M. Manlius Capitolinus 51

vol. XIV p.1167-1174

51) M. Manlius Capitolinus

<60> For the history of this man, Schwegler Röm. Gesch. III 256-260. 284-300 has brought together and worked through the material with an exhaustive thoroughness; however, Mommsen Röm. Forsch. II 179-199 first sorted the various parts of the tradition according to age, origin, and value. Pais Storia critica di Roma III 59-65 describes no progress, and Barbagallo (Riv. di filol. XL 216-245. 411-437) on the whole describes a step back, <page break 1167/1168> though in a few cases he justifiably defends the tradition against overly harsh critique.

The cognomen Capitolinus is associated so particularly tightly to this Manlius and finds such a justification in his history that in antiquity, they had the idea that he earned it himself personally, <10> and in more modern time, they had the opposite idea that it spurred people on to invent his actions. In his account of the rescue of the Capitoline, Livy says nothing about the epithet (V 47, 7f.), though before it when he first mentions Manlius (V 31, 2), he calls him a consul M. Manlius, cui Capitolino postea fuit cognomen, and in the story of his end, he clearly plays on this name (VI 17, 5); his acquisition of the name is attested in detail in Auct. de vir. ill. 24, 1. Plut. Cam. 36, 2. Zonar. VII 24 (cf. Dio frg. 24, 9 Melb. from Tzetze [not in Boiss.]). <20> The late emergence of this claim is enough to refute it. In the fasti of the first one and a half centuries of the republic, the name Capitolinus turns up for Maelii (see there nr. 4), Quinctii, Sestii (see there nr. 9), Tarpeii, and even for a Manlius too along with Vulso (nr. 100), and otherwise, it turns up on its own a whole generation before Manlius (nr. 49 and 50), and it turns up within his generation with nr. 48 and 52, <30> the latter of which must have been his cousin, according to the filiation contained in the Fasti Cap. The cognomen, then, had already been used by the grandfather of these two contemporaries at the latest, it had been hereditary in the family even before Manlius, and was also still used after him (cf. nr. 54 and 53), until it was replaced by other names. Just like many other similar cognomina (cf. Mommsen 291), it was taken from a place where people lived inside the city of Rome; <40> and it’s the tradition about Manlius which gives us the unambiguous evidence for this, since it states that the family had lived in their house on the Capitoline hill up until that point (see below); that the cognomen disappeared when the house did is an idea linked closely with this. According to Fasti Cap., Manlius was T. f. A. n., and according to Liv. VI 20, 2 he had two brothers, out of which one, who is otherwise unknown, had the praenomen of their father (nr. 36), and the other had the praenomen of their grandfather (nr. 9); <50> this brother is recorded in the Fasti of the same year again, but without a cognomen. The overall presentation of Manlius had always contained the fact that he wasn’t only amazing because of his noble heritage, but also because of his bravery and competence. Claud. Quadrig. I frg. 7 Peter in Gell. XVII 2, 14 gives the key words: is et genere et vi et virtute bellica nemini concedebat; to this, in frg. 8 in Gell. ibid. 13, he adds further personal merits of Manlius himself. <60> When they do not mention Manlius becoming consul here and elsewhere, it must be deliberate, because his mere single time in office didn’t seem to compare so well with Manlius’ abundance of splendid characteristics or to the high and numerous honours of his peers, especially Camillus, which means that Manlius’ dissatisfaction and ambition could be justified. <page break 1168/1169> His patrician heritage only needed to be mentioned for the sake of pointing out the opposite, because it stood for the plebeian-friendly attitude of Manlius (Liv. VI, 11, 2. 7. 20, 3. Appian. Ital. 9. Dio frg. 26, 2); but his competence in war wasn’t only expressed with general terms (Liv. V 47, 4: vir bello egregius. VI 11, 1: inclitae famae. Diod. XIV 116, 6: ἔνδοξος ἀνήρ Plut. Cam. 27, 4. Dio frg. 26, 2), <10> but is shown in a way that results in a whole backstory and honourable legacy for Manlius (Liv. VI 20, 7f. Plin. n. h. VII 103. XVI 14. Vir. ill. 24, 2): at the age of sixteen, he voluntarily served in the army and won two spolia (Plin. Vir. ill.; a historical counterpart vol. I p. 552 nr. 64. Röm. Adelsparteien 172), in total, he robbed about thirty killed enemies of their arms (Liv.), <20> he received thirty seven gifts of honour (Plin. Vir. ill.; ad quadraginta Liv.), including various coronae murales and coronae civicae (Liv. and Plin., differing from each other), and was wounded twenty three times, always from the front (Plin. Vir. ill.; without numbers Liv.); amongst other things, he saved the life of a magister equitum C. Servilius (according to Liv., on the other hand P. Servilius Plin. VII 103, dux Servilius XVI 14), who was clearly Ahala in the year 365 = 389 (vol. II A p.1767 nr. 22. p. 1772 nr. 34), <30> where, however, the annals don’t report anything to agree with that. Mommsen (185f.), justly, describes ‘the whole story as a late addition, probably invented from his house onwards, as it is told in Livy, for Manlius’ defence speech’; however, as Pliny shows, it is also a story deeply embedded in ancient literature, probably spread around by Varro, and therefore cannot have been too new; perhaps it doesn’t ultimately trace back to some orator’s desires, <40> but instead to the Manlian family itself, who later counted Manlius as one of their famous ancestors with pride, despite his conviction (cf. Cic. Sulla 27; from this also Verg. Aen. VIII 652), and who put more emphasis on his mitigating circumstances through the number of his honourable titles (made its opposite in Liv. VI 20, 5; on ibid. 8: nudasse pectus insigne cicatricibus bello acceptis as a historical counterpart vol. II p.325, 34ff.). <50>

In the year 362 = 392, Manlius was consul with L. Valerius Potitus. In the Fasti Cap., nothing is recorded about their names other than: M. Manlius T. f. A. n.; the fact that the cognomen Capitolinus followed them is known from the Chronogr. Hydat. Chron. Pasch.; Liv. V 31, 2 (from this Cassiod.) names Manlius as a consul with a full name (see above) and describes him later (V 47, 4. VI 17, 3) as a consul, which Dionys. XIII 8, 1 and Plut. Cam. 27, 4 also do; <60> with this in mind, the variant first name of the consul of 362 = 392 Τίτος Μάλλιος Καπιτωλίνος is just a mistake. Otherwise, Diod. XIV 103, 1 and XV 14, 1 name him Αὖλος Μάλλιος in XIV 116, 6, and bring up Μάρκος τις Μάλλιος ἔνδοξος ἀνήρ the saviour of the Capitoline like a character who hasn’t yet been named, but that isn’t enough to reject the dominant tradition with Mommsen (179 to 181), <page break 1169/1170> but instead it was rather one of the many oversights in Diodorus (cf. Beloch Röm. Gesch. 320f.). The annals’ reports about the year 362 = 392 in Liv. V 31, 2. 4 and Diod. XIV 106, 4 agree on the fact that both consuls celebrated the ludi magni, and won a victory over the Aequi (on this, cf. Mommsen 51, 16. 180, 54. Beloch 294); <10> these are the facts which partially justify Manlius’ undoubted reputation, though the rest, like the triumph of Valerius and the ovatio of Manlius (Liv.) should be done away with. The fact that Liv. VI 5, 6 names Manlius (with his full name) as the first interrex in the year 367 = 387 is used by Beloch (27ff. 320) as evidence for his consulship being genuine, but it is, at any rate, ‘of little importance’ (Mommsen 186). <20> The tradition about him saving the Capitoline, and that about his plots and his downfall which have made the name of Manlius immortal, are independent from the fasti; both are so old and so fixed that something factual must lie at their core.

The famous story about the attack on the Capitoline in the year 364 = 390 (according to the usual date, 367 = 387 according to the correct dating) says that the Gauls scaled the steep slope one night unnoticed, <30> until the geese of Juno woke the guards from their sleep with their honking; Manlius was the first to come running, and pushed the first of the enemy, who had just reached the summit, off down into the deep, and with this he got rid of the huge danger in the blink of an eye. The most detailed extant accounts are Liv. V 47, 1-8 (cf. VI 11, 4. 14, 4. 15, 11. 16, 2. 17, 4. 20, 9. 12. 16. VII 10, 3. XXXVIII 17, 9). Diod. XIV 116, 6. Dionys. XIII 8, 1f. (cf. XIV 4). Plut. Cam. 27, 3-5 (cf. 36, 2. 6f.; fort. Rom. 12), <40> out of which the Greeks describe Manlius’ actual action a little differently and more broadly than Livy does, who was probably abridging it; more succinct versions and mentions are in Claud. Quadrig. frg. 7 in Gell. XVII 2, 14. Cic. de domo 101. Verg. Aen. VIII 652 and Serv. see there St. Ovid. fasti VI 185 Val. Max. VI 3, 1a. Plin. n. h. VII 103. Flor. I 7, 13-15. 19. 17, 26, 8. Gell. XVII 2, 14. 21, 24. Vir. ill. 24, 3-5. Fest. ep. 125. 151. Appian. Ital. 9. Dio frg. 26, 2 (cf. also 24, 9 Melb. from Tzetzes [not in Boiss.] and Zonar. VII 24, who left out Manlius’ names in 23). <50> Irrelevant additions are Flor. I 7, 13: iuventus … duce Manlio arcem … insedit (cf. 15f.: Manlis … panes ab arce iaculatus est et … Fabium pontificem ab arce dimisit following Liv. V 46, 2f. 48, 4 and elsewhere) and Vir. ill. 24, 3: auctor in Capitolium confugiendi fuit, just as ibid. 5: domum etiam in Capitolio accepit (following Liv. V 47, 8 and elsewhere [see below]). <60> On the other hand, there is an older facet to the tradition: that every man of the crew brought half a pound of spelt and a quarter measure of wine from their own scant provisions to honour Manlius (Liv. V 47, 7f. VI 17, 4. Dionys. XIII 8, 2. Plut. Cam. 27, 6. Vir. ill. 24, 5. Serv. Aen. VIII 652. cf. Appian. Ital. 9: τιμῶν μεγίστων ἠξιώθη). This story didn’t go through any noteworthy development; <page break 1170/1171> only the Gauls’ undertaking has any traces of differing accounts, not their defeat by Manlius (cf. Mommsen 326f.). It can be conceded that his actions were not historical fact, but instead legend; but it’s hardly probable that it is nothing more than an aetiological myth (Barbagallo 412, 2. 421, 1) ‘spun out from the cognomen Capitolinus’ (Beloch 321; both following Mommsen 184), <10> because in light of the simple and certain fact that Manlius had a house on the Capitoline, there was no reason to seek out and invent another explanation for the cognomen.

The story about Manlius’ downfall also has an old and plausible core. The story in Liv. VI 11, 2-12, 1. 14, 1-20, 16 under the years 369 = 385 and 370 = 384 goes into the most detail and is the most embellished, <20> the shortest and simplest is in Diod. XV 35, 3 on the year 369 = 385: Μάρκος Μάλλιος ἐπιβολόμενος τυραννίδι καὶ κρατηρεὶς ἀνῃρέθη. His accusation of going after regal power, and the punishment of this crime with death, was just as familiar to Cicero and ancient literature as it was to the historians, which means that combining Manlius with Spurius Cassius and Spurius Maelius was obvious (Cic. rep. II 49; Phil. II 87. 114. Liv. VI 17, 2. 18, 4. 9; only with Maelius Quintilian. III 7, 20. V 9, 13). <30> The accusation of going after single rule is raised in Cic. Sulla 27 (cf. Schol. Bob. z. d. St. 363 Or. = 80 St.); de domo 101; Phil. II 114; rep. II 49; ep. ad Corn. Nep. frg. 4. from Ammian. XXI 16, 13. Liv. VI 18, 16. 19, 7. 20, 4. Ovid. fasti VI 189. Val. Max. VI 3, 1a. Plin. n. h. VII 103. Quintilian. inst. or. V 9, 13. Gell. XVII 21, 24. Fest. ep. 125. 151. Serv. Aen. VIII 652. Vir. ill. 24, 4. Ampel. 27, 4. Dionys. XIV 4. Plut. Cam. 36, 3; quaest. Rom. 91. Dio frg. 25, 4 Melb. = p. 83 Boiss. Zonar. VII 24. <40> When Liv. VI 20, 4 is surprised: quae praeter coetus multitudinis seditiosasque voces et largitionem et fallax indicium pertinentia proprie ad regni crimen ab accusatoribus obiecta sint reo, apud neminem auctorem invenio, it seems that the points brought up were enough for his predecessors to conclusively found the charge; his own description of Manlius’ deeds as a seditio (VI 11, 1. 2. 8. 14, 1. 16, 6. 7. 17, 6. 18, 1; cf. with it eg. vol. II A p.1417, 32ff.) is almost evidence itself for the accused man’s guilt. Since the battle between patricians and plebs, according to the views the ancients spread around, primarily revolved around the improvement of the plebs’ place in society, then Manlius, just like Sp. Cassius and Sp. Maelius, was seen as a leader of the plebs in this battle. The Greek stories about tyranny provided analogies, <60> and may have had an impact on the shape tradition took. (Likely borrowings from Greek history elsewhere; cf. eg. Liv. VI 18, 5f. with Xen. hell. III 3, 5.) The fact that Manlius freed put-upon plebs from their pressing obligations (in general especially Liv. VI 20, 6 [Flor. I 17, 26, 8. Ampel. 27, 4. Vir. ill. 24, 5. Plut. Cam. 36, 3] and for a significant individual case 14, 3-8 [Appian. Ital. 9]) must have been one of the oldest parts of the whole story; <page break 1171/1172> this is how an esteemed and wealthy man could have easily gathered a following around him necessary for a coup (cf. as an example from another time and another people the chief of the Helvetii Orgetorix in Caes. bell. Gall. I 3, 6. 4, 2). The idea that Manlius had planned social and economic reforms for the benefit of the plebs was then expanded upon, <10> influenced by later pushes in this direction (Liv. VI 11, 8f. 15, 10 and elsewhere, even harsher Appian. Ital. 9. On the term for Manlius as parens plebis Liv. VI 14, 5 and patronus plebis 18, 14 cf. as well as Vir. ill. 24, 5 the patrocinium faeneratorum adversus plebem Liv. VI 15, 8 and similar cases in later times like vol. VI p.1828, 60ff. XIII p.857, 43ff. 866, 3ff.). <20> The comparison between Manlius and his celebrated peer and contemporary M. Furius Camillus was comparatively old and actually rather obvious (Claud. Quadrig. frg. 7 in Gell. XVII 2. 14. Cic. ad Corn. Nep. frg. 4 in Ammian. XXI 16, 13. Philiskos on Cicero in Dio XXXVIII 27, 3); he served as a basis for the embellishment of Manlius’ motives and other small details (Liv. VI 11, 3-6. Flor. I 7, 19. Plut. Cam. 36, 2f. Zonar. VII 24), as has already been noted in vol. VII p.341f. The idea there, refuted by Barbagallo (219f.), <30> that differences between later Manlii and Furii are reflected in tradition, has been taken on by Pais (Storia critica di Roma III 63), though hasn’t been made more probable. A common thread in the stories of similar coups is the occupation of the citadel, and this turned up in Manlius insofar as his house was actually on the Capitoline; <40> however, in Liv. it is only mentioned VI 19, 1: senatus de secessione in domum privatum plebis, forte etiam in arce positam … agitat, and is first in Dio frg. 26, 2 (τὸ Καπετώλιον ….. κατέλαβεν ἐπὶ τυραννίδι) and following that in Zonar. VII 24 (παραλαβὸν οὖν αὐτὸν τὸ πλῆθος ἀνήγαγεν εἰς τὸ Καπιτώλιον. καὶ κατέσχον αὐτό) it is used in the way we would expect. In Zonaras, however, a daft story is connected with this occupation of the Capitoline, in which Manlius is outwitted by a traitorous slave and is delivered into the hands of his enemy, in order to be put on trial by them. <50> Following this, Manlius’ legal charge was also an unchanging fact for the author of this version, which means that his account can be seen as him trying to balance out two stories that differ at their core. One of these handles Manlius’ actions as a violent uprising, which was also cut down violently. This is only found in its purest form in one word in Diod. XV 35, 3, <60> which says that Manlius κρατηθεὶς ἀνῃρέθη, ‘was overwhelmed and killed’; Schwegler (R. G. III 298, 1) compared this term with that in Diod. XI 37, 7 used of Sp. Cassius: δόξας ἐπιθέσθαι τυραννίδι καὶ κτταγνωσθεὶς ἀνῃρέθη, and with this Barbagallo’s (225f.) whole endeavour to shake any meaning and deny any difference between Diodorus and the tradition of the common people is sorted out. <page break 1172/1173> But, of course, Diodorus alone stands in contrast to all the rest of tradition about Manlius’ end, and therefore the answer to which of them should be given precedence comes about from whether you want to attribute an age and a credibility to Diorodus’ accounts of ancient Roman history in general, which all other sources fall far short from. <10> This matter must be left open here. The second view of Manlius’ calamity is brought up by all other reporters other than Diodorus, that being the view that Manlius’ death followed on from his legal condemnation. When, for example, Cicero Phil. II 87. 114 speaks briefly about the three legendary demagogues Sp. Cassius, Sp. Maelius, and Manlius, and says that they were killed (necati), much earlier he only attributed legal trials to Manlius (de domo 101: regnum adpetisse est iudicatus), <20> and this is also only said of Manlius in Fest. ep. 125: necatus est, but 151: damnatus necatusque est. His formal condemnation is briefly mentioned in ancient literature (Ovid. fasti VI 189: damnatus. Gell. XVII 21, 24: damnatus capitis. Serv. Aen. VIII 652: a populo damnatus), but it is handled in detail by the historians. The distribution of the events across two years lead to a duplication of the trial: <30> in the year 369 = 385, a dictator first intervened against Manlius’ undertakings, and he was put into prison, but then let free (Liv. VI 15, 1-17, 6. Vir. ill. 24, 5. Plut. Cam. 36, 4). Here, a few traits of his surroundings stand out, like Manlius’ amazing claim that the patricians would have consciously withheld stolen riches from the Gauls (Liv. VI 14, 11-15, 13. 17, 3. Vir. ill. 24, 5), <40> and the comment emphasised by Liv. VI 16, 4 with satis constat that the plebs would have been affected by grief after Manlius’ arrest, for the most part (just as Plut. Cam. 36, 4. Compare Liv. IX 46, 12 from old tradition, see vol. VI p.2527, 33ff.). Manlius’ final trial was held in the year 370 = 384, <50> and here the scene in which the Capitoline’s saviour couldn’t be tried in sight of the Capitoline stands at the focal point (Liv. VI 20, 5: cum damnandi mora plebi non in causa, sed in loco fuerit. 9-11. Vir. ill. 24, 6. Dionys. XIV 4. Plut. Cam. 36, 6f. Dio 25, 4. Melb. from Tzetzes = p.83 Boiss. Zonar. VII 24). A later addition is the so-called senatusconsultum ultimum which was first introduced in the time of the Gracchi in Liv. VI 19, 3 (cf. Plaumann Klio XIII 375f.). About the consequences of the trial, Liv. VI 20, 12 says: sunt qui per duumviros, qui de perduellione anquirerent, creatos auctores sint damnatum, <60> while in his main report VI 19, 5ff. he has two tribunes of the plebs raise the charge before the popular assembly, and after inserting this variation, he brings him to his end: tribuni de saxo Tarpeio deiecerunt; locusque idem in uno homine et eximiae gloriae monumentum et poenae ultimae fuit (cf. 16). Two different reports are also told in Gell. XVII 21, 24 (on this, cf. Leuze Rhein. Mus. LXVI 254): damnatus capitis e saxo Tarpeio, ut M. Varro ait (ann. frg. 2 Peter), praeceps datus, ut Cornelius autem Nepos scriptum reliquit (chron. frg. 5 Peter), verberando necatus est. <page break 1173/1174> Nepos’ view goes together with Livy’s side-story, and Varro’s view goes together with his main report, as well as with the general view of what happened (Val. Max. VI 3, 1 a. Flor. I 17, 26, 8. Ampel. 27, 4. Vir. ill. 24, 6. Dionys. XIV 4. Plut. Cam. 36, 8. Dio frg. 26, 2. 3. XLV 32, 1. Zonar. VII 24), <10> which don’t pass up on Livy’s powerful conclusion (locusque idem in uno homine) (amongst others, it turns up twice in Plut. and Zon. each). The other and better portrayal of the trial is the one offered by Livy’s second source (cf. Mommsen 193-195; Strafr. 932, 4 see also vol. V p.1799); though perhaps both of the different versions aren’t so incompatible, as is mostly assumed (cf. Barbagallo 423ff.). <20> The son of 57 also has whipping especially emphasised for him (see there).

After the conviction and execution of Manlius followed this sequence of events, which tarnished his reputation for all time even after his death: first, the Roman people decided that his house on the Capitoline should be destroyed, <30> and that in the future no patricians should be allowed to live there anymore (Cic. de domo 101. Liv. VI 20, 13. VII 19, 1. 28, 5. Ovid. fasti VI 185. Val. Max. VI 3m 1 a. Vir. ill. 24, 6. Plut. Cam. 36, 9; quaest. Rom. 91. Dio frg. 26, 1; on this, the seizure of Manlius’ assets Vir. ill. Dio); secondly, the Manlii family decided that none of its members would ever be allowed to bear the name Marcus again (Cic. Phil. I 32. Liv. VI 20, 14. Fest. ep. 125. 151. Quintilian. III 7, 20. Vir. ill. 24, 6. Dio frg. 26, 1; generalised Gell. IX 2, 11 [though see also Suet. Tib. 1, 2]). <40> It is clear that these accounts are based on a specific recollection of real events, and belong to the oldest part of the tradition, which is why it is just as well known to Cicero and the ancient tradition as it is to the annalistic. The fact that it doesn’t turn up in Diodorus has been justifiably used to suggest that another version of events, independent of these ones, was also preserved (Sigwart Klio VI 346f.). <50> Manlius’ judgement varies in Livy and elsewhere, between praise and criticism; there could neither be a patriotic nor a party-political bias (traces of these eg. Quintilian. V 9, 13; popularitas signum adfectati regni est existimatum [cf. Liv. VI 11, 7. 20, 3]. Serv. Aen. VIII 652: inimicorum oppressus factione [cf. Liv. VI 17, 2. 18, 8]) which would easily paint this character as good or bad [lit. paint this character black, or wash it white]; <60> there was a particular danger in the fact that the main points of his life story were handed down as plausible.

([Schluss.])

This article is referenced by: A. Manlius (9), T. Manlius (36)