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: 09 August 2013
Lydus quotes a Capito three times, a Fonteius four times, Capito and Fonteius together twice, and adds that they were contemporaries of Varro and Sallust. He calls Capito a ἱερεύς, makes him an interpreter of the Etruscan Tages, and attributes a few oracles to him as well as some calendary matter. He calls Fonteius a ῾Ρωμαῖος, refers to his oracles, his interpretation of the Etruscan discipline and his work περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, and gives his ‘Tonitruale’ in Greek translation. Modern scholars identify Capito with the antiquarian Sinnius or the jurist Ateius Capito, and they assign Fonteius to the imperial period but leave him unidentified. There is nothing in the texts to support these suggestions. My conjecture is that we have to deal with one man, C. Fonteius Capito, who was ‘ad unguem factus homo, Antoni, non ut magis alter, amicus’ (Hor. Sat. 1, 5, 32 f.). Born c. 80, he became pontifex apparently after 44, when, with the help of Antony, Lepidus was elected pontifex maximus. He soon received another office from Antony—according to Groag that of a tribune—and went with him to the East. These facts emerge from an (unpublished) inscription from Cos, of c. 39, which calls him a ἱερεύς and records that, on his request, the rule of Antony was accepted on Cos.
1 De ost. 2, p. 7, 8; de mens. frg. 6, p. 180; on the third passage see below n. 8 (the references are to the editions of Wachsmuth and Wünsch respectively).
2 De ost. 39–46, p. 88 ff.; de mens. 4, 2, p. 65, 3; 4, 80, p. 132, 15; frg. 7, p. 180, 10.
3 De ost. 3, p. 8, 24; de mens. 1, 37, p. 16, 27 = de mag. p 1, 12.
4 Cf. Wachsmuth, de ost. p. xxiv ff.; Kappelmacher, , RE 6, 2842Google Scholar; Teuffel-Kroll 16, 347; Stein, , PIR 2, 3, 196Google Scholar (no. 463). Traube's (Varia libamina critica 1883, 37) reference to Fonteius of Carthage, a Neoplatonist and Christian, who wrote ‘de mente mundanda ad videndum deum’ (August., Retract. 1, 26Google Scholar; div. quaest. 12 = Opp. 1, 624; 6, 14 Migne) did not find any acceptance.
5 Cf. Münzer, , RE 6, 2847Google Scholar; Suppl. 3, 528; Groag, , PIR2, 3, 197Google Scholar (no. 469).
6 Cf. Fasti Venus., CIL I2, p. 66 = Degrassi, p. 254 f.; 283; Mancini, , Bull. comun. 65, 1935, 59Google Scholar.
7 The suggestion as to the identity of Fonteius with C. Fonteius Capito does not depend on these changes; only a second Capito would have to be found should they be rejected.
8 Cf. R. Schöne, Festschr. f. Hirschfeld 1903, 327 ff. Cumont, , Byz. Zeitschr. 30, 1929/1930, 31 f.Google Scholar; id.Mélanges P. Thomas 1930, 152 ff. The text contains κάτων: Καπίτων is a convincing conjecture of Cumont's.
9 This doctrine was analysed by Reitzenstein, Das iranische Erlösungsmysterium 213.
10 Cf. Geffcken, , Arch. Rel. Wiss. 19, 1916–1919, 286 ff.Google Scholar; Borries, B. v., Quid veteres philosophi de idolatria senserint, Göttingen, 1918Google Scholar; E. Bevan, Holy Images 1940, 63 ff.
11 Cf. Reinhardt, De Graecorum theologia 1910, 94 ff.; FGrHist. 244 F 88 ff. Jacoby.
12 Ant. rer. div. 1, frg. 59 Ag. (Aug, . CD. 4, 31Google Scholar); cf. Plut. Numa 8; Borries 54 ff.; Theiler, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, 1930, 102.
13 Cf. Kroll, , RE 4A, 2392 ffGoogle Scholar.
14 See Livy 28, 11, 6 f. (206 B.C.); Obs. 8 (178 B.C.).
15 Lydus' view that the oracle was fulfilled in an incident in Constantinople in the fifth century (de mag. 2, 12; 3, 42) is irrelevant for the question of its origin.
16 Cf. L. Hahn, Rom u. Romanismus 107.
17 Cf. Varro ap. Aug, . CD. 19, 7Google Scholar; Pliny 3, 39; Fuchs. Augustin u. der antike Friedensgedanke, 1926, 11 f.
18 I read with the Hermetic text (see below) ἀμεριμνήσουσιν instead of ήρεμήσουσιν of the MSS. of Lydus.
19 It is possible that the original ‘Tonitruale’ consisted, like that in CCAG 7, 164 ff. of two, solar and lunar, parts, the former having been omitted by later scribes. It is further possible that at a still earlier stage the prognostics covered a year each, that is to say, they were devised for a period of twelve years, a ‘dodecaeteris Chaldaica’; see also n. 21.
19a This topic is of course at home everywhere, see e.g. Horace's, obscura promens (carm. 1, 34, 14Google Scholar) and the passages collected by Keller and Holder ad loc.
20 Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 135.
21 CCAG 7, 126 ff.; Boll-Bezold, ‘Reflexe astrologischer Keilinschriften bei griechischen Schriftstellern,’ Sitz.-Ber. Heidelberg 1911, 7. Abh., 8; Festugière, , La révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste 1, 109 fGoogle Scholar. Boll found later (Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 96) traces of this Egyptian original in the dodecaeteris of the Apocalypse of Baruch 27 (c. A.D. 100) and in the description of the four horsemen in the Apocalypse of St. John; but his suggestions were not well received by the commentators.
22 Cf. Boll-Bezold l.c. 5 ff.
23 That the Seismology of Tages was versified is not incredible: we possess such a poem περὶ σεισμῶν under the name of Hermes Trismegistos and Orpheus (frg. 285 K.). There is another reference to the σεισμοκοπικά of Tages, in de mens. 4, 79Google Scholar (p. 131, 24).
24 Cf. L. Bianchi, ‘Der Kalender des sog. Clodius Tuscus’, Sitz.-Ber. Heidelberg 1914, 3. Abh., 8; 22.
25 Cf. Bezold-Boll, l.c. 11, 2; Boll, Aus der Offenbarung Johannis 11, 1; Kroll, , RE 17, 209Google Scholar; Wachsmuth p. xxx attributed this text to Cornelius Labeo with no sufficient justification.
26 In addition to the texts mentioned above there is a fragment on astrological ethnography under the name of Tages in de mens. frg. 2, p. 178, 15.
27 Cf. Lact. Srat, Plac.. Theb. 4, 516Google Scholar; Suid. s.v. Τυρρηνία Bidez-Cumont, , Les Mages hellénisés 1, 227 ffGoogle Scholar.
28 For references see above n. 25.
29 This was probably Polles of Aigai whom Lydus quotes as one of his principal authorities (de ost. 2, p. 6, 25): he wrote, according to Suidas, among other things περἰ τῆς παρὰ Τυρρηνοἵς μαντικῆς. But he is very little known (cf. Lyd. de ost. 8; Marin. v. Procli 10; Nonn. in Greg. Naz. 72 [Patr. Gr. 36, 1024]; Suid. s. v. Μελάμπους) and we have no means of dating him.
