[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review]
Katharina Volk has brought together in this volume the papers from a videoconference held in April 2022. The purpose is to take a closer look at a remarkable scholar and senator of the late Republican period, who was considered one of Rome’s greatest intellectuals of his time, alongside Varro. Nigidius Figulus has been the subject of renewed interest in recent works, but remains relatively unknown and little studied, even though he is potentially a gateway to the cultural, intellectual and, to a lesser extent, political history of the late Republic. Overall, the contributions are based on selections from the rare fragments collected by Anton Swoboda and, in the case of the grammatical treatises, by Gino Funaioli, which are evaluated from various perspectives.[1] The volume consists of an introduction, contributions, a bibliography and an index of the fragments of Nigidius Figulus cited. It fits in well with the editor’s work on late-Republican intellectual history.[2]
In her introduction, Katharina Volk discusses why Nigidius Figulus should be described as a polymath. She briefly reviews the man’s political life, which ended with his death in exile in 45 BC, as well as the extant traces of his works. She also looks at several aspects of research on Nigidius that have attracted particular attention and generated debate. First, his connection with Pythagoreanism and magia seems far less clear and certain than it was for Leonardo Ferrero in the mid-1950s. On the other hand, the Roman senator’s involvement in astrology is better attested by the fragments available, which fit in well with the late-Republican context. Nigidius’ interest in the Etrusca disciplina is also remarkable, although his links with Etruria remain debated. Once again, his work in this area resonates with that of other scholars of his time. Volk concludes by noting that Varro and Nigidius represent two poles in terms of polymathy, the former being inclined to disseminate his extensive knowledge, while the latter organises it around a single, central vision.
Philip Thibodeau asks why Jerome and Cicero called Nigidius a Pythagorean. He presents two hypotheses to explain this designation, which he then attempts to compare with the textual data. One hypothesis assumes that Pythagoras represented a figure of authority to whom certain Roman scholars related, while another assumes that Nigidius was imitating the bios Pythagoreios of the sage as contemporaries imagined it. Thibodeau then reviews two accounts of the reception of Pythagoreanism by Roman writers of the Republican period, Cato and Sulpicius Gallus, emphasising that they support the first hypothesis. There is no reference to work on the origins of Pythagoreanism in Rome, in particular that of Michel Humm, which would have been expected.[3] As for Nigidius, he could be linked to Pythagoras through a common Etruscan origin, since Pythagoras’ father was supposed to have come from Etruria or Lemnos, an island inhabited by people related to the Etruscans. Furthermore, Nigidius is said to have spoken out against tyranny, in particular against Caesar, just as Pythagoras is said to have been an opponent of tyrants. Nigidius’ interest in astrology and Egypt would also be a way of linking him to the sage of Croton. Finally, Nigidius’ prophetic and mantic gifts would partly overlap with those attributed to Pythagoras. Consequently, the second hypothesis put forward by Thibodeau, i.e. that of an imitation of a bios Pythagoreios as it was then thought of and conceived by his contemporaries, would seem more appropriate for this scholar, even if Thibodeau admits that his arguments remain highly hypothetical.
Daniele F. Maras returns to Nigidius’ potential connections with Etruria. First, the gens Nigidia is well attested by inscriptions from the Monteluce necropolis in Perugia in the 70s and 40s, which reinforces the theory of Etruscan origin. It is also worth noting the scholar’s interest in the Etrusca disciplina, which appears in putative fragments transmitted drawn from Cornelius Labeo by Arnobius, but above all in his brontoscopic calendar, which is presented as a Latin translation of an Etruscan original, transmitted in Greek by John the Lydian. Finally, many of the titles of his works underline his interest in divination, which was a well-known activity in Etruria. Nigidius seems to have been part of a more general trend towards revitalising the Etruscan tradition in Rome, which involved translating the libri of the Etrusca disciplina into Latin. Etruscan divinatory science then entered into dialogue with contemporary philosophy, including certain doctrines attributed to the Pythagoreans, which could explain Nigidius’ association with Pythagoreanism.
Duncan E. MacRae examines the predictions of Nigidius Figulus, in particular that of the birth of Octavian in 63, which were reported by imperial authors but could provide information on late Republican cultural history. After a review of the scholar’s fragments relating to divination, particularly an extract from Servius, MacRae focuses on the link between grammar and divination in Nigidius. Nigidius seems to have developed a semiotic interpretation of the phenomena considered in divinatory discourse, emphasising the value of prediction in various fields. Nigidius would thus appear to be a “future maker” who proposes relationships between phenomena and interpretations that are supposed to produce practical responses in his contemporaries.
Jay Reed explores Nigidius’ contributions to astrology and astronomy from the fragments of the two Spheres, treatises that echoed Eratosthenes but also offered original developments. After reviewing the various catasterisms, noting their Alexandrian, Middle Eastern, and Euhemerian influences, Reed raises the possibility of a political use of Nigidius’ Spheres, which he considers conceivable in view of the weight of certain virtues in the narratives.
Philip Sydney Horky attempts to assess the relationship between cosmology and language in the fragments of the Roman scholar. His conclusions tend to reject the thesis of Pythagorean connections in favour of that of a partial adherence to Stoicism, based on four main arguments. Nigidius apparently considers that the universe was created, which contradicts the fragments of Pseudo-Pythagoras and Pseudo-Occelos that support the eternity of the universe. The anecdote about the birth of Augustus points more towards Stoic astrology, particularly the version in Cassius Dio. Nigidius lived according to the laws of nature described by the Stoics and in his approach to language insisted on the natural, unassigned character of language, in contrast to contemporary pseudo-Pythagorean literature.
As a specialist in Latin grammar, Alessandro Garcea points out that Varro and Nigidius Figulus have a similar approach to language, phonemes, and certain morphological choices. However, the latter is more obscure and concise, and he does not seem to have had a developed strategy for disseminating his writings to his readership, so that by the imperial era, the Commentarii grammatici seem to have been nearly forgotten or neglected. Nigidius is rarely cited or used except by Pliny and Suetonius. Aulus Gellius made extensive use of the texts, which he read at the instigation of his grammar teacher Sulpicius Apollinaris, and Nonius also used them. It is therefore possible to offer a partial reconstruction of the commentaries. To these data must be added the remarks of ancient grammarians and scholiasts (Servius, Scholia Bernensia, Priscian, Isidorus). A new study of these fragments is needed to replace Funaioli’s, which is now out of date.
Fabio Tutrone approaches Nigidius’s fragments on biology by looking for traces of an Aristotelian heritage in the late-Republican scholar. His work can be compared with the biological writings of the Hellenistic period (Strato of Lampsacus, Zeno of Citium, pseudo-Aresas). Nigidius also seems to have positioned himself in the debate on general or specialised knowledge. He deals with gynecology and breastfeeding but adapts the results of his investigations for a Roman audience. He discusses the nature of animals and the relationship between humans and the animal kingdom. The concepts of sympatheia and antipatheia also appear in his developments on the relationship between animals, demonstrating an affinity with magia. Finally, he took an interest in animal husbandry and medicine from a naturalistic perspective.
Finally, Giulio Celotto undertakes a reading of Lucan’s prophecy of Nigidius Figulus. After ruling out the hypothesis that it is a genuine historical discourse based on verifiable astronomical data dating to January 49 BC, Celotto considers that the passage should be approached from a metapoetic perspective. He evaluates Floratos’ hypothesis that each planet represents a character in the poem.[4] This is a possibility he does not rule out, although he prefers to see it as a metaphor for cosmic forces, in particular Love and Hate as they appear in Empedocles. This mediation would be possible thanks to ideas shared by Empedocles and the Stoics, of whom Lucan is a representative who would echo the voice of Nigidius.
The divergence of approaches and results does not obscure the fact that Nigidius Figulus was very firmly rooted in his own time. The fragments and testimonies illustrate the political and cultural issues that cut across contemporary Roman elites. Research into this figure seems to be reviving, as shown by recent, sometimes provocative, contributions that are independent of this volume.[5] A large part of the book also looks at the definition of Pythagoreanism in Rome at the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire, although this topic requires a separate treatment that would make it possible to replace Leonardo Ferrero’s book, which is now out of date.[6] Exploring the issues raised in this book is also likely to shed light on other peripheral issues, such as the Pythagorean interpretation of the underground monument at the Porta Maggiore in Rome, which was recently the subject of a symposium at the École française de Rome.[7] A new edition of the author’s grammatical fragments is also highly desirable, as Alessandro Garcea notes. In conclusion, this book offers a number of interesting lines of inquiry to inspire future research.
Authors and Titles
Katharina Volk, “Introduction: Nigidius Figulus, Man of Many Parts”
Philip Thibodeau, “Nigidius Figulus and the Roman Reinvention of Pythagoreanism”
Daniele F. Maras, “Nigidius Pythagoricus. Etruscan disciplina and Greek Philosophy”
Duncan E. MacRae, “The Predictions of P. Nigidius Figulus”
Jay Reed, “Aetiology and Empire in Nigidius’ Spheres”
Phillip Sidney Horky, “Nigidius Figulus’ Natural Cosmology and Philosophy of Language”
Alessandro Garcea, “Nigidius Figulus’ Linguistic Thought. Sources and Problems of Interpretation”
Fabio Tutrone, “Aristotle to Pythagoras? Nigidius Figulus’ Biology in Late Republican Rome”
Giulio Celotto, “The Prophecy of Nigidius Figulus in Lucan, Bellum ciuile 1: Literary and Philosophical Perspectives”
Notes
[1] Anton Swoboda, P. Nigidii Figuli Operum reliquiae, Prague, Vienne, Leipzig, 1889 ; Gino Funaioli, Grammaticae Romanae fragmenta, Leipzig, 1907, 158–179.
[2] The Roman Republic of Letters: Scholarship, Philosophy, and Politics in the Age of Cicero and Caesar, Princeton, 2021.
[3] Michel Humm, “Les origines du Pythagorisme romain : problèmes historiques et philosophiques (I-II),” Les Études classiques, 64-65, 1996-1997, 339‑353 and 25–42.
[4] C. S. Floratos, Η ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΙΑ ΤΟΥ P. Nigidius Figulus (M. Annaei Lucani Belli Civilis I 639–673, Athens, 1958.
[5] Pierre Vesperini, “Entre disciplina et magia : Nigidius Figulus ou le mythe du néopythagorisme romain,” in From the Pseudopythagorica to the Neopythagoreans: Further Studies on the Texts Attributed to Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, ed. C. Macris, L. Brisson, T. Dorandi, Baden-Baden, forthcoming, draft online : https://hal.science/hal-03928857/document ; Anne-Marie Lewis, “Nigidius Figulus and the Birth of a Future Dominus for the World: 63 b.c.,” in Celestial Inclinations: A Life of Augustus, Oxford, 2023, 19–35.
[6] Leonardo Ferrero, Storia del pitagorismo nel mondo romano, dalle origini alla fine della Repubblica, Turin, 1955.
[7] https://www.efrome.it/la-recherche/agenda-et-manifestations/evenement/lhypogee-de-la-porte-majeure