Frontinus: de Aquaeductu Urbis Romae 9780521832519, 9780511193903, 0511193904, 0521832519

Table of contents :
COVER......Page 1
HALF-TITLE......Page 3
TITLE......Page 5
COPYRIGHT......Page 6
DEDICATION......Page 7
CONTENTS......Page 9
TABLES......Page 11
MAPS......Page 12
PREFACE......Page 13
I SEX. JVLIVS FRONTINVS......Page 19
Its date......Page 23
Its content and form......Page 26
Its audience and purpose......Page 30
The curator aquarum and the emperor......Page 32
The sources......Page 38
III LANGUAGE AND STYLE......Page 39
Lexicon of water quality......Page 41
Formulaic presentation......Page 42
Rhetorical style......Page 45
The Middle Ages......Page 48
Poggio’s quest......Page 49
The Codex Hersfeldensis......Page 52
The Codex Casinensis and Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino......Page 55
The manuscript tradition prior to C......Page 62
The recentiores......Page 64
V EDITIONS AND COMMENTARIES......Page 70
VI EDITORIAL CONVENTIONS AND THE APPARATUS CRITICUS......Page 76
TEXT......Page 81
SIGLA......Page 82
IVLII FRONTINI DE AQVAEDVCTV VRBIS ROMAE......Page 83
COMMENTARY......Page 137
INSCRIPTION AND TITLE......Page 139
APPENDIX A POGGIO’S USE OF THE DE AQVAEDVCTV......Page 355
APPENDIX B INSCRIPTIONS PERTINENT TO FRONTINUS’ TEXT......Page 357
APPENDIX C THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF REACHING AN EXACT VALUE FOR THE ROMAN QUINARIA MEASURE......Page 360
1 SELECTED EDITIONS OF DE AQUAEDUCTU (IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)......Page 378
2 TRANSLATIONS......Page 379
3 ABBREVIATIONS......Page 380
4 OTHER WORKS......Page 382
LITERARY AND EPIGRAPHICAL CITATIONS......Page 422
INDEX......Page 431

Citation preview

This page intentionally left blank

CAMBRIDGE CLASSICAL TEXTS A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

 J. D I G G L E N. H O P K I N S O N M . D. R E E V E D. N. S E D L E Y

J. G. F. P O W E L L R . J. TA R R A N T

 F RO N T I N U S : D E A Q UA E D U C T U U R B I S RO M A E

F RO N T I N U S D E A Q UA E D U C T U U R B I S RO M A E E D I T E D W I T H I N T RO D U C T I O N A N D C O M M E N TA RY BY

R . H . RO D G E R S Professor of Classics, The University of Vermont

   Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521832519 © Cambridge University Press 2004 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published in print format 2004 - -

---- eBook (ebrary) --- eBook (ebrary)

- -

---- hardback --- hardback

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of s for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate.

TO H E R B E RT B L O C H

CONTENTS page ix x xi

List of tables List of maps Preface            I Sex. Julius Frontinus II The De Aquaeductu Its date Its content and form Its audience and purpose The curator aquarum and the emperor The sources III Language and style Lexicon of water quality Formulaic presentation Rhetorical style IV The textual tradition The Middle Ages Poggio’s quest The Codex Hersfeldensis The Codex Casinensis and Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino The manuscript tradition prior to C The recentiores V Editions and commentaries VI Editorial conventions and the apparatus criticus

    

                                       

  

       

 vii

               

CONTENTS

 A Poggio’s use of the De Aquaeductu B Inscriptions pertinent to Frontinus’ text C The impossibility of reaching an exact value for the Roman quinaria measure, by Christer Bruun, University of Toronto

  

References  Selected editions of De Aquaeductu  Translations  Abbreviations  Other works

    

Literary and epigraphical citations Index

 

viii



TA B L E S  Lengths of the aqueducts (Chapters –)  Fractions  Small adjutages relative to the quinaria (Chapter .–)  Pipe-sizes (Chapters –)  Quinariae assigned to the various aqueducts (Chapters –)  Categories of distribution (Chapter )  Castella and distributions (Chapters –)  Distribution by aqueduct (extra urbem) (Chapters –)  Distribution by aqueduct (intra urbem) (Chapters –)  Distribution by regiones (Chapters –)  Curatores aquarum (Chapter )

ix

page           

MAPS 

Extra-urban routes of the ancient aqueducts based on Peter Aicher’s Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (), with permission of Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc. page   Routes of the aqueducts within Rome based on Harry Evans’ Water Distribution in Ancient Rome: The Evidence of Frontinus (), with permission of the University of Michigan Press   Settling-tanks near the seventh milestone 

x

P R E FA C E Par tibi, Roma, nihil, cum sis prope tota ruina; quam magni fueris integra, fracta doces. . . . non tamen annorum series, non flamma, nec ensis ad plenum potuit hoc abolere decus. Hildebert of Lavardin, c.  

Metropolitan Rome, the domina orbis, can to this day point with especial pride to one of the gems in her imperial crown: a copious, ever-flowing supply of public water. And beginning at least with Strabo, visitors to the Eternal City have not failed to admire the architectural grandeur of the aqueducts. ‘Der sch¨one große Zweck, ein Volk zu tr¨anken durch eine so ungeheure Anstalt!’ wrote Goethe in November . ‘Diese Menschen arbeiteten f¨ur die Ewigkeit, es war auf alles kalkuliert, nur auf den Unsinn der Verw¨uster nicht, dem alles weichen mußte.’ In the year   Julius Frontinus was appointed by the emperor Nerva to the post of curator aquarum for the City of Rome. Frontinus exemplifies the ideal of a high-ranking senator who works closely with his prince in service to the commonwealth. He sees the aqueducts under his charge as monuments of Roman greatness, for their practical value more wonderful even than the fabled pyramids. In the present booklet, De Aquaeductu Urbis Romae, Frontinus sets forth his duties, responsibilities and accomplishments during approximately one year in office as curator. By the time he is writing, Nerva has died and Rome awaits the arrival of the new emperor Trajan, in whose accession Frontinus himself seems to have played no small role. Our author sketches the history of Rome’s aqueducts, furnishes a wealth of technical data on supply and delivery, quotes verbatim from legal documents and touches on a variety of other topics incidental to his administrator’s viewpoint. Yet he is not composing a treatise on the engineering of aqueducts, he barely concerns himself with fiscal aspects of management, nor does xi

PREFACE

he compile what might comprise a comprehensive administrative manual of use to a successor. Scholars who are grateful for such information as he provides are nonetheless prone to consult this text rather than to read it. Frontinus, in consequence, has been alternatively under-rated and over-rated both as a technical writer and as an administrator. In plain truth we do not surely understand what purpose he might have intended for the De Aquaeductu and the work remains something of an enigma. Nothing quite like it is known, let alone survives, from the ancient world. This edition of the De Aquaeductu is the first in eighty years to be based on the single authoritative witness, that sadly blemished exemplar which Poggio discovered at Monte Cassino in . ‘Authors surviving in a solitary MS. are by far the easiest to edit,’ wrote Housman. ‘They are the easiest, and for a fool they are the safest.’ But since Fritz Krohn in , no editor has chosen the easy pathway of reliance on this unique manuscript, for all have been misled in vain attempts to retrieve an independent tradition amongst its fifteenth-century progeny. From the starting-point of the Codex Casinensis there is progress still to be made, I believe, especially by taking into account the idiosyncrasies of its twelfth-century scribe, Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino, a man notorious for literary affectation but nonetheless an intriguing figure in the long process by which classical antiquity was rediscovered and appreciated. No full commentary on the De Aquaeductu has been written since Giovanni Poleni’s masterpiece of , and the task is a daunting one – not least because his credentials were those of a hydraulic engineer and professor of mathematics. In the words of the late Pierre Grimal, ‘Plus que nul autre texte, le trait´e de Frontin impose a` l’´editeur une compr´ehension minutieuse de chaque mot, chaque phrase, et oblige de d´epasser la critique verbale pure et simple pour saisir les realia.’ Indeed, the realia of which he speaks are themselves richly varied. They encompass not only the stuff of history, archaeology and technology but extend to such matters as the exacting details of Roman law xii

PREFACE

and the intricacies of fractions in Roman arithmetical computation. Under such circumstances, a commentator may perhaps be forgiven superficiality of a sort on the one hand and a certain speculative latitude on the other. I have done what I could to give appropriate attention to content and interpretation as well as to text and language. My engagement with the text of Frontinus began a quarter century ago in conjunction with a seminar in Latin epigraphy at the University of California, Berkeley, in , and the initial stages of my work were supported by grants from that university’s Committee on Research and from the American Philosophical Society. I profited enormously from the resources of the Harvard College Library during a term as Visiting Lecturer in , and in  I enjoyed the congenial hospitality of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Michigan. The edition and commentary took on a preliminary form during the year –, the period for which I was honoured to be a John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Fellow. The Foundation’s generosity made possible a trip to Italy in May , with the opportunity for study in the Vatican Library and to re-examine the codex unicus in the abbey library at Monte Cassino. As a Fellow in Byzantine Studies at Dumbarton Oaks in  I discovered that the architecture and topography of Rome constitute an unadvertised strength of its library. In the final throes of preparation I received welcome subsidy for cartographic assistance from the dean’s fund for professional development in the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Vermont. To all these institutions, and to the supportive band of colleagues and friends who comprise them, I express sincere and lasting gratitude. Both text and commentary are by their very nature tralaticious endeavours, and far beyond reckoning are the debts I owe to my predecessors. That I specially admire the accomplishments of Poleni and B¨ucheler should be apparent on every page of this edition, and to the loving labours of Thomas Ashby I have felt the keenest attraction. The bibliography will reveal some at least of the crucial help I have garnered from women and men who xiii

PREFACE

represent an extensive range of scholarly expertise over a period of more than five centuries. Of closer friends those to whom I can no longer render thanks in person include Arthur and Joyce Gordon, Peter Marshall, George Goold and John D’Arms. For help and support of various sorts over many years I respectfully acknowledge Crawford Greenewalt Jr, W. Kendrick Pritchett, Richard Thomas, John Humphrey, Bruce Frier, Ruth Scodel, Christina Kraus, John Peter Oleson, James Clauss, Robert Arns, Andrea Salgado, Francis Newton, Z. Philip Ambrose, Peter Aicher, William Mierse, Jane Chaplin, Jacques Bailly, Cyrus Rodgers, Audrey Hunt, Eleanor Rodgers, Jonathan Huener and Lutz Kaelber. Among those who patiently criticised discrete parts of this work I owe special thanks to Charles Murgia, Harry Evans, Trevor Hodge, Michael Crawford, Christer Bruun, Rabun Taylor, Roger Cooke and Michael Peachin. It goes without saying that none of these persons is responsible for any follies in which I have persisted. Helena Fracchia and Maurizio Gualtieri accompanied me on pleasant outings among the remains of the aqueducts and will attest that I was totally unprepared for their breathtaking majesty. Don Faustino Avagliano, librarian and archivist, graciously received me on two separate visits to Monte Cassino. Long and pleasant hours were spent in great libraries at Harvard, Ann Arbor and Berkeley; in many cases I found rewarding resources in their numerous branches, notably the Houghton Library at Harvard and the Bancroft Library at Berkeley. Amongst individual librarians, I am specially indebted to Irene Vaslef and Mark Zapatka (Dumbarton Oaks), Jean Hannon (Harvard Law School) and Luminita Florea (Robbins Collection, Boalt Hall, Berkeley). My own library at the University of Vermont has proudly maintained a strong collection in classical studies; for books not available here I am grateful to Connell Gallagher in Special Collections for an occasional purchase, and to Nancy Rosedale, Lisa King, Barbara Lamonda and Daryl Purvee in the interlibrary loan department for constant labours on my behalf. xiv

PREFACE

The map showing the extra-urban courses of Rome’s aqueducts is based upon a similar map in Peter Aicher’s Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome (), with permission of BolchazyCarducci Publishers, Inc. That for the network within the City is based upon one appearing in Harry Evans’ Water Distribution in Ancient Rome: The Evidence of Frontinus (), with permission of the University of Michigan Press. For expert cartographic modifications to these and for the map showing piscinae I acknowledge the cheerful collaboration of my colleague Lesley-Ann DupignyGiroux. It was a welcome relief when Christer Bruun agreed to let me include his discussion on the value of the quinaria (appearing here as Appendix C), for it spared me the frustrating task of covering the same dreary ground. Professor Michael Reeve has awaited the final version of this book with far more patience than I deserve. For his careful scrutiny, gentle corrections and wise suggestions I am more grateful than I can say. Staff of the Cambridge University Press have been consistently helpful: among those who merit special thanks are commissioning editors Pauline Hire and Michael Sharp and production editors Neil de Cort and Alison Powell. Copy-editor Linda Woodward bent to her task with a singular diligentia by which she has deserved well of Frontinus. My wife Barbara Saylor Rodgers has had to hear all of my thoughts from their first tentative expressions, for I rely constantly upon her ability as an historian and a Latinist. Her steady encouragement has been, I hope, to good effect, and for my faults she can bear no blame. Warmest of all is my heartfelt appreciation for the long, unselfish and never lessening interest of Professor Herbert Bloch: that I am still his disciple is a special joy.

xv

I N T RO D U C T I O N I S E X . J V L I V S F RO N T I N V S Obscurity veils the origins and early career of Julius Frontinus. As praetor urbanus he convened the Senate on  January in the year  , but he soon yielded the post to Domitian (Tac. Hist. .. –). A suffect consulship followed soon thereafter, probably in . His birth can with reasonable certainty be set in the later years of Tiberius’ reign. In all likelihood he came from Narbonese Gaul. He may have spent his early years as an equestrian officer, perhaps with military service in the Parthian campaigns of the late s, perhaps as procurator in Spain and/or Africa in the s. His behaviour in the political events of the year  is entirely unclear. Syme suggests that Galba adlected him into the Senate for swift adherence to his cause, but rapid promotion under Vespasian might point in a different direction. Between praetorship and consulship he may have held a military command (presumably as legatus legionis), if he was on the scene of the Rhineland revolt and received the surrender of the Lingones (Str. ..). After the consulship he was almost 



 



For his praenomen see commentary. Biographical data and testimonia are conveniently collected in RE Julius, no.  (, Kappelmacher)  –, RE Suppl. :  (, Eck); PIR ()  . The best accounts of his career are those of Birley ( ) – and Eck (a) –; succinctly, Bruun ( ) –. Degrassi in II . : . He can hardly have been consul before : Eck ()  and n.. A consulship in  is unlikely, since he succeeded Cerialis in Britain in the spring of that year. CIL . (Vienne) names a senator Q. Valerius Lupercus Iulius Frontinus; cf. Syme () , () . Syme ()  and ; Eck (a) –. Conjectures to account for the short interval between praetorship and consulship have included the unlikely possibility that F. was a patrician: so Birley () , but abandoned (Birley ( ) ). The authenticity of Str.  has been questioned; see RE loc.cit., with bibliography, also below n. . That his legion was II Adiutrix, later taken to Britain, is an interesting hypothesis: Ward-Perkins () –.



INTRODUCTION

immediately appointed legatus Augusti pro praetore for Britain, whither he went as successor to Petillius Cerialis in  and where he remained until the arrival of Agricola in  or . Tacitus’ biography of the successor (Agr. .) describes Frontinus’ command only briefly: subiit sustinuitque molem Iulius Frontinus, vir magnus quantum licebat, validamque et pugnacem Silurum gentem armis subegit, super virtutem hostium locorum quoque difficultates eluctatus. His achievements in Britain may have earnt for him the triumphalia ornamenta. References in the Strategemata (.., ., ..) suggest that Frontinus was personally acquainted with Domitian’s campaigns in Germany in , and it is probably to this period that one should assign a dedicatory inscription from Vetera (CIL .). Whether Frontinus held the governorship of Germania inferior is not clear; he may have been legatus legionis or comes of the emperor. At the appropriate stage he received the proconsulship of Asia, long regarded (with that of Africa) as the pinnacle of a senatorial career. Coins from Smyrna with the legend
       have long been known, and a recently studied inscription from Hierapolis in Phrygia (modern Pamukkale) attests him in that office. His tenure can now with reasonable certainty be fixed to /. The grand gates that bear his name had largely been completed under his predecessor. During the later years of Domitian’s reign Frontinus seems to have played no major role in public life. There is not a shred of evidence, however, to suggest that he was in disgrace, or that he 

     

On the date of Agricola’s succession see Ogilvie–Richmond () ; Birley ( ) –. The most recent work on Frontinus’ governorship in Britian is Boni (). Eck (a) . Eck () –, with bibliography; cf. Eck () . BMC Ionia, , nos. –; cf. Kowalewski (). AE /, . First published by Monaco (–); improved by Eck () –, and C. P. Jones () . Eck () ; cf. Thomasson () :  no. . One can compare the inscription set up in the forum at Verulamium in  (AE , ): the name is that of the current governor (Agricola), although Frontinus must have had a large part in the building project.



S E X . J V L I V S F RO N T I N V S

had deliberately chosen to maintain a distance from Domitian. Quite the contrary: it is to the later years of Domitian that Pliny refers in speaking of Corellius Rufus (cos. ) and Frontinus as prominent statesmen: Ep. .. quos tunc civitas nostra spectatissimos habuit. In this period Frontinus may first have turned to literary activities, an amusement somewhat traditional for the senatorial class. The poet Martial writes of having spent time in his company at Anxur (Tarracina), where the two friends enjoyed the leisure of letters (Mart. . doctas tecum celebrare vacabat/Pieridas). Aelian writes of having consulted him on military matters, and Pliny discussed legal topics with him in the early s. The literary treatises (which must surely be dated to these years) look to be products of a contented retirement. A theoretical work on military tactics, highly praised in Antiquity, has not survived. His Strategemata reveal their author’s antiquarian bent; like his gromatical writings, they were ‘safely apolitical’. With the reign of Nerva comes the final and most impressive stage of Frontinus’ career. In  he accepted the post of curator aquarum (Aq.  and .), and in the same year he served on a senatorial commission looking for economies (Pliny,   

 



See Eck (a) . Southern ()  goes so far as to suggest that Frontinus might have been a member of the ‘privy council’ under Domitian. White () – n. is unconvinced that Martial’s Frontinus is our man. Plin. Ep. ..; Aelian, Tact. pr. :              ! 
""#  "$ %   &  '  "  ( ( ( ")  * '   % +,  "- %    & . /''0 ""00 0( Frontinus refers to this work in Str.  pr., and it was used by Aelian, Tact. pr.  and Vegetius, . and .. These survive only in part, confused to some extent with a commentary by Agennius Urbicus: see Dilke ( ) –, Campbell () xxvii–xxxiii, Chouquet-Favory ( )  –. For the possibility that the Frontinus of the Corpus agrimensorum is not the same as our man, see Keppie () . Personal experiences in Spain and Africa may underlie parts of this work, and Eck has suggested an official assignment under Domitian: Eck (a) , () . Syme (a) : he means, I suppose, that they reveal nothing of their author’s personality or public status. For a recent review of Frontinus’ literary works, see Del Chicca ().



INTRODUCTION

Pan. .). He held a second (suffect) consulship in February , with Trajan as colleague. His son-in-law Sosius Senecio was consul ordinarius in . And, a year later, Frontinus himself was marked with the signal honour of a third consulship, this time ordinarius and again with Trajan as his colleague. That this honour was not in fact unique only underscores the remarkable status which Frontinus enjoyed. In  and  Julius Ursus also received second and third consulships, both times in immediate succession to Frontinus. Pliny in his Panegyric (., ) mentions these iterated honours (the first by Nerva, the second by Trajan): duos pariter tertio consulatu, duos collegii tui sanctitate decorasti. Theirs was a praemium – Pliny is unambiguous – for eximia in toga merita, by which he means that they had stood behind Trajan: utriusque cura, utriusque vigilantia obstrictus es (Pan. .). Ursus was Frontinus’ junior by roughly a decade, but his marriage to Hadrian’s sister reveals a special relationship to the princeps. We know of no similar relationship linking Frontinus to Trajan, but one might well have existed. Syme is probably safe in his speculation that Frontinus might have been acquainted with Trajan’s father; and there is little doubt that the third consulship was a reward for his part in approving – we should perhaps say arranging – the elevation of Trajan as Nerva’s heir and successor. Frontinus’ death can be fixed in / by Pliny’s succession to his place in the College of Augurs (Ep. ..). His daughter was married to Q. Sosius Senecio (cos. ord. , suff. ); further descendants appear in later inscriptions.      

 Cf. Syme (). CIL .; II ., ; cf. Mart. ... II ., ; CIL ., . ( = ILAlg. .), AE , .  Zevi (). Syme () . Recent discussions on the succession, with good bibliography, are Berriman– Todd ( ), Eck (). For the date see Sherwin-White () . McDermott (). Unclear is Frontinus’ exact relationship to his younger contemporary, P. Calvisius Ruso Iulius Frontinus; Eck (a)  not unreasonably proposes that the connection was one of testamentary adoption. Calvisius Ruso (PIR  ) was consul in , proconsul of Asia in /: see E. Birley (), R´emy (), Syme () –.



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

The spectacular sunset of Frontinus’ life was the product of a combination of political circumstances. For others this era had a radiance of dawn, caught for posterity in the artistic penstrokes of panegyric and propaganda: these are the fellow senators who call Frontinus vir magnus, princeps vir. But it is Frontinus himself who invites us to see his career as one of long and sincere devotion to public duty. Personal satisfaction prompted his seemingly un-Roman request that admirers dispense entirely with a tombstone: impensa monumenti supervacua est; memoria nostri durabit, si vita meruimus. This is not modesty. It is rather the proud statement of a man confident of the place awaiting him in the fields of Elysium; there he will join those [qui] sui memores alios fecere merendo. II T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V Its date This booklet – in its present form – cannot have been completed until sometime early in the year . Frontinus’ appointment as 







Presumably from Frontinus’ will: Sherwin-White () ; Eck (a) , Champlin () . Baldwin ()  notes the strikingly similar finale of Tacitus, Agr. . simulacra vultus imbecilla ac mortalia sunt (with reference to Ogilvie–Richmond ad loc.). Plin. Ep. ..–, where context (dum mavult videri contempsisse) makes plain that Frontinus had not renounced claims to gloria; cf. DeLaine () . Gloria, in the end, was what really mattered. A monument by itself, however traditional and valued (cf. Plin. Ep. .., distressed that the ashes of Verginius Rufus had lain for near ten years sine titulo, sine nomine), was no guarantee that memory would be permanent. With roots of a sterile fig tree the satirist can shatter the record of a lifetime. Juvenal (.–) might conceivably have had Frontinus in mind; his antithesis of fama and virtus closely resembles Tac. Ann. .. See further H¨ausle () esp. –, Champlin () –. Emphasis, as one would expect, is on the final verb. Merita are accomplishments for the public good; because it implies recognition the word is a stronger (and less-objective) alternative to res gestae. Virgil, Aen. .: Rodgers (). Note also Hor. C. ..– sepulchri / mitte supervacuos honores.



INTRODUCTION

curator aquarum took effect in  (.). His first task was to discover what the office entailed: primum ac potissimum existimo . . . nosse quod suscepi (). Study of his curatorial responsibilities and a personal review of the water-system will have taken some time. He speaks, for example, of monitoring conditions during the summer months (., .). The text we have was completed only after Nerva’s death in January : that prince is twice styled divus (. and .). Short of Frontinus’ death (/), a terminus ante quem cannot be fixed. But the content and form of the work itself are wholly consistent with the view that Frontinus prepared it for circulation at no long interval after Nerva’s death. He rehearses detailed instances of unhappy practices he has detected, and he mentions reforms introduced as well as plans undertaken but not yet complete. The work thus seems to reflect what the curator has learnt from (and accomplished in) something like a year’s experience. The date of composition cannot be entirely separated from the question of Frontinus’ term as curator. The post had originally been given to eminent men of some seniority and was an appointment for life; in later practice curators had been younger consulars serving shorter terms as part of the senatorial cursus (. n.). Exactly what had been the pattern just prior to Frontinus’ appointment is unfortunately not at all clear (.n.). Some have supposed that Frontinus kept the office until his death – a view that might be supported by the sense of traditionalism represented in his approach to the office and the projected ideal of intimate and continuing cooperation between princeps and curator. Others have argued that the office could not be held simultaneously with a consulship and 

 

Nomination late in  cannot be excluded. From chapter  we can observe a pattern of successors assuming the curatorship with the consuls of the following year – at least for curators who died in office. Trajan’s name occurs but once in the transmitted text – an instance which I judge to be an interpolation (.n.). Note especially .: revised figures are not yet available. The changes Frontinus has outlined will have required a not inconsiderable length of time.



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

that Frontinus’ term as curator must therefore have come to an end when he assumed the fasces for a second time in February of . If Frontinus relinquished his curatorship at the time of his second consulship, he might naturally have taken this opportunity to pass on to a successor his collection of data, freshly updated, along with a catalogue of reforms already set in motion and initiatives projected for the future. We could then interpret the words in his prologue (.) to mean: ‘I made some notes for my own benefit, starting at the beginning of my term, and these will now perhaps be useful to my successor.’ It is scarcely credible, however, that Frontinus’ term as curator ended early in . Nerva had more important things on his mind than to replace, after so short a term, an official who was dutifully and effectively addressing important problems of urban administration (even if the major aims of reform were successfully under way) – merely to avoid the overlap with a suffect consulship of very limited duration. Add the fact of Nerva’s death and Trajan’s absence (until sometime in ), and it becomes altogether easier to suppose that Frontinus continued as curator at least until his third consulship () or even until his death. Nor can I see any drawback to supposing that he gave this booklet its present form while continuing in office. On the one hand, his statement ‘This will be useful to me’ (.) is better taken as rhetorical liberty (with its author still in office) than as rhetorical fiction (from the pen of one who has already retired). On the other hand, his closing words () give no hint at all that it will be someone other than himself who will uphold the trust of the curatorial office.   

Cantarelli ( ) , Syme () , Ashby () , Grimal ix, xvi. Eck (a) , speaks of the years after the third consulship, ‘in denen er wohl weiterhin als curator aquarum t¨atig war’. The tenses in chapter  are present perfect (laboravimus, fuisse) and the last main verb is opto; see commentary for difficulties with the final word (C has praestitit). Note also ., where the future tense (adiunxerimus) seems to indicate that Frontinus is still in office.



INTRODUCTION

Let us be satisfied with dating the literary form of the De Aquaeductu as it stands to sometime in , after Nerva’s death and with Trajan not yet come to Rome. Frontinus in this period, during his second consulship and in the months that followed, was among the small circle of senatorial leaders in whose hands lay control of the state’s constitutional helm. Not only did he retain the office of curator aquarum, but he was simultaneously one of the emperor’s vice-gerents at Rome. Its content and form In his prologue to the De Aquaeductu Frontinus refers to this work as a commentarius, and explains its genesis as a collection of material made primarily for self-instruction and personal reference (.–). Let us look first at what the booklet contains and then at how it fits the definition of a commentarius. The contents fall readily into two categories. The first embraces the matters that Frontinus outlines later in his prologue (. –), while the second category could be called ‘editorial remarks’, Frontinus’ commentary, as it were, on the data he has collected. These comments are indeed so extensive that the rhetorical modesty of the prologue (.) comes very near to embarrassing untruth. ‘For his own benefit’ Frontinus hardly needed to record the delinquencies he had observed and the reforms he had made in the course of his initial months in office. These, plainly, were included for the edification of some other audience. In the ‘table of contents’ of chapter  Frontinus promises the following material (in parentheses are the chapter references to the work itself): 



Data on individual aqueducts: persons who built them; dates when they were built; location of the sources; length of the conduits (broken down into types of construction); heights of the terminal delivery points. (Chapters –) The title is that found in C, the unique manuscript; it is not without difficulty (see commentary).



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V





Data on distribution: pipes and their sizes; quantities delivered according to the supply of water available; categories of delivery (imperial properties, public uses of various sorts, private persons); distribution among the wards of the City. (Chapters –) Legal matters pertinent to the right of drawing public water; precautions for upkeep of the channels; penalties for abuse. (Chapters –)

For much of this material, most indeed of the first two categories, a modern writer would have chosen a tabular format. The information thus collected all served an administrative aim. Frontinus recognised its potential usefulness and the importance of having it readily to hand. It is primarily to this material that he refers when he states that he has collected information in commentarium quem pro formula administrationis respicere possem (.). Not explicitly announced in the prologue are those portions of the work which represent Frontinus’ critical review of the data he has collected and his administrative analysis of the system he has undertaken to superintend. This is nowhere more noticeable than in his exhaustive scrutiny of the official figures for the quantity of available water (–) and in his optimistic account of projected improvements (–). But comments of an explanatory or editorial nature are not limited to such obvious addenda. They occur throughout the work, combined for  

 

See commentary to . pro suo modo. Of only marginal usefulness perhaps were the ages of the aqueducts and the names of the builders. But the auctores were an essential element of identification, and the dates relate to types of construction used for different aqueducts (and consequently to peculiarities of their upkeep). Evans () –. Grimal ix–x,  n.,  n. thinks that these two passages are unannounced in the prologue. That the second is absent there is true enough, but the same could be said of many other passages (e.g. – on the familiae). As was noted by Rubio () –, Frontinus probably in fact does announce chapters –, although a textual difficulty unhelpfully occurs at the crucial point (.n.).



INTRODUCTION

the most part so harmoniously that, were it not for Frontinus’ explicit statements in the prologue, one would suspect that the booklet was indeed composed post experimenta et usum (.). We find, then, in our text of the De Aquaeductu both data and interpretive matter, either or both of which are accepted as normal for the contents of a commentarius. ‘A commentarius could be a published composition in the plain style, or lack polish altogether: there was no firm tradition, as for the major genres of prose. The subject matter and the author’s personality, rather than rules of genre, determined the character and quality of the writing.’ Goodyear’s definition, which he applies to Frontinus, is a good one, but more can be said. In a strict sense, the term commentarius describes a text that accompanies and explains something. So in the present work chapters – are the text to which Frontinus could refer for details as he and others interpreted the maps or diagrams that he tells us he had prepared (). Or chapters – are an official listing of the calibres authorised for delivery-pipes. Speaking more generally, commentarius was the term applied to notes and records of many sorts, some of which might remain in the form of data such as lists or compendia, while others might be incorporated into a quasi-archival series or be polished for wider circulation. Thus, on the one hand, we have Caesar’s commentarii, while on the other we know of commentarii of individual magistrates and priests which formed the libri ‘records’ of magistracies and priesthoods. An example from the present work: Frontinus speaks of the commentarii ‘records’ of Agrippa (.), which, beginning with Augustus, had 

 

Chapters – are a glaring exception, and I take their awkwardness as an indication that they were an afterthought, included at the last minute: Rodgers ( ).  Goodyear () . Evans () , DeLaine () . On commentarii in general see Von Premerstein ( ) and B¨omer (); cf. R¨upke () esp. –. For records and archives of land distributions Nicolet ( ) esp. –, Moatti (); grain distributions, Tarpin (); provincial governorships, Haensch (); magistrates and senate, Coudry () esp. –; priesthoods, Sini (), Scheid (), North (); cf. also Panciera–Virlouvet () and below, n. .



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

apparently been maintained and supplemented up to his own day and to which he refers as the commentarii principum (., ., .). Agrippa kept many records besides those of his watermanagement cares, and upon such materials as these no doubt he drew in composing a commemoratio of his aedileship, whether or not that was part of a larger autobiography. In short, with no clear distinction required, the term commentarius could embrace both data and interpretive matter. This is precisely what Frontinus’ booklet contains. But such a combination is not the rule for a commentarius and, given the rather abstruse subject-matter of water-conduits and water-rights, oversight and upkeep, the De Aquaeductu is in fact unique as a specimen of Roman literature, and even perhaps of the ancient world as a whole. Unsurprising, then, is the lack of consensus over how to categorise this work. Traditional views have been that it is a piece of ‘technical writing’ or an ‘administrative manual’. Such categorisations reflect nothing so much as the perspectives of their proponents. Archaeologists and historians of technology have come to Frontinus for what he can offer them by way of technical information; students of Roman law and government have looked to him for evidence of legal and administrative procedures and practices. Recent scholars have taken a wider view, and it can now be agreed that Frontinus should not be accorded the status of a technical writer, much less an authority, just because he administered a vast hydraulic system and therefore had occasion to write about things that were indeed technical. Nor because he is an administrator of high standing must we assume that his text was anything like an administrative guide: it is not, I think, entirely a mark of ironic modesty that even he is unsure that a successor will find his booklet to be of any real use (.). Certainly we must be aware that Frontinus is selective in what he includes and that he can be prescriptive as well as descriptive;   

Reinhold (). Pliny, HN . adicit ipse aedilitatis commemoratione. Agrippa’s autobiography is mentioned in Serv. Dan. ad Georg. .: Roddaz () –. Bruun ( ) –, –, Hodge () –, Evans () –.



INTRODUCTION

those who use him must do so critically. Similarities between the De Aquaeductu and administrative texts such as the Gnomon of the Idios Logos, libri mandatorum and libri de officiis known from later centuries all seem more apparent than real. However much a pioneer Frontinus might have been, the plain fact is that nothing like his De Aquaeductu is known, let alone survives, from the ancient world. Its audience and purpose To account for apparent inconsistencies between the prologue and the text as a whole, or for the presence of both promised data and unannounced commentary, it is easy to assume that Frontinus’ plans somehow changed between the outset of the work and its eventual completion. Grimal puts it this way: ‘Frontin avoue avoir commenc´e son trait´e pour sa propre instruction. Mais, peu a` peu, son projet a chang´e: il r´efl´echit sur les constatations qu’il fait, critique les renseignements qu’il trouve, et cela modifie la r´edaction mˆeme de son ouvrage, si bien que celui-ci finit par apparaˆıtre comme une sorte de ‘journal’ de sa gestion.’ An administrative report, then, instead of a manual? To a report of findings about the water commissioner’s office and of initiatives undertaken the label commentarius remains entirely appropriate. But ‘report’ implies an audience for whom that report has interest or import. If the commentarius before us goes beyond the stated aim to be merely a work for personal reference, no more could it have been written for an audience 

 



Bruun ( )  is pained that he must cite no less a scholar than Hirschfeld () : ‘die Abhandlung des Sextus Iulius Frontinus . . . kann durch inschriftliche Dokumente kaum eine Erweiterung erfahren; vielmehr k¨onnen diese nur als Zeugnis f¨ur die treue Darstellung herangezogen werden’. Bruun ( ) . On the Gnomon see Riccobono (); for mandata, Finley (), Dell’Oro (b), Marotta ( ); for libri de officio, Dell’Oro (a). Eck (a)  notes that ‘Amtshandb¨ucher f¨ur verschiedene Aufgabenbere¨ iche hat es zumindest f¨ur diese Zeit und f¨ur die stadtr¨omischen Amter nicht gegeben.’ For the possibility of Frontinus as a pioneer in gromatical writings, see Campbell () xxvi–xxxi. Grimal x.



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

of one, a curator who might be Frontinus’ successor. The audience, then, must have been wider, and for a man of Frontinus’ standing that audience can quite accurately be determined: the senatorial class as a whole and – by no means incidentally – the new princeps. ‘Administrative report’ or not, we still must ask what was Frontinus’ purpose in putting this text into somewhat careful literary form for this audience at this time. In this context we cannot neglect that second component of Goodyear’s commentarius – the author’s personality. The De Aquaeductu, as McElwain puts it, gives us glimpses beyond the concerns of an officious administrator: ‘It depicts a man; it depicts motives and ideals, the springs of conduct.’ Ashby sees Frontinus’ senatorial sympathies as informing all of his writings, and most especially the De Aquaeductu, in which this author ‘epitomised for all time the ideal of an efficient civil servant’, a representative of ‘the best answer that citizen-government could give to the alternative of professional administration by free or slave delegates of the princeps’. Grimal views this work as ‘un e´ crit politique’, ‘un manifeste officieux’, and its author as a propagandist for the regime: ‘Frontin n’est que le porte-paroles du Prince.’ Others find a sense of selfenhancement pervading this work; Bruun and DeLaine go so far as to suggest that memorialising himself might have been a distinct motive for Frontinus to put this booklet into literary form. DeLaine also has perceptively noted that literary form and rhetorical features are likely to be more than icing on what had initially been a tedious if data-rich cake. She thinks that   

 

Christ () looks more broadly than have others at Frontinus’ personality.  McElwain () xv. Ashby () –. Grimal xv–xvi; Hodge () – is in essential agreement. Grimal does not say which prince: Nerva, whose initiatives Frontinus reports, now dead? Trajan, absent from Rome at the time of publication? Hodge speaks of Nerva and Trajan, with the tendency of modern scholars to oversimplify the continuum. DeLaine ()  n.,  n. remarks on the ambiguity. Bruun ( ) –, –, ; Evans () –; cf. Baldwin () –. Bruun ( ) , DeLaine () –, –.



INTRODUCTION

between a commentarius proper (for personal use) and what we have (intended for some – but hardly extensive – circulation) came a speech to the senate of which the present text would be the published version. Professor Michael Peachin contemplates a speech as well, but perhaps to a broader audience, along the lines of the contio of Caelius Rufus (mentioned by Frontinus in chapter ). He proposes that our present work might most fittingly be described as a pamphlet, addressed to fellow senators and persons with significant commercial interests involving water, an apology for – but an unambiguous announcement of – the watchful restoration of policies and penalties that had been, but no longer will be, overlooked by responsible officials. On this view, the final paragraph of the De Aquaeductu, often seen as puzzlingly abrupt, assumes a meaningful significance, and the author ends his work on a note of respectful firmness. The curator aquarum and the emperor Whether or not it was part of his purpose in producing our text of the De Aquaeductu – I very much doubt that it was the sole purpose – Frontinus’ work describes a close relationship between the emperor and himself as curator aquarum, that is a senior consular named to important office as the emperor’s administrative agent. The importance of this partnership is always near the surface – from the opening words (res ab imperatore delegata, mihi ab Nerva Augusto) to the very end (where he is the immediate intercessor for those who seek indulgentia principis). This booklet reveals the persona at least of a dutiful and diligent public servant. One essential element in successful administration, as Frontinus presents it, is energetic and personal involvement on the part of the curator. Only intimate familiarity with the system   

DeLaine () –. Prof. Peachin has generously shared his views with me, both in personal conversation and in a preliminary draft. The fact that this post was filled by the emperor’s own nominee is not without significance: see commentary on ..



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

under his management can free him from dependence upon underlings. Thus far Frontinus himself in the prologue, explicit and unequivocal. Within the text, wide-ranging reforms to eliminate fraus in lower levels of the administration testify to his diligentia, in pointed contrast to the inertia and segnitia of his immediate predecessors. The prologue heralds a second, no less important, theme. Only by shouldering the responsibilities of his office could the curator fulfil the expectations of the emperor who had appointed him – and the emperor it was who bore final responsibility for the reliability and adequacy of the urban water system. Since the burden was borne by two men, success could result only from a close cooperation between princeps and curator. Inequalities of the partnership were not to be overlooked, but these were trifling and insignificant in the face of the common goal: by any standards, Rome’s water supply was one of the most magnificent gems in the City’s imperial crown. A collaborative personal relationship between the emperor and his curator was no idealist’s dream; for Frontinus it was an inherent part of the curatorial office as established by Augustus in  . Indeed, the origin and nature lay further back, for this particular Augustan cura was deliberately fashioned as a means of perpetuating the public services of Marcus Agrippa, lifelong friend and apparently selfless ally of the first princeps. Beginning at least with his munificent aedileship in  , Agrippa had single-handedly assumed an overall responsibility for Rome’s water supply. From his own purse he had paid for new construction, and he kept a gang of slaves as a standing maintenance crew. On Agrippa’s death Augustus inherited this gang, and with it he accepted the full range of Agrippa’s responsibilities. Parts of Agrippa’s ‘cura’ the princeps kept for himself: the willingness to cover costs of major building and repairs, as well as the privilege of granting public water to certain private parties. To a senatorial agent he entrusted the routines of administration with concomitant powers (some of which had fallen to Republican censors). The office was not unduly onerous, and the high prestige 

INTRODUCTION

it carried was no doubt intended as a deliberate tribute to the lasting achievements of Marcus Agrippa. More than political tact lay behind Augustus’ choice of Messala Corvinus as the first curator aquarum. Over a century had elapsed by the time Frontinus came to the post, and important changes had taken place. Most dramatic of these was that celebrated by Claudius in  , on completion of two new aqueducts which roughly doubled the water supply and added more than a hundred Roman miles of channel. Following the Augustan rule, Claudius himself paid the vast sums for construction. Following the example of Agrippa, he instituted an administrative system for their upkeep, which seems in some ways to parallel that under the management of the senatorial curator. Composed of imperial slaves and managed by the emperor’s own freedmen, the new branch of administration may gradually have eclipsed the older system. Whatever circumstances might have been in the years just prior to his appointment, Frontinus unmistakably depicts – with or without exaggeration – an administration in shambles. The diligentia that Frontinus brought to his post had positive results which went well beyond restoring discipline among the work crews and clarifying the distinct responsibilities of lesser members of the administrative service (including, of course, the procurator). Reform of the curatorial post itself forms no small part of his accomplishment. Nosse quod suscepi: to avoid the faults he found in his predecessors, Frontinus sought the best possible definition of his job, that contained in the series of legislative acts establishing the curator’s office. With these documents (and an appreciation for the historical circumstances that lay behind them) he had, in effect, a ready-made model for his own performance, not to fashion a new office but to restore to it the senatorial dignity, perhaps even the prestige that it once had held. 

The commentarii of the Secular Games, Pighi (), begin with senatus consulta of   relating to their organisation; Scheid () .



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

The grand example of Marcus Agrippa must never have been far from Frontinus’ mind. Scholars duly note that Frontinus’ maps of the aqueduct network (.–) remind us of the more extensive maps set up by Agrippa. I would go further: when Frontinus tells us that he has cast his eyes over even the stretches in outlying gorges and tortuous mountain tracts, it is hard not to recall that Marcus Agrippa once took a boat ride through the sewers of Rome (Dio, ..). His deference to the princeps is no less telling, for nothing can mask Frontinus’ honest pride in the fact that his own administrative diligence in increasing the water supply was practically equivalent to the engineering feat required to develop entirely new sources. Again, dispensing with one of the trappings of his office, Frontinus explains fides nostra et auctoritas a principe data pro lictoribus erit (.). With such apparent modesty he can underscore the security of his own personal relationship with the sovereign, and we should not fail to remember that for more than two decades Agrippa had served his prince with comparable modesty. Finally, inasmuch as it is a rehearsal of his accomplishments as curator, Frontinus’ commentarius recalls the published memoir of Agrippa’s aedileship. In recounting his own administrative activities, Frontinus never fails to emphasise that he is acting at the behest or on behalf of the emperor who appointed him. When amending fraudulent mistreatment of the Tusculans’ rights to the aqua Crabra (which, incidentally, Agrippa had respected), Frontinus proceeds iussu imperatoris (.–). He undertakes an exhaustive scrutiny of the water available praeeunte providentia . . . principis Nervae (.). His own discovery that far more water was available than had been known he modestly concedes to the providentia diligentissimi principis (.). In a matter of financial irregularity we read of the    

Evans (), Dilke () –, , Nicolet ( ) –, Evans () –. Evans () –, Baldwin () –, DeLaine () . Note especially . nova quadam adquisitione aquarum and . quasi nova inventione fontium. Pliny, HN . (see above, n. ).



INTRODUCTION

iustitia divi Nervae immediately pursued by nostra sedulitas (.). Official calibrations of pipe-sizes must be recognised and made standard, not least because they are consistent with data in commentariis principis (.). Because it will involve construction (an imperial prerogative carried out at imperial expense), he credits to Nerva the plan to improve the quality of Anio Novus and he promises that a prominent titulus will in due course recognise the emperor as auctor of the completed project (. –). Such repeated stress on his own close relationship with the emperor lends to this work a self-laudatory tone which might, although I think need not, imply that Frontinus is smug, arrogant, or deliberately self-serving. The atmosphere in the first half of  was not one in which responsible political leaders were likely to be comfortable, relaxed and confident. Human beings in their seventh decade are not immune to ambition, and Frontinus had a son-in-law whose career was moving forward. Nor was that nexus of which he formed a part an insignificant one: men looked to him as a patron – and he had played a role in Trajan’s succession. It might be fairer to Frontinus to call him an idealist in the cause of the Roman elite, preaching that happy possibilities for the commonwealth could emerge from cooperative good will between princeps and senate. Frontinus was one whose seniority and status permitted him to speak for an entire order whose pride and purpose in statesmanship had recovered dramatically in the months since Domitian’s death. Nerva’s regime had kindled new senatorial hopes; however confidently one may have looked to Trajan as a successor, this flickering flame needed special care. Praise of Rome’s aqueducts constitutes praise of the Roman state itself. Frontinus sketches their history along annalistic lines and recites their auctores, great figures in Roman history, whom 



Note the enthusiasm voiced by Tacitus Agr. , a work almost exactly contemporary with the De Aquaeductu. It is unfortunate that Frontinus finds no mention in Wirszubski () –. Bruun ( ) , Evans () , Baldwin () –, DeLaine () –.



T H E D E A QVA E DV C T V

indeed he treats as if they were his direct predecessors in a long series of curatores aquarum. There is a touch of the antiquarian in our curator, not surprising perhaps in a novus homo, which finds expression in his mention of the tergiversations of Appius Claudius (.), his interest in the triumphal success of Marcius Rex in bringing water to the Capitol (.), the statutory gems he culls from the archives (., .), the snippet of legal trivia he cites from Ateius Capito (.–). But he saves his finest rhetorical flourishes for the masonry structures that brought water to Rome. Because they are no less practical than they are grand, for him they outrank the most spectacular wonders of Rome’s predecessors (). They are a plain and visible symbol of all that Rome is and all that she stands for. Their maintenance and upkeep in and of itself is a matter worthy of especial care, cum magnitudinis Romani imperii vel praecipuum sit indicium (.). The water they furnish supplies the public demands of a luxuriant metropolis, serves as a resource crucial to the security of its citizenry, and assures a wholesome atmosphere worthy of the regina et domina orbis (.). Frontinus, senior consular and partner of the emperor, impresses in the end as a man firmly righteous in the vein of an old-time senator. Self-serving or not, he shows himself both willing and able to stand before his fellow citizens to exemplify the energies of a lifetime devoted to the best interests of the Roman state. The memoir of an administrator can hardly be more than a modest platform; the speaker’s tones may fall short of resonance; but there is nonetheless in the De Aquaeductu a quiet eloquence in the affirmation of a senatorial idealism. Frontinus was not alone among his contemporaries in comfortably and capably upholding long traditions of senatorial dignity. His voice is that of a man proud of himself, proud of his City, proud of her monuments, proud of her standing as queen of the world. If he flatters himself by asserting that his present responsibility is an office administratum semper per principes civitatis nostrae viros (), it is equally 

Cf. Talbert () .



INTRODUCTION

true that per quos (.) has a Livian ring beyond the whims of an antiquarian. The sources There is no great complexity to the question of Frontinus’ sources. Answers to some questions posed by a new curator could presumably have been found in the archives of his own and closely related bureaux. (Convenient accessibility of the information is another matter, although Frontinus’ decision to include certain types of data does not in itself suggest that these were especially hard to retrieve.) For the data that relate to supplies and deliveries Frontinus explicitly draws upon the commentarii principum (.), records that were maintained by the imperial staff but the origin of which lay in the personal commentarii kept by Marcus Agrippa (.). Official figures for pipe-sizes were also safely recorded in imperial commentarii (.); these sizes had been standard since the time of Agrippa (., .). At his own disposition the curator had a clerical staff whose records must surely have contained a rich miscellany of highly specific data. Frontinus gives no hint of having taken personal measurements of the channel lengths, for instance, a fact which strongly suggests that these figures were already available. The same can be said for location of the sources, and the manner in which he gives directions to Marcia’s spring implies that he used written records (.n.). The nucleus of these records, like that of the imperial registers, was presumably formed during Agrippa’s lifetime. Copies of relevant legal texts might well have been available in the curator’s office (along with mandata issued  

 

Baldwin () –. For archives and record-keeping, see Posner (), Talbert () – , Culham (), Haensch (), Coudry (), Crawford () , DeKleijn ( ) –. See also above n. . The practice of detailed accountability dated back to Republican times (, .). Probably even broken down into categories as Frontinus presents them (. n.).



L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E

by the emperors), although Frontinus’ remarks on the administrative practices under the Republic (. dum altius repeto leges) reveal that he had undertaken some archival research. For historical details or information to clarify uncertainties he encountered Frontinus could turn to the ordinary range of literary sources. Of these one imagines that the works of Marcus Agrippa were specially useful: from such a primary source Frontinus must have learnt the particular circumstances that attended the discovery of Virgo’s springs and the date on which its water was introduced into the City (.–). The works of historians and annalists sometimes yielded details of similar interest for the earlier aqueducts. Frontinus seems not always to have relied on a single source (cf. . constantius traditur), and in one instance (the origin of the quinaria as a standard: . –) he expresses an equal dissatisfaction with two available explanations, both of which may derive from oral inquiries. Citing a source by name occurs but twice (. Fenestella, . Ateius Capito), and in both cases the point is parenthetical: neither author was his sole or even his main source. Likewise, his reference to the contio of Caelius Rufus (.) is an aside, for rhetorical point. III L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E Studies of Frontinus’ language and style have until recently been focused on the question of the authenticity of Book  of his  



Above, n. . Unless one supposes Frontinus to have recreated the story from oral traditions surrounding a picture set up near the springs (.). The date might equally well have been preserved in an annalistic context: he can be similarly precise about the dedication of Claudia and Anio Novus (.), and it can hardly have been novelty that the Fasti Ostienses record a specific date for the introduction of Aqua Traiana in the year . Grimal xiii: ‘Pour chaque aqueduc, Frontin a recours aux dossiers contemporains de l’adduction.’ The contention bears no close scrutiny and provides an extremely precarious basis for arguments set forth by Roncaioli Lamberti ().



INTRODUCTION

Strategemata. A comprehensive index verborum appeared in , and more sophisticated resources are now available electronically. A few scholars have looked closely at Frontinus’ vocabulary and lexicon, others at his prologue or the structure of the De Aquaeductu as a whole. Judgements of his style have embraced the briefly dismissive and the unfairly contemptuous. Most critics, however, have appreciated that his material prescribed for Frontinus an intentionally mixed style, which he accomplishes well enough but without distinction. In der Tat ist Frontin ein Fachschriftsteller. Mehr als die Form interessiert ihn der Stoff. Seine Sprache ist freilich zumeist klar und gew¨ahlt, bewegt sich gern in ziemlich sorgf¨altig gebauten Perioden und ist sogar mit rhetorischen Stilmitteln wie Alliteration und Prosametrik versehen. Aber auf stilistische K¨unstlerschaft kann er irgendwelche Anspr¨uche nicht erheben, und sein Stil ist . . . manchmal schwerf¨allig, unsch¨on und holperig. Il commentario sul De aquis Urbis Romae ci presenta una prosa degna di nota: Frontino in questa sua opera, in vero poco conosciuta dalla critica, ci si revela con uno stile forbito e alquanto singulare per il suo tempo; ci dimonstra anche un fondo culturale considerevole. Il 



  



Chief among the challengers of Frontinus’ authorship are Wachsmuth (), W¨ollflin (), Gundermann ( ). Those whose responses have dealt primarily with philological detail are Fritze (), Esternaux (), Kortz (), and especially Bendz (, ). Costas Rodr´ıguez (), Frontini index. Of electronic materials, those with which I am most familiar are the Packard Humanities Institute’s PHI computer file:     #. () and the IntraText website , the latter permits one to search an author’s word-usage by frequency, inverse alphabetical order, and word-length, as well as providing a range of statistical information. Hern´andez-Gonz´alez (, ), L´opez Moreda ( ), Espinilla Buis´an (), Del Chicca (, ). Santini (), Del Chicca (–, ), DeLaine (); Baldwin () treats more comprehensively of both language and structure. McElwain () xv ‘absolute lack of of stylistic charm’. Goodyear ()  ‘in general unaffected, though one finds occasional embellishments’. Hodge () ‘one of the driest [works] ever written . . . wholly devoid of literary pretensions or elegance whatever’. Bendz () , speaking of both the Strategemata and the De Aquaeductu.



L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E

suo periodo a volte e` breve, conciso, anzi scarno; a volte ha un tono solenne e l’ampiezza della prosa ciceroniana. . . . Inoltre, ci si accorge immediatamente d’avere a che fare con un uomo colto e tecnicamente preparato. Frontino infatti in questa sua opera non fa che misurare, controllare e descrivere; poche sono le volte in cui cerca di staccarsi dall’ arida materia trattata. Ma il suo periodo e` sempre sorvegliato e corretto, curato, chiaro nel suo significato e a volte anche solenne.

Detailed remarks on Frontinus’ language and style will be found throughout the commentary. Here one may examine a few selective features which more extensively inform his writing in the De Aquaeductu. Lexicon of water quality Attention to Frontinus’ lexicon has been directed for the most part to his use of technical vocabulary, but in this work the author has occasion to speak of water quality and we can observe that his usage overlaps with both specialist writers and with poets. On water quality in general he notes how it is an important criterion of distribution for different categories of use ( secundum suam quaeque qualitatem, in contrast to Marcia, reserved potui tota). (One can compare Pliny, HN ., who speaks of the preference given to Virgo for its tactus and to Marcia for its haustus.) When appropriate he makes mention of poor quality, as of Alsietina (. nullius gratiae, parum salubrem) or of the Anio River (. limosus et turbulentus, . deformis ac turbidae). Special bonitas characterises the water of Marcia’s Fons Augustae (.) and Claudia’s Fons Albudinus (.). Both abundance and reliability are singled out for notice. Claudia, drawing from fontes amplissimi (.) is abundantior aliis; the river water of Anio Novus is in primis abundans (.); Agrippa’s engineers found Virgo to have ingentem aquae modum (.); even without illicit supplement, Tepula’s flow was maintained quamvis notabili siccitate (.). Urban salubritas is one of the benefits of a good water supply (, .,  ; cf. . fontium salubritas). (This characteristic is 

Panimolle () –.



INTRODUCTION

stressed by both Vitruvius, .., . and Pliny, HN ., .) Alsietina is parum salubris while others are salubriores (.), and Anio Vetus ranks low in quality because it is minus salubris (). Good water has gratia (.) while poor is described as nullius gratiae (.). Gratior aquarum sinceritas (.) is appreciated, and the supply from Marcia is called gratissima (.). Purity is of course a desirable quality. The superlative purissimus is used to describe the Rivus Herculaneus (.) as well as the lake at Subiaco (.). (Compare Horace, Epist. .. purior in vicis aqua.) Purity of Claudia is indicated by sincerus (.), and the tam felix proprietas projected by means of improvements to Anio Novus will make it sinceriorem et iucundiorem (.). Water taken from the Anio River below the dam at Subiaco is minus limpida (.), while that purified in the lake is limpidissima (.). Appearance and coldness are two recurrent features that denote excellence. Marcia pleases et rigore et splendore (.), and water in the high reaches of the Anio is frigidissimus simul ac splendidissimus (.n). We find splendor applied to the spring water of the Rivus Herculaneus (.) as well as to Marcia and the nearby spring of Claudia (., .). (Compare Lucretius, . splendor aquai, Horace, C. .. splendidior vitro, Silius, Pun. . aquae splendor.) Claudia’s springs are speciosi and one of them is named Caerulus for its colour (.); water at Marcia’s source is green (.). Formulaic presentation In a certain sense, Frontinus assists his reader by adopting a strictly formulaic pattern when he deals with repetitive material, the kind for which a modern writer would abandon connected prose altogether in favour of a more visually accessible tabular format. (Our author realises that data presented in such a way, while useful for reference, can strike a reader as inordinately dull: .– cuius comprehensionem scio non ieiunam tantum sed etiam perplexam videri posse . . . iis quibus sufficiet cognovisse summam 

L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E

licebit transire leviora.) The most immediately noticeable examples of Frontinus’ ‘tabular’ style are his list of pipe-sizes (chapters –), data on distribution from individual aqueducts (–), and the roster of curatores aquarum (), all of which are printed distinctively in editions since Krohn’s. Almost equally formal are chapters –, in which he discusses the available supply of each aqueduct and accounts for discrepancies between the imperial records and his own measurements. Even chapters –, in which Frontinus proceeds chronologically, are as much statistical as historical. For each aqueduct, from the earliest to the most recent, he systematically gives the location of the source and then follows with data on the length and type of conduit. Chapter  can serve to illustrate Frontinus’ virtually formulaic procedure. In § he locates the starting-point of this aqueduct: (a) concipitur Appia (b) in agro Lucullano (c) via Praenestina (d) inter miliarium septimum et octavum (e) deverticulo sinistrosus passuum septingentorum octoginta. (a) The sentence usually begins with concipitur + name of the aqueduct (., ., ., ., and cf. . concipitur ex lacu Alsietino); for two others we find the name before the verb (., .); and for the last the verb is delayed until after part (c) and then given a different prefix (. Anio novus . . . excipitur ex flumine). (b) This part does not invariably appear (only here, ., and .; but cf. . palustribus locis, . excipitur ex flumine, . trans flumen viamque). (c) In the case of Aqua Marcia (.) there are directions along two different roads: the Via Valeria, present when the water had been brought ( ), and the Via Sublacensis, built under Nero. 

 

Frontinus interjects an occasional comment in addition to essential data (e.g. .), and sometimes he affects a pointed use of variatio (., ., contrasted with ., ., etc.). Evans () . Chapters .–, .–, .–, ., ., .–, .–, . –, . –.



INTRODUCTION

(d) The form here (inter miliarium + ordinals) is unique. Frontinus’ commonest construction is ad miliarium + ordinal (., ., ., ., .), but there are two instances of the ablative miliario (., .). (e) A side-road leading from highway to source is specified either to the right (., ., ., .) or to the left (., .): ablative deverticulo + number of passus in the genitive. In two instances the transmitted text notes that the directional references are for persons travelling from Rome (., .). For Anio Vetus, Virgo and Anio Novus there is no deverticulum (., ., .). In . we follow Frontinus’ pattern of indicating first the length of the conduit as a whole and then the lengths of its various parts broken down by type of construction. (a) ductus eius habet longitudinem (b) a capite usque ad Salinas, qui locus est ad portam Trigeminam, (c) passuum undecim milium centum nonaginta. (d) subersuum undecim milium centum triginta, (f) supra terram (g) substructio et arcuatura (h) proximum portam Capenam passuum sexaginta. (a) ductus eius habet longitudinem (., ., ., ., and cf. . Claudiae ductus habet longitudinem), ductus eius efficit longitudinem (., and cf. . with Iuliae instead of pronoun), venit per longitudinem (.). Slightly different is . ductus Anionis novi efficit (cf. . rivi subterranei efficiunt, . ductus . . . efficit). (b) a capite ad Salinas . . . (.), a capite ad urbem (.), an explanatory phrase (ita exigente libramento .), otherwise omitted (., ., ., ., .). (c) The construction habet longitudinem is followed with passuum (genitive) + number, that of effecit with passus (accusative). (d) At this point the phrase ex eo is transmitted at ., ., ., . (cf. . ). In two cases it is followed by nominatives (., .), in three by ablatives (., ., .). The ablative is used without ex eo in two instances (., .), possibly also a third (.). 

L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E

(e) rivus subterraneus (., restored at .), otherwise ablative (., .,., ., supplied ., .). (f) supra terram substructio (., cf. substructio supra terram .); opere supra terram (., ., ., .), all followed by passuum + number; supra terram per passus . . . .; omitted .. (g) Another ex eo appears at this point in ., ., ., . (also . [ex] eo), to introduce subcategories of construction above ground. . and . are anomalous, both because of nominatives (substructio, arcuatura) and because there is less detail. Elsewhere the ablative is consistent: substructione (., .), substructione rivorum (., ., .), substructionibus (.); opere arcuato (., ., ., ., ., .). All are followed by passuum except ., . per passus. (h) In three chapters there is a further breakdown between rural and suburban sections: longius ab urbe pluribus locis per vallis (.), superiori parte (., .); propius urbem a septimo miliario (., ., .); cf. also . proximis urbi locis a septimo miliario, . locis compluribus. Rhetorical style No reader of the De Aqueductu has ever failed to be struck by the enthusiastic outburst in chapter : Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus pyramidas videlicet otiosas compares aut cetera inertia sed fama celebrata opera Graecorum. There is no lack of rhetoric in Frontinus’ prologue ( –), where such might in any case be expected. But there are throughout the work sections written, if not carefully, then at least in a manner that reveal an author whose education was worthy of a Roman senator. By way of example, we can look to a passage where Frontinus is intending to write persuasively, but not necessarily with literary elegance.  

De Laine () , for instance, draws attention to ‘the rhetorical nature of the passage and its supercilious tone’. Grimal xvi speaks of ‘le ton solennel de l’introduction’; see further Santini (), Del Chicca (–).



INTRODUCTION

–. Non dubito aliquos admiraturos quod longe maior copia actis mensuris inventa sit quam erat in commentariis principum. cuius rei causa est error eorum qui ab initio parum diligenter uniuscuiusque fecerunt aestimationem. ac ne metu aestatis aut siccitatum in tantum a veritate eos recessisse credam, obstat id quod ips[e actis] mensuris Iulio mense hanc uniuscuiusque copiam quae supra scripta est tota deinceps aestate durantem exploravi. quaecumque tamen est causa quae praecedit, illud utique detegitur decem milia quinariarum intercidisse, dum beneficia sua principes secundum modum commentariis adscriptum temperant. sequens diversitas est quod alius modus concipitur ad capita, alius nec exiguo minor in piscinis, minimus deinde distributione continetur. cuius rei causa est fraus aquariorum, quos aquas ex ductibus publicis in privatorum usus derivare deprehendimus. Frontinus begins with rhetorical understatement, echoing his introduction to this portion of the work (. ante omnia itaque capita ductuum metiri adgressus sum, sed longe, id est circiter quinariis decem milibus, ampliorem quam in commentariis modum inveni, ut per singulas demonstrabo). A reason for the discrepancy he states as a matter of fact: cuius rei causa est, predicated by abstract noun with subjective genitive (error eorum), the pronoun defined in a relative clause. Word-order in the relative clause builds a crescendo of indignation: prepositional phrase functioning as temporal adverb (ab initio), modified modal adverb (parum diligenter), pronoun in genitive (uniuscuiusque with ellipse of aquae), verb and emphatic direct object (fecerunt aestimationem). The next sentence starts with his purposeful dismissal of what might have been an excuse for his forerunners, and ends with confident self-satisfaction. Both the initial clause (ne . . . credam + indirect statement) and the sentence as a whole end with first-person verbs, the latter’s present perfect emphasised by its 

With the litotes non dubito, cf. also in this passage parum diligenter, nec exiguo minor.



L A N G UA G E A N D S T Y L E

collocation with present participle (durantem exploravi). One almost takes the main sentence to be ipse . . . exploravi, nearly every feature of which recalls by contrast the preceding sentence. First are the repetitions (actis mensuris, uniuscuiusque). Next, the two temporal ablatives (Iulio mense, tota . . . aestate) are more specific than ab initio, and they intertwine with copiam . . . durantem; note also the hyperbaton and alliteration in tota deinceps aestate durantem. Finally, hanc . . . quae supra scripta est points to demonstrable and thereby reliable data in the preceding nine chapters. Yet the whole sentence is built around an entirely prosaic obstat id quod. An unexciting prosaic style informs the whole of the following sentence (quaecumque . . . temperant), the only striking feature of which is the emphatic decem milia quinariarum and a tiresome recollection of the discrepancy with imperial records that Frontinus himself has detected and demonstrated. But a second set of numerical differences allows Frontinus now to sound one of his favourite notes, the fraus aquariorum. The facts are stated with an elaborate tricolon, replete with anaphora and ellipsis (alius modus . . . alius . . .), alliteration (concipitur ad capita . . . continetur, minor . . . minimus, deinde distributione) and variation (ad capita, in piscinis, distributione). Again, the declarative statement of fact as we saw above: cuius rei causa est, now followed by a noun with far stronger negative force and with a more immediate subjective genitive. The relative clause now has as its subject the writer himself, and the tense authoritatively is the present. Note the chiastic word-order of the prepositional phrases ex ductibus publicis in privatorum usus, and the alliterative finale derivare deprehendimus. 

 

Recall the hendiadys aestatis ac siccitatum near the beginning of this sentence. It may not be coincidental that Frontinus speaks in . of notabilis siccitas in a context of his personal monitoring of water supplies (the verb there also in the present perfect). Cf. ab eo quod ., ex eo quod ., ., .. It matters little whether deprehendimus is present or (more likely) present perfect.



INTRODUCTION

IV T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N The Middle Ages Virtually nothing is known of the fate of Frontinus’ commentarius from the time of its publication until it was discovered in the fifteenth century. From its mere survival we can surmise that it attracted some attention in late Antiquity, and one can guess at reasons: a lasting prestige which attached to the author; a tone that might have appealed to imperial idealists (or to bureaucrats); a subject-matter which never completely lost its relevance, given the practical necessity of maintaining an essential service for Rome. The title De Aquaeductu possibly dates to this same period, and there are tantalising hints that it might even have been familiar to an administrative audience. Yet the booklet can never have achieved widespread circulation, and its very existence must always have been precarious. Codex Casinensis  (C), our oldest manuscript of this text, was written at Monte Cassino about the year . The copyist, as it happens, was no ordinary scribe: he was Petrus Diaconus, an enigmatic but remarkable monk who left his erratic footsteps indelibly impressed on the history of that venerable abbey. But Peter the Deacon’s interest in Frontinus did not end with simple transcription. Into his Chronica consulum, dictatorum et imperatorum, a curious but very important compilation made a few years later, Peter inserted references to four of Rome’s earliest aqueducts. 

  

For the title, see commentary. DeLaine () ,  points to possible verbal echoes of this booklet and something of its flavour in the Formula comitivae formarum Vrbis of Cassiodorus (Var. .), but she acknowledges that they may likely be no more than coincidental. For another possible link to late Antiquity, but still more tenuous, see .n. arcuatura. By contrast, Frontinus’ Strategemata was far better known in the Middle Ages: see Reynolds ()  –; cf. J. Martin (). Both manuscript and scribe are discussed at greater length below (pp. – ). Codex Casinensis , p. (ed. Florilegium Casinense . (), p.). The special interest which attaches to these entries was first revealed by Bloch () esp. – and Plate .



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

He can have drawn these references only from a text of the De Aquaeductu, presumably from the copy he had himself exscribed. The Monte Cassino manuscript, as it happens, is now the surviving archetype, and Peter’s references constitute the only known use of this text by any writer in the Middle Ages. The next person to reveal an acquaintance with this work of Frontinus was the enthusiastic book-hunter Poggio Bracciolini (–), and Poggio himself deserves full credit for its rediscovery – at Monte Cassino and in the very copy made there three centuries earlier by Peter the Deacon. Poggio’s quest By spring of  Poggio had heard – we do not know how – of the possibility that a Frontinus manuscript was to be found at Monte Cassino. He wrote to his friend Niccol`o Niccoli on  June  (Epist. .), ‘Nudius tertius locutus sum cum administratore monasterii Cassinensis satis diligenter de Iulio Frontone. Pollicitus est se missurum mihi librum, cum primum redierit, dummodo reperiatur; nam multos deperditos paucis ante annis dicit. Petiit a me titulum libri, tradam ei ante recessum suum et confido nos habituros librum.’ In subsequent letters to Niccol`o during the summer of  Poggio mentions

 



DBI () : –. We rely on Poggio’s letters to Niccol`o for tracing this story. For convenience numbered references are to Tonelli’s edition (); the letters have been newly edited by Helene Harth (). ‘Fronto’ for ‘Frontinus’ is to be explained in part by ignorance (the work had as yet not been seen), but this name occurs in the tradition of the Strategemata (see Gundermann’s preface, xii) – and there is even an epigraphic attestation: CIL . Sex. Iuli Frontoni. Poggio uses ‘Frontinus’ for the first time in Epist. . (Nov. ), not perhaps coincidentally just after receiving a report of the Hersfeld manuscript (see below). Panormita’s ‘Iulius Fronto’, occurring some months later, seems to reflect adherence to the form that had gained initial currency. As late as  Traversari writes (Epist. .) ‘Frontonem de aquaeductibus’, but corrects himself on the spot: ‘Est tamen id opus non Frontonis, ut putavimus, sed Frontini.’



INTRODUCTION

a delay in acquiring the text, and finally on  November he reports that the search has been unsuccessful (Epist. .): ‘Iulius Frontinus non reperitur in monasterio Cassinati, nam rescripsit nobis ille, cui curam demandaramus, se diu quesisse librum, sed minime inveniri.’ But, he continues in high spirits, ‘Hec autem minima est iactura, nam aliunde expiscabimur.’ The new hope arose because Poggio had been approached by ‘quidam monachus amicus meus ex quodam monasterio Germaniae’. The monk was Heinrich von Grebenstein, present in Rome on one of several official visits on behalf of the abbey of Hersfeld, but with a sideline interest in trading books. Poggio lost no time in sharing with Niccol`o two highlights on the list he had received from the monk: ‘inter ea volumina est Iulius Frontinus et aliqua opera Cornelii Taciti nobis ignota’. Contacts with the Hersfeld monk were protracted for more than three years. In the fall of  Poggio asked for an ‘inventarium cuiusdam vetustissimi monasterii in Germania, ubi est ingens copia librorum’ (Epist. .), and he seems to have received it in the spring of  when Heinrich von Grebenstein was once again in Rome. On  May Poggio wrote that the new inventory was a disappointment (Epist. .): he could do no better for Niccol`o than to send him ‘partem inventarii sui, in quo describitur volumen illud Cornelii Taciti, et aliorum quibus caremus’. Hopes of acquiring the treasures from Hersfeld remained unrealised: in February  the monk again arrived in Rome 





Epist. . ( June): ‘Si Iulius Fronto veniet, qui procul dubio, nisi perditus est, veniet, hec per proprios tabellarios deferentur ad Poggium.’ Epist. . ( August): ‘De Monte Cassino, hoc est Iulio Frontone sollicitus sum, sed mirum est; tam pauci eo accedunt aut inde ad nos veniunt.’ Epist. . ( September): ‘Iulium Frontonem aliquando eruemus ex agro illo Cassinati, sed durum est impellere istos nostros barbaros, ut aliquid sit eis dulce preter pretium.’ That the ‘German monastery’ was Hersfeld emerges from other letters: Epist. . ( May ) and . ( Feb. ). For the monk’s identity see Pralle () . The existence of these same works is reported by Panormita to Guarino in a letter which probably dates from April  (see below).



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

absque libro (Epist. .), and we hear from Poggio of no further contacts. Not long afterwards, however, he had an opportunity to visit Monte Cassino. This time he could search for himself, and on  July he wrote from Anagni that he had found the text of Frontinus (Epist. .): ‘Vidi autem bibliothecam monasterii, repperique librum, in quo erat Iulius Frontinus De aqueductu urbis et item Firmici Matheseos libri  . . . Portavi volumen hoc mecum, ut transcribam libellum Frontini, cum sit mendosus et pessimis litteris adeo ut vix queam legere.’ Poggio was less than punctual about returning the borrowed codex to Monte Cassino. In December  he writes to Niccol`o that he is about to return the book: he has copied Frontinus and in its other contents he has no interest. But Niccol`o seems to have pleaded for a delay, and a letter of Ambrogio Traversari indicates that the book might still have been in Rome as late as April of . The manuscript of Frontinus Poggio discovered was the copy made by Peter the Deacon, and the volume he borrowed was none other than Codex Casinensis  (although not exactly in its present state). Poggio mentions that the manuscript contained 

 

 

Although there is still a promise that the book will come later. Note the singular liber: perhaps this means ‘with no book at all’, although Poggio and Niccol`o might have been mainly interested in the Hersfeld Tacitus. Cf. Epist. . ( July): ‘Scripsi item noviter ex Anania de itione mea ad Sanctum Germanum et de libello Frontini.’ Epist. . ‘Liber Montis Cassini repetitur a me; itaque remittam eum. Transcripsi enim, ut nosti, De aqueductibus, quod mihi cure erat. Reliqua non magnopere me delectant. Illis ergo equo animo carebo.’ For the other contents at this time, see Bloch () –. Cf. Epist. . ( Dec. ). Harth (above, n.), no., p., dates this letter to May . Epist. ., quoted by Sabbadini () : ‘Poggius Frontonem de aquaeductibus secum habet; eum pollicitus est mittere ad me, sed nondum promissioni suae satisfecit.’ Epist. .: ‘Poggius . . . Frontonem de aquaeductibus secum fortassis adtulit. Est tamen . . . non Frontonis . . . sed Frontini, ut in exemplari antiquissimo, quod secum adtulisse debuit, notavi.’ Observe that Traversari had seen the venerable antique only on a prior occasion; secum habet may not have reflected present reality.



INTRODUCTION

both Frontinus and Firmicus, and we know that part at least of Firmicus was once to be found in Casinensis . Another casual reference confirms beyond doubt: ‘de Frontino et fragmento Arati’ in Poggio’s letter of December  (Epist. .) is no accident, for the opening words of the codex were once verses beginning ‘Ab Iove . . .’ – from Germanicus’ translation of Aratus, the initial line of which read in full ‘Ab Iove principium magno deduxit Aratus.’ Niccol`o and Traversari can hardly have been the only friends who expressed an interest in the newly discovered Frontinus. Copies could now circulate amongst humanist scholars, and the work could be read by those who studied and loved the monuments of ancient Rome. Appropriately enough, it was Poggio himself who first used Frontinus as an historical source, and he credits himself with rediscovering the text: ‘quem libellum ipse paulo ante reperi absconsum abditumque in Monasterio Cassinensi’. The Codex Hersfeldensis Poggio, as we have seen, met with no success in his attempt to acquire manuscripts from Hersfeld. Two authors in particular had aroused his interest: Frontinus and Tacitus. The Hersfeld codex which contained the minor works of Tacitus and Suetonius’ De grammaticis et rhetoribus was eventually brought to Italy, and a part of that volume survives to this day. On the other   



It appears in an inventory made in the fifteenth century (see below, n. ): see Bloch () , –; cf. Rinaldi () –.  For the date, see note  above. Bloch () . Poggio writes of Rome’s aqueducts in the first book of his De varietate fortunae, a work begun as early as . An annotated text of the relevant portion is found below, in Appendix A. Brought to Italy by Enoch of Ascoli, and seen at Rome in  by Pier Candido Decembrio. Only part of this ninth-century manuscript survives (that containing the Agricola) in Rome, Bibl. Naz. Vitt. Em.  (until recently Codex Aesinas lat. ). For rehearsal of the evidence see Robinson



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

hand, there is no evidence that the Hersfeld Frontinus ever reached humanist circles, nor has it come to light in modern times. What we know of the Hersfeldensis is thus limited entirely to information Poggio received from the Hersfeld monk Heinrich von Grebenstein. The first of his reports was that which Poggio mentioned to Niccol`o in November . To this same first report we no doubt owe the more detailed description related by Panormita (Antonio Beccadelli): ‘Quinetiam Sex. Iulii Frontonis liber de aquaeductibus qui in urbem Romam inducuntur; et est litteris aureis transcriptus. Item eiusdem Frontonis liber alter, qui in hunc modum iniciatur: “Cum omnis res ab imperatore delegata mentionem exigat” et cætera.’ Here we have a work clearly identical to that which survives in the Casinensis, divided into two books (as it is also in C), as well as an apparent title (‘De aquaeductibus qui in urbem Romam inducuntur’). The ‘golden letters’ are a mystery. The Hersfeld monk supplied a second inventarium in the spring of , a portion of which Poggio sent on to Niccol`o. In  Niccol`o drew up a list of desiderata to be sought in five German and Danish monasteries. The Hersfeld data in this commentarium almost certainly were derived from the select inventory Niccol`o had received from Poggio in May of .

   



()  –, Murgia (); for a close look at the chronology, Stok (). A comprehensive review of the tradition of Tacitus’ minor works is that of R¨omer ( ) –. See below . Of a Hersfeld Ammianus there survives only a fragment, now in the Landesbibliothek at Kassel. Epist. . ‘et nomina librorum mittit interclusa’. Sabbadini () , without date, but conjectured to have been written in April . This bit of the description may possibly reflect a touch of salesmanship on the part of the monk. A similar motive might conceivably explain the fact that two libri are listed separately and in reverse order. Epist. .. Niccol`o’s commentarium is edited by Robinson ( ). Variant readings (cited as J) are taken from an independent witness to the monk’s inventory, a letter of Poggio’s son written c. : Rubinstein (). At



INTRODUCTION

In Monasterio hispildensi* haud procul ab alpibus continentur haec opuscula. videlicet. Repertus.* Julii Frontini* De aquae ductis* quae* in urbem inducunt* liber .j. Incipit sic. PERSECVTVS ea quae de modulis dici fuit necessarium. Nunc ponam quemadmodum queque aqua ut principium* commentariis comprehensum est usque ad nostram curam habere visa sit &c. Continet hic liber XIIj.* Repertus.* Item eiusdem frontini* liber incipit sic. Cum omnis res ab imperatore delegata interiorem* exigat & curam, & me seu naturalis solicitudo seu fides sedula, non ad diligentiam modo, verum ad morem* commisse rei instigent, sitque mihi nunc ab nerva augusto, nescio diligentiore an amantiore rei .p. imperatore aquarum iniunctum officium & ad usum &c. Continet. XI. folia. hisfildensi J om. J Frontoni J aqueductibus J qui J Inducuntur J principum J folia add. J om. J om. J Intentionem J amorem J

If this is any indication, the second inventory was indeed ‘plenum verbis’. For each liber there is an extensive incipit and an indication of the number of folia it occupied in the manuscript. The ‘first’ book can now be identified with what is called Book  in C (beginning with chapter ); and although there is no explicit, it is unlikely that the Hersfeld codex contained more than C (which ends with chapter ). The text, one guesses, closely resembled that found in C (even more closely, no doubt, that in the exemplar from which C was copied): note . quem modum] quemadmodum HC. A close relationship between the Hersfeld manuscript and the text of Frontinus preserved at Monte Cassino should come as no surprise: copies of the work, after all, were extremely rare. We know of connections that existed between Monte Cassino and Germany, especially from the days of Abbot Richer of Niederaltaich (–). Although we can never recover the the end of his letter Jacopo mentions that the Frontinus has been found, although he is wrong (perhaps only through carelessness) in putting the discovery ‘post patris mortem’ (i.e. after ).



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

particular details of the transmission of Frontinus, analogy with the Tacitus traditions makes it very tempting to imagine that the text came to Monte Cassino from northern Europe, probably in the eleventh century. The Hersfeldensis of Frontinus does not survive, nor was its existence ever reported by anyone other than the Hersfeld monk who was in contact with Poggio. Silence does not of course preclude the possibility that the codex was copied or that readings from it were used to correct the blemished text which Poggio had discovered at Monte Cassino. Careful study of the recentiores, however, reveals that these manuscripts are all descended from the Casinensis. Unless the Hersfeld manuscript was itself a copy of C, the lost codex cannot have left any progeny. The Codex Casinensis and Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino Monte Cassino, Archivio della Badia, cod. , ff.  r – r (pages –), s. /  Our sole authority for the text of De Aquaeductu is the copy made by Petrus Diaconus of Monte Cassino about the year . This was the Frontinus discovered and borrowed by Poggio in 







Lowe (); cf. Bloch ()  –. A text of the Agricola (recovered from Hersfeld: above, n. ) had also been available at Monte Cassino, where it was used by Peter the Deacon in the twelfth century: Bloch ( ); see also below, n. . It is reasonable to suppose that the exemplar from which C was copied was a Carolingian manuscript. The most economical surmise would be that this single manuscript was parent to both H (a copy made before the book was taken to Italy) and C (copy made at Monte Cassino). For a detailed catalogue description, see Inguanez () –. Although Inguanez provides foliation, it is worth noting that manuscripts at Monte Cassino are usually cited by page. The Latin spelling of the adjective is Casinensis (one s), consistently used at the abbey throughout the Middle Ages: editors of Frontinus unfortunately perpetuate Poggio’s form Cassinensis. Some portions may have been penned by other hands, and my own sense is that the text was copied before : see below  –.



INTRODUCTION

. The manuscript appears in a catalogue of the abbey library made between  and . Parts of the book were copied not long afterwards, and it might perhaps have been dismantled at this time. In any case, several works which it then contained are wanting in the present volume. Mabillon saw the codex and copied the Frontinus on a visit to Monte Cassino in November . Don Erasmo Gattola, the learned and reverend scholar who assisted Mabillon, was later to furnish a second copy to Poleni, whose milestone edition appeared in . An excellent facsimile of the Frontinus was published by Clemens Herschel in ; a second, prepared by Don Mauro Inguanez, was issued at Monte Cassino on the occasion of the abbey’s fourteenth centenary (which coincided with the five hundredth anniversary of Poggio’s discovery).  









Vat. lat. , f.  v ; ed. Inguanez ( ) . Naples, Bibl. Naz. cod.    bis contains the work of three scribes, two of whom (ff.  –, –) were copying from Casinensis . The third (Arnaldus de Steccatis de Bruxella), whose work is presumably contemporary, entered dates:  (f.v ) and  (f.). Bloch () –, has recovered much of the original contents by careful comparison of the library inventory (Vat. lat. ), the present Cod. Cas. , the Naples manuscript, and Peter the Deacon’s autobiographical notes. Mabillon () : ‘quem [sc. codicem Frontini], quia deficiente edito conferre nobis non licuit, integrum descripsimus. Manus ad scribendum, & se ipsum totum in nostros usus impendit pius & cordatissimus Domnus Erasmus a Ca¨ıeta’. The fate of Mabillon’s transcript is not known. On Gattola, an important figure in his own right, see DBI () : –. Poleni writes warmly of his assistance (pref. p. ), ‘ab . . . Abbate Gattola exemplum habui Codicis illius Cassinensis descriptum diligentissime. Pro ea vero, qua praeditus est Abbas ille humanitate, mihi deinde praestitit summo studio quaecumque sum ab eo sciscitatus’. Herschel (, nd ed. ); Sexti Julii Frontini De aquaeductu urbis Romae, editio phototypica ex cod. Cas. , saec.  (Montecassino ). Portions of the Frontinus have appeared elsewhere: e.g., f.r ( = p. ) in Steffens () pl. b; f.r (p. ) in Krohn’s edition (); f. v (p. ) in Valentini– Zucchetti, vol.  () pl. ; f. v (p. ) in Meyvaert () pl. a; ff. r –  r (pp.  –). Chapter-length facsimiles of the text are available online at http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient rome/Images/ Roman/Texts/Frontinus/De Aquis/ms*/



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

Since scribes and scholars play so crucial a role in the transmission of an ancient text, it is a matter of special interest that we happen to be well acquainted with the man responsible for our archetype of the De Aquaeductu. Peter the Deacon was born in Rome (probably in ) and was presented by his father Egidius as a puer oblatus to the monastery of Monte Cassino when he was five years old. This Egidius Tusculanensis was somehow related to the counts of Tusculum, one of the most illustrious noble houses of Italy in the tenth and eleventh centuries. Peter emphasises his connection with Rome: Egidius was natione Romanus, the son (he says) of Gregorius ‘Romanorum patricius et consul’. Peter had the advantage of an outstanding education, and at his disposal were the rich treasures of the abbey library, among them the impressive collection of texts copied half a century earlier under the great Abbot Desiderius (–). Radical changes taking place in the twelfth-century church were sharply and painfully manifested at Monte Cassino in the s. Suddenly the abbey was plunged from its pinnacle of cultural and political preeminence, and the young Peter shared in the disgrace which befell his monastic home. For a period of some three and a half years (–) he was banished from the abbey. Upon his return he was entrusted with responsibilities for the library and archives and he was encouraged in his literary and historical studies. But bitterness over the exile lingered unmistakably; it may have riveted his focus forever on bygone glories, the aureum 





I would have shortened the discussion that follows had there existed any general treatment on Peter the Deacon to which users of this edition could conveniently turn. Peter left three autobiographies. The two earliest are in his autograph: Cod. Cas. , p. , and Cod. Cas. , pp. –. The third, as it were official, version is incorporated into the abbey chronicle: Chron. Cas. ., ed. H. Hoffmann (), Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores : –. For Peter’s family relationships, see Hoffmann ( ) esp. –. For a general introduction to the intellectual and cultural standing of Monte Cassino, see Bloch (, ). For more detailed discussion, see Bloch () :  –. On the events of the s and their affects on Monte Cassino, see Bloch (), revised in his () : –; see also Hoffmann ( ) –.



INTRODUCTION

patris Desiderii seculum and all that it represented – not least of which was a new kind of fascination with ancient Rome. The prodigious volume and range of Peter’s writings in the subsequent decades (his death came sometime after ) disclose a man of wide learning and indefatigable energy, not without a generous share of originality and imagination. That such signal talents were readily applied to forgery and fabrication may in large part be excused by the standards of his age. That he suffered from what might now be diagnosed as psychological disorders may explain the exaggerated sense of his own importance, along with some of the more bizarre contents of his work. To personality and temperament one must ascribe as well the haste and carelessness which are such conspicuous and consistent features of every product in his literary career. But, for all his defects, Peter the Deacon must not go unrecognised as a significant figure in the renaissance of the twelfth century. Holste seems to have been first to identify the scribe of Cod. Cas. . The hand which wrote most of this manuscript is 

  

The phrase is from the prologue to the Vita S. Severi, ed. Rodgers () – (cf. Patr.Lat. : ), composed c. . Memory of humiliation unambiguously underlies Peter’s allusion to Tacitus’ Agricola in the same prologue: Bloch ( ). The opening words of this vita are no less telling: ‘Casinensis igitur arcis sublimitas tanto olim culmine viguit, ut Romani celsitudo imperii philosoficis studiis illum in evum dicaret,’ whereupon Peter devotes an inordinate space to rehearsing the literary accomplishments of Publius [sic] Marcus Terentius Varro, ‘omnium Romanorum doctissimus, considerantissimus, acutissimus, et diligentissimus’ (copied verbatim from Augustine, De civitate Dei .–). Peter’s fascination with this particular ancient author is plainly remarkable. He knew at first hand only the De lingua Latina (of which the unique manuscript Mediceus . is of Cassinese origin), and in fact copied a fragment of this text into Cod. Cas.  alongside Frontinus and Vegetius. Peter had found and pitched upon the perfect model for his own scholarly ambitions in Varro the Roman, Varro the polymath, Varro ‘Casinensis’ (whose villa at Casinum was known from Cic. Phil. .–, available to monastic readers at Monte Cassino in what is now Cod. Vat. Lat. ). Bloch () –. Bloch () esp. –,  –; more generally, Bloch (). Barb. lat. , f.  r : ‘ut ex opusculis adiunctis coniicio Petri Diaconi manu scriptus est’ (cf. Barb. lat. , f.).



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

also found in Cod. Cas. , and the contents of both books are primarily works compiled by Peter the Deacon. That these texts were in fact Peter’s autographs was suggested by Wattenbach, and definitively established by Meyvaert. The script is best described by those most familiar with Peter the Deacon. Caspar speaks of ‘eine kleine, breite, in der Linienf¨uhrung nicht ganz sichere, etwas hastige und unsorgf¨altige Minuskel’. Meyvaert stresses that Peter’s is an untrained hand, more that of a scholar than a calligrapher. By comparison with other specimens of Peter’s handwriting one sees clearly that this transcription of Frontinus belongs to his early years. The hand is unpractised and the overall impression is decidedly juvenile. There are experimental touches, some of them playful and whimsical. In the general unevenness, moreover, there is something besides the variety to be expected from normal interruptions in the copying process: one has the feeling that this scribe alternates between care and boredom, patience and haste. Here we should perhaps call attention to those places on folio  (pages  –) where there is a marked difference in the writing. Meyvaert saw here three additional hands: two he described as those of scribes who had been trained in the Beneventan script, while the third employed Beneventan features not normally found in Peter’s writing. The use of amanuenses is attested elsewhere in Peter’s work: on rare occasions when he was working from a preexisting draft, he would call upon others  

  

Wattenbach (),  n.; cf. Bethmann () , . Meyvaert (). Of equal importance is Meyvaert’s demonstration that Peter wrote only Caroline minuscule. He never mastered the more elegant and prestigious Beneventan, although the latter might fairly be called the ‘official’ script of Monte Cassino; cf. Lowe () –. Caspar () . Caspar’s monograph is fundamental to all subsequent studies concerned with Peter the Deacon. Perceptively remarked, solely on palaeographical grounds, by Steffens () pl. b. Meyvaert () –: f. r (p.), lines  – quinquaginta . . . curatoribus; f. v (p.), lines  – fistule . . . ducit; lines – opera . . . reditu.



INTRODUCTION

to copy a few lines here and there. This might have happened in the Frontinus, although it is my belief that Peter himself wrote these lines. Apart from the handwriting, there is another indication that this transcription is a product of Peter’s youth. Bloch’s reconstruction of Codex  in its earlier state allows us to see the copy of Frontinus in a new context – that of a series of excerpts and compilations, many of which were concerned with Roman Antiquity. This entire portion of the original codex conveys the impression of a compendium gathered and preserved for largely personal reasons. Texts which Peter had copied or excerpted were often those to which he was later to turn in creating his own literary works. Taking these circumstances into consideration (along with the palaeographical evidence), I strongly incline to date Peter’s copy of Frontinus to the years when he had graduated from schoolboy to young scholar, in other words to the period prior to his exile – perhaps as early as the mid s. What attracted Peter to Frontinus can only be surmised. His fascination with ancient Rome would no doubt have given this 



 

Examples from Cod. Cas.  : p. (Vita S. Apollinaris); p. (Vita S. Gebizonis); p. (Vita S. Aldemarii). The first two vitae, which Peter had originally written as separate works, were being incorporated into his Ortus et vita iustorum cenobii Casinensis. The Vita S. Aldemarii (not by Peter) was subsequently appended to the same work. In overall quality they resemble nothing so much as Peter’s own uneven and careless script. The view that this is Peter’s own script I advance with some hesitation and only because my initial feeling has gained considerable strength over several years of close work with Peter’s handwriting. The issue requires minute reexamination of Cod. Cas.  (including portions not available in facsimile). Although it has no bearing on the present edition, the matter is of some interest for an understanding of Peter’s workmanship and it might serve to throw welcome light on the reasons why Peter seems not to have used the more prestigious Beneventan script. (I am indebted to Professor Francis Newton for several pleasant and helpful conversations on this subject.) Bloch () –. Meyvaert () pl. a, dates the script ‘c.–’ – in other words, to the period shortly after Peter’s exile.



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

text great interest. References to Tusculum (., .–) might have struck a personal note. The mention of Subiaco (.) might have seemed important as this was the locality where St Benedict had tarried prior to making his settlement at Monte Cassino. Peter’s copy of Frontinus follows immediately upon a partial copy of Vegetius, and the conjunction is not perhaps insignificant: that text contains words of praise for Frontinus which must have piqued the interest of a budding writer. The tone and attitude of Frontinus himself might have left a deep impression. ‘Mendosus et pessimis litteris, adeo ut vix queam legere’: Poggio’s words were intended no doubt primarily to describe the physical condition of the Monte Cassino manuscript, but they might be applied with equal justice to the quality and intelligibility of the text in this codex. Because we know the scribe so well, it is tempting to believe that many of the blemishes are the fault of Peter the Deacon. A good number of slips could readily be understood – some of them even excused – in the product of a youthful, careless and impatient copyist whose transcription was made for largely personal reasons. Unfortunately, there is no objective means of isolating Peter’s role from that of his predecessors, nor yet of reaching a general assessment of his reliability as a copyist. In contrast to the ample material by which one 





Paulus Diac., Hist.Lang. .; Chron.Cas. .. Note especially Gregory the Great’s life of St Benedict (Dial. ., p.. Moricca): deserti loci secessum petiit, cui Sublacus vocabulum est, qui a Romana urbe quadraginta fere milibus distans, frigidas adque perspicuas emanat aquas. quae illic videlicit aquarum abundantia in extenso prius lacu collegitur, ad postremum viro in amne dirivatur. Veg. . nam unius aetatis sunt, quae fortiter fiunt; quae vero pro utilitate rei publicae scribuntur, aeterna sunt. idem fecerunt alii complures, sed praecipue Frontinus, divo Traiano ab eius modi comprobatus industria. The imperial familiarity of Frontinus’ prologue, of course, and his pride in the aqueducts as monuments of Roman greatness (e.g. , ). Note especially . rem [sc. tutelam ductuum] enixiore cura dignam, cum magnitudinis Romani imperii vel praecipuum sit indicium – a sentence unmistakably echoed in the opening lines of Peter’s own Liber dignitatum Romani imperii: Bloch () . For Peter’s use of the De Aquaeductu as an historical source, see above, .



INTRODUCTION

judges him as a literary figure (be he forger, plagiarist, cavalier compiler), we have from his pen but two texts which purport to be straightforward transcriptions. For neither Vegetius nor Frontinus is there an extant exemplar against which one can measure his ability as a scribe. But that he expanded the text of Vegetius – and how he did so – is of some importance for an editor of Frontinus. Note in Vegetius .. ipsos progenuere Romanos,  Hannibali, .. provinciae conservatur {imperium}, .. Scipionis. Similar interpolations in Frontinus are . {Iulii} Caesaris and . quae terrarum dea consistit cui par nihil et nihil secundum, both of which have long been recognised. In one sense, an editor’s treatment of the archetype remains the same, regardless of the scribe’s identity. To the process of examinatio it matters little whether the faults of this manuscript are due to Peter the Deacon or were already in his exemplar. It serves no useful purpose to vilipend the scribe to whom we owe this text, and one should not discredit a copy Peter made in his youth merely in reaction against the complex fantasies of his mature years. An editor of Frontinus, on the other hand, ought not to ignore the dangers of placing undue confidence in the authority of a manuscript written by a man whose attitude and purposes are always questionable and whose concern for exactitude is never conspicuous. The manuscript tradition prior to C Stages of the tradition prior to C can be perceived by analysis of certain types of copyists’ errors. It is abundantly clear that some of C’s faulty readings are due to misreadings in minuscule script (note, for example, . servato] struato, . ne rivus]  

Reeve () –; for further examples (also from Reeve) see commentary to .. Kunderewicz ix–x provides a few examples; more extensive lists in Gonz´alez Rol´an li–lv.



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

neminis, . desit iis] desitus, . Vibius] albius). Errors that involve abbreviations, suspension strokes, or marks of punctuation also point to a copy in minuscules (although their frequency is perhaps due to carelessness on the part of Peter the Deacon). These are especially frequent in the case of final m (e.g. . aquam] aqua, . moderatione] moderatione , . libram] libram ,  curam] cura), sometimes with confusion between -us and -um (e.g. . ramus] ramum, . datum] datus). Plural and singular are sometimes reversed in this way, as are active and passive (e.g. . aequat] equata, . debeant] debeat, . sustinentur] sustinetur, . dat] datur, . videbatur] videbant). Faulty word-division reveals vestiges of scriptura continua (e.g. . senatu M.] senatu ,  breve spatium] breves. At cum, . erogatione] erogatur.ne, . comprehensionem scio] compreensio.nescio). Some errors may reflect earlier stages in the tradition: . spatium] statium, . adiectione sui] adlectiones sex, . quarum] duarum, . saepius] septus, . duplicata] publicata, . gelatio] celatio, . per suffossa] per suetossa. Blank spaces left in C indicate a scribe’s inability to decipher the text he was copying. Although the scribe might have been Peter the Deacon, it is no less plausible that the blanks were already present in the exemplar from which Peter was working. Those that occur near the end of the text (ch. ) probably result from difficulties with the unfamiliar legal language. Blanks in the opening chapters, on the other hand, are rather evenly spaced (.–., ., .–, ., .), and this fact suggests that they represent physical damage in an ancestral codex. One indication that the damaged and indecipherable ancestor was not C’s immediate exemplar is the unexpected appearance of majuscule letters in conjunction with blank spaces (at ., .). It is far more reasonable to suppose that these meaningless letters have been copied as faithfully as possible through several stages of the transmission than it is to see them as very early examples of litterae tonsae (such as were employed in the papal chancery in the thirteenth century). 

Gundermann () .



INTRODUCTION

The recentiores Scholars’ searches have so far brought to light a total of eleven fifteenth-century manuscripts containing the De Aquaeductu. U Vatican, Urb. lat. , ff. – v . Florentine calligraphy of the s, attributed to Francesco de’ Contugi (whose notarial sign appears on f. v ). See Pellegrin () .: . Cited by Poleni and subsequent editors. I use my own collation. V Vatican lat. , ff. –r , late s.. The closeness of V’s text to the editio princeps has long been recognised (B¨ucheler vi), and one can note that its text of Tacitus’ Agricola (ff. v –) derives from Vat. lat. . Cited by Poleni and subsequent editors. I use my own collation. M Paris N.A.L.  (formerly Middlehillensis ), s./ (the date ‘xvi Iu. ’ occurs in a marginal note added later). The text is divided into three books (chapters  –, –, –). This manuscript also contains Frontinus’ Strategemata. Noted by Aly (); cited by Grimal and Gonz´alez Rol´an. E Escorial S.., ff. – v , subscribed (f. v ) ‘Rome anno a nat. dni. M CCCC L quinto per me Joannem Vynck clericum Colonien. dioc. transcriptum feliciter’. See Antol´ın (–) : . The text of Frontinus was noted by Rampolla () and more thoroughly investigated by Rubio (). Cited by Kunderewicz and Gonz´alez Rol´an (the latter using the siglum S). A Milan, Ambros. . sup., ff.– v , with subscription (f. v ) ‘Romae VII Kl. Iunii . . . anno MCCCCLIIII’. Briefly noted by Sabbadini ()  and Bloch () . Studied by Rubio (alongside E) and used by subsequent editors. I have collated a microfilm copy. 



Listed here in the order of their use by scholars and editors of Frontinus. I do not include Paris lat.  or Vatican Barb. lat. , both of which are manuscript editions: see below n. , . See Murgia ().



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

Est. Modena, Est. lat.  (formerly .T..), s.. Mentioned by Grimal and Kunderewicz, but its readings are reported for the first time by Pace and Gonz´alez Rol´an (both of whom give it the siglum E). I have collated a microfilm copy. B Berlin, Hamilton , ff.– r , s./ . Corrections and conjectures (B ) are in the hand of Pietro Donato (died ). The anonymous scribe had worked for Donato at Basel: De la Mare () . Reeve has shown that B was ‘the one exemplar’ used by Giocondo (see below). I have collated a microfilm copy. O Vatican, Ottob. lat. , ff.– v , s./ . See Pellegrin () : –. I use my own collation. F Vatican lat. , ff. – v . The hand that wrote Frontinus continues to the end of Festus (f. v ), where it gives the date,  Aug. . See Ruysschaert () . The Maffei arms appear on f. (Pace, fig. ). H British Library, Harley , s. . A slovenly copy, far outshone by U (its nearest relative). S Siena L.v., ff., s./ . Described by Terzaghi () , its readings for Frontinus first reported by Pace (whose siglum is S). The relationships of these manuscripts (to each other and to C) and their consequent editorial value have been variously explained. Hopes of retrieving among them a tradition independent of the Casinensis have at last been firmly dispelled, and Reeve has established a comprehensive stemma. 



I am perhaps too optimistic: *,    "
 2,1 "   . For the better part of a century the Hersfeldensis proved an almost irresistible mirage appearing to those seeking a draught of independent truth available in the fifteenth century. Cf. Sabbadini () : ‘Si ritiene comunemente che i codici del De aquaeductibus del sec.  discendano tutti dal cassinese [he cites B¨ucheler]; ma se ci`o vale per quelli che furono esattamente collazionati, rimane da vedere se fra quelli finora non esaminati ce ne sia qualcuno di lezione diversa, il quale potrebbe risalire all’ esemplare hersfeldese.’ Reeve () –.



INTRODUCTION

B2

U

H

B

A

O

E

S

Est. M

V

F

ed.pr.

Reeve is at pains to point out that the case for independence among the recentiores must rest upon readings of their common ancestor (which, for convenience, I have called ) and not on readings peculiar to one or another manuscript. Renaissance emendation (right or wrong) must be recognised as such, and it cannot be brought as evidence for an independent transmission. Among the readings that were to be found in , in fact, are some which can only be explained as misinterpretations in copying from C. Note that
is the source of the recentiores – except for B , a corrector whose evidence now deserves a closer look. As might be expected, B often agrees with CU, setting right an error of BOA. For example: . in urbe: urbem, sanciant: faciat, . excipitur: concipitur, . piscina: pisana,  initur (anitur U): oritur, . vires om. BOA, . sint: fuit,  aut oneranda esse erogatione om. BOA, . que om. BOA, . supervenerant: pervenerant, . etiam om. BOA, . instruendum: instituendum, . vindicarentur: iudicarentur, . permiserint om. BOA. More interesting is the case where CU are wrong: . hominum (hominem B ): dominum BOA (rightly); B has part way returned to the paradosis but has nonetheless written an accusative required by the syntax. 

Inadequacies in Rodgers () were rightly noted by Reeve () –.



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

More often, B offers the same reading as C, or with only a slight change (usually for the better), adjusting for errors that B inherited from
: . erogationes habiles: habilis erogationes, is (his B ): quis, . et om.
, . gemellos: gemellas, . Iterum: item, . millies] mine: nunc, . alteriusque: alterius, . contectis: contentis, limum om.
, . ibi: ubi (recte), . post: est, . ud (ut B ): et, . modulus: modus, . area: arta, . quantumque: quantumcumque, . quinarias om.
, . etiam si inter: etiam inter (om. si), . ieiunum (ieiunam B ) om.sp.rel.
, . tam (tum B ): tamen, . auus: cuius, . pertinentia: pertineulia
, . ducende: dicendio (dicende O), . interdiu: interdici (interdiei U), . manationibus: minationibus, . nam: non, . solute: solite, . et ut . . . coartantur om.
, . ad: adit, . Quomoda (commoda B ) om.
, . quia non: qui (quia U) ante,  quid om.
, . in: ideo, . arcuationibus: circuitionibus, . enim om.
, . pile: parve,  tollerentur . . . exportarentur om.
, res om.
, . suetos: suetas, . que edificia (edificiis B ) urbi continentia sunt erunt in his hortis prediis om.
. Three readings in the preceding list (. Quomoda, . in, . pile) were amongst the compelling instances adduced by Reeve to show that the
manuscripts derive from C and that B had access to a non-
source. We have a similar instance at ., where C first wrote quarto decimo, but at once added in over the ar which provides the variant quinto: while
read quarto, B in the margin has xv. Nothing so far can establish that B is independent of C. To examine this question I have found a total of twenty-six readings where B differs from both C and
(those which I print are marked with an asterisk). *. {Romam} del. B ; *. idem B A: ibidem CU; *. spatium B M: statium CU; . substructionibus B : sub[. . .]bus C
; *. uiminalis B : [. .]minalis C
; . is B , Dederich: se C
; *. 

I do not include  oporteret B : oporte(re) C: oportet
, which may be my own misinterpretation of B’s oportet altered by a superscript -re intended to give oportere (the reading of C). B also agrees with C in numerical readings in the following places: ., ., ., ., ., ..



INTRODUCTION

luculianis B (-ulli- Jocundus): lucilianis CU (-illi- BOA); . perveniret B : veniret C
; *. B (sed only Jocundus); *. sepe B : se C: om.
; . saxeos B : saxosos CUA: saxos BO; . {et} legis B : et leges CUBO: eius legis A; *. publicum penderetur B : publico impenderetur C
; . satrius B : tarius CBA: tario O; . satrio B : taurio C: tario
; *. {et} B ; . sergio B : serio C: segrio U: segerio BOA; . ex ortis aedificiisve B : exolie.difficisve C: ex oli edicisve
; *. enixiore B A: enixiorem CUBO; * viri B : viri . . . [rasura] C, viri
; *. utilitate B : utilitatis C: utilitas
; . eripuerint B , Dederich: eripuerunt C
; . ea quae B : eaea que C: ea aqua U: ea eaqua BOA; . dare damnas dedito in marg. B : det C
; *. obponito etc. B , Schulz: obponit etc. C
; *. liceto B , Bruns: licet C
These include trivial, straightforward corrections that might be made by any intelligent reader facing an obvious difficulty in B as well as what might be more thoughtful emendations introduced by a fifteenth-century scholar. Examples of the former are ., *., .. Of the latter we have *., *., ., *., ., *., *., ., *., *. {et}, ., *. (bis), ., ., *., *. (that . idem and . spatium at least are not beyond the capacity of such readers is clear from the coincidental appearance of these same readings in A and M respectively, notorious amongst recentiores for their enthusiastic editorial activity). But against these reasonable improvements we must set Satrius and Sergius (.–), of which both look like guesswork and neither is impressive: Sergius is a Roman gentilicium (a praenomen is wanted), and one Satrius Rufus was known to Renaissance scholars from Pliny, Ep. .., ... These contributions on the part of B number twenty-two in all, of which twelve appear in my text along with parts of three others (. legis, . aedificiisve, . dare damnas). This is  

I acknowledge that the distinction is entirely subjective, and that some will disagree with what I judge to be ‘improvements’. In fairness I should perhaps point also to . is (where I print hic), for this was independently conjectured by Dederich and has long been accepted.



T H E T E X T UA L T R A D I T I O N

not a bad showing, since already shows the fruits of major, if largely superficial, editorial attention. I have thus far withheld four readings which obviously do not derive from C and which may be too good for conjecture. These are: *. {Romam} The word might have been deleted in B because it was missing in the manuscript being consulted (which was not C, where it is plainly to be read). Equally well it could have been suppressed for stylistic reasons (on comparison with . in urbem?). I remove the word because I judge it to be an interpolation of Peter the Deacon. . perveniret In ., an exactly parallel passage, C has perveniret (the source of B ’s reading?), and perhaps one should print it here. The compound verb present in C’s exemplar could have lost its prefix through carelessness (after piscinam?) on the part of C. In either case, it may be noted that B does not catch the difficulty with erogantur earlier in the sentence, although Est. does so (presumably alerted by the tense of the subjunctive). *. s(a)epe Conjecture can, I think, quite readily account for B ’s saepe (C has se), good as it is, especially since it offers no other variants in this muddled sentence. * viri The formulaic adjective could probably have been supplied no less promptly by a fifteenth-century student than by his counterpart in ancient Rome. A fistful of good readings alone cannot establish that B represents a tradition independent of C. I have sought, but not found, instances where B reveals evidence of something more telling, a reading (good or bad) sufficiently different from what C offers and where C’s reading would otherwise have raised no suspicions. (The closest are . and ., just discussed.) Most important, perhaps, is the fact that not a single one of C’s numerous problematic passages can be brightly and clearly illuminated by any testimony which B offers. While B may indeed have overlooked some things in his exemplar, not being himself a copyist, it is precisely in C’s troublesome passages that a corrector or collator would have been alert to discover useful readings. 

INTRODUCTION

Conjecture can account, I believe, for everything unique that we find in B : whatever manuscript was its source contained nothing that deserves recognition as independently transmitted truth. Eliminandi haud omnino spernendi. Although they have no worth as textual witnesses (and C has suffered no physical damage for which they might compensate), the Renaissance manuscripts still require an editor’s attention for the conjectures they contain. The text in C is remarkably poor, and readers (beginning with Poggio) have resorted willy-nilly to emendation. Along with the now clearer understanding of the nature of the recentiores comes the observation that the quality of their conjectures is not very high. The bulk of this activity deserves no place in a critical apparatus, but one must in fairness report those instances of successful improvements introduced by anonymous scribes and scholars of the fifteenth century. V E D I T I O N S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S There are few highlights in the editorial history of this work. The editio princeps, as it happened, represents an already inferior state of the text which had in effect been in circulation for only half a century. No improvement at all can be discerned until the Juntine edition of , prepared by the famous Veronese architect Giovanni Giocondo. Although he was fortunate that the one manuscript he used took him closer to the archetype, Giocondo’s text is marred by sometimes radical changes of his own occasioned by his relatively greater interest in the subjectmatter than the language of his author. But it had at least the 

 

Note the wisdom of Murgia () : ‘In a text of sufficient length, uncomplicated by a plethora of contaminated MSS, a truly independent witness always announces itself in no uncertain terms.’ On Fr`a Giocondo, recent studies are Ciapponi ( ), Fontana (); cf. DBI () : –. ‘Quem [sc. Frontinum] cum uno dumtaxat exemplare contuli’, in his prefatory letter. He used the distinctive text of B as corrected by B , and Reeve ()  n., has tentatively identified Giocondo’s own hand at work



E D I T I O N S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

merit of being a moderately readable version, and for over a century new editions were little more than reissues. Lucas Holste (–), native of Hamburg and distinguished at Rome both as scholar and librarian, was the next serious student of Frontinus. His death prevented publication of an annotated edition that would have been remarkable for two reasons. Holste had collated the Casinensis and recognised its value. He also ventured conjectural emendations of a high order, some of which anticipate those of later scholars and are now accepted as standard. Editors of Frontinus have never been aware of the extent or the importance of Holste’s work. It survives only in manuscript, virtually ready for a printer, but perhaps delayed deliberately to enable him to correlate it with extensive but still unfinished topographical studies.



  

 

in this manuscript. In fairness to Giocondo, it should be noted that his sentence continues, ‘non quod me existimem illum seu etiam Vitruvium ad integrum redegisse, sed utrosque tam minus dilacæratos pleribusque scaturiginibus repurgatos protulisse’. Lucas Holste (Barb. lat. , f.) had collated a manuscript ‘in bibliotheca PP. Theatinorum Neapoli ad SS. Apostolos’ (‘scriptus est manu recentiori et quidem hominis Gallicani ante annos circiter c, ut credam Guilielmi Philandri fuisse, aut Jacobi Metelli’). This codex is now Paris lat. , which contains on f. a similar note signed by Holste, but naming Demontesius instead of Jacob Metellus. Despite a cancelled note on f. (‘Anno domini a Nativitate  fecit’), the book itself cannot date, as editors have said, from . The text is clearly a manuscript edition, as observed by B¨ucheler (pref., p.v), and only a few of its readings are worthy of note. I am indebted to my colleague Z. Philip Ambrose for careful inspection of relevant parts of this manuscript. Rietbergen (); Serrai ()  –, with bibliography. Vatican, Barb. lat.  (interleaved with Basel edition of ), and (a neater copy) Barb. lat. . Barb. lat. , f. r : ‘exemplar omnium quotquot extant puto optimum, unde plurima passim restitui’. He also collated a codex at Naples (above, n. ), there are occasional references to U (e.g., Barb. lat.  f.r ) and he gives extensive reports of conjectures made by Fulvio Ursino and Paulus Manutius. I have not attempted to trace the present whereabouts of the annotated editions from which he drew these reports (cf. Barb. lat.  f. r ). Except (very briefly) Pace ()  and . See Ashby ()  –. The latest reference that caught my eye in Barb.lat.  (f.  r ) is to May .



INTRODUCTION

The elegant edition of Giovanni Poleni (Padua ) is in all respects a landmark. Aware that this text had been discovered at Monte Cassino and that Mabillon had seen the manuscript there only a few decades earlier, Poleni obtained a copy of C, and was thus the first editor to publish readings from the archetype itself. Improvement was perhaps inevitable: it was particularly noticeable because Poleni’s own patience and sobriety of judgement restored a textual balance that was badly needed. (His, incidentally, was the first edition to divide the text into chapters.) An alert and wide-ranging commentary incorporated the linguistic, historical and archaeological data available at the time; this material has been largely superseded, yet for this portion of his work Poleni has had no worthy successor. The overall achievement is all the more remarkable because Poleni’s interests were technical rather than historical or philological (he was professor of mathematics), and it is ironic that the most serious shortcoming of his edition lies in a misdirected attempt to recompute the pipe-sizes by using a more exact figure for the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter (). No forward steps were taken for a hundred years. Unfinished studies of Christian Schultz (–) and Karl Heinrich (–) formed the basis of an edition with textual commentary produced by Andreas Dederich (Wesel  ). Undisciplined and uncritical as it sometimes was, the work of these three scholars reveals a serious interest in advancing the understanding of Frontinus’ booklet, and Schultz in particular approached 





His remarks and his practice both suggest that Poleni valued the Casinensis primarily for its antiquity and its use by Poggio, not as sole authority. His other manuscripts (U and V) are cited throughout, as are earlier editions; but we are, after all, a century in advance of the ‘Lachmannian revolution’. B¨ucheler x–xiii. Poleni used the fraction / adopted by Adrien Metius ( –), although it is clear from Frontinus’ own text (see commentary to .) that his figure was /. (Incidentally, the name pi () standing for ‘periphery’ or ‘perimeter’ was first used by William Jones in his Synopsis palmariorum matheseos, London . The great mathematician Leonhard Euler fixed the usage by his consistent use of the letter  from  on.) For Poleni’s place in the history of hydraulic science see Franke (). Second edition (Leipzig ) included also the Strategemata.



E D I T I O N S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

the text with freshness and independence of thought. Even the glaring defects of Dederich’s edition were turned to profit, for these attracted the attention of the only good Latinist ever to edit Frontinus. Franz B¨ucheler (–) was twenty-one years of age when his slender but monumental edition appeared at Leipzig in . ‘Vir de Frontino omnium optime meritus’: B¨ucheler’s judgement on Poleni can with even greater justice be applied to B¨ucheler himself. Here we have the first and best critical edition of Frontinus’ work. With magisterial firmness B¨ucheler declared that C was the archetype, and he radically but judiciously thinned the luxuriant growth of conjectures that had pullulated over four hundred years. The product was a sound and sensible text supported by a clear and coherent apparatus, the only weakness of which is that B¨ucheler was unable to inspect the Casinensis for himself. It can fairly be said that the text of Frontinus has seen very little improvement since B¨ucheler’s edition. Fritz Krohn’s Teubner text () is a piece of honest workmanship, but it adheres too 





Schulz was acquainted with Goethe, who speaks of the projected edition in a letter to him written in May . In July  Goethe’s diary tells us ‘Wurde gestern mit Herrn Schultz seine neue Ausgabe des Frontin und die Einrichtung der r¨omischen und orientalischen Wasserleitungen besprochen . . . Ich las in Frontins Werke von den Wasserleitungen.’ See Grumach () . Preface, p.v: ‘Poggius in complura exemplaria transcribendum [sc. codicem Casinensem] curavit ita ut a Cassinensi repetenda sit origo omnium quae supersunt octo’ (the total number known to him). This falls short of a detailed demonstration such as modern scholarship would require (especially in light of more sophisticated studies on the worth of fifteenth-century manuscripts), but it has left the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who would claim authority for manuscripts other than C. Behind B¨ucheler’s decision lay the value traditionally accorded to C by Poleni, Rondelet () v, as well as the view expressed by Haupt ()  : ‘ich sage, die Handschrift, denn wo von Ueberlieferung die Rede ist kann nur die Handschrift von Monte Cassino in Betracht kommen, wenn die Kritik eine regelrechte und sichere sein soll’. He relied primarily on an apograph of C procured by Schultz (and made by the eminent epigraphist Olaf Kellermann).



INTRODUCTION

closely to C, and its editor was gifted with neither imagination nor critical skill. Sober and sane were the labours of Roberto Valentini and Giuseppe Zucchetti, who included an edition of chapters  – and – in their collection of texts on the topography of Rome. In the Bud´e edition of   Pierre Grimal introduced a convenient division of sections within chapters, but his text shows neither care nor critical ability. Chief among its demerits is the editor’s mistaken belief that there are fifteenthcentury witnesses to a tradition independent of C. In this belief, alas, Grimal has not been alone: the same error informs all subsequent editions and most of the recent textual studies. The result has been distraction from the archetype and scholarly attention diverted from the need for conjectural improvements. The time has come for editors to recognise the realities of the tradition: a new and closer scrutiny of the Casinensis is long overdue. Frontinus will best be served by those who squarely face the dangers of dealing with a badly corrupt tradition and who do not avoid conjecture out of fear that they may err. *** Of the commentary contained in Poleni’s edition something has already been said. That provided by Dederich was largely confined to textual points, an uncooked stew with most of its ingredients fetched from the random notes of Schultz and Heinrich. 

  

It would not be too serious an oversimplification to say that it amounts to little more than a diplomatic transcript, the need for which had been removed with the publication of Herschel’s facsimile (above, n. ). Codice topografico della citt`a di Roma, vol.  (Fonti per la Storia d’italia , Rome ) –. Reissued in  (complete with typographical errors) as a ‘second edition’. Bruun ( )  – judiciously surveys the editorial history. For Grimal V and M are the representatives of this supposedly independent tradition. Rubio () elegantly demonstrated that VM derive from A, but argued that A and E were independent witnesses. Kunderewicz uncritically follows Rubio. Gonz´alez Rol´an, whose collations are marked by noticeably greater accuracy, draws a stemma in which the source of all the recentiores is given equal status with C. Pace () too enthusiastically embraces the Siena manuscript (his ‘discovery’: , , ): ‘E di certo indipendente dal Cassinensis.’



E D I T I O N S A N D C O M M E N TA R I E S

Although not strictly speaking a commentary, the great work of Rudolfo Lanciani, I comentarii di Frontino intorno le acque e gli aquedotti [sic], which appeared in  , incorporated the fruits of nineteenth-century historical, epigraphical and archaeological scholarship and was a fitting complement to B¨ucheler’s edition. With Lanciani began the modern topographical study of Rome’s aqueducts, magnificently continued – one is tempted to say completed – by Thomas Ashby’s Aqueducts of Ancient Rome, posthumously published in . Ashby took up a suggestion of Lanciani to trace the aqueducts’ courses by searching for piles of deposit cleared from their channels. He supervised the meticulous operations whereby levels were taken of most of the extant remains, thus aiding both identification and technical understanding. He worked in close conjunction with Esther Boise Van Deman, a pioneering student of construction techniques, whose own important monograph, The Building of the Roman Aqueducts, appeared in . In the purposefully restricted notes which accompany his Bud´e text, Grimal drew with profit upon these recent archaeological advances. Nor did he neglect questions of a technical nature, responding to what was beginning to develop as a more sophisticated interest in the history of technology. This interest has grown considerably in recent decades, with the focus of research understandably moving away from the text of Frontinus. Scholars in other areas have also begun to sidestep the shadow of Frontinus, and his authority in matters 

  

The thoroughness of Ashby’s work, carried out over more than three decades, inevitably leaves less for his successors, and of what he saw much has since disappeared. But his cannot of course be the last word: for a case in point, see commentary to .. Reina et al. (). For the Ashby–Van Deman partnership, see Bull-Simonsen () and Claridge–Cozza (). The study of Roman aqueducts takes one, of course, far afield from Rome, and some of the most interesting features (and problems) are to be encountered elsewhere. Hodge () has become the standard comprehensive work in English on the subject.



INTRODUCTION

of Roman administration is receiving a critical assessment long overdue. It appears unlikely that the labours of philologists, archaeologists, historians, and students of Roman law, administration and technology will be closely correlated in future, but – thanks not a little to the enthusiasm that Rome’s aqueducts have always inspired in amateurs – the booklet Frontinus wrote will perhaps continue to provide a common meeting ground for representatives from increasingly specialised branches of learning. Wasserversorgung im antiken Rom, published by the FrontinusGesellschaft in , admirably exemplifies the positive benefits of such contact: the text of Frontinus (in Latin and in translation) is juxtaposed with historical and technical studies contributed by scholars whose backgrounds and specialties are richly varied. Frontinus himself would perhaps have smiled on the happy collaboration represented by this splendid work and by others that have followed. When there is much to be known, it is good that willing learners are many. VI E D I TO R I A L C O N V E N T I O N S A N D T H E A P PA R AT U S C R I T I C U S Codex Casinensis  (C) is the sole basis on which a critical edition of this text may be constituted. The nature of this archetype invites the use of somewhat modified editorial conventions.

 



Bruun ( ), building on the work of Werner Eck and others, and acknowledged by Evans (), DeLaine () and Rodgers (). Pietrantonio Pace’s Gli acquedotti di Roma () represents the opposite extreme. This book is also elegant and appeals to the interest of an interdisciplinary audience, but its author (‘ingegnere nucleare’ and by confession an amateur) ought never to have tried his hand at editing: in the Latin text and apparatus lie the book’s greatest weakness; for another see Bruun ( ) –. The conventions I have adopted will not, I trust, prove to be unduly troublesome: they are, after all, familiar from papyrological and epigraphical texts and they are those recommended by West () .



E D I TO R I A L C O N V E N T I O N S

It is particularly important to indicate blank spaces left in C and to distinguish these from other, purely conjectural, lacunae. C’s blank spaces are of two kinds: those left by the scribe when his exemplar was indecipherable or might itself have had a blank (e.g. ., .) and those required by the condition of the parchment (e.g. .). The latter, although noticeable in facsimile, are of no consequence. I have consistently noted instances of the former, where appropriate in the text (with square brackets) and always in the apparatus. After much hesitation, I have expressed the extent of such blanks as an approximate number of letterspaces. I am fully aware that this practice has serious drawbacks: the script itself is erratic and irregular, and one would never assume that this scribe devoted special care to blank spaces. We are not dealing with physical damage to an extant copy, and I cannot overemphasise that the extent of C’s gaps can serve only as a very rough guideline for conjectural restorations. For conjectural lacunae (those for which no traces are to be seen in C) I use pointed brackets. At ., for example, I print , noting in the apparatus that this word was first supplied by Schultz. For conjectural deletions, where normal practice in most traditions allows the use of square brackets, I have instead used braces: thus at . {Iulii} Caesaris (the apparatus will reveal that the intrusive word was passed over by ). For simple legibility and to avoid pedantic distractions, I have within the text permitted myself certain inconsistencies in the use of pointed brackets and braces. One example may suffice. Because C so often omits or wrongly adds a stroke for final m, I have readily forgone the tedium of printing such exactitudes as urbe or urbe{m} (where urbem and urbe are what the reader really wants to see). In all such cases, of course, the apparatus should make clear what is C’s reading and what is editorial conjecture. Where the error is of a type found less frequently (or I am perhaps less confident in the solution) I may leave the typographical distractions to alert a reader to the conjectural nature of what appears on the printed page. Finally, for places 

INTRODUCTION

where the text is highly conjectural I resort to the use of italics, alerting the reader to grave uncertainty. Some will have expected the apparatus to report each and every divergence of my text from that found in the archetype. The fact that C is readily accessible in facsimile, however, has made such detail largely otiose. I regularly pass over peculiarities of C which are purely orthographical: these include unambiguous occurrences of e for ae or oe, the interchange of i and y, the omission or insertion of h. Since other manuscripts derive from C, they are cited only for conjectures of critical interest. The stemma of recentiores proves helpful in assigning credit to otherwise anonymous scribes and readers; but I have chosen not to use the apparatus to set forth evidence justifying the stemma, nor yet to reveal the development and character of the vulgate text in the fifteenth century. I do not avoid using the siglum
where the readings of that hypothetical codex can be restored with confidence. For practical purposes
may be associated with Poggio’s emended copy of C, thus revealing the range of improvements introduced by the first of Renaissance readers. Except perhaps for B , subsequent fifteenth-century editorial activity, on the other hand, is less dramatic and less impressive. A multiplication of Greek sigla serves no useful purpose and readings are reported directly from the manuscript(s) in which they occur. Selecting which conjectures to report I have found to be amongst the most difficult of editorial tasks. Many of the alterations introduced by early editors can be left in obscurity, for they were working with a very poorly transmitted text and without good understanding of the textual tradition. On occasion, nonetheless, such scholars hit upon something which advanced 



Nor did it seem worth the effort to relegate archetypal trivia to an appendix. Those whose disappointment is most severe will appreciate that editors have to make some practical decisions: life is hard. Any reader who works through Gonz´alez Rol´an’s (or even Grimal’s) apparatus will chide me for not qualifying this statement. MV are nothing if not impressive – for their poor quality and ungrounded pretentiousness.



E D I TO R I A L C O N V E N T I O N S

understanding or which anticipated a reading later confirmed in C, and for this they deserve credit. I have tried never to suppress conjectures that have won a measure of respect, even if their merit is little more than exempli gratia. We sometimes learn most from those whose views are different, and at the risk of being scorned for lack of judgement I have piously recorded suggestions, implausible in themselves, which have helped me understand the author I study. It was a deliberate decision to print my own conjectures more often than is seemly – more often, indeed, than I find comfortable. I stand ready to face a variety of charges for such irresponsible behaviour; it seems a fair price to pay for the opportunity to draw upon Frontinus’ text the attention it deserves. 

I have not forgotten that Bloch ()  n. wrote, ‘Philologists who suffer from horror vacui had better keep their hands from this treatise,’ and that ‘It would have been better if Grimal had refrained from introducing highly conjectural emendations of his own into the text which deserve hardly a place in the apparatus or in the notes.’ To my beloved master I can only reply that my text does not appear as part of a series in which such restraint is required.



TEXT

SIGLA C


B P edd.

Casinensis , in eodem coenobio anno c.  a Petro Diacono exaratus Fons codicum recentiorum, anno c.  ex C descriptus U Vaticanus Urbinas lat.  H Londinensis Harleianus  B Berolinensis Hamiltonianus  O Vaticanus Ottobonianus lat.  A Ambrosianus . sup. S Senensis L.v. E Escorialensis S.. Est. Estensis lat.  M Parisinus N.A.L.  V Vaticanus lat.  F Vaticanus lat.  Coniecturae et variae lectiones manu Petri Donati adscriptae Parisinus lat. A, saec. XVI(?) editio princeps (curantibus Pomponio Laeto et Johanne Sulpitio, Romae –) aliaeque ante Jocundi Florentinam () * * * * *

{} [] |

per coniecturam addenda per coniecturam delenda lacuna vel spatium a librario vacuum relictum finis vel versus vel paginae



I V L I I F RO N T I N I D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E [f.r ,  p.]

CVM OMNIS RES ab imperatore delegata intentiorem exigat curam, et me seu naturalis sollicitudo seu fides sedula non ad diligentiam modo verum ad amorem quoque commissae rei instigent, sitque nunc mihi ab Nerva Augusto, nescio diligentiore an amantiore rei publicae imperatore, aquarum iniunctum officium, ad usum tum ad salubritatem atque etiam securitatem urbis pertinens, administratum per principes semper civitatis nostrae viros, primum ac potissimum existimo, sicut  in ceteris negotiis institueram, nosse quod suscepi. neque enim ullum †omnis† actum certius fundatum crediderim, aut aliter quae facienda quaeque vitanda sint posse decerni, aliudve tam indecorum tolerabili viro quam delegatum officium ex adiutorum agere praeceptis, quod fieri necesse est quotiens imperitia praepositi ad i[nferi]orum decurrit usum, quorum etsi necessariae partes sunt, ad ministerium tamen ut manus quaedam et instru mentum agentis . quapropter ea quae ad universam rem pertinentia contrahere potui, more iam per multa mihi officia servato, in ordinem et velut {in hunc} corpus deducta in hunc commentarium contuli, quem pro formula administratio nis respicere possem. in aliis autem libris, quos post experimenta et usum composui, succedentium res acta est; huius commentarii pertinebit fortassis et ad successorem utilitas, sed cum inter initia administrationis meae scriptus sit, in primis ad meam Incipit prologus iulii frontini in libro de aqueductu urbis romae C  (tum
) post officium add. Krohn civitatis
: celuitatis C . omnis] omis C: homini Haupt: an hominis? actum ego: actus C: satius Haupt fundatum ego: fundatus C: fundamentum
: fundatius Haupt quod
: quo C praepositi Schultz: precositei C ad inferiorum scripsi: adi[c.  litt.]orua C: ad illorum Schultz Reeve: post agentis spat. c.  litt. C: esse debent add. Jocundus: sunt Grimal  servato
: struato C {in hunc} B¨ucheler (hunc C: hoc
: unum Polenus)



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

institutionem regulamque proficiet. ac ne quid ad totius rei pertinens notitiam praetermisisse videar, nomina primum aquarum quae in urbem {Romam} influunt ponam; tum per quos quaeque earum et quibus consulibus, quoto post urbem conditam anno perducta sit, dein quibus ex locis et †a quoto cepisse.at† quantum subter raneo rivo, quantum substructione, quantum opere arcuato; post altitudinem cuiusque, modulorumque erogationes habiles factae sint; quantum extra urbem, quantum urbe unicuique regioni pro suo modo unaquaeque aquarum serviat; quot castella publica privataque sint, et ex is quantum publicis operibus, quantum muneribus – ita enim †cultiores† appellantur –, quantum lacibus, quantum nomine {Iulii} Caesaris, quantum privatorum usi beneficio principis detur; quod ius tuendarumque sit earum; quae id sanciant poenae lege, senatus consulto et mandatis principum inrogatae.  Ab urbe condita per annos quadringentos quadraginta unum contenti fuerunt Romani usu aquarum quas aut ex Tiberi aut  ex puteis aut ex fontibus hauriebant. fontium memoria cum sanctitate adhuc exstat et colitur (salubritatem aegris corporibus afferre creduntur), sicut Camenarum et †Apollinaris† {in} et

. {Romam} seclusi sit Polenus: sint C a quoto Jocundus cepisse. | at C: cepissent
: coepisset Polenus: capessat Krohn: capta sit Bennett: concipiatur Grimal ‘addendum quot passus ductus cuiusque efficiat’ B¨ucheler et ex eo addidi substructione
: -tione C  rationes quaeque Grimal (rationes denique quae Schultz): rationem
quem modum . . . erogaverit exempli causa scripsi (cf. . ) erogationes habiles C: ab illis erogationes
: erogationes ab illis edd. in urbe UB : urbe C: intra urbem Polenus privataque del. Schultz lacus post cultiores ins. Lanciani, salientes Krohn appellantur C: appellant ed. Argent. iulii recte praetermisit
usibus Heinrich: usi C: usui
Schultz poenae lege Holstenius, B¨ucheler: pena.elige C: p(o)ena e lege
: poenae ex legibus Heinrich consulto C: consultis
Explicit prologus C . Camoenarum Dederich: caminaras (ut vid.) C apollinaris C: Apollinis Dederich et Iuturnae Dederich: inetiuturne (ut vid.) C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E 



 

  [f.v , p.] 

Iuturnae. nunc autem in urbem confluunt aqua Appia, Anio vetus, Marcia, Tepula, Iulia, Virgo, [Alsietina] (quae eadem vocatur Augusta), Claudia, Anio novus. M. Valerio Maximo P. Decio Mure consulibus, anno post initium Samnitici belli tricesimo, aqua Appia in urbem inducta est Appio Claudio {Crasso} censore, cui postea [Caeco] fuit cognomen. [idem eo anno] et viam Appiam [a porta] Capena usque a[d urbem] Capuam muniendam curavit. collegam habuit C. Plautium, cui ob inquisitas eius aquae venas Venocis cognomen datum est. sed quia is intra annum et sex menses, deceptus a collega tamquam {ib}idem facturo, abdicavit se censura, nomen aquae ad Appii tantum honorem pertinuit, qui multis tergiversationibus extraxisse censuram traditur, donec et viam et huius aquae ductum consummaret. concipitur Appia in agro Lucullano via Praenestina inter miliarium septimum et octavum, deverticulo sinistrosus passuum septingentorum octoginta. ductus eius habet longitudinem a capite usque ad Salinas, qui locus est ad portam Trigeminam, passuum | undecim milium centum nonaginta. subersuum undecim milium centum triginta, supra terram substructio et arcuatura proximum portam Capenam passuum sexaginta. iungitur ei ad S[p]em veterem in confinio hortorum Torquatianorum et [. . . . .]norum ramus Augustae ab A[ugusto] in supplementum eius additus, [cui lo]co  cfluunt C: influunt
anio (ut vid.)
: quam C alsietina
: [spat. c.  litt.] C . valerius maximus C: em.
tricesimo Sigonio praeeunte B¨ucheler: vicesimo C edd. crasso seclusi C(a)eco A, Jocundus: [spat. c.  litt.] C idem eo anno scripsi: [spat. c.  litt.] C: qui
a porta
: [spat. c.  litt.] C ad urbem
: [spat. c.  litt.] C muniendam
: -da C  Plautium Opsopoeus, Holstenius: plautum C  is
: his C idem B A: ibidem C  lucullano
: luculano C prenestina
: prenestrina C: Collatina Lanciani  ex eo . . . passuum restituit B¨ucheler: supersuum C: subterraneo rivo passuum Jocundus milium U: milia C arcuatura suspectum: arcuatum B¨ucheler (substructione et arcuatione Polenus)  ante iungitur spat. c.  litt. C, sed ex c. . colligere licet nihil fere deesse Spem Holstenius, Polenus: s[c.  litt.]em C [c.  litt.]norum C: Epaphroditianorum Corradinus de Allio: Taurianorum Carcopino ramus ed. Basil.: -um C Augusto Holstenius, Polenus: a[c.  litt.] C: Agrippa Schultz additus P: -um C cui loco Grimal (loco iam Holstenius): [c.  litt.]to C: imposito Polenus



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

  

   



conomen [aquarii de]derunt Gemellorum. hic via Praenestina ad miliarium sextum deverticulo sinistro passuum nongentorum octoginta proxime viam Collatinam accipit fontem. cuius ductus usque ad Gemellos efficit rivo subterraneo passus sex milia trecentos octoginta. incipit distribui [in] imo Publicii clivo ad portam Trigeminam, qui locus Salinae appellantur. Post annos quadraginta quam Appia perducta est, anno ab urbe condita quadringentesimo octogesimo primo, M’. Curius Dentatus, qui censuram cum L. Papirio Cursore gessit, Anionis qui nunc vetus dicitur aquam perducendam in urbem ex manubiis de Pyrrho captis locavit, Sp. Carvilio L. Papirio consulibus iterum. post biennium deinde actum est in senatu de consummando eius aquae opere, †irefent [. . . . . .]nocumi[. . . . .] praetor.† tum ex [sena]tus [cons]ulto duumviri quae perducendae ati sunt Curi[us, qui eam] locaverat, Fulvius Flaccus. Curius intra quintum diem quam erat duumvirum creatus decessit; gloria perductae pertinuit ad Fulvium. concipitur Anio vetus supra Tibur vicesimo miliario extra portam [. .]RR[. .]nam, ubi partem [dat] in Tiburtium usum. ductus eius habet longitudinem, ita exigente libramento, passuum quadraginta trium milium: ex eo rivus est subterraneus cognomen BOA: co | nom C (unde loco nomen B¨ucheler): cognomine U (probat Polenus) aquarii dederunt ego: [c.  litt.]denti C: inde habenti Holstenius: respondenti Polenus: ideo datur Grimal  sinistrosus
: sinistro C Collatinam Schultz: collatiam C  passus ego: passuum C  in scripsi: [spat. c.  litt.] C: Appia Polenus publicii C: Publicio Schultz, Becker clivo Polenus: ciluo C qui . . . appellantur del. Dederich (ad portam . . . appellantur del. Schultz) . primo scripsi: uno C M’.] Man. Polenus: M. C lucio C aquam
: aqua C urbem
: urbe C spurio C lucio C  irefent[c.  litt.]nocumi[c.  litt.]ptor C: referente . . . praetore B¨ucheler  senatus consulto A: [c.  litt.]tus [c.  litt.]ulto C aqu(a)e
: que C creati
: ati C curius
: curi. C qui eam Polenus: [c.  litt.] C et
: om. C Q. addidi  pertinuit
: pertimuit C  addidi praeeuntibus Blackman et Mari: lacunam post Tibur ind. Blackman (fort. < . . .-tur>) vicesimo corruptum esse suspicatur Grimal [spat. c.  litt.]RR[spat. c.  litt.]nam C: Baranam Cassio: Varianam Fea: Tiburtinam Grimal dat Polenus: [spat. c.  litt.] C usum BOA: usu C  quadraginta trium] LIII Ashby: LXIII Roncaioli Lamberti



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E





 



passuum quadraginta duum milium septingentorum septuaginta novem, substructio supra terram passuum ducentorum viginti unius. Post annos centum viginti septem, id est anno ab urbe condita sexcentesimo octavo, Ser. Sulpicio Galba {cum} L. Aurelio Cotta consulibus, cum Appiae Anionisque ductus vetustate quassati privatorum etiam fraudibus interciperentur, datum est a senatu negotium Marcio, qui tum praetor inter cives ius dicebat, eorum ductuum reficiendorum ac vindicandorum. et quoniam incrementum urbis exigere videbatur ampliorem modum aquae, eidem mandatum a senatu est ut curaret alias aquas quatinus {quas} posset in urbem perducere. [itaque pri]ores ductus ref[ecit et] tertiam illaprio ri[vo in urbem per]duxit, cui ab auctore Marciae nomen est. legimus apud Fenestellam in haec opera Marcio decretum sestertium millies octingenties, et quoniam ad consummandum negotium non sufficiebat spatium praeturae, in annum alterum est prorogatum. eo tempore decemviri, dum aliis ex causis libros Sibyllinos inspiciunt, invenisse dicuntur non esse [fas] aquam Marciam seu potius Anionem – de hoc enim constantius traditur – in Capitolium perduci; deque ea re in senatu M. Lepido pro collegio verba faciente actum, Appio Claudio Q. Caecilio consulibus; eandemque post annum tertium . Ser.
: S. C sulpicio
: -us C {cum} B¨ucheler lucio C anionisque
: amion- C datum
: datus C Holstenius, B¨ucheler Marcio Polenus: marco C  quatinus alias aquas C: transp. Sauppe {quas} Schultz perducere Schultz: perduceret C  itaque (Jordan: ille Holstenius: qui Grimal: Marcius Kunderewicz) priores (Holstenius, B¨ucheler): [c.  litt.]ores C refecit et Holstenius: rei[c.  litt.] C: restituit et B¨ucheler illam (Schultz) proprio rivo (ego): illiobrior(um) C: illis salubriorem Holstenius, Bennett: illis uberiorem Sauppe, Jordan in urbem Schultz: eam aquam Polenus perduxit Schultz: deduxit Holstenius auctor¯e artiae C  millies octingenties (Schultz) et B¨ucheler: mine octingente. Set C spatium B M: statium C  decemviri
: decemvira C invenisse MV: inventi C fas Sch¨one: [c.  litt.] C perduci C: perducendam Jocundus (-dum B¨ucheler) senatu M. B¨ucheler (senat¯u iam
): senatu C collegio Pighius: collega C Q.
: que C eandemque MV: eademque C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

a L. Lentulo retractatam, C. Laelio Q. Servilio consulibus; sed utroque tempore vicisse gratiam Marcii Regis, atque ita in  Capitolium esse aquam perductam. concipitur Marcia via Valeria ad miliarium tricesimum sextum deverticulo euntibus ab urbe Roma dextrosus milium passuum trium, Sublacensi autem, quae sub Nerone principe primum strata est, ad miliarium  tricesimum octavum sinistrosus intra passus ducentos. †fontin [. . . . .]sub[. . . .]bus petrei[. . . .]† stat im[mobilis] stagni  mo[do] colore perviridi. ductus eius habet longitudinem a capite ad urbem passuum sexaginta milium et mille septingentorum decem et semis: rivo subterraneo passuum quinquaginta quat[f.r , tuor milium ducentorum | quadraginta septem semis, opere p.] supra terram passuum septem milium quadringentorum sexaginta trium: [ex] eo longius ab urbe pluribus locis pr vallis opere arcuato passuum quadringentorum sexaginta trium, propius urbem a septimo miliario substructione passuum quingentorum viginti octo, reliquo opere arcuato passuum sex milium quadringentorum septuaginta duum.  Cn. Servilius Caepio et L. Cassius Longinus, qui Ravilla appellatus est, censores anno post urbem conditam sexcentesimo vicesimo septimo, M. Plautio Hypsaeo M. Fulvio Flacco consulibus, aquam quae vocatur Tepula ex agro Lucullano, quem quidam Tusculanum credunt, Romam et in Capitolium adducendam cu raverunt. Tepula concipitur via Latina ad decimum miliarium Q.
: que C  milium ed. Argent.: milia C passus ducentos B¨ucheler: passuum ducentorum C: spatium (pro passuum) A, unde spatium passuum ducentorum Jocundus  locus vix sanabilis fontin[c.  litt.] C: fontium [spat.] BOA: Grimal sub [c.  litt.]bus C: substructionibus B : sub fornicibus Schultz: s. specibus B¨ucheler: s. rupibus Grimal: s. arcubus Kunderewicz petrei[c.  litt.] C: petraeis Schultz statim [c.  litt.]stagnimo[c.  litt.] C (suppl. Schultz) perviridi Polenus: pviridi C  cum et semis tum semis suspectum, an ex eo scribendum? ex Polenus: [c.  litt.] C per vallis Holstenius, B¨ucheler: p.R. vallis C: per p(opuli) R(omani) vallis
substructione Est: -tione C reliquo MV: reliqua C sex] sex.s. C (sexs B¨ucheler) . Caepio edd.: scypio C plautio
: plautius C Hypsaeo (Scaliger) M. B¨ucheler: hypsaponi ut vid. C lucullano
: luculano C  fortasse miliarium decimum (c. ., ., etc.)



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E



 

 





deverticulo {euntibus ab Roma} dextrosus [. . .] milium passuum duu[m]. inde [rivo] suo in urbem perducebatur. Post[ea M.] Agrippa aedilis post primum consulatum, imperatore Caesare Augusto. II. L. Volcatio consulibus, anno post urbem conditam septingentesimo nono decimo, ad miliarium ab urbe duodecimum via Latina {euntibus ab Roma} dextrosus milium passuum duum, alterius quae proprias vires collegit et Tepulae rivum intercepit; adquisitaque ab inventore nomen Iuliae datum est, ita tamen divisa erogatione ut maneret Tepulae appellatio. ductus Iuliae efficit longitudinem passuum quindecim milium quadringentorum viginti sex: , opere supra terram passuum septem milium: ex eo in proximis urbi locis a septimo miliario substructione passuum quingentorum viginti octo, reliquo opere arcuato passuum sex milium quadringentorum septuaginta duum. praeter caput Iuliae transfluit aqua quae vocatur Crabra. hanc Agrippa omisit, seu quia improbaverat sive quia Tusculanis possessoribus relinquendam credebat. haec namque est quam omnes villae tractus eius per vicem in dies modulosque certos dispensatam accipiunt. sed non eadem moderatione aquarii nostri par[tem] eius semper in supplementum Iuliae vindicaverunt, nec ut Iuliam augerent, quam hauriebant largiendo compendi sui gratia. exclusa ergo Crabra et tota iussu imperatoris reddita {euntibus ab Roma} ego ab
: ad C ante milium c.  litt. spatium in C, sed cum voces apte cohaereant nihil omnino deesse crediderim duum
: duu [c.  litt.] C rivo suo Jocundus (suo rivo B¨ucheler): [c.  litt.] suo C: suo iure Grimal . Postea M. Polenus (praenomen iam suppl.
): Post [c.  litt.] C: Post annos LXXXXII M. B¨ucheler: post hos M. Kunderewicz (cf. . ) consulibus
: consule C Schultz {euntibus ab Roma} ego alterius aquae Schultz: alteriusque C  adquisitaeque] aquisit(a)eque A: adquisitaque C: adquisitae aquae Schultz  sex] sex.s. C (sex S. B¨ucheler) ego urbi Drechsler: urbis C: urbem B¨ucheler  haec] Ec C (primus recte vidit Krohn): Ea
 moderatione
: -tione C par [c.  litt.] C: partem insequente spatio
, unde p. maximam (Polenus) vel potiorem (Schultz) addere voluerunt vindicaverunt (
praeeunte) Dederich: udindicaverunt C compendi Jocundus: complendi C  exclusa C: exclusi Dederich: exclusa est A, Jocundus crabra C: crabram UBO tota Jocundus: tot¯a C reddita (Jocundus) scripsi: reddidit C: reddidi Schultz



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  



     

[f.v , p.]  

Tusculanis; qui nunc forsitan non sine admiratione eam sumunt, ignari cui causae insolitam abundantiam debeant. Iulia autem revocatis derivationibus per quas subripiebatur modum suum quamvis notabili siccitate servavit. eodem anno Agrippa ductus Appiae Anionis Marciae paene dilapsos restituit et singulari cura compluribus salientibus {aquis} instruxit urbem. Idem cum iam tertium consul fuisset, C. Sentio Lucretio consulibus, post annum tertium decimum quam Iuliam deduxerat, Virginem quoque in agro Lucullano collectam Romam perduxit. die quo primum in urbem responderit, quinto Idus Iunias invenitur. Virgo appellata est, quod quaerentibus aquam militibus puella virguncula venas quasdam monstravit, quas secuti qui foderent ingentem aquae modum vocaverunt. aedicula fonti adposita hanc originem pictura ostendit. concipitur Virgo via Collatina ad miliarium octavum palustribus locis signino circumiecto continendarum scaturriginum causa. adiuvatur et compluribus aliis adquisitionibus. venit per longitudinem passuum decem quattuor milium centum quinque: ex eo rivo subterraneo passuum decem duum milium octingentorum sexaginta quinque, supra terram per passus mille ducentos quadraginta: ex eo substructione rivorum locis compluribus passuum quin | gentorum quadraginta, opere arcuato passuum septingentorum. adquisitionum ductus rivi subterranei efficiunt passus mille quadringentos quinque. Quae ratio moverit Augustum, providentissimum principem, perducendi Alsietinam aquam, quae vocatur Augusta, non satis perspicio: nullius gratiae, immo etiam parum salubrem ideoque nusquam in usus populi fluentem; nisi forte dum opus naumachiae adgreditur, ne quid salubrioribus aquis detraheret,  {aquis} Keuchenius . tertium
: tertio C Polenus  die C: dies
, fort. recte in urbe C: in urbe Polenus responderit ‘corruptum videtur’ B¨ucheler quinto C: quintus Dederich  foderent Reeve: foderant C vocaverunt C: invenerunt
 Virgo Schultz: ergo C collatia C (cf. .) circumiecto Jocundus: -lecto ut vid. C  rivis subterraneis B¨ucheler: Rivi subterranei C . dum Krohn: cum C adgreditur C: aggrederetur A



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

  



, 



 

hanc proprio opere perduxit et quod naumachiae coeperat superesse hortis adiacentibus et privatorum usibus ad inrigandum concessit. solet tamen ex ea in Transtiberina regione, quotiens pontes reficiuntur et a citeriore ripa aquae cessant, ex necessitate in subsidium publicorum salientium dari. concipitur ex lacu Alsietino via Claudia miliario quinto decimo deverticulo dextrosus passuum sex milium quingentorum. ductus eius efficit longitudinem passuum viginti duum milium centum septuaginta duorum, , opere arcuato passuum trecentorum quinquaginta octo. Idem Augustus in supplementum Marciae, quotiens siccitates egerent auxilio, aliam eiusdem bonitatis opere subterraneo perduxit usque ad Marciae rivum, quae ab inventore appellatur Augusta. nascitur ultra fontem Marciae. cuius ductus, donec Marciae accedat, efficit passus octingentos. Post hos C. Caesar, qui Tiberio successit, cum parum et publicis usibus et privatis voluptatibus septem ductus aquarum sufficere viderentur, altero imperii sui anno, M. Aquila Iuliano P. Nonio Asprenate consulibus, anno urbis conditae septingentesimo nonagesimo duos ductus incohavit. quod opus Claudius magnificentissime consummavit dedicavitque Sulla Othone consulibus, anno post urbem conditam octingentesimo tertio Kalendis Augustis. alteri nomen, quae ex fontibus Caerulo et Curtio perducebatur, Claudiae datum. {haec bonitatis proxima est Marciae.}

perduxit
: perducit C  quarto statim in supra additum ut quinto le duorum suspectum (duum exspecgeretur C: quarto
(xv in marg. B ) tares) ego . egerent Jocundus: agerent C aliam Jocundus (qui et aquam addidit): alia C . undenonagesimo B¨ucheler (DCCLXXXVIIII Pagio praeeunte Polenus): nonagesimo C  Fausto Sulla Salvio Othone scripsi: sulla et tian C: sulla et tutiano
(titiano A) tertio (DCCCIII) Pagio praeeunte Polenus: sexto (i.q. DCCVI) C: quarto ValentiniZucchetti  quae . . . perducebatur secl. Schultz: ‘addendum aquae’ B¨ucheler  {haec . . . Marciae} Heinrich bonitatis C: bonitate A proxima C: proximae B¨ucheler



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 











[f.r ,  p.]  

altera, quoniam duae Anionis in urbem aquae fluere coeperant, ut facilius appellationibus dinoscerentur, Anio novus vocitari coepit {alia omnes praecedit}; priori Anioni cognomen veteris adiectum. Claudia concipitur via Sublacensi ad miliarium tricesimum octavum deverticulo sinistrosus intra passus trecentos ex fontibus duobus amplissimis et speciosis, Caerulo (qui a similitudine appellatus est) et Curtio. accipit et eum fontem qui vocatur Albudinus, tantae bonitatis ut Marciae quoque adiutorio quotiens opus est ita sufficiat, ut adiectione sui nihil ex qualitate eius mutet. Augustae fons, quia Marciam sibi sufficere adparebat, in Claudiam derivatus est, manente nihilominus praesidiario in Marciam, ut ita demum Claudiam aquam adiuvaret Augusta, si eam ductus Marciae non caperet. Claudiae ductus habet longitudinem passuum quadraginta sex milium : ex eo rivo subterraneo passuum triginta sex milium ducentorum triginta, opere supra terram passuum decem milium septuaginta sex: ex eo opere arcuato in superiori parte pluribus locis passuum trium milium septuaginta sex et propius urbem a septimo miliario substructione rivorum per passus sexcentos novem, opere arcuato passuum sex milium quadringentorum nonaginta et unius. Anio novus via Sublacensi ad miliarium quadragesimum secundum in Simbruino excipitur ex flumine, quod cum terras cultas circa se habeat soli pinguis et inde ripas solutiores, etiam sine pluviarum | iniuria limosum et turbulentum fluit. ideoque a faucibus ductus interposita est piscina limaria, ubi inter amnem et specum consisteret et liquaretur aqua. sic quoque, quotiens imbres superveniunt, turbida pervenit in urbem. iungitur ei rivus Herculaneus oriens eadem via ad miliarium tricesimum  novus
: nous C {alia . . . praecedit} Heinrich alia C: alias MV: altitudine alias Krohn . {qui . . . est} Schultz  adiectione sui Jocundus: adlectiones sex C: adiectiones vi V (adiect- iam
)  quadr. sex] CCCCVI add. Polenus centum] C add. Polenus propius ego (cf. ., .): prope C unius B¨ucheler: unum C . Simbruino B¨ucheler: s¯ubriuno C  ei Jocundus: et C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E  

 

  



octavum e regione fontium Claudiae trans flumen viamque. natura e purissimus, sed mixtus gratiam splendoris sui amittit. ductus Anionis novi efficit passus quinquaginta octo milia septingentos: ex eo rivo subterraneo passuum quadraginta novem milium trecentorum, opere supra terram passuum novem milium quadringentorum: ex eo substructionibus aut opere arcuato superiori parte pluribus locis passuum duum {decim} milium trecentorum, et propius urbem a septimo miliario substructione rivorum passus sexcentos novem, opere arcuato passuum sex milium quadringentorum nonaginta unius. hi sunt arcus altissimi, sublevati in quibusdam locis pedes centum novem. Tot aquarum tam multis necessariis molibus pyramidas videlicet otiosas compares aut cetera inertia sed fama celebrata opera Graecorum? Non alienum mihi visum est longitudines quoque rivorum cuiusque ductus etiam per species operum complecti. nam cum maxima huius officii pars in tutela eorum sit, scire praepositum oportet quae maiora impendia exigant. nostrae quidem sollicitudini non sufficit singula oculis subiecisse; formas quoque ductuum facere curavimus ex quibus adparet ubi valles quantaeque, ubi flumina traicerentur, ubi montium lateribus specus adpliciti maiorem adsiduamque †petendi ac muniendi vi† exigent curam. hinc illa contingit utilitas, ut rem  natura est B¨ucheler: nature C: natura A purissimus ut vid.
: pessimus C  Ductu C: em.
passus scripsi (cf. ., ., .): passuum C milium trecentorum ego: milia trecentos C milia quadringentos C: em. ego passuum C: passus
duum scripsi: duo C {decim} Polenus milium trecentorum ego: milia trecentos C per addidi (cf. .) milia quadringentos C: em. ego unius ego: unum C . tam multis del. censuit Bergk opera edd.: opere C . quoque del. Heinrich: ‘suppl. fere quomque deinde per species’ Krohn  sit
: scid C  lacunam ante nostrae ind. Krohn nostrae . . . sollicitudini Jocundus: nostra . . . sollicitudine C sufficit C: suffecit Jocundus adpareret scripsi: adparet
: abparet C traicerentur C (‘suspectum’ B¨ucheler) adpliciti Jocundus: adplicite C petendi C (obelum adhibuit Krohn): protegendi P: perterendi Jocundus: tuendi B¨ucheler: tegendi Ehlers vi C: ii Jocundus: rivi Heinrich: ‘fortasse ductus’ B¨ucheler exigerent scripsi: exigant C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

.,

 





 

  

statim velut in conspectu habere possimus et deliberare tamquam adsistentes. Omnes aquae diversa in urbem libra perveniunt. inde siunt quaedam altioribus locis et quaedam erigi in eminentiora non possunt; nam et colles sensim propter frequentiam incendiorum excreverunt rudere. quinque sunt quarum altitudo in omnem partem urbis adtollitur, sed ex his aliae maiori, aliae leviori pressura coguntur. altissimus est Anio novus, proxima Claudia, tertium locum tenet Iulia, quartum Tepula, dehinc Marcia, quae capite etiam Claudiae libram aequat. sed veteres humiliore derectura perduxerunt, sive nondum ad subtile explorata arte librandi, seu quia ex industria infra terram aquas mergebant, ne facile ab hostibus interciperentur, cum frequentia adhuc contra Italicos bella gererentur. iam tamen quibusdam locis, sicubi ductus vetustate dilapsus est, omisso circuitu subterraneo vallium brevitatis causa substructionibus arcuationibusque traiciuntur. sextum tenet librae locum Anio vetus, similiter suffecturus etiam altioribus locis urbis, si, ubi vallium summissarumque regionum condicio exigit, substructionibus arcuationibus {veteris} erigeretur. sequitur huius libram Virgo, deinde Appia: quae cum ex urbano agro perducerentur, non in tantum altitudinis erigi potuerunt. omnibus humilior Alsietina est, quae Transtiberinae regioni et maxime iacentibus locis servit. Ex his sex via Latina intra septimum miliarium contectis piscinis excipiuntur, ubi quasi respirante rivorum cursu limum deponunt. modus quoque earum mensuris ibidem positis initur. una autem emergunt Iulia Marcia Tepula (quae intercepta, sicut supra demonstravimus, rivo Iuliae accesserat, nunc a piscina  velut ego: veluti C . serviunt scripsi (fit ut quaedam a. l. serviant Jocundus): siunt C: fiunt
, unde fluunt ed. pr. sensim B¨ucheler: si sint C  quarum Schultz: duarum C  (a)equat
: equata C  si ubi Polenus: sicubi C vallium
: uallum C arcuationibusque
: arcuationibus C: arcuationibusve B¨ucheler veteris del. Polenus: arcuationibusve in is Krohn  libram BOA: libram C . his
: is C  una C: tres B¨ucheler emergunt scripsi: earum C: lacunam ante earum ind. Krohn, vocem seclusit Grimal



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E   , [f.v ,  p.]        

   

eiusdem Iuliae modum accepit ac proprio canali et nomine venit). hae tres a piscinis in eosdem arcus recipiuntur: summus rivus est Iuliae, inferior Tepulae, dein Marciae. quae ad libram [collis Vi]minalis †con[. . . .]ntea[. . .]entes† ad Viminalem usque portam deveniunt, ubi rursus emergunt. prius tamen pars Iuliae ad Spem veterem excepta castellis Caelii montis diffunditur. Marcia autem partem sui post hortos Pallantianos | in rivum qui vocatur Herculaneus deicit. hic per Caelium ductus, ipsius montis usibus nihil ut inferior subministrans, initur supra portam Capenam. Anio novus et Claudia a piscinis in altiores arcus recipiuntur ita ut superior sit Anio. finiuntur arcus earum post hortos Pallantianos et inde in usum urbis fistulis diducuntur. partem tamen sui Claudia prius in arcus qui vocantur Neroniani ad Spem veterem transfert. hi derecti per Caelium montem iuxta templum divi Claudii terminantur. modum quem acceperunt aut circa ipsum montem aut in Palatium Aventinumque et regionem Transtiberinam dimittunt. Anio vetus citra quartum miliarium in tramite qui a Latina in Labicanam inter arcus traicit et ipse piscinam habet. inde intra secundum miliarium partem dat in specum qui vocatur Octavianus et pervenit in regionem viae Novae ad hortos Asinianos, unde per illum tractum distribuitur. rectus vero ductus secundum Spem veniens intra portam Esquilinam in altos rivos per urbem diducitur. nec Virgo nec Appia nec Alsietina conceptacula, id est piscinas, habent. arcus Virginis initium habent sub hortis Lucullianis; finiuntur in campo Martio secundum frontem Saeptorum. rivus Appiae sub Caelio monte et Aventino actus emergit, ut diximus, infra accepit C: accipit Jocundus  rivus Reeve: his C: ex is Schultz: in iis P Martiae Jocundus: marcia C  collis Viminalis Jocundus (viminalis tantum B ): [c.  litt.]minalis C c¯o[c.  litt.]nte|a[c.  litt.]entes C: coniunctim infra terram euntes Polenus: continenter una fluentes Grimal (fluentes iam B¨ucheler, fort. accipiendum)  ubi
: ibi CB  hic scripsi: se C: is B , Dederich finitur Rubenius: initur C . in tramite scripsi: intra novie C: infra (Dederich) novum B¨ucheler: in transitu viae Holstenius via add. Dederich lavicanam C  octavianus A (cf. .): octavianum C vienove C suspectum  Spem Jocundus exquilinam C . id est piscinas secluserim  Lucullianis Jocundus (luculianis B ): lucilianis C  rivus A: riuos C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  



     

clivum Publicii. Alsietinae ductus post naumachiam, cuius causa videtur esse factus, finitur. Quoniam auctores cuiusque aquae et aetates, praeterea origines et longitudines rivorum et ordinem librae persecutus sum, non alienum {autem modi} mihi videtur etiam singula subicere et ostendere quanta sit copia quae publicis privatisque non solum usibus et auxiliis verum etiam voluptatibus sufficit, et per quot castella quibusque regionibus diducatur, quantum extra urbem, quantum in urbe, et ex eo quantum lacibus, quantum muneribus, quantum operibus publicis, quantum nomine Caesaris, quantum privatis usibus erogetur. sed rationis existimo, priusquam nomina quinariarum centenariumque et ceterum modulorum per quos mensura constituta est proferamus, {et} indicare quae sit eorum origo, quae vires et quid quae appellatio significet, propositaque regula, ad quam ratio eorum initur et computatur, ostendere qua ratione discrepantia invenerim et quam emendandi viam sim secutus. Aquarum moduli aut ad digitorum aut ad unciarum mensuram instituti sunt: digiti in Campania et in plerisque Italiae locis, unciae in Apulia adhuc observatur. est autem digitus, ut convenit, sextadecima pars pedis, uncia duodecima. quemadmodum autem inter unciam et digitum diversitas, ita et ipsius digiti duplex observatio est: alius vocatur quadratus, alius rotundus. quadratus tribus quartisdecumis suis rotundo maior, rotundus tribus undecumis suis quadrato minor est, scilicet quia anguli detrahuntur. postea modulus nec ab uncia nec ab alterutro digitorum originem accipiens, inductus, ut quidam . auctores edd.: auctoris C origines Ursinus, Schultz (iam in marg. A): ordines C alienum
: alienia¯u modi C: alieni modi Polenus diducatur Dederich: deducatur C in urbe Schultz: in urbe C: intra urbem BOA  centenariarumque Jocundus: centenariumque C ceterorum A: ceterum C {et} seclusi qu(a)eque
: que C initur et dubitanter Krohn: et initium C . Apulia Ursinus, Scaliger: papula (pr. a ex p) C adhuc Heinrich: citahuc C: ita haec ed. pr.: ita hoc Dilke observantur MV: observatur C  duplex ego: simplex C: non ante est add. Jocundus (iam supra lin. A), ante simplex B¨ucheler  detrahuntur Lanciani: deteruntur C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E



  [f. r ,  p.]

 



   

putant, ab Agrippa, ut alii, a plumbariis per Vitruvium architectum, in usum urbis exclusis prioribus venit, appellatus quinariae nomine. qui autem Agrippam auctorem faciunt dicunt quod quinque antiqui moduli exiles et velut puncta, quibus olim aqua cum exigua esset dividebatur, in unam fistulam coacti sint; qui Vitruvium et plumbarios, ab eo quod plumbea lammina plana quinque digitorum latitudinem habens circumacta in rotundum hunc fistulae modulum efficiat. sed hoc incertum est, quoniam cum circumagitur sicut interiore parte adtrahitur, ita per illam quae foras spectat extenditur. maxime probabile est quinariam dictam a diametro | quinque quadrantum; quae ratio in sequentibus quoque modulis usque ad vicenariam durat, diametro per singulos adiectione singulorum quadrantum crescente: ut in senaria quae sex quadrantes in diametro habet, et septenaria quae septem, et deinceps simili incremento usque ad vicenariam. Omnis autem modulus colligitur aut diametro aut perimetro aut areae mensura, ex quibus et capacitas adparet. differentiam unciae, digiti quadrati et digiti rotundi, et ipsi quinariae ut facilius dinoscamus, utendum est substantia quinariae, qui modulus et certissimus et maxime receptus est. unciae ergo modulus habet diametri digitum unum et trientem digiti; capit plus quam quinariae octava, hoc est sescuncia quinariae et scripulis tribus et bese scripuli. digitus quadratus in rotundum redactus habet diametri digitum unum et digiti sescunciam sextum; capit quinariae dextantem. digitus rotundus habet diametri digitum unum; capit quinariae septuncem semunciam sextulam. ceterum moduli qui a quinaria oriuntur duobus generibus incrementum accipiunt. est unum cum ipsa . plumbariis BOA: plumbaris C quinariae B¨ucheler: quinario C  sint Heinrich: sunt C  vicenariam
: vicinariam C adiectione
: -tione C sex] sex.s. C (sexs B¨ucheler) . areae mensura Holstenius, Polenus: eree mensure C  ipsius
: ipsi C substantia Holstenius, Polenus: substantie C – repetuntur infra cap.   B¨ucheler: Grimal sescuncia Jocundus: seseuncia C  sextulam Jocundus: sextum C . quinaria A: quinarie C  est Heinrich: et C unum Polenus: una C: una Krohn ipsae ego: ipsa C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I





  



 



multiplicantur, id est eodem lumine plures quinariae includuntur, in quibus secundum adiectionem quinariarum amplitudo luminis crescit. est autem fere tunc in usu cum plures quinariae impetratae, ne rivus saepius convulneretur, una fistula excipiuntur in castellum, ex quo singuli suum modum recipiunt. alterum genus est quotiens non ad quinariarum necessitatem fistula incrementum capit sed ad diametri sui mensuram, secundum quod et nomen accipit et capacitatem ampliat: ut puta quinaria, cum adiectus est ei ad diametrum quadrans, senariam facit. nec iam in solidum capacitatem ampliat; capit enim quinariam unam et quincuncem sicilicum. et deinceps eadem ratione quadrantibus diametro adiectis, ut supra dictum est, crescunt septenaria, octonaria, usque ad vicenariam. subsequitur illa ratio quae constat ex numero digitorum quadratorum, qui area, id est lumine, cuiusque moduli continetur, a quibus et nomen fistulae accipiunt. nam quae habet areae {id est luminis in rotundum coacti} digitos quadratos viginti quinque, vicenum quinum appellatur; similiter tricenaria et deinceps per incrementum digitorum quadratorum usque ad centenum vicenum. in vicenaria fistula, quae in confinio utriusque rationis posita est, utraque ratio paene congruit. nam habet, secundum eam computationem quae in tecedentibus modulis servanda est, in diametro quadrantes viginti, cum diametri eiusdem digiti quinque sint; et secundum eorum modulorum rationem qui sequuntur, aream habet digitorum quadratorum exiguo minus viginti. Ratio fistularum quinariarum usque ad centenum vicenum per omnes modulos ita se habet, ut ostendimus, et omni genere inita multiplicantur C: multiplicatur MV  usu Schultz: us¯u C ne rivus Jordansius: neminis C saepius Jocundus: septus C . necessitatem
: necessitate C capacitatem Jocundus: capacitatis C: capacitatis Krohn senariam Schultz: senarium C  sicilicum Krohn . id est lumine B¨uchelero suspectum continentur Ursinus, Polenus: continetur C  id est . . . coacti seclusi per incrementum (ex-torum) C: pari incremento B¨ucheler ( Krohn) . habet edd.: habes C in antecedentibus Polenus: intecedentibus C aream Holstenius, B¨ucheler: adeam C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E   

  [f. v ,  p.]      

 

constat sibi. convenit et cum is modulis qui in commentariis {invictissimi et piissimi} principis positi et confirmati sunt. sive itaque ratio sive auctoritas sequenda est, utroque commentariorum moduli praevalent. sed aquarii cum manifestae rationi pluribus consentiant, in quattuor modulis novaverunt: duodenaria et vicenaria et centenaria et centum vicenum. in duodenaria quidem nec magnus error nec usus frequens est. cuius diametro adiecerunt digiti semunciam sicilicum, capacitati quinariae †ebesem.† reliquis autem tribus | modulis plus deprenditur. vicenariam exiguiorem faciunt diametro digiti semisse, capacitate quinariis tribus et semuncia. quo modulo plerumque erogant. centenariam autem et centenum vicenum, quibus adsidue accipiunt, non minuunt sed augent. diametro enim centenariae adiciunt digiti besem et semunciam, capacitati quinarias decem besem semunciam {sicilicum}. centenum vicenum diametro adiciunt digitos tres septuncem semunciam , capacitati quinarias sexaginta sex sextantem. ita dum aut vicenariae, qua subinde erogant, detrahunt aut centariae et centenum vicenum adiciunt, quibus semper accipiunt, intercipiuntur in centenaria quinariae viginti septem, in centenum vicenum quinariae octoginta sex {uncia}. quod cum ratione adprobetur, re quoque ipsa manifestum est. nam ex vicenaria, quam Caesar pro quinariis sedecim adsignat, non plus erogant quam tredecim, et ex centenaria quam ampliaverunt . seclusi  cum edd.: cur C temptavit Polenus centenum edd.: centum C . in ego: et C duodenaria C: -ae Jocundus  ebesem C: quadrantem Polenus  Polenus deprenditur C: deprehenditur
, fort. recte  semisse . . . et semuncia B¨ucheler  erogant ego: erogatur C  centenariam scripsi: centenaria C minuunt C: minuuntur MV augent ego: augentur C  digiti bessem Polenus: digitibus bese C: digiti plus besem Krohn semunciam Ehlers besem (vel potius S = ) Krohn: semissem C sicilicum hic delevit, post semunciam infra transposuit B¨ucheler: traditam lectionem def. Ehlers  centenum vicenum Polenus: centeno viceno C semunciam edd.: semuncia C sicilicum huc transp. B¨ucheler quinarias Jocundus: quinaria C sextantem C: semunciam duellam Ehlers . qua Polenus: quas C centenarie
: centarie C {uncia} B¨ucheler  ex ego: pro C: et B¨ucheler ampliaverunt
: amplaverunt C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

   





 



aeque certum est illos non erogare nisi ad artiorem numerum, quia Caesar secundum suos commentarios, cum ex quaque centenaria explevit quinarias octoginta unam se[missem] (item ex centenum vicenum quinarias nonaginta octo) tamquam exhausto modulo desinit distribuere. in summa moduli sunt XX quinque. omnes consentiunt et rationi et commentariis, exceptis his quattuor quos aquarii novaverunt. omnia autem quae mensura continentur certa et immobilia congruere sibi debent; ita enim universitati ratio constabit. et quemadmodum verbi gratia sextarii ratio ad cyathos, modii vero et ad sextarios et ad cyathos respondet, ita et quinariarum multiplicatio in amplioribus modulis servare consequentiae suae regulam debet. alioqui cum in erogatorio modulo minus invenitur, in accepto ro plus, adparet non errorem esse sed fraudem. Memineramus omnem aquam, quotiens ex [altiore loc]o venit et intra breve spatium in castellum cadit, non tantum respondere modulo suo sed etiam exuberare; quotiens vero ex humiliore, id est minore pressura, longius ducitur, segnitia ductus modum quoque deperdere; t ideo secundum hanc rationem aut oneranda esse erogatione aut relevanda. sed et positio habet momentum. in rectum et ad libram conlocatus modum servat; ad cursum aquae obpositus et devexus, id est ad haustum pronior, amplius rapit; ad latus praetereuntis aquae conversus et supinus, segniter et exiguum sumit. est autem calix modulus aeneus, qui rivo vel castello inditur; huic fistulae adplicantur. eque C: eque B¨ucheler (ex cent. et cent. vic. quas ampl. Schultz) semissem Polenus: se[c.  litt.] C . continentur
: continetur C  respondet B¨ucheler: respondent C  accepto ro scripsi: acceptore C: acceptorio UA  Memineramus C: -erimus edd. altiore loco Ursinus, Pithoeus: [c.  litt.]o C breve spatium Jocundus: breves. At cum C ducitur B¨ucheler: ducatur C deperdere (A) et Schultz: deperderet C onerandam . . . relevandam ed. Basil.: -da . . . -da C erogatione C: erogationem ed. Basil. . positio C (moduli scilicet, quod subaudiri potest): positio Jocundus  servat Jocundus: servavit C id est . . . pronior huc transp. Krohn (post supinus legitur in C): interpretandi causa (ad obp. et dev.) adscripta iudicavit B¨ucheler segniter et B¨ucheler: segniter C  inditur Krohn: induitur C: inducitur Ursinus, Fea



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E  



     [f.r ,  p.]     

longitudinis habere debet digitos non minus duodecim, lumen, id est capacitate, quanta imperata fuerit. excogitatus videtur quoniam rigor aeris difficilior ad flexum non temere potest laxari vel coartari. Formulas modulorum qui sunt omnes viginti et quinque subieci, quamvis in usu quindecim tantum frequentes sint, derectas ad rationem de qua locuti sumus, emendatis quattuor quos aquarii novaverant. secundum quod et fistulae omnes, quae opus facient, derigi debent aut, si haec fistulae manebunt, ad quinarias quot capient computari. qui non sint in usu moduli in ipsis est adnotatum. {Ed diametri trientem digitum dici quam qui quinarie sescuncia et scripulis tribus et bes scripuli. Digitus quadratus in latitudine et longitudine equalis est. Digitus quadratus in rotundum redactus habet diametri digitum unum et digiti sescuncia; capit quinarie. Digitus rotundus | habet diametri digitum unum; capit quinarie septuncen et semiunciam sextam.} Fistula quinaria: diametri digitum unum < = –, perimetri> digitos tres S = = – ∋ III; capit quinariam unam. Fistula : diametri digitum unum semis, perimetri digitos IIII S = £ ∋ II; capit quinariam unam = = – ∋ . Fistula septenaria: diametri digitum I S = –, perimetri digitos V S; capit quinariam I S = = – £; in usu non est. Fistula octonaria: diametri digitos duos, perimetri digitos sex < = – ∋ X>; capit quinarias II S £ ∋ quinque. Fistula denaria: diametri digitos duos et semis, perimetri digitos septem S = = ∋ VII; capit quinarias IIII.  longitudinis ego: longitudo eius C lumen C: lumine Grimal id est secl. B¨ucheler: eius Schultz capacitatem A: capacitate C impetrata ego: imperata C  temere edd.: timeri C coartari
: coortari C . subieci Schultz: subiecti C derectas (di- Schultz) B¨ucheler: derectam C Cap.  e cap.  male repetitum ideoque hoc loco delendeum indicavit Schultz  ‘desideramus verbum habet’ Dederich < = –, perimetri> Polenus S = = – ∋ III Polenus quinariam unam Jocundus: quinaria una C  Jocundus ∋ II B¨ucheler: ∋ III ut vid. C quinariam unam Polenus: quinarias nouem C ∋ VI Polenus: ∋ VII B¨ucheler  V S Polenus: sex C I S = = – £ Polenus  = – (Polenus) ∋ X add. B¨ucheler (∋ VIII Polenus) ∋ quinque C: sicilicum (i.e. ∋ VI) Polenus  ∋ VII B¨ucheler: ∋ VIII C: sicilicum Polenus



I V L I I F RO N T I N I     







 

Fistula duodenaria: diametri digitos VI = = – ∋ ; capit quinarias quinque S = – ∋ ; in usu non est. {alia} apud aquarios habebat diametri digitos III £ ∋ VI, capacitatis quinarias sex. Fistula quinum denum: diametri digitos III S = –, perimetri digitos XI S = – ∋ X; {alia} capit quinarias novem. Fistula vicenaria: diametri digitos quinque £ ∋ , perimetri digitos XV S = = – ∋ VI; capit quinarias sedecim = – £. apud aquarios habebat diametri digitos IIII S, capacitatis quinas XIII. Fistula vicenum quinum: diametri digitos quinque S – £ ∋ V, perimetri digitos decem et septem S = £ ∋ VI; capit quinarias XX = = ∋ VIIII; in usu non est. Fistula tricenaria: diametri sex = ∋ III, perimetri digitos decem et novem = = –; capit quinarias viginti quattuor = = – ∋ quinque. Fistula tricenum quinum: diametri digitos sex S = ∋ II, perimetri digitos S = = – £ ∋ V; capit quinarias XX; in usu non est. Fistula quadragenaria: diametri digitos septem – £ ∋ III, perimetri digitos XXII = = – < ∋ II>; capit quinarias XXXII S –. Fistula quadragenum quinum: diametri digitos septem S £ ∋ octo, perimetri digitos XXIII S = – ∋ ; capit quinarias XXXVI S £ ∋ octo; in usu non est. . Polenus VIIII Polenus: sex C

B¨ucheler (II Polenus) B¨ucheler  {alia} Dederich £ ∋ VI Polenus: S∋VC  III S = – Polenus XI S = – (Polenus) ∋ X B¨ucheler (∋ VIII Polenus) {alia} edd. . quinque £ ∋ B¨ucheler: quinque Polenus S = = – ∋ VI B¨ucheler: bessem semuniciam Polenus: S = £ ∋ II Krohn sedecim = – £ B¨ucheler: XVI Polenus  IIII S post Polenum B¨ucheler: octo  C quinarias edd.: quinas C XIII B¨ucheler: IIII C: XII deuncem semunciam Polenus  S = £ B¨ucheler: ∋ VI Krohn (∋ VII ut vid. C, B¨ucheler) XX = = ∋ VIIII B¨ucheler  digitos om. C ∋ III C: ∋ IIII Krohn  S = ∋ II B¨ucheler XX (viginti) add. Polenus S = = – £ ∋ V (deuncem iam Polenus) Lindow–Krohn: ∋ IIII C XXVIII S ∋ III post Polenum B¨ucheler  ‘exactius < ∋ II>’ Krohn  S £ ∋ octo Polenus XXIII Polenus: XXIIII C ∋ Krohn: £ ut vid. C: duellam Polenus S £ ∋ octo B¨ucheler



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E 







 

 



Fistula quinquagenaria: diametri digitos septem S = = – £ ∋ quinque, perimetri digitos XXV £ ∋ IIII; capit quinarias XL S = £ ∋ V. Fistula quinquagenum quinum: diametri digitos octo = = ∋ decem, perimetri digitos XXV = – £ ; capit quinarias XLIIII S = – £ ∋ II; in usu non est. Fistula sexagenaria: diametri digitos octo S = £ ∋ novem, perimetri digitos XXVII = = £ ; capit quinarias XL octo S = = ∋ XI. Fistula sexagenum quinum: diametri digitos novem – ∋ III, perimetri XX octo S –; capit quinarias quinquaginta duas S = = – ∋ octo; in usu non est. Fistula septuagenaria: diametri digitos novem = = ∋ sex, perimetri digitos XXIX S = ; capit quinarias LII ∋ V. Fistula septuagenum quinum: diametri digitos novem S = – ∋ sex, perimetri digitos XXX S = £; capit quinarias LXI – ∋ II; in usu non est. Fistula octogenaria: diametri digitos decem – ∋ II, perimetri digitos XXXI S = £ ; capit quinarias LXV = . Fistulaoctogenum quinum: diametri digitos decem = = £ ∋ septem, perimetri digitos XXXII S = ∋ VI; ; in usu non est. Fistula nonageria: diametri digitos decem S = ∋ X, perimetri digitos triginta tres S – £ ∋ III; capit quinarias septuaginta tres = – £ ∋ V.  ∋ IIII Lindow–Krohn: ∋ IIII C: ∋ VII B¨ucheler ∋ V B¨ucheler: ∋ IIII C  = = ∋ decem cum Poleno B¨ucheler: = = £ ∋ decem C XXV Polenus: XXV C < ∋ I> Krohn ∋ II B¨ucheler: ∋ nouem C  octo S = £ ∋ novem Polenus: novem S Z £ ∋ octo C = = £ Polenus ‘exactius . . . ’ Krohn ∋ XI B¨ucheler: ∋ octo C  digitos om. C duas B¨ucheler: duo C S = = – ∋ octo B¨ucheler  = = ∋ sex B¨ucheler LII Polenus: LII C ∋ V B¨ucheler: ∋ sex C  LXI Polenus: quadraginta unum C ∋ II B¨ucheler: ∋ IIII C  XXXI S post Polenum B¨ucheler: XXXII C ‘exactius . . . ’ Krohn  ∋ VI Krohn: ∋ IIII C capit quinarias LXVIIII add. Polenus = £ ∋ VIII Lindow–Krohn: = - (‘exactius = £ ∋ XI’) B¨ucheler  nonagenaria
: nonageria C S – £ ∋ III Krohn (S – £ ∋ II iam Polenus): S = = – ∋ IX C = – £ ∋ V B¨ucheler: = = Z ∋ IIII C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

   [f.r ,  p.] 







Fistula nonagenum quinum: diametri digitos X S = = – £ ∋ XI, perimetri digitos XXX S £ ; capit quinarias LXXVII = = £ ∋ II; in usu non est. Fistula centenaria: diametri digitos XI = – ∋ VIIII, perimetri digitos XXXV = = – £; capit quinarias octoginta unam = = – ∋ X. apud aquarios habebat diametri digitos XII, capacitatis quinarias nonaginta II – £ ∋ . Fistula centenum vicenum: diametri digitos duodecim = = ∋ VI, perimetri digitos XXXVIII S = = ; capit quinarias LXXXXVII S = –. | apud aquarios habebat diametri digitos XVI, capacitatis quinarias centum sexaginta tres S < = > = – (qui modus duarum centenariarum est). Persecutus ea quae de modulis dici fuit necessarium, nunc ponam quem {ad} modum quaeque aqua, ut principum commentariis comprehensum est, usque ad nostram curam habere visa sit quantumque erogaverit; deinde quem ipsi scrupulosa inquisitione praeeunte providentia {optimi} diligentissimi{que} Nervae principis invenerimus. Fuerunt ergo in commentariis in universo quinariarum decem duo milia septingentae quinquaginta quinque, in erogatione decem quattuor milia decem et octo: plus in distributione quam accepto computabatur quinariis mille ducentis sexaginta tribus. huius rei admiratio, cum praecipuum officii opus in exploranda fide aquarum atque copia crederem, non mediocriter me convertit ad scrutandum quemadmodum amplius erogaretur quam in patrimonio, ut ita dicam, esset. ante omnia itaque capita ductuum metiri adgressus sum, sed longe, id est circiter quinariis decem milibus, ampliorem quam in commentariis modum inveni, ut per singulas demonstrabo.

 ‘exactius est XI’ B¨ucheler: ∋ VIIII C XXXIIII Polenus: XXX C ∋V add. Krohn (sextulam add. Polenus) ∋ II B¨ucheler: ∋ IIII C . Krohn . S = = Polenus LXXXXVII Polenus: octoginta septem C  S < = > = – B¨ucheler liber primus explicit. liber secundus incipit. C . quem modum Polenus: quemadmodum C optimi et -que seclusi (cf. .)  edd.  ut
: a¯u C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E   





 

 

 

Appiae in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum octingentarum unius. cuius quae ad caput inveniri mensura non potuit, quoniam ex duobus rivis constat. ad Gemellos tamen, qui locus est intra Spem veterem ubi iungitur cum ramo Augustae, inveni altitudinem aquae pedum quinque, latitudinem pedis unius dodrantis: fiunt areae pedes octo dodrans; centenariae viginti duae et quadragenaria, quae efficiunt quinarias mille octingentas viginti quinque: amplius quam commentariis habet quinariis nongentis octoginta quattuor. erogabat quinarias septingentas quattuor: minus quam in commentariis adscribitur quinariis centum triginta septem, et adhuc minus quam ad Gemellos mensura respondet quinariis mille centum viginti una. intercidit tamen aliquantum e ductus vitio, qui cum sit depressio non facile manationes ostendit; quas esse ex eo adparet quod in plerisque urbis partibus probata aqua observatur {id quod ex ea manat}. sed et quasdam fistulas intra urbem inlicitas deprehendimus. extra urbem autem propter pressuram librae, cum sit infra terram ad caput pedibus quinquaginta, nullam accepit iniuriam. Anioni veteri adscriptus est in commentariis modus quinariarum mille quingentarum quadraginta unius. ad caput inveni quattuor milia trecentas nonaginta octo praeter eum modum qui in proprium ductum Tiburtium derivatur: amplius quam in commentariis est quinariis duobus milibus octingentis quinquaginta septem. erogantur antequam ad piscinam veniret quinariae ducentae sexaginta duae. modus in piscina, qui per mensuras positas initur, efficit quinariarum duo milia trecentas sexaginta . Polenus  aquae B¨ucheler: -que C  intra C: infra B¨ucheler pedum Schultz: pedes C in (MV) commentariis habet Schultz: commentariis abent C: commentarii habent Dederich  cum edd. (quom B¨ucheler): quam C depressior edd.: depressio C esse var. lect. A, Polenus: eise C: ei inesse ed. Florent. probata C dubius retinui: prolata Polenus: praebita Jocundus {id . . . manat} seclusi: id est quae Dederich: {id} quae B¨ucheler  cum edd. (quom B¨ucheler): quam C (cf. § supra) infra terram Polenus: ins.tr¯aterr¯a C . quingentarum Schultz: quadringentarum C  erogabantur Est, Jocundus: erogantur C veniret C: perveniret B (cf. .) quinariae
: quinariis C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  



  [f. r , p.] 

 





duas. intercidebant ergo inter caput et piscinam quinariae mille septingentae septuaginta quattuor. erogabat post piscinam quinarias mille trecentas quadraginta octo: amplius quam in commentariis conceptionis modum significari diximus quinariis sexaginta novem, minus quam recipi in ductum post piscinam posuimus quinariis mille decem quattuor. summa quae inter caput et piscinam et post piscinam intercidebat quinariarum duo milia septingentae octoginta octo. quod errore mensurae fieri suspicarer, nisi invenissem ubi averterentur. Marciae in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum duum milium centum sexaginta duarum. ad caput mensus inveni quinarias quattuor milia sexcentas nonaginta: amplius | quam in commentariis est quinariis duobus milibus quingentis viginti octo. erogabantur antequam ad piscinam perveniret quinariae nonaginta quinque, et dabantur in adiutorium Tepulae quinariae nonaginta duae, item Anionem quinariae centum sexaginta quattuor. summa quae erogabatur ante piscinam quinariae trecentae quinquaginta una. modus qui in piscina mensuris positis initur cum eo qui circa piscinam ductus eodem canali in arcus excipitur efficit quinarias duo milia nongentas quadraginta quattuor. summa quae aut erogatur ante piscinam aut {quinarias} arcus recipitur quinariarum tria milia ducentae nonaginta quinque: amplius quam in conceptis commentariorum positum est quinariis mille centum triginta tribus, minus quam mensurae ad caput actae efficiunt quinariis mille trecentis nonaginta quinque. erogabat post piscinam quinarias mille octingentas quadraginta: minus quam in commentariis  piscinam Schultz: iisei.nam C quinariis Polenus: quinarias C  quinariarum Jocundus, qui et millium scripsit: quinarias C: quinariae B¨ucheler . B¨ucheler  summa
: s¯um¯a C  cum
: quom C qui A: quod C: quid UBO ‘ex Poleni interpretatione scribendum fuit circa piscinam ductus’ Dederich: circa piscine ductum C: ‘fort. citra piscinam duct¯us’ Krohn arcus Jocundus: arcu C nongentas BOA: nonaginta C  {quinarias} (Jocundus) arcus (MV) Polenus: quinarias arcuo C: ‘fort. cina ri Marciae’ Krohn  octingentas
: octingenta C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E





   



 

  

conceptionis significari diximus quinariis ducentis viginti septem, minus quam ex piscina in arcus recipiuntur {sunt} quinariis mille centum quattuor. summa utraque quae intercidebat aut inter caput et piscinam aut post piscinam quinariarum duo milia quingentae; quas sicut in ceteris pluribus locis intercipi deprehendimus. non enim eas cessare manifestum est et ex {hoc} eo quod caput praeter eam mensuram quam comprehendisse nos capacitate ductus posuimus effunduntur amplius trecentae quinariae. Tepulae in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum quadringentarum. huius aquae fontes nulli sunt; venis quibusdam constabat, quae interceptae sunt in Iulia. caput ergo eius observandum est a piscina Iuliae. ex ea enim primum accipit quinarias centum nonaginta, deinde statim ex Marcia quinarias nonaginta duas, praeterea ex Anione novo ad hortos Epaphroditianos quinarias centum sexaginta tres. fiunt omnes quinariae quadringentae quadraginta quinque: amplius quam in commentariis quinariis quadraginta quinque, quae in erogatione comparent. Iuliae in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum sexcentarum quadraginta novem. ad caput mensura iniri non potuit quoniam ex pluribus adquisitionibus constat. sed [ad] sextum ab urbe miliarium universa in piscinam recipitur, ubi modus eius manifestis mensuris efficit quinarias mille ducentas sex: amplius quam in commentariis quinariis quingentis quinquaginta septem. praeterea accepit prope urbem post hortos Pallantianos ex Claudia quinarias centum sexaginta duas. est omne Iuliae in acceptis: quinariae mille trecentae sexaginta octo. ex eo dat in Tepulam quinarias centum nonaginta; erogat suo Schultz (cf. .) {sunt} Schultz quinariis Schultz: quinarie C  quingente C: ID B¨ucheler praeeunte Poleno  eas edd.: eos C hoc seclusi: eo secl. Polenus: hoc eo Schultz Polenus . quadringentarum
: quadragintarum C  erogatione Polenus: erogaturne C . inveniri var. lect. in ed. Basil.: iniri C ad Jocundus (spat. c.  litt. C) ‘videtur scribendum ad septimum’ B¨ucheler  accepit C: accipit B¨ucheler



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

  

[f. v ,  p.] 

  



nomine octingentas tres. fiunt quas erogat quinariae nongentae nonaginta tres: amplius quam in commentariis habet quinariis trecentis quadraginta quattuor, minus quam in piscina habere posuimus ducentis decem tribus, quas ipsas apud eos qui sine beneficiis principis usurpabant deprehendimus. Virgini in commentariis adscriptus est modus quinariarum sexcentarum quinquaginta duarum. huius mensura ad caput inveniri non potuit quoniam ex pluribus adquisitionibus constat et lenior rivum intrat. prope urbem tamen ad miliarium septimum in agro qui nunc est Ceionii Commodi, ubi velociorem iam cursum habet, mensuram egi quae efficit quinariarum duo milia quingentas quattuor: amplius quam in commentariis quinariis mille octingentis quinquaginta [du]abus. adpro | batio nostra expeditissima est; erogat enim omnes quas mensura comprehendimus, id est duo milia quingentas quattuor. Alsietinae conceptionis modus nec in commentariis adscriptus est nec in re praesenti certus inveniri potuit, cum ex lacu Alsietino et deinde circa Careias ex Sabatino quantum aquarii temperaverunt. Alsietina erogat quinarias trecentas nonaginta duas. Claudia abundantior aliis maxime iniuriae exposita est. in commentariis habet non plus quinariis duobus milibus octingentis quinquaginta quinque, cum ad caput invenerim quinariarum quattuor milia sexcentas septem: amplius quam commentariis mille septingentis quinquaginta duabus. adeo autem nostr[a cer]tior est mensura ut ad septimum ab urbe  quinariis trecentis Schultz: quinarias trecentas C deprehendimus
: depreensimus C . Virgini ed. Argent.: Virginis C  huius Ursinus, B¨ucheler: minus C mensura BOA: mensur¯a C inveniri
: invenire C potuit C: potui B¨ucheler rivum] rivom B¨ucheler: rivo C  septimum] III (vel II) prop. Polenus Ceionii Pithoeus: celony C iam B¨ucheler: sam C: sane Polenus duabus post Schultzium B¨ucheler (. . . II iam e calculis edd.): [c.  litt.]inbus (vel nibus) C: omnibus ed.Florent.  comprehendimus scripsi: deprendimus C: deprehendimus
. conceptionis
: conceptioni C Sabatino edd.: abatino C B¨ucheler Schultz: Holstenius, Polenus . Claudia ed. Argent.: Claudiae C  sexcenta C
 ante adeo spat. c.  litt. C (nihil deesse videtur) nostra certior
: nostr[c.  litt.]tior C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E











 

miliarium in piscina, ubi indubitatae mensurae sunt, inveniamus quinarias tria milia trecentas decem duas: plus quam in commentariis quadringentis quinquaginta septem, quamvis et ex beneficiis ante piscinam eroget et plurimum subtrahi deprehenderimus, ideoque minus inveniatur quam revera esse debeat quinariis mille ducentis nonaginta quinque. et circa erogationem {autem} fraus adparet, quae neque ad commentariorum fidem neque ad eas quas ad caput egimus mensuras neque ad illas saltem ad piscinam {post tot iniurias} sunt convenit. sola enim quinariae mille septingentae quinquaginta erogantur: minus quam commentariorum ratio dat quinariis mille centum quinque, minus autem quam mensurae ad caput actae demonstraverunt quinariis duobus milibus octingentis quinquaginta septem, minus etiam quam in piscina invenitur quinariis mille quingentis sexaginta duabus. ideoque cum sincera in urbem proprio rivo perveniret, in urbe miscebatur cum Anione novo, ut confusione facta et conceptio earum et erogatio esset obscurior. quod si qui forte me adquisitionum mensuris blandiri putant, admonendi sunt adeo Curtium et Caerulum fontes aquae Claudiae sufficere ad praestandas ductui suo quinarias quas significavi quattuor milia sexcentas septem, ut praeterea mille sexcentae effundatur. nec eo infitias quin ea quae superfluunt non sint proprie horum fontium; capiuntur enim ex Augusta, quem inventum in Marciae supplementum dum illa non indiget adiecimus fontibus Claudiae, quamvis ne huius quidem ductus omnem aquam recipiat. Anio novus in commentariis habere ponebatur quinarias tria milia ducentas sexaginta tres. mensus ad caput repperi quinarias trecenta C quinaris C  et del. Grimal: lacunam post et signavit Krohn {autem} Jocundus ‘scribendum videtur saltem quae [quae iam Holstenius] ad piscinam post tot iniurias positae sunt, nisi quis malit quae – positae post t. i. sunt’ B¨ucheler: quae factae ante sunt add. Krohn piscinam Polenus: piscinas C {post tot iniurias} seclusi sunt om. MV, del. Jocundus  solae
: sola C dat
: datur C actae Ursinus, Schultz: facte C quinaris (bis) C  cerolum C sexcentas] -ta C effundantur
: effundatur C  ea C: eae Polenus proprie C: propriae Heinrich quem inventum C: quam inventam Holstenius, Dederich



I V L I I F RO N T I N I





 

  

[f.r ,  p.]  

quattuor milia septingentas triginta octo: amplius quam in conceptis commentariorum est quinariis mille quadringentis septuaginta quinque. quarum adquisitionem non avide me amplecti quo alio modo manifestius probem quam quod in erogatione ipsorum commentariorum maior pars earum continetur? erogantur enim quinariarum quattuor milia ducentae {undecim}, alioquin in eisdem commentariis inveniatur conceptio non amplius quam trium milium ducentarum sexaginta trium. praeterea intercipi non tantum quingentas XXXVIII, quae inter mensuras nostras et erogationem intersunt, longe ampliorem modum deprehendi. ex quo adparet etiam exuperare comprehensam a nobis mensuram: cui rei ratio est quod vis aquae rapacior, ut ex largo et celeri flumine excepta, velocitate ipsa ampliat modum. Non dubito aliquos admiraturos quod longe maior copia actis mensuris inventa sit quam erat in commentariis principum. cuius rei causa est error eorum qui ab initio parum diligenter uniuscuiusque fecerunt aestimationem. ac ne metu aestatis aut siccitatum in tantum a veritate eos recessisse credam, obstat id quod ips[e actis] mensuris Iulio mense hanc uniuscuiusque copiam quae supra scripta est tota deinceps aestate durantem exploravi. quaecumque tamen est causa quae praecedit | illud utique detegitur decem milia quinariarum intercidisse, dum beneficia sua principes secundum modum commentariis adscriptum temperant. sequens diversitas est quod alius modus concipitur ad capita, alius nec exiguo minor in piscinis, minimus deinde distributione continetur. cuius rei causa est fraus . erogatione edd.: -tione C  erogantur Holstenius, Polenus: negantur C ducentae cum (quom iam var. lect. not. Holstenius) Poleno et Schultzio auctoribus Dederich: ducen undec C non MV: nam C  XXXVIII praeeunte Poleno Schultz: viginti septem C B (sed tantum Jocundus) deprehendimus ego: deprendi C: deprehendi
 exuperare ego: exuberare C cuius MV: cui C . admiraturos scripsi: adnotaturos C  uniuscuiusque Schultz  obstat (Heinrich) id ego: obstantib; C: obstat illud Grimal ips[c.  litt.] C: suppl. B¨ucheler Polenum secutus  Schultz . deinde C: denique Schultz, fort. recte in ante distrib. add. Est, ed. Basil.



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E 

 



, 

  

  

aquariorum, quos aquas ex ductibus publicis in privatorum usus derivare deprehendimus. sed et plerique possessorum, †e quorum agris aqua circumducitur† {unde}, formas rivorum perforant. unde fit ut ductus publici hominibus privatis †vel ad oritorum† itinera suspendant. ac de vitiis eiusmodi nec plura nec melius dici possunt quam a Caelio Rufo dicta sunt in ea contione cui titulus est ‘de aquis’. quae nunc nos omnia simili licentia usurpata utinam non per offensas probaremus: inriguos agros, tabernas, cenacula etiam, corruptelas denique omnes perpetuis salientibus instructas invenimus. nam quod falsis titulis aliae pro aliis aquae erogabantur etiam si inter leviora ceteris vitia, inter ea tamen quae emendationem videbantur exigere numerandum est. quod fere circa montem Caelium et Aventinum accidit. qui colles, priusquam Claudia perduceretur, utebantur Marcia et Iulia. sed postquam Nero imperator Claudiam opere arcuato ad Spem exceptam usque ad templum divi Claudii perduxit ut inde distribueretur, priores non ampliatae sed omissae sunt. nulla enim castella adiecit, sed isdem usus est, quorum quamvis mutata aqua vetus appellatio mansit. Satis iam de modo cuiusque et velut nova quadam adquisitione aquarum et fraudibus et vitiis quae circa ea erant dictum est. superest ut erogationem quam confertam {et}, ut sic dicam, in massam invenimus, immo etiam falsis nominibus positam, per nomina aquarum, uti quaeque se habet, et per regiones urbis digeramus. cuius comprehensionem scio non ieiunam tantum sed etiam perplexam videri posse. ponemus tamen quam brevissime, ne quid velut formulae officii desit. iis quibus sufficiet cognovisse summam licebit transire leviora.  e secl. Mommsen circumducitur ‘vix sanum’ B¨ucheler {unde} B¨ucheler: inde
: subinde Dederich oritor(um) meis ipsius oculis legi, alii ortorum viderunt, unde ad hortorum Polenus (vel B¨ucheler) . ad Spem B¨ucheler: ascus C: altius Polenus exceptam
: excepta C  nulla
: anulla C . aquarum
: quarum C ea C: eas ut vid.
 et om.
mass¯a C: massa B¨ucheler positam
: posita C  comprehensionem scio
: compreensio. | nescio C ieiunam B : ieiunum C  officii edd.: officis C desit iis A: desitus C  summ¯a C: summa edd. verba non praeterit . . . fuerint (quae infra c. . leguntur) huc transferenda censuit Krohn



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 





 



Fit ergo distributio quinariarum quattuordecim milium decem et octo ita ut quinariae DCCLXXI, quae ex quibusdam aquis in adiutorium aliarum dantur et bis in speciem erogationis cadunt, semel in computationem veniant. ex his dividuntur extra urbem quinariae quattuor milia sexaginta tres: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae mille septingentae decem et octo, privatis quinariae ∞∞ CCCXXXXV. reliquae milia nongentae quinquaginta quinque intra urbem distribuebantur in castella ducenta quadraginta septem: quibus erogabantur {sub} nomine Caesaris quinariae mille septingentae septem semis, privatis quinariae tria milia octingentae quadraginta septem, usibus publicis quinariae quattuor milia quadringentae una: ex eo castris †ducenti† nariae ducentae septuaginta novem, operibus publicis nonaginta quinque quinariae ∞∞ CCCI, muneribus triginta novem quinariae CCCLXXXVI, lacibus quingentis nonaginta uni quinariae ∞ trecenta triginta quinque. sed et haec ipsa dispensatio per nomina aquarum et regiones urbis partienda est. Ex quinariis ergo quattuordecim milibus decem et octo, quam summam erogationibus omnium aquarum se posuimus, dantur nomine Appiae extra urbem quinariae tantummodo quinque, quoniam †humiliortur etia.metitoribus.† reliquae quinariae sescentae nonaginta novem intra urbem dividebantur per regiones secundam IIX VIIII XI XII XIII XIIII in castella viginti: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae centum . Fit Schultz: Ud ( = ut) C milia C ut Schultz: et C quinariae DCCLXXI praeeunte Poleno B¨ucheler: quadraogen (ao in in corr.) triginta sex.quia unus C adiutorium
: adiutori uis C veniant Schultz: veniunt C  relique intra urb¯e milia C: intra urbem transposuit Schultz ut ante distribuebantur legeretur cur noster vocem hoc loco praetermissurus fuerit non video (cf. ., ,, etc.) milium numerum (sc. VIIII) add. Polenus Schultz sub seclusi ducentinarie C (quinariae vestigia agnovit Polenus): numerum castrorum varie restituerunt (X & VIIII, i.e. decem et novem, probabilius Polenus, X Schultz, duointi Krohn) ducenta C nonagintaquinque (sc. LXXXXV) Polenus: septuaginta quinque C: XCVI Schultz quingente nonaginta unum C trecenta C . ‘lego esse posuimus uti Neap[olitanus codex]’ Holstenius (esse exposuimus P): seposuimus C locus nondum sanatus



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

[f.v , p.]  

 

 

quinquaginta una, privatis quinariae centum nonaginta quattuor, publicis quinariae trecenta quinquaginta quattuor: ex eo castris I quinariae quattuor, operibus publicis quattuordecim quinariae | centum viginti tres, muneri uni quinariae duae, lacibus nonaginta duo quinariae ducentae viginti sex. Anionis veteris erogabantur extra urbem nomine Caesaris quinariae centum sexaginta novem, privatis quinariae CCCCIIII. reliquae quinariae mille quingentae octo semis intra urbem dividebantur per regiones primam III IIII V VI VII VIII VIIII XII XIIII in castella triginta quinque: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae sexaginta IV S, privatis quinariae CCCCXC, publicis quinariae quingentae LII: ex eo castris unis quinariae quinquaginta, operibus publicis XIX quinariae centum nonaginta sex, muneribus novem quinariae octoginta octo, lacibus nonaginta quattuor quinariae ducentae decem et octo. Marciae erogabantur extra urbem nomine Caesaris quinariae CCLXI S . reliquae quinariae mille quadringentae septuaginta duae intra urbem dividebantur per regiones primam tertiam quartam V VI VII VIII VIIII X XIIII in castella quinquaginta unum: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae CXVI, privatis quinariae quingentae quadraginta tres, castris IIII quinariae XLII S, operibus publicis quindecim quinariae XLI, muneribus XII quinariae CIIII, lacibus CXIII quinariae CCLVI. Tepulae erogabantur extra urbem nomine Caesaris quinariae LVIII, privatis quinariae quinquaginta sex. reliquae quinariae CCCXXXI intra urbem dividebantur per regiones quartam V VI VII in castella XIIII: ex quibus nomine Caesaris  una] unum C Dederich trecenta C duae] duo C duobus] duo C ducentas C . IV S Krohn: Ius C: VI S B¨ucheler B¨ucheler quingentae] quingentas C LII Polenus: tres C lacibus B¨ucheler (lacubus iam
): lacessus C . addidi Polenum secutus  usibus publicis quinariae CCCCXXXVIIII add. Polenus, sed numerus vix certus ex eo add. B¨ucheler quinariae
: quinariis C XLII S B¨ucheler: xli.is C xii C, nisi forte xu dispici crederes . regiones Dederich: regionem C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

 

 

 

 

quinariae XXXIIII, privatis quinariae CCXXXVII, usibus publicis quinariae quinquaginta: ex eo castris I quinariae duodecim, operibus publicis III quinariae septem, lacibus XIII quinariae XXXII. Iulia fluebat extra urbem nomine Caesaris quinariis LXXX quinque, privatis quinariis CXXI. reliquae quinariae quingentae quadraginta octo intra urbem dividebantur per regiones secundam III V VI VIII X XII in castella decem et septem: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae decem et octo, , usibus publicis quinariae CCCLXXXIII: ex eo castris quinariae sexaginta novem, operibus publicis quinariae CXXCI, muneribus quinariae sexaginta septem, lacibus viginti octo quinariae sexaginta quinque. Virginis nomine exibant extra urbem quinariae ducentae. reliquae quinariae duo milia trecentae quattuor intra urbem dividebantur per regiones septimam nonam quartamdecimam in castella decem et octo: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae quingentae novem, privatis quinariae CCCXXXVIII, usibus publicis ∞ centum sexaginta septem: ex eo muneribus II quinariae XXVI, lacibus viginti quinque quinariae quinquaginta una, operibus publicis sedecim quinariae ∞ CCCLXXX: in quibus per se Euripo cui ipsa nomen dedit quinariae CCCCLX. Alsietinae quinariae trecentae nonaginta duae. haec tota extra urbem consumitur: nomine Caesaris quinariae trecentae quinquaginta IIII, privatis quinariae centum triginta octo. Claudia et Anio novus extra urbem proprio quaeque rivo erogabantur, intra urbem confundebantur. et Claudia quidem

. Iulia fluebat C: Iuliae fluebant edd. quinariis Krohn: quinarie C quinariis C: quinarie
 regiones
: regionem C privatis Polenus, quinariae Schultz addiderunt numerum CLXXXXVI add. Polenus castrorum numerum II prop. Krohn, III Polenus, IV Schultz operum publ. numerum XI prop. Schultz, X Polenus muneribus Polenus . quartadecimam C Kunderewicz ∞ centum sexaginta septem C: MCDLVII B¨ucheler unum C  trecenta C duo C trecenta C: CC Polenus



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E



[f.r , p.]

 



 



extra urbem dabat nomine Caesaris quinarias CCXLVI, privatis quinarias CCCCXXX novem; Anio novus nomine Caesaris quinarias septingentas viginti octo . reliquae utriusque quinariae tria milia quadringentae nonaginta octo intra urbem dividebantur per regiones urbis XIIII in castella nonaginta duo: ex quibus nomine Caesaris quinariae octingentae quindecim †V†, privatis quinariae ∞ sexaginta septem, usibus publicis quinariae ∞ XV: ex eo castris novem | quinariae centum quadraginta novem, operibus publicis decem et octo quinariae CCCLXXIIII, muneribus XII quinariae centum septem, lacibus C viginti sex quinariae CCCCXXCV. Haec copia aquarum ad Nervam imperatorem usque computata ad hunc modum discribebatur. nunc providentia diligentissimi principis quicquid aut fraudibus aquariorum intercipiebatur aut inertia pervertebat quasi nova inventione fontium adcrevit. ac prope duplicata ubertas est, et tam sedula deinde partitione distributa, ut regionibus quibus singulae serviebant aquae plures darentur, tamquam Caelio et Aventino, in quos sola Claudia per arcus Neronianos ducebatur, quo fiebat ut quotiens refectio aliqua intervenisset celeberrimi colles sitirent. quibus nunc plures aquae et in primis Marcia reddita amplo opere a S

e in Aventinum usque perducitur. atque etiam omni parte urbis lacus tam novi quam veteres plerique binos salientes diversarum aquarum acceperunt, ut si casus alterutram impedisset, altera sufficiente non destitueretur usus. sentit hanc curam . quinarias
: quinarie C CCXLVI B¨ucheler: ccxiui C quinarias
: quinarie C quinarias septingentas edd.: quinarie.Septingente C post Polenum addidi  quindecim.u. C: XVIII B¨ucheler: XVI Krohn D addendum esse vidit B¨ucheler ∞ xu C: ‘scribendum MCXII’ B¨ucheler CC MV, Polenus: centum C CCCCXXCV Krohn: ccccxx.etcu C: CCCCXXCII B¨ucheler . discribebatur B¨ucheler: de- C intercipiebatur edd.: intercapiebatur C  pervertebatur P: pervertebat C  duplicata Holstenius, Fea: publicata C et tam B¨ucheler: tam et C ut var. lect. A: aut C refectio C: defectio
 ‘post reddita videtur intercidisse quae’ B¨ucheler opere
: operi C a Spe Schultz: ase C . curam
: cura C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

 





  



{imperatoris piissimi} Nervae principis sui regina et domina orbis in dies, {quae terrarum dea consistit, cui par nihil et nihil secundum}, et magis sentiet salubritas eiusdem aeternae urbis aucto castellorum, operum, munerum et lacuum numero. nec minus ad privatos commodum ex incremento beneficiorum eius diffunditur; illi quoque qui timidi inlicitam aquam ducebant, securi nunc ex beneficiis fruuntur. ne pereuntes quidem aquae otiosae sunt: alia munditiarum facies, purior spiritus est, et remotae sunt causae gravioris caeli quibus apud veteres saepe urbis infamis aer fuit. non praeterit me deberi operi novae erogationis ordinationem; sed haec cum incremento adiunxerimus, intelligi oportet non esse ea ponenda nisi consummata fuerint. Quid quod nec hoc diligentiae principis, quam exactissimam civibus suis praestat, sufficit parum praesidii ac voluptatibus nostris contulisse sese credentis, quod tantam copiam adiecit, nisi eam ipsam sinceriorem iocundioremque faciat? operae pretium est ire per singula, per quae ille occurrendo vitiis quarundam universis adiecit utilitatem. etenim quando civitas nostra, cum vel exigui imbres supervenerant, non turbulentas limosasque aquas habuit? nec quia haec universis ab origine natura est aut quia istud incommodum sentire debeant quae capiuntur ex fontibus (in primis Marcia et Claudia {ac reliquae}) quarum splendor a capite integer nihil aut minimum pluvia inquinatur, si putea exstructa et obtecta sint. duae Anienses minus permanant limpidae, nam sumuntur ex flumine ac saepe etiam sereno turbantur, quoniam Anio, quamvis purissimo defluens {imperatoris piissimi} ego {quae . . . secundum} deleri iussit Lipsius sentietur ego: sentiet C aeternae urbis del. B¨ucheler  alia
(alia iam Polenus): alla C est et remotae sunt causae scripsi: et cause C, qui post fuit habet est remotus: sunt remot(a)e OA sepe B : se C: om.
: semper Krohn urbis
: urbi C ‘fortasse veteres infamis urbis’ B¨ucheler  incremento C: incrementa (et mox {ea}) Sauppe . nec ed. Argent.: ne C praesidii C B¨ucheler: praesidiis Polenus eam ipsam
: ea ipsa C  quarundam Schultz: quorundam C: ‘fortassse scribendum aquarum quarundam’ B¨ucheler  origine
: origine C debeant edd.: debeat C {ac reliquae} seclusi inquinatur Jocundus: inquinatus C obtecta Polenus (putei obtecti iam Holstenius): obiecta (nisi ab- legas) C . Anienses Schultz: antensis C: aniensis ut vid.
permanant: Bergk: permanent C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E 

  

 [f.v ,  p.] 

  

lacu, moblit[ate] tamen cedentibus ripis aufert aliquid quo turbetur priusquam deveniat in rivos. quod incommodum non solum hibernis ac vernis sed etiam aestivis imbribus sentit, quo tempore exiit gratior aquarum sinceritas {exigitur}. et alter quidem ex his, id est Anio vetus, cum plerisque libra sit inferior, incommodum intra se tenet. novus autem Anio vitiabat ceteras; nam cum editissimus veniat et in primis abundans defectioni aliarum succurrit. imperitia vero aquariorum deducentium in alienos eum specus frequentius quam explemento opus erat etiam sufficientes aquas inquinabat, maxime Claudiam, quae per multa milia passuum proprio ducta rivo Romae demum cum Anione permixta in hoc tempus perdebat proprietatem. adeoque obvenientibus non succurrebat{ur}, ut pleraeque accerserentur per imprudentiam non ut {in}dignum erat aquas par | tientium. Marciam ipsam et rigore et splendore gratissimam balneis ac fullonibus et relatu quoque foedis ministeriis deprehendimus servientem. omnes ergo discerni placuit, tum singulas ita ordinari ut in primis Marcia potui tota serviret et deinceps reliquae secundum suam quaeque qualitatem aptis usibus adsignarentur, sic ut Anio vetus pluribus ex causis, quo inferior excipitur minus salubris, in hortorum rigationem atque in ipsius urbis sordidiora exiret ministeria. Nec satis fuit principi nostro ceterarum restituisse copiam et gratiam; Anionis quoque novi vitia excludi posse vidit. omisso enim flumine repeti ex lacu qui est super villam Neronianam Sublaquensem, ubi limpidissima est, iussit. nam cum oriatur Anio supra Trebam Augustam, seu quia per saxosos mobilitate ego: moblib|[c.  litt.] C: mobilibus (Jocundus) aquis Grimal: mollibus Ursinus, Dederich  exigitur scripsi: exiit C: vocem del. Dederich: ex sit Krohn: scilicet Walther {exigitur} ego . obvenientibus . . .] ‘fere opvenientibus’ Krohn, qui et obelum adposuit succurrebat
: succurrebatur C: secernebatur Krohn ut {in}dignum ego: ud dign¯u C: uti dignum edd.  et rigore et splendore scripsi: frigore (P. Manutius, Schultz) et splendore Krohn: splendore (ex -ere)  rigore.et C foedis edd.: fideis C  inferior Holstenius, Dederich: interior C . Heinrich limpidissima C: -mus Schultz  Trebam edd.: tribam C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I



  

   



montes decurrit paucis circa ipsum oppidum obiacentibus cultis, seu quia lacuum altitudine in quos excipitur velut defaecatur, imminentium quoque nemorum opacitate inumbratus, frigidissimus simul ac splendidissimus eo pervenit. haec tam felix proprietas aquae omnibus dotibus aequatura Marciam, copia vero superatura, veniet in locum deformis illius ac turbidae, novum auctorem imperatorem Caesarem Nervam {Traianum} Augustum praescribente titulo. Sequitur ut indicemus quod ius ducendae tuendaeque sit aquae, quorum alterum ad cohibendos intra modum impetrati beneficii privatos, alterum ad ipsorum ductuum pertinet tutelam. in quibus dum altius repeto leges de singulis datas, quaedam apud veteres aliter observata inveni. apud antiquos omnis aqua in usus publicos erogatur et cautum ita fuit: ‘ne quis privatus aliam ducit quam quae ex lacu humum accidit’ (haec enim sunt verba eius legis), id est quae ex lacu abundavit; eam nos caducam vocamus. et haec ipsa non in alium usum quam in balnearum aut fullonicarum dabatur, eratque vectigalis statuta mercede quae in publicum penderetur. aliquid et in domos principum civitatis dabatur concedentibus reliquis. ad quem autem magistratum ius dandae vendendaeve aquae pertinuerit in iis ipsis legibus variatur. interdum enim ab aedilibus, interdum a censoribus permissum invenio; sed apparet quotiens in re publica censores erant, ab illis potissimum petitum, cum autem non erant, aedilium eam potestatem fuisse. ex quo manifestum est quanto potior cura maioribus communium utilitatium quam paucis
: paucihis C: paucissimis Schultz oppidum Rubenius: oppidis (pr. p ex b) C altitudine edd.: -ne C quos Holstenius, Polenus: quo C opacitate
: -te C  (a)equatura A: aquatura C Traianum seclusi . quod
: qua C  datas Crook: quilata C: perlatas Polenus: aquis latas B¨ucheler invenio ego: inveni C  antiquos C: quos Dederich omnis] omnes C erogabatur Jocundus: erogatur C et Polenus: ea C aliam add. B¨ucheler praeeunte Graevio ducito Crook: ducat C accidit Graevius: accedit C eius legis A: et leges C: {et} legis B , Polenus  publicum penderetur B , Jocundus: publico impenderetur C . autem scripsi: duodecim C: (h)ii
 ‘ex quo . . . pertineret in caput  extr. post penderetur transponenda’ B¨ucheler



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E





      

[f.r , p.]   

privatarum voluptatium fuerit, cum etiam ea aqua quam privati ducebant ad usum publicum pertineret. Tutelam autem singularum aquarum locari solitam invenio positamque redemptoribus necessitatem certum numerum circa ductus extra urbem, certum in urbe servorum opificum habendi, et quidem ita ut nomina quoque eorum quos habituri essent in ministerio per quasque regiones in tabulas publicas deferrent; eorumque operum probandorum curam fuisse penes censores, aliquando et aediles, interdum etiam quaestoribus eam provinciam obvenisse, ut apparet ex S.C. quod factum est C. Licinio et Fabio consulibus. quanto opere autem curae fuerit ne quis violare ductus aquamve non concessam derivare auderet, cum ex multis apparere potest, tum et ex hoc quod Circus Maximus ne diebus quidem ludorum circensium nisi aedilium aut censorum permissu inrigabatur. quod durasse etiam postquam res ad curatores transiit sub Augusto apud Ateium Capitonem legimus. agri vero qui aqua publica contra legem essent inrigati publicabantur. mancipi etiam, si clam eo quem adversus legem fecisse, multa dicebatur. in isdem legibus adiectum est ita: ‘ne quis aquam oletato dolo malo ubi publice saliet. si quis oletarit, sestertiorum decem milia multa{tum} esto’. {oletato videtur esse olidam facito.} cuius rei causa aediles curules iubebantur per vicos singulos ex iis qui in unoquoque vico habitarent praediave haberent binos praeficere, quorum arbitratu aqua in publico | saliret. Primus M. Agrippa post aedilitatem quam gessit consularis operum suorum et munerum velut perpetuus curator fuit. qui iam copia permittente discripsit quid aquarum publicis operibus, quid lacibus, quid privatis daretur. habuit et familiam propriam voluptatium] voluptatum A: voluntatium C  certum in Jocundus: centum ab C curam
: cura C penes Pithoeus: per C S. C. Pithoeus: eo C C. Licinio et Q. Fabio coss. Polenus: clycynio consule.et fabio censoribus C . potest
: posset C et om.
permissu
: -s¯u C  clam B¨ucheler: cum C constaret addendum prop. Mommsen fecisse C: fecisset Holstenius, Dederich dicebatur ut vid.
: dicebantur C  multa
: multatum C  {oletato . . . facito} B¨ucheler oletito C  causa
: caus¯a C . discripsit B¨ucheler: de- C quid (ante lac.)
: quo C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  

aquarum quae tueretur ductus atque castella et lacus. hanc Augustus hereditate ab eo sibi relictam publicavit. post eum Q. Aelio Tuberone Paulo Fabio Maximo consulibus in re, quae usque in id tempus quasi potestate acta certo iure eguit, senatus  consulta facta sunt ac lex promulgata. Augustus quoque edicto complexus est quo iure uterentur qui ex commentariis Agrip pae aquas haberent, tota re in sua beneficia translata. modulos etiam, de quibus dictum est, constituit et rei continendae exercendaeque curatorem fecit Messalam Corvinum, cui adiutores dati Postumius Sulpicius praetorius et Lucius Cominius pedari us. insignia eis quasi magistratibus concessa, deque eorum officio senatus consultum factum quod infra scriptum est. {S.C.}



Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. de iis qui curatores aquarum publicarum ex consensu senatus a Caesare Augusto nominati essent ornandis, D. E. R. Q. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. placere huic ordini eos qui aquis publicis praeessent cum eius rei causa extra urbem essent lictores binos et servos publicos ternos, architectos singulos et scribas et librarios, accensos praeconesque totidem habere quot habent ii per quos frumen tum plebei datur; cum autem in urbe eiusdem rei causa aliquid agerent ceteris apparitoribus isdem praeterquam lictoribus  . utique quibus apparitoribus ex hoc senatus consulto curatoribus aquarum uti liceret eos diebus decem [pr]oximis quibus senatus consultum factum esset ad aerarium deferrent; quique ita delati essent iis praetores aerarii mercedem cibaria quanta . hereditate U: ereditati C  consulibus edd.: consuli C in re que C: cum res B¨ucheler eguit Dederich: eguisse C: eguisset edd. consulta Polenus: consulto C facta Polenus (iam P. Manutius, Ursinus): acta C  tota
: tuta C  deque
: de quo C consultum
(c. tantum UBO): consulto C S. C. suspectum Poleno del. Dederich . Quod Q.
: Quodq(ue) C (et sic saepius: hic semel moneo) Paulus Pighius (P. iam
): pullus C cos.] consul C ornandis Bergk: ordinandis C I. Jocundus: E. C eius
: ius C scribas {et} librarios Mommsen  agerent
: aget (aut ageret aut agent explicari potest) C Brissonius  proximis
: [c.  litt.]oximis C consulto C deferrent Pithoeus: deferenti C delati
: dilati C pretores
: pretoris C mercedem Casaubon: mercede C: mercedes Brissonius



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

praefecti frumento dando dare deferreque solent annua darent et adtribuerent; isque eas pecunias sine fraude sua capere liceret.  utique tabulas chartas ceteraque quae eius curationis causa opus essent iis curatoribus {praebenda} Q. Aelius Paulus Fabius cos. ambo [alte]rve si is videbitur [adhi]bitis praetor[ibus] qui aerario  praesint, ea praebenda locent. itemque cum viarum curatores †que frumentique† parte quarta anni publico fungerentur ministerio, ut curatores quarum iudiciis vacent privatis publicisque.   



  

apparitores et ministeria, quamvis perseveret adhuc aerarium in eos erogare, tamen esse curatorum videntur desisse inertia ac segnitia non agentium officium. egressis autem urbem dumtaxat agendae rei causa senatus praesto esse lictores iusserat. nobis circumeuntibus rivos fides nostra et auctoritas a principe data pro lictoribus erit. Cum produxerimus rem ad initium curatorum, non est alienum subiungere qui post Messalam huic officio ad nos usque praefuerint. Messalae successit Planco et Silio consulibus Ateius Capito. Capitoni [C. Asinio Pollione] C. Antistio Vetere consulibus Tarius Rufus. Tario {et} Serio Cornelio Cethego L. Visellio Varrone consulibus M. Cocceius Nerva, divi Nervae avus, scientia etiam iuris inlustris. prefecti frumento C: prefectis frumenti Bergk capere Pithoeus: facere C  {praebenda} B¨ucheler (‘praeeunte Casaubono qui alterum praebenda delevit’ ): opus esset . . . praeberi . . . ea praebenda Brissonius: op. esset . . . praeberi, ea . . . {ea} praebenda Dederich Aelius] elius
: eius C consul C alterve
: [c.  litt.]rve C adhibitis pretoribus
: [c.  litt.]bitis pretor[c.  litt.] C ea Brissonius: et C: voc. deleri iussit Casaubon . viarum curatoresq(ue) frumentiq(ue) C: u. cur. {que} frumentique Polenus: u. curatores que frumenti qua parte {quarta} anni Hirschfeld fungerentur scripsi: fungebantur C: fungantur Dederich ut C: ea et Hirschfeld aquarum
: quarum C vacarent Amatucci, Grimal: vacent C  erogare edd.: eroget C . Planco et Silio edd.: plancus et silius C consulibus UOA: consules CB  C. Asinio Pollione Polenus: [spat. c.  litt.] C consule C  tario
: taurio C et del. B , Jocundus Servio edd.: serio C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I   

[f.v ,  p.]         

huic successit Fabio Persico L. Vitellio consulibus C. Octavius Laenas. Laenati Aquila Iuliano et Nonio Asprenate consulibus M. Porcius Cato. huic successit †post quem† Ser. Asinio Celere [Sex.] Nonio Quintiliano consulibus < ** ** – ** consulibus> A. Didius Gallus. Gallo Q. Veranio | et Pompeio Longo consulibus Cn. Domitius Afer. Afro Nerone Claudio Caesare. IIII. et Cosso Cossi f. consulibus L. Piso. Pisoni Verginio Rufo et Memmio Regulo consulibus Petronius Turpilianus. Turpiliano Crasso Frugi et Laecanio Basso consulibus P. Marius. Mario Luccio Telesino et Suetonio Paulino consulibus Fonteius Agrippa. Agrippae Silio et Galerio Trachalo consulibus Vibius Crispus. Crispo Vespasiano .III. et Cocceio Nerva consulibus Pompeius Silvanus. Silvano Valerio Messalino consulibus Tampius Flavianus. Flaviano Vespasiano .V. Tito .III. consulibus Acilius Aviola. post quem imperatore Nerva .III. et Verginio Rufo .III. consulibus ad nos cura translata est.

 favio C consule C  Iuliano Polenus: iunianus C nonio
: nonius C  cruces adposui (post † quem Krohn): postea Polenus: post quattuor menses H¨ulsen (coni. ex fastis Ost.) Ser. Asinio Celere Polenus: serasinius celera C Sex. Nonio suppl.H¨ulsen: [c.  litt.]ionio C lacunam statui gallus
: gallius C  gallo q.
: galloq(ue) C veranio et pompeio
: -ius bis C Longo edd.: longus C: fort. Longo consules C  Luccio B¨ucheler: lucius (sed e additum supra) C telesino V (celesino
): celesinus C suetonius paulinus C: em.
consules C  Vibius Pighius: albius C  vespasiano
: -us C cocceio
: cocceia C consule C  Domitiano II add. Ursinus, B¨ucheler  mihi persuasum habeo aliquot curatorum nomina excidisse  imperatore Est, edd. (-em
): imperator C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E    



Nunc quae observare curator aquarum debeat et legem senatusque consulta ad instruendum actum pertinentia subiungam. circa ius ducendae aquae in privatis observanda sunt, ne quis sine litteris Caesaris, id est ne quis aquam publicam non impetratam, et ne quis amplius quam impetravit ducat. ita enim efficiemus ut modus quem adquiri diximus possit ad novos salientes et ad nova beneficia principis pertinere. in utroque autem magna cura multiplici opponenda fraudi est: sollicite subinde ductus extra urbem circumeundi ad recognoscenda beneficia; idem in castellis et salientibus publicis faciendum ut sine intermissione diebus aqua fluat. quod senatus quoque consulto facere curator iubetur, cuius haec {quoque} verba sunt.



Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. de numero publicorum salientium qui in urbe essent intraque aedificia urbi coniuncta, quos M. Agrippa fecisset, Q. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. neque augeri placere nec minui publicorum salientium quos nunc esse retulerunt ii quibus negotium a senatu est imperatum ut inspicerent aquas publicas  inirentque numerum salientium publicorum. itemque placere curatores aquarum, quos {S. C.} Caesar Augustus ex senatus auctoritate nominavit, dare operam uti salientes publici quam adsiduissime interdiu et noctu aquam in usum populi funderent. 

in hoc senatus consulto crediderim adnotandum quod senatus tam augeri quam minui salientium publicorum numerum  vetuerit. id factum existimo quia modus aquarum quae is temporibus in urbem veniebant, antequam Claudia et Anio novus perducerentur, maiorem erogationem capere non videbatur. . consulta
: consulto C  aqu(a)e
: eaque C impetravit C: impetraverit Schultz  sol(l)icite
: sollicites C intermissione
: -ne C Sauppe: Jocundus  –. haec – Aelius Dederich: hec quoque verba sunt.Elius C: Quod Q. iam addiderant Brissonius et Opsopoeus, quod in quoque latere primus vidit Dederich . consul C Jocundus nunc esse prop. B¨ucheler  S. C. suspectum Poleno del. Schultz publici
: -cis C  is] his C: iis
videbatur
: videbant C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

 



 [f.r , p.]

Qui aquam in usus privatos deducere volet, impetrare eam debebit et a principe epistulam ad curatorem adferre; curator deinde beneficio Caesaris praestare maturitatem et procuratorem eiusdem officii libertum Caesaris protinus scribere. procuratorem autem primus Ti. Claudius videtur admovisse, postquam Anionem novum et Claudiam induxit. quid contineat epistula vilicis quoque notum fieri debet, ne quando neglegentiam aut fraudem suam ignorantiae colore defendant. procurator calicem eius moduli qui fuerit impetratus adhibitis libratoribus signari cogitet, diligenter intendat mensurarum quas supra diximus modum, et positionis notitiam habeat, ne sit in arbitrio libratorum interdum maioris luminis interdum minoris pro gratia personarum calicem probare. sed nec statim ab hoc liberum subiciendi qualemcumque plumbeam fistulam permittatur arbitrium, | verum eiusdem luminis quo calix signatus est per pedes quinquaginta, sicut senatus consulto quod subiectum est cavetur.



Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. quosdam privatos ex rivis publicis aquam ducere, Q. D. E. R. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. ne cui privato aquam ducere ex rivis publicis liceret, utique omnes ii quibus aquae ducendae ius esset datum ex castellis ducerent, animadverterentque curatores aquarum quibus locis intra extra urbem apte castella privati facere possent ex quibus aquam ducerent quam ex castello communem accepissent a curatoribus aquarum.  ne cui eorum quibus aqua daretur publica ius esset intra quinquaginta pedes eius castelli ex quo aquam ducerent laxiorem fistulam subicere quam quinariam. 

in hoc S.C. dignum adnotatione est quod aquam non nisi ex . scripsi libertum (ut vid.)
: liberium C  Ti. B: titus C  villicis Polenus: vilici C quoque notum fieri transposui: fieri quoque notum C: q. f. n. Heinrich  positionis Schultz: posuimus C . consul C extra secl. B¨ucheler: extra Sauppe  ne C: neu Dederich: neve B¨ucheler cui Brissonius: qui C quinquaginta
: quinonaginta C quinariam] ‘vereor ne ab interpolatore additum sit cum intercidisset ea sententia quam cap.  extr. Frontinus significavit’ B¨ucheler



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

castello duci permittit, ne aut rivi aut fistulae publicae frequenter lacerentur.  Ius impetratae aquae neque heredem neque emptorem neque  ullum novum dominum praediorum sequitur. balneis quae publice lavarent privilegium antiquitus concedebatur ut semel  data aqua perpetuo maneret; sic ex veteribus senatus consultis cognoscimus, ex quibus unum subieci. nunc omnis aquae cum possessore instauratur beneficium. 

Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. constitui oportere quo iure intra [extra]que urbem ducerent aquas quibus adtributae essent, Q. D. E. R. F. P. D. I. uti usque eo maneret adtributio aquarum, exceptis quae in usum balinearum essent datae aut haustus nomine, quoad idem domini possiderent id solum in quod accepissent aquam.



Cum vacare aliquae coeperunt aquae, adnuntiatur et in commentarios redigitur, qui respiciuntur ut petitoribus ex vacuis dari possint. has aquarii statim intercipere solebant, ut medio tempore venderent aut possessoribus praediorum aut aliis etiam. humanius tamen visum est principi nostro, ne praedia subito destituerentur, triginta dierum spatium indulgeri, intra quod ii ad quos res pertineret < * * *>. de aqua in praedia sociorum data nihil constitutum invenio. perinde tamen observatur ac iure cautum ut, dum quis ex iis qui communiter impetraverant superesset, totus modus praediis adsignatus flueret et tunc demum renovaretur beneficium cum desisset quisque ex iis quibus datum erat possidere. impetratam aquam alio quam in ea praedia in quae data erit aut ex alio castello quam ex quo epistula principis

   



. dominum BOA: hominum C  sic C: sicut
 consul C extra
: [c.  litt.]qui C F. Jocundus: I. C E. add. Jocundus: R. add. ed. Panviniana C. add. Jocundus uti usque eo B¨ucheler: ut ius eoque C que A: quam C quoad
: quod ad C . alique BOA: alieque C  aquarii scripsi: aquas C intercipere Polenus: intercidere C  tamen Sauppe: etiam C: autem Polenus: voc. del. Opsopoeus lacunam statuit Polenus  impetraverant ego: impetraverunt C quisque edd.: quisquam C  impetratam aquam Polenus: Impetrata aqua C erit B¨ucheler: erat C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  

continebit duci palamst non oportere, sed et mandatis prohibetur. impetrantur autem et eae aquae quae caducae vocantur, id est quae aut ex castellis aut ex manationibus fistularum. quod beneficium a principibus parcissime tribui solitum. sed fraudibus aquariorum obnoxium est; quibus prohibendis quanta cura debeatur ex capite mandatorum manifestum erit quod subieci.

 

Caducam neminem volo ducere nisi qui meo beneficio aut priorum principum habent. nam necesse est ex castellis aliquam partem aquae effluere, cum hoc pertineat non solum ad urbis nostrae salubritatem sed etiam ad utilitatem cloacarum abluendarum.



Explicitis quae ad ordinationem aquarum privati usus pertinebant, non ab re est quaedam ex iis quibus circumscribi saluberrimas constitutiones in ipso actu deprehendimus exempli causa attingere. ampliores quosdam calices quam impetrati erant positos in plerisque castellis inveni et ex iis aliquos ne signatos quidem. quotiens autem signatus calix excedit legitimam mensuram ambitio procuratoris qui eum signavit detegitur. cum vero ne signatus quidem est, manifesta culpa omnium, maxime accipientis, deprehenditur, deinde vilici. in quibusdam, cum calices legitimae mensurae signati essent, statim amplioris moduli | fistulae subiectae fuerunt, unde acciderat ut aqua non per legitimum spatium coercita sed per brevis angustias expressa facile laxiorem in proximo fistulam impleret. ideoque illud adhuc, quotiens signatur calix, diligentiae adiciendum est ut fistulae quoque proximae per spatium quod S. C. comprehensum diximus signentur. ita demum enim vilicus, cum scierit non aliter quam signatas conlocari debere, omni carebit excusatione. circa conlocandos quoque calices observari oportet ut ad lineam ordinentur nec alterius inferior calix alterius superior

    [f.v , p.] 

 

. e(a)e
: aee C post castellis Jocundus: Sauppe: lacunam post fistularum statuit B¨ucheler . ante caducam  fere litt. spatium in C: ‘deest titulus capitis’ B¨ucheler . ‘deprehenditur suspectum, certe quidem transponi debet ante maxime’ B¨ucheler  acciderat
: acciderant C  illud
: illuc C  excusatione
: -ne C . inferior edd.: interior C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E    

    



 ,

   

ponatur. inferior plus trahit; superior, quia cursus aquae ab inferiore rapitur, minus ducit. in quorundam fistulis ne calices quidem positi fuerunt. hae fistulae solutae vocantur et ut aquario libuit laxantur vel coartantur. adhuc illa aquariorum intolerabilis fraus est: translata in novum possessorem aqua foramen novum castello imponunt, vetus relinquunt quo venalem extrahunt aquam. in primis ergo hoc quoque emendandum curatori crediderim. non enim solum ad ipsarum aquarum custodiam sed etiam ad castelli tutelam pertinet, quod subinde et sine causa foratum vitiatur. etiam ille aquariorum tollendus est reditus quem vocant puncta. longa ac diversa sunt spatia per quae fistulae tota meant urbe latentes sub silice. has comperi per eum qui appellabatur a punctis passim convulneratas omnibus in transitu negotiationibus praebuisse peculiaribus fistulis aquam. quo efficiebatur ut exiguus modus ad usus publicos perveniret. quantum ex hoc modo aquae servatum sit aestimo ex eo quod aliquantum plumbi sublatis eiusmodi ramis redactum est. Superest tutela ductuum, de qua priusquam dicere incipiam pauca de familia quae huius rei causa parata est explicanda sunt. familiae sunt duae: altera publica, altera Caesaris. publica est antiquior, quam ab Agrippa relictam Augusto et ab eo publicatam diximus; habet homines circiter ducentos quadraginta. Caesaris familiae numerus est quadringentorum sexaginta, quam Claudius cum aquas in urbem perduceret constituit. utraque autem familia in aliquot ministeriorum species diducitur: vilicos, castellarios, circitores, silicarios, tectores aliosque opifices. ex his aliquos extra urbem esse oportet ad ea quae non sunt magnae molitionis, maturum tamen auxilium videntur exigere. homines in urbe circa castellorum et munerum stationes opera quaeque urgebunt, in primis ad subitos casus ut . comperi
: compari C negotiationibus C: negociatoribus Jocundus  servatum C: sublatum Jocundus: surreptum B¨ucheler: serivatum Krohn sublatis Ursinus, Polenus: sublati C . ante familie  fere litt. spatium C  familie
: familia C . diducitur Jocundus: de- C  homines B¨ucheler: omnes C urbe
: urbe C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I 

  









ex compluribus regionibus in quam necessitas incubuerit converti possit praesidium aquarum abundantium. tam amplum numerum utriusque familiae, solitum ambitione aut neglegentia praepositorum in privata opera diduci, revocare ad aliquam disciplinam , et publica ministeria ita instituimus ut pridie quid esset actura dictaremus et quid quoque die egisset actis comprehenderetur. commoda publicae familiae ex aerario dantur, quod impendium exoneratur vectigalium reditu ad ius aquarum pertinentium. ea constant ex locis aedificiisve quae sunt circa ductus aut castella aut munera aut lacus. quem reditum prope sestertiorum ducentorum quinquaginta milium alienatum ac vagum, proximis vero temporibus in Domitiani loculos conversum, iustitia divi Nervae populo restituit, nostra sedulitas ad certam regulam redegit, ut constaret quae essent ad hoc vectigal pertinentia loca. Caesaris familia ex fisco accipit commoda, unde et omne plumbum et omnes impensae ad ductus et castella et lacus pertinentes erogantur. Quoniam quae videbantur ad familiam pertinere exposuimus, ad tutelam ductuum sicut promiseram divertemus, rem enixiore cura dignam, cum magnitudinis Romani imperii vel praecipuum sit indicium. multa atque ampla opera subinde nascuntur, quibus ante succurri debet quam magno auxilio egere incipiant, plerumque tamen prudenti temperamento sustinenda quia non semper opus aut facere aut ampliare quaerentibus credendum est. ideoque non solum scientia peritorum sed et proprio usu curator instructus esse debet, nec suae tantum stationis architectis uti sed plurium advocare non minus fidem quam subtilitatem, ut aestimet quae repraesentanda, abundantium Heinrich: abundantius C  ambitione aut neglegentia edd.: ambitione aut neglegenti¯a C scripsi . commoda B , Jocundus: Quom(od)a eadem manu deletum C  constant edd.: constat C ex locis (B¨ucheler: hortis Jocundus: solo Holstenius) aedificiisve (B , Jocundus): exolie.difficisve C  alienatum Polenus: alientem C constaret edd.: constarent C ad
: ab C  omne
: omne C . enixiore B A: enixiorem C sit C: sint (‘scil. ductus’) prop. Krohn  nascuntur C: dilabuntur B¨ucheler sustinenda C: festinanda Krohn



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E  [f.r , p.] 

  



 

 

quae differenda sint, et rursus quae per redemptores effici debeant, quae per domesticos artifices. nascuntur | opera ex his causis: aut vetustate corrumpitur quid aut impotentia possessorum aut vi tempestatium aut culpa male facti operis, quod saepius accidit in recentibus. fere aut vetustate aut vi partes ductuum laborant quae arcuationibus sustinentur aut montium lateribus adplicatae sunt, et ex arcuationibus eae quae per flumen traiciuntur. ideoque haec opera sollicita festinatione explicanda sunt. minus iniuriae subiacent subterranea, nec gelicidiis nec caloribus exposita. vitia autem eiusmodi sunt ut aut non interpellato cursu bveniatur eis aut emendari nisi averso non possint, sicut ea quae in ipso alveo fieri necesse est. haec duplici ex causa nascuntur: aut enim limo concrescente, qui interdum in crustam indurescit, iter aquae coartatur, aut tectoria corrumpuntur, unde fiunt manationes quibus necesse est latera rivorum et substructiones vitiari. pilae quoque ipsae tofo exstructae sub tam magno onere labuntur. refici quae circa alveos rivorum sunt aestate non debent, ne intermittatur usus tempore quo praecipue desideratur, sed vere vel autumno et maxima cum festinatione, ut scilicet ante praeparatis omnibus quam paucissimis diebus rivi cessent. neminem fugit per singulos ductus hoc esse faciendum, ne si plures pariter avertantur desit aqua civitati. ea quae non interpellato aquae cursu effici debent maxime structura constant, quam et suis temporibus et fidelem fieri oportet. idoneum structurae tempus est a Kalendis Aprilibus in Kalendas Novembres, ita ut optimum sit intermittere eam partem aestatis quae nimiis

 his edd.: in C quid aut Krohn: aut quid C: aut imp. poss. quid corrumpitur aut vet. aut vi B¨ucheler: aut quid vet. corr. aut imp. poss. Dederich . tempestatium add. post vi Jocundus B¨ucheler sustinentur
: sustinetur C eae quae edd.: ea que A: aque C  aquae ante cursu add. Heinrich cursu subveniatur
: cursubveniatur C averso Polenus: aversa C: aversa Dederich . sunt rivorum cum transp. signis C addidi . calendis et calendas C (K-
) eam A: iam C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I





 





caloribus incandescit, quia temperamento caeli opus est ut ex commodo structura conbibat et in unitatem conrobetur; non minus autem sol acrior quam gelatio praecipit materiam. nec ullum opus diligentiorem poscit curam quam quod aquae obstaturum est; fides itaque eius per singula secundum legem notam omnibus sed a paucis observatam exigenda est. illud nulli dubium esse crediderim, proximos ductus, id est qui a sexto miliario lapide quadrato consistunt, maxime custodiendos, quoniam et amplissimi operis sunt et plures aquas singuli sustinent. quos si necesse fuerit interrumpere, maiore{m} parte{m} aquarum urb{i}s destituet. remedia tamen sunt et huius difficultatipus inchoatum excitatur ad libram deficientis, alveus vero plumbatis canalibus per spatium interrupti ductus rursus continuatur. porro quoniam fere omnes specus per privatorum agros derecti erant et difficilis videbatur futurae impensae praeparatio nisi aliqua iuris constitutione succurreretur, simul ne accessu ad reficiendos rivos redemptores a possessoribus prohiberentur, S.C. factum est quod subieci. Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. de rivis specibus fornicibus quae Iuliae Marciae Appiae Tepulae Anienis reficiendis, Q. D. E. R. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. uti cum ii rivi fornices quos Caesar Augustus se refecturum impensua pollicitus senatui est reficerentur [. . .] ex agris

(Heinrich) ex commodo (Sch¨one) scripsi: ex commodi C: ex humore commode ed. pr. unitatem B¨ucheler: unitate C corroboretur
: conrobetur C sol acrior quam C: quam sol acrior Dederich gelatio A: celatio C  aquae Jocundus: eque C . sexto C: VII Polenus singuli sustinent
: singulis sustinet C  maiore . . . destituetur scripsi: maiore parte aquar¯u urbis destituet C: destituent Corradinus de Allio: maior pars aquarum urbem destituet ed. pr.: maiorem partem urbis aqua tum destituet Krohn  huius C: his edd.: huiusmodi Schultz difficultatis (Heinrich) opus (Polenus): difficultatibus C alveus A, Polenus: alvea C  aliqua iuris Schultz: alicuius C  consul C aquae B¨ucheler: que C anyenis C Schultz Caesar Augustus scripsi: augustus cesar C impensa sua pollicitus
: impensua sollicitus C post reficerentur spat. c.  litt. C: ‘suppl. fere et necesse esset requirere’ Krohn



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

privatorum terram limum lapidem testam harenam ligna ceteraque quibus ad eam rem opus esset unde quaeque eorum proxime sine iniuria privatorum tolli sumi portari possint viri arbitratu aestimata darentur tollerentur sumerentur exportarentur; et ad eas res omnes exportandas earumque rerum reficiendarum causa quotiens opus esset per agros privatorum sine iniuria eorum itinera actus paterent darentur.    [f.v ,  p.]  

plerumque autem vitia oriuntur ex impotentia possessorum, qui pluribus rivos violant. primum enim spatia quae circa ductus aquarum ex S. C. vacare debent aut aedificiis aut arboribus occupant. arbores magis nocent, quarum radicibus et concamerationes et latera | solvuntur. dein vicinales vias agrestesque per ipsas formas derigunt. novissime aditus ad tutelam praecludunt. quae omnia S. C. quod subieci provisa sunt.



Quod Q. Aelius Tubero Paulus Fabius Maximus cos. V. F. aquarum quae in urbem venirent itinera occupari monumentis et aedificiis et arboribus conseri, Q. F. P. D. E. R. I. C. cum ad reficiendos rivos specusque , per quae et opera publica corrumpantur, placere circa fontes et fornices et muros utraque ex parte quinos denos pedes patere, et circa rivos qui sub terra essent et specus intra urbem et {extra} urbi continentia aedificia utraque ex parte quinos pedes vacuos relinqui, ita ut neque monumentum in is locis neque aedificium post hoc tempus ponere neque conserere arbores liceret; si quae nunc essent arbores intra id spatium exciderentur praeterquam si quae  villae continentes et inclusae aedificiis essent. si quis adversus terr¯a lim¯u C: terra limus Dederich lapide C: lapides B¨ucheler testam
: testa C portari ego: portari C possint C: possent Sauppe boni add.B , Jocundus: post arbitratu rasuram  fere litterarum praebet C, in qua vestigia istius boni me dispexisse non dubito .
. Q. (quintus
): que C consul C Q. Jocundus: que C cum del. Pithoeus lacunam statuit B¨ucheler per que C: iter aquae Gundermann: perquae Mommsen: per quae . . . corrumpantur post conseri transp. Heinrich et del. (‘nisi ea mavis’) B¨ucheler quinos Pithoeus: c.uinos C (c.quinos
) {extra} urbi B¨ucheler: extra urbem C si quae (edd.) scripsi: sique C exciderentur Polenus: exciperentur C



I V L I I F RO N T I N I

ea commiserit, in singulas res poena HS dena milia essent, ex quibus pars dimidia praemium accusatori daretur cuius opera maxime convictus esset qui adversus hoc S. C. commisisset, pars  autem dimidia in aerarium redigeretur; deque ea re iudicarent cognoscerentque curatores aquarum. 

posset hoc S.C. aequissimum videri, etiam ex rei tantum publicae utilitate ea spatia vindicarentur, multo magis cum maiores nostri admirabili aequitate ne ea quidem eripuerint privatis quae ad modum publicum pertinebant, sed cum aquas perducerent, si difficilior possessor in parte vendunda fuerat, pro toto agro pecuniam intulerint et post determinata necessaria loca rursus eum agrum vendiderint, ut in suis finibus  proprium ius res publica quam privati haberent. plerique tamen, non contenti occupasse{nt} fines, ipsis ductibus manus adtulerunt. per suffossa latera passim cursu ius aquarum imperatum habent, quam ii qui quantulacumque beneficii occasione ad expugnandos rivos abutuntur.  quid porro fieret si non universa ista diligentissima lege prohiberentur poenaque non mediocris contumacibus intentarer?  que subscripsi verba legis.



T. Quintius Crispinus consul [de S. S.] populum iure rogavit populusque iure scivit in foro pro rostris aedis divi Iulii , p. K. Iulias. tribus Sergia principium fuit. pro tribu Sex.  poena HS Polenus: pena hes C  deque
: dique C . Jocundus rei tantum publice utilitate B , Jocundus: re tantum publice utilitatis C cum C: autem B¨ucheler eripuerint B , Dederich: eripuerunt C commodum van der Vliet: modum C ed. pr. quam privati ego: quam privata C: privatique B¨ucheler  occupasse
: occupassent C suffossa Heinrich: suetossa C passim cursu< . . .>ius (passi in- interpr. Schultz, ius iam
) ego: passim|cursusus C non minus ego: tam Polenus ei qui Polenus impetratum
: imperatum C hii C quantulacumque ed. pr.: quantulumcumque C: quantuli- B¨ucheler occasione ed. pr.: occasionis C rivos B¨ucheler: n¯u C: nunc
: fort. expugnandum rivum  intentaretur edd.: intentarer C  quare Schultz: que C: que Grimal . quinctius O, edd.: quintius C de S(enatus) S(ententia) post B¨uchelerum Mommsen: [spat. c.  litt.] C p.K.] pr(idie) K(alendas) B¨ucheler: P.R. C  tribus Brissonius: tribui C  tribu Brissonius: tribus C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E 

L. f. Virro . Quicumque post hanc legem rogatam rivos specus fornices fistulas tubulos castella lacus aquarum publicarum quae ad urbem ducuntur sciens dolo malo foraverit ruperit foranda rumpendave curaverit peiorave fecerit quo minus eae aquae arumve quae qua in urbem Romam ire cadere fluere pervenire duci quove minus in urbe Roma et in iis locis qua aedificia urbi continentia sunt erunt, in iis hortis praediis locis quorum hortorum praediorum locorum dominis possessoribus V. F. aqua data {vel} adtributa est {vel} erit, saliat distribuatur dividatur in castella lacus inmittatur, is populo Romano  centum milia dare damnas esto; et qui D. {a} M. quid eorum ita fecerit, id omne sarcire reficere restituere aedificare ponere excidere demolire damnas esto {sine dolo malo} aque omnia ita ut quicumque curator aquarum est erit si curator aquarum nemo erit tum is praetor qui inter cives et peregrinos ius dicet multa{m} pignoribus cogito exerceto, eique curatori aut si curator non erit tum ei praetori eo nomine cogendi r [f. , exercendi multa dicenda {sunt} pignoris capiendi | ius p.] nomen deesse vidit Heinrich: Vibidius Dessau: Visellius B¨ucheler: S. Sextius Gundermann Brissonius  et Schultz peiorave Schultz: peioremve ut vid. C: puteumve temptavi eae aquae earumve Polenus: eaeaquaerumve C quae qua Crawford: quequa C: {que}qua Polenus: quaeque Schultz: quae pars B¨ucheler: quaqua quae Mommsen: quae que Gundermann fluere Opsopoeus, Brissonius: fluis C

B¨ucheler: ed. pr. locis qua aedificia Mommsen: locis que edificia C: aedificiis quae loca aedificia B¨ucheler: {locis} aedificiis quae Jocundus V(su) F(ructuariis) expl. Ursinus, Gundermann: possessoribusve Pithoeus vel (bis) delevi B¨ucheler  (i.e. sine) Crook qui d(olo) {a} m(alo) B¨ucheler: quid¯a C sarcire ego aedificare ponere Crawford: edificare ponere C: {aedificia} reponere Heinrich excidere Mommsen: et celere C: {e} tollere Gundermann: et delere temptavit B¨ucheler demolire C: demoliri Gundermann {sine dolo malo} seclusi eaque Mommsen: aqu(a)e C: atque
lacunam ind. Heinrich: ut ego, Mommsen

Brissonius is
: his C dicet B¨ucheler: dicit C multa Brissonius: mult¯a C exerceto Gundermann: exercito C: coercito edd. pretori A: pretorio C cogendi exercendi Crawford: coge. Decoercenda C: cogendi coercendi Polenus multae dicendae Jocundus: multa dicenda C {sunt} Crawford: sive Jocundus



I V L I I F RO N T I N I  

potestasque est. si quid eorum servus fecerit, dominus eius HS centum milia populo D. D. E. si qui s circa rivos specus fornices fistulas tubulos castella lacus aquarum publicarum quae ad urbem Romam ducuntur {et} ducentur terminatus st {et} erit, ne {que} quis in eo loco post hanc legem rogatam quid obponit molit obsaepit figit statuit ponit conlocat [in]arat serit, neve in eum quid inmittit praeterquam earum faciendarum reponendarum causa {praeterquam} quod hac lege  licebit oportebit. qui adversus ea quid fecerit {et} adversus eum siremps lex ius{su} causaque omnium rerum omnibusque esto, atque uti esset esse{q}ve oportere si is adversus hanc legem  rivum specum rupisset forassetve. quo minus in eo loco pascere herbam fenum secare sentes [tollere liceat quove minus in eo loco] curatores aquarum qui nunc sunt quique erunt {circa fontes et for{tu}ni[ces] et muros et rivos et specus terminatus est} arbores vites vepres

esto
: est C  R. (i.e. Romano) post populo add. B¨ucheler D(are) D(amnas) E(sto) praeeunte Ursino B¨ucheler: det C: dare damnas dedito in marg. B  qui locus B¨ucheler: quis C et seclusi est et erit B¨ucheler (et del. Grimal ): steterit C ne Schultz: neque C: neve Gundermann obponito & cet.] imperativum modum rest. B , Schultz [in]arato scripsi: arat C immittito Schulz: immidtit C earum ego: earum C (‘scilicet aquarum publicarum’ Gundermann): rerum (pro earum) Mommsen {praeterquam} Opsopoeus quod C: quae Opsopoeus  {et} Heinrich: et adv. eum del. Scaliger: ei (deleto adv. eum) Ribbeck: ei adv. eum (‘scilicet locum terminatum’) Gundermann siremps lex ius Scaliger: si rem publicam ex iussu C: fort. siremps lex ius omnibusque C: omninoque Ribbeck esseve oporteret Ritschl: esseque oportere C  qui locus B¨ucheler praeeunte addidi circa fontes . . . terminatus est huc transtuli (legitur in C post quique erunt) fornices et muros Polenus: fortuni[c.  litt.] et muror(um) C terminatus C: terminatum Crawford Crawford, ego tollere liceat (Mommsen) quove minus (Crawford) in eo loco scripsi: [spat. c.  litt. ante Curatores] C circa fontes quique erunt cum transponendi signis C



D E A QVA E DVC T V V R B I S RO M A E

sentes ripae maceria salicta harundineta tollantur excidantur effodiantur excodicentur , uti quod recte factum esse volet , eoque nomine iis pignoris capio multae dictio o rcitique esto, idque iis sine fraude sua facere licet ius potestasque esto.  quo minus vites arbores quae villis aedificiis maceriisve inclusae sunt maceriae quas curatores aquarum causa cognita ne demolirentur dominis permiserunt quibus inscripta insculpta{q}ve essent ipsorum qui permisissent curatorum no mina maneant hac lege nihilum rogatur. quo minus ex iis fontibus rivis specibus fornicibus aquam sumere haurire iis quibuscumque curatores aquarum permiserunt permiserint praeterquam rota coclea machina licea dum ne qui puteus ne{q}ve foramen novum fiat eius hac lege nihilum rogatur. 

utilissimae legis contemptores non negaverim dignos poena quae intenditur. sed neglegentia longi temporis deceptos leniter revo cari oportuit. itaque sedulo laboravimus ut quantum in nobis  fuit etiam ignorarentur qui erraverant. is vero qui admoniti ad indulgentiam imperatoris decucurrerunt possumus videri causa  impetrati beneficii fuisse. in reliquo vero opto ne executio legis necessaria sit, cum officii fidem etiam per offensas tueri praestet. ‘fortasse maceriae’ B¨ucheler: maceria C Crawford recte
: rectum C volent Schultz: volet C Mommsen capio Dederich: capto C: captio edd. multae dictio Scaliger: multa edici C o rcitique esto Crawford: po.[c.  litt.]o[c.  litt.]R citi questo C: coercitioque esto Opsopoeus liceto B , Bruns: licet C: liceat edd. esto
: isto C ante quominus (§) spat. c.  litt. C: ‘sed duo haec enuntiata apte cohaerent’ B¨ucheler  maceriaeve Mommsen: macerie C curatores
: curatorum C insculptave Mommsen: -que C post B¨ucheler Crawford rogatur Crawford: rogatio C: rogato Mommsen: rogator Scaliger  coclea scripsi: calice C liceat MV: licea C neve ego: neque C rogatur Crawford: rogato C: rogator Scaliger . quanta C: em.
 qui
: aut C causa
: caus¯a C  reliquos ego: reliquo C: reliquum Schultz praestet Jocundus: prestitit C: praestiterit Schultz



COMMENTARY

C O M M E N TA RY INSCRIPTION AND TITLE Iulii Frontini F.’s praenomen is known only from epigraphic sources (CIL . = ILS , ., ., ., .: see PIR  ); it is found neither in C nor in the report of the Hersfeld codex nor yet in the text traditions of the Strategemata or the Agrimensores. Tacitus, Hist. .. and Pliny, Ep. .. have ‘Iulius Frontinus’; elsewhere he is simply Frontinus. De aquaeductu urbis Romae There is no reliable evidence as to the title F. assigned to this work. The only possible rival to C’s rubric is that reported from the Hersfeldensis (Introd. ): de aquae ductibus quae in urbem inducuntur. H’s heading does not inspire much confidence, for it has clearly been composed from the opening chapters of the work (note especially ., .); the ed. princeps, it might be noted, borrowed more exactly (De aquis quae in urbem influunt). B¨ucheler, who rightly questioned even C’s authority in this instance, gave (after Heinrich) the title De aquis urbis Romae. This title does in fact represent not only F.’s text at ., but the plural aquae which we find consistently (from  aquarum . . . officium), referring to the metropolitan water-system as a whole. Baldwin () –, not inappropriately, points to de aquis, the title of a speech by Caelius Rufus (.); cf. Serv. ad Aen. . (Cato speaking de aqua). But editors have been more cautious since Krohn pointed out (pref. vi) that de aquaeductu is found in Cod. Theod. . and Cod. Just. ., as a heading to sections which deal with the upkeep of aqueducts and the rights of individuals who have received grants of public water. These topics are indeed among those covered in F.’s work, and the succinct title is not wholly inappropriate. Still, F. himself nowhere uses the word aquaeductus in this sense (meaning either ‘water supply’ or ‘water-rights’ – akin, it would seem, to the ancient legal term aquae ductus, a praedial servitude (cf. Cic. Caecin. ): see .n. ductus and cf. TLL s.v. aquae ductus. C’s de aquaeductu is probably a title applied to this text in late Antiquity, for someone in the Middle Ages might be expected to have used the plural de aquae ductibus. – Prologue explaining circumstances of composition and announcing the contents. For a general discussion of the literary prologue in Latin, see Janson (); on this prologue, Santini (), Del Chicca (–). F. adheres to the affected modesty such prefaces required, and he lays conventional stress upon the practical purposes for which he has collected the material. Two conventions, however, are modified: () ‘Author’s relationship to someone requesting the work or to whom the work is dedicated’ is here replaced by the announcement that Nerva has appointed F. to a responsible office. F. addresses the



C O M M E N TA RY  work to himself, but not necessarily because Nerva is now dead. () ‘Author’s competence in the subject’ is defined as non-existent, and F.’s work becomes self-didactic. The rhetorical embellishment of these prefatory remarks is a clear indication that the work was prepared for circulation of a sort (Introd. ). The style is copious, even abundant. Among the particular devices may be noted the following: () Elaborate tricola: Cum . . . exigat / et . . . instigent / sitque . . . iniunctum in the first sentence, neque ullum . . . certius / aut aliter / aliudve in the second, in both of which the third member is greatly lengthened by subordinate matter (paratactically in the former, hypotactically in the latter). () A bevy of alternative expressions: seu / seu, non modo / verum quoque, nescio / an, alongside the correlative tam / quam. () Synonyms used for variety (delegata / commissae / iniunctum, adiutorum / inferiorum) alongside hendiadys (manus quaedam et instrumentum, institutionem regulamque). () Alternation between verbs and corresponding abstract nouns (institueram / institutionem, nosse / notitiam); cf. diligentiam / diligentiore, amorem / amantiore. () Chiasmus (naturalis sollicitudo / fides sedula, ad . . . pertinens / administratum per . . . , imperitia praepositi . . . ad inferiorum usum) and alliteration (salubritatem . . . securitatem, primum ac potissimum, succedentium . . . successorem). Virtually nothing is put simply. There is perhaps some deliberate attention to prose rhythm (e.g. exigat curam – ∪ – – x, seu fides sedula – ∪ – – ∪ x, dili]gentiam modo – ∪ – ∪ x): Del Chicca (–)  –. The overall effect (at least in chapters  –) is more tedious and ponderous than formal and grave; Baldwin ()  describes it as ‘a touch pompous and fussy’, but would forgive this in an administrator. In chapter , by contrast, the extended parataxis is aptly suited to a recitation of the contents.  Cum omnis res A deceptively simple opening. For the initial cumcircumstantial clause cf. e.g. F. Str. .pr. (cum . . . accesserim), the more elaborate series of such clauses in Vitr. .pr., and the deliberately prosaic cum tot sustineas of Horace, Epist. ... A beginning with ‘all’ is frequent in Aristotle, e.g., Metaph.
 
 , Pol.

  . . . 
   , Part. An.
 
     , Eth. Nic.
  
 ; cf. Sall. Cat. , Caes. BGall. .. res . . . delegata Cf. . delegatum officium and Pliny, Ep. .. delegato mihi officio, . curis delegati a vobis officii (also .., and cf. ..). The word delegata establishes a tone of respectful deference, but makes explicit the special nature of the position, a cooperative effort on the part of both the emperor and his deputy. A high level of responsibility demands superior performance. For the tone of the prologue as a whole, cf. Pliny, Ep. .. sunt quidem cuncta sub unius arbitrio, qui pro utilitate communi solus omnium curas laboresque suscepit; quidam tamen salubri temperamento ad nos quoque velut rivi ex illo benignissimo fonte decurrunt.



C O M M E N TA RY  intentiorem exigat curam For curam exigere (emphasised by hyperbaton) cf. . maiorem adsiduamque . . . exigent curam, .n. diligentiorem poscit curam. I find the expression elsewhere only in Columella (.., .., ..). Cura intentior occurs three times in Curtius (.., .., ), twice as often in Livy with at least as many again related collocutions, e.g. .. custodiae vigiliaeque et ordo stationum intentioris ubique curae erant; .. dilectum consules multo intentiore quam alias cura habebant, .. cura omnium in Veiens bellum intenta est (∼ neglectum Anxuri praesidium). Livy, .. and Quint. .. alone have intentissima cura. Note also Pliny, Ep. .. tantum curae intentionisque suscipere; Balb. Expos. et ratio omn. formarum p.. L (p.. Campbell), quod si . . . parum diligentem adhibitam curam esse credideris; as well as a few instances in Tacitus, which imply by ironic contrast that F.’s use is a commonplace of courteous diction: Hist. .. numquam ita ad curas intento Vitellio ut voluptatum oblivisceretur; .. (Domitian), Ann. .. (Tiberius), . (Nero). Behind such usage, however, lies a long history leading backward at least to Aristotle’s 
  (e.g. Eth. Nic. .a); for a useful summary see Kunkel (). me The first person singular is consistent throughout the prologue. For F.’s practice elsewhere see .n. exclusa, .n. invenerim, . n. invenerimus, .n. crederem. naturalis sollicitudo, fides sedula naturalis ( , ‘by nature’) is paired with sedula (‘attentive’, ‘deliberate’). Throughout the work F. uses these and similar words to describe attention to public duty. See . nostrae sollicitudini, . sollicite, . sollicita festinatione; . fides nostra, . officii fides; . nostra sedulitas, . sedulo (cf. . sedula partitione). Note also . scrupulosa inquisitione, . prudenti temperamento. In contrast to such laudable qualities, F. points to imperitia (.), inertia ac segnitia (.), and neglegentia (.; cf. .), which had informed the administration prior to his appointment. Words of condemnation are applied with still greater force to the behaviour of lesser officials: imperitia (.), imprudentia (.), neglegentia (.), ambitio (., .), and above all fraus (., ., ., ., ., ., ., ., .). For the tone and sentiment, one can note what are perhaps F.’s own words in De contr. agrorum p..– Campbell: in iudicando autem mensor[em] bonum virum et iustum agere debet neque ulla ambitione aut sordibus moveri, servare opinionem et arti et moribus. quidam enim per imperitiam, quidam per imprudentiam peccant: totum autem hoc iudicandi officium et hominem et artificem exigit egregium. erat aequissimum et in advocatione eandem fidem exhiberi a mensoribus. ad diligentiam . . . ad amorem Note the variation in diligentiore an amantiore just below, deferential in tone because res publica outweighs commissa res and because the comparatives are applied to enhance in the emperor those same qualities that F. has claimed for himself. F. toys with the semantic proximity of diligere and amare, the latter being stronger in force (cf. TLL . : .).



C O M M E N TA RY  Although traditional as a public virtue of the Romans, diligentia, devotion to the competent performance of duty (see Iglesias,  ), seems at the time F. is writing to have been something of a slogan in senatorial circles. Trajan several times uses the word to Pliny (Ep. .., , .; note esp. , where SherwinWhite rightly discerns the vigour of Trajan’s personal style). F. mentions the diligentia of the prince at . and gives him the epithet diligentissimus at . and .. Equally important, F. requires diligentia on the part of the procurator at . (see also .); and at . parum diligenter contains a strong reproach. Amor patriae / rei publicae is a long established topos; for amor in relation to a task cf. Livy, pr. amor negotii suscepti, Ovid, Met. . huius amor curae. mihi ab Nerva Augusto . . . imperatore Neither this juxtaposition nor the passive construction is unintentional. The appositional phrase, especially with nescio, underscores a deliberate modesty while pointedly representing a special closeness between author and prince – F. was appointed in the year  (.). Later he twice refers to Nerva as divus (., .), so we take it that the work in its present form was completed after Nerva’s death in January . For his term in office and the date of composition, see Introd. –. The specific use of the name Nerva (as opposed to, say, Caesar Augustus, as in Pliny, Pan. ., ., etc.) is perhaps to distinguish between (unnamed) Domitian on the one hand and Trajan on the other. Despite the fact that the latter was also Nerva (cf. Tac. Agr. . Nerva Caesar, then Nerva Traianus), in this document, marked throughout by a certain immediacy, the reigning sovereign would perhaps have been called princeps or imperator noster (but cf. . n.). – Except for ab Roma (.n., .) and . ab re, this is the sole appearance of ab before a consonant (note that . a Lucio is the sole instance of a before a liquid); cf. L&S s.v., Leumann . aquarum iniunctum officium Aquarum officium is ‘position with responsibility for the (public) water supply’ (thus normally F.’s meaning of plural aquae). This genitive is not frequent with officium, but it is analogous to that with cura, munus, negotium, and the like. Officium has come to mean ‘office’ (., . ; cf. Suet. Aug.  nova officia excogitavit), but it retains much of its original sense (duty, responsibility). The verb iniungere (TLL . : .) is synonymous with delegare and with mandare: cf. Colum. .. (on choosing a vilicus) potentissimum est autem in eo magisterio scire et existimare quale officium et qualis labor sit cuique iniungendus. If it retains any connotation of onus here, it would be to emphasise that such a burden is willingly borne: Pliny, Ep. .. officium consulatus iniunxit mihi ut rei publicae nomine principi gratias agerem; .. mandatum mihi officium (of the cura alvei Tiberis et riparum et cloacarum). ad usum . . . tum With ad usum F. conveys a commonplace (Vitr. ... [aqua] est enim maxime necessaria et ad vitam et ad delectationes et ad usum cotidianum), but tum singles out two reasons why a reliable water supply is necessary (salubritas and securitas). Loss of cum might be readily explained by haplography, but



C O M M E N TA RY  (despite non . . . modo, sed . . . quoque) it is unnecessary: see OLD s.v. tum , H–Sz . An et is reported here from the Hersfeldensis (Introd. ), but the word would bring nothing but awkwardness. ad salubritatem . . . securitatem urbis Note the alliterative pairing: W¨olfflin ( ) . Salubritas involved not only the quality of drinking water (., –), but also the benefits derived from urban cleanliness (cf. Pliny, Ep. .. et salubritati et amoenitati valde sitientis coloniae,  plurimum ea res et salubritati et voluptati eius [coloniae] collatura); see .n., .n. On sanitation and health, see Cardini (), Garrison (), Squassi (), Scobie (), Winkelmann (), Shaw (). Securitas presumably refers to the constant threat of fire (this is not, however, the sense of subitos casus at .), for which a reliable supply of water was deemed essential (cf. Tac. Ann. ..). Both words may have political overtones: for securitas cf. e.g. Tac., Agr. . ; for salubritas cf. . saluberrimas constitutiones, also Syme () . And securitas, in particular, reminds one of crises involving the public grain supply, e.g. that faced by Claudius in   (Tac. Ann. ..); cf. Rickman () . per principes semper civitatis nostrae viros Hyperbaton emphasises the grandeur of sentiment. The postponed adverb is a regular feature of F.’s style, e.g. . post biennium deinde actum est, . privatorum etiam fraudibus, . suffecturus etiam altioribus locis, . velociorem iam cursum, . sedula deinde partitione, . scientia etiam iuris; cf. Kortz () –. While the closest parallel to our passage is Colum. .pr. civitatis nostrae principes, the common – never trite – phrase is frequent in dignified prose, especially oratory and history, e.g. Cic.  Verr. , Cat. ., , Red. Pop. , Dom. , Livy, .. (applied to T. Quinctius Capitolinus et al.), .. (Q. Fabius Maximus), Pliny, HN . (M. Scaurus pater), Sen. Controv. ..pr., Pliny, Ep. .. (Silius Italicus), .. (Arrius Antoninus). Very typical is its use in Suet. Aug. .. Tacitus regularly uses primores civitatis, e.g. Hist. .., .., Ann. .., ... Cf. also proceres civitatis Colum. .pr., Tac. Ann. .. (Seneca). For discussion of the term, and the absence of any tension between princeps (the emperor) and principes civitatis, see B´eranger ()  –, citing especially Pliny, Ep. .. (Arrius Antoninus). F. here makes unmistakable reference to the useful services furnished by officials of the senatorial class. From the establishment of the cura aquarum under Augustus (.), the chairmanship had apparently been reserved to consulars. Mommsen () :  suggests that the curatores aquarum ranked higher than other senatorial commissions in part because they continued certain censorial responsibilities, but for the nature and prestige of the post in general see . n. F. lists his predecessors in chapter , a few of whom are known to have been principes civitatis in the sense that phrase is used (e.g. Suet. Tib. , Tit. .) to apply to the ‘privy council’ of amici Caesaris, on which see, in general, Crook (), Amarelli (). Note especially Vibius Crispus (.), whose status is described by Tacitus, Dial. . as one who per



C O M M E N TA RY . multos iam annos potentissimi sunt civitatis ac . . . principes in amicitia Caesaris . . . atque ab ipso principe cum quadam reverentia diliguntur. The Republican administration was less clearly defined, but most of the comparable duties had fallen to censors or aediles (. n., ); see also Helm (), Flores (). civitatis C’s celuitatis apparently represents an attempt at correction (the l deriving from a long i meant to replace e): cf. . praepositi] precositei C. There is no justification for introducing archaic spellings, ceivitatis and praepositei: Haupt () . primum ac potissimum Cf. Quint. .. (Domitius Afer) verissime praecepit primum esse in hac parte officium oratoris ut totam causam familiariter norit; quod sine dubio ad omnia pertinet. The alliterative pair is frequent in Livy (e.g., .., .., ..): see W¨olfflin ( ) , Santini () . sicut in ceteris negotiis institueram Cf. . more iam per multa mihi officia servato; also Str. .pr. hoc opus, sicut cetera. On F.’s career see Introd.  –. For the pluperfect cf. . sicut promiseram. nosse quod suscepi A commonplace of sorts, but aptly applied to civil service; cf. Seneca, Dial. .. (to Pompeius Paulinus, praefectus annonae): satius est vitae suae rationem quam frumenti publici nosse. Observe the first-person active, which emphatically responds to delegata / commissa res and iniunctum officium. Cf. Colum. .. caput est in omni negotio nosse quid agendum sit. . neque enim . . . The sentence clarifies the habit of nosse quod suscepi. Knowledge of one’s task is the first step in training, the basis for decisions, the prerequisite for shouldering responsibility. Cf. again Colum. .. (on vilicus) quisquis autem destinabitur huic negotio, sit oportet idem scientissimus robustissimusque, ut et doceat subiectos et ipse commode faciat quae praecipit. siquidem nihil recte sine exemplo docetur aut discitur praestatque vilicum magistrum esse operariorum, non discipulum, cum etiam de patre familiae prisci moris exemplum Cato dixerit: male agitur cum domino, quem vilicus docet. neque . . . ullum . . . fundatum The difficulties here centre on omnis (which may not even be right: C has omis) and fundatus. For the latter
’s fundatum has long seemed satisfactory (Poleni: ‘neque enim crediderim ullum fundamentum omnis actus certius esse cognitione rei agendae seu suceptae’). Seen for the conjecture that it is, however, we find it to be a less than convincing solution, for certius (which should be its predicate) stands in what is normally an attributive position. The transmitted fundatus looks like the participle of fundare, a verb not inappropriate in sense, while the position of certius suggests that it is an adverb: something ‘has been more surely grounded’ (or ‘established’). Indirect statement (with crediderim) requires the change -us to -um (no worrisome step in a text such as this) both in the participle and in its required noun – apparently actus ‘performance of task’ (this sense emerging from agentis at the end of the sentence; cf. . ad instruendum actum). An



C O M M E N TA RY . objective genitive is normal with actus (cf. TLL  : .), but context hardly requires one here. A form of omnis (omnium or omnino?) might suit the negative generalisation; but the manuscript reading can be otherwise interpreted, and a generalising hominis might counter what is potentially restrictive in per principes viros. My version can be translated ‘No performance of duty is more surely grounded,’ i.e. there can be no better training for any position of administration than by knowing what the job entails. Professor Reeve rightly observes that with my text the comparison seems rather to be ‘than the actus just mentioned’. I acknowledge this objection, but feel that such awkwardness and ambiguity result from F.’s own rhetorical contortions: the comparative certius introduced (instead of alium?) to vary with aliter and aliud. crediderim For ellipsis of esse, cf. . quem quidam Tusculanum credunt, . quia . . . possessoribus relinquendam [sc. aquam] credebat, . cum praecipuum officii opus . . . crederem, . crediderim adnotandum quod . . . , . hoc . . . emendandum curatori crediderim; but note .. quae facienda quaeque vitanda sint Cf. Livy, pr. omnis te exempli documentum . . . intueri, inde . . . quod imitere capias, inde . . . quod vites. Del Chicca (–) n. adduces Sen. Ep. . antiqua sapientia nihil aliud quam facienda ac vitanda praecepit, et tunc longe meliores erant viri. tolerabili viro I can find no good parallel for the unusual use of tolerabilis. Poleni explains: ‘Puto Frontinum intellexisse pro viro tolerabili, virum praeditum mediocri virtute ac habilitate ad agendum; qui licet excellens non esset, tolerari tamen posset.’ I should be more generous, taking tolerabilis as ‘honourable’, ‘respectable’ (or ‘decent’: Loeb transl.); note Tac. Hist. .. bonos imperatores voto expetere, qualiscumque tolerare. The word tolerabilis looks primarily upward: the appointee will be ‘tolerable’ in the eyes of his superior for responsible performance of the delegatum officium. It may, however, look downward (or perhaps sideward) at F.’s fellow senators, members of the Roman elite against whom a dutiful official might find it necessary to take unwelcome actions (cf. per offensas .n., .n.). It is unlikely that F. would care that a firm and judicious superintendent might also be tolerable to underlings for assuming rather than shifting the burden which is his: the aquarii (.n.) are rather the object of F.’s displeasure – precisely because they have been acting without supervision. adiutorum The whole staff, not merely senatorial adiutores, who might not even have existed in F.’s day (.n.). Included are the procurator (.), various clerical and technical specialists (., ., .), as well as the gangs of workmen (–). imperitia praepositi . . . i[nferi]orum . . . usum For the sentiment cf. . non solum scientia peritorum sed et proprio usu curator instructus esse debet. Here usus means ‘experience:’ OLD s.v. a ‘actual performance, practice’ (opp. knowledge or theory). Renaissance conjecture is markedly unimpressive



C O M M E N TA RY . (BOA have imperitia praecessit ei a divo Nerva). Transmitted praecositei may have come from the preceding praeceptis; Schultz’s praepositi is a splendid correction (cf. .), but the quorum which follows requires something stronger than his illorum ( = adiutorum). For inferiorum ‘underlings’ see TLL : .. Incidentally, ad inferiorum usum is nicely chiastic with imperitia praepositi. On the antithesis between praepositus and subordinates, cf. Del Chicca () . Santini ()  cites Pl. Ti. d–: ! " ! # $
%, "    $   & $ '
  
!· )( 
 * &
 +  ,
  -&(   ,  .
& .    /  . F.’s attitude as a public servant is very like that we read of the Younger Cato’s quaestorship ( ) in Plut. Cat. Min. . –: Eck (a) , Evans ()  n.. Cato would not stand for office until he had learnt its nature and authority, from both written and oral authorities. Once in office, when Cato discovered that the clerical staff had grown accustomed to taking advantage of the inexperience of the magistrates themselves to the point that they rather than the elected officials were effectively in charge, he was able to put them in their place: ,
  , .
 0, 12  3  4 ! , 5 6 $24   4! -, 5 7 8  
 9   . ad ministerium tamen Punctuation has varied with editors, but the phrase replies to the concessive etsi necessariae partes sunt (the word-order of which specially emphasises the predicate adjective). F. regularly avoids beginning a clause with tamen: ., ., ., ., etc. (the single exception in this text is .). Note also Str. .pr. quia quamvis clara [sc. haec exempla sunt] diversae tamen erant substantiae, . quamvis . . . esset necessarius, ne tamen . . . corrumperetur, . . . iussit. manus quaedam et instrumentum Hendiadys: ‘tool in the hand’ of the craftsman. agentis The substantive use of this present participle (TLL  : .) borders on ‘officialese’: Adams () , . Rather than being a mere synonym of praepositus, here it seems to have the meaning of (specialised) ‘performer, operator’: Del Chicca (). C has a blank space and no mark of punctuation after agentis. Giocondo supplied esse debent, Grimal sunt; Poleni made no addition, but punctuated after partes; Dederich inserted sint earlier in the sentence, after tamen. None of these solutions satisfies F.’s style: Del Chicca () . While a form of esse can readily be understood from the preceding sunt, the ellipse is hard to justify in this laboured prologue. For Professor Reeve’s supplement see the similar constructions cited in TLL  : ., and note also . adhibitis praetoribus, . adhibitis libratoribus. . ad universam rem There apparently existed no convenient, up-todate collection of data to which a curator could refer, let alone a systematic



C O M M E N TA RY . guide (formula) to matters that might arise in the course of his official duties. On those records which might have been available to F. (in his own and related bureaux), see Introd. . more iam per multa mihi officia servato Alliteration is no doubt deliberate. Unusual is the dative of agent, perhaps for a kind of formality (to lend a tone of responsibility?); elsewhere I find it only at Str. .. silvam intemptatam ante militi nostro. velut {in hunc} corpus Cf. e.g. Vitr. .pr. quorum ex commentariis, quae utilia esse his rebus animadverti, collecta in unum collegi [v.l. coegi] corpus; Scrib. Larg. Comp. (ep) in hunc librum contuli. This metaphorical use of corpus (TLL : .) is too well established to require an apologetic velut. Perhaps F. inserts it here to avoid an awkwardness after the somewhat different metaphor in ordinem, although he is not sparing of the device anywhere in this text: Baldwin () –. Note velut ., ., ., , ., . ; quasi ., ., ., ; tamquam ., .; ut ita dicam ., ut sic dicam ., nova quadam adquisitione .. By contrast, it occurs but twice in Str., in close succession in the prologue .pr. ipso velut acervo rerum confuderunt legentem. . . . ut ipsum quod exigitur quasi ad interrogatum exhibeat (elsewhere in Str. the words velut, quasi, tamquam introduce, not surprisingly, deceptive manoeuvres). The phrase in hunc I take to be a scribal anticipation of the same words. There is no merit whatsoever in the reading ultra hoc in (E), pace Rubio () . in hunc commentarium Cf. § huius commentarii. Used not so much to indicate the modest genre of the present work as to stress the convenience and practical value of the collected data. The singular commentarius suggests that the division into two libri ( –, –) was introduced at a stage of tradition subsequent to initial ‘publication’. pro formula administrationis Cf. . velut formulae officii; note also . formulas modulorum. F. seems to be likening this work to the kind of guidelines familiar in legal contexts (e.g. formula cognitionis); cf. Cic. QRosc.  sunt iura, sunt formulae de omnibus rebus constitutae, ne quis aut in genere iniuriae aut ratione actionis errare possit. expressae sunt enim ex unius cuiusque damno, dolore, incommodo, calamitate, iniuria publicae a praetore formulae, ad quas privata lis accommodatur, Cic.Off. . ut sine ullo errore diiudicare possimus . . . formula quaedam constituenda est; quam si sequemur in comparatione rerum, ab officio numquam recedemus. We ought perhaps not to press too hard to determine a precise concrete sense for F.’s word formula, for its essential meaning is that of forma ‘sketch’ (or outline: OLD s.v. c). An apologetic velut formula occurs in Colum. .. tradita est, .. conscriptam; cf. .. quasi formulis. Note also an earlier use in Varro, Rust. .. scribens . . . ut duas formulas. Perhaps the point is partly to have something in writing. respicere possem The hand is that of Peter the Deacon, but these two words seem to have been written later in a space originally left blank. For



C O M M E N TA RY .–. respicere, ‘refer to, consult’, cf. . (commentarii) respiciuntur, Sic. Flacc. Cond. agr., p.. Campbell sanctuarium Caesaris respici solet. . in aliis . . . libris Cf. Str. .pr. cum hoc opus sicut cetera usus potius aliorum quam meae commendationis causa adgressus sim. experimenta et usum Hendiadys; for usum see § n. Cf. . non solum scientia peritorum sed et proprio usu curator instructus esse debet. succedentium res acta est Poleni: ‘succedentium utilitati consultum est’. For the idiom res agitur see Reeve (). Note, however, that acta est recalls actus and agentis from §. fortassis F. might have felt that this form had a grander sound than fortasse (cf. TLL . : .), or he might have wished to avoid hiatus (with et).  Contents of the present work § primum nomina . . . influunt tum, deinde per quos . . . arcuato § post altitudinem modulorumque . . . factae sint quantum . . . detur quod ius . . . inrogatae

chapter  – – – – – –

(Resumptive remarks occur at ., . –, ., ., . –, ., ., ., ., ., ..) For portions of the text not apparently announced in this prologue, see below and Introd. . . ne quid . . . praetermisisse For the didactic phrase, cf. Cic. Brut.  ne quem vocalem praeterisse videamur, Quint. .., .., Balbus, Expositio formarum p.. Campbell nequid nos praeterisse videamur, Hyg. Grom. De cond. agr. p.. Campbell ne quid sit quod praeterisse videamur, S.H.A. Pescennius Niger . ac ne quid ex his, quae ad Pescennium pertinent, praeterisse videamur; Divus Claudius . ne[c] ea, quae scienda sunt, praeteriise videamur. Contrast F.’s deliberate selectivity in Str. .pr. multa et transire mihi ipse permisi. Modern readers will miss in this text any but the most incidental references to financial and economic aspects of administration (cf. . –). Technical matters are also largely ignored, except when they relate directly to the curator’s responsibility (cf. –, –). For the drawbacks of this work as an administrative manual, see Bruun ( ) – , and for a good list of technical questions for which F. offers at best tantalising hints, see Blackman–Hodge ( ) –. On the other hand, whether because information was less readily available, or because its need could be satisfied in other ways, it is important to realise that F.’s point on comprehensiveness is one that had meaning to him and his contemporaries. He seems to include data and texts which he expected to have, if not at his fingertips, at least in a single succinct collection for ready reference.



C O M M E N TA RY . in urbem {Romam} B deletes Romam, perhaps by conjecture (on comparison with .?). I have deleted it because it strikes me as both awkward and unnecessary (we have urbis alone in the opening chapter) and because it is characteristic of the interpolations of Peter the Deacon (who added Roma and Romani at numerous points in his transcription of Vegetius: see Introd. ); note the intrusive {Iulii} in § just a few lines below. On F.’s ‘definition’ of urbs, see §n. extra urbem. ponam ‘I shall put down’ in writing (OLD s.v.): . ponam, . posuimus (also ., ., .), . ponemus. Cf. also . in commentariis positi, . in conceptis commentariorum positum, . in commentariis ponebatur, . erogationem positam, . ea ponenda,  positam necessitatem. F. only seldom uses compounds: . composui, . exposuimus (cf. . n.). per quos . . . quoto . . . quibus . . . quantum Extensive parataxis with repetitive interrogatives recurs also at . –. The device serves where modern writers would perhaps use a table, and the repetitive style functions as an aid to the reader. per quos . . . perducta sit Cf. . auctores cuiusque aquae et aetates. (On AUC chronology and possible irregularities, see . n.) The auctores are the magistrates or emperors on whose initiative and by whose agency (hence per + accusative) the aqueducts had been built. Dates of construction were of some administrative relevance insofar as they might indicate need for upkeep (cf. n. vetustate), and names of historical figures were a typically Roman way of identification, but F.’s antiquarian bent informs his presentation overall (especially noticeable at ., .). quoto post urbem conditam anno Quoto (interrogative: H–Sz ) introduces the third colon in a sentence laden with formulae of Roman history: per quos (cf. Livy, pr. per quos viros), quibus consulibus, quoto post u.c. anno. perducta sit Ducere and its compounds are ubiquitous in this text. F. uses the simplex verb in two meanings: () ‘draw water’, i.e. from the public supply, relates always to privati – either explicitly (., ., , ., ., . –) or implicitly (., ., , ., .). This sense represents legal usage, as is clear from its appearance in formal documents (., , ), sometimes alongside the word ius (., ). () ‘carry or convey water’, i.e. in a conduit, used either in the active voice (. superior [calix] minus ducit), or the passive (. [rivus Herculaneus] per Caelium ductus,  [aqua] longius ducitur, .n [modus] circa piscinam ductus, ., . Claudia . . . ducebatur / ducta, ., ); cf. Cic. QFr. .. aqua per fundum eius ducenda. Of this second usage deducere is a variant: . postquam Iuliam deduxerat, . aquariorum [aquam] deducentium in alienos specus, . qui aquam in usus privatos deducere volet; cf. Cic. Div. ., Tac. Ann. .. (also Ann. .. fontis aquarum deductos). Perducere ‘deliver into use, to carry to its destination’ in virtually every case involves new construction (. –, .–, ., ., ., ., ., .–, ., ., ., .), but



C O M M E N TA RY . see .n. perducebatur. Cf. also Livy, Per. , Pliny, HN ., Ep. .–, –, Suet. Aug. . ; Vitr. .. fontes perducere. Inducere bears the sense ‘introduce, bring in’ (something new): . Appia in urbem inducta est, . modulus inductus, . [Claudius] Anionem novam et Claudiam induxit happens to be in a context of novelty (F. is speaking of the appointment of a new official, the procurator). Diducere means ‘divide and distribute’: . fistulis (ablative), . in altos rivos, . regionibus (dative); the word is applied also to the crew of workers (., ). Adducere (. n.) and circumducere (.n.) are singular occurrences. quibus ex locis F. indicates the source of each aqueduct in general terms (e.g. . in agro Lucullano, . supra Tibur), then gives more precise directions on how to reach it (.n.). The damaged text (beginning with a quoto) has generally been taken with the words which precede. Giocondo’s supplement miliario thus corresponds to F.’s references to milestones along the main roads. The transmitted cepisse.at has been variously emended: the temporal force of coepisse(n)t is inappropriate (construed absolutely by Poleni), and logic recommends Grimal’s concipiatur (in the corresponding chapters F. regularly uses the verb concipitur: .n.). The difficulties may, however, be more serious. After locating the source, F. indicates a total length of the conduit before breaking this down per species operum (. n.). As B¨ucheler saw, the present passage should contain an explicit announcement of that procedure: note . origines et longitudines rivorum. For his suggested addendum cf. ., ., . (efficit passus), but note that F. varies the formula: habet longitudinem passuum (., ., ., .), efficit longitudinem passuum (., .), and cf. venit per longitudinem passuum (.). Before the first quantum F. might also have added et ex eo (‘and of this overall length’: so ., ., ., .). (For the whole cf. § quot castella . . . et ex is quantum). If a quoto miliario were the transmitted reading, I should have no trouble in defending the phrase as meaning ‘from what distance’: cf. CIL . (cited in Appendix B, no. ), ILS  flumen Sebaston ab Schedia induxit a milliario XXV ($
   ), Pliny, Ep. .. a sexto decimo miliario posse perduci (see also TLL : ). This would leave us with F. promising to specify the general location of the sources and the total length of the conduit, but cepisse.at would still remain unexplained (for perducta sit would be sufficient to govern both prepositional phrases). My positioning of the daggers reflects hesitation on two points: a quoto is highly suspicious (so close upon quoto . . . anno), and cepisse could be concealing some corruption of passus. The noun ductus in F.’s text always means ‘channel’ or ‘conduit’, whether used alone (e.g. ., ., ., .), with genitive of aqua (., ., .; cf. ., . proper names of aqueducts), or with pronoun or relative (., ., ., ., .). Cf. also Cic. Off. ., , Vitr. .., Pliny, HN ., Pliny, Ep. .., Tac. Ann. .., Suet. Claud. .. For F. ductus and rivus (in the sense of ‘artificial watercourse’) are often virtually



C O M M E N TA RY . synonymous: note ductus publici (.–) alongside rivi publici (.; cf. rivi in the S.C. of . –), ductus longitudinem habet (., ., etc.) matches longitudines rivorum cuiusque ductus (. ; cf. .), and circa ductus (.) parallels circa rivos (., ., both from legal documents). The distinction is that ductus refers more precisely to the structure by which the water is conveyed (note . huius aquae ductum, . ductus aquarum, where we have our ‘aqueduct’), while rivus can sometimes be used close to its basic meaning ‘stream’ or ‘supply of running water’. Variety of style results, for F. can say a faucibus ductus (.) and ductus vitio (.), but rivorum cursu (.) and rivi cessent (.). subterraneo rivo . . . substructione . . . opere arcuato Levels of the course and the nature of the terrain required different types of construction: see Vitr. .–. When an underground tunnel was impossible, the channel of the aqueduct could be raised (up to five or six metres) on substructure, and even higher on free-standing arch-work – for bridging valleys in outlying areas (e.g. .) or, most dramatically, in the final stretch to the City (.n.). F.’s interest arises because upkeep and repair would naturally vary with the type of construction (.–, . –). subterraneo rivo Even for underground channels F. uses the more general word rivus (see note on ductus just above) far more commonly than specus (.n.). For the variety of subterranean construction possibilities, see Ashby () –, Hodge () –, –. substructione This word (abstract for concrete) is fairly rare except in building contexts: Vitr. .., .., ..–, .., Livy, .., Pliny, HN ., Colum. .., Pliny, Ep. ... F. seems to use the word in the singular to refer to uninterrupted stretches (., ., ., .), sometimes with rivorum (., ., .) when more than one channel is superposed (.). The plural applies to separate sections (., .–; cf. .). F.’s use is more specialised than that of Vitruvius, for whom substructiones (..) and substructum (..) would cover anything raised above ground level: Espinilla Buis´an ()  n.. For what F.’s ‘substructure’ is see Hodge () . opere arcuato The phrase seems precisely limited to style of construction: apart from F. its only appearance is Pliny, Ep. ... Besides chapters –, we find it only at . (applied to the urban series of Neronian arches); elsewhere F. uses arcus (.n.; cf. . n. fornices), arcuationes (.n.) and arcuatura (questionable: .n.): Espinilla Buis´an () –. . altitudinem cuiusque See . – omnes aquae diversa in urbem libra perveniunt; inde serviunt quaedam altioribus locis et quaedam erigi in eminentiora non possunt. modulorumque F. discusses size and capacity of pipes (.–.), ending with comments on irregularities he has detected (.–);



C O M M E N TA RY . chapters – add a few hydraulic remarks. In chapters – he lists official measurements (formulae) for each pipe. Modulus is F.’s standard word for a ‘calibrated pipe’, i.e. one of a specified size: Hern´andez Gonz´alez () . Note especially . modulos certos, . [Augustus] modulos constituit, . calicem eiusmodi qui fuerit impetratus. For the relationship of the diminutive to the noun modus (cf. note below) see OLD s.vv.
’s rationem presumably derives from the use of that word at . (cf. ., –); Schulz’s plural makes the scribal omission a trifle more explicable. < . . . quem modum . . . quantumque erogaverit> Cf. . nunc ponam quem modum quaeque aqua . . . habere visa sit quantumque erogaverit; . satis iam de modo cuiusque . . . superest ut erogationem . . . Delivery (erogatio) plainly relates to the supply conveyed (modus), about which we need a mention at this point (anticipating pro suo modo just below). My tentative addition derives directly from ., omitting the detail which F. gives there about the source of his data in the imperial registers (principum commentariis). erogationes habiles factae sint ‘and what deliveries have been made possible’. For erogatio = distributio (cf. .), see TLL .: .. (Pace  prints habiles but translates ‘quali erogazioni dei moduli siano state confermate’.) Grimal’s reason for thinking that chapters – are unannounced seems primarily to be the assumption that modulorum is antecedent of illis and that these erogationes refer to (potential) deliveries (akin to F.’s use of the verb erogare in –). Kunderewicz punctuates with a semicolon after rationem and follows Rubio in suppressing factae sunt, thus taking this phrase with what follows, a kind of introduction to the detailed breakdown by categories (quantum . . . detur); cf. Gonz´alez Rol´an xix–xxii. There are several difficulties unresolved. () The tense of factae sint contrasts with the (expected) present subjunctives below (serviat, sint, detur, sit) and ought to resemble more closely that of perducta sit above. () Erogationes (accusative) facere (or nominative + fieri) is not F.’s normal way of expressing ‘to make distributions, or deliveries’. For this he uses the verb erogare, commonly with aqua as subject (e.g. ., ., ., ., etc., but used with aquarii as subject in ). The expression erogationem facere makes only an occasional appearance in legal texts (Dig. ...pr., ...pr., ...pr.); cf. TLL .: .. () Since the verb erogare is constructed with ablative of means (e.g. . quo modulo, . qua [sc. fistula]) or with ex (. ex centenaria), we should expect either the genitive or ex instead of ab + ablative. () So firm a footing has A’s ab illis gained that too little heed has been paid to the word habiles, which appears in C following erogationes. This adjective is primarily used predicatively (TLL .: .), as it is here. An appropriate sense can be found for habilis (OLD s.v.  d) ‘able to be readily accomplished or accommodated’ – roughly ‘possible’ – and this is precisely what F. proclaims has happened (., .–, .).



C O M M E N TA RY . quantum . . . serviat An unobjectionable anacoluthon: with the first quantum we anticipate a verb such as detur (below) or erogetur (.), but then – because servire is intransitive (+ dative) – the second quantum is used adverbially (‘to what extent’). extra urbem In chapters – it is further specified how much of the extra-urban distribution is nomine Caesaris and how much to privati. F.’s extra / intra urbem distinction is consistent in chapters –, but elsewhere we see extra urbem / in urbe: ., , .–; cf. .– in plerisque urbis partibus / extra urbem, . extra urbem / in castellis et salientibus publicis. Except in certain specific cases (the senatus consulta of . –, ., ; cf. also .) it is difficult to pin down what F. means by urbs. He seems to use the term rather loosely, sometimes at least embracing the continentia tecta (see . n. aedificia urbi coniuncta); cf. .n. propius urbem; ., . prope urbem. For further discussion see Champlin () –; Fr´ezouls ()  –, Bruun ( ) –, Taylor () –, De Kleijn ( )  –, –. urbe unicuique regioni Cf. . quibus regionibus, . per regiones urbis. Because chapers – refer to fourteen numbered regiones, it is clear that these are the Augustan wards (Suet. Aug. ., Dio, ..); LTUR : –. pro suo modo ‘in relation to the available supply’, as rightly noted by Poleni: ‘Significatur autem pro sua copia, pro mensura suae quantitatis.’ This sense of modus (OLD s.v.  a) is frequent and regular (., ., ., ., etc.); cf. .n. This use for quantities of water derives from the more common use in gromatical contexts, e.g. Hyg. Grom. De condicionibus agrorum p..T p.. Campbell hunc igitur modum quattuor limitibus mensura s(upra) s(criptum) inclusum vocamus medimna. quot castella Tanks from which water was delivered within the City. According to . these totalled . The translation ‘reservoirs’ is misleading, for the purpose of castella was not storage but regulation of the flow in closed pipes that issued from them. Vitruvius, .. –, the first attestation of this sense, describes a simple system: from a castellum located on the town wall (the height creating a greater head) three discharge pipes are appropriately positioned to serve public basins, public baths and private consumers (see further .n.). At Rome the system was far more complex, for castella numbered in the hundreds (.n.). Modern scholars speak regularly of a terminal castellum (or castellum divisorium), which ‘is in effect a junction box, marking the end of the aqueduct proper and the start of the urban distribution process’: Hodge () –. F. never explicitly mentions such a castellum, although he often makes clear at what point distribution begins (e.g. ., –); see also .n. Secondary castella, probably not radically dissimilar to the ‘water towers’ at Pompeii, were fed by conduits (channels perhaps sometimes, more often pipes) leading from the main castellum, and it was from these that deliveries



C O M M E N TA RY . were made. The entire system issuing from a secondary castellum will have been one of closed pipes (fistulae), hydraulically different from the open or free flow of rivi but thereby subject to what was probably fairly sophisticated regulation and adjustment (cf. .n. pressura, –, .–, .). See Wasserversorgung  () , pls. –; Hodge ()  –; cf. Bruun ( ) –, Evans () –, De Kleijn ( ) –. publica privataque The antithesis is a commonplace (see, for example, Nisbet and Hubbard on Horace, C. ..). Neither in . nor in the corresponding chapters (–) does F. distinguish some castella as ‘private’, hence the readiness to accept Schultz’s deletion of privataque. But why then does one need publica? Water granted to privati (., ., etc.) could only be drawn from castella: . quibus locis . . . apte castella privati facere possent, ex quibus aquam ducerent quam ex castello communem accepissent. ‘Private tanks’ would be those erected by privati, or serving in the distribution of water to privati. ‘Public tanks’ were, of course, those which formed part of the main service. Both were used in the distribution of public water, and thus combined without distinction in F.’s figures for erogatio. publicis operibus . . . detur At . F. has three categories for urban distribution: nomine Caesaris, privati, usus publici, the last of which is further divided into castra (.n.), opera publica, munera, lacus. His figures indicate that deliveries under the heading of ‘public uses’, all within the City, amounted to . per cent of the total supply (, quinariae out of ,: Table ). For categories of delivery see Petrucci ()  –. publicis operibus Public works must have embraced () buildings belonging to the state, and () structures, monuments and places open for public use that were not specifically under the control of Caesar or his fiscus (.n.): Lanciani ( ) , Evans () –. The only specific opus publicum that F. names is the Euripus of Virgo in the Campus Martius (.). Perhaps also by tradition some establishments that served public needs continued under this category (balneae come to mind, on which see .n.). The great imperial thermae would have received their water nomine Caesaris, and those who operated privately owned bathing facilities accessible to the public would have received theirs as privati: Evans () , Fagan () . muneribus . . . appellantur The parenthesis indicates that F. uses munera in an unfamiliar sense, but the textual difficulty obscures his intended definition. Castellorum et munerum stationes at . suggests that munera played some role in regulating distribution. The conventional view is that these were castella of a special sort, fitted out with elaborately decorated monumental fountains. As best I can tell, this notion hangs precariously on the word cultiores transmitted in the ita-clause. Support is sought in Pliny, HN .: (Agrippa) lacus septingentos fecit, praeterea salientes centum quinque, castella centum triginta, complura etiam cultu magnifica; operibus iis signa trecenta aerea aut marmorea



C O M M E N TA RY . imposuit, columnas ex marmore quadringentas (cf. Suet. Claud. . plurimos et ornatissimos lacus). On this view munera essentially keeps its familiar sense (an elaborate private undertaking presented for the public good), and this is how F. applies the word to Agrippa’s building projects at . operum suorum et munerum velut perpetuus curator fuit (cf. TLL : .). For a more comprehensive discussion of these ‘fontane artistiche’ (or ‘ornamentali’) see Aicher (), Del Chicca () –. As transmitted, however, the ita-clause does not yield a compatible meaning. Scholars have approached the problem from two directions. () Make the verb active, with cultiores taken as ‘the more polite’ (Loeb; cf. TLL : .). This implies that munera is either a euphemism (for public latrines: Grimal (); Robinson () ; Blackman–Hodge ( ) ) or a touch of fashionable jargon (shorthand for deum munera: Baldwin () , citing Pliny, HN ., where Marcia is inter reliqua deum munera urbi tributa). Both are absurd. () Keep the passive but adjust cultiores, either by turning it to a neuter (sc. opera) or by supplying an appropriate substantive. ‘More elegant’ could perhaps be applied to such things as fountains (cf. TLL : .), although no emendation proposed has given the requisite neatness of style: cf. Del Chicca ()  n.. Even if the term munera may have been a part of the watermen’s argot, ita enim . . . appellantur ought to reveal a synonym in common use, and the fault thus seems to lie in cultiores. lacibus Public basins, serving in much the same way as Greek  3 : T¨olle-Kastenbein () . They were very much public places: Cic. Rosc. Am.  multos caesos non ad Trasumennum lacum sed ad Servilium vidimus, Hor. Serm. ..– omnes / gestiet a furno redeuntes scire lacuque / et pueros et anus. Some lacus were simple stone troughs or tubs: see Wasserversorgung  ()  pl. ; others more elaborate (Pliny, HN . cited in preceding note). For a survey of attested usage of this term, see Del Chicca ()  –. On the apparent city-wide uniformity of delivery to lacus see .n. Closely associated with lacus are salientes (.n.). nomine {Iulii} Caesaris The intrusive Iulii exemplifies the kind of thoughtless pretension characteristic of Peter the Deacon (Introd. ). It is worth noting that this category obviously postdates the Agrippan pattern of distribution (.n.). We may surmise, but we cannot be sure, that it was devised as part of the Augustan administrative reform (see .–). Deliveries nomine Caesaris presumably were – or could be – made to imperial properties and interests of all kinds. In addition, they might well have included places and purposes of more ‘public’ nature; cf. Bruun ( b) –. Pipes bearing stamps with the emperor’s name are no reliable guideline for determining delivery patterns, for the epigraphic evidence from fistulae does not fit neatly into F.’s categories: Bruun ( ), –. Nor is it easy in any case to extricate imperial interests per se from projects that emperors undertook for the public good: Taylor () –. From . we reckon that deliveries nomine Caesaris



C O M M E N TA RY . amounted to . per cent outside the City, . per cent within, overall . per cent (Tables ,  and ). privatorum usi beneficio principis Note the chiasmus, in which contrasting singulars to plurals is perhaps a subtle hint of power – or generosity (cf. F.’s closing words . is vero qui admoniti ad indulgentiam imperatoris decucurrerunt possumus videri causa impetrati beneficii fuisse: in reliquos vero . . .). Privati were, technically, all persons not members of the imperial family and who held no magistracy. Grants to privati were known as beneficia (.n.), and they were made only by the process of impetratio (. n.). Plainly, as data from surviving pipes demonstrate, privati who received concessions for water were for the most part persons of standing: Eck (c), Bruun ( ) – ; De Kleijn ( ) –. Some were owners of luxurious suburban villas and elegant townhouses or lavish urban horti, others persons to whom the water was an important industrial commodity for agriculture, manufacturing or trade. From . we reckon that deliveries to privati amounted to . per cent outside the City, . per cent within, overall . per cent (Tables ,  and ). detur This use of dare (for a more general one see .n.) is semantically consistent with other terms such as impetrare and beneficium (.–), but there is usually in addition at least a semi-legal sense connoting a formal and official grant of public water: ., ., ., .. Note especially its appearance in legal texts: . aquae ducendae ius esset datum,  quibus aqua daretur publica, particularly in combination with adtributio (, .). One can compare a similar use of dare applied to public grain distributions: . frumentum plebei datur,  praefecti frumento dando. ius tuendarumque See . (with its definition): Sequitur ut indicemus quod ius ducendae tuendaeque sit aquae, quorum alterum ad cohibendos intra modum impetrati beneficii privatos, alterum ad ipsorum ductuum pertinet tutelam. In theory the ius ducendae aquae ‘right to draw (public) water’ granted to privati (.–, –) was quite distinct from tutela ductuum ‘responsibility for the conduits’ (, –), but see . n., where privati with such ius are still prohibited from taking water directly from public channels. Tutela embraced the overall maintenance – including the reliability of the water supply and safeguarding the priorities for its use. This is clear from F.’s discussion of Republican precedent (. –) and from his occasional remarks on illicit taps (., ., ., ., .). Note especially the twofold fraus exposed at . –: non enim solum ad ipsarum aquarum custodiam sed etiam ad castelli tutelam pertinet, quod subinde et sine causa foratum vitiatur. Along with their legal flavour, words like tutela and cura may carry socio-political undertones. poenae . . . inrogatae ‘Penalties called for’ are of direct concern to the curator, for his judicial powers include imposing such fines (.). For poena



C O M M E N TA RY . (distinguished from multa: .n.) cf. Varro, Ling. . poena a poeniendo aut quod post peccatum sequitur. Note that the three legal authorities F. names reflect the legislative roles of both populus and senatus as well as the force of the emperor’s pronouncements. lege The singular can be taken generally as ‘by law’ (or ‘statute’, for F. surely means a lex rogata voted by the populus), but it may be used specifically in reference to the Lex Quinctia of  , quoted verbatim in chapter , which provided for a poena non mediocris of , sesterces. It may not be accidental that the words poenae lege are juxtaposed here: the lex is the last document F. provides () and executio legis appears in his final sentence (.). senatus consulto The senatus consultum was in essence a form of instructions for a magistrate: RE Suppl. : , Daube () –. C’s singular may be accidental, an expansion of an abbreviation, but I prefer it to
’s plural. A series of senatus consulta in   established the office of curator aquarum and defined its powers. F. cites six of these documents (there were likely more: .n.), but in only one of them is a poena mentioned (.). mandatis principum Internal instructions (to which F. refers at . and .) addressed by the princeps to an official in his service, but regarded as having the force of law: RE : ; Finley (), Marotta ( ). Mandata thus used occurs only in the plural: TLL : .; cf. H–Sz . For the similarity of the Gnomon of the Idios Logos to such mandata, see Bruun ( ) . – F. presents the aqueducts of Rome in chronological order and introduces their auctores as familiar names in Roman history. By giving the lengths of the conduits in this section, he can demonstrate how the hydraulic system of the City has grown from small beginnings to a magnificence worthy of fable. . Ab urbe condita A solemn and formal phrase, emphatically ‘annalistic’ in tone (cf. Livy, pr., Tac. Hist. ..), but far commoner in the Elder Pliny than in the historians, as noted by De Laine () –. For reports of novelties at Rome cf. Pliny, HN . elephantos Italia primum vidit Pyrrhi regis bello et boves Lucas appellavit in Lucanis visos anno urbis CCCCLXXII, . cerasi ante victoriam Mithridaticam L. Luculli non fuere in Italia, ad urbis annum DCLXXX, . pistores Romae non fuere ad Persicum usque bellum annis ab urbe condita super DLXXX. F.’s use of AUC dates is less a matter of solemnity than of chronology. Since he is not writing in annalistic form, for him consular names alone are not adequate and AUC dates serve his purpose better as he leaps from century to century. ‘Through  years’ suggests that Rome’s first aqueduct was introduced in the following year (AUC ). At . the date of Appia is securely fixed by the consuls of  , which is AUC  in the traditional (Varronian) reckoning. But F.’s AUC dates – as transmitted – do not follow the Varronian scheme:



C O M M E N TA RY . Appia (.) Anio Vetus (.) Marcia (.) Tepula (.) Julia (.) Virgo (.) Claudia-Anio Novus (.) (.)

AUC (F.)

AUC (Varro)

consuls