The aim of this paper is to cast new light on the textual constitution of some passages of Florus’ Epitoma, for which I propose a new textual solution.

In a recent article I tried to disperse the fog in which modern editions envelop the transmission of the Livian Periochae and Floras' Epitoma de Tito Liuio. Working from editions and catalogues, and without looking at more than a few readily accessible manuscripts, I argued that the Periochae reached the Middle Ages in the company of Floras and nothing else; that the mainstream of the medieval tradition, which probably issued from the region south-west of Paris, derived first from a manuscript (...) that presented Florus and only 1–7 of the 142 Periochae, Λ, and then from one that presented Florus alone, e; that after appearing for several centuries only in N and P the complete text of Florus and the Periochae saw a revival in the Italian Renaissance, probably thanks to Petrarch and Boccaccio; and that most Italian manuscripts contaminate the text of e with the complete text. Pending visits to libraries, I left open several questions: whether Λ derived from the source of NP; whether e derived from Λ; whether the Italian manuscripts of the complete text all derive from one source; whether, if so, it was P; whether any of them have escaped contamination in Florus; and whether contamination had already begun in France. (shrink)

When did Livy write his history? How many books had it, and what did the lost ones cover? Such answers as can be given to these questions come almost entirely from the one extant summary, the Periochae. The manuscripts of the Periochae disagree, however, on a matter of considerable interest: out of a hundred or so, only three, supported by a lost fourth, have been cited as adding to the title Ex libro CXXI the subtitle qui editus post excessum Augusti (...) dicitur. When the latest editor, P. Jal in the Collection Budé , declares himself unconvinced of its authenticity , he leaves the reader to decide whether authenticity means truth, authorial origin, or presence in the archetype; but whatever it means, seeds of suspicion have been sown. (shrink)

In 21 CE, a series of localized movements broke out in Gallia Comata due to heavy debts among provincials according to Tacitus. Modern scholars have long argued that the indebtedness occurred because of rising interest rates, resulting from dwindling currency in circulation after decades of free-spending following Augustus’ victory at Actium, and that Gallic communities were subjected to an additional tribute to support the wars of Germanicus (14–16 CE), which continued unabated after the wars and pushed Gauls beyond their means. (...) These claims are misguided, however, in that there is no certain evidence of a special tax to support Germanicus’ wars and that the argument for a dwindling circulation of currency in Gaul falters under closer inspection. Rather, the pressing statal and military needs imposed on communities in Gallia Comata after 9 CE on top of routine exactions could significantly increase burden levels levied on provincial populations, thus contributing to rising debts. Through examining how Roman logistics and conscription operated in this period, it is possible to trace how populations were impacted by such demands and which communities were most heavily affected by them, too. Individually, the impact of each factor is unlikely to have been burdensome enough to have caused large-scale resistance, it is only the cumulative effect that these explanations had on top of routine Roman extraction schemes that could create the conditions for this revolt. This paper argues that in extraordinary circumstances, such as the period after the Varian Disaster for Gallia Comata, the costs of supporting military campaigns places real short-term strains on local economies, which creates the conditions for revolt. The benefit of this approach is that it may explain other episodes of anti-fiscal resistance that broke out during or within a decade of wars in neighboring regions. (shrink)

This note argues that imitation of Ausonius’ Cento nuptialis in the Peruigilium Veneris establishes 374 c.e. as the terminus post quem for the Peruigilium Veneris. The note enlarges on the argument of Danuta Shanzer, who identified debts to Ausonius in the Peruigilium Veneris and dated the latter poem accordingly: the approach is to locate evidence for Ausonian imitation that Shanzer missed, and thus to reinforce and confirm her position. While the note does not propose a poet for the Peruigilium Veneris, (...) it shows that certain figures to whom the work is commonly attributed, notably Florus and Tiberianus, cannot be its author. (shrink)

The epistle to Florus has usually been grouped with the epistle to Augustus and the Ars Poetica, partly because of its length, which sets it, like the other two, apart from the letters of the first book, and partly because of the common interest in literary theory which is manifested in all three. These poems have always been the subject of controversy; but 2. 2 has received less attention than the others, perhaps because the elegance and humour of the (...) poem, which have been so often praised, have eclipsed the possibility that it may have something to say, especially about Horace himself, his personality and his changing allegiances to philosophy and poetry. The object of this paper is to offer a reading of 2. 2, not as a piece of autobiography, nor as a mosaic of conventional motifs, but as an examination by Horace of his own poetry and poetic aims, in which he is testing and criticizing his own achievement, and himself. In this he continues one of the most attractive and impressive practices of the earlier book of epistles. Horace here abnegates his role as a lyric poet, and this is generally taken literally as placing the poem quite precisely between the completion of Epistles 1 and Horace's resumption of lyric writing in the Carmen Saeculare and Odes 4. But more important is the way in which Horace in Ep. 2. 2 itself expresses a judgement about his own poetic ambitions. The philosophic themes of the Epistles and the more frivolous lyric subjects which he presents as the essence of his Odes, are both aspects of Horace's poetry and personality; the question is whether one should be considered more valid than the other in the poet's own mature judgement, whether Horace should in fact have outgrown either or both kinds of poetry. In this poem, then, it is important not only that he renews the renunciation of poetry and the gay life which he made at Ep. 1. 1. 10–11, but also that this decision is to some extent forced on him, and reluctantly made. (shrink)

The Lost Apse Mosaic in Lyon Cathedral in Light of its Titulus. Proposed Iconography and Argument for a Carolingian Attribution The now-lost apse mosaic of the ancient cathedral of Lyon is attested exclusively through the ten hexametric verses of its titulus, transcribed in the ninth century by Mannon, a disciple of the deacon Florus. In accordance with the ekphrastic tradition, the text poetically evokes the theophanic vision once displayed above in the conch, providing crucial evidence for reconstructing its iconographic (...) program. The composition likely comprised a Maiestas Domini, the Apostolic College, the Heavenly Jerusalem, the four rivers of Paradise, the Agnus Dei, and possibly John the Baptist (perhaps represented symbolically through the allusion to the River Jordan). This study proposes a hypothetical visual reconstruction of these elements and their spatial configuration within the apse, highlighting the dialectic between figural representation and liturgical implications. Furthermore, several arguments are presented in support of assigning the titulus (and the mosaic work of which it was part) to Florus’s initiative. This is not an obvious attribution, considering the numerous references to early Christian culture present both in the verses of the inscription and in the iconographic subjects mentioned therein. (shrink)

A REFERENCE by the poet Martial to an abridged version of the history of Livy has given rise to the view that this epitome provided the main source for the transmission of Livy for those later writers of history whose requirements demanded an outline history of Rome. Such a view was first set out by Mommsen in 1861; he concluded that a large number of authors drew much of their material not from Livy directly but from a lost Epitome which (...) departed at some points from the original in its composition. Other scholars followed his general thesis; indeed they have built upon it to such an extent that the list they compile of writers of Roman history who drew upon the ‘lost Epitome’ is a formidable one. These authors range from the period of Tiberius to the end of antiquity. They include such divergent writers as Valerius Maximus, Florus, Eutropius, the Auctor de viris illustribus, and Orosius, as well as the two known abbreviations made of Livy: the Periochae of the Oxyrhynchus Papyrus and the ‘fourth-century’ Periochae. (shrink)

Starting with the question of why critical contemporary history is almost entirely absent in the century between Tacitus and Cassius Dio, this article examines Lucian's and Fronto's writings on the historiography of the Parthian war of the mid-160s. I argue that these authors demonstrate a particularly Antonine form of historical consciousness, in which the present is detached from any grand narrative, and the historian is seen as a narrator of events alien to his own life-experience. Elements of this view are (...) also traced in the writings of Appian, Florus, and other contemporary authors. (shrink)

The ancient tradition is strong that the execution of M. Marius Gratidianus during the Sullan proscriptions was carried out by L. Sergius Catilina. The earliest evidence comes from several passages in Cicero's speech in toga candida, delivered just before the consular elections in 64 and designed to rake up as much prejudice as possible against his two main rival candidates, Catilina and C. Antonius . While in none of the passages does Cicero specifically mention the executioner or the victim, it (...) is Asconius commenting on the passages who reveals that Catilina was the executioner and Marius Gratidianus the victim. We do not have a great deal of the speech in toga candida left ; if we did have the whole speech, it is clear that we would have been given the name by Cicero himself. The Ciceronian version is that the head of Gratidianus was cut off by Catilina, carried in his hands through the city from the Janiculum to the temple of Apollo, and delivered to Sulla still full of life and breath. This version is followed by Plutarch . A variation can be found, as early as Sallust . There is a fragment of the historiae which says that Gratidianus died after his arms and legs had been broken and his eyes gouged out, so that he expired as it were through each and every limb. There is nothing about his head being cut off and carried about, nor is there any mention of Catilina as the executioner. While the details of the torture and mutilation become progressively more gory, this version is followed by Livy , Valerius Maximus , Lucan , and Florus. (shrink)