Изображения страниц

however early, that could be proposed with the least degree of probability in its favour.

The Ancyran monument, as we have seen, dates the admission both of Caius and Lucius Cæsar to the public consultations, Ex eo die quo deducti sunt in forum: that is, from the time when they laid aside the toga puerilis or prætexta, and put on the toga pura, libera, or virilis. The age at which young men commonly underwent this ceremony was originally sixteen or seventeen i. Towards the end of the commonwealth, and thenceforward, however, the rule became different, and the toga virilis was commonly assumed in the fourteenth or fifteenth yeark. More particularly was this the rule observed in the case of persons of quality. Antyllus, Antony's and Fulvia's eldest son, was born U. C. 710, and assumed the toga virilis U. C. 7241. Nero, Germanicus' eldest son, was born U. C. 760, and assumed the toga virilis U. C. 773 m. Virilis toga Neroni maturata, says Tacitus": that is, he was allowed to assume it earlier than usual; viz. in his fourteenth year, ineunte, U. C. 804. ineunte *. The history of

* According to Dio, lxi. 3. and Suetonius, Vita, 6. Nero was born U. C. 790. in the month of December. Tacitus also, Ann. xiii. 6. speaks of him as being Vix septemdecim annos egressus, U. C. 807. exeunte: and xii. 58. he is said to have been sixteen, U. C. 806. ineunte; which may be understood of fifteen complete or sixteen incomplete. Yet Tacitus is not always con

sistent in speaking of the age of Nero. Ann. xii. 25. U. C. 803. ineunte-he is said to have been only two years older than Britannicus, who was born, according to Dio,lx. 12. 10. and Suetonius, Claudius, 27. in the spring, or on Feb. 12, U. C. 795. Tacitus, indeed, from what he mentions Ann. xiii. 15. U. C. 808. may have thought that Britannicus was born a year earlier;

i Vide Macrobius, i. 6: Aulus Gellius, x. 28: Plutarch, C. Gracchus, 5: Servius, ad Æneidem, vii. 162: Seneca, De Beneficiis, iii. xxxiii. 1 : Livy, xxi. 46: Valerius Max. v. iv. 2: Servius, ad Æneidem, x. 800: Valerius Max. iii. i. 1 : Echkel, de Doctrina Numm. Vett. v. 71: Servius, ad Æneidem, ix. 590: Livy, xxii. 57 xlv. 40: Plutarch, Cato Minor, 3. 73: Valerius Max. iii. i. 2. k Cicero, Epp. ad Atticum, i. 2 : ix. 19: Cf. Donatus' Life of Virgil: Nicolaus Damascenus, Vita Aug. Cæs. pag. 90. cap. 4: Seneca, Ad Marciam, xxiv. 1: Statius, Silvarum v. ii. 12. 64. seqq. 1 Plutarch, Antonius, 10. 71. m Tacitus, Ann. iii. 29:

Suetonius, Caius, 7. 8.

n Annales, xii. 41.

the later emperors, as of Marcus Antoninus the philosopher, of Commodus, Caracalla, &c. would still shew, if it were necessary, the observance of the rule in question.

The time of the year when the ceremony of discarding the toga prætexta, and of the deductio in forum, was undergone, generally speaking, was the spring; viz. at the feast of Bacchus, or the Liberalia, xvi. Kal. Apriles, March 17.

Restat, ut inveniam, quare toga libera detur
Lucifero pueris, candide Bacche, tuo.

Ovid, Fasti, iii. 771.

Ergo ut tironem celebrare frequentia possit,
Visa dies dandæ non aliena togæ1.

Ibid. 787.

And this may perhaps be considered the reason why the ceremony in question, according to the old usage, took place sometimes in the sixteenth, and sometimes in the seventeenth year; according to the new, sometimes in the fourteenth, sometimes in the fifteenth : viz. as the birthday of the individual happened to fall out nearer to or further from the Liberalia in question.

We may take it for granted that the case of Caius and Lucius Cæsar would not be an exception to the general rule; in other words, that each of them would assume the manly gown in his fourteenth or his fifteenth year. And, indeed, Suetonius informs us, that Augustus' only reason for accepting his twelfth and his thirteenth consulships respectively, was that he might reflect so much the more lustre on the ceremony of the tirocinium, or deductio in forum of his two sons

that of Caius in the first instance, U.C. 749:

viz. in the spring of U. C. 794. But even this will suppose Nero to have been born a year later

than the truth at least-U. C. 791. exeunte, not U. C. 790.

n Cf. Cicero, Epp. ad Atticum, vi. t.

o Augustus, 26.

and that of Lucius in the second, U. C. 752*. If the one was born, after the Liberalia, U. C. 734. and the other after the Liberalia, U. C. 737. this would be, in each instance, while the fifteenth year of their age was still current.

The anniversary of the Liberalia had not perhaps been three months passed, when Archelaus arrived at Rome; and Lucius Cæsar had probably by the same time entered on his fifteenth year. Hence, as the consultation in question upon the will of Herod, was not strictly a public one, it is not unlikely that Augustus might admit Lucius Cæsar to it; in which case, it would also not be unlikely that this admission of him was for the first time. If any one, therefore, is disposed to put such a construction on the words of Josephus, that whichever of the two, whether Lucius or Caius, was present on this occasion, he was present for the first time; it would be an obvious conjecture that by a lapse of memory, not at all uncommon in him, he has confounded Caius with Lucius.

But I am persuaded that the other construction is his true meaning in each instance; and the ancient author of the Latin version understood both passages in the same sense: so that there is no just ground for questioning the accuracy of Josephus, either in the Antiquities or in the War, with respect to this statement at least. Lucius Cæsar, we perceive, is not mentioned by him, in reference to the present occasion, at all; and there is no reason to suppose that he would be. He did not become privileged to attend his father's councils, or those of the senate, until the en

* Zonaras, x. 35.539. A. agrees with Suetonius in the year of the deductio of Caius, but makes that

of Lucius take place the year after. But this is probably a mistake.

P Dio, liv. 18.

suing year, U. C. 752: and hence, as we may observe by the way, is derived a strong objection to the opinion which places the death of Herod, U. C. 752; viz. that though by this year Lucius Cæsar would have been as much entitled to sit in judgment on his will, as his brother Caius, the latter only is actually spoken of as exercising that privilege. There is no doubt that as Lucius was entirely upon a par with his brother, both in the affections of Augustus, and in the rights and distinctions belonging to their community of rank, and their personal relation to the emperor; he would have been admitted to the exercise of this privilege as well as his brother, had his age entitled him to be so.



On the date of the Marriage of Archelaus and Glaphyra. Vide Dissertation v. vol. i. page 281. last line.

A FACT, in the history of Archelaus, is mentioned by Josephus, to which sufficient attention has not been paid, in determining the year of his banishment -and consequently, of his father's death. And yet the fact is one which from its very nature may be implicitly relied upon as true; and it is as well adapted as any that could be advanced, for the disproof of the assertion of Dio in particular, that Archelaus was deposed and banished, U. C. 759.

The fact in question is this. After the death of Alexander, Archelaus' brother, his widow Glaphyra was married to Juba king of Lybia, or Mauritania; and after the death of Juba, she was again married to Archelaus with whom, however, she had not been living long, when she had a remarkable dream, which was followed in two days' time by her death.

There can be no doubt that the Juba here mentioned was the second king of Mauritania of that name; a contemporary of Augustus Cæsar's, and better known to posterity for the number and variety of his accomplishments as a writer, than even for his noble birth and princely fortune. To modern times, however, nothing more of his has descended, than the mere titles of some of his many works, and a few fragments in the shape of quotations from others,

a Ant. Jud. xvii. xiii. 4. De Bello, ii. vii. 4.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »