classical authors and was commissioned by Erasmus to do a
new commentary on Augustine's De civitate Dei (1522). Meanwhile he met and found
a patron in Henry VIII, in consequence visiting England for the first time in 1523,
where he was a visiting professor at Corpus Christi College, Oxford. For a number
of years he commuted between England and Bruges. He dedicated to Katharine two
works on education, 'De ratione studii puerilis' and 'De institutione feminae
christianae' (both occasioned by the needs of'ilia Maria tua') and he was engaged to
teach Princess Mary Latin in the winter of 1528-9. The divorce between the royal
pair led him first to quarrel with Henry through supporting Katharine and then to
lose her support, when he failed to appear for her at her trial (after spending six
weeks in prison). Consequently after 1531 he spent his remaining years on the
continent. His commentary on Augustine displays his knowledge about Roman
antiquities deriving from Varro, Servius, Livy and others, and he had lectured on
Cicero and Pliny's Natural History. He also wrote Declamationes Syllanae quinque, first
published in 1520, taking Lepidus' speech from Sallust's Histories as his starting-
point. These included two suasoriae for and against Sulla's retirement and a speech in

4
E. Mandowsky, C. Mitchell, Pirn Ligorio's Roman Antiquities, Stud. Warb. Inst. 1963, 21 ff.;
Lintott, Athenaeum 61, 1983, 207.
5
P. de Nolhac, Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 5, 1884, 251 f.; Degrassi, Inscr. It. XIII, 1, p. 11.
6
Welser, Epist. nos. 50-51 (Opera, Nuremburg 1682, 850 f.).
222 ANDREW LINTOTT

self-defence by Sulla.7 It is not difficult to find in his work the learning and interests
which are germane to the text of the Acta.
The text published by Pighius was picked up by Thomas Reinesius in his
Syntagma Inscriptionum of 1682. Almost immediately there was a flurry of activity over
the text involving three central figures: J. G. Graevius, Isaac Vossius and Henry
Dodwell, with a strong supporting cast. Graevius, who had expressed some disdain
for Reinesius' work in a letter to Vossius of 30 April 1682 (almost as big as Gruterus',
but less inscriptions and more discussion), wrote to Vossius in January 1687 asking
for emendations for the second edition of his Suetonius? When this appeared in 1691,
two years after Vossius' death, it contained amongst Graevius' own notes of the Life
of Caesar the acta for the seven days of 168, described as 'actorum antiquissimorum senatus,
anni nimirum 585, exemplum illustre'. For the text of the first three days Graevius said
that he was indebted to 'generosissimo Comiti de Carbury et eius munere Cl. V. Lockio'.
Locke, none other than the eminent philosopher (referred to also as J. Laeck), who
had taken refuge in the Netherlands from 1684 to 1689 through fear ofJames II, had
obtained the text from the Earl of Carbery, an Irish peer loyal to the Stuarts, and
had sent it on to Graevius from Britain.9
However, there are further complications. When Vossius published his Notae ad
Catullum in 1684, he included on pages 73 and 333 two references to fragments from
the Libri Lintei magistratuum Romanorum, which he claimed to possess in far greater
quantity than those published by Pighius and which he alleged to have been derived
from the same ancient copy used by Vives. The two extracts which he quotes
purport to relate to the year 62 B.C. In one Caesar is stated to have left for his
Spanish province on 26 August, which is manifestly false; in another there is a long
account of an attempt by a man called Copponius to frustrate the preliminaries of
his trial for veneficium, which Vossius related to the man in line 4 of Catullus 104, who
according to his reading of the text was a Coponius. These texts were not
communicated to Graevius but re-emerged after Vossius' death through Dodwell.
Henry Dodwell, the Camden praelector at Oxford, while discussing Hadrian's
creation of the edictum perpetuum of the praetor in a lecture given in the Sheldonian
theatre in 1692 (the subject was the beginning of the Historia Augusta life of Hadrian)
referred to the 'unedited fragments of the libri lintei, in which we read senatus consultum
factum, ut praetores suis perpetuis edictis ius dicerenf. He claimed that these had been
collected and prepared for publication by Paul Petau, the great-uncle of Denis
Petau, the Jesuit scholar and collector of manuscripts (1583-1652); Vossius had
taken his copy from Petau's and passed it on to Adrian Beverland, who in turn gave
it to Dodwell. In an appendix he gives a text of the Acta of 168 B.C., followed by a
second section of four uneven paragraphs referring to the late Republic for which he
could only use Vossius' copy. He had by then realised that the first seven chapters
were in Pighius and Reinesius and used Pighius' text for them. However, he assumed
that Petau had acquired his text from the stone. In a final note Dodwell said that he

'Ioannis Lodovici Vivis Valentini, Declamationes sex—Sullanae quinque . . ., Basel 1538. Basic
biography may be found in A. B. Emden, Biographical Register of Oxford University 1501^t0, sub nom.
" "Bodleian Library, D'Orville MS 470, pp. 157, 160, 199.
"Graevius p. 777. See also R. Aaron, Locke 16 ff.
 ACT A AJVTIQUISSIMA 223
had been told by Adrian Beverland that Graevius had got his copy from Carbery,
who in turn had derived it from Vossius through Beverland.10
Two points emerge from the texts. The first is that the three chapters which
travelled to Graevius via Beverland, Carbery and Locke, if we can judge from
Graevius' reproduction of them, derive from the recension of Reinesius. Reinesius'
emendation 'ius est in solidum aes totuni appears in the text of III K. Aprileis with no
indication of an alternative. In the first chapter (V. K. Aprileis) the word 'praetores" is
printed in lower case, precisely as it was printed by Reinesius, presumably through a
typographical error. The second point is the character of Vossius' new chapters (see
Appendix). Although they contain touches of humour and invention, they are
fundamentally a garbled exercise in late Republican history, in form and in some of
their content parasitic on the seven original chapters, but infelicitous and obscure in
their phrasing. They read like the production of an undergraduate, who has been
asked by his tutor to produce from another period an equivalent to Pighius' text.
They could not have been circulated with the original chapters c. 1575-1600 without
exciting comment. It seems unjust to ascribe them to either Petau, when it is more
probable that they were falsely attributed by Vossius and Beverland.
Vossius, the son of a professor of history at Amsterdam who had also been a
friend of Charles I, had come to England from the continent in 1670 (the most
notable part of his previous career had been a brief but controversial spell as
librarian to Queen Christina of Sweden). He had become a Doctor of Civil Law at
Oxford and prebend at the royal chapel at Windsor. His Catullus is immensely
erudite but also characterised by a fantastical imagination and a desire to outdo his
predecessors at all costs. This may explain his commitment to the 'unpublished'
fragments of 'libri lintef. As for his pretence that the Reinesius text came from a
special source of his own, this may have been intended as a joke against Graevius,
which was carried on by Carbery on his own account, one which proved Graevius'
readiness to criticise books that he had not properly read.
We must not, however, neglect Adrian Beverland. The latter had come to
England from Leyden in his teens and is attested at Oxford in 1673. According to the
antiquarian Anthony Wood, 'One Hadrian Beverland, who entitles himself Dominus
Zelandiae, became a sojourner in Oxon this year for the sake of the public library.
He was afterwards doctor of the law and a publisher of prohibited, obscure and
profane books "for which he is said to have been banished from his country".' He
was a friend of both Graevius and Vossius. Vossius gave him his Notae ad Catullum,
and he was present at Vossius' deathbed, as he relates in a letter. 'When the Dean of
Windsor came to his room to administer the last sacrament, Vossius said: "Tell me
how to compel my farmers to pay their dues". To one who wished to offer the last
sacrament to his uncle Fr. Junius, Vossius said: "This beautiful institution is for
sinners, but my uncle is without sin".'11 The catalogue of Beverland's works in the
Bodleian library gives some idea of his tastes and interests. These include: 'Peccatum
originale KOCT' E^OXTIV sic nuncupatum philologice elucubratum a Themidis alumno',

'"Dodwell, Praelectiones Academicae VIII, x, pp. 333-4, 651 ff. esp. 779.
"Wood, Fasti Oxonienses II, p. 334. Beverland's letters to Graevius and others may be found in
Bodl. Lib. D'Orville MS 480—p. 24 for Vossius' last words, p. 14 for Ad Catullum.
224 ANDREW LINTOTT

'De stolatae virginitatis iure' (a prurient survey of its neglect by the ancients), 'De
fornicatione cavenda admonitio' (supposedly an attempt to remedy the impression
caused by the previous work), and the imaginary letter of advice entitled 'Look
about: destroyers and poisoners are with you, and cutthroats behind you'. He is
supposed to have contributed to the recondite sexual interpretations in Vossius'
Catullus and it is not too difficult to envisage his collaborating with Vossius in other
flights of fancy.
Almost unbelievably, Vossius and Beverland left their mark on the Ada through
Dodwell's imprimatur and affected their critical reception thereafter. No classical
scholar since then seems to have considered Pighius' text separately, though
ironically it is that text which has suffered some of the severest criticisms. During the
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries opinion was divided for and against the
genuineness of the Dodwell version. Men like Hearne, Drakenborch and Muratori
(with reservations) accepted it; Wessely, Oudendorp, Moyle and Gibbon were
sceptical. A convenient summary of the debate will be found in E. Lieberkiihn's
Vindiciae librorum iniuria suspectorum, written as a riposte to J. V. Le Clerc's Des
journeaux chez les romains. However, Lieberkiihn is to my knowledge the last to have
defended its authenticity, and after Le Clerc's work, W. Rein's comment in the first
volume of Pauly's Realencyclopaedie (1839), s.v. Ada, and the contribution of Heinze,
its falsity has been presumed.12

THE AUTHENTICITY OF PIGHIUS' TEXT

It has never been difficult to find arguments against the authenticity even of
Pighius' chapters of the Ada. They are texts which purport to have been taken from
a monument of which we have apparently no evidence. It is quite unclear how Vives
could have got hold of such a text from Rome—its likeliest provenance. To judge
from the style and spelling the text could not have been engraved before the late
Republic and has a somewhat literary flavour. There are, moreover, difficulties in
the details. Two clear anachronisms are the gift to the Aetolians of aes grave (line 74)
and the Cimbric shield (line 34), unless we suppose that such a shield was used as a
sign in the forum before Marius' time. A less striking anachronism is the use of the
word 'tributum' for the payment of tax by allies outside Italy (line 82). Suspicion
short of proof attaches to the senatus consultum about the praetor's edict (lines 6-7)
and may be the product of modern presumptions about the development of Roman
private law. However, there is also the major improbability of an epulum and ludi
scaenici celebrating a woman's death (lines 78-80).
The conflicts with Livy are of course two-edged. There is no reason to suppose
that there was only one version of the events of 168 B.C. in the Roman historians of
the late Republic. The most obvious discrepancy is the date of the departure of the
embassy to Egypt, and it is perfectly possible that the date of this was not securely
attested by any contemporary source, thus permitting alternative imaginative
reconstructions later. By contrast, forgers tend to keep as close as possible to well-
known facts and texts, in order to base their own inventions the more soundly, and

12
Rein p. 51, s.v. acta; Heinze and Zell cited above, p. 213.
 ACT A AMTIQUISSIMA 225

the putative forger of our document knew Livy and antiquarian sources very well.
Moreover, if we treat the document as an authentic fragment of the historiography
of the Augustan period—a literary text incorporated into a commemorative
monument—then the document's errors are as explicable as any in Livy.
Examination of any suspected forgery, where there is no physical evidence, is
not merely susceptible to, but in a sense dependent on, a petitio principii. Extenuation
comes easily to those who feel in their hearts that a document is sound, while the
suspicious can always find material to feed their suspicions. What is there in the Ada
which may prejudice a reader into thinking that it is a genuine product of antiquity?
In brief, it would be quite unparalleled in scope and invention as an epigraphic
forgery. Detailed learning would have been deployed to illustrate a period for which
there are other reputable sources and yet the information provided by one major
source would have been on occasion disregarded. Moreover, the life and imagina-
tion contained in the text is not to be found in the other turgid and pedestrian
productions which fill CIL VI, 5. In particular, if the embassy for the Aetolians was
invented, this shows a brilliant grasp of the delicately balanced situation in the Third
Punic War. The literary language, which occurs from time to time, is not
inappropriate in a commemorative inscription of the Augustan period, as the elogia
from the forum Augusti show. One may add that the doubts caused by the aes grave are
counterbalanced by the numerals used to express the amount. Those who argue for
forgery may be obliged to suppose that these forms were a later improvement by
Pighius.
Nevertheless, once one inclines to believe in a forgery, there is no doubt that
Vives emerges as a first-class candidate for an impostor of this stature. His scholarly
work shows great Latinity and knowledge of antiquities. He is interested in the
byways of Roman religion and in anecdotal prosopography. In the Declamationes
Syllanae we find both recherche knowledge and invention of facts. The latter is
admittedly acceptable in such compositions but still indicative of a cast of mind.
T. Turpilius, the man executed by Metellus after the loss of Vaga in 108, becomes
the uncle of L. Luscius, the centurion and profiteer under Sulla. A certain M.
Petorius saw the grisly end of Marius Gratidianus at the hands of Catiline. The
anonymous remark about the dangers of Sulla's advance from rags to riches (Plut.
Sulla 1.4) is attributed to a L. Manlius.13 Moreover, Vives' works show an interest in
items which form part of the Ada. The cella of Laverna at the temple of Tellus (line
24) recalls the portentous chasm in the earth which appeared by Laverna as Sulla set
out for the Social War. The sacrifice to the Penates at the temple of Castor (line 90)
perhaps reflects Vives' own view that they should be identified with Castor and
Pollux.14 He was well informed about the Megalesia and about Janus and the
argentarii: particularly interesting is his evocation of Janus medius in his description of
Q. Fufidius in the Declamationes.15 He may even have developed a predilection for
Baebii from learning of the tragic fates of the two brothers in the civil war between
Marius and Sulla.16 It might be argued that the Ada were an innocent invention by
"Decl. 4.91, 121-2; 5.164 in 1538 Basel edition.
14
Plut. Sulla 6.11 = Sulla F. 8P; Vives, Decl. Sull. 1, p. 4; Ad Civ. Dei 1.3.
l5
Ad Civ. Dei 2.4; 7.4; 8.8; Decl. 5.162-3.
16
Ad Civ. Dei 2.25; 3.27; Flor. 2.9.24; Lucan 2.118 ff. with Comm. Bernense.
226 ANDREW LINTOTT

Vives, an exercitatio puerilis, like the dialogues about home, school, the game of tennis,
etc., which he published in his Latin course in 1538.17 However, lines 63-4 and 92—3
appear to represent epigraphic lacunae. Nor can one securely argue, as Zell did,
from the general sanctity of Vives' character.18
The circumstantial evidence against the Acta raises doubts, which could swiftly
be dispersed, if we had any evidence that a monument of the early Principate existed
with this kind of text, as Dodwell believed.19 For example, in his edition of the Elogia,
after recording the numerous unattached fragments, Degrassi prints a fragment
0-44 m. by 0-32 m. with the text: ']mphilu[ / a]mpliat['. The stone, he believed, was
to be distinguished from those of the forum Augusti and came from the Caelian.20
This inscription almost certainly referred to a Baebius Tamphilus and had a
reference to ampliatio either of territory or in court. If our MS text had given Cn.
Baebius his cognomen in line 9, we would be faced with a challenging coincidence. As it
is, the existence of such fragments points to the number of unknown or scarcely
surviving historical or pseudo-historical monuments of the Augustan period and is a
warning against condemning Vives out of hand.
It is worthwhile considering briefly the implications of the document being a
genuine legacy from antiquity, albeit from a period which was not contemporary
with the events described. The information it contains would not necessarily be more
reliable than that in Livy, but it would be a different tradition, one with a depth of
detail and a corresponding lack of interpretative overlay. Pighius' Acta have the
character of dry factuality which Cicero'21 contemptuously ascribed to the Annales
Pontificum and which was inevitably shared by the more elaborate acta compiled in
the late Republic and Principate. Might material of this kind have been actually
composed in 168 B.C. to be picked up by a historian or antiquarian later and so
transmitted to the creator of our hypothetical monument? Here it should be noticed
that the statement about Julius Caesar in Suetonius (Caes. 20.1), 'primus omnium
instituit ut tarn senatus quam populi diurna acta confierent et publicarentur,' may
be interpreted to mean 'he was the first to establish that the daily acts of the senate
should be published as well as those of the people'. The tarn . . . quam construction is
twice used elsewhere in the Caesar to describe a new addition to what was previously
established or expected.22 Thus, if our document is genuine, nothing forbids and
there is much to encourage the belief that it derives in some way from acta of the year
in question. Although historians of the Republic may have despised such records,
because it needed too much effort for them to distil a historical narrative from the
information contained there,23 their very existence would have been important as an
alternative to the inbred reproduction of the works of the historians, and their

"Exercitatio linguae Latinae pp. 13 ff. of 1555 Basel edition.

l8
'. . . dem ernsten, reinen und edeln Wesen des Ludovicus Vives . . ., welcher viel mehr und
allgemeiner bekannt zu sein verdient als er ist . . .' (Zell p. 121).
1<J
Dodwell 664. Contra, Heinze 30.
w
Inscr. It. XIII, 3, 36.
2l
Cic. de Oral. 2.51 ff.; Leg. 1.6.
22
Suet. Caes. 24.3; 74.2; cf. Aug. 66.4. See also Zell p. 11.
23
Walsh, Livy, Cambridge 1961, 113; Ogilvie, Commentary on Liny I-V, Oxford 1965, 6.
 ACTA ANTIQUISSIMA 227
information would have tended to seep through into the writings of the historians,
even if it was rarely drawn on consistently and at length.
Thus, if the document were genuine, it would give new life to a form of Roman
historiography which is currently labouring under scholarly scepticism, that of the
gazette of public events. If on the other hand the internal evidence of the document,
when compared with Vives' other work, still leaves the reader more inclined to
believe in a forgery than not (as is the case with the present writer), this should be
accompanied by admiration of Vives' scholarship and regret that his chefd'ceuvre was
contaminated by clumsy imitation in the following century.24

ANDREW LINTOTT

APPENDIX: VOSSIUS' ACTA

D. IV. SYLLANO L. MVRE. COSS
A. D. Ill IDVS SEXTIL.
FASCES PENES MVRENAM
IS BENE MANE SACRUM FECIT AD CASTORIS
DIIS PENATIBUS PVB. INDE COEGIT IN CURIA POMPAE
SYLLANVS CVM ACCENSIS CAUSAM DIXIT APVD Q.
CORNIFICIVM PRO SEX. ROSCIO EX MVNICIPIO LARINATI
ACCVSATO DE VI PRIVATA
ACCVSAVIT L. TORQUATUS FILIVS_ABSOLVTVSQUE EST
REVS SENTENTIIS XL DAMNATUS XX
TVMVLTVS IN SACRA VIA INTER OPERAS CLODII PVLCHRI
ET SERVOS T. ANNII
RIXA PO ... ET Q.
S.C. FACTVM NE MVLTA AERARIORUM TRANSEAT AD HEREDES
TONVIT SVB MERIDIEM FVLGVRAVIT ET QVERCVS
ACTA IN SUMMO ARGILETO

A. D. V. KAL. SEPTEMB.
M. TVLLIVS CAVSAM DIXIT PRO CORN. SYLLA APVD
IVDICES DE CONIVRATIONE ACCVSANTE TORQVATO FILIO
QVINQVE SENTENTIIS OBTINVIT TRIB. AERAR. CONDEMNARVNT
FASCES PENES SYLLANVM
TRIB. PL. INTERCESSERVNT S.C. DE TRIBVTIS LAODICIAE
VT DARENT PRAEDES
PRAETOR VRB. FILIAM EO DIE DARET NVPTVM EDICTO
MONVIT SE IVS NON DICTVRVM ET VADIMONIA OMNIA IN
DIEM QVINTVM DISTVLIT
TESTAMENTVM MELIONIS ALLATVM MYCENIS PRAETOR
PEREGRINVS RESCIDIT Q. EXPRESSVM ERAT TORMENTIS
+
C. CAESAR IN HISPANIAM VLTERIOREM EX PRAETVRA
PROFICISCITVR DIV PRIVS RETARDATVS A CREDITORIBVS
Cv STERTINIO PRAETORI IVS DICENTI NVNTIVS ALLATVS
EST DE MORTE FILII FICTVS AB AMICIS COPPONII REI
DE VENEFICIO VT CONCILIVM DIMITTERET ILLE PERTVRBATVS
DOMVM SE RECIPIEBAT SED RE COMPERTA PERSEVERAVIT IN
INQVIRENDO
24
I am immensely grateful for advice from a number of scholars: Professor P. A. Brunt, Miss E.
Rawson, Professor I. Michael and Mr. N. Purcell.
228 ANDREW LINTOTT
C. ACTIVS COPPONIVM VENEFICII POSTVLAVIT
DIVINATIO INTER ACTIVM ET CAEPASIVM MINOREM DE
ACCVSANDO ACTIVS OBTINVIT QVOD CAEPASII VXOR
SOROR ESSET NVRVS COPPONII +
RIXA AD FORNICEM FABII ET CAEDES
GLADIATORVM DVORVM EX LVDO CVRIONIS

A. D. XXXX KAL. SEPT.

FVNVS METELLAE PIAE VIRGINIS ILLATAE SEPVLCHRO
SVORVM MAIORVM VIA AVRELIA
CENSORES LOCAVERVNT REFICIENDVM TECTVM All
LOQVENTIS HS XXII
Q. HORTENSIVS SVB VESPERVM ORATIONEM HABVIT
DE CENSVRA ET BELLO ALLOBROGVM
RELIQVIAE CONIVRATORVM CVM L. SERGIO
TVMVLTVANTVR IN HETRVRIA
CAVPO AD TRES TABERNAS OCCISVS A THRACIBVS EBRIIS IN VIA PVBLICA
GN. POMPEIO MAG. II
M. LICINIO CRASSO II COSS
KAL. MAIL
COSS. IN GALLIAM PROFECTI AD C. CAESAREM
This text is taken from Dodwell's Praelectiones Academicae, with the exception of the section + .. . + where
I have drawn on Vossius, Ad Catullum pp. 73, 333 instead of Dodwell's text, which contains some
corruption.