Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-c52kr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T02:02:54.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sallust's Wife

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Ronald Syme
Ronald Syme
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It would be worth knowing whom the historian married. His wife's name might disclose some local tie in the Sabine country; or it might permit a guess about alliances with families at the metropolis, whether ancient in repute or newly risen to influence. Marriage is a normal device for advancement – ‘decus ac robur’. Cicero did well for himself when, about the year 79 B.C., he married Terentia. She was the half-sister of a Fabia, who was a Vestal Virgin. The Fabii are not only noble but patrician, albeit in temporary eclipse (no consul between 116 and 45).

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 1978 , pp. 292 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Jerome, , Adv. lovinianum 1.48.Google Scholar

2 Pliny, H.N. 7. 158.Google Scholar

3 That is the standard view about the two marriages, cf. Hanslik, R., RE viii A, 134. Various uncertainties subsist, however.Google Scholar

4 Not but that Sallust's marriage has found believers: Meyer, E., Caesars Monarchic und das Principat des Pompejus 3 (1922), p. 164;Google ScholarPareti, L., La congiura di Catilina (1934), p. 204;Google ScholarMazzarino, S., Il pensierostorico classico II. i (1966), 392; II. ii, 17.Google Scholar

The matter is dismissed as ‘ebenso sch wer verizierbar und zugleich unerheblich’ by Buchner, K., Sallust (1960), p. 384.Google Scholar

5 Pliny, , H.N. 7.61; Plutarch, Cato 20.Google Scholar For a more recent specimen of confusion see Miltner, F., RE xxii, 168. He assigns the Jerome passage to Cato's son and incorrectly prints it as ‘habuit uxorem Aemiliam Paullam, humili loco natam’, etc.Google Scholar

How and why Jerome called the lady ‘Actoria Paulla’ baffles curiosity (‘Actorius’ is a very rare nomen). One can see why Papiria, the mother of Scipio Africanus, is styled ‘Maecia Papiria’ (Ep. 108.1): contemporary Maecii in the Christian aristocracy.

6 Seneca, , N.Q. 4, praef. 6.Google Scholar

7 Dio 57. 15. 6 f.

8 Dio 46. 18. 3 f.

9 PIR1V 396.

10 ILS 5925.

11 Inscr. It. xiii.l, p. 185.

12 Inscr. It. xiii.l, p. 303.

13 As the consul is registered by Degrassi, A., I Fasti consolari (1952), 8;Google ScholarHanslik, R., RE viii A, 1979.Google Scholar

14 CIL vi. 1539; 9005 = ILS 1975. The colleague is to be presumed the jurist Nerva (cf. Groag in PIR2 C 1225), hence the pair should go in 21 or 22. Some scholars raise dispute and put them c.40.Google Scholar

Vibius Rufinus can be identified as the Rufinus of Ex Ponto 1.3 and 3.4, cf. my History in Ovid (1978), Ch. V.Google Scholar

15 CIL xiv. 2556.Google Scholar

16 Eph. Ep. 9, p.407, no. 679 = AE 1907, 78.

17 Pliny, , Ep. 3. 7. 8.Google Scholar

18 Martial 11. 48. 2.

19 CIL xiv. 2653 = ILS 7339.Google Scholar

20 Jerome, , Chron. p. 172 H.Google Scholar

21 Tacitus, , Ann. 4. 61.Google Scholar

22 Thus Rowland, R. J., CW 62 (1978), 134. He admits both marriages, with the terms ‘reasonable to think’ and ‘quite likely’.Google Scholar

23 Ann. 3. 30. 1.

24 Pseudo-Aero on 2.2: ‘Sallustium Crispum adloquitur, historiographum, equitem Romanum, Augusti amicum.’

25 In Sallustium 19: ‘hortos pretiosissimos, villam Tiburti C. Caesaris, reliquas possessiones.’

26 Büchner, K., Sallust (1960), p.91: ‘wohl ausPietat’, cf. p.398 (the same phrase).Google Scholar

27 The declaimer was perhaps influenced by the Tiburtinum of Metellus Scipio, which Antonius occupied (Phil. 5.19, cf. Ad fam. 12.2. 1).

28 Dio 54. 3. 5.

29 PIR 1, p 736. He is disclosed as ‘L.f.’ by the coins he struck on the Ionian islands, cf. Grant, M., FITA (1946), 66 f.Google Scholar

30 Thus, cursorily, in Sallust (1964), 277.Google Scholar

31 ‘Proculeius’ is registered, but with no specimens, in Schulze, LE 458. In CIL ix-xi it occurs on three inscriptions only, in each volume: one in xiv, none in v.

32 CIL xi.1943 = ILS 6617: ‘L. Proculeius A.f./Titia gnatus/IIII vir, II vir.’

33 CIL ix. 4205 = i2 1857 = ILLRP 530. Amiternum has also the gravestone of ‘Proculeia P. f.’ (ix. 4289).Google Scholar

34 Compare the grandson of Ummidia Quadratilla (Pliny, Ep. 7.24.2). Patently C. Ummidius Quadratus (suff. 118), but he must have possessed another gentilicium, that of his father. Therefore a polyonymus, but there is no need to postulate an adoption.