We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
‘In historical composition’, said Samuel Johnson, ‘all the greatest powers of the human mind are quiescent’. Perhaps so, but even if the historian must appear dull and plodding next to his more profound and shimmering brethren, the philologists and – of course – the literary critics, still he must be granted at least one virtue in plenty and that virtue is scepticism. Especially nowadays. While not quite yet ready to surrender his province to the meta-historians (who, not much believing in facts, have no real use for scepticism anyway), the historian continues diligently to scrutinize his sources with such wary Pyrrhonism as he can muster. He is especially suspicious of those ancients whose intelligence and whose literary gifts he most admires, hence the unrelenting distrust of authors such as Cicero and Caesar – and recently even such paragons of accuracy as Polybius. Still, a few authors have earned our unconscious credence, it would seem, merely by dint of their artlessness; we simply do not respect them enough to doubt them. A case in point: Varro's De Re Rustica, a remarkable ensemble of three dialogues, a highly literary work, yet one whose obvious inadequacies have distracted readers from its attempts at literariness and consequently have led them to take its veracity for granted – even when it relates to items having little or nothing to do with agriculture. A brief passage in the third book of R.R. informs us, or rather seems to inform us, that what was perhaps republican Rome's most illustrious family, the Claudii Pulchri, was reduced to poverty in the seventies B.C. in the aftermath of the death of the consul of 79 – evidence that has been accepted widely by modern scholars. In this paper I hope to show that there is no good reason for believing Varro's Appius when he claims to have been pauperized by his father's death and, furthermore, that to do so is to fail to appreciate the artistry and wry humour with which Varro has composed Book Three.
* References, unless otherwise indicated, are to R.R. All dates are b.c.
1 Drumann, K. W. and Groebe, P., Geschichte Roms in seinem Übergang von der re-publikanischen zur monarchischen Verfassung (Berlin and Leipzig, 1902), ii.319Google Scholar; Munzer, F., Romische Adelspartien und Adelsfamilien (Stuttgart, 1920), pp. 255fGoogle Scholar; van Ooteghem, J., Lucius Licinius Lucullus (Brussels, 1959), p. 44Google Scholar. Cf. McDermott, W. C., AJP 93 (1972), 93Google Scholar, for criticisms of Ap. Claudius pater that include his failure to maintain the family's fortunes.
2 Syme, R., The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford, 1986), p. 17Google Scholar; Shatzman, I., Senatorial Wealth and Roman Politics (Brussels, 1975), pp. 51, 321 (esp. n. 236), 324Google Scholar. A helpful sense of the distinction between true poverty and the ‘poverty’ that Shatzman has in mind can be gained from Bastomsky, S. J., G&R 37 (1990), 37–43.Google Scholar
3 Wiseman, T. P., Catullus and his World: A Reappraisal (Cambridge, 1985), p. 22.Google Scholar
4 Schol. Bob. 85 (St.) dubs Clodius ‘potentissimus homo’ at the time of his trial, a designation which, if not an anachronism, probably refers to Clodius' clout stemming from his family's wealth and position, cf. Rundell, W. M. F., Historia 28 (1979), 303Google Scholar. A different view is taken by Benner, H., Die Politik des P. Clodius Pulcher (Stuttgart, 1987), pp. 44f.Google Scholar
5 Claudian wealth: Wiseman, T. P., Clio's Cosmetics (Leicester, 1979), pp. 125ffGoogle Scholar. (with further citations); id., op. cit. (above, n. 3), pp. 15–48; cf. Cic. Fam. 2.13.2. Eastern holdings: Rawson, E., Historia 22 (1973), 219–39Google Scholar; id., Historia 26 (1977), 340–57Google Scholar. Other holdings: Shatzman, op. cit., pp. 321–8; Wikander, C. and Wikander, Ö., Op. Rom. 12 (1979), 11Google Scholar. Cf.also Rawson, E., ‘The Ciceronian Aristocracy and its Properties’, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Studies in Roman Property (Cambridge, 1976), pp. 85–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar; d'Escurac, H. Pavis, Ktema 2 (1977), 339–55Google Scholar; Rauh, N., Aevum 1 (1986), 3–30Google Scholar; Wikander, O., Op. Rom. 16 (1987), 137–45Google Scholar. Shatzman on the anomaly of Ap. pater's (apparent) failure to profit from the Sullan proscriptions: op. cit., p. 321 n. 236.
6 The ideology of the Roman aristocracy (with its predictable emphasis on wealth): Brunt, P. A., The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (New York, 1988), pp. 53ffGoogle Scholar., with further references.
7 Süss, W., Ethos (Leipzig and Berlin, 1910), pp. 245ff.Google Scholar; Nisbet, R. G. M., Cicero in L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio (Oxford, 1961), pp. 192ffGoogle Scholar. Debilitating indebtedness could reasonably be seen as representing want of fides, cf. Brunt, op. cit., pp. 61ff. Hellegouarc'h, J., Le vocabulaire latin des relations et despartis politiques sous la république (Paris, 1963), pp. 532–4Google Scholar, collects numerous examples (under the headings ‘Perditus’ and ‘Desperatus’). Cf. also Sailer, R. P., Phoenix 38 (1984), 347.Google Scholar
Admittedly, poverty could be a subject of jocularity in suitable contexts, such as light verse, cf. Stampacchia, G., Maia 21 (1969), 326–35Google Scholar. The case of M. Aemilius Scaurus (cos. 115), who boasted of his modest patrimony in his autobiography (Peter, H., HHR2 1.185Google Scholar; cf. Shatzman, op. cit., p. 263), is the exception that proves the rule so far as the Romans' attitude towards origins is concerned.
8 On mulsum cf. Colum. 12.41; Pliny, N.H. 14.85; A. Hug, RE 16.513f.; TLL 8.1579f. Mulsum could be prepared from a variety of wines and honeys, but ideally it should be concocted from the best of each, which made for an expensive beverage.
9 CQ 34 (1984), 195–203, esp. pp. 199–203Google Scholar. Cf. the cautionary remarks of Gardner, Jane F., Women in Roman Law and Society (London and Sydney, 1986), p. 101CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The huge dowries listed by Shatzman, op. cit., p. 53 (not all of which can be quantified) may be considered exceptional, though Evans, J. K., War, Women and Children in Ancient Rome (London, 1991), pp. 53ffGoogle Scholar., makes a good case for the dowry as an avenue for conspicuous display in the second century. It is perhaps worth mentioning that under normal circumstances the mother would be expected to contribute something towards a daughter's dowry, cf. Dixon, S., The Roman Mother (Norman, 1988), p. 216.Google Scholar
10 Pliny, N.H. 34.36. Discussion: J. K. Evans, op. cit., pp. 59f.
11 Ep. 2.4 represents a similar situation; this same letter also indicates the sort of shame attending a debt-ridden estate. For an excellent and concise discussion of dowry and related matters, cf. Gardner, op. cit., pp. 97ff.
12 Walbank, F. W., A Historical Commentary on Polybius, iii (Oxford, 1979), p. 507Google Scholar suggests a patrician custom ‘of giving dowries of a size hard to meet out of liquid assets’, but this seems by and large to be his inference from the clearly exceptional case of Sc. Aemilianus in 162 (Polyb. 31.26–8). The likely legal and social background to Polybius' account is provided by Dixon, S., AJP 106 (1985), 147–70Google Scholar, with further bibliography. In any event the absence of a dowry was associated with the circumstances of extreme poverty, cf. Plaut. Aul. 478ff.
13 Gardner, J. F., CQ 35 (1985), 449–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; id. op. cit., pp. 68f., 112ff.
14 Watson, A., The Law of Persons in the Late Roman Republic (Oxford, 1967), pp. 2–6Google Scholar; Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 97ff.
15 A practical reason also suggests itself: the most common documentary proofs of marriage were pacta dotalia, cf. Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), p. 49.
16 Paupertas (in the sense of simplicity and frugal living) was of course an old-fashioned Roman virtue, cf. Lucr. 1.165ff.; Sall. B. Cat. 12.1; Val. Max. 4.4.1; Vergil, , Georg. 1.145f,Google Scholar; Hor. Carm. 1.12.37ff.; Sen. Ep. 87.41.
17 Not 54, which has been the normal view until recently and has lately been argued, with considerable ingenuity, by Richardson, J. S., CQ 33 (1983), 456–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the correct dramatic data see Badian, E., Athenaeum 48 (1970), 4–6Google Scholar and Linderski, J., Historia 34 (1985), 248–54Google Scholar. Agache, S., ‘L'Actualite de la Villa Publica en 55–54 av. J.-C.’ in Pietri, C. (ed.), L'Urbs. Espace urbain et histoire ler siècle avant J.-C-Hie siècle après J.-C. (Paris and Rome, 1987), pp. 211–34Google Scholar (esp. 213) follows Richardson.
18 Plut. Luc. 34.1; 38.1; Caes. 10.5; Cic. 29.3–1; Cic. Mil. 73. Charges of incest with the wife of Lucullus were used by the prosecution to blacken Clodius' character during the Bona Dea trial, cf. Moreau, P., Clodiana Religio: Un procès politique en 61 av. J.-C. (Paris, 1982), p. 168.Google Scholar
19 On this point Wiseman, op. cit. (above, n. 3), p. 22, must be correct.
20 Cf. Cic. Verr. 1.40; Clu. 130. Further references: Broughton, MRR 2.97 and 102.
21 The difficulty of determining the relationships amongst the Terentii Varrones, a family which branched out quite a lot, esp. in the first century, is mentioned by Munzer, F., RE 5A.1. 676f.Google Scholar
22 The significance of Varro's speakers in R.R. generally and the singular distinction of Appius, who is the most distinguished personage in the entire work, is discussed by Linderski, J., ‘Garden Parlors: Nobles and Birds’, in Curtis, R. I. (ed.), Studia Pompeiana & Classica in Honor of Wilhelmina F. Jashemski, ii (New York, 1989), pp. 116ffGoogle Scholar. L. Cornelius Merula, significantly, was ‘consularis familia ortus’ (3.2.2).
23 On matters relating to tutela, cf. Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 14–22.
24 Treggiari, S., Echos du monde classique 1 (1982), 34–44Google Scholar; Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 41–4. On the gap between legal technicalities and ordinary speech in Rome, cf. Dixon, art. cit., 161ff.
25 For a discussion of the Lex Voconia and its effects, cf. Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 170ff.
26 Discussion, with further references to the sources, in Dixon, art. cit., 158ff.
27 Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 109ff.
28 Boyer, L., RHD 43 (1965), 333–408Google Scholar; also Gardner, op. cit. (above, n. 9), pp. 100 and 175f.
29 Norden, Ed., Die Antike Kunstprosa (Stuttgart, 1958, repr. of the 2nd ed. of 1915), i.194ffGoogle Scholar; Augustine, Civ. D. 6.2.
30 Dahlmann, H., RE Suppl. 6.1172ff., esp. 1186–94.Google Scholar
31 Literary treatments of R.R. include: Hirzel, R., Der Dialog (Leipzig, 1895), i.533ff.Google Scholar; Heurgon, J., Varron, Économie rurale, livre premier (Paris, 1978), pp. vii–lxxxvGoogle Scholar (a convenient introduction to R.R. generally); Noè, E., ‘I proemi del de re rustica di Varrone’, Athenaeum 55 (1977), 289–302Google Scholar; Cossarini, A., ‘Unità e coerenza del De re rustica di Varrone’, Rendiconti dell' Accademia Scienze dell' Istituto di Bologna 65 (1976/1977), 177–97Google Scholar; Traglia, A., ‘Le Res Rusticae de Varrone come opera letteraria’, Cultura e Scuola 94 (1985), 89–97Google Scholar; Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), pp. 113ff. – all with further references. Varro's style: Heurgon, J., RPh 34 (1950), 57–71Google Scholar; Laughton, E., CQ 10 (1960), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A recent, excellent discussion of literary technique in Ciceronian dialogues is provided by Powell, J- F. G., Cicero. Cato Maior de Senectute (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
32 Cf. Noè, art. cit. (with abundant references), who also points out some of the imperfections in the overall design of R.R. Luxuria is also a principal theme of the Men. Satires and can be detected in the Logistorici as well, cf. Dahlmann, op. cit., 1271 f.; Morgan, M. G., Mus. Helv. 31 (1974), 125.Google Scholar
33 Schanz-Hosius, 1.573; Heurgon, , RPh 34 (1950), 57f.Google Scholar; Martin, R., Recherches sur les agronomes latins et leurs conceptions économiques et sociales (Paris, 1971), p. 218Google Scholar; Laughton, E., ‘Humour in Varro’, in Collart, J. (ed.), Varron, grammaire antique et stylistique latine. Sarbonne Etudes 15 (Paris, 1978), pp. 105–11Google Scholar; Traglia, art. cit. 93ff.; Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), pp. 115ff.
34 For the importance (and inventiveness) of Varro's settings, cf. Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), pp. 115ff.
35 Dahlmann, op. cit. 1189ff. Cf. also Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), pp. 114ff. Varro's gift for characterization is unfairly underrated by Traglia, art. cit., 91, though he is by no means the first to do so.
36 Dahlmann, op. cit. 1191 (‘dekorativen Personen’). These adornments, Dahlmann notes, are lacking in Book Two.
37 The names of Varro's interlocutors almost invariably involve some sort of pun (‘The dialogue is a festival of puns and jokes’ as Linderski, art. cit. [above, n. 22], p. 114 puts it). This allows Varro to indulge his proclivity for word-play, yet it should not for that reason be supposed that his characters are unhistorical, cf. Linderski, ibid., p. 116.
38 A Ciceronian literary device (cf. De Or. 3.18; Leg. 1.14; Macrob. 6.4.8), as Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), p. 115, observes.
39 Appius' religiosity is well known: e.g. Cic. Fam. 1.9.25; 3.4.1; Div. 137.
40 It is reasonable to assume, as does Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), p. 117, that the ornithologically named gentlemen in Appius' ‘aviary’ were dominobilescultivated by the grand patrician.
41 The Villa Publica: Platner, S. and Ashby, T., A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1929), s.v.Google Scholar; van Ooteghem, J., LEC 34 (1966), 340–5Google Scholar; Tossi, G., Atti dell'Istituto Veneto, Classe di Scienze Morali. Lettere ed Arti 135 (1975/1976), 413–26Google Scholar. Agache, art. cit., surveys the various political themes linked to the Villa Publica in the fifties (though certain of her particular interpretations of the period's coinage and of R.R. are highly dubious).
42 Caelius' disapproval: Cic. Fam. 8.12.1–2; 8.14.4. Granted Appius' partisanship, a severe census may nevertheless have been felt necessary at the time, cf. Astin, A. E., JRS 88 (1988), 30ff.Google Scholar; Tatum, W. J., CPh 85 (1990), 36–40.Google Scholar
43 There is a minor confusion here. Appius clearly contrasts the Villa Publica with Axius' estate (3.2.3). However, Axius' response (‘Tua scilicet, inquit Axius, haec in campo Martio extremo utilis et non deliciis sumptuosior quam omnes omnium universae Reatinae?’) has been interpreted by some to refer to a magnificent villa in the Campus Martius owned by Appius himself. It is more natural to take the phrase in reference to the site in which Appius is actually sitting, the Villa Publica itself, cf. Linderski, J., Parola del Passato 35 (1980), 272fGoogle Scholar. (with further bibliography). (Even if ‘Tua’ should be taken with extreme literalness and in consequence the reference be to a property of Appius' and not the Villa Publica, Axius' retort still has the effect of deflating Appius' pretensions.)
44 The tension between fealty to ancestral frugality and the need for status-affirming display – each of which was in its own way a traditional value – was a real one in the late republic and one that surfaces elsewhere; cf., for instance, Cicero's contradictory statements regarding magnificent architecture (Off. 1.138f.; Leg. 3.30). On this problem see the excellent treatment by Wallace-Hadrill, A., ‘The Social Structure of the Roman House’, PBSR 56 (1988), 43–97Google Scholar (esp. 44ff.).
On Roman villas, cf. Carandini, A. et al. , Settefinestre: Una villa schiavistica nell'Etruria romana. Vol. 1, La villa nel suo insieme (Modena, 1985)Google Scholar; Mielsch, H., Die römische Villa. Architektur und Lebensform (Munich, 1987)Google Scholar. The importance of the villa for self-representation: Leen, A., AJP 112 (1991), 229–46.Google Scholar
45 For Axius' acquisitiveness, cf. also 3.7.11; 3.16.10–11.
46 Appius begins ‘…cum pauper…essem relictus’; cf. Porph. ad Hor. Ep. 2.2.119: ‘paupertas etiam honestae parsimoniae nomen est’.
47 Plut. Luc. 33.3f; 38–41; Synk. Cim. et Luc. 1.5. In his Life, Plutarch strove to underplay Lucullus' luxury, cf. Swain, S. C. R., JHS 90 (1990), 143ff.Google Scholar
48 For aedificatio as a traditionally recognized vice, cf. Wallace-Hadrill, art. cit., 44f. Further references to Lucullus' luxury: 1.2.10; 1.13.7; 3.2.17; 3.4.3. Cf. also Cic. Off. 138f.; Leg. 3.30; Veil. Pat. 2.33.4; Nicolaus, FGrHist 90 F 77ab; Pliny, N.H. 35.118; Plut. Cato Min. 19.8; Pomp. 2.12, Marius 34.4. Lucullus' opulent Tusculan villa is discussed by van Ooteghem, op. cit. (above, n. 1), pp. 183ff.
49 In fact, the discussion of fishponds – and Lucullus – will be postponed until Appius and Merula depart to congratulate their successful aedilician candidate (3.17.1).
50 Thus Plutarch's (inaccurate) treatment of Sulla's youth (Sull. 1–2), cf. Reams, L. E., AJAH 9 (1984), 158–74.Google Scholar
51 ‘There was no epoch in Rome's history but could boast a Claudius’ (Syme, R., The Roman Revolution [Oxford, 1939], p. 19)Google Scholar. From Varro's perspective, who published R.R. in 37 (in his eightieth year, cf. 1.1.1), the consul of 38 (namely Ap. Claudius C. f. Pulcher) was proof enough of the continuity of Claudian clout. On the Claudii Pulchri during the triumviral period and the early Principate, cf. Wiseman, T. P., Roman Studies (Liverpool, 1987), pp. 42–56Google Scholar; R. Syme, op. cit. (n. 2, above), pp. 148f. (a critique of Wiseman). The formidable impediments to a family's continuous political success are discussed in Hopkins, K., Death and Renewal (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 74ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
52 Trinum. 690ff.; whether this aspect of the plot is due to Plautus or Philemon is unimportant here since Varro will have expected his readers to recognize the literary pattern be it Greek or Latin. Cf. also Euclio in Aul. 220ff., who (owing to the demands of self-respect) is opposed to marrying his daughter to Megadorus, who is rich.
53 Men. Dysk. 828ff.
54 Arist. Rhet. 3.1419b (for further discussion of Aristotle's conception of irony cf. Gooch, P. W., Phoenix 41 [1987], 95–104)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cic. Brut. 292ff. Jokes about one's own conceits, including jokes regarding money and the lack of it, were not uncommon in the refined versification of the ‘neoterics’, cf. Stampacchia, art. cit.
55 Schanz-Hosius 1.563ff.; Perez, A. Pociña, ‘Varrón y el teatro latino’, Durius 3 (1975), 291–321.Google Scholar
56 The Claudii Pulchri and the theatre: Wiseman, op. cit. (above, n. 3), pp. 26–38; Wiseman's focus is on Clodia Metelli and Clodius Pulcher, but I do not gather that he would exclude Appius. The relevance of a character's personality to his lines: Linderski, art. cit. (above, n. 22), 114ff. Varro went to great pains (including a recherche Sabine pun in the name of one of Appius' companions) to guarantee Appius' appropriateness in his dialogue, cf. Linderski, ibid., 116f. and 124.
57 I am very grateful to Jerzy Linderski for sharing with me his views on this paper. This is not to implicate him in any of my arguments or their conclusions.
