Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T19:23:26.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What the Sibyl Said: Frontinus Aq. 7. 5 *

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

R. H. Rodgers
R. H. Rodgers
Affiliation:
University of Vermont
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Roman Senate in 144 B.C. instructed the urban praetor, Q. Marcius Rex, to repair the conduits of Rome's two existing aqueducts, the Appia and the Anio (later called the Anio Vetus), and to put an end to illegal use of their water by private citizens. Urban growth now demanded a more copious water supply, and so the Senate further I instructed Marcius to secure additional water for the city. Money was appropriated for this work, and Marcius' praetorship was prorogued for 143. At this point the decemviri objected to a plan for bringing water to the Capitol. The issue was debated in the Senate in 143, and again in 140; but on both occasions Marcius' gratia prevailed, and water reached the Capitol in a new aqueduct which Marcius himself had built. A statue of Marcius was erected in later times on the Capitol, behind the temple of Jupiter, to commemorate this grand achievement.1 An everlasting glory was in fact to be his in the name of the aqueduct whose waters earned poets' praises.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , May 1982, pp. 174 - 177
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1982

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

Footnotes

*

For constructive criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper I am much indebted to Professors E. S. Gruen and C. E. Murgia.

References

1 The statue is mentioned in a military diploma of A.D. 64 (CIL iii p. 864 = xvi 5). The legend AQVA MR (or MARC) proudly appears on denarii struck by L. Marcius Philippus c. 56 B.C.: see Crawford, M. H., Roman Republican Coinage (Cambridge, 1974), i. 448, no. 425. Marcian propaganda underlies the laudatory statements in Pliny (N.H. 31. 41, 36. 121).Google Scholar

2 The most recent edition is that of C. Kunderewicz (Leipzig, 1973). I am currently preparing a critical edition and commentary; for preliminary remarks see BICS 25 (1978), 101–5.

3 ‘The Introduction of the Aqua Marcia into Rome, 144–140 B.C.’, Philologus 122 (1978), 25–58. The present paper deals mainly with points raised in Morgan's appendix (pp. 54–8).Google Scholar

4 I shall argue elsewhere the palaeographical justification for Pighius' collegio. Münzer made clever use of the transmitted collega (Römische Adelsparteien und Adehfamilien [Stuttgart, 1920], pp. 238–41),Google Scholar accepted by M. Stuart (AJA 49 [1945], 243 n. 77) and Broughtoi, T. R. S. (Magistrates of the Roman Republic [New York, 1951], i. 473 n. 1), but see Morgan p. 41.Google Scholar

5 Hermes 6 (1872), 249.Google Scholar Note that the Monte Cassino MS has a short space left blank after esse (but this occurs at the end of a line): see the excellent facsimile in Herschel, C., The Two Books on the Water Supply of the City of Rome (Boston, 1899; 2nd edn New York, 1913).Google Scholar

6 Astin, A. E.. ‘Water to the Capitol’, Latomus 20 (1961), 541–8,Google Scholar and Hainzmann, M., ‘Zur kapitolinischen Wasserleitung des Q. Marcius Rex’, GB 6 (1977), 27–37, have both resuscitated Biicheler's supplement. For a sober refutation see Morgan, pp. 55–7.Google Scholar

7 Morgan, p. 57.

8 Morgan, pp. 55–6 makes much of the oratio obliqua, suggesting that Frontinus used it to dissociate himself from the commoner tradition. I concede that Frontinus may have chosen or. obl. to indicate his suspicion of the decemviral discovery (although cf. his use of traditur at Aq. 5. 3); but I fail to see how he could avoid indirect statement to report what the decemviri had found. The only alternative would have been a direct citation from the Sibyl's carmen.

9 Astin pp. 542–4 (with conclusive reference to Aq. 18. 6); Morgan, p. 55.

10 P. Oxy. 668 (Grenfell-Hunt, , The Oxyrhynchus Papyri [1904], iv. 113).Google Scholar I have used the facsimile provided by Rossbach, O., T. Livi Periochae omnium librorum (Leipzig, 1910).Google Scholar

11 Morgan, pp. 57–8 summarizes previous scholarship; cf. Stuart, M., CP 39 (1944), 40–4.Google Scholar In support of Stuart's cecidit, see now A Concordance to Livy (Cambridge, Mass. 1968), i. 713–15. Morgan's lovis] in aede vota est <st>atua (line 188) has a certain appeal, but he offers no parallel for the unusual order Anio aqua with which he begins the next sentence, and plausible as it is to suppose that there was a commemorative statue of Q. Occius we have in fact no corroborating evidence. To supply refecta at the beginning of line 189 not only makes the sentence ‘impart erroneous information’ (as Morgan admits), but there is no good reason why repairs to the Anio Vetus (done in 144–143) should be mentioned in connection with an event in 140.atua+(line+188)+has+a+certain+appeal,+but+he+offers+no+parallel+for+the+unusual+order+Anio+aqua+with+which+he+begins+the+next+sentence,+and+plausible+as+it+is+to+suppose+that+there+was+a+commemorative+statue+of+Q.+Occius+we+have+in+fact+no+corroborating+evidence.+To+supply+refecta+at+the+beginning+of+line+189+not+only+makes+the+sentence+‘impart+erroneous+information’+(as+Morgan+admits),+but+there+is+no+good+reason+why+repairs+to+the+Anio+Vetus+(done+in+144–143)+should+be+mentioned+in+connection+with+an+event+in+140.>Google Scholar

12 We know that the decemviri consulted the Sibylline Books in 143 in connection with the consul Appius' initial defeat in his war against the Salassi (Obseq. 21); cf. Astin, A. E., Scipio Aemilianus (Oxford, 1967), p. 106; Morgan, p. 48 and n. 113.Google Scholar

13 Schöne, p. 249; Morgan, p. 56.

14 Morgan, pp. 48–53.

15 I owe this suggestion to an anonymous reader, who feels that to see in seu potius Anionem anything other than a reference to the Anio Vetus would be to introduce a patent ambiguity. So it would: for Frontinus, indicating a certain surprise at the tradition, quite obviously assumed that the Anio Vetus was in question. He did not, alas, offer an explanation. I find it hard to believe that the decemviral objection was to a specific aqueduct - the wrong one at that - when their real goal was to obstruct any water supply for the Capitol.

16 On the sources of the Anio Vetus and the Marcia see Ashby, T., The Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (Oxford, 1935), pp. 57–9 and 95–6.Google Scholar