Two Names in the Historia Augusta

Author(s): A. R. Birley
Source: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 15, H. 2 (Apr., 1966), pp. 249-253
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4434928 .
Accessed: 08/05/2014 17:48

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 Historia:
Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TWO NAMES IN THE HISTORIA AUGUSTA

I
The Historia Augusta shows a fondness for prosopographical detail. A dis-
tressingly high proportion of the names in the 'minor lives' and third-century
lives are bogus: choice personages such as Aelius Corduenus (Pesc. Niger 4. 4),
Aelius Scorpianus (Probus II. 5), Toxotius (Maximini 27. 6) and Velius Cor-
nificius Gordianus (Tacitus 3. 2f.) are unworthy of serious attention. But the
better lives are a mine of prosopographicalinformation of genuine value.' Some
of the names are transmitted in a distorted form, however, whether through
the ignorance or carelessness of the authorship of the Historia Augusta, or from
scribal errors. Thus, the equestrian tutor of Hadrian, Acilius Attianus, is ren-
dered as 'Caelium Tatianum' (Hadrianus I. 4); 'Polyaenum' (ib. I5. 4) may
represent 'Pol[y] <em>ae <a>num', i. e. Ti. Iulius Aquila Polemaeanus cos. suff.
Iio;2 'Diaboleno' (Ant. Pius I2. I) may well be a mistake for 'Iavoleno', who
might be C. Iavolenus Calvinus cet. ;3 'mater Domitia Calvilla Calvisi Tulli bis
consulis filia' (MarcusAntoninus I. 4) can be made sense of by the emendation
to 'mater Domitia Lucilla Calvisi Tulli <filia, avia matema Lucilla Domiti
Tulli> bis consulis filia'.4Two further emendations to the text of the Historia
Augusta are here offered, the first with confidence, the second with some
diffidence.
II
The first chapter of the life of Marcus Aurelius has already been cited. It
lists the ancestry of the emperorin sections I-4, ending with a referenceto 'avia
paterna Rupilia Faustina, Rupili Boni consularis filia'. No other senator has the

1 This article deliberately avoids taking up a position over the number, identity and date

of the authorship of the Historia Augusta. On the more relevant question of the sources of
that work, I must confess a predilection for the view that the major source for the lives of
the emperors from Hadrian to Elagabalus was L. Marius Maximus, the Severan marshal.
and continuator of Suetonius, son of an Italian procurator and grandson of a scriba quaes-
torius. See E. Hohli, Kaiser Commodus und Herodian, S. D. A. W., Berlin, I954, p. 3 for
this view. For the family of Maximus, see H.-G. Pflaum. Les carrieres procuratoriennes, etc.,
Paris, ig6o-i, no. I68.
2 p. Lambrechts, La composition du s6nat romain. . etc. (117-192), Antwerp, 1936, p. 35,
no. 65.
3 J. Crook, Consilium Principis, Cambridge, 1954, p. 67, n. 5.
' R. Syme, Tacitus, Oxford, 1958, p. 793.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
250 A. R. BIRLEY

cognomenBonus.5 But there is record of a certain 'Libonis Rupili Frugi' on a

lead pipe at Rome (A. E. I940. 39); and Pliny refers to a consular named Libo
Frugi intervening in a debate in the senate ca. A.D. I00 (Epp. 3. 9, 33). The
uncle of M. Aurelius was M. Annius Libo cos. ord. I28. This man was thus the
grandson of Rupilius. An emendation to the text of the Historia Augusta would
explain the source of his cognomen.'Rupili Boni' may be emended to 'Rupili
<Li> boni <s>'. The explanation for the error is basically that it is a case of
haplography: the termination of the nomenin the genitive caused the omission
of 'Li' from the beginning of the cognomen.Once this had occurred, the omission
of the final's' would naturally follow.
M. Annius Verus cos. III ord. I26, the husband of Rupilia Faustina and
son-in-law of Rupilius, was a patrician, prefect of the city under Hadrian - and
some relative of that emperor, it would appear.6 This was then a powerful
figure; and he had made a powerful, or glittering marriagealliance. For it seems
reasonable to suppose the identity of Rupilius Libo with Libo Rupilius Frugi
(and with Pliny's consular Libo Frugi). An interesting implication emerges. The
combination of the names Libo and Frugi can result from only one known family,
namely M. Licinius Crassus Frugi and his wife Scribonia, both put to death by
Claudius, whose daughter had married their son Cn. Pompeius Magnus. Scri-
bonia was the daughter of L. Scribonius Libo cos. ord. i6, a great-grandson of
Pompey the Great. CrassusFrugi was a CalpurniusPiso by descent (his father,
rather than he himself, had acquired the Crassan nomenclature through adop-
tion by the cos. ord. 30 B.C.). Their children were as unfortunate as their parents:
Piso Licinianus is the best known, Galba's ill-advised choice as Caesar.The wife
of Piso Licinianus, it may be noted, was the daughter of a new man, Q. Veranius
cos. ord. 49. It would thus be not inappropriate for a sister of his, either the
recorded Licinia Magna or another, to have married a Rupilius. A son of such
a match would be entitled to call himself Libo Rupilius Frugi. It is known that
the male line continued, in the person of the perpetual conspirator C. Calpurnius
CrassusFrugi Licinianus, accused of treason under Nerva, relegated by Trajan,
executed by Hadrian. He was presumably a nephew of Piso Licinianus.7The
cos. ord. I28, M. Annius Libo, was probably bom in the reign of Nerva if he
achieved the fasces suo anno, at thirty-two, as patricians could and did. This
might explain why Libo, the least exalted among the ancestral names of his
mother Rupilia's family, was chosen for him - it might have been unwise at the

2, where the emendation 'Bo<io>ni' is proposed.

5 R. Syme, o. c., p. 795, no. i8, with n.
R. Syme, o. c., pp. 79I-2.
^ PIR2 A 695.
7 For the fate of Crassus Frugi and his wife, cf. Seneca, ludus, I I. 2 f. On his ancestry,

cf. R. Syme, Journ. Rom. Stud., 50, I960, p. I2ff. For his wife's ancestry, cf. R. Syme, The
Roman Revolution, Oxford, I939, stemma V at end. Piso Licinianus: PIR2 C 300. Calpur-
nius Crassus: PIR2 C 259. Licinia Magna: CIL VI I445, cf. 31727, which may be her, or a
sister.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Two Names in the Historia Augusta 25I

moment of his birth to echo too closely the nomenclature of the politically
undesirable CalpurniusCrassusFrugi. One additional point deserves to be made:
if Libo Rupilius Frugi was the proavusof MarcusAurelius, that emperorcarried
the blood of Pompey and the CalpurniiPisones, and was not entirely of colonial
stock.8
III
According to the life of Geta, Severus' younger son was born 'Severo et Vi-
tellio consulibus Mediolani, etsi aliter alii prodiderunt, VI kal. lunias' (An-
toninus Geta3. i). The life of Geta is a 'minor life', but not all the information
therein need be regarded as 'gefalscht'.9 Some of it, for example chapter 6, is
derived from the better lives or their sources. An emendation of the names of
this consular pair has been proposed: 'Severo et Atuleno'. This latter is identified
with a certain Atulenus Rufinus, XVvir at the Secular Games in 204. He might
also, it has been suggested, be the same as the 'Apuleius Rufinus' who was
Severus' own consular colleague (Sept. Severus 4. 4). However, this is not an
attractive hypothesis. No mention is made, in either life, of Severus the emperor
being consul when Geta was born (the contrary is implied by Sept. Severus4. 2
and 4. 4). Besides, Septimius Severus was consul in I90, there is little doubt,
while Geta must have been born in I89, if Dio's figure for his age at death is
correct (77. 2: twenty-two years and nine months).10
The consular pair 'Severo et Vitellio' remain to be identified. Severus was a
not uncommon cognomen,and one might well despair of chancing on the right
one." Vitellius offers more scope. There is attested a certain M. Flavius Vitellius
Seleucus cos. ord. 22I. His father, or an uncle, might have been consul in May
I89.12 Another approach might be to investigate whether the pair are recorded
elsewhere. The diploma CIL XVI no. 127 is assigned to the year I73, for the
consular pair 'Severo et Pompeiano' are identified as Cn. Claudius Severus and
Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, consuls for the second time in I73, the sons-in-law of
Marcus Aurelius. However, no sign of iteration appears in the diploma, and its
date is I3 May. It is supposed that by this period in the second century the
ordinarii were used to date diplomas throughout the year.'3 But there is no

8 Such descent gives added piquancy to Marcus' own references to Pompey (Med.
3. 3, 8. 3, and especially 8. 31).
9 This is the attitude of W. Reusch, Der historische Wert der Caracallavita in den S. H. A.,
Klio, Beih. 24, 1931.
10 Cf. A. Degrassi, I Fasti Consolari etc., Roma, 1952, p. 53, and F. Grosso, La lotta
politica al tempo di Commodo, Torino, I964, pp. 284-289, who favours identification with
M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus (below, n. 12).
11 Cf. F. Grosso, o. C., 288. Another Severus, not mentioned by Grosso, is -nus Severus
(CIL III 698i), cf. Degrassi, o. c., p. 135.
12 Cf. G. Barbieri, L'Albo
Senatovio, etc., Roma, I952, nos. 246 and 745.
13 H.
Nesselhauf, CIL XVI ad loc.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
252 A. R. BIRLEY

valid reasonto demonstratethat these two werenot suffects:onemay compare

no. I32, where a cos. suff. in office on ii August dates a diploma which is cer-
tainly later than no. 127. Moretelling are the names of the witnesses on no. I27,
and the order in which they occur. For comparative purposes the witnesses
from three diplomas of this period may be listed:
No. 123 (A.D. I67) No. I28 (A.D. I78) No. I33 (A.D. I92)
i. Ti. luli Felicis C. Belli Urbani L. Pulli.
2. C. Belli Urbani L. Senti Chrysogoni C. Publici.
3. L. Pulli Primi Ti. Iuli Crescentis M. Iuni.
4. L. Senti Chrysogoni L. Pulli Marcionis Ti. Claudi [I] uliani
5. C. Pomponi Statiani S. Vibi Romani L. Pulli Benig [ni]
6. L. Pulli Zosimi C. Publici Luperci C. Fanni Arescon. i.
7. P. Ocili Prisci M. Iuni Pii C. Fanni .... f
Now the witnesses on no. I27 may be compared:
i. L. Pulli Marcionis
2. C. Publici Luperci
3. M. Iuni Pii
4. Ti. Claudi Cassandri
5. Ti. Claudi Epinici
6. L. Pulli Benigni
7. Ti. Iuli Dativi
Two of the witnesses of A.D. x67 recur in A.D. I78: nos. 2 and 4 on diploma
no. I23 have become nos. i and 2 of diploma no. I28. By contrast, neither of
these two men, nor any other of the seven witnesses of diploma no. I23, reappear
on diploma no. I27. On the other hand, witnesses nos. 4, 6 and 7 of A.D. 178 are
nos. I, 2 and 3 on diploma no. I27, as they surely are also on diploma no. I33
of A.D. I92, although the absence of cognominamakes absolute certainty im-
possible - but no. 6 on diploma no. I27 is no. 5 on diploma no. I33. This might
suggest that no. I27 is a little before no. 133 in date, but it is certainly very
close to it. The conclusion seems inescapable, that diploma no. I27 belongs to
the period shortly before A.D. I92, and not to A.D. I73, and that the consuls
Severus and Pompeianus are suffecti, not ordinarii. They were consuls on 13
May, in the same nundinum as the consuls of Geta's birthday, 27 May I89. Tlle
likelihood that the two pairs 'Severo et Pompeiano' and 'Severo et Vitellio' are
identical receives some support. How can the discepancy of the second name
be resolved? One family known to have had the cognomenPompeianus was the
Vettuleni, of whom the last known member so called was Sex. Vettulenus
Civica Pompeianus cos. ord. I36. The nomen'Vettuleno' might easily have been
corrupted, whether by the original authorship of the Historia Augusta, or by a
scribe, into the more familiar 'Vitellio'. There is thus some ground for the
emendation, on the principle difficilior lectiopotius. No Vettulenus Pompeianus

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Two Names in the Historia Augusta 253

is known from this period. But the cos. ord. I36 was not the last of his family.
The cos. ord. I57 is now known to have been called M. Vettulenus Civica Bar-
barus ;14 and a certain (V)etulenus Apronianus is attested also, legate of II
Adiutrix early in the third century.16 The Vettuleni were closely connected
with the Antonine dynasty, and a Vettulenus Pompeianus, if one existed under
Commodus, should have expected to become consul ordinarius for more reasons
than one. But it so happens that certain other patricians of consular families
missed that honour in the reign of Commodus, for instance Q. Hedius Rufus
Lollianus Gentianus and his brother L. Lollianus Avitus, and Q. Tineius Sa-
cerdos.16A Vettulenus could have received similar treatment. Finally, there is
another interesting possibility. The names of the governor of Moesia Superior
of the year I95 are only partially recorded: '-n. Pompeianum'.17Could this be
restored as' [Vettule]n. Pompeianum'? If so, another example is to hand of a
patrician in the Septimian partes - and the govemor Pompeianus may have
been a founder-member, in his command at the vital moment in April 193.18
The prime instance of a Septimian of this type is T. Sextius Lateranus cos. ord.
I97, the aristocratic marshal."' Q. Lollianus Gentianus must not be forgotten
either, a new patrician in comparison with Lateranus, but a man who undoubt-
edly gave Severus vital service.20
In conclusion I would like to record that the redating of diploma no. I27 on
the basis of a study of the witnesses' names, the suggested identification of the
consul suffect Pompeianus with the governor of Moesia Superior, and the pro-
posal to restore the latter's nomen as Vettulenus, were all made by Dr. John
Morrisof University College, London, who has generously allowed me to make
use of them here, my sole contribution being the use of Geta3. I and the sug-
gested emendation of 'Vitellio' to 'Vettuleno'.
University of Leeds A. R. BIRLEY

14 Cf. R. Syme, Athenaeum, 35, 1957, p. 306ff., for this man and the family of the
Vettuleni.
'5 CIL III I0395, cf. Barbieri, Albo, nos. 2II4 and 2248.
16 Gentianus: PIR2 H 42. Avitus: ib. 41. Sacerdos: Barbieri, Albo no. 501.
17 CIL III I4507.
18 He had probably been there for some time, as his successor L. Fabius Cilo arrived in

195, cf. A. Stein, Die Legatenvon Moesien, Diss. Pann., i. ii, Budapest, 1940, pp. 50-I.
In that case Pompeianus could have been governor in April I93 and hence one of the duces
referred to in S. H. A. Severus 5. 3: 'cum iam Illyriciani exercitus et Gallicani cogentibus
ducibus in eius verba iurassent'. Stein, 1. c., suggests that he may have been a Saenius
Pompeianus.
19 Barbieri, Albo no. 477.
20 His career is given by Dessau, ILS II45. The order is confused, but he was comes

Severi et Antonini Augg. ter, as well as serving as censitor in Lugdunensis (no doubt after
the battle of Lugdunum, when proscription of Albiniani was in full swing), and governor
of Hispania Citerior, probably as successor to Ti. Claudius Candidus (ILS 1140).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 8 May 2014 17:48:38 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions