We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
(1) Horace, Janus, and Pighius' Acta
In PBSR 54 (1986), 213–28 Andrew Lintott dusts down the fragments of the Acta Urbana published by S. V. Pighius in 1615 and universally supposed today to be a forgery. Lintott himself, after a most learned discussion, concurs, but one senses a wistful longing for the fragments to be genuine. The purpose of this note is to offer another reason why sadly this is unlikely.
1 The important passages in the ancient scholia are pseudo-Acron on Epist. 1.1.54 and Serm. 2.3.18: they are clearly guesswork. I can see nothing helpful in Porphyrion on Epist. 1.20.1. Livy 41.27.12, on the activities of Q. Fulvius Flaccus as censor in 174 B.C., mentions contracts for works in some provincial town or towns, including Ianos tres faciendos. We do not even know that these three arches were to be constructed in the same town.
2 Constant, P. in the Gamier edition (Paris, 1935) translates, ‘les autres dieux, nous les avons reçus de la tradition; mais les Césars, c'est nous qui les avons faits dieux’Google Scholar: so Faranda, R. in his useful Italian edition (Turin, 1971), ‘gli altri dei li abbiamo accettati da altri, i Cesari li creiamo noi.’Google Scholar It is hard to think of anything less flattering to say to Tiberius.
3 I am grateful for comments to Gian Biagio Conte, Peta Fowler, Robin Nisbet, and anon.
