Almost immediately after the suppression of the Catiline conspiracy, Marcus Tullius Cicero stimulated several poems, composing by different people, and at least one historical work in his honor. Perhaps the only one who lived up to Cicero’s expectations was his best friend, Titus Pomponius Atticus. He devoted a work in Greek and Amaltheum inscriptions (epigrammata) to the consulate of Marcus Tullius. Atticus Commentarii covered the events of 63 BC in the vein of the perished work of Cicero himself. Almost nothing is known about the influence of the Commentarii on his contemporaries. A painstaking and meticulous author, Titus Pomponius did not have outstanding literary talent, but his work titled Imagines (images, portraits) along with Marcus Terence Varro’s Hebdomades formed the basis of a new genre, collections of literary portraits of prominent persons with short poetic passages. Distant predecessors of Imagines were the inscriptions in honor of Cicero written and placed by Atticus in his estate in Epiros. The study of epigrammata can help clarify the essence and typology of Amaltheum, a mysterious building or architectural complex. The ancient tradition allows us to conclude that the poems in Greek, praising Cicero, the consul of 63 BC saving the Eternal City from massacres and arsons, has been lost. Despite the fact that subsequently Atticus became a zealot of fatherly antiquity, he was a Hellenophile in his youth, and he had no reason to ostentatiously reproduce idealized Rome in the Greek villa. Hypothesizing Amaltheum as a “gallery of glory” and direct prototype of the forum of Augustus is unacceptable. The language of the inscriptions compels us to search for analogies in the Hellenic tradition of epigram. Scarce information gives no chance to reconstruct Amaltheum in any way. There is no evidence that it was a regularly planned space with a meaningful sequence of statues or busts. It was highly probable (although not confirmed by any source) that there was Cicero’s portrait.

Abstract. The article deals with the coverage of the Catiline conspiracy in the “History of Pistoia” (Historia Pistoriensis) by the Florentine humanist Giannozzo Manetti. This work, written presumably in 1446–1447 and favorably received by the authorities of Pistoia, represents a rare opportunity to understand on what basis the self-identifi cation of the inhabitants of the city, convinced of their Roman roots, was constructed. The “History of Pistoia” has not been translated into Russian, and an attempt at detailed analysis of Manetti’s story about Catiline has never been made before. The author of the article comes to the conclusion that, despite the strong indebtedness to his main sources — “On the Conspiracy of Catiline” by Sallust, “New Chronicle” by G. Villani and “History of the Florentine People” by L. Bruni, the humanist makes a number of signifi cant changes in the interpretation of events of 63–62 BC. Although Manetti by no means justifi es the attempt to raise a rebellion against the Republic, he greatly exalts the image of Catiline; he emphasizes the greatness of his soul, the grandeur of the idea, and eloquence. While Villani’s Lucius Sergius is above all a brave warrior, Manetti underlines the quality so valued in the Renaissance — his mastery of the word. According to the “History of Pistoia”, Catiline is one of the great enemies of the Republic, those outstanding personalities whose talents make their owners especially dangerous for Rome. Slightly shifting the emphasis of the narrative, Manetti relieves Faesulae and Tuscany of the blame for participating in the conspiracy. The ancient land of the Etruscans is depicted almost as a victim of circumstances. The humanist’s story of the “battle of Pistoria” is, in fact, a reiteration of Sallust. Of certain interest is the reference to “reliable authors” (idoneos auctores) who reported the losses of government troops. Of the Greco-Roman writers, only Sallust dwelled on this aspect. G. Villani was also classifi ed as a reliable narrator. Taking into account Manetti’s high assessment of the Tuscan historical tradition, it can be assumed that he also had in mind the works of his countrymen — Brunetto Latini, Ricordano Malespini, Marchione di Coppo Stefani and others.

Using the example of the political activity of Marcus Valerius Messalla Corvinus, the article examines one of the variants of the relationship between the old republican nobility and Augustus during his principate. Messalla Corvinus was a representative of the oldest Roman aristocratic family of Valerii, one of the leaders of republicans in the epoch of civil wars and, later, a prominent fi gure of political and cultural life of Rome. For the fi rst time, the authors attempt to contextualize his career in a diffi calt era full of change. Th e study demonstrates one of the models of how the relationship between Augustus and the republican aristocracy was structured. It attempts, on the one hand, to understand the tactics of the princeps, to determine the ratio of pressure and encouragement to cooperation, and, on the other hand, to establish the limitations of the republican nobility and their independence. Th e article evaluates Messalla’s actions in the provinces, his appointment as a prefect of the city (praefectus urbi) and subsequent refusal to fulfi l this position, Messalla’s performance of the offi ce of a water commissioner (curator aquarum), his memoirs, and his contribution to Augustus’ “building program”. Domestic and foreign researchers have oft en characterized Messalla Corvinus’ activities as a “bridge” between two epochs in the history of the Roman state. However, in the opinion of the authors, Messalla appears to be a more independent and extraordinary personality, who was capable of not only having his own opinion, but also making his own choices, which sometimes diverged from the policy of the princeps. Noble origin, outstanding talents, ambitious aspirations and at the same time moderate claims together with skillful political calculation could provide Messalla Corvinus not only with the highest social and political position, but also with the independence in the “restored republic”, when the course of events ruined some and elevated others.

Marcus Sergius Silus and Lucius Sergius Catilina are among the best-known members of the patrician gens Sergia. Their reputations in the ancient tradition could hardly be more different: Silus, according to Pliny the Elder and Solinus, was the most valiant warrior in Roman history, Catilina came to be remembered as one of its most notorious villains. The question is not only how far this stark opposition, firmly entrenched in the ancient tradition, is justified, but also how Catilina himself drew upon the memory of his ancestor in his political self-presentation. The former question has received some attention in scholarship on Sergius Silus, with scholars noting several parallels between the two men; the latter, however, has yet to be examined. Catilina was well acquainted with his great-grandfather's heroic achievements, preserved both in Roman collective memory and within the gens Sergia itself. One important indication of the continuing prominence of Silus within this family tradition is the issue, in the late second or early first century BCE, of a silver denarius bearing his image. Great-grandfather and great-grandson shared several notable traits, including physical endurance, strength of character, perseverance, and a propensity for risk-taking. It is therefore plausible that Catilina regarded Silus as a model from an early age and consciously sought to emulate him. In his political career, Catilina appears to have invoked the memory of his heroic ancestor in different ways. In 64 BCE, while competing with Cicero and members of the nobilitas, he could draw on the antiquity of his lineage and on the services his ancestors had rendered to the Roman people, well-established elements of aristocratic political self-presentation. In 63 BCE, however, Marcus Sergius may have acquired a different significance as an ancestral exemplar: a man who had overcome his rivals' opposition and ultimately reached the peak of power. For Pliny and Solinus, the crucial distinction between the two Sergii lay in the ends they pursued. The great-grandfather devoted his courage and abilities to his fellow citizens and the interests of the res publica, whereas the great-grandson was driven by personal ambition, which ultimately made him an enemy of res publica libera. Once this difference in purpose is set aside, however, the remarkable similarities between Silus and Catilina come into sharper focus — similarities of which Catilina himself could hardly have been unaware. This perspective reveals a more nuanced image of Catilina. It allows us to move beyond the conventional portrayal of an impoverished aristocrat sustained by memories of his family's former glory. This, in turn, adds another dimension to our understanding of Roman political life in the 60s BCE.