^{page 88 note 1} Some examples: spring (Münzer, F., R.E. iii. 1389;Google Scholar Ciaceri, E., Cicerone e i suoi tempi [Milan, 1930], ii 113);Google Scholar July-September (Nisbet, R. G. M. [ed.], M. TuUi Ciceroni, in L. Calpurnium Pisonern Oratio [Oxford, 1961], App. viii, p. 201:Google Scholar hereafter cited by page number only); the end of summer (Drumann-Groebe, , G.R. iv. 529);Google Scholar September (Taylor, L. R., C.P. xliv [1949], 220);Google Scholar September-October (Gelzer, M., Cicero: ein biographischer Versuch [Wiesbaden, 1969], 180 ff.).Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 2} 1. 1–3C: ‘haec oratio dicta est Cn. Pompeio Magno II M. Crasso II coss. ante paucos dies quam Cn. Pompeius ludos faceret quibus theatrum a se factum dedicavit.’

^{page 88 note 3} 1. 7–8C: ‘…quidam posuit hanc inter eas orations quas dixit Cicero L. Domitio Appio Claudio coss. ultimam.’ The identity of the authority who made this claim has been lost. Three possibilities have been put forward: Tiro (by Kiessling and Schoen, in their edition of Asconius [Berlin, 1875] intro. pp. xii-xiii and p. 1), Cornelius Nepos (also by Kiessling and Schoell, basing their conjecture on Gell. N.A. 15. 28. 4), and Fenestella (by, among others, Lichtenfeldt, C., De Q. Asconii Pediani fontibus ac fide [Breslau, 1888], 56, and H. Peter, H.R.F., intro. p. xxiv).Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 4} Cic. fam. 7. 1, off. 2. 57; Plin. N.H. 8. 20 and 53; Plut. Pomp. 52. 5; Dio 39. 38. 1–6.

^{page 88 note 5} Plin. N.H. 8. 20; Gell. N.A. 10. 1. 1 ff.; Test. spect. 10.

^{page 88 note 6} For a detailed discussion and diagrams, see Hanson, J. A., Roman Theater-Temples (Princeton, 1959), chap. 3.Google Scholar

^{page 88 note 7} Cf. Tac. ann. 14. 20: ‘quippe erant qui Cn. quoque Pompeium incusatum a senioribus ferrent, quod mansuram theatri sedem posuisset.’

^{page 89 note 1} So Platner, S. B., A Topographical Dictio nary of Ancient Rome, rev. Ashby, T. (London 1929), 516,Google Scholar and Broughton, T. R. S., M.R.R. ii. 214.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 2} T. Mommsen, commenting on the two fasti in C.I.L. i². 324; Platner-Ashby, op. cit 515.

^{page 89 note 3} Drumann-Groebe, , G.R. iv. 529;Google Scholar Platner-Ashby, op. cit. 515–16, 555; Koch, C., R.E. viiiA. 1. 864; Hanson, op. cit. 43, 52–53.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 4} That is the view of Wissowa, G., Religion und Kultus der Römer (Munich, 1912), 275, and Platner-Ashby, op. cit. 256.Google Scholar

^{page 89 note 5} On the epithets Victor and Invictus and their development, see S. Weinstock, Hare. Theol. Rev. 1 (1957), 211–47.

^{page 90 note 1} Platner-Ashby, op. cit. 256.

^{page 90 note 2} Pompey's temple of Hercules is the only one described in the literature as ad circum maximum (Plin. N.H. 34. 57: ‘[Myron] fecit …. Herculem, qui est apud circum maximum in aede Pompei Magni’; Vitr. 3.3.5 ‘… fastigia tuscanico more, uti est ad circum maximum Cereris et Herculis Pornpeiani, item Capitolii’), and the entry in the fasti Amiternini names the temple near the Circus Maximus as the temple of Hercules Invictus. For this argument, see PlatnerAshby, op. cit. 256. In addition it is known that Pompey had other links with Hercules Invictus: e.g. on the day of the battle of Pharsalus, Hercules Invictus was the watchword issued by Pompey (App. B.C. 2. 76; cf. Rawson, B., Antichthon iv [1974] 30).Google Scholar

^{page 90 note 3} There was a third temple of Hercules Invictus, near the Porta Trigemina (Mac-rob. 3. 6. 10); its festival day was 13 August (fasti Allifani, C.I.L. i^P. 217). There is some confusion between the temple in the Forum Boarium and Pompey's temple: for the attempts at reconciliation, see Platner-Ashby, op. cit. 256, 258.

^{page 90 note 4} Rawson, op. cit. 30–7, has recently suggested that the temple of Hercules should be assigned to an early period in Pompey's career, either 79 or (more likely) 69–68 B.C.; if the latter, she connects it with a competition between Pompey and Crassus to secure the mantle of military prowess as the heir of Sulla. She uses the entry in the fasti to suggest that there already existed a festival of Hercules which Crassus used for his lavish sacrificial feast in 70 B.C. (Plut. Crass. 2. 3, 12. 3), attempting to steal the limelight from Pompey, whose games celebrating his Spanish victories were due to begin in a few days, on 15 August (Cic. Verr. 1. 31). But as suggested above, the entry in the fasti probably refers to a dedication by Pompey, and not to an already existing festival, and so cannot be used to date Crassus' feast. On the entry in the fasti regarding the temple of Hercules Invictus, see B. A. Marshall, Antichthon viii (forthcoming).

^{page 91 note 1} Crassus' father, P. Licinius Crassus triumphed de Lusitanets in 93 B.C. (for the references, see M.R.R. ii. 15), and Pompey': father, Cn. Pompeius Strabo, triumphed de Asculaneis Picentibus as consul in 92 B.C. (M.R.R. ii. 32). This argument is put forward by Asconius, 14. 11–13C.

^{page 91 note 2} Taylor, L. R. and Broughton, T. R. S., M.A.A.R. xix (1949), 4–9,Google Scholar followed by Linderski, J., Historia xiv (1965), 423–32.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 3} The Roman Republic (Oxford, 1923), ii. 98.Google Scholar

^{page 91 note 4} Cf. Cic. Q.f. 3. 1. 25.

^{page 92 note 1} Hardy, E. G., C.R. xxxi (1917), 11–15, is right in saying that Asconius (2. 5–6C) has made a mistake in attributing Gabinius' recall directly to the sententia expressed by Cicero in his speech de provinciis consularibus. In that speech Cicero had followed Servilius Isauricus' proposal that Macedonia and Syria be allocated as the provinces for the consuls of 55 B.C. (i.e. to be taken over in 54 B.C.), adding a clause that these two provinces be made praetorian for 55 B.C. (thus enabling Piso and Gabinius to be replaced from the beginning of 55 B.C.). Cicero did not hold out much hope for his addition, for he seems to have expected a tribunician veto (pron. cons. 17), whereas under the lex Sempronia the decision on the consular provinces could not be vetoed. The result of the debate on the consular provinces produced a form different from Cicero's proposals: only Syria, Gabinius' province, was made consular for 54 B.C., while only Macedonia, Piso's province, was made praetorian (and thus able to be taken over at the beginning of 55 B.c.).Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 1} § 57; cf. § 31 and Sest. 71–2. On the ability of consuls of leave for their provinces before the end of year of office, see Balsdon, J. P. V. D., J.R.S. xxix (1939), 57–68.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 2} Hardy's suggestion (op. cit. 12 n. 3) that Cicero must have been reckoning the length of Piso's governorship from the spring of 58 B.C. when he was given his province by the lex Clodia, will not stand up in the light of Cicero' phrase ‘nulla ex trinis acstivis gratulatio’.

^{page 93 note 3} Nisbet, 200. Drumann-Groebe, , G.R. iv. 529, suggests a return at the end of summer.Google Scholar

^{page 93 note 4} I should like to thank Professor, R. G. M. Nisbet, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who read an early draft of this paper, for his helpful advice and criticism.