From Republic to Emp ire 8.1 Caesar's Calendar Reform1 Vtfth Caesar, we enter a period that, in the Fasti Antiates maiores, produced the firsr extant calendar. More important still than the historical setting of this isolated ^-painting, however, is the character of the time as marking the prelude to the proliferation of fasti in the Augustan period. From this perspective, two questions demand our particular attention. What significance should be assigned to the technical reform that turned the 'Republican (or 'Numan') into the 'Julian calendar? And what place did the fasti occupy in the general consciousness, or rather, considering the nature of most of our sources, the consciousness of the elite? Measured against its intended correspondence with the natural year, the Roman calendar was in considerable disarray in the 50s.2 In this period when political discourse was becoming enormously more heated, and in different areas the use of religion as a political weapon had been carried to the extreme (the name P. Clodius comes to mind), increased recourse was no doubt also had to the device of prolonging office by intercalating, or by refraining from doing so. As was the case with other obstructive ploys used, however, no really fundamental criticism was expressed, even here: the aim was to master the tools on offer, not to abolish them.3 Of contemporary sources, it is only Cicero's draft constitution, in De kgibus, that offers some mild criticism. Cicero as legislator would wish to oblige hepontifices to keep scrupulously to Numa's rules for intercalation.4 However, his ; Plm. HN 18.211-12; Suet. Iul. 40; Censorinus, DN 20.6-11; Dio Cass. 43.26; Macrob. Sat. 1.14; Malitz 1987. Drumann AND groebe 1906: 753-827; BEAUJEU 1976; BRIND'amour 1983: 40; problematical: radke 1990 '^Briscoe 1991 and Rupke 1992b). , ^rrz 1987: 106-7 .... Cic- 2.29: Quod temvus ut sacrificiorum libamenta serventur, fetusque pecorum quae dvta m lege sun , I ratio intercalandi est... eRoman . 1 Calendar from Numa to Constantine: Tme, History and the Fasti, First Edition. Jörg Rüpke. David M- B. Richardson. Published 2011 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. n i tit IJ «*s not to bind feast days to astronom , ,1 of ^ ^ * v of the rules tor sacrifices - ^ ^ ^^^^^^ * «;* cor burtot^'^Ur,,,^lv defoed fl ^ ^ have wholesale retorm t»i«H; ■olt ml Wt'";- precise.) - n0i P^"'" S',he^nS "practice. "'T'i u"U IWioD in « BCE. With his suppr, 5sion 01 „ "-^reflects d*8 < d , ,y concluded h,s con, , S£j«* *" V eSUng the basis for embarkmg ; u >■ the rf the sena«e. With the vkto, ^ gainst Pompey in Egypt, the course ot event,was ,,,,,,, £ *e after Caesars return from the East ,n Oc,„b, decided h is onfra hl P ^ mming „ reform. Fully .men, on obta U,,, we find evidence o ^ ^ rf hjs control over the eleaoral .,ssembll« , third term as consm. itions at his discretion, at the same time expand t„ fillI magistem »P fa Rome.s hlstory> attemptmg to come ,„ ^ ing their numuci, a . "^LtLCe^Tnt as to what political motivation underlay the reform. over Jabove considerations of technical and scientific advance in respect of the calendar The circumstances under which the reform began, extensions of the administrative apparatus, and adjustments to the electoral rules, reveal the begin-nings of a more comprehensive process. The regular proceedings that governed Caesar's own consular year, with its seasonally determined, calendar-based beginning in autumn, may have made him vividly aware of the urgent need for changes. That we may interpret the reform as deriving from Caesar's person and intentions is demonstrated by the procedure adopted for it. The new calendar was developed by a commission appointed by Caesar, and, most importantly, made up of non-Roman experts;8 prominent among these was Sosigenes, who evidently had overall charge of reform proposals." There is no evidence for the participation of the pontifical college, entirely dominated by Caesar after the elections of 4" and 46,10 except for a scriba named M. Flavius who assisted Caesar, and in whom may once again be concealed a pontifex minor.11 This would be yet another of the prominent participation of pontics minorcs in calendar-related affairs, ased on their onginal function m the empirical determination of the Nones, but seal of quX f' 7reSSi°n m thdr r0le ™ maJ°r reform projects, perhaps first t£^c tC 6768 °f * PubUc- Cn. Flavius with lis fasti would be ' rerentlus in 181 bce with his discovery of the Ifoi M i MAUTZ 1987: 1,5, 112 , MEIER 1995: 414-20 » "~ OlO 43 -)(. -, 10 c « lo-211~12 ii SeeR0PKE2008 R0PK£20^no. 1655. From Republic to Empire -Klemnrd .«s undesirable ,nul !n,rnri| LlVlUs now the third Implementation of ,}„. ^ ^ l,TOr 1,1 J. its ^icof the dictator Uerum in the second !,,,„ ^h»-" *led ^'t did no. P.mu-.p.,te in the decisionmaking' ' ' inaIvs,s of the reform's content will make £ f iSucrut^ From the technical/astronomical polnt ()f ™"''j nl & mthc reform. Most significant in terms of Its ,..,,.,„ "' f j S^^ekw^" That, according to the testimony of the weather ail,,lt,,. Pt do" bv the elder Pliny (UN l8^207fF.) Caesar concerned hmtseh the dates of nsing and setting of stars shows that he was aware ol the gradual inception of a conceptual change. Although Caesars immediate contemporary Cicero mockingly remarked that even the stars now moved to order,-1 this V,P, conceptual reversal, this naturalization of the calendar, may have been highly attractive. Chid, in his commentary on the calendar, revels in the possibilities thus opened up.Zj Notwithstanding the 445 days of the annus confusionis ultimus, 46 iu:i. the process of recasting the year's shape was marked by the utmost prudence. The opportunity to subject Caesar's way of proceeding to precise scrutiny by means of a detailed reconstruction is all the more valuable in that such circumspection is more in keeping with our image of Caesar's heir than with our normal idea of the late Caesar himself.'"5 The names of the months remained unaffected, and the calendar acquired no new fertile-, such changes as were made in this regard belong to the two following years.25 The time of year for carrying out intercalations remained unchanged.26 The sources do not tell us what changes ensued to the function of the rex sacrorum. The reduced length of the intercalary period meant that the annual deficit of ten days formerly covered by the mensis interkalaris had to be distributed between the remaning twelve months. We learn from the comprehensive reference in montnlv115/ ^ Vrmc^k was the preservation of the internal to th^LkTrH- J" P°SSlble' and that the considerable care he devoted ' k °f redlstnbu*°n was matched by the scrupulous way in which his Macrob. Sat l ui in , " See C^^^^^ ^nz 1987: 119 n. „. ^ «* ™sumformat. ™ « Uerum erraretur; mm intncalano mensc sublato annm ^ * ^Ct^-22'^FEENEv2oo7:196 - ^^-59.3^01.^,978 h ^pk£1^phbney2007;i9^o " ^2ZKCHlN!Zm FFREYDEUET2^:ROPK, 2009b. censorinus,DA'2n in c „ 2°10^R0PKE 1995a:Ch6i were observed/ 1 he complex month „I ,■ , was 1,„ entir , g^d the maximum thirty,,. llays. '|*|ri-1 »V.V.'.V.''*%" (»*>«m v^hir^i lby one or two days, inserted i„ (,S1. fjhe Position of the Nones and Ides remained « k. daj * , . rcma'n>n« months * immediately b,fo,,- th ,1inL additional days at the ends of these months ,»,,, ^th's feast days, resulted, tor all dates after the Id,-, " l° My ah" a" may have undergone a process of devaluation. r ■ ■ ■• • ■ ■ The great care Caesar took in respect of existing religious institutions when he was actually configuring the reform invites comparison with the French Revolutionary Calendar.36 The calendar promulgated on 24 October 1793 - from then on 3 Brumaire of year 2 of the Republic - broke with the traditional Gregonan calendar at every possible point: beginning with the names of the months,57 con tinuing with their length (twelve to thirty days), and the names of the days and seasons, and extending to a decimal system for subdividing the day into ten decimal hours of one hundred decimal minutes. Despite certain simplifications in the lengths of months, compensated for, on the Egyptian pattern, with five epago-menic days at the end of the year, no chronographic advance was achieved over the old calendar.38 The break itself formed part of the purpose that the calendar's ahistoric, but natural, rational, and secular image should serve as a symbol and model for the new society that was to be created.39 More than the new elements of the national cult,40 in France it was the gradu ally evolved rules governing the decadi, designed as a replacement for Sunday, that Against WiSSOWA 1923: 381-2 and MlCHELS 1967: 186. 1 follow DEGRASSl 19 • Festus, Glow. Lai. 432.9-11 L; Macrob. Sat. 1.7.24; cf. Varro ap. Macrob. Sat. 1. • •• Rupke 2009a. meinzer 1992. nadjo 1991. MEINZER 1992: 40-2. l9g9 zerubavel 1977; BACZKO 1984; MEINZER 1988: 25; OZOUF 1975, 1976, and BAXMANN Lefebvre 1957: 364; meinzer 1992: 54-7. M •Liv. 2.21.2; 22.1 ,l9-20. From Republic to E tnpire to shoNV how deep the intervention ,„,,„„ ,„ P(, hich had the most enormous mm, 't,au' " Uui „ 115 ™-nt. ......... s impact of all n Particular, i i the contras »t the old Wei The svmbolic overkill that underlay the failure of ,h(. ^Oorm came to gnet, on the |,1U, ln arable successes; u was preascly ,n th(. :°1non of the Revolutionary Calendar ,hat lh(. „, . M «j*Pn»•■■, ,,, ,,„.,. i ,d never had before.'1 'd WlcklY rhythm 1%vcr tt na ,.„.,. was*>nthis <» rhy,hni ,„-,„,. and desnir.. ; i ),tc 'solatcd but the acquired a laid"" KacheS ^ h°% P'°P y *c success „r, ""Tr> 2 founded our own calendar down to the u.mos. detail |u, " "f"™ ""o, Flavins' project, substantial measures were taken while a "rCl""'d 25- achi™ hT;er;wi,uld not haw b- i»»i i w h inst.tut.onal changes of the late fourth century, and < w, jry dictatorship. Against the background of the dates uncovered by our examination of the c0Bientof the reform, we can now turn again to the authority by whose function Cgesar set it in tram. The list prepared by Caesar's pontifex minor shows that, for his changes to the characters of days, the dictator may have called pontifical opinions in aid; we do not know of any formal resolutions, just a series of concrete, individual decisions, year upon year. All the other changes were unproblematic from a sacral point of view: only the length of the intercalary month and the shape and length of the final part of the month were subject to changes. Thus the timeframe affected was either non-existent in terms of civil and sacral law,4' or a space free of festivals: no religious authority was called for here. Only the realization of the intercalation programme presented problems. How was the rex sacrorum to be obliged to cooperate? This barrier too was relatively easy to overcome. It was in principle possible to force a priest to carry out sacral functions, either by means of new institutions - quite a common expedient - or, in individual cases, by legal pressure. That it required a resolution of the people to bring the pontifex maximus Cn. Cornelius Scipio Barbatus to participate in the dedication of the Temple of Concordia in 304 bce may have been unusual,40 but it was not illegitimate. The lex Acilia had prolonged the intercalation procedure by the involvement of the pontifices, but, just as it was possible then to charge the pontifices in general with management of the process, so it was possible now to all upon them by the statutory means of the edictum to have the rex sacronm Perform an intercalation every four years. The fact that Caesar himself held the °ffice of pontifex maximus may have made the reform more acceptable: the placatory Mathiez 1904; AULARD 1927: 152-5; SYDENHAM 1974: 39 Me'NZEr 1988: 27-59, 1992: 77ff. ^e'nzer 1988: 60, 1992:150-6. ZeRUBAVEL 1977. ^Rupke 1995a: Ch. 6.1 ln- 9.46.6. 154; MEINZER 1992. From Republic to Empire 117 The practical problems go back to a juncture a, which Caesar could neverthele, have acted pnmanly zsponnfex maximus. and no, ,s dica.or. Th, du. no, ^ ^ calendar reform, bunts preparation by the extreme prolongation of Z war 46- a necessary element, but one th u mii«- u„ • i_ . r . 7 c u i j ' . e tnat must be dls"ngu,shed from the actual reca* ing of the calendar. The insertion of two additional intercalary month, .,!,<, the regular intercalation in February50 took place between Woven,!,, and I tecembei There was no precedent for such an action, and its practical implementation had to be carefully considered. As with regular intercalations, even after the reform, it could not be announced in writing, but had to be promulgated in a concrete situ ation, by word of mouth. To remind ourselves of the regular February intercalation: it was tied to an appearance of the rexsacrorum and to a particular day, the Regifugium, that could be reinterpreted without difficulty. The year offered no second such opportunity, but analogous occasions could be sought. When did the intercalation occur? Censorinus' words, in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, in avoiding the word inter, tell us that the point chosen for intercalation did not He precisely between the months: if it had, it would have entailed an alteration to the character of the following December Kalends. The additional days in the reform calendar give a clue to the point of time actually chosen. As dies fasti among the usual, ancient dies comitiales at the end of the month, they are easy to identify; Macrobius lists them individually, and Verrius Flaccus in his Fasti Praenestini highlights these days with legends such as hunc diem divus Caesar addidit.52 They are usually the second to last, sometimes third to last day of the month; only in April, where the ludi Florae stretch from 28 April onwards, past the end of the month and into May, is the fifth to last day added. Evidently, even where no concrete ritual link existed with the following Kalends, the intention was to avoid displacing the old dies pridie kalendas (it was, perhaps, on the evening of this day that the pontifex minor set off make his observation of the new moon, the result of which was announced the next morning, on the Kalends). It follows that appropriate points for an intercalation in November/ December of 46 bce would have been 29 November and 29 December, both da\ s being free of their own cult events. And how was it carried out? My hypothesis is that, on the last day of November, the rex sacwrum appeared in the Comitium and announced that day as ante .hem VI kalendae interkalares priores. The number evoked associates with the Regifugium in February; the practice of announcing kalendae intcrkahres not tor the moment of intercalation, but for a subsequent day, was not only^age old, but also had good precedents in the Republican calendar ,n years ,n which twe£j three days were added. At the same time, this manner of announcing the date . „ was . ^». *«=- two additional months before going on to describe the retorm, I P so See the assessment of the sources in BEAUJEU ,976: 24. " Censorinus, DN 20.8. „. , , n , ~ r ,, ,,7 117 131 On the following set Ui. J.l. 52 Macrob. Sat. 1.14.9; Inscr. it. 13.2.117. Mi. «J From Republic to Empire 118 ki rf the- length of Che period to bo Intercalated. Ah,, ,i, ^ solved the problem-«J lwo mtercalary months to be inau on the Kalends by i ^ fa ^ ^ the two months ol thirty „ formulase^steUh, bm _ pi,,)d ()f sixty seven days, co promulgated in a way that did not^ ^ co^spondence between nonae , eachl amounting overall .can inter^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ cally unambiguous: there is a one-to- ^ ^ ^ ^ aur and months of thirty-one days in he Wrty-first day of the mensis interkalaris posteriory followed by the la of November, redefined at the outset; December could then run its normal ecu, Where does this reconstruction take us? It is an attempt to find a solution to a problem to do with astronomy and the calendar, in the context of given prinaplts of sacral law and ritual procedures. Fortunately, the hypothesis has explanatory-potential; otherwise, the effort would be of no avail. Knowing that intercalation took place in November or December, one wonders whether the Fasti Praenestini, which takes such careful note of the added days, might not also contain some clue in respect of the exceptional intercalation that prepared the reform. We do in fact have residual traces of such a clue. To the left of the extant entry for 31 December, we can discern at the right-hand edge of the column for November, the rest of which has been lost, an entry that, based on the normal structure of the fasti, must relate to 30 November (Julian), or 29 November (pre-Julian). Still discernible is only the close of the first, evidently long, line, which ends with [—] COS, thus with a date.53 Unfortunately, 30 November survives only in the rather sparsely annotated Fasti Maffeiani, where the still pre-Julian note C indicates no peculiarities.54 No literary or other epigraphic sources exist that might allow us to assign what was nevertheless an important event to this date.55 Reconstruction of the intercalation process, with the aid of Censorinus' text, provides the basis for integrating this textual remnant: [Hoc die II menses interk(alares) dierum LXVII interkalat(i) sunt C. Caesare III M. Aemilio] co(n)s(ulibus). A second positive result concerns our understanding of a singular date in a letter from Cicero to Q. Ligarius, written immediately after a supplicatory visit to Caesar a. d. V. K. intercalaris prions.56 Such dates before the intercalary Kalends never occur elsewhere in contemporary accounts: they could not, as intercalation was announced on the previous day (pridie) at the earliest.57 The fact that Cicero can already speak of kalendae intercalaris priores here reinforces the epigraphic evidence that the entire block of time was inserted at one time. Thirdly, we are provided with an answer to our initial question as to the functions under whose authority Caesar undertook the reform. The position from Inscr. It. 13.2.135; illustration: 138. Inscr. It. 13.2.82; Fasti Annates maiores: Inscr It 13 2 23 ' Such to could „ rourse ^ fo[mn]ittd reimpMve|y; m ^ ^ ^ ^ From ^Public to Empi ,h Caesar is most likely to have been able ieration of the rex sacrorum'* and a pontifl 119 coop' a to obtain. or lation is that of pontifex maximus. It is precise"°\,n °uUr ^constructed spared the way for the reform, that Censorinus " k which ™ ^mus; only tor the actual reform, not for this prehmT' * CaCSar as pontifex yse the expression edictum, which refers to the dictar ryStage' does Macrobius calendar. Finally, it is for this same preliminary sta^r thZ™^™ of thc new .„i^ment of the scriba. ornhaHK, ,u________i gC ttlat Macrobius attests to rk.. Perhaps compel, the inter ; attests to the c i -i --- J OLakdC in employment of the scnba, probably the pcm^x rmnor M ^inaugurated the Julian Year as dictator. It was Caesar ' defim'd ensured that the pre-Julian 1 January 45 could be used as the Juhan , January. ex maximus who Once implemented, the calendar was used wither a- 1, 1 also without any real stance. Th,^o^^^^^ preparative intercalary months m the habitual fashion, by treating them™ momenta tempons.^e know of no problems arising. Caesar was able to make good use of the additional time in his third consulate for reforms, and to prepare the Spanish campaign. On the other hand, difficulties were experienced in the second half of the lengthened months in the matter of fixed dates, that is to say birthdays. The established principle in sacral law, that the position of feast days was not tied to the vernacular 'date', that is to say the interval to the following Kalends, but to the interval from the preceding Ides, came up against the weight attached in the private realm to that same vernacular dating system. The Saturnalia gave rise to more such irritations. Noted in the pre-Julian calendar a. d. XIV. Kal. Ian., they now appeared, still five days after the Ides, a. d. XVI. Kal. Ian. In Macrobius' words: 'with the result that, since the exact date was not commonly known - some observing the addition which Caesar had made to the calendar [thus on the new, but correct date] and others following the old usage [thus two days too late] - the festival came to be regarded as lasting for more days than one'.60 Macrobius himself goes on to concede that the historical perspective is false insofar that the Saturnalia were already celebrated over several days: but this in itself confirms the authenticity of the reported popular misunderstanding. As already remarked, the same problem affected private occasions; here, however, the 'sacral conversion , that is to say keeping a constant interval from the Ides, was only an option, not a real obligation. While it was observed bj^ others-even amongtheelite^^ with the old 'date' Augustus appears to have used thts ambivalence to justify a two-day celebration.61 58 Probably L. Claudius (RÜPKE 2008: no. 1160). 59 Scaevola, Dig. 50.16.98. 60 Macrob. Sat. 1.10.2; see also BERGMANN 1984: 13. ference t0 Suet. Aug. 57.1. It is possible - and 61 Suerbaum 1980. On Livia 336, on Augustus 334-5 witn ^ ^ ^ w suggest such a conver-Suerbaum's examples suggest this - that actual p^™"* " ^ ^ ^ m2b and r.,dke 1991; cf. feene sion than a position shortly before the Kalends. Against ra 2007: 148-60. ,,„„, RepuHu to Umpire |hr.....•.......Mlw.S.mnn,l,..|> i lives ,,, ,n nil i vi" Ifl quite anothci din , I,,,!, ,1,, l.i. i that, on the i alend.u ,, ^U7:.v„;cd.j observed b, ihr Pn<-s,s , ,...... ' 'V , , Ul^u------------dlrionoflhr l-'.isti .inni i.111 ;..........m™**^™^....., ', ,.......„•.....«.......,pl.ye<........'' iiii tin mass of the pi ipula, I.,;,. ........IS Of the fesnvalgavc no impulse worthy of note, o, ,......,„„ ...n.i.ilrn,,,,.....I-......., -In,,, n - l-lly. "hie, ;......Jble debate Is atteste,............dwrfeitival .in view of the », .,,„ nim,,,,, the tradition, mch anargunmtum estienlio has no great value, 1 ,/m „ |e«* *rw heuritticalh, as an Indication that ant) a small nu ,,„.,, 11,^ In the calendar had the statu, of a popular festival, with th, quen< ei ihown here _ , u e must, Bnally, Inquire Into the curren< v of the Julian (lalendar beyond R 11Mii in the . ase ol Italy, out Inquiry Is ai Least partially satisfied by the exam] o( , Ml llUllu| throughout the territory, although with a concentration in Latium; Nu,lv remains problematit "' It must, however, not be forgotten that a mass of detailed information about alternative Latin and italic calendars, either still in u 01 onl\ recently fallen into disuse, was available to Late Republican and Ea Imperial Period antiquarians;" both the [guvine Tables and the Agram mummy wrappings, which attest to independent Umbrian and Etruscan calendars, may also be no earlier than the century of the Julian reform. The improved ease of use ..i the Julian Calendar now for the first time made the method of intercalation practised In the city of Rome attractive for the needs of localities beyond Rome; combined with the civil wars and associated social upheavals, and the accelerated Integration of the Italian elite instigated by Caesar and Octavian, this factor may have had a positive effect on the calendar's spread. On the other hand, centrally directed exportation of the calendar is nowhere discernible. Beyond Italy, the calendar of the city of Rome continued to be definitive for central administrative purposes and for the military: the Feriale Duranum proves this, at least for the beginning of the third century ce.65 In this role, it acquired the function of a standard calendar, called upon to synchronize the various calendars that continued in existence; comparative tables, known as hemerologia, existed to serve s„el, purposes of conversion."" If the standard calendar ensured that the lengths of loeal months and years were adjusted to Roman values (often pro serving ancient names and/or counting practices), thus making it possible to « l-ve a consistent equivalence over the years, as in the case of the calendar for ■ Sec Rilpkc 2(H,7b; if. FEPNHY 2007: 209-11 lor the I..si, Tauronieniuni sec KOl'Kl IWs,, , M H " Si lloi/ ] wo. IVspiw rightly pointing to the hypothetical chanrta I . Ijw^ 1«, own, i.m,,„t ,„,„ tmtodto w„i, , Sadhta. " yinw arzum™^ Rbbvbs (2004) Ms to I t*»«Keput*ic to Em,** ^provuKe of " Asia, immdu, cd in 9 * ,.,„„„.,; ^allv remained .n existence.- In the I ,„,n wis, , , , "* ' •Landthehs.ofMatcsfrn.uNunuchan II,, , . " thr k' Lundar of the city of Rome had a wide distributi, n ,1'T'"" " |ulu" ^Co.,^ and the „uPena, Penod c.....Ä^at^T ^calendar demonstrate ~ „c^vo. by d,sS(,i,.....J nbr nnue of the Julian system. "PpreMtve dorm 8.2 The Calendar as Collective Memory x remains the case that we know of only one fasti specimen that can be ,drni Vim certainty as Republican: the example from Antium. This hardly commutes a meaningful body of evidence. With the Julian reform, older specimens had become obsolete; in many instances, owners may have destroyed wall-painting and papyrus-roll calendars, anticipating the ravages of time. In order to move beyond the outcomes of our analysis of Fulvius' fasti, therefore, and to be able to define more precisely the social setting of the jZuti in the Late Republic, we remain dependent on literary testimony. Of this there is little; but, of the few sources available to us, two passages from Cicero assign the fasti a central role in Rome's collective memory. Among the attacks Cicero makes in his second Philippica against M. Antonius, he also speaks about the offer of the diadem to Caesar during the Lupercalia of 44 BCE, and stresses what a scandal it is that he, Antonius, who put the diadem on Caesar s head, still lives, while the death of the man who set it aside again meets with general approval. He continues: And, moreover, he [scil. Caesar] caused it to be recorded in the annals (in fastis . under the head of Lupercalia (ad Lupercalia), 'That Marcus Antonius, the consul, by command of the people, had offered the kingdom to Caius Caesar, perpetual dicta tor; and that Caesar had refused to accept it.'72 What fasti, or parts of fasti, may these have been? The inscriptions provide no answer; neither among the historical notes in the consul lists nor in extant calendar • LW ,967; DESSAU ,900; an example from Bithynia: RHA 1992; for the Severan Penod: ehrhardt »«4. See e.g. BlSCHOFF 1884, 1919; SAMUEL 1972: 174-87; grzybek 1990. Herz 1975 and CIL 8.1859. MONARD 1999. Stern 2001. ,jv , m Hom 1942, WP.instock w Cic Phil. 2.87. See also Veil. Pat. 2.56.4; Dio Cass. 44.11; App. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^.u.n 33MO; GESCHE 1976: 158-61; FRASCHETT! 1985; jehne 1987: C'cero: C. D. Yonge, ed„ from the Perseus Project.