LUCIUS. 1. (LXX. Aetiktor ; Ald. AOLCKLOS ; Vulg. Lucius), a Roman consul (biraros`Pwisaluo), who is recorded as having written a letter to King Ptolemee (Euergetes II., Physcon), in which the old friendship and league was to be renewed with Simon, and the protection of the Romans accorded to him (eir. B.C. 139-138 ; Maccab. xv. to, 16-21). Letters of the same purport were also written by Lucius to other kings and to several nations (z Maccab. xv. 22-24). Though the letter cannot be altogether rejected as spurious, there are many circumstances connected with it which lay it open to suspicion, and it is probable that it is not a true copy of the original document. The Romans never wrote their letters in the name of one consul, but in the name of the senate, nor was a consul ever designated by his pramomen. The date is also wanting, and the whole tenor of the language and the gist of the letter is contrary to the laws of the thne (cf. Wernsdorff, De fia'. libr. Ilfaccab., sec. cxix.) In the account of Simon by Josephus xiii. 6. 7 ; 7. 1-4) no mention is made of this letter, though there is a decree of the senate very similar in its contents, made on the motion of a Lucius Valerius during the reign of Hyrcanus II. (Anti9r.
xiv. 8. 5). There is evidently a mistake in this latter passage of Josephus, for the decree should have spoken about the restoration of Jerusalem (cf. the decree, Antiq. xiv. io. 5). It has been sup posed (Hudson, Joseph. /. c.) that Josephus has confused the names of the two Hyrcani, and that tne decree should apply to the first, though, if an error be allowed, there seems no reason to doubt, as Mr. Westcott (Smith's Dict. of Me Bible, s. v. _Lucius) already observes, that Josephus must have removed the incident from its proper place.
Lucius has been identified with three distinct personages ; (1.) L. [Lucius] Junius Philus (not P. [Publius] Junius Philus, given in Clinton, F. IL, vol. iii. p. 112, from Cassiod. and Cic. ad Att. xii. 5. 3 ; cf. Obseq. 25, and Sigonius, Comment. in Fast. p. 199), who was consul in B.C. 136 with Sex. Atilius Serranus. This date is too late. (2.) Lucius Ctecilius Aletellus Calvus, who was consul in B.C. 142, with Q. Fabius Maximus Servilianus. This was immediately after the accession of Simon, and as the Romans then renewed the league which they had made with Judas and Jonathan (1 Alaccab. xiv. IS, 19), there may be a connection between this decree and the later embassy of Numenius (1 Maccab. xiv. 24 ; xv. IS). (3.) Cn. or L. Cal purnius Piso, who was consul in B. C. 139 with M. Popillius Lmnas. This identification is in all pro bability correct, as the date exactly corresponds. There is, however, a difficulty about the prnomen of Calpurnius Piso. Cassiodorus (Chron.), as edited, gives Cr'n. Piso, whilst the Fasti Capitolini, which are defective, only record the name of Popillius, the fellow-consul of Calpurnius. Valerius Maxi mus (lib. i. 3), as quoted from the best (?) printed texts, also gives the same prtenomen. This latter quotation is incorrect, as the passage in which the name of these consuls appears, seems not to be part of Valerius Maximus, but a portion of the abridgment of an epitomizer, which has been in serted in the text. This portion of the first book of Valerius Maximus, extending from cap. to cap. 5, Milesia Ceres—suffecturam urbem,' was first inserted in the text by Aldus (ed. Ven. 1502) from a very ancient MS. of Valerius Maximus (Valerium autiyuissimum, Ald. Prxf.) at Vienna,* and not as Mai (Script. Vet. Nova Coll., vol. iii., Pnef. p. xxi.) supposes, from a copy of the epitome of Julius Paris now lost. Alduc states that this portion was missing in all the MSS. he had seen in Italy, as appears also to be the case with the majority of MSS. in all the European libraries. Alr. West cott (Z. c.) examined eleven NISS. of Valerius, and found only one containing it (Alus. Brit. Burn. 209), and the present writer has examined all the MSS. of Valerius in the British Museum (22), and the inset led portion occurs only in two (Mus. Brit. Burn. 209,
isth cent. ; and Harl. 2759, isth cent.) In the former the name is given as [Lucia] Calpirno (sic), and in the latter as Lucia Cabsurino (sic). Aldus gave the name as L.[Lucio] Calp., and Mai, in his edition of Julius Paris (Script Vet., etc., vol. iii. lib. i. 3, II), also gives the name L. [Lucia]. It has been questioned on good grounds whether this portion is really in the vvords of Valerius, or has been borrowed from his epitomizer Julius Paris, and the latter opinion seems to be preferable. It is, however, certain, that it must have originally formed part of the text, since it is not only found in the epitome of Paris (end of 4th or beginning of 5th cent.), but also in that of a somewhat later writer, Januarius Nepotianus (6th cent.), but in different words, which affords a sufficient proof that they both abstracted from an earlier prototype (see Kempf's ed. of Valerius, 854, pmf., p. 93). Mai, who first published the epitome of Paris, assigns the MS. to the loth century, but it is doubtless much earlier, since the most ancient MS. existing of Valerius Maximus (the one formerly belonging to P. Daniel, and now in the Public Library at Berne, Kempf., p. 7S) can be ascribed to the close of the gth century ; and it is in this MS. that a second hand (but nearly coeval with the original) has sup plied the missing portion from tbe abbreviator of Maximus, whom he names C. Titus (or Titius) Pro bus—a name, it must be remarked, which occurs in the Vatican MS. published by Alai. There can be little doubt that from this earily copy are derived the later transcripts which retain the missing portion. They are not numerous, probably not exceeding eight or nine. It is evident that this lacuna must have occurred, at a very early date, by the care lessness of the transcriber or by accident, and hence it is that the majority of the MSS. in all the European libraries, which are chiefly of the 14.th or z5th centuries, omit it.± The reading C71., as far as 1 have been able to ascertain, was first introduced into the text by Pighius (Svo, Antw. 1574). It is again repeated in the Frankfort edition of 16or, by Coler, who, whilst copying the text of Pighius, professes to col late it with the MS. of P. Daniel above alluded to. This reading has been followed by Torrenius (4to, Leid. r 726) and Kappius (8vo, Lips. 1782). It ap pears, however, that Coler omitted to collate the passage in question, for, thanks to the kindness of M. Chs. Ls. de Steigez, the principal librarian of the Public Library at Berne, through whom I have been able to examine the MS. itself, I find that the con-ect reading is L. Calpurnio, as was already given by Aldus in 1502, and it is more than likely that all the MSS. read Lucirt.r.* Sigonius (Com ment. in Fast., p. 197) has justly said (but incor rectly quoted dy Mr. Westcott), Cassiodorus in hunc annum prodit consules Cn. Pisonem cum M. Popillio : POPILLIUM [read m. po PI llius, see Corpus Inscript. Lat. Vet., ed. Mommsen 1863, vol. i. p. 438, cf. p. 532] Capitolinum fragmentum : M. Popillium Lrenatem Appianus et Epitoma L. Calpumium Valerius [read Julius Paris] libro primo. . .
It is to be regretted that the Fasti Capitolini are defective ; and the authority of Cassiodorus, whose statements are known to be full of errors, can hardly be held as conclusive against that of the MSS. of Valerius. In any case, the authority of Maccab. might be held as affording another argu ment in favour of the prnomen of Calpurnius being Lricius.—F. W. M.
2. (Aatircas ; Lucius), a kinsman (au-nepijs) or fellow-countryman of St. Paul, to whom, as to Jason and Sosipater, St. Paul sent salutations (Rom. xvi. 24 The Apostolical Constitutthns (vii. 46) make the first bishop of Cenchrere to have been Lucius, and state that be was consecrated by St. Paul himself. Others identify him with Lucius of Cyrene (q. v.)—F. W. M.