1. Family background

2. Political career
     Aedile (169 BC)    Role at Pydna (168 BC)    First Consulship (162 BC)    Censorship (159 BC)    Second Consulship (155 BC)    Opposition to Cato over Carthage (153–149 BC)    Later years (147–141 BC)  

3. Stemma of the Cornelii Scipiones

4. References

5. Bibliography
     Ancient sources    Modern sources  

Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica Corculum (born c.206 – died c.141 BC) was a politician of the Roman Republic. Born into the illustrious family of the Cornelii Scipiones, he was one of the most important Roman statesmen of the second century BC, being consul two times in 162 and 155 BC, censor in 159 BC, pontifex maximus (chief priest) in 150 BC, and finally princeps senatus (leader of the Senate) in 147 BC. Apart from his family network, he owed his success to his military skills, as he played a decisive role during the Battle of Pydna in 168 BC, and later won a triumph over the Dalmatae in 155 BC. Corculum was remembered as a staunch conservative, defender of the ancestral Roman customs against political and cultural innovations, notably Hellenism. In spite of his political influence, he could not prevent his rival Cato the Elder from gathering enough support in the Senate to declare the final war on Carthage in 149 BC. At this occasion, Corculum also clashed with his famous cousin Scipio Aemilianus, who destroyed Carthage in 146 BC.

Family background

Corculum belonged to the patrician gens Cornelia, which was the foremost gens of the Republic in terms of consulships (the Cornelii had obtained 42 consulships before him).^[2] The Scipiones formed one of the two main stirpes of the Cornelii—the other being the Lentulii; they had received 14 consulships since Publius Cornelius Maluginensis Scipio, consul in 395 and founder of the family. Corculum was the son of Publius Cornelius Scipio Nasica (consul in 191), grandson of Gnaeus Conrelius Scipio Calvus (consul in 222) who died during the Second Punic War. In addition, he was the cousin of the famous Scipio Africanus (who defeated Hannibal), and Asiaticus (who defeated Antiochos III). Africanus was the most important politician of his time, twice consul and princeps senatus.

Corculum married his second cousin Cornelia Africana Major, eldest daughter of Scipio Africanus. They were betrothed in Africanus' lifetime, but married after his death in 183.^[3][4][5] This marriage was very profitable for Corculum as he received a dowry of 25 silver talents.

The Scipiones used a number of personal nicknames to distinguished themselves from the many other prominent men of the family.^[6] His father used the agnomen Nasica ("nosed"), which was retained by his descendants—including Corculum—as a second cognomen. The agnomen Corculum is unique in Roman history; it is probably an archaic Latin word meaning "intellectual giftedness" or "cleverness". It is not known how Corculum received this nickname, but it perhaps derives from his ingenious military strategies.^[7]

Cicero speaks highly of him and tells he was an "an able orator", but it seems that Corculum's speeches were already lost by his time.^[8][9][10] He and Aurelius Victor add that Corculum was a respect jurist, specialised in civil and pontifical law.^[11][12] Some scholars thought that he was even given by the state a house on the Via Sacra to be consulted by the people more easily, but this honour was given to his father.^[13][14][15]

Political career

Aedile (169 BC)

Corculum's first known magistracy is that of curule aedile in 169.^[16] Together with his colleague Publius Cornelius Lentulus (the future consul of 162), they funded the most lavish circus games ever seen so far, which included 63 panthers, 40 bears and elephants.^[17] Livy does not tell the nature of the show; it could have been staged hunts (venatio), or a simple parade of animals.^[18][19] The aediles benefited from a law passed the previous year by the tribune of the plebs Gnaeus Aufidius, which allowed importation of beasts from Africa for the circus games.^[20][21] The ban on such imports might have been justified by the fear that they could enrich Carthage, from where they were bought—a policy perhaps sponsored by Cato.^[22][23] These ostentatious games contradict the firm conservative stance of his later career so much that some scholars think it could have an addition by an hostile annalist.

Role at Pydna (168 BC)

The following year, Corculum was picked by the consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus to serve as military tribune in his army during the Third Macedonian War.^[25] Paullus was also the brother-in-law of Africanus, and his gens was allied with the Cornelii for a long time. The war had started in 171 after king Perseus of Macedon had allegedly tried to assassinate Rome's ally Eumenes II of Pergamon.^[26] Perseus managed to defend his kingdom rather well for three years, but in 168 Rome decided to muster a strong army under Paullus to put an end to the conflict.

Most of what is known of the final military operations of the Third Macedonian War derives from two lost—and conflicting—sources, quoted by later classical writers. The first is the account of Polybius, who talked to several witnesses of the war (Romans and Macedonians); his story was notably followed by Livy. The second account is a letter written by Corculum himself and addressed to a king, probably Massinissa of Numidia, as the Cornelii had ties with him since Scipio Africanus.^[27] This letter was used by Plutarch in his Life of Aemilius, who notes the discrepancies with Polybius. The letter is considered by some scholars to be one of the first Roman autobiographies.^[28] Opinions on the letter have widely diverged among modern historians; some consider it to be a faithful account of the events, while others have rejected it as an act of self-advertising, with further opinions in-between.

Perseus had fortified the left bank of the Elpeus River to prevent Paullus from crossing it. However, Paullus designed a circling movement around Mount Olympus to flank Perseus. Nasica volunteered to head this operation, as well as Quintus Fabius Maximus Aemilianus (Paullus' natural son, adopted into the Fabii).^[29][30] He was guided by two Greek merchants and took with him between 5,000 and 8,320 men. At first he faked a movement to the sea, but once at Heracleum he told his staff the real purpose of the mission, and moved by night to Pythium (in the night of 17 and 18 June 168). Perseus was allegedly informed of the turning movement by a Cretan deserter, and sent a troop to guard Pythium, which controlled the passage to the plain of Pydna, while he was retreating northward to a more secure position. Corculum nevertheless successfully took Pythium in the early morning of 20 June 168, perhaps because the garrison was still asleep. He then completed the turning around Mount Olympus and met with Paullus, who had marched north, on 21 June.^[31] The rocky terrain was now unfavourable to the compact Macedonian phalanx, while the more flexible Roman maniples had the advantage, and they won the celebrated victory of Pydna.

In the Roman headquarters, Corculum urged Paullus to attack Perseus, but the consul rejected Corculum's request, without blaming him.^[32]

After the war, the city of Amphipolis erected a statue in his honour in its gymnasium.^[33][34]{{Campaignbox Third Macedonian War}}

First Consulship (162 BC)

Corculum became consul for the first time in 162, alongside the plebeian Gaius Marcius Figulus.^[35] Cassiodorus—who relied on Livy for his list of consuls—describes him as the consul prior, which means the centuriate assembly elected him before Figulus.^[36][37] Corculum was assigned the province of Corsica, while Figulus departed to Gaul. However, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus—the previous consul who had presided over their election—realised after their departure that he had not conducted the auspices correctly; the senate therefore decided to recall the consuls and organise new consular elections. Although Gracchus was Corculum's brother-in-law (he had married another daughter of Scipio Africanus), political motivations were probably behind this event, but the sources do not elaborate on these reasons.^[38][39][40] The new consuls were Lentulus—Corculum's former colleague in 169 and 165—and Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus.^[41]

Modern scholars do not believe the "official" explanation of Corculum's removal found in ancient sources, and see instead an intrigue against him. Scullard postulates that Gracchus had some interests in Corsica and Sardinia, and wanted to keep Corculum out of his clientele.^[42] Briscoe thinks that there were some unknown disagreement among the Cornelii Scipiones, and that Corculum clashed with the rest of the family; Gracchus was at this time very close to the Scipiones Africani and might have acted against his brother-in-law. It would explain several later cases of tensions between the Nasicae and the Africani.^[43]

Censorship (159 BC)

In 159 Corculum was elected censor prior with the plebeian Marcus Popillius Laenas, despite his abortive consulship.^[44] The censors completed the 54th lustrum, and registered 328,316 Roman citizens, almost 9.000 less than the previous lustrum of 164. Aulus Gellius reports an anecdote on demotion of a knight by the censors during the census, because his horse was not well-fed, and its owner answered the censors disrespectfully.^[45][46] They also re-appointed for the fifth time Marcus Aemilius Lepidus as princeps senatus.^[47][48]

As for his building program, Corculum installed the first water clock at Rome in a dedicated building; the Romans had to hitherto rely solely on sundials.^[49] He also removed all the statues of men placed around the Forum that had been built without an instruction from the Senate or a people's assembly.^[50] The bronze statue of Spurius Cassius Viscellinus—who had been sentenced to death for seeking regal power in 485—was even melted down.^[51][52] This decision was taken in a context of increased control on public morality, notably marked by the Lex Fannia of 161, a sumptuary law which restricted ostentatious banquets.^[53]

Second Consulship (155 BC)

Corculum was elected consul a second time in 155, together with the plebeian Marcus Claudius Marcellus—former consul in 166, and the grandson of the great Claudius Marcellus.^[54] Corculum was once again described as consul prior by Cassiodorus.^[36] This election broke the ten-year-rule fixed by the Lex Villia, which forbade iterations of a magistracy within ten years. Since Corculum's short-lived colleague in 162 Marcius Figulus was also elected consul in 156, both former consuls must have argued that they were not really concerned by the Lex Villia as their consulship had been cancelled.^[55][56]

The Senate sent Marcellus against the Ligures, Corculum against the Dalmatae in Illyria.^[57] The First Dalmatian War had been triggered in 156 by an attack of the Dalmatae on the Illyrians, allied to Rome, and their treatment of an embassy of Gaius Fannius Strabo (consul in 161). In addition, Polybius gave the contemptuous explanation that the senate wanted to give some exercise to the army, possibly because he was opposed to this war.^[58][59] Figulus—the consul for 156—was initially defeated by the Dalmatae, but then besieged their capital of Delminium (now near Tomislavgrad in Bosnia, but different from the Roman Delminium).^[60][61][62] Corculum took over the command at this point and captured Delmnium, which he completely destroyed and sold its inhabitants to slavery.^[63][64][65] However, Appian and Florus do not mention Corculum at all, and ascribe the whole campaign to Figulus, while Frontinus and Zonaras make Corculum the only Roman commander of the war.^[66] As Corculum was awarded a triumph, but not Figulus, the former must have completed the campaign.^[67] The influence and fame of the Cornelii Scipiones, as well as a possible historical account of the campaign by Corculum himself (as he did after Pydna), may explain why he alone received the triumph and was remembered as the winner of the war by some ancient historians—who omitted Figulus, apparently behind most of the campaign.^[68]

The confused accounts of Aurelius Victor and Lucius Ampelius, who say that Corculum refused the triumph, are denied by the Fasti Triumphales.^[11][69][70] Velleius Paterculus also tells that Corculum built porticoes on the Capitol around the Temple of Jupiter.^[71][72] They were located besides the arch built by Scipio Africanus, and therefore gave the Scipiones a strong presence on the Capitol. Paterculus further mentions that they were erected during his censorship (in 159), but this kind of building typically followed a successful campaign and should be dated after Corculum's triumph.^[73]

The next year (154) Corculum opposed the construction of a theatre in Rome by the censors Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Valerius Messala, and passed a senatus consultum ordering the destruction of the structures already built.^{[74][75][76][77]} A firm protector of Roman morality, he considered that Romans had to watch plays standing, as remaining seated was associated with the idleness of the Greeks.^[78] There seems to have been a concerted policy of reducing the growing influence of Hellenism at Rome, since Cato the Elder also expelled several Greek philosophers the same year.^[79] The Romans had to wait until the construction of the Theatre of Pompey in 55 to have a permanent structure in stone to watch plays.^[80] The place of the theatre of Longinus and Messala was later reused to build the Theatre of Marcellus.^[81] This decree—or another—also banned seated stands for games within a radius of one mile from outside the city.^[82][11] Hoffmann thinks that Corculum—who was a pontiff—wanted to prevent the "secularisation" of theatrical games, which were closely connected to sacred festivals and usually took places near temples.^[83] Another reason advanced by modern scholars is that Corculum tried to avoid the danger of creating a permanent place that could have been used for political gatherings—as in Greece political meetings often took place in theatres.^[9][84][85]

Opposition to Cato over Carthage (153–149 BC)

Towards the end of the 150s, Corculum clashed with the other champion of Roman morality—Cato the Elder—over the war against Carthage. Their rivalry started after Cato visited Africa in 153 as member of an embassy sent to arbiter between Massinissa and Carthage, since the former encroached on the lands of the latter.^[86] Cato was impressed by the prosperity of the Punic city and noticed that it had "lots of timber", which could be used to build ships in order to make war against Rome.^[87][88][89] From this point on, Cato advocated the destruction of Carthage, and concluded all his speeches on any subject with the famous word "Carthage must be destroyed".^[90]

Ancient authors tell Corculum argued that the loss of Rome's hereditary enemy would result in the decline of Roman morals and discipline, and bring social division, because the fear of Carthage kept the Romans in check.^[91][92] Using the same rhetorical trick as Cato, he ended all his speeches by saying that Carthage had to be saved.^[93][10] Cato had actually developed the same argument as Corculum when he spoke against the destruction of Rhodes after it had supported Perseus.^[94][95][96] Lintott thinks that this argument was developed by ancient historians after the Gracchi to explain the hundred years of social crisis that happened in Rome once Carthage destroyed.^[97] Corculum's real arguments were rapidly lost in ancient times, but since his opposition to the war was universally known, Greek and Roman historians invented this story to make sense of his opposition to the war, which gave a prophetic tone to his warning against division. Adcock shows that Corculum favoured the traditional Roman foreign policy of balance of powers, against the new "brute force" policy emerging in this decade (like Carthage, Corinth was razed in 146).^[98][99]Initially Corculum had enough support in the senate to reject Cato's proposal. It seems that in 152 he headed an embassy sent to mediate between Carthage and Massinissa.^[100] While blaming the Carthaginians for their military built-up, he forced the Numidians to withdraw from some of the territories they had conquered, which temporarily removed the threat of a war in the area.^{[101][102][103]} Corculum's influence can also be measured by the fact that in 150 he was chosen pontifex maximus—the most important priesthood.^[109] Carthage nonetheless attacked the army of Massinissa in 150, thus breaching the treaty of 201, which stated that Carthage could not wage war without Rome's ascent; it gave Rome a casus belli on Carthage, which finally declared war in the beginning of 149.^[104]

In addition to this casus belli, several facts explain how Cato won the decision. Firstly, the princeps senatus Marcus Aemilius Lepidus had died in 152; like Corculum, he favoured prudent diplomacy, and his influence was missed in the senate.^[105] Secondly, Corculum was not in Rome in 149, but in Greece, in order to investigate the situation after the Macedonian Andriskos had revolted against Rome, and claimed to be Perseus' son; Corculum organised the defence there by levying an army of Achaean soldiers to hold until a Roman army was sent in 148.^{[106][107][108][109]} Münzer suggests he was sent abroad to weaken the opposition to the war in the senate.^[110] Astin furthermore remarks that the decisive support for Cato came from Scipio Aemilianus—several later accounts underline their mutual respect—who could capitalise on the illustrious fame of his grandfather Scipio Africanus to get a majority of senators in favour of the destruction of Carthage.^[111] Aemilianus and some other leading senators were probably attracted by the glory and enormous booty they could get by taking Carthage.^[112] He may even have sabotaged the peace negotiations between Massinissa and Carthage in 150, in order to make a Roman intervention more likely.^[113] Besides, Aemilianus was the friend of Manius Manilius—the consul of 149 who started the operations against Carthage—and personally directed the final assault on the Punic city (in 146).^[114] Zonaras wrongly tells that at this occasion Corculum advised sparing the Carthaginians.^[115]

Later years (147–141 BC)

In 147 Corculum was appointed princeps senatus, which made him the most influential senator, despite his failure against Cato.^[91][116] Ryan says that Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Lupus was the censor behind his appointment, as he is the only known senator to have supported his stance on Carthage.^[117][118] Corculum was re-appointed princeps in 142 by the censors Scipio Aemilianus and Lucius Mummius Achaicus.^[119] Corculum and his predecessor Marcus Aemilius Lepidus were the only two men who held both the offices of leader of the senate and chief priest.^[120]

Corculum possibly died in 141—perhaps of the plague that broke out the previous year in Rome—because his son Nasica Serapio succeeded him as pontifex maximus that year.^{[121][122][123]} Such a succession at the head of the Roman religion was unprecedented.^[124] However, neither Corculum's son (consul in 138), nor his grandson (consul in 111, also named Serapio) became princeps senatus, contrary to what Diodorus and Valerius Maximus tell.^{[91][125][126]} Nasica Serapio continued his father's hostility towards Scipio Aemilianus, as he married his son (the consul in 111) to the daughter of Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, one of Aemilianus' opponents.^[127]

Stemma of the Cornelii Scipiones

The relations with the allied families of the Sempronii Gracchi, Aemilii Paulli, and Caecilii Metelli are also shown. Only magistracies attested with certainty in Broughton's Magistrates of the Roman Republic have been mentioned. The doted lines show adoptions from natural fathers. The name "Cornelius" is implied for all the men named Scipio except for Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica.^[128][129]

References

Bibliography

Ancient sources

• Lucius Ampelius, Liber Memorialis.
• Appianus Alexandrinus (Appian), The Illyrian Wars.
• Aurelius Victor, De Viris Illustribus Romae.
• Marcus Tullius Cicero, Brutus, De Oratore, Tusculanae Disputationes.
• Fasti Capitolini.
• The Digest.
• Florus, Epitome.
• Sextus Julius Frontinus, Strategemata (Stratagems).
• Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae.
• Titus Livius (Livy), History of Rome, Periochae.
• Julius Obsequens, Liber de prodigiis (Book of Prodigies).
• Paulus Orosius, Historiarum Adversum Paganos (History Against the Pagans).
• Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder), Historia Naturalis (Natural History).
• Plutarch, Parallel lives.
• Polybius, Historiae (The Histories).
• Strabo, Geographica.
• Valerius Maximus, Factorum ac Dictorum Memorabilium (Memorable Deeds and Sayings).
• Marcus Velleius Paterculus, Compendium of Roman History.
• Johannes Zonaras, Epitome.

Modern sources

• F. E. Adcock, "'[https://www.jstor.org/stable/3020657 Delenda Est Carthago]'", in The Cambridge Historical Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1946), pp. 117–128.
• Alan E. Astin, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/41520547 Scipio Aemilianus and Cato Censorius]", in Latomus, T. 15, Fasc. 2 (April–June 1956), pp. 159–180.
• ——, Scipio Aemilianus, Oxford University Press, 1967.
• ——, Cato the Censor, Oxford University Press, 1978.
• Richard A. Bauman, Lawyers in Roman Republican Politics, C. H. Beck, Munich, 1983.
• Hans Beck, Antonio Duplá, Martin Jehne, Francisco Pina Polo, Consuls and Res Publica: Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• T. Corey Brennan, The Praetorship in the Roman Republic, Oxford University Press, 2000.
• John Briscoe, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435060 Eastern Policy and Senatorial Politics 168-146 B.C.]", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 18, H. 1 (Jan., 1969), pp. 49–70.
• ——, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/299264 Supporters and Opponents of Tiberius Gracchus]", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 64 (1974), pp. 125–135.
• ——, A Commentary on Livy, Books 38–40, Oxford University Press, 2007.
• ——, A Commentary on Livy, Books 41–45, Oxford University Press, 2012.
• T. Robert S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, American Philological Association, 1952–1960.
• Paul J. Burton, Friendship and Empire, Roman Diplomacy and Imperialism in the Middle Republic (353–146 BC), Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• ——, Rome and the Third Macedonian War, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
• Craige Brian Champion, Cultural Politics in Polybius’s Histories, University of California Press, 2004.
• ——, The Peace of the Gods, Elite Religious Practices in the Middle Roman Republic, Princeton University Press, 2017.
• Tim Cornell (editor), The Fragments of the Roman Historians, Oxford University Press, 2013.
• J. A. Crook, F. W. Walbank, M. W. Frederiksen, R. M. Ogilvie (editors), The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. VIII, Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C., Cambridge University Press, 1989.
• Penelope J. E. Davies, Roman Architecture and Politics, Cambridge University Press, 2017.
• Danijel Dzino, Illyricum in Roman Politics, 29 BC – AD 68, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• Alison Futrell, Blood in the Arena: The Spectacle of Roman Power, Austin, University of Texas Press, 1997.
• Jill Harries, Cicero and the Jurists, London, Duckworth, 2006.
• Wilhelm Hoffmann, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4434664 Die römische Politik des 2. Jahrhunderts und das Ende Karthagos]", in Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 9, H. 3 (Jul., 1960), pp. 309–344.
• Oliver D. Hoover, Handbook of Coins of Macedon and Its Neighbors. Part I: Macedon, Illyria, and Epeiros, Sixth to First Centuries BC [The Handbook of Greek Coinage Series, Volume 3], Lancaster/London, Classical Numismatic Group, 2016.
• Timothy Howe, E. Edward Garvin, and Graham Wrightson, Greece, Macedonia, and Persia, Studies in Social, Political and Military History in Honour of Waldemar Heckel, Oxford, Oxbow Books, 2014.
• Andrew W. Lintott, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4435293 Imperial Expansion and Moral Decline in the Roman Republic]", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 21, H. 4 (4th Qtr., 1972), pp. 626–638.
• John Ma, Statues and Cities: Honorific Portraits and Civic Identity in the Hellenistic World, Oxford University Press, 2013.
• Gesine Manuwald, Roman Republican Theatre, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
• Lisa Marie Mignone, The Republican Aventine and Rome’s Social Order, University of Michigan Press, 2016.
• Friedrich Münzer, Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families, translated by Thérèse Ridley, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999 (originally published in 1920).
• Pantelis Nigdelis, Pavlos Anagnostoudis, "[https://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/view/15905 New Honorific Inscriptions from Amphipolis]", Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, Vol 57, No 2 (2017), pp. 295–324.
• August Pauly, Georg Wissowa, Friedrich Münzer, et alii, Realencyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft (abbreviated PW), J. B. Metzler, Stuttgart, 1894–1980.
• Emmanuel Rodocanachi, The Roman Capitol in ancient and modern times, University of Michigan, 1906.
• Vincent J. Rosivach, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038672 The "Lex Fannia Sumptuaria" of 161 BC]", The Classical Journal, Vol. 102, No. 1 (Oct. - Nov., 2006), pp. 1–15.
• Francis X. Ryan, Rank and Participation in the Republican Senate, Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998.
• Marjeta Šašel Kos, Appian and Illyricum, Narodni Muzej Slovenije, 2005.
• Howard Hayes Scullard, Roman Politics 220–150 B. C., Oxford University Press, 1951.
• Christopher Smith, Kaj Sandberg (editors), Omnium Annalium Monumenta: Historical Writing and Historical Evidence in Republican Rome, Leiden & Boston, Brill, 2017.
• W. Soltau, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4472536 P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica als Quelle Plutarchs]", Hermes, Bd. 31, H. 1 (1896), pp. 155–160.
• Graham Vincent Sumner, The Orators in Cicero's Brutus: Prosopography and Chronology, (Phoenix Supplementary Volume XI.), Toronto and Buffalo, University of Toronto Press, 1973.
• Jaakko Suolahti, The Roman Censors, a study on social structure, Helsinki, Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1963.
• G. J. Szemler, Priests of the Roman Republic, A Study of Interactions between Priesthoods and Magistracies, Bruxelles, Latomus, 1972.
• Lily Ross Taylor and T. Robert S. Broughton, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4238618 The Order of the Two Consuls' Names in the Yearly Lists]", Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 19 (1949), pp. 3–14.
• ——, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, University of Michigan Press, 1960.
• Ann Vasaly, Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory, Berkeley & Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1993.
• Ursula Vogel-Weidemann, "Carthago Delenda Est: Aita and Prophasis", in Acta Classica, XXXII (1989), pp. 79–95.
• Frank William Walbank, A Commentary on Polybius, Oxford University Press, 1979.
• P. G. Walsh, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/297437 Massinissa]", The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 55, No. 1/2, Parts 1 and 2 (1965), pp. 149–160.
• Everett L. Wheeler, "[https://www.jstor.org/stable/4436047 'Sapiens' and Stratagems: The Neglected Meaning of a 'Cognomen']", Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Bd. 37, H. 2 (2nd Qtr., 1988), pp. 166–195.
• John Wilkes, The Illyrians, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers Limited, 1995.

• The Bloodstone Wars
• The Bloody Baron
• The Bloody Benders
• The Bloody Chamber
• The Blow
• The Blow Monkeys
• The Blue Abum (311)
• The blue aeroplanes
• The Blue Aeroplanes
• The Blue Album
• The Blue Album (311)
• The Blue Album (311 album)
• The Blue Album (Weezer)
• The Blue Album (Weezer album)
• The Blue Angel
• The Blue Angel (1930 movie)
• The Blue-Belles
• The Bluebelles
• The Blue Bird
• The Blue Bird (film)
• The Blue Bird (play)
• The Blue Blazer
• The Blue Bloods
• The Blue Boy
• The Blue Caps