Since Meadows and Williams 2000, we’re in the habit of talking about coinage as monuments in miniature.  Given how much Augustus (and later generations) changed the face of Rome, it is hard to recover the physical culture of commemoration in the city and even harder is to ascertain early attitudes towards such monuments.   All of which means we have less to frame our understanding of the coins.  BUT, nicely we have this self aware fragment (reliquia really) of Ennius, preserved in the Historia Augustae 25.7.6-8:

These barbarians, then, Claudius overcame by his own inborn valour and crushed in a brief space of time, suffering scarcely any to return to their native soil. What reward for such a victory, I ask you, is a shield in the Senate-house? What reward is one golden statue? Of Scipio Ennius wrote: “What manner of statue, what manner of column shall the Roman people make, to tell of your deeds?” We can say with truth that Flavius Claudius, an emperor without peer upon earth, is raised to eminence not by any columns or statues but by the power of fame.

Here is Courtney 1993:

Horace Ode 4.8 does remain VERY disputed.

We’ve lots of testimony about the circulation of speeches and letters which may or may not be genuine, which may or may not have been intended for public consumption.  One day I’d like to spend sometime thinking about the culture of the written word at the end of the republic, especially  what can or cannot be believed.  This is from Cicero’s speech on his house:

I’m playing with the idea that regibus regna reddere might have sounded Ennian to Cicero’s audience or that he might have been inspired for the alliterative turn of phrase from his exposure to Ennius.  Just speculative, but here are some supporting details:

When commenting on Aeneid 3.333 (…regnorum reddita…) Servius is reminded at least by the verb of Ennius:

more veteri pro ‘data’ accipiendum est: ‘re’ ergo abundat. Ennius annalibus “ad illa reddita nuptam”, et alibi “isque dies post aut Marcus quam regna recepit” pro accepit. aut ‘reddita’, quod Heleno debebatur imperium.

Skutsch on his commentary on F.56 of Ennius’ Annales does not believe that there is anything particularly archaic about this use of reddere.

Statius uses the phrase reddere regna to start THREE different lines in his Thebiad (2.541, 7.390, 10.583).  Book 7 in particular is known for having Ennian echoes.

Among the fragments of Ennius we find:

 mortalem summum Fortuna repente

Reddidit †summo regno famul †ut †optimus esset (Ann. 312-313)

parentes vinculis exemisse, patri regnum reddidisse atque ita in (Euhem. 90)

And, of course, alliteration is often associated with Ennius…

L. Mummius and his inscriptions hold a special place in my heart.  But I must confess (there are a lot of those today it seems!): I’ve never thought about his connection to early Latin poetry before today:

This is from Ll. Morgan’s

Musa Pedestris: Metre and Meaning in Roman Verse

Pliny NH 36.26. This temple was built out of the spoils of the victory over the Callaeci, 132BC.  Are Scopas’ works supposed to be read in relation to one another?  Or was the original juxtaposition of the two founding Roman deities meaningless at this date?

There are plenty of examples in Cicero’s constitutional writings of people being ‘too free’, but I this phrase in a public oration struck me a rather unusual (Pro Flaccio 72):

The Freedom of the Greeks is usually something defended or given by the Romans, not disparaged…

The connection between four cardinal virtues and Hellenistic kingship was a new idea to me.  (I feel a little ashamed to admit this!)

I’ve been re-reading Katherine Steel’s Cicero, Rhetoric and Empire (p. 133) and this passage struck me:

How does this connect with the shield of virtues presented to Augustus by the Senate?  Surely someone must have written something on this.  I’m going to resist exploring at this moment and just leave this note for myself that I wish to revisit the topic, at least before the next time I teach the clipeus virtutis!!

ANS specimen

Anglophone classicists are sentimental about their red and greens volumes but often in a rather apologetic way.  The quality of the translations especially older volumes has often been judged profoundly mediocre.  The student who relied on a Loeb was judged too lazy to read the original.  Shouldn’t you be reading a critical edition?  An OCT or Teubner or Cambridge orange or green and yellow edition?

However, more and more the Loeb is stepping up its game, issuing new and better editions.  I was delighted a few years back when Shackleton Bailey did Valerius Maximus in two volumes.  Likewise his Loeb of the Ad Familiares. And today I’m once again thrilled to find John Ramsey’s second Sallust volume with the Fragments of the Histories re-edited and re-arranged a true scholarly work!  Budé may always be a more serious series with its commentaries as well as text and translations.  But, I, an anglophone, find myself once again delighted by the Loeb series and its new additions.

I thinking about Cicero’s choice of words in his consular defense of Rabirius earlier today, especially this portion:

And then just now hanging and the last king of Rome came up again in my reading in a different context…

Tyrrell’s 1978 commentary on the speech does not make the connection of the handing from a tree and the reference to Tarquin: