Here’s our one complete (non-literary?) nenia from antiquity and even this one had to be reassembled across the centuries.

Rex eris, si recte facies

Qui non faciet, non eris!

You will be king, if you act rightly;

He who does not act, will not be!

Reconstructed from Horace Ep. 1.1. 59-63 and Porphyry ad Ep. 1.1.626

I promise it is more catchy in the Latin than I can make the English!

The best discussion is:

Dutsch, Dorota M.. “« Nenia »: gender, genre, and lament in ancient Rome.” In Lament: studies in the ancient Mediterranean and beyond, Edited by Suter, Ann., 258-279. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Pr., 2008.

But her concern is on the more common use of term Nenia, i.e. in its funerary context:

Abstract of her piece: Two discourses were involved in the Roman funeral. One, the official « laudatio funebris », a speech commemorating members of the upper class, was the domain of male relatives of the deceased. The other, a chant called « nenia », was entrusted to female professionals and could thus offer us a rare example of Roman women’s poetic skills, but we have no script of a genuine lament sung at a Roman funeral. Scattered evidence regarding various types of the « nenia » is assembled and examined to recover some of the rules and cultural connotations of this lost genre.

Why do I care? Well I’m including the little rhyme in my transition between chapter one and two of my current book project. The first chapter “What sort of thing is a king?” investigates literary generalities about the nature of Roman and Foreign Kings and Roman relationships to kings, again in generalities and truisms not specific examples.

(I realize as I type this it is an interesting reprisal of my work on the historiographical uses of Eastern Kings in my first book (2006), esp. in Chapter 6, p. 291 ff: I best go read myself and try to see why I can’t get these questions out of my brain).

The second chapter addresses memories of Numa in the pre Augustan, esp. pre Ciceronian corpus. The little ditty I call in to try to access a bit of popular culture on the connect of (morally) right action and kingship in the Roman mind to set up the reader (who may have skipped chapter one!) to better understand the context in which the Numa traditions were formed. The writing challenge is to decide what of the Numa tradition goes in the chapter two and what is distinctive enough to be saved for chapter three on the Ludi Apollinares and their meaning.

I’m particularly interested in how recte and rex are linguistically connected through the verb rego, rexi, rectus.

Which in turn led me to Livy 6.6 AND Chris Kraus’ fabulously spoton commentary

Chiasmus is that A:B::B:A pattern in nenia

---

For reasons that aren’t public yet I think my sabbatical will be cut short. Not all bad reasons and largely of my own agency; I’m shifting my professional priorities it feels. More anon, sorry to be vague but the count down has started to feel weird. I do have 119 more days in which I can primarily focus on writing but I will likely also be taking on an preparing for other work. Regardless, I want this book out soon, even if I have to borrow time here and there. I do like blogging so I will try share bits as they come up.

I’ll add more here when I spot them. I like this type of thing for thinking about coin imagery like the ketos helmet/headdress on the coins of Vetulonia (blog post) or even the boar headdress on Roman Republican bronzes. (RRC 39/2 etc…)

Update 5-3-23:

Reading this piece:

Elliott, John. “The Etruscan wolfman in myth and ritual.” Etruscan Studies 2 (1995): 17-33. (link)

Abstract: A large bronze animal’s head in Cambridge (Mass.), Arthur M. Sackler Museum, Harvard University Art Museums Acc. no. 1964.128, is indeed the head of a wolf and was used as part of a masked ritual in which the Etruscans defeated a monster personifying death. Urns, wall-paintings and pottery decoration all provide additional evidence for the connection between wolves and the deities of the underworld in Etruria.

It has great images and I think even without the helmet or the Capitoline Wolf (proven to be not ancient) the corpus of images adds up to a distinctive and important cultural practice. The helmet while likely ancient has been distorted through heavy ‘restoration’ esp the teeth and perhaps low jaw:

So it is evidence of an animal helmet but we cannot say what kind… This object needs some provenience research.

When I saw the basic form of Vatican specimen, it felt very familiar, but I thought I remembered posting about it with one in the MET and another in the Getty, but I think the latter must be false memory as it does not show up on their website. Perhaps I was remember an illustration of the Vatican one from some earlier MET publication… The MET acquired theirs in 1960, I wonder when and how it left Italy. They don’t have any provenance info on the website. Setting the two side by side makes me think intensely of how restoration effects our impression of objects. How different is the impression made by this old MET photo of theirs pre restoration

My favor part of the Vatican one is Hercle (Greek: Herakles) and his patron goddess, Menrva (Greek: Athena).

The details of the banqueters on the bottom ring and the paw feet are pretty good too but my photo is terrible. I like the animal feet because they remind me of the paws on RRC 10/1 (earlier post).

---

Update 5-3-23:

Update 1-22-24:

Said to be found in 1831 in Vulci, now in BnF

Another Etruscan bronze from the Vatican, but I’m posting this one because of how it parallels faces joined together on ancient intaglios. This next image is the same vessel seen from the top. The beard of the mask is the back of that bouffant hair style.

Here some pretty drawings of intagios of the type I mean. I feel there must be a name for this type of image, but I don’t know it.

I became interested in this style of intaglio nine years ago because of coin types of Signia. Earlier Blog Post with ever more image.

I saw the above detail from an Etruscan bronze in the Vatican some days ago and I know it reminded me of a coin and one specifically from Italy I’d seen in the ANS some years ago, but that coin doesn’t seem to have an on line image. Iris helped me find the type.

These facing Heracles on the coins of Populonia are unbearded. Memory is fallible.

My brain is very full, my feet tired, and my data storage on my phone threatening to burst. Sometimes one must stop and think and try to integrate everything. So here I am with a negroni just a bit up the via Flaminia at a cafe devoid of other tourists, looking through my snapshots and trying to think about why each thing caught my eye and how not to forget those I care to remember. I started a photo round-up post but that took took long. Instead I think I will give each idea its own post as it seems appropriate.

Yesterday Julian Oliver and Thomas Faucher gave a fantastic discussion on the likely recalling of bronze coins, their melting down and re-issuing in Ptolemaic Egypt. One such in the mid 150s and and other in the 50s BCE. On their slides were two lovely coins of series 6 and 7 which had a female head with distinctive ringlets, Isis is the typical identification but I’m not sure we can say for sure. I often say such ringlets evoke Africa for the Romans and while I can point to Roman examples. I like this iconography for how it shows pre existing Ptolemaic usage of the imagery.

I’m reading:

Badian, E. “THE TESTAMENT OF PTOLEMY ALEXANDER.” Rheinisches Museum Für Philologie 110, no. 2 (1967): 178–92. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41244326.

For context see under 86 BCE in previous post.

He’s focused on testimony in Cic. Agr. 2.41. Here’s the Loeb from 1930 so you can follow along, but I’m reading Manuwald’s text translation and commentary from OUP 2018.

Manuwald brings in a note from Schol. Bob. on Cic. Reg. Alex. to support her interpretation:

on the previous page she notes “An absolute date for the embassy is not given”

Badian re hashes the idea that the King Alexander might be Alex II Pt XI before dismissing ID, but Manuwald doesn’t even both with mentioning alternative confidently IDing king as Pt X Alex 1 (d. 88) strangely without citing Badian. (sorting out the Ptolemies is famously confusing, earlier post)

Here’s the crux of Badian’s reconstruction (p. 189):

He thinks that Lucullus came to late to Tyre (p. 189):

So Badian doesn’t trust the Scholiast quoted by Manuwald, but is willing to believe the Cinnan regime got the money and then relieved itself of 3/4s the repayment. I’m generally inclined to think that Badian is over optimistic in his reconstruction, unless we can come up with better proof that Eastern silver flowed into Rome BEFORE the return of Sulla.

Badian ends with this observation (p. 192)

What would be proof of such an influx? Maybe a different trace element profile?

This is super important work by Kris Lockyear published in 2022. I can’t read today as I fly to Rome tomorrow and I’ve got other stuff that MUST be done, but I’m really really keen to dive in. (Link to full article) How was this type of dating done in the pre computer age? I have a v old blog post on this topic. While this article is about methodology, there are very practical applications as shown by:

Lockyear, K. 2018. Mind the Gap! Roman Republican Coin Hoards from Italy and Iberia at the End of the Second Century BC. Numismatic Chronicle, 178: 123–164.

I’m thinking of the Dossenus denarii (RRC 348) and wanted some visual comparisons. This round up is incomplete. I’ll drop in other examples as I come across them.

Trésor de Boscoreale : skyphos (Louvre)

Vespasianic Bronzes:

Domitianic Gold. All have victory crowning trophy on triumphal car but none v clear. This is the same as the rare Trajanic aureus and denarius with similar imagery.

Augustus’ “slow quadrigas” There are a variety of car designs here that are not searchable in OCRE. Victory/Standing Figure with Scepter; Victory/Victory; Vegetal pattern and figure; just swirls

Under Augustus there is also a slow quadriga from the period of the revival of the III-viri. Florus’ uses dies with three distinct car contents but RIC did not differentiate these.

Fulmen(?) type:

Three rider(?) type:

A variant of the three rider(?) type, maybe we could call it the peg type for now:

Durmius only has the fulmen type on OCRE Specimens, but i wouldn’t be surprised if there was die sharing and we could find rider/peg reverses in trade. A rabbit hole for another day.

The most elaborate of the slow quadrigas is that on the coinage of Nero honoring the divine Claudius. A type revived by Titus to honor Vespasian.

Under Vespasian the fulmen type reappears again identified in RIC as a basket car with three corn ears. Doesn’t look like like grain to me but maybe?!

From the Antonines onwards RIC uses Slow Quadriga to identify many scenes that are clearly triumphal. A small selection follows.

Macrinus:

Elagabalus:

---

Self accountability section

I need to change my many many relevant blog posts into some slides and notes for next week, but at least I know basically what I think at this point. I’d love to do more with the hoards but maybe that just has to wait. UK logistics 95% sorted. Just waiting to hear from a friend about dates and then I’ll book my flights. Need to book a hotel for a few nights in Rome, cannot believe I left that this late. I fly out tomorrow. Loving my RRDP team. Zooms with my colleagues are really very useful to for structuring my work. Must go join one now!

I’m concerned at present as to what probare might mean in Pliny NH 33.132 and most of my thoughts on this verb in Roman political discourse go back to the third century: probare is something that happens to both bronze coins and also ship rams in the 1st Punic War (earlier post, follow up; see previous post under 86 BCE for context of why this Pliny passage matters). This blog post is to round out my understanding of its usage in formal governmental contexts, esp. to describe the action of a magistrate.

eum libellum Caesari dedi. probavit causam, rescripsit Attico aequa eum postulare, admonuit tamen ut pecuniam reliquam Buthrotii ad diem solverent. Cic. Att. 16.16a actually a copy of a letter addressed to Plancus as praetor-designate, 4 or 5 July 44.

I gave Caesar the document. He approved the case, and wrote back to Atticus that his request was reasonable, with a warning however that the Buthrotians must pay the sum outstanding punctually. (S-B trans.)

Haec illo vivo. post interitum autem Caesaris, ut primum ex senatus consulto causas consules cognoscere instituerunt, haec quae supra scripsi ad eos delata sunt. probaverunt causam sine ulla dubitatione seque ad te litteras daturos esse dixerunt. again from Cic. Att. 16.16a a copy of a letter addressed to Plancus as praetor-designate, 4 or 5 July 44.

That was as far as the affair went during Caesar’s lifetime. After his death, as soon as the Consuls commenced their review of cases according to the Senate’s decree, the facts which I have just stated were presented to them. They approved the case without any hesitation and undertook to send a letter to you. (S-B trans.)

sed, cum tanta res agatur Attici nostri, nunc vero etiam existimatio, ut id quod probavit Caesar nobis testibus et obsignatoribus qui et decretis et responsis Caesaris interfueramus videatur obtinere potuisse,… Cic. Att.16.16E a copy of another letter addressed to Plancus as praetor-designate, mid July 44.

But it is of so much consequence to our friend Atticus financially, and now in reputation as well, that he should show himself able to maintain in actuality what Caesar sanctioned both in decrees and in replies… (S-B trans.)

Dixit idem Dolabellam impetrasse. Omen magis patribus conscriptis quam causa placuit; probaverunt. Cic. Verr. 2.1.99

“He said that Dolabella had been granted the same concession: the conscript fathers found the argument weak but the parallel suggestive, and agreed.” (Loeb trans modified)

Cic. Or. 157: I should not criticize the form “scripsere” in scripsere alii rem, yet I feel that scripserunt is more correct, but I am glad to follow custom which favours the ear. Ennius says “idem campus habet” and on temples we find “idem probavit”. But isdem would be more correct, not eisdem, however: the sound is too broad. Isdem had an unpleasant sound, and so custom granted permission to err for the sake of agreeable effect. (Loeb trans)

Loeb note on this phrase: “ “The same (official) approved.” Cicero is unusually brief here, and as a result there is a certain obscurity. He means to say that the original form of the word was isdem (the spelling eisdem, which he rejects, uses ei to represent long i, but the i of isdem is short), and that this was changed to idem for the sake of euphony.

Liv. 4.22: Eo anno C. Furius Paculus et M. Geganius Macerinus censores villam publicam in campo Martio probaverunt

In that year Gaius Furius Paculus and Marcus Geganius Macerinus the censors approved a public building erected in the Campus Martius,

et cum ad rem publicam pertineret viam Domitiam muniri, legatis suis, primariis viris, C. Annio Bellieno et C. Fonteio, negotium dedit; itaque praefuerunt; imperaverunt pro dignitate sua, quod visum est, et probaverunt; quod vos, si nulla alia ex re, ex litteris quidem nostris, quas exscripsistis, et missis et adlatis certe scire potuistis. Cic. Font. 18

“When M. Fonteius was hindered by great affairs of state and when it was in the public interest for the Via Domitia to be paved, he assigned the task to his legates, outstanding men, C. Annius Bellienus and C. Fonteius; they therefore were in charge; in line with their standing they made demands at their discretion and issued certifications.” (Dyck translation)

Dyck in his commentary rightly notes that isn’t really a defense. M. Fonteius was still responsible for their actions. (on Dyck see early blog post)

---

Less legal/formal but similar sense:

Maxime vero consulatum meum Cn. Pompeius probavit… Cic. Phil. 2.12

Above all, my consulship was approved by Gnaeus Pompeius…(Loeb trans)

In praetura, in consulatu praefectum fabrum detulit; consilium hominis probavit, fidem est complexus, officia observantiamque dilexit. Cic. Balb. 63

When praetor, and when consul, Caesar appointed him as his “Chief Engineer,” he approved of the man’s judgment, he appreciated his loyalty, he valued highly his services and his respect. (Loeb trans)

---

Warmington in his Loeb volumes on Archaic Latin wants to translate probavit in all cases as “acceptably completed”. I think this is a misguided translation in these cases. I think approved or sanctioned would be better in all cases he cites.

There are over a hundred inscriptions from the republican period from Latium and surounding areas that use the abbreviation PROB or probaverunt, or probavit, or probavere, or even probavunt to describe the action of a magistrate typically for them carrying in out the wishes of a council or senate where there was an expenditure of money. It is an action that is distinguished from other verbs such as curare (often spelt coerare) or dedere, and thus clearly indicated another, albeit related, type of action or responsibility.

---

Carthaginienses eo anno argentum in stipendium impositum primum Romam advexerunt. id quia probum non esse quaestores renuntiaverant, experientibusque pars quarta decocta erat, pecunia Romae mutua sumpta intertrimentum argenti expleverunt. (Liv. 32.2)

That year the Carthaginians brought to Rome the first payment in silver of the indemnity imposed on them. Because the quaestors reported that the metal was not pure and that a quarter of it had boiled down to dross during the assay, the Carthaginians made good the shortfall of silver by borrowing in Rome. (Loeb trans. modified)

Notice that the Latin is not inprobum (bad, dishonorable), but rather probum non esse, unapproved. The quaestors could not validate by their authority the silver–word for the testing is experientibus. For the moral usage of inprobus/probus cf. ad Herr. 2.38 with regard to the character of a husband.