appiano 1
TRANSCRIPT
-
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 [email protected].
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.