Printer Friendly

The praetorship of Favonius.

Though Willems deemed M. Favonius a praetor of 50, and Sumner maintained that his praetorship "is not assured,"(1) Favonius has been assigned a praetorship in 49 by a consensus so overwhelming that his service in that post in that year is no longer considered controversial.(2) Yet Bonnefond--Coudry includes Favonius in her list of senators who spoke in debate in 49.(3) Since magistrates were not allowed to deliver a sententia in the interrogatio during their year of office,(4) Favonius could not have fulfilled both the functions which historians attribute to him. He might have taken the floor as a senator, or he might have held the praetorship; he might have done neither, but he could not have done both.(5)

We may begin by setting out the evidence for the praetorship of Favonius. Only two texts have been thought to bear on the question. In a letter to Cicero composed on 2 September 51, M. Caelius Rufus (ap. Cic. Fam. 8.9.5) mentioned a few details about the recent electroal comitia: nolo te putare Favonium a columnariis praeteritum; optimus quisque eum non fecit. The second piece of evidence comes from Velleius Paterculus' (2.53.1) narrative of the year 48: Pompeius profugiens cum duobus Lentulis consularibus Sextoque filio et Favonio praetorio. The interpretation offered by Wehrmann is now the received view: since Caelius shows that Favonius was defeated for a praetorship of 50 in 51, and Velleius calls him a praetorius in 48, Favonius must have been elected to a praetorship of 49 in 50.(6)

The case in favor of a praetorship in 49 is not as strong as it seems. The campaign in 51 has long been considered a campaign for the praetorship,(7) though Caelius does not tell us this. It is just possible that Favonius was a candidate at the comitia sacerdotum in 51, but probability strongly favors a campaign for the praetorship.(8) That Favonius actually held the post, as Sumner realized, depends solely on the accuracy of Velleius in calling him a praetorius: "Favonius may have been only pro praetore 49--48."(9)

The weakness of the case for his praetorship is disturbing in view of the evidence suggesting that Favonius was called upon for his sententia in January 49. Bonnefond--Coudry cites two sources for the participation of Favonius. Plutarch (Pomp. 60.7) and Appian (BC 2.37) both record that Favonius told Pompey that it was now time for him to stamp on the ground;(10) Pompey had boasted that he had only to stamp on the ground to raise up armies to defend the city against Caesar (Plu. Pomp. 57.9). There can be no doubt that these words of Favonius were spoken at a meeting of the Senate.(11) It does not necessarily follow that Favonius spoke in the capacity of a senator. If we had a Latin source with Favonius as the grammatical subject of sententiam dicere, we could be certain that he spoke as a senator and not as a magistrate.(12) Unfortunately, the sources which mention Favonius are Greek; Plutarch and Appian tell us that Favonius "bade" Pompey to stamp on the ground.(13) Even if we saw Favonius proposing a course of action, we could not be certain that this recommendation constituted the motion of a senator rather than the opinion of a magistrate. As his bon mot was the only memorable remark Favonius made that day, it alone is recorded.

The names of the other men who took part in this debate will not help us much. Plutarch places Favonius' witticism between a speech of L. Volcacius Tullus (cos. 66) and one of Cato (pr. 54).(14) We would expect Favonius to speak after Cato, and Plutarch might have confused the order of speakers to this extent.(15) But the order given by Plutarch, even if correct, does not constitute proof that Favonius was not a senator; in the course of senatorial debates, senior men sometimes spoke after colleagues of lesser rank.(16)

More significant than the apparent order of speakers is the mere fact that Favonius spoke, for this is enough to suggest that he was not praetor in 49. Our sources are agreed that the consuls were present at the meeting (Plu. Pomp. 61.6, App. BC 2.37). For the sake of argument, we may assume that the praetors were present, though this assumption is supported only by a vague reference in Plutarch.(17) Since the consuls were present, it is unlikely that any of the men who spoke at the meeting were praetors. While Mommsen was wrong in believing that praetors could not make a relatio in a meeting summoned by consuls, the fact that he could maintain such a view underscores the rarity of praetorian relationes.(18) When we are forced to decide whether a man who spoke at a meeting summoned by consuls was a praetor or a senator, all we can say is that probability greatly favors the latter alternative.

To this point we have found no very good reason to believe that Favonius was praetor in 49, and no very good reason to believe that he was a privatus; Velleius indicates that he was praetor, but Appian and Plutarch imply that he was a senator. We may bring four further texts to bear on our problem, arranged from the least to the most decisive. The first of these is the second Sallustian Epistula ad Caesarem Senem (2.9.4). Here we cannot discuss in detail the authorship of the pamphlet, nor the date of its publication. It is enough to note that the years 51, 50, and 49 have been offered as the date of composition (or as the dramatic date).(19) Five names are found in a catalogue of Caesar's opponents: M. Bibulus (cos. 59), L. Domitius (cos. 54), M. Cato (pr. 54), L. Postumius, and M. Favonius. None of the first three held ordinary magistracies in the years 51--49. According to Pseudo--Sallust, all five men belonged to a powerful factio in the Senate. It is only natural to suppose that all five were privati when the letter was composed.(20) We know that the first four men were privati at the beginning of 49, but all might have been privati at the end of 50, as Favonius was. We therefore cannot say that the letter must date to early 49. But we can be more certain that Favonius was a privatus at the time the letter was composed. A conditional conclusion follows: if the letter dates to 49, Favonius was a senator in that year.

The second text describes events in Capua on 25 January 49. Cicero wrote a letter to Atticus (7.15.2) on the following day: Consules conveni multosque nostri ordinis. omnes cupiebant Caesarem abductis praesidiis stare condicionibus iis quas tulisset; uni Favonio leges ab illo nobis imponi non placebat, sed is <non> auditus in consilio. Cicero seems to be describing a consilium of the consuls rather than a Senate meeting.(21) But he goes on to report that Cato declared that he wished to be present in the Senate to debate terms with Caesar. Since Cato delayed assuming his command in Sicily, the Senate decreed (senatus decrevit) that Postumius should relieve T. Furfanius in Sicily at once. When Postumius said that he would not go without Cato, C. Fannius was selected: is cum imperio in Siciliam praemittitur. The text of the letter leaves no doubt that there was a formal Senate meeting in Capua on 25 January.(22) Here we can spare ourselves the trouble of deciding whether in consilio is technical, in which case the presence of Favonius is attested at the consilium but not at the Senate meeting which followed. Doubt is cast upon the praetorship of Favonius on either interpretation. If he spoke(23) at a Senate meeting he was probably not praetor, since both consuls were present in Capua. And if he spoke in a consilium of the consuls it is all but certain that he was not praetor. Roman praetors did not accept appointments to consilia; they made them.(24) But Cicero does not leave us proof that Favonius was a senator: the meeting he attended could well have been a Senate meeting, and it is always possible that he spoke qua praetor in a meeting summoned by consuls.

The two remaining texts (Cic. Att. 7.15.2--3, 8.11b.1) further erode our confidence in the fasti praetorii. At least three praetors of 49 were assigned military duties: P. Rutilius Lupus, C. Coponius (Pompey ap. Cic. Att. 8.12a.4), and L. Manlius Torquatus (Caes. BC 1.24.3). It would be impossible to make much of the fact that the name of Favonius does not arise in a military connection, did we not know the geographical area in which some commanders were stationed. Incumbent praetors were being charged with military tasks. If Favonius was a praetor in 49, it is hard to understand why Cato was entrusted with command in Sicily; Favonius had served as legatus in Sicily, probably after his quaestorship.(25) We cannot suppose that Favonius was engaged in tasks elsewhere, since we know that he was present in Capua when Cato revealed his intention to delay the assumption of his duties. And though we might allow Favonius to be passed over once, it is also hard to understand why he was not sent to Sicily after Cato's temporary withdrawal, inasmuch as he was already (ex hypothesi) in possession of imperium. Instead, he was passed over a second and a third time, in favor of Postumius and Fannius. It almost becomes necessary to believe that Favonius was preparing to take up military duties in another place, and the only obvious alternative to Sicily is Tarracina, his hometown.(26) And indeed we do find a praetor of 49 stationed at Tarracina with three cohorts: P. Rutilius Lupus (Caes. BC 1.24.3). The other man holding imperium whom we find at Tarracina in this year is not Favonius but Cicero (Att. 8.11b.1), and he informed Pompey that the only senator in the area was M. Eppius, who was staying at Menturnae. Favonius was passed over twice in the posting of commanders to Tarracina. Since he was not even present in the area, we may surmise that there was little he could do in person, and that he could accomplish little because he did not possess imperium of any kind at the beginning of 49.

The doubts caused by Favonius' presence in the Senate are strengthened by his absence from Sicily and Tarracina. Save that of Velleius, all the evidence we have seen suggests that Favonius was a simple senator in 49. We cannot maintain that praetorio in the text of Velleius originally read praetore; Favonius could not have been praetor in 48, as the Pompeians did not hold elections for that year (Dio 41.43.1--2). Why not return to Willems's view that Favonius was praetor in 50? Velleius could then be right in calling Favonius a praetorius in 48, and all the sources which imply that Favonius was a privatus in 49 could also be right. The words of Caelius do not rule out his solution. Though his words have long been taken to mean that Favonius was defeated for the praetorship, they are actually as ambiguous with respect to the outcome of the election as they are about the office itself. Caelius does not say that Favonius suffered a repulsa, but that he was "passed over" (praeteritum). This statement itself is not absolute: we are not told simply that Favonius was "passed over," but that he was passed over a columnariis and by optimus quisque. Though lacking support from the very best and the very worst men, he might have attracted enough votes from other quarters to win the election. As attractive as this solution is, it cannot possibly be maintained. Willems was not aware of a crucial piece of evidence concerning Favonius' activities in 50. For that year we have precisely the kind of evidence which we lack for 49: a Latin source which yields the certain conclusion that Favonius was a senator. In the debate on the voting of a supplicatio to Cicero, Hirrus concurred with Cato, and tertius ad hos Favonius accessit (Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8.11.2). Caelius goes on to tell Cicero that he was indebted to these men for making their views known in brief compass, instead of in a lengthy oration (pro sententia). Favonius was without doubt a senator in 50.

The historicity of Velleius can now be defended only by a proliferation of hypotheses. One might argue that Favonius was aedile in 53 and praetor in 51, and that the election he lost in 51 concerned a public priesthood. But the extant evidence does not allow us to determine whether Favonius was aedile in 53 or 52,(27) and he could not have been elected to the praetorship in 52 if he was aedile in that year. And though it is nowhere stated, we have already seen that Favonius was probably contending for the praetorship in 51. A praetorship for Favonius in 51 remains theoretically possible, but seems even less likely than a praetorship in 49.(28)

If Velleius was correct in calling Favonius a praetorius in 48, the year 49 remains the likeliest date for his praetorship, however unlikely this seems on the basis of the texts examined so far. Certainty has eluded us to this point, but one approach to the question has not been tried: an investigation of the praetorian fasti for 49. The way was shown by Willems. When attributing a praetorship in 50 to Favonius, Willems noted that the eight praetors of 49 are known; therefore, though the text of Caelius implies that Favonius was defeated in the praetorian elections in 51, he must have won: "Wehrmann ... place Favonius parmi les preteurs de 49, mais il supprime le preteur Thermus."(29)

Let us now turn to the eighth man attested as praetor in 49, a certain Thermus (Caes. BC 1.12). Caesar did not bother to give him a praenomen and nomen. Orelli(30) identified the Thermus mentioned by Caesar with the Q. Thermus who was propraetor in Asia in 51, and probably in 52.(31) Willems objected that the two men must be distinguished, since the Thermus mentioned by Caesar is called praetor under the year 49. Wehrmann and Holzl also assumed that the governor of Asia was an ex--praetor. Instead of following Willems in his creation of two different Thermi, they awarded Thermus a praetorship in the 50s; since they included Favonius among the praetors of 49, there was no room for Thermus in the college of that year, and neither Wehrmann nor Holzl addressed the testimony of Caesar.(32) The solution proposed by Willems--a solution which denies Favonius a place among the praetors of 49--cannot be ruled out. Four other texts mention the Pompeian Thermus in 49 (Cic. Att. 7.13a.3, 23.1; Lucan 2.463; Flor. 2.13.19). Like Caesar, these sources do not reveal the praenomen or nomen of Thermus. It is therefore possible that the Pompeian adherent of 49 is not the same man as Q. Minucius Thermus, the Asian propraetor.(33) But it is altogether unlikely that we are dealing with two different men. Munzer noticed that Q. Minucius Thermus was usually identified by his cognomen alone, and concluded that he was the only man of this name in Cicero's time.(34) Munzer's logic is compelling enough, but his argument can be strengthened. Since Cicero was on friendly terms with Q. Minucius Thermus,(35) we should suppose that a man identified only as Thermus in one of his letters was none other than the same.(36) Willems's reconstruction is therefore lacking in cogency.

The Thermus who followed Pompey in 49 was Q. Minucius Thermus, who had served as propraetor in Asia. As hard as it is to believe that Favonius was praetor in 49, it might seem no easier to believe that Thermus was made propraetor while still a tribunicius.(37) But Thermus might have owed his propraetorship to the province he held rather than to his own cursus, since the governor of Asia was usually a propraetor.(38) Thus L. Antonius, left in command of the province by Thermus, served as proquaestor pro praetore.(39) The career of C. Fannius may provide us with an exact parallel for that of Minucius Thermus: a tribunicius made propraetor of Asia. He was probably propraetor in 49--48, since it is only natural to read

[GREEK TEXT OMITTED] in the manuscripts of Josephus (AJ 14.230). Sumner has stressed that the praetorship of Fannius is not attested.(40) It is of interest to us that C. Fannius is included in the praetorian fasti by Wehrmann and Holzl;(41) in view of their readiness to include Asian propraetors in their lists of praetors, their attribution of an earlier praetorship to Thermus should not greatly disturb us.

We must concede the possibility that Q. Minucius Thermus was made propraetor of Asia while a tribunicius, and became praetor after his propraetorship. Our decision about the eighth praetor of 49 becomes a contest over the reliability of two texts, that of Velleius and that of Caesar. There are no variations in the manuscripts for Favonio praetorio (Vell. 2.53.1) and Thermum praetorem (Caes. BC 1.12). It is not possible to defend Velleius by arguing that his text originally read Favonio praetore; as we have already seen, the Pompeian side elected no magistrates for 48. One could attempt to defend Caesar and resolve his contradiction of Velleius by maintaining that his manuscript should read Thermum praetorium; Favonius would then belong to the college of 49, and Thermus to that of an earlier year. This solution was put forth by Munzer,(42) but it cannot possibly be correct. In the whole of Bellum Civile, Caesar never identifies a single individual with the word praetorius. The title itself occurs just once, in the plural, and in conjunction with no personal names: et consulares praetoriosque (3.82.2). In sum, one cannot transfer Favonius from 49 to 48 by emending the text of Velleius, and one cannot transfer Thermus from 49 to an earlier year by emending the text of Caesar. The contradiction between Velleius and Caesar is real and cannot be explained away through textual emendations: both assign the only open place in the college of 49 to different men.

Contradictory sources displease. Incredible as it may seem, we are asked to believe that Caesar commonly used praetor to denote praetorius or pro praetore.(43) As we have pointed out, Caesar never used praetorius to identify an individual as an ex--praetor. But neither did he use praetor to designate such a man. None of the former praetors mentioned in Bellum Civile is called praetor.(44) The notion that Caesar substituted praetor for pro praetore makes even less sense, since he did use pro praetore on two occasions (1.6.3, 1.30.2). All the men identified with praetor in Bellum Civile were incumbent praetors.(45) If we look again at the chapter (1.12) in which Thermus is described with praetor, we find the name of (P.) Attius (Varus), and we must ask why this ex--praetor is not alos called praetor to signify his status as a praetorius. Attius is actually in worse need of a title, since he might be confused with homonymous contemporaries. In sum, we cannot believe that Caesar originally identified Thermus with the term praetorius, nor that Caesar called him praetor to show that he was a praetorius. If Thermus was not praetor in the year in which Caesar so describes him, then he is the only man in the whole of Bellum Civile of whom this is true.(46)

Since his text is sound, the contemporary evidence of Caesar must be preferred to that of Velleius.(47) We can say without hesitation that the missing praetor of 49 is Q. Minucius Thermus; or rather, that no praetor of 49 is missing, since the praetorship of Thermus is explicitly attested by Caesar. We must remove Favonius from the college of 49, and we should remove the praetorship from the cursus of Favonius. It is theoretically possible that he was praetor in 52 or 51, but both these years are so unlikely as never to have been suggested;(48) it is certain that Favonius was not praetor in 50, 49, or 48. Unless Velleius was not even remotely close to the truth, Favonius was pro praetore in 48(49)--and therefore, like Q. Minucius Thermus, a propraetor who had never held the praetorship. The evidence examined in this essay allows us to raise the number of our praetorian revisions to four. Since praetor was omitted by Cicero at Att. 8.11b.1, Shackleton Bailey doubted that L. Manlius Torquatus was correctly called praetor by Caesar at BC 1.24.3, and Broughton later identified Manlius as "Pr. 50 or 49";(50) with complete confidence, I think, we can return Torquatus to the college of 49. Having filled that college once again, we can at last flatly deny that Sex. Peducaeus was praetor in 49.(51) Thermus and Manlius, Favonius and Peducaeus: two praetors and two non--praetors of 49.


Afzelius, Adam. "Die politische Bedutung des jungeren Cato." C&M 4 (1941) 100--203.

Badian, Ernst. "Caesar's Cursus and the Intervals between Offices." JRS 49 (1959) 81--89.

_____. "Notes on Roman Senators of the Republic." Historia 12 (1963) 129--43.

Bonnefond--Coudry, Marianne. Le Senat de la Republique romaine de la guerre d'Hannibal a Auguste. Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 1989.

Broughton, T. Robert S. Candidates Defeated in Roman Elections: Some Ancient Roman "Also--Rans." Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 81.4. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1991.

_____. Magistrates of the Roman Republic [MRR]. 3 vols. New York: American Philological Association, 1951, 1952, [Atlanta] 1986.

Drumann, W. K. A., and Paul Groebe. Geschichte Roms in seinem Ubergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung. Vol. III. 2d ed. Leipzig, 1906. Reprinted Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.

Geiger, Joseph. "M. Favonius: Three Notes." RSA 4 (1974) 161--70.

Gundel, Hans. "Volcatius" (8). RE 9A (1961) 754--56.

Hellegouarc'h, Joseph. Le vocabulaire latin des relations et des partis politiques sous la Republique. Publications de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de l'Universite de Lille, 11. Paris, 1963.

Hofmann, Friedrich. Der romische Senat zur Zeit der Republik. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1847.

Holzapfel, L. "Die Anfange des Burgerkrieges zwischen Casar und Pompejus." Klio 3 (1903) 213--34.

Holzl, Maximilian. Fasti Praetorii ab A. U. DCLXXXVII usque ad A. U. DCCX. Leipzig: Hirschfeld, 1876.

Linderski, Jerzy. "The Aedileship of Favonius, Curio the Younger and Cicero's Election to the Augurate." HSCP 76 (1972) 181--200.

_____. "Two Quaestorships." CP 70 (1975) 35--38.

Linderski, Jerzy, and Anna Kaminska--Linderski. "The Quaestorship of Marcus Antonius." Phoenix 28 (1974) 213--23.

McDermott, W. C. "De Lucceiis." Hermes 97 (1969) 233--46.

Meusel, Heinrich. De Bello Civili. 1st and 2d eds. by Friedrich Kraner; 3d--10th eds. by Friedrich Hofmann; 11th ed. by H. Meusel, 1906; 13th ed., with afterword and bibliographic additions, by Hans Oppermann. Berlin: Weidmann, 1963.

Meyer, Eduard. Caesars Monarchie und das Principat des Pompejus. 3d ed. Stuttgart and Berlin, 1992. Reprinted Stuttgart: Cotta, 1963.

Mommsen, Theodor. Romisches Staatsrecht. 3 vols. (I--II in 3d ed.). Leipzig: Hirzel, 1887--88.

Munzer, Friedrich. "Favonius" (1). RE 6 (1909) 2074--77.

_____. "Minucius" (67). RE 15 (1932) 1972--74.

_____. "Postumius" (15). RE 22 (1953) 898.

Orelli, I. C., and I. G. Baiter. Onomasticon Tullianum. Zurich: Orelli et al., 1838.

Ryan, F. X. "The Lex Scantinia and the Prosecution of Censors and Aediles." CP 89 (1994) 159--62.

_____. "The Quaestorship of Favonius and the Tribunate of Metellus Scipio." Athenaeum, in press.

_____. "Tullus or Tullius?" Chiron, in press.

Shackleton Bailey, D. R. Two Studies in Roman Nomenclature. 2d ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

_____, ed. Cicero's Letters to Atticus. 7 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965--70.

Stein, P. Die Senatssitzungen der Ciceronischen Zeit (68--43). Munster, 1930.

Stella Maranca, F. "Fasti Praetori dal 366 al 44 av. Cr." MAL ser. 6, 2 (1927) fasc. 4 (277--376).

Sumner, G. V. "The Lex Annalis under Caesar." Phoenix 25 (1971) 246--71, 357--71.

_____. The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology. Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 1973.

_____. "The Pompeii in Their Families." AJAH 2 (1977) 8--25.

Syme, Ronald. "Pseudo--Sallust." MH 15 (1958) 46--55.

_____. Sallust. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964.

Szemler, G. J. The Priests of the Roman Republic. Collection Latomus 127. Brussels: Latomus, 1972.

Talbert, Richard J. A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.

Taylor, L. R. "Caesar's Colleagues in the Pontifical College." AJP 63 (1942) 385--412.

Wehrmann, Peter. Fasti Praetorii ab A. U. DLXXXVIII ad. A. U. DCCX. Berlin: Francke, 1875.

Willems, Pierre. Le Senat de la Republique romaine. 3 vols. Louvain, 1878--85. Reprinted in 2 vols., Aalen: Scientia, 1968.

Wiseman, T. P. New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.--A.D. 14. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971.

(1)Willems, Le Senat I 513--14; Sumner, Orators 145. Sumner might have noted the doubts of Stella Maranca, "Fasti Praetori" 334, 356: "48 o 49?"

(2)Wehrmann, Fasti Praetorii 74; Holzl, Fasti Praetorii 76; Drumann and Groebe, Geschichte 35; Munzer, "Favonius" 2075; Broughton, MRR II 257; Geiger, "Favonius" 162 n. 2; Broughton, MRR III 90 and Candidates 37. In the last passage ("Favonius ... must have been elected ... in 49, as he is termed a praetorius in 48"), the words "in 49" quite obviously are intended to mean "for 49" or "in 50."

(3)Bonnefond--Coudry, Le Senat 629.

(4)Hofmann, Der Senat 85--93, 99--104; Willems, Le Senat II 189; Mommsen, Staatsrecht III 944--46. Bonnefond--Coudry is aware of the exclusion of magistrates from membership in the Senate (Le Senat 166) and in her index identifies Favonius as praetor in 49 (p. 816); but in her catalogue of Senate speakers she lists Favonius as a senator of aedilician rank in 49 (p. 629).

(5)One might object that the Romans would abandon constitutional niceties in 49, but on 26 January Cicero (Att. 7.15.2) could write: consules conveni multosque nostri ordinis. Thus we have evidence that the distinction between senators and magistrates was still valid in the very month in which Favonius spoke in the Senate; in Cicero noster ordo, like summus ordo and amplissimus ordo, signifies the ordo senatorius (cf. Hellegouarc'h, Le vocabulaire 429 and n. 7).

(6)Wehrmann, Fasti Praetorii 74; Broughton, Candidates 37.

(7)Orelli and Baiter, Onomasticon 252; cf. Afzelius, "Cato" 188 and n. 5 (where Wahlniederlage "im Jahre 50" should read "51"); Badian, "Caesar's Cursus" 85 and n. 37 (where "C. Favonius" should read "M.").

(8)As of 1 August 51, the consular and sacerdotal comitia had been held, but the praetorian comitia were still in the future (Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8.4.1, 3). The election of curule aediles had taken place by 2 September (Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8.9.1), so Favonius (mentioned later in the same letter) could have been a candidate at the praetorian comitia which preceded the aedilician. It is hard to believe that Favonius stood in the one sacerdotal election which certainly took place in this year. The place among the XV viri for which P. Dolabella bested L. Lentulus Crus (Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8.4.1) was reserved to patricians; though it appears that all vacancies in priesthoods were open to plebians in law (Cic. Dom. 37; cf. Taylor, "Caesar's Colleagues" 386--87), and though three candidates could be nominated for one place (Liv. 40.42.11; Tac. Ann. 4.16; with Szemler, Priests 30), it seems that there were recognizable "patrician vacancies" in priesthoods open to plebians (Cic. Scaur. 34). The occurrence of another sacerdotal election in this year is itself hypothetical. Since we do not know that he took his father's place in the pontifical college, it is possible that C. Scribonius Curio was elected at the comitia sacerdotum in 51, though election in 52 seems more likely (Taylor, "Caesar's Colleagues" 405 n. 65; Broughton, MRR II 240; Szemler, Priests 135 and n. 5); as a plebeian, Favonius might have stood against the younger Curio in 51.

Since Caelius names no office in connection with Favonius at Fam. 8.9.5, the mention of Favonius there must be an afterthought (Caelius did not presume that Cicero knew the identities of his own competitors for the aedileship; cf. Fam. 8.2.2). The letter in which Caelius revealed the post for which Favonius was standing is now lost; this information was probably included in the letter announcing his own electoral victory, a letter lost to us, and one which seems never to have reached Cicero (Fam. 2.10.1). Favonius' campaign is therefore closely related in time to the delayed aedilician comitia (Fam. 8.4.3, comitiorum dilationes), so it is likely that he was a candidate in the delayed election for the praetorship.

(9)Sumner, Orators 145.

(10)The same witticism is attributed to Favonius at Plu. Caes. 33.5.

(11)Caes. BC 1.33.2; Plu. Pomp. 60.5; App. BC 2.37. Caesar does not mention Favonius by name, but confirms that Pompey was in senatu when he declared that he would regard senators remaining in the city as enemies; Appian makes this threat part of Pompey's reply to Favonius. The accounts of Plutarch and Appian show independently that this exchange took place in the Senate. Plu. Pomp. 60.5:




(12)The sententia was peculiar to senators, even though Latin has no single noun to signify the speeches of magistrates; cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht III 942 and n. 5; Talbert, The Senate 236--37.

(13)Plu. Pomp. 60.7:

[GREEK TEXT OMITTED] Plu. Caes. 33.5:



(14)The proposal to send envoys to Caesar is attributed to

[GREEK TEXT OMITTED] by Appian (BC 2.36), and to

[GREEK TEXT OMITTED] by Plutarch (Pomp. 60.6). Tullus has been confused with Tullius, though it is not immediately clear whether the mistake is that of Plutarch (Holzapfel, "Die Anfange" 229 n. 1) or Appian (Meyer, Caesars Monarchie 295 and n. 5; cf. Gundel, "Volcatius" 756). The identity of this senator does not matter to us. Both Volcacius and Cicero were consulars, and would normally speak before Favonius; the fact that one of them did so cannot help us decide whether Favonius was of praetorian or merely aedilician rank. Those with an inordinate interest in Roman senators should see my article "Tullus or Tullius?"

(15)The accuracy of Plutarch cannot be checked against Appian since the latter's account does not mention the speech of Cato.

(16)According to Sallust (Cat. 53.1), all the consulars present on 5 December 63 praised Cato (tr. pl. 62) after his speech. Pompey spoke after Cato on 8 February 56 (Cic. Q. fr. 2.3.3). M. Livius Drusus (iudex 50) might have spoken before L. Aemilius Paullus (cos. 50) at a meeting in 43 (D. Brutus ap. Cic. Fam. 11.19.1). In a forthcoming note I point out that Drusus was iudex and not praetor in 50, if--as seems likely--the Scantinian procedure was civil: see Ryan, "The Lex Scantinia and the Prosecution of Censors and Aediles."

(17)Plu. Pomp. 60.5:


(18)Mommsen (Staatsrecht II 130 n. 4, III 911 n. 3, 954) thought the consul "perhaps" could permit the praetor to make a relatio, a view based largely on Dio's (55.3.6) report that Augustus granted praetors the right to introduce proposals to the Senate. Willems (Le Senat II 134--37, esp. 136 n. 7) has undoubtedly given the correct interpretation of Augustus' reform: he removed from the consuls the right to suppress praetorian relationes through their maior potestas, extending to praetors the exemption from consular interference which tribunes already enjoyed. Dio was quite right insofar as he tied the anger of the praetors to the fact that they were senior to the tribunes.

(19)Bonnefond--Coudry (Le Senat 718 n. 225) has recently accepted 50 as the year of composition. In favor of 49 (as either the date of composition or the dramatic date) is the appearance of a Postumius in Cicero's account of a meeting of senators on 25 January 49. The identification of L. Postumius ([Sal.] Rep. 2.9.4) with Postumius (Cic. Att. 7.15.2) is no longer controversial, though dispute over his praenomen continues: Willems, Le Senat I 514; Meyer, Caesars Monarchie 572--73; Munzer, "Postumius"; Syme, "Pseudo--Sallust" 51--52 and Sallust 338; Sumner, Orators 144; Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies 37.

(20)Bibulus was proconsul of Syria in 51--50. At the end of 50 Bibulus, Domitius, and Cato were all privati; Postumius was certainly a privatus at the beginning of 49.

(21)Holzapfel, "Die Anfange" 217: "eine Versammlung (consilium) der daselbst anwesenden Senatoren"; Munzer, "Favonius" 2076: "[die] Verhandlungen der Parteihaupter in Capua"; Munzer, "Postumius" 898: "die Beratung der Pompeianer in Capua"; Meyer, Caesars Monarchie 303: "[die] Beratung in Capua, unter Vorsitz der Consuln"; Syme, "Pseudo--Sallust" 52: "consultations among the Pompeians at Capua." P. Stein, Die Senatssitzungen 119, did not include the meeting at Capua on 25 January in his list of "uberlieferte Sitzungstage." M. J. Bayet (Paris, 1964) rendered in consilio "a la deliberation"; Shackleton Bailey (Cambridge, 1968), "in the conclave." Cicero used the phrase in consilio frequently, but I have found that only at Fam. 10.17.2 does the bare phrase mean "in advising"; otherwise this notion is conveyed by the addition of dando.

(22)Bonnefond--Coudry (Le Senat 213, 629) is of two minds about the meeting. She does not include Favonius, Cato, and Postumius in her list of "interventions de senateurs." But the meeting at Capua is included in her chronological list of dated sessions (though for some reason the date 25 January appears with a query).

(23)The words <non> auditus do not mean that Favonius was silent, but that no one listened to him. Cf. Cic. Fin. 5.27: est enim infixum in ipsa natura comprehenditur<que> suis cuiusque sensibus sic, ut, contra si quis dicere velit, non audiatur.

(24)Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht III 1031: "Auf die Senatoren ist fur dieses (sc. das Consilium) der Magistrat rechtlich nicht beschrankt. Indess hat er sicher auch fur die Consilien sich immer vorzugsweise der Senatoren bedient." Cf. Badian ("Notes" 133) on the removal of Claudius Glaber (pr. 73) from the consilium of 73: "A praetor of the current year was not likely to be in the body of a consilium." Our earliest evidence for consilia shows that they were composed entirely of senators: Liv. 40.38.7 (180 B.C.); [SIG.sup.3] 646 = RDGE no. 2, lines 10--12 (170 B.C.); Cic. Amic. 37, Val. Max. 4.7.1 (132 B.C.).

(25)CIL X 6316 = ILS 879 (found at Tarracina): "M. Favonio M. f. | leg. | popul. Agrigent." Cf. Wiseman, New Men 231; Broughton, MRR III 90. In a forthcoming article I argue that the terminus non post quem for his quaestorship is 61, not 59: see "The Quaestorship of Favonius and the Tribunate of Metellus Scipio."

(26)Cf. Syme, "Pseudo--Sallust" 53; Wiseman, New Men 231.

(27)Cf. Linderski, "Favonius," esp. 199--200.

(28)We might as well list another theoretically possible solution: an aedileship in 53, and a praetorship in 52 (the elections for 52 were held in 52). The weakest point in the cases for a praetorship in 52 or 51 remains the election in 51, which was almost certainly an election for the praetorship. This has always been believed, perhaps as a mere inference from the cursus of Favonius, but we have shown that the election is associated in time with the aedilician election. And since Caelius did not mention Favonius in his report of the sacerdotal comitia, the possibility that Favonius was standing for a public priesthood in 51 is very remote indeed.

(29)Willems, Le Senat I 513--14. Though Broughton displayed no doubt about the praetorship of Favonius in 49, and deemed Q. Minucius Thermus "probably propraetor" in that year, he noted correctly that Caesar calls him praetor (MRR II 257, 262).

(30)Orelli and Baiter, Onomasticon 402.

(31)Cf. MRR II 238; Cic. Fam. 2.18: M. Cicero imp. s.d. Q. Thermo pro pr.

(32)Wehrmann, Fasti Praetorii 69; Holzl, Fasti Praetorii 58.

(33)Willems (Le Senat I 474) believed that Q. Minucius Thermus (the former Asian propraetor) remained neutral in the civil war.

(34)Munzer, "Minucius" 1972.

(35)Cf. Shackleton Bailey, Two Studies 34.

(36)There can be no doubt that the Thermus of Cic. Att. 7.13a.3 and of Caes. BC 1.12 are the same man, for Cicero and Caesar both place "Thermus" at Iguvium.

(37)Iteration of the praetorship is hardly a serious possibility, and it is rendered still more hypothetical by the unlikelihood that Thermus (tr. pl. 62) is one of the missing praetors of 60 (and so eligible, in the absence of a dispensation from the laws, for a praetorship in 49).

(38)Cf. Sumner, Orators 145.

(39)Cf. Holzl, Fasti Praetorii 58; J. AJ 14.235:


(40)Sumner, Orators 145; cf. Broughton, MRR III 90.

(41)Wehrmann, Fasti Praetorii 72--73; Holzl, Fasti Praetorii 62--65.

(42)Munzer, "Favonius" 2075.

(43)Munzer, "Minucius" 1973, on the words Thermum praetorem at Civ. 1.12. "Jedoch es bedarf nicht einmal der ... angenommenen Anderung des uberlieferten praetorem, sondern es kann unbedenklich in dem Sinne von praetorium oder pro praetore aufgefasst werden." Meusel (De Bello Civili 22, 30) had already made this argument, and pointed to BC 1.6.5--6 as a parallel: provinciae privatis decernuntur duae consulares, reliquae praetoriae, Scipioni obvenit Syria, L. Domitio Gallia.... in reliquas provincias praetores mittuntur. Meusel laid stress on the service of Cato (pr. 54) in Sicily (the other men he mentioned might not have been praetorii; cf. MRR II 222), and concluded that praetores at 1.6.6 also stands for praetorii. Meusel relied on Mommsen for further proof that "praetores steht oft fur praetorii." Mommsen (Staatsrecht II 240 n. 5) cited just these two passages of Caesar (along with passages of Cicero, Livy, and Velleius) to prove that praetor could represent praetorius. This scholarship was taken to heart by P. Fabre (Paris, 1936), who confidently rendered Thermum praetorem "l'ancien preteur Thermus."

If praetor does not mean praetorius at 1.12, then there is no parallel to support the claim that praetores at 1.6 means praetorii. Two solutions may be suggested. We could emend praetores at 1.6.6 to praetorii. As we have seen, the one time Caesar used praetorius, it was used in the plural, in conjunction with consulares, and in conjunction with no personal names; all these conditions are met in 1.6. Alternatively, we might retain the reading praetores, though with its usual meaning. The senatus consultum ultimum had already been passed, and the military duties which we see incumbent praetors exercising might have been assigned at the meeting recorded in 1.6. Emendation seems preferable, since in reliquas provinicias seems to pick up reliquae praetoriae, rather than introducing a new thought.

(44)Q. Sertorius: 1.61. M. Terentius Varro: 1.38; 2.17, 19--21. M. Petreius: 1.38--40, 42--43, 53, 61, 63, 65--67, 72--76, 87; 2.17--18. T. Ampius Balbus: 3.105. M. Calidius: 1.2. Q. Valerius Orca: 1.30--31. P. Vatinius: 3.19, 90, 100. T. Annius Milo: 3.21, 22. P. Attius Varus: 1.12, 13, 31; 2.23, 25, 27--28, 30, 33--36, 43--44. M. Porcius Cato: 1.4, 30, 32. P. Servilius Isauricus: 3.1. C. Caninius Rebilus (1.26; 2.24, 34) might be added to the list. The Lucceius mentioned at 3.18.3 presents a problem. He is certainly the same man as the "Lucceius" found at Cic. Att. 9.1.3 and 11.3, since Lucceius is linked with Theophanes of Mytilene in these passages (McDermott, "De Lucceiis" 238--39). McDermott assigns these three references to L. Lucceius M. f. (the businessman) rather than L. Lucceius Q. f. (the historian). Though McDermott deemed both men praetorii, it is not clear that the son of Marcus held the praetorship (Broughton, MRR III 127--28).

(45)Praetors of 49: L. Roscius (1.3.6, 8.4), L. Manlius Torquatus and P. Rutilius Lupus (1.24.3), M. Aemilius Lepidus (2.21.5). Praetors of 48: M. Caelius Rufus and C. Trebonius (3.20.1), Q. Pedius (3.22.2), P. Sulpicius Rufus (3.101.1). L. Valerius Flaccus (pr. 63), the only earlier praetor whose praetorship is mentioned (qui praetor Asiam obtinuerat, 3.53.1), provides no exception to the pattern, since the clause in which he is called praetor refers to the year of his praetorship. For the sake of completeness we may note that the Thessalian Androsthenes is termed praetor Thessaliae at 3.80.3.

(46)The ancient sources frequently employ quaestor in place of pro quaestore (cf. Sumner, "The Lex Annalis" 365; Linderski, "Two Quaestorships" 37). Caesar himself (BG 6.6.1) could describe M. Licinius Crassus, his quaestor of 54, as quaestor in 53 (cf. Linderski and Kaminska--Linderski, "Marcus Antonius" 214). In Bellum Civile three men are identified with quaestor, and all were in office at the time: Sex. Quinctilius Varus (qu. 49), 1.23.2, 2.28.2; Marcius Rufus (qu. 49), 2.23.5, 43.1; P. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (qu. 48), 3.62.4. None of these men is mentioned after laying down the quaestorship. But since Caesar did not use quaestor for ex--quaestors in Bellum Civile, even though the term quaestorius is absent from the work (so C. Antonius is given no title, 3.4, 10, 67), it seems likely that Caesar was inclined to refer only to his own quaestors in this way.

(47)Velleius did not always possess accurate information about magistrates of the late Republic; he (2.46.4) joined other ancient sources in wrongly attributing a quaestorship in 53 to C. Cassius (cf. Linderski, "Two Quaestorships" 35--37).

(48)They never will be suggested, if we keep in mind the Ninth Commandment of Karl Lehrs: "Du sollst nicht glauben, dass zehn schlechte Grunde gleich sind einem guten."

(49)To Sumner's suggestion (Orators 145) that Favonius was pro praetore in 49--48. we make the slight objection that there is no evidence that Favonius served in a military capacity in 49; his absence from Cicero's list of men cum imperio in March 49 (Att. 8.15.3) implies that he was not pro praetore in that year.

(50)Shackleton Bailey, Letters to Atticus IV 342--43; Broughton, MRR III 136.

(51)Not sub anno, but at MRR II 600, Peducaeus was identified as "Pr.? ca. 49?"; Sumner, "Pompeii" 19, also identified Peducaeus as "praetor? 49?"
COPYRIGHT 1994 Johns Hopkins University Press
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1994 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ryan, F.X.
Publication:American Journal of Philology
Date:Dec 22, 1994
Previous Article:Vatic admonition in Horace 'Odes' 4.9.
Next Article:A hitherto unrecognized fragment of Caecilius.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters