¹ 18, 5.

² Letters 49, 4. The point is made by Giancotti, F., Cronologia dei ‘Dialoghi’ di Seneca (Turin, 1957) 364.Google Scholar

³ Lipsius, J., L. Annaei Senecae Opera² (Antwerp, 1615), 213.Google Scholar

⁴ Hirschfeld, O., ‘Die Getreideverwaltung in der römischen Kaiserzeit,’ Philologus 29 (1870), 95–6.Google Scholar

Dessau, H., ‘Über die Abfassungszeit einiger Schriften Senecas,’ Hermes 53 (1918), 188–96.Google Scholar

⁵ Giancotti (above, n. 2), 444–5.

⁶ Tacitus, Annales 13, 13–22.

⁷ So Hirschfeld, O., Die kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian (Berlin, 1905) 287–8Google Scholar, and Rostowzew, M., ‘Römische Bleitesserae’, Klio, Beiträge zur alten Geschichte 3 (Leipzig, 1905), 46.Google Scholar

⁸ Stein, A., Die Praefekten von Ägypten (Bern, 1950) 31–4.Google Scholar

⁹ Tacitus, Ann. II, 33; 12, 42.

¹⁰ ILS 972.

¹¹ Tacitus, Ann. 12, 48.

¹² ibid. 12, 49.

¹³ ibid. 12, 54, 5.

¹⁴ ibid. 13, 9.

¹⁵ ibid. 14, 26, 4.

¹⁶ ibid. I, 7; II, 31.

¹⁷ For a detailed vindication of this view against the idea that Paulinus was a member of Nero's finance commission or a praefectus frumenti dandi, see below, II, p. 108.

¹⁸ CIL VI, 8470; the Adiutor also set up CIL VI, 143.

¹⁹ Duff, A. M., Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire (Oxford, 1928), 52–5Google Scholar; PIR² C 794.

²⁰ Tacitus, Ann. 13, 23.

²¹ Duff (above, n. 19), 53.

²² Tacitus, Ann. 14, 65.

²³ Tacitus, Ann. 13, 53 under 58, but 13, 53, 3, seems to date his tenure of the post from 55; 15, 18: ‘Tres dein consulares L. Pisonem, Ducenium Geminum, Pompeium Paulinum vectigalibus publicis praeposuit.’

²⁴ Pliny, NH 33, 50, 143. This view is accepted in PIR ¹ P 479, 480. In order to identify the consular legate with Seneca's praefectus annonae, we should have to assume that he was appointed as a senator of consular or praetorian rank to a top equestrian post, or that, after his care of the annona, he was adlected into the Senate. But there is no convincing parallel for the first procedure in the early empire, while, on the second hypothesis, we must have Paulinus adlected inter praetorios (for he must succeed Turranius in 48 or 49 and yet be eligible for the consulship before 55). The latter practice is not attested until Flavian times, which makes the hypothesis difficult, though given our scant evidence, not impossible.

²⁵ Praetorian prefects: Caecina Tuscus (Tacitus, Ann. 13, 20) and Laberius Maximus (on a papyrus as interpreted by Piganiol in CRAI 1947, 374 ff.).

The Emperor's message mentioned by Epictetus, Diatribes I, 10, must relate to the praefectura annonae which the man was holding when Epictetus wrote (νῦν) and not to some higher post, as Piganiol thinks.

²⁶ Statius, Silvae 3, 3, 162–3.

²⁷ This restoration ‘precibus suis’ as opposed to the original one ‘precibus tuis’, and the interpretation of the whole papyrus is discussed by Syme, R. in JRS XLIV (1954), 117.Google Scholar

²⁸ 20, 3.

²⁹ Ann. 14, 53.

³⁰ That Paulinus was related to Seneca's wife, Pompeia Paulina (Ann. 15, 60), is generally accepted. (Seneca refers to her simply as ‘Paulina’ in Letter 104). Giancotti, p. 365, is unnecessarily hesitant. The age of Paulinus' son and the fact that Seneca's wife was much younger (Letter 104) make it likely that Seneca is writing to her father. But was Paulinus Seneca's father-in-law in 55 ? Kamp, H. W., ‘Seneca's Marriage,’ CJ 32 (1937), 529–33Google Scholar, has produced very strong arguments against the usual view that Seneca had two wives. I can give no more than a sketch of the problem here: there is no direct evidence for a re-marriage; by 41 (Ad Helviam Matrem 18, 6) Seneca had lost a son; in Letter 104 he implies that he himself is senex while his wife is adulescens. Thus it is usually argued, there must be two wives as a woman married over twenty years before would not still be adulescens. But Seneca is being somewhat playful and affectionate in his reference to his wife and adulescens is a very elastic word. It might here be applied to a woman of forty, the wife he had before 41. (Kamp compares Cicero, Phil. 2, 46, 118; one might also note Letter 49, 3, for the closeness of adulescentia to senectus in Seneca's mind at this period.)

³¹ In La Composition dans Sénèque (Paris, 1923) 22, E. Albertini (who dates the essay to the first half of 49) suggests that Seneca was discreetly urging Paulinus' retirement, because he was inefficient. If that were all that Seneca intended, he would simply have written a personal letter.

³² Silvae 4, 7.

³³ Martial II, 106, shows that he was in Rome in December, 96. For his career, see Syme, R., ‘C. Vibius Maximus: Prefect of Egypt,’ Historia VI (1957).Google Scholar

³⁴ Pliny, Ep. 7, 3. His career is revealed by AE 1950, 66. See the discussion in Syme, R., Tacitus (1960), 242.Google Scholar

³⁵ Martial I, 49. The identification of Licinianus with the Valerius Licinianus in Pliny, Ep. 4, 11, is accepted by R. Hanslik in P-W VIII, AI (1955).

³⁶ For a discussion of the dating see J. Janssen's edition of Suetonius, Domitian 8, 4. Suetonius says that Vespasian and Titus ignored the escapades of the Vestals.

³⁷ See note 36.

³⁸ For the political significance of the Consolatio Ad Marciam, see Stewart, Z.², ‘Sejanus, Gaetulicus, and Seneca,’ AJP 1953, 81–2.Google Scholar

³⁹ e.g. Gercke, Münscher, Albertini. For the list see Giancotti (above, n. 2), 367, and the chart at the back of the book.

⁴⁰ Herrmann, L., ‘Chronologie des oeuvres en prose de Sénèque,’ Latomus I (1937), 94–112.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Marchesi, C., Seneca ³ (Milan, 1944) 200–1.Google Scholar

⁴² e.g. Pohlenz, Dahlmann. See n. 39.

⁴³ Tacitus, Ann. II, 31.

⁴⁴ ibid. 13, 22.

⁴⁵ CIL 6, 1231; confirmed by Tacitus, Ann. 12, 23.

⁴⁶ See note 23.

⁴⁷ Nipperdey, K., Cornelius Tacitus ⁴ (Berlin, 1880), 230.Google Scholar The suggestion does not contradict Tacitus' use of the word vectigal. Note Ann. 4, 6, 4: ‘at frumenta et pecuniae vectigales’ where the expression pecuniae vectigales seems to be used because vectigalia alone would not exclude payments in kind.

⁴⁸ Herrmann, L., ‘L. Antistius Vetus et le Pomoerium,’ REL 26 (1948), 222–8.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Philippson, R., Gnomon 7 (1931), 373Google Scholar; C. Marchesi (above, n. 41), 200.

⁵⁰ Chilver, G. E. F., ‘Princeps and Frumentationes,’ AJP 70 (1949), 16.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Compare Tacitus, Ann. 4, 6, 4, where the publicani are said to be collecting frumenta in A.D. 23, with Ann. 13, 50–1 (A.D. 58) where only portoria and other indirect taxes seem to be among the vectigalia entrusted to publicani. Note particularly that the negotiatores carrying grain to Rome come from provinces where tributum based on property is paid. This suggests that Rome is relying more on purchased corn.

⁵² Giancotti (above, n. 2) 385. Tacitus, Ann. 1, 79, shows this use of deinde.

⁵³ Cassius Dio 55, 25, 6.

⁵⁴ Chilver (above, n. 50) 16–17.

⁵⁵ Epictetus, Diatribes I, 10.

⁵⁶ 18, 3: ‘Tu quidem orbis terrarum rationes administras tarn abstinenter quam alienas….’ 18, 4: ‘Non derunt et frugalitatis exactae homines….’,

⁵⁷ Ann. 14, 51.

⁵⁸ Dahlmann, H., ‘Drei Bemerkungen zu Seneca, De Brevitate Vitae,’ Hermes 76 (1941), 104–6.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Grimal, P., ‘Est-il possible de “dater” un traité de Sénèque?’ REL 27 (1949), 178–88.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Letters 102, 10. Seneca is here quoting an opponent. The subject is claritas: ‘Ad summam dicite nobis, utrum laudantis an laudati bonum sit. Si laudati bonum esse dicitur tarn ridiculam rem facitis, quam si adfirmetis meum esse, quod alius bene valeat.’

⁶¹ Ad Atticum 13, 20: ‘De urbe augenda quid sit promulgatum non intellexi.’

⁶² 43, 50, 1 (under 44 B.C.).

⁶³ Noctes Atticae 13, 14, 4.

⁶⁴ Ann. 12, 23, 5.

⁶⁵ Mommsen, T., Römisches Staatsrecht (Leipzig, 1887–1888) II, 717, n. 1.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Tacitus, Ann. 12, 23, 5; Dio 55, 6, 6 (under 8 B.C.); Mommsen (above, n. 27) 1024, n. 4. Also SHA Vita Aurel. 21, 10–12, which also gives Ner and Trajan. The account is wrong for Trajan and hence suspect for the rest, according to Labrousse (below, n. 71).

⁶⁷ ILS 244 (§ 5).

⁶⁸ For the identification, see Funaioli, H., Grammaticae Romanae Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1907) I, 429.Google Scholar The reference to Messalla Rufus in Gellius occurs at 13, 14, 5.

⁶⁹ 4, 13, 5.

⁷⁰ Oliver, J. H., ‘The Augustan Pomerium,’ Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 10 (1932), 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ Labrousse, M., ‘Le Pomerium de la Rome impériale,’ Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'Ecole française de Rome 54 (1937), 165–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷² 13, 14, 5.

⁷³ For Sulla's extension, besides the untrust-worthy evidence of this passage and of Tacitus and Dio (43, 50, 1), there is the testimony of Gellius (13, 14, 4). The fact and the reason assigned by Seneca's antiquarian fit well with the available evidence for the organization of Cisalpine Gaul. For we know that Pisae was once within the ager Gallicus, but, by Caesar's time, Luca was the southernmost city in the western part of the Cisalpine province. Pompeius Strabo probably established the province with the lower boundary. Sulla may well be the one who moved it. See E. Bormann in CIL XI, p. 273, and Hardy, E. G., JRS VI (1916), 65 ff.Google Scholar The latter's view that Sulla also changed the eastern boundary of the province from the Aesis to the Rubicon has been challenged by Cuntz, O., Polybius und Sein Werk (Leipzig, 1902), 27–34Google Scholar, followed by Walbank, F. W., Commentary on Polybius (Oxford, 1957), I, 396Google Scholar, who argues that Polybius already knew the Rubicon as the northern frontier of Italy.

⁷⁴ Ann. 12, 23, 5.

⁷⁵ Mommsen (above, n. 65), 716.

⁷⁶ Funaioli (above, n. 68) thinks that the justification cited by Gellius 13, 14, 3, may be taken from Messalla Rufus, who is named later in the same chapter.

⁷⁷ Mommsen (above, n. 65) 1025, n. 1.

⁷⁸ L. Herrmann (above, n. 48).

⁷⁹ Note the additional bite in ultimum Romanorum, used by Cremutius Cordus of Brutus and Cassius, Tacitus, Ann. 4, 34.

⁸⁰ The view is discussed by Giancotti (above, n. 2) 423–4. Tacitus, Ann. 12, 8, says of Seneca's return: ‘At Agrippina … veniam exilii pro Annaeo Seneca, simul praeturam impetrat.’ But the scholiast on Juvenal 5, 109, says that he was recalled after three years, and then called in to tutor Nero when he really wanted to go to Athens. This has been taken to mean that Seneca was not immediately committed to a public career on his return and so could think of going away. In this period the dialogue was written, it is argued. But Tacitus' simul is explicit and the scholiast is, in any case, wrong on the length of his exile. (Giancotti's attempts to justify post triennium, p. 76, are unconvincing.)

⁸¹ Grimal, ‘La Date du De Brevitate Vitae,’ REL 25 (1947), 164–177. Giancotti (n. 2), 428.

⁸² Ann. 14, 54 (the offer); Dio 62, 25, 3 (compare Ann. 15, 64: in 65 he was no longer praedives).

⁸³ See for example Seneca Rhetor, Controversiae 2, 1, 7–8.

⁸⁴ Ann. 12, 8, 3, ‘laetum in publicum rata ob claritudinem studiorum eius’; Ann. 13, 14.

⁸⁵ A full discussion by Bernert, E., ‘Otium,’ Würzb. Jahrb. f. d. Altertumsw. 4 (1949–1950) 89.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ 18, 5: ‘Cum ventre tibi humano negotium est.’

⁸⁷ Grimal (above, n. 59), comparing De Providentia 3, 13, with Dio 62, 28, and 4, 2, with Dio 62, 14, 1.

⁸⁸ Herrmann (above, n. 48); Pliny, NH 33, 50, 143.

⁸⁹ Tacitus, Ann. 13, 34.

⁹⁰ Giancotti (n. 2), 384–5.

⁹¹ De Brevitate Vitae 12, 4, compared with Suetonius, Nero 20.

⁹² Note for instance the conflicting views in the Consolatio ad Marciam on immortality (19, v. 25–6) and on the relative toughness of women and men (1, 1, v. 16, 1).

⁹³ Giancotti (n. 2) 29–30; 435–443.

⁹⁴ The Consolations and De Beata Vita. Giancotti, 431–4, discusses parallels in the latter, De Brevitate Vitae and some Letters.

⁹⁵ Giancotti, 442–3.

⁹⁶ The two general remarks in 3, 5, and 20, 4, do not help at all. In 3, 5, Seneca criticizes those who promise themselves: ‘a quinquagesimo anno in otium secedam, sexagesimus me annus ab officiis dimittet,’ for two reasons: because one cannot be sure life will last that long and because one ought not to leave oneself only time ‘quod in nullam rem conferri possit.’

In 20, 4, he says: ‘Lex a quinquagesimo anno militem non legit, a sexagesimo senatorem non citat; difficilius homines a se otium impetrant quam a lege.’

At first glance the first might suggest that Paulinus is younger than fifty; the second that he is older than sixty. But the second seems to be called forth by consideration of Turranius and need not apply to Paulinus. The first only shows that Seneca did not approve of postponing otium until after fifty. If Paulinus had done so and was still alive and vigorous, the remark would simply not apply.