8/11/2019 Appiano 1

1/9

Appian's Magisterial TerminologyAuthor(s): T. James Luce, Jr.Reviewed work(s):Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Jan., 1961), pp. 21-28Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/267055.Accessed: 13/01/2012 03:31

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.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/267055?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/267055?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

2/9

APPIAN'S MAGISTERIAL

TERMINOLOGY

T. JAMES LUCE, JR.

HE

basic

work

on

Appian's

con-

stitutional

terminology

is

includ-

ed

in

David

Magie's

excellent

and

invaluable

book,

De

Romanorum iuris

publici

sacrique vocabulis sollemnibus

in

Graecum sermonem

conversis

(Leipzig,

1905). This

paper is

intended to

be not

a

summary

of, but a

supplement to,

Magie's work; it will not include all the

magistracies, because

Magie

has

ade-

quately

covered

many

of

them.

But

Appian's

terminology

for

certain of the

magistracies demands

further study,

since

the historian's

usage

and mean-

ing have

sometimes

been

misunderstood;

consequently,

this

paper will treat

(I)

the

praetorship, (II) the

consulship,

and (III) the

various

offices which

Ap-

pian in some fashion relates to monar-

khia. Magie,

moreover, has stated

the

proper

Latin

magisterial

titles

which

the Greek words

either mean or

ought

to

mean; the

results of the

present

study

show,

however,

that it

is

also

profitable to view

Appian's

Greek

terms

as words

in

most

instances

in-

telligible per se and

often not

corre-

sponding

with

the

proper Latin

titles.

A few general remarks may be made

about

Appian's

magisterial

terminolo-

gy

as a

whole.

The historian

often

omits a

magistrate's title,

and prefers

to

give

the man's

name only.1

When

Appian does give

titles, he

is complete-

ly

unlike Dio

Cassius, who is at

pains

to

be accurate

and

consistent in

his use

of terms.2

Appian

scorns

consistency.

In

translating from

Latin

into

Greek

he renders legatus, for instance, by a

kaleidoscope

of

expressions.

The con-

ventional

translation

is

-np?pur

or

-tlp?aFuq,

which

in

literary

Greek

is

re-

stricted

almost

entirely

to

the

meaning

"ambassador";

the

historian

generally

uses

these words

when the

legatus per-

forms

some

kind of ambassadorial

func-

tion. He

pauses

twice

in

his

History

to

explain the use

of

presbeutes

in

other

contexts (Mith. 94/431; BC 1. 38/173).

Generally,

however,

Appian

uses a

term

descriptive

of the

legate's

func-

tion: for

example,

au'ppouXov

s

used

of a

legate who

serves

in

an

advisory

capacity

(Syr.

21/100);

rparpoy6c,

of

one

serving as

an

army commander with

some

independence

(Mith.

88/400);

urncoa7paIrryouc,,or

legates

serving di-

rectly

under a

commander as

subordi-

nates (BC 1. 40/179); voxui%pzor,f a

legate

commanding

a

fleet

(Mith.

71/

300);

U'r%pe'?ox

of

those

helping, for

example,

Pompey

in

administering the

grain

supply

(BC 2.

18/67); and ix

)

PouXS,

with

reference

to the

origin

(BC

3.

84/343) of the

designation. On

the

other

hand, a term

like strategos

can

be used

of

anyone

serving

in

a

military

capacity,

whether a

consul,

praetor, quaestor, legate, military trib-

une, or

promagistrate.

It is

clear,

therefore, that

Appian

is

more con-

cerned with

using terms

descriptive of

a

magistrate's function

than he is

with

either

consistency

or

accuracy as

to his

title.

I

Appian's

regular

word for

praetor is

strategos.

Yet

any commander

of

troops,

whether consul, legate, or other magis-

trate,

can

be

styled

strateaos. The only

[CLASSICAL

HILOLOGY,VI,

January,

1961]

21

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

3/9

22

T.

JAMES

LUCE,

JR.

criterion by which to judge whether a

given

strategos

is indeed a praetor is the

function which he performs. All stra-

tegoi

in

or near Rome who do not per-

form in a military capacity are doubt-

less praetors.3 One fact, however, is

clear: Appian was not interested in

distinguishing them.

This

last statement, however, must

be

qualified; but

in

order to do so,

something must be said about Appian's

classification of magistracies in general.

He

never employs the distinctions

usually applied to Republican magis-

tracies: major and minor, curule and

noncurule, cum imperio and sine im-

perio, or plebeian and patrician magis-

trates. He rarely distinguishes between

magistrates and promagistrates,4 and

when he differentiates between ordinary

and extraordinary magistrates, he does

so

only

in

certain contexts

and

for

specific purposes (see

Part III

below).

The distinctions which Appian makes

are these (BC 2. 128/537):

.&

XOCL

Ta

ZT-Mo

XOCL

ra rv

'SOvov

arpoCro8&v nyeoevoa.5 From

this

it is

clear

that

Appian

thinks of

city

magistrates, yearly magistrates, gov-

ernorships,

and

military

commands.

Appian speaks

of certain

magistra-

cies as "of the

city" (tes poleos,

en

astei,

politikos, astikos,

kata

ten

polin,

en

Rhomei).

This

nomenclature,

in order

to have significance, must distinguish

magistrates

in

the

city

from those not

in the

city,

which is

the

contrast

that

Appian always

has

in

mind.6

Strategoi

are

the

only specific magistrates

of

which

the

historian

speaks

as en

astei.

As

in

his

general usage,

en

astei serves

to

differentiate

strategoi

in the

city

(praetors)

from

governors

and from

field

commanders,

whatever

their titles

may have been.7 This interpretation

differs

from

that

of

other

scholars,

who

have assumed

understandably

that

Appian

would

describe Republican

magistracies in

terms appropriate to

the

Republic. For instance,

when he

refers to L.

Tunius

Brutus

Damasippus

as strategon tes poleos in 82

B.C.

(BC 1.

88/403), it has

been assumed

that the

phrase means

Praetor

Urbanus.8 Ap-

pian's use of

this term in

other pas-

sages, however, does not

support this

assumption,

Strategos

by itself carries

the

triple ambiguity of

"military

com-

mander,"

"provincial governor, or

"praetor." The

addition of tes poleos

resolves this ambiguity.

Moreover, the

attempt of scholars to make strategos

tes

poleos mean

Praetor

Urbanus has

created

impossible situations,

for

in

the

course of his

narrative Appian

speaks

of

more

than

one

"Praetor

Urbanus"

in a

single year.

In

order to

resolve

these difficulties scholars

have taken

the

following

steps: (1)

At

BC

2. 2/7

Appian

says

that

P.

Cornelius

Lentulus

Sura

and

C. Cornelius

Cethegus

were

praetors of the city (o'

r76s

7rO'Xzcoq

zarpx%fyouv); we know

that

Cethegus

was not

praetor,

but

that

Lentulus

was.9

That

Cethegus

was

praetor

is

considered

an

error of

Appian,10

and

the tes

poleos is

ignored

in

Lentulus'

case.1"

(2)

and

(3)

At BC 2.

112/466,

Appian,

in

speaking

of

the

years

45-44

B.C.,

says:

p??XXovrsz

's Ouo5

77

rq

'6?,sc,6 po^y+Tsv6

BpoToq

xot. 'o

x

Xou

PIV-C

7C0?,vr~

(,

rpor-

yLeac,

rc

IX?&Cov

porxaaL.

The

phrase

peri

tes

kaloumenes

politikes

strategias

can

refer

only

to the

Praetor Urbanus.

But

tes

poleos

strategesein

does

not

have

reference to the

Praetor

Urbanus, for,

as

it turned

out,

both

became astikoi

strategoi

(BC

3.

2/5,

cf.

6/19). Magie'2

and

Mentz13

claim that

by

astikoi

stra-

tegoi

Appian means both Praetor Ur-

banus

(Brutus)

and

Praetor

Peregrinus

(Cassius).14

This

explanation,

however

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

4/9

APPIAN'S MAGISTERIAL

TERMINOLOGY

23

is

unsatisfactory,

for

at

BC 3.

14/49

Appian

says

that C.

Antonius,

another

praetor

of

44

B.C.,

was also cited as

strategounta

tes

poleos. (4)

The

situation

in 43

B.C.

likewise militates against this

interpretation,

for at

BC

3.

91/374

a

minimum

of three

praetors

is

covered

by

the term ton

strategon

ton kata

ten

polin

15

and we are forced to label

Q.

Gallius,

ten

politiken strategian

ar-

khon (3.

95/394),

Praetor

Peregrinus,16

since

we know from

Cicero

(Famn.

10.

12. 3;

Phil. 14. 37)

that

M. Caecilius

Cornutus

was Praetor

Urbanus,

but

Appian merely says he was "one of the

praetors"

(92/381).

The solution

to

these

problems

is to

let

8trategoi

en astei have the literal

meaning "praetors

functioning

in

the

city,"

and not to

allow

Republican

noinenclature to

confound

matters. It

is

tempting, however,

to think

that on

occasion

Appian

meant

Praetor

Ur-

banus;

at

Mith.

6/19

and

at

BC 1.

88/403 Appian says that the "city

praetor" convened the

Senate. But,

although

it

probably was the

Praetor

Urbanus,

other

reasons,

and not

Ap-

pian's phrase, should

determine the

matter.17

After

all, Appian

in

the one

passage

in

which he does

speak of the

Praetor

Urbanus makes it

quite clear

to

his

readers that he is

speaking of

something special (BC

2.

112/466): l

XOl4kV spo-rxparpaty.ol,

The reason why the

historian speaks

of certain

strategoi

and certain

magis-

trates as

tes

poleos seems

clear; he wishes

to

prevent confusion

between

provincial

and

city

magistracies and the ambi-

guity of strategos, which

by itself can

signify

praetor,

governor, or

army

commander.

If the

addition of etesios to describe

a

magistracy is to have significance, it

must

distinguish yearly magistrates

from

nonyearly

magistrates;

if

it is

to

have

purpose,

it

must obviate

possible

confusion between

them

by

readers.

Appian appears

to

use the term

for

these reasons, and he employs it in two

special contexts.

First,

he

contrasts

the

yearly

magis-

tracy

with

administrators whose

terms

were

for

life

or

were

indefinitely pro-

tracted: with

the early

kings

(Praef.

6/20, BC 1.

99/463);

with

the

emiperors

(Praef.

6/23:

proskairos);

and within

the

Republic

with the

dictatorships

of

Sulla

(BC

1.

99/463)

and of

Caesar

(BC

3. 50/204), and with the second trium-

virate

(BC 4.

2/7,

5.

132/548).

Second,

he

uses

etesios

most often

of

8trategoi.

When Sicily became

a

prov-

ince,

a

strategos

etesio8 was

sent to

govern

it

(Sic. 2.

6);

so

Appian

also

records

the

sending

of two

to

Spain

(Hi8p.

38/152)

and

one to Africa

(Pun.

135/641). To

what

magistracy of a

longer term

can

he be

contrasting

these

strategoi etesioi? He tells us himself at

Hisp.

102/444:

"[since the

time

of

Augustus]

the Romans

seem to

me...

to

have

divided

Spain into

three

parts,

and to

have

sent

governors there;

the

Senate sends

yearly governors

to

two,

and to the

third

the emperor

sends a

man

for

as

long as he

thinks best."'9

It is

clear

that

in

all

these

cases Appian

is

emphasizing the

distinction

between

the

governors

of

senatorial

provinces,

whose

term

was for

one

year (cf.

Mith.

121/596),

and those of

imperial

prov-

inces,

some

of whom

governed

for

life.

But why

should

Appian

continue

to

use

etesios

in

contexts

which have

no

connection with

the

Empire

or with

imperial

officials?20

The only

feasible

answer

is

that

the

historian wanted

to

obviate

the confusion

of

some

readers

who

might

assume

that

strategoi

ton

ethnon

in

the

Republic

held office

for

terms

other than

of

a

year. The pro-

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

5/9

24

T.

JAMES

LUCE, JR.

vincial

Greeks of

the second century

A.D.

lived in a world

governed variously

by senatorials,

whose term was for

one

year,

and by imperial legates,

whose

terms varied according to the pleasure

of the emperor.

The terms

of offices at

Rome,

senatorial

and imperial,

varied

in

like fashion.

It was doubtless

this

error which

Appian wanted

to prevent,

even

when

the

strategos

in question

was

as early

as

241

B.C.

(Sic.

2. 6).

II

Appian

regularly uses

6o7To0 and

derivative words when he speaks of the

consul.21

It

has been

asserted

that

in

the

Civil Wars Appian

invariably

uses

hypatos

to

mean

consul,

whereas

in Iiis

other books,

in

which

he

is

following

Polybius,

he

at

times

uses

strategos.22

The evidence does

not support

this

assertion.

Many

more consuls,

to be

sure,

are

terined

strategoi

in

the

books

preceding

the

Civil

Wars,

but the reason

is not that Appian is there following

Polybius.

On the

contrary,

the

books

before

the Civil Wars

describe

almost

exclusively

the action

of the consuls

in

their

capacity

as

army

comimanders

outside

Rome

and its

vicinity. Appian

uses

strategos

in

place

of

hypatos

be-

cause

he

prefers

a term

descriptive

of

the function

performed

rather

than

cor-

responding

to

the

title

possessed.

In

support

of this is the fact that in no

passage

of the

History

does

the historian

term

a consul

strategos

who

acts

in

a

sphere

other

than in

the

military;

Polyb-

ius

does

so

regularly.23

Moreover,

the

Civil

Wars

treat

mostly

of

internal

affairs of

Rome

and its

neighborhood;

foreign campaigns

are avoided.

Yet

Appian

does

on

occasion

ternm

a

consul

strateqos

in

these books

when

he

acts

as a

military

conmmander.24

In three

passages

Appian

refers

to

the

conisulship

as

-Tl

vULou

7'OpZPX

(BC

2. 19/69),

iv

7rc'vutov cXpytV FV

M6aTa BC

4. 49/215), and

rCv

TX

9z@-

vuv,cx

Epl4v-cv

0v

6C-c

(Syr. 51/256).

It is clear

that in each of these

passages

Appian is describing the consulship by

referring to its eponymous

function.25

The expression

is puzzling. In

matters

of terminology he

is loath to give mere

titles

which are

not of themselves

meaningful, either by being in

wide and

common

circulation

or by their describ-

ing

a magistrate's

function, which is

significant

in the context. He

eponymos

arkhe seems to fit neither criterion;

the

term is extremely rare and is not partic-

ularly

informative, since the

epony-

mous function of

the consuls

has no

relevance in any of

the three passages,

nor does Appian ever

use the

consuls'

names

for dating purposes.26

It seems

most probable

that it was one way

of

designating

the

consulship

among many

provincial

Greeks,

who sometimes pre-

ferred to use

a

terin

at

once familiar

to tlhem, "the eponymous magistrate."

In

two passages

in

the Mithridatic

War

(56/228,

67/284) Appian

uses

the

word

7tpo6fouXoq

o

mean

(so

scholars

have surmised)27

consul.

In the first

passage

(56/228) Appian

records

a

Oc6

XG(L

7pOfOUXO~C

xcd

arpxTyoLg

X(XT-nYOPM

WV

Eq

CXUTOV

S7rE7P(XV7X?5X

&&x8C04.

e has

made

frequent

mention

of these particular presbeis and strategoi

before,28

but no

mention

of

any probou-

loi.

Who the

probouloi

are

has been

de-

cided from 67/284,

where

he records

the

sendinig

of an

embassy

from

Mithri-

dates

to Rome

in 78

B.C.

which

was

to

draw

up

a

treaty,

but

ovocx

y7cx'6OJV

OC&Tfv [SC.

7psapeLofV1

XC, ?V XO

.6&v

7popou'Xcov

7:x

o

xoLvov. Since

the

consuls

customarily

introduced

ambassadors into the Senate (icoinon),

scholars

have

naturally

assumed

that

proboulonsignifies

consuls.

One

has

con-

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

6/9

APPIAN'S MAGISTERIAL TERMINOLOGY 25

jectured that

Appian

derived

"hanc

extraordinariam consulum

denomina-

tionem"

from

Dionysius.29 It is true

that

Dionysius at

4. 76.

2

and

5. 1.

2,

as

well

as Plutarch at Rom. 14. 3, calls the con-

suls

probouloi. Yet

all

these

passages

are

concerned

solely

with the derivation

of

the

Latin

consul

from

consulere,

which

in

Greek is

equivalent to

proboulos

or

symboulos.

But

these

words

do not

mean

consul of

themselves,

nor do

Plutarch,

Dionysius, or

any

other Greek authors

ever

use them

as such.

Hypatos

is the

Greek

word which

signifies

consul,

a

fact which Dionysius makes absolutely

clear

(4.

76.

2).

Next,

at

Mith.

56/228

proboulois cannot

mean

consuls be-

cause

there

were no consuls

involved

with

Mithridates

in

the

years

92-88

B.C., the

period in

question.

Appian

uses

proboulos

elsewhere

in

the

History to

mean

"counselor" or

"advisor,"

but in

two

special

contexts.

It

is used

(1) of

senators,

when

empha-

sis is put upon their deliberating mat-

ters

before the

people

do

so30

and

(2)

of

members of a

general's

consilium

(proboulous...

tou

polemou: BC

2.

95/

397), and

the

consilium

itself is

called

a

synedrion

(e.g., Pun.

105/495).31

It

is

surely this

latter

meaning which

the

historian

has

in

mind at

Mith.

56/228;

for, in

addition

to

previous

mention

of

strategoi

and

presbeis

(11/36,

12/38),

a

synedrion is described at length from

12/38 to

14/49.

But

what

of

the

probouloi at

Mith.

67/284

who

were

too

busy to

introduce

Mithridates'

embassy epi

to

koinon ?

No

solution

is

satisfactory

for two

reasons:

(1)

If

probouloi are

consuls,

this is the

only

use

in

Appian

or in

any other

Greek

author

of

the

word

acting

as a

synonym

for

hypatos;

(2)

koinon, too,

is never used to mean Senate either in

Appian

or in

any

other

Greek

author.32

Of

possible

explanations, the

one

which

seems to

fit

best is

this: "The

senators

[probouloi,

in the

sense

of

deliberating

before the

ratification of

the

treaty

by

the

people]

did

not admit

it

[the

em-

bassy] to their common meeting [koi-

non]."

This

use of

probouloi

as

senators

is

satisfactory; the

use of

koinon

is

more

understandable,

since

the term

probouloi

indicates whose

"common

meeting"

is

referred

to.

But,

strictly

speaking,

the

senators did

not

perform

the actual

act of

introducing

embassies;

I

suspect that

Appian is

here

guilty

of

ignorance or of

careless

expression.33

III

A

comparison of

different

passages

in

the

History

makes it

sufficiently

clear that

Appian

viewed

the

early

kings, the

dictatorship, certain

extra-

ordinary

commands,

the

second

trium-

virate,

and

the

principate

of

the

Empire

as

all

essentially

constituting, or

tend-

ing to constitute, monarkhia. He is im-

patient of

constitutional

niceties in

distinguishing

these

institutions; and

he

repeatedly

gives

evidence

that

while

they are

doubtless

different

in

appel-

lation, he

believes

them to

be

the

same

in

substance.

The

Republic

emerged

from

the

monarkhia

of

the

early

kings

and

flourished

by

itself for

a

while,

but

in

time

became

involved in

increasing

difficulties; it experimented with mo-

narkhia

as

a

cure,

which,

though

suc-

cessful, was

not

permanently

adopted;

but

when

its

troubles

became

acute,

they

inevitably

found

their

resolution

in

monarkhia,

whose

true

efficacy

had,

since

that

time,

been

proved

by

two

centuries of

peace,

prosperity,

and

well-

being.34

This

was

the

general

concept

with

which

Appian

viewed

the

Roman

Republic,

and

which

prompted

him

to

put

special

emphasis

on

the

forms

of

monarkhia.

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

7/9

26

T.

JAMES

LUCE,

JR.

The

historian clearly thought of

the

dictatorship as a

form of monarchy.

Sulla

appointed himself

monarkhos (BC

1. 82/376), as did

Caesar (Praef. 6/22),

and the very nature of the dictatorship

was

a

tyranny (BC 1.

99/462). Appian

also

sometimes styles a dictator

0CU-oxpM-

rCl)p,35 and the dictatorship

autokratoros

arkhe

(BC 1. 16/67).

At BC 1. 99/463-

100/465, Appian

says in reference

to

Sulla's

dictatorship

that

the

dictator

was

nothing more nor

less

than a

king

(PoaLeCu'):

"Thus the Romans,

who

had

kings for over sixty

Olympiads,

and after them a democracy and yearly

consuls as

administrators for another

hundred Olympiads,

again made trial

of

kings36... He, like

a

king (hoia

ba-

sileuon),

was dictator over the

consuls."

Appian

considers Caesar

to

have been

king

in

fact,

if not in

name.

The

con-

spirators

killed him

because

they

feared

he

would accept the

title (BC 2. 111/

463):

"After examining this matter,

I

have concluded that they did have a

pretext

for what they did. But it

was

an argument about a

title only, for,

in

plain

fact, 'dictator' is exactly the

same

as 'king"' (cf.2.

110/461, 150/631).

The triumviri rei

publicae

constitu-

endae

of

43

B.C.

also

fit

into

Appian's

equation

of

basileus,

diktator, tyrannos,

monarkhos,

and

autokrator.

The new

magistracy

was

to

last for five

years

and was to be equal in power to the

consulship,37

but

the

historian

clearly

thinks

of

them

as

dictators

in

function,

if not

in

title

(BC 4.

2/6): "They

seem

to

have

received

this title instead

of

'dictators,'

perhaps

because

of

Antony's

law

forbidding

the

dictatorship."38

The

Greeks,

he

says,

would call

them

har-

mosts.39

He himself

calls them

auto-

kratores

(BC

4.

37/155, 6, 7)

and

fre-

quently refers to them simply as "the

magistrates"

(hoi

arkhontes,

4.

23/94,

29/126).

Appian is also

interested

in, and

keenly

aware of, extraordinary

or unu-

sual careers:

for example,

of Scipio the

Elder

(Hisp.

18/68), of Scipio

Aemili-

anus (Hisp. 84/364, Pun. 112/530-31),

and of Marius (BC

1. 61/275).

Despite

his sometimes extremely

condensed ac-

counts,

he notes

every unusual step

in

the career

of Pompey

the Great;40

in

summing up his

career it

was Appian's

judgment that

"from his twenty-third

to his fifty-eighth

year he

did not cease

to wield the power

of a

monarch, but

because of his rivalry

with Caesar

he

was a democrat by reputation" (BC 2.

86/363).

The historian

viewed

the closing

years

of

the Republic

as

a

period

in

which monarchical government

was

used with

increasing frequency

as a remn-

edy

to end the civil wars.

It was clear

that

the conflict

between Caesar

and

Pompey would

end

in monarchy (BC

2. 48/199); and,

indeed, when Caesar

became dictator (Praef. 6/22-23): "He

kept the

form and the

name of the

state,

but established himself

as sole

ruler over all. This rule

under one

man

has been

the government

up to now,

whom

[sic] they

do not

call

kings,

as

I

think,

because they

honor their

an-

cient

oath,

but

they

call them

impera-

tores

[autokratoras],

which was

also

the

title of

generals

who

held

temporary

commands. But, in fact, they are kings

in

every respect."

Appian

therefore

calls

the

emperors

indiscriminately

both

basileis4'

and autokratores.42

Appian clearly

believed

that

monar-

chy

was

the most

effective

form

of

gov-

ernment.

It

was

the

only

solution

to

the

bloody anarchy

of the

Republic,

and

divine

providence

had led the

state

out

of the civil wars

into concord

and well-

being (BC 2. 71/299). Its effectiveness

was

proved repeatedly

during

the

Re-

public.

The

early

dictators,

whose

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

8/9

APPIAN'S

MAGISTERIAL

TERMINOLOGY

27

power

was like

that

of the

kings,

were

chosen because they

alone were able

to

cope with

situations "of

the most

fear-

ful emergencies" (BC 1. 3/9). When

Sulla became dictator (3/12) "factional

strife ceased for

a

short time,"

but

(105/491) "when he retired, the Ro-

mans...

again gradually

kindled the

fires of strife." Appian represents

the

leading statesmen during the tumultu-

ous

year

of

52

B.C.

as

saying

that mon-

archy was the only solution

(2.20/72):

"Many

said to one another

that

the

only remedy

in

the present evils was

monarchical power, and that they ought

to choose

a

powerful and mild

man."

Later the historian writes

(23/84): "The

Senate...

looked

to

Pompey

as one

who would

at

once

be

their

dictator,

for

the present situation seemed to

them to demand such

treatment. Cato

made this suggestion to them,

and they

chose him

[Pompey]

consul

without

a

colleague."43 As soon as Caesar

became

dictator "all strife again ceased" (BC 1.

4/16), but after his

assassination "strife

proceeded to grow and

increase enor-

mously" (5/18). Finally,

all

troubles were

resolved when "out of the

multifarious

civil

strife the

Roman state passed into

concord

and

monarchy" (6/24),

and the

genuine excellence

of

monarchy had

been proved by

continuous order and

prosperity

for two

centuries

(4. 16/61,

64). In fact,

Appian regarded

the Re-

public as

a

prelude to,

or

period

of

prep-

aration for, the Empire (2. 71/299):

"Such was

the

ordering

of Divine Prov-

idence to usher

in the universal

im-

perial power

of our own

day"; (Praef.

7/24): "From

the advent

of the em-

perors

to

the present time...

the

city

has been greatly

embellished,

its rev-

enue much

increased,

and

in

the

long

reign of peace

and security everything

has moved toward a lasting

prosperi-

ty."44W hen we fully realize Appian's

faith and confidence

in monarkhia,

a

statement like

that at

BC

1.

67/67

be-

comes

at

once meaningful,

for he

says

concerning the time of Ti.

Gracchus:

"I am amazed that, since

they had

frequently been

protected in such perils

by

the rule of

a

single

individual

[auto-

krator], they

did not then think of

a

dictator; but

this resource, which they

had found useful in times before, was

not remembered by most people

either

then or later."45 Appian makes

a suc-

cinct

comment,

too, about monarchy's

counterpart

(BC 4. 133/560): "Democ-

racy-a fair-sounding

name,

but in-

variably profitless.

"46

PRINCETON

UNIVERSITY

NOTES

1.

In

over 1100

pages

of

Teubner

text he mentions

the

quaestorship about

twenty times,

the

aedileship

twelve,

and

the

censorship

but

once. On

Appian's

policy

in

giving

names see

Praef. 13/51-52.

2. See

G.

Vrind,

De

Cassii

Dionis

vocabulis

quae ad ius

publicum

pertinent

(The

Hague,

1923),

pp.

16-21.

3.

E.g., BC

1.

54/235,

2. 5/16,

126/526,

4.

17/68,

18/69,

45/194.

4. Hle

mentions

proconsul

about

twelve

times

(aYvO6roTo5:

e.g.,

Hisp.

15/57;

twice

6

7ckpuawv

37coo:

Hann.

18/79,

BC

1.

82/373),

and pro

praetore

(never

propraetor,

i.e.,

prorogation of

the

praetorship) four

times

(cv-rLcrTp&iryo5:

Mith.

52/208, BC 1.

48/210, 3.

48/194,

64/263).

5.

See also BC 2.

17/62,

107/448,

128/535, 4.

15/60.

6. E.g., BC 2. 128/535, 537, 4. 15/60.

7.

The

contrast is

explicit

at BC 2.

87/367,

3.

2/4-5,

6/19-20,

95/394, 4.

57/245. At

3. 82/338

he

speaks of

-rol

Zw

aTpoiyolq

(commanders of

armies,

including pro-

vincial

governors). Cf.

Vrind,

op.

cit., p. 68,

n. 161.

8. So

T. R. S.

Broughton,

The

Magistrates

of

the

Romnan

Republic,

II

(New York,

1952), 67. See RE,

X,

1025, s.v.

"lunius"

(58).

Livy Per. 86,

Vell. Pat. 2. 26.

2, Val.

Max.

9. 2. 3,

Oros. 5.

20. 4, all call

Damasippus

simply

praetor.

9. See

Broughton,

op. cit.,

II, 166, and citations

there.

10.

See RE, IV,

1278, ll.

21-23, s.v. "Cornelius"

(89);

Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte

Roms,

II

(Leipzig, 1902),

479.

11.

The Praetor

Urbanus of

63 B.C.

is

unknown. See

Broughton, op. cit.,

II,

166-67.

12. Op. cit.,

p. 82:

"in

plurali et includit

etiam Prae-

torem

Peregrinum."

Magie also

lists

ten

strategian

ten

oikoi

of Dio

(36. 41.

1) under

"Praetura Urbana";

Vrind,

op. cit.,

p. 52, n. 119,

rightly says:

"ubi

praetura quam

quis

Romae

vel domi

gerit, imperio

provinciae opponitur."

13. De magistratuumRomanorumGraecisappellationibus

(diss.,

Jena

[1894]), p.

31.

14. No

ancient

source

actually

states

that Cassius

became

Praetor

Peregrinus, but since

he lost

to Brutus the

post

of

Urbanus

(Plut. Brut.

7. 1-3), it is

assumed

8/11/2019 Appiano 1

9/9

28

T. JANES

LUCE,

JR.

that

he took the second

post of honor;

see

Broughton,

op.

cit.,

II, 320. Dio

at 78. 22.

1 speaks of ton

strategon

on

panu

for

Praetor Urbanus and

Praetor

Peregrinus; see

Vrind,

op.

cit., p. 52, n. 119.

15. Cornuttus

at

92/381,

M'. Aquillius

Crassus at

93/384,

Q. Gallius

at 95/394.

16. "Perhaps Praetor

Peregrinus":

Broughton,

op.

cit.,

11, 338.

17. lf the

consuls,

who

normally

convened the

Senate,

were absent,

the Praetor

Urbanus,

as their

representative,

usually assumed

their

duties. See

Mommsen,

Rudnisches

Staatsrecht,

III (Leipzig,

1888),

910-11;

RE,

Suppl.

VI,

700-701,

s.c. "Senatus."

18. E. Gabba,

Appiano

e

la storia

delle

"Guerre

civilil"

(Florence,

1956), p. 220,

n.

1: "SQuando na

parola greca

viene impiegata

a

traduirre

un

termine

specifico latino

ma

noto ai Greci, quella

parola e normalmente

precedutta

da

un

xxiO.c

vo."

19. Spain was

actually

divided into one

senatorial and

two imperial provinces

(see J.

Marquardt,

Rdo.ische

Staats-

verwaltung,

I

[Leipzig,

1881], 251-57, esp.

253, n.

1). This

is

a

strange error, espe.cially

since

Appian planned

to write

a

book on the administration

of the

Empire (Praef.

15/61).

lIe

appears

never

to

have written this

book, probably

hecause

death intervened (see Appiani

"Bellorunii ivilmill"

liber

primns,

ed. E.

Gabba

[Floreuce,

1958], p. xiii,

n.

1).

20. Sic.

2. 6,

Hisp.

38/152,

Pun.

1351641,

BC 2.

17/62,

107/448, 128/537.

21.

See

Magie,

op. cit., pp. 74-77.

Once at

Pun.

75/349

Appian

speaks

of

strategous

tous hypatous.

In this

passage

the words

seem to have

separate

and

equal force:

"army

commanders-the

consuls." Elsewhere

the two words are

joined

by

kai (e.g.,

Mith.

52/209,

72/305,

Hisp.

83/358).

See

M.

Holleaux,

UTPATHI'OE THIATOS

(Paris, 1918),

esp. pp.

105-13.

22.

Mentz, op. cit., p.

18.

23. E.g.,

1.

7.

12,

3. 106.

1,

21. 32.

13,

23.

1.

8.

24.

E.g.,

BC 1.

85/387,

2.

58/238.

25. There are but two other examples of this expression;

both

refer

to consules

ordinarii:

Herodian

1.

16.

3

of

A.D.

193;

and

IG,

XIV,

1389

-

IGR, I, 194,

11.

34-35,

of

Herodes Atticus

in

A.D.

143. On BC 4.

49/215

see Stein's

caveat:

PIR2

(1933),

I, 353,

s.v.

"Barbula"

(52).

26.

He dates infrequently

(Praef.

13/50).

When

he does

date,

it

is

by Olympiads.

See

E. Gabba's interesting and

valuable

note, Appiano,

p. 9,

n.

1.

27. Mentz, op.

cit., p. 19; Magie,

op.

cit.,

p. 25,

n.

2,

and

p.

75;

Viereck-Roos

ad

loc.

28. Those

who (56/228)

"restored

Ariobarzanes

to

Cappadocia,

took

Phrygia

away

from

him,

and

allowed

Nicomedes to do him

wrong."

These

events

are

recorded

at

chap.

10ff. The

presbetis

and strategoi

are

mentioned

frequently:

11/36,

12/38.

29. Mentz, op. cit., p. 19.

30. E.g.,

BC 2.

131/550;

cf.

1.

59/266,

4.

92/385; sym-

bouloi

is

the word

at

Pun.

57/247.

31. Boulen (BC

2.

65/270)

and

synkleton

(BC

2.

951397)

are also used on occasion.

Some

of

the

examples

cited

are,

strictly speaking,

colloquia, i.e.,

meetings

of a

general

and

his consilimnnwith amhassadors (cf.

Caes.

BG

5.

26.

4).

Pun.

105/495

a.nd

BC 2.

65/270

refer

exclusively

to

consilia.

32. See

Magie, op.

cit., pp.

43-44.

Appian

uses

boule

most

often,

synkletos

less

frequently,

and

gerousia

once

of

the

Carthaginian

senate (Pun.

35/149, 150).

Constitutional

terminology

is

treated

more

fully

in

my

Princeton

diss.

(1958),

Appian's

Exposition of

the

Roman

Republican

Constitution.

Koinon

generally

means

either "the

state"

or

"common

consent" (e.g.,

Mith. 15/52, 19/70,

BC 1.

2/7).

At

BC

2.

31/121

the

phrase

i+apop

xowVj

refers to the

"com-

mon vote" of the Senate (as opposed to individual senten-

tiae).

Cf.

RE, Suppl.

IV,

914-41, esp.

923ff.

and

929ff.,

s.v.

YxOtvdv.

33.

The

whole of

chap.

67

is

extremely

condensed

and

sketchy,

for in

twenty-two

lines

Appian

describes

events

from

81 to

77 Bc.

Moreover,

constitutional

anomalies

are

not unusual

in Appian:

e.g., at BC 1. 28/127

he speaks

of

a praetor

presiding

over

tribunicial

elections.

34.

This

is suibstantially

Appian's

own outline

at Praef.

6/19-7/28.

35.

E.g.,

at

BC

3.

281109.

At 1.

97/455

it

is used of

Sulla

in an oracle;

at

4. 8/34

it is used

of

Caesar

and at 4.

10139

of Sulla, both these last being in the proscription decree

of

43 B.c.

At

2. 110/461

he has

diktatora

kai autokratora.

36. Appian

says at

BC 1.

98/459 that by

Sulla's

time

the

dictatorslhip

had

been

in abeyance

for 400 years.

Gabba,

Appiano,

pp.

95-96

(cf. also

his

App.

BC

1, ad

loc.),

be-

lieves

that

Appian

here

has

inaccurately

reproduced

a

passage

from

Dionysius

(5.

77. 4), whom

he followed

in

some of

his early

books

(see RE,

II,

217-18,

s.v.

"Appianus"

[2]).

Certainly

Appian's

wording

at

99/462

is

sinmilar.

If

this be

thle

explanation,

it

is, as Gabba

notes, "un

errore

arossolano."

liut

since

Appian

continues

to say that Stilla's

dictatorship

was

really

a revival

of

the

ancient

kingship,

I

believe

it

more

likely

that

it is this

aspect of

which

Appian

is thinking;

cf.

BC 2.

23/84.

37. 4.

2/6,

7/27.

See

Mommsen,

op.

cit.,

Il, 707-8.

38 See

BC 3.

25/94,

37/148,

57/235.

39.

See

BC 4. 7/27; cf. 8/31 and 95/401. This word in

antiquity

often

was

used

in a

pejorative

sense (cf.

Aristid.

Or. 14.

49), and

Appian

so uses

it here.

He gives a

detailed

account

of

the

proscriptions

of

43

B.C.

in order to

illustrate

the

order and

happiness

of his

own

day

by contrasting

it

with the

bloody

anarchly

of

the later Republic

(4.

16/64);

he

viewed

thie

emergence

of the

Empire

out

of the Republic

as

a

paradoxical

creation

out

of

opposites

(4.

16/62;

cf.

14/56).

See Gabba,

Appiano,

pp.

3-9.

40.

'Under

Sulla

(BC

1. 80/366-69);

against

Sertorius

(1.

108/508);

frst

consulship

(1.

121/560);

pirate war

(Mith.

94/428-33);

against

Nithridates

(Mith.

97/446-47);

curator

annonae

(BC

2. 18/67);

consul

sine

collega

(2.

23/84-85).

41.

Hisp.

102/444,

BC 1.

103/479,

2. 148/618,

5.

46/192.

42. At

BC 2. 44/176-77

Appian explains

the

practice

of acclaimiing a victorious general imperator (autokrator).

Autokrator,

ike

other titles

in

Appian,

is used

of a number

of magistracies,

often

adjectivally

(e.g.,

BC 4.

91/383),

generally

to

mean

"empowered

to act

on one's

own

author-

ity." Certain

"plenipotentiary"

ambassadors

are

autokra-

tores

(Ital.

5. 2,

Pun.

76/354);

each

of

Pompey's

legates

in

the Pirate

War "had

complete

control

[autokrator

enteles]

over

that

part to

which

he had

been

entrusted"

(Mith.

94/

432).

It is seldom

used

in

the books

before

the

Civil

Wars;

in

the

Civil Wars

it is

used

with

increasing

frequency

of

many

persons;

cf.

Vrind's

study

of

autokrator

n Dio,

op.

cit., pp.

31-44;

more recently,

R. Syme,

Hist.,

VII (1958),

172-88;

A.

E.

Raubitschek,

JRS,

XLIV

(1954),

65-75.

43.

It is clear that

Appian

here

is

usincg

diktatora

not

as

a constitutional

title,

but

as a

synonym

for

monarkhos,

"sole ruler"; hence Mommsen's correction is not really

applicable

(op. cit.,

I,

701,

n.

1):

"Pompeius

wird

niach

Appian...

zum

consul

sine

collega

gemacht,

nicht,

wie

er

wiinschte,

zum

Dictator."

44. The

last two

quotations

are

H.

White's

translations

in

LCL.

Cf. Appian's

attitude

to

that

of Aelius

Aristides:

J.

H.

Oliver,

The

Rulong

Pou'er

("Tr.

Am. Philos.

Soc.,"

XLIII,

Part

4

[1953],

871-1003),

esp.

pp.

873-94. See

also

G. Kaibel,

Herm.,

XX (1885),

479-513.

45.

Strachan-Davidson,

"Civil Wars":

Book

I

(Oxford,

1902), p.

17,

In. on 16.

1

(16/67),

notes:"Appian

forgets

that

long before

this

the Dictator

had

been

subject

to

provoeatio

inside

the

walls."

But

it is clear

that

Appian

does

not

have

in

mind the

normal

Republican

dictator,

but

is using

the

word in

a

general

sense

for auttokrator

r

monarkhos.

On

Appian

and

the Emipire

see

Gabba,

Appiano,

pp.

3-9,

39-

97, 207-29; and App. BC 1, pp. xv-xvi.

46.

Appian

is

doubtless

using

demokratias

here

to

mean

merely

"self-governing"

(whether

democratic

or

oligarchic),

and

as a

contrast

to

mnonarkhia.

ee

J.

A.

0.

Larsen,

CP,

XL

(1945),

65-97, esp.

pp.

88-90.