Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T15:21:04.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Friend of Tacitus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

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

Extract

The aspiration to fame being open, avowed, and honourable, it was no scandal if a Roman of consular rank insisted on a mention in books of history written by a friend and destined (it was clear) to undying renown. Pliny saw his chance (Epp. VII, 33). There was another way and device. By publishing his own correspondence, Pliny was able to put in circulation a kind of autobiography, subtle and unimpeachable. The collection carries no fewer than eleven letters to the address of Cornelius Tacitus, and he is referred to in four others. Pliny quietly established a claim to parity in the field of eloquence.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1-2 , November 1957 , pp. 131 - 135
Copyright
Copyright ©Ronald Syme 1957. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E. Groag, P-W VI, 1773.

2 E. Groag, I.e., cf. PIR 2, F 41.

3 PIR 1, M 436. His wife was the sister of the consular Q. Corellius Rufus (Epp. VII, 11, 3). Corellius' daughter was called Corellia Hispulla (PIR 2, C 1296), and a Calpurnia Hispulla is the aunt of Pliny's wife (C 329).

4 Groag (P-W X, 884) assigns the letter to the winter of 98/9 (when Trajan himself was on the Danube). Servianus had gone from Germania Superior (cf. SHA, Hadr. 2, 5 f.) to take over the Pannonian command (Epp. VIII, 23, 5), presumably in 98. But Pliny's language (and the order of the letters) speaks rather for 101 or 102; that is, the Dacian War.

5 Not adduced by Groag in his full and sympathetic discussion of this cultivated person (P-W XV, 1820 ff.). The letter proves that Fundanus preferred a style of oratory more chaste and restrained than that of Pliny: observe the plural in ’vestro iudicio’ and ’tenuitas vestra’ (4 f.). That is to say, he adhered to the ‘Attic’ school.

6 Sabinus will be identified as P. Metilius Sabinus Nepos (suff. 103). That is, the Nepos who in 105 is 'maximae provinciae praefuturus’ (Epp. IV, 26, 2). Groag, noticing that his son (or nephew), P. Metilius Secundus (ILS 1053), suffect consul in 123 or 124, was tribunus of X Gemina, conjectured that the province was Pannonia (P-W XV, 1401). Perhaps, however, an earlier command, before Pannonia (which now stood very high in the hierarchy of the consular commands).

7 Mamilianus (also the recipient of IX, 16, which shows that he had been hunting) is clearly T. Pomponius Mamilianus (suff. 100). A certain ‘[T.] Pomponius T. f. Gal. Mamilianus Rufus Antistius Funisulanus Vettonianus’ sets up a dedication at Deva (CIL VII, 164, improved by Haverfield in Eph. Ep. IX, 535,). Commonly assumed governor of Britain, but his title, ‘leg. Aug.,’ suggests rather the commander of XX Valeria Victrix: a recent entry in a standard work (P-W XXI, 2432) imports confusion —‘Stadthalter von Britannien und Kommandant der leg. [II Augusta]’. That work (it can be noted) omits T. Pomponius Antistianus, the suffectus of 120 (PIR 1, P 522), who, as legate of Lycia-Pamphylia bears the nomenclature ‘Pomponius Antistianus Funisulanus Vettonianus’ (IGR III, 739, ch. 14).

8 Dio LXVIII, 9, 2.

9 Palma held Tarraconensis about 101 (Martial XII, 9, 1). Sosius was in a high command in 102 or 103, not at the beginning of his tenure, cf. ‘multa beneficia in multos contulisti’ (Epp. IV, 4, 3). Groag suggests a post that ended in 105 at the latest (P-W III A, 1183). Stein, who unfortunately failed to cite (or notice) the letter of Pliny, argues that Sosius was legate of Moesia Inferior, succeeding A. Caecilius Faustinus (suff. 99), who is attested in May, 105 (CIL XVI, 50). See, against this view, JRS XXXV (1945), 112Google Scholar. Sosius could have been legate of Moesia Superior after C. Cilnius Proculus (suff. 87) attested in 100 (CIL XVI, 46), and before L. Herennius Saturninus (suff. 100) whose tenure falls somewhere between 103 and 106 (CIL XVI, 54).

10 CILXVI, 54 (cf. the preceding note).

11 CILXVI, 50.

12 As shown by the inscription of Pergamum, cf. A. v. Premerstein, Bayerische S–B 1934, Heft 3, 15 f. For his identity (not Julius Bassus, the delinquent proconsul of Bithynia), see JRS XXXVI (1946), 162 fGoogle Scholar.

13 cf. Groag, P-W III A, 1184f.

14 AE 1940, 210.

15 For Maximus, who had been legate of Moesia Inferior in 100 (SEG 1, 329, ll. 62 ff.), Dio LXVIII, 9, 4. For Agricola, ILS 1021a, cf. CIL XVI, 47.

18 Dio LXVIII, 16, 2.

17 CIL XVI, 57, 160, 163.

18 CIL II, 4282 (near Tarraco), cf. Groag, P-W XIII, 471.

19 ILS 1029. His governorship of Pannonia Superior (attested in 116, CIL XVI, 64) lasted into the reign of Hadrian. Q. Pompeius Falco (suff. 108), the son-in-law of Sosius Senecio, is parallel—legate of Moesia Inferior in 116 and 117 (CIL III, 7537, 12470), transferred to Britain by Hadrian (ILS 1035).

20 At Italica, the ‘patria’ of Trajan, there is a dedication to the Emperor, perhaps as ‘[hosp]iti’, set up by two men, viz. ‘[s. L. f. Mae]c.’ and ‘]ius Iustus ’ (CIL II, 1114).

21 CIL XII, 4791, 4794–6, 4798, 5218.

22 Possibly the unknown consular of the acephalous inscription at Nemausus (CIL XII, 3169), cf. below, n. 28.

23 ILS 1021. The consulate is registered on the new fragment of the Fasti Ostienses (AE 1954, 220).

24 Tacitus, Agr. 9, 1.

25 cf. observations on this type of province in JRS XLIII (1953) 152 fGoogle Scholar.

26 cf. E. Birley, Roman Britain and the Roman Army (1953) 4; Proc. Brit. Ac. XXXIX (1953), 203Google Scholar.

27 ILS 1022 (Rome, the Mons Caelius).

28 CIL XII, 3169. Perhaps D. Terentius Scaurianus, the first legate of Trajan's Dacia (as was suggested in JRS XXXVI (1946) 160Google Scholar): it can be argued that he came from Gallia Narbonensis (Groag, P-W v A, 669). Possibly, however, L. Fabius Justus.

29 Victor, Epit. 13, 6: ‘ob honorem Surae, cuius studio imperium arripuerat, lavacra condidit.’

30 The possibilities have narrowed. The consuls of 94–6 are known; also those of 98, if the pair P. Julius and Q. Fulvius Gillo belong, as is probable, to the last two months of 98 (cf. JRS XLIII (1953) 154Google Scholar); while 99 seems too late. As against 93, observe that Martial in a poem of 92 shows Sura recovering from a dangerous illness (VII, 47), with no sign that he is soon to be consul.

31 Compare Groag's powerful arguments, discussing ILS 1022 (P-W XIII, 472 f.). A case could perhaps be made for Sosius Senecio: honours conferred for the Second Dacian War at least.

32 Epp. IX, 13, 10 f. Note further the anomalous promotion of A. Larcius Priscus, quaestor of Asia, becoming ’legatus Augusti leg. IIII Scythaicae/pro legato consulare provinc. Syriae’ (AE 1908, 237, cf. ILS 1055). cf. Philologus XCI (1936), 238 ffGoogle Scholar.

33 Thus perhaps C. Julius Quadratus Bassus (suff. 105). Some of the legionary detachments registered on his inscription might have been commanded by him in the First Dacian War; he had previously been legate of XI Claudia, which went from Vindonissa to t he Danube c. 101 (E. Ritterling, P-W XII, 1697).

34 P. Berol. 8334, as interpreted by A. Piganiol, CRAI 1947, 376 ff. cf. JRS XLIV (1954) 117Google Scholar.

35 That date and occasion for the Dialogus was firmly postulated by Kappelmacher, W., Wiener Studien L (1932) 121Google Scholar ff.

35 It must, however, be added that indications in the letters of Pliny point to a date later than 101 or 102. Thus, the reference to Dial. 9, 6, in Epp. IX, 10, 2: ‘itaque poemata quiescunt quae tu inter nemora et lucos commodissime perfici putas.’ Further, the book which Tacitus sent to Pliny for his comments (VII, 20). Tacitus in his covering missive wrote ‘ut magistro magister’ and ‘ut discipulo discipulus’ (VIII, 7, 1). The book should therefore be an oration or a treatise about oratory. What is the solution? Perhaps the Dialogus; and perhaps, originally designed for the consulship of Fabius Justus, it was being revised for publication c. 106. However it be, the age, character, and occupations of the dedicant retain their relevance.