The Praetorship of P.

Cornelius Lentulus Spinther

Author(s): F. X. Ryan
Source: Hermes, 128. Bd., H. 2 (2000), pp. 246-247
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477363 .
Accessed: 29/04/2014 22:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 129.170.194.150 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:52:08 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
246 Miszellen
The ancient evidence supports the inference that Critonius gave the ludi Florales at
the normal time, and was therefore a simple aedilis plebis. Inasmuch as neither the type
of his aedileship nor the name of his ludi is stated in any source, we should change the
notation in BROUGHTON'S >Index of Careers< from >>Aed. 44, possibly Aed. Cer.< to
>>Aed. (P1.?) 44.<< Though the games of Critonius mentioned by Appian are almost
certainly the Florales, it is now apparent that Critonius also gave the Ceriales in 44, since
there were no aediles plebis Ceriales in that year. We have lost the name of one of the
first aediles plebis Ceriales, but we have gained the name of one of the last aediles plebis
to celebrate the Ceriales. The most startling conclusion yielded by our investigation into
the type of the aedileship of Critonius does not concern Critonius at all: we have learned
that there were not six vacancies in the aedileship of 44, and that at least one of the four
remaining men in the aedilician fasti of 44 belongs to a different year.
Gottingen F. X. RYAN
THE PRAETORSHIP OF P. CORNELIUS LENTULUS SPINTHER
Once it seemed that there was only one possible year for his praetorship, >fiir die sich
das J. 694 = 60 aus denen der Aedilitat und des Consulats mit Sicherheit ergiebtwl.
Lentulus was curule aedile in 63 B.C. and consul in 57 B.C.2; as long as a compulsory
biennium between curule aedileship and praetorship was accepted, a praetorship in 61
could be ruled out. But for a long time now the absence of a compulsory biennium
between curule aedileship and praetorship, at least in the period after Sulla, has been
recognized3. One source which refers to his praetorship places him in charge of the ludi
Apollinares and so proves that he was urban praetor (Plin. NH 19.23), but this fact does
not secure the praetorship to 60 because the urban praetor of 61 is unknown. Neverthe-
less, Lentulus today is still classified as he has always been, >>Pr. urb. 60v
In an earlier and less successful attempt to resolve this problem it was argued that his
governorship of Nearer Spain points to a praetorship in 60. The ancient evidence reveals
that he was governor in 58 (Cic. Fam. 1.9.13), and from this we may safely infer that he
was governor in 59. The governor of Nearer Spain in 60 is not attested, but that the
governorship of Lentulus began so early seems to be belied by the fact that Lentulus
himself considered it a beneficium of Caesar quod provinciam Hispaniam ex praetura
habuerat (Caes. BC 1.22.4): this passage strongly suggests that Caesar as consul early in
I
F. MCNZER, Cornelius 238, RE 4, 1900, 1394.
2
Cf. T. R. S. BROUGHTON, MRR 2.167, 199-200.
3
A. AFZELIUS, Lex Annalis, C&M 8 (1946) 271, adduced Cic. Fam. 10.25.2 as a literary
attestation of the absence of a compulsory biennium, and his view has been accepted ever since.
In fact Fam. 10.25.2 does not prove the point, but literary evidence which proves that the
biennium was merely customary can be found at Cic. Off. 2.57-59. Cf. The Biennium and the
Curule Aedileship in the Late Republic, Latomus 57, 1998, 3-14
4
MRR 2.554; B. W. FRIER, Urban Praetors and Rural Violence, TAPA 113, 1983, 228-29.
Hermes, 128. Band, Heft 2 (2000)
C) Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 129.170.194.150 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:52:08 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Miszellen 247
59 presided over the sortition at which Lentulus drew the lot for his province5. In this
earlier attempt to date the praetorship, the single most important piece of ancient
evidence was missed: Dio 39.6.26. There we leam that Lentulus was busy in the first part
of 61 serving as a juror in the trial of Clodius for sacrilege. Since incumbent magistrates
were not considered senators and did not serve on juries in the capacity of a senator, we
have at long last evidence which completely excludes the possibility of a praetorship
in 61.
Lentulus did not reach the consulship suo anno (Cif. Off. 2.57-59) and so was old
enough to be praetor in 61, but instead his cursus provides proof of what has so often
been assumed: that a biennium between curule aedileship and praetorship, though not
required, was none the less customary. The original ground upon which scholars award-
ed Lentulus a praetorship of 60 has fallen away, but those scholars were correct in their
conclusion: that Lentulus was praetor urbanus in 60 follows from the ancient evidence
>>mit Sicherheit.<<
Gottingen F. X. RYAN
s Cf. Ten Ill-Starred Aediles, Klio 78, 1996, 82 n. 59.
6
It was also overlooked by MONZER in his sketch of Lentulus.
POLLUX AND THE AULAIA
At Pollux 4.122 we find the statement, Ct':xrrt &s Kctt6 icapc'xraoara aXkaiav
~XcaSiv',
Thpeoi5ou cin0vtoi
?vtCp
Kia-ra HacpoiKXco (frg. 139 Jensen). 'ot 6' ivvta
dpXovrre ?ita-tov-ro ?v mj o-coa,
imptuppaRdgetvoi
rt
gipo; av'Mi1 acnvkaiq.'
Since twice
elsewhere (Suid. a 4434, BEKK. Anec. 463.14) we find avXaia defined as follows: 6o 'ifl
aKCvf; napanraoia. KS pTIat S av
, K
'TEpi%
E9 TO Karci HlarpoiKXowv', it
might seem reasonable to suppose that Pollux' statement is a reference to the stage-
curtain of the Roman period. I think, however, that the authority on which Suidas and
BEKKER'S anonymous author ultimately depend could not have been talking about the
theatre at all. For the example of an a&6aia which is cited refers to a curtain hanging in
a colonnade, whose purpose was to screen off a meeting of the archons. According to
REISCH "avAaia" usually refers to a curtain separating the inner rooms of a house2.
Another sense of the word, expensive textile, is illustrated by a fragment of Menander
which must have been found in the same source; for it is quoted by Cosmas Indicopleu-
stes, who also cites Hyperides3. Suidas' ur-source, therefore, was concemed with the
broad general meaning of ai5Xaia, and it was only at an intermediate stage, probably in
the Roman period, that a narrower sense was attached to the definition.
I
Cf. Hesch. a 8282 s.v. aOXaia, Et. Mag. 170.28 s.v. aivXa-at, which add rr ;
OITcVi;
to
the definition but do not cite Hyperides. BEKK. Anec. 83.7 cites Hyperides without the quotation
and defines ai5Xaia simply as ror napantrao1.a.
2 As at Polyb. 33.5.2. EMIL REISCH, "Aulaeum," RE 2 (1896) 2398. See also MICHAIL
SWOBODA, "De origine atque primordiis aulaeorum in theatro Romano," Eos 51 (1961) 304-08.
3
Cosmas Indicopleustes, Top. Chr. 5.204 A: oiVToo
8e
Kcak&Xortv a-taS; [sc. aiAaia;J
cai oi FcoiWev 'Atucoi Xyovtm; aiAaia, t6 jiya Kcai notciXov naparsaaJa.
.epi6S O
Hermes, 128. Band, Heft 2 (2000)
? Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH, Sitz Stuttgart
This content downloaded from 129.170.194.150 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:52:08 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions