« A.U.C. 660 = 94 B.C. »

CIL I2 682, a decree of the pagus Herculaneus near Capua, records the date of a.d. X Terminalia, rather than looking forward to Kal. Mart. or Kal. Int. Other instances of festival-based dating in late Februarius are known:

1) [Quiri/Termi]nalia AUC 393 = 361
2)  Quirinalia AUC 504 = 350
3)  Quirinalia AUC 532 = 322
4)  Quirinalia AUC 478 = 276
5)  Quirinalia AUC 481 = 273
6)  Feralia AUC 561 = 193
7)  Terminalia AUC 579 = 175
8)  Quirinalia AUC 587 = 167
9)  ad III Feralia AUC 654 = 100
10) ad X Terminalia AUC 660 = 94
11) ad V Terminalia AUC 704 = 50

A. K. Michels, The Calendar of the Roman Republic 171f, notes that cases (1)-(5) and (7)-(8), from the Fasti Triumphales, are the only triumphs whose dates are given according the festival calendar; further, one of these, in A.U.C. 587 = 167, is otherwise known to be in an intercalary year. She suggested that such dating by festivals in late Februarius generally implied the occurrence of an intercalary month. On this base, she proposes that this year is intercalary.

V. M. Warrior, Latomus 50 (1991) 80, notes that the triumphal dates are presumably those of the original senate decree, and suggests that festival-based dating could simply indicate that it had not yet decided at the time a triumph was awarded whether an intercalation would be required. She further suggests that the Romans may even have preferred to date events in late Februarius with reference to festivals, since such dates are unaffected by intercalation. Finally, she proposes that antedating to Kal. Mart. (presumably, only for dates before a.d. VI Kal. Mart., though this is not stated) may be evidence of a date in Intercalaris. She notes that a triumph is known for a.d. X Kal. Mart. in A.U.C. 588 = 166, which is known to be in an intercalary month because of another triumph on Kal. Int. She notes that for A.U.C. 432 = 322, triumphs are recorded both for the Quirinalia and for a.d. XII Kal. Mart., one for each consul, for victories in the same war. If there was no intercalation these triumphs took place on successive days, otherwise they were over three weeks apart. Warrior believes that if they were supposed to be one day apart then the Senate would have awarded them together, for a.d. XIII and a.d. XII Kal. Mart., and therefore supposes that A.U.C. 432 = 322 must be intercalary. This accounts for two of the three known triumphs forward-dated to Kal. Mart. She also supposes that the elections dated a.d. XII Kal. Mart. A.U.C. 568 = 188 (Livy 38.42.1) and A.U.C. 582 = 172 (Livy 42.28.3) were held in intercalary months since they were both somewhat late.

Warrior's point that dating by festival renders the date unambiguous even without knowledge of intercalation is well taken. Consequently, we cannot use CIL I2 682 to prove intercalation in A.U.C. 660 = 94. However her suggestion that dates which look forward to Kal. Mart. ipso facto indicate intercalation seems without basis to me. Livy indicates that the elections were late in both cases because the consuls were late in returning to Rome; this would lead to late elections regardless of whether the years were intercalary. As a counterexample, there is Cicero, Ad Atticum 9.10, which lists by date a series of letters he sent every few days between a.d. X Kal. Feb. and a.d. VII Id. Mart. in A.U.C. 705 = 49, including a.d. XI, VIII and V Kal. Mart.; the close spacing of the letters indicates that there was no intercalation that year. For contemporaries, who knew whether or not intercalation had occurred, the context of a date a.d. Kal. Mart. would always be clear, and after a year or so it would be unimportant.

In discussing CIL I2 682, Degrassi (ILLRP 1267 n. 2) suggests only that this year was a possible intercalary year. Against Michels, case (11), from Cicero, Ad Atticum 6.1.1, was in A.U.C. 704 = 50, not an intercalary year. Michels proposes that this exception arises because Cicero's usage was informal, but case (11) is also completely consistent with this usage. At this point, I am inclined to favour Degrassi's view, which implies that A.U.C. 660 = 94 was a candidate intercalary year, but we cannot be sure that intercalation actually occurred.

Under the reconstruction of the Lex Acilia proposed in A.U.C. 563 = 191, a year following a 378-day year was not a candidate intercalary year, and all intercalations after A.U.C. 614 = 140 were 23 days long. If all these results are correct, then A.U.C. 659 = 95 was a regular year.

Website © Chris Bennett, 2001-2011 -- All rights reserved