صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

'Saturnus nimia cum mundo celeritate concertans uix exiguis cursibus superatur.' The thes. ling. Lat.,-ecce iterum Crispinus,-quotes the verse in company with Manil. I 613' (alter limes) aduerso concurrit rursus in axe,' which it misconstrues as the editors of Manilius used to do, not perceiving that aduerso is dative, and with Filastr. 133 3 'concurrere atque discurrere sidera,' where concurrere has a plural subject and means concurrere inter se.

But the times assigned to Mars and Mercury are new and strange. In verse 7 the word rubeus is neither to be altered with Baehrens and Ziehen nor marked as corrupt with Riese, for the Latin scholia in Maass' comm. in Arat. p. 274 I have 'tertia autem Mars, rubea' where the Greek of Erat. catast. 43 is ὁ δὲ τρίτος ̓́Αρεως· Πυρόεις δὲ καλεῖται. But 540 days is a long way short of the two years commonly attributed to Mars by the ancients. Two years are 730 days, and this number might be obtained by writing

Mars septingentis rubeus triginta diebus.

Ciphers are so easily confused that the change of the numerals is much less violent than it seems; the initial et has sic for a variant, and both may be metrical interpolations. But first let us look round for other estimates of this planet's time. The modern calculation is 687 days, and Vitruuius IX I 10 comes very near it with 683; 720 is the figure in Hyg. astr. IV 14 (p. 117 Bunte), 724 in Cic. n. d. II 53, 2 years 5 months (about 882) in Cleom. I 3 (17), 2 years (say 913) in Gemin. 1 26, and 9 years in schol. Germ. Breys. pp. 183 and 222, which is so extravagant that it probably arises from a scribe's error of IX for II. But a contrast to these excessive rates is presented by schol. Arat. 455 (Maass pp. 427 sq.) τὸν δὲ ̓́Αρεα εἰς ἕκαστον ζῴδιον (ποιεῖν φασιν) ἡμέρας με καὶ τὸν πάντα κύκλον ἀνύειν εἰς ἐνιαυτὸν καὶ μῆνας δ'. This is both false and self-contradictory, for the proposition that 45×12=485 (or thereabouts) is not arithmetically sound. A rough correspondence may be brought about either by changing the 45 days to 40 (μe' to μ) or the 4 months to 6 (8′ to s'), and the latter is the better because the less remote from fact. 45×12=540; and 540 is the number given in our verse. The coincidence may be a pure accident, but it puts a scruple in the way of altering the text.

In verse 10 the time of Mercury is said to be 139 days, which is nowhere near the truth and was not even, so far as I am aware, among the false opinions of antiquity. Now the time assigned to Venus in the verse above is the time of Pliny and the other poem, 348 days: the time which they assign to Mercury is 339 days; and it is natural to suspect that in our number of 139 the I ought to be 3. Perhaps then Mercurius is a gloss on some shorter name of the planet and has ousted the adverb from a verse of this sort,

Stilbon (or Arcas) ter centum triginta nouemque diebus.

But it is hard to prescribe limits to the ignorance or error of such a poet as this, and it deserves note that he calls all the other planets by the names which we ourselves usually attach to them.

TRINITY COLlege, Cambridge.



PERHAPS the most difficult part of the famous inscription from Heraclea (around which so many controversies have raged) is the opening section of the extant text,1 where from a given form of procedure it is required to determine the subject matter. A solution of this puzzling problem, which I proposed some months ago,2 has recently been made the subject of an interesting article in this journal by Dr. E. G. Hardy. Mr. Hardy has long been engaged in this field, and has rendered much useful service: In this article, however, he seems to be interested in my views chiefly in their relation to his own theory. This is apparent in his agreements with me. For example, one aim of my study was to identify the professiones of Cicero's letters ad Att. xiii. 33, 1,4 and ad Fam. xvi. 23, 1,5 with those provided for in the first section of the inscription. It appeared that the returns mentioned by Cicero were registrations of property, that they were to be made yearly, and that they had their prototype in the annual property census of Egypt. It also seemed clear that Caesar's recensus populi of 46° was modelled on the Egyptian kaт' oiκíav άñoуpapý. With these preliminary conclusions (by no means unimportant in themselves) Mr. Hardy is not unwilling to agree. He even goes so far as to say that I have made a good case for 'a new system of professiones somehow relating to property and introduced in 46.' He thinks too that the settlement of the frumentations as a part of a more comprehensive legislative scheme (as my view implies) would be most appropriate. So far so good, but when it comes to the vital point of admitting a connection between these matters and vv. 1-19 of the Tablet he draws back as if from some fatal step.

One of the reasons for this reluctant attitude (apparently the chief one, being reserved till the last) is the supposed difficulty of getting the professiones on file. If they were really property returns, and the means by which Caesar reduced the list of those sharing in free grain from 320,000 to 150,000, Mr. Hardy maintains it would have been physically impossible to handle them in a year, 'as it is clear that only one magistrate at a time received the returns.' It is hard to believe that this is meant in sober earnest, since no one should know better than Mr. Hardy that

1 Vv. 1-19, Bruns' Fontes, 7th ed., pp. 102-3. The inscription as a whole I regard as the extant portion of the lex Iulia Municipalis, but of course this is not assumed in the argument without proof.

2 The Professiones of the Heraclean Tablet.' Jour. Rom. Stud., vol. v. pp. 125-137 (1915).

3 In the January number. Mr. Hardy's article came late to my notice. This circumstance, together with the pressure of other duties and the fact that California is at a considerable distance from London, has delayed my rejoinder unduly.

4 O neglegentiam miram! semelne putas mihi dixisse Balbum et Faberium professionem relatam? qui etiam eorum iussu miserim qui

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

when a law requires returns of this character to be made ad consulem,1 it does not mean that the consul personally received and inspected them. Such an idea of Roman administration would be grotesque. In the first place, as mere Latin, profiteri ad consulem does not mean to deliver a return to a consul. The text itself takes pains to interchange ad with apud,2 and the kind of relation intended is that indicated by Varro3 when he says: unde (sc. populum) uocare posset ad contionem, non solum ad consules et censores, sed etiam quaestores;' that is, ad consulem signifies under the presidency or direction or administration or supervision of the consul. The returns themselves in schedule form would be received and inspected (as in our own practice) by an army of clerks, with which we know the Roman government was provided. In this case the consul exercised a general oversight, and to him were submitted matters of difficulty. These (on my view) were sure to arise inasmuch as the law seems to have contained exemptions.5 Even Cicero in the letter to Tiro, besides giving an impression of the difficulty of filling out the schedule (greater of course in case of the better to do) was uncertain whether a particular piece of property should be registered. It was necessary, therefore, that some responsible official should be at hand, and it made no great difference whether he was consul, praetor, or tribune. The routine labour was doubtless performed by the same clerical staff in each case, the only difference being the magistrate in whose technical presence, that is, under whose supervision, it was done, and who acted as arbiter in cases of doubt. Mr. Hardy's nightmare of a consul giving 'twelve hours' attendance on each of the 212 days' and having 'less than a minute for each professio,' would thus seem to be as unsubstantial as nightmares usually are.

The profitentes are a worry to Mr. Hardy in another way in that they comprise (for a given year) a definite number, say 170,000, and if this be subtracted from the total citizen population of 320,000 which 'the recensus had already given,' the remainder instead of being a selective maximum would be 'a mere residue.' How then could there be vacancies in such a number, that needed to be filled by the praetor's subsortitio? In the first place, it is a misapprehension that I regarded the recensus as showing a total citizen population of 320,000. This was the number of accipientes before Caesar undertook his reform, and as people generally availed themselves of free corn, it represented approximately' (as I said) the citizens of Rome at the time.7 How near Caesar's enumeration came to this total I have no means of knowing precisely. Doubtless the difference was not very great. In the second place the 170,000 is itself an inference. There would of course be just so many profitentes in a year, but all that can be known of the exact number is that which results from the deduction of those receiving grain from the state. But let us assume a fixed maximum for the accipientes together with a known and definite number of citizens and of those making the yearly returns of property. The question is how can the proper balance with respect to the accipientes be preserved. There would seem to be only two possibilities, one a reduction of the maximum through an increase in the number of property owners, which from Caesar's standpoint would

[blocks in formation]

be a desirable result. On the other hand, if the owners of property decreased in number, the maximum would remain the same, but there would come into existence a class eligible for public aid and not receiving it. I hardly think Caesar, with his great plans and hopes for the future, took much account of this possibility, or, if he did, he could view with equanimity the exclusion of these economic failures from the list. If, however, through unfavourable circumstances, this class became large, and it seemed expedient to deal with it, the maximum could be increased. And this (curiously enough) is precisely what happened. After the long struggle following the death of Caesar, with its terrible proscription and the concentration of property in fewer hands, it is not surprising to find on the testimony of Augustus himself that the number given grain at the public expense had increased to somewhat more than 200,000,1 although personally he was strongly in favour of abolishing these frumentationes publicae altogether.2 This increase of the accipientes to 200,000 in face of the personal attitude of Augustus, and the virtually certain decrease in the number of property holders, are indications that the principle at least of Caesar's law had been retained.3

Again, Mr. Hardy is much concerned over the relation of the profitentes in my scheme to the yearly vacancies caused by death in the list of the 150,000. These were to be filled by lot from those qui non recensi essent,4 concerning whose identity a question at once arises. Mr. Hardy fears that in my view they were only another name for the profitentes, and that eligibles for the vacancies must come from the latter source. Accordingly he exhorts me (as he did Legras 5) to tell him who the non recensi really were. Having no desire to deprive him of this valuable information I will answer at once: The non recensi are to be understood in the light of the incensi. These comprised the class who for one reason or another had not made the return to the censor, and in Livy it is said that even under the monarchy there were stringent laws against intentional delinquents. The word, then, as denoting those omitted from the censor's list, was perfectly familiar, and with it in mind a Roman would instinctively interpret non recensi as those omitted from the recensus. As I understand this to be an enumeration of the citizen population of the city, the non recensi will be specifically the citizens who were not included. As the count was taken by an altogether new method, and doubtless on a given day," it is not surprising that there should be numerous omissions. It is from these omitted persons that the vacancies in the frumentations were to be filled.

It may be said that among those not enrolled there must have been many owners of property, and that to fill vacancies from these is contrary to hypothesis. Let us see just how valid this objection is. Suetonius 8 has told us enough about the recensus (he could not be expected to give all the particulars) to show that it was carried out after the Egyptian fashion-a fact which Mr. Hardy himself admits. This makes it certain that the officials had the assistance not only of the owners of the insulae but also of those of private houses, these being required in each case to prepare a list of persons having their abode in the building. But the owner of an insula might not know (or take the trouble to find out) the names of all the persons living in his tenement, so that while from this method we should have a practically complete list of owners, there could well be many omissions (as in a modern census)

[blocks in formation]

among the more or less floating population of the city. From this circumstance it is easy to see how the non recensi (associated even in Suetonius with the enumeration per dominos insularum) were the class from which the vacancies were filled. And even if this were not the case, and the non recensi had contained some of the professi, it would have been a mere clerical detail to exclude the latter from the subsortitio.

So much for the non recensi. Mr. Hardy is also curious about the recensus populi itself, and complains that I have not made clear what purpose it served by the side of the regular census. I can hardly blame Mr. Hardy for being a little puzzled on this point, since my own remarks on the census were unduly conservative, and (it must be confessed) not very enlightening. What seems to be true (as will presently appear) is that the old census was merged in the new system of professiones, which (after their Egyptian prototype) related exclusively to property. This left room (and indeed gave occasion) for an adaptation of the complementary Egyptian institutions, the κаT' oiκíαv árоуpadý. Such an enumeration of the citizen population (as Edouard Cuq has recently pointed out1) was necessary 'to fix the origo, to apply the rule actor sequitur forum rei, to collect the tax on rent, to fix properly the ius liberorum, and to dispense the tesserae frumentariae.' It would be interesting to dwell on each of these topics, but I will not go beyond the relation of Caesar's recensus populi to the frumentations. In order to be eligible for free grain a man had to be a citizen, and the evidence of his citizenship was the appearance of his name on the latest official list. In attacking the corn problem Caesar, as a first step (with the born administrator's instinct for basing action on the facts), set out to determine who were citizens. Those omitted from this list were ineligible, but were consoled by the subsortitio. Those included were prima facie eligible. The question for Caesar was how their number might be reduced.

On this point Mr. Hardy and I have reached very different conclusions. I have no wish to criticize his theory, but it seems proper to make one or two observations. The fact that it originated with Mommsen signifies prestige rather than finality. Regarding this whole legislation Mommsen has changed his mind with disconcerting freedom, and Mr. Hardy's attempt to adjust himself to the somewhat devious course of the master is almost an occasion for mirth.2 As to recensus 3 it may be equivalent to census when the latter is considered as a revision of a former registration. It may also imply a review, as in Livy, where in equitibus recensendis 4 = in equitibus recognoscendis.5 To use recensus, as I understand it, of a population census puts a certain strain on the meaning, which would be alleviated at first by the context and later by repetition. To employ it as Mr. Hardy does in the sense of a special, numerically limited list made at infrequent intervals and for one (and only one) special purpose seems to depart from the tradition of the term and to go. beyond what would have been intelligible. Again, if the profitentes are those who participate in the subsortitio, some of them are bound to be successful; and yet the law (under heavy penalties) prohibits anyone who has made a professio from receiving grain. Even if one could escape from this dilemma, he would still be confronted with the fact that the hypothesis represents Caesar not as engaged in an enterprise worthy of his genius, but as using the legislative machinery in a roundabout and unnecessary way to accomplish what is after all only a detail of administration. And

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« السابقةمتابعة »