|
|
The Romans did not have a common era like we have. Instead, they called
their years after the two supreme magistrates, the consuls.
The year that corresponds to our 59 BCE was known to them as 'the year
in which Gaius
Julius Caesar and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus were consuls'. As long
as one had a list of magistrates, one could date all past events. Using
a similar list, we are able to convert Roman year names to our year numbers.
Originally, the pontifex
maximus was responsible for the maintenance of the official version
of this list, which was published at the end of the second century BCE.
However, there are two problems, which are usually ignored by modern historians.
-
The Roman year did not start on 1 January, but on 1 September (in the fifth
century) or 1 July (in the fourth century). A Roman year name should after
conversion have two elements (e.g., '300/299'), not one ('300'). If it
has only one element, it is almost certainly inaccurate.
-
The list seems to be incomplete. Probably, four couples of consuls are
missing. This is the main problem.
A third chronological problem may be mentioned in passing.
Because of the irregular intercalation of months, exact dates mentioned
in our sources do not correspond with our calendar dates. For example,
the poet Ennius writes that 'the moon blocked out the sun in darkness on
June's fifth day', which is a description of the solar eclipse on 21 June
400 BCE.
To return to the main problem: it was already recognized in Antiquity,
and three solutions were proposed. The first one was to accept a period
of anarchy of several years in the 360's. This was not a bad solution,
because it is certain that there was at least one year in which the tribunes
Licinius and Sextius forbade the election of magistrates. The hypothesis
that this period lasted longer than one year can not be falsified, and
this may be the reason why the great Roman historian Titus
Livy (59 BCE - 17 CE) accepted this solution.
The second solution was to introduce three fictional
couples of magistrates following one year of anarchy in the 360's. The
names of the six fictional consuls are Papirius and Vivius, Sacraviensis
and Caeliomontanus, Priscus and Cominius, and are mentioned in a document
from Late Antiquity known as the Chronicle of the year 354.
The third solution is that of the Roman antiquarian Marcus Terentius
Varro (116-27), a contemporary of Julius Caesar. He introduced four years
in the second half of our fourth century BCE in which Rome was ruled by
dictators. These years are, in the Varronian chronology, 333, 324, 309
and 301.
There is not one single argument to corroborate this constitutional
absurdity, which is just an all too transparent attempt to invent historical
precedents for the annual dictatorship of Julius
Caesar in 48 BCE. In fact, there are indications that falsify Varro's
idea:
-
Pliny the Elder
writes that the career of the popular Roman general general Marcus Valerius
Corvus lasted 46 years, but it lasts 50 years in Varro's chronology. The
difference disappears when the 'dictator years' are ignored. It also means
that the treaty between Rome and Carthage,
usually dated to Varronian year 348, was in fact concluded in 344/343 BCE,
exactly at the moment when the Carthaginians are known to have intervened
in a civil war on Syracuse and needed support in Italy.
-
Livy writes that in the Varronian year 351, the Romans and the inhabitants
of Tarquinii concluded a peace treaty for forty years. War broke out again
in the Varronian year 308, which is indeed the fortieth year if we ignore
the dictator years.
|
|
The Fasti Capitolini (Musei
Capitolini, Roma; ©**)
|
Unfortunately, Varro's list contains a second error. Not content with
the introduction of four extra years, he added four years of anarchy. In
other words, he solved the same problem twice, and the result is that all
his dates before 300 BCE are wrong. Nevertheless, the Varronian chronology
was canonized. The emperor Augustus
had it inscribed in his triumphal arch (the fragments, called Fasti
Capitolini, can be seen in the Capitoline Museums in Rome) and most
modern scholars use the only Roman chronological system that is demonstrably
incorrect. Several common errors are:
-
The dating of the invasion of the Gauls in 390; the real date can be deduced
from the Greek historian Polybius
of Megalopolis and is 387/386 BCE. (The Roman army was defeated
on 18 July. As we have already seen above, this can
not be identified with 'our' 18 July, but we can be almost certain that
the invasion took place in the summer/autumn of 387, although 386 can not
be excluded.)
-
The dating of the expulsion of Rome's last king, Tarquin
the Proud, in 510. Varro must have liked this date, because it offers a
nice synchronism with the expulsion of the tyrant
Hippias from Athens. (And it must have been appreciated more generally.
Writing a century later, Pliny
the Elder was also aware of it.). However, it is simply wrong. A fragment
from the city chronicle of the Greek town Cumae, quoted by the Greek scholar
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, proves that the battle of Aricia
in the second or third year of the Roman republic, took place in 505/504;
this means that the republic was founded in either 507/506 or 506/505 (more...).
-
The dating of the foundation of Rome in 754/753. Varro obtained this year
by multiplying the number of known kings, seven, by 35 regnal years. It
must be noted that there are still Italian scholars who ignore the radiocarbondates
and maintain that the hill top villages of Rome were united -the equivalent
of the founding of a city- in the middle of the eighth century, which is
a century too late.
Although the Varronian dates are clearly erroneous, they can be found in
almost every publication on the ancient history of Rome.
Livy is better. His History of Rome since its foundation contains
the most complete list of magistrates available. We can use it to convert
Roman year names into our year numbers, and can see where the four missing
couples of consuls must be placed.
To start with, in Livy's History, the career of
Marcus Valerius
Corvus lasts 46 years and the peace with Tarquinii lasts forty years.
This
means that we can rely on his list of magistrates for the years between
347/346 (351, according to Varro) and 299/298. This can be corroborated
by Livy's statement that there was a solar eclipse in the consulship of
Gaius Marcius Rutilius and Titus Manlius Torquatus; this corresponds to
our 340/339 and that is correct, because this eclipse took place in the
early morning of 15 September 340. (Varro and his modern epigones want
us to believe that this happened in 344.)
To sum up: we can be certain about Livy's datings in the years after
347/346 BCE. All Varronian dates can be converted to our era.
However, there is no external check for the preceding period. The invasion
of the Gauls offers the point where we can restart our analysis. As we
have already seen, Polybius states that this happened in 387/386. Livy
mentions 34 groups of magistrates and 5 years of anarchy for the years
until 347/346, which means that his relative chronology is one year too
short.
Counting backwards from 387/386, the problems disappear. Livy and Varro
are more or less in agreement on the colleges of magistrates. Using 387/386
as starting point (instead of Varro's 390), we arrive at 506/505 as the
first year of the Roman republic, which is in line with the date mentioned
above.
This suggests that the list of magistrates for the fifth century is
reliable, and that we can count backwards from 387/386 BCE. Two arguments
may
corroborate this.
-
Using this system, the year in which Marcus Fabius Vibulanus, Marcus Folius
Flaccinator and Lucius Sergius Fidenas were military tribunes with consular
powers, is identical to 430/429 BCE (and not Varro's 433). The plague that
is mentioned by Livy for this year, is perhaps identical to the
one described by the Athenian historian Thucydides
under the year 429 BCE.
-
The Sicilian
general Dionysius became sole ruler of Syracuse in 409 BCE; until then,
Syracuse had been a democracy. According to Varro's chronology, the Romans
bought grain from the tyrant in 411, which is impossible. According to
Livy, it was 408/407, which fits excellently.
All this suggests that Livy's chronology is essentially reliable, except
for the years between 387/386 and 347/346. Four couples of consuls are
missing and Livy has used an extended anarchy to compensate this.
It is possible to be a little bit more precise about the location of
the missing colleges. Fabius Pictor states that the first plebeian
was consul in the twenty-second year after the invasion of the Gauls. These
events took place in 390 (Varro) and 366 (Varro). In fact, only nineteen
colleges are known for this period, which narrows the location of the missing
colleges to the interval between 390-366 (Varro).
Finally, it must be noted that Livy is not the only one who uses an
extended anarchy. Varro used it too and must have found it in sources he
could not ignore. Moreover, the three couples of magistrates in the Chronicle
of 354 CE (above), must have been invented to
fill an awkward gap in a consular list. This suggests that the tradition
of an extended period of anarchy in the 360's was well established. In
fact, the easiest solution to all chronological problems is simply to accept
Livy's list as it is, including a long period of anarchy and an uncertainty
margin of about one year. This does not solve all problems, but results
in a far better chronology than the common Varronian chronology.
|
|
|
