Elections, Magistrates, and Municipal Elite: Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy

...... ANALECfA ROMANA INSTITUTT DANICI- SUPPLEMENTUM XV

Henrik Mouritsen

ELECTIONS, MAGISTRATES AND MUNICIP AL ELITE Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy

»L'ERMA« DI BRETSCHNEIDER ROMA MCMLXXXVIII

!

-~

Contents List of abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 7 I. Pompeian epigraphy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Pompeian studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Casa ed abitanti di Pompei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sealstamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Amphorae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Graffiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Electoral inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Della Corte's methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Della Corte as an epigraphist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 li. Political institutions in Pompeii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 III. Programmata recentiora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 The dating of programmata recentiora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Pompeian fasti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 The function of electoral inscriptions in the election campaign and in Pompeii's social structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Rogatores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 "Fac" inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Collective recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Summary . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 IV. Pompeian magistrates and magisterial candidates in the period 80 BC - 79 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 The Republican period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Republican tituli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Programmata antiquissima . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 79 The Augustan and Early Imperial period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Ministerial dedications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 The period 50 to 79 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Analysis of the composition of the magisterial body in the period 80 BC -79 AD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Concluding remarks on the social and political structure of Pompeian society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Catalogue of programmata recentiora . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catalogue of individual and collective rogatores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generalindex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Pompeians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

125 160 180 215 217 217 219 223

!

)

~

Abbreviations used in reference to inscriptions (no.) t. (no.) I (no.) X (no.) EE (no.) Ns (year), (page no.) s. (no.) (no.) ES/ EN/ OS.

CIL vol. IV and supplementa 2 and 3. CIL vol. IV supplementum 1, tabulae ceratae. CIL vol. I ,2. CIL vol. X. Ephemeris Epigraphica VIII, 1899. Notizie degli scavi di Antichita. M. Della Corte, Case ed abitanti, Napoli 1965 (3rd ed.), Iist of signacula , pp. 465-70. Un impegno per Pompei, II: Fotopiano e documentazione della Necropoli di Porta Nocera, Milano 1983 .

.....

...... 7

Preface Elections, Magistratesand Municipal Elite is an ambitious title, but I would like to make clear from the start that I have not attempted a comprehensive and exhaustive study of all the multifarious aspects of this extensive subject. As the sub-title Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy suggests, this work is primarily a collection of de tailed epigraphical investigations, the objective being to apply a more systematic approach to the inscl-iptional material in order to elucidate some of the central questions pertaining to Pompeii's administration and to the participation of the different population g roups in it. The subj ect of the first of the~e four studies is the more recent epigraphical and historical research on Pompeii. After a brief account of the epigraphical source material, the historiography of the present century is a nalysed, with special reference to an evaluation of the part played by Matteo Della Corte. This is followed by abrief survey of the political institutions in Pompeii. The next chapter takes its starting point in the election notices, programmata recentiora; the dating and function of which I will attempt to elucidate. In the first part of the chapter, both the general dating of election inscriptions and the possibility of undertaking precise datings are examined, while the rest of the chapter seeks to show who was responsible fo r these notices , and what röle they played in th e city's social structure . The ma te rial on which these investigations is based is presented in two catalogues, which include a register of programm ata recentiora with suggested e me ndations and additional notes on the interpretation , and a Iist of the supporters, rogatores, featuring in the programmata recentiora. The aim of the fourth and largest investigatio n is to e lucidate the social m a keup of the corpus of magistrates and magisterial candidates from 80 BC to 79 AD. The period is divided into three phases , 80-30 BC, 30 BC- 50 AD , and 50-79 AD, and the source material for each phase is dealt with separately with a view to establishing a register of known magistrates and candidates in the period. On the basis of this material, an analysis of the Pompeian uppe r d ass and of the feasibility of writing its history is undertake n. From the results obtained in the investigations described, an attempt is finaiIy made to Iook at the wider perspectives for an evaluation of Pompeian society. During the work on this book, I have e njoyed the help of many colleagues , to whom I am most grateful. In particular I must thank Flemming Gorm Andersen , who first aroused my inte rest in Pompeii, Henrik Tvarn0, who rendered valuable support while the proj ect was taking shape, and Jens Erik Skydsgaard, whose inspiring guidance has been of great importance for the final result. During the concluding phase of the work, I have had the benefit of Heikki Solin's critical reading of the manuscript , for which I owe him many

•

8 thanks. To Patrick Kragelund I am grateful for his interest in my work and critical reading of the manuscript. It must be pointed out here, though , that their kind assistance in no way means that they share all my views, and the responsibility for these and for any mistakes and misunderstandings is naturally my own. I am also grateful to the Danish Academy in Rome, which provided me with hospitality during my stays in Rome , and has now also accepted the manuscript for publication in Analeeta Romana lnstituti Danici. For permission to visit the store-rooms at the Scavi di Pompei and in the Museo Nazionale in Naples, I would like to thank the Soprintendenza archeo/ogica di Napoli e Caserta and the Soprintendenza archeologica di Pompei. For financial support during the preparation of the book I am grateful to Prinsesse Margrethes Legat til videnskabelige studier i Rom , Dronning Ingrids romerske Legat and CarLsbergfondet. The translation has been undertaken by Peter Crabb and Peter Spring, whom I wish to thank for good work and collaboration. The translation and printing have been made possible through the financial support of Statens humanistiske Forskningsrad, Konsul George Jorck og hustru Emmas Fond, G.E.C. Gads Fond , Ny CarLsbergfondet, K~benhavns Universitets humanistiske fakultet, and Davids Legat for sLcegt og venner.

.......

...... 9

I. Pompeian epigraphy Sources Since the first layers of volcanic ash were stripped from Pompeii in 1748, an extensive and in many respects unique epigraphical corpus of material has come to light. It is 'd istinguished by its diversity, which far exceeds that of the material otherwise known, by its quantity, with a total of over 11,000 inscriptions having been found, and not least by the types of sources represented , which in several cases are unique in Roman epigraphy. It is therefore natural to start with a brief presentation of the epigraphical sources available for the following investigations of the political and social conditions in Pompeii. Three languages are represented in the Pompeian inscriptions: Oscan , Greek and Latin. Of these, the Oscan inscriptions, which mainly derive from the period before the Roman conquest in 89 BC, have been published separately in E. Vetter's Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, 1 while the Greek inscriptions have been published in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum along the same lines as the Latin inscriptions from Pompeii. The inscriptions are in principle divided into categories according to substrate, and subdivided on the basis of form and function. Some of these categories are extremely rare outside Pompeii; the most abundant are the inscriptiones parietariae: graffiti and dipinti. These were published in CIL IV, issued in 1871 by K. Zangemeister, and later in CIL IV supplementum II published in 1909 by A. Mau and C/L IV supplementum 111 published in 1952-70 by M. Della Corte. The latest fascicle from 1970 was edited by V. Weber. Graffiti are, as the name suggests, incised (cursive) inscriptions, usually found on the walls of hou~es. Almost 5,000 such inscriptions have been published so far, mainly consisting merely of one or more personal names, but sometimes Ionger and giving an insight into the culture of the common people and colloquial Latin. 2 Graffiti are generally difficult to date; most of them are presumably attributable to Pompeii's last period, although there are examples of graffiti from earlier phases of the history of the city. Painted inscriptions, dipinti, have survived only in Pompeii, and there are thus no parallels tothismaterial elsewhere in the Roman Empire. 3 The Iarger part of the painted inscriptions are, in contrast to the purely private graffiti, more official commtinications to the public, being programmata ( electoral inscriptions) and edicta munerum (announcements of gladiatorial contests). They also include more or less private communications and greetings. The first group comprises over 2,600 inscriptions and is thus far larger than the other two. It consists of two types: programmata antiquissima and programmata recentiora, dated respectively to the earliest period after the establishment of the Roman

10 colony in 80 BC, and Pompeii 's last 17 years. 4 The latter type is naturally the more extensive, with 2,466 extant inscriptions ,4 a but otherwise differs only slightly from the former: both types in fact comprise stereotype posters supporting candidates for municipal office. 5 About 75 edicta munerum have becn found so far, but not all of them refer to Pompeian gladiatorial contests: neighbouring towns arealso represented . The other Iargely private inscriptions do not differ essentially from graffiti. In 1875 a unique find was made in hause V ,1,26: a box containing 153 receipts , apochae, of the banker C. Caecilius Jucundus. These are wax-coated wooden tablets in an incised cursive band. They were published in CIL IV supplementum I by K. Zangemeister in 1898. The greater part are from the period 52-61 AD, and constitute an important source for prosopographical and socio-economic research. One type of source which attracts attention at Pompeii due to its abundance in particular, is the seal stamps, signacula. Over 100 of thesebronze seals, which apparently served a number of purposes, have been found in and near Pompeii, which is clearly in excess of similar finds in other Roman towns . They contain only personal names, and a number were published by Th. Mommsen in C/ L X, while a full Iist is found in M. Della Corte's Case ed abitanti di Pompei. 6 A number of other source types , namely amphora inscriptions , stamps on pottery and metal objects and tile stamps, arealso represented in the Pompeian material , the amphora inscriptions being by far the largest group. This type of inscription is painted on the neck of an amphora and usually describes the contents and the producer, the date, and the destinee, which may be crucial in investigating the economic and social structure of the town. The earliest publication of amphora inscriptions was undertake n by R. Schöne in CIL IV , and both Mau's Supplement II and fascicles 3 and 4 in Della Corte's supplement III contain amphora inscriptions. Stamp marks on earthenware, metalware and tiles are rarer. Moreover, as the artefacts in question may we11 have been imported, the producers men tioned in the inscriptions are not very relevant for a study of Pompeian prosopography. It is also difficult to evaluate the extent of sources of this kind, since Mommsen's publication in CIL X(2) in 1883 still remains the tatest complete publication of this material. Many new finds have subsequently been published in Notizie degli scavi, but a certain number, not least of tile stamps, still remain unpublished. Besides the above-mentioned incised, painted and stamped inscriptions, a considerable number of tituli have been found cut in stone. These are, in cantrast to the other types, often of an official and commemorative nature , and therefore frequently contain information of a totally different kind than that found in the rest of the epigraphic material. Being more enduring than the ephemeral ad hoc inscriptions, this type of so urce represents a far greater time span. It can be divided into several main groups , the three most extensive

...... 11 being sepulchral inscriptions, dedicatory inscriptions and inscriptions made in connection with the ministerial dedicationso The last of these have attracted particular interest, because analogaus inscriptions have not been found elsewhere in such abundanceo Most of the Pompeian tituli were published by Tho Mommsen in CIL X in 1883, by Eo Lommatzsch in CIL 1(2) 1918, and in Ephemeris Epigraphica 8 (1899) and subscquently in Notizie degli scavi (up to 1961)0 Recently, the inscriptions found in the Porta Nocera necropolis have been provisionally published in Un impegno per Pompei and in an article by Ao d'Ambrosio and Sode Caroo 7 Several titulistill remain unpublishedo 8

Pompeian studies Research into this extensive and unique epigraphical material has passed through several phases since its inception at the beginning of the 19th centuryo In the following, its subsequent development will be traced, particular attention being devoted to Matteo Della Corte's contribution to this branch of classical scholarshipo 9 The beginning of serious research into Pompeii goes back to the second half of the last century, after Fiorelli had takcn over as director of excavations in 18600 The main enterprise in this periodwas the preparation of the first Pompeian volume of Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, which Iaid the foundation for all later epigraphical research on Pompeiio Mommsen's, Zangemeister's , Schöne's and Mau's publication of Pompeian inscriptions in CIL is characterized by great precision, consistency and insight into the source material and remains an enduring monument to the high Ievel of German classical scholarship in the 19th century 0 Pompeian research in the later 19th and early 20th century can be characterized as essentially antiquarian in its aims and methodso Thus the greater part of the epigraphical research of the period aimed primarily at a systematization of the material and its archaeological context. This applies not least to G 0Fiorelli's two principal works Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia and Descrizione di Pompei dating respectively to 1860-62 and 18750 J 0Overbeck's Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Altertümern und Kunstwerken, 1884 (4th edo) , Ho Nissen's Pompeianische Studien zur Städtekunde des Altertums, 1877, and Ao Mau's as yet unsurpassed Pompeji in Leben und Kunst, 1908 (2nd edo) and his long series of articles on Pompeian subjectso One monograph, however, Po Willems' study of Pompeian electoral inscriptions, Les elections municipales a Pompei, i887, stands apart from this tradition by undertaking a thorough analysis of one type of source and by making a serious attempt to solve the problems it raiseso Many of the questions posed by Willems are still highly relevant, and the investigations of the present work in several cases take their starting point in the discussions and theorics of his thesiso

12 Willems' study was exceptional, however, and in this period an analytical approach with a view to a wider analysis of Pompeian society was rarely employed. lt is against this background that the developme nt of Pompeian studies from about 1910 until the mid-thirties needs tobe evaluated- not least Della Corte's epoch-making series of articles Case ed abitanti, which were published in the period 1914-25 and made a major impact from the outset. 10 Thesemade use of a hitherto unprecedented combination of epigraphy and archaeology to determine the address , occupation, family circumstances, etc. , of named perso ns. As the first and hitherto only collected presentation of Pompeian prosopography, it is hardly possible to overestimate their importance for comtemporaneous and later research. Della Corte later followed these articles up with other papers and books on Pompeian culture history and epigraphy, which consolidated his unrivalled position in this field. 11 While Della Corte was publishing hisinnovative work on Pompeian prosopography, Pompeian studies in general were enjoying a period of revival , thanks to the publication of a number of new contributions to the elucidation of Pompeian society; some of the inspiration for this undoubtedly derived from the Nuovi Scavi project, in which an attempt was made for the first time to recreate completely the ancient city from its preserved ruins. 12 Among the most important scholars of this new wave may be mentioned M. Rostovtzeff and T. Frank, who dealt with the city's economic development and structure , 13 J . D ay and R.C. Carrington, 14 who both investigated Pompeian agriculture, and M. Gordon , who wrote an influential article on the makeup of the ordo decurionum. 15 Other major perso nalities were V. Spinazzola, the director of the Nuovi Scavi, and his successor A. Maiuri , A.W. van Buren and E. Magaldi , the last of whom in the years 1934-46 was the driving force behind the journal Rivista di Studi Pompeiani, in which he wrote several important articles on Pompeian history and epigraphy. All this activity within Pompeian studies in the first half of the present century, and the results it yielded, has since been dubbed "the Pompeianist tradition". 16 It stands clearly apart from the succeeding period from about 1940, whe n a marked decrease in interest in Pompeii became apparent. During the next 25-30 years, only a few contributions of Iasting importance to the study of Pompeian history and society appeared : in particular G.O. Onorato's thorough investigations, and E. Lepore's innovative study of the structure of Pompeian society. 17 In La vie quotidienne a Pompei, R. E tienne also attempted to undertake a synthesis of the existing knowledge on Pompeii. A Supplement (Supplementum III) was added to CIL IV in this period, consisting of Della Corte's four new fascicles, of which the last was not published until 1970. The quality of this work has subsequently, and quite rightly , ·been questioned by several authorities. 18 Not until the beginning of the 1970s did Pompeian research revive. A number of articles and monographs were published , in which attempts were made to

.....

'

,I

.t

13

establish an alternative to the older "traditionalist" scholarship, which was subjected to some sharp criticism, and to Iook at Pompeii from new angles and examine it by new methods. The leading figures in this new movement were J. Andreau, who in a series of articles and in his monograph Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus on L. Caecilius Jucundus' receipts investigated Pompeii's social and economic structure, 19 and P. Castren, who, in his Ordo Populusque Pompeianus, sought to create a Pompeian prosopography and to map the political and social development of the city from 80 BC to 79 AD. 20 They were supported in their revolt against "the Pompeianist tradition" by, among others, G. Pucci, 21 and have met with only a few objections on this point. 22 The systematic, structure-oriented research they advocated has since been followed up by a number of major single studies in Pompeian epigraphy. 22 a .These include M. Gigante's fundamental analysis of the literary culture on the basis of graffiti /3 J.L. Franklin's attempt at dating and otherwise placing the electoral inscriptions/ 4 P. Sabbatini Tumolesi's systematic catalogue of edicta munerum, 25 and not least V. Kockel's valuable publication of the Porta Ercolano necropolis. 26 The last-mentioned has become the model for the long-awaited publication of the Porta Nocera tombs, which has been undertaken by Italian archaeologists. 27 The key figurein Pompeian research in the present century is undoubtedly Matteo Della Corte. By analysing his contribution and his influence bothin his own time and later it is, in my opinion, possible to obtain a more accurate picture ofthe development ofPompeian studies than has hitherto been possible. Della Corte's publications still remain indispensable for any work on Pompeian epigraphy, and an analysis of them will thus in itself be of value for the following investigations. Two works independently embody Della Corte's work as historian and epigraphist- Case ed abitanti and Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum IV suppl. III, and my analysiswill therefore concentrate on this part of his output.

Case ed abitanti di Pompei This work , which as mentioned above appeared in article form for the firsttime from 1914 to 1925 andin greatly augmented form as a collected work in 1953, is an attempt to connect those persons who are known from inscriptions with the archaeological remains, or in other words to identify owners and occupants of particular houses. 28 Della Corte divides the city into three different zones and deals house by house with those of their occupants he believes he can identify. In this enumeration of houses and purported householders, small sections dealing with individual gentes or the decoration and function of certain houses are sometimes interpolated, and the overall picture obtained is therefore somewhat confusing. The persons identified as householders are sequentially numbered, and leaving

•

14 aside the viilas outside the city, Della Corte reaches the imposing figure of 896. 29 This also includes, however , unnamed occupants , such as Christians, craftsmen or inhabitants of particular quarters: the named Pompeians who are identified as occupants of particular houses make up at the most half of all the identifications in Case ed abitanti. The earliest identifications of Pompeii's householders had already been made by Fiorelli, who- mainly on the basis of seal stamps and graffiti - indicated the probable occupants of certain houses. 30 Della Corte's Case ed abitanti nonetheless remains the first and so far the only major attempt to systematically collect information on this important aspect of Pompeian prosopography. In cantrast to Fiorelli, Della Corte employs virtually every kind of epigraphical material to identify his occupants, and in the following, each of the source types employed will be investigated with a view to elucidating both Della Corte's use of it and its potential use and limitations as a reliable indicator of who lived in the various houses. The epigraphicalmaterial used by Della Corte falls largely into four different categories: seal stamps, amphora inscriptions, graffiti and electoral inscriptions. In addition, there are tituli and tile stamps, but these are adduced with extreme rarity in Case ed abitanti and will therefore be omitted from the present examination.

Sealstamps Seal stamps 3 1 were one of the most frequently used sources in Fiorelli's occupant identifications, but Della Corte points out in his preface that their testi mony should be treated with circumspection , and that there is no guarantee that the names on the stamps are always identical with those of the residents. 32 This does not prevent him, however, from basing about fifty occupant identifications entirely on this type of material , and drawing on it for a considerable number of others. A clarification of the question of the reliability of seal stamps is therefore relevant to an evaluation of a significant percentage of the identifications proposed in Case ed abitanti. In Pompeii, a total of 90 signacula have been found; thesearerings with an inscribed plate measuring about 1-2 x 3-5 cm. 33 6 different seal stamp impressions, sometimes repeated several times , which are found on the plaster of the walls, also belang to this group. 34 The inscriptions usually contain only one name, occasionally two , and are very often reduced to initials or reproduced in an abbreviated form or in ligature. The name is almost always in the genitive. Scrutiny of the onomastic material reveals that several of the persans men tioned are explicitly called slaves. 35 It also suggests that a very considerable percentage of the others have been of servile origin. This is occasionalJy explicit. 36 But , more significantly , over one third of the obviously free citizens' cognomina are Greek, 37 which is a ce rtain sign of servile origin in the first or second

~-

......

I!

"'

II

15

generation, and there is also a preponderance of names of servile derivation, such as Faustus, Auctus, Restitutus and Optatus, among the Latin cognomina. 38 Conversely, only one instance can be cited in which the stamped name can be identified with a socially highly placed freeborn. 39 It thus seems doubtful whether the identity of occupants can be deduced directly from stamp seals. 40 D ella Corte seems in some measure to have been aware of the problem, since he often interprets the inscriptions as names of procuratores , freedmen or tenant~, but is evidently inconsistent in this. Since the signacula, as mentioned, do not seem to be a reliable source for identifying the house-owners, the next question is whether the family in the house can be identified through the seal's nomen. The relation between the information in theseals and the identity of the occupants can be elucidated by investigating whether there are other possibilities of identifying the occupants, and whether several different seals have been found in the same houses. 13 of theseals either cannot be assigned to a particular house, or were found in a public place ;41 they cannot be included in the study, which thus comprises 77 seals and impressions. In 12 of the houses where seals have been found , yielding 22 seals, the family may be identified from other sources. 42 In 10 of these seals there seems tobe agreement between the gentilicial name and the otherwise documented family,43 although in one the nomen is abbreviated andin another it is omitted, and 3 seals derive from the same house. 44 None of the families in the remaining 12 seals from 8 different houses fits our other information on the occupants. In 6 cases, several seals have been found in houses whose occupants are otherwise unknown ,45 andin each case different gentes are involved. This means that in 14 out of 18 houses where a test has been possible, we find seals with nomina not in agreement with the occupants. It is naturally possible that several different families could have lived in the same house , but considering the composition of the cognomina and the number of cases in which the family mentioned in theseals is not identical with the owner's family, it seems safer to conclude that seal stamps si mply do not constitute a reliable source material for identifying house-owners or their families. There must naturally have been some connection between the person whose name appears on the seal and the place where it was found, but an idcntification of the occupants cannot be made solely on the basis of such an inscription. This result, which throws a considerable number of Della Corte's identifications into doubt, also poses anew the question of the function of the seals. Mommsen suggested in his prefatory remarks to X 8058, that they were used to mark foodstuffs in order to prevent theft, a theory he based on Pliny the Eider, H.N. 33,26, and X 8058,18 (a seal impression found on a Ioaf in Herculaneum). 46 This hypothesis does not accord with the onomastic material, which contains the names of both slaves and freedmen, nor with the incidence of seals with different nomina in the same house. In some cases they may, of course,

16 have served the purpose Mommsen suggests. In general, however, it must be supposed that they had far more varied uses, and it is tempting to connect them with the production, inter alia, of pottery and possibly also of cloth and leather. 47 The seals may in these cases have been used to mark the individual worker's or workshop's production, which could indicate a considerable decentralization of the economic interests of the upper classes. Such an interpretation could among other things explain the predominance of slaves and freedmen among the persons mentioned in the seals.

Amphorae Amphora inscriptions48 play a much smaller röle in Della Corte's attempt to identify the inhabitants of Pompeii's houses, because in only a few cases can they provide information of specific help towards such an identification. A very high percentage of the over 2,000 amphora inscriptions from Pompeii merely contain datings in the form of consular names, or indications of content, while a considerable nurober are doubtful or impossible to decipher. Only approximately half of them record names of individual persons, and it may here be a question either of the producer or the recipient of the amphora and its content of wine, oil or garum. The name of the producer or supplier is given in the genitive or with the preposition ab, and the name of the recipient in the dative. Very often , however, only the initials of the name are given , so that the case cannot be known. But as the name of the producer is by far the most common, it must be assumed that in those cases where only one name appears in initials, it is that of the supplier rather than that of the recipient. Also with first declension names, where it is impossible to distinguish between genitive and dative, the likelihood is that in most cases it is the producer who is mentioned. The )arge group of inscriptions with names in the genitive or with the preposition ab cannot in the nature of things show who lived in the houses where they were found. In the )arge majority of cases, people must have purchased amphorae for their own use. Only in the case of dealers and producers of the foodstuffs these amphorae contained can we assume that the names on them and the inhabitants of the houses were identical. Inscriptions with names in the dative make up a far smaller group than those mentioned above. Only 40 of the amphorae that can be linked to a particular house contain inscriptions in which the name is definitely in the dative, and altogether 39 different persons are mentioned who as recipients of amphorae could be identical with inhabitants of the houses in which the amphorae were found. 49 In his identifications, Della Corte mainly employs this kind of amphora inscription alone, though with some exceptions. 50 But the question arises whether there is any guarantee that names in the dative invariably correspond to a house's owner or a resident. With so limited a corpus of inscriptions, there can be no reliable statistics to show how often persons in the inscriptions were

~-

.....

!

I I

17

II

identical with the occupants, and how often they were not. There are 8 examples in which thc person in the inscription seems to have lived in the house in which it was found. 5 1 This shows that amphora inscriptions can sometimes idcntify occupants. But there are a few instances where this does not seem to be the case ,52 and a good deal of other material suggests likewise. 53 Consideration should also be given to what status the persans in the inscriptions might have had. Among recipients of amphorae we thus find both women and slaves and several bearers of Greek cognomina, 54 and although there are instances in which it is presumably the owner hirnself who is named, this can by no means be taken for granted. It can be concluded, in short, that an identification of inhabitants cannot be made solely on the basis of an amphora inscription in which the name is in the dative. Amphorae could have been re-sold , and the finding of amphorae with the same person's name in the dativeandin the genitive suggests that the recipient may sometimes have been not the consumer, but a middleman , which means that the amphora when later found in the house of the consumer no Ionger gives a reliable indication of occupants .55

Graffiti Graffiti are included in several of Della Corte's occupallt idelltifications, some of which are based solely on this type of source material, 56 which due to its very nature must be treated with considerable caution. The main problern is that there is no guaralltee that the person named in the graffito occupied the house at all. Usually, the inscriptiolls collsist merely of a single name , but greetillgs in which one persoll addresses allother also occur. Both types are found both on the fac;ades alld illside the houses. The graffiti Oll the outside walls of a house are llaturally unreliable indications of the identity of its occupants. But it is doubtful whether those found within the houses are ally more reliable. Graffiti scratched into the internal walls may weil be the result of, for example , a pellchant on the part of guests to leave their names, alld there are mally examples of incised names that canllot possibly be those of the occupants. 57 The sheer quantity of names in the same house rules out this possibility, and we may ask who might have been responsible for this method of communication. At times Della Corte thinks that it was the owner hirnself- even a magistratewho was responsible for the house's graffiti. But this hardly seems likely. 58 Ncither the generat character of the inscriptions, nor the names themselves, suggest that the upper dass were represented amollg the scribblers, who were morc likely children, slaves or persans of low social standing; this alolle makes it inadvisable to nominate occupants merely on the basis of graffiti , as Della Corte sometimes does. This type of inscription must, on the contrary , be regarded as an unreliable indicator of who lived in the individual houses of Pompeii, and only in special circumstances, andin conjunction with other source material, should it be used to identify their occupants.

18

Electoral inscriptions The centrat argument, and the only explicitly formulated one, in Della Corte's identifications of occupants in Case ed abitanti is his theory of identity between persons who feature as supporters in an electoral notice outside a house and the occupants of it. This principle is laid down as a fixed rule, and governs more than four-fifths of all Della Corte's identifications of Pompeian occupants. As a kind of proof of this hypothesis, five examples are examined, in which, according to Della Corte, there is a concordance between electoral supporters and the occupants of the house on which the inscriptions are placed. 59 This is more in the nature of a postulate than a proof, and a generat investigation of the relation between the placement of the inscriptions and the residence of the supporters will therefore be undertaken, in order to test Della Corte's theory. A check of this kind can be carried out partly by finding the rogatores whose residence can be identified with certainty and comparing this with the position of the electoral posters, and partly by comparing the placement of the inscriptions in those cases where there are several electoral appeals from the same person, since any discrepancies here would indicate that some of the inscriptions are not on the rogator's own house. The identification of a supporter's house will be considered sufficiently certain , firstly, if corroborative material, primarily amphora inscriptions and seal stamps, in which the same name as in the recommendation is found in the same house , secondly, if m1merous recommendations from the same person are found on one and the same house, or thirdly, if archaeological remains that confirm indications of profession in the inscriptions are also extant. Electoral inscriptions in which a person is encouraged to support a candidate are utilized by Della Corte in the same way as the rogator inscriptions. As nothing suggests that any difference exists between the placement of these inscriptions and that of the aforementioned type, they are considered here tobe equivalent to the rogator inscriptions. In considering whether an inscription is deviantly placed in relation to the electoral supporter's dwelling, the main rule here is that the inscription be placed on another insula fa