vol. XIV p.238-244
The name of a Roman gens, generally rare. In the earlier days of the republic, <page break 238/239> an inscription on an amphora from Interamna of Q. Maelii (CIL I2 428) is the only non-literary source. The mint-master P. Mae on coins of the early 2nd century BCE was instead a Maenius (see there) and not a Maelius, and the duumvir from Cora on the temple-inscription (ibid. 1511), whose mutilated name has been read as something similar, was most likely a Metilius (see there). The only known Maelii are the plebeian demagogue Sp. Maelius nr. 2, the consular tribune nr.4 who was about a generation younger so was probably descended from Sp., <10> as well as a third - nr.1 - who was a tribune of the plebs from 434 = 320, and who didn’t have a good end to his life just like the first one, which means that their family came to an end before the great rise of Rome began.
tribune of the plebs 434 = 320, was blamed for the Foedus Caudinum of the previous year along with a colleague - L. Livius according to Livy, or Ti. Numicius according to Cicero - and was handed over to the Samnites (Cic. off. III 109. Liv. IX 8,13--10, 2; vol. XIII p. 814f.) <20>
His history, or that which the Romans considered to be his history, was first researched with an increasing thoroughness and with growing success first by Schwegler (R. G. III 130-139), according to Niebuhr (R. G. II 470-477), and then by Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. II 199-220); where later scholars, like Pais (Storia critica di Roma II 60-63, 189-202), <30> have tried to go beyond this, despite all mental sharpness, they easily lost the ground beneath their feet. It has its advantages that the structure of the following work requires an individual look at the character of Maelius, L. Minucius, C. Servilius Ahala (vol. II A p.1768-1771) and also L. Quinctius Cincinnatus; but of course, these individual articles have to complement each other. <40>
Sp. Maelius was regularly referred two by these two names, and never with any last surname, while the only male mentioned in the Fasti taken as being his son, nr. 4, had one of these. From this, we can deduce what should be taken from this - that Dionys. XII 1, 1 introduces him as οἴκου τε οὐκ ἀφανοῦς and as Εὐδαίμων ἐπίκλησιν; both are equally unfitting, <50> and are just as much a unique invention by the orator as νεωστὶ μὲν κατειληφὼς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ πατρός and λαμπρὸς … τὰ πολέμια καὶ πολοῖς κεκοσμημένος ἀριστείοις. His name shows that Maelius was a plebeian, and his wealth is the condition on which everything we are told about him is based; the fact that a rich plebeian had to be a knight was the obvious conclusion (Liv. IV 13, 1: ex equestri ordine, ut illis temporibus praedives. Dionys. loc. cit: τάξιν ἔχων ἱππικήν. Zonar. VII 20. ἀνὴρ ἱππεὺς πλούσοις). <60> Cicero naturally gives the broader view of the late republic (Mil. 72): annona levanda iacturisque rei familiaris, quia nimis amplecti plebem videbatur, in suspicionem incidit regni adpetendi. All of Cicero’s other statements only mention the accusation of him seeking sole rule (regnum adpetere also in de domo 101; Phil. II 114 [cf. 87]; Cato 56; Lael. 36 [cf. 28]; novis rebus studere Cat. I 3; regnum occupare voluisse rep. II 49 = Varro l. l. V 157), <page break 239/240> without giving the reason for this accusation; most of the summary reports from more recent authors are just as brief (regnum adfectare as the crime of M. Val. Max. V 3, 2g. Quintil. inst. or. V 9, 13. 13, 24. Auct. de vir. ill. 17, 5. Augustin. civ. dei III 17; suspectus regiae dominationis Flor. I 26, 7; ἐπιθέμενος τυραννίδι Diod. XII 37, 1. Dionys. XII 1, 1; τυραννίδι ἐπικεχείρηκε Zonar. VII 20; τυραννίδα κατασκευαζόμενος Plut. Brut. 1, 2), <10> of which only a few find the grain distributions (largitio Flor.; frumentaria largitio Ampel. 27, 2; quia esurienti multitudini frumenta largitus est Augustin.) and the popularity he gained from that (popularitas Quintil. V 9, 13; ταράττων τὸν δῆμον Plut.) worthy of note. Only Zonaras, Livy, and Dionysios go into more detail. <20> Since the distribution of grain was the basis of his charge, he must have been around during the years of famine, 314 = 440 and 315 = 439; his story begins in Liv. IV 12, 6 with the ‘headlines’ placed at the beginning: annus … insignis seditionibus, fame, regno prope per seditionis dulcedinum accepto (cf. the end of 16, 7). The description of the famine and the fight against it show traits which turn up again in famines of other years, and which were not unimportant for judging the sources. <30> One of the versions from Liv. IV 12, 7 made the plebs responsible for the unhappiness (dulcedine contionum et urbis deserto agrorum cultu … patres plebem desidem accusabant = Zonar. VII 20: οἱ δὲ τοὺς πένητας ὡς τὴν γῆν μὴ βουλομένους ἐργάζεσθαι scil. ἐν αἰτίᾳ πεποίηντο), as earlier in 262 = 492 (II 34, 2: caritas … annonae ex incultis per secessionem plebis agris) and later 342 = 412 (IV 52, 4: inopia frugum neglecto cultu agrorum), <40> and another instead makes the patrician officials responsible, first - in contrast to 262 = 492 (II 34, 3) - the consuls (IV 12, 7: tribuni plebis nunc fraudem nunc neglegentiam consulum accusabant; cf. also Dionys. XII 1, 6: πολλὰ δὲ τοὺς πατρικίους διέβαλλε; Zonaras: οἱ μὲν τοὺς εὐπόρους … ἐν αἰτίᾳ πεποίηντο), then another makes L. Minucius (see his respective article), who had been elected praefectus annonae, responsible, as well as the insufficient measures he took (IV 12, 9-11. Dionys. Zonar.). <50> This last portrayal could, if you look at its characteristics, have come about because of C. Licinius Macer, who Livy clearly takes the evidence of the libri lintei for Minucius’ grain-praefecturate from, (IV 13, 7) and likely also the depiction of the grain purchases in Etruria and Campania (12, 9. 13, 2. Dionys. 1, 2f. 9. Zonar.: σῖτον ἐκ τῆς περιχώρου πριάμενος; cf. vol. XIII p.427, 8ff.; also Schwegler II 366f.). Otherwise, the variances which we find in the detailed reports, <60> and which are noteworthy for an investigation into the sources, are not related to Maelius himself, but to the other characters that turn up in history from 315 = 439; nothing about the man himself has been handed down to us apart from the fact that he stirred up the suspicion of the patricians, and that he was got rid of; all the rest has been added by editors from the time of the Gracchi to the time of Augustus. <page break 240/241> The suggestions of a contrast between this Minucius, who took on a unique extraordinary role to help with the crisis, and Maelius, who made personal sacrifices as a private man through which he helped the suffering people so effectively that he could use the people for whatever he wanted, arise almost entirely by themselves. Even Livy expanded on the suggestion made in his sources - that the praefectus annonae had organised nothing, in contrast to Maelius - <10> to the idea that it was the latter’s competition over rich private supplies which had got in the way of the former’s efforts (13, 2, cf. 15, 6). Like he often did, Dionysios milked this story to death. He found details in his predecessors, eg. the fact that Maelius had sold corn to the large population for a cheaper price, that he gave it to those most in need virtually for free (1, 2; cf. Zonar.), or how high the price of corn had been at the time, and how deep they had supposedly sunk (ibid.; cf. Plin. n. h. XVIII 15); <20> however, Dionysios added in himself the details that M. had bought grain three times over in other countries and imported it to Rome (1, 2f., 9), that every time his popularity had grown (1, 3. 5-7. 9), that every time concern had also arisen about his plans (1, 4. 10). Above all, everything depended on proving Maelius’ guilt. On the topic of his goals, Liv. 14, 3f. says he was going after the consulship, <30> but since this could only be taken from the patricians, who were clinging to their sole power, by means of violence, he would therefore have been going after something greater - a kingship (cf. 15, 4. 6f.); in Dionysios, Maelius’ numerous following is prepared to help him become consul or something even greater (1, 8), and then even the whole group of the common people became prepared (1, 9 E.); however, the latter uniquely adds in Maelius’ public attacks against the patricians in general, and against the praefectus annonae in particular (1, 5-7), <40> from which the issue of the ager publicus (1, 7), through its debate, was instigated in the time of the Gracchi. Charges being raised in the senate against Maelius by Minucius (see there Liv. 12, 8. 13, 8-10. 14, 3. 21, 4. Diosys. 1, 11-14. 2, 1. 3. 5. Zonar. Plin. n. h. XVIII 15. Augustin. civ. dei III 17) belong to the older content of the tradition; Dionysios (1, 12f.) perhaps also modelled the way in which Minucius gathered his evidence together after the discovery of the Catilinarian conspiracy (V 53, 1ff. Schwartz vol. V p. 951, 57ff.). <50> The only thing handed down to us about the charge specifically is that Maelius supposedly hoarded weapons (Liv. 13, 9: tela in domum Maelii conferri = Zonaras: ὅπλα τε ἐπορίσατο, which, since it doesn’t quite fit nicely, was probably added with Greek tyrants in mind: καὶ φρουρούς; cf. the description of Maelius’ following as his φυλακή in Dionsy. 4, 5); <60> since the fact that his followers came to him in his house (Liv. loc. cit.; cf. also Dionys. 3 start) would have justified the accusation of seeking sole rule for the later Romans - who unobjectionably allowed various forms of ambitus - just as little as the many donations of corn. The history of the time of the Gracchi, <page break 241/242> which sought to attack their own political opponents with its depiction of Maelius, looked for evidence for his guilt, but with so little success that they could in contrast have said: falsis criminibus a Minucio circumventum Maelium, which was, of course, put in the mouth of one of Maelius’ contemporaries, and which was rejected again by later editors (quae vaniora … ipso auctore fuere Liv. 21, 3). <10> It was nothing more than what Quintil. inst. or. V 9, 13 sums up neatly: Popularitas signum adfectati regni est existimatum. Either way, the violent end of Maelius, accused of this crime, at the hand of C. Servilius Ahala is historical fact. Apart from Diod. XII 37, 1, who doesn’t name his killer, all the rest of the sources are in agreement: Cic. Cat. I 3; Cato 56 (cf. without mention of Servilius, Mil. 72; Phil. II 87. 114). Liv. IV 14, 1-7. 21, 4 (cf. VI 17, 2. 18, 4. 9). <20> Val. Max. V 3, 2 g (cf. VI 8, 1 c). Quintil. V 13, 24 (cf. III 7, 20). Flor. I 26, 7. Ampel. 27, 2. Auct. de vir. ill. 17, 5. Augustin. civ. dei III 17. Dionys. XII 2, 3-10. 3. 4, 1-5. Plut. Brut. 1, 2. Zonar. (cf. Dio XLV 32, 1). The main difference between the older and more modern tradition was, according to Dionys. XII 4, 2, that one of them was completely unaware of L. Quinctius Cincinnatus’ dictatorship directed against Maelius’ acts, <30> and therefore was also completely unaware that Servilius had killed Maelius as Cincinnatus’ magister equitum. Since an investigation into the accounts has already been given in vol. II A p.1768ff., here only the individual behaviour of Maelius in the accounts needs to be investigated. According to the older report in Dionys. 4, 4f., which stemmed from Cincius Alimentus and Calpurnius Piso, Servilius, tasked by the senate with getting rid of Maelius, confronted Maelius as he was turning back home from the forum, <40> pulled him to one side under the pretence of sharing some secret, and struck him down with the weapon he’d kept secret (similarly Plut. Brut. 1, 2). In contrast to this, according to the more modern sources, he told Maelius in the forum the dictator’s command that he admit his guilt, and promptly punished his resistance against the command with death. In Liv. 14, 1-7, 15, 2, Maelius sought to avoid being arrested by those in office, fled into a densely-packed mob of people, <50> and called upon their sympathy and assistance: haec eum vociferantem adsecutus Ahala Servilius obtruncat respersusque cruore, stipatus caterva patriciorum iuvenum, dictatori renuntiat vocatum ad eum Maelium repulso apparitore concitantem multitudinem poenam meritam habere. In Zonaras, we are presented with a bit of a mix of both versions, since the dictator sends the leader of the cavalry to Maelius ὡς δι’ ἄλλο τι ἐκεῖνον μετακαλούμενος; Maelius however became suspicious <60> and hesitated, the people ran together, and out of fear that the people could get the guilty man out of his punishment, Servilius killed him, ἤ αὐτογνωμονήσας ἤ τοῦτο κεκελευσμένος πρὸς τοῦ δικτάτωρος, in which both of the two versions play in together again. The main report in Dionys. 2, 3-8 (where νεωτέροις ἐπιχειρεῖν πράγμασιν 2, 4 = novis rebus studere [used of Maelius in Cic. Cat. I 3] points towards a Latin original) goes like this (cf. the fragment of the dictator’s speech 3): <page break 242/243> Servilius, accompanied by the most powerful knights who were secretly carrying swords, told Maelius - who, like normal (cf. 1, 5), was sitting on his tribunal[?] - about the dictator’s summons, and when he requested protection in his shock and was asking for more detailed information, they gave him a longer explanation; on the basis of that, Maelius cried loudly for help, <10> and tried to rescue himself by fleeing across the forum to his home, however, he was taken down by the knights, he fell into a butcher’s stand, grabbed a slaughtering knife, wounded his closest pursuer with it, and was finally killed by them as if he were a wild animal. A few characteristics of this story are reminiscent of known episodes - the butcher’s knife is similar to Verginia’s death, and Servilius’ followers is similar to the consul Cicero’s protective crew at the time of the Catilinarian conspiracy. <20> Dionysios, as well as his predecessors, took the colours to paint their fanciful pictures with where they found them, and wanted to add a little more glamour to Maelius’ not so heroic end. Essentially, the decoration of the scene in more modern sources (cf. the setting in Livy Flor. I 26 7: in medio foro and Ampel. 27, 2: in rostris) came about under the influence of the Gracchi-catastrophe. <30> The idea that Maelius’ murder didn’t spell the end of the movement is stated by the secondary source of Liv. 16, 3: Minucium … seditionem motam ex Maeliana caese sedasse invenio; ibid. 5 three tribunes of the plebs are named, who rallied up the people against Minucius and Servilius, and 21, 3f. in the year 318 = 436 a tribune of the plebs Sp. Maelius is introduced, who wanted to hold them both accountable, favore nominis moturum se aliquid ratus. <40> This tribune is, of course, nothing other than a doppelganger of the demagogue (cf. also the statement about the latter 15, 6: cui tribunatus plebis magis optandus quam sperandus fuerit) and could owe his existence to the fact that the events varied between being placed in the year 315 = 439 and in 318 = 436, since none of the original people involved were mentioned in the fasti. More modern accounts also held on to the rallying of the people, <50> and gave the dictator Cincinnatus the role of covering up Maelius’ murder in a large speech to the people (outlined in Liv. 15, 1-8; a fragment from it Dionsy. 3; introduced with δημηγορήσας ibid. 2, 10 E. = Zonar.) with his authority, and of calming down the general uproar; in Dionys. 4, 1 he nevertheless had a few of the more stubborn troublemakers in Maelius’ following quietly eliminated (ἀφανεῖ θανάτῳ διαχρησάμενος), <60> while, according to Zonaras, he μή τινα ἕτερον ἤ κολάσας ἤ ἐπαιτιασάμενος τὸν θόρυβον ἔπαυσε. In contrast to this more or less late addition, we have the rest of another antiquated account which is independent to the annals, found in the references to the aequimelium, the levelled spot of Maelius’ torn down house: Cic. de domo 101. Varro l.l. V 157. Liv. 15, 8. 16, 1. Val. Max. VI 3, 1 c. Quintil. III 7, 20. Auct. de vir. ill. 17, 5. Dionys. 4, 6; cf. Mommsen R. Forsch. II 202f., 106. vol. I p. 598. III p. 1536f. <page break 243/244> If you want to distill the whole story about Maelius into its oldest and simplest version solely from this topographical standpoint, it would be an impermissible over-valuation of the worth of aetiological myths; they help to built up tradition, but find their basis in remembering previous times. cf. also nr. 4. <10>
supposedly tribune of the plebs 318 = 426, who took it upon himself to avenge nr. 2 of the same name who was murdered in the year 315 = 439 (Liv. IV 21, 3f.), is in reality not to be differentiated from him (see there).
Sp. f. C. n., military tribune by consular force 354 = 400 and 358 = 396. In the fasti cap., in the first year his full name is preserved, <20> and in the second its end, its cognomen, and his number; Diod. XIV 47, 1 and 90, 1 call him in both instances Πόπλιος Μαίλος; Liv. V 12, 10 calls that of the first year P. Maelius, but in 18, 2 calls the second P. Maenius, though does make the claim that the entire collegium of the first year had been elected again. Of course, this claim doesn’t add up for two other tribunes, though for this one it is probably only because of a corruption in the mss. <30> Livy’s claim for the first year that Maelius, just as all his colleagues apart from P. Licinius Calvus (see vol. XIII p. 234f.), was a patrician, is a careless mistake (cf. on this Schwegler R. G. III 149-151). The consular tribune was seen as the son of the man of the people, nr. 2, who was murdered in the year 315 = 439, and had his name from his apartment on the slope of the Capitoline.
[Münzer]
This article is referenced by: M. Manlius Capitolinus (51)
Previous article: Lyssa
Next article: C. Mamilius Limetanus (7)