latrones - Get a Free Blog

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN EMPIRE
123 Suet. Nero 13. Tac. Ann. 15.24ff. Dio 62.23.
124 F. Millar, The Roman Near East 31 BC–AD 337, Cambridge/London 1993, 80–90,
esp. 90:
What is clear is that this period, the 70s, produces a quite new level
of evidence on the ground for the presence and impact of the Roman
Empire in this region. ( . . . ) Fragmentary as our evidence is, we can
observe both an intensification and a considerable geographical expansion
of the Roman presence. An important impact of both was the replacement
of royal rule (as well as royal taxation and the maintenance of royal
forces) by Roman provincial rule.
125 Dio 66.19.3c.
126 Cf. already Th. Mommsen, Römische Geschichte (n. 115), V 396f.
127 Cic. Rab. Perd. 20; Sest. 101. Val. Max. 3.2.18; 3.8.6; 9.7.1f.; 9.15.1. App. Civ.
1.32.141ff. Flor. 2.4.1. Anon. De Vir. Ill. 62.1; 73.2. CIL I 2 p. 196f. Münzer, s.v.
Equitius no. 3, RE VI, 1909, 322f.
128 Val. Max. 9.15.1.
129 Val. Max. 3.8.6: nescio quibus tenebris protractum portentum. Elsewhere Valerius Maximus
claims that Equitius came from Firmum in Picenum (9.15.1: Equitium Firmo Piceno
monstrum veniens).
130 Flor. 2.4.1: sine tribu, sine notore, sine nomine.
131 Anon. De Vir. Ill. 73.2: quendam libertini ordinis.
132 Cic. Rab. Perd. 20: ex compedibus atque ergastulo. App. Civ. 1.32.141.
133 Cic. Sest. 101. Val. Max. 9.7.2. CIL I 2 p. 196: [ce]nsor L. Eq[uitium censu prohibuit]?
Anon. De Vir. Ill. 62.1.
134 Val. Max. 3.8.6; Anon. De Vir. Ill. 73.2: Ad hoc testimonium Sempronia soror Gracchorum
producta, nec precibus nec minis adduci potuit ut dedecus familiae agnosceret.
135 Val. Max. 9.7.1.
136 Flor. 2.4.1.
137 Val. Max. 3.2.18: Equitius designatus tribunus plebis. App. Civ. 1.33.146.
138 Liv. Per. 116. Val. Max. 9.15.1. App. Civ. 3.2.3; 3.3.6. Cic. Att. 12.49.1; 14.8.1;
Phil. 1.5. v. d. Mühll, s.v. Herophilos no. 1, RE VIII, 1912, 1104f. F. Münzer, s.v.
Marius no. 16, RE XIV, 1928, 1815–17. H.G. Gundel, s.v. Marius no. 4, KlP III,
1975, 1033. A.E. Pappano, ‘The Pseudo-Marius’, CPh 30, 1935, 58–65f. F. Kudlien,
Die Stellung des Arztes in der römischen Gesellschaft. Freigeborene Römer, Eingebürgerte,
Peregrine, Sklaven, Freigelassene als Ärzte (Forschungen zur antiken Sklaverei 18),
Stuttgart 1986, 68f.
139 This is the prevailing opinion in the works cited in n. 138. Kudlien, Stellung des
Arztes (n. 138), 69, however, assumes the existence of two people, Chamates/
Amatius and Herophilus respectively. Against Kudlien one may cite, apart from
the communis opinio, the fact that it was not just Chamates/Amatius who ‘appears to
have become entangled in politics’ (69). According to Valerius Maximus (9.15.1),
Herophilus planned nothing less than the wiping out of the Senate (consilium
interficiendi senatus capere sustinuit)!
140 Fugitivus ille: Cic. Phil. 1.5.
141 Cf. e.g., Cic. Phil. 11.16; Parad. 4.27.
142 Cic. Att. 12.49.1.
143 See generally on this H.G. Pflaum, ‘Sur les noms grecs portés par les Romains et
leurs esclaves’, REL 51, 1973, 48–54.
144 Ocularius medicus: Val. Max. 9.15.1. A variant reading is equarius medicus, which
would make Herophilos a veterinary surgeon specialising in horses. Cf. Kudlien,
Stellung des Arztes (n. 138), 68.
145 Kudlien, Stellung des Arztes (n. 138), 71ff.
146 Pappano, ‘The Pseudo-Marius’ (n. 138), 59.
220