OXF O R D C L A S S I C A L M O N O G R A P H S Published under the supervision of a Committee of the Faculty of Classics in the University of Oxford
The aim of the Oxford Classical Monograph series (which replaces the Oxford Classical and Philosophical Monographs) is to publish books based on the best theses on Greek and Latin literature, ancient history, and ancient philosophy examined by the Faculty Board of Classics.
From Asculum to Actium The Municipalization of Italy from the Social War to Augustus
E DWA R D B I S P H A M
1
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With oYces in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York ß Edward Bispham 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset by SPI Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., King’s Lynn, Norfolk ISBN 978–0–19–923184–3 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Preface This book began life, a long time ago now, as a doctoral thesis, submitted in the then Faculty of Literae Humaniores, at Oxford; I was a graduate student at Jesus College, where I had also been an undergraduate. During the writing of the thesis, and subsequently, I have accumulated many debts, too many to be able to thank here all of those whom I ought to acknowledge. The Wrst preoccupation of most students is money. I was fortunate enough to obtain a now-extinct grant called a British Academy Major State Studentship, without which I might never have started further study. Concurrently, and after the end of the period of the grant, I was able to obtain other sources of funding, including a Graduate Scholarship, and other subventions, for subsistence and travel, from a college which was enlightened enough to try to give its graduate students as much support as it could to help them Wnish up as soon as possible and to attend conferences. Grants from the Craven Committee, including the Henry Francis Pelham Studentship, allowed me to undertake the study visits in Italy without which the present work would never have been written. The research was completed, and most of the writing up done, in the Wrst term of a Rome Scholarship at the British School at Rome in the autumn of 1994 (I still have pleasant memories of dodging the rush hour traYc on crisp November evenings after escaping from the library of the Germanico). It is humbling to reXect how much has depended so completely on the support and generosity of so many institutions. Human beings are their own greatest resource (and at times worst enemy). Money will prevent many discomforts and allow some pleasures; but it will not, I have found, motivate for study; it will not support, listen, understand, encourage, or inspire. It is not compassionate, generous, or forgiving, and has no sense of humour. Without being able to call on these over the last Wfteen years, I would have given up a long time ago. So many friends—in Oxford, London, Edinburgh, Rome, and elsewhere—have made time for me at crucial junctures, and supported me selXessly, over the years, that it makes me quite ashamed to estimate the one-sidedness of the bargain. You know who you are—thank you. I also have to thank those who made me want to be like them, and do what they were able to do, to share their knowledge, and to steal some of their magic and pass it on to others. From A. J. Pudden, who taught me Latin and Greek when I was (quite literally) in short trousers, to my colleagues in Oxford today, I have never been short of mentors, teachers, and peers who have, by their abilities and enthusiasm, dragged me on and made me try to better myself and others. A splendid set of teachers at Malvern College were led by John Hart, whom I am proud still to call a friend, and who swiftly got me interested in Greek history as well as literature. At Oxford I was incredibly (and I use the word
vi
Preface
advisedly) lucky to be taught—and mentored—by Don Fowler, not just a classicist of extraordinary stature, but a remarkable and life-aYrming human being, and lucky to be made by Don and Peta a part of a big, close-knit family. No less satisfying was being taught by, and remaining friends with, Peta Fowler. Simon Hornblower taught me ancient history: his enthusiasm and energy were utterly infectious—and it is only now, as an Oxford tutor, that I see how much of his time and eVort he gave his pupils. He also managed to make me switch allegiance from Greek history to Roman; more than that he so excited me about municipalization (with the throw-away remark that he thought everyone might be wrong in attributing the lex Iulia municipalis to the Dictator, when there was a case to be made for L. Iulius Caesar, the consul of 90, who passed a lex Iulia—at the distance of a dozen years I cannot recall which was more exhilarating, the idea itself, or the possibility that everyone else might be wrong and a ‘right’ answer waiting to be discovered). My doctoral supervisor, Barbara Levick, was a model of selXessness towards her graduate students which I have been unable to emulate; at almost impossible speed she returned large chunks of undigested epigraphic comment, covered in comments and often other amusing notations. Her patience with my waywardness and eccentricities was astonishing, and I learnt much from her beyond Roman republican history. Two apophthegmata stand out, from the Wrst encounter. One was the admonition that it wouldn’t do ‘simply to bake a new crust for Sherwin’s pie’; the other a question: ‘what are you going to do with these laws, other than let them smile bronzily at you?’ Barbara made doing the doctorate lots of fun, but then and since she has been a constant source of support and encouragement. The thesis was examined by Fergus Millar and John Patterson, who were sympathetic judges, but also made a series of valuable suggestions about additions and improvements; both have given much time and effort in helping me follow them through. Colleagues in Edinburgh (especially Karen Stears, John Richardson, Bill Nicoll, and Keith Rutter, as well as the late GeoV Lewis) made a young lecturer feel very welcome, and oVered advice and encouragement. In Oxford I have been very fortunate to have colleagues in Brasenose and St Anne’s who have combined a great deal of intellectual stimulation with a good deal of fun: Matthew Leigh, Llewelyn Morgan, Bob Cowan, Alan Bowman, Roger Crisp, Adrian Kelly, Katherine Harloe, Annalisa Marzano, Damian Robinson, Richard Smail, and Trevor Evans have been a privilege to work with. In the Faculty, Nicholas Purcell and Andrew Lintott (my faculty mentor) have been conspicuous in oVering support and guidance as needed (and in Andrew’s case, reading the Wrst half of the manuscript); and Fergus Millar acted as my conscience on the numerous occasions when doing other things seemed more attractive than Wnishing an increasingly overdue book. Very many colleagues all over the world have been generous with their time and ideas: this is my chance to thank a very few, whose assistance and goodwill has been far greater than a short mention can indicate: Guy Bradley, Will Broadhead, Alison Cooley, Tim Cornell, Robert Coates-Stephens, Emmanuele Curti, Emma Dench, Peter Derow, Claude Eilers, Lisa Fentress, Domenico
Preface
vii
Fossataro, Fay Glinister, Ittai Gradel, Olivier Hekster, Lawrence Keppie, Susan Kane, Robin Lane Fox, Ray Laurence, the late John Lloyd, Henrik Mouritsen, John North, Stephen Oakley, Robin Osborne, Jonathan Prag, Benet Salway, Keith Swift, Nicola Terrenato, Edmund Thomas, Andrew Wallace-Hadrill, Jonathan Williams, Andrew Wilson, Peter Wiseman, Rob Witcher, Christian Witschl, and Liv Yarrow; and I have had valuable criticism and responses from graduate students, especially Mark Bainbridge, Matt Gibbs, and Rowena Holt. In Oxford, London, and above all in Rome (where the kindness and skill of Valerie Scott and Beatrice Gelosia at the British School has been unfailing), I have been able to use regularly outstanding research libraries; in Italy Maria Pia Malvezzi at the British School transformed a dry list of entries from epigraphic corpora into a smooth series of meetings with obliging museum staV and Superintendency oYcials. Greater yet has been the contribution of three individuals, without whom this exercise would have been utterly diVerent, and lacked what merit it may have. John Patterson patiently and courteously guided the thesis into book form; he read the whole twice, and I have lost count of the number of insightful suggestions which he oVered, which have greatly improved every aspect of what I wrote. Mark Pobjoy accompanied me for some of the Weldwork for the thesis; I have been fortunate to have him close to me for the last Wfteen years, since we met in a lift in the now defunct Institute of Classical Studies building in Gordon Square, for him to discover that I was a year into his planned research topic. His learning and his scholarship are a model to everyone else working on Roman Italy; and his companionship, tested to the limit in pursuit of inscriptions, bridges, and the way out of the cellar of the Mad Inventor of Aeclanum, is uplifting. Finally, Michael Crawford: Michael is a unique Wgure in many ways: he has founded a school of Italian studies through his pupils; at no small cost to himself, in terms of time and money, he has made it possible for a relatively large number of graduate students to visit parts of Italy which are inaccessible on a student budget. As well as grounding the studies of those accompanying him in the principles of Italian topography, he has also inculcated a love of Italy and Italian culture. It is impossible for me to imagine Italy without it being mediated by Michael, nor to imagine how I would have ever got hold a large number of obscure publications without ready access to the wonderful library formerly housed in Gordon Mansions. None of those named is responsible for the errors in this book, nor for the delays which have compounded them. At OUP Hilary O’Shea, Dorothy McCarthy, and Kathleen Fearn have been models of cordial efficiency in preparing the book quickly in a very busy year. Jane Robson and Richard Ashdowne, copy-editing and proof-reading, both improved the finished product immeasurably. Fergus Millar once remarked to me that Wnishing a book has a high social cost. My family, my sisters, and my wife, Lisa, know this all too well—I hope I will Wnd some way to express my profound gratitude to Lisa for the myriad ways in which she has made Wnishing this book, and so much else, possible. My daughters, Emma and Susannah, have oVered the most pleasant distractions
viii
Preface
imaginable to the long process of writing the Wnal drafts, and at times tried to speed things up by typing themselves while on my knee—again, they are not responsible for any errors. This book is dedicated to my parents. Only they know the sacriWces they have made over so many years to make its appearance possible. E.H.B. Brasenose and St Anne’s Colleges
Contents List of Figures Abbreviations
x xi
Introduction 1. Making Italy: Terra Italia 2. Roman Italy: The Second Century 3. Allies: Latins and Italians in the Second Century 4. Municipalization and the Politics of Enfranchisement of Italy 5. ‘Leges dare’ and ‘Constituere’: Municipal Charters 6. The Simple Quattuorvirate (‘Nude Dictus’) 7. ‘Quattuoruiri Iure Dicundo’ 8. ‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’, and Other Variations 9. The Duovirate 10. Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
1 53 74 113 161 205 247 294 337 380 405
Appendix 1. Pompeii and Other ‘Double Communities’ Appendix 2. Romans of High Status Acting as Patrons and Magistrates of Italian Communities between the Social War and Actium Appendix 3. The Roman Republican ‘Municipia’ Appendix 4. Puzzles Addendum to Chapters 6–9 Bibliography Index Nominum Index Rerum Index Locorum
447
457 462 471 473 511 549 557 563
List of Figures 1. Stemma of the Cocceii Nervae
301
2. Q25 (Clusium): inscription recording building work by quattuoruir Q. Considius 3. Q86 (Perusia): tombstone of quattuoruir C. Atilius Glabrio
480 501
4. D19 (Caiatia): inscription recording construction carried out by duouiri M. Herennius Gallus and Q. Veserius
510
Abbreviations AE
L’Anne´e E´pigraphique (Paris, 1888-present)
Anderson, Imagined Communities
B. Anderson, Imagined Communities: ReXections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, 2nd edn. (London, 1991) H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt, 66 vols. (Berlin and New York, 1972–present) A. C. Johnson, P. R. Coleman-Norton, and F. C. Bourne (eds.), Ancient Roman Statutes (Austin, Tex., 1961). Atti e Memorie della Societa` Magna Grecia, 36 vols. (Naples, 1962–present) E. Badian, Foreign Clientelae (Oxford, 1958) E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1964) K. J. Beloch, Ro¨mische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Krieg (Berlin, 1926) M. Blake, Ancient Roman Construction in Italy from the Prehistoric Period to Augustus (New York, 1947) M. Beard, J. A. North, and S. R. F. Price, Religions of Rome, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1998) M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie´cles av. J.-C. (Naples, 1983) M. Buonocore, L’Abruzzo ed il Molise (L’Aquila 2002) G. Bradley, Ancient Umbria (Oxford, 2000) P. A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988) P. A. Brunt, Italian Manpower, rev. edn. (Oxford, 1987) H. Beck and U. Walter (eds.), Die fru¨hen ro¨mischen Historiker, 2 vols. (Darmstadt, 2001, 2004) M. Chassignet (ed.), L’Annalistique romaine, 3 vols. (Paris, 1996, 1999, 2004) Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd edn., 14 vols. (Cambridge, 1970–2006)
ANRW
ARS
ASMG Badian, Clientelae Badian, Studies Beloch, RG Blake, Construction
BNP Bourgeoisies
Buonocore, Abruzzo Molise Bradley, Ancient Umbria Brunt, Fall Brunt, Manpower B-W C CAH
xii Campanile and Letta, Magistrature Capogrossi Colognesi, Cittadini e territorio Castre´n, Ordo Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les E´lites
Chilver, Cisalpine Cichorius, Studien CIE CIL Coarelli, Santuari Communita` indigene
Cornell, Beginnings Costabile, Istituzioni Crawford, RRC D. D’Arms, Bay of Naples
Dalheim, Struktur und Entwicklung
David, Conquest Degrassi, SVA De Martino, Storia Dench, Barbarians
Abbreviations E. Campanile and C. Letta, Studi sulle magistrature indigene e municipali in area italica (Pisa, 1979) L. Capogrossi Colognesi, Cittadini e territorio: consolidamento e transformazione della ‘civitas Romana’ (Rome, 2000) P. Castre´n, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus (Rome, 1975) M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les E´lites municipales de l’Italie pe´ninsulaire des Graccques a` Ne´ron (Naples and Rome, 1996) G. Chilver, Cisalpine Gaul (Oxford, 1941) C. Cichorius, Ro¨mische Studien (Leipzig, 1922) Corpus Inscriptionum Etruscarum (Pisa and Rome, 1893–1970) Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, 17 vols. (Berlin, 1853–present) F. Coarelli, I santuari laziali in eta` repubblicana (Rome, 1987) J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Communita` indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nell’Italia centro-meridionale (IV–III sec. av.C.) (Brussels and Rome, 1991) T. J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome (London and New York, 1995) F. Costabile, Istituzioni e forme costituzionale nelle citta` del Bruzio (Naples, 1984) M. H. Crawford, Roman Republican Coinage, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1974) The Digest of Justinian J. H. D’Arms, Romans on the Bay of Naples and Other Essays on Roman Campania, ed. F. Zevi (Bari, 2003) W. Dalheim, Struktur und Entwicklung des ro¨mischen Vo¨lkerrechts im dritten und zweiten Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Munich, 1968) J.-M. David, The Roman Conquest of Italy, rev. repr. (Oxford, 1997) A. Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita`, 4 vols. (Rome, 1962, Trieste, 1967, 1971) F. De Martino, Storia della costituzione romana, 3 vols. (Naples, 1973) E. Dench, From Barbarians to New Men (Oxford, 1995)
Abbreviations
xiii
Diz. Ep.
E. De Ruggiero (ed.), Dizionario epigraWco di antichita` romane, 5 vols. (Rome, 1886–present)
Dyson, Community
S. L. Dyson, Community and Society in Roman Italy (Baltimore, 1993)
EpigraWa
S. Panciera (ed.), EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi (Rome, 1991) A. Cooley (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (London, 2000) E. H. Bispham and C. J. Smith, Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience (Edinburgh, 2000) F. Jacoby (ed.), Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker, 19 vols. (Berlin, 1923–6, Leiden, 1940–99)
Epigraphic Landscape Evidence and Experience
FGrH
FIRA Gabba, Esercito Gabba, Republican Rome Galsterer, Herrschaft Gargola, Lands Greek and Roman Colonization
Hardy, Some Problems Harris, Etruria and Umbria Hellenismus Humbert, Municipium ILLRP
ILS Inscr. It. Italy and the West
C. G. Bruns (ed.), Fontes Iuris Romani Antiqui, 7th edn. rev. O. Gradenwitz (Tu¨bingen, 1909) E. Gabba, Esercito e societa` (Florence, 1973) E. Gabba, Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (Oxford, 1976) H. Galsterer, Herrschaft und Verwaltung in republikanischen Italien (Munich, 1976) D. J. Gargola, Lands, Laws and Gods (Chapel Hill, NC, 1995) G. J. Bradley and J.-P. Wilson, Greek and Roman Colonization: Origins, Ideologies and Interactions (Swansea, 2006) E. G. Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History (Oxford, 1924) W. V. Harris, Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford, 1971) P. Zanker (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien, 2 vols. (Go¨ttingen, 1976) M. Humbert, Municipium et Civitas sine SuVragio (Rome, 1976) A. Degrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae, 2 vols. (Florence, 1965 (2nd rev. edn.), 1963) H. Dessau (ed.), Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1892–1916) A. Degrassi (ed.), Inscriptiones Italicae S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford, 2001)
xiv Italia dei Sanniti Keaveney, UniWcation Keppie, Colonisation Keppie, Roman Army LaY, Adtributio Laurence, Roads Lintott, Judicial Reform LTUR Lugli, La tecnica Luraschi, Foedus
Manni, Per la storia Mediterranean Valley Millar, Republic and Revolution Modus Operandi
Momigliano, Secondo contributo Mommsen, GS Mommsen, StR Mommsen, Strafrecht Mouritsen, Elections Mouritsen, UniWcation
Abbreviations R. Cappelli (ed.), Studi sull’ Italia dei sanniti (Milan, 2000) A. Keaveney, Rome and the UniWcation of Italy (London and Sydney, 1987) L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy (London, 1983) L. Keppie, The Making of the Roman Army (London, 1984) U. LaY, Adtributio et Contributio (Pisa, 1966) R. Laurence, The Roads of Roman Italy (London and New York, 1999) A. W. Lintott, Judicial Reform and Land Reform (Cambridge, 1992) E. M. Steinby (ed.), Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae, 6 vols. (Rome, 1993–2001) G. Lugli, La tecnica edilizia (Rome, 1957) G. Luraschi, Foedus, Ius Latii, Civitas: Aspetti costituzionali della romanizzazione in Transpadana (Padua, 1979) E. Manni, Per la storia dei municipi Wno alla guerra sociale (Rome, 1947) G. Barker (ed.), A Mediterranean Valley (Leicester, 1995) F. G. B. Millar, The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution (Chapel Hill, NC, 2002) M. M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. J. Smith (eds.), Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of GeoVrey Rickman (London, 1998) A. Momigliano, Secondo contributo alla storia di studi classici (Rome, 1960) Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, 7 vols. (Berlin, 1905–9) Th. Mommsen, Ro¨misches Staatsrecht, rev. edn., 3 vols. (Berlin, 1887) Th. Mommsen, Ro¨misches Strafrecht (Leipzig, 1899) H. Mouritsen, Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elites (Rome, 1988) H. Mouritsen, Italian UniWcation: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography (London, 1998)
Abbreviations MRR
Nicolet, Ordre Nissen, Landeskunde NSA OLD ORF P
Pailler, Bacchanalia PCIA PIR2
Poccetti
Potter, Landscape Rawson, Culture RDGE RE
RIB
xv
T. R. S. Broughton, The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, 3 vols., including suppl. (New York, 1951, 1952; Atlanta, Ga., 1986) C. Nicolet, L’Ordre `equestre, 2 vols. (Paris, 1967) H. Nissen, Italische Landeskunde (Berlin, 1902) Notizie degli scavi di antichita` (1876–present) P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford, 1982) H. Malcovati (ed.), Oratorum Romanorum Fragmenta, 4th edn. (Turin, 1976) H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae, 2nd edn., 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1914); rev. edn. (Stuttgart, 1967) J.-M. Pailler, Bacchanalia: La Re´pression de 186 av. J.-C. (Rome, 1988) Popoli e civilta` dell’Italia antica, 11 vols. (Rome, 1974–92) E. Groag, A. Stein et al. (eds.), Prosopographia Imperii Romani, 2nd edn., 7 vols. (Berlin and New York, 1933–present) P. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici, a completamento del Manuale di E. Vetter (Pisa, 1979) T. W. Potter, The Changing Landscape of South Etruria (London, 1979) E. Rawson, Roman Culture and Society (Oxford, 1994) R. K. Sherk (ed.), Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore, 1967) Paulys Realencyclopa¨die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa et al., 33 vols., 15 suppls. (Stuttgart, 1983–1978 (sic)) R. G. Collingwood, R. P. Wright et al. (eds.), Roman Inscriptions of Britain, 2 vols. (Oxford and Stroud, 1965–95)
Rix, Sabellische Texte Romanisation du Samnium
H. Rix, Die sabellische Texte (Heidelberg, 2002) La Romanisation du Samnium aux II e et I er sie`cles av. J.-C. (Naples, 1991)
Rosenberg, Staat
A. Rosenberg, Der Staat der alten Italiker (Berlin, 1913) M. H. Crawford (ed.), Roman Statutes, 2 vols. (London, 1996)
RS
xvi Rudolph, Stadt Salmon, Colonization Salmon, Making Salmon, Samnium Samnium Sartori, Problemi SdR Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 Solin, Iscrizioni Staatsvertra¨ge State Identities Supp. It. Syme, RP Syme, RR Taylor, Voting Districts TDGR Terzo Congr. Epig. Tibiletti, Storie locali Torelli, Tota Italia Toynbee, Legacy Vetter, Handbuch VI Kongr. Epigr Walbank, Commentary
Abbreviations H. Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im ro¨mischen Italien (Leipzig, 1935) E. T. Salmon, Roman Colonization (London, 1969) E. T. Salmon, The Making of Roman Italy (London, 1982) E. T. Salmon, Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge, 1967) S. Capini and A. Di Niro (eds.), Samnium: archeologia del Molise (Rome, 1991) F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale Italiota (Rome, 1953) A. Momigliano, A. Schiavone et al. (eds), Storia di Roma, 4 vols. (Turin, 1988–93) A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, 2nd edn. (Oxford, 1973) H. Solin (ed.), Le iscrizioni antiche di Trebula, Caiatia e Cubulteria (Caserta, 1993) H. Bengtson and R. Werner (eds.), Staatsvertra¨ge des Altertums, ii (Munich, 1962) E. Herring and K. Lomas, State Identities in the First Millennium B.C. (London, 2000) S. Panciera (ed.), Supplementa Italica, 23 vols. (Rome, 1981–present) R. Syme, Roman Papers, 7 vols. (Oxford, 1979–91) R. Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford, 1939) L. R. Taylor, The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (Rome, 1960) Translated Documents of Greece and Rome, 5 vols. (Cambridge, 1983–8) Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di EpigraWa Greca e Latina (4–8 settembre) (Rome, 1957) G. Tibiletti, Le storie locali dell’Italia romana (Pavia, 1978) M. Torelli, Tota Italia: Studies in the Cultural Formation of Italy (Oxford, 1999) A. Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1965) E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte (Heidelberg, 1953) Akten des VI o internationalisches Kongreß fu¨r Epigraphik (Munich, 1973) F. W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957–79)
Abbreviations Willems, Le Se`nat Williams, Rubicon Wiseman, New Men ZPE
xvii
P. Willems, Le Se`nat de la re´publique romaine (Paris, 1885) J. H. C. Williams, Beyond the Rubicon (Oxford, 2001) T. P. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate (Oxford, 1971) Zeitschrift fu¨r Papyrusforschung und Epigraphik
This page intentionally left blank
Introduction In the year 1773 Samuel Johnson and James Boswell set out on a long-projected tour of the Highlands of Scotland; observations made on the trip formed the basis of Johnson’s Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland. The disastrous defeat at Culloden, and the consequent English repression were barely a generation old, and time was not proving a great healer. Johnson summed up the apparent changes since 1746 (the year, as it happened, in which he had signed the contract for his Dictionary over breakfast in the Golden Anchor in Holborn) with concise eloquence: There was perhaps never any change of national manners so quick, so great, and so general, as that which has operated in the Highlands, by the last conquest, and the subsequent laws. We came thither too late to see what we expected, people of peculiar appearance, and a system of antiquated life. The clans retain little now of their original character, their ferocity of temper is softened, their military ardour is extinguished, their dignity of independence is depressed, their contempt of government subdued, and the reverence for their chiefs abated. Of what they had before the late conquest of the country, there remain only their language and their poverty. Their language is attacked on every side. Schools are erected, in which English only is taught, and there were lately some who thought it reasonable to refuse them a version of the holy scriptures, that they might have no monument of their mother tongue.1
Johnson found himself in a land which had in the course of a generation been subjected to enormous change. Military conquest and subsequent legislation had profoundly aVected local culture, and both broader processes of change, and active repression, had brought poverty in their train: only the Gaelic language remained, and this, Johnson noted, was being undermined institutionally, through education, and was threatened socially, with a question mark attached to the future of the Gaelic scriptures. Independence was clearly extinguished to all intents and purposes with the outcome of the war, and the people, bent to the will of an external power in Westminster, were losing respect even for their own leaders.2 Reading Johnson’s description of the Highlands, I began to wonder how much of this experience, mutatis mutandis, would have been shared by a non-Italian visiting Italy in the aftermath of the Social War (91–87 bc). In fact, such a visitor 1 Samuel Johnson, Journey to the Western Isles of Scotland, 73; Johnson goes on here and elsewhere to look forward to a reduction of poverty in the Highlands. On Johnson, his dictionary, and his views of the Scots tongue, a good introduction is to be found in McCrum et al., The Story of English, 136–46. 2 Johnson has much to say on the change in traditional social structures, above all in the clan, e.g. Journey, 94–101; see brieXy on the legislation against Highland culture, Trevor-Roper, in Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition, 23–5; and cf. Morgan, ibid. 44.
2
Introduction
need not be wholly hypothetical: we know that the great Stoic philosopher Poseidonios of Apamea visited Italy in 87/6 on the latest in a series of what must by then have become a familiar procession of embassies from his adopted city, Rhodes; while in Rome we know that he saw the dying Marius.3 He must have seen at least something of the state of Italy after the war, and it is possible that Strabo’s description of urban decay in Samnium (which follows on from a description of Sulla’s vengeance on the Samnites) is derived from Poseidonian autopsy: it cannot at any rate have been what Strabo himself saw.4 Were ordinary Italians disaVected from their principes (leading men), who had led them into a short, brutal, and largely disastrous war?5 The citizenship, which, as we shall see, had resulted, albeit in Wts and starts, from the Social War, undoubtedly represented a gain, but it had to be set against other losses, none of which, arguably, were more signiWcant than the loss of independent political existence and cultural identity.6 Were the languages of Italy under 3 Plut., Marius 45. 4; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 8 n. 9. On Poseidonios’ history, see Malitz, Die Historien des Poseidonios; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 5, suggests a date c.70–65 bc for the publication of the history. On possible Poseidonian inXuence on Diodoros: E. Schwarz, RE v s.v. ‘Diodorus’, cols. 663, 669, 690–1; Ca`ssola, in ANRW II/30. 1. 763–73; Malitz, Historien, 34–42; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 9 (‘a single source . . . likely to have been Posidonius’—yet perhaps the contradictory nature of Diodoros’ account of Italian motives highlighted by Mouritsen (ibid. 6) militates against a single source here, and ibid. 13). 4 Strabo 5. 3. 10, 238C, 5. 4. 11, 249–50C, 6. 1. 2 253–4C (admittedly Strabo uses the state of some of these places partly to illustrate the eVects of Sulla’s vengeance on the Samnites after the battle of the Colline Gate, but the connection may be his own, and does not rule out Poseidonian autopsy, for which see also Coarelli, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 79; see also Prontera, ibid. 100, Gabba, Italia romana, 69 n. 21, on this passage). On Strabo’s reaction to the devastation wrought by Sulla in Samnium, manifested in the loss of local culture and cities lost or turned into villages, see Foraboschi, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 179 (loss of cities epitomizes cultural regression of the Samnites); and Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 213, 249; what Lloyd saw as an exaggerated picture of devastation can be partly explained by attribution to Poseidonios; note also ibid. 223 for candidates for the Samnite communities shrunk to villages. See generally on Strabo’s description of Italy Pe´dech, Ancient Society, 1971, Mossaro, in Madoli (ed.), Strabone: Contributi allo studio della personalita` e dell’opera, i, and Maddoli (ed.), Strabone e l’Italia antica. Pasquinucci, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 58, notes that Social War is prominent among the historical events referred to by Strabo in his treatment of central Italy, and that his treatment of Samnium is historical rather than geographical, with Sulla’s vengeance on the Samnites as a major element. 5 See in general Ch. 10 for the various fates of local elites after the Social War; many families which survived beyond the Sullan period retained local inXuence down to the Empire. In this book I use Italians generally to mean inhabitants of Italy: I hope the context will make clear whether I mean Italian allies of Rome before the Social War or Roman citizens in Italy after the war, and whether in the latter case I mean new or old citizens. I have tried to use Italici to denote the Social War rebels when discussing that conXict and its immediate aftermath; as normally, Italio¯tai are to be understood as the inhabitants of the ‘Greek’ cities of southern Italy. 6 According to Cicero (Balb. 21), the Italiote cities of Heraclea and Neapolis were split as to whether to accept Roman citizenship in 90 bc, or foederis sui libertas (‘the freedom of their own treaty’), cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 132–3, and for Italian libertas (freedom) as oppressed by Rome (a rhetorical context) see Vell. Pat., 2. 27. 2. Mouritsen’s claim that ‘anything less than full identiWcation with Rome cannot explain the allied wish for citizenship’ (UniWcation, 82) does not ask what citizenship might mean; at ibid. 87–99 the Roman citizenship is considered in more detail, and its signiWcance drastically downplayed; he is very far from proving that ‘in the second century the Roman citizenship had not yet developed into a higher legal status attractive to outsiders’ or that it was ‘linked to Roman soil’ (ibid. 91).
Introduction
3
threat?7 Were local ‘manners’ vanishing as a result of the war? In both cases we cannot simply answer either yes or no; the question is much more complicated than the formulation allows. The years between the Social War and Actium saw major change in Italy. Local languages, with the exception of Greek,8 disappeared as living speech systems (except perhaps as the sort of rural patois we cannot hope to know about), and with them undoubtedly many customs and practices peculiar to communities or regions of Italy. As for other cultural changes, Roman mediations of Hellenistic styles in private and public art proliferated. As never before, Rome became the focus of cultural, economic, and political aspirations for Italians, and the integration of Italy into the Mediterranean economy reached a new intensity. These changes intersected with the creation of a uniWed political system in Italy predicated upon on a political hegemony exercised through, and sometimes aimed at controlling, the political institutions of the res publica populi Romani (commonwealth of the Roman people). We may then want to use the term Romanization to describe these changes, post-colonial hand-wringing apart. Yet such a clunky and qualiWed deWnition show that ‘Romanization’ is a deeply problematic description of change. For a start, the idea of cultural change adumbrated above is now widely rejected;9 Romanization is often understood today as ‘self-Romanization’. Further, the changes described had not begun only with the Social War: they can often be traced back, in some parts of the peninsula into the second century bc and beyond.10 What kind of change is signiWcant, how it is measured, depends on one’s perspective. Viewed in a ‘macro’ perspective reaching back to the early Iron Age, Italy as a whole can be seen as culturally relatively homogeneous as opposed to clearly heterogeneous, and to have enjoyed a high degree of connectivity: Benelli is not seriously overstating the case to urge that ‘Roman expansion . . . takes place within a fairly uniWed context, in terms of culture, in which local peculiarities stand out as indicators of diversity’.11 Others, like Mouritsen, have argued that claims of political and cultural ‘convergence’ between Rome and Italy in the second century bc, which he sees as read back 7 Note the warning of Purcell, in CAH vi2 . 395, about modernizing assumptions about language death: ‘The attitude of its last speakers towards Messapian is unlikely to have resembled the defence of Scots Gaelic’. 8 See Benelli, in Italy and the West, 8, on the special status of Greek. 9 For Rome as the motor of urbanization/urban monumentalization: Salmon, Making, 100, 159, Gabba, in Modelli di citta`, 117, Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, 243, id., in Gros and Torelli, Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo romano, 158, id., in Augustus und die verlorene Republik, 30, contra Mouritsen, UniWcation, 75–6. Against the idea that villas are necessarily ubiquitous or a very ‘Roman’ form of economic exploitation, and thus markers of Romanization: Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 3, 62–3, arguing for a contextual appreciation of their absence or presence in diVerent territories in Italy; cf. Munzi and Terrenato, Ostraka (1994), 38–9. 10 No one today would, however, accept the thesis of Devoto (Cahiers d’histoire mondiale (1956), 457) that the Romanization of Italy was completed by the time of the Social War. 11 Italy and the West, 7, cf. 12 (drawing on the work of Massimo Pallotino); Vallat, L’Italie et Rome 218–31 av. J.-C., 201–4, Crawford, in Boardman et al., The Oxford History of the Classical World; id., in CAH x2 . 414.
4
Introduction
from the fact of later political uniWcation via a deterministic historiography, need at least to be questioned;12 in a micro-perspective, Samnium and Rome were culturally, linguistically, and economically very diVerent in the second century. Let us take the case of language.13 There seems little doubt that some local languages were declining in the face of Latin, and that others (note the lex Osca Bantina—see Chapter 3—for Oscan)14 show evidence of Latinization.15 Latin, for 12 UniWcation, 2–3, 59–86. Mouritsen (ibid. 8) sees ‘romanization’ after the Social War as eroding cultural distinctiveness; he does not satisfactorily discuss what Romanization in Italy might be (hence too extreme a dichotomy between complete cultural assimilation and ‘traces of Roman inXuence’ (ibid. 86). He does argue rightly (ibid. 74–5.) against reading back from imperial provincial Romanization, and models for understanding it, to 2nd-cent. Italy; he does see such an approach (ibid. 86) as more applicable to the 1st cent. (cf. 173, the 1st cent. sees the real eradication of cultural diVerence in Italy). 13 See Salmon, Making, 80; Campanile, in SdR ii. 1; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 79–83, on the extent of Latinization, and the contexts, social, and functional, in which knowledge of Latin might be desirable and be acquired—any dealings with Roman military or administrative/political oYcials made a knowledge mandatory (Val. Max., 2. 2. 2); note also Cicero, Brutus 169 (members of Marsic and Vestine elites proWcient in Latin oratory; see Sumner, Orators in Cicero’s Brutus, nos. 115 and 119, and David, in Bourgeoisies, 309–23, for the extent and the limitations of such oratorical prowess); on the Latinity of Picene urban culture, see Diodoros (37. 12) on Saunio the comic actor (gelo¯topoios) described as a Latinos and popular with Romans but appearing in the theatre in Asculum in 91 bc, and Rawson, Culture, 469–70. The anecdote about Marsic/Latin fraternization in the Social War need only tell us about the misconceptions of Diodoros about the language situation in Italy, pace Mouritsen, UniWcation, 80. On the Xourishing of Greek culture, see below. 14 Latinization of Oscan: note the bilingual tile from Pietrabbondante (Macchiarola, in Capini and Di Niro, Samnium), and the inscribed loomweight from Forentum published by Torelli, in Tagliente, Italici in Magna Grecia: Lingua, insediamenti e strutture, cf. id., Tota Italia, 115–16; there is a single Latin text from the large pre-Social-War corpus of Pompeii (where Oscan also continues in graYti after the Social War): M. De Vos, in Pompei 79, 165. On the survival and decline of Oscan, and the use of the Latin alphabet, see Tagliamonte, I sanniti, 221–34. Oscan also continues at Teanum Sidicinum in some contexts up to the Social War (Morel, in Communita`, 136) and perhaps after (see Izzo, Ostraka (1994), 279–80, for a graYto on the base of a Black Gloss jug dated by Izzo to c.80 bc—no Morel form is given for the piece, which is in private hands, and has no stratigraphic context, so some hesitation is justiWable in the present state of the documentation; yet Poccetti, nos. 137–8, are Oscan funerary texts from Teanum from the late 2nd and early 1st cent. bc, so Izzo’s date is not per se implausible); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 80–1. Contrast Cumae (below). 15 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 79–83, denies a change on this scale, speaking of Latin being ‘widely understood and perhaps even spoken in some quarters’ (ibid. 80, diVerent emphasis ibid. 81). We see a good example of his technique here: having rightly questioned the idea of adoption of Latin on the part of (some) allies out of a sense of aspiration towards a superior culture, Mouritsen then argues that Latin was learnt among the allies only for practical reasons (political and military; although ibid. 81 n. 97 he stresses rather frequency of contact with Latin speakers as the catalyst—and it should be added that economic interaction would have been an important context); from here it is a small step to arguing for disinterest and a limited spread of acquaintance with a necessary evil. The dichotomy between Romans and allies is, for a start, too simplistic: see below on the situation at Roman, Oscanspeaking Cumae in the early 2nd cent., not discussed by Mouritsen. Further, as the century progressed, the wealth of patronage available in Rome inevitably meant that Rome became the centre of literary culture in Italy, even though, other than history, little was homegrown; some allies, above all Latins, may have indeed begun to feel some attraction to what was happening culturally in Rome (but for dialectal diVerences between Rome and Latin cities in the 2nd cent., see Plaut., Trin. 608–9, Truc. 690–1, Quint., Inst. Or. i. 5. 56 ( ¼ Lucilius 1322M, aVectation or boorishness?), Paulus, p. 157L (Praeneste); Festus p. 156L, Paulus p. 157L (Lanuvium); and cf. Festus p. 410L (Tusculum, Falerii); although
Introduction
5
example, was well on the way to displacing the so-called ‘central Italic’ dialects such as Marsic and Vestinian in the third century (cf. ILLRP 7 for an early Latin text from the Marsic area); or rather, the local languages were displaced by a Latin which would have sounded decidedly odd in the Roman Senate, in that it manifested dialectal traits betraying the interaction of Latin with the preceding linguistic stratum.16 Contemporary Paelignian, however, seems to resist Latin, succumbing later than its neighbours.17 Umbrian too survived longer, but from the mid-second century public inscriptions in this part of Italy tended increasingly to be in Latin, and Umbrian texts themselves, like the latter part of the Iguvine tables, to use Latin characters.18 Etruscan, the hardiest indigenous survivor, lost ground at diVerent rates in diVerent places (faster in the south than in the north) and diVerent contexts, with Latin appearing for the Wrst time in funerary texts in the Wrst decades of the Wrst century bc.19 The ‘Romanization’ of Italy was something which acted as a reXex of the process of conquest and domination, the need by local elites and masses to adjust, even—indeed, usually—without direct prompting, to the new circumstances of Rome’s hegemony.20 Consequently, the ways in which change happened were formulations like those of Salmon, Making, 121, and Keaveney, UniWcation, 23, overstate the case), but not because their own cultures were deWcient. While the cities of Magna Graecia could attract poets as honorary citizens (such as Archias), only one philosopher is thought to have resided in an Italian town (signiWcantly Teanum Sidicinum, on the Latin/Campanian border): Wiseman, in Bourgeoisies, at 301. Mouritsen’s observations are often shrewd and salutary, but undermined by his need to reduce Roman–Italian integration in all its aspects in order to provide a plausible context for his (quite persuasive) ideas on the Social War. 16 ILLRP 147 ( ¼ Vetter, Handbuch, 220 ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte, MV5), a Vestine text according to Rix. M. Peruzzi, Maia (1962); Letta, I Marsi e il Fucino nell’antichita`, 28 and n. 18; id., SE (1976); Letta and D’Amato, EpigraWa della regione dei Marsi, 339–40, for ‘Marso-Latin’ texts, Marinetti, Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti (1984–5); Mattioco and Tuteri, Bolletino di archeologia (1991); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 81; Benelli, in Italy and the West, 8. 17 ILLRP 143 ( ¼ Vetter, Handbuch, 217 ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte, Pg6, Pg7), 144. Sironen, in Solin et al. (eds.), Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini (Helsinki, 1995), 343–6, Benelli, in Italy and the West, 9. 18 See on Umbrian, Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 169–87; Coarelli, in Bonamente and Coarelli (eds.), Assisi e gli Umbri nell’antichita`, 245–58; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 81; Benelli, in Italy and the West, 8–9. Other cases are less clear cut, but Apulian languages seem to suVer competition from Latin in private contexts already in the 2nd cent. bc. See Benelli, ibid. 9, although change was slow and patchy; Santoro, in La Puglia in eta` repubblicana; for a new Messapic text, the 2nd-cent. epitaph (in Greek characters) of ‘Platorias Anneihi’ from Messagne, see Cocchiaro, Taras (2001), 94–5., Wg. 55 for photograph—Cocchiaro notes elements which are culturally Roman, rather than Messapic, in the tomb’s corredo (grave goods); Venetic lasts into the Augustan period (Benelli, in Italy and the West, 12). 19 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 169–87, Kaimio, AIRF (1975). See now Benelli, Le iscrizioni bilingui etrusco-latine; id., in Italy and the West, 10 (Caere), 11 (latest Etruscan texts, Augustan, and Tiberian, stressing a certain continuity of bilingualism). 20 On Romanization see Torelli, in Augustus und die verlorene Republik, 23–40 (a very broad interpretation of change driven by Rome); Mertens and Lambrechts (eds.), Communita`; Woolf, Becoming Roman; and contributions in Keay and Terrenato, Italy and the West—I am not sure that the latter (ibid. pp. ix–xii) make a convincing case for the retention of Romanization even ‘loosely’ to describe the creation of a uniWed political system in Italy or the Mediterranean. Terrenato e.g. (ibid. 1–6) stresses the tendency of traditional discussions of Romanization to disallow positive local involvement, to see Italy as passive in the face of Roman aggression, and to obscure the diversity of the Italian peninsula. For theories
6
Introduction
complicated. The onomastics of Caere demonstrate a unique situation in the third and second centuries bc, with names recorded in Etruscan, but instead of the normal name structure of South Etruria, we encounter a formula (praenomen (Wrst name) þ gentilicium (gentilicial name) þ patronymic and abbreviation for ‘son’ or ‘daughter’) which is clearly modelled on the Roman.21 Yet, whatever the date of the grant of Roman citizenship to Caere, it is surely wrong to see in this change of practice a direct reXex of the enfranchisement,22 above all in a municipal and funerary context where the name of the deceased surely need not respond to the citizen’s (presumed) duty (but not the need of the ciuis sine suVragio (citizen without the vote)?) to give a Roman style name to the Roman censors. The choice is cultural, as Benelli stresses, and must reXect not simply the citizen status of Caere, but the broader phenomenon of its special historical relationship with Rome. Well before the Social War, Hellenistic tastes and inXuences can be traced across Italy, from monumental architectural to the material culture of private life, and it is no exaggeration to state that, in the generation before the Social War, some Latin and allied cities were more highly Hellenized, and greater centres of intellectual ferment and experiment, than famously conservative Rome.23 of Italian elite adoption of Roman culture (1) as a demonstration of the loyalty to the hegemonic power (which in turn sustained them): Galsterer, Herrschaft, 138–51; A. Pontrandolfo Greco, I Lucani, 140, 164–5; Gabba, in CAH viii2 . 228; Volpe, La Daunia nell’eta` della romanizzazione, 44; M. R. Torelli, in Tagliente, Italici in Magna Grecia, 93; Torelli, DdA (1992), cf. id., Tota Italia. Terrenato’s view is essentially less sceptical, cf. Morel in Communita`, 134–44; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 71. For adoption of Roman culture (2) as a route to sharing the beneWts of empire: Salmon, Making, 157; Gabba, CAH viii2 . 209; Campanile, in SdR ii/1, at 306. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 72–3, asks pertinent questions of this view, but they are not unanswerable. ‘Romanization’ is perhaps least problematic when employed of changes in institutional and political practice, e.g. in magisterial titulature; on such changes among the Italian socii (allies) before the Social War, and the persistence of indigenous elements, see Camporeale, Atti Accademia Toscana (1956); Salmon, Samnium, 87–8; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 187–92; SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 120, 129–33 (reviewing the arguments of Beloch, Italische Bund, 159); Cristofani, in PCIA 7, 88–102; Campanile, in Campanile and Letta, Studi dulle magistrature indigene e municipali in area italica, 15–28; Prosdocimi, Atti Ist. Veneto (1984); Brunt, Fall, 118–19; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 76–7 (add Teanum Sidicinum for the tribunate—see below Ch. 4), stressing the diversity and creative adaptation in these borrowings; I cannot agree, however, that they reXect only ‘superWcial’ Romanization (ibid. 77); Mountsen has to explain away the lex Osca Bantina (ibid. 78–9) as exceptional and unparalleled. The evidence for Romanizing magistracies in Italian towns in the 2nd cent. needs to be set against the fuller context of this text, without overstating the case. 21 Benelli, in Italy and the West, 10. 22 As does Kaimio, AIRF (1975), followed by Benelli, in Italy in the West, 10; for an early Latin abecedarium from Caere, see Gasperini, in Roma medio-repubblicana, 71, no. 46, tav. XV. 23 Cic., De or. iii. 43, Brutus 169; Arch. 5 (pre-102 bc); see Wiseman, in Bourgeoisies, for the Hellenized cultural horizons of the Italian elites; Rawson, Culture, 468–87, ead., Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, 5, 19–37; Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, for their building programmes. On Campanian examples of Hellenistic building types, see Johannowsky, DdA (1970), 460–71; id., in Hellenismus, 267–88; Zanker, Pompeji: Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform, 5–17; id., Pompeii, 32–60; Lauter, in Hellenismus, 413–22; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 61–7, has a valuable survey of Hellenization in Campania and Samnium, although he downplays the Roman evidence slightly, and extrapolates too readily from cases studied.
Introduction
7
Notoriously, in Rome, despite multiple attempts, the Senate prevented the construction of a permanent theatre until the completion of the theatre of Pompeius (ostensibly a series of temples with a massive semi-circular staircase); in Campania there had been stone theatres in a half a dozen cities for a hundred-odd years by that point.24 Often (as at the Samnite fortiWed centre of Monte Vairano in the middle Biferno valley, where second/Wrst-century Rhodian amphorae have been found25) imported or Hellenizing artefacts seem to show no plausible sign of direct mediation through Rome.26 Local cultures and attitudes responded to stimuli other than the Roman across the second century, and these have to be weighed in the balance when assessing change. It seems that knowledge of Hellenistic matrices of analysis and use of myth, along with other intellectual fashions and traditions, on the part of Italian elites was already favouring interest in, and preservation of, local traditions and identities in the second centuries bc, a process within which Mario Torelli has located the production of Cato’s Origines, going so far as to speak of ‘a culture of the Origines’.27 So, it would be reasonable to expect Poseidonios, or any other Johnsonian traveller in Italy in the generation after the Social War, to have seen substantial evidence of dislocation and destruction (especially in the eighties), and to have been aware of change, although perhaps not to fully pick up on important regional variations.28 But not all developments can be ascribed to the Social War: many need to be ascribed to, or at least woven into, longer processes of change.29 Nor was it all 24 Mitens, Teatri greci e teatri ispirati all’architettura greca in Sicilia e nell’Italia meridionale c. 350– 50 a.C., 154–74; Mouristen, UniWcation, 62 and n. 12, 63. 25 De Benedittis, in Samnium, 127, in the ‘house of LN’. 26 For an example of cultural change explained through diVusion from Rome to the Italian periphery, see Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, 243. For evidence for the contrary view see Crawford, in Bourgeoisies; Bevilacqua and De Benedittis, in Sannio. Pentri e Frentani dal VI al I sec. a.C.; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 60–1, 65–7, 70, 80, exploding the idea of Roman cultural superiority (stressing instead the opportunities for literary Wgures to Wnd patronage—and, one might add, a wider audience—more quickly) and questioning Roman mediation of Hellenism; ibid. 61–2 on artistic Hellenization at Rome, with preceding bibliography (a perversely reductivist discussion); contra Salmon, Making, 100, 117, 159. 27 Torelli, Tota Italia, 144–9; cf. Wiseman, in Bougeoisies 300–1, 303–4; Rawson, Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, 25, suggesting the 2nd cent. as a likely context. Italian communities’ myths also become (more) deeply enmeshed in the myth-history current in the Hellenistic world. 28 So too Go¨hler, Rom und Italien, 38; Salmon, Samnium, 316; id., Making, 124–5, Pallotino, in PCIA 7, 390; Gabba, Italia romana, 17–31; id., in Bourgeoisies 401, 404; id., in Lingua e cultura degli oschi; Keaveney, UniWcation, 27, 199; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 59–86 (on regional variation, rejecting, however, the thesis of gradual change towards something more Roman, and the idea of inevitablity: 83–5; nevertheless, if Romanization has no Aristotelean telos, the idea that there was a ‘tipping point’ (or better points in diVerent areas), beyond which Roman predominance in political and economic terms would mean that some forms of change, like language death in the face of globalization and mass media today, became irreversible, is attractive). On approaching regional variation, see Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 64–5. Awareness of cultural change in Strabo: 6. 1. 2, 253–4C. 29 See e.g. Terrenato, Italy and the West, 3–4, speaking of the gradual levelling of ‘diVerences across a range of disparate phenomena such as elite taste, the organization of land or political systems, across a peninsula where . . . local peculiarities had always played the strongest role’, culminating (when is unclear, sometime between the 3rd and 1st cents bc it seems) in a ‘new cultural habitat, in which the previously shocking prospect of uniWcation becomes suddenly acceptable’; cf. Benelli, ibid. 14. Seminal in this respect is the review article of Curti, Dench, and Patterson, JRS (1996).
8
Introduction
the sort of change in histoire e´ve´nementielle (history of events) which might be expected to follow in a clear process of cause and eVect from the events of the war itself, or even from its consequences, such as enfranchisement.30 Some were very deeply rooted, and not to be worked out to any sort of conclusion in, say, a decade. Other changes, although caused by the war, were nevertheless longer term processes (like some of those observed by Dr Johnson), such as the eVect on Roman sociopolitics of the entry of the new citizens as voters or aspirants to oYce, and would arguably only reach fruition in the establishment of the Principate, a more widely based and less exclusive brand of politics.31 How profound were these changes? Writing in 1988, and taking as his starting point the armistice signed between Vittorio Emmanuele III and the Allies in September 1943, Paul Ginsborg states ‘Forty-Wve years later, Italy has been transformed out of all recognition’.32 Was the Italy of 44 bc changed beyond all recognition from that which had witnessed the outbreak of the Social War? It is true that the processes of change which I have been discussing, whether caused or exacerbated by the Social War, had to await the Augustan Principate to be considered in any sense concluded. These processes were bound up with, and indeed overtaken by, other changes of a diVerent nature but equally profound: the substitution of autocracy for aristocratic isonomic pluralism; the enormous mixing up of populations in Italy caused by the settlement of the time-served armies of the generals who had destroyed a Republic, often in areas with which they had little or no prior connection;33 and the diVusion of normative cultural fashions in urbanism, public architecture, and art, the Augustan neo-classical style so integral to showcasing and legitimating the ideology of the optimus status (the best situation).34 Yet this is perhaps at some sixty years remove from the Social War. In 44 bc, however, one would be hard pushed to argue for a transformation such as that which Ginsborg has so masterfully traced for post-war Italy. The preconditions of civic life, religion, 30 Benelli, in Italy and the West, 10, would be mistaken in my view to directly link the change to Latin in Caeretan funerary nomenclature to the concession of full citizenship after the Social War, were it true that the status of ciuitas sine suVragio persisted here this late—but such a situation is unattested and unlikely. 31 To take an area of cultural change, we may note Benelli’s Wnding that the funerary inscriptions of Perusia and Clusium show the rapid spread of Latin in the second half of the 1st cent. bc, albeit a Latin tinged with Etruscan linguistic, and more importantly, onomastic elements (see the Addendum for examples: Q27, 29, 86), and ‘an epigraphy which is linguistically Latin but culturally not Roman’, and articulates its changes at a generational rhythm: Benelli, in Italy and the West, 11, 14 (cf. 11–12 on the Veneti), drawing in part on Kaimio, AIRF (1975), and also on Benelli, Le iscrizioni bilingui etruscolatine, id., in Protostoria e storia del Venetorum angulus; id., SE (2001). For urban change and monumental convergance in Italy as really a 1st-cent bc phenomenon: Torelli, in Bougeoisies, 249; Gabba, Italia Romana, 63–103; Crawford, in CAH x2 . 32 Ginsborg, A History of Contemporary Italy, 1. 33 On the latter, see Keppie, Colonisation; Crawford, in CAH x2 . 34 Suet., DA 28. 2. See Mouritsen, UniWcation, 81 (although p. 86 seems to argue that change during the 1st cent. explains uniformity found in the Augustan period); Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 57–9, stressing that the signiWcant changes become widely diVused only with the end of the Civil Wars and the establishment of the Augustan Principate; for the artistic changes and their relation to Augustan society, see the classic exposition of Zanker, Power of Images in the Age of Augustus.
Introduction
9
economic and cultural interaction were essentially the same as they had been in 91 bc. Millennarian anxieties and a zeitgeist of dislocation and angst had probably been produced by the massive shock of two civil wars in the space of less than forty years. Yet the profoundest changes were those yet to hit Italy.35 Yet to say that a transformation was not one which altered its object out of all recognition is not to say it is a trivial or uninteresting transformation. Leaving aside the perhaps short-term desolation visible through the curtains of Poseidonios’ hypothetical litter, the Social War had profound eVects on many aspect of Italian life.36 This book is about one of them: what happened to the collectivities which ceased to exist with the extension of the Roman citizenship: the Italian peoples. My story is their institutional journey, from sovereign peoples to Roman communities. The enfranchisement of Rome’s former allies during and after the Social War more than doubled the size of Roman territory in Italy and the number of Roman citizens in the peninsula.37 Administering these new areas, let alone integrating them into the political, military, and Wscal structures of the res publica, posed complex problems for the governing oligarchy in Rome, and consequences of some repugnance to the urban plebs.38 Within a few years of the end of the Social War, in a breathing space between civil conXicts, the newly enlarged Roman state was subjected to the start of what was to be a radical reorganization.39 Sulla, victorious on the battleWeld, conservative reformer of Rome’s political institutions, was constrained to accept one legacy from his Cinnan victims, and leave enfranchisement untouched. As a result of these changes, the greater part of the newly Roman Italy was now articulated and administered through autonomous units, based on existing (and in the main nucleated) settlements, many of them until less than a decade previously the central places of autonomous allied peoples: the municipia (chartered towns). There was precedent for their new status in existing Roman 35 See further Ch. 10. 36 Terrenato’s judgement that the Social War arose from ‘struggles over administrative balances . . . rather than [being a] determined attempt . . . to break away from the Empire’ (in Italy and the West, 5) is very wide of the mark indeed. 37 For the demography of Roman and non-Roman Italy, as far as they can be known, see Afzelius, Die ro¨mische Eroberung Italiens, Brunt, Manpower. 38 The classic whipping up of the jealousy of the urban plebs by imagining their advantages usurped by new citizens: the speech of Fannius ‘de sociis et nomine Latino’ (‘on the allies and the Latin name’) (ORF 4 32, F3; Cic., Brut. 99 for the speech as ‘ghost-written’ by ‘many nobles’), cf. Meier, s.v. ‘populares’, RE Supp. x (1965), 549–615, at 556, 593; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 111 (and compare for the reaction to Iunius Pennus’ expulsion order of 126 bc, C. Gracchus’ speech, ORF 4 48, F21–2; Lucilius, 1088M (bk 30, written between 129 and 123 bc, probably expresses sympathy for the expelled: Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, 211–12; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 111 n. 4). Mouritsen discusses practical administrative, military, and economic problems likely to be caused by mass enfranchisement of Italians, and sources of tension between Roman and Italian elites, above all in the area of aspiration to the consulship by the principes Italicorum (leaders of the Italici)—for the consulship as dominated by Roman nobiles (nobles) see Sallust, Iug. 63. 6–7, with Badian, Chiron (1990), 412. 39 LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 37.
10
Introduction
municipia, which had been evolving since the fourth century. Yet never before had Rome been compelled to take such sweeping measures across such a large area.40 Previous enfranchisements and the creation of municipal structures had occurred at irregular intervals to satisfy the needs of Rome’s expansion in Italy. The numbers involved had been comparatively small, and Rome had been able to subject most of the non-Latin communities to a ‘slow-stream’ entry to full political rights within the Roman citizenship, beginning with a grant of citizenship without voting rights (ciuitas sine suVragio). In the course of her expansion in Italy Rome had generally respected local traditions of administration and power structures, something which explains the array of magistracies found in these areas of Italy: dictators (dictators), praetors (praetors), aediles (aediles), and octouiri (boards of eight).41 Furthermore, Rome had not incorporated any people entire since 268 bc, fearing that further expansion would undermine her existence as a city-state, although she had continued to send out Latin and Roman colonies, the latter until the Gracchan period.42 These latter, however, were more or less ex novo foundations, in some ways more self-consciously Roman than municipia, and thus had only a limited use as exemplars for a wide-scale organization of new citizen territories.43 The situation in which Rome found herself after the Social War was utterly diVerent from those which had obtained for the incorporations of the fourth and third centuries, as was the scale of the enfranchisements. Moreover the simple grant of citizenship could not mask wide diVerences in the cultural and political experiences of the peoples incorporated. In the fourth and third centuries Rome had been drawn into conXict with a number of ethnic groups in succession; now she had to deal with a dozen or so all at once; enthusiasts and secessionists, citydwellers and those used to the more scattered, ‘pagano-vicanic’ settlements of the tribal cantons.44 How was this huge diversity of culture, language, tradition, outlook, and aspiration to be managed? My task is to examine how Rome addressed this problem. As we shall see, the enfranchisement of the Italians in the years of the Social War was an enfranchisement of populi (peoples). This meant both communities and wider ethnic groupings (sometimes for practical purposes both at the same time). Yet the latter were at Wrst to Wnd no clear place in the organization of Italy; the pagi 40 Cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 110. 41 On the variety and distribution of these institutions, the material collected together by Beloch (RG 488–522), is still invaluable; see also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 63–73, critiquing the thesis of Rudolph that these magistracies were Roman impositions, which swept aside pre-existing structures; for the possible evolution of the octovirate from indigenous traditions cf. Guidobaldi, in Italy and the West, 87. 42 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 133. 43 On Roman colonies in the Middle Republic, see Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation. On republican colonies in general see Salmon, Roman Colonization (with circumspection), and the useful study of Gargola, Lands. 44 On diversity see Coarelli, DdA (1992), 29 and Vallat, in Italy and the West, 102–3; on the ‘paganovicanic’ areas see now Capogrossi Colognesi, Cittadini e territorio; id., Persistenza e innovazione nelle strutture territoriali dell’Italia romana, chs. 2 and 7. On pagi and uici, see further Ch. 2.
Introduction
11
(districts) and uici (villages) of, for example, the Apennines are mentioned in the surviving Roman juridical texts of the Wrst century bc only with the Caesarian lex Roscia dealing with newly enfranchised Transpadanes. The sea change eVected during the last Wfty years of the Republic was in essence an organization of Italy into autonomous Roman towns, continuing a process (or processes) begun more than a century before, but now operating at a ‘global’ scale a policy before adopted only locally. This process, the transformation of Rome’s former allies into municipia, that is, political and administrative communities which the Romans recognized, is municipalization. It forms the object of my inquiry. What, though, was a municipium? One answer is negative: a self-governing community of Roman citizens which was not a colony. Between them, municipia and colonies could be conceived of as comprising and articulating Roman territory: in the Third Philippic Cicero, trying to get the Senate to support Decimus Brutus in his refusal to hand his province over to M. Antonius, urges the Senate to pass a decree legitimating the current and future actions of Brutus, his army, and the municipia and coloniae (colonies) of Gallia Cisalpina (smaller communities are naturally omitted).45 If the inhabitants of a province could be so enumerated, a fortiori Italy must have been susceptible to being imagined and described in this way. Belonging to a particular municipium, and being a municeps (member of a municipium), was one way of deWning a man’s place within the Roman state, his rights and his duties; the municipium was also a place in some sense apart from the Roman res publica. This was the most immediate and basic level; others existed, more sublimated or abstracted: the new Roman citizen was part of the populus Romanus; he belonged to a tribe; he had a census rating. The progress of municipalization meant that concern for these vital areas, which had once been the prerogative of the Roman state, gradually shifted into the domain of the municipia. A man’s tribe was generally determined by his municipium, his origo (legal origin); and the tabula Heracleensis envisages decentralization of the census (ll. 142–58). Both areas of course continued to have a function within the Roman res publica, but the ongoing decentralization of power, Wnancial autonomy, organizational duties, and jurisdiction are a crucial outcome of the municipalization of Italy after the Social War. They changed the shape of the Roman body politic, and in such a way that a municipal system was developed which could without much diYculty be transplanted to the provinces, and which possessed the Xexibility to adapt and prosper. Without the slow municipalization of Italy, the stability and endurance of the Roman empire would not have been possible.46
45 Phil. 3. 38. 46 ‘the idea of incorporation without extinction of local peculiarities which is the key to the Roman uniWcation of Italy and Wnally of the civilized world, the Orbis Terrarum’ (Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 8; cf. ibid. 114–16 on the continuing importance of Latin status and the legacy of the autonomous institutions of the Latin colonies under the Empire, as exempliWed by the Spanish lex Flavia); Gabba, Italia romana, 11.
12
Introduction
As far as the area of Italy enfranchised after the Social War was concerned, two types of community are more prominent than others in Roman legal texts: the colonia, a Roman foundation, and the municipium, an independent state or community incorporated into the Roman citizen body, a Roman community by ‘adoption’, not by foundation.47 The territorial divisions and settlements which existed at the sub-municipal level in this part of Italy, the pagi and the uici, are generally ignored in Roman juridical documents of the Republic. Vici are mentioned in the lex Roscia 22 and 23, which however deals with Cisalpina, and is probably later than the incorporation of the province into Italy in 42;48 it is concerned to enumerate every possible type of settlement in the area. In the older area of the ager Romanus (Roman territory) the status of the municipium as compared with that of the other categories of juridically recognized entities (praefecturae (prefectures),49 fora, and conciliabula (meeting places)) is less clear. Praefecturae, jurisdictional circumscriptions under the authority of a praefectus iure dicundo (prefect with jurisdictional power), a delegate of the praetor urbanus (urban praetor), sometimes had their seats in municipia or coloniae, as we shall see. It is not clear whether this is because they dispensed justice in those communities, as well as to Roman ciues optimo iure (citizens with full rights) settled uiritim (individually) in outlying areas.50 Praefecturae were also centred on sub-municipal settlements, and even after jurisdictional authority had passed into the hands of local oYcials, some were still called praefecturae. It seems that such praefecturae, being often based in fora (small settlements founded by a magistrate) and conciliabula (places where legitimate meetings and assemblies could be held) where the prefect gave justice, were of an administratively inferior level to the municipia, and possessed a less sophisticated administrative structure. Thus in both the newer and older parts of Italy, one deWnition of municipia might be: communities which functioned as autonomous administrative units within the Roman state. The term should, of course, be nuanced diVerently in the older and newer parts of Roman Italy, and at diVerent times. We should, in seeking to ‘deWne’ what a municipium was, beware of the historiographical inXuence of what Hobsbawm calls the ‘threshold principle’. This reXected attempts within nineteenth-century nationalist discourse to set a minimum viable size for nationhood.51 To try to set a sort of threshold beyond which a community becomes ‘autonomous enough’ or ‘important enough’ to be ‘promoted’ to be a municipium may be to ask the wrong questions. I shall not deal in detail with colonies, or with the other types of sub-municipal community: the praefecturae, fora, and conciliabula in the older areas of the ager Romanus, or the pagi and uici found all over Italy. As we shall see, even the initial 47 The municipium was revolutionary at its inception in that it allowed simultaneously valid dual citizenship, and divorced citizenship from origin: Salmon, Making, 44–5, cf. 53; Cornell, Beginnings, 351. 48 For the date: RS i, no. 28, although arguing that the epigraphic text is not that of the lex Roscia. 49 As we shall see (Ch. 2) the praefectura is not in a strict sense a community. 50 So Humbert, Municipium, 356–402, in my view probably correct; contra Galsterer, Herrschaft, 29, 31. 51 Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 30–2.
Introduction
13
deWnition proposed above leaves uncertain what ‘municipalness’ was. Was it enough to have magistrates of a certain type? Did they need particular powers? Or was the diVerence between non-municipal and municipal an intangible matter of dignitas (status)? Did the status of one’s home town depend more on whom one knew and less on what the town was like? Are all these explanations at work? If we can start to answer these questions with respect to municipia, we may yet reach some conclusions about the other settlement types.
T H E PRO B L E M O F O R I G I N S I : M E A N I N G S This is a book about municipia. As we shall see, what these were in the period after the Social War was disputed; getting a clear and authoritative juridical deWnition from a Wrst-century bc Roman might have been far from simple. For earlier periods the situation is yet more obscure. Two points need to be confronted: (1) municipes seems to be a term before the Social War normally—and therefore in all likelihood properly—used of ciues sine suVragio; (2) municeps may be the term which has linguistic and historical priority.52 The latter implies that municipium, far from originally denoting a collective legal status—its use in scholarship today and throughout this book—meant in the fourth century no more than an ‘aggregate of municipes’.53 In any case, the origins of the familiar municipium of the post-Social War period, which are probably to be sought in the fourth century, are inescapably tangled up in the origins of the municeps and his relation to the civitas sine suVragio, a question itself still debated, and likely to remain so.54 Fortunately this is not a tangle which falls within the scope of this book. This is not just a matter of not expanding an already large volume: methodologically speaking, it is not clear that our written sources for the fourth century can tell us very much about the fourth century. I do not think that it is impossible to know or discover things about the early municipal system and its relation to Roman expansion in Italy. Yet the overall gain would not justify the lengthy discussion required.55 There is material to be gleaned from Livy and elsewhere which cannot be brushed aside as late republican or Augustan Wction.56 It is, however, deeply embedded in the relative modernity of these texts, which are more valuable for telling us about the later periods in which they were written. 52 Municipes and ciues sine suVragio: Mommsen, StR iii. 231–2; Pinsent, CQ (1954), 162; municeps the earlier word: Pinsent, CQ (1954), 163, reversing the view of Mommsen. 53 Pinsent, CQ (1954), 163. 54 See Sordi, I rapporti romano-ceriti e l’origine della civitas sine suVragio, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 38–94, 200–14 (I do not, however, accept his distinction between the communities of ciues sine suVragio and the oppida ciuium Romanorum (towns of Roman citizens), with only the former being municipia—the evidence we have seems to support no such distinction, and the resulting picture is suspiciously tidy, cf. Coarelli, DdA (1992) 28); in general Galsterer, Herrschaft; Humbert, Municipium. 55 Cf. Salmon, Making, 2. 56 Perhaps such as Livy 8. 11. 15, on the foedus with Lavinium? Information derived ultimately from the Lanuvine L. Aelius Stilo?
14
Introduction
One issue, then, is the lack of contemporary material. Moreover, I believe that the early Roman municipia, like the Roman and Latin colonies, constituted much ‘fuzzier’ sets than those of the late Republic and Empire, with which we have been accustomed to work in such a way that we often unhesitatingly use them as timeless heuristic categories.57 The early communities are the product of a historical development, and belong to their own time. The muncipium as we see it in the Wrst centuries bc or ad is not an autonomous benchmark, nor the necessary endpoint of a natural teleology, which we can simply read back in a linear fashion to the point of origin.58 Obvious as it may seem, the Romans’ concept of the municipium did not remain static between the incorporation of Tusculum in c.381 (if thereafter Tusculum looked anything like what we would recognize as a municipium) and the outbreak of the Social War two hundred and ninety years later.59 Galsterer has rightly stressed that the juristic concept of municipium or colonia follows, rather than precedes, a gradual smoothing away of diVerences between various communities founded or incorporated in broadly similar ways, but in diVerent historical circumstances.60 Our categories have no analytical priority, and arguments which think that they have tend to circularity. That is not to subscribe, as some scholars have accused Galsterer of doing,61 to a theory of juridical primitivism; I simply prefer the idea of evolution over time to that of an Athene-like birth straight from the heads of leading senators in the fourth century. Yet, if we cannot know what a municipium was in the fourth century, it should be possible to understand what the term municeps should have meant. This philological argument tells about probable original meanings of words; secondary signiWcations, and the application of words to new contexts, are quite another matter, as Mommsen saw, preferring not to pronounce on whether municeps seemed to be used only of ciues sine suVragio because that was the group of men to whom the word had always been applied, or had come as a matter of usage to apply to them. Municeps, being the concrete term, ought to have logical priority over the abstract collective concept municipium, just as princeps (leader) ought to precede principium (beginning). Indeed, it may be that, whatever a municeps originally was, he was such on an individual basis, and the existence of municipes in this original sense may be unrelated to municipium.62 57 Cf. Benelli, in Italy and the West, 7, on the variety of types of integration of Italians into the Roman state. 58 For studies of municipalization up to the Social War, see Humbert, Municipium; Galsterer, Herrschaft; Salmon, Making, 40–127 and now the lucid summary in Oakley, A Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, i. 331–65. 59 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 39, 48. On Tusculum as the Wrst municipium, Salmon, Making, 46; does this view go back to Cato the Elder, a native of Tusculum? 60 Galsterer, Herrschaft, 15–24, esp. 22–3. 61 Coarelli, DdA (1992), with Tusculum as the Wrst municipium (28, cf. Humbert, Municipium, 151–61). 62 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 40–1 (not acceptable on the implications of Livy’s usage), 291; whether this early situation has anything to do with the ciuitas sine suVragio cannot be gleaned from ancient deWnitions. There does not seem, in the imperial era at least, to be a divorce between legal status of the individual and the status of the community to which a person belongs, despite arguments to the contrary.
Introduction
15
The philological arguments were set out Wfty years ago now by J. Pinsent.63 He demonstrated that municeps must be formed from munia (sing. *muni), whose existence is demonstrated by municeps itself, also munifex (‘one who performs duties’, Plin., HN 11. 234), the adjectives munis, ‘obliged’, and immunis, ‘free from obligations’, and the verbs municare and communicare, ‘share’), rather than from munus, munera. What senses munia had thus becomes a matter of some importance, and this includes the question of whether it originally meant the same as munera or not. The basic meaning of the former is ‘obligations’ or ‘duties’ (Plaut., Trin. 1); munifex, for example, is almost certainly someone who fulWls his obligations to the res publica by military service,64 but munia is never restricted to a particular narrow sphere or spheres. Pinsent argued that munia, while later becoming largely synonymous with munera, only survived at all into classical Latin because the two words came to denote diVerent things at an early stage; that the root meaning of munus was ‘gift’ (D. 50. 16. 18); and that it had early on become restricted to the physical object given in the system of reciprocal exchange. Munus was used with the sense oYcium (‘duty’) as early as Plautus (e.g. munus fungi ‘discharge a duty’, Am. 827, As. 812; cf. munera fungi: Lucilius 202 Marx), and munus and munera in Cicero have almost supplanted munia in this sense (Livy seems, however, to use munia and munera indiscriminately). Importantly, for Pinsent munus in these cases is doing duty for the singular of munia, which had itself fallen out of use; the use of munera in the sense of oYcia ‘spread’ from this speciWc use of munus as the particular singular of the generalizing plural munia.65 What then of municeps? Despite the objections of Niebuhr, who argued that a word meaning to undertake duties would have to be formed from the verbs facere (‘do’) or, better, fungi (‘discharge’), not capere (‘take’) or capessere (‘undertake’), the term must indeed be formed from *muni-cap-s, and should be glossed is qui munia capit (‘he who takes munia’).66 Again, the meaning of munia capere is important.67 Gellius (NA 16. 13. 6—see below for this important text quoted in full—cf. D. 50. 1. 1 (Ulpian)) is probably wrong to see the meaning ‘sharers’ in the munus (using capessere to gloss capere); Gellius is equally wrong to see this as an honoriWc status. Paulus p. 117L may be closer, if he means, as Pinsent suggests, that the municipes could not ‘capere’ a magistracy, but only the part (of the citizenship) consisting in the munus (‘tantum muneris partem’).68 What Paulus understood by ‘taking’ the ‘part consisting of the munus’ is opaque, and modern scholars have in general been vague about how they understand capere, and have 63 CQ (1954), whence the following paragraph is derived, and to which the reader is referred for the mass of evidence which it would be otiose to repeat here. Pinsent’s conclusions about munia and municipes are accepted by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 201. 64 So Pinsent, CQ (1954), 158–9, against Mommsen, StR iii. 225, who argued that munia/munus did not include military obligations, citing lex repetundarum l. 79, and lex Ursonensis lxvi, cf. lxii, among other evidence. 65 CQ (1954), 159–61. 66 Ibid. 161 and n. 2, 162, against Niebuhr, Ro¨mische Geschichte, ii. 62 n. 107. 67 For the passages referred to here see the next section. 68 Pinsent, CQ (1954), 161; there is, however, no explicit reference to this third category of municipes as citizens until later in the passage under consideration.
16
Introduction
often taken it as though reading capessere. Pinsent argued that the verbs used with munus and munia in the sense of ‘duty’ or ‘duties’ revealed that individuals interacted with munia in two discrete stages: Wrst they incurred them, and then they discharged them; and that munia capere meant to incur, or in Pinsent’s words ‘to undertake’, the said munia, which in the case of the municeps should be obligations to the Roman res publica. Now, munia capere is unknown in Latin except in derivations or explanations of municeps, but compounds of capere are found in the sense of incurring or undertaking an obligation: suscipere (‘undertake’; cf. Cic., Balb. 17, where Cicero asks the jurors to believe that he ‘hanc suscepisse operam ac munus’ (‘undertook this trouble and task’) because of his oYcium (‘sense of duty’), not because he liked the sound of his own voice) and capessere (Livy, 44. 41. 1, with the sense of undertaking and discharging, as the imperfect tense shows; Columella, RR 12. 1. 4).69 Pinsent went on to argue that the undertaking of obligations, whether voluntary or forced, could not be predicated of a Roman citizen optimo iure, since he would possess those duties as an inseparable part of the citizenship. The municeps ought logically to be distinguished from the full citizen, although both have in common the discharging of obligations, as muniWces—and hence the use of munus facere of municipes in Livy, 23. 7. 1 (the Capuan treaty with Hannibal, although I disagree with Pinsent that the Capuans here speciWcally sought to avoid becoming Punic municipes) and Ulpian (D. 50. 1. 1).70 As Pinsent notes, however, what the word should have originally meant, even if consistent with some later evidence, does not tell us anything about, for example, whether municipal status was compatible with another citizenship, or whether the municipes were in fact Roman citizens or not.
T H E P RO B L E M O F O R I G I N S I I : ‘C U S TO D I E T Q U I S I P S O S C U S TO D E S ? ’ Municeps, then, ought to have meant originally: one who undertakes obligations to the Roman res publica. This, however, does not necessarily tell us what municeps actually meant in, say, the late fourth century bc, nor for how long (if at all) any trace of the original meaning carried over to the term municipium. So, the ancient deWnitions and etymologies which we possess for both terms (besides entries in Festus and Gellius (below), the Wftieth book of the Digest contains many deWnitions pertaining to municipal matters in the imperial period, including deWnitions of municipes71) are problematic from the outset. 69 Pinsent, CQ (1954), 162–4, modifying the conclusions of Scho¨nbauer, Anzeiger von der o¨sterreichischen Akademie (1949), 556–7, who misapplies the word to inter-state relations. 70 Pinsent, CQ (1954), 163–4. 71 D. 50. 1. 1 (Ulpian): ‘municipem aut natiuitas facit aut manumissio aut adoptio, et proprie quidem municipes appellantur muneris participes, recepti in ciuitatem ut munera nobiscum facerent’ (‘either birth or manumission or adoption makes someone a municeps, and indeed properly municipes
Introduction
17
There are, of course, grounds for arguing that antiquarians were likely, despite the often homespun etymologizing underpinning some of their work, to Wnd, and present, more ‘serious’ nuggets of data than ‘straight historians’; in other words, they were researchers, not writers of historical blockbusters.72 Indeed, ‘antiquarian’ and ‘historical’ information often conXict in interesting ways.73 Antiquarian researches have not been ‘processed’ for insertion in a narrative, but recorded for their own sake, and are sometimes preserved together with rival interpretations; they look as though they ought to represent the result of an attempt to discover and preserve, and not construct, the past. Nevertheless, antiquarian studies should not be given too much autonomy, nor set in absolute contrast to the ‘embeddedness’ of the narrative historical tradition. The two create diVerent sorts of texts, providing diVerent sorts of information (although there is some overlap).74 That is hardly surprising: at the end of the day both are manifestations of the wish to recover and expound the past, and are both in their ways culturally contingent: that men like Varro and Atticus buried themselves during times of great change in the sometimes recondite lore of a crumbling order does not make their choice any less political than Livy’s to write history (or to stop where he did). Preservation of the past is a selective process, and antiquarians, while registering more debate than historians on individual topics, are no more immune from the need for selectivity. In short, deWnitions like Festus’ are the products of the learned speculation of the late Republic and they also, inevitably, bear the imprint of the profound changes and shocks, the deep readjustments, which marked not simply of the end of the Republic, but other traumatic events like the Social War and the massive wave of enfranchisement and municipalization consequent upon it. The deWnitions look ‘pure’, but they are rather isotopes than elements, and the decay represented by their half-life has its point of origin in (perhaps before) the municipalization of Italy after the Social War, in the admission to the citizen body of, and the subsequent need to organize, hundreds of thousands of non-Romans, whose presence (by the mid-eighties) in the thirty-Wve tribes showed that they had come to stay.75 are called sharers in the munera, who have been brought into the community so that they may perform munera togther with us’): the Wrst part is similar to Festus’ deWnition, adding adoption, as Pinsent, CQ (1957), 89 n. 2, notes, and the second to part of Gellius’. I cannot agree with Pinsent’s general conclusions (ibid. 89) about the value of Ulpian’s deWnition—it seems to me to draw on two diVerent sources, and the inclusion of Puteoli is heterodox. Also D. 50. 1. 17 (Papinian), 4. 1 (Hermogenian); see Pinsent, CQ (1954), 161, for a list of ancient deWnitions. 72 Thus Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 265, takes it as axiomatic that the ius suVragii had never been an intrinsic part of Roman citizenship, on the basis of the Festus/Paulus deWnitions. 73 See Cornell, Beginnings, 18–26. 74 Both present the Roman viewpoint: cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 42. 75 In addition, the period from Marius onwards seems to have seen growing grants of citizenship singillatim to men scattered across the Empire (and the accession of ex-Latin magistrates, and those who gained citizenship through successful prosecution under the lex Acilia repetundarum—SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 292, 294, 300–2), sometimes bound up, as in the case of Seleukos of Rhosos, with complex immunity packages (Sherk, RDGE, no. 58). How individuals related to the Roman state, the
18
Introduction
This was a traumatic period, for all concerned, and saw, at one extreme, the violent opposition of some optimates (‘the best men’, conservatives) to continued integration, and at the other, the Samnites and Lucanians taking up arms against Rome despite enfranchisement (see Chapter 4). Arguments about what muncipium and municeps meant were partly conditioned, to be sure, by the preceding centuries of development (about which we are horribly ignorant; but see next section). Yet giving deWnitions was not a parlour game for the historically minded. It was a way of coming to terms with what had happened, of attempting to channel or formulate the new dynamics of the Roman state in directions which evinced some familiarity, some hope of controlling and not being controlled, of keeping, not losing, privilege and advantage. Hence, in part, the interest in munia/munera, in deWning the duties of new citizens; if citizenship for allies had to come, it was to come with a cost.76 And it is no coincidence that Festus couches his deWnitions in terms of people, not places or institutions: ‘municipium id genus hominum dicitur’ (‘municipium is the name given to that class of men’, p. 155L). The institution, in as far as it is deWned, is conceived by the antiquarians in terms of the rights and duties of groups of people. Roman diVerentiation between social, cultural, or political groups with a view to clarifying or maintaining prevailing power-relations, and keeping some groups under control, or at arm’s length, was not a new strategy in the Wrst century bc; nor, perhaps, was the device of identifying genera hominum (classes of men) as a means to this end.77 Under the year 171 bc Livy mentions among embassies to the Senate ‘alia noui generis hominum ex Hispania legatio’ (‘another embassy from a new class of men from Hispania’): it is from the sons of Roman soldiers and Spanish women, born to a relationship without conubium (the right to contract a legally valid marriage with a Roman citizen), but now seeking from the Senate a extent of their munia and immunitas in both the Roman state and the home community, were also matters of interest, tension, and debate into the Principate. Octavian’s edictum de ueteranis (FIRA i7 . 69) deals with muneris publici fungendi uacatio (‘immunity from performing the munus’; see SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 296–300, on this edict, and its application). 76 Munera as duties, unwelcome if imposed unilaterally: see Livy (23. 7. 1) on the conditions of Capuan support for Hannibal, ‘neue ciuis Campanus inuitus militaret munusue faceret’ (‘and that no Capuan citizen should perform military or any other kind of service against his will’). 77 Genus hominum need not always denote the ‘other’; it can, of course, be used of a subdivision of a society, which places the emphasis on the characteristics or pursuits which distinguish that group from everyone else: so e.g. the (perjorative) discussion of diVerent types of lawyers in the cities of the East in the 4th cent. ad (Ammianus Marcellinus, 20. 4. 8, ‘uiolenta et rapacissima genera hominum’, ‘violent and most greedy kinds of men’, cf. ibid. 14). Cic., Cat. 2. 17–23, lists the six genera hominum which comprise Catilina’s supporters; the isolation of easily characterized (or caricatured) groups also allows Cicero to present all six as ‘other’ to the plebs urbana; in Cic., Fam. 9. 19. 2 (43 bc), D. Brutus describes the uernae of Vicetia, in dispute with the townsfolk, as ‘genus hominum aduersariorum seditiosum et incertissimum’ (‘the class of men who are their adversaries is a seditious and unreliable one’, see Gabba, Italia romana, 53–4, on this passage). In Gellius, NA 15. 27. 5 (from the Wrst book of Laelius Felix) ‘ex generibus hominum’ seems to refer to birth as a criterion for the organization of voting rather than census rating, age, or geographical origin: see Cornell, Beginnings, 116.
Introduction
19
place in which to live, and some oYcial recognition as a group.78 The grant of Carteia (on the edge of the world, ‘ad Oceanum’) as a place to live is apparently made in the form of a colonial deductio (complete with ager adsignatus), creating a libertine colony of Latin status (‘Latinam eam coloniam esse libertinorumque appellari’, ‘that colony should be Latin, and titled ‘‘of freedmen’’ ’). Now, the whole passage may well be thoroughly Augustan in presentation, Augustan legislation being famously interested in manumission and libertine status.79 On the other hand, as we shall see (Chapter 2), the second century bc was a time in which ambiguous categories existed alongside the more regular juridical entities, and no one seriously doubts that some sort of Latin colony was established here, with the inhabitants probably being considered as equivalent in status and privileges to (?)Roman liberti. Deciding what rights and privileges to accord this unexpected group may well have been handled by the Senate through the distancing device of denoting them a new genus hominum (just as the type of their colony is ‘labelled’ libertine).80 The petitioners may well have hoped to be viewed as the product of a retrospective Wctive conubium, in other words, to attain a tardy enfranchisement; however, the Senate may have chosen to view them as a ‘new species’ from the moment they entered the curia (Senate house). I want to suggest that the practice of Wnding words to denote new groups, and giving those words meaning, which in turn entailed deWnition of the status, rights, and duties of the group, was not a new pursuit of the period after the Social War. It was something to which recourse was had at that time because it had worked at least once before, in the case of Carteia (if we can rely on Livy’s language here), and for all that we know, on other occasions. The labelling of groups of individuals, decisions as to their genus, may be a particularly Roman take on the common Hellenistic practice of diplomatic appeals for recognition and privileges. When the Social War came, a device to control new petitioners for Roman status was already to hand. The situation after the Social War, of course, was new in terms of scale and urgency. Denying the citizenship was not an option; how to deWne what was being granted was the issue. Some, of course, often populares (politicians who stressed popular sovereignty), welcomed the new citizens, and saw in them allies against the aristocratic arrogance and exclusiveness which had cost both sides so much in the war, with so little self-knowledge to show for it. How one conceived of the new citizens, their collectivities, and their importance, how one rated their role in 78 Livy 43. 3. 1–4; Richardson, Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218–82 B.C. 119–20, 162; Rolda´n Go´mez et al., Carteia, esp. 169–93; for the language of distance and exoticism used of Atlantic Gades: Pliny, HN 7. 136. 79 Treggiari in CAH x2 . 893–7; note the mention of manumission at Carteia: Livy 43. 3. 3, with Richardson, Hispaniae, 120 n. 121. 80 So too Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 101, noting also the conceptual relationship expressed between Latinity and Roman citizenship, cf. ibid. 109. For ‘appellatio’ we might compare Suet., Caes. 77, where Caesar is said famously to have called the res publica a ‘mere name’ (on the Suetonius passage see Morgan, JRS (1997)); is the sense in Livy ‘new label’, a new name for an entity which had no precedent?
20
Introduction
the state or tried to deny them one, were also political questions. It would be foolish to imagine that the Roman antiquarians were Professor YaVells, whose abstruse quarrels in their ivory towers might rival those of the Alexandrian scholars, untroubled by the dull roar of civil conXict rising from beneath their windows: L. Aelius Stilo, an eques (equestrian) is described by Suetonius as widely and variously ‘in re publica usus’ and he followed Metellus Numidicus into exile in 100 bc.81 These and so many other debates really mattered. For that reason, the resulting deWnitions have no absolute validity, even if they seem to answer the more narrowly legalistic questions we might want to ask. It is not just that ideological axes were being ground on these dry whetstones. There are other reasons to worry. Not least is the fact that we have these deWnitions at all. Antiquarians often concerned themselves with deWnitions which were matters of debate not (only) because they were contentious, but also because they were not understood by contemporaries. It is clear that there was uncertainty about what municeps and municipium actually meant, hence the interest in their etymologies. Otherwise, the Augustan Verrius Flaccus would not have had cause to include the terms in his de signiWcatu uerborum, which Festus was excerpting.82 Most of the controversy seems, in fact, to have focused on the early period of municipalization, about which the Romans appear to have been little better informed than we are. They tried to redress that lack of knowledge with the favoured intellectual tool of the day, etymology (as well as other forms of research): the root meaning of a word must reveal its ‘true’ signiWcance.83 Anyone who has looked even at a few Varronian deWnitions will appreciate the kind of results which might accrue.84 Furthermore, as we shall see, learned deWnitions and everyday understandings of what the terms meant do not always cohere. 81 Suet., Gramm. 3. 1–2 (Stilo: ‘experienced in politics’; despite Kaster, Suetonius; De grammaticis et rhetoribus, 73, this phrase ought to mean more than being Numidicus’ intimate and writing speeches for statesmen; see further ibid. 68–70 on Stilo’s activity), cf. 6. 2 (Aurelius Opillus follows Rutilius Rufus into exile—94 or 92 bc—probably not politically motivated), 11. 1 (Valerius Cato blames his poor start in life on the disorder of the Sullan period), 12. 2 (Cornelius Epicadus completes the unWnished memoirs of his former master, Sulla), 13. 2 (Staberius Eros taught the sons of the proscribed in the Sullan period), 19. 2 (Scribonius Aphrodisias, freedman of Scribonia after her divorce from Augustus, attacks the latter’s grandsons’ tutor Verrius Flaccus); among the rhetores, 27. 2 (Otalcilius Pitholaus’ history of the Pompeii, Strabo, and Magnus), 28 (Epidius’ teaching contrasted with the political principles of Servilius Isauricus); 30. 5 (Albucius Silus invokes the pitiful state of Italy and the memory of Brutus in court in Mediolanum). See also Millar, in Republic and Revolution, 193–7, on Atticus’ antiquarian output, esp. the interest in aristocratic genealogies at a time when the domination of the nobiles was under threat from forces which had no roots in the traditional construction of power and image in Roman politics; I would diVer from Millar, however, over the claim that the sense of the past institutionalized within Augustan propaganda derived from the work of ‘innocent scholars’ (ibid. 196, my italics). 82 Pinsent, CQ (1957), 93, Wnds these entries in Festus ‘unquestionably Verrian’. 83 Varro, LL 5. 7–8, gives four levels of explanation for the origins of words, of increasing diYculty, from those which can be grasped by the populus right up to the almost mystical diYculty of the Wnal level; the third level represents the work of the philosophers, which deals, says Varro (8), with the origins of such commonly used words as oppidum, uicus, and uia, suggesting that the meanings of terms such as those interesting us were surprisingly controversial. 84 Coleman, in Calboli, Papers on Grammar, vi.
Introduction
21
Much of what has been written on these deWnitions simply does not take these fundamental premises into account, and much eVort expended in the search for a ‘municipal Holy Grail’ has thus been misdirected. It seems, therefore, not worthwhile to give scholarly doxography on them, but, referring to modern discussions as necessary, to turn again to the deWnitions themselves. We must remember that the term municeps, describing the status and obligations of the individual, is very probably prior to municipium, which seems to have been no more originally than a collective noun for municipes. First, Varro in the De lingua Latina (v. 179). Within the subject of money, Wnes, and wages, discussing loans, he moves from mutuum (loan) to the ‘cognate’ munus: ‘et munus quod mutuo animo qui sunt dant oYcii causa; alterum munus, quod muniendi causa imperatum, a quo etiam municipes, qui una munus fungi debent, dicti’.85 Varro, in this brief piece of word association, runs together several ideas: mutuality and reciprocity (in terms both of the loan and of general mutual obligations), and common responsibility, as in fortifying a town. From the latter we may, he says, also derive municipes, those who discharge the duty together, fusing the ideas of shared obligation and of forming an urban community.86 Let us compare Festus’ deWnition of municeps: municeps est, ut ait Aelius Gallus, qui in municipio liber natus est. item qui ex alio genere hominum munus functus est. item qui in municipio ex seruitute se liberauit a municipe. at Servius Wlius aiebat initio fuisse, qui ea conditione ciues fuissent, ut semper rempublicam separatim a populo Romano habebant, Cumanos, Acerranos, Atellanos, qui (Festus, p. 126L)87 A municeps is, as Aelius Gallus says, one who was born free in a municipium. Again, one who, though from another class of men, performed a duty. Again, one who in a municipium has been manumitted from servitude to a municeps. But Servius the son used to say that in the beginning they had been those who had become Roman citizens on this condition, that they always kept their res publica separate from the Roman people, the Cumani, Acerrani, and Atellani, who <were both Roman citizens, and used to serve in the legions, but did not take up oYces>.
We see here clearly how the whole issue of deWning what municipes were (or should be) was a matter of dispute to the scholars of the late republican and early Augustan period on whom Verrius Flaccus drew: I would stress again that such disputes were contingent on political and social upheaval, not just academic rivalry. 85 ‘And munus, (present), because those who are of a ‘mutual’ mind give from a sense of oYcium; another sense of munus (duty), because an order has been given to put up fortiWcations, from which municipes are also named, because they ought to discharge the munus together’. 86 For munere fungi, see Pinsent, CQ (1954), 160–2; and for a rejection of the etymology, ibid. 163 and literature there cited. 87 On the MS history of Festus/Paulus, and the relations of the lemmata (titles) considered below to each other, see Pinsent, CQ (1957), 92–4. The Wnal clause has since the editio princeps been variously supplemented on the basis of the surviving abbreviation of Festus in Paulus (Paul Warnefrid, the Lombard deacon who in the 9th cent. produced an epitome of Festus’ own abridgement of Verrius Flaccus); see Pinsent, CQ (1957), 96–7; cf. Mommsen, StR iii. 235 n. 1.
22
Introduction
‘Servius Wlius’ has created some diYculties, since Festus never uses the patronymic when citing authorities (as opposed to identifying historical Wgures); furthermore, the text is controversial, with ‘Servilius’ an alternative reading.88 Of those scholars retaining ‘Servius Wlius’, some identify him as the famous jurist Ser. Sulpicius Rufus, cos. 51 bc: he instructed M. Brutus in the ius pontiWcium (‘pontiWcal law’, Cic., Brut. 156), left 180 books behind him, and would seem to be the kind of man who might have pronounced the third opinion found in Festus.89 Others, following Niebuhr, have seen ‘Servius Wlius’ as this man’s son, despite the fact that our hypothetical responsum (answer) was apparently the only evidence to connect him with jurisprudence, a very circular argument.90 Syme, however, attempted to rescue the son from obscurity with typical brilliance, producing an orator and erotic poet,91 who may also have written on antiquarian topics, his interest in the letter ‘S’ perhaps suggesting research into pronunciation and orthography.92 An open verdict should be returned: either Servius pater or Wlius is possible, a Servilius (otherwise unknown) equally so.93 Aelius Gallus’ view is uncontroversial, and works by analogy from what we might presume to be deWnitions of other categories: a municeps, like a Roman, can be such by free birth. Roman citizenship, however, had long freed itself from the need to be deWned by origin: a Roman could be born anywhere, but a municeps only in a municipium. Such an insistence on the geographical origin may recall Paulus’ third deWnition of municipium (see below). The second deWnition is perhaps formed by analogy from a deWnition of what a Roman can be (it too might be Gallus’ own, it does not much matter either way): manumission can create a Roman, and create a municeps. Again, though, there is a local emphasis: the freed slave can only become a municeps if freed in a municipium by someone who is himself a municeps. Far more controversial is the third, alternative, deWnition (‘at’) of ‘Servius Wlius’, set in opposition to the Wrst two by Festus. This explicitly states that in the beginning citizenship for municipes was conditional: it entailed the continual maintenance by the municipes of a res publica separate from that of the Roman people; they served in the legions (note
88 Pinsent, CQ (1957), 94–5: ‘at Servilius aiebat’ is the reading of the superior Vatican copy of the Codex Farnesianus; ibid. 95, on Festus and Wliations. 89 Mommsen, StR iii. 235 n. 1, accepting Servilius as the reading with more authority, but emending it to Servius (without ‘Wlius’); Pinsent (CQ (1957), 95) points out that nowhere else is the jurist referred to simply as ‘Servius’. See also Syme, RP iii. 1417, cf. 1416, on ‘the aYnity between jurists and antiquarian writers’ (owed to the interest of both in deWnitions). 90 Niebuhr, Ro¨mische Geschichte, ii. 60 n. 112; Pinsent, CQ (1957), 95. 91 Syme, RP iii. 1415–22, esp. 1421–2. 92 Syme, RP iii. 1417, cf. 1420; Quint., 9. 4. 38. 93 Pinsent, CQ (1957), 95–6. One further peculiarity: ‘Servius Wlius’ is the only authority named in Festus whose authority is reported via the imperfect tense: ‘aiebat’ is a hapax in the admittedly incomplete text of Festus, with ait normal, as in the citation from Aelius Gallus. Does this suggest that Verrius Flaccus thought of his Servius as belonging to an older generation, thus suggesting the elder Servius? Alternatively, the word ‘Wlius’, if not corrupt, may have served to diVerentiate the younger Servius from his homonymous father.
Introduction
23
the recurrence here of the idea of munera) but were debarred from holding oYce (if the excerpt of Paulus, used to complete Festus’ text, is accurate).94 It seems to me that this is a charter-myth, meant to reapply ancient history (or invented tradition) to the new situation pertaining after the Social War. On the one hand we see clearly the idea of keeping the new citizens at arms length and in their own communities, which recurs in the third of Paulus’ deWnitions of municipium (below), and which, I shall argue, was provoked precisely by the Social War and consequent municipalization. On the other, we see a concern to make sure that municeps embodies an asymmetry between obligation and privilege: army service is due, but oYce holding is excluded. Obviously it was no easier to exclude new citizens from elected oYce in Rome in the period after the Social War than it had been before. Yet I think we see here evidence for a concern about the intrusion of new citizens into the political arena; and we do not know that Festus’ original deWnition did not mention the right to vote (also, as we shall see in Chapter 4, controversial immediately after the Social War), which surfaces in Paulus’ Wrst deWnition of municipium alongside carrying out munera and inability to hold oYce. As so often, a conservative discourse of opposition formulates its objections with reference to the past: in the good old days municipes kept themselves to themselves, did not hope for the dignitas of Roman oYce, and could be relied on to carry out their military responsibilities. This discourse tells us nothing about the juridical status of municipes after the Social War, but a lot about the fears of the governing class, and presumably the polyglot urban plebs:95 before the Social War, the allies had been constrained by treaty and the terms of the formula togatorum (see Chapter 1) to provide troops for Rome’s wars. Now they were subject to conscription, or liable to escape it, in exactly the same degree as the old citizens. The cushion provided by Rome’s taxes on Italy’s manpower was punctured by enfranchisement, and the specious inclusiveness of the formula togatorum became a historical curiosity. Of the three examples of his deWnition given by ‘Servius Wlius’ (Cumani, Acerrani, and Atellani), the Wrst two recur in the Wrst deWnition of Paulus’ entry on municipium, and these three Campanian municipia may plausibly be grouped together among the incorporations sine suVragio in northern Campania 94 In contrast to the assertion of ‘Servius’ that municipes served in the legions, Livy believed that the ciues sine suVragio of Capua served in separate contingents: see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 42 n. 5 for references; Salmon, Making, 46, 51, points out that, not having a tribe, municipes sine suVragio could not be recruited into the legions, and some other list must have been used. Was this the origin of the tabulae Caerites? 95 It is worth noting here the emphasis Varro places on the authority of the populus Romanus in (at least) some matters of usage, as long as the people obeys ratio (reason)—LL 9. 5–6, esp. ‘ego populi consuetudinis non sum ut dominus, at ille meae est’ (‘I am not, as it were, the master of the people’s usage, but it is of mine’, 6). This passage was drawn to my attention by Prof. T. P. Wiseman in a seminar on Varro held in Oxford in the Hilary term of 2006; I learnt much from that paper, as from another in the same series by Prof. R. Maltby, who contrasted Varro’s attitude to consuetudo (customary usage) here with that of Quintilian (1. 6. 44–5), who based himself on the consensus eruditorum (the agreement of learned men); neither Wiseman nor Maltby is responsible for the views mistaken or otherwise on Varro expressed in this chapter.
24
Introduction
in the 330s bc; it is hard to see any further overlap between ‘Servius Wlius’/Festus and Paulus’ Wrst deWnition, and we would probably be mistaken to try to Wnd one. The same three communities appear in Paulus’ deWnition of municeps: municeps, qui in municipio liber natus est. item, qui ex alio genere hominum munus functus est. item, qui in municipio a seruitute se liberauit a municipe. item municipes erant, qui ex aliis ciuitatibus Romam uenissent, quibus non licebat magistratum capere, sed tantum muneris partem, ut fuerunt Cumani, Acerrani, Atellani, qui et ciues Romani erant, et in legione merebant, sed dignitates non capiebant, (Paulus, p. 117L)96 Municeps is one who was born free in a municipium. Again, one who, though from another class of men, performed a duty. Again, one who in a municipium has been manumitted from servitude to a municeps. Again municipes were those who had come to Rome from other communities, to whom it was not permitted to take up a magistracy, but only the part consisting in the duty; such were the Cumani, Acerrani, and Atellani, who were both Roman citizens, and used to serve in the legions, but did not take up oYces.
The third deWnition here gives the Cumani, Acerrani, and Atellani as examples, but the type itself (immigrants to Rome become municipes) has no overlap with what Festus in his lemma took from Aelius Gallus or from ‘Servius Wlius’; it corresponds instead with Paulus’ Wrst deWnition of municipium (below), where we have migration to Rome, exclusion from magistracy, and the undertaking of a pars (part) of the munus (again in the singular). One might explain the diVerence by imagining that Paulus contaminated two almost identical lemmata (municipium and municeps).97 If so, we have to reckon with the possibility that the closing part of Paulus’ deWnition here should not after all be used to supply the lacuna in Festus’ deWnition; besides, Paulus’ normal practice, if it deviates from reasonably faithful reproduction, is to omit, not to insert. The rest of Paulus’ entry here is clearly derived from Aelius Gallus/Festus.98 What of the third, immigration, deWnition? Pinsent makes a fair case for seeing this too as deriving from Festus, explaining why it no longer stands in our text of Festus, and even suggesting that both it and the deWnition of ‘Servius Wlius’ could have used the same historical examples, diVerently interpreted.99 With the deWnitions given by Festus/Paulus we can compare that preserved in Gellius, who has not only preserved for us another deWnition, but, importantly retained it within its context: municipes ergo sunt ciues Romani ex municipiis legibus suis et suo iure utentes, muneris tantum cum populo Romano honorari participes, a quo munere capessendo appellati uidentur, nullis aliis necessitatibus neque ulla populi Romani lege adstricti, nisi in quam populus eorum fundus factus est. (7) primos autem municipes sine suVragii iure Caerites esse factos accepimus concessumque illis, ut ciuitatis Romanae honorem quidem caperent, sed negotiis tamen atque oneribus uacarent pro sacris bello Gallico receptis custoditisque. hinc ‘tabulae Caerites’ appellatae uersa uice, in quas censores referri iubebant, quos notae causa suVragiis priuabant.
96 See Pinsent, CQ (1954), 161. 98 Cf. Pinsent, CQ (1957), 96.
97 Cf. Mommsen, StR iii. 235 n. 1. 99 CQ (1957), 96–7.
Introduction
25
(8) sed coloniarum alia necessitudo est; non enim ueniunt extrinsecus in ciuitatem nec suis radicibus nituntur, sed ex ciuitate quasi propagatae sunt et iura institutaque omnia populi Romani, non sui arbitrii, habent. (9) quae tamen condicio, cum sit magis obnoxia et minus libera, potior tamen et praestabilior existimatur propter amplitudinem maiestatemque populi Romani, cuius istae coloniae quasi eYgies paruae simulacraque esse quaedam uidentur, et simul quia obscura oblitterataque sunt municipiorum iura, quibus uti iam per ignotiam non queunt. (NA 16. 13. 6–9)100 Municipes then are Roman citizens from municipia who use their own laws and their own authority, and who share the duty together with the Roman people only in an honorary sense, from the undertaking of which duty they seem to be named, bound by no other demands nor by any law of the Roman people, unless that to which their populus has become fundus. (7) And indeed we learn that the Wrst to be created municipes, without the right to vote, were the Caerites, and that they were allowed actually to take the distinction of the Roman citizenship, but, however, to be free of its engagements and burdens, in recompense for having received and guarded the sacra during the Gallic war. Hence, conversely, the ‘Caerite tables’ are named, in which the censors used to order that those whom they were stripping of their right to vote because of a mark of disgrace be entered. (8) But the bond of colonies [to Rome] is diVerent [from that of municipia]; for they do not enter the citizenship from without, nor are they supported by their own roots, but they are, as it were, propagated from the citizenship, and all of their laws and customs are those of the Roman people, not of their own choosing. (9) This status, however, although it is more submissive and less free, is nonetheless considered preferable and more worthy on account of the greatness and majesty of the Roman people, of whom these colonies seem to be, in a manner of speaking, small representations and images of a sort; and at the same time, because the laws of the municipia are imperfectly known and fallen into disuse, they are no longer able to use them on account of their obscurity.
This passage of Gellius is no more straightforward than the lemmata just considered. In this case, we have to consider that he was probably drawing ultimately on the same late republican/Augustan stratum of thought in which Festus’ information is rooted. Again, Gellius’ information is speciWcally given in the context of contemporary misunderstandings about the real meaning of municeps and municipia (16. 13. 1–3), and thus the usage criticized is that of the early second century ad. Gellius explicitly appeals for authority at the outset to Hadrian’s speech ‘de Italicensibus’ (13. 4–5): Antonine discourse thus overlies whatever was originally drawn from earlier sources.101 Finally, leaving aside the question of whether or not Gellius is correct, his thought is hardly clear, and the position (13. 6) that municipia use their own laws contradicts the statement at 13. 9 that these laws are ‘imperfectly known and fallen into disuse’ (this
100 On this passage see Pinsent, CQ (1957), 90–2; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 267 n. 2; and on Gellius’ discussion of colonies and their diVerence from municipia, Bispham, in State Identities, 157–8; id., in Greek and Roman Colonisation, 78–9. 101 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 267, 272, 362–3, 376 (arguing that Hadrian referred to the municipia of the middle and late Republic), 378, 413–14.
26
Introduction
appearance of hastily taken notes, where one idea spawns another in a paratactic development of thought, may be a literary aVectation). Let us, bearing this in mind, look at what Gellius says. First, there is the (by now familiar) emphasis on the separateness of the municipia: ‘legibus suis et suo iure utentes’; ‘nullis aliis . . . lege adstricti’ (6); colonies are contrasted with municipia in such a way as to underline the fact that the latter do come ‘extrinsecus’ into the citizenship, have their own roots, as opposed to being grown from a cutting (to perpetuate Gellius’ botanical metaphor), and enjoy their own arbitrium in deciding their iura and instituta. This characteristic is obviously grist to the mill of those such as Hadrian, who seem to have thought (unlike Italica, Utica, and ‘quaedam . . . alia municipia antiqua’ (4)) that municipal status was more honourable than colonial, but it also chimes with what we have found in Festus/Paulus.102 Moreover, this characteristic is stressed in Gellius, who claims that the municipes, while Romans, were only voluntarily associated with Romans in performing the (again, unspeciWed and singular) munus: ‘muneris tantum cum populo Romano honorari participes’. These words recall to an extent both Paulus’ ‘participes tamen fuerunt omnium rerum ad munus fungendum una cum Romanis ciuibus’ (p. 155L), and ‘sed tantum muneris partem’ (p. 117L). Yet the voluntary nature of the performance of burdens marks a shift from what we found in Festus, where performance of the munus is a necessary part of the deWnition of what it is to be a municeps, and is even seen in one case, perhaps, as earning the citizenship. It is easy, comparing what Gellius says of colonies with this ‘take-it-or-leave it’ view of the municipal munus, to see why he (or Hadrian) developed the independence ‘angle’ in the description of municipia.103 It would be odd to say that municipia were less ‘obnoxia’ and more ‘libera’ (9), having insisted on the fact that they, by deWnition, were liable to munera together with Romans. Equally, Gellius’ choice of populus Romanus (cf. ‘populus eorum’ contrasted with the populus Romanus immediately preceding (6)) as the partner in the munus may be may be a deliberate contrast to formulations like Paulus’ ‘cum Romanis ciuibus’ (p. 155L, below) with its overtones of inequality. Gellius also introduces the concept of fundus Weri, something which municipia (and, as we shall see, allied communities) can do in respect of Roman laws. The precise meaning of this term is unclear, and I shall discuss it in more detail in
102 Pinsent, CQ (1957), 91, points out that in the 2nd and 1st cents., the standard Roman language for declaring a community autonomous—in inscriptions (SIG iii3 . 618, lex Antonia de Termessibus col. 1, ll. 7–8); in Polybios (18. 27. 2, 29. 5) and Livy (38. 44. 4, 45. 29. 4)—involves the right to ‘use their own laws’: legibus suis uti / nomois idiois (or patriois) chre¯sthai (nothing is said, however of iura); cf. CQ (1957), 92, arguing, rightly, that despite the obvious juridico-historical sleight of hand being eVected by Hadrian, the idea which lies at the heart of the deWnition that municipia did retain some, even many, of the characteristics and institutions of the autonomous states which had preceded them, is plausible. 103 Cf. Pinsent, CQ (1957), 91, on the lack of the right to vote as an honourable form of the citizenship (‘nothing but a bit of special pleading’).
Introduction
27
Chapters 4 and 5. Pinsent rightly noted that fundus Weri is something which autonomous states do to a Roman law in order to embed it in their own legal infrastructure; the text leaves ambiguous whether Gellius and his source envisaged it as a past or an ongoing process, but the suggestion that municipia are only subject to Roman law inasmuch as they have become fundi of particular statutes adds to the aura of independence surrounding them in this piece of Hadrianic casuistry.104 In mentioning the Caerites, his historical example, Gellius seems to say that they were the Wrst municipes—and on such terms that they did not have the right to vote—rather than that they were the Wrst municipes sine suVragio (if there was a class of people formally so named). Here we note a divergence from the information furnished by Paulus’ deWnition of municipium (p. 155L, below), where the Caerites are used to illustrate the class of municipes which enters the Roman citizenship en masse and without apparent restrictions, and not Paulus’ Wrst group, which lacks the right to vote. For Gellius, the Caerites receive the citizenship as a reward for services rendered in guarding the Roman sacra (sacred objects). Indeed, they are the more honoured, in his version, by being freed from the negotia and onera which the citizenship brings (7), and thus make an appropriate archetype for Gellius’ super-autonomous municipia. The origin he then gives for the tabulae Caerites has been the cause of much spilt ink, but does not concern us here; suYce to say that if he is theorizing, and not compressing his sources, the derivation may be of the type Quintilian used to derive lucus ‘a non lucendo’ (grove—from its not shining).105 It is, I think signiWcant, that while there are multiple deWnitions of municeps, there is only one of municipium.106 This is that found in Paulus, which explains the term with reference to groups of men (p. 155L): municipium id genus hominum dicitur, qui cum Romam uenissent, neque ciues Romani essent, participes tamen fuerunt omnium rerum ad munus fungendum una cum Romanis ciuibus, praeterquam de suVragio ferendo, aut magistratu capiendo; sicut fuerunt Fundani, Formiani, Cumani, Acerrani, Lanuuini, Tusculani, qui post aliquot annos ciues Romani eVecti sunt, alio modo, cum id genus hominum deWnitur, quorum ciuitas uniuersa in ciuitatem Romanam uenit, ut Aricini, Caerites, Anagnini. tertio, cum id genus hominum deWnitur, qui ad ciuitatem Romanam ita uenerunt, uti municipes essent suae cuiusque ciuitatis et coloniae, ut Tiburtes, Praenestini, Pisani, Vrbinates, Nolani, Bononienses, Placentini, Nepesini, Sutrini, Luc[r]esnses. (Paulus, p. 155L)107
104 Ibid. 91–2. 105 On the Caerite franchise question see Mommsen, StR iii. 572 n. 3; Kornemann, RE xvi. 1, s.v. ‘municipium I’ col. 575, Pinsent, CQ (1957), 90–2, Sordi, I rapporti romano-cerriti; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 53–8; Williams, Rubicon, 144–9; Quint., Inst. 1. 6. 34. 106 There is no chapter dealing with municipium equivalent to the Wrst chapter of the Wftieth book of the Digest on municipes. 107 The MS reads municipia essent sua in the third deWnition, but since this makes no sense at all, and I have printed Niebuhr’s emendation; it is easy to see how ‘-es’ before ‘essent’ could drop out, and ‘-ia’, the termination of the lemma, be substituted with little reXection.
28
Introduction
Municipium is the name of that class of men, who when they had come to Rome, while not being Roman citizens, had however a share in all things related to performing their duty together with Roman citizens, except concerning casting votes, or taking oYce; such were the Fundani, Formiani, Cumani, Acerrani, Lanuvini, and Tusculani, who after some years became Roman citizens. (It is used) in another way, when that class of men is deWned, whose whole community came into the Roman citizenship, like the Aricini, Caerites, and Anagnini. In a third sense, when that class of men is deWned, who came to the Roman citizenship in such a way, that they should be municipes of their own individual community and colony, like the Tiburtes, Praenestini, Pisani, Urbinates, Nolani, Bononienses, Placentini, Nepesini, Sutrini, and Luc[r]esnses.
We may note that Paulus, as in the other deWnitions discussed above, preserves alternative explanations, probably individual opinions from antiquarians or jurists cited by name in the missing lemma of Festus. Not everyone agreed that there was one correct deWnition, evidently. Further, lists of populi or ciuitates are marshalled to exemplify each of the three deWnitions given, although we cannot say anything about their provenance, other than that they too must derive from the authorities directly or indirectly cited by Festus. Paulus, himself condensing Festus, reports three deWnitions of municipium, which seem to be as follows: (i) people who (distinguished from later groups who are said to enter as collectivities) having physically come to Rome, although not being Roman citizens, nevertheless share a singular and unspeciWed munus with Roman citizens in all areas, but do not have the vote, and cannot hold magistracies—these are the Fundani etc. (a mixture of Latin, Volscian, and Campanian communities), and they become Roman citizens after an interval;108 (ii) people whose whole community was enfranchised at one go, listing one Latin, one Etruscan (the otherwise perplexing Caere), and one Hernican community, with no restrictions recorded on the terms of the citizenship; (iii) the groups which enter the Roman citizenship in such a way that they should be ‘municipes (according to an emendation) of their own individual community and colony’—a long list of communities is appended. What sense can be made of these three groups? Let us observe at the start that the Wrst group suVers under restrictions which in part or whole correspond to those which I think, judging from the term, to have been inherent in the status ciuis sine suVragio:109 as we have seen municipium and ciuitas sine suVragio are often linked in the sources.110 The second group, including Caere (which is at
108 It is not clear whether Festus/Paulus imagined any particular means for this enfranchisement— perhaps legislation or registration by the censors; see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 60, apparently favouring the former. 109 It seems that in practice the Romans did not systematically prevent municipes of any sort from seeking oYce or entering the Senate. The disabling eVect of aristocratic prejudice may have made such legislative bars superXuous. 110 Unlike Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 59–60, I am not worried to Wnd Lanuvium and Tusculum in this group, nor Aricia in the next: I place little faith in any source knowing the ‘facts’ here, let alone Paulus being the one source to preserve them.
Introduction
29
times said to have been favoured, at others to have been punished for disloyalty111), suVers no restrictions; the manner in which it obtains the citizenship is described in the way in which scholars generally conceptualize enfranchisement and municipalization, namely a whole populus being incorporated at one moment.112 These municipia may then represent ciues optimo iure. The Wnal group is less easy to explain, but the emphasis seems to be on their continuing to belong to their own individual communities, which seems to distinguish them from the previous two groups. A further, historical, dimension can be added.113 Looking at the list of communities, we note that all were ciuitates foederatae or Latin colonies; all, if we look at the list further, were enfranchised after the Social War.114 The Wrst Wve (Tibur to Nola) were ordinary socii, and the last Wve were Latin colonies (Bononia to Luca, assuming that Lucrenses should be amended).115 The third deWnition in Paulus, then, tells us nothing about what it was to be a municipium in any abstract original sense, but it is important for attitudes to enfranchisement in the period immediately after the Social War. I shall return to this, but note for now the emphasis on the preservation of rights and duties of the new citizens in their own communities. One wonders whether the full lemma which Paulus abridged, or even the full source on which Festus drew, also raised a question which Ulpian dealt with (D. 50. 1. 1. 2), namely to which municipium a child born to parents from two diVerent municipia should belong. Pinsent rightly noted that for this to be a problem implied that in some sense diVerent municipia preserved the attitudes of independent polities.116 It is also worth stressing that, after the Social War, previous juridical diVerences are submerged in the category of municipium, and previous history as Latin colony or other ally, Latin or Campanian, no longer matters from this point of view.117 In this sense there also seems to be (or Festus seems to have seen—not the same thing) a distinction between the third group and the other two. The second group 111 See above n. 105. 112 Cicero (Balb. 31): ‘et ex Latio multi ut Tusculani et Lanuuini, et . . . gentes uniuersae in ciuitatem receptae sunt, ut Sabinorum, Volscorum, Hernicorum’ (‘both from Latium many, like the Tusculani and Lanuvini, and . . . whole peoples were received into the citizenship, such as those of the Sabini, Volsci, and Hernici’), although if he meant that all Sabini etc. were given the citizenship at the same time, that is not correct (see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 60); and Velleius, 2. 17. 1, on which see Ch. 4; another piece of ideology from the Social War era? 113 Pinsent, CQ (1957), 89, Seston, Scripta Varia, 42–5. 114 Seston, Scripta Varia, 42 n. 33; the partial coincidence with Appian, BC 1. 65. 294 is precisely that, a coincidence. Nevertheless, the passage serves to remind us that all that Paulus’ communities have in common is enfranchisement in or after 90 bc, probably under the terms of the lex Iulia (cf. Seston, Scripta Varia, 43). 115 See Ch. 1 for further distinctions between socii and socii nominis Latini. 116 CQ (1957), 89, noting also that Ulpian did not envisage immigration as constituting a suYcient criterion for belonging to a municipium, but that Paulus (p. 117L—not necessarily Aelius Gallus as Pinsent suggests) does include such a class of people as municipes, but speaks of them as a historical phenomenon (‘ut fuerunt’). Did the prevailing ideology of the early 1st cent. bc seek to discourage municipal mobility? 117 Seston, Scripta Varia, 43; this seems preferable to seeing the imperial abuse of the term municeps (see below) as at issue in these words, as Pinsent seems to (CQ (1957), 89 n. 3).
30
Introduction
are not spoken of with the same stress on their essence as municipes as depending on their own communities; they simply and unambiguously enter the Roman citizenship as a unit, and suVer no disability or restriction in so doing. It would be interesting if this passage did reXect a perception by someone other than Festus that the old municipia, incorporated before the Social War, were somehow more unconditionally Roman than those enfranchised in and after 90 bc. As to the Wrst group, it has been noted since Mommsen that there are major problems with seeing as municipes or members of a municipium those who had emigrated to Rome (whether as groups or individuals remains unclear) and, after an unspeciWed period, performing a wide range of munera with Roman citizens, were themselves made citizens.118 Here it seems that the etymological cart has been put before the historical horse. In terms of the attitudes prevailing after the Social War it seems that there may be a sense that this Wrst group of municipia had somehow earnt their citizenship by the performance of munera, an attitude against which the conduct of the ex-Social-War rebels could be compared, to their disadvantage. In terms of earlier history, however, we are told little of concrete value. More important than anything else perhaps is the fact that all the municipia in the Wrst two groups, all of which, leaving aside the problematic case of Caere, were incorporated in the fourth century, provoked disagreements about what made them municipia, or how they had become municipia.119 Various views seem to have been put forward in the Wrst century, with examples drawn from history to support them. It is interesting that these views seem to contrast sharply with the Livian narrative, for example, which, whatever its truth-value, is internally coherent and tells a plausible, and rather diVerent story, closer to that of the second deWnition than the Wrst, but making more sense of the institution of the ciuitas sine suVragio, which seems to be reXected in the Wrst deWnition. What is important, however, is not which story may or may not be the right one—that is unknowable in the Wnal analysis—but that Paulus’ deWnitions allow us glimpses of myths of incorporation and belonging which allowed Romans of the Wrst century bc to come to terms with the changes following the Social War, by pressing ancient history into service, probably through radical reinterpretation. 118 It is not impossible that this idea of municipia as equating to emigration to Rome and performance of munera is based in some sense on a conception of the shared rights and privileges which seem to have characterized Latium until the Latin War, and some of which survived it (see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 32–7, on these iura); I have already noted that the ciuitas sine suVragio may also lurk behind some aspects of this deWnition. Few would see these two elements of intercommunity relations of the 4th cent. as compatible. 119 As Sherwin-White noted (Citizenhip2 , 40), the deWnitions given by Paulus disagree as to whether the inhabitants of municipia were Roman citizens (second and third deWnitions) or not (Wrst deWnition). It seems to me unlikely that this reXects an initial ambiguity in the condition of municipia, or the ciuitas sine suVragio, as containing elements of citizenship and alliance (Konopka, Eos (1929); Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 41–2) or a chronological development (Sherwin-White, 51)—although this might actually have been the case—rather than uncertainty and disagreement among the antiquarians, whose research was not being conducted in a vacuum; Livy’s terminological incompetence seems to be a particularly weak argument for their position.
Introduction
31
What conclusions can we draw from all this? First, let me reiterate that the antiquarian input was to create politically contingent deWnitions of institutions which were not only poorly understood, of considerable antiquity, and hence debatable even as subjects of scholarship, but also mattered greatly to the elite Romans and Italians alike in the late Republic, and might materially inXuence the way in which the political landscape of Italy and the relations of old Romans and new Romans would be imagined.120 We cannot hope to approach the deWnitions in Festus expecting to Wnd there ‘high-grade’ information on what municipium originally meant, or the ‘municipalness’ of the fourth-century municipia. As Sherwin-White recognized, municipalization was a moving target from the fourth century onwards, and over the course of two generations might have signiWcantly changed its meaning, nature, and signiWcance; certainly, as we shall see, even the very idea of Italy was constantly evolving in this period.121 Thus, attempts, such as that by Humbert, to see the municipium as still holding true in 91 to its original essence of the fourth century are as misconceived as they are ingeniously argued.122 The separateness expected or desired of the Wrst-century municipia seems to come across very strongly in all sources, but must tell us about the practice, and the success, of the municipal system from the Social War onwards, not the fourth century bc; Gradenwitz long ago pointed out that deWnitions of municipes, while mentioning access to the Roman citizenship, almost never refer to them straightforwardly as ciues; the exception is Ulpian, who is dealing with a misnomer (D. 50. 1. 1: ‘but now we incorrectly refer to citizens of a particular community as municipes’).123 Thus the antiquarians, paradoxically, were able in a sense to deny to the new citizens what Rome’s statesmen had been unable to refuse: citizenship. Festus and Gellius have been allowed to exercise an abnormal inXuence on our understanding of municipia mainly because our pre-Social-War material is so exiguous.
T H E P RO B L E M O F O R I G I N S I I I : PA R A L L E L S If questions about origins and deWnitions are thus terribly hard to answer when applied to the second and Wrst centuries, the problem is far more pressing for the fourth and third centuries. The latter constitute a worthwhile object of study, and indeed there is much to be gained from taking a long-term view of where the communities of Roman Italy came from, how they emerged, the evolution of 120 For a similar controversy, which the survival of our sources allows us to follow slightly better, that of the status of the inhabitants of Cisalpine Gaul, and the questions of extension of the Roman citizenship to them, and the status of Cisalpina as a province, see Williams, Rubicon, 119–39. 121 Citizenship2 , 39, noting ‘failure to appreciate inward changes under the cover of the same external form’. 122 Municipium, ch. 1. 123 Gradenwitz, Die Gemeindeordnung der Tafel von Heraklea und die spanischen Stadtrechte, 38, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 49; Salmon, Making, 45.
32
Introduction
their identities, and the ways in which their interactions with each other and then Rome were structured over time.124 Neverthleless, such an inquiry would require enormous length if applied to the whole of Italy. I have elected to start considering the evidence for what municipium and municeps meant juridically and practically only from the start of the second century bc, whence some lines of relative clarity can be traced into the Wrst century. In this period, for the Wrst time, contemporary evidence for municipal matters becomes available and worth discussing in detail. Nevertheless, some points about the preceding centuries can be made.125 In De oYciis, Cicero, discussing the need for just reasons for going to war, distinguishes between wars fought to avenge wrongs, and wars fought for command or supremacy—imperium.126 The latter, he says, should be fought ‘less bitterly’ than wars for survival, in the same way that political struggles between rival candidates are diVerent from those between inimici (enemies). He oVers examples: ‘thus the war with the Celtiberians, and with the Cimbri, was carried on as with inimici, the question being which should survive, not which should command; with the Latins, Sabines, Samnites, Poeni, and with Pyrrhus the contest was over dominion’.127 In Cicero’s eyes, then, Rome’s Italian wars were all fought to settle which of the various contenders should control Italy. In view of that aim (which it is hard to refute from an analysis of the historical narratives), we should at least ask how Rome organized Italy as a means to the end of imperium. A ‘common-sense’ review of the Livian tradition can be undertaken, for example; but the date of Livy’s account is so much later than the events narrated in books 6–10, that the case-by-case analysis of each episode to isolate 124 For a thoughtful and searching treatment of a region of Italy in this manner, see Bradley, Ancient Umbria, cf. Purcell, in CAH vi2 . 403, on Messapia. 125 For a call to pay more serious attention to the importance of the third century in the understanding of the Roman control in Italy, see Curti, ‘Toynbee’s Legacy’, in Italy and the West, 17–21. 126 OV. 1. 34–8; see also Harris, War and Imperialism, 165–6, on Cicero’s views on war in OV. 127 OV. 1. 38, ‘sic cum Celtiberis, cum Cimbris bellum ut cum inimicis gerebatur, uter esset, non uter imperaret, cum Latinis Sabinis Samnitibus Poenis Pyrrho de imperio dimicabatur’; for the Samnite Wars cf. Livy, 7. 29, 8. 23. He goes on ‘ ‘‘Poeni foedifragi’’, crudelis Hannibal, reliqui iustiores’ (‘there were the ‘‘truce-breaking Karthaginians’’, and cruel Hannibal; the others were fairer’); compare Cicero’s earlier distinctions as to how to behave towards defeated enemies (OV. 1. 35). The Hannibalic War did not end in the destruction of Karthage; it suited Roman pride to believe that it had not been a struggle for survival, and that Karthaginian oath-breaking was responsible for the conXict; Wnally Karthaginian cruelty was punished with extirpation. Conversely, Rome’s Italian enemies were juster, less cruel, and rewarded with citizenship. The idea in Cicero’s day, that Karthage or Numantia might have been enfranchised, was of course absurd. The underlying idea, that Roman citizenship given to the defeated was some sort of reward, is important: we shall meet it later, but note for now Ps.-Sallust, Ep. ad Caes., 6. 4, citizenship as a ‘maxumum beneWcium’ (‘very great beneWt’); for Livy’s interest in the citizenship as an adjunct of conquest see Lipovsky, A Historiographical Study of Livy Books 6–10 (New York, 1981), 88–9; Dench, Barbarians, 19–20. Tacitus is a representative of a widespread viewpoint: ‘Romana ciuitas olim data cum id rarum nec nisi uirtute pretium esset’ (‘the Roman citizenship, awarded once upon a time when it was given rarely, and only as the reward for courage’, Annals 3. 40 on Florus and Sacrovir, cf. 1. 58, 6. 37).
Introduction
33
the possible ‘facts’ within the Augustan framework, even if feasible, would require a monstrous amount of space; as for common sense, Einstein once dismissed it as ‘nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down in the mind before you reach eighteen’. There is, however, some material worth consideration: Polybios preserves three Romano-Karthaginian treaties, accepted as genuine by most scholars, which do shed some light on how Romans described their system of imperium in Italy, in the sixth, fourth, and third centuries respectively. The second, conventionally dated to 348 bc, is of interest to us. The preceding years saw, apparently, the Wrst oYcial contacts between Rome and the Samnites (354);128 contemporaneous Gallic and (Sicilian?) Greek threats were seen oV in 349. This dynamic international situation provides a suitable backdrop to the conclusion of the treaty.129 Such treaties were used at this time by Rome not only to regulate her dealings with more distant powers, but also as the basis of her control of local allies and resources. That the latter in the end (i.e. with the outbreak of the Latin War in 341 bc) proved insuYcient is beside the point. The terms of the treaty are instructive, in that they lay bare the nature of Roman domination in Latium. The treaty refers to the possibility that the Karthaginians may capture K fiB ¸Æfi ºØ Øa c s Æ Œ øÆØ (‘any city in Latine¯ which is not subject to the Romans’, 3. 24. 5). The treaty thus shows that some cities of Latium were neither controlled nor (for the purposes of this treaty at least) claimed by the Romans (although if Karthage captured one, its physical fabric would pass to Rome, presumably for resettlement).130 More importantly it implicitly recognizes the existence of a group in Latium which is subject to the Romans. These may have been named in the treaty, but Polybios has not reproduced the list. Thus we cannot specify who were the
ŒØ of the Romans, and who their ıØ (‘allies’, 24. 3). These two groups may in fact be identical, since they are all bound to the terms of the treaty.131 The treaty further deals with the peoples who had an eire¯ne¯ engraptos (inscribed peace) not subject to them (24. 6). This implies that a people might be subject to the Romans and have an eire¯ne¯ engraptos with them; but I believe that this is simply the language of unpolished legalistic pleonasm (if Polybios has rendered the Latin correctly), and that the two categories are not separate but potentially 128 Livy, 7. 19. 4. Note also Livy’s account of Roman military ventures against Privernum in 357 (Livy, 7. 16. 3–6), the Aurunci in 345 (7. 28. 1–3), and Sora (same year, 7. 28. 6). As Cornell (Beginnings, 325) notes, there is no reason to doubt these notices. Activities like this follow naturally on Rome’s control of Latium, and explain the beginning of Romano-Samnite interstate relations better than the victories of 354. 129 Polybios, 3. 24. For the date see Walbank, Commentary, i. 337–8. (with earlier bibliography), 345–6; Cornell, Beginnings, 210–12, 325; before 348 bc, however, for Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 193 n. 2, 200. On the treaty in general see Walbank, Commentary, i. 345–9 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 101–13. Further bibliography in Scardigli, I trattati romano-cartaginesi; Torelli, Tota Italia, 17 n. 35. 130 Walbank places Antium and Lanuvium in this group, Commentary, i. 347–8; its composition is not easy to guess. There are similarities in the division of movable and non-movable booty to that stipulated in Rome’s treaty with the Aitolians in 212/1 bc (Staatsvertra¨ge, iii. 536 ¼ TDGR 4, no. 2). 131 Cf. Walbank, Commentary, i. 345 on 22. 11.
34
Introduction
co-extensive. Romans can free captured citizens of such states if the Karthaginians bring them into a Roman harbour, implying that their gratitude is valued; and an eire¯ne¯ engraptos does not sound like a defensive symmachy (like the foedus Cassianum (Cassian treaty), traditionally 493 bc, which apparently underpinned Romano-Latin relations), but must be a peace treaty between equals. Walbank thinks that this category covered places like Praeneste and Tibur as well as Rome’s traditional more distant friends (Massilia, Taras, Tarquinii, and Caere).132 The latter must be those meant by this treaty, to whom we might add the Samnites; but the former were probably subjects even though dealt with separately from the foedus Cassianum.133 At 24. 14–16 Polybios notes what for him were the important elements of the treaty, alluding, as Walbank saw,134 to clauses in the treaty which he had not quoted (24. 16). We may, I think, assume that Polybios correctly cites particular cities as appearing in the treaty,135 which thus tells us at least the limits of what Rome deWned as the limits of her area of interest in 348: Ardea, Circeii, Antium,136 and Tarracina (24. 16).137 Rome’s horizons were already extensive, and she asserted as a matter of course that Latium Adiectum was her sphere of inXuence.138 Note also the ban on Romans trading or founding poleis (cities) in 132 Walbank, Commentary, i. 348. 133 The passages cited by Walbank to prove that Praeneste had an eire¯ne¯ engraptos with Rome (Livy, 6. 29. 7 and D.S., 16. 45. 8) are not helpful: Livy tells us nothing, and Diodoros distinguishes the truce given to the Praenestines from the ıŁ ŒÆ (‘treaty’) made with the Samnites at the same time (the same word is used by Polybios of the Romano-Karthaginian treaties). 134 Commentary, i. 338. 135 For doubts see Walbank, Commentary, i. 349, but 22. 11 is not identical to 24. 16 (the emendation to the former noted at Walbank, i. 344–5. seems unnecessary). 136 Walbank, ibid. 347–8, notes that the Fasti Triumphales recall a triumph ‘de Volscis Antiatibus’ (‘over the Antiate Volsci’) for 346. The Antiates presumably disagreed with Roman claims to hegemony. 137 Roman interests north of Ardea, let alone the Tiber, are not mentioned. Note also the language of protection: the Karthaginians are not allowed to IØŒE (‘wrong’) the cities in question. This is the language of interstate treaties of this period (Walbank, Commentary, i. 346). 138 This is probably to be construed as a recent shift in Roman interests away from Latium Antiquum (‘Old Latium’, for this term and the complementary Latium Adiectum, ‘Added Latium’, see Plin., HN 3. 56, 59, with Salmon, Colonization, 48 n. 57, Making, 5, 40). Polybios indeed implies that the Romans made the treaty to enshrine their control over this area (3. 24. 16 ad Wn.). Coastal cities alone are listed here since this was the area in which Rome and Karthage were likely to clash— note the reference to f øÆø ºØÆ (‘the harbours of the Romans’, 24. 6). The prayer oVered at the Augustan (and later) ludi saeculares (‘Secular Games’) to the Moerae and other deities includes the striking formulation (Pighi, De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium, ll. 93–4 ¼ CIL vi. 32323, cf. p. 126): ‘uti imperium maiestatemque p. R. Quiritium duelli domique auxitis, utique semper Latinus obtemperassit’ (‘that you increase the command and greaterness of the Roman people, the Quirites, in war and at home, and that the Latin may always have been submissive’). Despite Momigliano’s suspicion (Secondo Contributo, 400) that this phrase was an Augustan antiquarian Wction, an early date can be defended: so Palmer, Roman Religion and Roman Empire, 102–3 and Harris, War and Imperialism, 120–2, esp. 121, 265, suggesting that the context of the phrase might be Secular Games in 348 bc (and n. 8 for bibliography). While it is tempting to believe that a context earlier in the 4th cent. might be possible, the synchronism with the second Karthaginian treaty makes Harris’s view attractive. A diVerent attitude to the Latins is to be found in Ennius (fr. 494–5 Skutsch): ‘audire est operae pretium procedere recte / qui rem Romanam Latiumque augescere uoltis’ (‘it is
Introduction
35
Libya or Sardinia (24. 11):139 Rome’s interests clearly lay at this period overseas to the west as well as to the south in the fertile Campanian plain. Corsica is still on the menu, and the Caerite treaty, probably of 353, surely facilitated further cooperation on the part of Caere in future Roman activity in the West. At the period when this treaty was made, then, Rome’s main mechanisms of control and organization in Latium were (a) the Latin colonies and (b) the use of the foedus (treaty), a politically unexceptionable way of institutionalizing Roman hegemony.140 Yet the foedus Cassianum, accepted afresh under duress as it apparently had been, had no ideological element or attraction which might have counteracted the fears of Rome’s allies about continuing Roman expansion. It was perhaps therefore the failure, or unwillingness, of the Romans to forge a coherent and long-term system of control from these two elements which led to the outbreak of the Latin War in 341. That revolt was in itself futile, but ultimately it probably stimulated a major rethink of the means and presentation of Roman control in Latium and Campania, more enlightened than might have been hoped, and better geared to the carrying of conquest into new lands. One result of such thinking may have been the appearance of municipes.141 This institution is not mentioned in the sixth-century treaty, suggesting that, if it already existed in any form distinct from other forms of control, it was as yet of little account in the Romans’ portfolio of control. The Romano-Karthaginian treaty tells us nothing concrete about municipalization, but it does two things. It reminds us Wrst that we must understand the rise of the municipal system, like that of the ciuitas sine suVragio, within the worthwhile to hear how to get on properly, you who wish the Roman commonwealth and Latium to grow’, unplaced fragment). The reference to increasing Latium (not commented on by Harris, pp. 125–6) probably reXects attitudes of Ennius’ own day, before the end of Latin colonization. 139 See also Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation. 140 The bilateral foedus between Rome and an individual ally remained a key feature of Roman power politics after 338, but its continuing success was predicated upon Rome’s ability to forge a tighter Roman core to her hegemony through the extension of her citizenship. Since the agreement was bilateral, it gave a pleasing illusion of autonomy: Carandini, La romanizzazione dell’ Etruria, 38. See also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 119–25 (not all acceptable), with Harrris, Etruria and Umbria, ch. 3; Baronowski, Phoenix (1990): there was probably (at least after the mid-4th cent.) no such thing, juridically, as a foedus aequum or ‘equal treaty’ (despite continued optimism, e.g. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 44 n. 21), but rather varying degrees of asymmetry and obligation; at the lighter end of the spectrum the language of diplomacy might call such agreements aequa, much as patrons and clients preferred the language of amicitia (friendship) to that of clientela (client relations). Inequality is patent in the phrase sometimes used (e.g. Cicero, Balb. 35–7) of treaty obligations: maiestatem populi Romani comiter conseruare, ‘to preserve with goodwill the greaterness’ (not ‘bigness’, as Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 121, translates, despite the Greek equivalent ªÆºØ, which also renders magnitudo or ‘size’ ibid. 282–3; he insists rightly, however, on the importance of this phrase) ‘of the Roman people’. Comiter is not a throwaway adverb either (cf. Dio, 60. 11. 7, Claudius on the ‘cheerful’ (æŁıø) contribution of governors to running the Empire). Salmon, Making, 68, denies the maiestas clause featured in Italian foedera—an argument from silence. 141 Salmon, Making, 41–50, on the changes Rome instituted in 338, describing them as ‘diversifying her relationships’ (41), 44–51 on the municipium. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 51, argues that the ciuitas sine suVragio was intended as a permanent condition; this would mark a conceptual break from the foedus, made for limited periods and subject to renewal.
36
Introduction
context of Rome’s need to control the loyalty and resources of her neighbours, immediate and then more distant, and to deny their use to her enemies.142 To do so it oVered more than subject status, indeed, it represented the best traditions of archaic Xuidity of populations and rights, the horizontal social mobility identiWed by Carmine Ampolo as a characteristic of archaic Tyrrhenian society.143 The ciuitas sine suVragio was not per se punitive: the vote was denied those too far away to use it, and given to those who might; yet it restricted the enfranchised communities’ freedom for independent action and autonomous foreign policy.144 Secondly, the treaty reminds us of the importance of not simply thinking in terms of Roman genius gradually Wnding the golden mean between subjection and autonomy. Relations between Rome and her allies and subjects operated, as the treaties show, of necessity within the larger context of international systems of relationships, treaties, embassies, and arbitrations. DiYcult as it may be to pinpoint either Greek inXuence or Roman individuality, this international context to what, with Roman expansion, quickly became a particularly international issue, must be borne in mind. Much has been said, and need not be repeated, about the resemblance of the communities of the Latin League to Greek poleis possessing isopoliteia (reciprocal civic rights).145 Roman political borrowings from, and the inXuence of, Magna Graecia and further aWeld have been convincingly demonstrated for the period of the Struggle of the Orders, as recently by Curti.146 Against the increasing clarity of a Hellenic-inXuenced background, suggestions such as that of Sherwin-White, that the praefecti (prefects) recorded as Wrst appointed in 318 bc in Campania should be seen as the equivalent of Hellenistic interstate arbiters, seem ever more convincing.147 I want here only to 142 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 46–7, on signs of resentment of military obligations. 143 DdA (1976–7). 144 For the ciuitas sine suVragio as punitive: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 50; Humbert, Municipium; Salmon, Making, 50–1; Coarelli, DdA (1992), 28–9. Claims like Sherwin-White’s (that the ciuitas sine suVragio ‘brought [those incorporated] under the inXuence of Romano-Latin discipline and culture’, Citizenship2 , 61) are common, but lack foundation, as the evidence he adduces on communities of ciues sine suVragio show. Romano-Latin culture (allowing it to be a real cultural entity as distinct from Hernican or Volscian) did not need incorporation to spread; disciplina (‘orderly conduct’) was a construct as well as a virtue. 145 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 47, 57–8; Humbert, Municipium, ch.3. The civitas sine suVragio can perhaps be seen as a both a limited potential sympoliteia and a limited actual isopoliteia (i.e. transfer to Rome would presumably not bring voting rights). 146 In Bispham and Smith, Evidence and Experience; see also id., in Italy and the West, 19–21. 147 Livy, 9. 20. 5–10; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 43, 52. If in anyway related to real events (which I think it is), this notice may still have nothing to do with Capua, or not on the terms Livy relates. The later praefectura Capuam Cumas (‘the prefecture sent to Capua and Cumae’), and the seismic distortion which Capua’s desertion to Hannibal introduced into the narratives of contemporary historians like Fabius Pictor, and thus their successors, make the assessment of all claims about Capua very problematic. See Pobjoy, Roman Capua (forthcoming). Another area where Hellenistic parallels might be explored is in the relationship between the kings and the cities which in some sense fell under their sway. Mastrocinque, La Caria e la Ionia meridionale, 206, argues that in the East ‘La polis si avvia a diventare municipium; le liberta` contano ancora, ma solo perche´ signiWcano esenzioni, sopratutto delle tasse; non piu` perche´ permettono al demos di far politica’ (‘the polis is on the way to
Introduction
37
note one other area where inXuences from a fourth-century Mediterranean koine¯ (common cultural area) might be posited. The Romans employed the best features of isopoliteia and of sumpoliteia (shared political rights) in a range of contexts. Aristotle might have criticized the institution of the civitas sine suVragio, on the grounds that it oVered only the private iura (‘rights’) of Roman citizens, but no participation in the political process (Politics 3. 1275b 18).148 Yet the polis system analysed by Aristotle was already creaking under a variety of pressures by the time he wrote, and Rome transcended its limitations while managing (until the Punic Wars) to maintain the Wction of polis-style institutions. Aristotle had claimed that a polis could not be so called if its population exceeded 100,000 (Nicomachean Ethics 1170b 31); Afzelius estimates that the free population of the ager Romanus after 338 was 347,300.149 Yet combinations of states were being experimented with in Greece from the early fourth century, indeed earlier. The description which, to my mind, could best be oVered of what Rome seems to have been doing from the later fourth century comes not in Livy, nor even in Polybios, but in words used by Xenophon of a Chalkidic context, speaking of the way in which Olynthos had expanded her hegemony at the expense of her neighbours: ‘These [the Olynthians] brought over some of the cities to their side on the condition that they should use the same laws and share their citizenship. Then, they also took over some of the larger cities.’150 We have very few really encouraging data, if any, about what municipalization meant on a day-to-day basis before the Wrst century bc. The answer is probably that the Romans probably had neither the ability nor the inclination to interfere at a ‘micro’ level; the ‘macro’ level of the Roman people’s interests and safety, and things pertaining to them, were another matter.151 Unfortunately there is a grey area of unknown extent between these two positions. The Roman assemblies seem to have created leges (statutes) for Latin colonies, to be implemented by specially elected magistrates, from at least the third century (whether this happened for Roman colonies is obscure, but they must have had some sort of leges by the Hannibalic War, and probably by the First Punic War.152 How this process of granting leges inXuenced municipia is unclear. Capua, which we know becoming a municipium; freedoms still matter, but only in as much as they signify exemptions, above all from taxes; no longer because they allow the demos to engage in politics’); on the kings and the cities, see now Ma, Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor. 148 Politics 3, 1275a 2---b 22. 149 Die ro¨mische Eroberung Italiens, 153, followed by Cornell, Beginnings, 351. 150 Xenophon (Hellenika 5. 2. 12) puts these words into the mouths of ambassadors from Akanthos and Apollonia seeking Spartan help against Olynthos: yØ H ºø æ ªª K fiz Ø E ÆPE æB ŁÆØ ŒÆd ıºØØ; ØÆ b ŒÆd H Øø æ ºÆ ØÆ. 151 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 48. 152 This may be the implication of complaints by Roman colonies against conscription of their citizens in the Second Punic and Syrian Wars; the colonists believed themselves to have immunity qua colonists, and while Livy does not say so, could well have sought to prove this by appealing to their leges (Livy, 27. 38. 1–2, 207 bc, 36. 3. 4–6, 191 bc, and see Bispham, in State Identities, at 165, 172–3).
38
Introduction
something about in the third century (although for all the wrong reasons) does seem to have retained Oscan as its public and private language, and to have had meddices as its chief magistrates.153 It seems most likely that such rights were enshrined in some document early on, rather than simply being assumed and thus being laid open to challenge later. Beyond this point, all is unclear: we simply cannot say what either side thought was going on at the time.
M U N I C I PA L I Z AT I O N I N C O N T E XT After the Social War Rome was forced for the Wrst time to apply to a large area, and relatively quickly, the type of local solution to the problems of administrative burdens and autonomy which she had developed and instituted piecemeal during the conquest of Italy over a period of centuries. Yet, as we have seen, it is dangerous to generalize, and everywhere in Italy we must always allow for regionalism and particularism, in antiquity as in the twenty-Wrst century.154 The conWguration of settlement was partly historically and partly culturally determined. The mountainous areas of modern Abruzzo and Molise had not, by the Wrst century bc, produced many substantial nucleated settlements, let alone ones which had attained municipal status.155 In Samnium, or Picenum, the tendency to build large nucleated settlements, away from hilltops and closer to communications routes was a new one in the generation before the Social War. People of Sabellian stock156 were often villagers, and municipal life, as it might have been understood in say Etruria, where there was a long tradition of urbanism, was probably quite an unfamiliar concept, although processes of 153 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 43, 45–6; and note further evidence collected at 203 n. 6 for separate military forces, but also inclusion in the total of Roman citizens for 225 bc. Whether leges recorded by Livy as datae (‘given’) by the praetor L. Furius and applied at Capua by the Wrst praefecti (Livy, 9. 20. 5) can in any sense be related to this topic, whether they are even genuine, is probably not an answerable question, but the beginnings of municipal leges might perhaps be seen as a regularization of ad hoc arbitrations by such praefecti. 154 ‘Particularism’ has been used in standard accounts of the Romanization of Italy with connotations of backwoods resistance to the obvious beneWts of Roman power and cosmopolitan superiority: so Brunt, Fall, 117, cf. Salmon, Making, 122, 155, 157–8, on the persistence of local languages (see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 70–5, for a critique of the historiography of such discussions). I do not use it in such a sense, rather I employ the word to mean diVerence and individuality with respect both to Rome and to other Italian neighbours. 155 For urbanization in southern Samnium, see Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 197–200, 207–12, 249 (noting that Larinum should be considered as separate from the upland areas of Samnium). 156 I have, with little enthusiasm, adopted ‘Sabellian’ as a cover-all term for Italian peoples other than Greeks, Etruscans, Messapians, and the various inhabitants of the Po valley; the term is a Roman one, and furthermore not one with a static meaning; but it is used of what are elsewhere called ‘OscoUmbrian’ (Salmon, Making, 7) or Italic (Vetter, Handbuch; Poccetti; and in the forthcoming volume by Crawford et al., Imagines Italicae) languages, in Rix, Sabellische Texte. See further Rix, Beitra¨ge zur Namenforschung (1957); La Regina, in Studi sulla citta` antica, 192, and Archeologia e Storia Antica (1981); Dench, Barbarians.
Introduction
39
state-formation, elite self-deWnition, and interaction had taken place at the upland sanctuary complexes of central Italy (such as Pietrabbondante and Iuvanum) since at least the Hannibalic War. Such cultural diversity within Italy means that we cannot make blanket remarks about municipalization, neither in terms of process nor still less of eVects. Such judgements applied to the various ethnic groupings within Italy without the exercise of a considerable degree of caution are valueless. Wide diVerences can exist within any given group or unit, be it juridical, geographical, or cultural. For example, the Oscan speakers of Cumae begged the Senate’s permission in 180 to use Latin as the oYcial language of the town. This can be read in a number of ways. On one level it can be treated as an expression of the administrative Romanization of Cumae.157 On another it can be seen as an obvious and public attempt to curry favour with the Senate, especially in the context of the piecemeal restoration of Capuan rights in the early years of the second century:158 Cumae was anxious to maintain its favoured position over Capua. If there was the capacity and the desire in the town to use Latin and not Oscan, permission from the Roman Senate was surely not necessary. Perhaps Latin was well on its way to ousting Oscan anyway, and the senate of Cumae simply made a virtue of necessity. Not very far away on the southern borders of Campania, the Cippus Abellanus of the mid-second century (Vetter, Handbuch, 1 ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte, Cm1) shows that Oscan was still in use in oYcial texts, and the ‘Oscanism’ of the Italic communities had ever deeper roots as one went up into the hills which ringed the Campanian plain. From those same hills however, looking back, the Solfatara hills in front of Cumae are clearly visible on a Wne day and in an unpolluted century. Two worlds, characterized often by signiWcant diVerences, frequently existed in close proximity in Roman Italy. One of the tasks of municipalization was to create a public sphere in which overarching administrative structures could emerge as a common unifying factor. The task must be measured against the background and the success of the process against the survival of local particularism into the Augustan period.
M E T H O D O LO G I E S , A P P ROAC H E S , A N D S O U RC E S Fine words. Yet how can one write the transformations of Italy, or within Italy, after the Social War? Two almost mutually exclusive approaches present themselves. Either one can concentrate on a region, without being able also to examine the whole peninsula and the political developments in Rome suYciently thoroughly to be able to avoid using generalizations to Wll the gaps in knowledge. Or one can take the global view, concentrating on what emanated from Rome, and trying draw conclusions from what can be seen to operate at a supra-local level, while attempting the impossible task of keeping one eye on the bewildering 157 Livy, 40. 42. 13.
158 See Livy, 38. 28. 4, 36. 5–6.
40
Introduction
diversity of Italy. One has to choose, in eVect, between the broadbrush, ‘overpixelated’ history of the peninsula, or the minaturist, ‘hi-resolution’ study of a region.159 It may be thought that I have fallen between two stools in choosing a strategy which is eVectively an attempt to satisfy the conXicting demands of both tasks. Yet I have felt this to be the best course available to me, if the most diYcult. If one seeks to chart, with all its ramiWcations, the transition from an Italy at war with itself in 91 to an Italy formally united against an external enemy in 31 (from Asculum to Actium), one must do justice to the weight of particularism and regional diversity. Again the local picture does not in the end tell us much unless we can set it against a general peninsular one, especially that drawn from the municipal legislation passed in Rome. Nonetheless, I have felt bound to exclude some areas. Cisalpina is generally excluded for all but comparative purposes, since it was not enfranchised until 49 bc, and its historical circumstances and cultural history warrant a separate treatment in any case (Luraschi’s Foedus, Ius Latii, Civitas remains a fundamental juridical study).160 Again, the complex cultural problems involved, and the volume of additional evidence available, have meant that I have had to avoid anything but the most cursory treatment of the municipalization of the Italiote cities of Southern Italy. My discussion of the means by which the transition from allied community to Roman municipium was eVected is essentially a juridical one, a constitutional study of the new municipia. It is, however, not restricted only to the newly enfranchised areas of Italy, but covers also those municipia created in the old ager Romanus after the Social War: their appearance is a phenomenon closely connected with the municipalization of the new citizen areas of Italy. Such as it is, the evidence for municipalization is very diverse. The literary sources, predictably, make only brief and sporadic mention of what was going on in the Italian towns in this as in any period, often en passant; there is sometimes a fair amount of detail on individual events, but it is hard to know whether notices are typical or atypical of what was happening Italy as a whole (and what, if anything, was typical). The letters of Cicero are full of material, for instance, but very hard to synthesize. More than anything we miss a narrative history which gives even the attention, patchy and sometimes misconstrued, which Appian gave to the Italian question in the Gracchan and post-Gracchan period.161 Writing on 159 Much of the work done by my contemporaries has concentrated on speciWc areas of Italy, allowing realistic integration of archaeological and literary evidence. Above all, this type of work has characterized the school of Italian studies eVectively founded by Michael Crawford at UCL, which has produced some really excellent work (one thinks of the work of Guy Bradley, Fay Glinister, Ralph Ha¨ussler, and Elena Isayev); similar studies have also been undertaken in Oxford, again with impressive results (by Emma Dench, Jonathan Williams, Mark Pobjoy, Alison Cooley, and Angela Poulter). Of studies of phenomena operating within a broader Italian context Will Broadhead’s work on migration is a Wne example. 160 See now Luraschi’s further thoughts in II o Convegno Archeologico Regionale: Atti; and on Gallia Cisalpina, Bandelli, DdA (1992), Williams, Rubicon, esp. chs. 3 and 5. 161 On Appian and the Italian question, see now the important discussion in Mouritsen, UniWcation.
Introduction
41
the Social War itself was not uncommon, as witness Lucullus’ Greek history.162 The reduction of the Historiae of Sisenna and Sallust to fragments is a severe blow; but they might have given us little explicit discussion of municipalization; the same is surely true of Iulius Hyginus’ On the Sites and Origins of Italian Cities. Equally, the loss of the works of Claudius Quadrigarius and Valerius Antias may not disappoint many, given Livy’s complaints (Livy, 26. 49. 3, 33. 10. 8, 36. 38. 7, on Valerius), but their careers seem to have straddled the divide marked by the Social War, and the Wrst book of the heterodox Quadrigarius seems to have contained some emphasis on the Samnite Wars: even in the citations by the grammarians, made for linguistic reasons, Samnite events are well-represented, at least in the Wrst book; similarly, for the late second century, the loss of Cn. Gellius’ history, given a probable municipal background and an interest in things Italian, must be a source of regret.163 Greek sources should not be neglected either, and Alexander Polyhistor’s Italika may have gone beyond mythical origins (FGrH 273); and Aristeides of Miletos (FGrH 286), as the citations in Pseudo-Plutarch’s Parallel Stories suggest, would have been useful for the third and possibly second centuries. I have not placed much emphasis on juristic writings. Although the Wftieth book of the Digest contains information on how the ius civile (‘civil law’) aVected the municipia, little of the material can securely be traced back to the Republic, even to the Wrst century bc, when systematic juristic thinking and dialectical reasoning were new.164 The jurists tell us a great deal about a period when juridical concepts had been much discussed, and meanings crystallized. They do not tell us about constitutional practice in republican Italy.165 Therefore juristic sources are considered by and large as they bear on constitutional problems, and not directly in and for themselves. Epigraphic evidence is more plentiful, and my main resource. Roman statutes on bronze give us two sets of jurisdictional regulations for Cisalpina (the lex Roscia, the fragmentum Atestinum); the ‘charters’ of Tarentum and of the Caesarian colony of Urso in Spain (lex Tarentina, lex Coloniae Genetivae); and the ‘digest’ of Italian municipal regulations which forms part of the Tabula Heracleensis. In addition there are other fragments of Roman municipal laws.166 These inscriptions are not easy to date, and furthermore our poor knowledge of the 162 Plut., Luc. 1. 7–8, Cic., Att. i. 19. 10; see Rawson, Intellectual Life, 26, suggesting Italian viewpoints for some histories. 163 See Quadrigarius frr. 18–21P; according to Beloch, RG 131, he was the Wrst known writer to have named the Samnite commanders in the Samnite Wars; see further in T. J. Cornell et al. (eds.), Fragments of the Roman Historical Writers (Oxford, forthcoming) and Cornell, in Jones (ed.), Samnium: Settlement and Cultural Change, on the Samnite Wars; on Gellius, Rawson, Culture, 267– 71, Wiseman, Clio’s Cosmetics, 20. 164 Frier, Rise of the Roman Jurists. 165 Cf. Frederiksen, JRS (1964), 132–3. 166 The fragments of the statutes are collected in the monumental Roman Statutes (ed. Crawford): respectively, nos. 28, 16, 15, 25, 24. See also Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 46; and Crawford draws my attention to another possible fragment of such a statute on bronze (CIL ix. 6412a, CorWnium, mentioning apparitores(?)).
42
Introduction
evolution of municipal legislation in the late Republic makes it hard know to what extent their provisions are tralatician. Nevertheless, the student of this material is now immeasurably better oV than when I began my research, and this is in the main due to the appearance of Roman Statutes, edited by Michael Crawford. Still more problematic is the dating and analysis of my other class of epigraphic texts, the inscriptions from the municipia themselves, mentioning municipal magistrates and other administrative organs. They give us some idea of the spread and evolution of municipal institutions, but dating them, even where we can use prosopographical material to identify magistrates, or have an archaeological context to help with dating, can only rarely be regarded as producing certain results. What I have tried to do, therefore, is to sketch the main lines of development in various types of municipal administration, by attempting to set the texts into a relative chronological framework. When I began my doctoral research, in the days before taught masters courses and summer schools were at all common, I was untrained in Roman epigraphy (although I had taken a class in Greek epigraphy with the late George Forrest167). Confronted with a large amount of epigraphic source material, and supplied with an equal amount of arrogance, I decided to teach myself epigraphy. The reader will judge the results. Corrective advice was, indeed, to be had from Barbara Levick, my supervisor, and others, not least Michael Crawford; but, through no fault of theirs, I developed some bad habits. My epigraphic Addendum, for example, does not display descriptions of the location and display of inscriptions (where appropriate), or elementary data such as basic dimensions, with the requisite consistency. The opportunity for systematically (re)collecting those data has gone. The most problematic aspect of my methodology was a belief that developments in spelling, letter forms, decorative styles, onomastics, and other areas, could act, at least in conjunction, as guides to dating texts. I assumed that, at the worst, texts from the same town could be given a relative chronological order, such that conclusions about the development of institutions could be drawn on that basis. The assumptions I used, and which, albeit sometimes in modiWed form, still underpin Chapters 6–9, are debatable, and few epigraphers would be as sanguine as I was when I did the research. When I told Michael Crawford what I intended to do, at our Wrst meeting, he replied simply ‘Ah! The optimism of youth’. At the time I was determined to prove his caution unfounded. Now I would endorse it. These gloomy reXections raise a crucial question: do I still stand by the central claims which I made in 1995? Do my contentions now carry such a health warning that they should eVectively be left untouched? The answer to the Wrst question must be ‘yes’, and ‘no’ to the second. It is after all true that the letter 167 He taught me the valuable principle that I should always record what I saw on the stone, not what I expected or what ‘ought’ to be there, even if it seemed impossible. I also learnt how to take squeezes in emergencies.
Introduction
43
forms of inscriptions do develop from the Republic into the Empire; indeed, such development may be visible over a much shorter period than some scholars suggest. Let us take a text unrelated to my argument, one over which I almost literally stumbled while walking on the Appian Way just outside Rome. It is a small limestone block, probably originally built into a funerary monument.168 It carries the epitaphs of one C. Acurius Philocles, and Acuria P. l. Calliopa, which take up the Wrst four lines of the text. Below the fourth line the whole surviving face of the stone is recessed with respect to the upper section, and this lower recessed section is also inscribed, with one line of text surviving below a space left free: the sense is uncertain, but a Cacuria is recorded. The last line is clearly in a diVerent hand. The Wrst four lines are characteristic of republican letter forms: heavy, ‘square’ look, with a height to width ratio of 1:1. ‘C’ has very Xat ends, barely curving in at all; and ‘O’ is essentially a whole circle drawn with the use of a compass; ‘S’ has a marked forward lean from the vertical; ‘P’ is open in lines 1, 2, and 4; the tail of ‘R’ comes out diagonally and absolutely straight from the junction of the curved upper loop with the upright; ‘M’ is very broad with all the hastae (straight elements of individual letters) slanting. Serifs are present, but are rather vestigial, and simply a crude broadening of the ductus (the cut created by the engraver), which is uniformly broad and deep. The second text, i.e. the Wfth line, is cut in a thinner and more delicate ductus, which is clearly ‘V’-shaped in proWle; ‘G’ and ‘C’ are more closed in; ‘R’ has a gently curving tail which joins onto the curve of the upper loop; the letters are less ‘stocky’ in general, and have an height to width ratio greater than 1:1 (as seen in the Es in each text). I think it is highly likely that the Wfth line is the record of a younger generation, buried in the plot to which this stone was once attached: the Wrst four lines are carefully sized, paginated, and spaced to nicely Wll the upper section of the stone, and there is no sign that the lower, recessed face, was ever necessarily meant to carry a text (this space may have been left open for possible future texts, but this does not aVect the self-contained and closed nature of the Wrst four lines, designed for the space they Wll). The date of the Wfth line is signalled by letter forms which are later than those of the original text; the Wrst four lines look typical of republican texts, the Wfth is starting to show characteristics typical of early imperial inscriptions. The speciWc areas in which diVerences are manifested between these two sets of letter forms are exactly those (or some of those) which I have observed and analysed as indicators of change in my municipal inscriptions. Further, the other criteria (discussed at greater length, and with more cautionary tales, in Chapter 6) which I have used to suggest the relative chronological place of these texts are employed in conjunction with letter forms, and it is only with their cumulative backing that I have hazarded more adventurous hypotheses. I think that my most signiWcant chronological suggestions have been made, could only be made, where there are multiple texts from a particular municipium, 168 CIL vi. 10020. I would like to thank Alison Cooley for taking the photos from which I have been able to reWne my observations.
44
Introduction
where it has actually been possible to seriate the surviving texts according to multiple criteria. In the Wnal analysis, those who know about inscriptions will take my arguments as they Wnd them. Over the last Wfteen years I have visited Italy’s archaeological sites, museums, and private collections, and seen almost all the republican municipal texts which still survive to be seen, across the length and breadth of the peninsula, photographed them where possible (alas, often without a scale), and in the process saw, drew, and took notes on hundreds and hundreds of other texts, republican, early imperial, and other. I make no claim to infallibility, but I like to think that in all this painstaking process of autopsy, I learnt something. I have been surprised, reviewing sceptically my own conclusions, how much seemed robust amid the naivety and how little needed deletion. Of course, nothing beats preaching to the converted. Some inscriptions are lost, and their texts cannot even be subjected to the slippery analytical criteria I have chosen. These cannot bear as much weight as those which can in theory be checked by autopsy (although study of epigraphic manuscripts may supply some missing data). When dealing with this latter class, it must be remembered that even when a stone is listed in a museum inventory, this does not mean that it has not been lost. The (sometimes) very random nature of the preservation of inscriptions makes it very possible that the geographical distribution of particular items of administrative furniture within Italy does not accurately reXect the real picture. Time has robbed us of the majority of our evidence, and chance Wnds often intervene to distort the picture. Caution is vital at all stages. I have also made use of archaeological evidence (the meaning and value of which at the time I misunderstood, or indeed failed to understand, far more seriously than those of the epigraphic evidence); and occasionally, of numismatic material. Excavated data may provide useful pegs on which to attempt to hang other data, but in the absence of tight criteria for dating strata, they may be no more tightly focused than the epigraphic data; as for the attribution of dates to standing structures for which there are no stratigraphic data, this, as I realized even while Wnishing the doctorate, is a very inexact procedure.169 All in all, the evidence is patchy, disparate, and ambiguous. Municipalization has excited much controversy among those who have chosen to study it in detail, and much vagueness among those who cannot bring themselves to do so. I used to believe that the dating of events (as well as inscriptions) was crucial (indeed, I still do), and that it was a legitimate objective to know, as exactly as possible, when such and such a change took place. This in itself, if it could be done, seemed to oVer suYcient data to help resolve the issues of the nature and the causes of change. Hence, I tentatively toyed with the idea that a change in municipal titulature and also institutions (the adverting to jurisdictional powers by the higher pair of a newly divided quattuorvirate) can not only be dated to perhaps the early sixties on a variety of epigraphic grounds, but that one might look for a 169 I now have much more serious reservations about using techniques of concrete construction to date standing remains than I had when I wrote my thesis.
Introduction
45
suitable active political Wgure in that time window who might have proposed legislation responsible for this change in titulature. Seek and ye shall Wnd. A tribune of suitable ideological credentials and interests (the fascinating C. Cornelius) was to hand, and I suggested that the Wnger might be pointed at him. This might be right. The point is, however, that I am no longer sure that this sort of question is the only, or the most important, one to ask. Nowadays I would not want to try to make the epigraphic material tell a story with this level of chronological resolution. More signiWcantly, I would want now to lend less weight to the search for individual reformers, important though these are, and more to deeper, less obvious processes, where human agency, while essential, is diVuse and diYcult to pin down. Certainly we have a series of laws passed at Rome which eVected all sorts of changes in municipal organization and institutions, and these laws are a very important part of our story. Yet local aspirations, fashions, and perceptions are important, aiding the creation of mentalite´s which also form a crucial ingredient (and manifestation) of change. These cannot be laid out in a clear and neatly articulated sequence, unlike the products of legislative reform. To borrow Braudelian terminology, such changes cannot be explored from the municipal point of view, or cannot very far be explored, under the rubric of histoire e´ve´nementielle; they are rather conjonctures or, to lift a distinction from Ian Morris, they operate on the longer timescales of ideological or social time, rather than that of individual time.170 Such changes are hard to observe, in political institutions as in what Dr Johnson would have called ‘manners’. As Jane Austen’s nephew, James Edward Austen-Leigh wrote in his Memoir of his aunt: Every hundred years, and especially a century like the last, marked by an extraordinary advance in wealth, luxury and reWnement of taste, as well as in the mechanical arts which embellish our houses, must produce a great change of aspect. These changes are always at work; they are going on now, but so silently that we take no note of them. . . . Important inventions, such as the applications of steam, gas and electricity, may Wnd their places in history; but not so the alterations, great as they may be, which have taken place in the appearance of our dining and drawing-rooms. Who can now record the degrees by which the custom prevalent in my youth of asking each other to take wine together at dinner became obsolete? Who will be able to Wx, twenty years hence, the date when our dinners began to be carved and handed round by servants, instead of smoking before our eyes and noses on the table?171
Moreover, the municipal inscriptions on which I have chosen to work, even if they can be approximately seriated, or even roughly dated in absolute terms, still only provide, inevitably, a coarse-grained picture of change over the last two generations of the Roman Republic, and as such are suited to the analysis of social time, not the timescales of individual change. I should stress that the study of the 170 See Braudel, The Mediterranean (with the overview of Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 36–9); Morris, in Fisher and van Wees, Archaic Greece, 69–79. 171 J. E. Austen-Leigh, A Memoir of Jane Austen and Other Family Recollections, ed. K. Sutherland (Oxford, 1992), 29–30.
46
Introduction
interplay of the individual and the ideological, e´ve´nements and conjonctures, is an extremely important task for the ancient historian. What matters here is that the kinds of things which can be done, and which I would now want to do with the epigraphic evidence, are not the same objectives which I believed useful and justiWed when I began the work. I hope that the Wnal product is not too obviously a Frankenstein’s monster, stitched together from horribly incompatible aims.
I TA LY: C H A N G I N G FA S H I O N S Italy has been intensively studied by juridical and political historians, and from epigraphic and archaeological standpoints. Recent works on Italy as a whole include Dyson’s Community and Society in Roman Italy (where I think the attempt to see deep roots for Italian communities has led to the neglect of more interesting phenomena), and J.-M. David’s The Roman Conquest of Italy, a work whose chief merit lies in setting the processes of political, and especially cultural, change in Italy within the framework of broader developments in Rome and the Mediterranean (the content is better described by the original French title, La Romanisation de l’Italie). Italians entering the senatorial or equestrian orders have come under a great deal of prosopographical scrutiny (Syme passim and Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate, and the 1982 volume EpigraWa e ordine senatorio). Individual studies have focused on various aspects of the peninsula, its settlements, its history, and its population (Toynbee, Hannibal’s Legacy; Brunt, Italian Manpower). Finally, since Mommsen a number of juridical studies have addressed the question of municipalization itself, for the pre-Social-War period Humbert (Municipium et Civitas sine SuVragio) and Galsterer (Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien), and more generally Hans Rudolph (Stadt und Staat) and the magisterial Sherwin-White (The Roman Citizenship); E. T. Salmon’s The Making of Roman Italy provides an overview from the archaic period through to the reign of Augustus, although, as Mouritsen has pointed out, aZicted by a very Roman teleology read back into the historical narrative. Yet for the post-Social-War period a detailed study of the constitutional development of the Italian communities based on the epigraphic evidence is lacking. Italian magistracies have received some coverage, but the only recent detailed work devoted to a particular municipal magistracy is Petraccia Lucernoni’s I questori municipali dell’ Italia antica (1988). For Latium and Campania we now have the long-awaited and intensely detailed work of Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats des cite´s italiennes (1998); careless copy-editing, however, has led to innumerable errors of detail, and made the book very diYcult to use.172 This 172 See the review by M. Pobjoy, JRS (2001), 222–3. For the municipal institutions of the western provinces see the excellent collection ed. Dondin-Payre and Rapsaet Charlier, Cite´s, municipes, colonies; on southern Gaul, see also Gascou, in EpigraWa (demolishing the conclusions of Degrassi, SVA i. 99–177, on the magistrates of Gallia Narbonensis); on Spain: Marin Dı´az, Emigra´cion.
Introduction
47
book represents, I think, the Wrst systematic attempt to analyse all the epigraphic (and literary) evidence for the municipal quattuorvirate and duovirate between the Social War and the battle of Actium (on this end-point see Chapter 10) and to construct a diachronic model for the evolution of the magistracies. This aspect of municipal history has been neglected because scholars have approached the magistracies with preconceptions either about their structure derived from the developed imperial system, or about the nature of the autonomy conceded to the municipia and their relationship with Rome. Yet a constitutional history, while it answers (if not completely) on one level the question ‘how did the Italian cities become Roman communities?’, tells us little about the Romanization and ‘uniWcation’ of Italy in the last decades of the Republic, treated recently in a stimulating book by Henrik Mouritsen (Italian UniWcation).173 A narrowly constitutional analysis may tell us something about what municipalization was on paper (or on bronze), but runs the risk of saying little about the reality. I believe that it is fundamentally mistaken to divorce municipalization from broader issues of Roman ‘governmental’ legislation on the one hand, and the ‘mainstream’ history of Italy, and of the Roman res publica, in the last years of the Republic on the other. Hence my concern to provide a synthesis of the overall Italian picture of municipal development. I posed above the question: what sort of change, and how much, was Italy subjected to after the Social War? It is sometimes said in the study of Roman politics in this period that the enfranchisement of Italy had little eVect. In a superWcial sense the enfranchisement of Italy had no real eVect on Roman politics of lasting or evolutionary import, still less municipalization. How, especially, could the constitutional arrangements of Roman towns aVect what happened on the larger stage? Yet Italy plays a central role in the events precipitating the fall of the Republic: it provided politicians and soldiers to serve generals and principes. The Sullan settlement, the rebellions of 78 and 63, the fate of the sons of the proscribed, Cicero’s return from exile, ongoing agrarian tensions, and the settlement of veterans: all these issues and others were intimately bound up with the 173 Mouritsen is right that the sources for Italian political integration and cultural convergence between Italy and Rome are ‘far less unequivocal than has previously been assumed’ (UniWcation, 58), and he subjects the evidence to a searching re-examination; but in the Wnal analysis his alternative readings fail to convince. Too often the position he is attacking is expressed in exaggerated terms (as with his formulation that Rome started acting as a ‘central government’ in Italy in the 2nd cent., ibid. 40), creating a man of straw to knock down. As well as over-egging the pudding, his thesis is no less a petitio principii than the Mommsenian one. Nevertheless, this work must be taken very seriously by students of Roman Italy: see the fair review by Bradley, JRA (2002). I found it highly intelligent, rigorously critical of entrenched positions, and more than any other single piece of writing it forced me again and again to go back to my own assumptions and question them. In the Wrst half of this book the reader will note frequent, and sometimes forceful, disagreements with Mouritsen; these should not obscure the numerous occasions on which I have followed him, or the fact that I hold much of the central thesis of the book on the nature of the Social War (some parts of it anticipated brieXy by Sherwin-White) and its historiographical portrayal to be absolutely correct. If there is any merit to Chs. 2 and 3 of this book, they are largely owed to the opportunity which Mouritsen’s provided for debate on the topics covered.
48
Introduction
entry of the Italians into the citizen body, and the aftermath of that watershed. And the Social War did mark a watershed. In 91 bc Italy was consumed by the most destructive conXict that had been seen since the days of Hannibal. And if the oath before Actium for Imperator Caesar, dux (‘leader’), was a put-up job, the Italy in which Augustus died was juridically and politically a tota Italia (here, ‘uniWed Italy’).174 This united Roman state in Italy was one of the bases of his power, and its development out of the carnage of the Social War is not just one of imperial propaganda, it is one of actualite´. The concept of tota Italia is made up of the ideological and the juridical journeys of the peninsular towns as much as from political catchphrases and slogans, just as Italy herself can be read as more than an agglomeration of towns and territoria (‘territories’). In this book municipalization is seen as a coherent and organic constituent of the evolution of the Roman state in the last Wfty years of the Republic. The history of the municipalization of Italy is the history of the interface and interpenetration of local and Roman politics, and this is where its importance lies. Municipalization was more than a matter of administrative convenience, it was a vehicle for bringing the new citizens of Italy into a Roman political thought-world, one that had the inbuilt capacity to transcend local limitations, while preserving what was valuable in local loyalties. It harnessed the aVective bond which naturally existed between municipes and their community of origo, and enhanced it by giving the municipium an ever more sophisticated and complex constitutional machinery, but one which placed a high premium on the local. Municipalization had to go some way towards satisfying the aspirations of the majority to whom eVective participation in politics was denied by the persistence of city-state political institutions at the heart of the Empire,175 as well as those who preferred otium cum dignitate (‘peace with position’) to the cut and thrust of Roman politics. An Italy had to grow up which could embrace uniformity on one level and heterogeneity on another. Municipalization can be seen as something which drew on the strengths created both by uniWcation and by the preservation of what was most worthwhile and valued in the individual communities.
TH E S HAP E OF T HI S WO RK We cannot discuss the meaning and scale of the municipalization of Italy after the Social War adequately unless we can gain an idea of what this process was like before the Social War, and what the horizons and expectations of municipia were in regard to their own autonomy, and their dealings with Rome; we need also to establish municipal identity more delicately, by consideration of other forms of settlement and civic organization in the ager Romanus in the second century. Since our focus is the considerable changes faced by those communities which 174 See on cultural change in Italy until the Augustan period: Crawford, in CAH x2 . 175 On this problem and its implications see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 95–9.
Introduction
49
made the transition, via the citizenship, from the status of autonomous populus to Roman municipium, we cannot understand that change unless we ask certain questions. What sort of political experiences were characteristic of their independent civic life? What was their experience of Rome? Did Romans respect, or encroach on, their autonomy? Chapter 1 deals with the framework in which all communities were set: Italy—juridical and other deWnitions of Italy, and their consequences, are explored. Chapters 2 and 3 then consider, respectively, Roman forms of settlement, and the relations between Rome and the allied communities of Italy in the second century bc. It is at this point that sure antecedents can be traced for some Wrst-century developments, and enough information can be gathered to allow us to distinguish important changes after the Social War; I have set out above my reasons for avoiding here any extended discussions of earlier periods. These two chapters attempt, then, to gain some understanding of what was changed, and of the state from which Italy passed into municipalization, not just a discussion of how it ended up. The chapters are in no sense a narrative, but rather a series of snapshots, of Italy, both Roman and allied, in the century or so before the Social War, paying particular attention to those areas which invite comparison with, or illuminate, what followed. Furthermore, I have chosen to base my discussion initially, where possible, upon contemporary, or at least pre-Social-War, sources. Amongst these, inscriptions take pride of place, not least since we shall be overwhelmingly concerned with epigraphic evidence for municipalization and municipal institutions in the period after the Social War, and comparing like with like has obvious advantages, as far as the surviving evidence will allow it. In hesitating to use the Livian account (where it exists) alone, or as a primary witness, I hope to avoid at least some of the risks involved in treating it as a witness of any kind. Augustan perceptions, and the agendas of post-Social-War sources (Valerius Antias, Claudius Quadrigarius, or Aelius Tubero), constitute a complex source stratiWcation which overlies and obscures any ‘core narrative’ which we might hope to construct for the second century. This is not to say that using, say, Cato the Elder, Polybios, or Lucilius is unproblematic (and indeed Polybios generally concentrates on Rome at the expense of Italy176), but rather that for them the Social War had not happened; for later writers, it could not be imagined away, and constituted a historiographical and ideological gravity, which inevitably bent what light they shed on earlier periods.177 176 See Williams, Rubicon, 94–9 on Polybios’ limited interest in Rome’s Italian wars, and their function in the broader architecture of his history. There are important passages on northern Italy, an area less fully discussed in the present work than the rest of the peninsula, in Polybios’ books 2 and 3; and see Williams, Rubicon, 48–58, on Cato book 2 on northern Italy. 177 I shall use Livy in some cases, particularly for his account of the Bacchanalian conspiracy, where it is as clear as it can be from comparison with surviving documentary evidence that contemporary evidence underlies his account. In other cases, though, his evidence is clearly problematic, as e.g. at 26. 8. 10, when he denotes as municipia the Latin communities of Setia (a Latin colony), Cora (a ciuitas foederata, or allied community), and Lavinium. Lavinium was, it seems, enfranchised in 340 (Livy, 8.
50
Introduction
The main medium then is that provided by contemporary inscribed documents. These provide no sort of coherent narrative, but they allow us glimpses of mechanisms, attitudes, and ideologies, as well as relations between the various parties; moreover, they allow us to see these, albeit intermittently, in operation. The early years of the century are represented by the SC de Bacchanalibus (decree of the Senate on the Bacchanals),178 and the middle of the century, tantalizingly, by the Senate’s letter to the Tiburtes.179 The beginning of the Roman revolution is also marked by a sudden upsurge in the survival (in varying degrees of incompleteness) of long Roman oYcial epigraphic texts.180 Between the tribunate of C. Gracchus and the start of the Social War, we have parts of three statutes the lex Acilia repetundarum (Acilian statute on recovery of misappropriated property)181 probably of 123 bc; the ‘Tarentum Fragment’, probably from a later secondcentury lex repetundarum;182 the lex agraria (agrarian statute) of 111.183 There is also an arbitration text, the sententia Minuciorum (judgement of the Minucii) of 117,184 and a colonial decree, the lex de pariete faciundo (public contract for building a wall) from Puteoli of 105,185 all preserved in full. In addition we have part of what seems to be an Oscan statute from the community of Bantia in Lucania, itself apparently derived from the third-century lex for the Latin colony at Venusia.186 The deWciencies of the sources for the Gracchan and post-Gracchan periods make these texts at once valuable and problematic for the student. Yet the very existence of this evidence does suggest that Roman legislation became more widely diVused in the period of the Gracchi: our Roman legal texts were found as far apart as Umbria/the ager Gallicus—the territory captured from the Gauls in the third century bc (lex repetundarum/lex agraria) and Apulia (‘Tarentum fragment’); Bruttium (Bacchanalian SC) and Liguria (sententia Minuciorum). That in turn must imply increased interaction, certainly at an institutional level, and an unprecedented demonstration of the symbolic power of Rome within Italian communities. Such a demonstration was hardly new in itself; the novelty must have lain rather in its scale.187 Moreover we can, in these 11. 12–15); the others were only municipia from the Social War onwards. Later circumstances have probably been retrojected. 178 CIL i2 . 581 ¼ ILLRP 511. 179 CIL i2 . 586 ¼ ILLRP 512. 180 Where possible, the texts of Roman leges, and the conventions used in printing those texts, will be those in Crawford (ed.), RS, to which (i. 34–6) the reader is referred for further discussion. 181 CIL i2 . 583 ¼ RS no. 1. For the identiWcation of this statute with the lex Acilia see Mommsen, CIL i. 198 ( ¼ GS i. 1–64); Badian, AJP (1954), 374–84; Lintott, Judicial Reform, 166–9. 182 CIL i2 . 2924 ¼ RS i. no. 8; see RS i. 210–11 on the date and possible identity of the statute. 183 CIL i2 . 585 ¼ RS no. 2. The law may be the lex Thoria mentioned by Cicero and Appian: see RS i. 57–60 (but see also Lintott, Judicial Reform, 282–6). 184 CIL i2 .584 ¼ ILLRP 517. 185 CIL i2 .698 ¼ ILLRP 518. The redaction of the surviving text is Augustan. 186 RS i. 13, see further Ch. 3. 187 Crawford (JRS (1981), 155–6) puts it well, a` propos of the epigraphic evidence for the publication of Roman statutes: ‘it is clear that Italians of the generation after the Gracchi saw the hand of Rome at work in a way and on a scale not previously known . . . the eVect will have been not only a greater awareness of Rome in Italy, but also increasing assimilation of Roman ways of thinking about institutions’.
Introduction
51
documents, see the Wrst contemporary mentions of what we take as very familiar institutions: the lex agraria, in fact, boasts the Wrst contemporary usage of the word municipium. Having sketched the background, I then turn to the Social War and its consequences: to understand the municipalization of the next sixty years, we need to consider when and in what circumstances it began. Chapter 4 deals with the controversial and diYcult subject of the enfranchisements of the Social War period, and examines whether there was any fundamental role in municipalization inherent in the legislation passed during the Social War itself. It seeks to contextualize the beginning of the municipalizing process in the Cinnan period, relating it from the start to major currents in Roman political history. The legislation passed at Rome enabling the creation of municipal constitutions, and prescribing their content, and the reXex of this process in the local political practices form the subject of Chapter 5. Here I discuss the detailed rules which governed the political life of the new municipium and deWned its position within the Roman state. The major instrumentum (‘document’) here was the local lex, statute or charter, which it will be argued was a very subtle and powerful agent in the municipalizing process, bringing together local elites and the central power. Chapters 6 to 9 form the core of the book, presenting a detailed discussion of the senior municipal magistracies (the quattuorvirate and the duovirate) as they emerge from the epigraphic sources. The nature of the magisterial structures and their wider signiWcance within the process of municipalization is then considered. It is perhaps important to stress here that I am concerned not only with changes in titulature, but also with what those changes meant. Looking for a moment to our own day, on one level it is more important to consider whether, and under what circumstances, the Royal Mail continued to deliver letters over time than whether it was called Royal Mail or Consignia, or whether there were signiWcant diVerences between the titles ‘General Post OYce’ and plain ‘Post OYce’. Yet faced with little other information on the Royal Mail’s activities than the fact that it delivered letters, historians might well be forgiven for investigating these changes in titulature—and there are issues of ideological and cultural importance behind these changes of name. Yet at the end of the day, developments in municipal magistracies are more importantly explained in terms of developments of function and power which may lie behind the titular changes.188 I think, therefore, that the evolution of municipal magistracies is more than an epiphenomenal development, and I hope to show the centrality of this study to the broader issue of municipalization.189 Finally Chapter 10 draws together the various threads of the discussion and attempts to draw Wnal conclusions about the extent, diachronic development, and broader political signiWcance of municipalization. This will be mainly located 188 Cf. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 123–4. 189 Not an aspiration universally shared: ‘I should say at once that I believe that the choice at the time [after the Social War] was utterly trivial and that no one cared a hoot whether they had IIviri or IIIIviri’: words which can only have been written by Michael Crawford (in Modus Operandi, 36).
52
Introduction
in its provision of political and public structures which to a certain extent met the needs and aspirations of the Italians, at all levels from local to national. Municipalization was in some ways the glue that held Italy together within the framework of the political life of Rome, reconciling local pride with higher aspirations. This was intimately linked to the nature of the republican political system, and I argue by way of conclusion that the arrival of the Augustan monarchy led to profound changes in Italy, just as it had in Rome and the Empire, both crowning and subverting four hundred years of municipal development. All dates are bc unless otherwise stated. All numbers in bold type refer to the Catalogue of inscriptions to be found in the Addendum to Chapter 6–9.
1 Making Italy: Terra Italia The word ‘Italy’ is a geographical expression, a description which is useful shorthand, but has none of the political signiWcance the eVorts of the revolutionary ideologues try to put on it, and which is full of dangers for the very existence of the states which make up the peninsula. (Prince Klemens Fu¨rst von Metternich, letter to the Austrian ambassador to France; April 1847)
By the time Rome and Karthage came into conXict in Sicily in 264 bc, Italy had already been bent to the Roman will, either incorporated after conquest into the Roman state, or compelled after defeat to ally with Rome, which eVectively meant accepting Roman leadership in matters of foreign policy. A minor revolt (or the restoration of expelled pro-Roman aristocracy, as the Romans claimed) at Volsinii in Etruria in 264, and another at the Faliscan centre of Falerii, at the end of the First Punic War in 241, brought severe responses from Rome, with both consuls celebrating a triumph over Falerii. Heavy casualties, conWscation of territory, and the relocation of both urban centres underlined the extent of Roman hegemony. When Volsinii re-entered alliance with Rome in 264, she seemed to Florus, looking back from the time of Trajan, to be the last Italian state to accept Roman domination (1. 16).1 For Polybios, the war with Falerii was polemos emphulios: a civil war.2 1 Zonaras, 8. 7, with Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 35–143; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 143; LaY, in Bougeoisies; Harris, Annali della Fondazione ‘C. Faina’ (1985); Carandini, La romanizzazione dell’Etruria, 38, Benelli, PdP (1996), noting inter alia (342–4) the limited number said to have been punished by the Romans. Benelli’s interpretation of the episode—over-achieving slaves—is not entirely convincing, however: see Herodotos, 6. 83, for so-called douloi (‘slaves’) expelling the Argive elite, in what was a struggle of the many against the few, not a servile revolt. See also Munzi, in Italy and the West, 49, and Mouritsen, UniWcation, 57, 71, rightly sceptical of the Roman account, and noting the relocation of the city. 2 Poly., 1. 65. 2 with Walbank, ad loc.—the internal nature of the conXict contrasts with the recently ended Punic War, and parallels that between Karthage and her mercenaries (I am grateful to Bob Cowan for drawing my attention to this passage); Val. Max., 6. 5. 1, Eutropius, 2. 28, Oros., 4. 11, Zonaras, 8. 18; Potter, Landscape, 98, notes the high number of casualties and the amount of territory conWscated (50%); the campaign seems to have been more than a redressing of the local political balance. See De Sanctis, Storia dei Romani, iii/1. 279; Flower, JRA (1998); Munzi, in Italy and the West, 49–50. On the site of Falerii Novi see now Keay, Millett, Poppy, Robinson, Taylor, and Terrenato, PBSR (2000); on changes in the Faliscan landscape at this time, including the abandonment of most nucleated centres and a probable widespread hiatus in rural occupation, see Potter, Landscape, 98–101. Note that most of the extra-urban sanctuaries at Falerii Veteres continue after the war, a partial parallel with the situation at Fregellae after its sack in the next century (Strabo, 5. 3. 10, 237C).
54
Making Italy: Terra Italia
Conquered, Italia continued, in one form or another, to be allocated as a consular prouincia (sphere of competence) throughout the second century bc. The Wrst forty years of the century saw Roman armies regularly engaged on a considerable scale north of the Apeninnes, indeed every year between 201 and 190 bc.3 Fergus Millar is entirely correct to contrast the grinding regularity of these northern campaigns (one might add those in Spain too) with the occasional smash-and-grab raid in the East.4 By the mid-third century, then, Italy was subject to Roman control, and continued until the middle of the next century to be designated as a legitimate area for the exercise of consular and proconsular imperium (power of command). In the next two chapters we shall look at the relations of the various communities within Italy: yet we need to pause here in order to consider the evolution of ‘Italy’ itself. Conquest began a transformation of how the peninsular was perceived and imagined by Romans and non-Romans, as well as how it was controlled:5 what it was, where its boundaries lay, and why and how they moved—these were important questions.6 Such focalizations of Italy had been shifting since the 3 As Brunt has shown, Manpower, 567–9, of the years from the end of the Second Punic War to the point where Livy’s narrative Wnally fails (167 bc), only one did not see a consular army in northern Italy; see also Williams, Rubicon, 16, 21, 208–9. SpeciWc examples: 200 (Livy, 31. 6. 1), Italia a consular province (6. 2), one praetor is assigned Bruttium, one to Gallia; 198 (Livy, 32. 8. 4–5, 9. 4, 26. 1–3), Italia is allotted as a consular province, with a praetor receiving Gallia, with both campaigning in the north; 197 (Poly., 18. 11. 2, Livy, 32. 28. 8–9, 29. 5), both consuls are allotted Italia and Wght in the north; 191 (Livy, 36. 1. 9), the consul keeps one of the two previous consular armies in the north to Wght the Boii, (2. 6) the Bruttii are declared a praetorian province, (2.7) A. Cornelius is ordered to use new recruits of the previous year to protect the coast around Tarentum and Brundisium; 186 (Livy, 39. 20), both consuls receive Liguria; 185 (Livy, 39. 29. 8–9, 41. 6), the praetor Postumius had the prouincia of Tarentum, in the course of which he ‘pastorum coniurationes uindicauit et reliquias Bacchanalium quaestionis . . . exsecutus’ (‘punished conspiracies of sherpherds and carried out the remainder of the enquiry into the Bacchanals’, not a hendiadys, as De Cazanove (Athenaeum (2000), 66 n. 40) saw); 174 (Livy, 41. 27. 4), the consul M. Aemilius is given the ending of civil strife at Patavium as his prouincia. On the diVerence between the prouinciae ‘Italia’, ‘Gallia’, and ‘Ligures’ see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 158 n. 1. Even the rumour of a Celtic incursion could have far-reaching eVects: see Poly., 18. 11. 2 (198/7 bc). See also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 129, on Rome as policing Italy, and maintaining order (e.g. Livy, 33. 36. 1–3). 4 Millar, Republic and Revolution, 109–10. See also Williams, Rubicon, 94–9, on contemporary views of these wars. 5 Curti, Dench, and Patterson, JRS (1997), 187, citing also the idea of an integrated Italy subject to Rome as a prerequisite for movements of population like those of the Picentes to northern Lucania, and Ligurians to Samnium, in the 3rd and 2nd cents., the former soon after the conquest of 268. 6 On this see Sittl, Archiv fu¨r lateinische Lexikographie (1900), S. Calderione, ˙ IæÆÆ ÆºÆ, Messana (1955); Klingner, in Ro¨mische Geisteswelt 3 , 11–33, esp. 11–20; Catalano, Atti Acc. Torino (1961– 2); Lepore, Klearchos (1963); Mazzarino, Il pensiero storico classico, ii/1. 212–32, Radke, Romanitas (1967), seeing Italy as a construct engineered by Rome before the First Punic War to strengthen Italian loyalty; followed by Mouristen, UniWcation, 69; Pallotino, in Me´langes Heurgon, ii; Brizzi, in Cispadana e letteratura antica; Gabba, Italia romana, 17–31; Prontera, Athenaeum (1986); Musti, in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, iii; Giardina, in L’Italie d’ Auguste a` Diocle´tien; id., L’Italia romana; Ge´ly, Le Nom de l’Italie ; Massa, La formazione del concetto d’Italia; De Libero, Klio (1994); Prontera, in Olshausen and Sonnabend, Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums, 423–30, Musti, in SdI i; Crawford, in SdI ii/1. 95; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 45–58; Curti, in Italy and the West, 18–19.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
55
archaic period, and if the Romans were to prove adept at exploiting the Xuidity of ‘Italia’, they were no better at avoiding becoming enmeshed in the inevitable complications than the Greeks and indigenous communities of south Italy who had Wrst started moving the goalposts. A reasonable case can be made that in the Wrst third of the third century the Roman conquest of Italia was felt to be being drawing to a close. The Roman victory at Sentinum (295 bc) had shown the futility of internal resistance, and Pyrrhos’ invasion (280–276 bc) had shown the diYculty of unseating the he¯gemo¯n (leader) through pressure from overseas. The suppression of Picenum (268 bc) had carried Roman arms to the edge of what was geographically a very diVerent world from the volcanic Tyrrhenian littoral or the limestone karst landscape of central Italy: the vast alluvial expanses of the Po valley. No future campaigns were in prospect within Italy south of the Apennines: who now remained to be subdued? From the Roman perspective, the Pyrrhic War seems to have been the Wrst crucial moment in this process; this seems to have been Polybios’ perception as well. After this conXict the Romans Wrst rushed to get hold of ‘the remaining parts of Italy’ (1. 6. 6, i.e. those who had allied with Pyrrhos, 6. 7) as already and correctly their own, rather than foreign territory (6. 6–8).7 It is interesting that centuries later Servius, in his commentary on the Aeneid, located in this same conXict a change in the fetial ritual for declaring war, whereby a piece of Wctive enemy land was created in the Circus Flaminius (near the temple of Bellona), into which the fetiales (fetial priests) could throw their spears. His explanation for the impulse to change the ritual is that there was nowhere in Italy where the fetiales found themselves able to perform the older rite of hurling the spear over the enemy’s border.8 Whether or not we take seriously the aetiology oVered by Servius, the ideological implications are interesting, suggesting not only that a fetial mission to Epirus was impractical, but also that, in the face of a foreign invader, there was nowhere in Italy which Rome felt to be ‘foreign territory’. It is tempting to see this as propaganda advanced by Rome during or just after the Pyrrhic Wars, not a blunt assertion of Rome’s right to rule, but of the impossibility of distinguishing Rome from Italy, thus stressing Pyrrhos’ otherness. If the Romans were now trying to lay claim to a hegemony within Italy, they were also trying to remake its nature rapidly: whereas at Sentinum in 295 bc Senonian Gauls had fought with Samnites, Etruscans, and Umbrians to throw oV the Roman yoke, the succeeding generation probably saw an attempt to cast Italy as
7 æH (‘then for the Wrst time’) in 1. 6. 6 seems to refer to the Pyrrhic War, following the Tarentine summons to Pyrrhos in 6. 5, and the victories over the Etruscans, Samnites, and Gauls being described in the preceding clause in the perfect tense, in one case as X (‘already’, by which Polybios presumably referred to campaigns including Sentinum). For the defeat of Pyrrhus as marking Roman control of Italy: Salmon, Making, 57, cf. 67 and n. 287. 8 Serv., Ad Aen. 9. 52; for the older ritual, Livy, 1. 32. 6–14. On the change in the fetial rite: McDonald and Walbank, JRS (1937); Oost, AJP (1954); Rich, Declaring War in the Roman Republic, 56–60, 104–7; Ru¨pke, Domi militiaeque, 105–7; BNP i. 132–4, ii, 7–8, 131–2.
56
Making Italy: Terra Italia
a place whose inhabitants fought together under Roman domination to keep out the Gallic hordes.9 The nature of Italy, and the identities of its inhabitants, were thus already matters of some complexity in the second century. On the various competing deWnitions and boundaries turned some big issues, not least the question of who controlled the peninsula and its destiny. The creation of the state of Italia during the Social War is but another move in a long and heavily contested game, which had begun with Antiochos of Syrakuse in the Wfth century, and informs, for example, Strabo’s opening words on Italy.10 Description is never zero-focalized, and geography never apolitical. Jonathan Williams has recently drawn attention again to mid-republican ways of conceiving and presenting the world, the characteristic deployment of lists and maps in order to commemorate and advertise the power of Rome, and of the individual families whose members, as magistrates, mediated that success.11 Triumphal art was a key part of this, and Williams rightly draws attention to the map of Italia (probably) set up by P. Sempronius Sophus in the temple of Tellus in 268 after triumphing over the Picentes.12 This was perhaps a Wrst attempt, or the Wrst recorded attempt, to associate a representation of Italy, probably peninsula Italy, as a geographical unit,13 with the idea of the earth, or a privileged part thereof. If so, it would be highly signiWcant for our discussion of Roman views of Italy, especially the concept of terra Italia, to which I shall soon turn. 9 What follows is indebted to the very clear treatment in Williams, Rubicon, esp. 127–37. Note Polybios’ claim at 2. 23. 12 that the Wrst time at which the Italians felt they were Wghting in a common cause against the Gauls was in the invasion of 225. As Williams notes (Rubicon, 128–9) at 1. 6. 8, Polybios speciWes that the Romans now made ‘all those inhabiting Italy’ their subjects except the Keltoi. He comments (129, cf. 130), that Polybios’ words were probably anachronistic: Italy was, as he says, probably thought to stop at the Apennines, although to claim that what lay to the north of the mountains ‘was all Gallia’ ignores the Ligurians and Veneti. This blanket labelling of the area north of the Apennines as Gallia would suit his argument if it coincided with the stressing of the Gallic threat from the period of the Senonian wars onwards; Polybios notes the rough synchronism (1. 6. 5) of Pyrrhos’ arrival with the Gallic attack on Delphi, which would have increased international consciousness of the Gauls/Keltoi. 10 Strabo, 5. 1. 1, 209–10C; see Prontera, in Strabone e l’Italia, 105–6, on the relationship between two points in the evolution of ‘Italy’ which interested Strabo: the Antiochan and the Social War deWnitions; on the meaning of the rebel ‘Italia’ established at the outbreak of the Social War see the seminal discussion by Pobjoy, in State Identities. 11 Rubicon, 36–41. 12 See Williams, Rubicon, 37, 129. Florus, 1. 19. 2, on Sempronius Sophus. Varro says ‘in pariete pictam Italiam’ (‘Italy painted on the wall’); ‘in aedem Telluris ueneram’ (‘I had come into the temple of Tellus’) implies that the painting was inside, not outside the cella (‘inner chamber’—RR 1. 2. 1). It is possible that temple and painting were not coeval; for contemporaneity (but c.240 bc), see Coarelli, in Strabone e l’Italia, 120. 13 Williams, Rubicon, 129. For the importance of maps in fostering and crystallizing imagined national communities in the modern period, see Anderson, Imagined Communities2 , 122, 170–8; these maps, however, represent the self-interested ‘totalizing classiWcation’ (173) of the colonial powers. One aspect of this presentation is directly helpful—the notion of Thongchai Winichakul (cited by Anderson) that maps ‘anticipated spatial reality, not vice versa. In other words, a map was a model for, rather than a model of, what it purported to represent’ (my italics). Cf. Elsner and Rubie´s, in their Voyages and Visions, 2: ‘the desire to map is never innocent’.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
57
As Volsinii was brought to heel, and Rome went to war outside Italy for the Wrst time, major changes seem to have occurred in the juridical texture of the peninsula. Importantly, incorporations into the Roman citizenship now ceased, and the category of ciuis sine suVragio thus eVectively became a dead letter.14 Rome and Italy might be seen as now entering some sort of geopolitical homeostatic relationship. Some scholars have seen the foundations of the Latin colonies of Ariminum and Beneventum in 268 as marking the end of the ‘Roman conquest’ in Italy. It has been argued that Sempronius Sophus was making his own claim to have ended the process, to have made Rome’s sphere of interest Wnally co-extensive with Italia (itself newly redeWned). Such a claim, perhaps represented by the painting (if contemporary with the temple’s construction), can at least be seen as comprehensible for this period.15 Ongoing campaigns now necessarily addressed non-Italian peoples, Karthaginians in the south, Illyrians in the east, and Gauls in the north.16 Probably not unrelated to the Roman construction and representation of the Gauls in the third and second centuries as ‘other’ with respect to Italy, the latter were speciWcally debarred (as were some Transalpine tribes later) by the terms of the treaties which the Romans imposed on them after their defeat, from allowing any individuals belonging to their peoples to accept Roman citizenship (an explicit contrast with Italians).17 Debate on what Italy was, of how it could or should be constructed, continued into the second century, and itself drew on earlier strands of the discourse, as well as new and changing realities.18 Cato the Elder’s vision is highly important here, 14 Humbert, Municipium, 346–54. For the possibility that the ciuitas sine suVragio was extended after this time, and that some Romans remained sine suVragio until the Social War, see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 205–14, cf. Stockton, The Gracchi, 110–11; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 110 n. 2, 120 n. 34. 15 Wiseman, in Moxon et al., Past Perspectives, 91; and on Ariminum and Beneventum, Purcell, in The Early Roman Empire in the West, 10; Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation; see also Dench, Barbarians, 3. In spite of the visibility of the Alps from the Apennines (at least above Piacenza) the state of 3rd-cent. geographical knowledge of what lay beyond the former may have been extremely lacunose: see Williams, Rubicon, 26–31, for Hellenistic knowledge of N. Italy and W. Europe away from the seaboards, including the Alps. 16 For the idea of Rome’s external wars creating a pan-Italian sentiment uniting Rome and her allies (sometimes seen as a quasi-clientelistic bond), and promoting cultural cohesion, see (largely writing of the 2nd cent., however) Go¨hler, Rom und Italien, 23, 29–38; Klingner, Ro¨mische Geisteswelt 3 , 23; Badian, Clientelae, 31, 144–5, 151; Keaveney, UniWcation, 28; Brunt, Fall, 117; for a searching deconstruction of this view see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 67–74 (not always consistent with his earlier remarks on the nature of Rome’s relations with Italy). 17 Cic., Balb. 32; see Baldacci, Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore (1971–4); Luraschi, Foedus, 23–101, and in II o Convegno Archeologico Regionale: Atti, 44–5; Peyre, La Cisalpine Gauloise du III e au I er sie`cle avant J.-C., 64; Gabba, Italia romana, 55–6 (seeing the ban as aimed at the lower classes); id., in II o Convegno Archeologico Regionale: Atti, 33–4; id., SdR ii/1. 76; Williams, in Italy and the West, 97, stressing the contrast with Cispadane Celts; id., Rubicon, 121, arguing that the clause may have been repealed by lex Pompeia of 89 bc, thus treating the Cisalpine Gauls like other Latins, cf. ibid. 214, 218. Cf. the Roman denial of the name socii to the Bruttii after their defection to Hannibal— Gellius, NA 10. 3. 19; see also Strabo, 5. 4. 13, 251C (use of Bruttians, Lucani, and Picentini as couriers as a result of their defection). 18 See Williams, Rubicon, 130, on the historiographical consequences for the Gauls of Roman expansion into Gaul in earnest.
58
Making Italy: Terra Italia
but possible inconsistencies here seem to betray the complexities of the question: Italy was, at this period, in the process of being extended, as a moral or a symbolic concept, beyond the Rubicon; and if Livy’s terminology is accurate, northern Italy was often what was meant by the consular province Italia, frequently allotted early in the second century.19 The title of Cato’s work, Origines (Origins), is so familiar that it is easy to forget its signiWcance, and the author’s agendas. One of the latter was, according to the triumviral historian Cornelius Nepos, recording the origins of each and every Italian community.20 Which communities would be considered as ciuitates Italicae (‘Italian communities’), and which not? Which ones would be counted, on the basis of their past or origins, as enemies or friends?21 The answer was not obvious, the more so as one moved north, into Gallic territory. Gauls were seen as warlike intruders into the north of Italy, albeit not without positive characteristics.22 Ligurians were untrustworthy and ignorant (F31P ¼ ii. 1C, 32P ¼ ii. 2C); to these characteristics, perhaps seen as justifying Roman domination in any case, we might add a lack of cooperative spirit—they would not tell Cato (or his informants) what was asked of them.23 The Veneti, Roman allies since at least 225 bc, fare better: Cato records their Trojan origins (F42P ¼ ii. 12C ¼ ii. 12 B-W).24 All these peoples were, at this point, non-Italian, 19 See above, and Williams, Rubicon, 133, noting the use also of ‘Ariminum’ and ‘Gallia’ as prouinciae (areas of magisterial competence). 20 Nepos, Cat. 3. 3: ‘unde quaeque ciuitas orta sit Italica’ (‘from whence each Italian community arose’; not necessarily a privileging of the polis, as Curti claims, Italy and the West, 21); see further Dench, Barbarians, 17–19; Williams, Rubicon, 48–58, on reading Cato. See Torelli, Tota Italia, 144–9, on the interest in origins, in competing projections of identity, mediated partly by the abstruse learning of the Hellenistic intellectual milieu, and expressed in Italian terracotta temple decorations in this period, part of what Torelli calls ‘the culture of the Origines’ (144). 21 Williams, Rubicon, 53–4, 73, 75–9, 135, on Cato and Italian origins. Cf. ibid. 88: Cato’s aim: ‘to Wnd out . . . how they [the Gauls] stood in relation to him as a Roman and to the rest of Italy’ (my italics); 122– 3 on the continuing importance of myths of origins for addressing questions of Gallic identity. 22 Williams, Rubicon, 79–80 and 81. Arguably, however, even the cautious Williams places too much weight on F34P ¼ ii. 3C ¼ ii. 3 B-W: ‘M. Cato originum II: pleraque Gallia duas res industriosissime persequitur, rem militarem et argute loqui’ (‘Cato in the second book of the Origines: ‘‘most of Gaul strives most assiduously after two things, war and clever speaking’’ ’). 23 F 31P ¼ ii. 2C ¼ ii. 2 B-W: ‘Cato originum, cum de Liguribus loqueretur: sed ipsi unde oriundi sunt, exacta memoria, inliterati mendacesque sunt et uera minus meminere’ (‘Cato in the Origines, when he speaks of the Ligurians: ‘‘but they themselves, their memory of whence they came having been driven out, are illiterate liars, and remember less than the truth’’ ’, Serv. Auct., Ad Aen. 11. 715); F32P ¼ ii. 1C ¼ ii. 1 B-W: ‘Ligures omnes fallaces sunt . . .’ (‘all Ligurians are deceitful’, Serv. Auct., Ad Aen. 11. 700, if this does not cite the same bit of Cato as underlies the preceding fragment, ‘omnes’ is interesting). As Williams astutely remarks with reference to the Wrst fragment, ‘sed ipsi’ shows that Cato’s own conjectures, or the Roman version, preceded in a now lost passage (Rubicon, 76). For another indigenous voice, disputing the externally imposed myth-historical schema, see Thuc., 6. 2. 2 on the Sikanoi; see further Dench, Barbarians, 18, who argues that ‘local’ variants on stories of origins are not tantamount to a privileging of indigenous accounts. 24 Roman alliance: Poly., 2. 24. 7. Poly., 2. 17. 5–6 considered the Veneti autochthonous: this would play well beside Gaulish invasion, and probably coexisted with the Trojanversion, which aligned the Veneti more closely with their Roman allies (it need not, though, be a cynical product of that alliance); see Williams, Rubicon, 76–7, on these passages; also Strabo, 5. 1. 4, and Laurence, Roads, 171–2, on the Antenor myth.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
59
and their diVering relationships, or lack of knowledge (or reticence) about their relationship to the Graeco-Roman myth-map, were of real importance in explaining and predicting their relationships to Rome. Cato saw the Alps as like a wall (murus) protecting Italy (F85P ¼ iv. 10C ¼ iv. 10B-W, from what is commonly agreed to be the narrative portion of the work, whereas North Italy was treated in book 2). This is not exactly the same as Polybios’ vision of Italy extending up to the Alps, yet it was, as Williams has argued, part of the construction of new ideological boundaries to Italy during the second century, one consequence of which was a growing perception on Rome’s part that such boundaries could and should be ‘policed’.25 Related to this preoccupation were attitudes to the Gauls on the Italian side of the Alps, and what might or could replace them: Cato also clearly employs a historical dynamic in which Romans (and all their moral and social baggage) have, in the cases of the Boii and the Senones, replaced Gauls.26 According to ancient writers, other Gauls survived; as Williams has shown, there is little reason for accepting ancient claims of complete extirpation, as opposed to transformation into indigenous Cispadanes, even for the Boii and the Senones, despite the diYculty of recovering archaeological evidence of their survival.27 Cato’s contemporary, Polybios, likewise reXected on Italy and, although from a diVerent viewpoint, had things to say about its geography and history, particularly in the north, where his treatment (2. 14–17) may have been the Wrst serious attempt to bring new Hellenistic geographical thinking to bear on Roman data and personal observation.28 The Po valley for him and the foothills of the Alps were part of Italy (2. 14. 6–7). He seems unaVected by the ideological implications of such deWnitions, seeing the north as ‘Italia’ at some points (1. 6. 6, 2. 14. 7), using Galatia, a translation of the Latin Gallia at others (2. 19. 9, 21. 7, 18. 11. 1, 12. 1). The Celts, however, are seen as intruders, displacing Italians (Etruscans), and themselves displaced by the
25 See Williams, Rubicon, 55–7, 132. That Cato (F39P ¼ ii. 9C ¼ ii. 9B-W) considered Gallia Cisalpina as outside Italy (probably in his own day, note the tense of uehere, ‘convey’) would be more clearly shown if the (surely correct) reading aduehere proposed by Cornell (JRS (1988), 211–12) were adopted, describing thus the import of Gallic hams into Italy from Insubrian territory. See also Williams, Rubicon, 51 n. 109; Dench, Barbarians, 18–19, with earlier literature. Williams, Rubicon, 93, also draws attention to how Graeco-Roman depictions of Gauls as mercenary conditioned their perception of Gallic reasons for being in Italy, and distanced them further. 26 See Williams, Rubicon, 52–3. Also ibid. 60–2 on the historical dynamic in Polybios. 27 Strabo, 5. 1. 6, 10 refers to the Insubres as still existing (nun), but such temporal references in Strabo are very unspeciWc: see Clarke, Between Geography and History, 281–93. On the Boii and Senones: Poly., 2. 35. 4, Strabo, 5. 1. 6, 10, Plin., NH 3. 116; see Williams, Rubicon, 211–14. 28 See on Polybios’ contribution and its importance P. Tozzi, ‘Gli inizi della riXessione storiograWca sull’Italia settentrionale nella Roma del II secolo a.C.’, in Athenaeum fasc. spec. (1976), 28–50; id., L’Italia settentrionale nell’ eta` antica; Williams, Rubicon, 58–66, 133–4. Williams notes Polybios’ polemical stance (itself criticized by Strabo), Rubicon, 62, 64–5 (his sources, Greek and Roman), 65–6 (Polybian autopsy), 66–7, 72–3, 79–88, 94–9, 134 (diVerences between Polybios and Cato). On Polybios the geographer, in addition to the works cited by Williams, see now Clarke, Between Geography and History, ch. 2.
60
Making Italy: Terra Italia
Romans (as with Cato, it is Roman success in managing the landscape which comes across most strongly in Polybios).29 Did these changes in the perceptions and deWnitions aVect ‘oYcial’ Roman attitudes to Italy? It seems that the Romans were referring to Italy in oYcial documentation as terra Italia by the second century bc, if not earlier. It is worth trying to establish the nuances of this term here, and its implications for understanding Roman views of Italy. Both the lex agraria and the lex repetundarum employ the phrase ‘in terra Italia’;30 the Wrst use, however, is a generation earlier than the lex repetundarum, in a fragment of Cato. Since the context of the laws is clearer, and since we are interested in legal and institutional perspectives not necessarily found in Cato, I shall deal with the former Wrst. The lex agraria of 111 bc begins by listing diVerent kinds of land, formerly ager publicus, now made private under its terms.31 This former ager publicus is deWned by two qualiWcations, one temporal and one geographical: it was ager publicus in 133 bc, and it is located in terra Italia (‘in the land of Italy’).32 The date is an ‘oYcial’ one, and, correspondingly, terra Italia also should be an oYcial juridical category;33 but its meaning and application are not self-evident. Within this statute one layer of meaning is clearly established by the phrase ‘quod eius agri locei extra terra Italia est’ (‘whatever of that land or piece of land is outside the land of Italy’, lex agraria, l. 49), where the context is Roman land in Africa (see below). One function of the phrase terra Italia is, then, to distinguish Italy (and by this we should understand the peninsula south of the Rubicon34 and presumably the Arno rivers) from non-Italian land, provincial or otherwise (thus including Cisalpine Gaul). The same meaning probably holds for the occurrences 29 As Williams remarks, Rubicon, 60–2, the Etruscans themselves probably merited the loss of their land in Polybios’ view, unable to retain it after its bounty caused a slide into truphe¯ (‘luxuriousness’; despite Rubicon, 132 and n. 92, it remains unclear that Cato knew of an Etruscan hegemony in N. Italy, probable as that may be). For Polybios’ ‘othering’ of the Celts, apparently based on a perceived lack of rationality, see Rubicon, 82–7; this may set them apart culturally from the Romans and Italians, but note ibid. 87 on Celts and Greeks. 30 Lex repetundarum 31; lex agraria 1–7, 11, 13, 21, 27–8, 29, 33, 49–50; cf. however ‘in Italia’, at ll. 15, 19, 22, 29. 31 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 49; RS i. 153. 32 ‘quei ager poplicus populi Romanei in terra Italia P. Muucio L. Calpurnio cos’ (‘whatever public land of the Roman people in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius’; note that throughout this book translations of statutes are those given in RS). The phrase is fully or almost fully preserved in ll. 1, 4, and 6, and restored on that basis in ll. 2 and 3. ‘terram It//aliam’ in l. 1 receives no comment from Lintott or RS: it is an archaic ablative—see Gellius, NA i. 7. 17 and passages there cited (Cic., leg. Man. 33 is, however, usually emended by editors to ‘in potestate’ (‘in the power’); to Gellius’ list of examples add Cic., Div. Caec. 66, and Fam. 8. 8. 8). 33 Terra Italia appears in ll. 5 and 7 without reference to the consulship of Mucius and Calpurnius. 34 See RS i. 157. Poly., 7. 9. 6, mentions Karthaginian allies in Italia, Keltia, and Ligustine¯ ; such a distinction might suggest that Karthaginian and Roman oYcial views on what constituted Italy roughly coincided (if ‘Keltia’ is Gallia Cisalpina); Italia in 9. 7 presumably looks forward to future alliances in Italy proper. For Polybios’ unusual views on Italy (2. 14. 4–12, 3. 54. 2) see above. Strabo (5. 1. 11, 217C) talks about the Apennines and the river Aesis as a boundary between ‘inner Keltike¯’ (the Cispadana) and ‘the rest of Italy’, with the Aesis being replaced ‘later’ by the Rubicon, cf. 5. 2. 10, 227C, contrasted with the ‘current’ extension of Italy to the Alps. See further Nissen, Landeskunde, i. 63 V.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
61
of the phrase in lex agraria, ll. 1–4, 6, 11, 13, and 27: in all these cases provisions of the statute cover, or make reference to, various categories of what had been ager publicus in Italy in 133 bc, ager publicus which will naturally have been spread across the length and breadth of the peninsula. Terra Italia appears in three other contexts in the law. In l. 11 reference is made to ‘[uiasiei]s uicaneis, quei in terra Italia sunt’ (‘[to the road-people or]villagepeople, who are in the land of Italy’35); land previously assigned to these groups (on whom see below) is to continue to be available for them to exploit, but is not to become private.36 In the provinces the expenses of Roman oYcials were to be borne by those living along the roads travelled,37 and so there may have been groups treated analogously to the uiasiei uicanei in the provinces; perhaps it is better though to imagine uiasiei and uicanei settled along the great uiae publicae (public roads) of Gallia Cisalpina. Now these clauses (ll. 11–13) concern a category of what had been ager publicus in terra Italia in 133 bc but which, unlike the preceding types of ager publicus (ll. 1–11), was not made private as a result of this statute. It would be quite intelligible that terra Italia in its second appearance in l. 11 restricts the application of these regulations to Italy. While terra Italia here might in fact be an unconscious insertion by the engraver, prompted by an earlier instance, it is more likely that the text is sound, and thus terra Italia cannot in any case mean anything other than what it meant when it occurred a few words earlier. The phrase recurs again in a military formula: quei ceiuis Romanus sociumue nominisue Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum milites in terra Italia inperare solent (‘whichever Roman citizen or ally or member of the Latin name, from whom they are accustomed to demand troops in the land of Italy, according to the list of togati’; incompletely preserved at ll. 21 and 50). Those involved are clearly Romans, allies, or Latins who are liable to conscription. The formula togatorum (list of the togati) is not clearly understood, but formed the basis of that conscription.38 Parts of the phrase, especially the archaic genitive ‘socium’ (‘of the allies’), look quite old; ‘in terra Italia’ might belong to a later stratum of the oYcial phraseology. Be that as it may, the general signiWcance of terra Italia here seems quite clear: after a certain date Rome called on extra-Italian, as well as 35 My translation, see below. 36 See RS i. 159, cf. Lintott, Judicial Reform, 213. 37 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 214, citing Cic., Att. 5. 10. 2 and 16. 5. 38 Cic., Brutus 169, Valerius of the Latin colony of Sora was the ‘litteratissimus togatorum omnium’ (‘the most cultured of all the togati); Sall., BI 21. 2 refers to a ‘multitudo togatorum’ (‘crowd of togati’) which covered from the walls Adherbal’s Xight into Cirta, expanding on this, saying ‘Italici, quorum uirtute moenia defensabantur’ (‘Italians, by whose courage the fortiWcations were being defended’). This shows (RS i. 165) that Italians could be described as togati; but a further contrast may exist between Adherbal’s troops and any ‘civilians’ (presumably negotiatores—businessmen) in Cirta. See Mommsen, StR iii. 673–4; Brunt, Fall, 113–14, 545–8; Ilari, Gli italici nelle strutture militari romane; Hantos, Das ro¨mische Bundesgenossensystem in Italien, 164–6, Baronowski, Historia (1984); Clemente, in SdR ii/1, at 32, and Lo Cascio, Ann. Ist. Ital. Studi Storici (1991–4); GiuVre`, Labeo (1975), is unconvincing. It is not known how foedera naualia (naval treaties) were related to the formula togatorum. See further Sall., BI 95. 1; Livy, 22. 57. 10, 27. 10. 3.
62
Making Italy: Terra Italia
Italian, allies to fulWl their military obligations to her; from this point onwards, some distinction must have been necessary between those on whom Rome could call on in Italy (according to the formula togatorum), and others;39 the periphrasis is typical of Roman legal language. Self-evidently, Italy has to be an area which contains socii and Latins as well as Roman citizens.40 As in the clauses relating to ager publicus, the meaning of terra Italia is simply ‘Italy’, as deWned above. The last occurrence of terra Italia in this statute comes at l. 28, which preserves the start of a clause about maintenance of public roads: ‘II uirum qu[ei — quae uiae publicae p]er terram Italiam P. Mucio L. Calpurnio cos. uerint, eas aciunto pateant uacuaeque sien[t —]’ (‘whoever of the II uiri [— whatever public roads] there may have been in the land of Italy in the consulship of P. Mucius and L. Calpurnius, they are to see to it that they lie open and be free (from obstruction)’). Again, these roads are best envisaged as being, or including, the great uiae publicae which ran through both allied and Roman territory;41 this part of the statute can be understood as aiming to ensure that such public roads as had existed in 133 bc were still viable after the considerable reorganization of the Italian countryside which had begun in 133 bc and was concluded by this lex agraria.42 There is no need to restrict the application of this clause to roads within the ager Romanus. This interpretation of terra Italia is perhaps supported by the usage of the phrase in Italia (ll. 15, 19 (restored), 22, 29).43 We cannot know whether the absence of ‘terra’ in these instances is simply the product of scribal carelessness; but in any case it seems that its omission makes little or no diVerence to the understanding of the text at the point in question. Line 15 (‘ager publicus . . . quei in Italia P. Mucio L. Calpurnio cos. fuit’) is the same sort of introduction to a 39 At the outset of the Syrian War (191 bc), the consul who drew the lot for the prouincia of Greece, in addition to levying and taking over Roman armies in the Weld, is allowed ‘et extra Italiam . . . , si res postulasset, auxilia ab sociis ne supra quinque milium numerum acciperet.’ (‘and outside Italy, if the situation should demand it, to accept supplementary forces from allies, as long as they were not more than Wve thousand in number’, Livy, 36. 1. 8). 40 One might, of course, construe ‘in terra Italia’ narrowly with the process of milites inperare alone, but this seems unsatisfactory; this locution in the lex agraria seems in itself to refute Galsterer’s thesis (Herrschaft, 37–41) that terra Italia was an oYcial synonym for the ager Romanus (for other objections see LaY, Athenaeum (1980), 177; De Libero, Klio (1994); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 45 n. 25); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 45–58, modiWes and nuances Galsterer’s theory, arguing that Italia in the 2nd cent. could refer to the ager Romanus alone; his argument is just as much a begging of the question as the one he seeks to overturn, and employs some sweeping generalizations to brush the Livian usages aside. Returning to our text, Latins and allies in Cisalpina should have been excluded from the formula togatorum; alternatively the formula togatorum applied only in ‘Italia’ anyway—two diVerent ways of saying the same thing. 41 The uiae publicae are contrasted in l. 26 with ‘calleis’ (drove-roads; on which see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 228–9). 42 For the identity of these II uiri (board of two) see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 233; RS i. 167; for parallels for their activity here see RS i, loc. cit. 43 Perhaps to be restored in the lacuna at the end of l. 20 or the beginning of l. 21 as well (so already RudorV, Zeitschr. f. geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft (1839)). The reference to ‘trans Curione’ (‘beyond the Curio’) is obscure, see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 223–4; RS i. 165: it should lie outside Italy.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
63
clause as we have in ll. 1–7; the same goes for ll. 19, 22 (restored), and 29 (restored). At the very least we can say that the engraver saw no diVerence of meaning between the two phrases: this is not a useless conclusion, as we may take this anonymous artisan as typical of the literate audience who would have had the opportunity to peruse and try and make sense of the law. Interestingly, such a conclusion might also suggest that some popular conceptions of what Italia was were little diVerent from the Roman oYcial view of terra Italia. If the text were sound at these points, the meaning of terra Italia advanced above would be more fully conWrmed.44 Extra terra Italia (‘outside the land of Italy’) is used in the African section of the statute (l. 49). It is hard to see why, beyond legal pleonasm, the phrase is employed, since we are already outside Italy. The statute seems to be here dealing with land in Africa which is publicly leased at auction in Rome (cf. end l. 48), but could become ager priuatus uectigalisque (‘[—ei herede]iu[e] eius esto isque ager locus priuatus uectigalisque e[sto . . . ]’, ‘[—] is to belong [to him or to] his [heir] and that land or piece of land [is to be] private and subject to uectigal (rent)’). The provision may have been designed to ensure that no one claimed that land in Italy, as well as in Africa, which they have leased should become priuatus uectigalisque (‘private and subject to rent’); or perhaps the limit on holdings of leased ager publicus applied to all public land, not just land in Italy.45 So much for the lex agraria. Terra Italia also survives once in the lex repetundarum, l. 31. I argue below (Ch. 2) that this clause instructs the praetor to gather witnesses and evidence via conquistores (‘inspectors’) in Italy, and more speciWcally, only in those fora and conciliabula where there is no existing jurisdiction. Terra Italia in this phrase does not denote a speciWc part of Italy—rather it is used to contrast Italy with free cities, provincial communities, or kingdoms. It was surely in Italy, especially in the ager Romanus, that provincial plaintiVs would Wnd that any evidence potentially useful to their case was least accessible. Some Italians might be expected to be plaintiVs themselves (see below), but what of those who might have information to oVer (or hide)? Were they not bound to help the praetor? In any case, these two categories of settlement, fora and conciliabula (on which see Chapter 2), have any sense only in Roman juridical formulations of the character and hierarchy of settlement in Italy. I suggest, therefore, that not only is the praetor’s activity conWned to Italy; it is conWned to small settlements within the ager Romanus without magistrates with the necessary powers to help the praetor themselves. It might also seem odd that no speciWc mention is made of the acquisition of Italian witnesses in the surviving text of the law. This might in turn suggest a diVerent view of oppida (towns) from that adopted in the next chapter (see below): namely that oppida, far from being a generic term, as I shall argue, covered Roman colonies and municipia, and also allied cities and Latin colonies. That oppida could 44 There is in any case no necessary reason to agree with Lintott (Judicial Reform, 202) that Italia alone had a political (in whose eyes?) meaning of ‘non-Roman’ Italy (cf. RS i. 156–7); nor is it easy to understand the exclusion of urbs Roma (the city of Rome) by the simple use of the term terra Italia. 45 See also RS i. 171.
64
Making Italy: Terra Italia
be understood as so Xexible and all-embracing by readers of the law seems, however, doubtful; and besides, the law does not seem to have told potential plaintiVs (among whom Italians would be numbered) how to conduct their cases, beyond making a patronus available to them. Furthermore, if I am right (see below) that the authorities in municipia and colonies were not explicitly asked in the lex repetundarum to help the praetor or his conquistores, then there is less objection to supposing that communities of Latins and socii were not involved in this provision of the law either. I would argue that, like the ‘higher’ types of Roman community, Italian allies had a moral duty to assist, and not obstruct, the praetor. The law however issued them with no instructions: they were after all subject to their own laws, and those of Rome bound them in an explicit way only if the allies became fundi of them (i.e. adopted them as legally binding).46 Instructions to aid the investigations might be forthcoming not at a general level, but as and when speciWc cases required. Does the idea that terra Italia in these two epigraphic texts means juridically speaking ‘Italy’ (south of the Arno/Rubicon line) Wnd support in the literary sources? To these I now turn, although we must beware that the usages of Augustan or late Republican writers may distort as much as preserve secondcentury practice. At the start of this chapter I identiWed the Pyrrhic Wars as a key turning point in the evolution of the concept of Italy in the middle republic. My Wrst example of the use of terra Italia comes from a discussion of Pyrrhos’ invasion in Aulus Gellius. His antiquarian interests more than compensate for the late date at which he was writing (last quarter of the second century ad); he is very sensitive to archaic usages. Gellius reports letters preserved in two early Wrst-century bc historians, Valerius Antias and Claudius Quadrigarius, purporting to come from the consuls of 278 bc, warning the king against the threat of assassination. Gellius begins: ‘Cum Pyrrhus rex in terra Italia esset et unam atque alteram pugnas prospere pugnasset satisque agerent Romani et pleraque Italia ad regem desciuisset, tum Ambraciensis quispiam Timochares, regis Pyrri amicus, . . .’ (NA 3. 8. 1).47 The phrase is intended to give a serious and digniWed start to a passage which shows the magnanimity of the Romans. Terra Italia may simply be used consciously by Gellius to such an end, drawn from his rich store of archaic phrases: he had, after all, already noted its use by Cato, at NA 2. 6. 7. It is not, to my mind, coincidence that we Wnd this phrase attached to quite an old episode of Roman history, one long predating the Social War. I think that Gellius has applied the phrase appropriately to describe Italy at this period: it may be that Roman propaganda Wrst devised the slogan terra Italia to promote solidarity in the face of threats from outside the peninsula, Gallic or Epirote, precisely in these years.48 46 On this process see Ch. 4. 47 ‘When Pyrrhus the king was in the land of Italy and had fought a Wrst and a second battle with success, and the Romans were hard pressed, and most of Italy had defected to the king, then a certain Ambracian, Timochares, a friend of king Pyrrhus, . . .’ 48 Gabba, Italia romana, 19, stresses the connectedness implied by the phrase, and how easily it separates Italy from what lies over the seas.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
65
There is an intriguing alternative, namely that Gellius has aped the phrase from Valerius Antias (whom he follows in the passage quoted in naming the philos (friend) of the king as Timochares, not Nicias, as Claudius Quadrigarius had it).49 We know too little about Antias to speculate whether he used the phrase in the knowledge that it was appropriate to the Pyrrhic Wars for the reasons suggested above. The use of the phrase by Antias would, however, be very interesting for the implication that even after the Social War (but not for long, since we never Wnd the phrase in Cicero), terra Italia persisted as the formal Roman deWnition of Italy. In that case older, pre-Social-War, views of Italy would have persisted after the enfranchisement of the allied peoples. This would not be surprising, and as we have seen, the period at which Claudius and Valerius were writing was one at which the status of the new citizens, and their role in the new Italy, was still a matter for dispute: might Valerius here be the voice of conservatism?50 It is in the more oYcial context of the recitation of senatorial decrees that Livy Wrst uses terra Italia. At an early stage in the repression of the ‘Bacchanalian conspiracy’ in 186 bc, the consuls, after reading out the relevant senatus consulta (decrees of the Senate), proclaimed the fate of those who suVered nominis delatio (‘institution of criminal proceedings’) for involvement in the rites and had Xed: dies certae (‘Wxed days for trial’) were speciWed, on which persons so named would have to appear before the consuls, with non-appearance resulting in condemnation. Livy continues ‘si quis eorum, qui tum extra terram Italiam essent, nominaretur, ei laxiorem diem daturos, si uenire ad causam dicendam uellet’ (Livy, 39. 17. 3).51 Here it seems highly plausible that Livy, whose language here echoes that of oYcial documents (see below, Chapters 2 and 3, on the relation of his narrative to epigraphic sources for this incident), is using an oYcial second-century term to denote Italy, presumably as far as the Arno– Rubicon line.52 Earlier, Livy (25. 7. 1–4, 212 bc) reports the decision of the Senate in response to an appeal by the exercitus Cannensis (Cannae army) to be allowed active duty. 49 In support of the suspicion that Gellius took the phrase from Antias, note that Antias (ap. Gellius, NA 4. 11. 4 ¼ F45P adn.) gives the following words to Scipio Africanus ‘Hannibalem . . . magno proelio uici in terra Africa’ (‘I was victorious over Hannibal in a great battle in the land of Africa’). The phrase clearly means no more than ‘Africa’, and is so understood by Livy is his embellished version of the speech (38. 51. 7–11). 50 All this is complicated by the phrase ‘pleraque Italia’. Whether or not most of Italy did desert to Pyrrhus is one question; what is meant by ‘Italia’ here is quite another, and the answer has important consequences for the line of argument I am trying to advance. If for instance it reXected the old Greek idea that Italia was the south of Italy, home of the Italio¯tai (e.g. Thuc., 6. 2. 4, 44. 3, Antiochos of Syrakuse FGrH 555 F3 ¼ Strabo, 6. 1. 4, 254C), then we would be forced to face that fact the Gellius uses two very diVerent terms for Italy side-by-side without seeming to notice; thus a sensitivity to the register of the term terra Italia would be hard to support. On balance, however, I think the phrase is just an exaggeration, and may, in Claudius, derive from C. Acilius (F 5P). 51 ‘if any of them, who were at that time outside the land of Italy, should be named, to him they would give a more distant day, if he should wish to come in order to plead his case’. 52 Contra Mouritsen, UniWcation, 50–1, who sees terra Italia as a ‘geographical description’. For the thirty-day time period he adduces Livy, 43. 14. 7–10.
66
Making Italy: Terra Italia
The Senate gave the commander on the ground (M. Claudius Marcellus) some leeway in his attitude to the Cannae veterans, but on strict conditions: ‘dum ne quis eorum munere uacaret neu dono militari uirtutis ergo donaretur neu in Italiam reportaretur donec hostis in terra Italia esset’ (‘as long as none of them should be given immunity from service, or be rewarded for courage with a military decoration, or be brought back into Italy as long as the enemy was in the land of Italy’; 25. 7. 4). Now, elsewhere in this episode (25. 5. 10–7. 4) Italia is used throughout: terra Italia in the Senate’s response here is probably partly due to a desire for variety on Livy’s part. Almost the same phrase recurs at 27. 38. 5: the colonists of Ostia have their uacatio militiae conWrmed, on condition that they swear not to spend more than thirty nights outside the colony ‘donec hostis in Italia esset’.53 Yet the phrase ‘donec hostis in terra Italia esset’ looks plausible as at least an attempt at oYcial documentary style, much more so, for instance, than the synonymous ‘ne ante Punici belli Wnem in Italiam reportarentur’ (‘they should not be brought back into Italy before the end of the Punic War’; 25. 5. 10).54 We note again the association of the phrase with the presence of a foreign enemy in Italy, as with Pyrrhos (and see below on Cato). Livy, in reporting senatorial decrees which took as their term of validity Hannibal’s continued presence in Italy, normally used Italia to denote the geographic entity; terra Italia was a possible alternative, but for him clearly meant the same thing. But what was that? For Livy, Italy was a unity stretching from the Alps to the straits of Messina; but in the juridically fragmented Italy of the second century bc, did terra Italia mean something other than what Livy understood? Clearly, the extreme measures taken by the Senate during the Hannibalic War were meant to last until Hannibal himself had been removed from the peninsula. A partial deWnition, whereby terra Italia stands for Roman Italy (i.e. the ager Romanus), or for non-Roman Italy, would in this context be absurd: Hannibal’s exclusion from the ager Romanus alone, or from allied territory alone, would hardly allow the remainder of the peninsula to relax its war eVort. It looks as if in both these cases Livy is using a second-century term (terra Italia), whose technical meaning he no longer comprehends, rather seeing it as synonymous with the Italy he knew. Reconstructed, the second-century situation underlying his usage correlates happily with the meaning inferred above from the epigraphic evidence. The other literary usage of the term should be decisive, as it comes from a second-century source: the Elder Cato, in the speech De Achaeis (On the 53 Cf. ibid., ‘nullius cum in Italia hostis esset praeter Antiatem Ostiensemque uacatio obseruata est’ (‘no one’s exemption (from military service) was observed when the enemy was in Italy, except that of Antium and Ostia’). 54 Discussing the punishment of various malefactors by the censors of 214 bc, Livy says that they were sent as foot-soldiers to join the remnants of the exercitus Cannensis: ‘cui militum generi non priusquam pulsus Italia hostis esset Wnitum stipendiorum tempus erat’ (‘for this category of soldiers the time which they were required to serve was not to be terminated until the enemy had been driven from Italy’; 24. 18. 9).
Making Italy: Terra Italia
67
Achaeans), delivered in 151 bc. Yet it neither conWrms nor disproves the case argued for here. Gellius, discussing odd Virgilian locutions, including ‘uexasse’, cites the Catonian phrase ‘cumque Hannibal terram Italiam laceraret atque uexaret’.55 This is a small and uncontextualized fragment of a speech: arguments about terra Italia, and about the register of language used, are therefore of limited value. We may further note that the snippet was quoted for Cato’s use of the term uexare, which had lost much of its original force by the second century ad.56 Gellius glosses the phrase, saying ‘uexare Italiam dixit Cato Hannibalem’ (‘Cato says that Hannibal was harrying Italy’); he evidently saw nothing in the phrase terra Italia which required further comment at that point. As for Cato, he may be combining two ideas, the concrete uexare terram and the less tangible uexare Italiam. There is, in any case, no reason to suggest that he referred only to a portion of Italy.57 It may be signiWcant that Cato, like Livy and Gellius, uses the phrase in the context of foreign enemies on Italian soil. In all probability the phrase was already in use as a juridical term before the Hannibalic War.58 Furthermore, it probably became closely tied to ideas of the ager Romanus (for which see next chapter): in 210 Livy reports (27. 5. 15, cf. 29. 5, 208 bc) how the Senate enforced the naming of a dictator comitiorum habendorum causa (for the purpose of holding elections) on the ager Romanus rather than in Sicily, since the former ‘Italia terminari’ (‘was delimited by Italy’).59 Livy does not use terra Italia, but it seems very possible that, in the context of juridical and augural restrictions of this kind, Livy’s source would have used a more formal phrase, and it is tempting to think that this would have been terra Italia. In that case, it would have deWned not only the extent of Italy, but by implication the maximum limits of the extent of ager Romanus. I have argued that as propaganda terra Italia may have originated in the decades following the battle of Sentinum, redolent of an ideological unity in the face of foreign foes (Epirote, Punic, or Gallic). Its technical sense, denoting non-Gallic Italy, may have Wrst appeared as Rome began to acquire spheres of interest in Sicily, Sardinia, and the Po valley, leading to the need to diVerentiate overseas territories from those of the Italian alliance; indeed, it is most 55 ORF 2 xlviii, frag, 187: ‘when Hannibal was rending and harrying Italy’. 56 Cato is quoted by Gellius (NA 2. 6. 7), Macr. (Sat. 6. 7. 10, almost identical), Serv. (ad Virg., Ecl. 6. 76). 57 Cf. RS i. 156; note that, despite what is claimed there, Phlegon of Tralles, FGrH 257, iii. 7, is probably not relevant. With the phrase Italiam uexare compare Asconius, In tog. cand. p. 85C: ‘Catilina . . . Africam prouinciam obtinuit: quam cum grauiter uexasset’ (‘Catilina received Africa as his prouincia: when he had heavily harried it’). Dench, Barbarians, 19, suggests that Hannibal’s invasion across the Alps may have altered Roman attitudes to this as a frontier of Roman interests—one might add, as a frontier for Italy. 58 Cf. RS i. 156. The use of the archaic ablative ‘in terram Italiam’ in l. 1 might support such a conclusion. 59 Gabba connects this co-identiWcation of the limits of Italy with those of the ager Romanus with the restriction of the movement of the pontifex maximus to within Italy (Wrst attested in 205); Gabba must be right that both practices are older than their Wrst attestations, and linked to the ‘idea’ of Roman Italy (Italia romana, 18, cf. Catalano, Atti Acc. Torino (1961–2)).
68
Making Italy: Terra Italia
comprehensible in such a context. It is also important to diVerentiate terra Italia from the consular province Italia, still often used in the second century.60 This could embrace any part of the peninsula; the diVerence between it and terra Italia may lie precisely in the fact that the consular prouincia might include areas which lay outside the geographical area of Rome’s Italian alliance, and which might be zones of conXict, above all with Gauls and Ligurians. Terra Italia was an ‘imagined community’;61 it supplied Rome’s troops, and it was what those troops defended;62 deWning its boundaries, at least the boundaries of what it represented, would not provide a match with what juridical sources tell us.63 Italia, partly co-extensive, covered those parts of the peninsula where Wghting might, and frequently did, occur. Rome’s imprint on the lands farmed by the Italy’s men when not on campaign was hardly less profound than her inXuence on the conception of Italy itself.64 The Via Appia (begun 312 bc) began the series of great Roman roads (uiae publicae; also uiae praetoriae and consulares (praetorian and consular roads) according to D. 43. 8. 22) which, connecting Rome, the ager Romanus, and the Latin colonies (her strategic lynchpins), gradually came to knit the peninsula together.65 In 244 a Latin colony had been founded at Brundisium, which was to be a gateway to the East, connected to Rome by the same Via Appia.66 The Via Valeria (306 bc), cutting across the uplands of central Italy to the Latin colony of 60 Between 166 and 91 bc there were only nine years when both consuls were allocated provinces outside Italy: Brunt, Manpower, 567–9. 61 For the ‘imagined community’ see Anderson, Imagined Communities; Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism2 , 46, 59–62, 71, 90–1, 109, 143, 177, 188; for an attempt to apply this idea to conceptions of Augustan Italy, see Laurence, Roads, chs. 12 and 13. Scholarly models applicable to nationalism can only be exploited for pre-modern periods with the greatest of care. As Anderson says ‘all communities . . . are imagined’ (6), and the idea of nationalisms as ‘cultural artefacts’ (4) can surely be applied with proWt as a heuristic device in earlier periods. Yet the deWnition of the nation as ‘an imagined political community . . . imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign’ (6) cannot suit terra Italia, or any conception of Italy in antiquity; Italy lacked a common vernacular, let alone a print-capitalism through which the scattered members of the community could share imaginings; it lacked ‘common citizenships, popular sovereignty, national Xags amd anthems’ (81, but note the poly-ethnic, polylinguistic Indonesian nation, ibid. 120–3, 131–3). Nevertheless, the idea of ‘fraternity’ (7), of belonging, and, shorn of First World War oYcial patriotism, the idea of Wghting and dying for the community, does chime with what we are discussing in this chapter and the next. 62 See Dench, Barbarians, 16, on contemporary history in Cato as to some extent the shared history of Rome and Italy: this was made up in large part of wars, the one activity in which both groups participated to an (apparently) common end, cf. Gabba, Italia romana, 17–18. 63 Cf. Fraccaro, in Opuscula i. 103–14, Gabba, Italia romana, 18. 64 See now Laurence, Roads, ch. 2 and 40–2, noting the broad appeal and impact of roads (surely wrong however on Capua); 49–52 on Gracchan road-building; and 144 on the 2nd-cent. epigraphic evidence pertaining to roads. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128, argues that with the Via Cassia (177 bc) and afterwards much road-building was done in allied territory, a possible manifestation of Roman interference. 65 Coarelli, DdA (1988), on road-building and colonization. 66 Strabo, 6. 3. 7, 283C, Uggeri, RicStBrindisi (1977), id., in La Puglia in eta` repubblicana, 50; Lippolis and Baldini Lippolis, Taras (1997), 307.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
69
Alba Fucens, was followed by four more roads before the end of the First Punic War, and a further dozen by the time of the Social War.67 Besides the uiae publicae, the Roman state also had an interest in the maintenance and policing of the calles or drove-roads of Italy.68 The ‘knock-on’ eVects of road-building were many and varied,69 but I wish to focus on ways of conceiving the Italian peninsula. This came to be imagined as more Rome-centred as the network evolved, more uniWed, more coherent, and closer together. Road-building should be seen as accompanying (and in some sense facilitating related) changes in technology, transport, settlement, economy, and society. 70 The grander outline of the Roman road network is visible in the surviving evidence, despite scholarly controversies. Details of its impact on settlement and the wider landscape are not, however, always clear in our period. One cautionary example illustrates the point. I noted above lex agraria, ll. 11–13, which refers to land-holdings of the uiasiei uicanei, elsewhere unknown. In l. 12 we read of anyone for whom ‘in [ui]asieis uicanisue ex s. c. esse oportet oportebitue’ (‘it is or shall be appropriate to be among the road-people or village-people according to a decree of the Senate’); the connective -ue should imply, strictly speaking, that one could be either a uiasius or a uicanus. Lintott thus misses a level of nuance by translating as though they formed a single group (‘villagers by the roads’, missing the important -ue from his text).71 Nevertheless, the lack of a connective in l. 11, 67 The Viae Aurelia (on the problems associated with the various Viae Aureliae attested, see Coarelli, DdA (1988), 43–8), Flaminia etc. On Italian roads Mommsen: StR ii. 428 n. 4, Hinrichs, Historia (1967), Pekary, Untersuchungen zu den ro¨mischen Reichstrassen, Wiseman, PBSR (1970); Radke, RE Supp. xiii, cols. 1418–1666; Potter, Landscape, 101–9; Crawford, JRS (1981), 156; Quilici, Le strade; Quilici and Quilici-Gigli (eds.), Strade romane; Coarelli, DdA (1988); David, Conquest, 43, 70; Curti et al., JRS (1996), 186; Curti, in Italy and the West, 19; Patterson, in LTUR v. 130–4, 135–9, 140–5, 146, for the roads which started from Rome. 68 See Laurence, Roads, 145–6, on the calles and their relationship to the state and Italian towns. 69 Crawford, Coinage and Money, 29, on the possible striking of a Roman coin issue speciWcally to pay for the Via Appia; cf. Laurence, Roads, 15–16. 70 Laurence points to the Bacchanalian ‘conspiracy’ and the Gracchan upheavals: see Roads, esp. ch. 6, 80–1, 101–6, 187–9, 197. He argues that ‘the changes that occurred in Italy’s space-economy . . . made possible the meaning of citizenship to so many and ultimately was [sic] the basis for a uniWed Italy’ (3), privileging them over the extension of that citizenship (cf. ibid. 2 for changes in the ‘cultural perception of distance’); it is worth pointing out in the case of the Bacchanalian aVair that roads may also have helped to spread the rites. It should be remembered, however, that these changes did not happen from a ‘standing start’, but built on an ‘intense’ level of existing connectivity: Benelli, in Italy and the West, 9, and studies there cited; see also Campanile, in id. (ed.), Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell’ Italia antica, 11–21. First-cent. examples of the wide socio-political eVects associated with road building and repair: Cic., Fam. 8. 6. 5 (50 bc): Curio ‘legemque uiariam non dissimilem agrariae Rulli et alimentariam . . . , iactauit’ (‘and bandied a road-law not dissimilar to Rullus’ agrarian law and an alimentary law’), with Shackleton Bailey, Comm. ad loc. and App., BC 2. 27; Plut., Caes. 5 on Caesar’s curatorship of the Via Appia as one means by which he increased his popularity (through supererogatory expenditure). 71 Despite RS i. 160, lex Flavia 19 provides no clear support for the translation ‘lane-people’ adopted by RS; the basic sense of uicus is ‘village’ or ‘quarter’ (in Greek steno¯pos, e.g. Dio, 55. 8. 6)—such quarters might take their name from a road, such as the uicus Tuscus at Rome. At lex Flavia 19 the aediles are given cura (care) of ‘uias uicos’, surely meaning ‘roads and districts’: this is normal procedure for urban roads, cf. D. 43. 8. 24 (perhaps undermining the suggestion of RS i, loc. cit., that uiasiei and uicani might be found on urban public land). The uiasiei and uicanei are not discussed in Laurence, Roads.
70
Making Italy: Terra Italia
and the fact that both groups are mentioned together as the subject of these clauses, suggests that they were considered to form one entity for the practical purposes of the application of the law. The key element in deWning these groups seems to be presence beside roads; if so, it is likely that this was in the form of dispersed settlement as well as agglomerated villages. The uiasiei and uicani are traditionally seen as responsible, in the normal Roman manner, for the upkeep of the roads beside which they lived.72 In our text, it seems that the same is true for those who are possessores (occupiers) of public land beside uiae publicae. Such groups may have been as old as the roads themselves, and thus may date back to the late fourth century;73 we are perhaps to envisage a provision of corve´e (compulsory) labour, rather than payments due from big proprietors. The relationship of uiasiei and uicani to the Gracchan legislation is not entirely clear either. They had certainly been assigned land which had been ager publicus in 133 bc (presumably the Gracchan land commissioners are the subject of the plural verbs denoting this action in l. 11); this land is explicitly being retained as public land.74 It seems not unreasonable to suppose that there should have been other uiasiei and uicani in Italy (and outside Italy: ‘quei in terra Italia sunt’?), who had not received Gracchan land allotments. Lintott plausibly suggests that Roman the need for maintenance of uiae publicae outside Italy may have naturally generated their presence;75 allotments of ager publicus may have been a standard way of recompensing the uiasiei and uicani for their responsibilities. If, then, we surmise that uiasiei and uicanei were settled by magistrates (acting on senatorial decree—see l. 12) beside the roads as the network grew, what sort of status do we envisage for them? Lintott seems to see here a mild form of roadoriented ‘colonate’, with departure impossible unless a substitute was found.76 Certainly the phrase ‘quem in [ui]asieis uicanisue ex s. c. esse oportet oportebitue’ (l. 12) suggests that this was a status conferred (or imposed), that it entailed an element of obligation. Note that future as well as current uiasiei and uicani are 72 D. 43. 8. 22 is quite explicit that private contributions to the upkeep of a public road do not make it private; see further Lintott, Judicial Reform, 214; Cato, Agr. 2. 4: instructions to the uilicus (bailiV) include ‘uiam publicam muniri’ (‘the public road to be repaired’); tabula Heracleensis, ll. 20–49 (and see RS i. 160 for reservations on the relevance of the parochi (commissaries) of Hor., Serm. 1. 5. 45–6). For the upkeep of various types of road in later periods see Laurence, Roads, 46, 52–5, 59–62, and Campbell, Roman Land Surveyors, 374–5, with bibliography there cited; for the Republic see ILLRP 464–5a (Rome); Cic., QF 3. 1. 4, lex Tarentina, ll. 39–42, lex coloniae Genetiuae 77 (all local roads); key later texts are Siculus Flaccus 146L ¼ 112 l. 9–33 Campbell, CIL ix. 6072, 6075 (Hadrianic), D. 43. 8. 21–3. 73 Laurence, Roads, 18, notes this characteristic of the building of the Via Valeria in (?)307: Livy, 9. 43. 25. For another possible group see Hinrichs, Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen, 59, on Lib. Col. 215, 4 L ¼ 168 Campbell (Arretium). 74 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 213; RS i. 159, both supporting the view of Mommsen. 75 Judicial Reform, 214, arguing that ll. 12–13 on land assigned by s.c. implies the existence of groups beyond the scope of the Gracchan programme. 76 Judicial Reform, 214. He envisages some freedom from the uectigal for this group in return for the discharge of their repsonsibilities.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
71
banned from behaving as if their (Gracchan-assigned?) land were private. Does this mean that the personnel might change on these Gracchan holdings, with substitutions occurring, by senatorial decree? Or that no future uiasiei and uicani would be settled in future in such a way as to be able to call their land private?77 The uiasiei and uicani raise more questions than answers: their presence is broadly explicable with reference to the importance of the upkeep of uiae publicae in Roman Italy, and underlines the relationship between roads and settlement (a particular class of uici?), but the precise circumstances are unclear. Indeed, the existence of these shadowy groups is more important than inconclusive attempts to explain them: they are a reminder to us of the variety of juridical entities in Roman Italy, which formed a complex patchwork, sometimes existing in the very interstices of Roman control, and often imperfectly known to us. The contrast with the information available to Roman authorities is salutary: references in the lex agraria to formae and tabellae suggest that, at least for ager publicus, Roman authorities had at their disposition extensive evidence, in documentary and even graphic form, about who was entitled to what, and where.78 The roads were but one striking transformation of the landscape.79 From the fourth century onwards, the landscape itself was increasingly appropriated by Rome: loss of territory on (re)conquest was a common punishment for Italian communities. Whether or not colonies were sent out to a particular area, conWscated land was regularly subjected to a radical process of surveying, division, and distribution: centuriation (or in Latin limitatio).80 Considerable areas of Italy were thus subjected to a process of profound transformation, above all in the Cispadane region of Gallia Cisalpina.81 The underlying symbolism of this type of land organization was egalitarian, and linked to a citizen ideology—all plots of 77 The groups, or at least these terms for them, seem not to survive into the Empire. 78 Lex agraria l. 7: ‘inue formas tabulasue retulit referiue iussit’ (‘entered on maps or in records or ordered to be entered’); cf. lex Agraria, ll. 78: ‘idque in formas publicas facito ute[i referat . . . ]’ (‘and he is to see that [he enter] it in the public maps’, cf. l. 80)—applying to stipendarii (tribute-paying allies?) only? See RS i. 158, Williams, Rubicon, 37, for the wider context for this type of recording. 79 Note the hydrological engineering works of M’. Curius Dentatus in the 3rd cent., which drained the Lacus Velinus into the River Nar, a situation which was (?still) giving cause for concern to Internamna Nahars in 54 bc (Cic., Att. 4. 15. 5, Scaur. 27), and to Reate in ad 15 (Tac., Ann. 1. 79. 2–4); see Shackleton Bailey, ad Cic., Att. 4. 15. 5 for full discussion. 80 On centuriation see Salmon, Colonization, 20–4; Misurare la terra; Gargola, Lands, 39–41, with earlier bibliography at 39 n. 72. The exact date at which centuriation began is uncertain: it might be as late as the 3rd cent. The change from the older centuriation per strigas et per scamna (in rows and strips) to the canonical division of the land into centuriae (units of land) often with a side of 20 actus (1 actus ¼ 120 Roman feet) by decumani (notionally east–west lines) and kardines (notionally north– south lines) may have come in just before the Second Punic War (Gargola, Lands, 40 n. 75), and be associated with the beginnings of land distribution in the large Xat spaces of the Po plain: Gabba, Italia romana, 187–9. On centuriation and colonization in the north of Italy see further: Tibiletti, Athenaeum (1950); Ewins, PBSR (1952); Chevallier, La Romanisation de la Celtique du Poˆ, ii 8. 31–5, 74–6, Clavel-Le´veˆque, Ktema (1983), 216–23, Purcell, in Blagg and Millett, The Early Roman Empire in the West, 7–29; Chouquer et al., Structures agraires en Italie centro-me´ridionale; Chouquer and Favory, Les Paysages de l’antiquite´ (with caution), Gargola, Lands, ch. 5, on uiritim assignments. 81 See Williams, Rubicon, 208–11 on the extent of this activity in the north of Italy.
72
Making Italy: Terra Italia
land were of identical size.82 Some of the land centuriated remained ager publicus: Roman power was visibly manifested through centuriation.83 As in other facets of the conquest, possibilities existed for some of the conquered to participate in the new order: some ager publicus was never redistributed to Roman settlers, but left, albeit precariously, in the hands of the original owners. Even where limitatio occurred, it was usually possible for communities and individuals who had lost land to lease it again from the Roman censors.84 The boundaries between land leased to individuals and that leased to communities are not always easy to discern. At lex agraria ll. 14–15 we have a reference to ager compascuus, grazing-land which remains public, since tax is to be paid if more than a certain number of animals are grazed.85 The clause may refer either to the shared grazing-land of a community or communities (as in the sententia Minuciorum ll. 32–5)86, or to common pasture land granted to individuals by a Roman oYcial.87 In l. 25 the contrast between ager compascuus and fenced-oV grazing on public land seems to be one between the public pasture of the populus Romanus on the one hand, and an area of ager publicus over which a group of individuals (often neighbours) have grazing rights on the other.88 The complex, and often conXicting, claims of various bodies (populus Romanus, various Italian communities, groups of private citizens, and individual farmers) add further degrees of diYculty for our interpretation. As with the uiasiei and uicanei, we observe the dangers of considering the communities of the ager Romanus or the Italian allies in a sort of sterile isolation from other realities of land-holding and settlement with which they coexisted.
82 See Horden and Purcell, Corrupting Sea, 253, 279–80, 285. 83 See here the interesting remarks of Williams, Rubicon, 52–3, on the relationship between conquest, centuriation, road-building, and colonization on the one hand, and the generation of the kind of ‘statistical’ information preserved in Cato’s fragments on the north of Italy above all: ‘Cato’s reXections . . . on this new state of aVairs and his fascination with statistics on exactly this kind of information constitute the literary correlate of this great transformation’. It would be nice to suppose that it is not a coincidence that most of the Catonian fragments of this type concern northern Italy, which was very much more subject to these changes than the south in Cato’s time (although see e.g. Torelli, Tota Italia, 104–12, on changes in farming, and the social relations of production in Daunia at this time). Nepos’ remark (Cat. 3. 4) that Cato recorded ‘quae in Italia Hispaniisque aut Werent aut uiderentur admiranda’ (‘what in Italy or in the Spains either was or seemed worthy of admiration’) need not weaken such a thesis. 84 Allied right to hold land implied by lex agraria 21, Appian, BC 1. 7. 26–8, 18. 73–19. 82, cf. Schol. Bob., ad Cic., Mil. 8, p. 118 St.; see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 38, 41, 44–6; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 174–6. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 142–50, argues that much ager publicus obtained early in the Roman conquest of Italy was made available again to the allies from whom it was taken, with no requirement for a uectigal, and no clear records kept concerning its subsequent possession. See Williams, Rubicon, 208–11, on the extent of this activity in the north of Italy 85 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 217–18. 86 So ibid. 217. 87 References to ager compascuus in the Digest and the Corpus agrimensorum: see RS i. 163, Lintott, Judicial Reform, 217. 88 See RS i. 163.
Making Italy: Terra Italia
73
Aware of the limitations inherent in our best contemporary evidence, it is now time for us to turn to the juridical components, Roman and non-Roman, which constituted terra Italia. We can do so in the knowledge that the word Italy was indeed, during the second century, increasingly of interest to ‘ideologues’, both Roman and Italian. Behind the ‘shorthand’ lurked two political signiWcances, one of which was synonymous with Roman control; the other, crystallizing as the Social War approached, was to be equivalent to the last chance for the independent states which constituted the non-Roman areas of the peninsula.
2 Roman Italy: The Second Century 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N By the end of the Hannibalic War, peninsular Italy south of the Apennines had for a century and more been split into a patchwork of communities enjoying diVerent legal statuses, all deWned principally by the nature of the individual relationships to Rome.1 The cities and peoples of the peninsula were either Roman (with or without the franchise), or one of two distinct types of ally.2 The Latin colonies (referred to in oYcial documents as the nomen Latinum, or socii nominis Latini, allies of the Latin name) formed a favoured subset of the latter, distinguished by the rights (iura) of conubium and commercium (respectively, the rights to intermarry, and conclude legally valid business deals, with Roman citizens, and among themselves), as well as others, such as the ius migrationis (the right to acquire citizenship by migration to Rome). The other socii (outside Latium Vetus and the Hernican cities) did not, by and large, enjoy 1 The clear analysis of Beloch, Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie, is still worth reading; on the historiography of Roman hegemony see Munzi, in Italy and the West, 39–42; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 39–40, 58. Some scholars refer, after Afzelius and ultimately Mommsen, to a Roman ‘confederacy’. As Mouritsen points out, the idea of an Italian ‘confederacy’ or ‘commonwealth’, led by Rome, does not do justice to the unequal and bilateral treaty relations which bound Rome’s allies to her. 2 For the tripartite division Romans::Latins::other allies, see the SC de Bacchanalibus (ll. 7–8): ‘Bacas uir nequis adiese uelet ceiuis Romanus neue nominus Latini neue socium quisquam’ (‘let no man who is a Bacchanalian, whether a Roman citizen or of the Latin name or of the allies wish to approach (the Senate)’). The same distinction holds in the literary sources: Livy, describing the forces holding Casilinum for the Romans in 216 bc, says that there were 500 Praenestines, ‘cum paucis Romanis Latinique nominis’ (‘with a few Romans and men of the Latin name’, 23. 20. 2); the latter are thus distinguished from the inhabitants of the Latin ciuitas foederata of Praeneste (so too Bernardi, Nomen Latinum, 64–5; Salmon, Making, 53–4, 64, pace Badian, Clientelae 24; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 98; Dahlheim, Struktur und Entwicklung, 118 n. 19); cf. Sall., Iug. 40. 2: opponents of the rogatio Mamiliana (109 bc) work clandestinely ‘per homines nominis Latini et socios Italicos’ (‘through men of the Latin name and Italian allies’), an interesting comment, which can be set against some of Mouritsen’s views on allies in Roman politics (UniWcation, 120–1). For the favoured status of the Latins compared to other allies, see Livy, 26. 34. 6–7 (210 bc), Capuans to be free but not Roman or citizens of the Latin name; 38. 44. 4 (187 bc), a senatorial decree proposed by the consul Aemilius in favour of the Ambraciots included the provision that they should be able to collect what portoria (harbour dues) they wished, ‘dum eorum immunes Romani ac socii nominis Latini essent’ (‘provided that Romans and allies of the Latin name should be immune from them’); 40. 42. 4 (180 bc), injuries in Illyricum ‘multis ciuibus Romanis et sociis Latini nominis’ (‘to many Roman citizens and allies of the Latin name’; see Mommsen, StR iii. 612 n. 2, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 96, on Livy’s language).
Roman Italy: the Second Century
75
these privileges;3 moreover, they all diVered from the Latin colonies in that they were not new state entities established by Rome, but existing communities which had lost absolute independence in being compelled through bilateral treaty arrangements to supply troops for Roman wars, often after forcible subjection by Rome.4 In Italy most Roman citizens not settled in the countryside lived in one of two types of settlement developed in the process of conquest and expansion: citizen colonies and municipia. The former were created ex nouo (from scratch) by Rome from within the existing resources of her citizen body, and to some extent took Roman culture and institutions as explicit models. The latter were existing communities incorporated into the Roman citizenship, but maintaining a large degree of autonomy: Roman communities by adoption, as they have been called. Indeed, by the late Republic Italy was often designated by, or conceived of as, the shorthand coloniae et municipia, or similar.5 In the interstices between the territories of these communities, in the closer environs of Rome, along her roads and across her public land, was a range of lesser, submunicipal, settlements, both new foundations and existing centres.6 Allied communities, on the other side of the divide, were bound to Rome by individual treaties. The most serious obligation of each treaty was to supply Rome with troops according to an agreed pattern, the formula togatorum.7 3 D.S., 37. 15. 2, implies conubium was possessed by some non-Latin allies; Livy’s reference (35. 7. 2–5) to the (nominal) assumption of the position of creditors by Italian allies (and Latins, as 7. 5 shows) for debts contracted by Romans in 193 bc, suggests that, for the purposes of money-lending at least, commercium extended in some sense to non-Latins; see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 125. 4 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 119 (I disagree with him on the extent of the nomen Latinum— see n. 2 above), and 127, noting cases where non-Latin socii enjoyed some freedom of interaction not allowed to Latins, cf. Salmon, Making, 66–8; and further Ch. 3. There is some uncertainty over the nature of Etruscan foedera, which have been thought by some not to require troop contributions, at least in the 3rd cent. (Beloch, RG 609–11; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 124–5); but the contributions made by Etruscan, Umbrian, and central Apennine communities towards the construction of a Xeet to serve under Scipio in 205 bc (Livy, 28. 45. 16–20, the main evidence) seem all to be supererogatory, albeit taking diVerent forms; they need also to be seen against a background of Roman suspicion of Etruria in the later years of the Hannibalic War, on which see Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 135 V.; David, Conquest, 66—an attempt to show loyalty?; on the nature of the Tarquinian contribution see Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 6 n. 8. The foedus aequum of Camerinum is mentioned by Livy, I think, since it might have been thought to excuse the community from oVering more than what was required by treaty. The diVering contributions of the Etruscans may rather have an economic or a technical explanation. 5 Appian (BC 1. 10. 41) gives the Greek equivalent: K ÆE IŒØ º Ø j ÆE N ºØ Ø (‘in the colonial cities and the cities with reciprocal political rights’). 6 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 94. 7 The importance of the obligation to furnish troops: Poly., 6. 21. 4, 26. 5–7, 31. 9. Poly., 12. 5. 1–3, records that he used his inXuence (with Aemilianus?) to obtain exemption for Locri from contributing to Roman campaigns in Iberia and Dalmatia, probably in the 150s; this contribution was due ŒaÆ a ıŁ ŒÆ (according to the treaty). It is not clear how this treaty, probably dating to Locri’s return to the Roman alliance in 205 bc (so Walbank, ad loc.), and Polybios’ engineering of the suspension of its provisions, related to the formula togatorum. The problem is complicated by the fact that Locri was a socius naualis (naval ally), having, for instance, contributed all of two ships against Perseus in 171 (Livy, 42. 48. 7), the kind of contribution Rome could overlook without damage to
76
Roman Italy: the Second Century
These military contributions were in eVect a regular taxation of Italian resources, which both allowed and constrained Rome to keep exploiting Italian manpower through war.8 In this chapter I shall explore the way in which the ager Romanus was articulated in terms of settlement, and the juridical taxonomies which underpinned those territorial divisions; how the various communities behaved, and how they related to Rome, and she to them.
2 . T H E AG E R RO M AN U S 9 Epigraphic documents of the post-Social-War period (lex Roscia, fragmentum Atestinum, tabula Heracleensis) list coloniae, municipia, and praefecturae as the major subdivisions of the ager Romanus, the units into which the population of Italy could be thought of as being aggregated; other settlement categories commonly recognized are forum and conciliabulum.10 Longer lists are found in the lex Roscia and the fragmentum Atestinum relating to Cisalpine Gaul, perhaps reXecting a Celtic substrate within the settlement pattern: locus (place), oppidum (urban herself. Afzelius, Die ro¨mische Eroberung Italiens, 193 (importance of numerical superiority to Rome); Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 125; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 39–40, 44, noting how the provision of troops deWned Rome’s Italian allies. For the little that can be said on the small print of these treaties: Dalheim, Struktur und Entwicklung, 117–25; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 101–4; Hantos, Das ro¨msiche Bundesgenossensystem in Italien, 150–81; and in general on Roman treaties Grelle in Canfora et al. (eds.), I trattati nel mondo antico. Dench, Barbarians, 13, sees Roman demands on allied manpower as foreshadowing later incorporation into the citizenship. 8 North, JRS (1981), 6–7, adding that this non-Wscal taxation can be seen as part of a complicity between the Roman Senate and the Italian upper classes (see Galsterer, Herrschaft, 142–51; Cornell, Beginnings of Rome, 363, for an expression of the traditional view; see however Laurence, Roads, 12–13, for another view). Roman communities in Italy (with or without the franchise) probably contributed men to the legions, under the normal patterns of the dilectus; until 167 they were also obliged to pay the tributum if their property had been assessed to a suYcient value in the Roman census. Thereafter Roman assidui received a stipendium but were not subject to direct taxation; by contrast allied soldiers were paid by their own states, to whom, as far as we know, they in turn continued to pay taxes (Nicolet, PBSR (1978)). 9 This is both a juridical and an augural term (for the inter-relationship see Livy, 27. 5. 15, 29. 5); by it I mean that land which formed part of the territory of the Roman people within Italy; I include such subsets or analogues as ager Gabinus (which had unique auspicia (augural rituals): Varro, LL 5. 33; juridically distinct from the ager Romanus: Beloch, RG 156, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 19), the ager Crustuminus (Mommsen, StR iii. 824 n. 2) or the ager Veiens; there were doubtless others, but no evidence that such distinctions continued to be observed after the early 4th cent. On the Wve types of territory recognized in augural law (Romanus—Roman, Gabinus—of Gabii, peregrinus—foreign, hosticus—enemy, and incertus—uncertain) see Varro, LL 5. 33. 10 ‘in . . . municipio colonia praefectura’ (‘in a . . . municipium, colony, or prefecture’), fragmentum Atestinum, ll. 5, 10 (referring to Gallia Cisalpina); ‘in municipio colonia praefectura’ vel sim., tabula Heracleensis ll. 89–90, 94–5, 98, 142–3, 154, 157, 158; ‘municipia coloniae praefecturae fora conciliabula c. R.’ (‘municipia, colonies, prefectures, fora or conciliabula of Roman citizens’) vel sim., tabula Heracleensis, ll. 108–9, 119, 124, 126, 127–8, 130, 135, 136. See Crawford in Modus Operandi, 42–3.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
77
centre), uicus (village), castellum (fortiWed place), and territorium (territory).11 What of the preceding period? Coloniae and municipia are the types of settlement of highest status, and most frequent mention, in our sources. Coloniae (admittedly restored) and municipia certainly feature in the lex agraria of 111, at l. 31, which is perhaps the most important passage on the entire tabula Bembina for our purposes: it needs quotation in full. [quibus colonieis seiue moi]nicipieis, seiue quae pro moinicipieis colo _[nieisue, ceiuium Rom.] nominisue Latini, poplice deue senati sententia ager fruendus datus [est, quo agro eae coloniae eaue moinicipia seiue qua]e pro colonia moinicipioue proue moinicipieis fruentur, quei in trientabule[is est, quod eius agri —]. [to whichever colonies or] municipia, [or] any equivalents of municipia or colonies [(there may be) of Roman citizens] or of the Latin name, land [has been] granted by the people or by a decree of the Senate to exploit, [which land those colonies or those municipia or any] equivalent of a colony or municipium or municipia (there may be) shall exploit, which [is] in the trientabula, [whatever of that land —]
It seems likely that colonies and municipia (like allied communities) were able to hold and exploit Roman ager publicus as corporate entities (or to lease to third parties for communal proWt), a condition which seems indeed to have been protected by the leges Semproniae (Sempronian laws).12 This clause seems to deal with ager fruendus datus (land granted for exploitation) possessed by various communities—speciWcally any such land, which is in the trientabula13—which 11 ‘municipium colonia locus’: lex Roscia 20. 42; oppidum municipium colonia praefectura forum uicus conciliabulum castellum territorium: lex Roscia 21. 2–3, 22. 26, 23. 53, 56, 58 (all lists applying to Gallia Cisalpina). Williams, Rubicon, 206–7, notes the 112 tribus (tribes) of the Boii (Cato, F44P ¼ ii. 13C ¼ ii. 13 B-W) and the uici (villages) of the Cenomani (Liv., 32. 30. 6), though he is rightly cautious on the degree to which such sources might accurately describe Celtic settlement patterns; see Rubicon, 187–207 on the problems with assuming ‘Celticity’ in Cisalpina. 12 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 204, cf. 226, and 236–8 on lex agraria, ll. 31–2; RS i. 157. The protecting of local communal interests should be set against the transfer of future jurisdiction relating to public and private land in Italy from local magistrates to the higher magistrates in Rome (lex agraria, ll. 33–6): see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 240, and Serrao, La ‘iurisdictio’ del pretore peregrino, 65–6, who argues that the jurisdictional arrangements set out in these lines were available to Latins and Italians too. 13 For the view that the trientabulum is the land held by the communities relevant to this clause, rather than constituting a separate entity within the clause, see RS i. 167 (contra Lintott, Judicial Reform, 236–7). The trientabula were ager publicus within the Wftieth milestone from Rome, rented out in 200 bc at one as (monetary unit of small value) per iugerum (unit of land ¼ c. 0.66 acres, c. 0.25 ha) to those who had become creditors of the res publica in 210 bc (Livy, 29. 16. 3; 31. 13. 2–9, 33. 42. 3), in lieu of the second tranche of the three repayments due to them, until such time as the treasury was able, on demand, to pay the creditor the cash value of the land rented. Note that the archaic form ‘senati’ is used here (used by Cato the Elder, and found in the sententia Minuciorum, l. 4, and even occasionally in the 1st cent.: e.g. Cic., Fam. 2. 7. 4 (51 bc, a rather formal context); similarly, the odd formula ‘poplice deue senati sententia’ stands instead of the expected ex lege plebeiue sc exue foedere exue s. c. (‘according to law or decree of the plebs or treaty or decree of the Senate’; for ‘s.c.’, cf. ll. 12, 93); and note also l. 78, ‘h. [l.] populus plebesue iuserit’ (‘by this law the people and plebs shall have ordered’), contrasted with ‘post h. l. r.’ (‘after the passage of this law’) at end of clause (l. 82). Are these examples of a legal phraseology still not matured in at the end of the 2nd cent.? Or, rather, tralatician clauses from from an early 2nd-cent. statute regarding land in the trientabula as exploited by communities?
78
Roman Italy: the Second Century
the statute seems to be guaranteeing will be unaVected by its provisions. We must assume either that the communities concerned had been original creditors of the Roman state, or perhaps that they had been ceded, or otherwise acquired, the rights to rent this land in the trientabula from individual creditors.14 Be that as it may, ager fruendus datus is given to (presumably) coloniae, and municipia, ‘or any bodies which are the equivalents of municipia or coloniae, if that is what they are’,15 of (probably) Romans, or Latins. A number of key points need to be stressed here. First, as Fergus Millar has pointed out to me, this is the earliest contemporary reference to municipia. Secondly, as well as colonies and municipia, there exist bodies which are more or less equivalent to them.16 The nature of this equivalence needs a little consideration. We could suppose that the relationship with ‘real’ colonies or municipia is analogous to the way in which someone who holds imperium pro magistratu (the power of command in place of a magistrate) stands in relation to a magistrate with imperium:17 not juridically identical, but fulWlling some of the same functions, and of similar status.18 Thirdly, one or both of these bodies must also be a type of Latin juridical entity.19 Perhaps the most likely explanation of the presence of Latins in this group of juridical equivalents is that Latin coloniae are meant (see above for nomen Latinum as denoting those Latin colonies existing in, or founded after, 334 bc). Such an interpretation is more likely than two other possible answers, which should not be brushed aside in the current state of our knowledge. Either some of those Latin states left independent in 338 bc (Tibur, Praeneste, etc.) might have been considered as pro coloneis20 or pro municipiis in terms of rights and status (although nomen Latinum seems not to be used of this group); or there were groups of individuals who were not ‘formally’ settled but who had inherited, or been granted, Latin status, as at Carteia in Spain.21 Such groups may have come to
14 For the possible intentions of the statute at this point, see RS i. 167. At the least, holders of land in the trientabula must have been able to bequeath their rights to it for the category to be still in existence in 111 bc: see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 38, 236–7, RS i. 167–8. For communities as entitled to this land, see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 237. 15 For the translation of ‘seiue’ compare Pobjoy, Arctos (1998), 181. 16 Cf. Lintott, Judicial Reform, 238, ‘coloniae or municipia or their equivalents’. 17 See further on pro coloniis: Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation, 84. 18 Yet being x, and behaving pro x—as if one were x—are not always acceptable as interchangeable statuses: in De oYciis (3. 47) Cicero writes (of the lex Licinia Mucia) ‘esse pro ciue qui ciuis non sit rectum est non licere’ (‘it is proper that it should not be lawful for he who is not a [Roman] citizen to behave as if he were a citizen’); cf. Livy, 34. 42. 5–6. 19 Not, however, other socii: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 100 and n. 4, 125–6. This detail seems to wreck the otherwise attractive idea of Salmon, Making, 62 n. 270, that pro coloniis are praefecturae based in a forum or conciliabulum, and probably too the correlative idea that pro municipiis were praefecturae centred on a pagus-centre or uicus in an area incorporated by Rome, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 170, 213–14. 20 This position enjoys the weighty support of Brunt, Fall, 136–7. 21 Carteia: Livy, 43. 3. 1–4; 171 bc. That we never hear anything of such people is not an objection, in view of the parlous state of our sources.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
79
enjoy a form of communal organization recognized by Rome as pro coloneis or pro municipiis.22 If the pro coloneis alone formed a juridical category applicable to Latins, and if it, and that of pro municipiis, were both applicable to Romans, it still remains to be asked, what were these bodies, pro municipiis and pro coloneis?23 Mommsen thought the phrase a shorthand for the longer lists of communities found in later laws;24 but Roman statutes do not hesitate to spell out the groups which they purport to aVect, indeed, if anything, the reverse. Sherwin-White thought that these terms referred to communities of Roman citizens with the full vote (seeing municipia as communities without the franchise), or small communities organized as praefecturae; his views have been challenged, but not refuted, by Brunt.25 The weakness of Sherwin-White’s view lies rather in his belief that municipia were only autonomous communities without the vote, and that communities optimo iure were called oppida ciuium Romanorum.26 It is nevertheless not unattractive to see in the term pro municipiis a recollection of the original distinction between municipium and other incorporated communities, where the former term rightly denotes communities sine suVragio (see above, Introduction).27 Pro municipiis presumably were collectivities of Roman (and Latin?) citizens whose organization, rights, and duties were analogous too, or overlapped with, those of municipia, but which did not enjoy exactly the same juridical status, or all of the same rights. The distinctions pro coloneis and pro municipiis are important, as they imply that the bodies involved were actually assimilated in some way to one or other, but not both, of the two normative juridical types. The pro coloneis and pro moinicipeis seem thus to have been settlements, nucleated or dispersed,28 rather than any other type of collectivity (e.g. a Wnancial societas (partnership) or other association), each allowed to hold land ‘as if it were a colony/municipium’.29 Given the existence of this important distinction, we might look further at possible origins for these two categories. A pro colonia might be a settlement made ‘informally’ by, or perhaps even without, the intervention of, a magistrate30 on ager publicus, such as a forum or a conciliabulum (perhaps not even formally 22 It is interesting to consider in what the munera of Latins organized in pro municipiis might have consisted. 23 RS i. 168 notes that ‘[qua]e pro colonia moinicipioue proue moinicipieis fruentur’ suggests that pro municipiis were allowed in some way to cooperate in the exploitation of land, but does not show that pro coloniis were, and argues that this may not be due to scribal error. 24 StR iii. 792, rebutted by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 170. 25 Citizenship2 , 213–14. (cf. 170; Salmon, Making, 62 n. 270); Brunt, Fall, 136–9. 26 Citizenship2 , 214 n. 1 ad Wn. is very idiosyncratic, and the whole discussion far from clear. 27 It is a problem that an analogous solution cannot be extended to pro coloniis. 28 Brunt, Fall, 137, also notes the existence of scattered groups of viritane Roman and Latin settlers in Cisalpina, settled there in 173 bc, as possible candidates for the inhabitants of the pro coloneis and pro municipiis; but how had they come to hold land in the trientabula? 29 The lex agraria also recognizes a distinction between those who were colonists, and those who were in the category (numerus) of colonists; this is, not, it seems, what we are dealing with here; see below. 30 On ‘informal settlement’ see L. Bligh, The Settlement of Romans and Italians.
80
Roman Italy: the Second Century
designated as either) which had become suYciently large to be able to lend money to the res publica (or had acquired the land in the trientabula by bequest), and to merit some distinction in status; short of a formal deductio (foundation), however, it could not become a colonia.31 As for a community pro municipio, we should, by contrast, be dealing with a settlement already existing and holding the franchise; not a municipium, but a community which was, or became, important enough in some respects to be compared to one, and to lend monies to the Roman state in the Hannibalic War (or to have acquired lands in the trientabula).32 If this interpretation is correct, it is of fundamental importance to my discussion. In the course of this work I shall argue that, far from being able to ‘colour in’ the whole map of that part of Italy enfranchised after the Social Was as a nice patchwork of coloniae and municipia, we are instead faced with an Italy in which unmunicipalized ‘blank areas’ remained, for reasons of policy, inertia, or decay, in some cases for decades, even until the Augustan period. There is one obvious objection to this thesis: how did the unmunicipalized areas function, for example, in terms of gathering and spending of monies, administration of justice, and provision of structures to channel elite activity? My answer is threefold: (i) They just coped, making do and mending;33 it was clearly not impossible for Romans in the Augustan period to accept that (especially in earlier times) Italian towns, for various reasons, might be in a sort of institutional ‘no man’s land’. Livy, 9. 20. 10 (for 317 bc) writes that the Antiates claimed they had neither leges certae (‘Wxed laws’) nor magistrates: Et postquam res Capuae stabilitas Romana disciplina fama per socios uolgauit, Antiatibus quoque, qui se sine legibus certis, sine magistratibus agere quaerebantur, dati ab senatu ad iura statuenda ipsius coloniae patroni; nec arma modo sed iura etiam Romana late pollebant.34
31 Cf. Lintott, Judicial Reform, 237. The titular colony (for Latins) was experimentally deployed at Carteia (see n. 21 above), but Wrst widely employed by Pompeius Strabo in Cisalpina in 89 bc. See further Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation, 78–85, on the historiography of the concept of colonia, warning against rigid an over-rigid application of modern scholarly categories. 32 Demotion from municipal status may also be a factor: Lintott, Judicial Reform, 237, suggests that the Campanian towns punished in 211 bc might be included among the pro municipiis. 33 The inverse applies: there were clearly towns which had municipal status, their own magistrates with jurisdiction, their own Wscal autonomy, and so forth, and also the physical armature of urban infrastructure and public buildings set up by a local elite—but which were symbolic centres, without the Wxed population normally considered appropriate for an autonomous town. See Horden and Purcell, Corrupting Sea, ch. 4, on the many pitfalls involved in trying to deWne and deploy an ‘urban variable’. I am sympathetic to some of the arguments deployed by Laurence, Roads, esp. 189–92 about the ‘artiWciality’ of places like Forum Novum (one might add Amiternum and Iuvanum, among others), but I think he carries his thesis too far. 34 Salmon, Making, 48, suggests Antium may have remained a pagus rather than becoming a municipium at this point. For the appeal coming from the Volscian community, not the colony: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 80–1, and Humbert, Municipium, 188–9; contra De Martino, Storia della costituzione 2 , ii, 133–4.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
81
And after news of the stability of Capuan aVairs, brought about by Roman discipline, spread amongst the allies, patrons were granted by the Senate to the Antiates also, who were complaining that they were making do without Wxed laws, and without magistrates; the patrons were those of the colony itself, and their task was the establishment of laws. And so the power not only of Roman arms but also of Roman laws began to be felt far and wide.
(ii) Some functions were discharged at nearby centres of suitable competence and thus the objection is perhaps misdirected in that the main gaps were felt at a symbolic level. (iii) In any case, enfranchisement was not an amnesiac: new citizen communities not municipalized can hardly have forgotten how to carry out the basic administrative functions which as autonomous entities they had discharged before the Social War. The process of municipalization which followed the war was rather the adoption of adults (from often very diVerent backgrounds) than the birth of helpless infants. Points (ii) and (iii) coalesce in focusing our attention on Italy’s uici (villages), which were grouped together into broader administrative units or pagi; pagus can also be used of the central place(s) of this broader unit, and can thus overlap with (the) principal village(s).35 In an important article considering the ‘vicanopaganic’ settlement system in Italy after the Social War, Buonocore draws attention to the survival of the pagus-system in the central Apennines after the Social War. This was an area, as we shall see, in which municipalization took root slowly, and to a limited extent. A considerable amount of public construction and other administrative activity is attributed in these areas to magistri, those both of the pagi and of the sanctuaries which formed an important element of the settlement pattern in this part of Italy.36 It is clear, in fact, that it was upon the shoulders of the magistri of the uici, pagi, and rural sanctuaries that much of the administration of these areas rested (the epigraphic texts are silent on the matter of jurisdiction, so far); and, as Buonocore has stressed, this system was changed, but not entirely eVaced, by the changes after the Social War: the famous inscription to Q. Varius Geminus, which tells us that he was the Wrst senator from Paelignian territory, is a dedication to him by a pagus.37 In this way were met the diYculties posed by the uneven spread of municipalization after—and a fortiori before—the Social War. If we can observe at the end of the second century local centres which, while not possessing the full status and privileges of municipia and colonies, were nevertheless in some ways comparable entities of settlement, the situation I propose to read after the Social War would become not only more comprehensible, but would also Wnd precedents in existing Roman practice. There would, on my view, 35 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 389; LaY, Athenaeum (1974); and the papers in Donati and Poma (eds), L’epigraWa del villagio, esp. those by Buonocore and Letta; Buonocore in Abruzzo Molise, 30. 36 It is not clear that Buonocore’s picture of the evolution of magistri of sanctuaries into magistri pagorum with wider competence after the Social War (Abruzzo Molise, 33–43) quite stands up, however. 37 CIL ix. 3305; Buonocore, Abruzzo Molise, 43–4.
82
Roman Italy: the Second Century
have been, already before the Social War, ‘anomalous’ entities which did not Wt within ‘normative’ criteria governing the way Italian towns were (and still are) seen; criteria which were not themselves ‘givens’, but were, perhaps at this very period, negotiating their emergence. So we seem to have a broad and slightly fuzzy spectrum of diVerent types of community. The expression of this variety is in terms of the dominant settlement types, but at the same time clearly shows how those dominant types were not allinclusive. It is therefore worth looking at the other ways in which (juridical) categories of settlement are mentioned in legal texts. What does their language and content tell us about settlement and power relations within Italy in the generation before the Social War? The lex agraria begins by listing seven diVerent subsets of what had been ager publicus in 133 bc, all of which are now to become private land under the terms of the statute.38 One of these subsets concerns us: that partly preserved in l. 5.39 This clause refers to public land within an inhabited centre (excluding Rome), assigned by the Gracchan land commission: the text names three categories.40 Lintott argues that, although it lay within the nucleated centre of an urban unit, the land in question was probably not built up—it is hard to see otherwise how it might be meaningfully assigned to those whom the land commission wished to help.41 It is also interesting that the commission felt the need to distribute such land—were they short of other alternatives?42 What is at issue here for us is the hierarchy of nucleated settlement types listed: urbs, oppidum, and uicus, three categories which more or less equate to ‘city’, ‘town’, and ‘village’. One obvious inference is that Rome was not considered the only urbs in Italy. Yet it is oppidum which has more signiWcance for our argument: it has a generic meaning: as does our word ‘town’.43 In the lex Roscia it heads a long list of types of 38 See RS i. 153–7; for a diVerent, in my view less cogent, interpretation of lex agraria, ll. 1–7, see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 49, cf. 202–9. 39 For l. 5 as a self-contained clause, not part of that beginning in the preceding line, see RS i. 156. 40 ‘[quodque quomq]ue agri locei publicei in terra Italia, quod eius extra urbem Roman<m> est, quod eius in urbe{m} oppido uico est, quo//d eius III uir dedit adsignauit’ (‘and whatever] of public land or pieces of land in the land of Italy, whatever of it is outside the city of Rome, whatever of it is in a city, town or village, whatever of it a III uir (member of the board of three forming the executive of the land commission) has granted or assigned’). There seems to be no support in the preserved text for Lintott’s suggestion that ‘cities, towns and villages might be in part or whole comprised within the ager publicus populi Romani’ (Judicial Reform, 208); cf. RS i. 158. The communities in question may, as Lintott suggests, have been those who had been punished with land conWscations during the Hannibalic War; but a wider application of this clause is possible. 41 Judicial Reform, 208. He cites by way of contrast ‘agri locei aediWc[iei . . . ]’ (‘land, piece of land or building’) in l. 6; note also tabula Heracleensis, ll. 68–76, forbidding the abuse of loca publica porticusue publicae (public places or public porticoes) in Rome. Lintott further suggests that the clauses in lex agraria, ll. 6–7, may have dealt with built-up areas in towns (Judicial Reform, 209, cf. RS i. 158), but in view of the close semantic relationship between this clause and the start of the new clause in l. 7, it is perhaps best to see this one as resumptive (with RS i. 158). 42 For such a scenario see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 142–50. 43 So too at lex repetundarum, l. 31; Cic., Att. 11. 6 (¼ 217 SB), 2, uses oppidum both of smaller communities (‘oppido aliquo’, some town or other) where he should have lain low, and the major centre of Brundisium where he awaits a favourable sign from Caesar.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
83
settlement: 21. 2–3, 22. 26, 23. 53, 56, 58—refering to Gallia Cisalpina, in a context of jurisdiction.44 Since it comes before colonia and municipium it should, I think, be taken as a generic term, of which the entities that follow, with the pleonastic thoroughness typical of Roman legal texts, constitute the full set of recognized subtypes. In lex agraria, l. 22 (see below for the context), the usage must be slightly diVerent. Oppidum is set beside, but diVerentiated from, colonia: ‘[i]d_ oppidum coloniamue ex lege plebeiue sc. constituit deduxitue conlocauitue’ (cf. the supplement of RS at the beginning of the line).45 oppidum in that context must mean any town which is not a colony (the immediately following alternative).46 The inclusiveness of the term and thus its lack of juridical speciWcity are clear. Likewise, uicus is the Roman word for a small settlement (it occurs elsewhere in republican statutes only in the lex Roscia).47 Generic classiWcations like this embraced, and sometimes elided, the distinctions between the elements of the wider taxonomy. Thus, for example, Forum Gallorum should, as the term forum implies, have been a state foundation;48 yet for Ser. Sulpicius Galba in 43 bc, it was just a uicus, made famous by the battle between Octavian and Antonius (Cic., Fam. 10. 30. 3); it was presumably its insigniWcance which kept it out of Pliny’s list of the communities of Aemilia.49 The purpose of our clause in lex agraria, l. 5, is not to attribute juridical labels or juristic classiWcations, but to be sure that no community occupying such former ager publicus could be considered by possessores of Gracchan land too small or too large to be bound by the provisions of the law.
44 Esp. lex Rubria 23, col. 2, ll. 53–4: ‘queiquomque in eorum quo o(ppido) m(unicipio) c(olonia) p(raefectura) f(oro) u(eico) c(onciliabulo) c(astello) t(erritorio)ue quae in Gal- / lia Cisalpeina sunt erunt, i(ure) d(eicundo) p(raerit).’ (‘whoever shall be in charge of the administration of justice in any town, municipium, colony, prefecture, forum, village, conciliabulum, castle or territory of those which are or shall be in Cisalpine Gaul’). See further Sherwin-White, JRS (1974), 237–8; Crawford, in CAH x 2 . 45 ‘constituted, founded or settled the town or colony in question according to the statute or plebiscite’. 46 So too lex coloniae Genetiuae 73. 2–5: ‘ne quis intra Wnes oppidi colon(iae)ue, qua aratro / circumductum erit, hominem mortuom / inferto neue ibi humato neue urito neue homi- / nis mortui monimentum aediWcato’ (‘no one is to bring a dead person within the boundaries of a town or of a colony, where a line shall have been drawn around by a plough, nor is he to bury him there, or burn him or build the tomb of a dead person’), with RS i. 438 on l. 2 of the text. Pliny, NH 3, consistently distinguishes two types of settlement, when he is not using the nominative plural of peoples (populi): colonia for (Augustus’) colonies, and oppidum for everything else. 47 On uici see Frederiksen, in Hellenismus; L’epigraWa del villaggio; Capogrossi Colognesi, Cittadini e territorio. 48 Laurence (see also Roads, 33, on Pliny’s ‘Regienses a Lepido’, who seem to inhabit the Forum Lepidum of Festus p. 332L—where the tense of ‘fuerat’ is curious) is commendably cautious about the conclusions to be drawn from the names of fora, and the variety of names used of a single place. On Gauls and Forum Gallorum see Williams, Rubicon, 213. 49 Plin., HN 3. 115–16. See also Laurence, Roads, 34. The proximity of Forum Gallorum to Mutina (some eight miles) may have contributed to arresting its development as an independent centre (ibid.). The foundation of some fora can be attributed to the intervention of particular magistrates in building or repairing a particular road (e.g. Forum Appi and App. Claudius Caecus: ibid. 16–17). For other centres (e.g. Forum Gallorum) the connection with a particular founder is less obvious.
84
Roman Italy: the Second Century
Colonies and other foundations also appear in the lex agraria.50 Lines 20–3 declare private a subcategory of the same former ager publicus of 133 bc (l. 22) not yet discussed.51 This land is held as a result of a grant made in substitution for an original assignation of land. The original land assigned has been surrendered by the possessor to a III uir for the foundation of a colony or the establishment of another type of community;52 anyone who holds such a substitute plot as an heir or purchaser is also to hold it as private land.53 The process whereby land was surrendered in this way is not paralleled elsewhere; but there is no reason to think that in cases where communities were founded on ager publicus which had previously been the object of viritane distribution, displaced viritane settlers (i.e. any not inscribed among the new colonists) should not have been recompensed somehow. Relocation on a substitute plot may not have involved moving very far, and the permission of the populus Romanus to found such a colony may have been dependent on the availability of such land for substitute plots in the Wrst place, perhaps in the vicinity.54 While considering colonies we should also note that lex agraria, l. 45 (also ll. 55, 59, 60, 66, 67, 69 (restored), 79 (plausibly restored),55 cf. 90), mentions ‘colonei, eiue quei in colonei numero [scriptei sunt’: RS i. 170 correctly translates ‘colonists or those who are [written down] in the category of colonist’.56 In coloni numero may refer to those who had been enrolled in a colony, and had not turned up for the colonial deductio, but still had rights (or potential rights in the case of pending foundations) as colonists; Sherwin-White notes the use of the
50 The Wrst contemporary use of the word colonia comes in ILLRP 324, recording one of the triumuiri who founded Aquileia in 181 bc; for the foundation: Livy, 39. 55. 5–6, 40. 34. 2–3. The foundation of Latin colonies in Italy was of course a dead letter by the date of the lex agraria. 51 At the start of this clause some land, subject to a previous locatio (letting), together with land beyond the Curio (river?) is diVerentiated from the originally assigned land, and from substitute plots. Lintott (Judicial Reform, 224) suggests a geographically restricted area, partly set aside for colonization. Note that there had been no settlement in those areas, whatever they were, which could have generated substitute plots in the way envisaged by this clause. Lintott raises the possibility that this clause may have conWrmed a previous law, rather than being a new measure. 52 Cf. Brunt, Manpower, 583; Fall, 137; Lintott, Judicial Reform, 224–5. Colonies are the settlement type of which foundation is most likely to be predicated, and they are alone envisaged in the resumptive clauses in the latter part of l. 23 (‘[pro eo agro, qu]o coloniam deduxsit’ (‘[ . . . in return for that piece of land, where] he founded a colony’), cf. l. 24); l. 22 has a more all-embracing formula, typical of legal language; it does not automatically follow from the use of coloniam deducere in l. 23 that constituere (establish) and conlocare (settle) only apply to non-colonial foundations. For the latter, cf. Ch. 5 below on the lex Mamilia Roscia. 53 See RS i. 164–5. 54 The III uir was responsible for Wnding and assigning a substitute plot (l. 23). 55 Perhaps to be restored in the lacuna at the start of l. 85, cf. Lintott, Judicial Reform, 272–3, RS i. 178. 56 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 335; Lintott, Judicial Reform, 247; to the examples there add Livy, 43. 3. 4: ‘qui Carteiensium domi manere uellent, potestatem Weri, uti numero colonorum essent, agro adsignato’ (‘those of the inhabitants of Carteia wished to remain at home, were to have the power to do so, as if they were in the category of [Wctive] colonists, with land assigned’); more loosely Cic., Diu. Caec. 62, Brut. 113; see also Tit. Ulp. 20. 14, Gaius, Inst. 1. 12–15, 25–7, 67–8, 3. 74–6 on freedmen created by the lex Aelia Sentia.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
85
term of a group assimilated to another group ‘without total identiWcation’.57 The term might also cover the Ferentinates, who in 195 bc had been punished by the Senate for arrogating to themselves the rights of Roman citizens despite the fact that their citizen colony had been authorized, but not founded (Livy, 34. 42. 5–6.).58 Next, smaller communities. What survives of l. 31 of the lex repetundarum may have originally come under a rubric about the collection of witnesses and evidence.59 This process seems, under the terms of the statute, to have been restricted to Italy; overseas plaintiVs were expected to bring witnesses with them;60 the praetor’s authority was evidently conceived of as conWned to Italy. Under the terms of the statute the praetor was given a highly proactive role in collecting such things as ‘documents, witnesses and stolen property’,61 things which a provincial plaintiV would probably have diYculty uncovering in Italy. The praetor is instructed: ‘[— iubetoque] conquaeri in terra Italia in oppedeis foreis conciliab[oleis — in oppedeis foreis con]ciliaboleis, ubei ioure deicundo praesse solent’ ‘[ . . . and he is to order] search to be made in the land of Italy in the towns, fora and conciliabula, [?except in those towns, fora] and conciliabula, where there are accustomed to be men in charge of jurisdiction’.62 Now, ‘conquaeri’ refers to investigation by conquistores, ‘inspectors’ or ‘deputy sheriVs’ of the praetor, normally encountered in connection with the Roman levy.63 Such investigation is to be carried out in oppida, fora, and conciliabula, a requirement somehow qualiWed in the lacuna which follows, with regard to these communities where there is jurisdiction. The role of the conquistores may suggest that such an investigative role may somehow have been modelled on the procedures for the 57 On the importance of the (face-to-face) creation of a list of colonists before deductio (nomen dare—giving one’s name; and adscriptio—enrolment), and on the analogy of this process with military levies, see Gargola, Lands, 64–6. 58 On the Ferentinates’ situation: Smith, JRS (1954), 18–20. Livy refers to the ‘nouum ius . . . temptatum ut Latini’ (‘a bid was made for . . . a new right . . . that Latins’); whether Livy intended juridical accuracy when he called the Ferentinates ‘Latini’ is hard to say). While I do not agree with SherwinWhite’s interpretation of this case (Citizenship2 , 100 n. 6, 108), he is right to imply (ibid. 36) that, even allowing for the indignant rhetoric, there was a series of recognized Latin iura at this period, which did not include what the Ferentinates sought to achieve. Such iura are clearly not restricted to Latin colonists. Cf. Livy, 32. 2. 6 on the complaints of colonists at Narnia; might such a parallel suggest that this group (contra RS) included allies as well? There is a slightly diVerent interpretation in Lintott, Judicial Reform, 247. 59 See Lintott, Judicial Reform, 124–5. 60 Ibid. 22, 125. 61 Ibid. 125. 62 On terra Italia see Ch. 1 above. 63 On the role of conquistores in the levy in Italy: Cic., Mil. 67 (52 bc), Att. 7. 21. 1 (49 bc), cf. for conquisitio militum (levying of troops): Livy, 23. 32. 19 (215 bc), Cic., Prou. cons. 5 (56 bc); and Fiebiger, RE iv, s.v. ‘conquistores’, cols. 885–6; Liebenam, RE s.v. ‘dilectus’, cols. 609–11; Gabba, Republican Rome, 24–5; Lintott, Judicial Reform, 125, RS i. 103. Note also ILLRP 454 (Polla), where the anonymous road-builder says of his actions in Sicily ‘et eidem praetor in / Sicilia fugiteiuos Italicorum / conquaesiui redideique’ (‘and again as praetor in Sicily I sought out and restored the fugitive slaves of the Italici’; ll. 9–11).
86
Roman Italy: the Second Century
conduct of the levy in these communities. RS plausibly suggests that nisei (‘unless’) should be restored in the lacuna, the exception applying in cases where any community, which might otherwise be investigated by the praetor or his deputy, in fact had magistrates with jurisdiction (qui iure dicundo praesse solent).64 As well as raising the question of what sorts of small communities were involved here, and in what way, we must also face at this point wider issues of jurisdiction and judication in the ager Romanus, which are in turn linked to the extent of the diVusion of local autonomy before the Social War. To return to the list in the lex repetundarum. Here we Wnd only three types of community: oppida, fora, and conciliabula. I argued above that oppidum does not have a precise juridical content, as colonia or municipium do, but is rather to be taken as a generic term. Surely its meaning in the lex agraria and lex repetundarum, as in the lex Roscia, is simply ‘town’.65 I believe that the text here is in eVect restricting the praetor’s search for evidence to two particular types of oppida, as opposed to others: fora and conciliabula.66 The alternative would be that at this period oppida covered all types of town except fora and conciliabula, and was only later restricted to the generic meaning found in the lex coloniae Genetiuae and lex Roscia.67 Against such an interpretation, it seems likely that, had the proposer of the lex repetundarum meant to include municipia and coloniae as liable to this provision, he would have said so, in the ‘no loopholes’ style characteristic of legal texts. Two further conclusions would necessarily follow from the Wrst. One is that there was no requirement for conquistores to pursue evidence in municipia and coloniae, and no requirement for the magistrates of these communities to assist the praetor either. This seems odd at face value; yet it may very well be the case that they were considered suYciently autonomous to fall outside this particular manifestation of praetorian jurisdiction. This hypothesis may receive some conWrmation from a number of occasions during the second century on which Roman magistrates took action in fora and conciliabula alone, where we might expect colonies and municipia to have been aVected as well (I shall consider one of these—the Bacchanalian aVair—shortly).68 If colonies and municipia wished or were asked to provide evidence and witnesses in repetundae (extortion) cases, it was of course open to their magistrates to assist; such assistance may indeed 64 RS i. 103: ‘[nisei in eis oppedeis etc.]’. 65 Cf. lex agraria, l. 5, where it is contrasted with urbs and uicus (see above). 66 It might be objected that I have construed the Latin in an elliptical fashion inconsistent with the style of our text; and that if the legislator had meant what I take him to mean, he would have said something like in eis oppedeis, quae fora conciliabulaue sint. Further, as we have seen with Forum Gallorum, some fora and conciliabula could be considered uici. 67 Another position again is that of Galsterer, who believes that the various categories of forum and conciliabulum could apply to the same settlement in respect of diVerent functions (Herrschaft, 27–9; he seems to believe that lex repetundarum, l. 31, is an example of this overlap: Herrschaft, 28 n. 11). While there are cases where this is true, Galsterer’s application of his model is too schematic. 68 See Livy, 25. 5. 6, 29. 37. 3–4 (diVerential salt tax), 39. 14. 7 (the Bacchanalian investigations), 39. 41. 5 (investigations of ueneWcia—poisonings), 40. 19, 3 (plague), 37. 3 (a supplicatio—propitiation of the gods), 37. 4, 43. 2–3 and 44. 6 (ueneWcia); 43. 14. 6–10 (instructions about the census); C. Gracchus, ORF 4 48, frs. 4–7.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
87
have been felt as a moral obligation, but I would argue that it was not speciWed in the statute.69 Overall, it seems better to take oppida as generic, and accept that it was investigation in fora and conciliabula which was felt to need the intervention of the Roman res publica.70 This leads us to the second consequence. There were, if the text in the lacuna has been correctly reconstructed by RS, some fora and conciliabula where jurisdiction did customarily take place. What the text does not tell us is whether this jurisdiction was in the hands of locally elected magistrates, or of a praefectus iure dicundo sent from Rome (as we shall see, fora and conciliabula could fall within the jurisdictional purview of a praefectus); nor how extensive it was. As it is, the plural ‘solent’ might be considered more appropriate as a description of a pair of magistrates than a single prefect; but such an argument cannot be decisive. We might, however, have the best of both worlds: local magistrates and prefects could be envisaged by this catch-all phrasing. It thus remains a possibility that at this period some fora and conciliabula had their own magistrates who exercised some sort of jurisdictional powers. Importantly, in that case, jurisdiction per se would not be the preserve of colonies and municipia alone, and would not serve as their necessary distinguishing feature by its presence alone.
3. S M A L L E R SE T T L E M E N T S What do we know about these two types of settlement? An excursus on this question may provide a better context for the information given in the lex repetundarum.71 Fora and conciliabula are often paired in the Livian narrative. Indeed, one instance (‘in agris forisque et conciliabulis et in urbe’72) suggests a threefold division applied to those parts of the ager Romanus which were not subsumed within municipal or colonial territoria: between the urbs and the Welds there come the fora and the conciliabula. The absence of autonomous towns in this formulation is notable. A conceptual relationship with the urbs and its own territorium, rather than with muncipia and colonies, may be implied by the fact that, as subdivisions of the ager Romanus, fora and conciliabula are found beyond
69 We do not know that municipia and colonies were not mentioned in one of the lacunae in this line, although it seems unlikely given the ordering of settlement types where it is preserved. 70 It is of course possible that the praetor or his deputies were ordered to go only where there was no magisterial infrastructure which might enable the work to be done for them. On this reading, they would not be required to go to colonies and municipia, since these communities could, and might be expected to, help in enquiries, in ways in which smaller fora and conciliabula could not. 71 The starting point for the discussion of fora remains RuoV Va¨a¨na¨nen, Studies in the Italian Fora; see further on fora and conciliabula Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 74–6; Gargola, Lands, 109–12; Laurence, Roads, 29–32, 35–8. 72 40. 19. 3: plague rages ‘in the Welds, and in the fora and conciliabula, and in the city’, a sense required by the connecting particles.
88
Roman Italy: the Second Century
the tenth milestone from the centre of Rome; the territory as far as the tenth milestone was supervised from Rome itself.73 I shall restrict my inquiry to fora: most of what we are told about them is applied equally to conciliabula too.74 The principal diVerence between the two seems to be that the former were oYcial foundations (often associated with the uiae publicae), while the latter were recognized places of assembly, but not new foundations.75 There is little enough, though, on the fora in this period. None of Festus’ six deWntions, for example, suggests that he had Italian fora, as opposed to Roman ones or provincial assizes, in mind; even if he did intend the Wrst three deWnitions to apply to Italian fora, the information is so generic as to tell us very little.76 One piece of evidence is from our period: the so-called elogium from Polla in Bruttium (ILLRP 454). I shall not discuss whether the inscription records activity by a Popilius Laenas or an Annius Luscus, or whether it dates to the 150s or the 130s (I incline to the latter in both cases, but the neither date materially aVects our argument).77 As well as being an important example of what Roman roadbuilders thought it important to record, and of the connection of fora to roads,78 it closes with the briefest statement about public building done in the community where the stone was originally set up, either Forum Annii or Forum Popilii, depending on the proclivities of the modern reader: ‘forum aedisque poplicas heic fecei’ (‘I made a forum and public buildings here’, l. 15). It seems hard to 73 Livy, 40. 37. 4, ‘ultra decimum lapidem’, cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 48 (but ibid. 49, he blurs the distinction between self-governing ‘‘municipalities’’ and fora and conciliabula). 74 On conciliabula see now F. Jacques, ‘Statut et function des conciliabula d’apre`s les sources latines’, in Les Sanctuaries celtiques et la monde me´diterrane´en, 58–65. 75 So too Beloch, Italische Bund, 108 V. Livy, 7. 15. 13, states that the lex Poetelia of 358 bc was partly intended to counter the ambitio (canvassing) of noui homines (new men) ‘qui nundinas et conciliabula obire soliti erant’ (‘who had been in the habit of going around the markets and conciliabula’). This must have represented a plausible electoral scenario at least by the 2nd cent.; it is tempting to see ‘nundinas et conciliabula’ as a hendiadys (a single entity described by two nouns), but nundinae might perhaps signify fora. If the former suggestion were correct, it would suggest what we should not be surprised to discover in any case, the economic role of conciliabula. 76 Festus p. 74L (with Laurence, Roads, 5, 29). The Wrst three deWnitions: ‘primo negotiationis locus, ut forum Flaminium, forum Iulium, ab eorum nominibus, qui ea fora constituenda curarunt; quod etiam locis priuatis et in uiis et agris Weri solet. alio, in quo iudicia Weri, cum populo agi, contiones haberi solent. tertio, cum is, qui prouinciae praeest, forum agere dicitur, cum ciuitates uocat et de controuersiis eorum cognoscit . . .’: ‘First, a place of business, like the Forum Flaminium, or the Forum Iulium, called after the names of those who saw to the creation of those fora; this also habitually takes place in private places and on roads and in Welds. Secondly, (a place) in which they are accustomed to hold trials, to address the people, and to hold contiones (meetings). Thirdly, when he, who has charge of a province, is said to hold a forum, when he summons the communities and takes cognizance of their disputes . . .’ The last three meanings cover tomb architecture, ship design, and circus games. As to the economic aspect: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 75, draws attention to a parallel between Festus’ deWnition of uicus and pagus, and this aspect of the fora; cf. Salmon, Making, 4 n. 14 for connection with nundinae; Whittaker, in Cornell and Lomas, Urban Society in Roman Italy, 18. 77 See Wiseman, PBSR (1970); Degrassi, ad ILLRP 454 and i. 330–2. Photo: Imagines, 192. Presumably this acephalous base also once supported a named statue of the unknown magistrate. 78 See Galsterer, Herrschaft, 27, Salmon, Making, 4 n. 14.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
89
imagine that even a beaten earth or gravel forum would not be used for public gatherings, and that public buildings would be made available to a community which was not really a community, and had no magistrates, no institutional structures, and no juridical processes.79 Fora were clearly a common way of articulating the Romanized landscape created after the defeat of an enemy of Rome on conquered territory. Laurence underlines their association with major programmes of road-building and colonization, and argues that they were an important constituent part of the urban landscape of Italy.80 Moreover, they were clearly, already in our period, and perhaps from their origins, centres through which the Roman people organized and exerted their will over wide areas of the ager Romanus which could not be controlled through the delegated authority of colonies and municipia. Functions attested or implied as being carried out by the Roman res publica through its magistrates and priests in these communities are: criminal enquiries, recruitment, the locatio and collection of taxes, and propitiation of the gods.81 Such intervention often contributes to a perception by scholars that these communities, certainly before the Augustan period, enjoyed no self-government, even though they might be quite large (or attract a large, if not static population).82 Yet this seems to be incorrect: after all, the lex repetundarum seems to show that some fora and conciliabula possessed jurisdiction, or at the least, that jurisdiction was habitually exercised there; and we have seen that the Polla elogium implies some local self-government. Nevertheless, it is striking that important actions undertaken by the Roman res publica in Rome itself are extended to and enforced in the smaller communities of Roman citizens, but not in the larger ones, that is in municipia and colonies.83 This seems to reinforce the reading of the lex repetundarum advanced above, and its implications. Pliny would seem to reXect the latter scenario, fossilized in the name he gives to the settlement of Forum Clodii in Etruria, founded on land conWscated from Caere in 273 bc, on the Via Clodia.84 His alphabetical list of inland Etruscan 79 So too Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 75, assuming ‘some rudimentary form of organization’ (too limiting however, as is Salmon, Making, 3–4, 59–60). See also n. 33 above, on artiWcial towns. 80 Roads, 27–38, 189–90, 194. 81 Livy, 25. 5. 6 (within the Wftieth milestone from Rome, mentioned together with pagi, diYculties with the levy, 212 bc), 29. 37. 3 (censorial locationes for the sale of salt at higher prices than in Rome, 204 bc), 40. 19. 3 (plague, 181 bc), 37. 3 (by decemviral edict a supplicatio is declared for the same plague, 180 bc), 37. 4 (investigations into poisonings), 43. 14. 10 (censorial letters sent out to encourage enlistment for the Third Macedonian War, 169 bc). Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 7; Laurence, Roads, 5: ‘centres for the enforcement of the state’s will’, cf. 29, 32–3, 34–5 (where fora are set beside uici), 38, 194. 82 Laurence, Roads, 35 (numbers present), 194 (no self-government). On the later situation see Anziani, MEFRA (1913), LaY, Athenaeum (1974). 83 In the two cases where the geographical remit of conquistores for the levy is given, it may be signiWcant that Campania (Cic., Att. 7. 21. 1), while home to a number of autonomous communities was still in 49 bc in part subject to the praefectura Capuam Cumas (see below); and Picenum was (Livy, 23. 32. 19; 215 bc) in large part composed of praefecturae. 84 Carandini, in La romanizzazione dell’Etruria, 38.
90
Roman Italy: the Second Century
oppida includes ‘Praefectura Claudia Foroclodi’: the Claudian prefecture at the Forum of Clodius.85 The arrangements implied in this title seem to date back to the organization of the newly incorporated territory. While Pliny’s terminology should not normally be pressed, he is probably here drawing on oYcial Augustan lists of Italian towns, and the conclusion that the nucleated centre of Forum Clodi was the (or a) centre of the praefectura Claudia, seems legitimate. That the term praefectura found its way into the titulature of the community may suggest that it enjoyed only delegated jurisdiction until quite late, even into the Augustan period. Its presence in Pliny’s lists would seem to imply that it had, from the Augustan period, a territorium and an ordo—it is not clear that fora or conciliabula all had territories centred on them at an earlier period.86 Vici (and fora and conciliabula were sometimes referred to by this term) I have already touched on (previous section). Lex agraria, l. 5, uses the term in a generic sense, meaning ‘small settlement, village’; this sense is also found in literary sources. Yet uicus was also used formally by settlements to describe themselves, as if it were a juridical category. For example, the gift of Mummian booty to Trebula Mutuesca was commemorated in that community by a pair of identical inscriptions, almost certainly originally displayed in a public place, which read ‘L. Mummius cos / uico’ (‘Lucius Mummius, consul, to the uicus’).87 Now, Trebula Mutuesca may have been part of a larger territorial entity, a pagus (district) or praefectura, but it was also a recognizable political unit, which could in its own right be speciWcally given war booty by a victorious consul. Vicus is of interest, like other terms related to Italian administration, to Festus, probably drawing at this point on Verrius Flaccus. The lemma is incomplete (divided between Festus p. 502L and p.508L): . . . ]cipiunt ex agris, qui ibi uillas non habent, ut Marsi aut Paeligni. sed ex uic[t]is partim habent rempublicam et ius dicitur, partim nihil eorum et tamen ibi nundinae aguntur negoti gerendi causa, et magistri uici, item magistri pagi quotannis Wunt.88 . . . they ?take? from the Welds, who do not have villas there, like the Marsi or the Paeligni. But from among the conquered, some have a res publica and justice is administered, some have none of these things, and nevertheless markets are held there in order for business to be done, and they elect magistrates of the uicus every year, just as they elect magistrates of the pagus.
85 3. 52, see Beloch, RG 562, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 75, Laurence, Roads, 32. 86 Forum Clodi has an ordo attested for ad 254; and at some point under the Empire the ‘Foroclaudienses ex praefectura Claudia urbani’ set up a dedication to their patron (CIL xi. 3310a); cf. Gasperini, Miscellanea greca e romana, vi (1978). See Bispham, forthcoming, for anomalies and problems in Pliny’s list. Lack of territorium: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 75. 87 ILLRP 327. 88 Two other deWnitions follow, which seem to refer respectively to the suburbs of towns, and to buildings divided into a series of dwellings, in which common access is provided for the various occupiers. Festus concludes ‘qui non dicuntur uicani, sicut hi, qui aut in oppidi uicis, aut hi, qui in agris sunt, uicani appelantur’ (‘the latter are not called villagers, in the way that the former, who live in the neighbourhoods of a town, or those, who live in the Welds, are called villagers’).
Roman Italy: the Second Century
91
We may note a few points brieXy: Festus recognizes two types of uici, some which have a res publica, and others which do not, but nevertheless host (regular) markets, and have elected magistrates (as epigraphic evidence shows—that magistrates can be elected where there is no res publica is interesting in view of the primitive state of self-government often ascribed to these smaller communities). What res publica means in this and analogous lemmata is something to which I shall return. The function of uici as market centres is something, as we have seen above, that can be predicated of fora and conciliabula. Finally, uici are compared to pagi, which also have magistrates (as epigraphic evidence tells us); pagi, as we have seen, are on one occasion coupled with fora and conciliabula as settlements in the ager Romanus in which direct intervention by Roman magistrates or priests is far from uncommon.89
4 . T H E BAC C H A NA L I A N C R I S I S I : T H E AG E R RO M AN U S Let us return again to the lex repetundarum, and my Wrst proposition, that some fora and conciliabula lacked any form of higher jurisdiction for important cases; that such jurisdiction was carried out by Roman magistrates or their delegates; and that, by implication, there was normally no magisterial interference in the jurisdiction of municipia and colonies. Can this be supported from other evidence? It happens that we have an extended literary account of a moment of high tension in the Roman state, which occasioned serious judicial intervention by Rome on a wide geographical scale. I refer, of course, to Livy’s account (39. 8–19) of the Bacchanalian ‘conspiracy’, the exposure of which rocked Italy in 186 bc.90 Despite my stated reluctance to lean heavily on passages of Livy, his account of the Bacchanalian aVair can, with caveats, be relied upon, for certain speciWc elements, with some conWdence. Not only does much of the account purport to give the contents of a series of senatus consulta; we are also in the almost unique position of being able to compare his account (39. 18. 8–9) with a surviving document 89 Livy, 25. 5. 6, see n. 81 above. Festus is also interested in who can and who cannot be called uicani, although he does not use the signiWcant term genus hominum (‘class of men’; see Introduction) of uicani. Whether he sees uici as substituting for villas in the settlement of Marsic and Paelignian territory cannot be determined given the surviving state of the text. 90 In Livy, 39. 10. 6 (cf. 13. 14), Hispala Faecennia states that the cult she had attended as a slave was at least two years old; cf. ibid. 12. 6: ‘aliquot annis, ex quo manumissa sit’ (‘for some years, after she was manumitted’). For the Bacchanalian crisis see Ghinatti, Quaderni di Storia (1975); North, PCPS (1979); Pailler, Bacchanalia; Gruen, in Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, 34–78; North, in SdR ii/1; LaY, in SdR ii/1; De´sy, Recherches sur l’e´conomie apulienne; Cancik-Lindemaier, in Cancik, et al. (eds.), Geschichte—Tradition—ReXexion, ii; Torelli, Tota Italia, 140–4; Ru¨pke, Religion der Ro¨mer, 38–41, noting restrictions on foreign cults in 213 bc. The aVair probably also needs to be seen against the background of the regulation of Dionysiac worship in Egypt by Ptolemy IV Philopator in the last quarter of the 3rd cent. bc: Berliner griechische Urkunden 1211 ( ¼ Hunt and Edgar, Select Papyri, ii. 208), see Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, i. 203–4; Walbank, The Hellenistic World 3 , 211–12. I owe this parallel to Robin Lane Fox.
92
Roman Italy: the Second Century
from southern Italy, which seems to be a digest of one or more of these same senatus consulta.91 Livy comes out of this process with some credit, given the diVerences of focalization and emphasis in the diVerent sources; comparison of the two encourages the belief that Livy had good oYcial (or oYcial-derived) sources available for this incident, however he then wrote it up.92 I therefore think it is acceptable to discuss this Livian account in some depth—it has a very good claim to be substantially reliable in terms of detail, and that detail is pertinent to the present inquiry. Both Livy and the contemporary inscription found at Tiriolo in Bruttium (the so-called senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus) record measures of rebarbative limitation of the popular worship of Bacchus.93 The text of the latter is, in fact, probably a digest from parts of one or more such senatus consulta, followed by a terse letter from (we must presume) the consuls.94 The speciWc provisions of the document will not detain us here; we shall return to the inscription in the next
91 ILLRP 511. For the material contained in the epigraphic text deriving from senatus consulta rather than a single senatus consultum, cf. De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 59. 92 Cf. perhaps ll. 13–14 of the inscription with Livy, 39. 14. 8. Beard et al., Religions of Rome, i. 76–7, 92–6, Wnd Livy’s version generally reliable, and showing knowledge of original documentary evidence; contra Gelzer, Hermes (1936); Finley, Politics in the Ancient World, 20; Walsh, Livy 2, 112. See also McDonald, JRS (1944), 26–31; Tierney, Proceedings of the Irish Academy (1947); Ando, in Ando (ed.), Roman Religion, 9–10, argues that the SC’s insistence on the circumstances under which Bacchus may be worshipped, and the relative indiVerence to exactly how that worship happens, stand in contrast to the moral indignation in Livy at the nature of the rites; perhaps Livy is as interested in what was done other than according to religio as he was in the suspect nature of the foreign rites. Both sources in diVerent ways reXect a concern with the problems posed by the secrecy of the rituals before senatorial control is imposed. 93 CIL i2 . 581 ¼ ILLRP 511; see Fraenkel, Hermes (1932); and below, Ch. 3. See also Ru¨pke, Religion der Ro¨mer, 40, for the Roman response as limitation, not abolition. 94 Degrassi, ad loc., notes that ‘censuere’ has been omitted in l. 22: the SC here being copied from may have continued beyond this point. The phrase in the consuls’ letter, ‘senatuosque sententiam utei scientes esetis, eorum / sententia ita fuit: sei ques esent, quei arvorsum ead fecisent quam suprad / scriptum est, eeis rem caputalem faciendam censuere; atque utei / hoce in tabolam ahenam inceideretis, ita senatus aiquom censuit’ (‘so that you might be aware of the opinion of the Senate, their opinion was such: they decided that if there were any individuals, who had acted against these instructions, as written above, this should be a made a capital oVence for them; and so that you might inscribe this text onto a bronze tablet, the Senate decided that this was just’, ll. 23–6), proves that there were other senatus consulta dealing with breach of this SC, and with its publication (the alternative, that the summary by the consuls of omitted parts of the present SC, instead of its being written out in full, would be odd). Livy, 39. 18. 7–9, suggests such further decrees (and see below); 39. 14. 5–8 give (some of ?) the terms of the initial decree passed by the Senate (‘haec senatus decreuit (‘the Senate decreed these things’)’, 14. 9), cf. 17. 1: ‘recitari deinde senatus consulta iusserunt’ (‘then the Senate ordered the senatus consulta to be read out’, close of the initial contio, or informal public meeting); a further SC comes at 19. ‘A series of decrees was the normal form in which senatorial decisions on related issues were passed’ (GriYn, JRS (1997), 254). GriYn goes on to point out processes under the Empire analogous to what I envisage here: full publication of (where appropriate) speeches and a series of SC in Rome, with a single digest for publication in the provinces and the legions’ winter quarters (SC de Cn. Pisone patre) and, more interesting, a single SC containing instructions for publication as well as the lex Valeria Aurelia in the case of the tabula Siarensis (see further RS i, no. 37).
Roman Italy: the Second Century
93
chapter. What concerns me here is what Livy tells us about measures taken within the ager Romanus. It is important to remember that the situation in 186 was perceived (or presented) as an emergency, and that the state’s responses were framed accordingly and were certainly not typical. We may assume that more routine matters were handled with a lighter touch; the Bacchanalian aVair thus provides a good benchmark for measuring Roman intervention in the ager Romanus. Livy states that one of the Senate’s Wrst actions on being made aware of the ‘problem’ was to ask the consuls to investigate (‘quaestionem deinde de Bacchanalibus . . . mandant’, ‘then they entrusted [them] with an investigation about the Bacchanals’) extra ordinem:95 this was no routine case. In the search for ‘sacerdotes eorum sacrorum’ (‘priests of these rites’), the consuls are to bring into their potestas (power) individuals ‘non Romae modo sed per omnia fora et conciliabula’ (‘not only in Rome, but throughout the fora and conciliabula’, 39. 14. 7). The latter part of this clause seems to regard only communities in the ager Romanus: there is no sign that it refers to allied communities.96 The contrast with Rome might be taken to mean that it was the area immediately around the city, which was not municipalized, with which the Senate, not wishing to limit its investigations to the urbs, was concerned; many small communities along the great Roman roads, along which the ‘contagion’ might spread, could also fall into this category. It may be that whatever magistrates there were in these communities had such limited judicial authority (or such limited means) as to be unable, or unlikely, to conduct the relevant (emergency) investigations themselves. The addressees of the consular letter at Tirolo, and those at whom the inscribed SC was aimed, evidently did have such powers, however; I would argue that so too did the magistrates of colonies and municipia, and that this is why they are not mentioned at this point in Livy. The sequel provides further conWrmation. So many had Xed from the oYcial investigations into the conspiracy that the praetors hearing the cases were compelled to seek a iustitium (cessation of judicial business) of thirty days until the conclusion of the consular quaestiones.97 Livy goes on: ‘eadem solitudo, quia Romae non respondebant nec inueniebantur, quorum nomina delata erant, coegit consules circa fora proWcisci ibique quaerere et iudicia exercere’ (‘the same absenteeism, owing to the fact that at Rome those whose names had been reported were neither answering the summons, nor could they otherwise be found, compelled the consuls to set out around the fora, and to conduct their investigations and hold trials there’, 18. 2). The postponement of the praetorian hearings, and the consular tour of inspection seem to be linked, not coincidentally mentioned together (‘eadem solitudo’); it was little more than a search for, and a delivery of summary justice to, those same people (‘non respondebant nec inueniebantur’) who had defaulted on their dies certae at the praetorian tribunal, and had gone to ground in the smaller communities around Rome.98 95 Livy, 29. 14. 6, cf. 16. 12. 96 So too Mouritsen, UniWcation, 50. 97 18. 1. 98 Presumably, while Rome was easier to vanish in, it also contained more magistrates who collectively had more power than the sleepier rural communities, the powers of whose magistrates we have already suspected to be limited.
94
Roman Italy: the Second Century
It is presumably their default which entails the severity of consular action, carried out by virtue of imperium. If the linkage proposed here between the praetorian delay and the consular investigations is correct, then the length of the iustitium (thirty days) is signiWcant: enough time to conduct a reasonable investigation in the environs of Rome, and along major roads where quicker travel might be expected, but not enough time to conduct a similar investigation right across Italy.99 Within the ager Romanus then, it seems that there is either a group of fora and conciliabula (nearer Rome?) which have no magistrates with investigative or signiWcant judicial powers; or that all such communities, in contrast to municipia (like colonies, not mentioned in this episode), lacked higher jurisdiction, as well as the infrastructure to undertake investigations of this kind. That Livy’s fora and conciliabula were Roman communities is further shown by the next senatorial injunction, which seems to show a change of focus: ‘edici praeterea in urbe Roma et per totam Italiam edicta mitti’ (‘moreover for edicts to be issued in the city of Rome, and to be sent throughout the whole of Italy’), banning all religious interaction by Bacchic initiates.100 This is clearly diVerent from seeking out priests, and suggests a two-pronged attack by the Senate: Rome and its environs (fora and conciliabula) were to see sacerdotes rounded up; next, more widely, both in Rome and across Italy, the cult was to be forbidden. Tota Italia might be an anachronistic phrase here (terra Italia probably stood in the original text—see Chapter 1); nevertheless, it seems that the distinction operating here may be reasonably thought to be one between Rome and all the other communities of Italy,101 not between the urbs and the ager Romanus. Desire for variety will not explain Livy’s phrasing here.102 In a kaleidoscopic narrative Italy quickly falls out of view, and Livy’s focus shifts back to Rome.103 The curule and plebeian aediles, the tresuiri capitales 99 Livy’s omission of conciliabula here is not signiWcant, and should not be pressed. It seems that the consuls divided the area aVected geographically between them: ‘Q. Marcius quaestionibus suae regionis perfectis’ (‘Q. Marcius, with the enquiries of his region completed’, 20. 1). See also 20. 4, where the workload of the quaestiones meant that T. Maenius was put in charge of the dilectus ordered by the Senate (20. 3). Thirty days would have allowed magistrates to get from Rome to either end of the peninsula and back, travelling on horseback rather than in a litter (Laurence, Roads, 81–2, 138–9); but not to conduct many investigations en route as well; the distance travelled must be inversely proportional to the number of quaestiones held. 100 14. 7. 101 The consul claims at 15. 6 that the Bacchanalia ‘tota iam pridem Italia et nunc per urbem etiam multis locis esse’ (‘had been now for some time in all of Italy, and was now even in many places throughout the city’; for arrival in Etruria prior to popularity in Rome, cf. 8. 3); a passage set aside by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 50, in a slightly circular argument. Salmon, Making, 57 n. 261, has no foundation in the evidence. 102 Contra Mouritsen, UniWcation, 50, noting the close parallel in structural terms with the preceding clause, which did deal solely with the ager Romanus. The contrast seems rather to be between the areas where the consuls can legally act, and those where the Senate gives orders (whatever the juridical niceties), an interpretation which also exploits the parallels between the two clauses. 103 The consular pronouncements about Wxed days for investigating anyone named by informers (17. 3) distinguishes between those named (unqualiWed) and those named who were extra terram Italiam: Roman citizens in both cases, envisaged as subject to consular jurisdiction.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
95
(board of three responsible for implementing the death penalty) and the quinqueuiri uls cis Tiberim (board of Wve for the near and far side of the Tiber), must be acting within an urban context alone.104 Glimpses of the Italian ramiWcations of the aVair are, then, given Xeetingly and not systematically. We will return to these, both in Livy and in the epigraphic text, in the next chapter. For the moment it will do to stress the conclusion that Livy’s narrative seems to demonstrate that at least some, perhaps all, fora and conciliabula were subjected to extraordinary consular jurisdiction, whereas what can be shown to have happened in the case of colonies and municipia was the requirement to display and act upon Roman edicta.105 Some of these fora and conciliabula were still lacking in the mechanisms or personnel to investigate criminal cases at the time of the lex repetundarum.
5 . PRAEFEC TU RAE I have touched on the praefectura in passing. Rather than being a self-suYcient entity, the praefectura can overlap with other categories; thus it cannot logically have priority over them. Let us start with Festus’ deWnition, the most concentrated single source of information on the praefectura which we have: praefecturae eae appellabantur in Italia, in quibus et ius dicebatur, et nundinae agebantur; et erat quaedam earum res publica, neque tamen magistratus suos habebant. in þ quae his [quos, Vrsinus] þ legibus praefecti mittebantur quotannis qui ius dicerent. quarum genera fuerent duo: alterum, in quas solebant ire praefecti quattuor þ uiginti sex uirum nu [num?] pro þ populi suVragio creati erant, in haec oppido: Capuam, Cumas, Casilinum, Volturnum, Liternum, Puteolos, Acerras, Suessulam, Atellam, Calatiani; alterum, in quas ibant, quos praetor urbanus quotannis in quaeque loca miserat legibus, ut Fundos, Formias, Caere, Venafrum, Allifas, Privernum, Anagniam, Frusinonem. (Festus, p. 262L)106 These used to be called praefecturae in Italy, in which both justice was spoken and nundinae were held. And these places used to have a certain res publica, and yet they did not have their own magistrates. To these (?) praefecti used to be sent with laws each year, who might speak justice. Of these praefecturae there were two types: on the one hand, those to which four of (?) the twenty-six men (?) were accustomed to go as praefecti who (?) had been elected by the vote of the people, that is, to these towns: Capua, Cumae, Casilinum, Volturnum, Liternum, Puteoli, Acerrae, Suessula, Atella, Calatia; on the other hand, those
104 14. 10, ‘per urbem (‘throughout the city’)’, and ‘suae . . . regionis (‘of his own district’)’ make no sense outside Rome. 105 We must, I think, assume that there were individuals (magistrates in at least some cases) in fora and conciliabula who were responsible for the display of such instructions from Rome. 106 For discussion, see Mommsen, StR iii. 582 n. 1 (links to ciuitas sine suVragio); Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 43–5, 51–3, 206–9, listing known praefecturae and their possible origins; Humbert, Municipium, ch. 9; Knapp, Athenaeum (1980).
96
Roman Italy: the Second Century
to which those used to go, whom the praetor urbanus used to send each year into each place with laws, such as Fundi, Formiae, Caere, Venafrum, Allifae, Privernum, Anagnia, Frusino.
This corrupt text is important in a number of ways. First, as we shall see, it diVers from Festus’ deWnitions of municipia and municipes (see Introduction) in that praefecturae are not related to any particular genus hominum (type of men); they seem, in the mind of Festus (or Verrius Flaccus) to be a very diVerent sort of entity,107 namely places, to which praefecti are sent. Secondly, they are both judicial and market centres, have no magistrates, and in consequence are only in a limited sense, res publicae (hence, perhaps, why Festus accords them diVerent treatment from municipia).108 They are of two types, corresponding to two types of prefect. The praefecti Capuam Cumas (prefects sent to Capua and Cumae) elected annually at Rome within the context of the vigintisexvirate, are attested epigraphically under the early empire, and, originally at least, were sent to Campania.109 The other type was also sent annually, presumably delegated, by the praetor urbanus (urban praetor) to various places, all of which have in common at least the fact that they are not Campanian communities. Both types of prefect are sent ‘legibus’, which I take to mean that they could leges dare (give laws), as well as ius dicere (give justice);110 only the Wrst group of praefecti is explicitly said by Festus to ius dicere. What was the relation of the praefectura to the colonia and the municipium? Were they, or were they not, mutually exclusive conditions? Praefectura seems to be a term which primarily delimits, spatially, the exercise of jurisdiction by an individual.111 That jurisdiction may be, probably often is, exercised in a ‘central’ place within the speciWed area, a settlement which itself came, perhaps not in oYcial parlance until the Social War, to be referred to as praefectura;112 it seems in the case of the Campanian prefecture that a number of individuals shared jurisdiction over the territory of a group of cities, which they may have visited on a sort of assize basis. Now, certain members of this latter prefecture, famously Capua, but also Casilinum, Atella, Calatia, and perhaps Suessula, lost all municipal autonomy as a punishment for defection to Hannibal, on their recovery by 107 As we shall see, there seems to be no term to describe individuals who lived in the same praefectura, no counterpart to the term municeps. For the Verrian nature of this deWnition, and other material on the administration of Italy (conuentus, Paulus p. 36L, uici, Festus pp. 502L and 508L), see Pinsent, CQ (1957), 93–4. 108 I do not agree with Coarelli, DdA (1992), 30 (cf. Humbert, Municipium, 313–14, 343–4, 362; Salmon, Making, 62) that praefecti sent out annually by the praetor provided the administration as well as the jurisdiction otherwise lacking in areas of viritane settlement. 109 ILLRP 441, probably Augustan; and see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 44. 110 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 45, following Mommsen, StR iii. 582 n. 2, seems to think that only the second class of praefecti were sent out ‘legibus’, which, despite the corrupt state of the MSS of Festus at this point, seems incorrect. Nor does it seem that ‘legibus’ can naturally be taken to mean ‘on the authority of’ the lex or ‘charter’ of the communities in question; if that were meant one would expect ‘e lege’ or ‘ex legibus’. 111 Humbert, Municipium, cf. Salmon, Making, 60–2; Coarelli, DdA (1992), 29. 112 Salmon, Making, 61–2, 62 n. 270; Plautus, Casina 99, 110, for the colloquial use of praefectura to denote a particular community.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
97
Rome in 211 bc.113 These places clearly were not, then, both municipia and part of a prefecture. On the other hand, there is adequate evidence that some of the places named by Festus were colonies;114 and others municipia (on his own reckoning: Fundi, Formiae, Cumae, Acerrae, Caere, and Anagnia). Cumae, for example, was not punished in 211, no more was Acerrae. Attempts to construct an evolutionary hypothesis for the second group of praefecturae, whereby they began life as praefecturae, with subsequent (and seriously down-dated) municipalization, create more problems than they solve (see below). Praefecturae are not in themselves settlement categories, but predicates of praetorian jurisdiction, as delegated to sundry individuals. Consequently they can either substitute for municipal structures or coexist with them.115 This overlap is clearly demonstrated in a second-century ad inscription from Aesernia, a dedication to a now unknown patron of the community, who was also, as the second and third lines of the surviving text tell us, ‘patrono mu[ni]cipi / [pr]aefecturae Atinatium’.116 In the light of this unambiguous testimony we may interpret an interesting republican document. It is part of a bronze Wsh, used clearly as a tessera hospitalis, apparently found at Fundi, and ‘discovered’ by Mommsen in an antiquarian dealer’s at Agnone in the Abruzzi. This remarkable text runs:
5
[consc]riptes co(n)se(nsu) T. Fa[---praifecti? [et p]raifectura tot[a Fundana hospitium] fecere qu´om T. C[------------------------- ] [i]n eius Wdem om[nes nos tradimus et] conuenimus co[--------------------------] M. Claudio M. f., [-------------- coss].117
113 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 43–4, and Pobjoy, Roman Capua, forthcoming. 114 Volturnum, Liternum, and Puteoli. In these cases, given that the probable creation of the praefectura Capuam Cumas in 211 bc predates their colonial deductions (foundations), we should imagine rather that the prefecture initially served minor settlements or garrisons in these places, such as that which we know to have existed at Puteoli during the Hannibalic War. This is not to say that the establishment of these small colonies (300 settlers) necessarily saw the extinction of the prefecture in these places: the converse is likely (cf. Coarelli, DdA (1992), 29). The praefectura Saturniensis mentioned by Festus (p. 262L) was probably established shortly after the defeat of Vulci in 280, on land conWscated from that city; it was probably superseded on the foundation of the colony of Saturnia in 183 bc (Munzi, in Italy and the West, 43). The extent of the colony’s territory is not, however, precisely known, and some pockets of uiritim settlers may have remained subject to the praefectus after 183. 115 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 44–5, 213, Humbert, Municipium, 366–72, 400–2. 116 ‘[to the] patron of the municipium and praefectura of the Atinates’; Buonocore, SCO (1993), correcting Viti, Respublica Aeserninorum, 204, n. 73. 117 CIL i2 . 611, x. 6231 ¼ ILS 6093 ¼ ILLRP 1068. I have printed Degrassi’s text: the doubtful readings are signalled there. I would not exclude a phrase including cooptare (to co-opt) at l. 5, see Degrassi, ad loc.; I cannot construe his restoration of ‘Fundi’ in l. 2, hence my text. If the last line really does give a consular date, it must fall between 222 and 152 bc. Given where Mommsen acquired the text, it is not idle to wonder whether it really was from Fundi.
98
Roman Italy: the Second Century
[the coun]cillors with the agreement of T. Fa[---the prefect? --- and the] whole [p]refecture [of Fundi] established [ties of hospitality] with T. C[--- ---i]nto his good faith [we] al[l entrusted ourselves and] came together co[??---] with M. Claudius M. f., [and ---?as consuls].
Fundi was enfranchised sine suVragio in 338 according to Livy. It is assumed that, like Formiae and Arpinum, it was municipalized at this point, and it is hard to Wnd good counter-arguments. Yet on the basis of our text, some, like Degrassi (ILLRP ad loc.), have argued that Fundi remained a praefectura until the Social War, and was municipalized only at that date.118 As we shall see, there is every reason to believe that Arpinum (given the ciuitas optimo iure with Fundi and Formiae in 188 bc119) was a municipium before the Social War (see below); and no reason to see why Fundi should have been treated diVerently.120 It is preferable to envisage the prefecture as overlapping with municipal status. The conscripti (councillors) of Fundi are better understood as the local senate than a consilium (advisory body) of the prefect, and thus Wt better with a municipal than a premunicipal context.121 The absence of the local magistrates (unless T. Fa[---] in the Wrst line is a magistrate, or one or more are mentioned in the last line of the text) is notable, but it should be stressed that this is a decision made by the local senate, which has the agreement of the (?) prefect: the local magistrates may have done no more than propose the hospitium (it is not claimed that the prefect made the proposal), and thus need not be recorded on what is, necessarily, a brief and symbolic record, not an oYcial decree. There are thus no grounds for arguing from this text that Fundi had no magistrates of its own.122 As to the fact that tota praefectura rather than the putative municipium entered into the hospitium (very much like a patronal relationship123); this, again, cannot in such a document be considered an argument against the existence of a municipium. The preference for this locution may have been that of the patron rather than the community; or perhaps any mention of the prefect in a binding document entailed the mention 118 Following Mommsen, CIL x. p. 556 (‘nimirum post bellum Italicum’, ‘evidently after the Social War’). 119 Livy, 38. 36. 6–9, esp. 7: ‘tribunus plebis promulgauit ut iis suVragii latio—nam antea sine suVragio habuerant ciuitatem—esset’ (‘the tribune of the plebs proposed a bill that they should have the right to vote—for before this they had had the citizenship without the vote’); that Livy says ‘de Formianis Fundanisque municipibus et Arpinatibus’ (‘concerning the municipes of Formiae and Fundi, and the Arpinates’) cannot (as we shall see in the next section) be pressed as evidence for municipal status. 120 Rudolph, Stadt, 218–19, and Manni, Per la storia, 84 n. 1, following the lead of Kornemann, RE s.v. ‘municipium’ cols. 573–4, argued that Arpinum remained a praefectura until 46, only becoming a municipium at the time of the constitutional reform referred to by Cicero (see Ch. 5). The two statuses not necessarily incompatible, and the arguments used to claim that they are have been adequately refuted by Nicolet, REL (1967), 281–2. 121 Other conscripti all municipal or colonial councils: ILLRP 619 (Interamnia Praetuttiorum, post Social War), ILLRP 661 (Sassina, post Social War), ILLRP 425 (Capua, triumviral?), ILLRP 562a (Casinum, 40 bc), ILLRP 693, cf. 694 (Volturnum), Supp. It. 11, 97, no. 3 (Mevaniola). 122 Cf. Mommsen, CIL x. p. 556. 123 Note ‘[i]n eius Wdem om[nes nos tradimus’; hospitium does not stand in the surviving text.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
99
of the community as praefectura. As well as illustrating nicely the way in which communities and collectivities sought and obtained the support of powerful individual Romans in the middle Republic, I believe that this text makes best sense when predicated on the existence at Fundi of a municipium with ‘normal’ municipal organs. What a coexistence between praefectura and municipium meant in practice is, however, a diYcult question to answer.124 In Cumae, for example, for the Wrst forty-odd years of the praefectura, Oscan was the oYcial language,125 and we cannot in such cases envisage a thoroughgoing, or even a substantial, process of ius dicere in terms of the application of Roman civil law. The prefects may have been the ultimate arbiters of disputes, and a channel of communication with the central power in Rome: we certainly see the prefect at Fundi mediating in some way the creation of such channels of socio-political interaction and obligation. Perhaps more signiWcantly, since the Roman conquest was often accompanied by conWscation of land, and settlement of ciues Romani optimo iure, who in many cases will have had the municipium as their primary point of reference, many municipia will have had a large presence of full Roman citizens, themselves needing access to Roman law on a regular basis, as well as going to law with ciues sine suVragio.126 It would be nice to be able to believe (with Coarelli, for example) that the end of the institution of ciuitas sine suVragio meant the end of the praefectura, at least the sending out of annual delegates of the praetor urbanus; the evidence is, however, too ambiguous to support such a conclusion.127 Again, we cannot prove that, outside Campania, prefects were really sent by the praetor every year; the delegation of jurisdiction may be enough and local notables (who were also known to and trusted by the praetor) may have Wlled the oYce, from time to time, or regularly.128 The annual drain on manpower will otherwise have been severe. In any event, the appointment of Romans or suitable locals on an annual basis must have had some eVect on the cultural and institutional shape of the town. If we accept that municipia could also be praefecturae, or rather the centre of a prefecture which coincided with its territory, then Festus’ characterization of praefecturae as places where justice was given and markets happened, with a sort of res publica and no magistrates, cannot apply universally. Indeed, it looks suspiciously like a speciWc description of the Campanian communities which were deprived of their autonomy, redeployed as a general description of the prefecture system.129 An early imperial source writes of the creation of the praefectura Capuam Cumas in a way which, while it might reXect anachronistic assumptions, may equally be revealing about the genesis of the praefectura. Velleius (2. 44. 4) in describing the restoration of civic rights to Capua by Caesar’s colonization, says 124 Sensible remarks at Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 69. 125 Livy, 40. 42. 13. 126 Coarelli, DdA (1992), 29–30. 127 Ibid. 30. 128 Ibid. 129 Even in Campania the presence of Cumae within the praefectura Capuam Cumas must make it doubtful that the latter was speciWcally instituted solely to remedy the practical deWciencies caused by the removal of local autonomy from the rebel communities.
100
Roman Italy: the Second Century
‘ita circiter uiginti milia ciuium eo deducta et ius urbis restitutum post annos circiter centum quinquaginta duos quam bello Punico ab Romanis Capua in formam praefecturae redacta erat’130 (‘Thus roughly 20,000 citizens were led out there [the ager Campanus] and the status of a city was restored some 152 years after Capua had been brought into the shape of a praefectura by the Romans in the Punic War’). The language is interesting, because redigere (bring into the condition of) is used of formally converting a conquered area into a province: in formam prouinciae redigere.131 Similar too is the way in which Ulpian (much later) talks of the organization of imperial estates under the patrimonial procurator (‘praedia Caesaris quae in formam patrimonii redacta sub procuratore patrimoni sunt’, ‘the estates of Caesar which have been brought into his patrimony under the patrimonial procurator’).132 In both of these usages areas (in the latter example dispersed and discontinuous) are being organized into a single administrative unit. Furthermore, the phrase in formam redigere recalls cadastral maps or formae (such as that of Campania disWgured by Sulla, Gran. Lic. 28. 35–7, p. 9 Criniti), and may imply the creation of an administrative ‘archive’ and documentation, graphic and other, besides the fact of political subjection. That control is itself important: redigere used in the provincial context is sometimes translated as ‘reduce’. Redigere is also used of reversion to municipal status, although such a use is not attested before the early Empire, and it cannot be shown that the verb was also used of the original attribution of municipal status to a former allied community: the Praenestines had petitioned Tiberius, Gellius tells us, ‘ut ex colonia in municipii statum redigerentur’ (‘that they should be brought from being a colony into the condition of a municipium’, NA 16. 13. 5). Thus its implications of formal administrative and institutional change can be far-reaching. Now, Velleius, as we shall see later, should not be relied on for juridical detail; but in Capua, to which he traced one side of his family, through the Decii, he had a special interest (he dares to disagree with Cato—‘pace diligentiae Catonis’, ‘with all due respect to the care of Cato’—on the date of the foundation of the city, 1. 7. 2–4 ¼ Cato F69P ¼ F 3, 1 B-W). With some caution then, we might suggest that the phrase redigere in formam praefecturae is not necessarily a rhetorical Xourish. Was, then, at least the praefectura Capuam Cumas perhaps the subject of a fuller reorganization and recording (note again the Campanian forma) than the simple appointment of prefects might imply? In any case, Velleius’ language illustrates how hard the punishment of Capua was taken in some circles: one of Italy’s great cities was treated like a province or a personal possession of the Roman people. 130 ‘Urbis’ is Heinsius’ reading for the ‘ab his’ of the MS, and not entirely satisfactory. 131 in formam prouinciae redigere (bring into the condition of a province): Suet., DI 25. 1 (of Gaul), De gram. et rhet. 30. 5 (Albucius’ outburst about Italy, meaning Cisalpina—Syme, RP v. 431–9—in front of the proconsul Piso at Mediolanum); Vell. Pat., 2. 97. 4 (Tiberius in Germania), cf. Caes., BG 1. 45. 2, 7. 77. 16, Tac., Ann. 2. 42. 132 D. 30. 39. 10. Livy, 33. 38. 1, writes of Antiochos III’s attempt ‘omnes Asiae ciuitates in antiquam imperii formulam redigere’ (‘to reduce all the comunities of Asia into the ancient pattern of control [sc. by the Seleukids]’)—the presence of the word formula here, beside the clear asymmetry of power aspired to in redigere, allow interesting reXections on the formula togatorum.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
101
6 . C O LO N I E S For the most part the juridical and institutional development of the Roman colony before the second century is very obscure.133 Small snippets are preserved in our sources, such as a concern with the circumstances under which uacationes militiae apply to Roman colonists: we have already seen that Livy records a dispute about this matter between the Senate and some of the colonies in the Hannibalic War (above). Sherwin-White has pointed out that a similar provision is fossilized in the Caesarian lex coloniae Genetiuae 62, where it deals with the privileges of minor colonial oYcials, granting uacatio during the year of oYce, ‘except in the case of an Italic or Gallic emergency’, a contingency which might have faced third-century Italy, but not Wrst-century Spain.134 This apart, we have nothing for early Roman colonies, not even the kind of indirect evidence for Latin colonial charters provided by the lex Osca Bantina (Chapter 3). For the last decade of the second century bc we do have one extended epigraphic text from a Roman colony, which gives us something of the Xavour of political institutions and discourse, from the inside as it were; the document is slightly anomalous, since it is certainly an Augustan copy of the original.135 This is the so-called lex de pariete faciundo from Puteoli; this calls itself ‘lex operum II’ (col. I, l. 4), which translates as ‘contract for works: 2’. It governs the letting of a contract for what seems to be the building of a precinct wall for the sanctuary of Serapis.136 That the document calls itself lex is signiWcant: this term was normally used by the Roman res publica to denote regulations introduced by magistrates or pro-magistrates, covering various types of public business (including the letting of contracts). An example from this period is the lex dicta (prescribed rule) of the censors of 115 bc, L. Caecilius and Cn. Domitius, governing the collection of uectigalia (rent) and scriptura (tax) on ager publicus in Africa.137 We are thus witnessing at Puteoli very Roman public practice at the operational level of political and Wnancial institutions. 133 On Roman colonies prior to the Social War: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 76–94; Salmon, Colonization, and Making, 63–4 (with caution). 134 ‘neue quis eum eo anno . . . inuitum militem faciat . . . nisi tumultus Italici Galliciue causa’; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 83. Nevertheless, the clause may have been deliberately retained (as opposed to the common failure to cut away dead wood in such documents, on which see Ch. 5) to show the symbolic association of Urso, and its urban Roman population, with Rome and Italy. 135 Degrassi, ad ILLRP 518; Camodeca, in E´lites, 105, noting that CIL x. 1793 seems to have been carved earlier on the other side. 136 On the text see CIL x. 218–19; on its nature see Pobjoy, Arctos (1998), 186. It seems that the wall is to be built across the street from the aedes Serapis (col. 1, ll. 5–6, 9–10); the area (and for area as site for building, cf. Cic., Att. 4. 1. 7, 4. 3. 2) is part of a campus (a demarcated Xat area), which contains structures of a religious nature (col. 3, ll. 1–6). We seem to be dealing with the monumentalisation of a previously open area. Line 12, ‘ad mare uorsum’ (‘turned towards the sea’), suggests that the wall either faced the sea, or was near the sea, perhaps in the area of the later emporium (business area), a plausible place for a cult of Serapis. 137 For this lex dicta of 115, see lex agraria 86–9, with Lintott, Judicial Reform, 274–5.
102
Roman Italy: the Second Century
The dense particulars concerning the dimensions and details of the planned construction need not concern us per se; yet the fact that the text is made up of such minutiae is interesting in itself. Although the nature and motives of the Augustan republication (fortunately beyond the scope of this discussion) cloud the issue of the original publication, the building project must have been discussed in some detail in the Puteolan senate. The document showcases the sophistication and attention to detail of the council, recording its attention to detail on matters of public, and above all religious, importance, and its scrupulousness with the public money of a rich community. Our text is ‘operum lex II’, and thus we may with some plausibility infer the existence of a series of such documents, with similar characteristics.138 It may not be wildly inaccurate to suppose that the context for such regulation was in fact previous Wnancial mismanagement. It is perhaps worth noting in this connection that the decade prior to the letting of this contract had seen the aristocracy in Rome called to account for incompetence and corruption, part of which was Wnancial. At Arpinum, at about the same time, we see municipal political issues imitiating recent developments in Rome (which had themselves begun with the lex Gabinia of 139 bc) with the attempted (and perhaps ultimately successful) introduction of a secret ballot, already under way in M. Aemilius Scaurus’ consulship, 115 bc.139 It is not beyond belief that the Puteolan aristocracy could have been seen as exclusive and corrupt in these years, and that as at Rome excluded or radical elements outside, or on the margins of, the ruling elite sought to hold it to account. The Puteolan senate may indeed have been a small body. The original colony had been made up of 300 male colonists (194 bc).140 This thriving commercial community cannot still have been as small at the end of the century, but its original political institutions may have persisted unchanged, leading to tensions. Our inscription’s locution ‘arbitratu . . . duouira[l]ium, qui in consilio esse solent Puteoleis’ (‘at the discretion . . . of the ex-duouiri, who are normally on the consilium at Puteoli’, col. III, ll. 7–9), while not straightforward, strongly implies that what would elsewhere be called the colonial ordo or senate, here termed consilium, was made up only of former duouiri. It does not follow, as Rudolph, for example, argued, that there were no other magistrates at Puteoli besides duouiri.141 Such a situation, which would have produced executive meltdown in the greatest commercial port of the peninsula, is impossible. There must have been aediles at Puteoli, but it seems that ex-aediles were prevented from sitting ex oYcio (by right of having held oYce) on the consilium. The duovirate would in this case have been more than usually desirable: instead, however, of competiton for these magistracies, we might imagine that a small self-perpetuating oligarchy, 138 Plut., Sulla 37. 3, Val. Max., 9. 3. 8, both refer to the failure by a Granius of Puteoli to pay a sum promised for a Capitolium, which occasioned the fatal outburst of Sulla; it is not clear whether this building was in Puteoli or Rome: see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscapes, 59 and n. 91. 139 Cic., Leg. 3. 36. On this whole episode Nicolet, REL (1967) remains fundamental. 140 Livy, 32. 29. 3, 34. 42. 6, 45.1, Vell. Pat., 1. 15. 3. 141 Stadt, 136–8; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 87, accepts Rudolph’s conclusions about Puteoli, but rightly criticizes him for generalizing on their basis to cover all Roman colonies.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
103
modelling itself partly on the Roman nobility, may have sought to control access to them in much the same way in which Sallust says the nobiles of Rome did at the time at which Marius Wrst sought the consulship.142 As I have suggested elsewhere, such issues of access to power and dignitas (standing) may have (at least in part) underlain the stasis (civil conXict) at Puteoli, which we know to have been resolved by Sulla in the last year of his life.143 We are ignorant about the nomos which Sulla wrote for Puteoli, but it is quite possible that one of the areas addressed was the composition of the Puteolan senate, with ex-aediles, and generally more families, being given the opportunity to sit on the consilium. Finally, the power of the duouiri is worth noting: the whole process of overseeing the giving of the proper sureties by the contractors happens ‘duumuirum arbitratu’ (‘at the discretion of the duouiri’, col. I, l. 8). So too the fate of speciWed ‘sacella, aras signaque’ (‘shrines, altars, and statues of the gods’), currently standing in the campus where the wall is to be built, and to be taken down and re-established in places speciWed by the decurions (col. III, ll. 2–5). Here the power of the magistrates in determining religious matters is notable, but perhaps not surprising; they too, with the duouirales, are to see that all the contracted work is carried out satisfactorily; on probatio (approval) of this work the second half of the money seems to be payable to the contractor (col. III, ll. 9, 15–16.).
7. MUNICIPIA Municipia have cropped up in our discussion at several points. Other aspects of municipia which may impinge on their basic characters will be discussed later (fundus Weri in Chapter 4; municipia fundana in Chapter 5). Two further aspects of their relation to the Roman state merit consideration here, as does the earliest attestation of the word municeps. Let us take Wrst municipal religion (see further Chapter 5). Festus has a lemma for municipalia sacra (‘the rites of the municipia’):
142 Sall., Iug. 63. 6–7. The names of the Puteolan duouiri and the sureties in the document suggest the accession of some Campanian as opposed to Latin families, to the duovirate in the preceding generation: N. FuWdius and M. Pullius were duouiri; C. Blossius, Q. FuWcius, Cn. Tetteius, C. Granius, and Ti. Crassicius the sureties (cf. Salmon, Making, 65 n. 284). We do not know the size of the Puteolan consilium; I stated in Epigraphic Landscape, 59, that it must be 30, following Degrassi, ad ILLRP 518. Yet there is no direct evidence: a consilium of 30 might reasonably be inferred from an original citizen body of 300; on the other hand, in the SC de Bacchanalibus, the Roman senatorial quorum is one third, not two-thirds, of the total number of senators (ILLRP 511, ll. 6, 8–9, 17–18). If the same were to be true of Puteoli, the size of the consilium would be 60 in this period. On the thorny question of diVerent types of colonial quorums, see RS i. 399 on the lex coloniae Genetiuae 143 Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 58–9.
104
Roman Italy: the Second Century
municipalia sacra uocantur, quae ab initio habuerunt ante ciuitatem Romanam acceptam; quae obseruare eos uoluerunt pontiWces, et eo more facere, quo adsuessunt antiquitus (Festus p. 146L).144 sacra are called municipalia, which they had from the beginning, before the Roman citizenship was accepted; these the pontiWces wished that they should adhere to, and to do so in the manner, in which they had been accustomed in olden times
The anonymous ‘habuerunt’ and ‘assuessunt’ recall what I noted in the Introduction about the greater interest of municipal deWnitions in people than institutions, or in deWning institutions in respect of the people who will be subject to their inXuence. Again, I also note the theme of separatism, with municipia keeping their own sacra. Indeed, to judge from Festus, it could not be otherwise—his entry under sacra publica, of the cults of montes and curiae, could only hold for Rome itself; the municipia could not physically or historically usurp these cults any more than they could those of the gentes mentioned by Festus under sacra priuata.145 Thus, the municipia positively needed their own sacra, and incorporation (into the full citizenship?) provided an ideal point at which the pontiWces could police what they might retain. Once again we see what is almost an ideology of apartheid reXected in Festus’ evidence.146 The religious angle of the Wrst-century incorporations is often neglected, but if I am right, Festus’ testimony throws valuable light upon it. Earlier periods are also illuminated by this lemma; yet whilst I believe that the institution of municipalia sacra, even if not under that name, was a characteristic of earlier municipalization, I do not think that even this passage of Festus can automatically be retrojected to the fourth century.147 Again, comparison with the Livian tradition is instructive: Livy tells us that one of the elements which distinguished the
144 Paulus’ abbreviation (‘municipalia sacra uocabantur, quae ante urbem conditam colebantur’, ‘those sacra were called municipalia which they used to carry out before the founding of the city’, p. 147L) shows evidence of hasty confusion of ancient worship at Rome and in the municipia. Varro’s reference to municipalia sacra (Ant. Rom. Div. 2. 66 Condemi) is relevant in this context. See also Cato fr. 61P on the inheritance of family sacra at Arpinum, cf. Salmon, Making, 62, and Livy, 9. 43. 24: ‘magistratibus praeter quam sacrorum curatione interdictum’ (‘the magistrates were forbidden any activities other than care of the sacra’) of Anagnia. 145 Festus, 284L; see Ru¨pke, Religion der Ro¨mer, 30–1, on the limited nature of this deWnition. On the religion of the gens see now Smith, The Roman Clan. 146 Equally important is growing Roman interest in the 2nd cent. in prodigies occurring outside the ager Romanus, and from a still earlier period, Roman absorption of cults, priests, and religious inXuences from Italy: here too a story of selective conXuence and integration, as well as of control, is to be told: North, PBSR; BNP i. 61–72; Ru¨pke, Religion der Ro¨mer, 38. 147 For recent discussion see De Cazanove, in Bispham and Smith, Evidence and Experience, 73–4, highlighting the importance of the phenomenon beside political municipalization in the 1st cent. bc; and drawing attention to the role of the Roman pontiWces in making the decision about municipal sacra. Ogilvie (Commentary on Livy Books 1–5, 741–3) thought that the idea of Rome’s special and sacred destiny was a Social War phenomenon, forged in reaction to the allied break-away, see also Vasaly, Representations, 135 and n. 11; perhaps we might add an allied use of the Sacred Spring such as that implied in Sisenna. Such a process might form an appropriate context for the (re)formulation of municipalia sacra; but I am not sure that Ogilvie’s arguments can stand as they are.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
105
Romano-Lanuvine settlement of 338 bc, after the Latin War, was the treatment of the temple of Iuno Sospita. He says ‘Lanuuinis ciuitas data sacraque sua reddita, cum eo ut aedes lucusque Sospitae Iunonis communis Lanuuinis municipibus cum populo Romano’ (8. 14. 2). Quite apart from the importance for Rome of exerting a direct, if shared, control over the cult of Iuno Sospita, it is worth emphasizing that Livy sees the Lanuvines as having been in a state of deditio, and that thus the enjoyment of their own sacra was dependent on the Romans restoring them to Lanuvium. The situation of deditio, and subsequent restoration of sacra, could be extrapolated to cover the enfranchised communities in general (assuming that Livy only mentions Lanuvium since the cult of Iuno Sospita was treated diVerently). In any event, despite being members of the populus Romanus, and in theory able to participate now in all Roman religious festivals, of the Lanuvine rites only that of Iuno Sospita is expressly made ‘communis’ for Romans and Lanuvines. The impression given, albeit only a glimpse, is of the careful maintenance of a distinct identity; here the Livian and Verrian traditions recombine.148 Returning to Festus, we should give due weight to the precious phrase ‘ciuitatem Romanam acceptam’, which adds to the vocabulary previously gleaned on enfranchisement. We know that at least from the second century onwards parts of Weri were used of those granted the citizenship (Ennius says ‘Campani ciues facti’), and the deWnitions of Festus/Paulus above use parts of uenire, esse, and eYcere. Here, however, we have the citizenship spoken of as being oVered, and thus accepted or rejected. I think that such a situation perhaps reXects, once again, the situation after the Social War,149 where we know that a couple of states hesitated to accept the Roman oVer. For the earlier period, my impression is that communities enfranchised by the Romans in the course of the conquest gained the citizenship as one among many methods of the exercise of Roman control; that there was no opportunity to refuse,150 and hence no real oVer. Indeed, the 148 See also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 59. Note also that wider religious associations may have been unaVected by the settlement of 338 and the incorporations. While most of the Latins lose (temporarily) the right to religious association amongst themselves, the feriae Latini appear to continue untouched, with the populi Latini represented as before, whether incorporated or not—a valid deduction I think from Cic., Planc. 23. At one level then Latin identity, a shared identity, continues; this particular expression of that identity, however, included Rome and had been long controlled by her. Strabo, 5. 3. 5, 232C, states that Lanuvium had a ŒØe H ¸Æø ƒæe `æ, which was however administered by the Ardeatines through attendants (reading æºø with Corais). Is it possible that this common Latin shrine was transferred out of Lanuvine control after Lanuvium became Roman, in order, in some sense, to keep it ‘Latin’? Torelli plausibly argues that the cult provided religious tutelage and sanction for the conubium of the Latins, and this would present a plausible reason for the need to transfer the cult to Ardea (see DdA (1988), 68, also for associations of Ardea with rights of intermarriage). If so, it will have happened not in 338, but when rights of free association were restored to the Latins. 149 See Ch. 4 for the process of fundus Weri. 150 Livy, 9. 45. 6–7 (‘temptationem aiebant esse ut terrore incusso belli Romanos se Weri paterentur; quod quanto opere optandum foret, Hernicos docuisse, cum quibus licuerit suas leges Romanae ciuitati praeoptauerint; quibus legendi quid mallent copia non fuerit, pro poena necessariam ciuitatem fore’—my italics) and D.S., 20. 101. 5 have an interesting view on the Aequi and their rejection of Roman citizenship.
106
Roman Italy: the Second Century
term accipere could itself be seen as controversial. Roman writers, not least Livy, often regard the Roman citizenship as a high-minded grant to other peoples, either a reward, or a demonstration of Roman magnanimity after defeat.151 Earlier, the question of who accepted what or whom seems to have been potentially fraught. Festus’ entry here can only have non-Romans accepting a Roman oVer; but in De oYciis Cicero argues that Rome spared all enemies who were not crudeles or immanes, as illustrated by the Roman maiores themselves accepting defeated enemies into the citizenship.152 We have seen above how essentially unrevealing are the second-century references to municipia, when it comes to fundamentals. To these we may add a solitary second-century use of the term municeps, equally unforthcoming. In the second book of his Satires, Lucilius seems to have dealt with the quarrel and resulting court case between T. Albucius and Q. Mucius Scaevola Augur.153 Lines 87–93, quoted by Cicero in De Wnibus, purport to explain the origin of the quarrel between the two.154 Scaevola is speaking, and records the joke at Albucius’ expense which he claims precipitated the dispute. Scaevola’s purpose is to slight Albucius, but comparison with Horace, Sat. 1. 7, suggests that Lucilius may, at another level, be satirizing Scaevola’s snobbish attitude.155 Graecum te, Albuci, quam Romanum atque Sabinum municipem Ponti, Tritani, centurionum, praeclarorum hominum ac primorum signiferumque, maluisti dici. Graece ergo praetor Athenis, id quod maluisti te, cum ad me accedis, saluto: ‘chaere’ inquam, ‘Tite’. lictores, turma omnis chorusque ‘chaere Titi’. hinc hostis mi Albucius, hinc inimicus. You preferred to be called a Greek, Albucius, rather than a Roman and a Sabine, a municeps of Pontius and Tritanus, of centurions, of famous and Wrst men and standard-bearers. Therefore as praetor I greeted you at Athens in Greek, when you came up to me, and that was what you yourself preferred. ‘Chaere’ I say, ‘Titus’. All my troop and chorus say ‘Chaere Titus’. Hence Albucius is my foe, hence my enemy.156
Scaevola’s words construct one polarity between Hellenic and Roman identities; Albucius had erred, in Scaevola’s view, by making as if to exchange the latter for the former, and brought on himself the satirical greeting by the praetor and his retinue. 151 See Humbert, Municipium. 152 OV. 1. 35: ‘Tusculanos, Aequos, Volscos, Sabinos, Hernicos in ciuitatem etiam acceperunt’ (my italics). 153 On Albucius, praetor between 107 and 105, see MRR i. 560; Cic., Brut. 131 implies youthful study in Athens, abnormal and pretentious for the time (see Rawson, Intellectual Life, 6–7). Wiseman, New Men, no. 16, discusses the lines of Lucilius brieXy, listing Albucius as a possible nouus homo. His rejections of a Sabine origin for Albucius, based on Marx, ad loc. do not seem cogent to me. 154 In Warmington’s edn. (Remains of Old Latin, iii (Loeb), ii. 87–93 ( ¼ 88–94 Marx), cited at Cic., Fin. 1. 8). 155 All my remarks on Lucilius are indebted heavily to discussions with Ll. Morgan, to whom I am grateful. 156 Tr. Warmington, lightly adapted.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
107
There is another opposition, I think, within Scaevola’s words, and one which is double-edged, casting both Albucius and the speaker in an unXattering light. On the face of it, ‘Romanum’ and ‘Sabinum’ make a pair, in opposition to ‘Graecum’. Yet ‘Sabinum’, which occupies the signiWcant position at the line ending, is the real opposition to ‘Graecum’, and the rest of the sentence is in apposition to it. The line which follows, indeed both of the next two lines, can be read as an expression, or a reXection, of a ‘Catonian’ view of Sabines as morally worthy upland yeomen, good assidui and soldiers. Yet from the point of view of a Roman aristocrat ‘municipem’ was rarely a neutral term, but often evoked a prejudice of the kind that Cicero heard from Torquatus, as related in pro Sulla.157 Like the mention of centurions, which ends the four-word chiastic l. 88, the word has overtones of social exclusiveness and contempt which undermine this other identity which Albucius might have stressed:158 Scaevola seems to deepen his criticism by suggesting not just that Albucius had crossed the line with this Hellenophilia, but that he had damaged his already dubious social standing by so doing—municipal centurions and standard-bearers were bad enough company, but Albucius has, if possible, sunk lower.159 The passage is thus revealing about second-century aristocratic attitudes to municipal men, whether members of the Roman elite or not. It tells us much less, however, about juridical realities. If Albucius were a municeps of Pontius (a stereotypical Sabellic name?) and Tritanus (or was Pontius Tritanus a real individual?), and if we were able to identify their home community, it might seem that we could also show that this Sabine community was a municipium. In fact, we are not entitled to use this, or indeed any instance, of the word municeps to deduce that a community of which Albucius, or anyone else, was a member was a municipium. The term often covers those who are fellow citizens of a municipium—and this might even explain the origin of the term, municipes being those deWned as being liable to identical public munera, the same duties (and rights), that is, members of the same community. Yet it is equally often true that it simply means fellow townsman, irrespective of the juridical status of the
157 See also below on Cic., Phil. 3. 15; Tacitus, Ann. 4. 3 for Seianus as the municipalis adulter. 158 This passage is well discussed by Dench, Barbarians, 92–3, whose conclusions are very similar to mine, and give a deeper context to late 2nd-cent. ideologies of new men held by themselves and others. She must be right that the dismissal of Sabines as centurions and standard-bearers (‘nobodies’ (93)) is more cutting in view of the positive constructions of Sabine worthiness probably also circulating at this time (ibid. 85–94). She also (p. 93) suggests that the formulation ‘Romanum atque Sabinum’ may suggest Sabine pride at being Roman, a pride vulnerable to mockery by old Roman families, as perhaps here. The expression is interesting, although the requirements of versiWcation may play a part. The Wrst line is a sort of chiasmus, where the outer pair stress the things Albucius could be, and the inner juxtaposition of Albucius and Romanus emphasize what, at any event, he is not, at least in Scaevola’s eyes. This is not to say that the juxtaposition of Sabinus and Romanus would not have been a variously evocative one. 159 ‘primorum’ in Lucilius is ambiguous, referable equally to social rank and the position of primipilaris. ‘praeclarorum’ is certainly no faint praise on its own, but in a context between centurio and signifer it seems simply incongruous, and throws the status of the Sabines into relief.
108
Roman Italy: the Second Century
settlement in question. Indeed, Gellius’ section on the meanings of the terms colonia and municipium starts from the premise that municipium and municeps are much misunderstood or abused terms. ‘municipes’ et ‘municipia’ uerba sunt dictu facilia et usu obuia, et neutiquam reperias, qui haec dicit, quin scire se plane putet, quid dicat. sed profecto aliud est, atque aliter dicitur. quotus enim fere nostrum est, qui, cum ex colonia populi Romani sit, non et se municipem esse et populares suos municipes esse dicat, quod est a ratione et a ueritate longe auersum? sic adeo et municipia quid et quo iure sint quantumque a colonia diVerent, ignoramus existimamusque meliore condicione esse colonias quam municipia. (NA 16. 13. 1–3)160
A clear example comes from the bellum Alexandrinum, where the assassination of the governor Cassius Longinus is related. Munatius Flaccus, one of the conspirators has just struck down the legate Q. Cassius: ‘ibi T. Vassius et L. Mercello simili conWdentia Flaccum, municipem suum, adiuuant: erant omnes Italicenses’ (Bell. Alex. 52).161 Although Italica was a municipium by the time of Hadrian, few scholars, if any, would argue that Italica was one at the time of the second Civil War.162 The phrase nicely exempliWes for the Wrst century bc the lax usage of which was Gellius later to complain. In fact, colonus is used in our period for fellow colonists,163 but might be misunderstood as ‘cultivator’; and, as we have seen, there seems to have been no collective noun which denoted those who together inhabited a praefectura (see above). It is thus not perhaps surprising that municipes came to be used to mean ‘fellow-townsmen’.164 Returning to Lucilius, there is no evidence that any Sabine town held the status of municipium in the second century bc (although the potential overlap of municipia with praefecturae makes the question very hard to decide either way): Scaevola’s snobbish use of municeps of Albucius is the not only the earliest surviving use of the term, it is the Wrst case of that inexact usage which prompted Gellius’ discussion. Another member of the municipal family is attested by a republican literary source and, if it is taken seriously, it has a claim to being an old, perhaps the oldest, member of the family, a ‘living fossil’, as well as shedding some light on the origins of municipalization. This is the municipium foederatum. In the Third Philippic Cicero is defending young Caesar Octavianus from the slurs of Antonius, which have inter alia touched upon his municipal origins: ‘Aricina mater’. Trallianum aut Ephesiam putes dicere. uidete, quam despiciamur omnes, qui sumus e municipiis, is est omnes plane; quotus enim quisque nostrum non est? quod 160 Cf. the superscriptio to this chapter: ‘quid sit ‘‘municipium’’ et quid a ‘‘colonia’’ diVerat; et quid sint ‘‘municipes’’ quaeque sit eius uocabuli ratio ac proprietas; atque inibi, quod diuus Hadrianus in senatu de iure atque uocabulo municipium uerba fecit’; D. 50. 1. 1. 1 (Ulpian), ‘sed nunc abusiue municipes dicimus suae cuiusque ciuitatis ciues’; Pinsent (CQ (1957), 89 and n. 3) compares Paulus, p. 155L, ‘uti municipia essent sua cuiusque ciuitas et coloniae’. 161 ‘then T. Vassius and L. Mercello, with a like audacity come to the aid of Flaccus, their municeps: they were all Italicenses’. I owe this reference to Dr L. Bligh. 162 Thus justiWed doubts in Wilson, Emigration from Italy, 38 n. 9, and Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, 171–2, against Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 347 n. 3. 163 e.g. ILLRP 645 (Pompeii): ‘. . . et coloneis / locum in perpetuom deder.’ 164 See Ch. 10 n. 3; Pinsent, CQ (1954), 163.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
109
autem municipium non contemnit is, qui Aricinum tanto opere dispicit uetustate antiquissimum, iure foederatum, propinquitate Wnitimum, splendore municipum honestissimum? (Phil. 3. 15)
Cicero seems to say that the municipium of Aricia is, in terms of ius, ‘foederatum’, or allied, to Rome. This is not something which we hear of other municipia in the literary sources;165 but inscriptions do mention something similar. Imperial texts from Tarquinii, Camerinum, and Capena all refer to foedera with Rome which dated, or purported to date, back to the period of political independence.166 Was there such a beast as a municipium foederatum? Some scholars, from Beloch onwards, have certainly thought so.167 In the cases of Tarquinii and Camerinum, however, the foedus clearly has nothing to do with municipalization. The Tarquinian treaty probably dates from the Wnal Roman settlement in Etruria during the period of conquest of Italy (265 bc), while the treaty with Camerinum is even older, recorded by Livy under 310 bc.168 It seems that these communities are underpinning requests for imperial recognition of greater and more antique dignity than their neighbours, by appealing to their remote past, and fusing this with their much later municipal status. Antiquarian interest and municipal pride have preserved or resurrected the memory of the ancient foedera, which are now deployed by municipia in the competition for patronage and resources. The Capenate inscriptions may have been generated to meet similar needs, although what foedus might be referred to there is not clear, nothing obvious being found in our surviving sources, and even its existence is doubtful.169 In any case the history of Capena is so obscure that no weight can really be placed on these texts. As for Aricia, the context is a Werce and highly rhetorical invective, and thus to be treated with caution. In response to Antonius’ slurs, Cicero reminds the senators that most of them are in fact of municipal origin, and implies that Antonius is insulting them; heaven knows what he must think of their municipia, if he despises Aricia so much, which after all is ‘uetustate antiquissimum, iure foederatum, propinquitate paene Wnitimum, splendore municipium honestissimum’ (‘the earliest municipium in terms of its age, allied in terms of its rights, almost the closest in terms of physical proximity, the most reputable in terms of 165 The attempt of Konopka (Eos (1929)) and Sherwin-White (Citizenship2 , 40–3) to argue, largely on the basis of Livy (and Festus) that the earliest municipia embodied a mixture of incorporation and treaty (foedus), and that this is particularly visible in the Campanian cities which received the ciuitas sine suVragio, seems to me to carry little weight. 166 Tarquinii: AE (1951), 191; Romanelli, NSA (1948), 267, no. 89; Veyne, Latomus (1960), 429–36; Camerinum: CIL xi. 5631; Capena: CIL xi. 3873, 3876a, 3932, 3936; Mancini, NSA (1953), 19–27, nos. 1–3, 5–6. 167 Beloch, RG 378, 446; cf. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 68; Frederiksen, Campania, 193–6. 168 Livy, 9. 36. 1–8, with Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 56. On the reliability of Livy’s narrative, and for an endorsement of Harris’s treatment of it, see Cornell, Beginnings, 355–6, although at 355 n. 31 he suggests that there may have been a confusion between Camerinum and Clusium, ‘quod Camars olim appellabant’ (Livy, 10. 25. 11). 169 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 55, and Veyne, Latomus (1960), 434, for possible invention of a foedus. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 88 and n. 6, places the foedus after the Romano-Capenate peace of 395 bc. Ibid. 86–8 on the supposed Capenate synoikism.
110
Roman Italy: the Second Century
distinction’). He does eVectively imply that Aricia’s rights are guaranteed by a treaty; but as all the other noun–adjective pairs each reinforce a single basic concept (age, physical proximity, and renown), Cicero’s words may be no more than an elaborate periphrasis for saying that Aricia was closely bound to Rome, and it is not clear how this marked it out from other municipia, which all enjoyed the same rights as Roman citizens. Cumulative eVect is sought, not the teasing out of juridical niceties, and it would be foolish to assume the existence of a category of municipia foederata solely on the basis of Cicero’s words. What, if anything, Cicero claims for Aricia in terms of concrete privilege is uncertain, and might be suggestion or invention, based on the antiquity of Aricia’s incorporation (in 338 bc, optimo iure, according to Livy). It would not be surprising if there were, or had been, some document which referred to particular details of Rome’s relationship with Aricia after enfranchisement, but it would not necessarily merit the title of foedus. I Wnd myself very suspicious of this passage because of its context. Yet, none of Cicero’s other claims about Aricia are exceptionable in any way, and I cannot help wondering whether there was not, after all, some sort of agreement similar to Greek isopoliteia at the root of some of these early incorporations: such a document might reXect, for example, decisions about sacra which were to be classed as municipalia.170 The municipium foederatum as a separate juridical category is, however, probably a will-o’-the-wisp, if not for the fourth century, certainly by the second, and even if there were or had been an institution or a method of incorporation by foedus, it is too nebulous to merit further discussion here. We may be fairly conWdent that most communities did not enter the Roman state by means of a treaty, nor, if any did, does our evidence suggest that they were distinguished from others straightforwardly incorporated as a result of having done so. In the imperial period some municipia chose to privilege their old treaties, which had long been dead letters, but the reasons were particular to their needs at the time, and have no value for the juridical historian of the Republic.
8 . C O N C LU S I O N S I have examined the legal and institutional evidence, much of it contemporary, for what Roman Italy, in all its juridical manifestations, looked like, and how it operated in the late second century bc. Admittedly at the end of all this we are 170 Kornemann, RE, s.v. ‘municipium’, col. 577, suggested that Aricia’s control over the nemus of Diana generated special terms for her incorporation, followed by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 61 (cf. 27), who sees a similar situation obtaining at Lanuvium, where, as we have seen, the cult of Iuno Sospita was the subject of special regulations; I cannot follow, however, the wider implications he sees. Humbert, Municipium, 251–71 (following the dictum of Mommsen, StR iii. 577 n. 1), rejects Beloch’s position, and interprets the term as a reXection of a privilege of the community in question, whereby some of the favourable terms of the foedus were retained within the constitution of the Roman municipium, which may be correct.
Roman Italy: the Second Century
111
faced with a fascinating but rather scrappy picture of how, in terms of public law, municipia stood in relation to Rome in some crucial areas, notably land-holding and jurisdiction. I have also noted that municipia should be seen as operating alongside pro municipiis, and that, while it is not clear what the latter are, their very existence suggests that the municipal ‘set’ was a ‘fuzzy’ one in the late second century bc.171 Ironically, such a lack of tidiness strikes a chord with the various competing deWnitions of Festus and Gellius examined in the Introduction. But are we any closer to being able to say what a municipium was in the late second century? I think we are, and that the answer will be a useful model to take on into our study of the Wrst century. Put bluntly, and with no claim to originality, a municipium was a something which counted as a res publica, but one which had been enfranchised full-formed, so to speak, rather than artiWcally created like colonies. Two concrete examples may help. Capua and some of her satellites ceased to be municipia in 211. Her magistrates and senate were removed, with some of their functions passing to the praefectus iure dicundo sent from Rome, and others, where uncontroversial, devolving to the only remaining tiers of locally constituted organization, the territorial pagi of Capua and the ager Campanus, and the magistri of the Capuan fana, which by the early Wrst century bc had become highly Roman looking.172 Capua was no longer a res publica, it lacked the institutions to look after itself and its populus. By contrast, Cicero preserves for us valuable information about Arpinum in the late second century bc, when discussing how his grandfather came to the attention of M. Aemilius Scaurus during his consulship of 115 bc: et auus quidem noster singulari uirtute in hoc municipio, quoad uixit, restitit M. Gratidio, cuius in matrimonio sororem, auiam nostram, habebat, ferenti legem tabellariam . . . ac nostro quidem . . . cui cum res esset ad se delata, M. Scaurus consul: ‘Vtinam’ inquit, ‘M. Cicero, isto animo atque uirtute in summa re publica nobiscum uersari quam in municipali maluisses!’ (Cic., Leg. 3. 36)173
This is an episode of crucial importance for the character of local politics in this period, for the relationship of Roman and municipal elites, and political Romanization of the municipia.174 Cicero implies that his grandfather’s resistance to the law was of some duration, and perhaps that his death was followed by the passage of the law.175 The language Cicero uses is at the least suggestive: Gratidius was 171 For this term see Horden and Purcell, Corrupting Sea, 45. 172 See the discussion in Pobjoy, Arctos (1998), of the Pagus Herculaneus decree. 173 ‘and indeed our grandfather with uncommon courage resisted in this municipium, for as long as he lived, M. Gratidius, to whose sister he was married, i.e. our grandmother. Gratidius was proposing a statute about secret ballot . . . And when the matter had been reported to him, M. Scaurus the consul indeed said: ‘‘would, M. Cicero, given your spirit and courage, you had preferred to be involved in the highest commonwealth with us, rather than in your municipal one.’ 174 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 111, cf. 116, traces the idea of participation in a double ciuitas to the grant of Roman citizenship to magistrates in Latin colonies, introduced at some point in the 2nd cent. bc. 175 Cf. Nicolet, REL (1967), 287–8, cf. 293, asking also how exactly Tullius resisted Gratidius: in all probability he led the conservative opposition, but if Cicero’s ‘ferenti’ is to be taken seriously, Nicolet is
112
Roman Italy: the Second Century
proposing a lex; indeed, a lex tabellaria to regulate some aspect of municipal public voting (elections? all votes?); and Scaurus contrasts the summa res publica with the res publica municipalis.176 This is the kind of language which we rarely come across in the epigraphic evidence, but it is nonetheless, even allowing for possible Ciceronian licence in passing on this piece of Tullian oral history, crucially important for understanding what late second-century municipia were. They were places where principes proposed, and the people passed, laws, leges, which must be distinguished from local and sub-municipal decrees, like that of the pagus Herculaneus.177 They were evidently not bound by the series of leges tabellariae pased in the last forty years of the second century in Rome, although Nicolet has argued that the lex tabellaria of the Arpinate Marius may have provided an immediate stimulus for Gratidius’ lex.178 Roman statutes seem only to have applied if the municipia became fundi of them, which is exactly what Gellius claimed, although this statement cannot stand as an absolute rule, and must have lapsed where the maiestas of the Roman people was involved. Municipia held Roman public land, and even had their own municipal estates in Italy, and perhaps outside it. Rome treated with them over this, perhaps seeking to safeguard their rights in the Gracchan period. They were not, as far as we can see, required to help the praetor or his assistants in investigating extortion cases. In these, as in many other ways, which we cannot trace, municipia retained in their res publicae some of the character, and much of the content, of their days of independence as autonomous populi.179 Festus was right about one thing, as it turns out, and perhaps not as he intended: as in the case of the praefectura, the lack of a real res publica is crucial, and the secret of the praefectura is not that it does not have one, but that it cannot. The municipium on the other hand, is nothing without one. right that we must imagine some sort of veto or religious obstruction against one or more rogationes (hence referral to the Senate?). 176 On summa res publica see Livy, 26. 10. 2, 27. 9. 177 The form and content of the latter could be inXuenced by the former, of course. 178 Nicolet, REL (1967), 281–2, cf. 279–80, 292–3, citing Val. Max., 6. 9. 14. It is signiWcant that the dispute over this lex was somehow brought to the attention of the Roman Senate, ‘ad senatum delata’, perhaps in an attempt to break the deadlock, and quite possibily in the form of a complaint by one or both parties, despite Nicolet, 286 n. 3 (NB ibid. 286: ‘senatum’ is Madvig’s emendation for ‘se’ in the MSS). 179 Municipalia sacra are one example; note also, coincidentally at Arpinum, the fact that sacra (presumably sacra priuata, ‘private rites’) do not pass to the heir: ‘Cato Censorinus in II: si quis mortuus est Arpinatis, eius heredem sacra non secuntur’ (‘Cato the Censor in his second book: if any Arpinate has died, his sacra do not pass to the heir’, Cato, Origines F61P, from Priscian)—before or after 188?; this stands in contrast to Roman practice (see the conservative Cic., Leg. 2. 19, 22, 47–8 on the role of the Roman pontiWces in ensuring that sacra priuata were passed to the heirs, and BNP i. 24–6, on this role for the pontiWces. See more broadly Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , seeing the survival of the local res publica as an original and enduring characteristic of the municipia.
3 Allies: Latins and Italians in the Second Century 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N Roman inXuence in Italy was (to simplify) a consequence of her entrenched position of power after the expulsion of Hannibal and defeat of Carthage: in this chapter we shall look at the impact on Latins and Italian socii.1 The dissatisWed could expect nothing in the way of external salvation—if Hannibal had been unable to remove the Roman yoke, who else could?2 Rome was now the absolute arbiter of punishment and reward for conduct in the Hannibalic War, in a peninsula which already before the war had ceased to deWne Rome’s horizons.3 Although scholars have argued about the extent and the consequences of change, Rome’s relations with her allies did undergo mutation in the second century bc. It will be necessary to review these primarily through contemporary evidence, where available.4 This will enable us to understand better the ways in which Rome was accustomed to relate to her Italian allies on the eve of municipalization, as well as the allies’ institutional arrangements. We will thus be better placed to understand the nature of transformation wrought by municipalization. 1 On the Latins and the history of Latinity, see generally Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 96–118, and ch. 15 for the imperial situation. Favoured status of Latins: ibid. 98–100; de Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 62 (pace de Cazanove, this can have little to do with the foedus Cassianum); the size of their military contributions to Rome does appear to have been stipulated by the Hannibalic War at the latest, implying foedera); for the importance of the nexus of iura shared by Romans and Latins (but not other socii) as greater than that of the foedus, see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 96–7 and 108–16, 126, and Cicero (Rep. 3. 41) mentions iura beside foedera; on the cultural closeness of Latins to Rome, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 118; on recent work on (mainly) Latin colonies, see Curti et al., JRS (1996) 173–5, and for the 3rd cent., Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation. Other Italian socii: SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 119–33—here the extension of his argument is that for allies the foedera were more important in the absence of shared iura. 2 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 43–5, 85, 139, places unreasonable reliance on the ‘paper’ strength of the allies in relation to Rome in (mis)estimating the real balance of power in Italy; arguably Ilari’s Wgures, which he employs, refer to armies Welded, not the total strength of either side; elsewhere when it suits him he argues that military advantage lay with Rome (ibid. 72 n. 57). 3 Some rewards and punishments might have symbolic expression: thus Gellius, NA 10. 3. 19 tells us that the Romans responded to Bruttian defection to Hannibal by refusing to call them socii once the war was over, as well as conWscating large areas of land in Bruttium. We have seen in Chapter 1 how the Romans in the 3rd cent. created the idea of an Italy uniWed in response to external threats; the removal of the name socii symbolizes the exclusion of the Bruttians from this ‘imagined community’. 4 For methodological considerations see Ch. 2.
114
Allies in the Second Century
I do not here propose to give an analysis of either the history of Italian agitation for the citizenship or the reasons for which the Social War broke out, except in so far as they serve my immediate purpose. The Wrst, as Mouritsen has shown, should not be seen in terms of a teleology of Italian national uniWcation: this is a later scholarly and ideological construct, or at least has derived much of its scholarly superstructure from later ideas; the second has been fully and stimulatingly discussed by Pobjoy.5 It is, however, undoubted that most Latins and Italians were both more heavily Hellenized by the end of the second century bc than they had ever been before, and experiencing a stronger degree of interaction with Rome than they had been used to, both in the form of what we might crudely call interference, and in terms of political, social, and economic processes, mediated at the levels of state and individual. This interaction was noticed at the time by Polybios, who in book 6 is actually describing the situation more in the period of his own residence than in 216 bc, his dramatic date (see Walbank, Comm. ad 6. 11. 13, 13. 4–5). He noted that the consuls were responsible for imposing military levies on the allies (perhaps not only Italian allies).6 At 6. 21. 4–5 he notes the enrolment of the socii (decentralized, but apparently conducted on much the same terms as the enrolment the legions, as far as Polybios was concerned); and the appointment (again by each city) of a commander and a paymaster (misthodotes) for its contingent—as Walbank notes, these are native oYcers.7 It is worth noting that, in terms of the structural features of the levy, Polybios believed (6. 26. 6–9; 6. 30. 2) that, while allied cavalry was three times as numerous as the Romans, the numbers of infantry provided from both sources were equal; as Walbank points out, this is not always true, indeed, more honoured in the breach than the observance, but it does hold good in Polybios’ own accounts at 3. 107. 12 and 6. 30. 2.8 Discussing the powers of the Senate, Polybios also notes that it had responsibility for the investigation of all serious public crimes (treason, conspiracy, poisonings, and assassinations are the examples given); and for arbitration, assessment of penalties, and answering appeals for help in Italy. Italy here is normally taken to refer to Rome’s Italian allies.9 Now, Polybios mentions jurisdiction in Italy in 6. 13. 4, but refers speciWcally to Italian allies only at 13. 5. 5 Mouritsen, UniWcation; and Pobjoy, in State Identities. 6 Poly., 6. 12. 6. It is not clear whether Polybios refers to supervision of the routine provision of troops e formula togatorum, or the imposition of supernumerary levies in extraordinary circumstances: see Walbank, Comm., ad loc., and ad 6. 21. 4, where Polybios states that the consuls levy Italian contingents through the local magistrates, stating the number required and the date and place of assembly. Could the consuls ask Italian cities to send fewer troops than the formula togatorum required? 7 Comm., ad loc. They are to be distinguished from the æÆŒØ whom Polybios describes at 6. 26. 5, and whom he fails to specify are Romans, whose job it is to select the extraordinarii: see Walbank, Comm. ad loc. 8 Walbank, Comm. i. 709. 9 Poly., 6. 13. 4–5, with essential comment by Walbank, Comm., ad loc., cf. McDonald, JRS (1944), 14–15. Walbank questions how often the Senate did in fact, as Polybios claims, hear appeals from idio¯tai as well as states. See also Mommsen, StR iii/2. 1194–1210; Livy, 42. 10. 8, magistrate sent to intervene.
Allies in the Second Century
115
Mouritsen has argued that ‘Italia’ in 6. 13, taken in the context of Polybios’ descriptions of the powers of the three elements of the Roman politeia, should denote the Senate’s supervision of the ager Romanus, just as 6. 12 detailed the responsibilities of the consuls in the urbs.10 Yet, despite Mouritsen, it would not have been hard for Polybios to say ‘outside Rome’ if that is what he meant, and it is a little odd that someone who had been so interested in deWning ‘Italia’ in book 3, as we saw in Chapter 1, should adopt such an ambiguous usage here, one unparalleled in the rest of the work; moreover, the military duties of the consuls are only set at Rome as far as the dilectus is concerned. Walbank (ad loc.) argues that the relevant division in Polybios is that between judicial and administrative competences, and thus not, for example, between Roman and non-Roman Italy, and his view seems more persuasive to us. Indeed, that Italia for Polybios normally meant the whole of Italy can be demonstrated from a passage not discussed by Mouritsen: 30. 19. 6–8. Here, the Senate, out to prevent Eumenes II of Pergamon from coming to Rome to defend himself before them (167 bc), dispatched a quaestor to Brundisium to ask Eumenes to say at once whether he needed anything, and if he needed nothing, to leave Italia as soon as he could. If Italia meant the ager Romanus, then the Senate had no business dismissing Eumenes from Brundisium, which by deWnition lay outside it; the quaestor should have awaited Eumenes where the Via Appia entered the ager Romanus, and delivered himself of his instructions at that point. It seems clear that the Senate had by this time arrogated to itself the right to control entry to the Italian peninsula. Walbank lists numerous occasions, known from our incomplete sources, on which judicial and administrative interventions occurred, and some of these I shall consider in more detail in what follows, beginning with the ‘Bacchanalian conspiracy’. That the Roman Senate, acting through the magistrates, had had to take drastic decisions in the course of the Second Punic War, most famously perhaps on the punishment of Capua in 211 bc, was understandable, and indeed essential, in the context of the struggle with an invader running rampant on Italian soil. The extension of the Senate’s belief that it had a duty to see to the security of Rome’s Italian alliance in peacetime is not simply an inconvenience for Polybios’ attempt to relate the Roman constitution at the time of Cannae. It also represents a claim to overall supervision in Italy which no other state was in a position to oVer and, crucially, one which often led to the Senate requiring local magistrates (heads of state eVectively) in Italy to apply Roman judicial decisions to their own community and territory, or to accept censure, and even imprisonment and execution, as the Senate might see Wt. In such circumstances we must surely accept that allied sovereignty was, at the very least, compromised in those very areas which were of the greatest importance to all citizens of their states. 10 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 46–7, cf. 43, 58; as Mouritsen, following Walbank, stresses (p. 47), Polybios is here describing the Senate’s powers (better, what it did, or at least what it claimed to have the right to do in Polybios’ day); the foedera with the allies, and what they allowed, are only theoretically relevant, and indeed, we may imagine that Rome interpreted any threat to allied fulWlment of the foedus (such as ostensible conspiracy) very broadly.
116
Allies in the Second Century
At 6. 17 Polybios states that the people depend on the Senate owing to the latter’s control over state contracts; by de¯mos it seems that Polybios is primarily referring here to the publicani and the equestrians. He gives the letting of contracts throughout Italy for roads and public building as an example of these contracts; the other revenue sources he mentions must also be scattered throughout Italy (rivers, harbours (portoria), etc.). Much of this revenue necessarily derived from the ownership of land and other resources by the populus Romanus; the contracting out of the revenues must thus have concerned Romans far more than non-Romans, and Italy must here have a primarily geographical sense. Nevertheless, the construction of roads, and the collection of portoria, uectigalia, and scriptura must, as we saw in the previous chapter, have aVected the Italians directly in a number of ways, and thus the impact of the operations of the publicani on Latin and Italian allies will not have been an insigniWcant sphere of interaction in the second century.11 Let us now turn to look in more detail at the diVerent Roman interactions with their allies.
2 . T H E B AC C H A NA L I A N C R I S I S I I Let us begin by considering the thick end of the wedge, so to speak, by looking at how just how far Rome might go in interfering in allied states, in order to safeguard her own interests. For this the best case study is the so-called Bacchanalian conspiracy, already discussed (Ch. 2, s. 4). First the contemporary evidence: the inscribed text. After the standard preamble, the inscribed text (ll. 2–3) contains the start of an SC proper: ‘de Bacanalibus quei foideratei / essent, ita exdeicendum censuere’ (‘about the Bacchanales who are foederati, the Senate resolved that it should be decreed thus’). That the Roman Senate should presume to intervene in this way in allied aVairs has occasioned surprise among some scholars.12
11 Walbank, ad loc., and Mouritsen, UniWcation, 47, take a slightly too restrictive interpretation here (ager Romanus only). A desire of some Italians for the citizenship in the period leading up to the Social War, which would permit them to join in the bidding for such contracts, has been suggested by Gabba (Republican Rome, ch. 3, CAH ix2 ). 12 See e.g. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 53, who rejects what he can only understand as ‘a deliberate attempt to humiliate the allies’. It is true, as he argues, that the Romans oVer no explanation at Tiriolo for what they are doing (but this might be thought equally strange applied to a Roman prefecture). Yet the Romans cannot have been expected to respect juridical niceties where they felt their safety seriously threatened, and to Mouritsen’s objection that ‘the document appears [on readings such as mine] uncharacteristically insensitive to Italian feelings’, one feels tempted to imagine a Roman reply along the lines of Sgt-Maj. Williams in It Ain’t ’Alf Hot Mum: ‘Oh dear! How sad! Never mind!’ If we had more contemporary, or near-contemporary, evidence we might well find some attempts to make political capital, of the kind Mouritsen cites in other cases (again from contemporary sources, albeit for a later period), from the implications for Italian foedera of such behaviour.
Allies in the Second Century
117
The dispute has been sharpened by uncertainty about where the bronze tabula was originally displayed. Tiriolo, the Wndspot,13 in Bruttium, is thought to have been ancient Teura, the presumptive nucleated centre for the ager Teuranus mentioned in the last line of the document. The juridical status of the ager Teuranus cannot be known for certain, but it was probably part of the land conWscated by the Roman state from the Bruttii after the Pyrrhic or perhaps rather the Hannibalic War;14 and it seems correct to argue that it depended in some way upon the newly founded Latin colony of Vibo Valentia.15 What does seem to me unambiguous is that ‘foideratei’ mentioned in l. 2, is to be understood as covering all socii, i.e. Roman allies; this also explains the unusual ‘senatus / noster’ (ll. 5–6), otiose unless the SC were aimed, at least in this section, at non-Roman communities and/or individuals.16 De Cazanove has, however, recently argued that the repression of the Bacchanals was conWned to the ager Romanus.17 This, as we shall see, is true as regards Roman magistrates; but even de 13 The inscription was found among substantial ancient remains, including columns and other architectural elements, in the course of building work in 1640 for the Palazzo Cigala; the context of the Wnds, as reported by Egizio, led Spadea to argue that they represented a public building in which the document was displayed (Spadea, Klearchos (1977), 137–8, cf. Degrassi, ILLRP ii. 13). On the little known about Tiriolo, see Spadea, Klearchos (1977). He rejects (pp. 146, 157) the thesis of Ferri, NSA (1927), 341, 343, that the decline of Tiriolo was linked directly to the Bacchanalian crisis, placing (on data admittedly from a small number of sealed stratigraphic samples) the community’s acme in the 3rd cent., and seeing it as already in decline by the Hannibalic War (pp. 147, 152—I think I understand Spadea’s chronology diVerently from De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 63, whose point about the impact of the foundation of Vibo possibly having a destructive centralizing force on settlements in its ager is nevertheless interesting; his alternative, the ‘desertiWcation’ of the ager publicus, looks like little more than a historiographical topos). 14 On the conWscation and status of this land generally see Kahrstedt, Historia (1959), 176; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 52, 54, arguing that the ager Teuranus was ager Romanus and not dependent on a Latin colony. Mommsen supposed (CIL x. p. 13) that the ager Teuranus was still Roman ager publicus, and depended on the Roman colony at Croton (founded 194, Livy, 34. 53. 1). 15 Costabile, Istituzioni, 91–100, and, with diVerent argumentation, de Cazanove, in Bispham and Smith, Evidence and Experience, 74 and n. 17; id., Athenaeum (2000), 59–63. Note tiles at Vibo with the stamp ‘Trebios Perkennios’, probably made at Tiriolo (Spadea, Klearchos (1977), 153). 16 Cf. Livy, 39. 18. 7: ‘ut omnia Bacchanalia Romae primum, deinde per totam Italiam diruerent’; 18. 8: ‘ne qua Bacchanalia Romae neue in Italia essent’. For a pan-Italian extension cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128; Munzi, in Italy and the West, 49; Ru¨pke, Religion der Ro¨mer, 40. 17 Athenaeum (2000), 64–8; so already Galsterer, Herrschaft, 169. Galsterer drew on Mommsen’s idea that the ‘foideratei’ of the inscription were Bacchanalian devotees bound to each other by oath (so already Mommsen, StR i. 249 n. 3, Strafrecht, 875); cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128, dissociating foederati from socii without speculation as to the identity of the former; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 53–4, with earlier bibliography, is refuted in detail by Pailler, Bacchanalia, 290 (Pailler’s own interpretation (209, 231 n. 134: ex socii) is rightly rejected by De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 60). It is ironic that here Mommsen’s ideas on Romano-Italic relations are just the ticket for Mouritsen, who Wnds them very uncongenial elsewhere (UniWcation, 57–8); the arguments are in any case weak: (i) the provenance of the inscription, as he admits, is unknown and cannot be invoked here; (ii) the later mention of Romans, Latins, and allies is easily explained by the tralatician process by which senatus consulta, such as the one(s) being excerpted here, were created—and thus we may note that, contra ibid. 52, Mouritsen is wrong to argue that the relation of what he calls the ‘postscript’ to the main text is ‘not crucial’; (iii) Latins were in fact foederati, see below, (iv) the single linguistic parallel—Cic., Cat. 1. 33—is an example of the uariatio so helpful to Mouritsen elsewhere, and cannot outweigh the fact that the pleonastic language of the document elsewhere uses
118
Allies in the Second Century
Cazanove does not deny that Vibo was a Latin colony; his casuistry, based on closer supervision of some Latin colonies by Rome (Livy, 29. 15. 9–10) from 209 onwards, cannot prove that in this instance we should assimilate Latin to Roman sacra, and make Roman intervention in 186 explicable from a traditional religious viewpoint.18 The text of the inscription says simply foederati, not socii nominis Latini;19 and a close reading of the evidence of Livy (below) shows that, while the problem which we know to have been addressed, because a Roman writer tells us about it, seems to have been one concentrated in areas conWscated after the Hannibalic War and made ager publicus, Rome did order her Italian allies to extirpate new examples of the Bacchic cult.20 De Cazanove insists, rightly, on the maintenance of distictions between Roman and non-Roman sacra before the Social War.21 Therefore, for him our SC needs to coniurare, conuouere, and conspondere to describe the illicit activity of the Bacchanalians, but not foedus or cognates; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 54 n. 49, shoots himself in the foot; (v) the supposed correspondence between l. 3 of the inscription and Livy, 39. 14. 8 is less convincing than that e.g. with l. 13 of the inscribed text, and cannot carry the weight Mouritsen—normally so keen to deny the accuracy of Livy’s descriptions of 2nd-cent. Italy—wishes to place on it. There is no proof for Galsterer’s view that Tiriolo was the site of a Roman uicus. De Cazanove admits that those living at and around Tiriolo might indeed have been the indigenous inhabitants, incorporated into the colony of Vibo Valentia as incolae (Athenaeum (2000), 60 n. 12, see also 60–1 generally). Mouritsen, UniWcation, 45, 49–58, is ingenious but unconvincing on this. Both Mouritsen and De Cazanove also need to dispose of the evidence from Volsinii (Bolsena) for the destruction of a Bacchanalian place; the former (pp. 56–7) accepts weak hints that Volsinii was a Roman colony, and the latter suggests, more interestingly, that the excavators misidentiWed the subterranean area as a cult place. Bacchic cult items were, nevertheless, discovered broken there, and the question remains open as towhether they are contemporary with the the underground room before it was Wlled in, or redeposited in the Wll. 18 The fact that the Latin colonies were largely peopled by Roman settlers and founded by Roman magistrates on the orders of the Roman people (Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 99–100) might be a better reason for seeing a Roman predisposition to issue instructions to Latin colonies and their colonists; no such background mitigates similar treatment of other socii. 19 De Cazanove (Athenaeum (2000), 61–2) cites Cic., Balb. 54 (‘Latinis, id est foederatis’, ‘to the Latins, that is, to foederati’) to show that members of the Latin name could be called foederati. This, however, is not juridical language, whatever the legalistic concept—Cicero has a point to prove here; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 97 (diVerent nuance, ibid. 119), took this as the exception which proves the rule, which may be going too far, although Cicero’s language may suggest that Latins were not routinely called foederati, unsurprising given their special relationship with Rome. Note, however, Cic., Arch. 7, where the lex Plautia Papiria is said to apply to ‘ciuitatibus foederatis’: there is no reason to think that this statute did not apply to Latins as well as other socii. 20 So also e.g. Walbank, Comm. i. 679–80; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 105. 21 In Bispham and Smith, Evidence and Experience, 71–4 (but see Bispham, ibid. 9, on the implications for the cippus Abellanus for de Cazanove’s argument; contra Mouritsen, Italian UniWcation, 43 n. 20, it is not obvious that this inscription reXects the resolution of a dispute; on the text see Franchi De Bellis, Il cippo abellano). Another example of the religious distinctions between the ager Romanus and everywhere else can be seen at Livy, 39. 2. 5, where a 12-year-old hermaphrodite is reported from Umbria (‘ex Umbria nuntiatum est’), and driven from the ager Romanus (‘arceri Romano agro’). The religious pollution is not simply displaced, as the consuls (presumably the subject of ‘iusserunt’) order the hermaphrodite killed as soon as possible. See also Rawson, Roman Culture and Society, 5–11, on the reporting and procuration of prodigies from outside the ager Romanus, esp. 6 on monstrous births, 8 on Livy, 40. 19. 5: supplicatio to be observed ‘per totam Italiam’, 181 bc (with Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128, cautious; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 47–8 (and 47 n. 31) argues that this cannot aVect allies).
Allies in the Second Century
119
be explained away: surely Rome could not have been guilty of so gross a religious faux pas, and could not have given orders about sacra which were not those of the Roman people? The problem is illusory: Rome was simply banning the validation of a new cult of Bacchus—what was time-honoured and established was allowed to remain (under certain restrictions, which presumably guaranteed that it was traditional), and Rome was thus making no pronouncements about the nature of allied sacra.22 This too is, of course, casuistry; but theoretical niceties cannot stand in the way either of the fact that, as we shall see, Rome did order all her Italian allies to act against the cult, or the presumption that this inscription proves this to have been the case for a Latin colonia, an ally, however closely linked to Rome in some ways. Livy, 29. 18. 7–8 suggests that action was taken via a two-stage process, with the cult subjected to very restrictive practices for the future, Wrst in Rome, and then (deinde) across Italy. Our epigraphic text reXects the second stage in this process: the existence of separate clauses, or even rather a separate SC, covering Roman Bacchanals would explain why the second and third resolutions within the SC have no rubrics, having been meant there to apply to foederati, but being repeated in tralatician fashion from a pre-existing document (relating to Roman citizens), simply and hastily reapplied in a new context.23 The only obstacle to this interpretation might come from ll. 7–8: ‘Bacas uir nequis adiese uelet ceiuis Romanus neue nominus Latini neue socium / quisquam, nisei pr. urbanum adiesent . . .’ (‘Let no male worshipper of Bacchus wish to approach [anyone about sanctioning worship of Bacchus], neither a Roman citizen nor one of the name of the Latin nor the allies, unless he has approached the praetor urbanus . . .’). This might seem to suggest that the SC was aimed at all juridical categories within Roman Italy; but in fact this is a typical example of Roman thoroughness in closing legal loopholes. The core instruction in this resolution is that no foederatus should conduct the worship of Bacchus without Wrst seeking the approval of the Senate through approach to the urban praetor (subsequent resolutions seek to add restrictions to the form which that worship may take).24 Lines 7 onwards seek to prevent this regulation being circumvented, 22 Lines 28–9; Livy, 39. 18. 8. De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 64 n. 33, mentions the Hellenistic sanctuary of Dionysus at Sant’ Abbondio (administered oYcially from Pompeii), active from the mid3rd cent. onwards (see Elia and Pugliese Carratelli, in OrWsmo in Magna Grecia, and PdP (1979); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 56), ‘che rimane poi indisturbato’—this was evidently a traditional form of worship, and its survival should occasion no surprise (so too Elia and Pugliese Carratelli, OrWsmo, 146–53, contra Mouritsen, UniWcation, 56). 23 Hence ‘exstrad urbem’ in l. 16, clearly meant to apply to Rome; so too Fraenkel, Hermes (1932), 380, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 53, 55, who nevertheless fail to consider the nature and genesis of this text. 24 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 53, stresses the emphasis on the praetor and the Senate in this document. His insistence, however (pp. 54–6), that this shows that the SC applied only to Romans is unconvincing, given the other evidence pointing to its application to foreigners. If the praetor urbanus was the magistrate whom Romans approached, it made no sense for the praetor peregrinus to hear identical appeals from allies. Nor does the text say what Mouritsen wants it to say (that only Latins or allies living on the ager Romanus were aVected); what of Romans living in allied territory? Greeks and other non-Italians living in Rome?
120
Allies in the Second Century
by prohibiting not approach by anyone (whether foederatus or Roman citizen), but approach to anyone other than the urban praetor, by whomsoever (we must presume that the loophole being closed worked on the assumption that Roman citizens would ‘front’ a Bacchic cult whose worshippers were non-Romans, and would seek to legitimate it in the Senate through other channels).25 The addressees of the consular letter (note the second person plurals) were then presumably local magistrates with jurisdiction, rather than Roman magistrates with a roving brief against a recrudescence of Bacchanalian troubles.26 That Rome should do this in a matter of emergency (hence also the use of the SC, a more eYcient instrument than a statute in the short term) says little about routine practice, although it undeniably created a precedent. The emergency nevertheless led to serious incursions by Rome into local autonomy: the consuls’ letter shows us (ll. 24–5) that Rome desired breach of the regulations set out in this SC to be punished by death; and we must presume that failure on the part of local magistrates to make the matter a res capitalis (capital charge) would have severe consequences for them (a statute might have spelt these out in its sanctio— but could a lex have interfered in so uncomplicated a fashion in the Wrst place)? Important too is the matter of publication and the expectation that Latin would be understood, or should be understood; and not just Latin: allied magistrates are supposed to understand what a res capitalis is, even when the term itself (as opposed to the concept) was not part of their judicial thought-world. De Cazanove argues that the use of Latin, rather than the variety of Oscan spoken in Bruttium, shows that the text was intended for Latin speakers (in this case the coloni of Vibo Valentia), and not socii.27 Certainly, the Greek East has produced numerous examples of oYcial Roman pronouncements translated into Greek for publication, from the lex de prouinciis praetoriis of the very end of the second century bc through to Augustus’ Res Gestae and beyond. Yet arguably Romans always found Greeks and Greek speakers a special case; we have no instance of any Roman state pronouncement being translated by Roman order into an Italic language, and while this might well be owing to the very patchy evidence, I rather think that it is a signiWcant absence. The inscribing of the Roman arbitration 25 Compare the way in which the lex Sempronia of 193 bc had banned Italians from ‘fronting’ moneylending by Roman citizens, allowing them thereby to escape legal restrictions on usury (see below). 26 For the latter, see Livy, 39. 23. 1: the year 186 comes to an end, and the consul Postumius, ‘quaestionibus cum summa Wde curaque perfectis’, holds elections. Livy 39. 23. 3 refers back to his roving brief, which may have been in addition to the thirty days’ iustitium discussed in Ch. 2: ‘peragrantem se propter quaestiones utrumque litus Italiae desertas colonias Sipontum supero, Buxentum infero mari inuenisse’, giving some clues as to the extent of his investigations of ager Romanus (which must have taken him through allied communities as well). For the listing of colonies by coast, see the earlier instance (Livy, 27. 38. 1–5) discussed by Bispham, in State Identities, 165–6, arguing that that list goes back to a senatus consultum. 27 De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 59; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 52, 54, overstates the case to argue that the use of Latin implies Roman citizens, although the implication that many Latin colonists would have been drawn from Roman citizens must be correct; it is curious how he overlooks Latin status. Note that the Bruttian dialect of Oscan was written in a Greek alphabet (Spadea, Klearchos (1977), 136); Festus called the Bruttians bilingual.
Allies in the Second Century
121
about water rights at Contrebia in Spain in Latin seems in fact to point more to the regular practice in Italy and the West being the use of Latin and only Latin, with the hegemonic overtones which that practice carried. What is not clear is whether translation out of Latin was inserted at a later stage in compliance with the consular instructions on dissemination of the Senate’s wishes. Prior to publication on bronze at Tiriolo, the SC (presumably the text we have, minus the consuls’ letter) had to be read out in an assembly (‘in conuentionid28 exdeicatis’, l. 22, repeating the actions of the consuls under the terms of the SC itself: ‘exdeicendum’ (l. 3) ); and this must happen quickly, within three nundinae (presumably nundinae reckoned according to the Roman calendar, another sign of the intrusion of Roman structures), just as any Bacchanals contravening the terms of the SC must be broken up (‘dismota sient’, l. 30) within ten days of the receipt of the text, perhaps thus before its publication. The Senate’s commands can thus outstrip even local due process. Nor are the Senate’s commands simply an ephemeral throwing around of weight; their symbolic force must be made enduring, and thus the emphasis on display of the decree is also noteworthy. The SC results, as we have seen, in an edict; the consuls’ letter, accompanying the ‘tabelai’ (‘tablets’, l. 29) containing the text, lays stress on the Senate’s speciWc wishes about the manner of publication: ‘hoce in tabolam ahenam inceideretis . . . eam Wgier ioubeatis, ubei facilumed gnoscier potisit’ (‘you should inscribe this on a bronze tablet . . . you should order this to be Wxed up, where it can be easily apprehended’, ll. 26–7). The normal mechanisms of Roman legal publication, well known from later texts, are clearly visible, applied in an allied context.29 Finally, a further hint that ours is a ‘circular’ letter, of which, as has always been assumed, there were other copies in other allied centres: the texts ends ‘in agro Teurano’. As Degrassi noted,30 these words, written in a larger hand, lack the Wnal ‘-d’ normal in the ablative singular in this period, suggesting another carver, and another stage in the redaction process. After the decree (and even the consuls’ letter, mentioning the potential res capitalis) had been inscribed, the area covered by the decree is added—were the tablets distributed, pre-cut, from a regional centre? The Wrst consular contio on the Bacchanalian troubles produced interesting results. The maximi sacerdotes conditoresque of the new cult were taken prisoner: two Atinii ‘de plebe Romana’, and the Faliscan L. Opicernius, as well as the Capuan Minius Cerrinius.31 It is interesting to note Livy’s usage here, with not only the usage of Faliscus as equivalent to Campanus ( ¼ ‘of Falerii’, ‘of Capua’), 28 The older form of contio? See OLD s.v. ‘conuentio’ (1), citing Varro, LL 6. 87 on the censors. 29 See RS i. 19–20, 25–6, on publication of statutes. 30 ILLRP ii. 17 n. 19, cf. Spadea, Klearchos (1977), 155. 31 17. 6. Cf. also the Capuans (including Cerrinius’ brother Herrenius, and Paculla Annia) named by Hispala at 13. 9. De Cazanove, Athenaeum (2000), 64 and n. 29, Paculla Annia is the ‘sole basis’ for a theory of Campanian involvement in the Bacchanalian aVair. While de Cazanove is right to reject the bizarre theory of a mass Bacchic cult suicide at Capua in 211 bc, put forward by Voisin, MEFRA (1984), his assertion would no doubt ‘come as a surprise’ to Cerrinius. Mouritsen’s hint of Livian inconsistency (UniWcation, 55 n. 52: Greek instigator in Etruria::Falsican/Campanian priests) is trivial. On Capuans and Romans see Pobjoy, forthcoming. John Patterson suggests to me that both Falerii and
122
Allies in the Second Century
but also the distinction between the diVerent types of Roman citizen, the member of the plebs Romana and the municipal ciuis. More important, since it has interesting repercussions for our view above, is how the news was disseminated. Describing the terror which followed the Wrst contio, Livy adds that it was not conWned to Rome or Roman territory: the social networks of hospitium (and, we must presume, amicitia/clientela) served to facilitate the spread of the news across Italy, by letter: ‘nec moenibus se tantum urbis aut Wnibus Romanis continuit, sed passim per totam Italiam, litteris hospitum de senatus consulto et contione et edicto consulum acceptis’ (17. 4). The implication may be that, in less serious circumstances, the decrees and other pronouncements, and news of them, might not necessarily have been expected to seep across the Wnes Romani, within which their normal application would be expected (only one measure has been taken in regard, it seems, to non-Romans in Italy, the banning of the cult: 14. 7–8, and see above). Informal channels, which we might have expected to Wnd between Roman and Italian elites, can be seen here in operation, and acting at least as swiftly as the oYcial dissemination of edicta.32 If Livy is to be trusted—and it is not at once clear why he should not be on this detail—those letters of warning sought to give as full an account of both the political process and the decisions resulting from it as we Wnd, for example, given to Cicero by Caelius in 51–50 bc, concerning the termination of Caesar’s Gallic command. Livy’s focus keeps shifting between geographical and juridical entities. We have seen how the news of the Wrst contio ‘leaks’ out of the ager Romanus by unoYcial means. 18. 2 (perhaps 2–6) regards Roman consular action in the fora and conciliabula, but 7–9 concern a two-stage restriction of Bacchic worship (or rather destruction—‘diruerent’, 7—of anything not time-honoured), Wrst in Rome, and then in Italy.33 This varifocal narrative does, however, bring the epigraphic text into sharper focus in a number of ways. Capua could be seen in Roman eyes as having notoriously subversive histories (on Falerii see above, Ch. 2)—the ‘usual suspects’ of the closing moments of Casablanca. 32 Sherwin-White (Citizenship2 , 105, 128) saw the letters glossing the SC as unoYcial manuals for its implementation. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 51–2, sees these letters as showing that the allies were unaVected by the Roman SC, and that they ‘Wrst heard’ about it from this correspondence. The latter claim misrepresents Livy, who says only that Italians began to be afraid when the letters from Rome arrived; as to the former, the fear generated by the letters is Livy’s focus, and tells us nothing about the application of the SC. It would be odd if Romans wrote letters mentioning the SC, the contio, and the consular edict, letters which frightened their Italian friends, if none of the Roman measures applied to them—on the contrary, the exceptional scare was created by the rare if not unprecedented fact that Rome expected her wishes in the Bacchanalian aVair to be observed by allies too. The popularity of Bacchic themes in Italian temple decoration and domestic decoration in this period is noteworthy: Torelli, Tota Italia, 140–4; Zanker, Pompeji, 7, 14; some warning letters may have given hints on what Dionysiac themes might be presented as ‘safe’, and how to defuse potentially dangerous symbols. On informal ties between Roman and allied elites, the classic discussion remains that of Wiseman, New Men, ch. 3; see also preceding chapter on M. Cicero auus and Aemilius Scaurus. 33 The objections of Mouritsen (UniWcation, 51) to Livy’s language here are unconvincing. To say that as a rule Italia in Livy refers only to the ager Romanus, and that tota Italia is a ‘rhetorical emphasis’ (p. 52) of the former, seems perverse. It also ignores the clear implications of the sequel: 39. 23. 3–4, 29. 8–9, 41. 6, 40. 19. 9–11, which he himself notes at 55 n. 53.
Allies in the Second Century
123
First the processes by which information moved are, as we see, interesting and varied, and beside the possibly quite sclerotic distribution of Roman legal instrumenta we can observe the more rapid capillary action of private correspondence. The latter, however, could not always be expected to operate at the high volume and pressure which Livy imagines for 186 bc: other diVusion of information might happen more randomly; nor are we told about the Xow of information in the other direction. Secondly, we can see that Roman magistrates do not presume to conduct quaestiones outside the ager Romanus, nor do they expect magisterial edicts to be diVused across allied Italy, unless speciWcally so targeted. Some edicts and senatus consulta, however, are quite speciWcally aimed at Rome’s allies, and when an action is perceived to be in Rome’s interests (here the restriction of Bacchic cult to its traditional forms), she is quite prepared to order, through local magistrates, the extirpation of new sacra in allied territories, and to expect that disobedience will occur, and be met with, the death penalty. The aftermath of the crisis is not without interest either. Of the ringleaders Livy only tells us of the fate of Minius Cerrinius, the Capuan: life imprisonment in Ardea, decreed by SC.34 The siphoning oV of notorious criminals from Rome to her allies must count as another form of imposition, although it was doubtless presented as a way for the local authorities to show their loyalty to Rome.35 This episode also shows that Rome expected not only to command the obedience of her allies in this matter, but to lay speciWc injunctions upon local magistrates (‘magistratibusque Ardeatium praedicendum ut intentiore eum custodia adseruarent’, 19. 2), instructions to be adhered to in this case until Cerrinius met a natural death: he was not to be allowed the opportunity to commit suicide, and had to be watched closely to prevent this.36
3 . L AT I N S O N T H E L A N D We looked in the preceding chapter at how the agrarian legislation of 111 bc, and to a lesser extent that of the Gracchi, aVected the Italian countryside and those who inhabited or farmed it. Let us now look at how non-Romans might have been aVected by this legislation. Despite John Richardson’s ingenious arguments to the contrary, I do not believe that the ancient sources are susceptible of the reading he advances, namely that Latins and allies were the direct beneWciaries of 34 There is no sign that, as with the rewards for Faecenia and Aebutius, that this SC was ever followed by a law. 35 It may be relevant that only twenty-Wve years earlier Ardea had been one of a group of Latin colonies which had declared itself unable and unwilling to meet the requirements of the Roman levy to Wght Hannibal (Livy, 27. 9. 7). 36 Livy, 27. 19. 2, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 105, on the force of praedicere. Ironically analogous is the fate of the informer Hispala Faecenia; the consuls and praetors, in 186 and after, have to see that there is no injury to her, and that she remains safe (19. 6). Is literary patterning also at work here?
124
Allies in the Second Century
the Gracchan distributions;37 indeed the comments of Cicero, in the De republica (1. 31, 3. 41, 129 bc), set in the period in question, strongly suggest that they rather suVered by them. Yet they did have some right to occupy ager publicus.38 What does the epigraphic evidence tell us about how they interrelated with the complex processes of Gracchan and post-Gracchan land distribution and agrarian reform? I touched in the previous chapter on the process of ceding of lots and substitute assignations in the lex agraria (ll. 20–3). That process also embraced Latins and allies: ‘quei in eo agro loc[o ceiuis] Romanus sociumue nominisue Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum [milites in terra Italia inperare solent, agrum lo]cum publicum populi Romani . . . [dedit]’.39 Latin and allied holdings of ager publicus, either as the result of assignations by a Roman land commissioner, or because land conWscated by Rome had not ever been physically appropriated or reallocated, are unsurprising (see previous chapter). It is, however, interesting that substitute plots generated in compensation for schemes of settlement of colonization could be (but we cannot infer that they always were) available to individual non-Romans. There seems to have been no recompense made to the Latins and allies when public land which they possessed was reclaimed by the Gracchan commissioners: as a result of this they made representations to Scipio Aemilianus, and powers of judication were withdrawn from the commission.40 It may be that in the latter case ager publicus held by Latin and allied communities, rather than individuals, was appropriated for Gracchan settlers. In that case it would seem hard to imagine that in the lacuna between lines 22 and 23 there was any prohibition on Latins and other allies holding these substitute plots as private land.41 The Latins do not present such a problem, as they enjoyed commercium; the socii by contrast ought not to have been allowed to enjoy private status.42 Should we 37 Richardson, JRS (1980), cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 17–18. 38 Poorly understood, however: see Toynbee, Legacy, ii. 546–54, focussing on land conWscated by Rome after the Second Punic War; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 142–50, mainly concerned with the Gracchan and post-Gracchan period. 39 Lex agraria, l. 21. Note that, unless incorrectly drafted, the wording of the text conWrms the intepretation of references like ‘sociumue nominisue Latini’ as denoting both allies and Latins: the -ue after both ‘socium’ and ‘nominis’ is unintelligible on any other basis; the genitives must in each case depend on ceiuis just before; on Latins at l. 31 see preceding chapter and comments there. Other similar phrases: ILLRP 511, ll. 7, 8, ( þ lex ag. 29, 31); Sall., Iug. 40. 2, ‘homines nominis Latini et socios Italicos’ (109 bc); and Cic., Har. Resp. 19, which ‘make it clear that technically the Latini were not regular socii’ (Salmon, Colonization, 52 n. 61). See also Gaius, Inst. 1. 79 for Latins as peregrini; note however ‘Latino peregrinoque’ in lex ag. 29, where peregrini refers to a group wider than Italian socii: see RS i. 167. Livy, 38. 44. 4 seems on the face of it only to refer to Romans and Latins (‘Romani ac socii nominis Latini’), but perhaps his usage here should not be pushed. 40 See App., BC 1. 18. 73–20. 85, Schol. Bob., ad Cic., Mil. p. 118 St. 41 Accepted by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 145. 42 See Lintott, Judicial Reform, 224. Indeed, some scholars have argued that Italian socii did in fact hold the ius commercii, and cited this passage of the lex ag. as one proof: see Salmon, Samnium, 315, 318, Galsterer, Herrschaft, 103; Stockton, The Gracchi, 113; Keaveny, UniWcation, 3, 22; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 92 (other arguments Ximsy, however); contra Richardson, JRS (1980), 6–7, Cornell, JRS (1988), 202–5 review of Keaveney.
Allies in the Second Century
125
assume special grants of commercium to these allies by a III uir, or some legal Wction? Their mention is otiose unless they could hold the land as ager priuatus. Less likely, perhaps, is that in this lacuna there was a clause which referred to Romans who had bought or inherited such a plot from a Latin or ally (the latter would again have to have commercium, however). To remove such plots from Latins and allies, without recompensing them with another elsewhere, might undermine the ability of their communities to supply troops for Rome (as contemporary Romans thought that the ejection of assidui from their farmsteads was weakening Roman legionary recruitment); the mention of the formula togatorum may perhaps point to such a concern (but is more likely, both here and in l. 50, to be formulaic). In any case, a desire to provide substitute plots for Latins and Italians speciWcally in order to maintain allied recruitment pools is not implausible.43 In addition to the right to hold or receive certain lands in Italy, it is possible that, at least from 111 bc, Latins and allies were able to proWt, through landholding, from the overseas conquests they had helped Rome to achieve, but whose distribution depended solely on the Roman people. Lex agraria, l. 50, grants or conWrms certain rights to buy land in Africa to those ‘[socium nominisue Latini, quibus ex formula t]ogatorum milites in terra Italia inperare solent’.44 As above, it seems that in a period when Latins and Italians are often thought of as increasingly resenting a disadvantageous situation vis-a`-vis Roman citizens, some land rights were being granted to them, which, as above, in the case of the non-Latins, may have involved a grant of commercium, perhaps by the terms of this law.45 Lex agraria 29 shows that by 112 bc some Latins and peregrini (by which term non-Italian allies are also meant) held by treaty, plebiscite, or statute the right to facere something in connection with land which had been public in 133 bc, in the same way as Roman citizens. What this was we do not know, but it seems fair enough to guess with Lintott that these non-Romans were in possession or occupation of ager publicus; and that their rights (and duties: see RS i. 167) were related to the content of the preceding chapters.46 We must also assume that 43 If reference to the formula togatorum was the normal way of referring to the collectivity of allies in Italy for any purpose, this hypothesis will not stand. 44 The view that this clause excludes, rather than including, Latins and allies, has been dismissed by Lintott, Judicial Reform, 249, and RS i. 170. That a new situation, rather than conWrmation of an existing one, is envisaged by this clause, is perhaps suggested by ‘eis po[st h. l. r. . . . ]’; cf. RS i. 171. We cannot I think exclude that, as in l. 21, ceiuis Romanus preceded the mention of Latins and allies in the lacuna. 45 The picture is not completely rosy: some rights of ownership are available to Romans alone: l. 58, ‘ei ceiui Romano’ (relative to the lex Rubria?—cf. RS i. 171). Furthermore, the mention of Roman citizens alone in l. 76 suggests that only they had beneWtted from colonial allotments in Africa (see RS i. 175; see also, however, Lintott, Judicial Reform, 264–5). 46 Judicial Reform, 234. He entertains the idea of Hinrichs, Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen, 281, that the clause may refer to land legally ocupied by Latins and allies by treaty law or plebiscite, and thus not touched by the Gracchi. Lintott revived (Judicial Reform, 271) the attractive suggestion of RudorV that lex ag. 83 referred to the leasing of African ager publicus by Latins and peregrini on the same terms as Romans were allowed to lease it; although RS i. 177 is unconvinced, I Wnd the interpretation there in no way superior.
126
Allies in the Second Century
in future other Latins and peregrines will not be allowed the same rights or subject to the same duties on this public land. Furthermore, ll. 30–1 show that the Roman state will facilitate legal action (by granting suit appointing the relevant judges), both (as I understand the Latin) against these same favoured Latins and peregrini if they do not do what they are bound to do, and on their behalf if they suVer damage.47 Importantly this action will take place in the same way as if a Roman citizen was demanding redress, or being sued. Lintott rightly remarks that it is not surprising that Roman legal forms are used in disputes arising from delict of duty by (or damage incurred by) occupiers of Roman ager publicus. Nevertheless, we have here another important instance of the extension of such Roman forms and processes to non-Romans.48 Finally, on the lex agraria and the allies, let us consider brieXy ll. 43–8, which are somewhat confusing.49 Lines 40–2 seem to end the Italian part of the statute by ensuring that those who do not swear to obey other statutes which collide with this one are not liable to any punishment included in the other statutes (including presumably the proposer).50 Africa is mentioned in l. 48, and the references to purchase in ll. 45–8 seem consistent with some of the material in the African section. At Wrst sight it might then seem tempting to include ll. 43–8 in that section of the law. Yet the phrases ‘utei in h. l. sc. est’ (l. 43), and ‘agrum locum, quem ex h. l. colonei . . . [ — ??? oportet] oportebitue’ (l. 45) seem to imply a reference back to an earlier section of the statute,51 especially in the matter of jurisdiction. Are we then still in the Italian section after all? If so, the otherwise unknown lex Baebia of l. 43 would be an Italian colonial law. Furthermore, it has been argued that the African section takes as its starting point the situation following the repeal of the Gracchan lex Rubria, and that the lex Baebia cannot apply to Africa as well, either as a pre- or a post-Gracchan law.52 Perhaps it is best 47 Mommsen, GS i. 109, correctly related the clause in ll. 30–1 to the preceding one, whereby the latter sets out jurisdictional rules to cover failure to observe the regulations in the former. It would be very interesting if the conjecture of RS i. 167, that these lines were a tralatician judicial enabling clause from earlier legislation, were correct. 48 Judicial Reform, 235. He denies, rightly, that this legal situation can be seen as ‘special treatment’ like that demanded in 129 (see above); he notes that it may not have been resented either. RS i. 167 and literature there cited for the possibility that recuperatores originally judged inter-community disputes, making them an apt possibility for judication over land held by Latins or peregrini. 49 For the problems, and possible solutions, see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 245–8, and RS i. 169–70. 50 Analogous to a sanctio? Cf. Lintott, Judicial Reform, 243–5; RS i. 169; Bispham, Epigraphica (1997), 140 and n. 74, where I argued (ibid. 129 and n. 20) that the principle enunciated at Livy, 7. 17. 12 would protect those obeying a particular statute where their actions in respect of its provisions clashed with the content of preceding decrees. This now seems less certain; ll. 40–1 of the lex agraria seem to oVer explicit protection in such a case. 51 RS i. 169; but are the ‘colonei in l. 45 . . . described as such ex h.l.’ (ibid.)? Rather they hold or are conWrmed as (?) holding a certain type of land according to this law: so Lintott, Judicial Reform, 247. 52 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 245; RS i. 169. The lex Rubria is, however, mentioned only once in the African section (l. 59; but restored—plausibly—in ll. 55, 60, 61, 79: see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 266; RS i. 176); since it comes after a ban on Romans serving in the province beneWting from the statute (so Lintott, Judicial Reform, 251; RS i. 171, following Mommsen, who cited D. 49. 16. 9), is mention of lex Rubria also part of an exception to the clause ll. 52–6? The Third Punic War is referred to in ll. 75–6, cf.
Allies in the Second Century
127
to suppose that the lex Baebia dealt with land in neither Italy nor Africa, with Cisalpina an attractive possibility:53 RS attractively suggests that ll. 43–4 are extending the jurisdiction established for Italy, in cases arising from land disputes under this statute, to other contexts.54 Might these not be outside Italy, but in an area of special interest where many Romans and Latins were settled, such as Cisalpina?
4 . C I T I Z E N S H I P A N D P ROVO C AT I O If one area of allied discontent with Rome in the second century was high-handed treatment, another was the increasingly exclusive nature of what had formerly been a very open citizen group, an exclusiveness which accelerated in proportion to the desirability and utility of the citizenship.55 One of the main areas of innovation in the lex repetundarum is the oVer of citizenship (and exemption from military service) as a reward for successful (leading) prosecutors who wish to take it up (ll. 76–8).56 This necessarily had an impact on Rome’s relations with her allies in Italy, in that it opened an avenue to the citizenship at a time when majority opinion was against extensions of the franchise.57 On the other hand, the statute is certainly not aimed solely at Latins and Italians: the relevant lines of the law are clearly aimed at all non-Romans, and we may imagine that more cases will have arisen from misconduct in the provinces than in Italy.58 l. 80 (restored), (‘bello Poinicio proxsumo’): this might be not another starting point, but rather a validation of the original grants of land to Africans later disadvantaged by colonial settlement (not necessarily simply the lex Rubria). On the other hand ll. 77 and 81, go on to mention the lex Liuia (also) of 146 bc (on which see App., Lib. 135. 639; Lintott, Judicial Reform, 265; RS i. 175–80); here we seem to be dealing with another, earlier, starting point, the arrangements pertaining to which the II uir appointed by the lex agraria has to ratify. Note also the lex Sempronia of uncertain function (see Lintott, Judicial Reform, 270; RS i. 177) at l. 82. 53 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 246, mentioning Dertona; RS i. 169. 54 RS i. 169–70; ll. 44–5 would on this theory create exceptions to the cases, lands, or areas to which this jurisdiction was being extended. 55 Incidents such as the ability of citizens of Ferentinum to register for inclusion in a Roman colony in the 190s (see previous section) suggest that exclusionist narratives should be constructed with somewhat more caution than they usually are. Against the value and utility of the Roman citizenship, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 87–99. 56 See Lintott, Judicial Reform, 24–5, 26. 57 In so doing it is consistent with the rest of C. Gracchus’ legislation: ibid. 26–7. Note that there is no mention in the surviving text of the law of the need for the non-Roman community in question to become fundus of the grant of citizenship or of the lex repetundarum itself: Galsterer, Herrschaft, 162–5. Such a clause might have stood in the lacuna at the end of l. 77, however. 58 On the application of the law see Cic., Balb. 53, ‘multi in ciuitatem recepti ex liberis [i.e. nonItalian] foederatisque populis sunt’ (but note the rhetorical question about homines Latini at Balb. 54); Lintott, Judicial Reform, 157–8, with good discussion of earlier views and objections; cf. RS i. 110. It is possible, however, that the prosecutions of T. Caelius and C. Maso, which earned their Tiburtine prosectors, L. Cossinius and T. Coponius respectively, the Roman citizenship (Cic., Balb. 53), took place under the terms of this law (or one of the leges Seruiliae, on which see Badian, CR (1954), 101–2;
128
Allies in the Second Century
The law goes on (ll. 78–9, cf. 88–9) to oVer rewards for those who were unwilling (or unable?) to accept the oVer of Roman citizenship: prouocatio, as well as uacatio muneris and militiae.59 Here then we have evidence of the same divergence of Italian attitudes towards the citizenship of which Fulvius Flaccus’ bill of 125 had taken account by oVering citizenship and prouocatio as alternatives.60 Italians are perhaps not the chief intended beneWciaries: as with citizenship above, the oVer must be open to all peregrini.61 This cannot, however, be true of a partly preserved and thus troubling group. The ‘D’ fragment of lex repetundarum l. 78 begins (in RS’s text) ‘[dicta]tor vv praetor aedilisue non fuerint’. The purpose of the clause is to open up, to those who do not want Roman citizenship, the possibility of prouocatio and uacatio for military service and munera publica, and the list of magistrates must form an exception to the group of those being oVered these beneWts. Who, though, is excluded and why? Scholars generally agree that we are dealing with the magistrates of Latin communities: either because they already had the Roman citizenship since 124 bc, as an antidote to disaVection after the revolt of Fregellae (a view based on supposed implications of Asconius p. 3C);62 or because they already have prouocatio and uacatio;63 Levick, CR (1967); Mattingly, JRS (1970), 165–8; Sherwin-White, JRS (1972), 96–7; GriYn, CQ (1973); Galsterer, Herrschaft, 94–5; Mattingly, Hermes (1983) ); see also Brunt, Fall, 134, not entirely acceptable. The Tiburtines may have been causes ce´le`bres to be mentioned by Cicero (so too Mouritsen, UniWcation, 89 n. 9)—the other exemplum he uses at this point is the foedus Cassianum (see also Taylor, Voting Districts, 107 n. 19). Cossinius might be the father of the L. Cossinius killed trying to suppress Spartacus (Plut., Crass. 9. 4–5. Sall., Hist. 3. 63McG ¼ 94M), if, as seems likely, that latter was pr. 73 (see Broughton, MRR ii. 110); if so his brother was only an eques (Cic., Balb. 53). The Pompeian C. Coponius, pr. 49 (see MRR ii. 257; Carter, Civil War III Comm., ad 3. 5), may be a grandson of Cicero’s Coponius: Cic., Att. 8. 12a. 4, Caes., BC 3. 5; see also Reid, Comm. ad Balb., ad loc. It is by no means certain, if Latin colonies did possess the ciuitas per magistratum, that Tibur did too (as Mouritsen, UniWcation, 104–5, claims)—it was not, after all, a Latin colony (cf. Asc p. 3C for coloniae). 59 Cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 88–91, cf. 100–2, 104, although his claim that to take the Roman citizenship before the triumviral period meant in practice having to move to Rome is unconvincing; uacatio would still obtain in the local community. 60 Val. Max, 9. 5. 1 (with the alternatives to citizenship), App. BC 1. 21. 86–7, 34. 152; Gabba, Italia romana, 56. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 94, curiously sees this as a compromise which only tells us that Romans were willing to oVer prouocatio, not that Italians wanted it! 61 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 159–60; RS i. 111. 62 Tibiletti, RIL (1953), cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 215–16; Luraschi, Foedus, 301–29; Piper, Latomus (1988). Tibiletti’s interpretation (or the part anticipated by Mommsen, StR iii. 639–40; GS i. 62) was rejected by Rosenberg, Hermes (1920), 347–8; Bradeen, CJ (1958–9); Mattingly, JRS (1970), 163–8; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 93–100; WulV-Alonso, Romanos e Ita´licos en la Baja Repu´blica, 233–8, and strenuously challenged by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 99–108, 159 (he discusses this passage of the lex repetundarum ibid. 103–4, denying that Latin magistrates alone are meant here). Mouritsen’s arguments have some force, although his discussion of Pro Balbo and especially of Pro Caecina 102 (ibid. 105–6.) seem to me not to be very relevant—Ariminum and Volaterrae were assimilated in terms of legal rights in civil law, not in terms of public institutions, despite the fact the Cicero is talking about iura. 63 Strachan-Davidson, Problems of the Roman Criminal Law, 151; Rosenberg, Hermes (1920), 347– 8; Bradeen, CJ (1958–9); Mattingly, JRS (1970), 166–7; RS i. 111 (cf. Crawford, JRS (1981), 154)—the doubts of Mouritsen, UniWcation, 103 n. 51, are exaggerated or misconstrued; very cautiously, Lintott, Judicial Reform, 159–60; Galsterer (Herrschaft, 98–9, 168) believes that such a grant may be as old as the early 2nd cent.
Allies in the Second Century
129
or because Rome speciWcally wished to deny them these privileges, in order to prevent a drain on liability for service in their home communities.64 It might be possible to argue that the list was meant to be a generic list of possible Italian magistracies, with praetor standing for the highest, and aedile for the subordinate, magistracies.65 There are two objections to such a view. Surely decisive is the lack of any sign in the text that the application of this clause is aimed at all of Italy; in addition we would expect something like the phraseology of tabula Heracleensis, ll. 83–5: ‘queiquomque in municipieis coloneis praefectureis foreis conciliabuleis c(iuium) R(omanorum) II uir(ei) IIII uir(ei) erunt alioue / quo nomine mag(istratum) potestatemue suragio eorum . . . / habebunt’, where the legislator clearly means to restrict the activities of all Italian magistrates, in the knowledge that a minority of magistracies are not covered by the rubrics duovirate or quattuorvirate. The only group left to whom the restriction under discussion could meaningfully apply is Latin magistrates; they probably already possessed prouocatio by virtue of their oYce, but not Roman citizenship, since the former would not necessarily entail possession of the latter (uacatio is another matter). The list of Latin magistrates has perhaps been made to look more complicated than it is. RS says ‘it is very hard either to restore anything except [dicta]tor [at the edge of the D fragment] or to suppose that there were dictators outside Latin communities’.66 On the contrary, it is a simple (but overlooked) suggestion to restore ‘[cen]sor’ at the start of the fragment: this gives us a list in descending order of importance with censor at the top, followed by praetor, an arrangement analogous to that given only a generation later (if that) at lex Osca Bantina, ll. 27–8. RS’s complete supplement for the E–D lacuna runs as follows: ‘quei [??? c. R. ex h. l. Weri nolet, quei eorum in ceiuitate Latina II uir consul ??? dicta]tor’.67 Dictators are found, outside Latin colonies, only in Latium Vetus and southern Etruria, and there is no need to suppose that the few remaining socii in those areas were involved, or covered by the regulations concerning prouocatio. On the other hand, consuls were chief magistrates in, as far as we know, only two Latin colonies and, as far as our evidence goes, only brieXy in third century; it is highly unlikely that any Latin colony still called its chief magistrates consuls at this date.68 The reverse is true for II uir: I think it extremely unlikely that the chief magistrates of 64 Gabba, in CAH viii2 , 241–2; id., Italia romana, 56–7 (reading a little too much into the text, however); Mouritsen, UniWcation, 103. While such a restrictive measure might be thought likely to alienate Latin elites, Gabba points out that it would prevent the rewards envisaged by the law leading to the degradation of allied social structures, divorcing those same elites from responsibility within their home communities. 65 For this use of praetor and aedilis see below; cf. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in Claridge and Zevi-Gallina (eds.), ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited, 97–9. For an ambitious supplement (a cover-all allusion to all allied Italian magistrates) see Sherwin-White, JRS (1972), 95, followed by Galsterer, Herrschaft, 94–5; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 103. 66 RS i. 111. 67 A reading also supported by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 65, 111 n. 4. 68 See Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonisation, 88–9, on this colonial magistracy, known at Ariminum and Beneventum: ILLRP 77, 169, 553.
130
Allies in the Second Century
Latin colonies were generally (if ever) called II uiri as early as this, and if the title was used, it will not have headed the list.69 Since the phrase ‘in ceiuitate Latina’ is (a) of uncertain validity,70 and (b) unnecessarily spreads the net beyond Latin colonies, we might proWt from the rearrangement of the order of magistracies to propose a supplement something like: ‘quei [c. R. ex h. l. Weri nolet, quei eorum in colonia socium nominis Latini cen]sor . . .’, a supplement two letters shorter than RS, (not necessarily a problem).71 Supplements aside, we cannot argue from this restored list to the magisterial structures of Latin colonies without danger of circularity. What can be said is that the list restored here agrees with the other data at our disposal for this period. Furthermore, it seems very likely that RS is right to argue that Latin magistrates did possess prouocatio by the time of this law: but not all of them—as noted there tribunes and quaestors were omitted, since these positions, if generally still found in Latin colonies, presumably did not entail the grant of prouocatio.72 Finally, l. 79 strongly suggests that the praetor in charge of the court was to see to the publication of immunities granted to non-Romans (‘uocatio / militiae munerisque poplici in su[a quoiusque cei]uitate’). It is worth stressing that the majority of such cases will have concerned communities outside Italy; nevertheless, the legislator seems not to have hesitated about the right of Rome to confer immunities on peregrini in their home towns, and such an arrogation of rights may have been more deeply felt, and resented, in Italy.73 It is hard to see where any
69 RS’s claim to the contrary (i. 111), seems baseless: ‘aedile’ is hardly an ‘idiosyncratic title’! See now Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited, for late 2nd-cent. praetores in the Roman colony of Ostia; the counter-example, perhaps slightly later, is from Puteoli (ILLRP 518, see ch. 2). 70 Lintott, Judicial Reform, 159; RS (i. 111). 71 ‘ceiuitate’ instead of ‘colonia’ would give the same number of letters. Michael Crawford generously allowed me to consult his high-quality photographs of the relevant part of the bronze. The trace of the Wrst letter is to my eye more compatible with ‘S’ than ‘T’, but there is little in it either way. 72 RS, i. 111. An automatic immunity from military and other public munera for other exmagistrates would however have worrying implications of the kind highlighted by Gabba. Was some such reason as this behind the revolt of Fregellae? Mouritsen, UniWcation, 103, likewise notes the exclusion of some magistrates from the list, and see further, ibid. 104, for the possible eVects of uacatio on Italian communities. 73 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 104; for a minimalist view, ‘munera publica will be corve´e labour, rather than elite liturgies’ (RS i. 111)—it would be noteworthy if those who might be subject to such labour had the socio-economic status to bring a prosecution of this sort, or if elites were often drafted into ditchdigging. Note that RS (i. 50, 109–10) believes ll. 79–85 to be an inept and mistaken repetition of ll. 72–9, a position I have followed here without strong views as to its correctness. If the opposite position of Lintott (Judicial Reform, 160–2) were correct, one might argue that ll. 83–4 referred to the rewards for those who took secondary roles in securing the condemnation (only exemption from military service?). Note that Mouritsen, UniWcation, 89, admits this as (for him a unique) Roman interference in allied aVairs; it is not insigniWcant that he decides to make this concession here, and not in the chapter where he spends much time denying all such forms of interference; he might have noted that this is also an instance of Roman tinkering with the allied troop contributions which were at the heart of the foedera which he sees as restraining Roman iniquity. Gabba, Italia romana, 51–7, esp. 56–7, believes that the foedera themselves enshrined the Roman right to oVer citizenship to the upper classes and dictate the terms of its adoption, in order to buttress the power of the Italian upper classes themselves.
Allies in the Second Century
131
provision might have come in the clause, requiring Italian communities to become fundi of, thus to ratify, the Roman grants.74
5 . T H E C H A R AC T E R O F RO M A N H E G E M O N Y Another document, a generation earlier, reinforces the sense of a strong-handed Senate prepared to exercise a very proactive regulation over Rome’s allies in her dealings with them. This is the (now lost) letter of the praetor Cornelius Lentulus Lupus to the Tiburtes, found at Tibur in ad 1581.75 The Tiburtes seem to have been subject to accusations by a third party in an unknown (religious?) context, but one which seems to involve a sin against the Romans.76 They seem to have worried that the Senate would blame them on this account; and tried to absolve themselves, avoiding any blame (‘uos purgauistis’ (‘you absolved yourselves’), l. 3). The Senate is persuaded that the Tiburtes had not (knowingly?) sinned: ‘animum nostrum indoucimus, ita utei ante arbitrabamur, de eieis rebus af uobeis peccatum non esse’ (‘we took the opinion, just as we used to think beforehand, that concerning these matters, no error had been committed by you’, ll. 10–11); interestingly the matter will be referred to the people, whom the Senate is conWdent will absolve the Tiburtes, once the Senate has (formally?) cleared them: ‘quonque de eieis rebus senatuei purgati estis, credimus uosque animum uostrum indoucere oportet item uos populo Romano purgatos fore’ (‘since concerning these matters you have been absolved by the Senate, we believe, and it is proper that you form this opinion too, that you will equally be absolved by the Roman people’, ll. 12–14). This presumably refers to a law to be passed or not passed, or perhaps rather a sort of judicial vote to be put to the people. Also noteworthy here, and something which gives a taste of the manner in which Romano-Italian relations must have been carried on, at quite high frequency, is 74 Cicero, Balb. 54, implies that Latin populi did not become fundi of the lex Servilia (‘and others’). If the lex repetundarum did envisage Italian communities becoming fundi of its provisions on enfranchisement, Mouritsen’s argument (UniWcation, 105) about Cicero’s failure to mention Latin magistrates becoming citizens under the right of ius ciuitatis per magistratum adipiscendae becomes irrelevant, since Cicero presents as precedent examples of enfranchisement where the home state of the recipient did not become fundus of the Roman act; note that Balbus was enfranchised by Pompeius, not Sulla as Mouritsen claims. 75 CIL i2 . 586 ¼ ILLRP 512. The date of the document, not later than 159 bc, follows, under the terms of the lex Villia annalis of 180, from the date of Lupus’ consulship (156 bc); see Degrassi, ad loc. Translations are based on Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne, ARS, no. 36, with adjustments. Note also the Wve-year uacatio given to the Praenestine troops at Casilinum in 216 bc (Livy, 23. 20. 2), clearly exceptional, at least at that time. 76 ‘nosque ea ita audiueramus ut uos deixsistis uobeis nontiata esse’ (‘and we had heard those things just as you said they had been announced to you’), ll. 4–5. The error is apparently one of commission: ‘ita facta esse’ (‘to have been done as was claimed’), l. 6; ‘ea uos merito nostro facere non potuisse’ (‘that you could not have done those things in view of the treatment we deserve of you’), l. 7, ‘quei ea faceretis’ (‘so as to do those things’), l. 8.
132
Allies in the Second Century
the reference to a Tiburtine embassy to the Senate (l. 3); more interesting is that the embassy was triggered by third-party accusations; again we see, presumably, the Senate being called upon to right a wrong, or to right a perceived injustice. The line between this, and settling scores, was a thin one. The Roman Senate here arrogates to itself the right to forgive the Tiburtes— and by implication the right not to forgive in other cases; to expect proper treatment (‘merito nostro’, ‘in view of the treatment we deserve of you’, l. 7), and to be the arbiter of what is ‘oitile’ or useful (l. 9) for the res publica of Tibur. Clementia is, as Julius Caesar found, always liable to be construed as a sign of power, an instance of ‘symbolic violence’, and we must read this text, as far as its implications are guessable, as a reXection of power-relations in which Rome recognized the nominal independence of the Tiburtes while in some spheres she overrode it.77 At least the Tiburtes had a public forum in which to seek absolution, albeit high-handedly dispensed, from Rome: they seem to have made their case, and received a reply, which was moreover published. Much routine diplomatic traYc surely passed unreported by our sources, visible now in the unrepresentative snippets in Livy, as when the Latin colony of Aquileia approached the Roman Senate in 171 bc for help in building her city walls. The Senate replied ‘uellentne eam rem . . . consuli mandare’ (43. 1. 5): this seems to ask for Aquileian conWrmation that the colony wished the matter to be taken over by the consul;78 but this may have been a double-edged sword: the consul C. Cassius probably did not Wnd time hanging heavy on his hands, and as the later example of Sempronius Tuditanus in 129 was to show, consuls might well prefer warfare as a displacement activity for mundane tasks in favour of Latins or allies. The distant Latin colony had to ask for help; three years earlier one of the censors had encouraged by locatio considerable public building in Roman communities, winning approval from the Roman citizens there (41. 27. 5–13). Nevertheless, the Senate here operated ‘by the book’ when approached for assistance.79 In other cases too, it operated swiftly and with force, if not ultimately with eVect, in favour of Latin colonies at least: the protests over Latin migratio (migration) to Rome in 187 and 177, and their consequences, seem to have occupied no small slice of magisterial time. Although, as Sherwin-White stressed, ‘all this was done at the instance of the Latins themselves’,80 yet we should remember that demographic problems in the Latin colonies would eventually translate into problems with the ability of the nomen Latinum to supply Rome with troops, a problem of which the Romans had had experience a generation earlier. Roman self-interest is not to be excluded. 77 I am not sure that Walbank (Comm. i. 679) is quite correct to see this as an example of the reproofs (or epitime¯seis as Polybios calls them) which the Roman Senate might issue to allied communities; the tone is overbearing, but here the Senate is disposed to absolve the Tiburtes; equally Salmon, Making, 54 (‘stinging public rebuke’) is simplistic. 78 So Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 105–6. I am at a loss to understand his implication (p. 105 n. 6) that the letter to the Tiburtes is in any other way analogous to the Aquileian request. 79 Cf. ibid. 127–8. 80 Ibid. 107.
Allies in the Second Century
133
Another example of less intrusive interaction between Rome and Italian communities can be seen in the rights of exsilium (exile). Polybios says at 6. 14. 8 that a Roman can always go into exile at any point in a trial, as long as the last tribe required for a conviction has not voted, and he names the poleis of Neapolis, Praeneste, and Tibur (presumably the most familiar destinations in this class), continuing ŒÆd ÆE IººÆØ, æe L ı Ø ‹æŒØÆ (‘and the others in relation to whom they have exchanged oaths to this eVect’). As Walbank points out (ad loc.), this cannot refer to ciuitates foederatae in general, but only to those states which had a treaty allowing exsilium.81 Such treaties may well have been mutual; were they the same as the original foedus which bound the city in question into the Roman alliance? There is no evidence, but it may be doubted. Such foedera were originally (openly or implicitly) punitive in nature, whereas the right to allow communities to harbour presumptive Roman criminals suggests that Rome had satisWed herself that such fugitives would not be allowed to foment discontent or compass either return by arms, or any other revenge. This in turn suggests that such sworn agreements were made between Rome and communities deemed trustworthy, or otherwise favoured.82 The other side of the coin may perhaps be seen in the requests made of allies to look after hostages or prisoners taken by Rome. Such a request we saw above expressed as an order, at least in Livy’s narrative, in the case of Ardea and the Bacchanalian ringleaders; a counterexample comes from Spoletium, another Latin colony, which refused to receive the Illyrian Gentius and his family in the wake of a senatus consultum—nearby Iguvium was inconvenienced.83 All of the foregoing is united by the theme of Roman treatment of her Italian allies. A deterioration in these relations (however they were originally construed) in the second century has often been invoked since Mommsen’s Ro¨mische Geschichte, and causally related to the outbreak of the Social War early in the Wrst century.84 Such developments must be analysed in the context of social change in Italy, the reorganization of the landscape, changes in farming practices, and in the social relations of production, all of which are often seen as worsening the condition of the Italian peasantry: the classic statement of this thesis is Toynbee’s two-volume Hannibal’s Legacy. Toynbee’s thesis has been subjected to increasing revision, both from historians, and from archaeologists.85 The idea of Rome’s increasingly domineering behaviour in relation towards her Italian allies, which was expressed some sixty years ago by McDonald, although widespread, 81 Walbank, ad loc., following Schweigha¨user, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 126 n. 2. 82 Walbank notes the following towns with this right, from the period which concerns us: Praeneste and Tibur (again), Livy, 43. 2. 10, cf. Cic., De or. 1. 177; Nuceria—Cic., Balb. 28; Neapolis again—Livy, 29. 21. 1; Tarquinii—Livy, 26. 3. 12 (with Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 126). Exiles themselves might seek attractive places to sojourn; are those named also among the most popular? Loss of Roman citizenship on exile: Cic., Dom. 78, Caec. 98, Gaius, Inst. 1. 31, 3. 56. 83 e.g. Poly., 31. 23. 5, Livy, 32. 26. 18, Pausanias, 7. 10. 11; Spoletium: Livy, 45. 43. 9. 84 On Mommsen, see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 26–37. 85 Dyson, Community, ch. 2, summarizes the thesis and its antitheses clearly; see now Curti, in Italy and the West.
134
Allies in the Second Century
has been qualiWed and indeed rejected, notably by Hartmut Galsterer.86 A closely related question is the extent to which Italy and Rome were, culturally and politically, on a convergent course at this period.87 The classic narrative of the evolution of Roman interference begins with the Bacchanalian conspiracy; it is then punctuated by a series of incidents in which unreasonable Roman demands, behaviour, or attitudes are thought to reXect a transformation of Romano-Italian alliances into a much more thinly veiled domination. One such incident took place in 173 bc, when the consul, Postumius Albinus, demanded that the Praenestines ‘locum publice pararent ubi deuerteretur, iumentaque, cum exiret inde, praesto essent’ (Livy, 42. 1. 7) on his journey to Campania. Livy informs us that the peremptory letter making these demands of the Praenestines was provoked by the underwhelming treatment Postumius had received on an earlier visit to Praeneste to sacriWce at the shrine of Fortuna (7).88 Either the contretemps really was in response to a perceived slight, or Postumius (via the history of his son, the consular historian?) sought to argue that the incident was not an isolated piece of arrogance, but motivated.89 Galsterer has raised the question of how far we can generalize from isolated incidents like this one, and the extent of possible Livian invention.90 Yet he is forced to admit that incidents like this damaged the social balance between Roman and allied elites (cf. Postumius nursing of his wounded amour propre, where, real or invented, the mentality is worryingly revealing about how Roman principes expected to be treated), and that Livy’s negative reaction may have been that of the senatorial majority of the time; nor, as his own examples show, was 86 See also Brunt, Fall, arguing for cultural convergence rather than antagonism; earlier discussions along these lines: Go¨hler, Rom und Italien (an interpretation of Rome as relatively benevolent), further discussion in Badian, Clientelae, ch. 6. For a brutal Rome see McDonald, JRS (1944); Heuss, Ro¨mische Geschichte, 66, 137–9, 163–8; Toynbee, Legacy, ii, ch. 4, 608–45; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 105–13 (nuanced); Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 104–8 (Latins, arguing that interference by magistrates remained the exception, but that senatus consulta and edicts requiring compliance became more common; Italians: ibid. 120, 127–9, 133; also 134–6, 214–18); Ilari, Gli italici nelle strutture militari romane, 15–18; Bleicken, Die Verfassung der ro¨mischen Republik, 206–9; Galsterer: Herrschaft, 153–71, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 106–7, on rare inequality in distribution of booty; Gabba, Italia romana, 33–43; id., CAH viii2 . 225–33; Keaveney, Rome and UniWcation, 29–35; Brunt, Fall; LaY, in SdR ii/1; Edmondson, in Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 45–86; attempts a new reading, noting the lateness of many of the sources. 87 For the indispensible starting point, certainly from the point of view of the textual evidence, see Brunt, Fall, 111–20. For a questioning of convergence, and an examination of the historiographical roots of the idea see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 39–108, papers in Keay and Terrenato, Italy and the West (especially those by Terrenato and Williams); and see Introduction (above). 88 ‘ira consulis, etiamsi iusta, non tamen in magistratu exercenda’ is Livy’s Wnal verdict (12). 89 Note also that almost all we know of the Bacchanalian crisis, or rather, the repression which followed it from 186–184 bc, involves the consul of 186, Sp. Postumius, and the praetor of 185, his brother Lucius (Liv., 39. 29. 8–9, 41. 6, on 184 bc). Livy describes the actions of the praetor as ‘quaestionem seuere exercuit’—a virtue for Romans—and says of both that they operated against Baccchanalians ‘cum cura’: more, indirectly, from Postumius’ history? 90 Herrschaft, 167.
Allies in the Second Century
135
this an isolated incident, even in this year.91 Livy may have exaggerated the extent of ‘before and after’ transformation involved in this incident, and we need not believe claims such as (8) ‘ante hunc consulem nemo umquam sociis in ullo re oneri aut sumpti fuit’ (cf. 9–11).92 Yet it seems to have been a cause ce´le`bre and Livy remarks that the failure of Praenestine ius to stand up for itself created a precedent which made later impositions worse for the allies.93 In these years, worrying signs of increasing competition between individuals, and, sometimes under pressure, attempts by the collective will of the Senate to reassert normative ideals of shared responsibility can be seen. In 173 the censor Fulvius Flaccus, who had argued with his colleague over the extent of statestimulated building outside Rome, removed half of the marble roof tiles, then probably still a novelty for Romans, from the temple of Hera Lacinia in Croton, for use in his temple of Fortuna Equestris in Rome (Livy, 42. 3. 1–2).94 The temple was perhaps a religious relic from the old days of the independent polis, but in any case, since 194 bc Croton had been a Roman citizen colony. Like the Praenestines the Crotonates raised no objections (‘auctoritate censoria sociis deterritis id sacrilegium prohibere’, 3. 4); the rumpus which provoked the summoning of Flaccus to the curia was kicked up by his fellow senators, from whom, despite his attempts, the censor was unable to hide the origin of the tiles (3. 4–5). Livy gives (3. 6–10) in indirect speech the criticisms of Flaccus in a marvellous, if slightly corrupt passage, where great rhetorical use is made of tropes: Flaccus despoiling temples to build temples, and the the censor, who was supposed to protect loca publica, damaging those of the allies. The tiles were returned by senatorial decree, but no craftsmen could be found to remount them (3. 10–11).95 Amidst all the rhetorical moralizing, as Galsterer noted, Livy errs in describing the Crotoniates as socii; this may simply be another slip on Livy’s part;96 but it is also worth asking if the narrative has not been twisted by one of Livy’s sources. After all, a descendant of this Fulvius Flaccus was the Wrst to propose enfranchising the allies; a story told about injustices committed by a forebear in Bruttium, 91 Ibid. 166–8, remarking that such arbitrary behaviour may have multiplied or intensiWed further away from Rome. Sherwin-White (Citizenship2 , 108) rightly noted that this case was one of individual pique not senatorial policy. 92 See Laurence, Roads, 129, on this incident and state supply of iumenta. 93 ‘silentium nimis aut modestum aut timidum Praenestinorum ius, uelut probato exemplo, magistratibus fecit grauiorum in dies talis generis imperiorum’ (12). 94 On the incident, see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 108 (one of ‘a few isolated instances’, but the start of a trend of deteriorating relations with allies); Galsterer, Herrschaft, 167, with some inaccuracies; Ruga, in Spadea (ed.), Il tesoro di Hera and Glinister, in Bispham and Smith, Evidence and Experience, 63 and n. 25 (buying however Livy’s implication that Bruttians complained to the Senate), stressing the religious as well as the political motivation in repatriating the tiles (add the popular rumour following his death in the next year: Livy, 42. 28. 12). Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 71, thinks Postumius’ indignation over Fulvius’ conduct shows the unacceptability of censorial intervention in the communities of Roman Italy, but I would hesitate to say that it was the autonomy of the colonies and municipia which was the point at issue, rather than Flaccus over-extending his clientela. 95 Anyone who has seen a marble roof tile will appreciate the labour involved. 96 Herrschaft, 167 n. 34, and ibid. 54 on Livy’s usage of term; Konopka, Eos (1929). See also above on Livy’s use of municipium.
136
Allies in the Second Century
especially one which ignored the Romanness of the Crotoniates,97 would make good copy (as in Livy) for his opponents, seeking to undermine a potentially disastrous following among possible new citizens. This is not to say that Bruttian incolae were not among those upset by the censor’s actions, perhaps more so than the Roman colonists, many of whom would have been among the original settlers, only twenty-one years after the foundation. In this year, and in the next, two consular brothers, M. and C. Popillius were subjected to senatorial opposition, and above all tribunician activism, as a result of the use of excessive force in Liguria, ignoring the rights of Ligurian dediticii, and then refusing to rectify earlier errors (Livy, 42. 8. 5–8, 21. 1–5, 8, 22, 28. 1–3); a tribunician lex Marcia was passed concerning the Ligurian scandal, setting up a quaestio under a praetor to investigate M. Popillius (21. 8). In the struggle for dignitas, in the competition to build a better temple than anyone else (thereby commemorating military victory), and the eVorts to secure triumphs at all costs, not only Ligurians (perhaps conceived of, as I argued above, as non-Italian), but Rome’s oldest allies, and even Roman citizens,98 saw their religious, moral, and legal rights trampled on by the Roman aristocracy. In all three cases the Senate, sometimes without the need for tribunician pressure, sought to take corrective action, and in one case was partially successful.99 Yet men like Postumius, Flaccus, and the Popillii had in one sense shown the way; so too had the allies and even Roman colonists, in not putting up more of an objection at the moment of the initial outrage. These incidents do seem to me to form part of a pattern, although they should be seen in the context of Roman politics as well as changing attitudes, and are not anti-Italian per se. They also show a willingness on the part of the Senate to provide redress, to try to keep its own house in order, and to enforce the ‘human rights’ of the Ligurians, for example. Such incidents must, nevertheless, have weighed heavily with the Italian principes, who had already, in the case of the Latin colonies (and they were not alone according to Livy), suVered socially and demographically from the demands made by the Roman military machine on their communities in the Hannibalic War.100 Further strain on allied manpower through prejudicial recruitment is often cited as another manifestation of Roman exploitation of Italian resources, and must be a factor in worsening relations, despite a probable lightening of demands by the Roman Senate between c.176 and c.154 bc.101
97 That they were Romans would make their bowing before censoria auctoritas more understandable. 98 Note that the Senate had refused in 191 bc to accept that the uacatio militiae of Roman citizen colonists applied in the face of the apparent threat from Antiochos the Great: Livy, 36. 3. 4–6, and see Bispham, in State Identities, 172–3, noting the appeal by colonists through the tribunes as the exercise of an attribute of the citizenship. 99 For other instances of senatorial self-regulation in dealings with allies: Livy, 31. 12, 40. 44. 10– 12, and Mouritsen, UniWcation, 44 n. 23, on the repetundae laws. 100 Livy, 27. 9, esp. 9. 2–3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13–14, on the refusal of 209 bc. 101 See e.g. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 108.
Allies in the Second Century
137
Let us look again at 186 bc, the year of the Bacchanalian crisis. Livy’s troop numbers for this part of the history should be fairly reliable, and drawn from oYcial documents (or records thereof, more vulnerable to textual corruption than anything else). Both consuls drew Liguria as their prouincia (involving action against the Ligures Apuani: Livy, 39. 20. 1, 5). For this purpose Q. Marcius, in addition to taking over the consular army of the previous year, was decreed a supplementum (‘additional force’) of 3,000 Roman infantry and 150 cavalry, as against 5,000 infantry and 200 cavalry ‘Latini nominis’ (‘of the Latin name’); it is noteworthy that Livy mentions no allies as recruited.102 Quite apart from this the Senate felt the need, in this year of high tension, to recruit more heavily: ‘duas praeterea legiones nouas ex senatus consulto scribere iussi sunt, et uiginti milia peditum sociis et nomini Latino imperarunt et equites octingentos’ (‘moreover [the consuls] were ordered by senatus consultum to enlist two new legions, and they ordered twenty thousand infantry and eight hundred cavalry from the allies and the Latin name’, Livy, 39. 20. 3); against these high Latin and allied totals, 3,000 Roman infantry and 200 cavalry were to be raised. All of this army, except the legions, was sent as a supplementum to the Spanish theatre (20. 4). This is not an isolated incident. In 191 bc, for example, L. Aemilius Paullus had been told to take 3,000 new infantry and 2,000 cavalry to Spain: ‘ita ut in iis duae partes socium Latini nominis, tertia ciuium Romanorum esset’ (‘such that of those troops two-thirds should be of the allies of the Latin name, and one-third of Roman citizens’, Livy, 36. 2. 8).103 Latin and allied casualties were often heavier than those of their Roman counterparts. On the Ligurian campaigns of Marcius referred to above, the Roman army was ambushed, to the disgrace of the commander: 4,000 men were lost, and perhaps the relative losses of standards in each group shows the division of casulties: three signa of the Romans, against ‘undecim [or XL?] uexilla socium Latini nominis’ were lost to the enemy (Livy, 39. 20. 6–10). Nor were the rewards always equal in terms of movable booty or land distributed to citizens and noncitizens, although such diVerential treatment seems to be uncommon.104 102 Livy, 39. 20. 2: Marcius’ colleague Postumius received the same number of infantry and cavalry. 103 The same is true of C. Flaminius, who was prorogued in Hispania Citerior that year. For other instances see Sallust’s frequent mention of Latin and allied contingents in the Iugurthine War (Iug. 38. 6, 39. 2, 43. 4, 77. 4, 84. 2, 93. 2, 95. 1, 100. 2, 105. 2, cf. App., Num. fr. 3, Plut., Mar. 19—Cimbric War), which, does suggest they formed a major part of the Roman contingent (Gabba, Republican Rome, 14, 28 n. 61, who probably underestimates this as a structural characteristic of armies sent overseas by Rome), Livy, 26. 14. 9, 30. 45. 4, 32. 2. 4, 26, 45. 42. 4–5, 43. 9–10, all impositions perhaps in excess of the treaty stipulations claims Mouritsen (UniWcation, 42, although at 40 he claims these totals were regularly adjusted on the basis of census returns, which the refusal of the twelve Latin colonies in 209 bc might make us doubt). On relative Roman and allied troop numbers across the 3rd and 2nd cents., see Go¨hler, Rom und Italien, 50–2; Afzelius, Ro¨mische Kriegsmacht, 62–89, esp. 75 n. 1, 78–9, Walbank, Comm. i. 709, Toynbee, Legacy, ii. 128–9, 132, 134–5, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 215–17, Ilari, Gli italici nelle strutture militari romane, 171–3; Harris, in Imperialism of Mid-Republican Rome; Brunt, Manpower, 424–5, 677–86; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 42–3, 157–8; Livy, 41. 13. 7–8, 42. 4. 4. To be sure, military service also brought opportunities to Roman and Italian recruits alike. 104 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 106–7, noting also the consular adjustments to the formula of the levy for Latins in 193 bc: Livy, 34. 56. 7. It is not clear whether this eVaced the requirements made of the twelve recalcitrant colonies punished in 204 bc.
138
Allies in the Second Century
Roman power in Italy—as Polybios noted—is also clearly indicated, but in more benevolent (or less aggressive) contexts, by the way in which she was sometimes asked to arbitrate in territorial disputes between her Italian allies (much as she was starting to do for those overseas: see, for example, Sherk, RGDE 7, the dispute between Magnesia and Priene).105 This was not simply a beneWcent side-eVect of her hegemony: the potentially destabilizing resort to force amongst her allies could not be tolerated. In 174 bc the consul M. Aemilius brought to an end a seditio at Patavium which had broken out into civil war.106 In 168 Wve legates were sent by the Senate to arbitrate in a dispute about territorial boundaries and land rights between Pisae and the colony of Luna (Livy, 45. 13. 10–11); Sex. Atilius Serranus was instructed by the Senate as proconsul (thus probably after 136 bc, date of his consulship) to intervene in a boundary dispute between Vicetia and Ateste in Venetia (CIL i2 . 636 ¼ ILLRP 477); and in 117 bc the brothers M. and Q. Minucius Rufus were sent as legati to Liguria to settle a dispute between Genua and the Viturii Langenses (an arbitration to which we shall return below).107 In the case of Patavium, Rome’s intervention seems to have aVected not just space but also time: a new Patavine era seems to have begun in 173 or a little later, a potent symbol of the degree to which Rome’s authority and power impinged on even her more distant allies. Here too we see Roman power matched by allied acquiescence, or rather, positive approbation. The Patavine institution of a new era also needs to be understood within the wider context of political, demographic and cultural change in the north of Italy, and the wholesale alteration of large tracts of the Cisalpine landscape in the preceding decades; it was not just in Patavium that a fresh start was being made; yet as allies of Rome, the Patavines had taken a diVerent path from that of most of the Celtic inhabitants of Cisalpina.108 105 ¼ SIG 3 679; cf. arbitrations between Messenians and Lacedaemonians (SIG 3 683) and the Itanians and the Hierapytnians (SIG 3 685). On Roman inter-state arbitration see Mommsen, StR ii. 1202–3, and within Italy, see Walbank, Comm. i. 680; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128. 106 Livy, 41. 27. 3–4, caused, says Livy, by ‘certamine factionum’ (Gabba, Italia romana, 54–5, suggests that the tension may have been one between the upper classes and an indigenous substrate); note the return at this time of a mission sent (unsucessfully) to Aetolia ‘ad similes motus comprimendos’ (27. 4); ignored by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 43. 107 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 43, splits hairs by arguing that only one arbitration is known from Italy proper, although it may indeed be signiWcant that from our tiny sample the majority come from the Cisalpina. As he notes himself, if internal resolution failed, who else might be called in but Rome? Genua: other ethnonyms are given in respect of the use of prata on the ager publicus: Odiates, Dectunines, Cavaturines, Mentovines (ll. 38–41). On the Venetic arbitrations see further Sartori, in L. Bosio (ed.), Padova antica, at 106–10, and on arbitrations generally R. Scuderi, Athenaeum (1991). 108 See Harris, ZPE (1977), 283–93, esp. 288–90; Livy’s language is compatible with a Patavine perception of having been saved by Rome: ‘Patauinis saluti fuit aduentus consulis’ (27. 4). The gratitude on the part of the local elite for Roman intervention implied by readjustment of the Patavine era suggests that Mouritsen’s claim (UniWcation, 71–2) that there are no known instances where Rome intervened in Italian cities in support of ruling classes needs to be viewed with caution. See above on the changes in Cisalpina. Such arbitrations did, however, construct Rome as being fair: in the case of the sententia Minuciorum, the text (phrased in terms of recommendations, as Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128, noted) ends with an invitation for anyone who Wnds anything ‘iniquom’ (l. 45) in the agreement to approach the Minucii.
Allies in the Second Century
139
Not everyone was so content after calling in the Romans. Cicero, talking of sharp practice in interpreting the law in De oYciis, talks in rather vague terms of Q. Fabius Labeo (‘or some other’), who had been appointed as arbiter by the Senate in a dispute between Neapolis and Nola ‘de Wnibus’ (‘over boundaries’).109 The arbitration seems to have been a remarkable con-trick. Both sides were persuaded to approach the dispute in a conciliatory way, to make concessions: so successful was this that after Fabius had Wxed (‘terminauerat’) their Wnes a quantity (‘aliquantum agri’) of land was left between the new frontiers, which he decided should belong to the Roman people. If the outcomes of Roman intervention might sometimes be to Rome’s taste alone, the detailed results of decisions about land conquered in Italy, or disputed between her allies, seem to have been scrupulously recorded. The result of the arbitration of the Minucii was displayed in an inscription, copies of which were displayed locally as well as in Rome. This is a phenomenon analogous to the oYcial recording of the results of Roman centuriation, which were kept ‘in hard copy’ on bronze as well as perishable materials like papyrus in most cases. The earliest known example of such a forma seems to be that of the ager Campanus as reviewed in 165, and abused by Sulla.110 The case of the Minucian arbitration is worth examining in more detail, since we have the text of the outcome (by its publication alone show-casing the beneWts of Roman arbitration). It was generated in response to a dispute between an allied city and group in some sense subjected to it (‘attributed’), and subjected to it by Rome.111 Great emphasis seems to be placed on emphasis and accountability. The document tells us that the dispute was resolved ‘coram’ (l. 2), with the formal statement (‘dixserunt’, l. 3, cf. l. 4), consonant with Roman practice, of the limits of the ager and Wnes under dispute. This is followed up by further public statement, again ‘coram’, at Rome, which seems to activate the sententia (l. 4, coram used twice, of both the presence of the parties at Rome, and of the statement of the sententia ‘ex senati consulto’).112 The ‘face-to-face’ element of these dealings seems to be continued at the end, with the (damaged) reference to 109 OV. 1. 33; embarrassment at Roman behaviour may explain his insistence that this is oral tradition, not something culled by from history: ‘nihil enim habeo praeter auditum’; Dyck, ad loc., sees this as an example of recall from memory, attested elsewhere in this work. Mu¨nzer, RE vi, col. 1775, s.v. ‘Fabius’ accepts the story as genuine; cf. Val. Max., 7. 3. 4a, which is very close to Cicero’s version at points, adding that the land brought Rome a ‘nouum uectigal’. The circulation of such a story about Roman treatment of allies in any medium is signiWcant. 110 Gran. Lic., p. 9 Criniti; see Salmon, Colonization, 26; Gargola, Lands, 40 and n. 79. 111 CIL i2 . 584 ¼ ILLRP 517. The Minucii may have been chosen (by Ligurians as well as the Senate?) on account of a family connection with the region, perhaps expressed in hereditary patronage (Degrassi ad ILLRP p. 41). For the subordinate position of the Viturii Langenses see ILLRP 517, ll. 42–3. See also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 128; Scuderi, Athenaeum (1991), 371–415; Gargola, Lands, 34 and n. 49, and 37–8, suggesting similarities between the Wxing of boundaries by the legati and the identiWcation of colonial Wnes by tresuiri. On adtributio and contributio see LaY, Adtributio e contributio, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 356–7. 112 Degrassi, ad ILLRP p. 42 cites D. 4. 8. 27. 4, where sententiae are not valid unless pronounced between the litigants ‘coram’.
140
Allies in the Second Century
further disputes; ‘ad nos adeant’ seems to refer to the Minucii. Finally the text of the sententia was published on bronze at Genua (our text); its results had already been instantiated in a series of cippi along the Wnes of the public and private land of the Viturii Langenses by the time the Wnal result was made public in Rome (l. 3, ‘terminosque statui iuserunt’). These termini have a notable presence in the text: ll. 7, 8 (on either side of the Via Postumia, cf. 11), 10, 11 (three times), 13, 14 (twice), 15 (twice), 16, 17 (twice), 18, 19, 20 (twice), 21 (twice), 22 (twice), 23.113 Roman intervention here is far-reaching, and has important implications for both groups. The dispute being resolved here seems to be about which lands were private, alienable, property of the Viturii Langenses, and which were agri publici of Genua, of which they enjoyed possessio; on the latter the Minucii Wxed the uectigal payable to the Genuenses (ll.5, 23–8). The Wnancial implications of the decision are thus considerable. Regulations covering non-payment are also set out in this section (ll. 23–8), with a twentieth of the frumentum and a sixth of the wine produced from the ager publicus being due to the Genuenses (l. 27).114 Beyond the expectation that at least some in this part of Liguria will be able to read this text, and interpret the related termini correctly, there is a heavy Roman imprint on this part of the world, both visible from and implied by the text. The Via Postumia I have already mentioned; note the payment is to be made in uictoriati, a Roman coin type (l. 25).115 Roman legal terms, or technical terms which recur in Roman statutes, are expected to be understood, indeed, to become terms of reference themselves: ager priuatus (ll. 5, 6), ager uectigalis (l. 6), ager publicus (ll. 23, 37), possessio (ll. 24, 28, 29, 30 (twice), 40), ager compascuus (l. 33, 34), defendere (l. 41).116 Time, too, has become framed within a Roman dating system: the arbitration is pronounced at Rome on the Ides of December (ll. 4–5); possessio on the public land for both Genuenses and Viturii is conWrmed on particular terms (?) for those in possession on the Kalends of Sextilis (June) of the same year (ll. 28–9); the uectigal owed to the Genuenses is to be paid on the Kalends of January (l. 35), and I take the implications of l. 36 to be that the Wrst such rent is to due on the Kalends of January 116 bc, with possessio from the Kalends of Sextilis of 117 until that date being uectigal-free. Viturii imprisoned by Genuenses as a result of judgements arising from the original dispute are to be freed ‘ante eidus Sextilis primas’, which I take again to refer to 116 bc; and meadows most recently harvested for hay in 117 bc are made the subject of 113 None of these twenty-three termini survive. See further Tesori della Via Postunia. On the type of conceptual geography tied to the road system, which would have been created in this case, see Laurence, Roads, 82–4. See now Crawford, Athenaeum (2003). 114 For wine as a heavily commoditized product implicated in payment of rent or tax to the powerful in Mediterranean farming, see Horden and Purcell, The Corrupting Sea, 218, citing this text (note however that wine (together with the smaller amount of corn) is a back-up payment, made when the monetary rents are defaulted on). 115 See Howgego, Ancient History from Coins, 112, for the uictoriatus, noting its initial circulation in the south of Italy. By the time of this document, its production had been over for about Wfty years. 116 On the importance of ager compascuus in the agrarian portfolio, and the attention paid to it in Roman legislation, see lex agraria 14, 25; on the related defendere (at lex agraria 25, 32) see RS i. 165.
Allies in the Second Century
141
restrictions about (?)drying or (?)grazing against the wishes of the Viturii, Odiates, Dectunines, Cavaturines, and Mentovines (ll. 38–40).117 Above all, the right of these communities and peoples to resort to violence to determine their borders has been implicitly abandoned by seeking the sententia, and in this wild part of Italy Rome now intrudes.118 In this increasingly Roman world there are however signs of continuity of practice and institutions. Of the places named in ll. 6–23 (of which the Minucii seem to have had to obtain a thorough spatial understanding), only the Via Postumia is Roman; and the names of the legati,119 Moco Meticanio Meticoni f. and Plaucus Peliani(o) f. (l. 46), are strongly non-Roman. The Genuenses are referred to by their ethnonym for the most part; the phrase ‘poplicum Genuam’ appears three times in connection to rents due (ll. 25–7, 35), but that rather vague phrase apart, we do not get a sense of the institutional structure of Genua, nor of how the Romans conceived it; Roman forms are hard to detect. The Viturii Langenses seem to have an even more attenuated institutional structure: we are told that others than those holding possessio on the Kalends of Sextilis 117 bc can have possessio if sanctioned ‘de maiore parte Langensium Veituriorum sententia’, and that those who refuse to obey the sententia may neither have nor enjoy the ager in question (ll. 30–2). Like the sententia recorded in this document, the sententia of the Viturii is thought to be binding; but it is not a law, and carries no punitive sanction. The decision-making process could not be more straightforward, a simple majority of the people. No greater complexity or other deliberative body is named, and perhaps none existed, or none whose writ was recognized here. Finally, note the passage where the Romans (overriding the judicial decisions of an autonomous ally120) order the release of any Viturii tried, condemned, and imprisoned because of clashes arising from the original dispute: ‘Vituries quei controuorsias Genuensium ob iniourias iudicati aut damnati sunt, sei quis in uinculeis ob eas res est, eos omneis soluei, mittei leiber<are>ique Genuenses uidetur oportere’ (ll. 42–4). The pleonasm is typical of Roman legal 117 Note that l. 42, on the need to keep the proportion of prata the same from year to year, only says ‘proxuma aestate’ (from a ‘matrix’ text?—on ‘matrix’ documents see Ch. 5). Compare the ‘Romanisation of time’ visible at Capua in 94 bc, in the decree of the pagus Herculaneus: Pobjoy, Arctos (1998), 180, 193. 118 Comparison with a Hellenistic text from Greece is instructive. SIG 3 471 records an arbitration by Megara of a border dispute between Epidauros and Korinth (late 3rd cent. bc). The text details the agreed course of the border between the two poleis through the mountainous terrain: here is a Wrst point of comparison. Osborne, Classical Landscape with Figures, 162–4, notes the concern with control of borders rather than productive agricultural land as a new feature of the post-classical period: those with power, Macedon or the Leagues, sought strategic control of urban centres; the reduced autonomy of individual communities left them ‘playing at politics’ (164). Mutatis mutandis, is it absurd to see in our border dispute Ligurians playing at politics in the absence of an acceptable alternative? If not, then we might note that unlike Epidauros, the Ligurians at odds call in not a local neighbour, but the regional hegemon. Was this a canny move to advertise their disposition to ‘play politics’ properly? 119 Whose legati they are is not clear. 120 Presumably, though, this had been agreed in the arbitration already; ‘uidetur oportere’ (l. 44) is, it must be stressed, a suggestion about morally correct behaviour, not a command.
142
Allies in the Second Century
language, but I do not know of precise parallels, and the phrasing may suggest a Roman uncertainty about the shape and character of freedom and unfreedom in the laws of Genua, and more generally, of its legal institutions.
6 . A L AT I N C O LON I A L L E X A N D A N I TA L I A N C O N S T I T U T I O N As we shall see in Chapter 5, one of the key institutional elements of municipalization was the lex given to a community, which deWned the political, religious, and judicial arrangements appropriate to its functioning as a Roman community. Such leges existed before the Social War, certainly for Latin colonies, and probably for Roman ones, although evidence is lacking for the latter. We know little about these pre-Social-War leges, with three striking exceptions. To these I now turn, beginning with an excursus which must take us down to Venusia on the borders of Apulia, and back into the early third century bc. Venusia is of interest to us because of the lex Osca Bantina,121 an Oscan statute from the Lucanian community of Bantia. This text probably dates to the very end of the second or beginning of the Wrst century bc, but in any event should predate the Social War.122 The immediate context of the law, given such a date, needs some comment, before I turn to the presumed Venusian archetype, which seems to have determined much of the content. As we shall see, in terms of that content, the lex Osca Bantina owes a lot to Roman political and judicial practice, but this text would have seemed a quirky eVort to a contemporary Roman visitor who could read Oscan. Inscribed on the reverse of bronze tablets which had previously been used to display a Roman statute, the Oscan text showed familiar Romanstyle magistracies (censor, praetor, quaestor, tribunus plebis), and clearly contained Romanizing provisions, but ones which must often have seemed at the same time 121 For the law see RS i. 271–92. Oddly, this law, which would have been very germane, is not discussed by Benelli, in Italy and the West, a contribution which, despite important insights, plays down unduly, I think, the importance of public documents in assessing cultural change. 122 On the date of the lex Osca Bantina see the cogent position of RS i. 274–5. The claims of those like Galsterer, Chiron (1971), and Herrschaft, 123, that the law must be Sullan, are unsatisfactory (similar dating in Torelli, Arch. Class. (1969), 16–17; Gabba, Esercito, 553 n. 64; LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr. 50; Cristofani, in PCIA (1978), 96; Letta, in Campanile and Letta, Studi sulle magistrature indigine, 64–5; L. Del Tutto Palma, La tavola bantina (Padua, 1983), 20–2; Costabile, Istituzioni, 143–4, attacked Torelli’s raising of the date of the lex Osca Bantina, but not cogently; despite his objections, the regulations about the status of the tribunate at Bantia, if they are inXuenced by Roman practice, seem easier to associate with the aftermath of the tribunates of the Gracchi and especially M. Fulvius Flaccus than the Sullan period; ibid. 140–4 for further bibliography). The dating to the end of the Wrst quarter of the 2nd cent. bc, given in Johnson, Coleman-Norton, and Bourne, ARS, ad no. 31, is too early, despite the reasons there given; equally the alternative Sullan date will not do. Torelli, Tota Italia, 114 n. 183, 115, thinks the document pre-Social War, and opts for the decade 100–90 as the dating parameters, cf. Vetter, Handbuch ad no. 2; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 129; and most importantly the retraction by Torelli, Athenaeum (1983), 256–7; Nicolet, in Bourgeoisies at 400; Brunt, Fall, 139–43; Cloud, LCM (1993); undecided: Mouritsen, UniWcation, 78–9. The oaths in the statute look reminiscent of the oaths attached to popularis legislation at Rome in the last years of the 2nd cent.
Allies in the Second Century
143
outdated and archaic.123 As we shall see, mediation via Venusia is likely to be a better explanation than direct inXuence from Rome.124 The language of the inscription itself displays a notable level of Latinization, written in Latin script, from left to right, and using, among other instances of the inXuence of Latin, the letter Q, unknown in Oscan.125 The magisterial infrastructure, and the socio-legal procedure and terminology, are all borrowed from a Roman source, down to the abbreviations of magistracies.126 This is the most unusual, most Latinate of the major Oscan texts, and almost gives the impression of the use of what had ceased to be a living, evolving, language (for legal purposes at least). Oscan was, of course, still used in Bantia in the late second century, as the inscription cited above at n. 124 shows. But its future was clearly as a language which would bear the ever-increasing imprint of Latin, if it managed to defy ‘language death’ at all.127 We may, I think, doubt that there were many monoglot Oscan speakers in the Bantian elite in the post-Gracchan period, or many with a reasonable level of literacy, who knew no Latin. To the north, among peoples like the Marsi and Vestini, indigenous languages had died, or at least were no longer used in oYcial writing, by the end of the third century. Was there a reason why the Bantian community still retained an Oscan idiom to articulate heavily Romanized institutions and rules, rather than making the best of a bad case, 123 Roman statute (lex Latina tabulae Bantinae) ¼ RS i. 7; ‘Romanizing’ provisions: Rosenberg, Statt, 101–8, followed by other contributions cited at RS i. 273–4; M. R. Torelli, in Tagliente (ed.), Italici in Magna Grecia; and even Mouritsen, UniWcation, 78. 124 Bantia’s tribunes of the plebs, named in the law (and further evidenced by the statue base from Bantia published by Torelli, Athenaeum (1983); see also del Tutto Palma, SE (1985), 280–4; RS i. 275), are probably a borrowing from the magisterial structure of Venusia: see ILLRP 690. An earlier stage in the absorption of this Latin magistracy into an Oscan institutional framework can be seen at Teanum Sidicinum, where the following (retrograde) text was found in the theatre in 1998: ‘[ . . . ] trı´buf : plı´frı´ks : appelluneı´ : brateı´s : datas : dunat’ (De Caro, in Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti, 223). This record of a dedication to Apollo by a tribunus plebis belongs is some hundred years earlier than the lex Osca Bantina: ‘trı´buf ’ seems to translate tribunus, and is a borrowing from Latin; ‘plı´frı´ks’ however is an Oscan adjective coined for the purpose, making the whole formulation analogous to the familiar meddı´s tu´vtı´ks (ibid.). 125 See RS i. 273–4. This applies only, however, in the case of the borrowing ‘q(uaestor)’; elsewhere the document still has ‘pis’ for ‘quis’, etc. That the language can be described, however, as ‘barely oscanised Latin’ (Mouritsen, UniWcation, 78) seems to me a great exaggeration. 126 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 129–31. The prohibition on holding the tribunate of the plebs after holding any other magistracy (not, as RS i. 274 notes, really analogous to the restrictions placed on the tribunate at Rome by Sulla), show a Roman, or a Hellenizing, thought-world, but need not be specifcally related to the lex Villia annalis; unless perhaps they somehow reXect the upset caused at Rome by powerful men holding the tribunate, especially the tribunate of Fulvius Flaccus, held in 122 after his consulship of 125 bc. To go further out on a limb, we might recall the apparently popularis agitation for the secret ballot at Arpinum, in the same years to which I believe the lex Osca Bantina should be assigned (see above). 127 Note Seamus Heaney’s description of Irish in the mid-1980s, as ‘on hold’: ‘It’s of mythic importance in so far as a myth is an explanation of how things began or how things turned out, why we are as we are. So whether it’s alive or dead in sociological terms almost doesn’t matter. It is mythically alive, because it gives us origin.’ (quoted in McCrum et al., Story of English, 177). Del Tutto Palma, La tavola bantina, 24 V. argues that the language of the document is explained by its Latin origins, and tells us nothing about any latinization of Oscan and Bantia.
144
Allies in the Second Century
and abandoning their own language in favour of the Romans’ tongue, which was altering their native speech in their hearing? RS suggests that the answer may be political, seeing the choice of Oscan at this date as a political statement, a desire to assert an Oscan identity in the face of worsening relations with Rome.128 This is part of the truth, which is, however, more complicated. The choice of Oscan at this period, while not exactly odd, is unusual in such a lengthy and strongly Romanized document, being moreover a choice of an Oscan which looks unlike a language truly alive, certainly as a public, administrative idiom. Language can certainly be political, indeed, its use, spread, and development are more often contingent on political circumstances than not.129 It can be used as an imperial instrument or a vehicle of aspiration, and choices made can signal accommodation as much as resistance to the hegemonical power and its discursive strategies. For example the Oscanized community of Cumae begged the Roman Senate’s permission in 180 to use Latin as the oYcial language of the town.130 This request can be read in a number of ways. On one level it can be treated as an expression of the administrative Romanization of Cumae, the next big decision which would have presented itself to the similarly placed Bantians perhaps. On another it can be seen as an attempt to curry favour with Rome (see Introduction). In any case the ostentatious Xagging of the change and the superXuous seeking of permission (interestingly pointing once more to an inequality of power relations in Italy) are a political gesture. Political gestures can also be made in respect of dying languages, and (as with the adoption of new languages) new ethnic identities can be forged, or old ones strengthened (language is not a marker of ethnicity, but a tool in ethnic construction, if often a subconscious one). Gaelic has been used as a badge of identity by Republicans in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that the language is anything but widely spoken, and indeed did not form a central feature of the nineteenthcentury Irish independence movement.131 One example is the name of the province’s radical republican party, Sinn Fein. A more striking example, since it concerns eVorts to acquire the language as a political and ethnic statement, deals with the use of Gaelic by Irish Republican prisoners in the Maze prison in Belfast: Paddy Malloy, imprisoned for nine years as a Republican activist . . . learnt Irish during his sentence. He remembers: 128 RS i. 276. Such a position might Wnd some support in the (surely correct) assessment of the Social War as largely a movement of independence from Rome in pursuit of equality, not a crusade for citzenship: see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , ch. 5; Mouritsen, UniWcation; and esp. Pobjoy, in State Identities. 129 See for analogous observations in the context of 19th-cent. European nationalism: Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 95–6. With regard to the Bantian situation, Hobsbawm’s discussion ought to make us ask ‘what was at stake in terms of Bantian identity in speaking Oscan?’—the language and its dialects were after all widely spoken across central and southern Italy even at this time. 130 Livy, 40. 42. 13. As at Bantia, what is signiWcant is that we are dealing with the language of public, oYcial, discourse: cf. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 113. 131 Ibid. 105–6, noting that serious attempts to make a ‘national language’ out of the various dialects of Gaelic was (as with Catalan, ibid. 107) a 20th-cent. phenomenon (cf. also ibid. 122).
Allies in the Second Century
145
‘As soon as I got into one of the wings of the H-Block, the Wrst thing I was asked was ‘‘An bhfuil Gaedhilg agatsa?’’ That’s ‘‘Have you got any Gaelic?’’ And I said I had. Like every single word that you had, every sort of phrase, you had to give it out, you’d more or less shout it out the door. People wrote it down on the walls and learnt it.’132
It is hard to imagine that anyone really learnt Gaelic in such circumstances, that is, learnt the syntax and accidence. The accumulation of lexical items, phrases, and tags seems, on Molloy’s evidence, to be contingent on the almost random selection of Gaelic phrases which inmates happened to have on incarceration. Yet in another sense, some sort of ability to communicate, even if in a formulaic manner, must have been acquired. Gaelic in this instance is neither dead not alive. Yet its socio-philological status is secondary to its political value.133 Something similar, very crudely speaking, may be the case with Oscan, in some communities in the generation before the Social War; especially if we bear in mind what was said above about the proliferation of documents at this time in Italian cities repeating and proleptically enforcing the will of the Roman state. On this interpretation the document was deliberately made as Oscan as possible, given the nature of the spoken or written language, as an assertion of Oscan identity. A slightly more nuanced position can, however, be suggested. Returning to our Irish parallel, it is possible to do more than to think of the language question in terms of a Gaelic–English polarity; Irish-English (or Hiberno-English, as opposed to Anglo-Irish, which is the Irish-English of those of immigrant English descent) occupies an important point on what is, in fact, a linguistic spectrum.134 IrishEnglish is not a capitulation to the defeat of Gaelic by the imperialist tongue; it can also be seen as a tool for shaping identities, once its speakers become conWdent about it. To quote Seamus Heaney again: ‘Your language has a lot to do with your conWdence, your sense of place and authority . . . So to speak your own language [Irish-English] and to get a trust in the pronunciation and in the quirks of vocabulary, and so on, is to go through a kind of political re-awakening . . . That applies in all colonial or post-colonial situations: you have it in the Caribbean, and you had it of course in America.’135
The diVerences between contemporary Ireland and a Lucanian community some twenty-two centuries earlier need no stressing. Nevertheless, I wonder whether there are not some analogies between the Latinizing Oscan of the lex Osca Bantina and Irish-English. That is, to ask whether we may not see the lex Osca Bantina less as an attempt to revive a dying language, than as one to Wnd a local idiom and make it the community’s own, despite its obvious Latinity, and in the process make a political statement (as well as producing a political document) about Bantian distinctiveness in the face of an increasingly exclusive 132 Quoted in McCrum et al., Story of English, 206. 133 Compare the cu´pla focal, the ‘couple of words’ of Gaelic, which ritually preface speeches in the Dail (ibid. 197). In a state where the Republican aims have long been achieved, the political and ethnic associations of Gaelic must be slightly diVerent from those in the North; perhaps reactions of Oscan among Roman and independent communities using the language can be similarly nuanced. 134 For the distinction, ibid. 172–6. 135 Quoted ibid. 208, see also 417.
146
Allies in the Second Century
and intransigent Rome, whose Latin pronouncements circulated ever more frequently around Italy.136 The generation prior to the Social War, the context in which I would like to place the text, and more speciWcally the late second century bc saw considerable physical change at Bantia which ought to reXect, albeit not in a simple way, social change.137 Excavations in the north-eastern part of the settlement area have brought to light evidence for urban reorganization on a fairly orthogonal grid at this period.138 This could be termed urbanization, but its signiWcance seems to be best understood in the context of the more dispersed type of settlement prevailing since the start of the third century on the site. We may be seeing an assertion of the strength of the community, and the cultured values associated with more formal urban infrastructure, perhaps at the expense of the powers of the principes of the community, who might have excercised more direct inXuence in a more dispersed settlement system (as do Mantineia’s fourth-century oligarchs in Xenophon).139 The assertion of a strongly self-regulated community comes across clearly in the lex Osca Bantina, and is also reXected in a religious context in the remarkable discovery of a templum augurale in the probable centre of the community.140 This seems to be based closely on the Roman model, with the ‘names’ of the gods in Oscan rather than Roman. A new socio-religious underpinning of the community seems to be envisaged in these years. This underpinning is Roman in form, and is bound up with wider patterns of change in the region, a change in which Rome was now unquestionably, to use A. Poulter’s phrase, the principal of Bantia’s many traditional cultural ‘interlocutors’.141 The ideas behind the augural templum may not, however, be imported themselves, and something analogous must have existed in Daunia, for similar purposes;142 it seems that it is the manner of expression that is changing, as well as the self-representation of those using the new cultural language. Torelli argues that ‘we are dealing with a concerted eVort to remake the face of the city, the patterns of social life, and the entire complex of institutions animating the public sphere, and all of course as much in the image of Rome as possible’ (Tota Italia, 114–15), an eVort aiming unambiguously at displaying the suitability of the ruling elites for the Roman citizenship. 136 In such a context we might even wonder whether some of the text’s archaisms are not a conscious attempt to stress diVerence. See also Anderson, Imagined Communities, 133–4, on the power of language to generate imagined communities, rather than being simply a reXex or a property of the nation. Whether or not Bantian aristocrats knew theirs was a language in decline as a public idiom perhaps makes no diVerence—they imagined Bantia through Oscan, and similarly threw into relief linguistic borders with Bantian territory, above all that with Latin-speaking Venusia. 137 On Bantia in general see the summary in Torelli, Tota Italia, 112–15, locating these changes with the later phases in the ‘Romanization’ of Daunia (see more widely ibid. 89–118); see below. 138 Tagliente, in Salvatore (ed.), Basilicata, 71–2. 139 Torelli, Tota Italia, 113. For Mantineia see Xen., Hell. 5. 2. 1–7. 140 Torelli, RAL (1966); RAL (1969), 39–40; Tota Italia, 114. On the assertion of local identity, cf. Benelli (in Italy and the West, 9) on Italian public inscriptions in general as ‘reXect[ing] the political identity of each community’. 141 A. Poulter, Transforming Tarantine Horizons. 142 Torelli, Tota Italia, 114.
Allies in the Second Century
147
I endorse the Wrst half of the equation, but cannot follow the second; while the display of urbanitas through particular kinds of urban euergetism as well as broader cultural strategies may indeed have been a way in which Italian principes sought to impress their Roman peers in the quest for political equality,143 there are surely other factors at play. The adoption of Latin would have been an impressive gambit in such negotiations, and not so hard for those plundering a Latin statute for material (see below). I think it is better to see broad processes of change, under a number of stimuli, across Daunia, exempliWed here at Bantia, which we might crudely designate as Romanization. Against such longer term social changes, the opposition of local elites to Roman attitudes is likely to be inXected at a quicker pace; it is not impossible to see a new self-conWdence and communal identity emerging from the archaeological evidence at Bantia, and I think we should see in the lex Osca Bantina, in conjunction with these developments, an elite trying to lead a community towards a comfortable identity within changes which could not be resisted. Bantia was becoming more Roman, but, I would argue, was also appropriating the expression of those changes to adopt a distinctive and non- (as opposed to anti-)Roman position. So much for the contemporary situation. What of the roots of the document, the Romanizing, but oddly old-fashioned character of the lex Osca Bantina, to which I alluded above? The presence of a number of archaic elements in the text can be explained only by postulating an ultimate derivation from a Roman or Roman-inXuenced legal document of some antiquity. This, it seems fairly likely, should be the lex or statute, which contained the ‘constitution’ of the Latin colony of Venusia.144 The lex Osca Bantina in that case may be counted, mutatis mutandis, alongside the third-century leges sacrae from Luceria and Spoletium as important evidence for the internal workings of Latin colonies in the age of Roman expansion in Italy.145 The sections of the lex Osca Bantina which contain these ‘ossiWed’ elements, which may plausibly be located in a ‘charter’146 issued in the early years of the third century, are the Wrst Wve topics covered in the surviving portion of the text, that is, ll. 2–27.147 The Wrst of these, ll. 2–8, covers the circumstances under which comitia (apparently in the general sense of assemblies of the people 143 See Torelli, in Bourgeoisies. 144 Cf. RS i. 276: ‘Overall, we believe that the archetype of chapters I–V of the Lex Osca brings us very close to the charter of a Latin colony at the turn of the fourth and third centuries’; cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 79, noting the presence of the tribunate at Venusia (CIL ix. 438). It is of course possible that Venusia is not the sole source underlying the lex Osca Bantina, and even (though less likely) that it is not the source at all. 145 Luceria: CIL i2 . 401, perhaps even as early as the very end of the 4th cent. (Gargola, Lands, 30, however suggests the second half of the 3rd cent.); Spoletium: CIL i2 . 366, not long after 241 bc. 146 For this term see Ch. 5 below. 147 For the Oscan text, see RS i. 277–8; for the reconstruction of a Latin original, RS i. 281–2; and for an English translation, RS i. 283–4. I have followed the versions of each given in RS unless otherwise stated. The RS translation of ‘izic eizeic zicel[ei] / comono ni hipid’ (ll. 7–8), namely ‘he may not that day hold (any other) assembly’ may read too much into the Oscan text: ‘(any) assembly’ will do better.
148
Allies in the Second Century
for any purpose148) may be cancelled or postponed. In itself the provision does not have a markedly archaic air,149 but the Oscan ‘pertemust’ (l. 4) and ‘pertumum’, ‘pertumest’ (l. 7) seem to be based on the Latin perimere,150 one of whose meanings in archaic Latin was ‘prohibit’, the meaning required here.151 Lines 8–13 deal with trial before the touto (or in a Latin archetype populus): the meddı´ss/magistratus must exact an oath from the people that they will pass judgement in the public interest; infringement of this requirement involves a Wne for the magistrate concerned, and any (other) magistrate (‘pis . . . meddis’, l. 12) may increase the Wne if he wishes, up to a point. Trial before the people in Rome is older than trial by jury, but that in itself does not guarantee the antiquity of this clause, nor that such trials were limited to an early phase of Latin colonies’ evolution.152 The rider stating that a Wne greater than 2,000 nummi may not however be more than half the oVender’s estate (ll. 12–3, 18, 27) looks at Wrst sight as though it might be quite old: RS compares an identical provision in the lex Silia (l. 12), a law which belongs somewhere in the mid-third century.153 The same clause however remained in use into the late second century (lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, ll. 11–2).154 On the other hand it is possible that the expression of the monetary value of the Wne as a number of nummi here and in l. 26 does point back to an early period. As RS remarks, these nummi should be a local bronze unit of coinage; they stand in contrast to the silver units of the Adamesteanu fragment, ll. 5–6, which must be denarii, dating the clause there to after 211 bc.155 It may, but need not, follow that the speciWcation of nummi dates 148 Note however that ll. 8–18 deal solely with various aspects of trial before the people, and that l. 2 deals with the possibility that a quaestor shall want to Wne someone. Thus the whole text down to the provisions regarding the census (ll. 18 V.) may be about trials before the people, and the comitia referred to in ll. 2–8 thus be judicial. Note also that ll. 20–3 deal with the punishment of incensi, and that ll. 23–7 also deal with trials. Only with the cursus honorum do we leave judicial proceedings. Lines, 33— Adamesteanu frag. l. 9 seem to return to the judicial theme. The phrase ‘dat castrid louWr / en eituas’ (ll. 8–9) is of uncertain meaning: see RS i. 286–7 for the possibilities; the view there adopted is attractive. 149 The control of the senate over the process of prohibition looks (in an unhelpfully general way) ‘old’ or ‘pre-Gracchan’, and might represent the oligarchic sympathies on which Roman hegemony in Italy was partly predicated, until at least the Second Punic War. The only real republican parallel for the form of the oath stating that the prohibition is in order (‘he is to swear before the light of day in the comitium without wrongful deceit that’, l. 5), is in the late 2nd cent. lex Latina tabulae Bantinae (RS no. 7), the earlier text on the other side of the tablet carrying lex Osca Bantina: ‘[pro ae]de Castorus palam luci in forum uorsus et ei<s>dem in diebus (quinque) apud q(uaestorem) iouranto per Iouem deosque [Penateis]’ (ll. 17–8). For the ‘democratic’ overtones of this process see Millar, Republic and Revolution, 140; but note that the translation of the Oscan ‘sipus’ by ‘palam luci’ in lex Osca Bantina is not certain: see RS i. 286 ad loc. 150 See RS i. 276, 285. 151 Festus, p. 236 L, citing the Augustan antiquarian L. Cincius’ de uerbis priscis. Although Festus also cites Cato (in his book ‘de re militari’) as using peremere to mean uitiare, which can have the meaning ‘invalidate’ (see OLD s.v. ‘uitio’ (4), esp. Festus, p. 268L), this verb does not seem to belong to the language of legal texts. 152 The clause applies, despite RS i. 287 ad l. 9, to the imposition of an oath by the magistrate. 153 RS i. 287; for the lex Silia see RS ii. 737–9. 154 RS ii. 739, citing also the lex Gabinia Calpurnia of 58 bc; there, however, both language and procedure are slightly diVerent. 155 See RS i. 275, and Crawford, in OCD 3 359 for the date of the introduction of the silver denarius.
Allies in the Second Century
149
the underlying Latin clause, or its archetype, to a period before 211, and thus perhaps to the original Venusian lex.156 The procedure for trial itself (ll. 13–18) does however look archaic. It seems, although we cannot be quite certain what the Oscan text means, that four preliminary accusations must be made before the touto passes judgement; furthermore speciWed delays are built into the process.157 This looks similar to the procedure for holding iudicia populi at Rome; and the antiquity of such trials before the people is not disputed.158 While this clause does not by its presence guarantee the antiquity of the archetype from which it came,159 the fact that such an archaic form of trial seems to be the ‘default’ procedure not only at Bantia, but also in the community whose statute was used to frame the Bantian law, is suggestive. Furthermore, the archaic language used here makes it likely that this section of the law does derive from a third-century Venusian archtype: ‘petirupert’ (l. 14) and ‘petiropert’ (l. 15) should, it seems, be translated by the Latin verb orare, which it seems was the archaic equivalent of agere in legal contexts;160 ‘com preivatud’ (ll. 15, 16) (Lat. cum privato) also seems to be an archaic form, since the obscure commentarium of Sergius the quaestor, cited by Varro, uses it as a synonym for reus;161 Wnally and less certainly, RS suggests that ‘peremust’ (l. 15) may be cognate with an unattested Latin form praeimere, and notes that Festus gives emere as the archaic word for accipere.162 Lines 18–23, on the obligation of the Bantians to present themselves at the census, and penalties for not doing so, do not seem to present any strongly archaic elements.163 Lines 23–7, however, especially ‘ligud agum’ (l. 24), refer to what appears to be the Roman legis actio procedure or something very like it.164 Furthermore the phrase ‘pru medicatud manim aserum’ seems to translate the archaic Latin formula pro iudicato manu adserere.165 At Rome suit by legis actio 156 Cf. use of nummi in Luceria’s lex sacra (CIL i2 . 401, with Degrassi, ad ILLRP 504. n. 4). 157 On the diYculties in establishing the meaning, see RS i. 287. 158 On iudicia populi at Rome see Cic., Dom. 45 with Nisbet’s commentary ad loc.; for the similarities with lex Osca Bantina, see RS i. 287–8, noting for instance the diVerence in detail over the speciWed intervals in the trial process. 159 Iudicia populi were not completely replaced by trial before quaestiones: note the show trials of L. Cornelius Merula in 87 (App., BC 1. 74. 342) and C. Rabirius in 63 (Cic., Rab. Perd.). 160 See RS i. 288. For the archaic usage: XII Tables, i. 6 and 21 (with RS ad loc.), Festus p. 196L; cf. Paulus pp. 17L, 219L. The verb is still twice so used in Cicero (Cic., Quinct. 43, with Kinsey’s note ad. loc., and Brut. 47, with Douglas’s note ad loc.). Note also the language of Tacitus, Ann. 11. 5, 13. 42, referring to the lex Cincia of 204 bc, which itself seems to have contained the (tralatician) archaic form ‘duit’ (‘gives’?). Tacitus is probably archaizing, but he may be reXecting the language of the law itself. The Oscan text also has the later form ‘actud’ (agito) in l. 15. 161 Varro, LL 6. 90–2; the date of the work is unknown (cf. Broughton, MRR ii. 477): it must be later than 242 bc, since more than one praetor is mentioned, but for Varro the commentary was already ‘uetus’. 162 RS i. 288, citing XII Tables, vi. 1–2 (a), Paulus, pp. 41, 66L, and Festus p. 332L. 163 Unless ‘uincter’ (l. 21) (Lat. uincitur) is a ‘fossilised present’, as RS i. 289 claims. 164 RS i. 289–90. 165 See RS i. 276, 290. Cf. also CIL i2 . 401 (Luceria, early 3rd cent.): ‘sei quis aruorsu(m) hac faxit, [ceiu]ium quis uolet pro ioudicatod n(ummum) {L} manum iniect[i]o estod’. As Degrassi remarked, this seems to refer to a legis actio under the terms of the colonial lex of Luceria.
150
Allies in the Second Century
began to be replaced as a result of the lex Aebutia at some point in the second century bc, although the process of substituting the legis actio procedure with a more Xexible formulary one seems not to have been completed until the time of Augustus.166 Manum iniectio (to use the later and more common name for the action) was an archaic form of procedure used against debtors, and appears in the XII Tables, as well as later in the lex coloniae Genetiuae.167 Now, the presence of manum iniectio as a form of procedure in the Caesarian lex coloniae Genetiuae168 illustrates again that the presence of archaic features does not necessarily make the immediate Latin exemplar for the lex Osca Bantina archaic itself. The presence, and the language, of this clause, however, make it hard to dismiss the conclusion that we are dealing, at some remove, with a third-century archetype (compare what was said about nummi above). Of the material reviewed, only that relating to the census and the punishment of those who evaded it has no strong claim to be regarded as coming from a thirdcentury archetype as opposed to a later, amended, version or stratum of the lex. This does not mean that it is not in fact a third-century provision, only that we cannot say that it is. For the other clauses considered, a fair case for derivation, at least indirectly, from a third-century source can be made out. The same is probably true for the oYces named in the section on the cursus honorum at Bantia (ll. 27–30), although the articulation of a cursus may be a phenomenon which dates from around or after the time of the lex Villia annalis (i.e. 180 bc).169 What we can reconstruct of a presumed Venusian archetype from a fragmentary Oscan descendant sheds little light on the fundamental nature of the lex of a Latin colony in the late fourth and early third century. There are some substantive regulations which shed light on the powers of the magistrates, senate, and people, and the relationship of these various bodies to each other in judicial and penal processes. The text also mentions ‘eizazunc egmazum / pas exaiscen ligis scriftas set’ (ll. 24–5): elsewhere in the law there was a series of substantive provisions governing the right to manum inicere in cases of debt (?), and perhaps the legis actio procedure as well.170 Yet over all the surviving text talks of procedure rather then substantive rules, and where there are rules they are of a secondary and even procedural order (the cursus honorum); penalties for infringement follow, whether because we are in a section of the lex which was concerned with judicial matters in general, or because leges (of this kind at this period) were generally prescriptive and negative rather than permissive and positive. The general procedural character interestingly matches that of much later municipal legislation (especially the lex coloniae Genetiuae and fragmentum 166 Jolowicz and Nicolas, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law 3 , 199–208, 218–25; Kinsey, M. Tulli Ciceronis Pro P. Quinctio Oratio, Edited with Text, Introduction and Commentary, 217. 167 See RS i. 290, and ii. 625–9 for the XII Tables reference. 168 Lex Coloniae Genetiuae 61. 169 The regulations governing holding the tribunate seem to be later still—see above. ll. 30 V. may deal with the interval between holding a magistracy and becoming III uir. 170 The precise reference of the genitive phrase which is antecedent to the following relative clause is not clear to me.
Allies in the Second Century
151
Atestinum), which may simply be a question of the chances of survival. Nevertheless, it is legitimate to ask to what extent early municipal charters regulated explicitly the areas which appear our text: the names of magistrates, the census, conduct of criminal trials, rules governing manum iniectio and procedure of civil cases, and later the cursus honorum. Venusia, as a Latin colony, was an autonomous and independent state, and therefore may have required a lex of greater completeness and complexity than that of a Roman colony, which would have been a much smaller settlement. Further, the Roman citizen colony might have, so to speak, taken a number of its leges as read since the colonists (or most of them) were Roman citizens in origin, and as such subject to the full body of Roman legislation even before any deductio took place.171 What, in the mid-fourth century (with the foundation of Cales), was a new type of document, required to underpin the politics, law, and society of a Latin state, must have aVected, if only by the most indirect and slow osmosis, the leges of Roman colonies to some extent. The same should be true to a lesser degree of municipia, above all those which were being incorporated as the Latin colonial leges developed.172 Roman legislators will have become familiar with creating more complex and wide-ranging prescriptive legal documents, and some of this must have rubbed oV on the municipia. The extent and eVect of such rubbing oV is impossible to quantify for our period, but for the (geographically proximate) allied community of Bantia it seems to have been widespread and profound. There is no good evidence, or rather, no evidence, for a general imposition or adoption of Roman magisterial names and structures in the fourth or third centuries, as far as the municipia are concerned. We are however right to ask whether Rome began making assumptions about questions like the conduct of judicial proceedings and the census, and to regulate these in municipia along the lines upon which she had established them for Latin colonies. In fact, there is some common ground between areas of the archetype of the lex Osca Bantina and later material contained in Roman and/or municipal statutes.173 It is a nice point, however, to determine whether these are to be explained in terms 171 Colonization made some of these laws impossible for the colonists to observe or implement, due to physical separation from Rome; others would have to be altered to allow the colony to fulWl its functions (e.g. uacatio militiae). It is in areas like this that the speciWcations of a Roman colonial charter should have been most speciWc and complex. 172 Note Sherwin-White’s claim (Citizenship2 , 46–7) for parallelism between the status and privileges of early municipia and Latin colonies: for him the two institutions were in some respects very close in the 4th cent. I am not sure that I would endorse this claim. 173 Compare the following: lex Osca Bantina, ll. 3–4, with CIL i2 . 698 (lex de parieti faciendo), lex coloniae Genetiuae 64, 98 (with RS i. 399), D. 50. 9. 3 (Ulpian) (the quorum of the senate at two-thirds); lex Osca Bantina, ll. 7–8, with lex Flauia E (on the rights of magistrates to summon/desummon assemblies); lex Osca Bantina, l. 5, with lex Latina Tabulae Bantinae, ll. 17, 24, lex coloniae Genetiuae 81 (taking an oath in public; if of course ‘sipus’ means what RS i. 286 think it does—see above); lex Osca Bantina, ll. 5–7, with lex Flauia 79 (oaths); lex Osca Bantina, l. 10, with lex Flauia 26 (terms of the oath); lex Osca Bantina, ll. 11–12, with lex coloniae Genetiuae 62, l. 33, (identical verbal formula, very diVerent context); lex Osca Bantina, l. 21, with lex coloniae Genetiuae 61, l. 6 (shared technical term); lex Osca Bantina, l. 24, with lex coloniae Genetiuae 61, ll. 1–2 (manum iniectio).
152
Allies in the Second Century
of continuity from and inXuence of the Latin archetype (as opposed to other later inXuences on the Oscan text as we have it), or whether both early and later manifestations simply draw on the traditional language of Roman legislation, which was common to a wide range of diVerent laws, and which Xowed down a number of parallel courses to reach us in a variety of later documents. Overall the eight examples of common material give the impression of overlap rather than continuity of language and material. Indeed, the reader is bound to be struck rather by how diVerent the Latin archetype is from later municipal material, even when de-oscanized. What we know of later municipal charters suggests that they evolved from a juridical matrix which was distantly related to that of the Latin colonies in the third century. Unfortunately we cannot say how much closer, if at all, municipal or Roman colonial leges were to their Latin cousins during the third century. Indeed, the colonial experience in the third century, Roman and Latin, was probably one of greater institutional, religious, and ethnic diversity than has been hitherto accepted by scholars.174 We are back where we started: it would be surprising if the new breed of Latin charters provoked no reaction in Roman material, but it may have done no more than start the process whereby municipal charters became fuller and more complex—recognizable as charters. We are in a better position when it comes to saying something about the individuals who mediated the introduction of these leges, or who at least had a considerable inXuence over the shaping of Latin colonial institutions. Two remarkable pieces of evidence on these issues have come to light in the last century. Both are inscriptions commemorating important Wgures involved in the setting up and supervision of colonies. If some diversity of colonial practice was a reality in the third century, we should expect that constitutional arrangements might have displayed some variety, and that a blueprint for colonial leges or magisterial structures, and the powers of the local ordo, should be hard to identify. The fact is that the material available to us is too nugatory to allow the hypothesis to be tested. Of the two pieces of evidence I am to review, one suggests considerable informality and variety of practice in the early years of a colony’s life, and the other suggests that some uniformity at least informed the Roman vision of her colonies as an ensemble. This evidence, concerning Latin colonies, spans the third and second centuries; while there is no automatic reason to assume that similar conditions pertained in Roman colonies, the possibility, and its implications, should at least be considered. In 1958, Emilio Gabba brought to wider scholarly attention an inscription from Brindisi, known already for a few years in local journals. The incomplete imperial text, on Luni marble, seems to have been an elogium, probably originally surmounted by a portrait bust, bearing the name of the dead man.175 Gabba’s restored text is as follows:176 174 See Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonization. 175 Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 90–2, for details of the stone and the surviving text. It is now in the Museo Archeologico di Brindisi (no inventory number displayed). 176 Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 105.
Allies in the Second Century
153
PRIMVS SENATVM LEGIT ET COMITI[A INSTITVIT M IVNIO PERA M AEMILIO] BARBVLA COS CIRCVM SEDIT VI[BINVM BELLO PVNICO SECVNDO PRAESI] DIVMQVE HANNIBALIS ET PRAE[FECTVM EIVS CEPIT VIRTVTE IN REBVS] MILITARIBVS PRAECIPVAM GLOR[IAM SIBI COMPARAVIT]177
As Gabba noted, like the elogia Tarquiniensia, the Brundisium elogium is a survival, in a funerary context, of local Hellenistic tradition into the imperial age. The document speaks as we would expect of a production of its era, but the content, although not immune from distortions either through local oral tradition, or contamination from the Roman imperial redaction, should be more or less sound.178 The inscription commemorates a loyalist hero of the Second Punic War; for our purposes, however, his political actions within Brundisium, not his military exploits, matter. The text claims that our anonymous was the Wrst man to conduct a lectio senatus for the colony, and the Wrst to set up comitia for the election of magistrates.179 Presumably from this point the colonia Latina of Brundisium functioned in large measure like other Latin colonies, as an autonomous state tied by treaty to Rome. But what happened before this ‘normal service’? Gabba has demonstrated not only that the anonymous honorand was the Wrst to legere the senate and instituere electoral assemblies, but also that this, and not a Roman political reform, is what happened in the consulate of Pera and Barbula.180 This was the year which we call 230 bc; the deductio of Brundisium had taken place either in 247/6 bc (Livy, Per. 19) or 244 bc (the date given by Velleius—1. 14. 8—heterodox, but not necessarily wrong).181 Thus, whatever the exact date at which settlers arrived on the site of Brundisium, and conducted the foundation rituals and primary building (e.g. fortiWcations) deemed appropriate, it was at least another fourteen years before the group so led out became a coherent, stable community regulating itself on clear, agreed bases. Now social and timocratic divisions may have been established as soon as plots of land were assigned, but broadly speaking, both ordinary colonists and the later ruling class seem to have coexisted in a sort of unregulated limbo for about a decade and a
177 ‘He [the dead man] was the Wrst to choose the senate and [establish e]lectoral assemblies in the consulship of [M. Iunius Pera and M. Aemilius] Barbula. He besieged Vi[binum in the second Punic War and captured the [garri]son of Hannibal and [his] pre[fect. By courage in] military [matters] he [obtained for himself] outstanding glor[y]’. 178 The narratological distinction between fabula (the basic sequence of events) and the story (the way those events are selected, ordered, and told) may be helpful here. 179 Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 97. 180 Ibid. 96–7. 181 Ibid. 96, for an attempt to solve the puzzle. Velleius gives a consular date. The day of foundation (the colony’s birthday) is given twice by Cicero (Att. 4. 1. 4, Sest. 131), who saw it as a good omen that he landed on his return from exile to Wnd the colony in full festival. For parallels see ILLRP 518 (Puteoli, Augustan), CIL xi. 4170 (Interamna Nahars, Tiberian), perhaps CIL xiv. 2410 (Bovillae, to which the lost Wgure ab urbe condita might refer rather than Rome, set up ad 157).
154
Allies in the Second Century
half.182 What supplied the want of leges and iura in this period (for the Wrst three years of which Rome was still Wghting Karthage)? We may imagine that the founding tresuiri played some role, but it seems that there must also have been some person or persons on the spot regularly and continuously. Further questions arise: was the anonymous a Roman? A Latin? Or a Messapian like the Dasius who betrayed Cremona in 218 (Livy, 21. 48. 9, cf. Poly., 2. 69. 1)?183 How might family connections among the settlers (of any origin) have been used to buttress his position? The loss of the individual’s name makes speculation futile. Nevertheless, we are forced to confront, I think, the fact that, had everything been settled in Rome at the assembly or meeting of the Senate which authorized the colony,184 and a blueprint and a colonial lex issued, such an interregnum (I use the word advisedly) should not have been necessary. Later practice (or an ideal unrealized in practice) may underlie Pomponius’ deWnition of decuriones in the Digest: ‘decuriones quidam dictos aiunt decima pars eorum qui ducerentur consilii publici gratia conscribi solita sit’ (‘certain authorities say that decuriones is the term given to the tenth part of those who were led out [to found a colony], whom it was customary to enrol for the sake of forming the public council’).185 Here the consilium publicum envisaged seems to Wt neither with a choice of the local ordo by the Roman tresuiri,186 nor the recorded actions of the anonymous Brundisine. Yet the Brindisi elogium shows us only the local senate and comitia lagging behind the foundation and settlement of the colony, it might be argued. It might be said that this situation does not entail the absence of jurisdiction and laws. Need it require martial law? Surely such an uncertain situation would not have been in Rome’s interests, least of all with the First Punic War still far from decided? First, we may reply at a general level that, if there were magistrates before 230, they were either given an indeWnite term of oYce, or were appointed by the tresuiri, and used an informal consilium rather than a senate to help them operate.187 A succession of such interreges is of course very possible; but why then have recourse to our man to ‘cut the blue ribbon’ in 230? Might he not have acted more or less alone, sustained by family and amici, and in the last resort, the might of friends in Rome? Indeed, the date of his actions suggests a quasi legality, or legality by association, if nothing else: censors took up oYce at Rome in 230 bc, and will have conducted a lectio senatus, as well as reviewing the lists of the classes 182 Integration of some local elites into the social structure of the community may have required time: see Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 100; id., Italia Romana 51. Commissioners appoint magistrates and senators, and promulgate Wrst statutes at Cosa, according to the reconstruction of Brown, Cosa, 18. 183 Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 100–1; Italia Romana, 51. 184 LaY, DdA (1988), on the institutional preliminaries to colonial foundations, arguing, not entirely convincingly, for a primary role for the Senate. 185 D. 50. 16. 239. 5; Appian, BC 5. 531, Dio, 49. 14. 3; Ku¨bler, RE s.v. ‘decurio’, col. 2325. 186 Suggested as procedure by Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 98. 187 I see no evidence to support the claim of Gabba (ibid. 99–100) that long-term magistrates and a local senate had been put in place in 244, and that our anonymous subject now (230) revised the list and started the electoral process as one of these magistrates. Indeed, ‘primus senatum legit’ suggests that no senate was in place before 230. And if our man was a magistrate, there is no proof that he had a colleague.
Allies in the Second Century
155
and centuries which determined each Roman’s position within the broader group voting structure.188 Our man is not called a censor, but he may have assimilated himself to such a position. Until recently the Brundisine text was an isolated phenomenon. But evidence for a comparable Wgure has recently come to light, this time a republican epigraphic text. It comes from a statue base, sporting a Doric triglyph frieze, from the forum of Aquileia.189 It runs: ‘T. Annius T. f. tri(um) uir / is hance aedem / faciundam dedit / dedicauitque legesq(ue) / composiuit deditque / senatum ter coptauit’.190 The inscription was originally set up in the forum of Aquileia in front of a temple, which T. Annius paid for and dedicated.191 One of the achievements for which he was to remembered was to create and ‘give’ leges for the colony; another was, as at Brundisium, to co-opt the senate, in this case not once, but three times. He is the T. Annius Luscus who (with two others) led the supplementum to Aquileia in 169 bc;192 the inscription should date from at least Wfteen years after the sending of the supplementum, if he chose the senate for three separate quinquennia, but may not be as late as Tiussi implies (last decades of the second century).193 Interestingly, we know that, unusually for boards of colonial tresuiri in the Wrst half of the second century, all three of the men who led the supplementum were at the time not yet of praetorian rank, and so hardly experienced statesmen (although Annius might have become such by the time his laws were given).194 We do not know that the leges were given in 169, and the coopting of the senates must have gone on over a number of quinquennia, at least into the late 150s. Annius might still have been alive in the 130s. The conclusions to be drawn are of great interest. It seems that it might take time to set up a colonial ‘constitution’, and especially to create and Wx a body of senators in the colony.195 Even then the colonial ‘constitution’ could be revised, 188 Ibid. 98–9. As he rightly notes, Livy, 29. 15. 9–10 and 37. 7 show that Latin colonial and Roman censuses coincided in an least one set of cases for an unspeciWed period from the late 3rd cent. onwards; but this seems to be both an innovation and a punishment. 189 Tiussi, in Tesori delle Postumia, 514, with photograph at pl. V.27. I am grateful to Michael Crawford for drawing this text to my attention. 190 ‘T. Annius T. f. tri(um)vir. This man gave the means to construct (?) this temple here and dedicated it, and composed and gave laws and three times co-opted the senate.’ For the form ‘composiuit’ cf. the sententia Minuciorum (ILLRP 517), l. 2. 191 ‘dedit’ might be better understood as referring to the creation of a lex dicta for the creation of the temple. 192 Livy, 43. 17. 193 The open ‘P’ might suggest a date before the last quarter of the century? Note that no magisterial titles are given. 194 See Gargola, Lands, 60–3, for full comparative discussion. 195 For delay in the establishment of colonies, and extended preparations for foundation: Brown, Cosa, 5 (suggesting a three year tenure for colonial ‘commissioners’, cf. Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 32), 8; and Keppie, CQ (1981), 367, on the time lag causing veteran discontent in triumviral period: App., BC 3. 87, 5. 13, Plut., Ant. 73). Aquileia itself in 171 sought senatorial help to strengthen the colony’s fortiWcations: ‘nouam et inWrmam necdum satis munitam’, Livy, 43.1. 5; Bandelli (in Bourgeoisies, 179 and n. 27) is right to stress not only the background to this request, but the Istrian war of 178/177 bc as factors which may have slowed the initial development of the colony.
156
Allies in the Second Century
especially perhaps with the problems created by the inXux of new settlers (and we do not know how the new settlers were integrated into the situation created by the highly articulated and generous land distributions for the original colonists).196 We may imagine that such problems were among those addressed by Annius’ leges (note the plural). It seems that such revisions depended on the input of a powerful Wgure in the Roman aristocracy, who acted as law-giver, censorial Wgure, euergete, and embedded his role within the religious fabric of the colony. His involvement might go on for some time; it stemmed from his position as triumuir, and that provided a bridge to facilitate the involvement of a Roman in the constitutional aVairs of a non-Roman sovereign state. His position in the community, in life and in death, seems to have been one of Periklean importance. He provided money, experience, and auctoritas, and created and improved the instrumenta which governed the political functioning of the new community, as well as moulding the class which ruled within the terms of those same laws—it seems his intervention here was seen as the guarantee of an impartiality which was temporarily beyond the locals.197 Roman involvement in the juridical set-up of her colonies (Latin, and we must presume Roman too) seems to be signiWcant, and could be extended over a period of time, mediated by high-status Wgures. For the latter part of the third and the Wrst half of the second centuries, the evidence reviewed above suggests to us that, far being able to postulate a blueprinted colonial set-up, or a done deal simply actuated by the passing of the relevant legislation in Rome, we must see the creation and enabling of colonies as fully functional and autonomous socio-political communities as being gradual, and subject to more than a decade of interference by high-status individuals. They supplied defects in the original enabling law, or in its execution, shaped the governing class, and set the tone for its political life and institutions, the impact they had is neither trivial nor epiphenomenal, as the survival, and indeed perpetuation, of their res gestae into the imperial period show.
7 . C O N C LU S I O N S Recently a consul visited Teanum Sidicinum. His wife announced that she wanted to take a bath in the mens’ bath-house there. M. Marius, the quaestor of Sidicinum was charged with clearing the bath-house of those who were using it. The consul’s wife told her husband that the bath house had not been made available to her quickly enough, and was not clean enough. Accordingly, a stake was set up in the market-place, and to it was led the leader of the nobility of the town, M. Marius. His clothes were stripped and he was
196 See Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies 177; on such distributions in general: Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonization, 76–7 (to the bibliography there add Gabba, Italia romana, 51–3, suggesting that hierarchical social structure of Latin colonies seen in diVerential distributions was also enshrined in the colonial leges). 197 Was the integration of prominent indigenous families at issue? See Bandelli, Bourgeorsies, 183.
Allies in the Second Century
157
Xogged. When the news of this incident reached Cales, that town itself issued an edict forbidding the use of its public baths whenever a Roman magistrate should be there. At Ferentinum, and for the same reason, a Roman praetor ordered the quaestors to be arrested: one threw himself oV the wall, the other was seized and Xogged. . . . I shall give you just one example to show you the extent of the self-indulgence and viciousness of some younger men. Within these last few years, a young man was sent on a mission back from Asia, a man who had not then held any magistracy but was serving as an acting legate. He was being carried along in a litter. A simple countryman from Venusia met the party, and jokingly—not knowing who was inside the litter—asked them if they had a dead body inside. Hearing this the young oYcer ordered his litter to be put down and had the poor fellow Xogged with the litter-straps, so savagely that he died. (C. Gracchus, De legibus promulgatis, ap. Aulus Gellius, NA 10. 3).
In such terms C. Gracchus, in an unknown context, attacked the vicious arrogance with which some of the Roman aristocracy treated the elites, the magistrates, and the ordinary inhabitants of Italian towns and Latin colonies. To such a point do the relations of Rome and her former partners in winning empire seem to have deteriorated. Caution is desirable, however. Allied quaestors were not queuing up to throw themselves from their (in the case of Ferentinum, not inconsiderable) city walls. There were disgraceful incidents, but they were not routine, and we cannot extrapolate to posit a ‘background noise’ of Roman brutality. Yet reality is one thing, perception of the reality another. Only a few high-proWle incidents are needed to create the impression of a widespread problem, and those living under the shadow of potential harsh treatment do not often allow themselves the luxury of historians’ detachment and statistical comforts. The pre-emptive action of Cales is very signiWcant, in that it demonstrates the mobility of such news and the no-nonsense assessment which the Calene authorities made of the risk to them (although Teanum Sidicinum is immediately adjacent to Cales on the Via Latina). Furthermore, we should probably distinguish the general supervision which the Senate claimed over the security of Italy, which had by the end of the century become more or less systemic, from the outrageous actions of Roman magistrates, who could not possibly claim that such harsh actions could form part of their mandata.198 198 Cf. Livy, 23. 7. 1, Capuan conditions to Hannibal: ‘ne . . . magistratus [Poenus] ius ullum in ciuem Campanum haberet’. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 129, argues for two complementary tendencies, a gradual erosion of the spheres of routine authority of Italian magistrates on the one hand, and an increasing tendency of the Roman state to arbitrate, oversee, instruct, and police on the other (compare the growing physicality and visibility of Roman legal documents in the allied communties), leading to a sort of municipalization ante factum. Mouritsen (UniWcation, 41–2) is correct to see in Sherwin-White’s analysis a historiographically determined tendency to detect preconditions for the ‘inevitable’ grant of the citizenship, but I fail to see how he extracts from Sherwin-White’s nuanced analysis (on the pages cited or anywhere else) that ‘direct Roman rule’ (41) was being imposed on, and accepted by the Italians, who were ‘voluntarily surrendering their sovereignty to Rome’ (42). This crude reading is mainly Mouritsen’s, and it is he more than anyone else who seeks to eVace diVerences between Mommsen’s interpretation of Romano-Italian relations and subsequent discussions; indeed, to put the situation in these terms is to fall victim to the same modernist conceptions of national sovereignty which Mouritsen isolates as warping discussions of the Social War in the Wrst place. In the Hellenistic world at least, autonomy often came with strings attached—it is we who view it in such black-and-white terms.
158
Allies in the Second Century
Compulsion to obey the commands of the Senate, or meek acceptance of the overbearing conduct of the holders of Roman imperium, do not represent the whole of Italian experience of Rome. Some demands were routine: the requirement to furnish troops might not always be popular, and might sometimes be diYcult to achieve. Yet it was an established element of the relationship with Rome, and despite worsening conditions in the shape of the obligations laid upon allied contingents, and in what they might expect to receive in return, military service with the legions had, for much of the second century, oVered opportunities for many in terms of booty and social advancement, as well as incentive to learn Latin. On the heels of conquest, Italian negotiatores were as quick as their Roman counterparts to establish themselves in the interstices of economic opportunity and exploitation. Indeed, although it probably provoked increasingly bitter reXections on their domestic status, Italians abroad seem not to have been distinguished from the Romans with whom they formed the conquering armies, and to have been alike considered members of the master race.199 In other cases indigenous institutions, social structures, and languages were inXuenced by, and in some cases replaced by, Roman/Latin equivalents. In some instances we see the uneven creep of what must I think be called Romanization, although this is a blunt weapon for discussion of Wne detail and accords no role to the equally important Hellenization of Italy.200 Such change is partly unconscious emulation, and partly conscious adoption of ways of doing things which are perceived as more sophisticated or more eYcient (such adoption sometimes takes account of wider changing circumstances, and is not often done blindly in a vacuum). The lex Osca Bantina shows, I have argued, how a gradual osmosis of Roman institutions and regulations (not always up-to-date ones) might happen through intermediate interlocutors, and be framed within a context of local diVerence and resistance. In other instances, particular changes were explicitly sought, and voluntarily adopted. We know that some allied communities became fundi of particular Roman laws, which seems to mean that they removed (through abrogation) the corresponding regulations from their own statute law or civil law, rather than letting the old regulation wither on the branch, ignored, but not technically invalid.201 Certain examples are the lex Furia and the lex Voconia (inheritance); the lex Sempronia (Livy, 35. 7. 1–5, 193 bc, a debt law) certainly compelled Italians to make business agreements with Romans in particular ways; both it and other laws—the leges Appuleia and Furia (applied to stipulationes), the lex Didia and the lex Fannia (sumptuary laws)—may not indeed be laws 199 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 142, noting (n. 1) the protection of Latins and Italian allies in Anatolia speciWed in the lex de prouinciis praetoriis, RS i. 12. 200 See the sensible comments of Curti et al., JRS (1996). 201 On fundus Weri see the next chapter; Mouritsen (UniWcation, 49 n. 34) argues that Cicero’s evidence proves only that Latins became fundi of Roman laws, which would indeed have been culturally closer to their own legal systems than to those of some allies. On the idea that superseded but not abrogated statutes at Rome in some sense remained potentially active see Richardson, in Modus Operandi.
Allies in the Second Century
159
voluntarily adopted by allies.202 Such change was probably piecemeal and at local initiative (‘quas Latini uoluerunt, adsciuerunt’, says Cicero, Pro Balbo 21, referring to ‘innumerabiles aliae leges de ciuili iure’ passed at Rome, implying that the process was not sporadic; ‘those statutes which the Latins wanted, they adopted . . . countless other statutes about the civil law’), and operated at diVerent speeds and intensities across the non-Roman areas of the peninsula. In all probability, rapid change was not felt in many places over wide areas, and when felt may not have always been identiWed locally as a drift towards Rome speciWcally. Torelli among others has pointed to the resurgence of local myths and traditions in coroplastic art, especially in a religious context, in the second century, expressed through both the deeply absorbed Greek tradition of terracotta sculpture, but now with added allusion to the medium of learned Hellenistic scholarship and the vogueish local historical tradition which Polybios despised.203 Local traditions in political institutions, and the religious forms of expression and cult which underpinned them, probably continued much as before, with gradual change the norm, and it is against such a background of vigorous local politics practised within nominally autonomous city-states and federations that we must view the municipal institutions introduced after the Social War. I say nominally autonomous, since there was one area in which local wishes and feelings had to give way to Roman force majeure: this can be deWned (and deWnition lay in the hands of only one of Italy’s senates) as anything touching the maiestas populi Romani. Cicero, referring in part to the period before the Social War, summed up the situtation in the Pro Balbo: ‘de nostra uero re publica, de nostro imperio, de nostris bellis, de uictoria, de salute fundos populos Weri noluerunt’ (Balb. 22).204 Some things were not negotiable, and allowed no time for decision or reXection on the part of the Italian allies.205 202 Lex Furia and lex Voconia: Cic., Balb. 20–1. Other laws: Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 111–12; id., Historia (1972); Galsterer, Herrschaft, 131–2; Clemente, in Giardina and Schiavone (eds), Modelli etici, diritto e trasformazioni sociali, 6, 8; Baltrusch, Regimen morum, 86–7; Bleicken, in Memoria rerum veterum: Festschrift fu¨r J.C. Classen, 115; Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy, 45 n. 47; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 48–9, making a good case for taking ‘Italicis’ in Macr., Sat. 3. 17. 6 as meaning rural Romans; contra Ilari, Gli italici nelle strutture militari romane, 16 n. 31; Keaveney, Rome and UniWcation, 29; Gabba, in CAH viii2 , 227; LaY, in SdR ii/1. 292; cf. Edmondson, in Law, Politics and Society, 156–91; on the lex Fannia and lex Didia, Lintott, JRS (1990). Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 130, suggests that the lex Latina from Bantia also falls into this class. 203 Torelli, Tota Italia; Poly., 9. 14. 204 ‘in matters concerning our res publica, our empire, our wars, victory and safety, they were unwilling for the peoples to become fundi’. 205 Sherwin-White (Citizenship2 , 130; less convincing at p. 171), following Stuart Jones, JRS (1926), 170–1, makes the attractive conjecture that Italian communities would have taken quick steps to update their knowledge of the deWnitions and ramiWcations of maiestas populi Romani, when it changed with the lex Appuleia de maiestate in 100 bc (and perhaps related statutes); the theory remains attractive if the lex Latina from Bantia is not in fact the lex Appuleia as Stuart Jones argued; see RS i. 7. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 44–6, cf. 53, 58, over-estimates the power of the allied foedera with Rome (and to forget the circumstances of their imposition): even if they explicitly guaranteed autonomy to the allies, allied autonomy was often relative, and never ‘naturally outside Roman authority’ (ibid. 45, my italics); and in any case, Wne words might be set aside for the Wner words of
160
Allies in the Second Century
The Wnal, and in some senses logical, step in this restriction of negotiation was the grant of the ciuitas Romana. What was left, the old area of the negotiable, the particular, and the traditional, must thereafter be considered under the rubric of municipalization. Roman maiestas. To argue from a theoretical trade-oV between military commitments and autonomy to a continued observance of the letter of each foedus by Rome is unwarranted and not consistent with the facts of Roman behaviour. Rome desired to act as it suited her, in any case, not to remove an autonomy which her own embryonic administrative culture could not have allowed her to replace (see Badian, Clientelae, 144–6; Badian is cited by Mouritsen in support of his view of the strength of the foedera, but surely Badian’s point is that it was not the foedera which restrained Rome from more thoroughgoing intervention?). To be sure, as Mouritsen (UniWcation, 53) notes, political capital was made out of breaches, real or alleged, of foedera (Cic., Rep. 3. 41; Balb. 46, Val. Max., 5. 2. 8, the former incident serious—see Gabba, Italia romana, 56—the latter relatively trivial if genuine); the most important deduction to made from these passages is that treaties were infringed, and that for shortterm political gain, and not even for crisis management like that of the Bacchanalian aVair.
4 Municipalization and the Politics of Enfranchisement of Italy 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N Municipalization after the Social War cannot be understood apart from the political atmosphere in which it emerged, and the major public discourses of the time: the admission and absorption of the new citizens into the Roman res publica, and the closely related struggle for dominatio between the Marian/ Cinnan group and that of Sulla and his adherents. I will begin therefore by considering the ‘Italian question’ between the end of the Social War and the dictatorship of Sulla, the period during which, I shall argue, the municipalization of those communities enfranchised as a result of the Social War was begun. Since municipalization was both logically and juridically dependent on enfranchisement, it is Wrst necessary to trace the former back to its roots in the Social War. This involves covering ground well-trodden; nevertheless a thorough analysis of the evidence is indispensable.
2 . T H E E N F R A N C H I SE M E N T AC T S ( 9 0 – 8 7 bc) It is all too often assumed that the lex Iulia laid the foundations of a uniform municipalization of Italy as well as granting Roman citizenship. A close examination of this and the other enfranchisement laws suggests a more complex picture, as well as underlining the selWsh attitude of the Roman Senate towards the Italians in a situation which called rather for magnanimity and pragmatism. We know by name of four enabling laws passed during the Social War: the lex Iulia, the lex Plautia Papiria, the lex Calpurnia, and the lex Pompeia which dealt with Gallia Cisalpina. This does not mean that these laws were the only enabling laws passed in this period; given the fact that we know of the lex Calpurnia only from one fragment of Sisenna, it is legitimate to suppose that there may have been others.1 I shall suggest that other enfranchisement laws passed during this period have left traces in the sources. 1 Cf. Badian, Historia (1962), 227: ‘any theory so economical that it does not allow for other laws (unknown to us) is a little suspect’; cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 153.
162
The Politics of Enfranchisement
The enfranchisement laws have been intensively studied. Since I do not intend to discuss these laws for their own sake, but rather in relation to municipalization, I shall restrict my references in the footnotes to the sources and to major studies, where further bibliographical information may be found.2
2.1. The Lex Iulia Our best (and earliest) evidence for the lex Iulia is Cicero, Pro Balbo 21, which, listing Roman laws adopted by the Italian allies, Wnishes with mention ‘ipsa denique Iulia, qua lege ciuitas est sociis et Latinis data, qui fundi populi facti non essent ciuitatem non haberent’. It has been argued that, because Cicero mentions just this law, it was the only one used to enfranchise large groups of Italians, later enfranchisements being carried out by senatus consultum under its terms.3 Yet this is a forensic speech, and must therefore be treated carefully. Cicero is citing the law in the case of Balbus, whose citizenship was a reward, as arguably the lex Iulia was also; his main concern is not to give a lecture on the lex Iulia, but to emphasize the principle of fundus Weri, which was applicable to the case in court (and on which see below). The case of rebel Italians enfranchised after becoming dediticii populi did not, on the other hand, usefully illustrate the point Cicero was trying to make in connection with Balbus. Therefore this passage cannot be used to disprove the existence of major enfranchisement laws other than the lex Iulia. That in this list Cicero mentions only the lex Iulia, and that he refers to it as ‘ipsa . . . Iulia’, indicates that for the orator and his audience the law stood out as the measure par excellence which allowed for the entry of Rome’s allies4 into the Roman citizen body; it represented legitimate concession, 2 Important discussions and overviews on this diYcult topic: Haug, WJA (1947), 248–9; Taylor, Voting Districts, 101–7; De Martino, Storia iii2 . 53–61, and Diritto e societa` nell’antica Roma, 339–56; Weber, Klio (1975), 188–97; Gabba, Republican Rome, 89–96; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 187–204; Brunt, Fall, 107–8, 132–6, and Gabba in CAH ix2 . 123–8; see now Martin, Schweiz. Numismat. Rundschau (1989), 39–41, Dahlheim, in Bleicken (ed.), Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166–7. 3 So Gabba, Republican Rome, 91 n. 151, following Willems, Se´nat, ii. 685 with n. 2. Willems argued, based on Sisenna fr. 17P, Livy, Per. 80, 84, and Gran. Lic. p. 20. 11F, ‘that the Senate had the power, when circumstances allowed, to give practical application to measures of a general character’ (Gabba, Republican Rome, 91 n. 151) like the lex Iulia; cf. also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 153. It does seem likely that matters of detail would in wartime be left to the Senate; but this procedure tells us nothing about the enfranchisement of other groups, especially the dediticii populi enfranchised in the dying months of the war. Sisenna fr. 119P (‘tamen Tudertibus senati consulto et populi iusso dat ciuitatem’) might be a case in point—see Letta, in Magistrature, 81–3. Gabba later acknowledged (in ANRW i/1. 792–3) that the process of enfranchisement did not stop with the lex Iulia: ‘Le populazioni ancora in armi nell’ 89 e arresesi, volta a volta, ai comandanti romani ottennero la cittadinanza in seguito con provvedimenti separati’; see also Rudolph, Stadt, 91–2, for the lex Iulia as the start of a three-stage process. On the problems posed by the hypothetical recycling of the lex Iulia to deal with problems quite diVerent from those which it was passed to meet, see Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 354. 4 So too Mouritsen, UniWcation, 153, 155, 166. Strictly speaking socii should denote those who had not repudiated their alliance at the time of the passing of the law; Cicero may be generalizing—see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 148 n. 2, on Cicero’s viewpoint here. The only other explicit reference to
The Politics of Enfranchisement
163
not extortion. The total number of Italians enfranchised by other laws later in the war was, as we shall see, almost certainly greater than that aVected by the lex Iulia. The latter was, however, of considerable scope itself, and was rightly considered as both a turning point in Rome’s fortunes in the Social War and as the measure which marked the opening of the gates of Rome to the Italians. There is little agreement on what the scope of the lex Iulia actually was. Gabba, for example, thinks it was a broad enfranchisement measure designed to provide also for the establishment of new tribes for those enfranchised.5 On the other hand, Badian follows Biscardi in seeing the law as a hasty war measure, containing little detail.6 The Wrst step in any attempt to assess the content of the law is to establish its date and historical context. This can be done without presuppositions about what the law might or should have contained. It is generally accepted that the Wrst mention of enfranchisement in our accounts of the Social War, that at Appian, BC 1. 49. 211,7 belongs late in 90, and records an SC designed to head oV the threat of an Etrusco-Umbrian revolt that winter. This period is also probably the only time at which the consul L. Caesar could have carried legislation at Rome, since the Wghting had been so Werce that he had not even been able to return to Rome to elect a suVect consul to replace Rutilius Lupus.8 As we have seen, Cicero states that the lex Iulia gave the Roman citizenship to the Latins (who must be mainly referred to in Appian, 1. 49. 213: ıºc f b hı Pı æı K ) and other allies; Rome’s major remaining Italian allies in 90 were precisely the Etruscans and Umbrians. The view must be correct which sees the lex Iulia as the legislative outcome, in late 90, of the SC passed in favour of the Umbrians and Etruscans.9 the law is in Aulus Gellius. Discussing Latin and Roman forms of betrothal, he says that the Latin form, according to Servius Sulpicius Rufus, lasted down to the time when ‘ciuitas uniuerso Latio lege Iulia data est’—a rare indication of social change consequent on enfranchisement (contrast the continuation of a Larinate form of wedding until at least 66: Cic., Clu. 166). The absence of the socii in the context is natural. Cf. Cic., Fam. 13. 30. 1, ‘sociis et Latinis’, with Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 152. 5 Gabba, CAH ix2 . 123, cf. Badian, Historia (1962), 92. 6 Badian, Historia (1962), 227, and JRS (1973), 130, following Biscardi, PdP (1951), 241; but cf. Clientelae, 226, where Badian suggests that the law may have covered all cases of enfranchisement down to 88. So also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 153. 7 The fraternization between the troops of Marius and Poppaedius Silo related at Diodoros, 37. 15. 2–3 in colourful language came to nothing. It was suspected by Passerini, Athenaeum (1934), 10–44, 109–43, 257–97, 348–80 (cf. Badian, Clientelae, 243 n. 5; Taylor, Voting Districts, 310 n. 33; Salmon, Samnium, 363 n. 3; Luce, Historia (1970), 185 n. 103; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 8 (but see 80), 165 n. 36, attractively linking the story to anti-Marian propaganda in 88 when Marius was favouring tribal reform—see below) of being an embroidered variant on Plutarch, Marius 33. 2 and Livy, Per. 74. See further Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 146 and n. 3, and Mouritsen, UniWcation, 6, pointing out that it belongs to the ‘citizenship’ strand of Diodoros’ account. 8 BC 1. 44. 196. For the last military events on the southern front in 90 see App., BC 1. 45. 200: Caesar and the rebel commander Papius settle down opposite each other at Acerrae, neither prepared to take the initiative. 9 For a detailed discussion of the date of both measures see Gabba, ad App., BC 1. 49. 211–13; Keaveney, UniWcation, 141–2; for a lucid, brief statement of the case see Brunt, Fall, 133. Cf. Lewis, Athenaeum (1968), 273; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 230. Gabba, Republican Rome, 92, appears to say that the measure mentioned by Appian is the lex Iulia; Biscardi (PdP (1951), 248) and Sherwin-White
164
The Politics of Enfranchisement
Citizenship then was only conceded to Rome’s remaining Italian allies in 90 when it seemed that they too might break away.10 Certainly the prevailing attitude among the oligarchy seems to have been one of hard-headed determination after a year’s hard and often unsuccessful warfare.11 What had the loyal allies done except keep to the terms of their foedera? I think we may assume that, if there were any contingency plans for granting the citizenship other than singillatim and uirtutis causa, they were very vague, and contingent only on impending disaster.12 Besides, a premature grant of citizenship might be seen by the rebels as an admission of responsibility for the conXict, or an admission of fear, or both.13 In Appian’s narrative the two measures taken by the Senate in late 90 (the ‘unprecedented’ use of freedmen as a coastal garrison14 and our SC) are a response to the threat of being encircled by hostile forces, that is, the consequence of the rebellion of the Etruscans, Umbrians, and ¼ººÆ Øa ÆPE Ł ªØÆ.15 Now, if the SC was a reaction to an emergency, the lex Iulia (Citizenship2 , 148 n. 2) rightly distinguish the SC mentioned in Appian from the later lex ; so too Letta, Magistrature, 81 n. 229. Badian, Historia (1962), 227 is wrong to follow Niccolini, RAL (1946), 110, in his early dating of the lex Iulia; his dating of the lex Calpurnia therefore also falls (for an earlier date for the former see also Salmon, Samnium, 360–1). Badian subsequently put the lex Iulia in late 90 (Historia (1969), 467). Seston, CRAI (1978), 532, places the law in October ‘sans doute’, but fails to say why; in Scripta Varia, 42, he opts for December; similarly Gabba, in ANRW i/1/792. Barbara Levick points out to me that the SC must have been moved by a praetor. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 155–6, 162, prone as ever to suspect Appian’s version as idiosyncratic (and rightly seeing other problems in his account at this point) is disposed to abandon the conventional dating for one in the summer of 90, which would have major implications for the argument advanced here; his reliance on the fragments of Sisenna leaves too many uncertainties, however; and his ‘solution’ (ibid. 162) to the diYculties for his dating caused by the inability of Iulius Caesar to return to Rome to hold elections (App., BC 1. 45. 199) for a suVect to replace Rutilius Lupus (Ovid, Fasti 6. 563–6 for the date of Lupus’ death, 11 June) is unconvincing. Mouritsen, though, admits the lex Iulia probably enfranchised the Etruscans and Umbrians (UniWcation, 166). 10 See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 144–6, on the language of apostasis and defectio used of the insurgents; cf. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 192. The enduring hostility to large block extensions of the Roman citizenship was rooted in the continued survival of a city-state mentality, beside Rome’s city-state institutions. 11 e.g. the Senate’s decision, taken after the traumatic funeral of Rutilius Lupus, that Romans slain in the war should be buried where they had fallen, rather than brought home (Appian, BC 1. 43. 195); cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 148–9. 12 Cf. Badian, Historia (1969), 468. 13 I owe this point to Barbara Levick. 14 BC 1. 49. 212, cf. Livy, Per. 74. See Brunt, Fall, 133. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 12, casts doubt upon Appian’s narrative at this point; on Appian’s possible sources, and his relationship to them, see Schwartz, RE ii/1, s.v. ‘Appianus’, cols. 216–37; Gabba, Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili; CuV, Historia (1967); Hahn, in Romanitas-Christianitas; Brodersen, Appian von Alexandria: Ro¨mische Geschichte, i. 5–6; id., in ANRW ii/34/1, at 356–9, Will, Appian von Alexandria: Ro¨mische Geschichte, ii. 2–4; Magnino, in ANRW ii/34/1, at 547–9; on the identiWcation of Asinius Pollio as the source: Gabba, Appiano, 13–89, Ku¨hne, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Univ. Rostock (1969), 345, Zecchini, in ANRW ii/30/2, at 1282–3 (for), and Schwartz, RE ii/1; CuV, Historia (1967), 185–8, Mazzarino, Il pensiero storico classico, ii. 398–403, 533–4; Steidle, Hermes (1983), 403–4; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 13–14 (against). 15 One would like to know who these peoples were. Probably they were not the peoples of Latium Vetus or Latin colonies. Appian says that the passing of the SC conWrmed the faithful in their loyalty as
The Politics of Enfranchisement
165
passed soon afterwards cannot have been the product of much mature reXection.16 The chronology of the end of the year allows little time for forward planning. The scope of the SC according to Appian, passed to keep Etruria and Umbria from revolt, included all, Latins and others, who had remained loyal.17 It is worth stressing again, though, that we can expect little detail in a law that most Romans had hoped not to have to pass at all, one drafted in a very short space of time and passed in response to an incipient crisis. We must establish as closely as possible what its provisions were. Two important details are given by Cicero. One is that, as was traditional, communities, or populi, were brought wholesale into the state.18 Secondly, if the Latins and allies oVered the citizenship by the lex Iulia did not want to become fundi of the law, that is, to adopt it and agree to be bound by it, they would not get citizenship: ‘qui fundi populi facti non essent ciuitatem non haberent’.19 This is an odd way of describing acceptance or rejection of citizenship, and in our admittedly imperfect sources for other enfranchisements of populi we never hear elsewhere of the requirement of those enfranchised to become fundi. As noted above, it is the process of fundus Weri which is important to Cicero at this point in the speech, and so he may simply be laying stress on that process rather than the grant of citizenship. That is, the lex Iulia was probably not enough on its own: communities themselves had to agree to be bound by what was an oVer on the part of Rome, not a trivial requirement.20 Nevertheless, Cicero’s phraseology here suggests that citizenship was not the complete content on oVer in the legislative package. What else might have been contained in the lex Iulia? We may be helped here by the very end (ll. 159–63) of the tabula Heracleensis, which mentions the well as strengthening the wavering: Latins are the most obvious candidates for the role of loyal allies. Or does ‘neighbouring’ carry the force of cultural not geographical proximity? Mouritsen, UniWcation, 163 n. 33, notes that in BC 1 Appian refers only twice to the Latins, both times in connection with C. Gracchus’ enfranchisement bill; this systemic disregard may explain his language here. 16 Rightly characterized as an emergency measure by Biscardi, PdP (1951), 241, followed by Badian, Clientelae, 226; Taylor, Voting Districts, 101; Lewis, Athenaeum (1968), 273; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 190. Against the ‘crisis theory’ of the lex Iulia: Seston, CRAI (1978), 532, who claims that Appian alone is responsible for this view of the law. Like his other remarks on Appian’s historiographical method, this is not backed up by plausible arguments. The potential loss of Etruria and Umbria was a severe blow: both areas provided important allied contingents, and were still traditional recruiting grounds for the elite Praetorian Guard in the Principate (Tacitus, Ann. 4. 5). Appian may not have mentioned the Latins since they were not relevant to the trouble in Etruria and Umbria (note that the Umbrians quickly drop out of sight; there were only Wve Latin colonies in the two areas, Sutrium, Nepet, Cosa, Narnia, and Spoletium). It is extremely unlikely that the SC was more speciWc than the lex Iulia; it only appears so because Appian’s narrative is more detailed than Cicero’s. 17 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 156–64, doubts the connection of the law (which he blurs with the preceding SC) with the revolt of the Etruscans and Umbrians, and sees it as aimed wholly at sweetening the attitude of the Latins, whom he sees as disaVected. 18 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 150–5. 19 ‘those peoples who had not become fundi [of the lex Iulia] should not have the citizenship’. On fundus Weri see below. 20 Appian’s statement that the SC decreed that the loyalists ‘should be citizens’ is thus inexact.
166
The Politics of Enfranchisement
correction of leges given to a municipium fundanum (on this see further Chapter 5): since this can refer neither to the municipium of Fundi (this would be too eccentric even for the tabula Heracleensis), nor to farms (fundi), and it seems least problematic to see fundanus as an adjective derived from fundus Weri.21 Since all our evidence suggests that only sovereign states, and not municipia, become fundi of Roman laws, this class of municipia seems not to be one of municipia which have adopted Roman statutes, but a class of municipia created through the process of fundus Weri (as a municipium foederatum—if such a thing existed, see Chapter 2—would be a municipium created by or deWned by a foedus). I would argue that municipia fundana in this sense can have been created only by the lex Iulia, and that this term refers to those communities alone which had been enfranchised by the lex Iulia.22 This argument obviously entails that the lex Iulia was a municipalizing law; but by this I mean no more than that it placed the formerly independent populi into a recognizable juridical category within the Roman res publica—their military contributions were very much needed, which meant their own magistrates had to help with the levy and to command in the Weld and, under these conditions, abolition of the existing state entity had no sense. Little more was needed than to state that the populi which agreed to become fundi of the lex Iulia should become municipia, perhaps stating that they were to be municipia eodem iure as existing municipia.23 The drafting of detailed provisions for what was strictly only an oVer of citizenship which might be refused, had no sense, especially in the middle of a war. For more detail on the law’s provisions, or lack of them, we must return to Appian. He gives the provisions of the SC thus: ıºc . . . ƺØøH b f Ø K fiB ıÆfi Æ ÆæÆÆ Kł Æ rÆØ ºÆ, y c ºØ Æ ı KŁı: ŒÆd K ıææf æØ, Q b ¼ Ø B ºØÆ ºÆ ŒÆd fiB fiB æØØ ıºc f b hı Pı æı K , f b KØÆ KÆØ Æ, f b ºFÆ KºØ Ød H ›ø æÆæı K .24
21 Reference to duoviral municipia made up from former rural settlement: Rudolph, Stadt, 176–86. Reference to Fundi: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160, 168. See RS i. 390–1 on the doxography on this question. 22 Cf. Costabile, Istituzioni, 150, for this meaning for municipium fundanum, 116–17, for bibliography of previous discussion, and now Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 34; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 98. Seston concludes (CRAI (1978), 539–42) that fundus Weri was the Wrst step in the process of municipalization, cf. Scripta Varia. SigniWcantly, Heraclea had remained loyal to Rome, and despite hesitation, became fundus of the lex Iulia (Cic., Balb. 21). 23 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 231, admits that only the principle, and not the detail, of municipalization can have come in the lex Iulia; cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 150, 153, 159: lex Iulia makes allied cities municipia, another general law saw to the details of municipalization. SherwinWhite (p. 158) makes the interesting suggestion that the lex Iulia was limited to terra Italia, and the new municipia may have been made in the image of those speciWed as being within that area, cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166. 24 BC 1. 49. 212–13.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
167
He goes on to say how the Ro¯maioi created new tribes for the new citizens which voted last, in order to stop them swamping the votes of the old citizens.25 I shall discuss below the question of whether Appian, 1. 49. 214 refers to the contents of the lex Iulia or not. First we must consider the relationship between this passage of Appian and Velleius Paterculus, 2. 16. 4, which runs as follows: ‘Paulatim deinde recipiendo in ciuitatem qui arma aut non ceperant aut deposuerant maturius uires refectae sunt’.26 Badian claimed that this passage refers to the lex Iulia, a de facto rather than a de iure description of the provisions of the law.27 He justiWed this interpretation by arguing that, had Velleius been citing the provisions of the law, he would have used the subjunctive, not the indicative. The argument seems weak. Velleius is not giving a juridical history of the enfranchisements, but rather a thumbnail sketch of how the state slowly recovered from the initial reverses of the war.28 As such it is an allusion to the process of 25 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 169–71, argues that the realities of Italian geography mean that Appian’s notice of the numerical superiority of the new citizens is true but irrelevant—this must be right, cf. De Martino, Storia, iii. 57. He goes on to claim that redistribution could not achieve any equalization of political rights for the new citizens, and that most Italians were indiVerent. Yet if they were to be at a disadvantage in the thirty-Wve tribes, it seems hard to see why new ones were created at all, or why redistribution ever became a burning issue in Roman politics. Perceptions matter, sometimes more than realities; and besides, the Italian principes, who might vote often, were arguably put in a strong position in the rural tribes, which they might well dominate. Mouritsen’s objection, as ever, forces one to rethink one’s position, but it makes the legislation of Sulpicius and Cinna incomprehensible (that Sulpicius sought to target immigrant Italian ‘Xoating voters’ is unconvincing); tribal redistribution was a redistribution of communities, not of individuals. As for Velleius, 2. 20. 3, the use of the word ‘summoned’ does not counterbalance the ‘enormous crowd from all of Italy’ (‘totius Italiae’, probably anachronistic, but perhaps signalling a new type of politics), which although it is ideologically charged, is no more or less rhetorical than the domineering behaviour of Cinna here criticized: both must be brushed aside, or neither. 26 ‘Then gradually by receiving into the citizenship those who had either not taken up arms or had laid them down more quickly, they repaired their strength’. 27 Badian, Historia (1962), 228 n. 111: by this I take him to mean that the law applied to those who had not joined the revolt, but was in practice extended to deal with those who had done so but laid down their arms soon after the law was passed. Cf. Salmon, Samnium, 360; Gabba, ANRW i/1/792; Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 324; Costabile, Istituzioni, 115, 117 (confused). Brunt (cf. Taylor, Voting Districts, 101) also believes that this passage refers to the lex Iulia (Fall, 108), arguing that the two pluperfects, ‘ceperant’ and ‘deposuerant’, indicate that both actions were contemporaneous, and were covered by the same law. The tense could, however, indicate either that the citizenship was given only after it could be seen that arms had not been taken up, or after they had been laid down. Lewis too (Athenaeum (1968), 282) seemed to incline to the view that the lex Iulia is referred to here, but then adds ‘if . . . VELL. ii.16.4 means that’ (282 n. 32)! Letta, Magistrature, 79–80, thinks that App., BC 1. 49. 212 and Vell. Pat. 2. 16. 4 both describe to the eVects of the lex Iulia in general terms, and that ‘paulatim’ refers to repeated applications of a speciWc measure in the law. This however makes nonsense of ‘maturius’, which should refer to only one point in time, after which those who surrendered quickly would be favourably treated. Mouritsen rejects both Badian’s view, and that of Sherwin-White (next note): UniWcation, 153; his reasons for so doing are not always clear, but he must be right that the lex Iulia cannot be used to show a widespread desire for the citizenship at this time. 28 Cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 151 n. 4, notes, however, that Velleius’ phrase recipere in ciuitatem recalls technical discussions in the lemmata ‘municeps’ and ‘municipium’ in Festus/Paulus, and Cic., Balb. 31. Sherwin-White (p. 148), also pointed out that ‘maturius’ must mean within a time period speciWed under the law, like the sixty-day period of grace in
168
The Politics of Enfranchisement
enfranchisement, which is in turn correlated with the period over which the Romans could be said to have ‘recovered their strength’. Whether that can be said to have been the end of 90 is a moot point. Asculum was under siege it is true, and the spread of the revolt had been checked, but at the start of 89 both sides must still have appeared pretty evenly matched. Within the process of enfranchisement Velleius mentions two stages, where Wrst loyal allies, and then rebels who surrendered more quickly, were incorporated into the state. Now ‘paulatim’ must be taken with ‘refectae sunt’, but it may be true that Velleius also meant it to cover enfranchisements which accompanied this recovery of strength. A very gradual process of enfranchisement, vaguely referred to, could be meant. If, on the other hand, Velleius knew that that process operated under the terms of a single law, then the lex Iulia must have made provision for the incorporation of those who laid down their arms ‘more quickly’. In the Wnal analysis, the word order ‘qui . . . aut . . . aut’ seems to refer the grant of citizenship (and thus the application of the law behind the grant) to a single group comprised of two categories: on balance I think that Velleius is referring to the lex Iulia and, if he is, he thought that it applied to loyalists and those who had swiftly surrendered—the Etruscans and Umbrians, or the majority of them.29 Appian’s text seems to be against this possibility: he says that the SC strengthened the loyalty of the loyal, the resolve of the wavering, and f b ºFÆ KºØ Ød H ›ø æÆæı K (‘made those Wghting milder from some hope of similar things’).30 Appian may, however, be telescoping his narrative, referring also (principally?) to those rebels elsewhere who had been in arms for the whole year: now that some Italian communities had been oVered the citizenship, some of the others might hope for similar treatment if they surrendered, and wonder whether capitulation was not preferable to such a bitter conXict if it might gain them the equality they desired.31 The eVect on all the rebels was a weakening of their resolve: the word KºØ is crucial. We know of one other provision of the lex Iulia: in addition to enfranchising loyal populi, it also made provision for individual enfranchisement uirtutis causa.32 This was perfectly natural, and almost certainly tralatician, as we shall the lex Plautia Papiria (see below)—another argument in favour of Velleius knowing what he was talking about? After all it must have been the lex Iulia which enfranchised his maternal ancestor Minatus Magius. For a similar view, De Martino, Storia, iii. 53. 29 Those who had rebelled and held out may have been treated as dediticii and enfranchised separately: see below; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 163, sees all the Etruscans and Umbrians as being enfranchised after subjection. 30 A conXict subsists between Appian and Velleius if one takes the latter to refer to the lex Iulia alone; one might resolve it by supposing that the lex sought to expand the scope of the initial SC, whose eVect on the waverers is testiWed to by Appian. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 217, cf. 231, favours rejecting Appian’s evidence on the basis of Velleius’; his reasoning at this point is unclear. 31 Cf. Salmon, Samnium, 361; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 148; Letta, Magistrature, 81–3. For Mouritsen, however (UniWcation, 153), the lex Iulia had no perceptible eVect on the course of the war. 32 As shown by CIL i2 . 709, the famous record of Pompeius Strabo’s consilium at Asculum in late 89, on which see Criniti, L’ epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone, 33–61. The objection of ArangioRuiz, Storia del diritto romano6 , 221, that the lex Iulia mentioned here is not that passed in 90 by the
The Politics of Enfranchisement
169
see (hence perhaps the silence of the sources on this point). The numbers enfranchised in this way in the course of the war will not have been great, with few Italians south of Gallia Cisalpina aVected: the majority of loyalists had been enfranchised by the lex Iulia.33 It has frequently been thought that the lex Iulia made provision for the distribution of the new citizens in the new tribes created for them. The multiplicity of scholarly opinion is bewildering, but we may doubt that it did cater for such distribution, in view of the circumstances under which it was passed, and the limited, immediate, scope it seems to have had as an enfranchisement act. Nevertheless, Gabba claims ‘it is impossible that the lex Iulia would have left vague a point as important as the position of the new citizens vis-a`-vis the established body of old citizens’.34 Quite why it is impossible that the lex Iulia, rather than another law, should have left such a question settled or unsettled he does not say. His point that the question had to be dealt with, and quickly, is, however, an important one. Let us return again to Appian. The subject of the verb changes from ıºc in 49. 212 to øÆEØ in 49. 214. Gabba denies that this means that the two measures are diVerent.35 While the change of subject could be merely stylistic variation on Appian’s part, I submit that Gabba’s contention does not meet the facts of the case. Appian is quite explicit that the Senate was the driving force behind the measure described in 49. 212–13, using the word ıºc twice in successive sections. This point, not considered by Gabba, makes the change of subject at 49. 214 somewhat more important than he would allow. An interesting sidelight is thrown on this problem by Appian’s use of particles. He writes at the beginning of 49. 214: øÆEØ b c . . . The function of c could be simply to strengthen the b, but the conjunction of the two particles also has an adversative function, which would imply a logical disjunction between 49. 214 and what precedes it.36 The force of the passage would then be: the Senate enfranchised the loyal allies, but despite this the Romans refused to give the enfranchisement any political value by conWning the new citizens to new tribes. In fact, b c is a favourite combination of Appian’s. In the extant works he uses it 363 times. This Wgure gains meaning if we compare other authors’ use of the same combination. Of Appian’s rough contemporaries Plutarch uses it only 69 times in a corpus much greater than Appian’s; Arrian 132 times. The usage is consul L. Iulius Caesar concerning the enfranchisement of the loyal allies, is gratuitous; Luraschi’s attempt (SDHI (1978), 330–4) to validate that conclusion carries little weight. 33 It was probably under the lex Iulia that P. Caesius of Ravenna and Minatus Magius of Aeclanum were enfranchised: Cic., Pro Balbo 50; Vell. Pat., 2. 16. 34 Republican Rome, 92, reacting to Biscardi, PdP (1951), 248, who, rightly in my view, wants to refer Appian’s description of the tribal arrangements to a lex Calpurnia. Others who make the lex Iulia responsible for the new tribes: Taylor, Voting Districts, 17, 102, 309; Seston, CRAI (1978), 536; and Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 350; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 162–3 (with interesting comparison of the new measure to the ciuitas sine suVragio). Later, in his article in ANRW i/1, Gabba became more cautious. 35 Republican Rome, 92. 36 On b c see Denniston, Greek Particles, 391–4. Of course, it is possible that in Appian the is picked up by the Iºº further down, but I think it is signiWcant that we do not there have a .
170
The Politics of Enfranchisement
one most common in, and therefore surely a conscious stylistic feature of, historical narrative.37 In Appian b c often signals the resumption of the narrative, as probably at BC 1. 46. 203. If this is also the case at 1. 49. 214, we would have an even stronger reason for dissociating the measure described there from the preceding one.38 The historian, on my reading, describes the senatorial measure, giving its eVects in general and somewhat rhetorical terms; and then resumes the narrative of the enfranchisement by describing its eVective limitation by the measure of 49. 214. Indeed, Appian may well be using two sources here, which might explain the abruptness of the change of subject.39 Barbara Levick suggests to me that one source may have used the term ıºc, and the other the term øÆEØ. I would like to expand on this, and argue that Appian used one source to cover the lex Iulia, which focused on the Senate, and another to describe the ensuing tribal arrangements which merely spoke of ‘Romans’. This in turn might indicate that the source which covered the lex Iulia itself said nothing of the tribal arrangements, and that Appian had to go to another source for the latter set of events. This is not to deny that the Senate was the moving force behind both decisions— in which case it is even more signiWcant that øÆEØ is the subject at 49. 214.40 It seems that we have a case for seeing here two diVerent measures. Appian recounts the enfranchisement of 90, and then goes on to record, in a slightly compressed way, how its practical value was limited by another measure. He may have chosen to discuss this measure here since it followed on logically from the enfranchisement itself, and to order this part of his narrative thematically rather than strictly chronologically, thus saving himself the necessity of an explanatory digression when the tribes became a burning issue in 88. Given the importance of the assignment of the new citizens to tribes, the lex mentioned at 1. 49. 214 was probably passed soon after the enfranchisement, but as I have said above, I do not think it was the lex Iulia.41 Indeed the lex Iulia would probably have failed in its eVect of heading oV further defections if it had contained the stipulation that the new citizens be assigned to new tribes which were to vote last.42 We may imagine that few states would have become fundi of 37 Only Xenophon and Herodotos use the combination more (386 and 392 times respectively). The usage is not high in all historians: Polybios and Diodoros have the combination only 43 times between them. The incidence in Greek novels is also low. Nor is it an Alexandrian usage, being found only 19 times in the works of Clement of Alexandria. I am grateful to the late Don Fowler for his help with the ‘Ibycus’ analysis of Appian. 38 One might even want, on the analogy of 46. 203, to begin a new paragraph at ‘ øÆEØ. 39 Noted also by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 19–20. Appian’s main theme in this work is the conXict between Romans, and, pace Mouritsen, an eagerness to pass from points of uniWcation to conXict, underplaying the former, is hardly surprising within the rhetoric of the work, which he himself claims to allow suYcient space; enfranchisement is of course more important as a subject of discord than as an aim realized; the way in which it quickly became a bone of contention is something we should expect Appian to stress. 40 See below, n. 45. 41 So also Reid, Municipalities, 118, and more tentatively, Lewis, Athenaeum (1968), 275. 42 Although the populus Romanus might have had less trouble voting for such a bill; the very act of voting for enfranchisement would have brought home the potential implications for future votes.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
171
such a law, and revolt might have seemed to the loyal allies, at this delicate moment in Rome’s history, a better option than continued loyalty on such terms. The possibility of using tribal assignments to control the voting power of the noui ciues was of concern to the urban plebs as well as to the governing classes. The latter were worried about having no control over large segments of the electorate, while the former did not want the comitia tributa Xooded with strangers seeking to share their privileges.43 At the same time it must have been clear to the plebs urbana since the time of C. Gracchus how any increase in the physical size of the Roman state of necessity would make both comitia yet more exclusive, and their own ability to participate in the democratic processes of the constitution more valuable than ever.44 We should not then be surprised if this measure was voted on separately from the initial enfranchisement law. The plebs will have had a strong interest in seeing the new citizens’ voting rights curtailed, the more so if the enfranchisement, which on past form they were likely to oppose, was forced through as a matter of national security.45 The probability is then that the lex Iulia had nothing to do with the establishment of the new tribes. This must make even less likely the possibility that it was the lex Iulia which saw to the detailed municipal organization of the newly enfranchised communities. It is, nevertheless, often maintained that the lex Iulia laid down general principles of the municipal system, which underpinned the integration of the Italian communities into the Roman body politic.46 An example of this school of thought is LaY, who thinks it probable that the lex Iulia ‘contained regulations of a general character covering the organisation of the communities which accepted the Roman citizenship’.47 There is no evidence that this was the case. Everything I have noted about the lex Iulia and the circumstances of its passing serves to cast doubt on the existence of such provisions, beyond specifying that the communities were to become municipia (and see below for the possible continuation of existing systems of organization until after the end of the war). Had the law dealt with any other matter, it would have been the question of the tribes—and we have seen that it almost certainly did not do so. That the lex Iulia, arising out of a response to a crisis, was not a premeditated measure, and was thus fundamentally apolitical, that is, not partisan, is well illustrated by the political aYnities of the proposer of the law. Lucius Caesar 43 Cf. Seston, CRAI (1978), 533. 44 See the speech of C. Fannius: ORF 4 32. 1. 3. 45 The use of the word ‘ øÆEØ (a sign that Appian was using an epitome or a Greek source?) may even be proof of a consensus throughout Roman society on the need to keep the noui ciues cooped up in just a few tribes. Given the interest of the plebs in this issue, we might expect a tribune to have promulgated the law—which would have important implications for our view of the identity of the Calpurnius Piso of Sisenna fr. 17P. 46 e.g. Rudolph, Stadt, 98, cf. Reid, Municipalities, 113 (‘possible’), 115, 147; Gabba, Italia romana, 71 (probable). Lewis, Athenaeum (1968), 284–6, suggests on the basis of insuYcient and unreliable evidence that Appian’s infamous ŒÆ refers either to the creation of local senates or local decuriones, or that it means ‘organizing’, and thus ‘municipalizing’. Yet the question of municipalization need have no relation to the creation of new tribes. 47 In VI Kongr. Epigr. 40.
172
The Politics of Enfranchisement
and his brother Gaius seem both to have been conservative nobiles. They met their deaths in 87 opposing the Cinnan re´gime48—a most ironic fate given that a cousin had a marriage tie with C. Marius, and that Lucius was himself remembered, signiWcantly if not accurately, as the enfranchiser of Italy.
2.2. The Lex Plautia Papiria Badian, following the lead of Sherwin-White, has repeatedly and skilfully contended that this law dealt with only the small class of adscripti of newly enfranchised communities.49 The law, passed by the tribunes of 89,50 is mentioned only by Cicero, and in a scholion on the Cicero passage. Cicero says: ‘Data est ciuitas Siluani lege et Carbonis: si qui foederatis ciuitatibus ascripti fuissent, si tum cum lex ferebatur in Italia domicilium habuissent et si sexaginta diebus apud praetorem essent professi.’51 This passage refers to the case of Archias alone,52 as an adscriptus of Heraclea, and in itself presents little problem. Yet we cannot rule out the possibility that we have only one small provision from a larger law.53
2.3. The Lex Calpurnia54 This law is mentioned only in Sisenna fr. 120P (bk 4): ‘milites, ut lex Calpurnia concesserat, uirtutis ergo ciuitate donari’ (‘the soldiers, as the lex Calpurnia had allowed, were rewarded with the citizenship for their courage’). Now fr. 120P should belong to the year 89 bc but the pluperfect tense allows a reference to 90 bc for the passage of the law. Indeed, what seems to be no more than a simple
48 Cic., Tusc. Disp. 5. 55, De oratore 3. 10, Valerius Maximus, 9. 2. 2. 49 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 151–2; Badian, Historia (1962), 228; also Studies, 76–8. Approved of by Gabba, Republican Rome, 94 n. 171, ANRW i/1/792 n. 162; note however his change of position in CAH ix2 . 126. See also Galsterer, Herrschaft, 196; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 167 (but the job of the praetor is to prevent impostors proWting from the law, and is no evidence for a lukewarm response); on adscripti see Deniaux, Ktema (1981). 50 The date has been doubted only by Badian, Studies, 76–8, who advances two arguments to the eVect that the law belongs to 88, not 89 (cf. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 231), but both are conjectural, and the Wrst must fall after Badian’s own acceptance of textual corruption in Asconius p. 79C (see Historia (1969), 474 and n. 54). Cf. the cogent rebuttal of Badian’s dating by Keaveney and Madden, Eranos (1983), 47–51. 51 Pro Archia Poeta 7: ‘The citizenship was given by the law of Silvanus and Carbo: if any had been added to allied citizenships, if then when the statute was being passed they had had their residence in Italy and if within sixty days they had made a declaration before the praetor’; cf. the garbled Schol. Bob., p. 175St.: ‘Silvanus and Carbo as consuls carried a law, to the eVect that all who were from the allied peoples might achieve the Roman citizenship, if only at that time at which the statute had been passed they had their residence in Italy and had made a declaration before the praetor within the sixtieth day.’ 52 Cf., however, Fam. 13. 30, which refers to another adscriptus, L. Manlius Sosis of Neapolis. On the need for a law covering the adscripti see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 152, and Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 344. 53 Cf. Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 356. 54 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 153.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
173
measure to reward courage would make little sense unless passed before the lex Iulia. I do not think that the measure recorded in Sisenna 17P belongs to this law.55 It seems likely that neither the lex Plautia Papiria nor the lex Calpurnia were enfranchisement laws of more than minor importance; nothing remotely suggests that they had anything to do with municipalization.
2.4. The Lex Pompeia Passed at some point in 89 by the consul Cn. Pompeius Strabo, this law was probably aimed at cutting oV any potential disaVection among Rome’s allies in Gallia Cisalpina.56 We have seen that Pompeius was still at Asculum in November 89; the law may belong to the beginning of that year57 and follow on from the lex Iulia. It conferred not Roman citizenship, but ius Latii, creating Wctive Latin colonies in Cisalpine Gaul, mainly in the Transpadana. The toponyms Alba Pompeia and Laus Pompeia imply some kind of personal involvement, but in view of the exigencies of the War, and Pompeius’ unconstitutional attachment to his troops in 88, followed by his death in 87, it is hard to see when this could have occurred.58 Our best information on the law comes from Asconius: Cn. Pompeius Strabo . . . Transpadanas colonias deduxerit. Pompeius enim non nouis colonis eas constituit sed ueteribus incolis manentibus ius dedit Latii, ut possent habere 55 So too Mouritsen, UniWcation, 155. 56 See Williams, Rubicon, 120–1, on hints of Cisalpines siding with Social War rebels. 57 Note also that Pompeius Strabo intercepted the ill-fated reinforcements for the Etruscan and Umbrian revolt while it was still winter; on his way back to Asculum from Rome? Possibly, if he held consular elections at the usual time, he may have passed the law then. Cato, his colleague, was certainly dead by then. 58 On Strabo’s activity see Ewins, PBSR (1955), 75–83—she also attributes the formation of the province of Gallia Cisalpina to the lex Pompeia; her views on the enfranchisement of the Cispadana are criticized rightly by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 157–8 (noting Sall., Hist. 1. 20M), cf. pp. 158–9, on the lex Pompeia; Luraschi, Foedus, 141–214: a minimalist view of Strabo’s signiWcance; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 165. Further on the lex Pompeia and its relation to the creation of Cisalpina as a regular territorial province, see Chilver, Cisalpine, 8; Badian, Studies, 103 n. 45; id. in Me´langes Piganiol; Brunt, Manpower, 166–72; LaY, Athenaeum (1992), arguing for a later creation of the province, by Sulla; Ca`ssola in Eck and Galsterer, Die Stadt in Oberitalien, 30–40, dating the province to the Cimbric wars. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 106–8, thinks that the ius petendi ciuitatis per magistratum was introduced by a later law, perhaps in the Wrst half of the 1st cent. He may be right to argue that Asconius was in error to describe this right as the ‘ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae’ had, i.e. to imply a 2nd cent. grant of such a right; yet this in no way justiWes rejecting his description of what Pompeius did in 89. His attempt (noting also Strabo, 4. 1. 12 on Nemausus) to show that the right did not yet exist by 51, when the beating of a colonist from Novum Comum by the consul Marcellus caused a scandal, is unconvincing. Cicero does not accept Caesar’s grant of citizenship, hence his words ‘etsi ille magistratum non gesserit’ (‘even if that man did not hold a magistracy’, Att. 5. 11 .2); these same words do, however, suggest that Latin magistrates could not be beaten, and this in turn is most economically explained by assuming a grant such as Asconius records. The secondary issue of not beating Transpadani (on whose journey to acceptability in Roman eyes see Williams, Rubicon, 119–27), now juridically Latins and emotively occupying a similar place, is separate, and moral. On the problem see also Hardy, in Some Problems in Roman History, 126–49; Luraschi, Foedus, 457–61; WolV, Chiron (1979); Keaveney, Critica Storica (1984), 368–70.
174
The Politics of Enfranchisement
ius quod ceterae Latinae coloniae, id est ut petendi magistratus ciuitatem Romanam adipiscerentur.59
Some scholars have assigned the lex Pompeia considerable scope. Perhaps the most radical proponent of this school of thought was Tibiletti. He considered it responsible for a wholesale reorganization of Gallia Cisalpina, hitherto culturally backward: most native settlements were razed to the ground, and new settlements built on orthogonal street plans; centuriation too he largely attributed to this period. Tibiletti’s main evidence was the homogeneity of the town plans of Ticinum and Verona, something which he believed must derive from a unitary plan, inaugurated by the lex Pompeia.60 Yet the republication of the republican inscription from the ‘Porta dei Leoni’ at Verona shows that it was IIII uiri who were responsible for building ‘murum, porta[m], cluacas’, not before 49, but probably not long after.61 It looks more probable that Ticinum’s urban layout dates to this period too. Even if it does date to 89, it cannot be shown to be part of a uniWed and far-reaching plan.62 If a radical change in the landscape and townscapes of Gallia Cisalpina cannot be shown to be a result of the lex Pompeia, we need not at the same time deny that it had a far-reaching administrative signiWcance. Tens of Cisalpine communities were turned into Latin colonies, which required the drafting and granting of new constitutions, and perhaps the Wxing of territorial boundaries. The administrative changes of 89 are represented as even more far-reaching on the basis of Pliny, who says that a lex Pompeia was responsible for the attribution of some Alpine ciuitates to Cisalpine municipia.63 All this implies that there was substantial administrative innovation going on in Cisalpine Gaul at a time when I have sought to deny that similar action was being taken in Italy itself, at a time moreover when the Social War was still in progress. Yet the problems thus posed for my argument may not be as severe as they seem. 59 3C: ‘Cn. Pompeius Strabo . . . led out Transpadane colonies. For Pompeius did not establish them with new colonists but gave the Latin right to the old inhabitants who remained in the places, with the result that they were able to enjoy the right which the rest of the Latin colonies had, that is that by seeking magistracies they might obtain Roman citizenship.’ 60 For Ticinum and Pavia see Storie locali, 203–22, esp. 205, 207, 211–12, 220. For the sudden and radical transformation of Cisalpina generally (some exceptions, e.g. Mediolanum): e.g. ibid. 59–60, 69, 95, 120, 130–1, 198–1. 61 CIL i2 . 3404. 62 So Luraschi, Foedus, 210–14. Note also Gabba’s reappraisal of Tibiletti’s thesis in the light of the Verona evidence (Italia romana, 79–80). Ewins assigns the centuriation of Cisalpina to Caesar: PBSR (1955), 94; Gabba thinks that some belongs to the 2nd cent, but other areas could well derive from the lex Pompeia or even later measures, cf. Italia romana, 191–3; ibid. 138, however, Gabba argues that the centuriation should follow municipalization, and connects it with Augustan developments, but not veteran settlement; cf. also ibid. 197–201. Centuriation, though, is more likely to have been piecemeal than the result of a grand plan. 63 NH 3. 138, on those peoples not included on Augustus’ Alpine trophy: ‘non sunt adiectae Cottianae ciuitates XV quae non fuerant hostiles, item adtributae municipiis lege Pompeia’. For the attribution to 89 see Chilver, Cisalpine, 7–8, 23 with n. 9, Ewins, PBSR (1955), 76; LaY, Adtributio, 19– 20 (both of whom explain ‘municipiis’ as anachronism for coloniis), Frederiksen, in Hellenismus, ii. 346–7.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
175
First, the Latin colonies did not necessarily require the creation ex nouo of an administrative system: they could simply have been reorganized according to a blueprint that had been used many times. The relevant enabling law could have been taken out of its cupboard in the aerarium and redeployed; with minimal adjustments for local circumstances the colonial charters could probably be created quickly. We have already seen that there is an important Wctive element in the creation of these colonies; interventions on the ground by Roman magistrates or commissioners were perhaps rare, by Pompeius most unlikely.64 As to the usual interpretation of Pliny’s evidence, such important political organization does not seem to have much prima facie plausibility if we accept that the organizational reform in the Latin colonies was mainly tralatician, and that they were largely left to ‘Latinize’ themselves. Doubts have been expressed both by Taylor,65 who believed that here as elsewhere in Cisalpine arrangements we should see the hand of Pompeius Magnus, and Luraschi, who, after careful examination of the matter, rightly rejected the attribution of this lex Pompeia to Strabo.66 Certainly then as regards the arrangements for the Latin colonies, and possibly also the administration of Cisalpina as a whole, it seems that no major innovations were undertaken in 89; an attitude which Wnds a clear echo in the inactivity in this Weld in Italy proper.
2.5. The Dediticii Populi The laws discussed above dealt solely or mainly with loyalists, and cover the years 90–89. At the start of 89, however, almost all the rebel peoples still remained in arms. They too had to be incorporated into the citizen body after their defeat.67 If we are to appreciate the immediate impact of becoming Roman on these communities, we must have as clear an idea as possible of the aftermath of the Social War. Only then can we proceed to an analysis of the beginnings of the new municipal programme in Italy. By the middle of 88 (there is no way of Wxing the date more precisely), the Social War was over;68 save for the Samnites and the Lucanians, the Italici who had rebelled were dediticii populi, ‘that is, temporarily without any rights at all, until such time as it pleased their conquerors to dictate their new position’.69 Two 64 The Social War needed men, and in any case, as we have seen in Ch. 3, Latin colonies could take a decade or more to reach their Wnal constitutional form, with some institutions held in suspended animation. 65 Voting Districts, 128. 66 SDHI (1978), 472–87, cf. Foedus, 184–207. 67 Cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 162 (less convincing ibid. 165, ‘little risk of political or social upheavals’), 167, 168 (where the tensions thrown up by the bitter war suddenly get recognized!), 170–1. 68 See Salmon, Samnium 368–9, for the course of events. 69 Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 16, cf. Brunt, Fall, 406. On deditio generally see Gaius, Inst. 1. 14; Livy, 26. 33. 13; and Jones, JRS (1936), 229–30; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 60–1, 383–6; Frederiksen, Campania, 183–4, 189–90, 194. Note that Livy, writing of the 4th cent. (8. 13. 8, 14. 2), but probably
176
The Politics of Enfranchisement
questions need answering: by what processes were the majority of ex-rebel Italians admitted to the citizenship? And was this change in their status related to contemporary issues in Roman politics? Velleius Paterculus gives us an interesting characterization of the attitude of the governing class at Rome as they prepared to rebuild Italy after the war: Finito ex maxima parte, nisi quae Nolani belli manebant reliquiae, Italico bello, quo quidem Romani uictis adXictisque ipsi exarmati, quam integris uniuersis, ciuitatem dare maluerunt, consulatum inierunt Q. Pompeius et L. Cornelius Sulla. (2. 17. 1)70 With the Italian war for the greatest part Wnished, except the remnants of the Nolan war which still remained, a war in which indeed the Romans preferred to give the citizenship to the conquered and shattered, being themselves disarmed, than (to give it) to them all without exception when they were untouched, Q. Pompeius and L. Cornelius Sulla entered the consulship.
The text here is not pellucid, but it seems that Velleius believed that the Romans preferred to grant the citizenship to the Italians after they had been conquered, rather than to concede it while hostilities were going on, in order to stop the war. The grant of citizenship could thus be presented as a favour to the defeated, rather a concession extorted by the rebels.71 The Romans wanted to be able to dictate terms, which presupposed the surrender of the rebels in dicionem populi Romani.72 Such a generalizing interpretation is, on the basis of what we have seen, inexact. The general sense is, however, clear, and Velleius’ picture of the attitudes of the Roman aristocracy at this point is borne out by the words of Appian. Having described the last events of the Social War proper, that is, the victories of Metellus in Apulia and the death of Poppaedius, Appian sums up by giving the terms of the employing a later distinction, talks of expugnatio and deditio as alternatives. This section elides any such diVerence, and treats as broadly similar those who surrendered and those who were captured in arms; but these two outcomes may have aVected the aftermath of the war for those involved. 70 I have punctuated the Latin as I think my translation requires, and have given the MS reading, where there are textual problems—it is hard to give the Latin a reasonable sense; Acidalius suggested exanimati (‘tired out’) instead of ‘exarmati’, which seems at odds with the general sense; Heinsius (1678) read integri for ‘intergris’, and Ruhnken ‘integris’, which would give the best sense, but seems un-Velleian. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 110, stresses the fact that enfranchisement followed defeat, not political process. 71 A similar attitude had meant that only the threat of rebellion in Etruria and Umbria had led to the passing of the lex Iulia in 90. For incorporation of gentes or ciuitates uniuersae, see Introduction; Velleius may not be talking of this, however, but of a piecemeal series of enfranchisements. 72 Contrast with the fate of the dediticii populi the position of the Samnites, who as we shall see were able to gain the citizenship from the Marians on their own terms, terms to which the Roman Senate, used to imposing its will in such matters, could not agree. A very diVerent picture of attitudes to enfranchisement is presented in Sallust’s oratio Lepidi, where, however, part of the message is that Sulla is obstructing what the populus has ordered: Sallust, Hist. 1. 55. 12M ( ¼ 1. 48 12 McG) ‘sociorum et Lati magna uis ciuitate pro multis et egregiis factis a uobis data per unum prohibentur’ (‘a great body of the allies and Latium, is excluded from the citizenship given by you in return for many outstanding deeds’). The layers of discourse implied in this formulation, Gracchan and post-Gracchan, are complex, but it is clear that one of the services rendered must have been loyalty in the Social War: no other enfranchisement act could be so characterized. See further McGushin, Sallust’s Histories, i. 90, 119.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
177
settlement which followed. Although this passage precedes the debt crisis and the murder of Sempronius Asellio in Appian’s narrative (1. 54. 232–9), it belongs, like the military narrative immediately preceding, to 88.73 Appian probably decided to append the limited campaigning of 88 to that of 89, and to round oV his narrative of the war by discussing the enfranchisements which follow, thereby avoiding breaking up his narrative of 88 (Sulpicius and Sulla) with little military snippets, and allowing the reader to take Italian discontent in 88 as read.74 ŒÆ b q æd c ÆºÆ Id e ıÆØŒ º, IŒ ÆÆ c ºØ Æ æØ H, ø ÆºÆ A Æ æ æ K c øÆø ºØÆ, øæ ª ¸ıŒÆH ŒÆd ÆıØH : ŒF Ø ªæ Ø ŒÆd ¥ ıE, z æfi , o æ.75
It seems to me that, although æØ H could refer to the general enfranchisement, it is more likely to refer back to the success of Metellus. This is then correlated with the extension of the franchise; for Appian the two were closely linked. Yet, whatever the reference of æØ H, my main point stands: the grant of the franchise was almost universal. Once Rome felt herself able to dictate terms, once the bulk of her erstwhile allies lay defeated, she dealt with them at the same time, as populi, once for all.76 It is true that Appian’s Greek is susceptible of more than one interpretation. I have taken æ æ as a simple aorist, while it is certainly possible to take it as having a pluperfect force. Yet the word A Æ has more force if applied to a universal action than if used to describe the eVect of a cumulative process. Secondly, and more decisively, implies that the Samnites and Lucanians were left out of a process which took place in its entirety at that time. at this point is otiose if Appian is talking about a cumulative process. Evidence for the Social War allows no unshakable reconstructions.77 When, however, the evidence of Appian is considered together with that of Velleius, 73 These events clearly belong in 88: Gabba, ad App., BC 1. 53. 230, Keaveney, UniWcation, 158. 74 Contra Gabba ad BC 1. 53. 231, CAH ix2 . 126, who assigns the settlement to 89, and refers it to the lex Plautia Papiria. Luraschi (SDHI (1978), 348, 353–60, 370) argued that both Appian and Velleius refer to 89 and to the lex Plautia Papiria, not to a separate lex de ciuitate dediticiis populis danda. For Appian 89 certainly seems excluded; for Velleius it should be noted that while he dates the end of the war ‘ex maxima parte’ to the period before the consuls of 88 entered oYce (his assertion that only Nola was not yet subdued is plainly false), it is legitimate to see the grant of citizenship as mentioned before the start of the new year only because it was contingent on the end of the war; that is, it need not have followed it immediately. The link between victory and enfranchisement here is thematic, not chronological, and the latter could easily have occurred in 88 without disrupting the logic of Velleius’ narrative. 75 BC 1. 53. 231. 76 Though they place it in 87, Livy (Per. 80) and Granius Licinianus (p. 21F) talk of the concession of citizenship as a block grant (see below). For enfranchisement as populi see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 155–7, 383–4. For a case-by-case review by the Senate: Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166, drawing on Sisenna 119P (see below). 77 There are, as always, loose cannon: for instance Exuperantius, 7. 47, which implies that the Marians enfranchised Etruria, thus accounting for the signal loyalty of the region to that faction, must be dismissed as invention, perhaps traceable to Sallustian rhetorical ornamentation—see the introduction to Zorzetti’s edition, p. xvi.
178
The Politics of Enfranchisement
2. 17. 1, the case becomes stronger. No move was made to give the citizenship to the rebels until they all lay at Rome’s feet; then the grant was (Samnites and Lucani excepted) universal. The references to enfranchisement come after the point at which the war could be said to be over (except in the far south): Appian strongly implies that this enfranchisement happened in 88 bc; Velleius, while not precise, aiming at characterization not careful chronology, nevertheless associates the end of the war with the start of this year, as we have seen.78 These arguments are supported by a further consideration. In 88, following his split with the boni, the tribune P. Sulpicius allied himself with Marius, now once again bent on military glory, and vying with Sulla over the Mithridatic command.79 Sulpicius had to be sure of suYcient support, and perhaps now he determined to play the ‘Drusan’ card. His and Marius’ aims could be served by presenting himself as the patron of the Italians, as Livius Drusus had done.80 This does not imply that I think Drusus would have approved or disapproved of the tribal arrangements for the new citizens. We simply cannot know. I do not deny that Drusus had strong Italian sympathies, and wanted to solve the ‘Italian question’ as a part of his reforms.81 In everything he did, however, he appeared as the champion of the interests of the senatorial oligarchy, which, while served by regaining control of the courts, could never be described as being furthered by Xooding the comitia with hordes of voters over whom the control of the Roman nobility was at best indirect. We may, however, legitimately ask why Sulpicius espoused the Italian cause at this time, a cause which played no necessary part in his political philosophy, and had not played a role that we can detect in his tribunate before the break with the optimates. The redistribution would seem a logical move in any event: the grateful Italians would give the change of command an easy passage through the comitia, and more importantly prevent another tribune reversing the step. Yet I want to argue that the recent enfranchisement of the dediticii populi now made the question of the new tribes more of a politically sensitive and pressing issue than it had formerly been. Those given the citizenship in late 90 had been restricted to a number of new tribes which voted last.82 As we shall see, it seems likely that this did not apply to 78 Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 348, also notes Vell. Pat. 2. 20. 2: ‘cum ita ciuitas Italiae data esset, ut in octo tribus contribuerentur noui ciues’, describing the prelude to Cinna’s agitation of 87. Vell. Pat. 2. 20. 1 had reported the murder of Q. Pompeius Rufus (88 bc). 79 Plutarch, Marius 34. 1 states that the rivalry over the Mithridatic command divided the people between Marius and Sulla: › B Ø ; H b ƃæıø a !Ææı; H ººÆ ŒÆºø; this passage, which may not come from the pro-Sullan historical tradition, strongly implies that in early 88 the Mithridatic command had not yet been awarded to anyone. The idea of Sulpicius’ breaking suddenly with the optimates has been powerfully questioned by Powell, Historia (1990), partly anticipated by Meier, Res publica amissa, 216–21; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 169. 80 For the friendship of Drusus and Sulpicius see Cic., De or. 1. 25, 3. 11. For a sceptical view of Drusus as the patron of the Italians, see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 129–51, cf. 168–9, rejecting the idea of Sulpicius as motivated by pro-Italian idealism, 171 (on Cinna). 81 Denied by Mouritsen, UniWcation, 8; for Mouritsen, Drusus’ intended beneWciaries under his citizenship bill were the Latins (pp. 7, 109–27). 82 App., BC 1. 49. 214.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
179
the Latin colonies (stricto sensu Appian could be taken here to refer only to the Etruscans). The loyal ex-allies, then, had been labouring under the disadvantage of restricted voting for over a year when Sulpicius took up their cause, but there is no record of agitation before he made his proposal. Appian seems to have been aware of the problems involved in this state of aVairs, because he suggests the Italians only realized their vote was worthless at a later point in time.83 The problems surrounding the new tribes are discussed in the next section; here I will say simply that I believe that the Italians soon became aware of the unusual nature of their new suVrage, but the matter did not become an issue at once for a number of reasons. First, we know that the citizenship was what they wanted most of all;84 in the afterglow of enfranchisement the tribal distribution may have been accepted as an extraordinary war measure, to be reversed in due course. The Latini had been used to voting in only one tribe in Roman assemblies, and provided some sort of a precedent for the restrictive treatment of the allies, especially the Prisci Latini, the men of Praeneste, Tibur, Cora, and Gabii. Secondly, and importantly, Appian says ŒÆd ººŒØ ÆPH łB IæE q, which implies that there were occasions on which their vote did count; they had not been given a totally empty franchise.85 Finally, in the context of an ongoing war, would a Roman politician who remembered the Varian quaestio expose himself to attack by championing Italian rights in internal politics at this time (Sulpicius’ own circle had provided the principal victims for Varius and his supporters)? Lacking senatorial patronage, the discontent of those enfranchised in 90 might take a long time to make any impact on Roman politics. Sulpicius nevertheless now decided to intervene. Here, as so often, chance had a hand in the course of events. The chronology of the year 88 is unclear; that adopted below does not seem to contradict the sources.86 If Luce is right in his interpretation of Plutarch, Marius 34. 1, and his arguments (although deployed, I believe, to support an incorrect dating) have much force, then Sulpicius’ alliance with Marius can be roughly dated to April or May of 88.87 It seems very possible that the tribunician elections at this period took place in late September, after Sulla had marched on the city.88 This march probably thus occurred in August, allowing us to push Sulpicius’ proposals, and the ensuing violence, back to June or July. 83 BC 1. 49. 215. Note the view of Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 135, that the vote was of little interest to the Italians (modiWed at ibid. 143, 144 n. 3). 84 P c ºØ Æ ı KŁı (App., BC 1. 49. 212). 85 BC 1. 49. 215. Note Sest. 109, where Cicero claims that sometimes the rural tribes were hardly represented at all in votes on legislation in the comitia tributa. 86 For another reconstruction see Badian (Clientelae, 230–4, and Historia (1969), 482–3), who puts the alliance between Marius and Sulpicius after the opposition of the Senate to his tribal bill; he is followed by most scholars: Gabba, Republican Rome, 135; Luce, Historia (1970), 192–3; Katz, RhM (1977), 45; Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 2 n. 5. 87 Historia (1970), 193–4; see Plin., HN 19. 3 for the record time of 9 days sailing from Alexandria to Puteoli—the news of events in Asia will have taken some time to reach Rome. 88 See Katz, AC (1976), 507 on the date of the tribunician elections.
180
The Politics of Enfranchisement
Now it would be signiWcant if Sulpicius’ tribal bill also followed the mass enfranchisements postulated above for this year. These too, Appian tells us, were followed by enrolment in a number of new tribes which voted last.89 Continued segregation and the eVective creation of a large group of second-class citizens dashed hopes that the end of the war would bring about an equitable distribution, since the new tribes now seemed to represent the deWnitive post-war settlement by the Roman Senate. Further, this new batch of tribes created a much larger class of disadvantaged citizens, one Wlled with men who were not Rome’s allies, but who had fought a bitter war to a degrading Wnish, after which they were enfranchised, only to Wnd that the Senate in its wisdom and mercy gave with one hand while taking away with the other. I believe that it was the accession in one batch of a large class of disadvantaged voters to the citizen body that really highlighted the fraud perpetrated by the Senate, and sowed the seeds of serious discontent. At precisely this point, Sulpicius, needing a cause to champion, and hoping thereby to secure voters for Marius, decided that his best ploy was to fasten on this injustice. He had always been aware of it, but it was precisely now that the addition of a large number of men to the group of ‘have-nots’ turned a minor problem into a civil disturbance waiting to happen. There is, of course, a danger of circularity here. One cannot go much further than arguing that Sulpicius’ decision to champion the Italians was not a natural one, and that in seeking the explanation we must bear in mind that enfranchisements occurred in 88 which greatly swelled the numbers of those voting last in the new tribes.90 We are not yet, however, out of the woods. Appian puts the grant of the citizenship to the dediticii in mid-88, and certainly places it before the grant to the Samnites and Lucanians. The Livian epitome however, for the year 87, after describing the beginning of the siege of Rome, and Marius’ sack of Ostia, runs ‘Italicis populis a senatu ciuitas data est’ (‘the citizenship was given to the Italian peoples by the Senate’).91 It then goes on to describe how the Samnites joined Marius and Cinna. Granius Licinianus seems to refer to the same grant when he says, after narrating the deal between Cinna and the Samnites: ‘Dediticiis omnibus ciuita<s> data, qui polliciti mult milia militum uix X cohortes miserunt’.92 89 BC 1. 53. 231. Appian’s ŒÆ Ø might be seen as contradicting the interpretation of this passage advanced above. I think however that this refers not to each successive group in a series of enfranchisements, but rather the fact that some kind of regional grouping was used in assigning the Italian peoples to their tribes—as we might expect. 90 This view may Wnd limited support in Exuperantius’ description of Cinna’s law: ‘ut noui ciues, qui aliqua ratione Romanorum acceperant ciuitatem, cum ueteribus nulla discretione suVragium ferrent’ (4. 23). The obvious reference of ‘aliqua ratione’ is to freedmen and new citizens, but it may be that there is a further reference, namely to the existence of more than one group of noui ciues, i.e. to groups of citizens enfranchised at diVerent times. This conclusion becomes important if we believe that Cinna’s proposal merely repeated the terms of that of Sulpicius (on the relation between the two, see below). The way in which Exuperantius characterizes Cinna’s law is not one which is likely to be his own, assuming as it does a detailed knowledge of events greater than that generally evinced by his text. It must come from an early source, possibly Sallust; on Exuperantius’ use of Sallust, see Zorzetti’s edn. pp. xiv–xvii. 91 Livy, Per. 80. 92 Granius Licinianus p. 21F; for a translation see below.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
181
In order to approach this apparent chronological contradiction between Appian and Velleius on the one hand, and Licinianus and Livy on the other, we must establish a hierarchy of sources. Appian’s continuous narrative is I think the best guide; while Granius’ account is sometimes to be preferred to that of Appian on points of detail, it is too incomplete to follow as the primary source. This same reliability in detail makes Granius inWnitely preferable to the Livian epitome. The epitomator is concerned with selectively noting events, not with producing a narrative where events stand in a perceptible relation to each other. If we are to make sense of the epitome, where we can do so, we must have an eye both to the compositional standards of the author, and the possible events which underlie his diYcult text. The notice of Licinianus comes, as we saw, after the Marians have agreed terms with the Samnites through Fimbria, but before the Wnal defeat of Octavius and his supporters. Like Appian, Granius separates the grant to the defeated Italian peoples from the deal between the Marians and the Samnites, but reverses Appian’s order.93 If Granius’ notice does refer to the enfranchisement of the dediticii in 87, it records a desperate measure, since it shows the Senate, having failed in its aim of winning over the Samnites, now perforce turning to their defeated and resentful ex-allies, who despite their promises sent scarcely sixteen cohorts.94 That the Senate should turn to the Samnites before enfranchising the dediticii, whose goodwill they could have won at a crucial point by enfranchising them, is hard to explain (the dediticii, not yet enfranchised, would not necessarily be pro-Cinnan, since redistribution among the tribes concerned them only indirectly). To take Granius at face value, as some have done,95 entails diYculties and special pleading. We must ascertain what the historian actually says before we can ask ourselves ‘why?’. In this instance, the text of Granius is ambiguous, so an open mind is vital. It is possible to come up with diVerent versions; for instance, what Wnite part of the verb should we supply with ‘ciuitas data’? If est, then Granius means ‘the citizenship was granted to all the surrendered, who, having promised many thousands, scarcely sent sixteen cohorts’. This, though, could be a compression, whereby the account of the arrival of the few troops sent by the Italians entails a misplaced reference to an earlier grant of citizenship, which should have secured
93 Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 16, appears to reverse the order of Licinianus’ narrative, which seems a less natural interpretation. The enfranchisement of the dediticii populi must in any event be distinguished from the deal with the Samnites, of whom Livy, Per. 80, says, ‘Samnites, qui soli arma recipiebant’. I do not think that the imperfect implies that the Samnites took up arms again (so Schlesinger in his Loeb), but that they were still in arms. The two enfranchisements have been conXated: see Luraschi, SDHI (1978), 349 n. 104 for bibliography, cf. 354. 94 The precise Wgure is disputed; all that is relevant here is that the number of cohorts sent was disappointingly small. 95 Cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 92; Taylor, Voting Districts, 102, 104; Salmon, Samnium, 374; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 156, though his suggestions are tentative; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 232; Letta, Magistrature, 82. It is a mistake to approach these texts with the preconception that Granius is trying to tell us what the epitome of Livy says.
182
The Politics of Enfranchisement
the sending of more troops. As it is, the grant of citizenship, the promises, and the failure of the allies to fulWl them, all happen within a very short space of time. Alternatively one might supply ‘data <erat>’, take the participle ‘polliciti’ as concessive, and translate: ‘the citizenship had been granted to all the peoples who had surrendered, who [although they] had promised many thousands, [now] sent scarcely sixteen cohorts’. The reference to the enfranchisements can be explained on the same grounds as set out above: the earlier enfranchisements had provoked protestations of loyalty and support from the Italians, which now proved empty. It was only the present poor showing of the Italians that caused Granius (or his source) to refer back to the original grant. Whatever the Italians promised, the oligarchic reaction to the proposals of Sulpicius and Cinna must have showed them that the Senate did not have their interests at heart at all, and deserved no more loyalty now than it had done in 91. So either Granius has misplaced the reference to the enfranchisement owing to compression, or his text, perhaps to be diVerently supplemented, refers to a grant made in the past, not at the point in 87 with which he is immediately concerned.96 Nothing Granius tells us can be proved to contradict Appian’s fuller account, but on the other hand we can read Granius (without doing violence to his text) as agreeing with Appian. This leaves us with the epitome of Livy. The likelihood of this being accurate, and all the other sources being wrong, is so small that, even if we cannot explain his isolated testimony, we can quite safely ignore it. I have noted that there is no necessary reason for assuming that the epitomator is talking about the same thing as Granius Licinianus, although it is an economical assumption. The people to whom the grant is made are referred to as ‘Italici populi’. It is interesting to note that this is the epitomator’s term for the rebels in the Social War (cf. Per. 72); we should not exclude the possibility that the reference is to those who were still in arms, although it is more natural to take it as a misplaced reference to the block enfranchisement of the dediticii populi. The text speaks of a grant of citizenship made by the Senate—we would rather expect a lex to enfranchise, as in Sisenna fr. 119P; although in such a truncated source as the epitome we cannot expect much accuracy.97 It would make better sense if allusion was here being made, albeit in a garbled form, to the attempt made by the Senate to deal with the Samnites, which we can trace more fully in Appian and Granius.98 The Senate refused to agree to the terms demanded by the Samnites, whereupon Cinna stepped in and won their support by acceding to their demands.99 Metellus now returned to Rome, further weakening the Roman forces in Samnium, commanded now by his legate Plautius. Now Plautius’ defeat is the Wrst event recorded by in the epitome after the pact between Cinna and the 96 Another alternative is that the Senate tried to win the support of the Italians by passing a SC which reminded them of or perhaps conWrmed all measures of enfranchisement taken in their favour so far. 97 Cf. Luraschi, SDHI 352; possibly no law is mentioned here because one had been passed in 88? 98 App., BC 1. 68. 309–10, Gran. Lic. pp. 20–1, Sallust, Hist. 1. 28*M (¼1. 23*McGushin). 99 So too Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
183
Samnites,100 which may add a little weight to the notion that Livy is here talking of the Samnites, not the dediticii. This reconstruction has the merit of making the events referred to fall into a plausible causal pattern. Granius himself does not refer to an extension of the Roman citizenship to the dediticii populi in 87. Furthermore, there are no grounds whatsoever for using the Livian text to contradict the picture drawn above on the basis of Appian’s evidence, nor can it be shown that the Livian epitome and Granius Licinianus lend mutual support. On balance then, I believe that that testimony of Appian points to the passing of a lex de ciuitate dediticiis populis danda in 88, perhaps in the Wrst half of the year. Apart from the enfranchisement of the Samnites and Lucanians, which must have been sanctioned by law after Cinna’s victory, it was the last enfranchisement act. We know very little about this law; we do know from Appian that K b a ıºa ‹ØÆ E æıF Ø ŒÆ Ø ŒÆºª.101 Since the Senate was still pursuing the same policy of restricting the franchise of the new citizens, it is possible that the enfranchisement of 88 was, like the lex Iulia, quite restricted in its provisions, although it was passed in quite diVerent circumstances for a diVerent end. The Roman Senate had to be forced into enfranchising its allies; it had not seen to their municipal organization in 90, as far as we can tell. All this would suggest that during the war the Senate was against making any concessions to the rebels, either in terms of an independent state, or of the citizenship. It must have looked even more unfavourably on them as dediticii, and was in all likelihood quite unwilling to exert itself legislatively in the immediate aftermath of the war, by providing a new administrative framework for the newly enfranchised parts of Italy.102 More important matters were to hand. I suggest, therefore, although it cannot be proven, that the law of 88 also made no provision for municipalization. The Roman citizenship was probably imposed on the dediticii by this law, with no obligation, indeed no opportunity, to fundus Weri of the enfranchising law. This does not in any case imply municipalization at this time. The dediticii populi were predominantly groups like Marsi and Paeligni. It is hard to imagine how these peoples, enfranchised as ethnic units not city-states, could have logically been municipalized: while there was accelerating urban development in these areas, there were not always obvious candidates to become municipia. It was not simply a question of overlaying a municipal design on the existing political structure: the nature of the latter was not suited to receive the former, at least not without some thought, and potentially some special solution such as that which may have been represented in the third century by the creation of the 100 For this order of events, see also Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 17. 101 BC 1. 53. 231. 102 For diVerential treatment of loyalists and rebels, see the case of the Hernici at Livy, 9. 43. 23–4. The loyalists had ‘their own’ laws restored to them, and were allowed to intermarry; the rebels were given the ciuitas sine suVragio, denied freedom of association, and forbidden any magistrates other than those who dealt with sacra.
184
The Politics of Enfranchisement
octovirate.103 Besides, edicts ending a state of deditio, while they did make some detailed provisions regarding the dediticii, were essentially a matter of returning to the surrendered some or all of their lands, cults, possessions, and laws, albeit in a precarious way.104 The aftermath of the Social War diVered in an important way, in that autonomy was not restored, but was replaced with the Roman citizenship, with all the implications which followed from that. Previous cases of the ending of deditio suggest that, at best, a very crude set of arrangements may have resulted, the more so if they derived from a blanket measure applicable to all, not a series of case-by-case pronouncements, unlikely in the circumstances. Let us conclude this section by considering one Wnal piece of evidence for this period, which throws a little light on the process of enfranchisement. Sisenna, fr. 119P reads: ‘tamen Tudertibus senati consulto et populi iusso dat ciuitatem’. That the fragment is from a speech seems a hard conclusion to escape in the light of the present tense ‘dat’.105 The law referred to here could be the lex Iulia itself.106 Yet, unless ‘dat’ is a historic present, this is diYcult: on the most likely reconstruction, Sisenna’s fourth book, from which this fragment comes, covers 89 bc, not 90 (of course, the fragment could refer to the very beginning of 89, when the Julian law was recent). While it is impossible to disprove that the speaker refers to the lex Iulia, we must allow for the possibility that he does not. The arguments are as follows. As we have seen, it seems that the SC passed in late 90 to head oV revolt in Etruria and Umbria only became law with the return of the consul Caesar to Rome later in that year. This fragment of Sisenna on the other hand, as it stands, can be read as implying standard legislative procedure, where SC and law were closely related in conception and in time. The argument into which this fragment Wtted is impossible to reconstruct, but it does seem likely that the speaker is complaining about the enfranchisement of Tuder, either in itself, or as having happened in preference to that of another more deserving group.107 The dramatic date of the speech is probably 89 bc, and the events referred to may well belong there as well. It is very tempting to relate the mention of the Tudertes to the rebellion in Etruria and Umbria in 90. At the end of 90 there were outbreaks of unrest in Etruria and Umbria, despite the passing of the SC described by Appian. The two 103 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 153–4, seriously underestimated this problem. 104 See the 2nd-cent. documents from Spain: ILLRP 514, and the turris Lusicitana inscription. 105 ‘however he gives citizenship to the Tudertes by senatus consultum and by the order of the people’. ‘Real’ present or historic present? Impossible to say, but the former would make a reference to the lex Iulia impossible. On these fragments of Sisenna see Barabino, Studi Noniani, 1 (1967), 119 V., Frassinetti, Athenaeum (1972), 100. 106 So Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 231 (‘probably’); more cautious, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 154. 107 Who might form such a group? Candidates are the adscripti of loyal cities, who were in fact enfranchised under the terms of the lex Plautia Papiria in this year; or those enfranchised by Velleius’ second law (see above); or perhaps the new citizens voting last in their new tribes. The identity of the subject of ‘dat’ presents another conundrum: L. Caesar? ‘tamen’ also needs consideration; it seems that some attitude or pronouncement of the proposer of the law is contradicted by his action in respect of Tuder.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
185
regions were subdued by C. Porcius Cato and Plotius respectively.108 The revolt has left little trace in our sources, and therefore cannot have lasted long, nor can it have been widespread.109 Appian says Q b [the Etruscans] ¼ Ø B ºØÆ ºÆ,110 and Cato’s mission was probably less military and more policing and public relations; probably no more Etruscan cities took up arms after the passing of the SC, whatever they had been thinking beforehand.111 Appian’s account does not however mention the Umbrians after reporting that they were on the point of revolt. This might just be the result of over-compression, but we have seen how, when describing the events of 88, he does not lump the Samnites and Lucanians together, as he might be expected to do in the interests of brevity. If he was using in part a pro-Italian source, we would have a right to expect some accuracy from Appian on these matters. It may thus be signiWcant that Appian does not mention any favourable reaction to the SC on the part of the Umbrians. If the revolt was more serious in Umbria than in Etruria, that might explain the peculiar notice of Orosius that the campaign was ‘plurimo sanguine impenso et diYcillimo labore’.112 This is Orosian exaggeration;113 yet, while it is doubtful that a campaign so little covered in our (admittedly imperfect) sources was as hard as Orosius implies, it does seem probable that the Umbrians gave Rome more trouble than the Etruscans. Florus tells us that Faesulae in northern Etruria and Ocriculum in southern Umbria were destroyed in the course of the Social War.114 It has been suggested that Florus here is employing a rhetorical strategy, picking out one place from each area of Italy where Wghting took place in the course of the war.115 Yet we know that at some of the other places he mentions there was Wghting; we should accept that Wghting, if not destruction, also took place at Faesulae and Ocriculum;116 the only 108 Livy, Per. 74. Plotius turns up as a rebel commander in Florus (2. 6. 6)! For the suggestion the Etruscan commander Egnatius was actually the Samnite leader of the relief force, see Beloch, RG 128. 109 See also Galsterer, Herrschaft, 190; Keaveney, UniWcation, 162; and Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 218–29, on the outbreak and chronology of this revolt, cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 156; Bradley, Ancient Umbria, 217–21. 110 BC 1. 49. 213. Harris, Etruria and Umbria 215 n. 2, thinks that the imperfect here may reXect a change of heart by the Etruscans, whom he sees as unwilling to accept the Roman citizenship on the terms on which it was oVered by Drusus in 91. See Mouritsen, UniWcation, 163 for reasons other than a deep-seated desire for citizenship per se as possible motives for Etruscan complaisance at this point. 111 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 154, 161–2, argues for a more serious revolt: he must be right that the enlistment of freedmen (Appian, BC 1. 49. 212) shows that the revolt was serious—or perhaps feared to be serious; but his reading of the sources is generally superWcial here, and his characterization of the Etruscans and Umbrians a little monolithic and unsatisfactory. 112 v. 18. 17. 113 Brunt, Fall, 105–6; Keaveney, UniWcation, 142 n. 43; but accepted by Badian, Historia (1962), 226 n. 103. 114 Florus 2. 6. 5. See MSS; Carseoli? Better Carsulae: Galsterer, Herrschaft, 190 n. 73. Ocriculum is near Carsulae and Tuder. The Umbrian towns are closer to Asculum Picenum; Faesulae is dislocated from many other Etruscan centres, and may have been an isolated incident; ibid. 190. 115 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 216. 116 Harris argues (ibid.) that Ocriculum itself is unlikely to have rebelled because of its proximity to Rome and its ancient and not unfavourable treaty; ibid. 216 n. 7 for Faesulae.
186
The Politics of Enfranchisement
plausible context for such activity is the revolt of Etruria and Umbria at the end of 90.117 As well as identifying probable instances of Wghting, it is attractive to link negotiations reported for 89 by Sisenna with this revolt. Frs 94 and 95P report diplomatic activity at Iguvium and Perusia (Etruscan but on the Umbrian border). These scraps of information might together support the following hypothesis. It seems that Iguvium and Tuder in Umbria and Perusia and Faesulae in Etruria revolted in 90,118 and they may not have been alone. Note that both Iguvium and Tuder were placed in the Clustumina after the war: as we shall see, the one ‘disadvantageous’ tribe found in Etruria or Umbria. By early 89 the few Etruscan and Umbrian rebels were suing for terms. The negotiations recorded in Sisenna will have dealt with the treatment of the cities upon surrender, and of course the citizenship. For these communities deditio was followed in the same year by the grant of the citizenship by the Senate and people, that is by an SC ratiWed by a law. The subject of ‘dat’ might be the proposer of the law, or a promagistrate acting under the terms of the law. The lex Iulia might well be the law meant, but the fragment serves to remind us how little we know. Elegant solutions which seek to encompass all known outcomes within the few legislative acts of which we know are economical, but not realistic.119 To sum up. A lex Calpurnia seems to have restated the right of commanders to enfranchise for courage in the Weld in this war. It was followed by the lex Iulia, passed quickly at the end of 90 in a time of incipient crisis, the Wrst measure to grant citizenship on a wide basis, namely to those who remained loyal, and perhaps to those who surrendered promptly. The lex Plautia Papiria, also of 89, dealt only with the adscripti of newly enfranchised cities. The lex Iulia in all probability did not arrange for the initial tribal distribution of the noui ciues. It probably termed municipia fundana those populi which accepted the citizenship, but almost certainly made no detailed provisions regarding municipalization. Scholarship needs to get away from the idea that the passing of the lex Iulia was like the waving of a magic wand, and that all sorts of wonderful municipal consequences were in an instant conjured from a juridical hat. Reality for the noui ciues was a slower and more painful process. In the course of 89 one or more enfranchising acts may have been passed as needed; one such may have dealt with the small rebellious element in Etruria and Umbria. In 88 when the war was over, except for the conXict with the southern extremists, the dediticii populi were enfranchised en masse and (probably by a separate law) put into new tribes which voted last. This may have been the point at which the tribal question turned into a major political issue: I suggest that this 117 The implication of the Livian epitome that both campaigns were wound up by the end of 90 is not worth much: the Umbrian campaign probably spilt over into the next year. 118 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 217, is very cautious about revolt at Iguvium and Perusia. It seems that both communities had substantially modiWed their city walls in the 2nd cent. (see Blake, Construction, 199–201; Lugli, La tecnica, 280–1; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 112–13), a potential factor in any decision to rebel. See further Galsterer, Herrschaft, 190–1. 119 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 155–6, denying also that any clear conclusion arises, other than that the citizenship and tribal question drop out of sight after 84.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
187
sudden higher proWle of new citizen grievances in part explains the activities of P. Sulpicius. Neither Granius Licinianus nor Livy can be taken as evidence that the dediticii populi were enfranchised in 87. The only enfranchisement of that year seems to have been that of the Samnites and Lucanians, perhaps under a lex Cornelia. There is no reason to think that any of these laws dealt in any way with municipalization, although the end of deditio may have seen the creation of more municipia in the territories of some of the surrendered peoples.
3 . F V N DVS F I E R I When the lex Iulia was passed in Rome, Cicero tells us that all those who wished might become fundi of it—in so doing they seem to have, crudely put, become Roman citizens. We must look more closely now at this juridical process, which aVects directly our understanding of the processes of enfranchisement and municipalization. We have already seen in the Introduction that fundus Weri appeared in Gellius’ deWnition of municipes and municipia: municipes then are Roman citizens from municipia who use their own laws and their own authority, are only voluntary participants in a duty together with the Roman people, from the undertaking of which duty they seem to be named, bound by no other demands nor by any law of the Roman people, unless that to which their populus has become fundus. (NA 16. 13. 6–9)120
It seems certain from this that Gellius believed fundus Weri in legem to be something done by populi, that is, by the whole community, surely as the result of a vote; that it was a decision which could be taken in respect of any law; and that unless a Roman law was voluntarily so ‘adopted’, it was not binding on the municipia, even though they were communities of Roman citizens—local statutes prevailed. Given that Latin colonies too might become fundi of Roman laws, as we learn from the Pro Balbo (21: see Chapter 3), the ‘optional’ character of this institution is perhaps easier to understand. Gellius’ interpretation is borne out by what is, so to speak, negative evidence: the fact that attempts were being made to introduce leges tabellariae at Arpinum in and after 115 bc strongly suggests that none of the leges tabellariae passed from the 130s onwards in Rome had any force at Arpinum, which looks very much as if it was a municipium at this time.121 Nevertheless, as Nicolet argues, exceptions must have been made in serious cases, or for matters of overriding importance, where the maiestas populi Romani or the imperium populi Romani could be considered to be at stake.122 120 See Introduction for discussion of this passage. 121 So, rightly, Nicolet, REL (1967), 281–4. 122 Ibid. 283–4, esp. 283 n. 2, citing Cic., Balb. 20–2 and 35–6.
188
The Politics of Enfranchisement
As we have seen, even in a matter as important as the granting of the citizenship, populi were left to reject or to become fundi of the lex Iulia as they wished; there is no evidence to tell us whether the dediticii were given such a choice, but we might doubt it, from the very nature of deditio. It seems from the end of the tabula Heracleensis that there existed a class of municipia fundana (l. 159), referring to anyone who has been allowed to leges dare ‘in municipio fundano’; l. 160, ‘municipi{ei}s fundanos’ must obey changes to their leges; l. 163, no one is to stop ‘municipis fundanos’ from obeying these changes. It is least diYcult to interpret these as municipia which had become fundi of the the lex Iulia, (or perhaps rather of a later municipalizing law, for which see next sections).123 What the term actually meant, and what juridical actions it connoted beyond a popular vote, is uncertain. The root meaning of fundus seems to be ‘base’ or ‘bottom’ (OLD, s.v. 1), and from that the meaning of ‘put on a sound footing’ seems to have been extrapolated for fundus Weri. The earliest instance of a transferred meaning of fundus is Plautus, Trinummus 1123, where Lysiteles decides to speak to Charmides to strengthen his arrangements with the latter’s son: ‘ei rei fundus pater sit potior’: here, as in the phrase fundus Weri, things adopted or aimed for are not ‘put on a Wrmer footing’, but individuals become (more) fundi of things or towards things. Thus Gonzalez Lodge’s gloss auctor, adstipulator (‘associate’, ‘supporter’, ‘adherent’) (Lexicon Plautinum ad ‘fundus’, 1), while possibly inXuenced by Festus (see below), makes quite good sense.124 Festus in fact links fundus Weri with being in the position of auctor. The other relevant attestations come from Gellius: one I considered at the start of this passage, while the other comes indirectly from Fronto (on plurals and singulars), where Gellius reports a long disquisition on singulars and plurals: ‘ ‘‘. . . sed haec ego’’ inquit ‘‘dixi, non ut huius sententiae legisque fundus subscriptorque Werem, sed ut ne Caesaris, uiri docti, opinionem IÆæÆŁ destituerem’’ ’.125 Here it seems that fundus and subscriptor should be analogous if not synonymous, and this gives us a big clue as to the meaning fundus Weri had under the Empire: ‘adopt a position, an opinion, or a law’. The fact that individual communities adopted speciWc Roman statutes in the second century may imply that these replaced local measures on the matter which the legislation covered. If so, this would run contrary to what seems to be normal 123 The view goes back to Mazzochi; more recently RS i. 390–1, with bibliography and doxography. Nicolet, REL (1967), 285, seems to have in mind any Roman law, perhaps the source of the changes which the tabula Heracleensis envisages being made by external agency. RS notes (i. 390) that not all municipia were necessarily fundana, ‘since there were undoubtedly municipia in Italy which had in contrast [to those which had become fundi of a Roman law through their own choice] had the status thrust upon them’. 124 At Truculentus 727 fundus rather refers to a farm (contra RS i. 390)—Hofmann’s edn. ad loc. (Darmstadt, 2001); the other fragments cited in this connection are obscure. 125 NA 19. 8. 12: ‘ ‘‘But I’’ he said ‘‘have said these things not in order to become the supporter and assistant of this opinion and law, but that I may not abandon in isolation the opinion of Caesar, a learned man.’’ ’
The Politics of Enfranchisement
189
Roman practice, whereby old statutes continued in existence, unless speciWcally abrogated by the a successive measure.126
4 . T H E N EW C I T I Z E N S A N D T H E T R I B E S Municipalization itself was not a politically contentious matter: when the grievances of the Italians are boiled down to their essentials in accounts of the Wrst Civil War, it is not mentioned.127 Rather the tribes of the new citizens were the domestic issue of the years 88–87. There is no doubt that, as a measure of control, as we have seen, the Italians were conWned by law to additional tribes, which voted last in the comitia tributa and concilium plebis.128 The need for complex planning to integrate the new citizens into the Roman body politic was initially obviated by this device, perhaps coupled with registration in those tribes by censors who, whatever the extent of their activity, did not compile new lists of voters in the comitia centuriata.129 On whatever principle the new citizens were assigned to these tribes, it was certainly one which required no detailed consideration of diVerent communities. Sisenna fr. 17P refers to a Calpurnius who proposed setting up two new tribes.130 I have already suggested that the lex Calpurnia mentioned in Sisenna fr. 120P belongs to the earlier part of 90. Fr. 17P belongs to book 3, which Haug assigned to 90 bc as well.131 The best context for another lex Calpurnia, instituting two new tribes, the existence of which was wholly unnecessary before the passing of the lex Iulia, but very important after it, is at the end of 90.132 The Wnal number of the tribes was 126 On Roman legislative practice in this respect see the cogent argument of Richardson, in Modus Operandi, 47–61. 127 Cic., Phil. 12. 27, Livy, Per. 86. 128 Galsterer, Herrschaft, 293–4, sees the tribal arrangements as a means of restricting the application of the new citizens votes, but advances possibly practical reasons as against the picture of senatorial illiberality, which he sees as the propaganda of the populares. The ciuitas sine suVragio may have provided a model for temporary restriction. 129 Cic., Arch. 11. The census is described as parum felix in Festus, p. 366L, and may have been Xawed, and any resulting records invalid; see Wiseman, JRS (1969), 62–5. 130 Since we lack the verb here we cannot be sure that he actually did set them up, but the probability is very high. The evidence of Sisenna, as well as the considerations advanced above, all suggest that pairs of tribes were added as needed, rather than all eight being instituted after the process of enfranchisement was over, as Galsterer implies (Herrschaft, 192). The relation of these new tribes to the census of 89 is unclear: ibid. 193. 131 WJA (1947), 215, cf. Syme, RP i. 277. See, however, Gabba, Republican Rome, 90–1. 132 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 155, rightly points out that individuals enfranchised for valour under the lex Calpurnia cannot have been so numerous as to require two new tribes. I have suggested above that the second lex Calpurnia was passed by a tribune; if the same man passed the Wrst one early in 90, then the second would have to be earlier than 10 Dec. 90, which would thus give us a terminus ante quem for the lex Iulia. Mouritsen (UniWcation, 155–6), following Frassinetti, Athenaeum (1972), at 96–8, sees book 3 as in all probability covering no more than the summer of 90 bc, and thus pushing the lex Iulia back early in the year. Frassinetti’s arguments are intricate, but speculative.
190
The Politics of Enfranchisement
eight, as Velleius tells us (2. 20. 2); whatever Appian’s ŒÆ (BC 1. 49. 214) refers to, it cannot be the creation of ten tribes. If it is not corrupt it probably translates the Latin word decuriare, which can mean ‘to control’ in electoral contexts, which would Wt perfectly here.133 Without distribution throughout the thirty-one rural tribes the enfranchisements were by and large meaningless in political terms. The process by which this distribution occurred, although obscure, is worth examining. Municipalization, uncontentious from the Roman political standpoint, may plausibly be expected to have occupied a lower place on the political agenda than the question of the tribes. This is not decisive, but the Italians would have been unhappy if any legislation which concerned them passed through the comitia when they were eVectively unable to vote on it (surely a factor in the decision to segregate the newer voters). In fact, there is no suggestion in the sources that they agitated for new votes on any particular issue once they had been distributed through the tribes. Dating the tribal distribution may thus give us a terminus ante quem non for municipalization. Indeed, the question of the tribes is to some extent dependent on municipalization. In fact, I want to suggest that the most economical solution was for both to proceed together.134 We have seen that the enfranchisements were enfranchisements of populi.135 In Etruria and Umbria, for example, these populi will, by and large, have been the towns which became fundi of the lex Iulia; in much of Central Apennine Italy, as we have seen, they were probably ethnic groupings, enfranchised after deditio.136 We might expect that the Senate would make these populi the basis of its tribal allocation. Yet precisely how the various communities were distributed among the tribes, and where block groups might or might not be employed, also depended in part on how many, and which, towns were to be Roman municipia. This in turn depended on political factors, on the establishment of new municipal territoria, which had to be suYcient to support the central place, and on the traditions and dynamics of social and political organization prevailing in a given area.137 Now, the immediate creation of a number of municipia in the former rebel areas, might have led to the kind of patchwork tribal pattern among, say, the Paeligni which we can see in Umbria and Etruria. In fact, the decision to do little or nothing about the municipalization of these areas, less urbanized than other parts of Italy in any event, though not utterly devoid of urban centres, meant that there was the opportunity to superimpose tribal boundaries on ethnic ones, using 133 For a discussion of previous interpretations and emendations see Lewis, Athenaeum (1968), 273–91. He suggested decuriare as the word behind ŒÆ (ibid. 286 and nn. 45–6), but rejected it for a fantastic reference to a symbolic uer sacrum. 134 Cf. Gabba, CAH ix2 . 127. 135 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 150–7, is right to stress this. 136 Referring to 83, Diodoros (39. 13) describes the strong measures taken by both sides to ascertain Italian loyalties ŒÆd ŒÆa ºØ ŒÆd ŒÆ Ł, which must reXect the situation in terms of settlement patterns in Italy after the Social War. 137 See Gabba, Italia romana, 135. Cf. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 11, underlining the close interdependence of town and territory: if a town was to be a municipium, the centre of a voting tribal area, it might need the addition of more territory to support its new position.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
191
a single centre as the sole focus of a large territorium co-extensive with a single tribal block. Even in more urbanized parts of Italy there probably existed at the time of the Social War groupings (egalitarian or hierarchic) of communities, of which the principal one became fundus of the lex Iulia on behalf of the others, which were in some sense subordinate or attributed to it. The municipia of Blera and Tuscana emerged in the late Republic on what had been the territory of Tarquinii. If they Wrst became fully independent now, as may be the case with Blera, they should have been included in the tribal equation.138 Examples can be multiplied.139 Again, the oldest rural tribes in the immediate vicinity of Rome were replaced as administrative units soon after the Social War by new municipia; some of this reorganization seems to be Sullan.140 It should probably be linked to Sulla’s establishment both of an administrative and a jurisdictional boundary one mile outside Rome, and an autonomous area in the Roman hinterland beyond that.141 It seems unlikely that Sulla was responsible for the whole transformation (Veii at least was an Augustan municipium), and it is perhaps better to see his work as complementing the Cinnan tribal distribution. Thus one of the principles implicit in that distribution, that tribal assignments should be related to the presence of municipia where possible, can be seen at work in Sulla’s reform. If the Cinnani were also responsible for the dissolution of some of the old tribes, as seems probable, then we would have another indication of how the level of municipalization of an area and its tribal conWguration were conceptually interrelated.142 A tight connection between tribal assignments and municipalization is highly plausible. The easiest way to arrange a tribal distribution, fair or unfair, was to sit down with a map of Italy representing existing tribal distributions, information on the size of the tribes (as at the last census), and a list of those communities which were, or could be considered to be, autonomous units. How could one hope to end up with tribes which were roughly equal in size,143 except by considering the need for synoikismos or dioikismos, the size of settlements, possible deserving cases for relegation or elevation under the new system, and so on? 138 See App. 3 under Blera. After the initial distribution there seems to have been no enthusiasm for tribal changes which would upset the apple cart further: Cereatae Marianae seems to have emerged as a duoviral municipium on the territory of Arpinum in the middle of the 2nd cent., but it remained in the Cornelia. This suggests that the creation of new comunities in diVerent tribes from their ‘parent’ communities may go back to the 80s. 139 Mevaniola may have been part of a ‘Sassinate League’ until the Social War; after the war Sassina was put in the Pupinia, Mevaniola in the Stellatina: Alessandri, I municipi romani di Sarsina e di Mevaniola, 26. Note that Forum Livii, immediately opposite Mevaniola across the Apennine watershed was also in Stellatina, presumably since its foundation. 140 Lib. Col. 231, 233 Campbell. Beloch, RG 144–63 (with the cautionary remarks of Galsterer, Herrschaft, 36); Rudolph, Stadt, 42–3, 96, cf. 159; Taylor, Voting Districts, 27, 40–1, 45, 48, 99, 157. Castrimoenium and Bovillae seem to be Sullan creations: Beloch, RG, 584; Taylor, Voting Districts, 76, LaY, in VI.. Kongr. Epigr., 44; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 166 (overestimating the change). 141 See Ch. 10. 142 Cf. the observation of LaY (VI. Kongr. Epigr. 39): as well as determining a constitution, any municipalization had to establish the territorium of the municipium. 143 On the issue of tribal homogeneity, see Gabba, Italia romana, 135.
192
The Politics of Enfranchisement
Obviously, if municipalization and tribal distribution are connected, then it is important to establish when the latter happened. This is not easy, but I believe one can establish not only a chronology, but an explanation of its peculiarities, one related closely to municipalization. First, the formal enfranchisement of the Samnites and Lucanians, probably in 87, may provide us with a terminus post quem: once all Italy was enfranchised, tribal distribution and muncipalization could begin according to a unitary plan.144 The process was complete at least by 83/82, when Sulla allayed fears that as victor he would return to the old system. Taylor thought that the tribal distribution had been decided by the time Marius died (13 January 86), a supposition based largely on the prominence of his tribe, the Cornelia, spread over a number of non-contiguous areas;145 and further that it represented in some cases a reward, in others was punitive, and in yet others designed to wrest control of the tribes of Sullan supporters from them by adding a large number of voters loyal to the Marian regime.146 In all cases they would have worked to the advantage of the Marians. Harris rightly objects that it was not necessarily best for a man to have his supporters put into his own tribe, or easier for him to control communities of dubious loyalty if they became his contribules. Now, we know the tribes of Marius and Marcius Philippus; that Carbo was in the Clustumina, just because an Augustan descendant was, is no more than an assumption; Pompeius Strabo and his son certainly were, however. Yet we know so little about the tribes of the prominent men of the period (Cinna, Sulla, Scipio Asiagenus) that speculation along the lines Taylor followed is pointless.147 In short, while some assignations, as we shall see, may reXect the wishes of the Mariani, the evidence is not strong enough to claim that the distribution had been decided by the end of 87. In any event, the new regime was not prepared to entrust consular elections to the popular comitia. It was hardly worth gerrymandering the vote and not holding elections. Livy, Per. 84 informs us that the suVragium was given to the new citizens by the Senate in 84 bc. This has generally been taken to refer to the distribution of the noui ciues throughout the thirty-Wve tribes.148 A late date for this distribution is, 144 Compare the attitude to granting the citizenship, according to Velleius 2. 17. 1. 145 Voting Districts, 117, 310, cf. 116 for the spread of Cornelia; see now Gabba, Italia romana, 135– 6. Mommsen’s intuition that Teanum Apulum was in the Cornelia has now been conWrmed: see Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1026, 1028. 146 Voting Districts, 310–15, cf. Carney, A Biography of C. Marius, 69 n. 293. 147 Etruria and Umbria, 245–7. Note also Taylor’s surprise (Voting Districts, 130) that the Clustumina is not found among the tribes of the former Latin colonies in Cisalpina, when it was Pompeius Strabo on her (plausible) theory who was responsible for assigning these communities to their tribes. 148 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 233–6; Letta, Magistrature, 84; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 168 n. 45; cf. Badian, Clientelae, 243, who accepts Livy’s date, attributing the measure to Carbo as an antidote to the apathy of the Italians at the time. Salmon, Samnium, 376–8 thinks that it was the rank and Wle of the Italians who were not registered until 84. Since the measure was a SC, this is unlikely to have been the case—see below. Gabba (ad App., BC 1. 73. 339) sees it as happening through the lex Plautia Papiria! Taylor, Voting Districs, 106, thought that the purpose of the SC was to allow Italians who had not registered in the census to vote in the comitia if they registered with the urban praetor. Harris’s unease in defending the traditional view is at points patent and his treatment unconvincing.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
193
however, highly improbable. At the point with which we are concerned, Livy relates the manoeuvring between Carbo and the Senate in 84; Bulst drew attention to the independence which the Senate was able to display under the Cinnan regime.149 It seems that at this stage the Senate and Carbo were each vying to bind the Italians to them, the consul to show Sulla that he was ready to Wght with Italy behind him, the Senate to try and isolate Carbo, and force him to adopt a more conciliatory attitude to Sulla, thus averting war.150 Carbo, so Livy’s pro-senatorial source alleges,151 attempted to secure the loyalty of the Italians by taking hostages (a hangover from the days of independence?). The Senate prevented this, and then tried to trump Carbo by conceding suVragium to the Italians (by virtue of an SC, as we have seen; one would expect the Cinnans to have passed a lex152). Since what the epitomator mentions here Wts the struggle between the Senate and Carbo in this year, we can accept his notice of a senatorial measure in favour of the Italians. Was that measure the distribution of the Italians throughout the tribes? To show that it was not we may begin with a negative argument: is it probable that Cinna would have appointed censors for 86/85, but not instructed them to oversee the redistribution of the noui ciues? Is it probable that he would have left his promise unfulWlled, knowing that such insensitivity could create discontent, and encourage an ambitious member of his circle to follow his example, and overthrow him at the head of Italian levies as he had removed Octavius?153 Appian, BC 1. 77. 350–3, gives the contents of a letter of 85 bc, from Sulla to the Senate, in which he announces his attention to return and punish those who had acted against him, for his own and the general good. The last sentence of Appian’s version runs as follows: E ¼ººØ ºÆØ ŒÆd ºÆØ æıºª Pd ł ŁÆØ æd P.154 This letter has been doubted by Badian on the grounds that it has similarities with Plutarch, Sulla 22. 1, and thus probably derives from Sulla’s memoirs; and that since Sulla had to come to some sort of agreement with some of the Italian peoples at the end of 83 bc,155 any letter promising to treat them well before that is an anachronism.156 The Wrst 149 Historia (1964), 322–4. So also Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 65–6. 150 On the propaganda of this period see also Badian, JRS (1962), 57–9. Cic., Rosc. Am. 136 implies that there was a sizeable body of opinion in the Senate which favoured concordia as opposed to confrontation. It may have been led by the princeps senatus L. Valerius Flaccus (cf. Livy, Per. 83). 151 Very possibly Sisenna; see Badian, JRS (1962), 49–51. 152 It should be asked, given the hostility of the plebs urbana to full voting rights for the Italians, how easy it would have been even for Cinna to pass a law in their favour. Perhaps the only good time would have been soon after Cinna’s victory over Octavius, and the brief ‘reign of terror’. It will be remembered that when Cinna Xed the city in 87 he took with him six members of the tribunician college, and tried to bring a tribunician prosecution against Sulla at the end of the year. Again it was the ÆæØ who rescinded the decree of banishment against Cinna and the other exiles (Appian, BC 1. 70. 324). See further below. 153 Keaveney, UniWcation, 184–6, thinks so. 154 BC 1. 77. 352. 155 Livy, Per. 86—a foedus. 156 JRS (1962), 57–8. Contra Salmon, Athenaeum (1964), 67.
194
The Politics of Enfranchisement
point is valid, but as for the second Badian seems to have overlooked the fact that Sulla does not make any speciWc promises regarding the Italians. I think that a letter from Sulla of this sort certainly existed; and if so, I do not see how Sulla, mentioning the new citizens, could have passed up the opportunity of attacking Cinna, had he not made any move to distribute them as promised. Furthermore it is not certain that ‘suVragium’ does mean the right to vote in the thirty-one rural tribes.157 In Per. 86 the epitomator speaks of a ‘suVragii ius’ which Sulla guaranteed to the Italian peoples by what he calls a foedus (a metaphorical use?). This phrase surely refers to the new voting rights; the epitomator did not use it in Per. 84, if he was referring to the same thing there, but we cannot expect the epitomator’s lexical habits to stand up to any kind of rigorous criticism. Another doubt creeps in, though: the tribal proposals of Sulpicius in 88 and of Cinna in 87 concerned both new citizens and freedmen.158 A distribution of freedmen throughout the thirty-Wve tribes is mentioned in Livy, Per. 84, but not associated with the ‘suVragium’. Anything is possible from the pen of this excerptor, but if we ask ourselves why two notices have been separated that might be thought to belong together, one plausible reason then comes to mind— namely, that they do not in fact belong together. The traditional view, that ‘suVragium’ at this point in Livy means a Wrst concession of the right to vote in thirty-Wve tribes at this time, is surely without real foundation; ‘suVragium’ refers, I think, a senatorial decree conWrming existing rights of the new citizens to vote in the thirty-one rural tribes.159 The eVect of this was twofold. First, the new citizens would realize that the conciliatory Senate, as well as the bellicose Carbo, had their interests at heart, a realization that will have been all the stronger in the light of Livy’s (admittedly biased) notice that Carbo tried to take hostages from the Italian cities. Secondly, the Senate displayed to Sulla that it could take a middle line, that it was prepared to negotiate, if he was prepared to compromise. For the Senate, some things, like Italian voting rights, were now no longer worth Wghting over, and Sulla would win few friends there by promising to return to the pre-Cinnan state of aVairs. The Senate thus sought to maintain its own dignity and independence in the face of two hostile factions, hoping at the same time to isolate the one, and soften the return of the other. This is all part and parcel of the political gamesmanship that characterized the relations between Carbo and the Senate in this year. It is better to see the tribal distribution as connected with the census of 86/ 85.160 The law passed by Cinna in 87 was not a simple re-enactment of Sulpicius’ 157 Admitted even by Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 235–6. The usual interpretation is that found in Gabba: ad App., BC 1. 73. 338–9: ‘inscription in the lists of voters’. 158 Livy, Per. 77 (Sulpicius), Exuperantius 4. 23 (Cinna). 159 Cf. Biscardi (BIDR (1953), 261), who thought that the ‘aristocratic party’ was behind this decree. 160 So Taylor, Voting Districts, 105; Meier, Res Publica Amissa, 230. There is no evidence at all that I can see for Harris’s claim that Sulla undertook what was in eVect a census as dictator, placing large numbers of Italians on the lists of the centuriate assembly. Harris is, though, right to reject Tibiletti’s notion (SDHI (1959), 121 n. 102, cf. Beloch, Italische Bund, 37) that the Livian notice shows that the
The Politics of Enfranchisement
195
bill of the previous year,161 since that had been annulled by the Senate, but a new bill.162 In any case, it could perhaps be argued that Sulla and Pompeius had lifted the feriae in 88 under duress, and that the laws then carried by Sulpicius were thus illegal (cf. Appian’s ‰ PŒ Æ), and a new bill would therefore have been the best course of action anyway. The question of the tribal distribution was probably only dealt with there in principle, and I doubt that Cinna had a plan prepared in 87. I think that a number of factors came into play which ‘forced’ Cinna to entrust the detail of the tribal attributions to the censors, perhaps under the supervision of the Senate.163 The censors of 86/85 were L. Marcius Philippus, cos. 91, chief opponent of the Drusan reforms and of M. Lepidus in 77, and M. Perperna, cos. 92 (the year the censors Domitius Ahenobarbus and L. Licinius Crassus had closed the schools of the rhetores Latini). There is little reason to suppose that Philippus had become much more sympathetic to the Italians and their aspirations in the intervening years. As for Perperna, he was of Etruscan stock, but there is some reason to think that he was a political ally of Philippus; of course we cannot prove deep political empathy, but there is no reason to think that he was seriously pro-Italian.164 In fact it is hard to see how Cinna or the Italians could have seen the appointment of Philippus, and possibly that of Perperna, as being in the interests of fair distribution. Nor can it be that Philippus was forced to become censor and conduct a prearranged registration to Cinna’s satisfaction. Cooperation, if uneasy cooperation, between the Cinnan extremists and a more moderate Senate, must have begun soon after the death of Marius.165 This seems to have bought the blood-letting to an end and, indeed, it was vital census of 86 lasted until 84. On the importance of the census as a token of full citizenship see Galsterer, Herrschaft, 111. 161 As assumed by Bennett, Cinna and his Times, 36, Strachan-Davidson, and Gabba, ad App. More cautious: Carney, Biography, 69, Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 232. 162 Appian, having described the laws passed by Sulla and Pompeius Rufus after Sulla’s capture of Rome (BC 1. 59. 264–7), concludes his acccount of the assembly by describing the annulment of the Sulpician laws: ‹ Æ e ıºØŒı ŒŒæø a c ŒŒæıª e H ÆH IæªÆ, –ÆÆ Øº ‰ PŒ Æ (BC 1. 59. 268). That Appian changes to the impersonal passive construction shows that this annulment was not in fact part of the legislation passed that day, but that like the pronouncement concerning the twelve hostes, it was done through the Senate; cf. Cic., Phil. 8. 7, and Gabba ad App., BC 1. 59. 268. This had been the procedure adopted when L. Philippus as consul had seen to the annulment of the Livian laws in 91 (Asconius p. 68C, cf. Mommsen, GS v. 263; Botsford, Roman Assemblies, 405; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 232 n. 2). In that case Cinna’s repeal of Sulla’s laws (App., BC 1. 73. 339) would not have aVected the fate of the leges Sulpiciae. Harris (Etruria and Umbria, 232 n. 6) was correct to state that IÆæÆd does not imply that there was no formal annulment of Sulla’s laws. 163 Taylor believed, on the basis of Livy, 38. 36. 7–9, that the assignment of a whole populus in a tribe always required a law, and that only the registration consequent upon that law was handled by the censors (Voting Districts, 17–18, 23–4, cf. 106). Yet she herself argues that the tribal assignments of 188 were a special case, the product of an attempt by Scipio Africanus to re-establish his inXuence (ibid. 93, 306–8). Thus it can hardly serve to illustrate typical practice. The situation in 188 was diVerent from that in 86. 164 See Mu¨nzer, RE s.v. ‘Marcius’ no. 75, cf. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 226, 236. 165 Carney, ibid.
196
The Politics of Enfranchisement
for the eVective administration of the state (although, as we have seen, cooperation had become much more like competition by 84, with Sulla’s return imminent). One of the Wrst instances of this cooperation seems to have been the election of Philippus and Perperna as censors, perhaps not until after the death of Marius. This obviated the need to put an unwieldy and contentious tribal bill, as opposed to an enabling bill, through the comitia, and allowed for negotiation behind the scenes and the formation of consensus. On a matter which excited considerable and varied passions this was vital. It is likely that a large proportion of the Senate and people were against a thorough redistribution, which would revolutionize the strength and location of each tribe, and upset the balance of votes in the Wrst class in the comitia centuriata.166 The election of Philippus and Perperna should be seen not as evidence that they had decided to work with Cinna, but that Cinna had been forced to compromise on this issue by the Senate.167 That the censorship was a compromise may explain some of the peculiarities of distribution. Not all the ex-rebels, as was once maintained,168 were put in a small group of tribes, but signiWcantly many were conWned to seven tribes in large blocks.169 Harris is right to see this distribution as a conscious attempt to disadvantage the peoples who found themselves in these tribes.170 It is not even true that a lack of municipal centres or ethnic ties can suYciently explain this arrangement.171 Had the Senate wanted, it could have created more municipal centres in these areas: Larinum, politically distinct by the early Wrst century from the rest of the Frentani, rebelled with them in 91, and shared their tribe later.172 As it was, the lack of urban units would have made it very diYcult to organize the votes of these large areas eVectively. It will have been simply very hard for these 166 Taylor underlined the importance of distribution in the thirty-Wve tribes for inclusion in the centuries of the Wrst class after the 3rd-cent. reform of the comitia centuriata; no new tribes were created after this reform until the Social War, because of the impossibility of integrating them into the classes (Voting Districts, 14, 24, 67–8). 167 So correctly Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 236, against Taylor, Voting Districts, 105, 311; Badian, Clientelae, 242, 278 n. 2. Note also the way in which the census could symbolize the renewal of the res publica through the completion of the lustrum: a good omen for a fresh start—see Mommsen, StR ii3 . 232 n. 1; Cornell, Beginnings 191. 168 See Beloch, Italische Bund, 38–43, and less extreme, RG 587–8; Kubitschek, De Romanorum tribuum origine ac propagatione, 61–76. The ex-rebels were supposed to have been put in eight tribes, the eight of Velleius, 2. 20. 2. This was attacked by Mommsen (GS v. 262–7); the ingenious eVort of Salmon (TAPA (1958), 179–84, cf. Samnium 362 n. 4) to revive the eight tribes theory is rejected by Taylor (Voting Districts, 113 n. 31a), who points out that Velleius refers to a point at the start of 87. 169 For details see Taylor, Voting Districts, 112 n. 31. Former rebels are found in 14 of the 31 rural tribes, of which 7 receive large ethnic groups of ex-rebels (Arn, Clu, Gal, Men, Pom, Ser, and Vol); see also Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 239; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 156–7. The Apulian and Calabrian peoples seem to have been grouped ethnically into small tribal blocks, which may have been ‘punitive’: see Pani, ZPE 87 (1991), 130, cf. Taylor, Voting Districts, 116. 170 Etruria and Umbria, 239–40, 250. 171 So Taylor, Voting Districts, 113; Salmon, Samnium, 376. 172 It was made a municipium, and soon (see below), and its wealth and importance are also reXected in part by Sulla’s patronage of this community (see App. 2; his supporters had also staged a coup in 82).
The Politics of Enfranchisement
197
peoples to make their vote count at Rome, even assuming that they were able to act in unison.173 Furthermore, Harris has noted that this was not true of the large block (more exactly, two large blocks) of territory in Umbria in the Clustumina, where nine towns are in question (of these I have suggested that Iguvium and Tuder had rebelled in 90), nor for the southern Campanian towns in the Menenia.174 For the majority of the Social War rebels, the tribal distributions cannot have fulWlled their desires, and Cinna must have seemed a somewhat shabby Wgure when the results of the distribution were made known. This may help to account for the diYculty which the Cinnans had in raising troops in some areas in 84–82. Other areas were well treated. Generally, Umbria and Etruria were well served, with twenty-four towns in the former ending up in nine tribes, including the Clustumina, and in the latter eighteen towns ending up in ten tribes. This meant that Etruscans and Umbrians controlled some tribes and stood a chance of carrying others, especially towns nearer Rome.175 The Marianism of Etruria and Umbria in the Civil War will be remembered.176 Other cases of favourable tribal distribution can be observed, highlighting the general disadvantage of the ex-rebels. Aeclanum, home of the Magii, ended up in the Cornelia, while the other Hirpini languished in the Galeria. Sora, near Arpinum, was put in the Romilia, which it virtually controlled as a consequence—this may have been designed to beneWt the Marii and their relatives. All the Latin colonies, which I believe had tribes assigned for their magistrates before the Social War,177 were favourably treated, being spread over sixteen tribes, of which only one was also used for block grants to ex-rebels.178 Twenty out of twenty-six whose tribes are known were placed in tribes which were not those of their neighbours, thus increasing the value of their vote, if it could be mobilized.179 This arrangement was probably due to loyalty in the Social War, itself a symptom of the old ‘special relationship’ between Rome and the Latin colonies. Besides disadvantaging ex-rebels and beneWting loyalists, other criteria were observed. There must have been cases where the personal sympathy, animosity, or 173 Even Mommsen recognized that this was true (of the Paeligni and Marsi in the Sergia—GS v. 266). 174 Etruria and Umbria, 248. It is not however certain that all of these towns were made municipia after the Social War—see App. 3. 175 See Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 238, 240–4, for details. 176 DiVerent cases of loyalty to the Cinnan regime will have diVering explanations. The Samnites and Lucanians had made an agreement with it, and probably feared a cancellation by Sulla. 177 Taylor, Voting Districts, 107–9, 126–7, followed by Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 237–8. Despite the cogent objections of Brunt, Fall, 135–6, I think Taylor’s interpretation of Cic., Att. 1. 1. 2, Phil. 2. 76, and Hirtius, BG 8. 50 is decisive. 178 The Pomptina, the tribe of Circeii and the Lucani: Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 240 n. 4, correcting Taylor, Voting Districts, 114. 179 Taylor, Voting Districts, 106–11. Taylor’s results may be questioned in one or two details: Suessa Aurunca was supposed by her (ibid. 110) to have gone into the Aemilia of neighbouring Formiae; but I am inclined to think that Suessa’s immediate neighbour to the north-west was Minturnae, in the Teretina; likewise Circeii may have bordered on the Oufentina rather than the Pomptina.
198
The Politics of Enfranchisement
connections of important men had won the day with the censors. Sometimes we are forced to agree with Taylor: ‘It is hard to Wnd a consistent plan’.180 Elsewhere more traditional and rational motives were at work, such as the presence of a signiWcant number of Roman citizens before enfranchisement (e.g. Camerinum, put in the Cornelia);181 contiguity with a pre-existing tribal unit, and possible appeals to historical unity (Anagnia, together with the rest of Hernican territory absorbed in the fourth century, was put in the Poblilia; this was the tribe of Aletrium and Ferentinum after the Social War182); and possibly even geographical orientation with respect to Rome (Trebula Balliensis in the Pupinia); ethnic ties also come into play. All these factors may to some extent explain, and have been used to excuse, the treatment of the majority of the ex-rebels. There also seems to have been some attempt to even up the sizes of the tribes: the Pollia, largest before the Social War, was not used.183 The tribal distributions thus represent a process in tension between two conXicting agendas. One was conservative, and perpetuated, or mirrored, the feeling of the Senate during the Social War that the new citizens should be conWned in a few tribes, and thus be electorally disadvantaged.184 The other was the tendency, whether for loyalty in the war, or other reasons, to confer a reward or a beneWt by a favourable tribal assignment. Alongside these factors we can observe traditional and time-honoured principles at work. Clearly the process which led the censors to assign the tribes they did was one of negotiation and compromise between conservative, moderate, and radical elements, and designed to be acceptable to the ruling oligarchy as a whole before all others. It is also a process which would have been extremely useful in deciding which communities were to become municipia, and which not. The tribal assignments of the central Apennine peoples were a hindrance to the development of municipal centres, since they privileged the diVuse ethnic canton with a single centre, while the situation in Etruria and much of Umbria recognized the existence of a number of independent communities. I think that it can only have been during the period of the census of 86/85 that the decisions about municipalization were taken:185 such decisions were not part of the enfranchisement laws, and the period 88–87 was too disturbed, minds too occupied with tribal questions. The eighteen months or 180 Taylor, Voting Districts, 312, cf. Gabba, in Italia romana, 135. 181 See also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 156 n. 6. 182 Taylor, Voting Districts, 51–3, 111 n. 26, 114. 183 On the continuation of traditional practices after the Social War see Taylor, Voting Districts, 41, 106, 111, 115–16; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 250. The basis for Harris’s claims that almost all the tribal distribution in Etruria was done through extension of existing tribes, or by orientation (ibid. 248) is unclear; there was some of the former, but none of the latter. 184 Perhaps the restriction of the majority of the ex-rebels to seven tribes, was meant in some way to reXect the previous restriction to eight new tribes. 185 The task of enrolling new citizens was not one that can have been too burdensome—the census lists show only a 17% increase in the number of citizens (394,336 to 463,000). The vast majority of these will probably have been old citizens. I cannot consider here the question of the enrolment of the new citizens in the classes, but I believe that very few of them were assigned a classis before the census of 70/69. See Taylor, Voting Districts, 105, 120.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
199
so of the census gave those involved a chance to work on drawing up a municipal organization for Italy, at the same time as they Wrst started to look at individual political units and their possible groupings across Italy. It is now our task to see when the results of the Wrst deliberations, on what sort of organization the new citizens were to have, became law.
5 . T H E B E G I N N I N G S OF M U N I C I PA L I Z AT I O N A M O N G TH E N OV I C I V E S This section will take it as axiomatic that the Wrst municipal legislation was passed as a single comprehensive (but perhaps not enormously detailed) statute rather than as piecemeal enactments, and was applied comprehensively to all those new citizen communities which were to be municipia.186 Those communities which had become fundi of the lex Iulia were probably termed municipia fundana civium Romanorum by that law, but Rome had gone no further towards regulating their status since 90. The dediticii populi on the other hand had probably been enfranchised without any speciWcation as to what kind of communities they should form (see above).187 The Wrst municipal legislation probably took the form of a general statute which introduced the quattuorvirate as the highest magistracy, speciWed the authority of the local senate over the executive, and deWned the relationship between Rome and the municipia in terms of the extent of their powers, particularly the judicial and coercive powers of their magistrates.188 It probably followed or was drafted during the tribal distribution; I have attempted to show that for the period before the census of 86/85 there was neither motive nor opportunity—there is certainly no evidence for such legislation. In such a context the unitary nature of the Italian constitutions, at least as regards their deWning and external features, is very suggestive. It is notable that we Wnd no diVerentiation between the institutional structures of loyalist and ex-rebel states. This underlines the fundamentally apolitical character of municipalization, and suggests that municipal constitutions were
186 Cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 94, 98, 118 n. 1. The existence of a general law is upheld by, among others, De Sanctis, Scritti B. Nogara, 147–8; Degrassi, SVA iv. 74–5; Simsha¨user, Iuridici, 51 n. 62, 94–5; Letta, Magistrature, 79 (90 bc). Probable: LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr. 40–1; Gabba, CAH ix2 . 127–8. Contra: Mommsen, GS i. 152–4; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 165–6; De Martino, Storia, ii2 . 113–14, iii2 . 370; Sartori, ASMG 15; 106–7 (as we shall see, this may be true for Magna Graecia); Humbert, Municipium, 287–93; Costabile, Istituzioni, 22, 115–55. 187 This may explain why Granius referred to them in 87 as dediticii populi, rather than noui ciues —no steps had been taken to regularize their position apart from enfranchisement. 188 How much of this was explicitly stated in legislation, and how much taken as read, we cannot say; even the experience of these communities was varied—some had already experienced a formal removal of all autonomy as dediticii, while for others much may have been implied in the decision to become fundi of the lex Iulia. The idea that much was unwritten in earlier laws on the subject (Galsterer, Herrschaft, 18) should to some extent hold true also for the our period.
200
The Politics of Enfranchisement
designed to be signiWcant in other ways.189 Almost all municipia created at this time or in the following years in the newly enfranchised area of Italy had the quattuorvirate. Furthermore, there is no evidence for municipia in ex-allied Italy maintaining local magistracies for the highest oYce of the executive instead of the quattuorvirate. A famous supposed ‘counter-example’ is ILLRP 550, which is usually taken as attesting marones in action at Assisium after the Social War.190 A re-examination of the archaeological context of this inscription has led Coarelli to suggest a date for the monumental propylaeon complex north of Piazza Mateotti in the third quarter of the second century.191 The inscription, cut above the cisterna which now forms part of S. RuWno, should be co-eval with the propylaeon: Coarelli has convincingly argued that the inscription should be assigned to a period before end of the second century, and that the use of Latin in public documents in Asisium before the Social War does not present an insurmountable objection to his dating.192 It seems that all ex-allied communities which were made municipia in the Cinnan period were given a quattuorviral constitution, which externally, and in some details, was uniform across Italy.193 When was this constitution introduced? In a famous passage of the Pro Cluentio Cicero tells how ‘per illam L. Sullae uim atque uictoriam’ (‘through that violent victory of L. Sulla’s’), which certainly seems to imply a date after the 189 See Ch. 10. Municipal constitutions in the pre-Social-War ager Romanus display considerable variation, but this does not imply diVerent gradations of autonomy: see Humbert, Municipium, 287– 93. Even before the Social War Rome was accustomed to dealing with communities incorporated as municipia without diVerentiating between them in terms of autonomy. 190 So by Nessi and Giacomelli, SE (1965), 553–4 (the inscription there published, from Augustan Mevania, does not prove continuity as against revival, nor that the maronate was the highest oYce, nor even a civic oYce at that time); Forni, EpigraW di Assisi, 33. 191 Atti Acc. Properz. (1991), 11; Bradley, Ancient Umbria, 295, proposes the later date of between 110 and 90 bc on palaeographical grounds. 192 Coarelli, Atti Acc. Properz. (1991), 13–16, cf. Rocca, Iscrizioni umbre minori, 49. It should be noted that (i) the inscription does present some palaeographical features which are reminiscent of the 1st cent. as much as the 2nd; (ii) the text in S. RuWno is very worn, and most studies are based on a plaster-cast in the Museo del Foro Romano at Assisi: we cannot be certain in every case whether ‘early’ or ‘late’ characteristics are really present in the copy. Having studied the cast myself (autopsy May 1994), I am certain that, if it is accurate, Coarelli’s conclusions are justiWed. Note also that there is no probatio recorded on the stone, an absence which is rare, although not unknown, in Roman municipia. See Introduction, above, for the spread of Latin in Umbria. There are indigenous survivals at Asisium: the quinquevirate, on which see Ch. 7. 193 Uniformity: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 165. Note that the Samnites had come to an understanding with the Marians in 87, which may have combined the citizenship with a larger degree of autonomy than was compatible with municipalization. See Dio fr. 102. 7, Gran. Lic. p., 21F (Cinna ‘leg, quas postulabant, eo<s> recepit’—implying a commitment to detailed legislation already in 87?), and generally Salmon, Samnium, 375–6. One problem aVecting our assessment of this agreement is historiographical. Sulla may have wanted to contrast his deal of 83/2 with the Italians, which Livy (Per. 86, cf. App., BC 1. 53. 231) digniWes with the name of foedus, with the extravagant and reckless concessions made by Marius and Cinna to the Samnites, which the Senate had refused. Sulla may thus have been responsible for exaggerating the degree of independence allowed to his enemies. For various views of the status of the Samnites between 87 and 82 see Syme, RR, 87; Badian, Clientelae, 240 (independence); contra Bulst, Historia (1964), 326. Undecided: Salmon, Samnium, 375–9.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
201
battle of the Colline Gate,194 Statius Abbius Oppianicus returned to Larinum ‘cum armatis’ (‘with armed forces’). Cicero continues: ‘quattuoruiros quos municipes fecerant sustulit; se a Sulla et alios praeterea tris factos esse dixit’.195 Since there is no reason for thinking that the new system was introduced at Larinum alone, Cicero’s evidence furnishes us with a terminus ante quem for the introduction of the quattuorvirate in Italy: not later than 83 bc.196 When Oppianicus returned he deposed the elected quattuorviral college. They should have been elected in 82 (or in 83 for 82). By analogy with the Fragmentum Atestinum (see below), we should expect the new system to become operative at the beginning of a year, but the old one to remain in operation for the remainder of the year in which the municipal legislation was passed. Thus we can safely say that, even if the quattuoruiri displaced by Oppianicus were the Wrst to be elected, the law establishing the quattuorviral constitution in the communities of the noui ciues must surely belong to the previous year at the latest, that is, 83 bc. As it is, we have no way of saying whether the victims of Oppianicus’ armed return were the Wrst quattuorviral college or not. They were a locally elected college; and may have been preceded by a college sent from outside the municipium in 83 or earlier (see Chapter 5 on this process at Tarentum). We cannot proceed further on Wrm ground. The Wrst municipalizing law may be referred to in an inscription from Bruttian Petelia, where the honorand was elected aedile and (presumably later) IIII uir under the terms of a lex Cornelia. Hardy suggested that this lex Cornelia belongs to the Cinnan period, and was the law which introduced the quattuorvirate, that is, the Wrst municipal law for the new citizen communities.197 The inscription is Antonine,198 but there are arguments which may support a late republican reference in a text of this date. First, a lex Cornelia must be a lex rogata of the 194 From the mention, just after the passage quoted, of Oppianicus proscribing his enemies, it seems that Oppianicus’ return should be put after Sulla had become dictator. 195 Clu. 25: ‘he removed the quattuoruiri whom his fellow municipes had elected; and said that he and three others had been appointed to the magistracy by Sulla’. 196 Cf. Hardy, Some Problems, 286–7; Rudolph, Stadt, 94; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 165, municipalization under way ‘by 80 B.C. at the latest’, is thus over-cautious. Reid, JRS (1915), 244, was as usual over-sceptical to claim that the occurrence of the word quattuoruir here has no necessary relation to any legislation passed for new citizen communities. The position of Lloyd (in Mediterranean Valley, 197) that Larinum became a municipium in 80 bc or shortly thereafter—cf. ‘the municipalization which followed the 80s’ (ibid. 212 and 207–12 on that urbanization)—seems to me to take not enough account of the evidence discussed above; of course, municipalization in some areas, as we shall see in Ch. 10, was long delayed after the 80s. He is correct (ibid. 227) to state that its urbanization and wealth made it an obvious choice for municipalization. 197 CIL x. 113–14. Hardy, Some Problems, 283–7, cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 95; Taylor, Voting Districts, 106; LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr. 40–1. M’. Megonius is described in x. 114 as ‘aed. IIII uir leg. Cor. / quaest. pec. p.’ (x. 113 is very similar). On the correct form of the name see Barnabei, NSA (1894), 20, 22. Mancini’s interpretation of ‘IIII uir leg Cor.’ as ‘praefectus pro duo uiro’ (NSA (1939), 148) is nonsense. If not Cinnan, the law could be ascribed to L. Cornelius Scipio, cos. 83, Sulla, or even the tribune of 67. See also Harris, Athenaeum (1981), 349. 198 ILS 6468–9. Reid, JRS (1915), 244; Mancini, NSA (1939), 148. Rudolph, Stadt, 118 n. 1 (shortly after 12 bc) is wrong. See Bossu, ZPE (1982), on the content of the inscription.
202
The Politics of Enfranchisement
Roman people;199 as such, it is more likely to be republican or early imperial than belong to the second century ad. Secondly, M’. Megonius gives not only his Wliation, but also the praenomina of his grandfather and great-grandfather. This allows us to take the collective memory of the Megonii back to the middle of the Wrst century ad.200 We shall also see that there may be a distant family relationship between the Megonii and one of the two other known IIII uiri from Petelia.201 There is thus a prima facie case for admitting that the memory of a Cinnan municipal law could be preserved down to the Antonine period. It may have been a family tradition to record the quattuorvirate in this way, if the Megonii had been providing Petelia with quattuoruiri since it was municipalized, and wanted to advertise the fact. It certainly added grauitas to the dead man’s cursus.202 Perhaps a more compelling explanation for Megonius’ advertisement of his ancestors can be found: from the later Julio-Claudian period onwards a signiWcant penetration of local elites by the descendants of freedmen, the so-called libertine aristocracy, can be observed, leading to a profound transformation of the composition of the Italian bourgeoisies.203 Megonius may simply be advertising the great length of time for which his family have been ingenui, a rebuke from beyond the grave to parvenu competitors. Another recollection of a long-buried and strictly irrelevant civic past can be found in Appian’s statement that in 83 Sulla recognized the complaisance of Brundisium when he landed in Italy by granting IºØÆ, m ŒÆd F ı Ø (‘the immunity which they now possess’).204 This grant became meaningless in 60 bc with the abolition of portoria, and it is a moot point whether it constituted a concrete privilege again after that. Yet Brundisium preserved the memory of this mark of favour two centuries later.205 The Petelia texts could thus be a genuine recollection of a municipal law passed in the early Wrst century bc. If the lex
199 So Mommsen, GS i. 154; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160 n. 3; Rudolph, Stadt, 118 n. 1; De Ruggiero, Diz. Ep. iv. 22–5 s.v. ‘lex’ p. 720. On the other hand a number of scholars, while admitting a post-Social-War date, have seen the lex Cornelia as the lex data of Petelia (cf. next chapter): Rotondi, Leges Publicae, 141, Riccobono, FIRA i7 . 160; Letta, Magistrature, 83, 84 n. 243; Costabile, Instituzioni, 122–6, 150 (against his explanation I Wnd it hard to see how the lex data could have aVected the structure of the quattuorvirate in a way which was special to Petelia). 200 For the tenacity of local tradition at Petelia we may compare Strabo, 6. 1. 3, 254C, who preserves a local tradition of a foundation by Philoktetes. See Sartori, Problemi, 120–2. See also Ch. 2 on the staying power of collective memory, in connection with the so-called municipia foederata. 201 See below, Ch. 8, Q81. 202 Cf. Costabile, Istituzioni, 125. 203 See Torelli, in Bourgeoisies. The desire of those putting up inscriptions to distinguish themselves from the crowd, and stress their special status, can be done in many ways, and happens everywhere: RIB 1686 is a dedication to Iupiter by Petronius Urbicus, an auxiliary prefect at Vindolanda on Hadrian’s wall; unusually for a Severan inscription, the text gives his tribe, the Fabia; Petronius was, as the text goes on to tell us, from Brixia, and uses his tribe to stress his sense of superiority over the others at Vindolanda. Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 387 (of a 3rd-cent. inscription) ‘Pride was taken in demonstrating the antiquity of one’s status, personal or communal’. 204 App., BC 1. 79. 364. 205 See Ch. 5.
The Politics of Enfranchisement
203
Cornelia did, inter alia, create the quattuorvirate, then Cinna is the most likely candidate for rogator, the law belonging between the beginning of 86 and his death in 84.206 It may be objected that the situation, as I have reconstructed it, would have left the new citizens in an uncomfortably long period of juridical ‘limbo’. There are two replies. First, such a situation might not have been irksome to the new citizens. The burning issue for them in these years was that of the tribes. Furthermore, we may reasonably suspect that if they felt that urgent intervention was needed in their communities, it would have taken the form of reconstruction and economic regeneration rather than municipalization. Secondly, in the eyes of the Senate, the only body whose opinion carried real weight, such a transitional period between the dissolution of one juridical status and the establishment of another would probably have been perfectly acceptable (and was not unprecedented), the more so since they found themselves in revolutionary times, facing a situation for which, in its complexity and extent. mos maiorum provided no real precedent. This view can be supported by analogy with the situation revealed by the fragmentum Atestinum. Despite attempts at redating,207 this text is best interpreted as relating to the enfranchisement of Cisalpine Gaul in 49 bc.208 It envisages a transitional period in which the existing magistrates retained for the rest of their year of oYce, in certain cases, the jurisdiction which they had held before the passing of the lex Roscia, despite the enfranchisement of Ateste.
206 Cf. Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 40. 207 The absence of the actio de dolo from the beginning of the fragment has led Crawford to suppose that fragmentum is anterior to 76 bc when the actio was probably introduced (Quaderni Ticinesi (1989), 195–6; RS i. 315–18, in the latter case arguing that the text is part of a general, not a Cisalpine, municipal law). His is essentially an argument from silence, and on the question of the actio de dolo malo has been refuted by LaY, Athenaeum (1990), 167–70, who demonstrates clearly how the diVerent purpose and scope of the fragmentum Atestinum on the one hand, and the lex coloniae Genetiuae and lex Flauia on the other, prevent us from assuming that the diVerences in their texts can have chronological implications (cf. Gordon, JRS (2003), 222 n. 55), the statute being a general one on jurisdiction and not speciWcally aimed at Ateste. I cannot however accept LaY’s view that fragmentum Atestinum is part of the same law as the lex Roscia, and is thus later than 42 bc, when Cisalpina ceased to be a province (Athenaeum (1990), 170–4). Let us brieXy note that the absence of any reference to the governor cannot be decisive when we have but a fragment of the text; our only certain reference to proconsular jurisdiction in Cisalpina (Suet., Gram. 30, on which see LaY, Athenaeum (1992), 17–22) seems to date some Wfteen years after the end of provincial status; note also that only four chapters of the preserved part of the lex Flauia contain a reference to the governor and his court, and both are absent at some points where we would expect them (Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 149). 208 For a date in 49, and non-identity with the lex Roscia, see Barbieri, Diz. Ep. iv. 22–5, s.v. ‘lex’ p. 723–4, 730. The law covers municipia coloniae praefecturae, but the magistrates who are to retain their jurisdiction are designated by the phrase ‘quoiusque II uir eiusue, qui ibei lege foedere pl.ue sc. s/ -ue c. institutoue iure dicundo praefuit’ (‘[belonged] to any IIvir or to the person who was in charge of jurisdiction there according to statute, treaty, plebiscite, decree of the Senate or custom’, ll. 11–12). It is envisaged that the majority of communities covered by the lex Roscia and the law of which the fragmentum Atestinum is a part will have II uiri: the reference here must be to Latin colonies. The counter-arguments of LaY, Athenaeum (1986), 12, are unconvincing.
204
The Politics of Enfranchisement
By analogy the likelihood of a comparable provision in legislation of the time of the Social War must be quite high, especially when we consider that the circumstances surrounding those enfranchisements were even more disturbed, and that the rationale behind the large-block grants of Roman citizenship which informed the enfranchisements of the 40s was experience gained through trial and error Wfty years previously. The enfranchisements of the Social War had been spread over three years, while only one law was necessary for the enfranchisement of the Cisalpina. I think it is legitimate to expect a longer period of transition after the Social War.209 We may assume that the Senate was not unduly worried, and perhaps indeed relieved, at having what amounted to a breathing space in which to contemplate the problem of municipalization. Finally, the gap of several years between enfranchisement and initial municipal organization was not the greatest of the problems the new citizens faced. As I argued for pre-Social-War Italy in Chapter 2, there remained areas which municipalization did not touch until decades later, and there were voids within the juridical framework of Italy, places where the provision of self-government and proper civic institutions was left substantially unresolved. The proper understanding of municipalization is about what failed to happen, as well as what was implemented.
6 . C O N C LU S I O N S The enfranchisement of Italy was a long-drawn-out process, and one of many disappointments, before the new citizens were Wnally granted a meaningful suVrage (the presence of new citizens in the classes of the comitia centuriata was still very limited until the census of 70). We have seen that there are no grounds for associating the enfranchisement acts themselves with muncipalization. The latter happened, in close connection with the distribution of the new citizens through the thirty-one rural tribes, in the census of 86/85, and like it, can be seen as the product of consensus and compromise within the ruling class. Municipalization was fundamentally apolitical; the initial municipalizing law(s), (among) which was a lex Cornelia, were a function both of Rome’s administrative needs and of the senatorial indiVerence and apathy, which largely characterized the whole watershed period of the Social War and the dominatio Cinnae. The municipalization of the Cinnan period marked a beginning. Much however needed to be done to make the transformation from independent populi to municipia take root and become a meaningful evolution. It is to the detail that Xeshed out the bones of the municipal ideal which I now turn. 209 Cf. the period of fourteen years between the foundation of Brundisium and the commencement of full political life in the community: Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 97–101; see Ch. 3.
5 ‘Leges dare’ and ‘Constituere’: Municipal Charters 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N In Chapter 4 I assigned the Wrst municipal legislation for the new citizen communities (a lex Cornelia?) to the period of the census of 86/85 bc. I argued that it was very general in character, specifying the quattuorviral magisterial structure, and probably deWned the composition and authority of the ordo, and, broadly speaking, the extent of the autonomy of the new municipia. This obviously left a large number of important questions unanswered, and uncertainty about the future of a whole range of practices which had been fundamental to the life of the communities of Italy as independent states, but might not be acceptable, or Roman enough, to survive enfranchisement. The obvious example is in the Weld of civil law: marriages, inheritances, loans and business partnerships, land sales, and guardianship (to name a few aspects at random) were for Romans governed by Roman ius ciuile. Italian practices in these and other areas of society were, by deWnition, not, although some allied communities had become fundi of some Roman statutes concerning the ius ciuile before the Social War (see Chs. 3 and 4). Local engagement with the Roman ius ciuile at the outbreak of the Social War probably varied from community to community, from next to nothing in deepest Samnium to a fair acquaintance (above all in the spheres of marriage, inheritance, and business aVairs) in Latin colonies.1 Important to remember here are lessons from the second century: that Italian allied communities were no strangers to making agreements with each other (as witness the agreement between Nola and Abella inscribed on the cippus Abellanus), nor to buying and selling things from and to Romans. Secondly, Roman municipia in the second century bc, as the example of Arpinum shows, were obliged neither to adopt all statutes passed by the comitia of the populus Romanus, nor to adopt the same testamentary norms as those found in Rome (see Ch. 2). What we do not know, and cannot assume, is that, faced with the unprecedented scale of enfranchisement and municipalization occurring in and after the Social War, the Roman Senate and People were content to allow the same latitude. How far, and how quickly, the new municipia picked up the ius ciuile is, then, an important question, and one which recurs again and again as Roman 1 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 378–9.
206
Municipal Charters
citizenship spreads across the Empire, right up to the aftermath of the constitutio Antoniniana. One would like to know, in particular, whether Rome was proactive and dirigiste, enforcing the adoption of the ius ciuile and other provisions of universal application in the new municipia, or whether it was left up to the communities themselves to mug up on it as best they could. The answer matters since it must inevitably shape our conception of municipalization as lying somewhere on a spectrum between Rome as heavily interventionist and as adopting a more laissez-faire attitude. It also had very real consequences for the new municipes, for somehow justice had to be done in Italian communities, and now on Roman models. We might imagine that integrationist elites might acquaint themselves with Roman law to some extent as a display of loyalty; others might feel that control of this new social matrix empowered them, and thus conWrmed their position in the social hierarchy by distancing them from the masses in their communities; and others again might feel that their populus would not tolerate abandonment of the traditional practices which had shaped communal life for as long as many could remember; as with language, as Benelli has argued, so it may be with social practices: the generation which grew up after the Social War may have been less rooted in ancestral custom, and more deeply enmeshed in Roman cultural matrices.2 Thus we Wnd at Larinum in 66 bc a wedding banquet conducted more Larinatium (Cicero, Clu. 166)—more interesting than the survival of what was probably a customary rather than a legal practice, and thus quite natural for the community (Moreau identiWes the Larinate mos with a wedding banquet for large numbers of guests) is perhaps to ask whether such mores survived into the 50s and 40s bc.3 We know that, in some respects, the political, religious, and social life of each municipium was governed by a set of detailed rules, collected and recorded in a document, a lex, of which a papyrus copy was kept in the municipal archives, and another displayed on bronze in a public place, usually the forum.4 This was not a new feature of the situation following the Social War: I have already argued that such a document, the lex of the Latin colony of Venusia, is the archetype behind the second-century constitution from Bantia, as well as noting other fragments of Roman colonial laws.5 This class of documents will form the subject of this chapter, and by analysing the surviving examples, and cognate texts, we may begin to have an answer to the questions posed above. 2 Benelli, in Italy and the West. 3 Moreau, in Bourgeoisies. 4 The terracing wall of the Temple of ‘Minerva’ in the forum at Assisi still bears the imprint of the numerous metal plaques that were Wxed to it. The lex Rubria was found in the forum at Veleia, and was probably originally displayed in the basilica. Pliny, HN 34. 99, recommends the use of olive oil for the polishing of bronze inscribed tablets to protect them from rust: continued visibility of local instrumenta was obviously a real issue. 5 Livy’s description of the Senate’s response to Latin complaints about migratio to Rome in 177 (41. 8. 9) may suggest that a law was passed by the Roman assembly for addition to Latin charters, not simply as a Roman statute addressed to migrating Latins: ‘lex sociis Latini nominis data’ (‘a lex was given to the allies of the Latin name’); indeed, non-Romans would be more naturally regulated in their home communities.
Municipal Charters
207
It used to be thought that these laws were bestowed on communities by magistrates in virtue of their imperium and, with other similar acts, came under the juridical heading of leges datae.6 The Flavian Spanish example of such a lex (the copies of such documents found at Malaca, Salpensa, and Irni are overlapping sections of the same document, the lex Flauia) was worded, where it dealt with matters such as guardianship and manumission, so as to make it clear that Roman rules were to apply universally, without exception, and to more than one town equally. Thus, the Spanish leges were taken by some scholars to show the derivation of the content of leges from Roman sources with no local emendation, and thus to imply a strong element of central direction in the formulation of the lex.7 Yet the Spanish material applies to Latin municipia, and it is not certain that Roman practice was so used as a cardinal reference point in the Italian examples of the late Republic, nor that they dealt explicitly with aspects of the ius ciuile, as we shall see. As to leges datae, Mommsen’s distinction between them and leges rogatae was exploded by Frederiksen in a fundamental article in 1965.8 The phrase leges dare certainly occurs in municipal contexts, but it does not connote a speciWc juridical process diVerent from comitial legislation, but simply the furnishing of a set of institutions and ordinances to a community; this lex derives its authority from the iussum populi.9 It is now clear that all the local municipal laws of this kind were passed through the Roman comitia. Their peculiarity stems from the fact that, having been so passed, they were then given or presented to the individual communities, hence the frequent phrasing ‘post hanc legem datam’. Their application was speciWc and local, not general and universal, like normal statutes. This can be illustrated with reference to lex coloniae Genetiuae. This was passed in the comitia as a lex rogata, and it was from this rogation that the regulations for Urso took their legal validity.10 Yet for practical purposes their validity was important only for the coloni of Urso, for whom the colony and its regulations remained notional until the formal deductio, at which point both colony and colonists took on a juridical existence of their own.11 It seems reasonable to assume that it was at this point that the laws voted by the comitia were formally ‘given’, that is, that they began to operate, as opposed to being valid legal enactments without speciWc referents. Thus lex coloniae Genetiuae refers to future events or activities which will come within the purview of the law as ‘post coloniam deductam’ and more frequently ‘post h(anc) l(egem) datam’.12 6 A term Wrst used in this sense by Mommsen, GS i. 192–3, followed by many others down to the present. See also Ch. 3. 7 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 375–9 (‘central control and uniformity’, p. 376, writing of the late Republic). 8 JRS (1965), 183–97, esp. 189–97 on ‘charters’. 9 Frederiksen, JRS (1965), 189. 10 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 95: ‘ex h(ac) l(ege) n(ihilum) r(ogatur)’—a lex Antonia (ciii) (contrast cvi: ‘quae iussu C. Caesaris dict. ded(ucta) est’). 11 Perhaps not even immediately then; see Ch. 3 above. 12 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 92, 122.
208
Municipal Charters
I have decided to continue using the time-honoured English term for referring to laws of this kind, namely ‘charters’, beside ‘statutes’, the correct English translation for leges. The former is slightly misleading,13 since it implies that there was some act of incorporation into the Roman state which only occurred or was actuated by the granting of the ‘charter’, which was not the case immediately after the Social War. For municipia there was no formal deductio, although promotion to, or restoration of, municipal status usually coincided with the granting of the lex (see s. 3.3 below). More often the incorporation of a town as a municipium preceded the granting of a charter, and this is surely the case with those populi enfranchised during and after the Social War.14 These municipia were Roman communities under the terms either of the law which enfranchised them (of which they had become fundi, and which removed their autonomous status as independent populi), or, in the case of the dediticii populi, of a general municipal law, and the lex did not change this. Its signiWcance then in the majority of cases is to be sought elsewhere. The location of its role and importance within the process of municipalization will be one of the subjects of this chapter. Granted, then, that all charters had their basis in a lex rogata, what was the procedure used to deal with the vast number of cases which must have come up in the assembly? Reading each charter out to the assembly in toto and then voting on it seems an unbelievably cumbersome procedure; in fact Roman municipal legislators had recourse to a much more simple expedient. This was demonstrated in Martin Frederiksen’s classic analysis of the language of the two extant Republican charters (lex Tarentina, lex coloniae Genetiuae). Frederiksen noted the clumsy and repetitious nature of some of the phrasing of lex Tarentina. The most striking instance of this comes at lex Tarentina 26–8, where we have ‘quei decurio municipi Tarentinei est erit queiue in municipio Tarenti[no in] / senatu sententiam deixerit, is in o[pp]ido Tarentei aut intra eius muni[cipi] / Wneis aediWcium . . . habeto . . .’15 Comparison with the phrasing of the same regulation in the lex coloniae Genetiuae underlines the pleonasm of the Tarentine law: ‘[Si quis ex hac lege decurio . . . coloniae G(enetiuae) Iul(iae) creatusue] erit, tum quicumque decurio . . . huiusque / col(oniae) domicilium in ea col(onia) oppido propiusue it oppidum p(assus) M / non habebit . . . / . . . is in ea col(onia) . . . decurio ne es/to’.16 Frederiksen plausibly argued that the wording of the lex Tarentina at this point could not be that of a law drafted speciWcally and solely for Tarentum.17 13 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 360 n. 2. 14 Lex Flauia 50 is extremely important here, since the words ‘di[eb]us LXXXX proximis, quibus ha<e>c lex in / [it] mun[icipi]um [pe]rlata erit’ clearly show the municipal charters at least became valid on their installation in the community in question, which, at Irni, was at this period envisaged as happening at least ninety days before the end of the year. See Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 214. 15 Cf. also the regulations covering the giving of sureties by magistrates (7–14): Tarentum is mentioned as the destination of the new college of ‘IIIIuir(ei) aedilesque’ in ll. 7 and 8, and then in l. 11 the new magistrates must declare that any public money coming into their hands during their term of oYce ‘municipio Tarentino saluam recte esse futuram’. 16 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 91. 17 JRS (1965), 191.
Municipal Charters
209
The repeated mention of Tarentum must be explicable by local attempt to emend a general law (or laws) so as to relate it speciWcally to Tarentum. Whoever was responsible for particularizing the general law so that it became the Tarentine ‘charter’ was over-anxious at some points, but curiously lax at others.18 What is important for our immediate purposes is to recognize the general law behind the speciWc instance of the local constitution. The patchy local emendation implies its existence; but, as Frederiksen saw, the portmanteau phraseology of the general law has passed into the Tarentine charter as well.19 At lines 39–42 the text of the lex Tarentina reads ‘sei quas uias fossas clouacas IIII uir II uir aedilisue eius municipi caussa / publice facere immittere commutare aediWcare munire uolet intra / eos Wneis quei eius municipi erun[t], quod eius sine iniuria Wat, id ei facere / liceto.’ This is a self-contained section on public works. In that case, in strict logic it must be admitted that the ‘eius’ in l. 39 has no antecedent, still less ‘eius’ in l. 41.20 In view of the fact that Tarentum is not mentioned in the preceding section on the demolition of buildings (32–8), and especially of the remarkable pleonasm noted at 26–7 just above, it is not ideal to translate ‘eius municipi’ as ‘of this municipium’. Frederiksen contended that the use here of is / ille without an antecedent is equivalent to that of the Greek ho deina, and means ‘of municipium x’ vel sim.: ‘In these cases the original phrases have not been adapted, but preserve the language of a ‘‘matrix-law’’, drafted for municipalities in the plural’.21 The chapters of the lex Tarentina at ll. 32–8 and 39–41 must have been copied word for word from a general law, just as ll. 26–7 had been energetically emended to give a local context to its terms. The underlying presence of the ‘matrix-law’, which occasionally shows through where the Tarentine varnish has been too thinly applied, helps to explain many of the peculiarities of the law, and a more detailed critique is possible than the one which Frederiksen attempted. Another aspect of the ‘matrix-law’ phenomenon may help explain the sporadic nature of the references to Tarentum in the text. It is just possible that diVerent scribes were employed to copy out diVerent provisions from diVerent ‘matrixlaws’, and that one was more careful about personalizing the text than the other(s), and that when the various selections were combined into the ensemble we possess as the text, no attempt was made to achieve consistency. Alternatively the provisions which contain references to Tarentum could represent a diVerent temporal stratum within the Tarentine lex.
18 Why? Frederiksen gives a critique of the obvious randomness of the drafting; are other factors relevant? Are we dealing for instance with two strata of the Tarentine charter here, and thus two matrix-laws? 19 JRS (1965), 191. 20 Other instances: ll. 25, 31. 21 Ibid. 191. Costabile, Istituzioni, 23, claims that the language of the lex Tarentina reXects only the existence of a ‘schema epigraWca uniforme’, not a matrix-law. Costabile’s view is odd and contradictory (ibid. 152, 159, cf. 144–50 where he rules out poor drafting as an explanation of the confusion over magistracies).
210
Municipal Charters
So much for the juridical status of the charters. What of their function? What was their signiWcance if they were not primarily constitutive? Why were charters sought? How were they drawn up, and how granted? Did they vary from one community to another? Did all communities have one? By attempting to answer these questions we shall gain some insight into how the interface between municipal and Roman politics worked in detail, and the ways in which municipalization mattered beyond the basic constitutional elements. The exiguous and fragmentary preservation of Italian charters (the lex Tarentina, the Falerio fragment?) might suggest that they had only a peripheral importance for municipalization. Most of our evidence comes from Flavian Spain: we have some of the lex of the Caesarian colony at Urso (in a Flavian recension),22 and enough is extant of the leges of the Flavian Latin municipia in Spain to give a good idea of their content. For Italy itself we are better able to form a picture of the mechanics of granting the charters and changing local constitutions, thanks to passages in general municipal laws and passing references in literature. This may not seem much, but if the Italian municipal charters of the Republic were half as complex and wide-ranging as the Flavian charters from Spain, they will have had a very signiWcant impact on the life of the municipia, hence the importance of understanding what they said, and what they represented.
2 . RU L E S F O R RO M A N S : T H E S H A P E A N D C O N T E N T OF THE LEX Our Wrst task is to reconstruct the content of an ‘ideal lex’. This is not straightforward: the preserved fragments of Italian charters are of limited use. The Spanish charters give considerable help, but it must be remembered that the Urso statute is colonial, and while some of its regulations derive from Caesarian legislation, it is uncertain how much can be pushed back further.23 The discovery of the a major section of a Flavian lex at Irni in the 1980s has allowed an almost paradigmatic shift in our understanding of Flavian municipalization in Spain, compared with what could previously be inferred from the long-known fragments from Salpensa and Malaca. Thanks to the veritable industry generated by the Irni text, we now have a much better concept of the general law (lex Flauia) which seems to have been applied pretty uniformly to the new Latin municipia of Spain. Colonial and municipal statutes became more similar during the last generation of the Republic; there were probably ‘matrix-laws’ applicable to both 22 Michael Crawford tells me that more fragments had been (re)discovered, perhaps from near the start of the text. 23 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 103 is an almost verbatim repetition of ch. 2 of the lex Mamilia, which as we shall see is itself probably closely related in conception and scope to the lex Iulia agraria of 59. Some elements however are very old: cf. the mention of manus iniectio in lex coloniae Genetiuae 61. As Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 83, shows, lex coloniae Genetiuae 62, mentioning a tumultus Italicus Gallicusue, belongs to an Italian colonial context, and must have been perpetuated in matrix-laws since the 3rd cent. bc at the latest.
Municipal Charters
211
colonies and municipia, and the long history of colonial leges had inXuenced the development of municipal versions well before the Social War.24 Nevertheless, it seems probable that late republican municipal charters were diVerent in some respects from their ‘colonial cousins’, and not just in terms of formal diVerences like institutional titulature.25 The lex Tarentina belongs to an older, and thus less sophisticated stratum of the evolutionary history of these laws than lex coloniae Genetiuae.26 The Flavian charters give the best idea of the structure and content of a developed imperial charter, but they are charters of Spanish communities where the majority of the population possessed Latin rights, and only the elite were Roman citizens; hence the ‘didactic’ and acculturative functions of the charter were perhaps greater than would have been the case in a Roman municipium.27 The Spanish municipal lex of the imperial age can be hypothetically reconstructed as follows: (I) deWnition of the municipium and the municipes (II) religious matters (III) powers of magistrates (IV) manumission and tutela (V) the ordo (VI) elections (VII) general administration (VIII) Wnancial matters (IX) illegal activities (X) Wnancial matters again (XI) games and public works 24 In view of the evidence of the lex Osca Bantina, we must doubt that pre-Social-War charters were as sparse as Galsterer (Herrschaft, 18) implies. See further Ch. 3 on the lex Osca. Degrassi, SVA iv. 77 stresses the similarity between colonial and municipal charters in the late republican and imperial periods, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 86–7, 90, 92. 25 See Ch. 2 on Gellius’ discussion of municipal freedom in respect of their leges. 26 Lex Tarentina 39–41 has the phrasing ‘sei quas uias fossas clouacas IIII uir . . . eius municipi caussa publice facere . . . uolet intra eos Wneis quei eius municipi erun[t]’, while lex coloniae Genetiuae 77 has more simply ‘intra eos Wnes, qui col. Iul. erunt’. Lex coloniae Genetiuae in turn in part at least belongs to an earlier phase than the Flavian charters. Lex Flauia 62, on the demolition of buildings, carefully makes sure that each sentence names the municipium near the start, thus providing the necessary antecedent. The chapter in the Urso statute on the sending of embassies (92) does not for instance prohibit the magistrates of that year or the previous year from forming part of the legation, whereas lex Flauia G has just such a prohibition (see Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 211). Note, however, that at Peltuninum the aediles quinquennales formed the legation which oVered Nummia Varia her tabula patronatus (CIL ix. 3429, found at Rome; we cannot know whether Peltuninum, still a praefectura in ad 242, actually had a charter). Lex coloniae Genetiuae still displays a fair degree of disorganization: material on jurisdiction is found at 61, 94–5, 102, Tab. VIII, 123. 27 Nonetheless the lex Flauia presupposes the applicability of a number of Roman laws to nonRomans in a Latin municipium: for instance, see lex Flauia 23 with Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 204, 148–9. Note also lex Flauia 93: ‘quibus de rebus in h. l. nominatim cautum scriptum non est, quo iure inter se municipes . . . agant, de iis rebus omnibus ii inte[r se] agunto, quo ciues Romani inter se iure ciuili agunt agent’.
212
Municipal Charters
(XII) iurisdictio (XIII) incolae (XIV) publication and enforcement of the charter.28 One of our tasks will be to decide how much of this structure, as well as how much of the detail, can be applied to municipal charters of the Republic.29 There are quite noticeable structural diVerences between the charter of a Roman municipium in republican Italy and a Latin one in Flavian Spain. The surviving portion of the lex Tarentina is often interpreted as dealing with a number of topics listed apparently at random: peculatus; sureties at elections; property qualiWcations for decuriones; the demolition of buildings; public works; departure from the municipium; in the second column there seems to be one chapter on testamentary manumission. I want however to suggest that a Wscal thread can be identiWed in all of the provisions in the Wrst column.30 Lines 1–20 lay down rules covering pecunia publica sacra religiosa, under the headings of peculation and sureties to be given by magistrates who will handle it; 20–5 (which seem to form part of the same chapter, l. 20 not being outspaced) cover business undertaken with public money, and the rendering of accounts for this money; the point of 26–31 seems to be to ensure that decurions had the appropriate pignus in case of dereliction of duty. Lines 32–42 follow rather awkwardly here: while the law is dealing with buildings, these two related chapters are slotted in. Lines 32–8 could be seen as loosely Wnancial in that the building destroyed must be replaced by one of equal value, and rules are laid down for the spending of the Wne. Lines 39–42 may be interpreted as a pendant to 32–8, specifying what building work is permitted to magistrates. With the last two lines we seem to return to Wnancial matters and the handling of public money. There may thus be a correlation between the lex Tarentina and (VII/VIII) of the Flavian law, but if so it is a loose one. Republican municipal charters like the lex Tarentina were wordier and less coherent than later examples, probably because the stitching together of various ‘matrix-laws’ was more hastily done.31 Nonetheless, faute de mieux, we may cautiously use the structure of the Flavian charter as a litmus test for reconstructing the form and the contents of its Republican predecessor.32 Let us brieXy contemplate each section of our ‘ideal’ charter. First and most importantly, every charter in every age must have begun with a deWnition of the citizen body. Who were the municipes? The answer to this 28 See Gonza´lez’s reconstruction of lex Flauia: JRS (1986), 148. 29 For a ‘close relationship’ between the two classes of document, see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 256. 30 See now, Lomas, Roman Italy, 196. 31 The surviving tablet of the lex Tarentina is the ninth: since there were at least nine chapters on it, the law was probably at least 100 chapters long, especially if we are, as at the ‘comparable’ point in the lex Flauia, near the end of the law, but have yet to deal with jurisdiction (10 chapters in lex Flauia). The lex coloniae Genetiuae has over 130 chapters, lex Flauia 96 with an addendum. 32 While presenting signiWcant divergences from the Republican charters, some parts of the lex Flauia are pre-Flavian, and thus of greater value; lex Flauia 91 speciWcally refers to a lex Iulia; cf. 62, 67, and 71, 81, which seem to go back to Augustan laws (see Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 218, 220, 222, 226).
Municipal Charters
213
required a deWnition in terms of their membership (by birth, manumission, or adoption) of a particular municipium.33 It seems very possible that this Wrst section deWned also their munera, that is, their rights, privileges, and duties regarding that municipium, acquired and incurred by their belonging to it. Their political rights as a body may also have been deWned in this section, that is, the electoral and legislative role of the populus. This Wrst section was possibly also the place where the position of the other inhabitants of the municipium (incolae), and others who might impinge on its communal life,34 was deWned in respect of the municipium and its municipes. Finally, the municipium was surely deWned as a physical and territorial identity. This will have included both the extent of the oppidum and of the territorium,35 and perhaps a register of what lands, roads, and waterways within the territorium and which loci within the oppidum were public property (and what revenues might be expected from them, and how they might be collected and guaranteed).36 This section will have been liable to amendment if the town’s territory was altered because of conWscation, or through the eVects of contributio. The next section probably covered religious aVairs.37 The act of foundation for a colony, and the identity of a municipium, were closely bound up with the gods
33 See lex Flauia 54 for a reference to such a deWnition in the lost beginning of the statute: ‘ex eo genere ingenuorum hominum, / de quo h. l. cautum conprehensum est’. See Introduction for these three means of entry into the local citizen body. 34 There seem to have been a number of distinct juridical categories in existence by at least the 1 cent.: see ILLRP 617 (Interamnia Praetuttiorum): ‘municipibus, coloneis, incoleis, hospitibus, aduentoribus’ (lacunose translation at Lomas, Roman Italy, no. 394)—the beneWciaries of perpetual lauatio. There was to be no great unwashed in Interamnia at least. Cf. lex coloniae Genetiuae 126. 35 See lex Tarentina 27–8: ‘in o[pp]ido Tarantei aut intra eius muni[cipi]’. Public property held outside the conWnes of the territorium may also have been recorded here. On the delimitation of the territory of states conquered and absorbed by Rome see Dilke, Roman Land-Surveyors, 23–4; Chouquer et al., Structures agraires en Italie centro-me´ridionale, 67–8, cf. Dyson, Community, 123; Buonocore, Abruzzo Molise, 29. Note that Tacitus, albeit rhetorically, could refer to Italian communities as having ‘patriis amnibus’ (‘ancestral rivers’), Ann. 1. 79. 3. 36 These public properties seem to be what Cicero means when he uses the phrase res publica to Brutus at Fam. 13. 1. 3. 37 Note that at Urso religious matters are touched on in the surviving section at 64–9, 71–2, 91. Certain local cults had probably been put into the class of municipalia sacra by the Roman pontiWces by the time the lex was given to the community, and indeed the process of creating the charter may have provoked such classiWcation (cults which threatened to promote the continued existence of broad political units were probably quickly declared unacceptable by the pontiWces: the rural sanctuaries of Samnium such as that at Pietrabbondante probably fell into this class. See Ch. 2 for municipalia sacra. Some cults seem to have expressed local identity (including ties between nucleated centres and the surrounding territorium) so strongly that they survived the decay of the towns themselves: see Strabo, 5. 2. 6, 223C (information gained from autopsy) on Populonia (temples the main feature of the main city; the epineion (port) is still thriving, and it may be here that iron brought from Elba was worked; see Pasquinucci, Strabone e l’Italia antica, 52–3, on the archaeological evidence bearing on Strabo’s description); cf. Strabo, 5. 3. 10, 237C, with Bispham, in Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy; and 5. 4. 11, 249C, where two shrines of Tuche¯, one on either side of the Via Latina, mark the boundary between the territories of Cales and Teanum (recalling the Cippus Abellanus, Vetter, Handbuch 1).
214
Municipal Charters
of the Roman state in one case, and the local deities in the other.38 Municipal statutes must have diVered from colonial statutes under the late Republic, in that the municipia were not replicas of Rome, and would not therefore automatically give the Capitoline Triad or the Roman Penates pride of place in their pantheon. Oaths taken by public oYcials at Urso were sworn by ‘per Iouem deosque Penates’, but we do not know which deities were invoked in municipia.39 It is hard to think that municipia which had a particular relationship and association with a local deity would be forced to change the traditional oath to a form more suited to Roman tastes, but this probably depended on what decisions the Roman pontiWces reached about municipalia sacra. At Teanum Sidicinum, for example, the most important deity was Iuno Populona.40 In the pre-Roman period Pupluna, equally important, was worshipped in Teanum, as elsewhere in the region.41 Some scholars maintain that Iuno Populona is a Roman import, and an example of auto-romanizzazione (‘self-Romanization’), with the indigenous Pupluna continuing to coexist with her after municipalization.42 Yet this seems to me not quite right: Iuno Populona is surely Oscan Pupluna, albeit subjected to some (inevitable) syncretism with an independent Roman deity. We should not speak of imports, but rather of the survival of a poliadic deity, through signiWcant but not suVocating change, into the Roman period. The ‘public religion’ of the municipia has been little studied in a systematic way.43 As far as concerns magistrates of those municipia incorporated after the Social War, they are found associated with or acting on behalf of a wide number of deities or cults.44 Some municipia show a strong Roman inXuence in their 38 Torelli linked the creation of the municipium of Bantia (recorded by the lex Osca Bantina) with the auguraculum which he discovered there and dated initially to 80–60 bc: ‘E` addirittura molto probabile che all’ atto della creazione del municipio romano di Bantia si sia proceduto anche a realizzare quelle strutture di ordine religioso connesse con la romanita` delle instituzioni’ (Arch. Class. (1969), 16). His subsequent relocation of the lex Osca Bantina before the Social War led him to reconsider the archaeological context of the auguraculum and place it in the decade 100–90 (Athenaeum (1983), 257). The initial idea is nonetheless interesting. For colonial cults in the middle Republic see Bispham, in Greek and Roman Colonization. 39 Lex Flauia (25, G, 59 etc.) has the public oath to be sworn by Iuppiter, various principes, and the di Penates. These last were conceivably not the Roman Penates, but the ‘gods of the hearth of community x’, whoever they might be; but an original colonial context for the phrase seems likely. Spanish deities in any event were unfamiliar and less suitable for municipal oaths than Roman gods. Note that the oaths at Urso are not taken by Venus, despite her obvious connections with the colony. 40 First attested with the 1st cent. bc text CIL i2 . 1573. 41 Coarelli, in Communita` indigene, 177–92; Izzo, Ostraka (1994), 283, see also Introduction, above. 42 Izzo, Ostraka (1994), 281–4 (slightly unclear). 43 It is clear enough from the discussions of individual magisterial texts in Chs. 6–8 that religion and politics were as fundamentally interwoven in the municipia as they were at Rome; Livy, writing of the punishment of Anagnia in the 4th cent. (9. 43. 24) says ‘magistratibus praeterquam sacrorum curatione interdictum’—what is important is not whether this or anything like it happened, but that it could be believed that local magistrates should routinely have care of sacra. Note also Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 64–5, on Milo’s dictatura at Lavinium (Cic., Mil. 45–6: one of his jobs was to appoint a Xamen), pp. 70–1, esp. on the roles of magistrates in the leges Spoletina, Lucerina, and Furfensis. 44 See catalogue nos. (including priestly roles): Q2–3, 5–6, 39, AE (1985), 266, Q8–9, 17–19, 39, 43, 47, 52, 55, 57, 63, 70–72, 74, 81, D8, 14–15, 17. Of course none of these gods need have played a part
Municipal Charters
215
public religious activity (e.g. Canusium), but in others the importance of local cult is clear (e.g. Hercules Victor at Tibur, MeWtis at Potentia).45 All in all it is probably safe to say that the religious section of the charter reXected the considerable autonomy allowed to municipia in this sphere, once the municipalia sacra had been deWned by the Roman pontiWcal college. Local religious calendars were also crucial; they would have certainly been no less important in their pre-SocialWar form, but perhaps now had to adjust to the implications of the new category of municipalia sacra as well as any impetus for religious change (and changes in practice there do seem to have been, with some cults introduced and other fading away46) which derived, albeit in a nebulous way, from enfranchisement and its consequences.47 In any event, however, what little information which we have suggests that the creation and maintenance of local calendars was the responsibility of local magistrates as it was at Urso. 48 Republican municipal charters certainly deWned the powers of magistrates, in part probably drawing on deWnitions from general municipal laws. We have most of the chapter in the lex Flauia on aediles, but for the powers of senior magistrates we can rely only on incidental references later in the charter. The powers of the aediles are clearly deWned,49 but it is not certain when all these various powers accrued to them (in Ch. 8 I suggest aedilician jurisdiction is a Pre-Caesarian innovation). Furthermore it is hard to say how any of the powers attested at Irni would have been distributed at Tarentum for instance. As we shall see in the next of cardinal importance in municipal religion. In other cases we cannot be speciWc about the religious activities carried out by magistrates. Altars and temple sites are often unidentiWed, or inscriptions mysterious (cf. the XI arae at Spoletium, again a former Latin colony—Q63). 45 PontiWces, Xamines, and augures are quite common in municipal contexts from all over Italy in the Republic as later, but we cannot divine from titulature how much this was a reXection of ‘Romanization’ of religious practice. Bantia’s auguraculum was probably an import from the Latin colony of Venusia; for its implications see Ch. 3; and Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les magistrats, 96–7. 46 e.g. two urban temples of Hellenistic Teanum Apulum (those at Coppa Mengoni and Chiesa di Civitate) seem to have gone out of use in the middle of the 1st cent bc having been in use the 3rd cent: Antonacci Sanpaolo, in Italy and the West, 33, 37—note that this marks the point at which the generation alive during the Social War can be said to have largely died out. 47 On municipal and colonial calendars, see Mommsen, StR iii. 580, 706, and Hermes (1882); Degrassi, Inscr. It. xiii. 2, xvi; Gabba, Italia romana, 135 n. 7; Dyson, Community, 106. 48 At lex coloniae Genetiuae 64 the ‘II uiri quicumque post colon. deductam erunt’ must decide ‘quos et quot dies festos esse et quae sacra Weri publice’ in their Wrst ten days in oYce. Are these the Wrst II uiri, as Gonza´lez supposed (JRS (1986), 236), and as ‘eaque sacra eique dies festi in ea colon. sunto’ suggests? Doubt must be cast on this interpretation by the wording of the preceding chapter: ‘II uiri, qui primi ad pr. k. Ianuar. mag. habebunt’. In that case, considerable Xexibility is allowed to the colonial magistrates here, perhaps to adjust to year-on-year needs and short-term tastes. In any event the latitude for variation cannot have been great in a Roman colony, albeit a colonia ciuica. We can perhaps, though, expect greater freedom in a Roman municipium. 49 Lex Flauia 19: ‘annonam, aedes sacras loca / sacra religiosa oppidum uias uicos cloaca<s> balinea macellum pondera / mensasue exigendi aequandi, uigilas cum res desiderabit exigendi / et si quid praeter ea decuriones . . . aedilibus faciendum esse / censuerint eas res omnes curandi f[a]ciendi, item pignus capiendi . . . item multam dicendi, damnum dandi . . . ius potestatemqu[e] / habento’. These are by and large very urban tasks; were aediles mainly not concerned with matters outside the oppidum—a very Roman conception of the oYce of aedile? For jurisdiction see n. 51.
216
Municipal Charters
section, Tarentum at the time of lex Tarentina had both IIII uiri and aediles. We cannot know whether the Tarentine quattuorvirate was a unitary or a divided college at this point (for these terms see the next chapter). Even if it was still unitary, some ‘aedilician’ functions may have pertained to the quattuoruiri.50 The lex Flauia proves that aedilician jurisdiction was equal to that exercised by II uiri, both in terms of the Wnancial limit, and of those persons and matters covered by it.51 Presumably, though, the aediles exercised jurisdiction primarily over matters relating to their particular competence, and were only called on to assign iudices in other cases where the II uiri or praefecti were unavailable. There were a number of things which only the II uiri at Irni could do, and presumably here again there is some overlap with the powers of republican IIII uiri. For example II uiri alone can propose someone as a candidate to Wll a vacant decurial place;52 propose decrees in the curia;53 convene a meeting of the ordo;54 let contracts;55 and hold elections.56 It looks then as if the powers considered most important in a Flavian municipium at any rate were those which gave the executive control over the whole decision-making process of the community, and a decisive inXuence over its public life, and not simply jurisdiction. Other magisterial powers will have been deWned in some detail in republican charters in the course of the text, especially in the sections on Wnancial matters and jurisdiction. Local magistrates in the Republic had a more extensive jurisdiction than their imperial descendants, perhaps more so than is usually believed: they certainly had imperium of some kind.57 Interestingly there seems to be no reference in the Flavian charter to a cursus honorum, or to quinquennial or censorial magistracies.58 These topics were however comprehensively treated in the lex Osca Bantina, and it is hard to imagine that they were not also covered in the republican municipal charters. 50 Note CIL ix. 980 from Compsa, where a IIII uir provides mensurae ‘lege ciuitatis proprio sumptu’ (2nd cent. ad?). He was perhaps acting in virtue of his oYce of plain IIII uir (i.e. one of the lower pair, discharging aedilician functions). 51 Lex Flauia 19, 84, lex coloniae Genetiuae 94, with Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 201. Note however lex Flauia 84, where the implication is that only the II uiri are competent to grant uadimonia for appearances before the governor in cases where they have conducted a preliminary hearing. ‘Magistratus’ in lex Tarentina 6 may point to equality of magisterial jurisdiction; or perhaps of quattuorviral jurisdiction. Again ‘magistratus’ here may be in opposition to municeps, whom we should expect in an actio popularis. For aedilician jurisdiction in the early Augustan period (or triumviral?): Suet., De grammaticis et rhetoribus 30. 1 (Albucius Silus). 52 Lex Flauia 31 with C. 53 Lex Flauia C with Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 210. 54 Lex Flauia E with Gonza´lez, 211. 55 Lex Flauia J, 63–4, with Gonza´lez, 212. 56 Lex Flauia 52. Note also lex Flauia 66—the aediles have to inform the II uiri when they impose Wnes, 72, 76. 57 Imperium: lex coloniae Genetiuae 94, 125, 128; lex Roscia 20 l. 51. See Frederiksen, JRS (1964), 132–4; Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 229. The limited sphere of municipal jurisdiction later may in part explain why it is then available to both sets of magistrates. 58 See Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 215. Elections at Pompeii were in the hands of the ordo by the Flavian period (see Franklin, Pompeii, 120), and the increased role of this body in appointing magistrates may have led to the cursus honorum becoming virtually a dead letter.
Municipal Charters
217
The lex Tarentina says little directly about the ordo. Lines 17–25 impose senatorial supervision of accounts for public money, ll. 26–31 specify the size of house which decurions must own in the oppidum or in the territory, presumably as a pignus in the event of failure to perform services due.59 The former is paralleled in the Irni charter, which must also have contained a section on property qualiWcations for decuriones; it is uncertain whether there was another reference to this topic elsewhere in the lex Tarentina, expressed either in terms of capital or property value.60 The charter probably speciWed who could not be in the local senate and perhaps why,61 and how many members it was to have. In many cases this was 100,62 but variations were possible: the Senate at Irni numbered 63.63 There the size of the senate seems traditional, and this was one important respect in which a number of charters probably ensured continuity between pre-Roman and Roman political worlds, by maintaining the existing number.64 Practical as well as sentimental motives lay behind this, in that a change in the size of the ordo would mean in eVect an expansion or a contraction in the size of the governing class of a municipium, both of which would have been equally unappealing to the existing elite (but perhaps unavoidable given casualties after the Social War).65 In addition, some hierarchical divisions within the ordo may have been speciWed in the charter, again varying from place to place according to local usage. The phenomenon of the decem primi might be an example. These men form a senior group within the ordo (analogous to the consuls’ consilium at Rome?), and they undertook legations and other business of great importance.66 The actual number may have varied from town to town, although Cicero implies that ten 59 Cf. lex coloniae Genetiuae 91. 60 The Wxing of a decurial census, which at Como under the Empire was 100,000 HS (see Degrassi, SVA iv. 77), had happened at least by the triumviral or Augustan period. Fronto gives us a valuable piece of information: ‘estne lege coloniae Concordensium cautum ne quis scribam faxit, nisi quem decurionem recte facere possit?’ (2. 7. 3, assuming the provision to be part of the original charter). The provision about scribae may not have been universal if Fronto has to cite a particular instance. Iulia Concordia is probably, but not certainly, a triumviral/Augustan colony: Keppie, Colonisation, 21, 201. 61 Gabba, Italia romana, 138, suggests that the privilege whereby freedmen might be members of local ordines may not be unique to Caesarian colonies. 62 e.g. Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 96 (for colonies). It is hard to tell whether Cicero is being disingenuous and polemical here, or stating a fact. 63 Lex Flauia 31 with Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 207. 64 The number of decuriones at Irni was that ‘quod ante h. l. rogatam iure more eius municipii fuerunt’ (lex Flauia 31). Note also the centumuiri of the tiny municipium of Forum Novum (Supp. It. ns 5. 184, no. 18), cf. for the Empire Sabine Cures, a small town by then (CIL ix. 4952, 4959, 4970, 4978) and Veii, like Forum Novum raised late to municipal status (CIL xi. 3805, 3807–9, 3811). The term ‘C uiri’ may only be local uariatio, or a way of showing that a small town could actually muster 100 decuriones. 65 For Roman concern to maintain existing socio-economic structures, therefore the ruling classes, in allied communities in the 2nd cent bc see Gabba, in Italia romana, 51–7. 66 Livy (29. 15. 5) has ‘magistratus denosque principes’ summoned to Rome by the Senate for a carpeting in 204 bc; these might be the ten most senior member of the elite, but not in the institutional sense we seem to meet later, and Livy later (15. 11) calls them primores.
218
Municipal Charters
was the standard Wgure.67 If the X primi appeared in the charter, this would be another instance of its function as a vehicle of continuity. Since the decem primi often appear as ambassadors in moments of crisis, we might expect that they would make an appearance in the section of the charter on legati, but the Spanish material oVers no comfort. The ordo seems to have had some kind of self-regulatory function, and could pass judgement on its members for certain misdemeanours.68 This was procedure was probably covered by rules in the charter. Finally the sanction of a majority within the ordo was certainly necessary for most of the actions of the magistrates to be valid, as stressed repeatedly in the lex coloniae Genetiuae and lex Flauia.69 In this sense the charter was important as the source of authority of the ordo itself. Lines 14–20 of the lex Tarentina not only deal with the giving of sureties at elections, but also importantly attest the adoption of the practice of voting by curiae in the municipia. The adoption of Roman-style voting units may well have represented a signiWcant change from previous practice in a number of communities, and the method of conducting elections, and the formation and composition of the curiae, will have been one of the crucial points of all charters.70 At Irni the curiae are to be established within ninety days of the arrival of the charter at Irni (i.e. when it is activated) by the II uiri in oYce that year.71 The setting up of magisterial structures, of an executive, and also here the existence of the senate, thus are anterior to the commencement of elections on the Roman model, and possibly to all elections. This has implications for our understanding of the lex Tarentina, which I will discuss in the next section. SuYce to say that it is probable that it was lex Tarentina itself which established the curiae at Tarentum.72 As we have seen, the lex tabellaria proposed at Arpinum in the late second century shows that municipia could ape Roman practice more closely if they chose, but at least at that period were not required to do so.73 Of the two matters dealt with under (VII) of the lex Flauia, one Wnds an exact correspondence with a chapter in the lex Tarentina.74 The chapter aims at preventing urban decay by stipulating that if buildings demolished within the 67 Att. 10. 13. 1 (listing them in the same breath as the IIII uiri); cf. Rosc. Am. 25 (referred to ‘legati’), CIL xi. 1420 (Pisae, ad 2/3, earliest epigraphic testimony), cf. Verr. 2. 2. 162 (Centuripae in Sicily); numbers other than ten are known only outside Italy. See Hu¨lsen, RE iv, col. 2254–5; Nicolet, Ordre, i. 332–3, and Galsterer, Herrschaft, 57 n. 92 (‘parallels’ unconvincing). 68 Cic., Clu. 41, 125. Cicero does not say that Oppianicus was expelled after this, an opportunity he would hardly have passed up. Did such a judgement aVect the review of the ordo carried out by quinquennial magistrates? 69 Cf. lex coloniae Genetiuae 128–9. 70 See lex Flauia L–60. 71 Lex Flauia 50 with Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 214. 72 An important comparison is furnished here by the Brundisium elogium (AE (1959), 32): ‘primus senatum legit et comiti[a institiut]’, with Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 97–101, cf. Degrassi, SVA iv. 51. It is hard to relate this to the granting of a lex to Brundisium; see further Ch. 3. 73 Cic., Leg. 3. 38; see further Ch. 2. 74 Lex Flauia 62, lex Tarentina 32–8.
Municipal Charters
219
oppidum are not replaced, the guilty party faces prosecution.75 There may be some structural overlap here between lex Tarentina and the lex Flauia, since the former seems largely concerned with Wnancial rules; this very topic also occupies the next ten chapters of lex Flauia. Further lex coloniae Genetiuae 75 has a more sophisticated version of the clause in the lex Tarentina.76 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 77 also reproduces almost exactly the regulation at lex Tarentina 39–42. The lex coloniae Genetiuae is more coherent, these two chapters forming part of a section on buildings and right of way (73–9). Its preceding section seems concerned with religious matters, and the following section with the handling of public monies and the keeping of accounts (80–93). Here again there is some correlation between lex coloniae Genetiuae and lex Flauia; in fact, at this point lex coloniae Genetiuae is more coherent than lex Flauia, where 61 and 62 seem out of place. The chapter which corresponds to lex Tarentina 39–42 and lex coloniae Genetiuae 77 comes in fact at lex Flauia 82, where there is a brief section on games and public works.77 The rules covering the destination of the Wne exacted for failing to rebuild a house at Tarentum not only seem to be earlier than those found in the Spanish charters, they also Wnd echoes in republican epigraphy elsewhere, which are worth considering brieXy.78 ILLRP 648 from Pompeii records how two II uiri iure dicundo held a locatio for building and restoration work at the palaestra, paying the contract, with the sanction of a decree of the decurions, from the money which ‘eos e lege in ludos aut in monumento consumere oportuit’. One may suppose, for instance, that the money had originally come from the private resources of the II uiri. Yet the mention of ‘lege’, which, as has been seen, must be the lex coloniae, or charter of Pompeii,79 suggests to me that we are dealing with money which has been raised in precisely the same way as that described in lex Tarentina 36–8. In this context it becomes more signiWcant that the money is spent on buildings, since the work done would go some way towards repairing the damage done to the fabric of the oppidum, thus beneWting the colony as a whole. The text thus documents a form of euergetism in which money which could have accrued to the magistrates, perhaps to be spent on the ephemeral pleasures of the populace, is spent on a project more directly in the public domain, one also connected with the idea of ludi.80 It does not matter that the Wne is not mentioned in the text; in fact 75 The prevention of urban decay was a major preoccupation of the Roman authorities. As well as this and analogous chapters in the charters, note lex Roscia 19 (on operis noui nuntiatio); Dio, 43. 2. 3 (28 bc): all debts to the aerarium waived except those concerning buildings; and the SC Hosidianum. 76 The procedure given in lex Flauia represents yet another advance—see Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 218. 77 Patrons, the subject of lex Flauia 61, are dealt with at lex coloniae Genetiuae 97 and 130. We cannot say if or where they were covered by the lex Tarentina. 78 On this problem, see the important discussion by Pobjoy, in Epigraphic Landscape; for other instances see also Vetter, Handbuch, no. 12 (Pompeii), ILLRP 719 (Capua), CIL i2 . 1496 (Tibur), i2 . 2442 (Lanuuium), ILLRP 508 (Furfo). 79 Ciprotti, Cron. Pomp. (1976), 26–8, noting that the verb ‘consumere’ appears there, in lex Tarentina 37–8 and lex coloniae Genetiuae 70, 71 (on games); it comes also in ILLRP 719—see preceding note. 80 For another, more altruistic, instance of the redirection of public funds for the beneWt of the community as a whole, compare the action of Muttius Celer at CorWnium (Q84).
220
Municipal Charters
we should be surprised if it were, since it rather takes the shine oV what is otherwise presented as a euergetistic act of self-denial by Uulius and Aninius. The inscription is dated to the ‘Sullan’ period by Degrassi, but it could be later, although it surely belongs in the Wrst half of the century.81 This Wts with the few indications for dating which we have in lex Tarentina; the charters of Pompeii and Tarentum could then well be roughly contemporary. If correct, my interpretation of the Pompeian inscription could shed new light on three inscriptions from Canusium, which record dedications to Mars, Vortumnus, and Vesta ‘de munere gladiatorio’.82 The phrase has been interpreted by Sabbatini as meaning ‘from the money raised through entry fees to ludi.83 Now, while munus gladiatorium usually means gladiatorial show, the meaning here claimed is harder to extract from the Latin. Furthermore, I would have expected that the games which were to be given by magistrates in republican municipia and colonies were important because the expense was met by the magistrates, not by the entrance fees.84 Indeed, the only comparative material Sabbatini cites for her interpretation comes from the Empire.85 I should like to advance another interpretation. Munus can be interpreted proleptically, as something owed, or something to be given at a future point.86 As an obligation or gift munus can be monetary; I suugest the possibility that this phrase should be interpreted as elliptical, meaning that the dedications came from the money which the IIII uiri were going to give for the games, or which they ‘owed’ to the games, precisely that which had come from the type of Wne described in lex Tarentina. The sixteen chapters of (VIII) and (X) of the lex Flauia deal with Wnancial matters. Control of public money and revenues, and accountability for the executive and those undertaking public contracts, were equally important for communities in our period, and especially after the Wnancial upheavals of the Sullan proscriptions there must have been a strong desire for Wscal regularization.87 The sources of public revenue might be complex and unusual, and thus 81 ILLRP ad loc. The letter forms suggest a date later than that of the Valgus inscriptions. Of the lexical forms only ‘pequnia’ orients us towards an early date, but it cannot prove one; on the other hand it does better suit the Wrst half of the century. Neither magistrate has a cognomen, which could point to the same conclusion. Finally the reference to the lex coloniae seems to put us in the same period of enthusiastic pro-colonial propaganda which marked the building of the amphitheatre by Valgus and Porcius—this could point to a ‘post-Sullan’ date, or could equally well place us simply within the Wrst generation of the colony’s life, i.e, anywhere between 80 and 60 bc; Mouritsen, Elections, 77, places the inscription in the early years of the colony. A date after 70 bc would better suit the presence of II uiri i.d. in the light of the Wndings of Ch. 6. 82 Q17–19. 83 RAL (1974), 285. 84 Lex coloniae Genetiuae 70 envisages that the magistrates must put up as much of their own money as they use from the public treasury. 85 Suet., Cal. 26. 4, Dio 59. 13 (circuses); the only municipal evidence is an African inscription which provides a nice parallel—but it belongs to the 2nd cent. ad. 86 On munus see D. 50. 16. 18. 87 Gonza´lez suggests that the fact that the claims of a Latin municipium on the property and services of a public slave are to be as they would be ‘si municipi Italiae libertus liberta essent’ points to a regulation on this matter passed for Italian municipia in the period after the Social War.
Municipal Charters
221
need specifying, perhaps as early in the charter as speciWcation of the territorium and ager publicus of the community. Cicero asserts to Brutus in 46 bc (Fam. 13. 11. 1) that, as far as Arpinum is concerned, ‘omnia commoda monisque facultates, quibus et sacra conWcere et sarta tecta aedium sacrarum locorumque communium tueri possit, consistunt in iis uectigalibus quae habent in prouincia Gallia’: Brutus is asked to aid the three commissioners sent to investigate these revenues and to smooth the ‘negotium municipi’.88 The concern that the accounts of those who have handled public money be approved is apparent in the lex Tarentina 21–5; indeed the Wscal orientation of the surviving section of that text as a whole has been noted.89 Fiscal administration, however, became an ever more important problem: the regulations in the lex Flauia for instance are far more complex than those in either the lex Tarentina or the lex coloniae Genetiuae.90 It may be that the right of Paestum and Velia to coin after the Social War, although dependent on the Senate, was also enshrined in their charters. Municipia are sometimes called immunia in the sources, and this might refer to a Wscal immunity.91 In exactly what this would have consisted during the Republic is unclear, and no doubt diVerent towns were immunia in diVerent ways; the question becomes more vexed after 60 bc when portoria were abolished. Such immunity might cover either a revenue which would otherwise have been due to Rome, or one on goods entering and leaving the town. We saw in the previous chapter that Brundisium still maintained in Appian’s time the ateleia which it had received from Sulla in 83.92 One explanation for the survival of this immunity may be that it was enshrined in the charter of Brundisium, and thus continued to form an integral part of the special identity of the city long after the practical eVects of Sulla’s grant may have ceased.93 If immunitas for municipia survived as a 88 We need not believe Cicero that Arpinum only drew communal revenues from this source. Three equites had been sent (‘misimus’) in 46 to collect the pecuniae due from the coloni, and to cognoscere and administrare the whole matter; we do not know whether they were elected or appointed by the senate—this investigation and debt collection looks like an ad hoc attempt after a time of upheaval to reassert their rights to this income, and thus would not be an eventuality covered by a lex. 89 The fatal encounter between Sulla and the Puteolan Granius over money which the latter owed may be related in some way to Sulla’s intervention in Puteoli’s constitution, described by Plutarch just previously (Sulla 37. 3); see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 59 and n. 91, and Ch. 2 above; and Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 35–6. 90 See lex Flauia 67 and Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 220. Is the important lex Flauia 79 lifted directly from an Augustan lex municipalis? 91 Thus Cicero extols the position of the Mamertini: ‘quae colonia est in Italia tam bono iure, quod tam immune municipium’ (Verr. 2. 5. 58). A ‘sliding scale’ of privilege within Italy is implied. Cf. Isidore, 9. 4. 21. There is, however, a slight danger of taking Cicero too literally: municipium and immunis are ‘cousins’, the Wrst formed from *muni, munia, the latter from the cognate munis (see Pinsent, CQ (1954), 160–1), and Cicero may also be using word play for rhetorical eVect—a municipium should be munis, the thought might run, not immunis (see Introduction, and Paulus, p. 127L, ‘unde e contrario immunis dicitur, qui nullo fungitur oYcio’ (‘whence, on the contrary, he is called immunis, who has to perform no oYcium’); happy then the Mamertini, better oV even than the paradoxical municipium free of munia! 92 BC 1. 79. 364. 93 See Uggeri, in La Puglia in eta` repubblicana, 51, with earlier bibliography, and cf. now Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 35–6, not limiting the ateleia to portoria. Sulla probably recognized the compliance
222
Municipal Charters
remnant of the terms of the foedus, it may be that it was regularly a component feature of the charter. We cannot say whether there was any material in republican charters analogous to the measures of (IX); the controversies of the late Republic and Caesarian period over the status of collegia and sodalicia are perhaps unlikely to have found an echo in charters.94 The part of the charter covering magisterial responsibilities may have charged the senior magistrates with keeping order,95 and aedilician magistrates with keeping the markets free of speculators. Section (XI) of the lex Flauia has one parallel with lex Tarentina (lex Flauia 82 discussed above). The chapters on games and festivals Wnd a more extensive parallel at lex coloniae Genetiuae 70–1, 125–7. The mention of ludi at lex Tarentina 36 suggests what we should expect in any case, that games were covered in the republican charters. This may in fact have been one area in which a new municipium was allowed to retain some continuity with its previous existence. Lex Flauia 81 allows that, as long as the decurions permit and no senatorial decree or imperial edict is breached, spectators may watch games from the same seats as they used ‘ante hac lege<m>’.96 One motive may have been to prevent disruptions of the established social hierarchy, as with the maintenance of the senate at its pre-existing size. In fact the celebration of games was probably one area where local tastes and traditions survived better than in others, and the charters may have allowed municipia some freedom as to their number, nature, and date, either by leaving these matters to the discretion of annual magistrates, or by enshrining local preferences at the outset. We know very little about municipal or colonial jurisdiction under the Republic. I believe that all municipia created after the Social War retained their own civil jurisdiction (see Ch. 10). What the extent of this jurisdiction was is unclear, but as at Irni it may have been deWned in the charter. How much procedural guidance of the sort found at lex Flauia 85–93 was included in the republican charters is unclear; some probably was. The Falerio fragment, which seems on the grounds of letter forms and spelling to be republican,97 contains references to ‘arbitrei’, ‘[t]ribus decurieis eis recuperator’, and ‘iudiciu[m]’. The text is not easy to read, let alone to restore with any conWdence, but it does seem to be dealing at least in part with the matters covered in lex Flauia 87–9. If it is part of a charter, which is not certain, then it should be from a republican charter. It also seems that the of the Brindisines in not opposing his landing—contrast the caution of Octavianus returning to Italy from Apollonia to claim his inheritance in 44 bc: unsure of his reception at Brundisium, and unwilling to suVer the blow of being shut out of such an important community, he landed near Lupiae, where he remained until Brundisium was known to be favourable (Appian, BC 3. 2, Nikolaos of Damaskos FGrH 90 F 130 Jacoby, pp. xvii–xviii). 94 Note however lex coloniae Genetiuae 106. 95 Cf. the implications of Cic., Clu 195. 96 See also Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 226. For the discretion of decuriones in this respect see lex coloniae Genetiuae 125–7, esp. 127 ‘et quos ex h. l. decurion(um) loco decurionem sedere oportet oportebit’; tabula Heracleensis 133, 137–8. 97 CIL i2 . 2677. An Augustan colonization (Degrassi, SVA i. 111) cannot be proven: see Keppie, Colonisation, 182–3.
Municipal Charters
223
fragments of the eighth tablet of lex coloniae Genetiuae had some overlap with the judicial regulations of lex Flauia, and some or all of the latter may go back to the Caesarian original. On the other hand it is most unlikely that there existed any codiWcation of the civil law, or any republican predecessor of the lex Rubria, which seems to have been a triumviral experiment, never repeated. It seems that the Roman Senate expected that absorption of the principles of criminal and civil law was one of the main functions of acculturation, and that guidance was only necessary for some of the more tricky aspects of procedure in iure or apud iudicem. After all, they had had centuries of experience of how quickly and in which areas their civil law was assimilated by incorporated peoples, even if this process was mediated by the person of the praefectus iure dicundo (who, as we have seen, might in some cases have been local). There may have been a reference to Roman practice in cases of doubt similar to that at lex Flauia 93, although such concern for moulding the municipia in the image of Rome at every turn may be only an imperial phenomenon. The charter certainly concluded with a regulation stipulating its publication like that at lex Flauia 95, and a sanctio (cf. lex Flauia 96).98 These two chapters underlined the importance of the law as a public document, and as an accessible source of authority within the community. Its display was a matter of great importance,99 and a breach was accompanied by a huge Wne on top of those stipulated under individual chapters. Republican municipal charters almost certainly diVered signiWcantly from the Spanish ones, and again from lex coloniae Genetiuae. Nevertheless the Spanish texts do enable us to establish in broad terms the content and the structure of a republican charter. Analysis of that content allows us to draw some conclusions about the function and importance of the charter. First it provided a set of rules for public life, for ordinary citizens as well as magistrates and decuriones. It deWned their position in relation to the municipium, and laid down a wide variety of rules, some of them quite detailed, on how the town was to function as a Roman community. The charter is the source of authority, even for the senate and magistrates themselves (the imperium and potestas of magistrates may rather have Xowed from the initial municipalizing law). In this respect the level of self-reference in the charters, expressed in phrases like ‘ex h. l.’, ‘per hanc legem’, and more comprehensively ‘id quod aduersus h. l. non Wat, utique hac lege licebit’ (lex Flauia 85), is quite striking.100 These rules derive their validity from the legislative activity of the Roman people, and thus they serve to link in a symbolic way the political life and activity of the municipium with that of Rome, and to place the municipium as a corporate entity in a clear juridical relationship with the populus Romanus. While enfranchisement 98 On the sanctio of the lex Flauia, see Bispham, Epigraphica (1997), 129–31, 140, 147. 99 ‘uti haec lex primo quoque tempore in aes incidatur et in loco celeberrimo eius municipii Wgatur ita ut d(e) p(lano) r(ecte) [l(egi) p(ossit)]’. 100 Lex Tarentina contains only three such references (ll. 7, 8, 30), which may be a sign of early date.
224
Municipal Charters
makes the individual Tarentine a Roman citizen, and while personal taste and cultural preferences will determine the level at which his social behaviour can be termed Roman,101 it is the charter which provides a focus for him as a member of a Roman community, and integrates him symbolically as well as practically (e.g. by voting in curiae) as a participant in the Roman political world. On the other hand, the strength of local tradition, and the desire to maintain some elements of a community’s pre-Roman identity (not of course a geographical constant) was potentially in tension with the desire to become and to be Roman. We have seen a number of instances in which charters may have made concessions to such local sentiment and enshrined elements of local public life in the charter. We cannot know what elements went into the various individual charters, but there was certainly variation from city to city, reXecting culture, custom, and the nature of the prior relationship to Rome. The tabula Heracleensis refers to exemptions from military service which allow those under 30 to serve as magistrates: ‘aut ei uacato militaris legibus pl(ebei)ue sc(itis) exue foedere erit’.102 The foedus is that which had existed between Rome and the community before enfranchisement, and the reference must be to privileges which the community had obtained or maintained through the foedus, and which were guaranteed after enfranchisement.103 The uacatio militiae granted to the son of Betilienus Vaarus of Aletrium may be an instance of just this process: I think it is possible that the inscription recording it could date to the years immediately after the Social War as much as to the decade before it.104 Some foedera had been more equal than 101 Tarentum is important in this respect, as it had largely preserved its Greek culture down to Strabo’s time (or perhaps rather that of his source): 6. 1. 2 C253, cf. 6. 3. 1 C278, Cic., Arch. 5, Verr. 2. 4. 135, Fin. 1. 7. 102 Line 93 (for the phrase cf. fragmentum Atestinum 11). Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 163–4; Scuderi, Athenaeum (1989), 121 and n. 30 (she however sees it as applying particularly to Heraclea), and Costabile, Istituzioni, 117, who must be wrong to make this part of the tabula Heracleensis a Caesarian innovation. 103 Galsterer’s view (Herrschaft, 68) that these foedera are enfranchisement treaties seems wrong. 104 The palaeography of the text is no obstacle to such a dating, nor is the doubling of the ‘A’ in the nomen; in the main objections have been precisely to the uacatio militiae (following Mommsen, ad CIL i2 . 1530). Yet as Dr Edmund Thomas points out to me, this may well have rarer after the Social War, and thus a privilege more worth recording. It is the kind of privilege which we might expect Aletrium to maintain: it had been considered virtually a Latin city since the 4th cent. (Galsterer, Herrschaft, 87–8), and had been loyal in the Social War. We may also note: (i) that not all of the lexical peculiarities demand a 2nd-cent. dating; (ii) the building work, which precedes the honours mentioned in the text, must have taken some years to complete. In particular the aqueduct should not be placed before the last quarter of the 2nd cent., since the height it climbs is at 340 feet greater than that of both the Marcia (144 bc) and the Tepula (125 bc); and Wnally (iii) Badian suggested that the later insertion of ‘bis’ reXects changing practice over the recording of iteration of oYce in inscriptions; he dated our inscription ‘at a time that cannot be far removed from c. 100 B.C.’ (JRS (1968), 245). By retaining the Social War as a terminus ante quem, he is forced to have a municipal inscription from before 90 bc reXecting a change in attitudes which he himself sees as beginning under Sulla (ibid.). Hu¨lsen, RE i., s.v. ‘Aletrium’ dates the inscription to the ‘Sullan’ period, without argument; Carter, in Roman Public Buildings, 36, adopts a late 2nd-cent. date. On uacatio see also Harris, War and Imperialism, 37; and note the uacatio of Aebutius, as a reward for information on the Bacchanals in 186 bc.
Municipal Charters
225
others, and in some communities the number of privileges to be carried over in some form may have been correspondingly higher than in others.105 Again the tabula Heracleensis implies that colonial and municipal tenure of oYce ran from January for a year, with elections being held in July.106 This seems however directly to contradict the evidence of the Venusine Fasti, which show that there the term of oYce ran from July.107 Crawford has suggested that this aberration may derive from a special provision contained in the charter, though we cannot say whether such a provision held good for all triumviral colonies, only for triumviral colonies, or just for Venusia.108 Charters then were not only repositories of Roman public behaviour, but also to varying degrees of local tradition and ancestral practice.109 Thus they subsumed important elements of the pre-existing communal identity within the wider framework of Roman Staatsrecht, highly prescriptive, but also Xexible at this period.110 The charter was important as a successor to the foedus, and it would thus not be surprising if it took over some of its elements. Each selfrespecting community had its own charter, just as it had had an exclusive foedus with Rome. The charter not only deWned the town’s place within the Roman res publica, but also, being peculiar to it, and customized from the matrix to show that peculiarity, established a satisfactory communal identity within that res publica, one which could act as a focus for aVective bonds between municipes and municipium—a second, local, res publica. It satisWed the conXicting demands of Roman and local identity, and thus was a vital element in the creation of a municipal system.
3 . B E T W E E N ROM E A N D H O M E : G R A N T I N G T H E C H A RT E R
3.1. The Lex Tarentina What was the mechanism for granting charters? Who gave them, and what were the concerns they tried to address? Before we can answer these questions, we must take a closer look at some of the problems posed by our republican example. 105 The foedus of Heraclea was very favourable (Cic., Arch. 6); doubts about the continuation of their special relationship with Rome may have prompted the ‘magna contentio’ at Heraclea and Neapolis which followed the promulgation of the lex Iulia (Cic., Balb. 21). 106 Lines 89, 98. 107 CIL ix. 422. 108 Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 38, 46. Other cases (all imperial): Neapolis: IG xiv. 760, AE (1891), 193 with Sartori, Problemi, 50; Nola; Pompeii (Degrassi, SVA iv. 81). In Interamna Lirenas the magisterial year seems to have begun in April (ibid.). 109 In the political sphere this was particularly important for Neapolis and Rhegium, where a substantial element of the patrios politeia was preserved. These cities may have been excluded from some of the provisions of the general law of the 80s. See further Ch. 8. See also Manni, Per la storia, 88; Costabile, Instituzioni, 23, 150. 110 See Ch. 3.
226
Municipal Charters
The magistracies of Tarentum, as named in the lex Tarentina, present a notorious problem. The text has the following combinations of magistrates: (1) ‘IIII uir(ei) aedilesque, quei h.l. primei erunt’ (7) (2) ‘IIII uir’ (9, 12) (3) elections for ‘duouireis a[ed]ilibusue’ (14) and regulations concerning leaving Tarentum after being ‘duouirum a[ediliumue]’ (44—Col. II, 1);111 (4) ‘IIII uir II uir aedilisue’ (39). IIII uiri and II uiri as senior magistrates are fundamentally incompatible. Moreover it is clear that the quattuoruiri are visualized as distinct from the aediles. I am not convinced by Degrassi’s contention that under the Republic IIII uiri could be either a combined college of II uiri and aediles in colonies which had been preceded by a municipium, or that they were equivalent in some colonies and in duoviral municipia to aediles.112 His observations hold true for the Empire, but for the Republic the evidence he produces for the Wrst category should be diVerently interpreted; for the second there is none.113 Various solutions have been proposed. One model is that of ‘fusion’ of Tarentum with the Gracchan colonia Neptunia after the Social War or in the Caesarian period.114 The Gracchan colony does not appear to have survived very long; indeed the words of Pliny, ‘oppido Laconum—in recessu hoc intimo situm, contributa eo maritima colonia, quae ibi fuerat’, may be read as showing that the absorption of Neptunia was already ancient history to Pliny’s source, who at this point is usually thought to have been Varro.115 The colony probably survived just long enough to be ‘contributed’ to Tarentum when the latter was enfranchised,116 but that process has left no mark in the lex Tarentina, which shows no sign of being anything other than a law exclusively aimed at the Roman municipium.117 It has also been maintained that the II uiri are not colonial, but the rightful magistrates of Tarentum, which, in common with other South Italian communities enfranchised after the Social War, would have had II uiri from the start.118 111 Mommsen’s restoration, unclear to me: why not ‘a[edilemue]’? 112 SVA i. 99–177, esp. 102, 170. 113 For a detailed discussion see Ch. 6. 114 Plin., NH 3. 99. For the various scenarios see Mommsen, GS v. 254–6; Sartori, Problemi, 90–1, Kahrstedt, Historia (1959), 206; LaY, Adtributio, 114; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160, 359 (fusion attested in the lex Tarentina); Salmon, Making, 181 (a duoviral municipium), and in more detail, Rudolph, who believing that ‘leges datae’ were only associated with city foundation or territorial organization, wanted to see the situation at Tarentum as resulting from a Caesarian fusion of municipium, colony, and the Cilician pirates settled by Pompeius, probably under the lex Iulia agraria, the end result being in eVect the creation of a new community (Stadt, 123–8, cf. 184, 203). 115 See Mommsen, GS v. 241–2 on this. 116 Cf. (for the chronology alone) Sartori, Problemi, 95. 117 See now on the constitutional history of Neptunia and Tarentum: Poulter, ‘Transforming Tarentine Horizons’ (Oxford, D. Phil. thesis). 118 Degrassi, SVA i. 140, 151–2, followed by Sartori, Problemi, 92–3, 95, 159 (although, like Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160, 359, he sees the II uiri as derived from the colony), Gasperini, in V Cong. Epigr., 136–7, and Terza Miscellanea greca e romana, 151–2.
Municipal Charters
227
Certainly Tarentum was a duoviral municipium at the end of the Republic, but nothing proves that it was on its Wrst municipalization. Of the supposed parallels, we have no Wrm evidence about Surrentum under the Republic, and Degrassi himself later moved the origin of the duoviral municipium of Herculaneum down to the Augustan period.119 Above all, a careful reading of the lex Tarentina itself suggests that the II uiri do not belong there. IIII uiri have four mentions, II uiri three,120 and only IIII uiri are mentioned alone. Lines 7–12 are the part of the text most explicitly and importantly adjusted to refer to Tarentum: three of the nine mentions of the town come in these Wve lines, and alone of all the chapters it envisages an event which is certain, not potential, at Tarentum, and to happen soon after the granting of the law itself— the arrival of the new IIII uiri at Tarentum (‘quei eorum Tarentum uenerit’). In this section only IIII uiri and aediles are mentioned, and the pairing of the two oYces in l. 7 is the only case where magistrates are linked in series by ‘-que’ instead of ‘-ue’.121 In l. 39 IIII uir precedes II uir, something which does not occur elsewhere in the corpus of republican municipal laws. Of the references to II uiri, only that in l. 44 seems closely linked to a mention of the municipium Tarentinum (that in l. 14, at the start of a new topic, comes Wve lines before the next mention of Tarentum; the section beginning at l. 39 has no mention of Tarentum). It thus seems that the only magistrates speciWcally and consciously associated with the future public life of Tarentum are IIII uiri and aediles.122 There is also a plausible reason for the presence of the alien II uiri, namely the vagaries of the matrix-law. This was convincingly argued by Frederiksen, but the possibility that careless engraving and/or a general law might be at the root of this confusion had long been mooted.123 Frederiksen maintained that the provisions mentioning II uiri had been taken from a general statute intended to cover coloniae only. The copying from matrix to charter was done in the same haphazard way as the emendation of provisions to localize them at Tarentum. In fact it seems that l. 39, where we get ‘IIII uir II uir aedilisue’ comes from a clause covering both municipia and coloniae.124 The implications are interesting. Was there one matrix-law, originally composed for colonies, and then supplemented to cover quattuorviral municipia as well? Or two matrix-laws, one colonial, the other municipal, plundered at will by whoever drafted the lex Tarentina? The Wrst seems perhaps more likely, but in either case it is possible to see how the matrix-law itself was composed of 119 On all this see Ch. 9. 120 I do not think it is very signiWcant that the forms II uir and duouireis are both found. This probably signiWes only regulations drawn from diVerent strata of the matrix-law(s). 121 Of course in col. II l. 1 ‘-ue’ is restored. This interpretation puts paid to Mommsen’s compromise solution, that the IIII uiri were a joint college of two judicational magistrates and two aediles (GS i. 155, cf. Manni, Per la storia, 189; RIL 1950, 395; Gabba, Esercito, 609). 122 Sartori, Problemi, 92, accepts aediles as certain at Tarentum. 123 JRS (1965), 191, following the lead of De Petra, Mon. Ant. 6 (1895), col. 418, 430, cf. Mommsen, GS i. 155; Degrassi, SVA i. 159; Sartori, Problemi, 93; see also RS i. 320–1. Contra Costabile, Istituzioni, 149. 124 See also RS i. 302.
228
Municipal Charters
chronologically discrete strata, and to imagine that there was a considerable degree of Xuidity both in its evolution, and in its application to particular communities. It also seems that, even if the charters of municipia and coloniae looked quite diVerent at this period, they still contained a number of common elements. Another interesting consequence Xows from the decision to regard the quattuoruiri as the proper magistrates of Tarentum, and that is the interpretation of ll. 7–14. The text runs: IIII uir(ei) aedilesque, quei h(ac) l(ege) primei erunt, quei eorum Tarentum uenerit, is in diebus XX proxumeis, quibus post h(anc) l(egem) datam primum Tarentum uenerit, facito quei pro se praes stat praedes praediaque ad IIII uir(um) det quod satis 10 sit, quae pequnia publica sacra religiosa eius municipi ad se in suo magistratu peruenerit, eam pequniam municipio Tarentino saluam recte esse futurm eiusque rei rationem redditurum ita, utei senatus censuerit. isque IIII uir, quoi ita praes dabitur, accipito idque in tabuleis publiceis scriptum sit facito.
IIII uiri and aediles, ‘those who will be the Wrst under the terms of this law’ are envisaged as coming to Tarentum after the passage of the law. How many is unclear, since the verbs change from plural to singular in l. 7.125 As it stands, the text implies that only some magistrates will come from outside; these, on arrival, must give a surety ‘ad IIII uir(um)’. This is a curious procedure: there is no provision for any members of that Wrst college who are in Tarentum when the law is passed to give sureties, although they cannot have been exempt.126 Conceivably the text of the matrix law here originally read ‘IIII uir(ei) . . . , quei h. l. primei erunt, cum quisque eorum Tarentum uenerit, . . .’, i.e. all the IIII uiri who Wrst held oYce under the terms of the lex Tarentina were to come from outside the municipium; but such emendation is probably cavalier. We cannot say how many of the Wrst magistrates to serve under the lex Tarentina came from outside the municipium, but the important fact is that some did. Who were they, and what is to be understood by ‘come from outside’? Mommsen thought that they were Roman aristocrats, and that their arrival was connected with the granting of the lex.127 The second point is surely correct, but the Wrst may be ruled out by l. 8, ‘post h. l. datam primum uenerit’, which implies that they had been in Tarentum before the granting of the lex, the most natural explanation being that they lived there. Thus we have some Tarentines who are outside Tarentum at the time of granting the lex. Why are any of the Tarentines 125 This could result from a condensation of the formula ‘of them, let each of them see to it that’. 126 All magistrates are to give sureties under the rules for normal elections in ll. 14–20. 127 GS i. 151, cf. LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 40; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 59; Costabile, Istituzione, 146, 149; and Sartori, Problemi, 94–5, 159, adopting however the unlikely explanation that the IIII uiri were in oYce for only one year to implement the new constitution, to be replaced by regular II uiri; as Gabba pointed out (Esercito, 609), ‘primei’ disproves this theory; Sartori subsequently abandoned it (ASMG 15; 120), although it has been revived by Costabile, Istituzioni, 146–50.
Municipal Charters
229
outside the municipium when the lex is granted? Mommsen’s explanation, namely that they were involved in the bringing of the lex itself to Tarentum and its implementation there, seems correct. Furthermore they are appointed ‘h(ac) l(ege)’, which may mean that, rather than being elected, they were specially appointed under the terms of the law, perhaps nominated by the man who proposed the law in the assembly. This might in turn have entailed being present at the passing and copying of the law, and almost certainly involved bringing it to Tarentum. We have seen that at Irni the lex Flauia became valid from the point at which it arrived in the municipium. If it is correct that the magistrates who came from outside, that is, from Rome, brought the lex with them, then we can begin to make more sense of these lines in their totality. Once the magistrates arrive, each must make sure that satisfactory sureties are made available to a IIII uir within twenty days after their arrival (the lex is now valid). These sureties are to guarantee that all public money, sacred and profane, which passes through his hands in his magistracy will be returned to the municipium in such a way as suits the senate. The natural implication of these clauses, with their future tenses, is that the magistracy of those Wrst magistrates to operate under the lex has not yet started. As the Wrst magistrates to operate ‘h. l.’ they should be considered distinct from those in oYce when the law arrives. Those magistrates are the ones referred to by ‘IIII uir’ at ll. 9 and 12.128 They must see to it that a record of the sureties of the magistrates to take oYce next (‘quei h. l. primei erunt’) are deposited in the (presumably already existing) tabulae publicae.129 The implementation of all, or the majority, of the provisions of the law will be left to the new college of magistrates, whose term may begin quite soon.130 These magistrates (I will summarize my views for the sake of clarity) are (i) probably nominated by the proposer of the law; (ii) probably all Tarentines, although it is possible that the proposer of the lex, if not a Tarentine, had himself or other Romans with connections with the community appointed, even as aediles;131 (iii) probably those who were charged with going to Rome, seeing to the drafting of the lex, its passage in the comitia, and bringing it to Tarentum (the size of this party is unknown, but could include all magistrates nominated under the law); (iv) not in oYce when they arrive in Tarentum with the lex, but waiting for the expiry of the term of oYce of their predecessors before taking up oYce and commencing the implementation of the lex Tarentina. We must also note the 128 There were magistrates in oYce at Irni when the lex Flauia arrived, who had (in theory) at least ninety days of their term left to run. 129 It seems unlikely that the IIII uiri referred to in these lines are the members of the new college who have not come from Rome. It seems unlikely that members of a college would be allowed to take sureties from each other. 130 The magistrates in oYce when the lex Flauia arrives are to see to the creation of curiae. Note that at Halaesa in 95 bc new laws were drafted and implemented by one man, Claudius Pulcher (Cic., Verr. 2. 2. 122). Costabile suggests that the use of four men at Tarentum is explained by the need to treat Roman communities in a less autocratic fashion (Istituzioni, 154); these four men, though, were the normal magistrates of Tarentum. 131 For this cf. the aedileship of M. Valerius Messala at Venusia (see App. 2).
230
Municipal Charters
important fact that Tarentum was a municipium with IIII uiri and some municipal institutions prior to the granting of the charter; these institutions probably all derive from the general municipal law of the 80s rather than a previous charter. Dangerous as it is to generalize on the basis of one community, it may be that this was true of all municipia created from ex-allied communities in the 80s. We may conclude with a brief discussion of the date of the lex Tarentina. Cicero’s Pro Archia poeta had been generally held to imply a terminus ante quem, since it mentions Tarentum as a municipium.132 Yet we have seen that the ex-allied communities enfranchised in 90–87 were called municipia either from the moment of enfranchisement itself or after the passing of the municipal law of the Cinnan period. No necessary connection exists between the granting of a charter and the application of the term municipium to a town. We are forced to fall back on internal criteria. The lex Tarentina contains a number of pre-classical spellings: ‘pequniae’ (l. 1, cf. 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22, 23, 35, 43), ‘religiossae’, ‘auortito’ (2), ‘faxit’ (4, 34), ‘quei quomque’ (6), ‘proxumeis’ (8, 24, cf. 44), ‘quoi’ (22), ‘deixerit’ (27), ‘mancupioue’, ‘hoic’ (30), ‘suom’ (37), ‘clouacas’, ‘caussa’ (39). In addition there is regular use of ‘ei’ for ‘i’, but this is also found for instance in the tabula Heracleensis and the lex Roscia. The fragmentum Atestinum, which I believe dates to 49 bc, had pequnia, but the tabula Heracleensis, which has pecunia, is not much later. The incidence of pre-classical spellings is roughly the same as that found within the Wrst forty-Wve lines of the tabula Heracleensis, but the lex Tarentina has forms which are not found in the tabula Heracleensis. If we also consider that lex Tarentina clearly belongs to an earlier generation of charters than the Caesarian lex coloniae Genetiuae, we are certainly justiWed in placing the lex Tarentina in the Wrst half of the century; this is also the date to which I would want to assign ILLRP 648 from Pompeii and Q17–19 from Canusium (see Ch. 6). It may also be that lex Tarentina antedates both the lex Mamilia and thus the related lex Iulia agraria, since the former has a very close overlap with a chapter of the lex coloniae Genetiuae (see s. 3.3 below). If so, the lex Tarentina should date to the period c.80–c.60 bc. The quattuorvirate appears to be a unitary college, but this may only be to do with the special circumstances of the granting of the lex.133 We have gained important insights into the situation obtaining at the time of the granting of a lex in a municipium, probably a municipium fundanum, and also into the circumstances under which it was granted. Personal contacts with those in positions of authority, whether municipes or not, seem to have initiated the legislation which granted the charter and appointed magistrates to implement it. Let us examine the remaining evidence to see whether this interpretation Wnds conWrmation or ampliWcation. 132 So for instance Mommsen, GS i. 151; Sartori, Problemi, 91; Degrassi, SVA iv. 76; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 276, proposed the broad bracket c.88–49 bc. 133 Since aediles are present too, the quattuorvirate may have been envisaged as an undivided senior magistracy, and thus the lex Tarentina would be earlier than c.70 bc. See Ch. 8, conclusions.
Municipal Charters
231
3.2. Tabula Heracleensis, lines 159–63 The last section of the tabula Heracleensis runs as follows: quei lege pl. sc. permissus est fuit, utei leges in municipio fundano municipibusue eius municipi daret, sei quid is post h. l. r(ogatam) in eo anno proxumo, quo h. l. populus iuserit, ad eas leges , municipis fundanos item teneto, utei oporteret, sei eae res ab eo tum, quom primum leges eis municipibus lege pl.ue sc. dedit, ad eas leges additae commutatae conrectae essent; neue quis intercedito neue quid facito, quo minus ea rata sint, quoue minus municipis fundanos teneat eisque optemperetur.
Here anyone who has previously been allowed to frame laws for a community is allowed to amend them within a year of the passage of this law; such amendments shall be binding just as if they had been made to the original constitution when it was Wrst framed. Were the provisions to be added to the local constitutions those preserved in the preceding sections of the tabula Heracleensis?134 I believe that tabula Heracleensis is a digest of various Roman and municipal laws, the contents of which were thought to be appropriate to or suitable for Heraclea.135 For some reason Heracleawas not able to get its lex (if it had one) amended to incorporate these rules (although someone connected with the city evidently had access to the provisions of a number of diVerent laws!), so it had the tabula Heracleensis put up in its place. I consider that ll. 159–63 are intended to take the place of the sanctio which must have concluded a real lex rogata, and that it is unlikely, and certainly cannot be proven, that the measures to which this sanctio originally referred were those in the tabula Heracleensis.136 What was the relationship between Roman statute law and municipal ‘law’? When a lex rogata was passed, it would surely be binding on the Italian municipia in any event, not least in that the municipes were ciues Romani, regardless of whether its contents found their way into the local ‘charters’ or not.137 Thus the changes referred to in these lines of the tabula Heracleensis were not compulsory for all those individuals who had given leges to Italian communities in the past, but appear to be applicable at their discretion. Such voluntary alterations seem to be at issue here. Men who had drafted municipal leges—Hardy termed them ‘commissioners’, the Latin may have been conditor or constitutor138—were being given the chance to amend those charters, 134 If so, we would have to add ‘ex h.l.’ where ‘addiderit commutauerit conrexerit’ have already been added at 160, an emendation of Mazzochi (see Hardy, Some Problems, 266 n. 1). 135 So De Sanctis, Scritti Minori, iii. 415–27, cf. RS i. 358; Bispham, Epigraphica (1997), 126–7. 136 For these lines as a pseudo-sanctio see Bispham, Epigraphica (1997). 137 See Bleicken, Lex Publica, 193–4, and more cautiously, Galsterer, Herrschaft, 19; many leges of course will not have materially aVected the municipia at all, and the question of whether they were bound to observe them becomes academic; see also conclusion to Ch. 2 above. 138 Some Problems, 266–7, 311–23; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 276; but see now Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 33.
232
Municipal Charters
in view of legislation recently passed. Thus the charters would reXect new legislation, consciously identify the public face of the community with Rome, and display the desire to keep abreast of juridical, political, and social changes in the capital. The incorporation of the new statutes in the charters would not make them more or less valid and binding—it would be a public statement which had symbolic value, underlining the nature of the municipal lex as outlined above.139 The relations between community and commissioner as they emerge from these lines are worth comment. Obviously the regulations in question are those which will be relevant and useful to the municipia (they may even have been in some cases not substantive new regulations, but an oVer of new titulature (see Ch. 8) or new procedure which the municipia need not adopt); nonetheless that their addition to the lex is dependent almost on the whim of one man seems to Xy in the face of the strong local importance of the charter which I suggested above, and tends to remove the charter from the domain of local politics and ideology. The diVerence may however be illusory. Here we have an insight into the Roman view of the process: the main concern of the Senate and/or the rogator of this statute was that substantive changes be made in Roman juridical practice as it aVected the municipia. A secondary aim was to allow these changes to Wnd their way into local charters, and for this it was only important for them to empower the man who formed the link between themselves and the communities to do so; it mattered not to them whether he did so, and if he did so whether he did so on his own judgement or at the behest of the community. The empowering of this ‘commissioner’ himself is important: he received his original power ‘lege pl(ebeiue) sc(ito)’, and any corrections are to be made and observed as if they had been part of the original charter. Thus we can see that the process leges dare depended on the existence of one man who mediated between Rome and the municipium,140 whose mediation moreover had to be sanctioned by the Roman people; whatever levels of mediation existed complementary or subordinate to this may have been determined not by Roman law but by local practice (e.g. commissioners and local magistrates bringing the charter from Rome, commissioners serving as magistrates).141 The ‘commissioner’ is not explicitly empowered to make sure the rules are observed, and the prevention of implementation guarded against in the statute need not have a purely local reference. Yet Italy was a big place, and Rome had neither the energy nor the means to enforce observance of the law; some municipes, of all social levels, may have felt that they could ignore unwelcome new regulations, even if they made a show of wanting them in the
139 Thus individuals in those communities which did not have a lex would still have been bound by new laws. 140 For one commissioner see Cic., Verr. 2. 2. 122 (Claudius Pulcher at Halaesa). 141 In colonies presumably the deductores were responsible for any change in local statutes. The speciWcation of one year as a time limit in the tabula Heracleensis may be due to the complexity of the changes and the fact that the commissioner, as an important man, might be busy elsewhere; and obviously Rome did not want the process dragging on. For ‘commissioners’ as having a margin of discretion, see Gabba, Italia romana, 135.
Municipal Charters
233
charter, and Rome may have relied implicitly on the ‘commissioners’ to prevent this kind of thing. Finally we may note the words of l. 159 ‘permessus est fuit’, which Rudolph correctly interpreted as showing that the process of granting charters was spread over a period of time, some individuals being empowered later than others.142 This has important implications for the evolution of municipal structures in Italy, implying a gradual and piecemeal approach, a feature of municipalization which we have already noted elsewhere.
3.3. The Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia Rudolph interpreted the ‘municipio fundano’ and the ‘municipis fundanos’ of the last section of the tabula Heracleensis as referring to municipia created ‘ex nouo’ or from small non-autonomous settlements, on Roman ager publicus transformed by the lex Iulia agraria into private land, that is, municipia created artiWcially out of an agglomeration of fundi.143 This seems most unlikely,144 as does Rudolph’s idea that the municipia fundana alone needed the intervention of commissioners, because they were as yet only potential political units, lacking the institutions of the older municipia which could implement all the Caesarian reforms for themselves.145 Typically Rudolph ascribes too much importance to Caesar, and has too monolithic a conception of the municipal history of Italy in the late Republic. Yet the section on the lex Mamilia is the best in his book,146 and contains important insights into the nature and aims of the law. Rudolph established, decisively to my mind, that lex Mamilia was not an agrarian law. It was a law which authorized the setting up of a range of diVerent types of community, and which seems to involve the delimitation and division of territory. This territorial assignation is dependent on the setting up of communities, which is done ‘hac lege’.147 The fact that we know of the law only from the agrimensores means only that it had material in it which interested them (and of course, given the problems associated with the text of that source, that we should be very cautious).148 In particular Rudolph disposes of two rival theories, Wrst that the law is to be identiWed with a lex Mamilia mentioned elsewhere in the 142 Stadt, 185–6. His application of this interpretation to the lex Mamilia alone, however, is not convincing—see next section. 143 Ibid. 159, 160, 163, 180–1 (a ‘bodenrechtliche Kategorie’ (180) of town). 144 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 167–8, criticizes Rudolph’s interpretation, but his view, followed by Stuart Jones, JRS (1936), 271, that we have here a reference to Fundi, is nonsense in the context of an inscription from Heraclea, even an anomaly like the tabula Heracleensis. Municipia fundana are probably municipia created when an allied community became fundus of an enfranchising law: see Ch. 4. See also RS i. 390–1. 145 Stadt, 183–4. 146 Ibid. 186–207. 147 I do not understand the hair-splitting arguments of Hinrichs (Historia (1969), 527–9) on the meaning of ‘hac lege’ here. 148 Gromm. Vet. 1. 263L with Rudolph, Stadt, 186–8, 191.
234
Municipal Charters
agrimensores and by Cicero, and thus to be associated with C. Mamilius Limentanus, tr. pl. 109;149 and secondly the old theory of RudorV that the lex Mamilia was in fact a fragment of the lex Iulia agraria.150 Crawford has drawn attention to the form in which the text has come down to us, noted that in the circumstances we cannot insist that the superscriptio belongs to the text of the law, and restated the argument for identity with the lex Iulia agraria, basing himself mainly on the similarity between a passage of Callistratus and lex Mamilia 5.151 While Crawford’s points about the text and its transmission are perceptive,152 the rest of his argument is not so compelling. His introduction into the text of a superscriptio ‘lex Iulia agraria’ is ultimately as arbitrary and speculative as the positions he attacks;153 more importantly, the citation from Callistratus, although similar in content, presents signiWcant diVerences of detail from the lex Mamilia. In the lex Mamilia half the penalty for moving termini is to go ‘in publicum’, the other half to the person mainly responsible for the successful prosecution; in Callistratus’ law everything goes into public funds; and while Callistratus envisages an actio popularis, the responsibility for bringing suit in the lex Mamilia belongs to the ‘curator’ (of whom more anon), or failing that to the magistrate in charge of jurisdiction. Crawford explains these diVerences away by invoking compression on Callistratus’ part,154 but I am not convinced: the procedure laid down in the lex Mamilia is the most important part of that chapter, occupying almost two-thirds of its text, and it seems that we must place a lot of faith in Callistratus’ ineptitude if we are to identify the two texts as one and the same. Rudolph’s interpretation must stand, as must his date of 55 bc, Wrst proposed by Willems.155 I cannot here discuss the aims and eVects of the lex 149 Fabricius, SHAW 15 (1924–5), contra Hardy, CQ (1925), 185–91, Rudolph, Stadt, 193–5. Already Cichorius, Studien, 124, had distinguished the lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia from the lex Mamilia. More recently in a similar vein: Crawford, Athenaeum (1989), 183. 150 See Mommsen, GS v. 200–1. Contra Rudolph, Stadt, 188–92. 151 Athenaeum (1989), 184–8; D. 47. 21. 3. pr.: ‘lege agraria, quam Gaius Caesar tulit’; and now RS ii, no. 54. 152 Athenaeum (1989), 186, where he points out that the order of the chapters in the gromatici is the reverse of the logical order; thus the order and numbering of the chapters as we have them are the result of selection, perhaps by Hyginus, and so bear no relation to their placement in the law, which in any case will not be as early as ch. 3 (for the reading ‘K(aput) l(egis)’, ibid. 182). 153 We may note that, since the text appears to have been preserved without contamination since the 1st cent bc (apart from the reversal of the order of the chapters), the same may be true of the unusual superscriptio, a superscriptio diYcilior as it might be. Crawford is quite happy to lose the lex Mamilia totally, but it must have been of interest to the gromatici, probably to Hyginus himself, and if it appears in the text at this point, there must be at least a Wghting chance that it concerned limitation. 154 Athenaeum (1989), 185. 155 Willems, Le Se´nat, i. 497–8; Cichorius, Studien, 124; Cary, JRS (1929), 113–19; Rudolph, Stadt, 196–8; followed by Taylor, in Studies in Honor of A. C. Johnson, 71–3; Broughton, MRR ii. 217; LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 45; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 162. Rudolph recognized that the lack of Mamilii in this period represented a problem, but not an insurmountable one—for instance the grandson of Limentanus could be in question, which might explain how a nonentity came to top the superscriptio (Stadt, 198). The attempt by Hinrichs (Historia (1969), 523–36) to move the law to 49 as a precursor for Caesar’s land distributions to his veterans is convincing in terms neither of the general historical
Municipal Charters
235
Mamilia,156 but suYce it to say that in broad outlines Rudolph must be correct to see a close connection between the lex Iulia agraria of 59 on the one hand, which brought to an end the existence of almost all, if not all,157 ager publicus in Italy, and the lex Mamilia on the other, which is concerned with founding colonies and a range of other communities, three types of which had previously been small centres on Roman public land.158 It is probably an exaggeration born of hindsight to see both laws as part of a long-term plan to alter the relationship between Rome and Italy by liberating Rome’s public land from her and then creating autonomous municipalities on it, but it does seem that in some cases the logical consequences of the agrarian law of 59 led to the creation in and after 55 of selfgoverning communities in areas where they had not previously existed, perhaps principally in Campania.159 As regards the process at work, the law envisages two analogous activities under its terms, colonias deducere and municipia praefecturas fora conciliabula constituere.160 Both deducere and constituere are to be interpreted as acts of foundation, because although only deductio normally involves the bringing out of settlers, constituere is to create fully self-governing communities, where before there had only been nucleated settlements, mostly small, and politically dependent on Rome.161 This act of creation involves the delimitation of the territory assigned to the new community by law (‘in eo agro . . . , qui ager hac lege datus adsignatus erit’, 4), that is the establishment of ‘limites, decumanique’ (5), and ‘termini’ (5, 3).162 The organization of the territory is thus seen as closely bound up with the act of foundation, and here we may recall the suggestion made above that a deWnition of the territorium of the community was probably one of the Wrst items to be found in a municipal charter. The new community is given its own magistrates, who are to have powers of jurisdiction, and presumably all the other powers found in existing municipia.163 That these magistrates are new is implied arguments advanced, nor of his prosopographcial analysis: the emendation of Mamilia to Aemilia is arbitrary (incidentally Caes., BG 5. 24. 2, 5. 53. 6, do not show Roscius was a quaestor in 55/4 (so Hinrichs, Historia (1969), 526, 532)!). See further Brunt, Manpower, 712, cf. 319. 156 For this see Ch. 10. 157 For the lex Iulia as a very far-reaching piece of legislation (based in part of the identiWcation of the lex Mamilia with that law) see Crawford, Athenaeum (1989), 188–9. 158 Stadt, 199–202, 205–6 (pointing to the similarities between Callistratus’ lex Iulia and lex Mamilia 5). 159 Rudolph thought that Calatia and Casilinum became colonies under the terms of the lex Mamilia (Stadt, 202, 206; see also Mommsen, CIL x., p. 368–9); they were such by 44, when Caesar’s heir recruited from their veterans (Syme, RR 125, Cic., Att. 16. 8. 1). This has not been universally accepted however: see LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 43; Keppie, Colonisation 143–7; for Atella and Acerrae see below n. 166. 160 Lex Mamilia 5, 3. 161 Constituere is used of oppida at lex agraria, l. 22, where it is coupled with coloniam deducere; see Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 31. 162 These communities were created on what had been ager publicus, and now needed to be assigned to the citizens of the community. Yet one cannot help wondering whether viritane grants were not also in question in non-colonial foundations, especially since lex coloniae Genetiuae 104 is very similar, mutatis mutandis, to lex Mamilia 4. 163 ‘magistratus, qui . . . iure dicundo praerit’ (3, cf. 5).
236
Municipal Charters
both by the future tense ‘praerit’, and by the fact that the ‘curator’ is to try cases involving the removal of termini for as long as he is in the community; then ‘cum curator hac lege non erit, tum quicumque magistratus . . . iure dicundo praerit, eius magistratus de ea re iurisdictio . . . esto’ (5), which clearly shows that the magistrate is to take up this function only when the curator is no longer present.164 It should also be noted that constituere seems to be the same process for all four types of community, and that as a result, all four have magistrates with equal powers of jurisdiction, while retaining their previous juridical designations.165 Yet here is a contradiction: it is clear that all settlements are not being promoted from a lower category to that of municipium, but that municipia are being ‘constituted’ alongside the other three types of settlement. Yet municipia should already be autonomous bodies with their own higher administration and deWned territoria. They should not need to be so ‘constituted’. Why do municipia appear here? We cannot here be dealing with municipia sine suVragio, but the case may be similar, namely communities which had previously been stripped of their autonomy but now had it restored. These communities should have been those punished for rebellion alongside Capua in 216 bc. Capua had regained her autonomy with the colonization of 58, and now the same treatment was extended to her former confederacy.166 This sheds important light on our understanding of the process of constituere. The Wgures ‘qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit etc.’ and the curator require some consideration. There is no suggestion in the text of the lex Mamilia that these two need be the same person. The ‘curator’ who appears in the de lege agraria seems to be synonymous with the III uir a.d.a.;167 in the lex Mamilia he is present in both colonies and other communities. Lex coloniae Genetiuae 97 restricts the number of 164 It seems from 3 that the magistrate has from the beginning the power to compel the restitution of accidentally moved or missing termini on anyone’s land; the Wne for moving termini ‘sciens dolo malo (5)’—5,000 HS—shows how much more important the disruption of the organization of the territorium is considered. 165 ‘quicumque magistratus qui in ea colonia . . .’ (5, cf. ‘magistratus’ alone in 3) may imply that the magistrates could have diVering titles, even though they possessed the same powers. 166 Rudolph (Stadt, 202 and n. 1) thought that Atella, Acerrae, and Suessula might belong in this category. For the punishment of Capua and her league: Livy, 26. 15. 5, 34. 1–12. Now, it seems that Acerrae and probably Suessula were faithful to Rome in the Second Punic War: see Humbert, Municipium, 371 and n. 48; Atella on the other hand rebelled. Cicero three times refers to Atella as a municipium: in 63 (Leg. ag. 2. 86), 54 (QF 2. 13. 3), and 46 (Fam. 13. 7. 1–2). The last two references are unexceptionable, but the Wrst, being in a political speech, may be suspect. Cicero lists a number of coloniae and municipia, without specifying which was which. There may be some blurring of juridical boundaries for eVect; but by the same token we know that most of the towns mentioned were either coloniae or municipia, and cannot prove that any were not. It is therefore very possible that Cicero is being exact in every case, and I have chosen, if tentatively, to regard the list as trustworthy. If so, the remunicipalization of Atella should predate 63 (see D’Isanto, Capua romana, 18 n. 89), and thus also the lex Mamilia. The municipalization of Acerrae and Suessula probably goes back to the 4th cent. (see App. 3). It is possible that both Atella and Acerrae had IIII uiri (CIL x. 3736, 3759, but see LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 43; x. 3921 may also come from Atella or Acerrae: Solin, Puteoli (1988–9), 72–3). Sadly we know too little about the demise of the praefectura system to say how it may have aVected the restoration of Atella. 167 Leg. ag. 2. 17, noted by Crawford, Athenaeum (1989), 184.
Municipal Charters
237
automatic patrons of the colony to ‘eum, cui c(olonis) a. d. a. i(us) ex lege Iulia est, eumque, qui eam coloniam deduxerit’. This implies that two people were responsible for the foundation of Urso, and that the man who ‘led out’ the colony was not necessarily the man who carried through the detailed arrangements for its organization. The Wrst Wgure has been taken by Grant to be a curator of Urso.168 In the lex Mamilia, however, the division of land, and thus presumably its assignation too, are the responsibility of ‘qui hac lege coloniam deduxerit etc.’ It thus seems that we must resist over-schematic models for colonial and municipal foundations in this period, when much was in Xux; even if the curator is not identical with the deductor, both have a close ongoing involvement in the life of the community. In what follows it is assumed that the deductor and the curator were envisaged as separate Wgures in the law, although they may in some cases have been identical, especially in a non-colonial context, which required less in the way of ex nouo organization. I believe that the deductor was responsible for the constitutional set up and for granting a lex to the new community, as was traditional in colonial contexts. The role of the curator seems to be that of looking after what the deductor has set up. The curator is appointed ‘hac lege’; the text only refers to one of him, but the same is true of the ‘magistratus’, who must have a colleague. Thus both deductor and curator recall the Wgure allowed to leges dare in the tabula Heracleensis. The curator is active in the community for what looks like a Wxed term; this may be the time in which the work of delimitation and division is going on, since in the preserved part of the law his major task is to bring terminus-delinquents to justice, precisely those who undo the work of the deductor. He is also presumably to act as an exemplar to the community and to the magistrates who take over his judicial functions when his term expires. In sum, the deductor and curator, whether as a team of two or as the same man (the number must remain a guess), are closely related to the ‘commissioners’ of the tabula Heracleensis. They diVer in that their work is not supplementary, but rather primary. They draw their authority from the terms of the lex Mamilia itself, and signiWcantly the curator is responsible for the initial discharge of magisterial, especially jurisdictional, functions.169 168 See Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, 34, cf. 9, 33, 163, 287–8. While it is clear that in many cases, especially in Spain and Africa, that deductor and adsignator were diVerent people, there is nothing to suggest that this was universal practice by the triumviral period, or that adsignator and curator are always, or usually, identical. The titulature of those charged with setting up colonies or municipia in these years is very Xuid, and should not be rationalized to make it conform to a system which is largely a modern creation. 169 Cf. Piso’s duovirate at Capua in 58 bc—see App. 2. The parallel with what seems to be going on in the lex Tarentina is clear. A more signiWcant parallel is provided by CIL x. 4876 from Venafrum, commemorating L. Aclutius Gallus, twice military tribune, and subsequently II uir urbis moeniundae II and praef i. d. II. Both these magistracies should be connected with the triumviral colonization of that town, the Wrst one being a combination of the normal colonial oYce of II uir with the extraordinary one of wall-builder, synonymous with colonial founder (see Grant, From Imperium to Auctoritas, 285, cf. Capini, in Romanisation du Samnium, 29–31; contra Keppie, Colonisation, 139). That he occupied that position for two years gives us an indication of how long the work of reorganization at Venafrum lasted.
238
Municipal Charters
Having surveyed all the general epigraphic evidence for the granting of charters and the founding of new communities, we can now turn to speciWc case studies.
3.4. Arpinum Hinrichs, discussing the lex Mamilia, stated that constituere and constitutio had only two senses: ‘found’, ‘set up’; and ‘restore’, ‘put in order again’. As a result he saw no justiWcation for the common interpretation of two occurrences of the verb constituere as ‘conduct an administrative reform’ or ‘grant a new constitution to’. Likewise there was no justiWcation for understanding the noun constitutio as being equivalent to Verfassung, as many English-speaking authors had: for Hinrichs it meant ‘foundation’, ‘restoration’, or ‘decree’.170 Starting from this point, Hinrichs oVered a new interpretation of the two passages (see below) which had always been taken to refer to just such a constitutional reform. Such an understanding of the terms constitutio and constituere strikes me as rather narrow. Constitutio can it seems mean something akin to our ‘constitution’, a political system set up by someone, or indeed one which has evolved over time, as Cicero described the Roman constitution: ‘nec temporis unius nec hominis esse constitutionem rei publicae’.171 Constituere seems easier to interpret. It certainly can mean ‘set on a Wrm footing’ as Hinrichs wanted,172 but it can also have the sense of ‘establish, bring about an institution or a state of aVairs’,173 and also ‘appoint, ordain’;174 note for instance the phrase ‘de legibus constituendis’ (Cic., De or. 1. 58). Obviously there are overtones of foundation or creation in these meanings, but they are not essential constituents of the word’s meaning. It seems perfectly reasonable that constituere should mean not only to establish a community, but also serve as a synonym for leges dare.175 After all, the granting of the charter, while it did not create the municipia in the areas enfranchised after the Social War, did mark an important symbolic transition for the community. Even the notion of restoration often inherent in constituere is relevant. The III uiri rei publicae constituendae causa created by the lex Titia of 43 were supposed to get the Roman state back on its feet, but to do this they must at least have been expected to pass some constitutional reforms. I suggested in section 3.3 that constituere was used not only to denote the creation of new autonomous units, but also to cover the restoration of autonomy to pre-existing municipia. Let us now consider the two passages which Hinrichs sought to reinterpret. One is from Caesar, and is considered in the next section, while the other comes from a letter of Cicero to M. Brutus, written in 46.176 Cicero is asking Brutus to lend any assistance to three Roman knights from Arpinum, in Cisalpine Gaul to conduct an inquiry into revenue due from land owned in the province by the 170 Historia (1969), 530–2, citing TLL iv. 512, 517; for foundation see Hyginus p. 177L ¼ 142 Th ¼ 142.3 Campbell (‘[Augustus] nouas urbes constituit’). 171 Rep. 2. 37, cf. 2. 53. 172 OLD, s.v. 4. 173 OLD, s.v. 5. 174 OLD, s.v. 7. 175 Cf. Gabba, Italia romana, 138. 176 Fam. 13. 11. 3.
Municipal Charters
239
municipium. Any help Brutus can give will be particularly welcome to Cicero at that time: bonos uiros ad tuam necessitudinem adiunxeris municipiumque gratissimum beneWcio tuo deuinxeris, mihi uero etiam gratius feceris quod cum semper tueri municipes meos consueui tum hic annus praecipue ad meam curam oYciumque pertinet. nam constituendi municipi causa hoc anno aedilem Wlium meum Weri uolui et fratris Wlium et M. Caesium, hominem mihi maxime necessarium.
Hinrichs interprets ‘constituendae municipi causa’ in this passage as referring to the restoration of Arpinum’s Wnances, connected with the problems of the Arpinate uectigal in Gallia Cisalpina. The young Cicerones and Caesius are to set the municipium on its Wscal feet again, not to revise its constitution.177 I think however that the latter, traditional, interpretation must be correct. The examination of the Cisalpine revenues is put in the hands of three legati of some standing, and it seems that it is up to them, with Brutus’ help, to remedy the situation; they are almost plenipotentiary, and any role played by the aediles of Arpinum must be only that of rubber-stamping acts of these legati.178 Little political capital was to be gained by the magistrates when the real power lay with the men on the spot and Cicero himself, who might be able to pull strings— he had helped Brutus in Cyprus in a less worthy cause a few years earlier. Furthermore, it seems that, had Cicero wanted to see to the reorganization of Arpinum’s Wnances, he could have done better than to secure the election of a magisterial college containing two teenagers.179 In dire need, some kind of personal subvention or appeal to friends would seem preferable to a piece of political nepotism of limited eYcacy. It is, furthermore, not even certain that the Cicerones were aediles at the time of the legation to Cisalpina. One way of reading the Latin is certainly to see ‘hic annus’ as important because they were in oYce, and Cicero wanted a successful outcome, from which they could get some of the credit. Yet ‘aedilem Wlium meum Weri uolui’ is a strange way of saying ‘my son is aedile this year’; ‘Weri’ means ‘to be elected’, just as ‘creare’ in the next sentence means ‘to elect’. Thus Cicero’s concern would be not to have his son’s aedilate go well, but to be seen to discharge his oYcium towards his municipes in such a way as to secure the election of his son for the next year, in which the constitutio municipii would take place. In the Wrst instance the year of the election was important. Or so Cicero made out to Brutus; we cannot believe that the Arpinates would reject Cicero’s electoral pleas, but on the other hand if he played down his own inXuence, and sought Brutus’, the Xattery would be more ingenious. I consider the interpretation which places the Cicerones’ magistracy in 46, rather than 45, to be inferior to that which translates the relevant sentence ‘for I want my son etc. to be elected aedile this year in order 177 Historia (1969), 530. 178 ‘ad ea uisenda pecuniasque quae a colonis debentur exigendas totamque rem et cognoscendam et administrandam legatos equites misimus’ (Fam. 13. 11. 1). 179 Caesius admittedly seems somewhat older—the legate Q. FuWdius is his stepson (Fam. 13. 12. 1); he might have provided any Wnancial know-how.
240
Municipal Charters
to carry out the constitutio of the municipium [next year]’.180 If I am right, there can be even less of a link between any Wnancial restructuring in 46 and the magistracies for the next year. If major constitutional change was in prospect at Arpinum, the verb ‘constituendi’ could be appropriate; the phrase ‘constituendi municipi causa’ has a weighty juridical ring to it (of course Cicero may just have been trying to impress Brutus, who was not even expected to know that Arpinum had aediles!181). As we shall see, Caesar had certainly carried out some municipal reforms, and was probably contemplating others when this letter was written. Parts of Arpinum’s constitution went back to the early second century or before, and may have seemed quite oldfashioned.182 In Rome or Arpinum, someone may have decided to update it, and the verb constituere seems entirely appropriate for such a move.183
3.5. Cingulum and Salapia Caesar, De bello ciuili 1. 15. 2, is usually cited as the locus classicus for the granting of a constitution to a town: ‘Etiam Cingulo, quod oppidum Labienus constituerat suaque pecunia exaediWcauerat, ad eum legati ueniunt . . .’184 This has usually been taken to mean that Labienus gave Cingulum its municipal status and lex.185 Hinrichs though understands a Wnancial and physical initiative on the part of Labienus as a private individual, a local boy made good.186 Again Hinrichs’s interpretation is not impossible. 180 Or conceivably later in 46, if for instance the term of oYce began in July. 181 The phrase however seems a triXe bombastic if it was being used only to describe magistrates who were to bring the town’s Wnances into order. 182 See Ch. 2 for an attempt to update one area on a Roman pattern in the late 2nd cent. bc. 183 For the circumstances surrounding this letter and for the magistracies of the Cicerones Ch. 10 and App. 2. The aedilate i. d. may date to this period: it is Wrst attested for Arpinum in an inscription from Pompeii which is ascribed to the Augustan period by Mouritsen (Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite, 79), but refers back to a period around the middle of the century. It might be objected that two teenagers would have as little idea of how to reform Arpinum’s constitution as of planning a Wnancial rescue. Yet while they might have little Wnancial experience, the young men must from an early age have had their eyes set on political and military careers, and have absorbed some constitutional principles. It also helped to have a father/uncle who was the author of the De republica. The old interpretation of Kornemann, apparently maintained by Nicolet, REL (1967), 302 n. 5, that it was only by this reform that Arpinum became a municipium at all and elected magistrates for the Wrst time, is not tenable. 184 ‘Even from Cingulum, a town which Labienus had ‘constituted’ and built up with his own money, envoys came to him [sc. Caesar] . . .’ 185 For instance by Mommsen, GS i. 151; Rudolph, Stadt, 199; Stuart Jones, JRS (1936), 270–1; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 167 (probably, however, nothing to do with the lex Mamilia); Galsterer, Herrschaft, 36; Carter, Comm., ad loc. 186 Historia (1969), loc. cit. So already Taylor, CR (1921), 159, positing a total rebuild after a natural disaster (‘exaediWcare’), and cf. now Paci, Supp. It. ns 6; 40–1, relying on the argument from probability that a duoviral municipium ‘ought’ to have been constituted after 49. For Hinrichs, at Arpinum it is important that Wnancial restructuring can be carried out by magistrates, but at Cingulum private benefaction is suYcient.
Municipal Charters
241
The case of Salapia is similar. Discussing the building of healthy cities, Vitruvius allows himself a small digression on Salapia. The city was in a very marshy district,187 and the inhabitants ‘peruenerunt ad M. Hostilium ab eoque publice petentes impetrauerunt ut is idoneum locum ad moenia transferenda conquireret eligeretque’.188 Hostilius obtained permission for this venture, and choosing a site some four miles from the old one, but superior, and transferred Salapia: ‘ab senatuque populo Romano petiit ut liceret transferre oppidum, constituit moenia et areas diuisit nummoque sestertio singulis municipibus mancipio dedit’.189 This is obviously a purely physical refoundation (‘constituit moenia’, ‘areas diuisit’— an urban equivalent of delimiting the territory?), in eVect a piece of euergetism, funded from Hostilius’ pocket. It is probable that Salapia was already a municipium at the time of this transfer, since it does not seem to have requested promotion.190 There is (unsurprisingly?) no hint that its lex was updated (although a change in the location of the oppidum may have necessitated the emendation of one of its early chapters). The refoundation of Salapia seems to be an example of entirely a non-constitutional use of constituere.191 Was Cingulum an analogous case?192 Whether there was constitutional change involved at Cingulum or not depends on whether the town ceased to be a praefectura and became a municipium as a result of Labienus’ actions.193 There is some reason to think so. In 63 Cingulum was still a praefectura, but by the Empire it was a municipium.194 Now promotion either through a law passed on behalf of Labienus, or sponsored directly by him, 187 Cf. Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 71. 188 De arch. 1. 4. 11–12. 189 Ibid. For sales at a token price see Gabba, Italia Romana, 119–22, who cites lex ag. 66 as a parallel (also RS i. 173). 190 For the date see Gabba, Italia romana, 122, where a date shortly before Cicero’s reference to Salapia in 63 bc is suggested; I would not want to exclude a later date, since Cicero still expects Salapia to evoke marshy ill health in the minds of the populus. 191 It does however have much in common with the granting of a lex: M. Hostilius stands in a special relation to the Salapii (for the connections of the Hostilii with Apulia between the 3rd and 1st centuries see Mu¨nzer, RE viii, s.v. cols. 2501, 2504–5; Wiseman, New Men, 54–5; Gabba, Italia romana, 120; Torelli, Tota Italia, 117–18), who make a public approach to him (‘publice’; he was probably their patron—see App. 2); Hostilius has to obtain the permission of Senate and people, as in the tabula Heracleensis (see Gabba, Italia romana). Vitruvius nowhere makes reference to municipalization, but it might be argued that juridical matters are extraneous to his discussion at this point. 192 So Gabba, Italia romana, 121. 193 Assuming in this case that the two statuses were sequential and not concurrent: Cic., Rab. perd. 22 (‘praefectura, regio, uicinitas’) may indeed suggest that Cicero aimed to invoke the idea of broad areas of moral pressure or example which should have acted on Labienus, in which context municipium may have been too limiting a unit. The situation regarding the status of praefecturae in this period is not clear cut. Cic., Pro Vareno fr. 3 and 4 Crawford, seem to imply that Fulginiae was both a praefectura and a municipium. This may mean however that Fulginiae not only became an autonomous municipium, but also obtained jurisdiction over the old praefectura which had been centred on it, or that it remained the seat of the praefectura covering viritane settlers outside the territorium of the municipium. The fragments need not refer to the same period. See further Ch. 2. 194 Praefectura: Cic., Rab. perd. 22. Municipium: AE (1990), 316, cf. Supp. It. ns 9: 78–80, nos. 2–3 from S. Vittore di Cingoli. The texts probably date to the Wrst half of the 1st cent. ad.
242
Municipal Charters
would have to fall before 58 bc.195 The year of his tribunate, 63 itself, is still possible,196 although his praetorship is no less likely.197 In any case a date before the lex Mamilia is very likely:198 this was the Wrst law which we know to have given praefecturae the powers of self-government previously reserved to municipia. If Cingulum did have its constitution changed at this point, it is safest to assume that it passed from the status of praefectura to that of municipium. Such a change would provide a suitable context (but not the only possible one) for the institution of II uiri at Cingulum.199 Labienus was certainly a member of a notable family of Cingulum;200 it would be plausible for him to seek to obtain advancement in status for it as well as indulging in more normal euergetistic activity. If Cingulum did pass from the rank of praefectura to that of municipium, Caesar’s use of constituere to denote a change in the constitution consequent on the attainment of autonomous status would be legitimate. This interpretation has however not found favour with Gabba, who noted rightly that there is no internal proof in Caesar’s text that Labienus’ action at Cingulum was a promotion to municipal status. Rather, he inferred that the reorganization implied in constituere was that of the internal administration of the praefectura. He adduced in support of this Cingulum’s later status as a duoviral municipium.201 For him the creation of a duoviral municipium in the period before Labienus went to Gaul would be too early for what he accepts as the date of introduction of this type of municipium. Yet as we shall see (Ch. 9), this type of constitution should be dated earlier than it generally is. Gabba also pointed out that praefecturae, fora, and conciliabula can be ‘constituted’ as such in their own right, citing the lex Mamilia, but chronological considerations refute him on this point.202 A more serious problem comes from the natural implication of another, adjacent, passage of Caesar (BC 1. 15. 1: ‘Auximo Caesar progressus omnem agrum Picenum percurrit. cunctae earum regionum praefecturae libentissimis animis eum recipiunt . . . etiam Cingulo’203) that Cingulum was a praefectura in 49 bc. Now, Cingulum is obviously singled out here, of all the communities in the 195 From then until the outbreak of the Civil War he was with Caesar in Gaul as legatus pro praetore : MRR ii, under ‘Legates, Lieutenants’, 58–50 bc (the same dates limit private intervention too). Galsterer, Herrschaft, favours c.59 with Labienus acting through the lex Iulia agraria, which was not however an urban law. 196 Reid, JRS (1915), 241 n. 3, against Hardy’s date of 59 bc. Labienus’ activity would have to fall after the delivery of the Pro Rabirio Postumo however. 197 A praetorship is conjectured on the basis of Labienus’ position under Caesar (see n. 163 above), and the fact the Caesar seems to have been canvassing for a consulship for him in 50 (Syme, RP i. 71–2). Syme suggested 61–59 as possible for the praetorship (ibid. 69). 198 Rudolph, Stadt, 199; Brunt, Manpower, 319; and Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 162, all thought that Labienus was acting under the terms of the lex Mamilia. 199 Ch. 9. 200 Cic., Rab. Per. 22, cf. Reid, JRS (1915), 241; Syme, RP i. 68–9; Carter, Comm. ad de bello ciuili 1. 15. 2. 201 Italia romana, 91–2, cf. Brunt, Fall, 438, who gives the non-committal translation ‘organized and endowed’. 202 Gabba, Italia Romana, 121. 203 For the term ager Picenus see Cic., OV. 3.74, Sall., Cat. 30. 5; this reXects the original status of the area as ager publicus taken after conquest, but its continued use also implies a largely dispersed settlement pattern, with few towns, a situation easily reconcilable with a plurality of praefecturae.
Municipal Charters
243
area, because, despite its strong ties with Labienus, it welcomed Caesar. That does not, however, prove that in 49 Cingulum had the same juridical status as the other communities in the ager Picenus, which were of similar antiquity, history, and size, which Caesar groups together under the generic title praefecturae.204 Nor are the statuses of praefectura and municipium mutually exclusive. To return to Gabba’s theory, it is hard to imagine what a reorganization of the praefectura, without making it into a municipium, would have involved: possibly the right of the praefectura to elect its own prefects, instead of being under the jurisdiction of praefecti sent out each year by the praetor urbanus. This is a model of the evolution of the prefectures which has been developed by Humbert on the basis of evidence from Peltuinum and Casinum.205 Such a transfer of authority may have required a bill at Rome, and this could explain Labienus’ constitution of Cingulum. Yet the locally elected praefectus remains a delegate of the praetor urbanus, whatever his origin, and such a change might have been possible by virtue of praetorian imperium. Such a step towards full judicial autonomy would have been important for the people of Cingulum, but would seem to lack the signiWcance that would make Labienus commemorate or reXect it in a building programme.206 What is more, it is uncertain that, had this been what happened, Caesar would have used the verb constituere. The force of the sentence would then be ‘Labienus caused to be appointed . . .’, a shorthand way of saying ‘Labienus carried a law which meant praefecti became locally appointed’. All this is very hard to swallow, even without having to understand praefectos as an object and take ‘oppidum’ as an accusative of respect. ‘Oppidum’ can be understood on the lines laid out in Chapter 2: here it has two principal senses, neither of which is juridical, neither of which excludes the possibility that Cingulum was a municipium. Cingulum was (a) of strategic value in the advance to Auximum,207 and (b) as a result of Labienus’ exaediWcatio 204 Caesar’s indiscriminate use of the term oppidum (e.g. of the municipium Asculum Picenum) suggests a lack of interest in juridical distinctions. Arguments which depend on the presence or absence of the word municipium are bound to be inconclusive. At 1. 12. 1–3 Thermus, holding Iguvium for Pompeius, fortiWes the town, an action Caesar describes as ‘oppidum munire’, clearly a strategic usage. Unable to rely on the town (‘municipium’, meaning the political support of the inhabitants) he has to withdraw. On hearing this Caesar advances to Auximum, a colony, ‘quod oppidum Attius cohortibus introductis tenebat’. Here we have returned to the strategic narrative. Cf. Cic., Red. Sen. 24 (oppida distinguished from agri), Red. Quir. 4 (populous oppida one of the beauties of Italy, together with her species, agri, fruges, the pulchritudo of Rome—the urbs, the humanitas of the citizens, etc.; clearly not juridical). Note also the juridical meaning ‘urban centre’ in the lex Tarentina. 205 Humbert, Municipium, 231–2, 248–9; cf. 355–402 for Humbert’s view of the history of the praefecturae in general. 206 Mommsen thought that Labienus simply set up the oppidum (CIL ix. p. 591, cf. Hu¨lsen, RE s.v. ‘Cingulum’). It is not easy to see what this meant in practice in a place which had already produced senators in the previous century (see Torelli, in Bouregoisies, for urban development and access to the Roman Senate for local elites). 207 Oppida sometimes has the sense of fortiWed Italic settlements in defensible positions, usually on hilltops. Cingulum, at 631 feet above sea level, on the east slopes of Monte Cingoli, with river valleys to the north and south, is just such a site; see Gaggiotti et al., Umbria Marche, 245. Contrast the general topographical characteristics of Roman foundations in this area, as enunciated by Gabba, Italia romana, 92.
244
Municipal Charters
now possessed the physical armature which Romans normally associated with nucleated urban settlement and local self-government. The praefecturae are broad judicial circumscriptions to which he referred in the previous sentence, the administrative divisions of the ager Picenus; ‘oppidum’, by contrast to these, is the nucleated settlement of Cingulum,208 which is what Labienus built up, and was also the object of his action of constituere. It thus becomes more likely that it was the constitutional status of the town Cingulum which had been subject to change. If a shake-up of the constitution of Cingulum elicited commemoration in a building programme, it is very hard to imagine that it was not a far-reaching change. The ‘constitution’ involved would seem to be a promotion to the status of municipium, rather than simple cosmetic alterations. One Wnal argument, surely decisive: one would think that the expenditure of money by the elite in their home towns was by no means an abnormal expression of their socio-cultural position within local society so that Labienus’ euergetism would go unremarked by Caesar, unless perhaps the expenditure of money was quite considerable, and related to something special. In this case the text of Caesar itself is vital, since it shows that the only part of the process on which Labienus spent money was the building: ‘constituerat suaque pecunia exaediWcauerat’. Caesar is recording two diVerent concepts, one Wnancial, the other not. The traditional interpretation of the Caesarian evidence is thus shown to be correct. Caesar refers to the municipalization of Cingulum, in the strict sense of the word. It seems now clear that while constituere normally refers to the foundation or institution of a new state of aVairs, it can also have the same sense as the other technical term for granting municipal ‘charters’, leges dare.209
4 . C O N C LU S I O N S After their surrender in ad 47, the Frisii agreed to dwell within the ‘agros a Corbulone descriptos’; Tacitus tells us that Corbulo ‘senatum, magistratus, leges inposuit’.210 For Rome, at least in the West, there had always been the need to impose her standards and her conception of peaceful and civilized behaviour (‘pacis imponere morem’ as Virgil put it), including political and public life. The acquisition of these by Rome’s subjects, for instance Agricola’s Britons, was seen as one of the strongest indicators of acculturation; the lack of them a sign of backwardness, their removal a demeaning punishment, as for Capua in the Hannibalic War. For the municipia enfranchised after the Social War, their leges were not to be seen as an earnest of good behaviour or a token of civilization to come; they were however symbolically important, a public and judicial marker of the political 208 Oppidum is distinguished from ager in Cicero’s reference to Caesar’s ruling on the Volaterran problem in 59 bc (Fam. 13. 4. 2). 209 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160 n. 5, 167–8, 376–7. 210 Ann. 11. 19. 4.
Municipal Charters
245
‘Romanization’ of the community. At the same time the charter not only displayed Rome’s expectations and the aspirations of the municipes, but was a vital means of balancing those aspirations against aVective bonds between municipes and municipium, ties of sentiment, tradition, and loyalty.211 In other circumstances these could have worked against the integration of the municipia into the Roman state, but now they were harnessed to work for it. These leges were voted by the Roman people, and this in itself constituted a powerful means of linking centre and periphery. The means of actually devising and implementing the leges constituted another link, again sanctioned by statute. From the evidence surveyed above we can form a composite picture of the process and the players. The process was, as far as we can tell, similar both for communities enfranchised after the Social War, and for those achieving autonomy later on. One of its most important features was the way that it was Xexible enough to incorporate local tradition along with a signiWcant core of Roman standards.212 Part of the Xexibility must have arisen out of the relationship between the man drafting the charter and the principes of the community concerned, of whom the ‘commissioner’ himself may have been one. Those chosen were men with links to and interests in the communities, but also men who understood politics at Rome, who could draft, move or have moved a lex for the community. They had to be known to both Senate and municipium. Sometimes they might be locals as well as Roman senators, and in some cases the link was even more closely cemented in that they held the Wrst magistracies in the community after the passing of the law.213 The emergence of local families onto the broader Italian stage, as equites or senators, is thus bound up with promotion and/or the acquisition of a lex; the lex presses for recognition of the collective as a Roman community in much the same way as the local elites press for acceptance by their peers at Rome, and the former can in one sense be interpreted as a function of the latter. Not all communities had leges, at least immediately after the Social War, and not all of those which had them got them at the same time.214 Those which had acquired leges could be seen as integrating better and faster, while those that had not could be seen as politically and culturally isolated compared to the other group. The symbolic expressions of Roman identity, and of the preservation of tradition which the lex embodied must have been achieved in communities without charters by much less ideologically satisfying, much less sophisticated means, of which the tabula Heracleensis may be a representative.215 211 Cf. Pliny, Ep. 10. 113. 212 Fragmentum Atestinum, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 163 and n. 4, 378. 213 We shall consider the implications of this phenomenon in Ch. 10; and see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 68–72. 214 The interference of powerful outsiders, as well as local sons, in the communities’ constitutions could happen at any time: cf. Sulla at Puteoli (Plut., Sulla 37. 3, perhaps actually taking place at Cumae; see further Pulice, Puteoli (1977), 44); Imperator Caesar at Bononia (Dio, l. 6. 3, before 32 bc?). 215 Costabile, Istituzioni, 22–3, is over-ambitious to claim that all communities had leges. For those which did not the comment of Galsterer on the pre-Social-War period is valid: ‘Das fu¨r eine Gemeinde geltende Recht war großenteils dasjenige, was sie von dem in Rom gu¨ltigen akzeptierte, wovon sie Kenntnis hatte, und bei Privilegen, vor allem, was sie beweisen konnte’ (Herrschaft, 19).
246
Municipal Charters
The material contained in the republican charters is largely unknown to us in its detail. We can however study in quite some detail an element of public life which, whether present before the charter or created with it, was certainly one of the major focuses of the charter’s attention: municipal magistracies. Tracing the development of these will give us an opportunity to learn more about the development of municipalization both from a Roman and from a local point of view. The next four chapters will be concerned with the senior magistracies of the new citizen communities, the quattuorvirate and the duovirate.
6 The Simple Quattuorvirate (‘Nude Dictus’) 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N The most important identifying feature of the vast majority of the municipia created after the Social War was their unique new magistracy, the quattuorvirate. In Chapters 6–8 I trace its development and signiWcance, from its origins up to the end of the triumviral period. While the quattuorvirate is not the sum of the changes represented by municipalization, it does have important things to tell us about what sorts of municipia Rome was trying to create after the Social War and why; it has the additional advantage of being widely represented in its major manifestations. The material on which my analysis is based is almost entirely epigraphic. When municipal magistrates are mentioned in the literary sources, which is only rarely, we cannot expect that the language used will be the precise juridical terminology found in the epigraphy. Most of the evidence is found in CIL i2 , which with fascicle 4 covers almost everything published up to 1983. This last, as well as publishing new texts, has provided a much needed revision of the state of the question on a number of known inscriptions, and greatly expanded the number of good photographs available, improving on the situation represented by Degrassi’s Imagines. For material which has come to light or been re-edited since 1983, I have relied on AE, ZPE, Epigraphica, and other epigraphic publications. My survey has been comprehensive, but the high volume of epigraphic material being published in Italy now means that some texts will have been overlooked. I have also examined the regional fascicles of CIL for possible republican texts which have slipped through other nets, but without photographs such a procedure is hazardous. A major premise1 underlying this and the following chapters (6–9) is my belief that republican inscriptions can generally be diVerentiated from imperial ones. This is not always possible, however, and in addition to inscriptions which are certainly pre-Augustan, I have included some which are probably early imperial. This is due in some cases to the impossibility of Wrmly dating a text, and in others because I have felt it important to include material which, although Augustan, also illustrates the juridical situation obtaining earlier. For instance, since funerary inscriptions carrying a magisterial cursus obviously refer back to a period earlier period than that at which they were inscribed, early Augustan examples 1 For my views on the dating of inscriptions in general, see Introduction.
248
The Simple Quattuorvirate
may well provide evidence for the Republic. I have however given more weight to those texts which are certainly republican. While an analysis of the material from this period will beneWt from insights derived from, and comparisons with, the fuller imperial evidence on a particular city, conclusions drawn about municipalization under the Republic must ultimately be based on earlier, contemporary evidence, and not be distorted by the later picture, or retrojections from a developed municipal system which diVered in important respects from the republican one from which it had evolved. The consideration of the republican evidence (largely) per se is also justiWed on the grounds of the volume of new evidence, which has grown substantially since the last major discussions of the quattuorvirate by Manni and Degrassi in 1947–50. Important as these works were, especially that of Degrassi, I think that it is time to review these old problems and received wisdoms in a new light. Trying to evaluate and draw conclusions from epigraphic evidence which covers only some Wfty years is a risky undertaking even when the evidence is better than that available for our purposes.2 It is therefore necessary to make some preliminary but fundamental points about the evidence and the problems it presents, and to state the methodological assumptions which underpin this chapter. I have written of the epigraphic evidence thus far as if it can easily be arranged chronologically within the Wfty-year period under study. Of course any attempt to do this is subject to considerable diYculties. Very few of our inscriptions carry a consular date; consequently the epigraphist must rely on internal and external indications in order to estimate the date of an inscription; these indications can be false friends. The dangers inherent in trying to date inscriptions by the criteria of letter forms, spelling, titulature, and nomenclature,3 were brought home to me again and again, and ever more starkly, in the original research for this and the following chapter; in the intervening time I have studied many more inscriptions, and re-examined my assumptions and conclusions. The dangers are now more apparent than ever;4 but it still seems to me that we can construct plausible 2 It is worth remembering that overall we know perhaps 1% of the total number of magistrates who served in Latium and Campania between the Gracchan and Augustan periods (attestations for the earlier periods are themselves nugatory by comparison); the scale of the loss is illustrated by the situation at Pompeii, where due to the exceptional volume of evidence, about 55% of the colonial fasti can be reconstructed: see Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 190 n. 6. 3 See Degrassi, Imagines, p. viii; Gordon, Illustrated Introduction, 38–42, with works there cited, and Mouritsen, Elections, 76–7, on the diYculties of dating by palaeographical and other internal criteria. 4 I have generally assumed e.g. that the form ‘curauerunt’ (and cognates) is, as a ‘classical’ spelling, likely to indicate a later relative date when compared to an inscription with forms like ‘coerauerunt’ or ‘coirauerunt’. In what follows it is generally assumed that the latter forms were dying out in the early years of the Augustan period; they were not however extinct—note ILS 137, of c.2 bc. More dated inscriptions would produce more surprises; the question is, ‘how many’? To take another example, I have assumed that the form ‘pequnia’ is likely to derive from an earlier text than the ‘classical’ form ‘pecunia’. CIL xiv. 376 from Ostia, which seems to be the cursus of an member of the Lucilii Gamalae active probably in the Antonine period, talks about a restoration made ‘peq. pub.’ One obvious conclusion would be that these old spellings linger on quite late; I would not dispute that there are a few such late survivals; but urge that each case be treated on its merits. The Ostian text seems to model itself consciously on a late Republican or Augustan inscription, CIL i2 . 3031a, which honoured an
The Simple Quattuorvirate
249
relative chronologies for series of inscriptions from individual communities, and to a lesser extent for regions; and that we can make informed guesses about the relative dates of isolated texts, as long as we are doing so in the knowledge that we are creating an intellectual construct and suggesting provisional conclusions which may advance the debate, not engaging in revelation. A model for the evolution of the quattuorvirate can indeed be created from inscriptions, and tested against, or improved in the light of, later practice and new evidence. In seeking to suggest dates for inscriptions I have been guided by respectable opinion, above all by Mommsen, Bormann, Dessau, and Degrassi, but have not felt myself always bound to follow when it seemed that there was good reason to challenge earlier opinions.5 Nevertheless I think that my debt to earlier scholars, chieXy those named above, will be apparent. I am aware that many of my suggestions are open to criticism, but I think I have erred on the side of caution, in particular when dealing with data which cannot certainly be ascribed to the Republic rather than the Principate. In making my judgements, I have also wherever possible consulted photographs (a task now made much easier by the work of Italian and other scholars in recent years, notably in the series Supplementa Italica). In addition I have been able to make use of my own photographs and the results of autopsy, checking texts against the stone where possible. Correspondingly, I have exercised caution where the stone is now lost, or where no photograph exists. The recent rereading by Ce´beillac-Gervasoni of the ‘quattuorviral’ inscriptions of Capua6 is a salutary lesson in necessary caution, especially when dealing with texts not seen by the editors of CIL themselves. Furthermore, the opinions of earlier scholars as to the possible dates of inscriptions are often, necessarily, couched in chronologically broad terms, which in turn rely on an unhelpfully woolly periodization. To call a text ‘Sullan’, ‘Ciceronian’, or ‘Caesarian’ is to use terminology which is familiar from other types of secondary literature; but these terms are not equally valid members of the same analytical series. ‘Cinnan’, ‘Sullan’,7 and ‘Caesarian’ denote precisely deWnable periods, during which particular events intimately linked with the history and development of Italy took place, for example, civil war or colonization. The ‘Ciceronian’ period, however, has no such intrinsic link to the history of Italy, excepting possibly the years of Cicero’s consulship and of his recall from exile. Whatever Cicero thought, the development of the Italian communities in the earlier Lucilius Gamala; it might thus be expected to contain archaizing features which would assimilate it to the authority and grandeur of records of the actions of the maiores, which it certainly does on at least one other occasion, refering to the ‘nauale a L. Coilio aediWcatum’. This, then, is an antiquarian-minded text; compare another piece of Ostian Antonine antiquarianism, CIL xiv, supp. 4338, recalling the colony’s foundation by Ancus Marcius. On the inscriptions of the Gamalae, see Meiggs, Roman Ostia2 , 493–502, esp. 493 ad Wn., 499–500, not itself the last word. 5 See Badian, JRS (1968), 243, on the problematic nature of some of the dates advanced by Degrassi in Imagines. 6 Puteoli (1987), and see below on Q5 and Q6; now also Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape. 7 By ‘Sullan’ I understand the period from Sulla’s victory at the Colline Gate to his death, but the term, frequently employed without any deWnition, is sometimes a movable feast, beginning at Sulla’s Wrst consulship or extending as late as that of Pompeius and Crassus.
250
The Simple Quattuorvirate
years between the ‘Sullan’ and ‘Caesarian’ periods was not dependent on his politics or policies;8 the term ‘Ciceronian’ evokes no particular style in construction or epigraphy. This term is better avoided; it tells us less than the use of dates, even those approximate to the decade. All the inscriptions examined here were put up by, or tell us about, quattuoruiri—as such they form a signiWcant part of the epigraphic habit of the late Republican municipia, as magistrates commemorated publicly their civic actions and were themselves commemorated in life and in death. The epigraphic material is thus also heterogeneous: at least 53 out of 114 inscriptions considered in the next four chapters commemorate construction work, others are from statue bases or other dedications, or funerary monuments (27 certain or possible texts out of 114); in a few cases we simply cannot know with what type of inscription we are dealing. Funerary inscriptions, as Benelli has shown, cannot be considered in the same light as public texts and reXect personal cultural choices as well as the construction of a public persona.9 We need to remember that a building inscription, or any text which records the activity of a magistrate in his year of oYce should give us the man’s full juridical title, whereas an epitaph10 or a dedication may give only a generic title, or a list of oYces where the resolution of the titles is ambiguous. I have therefore privileged the evidence from inscriptions which clearly belong to the year of oYce. Where an inscription is fragmentary, I have always been more cautious than in dealing with a complete text. This is a self-evident caveat where names, numbers of individuals, and titulature are concerned, but it is especially important where we cannot make an accurate typological analysis of the stone.11 Municipal onomastics are at last starting to receive systematic investigation, which is allowing sounder analysis of areas like cognomina to be undertaken.12 8 His career, however, exempliWes many of the characteristics of interaction between local and Roman elites. 9 Benelli, in Italy and the West. 10 On the mixture of conservatism and innovation found in Italian funerary inscriptions in the 1st cent. bc, see Benelli, in Italy and the West, 9, 14. 11 There are further diVerences between the diVerent types of document, which must be borne in mind, which may indirectly aVect the presentation of the information which interests us. Funerary texts ‘reXect a set of choices made by whoever commissioned the monument, and which are undoubtedly inXuenced by local culture as well as individual and familial considerations . . . [and] the result of a conscious interaction between the individual and his . . . cultural makeup’ (Benelli, in Italy and the West, 9); by contrast, for Benelli, public texts are (in Braudelian terms) e´ve´nements, wave crests and spray from broader political tides and currents which we can no longer discern, precisely the type of mediumterm social change which funerary texts, as Benelli so ably shows, can demonstrate from generation to generation. Yet, funerary texts form about a third of our sample, which I would argue is, for our purposes, large enough to suggest what is normal and what exceptional, and to show both the ´evene´ments of magisterial oYce-holding, and the conjonctures of post-Social-War political culture in the municipia. 12 See in EpigraWa the contributions of Solin and Ce´beillac-Gervasoni; Solin looks at the social strata between, but not including, the senatorial and freedmen classes; Ce´beillac at local elites, both conWning themselves to Latium and Campania. I have noticed that adoptive nomenclature among municipal magistrates is rare: C. Luttius L. f. Aulianus from Tibur, and Vibius Coeianus Nucerinus of (?)Nuceria, are the only certain examples.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
251
Cognomina are generally rarer in the municipia than at Rome, the more so the further away one gets from the urbs. Some members of municipal elites still do not have cognomina in the Augustan period, others have had them in their families for generations by that point.13 Regional variations in practice can be quite striking: all four known IIII uiri from Signia have cognomina; the one known pre-Social-War magistrate lacks one; but 50 per cent of the thirty-four known magistrates of Praeneste in the decades before the Sullan colonization have a cognomen, whereas none of the known colonial magistrates has.14 In general I have observed the following rule of thumb in analysing names: cognomina become more frequent the closer one gets to the Principate, and I have tried, without being led into circular arguments, to use the appearance or absence of the cognomen as a possible dating criterion.15 Further, it seems that the tribe is found increasingly rarely as a component of the name the further one goes back before the Augustan period; its use before Augustus is very sporadic anyway.16 I have used two other assumptions for calculating dates: (i) men holding the quattuorvirate are assumed (in the absence of evidence to the contrary) to be 30 years or older on the basis of the regulation contained in tabula Heracleensis 89–107; (ii) the average generation is taken to be thirty years, but since there is reason for thinking that in some cases twenty-Wve years is more accurate, alternative calculations are also oVered based on this Wgure.17 These assumptions are in some cases open to question: therefore Wgures obtained through such calculations must always be treated with caution. Nevertheless these two assumptions are not so devoid of foundation as to be unable to provide us with a working Wgure from which we may proceed with further analysis. 13 Note Betilienus Vaarus Censorinus of Aletrium at the very beginning of the 1st cent. bc (ILLRP 528); and the fact that Cicero’s grandfather also bore that cognomen: Solin, in EpigraWa, 155. 14 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 204–6. Solin (EpigraWa, 183–4) notes the paucity of cognomina among the magistrates of the Sullan colony at Pompeii (only two individuals from Pompeii—as opposed to from outside the colony—have cognomina), and suggests a similar social composition (relatively humble—gregarii milites?) to the colony at Praeneste. 15 The rule formulated by Mommsen, that the municipal upper classes do not as a rule have cognomina even under the early Empire (StR iii. 210), seems to me very debatable. Salomies, Die ro¨mischen Vornamen, 277–311, 389, stated that only 30% of recorded individuals had cognomina by the beginning of the 1st cent. ad, but Mouritsen, Elections, 75–6, has found that at Pompeii the cognomen becomes generally adopted during the Augustan period. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni has found that between the Gracchan and Augustan periods 33.7% of Latin magistrates and 41.6% of Campanian ones had cognomina; but trying to break this down into any sort of chronological development over the period is exceedingly diYcult: EpigraWa, 202–4. Solin (ibid. 163) sees a boom in the use of cognomina in the period of transition from Republic to Empire. 16 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 195–9, notes that 2% of magistrates in Latium, and 8% in Campania, give their tribe, often in cases where the person named came from outside the community. Note that the discrepancy may be signiWcant: only 8% of Latium’s magisterial inscriptions come from the Augustan period, whereas the comparable Wgure for Campania is 34% (ibid. 203). 17 The ancients themselves seem to have taken thirty years to be canonical (see Dyson, Community, 212 n. 226 and literature there cited), but it seems twenty-Wve is nearer the average for elite families (Moreau, in Bourgeoisies). Cicero gives four subdivisions of aetas at De inu. 1. 35: ‘puer an adulescens, natu grandior an senex’; but putting absolute Wgures to these and other categories has proved notoriously diYcult.
252
The Simple Quattuorvirate
One Wnal methodological card must be placed on the table. Where inscriptions survive, and either the originals or good photographs can be consulted, I have relied upon comparisons of letter forms, and sometimes other decorative elements, in order to achieve relative datings of epigraphic texts (see further, Introduction). Whereas I would not necessarily go to the wall to defend a statement below that text (a) from municipium 1 is earlier or later than text (b) from municipium 2, I do believe that my ordering of texts from a single community has much more to be said for it. I think it is uncontroversial that we know what late republican lettering looks like, and what Augustan lettering looks like: I have sought to place as many of our texts as possible at what I see as the correct point, relative to each other, on this temporal continuum, above all where they come, or probably come, from the same municipium. ‘Correct’ is a slippery concept though: it needs to be remembered that my attributions depend partly on a notion of ‘seriation’ akin to that used in art history, which sees a linear and organic ‘advance’, ‘peak’, and ‘decline’ in all aspects of artistic and artisan production. I am not arguing that ‘nicer’ lettering is always later, but I have perhaps not made suYcient allowance for complications introduced by chronologically overlapping styles or diVerent workshops. Seriation of objects according to ‘organic’ models of growth and decline in their artisanal or artistic qualities, and the related ‘connoisseurship’ approach to art history are both rather oldfashioned (but not useless concepts), and have come under attack recently, as classical archaeology undergoes a painful metamorphosis.18 I have also assumed that communities further from Rome will be more ‘backward’ in terms of epigraphic styles and conventions than Rome itself and communities closer to Rome. I am not sure that I would now Wnd such a Romano-centric view as unproblematic as I once did, and it is not clear that communities in Latium or Campania can always be made out to be dedicated followers of Roman fashions, rather than trendsetters themselves, or at least exposed to the services of the same groups of travelling craftsmen.19 Famously 18 See Taylor, AJA (2002); for further critique of art-historical seriation, Jones, Archaeology of Ethnicity, 36–8, 130–2; for an overview of the history of typological classiWcation in prehistory (distinguishing the methodological approaches of Montelius and Pitt-Rivers) and classical archaeology, see Greene, Archaeology, 28–30. 19 Coarelli, I santuari, 93, attacking the idea that Latium or Campania can be called provincial in terms of construction techniques compared to Rome in the late 2nd or early 1st cents. (noting also that some local limestones are more diYcult to work than Roman tufos). Luna marble Wrst appears at Rome in Caesar’s dictatorship (as far as Pliny could ascertain, HN 36. 48, on Mamurra’s house; but there is no explicit evidence associating Caesar with the large-scale exploitation of the Carrara quarries: see Ward-Perkins, in Dodge and Ward-Perkins, Marble in Antiquity, 21. n. 27; for exotic marbles in the late Republic see Plin., HN 36. 45, 49–50, and note the use of Pentelic marble in the round temple in the Forum Boarium, perhaps as early as the 120s bc), but marbles are found in the area of Magna Graecia e.g. before this, and indeed in other parts of Italy: an example which almost certainly predates the Social War comes from a donario inscribed in Oscan as sacred to Pupluna from Aquinum: Antonini, SE (1985), with earlier bibliography, Coarelli, in Communita` indigene, at 183; Prof. M. H. Crawford, who has seen the stone in the course of his work for the forthcoming Imagines Italicae, has allowed me to see his entry for it in advance of publication, and conWrms that it is indeed of marble. What marmor refers to in CIL is not always clear.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
253
Pompeii had a permanent theatre, and Puteoli an amphitheatre, generations before Rome; and the sanctuaries of Fortuna Primigenia at Praeneste and Hercules Victor at Tibur made Roman public building in early Wrst century bc look weedy and awkwardly conceived. I hope I have used common sense to allow for local precocity, and not let the tail of seriation wag the epigraphic dog. Yet readers should be aware that these problems, especially the latter, were simply not problems when I put togther this chapter and the next three. I have found that my results have withstood a sceptical reread, with some adjustments, but I may not be a harsh enough critic of my own endeavours. No ancient source explicitly equates the municipalization of Italy after the Social War with the introduction of quattuoruiri, but there are no grounds to dispute the common view that posits an organic connection between the two. The Wrst datable attestation of the quattuorvirate is in 82,20 and there is no justiWcation for dating any of the quattuorviral epigraphy before the Social War. In a letter to Atticus of 51 Cicero passes on the rumour about Caesar’s intended enfranchisement of Cisalpina: ‘eos iussos IIII uiros creare’.21 Here the shorthand used to denote enfranchisement is eloquent of the close connection between becoming a Roman community and having quattuoruiri as chief magistrates. In 49 Cicero writes that Antonius ‘euocauit litteris e municipiis denos et IIII uiros’.22 Finally tabula Heracleensis repeatedly uses the formula ‘queiquomque . . . II uir IIII uir erunt, alioue quo nomine mag. potestatemue suVragio eorum, qui quoiusque municipi . . . erunt, habebunt’ vel sim.; the lex Roscia employs the analogous phraseology ‘II uir IIII uir praefectusue’;23 and that municipia of this period as a rule had IIII uiri as their chief magistrates is also borne out by the evidence of the lex Tarentina.24 The phraseology found in these texts is taken directly from the general ‘matrix-laws’25 from which municipal ‘charters’ derived and on which later legislation, such as the laws contained in the tabula Heracleensis, were based. Its catch-all verbiage implies that coloniae and municipia had as a rule II uiri or IIII uiri as chief magistrates. Exceptions are envisaged in this scheme, and they were the old Roman municipia, fewer in number than the new, and the smaller communities, the praefecturae, fora, and conciliabula. Each type of community in Italy had an appropriate magistracy: for the majority of municipia, that is, of
20 See Ch. 4. 21 Att. 5. 2. 3; cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 97; Sartori, Verona romana, 180. Degrassi was wrong to claim on the basis of this passage, ad CIL i2 . 3404, that some Transpadane communities began electing IIII uiri in 51 bc. For the highly charged nature of this rumour and its role in the political tensions of the time see Williams, Rubicon, 122. 22 Att. 10. 13. 1. The fact that neither of the two communities mentioned by name, Cumae and Neapolis, were quattuorviral serves if anything to underline the universality of the quattuorviral rule. 23 Tabula Heracleensis 83–5, cf. 90, 95–6, 98–9, 105–6, 137, 140; lex Roscia 19. 6, 20. 16–17, 28, 29, 37–8, 41, 21. 15; also Rudolph, Stadt, 87. 24 Lex Tarentina 7, 9, 12, 39 with Ch. 5. 25 For this term, coined by Frederiksen, see Ch. 5.
254
The Simple Quattuorvirate
those communities enfranchised as a result of the Social War, the appropriate magistracy was the quattuorvirate.26 One of our tasks shall be the dissection of the anatomy of the quattuorvirate. Was it always a ‘2 2’ structure, with judicial and aedilician functions being vested in two diVerent pairs of magistrates? If not, when does this division occur? How does the quattuorvirate vary within Italy as a magisterial structure? What is the relationship of the quattuoruiri to other magistrates in the municipium? The best way of approaching the internal mechanics and structure of the magistracy is a careful analysis of the quattuorviral inscriptions one by one. A rough evolution can be sketched, but caution is necessary: the unusually rich epigraphic record of Pompeii shows us that the magistrates’ titles mutated with a frequency and in ways which we would otherwise have had not the slightest reason to expect.27 In what follows I am trying to create a model. The analysis in this chapter is restricted to inscriptions which come from communities in Italy and Cisalpina enfranchised during or after the Social War, since quattuoruiri do not generally appear in Cisalpine Gaul until its enfranchisement in 49 bc, and thus reXect a more mature phase of the magistracy’s evolution. Other Cisalpine material is discussed only brieXy, where relevant. The following Wgures cover both certain and possible republican quattuorviral inscriptions, from peninsular Italy and Cisalpina. There are thirty-six attestations of the oYce of IIII uir ; thirty-nine of IIII uir iure dicundo, one of IIII uir iure dicundo quinquennalis, seventeen of IIII uir quinquennalis, one of IIII uir praetor, three of IIII uir aedilicia potestate, and three of IIII uir aedilis (a total of 101 magistracies listed on ninety-three inscriptions). Numbers in bold type (Q1–93) refer to the catalogue of quattuorviral inscriptions in the Addendum, which should be used in parallel with the discussion which follows. The material is considered geographically, moving through Italy from Latium in an anti-clockwise direction, more or less that adopted by CIL i2 ; where so many data are uncertain, it is as well to organize the material by the one secure criterion, that of provenance.
2 . QVAT T VO RV I R I (Q 1 –3 6 ) IIII uiri nude dicti (simple quattuoruiri) are attested for our period in the following municipia: Tibur, Aletrium, Sora, Pompeii, Aeclanum, Beneventum, Caudium, Paestum, Copia-Thurii, Canusium, Luceria, Larinum, Ferentium, ?Statonia, Clusium, Tarquinii, Hispellum, Sassina, Placentia, and Aquileia. Our journey will be arduous, so let us begin in pleasant Tibur, one of the centres of republican Italy which has relatively abundant information about the
26 This magistracy goes back to a general municipal law of the 80s (see Ch. 4). For duoviral municipia, see Ch. 9. 27 Onorato, RAAN (1951).
The Simple Quattuorvirate
255
quattuorvirate.28 Q1 recorded four IIII uiri, the last of whom, L. Magilius, has his name followed by the word ‘iterum’. It is vital to be able to decide whether this iteration concerned him alone, or was applied to the whole college. Since this part of the stone is lost, it is impossible to check the size and position of this word relative to the others. By default we can only observe that both the magisterial titulature and the senatorial mandate seem to have been displaced to the righthand side of the stone. This suggests, but does not prove, that ‘iterum’ in l. 5 is not to be associated with these elements of the text, but only with Magilius’ quattuorvirate. That being so, what conclusions can we draw from this inscription about the magisterial structure of Tibur? The layout of the stone (as preserved in manuscript copies) might seem to imply by the ‘separation’ of the magistrates’ names by the placing of l. 3, that we are dealing with a college divided into two pairs, e.g. IIII uiri i. d. and IIII uiri aed. pot.29 No such speciWc titles appear in the text, but we would not expect them where a whole college of IIII uiri is mentioned. On the other hand the probability that Magilius, named last, was the only quattuoruir holding oYce for a second time, should warn us against following Mancini here. To me this text suggests rather that we have here a college of IIII uiri which does not have any internal divisions and is not articulated along the lines of specialist magisterial functions. The ‘separation’ of the two ‘pairs’, as it appears, only responds to the aesthetic and practical aims of the stone-cutter. If we are dealing with an undivided college here, the dating of the inscription becomes very important. The manuscript tradition for Q1 associates it with a building of republican date, probably a covered market-hall with adjoining shops and/or storerooms, preserved as part of a medieval building near the Porta Romana.30 It is constructed mainly from concrete faced both by opus incertum and opus quasi-reticulatum,31 with squared-stone used for the quoins, arches, and the lower part of the facade. The time-span for the use of opus quasireticulatum means that the building should date between 100 and 50 bc, and Boethius and Carlgren opted for 75 (as the median date?).32 Since the ‘covered market’ was built by IIII uiri, a date before c.85 is not possible; there are reasons, based on the construction technique, for dating the building closer to this point than to 50: a slight lopsidedness of the great arched facade, as well as other features, seems to betray a slight lack of sureness in expertise in design and 28 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni calculates that we know 3% of Tibur’s magistrates between the Gracchi and Augustus, compared with the ‘national average’ of 1%: in EpigraWa, 190 n. 6. 29 So Mancini, Inscr. It. iv. 13; Coarelli, Santuari, 97. 30 See the auctores priores cited by Dessau, ad CIL xiv. 3666, esp. the testimony of Metellus, Vat. 6039f. 340’, which puts the identiWcation beyond doubt. The end of l. 1 was seen, apparently in the main arch, on the left side, by Lanciani in 1872 (although he wrongly thought the building was the temple of Hercules: Bull. Comm. (1892), 293–4); see further Boethius and Carlgren, Acta Archaeologica (1932), 206 (the doubts of Carducci, Tibur, 60, therefore seem unfounded). See also Giuliani, Tibur, i, and Addendum below. For a discussion of the building and its function see Boethius and Carlgren, Acta Archaeologica (1932), 191–208. 31 Ibid. 196. 32 Ibid. 205–6. On the new concrete construction techniques of the 2nd and 1st cents. bc, see Coarelli, PBSR (1977); Torelli, Studies in the Romanization of Italy, ch. 10.
256
The Simple Quattuorvirate
execution.33 Boethius and Carlgren, justly it seems to me, insert the building into the period of transition and reorganization of the urban centres of Latium which began in the Gracchan era, but really took oV at Tibur in the Sullan period, continuing through the Wrst century.34 A more contextual survey, seriating on the basis of construction techniques, the whole sequence of public building at Tibur from the middle of the second century to the Augustan period, places this structure before the middle of the Wrst century bc, and suggests a date in the second quarter of the century.35 I Wnd the lower end of this date range diYcult to square with the unhappy design features noted above: perhaps on balance a date between 75–65 would be suitable.36 Note Wnally that one, but only one, of the IIII uiri has a cognomen, suggesting an early date,37 earlier at any rate than Q2 and Q3. Q2 was originally in two copies (only one now survives38) diVering only in the order of the magistrates’ names. These were placed at either end of the ‘Arco Scuro’, the vaulted passage by which the Via Tiburtina passed under the temple complex of Hercules Victor as it ascended to the town.39 The lettering has been considerably altered by the cavalier application of red paint in modern times, but a close inspection enabled me to establish some points. A slight unevenness in the cutting of the letters is visible (the horizontal bar of the ‘T’ in l. 4 is very short, an ‘I’ having been mistakenly cut here Wrst). Only the round ‘O’ presents the appearance of older lettering. On the other hand the ‘C’s are closing in noticeably, and the tails of the ‘R’s show a graceful curve towards the foot. Some seriWng was present, although it has been noticeably exaggerated by the paint. 33 Cf. Boethius and Carlgren, Acta Archaeologica (1932), 197. 34 Ibid. 207–8 (not however completely acceptable). Cf. Blake, Construction, 108, who perceives a similarity between the opus incertum of our building and that of the so-called ‘Villa of Maecenas’ (the substructures of the Hercules Victor complex), which she dates to the Sullan period (ibid. 235; the opus quasi-reticulatum employed in the market is more regular than she implies: see Boethius and Carlgren, Acta Archaeologica (1932), Abb. 16, 18, 20). Lugli, however (RAL (1954), 85), puts the building a little before Caesar. A Tul. Tullius also appears as censor in ILLRP 682. Even if this is a prewar oYce (so Solin, in EpigraWa, 172), an identiWcation would not be excluded by my dating of Tullius’ quattuorvirate: Coarelli seems as happy with the idea that the same man was censor before the Social War and quattuoruir afterwards (noting the decline of ‘local’ praenomina like Tullus after the Social War) as with the idea that the quattuoruir was the son of the censor (Santuari, 96–7). I have suggested below on Q30, however, that the Tiburtine censorship may have survived the municipalization of Tibur (so also Carducci, Tibur, 23–4, but not for sound reasons; and Solin, EpigraWa, 172). In that case Tullius would pass through the cursus from quattuorvirate to censorship. 35 Coarelli, Santuari, 93–4. 36 The pre-Caesarian dating of this stone by Rudolph (Stadt, 108) is based only on the unfounded idea that, naming four quattuorviri, the stone must record a unitary college, which thus predates the Caesarian reform which introduced the duovirate and divided the quattuorvirate. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 72, 74, is non-committal on the dating of all the Tiburtine quattuorviral texts. 37 Solin notes (EpigraWa, 171–2), that the majority of Tiburtine IIII uiri have cognomina; his statistics show also that fewer individuals at Tibur had cognomina than not. Coarelli (Santuari, 98) identiWes the C. [M]ani C. f. of Inscr. It. iv/1. 632 with the C. Manius of our inscription: while suggestive of local interests of the landed aristocracies, the identiWcation, if correct, gives us no chronological information (Coarelli’s arguments are circular here). 38 Inscr. It. iv/1. 21a and b. For 21a (extant) see Marucchi, Musei e gallerie pontiWcie, ii. 57. Autopsy May 1994. 39 On the Arco Scuro/Via Tecta and the original location of the texts, see Coarelli, Santuari, 88, 95.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
257
The magistrates’ cognomina (as well as ‘iter’ in l. 2) are written in smaller letters than those used in the rest of the inscription. This suggests two things. First, it is clear that it would have been perfectly possible for the stone-cutter to have put the word iter in line 3, after ‘uir’; since he has not done this, we must assume that, like his cognomen, it concerns Rustius alone—both are supplementary details. This supports the interpretation advanced above of ‘iterum’ in l. 5 of Q1. Secondly, the fact that the cognomina are smaller than the rest of the name suggests that this inscription was put up at a date at which they were becoming a normal, but had not yet become an indispensable, part of Roman nomenclature (see below on Q3). This makes Q2 later than Q1, but how much later? The archaeology of the complex must be assessed here. For Lugli, the relationship of the complex which surrounded the temple (the so-called ‘Villa of Maecenas’, the substructure of which concerns us here) to the temple building itself was one of expansion of the latter, and consequently dated the complex later than the temple.40 The external facade of the substructure recalls the ‘Tabularium’ at Rome; Lugli sees the Tiburtine structure as copying the Roman model and dates it to the decade 70–60 bc.41 On the other hand Coarelli has sought to raise the date of complex’s construction closer to the Social War, with the period between the end of the Social War and the end of the Wrst quarter of the century as the preferred chronological window for the completion of the temple complex.42 Coarelli must in fact be right that the creation of the substructure, including the Via Tecta and the covered market,43 precede the building of the temple, or at least the version whose traces are preserved today.44 It must also be true, however, that rooWng over the Via Tecta and providing it with light wells, which is what I take ‘integendam’ to refer to, should have been one of the last acts of construction in this part of the complex, and need not necessarily antedate the construction of 40 La tecnica, ad Tav. CXVIII: ‘questa colossale platea artiWciale a cavaliere della Via Tiburtina, destinata ad aumentare la piazza intorno al tempio di Ercole’ (my italics); cf. Degrassi, ad ILLRP 679 and CIL i2 . p. 999. 41 Ibid.; parallels (this time with the vaulting) with the Tabularium: Coarelli, Santuari, 89. Lugli’s view of the date as expressed at RAL (1954), 85 is unclear; further, his contention there (cf. Giuliani, Tibur, i. 195; Solin, EpigraWa, 172) that these men were IIII uiri aed. pot. should be rejected in the absence of explicit testimony. Lugli’s date is preferable to the Sullan dating advanced by Blake, Construction, 108, cf. 331, and Boethius and Carlgren, Acta Archaeologica (1932), 205–6. Giuliani, Tibur, i. 200, opts for the decade 60–50. 42 See Coarelli, Santuari, 85, on general topography, 86–92 on the sancturay complex, and 93–7, esp. 93–5, on its relative and absolute chronology (suggesting a pre-Social-War start for the whole project, whose antecedents he also considers); on the Hercules Victor complex see also Giuliani, Tibur, i. 164–201. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni’s assertion (in EpigraWa, 199, cf. 190 n. 6, 203–4) of a date of between 88 and 85 bc for this text on the basis of Coarelli’s arguments is (a) odd and (b) cannot hold anyway. Cf. Coarelli, in Bourgeoisies, 229–32, Solin, in EpigraWa, 171. 43 For the market see Coarelli, Santuari, 86, 88. 44 The integral relation of the Via Tecta/Arco Scuro with the whole temple substructure is shown by the logical implications of the word ‘integendam’ (see Piranesi’s drawings, reproduced by Lugli, RAL (1954), Tav. CXVIII for the original appearance of the structure). The orientation of the Via Tiburtina in its Via Tecta stretch is not that of the complex itself, but at an angle to it. This must be owing to the priority of the road—see Canina’s plan, reproduced by Carducci, Tibur, Tav. IX.
258
The Simple Quattuorvirate
the temple or the adjacent theatre and portico (see below). While Lugli’s dating seems weaker than it once did, it remains very possible that the rooWng of the Via Tecta was later than c.75 bc. Despite Coarelli’s claims that the lettering is consistent with a ‘Sullan’ dating,45 the majority of the indications given by the palaeography would suggest that a date for Q2 after 70 bc is more likely.46 Our chronological parameters will thus remain 70–60. Q3 also concerns the Hercules Victor complex. The relationship between the various elements in this ambitious complex is set out by Coarelli.47 Our inscription records four IIII uiri as responsible for the building work, associated with the temple precinct and the theatre.48 There is a signiWcant gap between the right-hand and lefthand names, which in a carefully laid out inscription such as this should be indicative of a division into pairs, perhaps along lines of seniority; but nothing in this inscription from Tibur allows us to invent names by which the internal divisions in the college were designated.49 As to the date of the inscription, the smaller letters of the cognomina recall those of Q2, and other features suggest a rough contemporaneity between Q2 and Q3: the archaic form of the ‘L’ in l. 4 (but cf. l. 5), and the spelling ‘exsedram’. These factors led Dessau to date the inscription ‘aetati fere Ciceronianae’, which is unfortunately too vague to be helpful.50 The building work being undertaken in Q3 seems to be the addition of the last architectural features around an already completed core of temple and theatre,51 and may thus be contemporary with or a little later than the work recorded in Q2, perhaps in the decade c.65–55.52 Coarelli has highlighted another possible element for dating this inscription, using it to support his dating of c.75 bc as the terminus post quem non for the sanctuary complex as a whole. This is the name C. Octavius Graechinus, whom Coarelli believes identical with the Octavius Graechinus who laid an ambush for Pompeius’ foragers early in the Sertorian War.53 If this were so, his quattuorvirate would have to be dated to 77 or earlier, since from 76 Graechinus was in Spain with Sertorius, and if he is, as seems likely, identical with the ‘Grachinos’ who conspired against Sertorius with Perperna (Plut., Sert. 36. 2), the strong 45 Santuari, 95. 46 The archaic spelling of the cognomen ‘Flauos’ in l. 2 is an impediment for too low a dating, and suggests that c.60 may be too late. 47 Above, n. 42; also Mancini, Inscr. It. iv/1. 12–13. See also Giuliani, Tibur, i. 185–201. 48 Rudolph (Stadt, 108) thought that it was pre-Caesarian for the same reason that he attributed Q1 to the same period (see above, n. 36). 49 Mancini’s idea (Inscr. It. iv/1. 12) was that here we have the standard pairs of IIII uiri i. d. and aed. pot.; we are dealing with pairs, but we do not know what titles if any they used. 50 ad CIL xiv. 3664, cf. Carducci, Tibur, 70, for both Q2 and Q3, and Manni, Per la storia, 174, for Q1 and Q3, which she dates earlier than Q2. For the ‘Ciceronian period’ see above p. 249. For the form of the ‘L’, cf. CIL i2 . 1996. The square interpuncts, which Coarelli (Santuari, 96) believes are ‘Sullan’, are paralleled in Q4 below, which I date to the late 70s bc. 51 Cf. Coarelli, Santuari, 95. 52 Lugli was reluctant to date these buildings any later than 50 (RAL (1954), 85); Giuliani suggests a date of 40–30 on the grounds of some marble architectural fragments (Tibur, i. 200). 53 Front., Strat. 2. 31. 5 (from Livy, as Frontinus tells us); Coarelli, Santuari, 96–7.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
259
implication of Plut., Sert. 37. 4 is that he was hunted down and killed with the other assassins.54 The identiWcation is tempting: with great ingenuity Coarelli points out the approach of Cinna to Tibur after his expulsion from Rome in 87 (App., BC 1. 65. 294), with the implication of sympathy to the more liberal, proItalian, cause which Cinna represented; and the presence in the Tiburtine elite of Sertorii in this period.55 The case for seeing this trusted oYcer of Sertorius as a Tiburtine is worth accepting with due caution. All considered, however, there are problems with inserting Q3 into such an early chronological window, both on epigraphic criteria and because of the accelerated building chronology it implies for the Hercules Victor complex. Our Graechinus might be a son, however: Coarelli’s rejection of this possibility on the grounds that Sertorius’ lieutenant would have been proscribed, and his son denied local oYce as one of the sons of the proscribed, while not impossible, rests on two assumptions, neither in any way substantiated by the evidence:56 Wrst, that the sons of the proscribed were debarred from local oYce-holding, and, second, that the Sertorian Graechinus was proscribed in the Wrst place. Our elder Graechinus was evidently a man of both seniority (leading out twenty cohorts; one of the few named conspirators) and trusted by Sertorius at the time of the ambush recorded by Frontinus, and therefore is unlikely to have been a young man, but was probably at least 40, and thus born not later than c.115 bc. On a thirty-year generation a son would be born not later than c.85 bc (90 bc on a twenty-Wve year reckoning), and thus eligible to be come IIII uir not later than c.55 bc (or 60); note that however we read the pairings of magistrates on the stone, Graechinus seems to be one of the junior pair.57 Such a career, perhaps running a little earlier than the latest possible dates, Wts nicely with the other indications we have, and we may stick to our original dating of c.65–55. I shall return to Tibur, but for now we should note one point. Q1 implies, as we have seen, that at some point in the decade c.75–65 bc the quattuorviral college at Tibur was undivided; on the basis of the later texts Q2 and Q3, sometime between 70 and 55 bc, the same college was clearly split into two pairs, about whose titles and functions we can say nothing. Let us test the Tiburtine schema against the remaining quattuorviral epigraphy. Our inscription Q4, from Aletrium, records the activity of the IIII uir P. Betilienus Hap(alus?).58 The only dating indicator we have is the letter forms. The letters are not regularly or carefully cut (this may in part be due to cutting after the block had been immured—note the ligature in ‘murum’). In particular the open ‘M’ and ‘P’, along with the deep ‘C’ with the lengthened horizontals, are 54 As Coarelli points out (ibid.), Graechinus could have left as early as 82, with Sertorius. 55 ILLRP 682: P. Sertorius and Tul. Tullius, censores; see Ch. 8 for the suggestion that this is a postSocial-War oYce. 56 Coarelli, Santuari, 97. 57 So too ibid. 96. This younger C. Octavius Graechinus might be identical with the military tribune of Inscr. It. iv/1. 161; unfortunately that inscription is lost, and thus undatable. Note also the Octavius Hersennius of Tibur, who wrote on the cult of Hercules there (Macr., Sat. 3. 12. 7); Hersenius might disguise Herrenius, for which gentilicium at Tibur see Q38. 58 Or Haplus—see Solin, Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom, ii. 752, for this Greek cognomen.
260
The Simple Quattuorvirate
indicative of an early date; add to which the unusual interpuncts, oscillating between square and round.59 Such elements might suit a date even as early as c.70 bc,60 bearing in mind the proximity of Rome and the degree of Latinization of the Hernican communities. Sadly we cannot say anything about the wall which Betilienus built. Gasperini proposed to identify it with the polygonal wall around the rocca at Alatri, which he saw as the Wnal phase of the walls of the town, dating to the years immediately after the Social War.61 Yet Zevi has shown that this wall, at least as preserved, must precede the activity of L. Betilienus Vaarus,62 which on any reckoning must be earlier than the wall of P. Betilienus. Furthermore, the block on which Q4 is cut is not polygonal, as Gasperini thought, but clearly originally squared-stone.63 Unfortunately, while excluding Aletrium’s various polygonal walls, this fact does not help us, since no opus quadratum walls are known.64 P. Betilienus is probably the son of one of the Aletrian Betilieni of ILLRP 189;65 they themselves were most likely coeval with the great L. Betilienus Vaarus of ILLRP 528. The majority of scholars place the latter in the second half of the second century, a conclusion reached on the basis of the letter forms,66 and of the uacatio militiae granted to Betilienus’ son.67 The uacatio was discussed in the preceding chapter; I think that the letter forms could belong to the early Wrst century bc. I would not date it later than 80; a slightly earlier date is preferable, perhaps 86/85, which would allow a synchronism between the Roman census of that year and the second censorship of Vaarus.68 There does not in any case seem to be much distance in time between Vaarus and Hap(alus) the IIII uir. In any case, if the latter is son of the M. Betilienus of ILLRP 189 (without cognomen, note) a date for our text in the late 70s would Wt. 59 Not round as reported by Gasperini, Aletrium, i. 20; cf. the interpuncts of ILLRP 189 (Imagines, 92). 60 Cf. Mommsen, ad CIL i2 . 1530: ‘litteris vetustioribus’ (‘rather ancient letters’). Solin even suggests a date in the 80s (in EpigraWa, 176–7). Cf. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 66. 61 Aletrium, i. 22, 77; so also Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1003. 62 In Hellenismus, i. 87 (cf. on the porticus, Winnefeld, MDIR (1889), 150–2). Zevi also notes (85–6) that Q4 is too small to be part of this polygonal wall. 63 It has now been removed from the position where it was previously immured, and mounted on a free-standing metal frame (autopsy May 1994). 64 A defensive wall built c.70 may perhaps be seen as a response to prevailing uncertainty. 65 A dedication to Iuppiter by ‘M., C. Betilienei M. [f.]’, it seems to be pre-Social War, although not perhaps by much: Degrassi, ILLRP ad loc. puts it in the 1st cent., Solin on the border between 2nd and 1st (in EpigraWa, 177). For similarities between the letter forms of this inscription and ILLRP 528 see Gasperini, Aletrium, i. 19–20. For an M. Betilienus as a property owner in the territory of Brundisium in the 1st cent. bc, known from amphora stamps, see Silvestrini, in E´lites, 33 and n. 11, 35 and n. 30. 66 Ritschl, Priscae Latinitatis Monumenta Epigraphica, 46–7: 134 bc; cf. Winnefeld, MDIR (1889), 148: Gracchan; Van Buren, Rend. Acc. Pont. (1933), 138, (1941–2), 68: 130–120 bc; Blake, Construction, 97–8: c.130; Solin, in EpigraWa, 176: last decades of 2nd cent. Devijver’s characterization of the inscription as ‘arcaico-repubblicano’ (Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia (1981), 38) is mysterious. 67 Mommsen ad CIL i2 . 1529 thought it must be pre-Social War; followed by Rosenberg, Staat, 34, and Degrassi, ILLRP ad loc., Imagines, 220 (second half of the 2nd cent.). Cf. Zevi, in Hellenismus, i. 84 (last quarter of the 2nd cent.). 68 For the possibility of municipal censores existing after the Social War see further Ch. 8.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
261
The expunging of Capua from the quattuorviral oikumene¯ should be noted here brieXy. Mommsen’s authority led to the received wisdom that an inscription from Puteoli (Q5) recorded one Numerius Cluvius as IIII uir at Capua. A new reading by Ce´beillac-Gervasoni,69 conWrmed by Solin,70 has shown that Numerius was in fact duumuir at Capua. Thus Capua need not detain us further; as for the other elements of Cluvius’ cursus, I believe that they can be comprehensively reconstructed with the help of another Puteolan inscription (Q6), preserved only in manuscript copies.71 This records a similar cursus for a Cluvius, who is very probably the same man, even though Q6 orders the cursus diVerently from Q5. I have discussed these two texts in detail elsewhere, and here limit myself to reiterating the conclusions reached there about the quattuorviral magistracies held by N. Cluvius.72 Q6 records a quattuorvirate at ‘[C]audium’ and a quinquennial quattuorvirate at, on my restoration, Cales (also to be restored at the end of l. 2 in Q5). As to the date of the inscriptions, Q5 must be later than 58 bc, but is probably not later than the end of that decade; and Q6 is in all probability earlier than Q5; the quattuorvirates recorded at Caudium, and (in a quinquennial capacity) at Cales, held in that order, should belong to the 60s at the latest.73 We cannot pass through Campania without visiting Pompeii. Here the atypically fecund epigraphic record is still the subject of misunderstanding and controversy. Two inscriptions (Q7 and 8) record Pompeian quattuoruiri, but the weight of scholarly opinion (going back to De Petra in 186574) is against calling a spade a spade, choosing instead to see here two pairs of colonial magistrates (II uiri and aediles) acting together as a uniWed college, and calling themselves IIII uiri when they do so. This has been the view of the majority of scholars since, notably, Mommsen, Mau, Manni, Degrassi, Gabba, Castre´n, and Mouritsen.75 Yet I believe that the IIII uiri of Pompeii deserve reinstatement, and with them their proper constituency, the municipium of Pompeii, which I believe existed before, and for two or three decades after, the Sullan colonization of 80 bc.76 In maintaining this position I also reject the thesis of Onorato, who accepted that the Pompeian quattuorvirate was a combined magistracy, but believed that the aediles were the magistrates of the municipium, not the colonia,
69 Puteoli (1987), 3–12. For further discussion of this text see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, esp. 45–7. 70 Puteoli (1988–9), 71–4. 71 On the relationships between the texts, and the magistracies, of Q5 and 6 see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 39–61. 72 Note that my claim (ibid 73 n. 153) that there was an A. Cluvius at Ostia is false. I also neglected in the acknowledgements for that piece to thank Andrew Wilson for kindly procuring photographs of Q5 from the DAI in Rome—an omission I am here happy to rectify. 73 See Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, esp. 52–61. 74 AAN 1 (1865), 44. 75 Mommsen: CIL x. p. 93; GS i. 325–6; Mau: Pompeii, 86; Manni: Per la storia, 203–5; Degrassi: SVA i. 107–8, iv. 49, ad ILLRP 643, 644; Gabba: Esercito, 606; Castre´n: Ordo, 51, 63, 83; Mouritsen: Elections, 72. 76 See App. 1. CIL i2 . 1634 has the correct reading (‘duouir’, thanks to Mancini, Atti della R. Acad. di archeologia di Napoli, 12 (1887), 24–6) of CIL x. 8148 (with p. 1006), where Mommsen and Mau read ‘IVuir’.
262
The Simple Quattuorvirate
and that the creation of the quattuorvirate, a short-lived amalgam of the two Pompeian administrations, marked the Wnal fusion of the two communities.77 At Wrst sight the traditional case is strong. As has often been pointed out, Cuspius T. f. and M. Loreius M. f., IIII uiri in Q7 also appear together as II uiri;78 and the M. Porcius in Q8 is one of a famous pair of II uiri of the early colony.79 Furthermore, the term ‘IIII uir’ in Q7 is repeated after each pair of names, and this has been taken to imply that they were in reality two pairs of magistrates, who, acting in concert, called themselves IIII uiri.80 Yet there are also objections to be made to this interpretation of the Pompeian quattuorvirate. The acceptance of the existence of a municipium at Pompeii (see App. 1) entails, independently of any view on these inscriptions, the acceptance of IIII uiri at least for the period before 80. They are, indeed, to be attested by Oscan dipinti mentioning the word ‘IIII ner’,81 which should, by virtue of being in Oscan date from the very earliest years of the municipium; and this magistracy will not have vanished from Pompeii in 80 unless the municipium too vanished then, which it did not. Further, Q7 and Q8 are not complementary; they do not support the same interpretation. Q7 is now lost, and the reported text cannot be checked: our Puteolan text (Q5) advises caution about received readings. The ostensible repetition of the word ‘IIII uir’ in Q7 is not found in Q8. Now it can be seen from the photograph of the latter that between lines 1 and 2 faint letters survive: ‘XT’ and ‘C’.82 These must refer to the nomen Sextilius and the praenomen of Cn. Cornelius respectively, and imply that the engraver made some eVorts to Wt the inscription neatly into the Weld provided by the block of the altar on which he was working. This would, in turn, suggest that he has not omitted to repeat ‘IIII uir’ through carelessness. If careless cutting is to be sought, it may be rather in Q7. Furthermore there is in Q8 no attempt to diVerentiate between the two supposed pairs of magistrates by having two on the top line, and two on the bottom: the disposition of the words serves aesthetic ends, not quattuorviral protocol.83 77 RAAN (1951), 149 n. 1, 151–3. It seems perverse that Onorato insisted on depriving himself of the strongest evidence for the existence of the municipium by adopting this explanation of the IIII uiri. He correctly rejected, however, the idea of Beloch, RG 512, 653, that the IIII uiri were the Wrst magistrates of the colony. 78 CIL i2 . 1629, with CIL iv. p. 189a–d. 79 ILLRP 645–6. On the identiWcation of all these Porcii as the same man see App. 2. 80 For this repetition Degrassi, SVA i. 142–3 and ad ILLRP, compares CIL xiii. 5343; but the second ‘IIII uir’ in l. 4 is a very uncertain reading. 81 Vetter, Handbuch 29, 30e–h ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte, 107, Po 40–1, 46, 50. Castre´n, whose brief discussion of this topic is misleading, seems unaware of the paradox caused by his acceptance that IIII ner could be the same as IIII uiri (Ordo, 45): this implies the existence of a municipium soon after the Social War (cf. Letta, Magistrature, 74, who refers these texts to the pre-colonial period). One would expect to Wnd Oscan graYti at that time; the names of the candidates are Sabellian too. 82 Auctarium 250a and b. 83 The arrangement of the lines in Q7 does not reXect the supposed division either—but the engraver has taken little thought to make the lines correspond to the logical units of the text. Of course there is no guarantee that the line divisions in the MS are those of the stone.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
263
We cannot prove that the repetition (certainly unparalleled in republican Italy) can be put down simply to carelessness. Other factors may explain it. Whatever work these magistrates supervised may have taken some time to build, either through size or lack of money (note that no probatio is recorded in the text as we have it, although the lapicide could have included it in the last line by abbreviating ‘curauerunt’). Therefore two members of two successive quattuorviral colleges may be recorded here. It is more likely to my mind that the repetition of IIII uir is to be associated with a recent division of the quattuorviral college into two unequal pairs, a development whose consequences we have seen reXected at Tibur (Q2 and 3). Surely it is easier to see these magistrates as real IIII uiri, than as II uiri and aediles in disguise.84 Other considerations can be adduced in support of this interpretation. First we may brieXy note that Q8 comes from an altar in the temple of Apollo, one of the principal deities of Oscan Pompeii. While not impossible that colonists would let out the contract for building an altar to Apollo, it would seem more natural in the early years for them to cultivate Venus at her imposing temple above the port (the colony bore the epithet Veneria, recalling Sulla’s special connection with Venus85), and leave the original Pompeiani to revere Apollo. Certainly the conXict between the two groups in the Wrst decades of the colony’s life would not necessarily encourage us to expect magistrates of the colonia to venerate a major pre-colonial god.86 A locatio by the municipal magistrates is the simplest interpretation of Q8. There are further weaknesses in the traditional solution to the Pompeian quattuorviral problem. It seems highly probable that the colony of Pompeii had aediles.87 It would then seem odd that a number of men under the Republic campaigned for the oYce of aedilis, but never refer to themselves by this name once in oYce, but rather as IIII uiri. Again why should II uiri when linked with aediles call themselves IIII uiri, instead of insisting on distinguishing themselves?88 Such a state of aVairs would be even more unusual bearing in mind that we are dealing with Sulla’s veteran colonies, not only set apart from the Italian municipia, but even settled to watch over those that had shown particular hostility to him in the Civil (and possibly the Social) War. That the Sullan colonies would have used a 84 So Rudolph, Stadt, 88 n. 2, 93 n. 1, and 106, 108 on Q7 and 8, cf. 104, Etienne, La Vie quotidienne a` Pompe´i, 123–4 (confused). 85 See Ciprotti, Chron. Pomp. (1976), 21. The epithet’s connection with Sulla has however been disputed: see Weber, Klio (1975), 181 nn. 16–17 for bibliography on the question. 86 See Cic., Sull. 60–2. Unsurprisingly, there was a revival of the Apolline cult at Pompeii under Augustus (Castre´n, Ordo, 101). 87 See App. 1. 88 In ILLRP 641 L. Caesius is clearly distinguished from the two other magistrates (‘II uiri’) mentioned by being styled as ‘II uir i. d.’. One might ask why these magistrates, acting together as a combined unit, do not call themselves IIII uiri (cf. Q53). This inscription seems to belong to the last years of the Republic (contra Degrassi, ad Auctarium, 249, and Mouritsen, Elections, 77, who make it early colonial), by which time it is generally admitted that there were no more IIII uiri. If it were earlier, then we should note that the two grades of magistrate are distinguished, not combined. If later, we may wonder why this easy expedient was apparently not adopted in the earlier period.
264
The Simple Quattuorvirate
municipal magisterial board, something particularly associated with the Cinnan regime, or even that such an arrangement, if not planned by Sulla, would be found in practice, is hard to conceive.89 The whole set-up in fact seems unecessary and implausible as an explanation of the quattuorvirate at Pompeii. Castre´n has (ironically) found a measure of the unsatisfactoriness of this reconstruction, when he characterizes it as ‘a sort of collegium of quattuorviri’.90 Of a sort yes, but no sort that corresponds to either logic or the evidence for the administration of Pompeii. Even after making allowance for diVerent modes of expression among diVerent oYce-holders, varying fashions and levels of competence in stone-cutting (note the diVerences between Q7 and 8 highlighted above), the De Petra/Mommsen theory looks awkward as a means of explaining the IIII uiri at Pompeii. One obvious objection can be made against my reconstruction, however. The name M. Porcius on Q8 is surely that of the twice II uir, one of the most important Wgures in the early colony. Some of the other names on the two quattuorviral texts are Roman (Claudius, Cornelius, Sextilius), and the remaining names could quite possibly be colonial as well.91 Yet, apart from Porcius, to whom we shall return, the rest of the names can be reconciled with a municipal magistracy in a number of ways. First, as noted in Appendix 1, it seems that Roman citizens had settled in Pompeii before and after the Social War, as resident aliens in the Oscan community, or as incolae and even members of the new municipium.92 I support there the view that the q(uaestor) with the Latin gentilicium Caecilius was municipal and not colonial. Could the same not apply to others? An examination of individuals is necessary. Later attestations of the same gentilicia were grist to Castre´n’s mill (not accepting the existence of the municipium, he attributes most families without an obviously Oscan name to the colony), but are no help to us, since before the end of the Republic the municipium had merged into the colonia; all later names are consequently those of colonists, and give no information about a family’s origin. Cuspius T. f. comes from a family of Italic stock;93 the problem is that he was also II uir in the early period of the colony.94 The same applies equally for his
89 The continued use of epithets to distinguish the Sullan colonists from the original inhabitants, down to and beyond the Augustan period, is an indication of the prestige attaching to the colonies, as well as of the tenacity of the local (municipal) elements; see App. 1. 90 Ordo, 51. 91 The doubts of Degrassi about identifying Porcius the II uir and Porcius the IIII uir (SVA i. 107 n. 50) are unfounded. Onorato ignores onomastic problems: for him the two lower magistrates in each case will be of municipal origin (a Septumius, a Claudius, and two Cornelii). 92 Note that in early 90 there were 2,000 Romans in Nola: App. BC 1. 42. 185, surely not (all) from a Roman garrison, cf. i. 38. 170–1 for Asculum, suggesting that in 91 the Roman supervision of suspect cities was in the hands of a few prominent individuals. For high levels of background mobility in the Mediterranean see Horden and Purcell, Corrupting Sea, ch. 9. 93 Rix, Die etruskischer Cognomen, 312, for Cuspius. An early occurrence of the name at Rome proves nothing about Pompeii (CIL i2 . 1501; the same man?). 94 CIL i2 . 1629. Hence Castre´n assigns him to the colony (Ordo, 161).
The Simple Quattuorvirate
265
colleague on both occasions, M. Loreius M. f., whom Castre´n makes ‘almost certainly’ colonial, despite the Oscan name.95 L. Septumius L. f. could again come from a colonial family:96 we know of a M. Septumius who was a duoviral candidate in the early days of the colony.97 Yet this in itself proves nothing conclusive, especially since we know that a L. Septum[ius] was IIII uir i. d. at Beneventum under the Republic.98 D. Claudius D. f. is included among the colonists by Castre´n, but he admits the possibility that he is descended from an earlier immigrant trading family.99 His praenomen could equally be D(ecimus)— Roman—or the Oscan D(ecius). All these men could be of pre-colonial, municipal, families. Equally, in Appendix 1 it is suggested that colonists may have had themselves, or more likely their municipal partisans, elected to municipal oYces as a mechanism of control. We might have an instance of this here: the colony was the dominant element at Pompeii, and such undue inXuence is not to be excluded.100 Alternatively these four men held oYce in the municipium in their own right, but subsequently three of them (perhaps not Septumius) were part of a group of municipes who adopted an attitude of conciliation to the colony, and went on to be adlected onto its ordo and to hold magistracies. The desire for acceptance within the colony on the one hand, and the willingness of the colonial governing class to accept these men on the other is perhaps not hard to understand. The colonists would have welcomed the chance to improve the atmosphere in Pompeii by linking up with municipal (and at that non-Oscan) elements. Men with some municipal inXuence, and a conciliatory attitude, were not to be lightly refused entry to the colony’s ordo. The date of CIL i2 . 1629 may support this hypothesis. Castre´n assigns it to either the period after the Social War (but II uiri are impossible before 80) or to the period of Spartacus’ activity in Campania.101 Crises like that of Spartacus can 95 Ibid. 184. The name is only found elsewhere at Minturnae in the Republic, but this proves nothing, as by no means all of the gentilicia attested on the cippi of the magistri of Minturnae (ILLRP 724–46) are Roman or even Latin in origin. Minturnae is of course at a crucial point of interface between Latium Adiectum and Campania. Gordon, JRS (1917), 166–7, considers that both Loreius and Cuspius, alone of the IIII uiri, belong to the Oscan group at Pompeii, followed by Gabba, Esercito, 607; Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 166, 176; but note Castre´n’s critique of Gordon’s approach: Ordo, 34. 96 So Castre´n, Ordo, 219. 97 CIL iv. 40 with p. 190. 98 Q47 below, where it is suggested that the two may be identical. For other republican Septumii, see CIL i2 . 1490 (Tibur), listing a magister Capitolinus registered in the Collina at Rome; and i2 . 3105 from Atina. 99 Ordo, 154; for Claudii at the Latin colony of Paestum see Torelli, Tota Italia, 76, 85. Claudii are attested in a number of Pompeian programmata (CIL iv. 32, 38, 69, 2888?, 2890, 2898). Those related to aedilician elections should be colonists. 100 Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 166–7, 173, thinks this would have been impossible; but nevertheless posits a temporary Oscan constitution with magistrates provided by a pro-Sullan group of proto-settlers (see App. 1). It is not unheard of, although rare, for magistrates of one community at some time to hold oYce in a neighbouring one: for the phenomenon see below Ch. 10 and Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 53 and n. 72, 68–72 101 Ordo, 88, cf. 50, and Mouritsen, Elections, 78.
266
The Simple Quattuorvirate
provoke a discernible response in the form of defensive building work, but there is sometimes a time-lag involved. It is thus not impossible that this text should attest building work done in the early 60s.102 If I am right that the peculiarity of Q7 can be explained by a recent division of the quattuorviral college, it should, given our Tiburtine evidence, not date earlier than c.70 bc.103 If there were a colonial census at that time ‘inspired’ by the election of censors at Rome in 70, as seems plausible,104 municipal elements admitted then could perhaps have risen to the duovirate by c.65, especially if they had already held a magistracy.105 A number of explanations then are possible to explain the colonial look of the IIII uiri in Q7. What about Q8? I am not going to try to prove a municipal origin for Porcius. Let us leave him aside for the moment and consider his colleagues. Cn. Cornelius Cn. f. and A. Cornelius A. f. have a gentilicium too common to be of use, and if we can have municipal Caecilii, we can certainly have municipal Cornelii.106 L. Sextilius L. f. comes from a family of probable colonial origin according to Castre´n, but his own citations of other Sextilii must cast doubt on this: again, proof is lacking.107 All three could be municipes. I think that, as in Q7, they are;108 this is the simplest solution, but my argument does not absolutely depend on it. Porcius alone is a colonist. His presence, and cooperation with municipal men, can I think be explained as follows. I noted above Porcius’ surprising involvement in the locatio for an altar for the temple of Apollo. I believe that the only context which admits Porcius as one of the magistrates here is in the wake of the resolution of the disagreements between colonists and Pompeiani. I think that Porcius’ action can here can be seen as one of reconciliation, a symbolic gesture on the part of one of the great Wgures of the Sullan colonization to honour the god of pre-Roman Pompeii, signalling an era of cooperation and integration (note that he occupies Wrst place in the inscription). The later we date such a gesture, the less likely it becomes that Porcius, Xourishing since c.80, was still living. His colleague in two colonial magistracies, Quinctius Valgus, was alive for Cicero to refer to him in 63 in De lege agraria, and it is perfectly plausible that Porcius too survived the twenty-odd years after the deductio of the colony. Now we know the disagreements between the Pompeiani 102 Zangermeister, CIL iv. p. 189, commented that it was ‘satis prisca’, and not later than Augustus in any event. Hence not from the Wrst decade of the colony? 103 See also below on Q12; Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 78, dates all the Pompeian quattuorviral texts before 49 bc. 104 This may be the context of the quinquennial duovirate of Quinctius Valgus and Porcius, although c.75 is also possible. 105 Later the interval between aedileship and duovirate at Pompeii was probably three to Wve years (Castre´n, Ordo, 64 n. 3). 106 Castre´n makes them colonial (ibid. 157–8). CIL iv. 66 with p. 191 may refer to our A. Cornelius. Neither was descended from Sulla’s freedmen, as supposed by Nissen, Pomp. Stud. 227 (Barbara Levick draws my attention to the Wliation). 107 Ibid. 221. CIL i2 . 1883–4 (Amiternum), ILLRP 636 (Paestum), 664 (Setia), and most importantly P. Sextilius P. f. Fal. Rufus, one of the ueteres at Nola and an imperial II uir at Pompeii (see App. 1). 108 The absence of cognomina works both ways: there were few among the Sullan colonists; but equally only 3% of male names on Oscan inscriptions featured them (see Solin, in EpigraWa, 184).
The Simple Quattuorvirate
267
and the colonists were ongoing in 62 when the pro Sulla was delivered, and that they seem to have been resolved by 55, if a remark of Cicero is anything to go by.109 Degrassi dates Q8 to the middle of the Wrst century,110 and the lettering is certainly later than that of the other inscriptions in which Porcius Wgures, though perhaps unlikely to belong as late 50 bc. A date between 62 and 55 is thus acceptable for the altar, nor is it too late for our Porcius to be involved.111 In conclusion, I believe that there are strong formal objections, and others based on probability, to the common equation of the Pompeian IIII uiri with an ephemeral ad hoc college formed of II uiri and aediles. It is more economical to see the magistracy as a municipal one, as elsewhere, and given that there was a municipium at Pompeii until the early 50s bc, it seems most natural for these IIII uiri to belong there. There is no convincing reason why any of the IIII uiri should have belonged to the colony rather than the municipium, with the exception of Porcius, whose presence in Q8 can be explained adequately by reference to the internal political situation of Pompeii at that time. As elsewhere, even in other communities which received Sullan colonies, it must be admitted that the IIII uiri are what they would be understood to be anywhere else: municipal magistrates. A third inscription probably commemorating a Pompeian IIII uir is CIL x. 1075 (listed in CIL under the rubric ‘tituli sepulchrales locorum incertorum’, and known only from manuscripts). It is the gravestone of the IIII uir [-] Vibius Coeianus Nucerinus. Now, such a portentous name looks initially unlikely to be pre-Augustan at Wrst blush;112 but an adoptive cognomen, if rare, can nonetheless be paralleled (Q3, from Tibur),113 and Nucerinus would also be paralleled, as referring to a Nucerian domiciled and indeed holding oYce at Pompeii.114 Castre´n includes Vibius as a doubtful Pompeian IIII uir in his list of republican magistrates;115 given that there are some two dozen Vibii known from Pompeii, this seems in fact to be quite as reasonable an interpretation as assuming, for example, that Vibius was IIII uir at Nuceria, or aedile in the post-Philippi colony there.116 The date of the inscription cannot be determined; we need not assume that Vibius was IIII uir when he set up this monument to his daughter.117 109 Cic., Fam 7. 1, with Castre´n, Ordo, 55, 90. See App. 1. 110 ad Auctarium, 250. 111 Despite the weathered state of the surface of Porcius’ grave stele (ILLRP 650, for the identiWcation see also Dyson, Community, 149), I should be unhappy on palaeographical grounds to date it, and consequently his death, later than c.50 bc, by which time a Sullan partisan of 80 might reasonably have died; we do not hear of Valgus after 63. 112 Cf. Mouritsen, Elections, 71 n. 261. 113 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 201, but note 202 n. 80; Wiseman, New Men, 90, prefers a republican date. 114 Cf. ILLRP 676 (Visellius Flaccus Beneventanus); Degrassi, SVA i. 107 and n. 49; Sartori, Problemi, 72 n. 14, 155 n. 7, Weber, Klio (1975), 181 n. 18; note also that Nuceria was in the Menenia, Vibius’ tribe—Taylor, Voting Districts, 161, 273. 115 Ordo, 271. 116 Vibii at Pompeii: Castre´n, Ordo, 240–1; Coeii are unknown at Pompeii, and indeed anywhere in the indices of CIL x. Coeianus may be a misreading for ‘Coelianus’, Coelii being known from Pompeii, with a Coelia Secundilla at Nuceria under the Empire: CIL x. 1098. On the triumviral colony at Nuceria: Keppie, Colonisation, 151. 117 The apparent presence of ‘I’ longa in this text does not rule out the date suggested.
268
The Simple Quattuorvirate
Mommsen applied the explanation which he had proposed for the Pompeian quattuoruiri to explain Q9, from Nola, as well.118 It is, however, even less acceptable at Nola than it was at Pompeii. We are dealing here with only one man:119 one can understand, at least, why two pairs of colonial magistrates acting in concert might want to refer to themselves as a joint board of IIII uiri, but this cannot explain why a single aedile, acting alone, should style himself IIII uir. Mommsen cannot have his cake and eat it: we must be dealing again with a municipal IIII uir. The question then arises: was he IIII uir of Nola? If the answer is yes, then we have further evidence for a double community there.120 One is struck in this inscription by the lack of any senatorial mandate (and thus any probatio) for such a large amount of public building,121 and by the last three lines which unashamedly ‘butter up’ the colony and the colonists. Now C. Catius was a man of some means to have built so extensively (and it might be thought odd, were he an aedile, for a junior magistrate to be spending so profusely). His euergetism may have been designed to lay particular obligations upon the colonists, or perhaps to bring himself to the attention of the regime which had established the colony.122 It seems a priori unlikely that there would be many indigenous Nolani remaining who preserved their wealth from the vengeful hands of the dictator after the capture of the city in 80 bc: Sulla had waited almost a decade for his reckoning with these particular enemies.123 Catius was possibly a pro-Sullan Nolan (whether of long standing or recent loyalty), but he 118 CIL x. p. 142; followed by Manni, Per la storia, 207; Degrassi, SVA i. 107, ad ILLRP 116. 119 Cf. the singular verb form in l. 2. 120 See App. 1, cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 93 n. 2 (problematic chronology). For an Augustan colony at Nola, see Plin., HN 3. 63. 121 The other Nolan inscription of certain republican date, ILLRP 630, a dedication, carries no senatorial mandate. See App. 2 for CIL x. 1250 as a probable republican inscription from Nola—it too lacks senatorial sanction, for the same reason. One would think that a mandate or probatio was needed in Q9 since some public money was being used (‘publice’, l. 1); and considering the size of the work, the colonial ordo must have been consulted, cf. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in Bourgeoisies, 53 n. 10. 122 The inscription may date to the 70s (compare ILLRP 528 from Aletrium for a pre-Social-War campus; see Ch. 5). Degrassi ad loc. put it not long after the colonization, and Mansuelli, RSA (1976–7), 122–3, placed it in the Wrst part of the 1st cent. noting the similarity between ll. 5–7 of our inscription and the Pompeian text ILLRP 645, ll. 3–6, where the amphitheatre is built ‘coloniai honoris / caussa’ and given ‘in perpetuom’ to the colonists by the II uiri quinquennales Quinctius Valgus and Porcius (the contention of Sabbatini Tumolesi Lungo that ‘honoris caussa’ here means ‘in return for’ of the magistracy conferred on Valgus and Porcius by the colony (RAL (1972), 489–90, (1974), 286–7) is unacceptable). The two texts would thus be almost contemporary, and provide a valuable insight into the self-assured ideology of the Sullan colonies (cf. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 76, for a ‘Sullan’ date). Devijver, however, suggests an imperial date for Q9 (although he is wrong to claim that ‘honoris causa’ in l. 6 modiWes ‘IIII uir’ in l. 1, instead of Genius and coloni (l. 5) ), perhaps not without reason (Devijver and van Wonterghem, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia (1981), 43, 38); remove the similarities with the Pompeian texts noted above, and there is little obviously republican about the text, and the schola seems very early for the 70s. 123 The lists for the proscriptions had closed by the time Nola fell, but post euentum insertion, the rules of war, or the legislation authorizing the colony could have ensured eVective conWscation.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
269
might also be from outside Nola.124 In any event, Q9 oVers no proof for colonial IIII uiri at Nola. For the republican period these magistrates are an implausible and unnecessary invention of modern scholarship, and should be forgotten. The Nolan municipal quattuorvirate seems, then, divided at some point in the 70s (although Catius may have been acting alone).125 Inscriptions Q10 and 11, from Beneventum, are both funerary stelae for municipal oYce-holders and members of their families. Mommsen believed that in both cases only one oYce, that of IIII uir aedilis, was recorded.126 For Q10, however, Degrassi, correctly in my opinion, interpreted the words as denoting two oYces, IIII uir and aedilis.127 We know of no evidence which even suggests that Beneventum diVered at all from other municipia in respect of the constitution given to it after the Social War: nothing implies that the chief magistrates of Beneventum on municipalization were not IIII uiri. Q10 and 11, then, give, in descending order, the cursus of the dead men, which is after all what we should expect on a funerary inscription. There is no way of proving Mommsen wrong, but the extreme rarity of incontrovertible instances of IIII uiri aediles under the Republic (conWned to one town)128 is a good prima facie case against him. As to the date of these texts, 41 bc is a deWnite terminus ante quem, since a triumviral colony was founded at Beneventum in that year.129 Q11 aVords no clues, being known only from manuscripts, but the Xoral decoration on either side of the epigraphic Weld in Q10 recalls the relief carving above the text of ILLRP 364, which belongs to the triumviral period.130 The letter forms are very
124 In the latter case it is odd that his origo was not speciWed. For such an external origin Beneventum is possible: Q10: Catia Vibi f. (such a Wliation might imply an origin from a less latinized community than Beneventum). Note also CIL ix. 1783 (Beneventum) and 2178 (Caudium); and Q. Catius Aemilianus, who had economic interests in the ager Thurinus (Cic., Tull. 19); Wiseman, New Men, 115 and n. 2; and CIL ix. 3461–2 (Peltuinum, cf. 3571) for possible Vestinian Catii. The only other Catius in CIL x is from Ferentinum (5835); the Pompeian example (8058.17) must be discounted, since it is on a signaculum, and thus mobile. 125 Faced with such a pro-colonial act by one of its magistrates, the municipium of Nola may have withheld oYcial sanction (probatio). The term IIII uir on its own, divorced from senatorial sanction, might thus be a sign only of social standing. 126 CIL ix. p. 136. 127 ILLRP 557. Later (CIL i2 . p. 1030) he reported Mommsen’s view, without accepting it. 128 See below Ch. 8, Q92 and Q93. Note also that we know of only three examples of IIII uiri aedilicia potestate (see Ch. 8). If Q11 is restored as in the Addendum (assuming the alignment of the lines on the left side to be correct), then there will have been no room for anything after ‘aed’ in l. 2. If, however, we were to restore P. Cincius’ tribe in l. 1, and family relationships were fully speciWed, there will have been a gap after ‘aed’, which could be Wlled by ‘pot.’, or perhaps by ‘a[edili]’. There is, however, no justiWcation for anything other than the most sober restoration. 129 Keppie, Colonisation, 155, cf. Hu¨lsen, RE i, s.v. ‘Beneventum’, col. 274; Torelli, Benevento romana, 139–67. 130 Imagines, 186. Badian (JRS (1968), 242) cites the view of Strong that the decoration on ILLRP 364 must be late republican or early imperial, backing up Degrassi’s Wnal dating of the text to just this period (Imagines, p. viii, and ad 186). While it diVers in detail from the decoration of Q10, being a more sophisticated example of the same generic design, this relief carving has the same disposition of basic elements (a central palmette Xanked by tendrils and Xowers).
270
The Simple Quattuorvirate
elegant, and may even date to the early Augustan period (note too the mention of the tribe).131 Q12 comes from Aeclanum. The inscription, now in the Lapidarium of the Vatican Museum,132 bears signiWcant names. It records the collaboration of the patronus municipii C. Quinctius Valgus, well known to us,133 with two IIII uiri in the building of walls, surely the defensive circuit of the community. One of these IIII uiri is M. Magius Min. f. Surus, who must, as has been frequently noted, be a son of the Minatus Magius who fought on the Roman side in the Social War, a maternal ancestor of the historian Velleius Paterculus.134 It is probable that the two IIII uiri mentioned here were the senior pair, because of the presence of Surus, and because those cooperating with the patronus are more likely to have been chosen on grounds of status rather than strict aedilician competence. Let us consider the date of the inscription. Broadly the limits are deWned by the Xoruit of Quinctius Valgus, which I dated above to the years c.80–c.60 bc. The spelling, which has old-fashioned features, suggests an early date (perhaps Hirpinia lagged behind neigbouring Campania in epigraphic fashions; it did not, however, in construction techniques).135 The inscription was found in the east gateway at Aeclanum, and it must refer to the entire circuit wall of the city. This is of a particularly Wne reticulate, which, despite assertions that it cannot date earlier than c.50 bc, displays some similarities to the walls of Telesia, which I assign to the Sullan colonization, and may be as early as c.70.136 The letters, like those of Q2, have been painted in overzealously in the modern era, but in this case the black paint fortunately comes away on the Wnger. There is little seriWng; the interpuncts are plain triangles; the ‘C’s are quite open, the ‘O’s not quite round; l. 1 has an open ‘P’. Generally the letters are roughly cut, and the whole thing looks markedly older than Q2, nearby in the gallery. The palaeography suggests a date within Valgus’ Xoruit, perhaps earlier rather than later. A date of c.70 bc also Wts to a certain extent with the prosopographical data which the inscription provides. Sumner has suggested that M. Magius may have been one of the two praetorian sons of Minatus, and that they were born c.120, if they were praetors by 81.137 A slightly earlier date is possible,138 but Sumner’s is 131 Autopsy Apr. 1994. 132 Marucchi, Musei e gallerie PontiWcie, ii. Guida speciale della Galleria lapidaria del Museo Vaticano, 61. Autopsy, May 1994. CIL i2 . 1723 is a fragmentary copy of the same inscription. 133 See further App. 2. There is nothing in the text or layout of the inscription to justify the assertion of Scuderi (Athenaeum (1989), 124, 127) that Valgus too was a IIII uir at Aeclanum. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 199, sees him as a Hirpinate loyalist, like Magius. 134 Vell. Pat. 2. 16. 3. On the Magii see Mu¨nzer, RE xiv/1, s.v. ‘Magius’ 8 and 10, Sumner, HSCP (1970), 259–61; Wiseman, New Men, nos. 240–2; Nicolet, Ordre, ii, 936–9, nos. 213–15, 217. 135 ‘Turreis’ (ll. 3, 4), ‘moiros’ (l. 3), ‘moiro’ (l. 4), ‘qum’ (l. 4), ‘coirauerunt’ (l. 5). Nicolet suggested (without argument) the years 70–60 bc as possible for Magius Surus’ quattuorvirate (Ordre, ii. 937). 136 Autopsy Apr. 1994. Mazzei, Taras (1992), 33, calls the walls post-Sullan. 137 Sumner, HSCP 1970, 260–1, 259 n. 8. Nicolet, OE ii. 937–8, and Wiseman, New Men, 87, no. 242, are uncertain. Broughton, MRR ii. 67, suggests 82 for the praetorship, but oVers no praenomina. 138 There is nothing to prove that either of them held oYce suo anno; they were initially Sullan prote´ge´s, but were also noui homines.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
271
plausible, and underlies the assumptions made here. Therefore the further past 70 bc we go in our dating of Q12, the less likely it is that Magius was still alive. Q12 must surely postdate the praetorships in question, but no record of that oYce is preserved (not unusual in an inscription put up outside the year of oYce, however); pride of place is given to Quinctius, the patronus municipii, who was probably not of praetorian dignity for all his importance. Such a failure to mention the oYce, or to distinguish Magius from his colleague Patlacius in any way, for example, by giving him a separate line of the text, must tell against Sumner’s identiWcation of Magius Surus.139 This could only be salvaged by supposing that Magius, having entered the Senate under Sulla’s patronage, then joined the Cinnan cause,140 and was Wnally reconciled with Sulla, retiring to a life of quiet cooperation in Aeclanum. It is more ‘economical’, to use Sumner’s term, not to identify M. Magius with one of the praetors. Thus we are forced back on the other interpretation, that P. Magius, tr. pl. 87, and L. Magius, legatus of Fimbria in 85, are the praetorian brothers, but this too is uncertain.141 At any event, this inscription would seem to be best placed c.70 bc, and to show that at that period not only was the quattuorvirate divided, but that the senior pair carried no distinguishing titulature (whatever the extent of their powers). Q13 is inscribed around the rim of a labrum from Copia Thurii. Guzzo ascribed it to the Wrst century bc, and the palaeography suggests it may be
139 Note that there is space left over at the bottom of the text; the only important decision about the arrangement was to give Quinctius a line of his own. 140 As tr. pl. 87, and given his father’s relationship with Sulla, it is reasonable to assume that P. Magius’ candidature was supported by the dictator (cf. Gabba, Republican Rome, 97 n. 189, 136). Cicero however informs us that he was one of the six tribunes who left with Cinna on his expulsion from Rome (Brut. 179). This realignment makes more sense of identifying the Fimbrian oYcer L. Magius as P. Magius’ brother. Bulst, Historia (1964), 312, suggests that the move of the Magii into the democratic camp may have been provoked by sympathy for Cinna’s tribal measure. For the Magii as Cinnan prote´ge´s after 88 see also Taylor, Voting Districts, 219, 310. 141 Bulst, Historia (1964), 312, names Lucius and Publius, and seems to imply that they are the praetorian sons, cf. Gabba, Republican Rome, 113 and n. 316, for L. Magius. Sumner accepts P. Magius as a probable son (Sumner, HSCP 1970, 260, cf. Mu¨nzer, RE s.v. ‘Magius’ 10, Gabba, Republican Rome ; Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 937; Wiseman, New Men, no. 242; note however P. Magius P. f. Iunc(us) of Copia (ILLRP 677), dated by Guzzo (Epigraphica (1976), 137) to the end of the 2nd or beginning of the 1st cent.). Sumner objects however (Sumner, HSCP (1970), 261 n. 22) that there was no time for L. Magius to hold the necessary oYce before the praetorship, since he went to the East with Valerius Flaccus in 86. There is however no proof that he was not elected to an oYce in 87 or 86. Valerius Flaccus was cos. suV. in 86, but left for the East in that year. The Cinnan regime was prepared to disgregard the provisions of the lex annalis—cf. the consulship of the younger Marius in 83 and Carbo’s sole consulship in 84 inter alia. We need not assume that L. Magius followed any ‘normal’ path to a praetorship: rewards for deserting Sulla might come quickly. Velleius himself (if aware of this) may have sought to gloss over such unorthodoxy when he says ‘plenam populus Romanus gratiam rettulit ipsum [sc. Minatum] uiritim ciuitate donando, duos Wlios eius creando praetores’ (2. 16. 3). For stylistic, if not for more sinister reasons, Velleius has made the Roman people the subject of both rewards—this does not mean, as Sumner claims (260 n. 13), that Minatus was enfranchised not by the lex Iulia, but by a special grant. If we exclude Lucius, another praetorian son would seem to be required. For Surus as a third son, see Harvey, in Essays . . . Dengler, 90 n. 28; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 147.
272
The Simple Quattuorvirate
republican. Both magistrates have cognomina, which makes a date before the middle of the century less likely.142 A fragmentary inscription from Copia also attests republican IIII uiri, who, if the text did not continue on an adjacent block, are probably IIII uiri nude dicti.143 Guzzo states that it does not date later than the mid-century; my own view is that the palaeography could be that of the middle of the century. The stone was discovered during excavations of a building which Guzzo believes was built c.50 bc.144 The absence of cognomina means that an earlier date than that of Q13 is likely. In 1936 Bartoccini published an inscription found in the excavations of the amphitheatre at Luceria, recording its erection, and also putting beyond doubt the Augustan colonization of Luceria.145 Consequently all the IIII uiri of Luceria must be republican (or possibly very early Augustan).146 One (Q14) was already recognized as republican, but Degrassi reconsidered the other attestations. His results are discussed below (Q15 and 16).147 Q14 is the epitaph of a N. Granonius, twice centurion and IIII uir at Luceria. Since Granonius fought with Pompeius Magnus and died in Greece without further recorded service (the stele was found in Athens148), we may assume that he fought in the Second Civil War, and died before returning to Luceria.149 The chronology of his earlier career is uncertain. Degrassi suggested that, because ‘IIII uir’ comes alone in the gap between the name and the career, it was inserted as an afterthought, and therefore the quattuorvirate was held between the two centurionates.150 Now ‘IIII uir’, on its own, Xush with the right-hand side of the text, in slightly smaller letters, above the word it might logically precede (‘centurio’), certainly looks like an afterthought (we would expect it in the centre of the inscribed Weld if it belonged there). I do not, however, see that Degrassi’s second conclusion follows from his Wrst. We cannot date Granonius’ quattuorvirate by reference to his military career, 142 See Guzzo, Epigraphica, 134–5. He interprets the IIII uiri nude dicti of Copia as ‘aediles’. This depends partly on a contrast between these and those in CIL x. 125; but as Guzzo himself admits, the provenance of this inscription is not certain. The nature of this pair of IIII uiri cannot be guessed. 143 CIL i2 . 3163b: ‘VTI L F IIII VIR / PIENSES / ORVS’. (photo: Guzzo, Epigraphica (1976), 132, Wg. 3; larger photos of individual frags.: Guzzo, NSA (1970), supp. 3, 57, Wg. 47 (no. 195), and AMSMG (1972–3), tav. LVIIb. See Guzzo, Epigrahica, (1976), 133. 144 PdP (1973), 310. 145 Iapigia (1936), 1 V., esp. 15–16 ( ¼ AE 1937.64). Cf. Degrassi, SVA i. 81, and 79–80 for the preceding debate on the date of the colonization, and Keppie, Colonisation, 164. 146 Degrassi, SVA i. 82, 109. Mommsen had already opined that none of the Lucerian IIII uiri was later than Vespasian (his date for the colonization)—CIL ix. p. 74. 147 Degrassi noted (SVA i. 83) that CIL ix. 804 was post-Augustan, and it should thus be restored as a duoviral inscription. Mommsen had restored IIII uiri here, as in ix. 780, the Lucerian Fasti, where Borghesi had earlier suggested that the local magistrates were II uiri (Œuvres comple`tes, v. 109). 148 Typologically the stele is Athenian (Mu¨nzer, RE vii, s.v. ‘Granonius’), and the use of ‘C’ for ‘G’ throughout (except for the ‘G’ of Granonius), as well as the letter forms (e.g. the ‘V’ is more like a ‘U’) must mean that this is the work of a Greek stone-cutter. This may explain the initial omission of ‘IIII uir’ (see below); and perhaps ‘Cal’ at the end of l. 1 is a mistake for ‘Cla(udia)’ rather than part of a cognomen (so also Ihm, RhM (1902), 318). 149 Degrassi, SVA i. 82 places Granonius’ death in 48. Manni, Per la storia, 177, is wrong to suggest Q14 can be moved back to c.60 bc. 150 ad ILLRP 502.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
273
but by examining the dates of his service we can provide a rough context for his civil oYce. P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther was in Spain in 59 after his praetorship, and held imperium pro consule in Cilicia from 56 to 54.151 Either date is possible for Granonius’ Wrst service, the latter being preferred by Mu¨nzer,152 Ritterling,153 and Keppie.154 Granonius’ service with Spinther may have been his Wrst as centurion. He may have served six six-month terms under Spinther in Cilicia, and been elected IIII uir after returning to Luceria. Thus his case would exemplify an important phenomenon of the last years of the Republic and the Civil War years: the appearance of ex-soldiers in municipal oYce, which occurs with increasing regularity in the third quarter of the century. This, of course, reXects the heyday of the great imperatores and their client armies during the collapse of the Republic, and the Triumvirate. Associated with this phenomenon is the settlement of legions of veterans as colonies throughout Italy.155 Another interpretation is, however, possible. Granonius served under Spinther in a legio XIIX. Such a high number for a legion in 56 is problematic. Spinther inherited his predecessor’s two legions, which had been left in Cilicia in 62 by Pompeius. It is possible that one of these was a legio XIIX, but not perhaps likely.156 In 49 Caesar formed a legion with the number XVIII from some of the thirty-three cohorts that had gone over to him at CorWnium.157 Lentulus Spinther was in Greece with Pompeius in 49–48 bc;158 is it not at least possible that he found himself commanding a ‘rival’ legio XIIX there, and that on the eve of Pharsalus Granonius was transferred from this legion to a legio II under Pompeius?159 In that case both of Granonius’ centurionates would follow his quattuorvirate, which would fall in 50 or an earlier year.160 151 See Broughton, MRR ii for these years under ‘Promagistrates’. 152 Mu¨nzer, RE VII, s.v. ‘Granonius’, placing Granonius’ centurionate in 55 bc. 153 RE xii, s.v. ‘legio’, cols. 1768–9, without argument. 154 Roman Army, 78. 155 See Gabba, Republican Rome, 51–2, cf. App., BC 5. 128. 531; Syme, RR 78; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 234; Gabba, Italia romana, 137. The reverse was also happening: more members of the municipal aristocracy were holding oYcer positions. 156 Pompeius’ legions: Brunt, Manpower, 458–60. These may be two of the legions brought by Q. Marcius Rex in 67 (ibid. 455), which should however have low numbers as part of his consular series; or they might have been in the East since Lucullus’ time, or less likely, since P. Servilius’ governorship of Cilicia in 78–5 (ibid. 452–7). In neither case can we say anything about their numbers. Von Domaszewski, NHJ (1894), 158, held that legions based in the East normally bore higher numbers. Note that in 57 Caesar had a legio XIV in Gaul (Keppie, Roman Army, 97). 157 Ritterling, RE XII, s.v. ‘legio’, col. 1767; Keppie, Roman Army, 200. 158 Caes., BC 3. 83, 102. 159 II Sabina seems to have been raised by Pansa in 43 (Keppie, Roman Army, 203), but II Gallica, if it is not the same legion (Keppie, Roman Army, 205), may have been part of Caesar’s consular levy of 48. We know that the two legions handed over to Pompeius by Caesar in 50, the First and the Fifteenth, fought at Pharsalus. Of these the First (Pompeius’ own originally) retained its number, but Caesar’s Fifteenth had been renamed the Third (Caes., BC 3. 88). Thus Granonius’ legio II was also in all probability a ‘rival’ to Caesar’s II Gallica. The abbreviation ‘Mac’ in l. 6 probably stands for ‘Mag(ni)’; if, however, ‘Mac(edoniae)’ were meant, this might be taken to denote the place of service both with Spinther and Pompeius. 160 Mu¨nzer, RE VII, s.v. ‘Granonius’, suggests that Granonius was IIII uir in 49, on the grounds that Pompeius had his headquarters at Luceria in Feb. of that year, but it seems unlikely that Granonius would have abandoned his oYce to follow Pompeius east; he may well have been recruited at this point, however.
274
The Simple Quattuorvirate
Q15 is a signiWcant inscription, in that it records one of the few known men who held a magistracy in more than one municipium. L. Vibienus Licin(us?) was a Lucerian, as the provenance of the inscription demonstrates, but was also II uir in the Apulian coastal colony of Sipontium. Since more than one community is recorded, the titles on his epitaph may be generic, disguising the exact details of his cursus, rather than specifying them. Since the inscription is lost little can be said on the date. The presence of the cognomen and the mention of the tribe suggest a date in the second half of the century.161 Q16 is also interesting. It was found at Volturara, which seems to have been within the territory of Luceria.162 It seems that the stone was quite badly damaged when Wrst recorded. For this reason I think that one name has been lost: only one surviving inscription ever records three IIII uiri.163 If we are dealing with four men, then they should not be IIII uiri i.d. (see next section). Keppie has suggested that ‘Q’ in l. 5 stands for ‘q[uinquennales]’, and refers to all the men named.164 This is unlikely, since all known quattuoruiri quinquennales are pairs not triads, and it seems more likely that the letter is the only surviving trace of the formula ‘f(ac). c(ur). i(dem)q(ue) p(rob).’ or something similar.165 As Bartoccini noted, the name Vecillius recurs (albeit spelt Vecilius) as that of the man who constructed the amphitheatre. Moreover, he suggested that this Augustan M. Vecilius M. f. L. n. Campus, magistrate and pontifex of Luceria, was the grandson of the IIII uir L. Vecillius.166 This is an extremely attractive suggestion, and allows us to suggest an approximate date for Q16. M. Vecilius emerges from the amphitheatre inscription as a substantial Wgure. He could well have been about 50 years old. The date of the inscription cannot be Wxed, but it must lie between 27 bc and ad 14. If we take the median date for the sake of argument, c.10 bc (and the colonists should not have had to wait too long for their amphitheatre), then we can give Vecilius a hypothetical birth date of c.60 bc. Allowing thirty years for a generation, and another Wve for the fact that his father does not seem to be the eldest son, L. Vecillius will have been born c.125 bc, and have been 40 by the time Luceria was municipalized. We should expect him to have held oYce not long after that, and certainly before the mid-60s. The 70s emerge as a possible context, although uncertainties persist.167 If this date is right, it is possible that the quattuorvirate was still undivided when L. Vecillius held it. The epigraphic patrimony of Canusium is quite rich. Three religious dedications by the same pair of magistrates form our Q17, 18, and 19. The dedications are on statue bases of the divinities Mars, Vesta, and Vortumnus. The inscriptions 161 Sartori however dated the inscription to the second half of the 1st cent. ad (Problemi, 80). 162 So Beloch, RG 549; cf. Mommsen, CIL ix. p. 84. 163 Q53. 164 Colonisation, 165. 165 Cf. 49 below. 166 Keppie, Roman Army 205, followed by Degrassi, SVA i. 81. 167 Keppie (Roman Army) assigned it to the middle of the century on palaeographical grounds. A twenty-Wve year generation would give a birth date for the quattuoruir of c.110 bc, but would still allow him to hold oYce in the 70s bc, while not excluding a date in the subsequent decade.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
275
diVer slightly in the disposition of the text on the stone, and in a few other minor details:168 the inscriptions all belong to the same magistracy.169 Its date cannot be established with any certainty, but we have the following indicators. I think that there is a strong possibility that our P. Curtius Salassus is to be identiWed with the man executed in Spain in 45 bc by Cn. Pompeius the younger for planning to hand him over to Caesar:170 this would give us a terminus ante quem. I think we can take the quattuorvirate back into the Wrst half of the century, judging by some spellings,171 and this dating is consonant with the letter forms.172 Only one of the magistrates has a cognomen. All of these indications combine to suggest a date in the Wrst half of the century, perhaps not later than c.60 bc.173 In this connection we may note that the gods named have strong Roman rather than local associations, especially Vesta.174 If we could date these inscriptions with
168 Torelli, RAL (1969), 29, correctly noted that a fourth dedication has been lost, on which Titius’ name preceded, completing the symmetry. Sabbatini Tumolesi Lungo, RAL (1974), 288, notes that the signiWcance of possible pairings is diYcult to reconstruct; she notes that Mars and Vesta have quadrangular bases, but that of Vortumnus is circular. 169 Horace, Serm. 2. 3. 180–1 provides no reason for thinking that the municipium of Canusium was ever governed by aediles and praetores rather than IIII uiri (cf. Grelle, Labeo (1980), 328). I do not see, despite Legay ad loc. that the magistrates need be municipal rather than Roman—the mention of Agrippa not only sets the scene in the triumviral period, but also to my mind in triumviral Rome. Muecke (ad loc.) does not commit herself, but nor does she think of Canusine praetors; she argues that we are meant to think of only magistrates who give games. If the reference were municipal and peculiar to Canusium, one could understand the magistracies as generic, rather than local and particular, invoked with poetic licence (ibid.), or to the exigencies of metre (Heinze, Q. Horatius Flaccus, Satiren6 ad Serm. 1. 5. 34, 2. 3. 180). Degrassi explains the term praetor in literary sources as no more than a ‘titolo convenzionale’ for higher magistrates (SVA i. 141, cf. Sartori, Problemi, 80–1). 170 Cic., Fam. 6. 18. 2. Cf. Torelli, RAL (1969), 30; Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1027. This is preferable to making the IIII uir the son of the Pompeian, as Mu¨nzer (RE iv/2, s.v. ‘Curtius’ no. 10) and Bertocchi (Terzo Congr. Epigr. 205) suggest. Publius’ brother Quintus, to whom news of the death has been sent, is possibly the legate of Antonius reportedly burnt alive in 41 bc (Jerome p. 158 Helm2 )—so Mommsen, ad CIL ix. 326–7. On the brothers see Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 864, nos. 130–1: spoken of by Cicero as well-known Wgures, they are probably equites. Sabbatini Tumolesi Lungo, RAL (1974), 288 notes the magisterial Curtii Salassi of Pompeii (CIL iv. 1886, 1919). For another local magistrate who later served in the Civil Wars see Q14 above. 171 Q17: ‘Martei’ (l. 1); Q19: ‘Vortumno’ (l. 1); perhaps explicable on grounds of religious conservatism. 172 Cf. Mommsen ad CIL ix. 327: ‘litteris antiquioribus’; Torelli, RAL (1969), 29: ‘bei caratteri di notevole antichita`’. The serifs, where present, are reminiscent of the exaggerated style of the Valgus inscriptions of Pompeii. The ‘M’ is splayed, and the ‘C’s are sometimes very open indeed. 173 Mazzei, Taras (1992), 35, dates Q17–19 to the middle of the century; Grelle thinks that all three inscriptions are triumviral (Labeo (1980), 328–9). 174 Noted by Torelli, RAL (1969), 30. Vesta is rarely worshipped outside Rome (Degrassi, SVA iii. 142), but note CIL i2 . 3193 (Beneventum). Torelli stressed the rareness of the cult of Mars in this part of Italy; note, however, the Martiales of Larinum (Cic., Clu. 43), the pagus Martialis in the Ligures Baebiani table (I. 51, III. 2, 3, 4, 43, 45, 47, 63), and CIL ix. 1684 from Beneventum. For Vortumnus as an ubiquituous municipal deity see Porphyrio, ad Hor. Serm. 2. 7. 14, cited by Sabbatini Tumolesi Lungo, RAL (1974), 289; for Chelotti, Le epigraW romane di Canosa, I no. 8, and Dyson, Community, 130, Vortumnus was associated with pastoralism and transhumance, appropriate given Canusium’s position in relation to the Abruzzo–Puglia tratturi.
276
The Simple Quattuorvirate
more certainty, we would have a valuable Wx on the ‘Romanization’ of municipal religion in this part of Italy at least; the setting up of these dedications175 reXects an assimilation of Roman religious ideology, and closer ties generally, perhaps even a recent updating of the local constitution. The ‘Romanization’ of Canusium’s religious practices, and the decline of local cult after the Social War is to be linked in part to demographic change: Grelle points out that only seven out of some 150 gentilicia of late republican and imperial Canusium were of Iapygian stock (Curtius and Titius are not among them). He associates this with the increasing role played by Canusium in transhumance of sheep from Abruzzo.176 Q20 is also from Canusium. It comes from a group of imperial public buildings near the temple of Iuppiter, where it had been reused. It oVers us little information, and may well date from the last quarter of the Wrst century.177 The letters are centrally disposed on the stone, so we may be sure that the quattuorvirate nude dictus was in question. We do not know when the quattuorvirate i.d. was introduced at Canusium, but it was certainly in existence by the Principate, as was the title IIII uir aedilis (the latter probably an Augustan innovation at Canusium).178 Therefore Q20 very probably predates the beginning of the Principate.179 Another quattuorviral inscription found at Cannae, but, like much of its epigraphic material, of Canusine provenance, is probably from our period.180 The inscription is broken, we have lost the start of the magistrate’s name, and cannot be sure what variant of the quattuorvirate his was.181 The stone seems to have been marble,182 which should mean a date in the second half of the century at the earliest; both the absence of a cognomen and the lettering suggest that it is not imperial, however. Q21 was painted on one of the ‘benches’ in the Tomba del ‘Tifone’ in the necropolis of Tarquinii, recording the owner of a now lost sarcophagus. It has now deteriorated badly, but it seems from the photograph of Cristofani,183
175 I do not see what reason Grelle has for declaring (Labeo (1980), 329) that these dedications were part of a rearrangement of the sacred areas of the community which marked the Wrst ‘signiWcativo intervento nell’ urbanistico’. The choice of deities was certainly adapted to some ideological programme, but its nature does not emerge from these texts. 176 Ibid. 333–4. See now Torelli, Tota Italia, 104–18, for changes in land ownership, settlement patterns, and demographics (including Gracchan settlement), in Daunia/Apulia, set in the broader context of intensiWcation by Roman ‘capitalists’ and local oligarchs’ exploitation of agricultural resources. 177 See Chelotti et al., Le epigrafe romane di Canosa, i. 76. 178 AE (1980), 274, recording both, is probably Augustan, or refers to the Augustan period (cf. Grelle, Labeo (1980), 328–9). 179 Since it was reused, in an imperial building in the urban area, it is perhaps unlikely that the stone was funerary. Ennii are quite common in the region: Chelotti et al. point to CIL ix. 402 for another Ennius of the same period (Le epigrafe romane di Canosa, i. 76). 180 CIL i2 . 3184a. Photo: Bertocchi, Terzo Congr. Epigr., tav. XXX. 181 Bertocchi (ibid. 204) suggests ‘Tit]ius’ as a hypothesis; cf. Torelli, RAL (1969), 30. Sabbatini Tumolesi Lungo (RAL (1974), 288) moved from erroneous reading to erroneous restoration. 182 Bertocchi, Terzo Congr. Epigr., tav. XXX. 183 MAL (1969), tav. XIII.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
277
published in 1969, that the illustration made by Kellerman for his original publication,184 and the others in CIE,185 accurately represent the text. Kellerman’s text was repeated by Bormann (who saw it),186 and Lommatzsch (who did not),187 but not by Degrassi.188 The dating of this plain quattuorvirate is highly conjectural, but the letter forms, and the spelling ‘a[n]os’, suggest a date earlier rather than later in our period.189 Nevertheless, the fact that a man of Etruscan stock has a Latin epitaph, married an Aurelia,190 and was ‘iure peritus’191—remarkably the only municipal legal professional epigraphically attested for the republican period—points to a degree of both interaction of Roman and Etruscan families, and assimilation of Roman institutions at Tarquinii, which we should be wary of placing too early.192 The text is an example of what used to be known as Etrusco-Latin epigraphy (scarce at Tarquinii),193 or more correctly, a class of Latin texts which show Etruscan linguistic, and more importantly, onomastic traits: one identifying feature is the persistence of ‘informal’ or culturally speciWc naming patterns, such as the use of the metronymic or praenomen þ cognomen (as in our case).194 Benelli places the proliferation of these texts at Perusia and Clusium in the second
184 Bull. dell’ Inst. (1833), 57–61, tav. 10. 185 5413. 188 ILLRP 672. 186 CIL xi. 3371b. 187 CIL i2 . 1997. 189 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 178. For the spelling ‘anos’ cf. 22 (Ferentium), CIL i2 . 2871 from Horta: ‘VI . ANO’ (i.e. ‘ui<x(it)> an(n)o<s>’, CIL i2 . p. 877; this text may be 2nd cent. bc or earlier, note that it was apparently found with the pocolom carrying the inscription CIL i2 . 442). In our text the name Tercenna has barely been latinized (Cristofani noted that he does not seem to be a direct descendant of the family who built the tomb, the pumpu: MAL (1969), 245); the other Latin inscription in the tomb, that of Aurelia L. f. also has some pre-classical spellings (‘optuma’, ‘uixsit XLV’). The tomb was in use, according to Cristofani, from the middle of the 2nd cent. to some time in the 1st (ibid. 221, 243), and see now Holliday, Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration, 134–7 on the tomb and its decoration. The suggestion at CIE 243 that Tercenna’s Xaminate must be related to the emperor cult seems to me an unfounded conjecture. There is nothing unusual about a Xaminate in a Roman municipium, or its tenure by a local magistrate. It seems that he held the Xaminate for three years, rather than three times—an indication of early death? 190 Her (Latin) epitaph, in the same tomb, seems roughly contemporary. One other Aurelius is known (from an unpub. inscription) at Tarquinii; since he entered the militia equestris he probably belongs to the Principate. Aurelii may in fact have been of long standing at Tarquinii—note the proxiimity of the Via Aurelia. Despite the claims of the Liber coloniarum, 170 Campbell, there was no colony at Tarquinii (discussion at Torelli, Elogia Tarquiniensia, 186–91; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 204–6), but there may have been individual Gracchan allotments under a lex Sempronia (Campbell, Writings of Roman Surveyors, 409); it is unlikely that our Aurelia descends from Gracchan assidui settled near Tarquinii, though. Note that by the late Republic/early Empire, only some 15% of the names attested at Tarquinii were Etruscan (Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 9). 191 The reading is not certain. I initially inclined to Borghesi’s ‘repetitus’, but comparison of Cristofani’s photograph with Kellerman’s illustration in fact suggests that Kellerman was right to read ‘iure peritus’, in which he was followed by Lommatzsch and Pallotino, Mon. Ant. (1937), col. 561, and Cristofani, MAL (1969), 242. 192 Note, however, that events in the 70s at Tarquinii, concerning the property under dispute in the Pro Caecina, presuppose a certain acquaintance with Roman law on the part of the Etruscan Caecina. 193 Benelli, in Italy and the West, 10. 194 On this class of texts, see Kaimio, AIRF (1975); Benelli, in Italy and the West, 10–11.
278
The Simple Quattuorvirate
half of the Wrst century bc, which we may cautiously use as a guideline here, in not placing this text too early.195 The discovery, at ancient Ferentium in 1921, of a tomb of the gens Saluia196 added a rich new source for the study of the local aristocracies of Etruria. The tomb contained some twenty sarcophagi, of which four were inscribed. Of these four two concern us directly, while the other two provide virtually the only Wrm dates available to us in municipal epigraphy. Thus, even though the two quattuorviral inscriptions are undated, their chronology relative to the other two is not hard to establish. Q22 is the epitaph of A. Salvius A. f. A. n. Crispinus. He was IIII uir four times,197 and died at the age of 51. The inscription has older spellings,198 linguistic solecisms,199 and very rough palaeography,200 all of which suggest a date not long after the Social War. On the other hand the presence of the cognomen and mention of A. Salvius avus201 are counter-indications. According to Degrassi, the position of the sarcophagus (on top of another, near the entrance, and obstructing access to the free space remaining) suggests that it was the last one to be placed in the tomb,202 and was thus deposited later than 23 bc, the consular date given on the sarcophagus of Titia L. f.203 This reconstruction has been disputed by Emiliozzi,204 according to whom A. Salvius was moved from an original position on the Xoor, during an extension of the left-hand side of the 195 Benelli, in Italy and the West, 11. 196 For the discovery see Zei, NSA (1921), 215–28. Bendinelli, NSA (1921), 228–9 (followed by Degrassi, SVA iii. 168; Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 53–4), argued that it had come into use during the last part of the 2nd cent. bc. Another, earlier, family tomb is therefore probably located somewhere near Ferentium. 197 I take it that the phrase ‘gessit . . . IIII uir(atum) quater’ means that he was four times IIII uir nude dictus, but the phrase could strictly refer to any permutation of the quattuorvirate. It would, however, have been possible for Salvius to specify diVerent oYces in the space available. The analogous case of Q23 seems to support my interpretation. 198 Line 3: ‘anorum’, for which compare Q21 and CIL i2 . 1996; ‘he[ic]’—see Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 118 n. 10 for parallels; cf. l. 5, where Gasperini, p. 120, sees the bottom of an ‘S’ at the end of this line, and reads ‘Ferenteis’, which seems to be the Etruscan form of the town’s name (Vitr., De Arch. 2. 7. 4: ‘Ferentis’—also terming it municipium—cf. Degrassi, SVA iii. 156–7). For the spelling and other general characteristics of all the inscriptions, see Bendinelli, NSA (1921), 229. 199 Line 7: ‘sumo supremo die’, on which see Degrassi, SVA iii. 162–3, cf. Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 126. 200 Degrassi, SVA iii. 162: ‘quanto mai rozza’, cf. Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 115. The lines slope downwards from left to right; to pick only two letters, the ‘O’ is formed from two discrete semi-circles, and the ‘V’ slopes to the left, the right-hand hasta being almost vertical. 201 See below on Q27. 202 Degrassi, SVA iii. 168–9, cf. Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 114. It seems, however, that the tomb was robbed, and the positions of the sarcophagi on discovery in 1921 (see map of Zei, NSA (1921), 219, Wg. 5) may represent interference by the clandestini (tomb-robbers). 203 Zei, NSA (1921), 221, nos. 7–8. A wife of one of the Salvii, her gentilicium Titius is not otherwise attested at Ferentium, as Degrassi observed (SVA iii, 166), but the later emperor Otho’s brother had the agnomen Titianus, which led Degrassi to formulate the ingenious hypothesis that the Titia buried at Ferentium might be the great-grandmother of the emperor (ibid. 170–2). 204 MEFRA (1983), 715–7, and also 715 n. 43.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
279
tomb. In consequence Titia L. f. was buried later than A. Salvius, and Sex. Salvius was buried last. I see no reason to accept (with Emiliozzi) that Sex. Salvius was necessarily buried later than Titia, or than A. Salvius. She is however correct in that A. Salvius was probably not originally laid to rest where he was found, his image facing the wall of the tomb. His deposition must therefore precede that of Titia, although perhaps not by much.205 If Q22 was, say, a decade earlier than 23 bc, we can place A. Salvius’ four quattuorvirates in the years c.50 to c.30 bc. The other quattuorviral inscription, Q23, is that of Sex. Salvius A. f., three times IIII uir. Degrassi suggested that he was the brother of the A. Salvius in Q22,206 but if the given Wliations are anything to go by, especially in a family tomb, Sex. Salvius should belong to a diVerent generation, and may be Aulus’ uncle. Since however he died at the advanced age of 88, he must have predeceased his ‘nephew’ by only a few years. The lettering is neater than that of Q22,207 but is still not very good. Since the sarcophagus which carried Q23 was on the upper layer in the tomb, at the least the death of its occupant should be more recent than 67 bc, the consular year carried by ILLRP 589, the text on the only inscribed sarcophagus from the bottom layer (placed in one of the furthest positions from the tomb entrance).208 It may be relevant that all of Q23 is inscribed on the narrow end of the lid, which, according to Herbig, is a position uncharacteristic of inscribed epitaphs on Etruscan sarcophagi.209 This might indicate a date closer to 23 than 67 bc, when the ‘Romanization’ of the aristocracy of Ferentium was well advanced. We can reasonably assert that Sex. Salvius was active in the period between the Social War and the Principate of Augustus, his magistracies perhaps belonging to the middle of the century. The magisterial structure of Ferentium appears to have been simple, in that the only oYce speciWcally mentioned is the quattuorvirate nude dictus. Furthermore it forms the sole, and a recurring, element of the cursus of important men in the local aristocracy. ILLRP 589 tells us that the dead man held ‘[hono]res omneis’.210 205 Note that the lettering on Titia’s sarcophagus (photograph in Degrassi, SVA iii, Wg. 4) is superior in quality to that of Q22, and her inscription shows no other older features, like those referred to above. 206 SVA iii. 169. Followed by Emiliozzi, MEFRA 715, 717 (unclear). 207 Cf. Emiliozzi, ibid. 717; the letter forms of Q22 and Q23 are too irregular for comparative palaeographical analysis. The man who carved Q22 may not even have been a professional stone-cutter (cf. Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 115). Furthermore both inscriptions were cut once the sarcophagi had been put in the tomb (see Zei, NSA (1921), 221, cf. Degrassi, SVA iii. 169—this became apparent from a close inspection which I conducted in the Museo Civico di Viterbo, May 1994), and the diYculties of working on them in situ certainly militated against careful work. Note that, although Degrassi ad ILLRP 588 thought that the inscription might be early imperial, ad Imagines, 237a and b, he suggests a date in the Wrst half of the 1st cent. bc. 208 Generally considered the oldest inscription from the tomb—Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 1011; Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), 120. 209 Die ju¨ngeretruskischen Steinsarkophage, 85. 210 Degrassi believed the sarcophagus lost, but it was seen at the Museo Civico in 1966 by Cristofani, who later republished Degrassi’s text as CIE 5652. It was only critically re-examined some years later by Emiliozzi. Her text (MEFRA (1983), 706) diVers in some respects from Degrassi’s, most importantly for our purposes in establishing that the last letters of l. 1 read ‘ISPVS’, which must
280
The Simple Quattuorvirate
This has been taken by Degrassi to imply that the aedileship was part of the local cursus, but if so we should expect it to be mentioned in Q22 or Q23,211 where the two Salvii appear concerned to record the detail of their magistracies if nothing else. I think it more likely that this Salvius was also IIII uir quinquennalis, a permutation of the quattuorvirate which was essential whatever other constitutional developments the magistracy might or might not undergo. Furthermore, it seems that this simple magisterial structure was maintained until the triumviral period at least.212 Part of the explanation for this may lie in Ferentium’s insigniWcance.213 Its position oV the Via Cassia is a suitable metaphor for its isolation from the mainstream of Roman culture and society,214 an isolation clearly visible in the characteristics of the tomb of the Salvii. Q24 comes from the Selva di Malano between Ferentium and the Tiber, near modern Bomarzo. It was Wrst published in 1981, but not made widely known until Gasperini’s edition of 1989.215 The inscription, which adorns a niche in one face of a natural outcrop of tufo in the woods, is the epitaph of C. Anicius, who styles himself IIII uir of Statonia.216 The inscription is neatly paginated within a roomy epigraphic Weld surrounded by a cornice. Sadly the exposure of the outcrop to the elements has not only obliterated the two other texts originally carved on the outcrop, but made our text hard to read.217 Nevertheless, to judge by Gasperini’s drawing, the letters are generally consistent with an early imperial date—so too the badly damaged elements of the second half of the Wrst line, a
because of the length of the line be part of a cognomen. The correct restoration may well be her ‘Cr]ispus’. Note also the unjustiWed restoration of the Wliation of this Salvius (a Salvius must be in question) as ‘A. f. A. n’. 211 SVA iii. 161, mentioning also the imperial aedile attested in CIL xi. 7413. 212 The view of Rudolph, Stadt, 174, that Ferentium only became a municipium after the passing of the lex Mamilia (see Ch. 5, s. 3. 3) seems to me unlikely. For the quattuorvirate i. d. in this area see CIL xi. 3008 and 3013 (ager Viterbensis). 213 For this cf. Degrassi, SVA iii. 168. 214 Cf. Cristofani, MAL (1969), 220–1. 215 D’ Arcangeli, Soriano nel Cimino nella storia e nell’arte, 72; Gasperini, Iscrizioni, i. 99–102, no. 22. Subsequent consideration in Stanco, MEFRA (1994); Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 285–7; Munzi, in Italy and the West, 43. 216 The resolution ‘Statoni(ae)’ (Gasperini, Iscrizioni, 100) has better parallels and is more likely than ‘Statoni(ensium)’ (Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 286). Gasperini (Iscrizioni, 100) gives a brief but clear description of the outcrop, the inscription (including a drawing), and the three loculi for cinerary urns adjacent to it (noting that the three loculi correspond to the three names on the inscription—ibid. 100). On the possible connections of Anicius, and the relation of the Anician peperino quarries of the region to the gens Anicia, ibid. 102, Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 287–9 (speculative). 217 Gasperini, Iscrizioni, 99. The weathering of the stone is reminiscent of the very friable condition of the Ferentine sarcophagi examined above. It is perhaps hard to believe that this stone is the one lauded by Vitruvius, De arch. 2. 7. 3–4 (and through him Pliny, HN 36. 168) for its workability and toughness, although Stanco, MERFA (1994), 248–9 does appear to think this stone was a type of peperino; rather a basalt. Vitruvius’ ‘monumenta circa municipium’ (‘the monuments around the municipium’) are probably to be understood as tombs.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
281
cognomen, and the tribe218 of the deceased—but the open ‘C’s, the round O’ of ‘Statonia’, and the heavy triangular interpuncts all look like hangovers from republican practice. A triumviral or Augustan date will not be far wrong, commemorating a quattuorvirate, perhaps held at any time between c.70 and c.40 bc.219 So far, so good. Two problems arise, however, one of which concerns us more directly: why was Statonia a quattuorviral municipium? Let us consider Wrst the other matter—the location of Statonia. This praefectura, established in the third century, is normally placed, as almost any map of geopolitical divisions and juridical statuses in pre-Social-War Italy will show (see, for example, Humbert, Municipium, carte V), in territory assumed to have been conWscated from Vulci, with the homonymous centre being identiWed in the late nineteenth century, on the basis of the discovery of some slingshots inscribed ‘statnies’ or ‘staties’, at the site of Poggio Buco, and the topographical verisimilitude provided by the nearby Laghetto di Mezzano, which was taken to be the lacus Statoniensis known from written sources (an equation Wrst made by Cluverius in the seventeenth century).220 The publication of our text led Gasperini to suggest that, since the inscription must come from the territory of Statonia, some adjustment of the communis opinio on the boundaries between Statonia and Visentium would have to be made.221 It was Stanco who Wrst drew the seemingly more obvious conclusion that Statonia would in fact have to be located near the Selva di Malano, with a territory squeezed between those of Visentium, Ferentium, and the Tiber.222 Subsequent arguments in conWrmation of this theory were quick in coming, with the centre of Piammiano, occupied between the archaic period and (albeit apparently in dwindling fashion) the imperial period being proposed as the location of Statonia.223 The reasons which underpinned the old orthodoxy, locating Statonia near Poggio Buco, Le Sparne, or Castro, in territory conWscated from Vulci, and seeing the lacus Statoniensis as the Laghetto di Mezzano, are not strong: there is no mention of Statonia in the itineraries describing the Via Claudia, for example, which we should expect if the traditional location were correct, and Strabo 5. 2. 9, 226C, mentioning Statonia, has no mention of Vulci.224 Nevertheless, the reasons 218 Gasperini hypothesized Arnensis or Stellatina on the basis of other inscriptions from the zone: Iscrizioni, 91–3, 95–7, 117–22; Stanco, MEFRA (1994), 250, inclined without explanation to the former, Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 286, reads ‘[St]e’ after Anicius’ Wliation, and seems correct to argue (ibid. 293) that this was the tribe of Statonia, and the Bomarzese, despite Arnensis seeming to be the better attested around Piammiano (Munzi, Ostraka (1998), 88); individuals in the Arnensis are better ascribed to Blera or Ocriculum (Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 294). 219 The implied date of the quattuorvirate is republican even if the inscription is Augustan (and I think it is not later than that at any event, despite Munzi’s claim of a late Augustan–Julio-Claudian date, Ostraka (1995), 292). 220 For a statement of the old orthodoxy, see Gazzetti, in La romanizzazione dell’Etruria, 78–9. On the slingshots see Stanco, MEFRA (1994), 253–4. 221 Gasperini, Iscrizioni, 101–2. 222 Stanco, MEFRA (1994), reviewing previous doxography. 223 Munzi, Ostraka (1995), esp. 290–1 on Piammiano, noting the tomb of a zilath (CIE 5634 ¼ TLE 280), Berrendonner and Munzi, MEFRA (1998), 656; Munzi, Ostraka (1998), 85 (see Wg. 1 for geomorphology and topology of Piammiano); Munzi, in Italy and the West, 43–8. 224 Stanco, MEFRA (1994), 251; Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 289.
282
The Simple Quattuorvirate
for placing it in the Bomarzese, our text apart, are not what they seem either: the strongest element of the case is the (unproven but) plausible case for the Wglinae which produced bricks in the High Empire bearing the stamp praedia Statoniensia.225 The case for the nuova Statonia should be accepted provisionally; reversion to the previous orthodoxy has little to recommend it. It does seem slightly odd that Anicius speciWes Statonia in his inscription: why, if his tomb was in the territory of Statonia? While, in the vast majority (eightyodd) of the cases considered in Chapters 6–8, the quattuoruir named in the inscription clearly was or had been the magistrate of the municipium in whose oppidum or territorium the inscription was displayed, and while speciWcation seems otiose, there are parallels for such redundancy.226 In four texts in our sample quattuoruiri specify the community in which they held their magistracy. Of these, Q5 and Q6 were set up in Puteoli, but recorded magistracies all held in other communities; and Q15 was the epitaph of a man who had been duouir of a nearby community as well as quattuoruir of his own community (Luceria), and presumably aimed to avoid confusion in the mention of more than one community.227 Yet in Q26 below, the Etrsucan city of Clusium is named on a quattuorviral funeral stele from the territory of Clusium, and in Q40 from Signia, two quattuoruiri make a euergetic gift ‘to the municipium of Signia’. The location of Anicius’ tomb, moreover, is at too great a distance from Piammiano for it to be seen as belonging to the extra-urban necropoleis of that centre;228 hence perhaps Anicius’ naming of Statonia. The present text leaves no doubt that, wherever it was located, Statonia had quattuoruiri, and was thus a municipium. Now we know, as has been stated, that Statonia was a praefectura centre when set up in the third century.229 As such, it makes an odd inclusion in the category of quattuorviral municipia—we should expect the duovirate, found at neighbouring Visentium, and at Forum Clodii, also initially a praefectura.230 Can we know the date of the municipalization of Statonia? Orthodoxy had suggested a promotion to municipal status in the early Empire;231 225 See Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 288; the phrase ‘lacus [sc. Vadimon] in Statoniensi est’ in Seneca, NQ 3. 25. 8 may be a marginal gloss which has intruded into the text (and in any case is an emendation of ‘lacus in statione nisi’ of the MSS), and Pliny (HN 36. 168) does say what adherents of the new Statonia want him to say. 226 For parallels from imperial Etruria (and our Clusine example) see Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 287 and n. 6, admitting the objection that the speciWcation of Statonia in the text is superXuous. 227 So also Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 287 n. 6. 228 Ibid. 291. 229 On the doxography, ibid. 292, nn. 25 and 28, and on the circumstances which would have led to the setting up of the praefectura in the ‘new’ location, see Munzi, in Italy and the West, 46–8 (but see Beloch, RG 455–6). 230 Beloch, RG 510, 566; Gasperini, Epigraphica (1959), 35 n. 2, 45 n. 1, arguing for a municipalization at the very end of the Republic, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 207, Humbert, Municipium, 373 n. 55, see also Regoli, in La romanizzazione dell’Etruria, 52. For Forum Clodii, see Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 61–4. 231 RuoV-Va¨a¨na¨nen, in Studies in the Romanization of Etruria, 59. Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 293 argues that CIL xi. 7479 gives us another imperial quattuoruir from Statonia.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
283
and LaY had noted that Vitruvius (De arch. 2. 7. 3) referred to Statonia as a praefectura.232 Gasperini, therefore, dating the inscription as early imperial, argued that the promotion to municipal status must have come after Vitruvius wrote, but before the age of Pliny who does not call Statonia a praefectura. The latter part of the argument is worthless; as to the former, the implied date of the quattuorvirate is republican, even if the inscription is Augustan; what the evidence of Vitruvius shows is that the praefectura, for a time, survived. This, as we have seen in Chapter 2, is not in itself a problem.233 The zilath buried at Piammiano, if he served the Etruscan predecessor of Statonia, is not, as Munzi saw, incompatible with the imposition of a Roman praefectura centred on that community.234 What is not plausible is that the praefectura persisted until the Augustan period, but that its centre, Statonia, adopted a quattuorviral magistracy after the Social War in order to assimilate itself to neighbouring communities properly constituted as municipia, itself only being promoted in the Augustan period.235 The later municipia of Blera, Ferentium, and Statonia originally lay within the territory of Tarquinii. It is uncertain whether they (or at least Ferentium and Blera) had achieved independence as communities by the Social War, and were thus populi which became fundi of the lex Iulia; perhaps they had not, but, with Statonia, although not necessarily at the same time, achieved independence not much later, perhaps as a consequence of the granting of a lex to Tarquinii. The quattuorvirate may indeed represent an attempt to assert an independent status of great antiquity, to claim that the new autonomous communities could take their place besides the ancient Etruscan populi. Other promotions followed later, such as Visentium, in the Augustan period, or even earlier, as the duoviral magistracy suggests. Clusium is comparatively rich in quattuorviral inscriptions,236 supplying our next Wve examples. Although it was long believed that there was a Sullan colony at Clusium on the basis of duoviral inscriptions and the mention of two types of Clusini in Pliny (HN 3. 52), Pack and Paolucci have demonstrated that this is not the case, and that the II uiri found there are municipal, and attest a change in the constitution in the Augustan period. This convincing thesis is now widely accepted.237 Q25 names a Q. Considius. The reading given in the Addendum seems certain on the basis of the drawing of the fragment in NSA and personal inspection.238 The former does not accurately represent the shapes of the letters, but there seems to be 232 Akten VI Kongr. Epig., 45. 233 See Ch. 2, s. 2. 4. 234 Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 292. 235 This seems to be the argument of Munzi, ibid. 292–4. 236 Rich, indeed, in its epigraphic patrimony generally, notably the inscribed funerary urns: Benelli, in Italy and the West, 10, 13. 237 See Pack, in I Romani di Chiusi, 17, 19, 23, 69. Thus the arguments of Rudolph, Stadt, 93 n. 4 (Q25, 27, and 28, all pre-colonial), and Manni, Per la storia, 183 (Q27 and Q28 are colonial aediles, rebutted in any case by Degrassi, SVA i. 113) become obsolete, as does all talk of a double community (see further App. 1). Pack and Paolucci’s thesis accepted e.g. in Benelli, in Italy and the West, 12. 238 Levi, NSA (1928), 82. Autopsy, May 1994.
284
The Simple Quattuorvirate
little reason to doubt that more of the inscribed surface was extant in 1928 than is now. It seems that ‘IIII uir’ in l. 2 is in the centre of the inscription, and given that we have the beginning of Considius’ name as well, the lengths of at least ll. 1 and 2 can be calculated.239 On that basis it seems likely that the magistracy in question was the quattuorvirate nude dictus:240 the inclusion of the letters i. d. would have destroyed the symmetrical arrangement of the lines. The letter forms, especially the curved tail of the ‘Q’ point to a date in the second half of the century.241 Q26 is the funeral stele of a man who was ‘IIII uir / iter i. d.’242 L. Sicinius is considered here, as well as under the heading of IIII uiri i. d., because I believe that the Latin means not that he was IIII uir i. d. twice243 (which would be IIII uir i. d. bis or iter), but that he was IIII uir and then IIII uir i. d.244 This interpretation is supported by the arrangement of the lines. There was more than enough room to set the text out diVerently on the stone, or to make it longer. As it is l. 2 ends with ‘IIII uir’, and then the text moves into a new line to tell us that the quattuorvirate was held again, this time iure dicundo. Such a progression through the cursus is what we should expect, especially on a funerary inscription (cf. Q10 and Q11). As to the date of Q26, Pack and Paolucci think that it may belong to the second half of the Wrst century bc.245 Sicinius will however have discharged his oYces in the Wrst half of the century. His cognomen Bellutus may just support this date for his quattuorvirates. Bellutus, as Pack and Paolucci have noted, is found only once elsewhere, and belongs to one of the Wrst tribunes of the plebs in 493 bc, L. Sicinius Bellutus, ‘seditionis auctorem’ according to Livy.246 There was also a tribune by the name of Cn. Sicinius at Rome in the year 76, an opponent of Sulla’s tribunician legislation; Sallust, in the oratio Macri, gives him the praenomen Lucius.247 239 On the plausible assumption that the Wrst line was ‘Q. Consid[ius Q. f.]’. ‘L’ or ‘C’, the other praenomina attested for the Considii at Clusium, would strengthen my reconstruction, shortening the length of the Wrst line. Note also a P. Considius in Caes., BG 1. 21. 3, with Syme, RR 355 n. 1 on his status; see also Harvey, Athenaeum (1981), 312–14, on Considii and Consii. 240 The suggestion of Levi, NSA (1928), 82, that both Q. Considius, and C. Considius in Q27, were IIII uiri uiarum curandum is unacceptable. The words certainly would not Wt into the space available in Q25, even if abbreviated. The two types of quattuorvirate (municipal and Roman) may have confused some stone-carvers: see Dessau, ad ILS 1158, cf. Reynolds, in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, 674 n. 14, 680 (on an early 3rd-cent. ad inscription from Tibur). 241 Della Fina, Antichita`, 43, no. 2 (photo: Tav. II.2): ‘[C]onsidi[us] / [III]I uir’ may be from a copy of Q25, or attest another Considius holding the quattuorvirate at Clusium. 242 The text given in AE (1987), 364, gives ‘D. M.’ in the Wrst line. This is incorrect: see the original publication (Pack and Paolucci, ZPE 68 (1987) 164–73) or the enlarged photograph (Pack, in I Romani di Chiusi, 20, Wg. 3). 243 So Pack and Paolucci, ZPE (1987), 166. 244 Cf. the interpretation of ‘iterum’ in CIL xiv. 3613 put forward by Groag, JŒAI (1922–4), 473–4. Although denied, e.g. by Sherwin-White (Roman Law and Roman Society, 163 n. 5), Groag was emphatically and correctly supported by Syme, RP iii. 873, cf. 870. Like ‘iterum’ there, ‘iter’ here goes with the concept which precedes it. 245 ZPE 68 (1987). 246 2. 35. 2. Pack and Paolucci, ZPE (1987), 172. 247 Sall, Hist. 3. 48. 8M ¼ 34 McGushin; Gnaeus: Cic., Brut. 216–17. See Pack and Paolucci, ZPE (1987), 173 n. 65.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
285
It may be that the tribune of 76 revived and embroidered (or created?) the memory this ancestor during the struggle over the restoration of the tribunate’s powers in the 70s, probably through the medium of Licinius Macer’s history. A connection between the Sicinii of Clusium and those active at Rome in the second and Wrst centuries cannot be divined; could it be that our Sicinius had reason to be hostile to Sulla in the aftermath of the Civil War, and borrowing from contemporary political discourse, assumed in the 70s the politically signiWcant cognomen Bellutus, which he knew from Macer?248 Q27 is not easy to date. It is the inscription from a funerary urn of another Considius,249 known only from manuscript copies. The ligatured form of the Etruscan metronymic in the last line is paralleled in another inscription from Clusium, the (?) epitaph of an architect,250 dated to the Augustan period by Della Fina, without argument.251 The form nat(us), without ligature, is found in other inscriptions, for example, in Pack and Paolucci’s no. 5, which they date to the late Republic or early Empire,252 on the last funerary urn in the tomb of the Volumni at Perusia,253 and Q29 below, the last two both in all probability Augustan. Thus the presence of the Etruscan metronymic need not indicate an early date.254 Again, the fact that Considius names his father and his grandfather in the Roman fashion may indicate that the inscription should date later rather than earlier,255 since it implies a certain level of adoption of Roman practice; and Benelli has argued that the class of Latin funerary texts with elements like the metronymic becomes widespread in the second half of the Wrst century.256 I tentatively assign it to the second half of the Wrst century, with C. Considius’ quattuorvirate belonging around the middle of the century.
248 The name game may have been played on both sides of the ideological divide: see the fascinating suggestion in Benelli (in Italy and the West, 13) that the choice of the linguistically anomalous Otacilius as the Latin form of the Clusine gentilicium unata may be related to a conscious alignment of the unata with the Otacilii and thus the Sullan factio. 249 Evidently not the same man as the Q. Considius of Q25, contra Pack and Paolucci (ZPE (1987), 166 n. 35). 250 CIL xi. 2134. 251 Antichita`, 316. 252 ZPE 68 (1987), 174. 253 CIL xi. 1963. The marble urn is ‘hardly pre-Augustan’: Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 315; see CIL xi. 1994 for a (probable) son. 254 Levi, NSA 1928, 82, thought that Q27 might predate Q25 because of the presence of the metronymic. It is probable, however, that the metronymic survived into the 1st cent. bc only as a formula of funerary epigraphy (see Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 180, on conservatism in funerary practice in Etruria at this time), and Q25 is a public inscription. The two are not therefore directly comparable. 255 The Etruscans were not unfamiliar with the use of the patronymic (see Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 176), but the mention of the auus (cf. Q22 from Ferentium) seems more Roman, and may imply that both father and grandfather were Roman citizens. 256 In Italy and the West, 11; this text, perhaps not belonging to an individual of Etruscan lineage, might rather be assimilated to the class of inscriptions belonging to immigrants but showing assimilation of local funerary customs, dated by Benelli (ibid. 12–13; id., forthcoming) to the Wrst decades of the 1st cent.
286
The Simple Quattuorvirate
Q28 is perhaps datable to the very end of the Republic or to Caesar’s dictatorship.257 Bormann described it as ‘litteris bonis’,258 but there are republican characteristics in that part of the text which is clearly visible today. It is a piece of inscribed architrave, built into an internal wall, above a shop doorway, in Chiusi,259 in such a way as to impede establishing the text easily. Bormann’s text, accepted by Degrassi,260 was signiWcantly improved by Della Fina, and his in turn slightly improved by Pack and Paolucci.261 I have argued in the Addendum that the correct restoration is of a text which named four IIII uiri. It therefore seems certain that the stone is more or less intact, and the text complete, on the right, since four IIII uiri i. d. together does not seem to be a valid permutation of the quattuorviral college. Rarely, it seems, do all four IIII uiri act together (see s. 3 below), and their cooperation here may testify to the size of the building programme undertaken. The Wnal inscription262 from Clusium, Q29, is a funerary urn, probably Augustan.263 The cursus recorded is the same as in Q26,264 and should be interpreted in the same way. The magistracies were probably held in the last years of the Republic, or under the Caesarian dictatorship. Vensius is an Etruscan name (as are Tutilius and possibly Sicinius in Q28 and Q26 resepctively). Both the persistence of the Etruscan element among the Clusine elite and the survival of the Etruscan metronymic are signiWcant.265 For our next inscriptions we move from Etruria to Umbria. Q30 and 31 come from Hispellum. L. Falius L. f. Tinia, in what is surely an epitaph,266 lists his cursus as ‘cens. pr. bis IIII uir’. Degrassi interpreted ‘pr. bis IIII uir’ as being one oYce,267 but I am not convinced. Such an unusual title should not be accepted without good parallels, which Degrassi does not have.268 Furthermore, the fact 257 Note that both men named have cognomina; note also the spelling ‘pecunia’. 258 ad CIL xi. 2122. 259 A parrucheria (hairdresser’s), if I recall. 260 CIL i2 . 3360. 261 ZPE 68 (1987), 183. 262 CIL xi. 2126, known from manuscripts, reads ‘III VIR’, and Pack and Paolucci are probably right to emend it to IIII uir rather than II uir (ZPE 68 (1987), 166 n. 35); their attribution of the text to the 1st cent. is nevertheless unproven (see App. 1), and therefore I have left it out of consideration here. On 25 June 1996 Benet Salway kindly wrote to me signalling an (?)unpublished text from Clusium (in the Museum), where tresuiri (a sacral College?) make a dedication to Victoria (Sullana or Caesariana?); the text seems to be republican. 263 See Pack, I romani di Chiusi, 15 with n. 24, and cf. Pack and Paolucci, ZPE 68 (1987), 169 n. 44. Note also the presence of the cognomen; and see Benelli, in Italy and the West, 11, on the dating of the majority of these Latin texts containing elements like the metronymic. 264 With diVerent line division, however. The stone-cutter was concerned with making the text cover the rectangular area on the front of the urn. 265 For the Sicinii see Pack, in I romani di Chiusi, 20, where it is also implied that the Considii are an Etruscan family. I am not convinced: the name looks Italic, but we should bear in mind the use of the Etruscan metronymic in Q27—non liquet. On the incidence and signiWcance of Etruscan names at Clusium generally, see Pack, ibid. 18–19. 266 So Bormann, CIL xi. p. 766. 267 ad ILLRP 611, SVA i. 111 and n. 80, ad CIL i2 . 3382. 268 ILLRP 606 from Grumentum is the closest, but even here ‘pr(aetores) duouir(i)’, are not strictly analogous. His other parallels are even less help. CIL x. 817 (Pompeii, ad 3/4) mentions ‘II uiri iter i. d.’
The Simple Quattuorvirate
287
that ‘bis’ comes between ‘pr’ and ‘IIII uir’ must surely rule out his interpretation: in this position it should qualify one title (‘pr.’), but certainly not both. Q30 is an instance of the plain quattuorvirate. As to the date, Bormann rightly placed both Q30 and 31 before the deduction of the triumviral colony.269 The oYces of censor and praetor are probably those of Hispellum before the Social War, or before municipalization.270 If so Falius’ quattuorvirate will date soon after the creation of the municipium. Nothing could be more natural than the election to oYce of experienced magistrates in a period of change and readjustment. Q31 is a funerary stele271 which records the cursus which we have already met (Q10 and 11): ‘IIII uir aed’. As above, there is no reason to see this as referring to one oYce.272 There is little to suggest how this inscription might be dated relative to Q30. The dead man, one L. Turius, had no cognomen, whereas Falius did, and this might be an argument for placing him earlier. The letter forms certainly look as though they belong to the Wrst half of the Wrst century, perhaps close to the beginning of our period. Yet counter-claims exist. If I am right that the career of Falius in Q30 spans the Social War, we have not only some interesting data about the Romanization of pre-Social-War magisterial structures in Umbria, but also an indication of chronological priority. This may itself Wnd conWrmation from the career listed in Q31. The aedileship mentioned there might be pre- or post-Social War; if post-Social War, it would represent a type of cursus known elsewhere, for instance at Beneventum. Why, then, was Falius not aedile before becoming IIII uir, as Turius was? Perhaps under the new municipal system the local senate had the power to exempt those who had held oYce before municipalization from the requirement of holding the aedileship before the quattuorvirate. Turius would thus be younger than Falius. Such an explanation of the diVerence between these (for the titulature see on Q26 above), while CIL xiv. 2070 (Lavinium, 2nd cent. ad) has ‘praet II q q’. These examples do not help Degrassi’s case, since the terms i. d. and quinq are essentially modiWers of the basic oYce involved, whereas in Q30 ‘IIII uir’ cannot modify ‘pr’ in this way. A closer parallel is Q89, from Cales, which has ‘IIII uiri pr(aetores)’, for whom see Ch. 8. 269 Bormann, CIL xi p. 766. Followed by Beloch, RG 503; Degrassi, ad ILLRP 611, SVA I, 111 and n. 80, ad CIL i2 . 3382. The other inscription on this stone is acknowledged by Bormann and Degrassi to be later than Q30: Bormann, CIL xi p. 766, Degrassi, ad ILLRP 611, SVA I, 111 and n. 80, ad CIL i2 . 3382. For the triumviral date of the colony see also Gregori, MEFRA (1984), 963, 966–7, with previous discussion cited at 963 n. 7. 270 On censores see the conclusion to Ch. 8. They occasionally appear after the Social War—the pair of censors from Aquileia (Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 35, apparently unique in Cisalpina) probably date to the period of the Latin colony (see also Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 194, no. 2), but the lettering might allow a date after 90 bc; and under the Empire, notably at Abellinum (Mommsen, CIL x. p. 127, see also Sartori, Problemi, 114 n. 26); but IIII uiri quinquennales are the norm (see Q73 for Aquileia: IIII uiri i. d. quinq.). Praetors, except sacris faciundis, are rare after the Social War, and individuals in literature, like the praetor of Fundi (Horace, Sermones 1. 5. 34–6), are cited as generic municipal magistrates, and are thus of no concern to us (see e.g. Salmon, Making, 9 n. 38: aVectation). See above n. 169 on Q17–19; for another attempt at explaining why he is not an aedilis, SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 67 and n. 1. 271 So Guzzo, Epigraphica (1966), 145; see also Beloch, RG 513. 272 So also Degrassi ad ILLRP 612; he hesitates however at SVA i. 111, and seems to have changed his mind at CIL i2 . p. 1080. Bormann too seems to think we are dealing with one oYce here.
288
The Simple Quattuorvirate
two magisterial cursus remains hypothetical, but it is to my mind attractive and eYcient with the known facts (alternatively Falius may simply have left out the lowest oYce). Tentatively then, we may date Q30 to the late 80s or 70s, and Q31 to the 70s or 60s.273 Q32 comes from Sassina. It records what seems to be a private benefaction by a member of the Caesellii, a family who provided one other known IIII uir at Sassina.274 The letter forms suggest a date around the middle of the century, but there is no realistic way of assembling the Sassinate public epigraphy into a coherent chronological series. Our last four attestations of the plain quattuorvirate come from Cisalpina. Q33 comes from Placentia, which as a Latin colony was enfranchised in 90 bc, and presumably municipalized along with the other ex-Latin colonies of Italy proper. The relationship between the municipium and the colonia ciuium Romanorum, both attested at Placentia, long remained unclear. Bormann’s intuition on the basis of the letter forms and nomenclature that the quattuorviral inscriptions of Placentia could belong to a pre-Augustan municipium275 was conWrmed in 1958: Fraccaro published an inscription from Clastidium which conWrmed that the colonization of Placentia was Augustan,276 giving a terminus ante quem for all IIII uiri at Placentia.277 Since P. AuWdius in Q33 was II uir as well as IIII uir, his career spanned the moment of colonization, and both his magistracies may well have been as late as the beginning of Augustus’ reign. This Wts in well with his military career—in this revolutionary period a signiWcant number of local magistrates had held, or went on to hold, military posts like this. AuWdius perhaps did not serve in the legion which was settled at Placentia—the extended family tomb may imply a local origin. It is signiWcant that a family which had Wrst attained distinction in the municipium could maintain its social and political position despite any upheaval and dislocation created by colonization (especially if the initial foundation was triumviral). Other prominent families, partisans of, or sympathetic to, the losing side, may have been less fortunate, and lost land and livelihood; nor would they have left behind them as imposing a record as the tomb of the AuWdii. P. AuWdius’ brother, Lucius, the elder son, predeceased him; Lucius’ quattuorvirate will then be earlier, perhaps in the triumviral period. It is not certain, however, that we have here a record of the plain quattuorvirate. The record of both the quattuorvirate and the duovirate as Publius’ magistracies may suggest that he used these terms in 273 Guzzo dates it to the very end of the Republic, Epigraphica (1966), 145. 274 Susini, Studi Romagnoli (1954), 191, published what he seemed to think was an unedited fragment (photo: 192, Wg. 2). I suspect that in fact this was a rediscovery of the central fragment of Q32, which he discusses elsewhere. CIL i2 . 2124: Caesellius and his (missing) colleague may have been responsible for the work in this text as IIII uiri, although the magistrscy, if any, does not survive. 275 CIL xi. p. 242, followed by Beloch, RG 500. 276 Athenaeum (1958), 117–22, cf. Keppie, Colonisation, 190. Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 256, does not exclude the possibility of a preceding triumviral colony. 277 Manni, Per la storia, 184 thought that the Placentian IIII uiri were colonial aediles; Degrassi (SVA i. 115) preferred Bormann’s interpretation.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
289
a general sense, rather than a precise juridical one, simply to underline the important fact that he had held oYce in both municipium and colonia. The wishes of the man who ordered this inscription in his will may have obscured precise careers, both his and his brother’s. We come next to Aquileia, whose juridical history should for our period be the same as that of Placentia, but whose epigraphic patrimony is richer, indeed the richest in Cisalpina.278 Since Q34 (like Q35) is funerary, we cannot be certain that it records the existence of a speciWc quattuorvirate nude dictus, or just a generic magisterial title. Yet the former does seem to be more likely. Mommsen noted (on the basis of the evidence available to him) that the title IIII uir aed. pot. did not occur in the considerable quattuorviral epigraphy of the city, and suggested that ‘hi magistratus [sc. IIII uir aed. pot.] latere maluisse sub simplici titulo quattuoruirali’.279 Since then four IIII uir aed. pot. have come to light,280 but none of these dates to the republican period, and it may be the case that Mommsen was right to the extent that the lower pair of IIII uiri were known just as IIII uiri throughout the life of the municipium (the appearance of the quattuorvirate aed. pot. may be a brief experiment connected with the supervention of the colony).281 Q34 and 35 thus possibly record an oYcial title. Q34 is part of the epitaph of a M. AlWus M. f., put up on the orders of L. Servilius, his frater. Brusin, correctly in my view, judged it was pre-Augustan on the basis of the letter forms;282 it may not be much earlier, however.283 ‘colonus’ in l. 2 is awkward for this dating, however: we know that Aquileia became a colony under the Empire (Degrassi suggested a Claudian or Neronian colonization, rejecting an Augustan date284). Yet arguments that Q34 could be colonial, rather than republican and municipal, lack force. It is argued that ‘colonus’ is not a cognomen—but perhaps wrongly;285 it is also generally accepted
278 On the date of municipalization: Mommsen, CIL v. 83; Brusin, AN (1936–7), col. 24, and also 16, 24–5 on CIL i2 . 2202, and Degrassi, SVA i. 86, 88, refuted Beloch’s view (RG 622, but note 491) that Aquileia was municipalized only after 49 bc (based on an erroneous post-Social-War dating of i2 . 2203, for which see Ch. 8 on Q73), cf. Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 179 n. 32. For another possible republican quattuoruir here, see Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 198, no. 24, ‘P. Sa[---] IIII u[ir ---]’. 279 CIL v. p. 83; v. 1015 has an aedilis, and the late v. 749 a praef. aed. pot. 280 Pais, Supp. It. 189, 200, 203; Brusin, NSA (1933), 118–19. 281 Degrassi notes the disproportion of the various types of quattuorviri: of the Wfty-odd attestations, only four are IIII uiri aed. pot. Of the rest, the proportion of IIII uiri nude dicti to IIII uiri i. d. seems to be about 1:3 (SVA i. 87). 282 AN (1936–7), col. 43. 283 The horizontal bar through our upright hastae of ‘IIII uir’ is rare in the Republic, but there are four examples at Aquileia: cf. Q35, Q36, and Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 42 (where Brusin’s restoration of the quattuorvirate as iure dicundo is arbitrary)—this might suggest a latish date within our period; cf. Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 197. 284 SVA i. 90, 93 (cf. Mommsen, CIL v. p. 83); the colony retained the quattuorvirate as its magistracy. 285 Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina, 321 has Wfteen attestations, and considers the present instance to be a cognomen, cf. Mommsen, ad CIL v. 966. Contra: Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i., n. 42 (his argument, that Servilius lacks a cognomen, is weak), Degrassi, SVA I 92, Weber, in Johne, Ko¨hn, and Weber, Die Kolonen, 262–3.
290
The Simple Quattuorvirate
that the word cannot be taken to prove that Aquileia was a colony at the time.286 Degrassi suggested that ‘colonus’ might refer to a viritane land grant,287 and given that AlWus as a magistrate must have been of some social status, this is in my view a much better explanation than taking ‘colonus’ to mean farmer.288 The municipal attribution may stand, and a date later than the Triumvirate must be unlikely, a consideration re-enforced by the letter forms. Q35, cut on a funeral stele, below the relief portrait of a togate Wgure, has been the subject of controversy: it may not belong to our period. The lettering certainly looks republican: very ‘square’, with open ‘C’s, round ‘O’s, and only slight traces of serifs, deep triangular interpuncts;289 Degrassi seemed to support a republican date, while admitting that it might be as late as Augustus.290 Within these limits, the cognomen and the sculpted aediculum around the portrait point to a later date. Art historians, however, have unanimously dated the stone later on stylistic grounds; the High Empire has now been dropped for the Wrst century ad.291 Although we might place this inscription in the Augustan period, a compromise between the conXicting claims of epigraphy and sculpture is arguably not a practical solution. If it were Augustan, then the magisterial career might belong in our period. Little weight can rest on so problematic a stone. Q36 was described by Brusin as ‘basis (a base)’;292 whatever its relation to other monumental elements, it is certainly a funerary text, from the tomb of Decius Flaccus, his mother, and sister (and perhaps other family members). The lettering suggests a date a little later than that for Q34; in particular the ‘Q’ is beginning to develop the sweeping tail of imperial lettering; the interpuncts are in transition between simple triangles and the imperial rose-thorn type; and seriWng is present at the ends of many strokes, although it is not uniform; note again the horizontal bar through the hastae of ‘IIII’. On the other hand, ‘Q’s and ‘O’s are round, ‘C’s 286 Degrassi, SVA I.92, Weber, in Johne, Ko¨hn, and Weber, Die Kolonen, 263; ‘colonus’ at Pais, Supp. It. 1190 may just mean a farmer (Weber, in Johne, Ko¨hn, and Weber, Die Kolonen, 262–3 for the permutations). 287 Degrassi, SVA I, 92 Ibid.; cf. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, ad. no. 36. 288 The implications of the magistracy escaped Weber. The plot of land must have been large. Beloch (Italische Bund, 8) conjectured that Aquileia was one of the eighteen cities colonized after Philippi by the Triumvirs. This idea has rightly not found favour, but Aquileia may have seen triumviral viritane grants. It was one of the biggest Latin colonies when led out in the 2nd cent., and Hinrichs has noted how the cities which did become triumviral colonies were often the larger Latin colonies (Historia (1969), 542 and n. 86). 289 Cf. Lommatzsch, ad CIL i2 . 2201: ‘litteris vetustis’. 290 CIL i2 . 1093; cf. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, ad no. 39a, ‘litteris exeuntis aetatis liberae rei publicae’. Degrassi also mentions a now lost epistyle bearing the inscription: ‘Cn. Octavius C. f. Cornicla / IIII uir u. f.’ ¼ Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 39b ¼ Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 197 n. 19. 291 F. Poulsen, Portra¨tstudien, 76 (Flavian, which date he claims is supported by the inscription); Fanzoni, in Arte e civilta` romana, ii. 205 (mid-century); Kraus, in Das ro¨mische Weltreich, 228 (ad 50–75); Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome: The Late Empire, 113 (50–80, again with the claim that the artistic date agrees with the epigraphic). The somewhat exaggerated features might be a north Italian version of the republican veristic tradition of portraiture; all in all, the portrait seems to me to be Julio-Claudian at the latest. 292 Bandelli, Bourgeoisies, 197, cautiously suggests an architrave.
The Simple Quattuorvirate
291
open, and the general aspect of the lettering ‘square’. The stone might be triumviral and, like Q34, point to a magistracy (not necessarily the quattuorvirate nude dictus, see above) held up to thirty or forty years earlier.293 Two more quattuorviral texts are included by Brusin in the ‘aetatis liberae rei publicae’ section of Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, both assigned on the basis of letter forms (his nos. 41 and 42). Both are so fragmentary as to preserve neither the type of the quattuorvirate nor the magistrate’s full name. Of these, no. 42 may well be the earlier, since Brusin characterized it as litteris uetustis. The quattuorvirate is also attested by numismatic evidence from Paestum, on coins which name the magistrates responsible for the issue. Crawford has rebutted the old idea of Grant that these IIII uiri were colonial.294
3 . C O N C LU S I O N S Having considered all thirty-six attestations of the quattuorvirate nude dictus I shall draw some preliminary conclusions. I shall begin by considering the numbers of IIII uiri recorded in each inscription. This may give an indication of the numbers usually active for diVerent purposes, and thus an idea of the extent to which the quattuorviral college was divided. Six inscriptions mention all four IIII uiri (Q1, 3, 7, 8, 16, and probably 28). This does not tell us much, except in the cases of Q3 (Tibur) and Q7 (Pompeii), where there is internal evidence for a division of the college. Seven inscriptions name two IIII uiri (Q2, 12, 13, 17–19, and 33); the existence of such pairs presupposes some kind of structural, and thus functional, division of the quattuorviral college. The earliest is Q12 (Aeclanum), which seems to show that the quattuorvirate had become a divided magistracy by c.70 bc. This does not, however, prove the existence of IIII uiri i. d. by this time, since the higher pair are recorded as plain IIII uiri in Q12. Of these seven texts, six are public inscriptions (Q17–19 are religious dedications, but the circumstances make it clear that they should be considered public); Q33 is funerary. From this we may deduce that it was as common, if not more common, to have pairs of IIII uiri operating independently of each other as it was to have the whole college acting together. There are twenty-one complete or almost complete inscriptions mentioning only one IIII uir. Of these, only five are public or quasi-public inscriptions (Q4, 5, 6, 9, and 20), while sixteen are funerary. This suggests that it was as common for IIII uiri to act alone as in pairs.295
293 Similar dating by Bandelli, Bourgeoisies, 197. 294 The coins: Garrucci, Le monete dell’ Italia antica, 179–82, tav. cxxii–cxxiii. For a summary of the numismatic arguments see Keppie, Colonisation, 154. I do not agree with Keppie that the inscriptions recording the II uiri Claudius and Sexstilius (CIL i2 . 1682, 3157) are no earlier than 50 bc (ibid. 154–5); rather the letter forms suggest the end of the 2nd cent. and the Latin colony. 295 Two inscriptions are too incomplete to be of use: Q25 and 32 (public).
292
The Simple Quattuorvirate
It is often maintained that the quattuorvirate was from the beginning a divided college composed of two IIII uiri i.d. and two IIII uiri aed. pot.296 This view must be abandoned in the light of the preceding analysis. At Tibur (Q1) the quattuorviral college was still undivided at a point between c.75 and c.65 bc.297 The evidence of Cicero’s Pro Cluentio supports Wts this picture. When he carried out his coup at Larinum (82 or 81 bc), Oppianicus the elder replaced all four existing quattuoruiri, which he need not have done had the college been divided into two pairs, one senior to the other, with the ability to summon the senate, and also jurisdictional powers (these were what Oppianicus wanted, since he planned to get rid of his opponents through ‘judicial murder’, using the proscriptions as a front).298 Q2 and Q3, also from Tibur, show that by the 60s a division had indeed taken place in the Tiburtine magisterial college. If it is legitimate to compare Q1 with Q12, we may then advance the working hypothesis that this division of the quattuorvirate occurred—if it occurred everywhere at once—between c.75 and c.70 bc; I believe such a change was widespread, if not universal, in Italy.299 Such a division of the college into pairs is not necessarily connected in any way with the magistracy IIII uir i. d. and, as we have seen, at Aeclanum at least the senior pair initially continued to style themselves just IIII uiri (Q12).300 At this time it is possible that the higher pair of magistrates were those who were returned in Wrst and second places at the elections. In some places (Beneventum—Q10, 11; Hispellum—Q31; Tarentum—Ch. 5) the quattuorvirate existed alongside the aedileship. This implies that initially the quattuorvirate was envisaged as being a unitary senior magistracy, with lower functions discharged by another set of magistrates. We cannot say how widespread this phenomenon was: certainly Beneventum had been a Latin colony, and as such was used to the large magisterial colleges prescribed by the old constitutions of these communities. Unfortunately it is very diYcult certainly to assign inscriptions mentioning aediles from other communities to the period after municipalization. Finally we may note that the simple quattuorvirate is attested from the 70s301 to the triumviral period and even beyond,302 and that Latium (3 quattuorviral communities, plus one from Latium Adiectum), Campania (3 reading Cales in 296 Beloch, RG 500; LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr. 38, cf. De Martino, Storia, iii2 . 349. 297 This was the thesis of Rudolph (Stadt, 102, 105–10), who however overstated the case for the juridical indivisibility of the quattuorvirate (ibid. 107), and was wrong to see the division of the college only occurring with a Caesarian reform (ibid. 110–12). Certainly the very name of the magistracy presupposes a unitary college of 4 members, as the octovirate presupposes an original college of eight (ibid. 79, 109; Manni, Per la storia 171–2). 298 Clu. 25. 299 Q7 might seem to provide a counter-argument, but as I have argued above, we should not place much faith in a text which presents anomalous features as it stands, and cannot be checked. 300 As I have said, inferences about the competence of any given IIII uiri nude dicti are only guesswork. Thus Manni’s theory that they are generally the same as IIII uiri i. d., except in Umbria where they are equivalent to aediles (Per la storia, 188–9), falls. 301 Q1 (Tibur), 4 (Aletrium), 7 (Pompeii), 9 (Nola?), 12 (Aeclanum). 302 Q22 (Ferentium).
The Simple Quattuorvirate
293
Q5 and 6), the Hirpinate territory (2), Bruttium (1), Apulia (2), Etruria (4), Umbria (2), and Cisalpina (2) all attest to the distribution of the magistracy. The peoples of Central Apennine Italy are largely unrepresented, as are the Lucani. It is however probable that the quattuorvirate nude dictus survived as the title of the lower pair of magistrates in the majority of quattuorviral municipia until the last years of our period and even beyond (see sections of Ch. 8 on the rarity of IIII uiri aed. pot and IIII uiri aediles). It also seems that the only magistracy attested at Ferentium for senior or junior magistrates right up to the triumviral period at least was the quattuorvirate nude dictus (we cannot even say whether the college was divided). The size and location of that town may be responsible for this lack of evolution and specialization. We should ask whether other small centres in similar locations in Italy shared Ferentium’s magisterial evolution. As for the presence or absence of the quattuorvirate itself, we are faced with an evidential problem, although the low number of attestations among post-Social-War rebels is a pattern that will be repeated.303 303 For the full roster of quattuorviral communities under the Republic see App. 3.
7 ‘Quattuoruiri Iure Dicundo’ 1. QVAT T VO RV I R I I V R E D I C V N D O (Q 3 7– 7 3 ) There are thirty-nine certain attestations of the quattuorvirate iure dicundo. The magistracy is recorded at Tibur; Setia, Signia, Sora, Aquinum, and Interamna Lirenas; Cales; Aeclanum and Beneventum; Potentia and Volcei; Vibo Valentia; Brundisium and Luceria; Alba Fucens; Marruvium; Clusium, Volsinii, Vulci, and Volaterrae; Ocriculum, Interamna Nahars, Spoletium, Hispellum, Asisium, and Sassina; Placentia and Aquileia. Tibur has already furnished us with three inscriptions. It now provides us with two cases of the quattuorvirate i. d. Q37, known only through MS copies, constitutes one long line, and thus would seem to have been cut into an architrave. There is no way of knowing if anything was carved on adjacent blocks and is now lost. The importance of the inscription lies in the fact that we have already met Octavius. He was one of the two IIII uiri whose name adorned the Arco Scuro in Tibur (Q2).1 In the intervening time he has held the quattuorvirate i.d. once, and his second tenure is recorded here. Q37 is therefore later than Q2, probably not less than a decade later (i.e. sometime after 50 bc). The mention of Octavius’ tribe also suggests that this inscription belongs to the second half of the century, perhaps to the Caesarian dictatorship. Octavius was clearly a local political Wgure of some importance. Since he is so speciWc about his title here, there should be no doubt over the juridical correctness of his title as given in Q2. Q38 is an inscription recording the restoration by one T. Herennius, a IIII uir i. d., of a horologium originally built by his father.2 Degrassi, who saw the stone, suggested that it might in fact be imperial, rather than republican as suggested by Mancini.3 We cannot say more, but Degrassi’s opinion makes it likely that the inscription is not early within our period. Q39 and Q40 are from Signia. Q39 records the moving of a statue to a temple restored by the IIII uiri i. d. The inscription, set up on the basis of l. 7, preserves in the Wrst two lines the name of the original dedicator.4 This transcription of an older inscription may account for the older spelling ‘Hercolei’.5 The sacred nature 1 Less likely the Octavius of Q37 is a son of the Octavius in Q2. He may be a relative of C. Octavius C. f. Graechinus of Q3. 2 This relationship between the two Herennii was suggested by Degrassi, ad CIL i2 . 3094. 3 Degrassi, ibid., as against Mancini, ad Inscr. It. iv 1. 18; cf. Solin in EpigraWa, 172. 4 So Mommsen, ad CIL i2 . 1503, followed by Degrassi, ad ILLRP 135. 5 For this spelling: CIL i2 . 626, mid-2nd cent bc.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
295
of this ‘reorganization’ may account for the speciWcation that the two magistrates are augurs—or the work may only have been possible for augurs for religious reasons.6 Since even the original dedicator already bore a cognomen, it is possible that the restoration by two IIII uiri i. d., who also both have cognomina, should be dated to the second half of the Wrst century, a date which is suited by the spelling.7 Q40 records the magistracy of two Volumnii, who are probably Wrst cousins, like the two Cicerones at Arpinum in 46/45.8 Some elements suggest an early date: the forms ‘peq.’ and ‘crupta(m), and the phraseology ‘x ubi y est’, which recurs in other inscriptions of the late second and early Wrst century bc.9 On the other hand both magistrates have cognomina; and prosopographical considerations may point to a date in the second half of the century. Badian, discussing the late republican Volumnii, has suggested that the Volumnius Flaccus who was an oYcer of D. Iunius Brutus in 43 ‘may well be’ the son of L. Volumnius L. f. Ani., tribunus militum on Pompeius Strabo’s consilium at Asculum in 89. He makes a case for identifying the latter with the monetalis of 81, L. Vol(umnius) Strabo,10 and the senator Volumnius mentioned by Cicero (Fam. 7. 32. 1). He explains the sudden re-emergence of the Volumnii in Roman politics from the beginning of the Wrst century onwards by positing a new citizen origin, and notes that as L. Volumnius was tribunus militum in 89 he must have been enfranchised through tenure of a magistracy in a Latin colony. Badian suggests Signia on the basis of our C. Volumnius Flaccus; the tribe of Signia is unknown, although Aniensis is possible.11 If C. Volumnius Flaccus of Signia were Brutus’ oYcer,12 his Xoruit, and his quattuorvirate, should belong rather to the middle of the century.13 Q40 is probably slightly earlier than Q39. The next two inscriptions come from Setia. Q41 is problematic: Armstrong dated this inscription, which he himself saw by the side of the road at the beginning of the ascent to Sezze, to the period 150–100 bc.14 That date cannot 6 Augures appear under the Republic also at the former Latin colonies of Brundisium (Q54) and Placentia (Q70), at Anagnia (ILLRP 533) and Formiae (ILLRP 597). There seems to be no compelling reason to place these last before the Social War. As at Rome, political power and priestly authority often go hand in hand. 7 Of the same family as the original dedicator of the statue, P. Hordeonius Gallus, may be M. Hordeonius M. f. M. n. Rufus (CIL x. 5967), augur and IIII uir i. d. Kajava (EpigraWa (ILLRP), 380, ad no. 119, recording a Paula Hordeonia L. f.; he also notes EE viii. 626) has suggested a republican date; Camodeca sees this Hordeonius as early imperial however (Puteoli (1987), 36). Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 72, is non-committal on the date of all the quattuorviral inscriptions from Signia. 8 Cic., Fam. 13. 11. 3. 9 ILLRP 528, ‘campum ubei ludunt’, cf. Q49, ‘fornic[em] qua in forum eitu[r]’ (probably pre-60 bc). 10 Crawford, RRC 82, 391, for the date. This resolution of Vol. was Wrst suggested by Cichorius (Studien, 150). 11 Historia (1963), 142. 12 Not explicitly stated by Badian (ibid.) but strongly implied. If they are identical, L. Volumnius tr. mil. cannot be the father. For freedmen of a L. Volumnius at Signia: CIL x. 5972, 5974. 13 Before 43 perhaps, because of the form ‘peq.’; but note ‘pequnia’ in the fragmentum Atestinum, l. 16, of 49 bc (see Ch. 4 for further discussion of the date). 14 AJA (1915), 47. The inscription is now lost: Volpe, Supp. It. 6, 18. Mommsen does not appear to have seen it.
296
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
stand: one can only suppose that the stone presented an old-fashioned aspect to Armstrong, which warrants its consideration here as republican. In favour of this we may note the spelling of the cognomina; but their very presence, and the spelling ‘pec.’ mean that the stone should not be early in our period.15 I am inclined to date it to the middle of the Wrst century, before which the cognomen Pol(l)io appears to be vary rare.16 The road in question must have been the diuerticulum which connected Setia with the Via Appia.17 How much of this was paved by the IIII uiri cannot be known for certain, but since no distances are given on the stone, we can suppose that either the whole length of this road was in question, or only the piece from the bottom of the hill up to Setia.18 Q42 is just a fragment, and tells us little apart from the attestation of the oYce. The lettering suggests that it may even be imperial. Line 2, of which only the very top is preserved, seems to begin with the last letters of a woman’s gentilicium, which may well mean that the text is funerary, not public. Q43 takes us to the old Volscian country, and the former Latin colony of Sora. It oVers us a sure terminus ante quem. The legio III Sorana set it up as a dedication to L. Firmius, a distinguished member of the community who had been military tribune, IIII uir i. d. and Wnally the Wrst pontifex of the colony led out to Sora after Actium.19 The military oYces and the quattuorvirate must both precede the foundation of the colonia, but it is hard to say which came Wrst. The record of his career seems to be not a full or a chronological one, but gives the most important positions held in the army (l. 2) and the municipium (l. 3), and then the colony (ll. 4–5). It is therefore possible that Firmius passed from the army to magistracy at Sora having reached the centurionate. The dedication to him by the Soran legion implies that he served in it too, and this is probably the context of his military tribunate.20 If I am correct, his quattuorvirate should fall before 43, 15 ‘saxo’ seems oddly unspeciWc, and may be a sign that the stone is not very late. Laurence, Roads, 64–5, sees the paving (in silex) of even short stretches of road by local magistrates as rare before, and even during, the 1st cent. ad. 16 Not however unknown: see Nicolet, AEHE IVe section (1970–1), 305, most importantly noting Carvilius Pollio, a pre-Sullan eques; add the senator L. Licinius Pollio (Livy, 27. 29. 4). The earlier view of Cichorius that Pollio was never found before c.50 bc thus needs revision (Studien 119 n. 1; Degrassi, SVA iv. 28; Perotti, PdP (1974), 130). For municipal Polliones in our period see Q44, 50–1, Nicolet, AEHE (1970–1), 305; Syme, RP ii. 521 and n. 9; Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 200 and n. 63: not a large haul. 17 Volpe, Supp. It. ns 6, 15. 18 If the Wrst named magistrate was a Paconius, not an Aconius (see Addendum), he may be related to the L. Paconius who was praetor at Setia in the 3rd or (more probably: Solin in EpigraWa, 176 and n. 34) the 2nd cent. bc (CIL i2 . 1517), and thus a member of the old municipal aristocracy. A L. Pomponius L. f. Annianus, may be a relative by adoption of the other IIII uir; interestingly, he too was responsible for paving a road at his own expense (CIL x. 6468). 19 Keppie, Colonisation, 136. For the colonial pontiWcate, cf. lex coloniae Genetiuae 66–8, 91 (note that the Wrst pontiWces and augurs are to be appointed by Julius Caesar). LaY, in ºªØ Iæ. Studi di antichita` in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi, 246–8, argues for a colonial quattuorvirate, but despite a carefully constructed argument, his reading of the career set out in this text seems to me less natural than the one adopted here. 20 Cf. Keppie, Colonisation, 136; Demougin, in EpigraWa, 227–8.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
297
when III Sorana was probably raised; it is unlikely to date before 60 bc in any event.21 The inscription seems to have been put up not long after the colonization.22 Excavations beneath the Duomo at Sora brought to light inter alia a stone thesaurus with an inscribed bronze cover;23 it will not be later than the colonization. Neither magistrate bears a cognomen, and so the inscription may be earlier rather than later. The notice of this inscription in AE (and what follows) derives from the discussion of Gelsomino who saw and photographed the inscription during restoration. Gelsomino restores ‘IIII [uir i. d.], but admits that what comes after the last vertical hasta of ‘IIII’ is unclear in his photograph.24 Consequently we cannot be certain what sort of IIII uiri they were. Moving south towards the conWnes of Latium Adiectum with Campania we come to Aquinum. Q44 was assigned to Casinum by Mommsen, but Piedimonte, where it was found, is in the territory of Aquinum,25 and the stone could not belong to Casinum in any event since that city was a duoviral municipium.26 The inscription records the activities of two ‘IIII uirei iour. deic.’, but the manuscripts do not record anything coherent for the Wnal line, and the object of the work remains a mystery.27 The spelling ‘iour. deic.’ need not point back any earlier than the early 60s outside Rome,28 and we should remember that both magistrates have cognomina, one of which, Pollio, seems to be rare before the middle of the Wrst century.29 Moreover, since the stone appears to be lost, we cannot even apply the uncertain control of letter forms.30 With these caveats in mind I think this inscription, which must in any event fall before the triumviral colonization of Aquinum, should perhaps be dated to the 50s bc; it need not be earlier.31 21 On legio III Sorana see Keppie, Colonisation, 136, and Roman Army, 199, 203. Since he took no part in the colony’s political life, Firmius may have been getting on in years; see Keppie, Colonisation, 136. 22 Note the spelling ‘caussa’, and the identiWcation of the Soran legion with the citizen body. 23 AE (1985), 266. For the discovery see Zevi Gallina, Arch. Laz. (1978), 64–6 (no text given). For more details on the excavations at the Duomo, see Lolli Ghetti and Pagliardi, Arch. Laz. (1980). 24 In Antichita` paleocristiane e altomedievali del sorano, 48. The text is: ‘Sex. Cureilius C. f. / M. Caesius L. f. / IIII [-----] / Mineruae p. xxs / d. s. s. f. c.’ . I have been unable so far to ascertain the current location of the inscription. 25 Cagiano de Azevedo, Aquinum, 54; Degrassi, SVA i. 122 n. 167; Solin, in EpigraWa, 178. 26 See Beloch, RG 508; Rudolph, Stadt, 208; Degrassi, ad ILLRP 544 ( ¼ Addendum D15); CIL i2 . p. 1004. 27 ‘C.C.C.’ may be (part of) a sum of money. 28 See the triumviral CIL x. 4876 (Venafrum) for ‘deic.’, and the lex Antonia de Termessibus (RS i, no. 19, FIRA i7 . 14, c.70 bc), col. II, l. 4: ‘in ious’; earlier examples of course exist: lex ag. 73: ‘pr., quei inter ceiues Romae ious deicet’. 29 See above on Q41. 30 The cognomen Apotheca, with its Greek overtones, might imply that its bearer was nouveau riche, rather than a member of the local landed aristocracy, but such surmises are very Ximsy. For Ce´belliac-Gervasoni (in EpigraWa, 201), the cognomen is perhaps a trading name, but not borne by freedmen in this period; see also Castre´n, Ordo, and in Bourgeoisies. Solin (in EpigraWa, 179) is perplexed by the name: ‘forse soprannome personale’. Cf. the Greek-derived cognomen of L. Runtius C. f. Sisipus (¼ Sisyphus) of Arpinum: CIL i2 . 1537 ¼ ILLRP 546, Wrst half 1st cent. bc? 31 Solin (in EpigraWa, 179) assigns it a date of c.100!
298
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
A letter from Cicero to the IIII uiri and decuriones of an unnamed town (Fam. 13. 76) was assigned by Beloch to Aquinum;32 more recently Shackleton Bailey argued for Fabrateria Vetus.33 This option cannot be ruled out, but the date of its muncipalization is unknown—none of the quattuorviral epigraphy from the site looks to be republican. Moreover Cagiano de Azevedo showed how some of Fregellae’s territory, the subject of Cicero’s letter, was given to Aquinum, its eastern neighbour, after 126,34 and therefore it seems better to follow Beloch. The date, as Shackleton Bailey points out, is a mystery.35 Q45 comes from the neighbouring community of Interamna Lirenas. The magistrate’s name is missing, and there is little in the text to suggest a date. The letter forms look imperial, although the form of the ‘C’ might point to an earlier date. The combination of military and magisterial posts also suggests a date at the very end of our period, by analogy with Q43. The mention of ‘urbani clientes’ is extremely interesting, the term cliens being rare in inscriptions in our period (perhaps another indication of late date). Presumably, being in the nominative, they paid for the dedication. The word ‘urbani’ suggests that they were municipes rather than freedmen of the dead man.36 From Latium Adiectum we move into Campania. Q46 is a column drum, cut from an earlier inscribed block, and Wrst published by Solin in 1989.37 He found it unedited in the Museo Campano, and attributed it to Cales because of the mention of IIII uiri and the appearance of the word recitare in a public context, paralleled in an imperial inscription from Cales, CIL x. 4643.38 The interpretation of the text is problematic. The Wrst four letters of l. 3 seem to come from the gentilicium of a woman, whose cognomen is Gemina; the text seems to honour her in some way. 39 We are perhaps dealing with only one magistrate, for Solin noticed that the Wrst letter in l. 6 is preceded by an interpunct, and is therefore part of a Wliation (consequently the IIII uir did not have a cognomen); but the unknown line lengths prevent certainty.40 Solin suggests that the inscription is early imperial.41 I think however that some letters could equally Wt a late republican context (the open ‘C’s, and the ‘L’ of l. 5, which seems to be hooked in the archaic fashion), as could the absence of the cognomen from the magistrate’s name (the apparent honorand has one, 32 RG 501, cf. already Colasanti, Fregellae, 206–9; and Cagiano de Azevedo, Aquinum, 17 (dating it to 63 bc), Degrassi, ad ILLRP 544, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1004, Coarelli, in Coarelli and Monti (eds.), Fregellae, i. 51 n. 306; Harvey, Classics and the Classical Tradition, 88 n. 24, prefers Fabrateria Nova! 33 Ad loc., cf. Harvey, Athenaeum (1977), 308–13: Fabrateria Vetus cannot be excluded. Rawson, in Coarelli and Monti, Fregellae, 74–5, seems to prefer Arpinum; F. Poulsen, Catalogue . . . Carlsberg Glyptotek, 391, suggests Fregellae! It is true, as Crawford points out, that the municipium referred to in this letter could be located anywhere in Italy: Coinage and Money, 339–40. 34 Aquinum, 53, cf. Coloasanti, Fregellae, 185–225, and now Coarelli, in Coarelli and Monti, Fregellae, i. 45 n. 226, 52–3. Agnostic: Rawson, ibid. 74–5. For the importance of Aquinum as the major centre of the Liris valley after 125, see Coarelli, ibid. 45. 35 Harvey, Athenaeum (1977), 304–7, argues for 58–44 bc as the closest dating possible. 36 For urbani compare Q90, and CIL xi. 3310a, a dedication to a patron by ‘Claudienses ex praefectura Claudia urbani’ (Forum Clodii, late 1st cent. bc: Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 60). 37 Epigraphica (1989), 46–66, at 65–6. 38 Ibid. 65. 39 Ibid. 65–6. 40 Ibid. 66. 41 Ibid. 65–6.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
299
however). The surface of the stone is quite worn, though, and thus not ideal for palaeographical analysis. Indeed, some of the letters are more ‘modern’—for instance the ‘O’s are slightly elongated rather than round. If this stone is preAugustan, it is not by much. Q47 described as ‘litteris vetustis’ by Lommatzsch,42 was seen by Dressel (although not by Mommsen). It comes from the territory of Beneventum, and seems to record a religious act by the two senior magistrates of the municipium on the resolution of the senate.43 As to the date, this depends on the prosopographical identiWcation of the IIII uiri i. d. One of them is L. Coceiu[s]; is he one of the family which produced consuls, and an emperor, the Cocceii Nervae? I believe that he is.44 Some Cocceii owned a ‘plenissima uilla / quae super est Caudi caupones’ in the triumviral period,45 and it has been attractively suggested that a connection exists between these Cocceii near Caudium, and the IIII uir i. d. at Beneventum.46 Three Cocceii brothers were important Wgures in the Triumvirate,47 but their dates are hard to establish: we know, however, that Gaius was suVect consul in 39 bc, and Marcus ordinarius in 36.48 Now, the emperor M. Cocceius Nerva, their most illustrious descendant, was born between ad 30 and 35.49 If we work backwards, assuming thirty years per generation, his father will have been born c.ad 1–5, which is not unreasonable for a consul of c.ad 40;50 if twenty-Wve years was the generational interval, he will have been born c.ad 5–10. His father, a famous jurist, would have been born c.30–25 bc (or 25–20); and if he held the consulship in ad 21 or 22,51 he would not be the only jurist to be consul later in life; he died in ad 33.52 There must have been a ‘silent generation’ between the consul of 36 bc and the jurist.53 42 CIL i2 . 1730. 43 Degrassi, ad ILLRP 556, interprets ‘lucar’ as an archaic form of lucus, citing ‘loucarid’ in ILLRP 504, the 3rd-cent. lex sacra from Luceria. This form may simply be due to religious conservatism, and thus tell us nothing about the text’s date. 44 Cf. Salmon, Samnium, 390. See Syme, RR 200, 208, 225, 267, on this ‘mysterious family’. 45 Horace, Serm. 1. 5. 50–1. It lay on the road from Caudium to Beneventum (see Wickham, ad loc.) 46 Wiseman, New Men, 49, no. 125. See further App. 2. 47 That L. Cocceius and M. Cocceius Nerva were brothers is generally accepted: Jo¨rs, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 13, Wiseman, New Men, nos. 125–6. I have followed the reconstruction of Groag (RE supp. i, cols. 323–4, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ nos. 3 and 12), whereby C. Cocceius Balbus was a third brother (cautiously repeated in PIR ii2 , s.v. nos. 1212 and 1214, and tentatively accepted by Wiseman, ibid., no. 124, cf. also Grainger, Nerva, 28). As Groag pointed out, Gaius, not Lucius, was cos. suV. in 39 bc. (RE supp. vii, col. 90, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ nos. 3 and 12; Syme, RR 525; Bodel, ZPE 105 (1995), 285 and n. 22 for appointment at the end of that year); Marcus was cos. ord. in 36. Groag suspected that Lucius remained an eques, cf. Syme, RR 200, 267 n. 1 (never consul). See Broughton, MRR ii. 359 on the date of Gaius’ praetorship. 48 He was replaced on 1 July, by a Q. Marcius: Bodel, ZPE 96 (1993), 264, and ZPE 105 (1995), 279–80. 49 Stein, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 16, cf. Syme, Tacitus, ii. 628, Grainger, Nerva, 29. The sources conXict, and Stein, PIR ii2 . 293–4 argues for ad 30. 50 Jo¨rs, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 15, Grainger, Nerva, 28; no consulship according to Stein, PIR ii2 . 291–2. 51 Syme, Tacitus, ii. 627; Grainger, Nerva, 28. Jo¨rs, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 14; Stein, PIR ii2 . 291–2: shortly before ad 24. 52 Tac., Ann. 6. 26, Dio, 58. 21. 4. 53 So Groag, PIR ii2 . 291 on no. 1224 (the cos. 36); Syme, RR 500; id., Tacitus, ii. 627; Grainger, Nerva, 28, leaves this open as a possibility.
300
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
The father of the latter should have been born c.60–55 bc; if he was a nonentity54, this might also explain his son’s late consulship. The father of the ‘silent’ M. Cocceius would be our M. Cocceius Nerva, the cos. 36 bc, who must have been born between 90 and 80 bc. His brother Gaius, consul in 39, will have been older, and Lucius the eldest, if Groag has interpreted CIL x. 3808 correctly to show that he was dead, but that the other two were alive in 13 bc. All this would imply that Lucius was born about between 100 and 90 bc.55 Assuming a minimum age of 30 for magistrates, he could have held oYce as IIII uir i. d. from c.70/60 bc onwards. Now although we do not have the righthand edge of Q47, it seems that the symmetry of the stone would have been destroyed if either magistrate had been given a cognomen.56 Little suggests that L. Cocceius had taken the cognomen Nerva: Porphyry’s commentary on Horace supplies that cognomen, while Horace himself uses only Cocceius.57 One brother had the cognomen Balbus; it may have been only Marcus who was surnamed Nerva. If L. Cocceius did not have a cognomen, he is probably our man; conceivably the Beneventane IIII uir i. d. might be his father, who will have borne that praenomen if Lucius was the eldest brother; it is no objection that he spelt his name with one ‘C’. Born c.130–120, he could have held oYce at Beneventum from c.85 bc onwards. It may be objected that the Cocceii Nervae hailed from Narnia,58 and their Caudine villa is not attested before the triumviral period. As to the Narnian origin, it does not prohibit ownership of property elsewhere: the interests of the Cocceii in Campania, not far from Caudium (for connections between Caudium and Campania see Q5 and 6), suggest more than a transient presence in the region. Freedmen are attested for the Augustan period at Capua;59 further it seems likely that the L. Cocceius Auctus, whose massive tunnel between Cumae and Lake Avernus still forms a precarious reminder of the Portus Iulius naval complex, was a freedman of L. Cocceius Nerva and a C. Postumius.60 There is no 54 His father (cos. 36 bc) was an Antonian sympathizer (Syme, RR 267 n. 2); see Syme, ibid. 282, on a change of sides before Actium for ‘the discreet Cocceii’; and ibid. 385 n. 2 on Seneca, De clementia 1. 10. 1, seeing ‘Cocceios’ as being a real not a rhetorical plural; 382 and n. 7 for rewards under Augustus, the patriciate. 55 This dating of the birth of Lucius and his younger brothers means that any one of them could be the Cocceius mentioned by Cicero in 45–44 bc (Att. 12. 13. 2, 18. 3, 19. 2, 16. 15. 5), but Mu¨nzer rightly pointed out that no sure identiWcation is possible (RE supp. i, col. 323, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 1a). The letters oVer no real clue, although Shackleton Bailey (ad 12. 13. 2) suggests one of the Nervae, inter alia. 56 Alternatively we should restore ‘Nerua’ after L. f. in l. 2; the magistracy would have to be IIII uir i. d. iter. 57 Appian gives him no cognomen: BC 5. 60. 251. 58 Victor, Epitome de Caesaribus 12. 1. Stein, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 16; Wiseman, New Men, nos. 125–6. 59 CIL x. 3803, 3962; D’Isanto, Capua romana, 108–9. 60 CIL x. 1614. Stein and Fabricius, RE iv, s.v. ‘Cocceius’ no. 2 (the Postumius is tentatively identiWed as Postumius Pollio, an architect known at Minturnae); Stein, PIR ii2 , no. 1213. L. Cocceius Nerva, the patron, may be the son of our IIII uir. Rawson, Intellectual Life, 21 n. 10, notes the possibility of a connection with the Beneventane Coceii; cf. 88 n. 23.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
301
way to prove that the villa was a family possession before the 40s, but it could equally have been acquired in the Sullan period, when C. Quinctius Valgus gained so much land in the nearby ager Hirpinus.61 All in all, then, there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that the L. Coceiu[s] who was a magistrate at Beneventum was either the friend of Maecenas whom Horace mentions, or his father. He, like Quinctius Valgus and Numerius Cluvius, was already inXuential enough in the region of Caudium to be honoured with a local magistracy before that. If the family Wrst became inXuential in the area in c.80 bc, the quattuorvirate will fall after that. It could date to the 70s, but could just as well belong to the 60s; as no internal evidence suggests that Q47 is particularly early, the 60s may be considered a superior choice.62 I give here my stemma of the Cocceii Nervae in Figure 1. We may also entertain the possibility that Coceius’ fellow magistrate is in fact the L. Septumius L. f. who held oYce at Pompeii as IIII uir not earlier than c.70.63 He was active in the 60s bc at Pompeii, and this would suggest that whichever Cocceius we choose at Beneventum, he too was active at roughly the same time. Since Coceius was not from Beneventum himself, it could be argued that his fellow magistrate was likely to have been a Beneuentanus. It would suit the argument advanced above to say L. Coceius (L.?) f. (born c.130–120)
L. Cocceius L. f.
C. Cocceius L. f. Balbus
(b. c.100–90; dead by 13)
M. Cocceius L. f. Nerva
(b. c.95–85; cos 39)
(b. c.90–80; cos. 36)
L. Cocceius (L.?) f. Nerva
M. Cocceius M. f. Nerva
(b. c.75–60)
(b. c.60–55) M. Cocceius M. f. Nerva (b. c.30–20
BC;
cos.
AD
21/22; d. 33)
M. Cocceius M. f. Nerva (b. c.
AD
1–5; cos.
AD
40)
M. Cocceius M. f. Nerva (imperator) (b. c.
AD
30–5)
Figure 1. Stemma of the Cacceii Nervae. 61 But see Syme, RR 200, 267–8, against Sullan partisanship. 62 A terminus ante quem, is 41 bc, given the colonization of Beneventum in that year, see Ch. 6, Q10 and Q11. 63 See above on Q7.
302
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
that Septumius is not a Pompeian, but I will not press the point. It is enough simply to strengthen to the previous demonstration that the Septumius known from Pompeii need not have been a colonist at all. Beneventum must also be considered as a possibility for his patria. Q48 is from Aeclanum; this stone too was seen by Dressel. One of the magistrates is a C. Marius C. f.; but in this case there is nothing to get excited about. Marii were widespread in Central/South Italy, and the burden of proof is very much on those who would see here the son of the seven times consul or another close relative.64 Mommsen describes it as ‘litteris antiquis’; note also the spelling ‘pequ’ in l. 5. We can do little more than suggest a date in the Wrst half of the century, a date which also suits the absence of cognomina. When the discovery at Frigento, near the Via Appia near Aeclanum (during the restoration of the Duomo in the 1930s) of the inscriptions Q49 and Q79 was reinforced by the results of excavations in the late 1950s, Onorato proposed the identiWcation of the site as a ‘lost’ municipium.65 No unclaimed name for the town can be found in Pliny’s lists; modern scholars often call it the ‘anonymous municipium of Frigento’, although ‘Frigentum’ is not implausible.66 Already known were bits of a monumental pavement inscription, and stones mentioning, inter alia, Augustales and various magistrates.67 The archaeological discoveries of the 50s were quite impressive: a republican cistern in opus incertum (taken to be that mentioned in Q79), remains of a bath building and traces of a drainage system; Black Gloss pottery was found in the 1950s, and pottery from more recent excavations below the Duomo pointed to occupation from the fourth century bc through to late antiquity, with less high imperial material than that from mid to late republican dates.68 Some impressive architectonic fragments came from the Duomo, and a number of inscriptions turned up, there and elsewhere.69 Q49 and 64 So Taylor, VDRR 310; Harvey (Essays . . . Dengler, 90 n. 28) thinks this Marius is the cos. 82, the great man’s son. A Marius Egnatius was a Hirpinian commander in the Social War (Salmon, Samnium, 358). Cf. also Marii at Pompeii (ILLRP 1133–4, Cic., Fam. 7. 1 etc.), Cumae (ILLRP 576), Minturnae (ILLRP 726), Teanum Sidicinum (Gellius, NA 10. 3, a quaestor), Trebula Balliensis (Q76), and ?Aprustum (D6). 65 See Onorato, La ricerca archeologica in Irpinia, 35–6 (‘questo nuovo centro dell’ Irpinia romana di eta` republicana, la cui esistenza e` ormai accertata’, ibid. 36), with n. 95 on the history of the debate on the existence of a Roman settlement at Frigento—in the 17th and 18th cents. it was mooted as the site of Aeclanum. Mommsen thought that the epigraphy from the area known to him would suit a Roman municipium (CIL ix. p. 91). Onorato’s thesis is now widely accepted: see for instance Gabba, Italia romana, 87; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 199; Colucci Pescatori, Il Museo Irpino, 37; ead., in Romanisation du Samnium, 95–8, 120–1, and in Italia dei Sanniti, 47–55 (more cautiously); Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1029; Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 48–9, on the Appia. 66 Hirpinia is still characterized by archaeological sites for which no ancient name can be suggested, and toponyms in the ancient sources for which no location can be found: W. Johannowsky, in Italia dei Sanniti, at 26–7. 67 CIL ix. 1048–52; Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 47. 68 See for the cistern Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 47 and Wg. 2; for ceramics from below the Duomo, ibid. 47–8 and Wg. 3; other structural remains: ead., in Romanisation du Samnium, Italia dei sanniti, 48. 69 See Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, at 47, on recent (funerary) epigraphic discoveries datable to the Empire (unfortunately no date is given).
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
303
Q79 reXect one of the more substantial building programmes known in southern Italy at this time. The surrounding area has produced a number of tombs.70 There have, however, been doubters, for example Prof. Consalvo Grella, Direttore of the Museo Irpino in Avellino.71 I think that there can be no doubt that there was a Hellenistic and late republican settlement at Frigento, perhaps related to the nearby sanctuary of MeWtis, perhaps with its own temple; it may have come to serve as a centre for ager publicus later given to Gracchan settlers in the area. It had at least one splendid building, but none of this makes it a republican municipium, rather than a uicus.72 Whilst admitting the (still) poor state of knowledge in Hirpinian territory, Colucci Pescatori pointed out in 1975 that the evidence then available showed that hilltop settlements like those characteristic of Pentrian territory were almost unknown among the Hirpini, and that larger settlements on lower hills were favoured in this area.73 This picture has received some conWrmation in the light of recent survey;74 yet Frigento makes more sense in the context of the known pre-Roman pattern of settlement in Hirpinia than as a Pentrian-style hillfort, and its hilltop location cannot disallow its claim to being a real settlement.75 What, though, of the epigraphy?76 First, one can note that of all the works mentioned in the texts, the only one of which any trace had been found is the cisterna. In fact, one may doubt whether there would have been any room on the small hilltop of Frigento for residential areas, once so imposing a public building programme had been completed.77 If Frigento was a municipium, it evidently underwent a change in constitution, for as well as the quattuorviral Q49 there are three, perhaps four, inscriptions mentioning II uiri i. d.78 We have very few cases of a quattuorviral municipium being replaced by a duoviral one (there is no evidence for a colony at Frigento79): Tarentum (Chs. 5 and 9), Clusium (see preceding section on Q25–9) and Perusia (Q86) are the only cases known to me. The change in all three cases can be related to an intervention (welcome or 70 See Colucci Pescatori, in Romanisation du Samnium, for the details on the archeological patrimony of Frigento; Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 48. 71 Pers. comm. Apr. 1994. I am grateful to Prof. Grella for discussing his views with me. 72 Perhaps eventually reaching municipal status; for a Samnite village adjacent to a sanctuary (but in the Biferno valley), see Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 192 (Colle Sparanise); uicus or oppidum, and part of a pagus: Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 48, 50. Could some of the architectural remains come from the nearby sanctuary of MeWtis (for which Colucci Pescatori, ibid.)? 73 Il Museo Irpino, 31 (one only, Monteverde). 74 See Johannowsky, in L’ Irpinia nella societa` meridionale, 103–16. 75 La Regina, in Studi sulla citta` antica, Colucci Pescatori, in Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti, 48. 76 A republican text from nearby Rocca San Felice, mentioning praefecti, also has to be taken into account: ILLRP 600; Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 49. It is probably to be associated with Gracchan allotments in the area between Frigento and Rocca San Felice—note the Gracchan cippi CIL ix. 1024–6, Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 49 and Wg. 8. 77 Both Q49 and Q79 record major interventions using public money—was a small town like Frigento that rich? 78 CIL ix. 1049–50; Maiuri, NSA (1925), 96; Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei sanniti, 49. 79 There was a colony at Abellinum, but Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 50–1, argues, I think rightly, that the inscriptions do not refer to that centre.
304
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
unwelcome) in the (in each case major) community and its territory by Augustus. No such intervention is known, or can be hypothesized, for tiny Frigento. The epigraphic attestation of two diVerent sets of magistrates in one small town is better explained on the hypothesis that either one or both are alien to Frigento. Since we have no evidence apart from these stones to suggest that Frigento was a colony or a municipium, I prefer to see both as brought from outside for reuse, at a time when the lower Roman sites in the area were being abandoned for more defensible sites like that of Frigento.80 But from where? One community close to Frigento which was a quattuorviral municipium and later a colony was Aeclanum, which also, as we have seen, had a connection with Quinctius Valgus (its patronus, Q12), and who appears as ‘quinquennalis’ in Q79. As regards the two republican inscriptions, they should refer to the same city, since the two building programmes are almost certainly complementary.81 I think that Q49 and Q79 should, given the lack of positive evidence about a municipalization of Frigento, be attributed to Aeclanum.82 The duoviral inscriptions, however, all carry the tribe of the magistrate, the Galeria, and Colucci Pescatori points out that Aeclanum was in the Cornelia, which means they cannot be referred to that centre.83 It may than be that Frigento became a duoviral municipium in the early imperial period. Q47 records some building work carried out by a single IIII uir i. d.84 The spelling is pre-classical (l. 2: ‘quom’, l. 5: ‘eitu[r]’), and might indicate the same era as Q12. The letter forms, while they look later than those of Q12, are rougher than those of Q79.85 Yet Q49 must be later than Q79, which records the building of the forum: it stands to reason that the forum must precede the arch which leads into the forum in Q49.86 Spelling and other epigraphica vary from city to city in this period, from lapicide to lapicide, and the priority of Q79 over Q49 is a salutary reminder of the weakness of dating by palaeography or spelling. The question remains though—is Q79 earlier or later than Q12? One might expect the walls to be the Wrst element to be tackled in a city which was undergoing major urban renewal, practically being rebuilt in fact. Indeed, Aeclanum’s wooden walls had been burnt by Sulla in the Social War.87 Furthermore, it 80 Cf. Johannowsky, L’ Irpinia nella societa` meridionale, 107–8. 81 If this is just a coincidence, we might attribute Q49 to Compsa, since a republican grave stele of a Palius C. f. was found at Guardia dei Lombardi, halfway between Frigento and Compsa (CIL ix. 1001; Colucci Pescatori, Il Museo Irpino, Wg. 56). 82 So already Mommsen, CIL ix. p. 91, admitted as a possibilityby Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei sanniti, 50. 83 Italia dei Sanniti, 50; ‘Gal’ also on a new funerary text from the Duomo, 47 and Wg. 6. Note, however, the discovery of an imperial quattuorviral text of a magistrate in the Cornelia, in the UWta valley: Johannowsky, in Italia dei Sanniti, 26 and n. 7. 84 Degrassi cites as a parallel for ‘maenianei[s]’ in l. 3 the ‘[ma]eniana circ. forum’ (CIL ix. 1148, Aeclanum: ‘titulus nescio cuius aetatis’—ad ILLRP 599, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1029). It seems to me that the abbreviation ‘D. S. P. F.’ and the form of the cognomen ‘Kan[---]’ point to an Augustan or a republican date. 85 Autopsy Apr. 1994. 86 On this aspect of the inscriptions see Mansuelli, RSA (1976–7), 121; he identiWes the forum, the porticus, the curia, and the cisterna as all being part of the forum. 87 App., BC 1. 51. 222.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
305
would seem logical that Q49 at least, which names a IIII uir i. d. should be later than Q12 where the highest magistrates are plain IIII uiri. If we consider also the fact that, of the two inscriptions which mention Valgus, Q79 seems the later (note also that Valgus was twice magistrate at Pompeii in the 70s), it seems that Q12 must be the earliest Aeclanate quattuorviral inscription, followed by Q79, and then Q49. Since Q12 dates to c.70 (previous chapter), and since the period in which we can assume Valgus to have been active is c.80–60, Q79 certainly, and probably Q49 too, in view of the spelling, fall within the next decade, that is, before c.60.88 Our next two inscriptions come from Bruttium. Q50 and 51, from Vibo Valentia, must be considered together, although they are two diVerent texts. In a previous existence Q50 was CIL x. 44, not seen by Mommsen on his visit to Vibo, and updated only after a republication by Barnabei.89 On this version of the text, still containing some incorrect readings, and more importantly lacking the sixth line, Cichorius based his remarkable but Xawed interpretation of the inscription as a record of the land commission set up by the lex Liuia agraria of 91 bc.90 This ingenious explanation of the text given in CIL was generally accepted,91 and despite occasional doubts,92 abandoned only after Degrassi’s republication of the text, using photographs, in 1969; an object lesson in the value of being able to see the stone.93 The interpretation of the inscription has thus again become uncertain, and its date too, a situation not remedied by the discovery in 1972 of the similar Q51. The major clue to the understanding of both is provided, I believe, by the work carried out rather than the prosopography, which is almost totally unhelpful. Of the seven names on Q50,94 none can be identiWed with a known Wgure;95 while the gentile names allow a certain amount of speculation, none of it is to my mind very proWtable.96 In fact the names only frustrate. L. Licinius Crassus looks 88 That Q79 has the formula ‘d. d. s.’ whereas Q49 and Q12 have ‘d. s. s.’ might imply that the latter two are close together in time. 89 NSA (1882), 395, whence CIL x. p. 1003. 90 Studien, 116–25. 91 e.g. by Mu¨nzer, RE xiii, s.v. ‘Livius’ no. 110, col. 870; still current much later—see Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 224, 226. 92 Last, CAH 2 ix. 178 n. 5 (‘perhaps’), Broughton, MRR ii. 23 n. 10 (‘uncertain’), and Tibiletti in Relazione del X Congresso Internazionale di scienze storiche, 279 n. 2 (later in the same note he uses Cichorius’ interpretation in support of his own remarks on the complexity of Drusus’ legislation). 93 SVA iv. 1–38, at 23–9. The existence of l. 6 of course puts paid to Cichorius’ ideas, but these were weakened in any case by the presence of IIII uiri (cf. Degrassi, SVA iv. 25). Cichorius could only get round this diYculty by assuming that the Drusan commission had conferred considerable beneWcia on Vibo, and so were honoured by the erection of the inscription some time later (at least half a dozen years) by a grateful community (Studien, 123). Yet we know that Drusus’ measures did not survive 91, and it is hard to imagine what his land commissioners could have done at Vibo. 94 Degrassi’s restoration assumed twelve names (SVA iv. 27, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1029), but as Krummrey points out (in CIL), comparison with Q51 (which has only three names) shows that there were in fact seven. 95 Perotti, PdP (1974), 129. 96 Degrassi, SVA iv. 28; Perotti, PdP (1974), 129–31. Like Krummrey (CIL i2 . p. 1029), I am not convinced by Perotti’s prosopograhical suggestions on Egnatius and Decidius. I myself am tempted to
306
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
promising, but the only L. Licinius L. f. Crassus known to us is the cos. 92, who had only two daughters.97 Nicolet raised the possibility of a collateral branch of the Licinii Crassi who settled in Vibo.98 It is not impossible that our L. Crassus is a member of the aristocratic family—he does top the list—but this cannot be proven. The diYculty of identifying any of these men with members of the senatorial class at Rome has prompted Nicolet to suggest that they may have been members of the old municipal aristocracy, not Roman notables.99 More proWt will I think be had from looking at what these men and the two IIII uiri i.d. actually did.100 Both inscriptions record the repair of a wall or walls, and Q51 refers to the creation of ‘ostia’ for some gates. It is not certain that Q50 did not record a similar activity too: perhaps there was another line at the bottom specifying more work.101 At any rate, walls at Vibo needed repairing, and Degrassi is probably correct to ascribe this repair to a time of crisis.102 He suggests as most likely 48 bc: Caesar, having garrisoned the town, was using it as a naval base when it was attacked by restore the second name in Q51 as Alli[enus], a suggestion also tentatively made by Krummrey, and make this man, P. Allienus - f. Pollio, a connection of the Caesarian praetor of 49 bc (and pro-praetor in Sicily in 48), A. Allienus. Note that Krummrey reads ‘ALLI’, whereas Perotti read ‘ALL’ (although he suggests ‘All[io]’, PdP (1974), 130). The stone is broken at the relevant point, but I think that the bottom of an upright hasta is visible; ‘I’ surely followed ‘L’ in any case. 97 Degrassi, SVA iv. 28; Perotti, PdP (1974), 129. The orator adopted the son of one of his daughters and P. Scipio Nasica, pr. 93, who was known as L. Licinius Crassus Scipio (Mu¨nzer, RE xiii, s.v. ‘Licinius’ no. 76); despite the conjecture of Mu¨nzer, repeated in Douglas, ad Brutus, 212, there is no need to suppose that he died young. ‘dicitur . . . fuisse’ suggests that he had died before Brutus entered public life, but he lived long enough to make some mark as an orator. So he could have died as late as the 60s bc (for Brutus as a monetalis c.60 see Broughton, MRR ii. 442). This would be long enough to produce a son old enough to hold a junior commission in 48 bc. It is not inconceivable that, despite illustrious relatives, the deaths of real and adoptive fathers c.90 was fatal to the fortunes of this line of the Licinii. Cf. Nicolet, AEHE IVe section (1970–1), 304, who also notes L. Licinius Crassus Damasippus (d. 46). 98 AEHE IVe section (1970–1), 304, cf. Perotti, PdP (1974), 129 (deriving from the operations of P. Licinius pr. 208 in Bruttium) and Galsterer, Herrschaft, 50. 99 AEHE IVe section (1970–1), 304, 305–7. Note a funerary inscription from Aquinum (Solin, Epigraphica (1991), 250–2), set up by a M. Licinius M. f. Ouf. Cra[ssus]. The tribe is that of Aquinum, and he married a local woman. Solin excludes a relationship of blood or clientela to the Roman Licinii Crassi, with justiWcation; for another case of the ‘usurpation’ of Roman aristocratic cognomina by gentilicial homonyms from Italian towns, cf. L. Pinarius Natta from Aquileia: Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, iii, no. 3450 (republican, even late 2nd cent. bc?); Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 188. Solin dates the Aquinum text to the Augustan period, but it may be slightly earlier, roughly contemporary with Q50 and 51. If all our men are locals, ‘C. M[-------]’ in l. 5 could conceivably by a ‘C. M[usanus]’ a relation of the IIII uir. 100 I assume with Perotti (PdP (1974), 128) and Krummrey (CIL i2 . p. 1029) that the C. Musanus Cla of Q51 is the Classicus of Q50, and that his colleague Numisius was involved in Q50 as he was in Q51 (Degrassi had already posited another IIII uir for Q50, SVA iv. 27). The identiWcation cannot be made certain, probable as it seems; indeed to have two diVerent sets of magistrates, and thus to put the two inscriptions in diVerent, if proximate years, would solve some of the problems presented by the diVerences between the two inscriptions. 101 See Addendum. 102 SVA iv. 28, followed by Perotti, PdP (1974), 133–4.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
307
C. Cassius Longinus); or 38, when Imperator Caesar made Vibo his headquarters in the naval war against Sex. Pompeius.103 Degrassi himself preferred 48,104 and I think that this is better than 38, though the latter cannot be ruled out.105 He further points out that Caesar was patron of Vibo by 46 bc, and while this proves nothing by itself, if the building at Vibo was in any way linked to the presence of Caesar’s Xeet, then the rationale behind the adoption of Caesar as patron becomes a little clearer (we should not, however, think in simple terms of cause and eVect).106 In conclusion I think that we may accept 48 as a plausible date for the repairs, one which is permitted too by the palaeography107 and supported by the fact that certainly Anicius, and probably the men whose names are missing from the ends of ll. 5 and 6, did not have cognomina.108 I think we can ascribe the building work recorded here to the joint agency109 of the IIII uiri i. d. and junior oYcers in the Caesarian Xeet or garrison (perhaps one of them a praefectus fabrum). It seems, however, that we are not faced with a simple case of euergetism, but rather that the three men in Q51 have contracted to carry out the work under the terms of a locatio. It is not unlikely that the seven men named in Q50 are bound by the terms of a locatio as well.110 As Perotti points out, the fact that these men occur in the dative case is explained by their role in the locatio, and Q50 is thus unproblematic, since the magistrates who conduct the locatio are in the nominative, and the contractors are in the dative.111 Q51, though, poses problems, since the magistrates do not appear in the nominative. This also means that we do not have a subject for the verb ‘locar.’ Perotti advances a solution:112 the IIII uiri are in the ablative case, forming part of a temporal ablative absolute; this is as far as I know unparalleled in municipal epigraphy of our period, but should perhaps be accepted faute de mieux in conjunction with the restoration of the subject (probably ‘D[ecuriones]’) after ‘locar’ in l. 7 of Q51. I do not see why those who had decided (or been ordered) to help in strengthening Vibo’s defences should not do so under the scope of a locatio—after all we Wnd a patron helping to build walls at Aeclanum under the terms of a public mandate (‘d. s. s.’), working with the IIII uiri and presumably using public money (Q12).
103 Caesar, BC 3. 101. 1–4 (48), Appian, BC 5. 91, 99, 103 (38). Degrassi, SVA iv. 28. 104 SVA iv. 28–9, followed by Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1029. 105 Perotti makes a case for 38, but not with much conviction: PdP (1974), 134. 106 Conceivably the seven mystery men were Vibo’s patrons, but the number seems too large, there seems to be no room for the word patroni, and as we shall see, they seem to be the subject of ‘locar’ in Q51, which points to a diVerent relationship. 107 Perotti (ibid. 127–8), although he seems to think a later date preferable. Note however the round ‘O’s and the open form of some of the ‘C’s in Q50. 108 Note that the cognomen Pollio is rarely found before the second half of the 1st cent.—see above on Q41. 109 Cf. Degrassi, SVA iv. 28; CIL i2 . p. 1029; Perotti, PdP (1974), 133. 110 Perotti, PdP (1974), 133. 111 Ibid. 112 Ibid. His preferred solution is, however, not the one adopted here.
308
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
The syntactical complexities presented by Q51 prove that it was a diVerent text composed at a diVerent time from Q50, and for a diVerent occasion, but in the same year.113 The fact that Q50 speciWes the repair of ‘murum’ and Q51 of ‘muros’ suggests that Q51 was a more extensive project, with Q50 perhaps recording a subsequent smaller continuation; there were probably other diVerences of detail. Why have two locationes involving two diVerent groups of people (although one is a subset of the other) in the same year? Brief consideration of this problem may shed more light on the relationship between these texts. Why do four of the names from Q50 not occur in Q51? In the reconstruction of the layout of Q50 given in the Addendum I suggested that there is a slight but deliberate outspacing of two names, those of L. Licinius Crassus and Decidius Rufus. Note also that the photograph of Q51 shows a uacat after Anicius’ Wliation. Not only did he not have a cognomen, but no attempt was made in Q50 to put part of Decidius’ name after Anicius’, where arguably there was room. Thus it seems that the seven names in Q50 fall into two separate groups. The last four names are conceptually separated from the Wrst three in the text, the two groups do not necessarily belong together at all. In short, it need not surprise us that the second group is absent from Q51. The hypothesis advanced above that these men were part of Caesar’s forces may also provide an explanation for this absence. It is perfectly plausible to expect that the four men in our ‘second’ group were absent from Vibo Valentia on active service when Q51 was put up, and that either before that point or afterwards they joined with the Wrst group in contracting for the work to be undertaken in Q50. If all seven were naval oYcers, then we may also have an explanation to a problem which puzzled Degrassi, namely that no Roman repairs to the circuit of Greek Hipponium could be identiWed.114 Why need the walls in question be those of the municipium? Was it not as important for Caesar’s Xeet to fortify the port of Vibo? It seems this latter was at Porto S. Venere, which lay some distance from the muncipium, a site about which little is known.115 Work carried out here under the auspices of the magistrates and the Senate would naturally also be commemorated in Vibo itself (the more since any capital to be gained was best recorded in the town) as well as at the port, where the need was more urgent and the aims more prosaic. Much of this reconstruction is mere hypothesis, but it has the merit of explaining some of the diYculties posed by these two texts.116 Q52 comes from deep in the heart of Lucania, the shrine of the goddess MeWtis at Rossano di Vaglio.117 It is a dedication to MeWtis by two ‘[IIII] uir(i) iu(re) [ dic(undo)]’ (note the unusual abbreviation ‘iu. [dic.]’), who hail in all likelihood 113 Cf. ibid. 132. 114 SVA iv. 28, cf. Perotti, PdP (1974), 132 (his explanation of a more defensible inner circuit is pure speculation). 115 Richardson, Princeton Encyclopedia of Classical Sites, s.v. ‘Hipponium’, 394. 116 A Wnal theory: the cognomen Classicus is quite rare (cf. Degrassi, SVA iv. 27; Perotti, PdP (1974), 129); is its appearance here due speciWcally to the close association between Musanus and his colleague on the one hand, representing Vibo Valentia, and oYcers of Caesar’s Xeet on the other? 117 It was found in 1971 during Adamesteanu’s excavations.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
309
from Potentia. The stone is badly worn, and some of the letters are no more than faint traces. Only one of the names can be guessed at: C. Full[ius C. f.].118 Consequently palaeographical analysis is even less helpful than usual, but the lettering is later rather than earlier, and might even belong to the early Principate. Lejeune, using the archaeological context in which it was found, dates Q52 to the period between the Social War and Tiberius, after whose reign the sanctuary declined quickly and seems to have moved to Potentia.119 Q53 comes from near Volcei. It was in three copies on a Roman bridge southeast of the town (the text in the Addendum is one of the two from above the main arch; the third was cut between the small arch and the bank, and had diVerent line divisions). In 1975 the bridge and the inscriptions were enclosed inside a new railway bridge, where they have remained to this day. An eighteenth-century drawing gives us a good idea of what it originally looked like.120 The inscription is remarkable in that it is the only attestation of three IIII uiri i. d. We might assume that this is an error in the drafting of the inscription, but it seems that P. Vill(ius)’ name has been deliberately shortened so that all three men could Wt onto the same line. I can imagine that a local variant of the standard magisterial structure should produce four IIII uiri i. d. (of whom we would have to imagine that one was here dead or indisposed), leaving the college unitary, but a reason for having three IIII uiri i. d. and presumably one IIII uir nude dictus escapes me—unless, again, local variability (based on an indigenous triple higher magistracy?) is to be invoked. The inscription is either triumviral or Augustan, the former date being suggested by some of the spellings (we are however in an out-of-the-way place), the latter by the fact that this is the only certain mention in republican municipal magisterial epigraphy of pecunia conlaticia.121 Q54, a very signiWcant inscription, was found in 1955 in a context of late re-use at Latiano, 22 kilometres from the former Latin colony of Brundisium. It must come from Brundisium itself, since there was no other community of the size presupposed by this text in this area122 and, as we shall see, elements of the text point to the same conclusion. It is variously dated around the middle of the century: Attilio Degrassi places it at the very end of the Republic,123 and ‘almost in the middle of the Wrst century’.124 His son Nevio, who Wrst published the text, opts for a date c.40 bc, in the main because of the spelling, although in my view he 118 Lejeune calculates that the other nomen must have been about nine or ten letters long. The name Fullius is attested elsewhere in Umbria and Campania (RAL (1972), 400–1). 119 Ibid. 401–2, cf. Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1022, and Pia Marchese, SE (1974), 408–9. IIII uiri make dedications to MeWtis at Rossano di Vaglio and at Potentia in the imperial period: Lejeune, RAL (1972), 401, RV–31, RV 38; CIL x. 131, 133. 120 See Inscr. It. iii. 1. 37. 121 A reference to it is probably to be restored in Q78 (see below). For the date see Bracco, ibid. He points out that the combination of public and private funds is probably explained by the size of the project in question; also that this is the only mention of incolae in a Lucanian inscription. 122 N. Degrassi, in Terzo Congr. int. epigr. gr. lat., 304–5; A. Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1025. 123 Ad ILLPR 558, CIL i2 . p. 1025; Lippolis and Baldini Lippolis oVer third quarter of the 1st cent. (Taras (1997), 325, cf. p. 320). 124 ad Imagines, 230.
310
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
leans a bit too much on the support of the tabula Heracleensis.125 Certainly the forms ‘cunctei’ (l. 8), and ‘iei’ (9) could belong to the triumviral period as well as to the last years of the Republic. The form ‘quom’, however, is clearly pre-classical (a Caesarian date is not excluded), and ‘apstenent[ia’ in l. 12 is an older form of abstinentia.126 Two words from such a long text however should not make us override other considerations: note ‘pecunia’ in l. 9, and a spelling which is generally not pre-classical. Other elements back up this impression: the lettering lacks the square and heavy-set appearance of classic republican palaeography. The ‘O’ is almost round, but some instances show the beginnings of attentuation. This is also visible in the pointed ‘A’s. The ‘C’ is still quite open, but the fact that some letters have serifs, and that the ‘M’s are not very splayed, seems to point more to a later date instead of an earlier one. The lettering in fact seems to be what one might call transitional, somewhere between republican and Augustan. The importance of the occasion which this inscription marks may have called for the use of a lapicide who was aware of the latest trends in stone-cutting, and Brundisium’s position on the main route from Rome to the East certainly it put in a position to reXect the latest epigraphic fashions. On the basis of the spelling and the letter forms Q54 should date not earlier than the mid-40s, and perhaps not later than the Wrst years of the next decade. Note also that out of the fourteen decurions present at the recording of the decree, nine have cognomina, as does the principal honorand, C. Falerius Niger (it is of little or no signiWcance that in l. 8 Falerius appears without his cognomen; it had been prominently displayed above, and in a long text like this space is at a premium). The Wrst letters in l. 9 are those of the formula ‘d(e) [e(a)] r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt)’. Unfortunately the surface of the stone is too worn to judge with certainty from the photograph whether in fact the stone originally carried traces of the Wrst half of this formula: q. d. e. r. f. p. It appears, however, that it did not, and Nevio Degrassi gives us no reason to think otherwise. Thus we would have an instance of inspacing to mark the beginning of the decree proper. This use of the second half of the formula only was a feature of republican and triumviral decrees as opposed to those of the Empire,127 which gives us a rough terminus ante quem.128 The urban restructuring recorded in the text seems best placed after the end of a series of events belonging to the civil wars of the period, which damaged the fabric of both city and port. Of these the most notable are Pompeius’ occupation and impromptu fortiWcation of the city in 48, when he even dug up the city’s open spaces; and, after Philippi, the attack of Domitius Ahenobarbus on young Caesar’s Xeet which lay at anchor in the port.129 The ‘ar]mamentari[um’ 125 Terzo Congr. Epigr., 310–11, followed by Silvestrini, in E´lites, 36. 126 N. Degrassi, Terzo Congr. Epigr., 310. 127 Sherk, Municipal Decrees, 60. 128 Cf. Sherk’s assertion that the decree is republican: ibid. 26. 129 For sources for and discussion of the events mentioned, see Lippolis and Baldini Lippolis, Taras (1997), 321–3 (and 306–23 on the topography and urban fabric of republican Brundisium in general); they (p. 323) take 48 bc as a terminus post quem for Falerius Niger’s urban interventions.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
311
identiWed by N. Degrassi in l. 11 seems to be a sort of shipyard which could be used for military purposes.130 As a Latin colony, and one on such an important position on the route to the East, Brundisium must have had a fortiWed harbour before the Second Civil War. It was certainly used as a base for Roman Xeets operating in the Adriatic from the later third century and throughout the Eastern wars of conquest;131 and was probably used as a base by Pompeius in his operation against the pirates in 67, and was instrumental in his escape to Epirus in 49. When the Civil War broke out in 49, both sides had to scramble to make existing harbours into serviceable naval bases (as happened at Vibo Valentia, see Q50 and Q51).132 I suspect that Falerius’ work was principally an upgrade of Brundisium’s naval facilities, and connected with the disturbances of the Caesarian and triumviral periods, in the aftermath of Pompeius’ occupation of the city in 48, and probably of Domitius Ahenobarbus’ attack on the harbour in 42 bc. It was not until the naval war between the young Caesar and Sex. Pompeius in the 30s that the thought of a purpose-built naval base seems to have occurred to anyone. Even that would not render obsolete such municipal facilities as that at Brundisium.133 We may brieXy note that the ability of coastal municipia to provide and maintain such bases has implications for the level of autonomy which they enjoyed, which may go back to pre-Social-War foedera (see ch. 5, above). Finally we may adduce some prosopographical considerations. Falerius himself is not elsewhere known to us; the Laenii Flacci, however, are. L. La[e]ni[us -] f. Flaccus certainly should be read at l. 4, Wfth in seniority, and Nicolet has ingeniously suggested reading ‘P. L[aenius Fl]ac[c(us)]’ in ninth place at the end of l. 5.134 It does my case no harm if Nicolet’s reading is wrong, since one Laenius Flaccus is enough, but I believe that he is right, and count both of them. Laenii Flacci from Brundisium are known to us for having succoured Cicero on his journey into exile. The orator tells us in the Pro Plancio that he refrained from entering Brundisium, although it was in his Wdes, and ‘urbem unam mihi amicissimam’ (‘one city most friendly to me’), and took himself to the horti of his friend M. Laenius Flaccus. He goes on ‘cuius ego et parentis eius, prudentissimi atque optimi senis, et fratris et utriusque Wliorum manibus in naui tuta ac Wdeli conlocatus, . . . Dyrrachium . . . petere contendi’.135 On his return to Italy 130 Lippolis and Lippolis, ibid. 310 n. 23, suggest that the canales mentioned in this text may be part of the drainage or water-management system of the city, giving a hydrological context for the suggestion. 131 Primary sources given ibid. 321 nn. 80–2. 132 Summary of how the Brindisine port and territory were involved in the events of the second Civil War: ibid. 322. 133 For another instance of an armamentarium, at Formiae, which seems to be roughly contemporary, see CIL i2 . 3113; again it forms part of an extensive building programme ( ¼ Calombini, Athenaeum (1966), 141). 134 Ordre, ii. 923. He relates both our Laenii Flacci to his no. 194, M. Laenius Flaccus, and less certainly to his no. 193, M. Laenius Strabo; probably better to read ‘Fl]ac[cus]’ with Sherk, Municipal Decrees, 60. 135 Planc. 97, cf. Fam. 14. 4. 2.
312
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
in the next year Cicero was once again welcomed into the house of those ‘optimorum et doctissimorum uirorum, M. Laenii Flacci et patris et fratris eius’.136 It is tempting to believe that we are dealing with the same family in Q54. As we shall see, there are a number of Laenii to be reckoned with, even in Brundisium—but that there should be two families of Laenii Flacci of the right social status is asking a bit much of coincidence. We do not know if M. Laenius Flaccus hospes137 was closely related to M. Laenius Strabo138 of Brundisium; Mu¨nzer thought so,139 but this is not certain. Strabo was a hospes of Appius Claudius,140 which although it might imply indiVerence to Cicero says nothing of his relation to Flaccus.141 The matter must rest uncertain.142 I believe that it is very likely that the Laenii Flacci in Q54 are the sons of one or both of the brothers with whom Cicero stayed. Now, Mu¨nzer supposed that the sons of M. Laenius Flaccus and his brother were grown up in 58, on the basis of the passage of the Pro Plancio quoted above.143 Nothing in the text tells us this, but it seems likely enough. Cicero certainly implies that the sons were present when he was put on a ship for Dyrrachium. This could be simple rhetorical exaggeration—his own predicament, on which he plays so much at the end of the Pro Plancio, is heightened by the association of his own lonely departure from Italian soil with the prayers of three generations of Laenii Flacci, a tight and worthy family unit, underlining his own journey into isolation. No word of the grandsons in the next year, when Cicero mentions that he stayed with M. Laenius Flaccus, his brother and their father in Brundisium, but his purpose here is diVerent, the allusion less decisive, and fewer Laenii suYce. I take it as highly probable that Cicero mentions the grandchildren because they were old enough to participate in the departure scene, and had been there on the shore. We do not know how many grandsons are in question, but at least one per son. The two boys had probably taken the toga uirilis, or were of that age, if they accompanied their parents and grandfather to bid farewell to the exiled consular. Let us therefore suppose that both were in their late teens. Assuming thirty years 136 Sest. 131. 137 RE xii 1, s.v. ‘Laenius’ no. 2. 138 Ibid., s.v. ‘Laenius’ no. 3. 139 Ibid., s.v. ‘Laenius no. 2. 140 Varro, Rust. 3. 5. 8, cf. 2, praef. 6 for his stock-raising interests; an eques: Plin., HN 10. 141. 141 The M. Laenius mentioned in Cic., Att. 5. 20. 8 (51 bc) and Att. 6. 1. 6, 3. 5, 5. 21. 4, Fam. 13. 63 (50 bc), seems, despite Mu¨nzer, to have been a friend of Atticus’ rather than Cicero’s (so Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 922–3, and Shackleton Bailey, ad Att 5. 20. 8, and ad Fam. 13. 63, 14. 4. 2). Nicolet’s assertion that the M. Laenius on whose behalf Cicero wrote to Silius is Laenius Strabo, is groundless. If this M. Laenius had been a friend of Appius Claudius, it is odd that he should only arrive in Cilicia in 50 (Att. 5. 21. 4), and bring a recommendation from Atticus. If Cicero speaks of this Laenius as a familiaris in Fam. 13. 63, it is because he is pulling out the stops to commend him to the governor of Bithynia. Atticus’ friend M. Laenius need not come from Brundisium at all. 142 On the composition of the Brindisine aristocracy as it emerges from this and other inscriptions, and from local amphora stamps, and on its economic bases and commercial interests, see Camodeca, in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, 141; M. Pani, in La Puglia in eta` repubblicana, 39–42, Chelotti, E´lites; Silvestrini, ibid. (and 34 on the Laenii Flacci); Manacorda, in EpigraWa della produzione e della distribuzione, 3–59, esp. 27–9, 43–5; Lippolis and Baldini Lippolis, Taras (1997), 318–21. 143 Planc. 97.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
313
per generation, we may guess that both M. Laenius and his brother were in their later forties (we do not know which was older), which would make them rough contemporaries of Cicero’s—and it is clear that he knows M. Laenius, not the father. Laenius senex would have been in his seventies. These Wgures are Xexible (at twenty-Wve years a generation, we would have brothers in their early forties and a sexagenarian grandfather), but not implausible. Returning now to Q54, we Wnd that our Laenii Flacci have the praenomina Lucius and Publius. No Wliations are preserved, but we may guess that one of these was the name of Marcus Laenius’ brother. It does not really matter that we have no young Marcus, since the chances of Wnding any particular decurion of Brundisium here are something less than one in Wve. It does not matter either to which of the brothers our two Laenii belong. If they are the sons of either or both of the brothers with whom Cicero stayed we may guess at their ages. There is no proof that they had held a magistracy rather than being co-opted into the local ordo, but their position as witnesses, and indeed as Wfth and ninth out of those fourteen witnesses,144 does not suggest that they had entered the Senate very recently or that they were relatively young. Therefore we may safely suppose that they had held a magistracy at the statutory age of 30 if not later. If L. Laenius Flaccus was 15 when he watched Cicero’s ship dwindling away from the Messapian coast, he would have reached his thirtieth year in 43 bc, and his appearance among the witnesses of Q54 would come at least a few years after that. We could manipulate his likely age to produce various approximate datings for Q54, but c.40 bc coincides nicely with the dating advanced above for other reasons. Having argued for this date, let us brieXy consider what facts we can place in such a context. This is one of less than perhaps half a dozen municipal decrees extant from the Republic. Almost all these decrees in fact appear to belong to the triumviral period,145 and we must wonder whether the sudden increase in the appearance of this type of document now represents a real change in the way that municipalities in Italy recorded and publicized the business transacted by their magistrates and senate. In fact the number of examples is so small that we may simply be faced here by an evidential problem. Nevertheless, the fact that fourteen witnesses are attested at the recording of the decree may say something of the unusual circumstances surrounding the honouring of a very beneWcent fellowcitizen.146 Most importantly for our purposes we have preserved here a full municipal cursus, recorded towards the end of our period. The quattuorvirate is divided into an oYce aedilicia potestate and one iure dicundo. Above the quattuorvirate i. d. comes the quinquennial quattuorvirate. Between these latter two posts it seems 144 Not Wfteen, as A. Degrassi suggests, CIL i2 p. 1025. 145 Addendum D5, AE (1947), 53 (Herculaneum, perhaps Augustan); AE (1966), 165 (Centuripae in Sicily, referring to a decree of Lanuvium; on these see Sherk, Municipal Decrees, 26–8, 52–3, 61–2); add perhaps Q46 above (Cales). 146 Twelve are attested in the Pisan cenotaphs, but note also Addendum D5, where the whole order is present.
314
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
that Falerius Niger was made an augur. This career progression (IIII uir aed. pot., IIII uir i. d., and for the great and good, IIII uir quinq.) is the standard municipal cursus in most of the Italian cities under the Empire;147 while the fact that the stone gives ‘[p]otest’, and not the more usual pot., may suggest a recent change in the cursus, evidence discussed below (Q91) suggests otherwise. The career of C. Falerius Niger represents to us the Wnal evolution of the municipal magisterial cursus in most Italian cities enfranchised after the Social War, from its original starting point, the undiVerentiated quattuorvirate. Finally we may note an analogy: it seems from l. 8 that another man is being honoured with C. Falerius for the building work done and promised. The fact that so little is said (as far as we can tell) of the second man has led to the plausible suggestion that he is ‘C. [Falerius C. f.]’. This recalls the honours for the Aletrian Betilienus Vaarus (ILLRP 528) and his son, which were for benefactions to date.148 We can point to a continuity of euergetistic practice, and corporate response to it, across late second- and Wrst-century Italy. Yet it could be argued that we can see how far we have come in the increasing sophistication with which the local senate impinges on the collective consciousness of the municipium, by not simply enabling or ordering an inscription recording the honorands’ good works to be put up, as at Aletrium, but by publishing its very decree, publicizing its powers and its pivotal role in supporting the socio-political structures of Brundisium, and encouraging emulation of Falerius’ patriotism. At the other end of Apulia we come to Luceria. Q55, like other Lucerian quattuorviral epigraphy, must be republican. Having seen the stone, Degrassi considered it not later than Augustus,149 which may be an indication that it should be placed near the end of the life of the municipium, with the magistracies mentioned belonging to the Caesarian and/or triumviral periods. We may note again the coincidence between magistracy and priesthood. Q56 is a very important inscription from Marruvium, the main settlement of the Marsi. Found in 1974, it was carved on the epistyle of what seems to be a monumental doorway.150 The only elements which will help us with a date are internal. The inscription is nicely cut, but the size of the photograph makes detailed observations problematic. The lettering is generally quite square set, but with seriWng; ‘C’s are open, ‘P’s and ‘R’s not closed; the ‘M’ is splayed. If we also consider that we have side by side the spellings ‘pecunia’ and ‘coer’, and only one cognomen, but an interesting one (spelt ‘Marssus’),151 it is not easy to form an opinion on the date. I do not think it is much earlier than the middle of the Wrst century: perhaps the 50s are suitable. Letta and D’ Amato opt for a mid-century date partly on palaeographic grounds, and also because of the supposed fact that 147 See for instance Rudolph, Stadt, 101. 148 See Ch. 5. 149 SVA i. 82, cf. i. 109. 150 The inscription (thus the horologium to which it refers) seems to have been cut on the epistyle later than the construction of the building of which it formed part (a temple?—Letta and D’Amato, EpigraWa dei Marsi, 93–4), utilizing the most prominent available space. 151 Spelt ‘Marsus’ in Q40, a mid-century inscription from Signia.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
315
no quattuorviral communities were founded later than 49 bc.152 As we shall see, the temporal dichotomy between quattuorviral and duoviral municipia is rather weakly based on inductive reasoning, and, although it often holds true, there are signiWcant exceptions to the ‘rule’ (Q56 might conceivably date after 49 bc, elements suggesting an early date possibly due to the relatively peripheral position of Marruvium). The inscription is important as the earliest evidence for the the municipalization of Marruvium. It is also one of the comparatively few proofs of municipalization in the republican period from the central Apennine area of Italy which rebelled in 91. Since municipal development in these areas seems to gain pace only under the Empire, I do not think that we can follow Letta and D’ Amato in seeing this inscription as attesting Marruvium’s place in a grand process of municipalization after the Social War.153 Marruvium could have been municipalized with the greater part of Italy in the 80s; but it belongs to a geographical group of towns which is conspicuously lacking from our evidence, and all we can safely infer from Q56 is that by the 50s bc Marruvium had become a municipium, and that its constitution was suYciently evolved to have IIII uiri i. d.154 Our Q57 brings us to Alba Fucens. The inscription, of which only a part remains, was Wrst published by De Visscher.155 The name of the surviving IIII uir i.[d.] (a colleague may have appeared in the missing upper part of the stone) is surely to be restored as ‘Auid[ius]’.156 The inscription is probably a dedication to the goddess Valetudo.157 As to the date, Buonocore thinks that the lettering points 152 EpigraWa dei Marsi, 94–5, approved by Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1035. 153 EpigraWa dei Marsi, 95. Still less can I accept their interpretation of a horologium built by magistrates ‘sua pecunia’ as forming part of an urbanizing drive promoted by Rome ‘secondo direttive generali unitarie e aYdato spesso per l’ attuazione pratica a notabili locali’ (ibid.); better to see autoromanizzazione, or better auto-ellenizzazione, and horologia (see Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, 247, Pocetti no. 4, Mevania) as the sign of Hellenistic sophistication par excellence. 154 As Letta and D’ Amato remark (EpigraWa dei Marsi, 94), Q56 at least puts sets aside the theory of La Regina, that Marruvium was not municipalized until at least the second half of the 1st cent. (in Studi sulla citta` antica, 206 n. 29). 155 In De Visscher, De Ruyt, De Laet, and Mertens, AC (1955), 67 no. 11. For another quattuorviral inscription (species of IIII uir not ascertainable) from Alba, see the unpublished republican text cited by van Wonterghem, in He´racle`s, at 331 n. 79: ‘H(erculi?) [---] / L. Vet[tius ----] / [I[III u[ir ---]’, possibly early 1st cent., if this is the Vettius mentioned in AE (1962), 31, (1964), 204 (sanctuary of Hercules). 156 See De Visscher, AC (1955), 67; Buonocore, ZPE 52 (1983), 188. I think there would have been no room for a cognomen on the stone after Avid[ius]’ Wliation. 157 De Visscher, AC (1955), 67. I am not persuaded by Buonocore’s ‘ualetud[inarium]’, a sort of military hospital (ZPE 52 (1983), 189–90). He cites no parallels, oVers no location for such a building among the numerous excavated structures of Alba, and most importantly fails to show why the presence of soldiers there should imply the presence of such a building. All that we know about what happened at Alba in 49 and after Caesar’s death suggests little or no bloodshed. The Social and Wrst Civil Wars may have been worse for Alba’s inhabitants, but the period does not appear to be one of great building activity there. Buonocore cites Oros., 5. 22. 17, as refering to the civil wars, but in fact it relates to the siege of the city by Pompeius in the aftermath of Lepidus’ revolt in 78. There is no indication that Lepidus’ adoptive son, the rebel leader at Alba, had any kind of regular troops with him, still less that he found or built at Alba any sort of hospital. The hypothesis is more uncertain than Buonocore would admit, and Valetudo seems a safer bet, although that deity is otherwise unattested at Alba (Letta, I Marsi e il Fucino nell’ antichita`, 103, 113).
316
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
to the late Wrst century bc, or the start of the next century.158 This might Wnd some conWrmation if De Visscher is right that the stone is ‘marbre’;159 Buonocore makes no comment on this. Possibly, however, the stone should be dated slightly earlier: from an admittedly poor surface it seems that there is little use of serifs; more importantly the letters have a broad, squarish, heavy look about them which is very reminiscent of republican palaeography. One might therefore admit the possibility of a triumviral date. Our next three inscriptions are from Etruria. Q58 was found near Vulci. It is inscribed on the bottom border of a marble funeral stele, which bears a relief bust of the deceased, who held the oYce of IIII uir i. d. The deceased has no cognomen; the use of marble must be considered signiWcant.160 As for the lettering, it looks to have republican features, like the openness of the one complete ‘C’; and the slight slant from the vertical is reminiscent of other republican inscriptions; yet there is an attenuation of the letters, and the high number of serifs also points to a slightly later date; as does the mention of the tribe. In fact, I think that this inscription will be diYcult to put before the triumviral period, and may be later. This agrees to some extent with the dating assigned to the sculpture on stylistic grounds, which seems to hover between 40 and 20 bc.161 The Wgure in the portrait seems quite old. If he died c.35 bc, at say the age of 65, and held the post of IIII uir i. d. by or around the age of 40, then we would have the approximate dating of 60 bc for his magistracy. Of course all the Wgures are notional, but we can get some idea of possible date ranges. In any event I do not think his quattuorvirate i. d. will be any earlier than this. Q59 was found at Volsinii in 1915, bearing the name of L. Caecina. This man paved some roads at Volsinii at his own expense. That he was a man of some means is shown by his senatorial career: by the time he held his quattuorvirate at Volsinii he had already risen to the praetorship and governed an (unspeciWed) province as praetor pro consule. This oYce is not without parallel—note M. Coelius Vinicianus, whose identical cursus is given (in reverse order) by ILLRP 402. Vinicianus was tr. pl. in 53, and pr. pro cos. not long after 47,162 and it may be that we should place Caecina’s career in a similar temporal framework, with the quattuorvirate coming in the Caesarian or triumviral periods.163 He has no cognomen, but note the spelling ‘pecunia’.
158 ZPE 52 (1983), 189. 159 AC (1955), 67 no. 11. 160 V. Poulsen, Les Portraits romains, i. 133; cf. Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1070. 161 F. Poulsen, Portra¨tstudien, 391: within a possible arc from 100 to 30/20 bc; the date suggested by Vessberg, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der ro¨mischen Republik, 202, and Schweitzer, Die Bildniskunst der ro¨mischen Republik, 21 n. 1, 115, 118–19, is c.40; V. Poulsen, Les Portraits romains, i. 133: late Republic/ early Empire—precisely what he means by hardly before ‘la premie`re apparition d’Auguste’ is not clear to me unless by this he includes the Triumvirate; cf. Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1070. The dating suggested by Messerschmidt, Nekropolen von Vulci, 20 (100–75) is to be discounted: no date before the late 80s is acceptable. 162 Degrassi, ad ILLRP 402. 163 Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 314, suggests that he may have become praetor by the late 40s.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
317
We can at least suggest a terminus post quem. In the Pro Caecina, delivered almost certainly in 69 bc,164 it seems very probable that Cicero’s client, Aulus Caecina of Volaterrae, was not yet of senatorial status—Cicero would surely have mentioned it, as he mentions Aebutius’ senatorial friend.165 We can, by extension, assume that he would have mentioned senatorial relatives had any existed. If there were no senatorial Caecinae in 69 bc,166 how soon after that did the family enter the Senate? Volaterrae seems to have been the main centre of the family.167 Wiseman thinks that the Volaterran Caecinae must have been on the threshold of the Senate in 69,168 but this situation could have endured some time. It is unlikely that we would Wnd the domi nobiles of those communities punished by Sulla in the Roman Senate before Caesar’s Wrst consulship at the earliest—even assuming that the likes of the Cilnii Maecenates and the Caecinae wanted such dubious honours.169 Now it seems from Cicero, Fam. 6. 9. 1 and 13. 66. 1, that the A. Caecina to and for whom Cicero wrote a number of letters under Caesar’s dictatorship170 was the son of Cicero’s client of 69.171 Nicolet is surely right to press for this man’s claim to be considered an eques.172 It is more likely than not that his descendants were the consular brothers of the Principate, A. Caecina Severus and C. Caecina Largus.173 They seem to have been the Wrst senatorial members of this branch of the family. There was another branch of Caecinae at Volaterrae, for Cicero mentions ‘Caecinam quendam Volaterranum’, whom he describes as a familiaris of the young Caesar.174 This man may have been the Caecina who was an envoy of Octavianus to Antonius in 41/40.175 Might he also be our L. Caecina?176 I think so. 164 For the arguments for 69 see Syme, RP ii. 562 (Dolabella’s praetorship, already suggested in MRR ii. 132), and Frier, Jurists, 45–6. 165 C. Fidiculanius Falcula, Caec. 28. 166 Cf. Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 812–14, nos. 63–4. Hohti, in Studies in the Romanisation of Etruria, 420, infers from Cicero’s silence about equestrian status that Caecina only achieved this after the date of the trial. Rawson, Culture, 297 n. 41 was lukewarm about Hohti’s conclusions; note also ibid. 393 n. 18, on the horse-breeder eques Caecina (Pliny, HN 10. 71). 167 Of 31 attestations of the Etruscan family ceicna / cecna known to Torelli (DdA (1969), 297), 24 are Volaterran, and only one Volsinian (CIE 209 ter c). 168 New Men, no. 74. 169 Rawson, Culture, 297, 316, on the disdain of some Etruscan lineages for senatorial honours. 170 Fam. 6. 6, 8, 9, 7, 13. 66, 6. 5. 171 Shackleton Bailey, ad Fam. 6. 6. 172 Ordre, ii. 813, no. 64. Mu¨nzer seems right, pace Nicolet, to see Cicero’s legal client as being Caecina senior (RE, s.v. ‘Caecina’ no. 6, Nicolet’s no. 63), not junior (‘Caecina’ no. 7, Nicolet no. 64). The arguments of Hohti (Studies, 418–20) in support of Nicolet’s position are not convincing. 173 Cf. Torelli, DdA (1969), 295 (possible). 174 Att. 16. 8. 2 with Shackleton Bailey ad loc., cf. Syme, RR 131 n. 8, Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 315 n. 2, Hohti, Studies, 416; Rawson, Culture, 313–14. Torelli, DdA (1969), 295, is surely wrong to suggest that this man could be Cicero’s friend, and probably wrong to suggest that he could have been a progenitor of the two consulars. 175 App., BC 5. 60. 251 with Gabba, ad loc. The identiWcation was suggested by Syme, CP (1955), 133, cf. RR 208; Wiseman, New Men, no. 74; Hohti, Studies, 416. See Broughton, MRR iii. 43, where these two items are reunited with MRR ii. 406 on the coins of an L. CAE. 176 So already Broughton, MRR ii. 376. Syme rejected Broughton’s hypothesis (CP (1955), 133, cf. 137) stating that L. Caecina ‘may be Augustan’. This may be so, but is no obstacle to the identiWcation—see below. Broughton hesitated nonetheless (MRR iii. 43).
318
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
It seems highly likely that L. Caecina was in some degree related to the Volaterran Caecinae, indeed that he came from Volaterrae.177 Torelli noted that the praenomen Lucius was not found among the Volaterran Caecinae of the Roman period (he earlier observed though that it was used in early second century).178 It does not seem either that Volsinii was likely to have a son in the Senate before Volaterrae: the other known case is L. Seius Tubero, who was cos. suV. in ad 18.179 That L. Caecina should exercise a magistracy at Volsinii is not surprising, in view of the widespread geographical connections of the Etruscan aristocracy. The magistracy does not prove his Volsinian origin (he may though have settled there); other evidence militates against it. I suggest (pace Syme) the following reconstruction: L. Caecina L. f. Volaterranus180 was already in Imperator Caesar’s service in 44; so we Wnd him again in 41/40. It is possible that he held some sort of commission under Caesar’s praefectus classis in Sicily in 36; soon thereafter he was probably rewarded with promotion through the cursus honorum. Yet, as with other helpers of these years, the shift towards more constitutional-looking exercise of power from 28 onwards may have meant the eclipse of L. Caecina’s star, and semi-retirement to quiet municipal dignity.181 It is even possible that the rise of the other branch of the Volaterran Caecinae made a move to Volsinii attractive to Lucius,182 and thus his riches, perhaps acquired in a period of revolution, would have come to pave the streets of that municipium. This reconstruction gives us a date in the later triumviral or early Augustan period for the quattuorvirate.183 I have already discussed the two Clusian inscriptions mentioning IIII viri i. d., Q26 (a career in the 60s and/or 50s?) and Q29 (a career under the Triumvirate?). Our Wnal Etruscan inscription, Q60 takes us directly to a city I have just been discussing—Volaterrae. The inscription is on the lid of a cinerary urn; I have not 177 Cf. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 282 n. 1, and Zambianchi, RIL (1978), 127–8, on the wide distribution of aristocratic Etruscan families; and now Berendonner and Munzi, MEFRA (1998). A direct descent from the Volaterran Caecinae has been held unlikely for L. Caecina (Cristofani, SE (1966), 349–50), but the idea that he is descended from the one Etruscan ceicna from Volsinii (Radke, RE ix, A.1, s.v. ‘Volsinii’, col. 839) seems less certain, and is doubted by Torelli (DdA (1969), 298). 178 DdA (1969), 306–7; 297. 179 Wiseman, New Men, 386. 180 Perhaps the Volaterran eques Caecina mentioned by Pliny (HN 10. 71) is a relative of this man— see Nicolet, Ordre, ii, 812, no. 62. Hohti, Studies, dates this Wgure to the Republic. 181 Antonian sympathies are not to be ruled out—the Caecina sent to Antonius in 41 seems to have been a common friend of Antonius and Imperator Caesar: a ‘fall from grace’ might come after Actium. 182 Cf. Sumner, Phoenix (1965), 138, Torelli, in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, 291; and Wiseman, New Men, 59, for imperial Caecinae from Volsinii. 183 This is consonant with the generally suggested dating: Campanile, NSA (1915), 240; Broughton, MRR ii. 540; Sumner, Phoenix (1965), 138; Torelli, DdA (1969), 306–7 (in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, 291, he opts for a late republican date). Campanile notes the lack of prequaestorian posts, and of the speciWcation of a particular province, indications for him that the Roman magistracies were probably not held after c.27 bc. The thesis that Volsinii was a Roman colony from the early 2nd cent bc (Pailler, MEFRA 99 (1987), 529–34, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 57) is supported only by weak circumstantial evidence, and is best ignored; the town of Volsinii has, however, produced notable features of Roman material culture.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
319
seen it and do not know if it survives. Munzi and Terrenato suggest a date range (presumably on stylistic grounds) between ‘80/60 e 30 a.C.’.184 Since our magistrate lived sixty years, and is unlikely to have held a magistracy before the age of 30, the lower end of this date range would oVer a series of quattuorvirates (the plain quattuorvirate and two quattuorvirates i. d.) held from c.60 bc onwards. The lack of a cognomen and the spelling ‘uixsit’ may suggest that the date of the urn is not as late as c.30, but how much earlier is open to question. The quattuorvirates i. d. may nevertheless have been held no earlier than the 60s. We move on to Ocriculum on the southernmost edge of Umbria. Q61 was only edited in 1941, when Pietrangeli published the contents of an eighteenth-century manuscript compiled by one Giuseppe Genuense.185 Genuense thought that the two inscriptions were from the same architrave, and thus parts of the same text.186 One fragment is now lost, and the match cannot be checked. The spelling ‘peq.’ points to a republican date, but no greater precision is possible. As to the other fragment, it seems to be in the same property as when Pietrangeli saw it, the Casa Birelli.187 On the basis of a cursory examination, from a distance, but in adequate sunlight, I consider that the letter forms suggest a date in the second half of the Wrst century. The decoration on the stone may even suggest an early imperial date.188 This perhaps casts some doubt on Genuense’s match of the two pieces—they must, however, have been similarly decorated. If Genuense was correct, we could explain the older letter forms and more modern decoration by Ocriculum’s proximity to Rome, and opt for a date around the middle of the century for Q61. If he was wrong, the surviving part of Q61 will be a bit later, perhaps even Augustan. Most of the public inscriptions of Ocriculum (including presumably this one) come from the Roman city, built in the plain between the Via Flaminia and the Tiber.189 It is generally agreed that this was not the site of the Umbrian town, which lies under modern Otricoli, on the hill nearby. On the generally accepted view, the settlement of the Roman period developed after the Social War, in which we are told in that Umbrian Ocriculum was sacked.190 Precisely when is not known, but if we could suggest a date, we would have a terminus post quem for all
184 Ostraka (1994), 33 n. 44, 34 n. 23. I am uncertain as to the reason for the two dates oVered at the upper end of the date range. Their case for seeing xi. 1752 as also republican is weak. 185 Epigraphica (1941), 136–59. The MS was unknown to Bormann. 186 Pietrangeli, Epigraphica (1941), 150–1. 187 It was clearly visible through the cancello of the garden, but as elsewhere in Otricoli I was denied permission to see it at close quarters. 188 Dr Edmund Thomas, who accompanied me on my Wrst visit to Otricoli, expressed doubts as to whether the decorative elements of Q61 could date to the republican period. 189 Pietrangeli, Ocriculum, 6, 30 n. 12. For the recent geophysical work at Otricoli by the Tiber Valley Project, see Patterson and Millett, PBSR (1998), 12–13; Keay et al. in Patterson (ed.), Bridging the Tiber, at 232. 190 Florus 2. 6; Pietrangeli, Ocriculum, 29; Gabba, Italia Romana, 88; Verza´r, in Umbria Marche 2 , 16. See however Pietrangeli, Otricoli, 22, for evidence of Umbrian sanctuaries in the area of the Roman city from the 6th cent. onwards (extramural or emporic sanctuaries?).
320
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
the known republican public inscriptions of Ocriculum, and perhaps the municipalization of Ocriculum, if that did not happen in the 80s.191 Three considerations may help. First, Ocriculum has no walls,192 an indication of development in a period of at least notional security. This might indicate a date, for instance, after the Spartacus uprising. Secondly, none of the surviving public buildings seems to date before the 60s bc. Pietrangeli assigned most of the monumental building of Ocriculum to the Augustan period.193 Much recent excavation is unpublished, and so buildings are hard to date. The massive substructure near the theatre, which supported a large terraced area in the central part of the town has been assigned a date in the middle of the Wrst century bc;194 but the reticulate facing, as far as I was able to inspect it, is of very good quality, with small tesserae, and even allowing for the proximity of Ocriculum to Rome and the fashions of the capital, it could well fall in the second half of the century.195 The use of such substructures to create large Xat areas in the town will have been one of the main prerequisites for the growth of the settlement, although we cannot say when the town started spreading towards the area supported by the substructure. More important may be the similarity postulated by Pietrangeli between the frontes scaenarum and the general constructive technique of the theatres of Ocriculum and Ferentium. The theatre at Ferentium is assigned by Blake to a period not long after the construction of the theatre of Pompeius in Rome, c.50 bc.196 If the similarities noted by Pietrangeli are a valid basis for suggesting a rough contemporaneity, the theatre may be one of the earliest public buildings in the Roman settlement, along with whatever sacred ediWce was associated with ILLRP 633.197 Yet the use of tufa blocks as quoins in the theatre recalls the constructive technique of the amphitheatre, which seems to be Augustan,198 and the theatre may not be much earlier than that. In conclusion there is no evidence to suggest that monumental building started on the Tiber plain site before c.70 bc, although the totality of evidence is poor. Finally, the bridge (now invisible) which carried the Via Flaminia across the Tiber to the south of Ocriculum, the so-called ‘Ponte di Augusto’, was, given the width of the river here, probably one of the largest bridges along that road. Nissen therefore suggested that this was one of the two bridges that Augustus left untouched when he restored the Via Flaminia, namely the pons Minucius.199 This, he supposed, would have been restored by the Minucius Thermus who 191 Q61 (probably), Q92–3 and also ILLRP 633, found in a shrine to?Hercules near the Podere Cisterna (see Pietrangeli, Otricoli, 80, cf. 32). 192 Gaggiotti et al., Umbria Marche, 28. 193 Ocriculum, 30; Otricoli, 26; followed by Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 317. 194 Verza´r, in Umbria Marche, 25. 195 Autopsy, May 1994. 196 Blake, Construction, 221, cf. 224, 240. 197 Bearing in mind the backwater character of Ferentium noted above, one might want to make the Ocriculum theatre the earlier of the two. 198 Pietrangeli, Otricoli, 60 n. 29. 199 RGDA 20.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
321
was curator of the Via Flaminia in 65 bc, and a prospective consular candidate.200 If correct, this would be relevant. The decision to restore a major bridge on the Via Flaminia would make good sense for a number of political and economic reasons, but an upgrade in road communications with Rome would be especially beneWcial to any community attempting to establish itself in the Tiber plain just north of the crossing; the beneWts to Thermus are also obvious. His rebuilding of the bridge could have provided just the impetus needed for the Ocriculani to make the ‘quantum leap’ in setting up their new settlement in the Tiber plain. A functioning municipal centre is implied for the Caesarian period by the dedication made under the lex Rufrena to Divus Iulius;201 already in the 50s Milo had a villa at Ocriculum, which may suggest that the town enjoyed a certain importance.202 All in all I do not think that we will be very wide of the mark to see the Roman town of Ocriculum as a undergoing its Wrst main phase of development in the early 60s. This would also be the terminus post quem for the public inscriptions from the Roman site, including presumably Q61.203 Q62 comes from Interamna Nahars, and creates a conundrum similar to that posed by Q50–1. It names L. Licinius L. f. Lucullus as IIII uir i. d.204 Bormann described the inscription as ‘litteris uetustis’,205 and Degrassi included it in ILLRP.206 A republican date seems correct, although Taylor made the inscription imperial.207 Are we then dealing with the famous Lucullus, cos. 74? Pais thought the later consular family had been settled there since the end of the third century.208 This identiWcation with the consular Luculli has been upheld by
200 Cic., Att. 1. 1. 2; Nissen, Landeskunde, ii. 408; Ballance, PBSR (1951), at 91 (‘identiWcation . . . as likely as any other’), 117; Pietrangeli, Ocriculum, 108; Otricoli, 166. The bridge has been traditionally associated with Augustus, as Pietrangeli noted (Otricoli, 166 n. 22), at least from the 16th cent., but perhaps no earlier. There were also at least two other names in use in the early modern period: ‘passo de Galese’ (ibid. 166), and ‘ponte Consolare’ (ibid. 167). 201 CIL i2 . 797, from the lower town. For the others see CIL i2 . 798 (Campovalano—attributable to Interamnia Praetuttiorum?), and Johnson, RE, supp. vii, s.v. ‘Minturnae’, col. 478, 487; Degrassi, SVA iii. 102–6 (Minturnae). 202 Cic., Mil. 64. 203 CIL xi. 4087 giving the career of L. Iulius Iunianus, IIII uir aed., i. d., quinq., was attributed to the 2nd cent. ad by Pietrangeli (Otricoli, 60–1); wrongly, according to Verza´r, in Umbria Marche, 22: it should rather belong to c.30. The baths built by this man are called Augustan (Otricoli, 60–1), but the inscription (immured in an outer wall of the Casa Squarti, Via Vittorio Emmanuele, 23/25) is Augustan or later: autopsy Apr. 1994 (photo: Pietrangeli, Otricoli, Wg. 13). 204 Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 205 ad CIL xi. 4210; cf. Mommsen, following Borghesi, ad i2 . p. 682. 206 ILLRP 616, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1078 207 Voting Districts, 225, 288. She saw a municipal Lucullus. 208 Dalle guerre puniche, 695–8, cf. Humbert, Municipium, 226, 339. Other Licinii in the early imperial epigraphy of Interamna: CIL xi. 4187 (a magistrate), 4188 (praenomina Lucius), 4213 ( ¼ ILLRP 364, praenomen Lucius), 4223 (a magistrate, son of a Lucius), 4279 (freedwoman of a Lucia). For other emigration of Licinii into territory conWscated from defeated enemies, see Taylor, Voting Districts, 225, 286, cf. Humbert, Municipium, 329 n. 159 and 336 n. 1. For another Roman family possibly settled in newly conquered territory, see the case of the Plautii Silvani and Trebula SuVenas, Taylor, MAAR (1956), and Voting Districts, 243, 287, 289; Humbert, Municipium, 219 n. 42, 339.
322
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
Badian,209 who thinks that the Licinius Lucullus of the inscription might be the cos. 74. Now, his Wrst absence in Asia means he probably could not have held any magistracy at Interamna until 79; thereafter he was in Africa from 77–76/75 as propraetor, and his consulship makes 74 unlikely, although not impossible on the analogy of Piso at Capua in 58.210 From 73 until 66 Lucullus was again in Asia.211 On his return the three-year wait for his triumph would have provided an opportunity for activity outside Rome, while it seems that after the triumph he was again active in Roman politics until his Wnal retirement in 59.212 The proverbial luxury of these last years before his death (in 56?) does not provide a suitable context even for a municipal magistracy. Thus the years 79–78, 75–74, and 66–63 are available for Lucullus to be IIII uir at Interamna. Yet the inscription does not record Lucullus’ Roman titles.213 Nevertheless, Addendum D4 provides a possible parallel for such an omission, and in any case it is not implausible that noble Romans would leave out their titles in an inscription like this unless they were holding a magistracy at the time. It could be argued that only municipal parvenus who felt they needed to prove their superiority to their fellows displayed the titles bestowed by the Roman people (as in Q59). For the Roman noble, born to superiority, such showmanship might well seem an unnecessary way of embarrassing his municipal amici. The letter forms, however, with the closing ‘C’s and the regular cutting, and the use of a large stone for a small text, suggest a date in the second half of the century, excluding this L. Lucullus. Badian oVered the alternative of a son of the consul. We know he had a son Marcus;214 this praenomen may either be a mistake on the part of the source,215 as Badian suggests, or the failure of our evidence to indicate a son Lucius, who may have died young, or never entered Roman politics.216 If our inscription records the ‘missing son’ of the consul, he probably predeceased his (?)younger brother Marcus. To have been old enough to hold municipal oYce, he would thus more likely have been a son of Clodia than of Servilia. Since Lucullus married Clodia not earlier than 76 bc,217 their son cannot have held oYce before 46, when he 209 Historia (1963), 136, cf. Humbert, Municipium, 226 n. 76. Borghesi thought that the lettering suited the consul (see above n. 205). Degrassi, ILLRP ad loc. and Wiseman, New Men, 46, are noncommittal. 210 See App. 2. 211 On the dates at which Lucullus was in Rome see Keaveney, Lucullus, 31, 47. 212 On the dates and tradition of his triumph and retirement see Hillman, Historia (1993), 219, 223, and 228, where he raises the possibility for Lucullus’ later years of ‘involvement in [a] . . . range of more mundane political events, which the eye of history has overlooked’. 213 So Scuderi, Athenaeum (1989), 137 n. 147, who is sceptical about the identiWcation. 214 Mu¨nzer, RE xiii, s.v. ‘Licinius’ no. 110. 215 Vell. Pat., 2. 71. 2. 216 Both of Lucullus’ marriages, despite infelicities, produced oVspring (Keaveney, Lucullus, 133–4, for Lucullus’ children); it is not impossible that Licinia and M. Licinius had a brother Lucius. His father’s example may have deterred or lured him from politics, or he may just have made no mark— M. Lucullus is known only for dying at Philippi, and Wgures one might expect to be prominent may slip into obscurity (cf. above on Q50–1 for the grandson of L. Crassus the orator). 217 Keaveney, Lucullus, 48.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
323
would have been 30. Alternatively an earlier and (again) unrecorded marriage could be invoked, which in any case would probably not have produced a son before c.90, giving a terminus post quem for this quattuorvirate of c.60; overall it seems preferable to assume Clodia as the mother. In any case, the missing son is almost a counsel of despair: I rather think that we are dealing with the phenomenon which grows more common under the Empire, of municipal gentes annexing the cognomina of distinguished or extinguished noble Roman lines (see above n. 99 on a Licinius Crassus from Aquinum). Interamna seems to have been enfranchised at the beginning of the third century bc, along with the other Umbrian centres of Plestia and Fulginiae.218 How are we to explain the appearance here of the quattuorvirate, the magistracy characteristic of those communities enfranchised after the Social War?219 Beloch, because of his strict interpretation of the distribution of the quattuorvirate, thought that Interamna remained allied until the Social War,220 but, rightly, this thesis has not found much favour. The quattuorvirate is probably best explained as a development of the archaic and unwieldy octovirate, constitutional reform at some point after the Social War taking its model as the fashionable new municipal magistracy.221 To the north of Interamna lay Spoletium, and our Q63–5.222 Q63 is claimed as an imperial stone, e.g. by Nicolet,223 but autopsy enables me conWdently to include it here as a republican inscription, perhaps the oldest of the three Spoletine texts.224 It is quite roughly cut, with open ‘C’s and no seriWng. Only one of the IIII uiri has a cognomen; the other, C. Erucius, is more interesting. A C. Erucius is known to us as the prosecutor of Sex. Roscius of Ameria, and the 218 Pais, Dalle guerre puniche, 695 V., followed by Taylor, Voting Districts, 54; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 153; Wiseman, New Men, 187; Humbert, Municipium, 225. See App. 3. 219 Another republican quattuorvirate is attested by CIL xi. 4222: ‘[---]ius Sex. f. IIII uir[---]/[---]fac. coer[---]’. Bormann (ad xi. 4221) suggested that xi. 4221 was part of the same inscription, and the two fragments were so printed as CIL i2 . 2099. Bormann’s later recantation of this identiWcation (xi. p. 1366) escaped Degrassi (hence ILLRP 615); Krummrey rectiWes the error, without printing a revised text (CIL i2 . p. 1078). We do not know what type of IIII uir was in question. It seems to be from the second half of the 1st cent., perhaps later than Q62 (autopsy, Apr. 1994). Supp. It, ns 5, 183 no. 17 (photo: p. 184), may be imperial rather than republican (Filippi, Supp. It. n.s. 5, ibid. 184). Filippi referred it to Interamna, although it was found in the territory of Forum Novum, the chief magistracy of which was the duovirate. Interamna Nahars was the nearest quattuorviral town in the Clustumina. Since the inscription refers to a neighbouring municipium, the title is in all likelihood generic, not juridically exact. 220 RG 606. 221 Bradley (in Epigraphic Landscape) advances the by no means implausible hypothesis that Interamna was a Latin colony. 222 Of the large quattuorviral epigraphy of Spoletium, CIL xi. 4804 is a possible candidate for republican date. It is described as ‘litteris satis antiquis’ by Bormann, ad loc.: ‘T. Furfanius / C. f. IIII uir’. I had hoped to examine AE (1983), 358, during a visit to the Museo Civico in Spoleto, but this was not possible. The correct text (for which see Rambaldi, Spoletium (1966), 28) seems to be ‘C. MAM / IIII’. I am not certain if this should even be restored as a quattuorviral text, or of its date. 223 Ordre, ii. 870, where the magistrate is called a III uir! 224 It was in the Museo Archeologico at Spoleto on display in a mostra of Spoletine epigraphy; autopsy, Apr. 1994.
324
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
same man is very probably the prosecutor in the Pro Vareno.225 I think we are dealing with the same man at Spoletium.226 The old view is still peddled that Erucius was a freedman from Eryx in Sicily.227 This is impossible: a freedman could not be the legal patron of a free man.228 The supposed evidence for this origin, Cicero’s comment that Erucius had never known his father, is very weak.229 Had Erucius been a libertus, Cicero would have made use of this fact when discussing the freedman Chrysogonus; but freedman prosecutors are just not plausible. Further, Cicero says that Erucius has ‘studium doctrinae ut ne a litteris quidem alienus esses’, perhaps a strange compliment to pay an ex-slave.230 The employment of forensic orator was considered a suitable one for a young man of status such as Ovid; Erucius was perhaps of equestrian standing, possibly a bastard or with one or both parents of dubious probity; he was assuredly not of servile origin. If not Sicilian, where might he be from? Municipal prosecutors of equestrian or near equestrian rank were not uncommon in this period.231 Wiseman thought that he might be Umbrian—certainly both of the men he is known to have prosecuted were, and it seems natural that Magnus and Capito would know of, and employ, a counsel with local connections.232 If C. Erucius was a Spoletine, then his home town is not distant either from the Roscii of Ameria or from Urvinum Hortense in the Stellatina (a possible home for L. Erucius the Caesarian senator), or Fulginiae, setting of some of the events narrated in the Pro Vareno. A Spoletine origin for C. Erucius makes sense on general grounds, but what about chronology?233
225 See J. Crawford, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Fragmentary Speeches, 9–10; Mu¨nzer, RE vi, s.v. ‘Erucius’ no. 3. 226 Mu¨nzer (ibid.) and others have noted the Spoletine homonym of the prosecutor, without going further; Nicolet (REL (1967), 289 n. 4) identiWes the two without further comment. The mostra catalogue (above) suggests that Erucius was from Ameria—Cicero would surely have said so if he were. 227 See Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (ed. Stock), 13 n. 1, Grant (tr.), Cicero, Murder Trials, 25. 228 I owe this point to Barbara Levick. 229 Rosc. Am. 46. 230 Ibid. Nicolet makes him a possible eques, mainly because of the Roman senator L. Erucius, but also noting that the compliments Cicero pays him are not incompatible with such a status (Ordre, ii. 870, no. 137). Mu¨nzer, RE xiii, s.v. ‘Licinius’ no. 110, seems to reXect the traditional view when he describes him as humble. Vasaly, Representations, 166 n. 17 speaks of Erucius’ intelligence and ‘intermediate’ social status. Note the cos. ad 83, Terentius Strabo Erucius Homullus (CIL xvi. 29), and the eques Erucius Clarus known to Pliny the Younger (PIR iii2 . E94). 231 Nicolet, REL (1967), 289 and n. 4, mainly on the Arpinate Gratidius; David, in Bourgeoisies. 232 New Men, no. 164. Rosc. Am. 28 and 80 (‘nonne cogitas te a sectoribus huc adductus esse?’) seem to imply that Erucius was hired principally by Magnus and Capito, although 132 at least suggests that he was keen to please Chrysogonus (a bad move by this point in Cicero’s portrayal of him, and undigniWed for a free man). Wiseman also suggested that L. Erucius, a senator by 44, might be Umbrian, noting that the Stellatina, his tribe, was found at Mevaniola, Urvinum Mataurense (north), and Urvinum Hortense (south); cf. Broughton, MRR ii. 490; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 338, 341. The oblique reference ‘some to youth from the Welds of Veii’ (Rosc. Am. 47) seems not, on balance, to oVer grounds for identifying Erucius’ patria (on Cicero’s strategy here see Leigh, Comedy, 6–9). 233 Rosc. Am. 43 and 48 might be taken to imply that Cicero considered Erucius ignorant about farming and its socio-economic signiWcance in Italy, and more particularly that he knew little about the
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
325
Despite Cicero’s lectures and ironic questions to Erucius in the Pro Roscio Amerino on the role of the prosecutor,234 he himself proves that Erucius was no novice. At 28 Cicero tells the jury that Chrysogonus, Magnus, and Capito had thought that all they needed to secure Roscius’ conviction was an ‘accusatorem ueterem’ of no particular merit, presumably referring here to Erucius. Later (61) Cicero, after a damning recasting of Erucius’ own arguments against him, says ‘restitue nobis aliquando ueterem tuam illum calliditatem atque prudentiam’. Most decisively, when comparing his skills with Erucius’, he has to admit that he is merely one of the grex of patroni, but that the recent proscriptions have done away with so many prosecutors that Erucius has suddenly become a senior Wgure: ‘te pugna Cannensis accusatorem sat bonum fecit’ (89).235 So it seems that Erucius was a practising, if not a successful, orator before the proscriptions, and probably before the Sullan victory. Perhaps he came to Rome as a Marian partisan;236 that he had been resident there since before the Social War may be implied by Cicero’s description of him in the Pro Vareno as ‘Antoniaster’, an imitator of the orator C. Antonius, whose powers were at their height just before the Social War (the dramatic date of De oratore 1–2). Possibilities for forensic employment at Rome in the Cinnan period seem to have been limited, and an early quattuorvirate might be possible;237 we may reasonably exclude the period between the trial of Roscius (80 bc) and the trial of Varenus (77–76/74–71 bc238) on the grounds that he was probably practising continuously in Rome; the experience Cicero implies should have been gained before the Social War. At Rosc. Am. 46 Cicero says that Erucius has never known his father, and thus cannot fully appreciate how fathers and sons feel for each other. This should also imply that Erucius had no children, and was perhaps relatively young in 80 bc (thirties?); if I am right about the implications of ‘Antoniaster’, he perhaps began practising at the bar before the Social War.239 practice ‘in Umbria atque in ea uicinitate’, and hence that he was not of rural origin. Cicero is here making points principally for the beneWt of the jury, but couches them in terms of Erucius’ ignorance in order to avoid patronizing them. Moreover, he surely assumes that Erucius was (as always) inventing vice out of virtue, and knew the truth, for he says (48) ‘refer animum sis ad ueritatem et considera . . .’ 234 e.g. 38, 53–7, 72. Like the more general criticisms of Erucius’ skill and style (49, 58, 89 etc.), these insinuations are only part of the orator’s stock-in-trade. 235 Cf. 82, where the words ‘ex alia oratione declamare’ imply that Erucius is a regular in the courts. The reference to Erucius as ‘quidam ex nouis accusatoribus’ (Schol. Gron. p. 301St.) should refer to his quick rise to prominence after the proscriptions, if it is not a guess. 236 Barbara Levick draws to my attention T. Matrinius of Spoletium, enfranchised by Marius in 100, and suggests that Erucius may have been a product of the schools of the rhetores Latini closed in 92. 237 For the eVective closure of the courts in this period, however, see Cic., Brutus 317–18; Rosc. Am. 11 for a suspension of the murder courts just prior to this case; Quinct. 30, Naevius’ eighteen-month delay in his case, ascribed to the fact that Brutus, the praetor urbanus, was also running the city (cf. App., BC 1. 88. 403–4). 238 See J. Crawford, Cicero Speeches. 239 See Kinsey, Mnemosyne (1964), 61–7, for a defence of the traditional dating of the trial. Cicero’s Wrst criminal case came relatively late; equally this is not, apparently, Erucius’ Wrst case. Nor is he necessarily a really heavy-weight Wgure: Magnus and Capito were probably not Wguring on anyone standing up for Roscius in court.
326
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
Thus in 70 bc he will have been in his late forties, and perhaps in the years after this he felt able, or wanted, to spend less time at the bar, and more in Spoletium. Of course there are gaps in our evidence, but I think it is plausible to see Erucius as returning to hold oYce in Spoletium later in life, perhaps as an older man he would have wanted to ‘spend more time with his family’; as a veteran of the Roman law courts he should have made a fair IIII uir i. d. in Spoletium. The best time for a magisterial career would then seem to be in the 60s, which suits the letter forms. Q64 is not included in any republican sylloge, but from its appearance, it certainly belongs to our period. The inscription is still in situ, that is, in the part of the circuit wall the construction of which it records.240 The wall in which the inscription is set is a substantial ashlar aVair. This section is said to rest on an older polygonal wall (not currently visible).241 The polygonal phases should be pre-Social War, while the ashlar construction is of course later. Pietrangeli has argued that the later phase is a post-Sullan restoration of the circuit walls.242 For the reconstruction of the walls he adduces two possible contexts: either in the aftermath of the sack of Spoletium by Pompeius and Crassus in 82, when it was a Marian base,243 or after 63 bc, when the town suVered earthquake damage.244 The lettering however seems to me to be characteristic of the second half of the century, and may even be as late as the very end of our period. Note also that both IIII uiri have cognomina. Our wall may repair earthquake damage, but it was not perhaps an immediate repair. Q65, which recorded the building of a bridge, is no longer in situ, having been reused in the campanile of the Duomo. We cannot therefore know to which Roman bridge it was originally attached. The fact that the stone was reemployed in the medieval town centre seems to support Pietrangeli’s supposition that the bridge referred to was one of the three Roman bridges spanning the Tessino, which bounds Spoletium on two sides.245 Only one of these bridges, the ‘Ponte Sanguinario’, still remains, abandoned when the course of the river shifted in the Middle Ages, buried, and only rediscovered in the nineteenth century.246 Unfortunately the date of this bridge is in dispute. Pietrangeli and Blake have supported an Augustan date.247 Lugli has however 240 CIL xi. 4809a is a fragment of a duplicate text. 241 Di Marco, Spoletium, topograWa e urbanistica, 27. A photograph in tav. IVb of Pietrangeli, Spoletium (Di Marco’s tav. XIX does not show it). 242 Di Marco, Spoletium, 30, 42–3, 45. The polygonal phase, however, looks diVerent in technique from the 3rd-cent. walls of the Latin colony. 243 App., BC 1. 90. 413; cf. Florus, 2. 9. 27, for the conWscations in the aftermath of the Sullan victory. 244 Obsequens, 61; see Pietrangeli, Spoletium, 24–5, 43. Verza´r, Umbria Marche, 107, oVers the same alternatives, seeming to prefer the earlier date. 245 For the number and location of the Roman bridges, see Spoletium, 49, cf. 9. 246 Frothingham, Roman Cities, 166, thought that Q65 should belong to this structure. 247 Pietrangeli, Spoletium, 49 and n. 19, 95. Cf. Verza´r, Umbria Marche 2 , 118: an Augustan restoration, but no conclusion on the relation of Q65 (said to be of the second half of the cent.—cf. Pietrangeli, Spoletium, 49) to the bridge; Blake, Construction, 215 (hesitantly).
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
327
assigned the bridge to the period 80–50 bc, which I prefer.248 The bridge mentioned in Q65 might be the ‘Ponte Sanguinario’, it might not; two late republican bridges are not implausible. The reuse of a stone in the medieval period is more likely to be that of one coming from a bridge that had been demolished and replaced than one which just fell into disuse, and still in part survives. Neither of the magistrates named have cognomina (assuming the text to be complete), and I would date Q65 earlier than Q64. Q65 should perhaps be associated with reconstruction after the earthquake of 63. North from Spoletium we come to Hispellum. Q66 is a funeral stele recording T. Laterius T. f., a IIII uir i. d. The chronological termini for the quattuorvirate at Hispellum have been established (see above on Q30 and 31). The absence of a cognomen may militate against a very late date, but on the other hand the letter forms suggest a date later than that of Q31.249 We may cautiously assign Q66 to the period from c.60 to c.40 bc. Q67 and Q68 come from Asisium. Q67 is carved into the retaining wall which holds up the terrace on the north side of the forum on which the temple of ‘Minerua’ stands. The letter forms assign the text to the very end of the Republic, but it seems to be palaeographically earlier than the Augustan CIL xi. 5391–2.250 Morphologically, the terrace wall must be earlier than the temple which the terrace holds up, which belongs either to the very end of the Triumvirate or the very beginning of the Augustan period.251 Note that here we have the senior magistrates of the city cooperating in the building work with the V uiri, who might be a special building committee, or a religious college. The phenomenon, but not necessarily the juridical structures involved, is reminiscent of the situation discussed above at Vibo (Q50–1);252 it has also been attractively suggested that the V uiri were a priestly college.253 Q68 is the funeral stele of a Q. Vetius Q. f. The form of the stele seems typically Umbrian. The shield and lance depicted on it should imply some military service. The letter forms are hard to draw any conclusions from, but may suggest a date in the second half of the century. Perhaps Vetius’ military service was under Caesar in Gaul, or in the Civil Wars. Q69 was found in the territory of Sassina. Though damaged, it clearly records the work of one or more IIII uiri i. d., engaged in building a gate and towers complex. The Wrst two letters of l. 1 must surely be the end of a cognomen; this and the fact that the inscription is cut on marble seem to outweigh any case that might be made for a comparatively early dating on the basis of the spelling ‘coir.’
248 La tecnica, 357, cf. Ballance, PBSR (1951), 114–15. 249 Autopsy, May 1994. 250 Forni, EpigraW lapidarie romane di Assisi, 34. Autopsy, May 1994. 251 Ibid. 34, no. 29. 252 V uiri are also responsible for helping IIII uiri i. d. rebuild a wall: CIL xi. 5391–2. They may be a purely local phenomenon, an indigenous Umbrian survival: see Rosenberg, Staat, 48; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 66, 132. 253 Coarelli: Atti del Accademia Properziana del Subasio, 20; in Assisi e gli Umbri nell’Antichita`, 250–2.
328
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
Q69 is pretty much contemporary with Q32, and probably belongs to the middle of the century.254 Placentia is the provenance of Q70 and Q71. Both are funerary inscriptions, and both probably date from roughly the same period. Judging by the style of the lettering255 and the fact that two of the three males buried in the tomb256 from which Q70 came have cognomina, and that the third may not have one simply in order to distinguish him from his brother,257 we may reasonably place this inscription in the early Augustan period. C. Caecilius Flaccus the younger was then IIII uir i. d. before this point; but can we establish when with more accuracy? C. Caecilius Flaccus pater may help us here. Calbi suggests that ‘tr.’ under his name in l. 3 could stand for tribunus or tribunus militum, and seems to favour a military rather than a civilian oYce.258 Yet both for the position held by Q. Caecilius in Q70, and in Q33, the recognized abbreviation for the military tribunate is ‘tr. milit.’, which surely proves that L. Caecilius held the civic tribunate. Like his quaestorship, this must date to the period of the Latin colony. He probably held these oYces in the very last years of the colony (the more so since his younger son died in the early years of the Principate). One may wonder why he never rose to the supreme magistracy of Latin Placentia. An early death is possible, but perhaps ruled out by his tenure of the prestigious curatorship of the aedes Iouis, a position one would have thought would have gone to quite a senior and rich man. It is likely that a Latin colony would not have had a capitolium; Caecilius must have been charged with a slightly diVerent task, and one context for the building of a new aedes Iouis may have been in the aftermath of the Social War, in response to a perceived need to underline the new Roman identity of Placentia by means of religious repositioning.259 If then Caecilius was in his thirties when the Social War broke out, then his elder son will have been of an age to stand for the quattuorvirate in the early 60s bc. Lucius junior held no military posts, and seems content to have remained at home, while his younger brother held no magistracies, although he was elected decurio,260 but had quite an 254 Susini (Studi Romagnoli (1954), 191) suggested a dating in ‘un periodo successivo all’ eta` sillana’. Gabba, Italia Romana, 82, dated the magisterial building work on the walls of Sassina in the period 70– 50 bc on epigraphic gounds, but I would be reluctant to date any of the stones earlier than c.60. One of these inscriptions is CIL xi. 6510, mentioning a M. Caesellius, is usually restored as a IIII uir i. d. or IIII uir quinq.: we cannot know. An (as far as I know) unedited fragment of roughly the same date as Q69 reads ‘IR . I . D’ 255 Gatti, NSA (1899), 124, cf. Demougin in EpigraWa, 237 n. 78. Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 253, suggested a wider chronological arc, between the mid-1st cent. bc and the Wrst decades of the next. 256 Calbi states that the type of circular monument from which this inscription must have come was found in Cisalpina in the late Republic and early Empire—ibid. 252 and n. 7. 257 Cf. ibid. 254. 258 Ibid. 254–6. 259 Gatti, NSA (1899), 125, however, states that the temple of Iuppiter at Placentia dates to the early Empire. 260 I agree with Calbi (Epigraphica (1981), 253, 255–7) that the reversal of the ends of ll. 3 and 4 to create a tr. milit. a populo is gratuitous on Gatti’s part (NSA (1899)) and should not have been accepted by Bormann in CIL xi. 6940. ‘decurio a populo’ is unparalleled as a phrase, but the election of decuriones is attested and unproblematic: see Cic., Verr. 2. 2. 120; D 50. 2. 6. 5, and bibliography cited
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
329
extensive military career: as Syme often pointed out, praefecti fabrum are usually important people, and Q. Caecilius held the oYce three times.261 If we accept that L. Caecilus senior was a member of the Latin colony, both his sons must have been of magisterial age well before the Augustan colonization. There is thus no need to posit that the phrase ‘decurio a populo’ forms part of a discourse of legitimation and/or resistance between noui and ueteres possessores around the time of the colonization.262 The simple explanation may be that as a member of one of the leading families of Placentia he was elected decurio when old enough (in the 50s bc?), but because of considerable military service (Wrst with Caesar in Gaul?), he never had the time to stand for a magistracy, perhaps intending it for an occupation of later life. If he then died before acceding to his political birthright, his simple decurionate may have stood in need of beeWng up with this unusual phrase. Note the enduring social, political, and religious263 status of these Caecilii at Placentia,264 and with Quintus as a soldier, their emergence into the wider and turbulent world of late republican Italy. The social status of the Caecilii is further reinforced if we consider the likelihood that the Petronia C. f. whom the elder L. Caecilius married was a member of another signiWcant gens at Placentia.265 In fact Q71 is the (probably Augustan) funerary inscription of a member of that gens.266 S(ex). Petronius Lupus was decurio, IIII uir i. d. and augur, as well as serving twice as consular praefectus fabrum: a man of no mean importance. It is possible that this man is related to the imperial colonial decurion M. Petronius267 and to the wife of L. Caecilius. Bormann draws attention to another possible connection, the L. Petronius who as friend and oYcer of a P. Coelius came to equestrian rank.268 Their demise is set in Placentia during the civil conXict in 87 bc, and while it is not certain that Petronius lived there, as opposed to serving there with Coelius, it remains plausible.269 If so he may be another member of the same gens. by Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 256 n. 18; to which add the natural implications of tabula Heracleensis 85–8, 132. It is not, despite Calbi, to be totally excluded that there was no error in cutting the stone. 261 RR 355–6. On praefecti fabrum in late republican and early imperial Italy see Demougin, in EpigraWa, 236–9; and more generally Dobson, in Britain and Rome. 262 So Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 256–7. 263 The Caecilii were all augurs, and since the father was also curator of the temple of Iuppiter, we may ask ourselves if they were not a priestly family of Placentia. 264 Cf. Calbi, ibid. 253. She notes that Caecilii are not elsewhere known at Placentia, but that the name recurs on the Alimentary Table of nearby Veleia (ibid. 254, CIL xi. 1147, IV. 78). 265 Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 254. 266 Conclusions however are not to be jumped to with any gens, as we saw when considering the Laenii of Brundisium (above on Q54). 267 AE (1959), 36 (Clastidium). 268 ad CIL xi. 1219; Val. Max., 4. 7. 5. For P. Caelius of the MSS as a P. Coelius see Mu¨nzer, RE iv, s.v. ‘Coelius’ no. 16, cols. 196–7; and for his position and relation to C. Coelius Caldus, cos. 94 and governor of Gaul: Badian, Studies, 92–3. 269 S(ex). Petronius was a Marius by birth. This family too may have been prominent in the area; note the four fundi Mariani in the territory of Velleia (CIL xi. 1147, II. 21, IV. 7, 42, 76). An enfranchisement by C. Marius himself at the time of the Cimbric wars is not impossible, although speculation about ‘Marian’ Marii and ‘optimate’ Petronii in Placentian politics of the early 1st cent. is
330
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
As a Latin for most of the period of his rise he would be more dependent than others on Coelius’ beneWcia; he is also in any case a salutary lesson in the dangers of hopefully assigning junior oYcers from the municipia to the period of the Civil Wars in the second half of the century. Many belong there, but not all. We may note that if S(ex). Petronius and the M. Petronius of the Clastidium inscription are related, that like the AuWdii (Q33), some of the Petronii at least survived the upheaval of the Augustan colonization. Q72 is an Aquileian epitaph, this time of L. Vibius Ruso, IIII uir i. d., his (?elder) brother T. Vibius Ruso augur, and the (?)latter’s wife, Caeparia. Apart from an apex above the ‘V’ of the second brother’s cognomen, there is little ‘late’ in this text, and little clearly early either.270 Both brothers have cognomina, and this text is probably not to be dated early within our period; the letter forms do, however, look earlier than those of, e.g. Q36, which suggests a possible date in the Caesarian dictatorship or in the 50s. There is no clear reason to push the date of the magistracies recorded for L. Ruso back beyond the early 60s, although certainty is unobtainable.271 To this discussion of the IIII uiri i. d. we may add the one known republican instance of the oYce quattuoruir iure dicundo quinquennalis. As we shall see in the next section, most IIII uiri quinquennales were in fact IIII uiri i. d. who had the additional honour of holding oYce in a census year. That the epithet iure dicundo was retained as well probably has no special signiWcance. Since the known example comes from the Cisalpina, this may be a speciWcally Aquileian variation on the standard terminology.272 Q73 is, in two almost identical copies, from Aquileia.273 These almost certainly originally adorned the inner and outer faces of the gate mentioned in the text, in all probability Aquileia’s northern gate; neither, as preserved, is a plausible keystone of an arch. Various dates have been propounded. Hu¨bner declared the stones were pre-Caesarian;274 Egger suggested a Caesarian date.275 Brusin out of place. L. Petronius was chieXy tied to P. Coelius by amicitia. Badian identiWed P. Coelius was a relative of C. Coelius Caldus cos. 94, whom he suggested was anti-Marian (Studies, 92–5). 270 Similarly CIL v. 8304 (a Laberius Q. f., IIII uir i. d., connected to building in the forum at Aquileia) could be republican (Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 196, on no. 13). 271 Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 196, on the date (republican); ibid. 182, suggesting that the numerous Vibii encountered at Aquileia from the late republican period onwards may not be descended from the Vibii found among the elite of the Latin colony; and ibid. 183, 196 with bibliography: the cognomen Ruso shows possible Celtic ancestry. 272 The magistracy reappears in the (?) tombstone of a Fruticius M. f. at Aquileia (CIL v.989; he also held the quattuorvirate i. d. on a separate occasion), which might be republican: see Bandelli, Bourgeoisies, 196, no. 12, and cf. ibid. 200, no. 33, with suggestion of a Venetic origin for the name; cf. for the Empire CIL v. 1010 (also Aquileia; Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 196, no. 14, suggests a possible republican date). 273 The text given in the Addendum is of the more complete example; the other has a diVerent shape of interpuncts, lacks the Wnal line, and has suVered damage to its surface, aVecting the Wrst three lines. For drawings of the two texts side by side, and information on the damaged copy, see Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i. 20–1. Since both texts were found together, the Wndspot ought to be close to that of original display. 274 Exempla Scripturae Epigraphicae, 75, cf. Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 196. 275 JOAI (1922), 313.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
331
initially thought they belonged to the decade 40–30.276 Typically, it was Degrassi who sought to place the inscription within a sound chronological framework. He thought that, like the gates and walls recorded in CIL i2 . 2648 at the castellum at Tricesimo on the road north from Aquileia, the gate at Aquileia was restored in the climate of uncertainty after the barbarian incursions in 52 recorded by Hirtius.277 Yet Degrassi’s reconstruction suVers from disadvantages. First, it is not certain that Hirtius can in fact be invoked in support. There is no evidence that the raids in which the Tergestini suVered ever threatened Aquileia and its territorium, still less that the threat came from the north. Secondly, the seriousness of the threat may have been exaggerated by Hirtius for propaganda purposes. It was important for public opinion in Rome to see Caesar as not just the bellicose proconsul of Transalpina, but the thoughtful governor of Cisalpina, and to this end the barbarian attacks and Caesar’s consequent police measures of 51 may be made out to be more than they are. He sent the legio XV, one of his most recently recruited, and certainly not one of his battle-hardened legions:278 perhaps he was not expecting much trouble. A Caesarian legion dispatched to Cisalpina also formed another move in his war of nerves with the optimates. Finally, Hirtius tells us that one legion was sent speciWcally to protect ‘coloniae ciuium Romanorum’: the term (and the number) coloniae may be disingenuous, designed only for an audience in Rome.279 Alternatively, if Hirtius was being precise, the most important (from a Roman perspective) settlements were placed under legionary protection Wrst. In that case any threat must have been felt in quarters where there were Roman colonies—and this does not include the area of Aquileia.280 Moreover CIL i2 . 2648 itself is problematic if it belongs to the municipal period. It lists two pairs of magistrates as being responsible for the defences at Tricesimo, and they are designated by the abbreviations ‘pr.’ and ‘q.’281 That ‘q’ is 276 Guida, 6–7; cf. Scavi di Aquileia, 58: pre-Augustan. 277 SVA 89, citing Hirtius, BG 8. 24. 3, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1093, and Crawford, Quaderni Ticinesi (1989), 192. Brusin had informed Degrassi personally of his revised opinion that Q73 and CIL i2 . 2648 were contemporaneous (SVA 85, 89 n. 15). Previously (Scavi di Aquileia, 57) he had adhered to Egger’s Sullan dating of the latter. Degrassi’s theory approved: Brusin, AN (1938), col. 154; id., Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i. 21; Moro, Iulium Carnicum, 212–13. 278 Brunt, Manpower, 467. 279 Mommsen (GS i. 180 n. 2, followed by Taylor, Voting Districts, 126) suggested that Hirtius’ phrasing might be a deliberately tendentious description of the Latin colonies of Cisalpina, a part of the Caesarian propaganda regarding the enfranchisement of these communities. 280 Roman colonies in Gallia Cisalpina at this period: Novum Comum, Dertona, Eporedia, Luna, Mutina, and Parma. Of these Novum Comum and Eporedia are relevant, the former closely tied to Caesar. 281 Egger, JOAI (1922), 310, thought that the ‘Q’ of l. 3 was on balance likely to decribe the man named in that line, but not the one in the next line, who would then be a priuatus, and in this he was followed by Brusin, Scavi, 57. Yet Egger also suggested that ‘Q’ might refer to both these men, and have been written in l. 3 simply because there was space there for it. This must be the correct interpretation; ‘PR’ is written in l. 2, but it has not been suggested that Ti. Carminius in l. 1 is not a holder of the same oYce as P. Annius M. f. More importantly, as Degrassi noticed (although not spotting Egger’s alternative hypothesis), ‘Q’ is cut a little lower than the other words in l. 3 (see Auctarium, 227), and it looks as if the lapicide made some eVort to show that the ‘Q’ was applicable to ll. 3 and 4 (SVA i. 87, 97).
332
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
for q(uaestor) is nowhere disputed, but the proper resolution of ‘pr’ has been debated. Egger thought that municipal praetores of the Sullan period were in question,282 but there is no reason to think that Aquileia did not have as its chief magistrates IIII uiri. Degrassi contended that praetores could only belong to the Latin colony, and could not be later than the end of the second century at that. He proposed reading ‘pr(aefecti)’, although this abbreviation is much less common than praef.283 These praefecti in his opinion are the usual replacement magistrates whom we Wnd in coloniae and municipia for those elected magistrates unable to carry out their functions. Yet such praefecti are not securely attested in the Cisalpina before the triumvirate,284 and it is tempting to see them as introduced with the muncipalization of this area which followed its enfranchisement. If this inscription mentions praefecti, then it will not in my opinion be earlier than c.42 bc; hence there is no immediate connection with the incursions in 52 bc. There is a certain similarity between the letter forms of Q73 and i2 . 2648, but it is only superWcial, and at any rate it is dangerous to privilege arguments based principally on such a criterion:285 a north Italian example of a stone which looks relatively old, but which cannot be earlier than 49 bc, is Inscr. It. x, V.2.905, from Gottolengo in the territory of Brescia.286 The palaeography is not inconsistent (despite Degrassi’s objection) with a premunicipal date, and ‘pr.’ can stand for the praetores of the Latin colony. The presence of quaestors in the text is a counter-argument of greater weight than any based on letter forms. Quaestors are commonly found in Latin colonies, and also under the Principate, but very rarely if at all in the municipia of the period between the Social War and the Triumvirate; the same is by and large true of Roman colonies.287 Despite palaeographical and lexical diYculties,288 I favour a date before the Social War for i2. 2648, chieXy because of the quaestors;289 282 Egger, JOAI (1922), 312–13; followed by Brusin, Scavi, 57. 283 SVA i. 88. 284 Lex Roscia 20. 16, 28, 37–8, 41, 21. 15. Lex Osca Bantina 5. 11 has a praefucus, who seems to be a deputy of the praetor of Bantia; this however only tells us about the constitution of Latin colonies, which Aquileia was not after 90. The institution of muncipal and colonial praefecti seems to go back at least in some instances to a lex Petronia, which is not, however, attested before the imperial period. 285 There is some diVerence between the ‘E’s, ‘P’s, and ‘C’s in the two inscriptions; and i2 . 2648 seems to be slightly the older. 286 Photograph: Inscr. It. x, v/2. 449. 287 For Aquileian quaestors see ILLRP 537 ( ¼ Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 32), Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, nos. 43 (probably, Brusin’s text is defective, and see Zaccaria, in Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, iii. 1258), 44–5, all of which can easily be assigned on palaeographical grounds to the period of the Latin colony, with no. 44 the oldest (and see further for the dating of Aquileian quaestors Bandelli, Bourgeoisies, 194–5, nos. 5 and 6). For the post-Social-War situation, note both ILLRP 608 ( ¼ CIL x. 219), a quaestor from Grumentum, dating to 57 bc; and the absence of quaestors from the lex coloniae Genetiuae : see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 . 90, 92. 288 A very early appearance of the spelling ‘muros’; but the open ‘P’ points to an early date, and is similar to that in i2 . 2203. 289 Praetors would Wnd no parallel as yet in the epigraphic corpus of Aquileia. CIL i2 . 2203 mentions ‘duomuirum’ (Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 34, may be another, but the text is fragmentary and may be later than our period). Brusin dated it to the early 1st cent. bc, i.e. the last
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
333
a triumviral date, or one later, is less attractive. It does not really matter, in any case; what is important is that there are no strong grounds for linking the Tricesimo walls to the barbarian threat after 52. Even if there were, the same does not follow for Aquileia; restoring one gate is diVerent from building a whole defensive circuit, after all. Ironically, it may be that Degrassi’s date of c.52 for Q73 is not far out. The lettering looks older than that of all the other Aquileian quattuorviral epigraphy (despite signs of attenuation as well as ‘squareness’), and this suggests a date in the 50s (we may note that censors were elected at Rome in 55 bc).290 All in all we have considered thirty-nine inscriptions in this section. Of these, fourteen mention two IIII uiri i. d., eighteen record only one, six are incomplete, and the remarkable Q53 has three. Public inscriptions (excepting incomplete texts) show IIII uiri i. d. acting both in pairs (thirteen examples) and singly (nine examples). The one case of three IIII uiri i. d. is so unusual as to be the exception which proves the rule, and may be a purely local anomaly: it is not worth disputing the view that in non-census years the supreme pair of magistrates in quattuorviral municipia from the end of the Republic onwards were two IIII uiri i. d. (cf. Q26, 29, and 54; probably the progression from IIII uir to IIII uir i. d. is to be seen between Q2 and Q37). It is surely legitimate to extrapolate from the situation as represented in Q54 and assert that the quattuorvirate i. d. was inferior in the cursus only to the quinquennial quattuorvirate, which was not an annual magistracy. Q73 shows that the two titles could be combined. The higher magistrates, the IIII uiri i. d., were those on whom the censorial powers were conferred every Wve years (see next chapter), and the epithet quinquennalis thus subsumes jursidictional as well as censorial powers. As we saw in the previous chapter, it seems that the earliest attestations of the quattuorvirate show an undivided magisterial college, with no apparent divisions of rank and competence.291 When the quattuorvirate was divided into a 2 2 magistracy, the senior magistrates still did not carry the suYx i. d. (see Q12). The conclusion that the introduction of the quattuorvirate i. d. was subsequent to the initial municipalization is reinforced by the general impression, arising from the analysis conducted in this section, that the majority of the instances of the quattuorvirate i. d. belong to the latter part of our period. More precisely, the earliest attestations (Q47 and Q60) may be as early as c.70 bc, but there is more reason for thinking that they fall after that date. I have suggested that the quattuorvirate had become divided into two pairs by about 70 bc, and therefore it years of the colony. Beloch (RG 490–6; Rudolph, Stadt, 290–1; cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 88) saw II uiri in Latin colonies as later than praetores, and this seems generally to be the case. Brusin believed that i2 . 2648 was later than i2 . 2203, but noted that we do not really know that much about the administration of Latin colonies, and that Beloch’s schema may not hold good in all cases (AN (1936–7), col. 29 n. 2; in Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, he dated i2 . 2203 (his no. 33) to the period before the Social War, and i2 . 2648 (his no. 46) to the middle of the 1st cent. bc). 290 Calabi Limentani, EpigraWa latina, 281, opts for a Caesarian date. The square interpuncts might suggest an earlier date (so Bandelli, Bourgeoisies, 196), but the ‘pair’ has triangular ones. 291 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 164.
334
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
makes sense to place the introduction of the quattuorvirate i. d., which explicitly recognized this development with new titulature, a few years after that, considering that Q45 and Q60 are not that much later; I propose the years c.70–c.65 bc as a possible chronological arc for the Wrst appearance of the magistracy. I wonder whether, despite the impossibility of exact dating of our texts, 67 bc, the tribunate of C. Cornelius, might not be the exact year. Among other laws, Cornelius passed a lex de iurisdictione, which, by forcing urban praetors to announce their edicts at the beginning of their year in oYce, limited their discretion in granting trials. Frier, noting the links between the legislation of Cornelius and the aims of Pompeius in his consulship of 70, plausibly suggested that there was in part a similarly pro-Italian element behind the law on jurisdiction:292 Cornelius was aiming to protect new citizens from arbitrary decisions in iure.293 We might expand on this idea by suggesting that either in the lex de iurisdictione or in another of Cornelius’ statutes, there were substantive measures relating to municipal jurisdiction, perhaps dealing with its relation to the praetorian edict, and that related in turn to this was the creation of the title iure dicundo for the senior pair of municipal magistrates. It is not possible to say whether all those communities which are attested as having IIII uiri i. d. adopted this title for their senior magistrates at the same time, and under compulsion of a lex rogata, but I think it unlikely. While changes in jurisdiction were probably introduced at once everywhere, with regard to the detail of municipal constitutions, in most instances the attitude of the Roman Senate and People was quite laissez-faire. It seems more likely that a law passed at Rome altered the municipal ‘matrix-law’, and gave the quattuorviral municipia the opportunity of having two jurisdictional quattuoruiri. I do not think, however, that the appearance of IIII uiri i. d. coincides with the restoration of jurisdictional autonomy to the municipia. I believe that only those of Rome’s allies who entered the status of dediticii lost their own jurisdiction; this was restored three or four years later with municipalization (where municipalization actually took place). The important implication of all this is that it deprives the introduction of the quattuorvirate i. d. of any major signiWcance in the history of municipal jurisdiction. IIII uiri must have had extensive jurisdictional autonomy from the start.294 The splitting of the magisterial college into two implies that, within a decade, the use of four magistrates for all tasks had been found unwieldy, and that greater specialization would both satisfy the need for a more eYcient administration and the requirements of the local elites, for whom a clear cursus honorum was a precondition of the competition which underpinned their socio-political dominance. The undivided college must have seemed very unsatisfactory, although it is unlikely that the oligarchy restored by Sulla would have paid much attention to municipal grievances. It is probable that the college was divided into two pairs, one with jurisdiction, the other with 292 Rise of the Roman Jurists, 261–2 (suggesting that support for the bill came largely from the equites), cf. 73, 76, and GriYn, JRS (1973), 203–11, esp. 208–9. 293 Ibid. 261. 294 See Ch. 10.
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
335
aedilician functions, although I think it likely that the precise division of labour between higher and lower pairs was largely left up to local senates to decide; this was then modiWed by the grant of the title i. d., and perhaps some modiWcation of the jurisdiction available to the higher pair of magistrates.295 My date for the Wrst appearance of the quattuorvirate i. d. brings me (along with the majority of scholars writing on the subject since 1935) into disagreement with the conclusions reached by Hans Rudolph.296 Rudolph thought that all the communities of Italy were essentially deprived of autonomy until the passing of a lex Iulia municipalis in 47 bc, when jurisdiction was granted to them by the dictator, part of a process which had begun before, but which under him saw the ager Romanus ‘liberated’ from the control of the urbs and divided into the territoria of autonomous self-governing units. Rudolph’s schema is far too rigid; and, quite apart from a disproportionate emphasis on jurisdiction as an element in municipal autonomy,297 he creates an incredible picture of an Italy where the only real powers vested in local magistrates were those of presiding over the senate, and a limited executive responsibility for markets, buildings, and sacred matters, an Italy which, moreover, seems not to have chaVed at what was eVectively a form of oppression, especially in view of the greater autonomy which they had enjoyed prior to the Social War.298 This is not the place to take Rudolph to task. Criticism has perhaps obscured the merits which the book does have,299 and the extent to which it furthered meaningful debate.300 It will come as no surprise that my Wndings have conWrmed the prevailing scholarly view that gradual evolution is a better model for the municipalization of Italy than a single, universal intervention by one man. Julius Caesar’s role will be considered below (Ch. 10), and while he was a reformer, in municipal matters as in much else, he will emerge as less revolutionary than is still sometimes supposed. We must not forget of course that some communities probably existed for some time without having IIII uiri i. d., since as I have suggested it was not introduced everywhere simultaneously. Some communities may have begun using the title quattuoruir i. d. comparatively late in the day, while other small towns probably went on to the end of the Republic and beyond without it.301 Nor 295 Cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 165. 296 Stadt, 111, 119–20. Manni, Per la storia, 172–3, accepts that the division of competence in the quattuorviral college is a Caesarian innovation. See, for instance, the reviews by Stuart Jones (JRS (1936), 268–71) and Cary (JRS (1937), 48–53); and Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 92 n. 5 (on the colonial duovirate iure dicundo, noting that the Caesarian lex Roscia abbreviates to i. d., suggesting the titulature was already familiar), 160–71, esp. 162–4 (a critique of the argument from title to function); also Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image, 120–1. 297 At Stadt, 224, he suceeds in turning the evidence of the agrimensores on its head to show that territorium is predicated upon the existence of jurisdiction, rather than making territorium the limiting factor in jurisdiction. Note, however, Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 229 on D 2. 1. 3. 298 Stadt, 111, 119–20. 299 For favourable comment see H. Strasburger’s review, Gnomon (1937), 191. 300 Other aspects of Rudolph’s thesis will be dealt with at the relevant points later. 301 So Ferentium (Q22–3). Manni, Per la storia, 177, suggests that the quattuorvirate i. d. in some Lucanian towns may be a late modiWcation of their constitutions.
336
‘Quattuoruiri iure dicundo’
is it certain that those communities municipalized later than the Cinnan period will have had IIII uiri i. d. at once. It is likely that most towns which were not backwaters, or in decline, availed themselves of the prestigious opportunity to set up a new permutation of the higher magistracy either when, or not long after, it was presented to them. On this, as on so many other questions, we are at the mercy of evidential factors. There are more attestations of this magistracy than of the plain quattuorvirate, despite the fact that the former does not appear until some Wfteen years after the new citizen communities of Italy were Wrst municipalized; the quattuorvirate i. d. also has a wider geographical distribution than that of the simple magistracy.302 In detail its distribution is similar to that of the plain quattuorvirate. Latium Vetus has 1 town where the magistracy is attested, Latium Adiectum 5, Campania 1, the area of the Hirpini 2 (one is Beneventum, formerly a Latin colony), Lucania 2, Bruttium 1 (Vibo, formerly a Latin colony), Apulia 2, the Marsi 1, the Aequi 1 (Alba Fucens, formerly a Latin colony), Etruria 4, Umbria 6, and Cisalpina 2. Of the central Italian peoples only the Hirpini and the Marsi are represented (the former by two special cases). We may now proceed to consider the other permutations of the magistracy, beginning with the quinquennial quattuorvirate. This will help us complete the general picture of the magistracy which has emerged thus far. 302 This might be due to the fact that, being concentrated in a slightly more recent era, the chances of evidence for it being preserved are greater—but if this were the case we would expect more attestations.
8 ‘Quattuoruiri Quinquennales’, and Other Variations 1 . QVAT T VO RV IR I QV I NQV E N NAL E S (Q 74 – 8 8) As in the two previous chapters I will begin by giving a close analysis of the epigraphic evidence, and then proceed to more general conclusions. One preliminary chronological point should be made Wrst. The deliberate synchronism of the Roman and municipal census attested in tabula Heracleensis (142–58) was, if it ever took place, probably a feature of Caesar’s dictatorship (see below). It is possible, however, and has been assumed both for individual cases and as a general occurrence, on a de facto if not a de iure basis, that in practice the municipal census, while formally unconnected to the Roman, may, rather than occurring every Wve years, have happened when censors were elected in Rome: namely in 70, 65, 64, 55, 50, and 42 bc.1 While this cannot be proven or disproven, the possibility must be borne in mind for each case, although the diYculty of tying a recalcitrant epigraphic text to a particular year rather than a particular decade means that often it makes no diVerence in practice whether we believe synchronisms to have occurred or not. We must also bear in mind that some time may have elapsed between municipalization and the Wrst census, by analogy with Gabba’s demonstration for the foundation of the Latin colony of Brundisium.2 Of course, such a view treats the municipia as if they were a monolithic entity, when in fact diversity is always to be expected. Furthermore, the problems in the foundation of a Latin colony, the establishment of its timocratic social structure, and the assimilation of indigenous elements to that structure, are not the same as those faced by an ally which became a Roman municipium almost a hundred and Wfty years later. Yet the possibility of a delay of this sort cannot be discounted, and it is important 1 SpeciWc cases: exempli gratia Castre´n, Ordo, 66, 90, 122 (the Wrst census at Pompeii in 70 bc); a general rule: see Gabba, Athenaeum (1958), 99, citing both the Brindisium elogium for 230 bc and Livy, 29. 15, 37. 7, for the general rule; see Galsterer, Herrschaft, 110. The Fasti Venusini prove that at least by the troubled years of the Triumvirate the local census was not being held every Wve years (CIL ix. 422). Lo Cascio, in the discussion after Gabba’s contribution in Continuita` e trasformazione fra repubblica e impero (81) draws attention to demonstrations that no such synchronism existed under Augustus, whom he sees as retreating from the Caesarian position; a regular quinquennial census (implied by the term quinquennalis) is assumed by other scholars, e.g. Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 184. 2 Fourteen years(?) (Athenaeum 1958, 97–101); roughly the same length of time as that between the start of municipalization and the Roman census of 70–69 bc.
338
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
to go as far as we can towards establishing when the quinquennial quattuorvirate makes its Wrst appearance. IIII uiri quinquennales are recorded at Cora; Cales; Trebula Balliensis; Beneventum; Aesernia; Ligures Baebiani; Petelia; Brundisium, Rubi, Herdonia, Luceria; CorWnium; Alba Fucens; Perusia; Mevaniola and Sassina; and at Aquileia (also IIII uir i. d. quinquennalis, Q73). Q74 is from Cora. It seems to be a dedication to two cousins. A probable date may be assigned in the second half of the century: both magistrates have cognomina,3 and the last two lines of the text probably contain a reference to pecunia conlaticia. Since we are so close to Rome, these criteria do not imply quite as late a date as they might elsewhere. Q75 is from Cales. Q. Paconius Lepta is honoured by decree of the senate by having the water supply to his house improved4 (perhaps the construction of lacus and Wstulae was to the advantage of others as well as Paconius), because ‘de r(e) p(ublica) saepe numero bene meritus esset merereturq(ue)’. Paconius held the locatio for this work in his capacity as IIII uir quinquennalis. As to the date, we may be able to Wx this if we accept the very attractive suggestion of Dessau, who saw our man as the Q. Lepta who was Cicero’s friend and praefectus fabrum in Cilicia.5 There is good reason for thinking Cicero’s friend a Calenus.6 In 45 Cicero wrote to Dolabella in Spain commending to him two men of Cales who were close connections of Lepta’s. Cicero goes on ‘uelisque per te me hoc muneris cum ipsis amicis hominibus, cum municipio Caleno, quocum mihi magna necessitudo est, tum Leptae, quem omnibus antepono, dare.’7 The implication that Lepta too was from Cales is quite strong, and suggestions in Cicero’s letters that Lepta had a house at Cales and owned property (inherited from relations?) in the ager Falernus and the region of Sinuessa combine to support the idea.8 The cognomen is very rare; the nomen is not much more common (outside Delos, which itself may support a Campanian origin), but little help.9 3 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in EpigraWa, 194, argues that the presence of the great-grandfather’s praenomen in Wliations in Latin communities shows a line of citizen descent reaching back before the Social War. If true, this might point back perhaps to enfranchisement though the ius ciuitatis adipiscendi per magistratum, thought to be available to magistrates of Latin colonies after the revolt of Fregellae (but see above, Ch. 3). It might also mean that, with the elapse of three generations since the Gracchan period, our magistrates belong late in our period. 4 Dessau, ad ILS 5779, notes CIL x. 4760 þ p. 1012 as proscribing a similar honour for a citizen of nearby Suessa Aurunca. 5 ad ILS 5779. Followed by Mu¨nzer, RE xii, s.v. ‘Lepta’, col. 2071; RE xviii, s.v. ‘Paconius’, col. 2123 (quite probable), Cichorius, Studien 79 (who also suggests a connection with the Lucilii of Suessa Aurunca), and Groebe, in Drumann-Groebe, Geschichte Roms, vi2 . 97 n. 6; Shackleton Bailey, ad Att. 5. 17. 2 (less certain ad Fam. 3. 7. 4?). Nicolet, Ordre, ii, no. 258, 970 n. 1, is less certain, and adds the possibility that the Paconius in Q75 is the son of Cicero’s friend. On Q. Lepta generally, with discussion of much of the Ciceronian evidence, see Mu¨nzer, RE xii, s.v. ‘Lepta’. 6 See references in n. 5; even Nicolet (Ordre, ii 970) is sure of Q. Lepta’s Calene origin. 7 Fam. 9. 13. 1–3. 8 Att. 8. 3. 7; Fam. 6. 19. 1 with Shackleton Bailey ad loc. 9 A L. Paconius Ti. f. was praetor at Signia before the Social War (CIL i2 . 1517); Cicero refers to a contemporary eques Romanus from the Etruscan town of Rusellae (Mil. 74, Mu¨nzer, RE xviii, s.v.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
339
Once the identiWcation is accepted, we can consider some possible indications of his age. In 45 Cicero writes to him that inter alia his son’s schooling is progressing. He is at the age where he can recite (‘ediscat’) Hesiod, and Cicero says that it is a good idea to start him on rhetoric, ‘etsi abest maturitas aetatis’.10 This should mean that he was old enough to be attending a grammaticus, but not old enough yet to be the pupil of a rhetor, thus probably about 13 or 14 years old (Cicero could also be taken as meaning that young Lepta had not taken the toga uirilis). Since the boy is called Lepta as well, he may well have been the eldest (or indeed only) son.11 If Lepta’s son was born to him at about 30 years of age, we can put the father’s birth date at roughly 88/87 bc; if at 25, 83/82 bc This accords with other indications. Consider his close relationship with the Tullii—he does not seem much younger than Cicero. In 54 bc, he is mysteriously referred to by Caesar.12 The correct interpretation of this muddled passage may be the suggestion of Constans, namely that Lepta had recommended, or joined in recommending someone for a position with Caesar in Gaul, just as Cicero was even then doing for Trebatius.13 A municipal man much younger than his early thirties would have wielded little inXuence of this kind, one thinks. In 52 Lepta was lending money to Pompeius.14 That he took the important position of Cicero’s praefectus fabrum in 51–50 suggests that he was of some maturity.15 The manner in which Cicero speaks of him to Dolabella implies that he was a princeps of Cales. Considerable inXuence with certain elements of the municipal curial class, or aspirants thereto, is suggested by Cicero’s reply (also of 45) to Lepta’s query about a clause in a planned law of Caesar’s concerning the eligibility of ex-praecones for the local ordo.16 Cicero refers to the praecones as ‘tui et mei familiares’. In short nothing implies that Lepta was still a young man when he took up his post with Cicero in 51. He was already rich and inXuential, and this post close to a senior consular can have done his social position no harm. We must assume that by the time of the Civil War he was able to dispense considerable patronage, at least within Cales, and indeed that he had already done so. In this context we can return to Q75, and note again how Paconius Lepta is being rewarded for his services to the res publica. Surely the continuing euergetism of Paconius, and his eminent position by the Caesarian period as attested in the literary sources, are interdependent to some extent? I therefore suggest dating Paconius’ quinquennial quattuorvirate (also a sign of distinction within the community) either just ‘Paconius’ no. 3; also citing CIL i2 . 2229 from Arkadia: the daughter of a Q. Paconius (RE xviii; col. 2123) ). The Paconius of Cic., QF 1. 1. 19 seems to be a stranger; his origins are unknown in any case. 10 Fam. 6. 18. 4–5. 11 Cf. Q70 where only the elder of the two sons of L. Caecilius Flaccus takes his cognomen. 12 Fam. 7. 5. 2. Cicero is supposed at this point at least to know Lepta. 13 Cice´ron, Correspondance, iii. 58 n. 1. 14 Cic., Fam. 6. 18. 3 (and Shackleton Bailey ad loc.), with Val. Max., 6. 2. 11. 15 Fam. 3. 7. 4, Att. 5. 17. 2 (‘Lepta noster miriWcus est’) suggests that he was quite competent. He remained with Cicero until they had returned to Italy. 16 Fam. 6. 18. 1; see further Ch. 10.
340
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
before he left for Cilicia, or under Caesar’s dictatorship. Perhaps we can suggest a more exact date. It is possible that Paconius was interested in Caesar’s law in 45, and that he found it easier to get information from Balbus via Cicero,17 precisely because he was in that year (or was to be in the next) IIII uir quinquennalis, and had not only the concerns of ‘clients’ to worry about, but would himself be charged with revising the membership of the senate of Cales under the terms of Caesar’s law. This can only be conjecture; but we may note that there are references to Paconius undergoing Wnancial and other diYculties under the dictatorship—these might be a suitable context for the honoriWc gesture of Cales.18 There are no signs in the text of Q75 of an earlier rather than a later date, but since it is only preserved in MS form this argument cannot be decisive. If the form ‘Paconii’ given in the text is correct, then the inscription might even be postCaesarian.19 In ILLRP 528 from Aletrium, Betilienus Vaarus was made censor twice because of his considerable muniWcence towards his fellow townsmen. A similar but not identical case is that of C. Falerius Niger of Brundisium (Q54), who had reached the quinquennial quattuorvirate, and who (like Betilienus) was being honoured with a statue (see Q54, l. 17) for works both Wnished and promised. Once again, here in Cales, we have a man who had indulged, and was still indulging, in considerable euergetism, a decision to honour him on the part of the local senate, and the fact that he was IIII uir quinquennalis. Such a combination of circumstances cannot be coincidental, and we have here strong evidence of the honoriWc status inherent in election to the quinquennial magistracy, which was of course coupled with exceptional responsibilities in the Weld of administration. This magistracy, if elected regularly between, say, the Sullan dictatorship and Actium, would have been open to only twenty-two men in each community under the Republic. It is likely that the position was Wlled less regularly (see below), thus further reducing the number of opportunities. The high status of the men who Wlled it emerges clearly, underlined if need be by what we have seen of the career of Q. Paconius Lepta. Lepta’s holding of the locatio for work to be done for his beneWt speaks well of his public-spiritedness, and perhaps of a desire to make available in the most impartial manner the money which the senate had decreed for the work, as opposed to engineering the appointment of a friend or dependant.
17 Of the two letters mentioning Cicero’s dealings with Balbus, Fam. 6. 18 (c.1 Feb. 45) is earlier than Att. 13. 46 (12 Aug. 45). 18 Att. 10. 11 (49, Wnancial), Fam. 9. 13. 2 (45, unspeciWed). In the former case, Lepta may have been suVering from the same shortness of ready cash which was aVecting everyone in Italy at the time, and the latter may be somewhat exaggerated (note its vagueness) to excite Dolabella’s sympathy. If Lepta was short of money, it did not prevent him considering taking on a cura munerum (related to games given by Caesar?—see Att. 13. 46. 2, Fam. 6. 19. 2 (both 45), Shackleton Bailey ad locc.). Cicero advised him that it was not worth the trouble. 19 Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1008 notes the rarity of the genitive singluar ending in ‘-ii’ in the republican period.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
341
For the suggestion that N. Cluvius of Puteoli (another very signiWcant individual) was IIII uir quinquennalis at Cales (in the 60s?) and not at Caudium as is usually thought, see discussion cited above on Q5–6. Q76 comes from Trebula Balliensis, whose territory was sandwiched between those of Cales and the Hirpini. At one point it had been a Samnite town, but by the Wrst century bc it was anchored within the Campanian cultural sphere. Two IIII uiri quinquennales are responsible for work on the town’s water supply.20 The inscription (there is also a broken duplicate) was cut on the side of an open basin, and it appears that these basins themselves formed (at least some of) the ‘lacus’ mentioned in the text.21 The date of the inscription is hard to estimate: the letters are poorly cut and have an old-fashioned look about them, especially the ‘C’s and the ‘S’s, but both men have cognomina. De Franciscis suggested a date around the middle of the century, and this seems acceptable,22 although perhaps one might want to push the date back to the earlier 50s on account of the lettering (not the strongest of reasons). A M. Marius M. f. Pup. Sophus, mentioned along with his son Marius Lupercus, is known from the Trebulan inscription CIL x. 4568, which De Franciscis dated later than Q76, proposing that he could be the son of our M. Marius N. f. Sophus of Q76.23 Taylor on the other hand wanted to identify the two, suggesting the incorrect carving of ‘M’ for an ‘N’ in Q76;24 Solin, however, points out that the photograph of this stone shows that ‘M’ was correct.25 Q76 not only has a rustic look; the formula ‘f(aciendum) ex d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) c(urauerunt)’ is also very unusual in the separation of the verb forms. This may reXect a relative isolation of Trebula from the mainstream of late republican cultural and urbanistic activity. The site is little known archaeologically, but never seems to have been very big.26 Aesernia, too, had once been a Samnite stronghold, but in the third century it became a Latin colony. The date of its municipalization is uncertain, since it was taken by the rebels in the Social War, and held out longer than any other rebel centre, until retaken in 79 bc. The municipalization of most of the rest of Italy had started some years before, but we do not have enough information to 20 Note the association of IIII uiri quinq. with the urban water supply: also Q54 l. 9 (‘canalesq’— probably foral, and to be associated with drainage); Q75, ll. 3–6, cf. ILLRP 528, ll. 10–12. 21 See De Franciscis, NSA (1954), 288, and 289, for the rereading of CIL x. 4561: ‘f. Cimber/[-----]n. aquam/[---] lacus f. ex/[---] c.’ . Photo: Solin, Iscrizioni, 42, no. 11. 22 NSA (1954), 289, cf. G. M. Forni, RSA (1972), 249 n. 12; Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 78, simply classes the inscription as republican. 23 NSA (1954), 290, cf. Solin, Iscrizioni, 54; he dates the stone to the early Empire (ibid. 54). 24 Voting Districts, 88 n. 27, cf. Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1009; that Rufrius Cimber was M., N. f. might have confused the lapicide. For another quattuorviral Marius, at the not too distant Aeclanum, see Q48. 25 Iscrizioni, 54 (photo on p. 53). 26 Mommsen, CIL x. p. 442, thought that Trebula Balliensis was the Trebula enfranchised with Arpinum in 304 bc, but the quattuorvirate makes this a priori unlikely, and the suggestion of Taylor, Voting Districts, 56 n. 35, 88 n. 27, that Livy (10. 1. 3) refers to Trebula SuVenas is preferable, cf. SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 207; Humbert, Municipium, 218; Solin, Iscrizioni, 14. Taylor, however, was not certain that Trebula Balliensis was enfranchised after the Social War cf. Voting Districts, 88 n. 27.
342
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
determine whether the sacked town was immediately made a municipium, or whether it languished for some years in municipal limbo (conceivably, like centres such as Volaterrae and Arretium, it suVered ademptio ciuitatis).27 Q77 may shed some light on the problem. It is part of what was originally a funerary monument of some size, adorned by a doric frieze.28 The one element helpful for dating is the title imperator. We know that a Nonius Gallus won a victory over the Treveri in or shortly after 29 bc, and it is generally assumed that the victor and the son of the IIII uir are identical, the victory having provided the reason for the salutation.29 If so, can we give a more exact date to the stone? Palaeographically speaking, the lettering, as it emerges from the photograph, is not well executed; it has some characteristics which look republican, and others which seem more imperial (for instance the tails of the ‘R’s). I think that it cannot date much after 29. What about M. Nonius himself? He does not give any magisterial career,30 and it may be that as one of Imperator Caesar’s legates in the years after Actium he enjoyed responsibility at an early age, while irregularities in the cursus were still tolerated. He seems to have been a new man, and thus was probably not Caesar’s legate before the age of 40. If he was about 45 when his father died, in say 25 bc, and his father had him when he was about 35 (the praenomen suggests that he was a second son), then we can suggest a birth date for M. Nonius Gallus of c.70 bc, and for C. Nonius of c.105 (he has no cognomen).31 He cannot have then been a magistrate before c.75 bc, and perhaps his quinquennial quattuorvirate should be placed about 65 bc. It might be later, but it will hardly be signiWcantly earlier. Thus we have a rough terminus ante quem for the municipalization of Aesernia; unfortunately we can 27 Degrassi believes that immediately after the Social War Aesernia had praetors as its magistrates (SVA i. 164, iii. 102, cf. Mommsen, CIL ix. p. 245) on the basis of the fragmentary CIL i2 . 1764: ‘TRO / NASO PR’. This should perhaps be assigned to the Latin colony, if magistrates of Latin colonies were automatically Roman citizens in the late 2nd cent., and went into the pre-assigned tribe for that town (see however Ch. 3). CIL i2 . 3204 from Aesernia has a II uir: Degrassi assigned him to the Latin colony (SVA iii. 101). Yet he has a cognomen, and the letter forms lead me to believe that this inscription rather belongs to the second half of the 1st cent.: perhaps the man in question had been a magistrate in the triumviral colony of Venafrum. His cognomen (if correctly restored as Co[tta]) is only found once in CIL x (4859), precisely at Venafrum. Arguments based on tribes at Aesernia carry little weight. CIL i2 . 1756 mentions the Teretina, but this should rather be referred to a family which originated from one of the many towns near Aesernia in that tribe. Note also an unpublished inscription mentioning a ‘IIII uir Aesern.’ whose tribe was Voltinia, that of the Pentri; see Degrassi, SVA iii. 100, 102. 28 See Mommsen ad loc. The decorative elements are visible in Torelli’s photograph, which unfortunately is small and not very clear, especially as regards the text. He suggests that the original monument was a funerary altar (DdA (1968), 33). 29 Dio, 51. 20. 5. For the identiWcation see Mommsen, CIL ix. p. 2642; Syme, RR 289 n. 2, 302 n. 5, and Torelli, DdA 1968, 33. They assert that Nonius Gallus’ victory belongs in 29. In fact Dio says only that despite the closing of the temple of Ianus in that year some tribes were still in arms, but were either insigniWcant or soon defeated, the Treveri by Gallus. This implies that the defeat came soon, but does not prove that it happened in the same year. 30 Barbara Levick suggests to me that he had not yet held a magistracy, but needed to give himself all the airs possible; if so the inscription may come very soon after his victory in Germany. 31 Twenty-Wve-year generations gives a date of c.100 bc for C. Nonius, with other dates similarly moved down.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
343
do nothing to improve on this. It may well be the case that the municipalization of the town had not occurred long before C. Nonius took oYce. Q78 comes from another Latin colony, Beneventum, which has previously provided us with three other quattuorviral inscriptions. It was found near a mill below Apollosa, near Beneventum; by the time Dressel saw it, it had fallen into the stream, and the already worn surface was not easy to read. Now it is long lost, and readings, not certain at Wrst, cannot be checked. As far as dating is concerned there is little to go on. One magistrate has a cognomen (if the restoration ‘[Vi]ndex’ is correct). The appearance of ‘constat’ followed by the sum spent on the bridge is not common but seems to appear towards the end of the Republic.32 There are few comparanda, but note CIL i2 . 3188a from Teanum Apulum, which seems to date from the middle of the Wrst century bc;33 the meagre evidence available to us suggests that this may be an acceptable date for Q78 as well. Note the ‘Sabellian’ names of the two IIII uiri quinquennales of this former Latin colony: (probably) Auf[idi]us and Fuf[idi]us. Q79, although found at Frigento, is probably from Aeclanum (see above on Q49 for the provenance).34 There is nothing about either the lettering35 or the spelling of Q79 which would lead one to place it right at the beginning of our period. Indeed, Degrassi notes the spelling ‘murum’, with which he compares ILLRP 608 from Grumentum, which has the consular date 57 bc (the earliest dated use of the more modern form).36 For a date, I suggest the 60s bc: note that censors were elected at Rome in 65.37 Quinquennales are known in imperial Italy, but this is the only republican attestation;38 there can be no doubt that, if not a lapicidal error, the title was that taken by the IIII uiri i. d. in censorial years. Q80 comes from southern Samnium, but should nevertheless probably not be taken as typical of that region’s municipal history. It is now at modern Macchia di Circello, the urban centre of the Ligures Baebiani, transplanted from Liguria to Samnium and settled on Roman ager publicus (the Campi Taurasini) in 180 bc.39 32 Equally, we might be dealing with a survival from the Wscal practice of the Latin colony. 33 See Russo, Teanum Apulum, 57; Krummrey, CIL i2 ad loc. 34 Conceivably, the quinquennales might in fact be a censorial form of a lesser, non-quattuorviral magistracy, refering to a centre serving the ager publicus between Frigento and Rocca San Felice; note the presence of Valgus, Sullan owner in the area, tied to the Roman colonists of Pompeii and the loyalist town of Aeclanum; was he again organizing Romans in this area? If so we might want to assign the stone to Frigento or Rocca San Felice. But it should probably go to Aeclanum nonetheless. On the urbanistic aspects see on Q49; the mention of ‘portas’ here need not be incompatible with the situation described in Q12. 35 See CIL i2 (4), tab. 138, Wg. 3. Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 36 ad ILLRP 598 (‘non oVendit’). 37 On which see Colucci Pescatori, in Italia dei Sanniti, 49–50. 38 Cf. Beloch, RG 506–8. The earliest example seems to be CIL x. 53 from Vibo Valentia, which is probably Augustan. 39 The stone at Macchia is the same as, not a copy of, one found earlier at Fragneto Monforte. The theory of two stones was upheld by Maio, Samnium (1984), 69–72 (with diVerences in preserved texts). In fact, as Michael Crawford pointed out to John Patterson, the breaks on the right-hand side are identical in both cases, and the breakage on the left would have been caused by transfer to Macchia (see Patterson, Samnites, 174). On the Ligures Baebiani generally, ibid. 117–33. For the debate over
344
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
The inscription is carefully cut, with square, regular letters. SeriWng is visible; the ‘C’ is starting to close; the ‘M’ has comparatively oblique hastae. Going solely on the letter forms it should belong either to the very end of the Republic or the early Augustan period;40 the former is perhaps preferable since neither magistrate has a cognomen (cf. too the spelling ‘eide[mque]’). The res publica Ligurum Baebianorum can be expected to have lagged behind much of Italy in things like epigraphic fashions, and in fact a triumviral date may be the most suitable, which Wts quite well with a late municipal development. The Ligurians were originally settled on ager publicus, and probably given equal plots of land, thus hindering the quick emergence of a local elite; in a people who, like the Samnites among whom they were settled, were primarily village dwellers,41 there would have been a strong block to anything but gradual emergence of a nucleated centre serving the whole territory. In Samnium, as in upland areas generally, the creation of urban settlements seems to be a phenomenon of the Augustan period.42 At Ligures Baebiani itself the picture is not clear, although recent excavations should add to our knowledge. Black Gloss pottery at Macchia may indicate that a Ligurian uicus grew up there in the second century, and a possible expansion of the urban area in the Wrst century ad may be represented by an Italian Terra Sigillata scatter in adjacent areas.43 The municipalization of Ligures Baebiani should then belong between the late Republic and the early Empire, a date which would Wnd parallels elsewhere. One possible impetus to municipalization may have been the foundation after Philippi of the colony at nearby Beneventum. Patterson has suggested, very plausibly, that Ligures Baebiani lost only a fraction of its territory to Beneventum.44 The colonization must, though, have provoked some shake-up at Ligures Baebiani, and one possible result was a wholesale reorganization of the territory and the community, leading to municipalization in the triumviral period. Caesius and Tullius might be the community’s Wrst censorial magistrates.45 The names of the magistrates themselves are interesting. Neither is really either a Samnite or a Ligurian name, but rather belong to a more northerly part of the Central Apennine area, especially the Volscian territory. Both men are perhaps to be seen as landowners in the territory of Ligures Baebiani, or as connected with whether the Ligures Corneliani had a separate urban centre, and its possible location, see Pliny, HN 3. 105; Patterson, Samnites, 149–50; Johannowsky, in Romanisation du Samnium; Iasiello, in Lo Cascio and Stochi Marino (eds.), Modalita` insediativi; Torelli, Benevento romano, 134 n. 73, wants to attribute this text to Benevento; the idea merits further consideration. 40 Cf. Maio, Samnium (1984), 72, Patterson, Samnites, 174–5. 41 Patterson, Samnites, 126–7, 133, 146–7 (the name itself might imply scattered settlement patterns), 150. 42 See in general here, ibid. 146; Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 217–23, 227–32. 43 Patterson, Samnites, 162, cf. 147, 150. See also ibid. 148–9, for an account of vigorous municipal life in the early imperial period. 44 Ibid. 141–2. 45 Opting for a slightly later municipalization, we might want to see a synchronism between the Roman census of 27 and that at Ligures Baebiani, as happened at Venusia (CIL ix. 422).
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
345
the transhumance of sheep there, perhaps having an origo other than Ligures Baebiani.46 Patterson has noted how the Ligurians seem to be invisible archaeologically speaking:47 and we may wonder how many men they could have provided who had much idea about municipal administration in the early days of the municipium. At any rate the fact that men who are not obviously of local stock are found holding such an important oYce is highly signiWcant. Q81 comes from Bruttium, from the municipium of Petelia. The stone is marble, and this, together with the slight moulding around the edges provide an initial indication of a later date in our period.48 Palaeographically speaking, the stone does not look very late, with open ‘C’s, splayed ‘M’s, and little seriWng (but Petelia may have been far from cultural currents). If we knew what kind of marble had been used (Greek or Luna), we might be able to Wx the date better, Italian marble excluding a date before Caesar’s dictatorship at the earliest. The careful cutting probably points to a date in the second half of the century, as do the other factors considered above, although the shape of the ‘M’ and the lack of cognomina in the names of both magistrates suggest to me that the possibility of an Augustan date raised by Degrassi should not carry too much weight.49 Note also that the abbreviation ‘Ioui O. M.’ seems to be very rare before the Principate.50 The names of the magistrates deserve comment. Herius is an Sabellic name (one thinks of Herius Asinius, the Marrucinian leader in the Social War). Caedicius is more interesting: it too may be an Oscan name. Before the discovery of this stone, the only known IIII uir of Petelia was the Antonine M’. Megonius whose epitaph we have already considered.51 Mancini noted that Megonius’ mother was a Caedicia Iris, and this probably inXuenced his dating of Q81; its importance lies rather in the possible continuity among the elite of Petelia between the very end of the Republic and the Antonine period, a possibility reinforced by the historical consciousness which we have already seen displayed in Megonius’ epitaph. We move east into Apulia, which provides us with four attestations. The Wrst of these is Q54 from Brundisium, discussed and dated to c.40 bc in Chapter 7; the quinquennial quattuorvirate probably dates to only a year or two before the 46 Beneventum? Note the M. Tullius who was a land owner in the territory of Thurii in the 70s (Cic., Pro Tullio 14). As Patterson (Samnites, 175) notes, the name Caesius is attested near Pesco Sannita (CIL ix. 1510), and he also points to a fundus Caesianus in the pagus Tucianus, mentioned in the Alimentary table (CIL ix. 1455. II. 27). 47 Samnites, 187. Note, however, that some of the names on the Alimentary table of Ligures Baebiani do seem to be Celtic (Frederiksen, in Hellenismus, ii). 48 Marble: Mancini, NSA (1939), 147. Turano, Arch. Class. (1955), 85, makes the interesting suggestion that the strange shape of the side mouldings is an attempt to represent magisterial fasces, which again would be rare in the republican period (cf. the tomb of Ennius Marsus, Saepinum). 49 CIL i2 . p. 1022. Turano (Arch. Class. (1955), 85–6) and Degrassi are both right to reject Mancini’s dating of the text to the late 1st or early 2nd cent. ad on grounds of nomenclature and letter forms (NSA (1939), 147). 50 Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Puteoli (1987), 3 n. 4. Q6 may be a Xy in her ointment, however, if the MS text is correct, which she doubts; but see Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 45. 51 CIL x. 113–14; see Ch. 4.
346
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
setting up of the inscription. The honouring of C. Falerius Niger for his euergetism is a signal example of the socio-political importance attached to tenure of the quinquennial quattuorvirate, and the centrality of muniWcence as an attribute of the magistracy (see also above on Q75). Q82 comes from Rubi, north from Brundisium on the Apulian coast. Palaeographically, it looks moderately early, with open ‘C’s, a round ‘O’, a ‘Q’ with a horizontal tail; there are few serifs. On the other hand the mention of the tribe becomes more common later in the Wrst century; one of the magistrates has a cognomen; and the early appearance of the letters may be due as much to the comparative insigniWcance of Rubi, and to the worn surface of the stone, as to the date at which it was cut. G. M. Forni dated the stone to the Wrst half of the century;52 in my opinion it is also unlikely to be earlier than the mid 60s. What we have of this inscription does not attest the quattuorvirate explicitly, but Beloch had already guessed that Rubi was a quattuorviral community;53 and, as Forni points out, there are no special circumstances at Rubi which would make us expect the duovirate rather than the quattuorvirate. Further, it seems that she is right in her restoration of ‘[A. Alsin]aeus’ in l. 1; this man is termed ‘pater’ simply to distinguish him from his homonymous son.54 This gives us the length of l. 1. Now, the Wrst three lines (and l. 5) Wnish on the right at the very edge of the stone, and it would be most odd if they did not also begin on the left hand side at the edge of the stone.55 In which case, only ‘[IIII uir q]uinq.’ will Wll the available space. The restoration of the rest of the missing text is largely unproblematic. The comparative material cited by Forni makes it probable that the second half of l. 3 should be read ‘muru(m) et turri(s)’;56 ‘ex’ has probably been lost from the beginning of l. 4, since ‘d. d.’ alone is quite rare, and spoils the symmetry of the text.57 Whatever the Wrst nomen was in line 5 we cannot say, but since it was some eight or nine letters long, it was not the same as that lost at the start of l. 2. The last line is slightly more problematic. We probably need ‘ex’ again before ‘d. d’, and Forni is also right to exclude the presence of any form of Wlius at the start of the line, something which would be unparalleled in a case where, as plausibly here, father and son are homonymous.58 Those who approved the work for which 52 RSA (1972), 246–7. Forni notes (p. 251) that ‘[ex] d. d. f. l.’ (l. 5) is found only once elsewhere, and with other words breaking up the formula, namely at Cereatae Marianae: ILLRP 466, from the middle of the century; and that ‘proba’ (l. 6) is a hapax. The explanation for these rare forms of expression could lie in Rubi’s marginality with respect to contemporary currents of municipal sophistication and fashion, or in the date of the stone (or both). 53 RG 502. 54 RSA (1972), 248. Knowing the length of the lines does not enable us to restore the name of the second magistrate; Forni rehearses the possibilities. It seems that the mark on the stone before ‘]atius’ in l. 2 is not part of a letter (Degrassi thought an ‘N’—Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1026), but only surface damage: Forni, RSA (1972), 248, who, however, narrows the preceding letter down to a choice from C, I, L, or N. 55 Cf. ibid. 245. 56 Ibid. 249, cf. 253. Gasperini, who gave the preliminary notice of the inscription, suggested ‘turri(m)’: in Terza Miscellanea, 153 n. 3. 57 Ibid.; Forni, RSA (1972). 58 Forni, RSA (1972), 250–1.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
347
the locatio had been held under the magistrates mentioned in ll. 1–2 should be the magistrates of the next year, in which case they will hardly be IIII uiri quinquennales, as Forni suggests. Her alternative supplement, ‘IIII uir(i) i. d.’, is preferable, but I do not share her conviction that since the highest magistrates carried out the locatio, the senior pair for the next year must have carried out the probatio.59 The probatio could surely be entrusted to any magistrates in whom the senate had conWdence, and we have seen plenty of examples in Chapter 6 of IIII uiri nude dicti, as the lower pair of magistrates, carrying out and approving work of this magnitude. Further more it seems from the photograph that the right-hand end of l. 6 is indented slightly with respect to the preceding lines (except l. 4). We may therefore expect a similar indentation at the start of l. 6 (all the more so since, had the lapicide wanted to use the full area of the stone available on the right, he could have avoided the hapax ‘proba’). Thus the length of the missing part of the line is probably about nine to ten letters. ‘[IIII uir i. d. ex]’ is a bit of a squeeze at eleven letters, but the lower pair of IIII uiri rarely sees to probatio. Furthermore let us consider the signiWcance of father and son holding oYce in successive years. The quinquennial quattuorvirate of A. Alsinaeus pater will have had both juridical and political consequences for his son. He will have revised the roll of decurions in his year of oYce, and allowing for a modicum of support from his colleague he will have been able to engineer a trade-oV between the maintenance in, or elevation to, the ordo of certain individuals, and the pursuance of his own political objectives with their support. Furthermore he could quite easily have foreseen (or perhaps rather planned) the need for probatio after the end of his year of oYce,60 and wielded considerable auctoritas as IIII uir quinquennalis in order to ensure that the probatio was entrusted to the next pair of IIII uiri—in the full knowledge that one of them would probably be his son. Moved by the twin levers of support gained through his revision of the ordo, and inXuence gained from his important position at Rubi, his gerrymandering will have easily turned things to his son’s beneWt. If young Alsinaeus had not beneWted enough from having his father as one of Rubi’s supreme magistrates in the year in which he stood for oYce for the Wrst time, he also had the opportunity to win some acclaim for himself, and to advertise his name through the probatio of a major piece of building work. If I am right about the date of this inscription, the building (or rebuilding) of a wall at this time may have had less to do with strategic requirements than with the self-image of Rubi.61
59 Ibid. 250. Forni (247 n. 7) quotes a communication from Silvio Panciera, who justiWes the appearance of IIII uiri i. d. on the grounds that Italian municipia had jurisdiction from immediately after the Social War. This is, of course, probably correct, as we shall see; but as we have noted above, there is no causal connection between jurisdictional function and the title iure dicundo. 60 It was usual in the municipia and coloniae for the same magistrates to be responsible for both cura / locatio and for probatio (ibid. 253–4, cf. 255, for examples and permutations of this rule). 61 ‘Muru(m)’ means we are dealing with probably only one stretch of wall. We cannot extrapolate from this, as Forni does, a refashioning of the urban aspect of Rubi ‘forse su sollecitazione di Roma’ (ibid. 256).
348
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
In working with municipal families, one often feels constrained to distribute the bare names of sparsely attested gentes over generations of arbitrary length to Wll out the blank pages of local history (and the predicament of a Cn. Gellius or a Valerius Antias becomes less alien as one goes on). Here we have a valuable counter-example of how two generations of one family can choose to hold oYce in succeeding years in order to further the political fortunes of the gens, and how powerful families could engineer the municipal life of the town for their own beneWt.62 One is struck by how much harder it must have been, at Rome, for the new man to make headway without contacts or help. The assistance provided between generations of Alsinaei through institutional mechanisms recalls Rome, and the (admittedly not exactly analogous) case of Augustus assuming the consulship in 5 and again in 2 bc in order to introduce his grandsons Gaius and Lucius into public life.63 It is more closely paralleled at Cora, where two diVerent people are authorized by the senate to carry out the building and the probatio: they are a [] Calvius P. f. P. n. and a [] Calvius M. f. P. n.; it is hard to resist the implication that they are cousins.64 One last point may be made about Q82. It oVers the Wrst evidence of Rubi’s tribe, the Claudia. This is also the tribe of Barium, Caelia, and Tarentum (?) to the south (the Wrst two not necessarily municipalized in the republican period); if we knew the tribe of Bituntum, whose territory was contiguous with that of Rubi to the south, and that of Barium (?) in the north, then we would know whether this part of Apulia formed one large tribal block, which might have interesting implications for our view of the initial muncipalization of the region.65 Q83 comes from Herdonia, at the other end of Apulia. It was found in the Belgian excavations at Ordona in 1962, re-employed face down, and with the right-hand side missing, in the paving of the south entrance of the amphitheatre. 62 If Forni (ibid. 252) is right in her suggestion that the rare nomen Alsinaeus may be related to similar names found in Messapic, we may suppose that the gens was of some antiquity in the area, even if Rubi was, strictly speaking, outside the Messapic heartland. This derivation seems better than one from Alsius. 63 If A. Alsinaeus junior was in fact IIII uir i. d., then my case loses some of its force, but is not invalidated: a man might need an easy beginning to high oYce as much as for the start of public life. Note also that Alsinaeus pater must have been in his 60s when he held the quinquennial quattuorvirate, (as it seems, for the Wrst time). 64 ILLRP 60 with Forni, RSA (1972), 254. The repetition of the senatorial endorsement, as at Rubi, is striking. Sadly, we can only guess at the identity of the prime mover of this arrangement in the Coran senate—but we are entitled to suspect a P. Calvius P. f. One also thinks of the attempt of Cicero to win favours from Brutus for Arpinum in a year in which he wanted his son and nephew to hold a special aedileship (Fam. 13. 11. 3). Cf. also CIL xi. 5276 for an imperial case from Hispellum. The repetition of the senatorial authorization in Q82 may spring from a two-stage process in the local senate itself. Probably a new debate and decree were required when Alsinaeus senior announced that the wall could not be approved during his magistracy; perhaps his son was IIII uir-elect by this time. See, in more general terms, Forni, RSA (1972), 256. For a pre-Roman case of (probable) relatives supervising one project as magistrates in successive years see ILLRP 550 (Asisium): Ner. Capidas C. f. Rufus and C. Capidas T. f. C. n. —see Coarelli, Atti Acc. Prop. (1991), 12 and n. 11. 65 Forni, RSA (1972), 252–3, 256. Cf. Chelotti, Supp. It. ns 11: 17, for the suggestion the Gnathia was in the Claudia.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
349
This gives us a terminus ante quem, since the amphitheatre dates to the middle of the Wrst century ad.66 How much earlier is in question. The lettering is good, and could be Augustan as much as republican.67 The almost exaggerated seriWng (for example, in the bar over ‘IIII’ in l. 3), the closed ‘C’, the elongated ‘O’, the tall ‘D’, and the fancy ‘Q’ all look late, and the apex on the ‘V’ of Funius is characteristic of imperial epigraphy rather than republican;68 but the forms ‘coiraver’ and ‘eide[m]’ in l. 5 all counsel a date not too late, and thus I assign Q83 (tentatively) to the triumviral period. An additional proof is perhaps the mention of a ‘balneum’ (known only from this inscription and presumably demolished before the building of the amphitheatre, which perhaps suited more populist tastes in entertainment), a type of building rarely found in a municipal context outside Campania under the Republic, but which becomes more common under the Empire, as at Rome, especially with the rise of free bathing. Indeed the provision of such a ‘state of the art’ amenity might be the kind of action we would associate with the kind of men able to become IIII uiri quinquennales, presumably men of importance both in and outside their communities, in touch with fashions and trends elsewhere in Italy, especially at Rome. Little more can be said about Q83. Rubrius is a common name in north and central Italy, and excites no comment, unless Degrassi’s supplement ‘Tinti[rianus]’ for the cognomen, based on the Herdonian name Tintirius (CIL ix. 692), and implying an adoption from that family, is correct. In that case the Rubrii might not originally be a Herdonian family. Funius on the other hand is a very rare name. The fourth Apulian quinquennial quattuorvirate is from Luceria (Q55), which I suggested in Chapter 7 might be triumviral or Augustan. Note the association here, as in Q54 (Brundisium) of the quinquennial quattuorvirate with the augurate or pontiWcate. We now move north to the Paelignian town of CorWnium. Our Q84 started life as CIL ix. 3173, which was probably lost when S. Pelino, where it was immured, was damaged in an earthquake in 1706. Only one G. Mascitti had read the stone, and he had copied it into a sylloge he was preparing in c.1698. From this original MS, now also lost, all subsequent texts of the stone descend, including Mommsen’s text in CIL. In 1960, during restoration inside S. Pelino, that thesaurus of Paelignian inscriptions, part of the inscription turned up again cut into the back of a stemma vescovile. The identiWcation of the fragment was quickly made by Adriano La Regina, but it was not until the 1980s that a serious reconsideration of Mommsen’s text on the basis of the recovered fragment was attempted, by Devijver and Van Wonterghem.69 One immediate consequence was the addition 66 De Boe, in Ordona, ii, 97, 121. 67 Cf. Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1028. Van Wonterghem, Ordona, ii. 154, classes Q83, his no. 10, as the only republican inscription found during the exacavations up to 1966. More caution could have been expressed at this point: his no. 11 ( ¼ CIL i2 . 3187) is rather the one obvious republican text. 68 Van Wonterghem, Ordona, ii. 137. 69 Historia (1983), 484–507. See 484–90 on the circumstances of Mascitti’s copying, the textual tradition that culminated in Mommsen’s text, with its curious ‘theatrum/aluendum’, and the recovery of the fragment.
350
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
of another republican text—indeed, a rare testimony of Apennine municipal life—to the corpus. Having both the right-hand edge of the stone and the last line, indeed the last word, Devijver and Van Wonterghem were able to reconstruct the text in toto, with interesting results. Their text, however, while a great improvement on Mommsen’s, has one or two Xaws. In l. 2 they saw ‘mundum’ on the stone (where Mommsen had read the hapax ‘aluendum’) as being a complete word, which they referred to a structure connected with the cult of Ceres, a mundus Cereris, either in, or near, the theatre, as part of a temple–theatre complex, or elsewhere in the town.70 This is ingenious, but somewhat far-fetched, and has little to recommend it apart from the prominence of the worship of Ceres at CorWnium (Ceres, of course, is not mentioned in the text; public inscriptions do not do their job of enhancing the status of the individuals named if they are not obviously intelligible). Furthermore, as Crawford has remarked, Devijver and Van Wonterghem’s reconstruction of l. 2 leaves it as the only one shorter than the others, the only one which does not completely Wll the available space on the stone.71 Crawford suggests reading ‘e]mundum’; there can be no serious objection either to this, the asyndetic construction ‘[theatrum e]mundum / [gradus faci]endos cura(uerunt)’, or the form of emere, or again the use of ‘theatrum’ meaning ‘(space for a) theatre’.72 Crawford’s reading should stand, and is supported by the fact that all the MS sources for the text agree that Mascitti read ‘theatrum eundum gradus faciedos [sic]’ here.73 Devijver and Van Wonterghem also give a false reading in l. 5. Their photograph clearly shows that the stone has ‘QVNIA A’, but they read ‘[pe]quniam’, taking the second ‘A’ as half of a damaged ‘M’, and its horizontal bar as a mark on the stone caused by the later reworking, and diVerent in height and character from the horizontal bar in the Wrst, ‘real’, ‘A’. The diVerence looks to be imaginary, however; the only later damage to the stone is the mark which comes between the two ‘A’s. The correct text (as I see it) was given here by Buonocore, although his translation is unsatisfactory, and depends on reading a (probably non-existent) ‘N’ as the penultimate letter of l. 6, to give ‘retribuerent’ (I will return to this problem below).74 70 Historia (1983), 498–507, esp. 504–6, cf. 494–5. Cf. Van Wonterghem, Superaequum, CorWnium, Sulmo, 123–4 (the old text of Antinori with incorrect readings and line divisions, but already reading ‘mundum’); and the supplemento, 310–11, repeating the conclusions of the Historia article. 71 Epigraphica (1990), 142–3. See Devijver and Van Wonterghem’s drawing, Historia (1983), 491. 72 This sense might Wnd a sort of parallel in the use of ‘spectacula’ to describe the amphitheatre at Pompeii (ILLRP 646). 73 Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), 494, (my italics). As they have shown, it is likely that the telescope used by Mascitti to read the stone gave him an upside-down image, and this, together with the ‘N’ of ‘[facie]ndos’ immediately below the Wrst ‘M’ of mundum, may have confused him. 74 Buonocore, Supp. It. ns 3: 146–7, no. 9. The way his text is set out implies that more letters are visible than is the case. Devijver and Van Wonterghem (ZPE 73 (1988), 105–6) defended their reading, and criticized Buonocore’s interpretation, perhaps in over-emphatic manner: while the latter’s reading of l. 6 is probably wrong, it is not true to say that the stone ‘manifestly displays retribueret’ (p. 105). The reading I have adopted happens to be that also put forward by Crawford, Epigraphica (1990), 142–3.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
351
What could the date of this text be? The letters are carefully cut but very square looking. The ‘M’ is strongly splayed, the ‘V’ is broad where space permits, the tail of the ‘Q’ Xat and straight, and the ‘C’s open. Some slight serifs are visible, but generally a ‘serif eVect’ is obtained through a slight widening of the hasta towards the top or the foot of the letter. Muttius75 has a cognomen; the old form ‘[pe]qunia’ exists beside the more recent ‘cura’.76 The abbreviation ‘IIII [u(ir) q(uinq.)]’ is unusual and, while mainly due to considerations of space, looks a triXe rustic. Now, while CorWnium, as we shall see, was probably slow to be municipalized, and to acquire ‘modern’ urban characteristics, it was not a backwater, in the sense that it lay at a vital strategic junction between the Via Valeria leading from Rome to the Adriatic, and another road linking Samnium with the central Italian Apennines via the altopiano of the Cinquemiglia. Thus, even if it languished after the Social War, it remained exposed to outside cultural inXuences, and we must bear both of these conXicting considerations in mind when trying to date the stone. Devijver and Van Wonterghem dated the stone partly by lexical and palaeographical items, and partly by reference to the theatre, to a point between the capitulation of CorWnium’s garrison to Caesar in 49, and the beginning of the Principate, more speciWcally to a point not long after 49.77 Going purely on the considerations I advanced above, I would suggest that a date in the middle of the century is probably the right one, but I Wnd Devijver and Van Wonterghem’s reasons for excluding a date before 49 bc unconvincing, and the inscription, and the buildings mentioned in it, might be as early as the 50s. They refer to an external wall of the theatre, preserved in a modern cellar, which was built in opus reticulatum or opus quasi-reticulatum.78 No photograph is provided, and it is thus impossible to determine which of the two was actually used; a clear distinction may not even be feasible. If it was opus reticulatum, then the theatre will probably not belong to the Wrst half of the century.79 The evidence of Caesar is important here. Devijver and Van Wonterghem state that since the outer wall of the cavea of the theatre rests in part against the old acropolis of CorWnium, the building of the theatre must have meant the cutting of the acropolis wall. Had the theatre thus been built before 49, the strategic integrity of CorWnium would have been compromised, and Caesar’s actions at 75 For this name, which must be the correct reading as against Mommsen’s unparalleled ‘Mittius’, see Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), 492—Dessau had already changed Mittius to M[u]ttius without comment (ILS 5642). The name is known at CorWnium only here (Buonocore, Supp. It. ns 3: 147); elsewhere in Italy it appears at Alba Fucens, Asisium, Ateste, Beneventum, Pompeii, Tarentum, and Volsinii—a fair, if thin, spread (see Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), 492) 76 The MSS tradition for the lost section of the stone preserves the form ‘senatique’, a more archaic form of senatusque—ibid. 495. 77 Ibid. 496–8, cf. Buonocore, Supp. It. ns 3: 147. 78 Historia (1983), 497, cf. Van Wonterghem, Superaequum, CorWnium, Sulmo, 123–4. 79 Note the verdict of Coarelli, Italia Centrale, 467: ‘La datazione dell’ ediWcio ai primi decenni del I sec. a. C., deducibile dalle strutture, e` confermata da un’iscrizione’. The construction technique of the small exposed part of the theatre looks quite rough, but that does not necessarily imply an early date.
352
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
CorWnium would have been diVerent: in particular he would never have used the term pars munitissima of the acropolis.80 This view has something to commend it, but at the same time it has important weaknesses. The Wrst is that I do not believe that we know enough in detail about the course of the old acropolis fortiWcations to be certain of the eVect the theatre will have had on their integrity. More important is the fact that Caesar himself seems to imply that the wall around which he laid siege works was not that of the acropolis. He frequently refers to CorWnium as ‘oppidum’,81 which he seems to use as meaning ‘nucleated settlement’, but with overtones of ‘fortiWed settlement in a defensible position’. He decided to surround it with a rampart and towers as soon as he had enough men to have two separate camps on either side of the town. Caesar had arrived at the town with two legions,82 but he did not begin his fortiWcations until the Eighth Legion, twenty-two new cohorts and three hundred Norican cavalry had arrived.83 Obviously a numerical advantage over Domitius’ thirty-three cohorts was desirable, but he had already chased part of Domitius’ force oV in an initial encounter,84 and must have suspected that Domitius would not be keen to attempt another sally; as indeed he did not. Part of Caesar’s need for the extra men must be explained by the amount of work involved in putting earthworks around CorWnium, earthworks which, as it happened, were not quite Wnished a few days later.85 It cannot be the case that, in the face of an enemy who are not mentioned as making any attacks, Caesar needed more than three legions and a number of days to surround the area of the old acropolis of CorWnium, even allowing for the steep slopes on three sides.86 The walls of CorWnium before which he had halted (‘ad oppidum constitit iuxtaque murum castra posuit’, 1. 16. 3) will hardly be those of the acropolis. CorWnium then had another, more substantial circuit in 49 bc.87 Other aspects of Caesar’s narrative then become more intelligible. We are told that while waiting for help from Pompeius, Domitius ‘suos cohortatus tormenta in muris disponit certasque cuique partes ad custodiam urbis attribuit’.88 Yet the resolve of some of his men began to break when it became obvious that Domitius’ 80 Historia (1983), 497–8. 81 BC 1. 16. 2–3, 18. 1, 6 etc. 82 BC 1. 15. 6, cf. 16. 3. 83 BC 1. 18. 5. 84 BC 1. 16. 3. 85 BC 1. 18. 6: ‘reliquis diebus oppidum . . . circummunire instituit. cuius operis maxima parte eVecta . . .’ The time taken to get this far with the work is the time taken for Domitius’ messengers to get to and from Pompeius in Luceria, minus the three days which Caesar waited for reinforcements: perhaps a minimum of four days’ building? 86 Van Wonterghem’s plan (Superaequum, CorWnium, Sulmo, Wg. 108) gives the ‘perimetro della citta`’ (his line ‘b’) as about 500 m long, and a little more than 250 m at its widest. As I understand it, bearing in mind the topography of CorWnium (autopsy, Apr. 1993), and the point Devijver and Van Wonterghem are trying to make, the area covered represented by the acropolis would be much smaller, perhaps some 200 m long by 100 m wide. 87 Gabba, Italia romana, 86–7, seems to envisage a city wall, rebuilt after a sack in the Social War. Carter, ad BC 1. 18. 6, gives the distance needed to circumvallate CorWnium as ‘8 km or so’, but does not show his working. 88 BC 1. 17. 3. I would imagine that there would not be much room to swing a tormentum inside the acropolis circuit.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
353
heart was not in the defence of CorWnium, and what Caesar calls a secessio of the various units comprising the defenders’ force followed.89 The general opinion seemed to be that if Domitius was going to abandon them, his men might legitimately take thought for their own safety.90 The Marsic recruits, interestingly loyal to Domitius after his other military tribunes and centurions had proposed defection, disagreed, and Caesar says that ‘eamque oppidi partem quae munitissima uideretur occupant’,91 and were prepared to Wght the other contingents (from Alba Fucens, the Paeligni, and the force of Vibullius Rufus, some of whom may have been Picene92) until they found out the facts about Domitius’ intended Xight.93 Now, this pars munitissima is clearly within the circuit of the walls held by Domitius’ thirty-three cohorts, not identical with it. It can only be the acropolis, as Devijver and Van Wonterghem stated;94 but the fact that the Marsi chose to occupy it says nothing about the presence of a theatre on its slopes. Faced with a possible clash with soldiers already inside the fortiWcations of the town, they would have occupied the strongest available point that could be held by several cohorts, theatre or no. If Caesar calls the acropolis ‘munitissima’ he does so to make his narrative brief but comprehensible; and it was in his interests to exaggerate the extent to which the cities he won over were fortiWed, and thus inXate the impression made by his bloodless victories, and the defections to his side of such strongholds. From BC 1. 23. 4 it emerges that CorWnium had IIII uiri in 49, although Caesar supplies no details about them.95 This means that CorWnium was Wrst municipalized in 49 at the latest, and the initiative for its constitution will thus go back at least to 50 bc. This, strictly speaking, contradicts the view of Devijver and Van Wonterghem that the theatre was the Wrst public building of CorWnium (possibly true—the building done at ‘Italica’ in 91/90 probably did not survive the Social War), and that the inscription, which signals the start of CorWnium’s development as a Roman nucleated settlement at the centre of its own territorium, can be seen as ‘l’atto di fondazione ‘‘della CorWnium romana’’ ’.96 The inscription does tell us that around the time of the Second Civil War, at which point CorWnium had become a walled settlement again, the construction of public buildings was under way, though we cannot use one inscription to gauge the strength or nature of this urban change. The last, and in some ways the most interesting, aspect of this inscription is the mention of the pagi. Q84 is organized as follows. The Wrst line gives Muttius’ name and oYce, ll. 2–3 describe what he has done, and the last half of the 89 BC 1. 20. 1–2. 90 Ibid. 91 BC 1. 20. 3. 92 BC 1. 15. 4–7. 93 Appian, BC 2. 38, has a very brief account, where the townspeople of CorWnium hand Domitius over to Caesar. 94 Historia (1983), 498. 95 ‘sestertium sexagies, quod aduexerat Domitius atque in publico deposuerat, adlatum ad se ab IIII uiris CorWniensibus Domitio reddit’. ‘IIII uiris’ was read by Mommsen for ‘iis’ or ‘his uiris’ of the MSS. 96 Historia (1983), 507, cf. 498. This notion is even more fanciful than their idea that Muttius Celer secured election to the quinquennial quattuorvirate by standing on a ‘ticket’ of paying for the theatre himself (ZPE (1988), 106). Municipal euergetism works in entirely other ways.
354
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
inscription, according to Devijver and Van Wonterghem, advertises the fact that the money destined for the theatre was, on his initiative, returned to ‘populo pageis’ (l. 6).97 This interpretation has been questioned, and rightly so, since the correct text of Q84 is diVerent from theirs. Buonocore, acting on a suggestion from Panciera, took ‘pageis’ as an archaic nominative, and understood the text here as meaning that the pagi restored the ‘pecunia(m) a populo’, i.e. the public money, from which the theatre’s construction would have been Wnanced.98 This interpretation is rather forced, and frankly does not convince; it also relies on the last word of the text being ‘retribuerent’, which is most uncertain.99 The role of Muttius becomes much less clear, and we are not told why he should have wished to advertise this action of the pagi. How, though, should one translate these words, bearing in mind that Buonocore’s text (‘utei pequnia(m) a populo pageis’100) is to be preferred? Three translations are possible: either that Muttius carried an SC (not a common piece of municipal institutional language at this period) to the eVect that the money for the theatre should be returned to the pagi by a vote of the CorWniate assembly; or that, understanding ‘datam’ in l. 6, the money given by the people should be returned to the pagi;101 or, in my view the most likely, that the money should be returned from the treasury (‘a populo’) to the pagi. This, if correct, means that the sole contributors were the pagi, and that the Wnances of the municipium were not involved, for what reason we cannot say. This activity on the part of the pagi gives us an unparalleled view of how the Italian municipia functioned Wnancially in the middle of the Wrst century bc. It seems that this method of payment for public buildings was fairly common, but that it was the return of the contribution to the donors which was unusual, and which Muttius wished to advertise.102 Martin Frederiksen discussed pagi in the late Republic and the Empire in a valuable contribution to Hellenismus in Mittelitalien.103 He notes the absence of the pagus as a unit from late republican municipal legislation, seeing it as being in that period rather a ‘territorial concept’, a division of territory which could, but 97 Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), 494 98 Supp. It. ns 3: 146–7. 99 Cf. Devijver and Van Wonterghem, ZPE (1988), 105–6; Crawford, Epigraphica (1990), 142. 100 The loss of the Wnal M of ‘pequnia(m)’ was perhaps due to lapicidal confusion caused by the Wnal ‘M’ of ‘consultum’. 101 Devijver and Van Wonterghem, ZPE (1988), 106 n. 3, suggest that perhaps the populus is understood as an amalgamation of pagi, and that the distribution was carried out through pagi. 102 Frederiksen, in Hellenismus, ii. 353 saw regular Wnancial contributions as unlikely, preferring to see the pagus contribution in terms of munera-like road upkeep. Devijver and Van Wonterghem (Historia (1983), 496, 507) point out that Muttius needed to get a senatus consultum passed since this was public money which was to be returned; cf. the mention of the CorWnian treasury in Caes., BC 1. 23. 4. They must also be right that the pagi were expected to Wnance their own building programmes as well as contributing to those of the municipium. 103 Hellenismus, ii. 341–55, esp. 350, 352 on Q84 (where he refers to the pagus Lavernae, not pagi, presumably because that is the only known pagus in the territory of CorWnium); see Ch. 2 on pagi.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
355
need not, contain nucleated settlements.104 He traces the importance of the pagi as Wnancial and censual units under the Empire back to a development which began in the late Republic, and was related to the synoikistic tendencies inherent in the process of municipalization, and the Wnancial centralization which went hand in hand with the growth of urban municipal centres.105 Without control over the Wnancial resources of its territory, one settlement could never have achieved prosperity and pre-eminence as the main urban unit of that area. Contributio, as Frederiksen termed it, of pagi to urban centres was thus vital to the growth the municipal system in Italy, but it must have taken a while to get going in some inland areas, some pagi remaining unsynoikized or unmunicipalized until the beginning of the Principate. Alternatively, where no contributio occurred, smaller settlements could synoikize on their own account, and produce new municipia in the territories of old communities; this process too may have taken time to come to fruition.106 The mention of the pagi in Q84 is thus also valuable because it demonstrates the advance of municipalization at CorWnium. It implies that the whole territorium of CorWnium has been organized, and that this organization is not only geographical or administrative, but censual and Wscal as well.107 That may perhaps encourage us to move the municipalization of CorWnum back some way before the date of our text.108 If Muttius was one of the Wrst IIII uiri quinquennales, then we would expect the municipium to have been constituted Wve years earlier, in the mid-50s. Yet it is probable that the Wrst pair of quinquennial magistrates would have been concerned with collecting and recording just the kind of data needed to create a developed system like that seen operating in Q84, rather than exploiting such a system. Thus it seems probable to me that Muttius is one of at least the second pair of IIII uiri quinquennales to be elected, moving the municipalization of CorWnium back at least as far as c.60 bc. Q85 exists in two copies in Massa d’ Alba, and pertains to Alba Fucens.109 It is cut onto limestone statue bases, bearing traces of a doric frieze at the top. Buonocore dates the inscription to the early part of the second half of the century on the basis of the letter forms and the lack of a cognomen. This must be substantially correct: the ‘C’, shallow but quite closed, the slight curve in the tail of the ‘Q’, the body of which is not circular, the oblique foot of the ‘R’, and the noticeable seriWng all point to a later date; and for what it is worth (not much at all given the poor state of conservation of that stone), the lettering looks a little earlier than that of our other Alba Fucens inscription, Q57.110 Other Tituleii are known from Alba, some of them of quite high status. The family seems to become important in the period after the Social War, and under the Empire they attained 104 Ibid. 344. 105 Ibid. 345–53. 106 Ibid. 347–8, 352–3. 107 Cf. Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), 507. 108 Devijver and Van Wonterghem state only that CorWnium was municipalized by 49 bc (ibid. 497). 109 On the location see Buonocore, MEFRA (1982), 719, and on the earlier tradition on this and on the text see Degrassi and Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1046. 110 It seems that there would not have been room for a cognomen in the magistrate’s name in Q57.
356
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
equestrian status.111 This accords well with one of the family being IIII uir quinquennalis between the middle of the century and Actium, let us say. The phrase ‘IIII uir iter qui.’ shows that Tituleius held the quinquennial quattuorvirate as the next oYce after the plain quattuorvirate, evidence, if any were needed, that quinquennial quattuoruiri exercised all the functions of the IIII uiri i. d., as well as their own censorial powers. The presence of both the quattuorvirate i. d. (Q57), and the quinquennial quattuorvirate points to the existence of a sophisticated administrative structure at Alba Fucens, which is what we would expect from a community of this importance.112 Q86 is the funerary inscription of a Perusine of some importance.113 The surface of the stone was very worn even when it was read by Bormann,114 who nonetheless defended the accuracy of his reading, especially ‘Titia’ in l. 5 (a sign of doubt?). Bormann’s text is that given now in CIL i2 . 3364, which is slightly disconcerting, since already in Imagines Degrassi had published a photograph which revealed how desperate the state of preservation of the left-hand side of the text was. Only l. 2 can be read in toto, and with a little faith some of the letters at the start of the other lines.115 Above all it is clear that l. 5 begins ‘]CORVM’, incompatible with Bormann’s ‘Tyriorum’. Krummrey, perhaps with Bormann’s protestations in mind, states that the ‘C’ has been painted wrongly over where ‘RI’ was cut.116 The weight of tradition is strong, but already in 1979 Dondin had published a revised text, after a careful inspection of the stone in the Museo Archeologico in Perugia, which would advance the debate once more. For Dondin, in l. 4, ‘il est absolument indiscutable que la lettre pre´ce´dant la de´sinence du ge´netif est un C ou peut-eˆtre un G’.117 She is unable to suggest a supplement, but fortunately the identity of the cohort of archers does not concern us.118 More signiWcantly, Dondin rules out the possibility of Titia being the name of Glabrio’s mother, since it is too long, and the traces on the stone exclude such a reading. She thinks that the Wrst letter of l. 5 may be an ‘E’ or an ‘F’, followed by a space of one or two letters and then possibly an ‘M’.119 I am prepared to believe the ‘F’ (more likely than an initial ‘E’), but I cannot see anything on the photograph that might correspond to an ‘M’ before the woman’s Wliation. My objection, based on scrutiny of a photograph of a quite unclear text, is not at all decisive; but we saw with Q84 above how ‘A’ and ‘M’ can be confused in damaged texts, and it is further unlikely that a gentilicium would end in ‘M’. 111 See Bounocore, MEFRA (1982), 721–2. 112 Guastalla, Atti CeSDIR (1967–8), 138 n. 69, counts AE (1951), 22, as a republican quattuorviral inscription, and this is accepted by Buonocore (MEERA (1982), 721), but is clearly wrong, and Degrassi rightly left the text out of CIL i2 (cf. Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1046). 113 Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 651, cf. 662, 670 n. 43. 114 ad CIL xi. 1934. 115 ‘C A’ (l. 1); ‘DE’ (l. 3); and perhaps ‘IT A’ in l. 5 (but see below). 116 CIL i2 . p. 1075. 117 Dondin, MEFRA (1979) 655; ibid. 653 for her text. 118 Various possibilities are rehearsed: ibid. 655–7, cf. Saddington, Athenaeum (1983), 264. 119 MEFRA (1979), 654–5. Titia may have been in Bormann’s mind already, since it occurs in a metronymic in CIL xi. 1943 (the funerary inscription of another Perusine magistrate).
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
357
If we were to read an ‘A’ here, we would have room for perhaps three letters, and ‘F[ali]a’ springs to mind as a possible supplement. It is a ‘true blue’ Etruscan name, and is attested for a magistrate at nearby Hispellum (Q30—see above), thus placing the Falii in the right social ambience as well as the right region to provide a mother for our quinquennial quattuoruir. Having improved the text somewhat, we can now discuss the date of the stone. The letter forms are little help since the text is not carefully cut, and the letters are bunched up. Many letters (e.g. the ‘O’s) are attenuated, rather than square, and along with the curved tail of the ‘R’ this suggests that our stone may date closer to the end of our period than to the beginning. Atilius has a cognomen; but the open ‘C’, and the very roughness of the cutting warn against too late a date. It should date to the second half of the century, with the proviso that it is probably preAugustan; more precision would be unwarranted.120 Other factors have been used to attempt a more accurate dating. Generally scholars have accepted Bormann’s hypothesis that Perusia changed to a duoviral municipium from a quattuorviral one as a direct, or almost direct, result of the capture, punishment, and destruction of the city in 40 bc, at the end of the Perusine War.121 This provides, it is claimed, a terminus ante quem for this and other quattuorviral inscriptions. There have been dissenters, all military historians, who have seen Atilius as an oYcer of the imperial period. The only cogent argument though is that of Saddington, who claims that ‘a republican inscription giving the name of a cohort commanded by a prefect would be unparalleled’; prefects of named auxiliary cohorts are Wrst found under Augustus (as are praefecti fabrum delati a cos.), he continues, and the mention of specialist military skills (like archery) in regimental titles becomes common only under the Flavians. Consequently, Glabrio’s military career would be an anomaly even under Tiberius.122 Thus the quattuorvirate at Perusia must have survived into the early imperial period.123 I Wnd, though, that Saddington’s case relies too much on special pleading. Surely the Ascolonitani who seem to be responsible in some measure for putting up the inscription CIL ix. 3664 at Marruvium (ad 18) are the archers mentioned in that text. More importantly, we cannot, like Saddington, dismiss a triumviral dedication of the Amiternum area made by a Spanish(?) auxiliary cohort to their praefectus cohortis,124 as not being a real parallel; if we had the epitaph of the dedicatee, he might well style his career in the same fashion as Atilius Glabrio.125 What Saddington shows is that Atilius’ military titulature would be very unlikely before the Triumvirate. 120 Dondin dates the text to the middle of the century (MEFRA (1979), 659). 121 CIL xi. p. 353. Followed (inter alia) by Beloch, RG 503; Rudolph, Stadt, 113; Degrassi, SVA i. 156–7 and CIL i2 . p. 1075; PWYg, Ausbreitung, 13, 64; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 309; Nicolet, Ordre ii. 789, no. 37, and Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 658, cf. 655. 122 Athenaeum (1983), 265 (264 n. 3 for earlier dissenters, cf. Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 656 n., 657 n. 14). 123 Athenaeum (1983), 266, cf. Demougin, in EpigraWa, 237 n. 28, who sees this text as Augustan, without discussion. 124 CIL ix. 4503 125 Athenaeum (1983), 265.
358
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
Yet a triumviral date could well rule out the watershed of 40 bc proposed by Bormann for the reconstitution of Perusia. Bormann’s case has one weakness, hinted at by Saddington. Perusia has the epithet ‘Augusta’ in two inscriptions, and another refers to ‘Perusia Restituta’, which should most naturally refer to a restoration after the destruction of 40.126 This implies that the town enjoyed Augustus’ favour, as Saddington notes;127 but that is no reason for largely rejecting the accounts of Imperator Caesar’s punishment of Perusia in 40, excepting the fantasy of a massacre of the curial class.128 The title Perusia Augusta is not incompatible with a heavy punishment in 40, but rather points to a decision by Augustus (thus a decision dating to 27 bc or later) to repent of his harsh treatment of Perusia, and restore its fortunes. This restoration will be the moment of PWYg’s symbolic ‘Neugru¨ndung’, and of the introduction of the duoviral constitution, an institutional tie between municipium and the ‘refounder’.129 The other Perusine quattuoruiri can thus also belong later than 40. Certainly this includes P. Volumnius P. f. Violens, who, as the dedication set up by ‘municipes et incolae’ tells us, was IIII uir and II uir;130 L. Proculeius A. f. Titia gnatus, whose epitaph reveals the same career;131 and A. Atilius L. f. Glabrio.132 126 CIL xi. 1929–30; 1923. 127 Athenaeum (1983), 266, where he also rightly criticizes PWYg’s notion (Ausbreitung, 13, with a stray reference to colonization!) that the introduction of a duoviral constitution somehow represented a reduction of Perusia’s autonomy. 128 For which see Appian, BC 5. 48. 203, cf. Suet., DA 15. 1. For a balanced appraisal of the Perusine War and its outcome, see Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 300–2. 129 Ausbreitung, 64. Probably some rebuilding was done at the Princeps’s expense; possibly the ban on Perusini owning property more than seven and a half stades from the city (Dio, 48. 14. 6) was now lifted. For the possibility of a Claudian colony see now Solin, Arctos (1991); Eck, Athenaeum (1995). 130 CIL xi. 1944. Harris (Etruria and Umbria, 315–16) makes the attractive suggestion that he was the son of the P. Volumnius A. f. Violens, last occupant of the aristocratic ‘Ipogeo dei Volumni’ just south of Perusia. This P. Volumnius’ cinerary urn was of marble, and thus he probably did not die before the Augustan period, which suggests that the career of his putative son belongs in the post-40 bc period. Harris notes the social pretensions inherent in the adoption of the cognomen Violens— L. Volumnius C. f. C. n. Flamma Violens, who was consul in 307 bc (ibid. 315 n. 6; see Broughton, MRR i. 164–5; he appears to have no connection with Perusia). We might also note that the use of the cognomen Wxes at least part of Violens senior’s life at a point where the consular fasti had undergone their Augustan reconstruction, and had furthermore undergone some diVusion among the municipal bourgeoisies, along with other aspects of imperial ideology. 131 CIL xi. 1943. Note here and in Q86 the juxtaposition of the Etruscan metronymic and Roman Wliation; in Q86 the mother also uses Roman Wliation, another possible sign of late date (cf. Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 655 n. 6, Nicolet); cf. also Q27 above, from Clusium. Degrassi (SVA i. 157) interprets the quattuoruiri of xi. 1943 and 1944 as ‘aedilician’ magistrates of the duoviral municipium. As he notes, however, Perusia later had aediles: xi. 1924, 1926; SVA i. 170 n. 557. 132 AE (1979), 246. Dondin, who Wrst published the inscription (her Wg. 2), attributed this plain IIII uir to the 70s bc, and made him the father of C. Atilius Glabrio of Q86 (MEFRA (1979), 661–2). They are very probably, as the only two Atilii Glabriones known from Perusia, related; but the appearance of the new inscription, with its brief text occupying only a small part of the veined stone (a ‘breche’— Dondin, ibid. 660) contrasts strongly with the crowded and ugly surface of Q86. Moreover, it is absolutely impossible that the elegant letter forms of the new inscription (cf. ibid. 662) could belong to the 70s. Rather, I would be very loath to date this text any earlier than the Augustan period. It is almost certainly later than Q86. He is most likely to be a nephew of our C. Atilius. My reconstruction
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
359
C. Atilius Glabrio could well be another. On the other hand his quattuorvirates might belong for instance in the Caesarian period, or even earlier, and his military oYces to any of the Civil Wars. At any rate it is very probable that he continued to Xourish after the Perusine War (his putative nephew’s career might suggest as much), although the depressed state of the town might have made military service more attractive than civic oYce.133 With his appointment as praefectus cohortis, if not before, he attained equestrian splendour. Once again we can observe a nexus of phenomena, that of the association of municipal oYce and military service, and of military service, equestrian status, and the high social position implied by the quinquennial quattuorvirate134 A Wnal suggestion before we leave Perusia: Dondin justly notes that we cannot know the identity of the consul who appointed Glabrio praefectus fabrum.135 There is however one consul whom Glabrio’s contemporaries at Perusia might well have thought of when they saw this inscription: A. Hirtius Pansa, cos. 43, probably a Perusine.136 Such an appointment would Wt nicely within the chronological parameters which we have established above for Q86. Q87 comes from Sassina. Cognomina (but not nomina) of both magiatrates survive, and the palaeography has been thought to indicate an Augustan rather than a republican date.137 A triumviral one is perhaps better. Q88, our last inscription in this category, is from Mevaniola. It can be dated to the second half of the century on archaeological and palaeographical criteria.138 Finally, Q72 also records a cursus from Aquileia which terminated in the quinquennial quattuorvirate—a date in the late 60s or 50s can be suggested for that magistracy. In the fourteen public inscriptions there are eight pairs of IIII uiri quinquennales (with five such magistrates acting individually; one—Q88—is too damaged to be invalidates Dondin’s schema for the social progression of the family from municipal aristocrats in the Wrst generation after the Social War to equites in the second. Her hypothesis (ibid. 664–70) of an enfranchisement by M’. Acilius Glabrio, pr. 196 bc, and a link between the Perusine Atilii Glabriones and the senatorial Acilii Glabriones has little to commend it. Imitation is a form of Xattery suYcient to explain the shared cognomen. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 315, points out that the two Atilii inscriptions, and xi. 1943–4, demonstrate how the elements of the Etruscan elite of Perusia survived the debacle of 40 with their social and political eminence intact. Presumably, though, Volumnius and Proculeius had been on the right side. 133 Dondin (MEFRA (1979), 658) is probably right to suggest that the civic oYces preceded the military. Conversely, her view that the Perusine War was fatal to the progress of the Atilii Glabriones up the social ladder is surely incorrect—in my view, at least the prefecture of the archers’ cohort should fall after 40. 134 See Nicolet, Ordre, ii, 789 and Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 660, on his equestrian status. 135 Ibid. 659. On the phrase ‘delat(us) a cos’ see Mommsen, StR i3 . 299–301, who cites a passage with revealing implications for Glabrio’s social status—if such were needed: ‘[Caesar] in praetura, in consulatu praefectum fabrum [Balbum] detulit’ (Cic., Balb. 63). 136 See Wiseman, New Men, no. 490 (C. Vibius Pansa, monetalis c.90 and very probably father of the consul of 43); the case for the Perusine origin of the Vibii Pansae is considered good by Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 324–5, cf. Syme, RP ii. 458. 137 Susini, Studi Romangnoli (1954), 190–1. Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 138 See Addendum.
360
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
informative on this matter); this is what we would expect given that the IIII uiri quinquennales replaced the IIII uiri i. d. (in theory) every Wve years.139 The tabula Heracleensis in the section on the responsibilities of local magistrates during the Roman census decrees ‘quei in eis municipieis coloneis praefectureis maximum mag(istratum) maximamue potestatem ibei habebit . . . censum agito’.140 There is no suggestion of any standard name for the magistrate who held the census; even the portmanteau phrasing of earlier chapters referring to magistrates is absent in this section. The tabula Heracleensis expects in fact that the censorial function of the magistrates will be contingent only on the holding of a census in Rome (which may in fact argue that at least from the time of this statute synchronisms between Roman and local censuses were not necessarily envisaged). There is no evidence that the system envisaged under the terms of the law from which this part of the tabula Heracleensis was taken was ever put into practice, although the text should derive from a statute successfully passed;141 it cannot be 139 Republican censores in ILLRP: 111, 167 (Praeneste, add CIL i2 . 3087), 134, 682 (Tibur, add CIL i2 . 3095), 528 (Aletrium), 555 (Beneventum), 582 (Falerii Novi), 584–6 (Ferentinum), 664 (Setia), 677 (Copia); add CIL i2 . 3420 (Aquileia; Bandelli’s suggested correction, Bourgeoisies, 194, no. 2, seems unjustiWed); and perhaps CIL x. 4780 (Teanum Sidicinum), when given the character of the inscription (a religious dedication mentioning the dedicator’s ancestors), we might justiWably read ‘[ce]nsor’ in l. 2, despite Mommsen’s doubts. Of these, only those from Tibur (and perhaps not all of them), Ferentinum, and Aletrium are, in my opinion, post-Social War. Costabile rightly points out that since the IIII uir quinquennalis is simply the IIII uir i. d. with a special title in virtue of his censorial powers, a separate censorial magistracy ceased to exist; in eVect the senior pair of IIII uiri have taken on the roles both of the old municipal praetores and of the censores. This diVers from the state of aVairs found for instance at Rome, and at Bantia before the Social War (Istituzioni, 161–4, seeing a link with the demise of the Roman censorship in the 1st cent. bc). It should be noted, however, that censors continued to be elected at Rome after the Social War, and also that the quinquennial quattuorvirate came to be considered as the pinnacle of the municipal cursus honorum. 140 Tabula Heracleensis, ll. 142–6. This cannot, pace Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 91 and n. 5, mean that Caesar suppressed an existing municipal censura, but simply shows the variety of magistrates who might undertake censorial functions in this period, and suggests that few were still called censor; and despite ibid. 171–2, the regulations do not strictly deal with the local census, but the taking of the Roman census in a decentralized fashion—so ibid. 314! (hence perhaps the blanket phrasing about the magistrate with the ‘highest power’—there might not be censorial oYcials in oYce when a census happened in Rome). Nothing rules out a complementary local census at other times. 141 The view that these regulations were enforced, and not long after enfranchisement, has been upheld by Brunt, who also believes that ‘it had long been the practice for municipia and coloniae to register resident Roman citizens [for the Roman census]’ (Manpower, 522). There is no evidence for this assertion, and it would have entailed the end of the direct tribal registration characteristic of the census, in favour of indirect tribal registration—municipes of a municipium would in fact all be tribules, but the censors would still have had to collate the Wgures for those tribes drawn from more than one municipium. Mommsen, StR ii3 . 368, and Pieri, Cens, 169–72, held that there was no central registration for the census after 86 bc. I believe that the important innovation is the decentralization of the census; there is no mention of synchronizing the municipal and Roman census, though this might have been a consequence (for arguments for the date of this part of the tabula Heracleensis see below). I am convinced by the evidence of Cic., Verr. 1. 54, adduced by Wiseman, JRS (1969), 69, that personal attendance was required at least until 70 bc, the last time a census populi Romani was completed before 29. Part of the great crowd attested mentioned by Cicero can be explained by the overlap between games, elections, and census, yet if it were possible for an ordinary Italian to register either in Rome or in his municipium, nightmarish organizational problems would have ensued. In fact the synchronism
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
361
shown that this practice, if universally adopted, would have rendered obsolete the registration by municipal censorial magistrates of all those of local origo presumably with some property information to distinguish those eligible for the local ordo;142 in any case the revision of the ordo would still have been the task of the municipal censor. I assume that the municipal census involved some kind of lustratio,143 and it is not clear how this would have been aVected by the new regulations. As preserved in tabula Heracleensis, they do not discuss the ritual aspect of the census at all; we do not know whether this aspect of the Roman census had been decentralized like the information-gathering process; probably it does not appear here since it only concerned the Roman censors. The system referred to under the tabula Heracleensis would thus have led to some changes in the role of the municipal censors. In fact, it is probable that throughout the Republic those elected to hold the census in coloniae, municipia, and praefecturae combined the roles of reviser of the list of names and wealth of the municipes, reviser of the membership of the ordo, holder of locationes, euergete, and holder of the lustratio. These magistrates were probably generally known as IIII uiri quinquennales, but this may not have been the case everywhere. In some communities the ordo may have instructed the regular magistrates to carry out censorial functions (implicit in the title IIII uir i. d. quinq.—Q73).144 In those municipia where IIII uiri quinquennales were elected, they simply replaced the higher pair of IIII uiri found in normal years, usually IIII uiri i. d. In the Venusine Fasti, while there is a record of the eighteen-month lustrum of Imperator Caesar and Agrippa, the II uiri quinquennales are in oYce only in 29, replaced by plain II uiri in 28; this may suggest that the oYce of quinquennial magistrate in the municipia too lasted for only twelve months. Of the censorial functions outlined above there is no evidence in the epigraphic material for anything except building and the letting of contracts (although it might be argued that in Q84 Muttius Celer’s refund to the CorWniate pagi may be related to Wnancial functions inherent in his quinquennial oYce). This fact is partly a function of the nature of our evidence (building, honorary, or funerary inscriptions), and should not deter us from attributing these functions to the municipal censors—after all, no epigraphic text tells us of any IIII uir i. d. granting a legal action. of games and elections with the census may have caused many people to come at the time referred to in the speech, rather than in dribs and drabs over the eighteen months, thus augmenting the inXux into Rome; for another interpretation see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 96 n. 29, also claiming (without support) a decentralised census by 70 bc. 142 So also Gabba, Italia romana, 139, seeing also a growth of the importance of the local census at the expense of the ‘national’ (which need not, however, come into eVect only after the date of the tabula Heracleensis). 143 There is no evidence for this. Note, however, that the Iguvine Tables and the Agnone Tablet show that Osco-Umbrian peoples were familiar with a lustratio populi, which was presumably a common element to all Italic religious practice (see Salmon, Samnium, 151). 144 Note that non-censorial IIII uiri can conduct locationes: Q8 (Pompeii, all four IIII uiri), Q51 and probably Q50 (Vibo Valentia), and perhaps Q46 (Cales).
362
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
The listing of the censorial responsibilities of the highest magistrate in the tabula Heracleensis does not imply that they would be unfamiliar to him;145 rather the exactness and pedantry of Roman legal texts, as well as the fact that this is probably a tralatician phrase, explain the form of the text here. After all, one of the most important censorial functions in the independent community had been the drawing up of a census list on which the military contribution to Rome’s wars would depend;146 this aspect of the local census will have retained a symbolic value only—if that—after enfranchisement, not to mention the increasingly proletarian character of the post-Marian army. The importance of the census in the municipium as a basis for Wnancial assessments and property records is shown by Oppianicus the elder’s corruption of ‘tabulas publicas Larini censorias’.147 The censuring by the Larinate senate of Oppianicus for tampering with the tabulae censoriae,148 and the regulation in the tabula Heracleensis that the census had to be conducted by ‘quei in eis municipieis coloneis praefectureis maximum mag. maximamue potestatem ibei habebit’ both point to the importance of the censor’s function, and of the power vested in the oYce.149 This Wnds a clear echo in the considerable inXuence, both inside and outside their community, of some of the men whom we have seen holding the quinquennial quattuorvirate. Further, at least by the end of the republic, this variant of the magistracy had become the highest point in the municipal cursus, being held after, and in addition to, the quattuorvirate i. d. (Q54, 55).150 The importance inherent in the censorial oYce of the municipia thus remains continuous between the censorships of Betilienius 145 ‘eorum nomina praenomina, patres aut patronos, tribus, cognomina, et quot annos quisque eorum habet, et rationem pecuniae ex formula census, quae Romae ab eo, qui tum censum populi acturus erit, proposita erit, ab ieis iurateis accipito’ (146–8). 146 It is almost superXuous to produce a list of the occurrences; see for non-exhaustive lists of censorial magistrates in Latin and non-Latin epigraphy from the pre-Social-War period: above on Q30 (Latin); n. 139 above; Salmon, Samnium, 89–90 (Oscan). Note also the appearance of locatio at CorWnium in the pre-Roman period, associated though with a pair of meddices, not a kenstur (Vetter, Handbuch, no. 212: ‘locatin’). It is probable that many of the practical and political functions of the non-Latin censors represent Roman inXuence. For the pre-Social-War census in allied communities and its connection with recruitment, see Livy, 29. 15. 3, on the punishment of the recalcitrant XII coloniae in the Second Punic War: ‘censumque in iis coloniis agi ex formula ab Romanis censoribus data; dari autem placere eandem quam populo Romano; deferrique Romam ab iuratis censoribus coloniarum priusquam magistratu abirent’; cf. 27. 9. 7–10. 10 for the context. There are verbal similarities between Livy’s passage and that from the tabula Heracleensis, but there is no evidence that synchronism of local and Roman census was employed in the former. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 115, argues that the local census before the Social War aimed at preventing over-recruitment, as much as fulWlling obligations. 147 Cic., Clu. 41, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 314; his guilt was conWrmed by ‘decuriones uniuersi’. 148 It is uncertain whether Oppianicus tampered with a censual list of the citizens of Larinum, or with a list of the members of the ordo, or both. The power to revise the membership of the local senate was one of the most important powers of the IIII uiri quinquennales—Castre´n, Ordo, 66–7 149 These highest magistrates will generally have been IIII uiri i. d. (and II uiri i. d. in colonies). This was probably not the case where we cannot show that the higher magistrates in the community were actually IIII uiri i. d. Such cases are, Wrst, those of small municipia, like Ferentium, where the quattuorviral college probably did not develop the full degree of sophistication found in the majority of (larger) communities, and, secondly, those where a local census falls before the introduction of the quattuorvirate i. d. 150 An argument in support of a pre-triumviral date for Q85 (‘IIII uir iter qui(nquennalis)’.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
363
Vaarus of Aletrium and C. Falerius Niger of Brundisium, but as the complexity of the administrative structures of the Roman municipia gradually increased after the Social War, the importance of the censorship seems to have been underlined by its crystallization at the pinnacle of the developed magisterial career structure. There are few cases of Wrm dates available from the inscriptions analysed. Only one (Q79) seems to attest the magistracy in the period before c.60 bc. It is implausible, given the importance of the censor’s tasks, and the evidence of the pro Cluentio, that there were no municipal censuses conducted before this date; the appearance of IIII uiri quinquennales around c.65 bc may be only apparent, attributable to our scanty evidence, or it may mean that it was only then that this title began to appear, perhaps in recognition of some increase or conWrmation of powers in the magistracy. It seems that, since we never have more than two IIII uiri quinquennales, the oYce should not date earlier than the division of the quattuorvirate in c.70 bc, which provides an interesting synchronism with the Roman census.151 It is possible that in this year either the censors or the consuls (one of whom, Pompeius, was in a pro-Italian phase at this period) sought to ensure that the municipal and Roman census should be held concurrently,152 and that municipal censors might call themselves IIII uiri quinquennales and perhaps even hold the local census ‘ex formula ab Romanis censoribus data’, to quote Livy.153 Yet this can only be speculation. In any case, even if such a synchronism was provided for, it probably fell largely into desuetude along with the gap of Wve years between censuses in both Rome and the municipia. The patchiness of the taking of local censuses is suggested by the Fasti Venusini where no quinquennial magistrates were elected between 34 and 30 bc, the oYce only being revived in 29 to coincide with young Caesar’s census in that year.154 This failure of regular census-taking is unlikely to be local to Venusia, and unlikely even to be conWned to coloniae, but it may be a feature of the unsettled years of the triumviral period, and of the considerable mixing of populations, conWscation, and colonization which occurred in those years. Equally, the Venusian evidence may suggest that the municipal census was taken irregularly throughout the late Republic; and, of course, when it was, the relevant magistrates may not have always been IIII uiri quinquennales.155 There is thus less to be gained from analysing the geographical distribution of the attestations of IIII uiri quinquennales than was the case for previous variants; the sample involved is also smaller. Of 18 communities where they are attested (including the IIII uir i. d. quinq. of Q73), 1 is from Latium, 2 are from Campania, 151 If the solitary ‘Q’ in the last line of Q16 is in fact a part of ‘quinq.’, a possibility rejected in Ch. 6, then we might have a case for dating the quinquennial quattuorvirate as early as the 70s, and evidence for an earlier phase of the magistracy, where all four magistrates shared quinquennial powers. 152 Not the same thing as provided for by the regulations in the tabula Heracleensis just discussed. 153 Cic., Div. in Caec. 8 on the popular demand for a census in 70—could this have a municipal reference too? 154 CIL ix. 422. Of course, the census might have been conducted by non-quinquennial magistrates, but the text does not imply this. 155 The oYce of censtur at Bantia before the Social War is not obviously quinquennial.
364
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
4 from Samnium (of these, two are from former Latin colonies, and the others from Hirpinian Aeclanum and the anomalous Ligures Baebiani), 1 from Bruttium, 4 from Apulia (again including two former Latin colonies), 1 each from the Paeligni and the Aequi (the latter the former Latin colony of Alba Fucens), 1 from Etruria, 2 from Umbria, and 1 from Cisalpina. The solitary attestation from Latium, a region not short of other types of IIII uiri, is noteworthy, but may simply be an evidential problem (although some places may have been allowed to continue calling their quinquennial magistrates censores156). Otherwise, all that we can do is to note that IIII uiri quinquennales turn up in most regions and that, leaving aside the Latin colonies, the distribution across Italy seems to be fairly even. Campania and Apulia, both quite urbanized, naturally give more examples. As noted above, the attestation at CorWnium is of special interest, being a rare testimony of municipalization among the Central Apennine peoples enfranchised after the Social War.
2 . QVAT T VO RV I R I P R A E TO R E S 1 5 7 ( Q 8 9 ) Q89 is our only attestation of this curious magistracy (it is possible, but unlikely, that ‘pr.’ should be resolved ‘pr(aefectus)’).158 There are few elements for dating. Both magistrates lack a cognomen, it seems. The town to which this text should be attributed is uncertain, but it must be one of the quattuorviral communities on the north Campanian plain. Last seen by Mommsen at S. Maria di Capua Vetere, site of Capua, it was however assigned by him to Cales,159 and this is acceptable. Since the last line refers (‘term(inandum)’) to the settling of boundaries, a possible context may be the period following Caesar’s agrarian legislation of 59, or the aftermath of the lex Mamilia of 55 (above, Ch. 5). Again, the suYx ‘pr.’ recalls Cicero’s attack on Rullus’ plan to make the chief magistrates of the proposed colony at Capua praetores, something which he claims was only done before in the Cinnan period, Roman colonies normally being under II uiri in his day.160 Thus IIII uiri praetores might go back to the Cinnan period; or to the Sullan period; or, if Cicero, as is probable, is being disingenuous, the late 60s might have seen a vogue in the adding of such suYxes to municipal titles. The 156 I have suggested that Tul. Tullius, who is a IIII uir in Q1, if he is the same man as the censor of ILLRP 682, may be censor post-Social War, and this may reXect a concession to Tiburtine tradition. Beloch, however, believed that censores were found only in those municipia enfranchised before the Social War: RG 5–6, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 91. See above. 157 On this magistracy see Gianetti, RAL (1973). 158 CIL x. 4657 (Cales) is probably another republican instance of this magistracy. 159 On the basis of IIII uiri and the formula ‘d.s.s.’—a senatus is mentioned in other Calene inscriptions (cf. for instance Q75). It also seems that Q89 was originally found on the edge of Calene territory, whence it was taken to S. Maria. See Mommsen, ad CIL x. 3917, 3923, and p. 451; Degrassi, ad ILLRP 560, where he also resolves the Wrst name as Sora(nus). See also Ferrua, Atti Conv. Naz. Stud. Archdiocesi Capua, 175–89. 160 Leg. ag. 2. 92–3, on which see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 88.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
365
praetores duouiri of Telesia, Grumentum, and Abellinum have been claimed as oYcials of the Sullan colonies there,161 and they might be thought to provide some analogy for the IIII uiri praetores; yet a more persuasive argument is that of Beloch, which sees these foundations, and Gallic Narbo, where the title is also found, as Gracchan or immediately post-Gracchan.162 Further, since we know that one Visellius Flaccus Beneventanus was ‘duouir Tele[s(iae)] / [p]r(aetor) Beneventi]’, and that the latter must be a pre-Social-War magistracy, the former could be a juridically exact description of the magistrates of the Sullan colony, implying a change since the original foundation.163 Alternatively, the praetores duouiri in these colonies may belong to the triumviral period, where strange and extreme things could happen. One thing does seem certain. The term praetor, used as a suYx or as a title in itself, is always used in a colonial/municipal context of the highest magistrates in the community, and so it must be in Cales. Q89, naming two magistrates, will surely not date earlier than the Wrst division of the quattuorviral college in c.70. Further, it almost certainly represents an alternative to IIII uiri i. d., and thus would probably not antedate the introduction of that magistracy in the early 60s (for which see above). This oYce, then, shows us that some latitude was allowed to communities in the naming of their magistrates, as long as they were quattuoruiri of some sort, and shows how municipal constitutions of the post-Social-War period might accommodate local desires and traditions. As a Latin colony (indeed the Wrst of the new breed of Latin colonies founded after the Latin War, Cales had almost certainly had praetores for much of its life, which probably explains the appearance of the IIII uiri praetores here. If my dating for Q46 is correct, and if both Q46 and Q89 really do belong to Cales, we must deduce that the Calenes had decided to adopt the more usual quattuorvirate i. d. as their highest magistracy by the triumviral or Augustan period.164 As for Q89, it is possible, but no more, that it is related in some way to Caesar’s agrarian legislation, if indeed it was found on the edge of Calene territory, close to the ager Stellas.
3. QVAT T VO RV I R I A E D I L I C I A P OT E STAT E ( Q 9 0 – 9 1 ) The original provenance of Q90 is problematic. It was Wrst recorded at Lacedonia, where it had been reused in a church, by ‘Calabresius quidam’. It was attributed by Mommsen to Aquilonia, a Hirpinian settlement identiWed several kilometres south of Lacedonia.165 While the identity of the site of Aquilonia presents no 161 For instance Mommsen, GS v. 205–10; Taylor, Voting Districts, 94 n. 45. 162 Beloch, RG 493–6, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 88–9, 132, 208 n. 2, 209 n. 3. 163 ILLRP 676. 164 Cf. Manni, Per la storia, 176. 165 Colucci Pescatori, in Romanisation du Samnium, 86–7, 120–1; Grelle, Taras (1992), 50. This Aquilonia is not the location of the famous battle of 293: Mommsen, ad CIL ix. 6257; Salmon, Samnium, 271 n. 3.
366
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
problems, I am extremely uncertain about its municipal status, and thus the attribution of the stone. Mommsen invoked one of the very few other inscriptions attributed to Aquilonia, mentioning an Augustalis, to prove that Aquilonia was a res publica.166 This is surely true for the imperial period,167 but proves nothing about the Republic, or indeed what kind of res publica it was at a later period. ‘Aquiloni’ are mentioned by Pliny as inhabitants of the inland area of the second region,168 but it seems likely that not all of the places mentioned in this list ever reached municipal rank, certainly not under the Republic.169 Under the Empire, Aquilonia probably reached municipal status—the successor centre of Lacedonia had its own diocese in the Middle Ages; under the Republic there is no evidence that it was other than a uicus, or other pagus-centre, perhaps attributed to a nearby municipium such as Compsa. I doubt whether either of the stones mentioning magistrates found at Lacedonia belongs to Aquilonia.170 It would be most unusual for a site to produce only a handful of texts, all of which were of a public or semi-public nature.171 Since Lacedonia lies on a signiWcant route from Beneventum to Apulia, via Venusia, it is not impossible that the two magisterial inscriptions could have travelled there from another centre. Indeed, inscriptions mentioning magistrates often come from public buildings, and since these provided the most suitable material for plunder and reuse in later ages, they were perhaps more likely to travel than stones from private buildings. If Q90 does not come from Aquilonia, where might it come from? The community in question should be on the major route which passes close to Lacedonia. I do not believe, as I have said above on Q49, in the anonymous republican municipium at Frigento, and I therefore exclude it from the reckoning (if I am wrong in my interpretation, then, of course, it is an obvious candidate). Our only guide is the name Lucceius. Lucceii with praenomen and father’s praenomen Marcus are known (in this region of Italy) only at AuWdena, which is too far away.172 C. Lucceii are known at Beneventum and Brundisium, and one had a freedman who is attested at Luceria.173 Of these, only Beneventum is anywhere near enough, and even that may be too far away to be a realistic choice. 166 CIL ix. p. 88. Another inscription from Lacedonia mentions two ‘quaest(ores)’—CIL i2 . 1715, ascribed by Lommatzsch, and Degrassi (ILLRP 543), to Aquilonia. 167 Cf. CIL ix. 6261, where a balneum is restored ‘d.d.’; see Colucci Pescatori in Romanisation du Samnium, 86–7, for the archaeological evidence. 168 NH 3. 105; no mention in Strabo. Salmon takes Aquilonia to be a municipium by the Augustan period (Samnium, 396). 169 Cf. Johannowsky, in Romanisation du Samnium, 59 n. 17. 170 The urbani mentioned in Q90 imply that the community where it was set up was at least a distinct centre with a moderately populous nucleated settlement—I am not aware that this has been claimed for Aquilonia. The piscina implies that the community had a campus, and this was generally a feature of more developed centres (although, like Saepinum, they did not have to be very large). 171 As I have argued for Frigento, above (on Q49). By the same token, the inscription from Prolaquaeum in Umbria, mentioning Imperator Caesar as patronus (CIL xi. 4652), was not found in the place where it was set up (App. 2). 172 CIL ix. 2804. Histonium, with a Lucceia (ix. 2891), is again too far away. 173 CIL ix. 1903; ix. 139; ix. 864.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
367
Finally there is a Lucceius known from Aeclanum, which is not too distant from Lacedonia, and right on a major route. Aeclanum is therefore a possibility, more so than Beneventum, which remains just possible; but the most likely candidate in my view is Venusia, simply because it is the closest large settlement, with a large territory, and accessible. Of course, the case for both Venusia and Aeclanum is really quite circumstantial, and Q90 may belong elsewhere. Nonetheless, it may be signiWcant that Venusia is a likely home for the other magisterial inscription from Lacedonia, which mentions quaestors.174 If I am right, then this would be our only attestation of the quattuorvirate at Venusia, and furthermore the planting of a veteran colony there, probably after Philippi, would give us a terminus ante quem. As to the date of the inscription, there is little to go on (except the terminus just mentioned, which is uncertain). I have been unable to establish whether the stone still exists; there seems to be no photograph. The spelling ‘opereis coerauit’ suggests a date no later the triumviral period. The interesting phrase ‘de urbanorum opereis’ (would one not expect ‘ex’?) is paralleled in the charters of Urso and Irni, where the aediles (signiWcantly) can commandeer the labour of colonists or municipes for certain public works.175 In the Spanish charters a decree of the decurions is necessary for the aediles to use these powers, but such a mandate, or indeed any mention of the decurions, is completely lacking in Q90, which is unusual. Nonetheless the utilization in a S. Italian community of this provision, Wrst known elsewhere in a Caesarian charter, presents a prima facie case for believing that Q90 may belong to a period after which Caesar began to become interested in setting up communities (59 bc onwards), or to the dictatorship, when he devised, as we shall see, some municipal legislation. This approach is not watertight: the provision at Urso could be tralatician, and the diVerence noted above between the procedure used there and that attested in Q90 is signiWcant. Nevertheless, I believe that we may tentatively assign the inscription to the Caesarian dictatorship. Note too that the use of the labour of the urbani may imply a time of Wnancial disturbance and retrenchment, which could suggest the Second Civil War, when there were considerable money-supply problems in Italy.176 Another, stronger, reason for a Caesarian (or post-Caesarian) dating is the nature of the magistracy held by Lucceius. It is virtually certain that the lacuna in 174 Venusia is a strong possibility for the home of i2 . 1715. As a republican inscription mentioning quaestors (without Wliation) it should probably come from a Latin colony, and in this part of the world Venusia is the most likely (note also that the triumviral colony there began electing quaestors in 34 bc), with Beneventum again a close second. Of the names, Statius is too common in Samnium to be of any use; Sergius appears only three times (Beneventum, Canusium, Brundisium), never with the praenomen Q. 175 lex coloniae Genetiuae 98, lex Flauia 83. See Cato, De Agr. 2, 4, Mommsen, StR iii. 229–30; Gonza´lez, JRS (1986), 227. 176 Lucceius has no cognomen, which is a counter-argument; yet this will not do on its own to prevent a later date. On the other hand, consider that the only other known campus in the Samnite area is the early imperial one at Saepinum; and see Ch. 6 for a possible late date for Q9, also mentioning a campus. Vrbani make their appearance as a distinct group in epigraphy quite late on: cf. Q45 (triumviral or imperial) and CIL xi. 3310a (same date?).
368
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
l. 2 should be Wlled by ‘pot(estate)’.177 The magistracy IIII uir aedilicia potestate, is attested under the Republic only here and at Brundisium (Q54, 91), although it is common under the Empire.178 I have suggested that Q54 should date to c.40 bc, and consequently C. Falerius Niger’s tenure of the quattuorvirate aed. pot. might perhaps have been not more than ten years before that. The other Brundisine attestation of the magistracy, however, appears to be much earlier. Q91 is not entirely opaque, but (at least) one quattuoruir aedilicia potestate (note the magistracy spelt out in full), of whose name we have only the end of the cognomen, did something to (purchased? used?) a site for an unknown purpose with public funds. The text shows a very unusual feature for a Wrst-century bc inscription from an urban context—the use of two parallel vertical hastae in place of ‘E’. This feature is a characteristic of earlier epigraphic usage, and the consequent implications for a date not long after the municipalization of Brundisium are mitigated only by the presence of a cognomen. The decade 70–60 bc seems the safest in which to lodge this text, the more so given its unsophisticated carving and letter forms. If this is right, it throws into doubt a possible attribution of the introduction of the quattuorvirate aedilicia potestate to a known individual: Iulius Caesar the dictator. The case for this attribution starts with a famous municipal inscription from Patavium, where one Iunius Sabinus describes himself as ‘IIII uir aediliciae potestate e lege Iulia municipali’.179 The inscription has been dated, according to an attractive suggestion of Harris, to ad 69.180 It has been much discussed in connection with the tabula Heracleensis and Caesar’s municipal reforms. Rudolph demonstrated satisfactorily that the lex Iulia referred to must be a Roman lex rogata, and not the lex of Patavium, as Mommsen had thought, and furthermore that it cannot refer to the measures contained in the tabula Heracleensis.181 One provision of this 177 So Mommsen, Lommatzsch, and Degrassi. 178 The likelihood that a major town is in question for the occurrence of this rare magistracy is a further argument for ruling out Aquilonia as the provenance of Q90. 179 CIL v. 2864: ‘M. Iunius / Sabinus / IIII uir aedili- / ciae potestat / e lege Iulia / municipali / patronus / collegi cen- / tonariorum / frontem templi / ueruis et hermis / marmoreis pe- / cunia sua orna- / uit et tuition(em) / dedit HS / N ccxxxxii’. 180 ZPE 27 (1977), 288–90, based on a Patavine era starting in 173 bc. Lacking Wliation and being on marble it can hardly be as early as Rudolph (Stadt, 118) thinks when he dates it to the second half of the 1st cent. bc, just after Caesar’s ‘momentous’ reforms. The lack of Wliation and the way the pagination of the text breaks up individual words make diYcult the Augustan date proposed by Sartori, Att. Acc. Pat. (1962–3), 67, and, to a lesser extent, the Julio-Claudian dating of Chilver, Cisalpine, 87 and n. 6. 181 Stadt, 115–18. For Mommsen’s view, see GS i. 154–5. Rudolph’s conclusions are to some extent an improvement on those of Savigny, Verm. Schriften, iii. 279–80. Hardy, Some Problems, 292–3, also rejected Mommsen’s view of the law as a Patavine lex; he was, however, over-optimistic in considering the municipal part of the tabula Heracleensis to be unitary, and to be the lex Iulia municipalis. Rudolph’s more extreme position on the unitary character of the law should also be rejected. As we shall see, the tabula Heracleensis is a digest of material from various late republican laws. It remains possible, however, although it cannot be shown, that some of the material found in it may come from, or be taken over from the lex Iulia municipalis. Sherwin-White thought that the Paduan inscription was an enabling law with a purely local application, to enable a change in the constitution of Patavium (Citizenship2 , 160, 170)—an instance where Rudolph was surely right and Sherwin-White wrong.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
369
law obviously aVected IIII uiri aed. pot., and it seemed indeed possible that the law created the magistracy.182 Yet Q91 must make this impossible. The Patavine inscription itself authorizes no further conclusions. To infer from it, as Rudolph does, that the lex Iulia municipalis created the whole of the later administrative system found in the municipalities and colonies of Italy and the Roman West under the Empire, is, of course, totally unwarranted.183 Indeed, I have observed above that Rudolph’s developed quattuorvirate began to emerge much earlier than the Caesarian period. Rudolph dated the lex Iulia municipalis to 47 bc, on the basis of various indirect evidence thrown up by his study, some of it quite dubious.184 This is a possible date for a Caesarian municipal law, but other years too are possible. Indeed, we must also reckon with the possibility that the law is Augustan. That the lex Iulia municipalis mentioned in the Patavine text was Caesarian remains to my mind the more likely solution, in part because we know of Caesar’s municipal interests in other areas. As for its eVect on the quattuorvirate aedilicia potestate, we should probably think it terms of an increase, or a redeWnition, of the power and responsibilities of this lower pair of IIII uiri, perhaps involving aedilician jurisdiction (on which see Ch. 5), or the kind of role in the oversight of urban infrastructure covered for Rome itself by the tabula Heracleensis.185 Such a redeWnition perhaps brought their powers into line with those of their counterparts in communities founded or planned by Caesar, or even in colonies generally.186 Why though should Iunius Sabinus have mentioned a Caesarian (or even an Augustan) law in ad 69? Harris’s idea that the crisis of 68–70, which particularly aVected north Italy, involved Patavine magistracies is attractive.187 I would amend his theory, however, by suggesting that the Patavine era started a little after 173 bc (a possibility Harris himself allows188), that the inscription thus belongs early in Vespasian’s reign, and that the citation of the lex Iulia municipalis is an advertisement of the return to more ordered government. Other motives, such as the local pride and antiquarian enthusiasm I noted at Petelia in Chapter 4 may be relevant here. Patavium was one of the most thriving communities of Italy in the Augustan period. Strabo attests that the community boasted 500 men of equestrian rank.189 As such it may have been one of the Wrst to make changes possible under the new law; and Iulius Caesar had after all been responsible for the enfranchisement of Patavium, and thus for the initial introduction of the quattuorvirate there. Furthermore Patavium was in the Fabia, Caesar’s tribe, a fact 182 So De Martino, Diritto e societa` nell’antica Roma, 335. 183 Stadt, 118. See Sherwin-White’s criticisms: Citizenship2 , 162, and 171, on the magnifying eVect the Patavium text has had on scholarly perceptions of Caesar’s municipal activity. 184 Stadt, 120. 185 Tabula Heracleensis, ll. 20–77. 186 For a view of the aediles of Urso as more similar to senior magistrates than Roman aediles see Grelle, Labeo (1980), 330 (but see also below). 187 ZPE (1977), 288–9. 188 Ibid. 288 n. 24. 189 5. 1. 7, C213, probably referring to the census of ad 14 (but note Chilver, Cisalpine, 54, suggesting that much of Strabo’s information on the Cisalpina is pre-Augustan).
370
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
which may have encouraged remembrance of the dictator’s acts. Finally, we may note that, despite his position and wealth, despite being patronus of the collegium centonariorum, Iunius himself had held only this one magistracy. Even if Patavium declined after the time to which Strabo refers,190 elite competition must still have been strong, and opportunities for display of status and achievement stretched to provide maximum eYcacy. Although Iunius had held only one magistracy, he could always make that one sound grander by stressing its antiquity and its connection to a Wgure who bulked large in Patavium’s history. The rarity of the quattuorvirate aedilicia potestate in the late Republic is of course to be partly explained by the patchiness of the evidence. Yet, as we have seen, this rarity suggests the title, even if introduced with, or soon after, the changes which introduced the title of iure dicundo for the higher pair of magistrates, was not widely adopted before the imperial period. Thus we may legitimately suppose, as with the quattuorvirate i. d., that the introduction of the title was optional, not compulsory (the existence of aediles and IIII uiri aediles points in the same direction), and that the title took time to become fashionable. We would expect that the Wrst towns to display the new magistracy would be either those closest to Rome, or those which were most important (like Patavium) or on the most vital communications routes at this time. Brundisium was certainly one of the most signiWcant Italian communities of the period. Venusia, if Q90 should really be attributed to it, was a Xourishing centre by the triumviral period, having perhaps emerged from a period of obscurity after the Social War; it was no backwater if a praeco could succeed in sending his son to Rome for his education. Both communities were of course former Latin colonies. I do not think that with such a small sample we can expect to draw any conclusions from the geographical distribution of the magistracy, one in Apulia, the other in eastern Lucania (or perhaps the Hirpinian country); simply by adding Patavium as a possible case of a community with this magistracy in the Republic, we alter the known distribution dramatically.
4 . QVAT T VO RV I R I A E D I L E S This magistracy, again common under the Empire, is known only in two cases under the Republic, both of which come from Ocriculum, a community discussed above (Q61).191 Q92 and Q93 both come from the area of the Roman town in the plain by the Tiber. Q92 is a limestone altar with doric freize decoration,192 dedicated by two IIII uiri aediles—the fact that they dedicated the altar gives us the juridical name of the magistracy. It was relegated inter falsos by Bormann, but 190 Claimed by Chilver, Cisalpina, 54–5, perhaps correctly. 191 Other instances have been claimed by scholars, which I cannot accept—see above on Q10, 11, and 31. 192 Bormann, ad CIL xi. 7804.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
371
with no good reason, it seems.193 The photograph provided by Pietrangeli is murky and small, but it seems that the letters are roughly cut, with open ‘C’s and round ‘O’s, and a generally square appearance. A possible date would be the Wrst half of the century—neither magistrate has a cognomen—but no more than possible. In any case it seems unlikely that the lower pair of magistrates would have acquired any special epithet before the higher pair, and consequently that the IIII uiri aediles should not be dated prior to the mid-60s. Q92 may not date long after this; furthermore I suggested above on Q61 that neither it nor Q92–3 could be assigned to a period before the middle of that decade, since the municipal centre of Ocriculum was probably not operational until then. Little more can be said about the text. There are traces of letters below the third line, but these are damaged and almost impossible to make any sense of given the poor quality of the photograph. For what it is worth, the right-hand side of the stone may bear the top part of ‘f(aciendum) c(urauerunt) p(robaueruntque)’, the end of the standard formula. Q93, our Wnal quattuorviral inscription, records, on a marble slab,194 two complementary dedications: one to the IIII uir aedilis T. Licinius Postumus from a group of apparitores, presumably his own (one of the few references outside the Spanish municipal charters to local apparitores); and one to C. Iulius Salvius, a freedman of C. Iulius Caesar, his accensus (in his Wrst consulship?), later a magister Lupercorum and uiator tribunicius. Caesar is in all probability the dictator rather than his great-nephew, and it was probably as his accensus that Salvius started out, perhaps before manumission.195 Caesar was interested in reforming and rejuvenating the race of the Luperci, famously attending in 44. It is thus highly signiWcant that Salvius turns up as a ‘mag. luperc.’, a post in any event held by other known apparitores, some of them uiatores like him.196 Salvius had presumably settled in Ocriculum, and took some sort of semi-professional interest in the decuriae of municipal apparitores there; it may have been they who put Postumus in touch with him. At any event, it is signiWcant that Postumus thought the freedman worth cultivating—this was surely due to the social status he held as a retired apparitor as well as his connections with Caesar. These connections bring us to consider the date of the stone. Degrassi thought it was not earlier than the death of Caesar (which would call the eYcacy of Salvius’ most important connection into question).197 If so it must have been 193 CIL xi. 491*. I was unsuccessful in two attempts to gain access to the Villa Polimanti, where the stone was seen by Pietrangeli in the early 1940s. 194 CIL i2 . p. 1078. 195 See Dessau, ad ILS 9039, and Purcell, PBSR (1983), 127, 140, on the accensi and subsequent career paths as oYcial as opposed to personal apparitores, citing the example of Salvius’ move to uiator. 196 e.g. ILLRP 696 (Rome) and CIL xi. 3205 (Nepet), with Purcell, PBSR (1983), 169. On uiatores as generally of freedman status see Treggiari, Freedmen, 156; and as exemplars of social mobility, see Purcell, PBSR (1983), 154 (cf. 131–8 on apparitorial social status generally, and 161–7 on the opportunities for geographical and social mobility oVered to Italians by an apparitorial post). 197 CIL i2 . p. 1078.
372
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
before the deiWcation of 42 bc—Caesar is not diuus Iulius—one celebrated in the municipia through the lex Rufrena, which seems to have provided for the setting up of statues throughout Italy.198 It is surely possible, though, that the dedication could also belong to the dictatorship itself, although being on marble it will be no earlier. The distribution of the magistracy, or rather the apparent restriction of it to Ocriculum under the Republic, is important, since it underlines how closely Ocriculum was integrated by the Caesarian period in Rome’s metropolitan cultural and political hinterland (see also Q61).199 A local magistrate cultivated a former accensus of Caesar; Milo had a villa there until his exile: the municipium, well connected by road and river to the capital, naturally shared its tastes and fashions, often ahead of more distant or sleepy parts of Italy. It is possible that as early as the 60s Ocriculum had sought to express its close association with Rome by giving a nod in the direction of Roman aediles, and changing, perhaps by an alteration of its lex, the titulature of those of its magistrates with aedilician functions. It was not, in the present state of the evidence, until the Principate that other centres appear to have caught on.
5 . Q UAT T UO RV I R A L C O N C LUS I O N S The individual results and the general picture gained from the above analysis will now be brieXy collected together and reconsidered. The origins of the magistracy remain uncertain, although we can exclude an ‘Italic’ as opposed to a Roman origin: it is at all times clearly a Roman collegiate magistracy, like the duovirate, and its wide distribution must speak against any theory of an origin in a particular part of Italy.200 In fact, Gabba has rightly pointed out that one essential feature of the quattuorvirate is the blandness of the name, which by simply specifying the number of magistrates in the senior college could not be tied to the pre-enfranchisement political history or administrative structures of any particular community or group of communities.201 We have been able to gain some insight into the structure of the magistracy as it developed over time. In its earliest form the quattuorvirate was a college of four magistrates who possessed equal powers and responsibilities. It seems that even repeated tenure did not entitle a IIII uir to any higher position than his 198 CIL i2. 797. 199 On this see Purcell, PBSR (1983), 163. 200 Rosenberg saw the quattuorvirate as an evolution of the octovirate (Staat, 45–6); rather, some octoviral municipia became quattuorviral at a late stage in their evolution. The two magistracies probably do have in common that they were in a sense an artiWcial Roman creation, applied to diVerent geographical areas, in the case of the octovirate, probably meeting a requirement generated by the scattered settlement pattern of the territories concerned (cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 73). Letta (Magistrature, 71–4, 79) thought it was devised for the Umbrian towns in 90 and then extended to other areas for the sake of uniformity. This, however, ignores the problem of the Etruscans. 201 Italia romana, 62.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
373
fellows. It is uncertain how, if at all, functions and tasks were shared among the quattuoruiri at this stage—some were conducted jointly by all four. By c.70 bc the Wrst change appears, with pairs of IIII uiri being attested for the Wrst time. Neither pair had any qualifying epithets or titles, but one reason for the division must be sought in a need for increasing specialization and division of labour in local administration, the old larger college being seen perhaps as ineYcient and unwieldy. Another reason for the division was surely to create some kind of hierarchy within the administrative structure,202 which made executive decisions easier, and allowed some intercessio to the higher pair of IIII uiri, a lack of which may have promoted conXicts of interest under the older system. Not much later, soon after c.70 bc, and perhaps in 67 bc, the quattuorvirate i. d. makes its Wrst appearance; the quattuorvirate aedilicia potestate seems to have appeared around the same time, but unlike the quattuorvirate i. d., neither the substantive changes to the magistracy nor the titulature seem to have exercised much attraction outside a few larger centres. This change did not represent any grant of jurisdictional rights but rather, I believe, was a regularization of the relationship between the edict of the urban praetor and the practice of the municipal magistrates. Perhaps there was some substantive change in their powers at this time too, for instance an increase in the level of the sponsio at stake necessary for the option of trial at Rome to become available. The introduction of the title quattuorvirate i. d. by Rome increased the distinction of the higher pair of magistrates. Since tenure of the lower magistracy was now required before holding the higher, a new municipal cursus was now instantiated in titular terms, as well as de facto.203 Local elites would surely have felt the need of some hierarchy within the magisterial system, one on which they could hone their instincts of ambition, competition, and display. A cursus marked out an obvious path to eminence within the community; that eminence in turn could be used to justify and buttress competition on a wider basis. It is no accident that much municipal euergetism is carried out within the context of municipal magistracies.204 In fact, out of total of sixty-Wve quattuorviral inscriptions which certainly or very probably deal with public building works or dedications, fourteen certainly or probably record instances of personal muniWcence as the method of payment: 22 per cent, a signiWcant proportion.205 202 Appointment to one pair rather than the other probably depended at this stage on the order in which IIII uiri were elected. 203 At this point the higher pair of quattuoruiri probably became the eponyms of the community for that year. 204 The following cases show certain or probable euergetism by municipal magistrates, i.e. they substitute their own resources for those of the community: Q6, 9, 28, 38, 40, 41, 48, 56, 59, 61, 84. In addition, Q22, 54, and 75 demonstrate clearly the tight connection between euergetism, social status, honoriWc decrees by senate and people, and successful careers as municipal magistrates. On municipal euergetism in the late Republic, see Panciera, in Christol and Masson (eds.), Actes du X e Congre`s Internationale d’E´pigraphie; Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, ch. 4. 205 The proportion might be higher, since nine or ten of our inscriptions are too fragmentary to be securely included in one group or another. IIII uiri quinquennales are the least frequent users of their own resources.
374
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
Finally, the lower pair of magistrates seem to have diversiWed their titulature. The only certain IIII uiri aediles known to us come from Ocriculum, and I have suggested that this special case is accounted for by the town’s proximity to Rome. The date of their Wrst appearance cannot be Wxed, but it will not be earlier than c.65, and may perhaps belong to the dictatorship. The possibility of new titulature in this case does not seem to be linked to a grant of substantial new powers, although I have suggested that there was ongoing equalization between the powers of municipal aedilician magistrates and colonial aediles on the one hand, and Roman aediles on the other, the details of which, however, cannot be recovered. The creation, or enhancement, of aedilician iurisdictio, may also be in question. More importantly, the new titles probably reXect an increasingly complex and specialized administration, one which had evolved and crystallized over the preceding decades. Furthermore, municipal administration had become more selfconscious and more self-conWdent in that time, and it sought to reXect this in the titles of its magistrates. The quattuorvirate had to some extent begun as a blanket magistracy for a wide range of diVerent communities with diverse experiences of communal life, and diVerent traditions. By the end of the republic the municipia had clearly made the magistracy their own and shaped it to their own ends and requirements: hence a certain diversity in the adoption of diVerent titles. The quinquennial quattuorvirate is not attested before the 60s; it may have been introduced in the consulship of Pompeius and Crassus, or it may be an original characteristic of the magistracy, originally shared by all four magistrates, becoming later the preserve of the higher pair, and the summit of a man’s ambition, marking him out as a princeps of his community. By the triumviral period we begin to Wnd the Wrst traces of the classic cursus of imperial Italy: IIII uir aed. pot., IIII uir i. d., IIII uir quinq. (as already in Q54).206 The imperial municipal system was almost fully developed by the end of the Republic, capable of supporting a greater load of decentralized administration, as Caesar at least seems to have intended. The day of Italian unity, of municipia and coloniae largely 206 I believe that the quattuorvirate was essentially a hierarchical magistracy from c.70 onwards, although during the Republic it remained Wrmly enclosed within the four-man structure. We more commonly Wnd repetition of the supreme magistracy advertised (Degrassi, SVA i. 167 n. 583). I cannot accept the thesis of Grelle (Labeo (1980), 329–33) that collegiality was the rule throughout the existence of the magistracy, and that the diVerent manifestations of the quattuorvirate had parity with each other, rather than forming senior and junior pairs. On his view the jurisdictional and aedilician oYces were not indications of rank, but rather of specialization within a homogeneous magisterial college. This accounts, according to Grelle, for the fact that the quattuorvirate aed. pot. or aedilicius was held more than once in some cases. Yet he only adduces three instances (AE (1969–70), 138 (incomplete), (1980), 274 (Canusium), and CIL ix. 283 (Barium) ). It is true that the word IIII uir only appears once in each cursus (e.g. ‘IIII uir i. d. aedili IIII—AE (1980), 274), but this fact cannot carry the signiWcance attributed to it by Grelle. His instances of multiple tenure of the aedilician quattuorvirate should not be explained by specialization, surely an anachronistic concept for municipal magistrates, but rather in the Werce competition for advancement within a strongly hierarchical magisterial structure, which absorbed much of the competitive energies of the elites. The lower quattuorvirate was probably easier to exercise. For a comparable instance in the Republic see Q2 above, where C. Rustius is ‘IIII uir . . . iter’.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
375
homogeneous in their institutional structures and political outlook, united within the Roman res publica, but maintaining manifestations on both cultural and institutional levels of traditionalism and intense particularism, was almost at hand. That day was to see the dawning of a new, and in one sense a golden, age of municipal life in Italy under Augustus and his successors. The picture of the evolution of the quattuorvirate which emerges from the analysis in this chapter is a very gradual one. I believe that innovations in titulature were not imposed, but rather oVered to Italian communities by Roman statutes. Thus some time may have elapsed between the oVer of a new title in a statute, and its general proliferation throughout the peninsula; this seems to be particularly true of the new titulature for the lower pair of IIII uiri, and may be true of the others. A corollary of this is the apparent absence of the quattuorvirate i. d. from some small towns, which as at Ferentium, may sometimes have lasted throughout the Republic. Smaller centres and backwater communities may have found that their administrative tasks never became suYciently complex, or municipal life so busy and vibrant as to warrant taking all the steps usual in the mainstream of municipal culture in Italy. One consequence of this is that we cannot always assume that a community which is attested as having IIII uiri also had IIII uiri i. d. In such cases IIII uiri nude dicti may be either the higher or the lower pair of magistrates; and it is incorrect to describe those attested in public inscriptions as IIII uiri i. d. or aed. pot. if they did not so describe themselves. The simple quattuorvirate endures, principally for the name of the lower pair, throughout the republican and triumviral periods. At diVerent times, in diVerent towns, it was supplanted by newer names. The regional distribution of the magistracy as a whole is interesting. Some attributions are uncertain, but not so much so as to upset a regional survey. The nature of the evidence also means that communities which have been little studied, or which knew little urban expansion, or had an attenuated urban form, in our period, risk being passed over in undeserved silence. One can only survey what is there, and note the holes. The results can be compared with generally accepted Wgures for epigraphic density of regions (by total number of inscriptions against total number of towns), and extrapolate some broad trends as to the distribution of quattuorviral municipia under the Republic, its peaks and troughs. One cannot pretend that the communities covered in such a survey are the only ones in Italy which were municipalized between the Social War and the start of the Principate: for a start there are the duoviral muncipia to be discussed in the next chapter. Other evidence for municipia in our period will be considered in Appendix 3; for now we may note that all Latin colonies were surely municipalized, although Venusia, which rebelled, and Aesernia, taken by insurgents in 90 and not recovered until the early 70s, may have had to wait a while to be organized, perhaps Nola too. Table 8.1 gives a regional breakdown (in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the total sample) of the distribution of the epigraphic attestations of the quattuorvirate. A rough attempt to put these Wgures into perspective is given by the percentage of the inscriptions in CIL provided by
376
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
Table 8.1. Regional breakdown of attestations of the quattuorvirate by community
Latium Vetusc Latium Adiectum Campania Caudini Hirpini Pentri Lucaniad Bruttium Apulia Paeligni Marsi Aequi Etruria Umbria Cisalpina Total
Quattuorviral communities
Attestationsa
Epigraphic densityb
2 (4.2%) 7 (14%) 4 (8%) 1 (2%) 2 (4.2%) 2 (4.2%) 4 (8%) 3 (6%) 5 (10%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 8 (16%) 7 (14%) 2 (4.2%)
6 (6.25%) 9 (9.36%) 11 (11.5%) 1 (1.04%) 9 (9.36%) 2 (2.08%) 4 (4.2%) 3 (3.1%) 10 (10.4%) 1 (1.04%) 1 (1.04%) 2 (2.08%) 13 (13.5%) 16 (16.7%) 8 (8.3%)
25.9 25.9 25.9 7.6 7.6 8.8 1.7 1.7 7.6 8.8 8.8 8.8 14.1 8.6 –
50
96
a Total number of attestations of the quattuorvirate in each area (each inscription is counted once, unless the same tenure of a magistracy is mentioned in more than one inscription). b Epigraphic density for the Augustan region of which the republican region forms (or mainly forms) part; expressed as % of the total number of inscriptions in CIL. No Wgure is given for the epigraphic density of Cisalpina, since Placentia was in the regio Aemilia under the Empire, while Aquileia was in the regio Transpadana, and the epigraphic density of these regions is wildly diVerent (4.6 and 17.8% respectively). There were only a handful of quattuorviral municipia in Cisalpina before 49 in any case (see App. 3). c Latium Vetus includes Tibur and Cora. d The numismatically attested quattuoruiri of Paestum are counted once.
each region.207 These regions are, of course, the Augustan regions, created after our period and enjoying long and Xuctuating histories, and only notionally based on pre-Social-War ethnic units, despite their enthnoyms.208 Nor do they represent standard units of analysis in terms of urbanism, demography, or epigraphic habit; even within regions, there is diversity: Apulia and Samnium belong in the same region. Their histories also diVered: much of Latium and northern Campania was Roman before the Social War; the same is true of the territory of the Sabines, and much of that of the Vestini, peoples who, in general, did not experience the quattuorvirate under the Republic (Cures and Reate, Plestia and Fulginiae did under the Empire, where the magistracy is best explained as an evolution of a preceding octovirate209); much of Picenum was already Roman in 90. Alba Fucens and Carseoli were the only big centres in former Aequian territory at this time—and they were Latin colonies. The predominance of these in our survey is clear, representing sixteen (33 per cent) of attested quattuorviral communities; the Marrucini, Paeligni, Marsi, and Samnites had very few big settlements in any case. 207 Figures taken from R. P. Duncan-Jones, The Economy of the Roman Empire, 339. 208 See Bispham, forthcoming. 209 See Beloch, RG 504; Rudolph, Stadt, 83–4; Taylor, Voting Districts, 82–3; LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 48 n. 53.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
377
Nevertheless, leaving aside the former Latin colonies, the Wgures are instructive for those areas where there were few or no municipia before the Social War. Latium Adiectum, Campania, and Etruria are prominent in all three columns. Others show singular disparity: Apulia has 10 per cent of quattuorviral communities and 10.5 per cent of attestations; the combination of the epigraphic density of Apulia with that of Samnium has dragged down the CIL density Wgure for the former below its natural level. Umbria shows a surprisingly high yield of quattuorviral attestations when compared to the CIL Wgure; and the Pentri, Marsi, Paeligni, and Aequi all fall below the CIL density. These Wgures underline the fact that Latium, Campania, Apulia, Etruria, and Umbria were highly municipalized, but that the Samnites and the other Sabellian peoples of the central Apennines were urbanistically and municipally backward, both in the number of municipia and the level of municipal activity of attested. This can be underlined by the fact that, if we remove the Latin colonies from the reckoning, the Hirpini are reduced to four attestations (all from the ‘loyalist’ community of Aeclanum), the Pentri to the anomolous Ligures Baebiani, which only appeared at the very end of our period, the Lucani to two municipia and the Bruttii to one; together with the Caudini, Paeligni, Marsi (that is the Social War rebels minus the Apulians and Campanians) these areas provide only 11.5 per cent of the total attestations of the quattuorvirate in Italy, out of all proportion to their geographical area. These Wgures only provide a guide to the extent and level of quattuorviral municipalization, and will need to be corrected in the light of the Wndings of Chapters 9 and 10 (with App. 3), giving the attestations for duoviral municipia, and the literary evidence for republican municipia. Nevertheless, some signiWcant preliminary trends have emerged. It seems that some areas of Roman Italy were very short of municipia (note the absentees from Table 8.1), and thus would have presented problems to the Roman Senate from the point of view of administration. How did they manage? Did the Senate have to promote municipalization to plug the gaps, and if so, how quickly? How long were communities like Asculum Picenum allowed to languish as uici or pagus-centres before they were municipalized? All these questions will be considered in Chapter 10, when the evidence is complete, but for now the trends are worth noting. Secondly, the dearth of quattuorviral municipia in some areas was important for the Italians. The quattuorvirate was a ‘blanket’ magistracy, imposed on a number of peoples whose cultural and political experiences were quite diVerent, Etruscans, Umbrians, Messapii, Latins, and Samnites alike, without respect for local diversity and tradition (which was catered for in local leges).210 Viewed from this angle it had to Wll a wide brief, since the Latin colonies were used to their large archaic administrative structures, and practices closer to the Roman, whereas the Samnites, for instance, may in some cases only have known two magistrates, the meddı´ss tu´vtiks and a junior meddı´ss—although the Oscan-speaking communities of Campania had been borrowing Roman 210 Cf. Beloch, RG 502–3; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 165.
378
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
magistracies to supplement and improve their own administrative structures since at least the second century.211 The quattuorvirate had to bridge the gap between these two extremes, covering all points in between, presenting the enfranchised peoples each with an identical tabula rasa, on which they could imprint their own unique stamp of political life within a Roman system. Guided by the local lex, and within the quattuorviral framework, they had to make their way as best they could as Romans. Of course we should not think that municipal life was utterly alien to any of them; yet the challenge of living in a political and social community as Romans will have elicited diVerent responses from each group. All those municipalized in the 80s knew that, externally at least, they started from the same point: they were all municipes of quattuorviral municipia. Only in two cases does this not hold true. Neapolis and Regium retained substantial elements of their ancestral ‘Greek’ constitutions in their new municipal incarnations.212 The eponymous magistrate at Neapolis was the de¯marchos, and under the Empire it seems that this oYce, along with the position of archo¯n and antarcho¯n, formed the three senior magistracies in the city. Neapolis also had magistrates who called themselves Ææ ¼æ. This body was formed from two archontes and two agoranomoi, and was intended to correspond outwardly to the Roman quattuorvirate.213 In Regium, the eponymous prutanis, who also discharged the duties of archo¯n and sometimes of agoranomos, was assisted by three colleagues of lower rank, the sumprutaneis.214 Costabile has called these constitutions ‘compromises’ between the patrios politieia of the Greek community and the Roman quattuorvirate, since the ancestral Greek constitution was only partly continued after enfranchisement, but at the same time the names of the individual magistrates remain Greek, and the body which outwardly corresponds to the quattuorvirate is diVerent in its internal structure, more so at Regium than at Neapolis.215 The Xexibility of the quattuorvirate is beautifully demonstrated here. For those communities which had it, the quattuorvirate distinguished them from submunicipal entities (thus it conferred status), and also from older Roman municipia and from coloniae (thus it was a mark of individuality for the new citizens); and it also smoothed over apparent diVerences of status, loyalty in the Social War, tribal assignation, cultural background, size, and wealth. All communities started out, and remained, equal, at least as institutional entities within the Roman state. The quattuorvirate embodied unity, equality, and autonomy, above all in the broader context of the ciuitas Romana. This was important for principes 211 See Campanile, Magistrature, 25–6. 212 Cf. Galsterer, Herrschaft, 99, on Neapolis and Heraclea. 213 One attestation, IG xiv. 745, may be republican. On the Neapolitan constitution generally, see Sartori, Problemi, 47–53; Costabile, Istituzioni, 126–7. 214 See the convincing account of Costabile, Istituzioni, 130–40, followed by Buonocore, Supp. It. ns 5: 35. In the 2nd cent. ad Regium became a normal quattuorviral community. 215 See Costabile, Istituzioni, 128, 139. I do not, however, agree with him where he denies (ibid. 140) that such variations could have derived from a general municipal statute; we are, after all, dealing only with two communities.
‘Quattuoruiri quinquennales’ and Others
379
and populi alike, since the elites would be concerned with supplying the executive, the people with voting for it: on one level this was their political, social, and economic world. Conversely, for those enfranchised as a result of the Social War who were not, however, municipalized straightaway, notably the Sabellic peoples of the central Apennines, the lack of the quattuorvirate for some decades must have given an obvious sense of inferiority. Emulation of Rome, and things Roman, conscious and subconscious, had been one of the driving forces behind the demand of the socii for admission to the Roman citizen body. In political terms, the new world they had entered was, for the members of each new municipium, now symbolized by the quattuorvirate, which as we have seen, was not empty or static, but elastic, and evolved in harmony with the increasing complexity and dynamism of municipal life in the late Republic. Its importance cannot be overestimated.
9 The Duovirate 1 . I N T RO D U C T I O N The duovirate, the other magistracy found in municipia created after the Social War, is the subject of this chapter. The analysis proceeds along the same lines as those employed in Chapters 6–8 (the relevant texts are D1–20 in the Addendum), with two important exceptions. First, the duovirate, although it appears after the Social War, is found as often in citizen communites whose incorporation predates the conXict as it is in new citizen communities. In the former group, it seems to be more or less a continuation of the two-praetor magistracy found before the Social War; but its presence in the new citizen communities requires careful thought before an explanation can be suggested. I have here considered all attestations of the duovirate, since I do not believe that the two groups can or should be considered independently. The second diVerence is that, while we can suggest to within half a decade the date of the introduction of the quattuorvirate, that of the Wrst appearance of the duovirate is anything but clear. The attempt to provide at least a partial answer to this problem will be one of the aims of this chapter.
2 . DVOV IR I ( D1 – 14 ) There are fourteen attestations of II uiri nude dicti, from Fidenae, Cereatae Marianae, Herculaneum, ?Aprustum, Bantia, Tarentum, Ausculum, Trebula SuVenas, Forum Novum, Cupra Maritima, and Trea. D1 and D2 are from Fidenae. These stones have been variously dated, with Dessau believing D1 to be Sullan, and Degrassi thinking that D2 could be imperial, doubting the identity of the two Manilii proposed by Lommatzsch.1 There are no cognomina present, and this ought to be signiWcant in a place so close to Rome, even one that had enjoyed no corporate existence since the fourth century.2 Palaeographically too, it appears from Panaitescu’s drawing that the ‘L’ of ‘Manil(ius)’ in D2 was hooked, in the archaic fashion.3 All this suggests a date in the Wrst half of the century, but not as early as the Sullan period, when the
1 Dessau, CIL xiv. p. 453; Lommatzsch, CIL i2 . 2664; Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1000. 2 See Beloch, RG 160. 3 Ephemeris Dacoromana (1924), 434.
The Duovirate
381
quattuorvirate was still being used for the creation of new autonomous communities in the area around Rome.4 D3 is from Cereatae Marianae, and probably dates to the mid-Wrst century, perhaps c.45 bc?5 A mid-century date is permissible on paleographical grounds, and not ruled out by the lack of cognomina. Cereatae Marianae was originally a uicus within the territory of Arpinum.6 At what date it became an independent res publica is unknown. Mommsen was uncertain whether to assign its II uiri to a municipium or a colonia, and as to the date when such a community Wrst appeared. He thought that the silence of Cicero should exclude a date before his death, that the other terminus should be Tiberius’ reign, and that a promotion under Augustus was most likely.7 Cereatae is unlikely to have kept the epithet Marianae, or any independent status under Sulla. Caesar restored Marius’ trophies in 65 bc, and this can be considered the point at which the uicus may have decided it was now prudent to adopt or resurrect the name Marianae. The silence of Cicero is not conclusive— even he does not tell us by any means everything about Arpinate aVairs that we should like to know. His silence however on a fact of geography which might take the gloss oV his ‘Arpinate’ Marius may be due to partisanship.8 Marius had been born an Arpinate, but others would have been able to post a better claim to having Marius as their son after Cereatae had broken away from Arpinum. The fact that Strabo,9 and Pliny,10 both mention the community does not prove that it had been municipalized by then (nor is there evidence of any colonization), but it suggests that it was no longer a mere village in the territory of Arpinum. One possibility seems to have been overlooked by scholars. We know from Cicero that in 46 Arpinum was gearing up for a major overhaul of its constitution.11 It may not be too wide of the mark to see the emergence of Cereatae Marianae as an independent community as related to this reorganization.12 The Caesarian dictatorship moreover had seen the return of the sons of the proscribed, and may have seemed well suited for this reason too to an attempt to enhance the status of Marius’ birthplace; such a date is not at all contradicted by the evidence of D3; the paving of a road can be interpreted as part of the gradual creation or improvement of an urban centre beWtting municipal status. If the municipium was only created in or after 45, then Cicero’s silence may be explained. 4 See Ch. 10, App. 3. Strabo, 5. 3. 2, 230C, may mean, if the notice is not anachronistic, that there was no urban revival at Fidenae to accompany the restoration of autonomy; see Coarelli, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 80; Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 68, is non-committal on the date. 5 See now Solin, in EpigraWa, 178; Cebeillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 66. 6 Plutarch, Mar. 3 says that Marius was born K Œ ˚ØææÆØøØ B ` æ. 7 CIL x. p. 564, followed by Solin, Epigraphica (1988), 97–8, who raises the interesting possibility that Cereatae, the territory of which has been shown by epigraphic Wnds to be unexpectedly large, was a colony (whence the duouiri). 8 See also Rawson, Culture, 18–20, on the lack of anecdotes about Marius in Cicero’s works. 9 Strabo, 5. 3. 10, 238C, with Coarelli, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 78, 80. 10 HN 3. 64 11 Cic., Fam. 13. 11. 3. 12 Cf. Ch. 8, Q80 for the suggestion that a similar thing happened at Ligures Baebiani.
382
The Duovirate
D4 and D5 are from Herculaneum. D4 is especially signiWcant in that it records II uiri primi, that is, the very Wrst duoviral magistrates of the community. Although both II uiri were probably named in the inscription (see Addendum), only the second, whose name is legible, and can be restored with some conWdence as Marcius Phi[lippus], is of prosopographical interest. Neither Della Corte13 nor Degrassi14 suggested an identity for him. This was done by Bloch, who oVers L. Marcius Philippus, cos. 56, or possibly his homonymous son.15 The elder Philippus had an estate between Cumae and Puteoli,16 and was allowed by Caesar to stay in Naples during the Second Civil War.17 Now, D4 is on marble, though it is not clear whether Greek or Luna marble.18 Marble is not commonly used before the Augustan period, but the inscription might nevertheless belong to the dictatorship of Caesar or to the triumviral period (earlier if Greek marble). A lot depends on the way the introduction of a duoviral constitution19 at Herculaneum is interpreted. Beloch assumed that, despite a complete lack of evidence in the substantial epigraphic corpus of Herculaneum, the town had originally been made a quattuorviral municipium in the 80s, only becoming duoviral at a later date.20 Degrassi, however, suggested that Herculaneum did not have its autonomy restored after its capture during the Social War until the time of Caesar or more probably Augustus, the period to which he dates both D4 and D16.21 Bloch opts for the Caesarian period,22 while Della Corte allows the Augustan period as also possible.23 It is hard to imagine that Herculaneum was not municipalized until the second half of the century, but this may partly be due to an over-exposure to the glossy photographs and spectacular archaeology which have elevated Herculaneum in our 13 RAAN (1958), 297. 14 SVA i. 189–90. 15 Gnomon (1965), 562, cf. Wiseman, New Men, 46 n. 4. 16 Cic., Att. 13. 52. 1, 14. 11. 2, cf. Bloch, Gnomon (1965), 562. Wiseman, in his appendix on the estates of senators, only lists Cumae (New Men, 193)—but he does not pretend to be exhaustive. See also D’Arms, Bay of Naples, 54, 58, 63, 71, 181–2. 17 Cic., Att. 9. 15. 4. 18 Della Corte, RAAN 1958, 297. The provenance of the marble might have implications for the date of the text, since a city so close to Greek Naples would have access to Greek marble before Italian marble became widely used. 19 On this see Della Corte, ibid. 240, 279. 20 RG 510, followed by Rudolph, Stadt, 90 n. 2; Manni, Per la storia, 152; LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr. 49 n. 65. 21 SVA i. 187–9, 191. He adduces the example of nearby Stabiae, which was sacked by Sulla in 89, and seems never to have recovered its autonomy; Pliny, HN 3. 70 writes: ‘nunc in uillas abiit’. The point Degrassi makes about the possibility of a delay between enfranchisement and municipalization is an important one (see Ch. 4), but I think he overstates his case, implying for instance that Aeclanum, already a municipium by the immediate post-Sullan period, was possibly exceptional in achieving that status quickly, in virtue of its loyalty to Rome in the Social War (SVA i. 188–9, cf. Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 172). Not all communities enfranchised in or after the Social War became municipia in the 80s, but a large number did. Besides, Aeclanate loyalty was restricted to Minatius Magius and his legion; Aeclanum itself was sacked by Sulla. 22 Gnomon (1965), 562 23 RAAN (1958), 240, 279.
The Duovirate
383
eyes to an extraordinary status for what was really quite a small town. Degrassi’s is essentially an argument from silence, but two factors incline me to believe that his argument should be accepted. First, we can surely rule out an early duoviral municipalization, since there are no certain or even probable parallels for duoviral communities enfranchised straight after the Social War. Secondly, we must always be on our guard against the (natural) tendency to produce schematic and inXexible models for municipalization. Degrassi’s Herculaneum hypothesis should not be rejected simply because it is counter-intuitive. The case of Stabiae is very signiWcant in this respect, and there is no shortage of cases of other south Italian towns which only achieved municipal status in precisely the period which Degrassi has posited for Herculaneum’s municipalization.24 Finally it seems that the triumviral and Augustan periods saw a notable increase in the level of monumental building in Herculaneum (cf. D5 and the euergetistic eVorts of Nonius Balbus, below), which may well indicate that the sack of 89 initiated a period of considerable decline in Herculaneum’s fortunes, not helped by the Xourishing of the colony at nearby Pompeii. Prosperity, and some degree of importance within the regional economy, may have taken some time to return to Herculaneum, but may have brought municipal status in their wake when they did. Accepting the hypothesis of a late municipalization, have we any further means of limiting the chronological arc in which it could have happened? I am very tempted by the idea that the involvement of a L. Marcius Philippus in the municipalization of the city is a result of the sojourn there of the cos. 56 in the Civil War years. The family had property in the area probably acquired in the Sullan period, but this may have been the Wrst period of extended contact between the Marcii Philippi and the bay of Naples. I suggest therefore that a terminus post quem may be the arrival of Philippus in Naples in 49. If contacts were built up in these years, there might nonetheless from one point of view seem to be little point in bringing in a Roman noble whose neutrality might render him of little political advantage to the town in future. Of course, on the other side, whoever won the Civil War, Philippus would not become a liability. Nevertheless, the time at which any friendly relations previously established would become really useful is surely to be placed after the rise to power of Philippus’ stepson, C. Caesar Divi f., especially after the foundation of the Triumvirate. On the other hand, as we shall see, D5 should date to the triumviral rather than the Augustan period, thus providing a terminus ante quem. As to the question of which L. Marcius Philippus we should choose, options are open.25 Nothing is heard of the cos. 5626 after 43, and although this is to be partly accounted for by the lapse of the Ciceronian correspondence, he probably did not live much longer in any case. Thus if we place the municipalization of Herculaneum in the later triumviral 24 SVA i. 188, 191–2, cf. 188. 25 The cos. 91 is possible of course, but he appears to have had little time for the Italians and their aVairs. He was almost certainly dead by the end of the 70s—cf. Mu¨nzer, RE s.v. ‘Marcius’ no. 75, col. 1567. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 76, opts for a Caesarian date. 26 Mu¨nzer, RE s.v. ‘Marcius’ 76, col. 1571.
384
The Duovirate
period, we should think more in terms of his son, cos. suV. 38.27 The objection might, of course, be raised that a consular would not simply give his name in a municipal inscription, but this problem has been dealt with in Chapter 7.28 The other Herculaneum inscription which concerns us here, D5, was lost hundreds of years ago. It is an honoriWc decree passed by the ordo of Herculaneum in favour of the M. Memmii RuW, father and son, in recognition of their numerous acts of muniWcence towards the community. Sherk has argued that both this inscription and AE (1947), 53 (also from Herculaneum) could be preAugustan, since they lack the second half of the formula ‘d. e. r. i. c. q. d. e. r. f. p.’, which according to him becomes a standard feature from the time of Augustus onwards.29 This date is demonstrably unacceptable for the latter, since the subject of the decree, Nonius Balbus of Nuceria, deceased, had been a praetorian provincial governor under Augustus, where the majority of his euergetic activity should probably belong:30 his decree is certainly Augustan. That however does not rule out an earlier date for D5. For a start AE (1947), 53 has the abbreviated formula ‘[Qu]od . . . u. f.’, whereas in D5 the formula is spelt out in full, possibly suggesting a more primitive form of decree. Secondly, the spelling is markedly diVerent in the Nonius Balbus inscription, with hardly any forms which could be considered unusual in an Augustan inscription. D5, on the other hand, has older spellings, and enough of them that it is hard to see how the inscription could be any later than the earliest years of Augustus’ reign. In particular ‘pequnia’ (my l. 3) is somewhat surprising even for a triumviral inscription.31 These forms, however, alternate with more modern ones, which suggests that the inscription belongs at a period when the transition to classical Augustan spelling was in full swing. This, as well as the fact that our other municipal decree (Q54, Brundisium) comes from the early triumviral period, suggests that our rather loquacious inscription belongs in the years between the death of Caesar and Actium.32 D5 is almost certainly earlier than the Augustan Nonius Balbus inscription, which while it does not rule out an Augustan date, is certainly suggestive. Other features of this text elicit brief comment. The importance of the Remmii RuW to the political, social, and economic life of Herculaneum is eloquently 27 Fluss, RE s.v. ‘Marcius’ 77. praetor in 44; he had no known son: Syme, RR 496 n. 1. 28 See on Q62. I doubt that there was any room on the stone for titulature after Philippus’ name in any case. 29 Municipal Decrees, 61–2. He recognizes that the texts could equally well be Augustan. 30 He should be idenitifed with the tr. pl. 32—Schumacher, Chiron (1976); see also Wiseman, New Men, no. 275. 31 Note, however, D15 below; the spelling is also found in some Augustan and later texts. Other ‘pre-Augustan’ forms: ‘uitieis’ (7), ‘eei ueiuerent’ (9), ‘seruos’ (11)—this may however be a lapicidal or a MS error—‘quei’, ‘eei’ (11), ‘agei’ (13), ‘ambitionei’ (14). Of course these spellings cannot be veriWed since the MS is lost; yet they represent the lectio diYcilior. 32 Note that the chalcidicum at Pompeii is an Augustan ediWce, connected with the imperial cult; Emmanuele Curti has suggested to me (pers. comm.) that the chalcidicum in the forum at Veleia is Augustan or Tiberian, and again linked to the imperial cult. Neither of these cases proves that a chalcidicum at Herculaneum must be Augustan.
The Duovirate
385
witnessed not only by the record of their benefactions, but by the passing of this fulsome honorary decree, at which ‘adfuerunt cuncti’ (l. 1). It is also signiWcant that, at least for the second duovirate, father and son held oYce together. This provides very interesting evidence on the ways in which continuity within the elite could be established and underlined, as well as a very interesting side-light on Q82 from Rubi, where father and son held the quattuorvirate in successive years.33 Our next example, D6, comes from Bruttium, inland from Croton. That modern Santa Severina had an ancient predecessor has long been suspected, and it was plausibly suggested by Kahrstedt that the ancient settlement was the Aprustum mentioned by Pliny.34 There is no notice of a triumviral or early Augustan colony in this area, and the inscription, on local stone, is too far from Croton, the nearest place to have II uiri, to refer to the magistrates of that community.35 Therefore ?Aprustum should have been a duoviral municipium. The photographs published by Gasperini, because of the awkward position of the text, do not give a very clear idea of what the letter forms are like. On Wrst sight they look as if they could belong to the Wrst half of the century, with the round ‘O’ and splayed ‘M’; the hooked ‘L’ noted by Gasperini is not visible from the photographs, but points in the same direction.36 Yet the text presents odd features, such as ‘d(uo) uir’ (l. 1), and the usual formula shortened to ‘fecerunt’. An explanation may be that this part of Bruttium was in the late Republic so backward in municipal matters that what would in other places be taken as signs of early dating serve here only to display the comparative isolation of the place. All we can say with any conWdence is that the inscription is probably republican, rather than imperial.37 Other elements are not helpful: the magistrates’ building programme recalls others of republican date from central and south Italy featuring some or all of the same elements; but these range from the second half of the second century to the second half of the Wrst.38 Prosopography is little help: a L. Marius was an accuser of Aemilius Scaurus in 54,39 and he might be the Marius who was quaestor in Syria in 50.40 A Lurius is known from a tessera nummularia
33 Also Q40 (Signia), and Q74 (Cora), where two men who may be cousins held the quattuorvirate; and the early Augustan CIL ix. 5688 from Cingulum, two brothers holding the duovirate for the second time. 34 For the history of the site see Gasperini, Decima Miscellanea, 162. Aprustum: Pliny, HN 3. 98 (cf. Ptolemy, 3. 1, 66 and Hu¨lsen, RE ii, s.v. ‘Aprustum’); Kahrstedt, Das wirtschaftliche Lage, 80, followed by Gasperini, Decima Miscellanea, 162. 35 Gasperini, ibid. 164; Costabile, Istituzioni, 161 n. 5, who does not, however, rule out the possibility that the stone referred to Croton. 36 Gasperini, Decima Miscellanea, 163. 37 Ibid., against Orsi’s suggestion. 38 In rough chronological order: ILLRP 550 (Asisium), 712 (Capua), Q49 (Aeclanum?), ILLRP 635 (Pescosansonesco), Q40 (Signia), ILLRP 596 (Formiae). 39 Asconius 19C; RE xiv, s.v. ‘Marius’ no. 20. 40 RE xiv, s.v. ‘Marius’ no. 4, cf. Mu¨nzer, RE xiv, s.v. ‘Marius’ no. 20, Broughton, MRR iii. 139.
386
The Duovirate
of 51 from Rome;41 but none of these men can be shown to have any connection with our II uiri. All we can do in the Wnal analysis is to suggest a tentative date around the middle of the century.42 The provenance of D7 is not much more secure, to my mind, than that of D6. It was Wrst properly published in 1882 by Barnabei; it had originally been excavated, along with ‘pezzi di colonne baccellate, ed . . . frammenti marmorei’, somewhere in the territory of Acerenza.43 Now, this hilltop site is mentioned by Horace, but there is no reason to think that it was an autonomous community in his lifetime.44 There is late epigraphic evidence of an independent community there,45 but the silence of Pliny46 and Strabo must place in some doubt the existence of a late republican duoviral municipium at Aceruntia. We must therefore take into account the strong possibility that the stone comes from duoviral Bantia in the next valley.47 If it did come from Aceruntia, we must note and explain the emergence of two municipia only ten kilometres apart at roughly the same time, that is, the end of the Republic or the beginning of the Principate, in an area in which the few autonomous communities were sparsely distributed. The date of the stone is hard to establish. Spellings like ‘co[erauerunt]’ are perfectly compatible with a later date, given that we are in rather a backwater (Venusia was the nearest place of consequence). The only clue may be provided by the magistrates themselves. M. Satrius is in my view probably to be seen as a local man. A famous Picene M. Satrius (on whom see App. 2) had changed his name after adoption to L. Minucius Basilus in or soon after Verres’ praetorship in 74, probably before the date of this inscription;48 other Satrii in the governing class are in short supply.49 More interesting are the Satrii found closer to home. A M. Satrius N. f. appears in an inscription from Tegianum, where he bids with others for a public contract: obviously a man of some substance.50 If Satrius is better seen as a local, the name of Cn. Pompeius has much grander associations. Wiseman has pointed out that the praenomen Gnaeus seems to be restricted 41 ILLRP 1052. 42 So too Costabile, Istituzioni, 161 n. 5. 43 NSA (1882), 383–5. 44 Hu¨lsen, RE i, s.v. ‘Aceruntia’, was incorrect to think that Aceruntia was a late republican colony— see Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1022. 45 CIL ix. 417; the town is also mentioned by Procopius, Bell. Goth. 3. 23, 26; 4. 26, 34. That he alone of literary sources speaks of an important community there seems to underline the lateness of its rise. 46 The ‘oppidani Acherontini’ of HN 3. 73 are clearly located in the Bruttian peninsula between Consentia and Vibo. There is no mention of anywhere that could conceivably disguise Aceruntia in the lists in which its neighbours Bantia and Forentum feature (3. 98, 105). The lines of Horace, ‘quicumque celsae nidum Acherontiae / saltusque Bantinos et aruum pingue tenent humilis Forenti’ (Carm. 3. 14–16) prove nothing in this respect. No mention of Aceruntia in Greco, Magna Grecia. 47 The two sites are only some 10 km apart as the crow Xies, but the distance travelled by the modern road is twice that. The heights involved in the climb up to Aceruntia might be an obstacle to a Bantian origin. Forentum, slightly further away, had better communications with Aceruntia, but there is no evidence that it was an independent community at this date. Note that Bantia was declining as Aceruntia became important (Torelli, Athenaeum (1983), 252). 48 Verr. 2. 1. 115–17, OV. 3. 73–4. For his Picene origin see ILLRP 566—Castrum Novum (L. Satrius L. f.); cf. 515, 577 (Asculum Picenum, Cupra Maritima). 49 Note however the legate of Trebonius in Asia in 44–43. 50 ILLRP 674; note also the Lucanian town of Satrianum.
The Duovirate
387
among the Pompeii to the family of Magnus,51 and hence it is tempting to see our Cn. Pompeius as one of them too.52 Pompeius Magnus and his homonymous son are only possible before 49 bc. There remains the cos. suV. of 31 bc, Cn. Pompeius Q. f.53 There is no room for any Roman magisterial titulature after the cognomen Magnus, which means we might be looking for a younger man with less dignitas, one who might have had more time to hold municipal oYce at least twice. In that case Cn. Pompeius Magnus iunior or Cn. Pompeius, cos. suV. 31, become possible candidates, and a date around or just after the middle of the century suitable. Nothing, though, is certain here. D8 comes from Tarentum. Originally Mommsen judged it to be false.54 Gasperini however argued that the cult of Minerva was plausible at Tarentum, in the context of continuity of old cults of the Greek city, and that since the duovirate was less common than the quattuorvirate, its appearance in a manuscript should be regarded as the fraus diYcilior, in which case it was probably genuine.55 The discovery at the end of the last century of CIL i2 . 3169 (only published by Gasperini in 1971), also duoviral, seems to settle the argument. Accordingly Degrassi accepted our text as genuine and included it in the most recent fascicule of CIL i2 as no. 3167. The inscription oVers few real dating criteria, and could in fact be early imperial.56 CIL i2 . 3169 oVers slightly more hope of dating, since the stone is preserved.57 The lettering does not in fact oVer much help. It is very carefully cut, but nothing about it strikes me as being particularly Augustan (note especially the shapes of ‘M’ and ‘Q’ in l. 2), and nothing as particularly early. It is best to assign it to the third quarter of the Wrst century, but it could be later.58 It is uncertain whether the plain duovirate was in question here, but statistically it seems likely that it was (see next section). I established in Chapter 5 that the original magistracy of Tarentum was the quattuorvirate, which was still in use when the lex Tarentina was passed (possibly in the 60s bc, but not later). The evidence here reviewed clearly shows that, by the end of the Republic or the beginning of the Principate (probably the former), Tarentum had adopted a duoviral magisterial structure, and thus that its constitution had undergone further modiWcation. It is hard to say more than that on 51 CQ (1964), 125. 52 It seems that both men probably had cognomina, and that there is room for ‘Magnus’ on the stone. For the implications of such an identiWcation, see App. 2. 53 Hanslik, RE xxi/2, s.v. ‘Pompeius’ no. 112, suggests that he may be the brother of a Q. Pompeius Rufus. 54 CIL ix. 56*. 55 Terza Miscellanea, 147; unless of course the forger was thinking of a colony at Tarentum, Gracchan or other. 56 So Krummrey, CIL i2 . p. 1024. 57 ‘[---]s L. f. II ui[r --] / [curauere] eiidemq[ue probauere]’; photo CIL i2 . 2(4) tab. 65, Wg. 5. The text given follows Krummrey’s suggestion that, since no interpunct is visible after the Wrst ‘E’ in l. 2, that letter should belong with the subsequent ones, and not be read as the last ‘E’ of ‘curauere’ (ibid.). 58 As suggested to Krummrey by Solin (ibid.).
388
The Duovirate
the basis of the evidence available, but it may be relevant that young Caesar became patron of the city soon after the death of his adoptive father, and this may have been the context for such a change.59 D9 comes from the Apulian town of Ausculum, and has excited considerable interest since its discovery in 1935. The colonists mentioned are probably triumviral; but the II uiri are surely those of the municipium of Ausculum, not of the nearby colony. A triumviral date would suit the letter forms too. The Wnal inscriptions in this category come from communities in the older area of the ager Romanus, which had had citizenship before the Social War (D3 from Cereatae Marianae also falls in this category). Trebula SuVenas, the principal surviving centre of the Aequi after the Roman conquest, and the conWscation of territory for the Latin colonies of Alba Fucens and Carseoli,60 was identiWed by Mommsen as a duoviral municipium of the imperial period. Excavations in the 70s yielded epigraphic material which has greatly added to our knowledge of the town: one of these texts is our D10. Granino Cecere suggested a republican date for the stone on the basis of the use of travertine, the palaeography, and the formulae used.61 I would agree, with the proviso that such formulae are also found in the Augustan period. The surface is worn and pitted, but it seems that originally the stone was well cut: as far as can be made out, the lettering suggests a date around the middle of the century. It seems that the surviving Aequi had been elevated to the ciuitas optimo iure well before the Social War, but that Trebula remained a uicus of little importance after the war. Certainly the country of the Aequi was a rural backwater, apart from the two Latin colonies, until much later. Now, it has been argued that, since the Plautii Silvani derived from Trebula, and had achieved senatorial status before the Social War, the municipalization of their home town may have occurred, through their intervention, not long after the war, certainly before the Second Civil War.62 The theory is Wne, and may be correct, but some counter-arguments must be borne in mind. First, there is no evidence which would support placing the origin of the municipal duovirate as early as the municipalization of the Cinnan period. Secondly, other submunicipal centres of Italy from which families entered the Senate in the late second or early Wrst century bc have to wait quite a long time before elevation to municipal status, notably Cingulum, home of the Labieni (promoted no earlier than 63), and Atina, ancestral seat of the Sentii Saturnini and the great equestrian Plancii (not promoted before the 50s—see below). Finally, there is no evidence, literary, archaeological, or epigraphic from Trebula itself which might support such an early appearance of the duovirate there. A date before the middle of the century is possible, but not much before; this would certainly be compatible with the limited indications furnished by D10. 59 AE (1969), 132. See App. 2; cf. his alteration of the constitution of Bononia in the context of the struggle to win over Antonius’ supporters in Italy before Actium (Dio, l. 6. 3). 60 See Humbert, Municipium, 218–19; Granino Cecere, Supp. It. ns 4, 120–1. 61 Supp. It. ns 4, 120f., 169. 62 Humbert, Municipium, 218 n. 38; Letta, Magistrature, 42.
The Duovirate
389
Forum Novum, situated in the Sabine country, was a Roman settlement, as the name and the location, on lower ground than the native hill-settlements, suggest.63 The site shows archaeological evidence of signiWcant frequentation from the late Republic onwards, but the real growth period appears to have begun in the late Wrst century bc.64 This growth has been associated with promotion to municipal status, although other scholars have suggested a mid-republican constitutio, which would Wt the epigraphic evidence better.65 The earliest duoviral inscriptions from the site (D11 and D12) give broad conWrmation to this hypothesis. D11 is the inscription from what would seem to have been a large circular funerary monument faced with limestone. Filippi describes it as being cut in ‘belle lettere’, with triangular interpuncts; he dates it to the end of the Wrst century bc or the beginning of the Wrst century ad.66 Thus it could possibly belong to the very end of our period, and reXect a duovirate from that point. Filippi dates D12 to the same period, which again seems fair. As for the lettering, the second ‘O’ of ‘Pollio’ and the ‘R’ of ‘restituerunt’ with its elegant tail seem to suggest the Augustan rather than the triumviral period, although the latter is certainly not ruled out. D13 comes from Cupra Maritima, and on palaeographical grounds seems to date to the middle of the century. Degrassi suggested that the L. Minicius mentioned in the text might be a member of the senatorial family of the Minucii Basili.67 The variant spelling is not a serious objection, and the idea was taken up by La Regina, who, following a suggestion of Shackleton Bailey’s, re-examined the stemmata of both the Minucii Basili and of the Satrii who were adopted by one of the former.68 One result was the attractive conjecture that the M. Satrius, of a family long resident in Picenum, adopted by an L. Minucius Basilus, his mother’s brother, received a signiWcant boost in terms of wealth and prestige through the connection with this equestrian family. As a result he became, at least by 44 bc but probably earlier, patronus agri Piceni et Sabini, and his inXuence is also to be seen in his election to the duovirate at Cupra.69 If this were so, what chronological 63 See Filippi, Supp. It. ns 5, 148. 64 Ibid. For recent work see GaVney et al., JRA (2001), and in Patterson (ed.), Bridging the Tiber. 65 Augustan municipalization: GaVney et al., in Patterson (ed.), Bridging the Tiber, 239–40; mid1st cent. bc: Humbert, Municipium, 233–44, Filippi, Supp. It. ns 5: 145. 66 Supp. It. ns 5, 148, 161. 67 CIL i2 . p. 937; note his remark that the P. Rupilius of D13 is not the duouir of Cupra mentioned in Inscr. It. xiii. 1. 7. 68 La Regina, PdP (1996). 69 Ibid. 321–4, 327–9, 330, 332, 334. There are problems with La Regina’s reconstruction. (a) Objections had already raised by Cichorius (Studien 176) and Criniti (L’ epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone, 168–9) to the construction placed on Cicero’s evidence as to the identity and career of the elder L. Minucius Basilus by La Regina, and they are not without force. (b) His claim that the 1st cent. bc Satrii of Picenum were descended from the Samnite Sadrı´is known from the elites of Aesernia and Bovianum in the 3rd and 2nd centuries is unconvincing. Satrii were fairly widespread in the Sabellian areas of Italy by the 2nd cent bc, as La Regina’s own citation (PdP (1996), 332–3) of Vetter, no. 212, a meddix P. Sadrius P. from CorWnium from the late 2nd or very early 1st cent. bc shows; there
390
The Duovirate
indicators might give us a clue as to the date of the text? Above all, the date of the adoption, at which point M. Satrius will have become L. Minucius L. f. Basilus Satrianus: we know that it was contested in a court case in which Crassus and Hortensius spoke, which means that 53 bc is a terminus ante quem for the adoption; the duovirate could fall after this date, but could equally be earlier, since we do not have a terminus post quem for the adoption.70 La Regina assumes Satrius was born c.80, but the date of birth is probably at least a decade earlier. We can thus get no closer than c.60–50, which suits the letter forms very well.71 A later date, however, has been argued for by Paci, on the basis of a rereading of the fasti consulares of Cupra Maritima, which he takes as showing the constitutio of the municipium as falling between 49 and 47 bc, with all duovirates necessarily falling after that date. This dating is then extrapolated for application to the rest of the Picene duoviral municipia.72 The fragment of the fasti in question certainly comes from near the start of that document, and lists duouiri in the 40s bc; the attribution to Caesar is, nevertheless, guesswork, and petitio principii. A date in the 50s would be equally possible. D14 is from Trea, and is the oldest epigraphic text from the city: the absence of a tribe, the palaeography and the spelling ‘peq.’ (l. 7) point to a date in the middle of the century.73 One further, important, clue as to its date is furnished by the mention of a signum Victoriae, a statue of the goddess Victory; this is an odd choice of deity in a municipal context, but if associated with the ludi Victoriae of Sulla or Caesar, could be a way for magistrate and community to show their loyalty to the victor in the Civil Wars. The letter forms are more consonant with a Caesarian date. There are few generalizations that can be drawn from such a small sample covering such a large area. Towns in both older and newer areas of the ager Romanus display the magistracy, which is slightly more common in the area enfranchised before the Social War (nine instances as against seven). Regionally, Latium (both parts), Campania, Bruttium, Lucania, Apulia, the territory of the Aequi, that of the Sabini, and Picenum are represented, with the central Apennine areas enfranchised after the Social War, Etruria, Umbria, and Cisalpina being absent. Of these regions Latium, Apulia, and the Sabine country have the highest is simply no reason to relate L. Satrius L. f., praetor of the Roman colony of Castrum Novum (CIL i2 . 1908 ¼ ILLRP 566), to the Samnite Satrii (PdP (1996), 330). (c) La Regina is probably right that this man is the father of the Satrius adopted by Minucius Basilus, but his assumptions about that date of the marriage and the praetorship (ibid. 330–1) are unfounded: since a colonial praetorship and not a duovirate is in question, the magistracy probably rather preceded the Social War than followed it; this would put M. Satrius’ birth in the decade 100–90 bc, perhaps closer to 90, rather than c.80, as suggested by La Regina (ibid. 328). 70 Cic., OV. 3. 74, Val. Max., 9. 4. 1. La Regina, PdP (1996), 321–4: he twice states that the adoption would have taken place before 60 bc (ibid. 328, 331), but without giving a reason other than Satrius’ being under 20 years of age when adopted, which is itself an assumption. 71 Ibid. 334 puts it before 50 bc. 72 Paci, in Atti del Convegno di Studi. Picus, supp. 2, cf. Paci, Picus (1988), 67–9; Fabrini, Picus (1990), 113–14. 73 Cf. Moscatelli, Picus (1985), 83–4; Fabrini, Picus (1990), 113.
The Duovirate
391
number of attestations, but since we are dealing with three cases from two communities, in each case, such Wgures have no statistical worth. As for the date of the appearance of the duovirate, there is no good reason to think that any of these attestations go back much beyond the middle of the century except D1, D2, and perhaps D13. Of the others D3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are very probably to be dated in the second half of the century. For the others no Wrm dates are possible. Two particularly noteworthy points which have emerged in the course of this discussion are the attestation of duouiri primi at Herculaneum (D4), and cases of iteration of the duovirate (D1, 5, 7).
3 . DVOV I R I I V R E D I C V N D O II uiri i. d. are known from Casinum, Herculaneum, and Bantia. D15 is that rara auis, a dated municipal inscription specifying magistrates— irritatingly, the stone itself seems to be lost. Set up in 40 bc, it celebrates the accord made that September between M. Antonius and Imp. Caesar at Brundisium, with the restoration of a statue of Concordia,74 and the expansion or improvement of the associated sacred area. We know that Casinum had long been a praefectura;75 but Cicero in the Pro Plancio (22) strongly implies that it was a municipium in 54 bc, in which case it is tempting to associate its municipalization with the lex Mamilia.76 To complicate matters further, we have had occasion to note that the granting of municipal status to the central settlement of the praefectura need not have been the same as the abolition of the prefecture as a whole. If there were praefecti of Casinum in the post-Social-War period, as seems likely, the promotion of the community need not be at all early. It is worth noting the lateness of spellings such as ‘pequnia’, and the fact that neither magistrate has a cognomen.77 D16 comes from Herculaneum. Degrassi cast doubt on whether this really is a republican inscription, arguing that the form ‘eidq’ alone is not suYcient grounds for such an attribution. He based his remarks also on the opinion of Onorato that the stone was Luna marble, and that the letter forms were probably 74 See Degrassi, ad ILLRP 562a; see Syme, RR 217 and n. 4 on the resonance of Concordia at this point. Attestations of the cult of Concordia in the municipia do not seem to be very common, but cf. ILLRP 71 (Cora). 75 ILLRP 563–4 with Degrassi ad loc., cf. CIL i2 . 1543 for C. Futius. Both inscriptions seem to be 1st cent., although being funerary, not oYcial, they need not be pre-40 bc; Solin, in EpigraWa (178 n. 38) resolves the magistracy in CIL i2 . 1545 as praetor not praefectus, an unnecessary combination. Humbert, Municipium, 248, places the municipalization of Casinum just before 40 bc. 76 Municipal status is not assured by Cicero’s language here, but is a likely inference from it. 77 Is this the text meant by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 92 n. 3, noting the absence of cognomina, calling it of the ‘Ciceronian age’? The praefecti too lack cognomina, but one of them was married to an Apsennia Q. f. Paulla.
392
The Duovirate
Augustan;78 ‘ei’ for ‘i’ is certainly found on Augustan inscriptions, but it is quite rare; however, the presence of tribe and cognomen in the name are certainly compatible with an Augustan date. I have examined the inscription, albeit under poor light and in awkward conditions in the maggazini of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Napoli, and it seems to me, with the aid of a photograph taken for me on the spot by Dr M. Pobjoy, that the lettering can be no earlier than the Triumvirate, and could be later.79 Nonetheless, a triumviral date is not thereby excluded, and we must retain the inscription as a possible example in our survey. D17, the Wnal duovirate i. d., is from Bantia. It began its Nachleben as a quattuorviral inscription, but a republication by Torelli has remedied the error of the Corpus.80 There are no cognomina, and the letters are very roughly cut, but in a peripheral location like Bantia we should beware (more than usual) of using such criteria to push dating back too far. A date around the middle of the century is suitable. I suspect also that D17 is earlier than D7, but it must remain as suspicion.81 Torelli has abandoned his earlier theory that the lex Osca Bantina and the auguraculum of Bantia are bound up with a municipalization in the period 80–60 bc.82 Consequently there is no way of suggesting when the foundation of the municipium might have happened; but it need not be early at all. Our three examples allow little speculation. One might suggest that under the Republic the municipal duovirate i. d. was a south Italian phenomenon.83 Yet all one can really do is to underline its scarcity as compared with the duovirate nude dictus. For the whole republican period, counting in colonies and municipia, we know of 69 duouiri, 1 case of duouiri aediles, 9 attestations of duouiri i. d., and 16 duouiri quinquennales (of whom 2 are municipal).84 There may be one simple reason for the disparity, namely that it was automatically understood that the II uiri, not the aediles, would be in charge of jurisdiction, as the higher pair of magistrates (but see under D17 at Bantia). This would mean that the municipal duovirate should belong to a period when colonies had aediles as well as II uiri, sometimes held to be as late as the Social War, probably wrongly. More signiWcantly, it suggests that the municipal duovirate originated at a time when the other main municipal magistracy, the quattuorvirate, had already been split into two pairs, of which the senior pair would be responsible for higher jurisdiction, with a limited aedilician jurisdiction, if anything, available to the other quattuorviral pair. If this state of aVairs is presupposed by the 78 SVA i. 190–1, cf. ad CIL i2 . p. 1013. 79 Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 80 CIL ix. 418; Torelli, Arch. Class. (1969), 15. 81 If it were, it should mean the Bantia had two pairs of magistrates, one of II uiri i. d., and a lower pair of II uiri nude dicti. 82 Athenaeum (1983), 255, 257, for the recantation, cf. Ch. 5. He now places the municipalization of Bantia in 90–80 at the earliest. 83 The only colonial examples come from Pompeii (ILLRP 641, 647–8; CIL i2 . 1634, 3132). 84 Much of this evidence is from the 1st cent. bc, but not all, so the proportion of II uiri i. d. to II uiri is not quite as small as it seems. We should also bear in mind that six of our eight cases of the duovirate i. d. come from the two Vesuvian cities, for which our evidence is very good.
The Duovirate
393
appearance of the duovirate, then not only would the use of the suYx i. d. by municipal magistrates be redundant, although technically valid, but we would have a valuable element for dating the appearance of the duovirate as a municipal magistracy. The earliest of our three inscriptions seems to be D17, from the middle of the century, and it may be that the appearance of the suYx i. d. in municipia was a later development, and not an inherent part of the institutions of the Wrst duoviral municipia.85
4. DVOV I R I QV I N QV E N NA L E S (D 1 8 –1 9 ) II uiri quinquennales are attested only at Atina and Caiatia. The Atina inscription (D18) oVers little in the way of datable material. One of the magistrates has a cognomen, and there is the same explicit publication of Wnancial details which I have noted above in Q78 and Q84. Together these elements might suggest a date around the middle of the century. Note that two new municipia, Cereatae Marianae and Atina, were interested in improving their communications networks at about the same time. Degrassi has suggested that a terminus post quem is provided by the reference in Cicero’s Pro Plancio (of 54 bc) to Atina as a praefectura.86 Yet we have seen that the lex Mamilia extended municipal autonomy to smaller settlement types (praefecturae, conciliabula, fora) without making them into municipia. It would thus be possible, if Atina had been one of the communities aVected by the lex Mamilia, for it to have the organs of a self-governing community, and yet juridically be a praefectura. Alternatively, since two statuses could coexist for one town (as we now know from a second-century ad text from Aesernia, honouring a man who was also patron of Atina: the community is referred to as the ‘municipium and praefectura of the Atinates’), Cicero’s use of the term praefectura tells us nothing about municipalization.87 D18 marks its recently acquired municipal status.88 The same could hold true of any community in the pre-Social-War ager Romanus which attained autonomy in the last years of the Republic. Yet was Atina aVected by the lex Mamilia? If it had been, and was autonomous by the time Cicero delivered his speech, it might be argued that Cicero’s contrast in the Pro Plancio between the support oVered to Laterensis by his municipium and that oVered to Plancius by his praefectura loses much of its force.89 I think 85 At Pompeii we do have two II uiri i. d. and two II uiri nude dicti (I have suggested above that the same might be true of Bantia); was this a change provoked by the fashionable streamlining of the quattuorvirate in the 60s? 86 Planc. 21, cf. 19, with Degrassi, CIL i2 . p. 1003. 87 Buonocore, SCO (1993). Ch. 5, see also Ch. 10. 88 Atina also called itself a municipium by the Trajanic age, if not before: CIL x. 5067, cf. 5066. 89 Planc. 19, 23. One almost has the impression that Cicero has to build Atina up in the speech precisely because it was still in a juridically inferior category.
394
The Duovirate
probability, if nothing more, is on the side of Degrassi’s being correct, and that Atina became a duoviral municipium, perhaps soon after the Pro Plancio was delivered (perhaps D18 belongs to just after 50 bc, since a quinquennial duovirate should follow the creation of the community by at least Wve years90), and at about the same time as duoviral municipia were emerging in nearby Casinum and Cereatae Marianae.91 The motivation that the elevation of a town to municipal status could have on the pride of neighbouring local elites should not be underestimated as a reason for constitutional and juridical change in their communities. D19 is from Caiatia, not far to the south of Atina, on the borders of Campania and Samnium. The beautiful inscription was once in two copies, of which only that now immured at the site of the Porta Vetere survives.92 Solin has dated the inscription to c.100 bc on the basis of letter forms,93 but this date seems to me to be too early. The open ‘P’s and the long horizontal bars on the Wrst ‘C’ in l. 5 do have an old-fashioned look about them, as does the spelling ‘Appiai’ in l. 5. Yet the rest of the letter forms do not look particularly old. Despite the points noted above, and the limited seriWng, there can be no justiWcation for opting for a preSocial-War date on palaeographic gounds. Other factors tell more strongly against such a view. The moulded cornice around the inscribed area is unusual in a republican inscription, especially in a small community like this, for all that its territory bordered that of Capua. The text is carefully arranged within the epigraphic Weld, rather than taking up the whole of its area, a phenomenon which starts to appear later in our period. Furthermore, architects appear very rarely in municipal inscriptions before the middle of the century, and their appearance seems to be symptomatic of a more self-conscious and conWdent approach to the building and planning of urban centres, which was an ever increasing feature of this period.94 Finally, one of the II uiri has a cognomen, which should help to move it away from such an early dating as Solin suggests. It is diYcult to weigh these factors up one against the other, and arrive at a reasonable date for D19, but in the Wnal analysis I think that the middle of the century or just before will not be too wide of the mark.95 The dating of the text is thus broadly similar to that of the municipal duovirates from Latium Adiectum (D3, 15 and 18).
90 Cf. Solin, in EpigraWa, 177, dating the inscription to post-50, cf. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 66. 91 The praefectura might still have existed as a juridical circumscription. 92 See Solin, Iscrizioni, 106. 93 Ibid. 107. 94 Cf. CIL i2 . 2124 (Sassina), on which see Ch. 6. Of course the proximity of Caiatia to Campania may have meant that it participated in some cultural developments in advance of some other centres. See now Donderer, Die Architekten. 95 Cf. ibid. 227–8. The spelling ‘arcitectus’, if not a mistake, recalls ‘exsedram’ in Q3 from Tibur, which I suggested above dated to the middle of the century. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 76, simply classes the text as republican.
The Duovirate
395
Solin’s dating of the stone may be inXuenced in part by his belief that Caiatia was not enfranchised before the Social War, but remained an ally of Rome from 272 down to 90 bc.96 If it had in fact done so, we would expect it to have the quattuorvirate like the neighbouring town of Trebula Balliensis (Q76). The presence of the duovirate strongly suggests, though it does not prove, that Caiatia had become Roman before the Social War. It would not be unheard of for Rome to deal with two neighbouring states diVerently after conquest, incorporating one and leaving the other as an ally, as happened further north, where Casinum was incorporated but Aquinum became a federated ally. It seems in fact as if the old view of Mommsen, that Caiatia became Roman after the conquest, perhaps with the ciuitas sine suVragio, is correct,97 and that the duovirate at Caiatia is to be explained in the same way as that of its northern near neighbours, Atina and Casinum.98 Here again, the fact that we are here dealing with a censorial oYce suggests that the constitution of the municipium of Caiatia was perhaps a few years older than the middle of the century; and again Caiatia may be a case of promotion owed to the lex Mamilia. Solin has suggested that two Caiatian inscriptions known only from manuscripts are also perhaps as early as the republican period: CIL x. 8237, mentioning (probably) plain II uiri; and x. 3998, mentioning duouiri aediles. If a republican dating were the correct one, then we should be able to say that, by the end of our period at least, the magistrates of Caiatia were two II uiri, who were in charge of jurisdiction, and became II uiri quinquennales every Wve years (in theory), supported by two II uiri aediles, who discharged the aedilician functions. Our sample is minuscule, and oVers little help with the questions which do need answering. One might argue that the use of the quinquennial suYx was a purely Latio-Campanian phenomenon, deriving from the greater sophistication of the urban societies in that part of Italy; yet this would probably be a rash conclusion. The quinquennial magistracy is, however, important in one respect. In the section on data gathering for the census in Rome and the municipia, the tabula Heracleensis tells us that, when a census was held in Rome, the responsibility for data gathering in the municipia devolved on ‘quei in eis municipieis coloneis praefectureis maximum mag(istratum) maximamue potestatem ibei tum habebit’.99 This does not tell us much about quinquennial magistracies in Italian communities, but it does tell us that only colonies, municipia, and praefecturae were involved in this process. Presumably their magistrates were responsible for 96 Iscrizioni, 69. 97 CIL x. p. 444, cf. Humbert, Municipium, 195–6. 98 Solin’s account involves a contradiction, in that while he dates D19 to c.100, he states that Caiatia became a duoviral muncipium after the Social War, when II uiri replaced the Oscan meddı´ss (Iscrizioni, 70). In that case the duovirate should date no later than 90; unless Solin believes that even before enfranchisement the Caiatian meddiss had become II uiri; while some enfranchised Osco-Sabellian communities eventually replaced their meddiss with praetores (Brunt, Manpower, 533), such a move would be unparalleled in a community which remained allied. 99 42–3.
396
The Duovirate
collecting the data from fora and conciliabula, which may have been specially attributed for censual purposes.100 Now, it cannot have been easier for external authorities to gather these data than for local magistrates, and thus we can assume that this regulation was due to the fact that the administrative machinery for gathering this kind of data and sending it to Rome in the two smallest classes of community simply did not exist, possibly because these communities had historically never been charged with such tasks,101 whereas colonies, municipia, and praefecturae, as larger communities, had discharged them routinely. There may then never have existed, under the Republic at any rate, quinquennial magistrates in these communities, and therefore if we Wnd duouiri quinquennales attested in a community in the pre-Social-War ager Romanus (the provenance of both of our examples), this community can only be a colony or a municipium if founded before the passing of the lex Mamilia, and only a colony, municipium, or a praefectura if founded after 55. It seems that Atina’s municipalization is not to be related to the lex Mamilia, but that of Caiatia, which bordered on the territory of Capua may be, although it is never called a praefectura, only a municipium. As to dating, there is no good reason for taking the municipalization of either Caiatia or Atina back much before c.50 bc, a date broadly in line with that conjectured for a number of other duoviral municipia.
5 . DVOV IRI A EDIL ES (D 2 0 ) This magistracy is only attested at Apulian Ausculum, unless the example from Caiatia discussed above is really republican. The date of the stone is diYcult to establish, but since neither magistrate named has a cognomen, since we have the spelling ‘exs’, and since the letter forms look older than those of D9, also from Ausculum, it is tempting to date this inscription at least a decade earlier than D9; it might even be as early as the late 50s. The evidence from Ausculum allows us to see that one ‘developed’ permutation of the duovirate, with II uiri as the senior magistrates and II uiri aediles as the aedilician pair, had already emerged in some places in the second half of the century; it may be that its lateness and rarity are analogous to the situation which we observed with regard to IIII uiri aed. pot. and IIII uiri aediles in the previous chapter.102 100 I assume here that (a) the text of the tabula Heracleensis here is not lacunose, which it does not appear to be, and (b) that this regulation does not come from a law passed at a time when fora and conciliabula had ceased to exist as speciWc juridical genera; there is no reason to think that it does. 101 See Ch. 2. 102 II uiri aediles have been assumed to occur as commonly as II uiri i. d. (e.g. Marquardt, Ro¨mische Staatsverwaltung, i2 . 152–3; Liebenam, Sta¨dteverwaltung, 255; Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, 59). Yet they are very rare: Degrassi, SVA i. 179–82. He notes four examples of II uiri aediles, all from the imperial colony at Aeclanum, and four Italian examples of II uiri aed. pot., two each from Fabrateria Nova and Venusia; there are six cases of aediles duouiri, all from Abellinum, where they correspond to praetores II uiri. Plain aedile is the more normal title.
The Duovirate
397
6 . C O N C LU S I O N S Firm conclusions are well nigh impossible with such a small sample, but a few preliminary considerations of a general nature may have some value. As far as concerns distribution patterns, of the twenty-one attestations of the duovirate, some eleven, just over 50 per cent, come from communities enfranchised before the Social War. Looking at this another way, nine municipia from the old ager Romanus show the duovirate under the Republic, against only Wve communities enfranchised as a result of the Social War. Regionally, Latium has Wve attestations of the duovirate, Campania four, Apulia three, Sabinum, Lucania, and Picenum two, Bruttium and the Aequian territory one apiece. All the communities enfranchised as a result of the Social War which have the duovirate are in the southern half of Italy, representing Greek, Oscan, Lucanian, Bruttian, and Apulian areas. Samnium is unrepresented, as are the Central Apennine peoples other than Sabines and Picenes; Etruria and Umbria show no duoviral municipia. Cisalpina is also unrepresented; there are some duoviral municipia here, but their creation probably postdates that of the quattuorviral municipia of 49/48 bc.103 As to the chronological arc with which we are concerned, apart from three inscriptions (D1–2, 13), there is no good reason for dating any of our texts before c.60 bc (and this may well apply to these three inscriptions as well). We have also seen that some cases of constitutio can be roughly dated as well: that of Cingulum (which we know from epigraphic evidence to have been a duoviral municipium by the Augustan period) to around 60 bc.104 A similar date might apply to Trea and Cupra Maritima, that of Caiatia and Casinum perhaps dates to c.55 (under the aegis of the lex Mamilia), Atina to after 54 bc, Cereatae Marianae to the later 40s, Casinum to before 40, Tarentum to a point after the 60s, but possibly as late as the Triumvirate, and Herculaneum very probably in the Triumvirate. Trebula SuVenas was constituted by the middle of the century, but need not be much older, while Forum Novum may belong as much as a couple of decades later. There is no compelling reason to move Fidenae back earlier than c.60 bc, although the possibility remains that it is our earliest example. Ausculum may be as early as the middle of the century. Note that it was in a tribal block of territory (in the Papiria) with Herdonia. As a quattuorviral community, Herdonia (Q83) was probably municipalized in the 80s; by the time Ausculum became a municipium the duovirate had evidently established itself as an acceptable magistracy for new autonomous communities, which suggests that its municipalization should not be pushed back too far.105 With these points in mind we may proceed to conclusions of a more general nature. 103 The earliest attested example seems to be Supp. It. ns 12, 53, no. 8 from Industria, which may indeed be pre-Augustan. 104 For the epigraphic evidence for the duovirate and the textual evidence for constitutio, see Ch. 5. 105 Ausculum in the Papiria: Mommsen, CIL ix. p. 62, Herdonia: Van Wonterghem, Odrona, ii. 129, 154.
398
The Duovirate
First, it should be noted that, in comparison with the quattuorviral picture, only four inscriptions (D5, 14, 15, 16) attest II uiri unambiguously operating with private funds rather than public means, while we have seven cases of magistrates spending public money (D3, 7, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20); the remaining inscriptions contain no information on expenditure, or are too fragmentary to be useful. This cannot be taken as showing that the proportion of private to public benefaction was greater in republican duoviral municipia under the Republic than it was in quattuorviral municipia, but it is suggestive. If our limited sample did accurately reXect the situation, an explanation might perhaps be sought in the smaller public resources available to communities which were often smaller settlements than their quattuorviral counterparts. Yet even that answer is too simplistic, since it does not take into account the diVerences between communities like Forum Novum and Herculaneum. As with the quattuorvirate, I want to stress that I do not think that the only communities which were duoviral municipia under the Republic are those for which we have attestations of the magistracy. Cingulum was almost certainly duoviral from the intervention of the Labieni onwards; other possible cases will be added in Appendix 3. I do, however, want to stress that, as with the quattuorvirate, the emergence of duoviral municipia happened piecemeal over an extended period of time across the peninsula, but mainly in the centre and south. Since this is the case, and since the duovirate appears later than the quattuorvirate, we must expect that some of the municipia later attested as duoviral, but of uncertain date of constitution, are likely to be Augustan rather than republican; we have already noticed the diYculties of dating a fair part of the material considered above to one period rather than the other. In view of the disparate nature of our evidence and its context, are we any nearer to understanding the phenomenon of the municipal duovirate? I think we are, and I shall make some suggestions shortly, but Wrst it will be useful to review existing theories on the origins and signiWcance of the duovirate. The Wrst serious consideration of the magistracy was that of Beloch, who identiWed two classes of duoviral communities in Italy. According to this hypothesis, the majority was made up of communities which had started (Roman) life as fora and conciliabula; a smaller group consisted in communities which changed their quattuorvirate for a duovirate in imitation of neighbouring duoviral cities.106 Subsequently, Rudolph argued that the duovirate was a Caesarian magistracy, and the vehicle for the granting of autonomy, most importantly jurisdiction, to the Italian communities, which had previously been deprived of it. For him, the appearance of the duovirate as a result of a lex Iulia municipalis of 47 bc marked the creation for the Wrst time of special competences within the magisterial structure, and was reXected in the division of the quattuorvirate into its two constituent pairs.107 As we have seen, Rudolph’s theories are largely dismissed nowadays; yet his banishment of the duovirate to the far side of the Styx-like 106 RG 488, 508–10.
107 Stadt, 207–24.
The Duovirate
399
barrier of 47 bc still casts a spell over modern scholarship, mumbled mantra-like by the expert and cited religiously by the layman in his apotropaic footnotes.108 The spell should be broken, as it rests on nothing more than the optical illusion that the Social War constitutes a fulcrum, on either side of which the epigraphic material can be neatly distributed, and the equally schematic, dearly cherished views that all quattuorvirates must go back to the Social War or its aftermath, and that the duovirate represents a radical new departure after half a century of constitutional stagnation in the municipia. I have suggested in Chapters 6–8 that such a picture has very little in common with the evidence, such as it is, and I think a similar tree-shaking exercise is in order for the duovirate.109 Beloch’s idea about magisterial continuity between praefecturae and the duoviral municipia was taken up by Manni, who also suggested that it might explain the presence of II uiri in the former Picene prefectures, and even some former allied communities.110 While pointing out that the equation of praefecturae and later duoviral municipia was too simplistic to meet all the cases, Sherwin-White did think they formed, together with his municipia sine suVragio, the group which was raised to municipal status, sometimes from no real communal status at all, with the duovirate as their magistracy, by the lex Mamilia.111 Sartori, after a detailed study of the material available to him, invoked a similar explanation for the south Italian duoviral municipia in Osco-Sabellian areas, namely that they represented a Roman form of the indigenous magisterial structure in which the executive was composed of two meddı´ss.112 The last major contribution to the debate was made by Degrassi in 1960. While admitting the plausibility of Sartori’s hypothesis for many cases, he denied that it could be used to explain the duovirate at Herculaneum, supposing instead, as we have seen, that the town had lost its autonomy after the Social War, and had only regained it at a point where the normal magistracy was no longer the quattuorvirate, but the duovirate.113
108 eg. LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr., 48 n. 55, 51 n. 80 (LaY’s own position is more Xexible, though) and Wesener, RE xxiv, s.v. ‘Quattuoruiri’, col. 852; and above on D13. 109 The Revd Jesse Jackson, taken to task in a press conference for his lack of concrete policies in a presidential race, replied that he was a tree-shaker, not a jam-maker. The reader may judge the confection for himself, but I am convinced as to the necessity of disturbing the orchard. 110 Per la storia, 150. 111 Citizenship2 , 206–10, 212–14. 112 Problemi, 26–7, 40–2, 67–9, 74–5, and esp. 157–6, cf. Gabba, Esercito, 601–3; LaY, VI Kongr. Epigr. 48 n. 56; and Letta, Magistrature, 49 (Campanile, Magistrature 19–20, presents a convincing interpretation of the Osco-Sabellian magisterial structure which invalidates some of the premises on which Sartori’s continuity theory is based, especially the ‘unequal meddicate’). 113 SVA i. 186, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1013. In an earlier piece (SVA i. 140, 151), written before the publication of D4, Degrassi had speculated that tradition had been responsible for an original grant of duoviral constitutions immediately after the Social War to Greek cities such as Herculaneum, Tarentum, and Surrentum. Tarentum has been shown to have been originally a quattuorviral municipium; for republican II uiri at Surrentum there is no evidence. Furthermore, the cases of Neapolis and Regium do not oVer comfort for a ‘Hellenic’ model for any attestations of the duovirate (see Ch. 8).
400
The Duovirate
These two ‘continuity theories’ remain the leading accounts of the duovirate today, and in essence I think that between them they hold most of the keys to the problem. The two groups into which the duoviral municipia naturally fall can be considered initially as separate, for in neither is the origin of the magistracy exactly the same. Furthermore, the duovirate, unlike the quattuorvirate, was not a blanket imposition, regardless of cultural or political traditions, but responded more closely to the individual needs, desires, and traditions of the communities concerned. In the older areas of the ager Romanus, I think that there was a large degree of continuity between the local structures which carried out day-to-day administration below the competence of the praefectus instituted by Rome, and the municipal II uiri introduced after the granting of autonomy. The hard evidence for this is twofold: shortly after the Roman conquest Cingulum produced a pair of magistri who appear to be civil magistrates; secondly, a Marsic uicus in the third or second century bc had II uiri—although some Marsic communities became quattuorviral after the Social War, see Chapter 7. Like Cingulum, other Picene praefecturae became duoviral municipia, although only Trea and Cupra Maritima are attested under the Republic. It would be possible to argue in favour of a structural continuity within the administration, with the proviso, which aVects other continuity theories as well, that some considerable time elapsed between conquest and promotion to autonomous status, in Cingulum’s case a good two and a half centuries. Yet support for my theory may be found in the fact that communities which at one point were administered by VIII uiri are later found under IIII uiri. The quattuorvirate in these communities can be plausibly explained as an evolution of the old octoviral college, which, despite some slimming due to increasing specialization, with the lapse of time still maintained to some extent its greater size and complexity.114 Yet continuity, however plausible, cannot alone explain the emergence of the duoviral municipium. Why did these communities not have quattuoruiri, in an age when municipal institutions were becoming increasingly standardized? We saw in the last chapter that the quattuorvirate was still the standard municipal magistracy in new municipia in 49, and I believe that some new quattuorviral communities continued to be created throughout the period from the Social War to the Second Civil War, and beyond.115 How can we explain the appearance of the duovirate against this backdrop? I noted above the paucity of II uiri i. d., and suggested that it could be explained by supposing that the quattuorvirate had already been divided into two pairs, one higher and one lower. Now, promotion for a community would consist mainly in the creation of a higher magistracy, responsible for superior jurisdiction perhaps 114 Cf. Rudolph, Stadt, 83–4; cf. Chs. 6–8, 10. 115 Gades, outside Italy, is an interesting case: enfranchised by Caesar in 49 bc, it must then have become a municipium, hence its quattuoruiri; these were later replaced by duouiri, illustrating the use of the quattuorvirate as the ‘default setting’ in municipalization, and its chronological priority over the duuovirate; see Cic., Fam. 10. 32. 2, and Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 340 and n. 5.
The Duovirate
401
and other important tasks like conducting the local census. Magistrates with lower functions existed already. If it was already recognized that in the standard ‘modern’ municipal system the highest magistracy was held by a pair of oYcials, then this could well have legitimated or even caused the decision to continue with the twoman format which had been current before promotion, and (in some cases) the discontinuation of the praefectura. If this is so, if the appearance of the duovirate as a municipal magistracy does presuppose the division of the quattuorvirate (but not necessarily the renaming of the senior pair as IIII viri i. d.), then we can not only explain the choice of the duovirate as against a quattuorvirate, but also date the Wrst appearance of the municipal duovirate not earlier than c.70 bc. On the evidence available to us, it appears that the earliest datable case of the appearance of the duovirate is at Cingulum in the late 60s. Others may have been earlier (possibly Fidenae), but we cannot pinpoint them. On the other hand, of those duovirates in the areas of Italy enfranchised after the Social War, those that we can date seem to be later, mainly in the triumviral period if not Augustan. The others may, of course, be as early as the middle of the century, but equally they too could be triumviral. We must expect that diVerent explanations, or combinations of factors, may account for the duovirate in these communities. Again, we still have to explain why the quattuorvirate, the magistracy of the new citizen community par excellence in this period, is not used or, as in the case of Tarentum, is abandoned for the duovirate. Sartori’s theory, positing continuity from Oscan meddices to Roman II uiri, is widely accepted as valid, but it suVers from one or two disadvantages. It will not really explain the II uiri of Greek Tarentum; and it supposes that the duovirate was an immediate alternative to the quattuorvirate from the 80s. The preceding analysis shows that this is most unlikely, since all the duouiri who can be dated seem to be late in our period, and there is no evidence for an early introduction of the duovirate anywhere. Other Osco-Sabellian communities municipalized in the 80s had IIII uiri, as Chapters 6–8 clearly show. It seems more likely that the duovirate appears in a large number of cases in communities which were municipalized late, having been without full autonomy since the Social War, on the model advanced above for Herculaneum by Degrassi. In that case we could suppose that duoviral Osco-Sabellian communities, independent before the Social War, had all had a pair of meddı´ss as supreme magistrates, and that this magisterial structure was maintained through the period of lost autonomy in some form, and then took the form of the duovirate when autonomy was restored. Yet assumption cannot be proven, and the introduction of the quattuorvirate suggests that for newer citizen communities Rome was eager to suppress, rather than nourish, the external identifying features of pre-Roman constitutions. I would not like to exclude the possibility that in some communities the introduction of a duovirate in a new municipium was felt as having the additional beneWt of suggesting the continued existence of a ‘Sabellianizing’ patrios politeia, and of recalling the community’s past history. At the later period with which we are dealing, with memories of the Social War fading, the Roman Senate may have
402
The Duovirate
felt less uneasy about allowing magistracies which reXected the sort of local pride and traditions which, as we have seen, could be embodied in municipal leges. Yet I do not think that Oscan predecessors can be invoked as a main explanation of the duovirate in these communities. In the pre-Social-War period some Oscan communities absorbed into the Roman state assimilated their local magisterial structures to a more Roman model by changing their titulature from meddı´ss to praetores.116 The situation there, however, was diVerent from that obtaining after the Social War, when new political and cultural preoccupations prevailed. The duovirate after the Social War should rather be explained by a number of diVerent factors, which have varying degrees of importance in each case. The Wrst and most obvious is the precedent which had been created by the emergence of duoviral municipia in the older areas of the ager Romanus, as described above, itself perhaps in some sense a form of continuity. The possibility that a new community could, if it wanted, be duoviral rather then quattuorviral was now well rooted in Italian political consciousness. Yet, while this was a necessary precondition, it still does not explain why the quattuorvirate was not used in these new-citizen communities. Other factors must be invoked, and I suggest that the most important of these was the way in which coloniae were perceived by the end of our period. Colonization in the Gracchan and post-Gracchan periods had been closely bound up with the political aims, and thus the fortunes, of a number of Roman statesmen, of both popularis and optimate tendency. Yet the colonization of C. Gracchus and Saturninus was in the end on a very limited scale,117 while the promises of the elder Livius came to nought as far as we can tell, and those of Livius Drusus, his son, perished in ignominious annulment. Sulla’s colonization was as punitive for the Italians as it was a reward for his loyal legions. The agreement of the dynasts Pompeius, Crassus, and Caesar in 60 heralded a new age of colonization. That of Capua can be read as a promotion, something that was meant to be seen as preferable to the renewal of municipal status. It was certainly not interpreted as a punitive measure against the Campani in any of our sources. It marks the beginning of large-scale veteran colonization, where the veterans are not intended to watch over or oppress, but rather to supplement the local population, in an Italy much more mixed and cosmopolitan than the one which emerged from the Social War.118 The signiWcance of colonial Capua, on account of its strategic importance and as a pool of recruits, not to mention its wealth, is underlined by its importance to the leading players in the Civil Wars, and its recolonization by Augustus. The dynasts, unlike their predecessors, radical or conservative, had gained control, albeit precarious, of the state, and now possessed more auctoritas, gratia, and simple potentia than any of those Roman aristocrats whose names had been 116 e.g. Cumae: Sartori, Problemi, 39–42. 117 We have seen how ill Tarentum had fared after its foundation (Ch. 5). 118 Crawford, in CAH x2 . 431–3.
The Duovirate
403
associated with colonies in the past. The idea of the colony as a source of the military and political might of the great imperator had been, like the professional soldier, in some sense a Marian creation; Sulla had developed both ideas, but under the dynasts, the dictator, and the princeps, colonies, priding themselves on, and beneWting from, close connections to the leading man or men, without the cruel overtones of the Sullan colonization, Wnally came of age. The Wnal binge of bloody repression in the triumviral years was the exception which proved the rule. From 58 bc onwards, the men who sought dominatio in Rome founded and nurtured colonies for their veterans, and occasionally for civilians too. It was only natural that the municipia, which lacked the possibilities for the potent symbolic association with a princeps through ex nouo foundation should try to compensate by creating analogous ties with such men. This desire, I believe, manifested itself in the appearance of some duoviral municipia, which can be partly read as an attempt by them to assimilate themselves outwardly to the colonies, a form of snobbish imitation, and thus to usurp some advantages of the founder/foundation relationship. Nor would prospective ‘pseudo-founders’ be averse to the clientela that such a move (promotion of the idea at Rome, drafting of a lex and passage of legislation) could generate. Municipia could not be founded in the same sense as colonies, but they could be constituted, either through the grant of autonomy, or by a change in the constitution.119 This procedure was analogous in some ways to colonial deductio, and oVered the possibility for intervention by the principes of the period, or men close to them.120 We have seen that this was precisely what occurred in the triumviral period at Herculaneum with the duovirate of Marcius Philippus; Cn. Pompeius at Aceruntia/Bantia may be seen in the same way. Where earlier cases of ‘constitution’ of new municipia had been driven by the ambitions of local elites (as at Cingulum, where the elite family involved was also rising on the Roman scene)—and such dynamics did not now fail, the dynasts and their families came in some cases to fulWl the same roles in symbolic ‘new foundations’ or refoundations. In Chapter 8 we saw how Perusia’s change from the quattuorvirate to the duovirate is probably to be connected with an Augustan refoundation and restoration. Other towns may not have needed disaster to precipitate such a metamorphosis: Tarentum adopted the young Caesar as its patron in the early Triumvirate, and it is very tempting to see the change in the Tarentine constitution as symptomatic of the political relationship at work there. In short the municipal duovirate enters a new phase in the triumviral period, when it embodies the aspiration of some municipia to a quasi-colonial status, and a closer relationship with principes or princeps.121 119 See Ch. 5. 120 An important precedent for the intervention of these great Wgures in non-colonial communities had been provided by the ktistic activity of Pompeius Magnus during his settlement of Asia. 121 Note that, beside the quattuorviral municipia, the number of duoviral communities is very small; the quattuorvirate never went out of fashion, and it may be that the number of communities which actually succeeded in transforming themselves in the way I have outlined above was not large at all.
404
The Duovirate
Not all later duovirates should be so explained; local impetus can still be invoked in some cases, and Sabellian conservatism, in some watered-down form, will have played a part in the acceptance of the duovirate earlier on and in the triumviral periods. Nor should other factors be ignored. Degrassi rejected Beloch’s ‘imitation’ hypothesis,122 but it seems to me that if the later duovirate was so bound up with the involvement of the powerful generals of the collapsing years of the Republic, then imitation, especially of colonies, cannot so easily be ruled out. Again, Bruttian Aprustum stood in a wild, unurbanized, unmunicpalized area, distant from Rome and its fashions. Where should this distant community look for institutional inspiration in anticipation of promotion? Possibly to Greek Rhegion, with its Greek quattuorvirate (see Ch. 8); but the choice of the duovirate may have been motivated by the bright example of Croton on the glittering Ionian seaboard, for all that Croton was a colonia.123 The municipal duovirate then emerges as a complex phenomenon, more so than the quattuorvirate, which it does not so much replace after 49, as complement from the early 60s onwards, responding to particlar needs and pressures of the moment, which the uniformity of the quattuorvirate could not meet. The reasons for its initial emergence lie in the evolution of the quattuorvirate as much as in structural continuity from the pre-Social-War period, but its emergence outside the older area of the ager Romanus owes much, although not everything, to the increasing tendency towards individual dominatio in the last years of the Republic, and the opportunities oVered by the duoviral structure to assimilate the community to the increasingly prestigious and favoured status of the colonia. To my mind this is borne out by the existence of duoviral communities from places as far apart as Veleia (linked in the Augustan and Tiberian periods to Piso the pontifex), Perusia, Veii, Saepinum, Fagifulae, and Terventum, which become duoviral under the Augustan Principate. The story of the duovirate reminds us once again of the gradual evolution of Roman Italy to municipal maturity and conWdence, and of the multiplicity of pressures and inXuences which played on the communities of the peninsula as they trod an uncertain path to integration and unity under Augustus. Schemata are convenient, but the clarity of such pictures disappoints. The truth is far more subtle, and, paradoxically, in the end more tangible. 122 SVA i. 186. 123 Herculaneum cannot have remained untouched by the thriving colony of Pompeii nearby.
10 Tota Italia: Remaking Italy? In the aftermath of the uniWcation of Italy in the nineteenth century, Massimo d’Azeglio memorably articulated for the Wrst session of parliament of the Kingdom of Italy the hardest task facing the new nation-builders: ‘We have made Italy: now we must make Italians’.1 Much the same problem confronted the Roman governing class in the decades following the Social War, although in this case there was no strong desire to create a new uniWed political entity embracing Italy, and no template other than the slow and piecemeal approach of municipal evolution between the fourth and third centuries. In this chapter I shall draw together the threads of the preceding arguments, examining how far municipalization spread after the Social War, how it manifested itself over time, and how, if at all, a new Italy and new Italians were made.
1 . T H E E XT E N T O F M U N I C I PA L I Z AT I O N : A S Y N C H RON IC V IEW How widespread did municipalization become in the newly enfranchised areas of Italy? We need to know this if we are to discuss it satisfactorily in a wider context. My survey of the epigraphically attested magistracies has revealed some trends in the distribution of municipia. We may now reWne this picture by adding in municipia attested by other types of evidence. These are (i) attestations of the word municipium in literary or epigraphic sources;2 (ii) epigraphic evidence of a senatus or decuriones; (iii) the evidence provided by the tribal attributions of various communities, and (iv) inferences available from the known history of a particular town. Municeps, however, I have left out of the equation: as argued in Chapter 2, I think that while it often does mean member of a municipium, it is also regularly used to denote simply ‘fellow-townsman’, as Aulus Gellius noted; even fellow-inhabitants of a praefectura could be termed municipes.3 This is not a 1 See Hobsbawm, in Hobsbawm and Ranger, Invention of Tradition, 267, and id., Nations and Nationalism, 44–5 and 91 on the wider European phenomenon of which this objective formed a part. 2 The term can mean simply ‘country town’, carrying connotations of rusticity; municipes equally can denote rusticani (‘country-dwellers’); and note Cic., Rosc. Am. 43 on municipia rusticana. 3 See Cic., Planc. 30, Catullus 17. 8, Caes., BC 1. 13. 1 on Auximum, and Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 354 and n. 1 for epigraphic examples from Africa; also Ch. 1. On praefecturae see LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 52 n. 84. Tabula Heracleensis, l. 145, has an instruction to the chief magistrates to
406
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
problem where we have other evidence, but it rules out using attestations of municeps as evidence where the arguments for civic status are marginal or ambiguous. Senates and decuriones seem to be epigraphically attested (by and large) only in colonies and municipia, and although there is an obvious risk of circularity if one does not deal carefully with marginal cases, a reasonable working hypothesis can be employed that the mention of these institutions normally implies municipal or colonial status. As we shall see, there are municipia attested in the literary sources which have not produced evidence of the quattuorvirate or the duovirate, and vice versa. How does this aVect the conclusions reached in Chapters 6–9? I have already noted that all the Latin colonies,4 and nearly all of the other independent populi enfranchised by the lex Iulia, became (perhaps not as early as the law which enfranchised them) municipia fundana.5 This, as we shall see, means that our conclusions drawn from the attested magistracies are misleading as to the extent of municipalization in Etruria, Umbria, and Magna Graecia. Factors beyond our control, such as the vagaries of survival, and the presence or absence of systematic excavation, of course limit the value of our epigraphic evidence.6 Nevertheless, the idea that, for instance, Etruria and Umbria were more heavily municipalized than Sabellian areas, and that the latter were indeed relatively backward in this respect, has already emerged from the epigraphic evidence, and is not to be gainsaid by literary sources (which may indeed exaggerate such a distinction). Since we are also concerned with new municipia in the older part of Roman Italy, it will be convenient to give a list of the municipia existing before the Social War. Such a list is given as the Wrst part of Appendix 3: it includes only communities speciWcally and explicitly attested as municipia, or those for which such a status is plausibly to be inferred from the evidence. It neither pretends to completeness, nor to shed new light on old problems. conduct, contemporaneous with the census at Rome, a census ‘omnium municip{i}um colonorum suorum queique eius praefecturae erunt, q(uei) c(iues) R(omanei) erunt’ (‘of all his fellow municipes and colonists and those who shall be of that prefecture, who shall be Roman citizens’). Gradenwitz (Die Gemeindeordnung der Tafel von Heraklea, 23) noted the phraseology with puzzlement; Frederiksen believed it to be another instance of the adaptation of the ‘matrix-laws’ which he had noted elsewhere (JRS (1965), 191 n. 41). I am sceptical: for one thing, praefecturae have just been mentioned above (l. 143). What needs illumination here is why we have singular for plural. RS (ad loc.) argues that this phrasing is used because there is ‘no noun to describe a member of a praefectura’; municipes is not used here, because it has been applied just above in the technical sense of members of a municipium. RS is probably correct that ‘q(uei) c(iues) R(omanei) erunt’ applies only to praefecturae. 4 Except perhaps Pontiae, about which we have no information for the post-Social-War period (Beloch, RG 500). 5 See Ch. 5. 6 Some cases of absence may be explicable: for instance, the virtual silence in which Cremona, an important former Latin colony, is enveloped, may be explained in part by the consequences of the sack of ad 69; see Chilver, Cisalpine, 20, 57–8; Bandelli, in E´lites, 16 (less than 100 texts); and ibid. 15–16, on the unevenness of the epigraphic record for north-western Italy, citing Verona and Patavium as ‘discouragingly’ poorly known.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
407
Appendix 3 also lists a maximum of 125 municipia in Italy created between the Social War and the beginning of the Principate. That number contrasts with the long lists of oppida given in Pliny (often, but in my view wrongly, taken as municipia7). It also presents a signiWcant reduction from the total of 145 postSocial-War municipia given by Beloch.8 Objections may be lodged against the inclusion or exclusion of particular towns, but I am conWdent that c.120 gives the right order of magnitude for the pre-Augustan total, and, more importantly, that the Wgures for the centre and south of Italy are substantially correct. This allows us to conWrm in large measure the suggestions made on the basis of the available epigraphic evidence on magistracies. The level of municipalization in Etruria, Umbria, and Latium Adiectum was high, and this correlates to the greater degree of urbanization found there before the Social War. In the areas which had seceded from Rome in 91 the picture is somewhat diVerent. Some places in Campania were left unmunicipalized for a number of years, Herculaneum, for example, and perhaps others: Nuceria is not attested as a municipium before 63 bc, and Stabiae never recovered from the intervention of Sulla during the Social War. This state of aVairs Wnds an interesting counterpoint in the fact that it was not until the Wrst consulship of Caesar that Capua and her satellites in northern Campania were restored to autonomy.9 We could not, however, argue that Campania was either unurbanized, or lacking in municipia. In other former insurgent areas the phenomenon is more noticeable. If we discount the Latin colonies, Samnium, Lucania, and Bruttium can muster only four or Wve municipia each, a small number for large areas. Apulia does better with seven, but it may have suVered less heavily than other ex-rebel areas, and the Messapic centres were already urbanized in the Hellenistic period. Larinum, Hadria, Firmum, and Cupra Maritima (and possibly Teate) may well represent the only municipia in the central Adriatic areas of Italy. The Paeligni and Marsi between them show only three municipia during this period. I have already alluded (Chapter 2) to what I call ‘municipal voids’ in Italy; I believe them to have been predominantly a phenomenon of the centre and south of Italy after the Social War. They had important consequences for the history of the peninsula in the last decades of the Republic. Even given the presence of Roman colonies, the lack of municipia in some areas must have had practical consequences, meaning that there were gaps in the administration of justice, the collection and spending of money, and the supervision of law and order. Important centres of the Staamstaaten, such as had not been destroyed in the Social War, remained as uici, whose institutions lacked the sophistication of municipal government, and whose magistrates were not competent to discharge all the duties that could be expected of municipal or colonial magistrates. 7 See Bispham, forthcoming. 8 RG 500–11. 9 Note also the municipalization of Calatia, which may not be much earlier than the middle of the century. For Caesarian colonies under the dictatorship at Casilinum and Calatia, see Cic., Att. 16. 8. 1, Phil. 2. 102, Vell. Pat., 2. 61. 2, App., BC 3. 40, Keppie, Colonisation, 143–7.
408
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
Administrative units had existed before the Social War, and some of these survived as (in Roman terminology) pagi; even there, Roman law, the forces of order, and Roman sources of euergetism could be very distant. Some uici no doubt remained quite signiWcant ‘central places’, holding regular fairs and festivals, and some might manifest numerous ‘Roman’ features of civic organization. Yet the lack of a systematic and complete extension of the municipal system to Italy in 86/85 meant that the development of these smaller or remoter communities diverged from those which were municipalized, and that they remained for some time outside the cultural and political mainstream; acculturation and urbanization must have been to some extent retarded.10 It may be that, by some form of attributio, these uici often depended on the magistrates of the nearest autonomous town with proper jurisdiction—but such towns might be far oV, at the end of a diYcult journey. Such non-municipalized communities are probably the post-Social-War counterpart of the pro municipiis which we hear of in the lex agraria (see Ch. 2); there was a tradition, which went back into the second century at least, of regarding some communities as in some way equivalent to municipia, even though they were not municipia. I have argued in Chapter 2 that such communities simply got on with life, either from their own resources, or through attribution to a neighbouring municipium; but that is not to say that I think such a situation was either easy or desirable. The administrative disadvantages of such a situation were obvious for both Italians and the governing class in Rome. Cases of unlawful enslavement, for instance, which followed the Social War and the victory of Sulla, would have been that much harder to redress in the absence of a local centre with anything other than the most rudimentary and restricted jurisdiction.11 Rome may also have reaped a poor harvest in another Weld, in that the absence of municipia should have contributed materially to the insecurity and lawlessness of Italy in these years, laying a greater policing burden on the Roman state, which was not well equipped to handle the problem in any case. The success of Spartacus, the activity of C. Octavius in the ager Thurinus on the way to his province, and the consular provinces initially decreed for 59 (‘siluae callesque’):12 all these testify to Roman inability to maintain order in Italy.13
10 In some cases, the developments which I imagine as being slowed by a failure to municipalize, were already under way in the generation before the Social War: see e.g. Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, ch. 9, esp. 207–12, but nevertheless took a long time to reach fruition. Correlations between urbanization and municipalization are diYcult to draw: but see Gabba, Italia Romana, 70–6, 135–6. 11 For such cases, see Cic., Caec. 97 (Arretium) and Clu. 21 (ager Gallicus) and 162 (the wife of a Samnite; Cluentius pays oV the sectores, presumably at Larinum). 12 Suet., DI 19. 2 for the consular provinces; Suet., DA 3. 1, cf. Cic., Tull. 8, 10 (the action takes place in the ager Thurinus); Sall., Cat. 28. 4 for numerous latrones in Etruria in 63; Dyson, Community, 81–3, and 90, 95, 99 for the triumviral period, and the mission of C. Calvisius Sabinus to suppress banditry in 36. Cf. Brunt, Manpower, 551–7. 13 See Frayn, Subsistence Farming in Roman Italy, ch. 1; Brunt, Manpower 551–7, and Dyson, Community, 81–4, 94–5, 99, on the isolation of rural communities; and Cic., Clu. 195 for a garrison of local inhabitants protecting Larinum.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
409
Local elites will also have suVered from the submunicipal status of their community, or the relative lack of municipalization in their region. It is very probable that the small number of municipia found in the areas occupied by the former Central Apennine peoples is closely linked to the very limited number of senators known from these regions prior to Caesar’s dictatorship.14 They did not have a powerbase of the same importance and dignity as rivals elsewhere in Italy (although the case of Cn. Plancius of the praefectura of Atina shows that this need not always have been a disadvantage). Practising the political and cultural behaviour expected of the Roman politician,15 in what was a juridical and administrative backwater, was not the same as making a career and a name for oneself in a politically more sophisticated and conWdent community such as a municipium. The traditional political roles, which families like the Vetti, Poppaedii, and Papii had played as magistrates and political leaders in their own communities and regions prior to the Social War, and which formed a vital arena for constructing networks of amicitia and support, not to mention maintaining their own position among their fellow townsmen, were severely curtailed, I would argue, by the low level of municipal culture among the central Apennine peoples. Previous systems and structures were uprooted, marginalized, or radically transformed, and nothing analogous replaced them.16 Such a situation may, in turn, have provided an incentive to participate instead in other, non-political, activities, such as business or other activities open to the equestrian class (money and connections permitting),17 and, above all, service in the army.18 The eVects at a local level went beyond those whose aspirations centred ultimately on Rome. Important Wgures in Rome or in the region itself might be 14 See De Benedittis, in A. Campanelli and A. Faustoferri (eds.), I luoghi degli dei, at 19. After Caesar we may note simply the famous case of Q. Varius Geminus of Superaequum (CIL ix. 3305). We know that all generalizations are dangerous—each case must be considered on its merits. Moscatelli has drawn attention to the limited number of senators and even of notable families from northern Picenum who have left any trace in our sources (Picus (1985), 71–3). For Moscatelli almost all the numerous small settlements of the area were municipia by the end of the Republic, but, rather, only three are attested before the Augustan period: Cingulum, Trea, and Cupra Maritima (for one thing Caesar’s characterization of northern Picenum as a countryside of praefecturae (BC 1. 15) would have less meaning if the countryside were as highly municipalized as Moscatelli supposes—Caesar must be making some point by not calling it a land of municipia, unless he wished thereby to give a sense of the extent of the area which went over to him; speaking of praefecturae seems to denote something other than a countryside full of autonomous communities). Three municipia is a comparatively high number for a small area where nucleated settlements had been slow in developing; nevertheless this development seems to have had little inXuence on the access of local elites to the Roman Senate. We should bear in mind that the Labieni of Cingulum, like the Sentii Saturnini of Atina, had attained that dignity well before the municipalization of their respective communities. See also on the small number of senators from old citizen colonies: Torelli, in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio. 15 See Torelli, in Bourgeoisies. 16 Ibid. and Torelli, Arch. Laz. (1979), for the ‘destructuring’ eVects of the Roman conquest. 17 On municipal equestrians see Nicolet, Ordre, i. 387–4232, and Demougin, in Bourgeoisies, 279–98. 18 Seen, together with the prospect of land on discharge, as a major desideratum among the socii on the eve of the Social War, and a catalyst for the desire for/willingness to accept the Roman citizenship by this group, by Galsterer, Herrschaft.
410
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
less prepared to become patrons of a submunicipal community than of a colony or municipium; if successful and well-connected local sons were in shorter supply, such a situation would weigh all the more heavily. The level of euergetism, and the strength of ties to the centre of power in Rome would, in circumstances such as these, been correspondingly diminished. There will also have been important repercussions for the political and cultural identity of such communities. The non-municipal community did not lack magistrates or a decision-making process, as the example of Capua still demonstrated in the 60s bc, but it lacked the important political facies (appearance) represented by the quattuorvirate, or a lex, the legal instrumentum which embodied the particular importance of a community as a municipium, as well as deWning its position as a constitutive part of the Roman res publica, and also as a serious res publica itself. Such drawbacks will have constituted an obstacle to the full integration of these communities into the Roman state, but also a spur to the local aristocracies, or those elements of them which had survived the Social and Civil Wars and the Sullan proscriptions, to lobby for municipal status for their communities, or to redouble the eVorts, locally and outside the community, to show that they, and their fellow townsmen, were worthy of the honour.19 The weakness of municipal culture in some parts of Italy Wnds reXection in the written sources. In the Pro Cluentio Cicero lists the groups present in court to support his client: ‘adsunt, Frentani, homines nobilissimi, Marrucini item pari dignitate; Teano Apulo atque Luceria equites Romanos, homines honestissimos, laudatores uidetis; Bouiano totoque ex Samnio . . . homines amplissimi nobilissimique uenerunt’ (Clu. 197). It is no coincidence that the groups mentioned under tribal or ethnic names are those whom I have suggested were undermunicipalized in this period. Apulia was a more urbanized and municipalized region, hence the mention of two Apulian centres, Luceria and Teanum. It seems very possible that Bovianum, which we know from other evidence to have been a municipium by 48 bc was one already in 66, but Cicero’s words ‘totoque ex Samnio’, while they do his client no harm, to my mind disguise the fact that among the Pentrian Samnites there were no other municipia at that period which were not former Latin colonies.20 Note further that, while the Frentani and Marrucini are described as very noble, possessed of dignitas, it is the municipalized and/or urbanised Apulian communities which are speciWcally said to have provided equites to support Cluentius.21 In his speech against Vatinius, Cicero 19 The practical exigencies of drafting municipal leges meant that, beyond a vigorous local aristocracy and populus, and Wnancial viability, a community seeking promotion needed to have sons or supporters versed in Roman political life—ideally a senator or two, like the Labieni of Cingulum. 20 Municipium at Bovianum: CIL i2 . 787; more cautious than the line taken here: Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 218, noting the centre as important nonetheless. Note also Cic., Clu. 162, where Cluentius is said to have helped the wife of a Samnite, who is clearly not thought of as belonging to an urban community. 21 For the Marrucini see also Cic., Phil. 7. 23, where they are singled out alongside the municipium of Firmum for their support; Catullus, 12. 1, ‘Marrucine Asini’, where there may be a touch of irony in the cultural contrast implied between the Marrucine ‘urban’ sophisticate Asinius Pollio and his ‘tribal’ boor of a brother; for a diVerent view see Syme, RR 169.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
411
describes his opponent’s failure to carry the Sergia in the comitia in the following terms: ‘ob hasce omnis res sciasne te seuerissimorum hominum Sabinorum, fortissimorum uirorum Marsorum et Paelignorum, tribulium tuorum, iudicio notatum’ (Vat. 36). These ethnic terms draw part of their signiWcance from a potent vein of late republican political discourse, whereby the upland peoples of Italy (and the Wrst of their sons politically active at Rome, the noui homines) were seen as, or presented themselves as, repositories of the ‘prisci Catonis uirtus’, in opposition to the corrupt oligarchy, the Roman nobility.22 Yet this is not, to my mind, easy to divorce completely from the scarcity of nucleated settlements, and thus necessarily municipia, in the Sabine, Marsic, and Paelignian areas. This habit of thinking of the Marsi and Paeligni in terms of ethne¯, rather than in terms of their municipia by a form of synecdoche, is still visible in Caesar’s Bellum Ciuile.23 The reasons for the neglect of these areas of Italy in municipal terms form part of a complex web of interrelated issues stemming from the Social War. Initially, in the course of the war, the Romans wanted to neutralize as many enemy strongholds as possible, and this, in Samnium at least, will have resulted in the sacking of a number of hill forts. With the end of hostilities, there seems to have been no plan for reconstruction put forward by the Senate (nor should we expect one); some ex-rebel Italians must have been hard put to keep up some semblance of organized communal life in their ravaged territories. The fate of Bovianum, sacked in the Social War (Appian, BC 1.51.225), may be an example. What we know and may surmise from 66 bc onwards has been said. What, though of the period from 88 to 66? From about 160 bc onwards, Oscan tile stamps reveal a series of meddı´ss at Bovianum, some calling themselves meddı´ss tu´vtiks. The date of the cessation of the series cannot be pinpointed, but the best interpretation is that this magistracy, whether local or federal, did not survive the Social War.24 If there was a central authority organizing the production of tiles (if any were made) in Bovianum after the Social War, it would have seemed easy enough, whatever this authority called itself, to continue to mark tiles in the traditional way, even if the Weld for supra-local competence had vanished with the Social War. Yet there is nothing. Whatever interpretation we advance for the end of this series of tiles, it must explain a strong discontinuity: after regular records of magistrates for over two generations there is sudden silence. Silence might be the paring down to almost nothing of local administration in a sacked city, ignored by the victors, and left to shift as best it could. When the Wrst municipalization of Italy took place, the same attitudes (which can to some extent be fairly characterized as punitive) which led to the disadvantageous block assignments of tribes to ex-rebels, probably led, simultaneously, 22 Hor., Carm. 3. 21. 11–12. See Dench, Barbarians, on this phenomenon. 23 BC 1. 15–20; contrast the way in which the contingent from Alba Fucens is named by reference to the municipium, not by a regional or ethnic designation. Pliny the Elder still writes of the Marsi in the present tense, HN 25. 11, cf. 7. 15, 28. 30. 24 De Benedittis, SE (1978), 411–12, no. 3 (Bovianum); Capini, SE (1978), 424, no. 34 (Civita` di Bojano); Poccetti, 44; La Regina, in Italia: Omnium terrarum parens, at 339–40; id., PdP (1996), 329.
412
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
to the decision not to elevate many of their centres to the status of municipium. The fate of the great Pentrian centre of Monte Vairano in the Biferno valley, which may have remained a uicus, is a good illustration of this.25 In ignoring many important Italian settlements the Senate displayed both how easily it could allow the logic and pragmatism required for the creation of a municipal system in Italy to be tempered by political considerations, and a haughty indiVerence towards those to whom it had been eVectively forced to concede the citizenship.26 It is also possible that some Samnites and Lucanians, who from 87 possessed brieXy a certain, limited, de facto independence, thanks to their treaty with Marius and Cinna, may not have felt penalized by their poor representation within the new set-up, hoping rather to combine the advantages of the Roman citizenship with traditional socio-political structures and a substantially free hand. The Senate and Roman politicians had other agendas to pursue, not least a strategic one, namely a desire to create, it seems, a dislocation between political and strategic centres in central Apennine Italy. Further, some communities in rebel areas will have been eVectively destroyed during the course of the war, and will not have entered into the reckoning immediately, or at all. The relatively backward state of nucleated urban development in these areas will also have played a part in the Senate’s deliberations; indeed, it had to hand the example of the Sabines, Praetutii, Vestini, and Picentes, who had long enjoyed the citizenship, and indeed been heavily settled by emigrant Roman assidui, but were largely unmunicipalized.27 Another relevant factor may have been a relative attenuation of ties and interaction between Roman senators and local elites in the aftermath of the war; such a situation could have militated against the municipalization of a particular centre, very much the converse of the way that the prominence, quick access to the Senate, and loyalty of the Magii of Aeclanum must have played a part in securing the municipalization of the town and the advantageous tribal allocation. With the victory of Sulla and the proscriptions, the necessary conditions for the municipalization of those parts of Italy which had been ignored under the Cinnans now became more remote than they had been earlier in the decade. Sulla’s vengeance on Samnium was especially terrible, and the damage to local families of standing, to communities, and to morale, represented another nail in the municipal coYn.28 The Italian aristocracy now lost further scions, and much 25 De Benedittis, in Samnium: Archeologia del Molise, 128, 130, places the destruction of the ‘house of LN’ in the Wrst half of the 1st cent. bc, and a major contraction of habitation at Monte Vairano by the middle of the century, cf. Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 218; for the limited evidence for imperial occupation see De Benedittis, Il centro sannitico di Monte Vairano; id., in Romanisation du Samnium; Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 223; but ibid. 249 on the continuity of larger settlement traces across the Roman and Samnite periods. 26 On Roman irrationality in the municipalization of Samnium, see D’Henry, in Romanisation du Samnium, 9–11 (where she exaggerates the extent of municipalization under the Republic); and also LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 39. 27 On these areas see, above all, La Regina, MAL (1968), 361–446, and id., in Studi sulla citta` antica, 191–207. 28 On Sulla and the Samnites, see the still standard account of Salmon, Samnium, 384–9; also Crawford, Roman Republic 2 , 149–51; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 8; on economic and demographic decline,
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
413
of their land and wealth passed into the hands of men like the Sullan Gauleiter C. Quintius Valgus. Valgus was concerned to display his patronage in the existing municipia and colonies of Campania and among the Hirpini, but was not interested in aiding the promotion of other centres. He was an exceptional Wgure in any case; others were probably more interested in taking over and exploiting land which might otherwise have formed the territorial and socioeconomic basis of new municipia. Sulla’s legacy to Italy was one of destruction, destructuring, and conWscation; it sowed the seeds of resentment and rebellion (as Sallust well saw). . . . some [Samnites] he [Sulla] cut down in the battle, having ordered his men to take no one alive, but some, having thrown away their weapons, they say about three or four thousand, he brought down to the public villa, the one on the Campus Martius, and conWned them there. Three days later he sent his soldiers in and slaughtered them all, and then began the proscriptions; these did not end until every Samnite of repute had been killed or driven out of Italy. To those who reproached him for allowing himself to be carried away by his anger, Sulla said that he knew from experience that no Roman would be able to live in peace, as long as the Samnites existed. So what were once cities in Samnium have become villages, and some have disappeared completely, Boianum, Aesernia, Pinna, Telesia near Venafrum and a number of others, none of which deserve to be called cities. . . . Beneventum, however, has held up very well, so too Venusia. (Strabo, 5. 4. 11, 249–50C).29
Depression and stagnation did nothing to foster or stimulate the embryonic municipal culture of the new citizens of the peninsula. With the grief and bitterness of the Social and Civil Wars still raw, a precocious integration into the wider life of the Roman res publica was only for the favoured few: for most the centre which might welcome and repay their attentions would necessarily at Wrst be the local. In some cases local elites survived in power, even against the odds, as in the case of the Caecinae of Volaterrae, despite Sulla’s punishment of the city, which may have been meant to restrict that city and Arretium for ever to local horizons; in surviving they retained (as with burial customs) or managed the transformation of the
real and exaggerated, after Sulla, Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 213; Lloyd et al., PBSR (1997), 6; but note some surviving Samnite elite families: Salmon, Samnium, 397–9; Gaggiotti, in Bourgeoisies; Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 249–50. A comprehensive re-examination of the eVects of Sulla’s hostility on Samnium and its inhabitants is very much a desideratum. The most arresting testimony is that of Strabo, part of which I referred to in the Introduction, and which is quoted below. 29 ŒÆd f b K fiB fi ŒÆŒł, Œº Æ c øªæE, f b ÞłÆÆ a ‹ºÆ, æd æØ Øºı ¼æÆ j æÆŒØ Øºı Æ , N c Æ ÆıºØ c K fiH ˚fiø ŒÆƪƪg r æ#· Œº. Strabo’s direct connection of the proscriptions with the Samnites is remarkably hererodox. See also Vell. Pat., 2. 27. 2 on Pontius Telesinus’ speech, to which Sulla seems to be referring; this episode has been suspected as Sullan propaganda, presenting the Civil War as a crusade against Rome’s natural enemy and his Marian allies, mixing Social and Civil War propaganda (Salmon, Athenaeum (1964); Gruen, Politics and the Criminal Courts, 254; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 10). Yet it chimes so well with Social War propaganda as to seem too sophisticated for the Sullan purpose which it is supposed to serve; the description of the Romans as ‘raptores Italicae libertatis lupos’ works much too well at arousing sympathy.
414
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
economic and social structures on which their pre-eminence had rested.30 These, however, are necessarily local concerns; and local concerns and needs, even the creation of a satisfactory forum for local ambitions, were being only spasmodically and randomly encouraged at best. Now, however, the story is becoming chronological and not structural, and we shall be better served from this point with a diachronic view, and a look at change through time.
2 . T H E S P R E A D O F M U N I C I PA L I Z AT I O N I N T H E L AT E R E P U B L I C : T H E D I AC H RO N I C V I EW One of the most important conclusions to emerge from the preceding chapters is that the history of Italy in these years is one of numerous variations in time and place, which resists easy synthesis beyond the broadest outlines.31 The mode of entry into the Roman state varied from region to region: the loyalist communities gained the Roman citizenship in 90 bc, by the voluntary act of becoming fundi of the lex Iulia; the rebel peoples, by contrast, had passed through a state of deditio, and there is no sign that they were given any choice about enfranchisement (or that they would have rejected it given the choice—but note Cic., Balb. 21, the magna contentio over the oVer of citizenship in the loyalist communities of Heraclea and Neapolis: class conXict?32). The Samnites and Lucanians were able 30 On the Caecinae: Terrenato, JRS (1998), at 99–112; id., in Italy and the West, 60–1, stressing also the more attenuated survival of indigenous elites at Pisae, and 62–3, suggesting the persistence of traditional forms of dependency in the countryside of Volaterrae. The situation at Volaterrae is more ambiguous than Terrenato allows, however: survey data (quantiWed data mainly taken from the coastal territory of Volaterrae) suggest a signiWcant discontinuity in settlement in the middle of the 1st cent. bc (presumably at the Black Gloss/ITS crossover), with a notable number both of smallholdings not continuing into the latter part of the century and new ones established (Munzi and Terrenato, Ostraka (1994), at 36–41). This is connected to the precarious status of the Volaterran territory made public by Sulla, not distributed, defended by Cicero (see now Deniaux, Cahiers G. Glotz (1991)), and apparently under threat from Caesar’s need for land in the dictatorship; and to new evidence that Volaterrae was a colonia by some time in the early Empire (for earlier views Keppie, Colonisation, 57). The hypothesis of a Caesarian or triumviral colony is advanced, with the support of a passage in the Liber Coloniarum (p. 168, 16–20 Campbell), to explain the discontinuity in the settlement pattern. So far so good, if not unproblematic (I am not convinced that the quattuoruiri of Volaterrae can be explained away as Munzi suggests)—but it seems that the observed discontinuity is not best explained in terms of veteran settlement, when veterans (and centuriation) seem to be found only in the Valdarno, a peripheral zone; and if new settlers are moving in, in signiWcant numbers, it is a far from straightforward inference to argue that the overall continuity of smallholding settlements in the Volaterran territory represents the continuity of existing land-holding patterns and of the structures of social dependence which kept the local aristocracy in power. What interest had new colonists in slipping on the abandoned clogs of the Volaterran penestai and tugging their forelocks at passing Caecinae (unless originally from Volaterrae)? Moreover, since the only archaeological feature shared by Pisae, Luna, and Volaterrae is the predominance of smallholdings across their territory (Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 63), it seems odd, even contextually, to argue that in one case such a pattern is related to continuity (while at the same manifesting some discontinuity), and in the others that it is compatible with change. Such may be the case, but there is reason for reconsideration here. 31 My debt to Umberto LaY’s classic overview (in VI Kong. Epigr.) will be apparent in this section. 32 See Mouritsen, UniWcation, 166–8, on the debate in these two cities.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
415
to obtain the citizenship from their Cinnan allies, combining it initially with a high degree of autonomy. DiVerences such as this need constantly to be borne in mind: we have already seen how, broadly speaking, there were diVerences between loyalist and non-rebel areas in terms of municipalization. We must always seek to remain alive to various nuances within the broad framework of municipal history, some of which may go back to the circumstances of incorporation, or indeed beyond. Overall, the period from the end of the Social War to the end of the dictatorship of Sulla had been one which had seen both the beginnings of municipalization in the new citizen areas of Italy (which I argued in Ch. 4 took place in 86/85 bc), and also great irregularity and violence across Italy. Speaking of the mob justice handed out to supporters of Carbo under the dictatorship, Rawson writes ‘After Sulla . . . this sort of thing became impossible’.33 Although Italy had not seen the last of violence and upheaval, the tragic and extreme polarizations of Italian towns and their elites were no longer to be found, and a more complicated and ideologically diVuse situation begins to accompany stability from the early 70s. The Wrst municipal legislation concerned the majority of the quattuorviral municipia, and imposed a large degree of uniformity on the external political and institutional structures both of those communities which had become municipia fundana in 90 bc, and on the former dediticii populi. Yet it would be wrong to think that the municipalization of these communities stopped here, or that no further quattuorviral municipia were created after this point.34 That the quattuorvirate was considered the municipal magistracy par excellence of the Wrst century bc is clearly demonstrated by its extensive use among the new citizen communities of Gallia Cisalpina after their enfranchisement (note that most of these had previously enjoyed Latin status); it subsequently continued to be thought desirable or fashionable in the provinces.35 I believe that the quattuorvirate was still being used for the creation of new municipia in various parts of Italy into the Augustan period.36 The attraction of the quattuorvirate, with its connotations of uniWcation and integration within the new Roman Italy, will still have been valid in areas which had suVered political isolation since Sulla or earlier. The internal dynamics of the evolving quattuorvirate acted at diVerent speeds in diVerent areas of Italy. In the matter of titulature (and hence, to a certain extent, of substantive powers), as in the matter of municipalization itself, even though we can trace the broad evolution of legislative changes, we still need to be alert to particularism and sometimes widely varying local fashions. These factors, 33 Culture, 291. For Sullan partisans at Beneventum, and Verres as beneWting from conWscated land there; Cic., Verr. 2. 1. 38, cf. Torelli, Benevento romana, 135–6, suggesting a role for Verres there similar to that played by Oppianicus at Larinum (ibid. 136 n. 81). 34 As Rudolph (Stadt, 94) thought. 35 Cf. Manni, Per la storia, 171–2, for a rejection of Rudolph’s over-schematic thesis of a quattuorviral phase of municipalization followed by a duoviral phase after his Caesarian reform. 36 Note also the case of Carsulae, which seems to have begun life as a duoviral municipium in the Augustan period, and subsequently become quattuorviral: Beloch, RG 503; Manni, Per la storia, 512; Degrassi, SVA i. 166.
416
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
diYcult to quantify or qualify, did aVect the detailed development of the municipal process in Italy.37 This in turn implies that little pressure was placed on Italian municipia by the Roman Senate to conform to any municipal speciWcations in matters of detail. In fact, one of the characteristics of municipalization is the frequent indiVerence of the Senate, or the Roman governing class, to anything other than its general outlines or matters of the greatest administrative convenience. The ‘matrix’ of the municipal charters was largely a hybrid model, descended from pre-Social-War municipia on the one hand and Roman and Latin colonies on the other. Many of the provisions of general municipal legislation were probably likewise derived from laws promulgated before the Social War. One example is the provision that the minimum age for holding oYce (as found in the tabula Heracleensis) should be 30 (modelled on the minimum age for the Roman quaestorship under the lex Villia annalis): it is found, for example, in Sicily before the Social War.38 The tabula Heracleensis is largely concerned with deWning the curial class in municipia, colonies, and praefecturae in terms of moral rectitude and social acceptability, not of socio-economic status or responsibilities (such qualiWcations were, however, probably set out in the individual ‘charters’). Apart from this there is little evidence of a high level of concern for municipal legislation in the ‘central government’. The three laws aVecting the quattuorvirate, the existence of which I have argued for in Chapter 8, might be linked to popularis politicians: Cinna, (much more speculatively) C. Cornelius, and possibly Iulius Caesar. The senatorial oligarchy seems to manifest little interest in either promoting new legislation in the interests of eYcient administration in the municipia, or in overhauling those regulations which already existed.39 The process of streamlining municipal administrative structures, and making them reXect more sophisticated modes of self-government and political discourse, was slow and laborious, and still going on in Caesar’s dictatorship. Here, as elsewhere in Roman life, the prescriptive eVect of mos maiorum was of great importance. The main mass of detailed legislation aVecting the municipia was contained in the leges, and these saved Roman legislators a lot of labour. Form and content were to some extent based on inherited models. The process of acquiring a ‘charter’, adapting the ‘matrix-laws’ to local needs and wishes, and of promulgating the resulting lex in the comitia: all this needed to happen through oYcial channels at Rome, and (as with M. Hostilius’ transfer of Salapia), probably 37 At Nursia the octovirate, which may go back to the 3rd cent., was not abandoned in favour of a more ‘modern’ magistracy, but was modiWed into one including (only?) octouiri II uirali potestate and octouiri aedilicia potestate; this may have happened before the Augustan period, and is probably to be related to municipalization, perhaps under the Caesarian dictatorship; see discussion, App. 3. 38 Tabula Heracleensis 89, 99; Cic., Verr. 2. 2. 122 (laws given to Halaesa by Claudius Pulcher in 95 bc). 39 Cicero taxes Ser. Sulpicius Rufus with wanting to introduce a voting reform which would antagonize the municipal aristocracies: ‘grauiter homines honesti atque in suis uicinitatibus et municipiis gratiosi tulerunt, a tali uiro esse pugnatum, ut omnes et dignitatis et gratiae gradus tollerentur’ (Mur. 47). The precise nature of Sulpicius’ proposal is unclear: see J. Adamietz (ed.), Cicero. Pro Murena ad loc.; Ryan, Gymnasium (1994); Ferrary, in Iuris Vincula, 178.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
417
needed senatorial sanction to start the ball rolling. Yet the whole process was locally driven, and depended on the participation and interest of the community concerned. Local elites were responsible for (though not always directly involved in) requesting, drafting, passing through the assembly, and implementing the ‘charter’; it is with them that much of the responsibility for the remarkable nature of the Roman municipal system in this period rests, with its mixture of Roman identity and local diversity. The pressure for the promotion of submunicipal centres to the status of municipia, the incentives to dioikismos and sunoikismos, the processes which were creating many of the new centres in the late Republic, likewise lay with local domi nobiles: no real incentive to advancement was oVered by the Senate as a matter of policy. Local elites were thus one of the driving forces of municipalization in the late Republic, and this drive is connected with their attempts to enter, or to consolidate their position within, the Roman Senate. We do witness, across the last Wfty years of the Republic, some instances of transformation of fora or praefecturae into municipia. As we have seen, municipia and praefecturae are not mutually exclusive, and a praefectura as an administrative district might be based on a municipium, rather than a forum or conciliabulum. Yet in the postSocial-War period it seems that the praefectura sometimes takes on a consistency diVerent from that of the municipium, from which texts like the tabula Heracleensis distinguish it, and comes to represent the gradation of semi-autonomous community below it; at other times the two clearly overlap, and it is not clear what governs the choice of one term rather than another. Where Cicero, for example, refers to a community as a praefectura, he means that it was not a municipium, unless perhaps there was good reason for not referring to it as a municipium (perhaps the extent of a praefectura was thought of as greater than that of a municipium). Particular adjectives seem to attach themselves to praefecturae in the written sources, which are not used of municipia (e.g. Scaur. 27 of Reate, speaking of the dignitas of ‘praefecturae grauissimae’), again encouraging us to view them as, in the main, diVerent, and as locked into a hierarchical system.40 The lex Mamilia represents an attempt (rare as far as we can tell) ‘from the top’ at municipal reorganization in our period. It ‘contributed to a process of evolution by extending to praefecturae and fora and conciliabula a type of government already known in coloniae and municipia’.41 As a piece of legislation it seems to have deliberately built on the lex Iulia agraria, and was closely linked to the dissolution of the idea of the territory of the city-state of Rome, and the corresponding extension of both territoria and autonomy to smaller settlements of Roman Italy. It served both the needs of elites in the areas aVected, and Caesar’s 40 The tabula Heracleensis covers eligibility for magistracies, for the local ordo, and the decentralization of the Roman census in praefecturae as in municipia and coloniae. 41 Taylor, ‘Caesar’s Agrarian Laws’, 76, cf. generally ibid. 68–78; Abbott and Johnson, Municipal Administration of the Roman Empire, 12; Rudolph, Stadt, 186–207; LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 45; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 166–73, and Ch. 5 above.
418
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
own political ends in the struggle with his optimate enemies, but it was not in itself an innovation.42 As we saw in Chapter 9, the process of the promotion of communities in the older part of the ager Romanus to municipal autonomy was probably already under way in the 60s, and it is diYcult to identify a particular community which actually might have come within the purview of the lex Mamilia.43 The law probably covered settlements in, or near, the areas aVected by Caesar’s agrarian laws, and not even all of them. More important than establishing its precise eVect is to recognize that it attempted on a small scale to systematize a process which had already been under way in Italy for a few years; that is to say, it rode the wave of local elite eVorts to procure, by their own eVorts, the promotion of their communities of origo. The contribution of Caesar as a whole should be viewed as less signiWcant than it has historically been. Rudolph’s excesses were long ago rebutted by SherwinWhite, largely followed in the Anglo-Saxon scholarly debate; yet Caesar’s myth still casts a long shadow over the deeds of the man.44 Current scholarship still tends to see Caesar’s hand in everything: I noted in Chapter 9 how Paci has opted for a Caesarian starting point for the fasti Cuprenses; Buonocore’s attribution of the municipalization of Superaequum to 49 is another case in point.45 LaY, for instance, has portrayed Caesar as a legislator who perfected and brought into a more organic whole various elements of municipal legislation which had been passed in a piecemeal fashion since the aftermath of the Social War. He highlights the importance of the enfranchisement of Gallia Cisalpina (and its subsequent municipalization, which should also be considered the product of Caesarian legislation), and of the lex Mamilia in creating autonomous communities, and extending local jurisdiction within the older parts of the ager Romanus. He does not characterize Caesar’s legislation as revolutionary; yet in summarizing his other achievements in this Weld he writes: preciso` con disposizioni di carattere generale le funzioni dei magistrati, i loro poteri amministrativi, le loro competenze in materia giurisdizionale; speciWco` i casi di ineleggibilita` alle magistrature e ai senati locali; disciplino` in genere il funzionamento degli organi di governo cittadino.46 42 Taylor, ‘Caesar’s Agrarian Law’, 76. 43 Sherwin-White’s arguments here (Citizenship2 , 166–73), while containing much of interest, are weakened by the following problems: (i) promotion to municipal status involved two groups which need to be distinguished; some settlements were Roman foundations and linked to ager publicus—often fora and conciliabula, and had never had an independent territorium, whereas others like Atina were not municipia, but had been incorporated into the state from without as pre-existing communities, and surely had territoria; (ii) some municipia were also the centres of praefecturae, and the process of the withdrawal of prefectures from these places is not always the same as the ending, whether by abatement or abolition, of the sending out of praefecti i. d. from Rome each year; (iii) while there were newer and older municipia after the Social War, which diVered in the details of their organization (less as time passed), there were never two types of municipium which stood in diVerent relationships to Rome, and whose status needed to be regularized, nor a distinction between oppida ciuium Romanorum and municipia. 44 e.g. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 87–94, 161–5, 167–72. For Caesar’s attested legislation in the municipal Weld, see Yavetz, Julius Caesar and his Public Image, 117–22. 45 Paci, in Atti del Convegno di Studi; Picus, supp. 2; Buonocore, in Supp. It. 5, 91–2. 46 In VI Kongr. Epigr., 51; see also the sensible remarks of Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 90–4, 171.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
419
This in fact claims a highly signiWcant role for Caesar. Yet what basis there is in the evidence even for this activity is debatable. The lex Iulia municipalis known from the Patavine inscription CIL v. 2864 and the Caesarian recension of the municipal material contained in the tabula Heracleensis47 both show that Caesar did indeed undertake general municipal legislation in the dictatorship48. Apart from the possible proliferation of the quattuorvirate aedilicia potestate, which may presuppose some reorganization of aedilician powers, it is very diYcult to say what else would have been new in the Julian municipal law. Certainly the ruling on the minimum age of magistrates and senators was not new; I have noted Sicilian antecedents, and the lex Pompeia which regulated Bithynia (given in 63, ratiWed in 59?) had used the same age limit.49 Caesar may have increased the number of possible causes for disqualiWcation from holding a municipal magistracy or being a decurion, but this is merely speculation; he did after all allow freedmen to become decurions in his colonies. I am inclined to see the exclusion of practising praecones as a tralatician measure;50 others have wanted to see much more of the law as simply reprised from existing legislation.51 One probable Caesarian innovation is that of the ‘fast stream’ access to local magistracies and senates for those who had served a speciWed number of terms in the legions or the cavalry.52 This may have been one of a number of provisions passed by Caesar to encourage his veterans to return to their communities of origin and, for centurions perhaps, to facilitate their entry into the local governing class.53 The measure in the tabula Heracleensis was probably aimed at providing some kind of reward for centurions and oYcers who had no need or desire to be settled in a new colony on discharge, but will also have privileged the position of veterans against that of any non-veterans in Caesarian colonies. 47 For this dating, see RS i. 360–2. 48 Cf. Cic., Fam. 13. 11. 3 (46 bc), 6. 18. 1 (Jan. 45). 49 Plin., Ep. 10. 79. 1. For another measure, which seems, however, to have no Italian resonance: Plin., Ep. 10. 114. 1, Bithynian cities barred from giving their citizenship to citizens of other Bithynian communities. 50 Cic., Fam. 6. 18. 1: ‘rescripsit [Balbus] eos qui facerent praeconium uetari esse in decurionibus; qui fecissent, non uetari. qua re bono animo sint te tui et mei familiares. neque enim erat ferendum, cum qui hodie haruspicinam facerent in senatu<m> Romae legerentur, eos qui aliquando praeconium fecissent in municipiis decuriones esse non licere’. The fear of the friends of Cicero and Lepta had evidently been that ex-praecones would be excluded under the new law. Had they already been excluded, there would have been less to lose under new legislation and, correspondingly, less to worry about on their part. As it is, the implication must be that that they feared a change in their position, and that it was the transmission of that concern which prompted Cicero’s enquiry to Balbus. The Wnal sentence quoted would, in that case, suggest that the current state of aVairs in Rome would be even more unbearable if accompanied by a new restriction in the municipia, especially when those excluded were no longer praecones. Rawson (Culture, 310 and n. 112) saw this passage as not a very serious complaint; I disagree—for a diVerent, if not entirely convincing explanation of the comparison with haruspices, see Zecchini, Cesare e il mos maiorum, 70–1. 51 Brunt, Manpower, 519–23. 52 Tabula Heracleensis 89–94, 98–104. 53 For Caesar’s close relations with his troops, and the ideological and practical consequences of this, see now Zecchini, Cesare e il mos maiorum, 114–15, 119–20, 153–8. For the promise of positions in their local ordines for his centurions in 36 after the victory over Sex. Pompeius, see Dio, 49. 14. 3.
420
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
As to other Caesarian measures, hypothetical or possible, there is little to be said. The law creating a decentralization of the Roman census may well be Caesarian (see Ch. 8); there is no evidence of this measure in action.54 His inclusion of 500 ‘very distinguished’ Greeks in his colony at Novum Comum was certainly unusual, but his motives are obscure.55 Above and beyond this, all is conjecture; Caesar emerges as less revolutionary than even in the LaYan picture, and his work is perhaps seen as the Wrst step, and a substantial one, towards the creation of a more uniWed and organic municipal system in Italy. Innovation seems largely to respond to immediate political concerns (the promotion of submunicipal centres under the lex Mamilia—itself related to Caesar’s agrarian legislation of 59, the enfranchisement and municipalization of Cisalpine Gaul, the provisions in favour of military veterans). The long-term view of the reformer, interested in practical beneWts and administrative eYciency, is not absent (the census regulation, perhaps reform of the junior pair of quattuoruiri), but equally, should not be sought at every turn. The level of tralatician legislation raises the question of the antecedents of Caesar’s municipal activity. That they existed is a logical consequence of characterizing some ‘Caesarian’ measures as tralatician; the content, in limited snatches, of such measures is of course thus preserved for us. Yet beyond this, little can be known about these earlier measures or their proposers. It is worth bearing in mind the possible importance of Pompeius, however. He had, after all, been responsible for the administrative organization of large areas of the East, and we have already seen that the minimum age of 30 for holding local oYce also found its way into his lex for Bithynia. Also introduced into Bithynia and Pontus, and derived from Roman, not from Greek, practice were the municipal census and censors to operate it; life tenure of local councillors (as opposed to election or sortitive rotation); and a ban on the holding of multiple citizenships by local senators, the last not a problem in Italy).56 Pompeius may not even have been a great innovator, but his Eastern settlement represented the application of some Roman norms at one moment to a wide area, or series of areas, which were as conspicuous for their diVerence from each other as for their shared characteristics, and whose local identities and traditions were also to some extent protected by his lex (Pliny, Ep. 10. 93, 109, 113). Perhaps his work facilitated a sharpening up or reconsideration of the disparate municipal measures passed with regard to Italy up to that point. Pompeius can thus be thought of as possibly an important precursor of Caesar. In this connection, we should not forget that during his popularis period, immediately before and after his Wrst consulship, Pompeius took measures favourable to the Italians, not least the appointment of censors; popularis tribunes 54 Tabula Heracleensis 142–58. 55 Strabo, 5. 1, 6, 213C, meaning obscure, text perhaps corrupt; see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 231–2. 56 Pliny, Ep. 10. 79, 112, 114, with Sherwin-White, Commentary; A. H. M. Jones, Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces, 159–60, 170–1; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 376 and n. 5, 378.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
421
acting for or in concert with him also introduced legislation of the same tenor, notably C. Cornelius, who may have been responsible for the creation of the quattuorvirate iure dicundo, and any changes associated with that reform. In any event, I do not think that it is coincidental that the Wrst attestations of the quattuorvirates iure dicundo and quinquennalis, and also the Wrst appearance of the duoviral municipia can be located in the years after the first consulship of Pompeius and Crassus.57 Perhaps 70 bc, which saw the restoration of the tribunate, and the undoing of much else done by Sulla, or the senatorial oligarchy which he left in power, also marked a resurgence, if only brieXy, of legislative activity in the municipal sphere. This may have had less to do with a disinterested desire to improve municipal government than with short-term attempts to gain political support, and may have been partly carried on the back of an ideological link forged in the 70s between popularis politicians in Rome and some elements of the Italian elites; both had suVered under Sulla. Certainly, such a link seems implied at an ideological level by Pliny’s account of the Wg-trees (one patrician, one plebeian) which stood outside the temple of Quirinus: the plebeian one only Xourished after the Marsic War.58 Finally, we should remember that Pompeius too had veterans whom he wished to reward, from campaigns against Sertorius and in the East; he was also one of the XX uiri implementing Caesar’s lex agraria of 59 bc. Thus we should not exclude a priori the possibility that he had some input at least into the leges agrariae (he had tried to have passed laws in favour of his troops since his return from the East), and perhaps the lex Mamilia and the provisions in favour of veterans entering municipal politics found in the tabula Heracleensis. On the thorny subject of jurisdiction I have little to add; a detailed consideration of Roman law and its adoption in the newly enfranchised part of Italy lies outside the scope of this work.59 It is important not to make the presence or absence of jurisdiction the be-all and end-all of a study of municipalization. Sherwin-White realized that he had undertaken ‘excessive refutation of the unfortunate Dr Rudolph’ in the Wrst edition of The Roman Citizenship; only in the last generation has interest in jurisdiction as the central problem of this branch of scholarship abated. The lex Flauia shows us that both aediles and II uiri had jurisdiction, but that other powers were not common to the two magistracies, so there were important functional distinctions inherent in municipal magisterial structures other than jurisdiction; in this book I have sought to emphasize changes in magisterial titulature, but to put them in a wider context.60 57 It seems that it was also in 70 that tribes were Wrst assigned to the Latin colonies north of the Po; in 65 Crassus, as censor, was agitating for the enfranchisement of the Transpadani. See further Williams, Rubicon, 120–2, on agitation for Transpadane citizenship in this period. 58 Plin., HN 15. 120–1. Peter Wiseman suggests to me (pers. comm.) that this information may have derived from Licinius Macer. 59 See the sound remarks of Frederiksen, JRS (1964), 132–4. 60 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 5; also focusing on jurisdiction: Bruna, Lex Rubria (with review by Sherwin-White, JRS 66 (1974), 236–8); Simsha¨user, Iuridici und Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit (too extreme in reaction to Rudolph).
422
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
The full administration of its own jurisdiction, albeit within the Roman ius ciuile, was without doubt a clear and important sign of the autonomy of a community, and any encroachment by the urban praetor represented more, ideologically speaking, than a simple trimming of magisterial competence. Yet there were, as we have seen and shall see further shortly, more arrows in the municipal quiver than the simple jurisdictional: as Liebenam argued long ago, Wnancial autonomy must have been at the heart of municipal self-government.61 Some general points can, however, be made on municipal jurisdiction. Rudolph was, as is now universally recognized, wrong to deny that any autonomous jurisdiction existed in municipia other than a basic superintendence of markets.62 The practical eVects of such a situation in the newly enfranchised parts of Italy would have been disastrous, and it could hardly have endured unaltered for some forty years. Such a removal of autonomy would have served only to inXame once more the resentment which had led to the Social War, and ultimately the First Civil War. It is clear that municipal magistrates possessed an autonomous civil jurisdiction under the Republic. The tabula Heracleensis, ll. 115–19, shows that iudicia publica functioned in the municipia—these seem to be similar to those at Rome.63 There ought, on the analogy with the situation in Gallia Cisalpina revealed by the fragmentum Atestinum and the lex Roscia, to have been some pecuniary limit, beyond which the jurisdiction of local courts did not operate, and the matter was transfered to the cognizance of the praetor urbanus; but for peninsular Italy we simply do not have any evidence. The date of the institution of these iudicia should probably be sought in the initial municipalization of 86/85, for which I argued in Chapter 4; adjustments may perhaps have been made to their competence in the lex Cornelia de iurisdictione of 67 bc. As regards criminal jurisdiction, there is some reason to think that the charges instituted in 81 by Sulla Ia c ÆºÆ ‹º to root out Mario-Cinnan sympathizers were conducted through local courts, and not by roving assizes sent out by the praetor.64 This may very well be the explanation of Appian’s notice that the failure of individual charges was visited on whole communities, and is very probably also to be linked to the judicial murder wrought on his enemies in the name of the Sullan proscriptions by Oppianicus once he had installed himself and his cronies as quattuoruiri at Larinum.65 I believe that local courts were suppressed only among the dediticii populi between 88 and 86/85 bc; in the mean time those communities which had not gone through a state of deditio (i.e. those which had become fundi of the lex Iulia) probably retained their 61 Sta¨dteverwaltung, 296, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 161, 165, and 62, 69, on sacra and aedilician activity as potentially having more local value than jurisdiction. 62 See the cogent critique of Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160–5, and 84–5, on Roman colonies in the 2nd cent. bc; and Ch. 2 above on the implications of the lex de parieti faciundo from Puteoli. 63 Cf. lex coloniae Genetiuae 102, 105, 123–4. 64 App., BC 1. 96. 446. Note, however, that Appian uses the term Œæ Ø; should this be translated by quaestiones? 65 App., BC 1. 96. 447, cf. 103. 483, Cic., Clu. 25.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
423
existing jurisdiction until 86/85, in a situation analogous to that prescribed by the fragmentum Atestinum in Gallis Cisalpina in 49 bc.66 The two groups probably ‘converged’ judicially with the passing of the Wrst municipal legislation under the Cinnan government, the jurisdiction of the latter being altered to conform better with Roman practice, at least in essentials, and that of the former restored in the same format, providing some degree of standardization across the peninsula.67 The remit of these courts was probably never as wide as it had been in the Sullan reign of terror. Simha¨user was certainly wrong to argue that capital jurisdiction was ever exercised in municipia under the Republic;68 but this does not exclude the possibility that local magistrates excercised some form of preliminary cognitio in criminal cases.69 It is probable, at least after Sulla’s reform of the quaestiones perpetuae, that the cases of which these courses took cognizance were transferred to Rome, with the role of the municipal magistrate being reduced to an initial hearing in iure. Cases involving infamia (the actiones famosae) and other civil cases involving substantial sums were probably subject to reuocatio Romae; it is also probable that in important cases plaintiVs would agree to take their cases straight to the praetor, and apply to him for an actio. Jurisdictional autonomy for the new municipia from the 80s, together with the foundation of new colonies as part of the Sullan settlement of Italy, may have combined to enlarge the sphere of jurisdiction in Roman colonies at this time.70 It also seems that it is during this period that the balance in terms of jurisdiction in the praefecturae shifts from the praetor in Rome towards local magistrates; the name of praefectura may persist, but we see in this period a gradual extension 66 See Ch. 4. 67 If my reconstruction is correct, it seems that Mommsen must have been wrong to see the powers of municipal courts as a remnant of the sovereign powers of the old autonomous states (StR iii. 812–19, followed by Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 164): the judicial powers of the municipia were granted, conWrmed, or redeWned—it matters not terribly much which word we use—by a legislative act of the populus Romanus, binding on subsections of itself. There seems to be no diVerence between the competence of a municipal court in Etruria or a former Latin colony on the one hand, and a municipal court of a former dediticius populus on the other. Jurisdiction in the latter was clearly a restoration by the Roman state, and jurisdiction in the former must be of essentially the same type. I do not think, however, that local magistrates enjoyed jurisdictional powers only through delegation by the urban praetor (as was the case for praefecturae). Rather than seeing two spheres of jurisdiction in terms only of the inferior municipal and the superior praetorian, we should see them rather as complementary areas in which jurisdiction could be exercised. Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 35, sees the end of the local right to inXict the death penalty as coming soon after the Social War. 68 Iuridici und Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit, 145–85. 69 Cf. Collatio 1. 3. 1 ( ¼ FIRA ii. 544–5), Gaius, 4. 104, tabula Heracleensis 20, 50–2, for the creation of an administrative and jurisdictional boundary for the city of Rome, Wxed at one mile outside the pomoerium, with the comments of Rudolph, Stadt, 232–4; Galsterer, Herrschaft, 34; also RS i. 315, 323, arguing for the existence of municipal quaestiones on basis of fragmentum Atestinum ll. 8–9. 70 LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 42. Degrassi, SVA iv. 74–5, thinks, however, that all colonies received fuller jurisdiction in the general municipal legislation which followed the Social War. Sulla was, in 78 bc, amending the nomos of Puteoli (Plut., Sulla 37. 3; see Ch. 2 and the bibliography cited there)—it is unclear whether this was a speciWc or a general revision.
424
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
of autonomy, and in some cases municipal status, to the old praefecturae, transforming the system beyond recognition.71 Caesar’s enfranchisement of Gallia Cisalpina certainly led to a reorganization of the judicial and jurisdictional situation there, and the fragmentum Atestinum provides evidence of a cap on the level of money which could be at stake in local case, beyond which reuocatio Romae was necessary.72 This may represent the genesis of a gradual encroachment by Rome on the judicial powers of local magistrates, which became more marked under the Empire; unfortunately, all our evidence for limitations upon municipal jurisdiction comes from Gallia Cisalpina—we cannot know how typical it is.
3 . T H E M V N I C I P I A I N ROM A N P O L I T I C S : F U N C T I O N A N D DYS F U N C T I O N Throughout this book I have been examining ways in which the transition from sovereign community to Roman municipium was organized and experienced. It might still be felt that, whatever the strength and vitality of the municipal framework devised by Rome, the loss of sovereignty represented an irreparable loss of power and inXuence: as Mouritsen puts it ‘split into numerous municipalities with limited political inXuence [the Italians] were reduced to a provincial periphery around a Roman centre’.73 Furthermore, there was a major risk that Rome, recently for many communities the enemy, would exert no ideological magnetism or political attraction: the inXuence of an imperial capital over its ‘hinterland’ was not to be taken for granted, as the ‘relatively restricted’ impact of metropolitan London on the English provinces for much of the nineteenth century testiWes.74 In the second half of this chapter I shall argue that the municipia did enjoy political inXuence, and that they were far from peripheral in terms of Roman politics. Indeed, the municipia formed a signiWcant constituent element in the structure of the Roman res publica. Their input and attitudes, along with those of the coloniae, played a vital part in the functioning of Roman politics in the last Wfty years of the Republic. This involvement was not a new phenomenon, and did not depend unconditionally on either the Social War, or the consequent 71 See Caes., BC 1. 15. 2 on Picenum; the praef. Cap. Cum. recorded in ILLRP 441 may have been active later than the colonization of Capua in 58, if the stone is Augustan (see Ch. 2); Cic., Pro Vareno frs. 3 and 4 Crawford seem to show some overlap in the late 70s between the categories of praefectura and municipium at Fulginiae, see further Ch. 2; the praefecti sent from Rome had been abolished by 13 bc: Dio, 54. 26. 7, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 163 (and 213, giving 26 bc as the date of abolition, without evidence). 72 Fragmentum Atestinum, l. 6: 10,000 HS. For a reinterpretation of the phrase reuocatio Romae see RS i. 317. 73 UniWcation, 8, cf. 98. 74 Cannadine, in Hobsbawm and Ranger, Invention of Tradition, 110.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
425
enfranchisement and municipalization of Italy. After 87, however, the number of players was much greater, and the stakes were correspondingly higher. By playing an active role in Roman politics and the major political issues of the day, Italian communities moved ever closer to Rome, and in the process, some of them cooperated more closely with each other than they might otherwise have done. Their political role within the broader context of the Roman res publica was thus both a cause, and means, of the integration of Italy in these years. Here the concept of the municipium as a public collectivity is the dominant one. As a self-contained unit with its own political structures, the municipium was capable of formulating public policy, or taking positions and making comments in wider political debates, for itself. Through the transmission of these comments, positions, or policies, it could come to inXuence political life in Rome. The pronouncements and preoccupations of the municipia, whether solicited or not,75 could have some weight with the Senate and in the courts, and their eVect might be comparable to that potentially realizable by embassies from Rome’s overseas allies or subjects. Indeed, the Italian municipia and colonies might more easily and frequently seek to make their views known than communities in Greece or Africa; and as Romans, even if grudgingly elevated to that status in the case of the municipia, they might expect more of a sympathetic hearing, and to be taken more seriously than provincials or non-Italian allies. In this sense the public interaction between the Roman and local senates was in a way able to perpetuate the dynamics of the former relationship which had existed before incorporation, under the terms of the old foedera with Rome.76 Yet public opinion in the municipia mattered more than that of foreign deputations also because it was formulated and expressed through public organs, and recorded in instrumenta, which were recognizably Roman; these Roman public organs were also, as I have said, physically as well as ideologically proximate to Rome, and the individual players within them had, or might themselves represent, more numerous connections within the Roman Senate, which would hear the municipal voice. The public intervention by the municipia in Rome took three main forms. It manifested itself in legations to the Senate and to individuals, either in Rome, or in the vicinity of the community in question, if applicable.77 Next, there was 75 Mouritsen, UniWcation, 97, sees participation by Italians in Roman politics as invariably instigated by Roman politicians; this seems to overstate the case. 76 For the protagonists of these earlier interventions, see Cic., Brut, 169–70 (‘apud socios et Latinos oratores habiti sunt’, ibid. 169); 169 covers those alive in Cicero’s youth, 170 the previous generations, including L. Papirius Fregellanus, known for his oratio ‘pro Fregellanis colonisque Latinis habita in senatu’ (ibid. 170). They are characterized by Cicero as ‘extra hanc urbem’, but by Brutus as ‘externis quasi oratoribus’ and Wnally by Cicero as diVering from oratores urbani only in that their speeches are not coloured by a certain urbanitas, linking Rome with civilization, cf. ibid. 171; nevertheless, this passage of the Brutus makes clear that some of these allied speeches survived in the dictatorship of Caesar. 77 When Cicero says that he set out from Brundisium to Rome in Aug. 57 ‘a Brundisinis honestissime ornatus’ (Att. 4. 1. 4, ‘most handsomely honoured by the Brundisines’), he must refer to a laudatory decree by the municipium; note the ‘legati’ (‘deputations’) which came from all sides to congratulate him on his journey—these too must be from Italian towns.
426
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
support oVered to local sons on trial in Rome, usually in the form of a testimonial given on behalf of the community as a whole.78 Finally there were special legislative, and also quasi-institutional, enactments, such as that which recalled Cicero from exile, and the oath of loyalty to Imperator Caesar before Actium.79 Of these three aspects, the Wrst has been discussed by Emilio Gabba in a stimulating piece.80 The ability of the municipia to make their views felt in this manner (as in the others), a phenomenon which Gabba has termed ‘presa di posizione politica’ (‘the taking of political position’), formed an important counterpoint to isolation, real (or perceived) for many communities of Roman Italy, from the manifestations of physical involvement in Roman politics. It created nothing less than a means of participation by proxy in Roman politics at the highest level, a means of linking local Roman-style politics to the highest questions touching the res publica (de re publica loqui, one might say, borrowing a phrase from Suetonius, DA 54. 1). Being rooted in the machinery and ideology of political life at the local level, the adoption of these political positions though debate and consensus in the municipia gave the communities as political entities a very considerable importance in the eyes of their municipes. Participation in the political life of the centre was possible for the communities of the periphery, in a more symbolic and vicarious form, through Wgures of regional or supra-regional importance, who were adopted as patrons of a particular community, or were complaisant enough to hold one of its magistracies.81 These powerful Wgures, often important at a regional level or even at Rome in their own right, not only provided psychological and physical beneWts for the community concerned (a Wllip for local pride, and feeling of political ‘connectivity’, and the concrete manifestations of euergetism), but they also represented a link to the centre of power, one which was grounded in the public and institutional structures of the municipium, and thus represented the interests of the community as a whole. The link was maintained permanently in a symbolic fashion by the inscribing of the names of the powerful on tabulae patronatus (no republican examples are known, however, beyond the Fundi tabula discussed in Ch. 2), on public works, and in the archives and records of the community as 78 The spectacle of the oYcial deputation and the implicit support by those present in the court was as eVective in this type of intervention as what was written in the testimonial. See for instance Cic., Clu. 197 (and see above s. 1), cf. 202: ‘restituite incolumen municipio’. 79 A number of diVerent elements combine in the recall of Cicero (and here Mouritsen, UniWcation, 96–7, rightly stresses the role of Italian elites in the comitia centuriata): the soliciting of support among the coloniae and municipia by Wgures such as Pompeius and Sestius (Cic., Red. sen. 27, 31, 38, Red. Quir. 10, 15, Dom. 75, Pis. 41, 80, Prov. cons. 43); general support given by the municipia to Cicero (Pis. 51, Dom. 90, 142); and decrees on behalf of Cicero from the municipia (Sest. 32, cf. 129–30). These interconnected aspects of the same phenomenon are also linked to the notion of tota Italia, seen as the aggregate of all the coloniae, municipia, and praefecturae of the peninsula. 80 Italia romana, 123–32; for another view, playing down the extent of Italian involvement, see Mouritsen, UniWcation, 95–9. Yet, despite the fact that when Cicero speaks of cuncta or tota Italia (e.g. Pis. 3; Sest. 125) he is patently exaggerating, the symbolic implications of such claims, and their implications for the participation of coloniae and municipia in politics need to be taken seriously. 81 See Gabba, Italia romana, 137.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
427
donors, eponyms, or respondents to petitions and claims; the patroni will have appeared beside the decurions in the album of the town (we must imagine a republican predecessor for the famous album from Canusium82). There were also potentially enormous practical beneWts to be yielded through such arrangements, as the attitudes, concerns, and needs of the community could be mediated by such Wgures to those at the centre of power.83 This process of participation was also capable of deconstructing itself when Roman politics became unstable; in times of crisis at Rome we can observe the role of the municipia in Roman politics tending to increase conXict and separatism within Italy. In the late Republic the ultimate appeal was that to the legions, considered by some, like Julius Caesar, to be eVectively the Roman people under arms, and which, over the course of the Wrst century bc, came to include the Italians under that rubric.84 Yet before taking this drastic step, rival individuals and tendencies often sought to win over public opinion and gain support in the towns of Italy.85 In some cases the support of the town for one Roman statesman rather than another will have been the policy of a pre-eminent family, or faction of families, and in extreme situations (under Sulla and the Triumvirate, both times of proscription and judicial murder) may have entailed violence to remove exponents of an opposing viewpoint from within the local elite.86 On other occasions we may posit a broader consensus within the ruling class, or within a municipium as a whole.87 Diodoros, describing the build-up to the Wrst Civil War, records that many towns tried to avoid showing partisanship towards either Cinna or Sulla, and that it was the pressure repeatedly applied by agents visiting to recruit for one side or the other which eventually brought their sympathies (or the lesser of two evil positions) out into the open.88 Rival claimants for power, and revolutionary politicians, sought to build up a network of support in the municipalities and 82 On which see now Salway, in Epigraphic Landscape. 83 See App. 2 for a list of colonial and municipal patrons. I am interested here in those who were formally adopted as patroni, not those who fulWlled the socio-political role of conferring beneWcia without such a formal tie. 84 For the development of this thought see Zecchini, Cesare e il mos maiorum, 114–15, 147, with bibliography there cited, esp. the works by De Blois and Sordi, ibid. 157–8. 85 Such appeals predate the Wrst employment of Roman legions by Sulla: Saturninus sought the support of ager Picenus universus in 100 bc, probably (in part) through Q. Labienus: Cic., Rab. perd. 22), which must refer to the old area of viritane settlement of the 3rd cent. 86 See the seizure of power by Oppianicus at Larinum (Cic., Clu. 25); the expulsion of the Ventidii from Auximum by Pompeius (Plut., Pomp. 6. 3); and the counter-example of Minatus Magius, who was obviously in the minority as a pro-Roman at Aeclanum, but was still able to raise a loyalist legion and follow his own policy (Vell. Pat., 2. 16. 3). On the general lack of such extreme political polarization, and the general inability of individuals to control particular towns or regions, see Rawson, Culture, 289–94; for the settling of municipal scores during the proscriptions see also Syme, RR 193–4. 87 Sometimes, as in the case of Bononia in 32 bc and the Antonii, we can invoke inherited ties of patronage; cf. Vell. Pat., 2. 29 on the ager Picenus and Pompeius Strabo, ‘qui totus paternis eius clientelis refertus erat’, and Rawson, Culture, 290 n. 10, for the links between Pompeius Magnus and that area as mediated through military service with Strabo. 88 D.S. 39. 13. We know that Suessa Aurunca was taken by Sertorius in 83 because it was known to be a pro-Sullan town (App., BC 1. 85. 385–6).
428
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
colonies of Italy, one which might cut across pre-existing patterns of loyalty and obligation. In so doing they were attempting to harness the public support of these communities, that is, to alter the direction and nature of their participation in Roman politics, diverting it from an interest in, and support for, the constitutional workings of the Roman res publica into a more personal following—but a personal following composed of public bodies, something which might confer added legitimacy.89 The engagement of the municipia as political entities in the public life of the commonwealth was thus open to perversion, and could be potentially harnessed in the cause of increasing the general instability. The tendency, during periods of crisis, for Italy to move towards conXict and disunity, rather than stability and unity, had a number of repercussions. First, there is the fact that towns which ended up on the losing side were sometimes subject to conWscations of land, or other penalties, including even the use of violence, at the hands of victors who sought to punish them, whether to create an example, or out of pique and frustration. The fate of Perusia in 40 is a signal example. First and foremost here we can note the loss of life and the damage to the physical fabric of the town. ConWscations of communal territory and individual property followed, and here Perusia90 was not unique—Caudium seems to be another example at this period. An eVective ban on property-holding outside the urban centre itself (as happened at Perusia) must have resulted in a major upheaval in the socio-political structure of the community. Secondly, the competition among contending statesmen to attach towns to themselves led to an increased level of interaction between Roman politicians and the municipia. ‘Interaction’ covers a multitude of sins: it is not really the right word for Pompeius’ threats towards (among others) the Italian towns in the event that they should fail to remain loyal in his absence in 49 (Cicero, Att. 9. 10. 2).91 Yet whether cajoling or seeking support, such appeals had a direct eVect on the towns as public entities, in that it seems to have led to an increase in the incidence of patronage of communities in Italy. This is well illustrated by Antonius’ attack on the municipium of Teanum Sidicinum and the colony of Puteoli, where the results of the political struggle between Antonius and the Liberators Wnd their expression in terms of the local decision-making process in the selection of patrons by the communities.92 In the jockeying for support by the rival leaders 89 Even in the apparent stability of the dictatorship of Caesar, Cicero assures Brutus that by forwarding the Wscal interests of Arpinum he will win both the support of ‘good men’ and the gratitude of the collectivity; I do not believe this relationship can be shown to be one of formal patronage (‘bonos uiros ad tuam necessitudinem adiunxeris municipiumque gratissimum beneWcio tuo deuinxeris . . . quos [Cicero’s son, nephew and M. Caesius, aediles elect for 45] cohonestaris in primisque me si res publica municipi tuo studio diligentia bene administrata erit’, Fam. 13. 1. 3); here res publica must mean corporate property. 90 See Syme, RR 466, on reaction to the sack of Perusia. 91 ‘quae minae municipiis’, linked by Cicero to the chilling aphorism ‘Sulla potuit, ego non potero?’ (9. 10. 2); cf. 9. 10. 11. 3. 92 Cic., Phil. 2. 107. Caudium may have been punished by Imperator Caesar because of its ties to the Scribonii, another instance of the quarrels of Roman politics spilling over into the public life of the municipia.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
429
among the towns of Italy in the triumviral period, the position of patron and a local magistracy held by such important Wgures assume a new importance. Where before they had been channels linking centre and periphery, now they have become a means of organizing support behind rival generals and statesmen, or unscrupulous local magnates looking to establish themselves as regional power-brokers in a bigger game.93 Not all towns were prone to side with one or another of the warring leaders of the periods of civil conXict. Some supported the ‘lawful’ rule of the Senate and people, or the status quo, displaying a notable conservative republicanism.94 This shows us that the ideological commitment to the existing republican system, to the de facto authority of the Senate and the power of the Roman people as expressed in the comitia, ran deep in many cases.95 Nor was the drift of the municipia in times of trouble always towards further disunity and conXict. In the Pro Roscio Amerino the decurions of Ameria decide to make a public response to the plight of Sextus Roscius by sending a deputation of the decem primi to Sulla.96 The decision of Auximum to capitulate to Caesar was, at least as he represents it, a public decision, relayed to Attius by the decurions.97 Again, when Caesar was in some kind of dispute with a group of Campanian towns, he summoned their oYcial representatives to negotiate with Antonius.98 The system never broke down, since the desire of the domi nobiles in Italy was by and large to avoid the risk of proscription and other major upheaval. Thus, even during his struggle with Antonius in 44/43, Cicero uses in speeches language which evinces a concern over abuses allegedly perpetrated against Italian communities by his enemy;99 he exploits their hostility towards Antonius, as well as their loyalty to the ‘legitimate’ senatorial government, as a lever with which to 93 It is, I think, no coincidence that a sizeable proportion of the known municipal and colonial patrons are the uncontested leading Wgures of the day (Sulla during his dictatorship, Caesar during his), or date to periods of uncertainty or autocracy. 94 e.g. the Transpadane towns in 44 and 43 bc: Cic., Fam. 12. 5. 2, Phil. 3. 13, 10. 10 (where Cicero also stresses that Antonius can only count on the support of three towns in the whole world). On the inherent conservatism of many municipal elites, see Cic., Att. 8. 7. 5, 13. 2, 16. 1 (not disinterest as Mouritsen claims (UniWcation, 97 n. 36); Zecchini, Cesare e il mos maiorum, 115, on Asinius Pollio as an example of this trend. 95 Imperator Caesar’s punishment of Nursia (‘quod Mutinensi acie interemptorum ciuium tumulo publice extructo ascripserant, pro libertate eos occubisse’, Suet., DA 21. 1) is assigned by Carter (ad loc.) to the Perusine War. The local situation in 40 bc makes such an attribution very possible, since we know that Caesarian forces operated near Nursia before advancing to Perusia (Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 300–2). On the other hand Suetonius might be right, in which case the libertas commemorated in the epitaph would be not simply freedom from despotism, but that very aristocratic libertas which was the watchword of the freshly bloodied Brutus and Cassius on the Ides of March—for a deWnition see Cornell, Beginnings, 377. 96 Cic., Rosc. Am. 25. 97 Caes., BC 1. 13. 1. Note also that, after the capitulation of CorWnium, Caesar deals with the matter of Domitius Ahenobarbus’ money through the oYcial channel of the IIII uiri (1. 23. 4). 98 Cic., Att. 10. 13. 1. 99 Cic., Phil. 2. 41, 57–8, 61–2, 106–7, 5. 25, 14. 10, cf. Att. 16. 8. 2.
430
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
push the Senate towards armed hostilities.100 In doing so, Cicero is not only publicly demonstrating his care for the feelings and well-being of the municipia and coloniae of Italy, but he is also making the assumption that the feelings of the municipalities, formulated expressions of their public discourse, will have their eVect in steeling the resolve of the Senate. Even in periods of upheaval, then, the public opinion of the municipia and colonies, especially when transmitted through the ‘right’ channels, was always worth conciliating; captatio beneuolentiae was never completely ousted by force of arms as a means of winning local support. Indeed, it was far from being an empty gesture of social theatre, but rather was probably undertaken in the hope that in winning the propaganda war, the real thing might be averted.101 Rome’s ruling class had come a long way since Sulla’s dictatorship, and it boded well for the future of the peninsula that even in times of acute stress and dysfunction of state institutions, the political relationship between Rome and the Italian municipia never completely broke down.
4 . O R I G O A N D V I C I N I TA S : T H E I M P ORTA N C E OF THE M V N I C I PI A Just as the municipia mattered at a national level, so they were important in their own right at a local level too. This hardly seems a novel proposition, but it is worth examining the ways in which it can be veriWed. The local elite used the municipium in its public and political manifestations as a Weld for display, competition, and self-representation. The great families who controlled, or fought to control, the political life of the community are frequently represented in our sources as having a nobilitas of their own, as being domi nobiles: noble in their home town.102 For some, for example, Etruscan aristocrats, such as A. Caecina and Maecenas, their heritage as the scions of the ruling houses of Volaterrae or Clusium was such as to make their entry into the Roman Senate seem like a step down rather than a step up.103 The immediate importance of the 100 Phil. 3. 13, 39, 5. 36, 6. 18, 7. 23 (‘an cum municipiis pax erit, quorum tanta studia cognoscuntur in decretis faciendis, militibus dandis, pecuniis pollicendis, ut in singulis oppidis curiam populi Romani non desideretis’), 8. 4, 12. 7, 20. 101 It is a characteristic feature of Caesar’s BC that, in line with the noua ratio uincendi (for this term see Cic., Att. 9. 7c), which Caesar was employing, he stresses the bloodless nature of his coup in Italy and his excellent relations with the municipia; cf. BC 1. 12. 3, where Caesar advances on Auximum ‘conWsus municipiorum [sc. the towns now left ungarrisoned] uoluntatibus’; and Bell. Afr. 54. 102 ‘domi nobilis’: the phrase, perhaps signiWcantly, comes from Sallust, Cat. 17. 4; cf. Cic., Rosc. Am. 15 (‘cum genere et nobilitate et pecunia non modo sui municipi uerum etiam eius uicinitatis facile primus, tum gratia atque hospitiis Xorens hominum nobilissimorum’—it may be signiWcant that if Sex. Roscius senior is nobilis, his Roman friends are nobilissimi); Clu. 109, where Oppianicus senior is ‘equitem Romanum in municipio suo nobilem’; cf. Verr. 2. 3. 56 of Eubulidas of Centuripae. See also Syne, RR 82 n. 3, contra Nicolet, Ordre, i. 397–400, and for an analysis of honoriWc terms used in the literary sources, see Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in Bourgeoisies, 54–8, esp. 57–8. 103 On Caecina, see Rawson, Culture, 297–9; for the inverse, perhaps generated or exaggerated by propaganda hostile to Marius: ‘Arpinatibus honoribus iudictaus inferior, quaesturam Romae petere ausus est’ (Val. Max., 6. 9. 14, noted by Nicolet, REL (1967), 293).
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
431
municipia to that class which controlled policy decisions in the local senate, and normally supplied local magistrates, is therefore hard to overestimate. As neighbouring local units, municipia, like the comuni of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, were engaged in rivalry and competition: some of this rivalry had its roots in ephemeral quarrels, but in others the grievances had almost become hard-wired.104 In 54 bc Cicero was asked by Reate (a community of which he was probably patronus) to represent them (‘ut causam agerem’) in a dispute with the neighbouring community of Interamna Nahars, over the eVects of Roman hydrological intervention at the Lacus Velinus dating back to the conquest in the third century.105 The episode is important for more than revealing the tensions between neighbouring communities over central management of water resources: Cicero’s local elite connections are revealed (he tells us he stayed with Axius, who took him sightseeing!);106 and we also see another means by which the Roman ‘centre’ and the Italian ‘periphery’ interacted at an institutional level—the tribunal or arbitration (like those discussed for the pre-Social-War period in Ch. 3), in this case to be held ‘apud consulem et decem legatos’ (Att. 4. 15. 5), presumably at Rome. Yet, despite the petty nature of perennial local or regional controuersiae, the municipia also had a wider importance, both individually, and in regional or subregional groupings. I think it can be demonstrated that there was a coherent ‘municipal ideology’, which informed and underpinned the relationship between the municipia and Rome which I have just been discussing. This ideology was embraced both by ‘local sons’ and by most members of the senatorial order in Rome (many of whom had municipal backgrounds). Let us now concentrate on the arena in which, arguably, the Roman upper class most meaningfully and importantly courted the municipia and their municipes: Roman elections. As far as distant municipia were concerned, as a rule only the votes of the elite would be cast, and the number of these might Xuctuate wildly, to the point of non-existence, in some cases. This may seem to make it prima facie unlikely that there was any ideology which related to the courting of votes, and made it a corollary of involvement in the life of the municipium as a community. To put it another way, is it possible to argue that electoral canvassing was an activity consciously addressed to the Italian towns as entities, rather than to collections of individuals? Indeed, the Commentariolum petitionis advises Cicero that he should know the leading men in the municipia, and gain their amicitia; they 104 Furneaux notes (ad Tac., Ann. 1. 79. 2) that in Tacitus’ account the human engineering works between the Lacus Velinus and the Nar, a cause of dispute early in Tiberius’ reign, had come to be regarded as a work of nature. 105 Att. 4. 15. 5 (with the commentary of Shackleton Bailey ad loc.), Scaur. 27, where he stresses his supererogatory visit to the area itself to gather information. Nicolet compares the dispute at Pompeii in the 60s, referred to the patroni of the city, and that at Arpinum in the later 2nd cent bc, apparently referred to the Senate (as more serious?): REL (1967), 287. 106 Q. Axius, a nouus homo and senator (Wiseman, New Men, 33, and no. 61), also entertained Ap. Claudius on (probably) the same occasion, probably also acting as an advocate for Reate (Varr., RR 3. 2. 2, note also the presence in this part of the dialogue of Fircellius Pavo ‘Reatinus’, ibid.); see 3. 2 generally for references to Axius’ uillae.
432
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
will be a source of support for him in particular (Comm. Pet. 24, 31, cf. 32).107 It seems that as far as municipal canvassing went, what mattered was the individuals whom one knew, not the collectivities which one controlled. I do not want to underplay the importance of amicitia, either in the Comm. Pet., or on Roman elections in general, but to stress also the indications it gives us of the value of treating the municipia as important electoral units in themselves. Thus the author of the Comm. Pet. tells Cicero that many municipia are loyal to him alone (ibid. 3). Later (50), Cicero is told that his good reputation will be enhanced by the constant attendance of many men from the municipia; such interaction did, of course, depend on interpersonal relations, but it does nevertheless seem that the presence of a number of municipales uiri in Cicero’s entourage could be explained partly on the assumption that their adherence arose from a political strategy which involved the cultivation of these centres as much as the exploitation of links of personal amicitia, or clientela. Indeed, personal links might prove unrewarding in certain circumstances, and might need backing up by an appeal through the oYcial channels to the municipium as a public body. Although the example does not concern elections, we might note that in the course of his attempts to secure land rights for a personal connection from Aquinum in the ager Fregellanus, Cicero Wnds it necessary to write to the IIII uiri and senate of the town.108 The Pro Plancio provides better evidence of how municipia were viewed, and functioned, as more than simply aggregates of personal connections. Cicero draws a distinction between the public-spiritedness of Atina, Plancius’ home town, and the indiVerence of Tusculum, the municipium of Laterensis, to its sons in their quest for oYce (Planc. 19–20). He then says that the support of the Atinates did not of itself bring over the Teretina (Atina’s tribe) to vote for Plancius, but that it did have an indirect eVect, constituting a Wrm nucleus of support. The eVect of this support manifested itself, he goes on, Wrst and foremost, in Atina’s neighbouring communities: ‘municipia coniunctione etiam uicinitatis uehementur mouentur’ (Planc. 21). Vicinitas is an important element in Cicero’s argument in this speech;109 it transcends the personal, and operates at a more fundamental level, that of local pride, manipulating that web of emotional and psychological ties which Cicero not much later, in the De legibus, was to subsume under the heading of patria of the heart.110 107 See now Mouritsen, UniWcation, 96, suggesting that the situation implied in this text may be peculiar to Cicero’s candidacy, and thus may not be typical. 108 Cic., Fam. 13. 76 (undated). For the identiWcation of the town to which the letter was addressed as Aquinum see Ch. 7. That the addressees of the letter really were the magistrates and senate of the community in question has been doubted, but without good reason; moreover, the superscriptio is the diYcilior, so to speak, in a collection dominated by personal correspondence. 109 We should note Brunt’s observation that, like cliens, uicinus is commonly used in Cicero only with reference to Italians: Fall, 430 n. 124. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 96, may be right to see what Cicero describes as not a routine turnout, but equally Plancius was not unique as a municipal man seeking oYce in Rome. In any case, Cicero lays stress not on the support of Atina, but on the regional support for Plancius. 110 Cic., Leg. 2. 5; Nicolet, REL (1967).
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
433
Cicero imbues uicinitas with a moral character, calling it ‘ueterem illum oYci morem’, describing it as untainted by the falsity and dissimulation which attend electioneering in Rome—and in Tusculum (for Cicero’s purposes all but a Roman suburb): ‘artiWcio simulationis uel suburbano uel etiam urbano’.111 This type of language forms part of the familiar Wrst-century bc discourse, that of old-fashioned virtues, now surviving only in the countryside or the country towns, versus metropolitan Roman corruption, a discourse which is explicitly enunciated by Cicero a few moments later: ‘aspera et montuosa et Wdelis et simplex et fautrix regio’.112 This area of Italy has responded to his wishes electorally, that is, via juridically distinct entities, individually and collectively susceptible to politically oriented interaction with each other and the res publica populi Romani: ‘adsunt equites Romani publice cum legatione et testimonio’ (22). Cicero states that Plancius’ superiority to Laterensis consists in the ‘municipum, uicinorum, societatum studio’ (Planc. 30): municipal support does not operate alone, but it is a potent factor—alongside that of other collectivities (neighbours, and the societates publicanorum, but not the illegal sodalitates). Indeed, the backing given by Plancius’ father, a very prominent publicanus, is tied up with the municipal standing of Plancius senior as well—he is ‘princeps inter suos’ (Planc. 32). Finally, we are told that the eVects of Plancius’ (legal) benefactions were such that ‘omnibus oYciis per se, per patrem, per maiores suos totam Atinatem praefecturam comprehenderit’ (Planc. 47). By the eYcient exploitation of his own, and his family’s, position, the aspiring politician can hope to use his own and neighbouring communities as well-deWned and solid building blocks for the construction of his power base. Now, Cicero has a point to prove here. He has to make Plancius’ electoral defeat of Laterensis look inevitable. Most nobiles probably did not rely, or need to rely, on support from municipia to the same extent as Cicero, and may have privileged personal connections to a greater degree, not to mention the allure of their own pedigrees. Yet, whatever the true applicability of Cicero’s words, the fact remains that he could parade in court the importance of the municipia, especially those further away from Rome, which had perhaps produced few if any senators, as an operating variable in late republican politics. Almost all jurors would have had intimate experience of elections at one time or another, a friend’s or relative’s if not their own. Cicero’s words would have fallen Xat unless the theory he propounded about uicinitas and municipia was, at the very least, plausible to his listeners. If they believed in the ideal, there ought to have been some echo in electoral practice, beyond Cicero’s forensic sophistries.113
111 Planc. 22, cf. Sest. 9. 112 Planc. 22; Lepore, PdP (1958); Millar, Crowd in Rome, 172–4, Mouritsen, UniWcation, 8, arguing that Cicero hoped to build a new ideological consensus on such men and their virtues; Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 70–1. 113 CIL iv. 171, a dipinto from Pompeii, records among the supporters of the candidature of Vettius Firmus some uicini (on Mommsen’s reading); it is unclear whether they are the uicini of Vettius or the (female) rogator, or both.
434
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
There are numerous other proofs of the importance of municipia and coloniae as units in Roman politics: I might mention the value of the Umbrian municipia near the Via Flaminia in carrying their tribes for Murena, following his levying of troops in the area;114 Cicero’s projected canvassing trip to Cisalpina;115 the canvassing of municipia and coloniae to eVect his return from exile;116 Caesar’s canvassing of the Cisalpine communities for Antonius’ augurate;117 and the loan made to Caesar by the communities of Italy in 47.118 If municipia were important in their own right as units of political support, then it is plausible to suggest that they could be welded together into larger combinations for political purposes. The existence of such regional ‘power bases’, which will (like other, more informal, modes of political association in the Republic, e.g. factiones) have been more Xuid and volatile than static, is, in my opinion, presupposed not only by the presence of powerful Romans as municipal patrons and magistrates, but also by the phenomenon of multi-local magistracy. This can be deWned as the holding of magistracies in more than one town by Wgures of more than purely local importance. This is not solely a post-Social-War phenomenon, but manifests itself most clearly after 87 bc in the careers of men such as C. Quinctius Valgus (an oYce-holder at Aeclanum and Pompeii); L. Vibienus Licinus (oYce-holder at Sipontium and his native Luceria); C. Tillius Rufus (oYce-holder at Arpinum and Verulae, before he moved to Pompeii and held the duovirate there); M. Satrius, patron ‘agri Piceni et Sabini’; Visellius Flaccus (oYce-holder at Beneventum—before the Social War—and subsequently in his native Telesia); and N. Cluvius, oYce-holder (as I have argued) at Caudium, Cales, Nola, and Capua. I have discussed these Wgures (and others) elsewhere in some detail, and will here repeat only my conclusions (stressing that each case needs consideration on its own merits, as well as possibly of a part of a pattern).119 First, this phenomenon may suggest to us a way in which some of the preenfranchisement forms of public cooperation and interaction between cities and their elites may have come to be institutionalized within the process of municipalization after the Social War: the new municipia could not strictly oVer their citizenship, or other privileges which rested in the hands of an autonomous community, to individuals from neighbouring communities, but there were
114 Cic., Mur. 42 with Wiseman, New Men, 44, 139; Cichorius, Studien, 129–30; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 241–4, esp. 241 n. 1; Brunt, Fall, 429–30. 115 Att. 1. 1. 2; much has been made of the value of Cisalpine votes: Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, 58; Meier, Res Publica Amissa, 193; contra Mouritsen, UniWcation, 97 n. 35. 116 Cic., Red. sen. 31. 117 Hirtius, BG 8. 50. 1; Phil. 2. 76. 118 Dio, 42. 50. 2 V. For other instances cf. Livy, 7. 15. 12–13, and Gellius, NA 1. 7. 7, on politicians involving themselves in the conciliabula. 119 Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 53 n. 72, 68–72 (note that the last sentence of 73 n. 153 should be deleted); inscriptions also discussed in preceding chapters: Q15 (Vibienus), Q79 (Valgus, cf. Q12 as patron of Aeclanum), Q5 and 6 (Cluvius); for Satrius see Cic., OV. 3. 73–4; see also for Tillius, Mouritsen, Elections, 79; and generally Scuderi, Athenaeum (1989), 117–38.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
435
still ways of honouring the powerful from neighbouring communities which recalled the outward forms of the old days of autonomy. Secondly, the case of Cluvius suggests that the degree of inXuence he exercised, or could expect his amici to exercise on his behalf, not only varied from place to place, creating a subtly layered map of political allegiance rather than crude ‘block votes’;120 and perhaps that such support was related to uicinitas, and might even be directly proportional to the closeness of the honouring centre and the ease of access to it from the honorand’s point of origo. Thirdly, despite the importance of uicinitas, as in the cases of Cluvius, Quinctius Valgus, and the ‘patron’ M. Satrius, such inXuence might spill out of a single part of a region, across the whole of it, and into a neighbouring region. The importance of these webs of connection across Italy reXect in some cases the impulse of broader political currents, but in any case they allow us almost to trace the reXexes of the political integration of the peninsula after the Social War. A related phenomenon is that of the possession by members of the elite of multiple domicilia, on which the tabula Heracleensis comments in relation to the census.121 Finally, in voting someone like Cluvius into a local magistracy, municipes of various communities could contribute to the standing of an established Wgure, or help create a powerbase for a rising one, someone who might confer beneWcia at home, but also remember those who had honoured him by this election, when it came to using his contacts and his inXuence across the region, outside it, overseas, and even in Rome. In supporting these powerful Wgures, those participating in municipal elections, and thus by extension in all the manifestations of the public and political life of the individual colonial and municipal communities, could ‘exert an inXuence otherwise unavailable to them, indeed, out of all proportion to their own importance or distance from the urbs’.122 Relatively (or absolutely) cut oV from Rome they might be, deprived of the perks and thrills of the political and civic existence of the plebs urbana they undoubtedly were; yet their votes could count, not least when they were bestowed on an individual who was both a municipalis homo but also much more than that. Success outside one’s home town implies a proper appreciation within it, on the part of one’s own municipes, and of it, by the honorand. The aVective bond between municeps and municipium is what, in part, deWnes the former as a genus hominum; it is the sine qua non for the success of Italy in the late Republic. It was not by chance that Visellius Flaccus, Vibienus Licinus, Tillius Rufus, and N. Cluvius all commemorated their widespread success in their home towns, in the case of Cluvius despite the fact that, as far as we know, Puteoli had not honoured this princeps with a magistracy. For those to whom, through choice or prejudice, the Roman curia remained closed, 120 Such a distribution could be projected onto a map of the divisions of the thirty-one rural tribes across Italy. 121 Tabula Heracleensis, ll. 157–8; see Scuderi, Athenaeum (1989); Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, Les Magistrats, 50–1. 122 Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 72.
436
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
the community of origo remained the ultimate venue for display and commemoration, and what Cicero described as the one of the two patriae of every Roman.123 After the Social War, as never before, Roman politicians needed at almost every turn to take account of Italian fears and desires—the Social War was a reminder for the remainder of the Republic of what happened when those desires were blatantly frustrated. Some of the ways in which (an increasingly Italian) Roman governing class dealt with Italy were mediated through the myriad channels of personal relations and social ties. Next to these, however, there was the new arrangement of the new Italy into autonomous Roman communities, juridical and social units with which all had, to a greater or less degree, to reckon. I want to suggest that it was the very division of Italy into these municipal units which framed the way in which the new citizens came to conceive and construct a political role and identity for themselves, above and beyond questions of personal ambition. This identity structured the political dealings of both local magnates and Roman statesmen with the new citizens of Rome.124 It was, furthermore, into this emerging pattern which the communities of the old ager Romanus Wtted, when at long last they achieved full administrative autonomy. The municipia and coloniae constituted the warp and weft of the political fabric of Italy, and so came to shape, in a vital fashion, the politics of the last generation of the Republic.
5 . I S IT F IN IS H E D Y ET . . . ? The municipalization of Italy marked a turning point, perhaps the penultimate one, in the long history of the Roman Republic. Indeed, it was a process which survived the chaos of the civil wars to go on and conquer the West: on it was predicated the organization of half of the Roman Empire. This is not the story of how the West was won, but, as we saw in the Introduction, our story really begins before the outbreak of the Social War at Asculum, and does not end with Actium. As I sum up, I may look brieXy ahead to what was to come. The enfranchisement of Italy between 90 and 87 bc necessitated the reorganization of the Roman res publica on a radically new basis. The system which emerged, in 86/85, as I have argued, proved to be a remarkable and coherent solution to the problems posed by the vast extension of both populus Romanus and ager Romanus. As we have seen, there were few parts of the municipal system as it emerged after the Social War which had no antecedents in the long evolution of Roman colonial or municipal Stadtrecht which had begun in the fourth century or earlier. This should not however lead us to underestimate 123 Cic., Leg. 2. 5, cf. 2. 3. On early modern survivals of the lesser patria, and the eclipse until modern times of the greater (and of patriotism), see Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 15; cf. Anderson, Imagined Communities2 , ch. 8. 124 Cf. Comm. Pet. 30.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
437
the signiWcance of the municipalization of Italy from the Social War down to the end of the Republic. As an administrative measure the municipalization of Italy was a very successful answer to the problems of organizing the vast areas inhabited by new Roman citizens. Its subsequent success, alluded to above, is eloquent testimony to that of the original implementation. On the most basic level the municipal system provided a series of recognized interlocutors between the Roman inhabitants of Italy on the one hand, and the senatus populusque Romanus on the other.125 It was a means of communication and a means of assuring order in Italy.126 The system was so successful, and so prestigious, that it stimulated a secondary administrative revolution in the older part of the ager Romanus:127 both Roman and local elites realized that the praefecturae until then superimposed on municipal entities could be dispensed with, and a degree of autonomy comparable to that being allowed to the new citizens could be extended to the older citizen communities. The increase in the number of autonomous communities on the old ager Romanus and the gradual dissolution of the prefecture system also aVected Rome itself. The Wrst century saw the gradual eclipse of the idea of Rome as one (albeit a pre-eminent one) among many city-states in Italy, at the same time as the municipal system succeeded in transWguring the autonomous city-states absorbed (and technically eliminated) after the Social War into something which recognizably continued the city-state identity within a new structure.128 Rome could no longer be viewed as the head of an Italian alliance and, as a corollary, during the course of the century the municipalization of the some of the oldest territory dependent on Rome gathered pace.129 A sharper administrative divide was introduced between Rome and her immediate suburbs (qua city) on the one hand, and the rest of the peninsula (qua collection of autonomous Roman communities) on the other. This must have helped to create a perception of an Italy which was becoming a uniWed juridical and political entity, for which Rome was the political centre, not the he¯gemo¯n. This process too was to prove a fundamental prerequisite for the transition from Republic to Empire. A new community was being imagined: tota Italia over the course of the Wrst century eclipses terra Italia. Yet the importance of municipalization lies not in the history of administrative theory, but in the extent to which it met the needs of those whom it was designed to serve. In its external characteristics the system was unitary, and simple. The uniformity of the quattuorvirate created a level playing Weld between disparate communities and peoples. The only exceptions made were for the still heavily Hellenized communities of Neapolis and Rhegium, and can be attributed to 125 LaY, in VI Kongr. Epigr., 40. 126 Cf. Gabba, Italia romana, 139, for this role as exercised under the Principate. 127 Cf. ibid 134, emphasizing increasingly high levels of autonomy and decentralization, and positing a connection with the upsurge of euergetism in these communities. 128 This will not do as an analysis of what happened e.g. in Samnium. 129 Gabba, in SdR ii/1. 706–11.
438
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
Roman respect for the cultural and political heritage of the Greeks. Everyone else had to start again as Roman communities, and the external similarity imposed by the quattuorviral constitution was a major factor in encouraging almost all the new-citizen communities to view themselves as sharing a mutually comprehensible, if not broadly similar, political experience within the Roman res publica. This was to be a factor of major importance in unifying and integrating the diverse elements now forming Roman Italy. The Italians, especially their principes, sought political integration into the Roman state, despite the Wnal attempt of many of their fathers to seize independence in the Social War. In an immediate sense, the creation of the quattuorviral communities in Italy allowed them to fulWl this aspiration within a local context, oVering them their traditional elite roles, but to be played within a Roman political thought-world. In this new piece the parts were the same, at least in conception; some of the script had been cut, and all was now to be in Latin; the theatre was under new management, and the range of possible denouements to the political drama was less than it had been; yet this must have seemed more like something familiar than a piece of avant-garde experimentalism; a revival of a classic rather than the theatre of the absurd. Perhaps this was not a satisfactory way of achieving their ambitions for all concerned, but given the climate of mistrust and resentment which was slow to dissipate from Italy after the Social and Civil Wars, it was an important start. The outward simplicity and organic nature of the quattuorviral system was only part of its appeal. This magistracy allowed freedom in the structuring of lower posts, and evolved in such a way as to make structural reforms and increasing sophistication available to communities as and when they wanted them. It was later supplemented by the duovirate, which responded to other municipal concerns and ambitions. Behind its exterior uniformity the municipal ideal was highly Xexible, and allowed for the preservation of local and traditional elements within the structure of the municipium. This was achieved by the mechanism of municipal leges or ‘charters’. These allowed for the individual characteristics and strengths of each community to be retained, even if transformed to some degree, within a conceptual system which was Wrmly rooted in Roman juridical practice; at the same time the identity of the community concerned was in large measure preserved. The process of granting charters was an exercise in the creation of a new self-image for the communities concerned, a detailed self-Romanization, the limits of which the communities themselves to some substantial degree controlled. This process operated through the cooperation of local elites on the one hand, and of the Roman Senate and People on the other. The ‘charter’ was a very public signiWer of the relationship between the local populus and the populus Romanus as a whole, between the res publica populi Romani and the local res publica of the municipium. It preserved a delicate balance between the two elements, both of which had claims on the inhabitants of the municipium. Rome managed to draw on her long experience and create a system which met the needs of the Italians to belong to a recognizably Roman political system, whilst retaining to a large degree the
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
439
communal identities, and some of the values associated with those identities, of their communities of origo. The beneWts of the system of individual foedera between Rome and the Italian socii were now joined with the advantages of Roman citizenship. This was to prove all the more important since the extension of the citizenship to peninsular Italy necessarily meant that, without a reform in the voting system, all but the elites of most Italian communities would be eVectively denied any exercise of political rights at the level of the res publica populi Romani. If Rome was progressively being redeWned as an Italian state in the course of the Wrst century bc, it still retained the limited institutional machinery of a city-state.130 The representative character of the comitia, already questionable before the Social War, declined still further after it, nor was it possible for Italians to listen at the contiones, to voice their feelings at the ludi, or to run riot down the Via Sacra; these (among others) were the privileges of the urban plebs. Even the domi nobiles could not always be sure of being able to attend the comitia centuriata, and access to the Senate varied wildly across Italy in its intensity.131 Even where a town or an area had seen a number of its sons enter the Senate, there was no guarantee that the nouus homo paruusque senator would wear his municipal origin on his sleeve; he would certainly sooner or later Wnd himself reproached for it by his blueblooded fellow senators.132 Cicero is eloquent about Arpinum in the De legibus, and at one or two other points—but what is more striking is how little he tells us about it, and his dealings with it. For the vast majority of Italians, any kind of meaningful participation in Roman politics was impossible. Yet it is not true to say, with Gabba, that the advance of the Italians towards a more extensive and more direct share in government had already made itself felt through the ever-growing admission to politics during the Wrst century bc of members of the municipal aristocracies . . . However, only service in the army could bring such participation within the reach of the poorest classes of Italian society, [going on to describe the late republican army as a vehicle for social mobility].133
For all classes in the municipia, as in the coloniae, the public, political structures of the community provided the best medium immediately available, indeed, in most cases the only eVective one for creating an interface between local and national politics. These local institutions could give them an inXuence on the Senate’s 130 On this problem, and the role played by non-urban Roman citizens in Roman politics, see Bleicken, Lex Publica, 167, 254–68, on role of extra-urban citizens; cf. Taylor, Party Politics, 57–62; Gabba, Republican Rome, 28; Nicolet, Le Me´tier du citoyen dans la rome re´publicaine, 391–401; Gabba, Italia romana, 15, 123–32; Wiseman, New Men, 136–42; Mouritsen, UniWcation, 95–9, esp. 96–7. 131 See Mouritsen, UniWcation, 97–8, for the small number of securely attested south Campanian senators: all Augustan; and for a very gloomy assessment of the prospects for Italian political ambition in the cursus honorum, for which see more fully Wiseman, New Men. 132 Cf. Mouritsen, UniWcation, 98. 133 Gabba, Republican Rome, 37, cf. 28, 44–9, and Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 170–1, noting Cic., Leg. 2. 5 and tabula Heracleensis 89–125; I do not wish either to downplay the importance rightly given by Gabba to the army in this period; he himself later saw the importance of the municipia: Italia romana, 123–32.
440
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
decisions, and provided opportunities for supporting, and being courted by the Roman nobility, as the urban plebs had routinely been. The decrees of local senates and the testimonials provided for defendants in the courts, allowed the municipium or colonia as a whole to voice an opinion, to take a stand on matters of importance to them. The co-opting of patrons, the election of important Wgures to local magistracies, the appointment of commissioners to draw up ‘charters’ provided the coloniae and municipia with the chance to beneWt from the attention, and thus perhaps the euergetism, of the Roman nobiles, and to establish links with the central power which were both symbolic and often also of great practical value to both sides. Such links did not supplant, but operated alongside, and sometimes competed with, other channels of communication and inXuence, adding to the rich texture of late republican political life. In short, municipalization both created a Roman identity for the new citizen communities, and also allowed them at the same time to maintain some sort of distance from Rome, to maintain an individual identity, to be also their own res publicae. As legally constituted Roman communities with a Roman juridical armature, through the institutional structures of the municipium, they were tied to, and had a right to participate publicly in, the Roman res publica, even if as individuals a signiWcant number of them might never set foot in Rome. Yet for the new citizens, enough of the old foedus relationship was maintained, in terms of autonomy and privileges, for their participation in that res publica to be both that of individual Roman citizens, and that of juridically distinct bodies, almost in some ways the independent populi which had been enfranchised.134 That this was important to them may be suggested by the reason given by Cicero for the hesitation on the part of Neapolis and Heraclea: they feared losing the ‘foederis sui libertatem’ (‘the freedom guaranteed by their treaty’), which must refer to more than their (probably relatively favourable) treaties with Rome. This can be seen in the way in which the municipia continued to be used, as had the independent communities before the Social War, for purposes of security, with potential trouble-makers parcelled out amongst them.135 This is perhaps the most important aspect of the municipal system when viewed as a whole: in the face of general physical (and thus political) isolation from Rome, the condition of municipium counterbalanced the loss of sovereignty which enfranchisement represented; in the face of a general desire for integration and participation, it preserved the validity of local identity, precisely as a prerequisite of those things. It aimed, in the face of great diYculties, to provide the best of both worlds. Whether this was a conscious intention on the part of those who devised the system or not (and I think we can exclude the possibility that these characteristics 134 Maintenance of existing judicial relationships from the time of the foedus: Mommsen, StR iii. 812 V.; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 163–4. 135 Sall., Cat. 30. 7 (gladiatorial familiae sent to Capua ‘et in cetera municipia distribuerentur pro quoiusque opibus’—Sallust’s mention of Capua here suggests a certain lax usage, as Capua was still urbs trunca, cf. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 169), Cat. 51. 43 (Caesar proposes sending those who had tried to conspire with the Allobroges ‘ipsos in uinculis habendos per municipia quae maxume opibus ualent’); in each case the ability of the municipium to deal with the imposition is stressed.
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
441
of the system arose accidentally), it was the chief end attained by the municipal system. Contemporary testimony supports the view that this maintenance of an equilibrium between the ‘national’ and the local was seen as a positive merit of the system as it existed at the end of the late Republic: the views of Verrius Flaccus and his contemporaries, especially that of ‘Seruius Wlius’ which I considered in the Introduction; slightly earlier, we have the, perhaps experimental, views of Cicero in his very municipal De legibus:136 et illi [Catoni] et omnibus municipibus duas esse censeo patrias, unam naturae, alteram ciuitatis, ut ille Cato, cum esset Tusculi natus, in populi Romani ciuitatem susceptus est; ita, cum ortu Tusculanus esset, ciuitate Romanus, habuit alteram loci patriam, alteram iuris; . . . sed necesse est caritate eam praestare, qua rei publicae nomen uniuersae ciuitatis est; pro qua mori et cui nos totos dedere et in qua nostra omnia ponere et quasi consecrare debemus. dulcis autem non multo secus est ea, quae genuit, quam illa, quae excepit. itaque ego hanc meam esse patriam prorsus numquam negabo, dum illa sit maior, haec in ea contineatur . . . habet ciuitates set unam illas ciuitatem putat. (Leg. 2. 5) I judge that both for him [Cato] and for all municipal men there are two patriae, one of nature, the other of citizenship, such that he, Cato, although he was born at Tusculum, was taken into the citizenship of the Roman people; so that, since he was a Tusculan by birth, but a Roman by citizenship, he had two fatherlands, one physical, the other legal; . . . but one of the two must necessarily take precedence in our aVections, in which the name of commonwealth belongs to all citizens; on behalf of this fatherland we have a duty to die, to which we should give ourselves totally, in which we should place, and almost dedicate, all that we have. And the fatherland which bore us is not much less sweet than that one which accepted us. Therefore I will never deny that this one here is very much my fatherland, but at the same time that other one is greater, and embraces this one . . . has [two] citizenships but thinks of them as one.
Here, perhaps for the Wrst time, Cicero attempts to formulate a philosophical basis on which the tension between the two patriae of municipes can be meditated.137 The glance back to Cato reminds us that the reaching of this position is a process which has its roots in the period before the Social War. Yet ‘Cato’ is as susceptible of construction as he is of description, and Cicero would naturally seek to suggest that his view of the situation of politically responsible municipal men was in fact part of the patrios politeia. If we compare Cicero’s anecdotes about his grandfather and Scaurus (also) in the De legibus, we may note a change—from Scaurus’ point of view, Cicero auus had a simple choice to 136 For this text, or parts of it, as very municipal, see Nicolet, REL (1967), 297; see also SherwinWhite, Citizenship2 , 153–5, 159–61, 169 (with caution), 171–3, on, inter alia, the development of this thought as being made possible by post Social War municipalization, noting also the presence of the discourse of Rome as the new patria already in the story of the ‘oath to Drusus’ at D.S., 37. 11; also Nicolet REL (1967), 304, on the Ciceronian insistence that the claims of public and private law are those of the Roman state, while the patria naturae exercises only an aVective claim [as in adoption?], in contrast to the situation found under the early Principate. Maior is an important term here, since it goes beyond the binary, oppositional nature of the Roman citizenship and the municipal res publica, and establishes a relationship between the two. 137 For similar problems in relating the locality of birth to a wider state-entity in the context of 19th-cent. nationalism see Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 90–1.
442
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
make, to devote himself to one of the two res publicae which had a claim on him, and Scaurus regretted that his service had been in favour of the Arpinate option. The grandson and his contemporaries have moved on and, despite disagreements and resentments among the old Romans, reXected in the arguments of the antiquarians, they can at least now encourage each other to reconcile their two patriae, and devote themselves, albeit in diVerent ways to both, not be faced with a stark choice between one or the other.138 The success of the municipalization of Italy was part of the reason that the input of the Italian communities in late republican politics was generally positive, and a force for integration: within a century of the Social War Italy was more culturally, politically, and economically united than it had ever been. The role of the new citizen communities within the Roman state was also one of the vital catalysts in the series of reactions by which the strange compound which we know as the Principate was produced. I would like to think that, without the positive inXuence of the municipal and colonial input on behalf of Italy, Roman politics would have been less stable, and the advent of autocracy even more brutal than it was. The reign of Augustus forms a convenient epilogue for our story: in a periodizing world, Actium is as good a place to see the end of the Republic as any.139 The municipal system, like the magistracies and institutions of Rome, was a creation of that Republic. The progress of integration and uniWcation was still not Wnished at the start of his reign: Gabba, for example, has noted that Augustus’ plan to grant a ‘postal ballot’ for elections to decurions in his colonies shows that the disadvantages of physical dislocation from the centre of power were still felt.140 Many of the ‘municipal voids’ which I have noted in various parts of Italy were only Wlled in his reign, and some not even then. This creation of municipia (at places as diverse as Veii near Rome; Superaequum; and Saepinum, Terventum and Fagifulae in Samnium141) goes hand in hand with the access of Italians like the Paelignian Varius Geminus to the Senate in Augustus’ reign, which here, as often 138 Nicolet, REL (1967), 278, sees the maior patria of Leg. 2. 5 as emerging from the concept of summa res publica enunciated by Scaurus at 3. 36. The situation envisaged by Cicero is also in stark contrast to the extremely contingent way in which citizenship could be treated shortly after the Social War: Athenaios, Deipnosophistai 5. 213b, records how after the ‘Asiatic Vespers’ of 88 some Romans changed their togas for himatia—I take it that some of those doing so are new citizens. 139 Wallace-Hadrill, Augustan Rome, 10; for a cogent case for seeing the dividing line between Republic and Empire at Actium as a later historiographical construct, in contrast to a contemporary perception of the continuation of the Republic, see Eder, in RaaXaub and Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire, 72–88, a discussion with worrying implications for those who assume the inevitability of monarchy. 140 Suet., DA 46, with Gabba, Republican Rome, 52; that nothing else is heard of this innovation is probably not a good reason for doubting that it existed, even if only for a short time. 141 On Veii: CIL xi. 3797, J. B. Ward-Perkins, PBSR (1961), 57; Potter, Landscape, 111, 114–15; Liverani, Municipium Augustum Veiens (with Gabba, Italia romana, 145–7); Papi, L’Etruria dei Romani, 103–15, cf. 4–6; on the new Samnite municipia see Sherwin-White, Citizenship 2 , 208 n. 2; Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 218 (Saepinum and Fagifulae), citing Pliny, HN 3. 107; and Lloyd, in
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
443
elsewhere, continues what was begun under Caesar.142 Yet this process, like those of municipalization and uniWcation never really Wnished: scholars have argued that some Italian communities, such as Vestinian Peltuinum, were municipalized as late as the third century ad.143 Nevertheless, the reign of Augustus is a good place to stop, since it saw a great reshaping of Italy through Augustan propaganda and its reception.144 No longer dangerously separatist, the Italian peoples could be revived and redeployed, nostalgia for the past identities of Italy could be harnessed to build a conservative consensus.145 Beside the revival of the old peoples, Italy could also be presented in new ways—the creation of the lists of Italian oppida and populi used later by Pliny (HN 3) suggest a peninsula full of people and urban units, grouped in suggestively named but signiWcantly altered ethnonymic regiones.146 The municipal world of Augustan Italy, economically and in its building programmes, in the self-conWdence and ideology of the municipal and colonial principes, can be called a golden age; some scholars have even spoken of the ‘triumph of Italy over Rome’.147 On the other hand, Augustus gravely altered the municipal reality, conWning it to two spheres, local government148 and imperial cult. The oath of the year 32 bc, by which tota Italia ‘demanded’ Imperator Caesar as ‘leader’ in the war against the Eastern menace, manifestly represents a false claim for unity of sentiment, but also of culture and political outlook massed
Mediterranean Valley, 249–50; for (at least partial) continuity of the Samnite elite at Terventum see De Benedittis and Di Niro, in Luoghi degli dei, 20; Superaequum: Buonocore, in Supp. It. 5, 91–2. 142 Rebuilding of the senatorial aristocracy from Italian municipalities and equestrian order: Galsterer, in RaaXaub and Toher, Between Republic and Empire, 13. 143 Humbert, Municipium, 317; Coarelli, DdA (1992), 30. 144 Zanker, Power of Images, esp. 167–238, 297–333; Galinsky, Augustan Culture, 332–75; Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 57–9; Keay, ibid. 131, 133. 145 See e.g. Rawson, Intellectual Life, 27; Torelli, Tota Italia, 11–13, 165–83. Anderson (Imagined Communities, p. xiv, ch. 11), discusses interestingly the ways in which nations (and we might here substitute ‘new political conWgurations’ for that word) engage in arts of inventing their (often very ‘ancient’) past, but also arts of forgetting (compare also his citation of E. Renan at 6, 158). Mouritsen, UniWcation, 10, notes Ovid, Amores 3. 15. 8–10, speaking of the Paelignian gens, which was ‘compelled’ by libertas to take up ‘honesta . . . arma’. This survival of a memory of separatist ambitions is grist to Mouritsen’s mill, and warns against too naı¨ve a view of Augustan cultural homogenization; but we may note in passing the tone of justiWcation in these lines; the war was paradoxically a source of pride and embarrassment at this period. 146 Laurence, Roads, ch. 12; Bispham, ‘Pliny the Elder’s Italy’. 147 Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 58, talks of a period of ‘intensiWed cultural interaction and increased prosperity’ in Italy (admittedly this passage is a reconstruction of a viewpoint under challenge in that piece); ‘triumph of Italy’: Syme, RR 453–4, cf. Gabba, Republican Rome, 28; Italia romana, 15 (noting that these elites were themselves Xuid bodies); RaaXaub and Samons, in RaaXaub and Toher, Between Republic and Empire, 452 (‘the neglected municipal aristocracies of Italy’). 148 For the idea of limited local autonomy and inequality of power between the Italian cities and Rome in the Augustan period, see De Martino, Labeo (1980), 97, contesting the optimistic views of Italian autonomy expressed by Tibiletti, in Me´langes Carcopino, 917–26.
444
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
behind the young Caesar.149 The unity drummed up before Actium was essentially and consciously deWned as unity against an external enemy. Augustus may have felt there was more to tota Italia when he was declared pater patriae in 2 bc, and even that that patria was Italy as much as Rome, but it is debatable how seriously we can attempt to Wx any year or even period as marking the ‘uniWcation’ of Italy. Italy was politically and juridically united, and its towns had many institutions in common. Certainly the peninsula had come a long way, and along converging routes, since the Social War; but was this an Italian unity, or simply a decline in local particularism brought about partly by disturbance of traditional structures through war and especially colonization after Philippi and Actium?150 Without a doubt Italy was more homogeneous now than it had been Wfty years earlier; and the advent of monarchy, and worship of the monarch, provided an important focus which all could have as the common goal of their loyalties. Ultimately, though, to talk of Italian unity is to ask the question of what that unity consisted in at any one time and in any two places. Some, notably Emilio Gabba, have sought to deny that there was any real Italian unity to speak of, apart from the common citizenship, political rights, and, to a certain extent, municipal institutions.151 Many of the threads which we Wrst picked up at the time of, indeed in some cases before, the Social War are still being woven together into and beyond the Augustan period. Yet the arrival of the Principate profoundly changed Italy, as it changed everything else. This change was, of course, most clearly embodied in the person of the princeps. Augustus and his family provided, as I have said, a single and ultimate focus for the hopes, aspirations, and loyalties of the municipia and coloniae which had previously taken various parts in the struggles which marked the fall of pluralist republican system. Of course, not everything was rosy: republican or Antonian sentiments (sometimes hard to distinguish) lingered, and local rivalries were not extinguished. Such diVerences however, remained latent, since politics at a national level no longer tolerated faction. The emperor and the ‘divine family’ invaded all aspects of the municipal world: the decrees, the magistracies, patronage, and euergetism.152 Their statues now displaced local sons from the most prominent and focal positions in the fora of the communities, and their cult images provided a rival and in the end dominating focus for the spatial dynamics of municipia and coloniae.153 149 What is important, however, is that political leaders sought to obtain or represent themselves as having the support of all of Italy: cf. Cic. (to Cassius of his struggle with Antonius, Feb. 43), Fam. 12. 4. 1, ‘populo uero nihil fortius, nihil melius Italiaque uniuersa’, noting the juxtaposition of populus and Italia. 150 For the claim that it was the composition of Rome’s armies, even before the Social War, that was the indispensable basis for the later uniWcation of Italy, which it continued to foster, see Gabba, Republican Rome, 28. 151 Gabba, in Italia romana 14–16, 17–31, and 133–43, esp. 141–2 (arguing also that the loyalties of municipal elites in the Augustan period were split between local patriae and the imperial dynasty) on the municipal system as favouring disharmony (perhaps overplaying the local elements of his picture). As elsewhere, Gabba here stresses the Italian-ness of the army as an aspect of unity, something which was about to change over the successive decades. 152 Eck, in Millar and Segal (eds.), Caesar Augustus. 153 The theme of the impact of monarchy on municipal life and culture was considered by a number of papers given at the UCL Colloquium ‘Bread and Circuses: Euergetism in the Late Republic
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
445
On a more prosaic level, the political character and functioning of the municipia were altered by the Principate. The appearance of praefecti, substituting for an emperor or an imperial prince elected to a local magistracy, signal one manifestation of this change in local fasti and other inscriptions; this can perhaps be related as a practice to the phenomenon of ‘multi-locational magistracy’ under the late Republic, which I considered in the preceding section. The appointment of praefecti seems to have been regulated, but not introduced, by a lex Petronia.154 There was no shortage of other municipal legislation in the Augustan period, almost certainly including a wide-ranging lex Iulia municipalis, which probably increased praetorian encroachment on local jurisdiction, as well as checks on Wnancial administration in the municipia. The role of municipal magistrates in the public life of the communities seems to shrink somewhat: from the Augustan period onwards the amount of building done by magistrates ex oYcio seems to decrease relative to the amount of work done by private or imperial benefaction. Attitudes to euergetism seem to have changed in the light of the new, and initially anomalous, role of the princeps. At the same time the public aspect of the municipia became less important in its relations with political events at Rome. This is not surprising: underlying political conditions had changed radically: the Wgure of the princeps certainly encouraged unity, but paradoxically it was a unity of a diVerent order from that engendered by the active and healthy engagement of the municipia in public discourse of the republican period. The latter was a unity predicated on participation, albeit of a very particular kind; the former was founded in a trade-oV between freedom and stability, in a common interest in the preservation of the status quo, one which focused its expressions on the person of the princeps. Both were unities of self-interest, but the former was predetermined, while the latter required choice and debate. The arena for meaningful political debate had, in fact, been removed just as Italy was reaching a new cultural homogeneity. Paradoxically the integration which the municipal system had helped to create had, once deWnitively realized—and by and Early Empire’ (1994), now published as Lomas and Cornell (eds.), Bread and Circuses. I derived much stimulation for the initial form of these concluding paragraphs from the participants’ contributions, especially that of Emmanuele Curti on commemorating patrons—see now Terrenato, on the ‘spectacular cultural homogeneity’ (in terms of public architecture) of three north Etruscan cities with very diVerent histories (Pisae, Luna, and Volaterrae)—in Italy and the West, 57, and cf. ibid. 58 on the ‘striking degree of uniformity’ of their sculpture, especially of the imperial family. On euergetism see now Ch. 9; on municipal worship of emperors, see Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, ch. 4. 154 Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 160 n. 3. Praefectus is explicitly named as an alternative to II uiri and IIII uiri in the lex Roscia (19. 6, 20. 16–17, 28, 29, 37–8, 41, 21. 15), but not in the contemporary tabula Heracleensis; since the lex Roscia seems to have been introduced to deal with the newly created citizen communities of the Transpadana, whereas the tabula Heracleensis seems to have aimed at altering the situation pertaining in existing communities in Italy, the former may have been the Wrst piece of legislation to make explicit the presence of praefecti as a regular component, which would suggest that they had before been uncommon. A praefectus i. d. at Carthage in c.36 bc: ILS 1945. See I. Didu, ‘I praefecti come sostituti di imperatori, cesari e altri notabili eletti alle piu` alte magistrature municipali’, AFLC (1983–4), Bassignano, Epigraphica (1991); Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 32, 40.
446
Tota Italia: Remaking Italy?
other means—removed the opportunity for freedom of expression which had characterized the previous Wfty years’ progress from conXict. The domi nobiles now enjoyed much greater access to the centre of power, in the form of seats in the Senate, just as its real importance was being curtailed. At the same time the importance of the municipia as public corporate bodies declined, and the ways in which they perceived and represented themselves, in their instrumenta and their ideology, altered. Witness the fact that, between the time of the lex coloniae Genetiuae on the one hand, and that of the lex Flauia on the other, the adjective publicus and its cognates in such documents were systematically, if not completely, replaced with communis and its cognates. Crawford, who draws attention to this, has plausibly suggested the Augustan lex Iulia municipalis as the culprit.155 The pluralist republican system had encouraged the municipia to perceive themselves, at times, as still in some sense independent populi, certainly as independent res publicae which interlocked with a larger, but dynamically fragmented political structure. Monarchy viewed this continued pretence of independence within the Roman state as inimical to its control, and while antiquarians quibbled over the autonomous corporate existence of the municipia, and poets gloriWed the past of the Italian populi, their public aspects were surreptitiously degraded.156 Augustus succeeded in shaping Italy to his own ends. It is, I think, ironic, that his concern and his legislation, which followed so many years of senatorial indiVerence, and the patchy and incomplete work of Julius Caesar, should have tended not to only to enhance the dignity of the municipia, but also to constrain them to adopt a self-image which was fundamentally subordinate in character. For much of Italy, the municipalization of most of the peninsula during the last Wfty-odd years of the Republic had brought the only means of political expression and choice which they could have enjoyed within the archaic city-state framework which no one in Rome seemed willing to dispense with, and which only municipalization began to transcend in a practical (as opposed to a dysfunctional) way. Augustus, who had during 28 and 27 bc transferred to the hands of the Senate and People a suitably sentimental and anodyne replica of the res publica populi Romani, was also responsible for leaving an equally empty freedom to the Italian municipalities.157 The advent of monarchy meant that, where it mattered most, the municipalization and integration of Italy—to use the words of a famous product of the process—came to be imago sine re.158 In more modern terms, Italy, and Italians, remade themselves in the image of the princeps and his family. 155 In Crawford and CunliVe (eds.), Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia, cf. Modus Operandi, 40. 156 I cannot agree with Gabba that late republican municipia were more ‘free’ than their 2nd cent. ancestors had been as allies (Italia romana, 15–16). 157 Gabba, Italia romana, 13, notes that similar conclusions had already been formulated with respect to the municipalities of the Empire by F. Guizot in the 19th cent. (‘Du re´gime municipale dans l’Empire romain’, in Essais sur l’histoire de la France 6 , Paris, 1844). 158 Vell. Pat., 2. 30. 4, on the tribunicia potestas after Sulla, cf. for the language and sentiment used of the res publica, Cic., De re publica 5. 2: ‘nostris enim uitiis, non casu aliquo, rem publicam uerbo retinemus, re ipsa uero iam pridem amisimus’.
APPENDIX 1
Pompeii and Other ‘Double Communities’ I aim to show here that at Pompeii (and elsewhere) a municipium existed both before, and for a time, alongside a Sullan colony. The existence of a municipium at any time at Pompeii is often denied,1 but I think that the case deserves to be restated. It was first put forward by Martini in 1779,2 and accepted by Rosini,3 De Petra,4 and Totano;5 Totano and Rosini exaggerated the importance of the municipium, while De Petra thought that it ceased to exist when the colony was founded. Rudolph posited a Cinnan municipalization in 87, designed to win over the support of the Italians for the eventual struggle with Sulla, but he too believed that the municipium was only short-lived.6 The theory was elaborated by Onorato, who put forward detailed arguments for the quaestorship and the aedileship of Pompeii belonging to this municipium,7 to which he assigned a longer life-span. Sartori8 accepted the existence of a municipium prior to, and possibly after, the deductio of the colony, and Salmon,9 Harris,10 and Weber11 believe that the two coexisted for a period. More recently the trend has been towards rejecting a Pompeian municipium, either after colonization or at all.12 Pompeii is twice called a municipium by Pliny the Elder.13 On one of these occasions (as elsewhere) the word just means ‘town’.14 In the second passage, however, Pliny gives detailed information on a Pompeian struck by lightning at the time of the Catilinarian conspiracy, one M. Herennius, ‘Pompeiano ex municipio . . . decurio (‘M. Herrenius . . . a decurion from the municipium of Pompeii’)’.15 Now, it is possible that here too Pliny is not exact in his use of the word municipium,16 but it is equally possible that since he has recorded the name and rank of the person, he has also been careful to give him his correct juridical provenance.17 Herennius, moreover, is one of the attested Oscan names of Pompeii;18 since it is unlikely that in 63 there was an Oscan element in the colonial ordo, to judge by Cicero’s evidence about the hostility between the colonists and the ‘Pompeiani’ in 62,19 it is possible that Herennius was a member of the ordo of the municipium. There is no reason why Pompeii should have had an ordo without having some sort of municipal magistrates.20 I think we are entitled at least to use this passage of Pliny as a basis for reexamining the evidence for a municipium at Pompeii. The best exposition of the case for the municipium is still that of Onorato. He argued that certain magistracies attested at Pompeii for the republican period were not part of the colony’s administrative set-up: these were the quaestores21 and the aediles,22 but (surprisingly) not the quattuorvirate.23 The only context which these magistrates fit is argued to be that of a municipium, which existed from the concession of the citizenship until the late 60s bc. Onorato successfully rebuts the view held by Galli and others that Pompeii was not taken by Sulla in the Social War, but held out for a long time, obtaining the citizenship later in more peaceful circumstances.24 He maintains that the town probably fell in 89 and, having got the citizenship c.87, became a Roman municipium.25 Finally, he supports these arguments by adducing the evidence of Cicero’s Pro Sulla, and the passages of Pliny discussed above.26 Not all of Onorato’s views, however, hold water; in what follows I will discuss the problems as briefly as possible.
448
Appendix 1
1. Magistracies Onorato is on the safest ground with his interpretation of the quaestorship; he fails to consider the evidence of one programma, but this does not invalidate his general thesis.27 The presence of a cognomen among the republican election propaganda of Pompeii is extremely rare, and I am tempted to agree with Mouritsen, who dates this inscription to the Empire and sees ‘Q’ as standing for q(uinquennalis).28 There is no evidence to show that the quaestorship was a colonial magistracy at Pompeii,29 and thus Popidius, Caecilius, and Melis[saeus?] are probably municipal quaestors.30 While municipal quaestors are rare in municipia in this period, there is no problem with continuity in lower magistracies from the period of independence. It seems that the colony had aediles. None of the programmata antiquissima which mention aediles contains an explicit address to the colonists,31 but the easiest interpretation is to see the aedileship as a colonial magistracy. Livius and Acilius in ILLRP 649 certainly seem to be colonial,32 and Cicero’s friend M. Marius, a colonist, is recorded in one programma as a candidate for the aedileship,33 and in others is found addressing himself to the colonists.34 It seems unlikely that one pair of II uiri discharged all the magisterial tasks of the colonia.35 On balance the evidence seems to show that, like many other colonies, Pompeii also had aediles.36 It is less easy to prove that the municipium had aediles, although it remains possible. 2. Municipal Constitution Onorato characterizes the municipium as ‘di formazione sannitico-romana’,37 that is, a temporary and transitional arrangement preserving Oscan magistracies under Roman names.38 This is hard to accept: we do not know enough about the size of magisterial colleges in the Oscan period or under the municipium to posit this kind of continuity. Onorato’s position is forced upon him by his interpretation of the IIII uiri.39 Onorato’s putative transitional constitution could only belong between conquest and municipalization (i.e. 89–85 bc at the most). Why should Pompeii have received such an anomalous constitution in the 80s when so many other municipia were being set up with the normal quattuorviral constitution?40 It is odd that Onorato rightly holds that Pompeii was taken by the Romans in 89, but does not then envisage a normal municipalization, as happened in many other communities in Italy in the 80s.41 3. Cicero, Pro Sulla 60–2 Some of Onorato’s interpretations of this important passage can be challenged. It requires quite careful analysis to show that one of the parties named is the municipal community. Now, one of the accusations levelled against P. Sulla by Torquatus was that he had stirred up the Pompeiani to take some part in the Catilinarian conspiracy. ‘ ‘‘Diiunxit,’’ inquit, ‘‘eos a colonis ut hoc discidio ac dissensione facta oppidum in sua potestate posset per Pompeianos habere.’’ ’ (60). Cicero tells us that ‘omnis Pompeianorum colonorumque dissensio delata ad patronos est, cum iam inueterasset ac multos annos esset agitata’ (60), that the feeling of Sulla on the matter was no different from that of the other patrons, and that the ‘coloni’ did not think that he had taken the side of the Pompeiani at their expense. In court to support Sulla are both a ‘frequentia colonorum’ and the ‘Pompeiani’, ‘qui ita de ambulatione ac de suffragiis suis cum colonis dissenserunt ut idem de communi salute sentirent’ (61). Cicero concludes by saying that Sulla was equally liked by both groups,
Appendix 1
449
despite the fact that ‘ab hoc illa colonia deducta sit, et cum commoda colonorum a fortunis Pompeianorum rei publicae fortuna diiunxerit’ (62). The Pompeiani are evidently a group who live at Pompeii, but are distinct from the colonists. Yet that only tells us who they are not, not who they are. There are two alternatives: either they are somehow attributed to the colony, but enjoying rights inferior to those of the colonists, in other words incolae;42 or they are the inhabitants of the municipium. The first solution was that of Zumpt,43 Mommsen,44 and others.45 I want, however, to argue for the other possibility. First, assuming for the moment I am right, how would Cicero characterize the inhabitants of the municipium? If he were to call them municipes, he would run the risk of confusing his audience, for at this period a municeps could be either the inhabitant of a municipium, or a citizen of any community who shared the same munera as his fellow citizens, one of the things which distinguished him from the other juridical categories which made up the population of the town (incolae, etc.).46 By the same token, Cicero does not call the Pompeiani incolae. By using the term Pompeiani, he stresses their status as the indigenous pre-colonial population; by distinguishing them from the coloni he implies, to my mind, that they do not come under the juridical umbrella of the colonia at all, but form a separate entity.47 Further, the words ‘et cum commoda colonorum a fortunis Pompeianorum rei publicae fortuna diiunxerit’ imply a divergence of ways, not a fusion into one juridical body. Such a dispute between the Pompeiani and the coloni makes more sense if the two are separate juridical entities. In any other context we would interpret such an adjective as referring to the regular inhabitants of the town in question. It is worth trying to establish what precisely had caused the long-standing disagreements between the two groups at Pompeii,48 that is, what Cicero meant by ambulatio and suffragia. The latter certainly means that the Pompeiani were at some electoral disadvantage vis-a`-vis the colonists.49 This might seem to imply that the Pompeiani were in fact a group with inferior rights attached to the colony.50 Before considering this problem, however, we must ascertain the meaning of ambulatio. Scholars have followed one or other of two rival schools of thought, the ‘electoral’ and the ‘spatial’. The former was first enunciated by Garruci,51 who thought that ambulatio was a canvassing tour made by candidates. Maiuri was the first to suggest that ambulatio and suffragia in Cicero might be a hendiadys, expressing a single concept,52 and his views were expanded by Onorato,53 who preferred the variant MSS reading ambitione, understanding it as equivalent to ambitus.54 The two words suffragia and ambitio would then refer to active and the passive rights at elections, that is, the right to vote and the right to stand.55 This change, however, is perhaps palaeographically unlikely, and we should maintain ‘ambulatione’ as the lectio difficilior. If we do this, we must almost certainly abandon the ‘electoral’ explanation, since ambulatio has no recognized meaning in an electoral context.56 We must turn to the ‘spatial’ solution. This has in its favour the repetition of ‘de’ before both ‘ambulatione’ and ‘suffragiis’, separating the two concepts.57 Such an answer was first propounded in 1687 by Gruterus, partly on the strength of Catullus, 55. 6, where ambulatio is a synonym for porticus.58 He was followed among others by Zumpt,59 Orelli,60 and Halm.61 The solution has been revived more recently by Wiseman.62 It should be observed, though, that the Catullus passage is the only poetic attestation of the word, and that furthermore the concrete sense of a portico or similar building in which one walks is not the most common meaning: the basic sense is ‘the act of walking’. Cicero’s uses of the word are particularly important. He uses it eighteen times besides the instance under consideration. The only other occasion it is used in the speeches is in the De domo sua.63 There it refers to an area for walking, a porticus, attached to the shrine to Libertas built by Clodius
450
Appendix 1
on the site of Cicero’s house. A similar sense, of either an open or covered space for walking, often as a setting for philosophical or other discussion and meditiation, occurs on seven other occasions, mostly in connection with villas owned by Marcus and Quintus Cicero.64 The remaining nine instances all refer to the walking itself, again often in the context of ‘peripatetic’ discussion.65 This seems to exclude even more strongly the possibility that Cicero means to express by ambulatio and suffragia a unitary concept. Further, the use of the singular must mean that the dispute at Pompeii was either over a single porticus or similar building, or over the ‘act of walking’. It is not possible, I think, to be more precise. In the first instance the problem could be one of access, or of building on land, or work on a building, the ownership of which was disputed.66 In the second case the sense would have to be, quite literally, that the Pompeiani were in dispute with the colonists about where they could and could not walk in the colony, that is some kind of restriction of access.67 The spatial problems were caused, in my opinion, because in Pompeii, in many cases, both colonists and municipes lived inside the same set of walls.68 This would mean two administrations operating side by side, serving two communities. This extraordinary situation was bound to cause conflict, and it seems that the colonists had the upper hand; they certainly enjoyed powerful support outside Pompeii, not least because one of their patrons and deductores was L. Sulla’s nephew.69 Thus a situation may have arisen where because of the physical interpenetration of the two communities, the general freedom and autonomy of the municipium was circumscribed by the colonia.70 Its magistrates are far more frequently attested in the epigraphic evidence, and they carry out far more building work, for instance, than the municipal magistrates. In this atmosphere it is not implausible to see the colonial ordo being able to exert undue influence on the municipal elections, for instance by either vetting candidates or putting up its own.71 Dispute over suffragia would then mean that the voting rights of the municipes were unsatisfactory, because as in the case of the new citizens at Rome in the previous decade, they led to no significant say in the arrangement of affairs, or real representation.72 Taken together, the evidence for the existence of the municipium, alongside the colonia, is such that a heavy burden of proof lies with the sceptics. Such a situation might seem odd, all the more so since the two communities would live in the same walls. Yet nothing suggests that a municipium was not set up, as in much of the rest of Italy, in the mid-80s, and this being the case, there is no reason why we should expect the municipium to be dissolved, any more than we would expect it in other cases where we know the two communities continued to exist side by side. An interesting parallel is provided by Interamnia Praetuttiorum, where topographical study now suggests that it is not possible to identify two separate settlements, one for colonists, the other for the municipium.73 In Oxford, the status of the University within the City was anomalous until only fifty-odd years ago, with the former represented by its own MP, and to some extent it still is. Just because the situation at Pompeii seems strange, it is not therefore to be ‘rationalized’ away. The unique situation at Pompeii also explains well the fierceness of the disagreement between the two communities, and its length. It is fair to suppose that the eventual disappearance of the municipium was precipitated by the resolution of the outstanding differences. Castre´n is surely right to suggest that Cicero’s reference to ‘Oscos ludos’ in the Pompeian senate, in a letter of 55 bc to M. Marius, implies that by that date the Pompeiani may well have gained access to the colonial ordo.74 Thus the distinctions and disagreements mentioned by Cicero had now probably ceased to exist, and along with them the municipium. The colony was the dominant force in Pompeii, and it was natural that, as a new generation grew to majority in the twenty
Appendix 1
451
years after the colonization, social boundaries at least would blur between the two communities, and the emotional attachment to the older, municipal political stratum would be supplanted by the attraction exerted by the flourishing colony. How the two communities ‘fused’ is unclear, but the most likely course would seem to have been either an enrolment of the Pompeiani in the colonial census,75 or a less formal evolution, where, as the municipium became a dead letter, more and more Pompeiani interpreted their citizenship arising from origo as being that of the colonia. Such ‘fusion’ seems to have happened in ‘double communities’ like Antium and Minturnae after the fourth-century colonization,76 and was inevitable at Pompeii. The physical situation at Pompeii was perhaps unique, but not the existence of a ‘double community’. In Italy, others can be shown to have existed at Arretium,77 Faesulae,78 Interamnia Praetuttiorum,79 and Nola80 (but not Clusium81). Perhaps other towns that had opposed Sulla, like Aesernia, Praeneste, and Volaterrae, had such communities, but this can only be speculation.82 We cannot say exactly when the municipia vanished and the ueteres gained representation on the colonial ordines. Many scholars, however, have been unwilling to accept the existence of double communities, at any period.83 For the Republic, Mommsen, as we have seen, denied such a community for Pompeii, but accepted one at Arretium,84 on the basis of the evidence cited above. Despite objections by Bormann,85 Mommsen was right to interpret the Arretine evidence as he did, and should have been more generous in his identification of double communities. We know so little about the topography of republican Arretium and Nola that we cannot even say that the ueteres and the colonists occupied different sites. At Faesulae, as we have seen, the colonists did live in castella; some may have lived at Faesulae itself, and at least some of the indigenous population surely continued to live in the old Etruscan centre. This, I suspect, was the pattern for the majority of the Sullan colonies, but each case will have been affected by such factors as local topography, and the pattern of land confiscation and redistribution. Indeed, the lingering discontent caused in late republican Italy by the Sullan settlement probably had its urban as well as its agrarian aspects. The case of Interamna Nahars is particularly clear: the brothers Poppaei ‘municipi et coloniai patroni municipibus colonieis incoleis hospitibus . . . dant’. At Faesulae, Gracchan Neptunia/Taras, and Emporiae, colonies and municipia existed side by side; it is less easy to be categorical about other cases (Arretium and Nola). Such communities were not common, but exist they did, and Pompeii should be added to the number. Notes 1. For instance by Zumpt, Comm. Epig., i. 254, Mommsen, CIL x. p. 89, Galli, RAAN (1907), 537–8; Magaldi, RSP (1936–7), 54–8; Sogliano, Pompei preromana, 296; Degrassi, SVA iv. 49 (having left slight room for doubt earlier; see SVA i. 108, iii. 146, and ad ILLRP 640); Hampl, RhM (1952), 65–6; Gabba, Esercito, 605; Castre´n, Ordo, 31, 122, cf. 50–1. Lo Cascio, in E´lites, followed by Crawford, in Modus Operandi, 37. 2. Auflebende Pompei, 74, 76–7. 3. Dissertatio isagogica, 44–5, 51–2. 4. AAN 1 (1865), 69–70. 5. AAN 1 (1865), 145, 148–58. 6. Stadt, 88 n. 2, 92. As we have seen (Ch. 5), Q8 certainly postdates the arrival of the colony, hence Rudolph’s solution must be rejected (as Onorato noted, RAAN (1951), 151 n. 2). 7. RAAN (1951), 115–56. 8. Problemi, 71–3.
452
Appendix 1
9. Colonization, 131. 10. Etruria and Umbria, 342. 11. Klio (1975), 181, 187–8, 198–203. Weber supports Onorato’s conclusions about Pompeii’s magistracies, but at 198–203 he emphasizes the lack of firm proof for the existence of the municipium. The various evidence for its existence is not conclusive, but it is a strong case, and I think it better to rely on the kind of detailed argument Onorato puts forward. 12. Gehrke, Hermes (1983), 471–90; Mouritsen, Elections, 71. 13. For all the other juridical and quasi-juridical terms used of Pompeii, except, surprisingly, those in Pliny, see Ciprotti, Chron. Pomp. (1976), 21–2. 14. HN 14. 38. Onorato, RAAN (1951), 143, notes that Pliny refers at HN 3. 62, and 31. 94 to Pompeii without a juridical term, and that in these cases he is being specific. On Pliny’s use of municipium to denote a particular category of town, see Weber, Klio (1975), 199 n. 134; commonly he uses oppidum where not speaking of a colony. 15. HN 2. 137. For the event, cf. Cic., De diu. 1. 18, 22–4. Obsequens, 61, gives an account of this prodigy, giving the name Vargunteius Pompeius, but Vargunteius, while the name of a Catilinarian, is not found at Pompeii: see Pease’s ed. of Div. i. 108, ad 1. 18; the name is not in Castre´n’s ‘Index of Families’ (Ordo, 127–244); Obsequens’ notice is clearly garbled. 16. So Mommsen, CIL x. p. 89; Castre´n, Ordo, 51. 17. Alternatively he has simply taken it over from his source, which being earlier, probably used the term municipium with more care. Cf. Onorato, RAAN (1951), 144. I do not understand Weber, Klio (1975), 199, when he says that the fact that this passage refers to a prodigy makes this passage ambiguous and therefore unreliable. 18. See Mu¨nzer, RE viii, s.v. ‘Herennius’ no. 12, Onorato, RAAN (1951), 144 with n. 2. The only other M. Herrenius is an ‘imp(erator?)’, CIL i2 . 3140. From the republican period we also know a Ma. Herrenius (Vetter, Handbuch, no. 30), and a Q. Herrenius, from programmata (CIL iv. 28, 2899). On Herennius see now Zevi, PBSR (1995). 19. Sull. 60–2. See further below. 20. CIL xi. 1849, ‘decuriones Arretinorum ueterum’ (Arretium), and CIL x. 1273 (Nola), ‘decurio adlectus ex ueteribus’, are probably to be interpreted in the light of Cic., Verr. 2. 2. 123–4 as members of the colonial ordo where the proportions of noui and ueteres were fixed (see Keppie, Colonisation, 102–3). Who the ueteres were is uncertain. They should represent the descendants of one of two groups: the pre-Sullan indigenous inhabitants or the Sullan colonists (or perhaps the Augustan colonists (for whom see Pliny, HN 3. 63 with CIL x. 1244: ‘Col. Fel. Aug. Nola’) if we accepted the Vespasianic deductio mentioned in Lib. Col. p. 184 Campbell). It would not be surprising to find a division like this perpetuated into the Flavian period (for the date of CIL x. 1273, and these problems generally, Mommsen, CIL x. p. 142; and see below). 21. RAAN (1951), 115–24, cf. id., Iscrizioni pompeiane, 130, accepted by Sartori, Problemi, 74 n. 24; Weber, Klio (1975), 201. 22. RAAN 1951, 115–24, 136–9, cf. 150–1, followed by Weber, Klio (1975), 203. 23. For a discussion of this magistracy see Ch. 6. 24. Galli, RAAN 1907, 533–51. For doxography on this topic see Onorato, RAAN (1951), 125 n. 1, 129 n. 4. For further discussion of Pompeii’s fate in the Social War, see Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 167–71 (not all of it acceptable) and Weber, Klio (1975), 179 nn. 6 and 7. 25. RAAN 1951, 125–34. 26. RAAN 1951, 140–7. The discussion of Garrucci, Questioni Pompeiane, 54, on the literary evidence is unclear, as is that of Van Buren, RE xxi, col. 2001. I am unable here to discuss the final section of Onorato’s argument on the constitution of the colony. 27. CIL i2 . 3141, mentioning a Q. Laecanius [Suce]ssus as ‘Q’. Interpreted as quaestor by Della Corte, Case ed abitanti3 , 106–7, followed by Degrassi, SVA iv. 49. Degrassi’s explanation of the quaestorship as an evanescent colonial magistracy (SVA iv. 145–8, cf. CIL i2 . p. 1013) is unconvincing—see for instance Castre´n, Ordo, 51. His view that early attestations of ‘Q’ stand for q(uattuoruir) is even less satisfactory. Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 175, must also be wrong to suppose that the quaestorship was a colonial magistracy, but the only one for which the original inhabitants could stand.
Appendix 1
453
28. Magistrates, Elections, 72, 83 n. 318, cf. Castre´n, Ordo, 180, cf. 133, no. 23.12–13. Cf. Della Corte, ad CIL iv. 7014. 29. Mouritsen, 72–3. 30. ILLRP 640 (Popidius), CIL iv. 29, 30, 26 (Caecilius), 3344 (Melis[saeus?]) with Sartori, Problemi, 74 n. 2. The Pompeian Caecilii need not be colonists at all (see Gordon, JRS (1927), 168; Castre´n, Ordo, 144–5), and the Melissaei are an indigenous family (ibid. 190). Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 175, puts Caecilius and Laecanius in her transitional period before colonization, but puts Popidius’ quaestorship under the colony! Better Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, in Epigrafia, 192 n. 11, seeing him as slightly pre-Sullan. 31. For these addresses see CIL iv. 7, 39, 40, 45, 49, 72, 80. Of course many of the programmata are incomplete. 32. This is the only attestation of aediles on stone before the Neronian period: Onorato, RAAN (1951), 155. 33. CIL iv. 61. 34. CIL iv. 43–4. 35. As mooted for the earliest period by Onorato, RAAN (1951), 150. 36. Towards the end of the Republic the colony certainly had aedilician officials, but these were called II uiri, in contrast to II uiri i. d. (ILLRP 641, with Onorato, RAAN (1951), 149 n. 1, 150 n. 2, 154 n. 1). 37. RAAN 1951, 140. 38. RAAN (1951), 134–7, cf. 119 n. 3 and Maiuri, Introduzione allo studio di Pompei ii. 113–14. Onorato interprets the ‘tr. ple.’ of ILLRP 1143 as belonging probably to Nuceria, but being part of a provisional constitution analogous to that hypothesized by him for Pompeii (136 n.2). Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 174, also believes in a temporary constitution of Oscan magistracies, among which was the quaestorship, but thinks that these were filled by Romans, elections not being possible. Implausible enough in itself, this theory depends on the idea that a number of proSullan Romans were sent in 88 to inhabit the Pagus Felix outside Pompeii, along with some troops to keep order, and pave the way for the eventual colonization, which had been presaged by a law of Sulla’s of that year (ibid. 174, cf. 171, 177), a theory which falls on a number of counts. Apart from the nonsense of setting up a temporary ‘Oscan’ constitution to be run by Romans, one wonders why the Pompeiani did not avail themselves of the dominatio Cinnae to rid themselves of these unwelcome guests, not to mention acquire a normal municipal constitution. As to the presence of Roman troops at Pompeii, see n. 40 below. Weber, Klio (1975), 202, also seems to envisage a Roman settlement prior to the colony, but surely it is more economical to have just one community, i.e. the municipium. 39. For which see Ch. 6, Q7 and Q8. 40. Equally implausible, if not more so, is Castre´n’s hypothesis of an interregnum under Roman military rule (Ordo, 51, 122). To my mind the Romans would have been keen to return Pompeii to some kind of autonomy as soon as possible. The 80s saw a heavy demand for Roman soldiers to fight the Samnites, in the conflict between Cinna and Octavius, in the East against Mithridates, and finally in the First Civil War. All these conflicts were more pressing and potentially more lucrative than garrison duty in a captured town, one which was a citizen community after 87. As Onorato has shown, Vell. Pat., 2. 20, implies that the troops besieging Nola in 87 went over to Cinna, and returned with him to Rome (RAAN (1951), 129 n. 4). For interreges see CIL iv. 48, 50, 53, 54, 56, 70 (but not 9827, contra Castre´n, Ordo, 51 n. 5); Mouritsen has, however, cast doubt on the resolution of this word as ‘inter(rex)’: Elections, 74–5. 41. Cf. the remarks of Weber, Klio (1975), 192–3, 197 (I disagree, however, with his position on the extension in the citizenship of the Social War, and his conviction that enfranchisement and municipalization must have been simultaneous; see Ch. 4). Onorato (RAAN (1951), 125), Gatti (Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 167), and Weber (Klio (1975), 184–5) believe that there is no explicit evidence that Pompeii fell in the Social War, but neither of them give due weight to Vell. Pat., 2. 16, where we are told that Minatius Magius ‘Herculaneum simul cum T. Didio caperet, Pompeios cum L. Sulla oppugnaret, Co<mp>samque occuparet’. Surely all three verbs refer to the same action, the uariatio being only stylistic, and we may infer that Pompeii fell between Herculaneum
454
42.
43. 44. 45.
46. 47.
48.
49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.
57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.
Appendix 1
and Compsa. It should be noted that of other south Campanian communities, Herculaneum does not seem to be municipalized before the triumviral period, and Surrentum before the Empire. Meaning either ‘indigenous inhabitants’: Asconius p. 3C (of those made Latins in the Transpadana under the lex Pompeia of 89); or, more commonly, those who had domicilium in a town but were not citizens: as in D. 50. 16. 239. 2; 4. 6, 5; 4. 18. 22; 1. 12, lex Flauia 53, 55, Cod. Iust. 10. 40. 7. There is only one reference to ‘incolae’ at Pompeii (CIL iv. 9918), which should be interpreted in this sense, not, as Ciprotti suggests (Chron. Pomp. (1976), 23), as possibly reflecting the divisions of the Ciceronian period (the programma is Flavian—Castre´n, Ordo, 139). Onorato, RAAN (1951), 254, 458. CIL x, p. 142. Halm (ed.), Pro Sulla, 127; Scho¨ne, Bull. Inst. (1886), 11; Hampl, RhM (1952), 65–6; the last provides no evidence for the earlier anti-Sullan attitude for which he supposes Pompeii may have been punished by loss of political rights. No link can be made between Pompeii and the Marians, and it seems that it was Pompeii’s prosperity (so Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 172, 173–4) and its opposition to Sulla in the Social War which provoked the deductio of the colony. See Introduction and Ch. 10, n. 2. Cf. Onorato, RAAN (1951), 144 n. 3, 148. He is surely correct that the use of the term coloni (significantly found only in the earlier programmata) should logically imply the existence of others who are not coloni. Ciprotti (Chron. Pump.) cites the gift of the amphitheatre ‘coloneis’, and electoral notices addressed solely to colonists as further proof of the assumption that there are non-colonists as well. Note, however, that not all graffiti specifically address themselves to colonists (as also assumed by Castre´n, Ordo, 87) and we should not automatically assume that they do so. Surprisingly Gatti (Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 174, 176–7) seems to underestimate the hostility felt by the two elements towards each other (admitted by Cicero), and further, like Gabba (Esercito, 607), thinks the dispute was not long-lasting (again, contradicted by Cicero). Castre´n, Ordo, 54. Nicolet interestingly compares the dispute about a lex tabellaria at Arpinum reported to the Senate (not the commuity’s patroni) in 115 bc: REL (1967), 287. So Gabba, Esercito, 607. Questioni Pompeiane 31. For the adherents of this and other solutions see Onorato, RAAN (1951), 141 n. 1, with full bibliography to 1951. Introduzione allo studio di Pompei ii, 108f; cf. Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 175. RAAN (1951), 141 n. 1. First proposed by Francesco Silvio Ambiano in 1531, followed by Dionysius Lambinus in 1566; followed by Mouritsen, Elections, 86–7. Cf. Castre´n, Ordo, 54; Keppie, Colonisation, 102. Castre´n, Ordo, 55 (also for a ‘possible’ spatial explanation). He reports (55 n. 1) that Coarelli has suggested to him that ambulatio might mean the passages through which each ‘tribe’ ( ¼ curia?) passed when voting (in the forum rather than in the comitium, surely?). This is clever, but a conjecture without parallels to support it. Similarly problematic the solution of Gatti (Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 176), which makes ambulatio refer to voting rights by assuming it denotes a porticus connected with elections, like the porticus Minucia in Rome (cf. Taylor, Roman Voting Assemblies, 69). Pointed out to me by Barbara Levick. Editio Ciceroniana cum notis variorum, 461 n. 7. Comm. Epig. I, 468. Cic. Orat. Sel. 286. Halm (ed.), pro Sulla, 128 LCM (Feb. 1977), 21–2, followed now by Laurence, Space and Society in Roman Pompeii, 23. 116, 121. Is ambulatio used to belittle Clodius’ achievement, to avoid calling it a porticus? TD 4. 7, De Or. 1. 28, Att. 4. 10. 1, QF 3. 1. 1, 1. 2, 1. 5 (‘intercolumnia ambulationis’), 7. 1. Fin. 5. 1, Off. 1. 144, De or. 3. 121, Att. 1. 18. 1, 2. 3. 4, 4. 10. 2, 13. 35–6. 3, 14. 13 1, QF 3. 3. 1. These are two mentions of porticus in this period in the epigraphy (ILLRP 640, 648), one the work of the quaestor Popidius, the other built by colonial magistrates. If the two are not identical, either
Appendix 1
67.
68. 69. 70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75. 76.
77. 78. 79. 80.
81.
455
might have been the object of dispute. Another candidate might be the so-called porticus of Vibius, adjacent to the forum. The extent of this cannot be gauged, but note that at least in the early period of the colony only colonists may have been allowed into the amphitheatre (so, probably rightly, Gatti, Atti CeSDIR (1974–5), 175). Contra Weber, Klio (1975), 199–200. The basis of Torquatus’ accusations was perhaps that P. Sulla had tried to mediate between two parties, when his moral obligation was to the coloni. Onorato, RAAN (1951), 140, 142, 146. At 151 he suggested that the municipal administration had no effective say in the running of the city, but only provided aedilician officials (of which the colony at this stage may have had none). I agree that de facto the Pompeiani had little say in the important decisions made about Pompeii, but Onorato’s thesis is weakened if one accepts that the municipium had a normal magisterial structure, and that the colony probably had aediles. It is not unknown for men from one community to hold office in a neighbouring one: see Ch. 10. It is more likely however that the colonists made use of friendly elements within the municipium. The arrival of the colony probably polarized cultural differences between the old Oscan Pompeiani and the recent Latin-speaking immigrants into either Oscan Pompeii or the subsequent municipium. Under such circumstances ethnicity becomes a potent issue, and those who were not descended from the old Pompeiani may have felt it best to ally themselves with Sulla’s veterans. Barbara Levick suggests to me that the objections of the Pompeiani may have been caused not by their lack of access and electoral rights, but by an ambulatio of colonists at the time of the municipal voting, with a view to exerting influence in the suffragia. Migliorati, Arch. Class. (1976), 242–56. The municipium and the colonia seem to have lasted as independent juridical entities until the Empire: ILLRP 617–8, cf. on the double community Torelli, in Gros and Torelli, Storia dell’urbanistica, 150. Fam. 7. 1. 3; Castre´n, Ordo, 90; Rawson, Intellectual Life, 22 n. 12, prefers a reference to Oscan language in Cicero’s words; ibid. 25 for Marius as possibly of Campanian origins. I do not agree with Onorato (RAAN (1951), 147, cf. Weber, Klio (1975), 198) that the tense of ‘dissenserunt’ in Sull. 61 means that the conflict at Pompeii had been resolved by 62 bc. I take it as a perfect, implying a state of being (‘they have been and are in disagreement’); indeed, at Sulla’s trial both groups were present separately in support of the defendant. Cicero is more concerned with portraying their solicitude for his client than with presenting a detailed analysis of all the problems at Pompeii. Cf. Castre´n, Ordo, 90. Note that at Antium, Livy tells us, there was uncertainty about the prevailing constitutional situation after the colonization, which the Senate was asked to rectify (9. 20. 5). As Humbert has shown (Municipium, 188–90), this notice must refer to the municipium and not the colonia. It may be the case that Livy’s source (Valerias Antias?) has retrojected constitutional problems of this kind from his own day back to the 4th cent. The troubles caused by the Sullan colonization, notably at Pompeii, may have been at the back of Valerius’ mind. Importantly, the indigenous Volscian population, which received the ciuitas sine suffragio, did not remain an amorphous mass of Romans with lesser rights, but sought and gained a regular municipal constitution. Pliny, HN 3. 52: ‘Arretini ueteres, Fidentiores, Iulienses’, CIL xi. 1849: ‘decuriones Arretinorum ueterum’, xi. 1847–8: ‘res publica colonorum Fidentiorum’; Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 261–3. Gran. Lic. p. 34F contrasts the ‘Faesulani’ with the ‘ueteranorum Sullanorum’, who live in ‘castella’; Cic., Cat. 3. 14, Mur. 49, ILS 1429, CIL ix. 1610, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 359. ILLRP 617–18, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 359. Q9 (see Ch. 6), CIL x. 1273: ‘decurio adlectus ex ueteribus’. See also the list in Onorato, RAAN (1951), 144 n. 3: I disagree about Abella. Examples of double communities outside Italy are at Emporiae (Livy, 39. 4) and Valentia (CIL ii. 3733–7, 3739, 3741, 3745) in Spain. Plin., HN 3. 52: ‘Clusini noui, Clusini ueteres’; cf. Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 263, for a Sullan colony. This has been refuted by Pack and Paolucci (ZPE 68 (1987), 166–71, and again by Pack (in Paolucci (ed.), I Romani di Chiusi, 16–23, 69). Their case is impressive, and I accept their arguments: see Ch. 6.
456
Appendix 1
82. For a list of Sullan colonies, see Gabba, Republican Rome, 67–9, but strike out Clusium (see previous note), and add Vibinum. The epithet Veneria has been held to prove a Sullan foundation for the colonies at Hadria and Abellinum (see Kornemann, RE iv, 522–3), but more proof is needed in view of the connection between Venus and the Julian family, for instance. Salmon (Colonisation, 131) states that double communities also existed at Abella, and possibly Abellinum and Ausculum, but without any evidence. 83. Vittinghoff, ZSS (1951), Hampl, RhM (1952), 70, cf. 65–7; Teutsch, RIDA (1961), 281–356 and id., Das ro¨mische Sta¨dtwesen in Nord-Afrika, 152–6, and Weber, Klio (1975), 199 n. 37 (stressing the lack of evidence for both coloniae and municipia) for this period. For objections against such extreme views see Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 354–5, 359 (dual communities nevertheless ‘a rarity’). 84. CIL x. p. 89 n. 2. 85. Bormann (CIL xi. p. 336, followed by Kubitschek and Hampl), cited CIL xi. 1841, 1847–8, 1938, cf. 1836, where organs of the Arretine community are cited without an epithet, to show that there was only one community, a colony. Yet this does not take account of either the relative chronology of these texts (the only really important one is from the 3rd cent. ad when such distinctions may well have become meaningless), or the fact that when II uiri are cited, we are obviously dealing with the colony. Hampl’s suggestion (RhM (1952), 69) that all groups at Arretium sat on the same ordo must be correct for some point in the Empire, but it would eventually lead to an equality of political rights that would have resulted in the integration of all groups concerned. Since the divisions at Arretium seem fairly entrenched at the time of Pliny’s source, the municipium may have lasted until the Augustan period.
APPENDIX 2
Romans of High Status Acting as Patrons and Magistrates of Italian Communities between the Social War and Actium The attestations of patronage from literary evidence are based on very strict criteria, namely the use of the word patronus or cliens, or where the cumulative eVects of secondary evidence seem to make the attribution decisive. The date in all cases is the date of Wrst attestation. Despite this rigorous approach, there are some marginal cases, which have been put in the Incertiores section.1 A. Patrons Certain Latium Ulubrae
C. Trebatius Testa2 M. Tullius Cicero Q. Pedius C. Iulius Caesar?4 C. Cassius D., M. Iunius Brutus
53 bc 53 bc 43 bc3 46 bc? 44 bc
Cic., Fam. 7. 12. 2 Cic., Fam. 7. 18. 3 CIL i2 . 2974 CIL x. 5332 Cic. Phil. 2. 107
M. Tullius Cicero L. Cornelius L. f. Balbus Imperator Caesar Divi f. ?P. Claudius Pulcher5 P. Cornelius Sulla C. Cassius D., M. Iunius Brutus
63 bc 40 bc 31 bc saec. I? 80 bc 44 bc
Cic., Sest. 9, Pis. 25 ILLRP 425 CIL x. 3826 CIL x. 1250 Cic., Sull. 60–2 Cic., Phil. 2. 107
Sabinum Reate
M. Tullius Cicero7
63 bc
‘agri Piceni et Sabini’
L. Minucius Basilus (¼ M. Satrius)8
44 bc
Cic., Scaur. 27, cf. Att. 4. 15. 5, Cat. 3.5 Cic., OV. 3. 73–4
Praetuttii Interamnia Praetuttiorum
Q., C. Poppaeus Q. f.9
triumviral/Augustan
ILLRP 617–18
Picenum Auximum ‘agri Piceni et Sabini’
Cn. Pompeius Magnus L. Minucius Basilus ¼ M. Satrius
52 bc 44 bc
ILLRP 382 Cic., OV. 3. 73–4
Etruria Saturnia Forum Clodii
ignotus C. Clodius Vestalis
??10 triumviral11
CIL xi. 2655 CIL xi. 3310a
Casinum Interamna Lirenas Teanum Sidicinum Campania Capua
Nola Pompeii Puteoli6
458 Umbria Interamna Nahars ?Prolaqueum Spoletium Aequi Alba Fucens Frentani Larinum Samnium Aeclanum Bovianum Caudium
Saticula Apulia Canusium
Appendix 2 A. Pompeius A. f.12 Imperator Caesar Divi f.13 C. Calvisius C. f. Sabinus
triumviral 33 bc
ILLRP 364 CIL xi. 5642
39 bc14
CIL xi. 4772
C. Iulius Caesar15
Sept./Oct. 48–Apr. 46 B.C.
CIL i2 . 2966
L. Cornelius Sulla Felix C. Iulius Divi f.Caesar
82–80 bc 40–37 bc16
CIL i2 . 2951b AE (1966), 73
C. Quinctius Valgus C. Iulius Caesar L. Scribonius L. f. pater L. Scribonius L. f. Wlius L. Scribonius L. f. C. Iulius C. f. Caesar
c.70 bc 48/46 bc
Q12 ILLRP 406
before c.50 bc after c.50 bc 43 bc19
CIL ix. 2173a, b.17 ILLRP 56818 ILLRP 416
triumviral20
CIL ix. 414
Tarentum Salapia
C. Calvisius C. f. Sabinus Imperator Caesar Divi f. M. Hostilius
43 bc c.63 bc?21
AE (1969), 132 Vitruv., De Arch. 1. 4. 11–12
Bruttii Locri Vibo Valentia
M. Tullius Cicero22 C. Iulius Caesar
?? bc 46 bc
Cic., Leg. 2. 15 CIL i2 . 2967
Cisalpina23 Bononia
M. Antonius
31 bc24
Suet., DA 17. 2
Campania Cales
? Sittius25
triumviral
App., BC 4. 47. 199
Ager Sabinus Amiternum
C. Norbanus
before 82?26
CIL ix. 4290
Cisalpina Mediolanum
M. Iunius Brutus27
46 bc?
Transpadani28
C. Cassius
43 bc(?)
Plut., Comp. Brut. Dion. 5. 2, Suet. Gramm. 30. 6 Bugnoli Cic., Fam. 12. 5. 2.
Incertiores
B. Magistrates Latium Lanuvium Tusculum Arpinum
T. Annius Milo29 Q. Coelius Q. f. Latin(iensis) M. Tullius M. f. Cicero Q. Tullius Q. f. Cicero C. Tillius
50s bc 60s bc?
Cic., Mil. 27, 46 ILLRP 688
45 bc
Cic., Fam. 13. 11. 3
60s bc
D’Ambrosio, Un impegno per Pompeii, OS 17B
Appendix 2 Campania Capua
Nola ?Cales Herculaneum Pompeii
L. Calpurnius Piso Caesoninus
58 bc
N. Cluvius N. Cluvius N. Cluvius [-] Marcius Phi[lippus]
50s bc 60s bc 60s bc triumviral?
C. Quinctius Valgus M. Porcius M. f. C. Tillius
70s bc as above 40s bc
459 Cic., Sest. 19, Pis. 24–5, Red. Sen. 17, Dom. 60 Q5, 6 Q5, 6 Q5, 6 RAAN (1958), no. 484 ILLRP 645–630
Accerae
C. FuWcius Fango
Caesarian?
D’Ambrosio, Un impegno per Pompeii, OS 17B CIL x. 3758
Umbria Interamna Nahars
L. Licinius L. f. Lucullus
after c.50 bc
Q62
Samnium Aeclanum Beneventum Caudium
C. Quinctius Valgus L. Cocceius N. Cluvius
c.70 bc 60s? 60s
Q79 Q47 Q5, 6
Lucania Bantia? Venusia
Cn. Pompeius31 M. Valerius Mess.32
after c.50 bc 31/0
D7 CIL ix. 422
Cisalpina Pola33
L. Cassius C. f. Longinus
Caesarian/ triumviral
ILLRP 639
Notes 1. I am very grateful to Dr Claude Eilers with his help with this appendix, as well as on questions of patronage generally. I hope I have adequately credited him for his suggestions. 2. The patronal relationship between Trebatius and Ulubrae is suggested by Shackleton Bailey, ad Cic., Fam. 7. 12. 2. Like Shackleton Bailey, I cannot follow Syme, RP ii. 589–90, where he suggests that Ulubrae is the patria of Trebatius, or rather of C. Aquilius Gallus. ºØ ŁÆØ refers, as Shackleton Bailey notes, to the fact that Cicero has heard that Trebatius has become an Epicurean, which must debar him from political life, even in Ulubrae. The word need denote no special relationship. It seems best to take Velia as Trebatius’ home town on the strength of Cic., Fam. 7. 20. 1–2; note the rebel commander Trebatius in the Social War, Appian, BC 1. 52. 228, and cf. Nicolet, Ordre, ii. 1043–4, no. 350. 3. He had governed Spain pro consule since 45, so this year and 44 are also possible (Degrassi— Krummrey ad loc.) He died in Nov. 43. The lack of a grandfather’s praenomen in his Wliation in the consular Fasti led Cichorius, Untersuchungen zu Lucilius, 196, to suggest that he was enfranchised after the Social War, and Wiseman points out that as a consequence he probably comes from southern Campania (CQ (1964), 129). Casinum is not then his patria. 4. The attribution seems to rest on the restoration of the dictator’s name on a terminus. This seems possible because of the certain readings ‘COS. TER.’ and ‘PONT. MAX.’. 5. Claude Eilers telle me that the inscription could refer to the 1st cent., if the stone, now lost, in fact read A]p. Claudius, that is either cos. 54, or cos. 38. He does not consider the cos. 79, i.e. the year after Nola Wnally fell. If the text belonged to the 2nd cent., it would refer to the cos. 184 bc, which would make it the earliest Latin inscription from Nola by over 100 years; for Nola as belonging to the Oscan linguistic group in Campania until the Social War see Hu¨lsen, RE iii, s.v. ‘Campania’, col. 1437; Beloch, Campanien, 12; Onorato, RAAN (1951), 120–2.
460
Appendix 2
6. Note that the sentence beginning ‘magno quidem studio’ does not mean that Antonius and Minucius Basilus were also patrons of these two towns. Cicero simply means to contrast the diVerent means used by the two groups to gain patronage generally. 7. Cicero says (Scaur. 27) that the Reatines were ‘in Wde mea’, but never calls himself their patronus; he was their patronus in the legal sense in representing them in their water dispute with Interamna Nahars, but his use of Reatine adulescentes at the Mulvian Bridge in 63 bc suggests a long-standing and serious relationship, most probably patronage of the community. 8. On this man see now (with some caution on chronology and the stemmata) La Regina, PdP (1996), esp. 321–4, 327–9, 334. Cicero’s phrase ‘o turpe notum temporum nomen illorum’ may imply that Satrius’ patronage of this area, as well as his notoriety, stretched back to ‘those times’, but in any case these may be only the years of the dictatorship, although the 50s might equally be included. See above, Ch. 9, on D7, D13. 9. No other Poppaei are known from Interamnia. 10. ‘litteris . . . antiquioris’, Bormann, CIL ad loc. Eilers also draws my attention to the spelling ‘pequnia’, which should mean a republican date. 11. If correctly identiWed with the moneyer of 41 bc: Crawford, RRC 512. 12. No other Pompeii are known here unless the name in the second line of CIL xi. 4343 is restored to read ‘Pompe[ius’. Bormann Wnds the lettering consonant with an Augustan date. 13. Prolaqueum is a very small place, and has produced only this inscription—it is probably better to assign the inscription to another nearby Umbrian community, like Camerinum or Matilica. 14. His position as patron may predate Caesar’s murder (cf. ‘pietati’ on the inscription, with Syme, RR 221 n. 1, RP ii. 641; for his local origin see Syme, RP ii. 591). 15. For a full text, integrating a new fragment, see Buonocore, Ostraka (1994), 245–7, with doxography. 16. For the date see AE 1966. 73; Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 249. 17. This inscription should, on the basis of the letter forms, not be later than the middle of the century. One half of ix. 2173a is in Via Roma, not Piazza Umberto I, as stated in CIL i2 (4) 1031. Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 18. In the cortile of the Municipio at Airola. The palaeography is clearly that of a later text than the previous one, and the mention of only one Scribonius suggests that the Scribonius pater had died or ‘retired’. The inscription should date earlier than 41, when Caudium lost its ager to the new colony at Beneventum (Keppie, Colonisation, 90–1, 157–8). Autopsy, Apr. 1994. 19. For the date of this and the Tarentum inscription see Sordi, Epigraphica (1969), 79–83, and the observations of Buonocore, Ostraka (1994). 20. For the date and the identiWcation see Silvestrini, in Le epigrafe romane di Canosa, i. 25. The patronal relationship may date to Sabinus’ suppression of banditry in Italy in 36 bc. 21. See Ch. 5. 22. Cicero refers to the Locrians as ‘clientes nostri’, so it may be the case that Quintus too was their patron. The assumption of the patronage probably dates to Cicero’s quaestorship in Sicily. 23. Something of an anomalous region, since it was a province, albeit one of Roman citizens, and its links with the Senate were primarily mediated through the governor. 24. Suetonius says the Bononienses ‘in Antoniorum clientela antiquitus erant’. There is thus no support for Brunt’s assertion (Fall, 399 n. 47, cf. Tibiletti, Storie locali, 126 and n. 27) that the triumvir was only patron of the colonists he settled there, presumably after Philippi (Dio l. 6. 3). 25. A citizen of Cales, whose benefactions towards the town, says Appian, ultimately saved him from proscription—a patron? 26. Two fragments of an architrave read ‘]aeus C. f. Restio’ and ‘patrono Norban[’. We know that C. Norbanus Flaccus, cos. 24 bc was a dedicatee in the community (Segenni, Supp. It. ns 9, 81, no. 29), and that his son, cos. ad 15 is mentioned in CIL ix. 4334. Segenni is doubtful about whether ix. 4290 mentions one of the family, but in view of Mommsen’s characterization of the letters as ‘vetustioribus’, I am tempted to see Norbanus as the consul of 83 bc. The word order might seem against such an interpretation, but perhaps this fragmentary text could be restored to read ‘[C. Ann]aeus C. f. Restio[ VIII uir adiuuante ] patrono Norban[o porticum faciund. curau.
Appendix 2
27.
28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
33.
461
eidemque prob.]’ uel sim. In the Wscally troubled Cinnan regime Wnancial support would have been very valuable. On Restio’s gentilicium, see Segenni, Supp. It., 40. Described as ‘friend’ in Plutarch, his relationship or benefaction seems important enough for its memory to have endured under Augustus (contrast the case of Cicero, who did not enter any of the cities which he says were in his Wdes during his Xight from Italy in 58—Cic., Planc. 97, cf. Plut., Cic. 32. 2—not only, we can be sure, out of his concern for them!), thus possibly something more than the usual relationship between a governor and a community. In Suetonius, Albucius while speaking invokes the statue of Brutus, and liberty and the laws, which may suggest that it was the assassination of Iulius Caesar which led to the setting up of the statue. The context of the reference to Cassius’ ‘clientis’ makes it possible that Cicero is talking about communities. See Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 64–5. Milo was a Lanuvine. On the identiWcation of all the Quinctii Valgi mentioned in this appendix as the same man see Harvey in Classics and the Classical Tradition, 79–94. Cos. suV. 31? It is tempting to make him one of the Valerii Messalae, but not the cos. ord. 31, who was at Actium. The aedilate might seem a lowly position, but Agrippa’s aedilate in 33 had perhaps changed perceptions. Actually in Histria, outside the boundaries of Italy until the Augustan period.
APPENDIX 3
The Roman Republican ‘Municipia’ For initial discussion of Roman expansion and incorporation of Italian communities in this period reference is given only to the lucid remarks of Humbert,1 where discussion of earlier views, especially those of Mommsen, Beloch, and Sherwin-White, can be found. Latium Vetus Aricia2 Lanuvium3 Lavinium4 Nomentum5 Pedum6 Tusculum7 Velitrae8 Latium Adiectum Anagnia9 Arpinum10 Formiae11 Fundi12 Campania Acerrae13 Allifae14 Atella15 Calatia16 Capua17 Cumae18 Suessula19 Venafrum20 Praetuttii Interamnia Praetuttiorum21 Etruria Caere22 Capena23 Umbria Fulginiae Interamna Nahars24 [24] For Samnite Aufidena,25 for the Sabines,26 Vestini, and Picentes the evidence does not allow a decision whether their praefecturae were centred on municipia or not. The absence of significant nucleated settlements among these peoples until at least the first century bc suggests that there were few if any municipia in these areas of Italy before the Social War. We may now proceed to consider the evidence from the sources listed for municipia created after the Social War. Included, underlined, are those municipia (also) known from their magistracies. Former Latin colonies are given in capitals. Latium Vetus Bovillae27 Castrimoenium28 Cora29 Fidenae30 Gabii31 Labici32
Appendix 3
Latium Adiectum
Campania
Samnium Caudini Hirpini
Pentri
Lucania
Bruttii
Praeneste33 Tibur34 [8 ¼ 6.6%] Aletrium35 Aquinum36 ARDEA Atina37 Casinum38 Cereatae Marianae39 CIRCEI40 Ferentinum41 INTERAMNA LIRENAS42 NORBA SETIA43 SIGNIA44 SORA45 SUESSA AURUNCA Teanum Sidicinum46 Ulubrae(?)47 Verulae(?)48 [15/17 ¼ 12.3–14.8%]. Caiatia49 CALES50 Herculaneum51 Neapolis52 Nola(?)53 Nuceria54 Pompeii55 Trebula Balliensis56 [7/8 ¼ 5.7–6.6%] Caudium57 Aeclanum58 BENEVENTUM59 SATICULA60 Compsa(?)61 AESERNIA62 Ligures Baebiani63 Bovianum64 Bantia65 COPIA-THURII66 Heraclea67 PAESTUM68 Potentia69 Velia(?)70 VENUSIA71 Volcei72 (?)Aprustum73 Cosilinum(?)74 Locri75 Regium76 Petelia77
[8 ¼ 5.7%]
[6/8 ¼ 4.9–5.7%]
463
464
Appendix 3
Bruttii (cont.) Apulia
Frentani Marrucini Paeligni Marsi Vestini Aequi
Sabines Etruria
Umbria
VIBO-VALENTIA78 Ausculum79 BRUNDISIUM80 Canusium81 Herdonia82 LUCERIA83 Rubi84 Salapia85 Teanum Apulum(?)86 Tarentum87 Larinum88 – Corfinium89 Sulmo(?)90 Marruvium91 HADRIA ALBA FUCENS92 CARSEOLI Trebula Suffenas93 Forum Novum94 Nursia95 Arretium96 Blera97 Clusium98 Cortona99 COSA100 Faesulae101 Falerii Novi102 Ferentium103 LUCA104 NEPET Perusia105 Pisae106 Pistoriae107 Saena108 Statonia109 SUTRIUM110 Tarquinii111 Tuscana112 Vetulonia113 Volaterrae114 Volsinii115 Vulci116 Ameria117 Asisium118 Camerinum119 Hispellum120 Iguvium121
[5/6 ¼ 4.1–4.9%]
[8/9 ¼ 6.6–7.4%] [1 ¼ 0.82%] [1/2 ¼ 0.82–1.6%] [1 ¼ 0.82%] [1 ¼ 0.82%]
[3 ¼ 2.4%] [2 ¼ 0.82%]
[22 ¼ 17.3%]
Appendix 3
Picenum
Ager Gallicus Cisalpine Gaul
465
Mevania122 Mevaniola123 NARNIA Ocriculum124 Pitinum Pisaurense125 Sassina126 Sentinum(?)127 SPOLETIUM128 Tuder(?)129 Urvinum Hortense130 Urvinum Metaurense131 [14/16 ¼ 11.5–13.2%] Ancona132 Asculum(?)133 Cingulum134 Cupra Maritima135 FIRMUM Trea136 [5/6 ¼ 4.1–4.9%] ARIMINUM137 [1 ¼ 0.82%] AQUILEIA138 BONONIA CREMONA PLACENTIA139 [4 ¼ 3.3%]
Notes 1. Municipium, 149–250. 2. Paulus, 155L, Livy, 8. 14. 3, Cic., Phil. 3. 15; Humbert, Municipium, 193–4. 3. Livy, 8. 14. 2, cf. Cic., Balb. 31, Mur. 86, 90, Tac., Ann. 3. 48. 1; AE (1966), 165; Humbert, Municipium, 192–5. Milo’s dictatorship (Cic., Mil. 27, 45, Asc., p. 31C) was probably a full municipal magistracy, not simply a sacral office, as suggested by Rudolph, Stadt, 30–1. See Wiseman, New Men, no. 30, on Milo’s Lanuvine adoptive father. 4. Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 68: praetores under the Empire; Humbert, Municipium, 179–84, not wholly convincing for a municipalization in 338. This had occurred by 211 it seems—Livy, 26. 8. 10. 5. Livy, 8. 14. 3; Humbert, Municipium, 178, 191–5. 6. See under Nomentum. 7. Livy, 6. 26. 8, cf. Cic., Planc. 19, Font. 41, Nepos, Cato 1. 1, ILLRP 688; Humbert, Municipium, 154–7. 8. Humbert, Municipium, 185–6, cf. Suet., DA 2. 2. 9. Paulus, 155L, ILLRP 271, cf. ILLRP 533–4; praetores under the Empire, Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 68; Humbert, Municipium 214. 10. Livy, 10. 1. 2, 38. 36. 7–9. Livy nowhere uses the term municipium, but the municipal status attested later (esp. Cic., Fam. 13. 1. 1, 11. 3, cf. Sull. 23, Sest. 116 (on Marius), Planc. 20, 22, Leg. 2. 6, 3. 30, 36, Phil. 12. 20, Val. Max. 2. 2. 3, ILLRP 546–7) must surely date back to 303; Humbert, Municipium, 219–20. 11. Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 38. 36. 7–9, ILLRP 595; Humbert, Municipium, 195–6, 201–2. As with Arpinum, municipal status is not attested, but must go back to incorporation in 334; cf. Cic., Att. 2. 14. 2, CIL i2 . 3113. 12. Paulus, 155L, Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 38. 36. 7–9, ILLRP 601–4; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 201–2, 288, 292–4. The inclusions in the Festus/Paulus list, despite the strange categorization of the municipium (on which see Humbert, Municipium, 206), should be valid evidence for a municipalization of Fundi and Formiae in 334.
466
Appendix 3
13. Paulus, 117L, 155L, cf. Livy, 8. 17. 12, Vell. Pat., 1. 14; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205–6. CIL x. 3759 and x. 3921 may come from here: both are quattuorviral. 14. Cic., Planc. 22, implies that all the communities named in this passage were municipia in 54. Since Cicero here carefully distinguishes between the municipium of Tusculum and the praefectura of Atina, and since we know independently that Aquinum, Sora and Arpinum were municipia, this status may be accepted with some confidence for Allifae and the others. The date of the municipalization is most uncertain, but it may have occurred at Allifae and Venafrum before the Social War; Humbert, Municipium, 245–7, suggests it was contemporary with incorporation. Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 46, raises the possibility that their municipalization is roughly contemporary with that of Casinum. Non liquet. 15. Paulus, 117L; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205–6. Its autonomy was removed in 211, restored by 63 (c.83 is suggested by Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 43); or in 55 by the lex Mamilia? Note that CIL x. 3736 (quattuorviral) may come from here. 16. Humbert, Municipium, 205. Its incorporation and probably its municipalization were contemporary with those of Capua; see below. 17. Vell. Pat., 1. 14. 3, Livy, 8. 14. 10–11; Humbert, Municipium, 173, 195, 198–9. Her municipalization, according to Livy, was on the same terms as that of Fundi and Formiae. Stripped of autonomy in 211, restored briefly as a colony in 83, and definitively again in 58. 18. Paulus, 117L, 155L, Festus 126L; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 206; incorporated under the same circumstances as Capua. Cf. Livy, 8. 14. 10–11, 23. 31. 10 (215 bc), 40. 42. 13, Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86, Att. 10. 13. 1; CIL x. 3711 (Caesarian or Augustan: Sartori, Problemi, 36, 38); praetores under the Empire: Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 68. 19. Livy, 8. 14. 10–11; Humbert, Municipium, 195, 205. Enfranchised under same circumstances as Cumae and Capua. 20. See under Allifae. 21. Frontinus, De Controv. 66. 28–68. 2 Campbell, Cic., Cael. 5; Humbert, Municipium, 239–40. CIL i2 . 1903–4 shows that the municipium existed beside the Sullan colony, and since the municipium can hardly be later than the colony, and had octouiri (CIL ix. 5067), it must be pre-Social War. The exact date of municipalization remains unknown. 22. Paulus 155L; Bormann, CIL xi. p. 534; Humbert, Municipium, 164–5. The history of the incorporation of Caere is opaque. 23. Had praetores under the Empire and as a so-called municipium foederatum (see Ch. 2), it should have been municipalized before the Social War; Sherwin-White, Citizenship2 , 68; Humbert, Municipium, 260–2, 289, 291–2. 24. Humbert, Municipium, 222–3, 225–6. Fulginiae was certainly a municipium after the Social War (Cic., Pro Vareno frs. 3 and 4 Crawford). Interamna Nahars was also a municipium after the war (CIL i2 . 2510, Q62, CIL xi. 4222). Florus (2. 9. 27) uses the term, which cannot be pressed for technical significance in so late a source; Florus’ testimony as to the importance of Interamna does how ever suggest that its municipalization antedated the Social War (cf. CIL xi. 4170, which refers to foundation in 672 bc, not a municipalization in 82 (Bormann, CIL xi. 611) or 81 (Degrassi ad ILLRP 615)—the same is probably true by analogy for Fulginiae. Note that Interamna is one of the few pre-Social-War Roman communities for which there is no evidence of a praefectura: Humbert, Municipium, 379, who nonetheless assumes one, ibid., carte V. See now the argument of Bradley, in Epigraphic Landscape, that Interamna was a Latin colony. 25. CIL i2 . 2543 mentioning quaestors and perhaps decurions seems to be 1st cent. bc. 26. Livy, 28. 45. 19 (205 bc) tells us that Nursia, Reate, Amiternum, and the whole ager Sabinus offered Scipio troops, but contra Galsterer, Herrschaft, 106, this has no clear implications for autonomy as opposed to suggesting that the Sabine centres named were the main ones; what Livy describes is not normal recruitment in any case. Cures was quattuorviral under the Empire: Beloch, RG 504; its promotion may be from not long after the Social War. Reate is named as a praefectura in 63 (Cic., Cat. 3. 5), and Val. Max., i. 8. 1 describes Vatinius as ‘Reatinae praefecturae uir’—there is no sign of municipal status. The mention of decurions at Amiternum in 24 bc (Supp. It. ns 9, 81, no. 29) may indicate that, while still nominally the centre of a praefectura, it had become a municipium. Nursia was octoviral; the titulature octouir duouirali potestate (Cordella and
Appendix 3
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
48.
49. 50. 51. 52.
467
Criniti, Nuove iscrizioni latine di Norcia, Cascia e Valnerina, 154–5 (Giappiedi no. II)—late republican/triumviral/Augustan; AE (1950), 89 ¼ ibid. 50–4, text I—imperial; ibid. 140–1 (Capanne di Collegiacone)—imperial) does suggest a constitutional reorganization probably including jurisdictional and other changes which may be compatible with municipalization, perhaps as early as the late Republic (ILLRP 1257a ¼ CIL i2 . 832 ¼ Cordella and Criniti, 32–3, a ?2nd-cent. bc text mentioning quaestors acting ‘d. s. s.’ is probably Spoletine (ibid. 33); for other Nursian octouiri: ibid. 158–9. (Maltignano no. III)—early imperial); AE (1950), 89 ¼ Cordella and Criniti, 50–4, text II—imperial; AE (1983), 306 ¼ Cordella and Criniti, 64–5 (Ancarano no. IV); and octouiri aed(ilicia potestate ?)—preferable in any case to Cordella and Criniti’s ‘aed(ilium) [pleb(is) pot(estatis)]’ (p. 77)—Cordella and Criniti, 76–8 (Norcia, Chiesa dell’Addolorata)—late republican/triumviral/Augustan. This volume, infuriatingly hard to use, supplements and updates Cordella and Criniti, Iscrizioni latine di Norcia e dintorni, to which the later volume, at the pages cited above, refers for earlier versions of the texts and other octoviral material, and to which the reader is referred. Lib. Col., 180. 19–20. Campbell. Cic., Planc. 23. Probably a quattorviral municipium: Beloch, RG 504. Lib. Col., 182. 8–10 Campbell. Probably quattuorviral: Beloch, RG 504. Q74, ILLRP 60(?). For its federate status before the Social War see Salmon, Colonization, 51 n. 60, Making, 55; CIL i2 . 1513, x. p. 645, and coin issues. D1, 2. CIL i2 . 1709 from Aecae is probably from the second half of the 1st cent. bc: see Ch. 9. Cic., Planc. 22. Gabii was allied until the Social War: Beloch, RG 501; quattuorviral: CIL xiv. p. 278. Cic., Planc. 22. Cornell, Beginnings, 303, argues for an incorporation in 418 bc; it is possible that the municipalization antedates the Social War. Magistrates unknown. The community seems to have been virtually abandoned in Strabo’s day (5. 3. 2, 230C, 5. 3. 9, 237C; see Coarelli, in Strabone e l’Italia antica, 79–80, for Strabonian autopsy here). Probably until 80, when colonized by Sulla. Q1–3, 37, 38. Q4, Cic., Clu. 46, 49. Probably enfranchised under the lex Iulia in 90. Q44, Cic., Planc. 22, Phil. 2. 106, AE (1988), 264. D18. D15, Cic., Planc. 22. D3. Cic., Fin. 4. 7 (the sense may here not be technical, but Circeii was a former Latin colony in any case). Enfranchised together with Aletrium: quattuorviral (CIL x. p. 572). Q45; former Latin colony. Q41, 42, Supp. It. ns 6, 26, no. 8. Q39, 40. Q43, AE (1985), 266, Cic., Planc. 22. Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86. Probably came under the terms of the lex Iulia, and thus quattuorviral. As a community with a patron (App. 2), it may have been a municipium by 53 when the patron is first attested, but this is uncertain. If so the II uiri (CIL x. 6489) should be the regular magistrates of the community—cf. Beloch, RG 508. On the other hand the II uiri may be colonial: Laffi, VI. Kongr. Epigr., 47 n. 52. CIL i2 . 3101a attests a senate at Verulae; under the Empire it was a duoviral municipium—CIL x. 5796, which Beloch wrongly attributed to Cereatae Marianae (see Manni, Per la storia, 175; Laffi, VI Kongr. Epigr., 47 n. 52). D19. Q5, 6, 46, 75, 89, Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86, Fam. 9. 13. 3. D4, 5, 16. Cic., Fam. 13. 30. 1 (decurio here though is used of the pre-Social-War period), Att. 10. 13. 1, Arch. 10, Leg. ag. 2. 86. Enfranchised in 90 under the terms of the lex Iulia: see Cic., Balb. 21, Sartori, Problemi, 45. Unlike other Campanian cities, Neapolis was in the Maecia. Suet., DA 92. 2 calls it a respublica, perhaps an accurate reflection of late Augustan discourse.
468 53. 54. 55. 56. 57.
58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74.
75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.
86. 87. 88.
89.
Appendix 3
Q9. Cic., Leg. ag. 2. 86. Quattuorviral: CIL x. 1075. Q7, 8. Existed until the mid-50s: see App. 1. Q76. Q6, CIL i2 . 1744a, b. There is no evidence on Caudium’s role in the Social War, and hence on the probable date of enfranchisement. The quattuorvirate in southern Italy strongly implies enfranchisement in or after the Social War, and Salmon (Samnium, 290) must be wrong to place the incorporation c.270 bc. Q12, cf. i2 . 1724, Q48, 49, 79; alone of the Hirpinian towns it was in the Cornelia rather than the Galeria. Q10, 11, 47, 78. CIL ix. 2142. Cic., Verr. 2. 5. 156, 161, seems to refer to the municipium of Cosa, but Compsa is the more likely MS reading. Q77. CIL ix. 2660, AE (1993), 549, are quattuorviral inscriptions which have a fair chance of being republican or triumviral. Q80. CIL i2 . 787. D7, 17. Q13, Caes., BC 3. 22. 3, cf. CIL i2 . 3163a. Cic., Arch. 8, 31. Enfranchised with Neapolis in 90. Magistracy unknown. See Ch. 6. Q52. Enfranchised in 90 under the lex Iulia? Velia continued to coin after the Social War, unlikely if it had no autonomous status prior to that. Q90. Former Latin colony. Q53. D6. ILLRP 574, Inscr. It. iii 1. 208, mentioning decurions. Under the Empire, Cosilinum is referred to as a res publica; despite the lack of reference to a muncipium or magistrates, Bracco was sure that Cosilinum was one, probably quattuorviral (Inscr. It. iii/1. 117): certainly possible, but less likely. Cic., Arch. 10, cf. Leg. 2. 15. Cic., Arch. 10. Q81, cf. CIL x. 113–14. Q50, 51, Cic., Verr. 2. 5. 40, Planc. 97. D9, 20. Q54, 91, Cic., Planc. 97. Q17–20. Q83. Q14, 15, 16, 55. Q82. Vitruv., De arch. 1. 4. 11–12. If Salapia was not a municipium before Hostilius’ intervention (he was its patronus), it certainly became one then: see Ch. 5, s. 3.5. Sadly we know virtually nothing about the town. Listed in Clu. 197 alongside the municipia of Luceria and Bovianum, contrasted with ethnic groupings. Note also the aedile of CIL i2 . 3188a. Lex Tarentina, D8, CIL i2 . 3169, Cic., Arch. 10. Cic., Clu. 11, 25, 125, 202, cf. 41, CIL i2 . 2951b, AE (1966), 73. Larinum had become politically separate from the other Frentani long before the Social War (Lloyd, in Mediterranean Valley, 197– 200), and is only considered under this heading for convenience; it was also in the Clustumina, whereas the Frentani, along with the Marrucini, were in the Arnensis. There is no evidence for municipalization of any of the Frentane communities under the Republic. CIL ix. 724 might be a republican or triumviral quatturoviral text. Q84, Caes., BC 1. 23, 4.
Appendix 3
469
90. CIL ix. 3023, Supp. It. ns 4, 43, no. 7 (if not Augustan). Sulmo, along with Marruvium, may be one of the municipia from which Caesar requisitioned corn during the siege of Corfinium (BC 1. 18. 4), although, in line with his (juridically) inexact usage, he calls it an oppidum earlier in the same section (BC 1. 18. 1). A possible index of Sulmo’s importance in the late Republic is Florus, 2. 9. 27 (see above on Interamna Nahars), but this cannot be pressed. 91. Q56. See also preceding note for Caes., BC 1. 18. 92. Q57, 85, Cic., Phil. 3. 39. 93. D10. 94. D11, 12, Supp. It. ns 5, 185, no. 18. 95. If the dating of the earliest inscriptions cited above at n. 26 and the interpretation given there are correct; Caesarian municipium? 96. Cic., Dom. 79. Existed alongside a Sullan colony from 80 bc onwards (see App. 1). Formed a single block in the Pomptina. 97. Emerged as a new municipium from the territory of Tarquinii in the late Republic, either before the Social War, or in 86/85 since it was in the Arnensis, not the Stellatina. On Blera and Tuscana, see Frederiksen, in Hellenismus, ii. 348, cf. Taylor, Voting Districts, 115 (on Tuscana), Harris, Etruria and Umbria, 330, 335; Ferentium is another analogous case. On the rise of new urban centres with the decline of Tarquinii in the 2nd cent. bc see Torelli, in Bourgeoisies, 245. For the suggestion that the dioikismos occurred after the Social War see Galsterer, Herrshcaft, 8 n. 4, with literature there cited. Quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 507. 98. Q25–9. Constituted a single block in the Arnensis. 99. Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 349. 100. Brown, Cosa, the Making of a Roman Town, 73 and n. 11, refers to epigraphic evidence for postSocial War quaestores and aediles; the former are unlikely, and both might rather be pre-Social War. The town was, in any case, largely abandoned between c.70 and the Augustan period (ibid. 74). 101. Constituted a single block in the Scaptia; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 299. 102. Probably enfranchised under the lex Iulia; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 466. Unlike any neighbour, Falerii was in the Horatia. 103. Q22, 23, Tac., Hist. 2. 50. 1. 104. Cic., Fam. 13. 13. 105. Q86. Constituted a single block in the Tromentina. 106. Surely enfranchised under the lex Iulia. Magistrates unknown. For the Augustan colony, Terrenato, in Italy and the West, 56. 107. Constituted a single block in the Velina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. 1541. 108. Constituted a single block in the Oufentina. Magistrates unknown. 109. Q24. 110. CIL xi. 3248: ‘P. Verginius P. f. R[---] / iterum dedit [---] / isdemque cu[rauit] / [---] uir hanc aed[em] dedicauit’ is almost certainly quattuorviral and almost certainly republican. 111. Q21, Cic., Caec. 10. 112. See under Blera. Since it is in the same tribe as Tarquinii, it probably became an independent political entity after 86/85; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 450. 113. Unlike any neighbour, Vetulonia was in the Scaptia. Magistrates unknown. 114. Q60, Cic., Dom. 79, Fam. 13. 4. 2. Constituted a single block in the Sabatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 325. 115. Q59. Volsinii constituted a single block in the Pomptina. 116. Q58; constituted a single block in the Sabatina. 117. Cic., Rosc. Am. 25, 115, cf. 43, 48. 118. Q67, 68, AE (1978), 294 (may, though, be early imperial). Constituted a block on its own in the Sergia. 119. AE (1985), 369 mentions decurions, but may well be Augustan, and should possibly be attributed to Firmum anyway. Certainly enfranchised by the lex Iulia. 120. Q30, 31, 66. 121. Caes., BC 1. 12. 2.
470
Appendix 3
122. CIL i2 . 3378 mentions a decree of the senate, but note the mention of the senate of Asisium in a pre-Social-War inscription in Latin: ILLRP 550, with Ch. 4. Nevertheless, Mevania was in the Aemilia alone of its neighbours, and had IIII uiri under the Empire, CIL xi. p. 732; of these there is a good chance that CIL xi. 5043, 5505, and the inscription published by Pietrangeli, Epigraphica (1945), 65, no. 3, are republican. 123. Q88. 124. Q61, 92, 93, CIL i2 . 1424; constituted a single block in the Arnensis. 125. Constituted a single block in the Oufentina. Magistrates unknown. 126. Q32, 69, cf. i2 . 2123; formed a single block in the Pupinia. 127. Quattuorviral under the Empire (CIL xi. p. 838). Formed a block in the Lemonia along with Attidium (quattuorviral—CIL xi. 5676). We cannot say whether either became municipia immediately after the Social War. 128. Q63–5. 129. This important community should really have been municipalized after the Social War, but in view of the absence of information on its magistrates and the fact that it is in the Clustumina, along with a number of other towns whose municipal status eludes us, the question must remain open. The same is true of the other towns in the Clustumina for which we have no specific evidence: Vettona, Arna, Carsulae, Tifernum Tiberinum, Tifernum Metaurense, Pitinum Mergens, Sestinum. Of these Arna was duoviral under the Empire (see Beloch, RG 508–11; for Carsulae see Ch. 10), and the magistracy of Tifernum Metaurense is unknown. Carsulae at least is probably an imperial municipalization, and all of these communities may have attained municipal status only some time after the Social War. 130. Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 747. 131. Constituted a single block in the Stellatina; quattuorviral: CIL xi. p. 894. 132. Constituted a single block in the Lemonia. Date of enfranchisement unknown, but likely to have been in 90. Caes., BC 1. 12. 3 ‘confisus municipiorum uoluntatibus’ should cover the towns where Caesar still had cohorts after dispatching Curio to Iguvium, namely Ancona and Fanum (see Caes., BC 1. 11. 4–12. 1). The usage may however be generic, not specific. 133. Constituted a single block in the Fabia, but there is no evidence for any autonomous community here before the arrival of the colony. This former rebel stronghold may never have been a municipium. 134. Caes., BC 1. 15. 2; duoviral in the early Augustan period. 135. D13. 136. D14. 137. CIL i2 . 3393. 138. Q34–6, 72, 73; CIL i2 . 2202, a donation by C. Annius T. f. ‘municipio A[quileiensi]’—despite Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, ad no. 51, ‘Interamna’ is unlikely to be Annius’ cognomen—cf. Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 52?; CIL i2 . 3426, CIL v. 973 ( ¼ Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 47, if republican), Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 48, CIL v. 1002 (Bandelli, in Bourgeoisies, 199 no. 28, for the date), Brusin, Inscriptiones, no. 54 (decurions and senate). Some of these may be 2nd cent., and attributable to the Latin colony: CIL i2 . 2197 ( ¼ Brusin, Inscriptiones, i, no. 53)—senatus—certainly is. 139. Q33, 70, 71.
APPENDIX 4
Puzzles 1. Urbs Salvia Urbs Salvia is a problematic case. IIII uiri appear in the city’s epigraphy, and were known to Mommsen; indeed, although his initial supplement for the end of l. 2 in CIL ix. 5541 was ‘octovir’, he later changed this to ‘IIII uir’.1 Another IIII uir was added in 1984: Moscatelli re-edited ix. 5541, giving the following text: [-----] [] Herennius C. f. [----] [] Aufidius L. f. III[I] uiri uiam ad campum la[pide] sternend. curauer. [de] pob. long. p. DLXX[---?]2 After lengthy consideration of the photograph of this degraded stone provided by Moscatelli I have grave doubts about his reading.3 His drawing is hard to square with what I see in the photograph. It is hard to tell whether there were letters in the ‘line’ above Herennius’ name; initially I believed that traces which could be compatible with ‘C[I]V[S]’, that, is the end of a name, were visible, but these ‘traces’ are very slight, and with a stone where the surface is so badly damaged stray letters should not be read without good reason. For the present there is no compelling reason to believe that there were more than two magistrates involved. More importantly their office was not in my opinion the quattuorvirate; this position has also been adopted by Marengo. Moscatelli saw traces of only three upright hastae. I see the upper half of two, and the very top of what could be a third; but this in my view should be part of the ‘V’ of ‘uir’, especially since it seems to be oblique (the tiny oblique marking after that seems to be just a mark on the stone). In short I cannot see ‘III[I] uir’; the traces visible could thus be reconciled with the reading ‘II u[i]r’.4 Moscatelli assigned the text to the Augustan period, and while a slightly earlier date is in theory possible, I am inclined to accept his.5 The colonization of Urbs Salvia has been assigned to the Augustan period by Delplace,6 and colonial II uiri at that date would be natural. Yet the attested magistrates of Urbs Salvia are praetores, aediles, and quaestores.7 How can they be reconciled with quattuoruiri?8 The question admits of a twofold solution. The first is to accept the possibility raised by Paci, that the praetores are a survival from a second century bc colonization, a scenario which could find support in the designation in Pliny (HN 3. 111) of the community as Urbs Salvia Pollentini—the last name is typical of those given to Roman colonies.9 A second-century colony, with a possible triumviral refoundation (Pliny would probably signal an Augustan colony), would leave no room for a period of existence as a municipium. The quattuoruiri would have to be explained in other ways. Such an explanation is offered by Marengo in terms of seeing the quattuoruiri as a college of magistrates with cultic functions, perhaps analogous to the Augustales (all the texts are imperial)—indeed one of the quattuoruiri of Urbs Salvia is a freedman (ix. 5538), and none can be proven to be free.10 The parallels from Umbria and Picenum adduced by Marengo are persuasive, especially a IIII uir Augustalis from Trea (CIL ix. 5655).
472
Appendix 4
Chapter 9 suggests that the regular indigenous magistracy in this area was a pair of magistri. When the Picene communities were municipalized, they all seem to have become duoviral municipia.11 On the other hand, the nearest octoviral community to Urbs Salvia, Umbrian Plestia, although on the other side of the Apennine watershed, is accessible by a mountain pass which seems to have carried a major communications route across the Apennines. While the octovirate is mainly found in south Umbria and the Sabina, and thus the other side of the Apennines, it is also attested at Interamnia Praetuttiorum. Furthermore, archaeological evidence suggests that the lack of republican epigraphy at Urbs Salvia is to be explained in part by the insignificance of the place before colonization.12 2. Fulginiae The duovirate i. d. is attested at Fulginiae (AE (1988), 502). There are few dating criteria, but the magistrate seems to have a cognomen, and the list of military careers suggests that he was active in the triumviral or Augustan periods. I suspect the inscription may in fact be imperial. It poses interesting problems for the constitutional status of Fulginiae, which seems to have been a municipium, but still subject to a praefectus in the early first century.13 IIII uiri are mentioned in inscriptions, but could belong to Forum Flaminii as much as to Fulginiae according to Bormann.14 It seems unlikely to me that a forum would have had IIII uiri; but if these belonged to Fulginiae, how does the II uir fit in? Perhaps he should really be assigned to Forum Flaminii. The whole question is very messy and best left open. Notes 1. CIL ix. 5538, 5540, 5543; pp. 256, 700. 2. Ann. Facolta` lett. e filos. Universita` di Macerata (1984), 356–60, cf. Paci, Picus (1990), 82 n. 20, on the road mentioned here. 3. Tav. 1, fig. 1 bis. Of course, Moscatelli had the benefit of autopsy. 4. Marengo, Picus (1990), 206 and n. 15, rejects Moscatelli’s reading after insepcting the stone. 5. Moscatelli, Ann. Facolta` lett. e filos. Universita` di Macerata, 358. For Paci, Picus (1990), 83 n. 21, dating this text properly is problematic. 6. MEFRA (1983), 761–84. On the date of the colony see also Gabba, Italia Romana, 93–4. (mid-1st cent. bc). 7. See Paci, Picus (1990), 85–6. (cf. Delplace, MEFRA (1983), ead., Picus (1990), 102–4); Marengo, Picus (1990), 199. 8. The quattuorvirate has normally been explained as an evolution of the octovirate: Beloch, RG 499–505 (imagining an earlier municipalization than for other Picene communities), followed by Laffi, VI. Kongr. Epigr., 48 n. 53, Sherwin White, Citizenship2 , 212 and n. 6 (invoking a similar explanation for the later quattuorvirates at Cures, Reate and Fulginiae), Humbert, Municipium, 244, Delplace, MEFRA (1983), 768, Moscatelli, Ann. Facolta` lett. e filos. Universita` di Macerata, 356 n. 8. Cf. id., Picus (1985), 53, and Musso, Picus (1987), 64. Manni, Per la storia, 181, sees the IIII uiri of Urbs Salvia as jurisdictional magistrates. 9. Paci, Picus (1990), 87–8. Note that only one inscription from Urbs Salvia can reasonably be assigned to the Republic, and that is a private dedication (CIL i2 . 1924, see Delplace, MEFRA (1983), 767 n. 20). 10. Picus (1990). 11. D13, 14. 12. All the significant structures so far excavated seem to be colonial. According to Delplace, precolonial pottery finds so far suggest a limited occupation going back no earlier than the end of the 2nd cent. bc See also Paci, Picus (1990), 83 n. 21. 13. Cic., Pro Vareno frs. 3 and 4. 14. CIL xi. p. 755.
Addendum to Chapters 6–9 This addendum serves two purposes. First, it provides a concordance between the numbers I have employed in the text and the best publication of that text (and a photograph, where one exists). Secondly, for ease of reference, it gives (as far as possible) the texts themselves as set out on the stone, together with a summary characterization, dating, and condition of each inscription. A full text of each inscription is given as well, along with resolutions of abbreviations (the first time they are met in the case of common ones, and always where they are problematic) and brief textual discussion where necessary. Q1
Tibur. Inscr. It. iv/1. 20. ‘L. f. Pansa’ extabat Tiburis, nunc latet. Date: 80–70. Public. Broken when last seen. 4 magistrates. L NONIVS L F PANSA TVL TVLLIVS TVL F IIII VIR D S S F C
5
C MANIVS C F L MAGILIVS L F ITERVM
L. Nonius L. f. Pansa / Tul. Tullius Tul. f. / C. Manius C. f. / L. Magilius L. f. iterum / IIII uir(i) d(e) s(enatus) s(ententia) f(aciendum) c(urauerunt). Lucius Nonius, son of Lucius, Pansa, Tullus Tullius, son of Tullus, Gaius Manius, son of Gaius, Lucius Magilius, son of Lucius, again, quattuoruiri, saw to the construction on the motion of the senate. 1 Only ‘L. f. Pansa’ survived to be read by Lanciani in 1872. The notice given by Mancini in this respect (Inscr. It. iv/1. 13, followed by Degrassi, CIL i2 , p. 999) is confusing: ‘in pariete domus prope porta del Colle inclusum erat . . . Huius inscriptionis particula (v. 1. fin) eodem fere loco (Via del Colle 139) structurae arcus cuiusdam propylaeorum templi Herculis Victoris adfixa servatur’. The address Via del Colle 139 no longer exists, and Mancini’s description of the location is uncannily similar to that of Lanciani in what he thought was the Hercules temple. Either Mancini has not understood Lanciani’s notice, thinking that he was referring to the real Hercules Victor complex further down the hill, or 139 is in error for 39: note that the market-hall is at Via del Colle 39. Thus far I have been unable to locate the fragment. Q2
5
Tibur. Inscr. It. iv/1. 21. Extat: Vatican Museum, Galleria Lapidaria XXXV, 3 (inv. 6966). Date: c.60? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. L OCTAVIVS L F VITVLVS C RVSTIVS C F FLAVOS ITER IIII VIR D S S VIAM INTEGENDAM CVRAVER
474
Addendum
L. Octavius L. f. Vitulus / C. Rustius C. f. Flavos iter / IIII uir(i) d. s. s. / uiam integendam / curauer(unt). Lucius Octavius, son of Lucius, Vitulus, Gaius Rustius, son of Gaius, Flavos, again, quattuoruiri, saw to the roofing over of the road, on the vote of the senate. Q3
5
Tibur. Inscr. It. iv/1. 19. Periit. Date: 60–50? Public. Complete. 4 magistrates. C LVTTIVS L F AVLIAN Q PAVSVRNIVS C F VARVS L VENTILIVS L F BASSVS C OCTAVIVS C F GRAECHIN IIII VIR PORTICVS P CCL X ET EXSEDRAM ET PRONAON ET PORTICVM PONE SCAENAM LONG P CXL S C F C
C. Luttius L. f. Aulian(us) Q. Pausurnius C. f. / L. Ventilius L. f. Bassus C. Octavius C. f. Graechin(us) / IIII uir(i) / porticus p(edes) CCLX et exsedram et pronaon / et porticum pone scaenam long(am) p(edes) CXL / s(enatus) c(onsulto) f(aciendos) c(urauerunt). Gaius Luttius, son of Lucius, adopted from an Aulius, Quintus Pausurnius, son of Gaius, Lucius Ventilius, son of Lucius, Bassus, Gaius Octavius, son of Gaius, Graechinus, quattuoruiri, saw to the construction of a porticus 260 feet long and an exhedra and a pronaos and a porticus 140 feet long behind the scaena, by decree of the senate. Q4
Aletrium. CIL i2 . 1530. Extat. Photo: Imagines, 221. Date 70s? Public. Probably complete. 1 magistrate. P BETILIENVS M F HAP IIII VIR D S S MVRVM FC
P. Betilienus M. f. Hap(alus?) / IIII uir d. s. s. murum / f. c. Publius Betilienus, son of Marcus, Hap(alus), quattuoruir, saw to the construction of the wall by the vote of the senate. Q5
Puteoli. Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 67. Photo: ibid., fig. 4.1b. Extat. Date: c.55? Dedication? 1 magistrate. Cf. Q6. N CLVVIVS M’ F DVVM VIR NOLAE IIII VIR QVINQ DVVM VIR KAPVAE MA
N(umerius) Cluvius M(anii) f. duum uir / Nolae IIII uir quinq(uennalis) [---] / duum uir [---] / Kapuae ma[---] Numerius Cluvius, son of Manius, duumuir of Nola, quattuoruir quinquennalis of Cales, duumuir quinquennalis of Capua, [dedicated this to the Great] Mo[ther?].
Addendum Q6
475
Puteoli. Bispham, in Epigraphic Landscape, 67. Periit. Date: before 58? Dedication. Broken on left. 1 magistrate. Cf. Q5. CLVVIVS M’ F III VIR AVDI II VIR NOLAE IIII VIR QVINQVENNAL AL DE SVO FACIVND COERAVIT IDEM RESTITVIT IOVI O M SACR
5
[---] Cluvius M’. f / [I]III uir / [C]audi II uir / Nolae IIII uir / quinquennal. / [---]al de suo faciund. / coerauit idem restituit / Ioui O(ptimo) M(aximo) sacr(um). [Numerius?] Cluvius, son of Manius, quattuoruir of [C]audium, duumuir of Nola, quattuoruir quinquennalis of [C]al[es], saw to the construction from his own money, and the same man restored it. Sacred to Iupiter O(ptimus) M(aximus) 1 Read [N.] Cluvius M’. f 6 Restore [C]al(ibus)? Q7
5
Pompeii. CIL i2 . 1630. Date: c.70. Periit. Public. Missing the first letter of l. 1. 4 magistrates. CVSPIVS T F M LOREIVS M F IIII VIR L SEPTVMIVS L F D CLAVDIVS D F IIII VIR EX PEQVNIA PVBLICA D D S F CVRAVERVNT
[T.?] Cuspius T. f. M. Loreius M. f. / IIII uir(i) L. Septumius L. f. / D. Claudius D. f. IIII uir(i) ex / pequnia publica d(e) d(ecurionum) / s(ententia) f(aciundum) curauerunt. [Titus? Cuspius, son of Titus, Marcus Loreius, son of Marcus, quattuoruiri, L. Septumius, son of Lucius, Decimus Claudius, son of Decimus, quattuoruiri, saw to the construction from public funds on the vote of the decurions. Q8
Pompeii. CIL i2 . 1631. Photo: Auctarium, 250a, b. Extat. Date: 50s? Public. Complete. 4 magistrates. M PORCIVS M F L SEXTILIVS L F C N CORNELIVS C N F A CORNELIVS A F IIII VIR D D S F LOCAR
M. Porcius M. f. L. Sextilius L. f. Cn. Cornelius Cn. f. / A. Cornelius A. f. IIII uir(i) d. d. s. f(aciundum) locar(unt). Marcus Porcius, son of Marcus, Lucius Sextilius, son of Lucius, Gnaeus Cornelius, son of Gnaeus, Aulus Cornelius, son of Aulus, quattuoruiri, held the locatio for the construction by the vote of the decurions.
476 Q9
5
Addendum Nola. CIL i2 . 3127. Date: 70s? Public(?). Periit. Probably complete. 1 magistrate. C CATIVS M F IIII VIR CA MPVM PVBLICE AEQVANDUM CVRAVIT MACERIEM ET SCHOLAS ET SOLARIVM SEMITAM DE S P F C GENIO COLONIAE ET COLONORVM HONORIS CAVSA QVOD PERPTVO FELICITER VTANTVR
C. Catius M. f. IIII uir campum publice / aequandum curauit maceriem / et scholas et solarium semitam / de s(ua) p(ecunia) f. c. / Genio coloniae et colonorum / honoris causa / quod perpetuo feliciter utantur. Gaius Catius, son of Marcus, quattuoruir, saw to the levelling of the campus at public expense, and saw to the construction of a wall? and scholae and a solarium and a ?path from his own money. To the genius of the colony and of the colonists, as an honour to them? that they may use it happily in perpetuity. Q10
5
Beneventum. CIL i2 . 1727. Photo: CIL i2 (4) tab. 69.2. Extat. Date: early Augustan? Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. L AVIDIO L F STE IIII VIR AED L AVIDIO L F PATRI CATIAE VIBI F MATRI
L. Avidio L. f. Ste(llatina) / IIII uir(o), aed(ili) / L. Avidio L. f. patri / Catiae Vibi f. / matri To Lucius Avidius, son of Lucius, of the tribe Stellatina, quattuoruir, aedile; to Lucius Avidius, son of Lucius, his father, and Catia, the daughter of Vibius, his mother. Q11
5
Beneventum. CIL ix. 1728. Periit. Date: before 41. Funerary. Broken on right side. 1 magistrate. P CINCI IIII VIR A P CINCIO SEPPIAE M CINCIAE P
P. Cinci[o P. f.] / IIII uir(o), a[ed(ili)] / P. Cincio [P?. f.] / Seppiae M. [f.] / Cinciae P. [?. f.] To Publius Cincius, [son of Publius], quattuoruir, aedile; to Publius Cincius, [son of Publius?], to Seppia, [daughter] of Marcus, to Cincia, [daughter] of Publius. Q12
Aeclanum. CIL i2 . 1722. Extat: Vatican, Galleria Lapidaria XXXVII, 11 (inv. 6924). Date c.70 bc? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates.
C QVINCTIVS C F VALG PATRON MVNIC M MAGI MIN F SVRVS A PATLACIVS Q F 5
IIII VIR D S S PORTAS TVRREIS MOIROS TVRREISQVE AEQVAS QVM MOIRO FACIVNDVM COIRAVERVNT
Addendum
477
C. Quinctius C. f. Valg(us) patron(us) munic(ipii) / M. Magi(us) Min(ati) f. Surus A. Patlacius Q. f. / IIII uir(i) d. s. s. portas turreis moiros / turreisque aequas qum moiro / faciundum coirauerunt. Gaius Quinctius, son of Gaius, Valgus, patron of the municipium, Marcus Magius, son of Minatus, Surus, Aulus Patlacius, son of Quintus, quattuoruiri, saw to the construction of gates, towers, walls, and towers equal with the wall, by vote of the senate. 2 Patlacius may be a mistake for Patalacius, attested at Aeclanum. Q13 Copia Thurii. AE (1976), 315. Extat. Photograph: Guzzo, Epigraphica (1976), 134, fig. 3. Date: second half first century. Public? 2 magistrates. IV
P PAQVIVS P F PRIAMVS Q ANNIVS Q F POMP
N IIII VIR
IV P. Paquius P. f. Q. Annius Q. f. Pomp[----]n IIII uir(i). IV Publius Paquius, son of Publius, Quintus Annius, son of Quintus, Pomp[eia]n(us)(?), quattuoruiri. IV is mysterious: was the basin part of a series? ‘Pomp[----]n’ is better interpreted as a cognomen than as standing for the tribe Pomp[ti]n(a) (not Copia’s tribe anyway). Q14 Athens. ILLRP 502 with fasc. prior p. 334. Photo: Imagines, 218a, b. Extat. Date: 48? Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate.
5
N GRANONIVS N F CAL IIII VIR DOMO LVCERIA CENTV RIO CORNELEI SPIN ERI LECIO XIIX ET CN POMPEI MAC LECIONE SECVNDA
N. Granonius N. f. Cal / IIII uir / domo Luceria centu / rio Cornelei Spin[t]eri / lecio(ne) XIIX et Cn. Pompei / Mac(ni?) lecione secunda. Numerius Granonius, son of Numerius, (?)of the tribe Claudia, quattuoruir, with Luceria as his home town, centurion of Cornelius Spint{h}er in the eighteenth legion and of Cn. Pompeius Mag(nus?) in the second legion. 1 Read ‘Cla’ for ‘Cal’?. 5–6 Read ‘legio(ne)’ for ‘lecio’ etc.; and rather Mac(ni) than Mac(edoniae)? Q15 Luceria. CIL ix. 806. Periit. Date: second half first century? Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. L VIBIENVS L F CLA LICIN II VIR SIPONTI IIII VIR LVCERIA SOROR VIBIENA L F L. Vibienus L. f. Licin(us?) / II uir Siponti IIII uir Luceria / Vibiena L. f. soror. Lucius Vibienus, son of Lucius, Licin (us?), duumuir at Sipontium, quattuoruir at Luceria; Vibiena, daughter of Lucius, his sister.
478
Addendum
Q16
Luceria. CIL ix. 936. Periit. Date: 70s bc? Public. Broken on all sides. 3þ magistrates.
5
P LVC D TREBIVS L VECILLIVS IIII VIR Q
[---] / P. Luc[--- -. f.] / D. Trebius [-. f.] / L Vecillius [-. f.] / IIII uir [---] / q[---]. [---] Publius Luc[--- son of ?], Decimus Trebius, [son of ?], L. Vecillius, [son of ?], quattouruiri, [built] a[nd the same men approved it??]. 5 [Eidem]q[. prob?]. Cf. Q49, 79. Q17
Canusium. CIL i2 . 3182. Photograph: Tab. 68.1. Extat. Date: first half of first century. Dedication. Almost complete. 2 magistrates. MARTEI SACRA P CVRTIVS P F SALASSV P TITIVS L F IIII VIR DE MVNERE GLADIATOR EX S C
5
Martei sacra / P. Curtius P. f. Salassu[s] / P. Titius L. f. IIII uir(i) / de munere gladiator[io] / ex s(enatus) c(onsulto). Sacred to Mars. Publius Curtius, son of Publius, Salassu[s], Publius Titius, son of Lucius, quattuoruiri, (set this up?) from the gladiatorial fund, according to the decree of the senate. 1 ‘Sacra’: Torelli, RAL (1969), 29. Q18
5
Canusium. CIL i2 . 3183. Photo: Chelotti et al., Le epigrafi romane di Canosa, i. 9. Other details: as Q17. VESTAE SACRV P TITIVS L F P CVRTIVS P F SALAS IIII VIR DE MVNERE GLADIATORIO EX S C
Vestae sacru[m] / P. Titius L. f. / P. Curtius P. f. Salas[sus] / IIII uir(i) de munere / gladiatorio / ex s. c. Sacred to Vesta. Publius Titius, son of Lucius, Publius Curtius, son of Publius, Salas[sus], quattuoruiri, (set this up?) from the gladiatorial fund, according to the decree of the senate. Q19
Canusium. CIL i2 . 3184. Lost. Other details: as Q17.
5
VORTVMNO SACR[VM] P CVRTIVS P F SALA[SSVS] P TITIVS L F III[I VIR] DE MVNERE GLADIAT EX S C
Addendum
479
Vortumno sacr[um] / P. Curtius P. f. Sala[ssus] / P. Titius L. f. III[I uir(i)] / de munere gladiat[orio] / ex s. c. Sacred to Vortumnus. Publius Curtius, son of Publius, Sala[ssus], Publius Titius, son of Lucius, quattuoruiri, (set this up?) from the gladiatorial fund, according to the decree of the senate. Letters in square brackets recorded in earlier MSS, but already lost when Mommsen saw the stone. Q20 Canusium. AE 1986.193. Photo: Chelotti et al., Le epigrafi romane di Canosa I, 76. Date: Triumviral? Public? Fragmentary: 1þ? Magistrates. ENNIVS C IIII VIR [-] Ennius C. [f.] / IIII uir. [?] Ennius, [son of] Gaius, quattuoruir. Q21 Tarquinii. CIL i2 .1997. Photos: Cristofani, MAL 8/14 (1969), tav. XIII, and ad CIE 5413. Extat. Date: ? Funerary. Complete? 1 magistrate. L TER[CENN]A P F IIII V[IR] FLAM[EN] A[N]OS III I[V]RE P[E]RITVS L. Ter[cenn]a P. f. IIII u[ir] / flam[en] a[n](n)os III i[u]re p[e]ritus. Lucius Tercenna, son of Publius, quattuoruir, flamen for three years, skilled in the law. Letters in square brackets were read by Kellerman, but not visible in Cristofani’s photograph. Q22 Ferentium. AE (1978), 305. Photo: Gasperini, Arch. Class. (1977), tav. XXX. Extat. Date c. 30? Funerary. Mostly intact, 1 line missing from bottom? 1 magistrate.
5
A SALVIVS A F A N CRISPINVS ANORVM LI HE CONDITVS EST GESSIT FERENTEIS IIII VIR QVATER SVMO SVPREMO DIE CENA ET VISCERA MUNICIPIBVS
A. Salvius A. f. / A. n. Crispinus / an(n)orum LI he[ic] / conditus est / gessit Ferenteis / IIII uir quater / sum(m)o supreme / die cena et uiscera / municipibus. Aulus Salvius, son of Aulus, grandson of Aulus, Crispinus, 51 years old, is buried here, he held the position of quattuoruir four times; on the anniversary of his death (?) there is a meal and ?entrails for his fellow municipes. Q23 Ferentium. CIL i2 . 2635. Photo: Imagines, 238a, b. Extat. Date: between 67 and 23. Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. SEX SALVIVS A F VIX ANNOS XXCIIX IIII VIR TER Sex. Salvius A. f. uix(it) annos XXCIIX / IIII uir ter. Sextus Salvius, son of Aulus, lived eighty-eight years; he was quattuoruir thrice.
480 Q24
Addendum Statonia. Munzi, Ostraka (1995), 286. Photo: Munzi, in Italy and the West, fig. 5.4. Extat. Date: triumviral or early Augustan. Funerary. Surface worn. 1 magistrate. C ANICIVS L F E ACVS IIII VIR STATONI ALPIONIA L LVCEN IA C ICIV L PI I IS C
5
C. Anicius L. f. [St]e [----]acus / IIII uir Statoni[ae] / Alpionia (mulieris) l(iberta) Lucen[t?]ia / C. [An]iciu[s?] L. [l.]? [---] / [-2-]PI[-]I / [-3?-]IS[---] / [------------------]. C. Anicius, son of Lucius, of the tribe [St]e(llatina), [-5?-]acus, quattuoruir at Statonia. Alpiona, freedwoman of a woman (?), Lucen[t?]ia, C. [An]iciu[s?], [freedman of?] Lucius, [-2-]PI [-3?] [-3?-]IS[---] [------------------]
Figure 2.Q25. Clusium. CIL i2 . 1999. Photo: author.
Q25
Clusium. CIL i2 .1999. Photo: Della Fina, Antichita`, tav. XXI. 80. Extat. Date: c. second half first century. Public. Broken on all sides. 1þ? magistrates. Q CONSID IIII VIR VIAM ET CREP PORTICVS
Q. Consid[ius Q.? f.] / IIII uir / uiam et crep[idines et?] / porticus [---]. Quintus Consid[ius, son of Quintus?], quattuoruir, [saw to the construction of] the road and pavements and a porticus [---].
Addendum
481
Q26 Clusium. Pack and Paolucci, ZPE 68 (1987), 164. Photo: Pack, in Paolucci (ed.), I Romani di Chiusi, 20, fig. 3. Extat. Date: second half first century. Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. L SICINIVS A F ARN BELLVTVS IIII VIR ITER I D CLVSI L. Sicinius A. f. Arn(ensis) / Bellutus IIII uir / iter i(ure) d(icundo) Clusi. Lucius Sicinius, son of Aulus, Bellutus of the tribe Arn(ensis), quattuoruir, and again, with jurisdictional power, at Clusium. Q27 Clusium. CIL i2 . 3359. Periit. Date: 50–25? Funerary. Probably complete. 1 magistrate. C CONSIDIVS C F LN IIII VIR COMINIA NAT C. Considius C. f. / L. n. / IIII uir / Cominia nat(us). C. Considius, son of Gaius, grandson of Lucius, quattuoruir, born of Cominia. Q28 Clusium. Pack and Paolucci, ZPE 68 (1987), 183 no. 12. Photo: ibid. taf. VII. 12. Extat. Date: late Republic/Caesarian? Public. Possibly broken at right and left. 2þ? magistrates. GELLI S C AV NV TVTILIVS A F CAPITO IIII VIR PORTICVS EX S C SVA PECVNIA REFECER [---------------------------C.?] Gelli[u]s C. [f.] Av[---]nu[s] / [--------------------------A.?] Tutilius A. f. Capito IIII uir(i) / [e.g. basilicam totam et] porticus ex s. c. sua pecunia refecer(unt). [IIII vir’s name, ?Gaius] Gelli[u]s, [son of] Gaius, Av[---]nu[s], [IIII vir’s name, ?Aulus] Tutilius, son of Aulus, Capito, quattuoruiri, repaired [e.g. the whole basilica and] the porticus according to the decree of the senate from their own money. The text is essentially that of Della Fina (Antichita`, 90, no. 155). Krummrey noted Della Fina’s text, but left it in his apparatus (CIL i2 . 3360). As far as can be inferred from Pack and Paolucci’s text the name Gelli[u]s appears to be indented somewhat compared with Tutilius (the indentation is less marked in Della Fina’s text). The praenomina of both men are missing, but even restoring a wide letter like an ‘M’, or a name like ‘Ti’ (the only praenomina recorded for the Gellii at Clusium are Gaius, and less commonly, Quintus and Lucius: Pack and Paolucci, ZPE (1987), 185 and n. 119), the praenomen of Tutilius would be further to the left than that of Gelli[u]s in the line above. This unusual arrangement is best explained by assuming that part of the stone (and/or another block) is missing from the left-hand side of Q28, which would have carried the names of two other IIII uiri and more building work (ibid. 184 n. 109), arranged as above. A part of probare is perhaps not needed, as private money was used.
482 Q29
Addendum Clusium. CIL xi. 7122. Extat. Date: Augustan. Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. A VENSIVS A F ARN CONSTANS ACVTIA NATVS IIII VIR ITER I D
A. Vensius A. f. Arn. / Constans Acutia / natus IIII uir iter i. d. Aulus Vensius, son of Aulus, Constans of the tribe Arn(ensis), born of Acutia, quattuoruir, and again with jurisdictional power. Q30
Hispellum. CIL i2 . 3382. Latet. Date: c.85–60? Funerary. Broken at bottom, text complete. 1 magistrate. L FALIVS L F TINIA CENS PR BIS IIII VIR
L. Falius L. f. Tinia / cens(or) pr(aetor) bis IIII uir. Lucius Falius, son of Lucius, Tinia, censor, praetor twice, quattuoruir. Q31
Hispellum. CIL i2 . 3385. Extat. Date: c.70–60. Funerary. Complete? 1 magistrate. L TVRIVS L F IIII VIR AED
L. Turius L. f. / IIII vir, aed(ilis). Lucius Turius, son of Lucius, quattuoruir, aedile. Q32
Sassina. CIL xi. 6514. Extat. Date: mid-century. Public. 3 fragments, broken on all sides. 1 magistrate? [L CAE] // S E L//L I V S [II]II VIR//. D S
[L. Cae]sellius [-. f.] / [II]II uir d(e) s(ua) [p(ecunia)?] [Lucius Cae]sellius [son of ?], quattuoruir, from his own [money??] Oblique lines (//) indicate the breaks between fragments. The letters in square brackets were seen by Bormann, but are no longer visible. I was unable to find the left-hand fragment during my visit to the Museum at Sarsina (Apr. 1994). Q33
Placentia. CIL xi. 1217. Extat. Date: Augustan. Funerary. Complete. 2 magistrates.
5
AVFIDIVS L F IIII VIR II VIR TR MILIT PRAEF FAB SIBI ET L AVFIDIO CN F PATRI ET FADIENAE P F MATRI ET L AVFIDIO L F F RATRI IIII VIR E T SALVIAE CILAE FRATRIS VXORI ET LIBVRNIAE L F CONSOBRINAE FACTVM EX TESTAMENTO HS ((I)) ARBITRATV C ANNISIDI C F RVFI P
P. Aufidius L. f. IIIIuir II uir / tr(ibunus) milit(um) praef(ectus) fab(rum) sibi et / L. Aufidio Cn. f. patri et / Fadienae P. f. matri et / L. Aufidio L. f. fratri IIII uir et / Salviae Cilae fratris uxori et / Liburniae L. f. consobrinae / factum ex testamento HS (10,000) arbitratu / C. Annisidi C. f. Rufi.
Addendum
483
Publius Aufidius, son of Lucius, quattuoruir, duumuir, tribune of the soldiers, praefectus fabrum, for himself and Lucius Aufidius, son of Gnaeus, his father and Fadiena, the daughter of Publius, his mother, and Lucius Aufidius, son of Lucius, his brother, quattuoruir and Salvia Cila, the wife of his brother, and Liburnia, daughter of Lucius, his consobrina; made according to his will for 10,000 sesterces, at the discretion of C. Annsidius, son of Gaius, Rufus. Q34 Aquileia. CIL i2 . 2200. Photo: Brusin, AN (1936–7), fig. 16. Extat, Aquileia; inv. mus. 2533. Date: triumviral? Funerary? Broken on left. 1 magistrate. Max. h. 0.60; max. w. 0.91; max. th. 0.145; letter h. 0.07. ALFIVS M F COLONVS IIII VIR L SERVILIVS L F FRATER FIERI IVSSIT M
M. Alfius M. f. / colonus IIII uir / L. Seruilius L. f. frater / fieri iussit. Marcus Alfius, son of Marcus, colonus, quattuoruir, Lucius Servilius, son of Lucius, his brother, ordered this to be made. Weber, in Johne, Ko¨hn, and Weber, Die Kolonen in Italien und den westlichen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches, 363, followed by Krummrey, CIL i2 , p. 1093, reads the praenomen ‘M’ on the basis of the traces of the first letter in l. 1. Q35 Aquileia. CIL i2 . 2201. Photo: CIL i2 (4) tab. 116, fig. 5. Extat, Verona, Museo Maffeiano; inv. mus. 338. Date: Augustan?? Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. Max. h. of monument 1.36; w. of monument 0. 59; w. of epigraphic field c.0.55; max. th. of monument 0.14; range of letter heights 0.071–0.055. CN OCTAVIVS C F CORNICLA IIII VIR VF Cn. Octauius / C. f. Cornicla / IIII uir / u(iuus) f(ecit). Gnaeus Octavius, son of Gaius, Cornicla, quattuouir, made this while alive. Q36 Aquileia. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, no. 38 (left-hand fragment); CIL v. 983 (right-hand part). Photo: Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, 21 (not showing left-hand fragment). Extat, Aquileia; inv. mus. 2403. Date: late republican/triumviral. Funerary. Broken on both sides; seven joining fragments. 1 magistrate. Max. h. 0.31; max. w. 2.41 ( þ 0.62 for left-hand fragment?); max. th. 0.495; letter heights 0.08. [DE]CIA Q F GA[L]LA DECIA Q F SOROR Q DECIVS Q F FLACCV[S] IIII VIR
[De]cia Q. f. Ga[l]la uac Decia Q. f. soror u Q. Decius Q. f. Flaccu[s] / quattuoruir. [De]cia, daughter of Quintus, Ga[l]la, Decia, daughter of Quintus, her sister, Quintus Decius, son of Quintus, Flaccu[s] / quattuoruir.
484
Addendum
1 Brusin prints ‘[mater]’ after Decia Galla’s cognomen; while this is probably to be understood as her relationship to Decius Flaccus, I am not convinced that it ever stood on the stone, or that there was room for the letters. The photograph used did not allow me to verify that interpuncts always exist where I have indicated them. Q37
Tibur. Inscr. It. iv/1. 22. Periit. Date: Caesarian? Public. Complete. 1 magistrate. L OCTAVIVS L F CAM VITVLVS IIII VIR I D ITER
L. Octauius L. f. Cam(ilia) Vitulus IIII uir i(ure) d(icundo) iter(um). Lucius Octavius, son of Lucius, Vitulus, of the tribe Camilia, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power for the second time. Q38
Tibur. CIL i2 . 3094. Extat. Date: second half first century? Public? Complete. 1 magistrate. T HERENNIVS L F (horologium) T HERENNIVS T F IIII VIR IVR DIC RES
T. Herennius L. f. / (horologium) / T. Herennius T. f. / IIII uir iur(e) dic(undo) res[t(ituit)] Titus Herennius, son of Lucius / (sundial) / Titus Herennius, son of Titus, quattuoruir, with jurisdictional power, restored this. Q39
Signia. CIL i2 . 1503. Extat? Date: second half first century? Public. Probably complete. 2 magistrates. HORDEONIVS P F GALLVS HERCOLEI M CAECILIVS M F RVFVS C CLAVDIVS C F PRISCVS IIII VIR I D S C AVGVRES AEDEM REFICIENDAM SIGNVM TRANSFERENDVM BASIM PONENDAM CVRAVE P P P
5
P. Hordeonius P. f. / Gallus Hercolei / M. Caecilius M. f. Rufus / C. Claudius C. f. Priscus / IIII uir(i) i. d. d. s. c. augures / aedem reficiendam signum / transferendum basim / ponendam curaue(runt) p(ecunia) p(ublica). Publius Hordeonius, son of Publius, Gallus, to Hercules. Marcus Caecilius, son of Marcus, Rufus, Gaius Claudius, son of Gaius, Priscus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, by decree of the senate; as augurs they saw to the repair of the temple, the transfer of the statue and the setting up of a base, at public expense. Q40
Signia. CIL i2 . 1505. Extat? Date: mid-century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. C
5
VOLVMNIVS C
F
FLACCVS
IIII VIR I D Q VOLVMNIVS Q F MARSVS CRVPTAM ET LOCVM VBI CRVPTA EST ET AREAM VBI VIRIDIA SVNT MVNICIPIO SIGNINO DE SVA PEQ DEDER
Addendum
485
C. Volumnius C. f. Flaccus / Q. Volumnius Q. f. Marsus / IIII uir(i) i. d. / cruptam et locum ubi crupta est et aream / ubi uiridia sunt municipio Signino de sua peq(unia) deder(unt). Gaius Volumnius, son of Gaius, Flaccus, Quintus Volumnius, son of Quintus, Marsus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, gave the crypt and the place where the crypt is and the area where the gardens are to the municipium of Signia from their own money. Q41 Setia. CIL x. 6467. Periit. Date: mid-century? Public. Complete? 2 magistrates.
5
C ACONIVS C F POLIO C POMPONIVS L F POLIO IIII VIR I D VIAM SAXO DE SVA PEC STRAVER
C. Aconius C. f. / Polio / C. Pomponius L. f. / Polio / IIII uir(i) i. d. uiam saxo / de sua pec(unia) strauer(unt). Gaius Aconius, son of Gaius, Polio, C. Pomponius, son of Lucius, Polio, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, paved the road with stone from their own money. 1 Mommsen, ad CIL x. 6466 suggested [P]aconius. Q42 Setia. Supp. It. ns 6, 26 no. 8. Photo: Volpe, ibid. 26. Extat? Date: Late republican/ triumviral? Funerary? Incomplete. 1þ? magistrates. IIII VIR I D ITER E MPIA M F V [---] IIII uir i. d. iter e[---] / [---]mpia M. f. u[---] [---] quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power again by(?) [---]mpia, daughter of Marcus, wife(?) 1 ‘e[x]’ is possible. 2 ‘mbia’ is also possible (Volpe). The last letter might be from ‘u[xor]’ or ‘v[iva]’. Q43 Sora. CIL x. 5713. Extat (Chiesa Santa Restituta, Lungoliri side, Sora). Date: c.30? Dedication. Complete. 1 magistrate.
L
FIRMIO
L
PRIM PIL TR IIII VIR I
F
MIL D
COLONIA DEDVCTA 5
PRIM PONTIFICI LEGIO III SORANA HONORIS ET VIRTUTIS C A V SSA
L. Firmio L. f. / prim(o) pil(o), tr(ibuno) mil(itum) / IIII uir(o) i. d. / colonia deducta / prim(o) pontifici / legio IIII Sorana / honoris et uirtutis / caussa.
486
Addendum
Lucius Firmius, son of Lucius, primus pilus, tribune of the soldiers, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power; once the colony had been founded, the first priest. The fourth Soran legion set this up out of respect and as a mark of his virtue. Q44
Aquinum. CIL i2 .1542. Periit. Date: 50s? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. CN AGRIVS CN F POLLIO L LAVFEIVS L F APOTHECA IIII VIREI I OVR DEIC CCCFOPP
Cn. Agrius Cn. f. Pollio / L. Laufeius L. f. Apotheca / IIII uirei iour(e) deic(undo) / c. c. c. f. o. p. p. Gnaeus Agrius, son of Gnaeus, Pollio, Lucius Laufeius, son of Lucius, Apotheca, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, ??? saw to the making of this, from public funds??? 4 I have printed Mommsen’s text; he gives variants ad CIL x. 5190. Something along the lines of ‘d. s. s. f. c. p.’ is called for, although ‘CCC’ might represent a sum of money; the last two letters might stand for p(ecunia) p(ublica). Q45
Interamna Lirenas. AE (1988), 243. Photo: Giannetti, Spigolature di varia antichita` nel settore del medio Liri, tav. V, fig. 9. Extat? Date: triumviral/Augustan? Dedication? Broken at the top and on left side. 1 magistrate. FABR IIII VIR I D VRBANI CLIENTES L D EX S C
[praef.] fabr. / IIII uir(o) i. d. / urbani clientes / l(ocus) d(atus) ex s(enatus) c(onsulto). [praefectus] fabrum, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, from his urban clients, the place was given by decree of the senate. 1 This restoration was proposed by G. Barbieri (see Giannetti, 266). Q46
5
Cales. AE (1989), 176. Photo: Solin, Epigraphica (1989), 66, fig. 12. Extat. Date: triumviral/Augustan? Public? Damaged on all sides. 1 magistrate? CVM PVBLICA IM VR PROLE LOCA RIAM GEMINAM M ENDI AEDIFICANDIQVE NDIQVE PVBLICE POSIT F IIII VIR I D RECITAND
cum publica im[---] / [---]ur prole loca[---] / [---]riam Geminam m[atrem?] / [---]endi aedificandique / [---]ndique publice posit[---] / [---] f. IIII uir i. d. recitand[um curauit?]. with public expenditure(?) [---] is done (?) with the offspring places(?) [---]ria Gemina his (?)mother [---] for the sake of doing ? and for building and [---] doing ???, set up at the public expense [---] son of ?, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, [saw to?] the reading out.
Addendum
487
3 ‘m[atrem]’: Solin, 65. 6 Solin suggests (65–6) that the last visible letter of l. 6 could be a ‘T’, but the upright hasta seems from the photograph to be too close to the preceding letter. Hence ‘D’. Q47 Beneventum. CIL i2 . 1730. Periit. Date: 60s? Public. Broken on right side. 2 magistrates.
5
L SEPTVM L COCEIV IIII VIR LVCAR T DSS
L. Septum[ius -. f.] / L. Coceiu[s -. f.] / IIII uir[(i) i. d.] / Lucar T[elluris] / d. s. s. Lucius Septum[ius, son of ?], Lucius Coceiu[s, son of ?], quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, the grove of (?)T[ellus] . . . on the vote of the senate. 3 If we assume that the magistrates had no cognomina, we must, with Mommsen (ad CIL ix. 2117), restore IIII uir(i) [i. d.]. Degrassi (CIL i2 , p. 1030) suggests ‘IIII ui[r aed.]’, but I have argued on nos. Q10 and 11 that this magistracy is improbable. Q48 Aeclanum. CIL i2 . 1721. Extat? Date: first half of the century? Public. Broken at top right. 2 magistrates.
5
C OBELLIV C MARIVS C F IIII VIR I D D S S CREPIDINEM DE SVA PEQV F C
C. Obellius [-. f.] / C. Marius C. f. / IIII uir i. d. d. s. s. / crepidinem / de sua pequ(nia) / f. c. Gaius Obellius, [son of ?], Gaius Marius, son of Gaius, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, saw to the construction of the pavement on the vote of the senate from their own money. Q49 Aeclanum(?). CIL i2 . 3192. Photo: M. W. Frederiksen’s collection, Worcester College, Oxford (I am grateful to Dr M. Pobjoy for drawing my attention to its existence). Extat. Date: 65–60 bc? Public. Broken on right side. 1 magistrate.
5
M PALIVS M F IIII VIR I D D S S P ORTICVM QVOM MAENANEI IN FORO ET FORNIC QVA IN FORO EITV F C IQ P
M. Palius M. f. IIII uir / i. d. d. s. s. porticum / quom maenanei[is] / in foro et fornic[em] / qua in foro eitu[r] / f. c. i(dem)q(ue) p(robauit).
488
Addendum
Marcus Palius, son of Marcus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, saw to the construction of the portico in the forum with balconies and an arch through which one enters into the forum, by the vote of the senate, and the same man approved the work. Q50
Vibo Valentia. CIL i2 . 3166. Photo: CIL i2 (4) Tab. 65 fig. 3. Extat. Date: c.48 bc? Public. Broken on both sides and at the top (and bottom?). 2 magistrates.
CLASSICVS IIII V ICINIO L F CRASSO P AL OLLIONE Q ANICIO L F DECIDIO C F RVFO C M C EGNATIO C F RVFO C MVRVM REFICIENDVM E
5
[L. Numisius C. f. Lucanus? / C. Musanus C. f.] Classicus IIII u[ir(i) iur. dic.] / [L. L]icinio L. f. Crasso P. Al[lieno? -. f.] / [P]ollione Q. Anicio L. f. / [-] Decidio C. f. Rufo C. M[-----. f.] / C. Egnatio C. f. Rufo C. [-----. f.] / murum reficiendum e[t] [Lucius Numisius, son of Gaius, Lucanus, Gaius Musanus, son of Gaius], Classicus, quattuoru[iri with jurisdictional power, with Lucius L]icinius, son of Lucius, Crassus, Publius Al[lienus?, son of ?], Pollio, Quintus Anicius, son of Lucius, [?] Decidius, son of Gaius, Rufus, C. M[---, son of ?], Gaius Egnatius, son of Gaius, Rufus and Gaius [?], (?) saw to the restoration of the wall a[nd] 1, 2 Restored on the basis of Q51. The exact arrangement is uncertain. 3, 5 It appears from the photograph that the names of Licinius and Decidius were outspaced slightly with respect to those in ll. 2 and 4. Note that there was not enough room at the end of l. 3 for ‘Pollione’ (see Perotti, PdP (1974), 130). The lost names in ll. 5 and 6 must have been quite short, space for some seven or eight letters remaining. 7 If ‘e[t]’ is correct, then we probably want another line continuing the work done (as in 50), e.g. ‘e[t portam cum / turribus d.s.s. faciendam locauere]’. Alternatively we could read ‘e[x s. c. locauere]’. Q51
Vibo Valentia. CIL i2 . 3166a. Photo: Perotti, PdP (1974), 127. Extat. Date: as Q50. Public. Broken on right edge. 2 magistrates.
L NVMISIO C F LV C MVSANO C F CLA 5
IIII VIR IVR DIC L LICINIO L F CRASSO P ALLI POLLIONE Q ANICIO L F OSTIA IN PORTAS FACIEND MVROS REFICIEND LOCAR
L. Numisio C. f. Lu[cano?] / C. Musano C. f. Cla[ssico] / IIII uir(is) iur. dic. / L. Licinio L. f. Crasso P. Alli[eno? -. f.] / Pollione Q. Anicio L. f. [v] / ostia in portas faciend / muros reficiend locar(unt) [d(ecuriones)].
Addendum
489
To? Lucius Numisius, son of Gaius, Lu[canus?], Gaius Musanus, son of Gaius, Cla[ssicus], quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, together with Lucius Licinius, son of Lucius, Crassus, Publius Alli[enus?, son of ?], Pollio, Quintus Anicius, son of Lucius, v, the [decurions] let the contract for making ostia in the gates and for repairing the walls. 2 Restored with the help of Q50. 7 ‘d.’. See main text. Q52 Potentia. CIL i2 . 3163a. Photo: Lejeune, RAL (1972), pl. I. Extat. Date: triumviral/ Augustan? Dedication. Broken on both sides and at bottom. Surface badly worn. 2 magistrates. S N F C FVLL VIR IV V T I A N A E þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ þþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþþ [---]s N. f. C. Full[ius -. f.] / [IIII] uir(i) iu(re) [dic.] / [Mefiti] Vtianae. [---]s, son of Numerius, Gaius Full[ius, son of ?], quattuoruiri with juris[dictional] power, to [Mefitis] Utiania. The two lines below the printed text are almost illegible. Line 4 could be ‘V(otum) S(olvent) L(ibentes) M(erito)’ (so Lejeune, 400–1). The photograph of such a damaged stone can only be a guide, but I wonder whether there are not traces of ‘IV’ in the fourth line—part of iubeo?—Lejeune’s suggestion does not really fit the official character of this dedication. There might be an ‘N’ in l. 5. Q53 Volcei. Inscr. It. iii/1. 36, no. 51. Im. del., ibid. 37. Extat. Date: triumviral/Augustan. Public. Complete. 3 magistrates. C DEXIVS C F P VILL P F M ACCIVS M F IIII VIRI IVR DIC EX S C EX PECVNIA PVBLICA ET CONLATICIA QVAM MVNICIPES ET INCOLAE SVA VOLVNTATE CONTVLERVNT FACIVN DVM CVRARVNT EIDEMQVE PROBARVNT C. Dexius C. f. P. Vill(ius) P. f. M. Accius M. f. IIII uiri iur. dic. ex / s. c. ex pecunia publica et conlaticia quam municipes / et incolae sua uoluntate contulerunt faciun / dum curarunt eidemque probarunt. Gaius Dexius, son of Gaius, Publius Vill(ius), son of Publius, Marcus Accius, son of Marcus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, by decree of the senate and from public money and collected funds which the municipes and the incolae contributed of their own volition, they saw to the construction and the same men approved it.
490 Q54
Addendum Brundisium. CIL i2 . 3173. Extat. Photo: Imagines, 230. Date: c.40. Public. Broken to left and right. Surface badly worn lower down. 1 magistrate.
C FALERIO C F NIGRO III
AED OTEST IIII VIR I D AVGVRI IIII VI QVINQ DECVRIONE MVNICIPES EX S PRIDIE K APRIL 5
F L CORNELIVS T SVR A A MINEIVS A F PIPER Q M NO IVS L F LONGINVS L AEBV VS F L LA NI
F FLACCVS C F IVS C F HADRIANVS Q PHILONI VFVS T HORTIONIVS C F P L
AC
IMVS C PHILONIVS Q F L SERVILIVS F C O M FANNIVS M F Q ALFIVS S ES ET MVNICIPES CVNCTEI POSTVLAVERVNT DE C FALERIO C F ET C
10
D R I C QVOM IEI DE SVA PECVNIA FORVM STERNANT CANALESQ O LAPIDE FACIENDAS POLLICITI SINT IDEMQVE MACELLVM E ET
MAMENTARI APSTENENT VOT A ARIAS SVA
15
OSTRE M NN PONENDAM CEN
C. Falerio C. f. Nigro III[I uir(o)] / aed(ilicia) [p]otest(ate) IIII uir(o) i. d. auguri IIII ui[r(o)] / quinq(uennalis) decurione[s] municipes ex s. [c.] / pridie K(alends) April(is) / [scr(ibendo) ad]fuerunt L. Cornelius T. f. Sura a(ugur), A. Mineius A. f. Piper, Q. M[i]no[re]ius L. f. Longinus, L. Aebu[rni]us [-] f., L. La[e]ni[us] / [-] f. Flaccus, C. F[ab]ius C. f. Hadrianus, Q. Philoni[us -f. R]ufus, T. Hortionius C. f., P. L[aenius? - f . Fl]ac[cus,] / [----. f. --]imus, C. Philonius Q. f., L. Seruilius -. f. C[il]o, M. Fannius M. f., Q. Alfius S[ex.] f. / [Quod decurion]es et municipes cunctei postulauerunt de C. Falerio C. f. et C. [Falerio? filio? honorandis?]/ [uacat] d(e) [e(a)] r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt): quom iei de sua pecunia forum sternant canalesq[ue] / ]o lapide faciendas polliciti sint idemque macellum / [---]e et [--- et ar]mamentari[um] / [---] apstent[iam?] / [---] uot. a[---] / [---]arias sua[s? ---] / [---p]ostre[mo??---] / m nn[---] / [--- statuam?] ponendam [---] / [---] cen[suerunt]. To Gaius Falerius, son of Gaius, Niger quattuoruir with aedilician power, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, augur, quinquennial quattuoruir, (from) the decurions and municipes, by decree of the senate. On the day before the Kalends of April, there were present at the inscribing Lucius Cornelius, son of Titus, Sura, augur, Aulus Mineius, son of Aulus, Piper, Quintus M[i]no[re]ius, son of Lucius, Longinus, Lucius Aebu[rni]us, son of ?, Lucius La[e]ni[us], son of ?, Flaccus, Gaius F[ab]ius, son of Gaius, Hadrianus, Quintus Philoni[us, son of ? R]ufus, Titus Hortionius, son of Gaius, Publius L[aenius, son of ?, Fl]ac[cus,] / [? ? son of ?, ---]imus, Gaius Philonius, son of Quintus, Lucius Servilius, son of ?, C[il]o, Marcus Fannius, son of Marcus, Quintus Alfius, son of S[extus]. Because the decurions and all the municipes demanded about the [honouring?] of Gaius Falerius, son of Gaius, and Gaius [Falerius? his son] [uacat]; about this matter they decreed thus: since they were paving the forum from their own money and have promised that channels should be constructed in ??
Addendum
491
stone, and again a macellum [---] and a na]val arse[nal --- ?because of their] restraint[t? --] ?prayers [---] thei[r? ---] / [---f]ina[lly---] [a statue?] should be put up [---] they dec[reed]. The text is that in CIL with the exception of l. 6, where ‘Fl]ac[cus]’ is read by Sherk, The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West, 26. 5 The letters ‘SVR A A ’ are probably a mistake for ‘Sura a(ugur)’; Cornelius Sura’s importance as the first witness is thus underlined (cf. A. Degrassi, CIL i2 , p. 1025). Q55 Luceria. CIL ix. 803. Extat. Date: triumviral?? Dedication? Broken on both sides? 1 magistrate.
ACHILLENIVS SABELLVS R I D IIII VIR QVIN PONTIF [-] Achillenius [- f.] / Sabellus / [IIII ui]r i. d. IIII uir quin[q.] / pontif(ex) [?] Achillenius, [son of ?], Sabellus, [quattuorui]r with jurisdictional power, quin[quennial] quattuoruir, pontifex. Q56 Marruvium. CIL i2 .3209a. Photo: Letta and D’ Amato, Epigrafia dei Marsi, tav. XXII. Extat? Date: 50s?? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. Q FADIVS T F Q MVNATIVS N F MARSSVS IIII VIR IVR D HOROLOGIVM DE SVA PECVNIA FAC COER Q. Fadius T. f. Q. Munatius N. f. Marssus IIII uir(i) iur d(icundo) / horologium de sua pecunia fac. coer. Quintus Fadius, son of Titus, Quintus Munatius, son of Numerius, Marssus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, saw to the construction of the sundial with their own money. Q57 Alba Fucens. AE (1988), 465. Extat. Photo: Buonocore, ZPE 52 (1983), taf. VIb. Date: triumviral/Augustan? Dedication? Broken at top, bottom, and right-hand side. Surface worn. 1þ? magistrates? T AVID IIII VIR I VALETUD T. Auid[ius -. f.] / IIII uir i. [d.] / Valetud[ini]. Titus Avid[ius, son of ?], quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, to Valetud[o]. 3 This restoration seems to me more likely than Buonocore’s. See main text. Q58 Vulci. CIL i2 . 3344. Photo: CIL i2 (4) tab. 103, fig. 1. Extat. Date: Caesarian/ triumviral/early Augustan. Funerary. Virtually complete. 1 magistrate. C SEPTVMIVS C F SAB IIII VIR I D C. Septumius C. f. Sab(atina) IIII uir i. d. Gaius Septumius, son of Gaius, of the tribe Sabatina, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power.
492 Q59
Addendum Volsinii. CIL i2 . 2515. Latet. Date: Caesarian/triumviral/early Augustan. Public. Complete. 1 magistrate. L CAECINA L Q TR P P PR COS IIII VIR I D SVA PECV NIA VIAS STRAVIT
5
L. Caecina L. [f.] / q(uaestor) tr(ibunus) p(lebis) p(raetor) pr(o) co(n)s(ule) / IIII uir i. d. / sua pecu / nia uias strauit. Lucius Caecina, [son of] Lucius, quaestor, tribunus plebis, praetor pro consule, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, paved the roads with his own money. Q60
Volaterrae. CIL ix. 1744. Latet? Date: 80–30 bc. Funerary. Damaged. 1 magistrate. C CAESI O S F IIII VIR IV ITER VIXSIT ANNOS LX
C. Caesi[liu?]s S(ex?). f. IIII uir iu[r. dic] / iter vixsit annos LX. Gaius Caesilius, son of ?Sextus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power for the second time, he lived for sixty years. 1 Bormann suggested the resolution of the names and title; his ‘iu[re dic.] (ad loc.) would be unusual. 2 Bormann suggested ‘[qui] vixsit’. Q61
Ocriculum. Pietrangeli, Epigraphica (1941), 150, MS Genuense no. XLIX. Extat pars sinistra (Via Vittorio Emmanuele II, 4). Date: mid-century?? Public. 2 fragments, broken on both sides. 1þ? magistrates? VIR I D E S // DE SVA PEQ F C
[IIII] uir i. d. e(x) s(enatus) [c(onsulto)?] // de sua peq(unia) f. c. [quattuor]uiri with jurisdictional power, by [decree] of the senate, from their own money saw to the construction. Q62
Interamna Nahars. CIL i2 . 2098. Extat. Date: second half of century. Dedication? Surface slightly damaged. 1 magistrate. L LICINIVS L F L V C V L LVS IIII V I D
L. Licinius L. f. / Lucullus / IIII u[ir] i. d. Lucius Licinius, son of Lucius, Lucullus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power. 1 The interpunct recorded before the first ‘L’ in CIL is really a small cavity on the surface of the stone.
Addendum
493
Q63 Spoletium. CIL xi. 4800. Extat. Date: 60s? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. C ERVCIVS C F T TITIVS L F FLAC IIII VIR I D ARAS XI S C FAC CVR C. Erucius C. f. / T. Titius L. f. Flac(cus) / IIII uir(i) i. d. / aras XI s. c. fac. cur. Gaius Erucius, son of Gaius, Titus Titius, son of Lucius, Flaccus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, by decree of the senate saw to the construction of eleven altars. Q64 Spoletium. CIL xi. 4809. Photo: Di Marco, Spoletium, tav. XIX. Extat. Date: second half of century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. P MARCIVS P F HISTER C MAENIVS C F RVFVS IIII VIR I D S C FAC CVR PROBARVNTQ P. Marcius P. f. Hister C. Maenius C. f. Rufus IIII uir(i) i. d. s. c. fac. cur. probaruntq(ue). Publius Marcius, son of Publius, Hister, Gaius Maenius, son of Gaius, Rufus, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, by the decree of the senate saw to the construction and approved it. Note: the inscription is disposed along a single line. Q65 Spoletium. CIL i2 . 2107. Latet. Date: late 60s? Public. Complete? 2 magistrates.
5
M LVVCIVS M F C VEIENVS C F IIII VIR I D S C PONTEM FACIV CVR PROBARVNTQ
M. Luucius M. f. / C. Veienus C. f. / IIII uir(i) i. d. s. c. pontem faciu(ndum) / cur. probaruntq. Marcus Luucius, son of Marcus, Gaius Veienus, son of Gaius, quattuoruiri with jurisdictional power, by decree of the senate saw to the construction of the bridge and approved it. Q66 Hispellum. CIL i2 . 3384. Extat. Date: c.60–c.40. Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. T LATERIVS T F . IIII VIR I D T. Laterius T. f. / IIII uir i. d. Titus Laterius, son of Titus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power. Q67 Asisium. CIL xi. 5391. Photo: Forni, Epigrafi lapidarie romane di Assisi, 34. Extat. Date: triumviral. Public. Beginning missing. 2 magistrates. 1 2
R DIC C BABRIVS C. F CHILO C VEISTINIVS C F CAPITO C VALLIVS C F L VISELLIVS L F CN VEISTINIVS C F V VIR MV C ATTIVS C F CLARVS OPVS ALBARIVM PICTORIVM SVA PECVNIA S C FEC
494
Addendum
[IIII uir(i?) iu]r. dic. C. Babrius C. f. Chilo C. Veistinius C. f. Capito C. Vallius C. f. L. Visellius L. f. Cn. Veistinius C. f. V uir(i) mu[rum] / C. Attius C. f. Clarus opus albarium pictorium sua pecunia s. c. fec[it] [quattuoruiri with ju]risdictional power, Gaius Babrius, son of Gaius, Chilo, Gaius Veistinius, son of Gaius, Capito, Gaius Vallius, son of Gaius, Lucius Visellius, son of Lucius, Gnaeus Veistinius, son of Gaius, quinqueuiri (?constructed) the wall. Gaius Attius, son of Gaius, Clarus saw to the ?whitening and painting from his own money by decree of the senate. Note: the inscription is disposed along two lines. Q68
Asisium. CIL xi. 5422. Photo: Forni, Epigrafi lapidarie romane di Assisi, 48. Extat. Date: second half of century? Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate. Q VETIVS Q F
IIII VIR ID
Q. Vetius Q. f. IIII uir / i. d. Quintus Vetius, son of Quintus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power. Q69
Sassina. ILLRP 661. Extat. Photo: Susini, Studi Romagnoli (1954), 188, fig. 1. Date: mid-century. Public. Badly damaged. 1þ? magistrates. LA IIII VIR I ORTA ET TURR TAM P DCCXXXX X D C F COIR
[---]la IIII uir(i?) i. [d. ---] / [p]orta[m] et turr[eis] / [-------por]tam p. DCCXXXX[--] / [---e]x d(ecreto) c(onscriptorum) f. coir[auere?] [---]la quattuoruiri with juris[dictional power] saw to the construction of the gate and towers [---beside? the ga]te for 740þ feet [---b]y decree of the conscripti. 1 The first two letters should be the end of a cognomen (Susini, p. 190). Q70
Placentia. Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 253. Extat. Photo: ibid. 252. Date: early Augustan. Funerary. Virtually complete. 1 magistrate.
L CAECILIVS L F PETRONIA C F L CAECILIVS L F Q CAECILIVS FLACCUS PATER MATER FLACCVS FRA L F DECVR Q TR AVG CVRATOR IIII VIR I D A POPVLO AEDIS IOVIS FACIVND AVG AVG TR MILIT 5 PRAEF FA III FIERI IV (1) L. Caecilius L. f. / Flaccus pater / q. tr. aug(ur) curator / aedis Iouis faciund(i). (2) Petronia C. f. / mater. (3) L. Caecilius L. f. / Flaccus / IIII uir i. d. / aug. (4) Q. Caecilius / L. f. decurio / a populo / aug. tr. milit(um) / praef. fa[br.] / III fieri iu[ssit]
Addendum
495
Lucius Caecilus, son of Lucius, Flaccus, the father, quaestor, tribunus, augur, curator of the construction of the temple of Iupiter. Petronia, daughter of Gaius, the mother. Lucius Caecilius, son of Lucius, Flaccus, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, augur. Quintus Caecilius, son of Lucius, decurion elected by the people, augur, tribune of the soldiers, praefectus fabrum thrice, he ordered this to be constructed. 6 Correct, as against Calbi’s ‘[iu]ssit’ Q71 Placentia. CIL xi. 1219 with p. 1252. Periit. Date: triumviral/Augustan? Dedication? Incomplete. 1 magistrate.
5
S PETRONIVS T F LVPVS MARIANVS DEC IIII VIR IV D AUGVR PRAEF FABR CONS BIS XYSTUM CV A T VIS ET ORNAMENTIS V E ENS DED
S(ex). Petronius T. f. Lupus / Marianus dec(urio) IIII uir iu[r.] d[ic.] / augur praef. fabr. [a?] cons(ule) / bis xystum cu[rauit?? ---] a / [s?]t[at?]uis et ornamentis / u[otum? --]e[--lib?]ens ded[it?]. Sextus Petronius, son of Titus, Lupus adopted from the Marii, decurion, quattuoruir with ju[r]isd[ictional power], augur, praefectus fabrum appointed by(?) the consul twice, he saw to the construction (?) of the walkway [---] with (?) statues and decorations . . . the vow(?) [---will]ingly(?) gav[e?]. 1 For the resolution of the praenomen see Calbi, Epigraphica (1981), 254. Q72 Aquileia. Brusin, Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i. 40. Photo: ibid. 22. Extat, Aquileia; inv. mus. 1525. Date: 50s? Funerary. Virtually complete. 1 magistrate. Max. h. 0.58; max. w. 0.75; max. th. 0.15; letter h. 0.07–0.05.
5
L VIBIVS T F RVSO IIII VIR I D IIII VIR QVINQ T VIBIVS T F RVSO AVGVR CAEPARIA CN F
L. Vibius T. f. Ruso / IIII uir i. d. / IIII uir quinq. / T. Vibius T. f. Ruso / augur / Caeparia Cn. F. Lucius Vibius, son of Titus, Ruso, quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, quinquennial quattuoruir. Titus Vibius, son of Titus, Ruso, augur. Caeparia, daughter of Gnaeus. 4 The V of Ruso has an apex.
496 Q73
5
Addendum Aquileia. CIL i2 . 2198. Photo: Auctarium 226. Extat, Aquileia; inv. mus. 1238. Date: c.60–50? Public. Virtually complete. 1 magistrate. Max. h. 0.53; max. w. 0.31; max. h. 0.245; letter h. 0.08–0.05. M ANNAVS Q F IIII VIR I D QVINQ PORTAM REFIC LOCAVIT EX S C EIDEMQ PROBAVIT
M. Annaus / Q. f. IIII uir i. d. / quinq. portam / refic locauit / ex s. c. eidemq. / probauit. Marcus Annaus, son of Quintus, quinquennial quattuoruir with jurisdictional power, let the contract for repairing the gate by decree of the senate and the same man approved it. Q74
5
Cora. CIL i2 . 1514. Im. del.: Brandizzi Vittucci, Forma Italiae, i. 5, 100, fig. 202. Extat. Date: second half of century. Dedication. Middle of stone lost. 1 magistrate.
LPVBLILI L PRON F IIII VIR QV PONTIFI
BLILIO M F PRON CCO GVREI
PVBLIC
IPVMQ AE
L. Publili[o L.? f. L.? n. M. Pu]blilio M. f. L. pron. F[lacco L.? n. L.?] pron. IIII uir qu[inq(uennalis) Fla]cco pontifi[cei aug]urei public[e de sententia conscriptorum munic]ipumq(ue)/[pecuniam contulerunt ciues et incol]ae. To Lucius Publili[us, son of Lucius, grandson of Lucius (?)], great grandson of Lucius, F[laccus, quinquennial quattuoruir, pontife[x], and Marcus(?) Pu]blilius, son of Marcus, grandson of Lucius (?)], great grandson [of Lucius, Fla]ccus, [aug]ur, at public [expense by the vote of the conscripti] and [the munic]ipes [the citizens and incol]ae [contributed the money]. The restorations, except those of the filiations, are those of Mommsen, ad CIL i2 . 1514. Q75
5
10
Cales. CIL i2 . 3118. Latet uel periit. Date: Caesarian. Public. Complete. 1 magistrate. EX S C HONORIS Q PACONII Q F LEPTAI ERGO LACVS FISTVLAEQVE CON STITVTAE SVBSTRVCTAE QVO COMMODIVS IN EIVS DOMVM AQVA PVRA DVCERETVR QVOD IS DE R P SAEPE NVMERO BENE MERITVS ESSET MERERETVRQ Q PACONIVS Q F LEPT AE IIII VIR QVINQVENNALIS EX S C LOCAVIT IDEMQVI PROBAVIT
Addendum
497
Ex s. c. honoris Q. Paconii Q. f. Leptai ergo / lacus fistulaeque con / stitutae substructae quo / commodius in eius domum / aqua pura duceretur quod / is de r(e) p(ublica) saepe numero bene / meritus esset merereturq / Q. Paconius Q. f. Leptae IIII uir / quinquennalis ex s. c. / locauit idemqui probauit. By decree of the senate towards Quintus Paconius, son of Quintus, Lepta, the reservoir and the pipes have been constructed and reinforced in order that clean water may be brought more conveniently into his house, because he had often in this category? ?deserved well of the res publica and will continue to do so. Quintus Paconius, son of Quintus, Lepta, quinquennial quattuoruir, by decree of the senate let the contract and the same man approved it. 2, 11 Krummrey, CIL i2 , p. 1008, suggests that the forms ‘Leptai’ and ‘idemqui’ are mistakes of transcription, due to the fact that the final ‘E’ in both cases had very short transverse bars. Q76 Trebula Balliensis. CIL i2 . 3119. Photo: tab. 58 fig. 2. Extat. Date: c.60–c.50? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates.
5
M MARIVS N F SOPHVS M RVFRIVS N F CIMBER IIII VIR QVIN AQVAM ADDVC LACVS F EX D D C
M. Marius N. f. Sophus / M. Rufrius N. f. Cimber / IIII uir(i) quin(quennales) aquam / adduc(endam) lacus f(aciendum) ex / d. d. c(urauerunt). Marcus Marius, son of Numerius, Sophus, Marcus Rufrius, son of Numerius, Cimber, quinquennial quattuoruiri saw to the bringing in of water and the construction of the reservoir by decree of the decurions. Q77 Aesernia. CIL ix. 2642. Latet? Photo: Torelli, DdA (1968), tav. Torelli, fig. 1. Date: Augustan. Funerary. Complete. 1 magistrate.
C NONIO C F M N IIII VIR QVINQ IMP VII
M NONIVS GALLVS VIR EPVL FILIVS
POSVIT C. Nonio C. f. M. n. IIII uir / quinq. M. Nonius Gallus / imp(erator) VII uir epul(onum) filius / posuit To Gaius Nonius, son of Gaius, grandson of Marcus, quinquennial quattuoruir, Marcus Nonius Gallus, imperator and VII uir epulonum his son, put this up. Q78 Beneventum. CIL i2 . 3194. Periit. Date: mid-century? Public. Surface worn. 2 magistrates. C
5
AVF VS C F C FVF VS C F N D E X IIII V QVINQ PONTE D S S F C EIDE Q PROB C O N T A T HS I ) ) O O
498
Addendum
C. Auf[idi]us C. f. / C. Fuf[idi]us C. f. / [Vi]ndex / IIII u[ir(i)] quinq. / ponte[m] d. s. s. f. c. / eide[m]q. prob. / con[s]tat HS (7,000). Gaius Auf[idi]us, son of Gaius, Gaius Fuf[idi]us, son of Gaius, [Vi]ndex, quinquennial quattuoru[iri], saw to the construction of the bridg[e] on the vote of the senate and the sa[m]e men approved it 7,000 sesterces agreed (for the work)(?). The restorations are Krummrey’s. 7 Might a part of (pecunia) conlaticia lurk here? Q79
5
Aeclanum(?). CIL i2 . 3191. Photo: CIL i2 (4) tab. 138, fig. 3. Extat, Museo Irpino, inv. no. 10. Date: c.65. Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. C QVINCTIVS C F VALGVS L SEPVNIVS L F QVINQN MVRVM PORTAS FORVM PORTICVS CVRIA CISTERNA D D S FACIE CVRAR EIQ PROB
C. Quinctius C. f. Valgus / L. Sepunius L. f. quinq(ue)n(nales) / murum portas forum / porticus curia(m) cisterna(m) / d. d. s. facie. curar(unt) ei(dem)q. prob(arunt) Gaius Quintius, son of Gaius, Valgus, Lucius Sepunius, son of Lucius, quinquennales, saw to the construction of the wall, gates, forum, porticus, curia, and cistern by the vote of the decurions, and the same men approved it. Q80
5
Ligures Baebiani. AE (1988), 249. Photo: Patterson, Samnites, Ligurians and Romans, 194. Extat. Date: Triumviral/Augustan? Public. Broken on left-hand side. 2 magistrates. TVLLIVS L F CAESIVS M F III VIR QVINQ F C EIDE ROB
[-] Tullius L. f. / [-] Caesius M. f. / [I]III uir(i) quinq. / [ex d. d.?] f. c. eide[mq.] / [p]rob. [?] Tullius, son of Lucius, [?] Caesius, son of Marcus, quinquennial quattuoruiri, [by decree of the decurions?] saw to the construction and the same men approved it. Q81
5
Petelia. CIL i2 .3164. Photo: tab. 65, fig. 2. Extat. Date: second half of century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. SEX CAEDICIVS SEX F A HERIVS L F IIII VIR Q V I N Q V E N IOVI O M D S S F C I P
Sex. Caedicius Sex. f. / A. Herius L. f. IIII uir(i) / quinquen(nales) / Iovi O(ptimo) M(aximo) d. s. s. f. c. / i(demque) p.
Addendum
499
Sextus Caedicius, son of Sextus, Aulus Herius, son of Lucius, quinquennial quattuoruiri, to Iupiter Optimus Maximus, they saw to the construction on the vote of the senate and the same men approved it. Q82 Rubi. CIL i2 . 3176. Extat. Photo: tab. 66, fig. 7. Date: mid-century? Public. Broken on left-hand side; worn surface. 2 sets of 2 magistrates.
5
AEVS C F CLA PATER NATIVS M F CLA RVFV VINQ MVRV ET TVRRI D D F L F A ALSINAEVS A F D D PROBA
[A. Alsin]aeus C. f. Cla pater / [-------]natius M. f. Cla Rufu[s] / [IIII uir(i) q]uinq. muru(m) et turri(s) / [ex] d. d. f. l. [---------.] f. A. Alsinaeus A. f. / [IIII uir(i) ex] d. d. proba(runt). [Aulus Alsin]aeus, son of Gaius, the father, of the trive Claudia, [-------]natius, son of Marcus, Rufus, of the tribe Claudia, [q]uinquennial [quattuoruiri], let the contract for the construction of the wall and towers according to the decree of the decurions. [-------], son of ?, Aulus Alsinaeus, son of Aulus, quattuoruiri, approved the work according to the decree of the decurions. 1 The gentilicium and filiation are restored by Forni (RSA (1972), 248) on the basis of l. 5. 2 Part of an upright hasta seems to be visible at the start of the line, which can only come from an ‘N’ (Degrassi, ap. Krummrey, CIL i2 . 1026, Chelotti, Supp. It. ns 6, 19, contra Forni, RSA (1972), 248). 3 [IIII uir(i) q] is the only restoration that fits the space available (ibid. 245, 248). ‘turri(s)’: ibid. 249, cf. 253. 4 ‘[ex]’: Gasparini, Terza miscellanea greca e romana, 153 n. 3; Forni, RSA (1972), 249, cf. 253. 6 It seems from the photograph that the right-hand end of the line is indented slightly with respect to ll. 1–3 and 5. We should therefore expect a similar indentation at the start of the line (as in l. 4). The space available is probably nine to ten letters, in which case Forni’s ‘IIII uiri i. d. ex’ (ibid. 250–1) will just squeeze in. Q83 Herdonia. CIL i2 . 3188. Photo: tab. 67 fig. 11. Extat? Date: triumviral/Augustan? Public. Broken on right-hand side. 2 magistrates.
5
D FVNIVS D F GALL C RVBRIVS C F TINTI IIII VIR QVINQ BALNEVM AB SOLO FA COIRAVER EX D D EIDE PROBAVERE
D. Funius D. f. Gall[us?] / C. Rubrius C. f. Tinti[----] / IIII uir(i) quinq. / balneum ab solo fa[ciend.?] / coirauer(unt) ex d. d. eide[mq.] / probauere. Decimus Funius, son of Decimus, Gall[us?], Gaius Rubrius, son of Gaius, Tinti[---], quinquennial quattuoruiri, saw to the construction of the balneum from the ground up by decree of the decurions and the same men approved it. 2 Degrassi suggested ‘Tinti[rianus]’, CIL i2 , p. 1028.
500 Q84
Addendum Corfinium. Crawford, Epigraphica 1990, 142f. Photo: Devijver and Van Wonterghem, Historia (1983), tafel I, fig. 1. Extat. Date: mid-century. Public. Broken on all sides. 1 magistrate.
LER IIII
5
MVNDVM NDOS CVR NSVLTVM QVNIA A RETRIBVERET
[T. Muttius P. f. Ce]ler IIII [u(ir) q(uinq.)] / [theatrum e]mundum / [gradus facie]ndos cur[a.] / [senatique co]nsultum / [fecit utei pe]qunia(m) a / [populo pageis] retribueret. [Titus Muttius, son of Publius, Ce]ler, [quinquennial] quattuor[uir], saw to the [p]urchasing of [space for a theatre, and to the constru]ction [of steps], and passed a decree of the senate to the effect that he should pay back the money from the people to the pagi. The text in square brackets is derived from a MS copy made before the stone was lost. 1 ‘Muttius’ was Dessau’s replacement for Mommsen’s ‘Mittius’ (ILS 5642). See Devijver and Van Wonterghem, 492. 2 Crawford points out that Devijver and Van Wonterghem’s ‘mundum’ leaves this line the only one shorter than the others (see their drawing, p. 491). Crawford’s reading is supported by the fact that all the MS sources for the text agree that Mascitti read ‘theatrum eundum gradus faciedos (sic)’ here (Devijver and Van Wonterghem, ibid., 494, (my italics). As they have shown, it is likely that the telescope used by Mascitti to read the stone gave him an upside down image, and this, together with the ‘N’ of ‘[facie]ndos’ immediately below the first ‘M’ of ‘mundum’ may have confused him). 5 As the photograph clearly shows, Devijver and Van Wonterghem’s reading ‘[pe]quniam’ is wrong. 6 Buonocore, Supp. It. ns 3, 146–7, no. 9, reads ‘retribuerent’, but as Crawford remarks this is most uncertain; it would also crowd the text yet further. Q85
Alba Fucens. CIL i2 . 3276. Photo: Bounocore, MEFRA (1982) (2), fig. 2. Extat. Date: third quarter first century? Dedication. Complete? 1 magistrate. C TITVLEIVS CN F IIII VIR ITER QVI
C. Tituleius Cn. f. / IIII uir iter(um) qui(nquennalis). Gaius Tituleius, son of Gnaeus, quattuoruir again with quinquennial power. Q86
5
Perusia. Dondin, MEFRA (1979) (2), 653, with alterations. Extat. Photo: Imagines, 246. Date: Caesarian/triumviral. Funerary. Surface very worn on left-hand side. 1 magistrate. C ATILIVS A F GLABRIO IIII VIR QVINQ PRAEF FABR DELAT A COS PRAEF COHO CORVM S AGITTAR F A F MINORE NATVS
C. Atilius A. f. Glabrio / IIII uir quinq. praef. fabr. / delat(us) a co(n)sule praef(ectus) coho(rtis) / [-------]corum sagittar(iorum) / F[-------] A. f. minore natus.
Addendum
501
Figure 3. Q86. Perusia: Dondin, MEFRA (1979), 653. Photo: Soprintendenza Archeologicad ell’ Umbria, Gabinetto Fotografico, neg. b/84–2055–56. Gaius Atilius, son of Aulus, Glabrio, quinquennial quattuoruir, praefectus fabrum, ?appointed by the consul, prefect of the [---]cian cohort of archers, younger born of F[---], daughter of Aulus. 1 In the first quarter of the line only the first two letters are visible from the photo. 3 As l. 1. 4 At the start of the line Dondin affirms that ‘il est absolument indiscutable que la lettre pre´ce´dant la de´sinence du ge´netif est un C ou peut-eˆtre un G’ (p. 655). Disconcertingly, Krummrey keeps Bormann’s ‘Tyriorum’, stating that the ‘C’, clearly visible from the photograph, has been wrongly painted over the incised letters. He does not appear to know Dondin’s article. For suggested identities of the cohort of archers, see Dondin, (pp. 655–7); Saddington, Athenaeum (1983), 264. 5 Dondin thinks the first letter is an ‘E’ or an ‘F’, followed by a space of one or two letters and then possibly an ‘M’ (pp. 654–5). I accept the ‘F’ (more likely than ‘E’), but I cannot see an ‘M’ on the (admittedly unclear) photograph before the woman’s filiation. We saw with Q84 above how ‘A’ and ‘M’ can be confused in damaged texts, and it is unlikely that a gentilicium would end in ‘M’. If we read ‘A’ here, we would have room for perhaps three letters, and ‘F[ali]a’ springs to mind as a possible supplement. It is a true blue Etruscan name, and is attested for a magistrate at nearby Hispellum (Q30).
502 Q87
Addendum Sassina. CIL xi. 6510. Extat. Date: triumviral? Public. Left-hand side missing. 2 magistrates. C F LABEO C F LIBO NQ MVRVM VAS D S S
[-----] C. f. Labeo / [-----] C. f. Libo / [IIII uir(i) qui]nq. murum / [-----]uas d. s. s. [-----], son of Gaius, Labeo, [-----], son of Gaius, Libo, [qui]nquennial [quattuoruiri] [saw to the construction?] of the wall and [-----]uas on the vote of the senate. 4 There may be an interpunct between the second and third letters. Q88
Mevaniola. Supp. It. ns 11 (1993), 97, no. 3. Photo: ibid. 98. Extat. Date: second half of century. Public. Broken at top, and both sides. 1þ? magistrates. CAESIV VIR QVI REFICIVND DVCENDAM D C F C EIDEM
5
[-] Caesiu[s -. f. ---] / [IIII] uir(i?) qui[nq.] / reficiund[---] / ducendam [-----] / d(ecreto) c(onscriptorum) f. c. eidem[q. probar.] [-] Caesiu[s, son of ?], qui[quennial quattuor]uiri(?), saw to the repairing [and ---] bringing [---] by decree of the conscripti the same [man approved it]. 3–4 Cenerini (Supp. It. ns 11 (1993), 97–8) argues that the archaeological context requires the restoration of terms associated with a bath complex. Q89
Cales. CIL i2 . 1574. Periit? Date: post-70. Public. 2 magistrates. L SORA L F L ARRIVS M F IIII VIR PR D S S TERM C
L. Sora(nus) L. f. / L. Arrius M. f. / IIII uir(i) pr(aetores) d. s. s. / term(inandum) c(urauere). Lucius Soranus, son of Lucius, Lucius Arrius, son of Marcus, quattuoruiri praetores, saw to the setting out of the boundaries on the vote of the senate. 1 The gentilicium is supplied by Degrassi, ad ILLRP 560. Q90
Venusia? CIL i2 . 1714. Extat? Date: Caesarian/triumviral? Public. Surface slightly damaged. 1 magistrate. M LVCCEIVS C F IIII VIR AED PISCINAM PVRGANDAM ET LORICA
Addendum 5
503
IMPONENDAM DE VRBANORVM OPEREIS COERAVIT
M. Lucceius C. f. / IIII uir aed(ilicia) [pot(estate)] piscinam / purgandam et lorica[m] / imponendam de urbanorum / opereis coerauit. Marcus Lucceius, son of Gaius, quattuoruir with aedilician [power], saw to the cleaning of the piscina and the placing of a parapet, through the labour of the urbani. Q91 Brundisium. Unpublished? Extat, Museo Civico di Brindisi. Date: 70–60 bc? Funerary? Stone broken at top, right, and left sides. 1 magistrate? c.50 cm high, c.30 cm wide. INVS IIII VIR AIIDILICIA POTE TATII LOCVM P V B L I C II [Sab?]inus IIII uir / aedilicia pote[s] / tate locum / publice. [?] [Sab?]inus, quattuoruir with aedilician power, a place (purchased) at public expense. There may be traces of letters on the top edge of the stone (‘DI’?). 1 The trace of the first letter in l. 1 could be ‘B’ or ‘S’; the base of the upright hasta of the ‘R’ of VIR is just visible. 4 This was the last word on the stone, a considerable empty field remains below it. Q92 Ocriculum. CIL i2 . 3372. Photo: Pietrangeli, Epigraphica (1941), fig. 2. Extat? Date: 65–50? Public. Fourth line very damaged. 2 magistrates. C CAESILIVS C F L CLOVIVS L F IIII VIR AED C. Caesilius C. f. / L. Clouius L. f. / IIII uir(i) aed(iles). Gaius Caesilius, son of Gaius, Lucius Clovius, son of Lucius, quattuoruiri aediles. There are traces of letters below the third line, damaged and almost impossible to interpret given the poor quality of the photograph. The right-hand side of the stone may bear the top part of the formula ‘F(aciendum) C(urauerunt) P(robaueruntque)’. Q93 Ocriculum. CIL i2 . 2643. Extat? Date: Caesarian? Dedication. Broken on left. 1 magistrate. T LICINIO T F POST IIII VIR AED APPARITORES
C IVLIO CAESARIS L SALVIO ACCENSO MAG LVPERC VIAT TRIB POSTVMVS IIII VIR AED
(1) T. Licinio T. f. Post(umo) IIII uir(o) aed(ili) / apparitores. (2) C. Iulio Caesaris l. Saluio / accenso mag(istro) Luperc(orum) uiat(ori) trib(unicio) / Postumus IIII uir aed(ilis). To Titus Licinius, son of Titus, Postumus, quattuoruir aedilis, the apparitores. To Gaius Iulius, freedman of Caesar, Salvius, accensus, magister of the Luperci, tribunician uiator, Postumus, quattuoruir aedilis.
504 D1
5
Addendum Fidenae. CIL i2 . 1502. Latet uel periit. Date: first half of century?? Public. Complete? 2 magistrates. PVBLIC FID L MANILI Q F L MARCI L F DVO VIREI III TERMINAVERE
Public(um) Fid(enatium) / L. Manili(us) Q. f. / L. Marci(us) L. f. / duumuirei III / terminauere. Public property of the Fidenates, Lucius Manilius, son of Quintus, Lucius Marcius, son of Lucius, duumuiri for the third time, set the boundaries. D2
Fidenae. CIL i2 . 2664. Extat? Date: as D1? Funerary. Broken on both sides. 1 magistrate. MANIL DVO VIR
[L.?] Manil[ius] / [Q.?] f. duo / uir. [Lucius? Manil[ius, son of Quintus(?)], duumuir. Lommatzsch suggested the identification of this Manilius with that of D1 (CIL i2 ad loc.). D3
Cereatae Marianae. CIL i2 . 2537. Photo: Imagines, 198. Extat. Date: 40s bc? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates.
C VISCIVS M F M CVRIVS C F 5
II VIR VIAM LAPIDE STER P CDXIIII EX D D P P PR X V A III F L I P
C. Viscius M. f. / M. Curius C. f. / II uir(i) / uiam lapide ster(nendam) / p(assus) CDXIIII ex d. d. p. p. / pr(etio) (denariorum) V a(ssium) III f(aciundum) l(ocauere) i(demque) p(robauere). Gaius Viscius, son of Marcus, Marcus Curius, son of Gaius, duumuiri, let the contract for the paving of the road for 414 feet on the decree of the decurions from public funds at the price of 5 denarii and 3 asses for the construction; the same men approved the work. For a defence of Mancini’s resolution ‘pr(etio)’ against ‘pr(aestant)’ see Duncan-Jones, PBSR (1965), 293, on no. 466, cf. Degrassi, CIL i2 , p. 1004. D4
Herculaneum. RAAN (1958), 297, no. 484. Periit. Date: triumviral? Public. Broken on all sides? 2 magistrates? IVS MARCIVS PHI
Addendum
5
505
DVOVIR PRIM ACIENDVM SDEMQVE PRO
[---]ius [---] / [L.?] Marcius Phi[lippus] / duouir(i) prim[i] / [f]aciendum [curauere] / [ei]sdemque pro[bauere d. s. s.?]. [---]ius [son of ?], [Lucius?] Marcius Phi[lippus], first duumuiri, [saw to the c]onstruction and [the s]ame man app[roved [it by the vote of the senate?]. Della Corte tentatively read ‘Laribus signum’ in l. 1, but I have followed Degrassi’s suggestion that the name of the other II uir should be read here (SVA i. 190). D5
5
10
15
Herculaneum. CIL x. 1453. Periit. Date: triumviral. Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. PRID KAL MARTIAS IN CVRIA SCRIBENDO ADFVERVNT CVNCTI QVOD VERBA FACTA SVNT M M REMMIOS RVFOS PATR ET FIL II VIR ITER EX SVA PEQVNIA PONDERA ET CHALCIDICVM ET SCHOLAM SECVNDVM MVNICIPII SPLEN DOREM FECISSE QVAE TVERI PVBLICE DECERET D E R I C PLACERE HVIC ORDINI CVM M M REMMI PAT ET FIL II VIR ITER IN EDENDIS MVNERIBVS ADEO LIBERALES FVERINT VT EORVM MONVMENTA DECORI MVNICIPIO SINT ADEO DILI GENTES VT VITIEIS PONDERVM OCCVRRERINT ID QVE IN PERPETVVM PROVIDERVNT PLACERE DECVRIONIBVS M M REMMIS RVFIS PATR ET FIL DVM EEI VEIVERENT EORVM PONDERVM ET SCHOLAE ET CHALCIDI QVAE IPSI FECISSENT PROCVRATIONEM DARI VT QVE SERVOS QVEI EIVS REI K EMPTVS EST ERIT EEI NEGOTIO PRAEPONERENT NEQVE INDE ABDVCI SINE DECVR DECRETO ET M M REMMIS RVFIS PATR ET FIL PVBLICE GRATIAS AGEI QVOD ITERAT IONEM HONORIS EORVM NON AMBITIONEI NEQVE IACTATIONI SVAE DEDERINT SED IN CVLTVM MVNICIPI ET DECOREM CONTVLERINT
Prid(ie) Kal(endas) Martias in curia scribendo adfuerunt cuncti. Quod uerba facta sunt M(arcos) Remmios Rufos patrem et fil(ium) II uir(os) iter(um) ex sua pequnia pondera et chalcidicum et scholam secundum municipii splendorem fecisse quae tueri publice deceret, d(e) e(a) r(e) i(ta) c(ensuerunt): placere huic ordini cum M(arci) Remmi pat(er) et fil(ius) II uir(i) iter(um) in edendis muneribus adeo liberales fuerint ut eorum monumenta decori municipio sint adeo diligentes ut uitieis ponderum occurrerint id que in perpetuum prouiderunt placere decurionibus M(arcis) Remmis Rufis patr(i) et fil(io) dum eei ueiuerent eorum ponderum et scholae et chalcidi quae ipsi fecissent procurationem dari ut que seruos quei eius rei k(aussa) emptus est erit eei negotio praeponerent neque inde abduci sine decur(ionum) decreto et M(arcis) Remmis Rufis patr(i) et fil(io) publice gratias agei quod iterationem honoris eorum non ambitionei neque iactationi suae dederint sed in cultum municipi et decorem contulerint. On the day before the Kalends of March, allwere present at the writing in the curia. In as much as a proposal had been made that the Marci Remmii Rufi, father and son, duumuiri for the second time had made at their own expense weights and a chalcidicum and a schola befitting the splendour of the municipium, things which it was fitting should be looked after at the public
506
Addendum
expense, about this matter they decreed as follows: it pleased this order that, since the Marci Remmi, father and son, duumuiri for the second time, were so generous in performing their public duties, such that their monuments are a distinction to the Municipium, and since they were so energetic that they corrected the faults in the weights and saw to that in perpetuity, the decurions decided that to the Marci Remmii Rufi, father and son, while they live, oversight should be given for those weights and the schola and chalcidicum, which they themselves had made, and that they might put in charge of this business the slave who has been or will be purchased for the sake of this matter, and that this oversight should not be taken away from them hereafter without a decree of the decurions, and to thank publicly the Marci Remmii Rufi, father and son, because they gave the iteration of their office not from ambition or vainglory, but contributed for the embellishment and distinction of the municipium. The original division of the lines of the text is not known (see Sherk, Municipal Decrees of the Roman West, 31). The text is that in CIL, incorporating Mommsen’s revisions at (my) lines 9 and 11. D6
?Aprustum. AE (1986), 212. Photo: Gasperini, Decima Miscellanea, tav. VIII. Extat. Date: mid-century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. L MARIVS L F L LVRIVS L F D VIR MVRVM FORNICEM AREA FECERVNT
L. Marius L. f., L. Lurius L. f. d(uo) u(iri) / murum fornicem area(m) / fecerunt. Lucius Marius, son of Lucius, Lucius Lurius, son of Lucius, duumuiri, made the wall, the arch, and the area. D7
5
Bantia? CIL i2 . 1693. Extat? Date: second half of century? Public. Broken on right side. 2 magistrates. M SATRIVS CN POMPEIVS II VIRI IT PISCINAM RE DEC SENT CO
M. Satrius [M.? f.] / Cn. Pompeius [Cn.? f.] / II uiri it[erum] / piscinam re[ficiendam de] / dec(urionum) sent(entia) co[erauerunt idemque probauerunt?]. Marcus Satrius, [son of Marcus?], Gnaeus Pompeius, [son of Gnaeus?], duumuiri ag[ain], s[aw] to the re[pair] of the piscina [on] the vote of the decurions [and the same men approved it?] Preservation of the symmetry requires that each man either gave his tribe or had a shortcognomen. D8
Tarentum. CIL i2 . 3167. Periit. Date: late republican/triumviral/Augustan? Dedication. Complete. 1 magistrate. MINERVAE VICTR P TITINIVS A F II VIR SIGN POS
Minervae Victr(ici) / P. Titinius A. f. II uir / sign(um) pos(uit). To Minerva Victrix, Publius Titinius, son of Aulus, duumuir, set up the statue.
Addendum
507
D9 Ausculum. CIL i2 . 3186. Photo: Imagines 239. Extat. Date: triumviral? Public. Left side missing. 2 magistrates.
LDVS \ M F /
II VIR
LVM TABERN PORTIC N COLONEIS FIRMAN VNT
5
[-----. f. Ca]ldus / [--------] M. f. II uir(i) / [macel]lum tabern(as) portic(us?) / [de sua pecu]n(ia) coloneis Firman(eis) / [fac. curauer]unt. [-----. f. Ca]ldus, [--------?] son of Marcus, duumuiri, [sa]w [to the contruction] of the [macel]lum, shops and porticoes(?) [from their own mone]y for the Firman colonists. 1 Degrassi prefers ‘Caledus’ for the cognomen (CIL i2 , p. 3186, q.v. for other restorations). D10
Trebula Suffenas. Supp. It. ns 4, 168–9, no. 34. Extat. Photo: ibid. p. 168. Date: midcentury? Public. Badly damaged; two fragments, not contiguous, broken on all sides. 2 magistrates. RCIV DEM I
VIRI OBAR
[?Ma]rciu[s - f. duo]uiri / [f. c. (?) ei]dem[q(ue) pr]obar(unt) / [--]i[---]. [?Ma]rciu[s, son of ?, duum]uiri, saw to the construction and the same men approved it, [--]i[---]. There are traces of what appears to be another name above that of [?Ma]rciu[s]; on the other hand it is uncertain whether there were in fact traces of a fourth line, or only scratches on the stone. D11
Forum Novum. CIL ix. 4789. Extat. Date: triumviral/Augustan. Funerary. Complete? 1 magistrate. C TONNIO C F CLV II VIR DES PVBLILIA UXSOR FECIT VIRO SVO
C. Tonnio C. f. Clu(stimina) II uir(o) des(ignato) / Publilia uxsor fecit uiro suo. For Gaius Tonnius, son of Gaius, of the tribe Clustumina, duumuir designate, Publilia his wife made this for her husband. D12
Forum Novum. Supp. It. ns 5, 182, no. 15. Extat. Photo: Filippi, Supp. It. ns 5, 182. Date: triumviral/Augustan. Public. Broken on left side and bottom, also on top? 2 magistrates. POLLIO III ET MANLIANVS II VIRI RESTITVERVNT NA
[---] Pollio (?ter) et / [---] Manlianus / II uiri restituerunt / uacat / [---]na. [---] Pollio, for the third time (?) and [---?---] Manlianus, duumuiri, restored it. uacat. [----]na[---].
508
Addendum
Filippi argues that the form of the names and the run of the text indicate that this inscription was supplementary to the main building inscription. Since D12 describes a restoration, this seems very plausible. He further suggests that l. 4 should record some kind of building (Supp. It. ns 5, 183). D13
Cupra Maritima. CIL i2 . 1917. Photo: tab. 101, fig. 4. Extat. Date: pre-53 bc. Public. Complete. 2 magistrates.
P RVPILIVS A F L MINICIVS L F 5
DVO VIR CAMPVM ET MACER EX D D FACIVNDV COER IDEMQ PROB
P. Rupilus A. f. / L. Minicius L. f. / duo uir(i) / campum et macer(iam) / ex d. d. faciundu(m) / coer. idemq. prob. Publius Rutilius, son of Aulus, Lucius Minicius, son of Lucius, duumuiri, saw to the construction of the campus and the ?wall by decree of the decurions and the same men approved it. D14
5
Trea. AE (1990), 303. Photo: Moscatelli, Picus (1985), 83, fig. 11. Extat. Date: Caesarian? Public. 1 magistrate. C DECVMIVS C F C N DVO VIR HONORIS DECVRION MVNICIPVMQVE SIGNVM VICTORIAE SACRVM ET BASIM DE PEQ SVA FAC CVRAVIT
C. Decumius C. f. / C. n. duo uir / honoris decurion(um) / municipumque / signum Victoriae / sacrum et basim / de peq(unia) sua fac. / curauit. Gaius Decumius, son of Gaius, grandson of Gaius, duumuir, in honour of the decurions and the municipes saw to the construction of the statue sacred to Victory and the base, from his own money. D15
5
Casinum. CIL x. 5159. Periit? Date: 40 bc Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. M PAPIVS M F L MATRIVS L F DVO VIRI I D SIGNVM CONCORDIAE EX C C RESTITVENDVM COERAVERVNT EIDEMQ DEDICARVNT ET BASIM GRADVM ARAM SVA PEQVNIA FACIVNDA COER EIDEMQ PROBAVER A D IIII EID OCT CN DOMIT CN ASINIO COS
M. Papius M. f. L. Matrius L. f. / duo uiri i. d. / signum Concordiae ex c(onscriptorum) c(onsensu) restituendum / coerauerunt eidemq(ue) dedicarunt / et basim gradum aram sua pequnia / faciunda coer(auerunt) eidemq(ue) probauer(unt) / a(nte) d(iem) IIII eid(us) Oct(obres) Cn. Domit(io) C. Asinio co(n)s(ulibus). Marcus Papius, son of Marcus, Lucius Matrius, son of Lucius, duumuiri with jurisdictional power, saw to the restoration of the statue of Concordia by the agreement of the conscripti,
Addendum
509
and the same men dedicated it, and saw to the construction of the base, step, and altar with their own money, on the fourth day before the Ides of October, when Gnaeus Domitius and Gaius Asinius were consuls. D16
Herculaneum. CIL i2 . 1625. Extat. Date: triumviral/Augustan. Public. Complete. 1 magistrate. M SPVRIVS M F MEN RVFVS II VIR I D MACELLVM D S P F C EIDQ PRO
M. Spurius M. f. / Men(enia) Rufus II uir / i. d. macellum d. / s. p. f. c. eid(em)q(ue) pro(bauit). Marcus Spurius, son of Marcus, Rufus of the tribe Menenia, duumuir with jurisdictional power, saw to the construction of the macellum from his own money and the same man approved it. D17 Bantia. Torelli, Arch. Class (1969), 15. Photo: ibid. tab. III. Extat? Date: mid-century. Complete. 2 magistrates
5
AN VSSAEVS SEX F T SALISIVS T F II VIR I D M I N E R V AE SIGNVM D D S ST C
An. Vssaeus / Sex. f. / T. Salisius T. f. / II uir(i) i. d. / Mineruae / signum d. d. s. st(atuendum) c. Annius(?) Ussaeus, son of Sextus, Titus Salisius, son of Titus, duumuiri with jurisdictional power, saw to the setting up of the statue of Minerva by the vote of the decurions. D18
5
Atina. CIL i2 . 1533. Periit? Date: mid century? Public. Complete? 2 magistrates. C OBINIVS C F RVF SEX MVNNIVS C F II* VIRI Q Q EX D D P P HS OOO DCIIX AD ORVM PECVARI VIAM STERNVND COER
C. Obinius C. f. Ruf(us) / Sex. Munnius C. f. / II uiri q(uin)q(uennales) ex d. d. / p. p. HS (quinquaginta tribus milibus sescentis octo) / ad [f]orum pecuari(um) / uiam sternund(am) / coer. Gaius Obinius, son of Gaius, Rufus, Sextus Munnius, son of Gaius, quinquennial duumuiri, by the decree of the decurions, saw to the paving of the road to the livestock market at public expense, namely 3,608 sesterces. I am uncertain whether the last letters of ll. 5 and 6 are missing because the lapicide left them out or because the stone was broken when seen. D19
Caiatia. CIL i2 . 1576. Photo: CIL i2 . 2(4) tab. 61, fig. 1. Date: mid-century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates.
510
Addendum
Figure 4. D19. Caiatia. CIL i2 . 1576. Photo: author.
5
M HERENNIVS M F GALLVS Q VESERIVS Q F DVO VIR QVINQ D D S F. C EIDEMQ PROB ARCITECTVS HOSPES APPIAI SER
M. Herennius M. f. Gallus / Q. Veserius Q. f. duo uir(i) / quinq. d. d. s. f. c. eidemq. prob. / [u] / arc(h)itectus Hospes Appiai ser(uus). Marcus Herennius, son of Marcus, Gallus, Quintus Veserius, son of Quintus, quinquennial duumuiri, by the vote of the decurions, saw to the construction and the same men approved it; uacat the architect Hospes, slave of Appia (was responsible). D20
5
Ausculum. Chelotti and Mennella, ZPE 103 (1994), 161–20. Photo: ibid., taf. XV n. 3. Extat. Date: mid-century? Public. Complete. 2 magistrates. C STATIVS C F Q CASTRIVS V F II VIR A E D EXS D C FACIVND COER
C. Statius C. f. / Q. Castrius V. f. / IIuir(i) aed(iles) / exs d(ecurionum) c(onsulto) / faciund. coer. Gaius Statius, son of Gaius, Quintus Castrius, son of Vibius, duumuiri aediles, by the resolution of the decurions, saw to the construction.
Bibliography Abbott, F. F., and Johnson, A. C. (1926). Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Acta (1967). Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967 (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). Adamesteanu, D., and Torelli, M. (1969). ‘Il nuovo frammento della Tabula Bantina’, Arch. Class. 21: 1–17. Adamietz, J., ed. (1989). Cicero. Pro Murena (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). Afzelius, A. (1942). Die ro¨mische Eroberung Italiens (Acta Jutlandica, 14/3; Copenhagen: Munksgaard). —— (1944). Die ro¨mische Kriegsmacht wa¨hrend der Auseinandersetzung mit den hellenistischen Grossma¨chten (Acta Jutlandica, 16/2; (Copenhagen: Munksgaard). Akten (1971). Akten des VI International Kongresses fur griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (Munich: Beck). Alessandri, A. (1928). I municipi romani di Sarsina e di Mevaniola (Milan: TipograWa de ‘Populo d’ Italia’). Ampolo, C. (1976–7). ‘Demarato: Osservazioni sulla mobilita` sociale in eta` arcaica’, DdA 9–10: 333–45. Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined Communities: ReXections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism2 (London: Verso). Ando, C. (2003a). ‘Introduction’, in C. Ando (ed.), Roman Religion (Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 1–15. —— ed. (2003b). Roman Religion (Edinburgh Readings on the Ancient World; Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Antonini, R. (1985). ‘Rivista di epigraWa italica. II. Aquinum’, SE 53: 259–60. Anziani, D. (1913). ‘Les Voies romaines de l’e´trurie me´ridionale’, MERFA 33: 172–244. Armstrong, H. H. (1915). ‘Topograhical Studies at Setia’, AJA 2nd ser. 19: 34–56. Austin, M., Harries, J., and Smith, C. J., eds. (1998). Modus Operandi. Essays in Honour of GeoVrey Rickman (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement, 71; London: Institute of Classical Studies/School of Advanced Study, University of London). Badian, E. (1954a). ‘Lex Acilia Repetundarum’, AJP 75: 374–84. —— (1954b). ‘Lex Servilia’, CR 4: 101–2. —— (1956). ‘(Review of) Malcovati, H. (ed.), ORF 2’, JRS 46: 218–21. —— (1958a). Foreign Clientelae (276–79 B.C.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1958b). ‘Notes on Provincial Governors from the Social War to Sulla’s Victory’, in E. Badian, Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford: Blackwell), 71–104. —— (1962a). ‘From the Gracchi to Sulla’, Historia, 11: 197–245. —— (1962b). ‘Waiting for Sulla’, JRS 52: 47–61. —— (1963). ‘Notes on Roman Senators of the Republic’, Historia, 12: 129–43. —— (1964). Studies in Greek and Roman History (Oxford: Blackwell). —— (1968). ‘Review of Degrassi, A., Imagines’, JRS 58: 240–9. —— (1969). ‘Quaestiones Variae’, Historia, 18: 447–91. —— (1973). ‘Marius’ Villas: The Testimony of the Slave and the Knave’, JRS 63: 121–32.
512
Bibliography
Badian, E. (1990). ‘The Consuls, 179–49 B.C.’, Chiron, 20: 371–413. Baldacci, P. (1971–4). ‘I trattati tra Romani e Galli Transalpini nel Pro Balbo di Cicerone’, Notizie dal Chiostro del Monastero Maggiore, 7–10: 59–63. Ballance, M. H. (1951). ‘The Roman Bridges of the Via Flaminia’, PBSR 19: 78–117. Baltrusch, E. (1989). Regimen Morum: Die Reglementierung des Privatlebens der Senatoren und Ritter in der ro¨mischen Republik und fru¨hen Kaiserzeit (Vestigia, 41; Munich: Beck). Bandelli, G. (1983). ‘Per una storia della classe dirigente di Aquileia repubblicana’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. (Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981, 2nd ser. 6; Naples: Centre Jean Be´rard), 175–203. —— (1992). ‘Le classi dirigenti cisalpine e la loro promozione politica (II–I secolo a.C.)’, DdA 10: 31–45. —— (1996). ‘Le aristocrazie locali della Regio X dalla guerra sociale all’eta` neroniana: La parte occidentale’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les E´lites municipales de l’Italie pe´ninsulaire des Gracques a` Ne´ron (Centre Jean Be´rard, 13; CEFR 215; Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 13–30. Barabino, G. (1967). ‘I frammenti delle ‘‘Historiae’’ di Lucio Cornelio Sisenna’, Studi Noniani, 1: 67–251. Barker, G., ed. (1995). A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley (Leicester: Leicester University Press). Barnabei, F. (1882). ‘Ottobre, IV. Acerenza’, NSA 383–5. —— (1894). ‘Regione III, Lucania et Bruttii, IX—Strongoli. Di un piedistallo di statua onoraria posta a Manio Megonio Leone nel Foro di Petelia, con iscrizione dedicatoria e con un nuovo capitolo del testamento di quel personaggio’, NSA 18–26. Barocelli, P. (1926). ‘Gottolengo (Brescia)’, NSA 6/2: 13–22. Baronowski, D. W. (1984). ‘The Formula Togatorum’, Historia, 33: 248–52. —— (1990). ‘Sub umbra foederis aequi’, Phoenix, 44: 345–69. Barton, I. M., ed. (1995). Roman Public Buildings (Exeter Studies in History; Exeter: University of Exeter Press). Bassignano, M. S. (1991). ‘I praefecti iure dicundo dell’Italia Settentrionale’, in EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en memoire de Attilio Degrassi pour la centenaire de sa naissance, Rome, 27–28 mai 1988 (CEFR 143; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 515–37. Beard, M., North, J. A. and Price, S. R. F. (1998a). Religions of Rome, i. A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— —— and —— (1998b). Religions of Rome, ii. A Sourcebook. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Beloch, K. J. (1880). Der italische Bund unter Roms Hegemonie (Staatsrechtliche und statistische Forschungen; Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). —— (1926). Ro¨mische Geschichte bis zum Beginn der punischen Krieg (Berlin and Leipzig: De Gruyter). Bendinelli, G. (1921). ‘Regione VII (Etruria). V. Ferento (Viterbo)—Nota relative alle iscrizioni sepolcrali ferentane’, NSA 228–9. Benelli, E. (1994). Le iscrizioni bilingui etrusco-latine (Biblioteca di Studi Etruschi; Florence: Olschki). —— (1996). ‘Sui cosidetti penesti etruschi’, PdP 51: 335–44. —— (1999). ‘La romanizzazione attraverso l’epigraWa: Il Veneto e il modello etrusco’, in Protostoria e storia del Venetorum angulus. Atti del XX Convegno di Studi Etruschi ed
Bibliography
513
Italici, Portogruaro-Quarto, D’Altino-Este-Adria, 16–19 ottobre 1996 (Rome: Istituti Editoriali e PoligraWci Internazionale), 651–64. —— (2001a). ‘Le iscrizioni funerari chiusine di eta` ellenistica’, SE 44: 225–63. —— (2001b). ‘The Romanization of Italy through the Epigraphic Record’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 7–16. Bengtson, H., and Werner, R., eds (1962). Staatsvertra¨ge des Altertums, ii. Die Vertra¨ge der griechisch-ro¨mischen Welt von 700 bis 228 v. Chr. (Kommission fu¨r Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts; Munich: C.H. Beck). Bennett, H. (1923). Cinna and his Times: A Critical and Interpretative Study of Roman History during the Period 97–84 B.C. (Menasha, Wis.: George Banta). Bernardi, A. (1973). Nomen Latinum. (Pavia: TipograWa del Libro). Berrendonner, C., and Munzi, M. (1998). ‘La Gens urinate’, MEFRA 110: 647–62. Bertocchi, F. (1957). ‘Note di epigraWa cannosina’, in Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di EpigraWa Greca e Latina (4–8 settembre) (Roma: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider), 199–205. Beschi, L. (1960). ‘Verona romana: i monumenti’, in G. B. Pighi (ed.), Verona e il suo territorio, i (Verona: Istituto per gli studi storici veronese), 367–553. Bevilacqua, G., and De Benedittis, G. (1980). ‘Le anfore’, in Sannio: Pentri e Frentani dal VI al I sec. a.C. Isernia, Museo Nazionale, ottobre–dicembre 1980 (Rome: Soprintendenza Archeologica e per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e Storici del Molise/De Luca Editore), 342–8. Bianchi Bandinelli, R. (1971). Rome: The Late Empire, Roman Art A.D. 200–400 (London: Thames & Hudson). Biscardi, A. (1951). ‘La questione italica e le tribu` sopprannumerarie’, PdP 6: 241–56. —— (1953). ‘Auctoritas patrum’, BIDR 16–17: 213–94. Bispham, E. H. (1997). ‘The End of the Tabula Heracleensis: A Poor Man’s Sanctio?’, Epigraphica, 59: 125–56. —— (2000a). ‘Carved in Stone: The Municipal Magistracies of Numerius Cluvius’, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement, 73; London: School of Advanced Studies), 39–75. —— (2000b). ‘Introduction’, in E. H. Bispham and C. J. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 1–18. —— (2000c). ‘Mimic? A Case Study in Early Roman Colonisation’, in E. Herring and K. Lomas (eds.), The Emergence of State Identities in Italy in the First Millennium B.C. (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, 8; London: Accordia Research Institute), 157–86. —— (2006). ‘Coloniam deducere: How Roman was Roman Colonization during the Middle Republic?’, in G. J. Bradley and J.-P. Wilson (eds.), Greek and Roman Colonisation: Origins, Ideologies and Interactions (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales), 73–160. —— (forthcoming). ‘Pliny the Elder’s Italy’, in E. H. Bispham and G. Rowe (eds.), Vita Vigilia Est: Papers on Pliny the Elder in Honour of Barbara Levick (BICS suppl.; London: Institute of Classical studies). —— and Smith, C. J., eds. (2000). Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy. Evidence and Experience (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Blake, M. (1947). Ancient Roman Construction from Prehistoric Times to the Age of Augustus (New York: Carnegie Horn). Blanck, H. (1968). ‘Archa¨ologische Funde und Grabungen in Norditalien 1959–67’, Archa¨ologische Anzeiger (Beiblatt zum Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archa¨ologischen Instituts), 3: 540–626.
514
Bibliography
Bleicken, J. (1975a). Die Verfassung der ro¨mischen Republik (Paderborn: UTB). —— (1975b). Lex Publica: Gesetz und Recht in der ro¨mischen Republik (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter). —— (1990). ‘Tiberius Gracchus und die italischen Bundesgenossen’, in Memoria rerum veterum: Neue Beitra¨ge zur antiken Historiographie und Alten Geschichte. Festschrift fu¨r J.C. Classen zum 60. Geburtstag (Palingenesia, 32; Stuttgart: Steiner), 101–31. —— ed. (1993). Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien, 13; Kallmu¨nz: Kallmu¨nz/Opf). Bligh, L. C. (1999). The Settlement of Romans and Italians in the Iberian Peninsula to A.D. 14. (Edinburgh: Department of Classics, University of Edinburgh). Bloch, G., and Carcopino, J. (1952). Des Gracques a` Sulla3 Histoire Ancienne, Histoire Romaine, ii La Re´publique romaine de 133 avant J.-C. a` la mort de Ce´sar, part 1 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France). Bodel, J. (1993). ‘Chronology and Succession 1: Fasti Capitolini Fr. XXXIId, the Sicilian Fasti, and the SuVect Consuls of 36 B.C.’, ZPE 96: 259–66. —— (1995). ‘Chronology and Succession 2: Notes on Some Consular Lists on Stone’, ZPE 105: 279–96. Boethius, A., and Carlgren, N. (1932). ‘Die spa¨trepublikanischen Warenhauser in Ferentino und Tivoli’, Acta Archaeologica, 3: 181–208. Bonnet, C., and Jourdain-Annequin, C., eds. (1992). He´racle`s: D’une rive a` l’autre de la Me´diterrane´e. Bilan et perspectives. Actes de la Table Ronde de Rome, Academia Belgica– E´cole franc¸aise de Rome, 15–16 septembre 1989 (Brussels and Rome: Brepols Publishers). Borza, E., and Carrubba, R. W., eds. (1973). Classics and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented to R. E. Dengler on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University). Bosio, L., ed. (1981). Padova antica: Da communita` paleoveneta a citta` romano-cristiana (Padua: Lint). Bossu, C. (1982). ‘M.’ Megonius Leo’, ZPE 45: 155–65. Botsford, G. W. (1909). The Roman Assemblies from their Origin to the End of the Republic (New York: Macmillan). Bowman, A. K., Champlin, E., and Lintott, A. W., eds. (1996). Cambridge Ancient History, x 2 . The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Bradeen, D. W. (1958–9). ‘Roman Citizenship per magistratum’, CJ 54: 221–8. Bradley, G. J. (2000a). Ancient Umbria: State, Culture and Identity in Central Italy from the Iron Age to the Augustan Era (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2000b). ‘The Colonization of Interamna Nahars’, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement, 73; London: Institute of Classical Studies/School of Advanced Studies, University of London), 3–17. —— (2002). ‘The Romanisation of Italy in the Second Century B.C.’, JRA 15: 401–6. Braudel, F. (1972/3). The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II (London and New York: HarperCollins). Brodersen, K. (1987). Appian von Alexandria: Ro¨mische Geschichte, i. Die ro¨mische Reichsbildung (Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur, 23; Stuttgart: Hiersemann). —— (1993). ‘Appian und sein Werk’, ANRW II/34. 1 (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter), 339–63. Broughton, T. R. S. (1951). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, i. 509 B.C.–100 B.C. (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association, 15/1; New York: American Philological Association).
Bibliography
515
—— (1952). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, ii. 99 B.C.–31 B.C. (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association, 15/2; New York: American Philological Association). —— (1986). The Magistrates of the Roman Republic, iii. Supplement (Philological Monographs of the American Philological Association, 15/3; Atlanta, Ga.: American Philological Association). Brown, F. E. (1980). Cosa: The Making of a Roman Town (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). Bruna, F. J. (1972). Lex Rubria: Caesars Regelung fu¨r die richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Cisalpina. Text, U¨ bersetzung und Kommentar mit Einleitung, historischen Anhangen und Indices (Studia Gaiana, 5; Leiden, E. J. Brill). Brunt, P. A. (1987). Italian Manpower 225 B.C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1988). The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Brusin, G. (1929). Aquileia, Guida storica e artistica, with preface by Roberto Paribeni (Udine: Edizioni de ‘La Panarie’). —— (1934). Gli scavi di Aquileia: Un quadriennio di attivita dell’ associazione nazionale per Aquileia (1929–32) (Udine: Edizione de ‘La Panarie’). —— (1936–7). ‘Il problemo cronologico della colonia militare di Aquileia’, Aquileia Nostra, 7–8: cols. 15–46. —— (1938). ‘BibliograWa aquileiese’, Aquileia Nostra, 9: cols. 153–4. Brusin, J. B., ed. (1991). Inscriptiones Aquileiae, i, ed. M. Buora (Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 20; Udine: Arti GraWche Fruilane). —— ed. (1993). Inscriptiones Aquileiae, ii, ed. M. Buora (Pubblicazioni della Deputazione di storia patria per il Friuli, 20; Udine: Arti GraWche Fruilane). Bruun, P., Hohti, P., Kaimio, J., Michelsen, E., Nielsen, M., and RuoV-Va¨a¨na¨nen, E. (1975). Studies in the Romanization of Etruria (AIRF 5; Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae). Bulst., C. M. (1964). ‘ ‘‘Cinnanum Tempus’’: A Reassessment of the ‘‘Dominatio Cinnae’’ ’, Historia, 13: 307–37. Buonocore, M. (1982). ‘Monumenti funerari romani con iscrizione ad Alba Fucens’, MEFRA 94/2: 715–41. —— (1983). ‘Considerazioni sulle iscrizioni latine di Alba Fucens’, ZPE 52: 183–98. —— (1987a). ‘Regio IV, Sabina et Samnium, CorWnium’, in M. Guarducci and S. Panciera (eds.), Supplementa Italica, ns 5 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale), 93–222. —— (1987b). ‘Regio IV. Sabina et Samnium: Superaequum’, in S. Panciera (ed.), Supplementa Italica, ns 5 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale), 87–144. —— (1993). ‘Patronus municipi praefecturae Atinatium’, SCO 43: 373–80. —— (1994). ‘Sul frammento cesariano di Alba Fucens: CIL i2 .2966’, Ostraka, 3: 245–7. —— (2002a). L’Abruzzo e il Molise in eta` romana tra storia ed epigraWa, i (Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria, Studi e Testi, 21/1; L’Aquila: Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria). —— (2002b). ‘Roma e l’Italia centrale dopo la Guerra Sociale: amministrazione, territorio e communita’, in L’Abruzzo e il Molise in eta` romana tra storia ed epigraWa, i (Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria, Studi e Testi, 21/1; L’Aquila: Deputazione Abruzzese di Storia Patria), 29–45. Cagiano de Azevedo, M. (1949). Aquinum (Aquino) (Roma: Istituto di Studi Romani). Calabi Limentani, I. (1968). EpigraWa latina (Milan and Varese: Istituto Editoriale Cisalpino).
516
Bibliography
Calbi, A. (1981). ‘ ‘‘Decurio a populo’’: Proposta per un’ iscrizione piacentina’, Epigraphica, 43: 251–7. Calboli, G., ed. (2001). Papers on Grammar, vi (Bologna: Universita` di Bologna, Dipartimento di filologia classicae medievale). Calza, G. (1916). ‘Regione I, (Latium et Campania) Latium. II. Ostia—Scavi sul Piazzale delle corporazione, nell’ isola tra il decumano e la via della casa di Diana’, NSA 138–48. Camodeca, G. (1982). ‘Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori di origine. Italia: regio I (Campania, esclusa la zona di Capua e di Cales), II (Apulia et Calabria), III (Lucania et Bruttii)’, in S. Panciera (ed.), EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, ii. Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori d’ origine. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL su epigraWa e ordine senatorio, Roma 14–20 maggio 1981 (Tituli, 5; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura), 101–63. —— (1987). ‘Nuovi dati sui senatori romani d’ origine puteolana 1. Un nuovo legatus legionis di I sec. d. C. L. Limbricius [ .F.] FAL V[—] 2. M. Hordeonius Flaccus, cos. suV. 47, e la gens Hordeonia’, Puteoli, 11: 13–36. —— (1996). ‘L’e´lite municipale di Puteoli fra la tarda repubblica e Nerone’, in M. Ce´beillacGervasoni (ed.), Les E´lites municipales de l’Italie peninsulaire des Gracques a` Neron (Centre Jean Be´rard, 13, CEFR 215; Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Francaise de Rome), 91–110. Campanelli, A., and Faustoferri, A., eds. (1998). I luoghi degli dei. Sacro e natura nell’ abruzzo italico (Pescara: De Luca). Campanile, E. (1990). ‘L’assimilazione culturale del mondo italico’, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii/1. L’impero Mediterraneo (Turin: Einaudi), 305–12. —— ed. (1991a). Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell’ Italia antica (Pisa: Giardini). —— (1991b). ‘La mobilita` personale nell’Italia antica’, in E. Campanile (ed.), Rapporti linguistici e culturali tra i popoli dell’ Italia antica (Pisa: Giardini), 11–21. —— and Letta, C. (1979). Studi sulle magistrature indigene e municipali in area italica (Pisa: Giardini). Campanile, T. (1915). ‘Regione VII, Etruria, II. Bolsena—Iscrizione ricordante un magistrato municipale di Volsinii rinvenuta nel territorio del comune’, NSA 239–40. Campbell, B. (2000). The Writings of the Roman Land Surveyors: Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (London: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies). Camporeale, G. (1956). ‘La terminlogia magistratuale nelle lingue-osco-umbre’, Atti Accademia Toscana, 21: 33–108. Cancik, H., Lichtenberger, H., and Scha¨fer, P., eds. (1995). Geschichte—Tradition— ReXexion: Festschrift fu¨r Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ii. Griechische und Ro¨mische Religion (Tu¨bingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebecle)). Cancik-Lindemaier, H. (1995). ‘Der Diskurs Religion im Senatsbeschluß u¨ber die Bacchanalia von 186 v. Chr. und bei Livius (B. XXXIX)’, in Cancik et al. (eds.), Geschichte— Tradition—ReXexion: Festschrift fu¨r Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ii. Griechische und Ro¨mische Religion (Tu¨bingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebecle)), ii. 77–96. Canfora, L., Liverani, M., and Zaccagnini, C. eds. (1990). I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretscheider). Cannadine, D. (1983). ‘The Context, Performance and Meaning of Ritual: The British Monarchy and the ‘‘Invention of Tradition’’, c. 1820–1977’, in E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 101–64.
Bibliography
517
Capelli, R., ed. (2000). Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti (Milan: Electa). Capini, S. (1978). ‘Osco: Campochiaro’, SE 46: 420–44. —— (1991). ‘Venafro’, in La Romanisation du Samnium aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. (Naples: Centre Jean Be´rard), 21–33. —— and Di Niro, A., eds (1991). Samnium: Archeologia del Molise (Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali/Soprintendenza Archeologica e per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e Storici del Molise/Quasar). Capogrossi Colognesi, L. (2000). Cittadini e territorio: consolidamento e transformazione della ‘civitas Romana’ (Rome: Sapienza Editrice). —— (2002). Persistenza e innovazione nelle strutture territoriali dell’Italia romana: L’ambiguita` di una interpretazione storiograWca e dei suoi modelli (Naples: Jovene Editore). Carandini, A., ed. (1985). La romanizzazione dell’Etruria: Il territorio di Vulci (Milan: Electa). Carducci, C. (1940). Tibur (Tivoli), (Regio IV—Sabini et Samnium) (Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani). Carney, T. F. (1961). A Biography of C. Marius: An Inaugural Lecture given in the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Proceedings of the African Classical Association, suppl. 1; Assen: African Classical Association). Carter, J. M., ed. (1982). Suetonius, Divus Augustus, Edited with Introduction and Commentary (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press). —— (1990). Julius Caesar, The Civil War. Books I and II. Edited with an Introduction, Translation and Commentary (Warminster: Aris & Phillips). —— (1995). ‘Civic and Other Buildings’, in I. M. Barton (ed.), Roman Public Buildings (Exeter: Exeter University Press), 31–65. Cary, M. R. (1929). ‘Notes on the Legislation of Julius Caesar’, JRS 19: 185–91. —— (1937). ‘The Municipal Legislation of Julius Caesar’, JRS 27: 48–53. Castre´n, P. (1975). Ordo Populusque Pompeianus: Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae). Catalano, P. (1961–2). ‘Appunti sopra il piu` antico concetto giuridico di Italia’, Atti Acc. Torino, 96: 198–228. Cavagnaro Vanoni, L. (1966). ‘Rivista di epigraWa etrusca, Tarquinii,’ SE 34: 324–5. Ca`ssola, F. (1982). ‘Diodoro e la storia romana’, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der ro¨mischen Welt (Berlin and New York), ii/30/1: 724–73. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, M. (1983a). ‘Le Notable local dans l’e´pigraphie et les sources litte´raires latines: Proble`mes et e´quivoques’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples: Bibliothe`que de l’ Institut Franc¸ais de Naples), 51–8. —— ed. (1983b). Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples: Bibliothe`que de l’ Institut Franc¸ais de Naples). —— (1987). ‘Relecture et re´vision de l’ inscription CIL x.1573 de Pouzzoles’, Puteoli, 11: 3–12. —— (1991). ‘Les Magistrats des cite´s du Latium et de la Campanie des Gracques a Auguste: Proble`mes de nomenclature’, in EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome, 27–28 mai 1988 (Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 143: 189–207.
518
Bibliography
Ce´beillac-Gervasoni, M. (1996a). ‘Deux pre´teurs, magistrats de la colonie romaine d’Ostie avant la guerre sociale: Publius Silius et Marcus Critonius’, in A. Gallina-Zevi and A. Claridge (eds.), ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited: Archaeological and Historical Papers in Memory of Russell Meiggs (London and Rome: British School at Rome/Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia), 91–101. —— ed. (1996b). Les E´lites municipales de l’ Italie pe´ninsulaire des Graccques a` Ne´ron (Colloque Clermont-Ferrand 1991) (Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). —— (1998). Les Magistrats des cite´s italiennes de la seconde guerre punique a` Auguste: Le Latium et la Campanie (Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). Chelotti, M. (1989). ‘Regio II, Apulia et Calabria. Rubi’, Supplementa Italica, ed. M. Guarducci and S. Panciera (Rome), ns 5: 11–26. —— (1996). ‘Programma edilizio, magistrati, evergetismo in Apulia tra guerra sociale ed eta` neroniana’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.). Les E´lites municipales de l’ Italie pe´ninsulaire des Graccques a` Ne´ron (Colloque Clermont-Ferrand 1991) (Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome, 13/215), 55–69. —— Gaeta, R., Morizio, V., and Silvestrini, M. (eds.) (1990). Le epigraW romane di Canosa (Documenti Studi, 7; 2 vols. Dipartimento ‘di scienze dell’ Universita di Bari, sezione storica. Bari: Edipuglia). Chevallier, R. (1983). La Romanisation de la Celtique du Poˆ (Rome: BEFAR), ii. Chilver, G. E. F. (1941). Cisalpine Gaul, Social and Economic History from 49 B.C. to the Death of Trajan (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Chouquer, G. and Favory, F. (1991). Les Paysages de l’antiquite´: Terres et cadastres de l’Occident romain (IVe s. avant J.-C./IIIe s. apre`s J.-C. (Paris: Errance). —— Clavel-Le´veˆque, M., Favory, F., and Vallet, J.-P. (1987). Structures agraires en Italie centro-me´ridionale: Cadastres et paysages ruraux (Collection E´FR 100; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). Christol, M., and Masson, O., eds. (1997). Actes du Xe Congre`s Internationale d’E´pigraphie greque et latine: Nıˆmes, 4–9 octobre 1992. (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne). Cichorius, C. (1908). Untersuchungen zu Lucilius (Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung). —— (1922). Ro"mische Studien: Historisches Epigraphisches Litera¨rgeschictliches aus vier Jahrhunderten Roms (Leipzig: Teubner). Ciprotti, P. (1976). ‘Il nome e la legge di Pompei colonia romana’, Cronache Pompeiane, 2: 21–8. Clarke, K. (1999). Between Geography and History: Hellenistic Constructions of the Roman World (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Clavel-Le´veˆque, M. (1983). ‘Pratiques impe´rialistes et implantations cadastrales’, Ktema, 8: 185–251. Clemente, G. (1981). ‘Le leggi sul lusso e la societa` romana tra III e II secolo a.C.’, in A. Giardina and A. Schiavone (eds.), Modelli etici, diritto e trasformazioni sociali (Rome and Bari: Laterza), 1–14. —— (1990). ‘Dal territorio della citta` all’egemonia in Italia’, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma: L’impero Mediterraneo (Turin: Laterza) ii/1: 19–38. Cloud, D. (1993). ‘Municipal Capital Jurisdiction over Roman Citizens’. LCM 18/3: 39–43. Coarelli, F. (1977). ‘Public Building in Rome between the Second Punic War and Sulla’. PBSR 45: 1–19. —— (1983). ‘I santuari del Lazio e della Campania tra i Gracchi e le guerre civili’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles
Bibliography
519
av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples: 217–40). —— (1985). Italia centrale (Guide archeologiche Laterza; Rome and Bari: Laterza). —— (1987). I santuari laziali in eta` repubblicana (Studi NIS Archeologia, 7; Rome: La Nuova Italia ScientiWca). —— (1988a). ‘Colonizzazione romana e viabilita`’, DdA ser. 3/6/2: 35–48. —— (1988b). ‘Strabone: Roma e il Lazio’, in G. Maddoli (ed.), Strabone e l’Italia antica (Perugia: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane), ii. 75–91. —— (1991a). ‘Assisi repubblicana: riXessioni su un caso di autoromanizzazione’, Atti del Accademia Properziana del Subasio, 6/19: 5–22. —— (1991b). ‘I culti sannitici nel Lazio meridionale’, in J. Mertens and R. Lambrechts (eds.), Communita` indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nel Italia centro-meridionale (IV o -III o sec. av. C.) Actes du Colloque Internationale (Brussels and Rome: Institut Historique de Belge), 177–92. —— (1992). ‘Colonizzazione e municipalizzazione: tempi e modi’, DdA 3/10: 21–30. —— (1996). ‘Da Assisi a Roma: Architettura pubblica e promozione sociale in una citta` dell’Umbria’, in G. Bonamente and F. Coarelli (eds.), Assisi e gli Umbri nell’antichita`. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Assisi 18–21 dicembre 1991 (Assisi: Universita degli Studi di Perugia, Accademia Properziana del Subasio di Assisi/Editrice Minerva), 245–58. —— (1998). ‘La storia e lo scavo’, in F. Coarelli and P. G. Monti (eds.), Fregellae, i. Le fonti, la storia, il territorio (Rome: Quasar), i. 29–69. —— and Monti, P. G., eds. (1998). Fregellae, i. Le fonti, la storia, il territorio (Rome: Quasar). Cocchiaro, A. (2001). ‘Messagne (Brindisi)’, Taras, 21: 92–6. Colasanti, G. (1906). Fregellae: Storia e topgraWa (Rome: Loescher; repr. Rome: Quasar, 1983). Coleman, R. (2001). ‘Varro as an etymologist’, in G. Calboli (ed.), Papers on Grammar (Bologna: CLUEB), vi. 61–96. Colombini, A. (1966). ‘Un edile di Formia costruttore di alcuni ediWci cittadini’, Athenaeum, 44: 137–41. Colucci Pescatori, C. (1975). Il Museo Irpino (Naples: Cava dei Tirreni). Colucci Pescatori, G. (1991). ‘Evidenze archeologiche in Irpinia’, in La Romanisation du Samnium aux II e et I er sie`cles av. J.-C. (Naples: Cava dei Tirreni), 85–122. —— (2000). ‘Municipium, aliunde, ignotum: Frigento in eta` romana’, in R. Capelli (ed.), Studi sull’Italia Sannita (Rome: Cava dei Tirreni), 47–55. Cooley, A. E., ed. (2000). The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (London: Institute of Classical Studies School of Advanced Study). Cordella, R., and Criniti, N. (1982). Iscrizioni latine di Norcia e dintorni (Spoleto: Edizioni dell’Accademia Spoletina). —— and—— (1988). Nuove iscrizioni latine di Norcia, Cascia e Valnerina (Spoleto: Edizione dell’Accademia Spoletina). Cornell, T. J. (1988). ‘Review of Chassignet, M., Caton: Les Origines’, JRS 78: 211–12. —— (1995). The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 B.C.) (London and New York: Routledge). —— and Lomas, K., eds. (1995). Urban Society in Roman Italy (London: UCL Press). Costabile, F. (1984). Istituzioni e forme costituzionali nelle citta` del Bruzio in eta` romana: Civitates foederatae coloniae e municipia in Italia meridionale attraverso i documenti epigraWci (Naples: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane).
520
Bibliography
Crawford, J. W., ed. (1994). M. Tullius Cicero, the Fragmentary Speeches: An Edition with Commentary (Atlanta, Ga.: American Philological Association, American Classical Studies). Crawford, M. H. (1974). Roman Republican Coinage 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1983). ‘Le monete romane nelle regioni d’Italia’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 45–50. —— (1985). Coinage and Money under the Roman Republic, Italy and the Mediterranean Economy (London: Methuen). —— (1986). ‘Early Rome and Italy’, in J. Boardman, J. GriYn and O. Murray (eds), The Oxford History of the Classical World (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 387–416. —— (1989a). ‘Ateste and Rome’, Quaderni Ticinesi di numismatica e antichita` classiche, 18: 191–200. —— (1989b). ‘The lex Iulia Agraria’, Athenaeum 77: 179–90. —— (1990a). ‘Alas, No ‘‘Mundus’’ at CorWnium’, Epigraphica, 52: 142–3. —— (1990b). ‘Origini e sviluppi del sistema provinciale romano’, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii. L’impero mediterraneo, 1. La repubblica imperiale (Turin: Einandi), 91–121. —— (1992). The Roman Republic 2 (London: Fontana). —— (1996a). ‘Italy and Rome from Sulla to Augustus’, in A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. W. Lintott (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History. The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), x2 . 414–33. —— ed. (1996b). Roman Statutes, 2 vols. (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies Supplement 64; London: Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies). —— (1996c). ‘Roman Towns and their Charters’, in M. H. Crawford and B. CunliVe (eds.), Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia (London: British Academy), 86: 421–30. —— (1998). ‘How to Create a Municipium’, in M.M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. Smith (eds.), Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of GeoVrey Rickman (BICS suppl. 71; London, Institute of Classical Studies/School of Advanced Study, University of London), 31–46. —— (2003). ‘Language and Geography in the Sententia Minuciorum’, Athenaeum, 91: 204–10. —— and CunliVe, B., eds. (1996). Social Complexity and the Development of Towns in Iberia (London: British Academy). Criniti, N. (1970). L’epigrafe di Asculum di Gn. Pompeo Strabone (Milan: Vita e Pensiero). Cristofani, M. (1966). ‘Rivista di epigraWa etrusca, Volsinii’, SE 34: 337–50. —— (1969). ‘La tomba del ‘‘Tifone’’: Cultura e societa di Tarquinia in eta tardo etrusca’, MAL 8/14 213–56. —— (1978). ‘Societa` e istituzioni nell’Italia preromana’, in M. Pallotino (ed.), Popoli e Civilita` dell’Italia Antica (Rome: Biblioteca di Storia Patria), vii. 53–112. Crook, J. A., Lintott, A. W., and Rawson, E., eds. (1994). Cambridge Ancient History, ix 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). CuV, P. J. (1967). ‘Prolegomena to a Critical Edition of Appian, BC I ’, Historia, 16: 177–88. Curti, E. (2001). ‘Toynbee’s Legacy: Discussing Aspects of the Romanization of Italy’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 17–26.
Bibliography
521
—— Dench, E., and Patterson, J. R. (1996). ‘The Archaeology of Central and Southern Italy: Recent Trends and Approaches’, JRS 86: 170–89. D’Ambrosio, A., and De Caro, S., eds. (1983). Un impegno per Pompei: Fotopiano e documentazione della necropoli di Porta di Nocera (Milan: TOTAL/Touring Club/ Italiano). D’Arcangeli, V. (1981). Soriano nel Cimino nella storia e nell’arte (Viterbo: Agnesotti) D’Arms, J. H. (2003). Romans on the Bay of Naples and Other Essays on Roman Campania (Bari: Edipuglia). D’Henry, G. (1991). ‘La romanizzazione del Sannio nel II e I secolo a.C’, in La Romanisation du Samnium aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. (Naples: Centre Jean Be´rard), 9–19. D’Isanto, G. (1993). Capua romana: Richerche di prosopograWa e storia sociale (Rome: Quasar). Dalheim, K. W. (1968). Struktur und Entwicklung des ro¨mischen Vo¨lkerrechts im dritten und zweiten Jahrhundert v.Chr. (Munich: Beck). —— (1993). ‘Der Staatsreich des Konsuls Sulla und die ro¨mische Italienspolitik der achtziger Jahre’, in J. Bleicken (ed.), Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss (Kallmu¨nz: M. Lassleben), 13: 97–115. David, J.-M. (1983). ‘Les Orateurs des municipes a` Rome: Integration, re´ticences et snobismes’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 309–23. De Benedittis, G. (1974). Il centro sannitico di Monte Vairano Presso Campobasso (Campobasso: Documenti di antichita` italiche e romane editi a cura della soprintendenza Archeologica del Molise). —— (1978). ‘Osco: Sannio’. SE 46: 409–20. —— (1991a). ‘L’abitato di Monte Vairano’, in S. Capini and A. Di Niro (eds.), Samnium: Archeologia del Molise (Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. Soprintendenza Archeologica e per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e Storici del Molise. Quasar), 127–30. —— (1991b). ‘Monte Vairano’, in La romanisation du Samnium aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. (Naples: Quasar), 47–55. —— and Di Niro, A. (1998). ‘L’alta valle del Trigno’, in A. Campanelli and A. Faustoferri (eds.), I luoghi degli dei: Sacro e natura nell’ abruzzo italico (Pescara: Carsa Edizioni), 19–20. De Boe, G. (1967). ‘L’ Amphithe´aˆtre’, in J. Mertens (ed.), Ordona, ii. Rapport provisoire sur les travaux de la mission belge en 1964/65 et 1965/66. (Brussels and Rome: L’ Institut Historique Belge de Rome), ix. 89–125. De Caro, S. (2000). ‘Mensa di altare dedicata ad Apollo da un tribuno della plebe di Teanum Sidicinum’, in R. Capelli (ed.), Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti (Rome: Electa/ Soprintendza Archeologica di Roma), 223. De Cazanove, O. (2000a). ‘I destinatari dell’ iscrizione di Tiriolo e la questione del campo d’applicazione del senatusconsulto de Bacchanalibus’, Athenaeum, 86: 59–69. —— (2000b). ‘Some Thoughts on the ‘‘Religious Romanisation’’ of Italy before the Social War’, in E. H. Bispham and C. J. Smith (eds.), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy. Evidence and Experience (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press), 71–6. Decima (1986). Decima miscellanea greca e romana (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la storia antica).
522
Bibliography
De Franciscis, A. (1954). ‘Regione I (Latium et Campania) (Campania). X. Formicola— Vasca inscritta dell’ antica ‘‘Trebula’’ ’. NSA 8/8: 288–90. Degrassi, A. (1938). ‘Problemi cronologici delle colonie di Luceria, Aquileia, Teanum Sidicinum’, RFIC ns 16: 129–43 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` Æ (Rome: TipograWa Antoniana), i. 79–97. —— (1949). ‘Quattuorviri in colonie romane e in municipi retti da duoviri’, MAL 8/2: 281–344 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Rome: TipograWa Antoniana), i. 99–177. —— (1959). ‘L’ amministrazione delle citta’, in Guida allo studio della civilta romana antica (Naples: Istituto Editorale del Mezzogiorno), i. 301–30 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria), iv. 67–98 —— (1961–2). ‘Il sepolcro dei Salvii a Ferento e le sue iscrizioni’, Rend. Acc. Pont. 34: 59–77 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria), iii. 155–72. —— (1962a). Scritti vari di Antichita, i (Rome: TipograWa Antoniana). —— (1962b). ‘Sul duovirato nei municipi Italici’, in Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Roma: TipograWa Antoniana), i. 185–92. —— (1967a). ‘Epigraphica III’, MAL 8/13: 1–53 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria), iii. 89–153. —— (1967b). Scritti vari di Antichita`, iii (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria). —— (1969). ‘Epigraphica IV’, MAL 8/14: 111–41 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria), iv. 1–38. —— (1971a). ‘L’ epigraWa latina in Italia nell’ ultimo quinquennio (1963–1967)’, in Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge 1967 (Oxford: Blackwell), 153–74 ¼ Degrassi, Scritti vari di Antichita` (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria), iv. 39–64. —— (1971b). Scritti vari di Antichita`, iv (Trieste: Societa` Istriana di Archeologia e Storia Patria). Degrassi, N. (1959). ‘Un nuovo decreto municipale di Brindisi’, in Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale di EpigraWa Greca e Latina (Roma, 4–8 settembre 1957) (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider); 303–13. De Libero, L. (1994). ‘Italia’, Klio, 76: 303–25. Del Tutto Palma, L. (1983). La tavola bantina (la sezione osca): Proposte di rilettura (Linguistica epigraWa Wlologia italica, Quaderni di Lavoro, 1; Padua: Istituto di glottologia e fonetica/Urbino: Istituto di linguistica). —— (1985). ‘Sulla nuova epigrafe pubblicata da M. Torelli’, SE 53: 280–4. Della Fina, G. M. (1983). Le antichita` a Chiusi: Un caso di ‘arredo urbano’ (Rome: G. Bretschneider). Delplace, C. (1983). ‘La Colonie auguste´enne d’Urbs Salvia et son urbanisation au Ier sie`cle ap. J.-C’, MEFRA 95/2: 761–84. —— (1990). ‘Everge´tisme et construction publique dans la Regio V (Picenum): A` propos du the´aˆtre d’Urbs Salvia’, Picus, 10: 101–6. De Martino, F. (1973). Storia della costituzione romana 3 vols. (Naples: Engenio Jovene). —— (1979). Diritto e societa` nell’ antica Roma 3 vols. (Rome: Edition Riuniti). —— (1980). ‘Inchiesta: la rivoluzione romana: Una rivoluzione mancata?’, Labeo, 26(1): 90–103. Demougin, S. (1991). ‘Attilio Degrassi et les Inscriptions Re´publicaines: A` propos de ILLRP 449’, in EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome, 27–28 mai 1988 (CEFR 143; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 225–39.
Bibliography
523
Dench, E. (1995). From Barbarians to New Men: Greek, Roman and Modern Perceptions of Peoples from the Central Apennines (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Deniaux, E. (1981). ‘Civitate donata: Naples, He´racle´e, Coˆme’, Ktema, 6: 133–41. —— (1991). ‘Les Recommendations de Cice´ron et la colonisation ce´sarienne’, Cahiers G. Glotz, 2: 215–28. Denniston, G. (1954). The Greek Particles (Oxford: Clarendon Press). De Petra, G. (1895). ‘Di un frammento di legge romana scoperto in Taranto’, Monumenti Antichi, 6: cols. 405–42. De Sanctis, G. (1916). Storia dei Romani, iii/1. L’eta` delle guerre puniche (Turin: Fratelli Bocca). Dessau, H. (1883). ‘C. Quinctius Valgus, der Erbauer des Amphitheaters zu Pompeii’, Hermes, 18: 620–2. De´sy, P. (1993). Recherches sur l’e´conomie apulienne au IIe et au Ier sie`cle avant notre `ere (Brussels: Revue des E´tudes Latines). Devijver, H., and Van Wonterghem, F. (1981). ‘Il Campus nell’ impianto urbanistico delle citta` romane: testimonianze epigraWche e resti archeologici’, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, 20: 33–68. —— and—— (1982). ‘Ancora sul campus delle citta` romane’, Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, 21: 93–8. —— and—— (1983). ‘Un ‘‘mundus’’ (‘‘Cereris’’?) a CorWnium, nouva lettura e interpretazione dell’ iscrizione CIL IX 3173 ¼ ILS 5642’, Historia, 32: 484–507. —— and—— (1988). ‘A New Reading of an Inscription from CorWnium?’, ZPE 73: 104–6. Devoto, G. (1956). ‘La Romanisation de l’Italie me´diane’, Cahiers d’histoire mondiale, 3: 443–62. De Visscher, F., De Ruyt, F., De Laet, S. J., and Mertens, J. (1955). ‘Les Fouilles d’ Alba Fucens (Italie Centrale): De 1951 a` 1953’, Antiquite´ Classique, 24: 51–119. De Vos, M., ‘Pavimenti e mosaici’, in F. Zevi (ed.), Pompeii 79 (Raccolta di Studi per il decimonono centenario dell’ eruzione vesuviana), 161–76. Didu, I. (1983–4). ‘I praefecti come sostituti di imperatori, cesari e altri notabili eletti alle piu` alte magistrature municipali’, AFLC 5: 53–92. Diebner, S. (1979). Aesernia—Venafrum, Untersuchungen zu den ro¨mischen Steindenkma¨lern zweier Landsta¨dte Mittelitaliens (Rome: G. Bretschneider). Di Marco, L. (1975). Spoletium, topograWa e urbanistica (Spoleto: Accademia Spoletina). Dobson, B. (1966). ‘The Praefectus Fabrum in the Early Principate’, in Britain and Rome: Essays Presented to Eric Birley on his Sixtieth Birthday (Kendal: Titus Wilson), 61–84. Dodge, H., and B. Ward-Perkins, eds. (1992). Marble in Antiquity: Collected Papers of John Ward-Perkins (London: Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome). Donati, A., and Poma, G., eds. (1993). L’epigraWa del villagio (Faenza: Fratelli Lega). Donderer, M. (1996). Die Architekten der spa¨ten ro¨mischen Republik und der Kaiserzeit. Epigraphische Zeugnisse (Erlangen: Universita¨tsbund Erlangen-Nu¨rnberg/Universita¨tsbibliothek). Dondin, M. (1979). ‘Les Atilii Glabriones de Perouse: Ascension sociale et relations se´natoriales de magistrats municipaux’, MEFRA 91/2: 651–70. Dondin-Peyre, M., and Rapsaet Charlier, M.-T., eds. (1999). Cite´s, municipes, colonies: Les Processus de municipalisation en Gaule et en Germanie sous le Haut Empire romain (Paris: L’Universite´ Libre de Bruxelles, Conseil scientiWque de Paris I, Panthe´on-Sorbonne/ Publications de la Sorbonne). Duncan-Jones, R. P. (1982). Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
524
Bibliography
Dyson, S. (1992). Community and Society in Roman Italy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press). Eck, W. (1984). ‘Senatorial Self-Representation: Developments in the Augustan Period’, in F. G. B. Millar and E. Segal (eds.), Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 129–67. —— (1995). ‘Augustus und Claudius in Perusia’, Athenaeum, 83: 83–90. Eder, W. (1990). ‘Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link between Republic and Empire’, in K. A. RaaXaub and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press), 71–122. Edmondson, J. (1993). ‘Instrumenta Imperii: Law and Imperialism in Republican Rome’, in Law, Politics and Society in the Ancient Mediterranean World (SheYeld: SheYeld Academic Press), 156–91. ¨ sterreiEgger, R. (1922). ‘Historisch-epigraphische Studien in Venezia’, Jahreshefte des O ¨ chischen Archaologischen Instituts in Wien (Beiblatt), 21–2: 309–44. Elia, O., and Pugliese Carratelli, G. (1975). ‘Il santuario dionisiaco di S. Abbondio a Pompeii’, in OrWsmo in Magna Grecia: Atti del quattuordicesimo Convegno di Studi sulla Magna Grecia (Naples: Arte TipograWa), 139–53. —— and—— (1979). ‘Il santuario dionisiaco di Pompei’, PdP 34: 442–81. Emiliozzi, A. (1983). ‘Sull’ epitaWo del 67 a.C. nel sepolcro dei Salvii a Ferento’, MEFRA 95/2: 701–17. EpigraWa (1994). EpigraWa della produzione e della distribuzione. Atti VII Recontre francoitalienne sur l’e´pigraphie du monde romain (Roma 1992). (Rome: Universita` di Roma ‘La Sapienza’/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). Ewins, U. (1952). ‘The Early Colonisation of Cisalpine Gaul’, PBSR 23: 54–71. —— (1955). ‘The Enfranchisement of Cisalpine Gaul’, PBSR 26: 73–98. Fabrini, G. M. (1990). ‘Dal culto pagano al culto Cristiano: Testimonianze archeologiche e documentarie per l’area del SS. CrociWsso a Treia’, Picus, 10: 107–75. Ferrary, J.-L. (2002). ‘La Le´gislation ‘‘de ambitu’’ de Sulla a` Auguste’, in Iuris Vincula: Studi in onore di Mario Talamanca (Naples: Eugenio Jovene), 161–83. Filippi, G. (1989). ‘Regio IV. Sabina et Samnium, Forum Novum’, in S. Panciera and M. Guarducci (eds.), Supplementa Italica (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar), ns 5: 145–238. Finley, M. I. (1983). Politics in the Ancient World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Fisher, N., and van Wees, H., eds. (1998). Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London: Duckworth/Classical Press of Wales). Flower, H. (1998). ‘The SigniWcance of an Inscribed Breastplate Captured at Falerii in 241 B.C.’, JRA 11: 224–32. Foraboschi, D. (1988). ‘Strabone e la geograWa economica’, in G. Maddoli (ed.), Strabone e l’Italia antica (Perugia: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane), ii. 175–88. Forlati Tamaro, B. (1965). ‘Verona, Il restauro della Porta detta dei Leoni’, Notizie dei Scavi di Antichita, Supplemento (Atti dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei), 8/19: 12–34. —— (1973). ‘La storia di Verona vista nelle iscrizioni’, Il territorio veronese in eta` romana. Convegno del 22–23–24 ottobre 1971, Atti (Verona: Accademia di Agricoltura Scienze e Lettere di Verona), 517–30. Forni, G. M. (1972). ‘Epigrafe di eta` repubblicana da Ruvo (Bari)’, RSA 2: 245–56. —— ed. (1987). EpigraW lapidarie romane di Assisi: Servizio catalogo regionale dei beni culturali dell’ Umbria (Assisi: Electa/Editori Umbri Associati). Fraenkel, E. (1932). ‘Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus’, Hermes, 67: 369–96.
Bibliography
525
Franchi De Bellis, A. (1988). Il cippo abellano (Urbino: Universita` degli Studi di Urbino). Franklin, J. L. J. (1980). Pompeii: The Electoral Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A.D. 71–79 (Rome: American Academy in Rome). Franzoni, L. (1965). ‘301, Stele di Gnaeus Octavius Cornicla’, in Arte e Civilta` romana nell’ Italia settentrionale della repubblica. Citta` di Bologna, VI Mostra Biennale d’ Arte Antica, Catalogo II, 20 Settembre–22 Novembre 1964, Bologna, Palazzo dell’ Archiginnasio (Bologna: Edizione Alfa), ii. 608 (204–5). Fraser, P. M. (1972). Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Frassinetti, P. (1972). ‘Sisenna e la guerra sociale’, Athenaeum, 50: 78–113. Frederiksen, M. W. (1964). ‘The Lex Rubria: Reconsiderations’, JRS 54: 129–34. —— (1965). ‘The Republican Municipal Laws: Errors and Drafts’, JRS 55: 183–98. —— (1976). ‘Changes in the Pattern of Settlement’, in P. Zanker (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), ii. 341–55. —— (1984). Campania, ed. with additions N. Purcell (London: British School at Rome). Frier, B. W. (1985). The Rise of the Roman Jurists, Studies in Cicero’s Pro Caecina (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Frothingham, A. L. (1910). Roman Cities in Northern Italy and Dalmatia (London: J. Murray). Gabba, E. (1956). Appiano e la storia delle guerre civili (Florence: La Nuova Italia). —— ed. (1958a). Appiani Bellorum Civilium Liber Primus, introduzione, testo critico e commento con traduzione e indici (Florence: Biblioteca di studi superiori). —— (1958b). ‘L’ Elogio di Brindisi’, Athenaeum 33: 90–105. —— (1970–1). ‘Commento a Floro II. 9. 27–8’, SCO 19–20: 461–4. —— (1972a). ‘Mario e Silla’, in H. Temporini (ed.), Von den Anfa¨ngen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik (ANRW I/1; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter), 764–805. —— (1972b). ‘Urbanizzazione e rinovamenti urbanistici nell’ Italia centro-meridionale del I sec. A.C.’, Studi Classichi e Orientali, 21: 73–112 ¼ Gabba, Italia romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 63–103. —— (1973). Esercito e societa` nella tarda reppublica Romana (Florence: La Nuova Italia). —— (1976). Republican Rome, the Army and the Allies (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). —— (1978). ‘Il problema dell’ ‘‘unita`’’ dell’Italia Romana’, in La cultura italica (Pisa: Giardini), 11–27 ¼ Gabba, Italia romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 17–31. —— (1983a). ‘La rifondazione di Salapia’, Athenaeum, 61: 514–16 ¼ Gabba, Italia romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 119–22. —— (1983b). ‘Strutture sociale e politica romana in Italia nel II sec. a.C’, in M. Ce´beillacGervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 41–5. —— (1985b). ‘Per un’ interpretazione storica delle centuriazione romana’, Athenaeum, 63: 265–84 ¼ Gabba, Italia romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 177–96. —— (1985a). ‘Aspetti dell’assimilazione delle populazioni italiche nel II secolo’, in Lingua e cultura degli osci: (Pisa: Giardini), 35–45 ¼ Gabba, Italia romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 33–43. —— (1986). ‘I Romani nell’Insubria: trasformazione, adeguamento e sopravvivenza delle strutture socio-economiche galliche’, II o Convegno Archeologico Regionale: Atti (Como: Einaudi), 31–41 ¼ Gabba, Italia Romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press), 247–56.
526
Bibliography
Gabba, E. (1987). ‘La citta` italica’, in P. Rossi (ed.), Modelli di citta` (Turin: Einandi), 109–26. —— (1988). ‘Municipium Augustum Veiens’, Athenaeum, 76: 203–4. —— (1989). ‘Rome and Italy in the Second Century B.C.’, in CAH viii2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 197–243. —— (1990a). ‘Dallo stato-citta` allo stato municipale’, in F. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii/1. L’impero mediterraneo: La repubblica imperiale (Turin: Einaudi), 706–11. —— (1990b). ‘La conquista della Gallia Cisalpina’, in F. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii/1. L’impero mediterraneo: La repubblica imperiale (Turin: Einaudi), 69–77. —— (1991). ‘I municipi e l’Italia augustea’, in Continuita` e trasformazione fra repubblica e impero: Istituzioni, politica, societa` (Bari: Edipuglia), 69–81. —— (1994a). Italia Romana (Como: Biblioteca di Athenaeum/Edizioni New Press). —— (1994b). ‘Rome and Italy, the Social War’, in J. A. Crook, A. W. Lintott, and E. Rawson (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, ix2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 104–28. GaVney, V., Patterson, H., and Roberts, P. (2001). ‘Forum Novum-Vescovio: Studying Urbanism in the Tiber Valley’, JRA 14: 59–79. —— —— —— (2004). ‘Forum Novum (Vescovio): A New Study of the Town and Bishopric’, in H. Patterson (ed.), Bridging the Tiber: Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome 13. London: British School at Rome), 237–51. Gaggiotti, M. (1983). ‘Tre casi regionali italici: il Sannio pentro 1983’, in M. Ce´beillacGervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 137–50. —— Manconi, D., Mercando, L., and Verzar, M. (1993). Umbria Marche (Guide Archaeologiche Laterza; Rome and Bari: Gius. Laterza & Figli Spa). Galinsky, K. (1996). Augustan Culture, (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Gallina-Zevi, A., and Claridge, A. eds. (1996). ‘Roman Ostia’ Revisited: Archaeological and Historical Papers in Memory of Russell Meiggs (London and Rome: British School at Rome/Soprintendenza Archeologica di Ostia). Galsterer, H. (1971). ‘Die lex Osca Tabulae Bantinae—eine Bestandsaufnahme’, Chiron, 1: 191–214. —— (1976). Herrschaft und Verwaltung im republikanischen Italien: Die Beziehungen Roms zu den Italischen Gemeinden vom Latinerfrieden 338 v. Chr. bis zum Bundesgenossenkrieg 91 v. Chr. (Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag). —— (1990). ‘A Man, a Book and a Method: Sir Ronald Syme’s Roman Revolution after Fifty Years’, in K. A. RaaXaub and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), 1–20. Gargola, D. J. (1995). Lands, Laws and Gods: Magistrates and Ceremony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome (Chapel Hill, NL, and London: University of North Carolina Press). Gascou, J. (1991). ‘Duumvirat, quattuorvirat et statut dans les cite´s de Gaule Narbonnaise’, in S. Panciera (ed.), EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome
Bibliography
527
27–28 mai 1988 (CEFR 143; Rome: Universita` di Roma—La Sapienza/L’ E´cole franc¸aise de Rome), 347–63. Gasperini, L. (1959). ‘Nuove iscrizioni etrusche e latine di ‘‘Visentium’’ ’, Epigraphica, 21: 31–50. —— (1965). Aletrium I, i documenti epigraWci (Alatri: Istituto di Storia ed Arte del Lazio Meridionale). —— (1971a). ‘Il municipio tarentino, ricerche epigraWche’, in Terza miscellanea greca e romana (Rome: Istituto per la Storia Antica), iii. 143–209. —— (1971b). ‘Note di epigraWa tarentina’, in Acta of the Fifth International Congress of Greek and Latin Epigraphy, Cambridge (Oxford: Basil Blackwell). —— (1973). ‘Piattello del ‘‘Gruppo di Genucilia’’ con alfabeto latino’, in Roma MedioRepubblicana: Aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.C. (Rome: Assessorato Antichita`, Belle Arti e Problemi della Cultura), 71–2. —— (1977). ‘L’ epitaphio ferentiense di Aulo Salvio Crispino’, Arch. Class. 29/1: 114–27. —— (1986). ‘Vecchie e nuove epigraW del Bruzio Ionico’, in Decima miscellanea greca e romana (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la storia antica, 36), 141–71. —— (1989). Iscrizioni latine rupestre nel Lazio, i. Etruria meridionale (Rome: Dipartimento di Storia della Universita` degli Studi di Roma ‘Tor Vergata’). Gatti, C. (1974–5). ‘Sull’ ordinamento istituzionale di Pompei dopo la conquista romana’, Atti CeSDIR 6: 165–78. Gatti, G. (1899). ‘Regione VIII, (Cispadana). II, Piacenza—Iscrizione latina scoperta nella chiesa di S. Maria in Cortina’, NSA 124–5. Gazzetti, G. (1985). ‘L’alta valle del Fiora. Statonia e Sovana. Statonia. La citta` e il suo territorio’, in A. Carandini (ed.), La romanizzazione dell’Etruria: Il territorio di Vulci (Milan: Electa), 78–9. Gehrke, H.-J. (1983). ‘Zur Gemeindeverfassung von Pompeji’, Hermes, 111: 471–90. Gelsomino, R. (1985). ‘Sora e la regione sorana nel sistema viario dal I secolo A.C. al Tardoantico (*)’, in L. Gulia and A. Quacquarelli (eds.), Antichita` paleocristiane e altomedievali del sorano. Atti del Convegno di Studi—Sora 1–2 dicembre 1984 (Sora: Centro di Studi Sorani ‘V. Patriarca’), 41–75. Ge´ly, S. (1991). Le Nom de l’Italie: Mythe et histoire (Geneva: Slatline). Gelzer, M. (1936). ‘Die Unterdru¨ckung der Bacchanalien bei Livius’, Hermes, 71: 275–87. Ghinatti, F. (1975). ‘Economia agraria della chora di Taranto’, Quaderni di Storia, 2: 83–126. Giannetti, A. (1986). Spigolature di varia antichita` nel settore del medio Liri (con un’ appendice epigraWca) (Cassino: Banca Popolare del Cassinate). Giardina, A. (1994). ‘L’identita` incompiuta dell’Italia romana’, in L’Italie d’ Auguste a` Diocle´tien (CEFR 198; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 1–89. —— (1997). L’Italia romana: Storie di un’ identita` incompiuta (Rome and Bari: Laterza). —— and Schiavone, A., eds. (1981). Modelli etici, diritto e trasformazioni sociali (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Ginsborg, P. (1990). A History of Contemporary Italy (Harmondsworth: Penguin). GiuVre`, V. (1975). ‘Esigenze militari romane ed italici’, Labeo, 21: 215–38. Giuliani, G. F. (1970). Forma Italiae, Regio I, Volumen VII, Tibur, Pars Prima (Florence: Leo S. Olschlci). Glinister, F. (2000). ‘Sacred Rubbish’, in E. H. Bispham and C. J. Smith (eds ), Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy: Evidence and Experience (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press), 54–70. Go¨hler, J. (1939). Rom und Italien (Breslau: Priebatschs).
528
Bibliography
Gonzalez, J. (1986). ‘The Lex Irnitana: A New Flavian Municipal Law’, JRS 76: 147–243. Gordon, A. E. (1983). An Illustrated Introduction to Latin Epigraphy (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press). Gordon, M. L. (1927). ‘The Ordo of Pompeii’, JRS 17: 165–83. Gradel, I. (2002). Emperor Worship and Roman Religion (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Gradenwitz, O. (1916). Die Gemeindeordnung der Tafel von Heraklea und die spa¨nischen Stadtrechte (Heidelberg: Sitzungsbericht, Heidelberger Akademie des Wisserschafte, Phil.-hist. klasse). Grainger, J. D. (2003). Nerva and the Roman Succession Crisis of A.D. 96–99 (London and New York: Routledge). Granino Cecere, M. G. (1988). ‘Regio IV. Sabina et Samnium, Trebula SuVenas’, in M. Guarducci and S. Panciera (eds.), Supplementa Italica (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar), ns 4: 117–240. Grant, M. (1946). From Imperium to Auctoritas: A Historical Study of Aes Coinage in the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1975). Cicero, Murder Trials (Harmondsworth: Penguin). Greco, E. (1981). Magna Grecia (Guide archeologiche Laterza; Bari and Rome: Laterza). Greene, K. (1995). Archaeology. An Introduction. The History, Principles and Methods of Modern Archaeology (London and New York: Routledge). Gregori, G. L. (1984). ‘Amphitheatralia I’, MEFRA 96/2: 961–85. Grelle, F. (1980). ‘Una carriera municipale a Canusium’, Labeo, 26: 327–35. —— (1990). ‘Citta` e trattati nel sistema imperiale romano’, in L. Canfora, M. Liverani, and C. Zaccagnini (eds.), I trattati nel mondo antico: Forma, ideologia, funzione (Rome: ‘L’ Erma’ di Bretschneider), 237–56. GriYn, M. T. (1973a). ‘The ‘‘Leges Iudiciariae’’ of the Pre-Sullan Era’, CQ 23: 108–26. —— (1973b). ‘The Tribune C. Cornelius’, JRS 63: 196–213. GriYn, M. T. (1997). ‘The Senate’s Story, JRS 87: 249–63. Groag, E. (1922–4). ‘Prosopographische Beitra¨ge’, Jahreshefte des O¨ sterreichischen Archa¨ologischen Instituts in Wien, 21–22: 424–78. Gros, P., and Torelli, M. (1988). Storia dell’urbanistica: Il mondo romano (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Gruen, E. S. (1968). Politics and the Criminal Courts 149–78 B.C. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). —— (1990). ‘The Bacchanalian AVair’, in E.S. Gruen, Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy (Leiden: Brill), 34–78. Guarducci, M., and Panciera, S., eds. (1987). Supplementa Italica (ns) 3 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar). —— and —— eds. (1988). Supplementa Italica (ns) 4 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar). —— and —— eds. (1989). Supplementa Italica (ns) 5 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar). —— and —— eds. (1990). Supplementa Italica (ns) 6 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar). Guastalla, B. (1967–8). ‘Documenti epigraWci sull’ ambiente sociale di Alba Fucente’, Atti CeSDIR i. 129–43. Guidobaldi, M. P. (2001). ‘Transformations and Continuities in a Conquered Territory: The Case of the Ager Praetuttianus’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization. (Oxford: Oxbow), 85–90.
Bibliography
529
Gulia, L., and Quacquarelli, A., eds. (1985). Antichita` paleocristiane e altomedievali del sorano. Atti del Convegno di Studi—Sora 1–2 dicembre 1984. (Sora: Centro di Studi Sorani ‘V. Patriarca’). Guzzo, P. L. (1966). ‘Un cippetto iscritto di Palazzo Sterbina a Roma’, Epigraphica, 28: 143–6. —— (1973). ‘Scavi a Sibari’, La Parola del Passato, 28: 279–314. —— (1976). ‘EpigraW latine della provincia di Cosenza’, Epigraphica, 38: 129–43. Hahn, I. (1982). ‘Appian und seine Quellen’, in Romanitas-Christianitas: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der ro¨mischen Kaiserzeit. Festschrift J. Straub (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter), 251–76. Hampl, F. (1952). ‘Zur ro¨mischen Kolonisation in der Zeit der ausgehenden Republik und des fruhen Prinzipats’, RhM 95: 52–78. Hantos, T. (1983). Das ro¨mische Bundesgenossensystem in Italien (Munich: Beck). Hardy, E. G. (1924). ‘Caesar’s Colony at Novum Comum in 59 B.C.’, in E. G. Hardy, Some Problems in Roman History: Ten Essays bearing on the Administrative and Legislative Work of Julius Caesar. (Oxford: Clarendon Press), 126–49. —— (1925). ‘The Lex Mamilia Roscia Peducaea Alliena Fabia’, CQ 19: 185–91. Harris, W. V. (1971). Rome in Etruria and Umbria (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1972). ‘Was Roman Law Imposed on the Italian Allies?’, Historia 21: 639–45. —— (1977). ‘The Era of Patavium’, ZPE 27: 283–93. —— (1984). ‘The Italians and the Empire’, in Harris (ed.), The Imperialism of MidRepublican (PMAAR 29; Rome: American Academy in Rome), 89–109. —— (1985). ‘Volsinii and Rome 400–100 B.C.’, Annali della Fondazione ‘C. Faina’, 2: 143–56. —— (1992). War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327–70 B.C., with a new preface and additional bibliography (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Harvey, P. B. (1973). ‘Socer Valgus, Valgii, and C. Quinctius Valgus’, in E. Borza and R. W. Carrubba (eds.), Classics and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented to R. E. Dengler on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday. (University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University), 79–94. —— (1977). ‘Cicero, Fam. 13.76: Date and Address’, Athenaeum, 55: 303–13. —— (1981). ‘Cicero, Consius and Capua: I. The nomen Consius and Cic. leg. agr. 2. 92–93’, Athenaeum, 59: 299–316. Haug, I. (1947). ‘Der ro¨mische Bundesgenossenkrieg 91–88 v. Chr. bei Titus Livius’, WJA 2: 201–58. Herbig, R. (1952). Die ju¨ngeretruskischen Steinsarkophage (Berlin: Gebr. Mann). Herring, E., and Lomas, K., eds. (2000). The Emergence of State Identities in Italy in the First Millennium B.C. (London: Accordia Research Institute). Heuss, A. (1964). Ro¨mische Geschichte. (Brunswick: G. Westermann). Hillman, T. P. (1993). ‘When did Lucullus Retire?’, Historia, 42: 211–28. Hinrichs, F. T. (1967). ‘Der ro¨mische Strassenbau zur Zeit der Gracchen’, Historia, 16: 162–76. —— (1969). ‘Das legale Landversprechen im Bellum Civile’, Historia, 18: 521–44. —— (1974). Die Geschichte der gromatischen Institutionen: Untersuchungen zu Landverteilung, Landvermessung, Bodenverwaltung und Bodenrecht im ro¨mischen Reich (Wiesbaden: Steiner). Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
530
Bibliography
Hobsbawm, E. J. and Ranger, T., eds. (1983). The Invention of Tradition2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Hohti, P. (1975). ‘Aulus Caecina the Volaterran, Romanization of an Etruscan’, in Studies in the Romanization of Etruria (Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae) 5: 404–33. Holliday, P. J. (2002). The Origins of Roman Historical Commemoration (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Horden, P., and Purcell, N. (2000). The Corrupting Sea: A Study of Mediterranean History (Oxford: Blackwell). Howgego, C. (1995). Ancient History from Coins (London and New York: Routledge). Humbert, M. (1978). Municipium et civitas sine suVragio. L’ Organisation de la conqueˆte jusqu’ a` la Guerre Sociale (Collection EFR 36; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). Hunt, A. S., and Edgar, G. C., eds. (1934). Select Papyri (Loeb Classical Library; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Iasiello, I. M. (2001). ‘I pagi nella Valle del Tammaro: Considerazioni preliminari sul territorio di Beneventum e dei Ligures Baebiani’, in E. Lo Cascio and A. Storchi Marino (eds.), Modalita` insediative e strutture agrarie nell’Italia meridionale in eta` romana (Bari: Edipuglia), 7: 473–99. Ihm, M. (1902). ‘Zu lateinischen Inschriften’, RhM 57: 316–18. Ilari, V. (1974). Gli italici nelle strutture militari romane (Milan: GiuVre`). Izzo, D. (1994). ‘Nuove testimonianze sul culto di Pupluna da Teanum Sidicinum’, Ostraka, 3: 277–84. Jacques, F., ‘Statut et function des conciliabula d’apre`s les sources latines’, in J.-L. Brunaux (ed.), Les Sanctuaries celtiques et la monde me´diterrane´en: Actes du Colloque de St-Riquier, 8–11 novembre 1990 (Paris: Arche´ologie aujourd’hui/Dossiers de protohistoire), iii. 58–65. Johannowsky, W. (1970). ‘La Campania’, DdA 4–5: 460–71. —— (1976). ‘La situazione in Campania’, in P. Zanker (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), 97/II: 267–88. —— (1987). ‘Note di archeologia e topograWa dell’ Irpinia antica’, in L’Irpinia nella societa` meridionale (Avellino: Edizioni Centro Dorso), 103–16. —— (1991). ‘Circello, Casalbore e Flumeri nel quadro della romanizzazione dell’ Irpinia’, in La Romanisation du Samnium (Naples: Centre Jean Be´rard), 57–83. —— (2000). ‘L’Irpinia’, in R. Capelli (ed.), Studi sull’Italia dei Sanniti (Milan: Electa/ Soprintendenza Archeologica di Roma), 26–32. Johne, K.-P., Kohn, J., and Weber, V. (1983). Die Kolonen in Italien und den westlichen Provinzen des ro¨mischen Reiches: Eine Untersuchung der literarischen, juristischen und epigraphischen Quellen vom 2. Jahrhundert v.u.Z. bis zu den Severern (Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR Zentralinstitut fu¨r alte Geschichte und Archa¨ologie (Akademie Verlag)). Johnson, A. C., Coleman-Norton, P. R., and Bourne, F. C. eds. (1961). Ancient Roman Statutes: A Translation with Introduction, Commentary, Glossary and Index. The Corpus of Roman Law (Corpus Iuris Romani). A Translation, with Commentary, of all the Source Material of Roman Law (Austin, Tex.: University of Austin Texas Press). Jolowicz, H. F., and Nicholas, B. (1972). Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law, 3rd rev. edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Jones, S. (1997). The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities in the Past and Present (London and New York: Routledge). Kahrstedt, U. (1959). ‘Ager Publicus und Selbstverwaltung in Lukanien und Bruttium’, Historia, 8: 174–206.
Bibliography
531
Kaimio, J. (1975). ‘The Ousting of Etruscan by Latin in Etruria’, in P. Bruun et al. (eds.), Studies in the Romanization of Etruria (AIRF 5; Rome: E. Bard), 85–245. Kajanto, I. (1965). The Latin Cognomina (Helsinki: Helsingfors). Kajava, M. (1991). ‘Inscriptiones Latinae Liberae Rei Publicae no. 119 (*)’, in S. Panciera (ed.), EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome 27–28 mai 1988 (Collection EFR 143; Rome: Universita` di Roma—La Sapienza/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 379–80. Katz, B. R. (1976). ‘Studies on the Period of Cinna and Sulla’, AC 45: 497–549. —— (1977). ‘Caesar Strabo’s Struggle for the Consulship—and More’, RhM 120: 45–63. Keaveney, A. (1984). ‘Civis Romanus sum’, Critica Storica, 21: 345–72. —— (1987). Rome and the UniWcation of Italy (London and Sydney: Croom Helm). —— (1992). Lucullus, a Life (London and New York: Routledge). Keay, S. (2001). ‘Romanization and the Hispaniae’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 117–44. —— and Terrenato, N., eds. (2001). Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow). Keay, S., Millett, M., Poppy, S., Robinson, J., Taylor, J., and Terrenato, N. (2000). ‘Falerii Novi: A New Survey of the Walled Area’, PBSR 68: 1–93. —— —— —— —— —— —— (2004). ‘New Approaches to Roman Urbanism in the Tiber Valley’, in H. Patterson (ed.), Bridging the Tiber: Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome, 13; London: British School at Rome), 223–36. Keppie, L. (1981). ‘Vergil, the ConWscations, and Caesar’s Tenth Legion’, CQ 31: 367–70. —— (1983). Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy 47–14 B.C. (London: British School at Rome). —— (1984). The Making of the Roman Army, from Republic to Empire (London: Batsford). Klingner, F. (1956). ‘Italien: Name, BegriV und Idee im Altertum’, in F. Klingner, Ro¨mische Geisteswelt 3 (Munich: H. Rinn), 13–35. Knapp, P. C. (1980). ‘Festus 262L and praefecturae in Italy’, Athenaeum, 58: 14–38. Konopka, Z. Z. (1929). ‘Les Relations politiques entre Rome et la Campanie’, Eos (Commentarii Societatis Philologae Polonorum), 32: 587–602. Kraus, T., and Andreae, B. (1967). Das ro¨mische Weltreich (Berlin: Propyla¨en Verlag). Kubitschek, W. (1882). De Romanorum Tribuum Origine ac Propagatione (Vienna: C. Gerolds Sohn). Ku¨hne, J. (1969). ‘Appians historiographische Leistung’, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift Univ. Rostock, 18: 345–77. LaY, U. (1966). Adtributio e Contributio: Problemi del sistema politico-amministrativo dello stato romano (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa). —— (1973). ‘Sull’ organizzazione amministrativa dell’ Italia dopo la guerra sociale’, in Akten des VI International Kongresses fur griechische und lateinische Epigraphik, Mu¨nchen 1971 (Vestigia, 17: Munich: Beck), 37–53. —— (1974). ‘Problemi dell’organizzazione paganico-vicana nelle aree abruzzesi e molisane’, Athenaeum, 52: 336–9. —— (1980). ‘Roma e l’Italia prima della Guerra sociale: Una nuova indagine’, Athenaeum, 58: 174–86. —— (1983). ‘I senati locali nell’ Italia reppublicana’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 59–74.
532
Bibliography
LaY, U. (1986). ‘La Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina’, Athenaeum, 64: 5–44. —— (1990a). ‘Di nuovo sulla datazione del Fragmentum Atestinum’, Athenaeum, 78: 167–75. —— (1990b). ‘Il sistema di alleanze italico’, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii/1. L’impero mediterraneo: La repubblica imperiale (Turin: Einaudi), 285–304. —— (1992). ‘La provincia della Gallia Cisalpina’, Athenaeum, 80: 5–23. —— (2002). ‘Quattuorviri iure dicundo in colonie romane’, in P. G. Michelotto (ed.), ºªØ Iæ: Studi di antichita` in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi (Quaderni di Acme, 55: Milan: Universita` degli Studi di Milano, Faccolta` di Lettere e FilosoWa/Cisalpino. Istituto Editoriale Universitario), 243–61. Lanciani, R. (1892). ‘Recenti scoperte di Roma e del suburbio’, Bull. Comm. 4/20: 271–304. La Regina, A. (1968). ‘Ricerche sugli insediamenti vestini’, MAL 8/13: 361–446. —— (1970). ‘Note sulla formazione dei centri urbani in area sabellica’, in Studi sulla citta` antica: Atti del Convegno di studi sulla citta` etrusca e Italica preromana. Bologna— Marzabotto—Ferrara—Comacchio 31 maggio—5 giugno (Imola: Instituto per la Storia di Bologna), 191–207. —— (1981). ‘Appunti su entita` etniche e strutture istituzionali nel Sannio antico’, Archeologia e Storia Antica, 3: 120–37. —— (1989). ‘I sanniti’, in G. Pugliesi Caratelli (ed.), Italia: Omnium terrarum parens. La civilta` degli Enotri, Choni, Ausoni, Sanniti, Lucani, Bretti, Siculi, Elimi (Milan: Garzanti), 301–94. La Regina, A. (1996). ‘L. Minucius Basilus: ¯˚ $˝ &¸$˝ ˚` ` ˇ ’, PdP 51: 321–34. La Romanisation (1991). La Romanisation du Samnium aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Actes du colloque organise´ par le Centre Jean Be´rard en collaboration avec la Soprintendenza Archeologica per le provincie di Salerno, Avellino e Benevento, Naples, Centre Jean Be´rard, 4–5 Novembre 1988. (Naples: Centre Jean Be´rard). Last, H., and Gardner, R. (1932). ‘The Enfranchisement of Italy’, in CAH ix. The Roman Republic 133–44 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 158–210. Laurence, R. (1996). Roman Pompeii: Space and Society (London and New York: Routledge). —— (1999). The Roads of Roman Italy: Mobility and Cultural Change (London and New York: Routledge). Lauter, H. (1976). ‘Die hellenistischen Theater der Samniter und Latiner in ihrer Beziehung zur Theaterarchitektur der Griechen’, in P. Zanker (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien (Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoecli & Ruprecht), 413–22. Leigh, M. G. (2004). Comedy and the Rise of Rome (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Lejay, P., ed. (1911). Q. Horati Flacci Satirae (Paris: Hachette). Lejeune, M. (1972). ‘Inscriptions de Rossano di Vaglio 1972’, RAL 8/27: 399–414. Lepore, E. (1958). ‘Da Cicerone a Ovidio: Un aspetto di storia sociale e culturale’, PdP 13: 80–130. —— (1963). ‘L’ITALIA nella formazione della communita` romano-italica’, Klearchos, 5: 89–113. Letta, C. (1972). I Marsi e il Fucino nell’antichita` (Milan: Cisalpino-Goliardica). —— (1976). ‘Dialetti italici minori: Marso’, SE 44: 275–81. —— and D’ Amato, S. (1975). EpigraWa della regione dei Marsi (Milan: Centro Studi e Documenti sull’ Italia Romana/Cisalpina—Goliardica). Levi, D. (1928). ‘Regione VII (Etruria) IX. Chiusi—Tombe a loculi delle ‘‘Tassinaie’’ e ‘‘Palazze’’ ’, NSA 55–82.
Bibliography
533
Levick, B. M. (1967). ‘Acerbissima lex Servilia’, CR 17: 256–8. Lewis, R. G. (1968). ‘Appian B.C. I, 49, 214 ŒÆ: Rome’s New Tribes 90–87 B.C.’, Athenaeum, 46: 273–91. Liebenam, W. (1900). Sta¨dteverwaltung im ro¨mischen Kaiserreiche (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot). Lintott, A. W. (1990). ‘Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic’, JRS 80: 1–16. —— (1992). Judicial Reform and Land Reform in the Roman Republic: A New Edition with Translation and Commentary of the Laws from Urbino (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Lipovsky, J. (1981). A Historiographical Study of Livy Books 6–10 (New York: Arno Press). Lippolis, E., and Baldini Lippolis, I. (1997). ‘La formazione e lo sviluppo del centro urbano di Brundisium: aspetti e problemi della ricerca’, Taras, 17 (2): 305–53. L’Irpinia (1987). L’ Irpinia nella societa` meridionale (Avellino: Edizioni Centro Dorso). Liverani, P. (1987). Municipium Augustum Veiens: Veio in eta` imperiale attraverso gli scavi Giorgi (1812–1813) (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Lloyd, J. A. (1995a). ‘Pentri, Frentani and the Beginnings of Urbanization (c.500–80 bc)’, in G. Barker (ed.), A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley (Leicester: Leicester University Press), 181–212. —— (1995b). ‘Roman Towns and Territories (c. 80 bc–ad 600)’, in G. Barker (ed.), A Mediterranean Valley: Landscape Archaeology and Annales History in the Biferno Valley (Leicester: Leicester University Press), 213–53. —— , Christie, N., and Lock, G. (1997). ‘From the Mountain to the Plain: Landscape Evolution in the Abruzzo. An Interim Report on the Sangro Valley project (1994–5)’, PBSR 65: 1–57. Lo Cascio, E. (1991–4). ‘I Togati della ‘‘Formula Togatorum’’ ’, Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Studi Storici, 12: 309–28. —— (1996). ‘Pompei dalla citta` sannitica alla colonia sillana: Le vicende istituzionali’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les E´lites municipales de l’ Italie pe´ninsulaire des Graccques a` Ne´ron (Colloque Clermont-Ferrand 1991) (Centre Jean Be´rard, 13; Collection EFR 215; Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 111–23. —— and Storchi Marino, A., eds. (2001). Modalita` insediative e strutture agrarie nell’Italia meridionale in eta` romana (Pragmateiai, 7; Bari: Edupuglia). Lolli Ghetti, M., and Pagliardi, N. (1980). ‘Sora: Scavo presso la chiesa cattedrale di Santa Maria Assunta’, Archeologia Laziale, 3: 177–9. Lomas, K. (1996). Roman Italy 338 B.C.–A.D. 200: A Sourcebook (London: UCL Press). —— and Cornell, T. J., eds. (2003). Bread and Circuses: Euergetism and Municipal Patronage in Roman Italy (London and New York: Routledge). Luce, T. J. (1970). ‘Marius and the Mithridatic Command’, Historia, 19: 161–94. Luddlum, R. (1992). The Paracetamol Inheritance (London: Setna & Sons). Lugli, G. (1947). ‘Le fortiWcazioni delle antiche citta` italiche’, RAL 8/2: 294–307. —— (1954). ‘Il santuario della Fortuna Primigenia in Preneste e la sua datazione’, RAL 8/9: 51–87. —— (1957). La tecnica edilizia romana con particolare riguardo a Roma e Lazio, i (Testo) (Rome: G. Bardi). Luraschi, G. (1978). ‘Sulle ‘‘Leges de civitate’’ ’, SDHI 44: 321–70. —— (1979). Foedus, Ius Latii, Civitas, Aspetti costituzionali della romanizzazione in Transpadana (Padua: CEDAM).
534
Bibliography
Luraschi, G. (1986). ‘Nuove riXessioni sugli aspetti giuridici della romanizzazione in Transpadana’, in Atti del II o Convegno Archeologico Regionale: La Lombardia tra protostoria e romanita` (Como: Societa` Archeologica Comense), 43–65. Ma, J. (2002). Antiochus III and the Cities of Western Asia Minor (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Macchiarola, I. (1991). ‘Pietrabbondante (Calcatello)’, in S. Capini and A. Di Niro (eds.), Samnium: Archeologia del Molise (Rome: Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali Soprintendenza Archeologica e per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e Storici del Molise/Quasar), 154–8. McCrum, R., Cran, W., and MacNeil, R. (2002). The Story of English2 (London: Faber & Faber/BBC Books). McDonald, A. H. (1944). ‘Rome and the Italian Confederation’, JRS 34: 11–33. —— and Walbank, F. W. (1937). ‘The Origins of the Second Macedonian War’, JRS 27: 180–207. McGushin, P. (1992). Sallust, The Histories. Volume I, Books i–ii. Translated with an Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Maddoli, G., ed. (1986). Strabone: Contributi allo studio della personalita` e dell’opera, i. (Perugia: Universita` degli Studi di Perugia). —— ed. (1988). Strabone e l’Italia antica (Perugia: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane). Magnino, D. (1993). ‘Le guerre civili di Appiano’, in ANRW II/34. 1 (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter), 533–54. Maio, L. (1984). ‘Le lapidi di L. Tullius e M. Caesius nel territorio dei Liguri Baebiani’, Samnium, 57: 69–72. Maiuri, A. (1925) ‘Rocca San Felice (Prov. di Abellino): Tomba ed iscrizione’, NSA 96. Malitz, J. (1983). Die Historien des Poseidonios (Zetemata, 79; Munich: Beck). Manacorda, D. (1994). ‘Produzione agricola, produzione ceramica e proprieta` della terra nella Calabria romana tra repubblica e impero’, in EpigraWa della produzione e della distribuzione. Atti VII Recontre franco-italienne sur l’e´pigraphie du monde romain (Roma 1992) (Rome: Universita` di Roma ‘La Sapienza’/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 3–59. Mancini, G. (1939). ‘Regione III. V.—Strongoli (Catanzaro).—Rinvenimento di una iscrizione di eta` imperiale’, NSA 147–8. —— (1953). ‘Reione VII (Etruria)—VII. Capena. Iscrizioni rinvenute in localita ‘‘Bambocci’’ nella tenuta di Scorano’, NSA 8/7: 18–28. Manni, E. (1947). Per la storia dei municipii Wno alla guerra sociale (Studi pubblicati dall’Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica, 5; Rome: A Signorelli). Mansuelli, G. A. (1976–7). ‘Su alcune testimonianze epigraWche per lo studio dell’ architettura romana’, RSA 6–7: 119–28. Marchese, M. P. (1974). ‘Rivista di epigraWa italica, Lucani’, SE 42: 401–28. Marengo, S. M. (1990). ‘Quattuorviri a Vrbs Salvia: un problema aperto’, Picus, 10: 199–209. Margetic, L. (1979). ‘RiXessioni sull’iscrizione di Curicum CIL III, 13295 ¼ Dessau ILS II 5322’, Aquileia Nostra, 50: cols. 153–71. Mari, Z. (1983). Forma Italiae I, XVII, Tibur, Pars Tertia (Florence: Leo S. Olschki). Marin Diaz, M. A. (1988). Emigra´cion, colonizacio´n y municipalizacio´n en la Hispania repubblicana (Granada: Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Historia Antigna). Marinetti, A. (1984–5). ‘L’iscrizione ILLRP 303 e la varieta` del latino dei Marsi’, Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, 143: 65–89. Martin, T. R. (1989). ‘Sulla Imperator Iterum, the Samnites and Roman Republican Coin Propaganda’, Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau, 68: 19–41.
Bibliography
535
Marucchi, O. (1926). Musei e gallerie PontiWce, ii. Guida speciale della Galeria lapidaria del Museo Vaticano (Rome: TipigraWa Vaticana). Massa, G. (ed.) (1996). La formazione del concetto d’Italia: Tradizioni politiche e storiograWche nell’ eta` precedente la ‘rivoluzione romana’ (Biblioteca di Athenaeum, 33; Como: Edizioni New Press). Mastrocinque, A. (1979). La Caria e la Ionia meridionale in epoca ellenistica (323–188 a.C.) (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Mattingly, H. B. (1970). ‘The Extortion Law of the Tabula Bembina’, JRS 60: 154–68. —— (1983). ‘Acerbissima lex Servilia’, Hermes, 111: 300–10. Mattioco, E., and Tuteri, R. (1991). ‘Due iscrizioni vestine’, Bolletino di archeologia, 9: 79–88. Mau, A. (1899). Pompeii, Its Life and Art (London: Macmillan & Co.). Mazzarino, S. (1983). Il pensiero storico classico (Rome and Bari. Laterza) Mazzei, F., and Grelle, F. (1992). ‘Le citta murate della Daunia e una nuova iscrizione di Sant’ Agata di Puglia’, Taras, 12: 45–54. Meier, C. (1966). Res Publica Amissa: Eine Studie zu Verfassung und Geschichte der spa¨ten ro¨mischen Republik (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag). Mertens, J., ed. (1967). Ordona II, Rapport provisoire sur les travaux de la mission belge en 1964/65 et1965/66 (Brussels and Rome: L’Institut Historique Belge de Rome). —— and Lambrechts, R., eds. (1991). Communita` indigene e problemi della romanizzazione nel Italia centro-meridionale (IVo–IIIo sec. av. C.) Actes du Colloque Internationale. (Brussels and Rome: Institut Historique Belge de Rome). Messerschmidt, F. (1930). Nekropolen von Vulci (Berlin: Deutsche Archa¨ologische Institut). Michelotto, P. G., ed. (2002). ºªØ Iæ. Studi di antichita` in memoria di Mario Attilio Levi (Quaderni di Acme, 55: Milan: Universita` degli Studi di Milano, Faccolta` di Lettere e FilosoWa/Cisalpino. Istituto Editoriale Universitario). Millar, F. G. B. (1984). ‘The Political Character of the Classical Roman Republic, 200–151 B.C.’, JRS 74: 1–19. —— (1998). The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). —— (2002). The Roman Republic and the Augustan Revolution (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press). —— and Segal, E., eds (1984). Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Mitens, K. (1988). Teatri greci e teatri ispirati all’architettura greca in Sicilia e nell’Italia meridionale c. 350–50 a.C (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Momigliano, A. (1984). Secondo Contributo alla storia degli studi classici (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). Mommsen, Th. (1883). ‘Die italischen Burgercolonien von Sulla bis Vespasian’, Hermes 18: 161–213. —— (1887a). ‘Die ro¨mische Tribuseintheilung nach dem marsischen Krieg’, Hermes, 22: 101–6. —— (1887b). Ro¨misches Staatsrecht, 3 vols, (Leipzig: S. Hirzel). —— (1899). Ro¨misches Strafrechts (Systematisches Handbuch der deutschen Rechtswissenschaft; Leipzig: Dunckler & Humblot). —— (1903). Ro¨mische Geschichte (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung). —— (1905a). Gesammelte Schriften, i. Juristische Schriften, i. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung). —— (1905b). ‘Lex Municipii Tarentini’, in Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, i. Juristische Schriften i. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung), 164–61.
536
Bibliography
Mommsen, Th. (1905c). ‘Lex repetundarum’, in Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, i. Juristische Schriften, i. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung), 1–64. —— (1905d). ‘Zu C.I.L. XI, 1146’, in Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, i. Juristische Schriften, i. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung), 192–3. —— (1908a). Gesammelte Schriften, v. Historische Schriften, ii. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung). ¨ ber zwei ro¨mische Colonien bei Velleius Paterculus’, in Th. Mommsen, —— (1908c). ‘U Gesammelte Schriften, v. Historische Schriften, ii. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung), 254–9. ¨ ber die Lex Mamilia etc.’, in Th. Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften, —— (1908b). ‘U v. Historische Schriften, ii (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung), 200–3. Morgan, Ll. W. G. (1997). ‘ ‘‘Levi quidem de re . . .’’: Julius Caesar at Tyrant and Pedant’, JRS 87: 23–40. Morgan, P. (1983). ‘From a Death to a View: The Hunt for the Welsh Past in the Romantic Period’, in E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 43–100. Moro, P. M. (1956). Iulium Carnicum (Zuglio) (Rome: ‘L’ Erma’ di Bretschneider). Morris, I. (1998). ‘Archaeology and Archaic Greek History’, in N. N. Fisher and H. van Wees (eds.), Archaic Greece: New Approaches and New Evidence (London: Duckworth/ Classical Press of Wales), 1–91. Moscatelli, U. (1984). ‘Osservazioni topograWche in margine all’ iscrizione CIL ix. 5541 (Urbs Salvia)’, Annali della Facolta` di lettere e WlosoWa, Universita` di Macerata, 17: 351–68. —— (1985). ‘Municipi romani della V regio augustea: problemi storici ed urbanistici del piceno centro-settentrionale (III–I a.C.)’, Picus, 5: 51–97. Mossaro, G. D. (1986). ‘I moduli della narrazione storica nei libri di Strabone sull’ Italia’, in G. Maddoli (ed.), Strabone: Contributi allo studio della personalita` e dell’opera, i (Perugia: 8–118. Universita` degli studi di Perugia), 8–118. Mouritsen, H. (1988). Elections, Magistrates and Municipal Elite: Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy (Rome: Danish Institute in Rome). —— (1998). Italian UniWcation: A Study in Ancient and Modern Historiography (London: Institute of Classical Studies/School of Advanced Studies, University of London). Munzi, M. (1995). ‘La nuova Statonia’, Ostraka, 4: 285–99. —— (1998). ‘I praedia Statoniensia dei Sestii: Rinvenimenti epigraWci a Piammiano (Bomarzo)’, Ostraka, 7: 85–92. —— (2001). ‘Strategies and Forms of Political Romanization in Central-Southern Etruria (third century bc)’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 39–53. Munzi, M., and Terrenato, N. (1994). ‘La colonia di Volterra: La prima attestazione epigraWca ed il quadro storico e archeologico’, Ostraka, 3: 31–42. Musso, L. (1987). ‘Frammento di statua iconica da Urbisalglia, importazione di modelli urbani di eta` repubblicana in area picena’, Picus, 7: 47–65. Musti, D. (1987). ‘Italia: storia del nome’, in Enciclopedia Virgiliana, iii (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana), 34–40. —— (1999). ‘I greci e l’Italia’, in A. Giardina and A. Schiavone (eds.), Storia di Roma, i (Turin: Einandi), i. 39–51. Nessi, S., and Giacomelli, G. (1965). ‘Nuove epigraW in Umbria’, SE 33: 553–7. Niccolini, G. (1946). ‘Le leggi ‘‘de civitate romana’’ durante la guerra sociale’, RAL 8/1: 110–24.
Bibliography
537
Nicolet, C. (1966). L’ Ordre ´equestre a` l’ e´poque re´publicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.), i. DeWnitions juridiques et structures sociales (Paris: E. de Boccard). —— (1967). ‘Arpinum, Aemilius Scaurus et les Tullii Cicerones’, REL 45: 276–304. —— (1970–1). ‘Institutions politiques de Rome’, E´cole Pratique des Hautes E´tudes, IV e section, sciences historiques et philologiques, Annuaire, 103: 297–312. —— (1974). L’ Ordre ´equestre a` l’ e´poque re´publicaine (312–43 av. J.-C.), ii. Prosopographie des chevaliers romains (Paris: E. de Boccard). —— (1978). ‘Le Stipendium des allie´s italiens avant la guerre sociale’, PBSR 46: 1–11. —— (1988). Le Me´tier du citoyen dans la rome re´publicaine (Paris: TEL Gallimard). Niebuhr, B. G. (1812). Ro¨mische Geschichte (Berlin). Nisbet, R. G. M., ed. (1960). Cicero, In L. Calpurnium Pisonem Oratio, edited with Text, Introduction and Commentary (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Nissen, H. (1902). Italische Landeskunde (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandluing). North, J. A. (1979). ‘Religious Toleration in Republican Rome’, PCPhS 25: 85–103. —— (1981). ‘The Development of Roman Imperialism’, JRS 71: 1–9. —— (1990). ‘La religione repubblicana’, in G. Clemente, F. Coarelli, and E. Gabba (eds.), Storia di Roma, ii/1. L’impero Mediterraneo (Turin: Einaudi), 557–93. Oakley, S. P., ed. (1997). Commentary on Livy Books VI–X. Volume I: Introduction and Book VI (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Olshausen, E., and Sonnabend, H., eds. (1994). Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums, 4 (Bonn: R. Habelt). Onorato, G. O. (1951). ‘Pompei municipium e colonia’, RAAN 26: 115–56. —— (1960). La ricerca archeologica in Irpinia (Avellino: Fratelli Gori). Oost, S. I. (1954). ‘The Fetial Law and the Outbreak of the Jugurthine War’, AJP 75: 147–59. Osborne, R. G. (1987). Classical Landscape with Figures: The Ancient Greek City and its Countryside (London: George Philip). Paci, G. (1988). ‘Un municipio romano a S. Vittore di Cingolo’, Picus, 8: 51–69. —— (1990a). ‘Regio V, Picenum. Cingulum’, in M. Guarducci and S. Panciera (eds.), Supplementa Italcia, ns 6 (Rome: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Quasar), 37–53. —— (1990b). ‘Vent’anni di studi e ricerche urbisalviensi (1970–1990)’, Picus, 10: 71–97. —— (1993). ‘Fasti Cuprensei ed origine della citta’ romana’, in Cupra Maritima e il suo territorio in eta` antica. Atti del Convegno di Studi. Cupra Maritima, 3 maggio 1992, ii (Tivoli: Tipigraf), 71–82. Pack, E. (1988). ‘Clusium: Ritratto di una citta` romana attraverso l’ epigraWa’, in G. Paolucci (ed.), I romani di Chiusi, rivisitazione attraverso testimonianze epigraWche, topograWche, archeologiche (Rome: MultigraWca Editrice), 11–104. —— and Paolucci, G. (1987). ‘Tituli Clusini, nuove iscrizioni e correzioni all’ epigraWa latina di Chiusi’, ZPE 68: 159–91. Pailler, J.-M. (1987). ‘Enceinte, me´trologie et politique: Volsinii, colonie romaine au debut du IIe sie`cle av. J.-C.?’, MEFRA 99: 529–34. —— (1988). Bacchanalia: La Re´pression du 186 av. J.-C. a` Rome et en Italie: Vestiges, images, traditions (BEFAR 270; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome). Pallotino, M. (1937). ‘Tarquinia’, Monumenti Antichi, 36: cols. 6–616. —— (1976). ‘Sul concetto di storia italica’, in L’Italie pre´romaine et la Rome re´publicaine, ii: Me´langes oVerts a` Jacques Heurgon, (Collection EFR 27; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 771–89. —— (1978). ‘L’Italia prima della romanizzazione: Proposta di una sintesi storica’, PCIA 7: 373–90.
538
Bibliography
Palmer, R. E. A. (1974). Roman Religion and Roman Empire: Five Essays (Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press). Panciera, S., ed. (1982). EpigraWa e ordine senatorio II. Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori d’ origine. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL su epigraWa e ordine senatorio, Roma 14–20 maggio 1981. (Tituli 5; Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura). —— ed. (1991). EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome 27–28 mai 1988 (Collection EFR; Rome: Unversita` di Roma—La Sapienza / L’ E´cole franc¸aise de Rome). Panciera, S. (1997). ‘L’evergetismo civico nelle iscrizioni latine d’eta` repubblicana’, in M. Christol and O. Masson (eds.), Actes du Xe Congre`s Internationale d’E´pigraphie greque et latine. Nıˆmes, 4–9 octobre 1992. (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 42), 249–90. Pani, M. (1988). ‘I ‘‘municipia’’ romani’, in C. Marangio (ed.), La Puglia in eta` repubblicana: Atti del I Convegno di Studi sulla Puglia romana (Messagne 1988), i (Galatina: Congedo), 21–45. Paolucci, G., ed. (1988). I romani di Chiusi, rivisitazione attraverso testimonianze epigraWche, topograWche, archeologiche (Rome: MultigraWca Editrice). Papi, E. (2000). L’Etruria dei Romani: Opere pubbliche e donazioni private in eta` imperiale (Rome: Quasar). Pasquinucci, M. (1988). ‘Strabone e l’Italia Centrale’, in G. Maddoli (ed.), Strabone e l’Italia antica (Perugia: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane), 47–59. Passerini, A. (1934). ‘Caio Mario come uomo politico’, Athenaeum, 12: 10–44, 109–43, 257–97, 348–80. Patterson, H., ed. (2004). Bridging the Tiber: Approaches to Regional Archaeology in the Middle Tiber Valley (Archaeological Monographs of the British School at Rome, 13; London: British School at Rome). —— and Millett, M. (1998). ‘The Tiber Valley Project’, PBSR 66: 1–20. Patterson, J. (1988). Sanniti, Liguri e Romani / Samnites, Ligurians and Romans (Circello: Comune di Circello). Pe´dech, P. (1971). ‘La Ge´ographie urbaine de Strabon’, AncSoc 2: 234–53. Peka´ry, T. (1968). Untersuchungen zu den ro¨mischen Reichstrassen (Bonn: R. Habelt). Perotti, E. (1974). ‘Le mura di Vibo Valentia e una recente scoperta epigraWca’, PdP 29: 127–34. Peruzzi, M. (1962). ‘Testi latini arcaici dei Marsi’, Maia, 14: 117–40. Petraccia Lucernoni, M. F. (1988). I questori municipali dell’ Italia antica (Rome: Istituto Italiano per la Storia Antica). Peyre, C. (1979). La Cisalpine Gauloise du IIIe au Ier sie`cle avant J.-C. (Paris: Presses de l’E´cole Normale Supe´rieure). PWYg, A. J. (1966). Die Ausbreitung des ro¨mischen Stadtewesens in Etrurien und die Frage der Unterwerfung der Etrusker (Florence: Istituto di Studi Etruschi ed Italici). Pietrangeli, C. (1939). Spoletium (Spoleto), Regio VI—Umbria (Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani). —— (1941). ‘Note di epigraWa otricolana’, Epigraphica, 19: 136–59. —— (1943). Ocriculum (Otricoli) (Rome: Istituto di Studi Romani). —— (1978). Otricoli, un lembo dell’ Umbria alle porte di Roma (Narni: Cassa di Risparmio di Narni). Pighi, G. B. (1941). De ludis saecularibus populi Romani Quiritium (Milan: Societa` editrice ‘Vite e Pensiero’). —— ed. (1960). Verona e il suo territorio (Verona: Istituto per gli Studi Storici Veronesi). Pinsent, J. (1954). ‘The Original Meaning of Municeps’, CQ 4: 158–64.
Bibliography
539
—— (1957). ‘Municeps, II’, CQ 7: 89–97. Piper, D. J. (1988). ‘The ius adipiscendae ciuitatis Romanae per magistratum and its EVect on Roman–Latin Relations’, Latomus, 48: 59–68. Pobjoy, M. P. (1998). ‘The Decree of the Pagus Herculaneus and the Romanisation of ‘‘Oscan’’ Capua’, Arctos, 32: 175–95. —— (2000a). ‘Building Inscriptions in Republican Italy: Euergetism, Responsibility and Civic Virtue’, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 73; London: Institute of Classical Studies/School of Advanced Studies, University of London), 77–92. —— (2000b). ‘The First Italia’, in E. Herring and K. Lomas (eds.), The Emergence of State Identities in Italy in the First Millennium B.C. (Accordia Specialist Studies on Italy, 8; London: Accordia Research Institute), 187–211. —— (forthcoming). Roman Capua (Oxford, Clarendon Press). Poccetti, P. (1979). Nuovi documenti italici, a completamento del Manuale di E. Vetter (Pisa: Giardini Editori). Pontrandolfo Greco, A. (1982). I Lucani: EtnograWa e archaeologia di una regione antica (Milan: Longanesi). Potter, T. W. (1979). The Changing Landscape of South Etruria, (London: Elek). Poulsen, F. (1928). Portra¨tstudien in Norditalienischen Provinzmuseen (Copenhagen: A. F. Høst). —— (1951). Catalogue of Ancient Sculpture in the Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek. (Copenhagen: Ny Carlsberg Glyptotek). Poulsen, V. (1962). Les Portraits romains. i. Re´publique et dynastie julienne (Copenhagen: Glyptotek Ny Carlsberg). Poulter, A. (2001). ‘Transforming Tarentine Horizons’, D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford. Powell, J. G. F. (1990). ‘The Tribune Sulpicius’, Historia, 39: 446–60. Prontera, F. (1986). ‘Imagines Italiae: Sulle piu` antiche visualizzazioni e rappresentazioni geograWche dell’Italia’, Athenaeum, 64: 295–320. —— (1988). ‘L’Italia meridionale di Strabone’, in G. Maddoli (ed.), Strabone e l’Italia antica (Perugia: Edizioni ScientiWche Italiane), 93–109. —— (1994). ‘Die Grenzen von ‘‘Italia’’ bei Antiochos von Syrakus’, in E. Olshausen and H. Sonnabend (eds), Stuttgarter Kolloquium zur historischen Geographie des Altertums, 4 (Bonn: R. Habelt), 423–30. Prosdocimi, A. (1984). ‘Questura italica e questura romana’, Atti Ist. Veneto, 142: 160–90. Pugliesi Caratelli, G., ed. (1989). Italia: Omnium terrarum parens (Milan: Garzanti). Purcell, N. (1983). ‘The ‘‘Apparitores’’: A Study in Social Mobility’, PBSR 51: 125–71. —— (1990). ‘The Creation of a Provincial Landscape: The Roman Impact on Cisalpine Gaul’, in T. F. C. Blagg and M. Millett (eds.), The Early Roman Empire in the West (Oxford: Oxbow), 7–29. —— (1994). ‘South Italy in the Fourth Century B.C.’, in D. M. Lewis, J. Boardman, S. Hornblower, and M. Ostwald (eds.), Cambridge Ancient History, vi2 . The Fourth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 381–403. Quilici, L. (1990). Le strade: Viabilita` tra Roma e Lazio (Rome: Quasar). —— and Quilici Gigli, S., eds. (1994). Strade romane: percorsi e infrastrutture (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). RaaXaub, K. A., and Samons, L. J. I. (1990). ‘Opposition to Augustus’, in K. A. RaaXaub and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), 417–54.
540
Bibliography
RaaXaub, K. A., and Toher, M., eds. (1990). Between Republic and Empire. Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press). Radke, G. (1967). ‘Italia: Beobachtungen zu der Geschichte eines Landesnamens’, Romanitas, 8: 35–51. —— (1971). Viae Publicae Romanae (RE suppl. 13; Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmuller Verlag), 1417–1686. Rambaldi, A. (1966). ‘Miscellanea epigraWca’, Spoletium, 12: 27–30. Rawson, E. (1971). ‘Lucius Crassus and Cicero: the Formation of a Statesman’, PCPhS 17: 75–88. —— (1973). ‘Scipio, Laelius, Furius and the Ancestral Religion’, JRS 53: 161–74. —— (1976). ‘The First Latin Annalists’, Latomus, 35: 689–717. —— (1978). ‘Caesar, Etruria and the Disciplina Etrusca’, JRS 68: 132–52. —— (1981). ‘Chariot-Racing in the Roman Republic’, PBSR 49: 1–16. —— (1985a). Intellectual Life in the Late Roman Republic, (London: Duckworth). —— (1985b). ‘Theatrical Life in Republican Rome and Italy’, PBSR 53: 97–113. —— (1991). Roman Culture and Society. Collected Papers (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Regoli, E. (1985). ‘La romanizzazione del territorio di Vulci: La situazione dopo la conquista. Il II secolo a.C.’, in A. Carandini (ed.), La romanizzazione dell’Etruria: Il territorio di Vulci (Milan: Electa), 51–2. Reid, J. S. (1913). The Municipalities of the Roman Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1915). ‘The So-Called ‘‘Lex Iulia Municipalis’’ ’, JRS 5: 207–48. Reynolds, J. (1982). ‘Senators Originating in the Provinces of Egypt and of Crete and Cyrene’, in EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, ii. Tituli, 5 (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura), 671–83. Rich, J. W. (1976). Declaring War in the Roman Republic in the Period of Transmarine Expansion (Brussels: Latomus). Richardson, J. S. (1980). ‘The Ownership of Italian Land: Tiberius Gracchus and the Italians’, JRS 70: 1–11. —— (1986). Hispaniae: Spain and the Development of Roman Imperialism, 218–82 B.C. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1998). ‘Old Statutes Never Die: A Brief History of Abrogation’, in M. M. Austin, J. Harries, and C. J. Smith (eds.), Modus Operandi: Essays in Honour of GeoVrey Rickman (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 71; London: Institute of Classical Studies/ School of Advanced Study, University of London), 47–61. Rix, H. (1957). ‘Sabini, Sabelli, Samnium: Ein Beitrag zur Lautgeschichte der Sprachen Altitaliens’, Beitra¨ge zur Namenforschung, 8: 127–43. —— (1963). Die etruskischer Cognomen, Untersuchungen zu System, Morphologie und Verwendung der Personnamen auf ju¨ngeren Inschriften Norditaliens (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz). —— (2000). ‘ ‘‘Tribu’’, ‘‘stato’’, ‘‘citta’’ e ‘‘insediamento’’ nelle lingue italiche’, AGI 85: 196–231. —— (2002). Sabellische Texte: Die Texte des Oskischen, Umbrischen und Sudpikenischen (Heidelberg: Universita¨tsverlag C. Winter). Rocca, G. (1996). Iscrizioni umbre minori (Florence: Leo S. Olschki). Rolda´n Go´mez, L., Bandala, M. Gala´r, Bla´nquez Perez, J., and Martinez Lillo, S. (1998). Carteia (Seville: Junta de Andalucia, Consejeria de Cultura).
Bibliography
541
Roma (1973). Roma Medio-Repubblicana: Aspetti culturali di Roma e del Lazio nei secoli IV e III a.C. (Rome: Assessorato Antichita, Belle Arti e Problemi della Cultura). Romanelli, P. (1948). ‘Regione VII (Etruria) I.—Tarquinia—Scavi e ricerche nell’ area della citta`, NSA 8/2: 193–270. Rosenberg, A. (1913). Der Staat der alten Italiker: Untersuchungen u¨ber die urspru¨ngliche Verfassung der Latiner, Osker und Etrusker (Berlin: Weidmann). —— (1920). ‘Die Entstehung des sogenannten Foedus Cassianum und des Lateinischen Rechts’, Hermes, 55: 337–63. Rudolph, H. (1935). Stadt und Staat im ro¨mischen Italien: Untersuchungen u¨ber die Entwicklung des Munizipalwesens in der republikanischer Zeit (Leipzig: Dieterich’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung). RudorV, A. F. (1839). ‘Das Ackergesetz des Spurius Thorius’, Zeitschrift fu¨r geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, 10: 1–194. Ruga, A. (1996). ‘La copertura dell’ediWcio A’, in R. Spadea (ed.), Il tesoro di Hera. Scoperte nel santuario di Hera Lacinia a Capo Colonna di Crotone (Milan: Edizioni ET), 99–105. RuoV-Va¨a¨na¨nen, E. (1975). ‘The Civitas Romana-Areas of Etruria before the Year 90 B.C.’, in P. Bruun et al. (eds.), Studies in the Romanization of Etruria (AIRF 5; Rome: Institutum Romanum Finlandiae), 29–83. —— (1978). Studies in the Italian Fora (Wiesbaden Steiner). Ru¨pke, J. (1990). Domi militiaeque: Die religio¨se Konstruktion des Krieges in Rom (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner). —— (2001). Die Religion der Ro¨mer (Munich: Ryan, F. X. (1994). ‘Cicero, Mur. 47: Text and Meaning’, Gymnasium, 101: 481–2. Sabbatini Tumolesi Longo, P. (1972). ‘Gladiatoria II’, RAL 8/27: 485–95. —— (1974). ‘Documenti gladiatori dell’ Occidente romano (I. Iscrizioni dell’ eta` repubblicana’, RAL 8/29: 283–92. Saddington, D. B. (1983). ‘The Auxiliary Prefect Glabrio and the Introduction of the Duovirate at Perusia’, Athenaeum, 61: 264–6. Salmon, E. T. (1958). ‘Notes on the Social War’, TAPhA 89: 159–84. —— (1964). ‘Sulla Redux’, Athenaeum, 42: 60–79. —— (1967). Samnium and the Samnites (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— (1982). The Making of Roman Italy (London; Thames & Hudson). Salomies, O. (1987). Die ro¨mischen Vornamen: Studien zur ro¨mischen Namengebung (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica). Salvatore, M., ed. (1990). Basilicata: L’espansionismo romano nel sud-est dell’Italia. Il quadro archeologico (Atti del Convegno, Venosa 13–25 aprile 1987, Venosa: Edizioni Osanna). Salway, R. W. B. (2000). ‘Prefects, Patroni and Decurions: A New Persepctive on the Album of Canusium’, in A. E. Cooley (ed.), The Epigraphic Landscape of Roman Italy (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Supplement, 73, London: Institute of Classical Studies/ School of Advanced Studies), 115–71. Sannio (1980). Sannio. Pentri e Frentani dal VI al I sec. a.C. Isernia, Museo Nazionale, ottobre–dicembre 1980 (Rome: Soprintendenza Archeologica e per i Beni Ambientali Architettonici Artistici e Storici del Molise/De Luca Editore). Sanpaolo, A. (2001). ‘Landscape Changes: Romanization and New Settlement Patterns at Tiati’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West. Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 27–38. Santoro, C.-M. (1988). ‘La latinizzazione della regio II: Il problema linguistico’, in C. Marangio (ed.), La Puglia in eta` repubblicana. Atti del I Convegno di Studi sulla Puglia romana (Messagne 1988), i (Galatina: Congedo), 127–66.
542
Bibliography
Sartori, F. (1953). Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). —— (1960). ‘Verona romana: storia politica, economica, amministrativa’, in G. B. Pighi (ed.), Verona e il suo territorio, i (Verona: Istituto per gli Studi Storici Veronese), 159–259. —— (1976). ‘Le citta` italiote dopo la conquista romana’, in La Magna Grecia nell’ eta` romana, ASMG XV, Taranto, 5–10 Ottobre, 1975 (Naples: Arte TipograWcal, 83–137). —— (1981). ‘Padova nello stato romano dal III sec. a.C. all eta` diocleziana’, in L. Bosio (ed.), Padova antica: Da communita` paleoveneta a citta` romano-cristiana (Trieste: Lint), 97–189. Scardigli, B. (1991). I trattati romano-cartaginesi: Introduzione, edizione, critica, commento e indici (Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore). Scho¨nbauer, E. (1949). ‘Municipium: Worterkla¨rung und rechtliche Bedeutung’, Anzeiger von der o¨sterreichischen Akademie, phil.-hist. Klasse, 86: 541–63. Schumacher, L. (1976). ‘Das Ehrendekret fu¨r M. Nonius Balbus aus Herculaneum’, Chiron, 6: 165–84. Schur, W. (1942). Das Zeitalter des Marius und Sulla (Leipzig: Dieterich). Schweitzer, B. (1948). Die Bildniskunst der ro¨mischen Republik (Leipzig: Ko¨hler and Amelang/Weimar: Hermann Boehlau’s Nachfolger). Scuderi, R. (1989). ‘SigniWcato politico delle magistrature nelle citta italiche del I sec. A.C.’, Athenaeum, 67: 117–38. —— (1991). ‘Decreti del senato per controversie di conWne in eta` repubblicana’, Athenaeum, 79: 371–415. Serrao, F. (1954). La ‘iurisdictio’ del pretore peregrino (Milan: A. EiuVre`). Seston, W. (1978). ‘La Lex Iulia de 90 av. J.-C. et l’ integration des Italians dans la citoyennete´ romaine’, CRAI 529–42. —— (1980). ‘Aristote et la conception de la loi romaine au temps de Cice´ron, d’apre`s la lex Heracleensis’, in Scripta Varia: Me´langes d’histoire romaine, de droit, d’ ´epigraphie et d’histoire du Christianisme (CEFR 43; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 33–51. Shackleton Bailey, D. R., ed. (1967). Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, vi. 44 B.C. 355–426 (Books XIV–XVI) (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 8; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— ed. (1968). Cicero’s Letters to Atticus, iii. 51–50 B.C. 94–132 (Books V–VII. 9) (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 5; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— ed. (1977a). Cicero: Epistulae Ad Familiares, i. 62–47 B.C. (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 16; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). —— ed. (1977b). Cicero: Epistulae Ad Familiares, ii. 47–43 B.C. (Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries, 17; Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). Sherk, R. K. (1969). Roman Documents from the Greek East: Senatus consulta and epistulae to the Age of Augustus (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press). —— (1970). The Municipal Decrees of the Roman West (Arethusa Monographs, 2; (BuValo: Dept. of Classics, State University of New York at BuValo). Sherwin-White, A. N. (1963). Roman Law and Roman Society in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1972). ‘The Date of the lex repetundarum and its Consequences’, JRS 62: 83–99. —— (1973). The Roman Citizenship2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1974). ‘Review of Bruna, Lex Rubria: Caesars Regelung fu¨r die richterlichen Kompetenzen der Munizipalmagistrate in Gallia Cisalpina: Text, u¨bersetzung und Kommentar mit Einleitung, historischen Anhangen und Indices’, JRS 64: 236–8.
Bibliography
543
Silvestrini, M. (1996). ‘Les e´lites municipales dai Gracchi a Nerone; Apulia e Calabria’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les E´lites municipales de l’Italie pe´ninsulaire des Graccques a` Ne´ron. Colloque Clermont-Ferrand 1991 (CJB 13/CEFR 215; Naples and Rome: Centre Jean Be´rard/E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 31–46. Simha¨user, W. (1973). Iuridici und Munizipalgerichtsbarkeit in Italien (Munich: Beck). Sironen, T. (1995). ‘La cultura epigraWca dei Peligni’, in H. Solin, O. Salomies, and U.-M. Liertz (ed.), Acta Colloquii Epigraphici Latini (Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica), 343–6. Smith, C. J. (2006). The Roman Clan: The Gens from Ancient Ideology to Modern Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Smith, R. E. (1954). ‘Latins and the Roman Citizenship in Roman Colonies: Livy 34.42.5– 6’, JRS 44: 18–20. Solin, H. (1982). Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom: Ein Namenbuch (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter). —— (1988). ‘Ricerche epigraWche in Ciociaria’, Epigraphica, l: 87–104. —— (1988–9). ‘Note di epigraWa Xegrea II’, Puteoli, 12–13: 65–76. —— (1989). ‘Iscrizioni inedite nel Museo Campano’, Epigraphica, 51: 47–66. —— (1991a). ‘Analecta Epigraphica’, Arctos, 25: 139–56. —— (1991b). ‘Postille aquinati’, Epigraphica, 53: 250–2. —— (1991c). ‘Sul consolidarsi nell’eta` repubblicana al di fuori della classe senatoria e dei liberti’, in EpigraWa: Actes du Colloque en me´moire de Attilio Degrassi, Rome, 27–28 mai 1988 (CEFR 143; Rome: E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 153–87. —— ed. (1993). Le iscrizioni antiche di Trebula, Caiatia e Cubulteria (Caserta: Associazione Storica del Caiatiro). Sordi, M. (1960). I rapporti romano-ceriti e l’origine della civitas sine suVragio (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschueider. Spadea, R. (1977). ‘Nuove ricerche sul territorio dell’ ager Teuranus’, Klearchos, 19: 123–59. —— ed. (1996). Il tesoro di Hera: Scoperte nel santuario di Hera Lacinia a Capo Colonna di Crotone (Milan: Edizioni ET). Stanco, E. A. (1994). ‘Localizzazione di Statonia: Nuove considerazioni in base alle antiche fonti’, MEFRA 106: 247–58. Steidle, W. (1983). ‘Beobachtungen zu Appians ¯ºØÆ’ Hermes, 111: 402–30. Stock, S. G. ed. (1890). Cicero, Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Stockton, D. L. (1979). The Gracchi (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Strachan-Davidson, J. L., ed. (1902). `——`˝ˇ( $!`˚$˝ ¯!&(¸$˝ ` APPIAN, Civil Wars: Book I, Edited with Notes and Map (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Strachan-Davidson, J. L. (1912). Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Stuart Jones, H. (1926). ‘A Roman Law Concerning Piracy’, JRS 16: 155–73. —— (1936). ‘(Review of) Rudolph, Stadt und Staat’, JRS 26: 268–71. Studi (1970). Studi sulla citta` antica, Atti del Convegno di Studi sulla citta` etrusca e italica preromana, Bologna–Marzabotto Feorara-Comacchio 31 maggio–5 giugno 1966. (Imola: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna). Sumner, G. V. (1965). ‘The Family Connections of L. Aelius Seianus’, Phoenix, 19: 134–45. —— (1970). ‘The Truth about Velleius Paterculus: Prolegomena’, HSCP 74: 257–97. —— (1973). The Orators in Cicero’s Brutus. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press). Susini, G. (1954). ‘PoleograWa sarsinate’, Studi Romagnoli, 5: 185–217. —— (1974). ‘CIL X, 5147: un problema di conWni’, Epigraphica, 36: 230–1.
544
Bibliography
Syme, R. (1938). ‘The Allegiance of Labienus’, JRS 28: 113–25 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, i. 62–75. —— (1939). The Roman Revolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1955a). ‘Missing Senators’, Historia, 4: 52–71 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, i. 271–91. —— (1955b). ‘(Review of) Broughton, T.R.S., The Magistrates of the Roman Republic I & II’, CP 1: 127–38. —— (1961). ‘Who was Vedius Pollio?’, JRS 51: 23–30 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, ii. 518–29. —— (1963). ‘Ten Tribunes’, Journal of Roman Studies, 53: 55–60 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, ii. 557–65. —— (1964). ‘Senator, Tribes and Towns’, Historia, 13: 105–25 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, ii. 582–604. —— (1973). ‘The Titulus Tiburtinus’, in Akten des VI Internationalen Kongresses fur Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphie, Mu¨nchen 1971 (Vestigia, 17; Munich: Beck), 585–601 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, iii. 869–84. —— (1979a). Roman Papers, i, ed. E. Badian (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1979b). Roman Papers, ii, ed. E. Badian (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1981). ‘A Great Orator Mislaid’, CQ 31: 421–7 ¼ Syme, Roman Papers, iii. 1415–22. —— (1984). Roman Papers, iii, ed. A. R. Birley (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Tagliamonte, G. (1996). I sanniti (Milan: Longanesi). Tagliente, M. (1990a). ‘Banzi’, in M. Salvatore (ed.), Basilicata: L’espansionismo romano nel sud-est dell’Italia. Il quadro archeologico (Venosa: Osanna Venosa), 71–8. —— ed. (1990b). Italici in Magna Grecia: Lingua, insediamenti e strutture (Leukania. MonograWe i Archeologia della Basilicata; Venosa: Edizioni Osanna). Taylor, L. R. (1921). ‘Labienus and the Status of the Picene Town of Cingulum’, CR 35: 158–9. —— (1949). Party Politics in the Age of Caesar (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press). —— (1956). ‘Caesar’s Agrarian Laws and his Municipal Policy’, in Studies in Social and Economic History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 68–78. —— (1960). The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-Five Urban and Rural Tribes (Rome: American Academy in Rome). Taylor, R. (2002). ‘Temples and Terracottas at Cosa’, AJA 106: 59–83. Terrenato, N. (1998). ‘Tam Wrmum municipium: the Romanization of Volaterrae and its Cultural Implications’, JRS 89: 94–114. —— (2001a). ‘A Tale of Three Cities: The Romanization of Northern Coastal Etruria’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 54–67. —— (2001b). ‘Introduction’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 1–6. Terza (1971). Terza miscellanea greca e romana (Rome: Istituto per la Storia Antica). Teutsch, L. (1961). ‘Gab es Doppelgemeinden im ro¨msichen Afrika?’, RIDA 8: 281–356. —— (1962). Das ro¨mische Sta¨dtwesen in Nord-Afrika in der Zeit uon C. Gracchus bis zum Tode der Kaisers Augustus (Berlin: De Gruyter). Tibiletti, G. (1950). ‘Ricerche di storia agraria romana’, Athenaeum, 28: 183–266. —— (1953). ‘La politica delle colonie e delle citta` latine nella guerra sociale’, RIL 86: 45–63. —— (1955). ‘Lo sviluppo del latifondo in Italia dall’ epoca graccana al principio dell’ impero’, in Relazioni del X Congresso Internazionale di Scienze Storici. Roma 4–11 settembre 1955 (Florence: G. c. per gli studi storici), 235–92.
Bibliography
545
—— (1959). ‘The Comitia during the Decline of the Republic’, SDHI 25: 94–127. —— (1976). ‘Citta` appasionate nell’ Italia settentrionale augustea’, in L’ Italia settentrionale nell’ eta` antica (Athenaeum special issue; Pavia: Tipographa del Libro), 51–66. —— (1978a). ‘La romanizzazione della valle padana’, in G. Tibiletti, Storie locali dell’ Italia romana (Pavia: Universita` di Pavia, Istituto di Storia Antica, 53–62. —— (1978b). ‘La struttura topograWca antica di Pavia’, in G. Tibiletti, Storie locali dell’ Italia romana (Pavia: Universita` di Pavia, Istituto di Storia Antica), 203–22. —— (1978c). Storie locali dell’ Italia romana (Pavia: Universita` di Pavia, Istituto di Storia Antica). Tierney, J. J. (1947). ‘The Senatus Consultum de Bacchanalibus’, Proceedings of the Irish Academy, 51: 89–117. Torelli, M. (1966). ‘Un ‘‘templum augurale’’ d’eta` repubblicana a Bantia’, RAL 8/21: 293–315. —— (1968). ‘Monumenti funerari romani con fregio dorico’, DdA 2: 32–54. —— (1969a). ‘Contributi al supplemento del CIL ix’, RAL 8/24: 9–48. —— (1969b). ‘Senatori etruschi della tarda repubblica e dell’ impero’, DdA 3: 285–363. —— (1975). Elogia Tarquiniensia (Florence: Sansoni). —— (1979). ‘Il problema storico della piu` antica colonizzazione latina’, Arch. Laz. 2: 193–6. —— (1980). ‘Innovazioni nelle techniche edilizie romane tra il I sec. a.C. e il I sec. d.C.’, in Tecnologia, economia e societa` nel mondo romano. Atti del convegno di Como, settembre 1979. (Como: Banco Popolare Commercio e Industria), 139–61. —— (1982). ‘Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori d’ origine, Italia: Regio VII (Etruria)’, in S. Panciera (ed.), EpigraWa e ordine senatorio, ii. Ascesa al senato e rapporti con i territori d’ origine. Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL, Roma 14–20 maggio 1981, Tituli 5 (Rome, 275–99. —— (1983a). ‘Edilizia publica in Italia centrale tra guerra sociale ed eta` augustea: ideologia e classi sociali’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples, 7–10 decembre 1981 (Naples), 241–50. —— (1983b). ‘Una nuova epigrafe di Bantia e la cronologia dello statuto municipale Bantia’, Athenaeum, 61: 252–7. —— (1988). ‘Gesellschaft und Wirtschaftsformen der augustischen Zeit: Der Consensus Italiae’, in Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik: Eine Ausstellung im MartinGropius-Bau, Berlin 7 Juni–14 August 1988 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern), 23–40. —— (1990a). ‘I rapporti fra italici e romani’, in M. Tagliente (ed.), Italici in Magna Grecia: Lingua, insediamenti e strutture, iii (Venosa: Edizioni Osanna), 93–103. —— (1990b). ‘Numerius Papius, sannita di Forentum’, in M. Tagliente (ed.), Italici in Magna Grecia: Lingua, insediamenti e strutture, 3 (Venosa: Edizioni Osanna), 265–8. —— (1992). ‘Aspetti materiali e ideologici della romanizzazione della Daunia’, DdA 10: 47–64. —— (1995). Studies in the Romanization of Italy (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press). —— (1999). Tota Italia: Essays in the Cultural Formation of Roman Italy (Oxford, Clarendon Press). —— and Gros, P. (1988). Storia dell’urbanistica. Il mondo romano (Rome and Bari: Laterza). Torelli, M. R. (2002). Benevento romana (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Toynbee, A. J. (1965). Hannibal’s Legacy: The Hannibalic War’s EVects on Roman Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
546
Bibliography
Tozzi, P. (1976). ‘Gli inizi della riXessione storiograWca sull’Italia settentrionale nella Roma dello II secolo a.C.’, in L’ Italia settentrionale nell’ eta` antica: Convegno in Memoria di Plinio Fraccaro. organizzato dell’Istituto di Storia Antica del’ Universita` di Pavia (Athenacum, special issue; Pavia: TipograWa del Libro), 28–50. Treggiari, S. (1969). Roman Freedmen during the Late Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press). —— (1996). ‘Social Status and Social Legislation’, in A. K. Bowman, E. Champlin, and A. W. Lintott (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, x2 . The Augustan Empire, 43 B.C.–A.D. 69 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 873–904. Trevor-Roper, H. (1993). ‘The Invention of Tradition: The Highland Tradition of Scotland’, in E. R. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 15–41. Turano, C. (1955). ‘Di un’ iscrizione di Petelia, municipio romano’, Arch. Class 7: 85–6. Uggeri, G. (1977). ‘La Via Appia da Taranto a Brindisi: Problemi storico-topograWci’, RicStBrindisi 10: 169–202. —— (1988). ‘Il porto di Brindisi in eta` repubblicana’, in Atti del I Convegno di Studi sulla Puglia romana (Messange 1986) (Galatina: Congedo), 47–64. Vallat, J.-P. (1995). L’Italie et Rome 218–31 av. J.-C. (Paris: A. Colin). —— (2001). ‘The Romanization of Italy: Conclusions’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds.), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 102–10. Van Buren, A. W. (1933). ‘L’ iscrizione di Lucio Betilieno Varo’, Rend. Acc. Pont. 3/9: 137–44. —— (1941–2). ‘Come fu condotta l’ acqua al Monte Capitolio?’, Rend. Acc. Pont. 3/18: 65–70. van Wonterghem, V. (1967). ‘Les Inscriptions de´couvertes pe`ndant les quatres premie`res campagnes de fouilles a` Ordona (1962–1966)’, in J. Mertens (ed.), Ordona, ii. Rapport provisoire sur les travaux de la mission belge en 1964/65 et 1965/66. (L’Institut Historique Belge de Rome, 9; Brussels and Rome: L’Institut Historique Belge de Rome), 127–54. van Wonterghem, F. (1984). Forma Italiae, Regio IV—Volumen I, Superaequum, CorWnium, Sulmo (Florence: Unione Accademica Nazionale/Istituto di TopograWa Antica dell’ Universita` di Roma). —— (1992). ‘Il culto di Ercole fra i popoli osco-sabellici’, in C. Bonnet and C. JourdainAnnequin (eds.), He´racle`s: D’une rive a` l’autre de la Me´diterrane´e. Bilan et perspectives. Actes de la Table Ronde de Rome, 15–16 septembre 1989. (Brussels and Rome: Academia Belgica-E´cole Franc¸aise de Rome), 319–51. Various Authors (1959). Atti del Terzo Congresso Internazionale d’ epigraWa greca e latina, Roma, 4–8 settembre, 1957. (Rome: ‘L’Erma’ di Bretschneider). Vasaly, A. (1993). Representations: Images of the World in Ciceronian Oratory. (Berkeley: University of California Press). Vessberg, O. (1940). Studien zur Kunstgeschichte der ro¨mischen Republik (Acta Instituti Romani Regni Sueciae, 8; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup/Leipzig: O. Harrassowitz). Vetter, E. (1953). Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, (Heidelberg: C. Winter). Veyne, P. (1960). ‘Foederati: Tarquinies, Camerinum, Capene’, Latomus, 19: 429–36. Viti, A. (1982). Respublica Aeserninorum (Isernia: Marinelli Editore). VittinghoV, F. (1952). Ro¨mische Kolonisation und Bu¨rgerrechtspolitik unter Caesar und Augustus (Wiesbaden: Verlag der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur). Voisin, J.-L. (1984). ‘Tite-Live, Capoue et les Bacchanals’, MEFRA 96: 601–65. Volpe, G. (1990). La Daunia nell’eta` della romanizzazione (Bari: Edipuglia). Volpe, R. (1990). ‘Regio I. Latium et Campania, Setia’, in S. Panciera and M. Guarducci (eds.), Supplementa Italica, ns 6 (Rome: Quasar/Unione Accademica Nazionale), 11–33.
Bibliography
547
von Domaszewski, A. (1894). ‘Die Heere der Bu¨rgerkriege in den Jahren 49–42 v. Chr’, NJH 4: 157–88. Walbank, F. W. (1992). The Hellenistic World 2 (London: Fontana). Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1993). Augustan Rome (London: Bristol Classical Press). Walsh, P. G. (1989). Livy: His Historical Aims and Methods 2 (Bristol: Bristol Classical Press). Ward-Perkins, J. B. (1961). ‘Veii. The Historical Topography of the Ancient City’, PBSR 29: 1–123. Weber, V. (1975). ‘Entstehung und Rechtsstellung der ro¨mischen Gemeinde Pompeji’, Klio, 57: 179–206. Whitaker, C. R. (1995). ‘Do Theories of the Ancient City Matter?’, in T. J. Cornell and K. Lomas (eds.), Urban Society in Roman Italy (London: UCL Press), 9–26. Will, W. (1989). Appian von Alexandria: Ro¨mische Geschichte, ii. Die Bu¨rgerkriege (Stuttgart: A. Hiersemann). Willems, P. (1885). Le Se´nat de la Re´publique romaine: Sa composition et ses attributions (Paris: Ernest Thorin). Williams, J. H. C. (2001a). Beyond the Rubicon. Romans and Gauls in Republican Italy (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (2001b). ‘Roman Intentions and Romanization: Republican Northern Italy, c.200–100 B.C.’, in S. Keay and N. Terrenato (eds), Italy and the West: Comparative Issues in Romanization (Oxford: Oxbow), 91–101. Wilson, A. J. N. (1966). Emigration from Italy in the Republican Age of Rome (New York: Manchester University Press). Winnefeld, H. (1889). ‘Antichita` di Alatri’, MDIR 4: 126–52. Wiseman, T. P. (1970). ‘Roman Republican Road Building’, PBSR 35: 122–52. —— (1971). New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.–A.D. 14 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). —— (1979). Clio’s Cosmetics: Three Studies in Greco-Roman Literature (Leicester: Leicester University Press). —— (1983). ‘Domi nobiles and the Roman Cultural Elite’, in M. Ce´beillac-Gervasoni (ed.), Les ‘Bourgeoisies’ municipales italiennes aux IIe et Ier sie`cles av. J.-C. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la recherche scientiWque, 609, Sciences Humaines, 2/6. Centre Jean Be´rard. Institut de Naples 7–10 decembre 1981. (Naples), 299–307. —— (1986). ‘Monuments and the Roman Annalists’, in I. S. Moxon, J. D. Smart, and A. J. Woodman (eds.), Past Perspectives: Studies in Greek and Roman Historical Writing (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 87–100. Woolf, G. (1998). Becoming Roman: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). WolV, H. (1979). ‘Caesars Neugru¨ndung von Comum und das sogennante ius Latii maius’, Chiron, 9: 169–87. WulV-Alonso, F. (1991). Romanos e Ita´licos en la Baja Repu´blica (Brussels: Latomus) Yavetz, Z. (1983). Julins Caesar and his Public Image (London: Thames & Hudson). Zambianchi, L. (1978). ‘Problemi della societa` volterrana nel I secolo a.C.’, RIL 112: 119–29. Zanker, P., ed. (1976). Hellenismus in Mittelitalien. Kolloquium in Go¨ttingen vom 5. bis 9. Juni 1974 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Go¨ttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. 3F; (Go¨ttingen: Vandenhocch & Ruprecht). Zanker, P. (1987). Pompeji: Stadtbilder als Spiegel von Gesellschaft und Herrschaftsform (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern).
548
Bibliography
Zanker, P. (1988). The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press). —— (1998). Pompeii: Public and Private Life (Cambridge, Mass., and London: Harvard University Press). Zecchini, G. (1982). ‘Asinio Pollione: Dall’attivita` politica alla riXessione storiograWca’, in ANRW II/30. 2 (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter), 1265–96. Zecchini, G. (2001). Cesare e il mos maiorum (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag). Zei, C. (1921). ‘Regione VII (Etruria). V. Ferento (Viterbo)—Scoperta di tombe di eta` reppublicana’, NSA 215–28. Zevi, F. (1976). ‘Alatri’, in P. Zanker, (ed.), Hellenismus in Mittelitalien. Kolloquium in Go¨ttingen vom 5. bis 9. Juni 1974 (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Go¨ttingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. 3F; Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoech & Raprecht), 84–8. —— (1995). ‘Personaggi della Pompei sillana’, PBSR l: 1–24. Zevi Gallina, A. (1978). ‘Sora: Scavi alla cattedrale’, Arch. Laz. 1: 64–6.
Index Nominum P E RS O N S Accius, M. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Volcei) 489 Achillenius Sabellus (quattuoruir iure dicundo, quattuoruir quinquennalis, Luceria) 491 Aconius Polio, C. (quattuoruiruir iure dicundo, Setia) 485 Acutia (Clusium) 482 Aeburnius, L. (Brundisium) 490–1 Aelius Gallus 21, 22, 24, 29 n. 116 Aelius Stilo, L. 20 Aemilis Barbula, M. (cos. 230) 153 Aemilius Scaurus, M. (cos. 115) 112 Afzelius, A. 37 Agrius Pollio, Cn. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Aquinum) 486 Albucius, T. 107 Albucius Silus 20 n. 81 Alfius, M. (quattuoruir, Aquileia) 483 Alfius, Q. (Brundisium) 490–1 Alli[enus] Pollio, P. 488–9 Alpionia (Stationia) 480 Alsinaeus, A., (quattuoruir, Rubi) 499 Alsinaeus, A., pater (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Rubi) 499 Ampolo, C. 36 Anicius, C. (quattuoruir, Statonia) 480 Anicius, Q. 488–9 Annaus, M. (quattuoruir iure dicundo quinquennalis, Aquileia) 496 Annius Luscus, T. 156 Annius Pomp[- - - -], Q. (quattuoruir, Copia Thurii) 477 Ansidius Rufus, C. (Placentia) 482–3 Antonius, M. 11 Appia (Caiatia) 510 Appian 40, 170 Archias (poet) 4 n. 15 Aristotle 37 Arrius, L. (quattuoruir praetor, Cales) 364–5, 502
Asinius Pollio, C. 508–9 Atilius Glabrio, A. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Perusia) 501–2 Attius Clarus, C. (Asisium) 493–4 Aufidius, C. (quatturouir quinquennalis, Beneventum) 497–8 Aufidius, L., Cn. f. (Placentia) 482–3 Aufidius, L., L. f. (quattuoruir, Placentia) 482–3 Aufidius, P. (quattuoruir, Placentia) 482–3 Augustus 150 Aurelius Opillus 20 n. 81 Avidius, L. pater (Benventum) 476 Avidius, L. (quattuoruir, Beneventum) 476 Avidius(?), T. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Alba Fucens) 491 Babrius Chilo, C. (quinqueuir, Asisium) 493–4 Badian, E. 172 Benelli, E. 3 Betilienus Hapalus, P. (quattuoruir, Aletrium) 474 Boswell, James 1 Brutus, D. 11, 18 n. 77 Caecilius, L. (augur, Placentia) 494–5 Caecilius Flaccus, L. (augur, Placentia) 494–5 Caecilius Flaccus, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Placentia) 494–5 Caecilius Metellus Numidicus 20 Caecilius Rufus, M. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Signia) 484 Caecina, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Volsinii) 492 Caedicius, Sex. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Petelia) 498–9 Caeparia (Aquileia) 495 Caesellius, L. (quattuoruir, Sassina) 482
550
Index Nominum
Caesilius, C. (quattuoruir aedilis, Ocriculum) 503 Caesilius(?), C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Volaterrae) 492 Caesius (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Mevaniola) 502 Caesius (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Ligures Baebiani) 498 Caldus (duouir, Ausculum) 507 Cassius Longinus 108 Castrius, Q. (duouir aedilis, Ausculum) 510 Catia (Beneventum) 476 Catius, C. (quattuoruir, Nola) 476 Cazanove. O. de 118 Cincia (Beneventum) 476 Cincius, P. (quattuoruir, Beneventum) 476 Cincius, P. (Beneventum) 476 Claudius, D. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Claudius, M. 97–8 Claudius Marcellus, M. 66 Claudius Priscus, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Signia) 484 Claudius Quadrigarius 65 Clovius, L. (quattuoruir aedilis, Ocriculum) 503 Cluvius, N. (quattuoruir, Caudium, ?Cales, duouir, Nola, duouir, Capua) 474–5 Cocceii Nervae 299–301 Cocceius, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Beneventum) 299–301, 487 Cominia (Clusium) 481 Considius, C. (quattuoruir, Clusium) 481 Considius, Q. (quattuoruir, Clusium) 480–1 Cornelius, A. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Cornelius, C. (tr. pl. 67) 45 Cornelius, Cn. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Cornelius Epicadus 20 n. 81 Cornelius Lentulus Spinther, (cos. 57) 477 Cornelius Sisenna 41 Cornelius Sulla, L. (dictator) 2, 161, 201 Persecution of Samnites by 2 Leaves citizenship of Italians intact 9 Memoirs 20 n. 81 Cornelius Sura, L. (augur, Brundisium) 490–1 Crawford, M.H. 40 n. 159
Curius, M. (duouir, Cereatae Marianae) 504 Curti, E. 36 Curtius Salassus, P. (quattuoruir, Canusium) 478–9 Cuspius (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Decia (Aquileia) 483–4 Decia Galla (Aquileia) 483–4 Decidius Rufus 488 Decius Flaccus, Q. (quattuoruir, Aquileia) 483–4 Decumius, C. (duouir, Trea) 508 Devijver, H. 350 Dexius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Volcei) 489 Domitius, Cn. (cos. 40) 508–9 Egnatius Rufus, C. 488 Einstein, A. 33 Ennius, (quattuoruir, Canusium) 479 Epidius 20 n. 81 Erucius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Fa[- - - -], T. (praefectus?, Fundi?) 97–8 Fabius Labeo, Q. 139 Fabius Hadrianus, C. (Brundisium) 490–1 Fadiena (Placentia) 482–3 Fadius, Q. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Marruvium) 491 Falerius, C. (Brundisium) 490–1 Falerius Niger, C. (quattuoruir aedilicia potestate, quattuoruir iure dicundo, quattuoruir quinquennalis, Brundisium) 490–1 Falius Tinia, L. (quattuoruir, Hispellum) 482 Fannius, M. (Brundisium) 490–1 Festus 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 91, 96, 97, 104 Firmius, L. (quatturouir iure dicundo, Sora) 485–6 Fullius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Potentia) 489 Fufidius Vindex, C. (quatturouir quinquennalis, Beneventum) 497–8 Fluvius Flaccus 128 Funius Gallus, D. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Herdonia) 499
Index Nominum Furius, L. 38 n. 153 Gabba, E. 153, 163 Galsterer, H. 134 Gellius (quattuoruir, Clusium) 481 Aulus Gellius 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 65, 67, 108 Gemina (Cales) 486 Ginsborg, P. 8 Gradenwitz, O. 31 Granonius, N (quattuoruir, Luceria) 477 Hadrian speech de Italicensibus 25, 26 Hannibal 16, 32 n. 127, 36 n. 145, 67, 153 Hercules 484 Herennius, T. (Tibur) 484 Herennius, T. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Tibur) 484 Herennius Gallus, M. (duouir quinquennalis, Caiatia) 510 Herius, A. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Petelia) 498–9 Hobsbawm, E. 12 Hordeonius Gallus, P. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Signia) 484 Hortionius Rufus, T. (Brundisium) 490–1 Humbert, M. 31 Iulius Caesar, C. (dictator) 503 Iulius Caesar, C. 172 Iulius Caesar, L. (cos. 90) 172 Iunius Brutus, M., tyrannicide 20 n. 81, 22 Iunius Pera, M. (cos. 230) 153 Iuno Sospita 105 Iuppiter 494–5 Iuppiter Optimus Maximus 475, 498–9 Johnson, Samuel 1, 7, 8 Labeo (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Sassina) 502 Laenius Flaccus, L. (Brundisium) 490–1 Laenius Flaccus, P. (Brundisium) 490–1 Laterius, T. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Hispellum) 493 Laufeius Apotheca, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Aquinum) 486 Libo (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Sassina) 502 Liburnia (Placentia) 482–3
551
Licinius Crassus, L. 488–9 Licinius Lucullus, L. (cos. 74) Greek poem on Social War 41 Licinius Lucullus, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Interamna Nahars) 492 Licinius Postumus, T. (quattuoruir aedilis, Ocriculum) 503 Livy 17, 18, 23 n. 94, 30, 32, 37, 38 n. 153, 98, 101, 105, 106, 110, 118, 135, 136, 137 ‘Augustan’ narrative 58 Bacchanalian narrative, credibility of 92–3. 95, 122 value for study of fourth century bc Italy 13 Augustan values 19 Loreius, M. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Lucceius, M. (quattuoruir aed. pot., ?Venusia) 503 Luc[- - - -], P. (quattuoruir, Luceria) 478 Lurius, L. (duouir, Aprustum(?)) 506 Luucius, M. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Luttius Aulianus, C. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 474 Maenius Rufus, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Magilius, L. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 473 Magius Surus, M. (quattuoruir, Aeclanum) 476–7 Manilius, L. (duouir, Fidenae) 504 Manlianus (duouir, Forum Novum) 507 Manius, C. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 473 Marcius, L. (duouir, Fidenae) 504 Marcius Hister, P. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Marcius Philippus (duouir, Herculaneum) 505 Marius, C. (cos. 107, 104, 103, 102, 101, 100, 87) 2, 103, 112, 172 Marius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Aeclanum) 487 Marius, L. (duouir, Aprustum(?)) 506 Marius Sophus, M. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Trebula Balliensis) 497 Mars 478 Matrius, L. (duouir iure dicundo, Casinum) 507–8
552
Index Nominum
Mefitis Utiana 489 Memmii Rufi (Herculaneum) 505–6 Metternich, Klemens Fu¨rst von 53 Millar, F. 54 Minerva 506, 509 Mineius Piper, A. (Brundisium) 490–1 Minucii 140 Minicius, L. (duouir, Cupra Maritima) 508 Minoreius Longinus, Q. (Brundisium) 490–1 Moerae 34 n. 138 Molloy, P. 145 Mommsen, Th. 30, 207, 350 Mouritsen, H. 3, 47 n. 173, 114, 115 Mucius Scaevola augur, Q. 107 Munatius Marrsus, Q. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Marruvium) 491 Munnius, Sex. (duouir quinquennalis, Atina) 509 Musanus Classicus, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Vibo Valentia) 488–9 Muttius Celer, T. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Corfinium) 500–1 Nicias 65 Niebuhr, B. 22 Nonius, C. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Aesernia) 497 Nonius Gallus, M. 497 Nonius Pansa, L. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 473 Numisius Lucanus, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Vibo Valentia) 488–9 Obellius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Aeclanum) 487 Obinius Rufus, C. (duouir quinquennalis, Atina) 509 Octavius Cornicla, Cn. (quattuoruir, Aquileia) 483 Octavius Graechinus, C. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 474 Octavius Vitulus, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Tibur) 473, 484 Otacilius Pitholaus 20 n. 81 Paconius Lepta, Q. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Cales) 496–7 Palius, M. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Aeclanum(?) ) 487–8
Papius, M. (duouir iure dicundo, Casinum) 508 Paquius Priamus, P. (quattuoruir, Copia Thurii) 477 Patlacius, A. (quattuoruir, Aeclanum) 476–7 Paulus (Paul Warnefrid) 21 n. 87, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27–8, 29, 30 Pausurinius Varus, Q. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 474 Petronia (Placentia) 494–5 Petronius Lupus Marianus, S(ex). (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Placentia) 495 Philonius, C. (Brundisium) 490–1 Philonius Rufus, Q. (Brundisium) 490–1 Pinsent, J. 15–16, 24, 27, 29 Pliny the Elder lists of Italian towns 89–90 Pobjoy, M. 114 Pollio (duouir, Forum Novum) 507 Polybios 33, 34, 37, 60, 138 description of Roman politeia 115 Pompeius, Cn. (duouir, Bantia) 506 Pompeius Magnus, Cn. (cos. 70, 55, 52) 20 n. 81, 477 Pompeius Strabo, Cn. 20 n. 81 Pomponius Atticus, Ti. 17 Pomponius Polio, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Setia) 485 Porcius, M. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Porcius Cato, M. 7 Origines of 7, 60 on the Alps 59 Poseidonios of Apamea 2, 7, 9 Publilia (Trebula Suffenas) 507 Publilius Flaccus, L. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Cora) 496 Publilius Flaccus, M. (augur, Cora) 496 Pyrrhus 32 consequences of invasion of Italy 117 Quinctius Valgus, C. (patronus, Aeclanum, quinquennalis, ?Aeclanum) 476–7, 498 Quintilian 27 Rubrius Tinti[- - - -], C. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Herdonia) 499
Index Nominum Rufrius Cimber, M. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Trebula Balliensis) 497 Rufus (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Rubi) 499 Rupilus, P. (duouir, Cupra Maritima) 508 Rustius Flavos, C. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 473 Rutilius Rufus, P. 20 n. 81 Salisius, T. (duouir i.d., Bantia) 509 Sallust 41, 103 Salvia Cila (Placentia) 482–3 Salvius, L. (Ocriculum; Rome) 503 Salvius, Sex. (quattuoruir, Ferentium) 479–80 Salvius Crispinus, A. (quattuoruir, Ferentium) 479 Satrius, M. (duouir, Bantia) 506 Scribonia, wife of Imp. Caesar 20 n. 81 Scribonius Aphrodisias 20 n. 81 Seleukos of Rhosos n. 75 Sempronius Gracchus, C. (tr. pl. 123, 122) 157 Seppia (Beneventum) 476 Septumius, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Vulci) 491 Septumius, L. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Septumius, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Beneventum) 487 Sepunius, L. (quinquennalis, ?Aeclanum) 498 Servilius, L. (Aquileia) 483 Servilius Cilo, L. (Brundisium) 490–1 Servilius Isauricus 20 n. 81 Servius filius/‘Servilius’ 21, 22, 23, 24 Sextilius, L. (quattuoruir, Pompeii) 475 Sherwin-White, A.N. 36, 172 Sicinius Bellutus, L. (quattuoruir, Clusium) 481 Soranus, L. (quattuoruir praetor, Cales) 502 Spurius Rufus, M. (duouir iure dicundo, Herculaneum) 509 Staberius Eros 20 n. 81 Statius, C. (duouir aedilis, Ausculum) 510 Strabo 2 Sulpicius Rufus, Ser. (cos. 51) 22 Syme, R. 22
553
Tellus 487 Tercenna, L. (quattuoruir, Tarquinii) 479 Terentius Varro, M. 17 definitions of words 20 Tibiletti, G. 174 Timochares 65 Titinius, P. (duouir, Tarentum) 506 Titius, P. (quattuoruir, Canusium) 478–9 Titius Flaccus, T. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Tituleius, C. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Alba Fucens) 501 Tonnius, C. (duouir designatus, Trebula Suffenas) 507 Torelli, Mario 7 Trebius, D. (quattuoruir, Luceria) 478 Tullius, L. (quattuoruir quinquennalis, Ligures Baebiani) 498 Tullius, Tul. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 473 Tullius Cicero, M. 11, 32, 40, 109, 112, 124, 139, 201, 450 Tullius Cicero, Q. 450 Turius, L. (quattuoruir, Hispellum) 482 Tutilius Capito (quattuoruir, Clusium) 481 Ulpian 29 Ussaeus, An. (duouir iure dicundo, Bantia) 509 Valerius Antias 65 Valerius Cato 20 n. 81 Valetudo 491 Vallius, C. (quinqueuir, Asisium) 493–4 Vecillius, L. (quattuoruir, Luceria) 274, 478 Veienus, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Spoletium) 493 Veistinius, Cn. (quinqueuir, Asisium) 493–4 Veistinius Capito, C. (quinqueuir, Asisium) 493–4 Velleius Paterculus 168 Vensius Constans, A. (quattuoruir, Clusium) 286, 482 Ventilius Bassus, L. (quattuoruir, Tibur) 474 Verrius Flaccus 20, 20 n. 82, 21, 23, 96
554
Index Nominum
Veserius, Q. (duouir quinquennalis, Caiatia) 510 Vesta 478 Vetius, Q. (quattoruir iure dicundo, Asisum) 494 Vibiena (Luceria) 477 Vibienus Licinus, L. (quattuoruir, Luceria, duouir, Sipontium) 477 Vibius Ruso, L. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, quattuoruir quinquennalis, Aquileia) 495 Vibius Ruso, T. (augur, Placentia) 495 Victoria 508 Villius, P. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Volcei) 489 Viscius, C. (duouir, Cereatae Marianae) 504 Visellius, L. (quinqueuir, Asisium) 493–4 Vittorio Emmanuele III 8 Volumnius Flaccus, C. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Signia) 484–5 Volumnius Marsus, Q. (quattuoruir iure dicundo, Signia) 484–5 Vortumnus 478–9 Xenophon 37 Walbank, F.W. 34 Wonterghem, F. van 350 Yaffel, Professor 20
P L AC E S ( A N D P O P U L I ) Abruzzo 38 Acerrae 97 Acerrani 21, 23, 24, 27–8 Actium 40 Aeclanum 476–7, 487, 498(?) Aesernia 497 Africa 127 Alba Fucens 69, 491, 501 Aletrium 474 Allifae 95–6 Antium 34 Antiates 34 n. 136, 80–1 Anagnia 95–6, 97
Anagnini 27–8 Apennines 11 Apulia 142 Aprustum(?) 506 Aquileia 155, 483–4, 496 Aquinum 486 Ardea 34 Aricia 28 n. 110, 109–110 Aricini 27–8 Arpinum 111–12, 205 Asculum 40 Siege of 168 Asisium 470, 493–4 Athens 477 Atina 509 Asculum 4 n. 13 Atellani 21, 23, 24 Ausculum 464, 507, 510 Bantia 142–52, 206, 506 urban change at 146 Beneventum 476, 487, 497 Bononia 29 Bononienses 27–8 Brundisium 153, 202, 490–1, 503 Bruttium 117 Bruttii 117, 136 Caere 6, 28–9, 30, 34, 35, 95–6, 97 Onomastics of 6, 8 n. 30 Caerites 27–8 first municipes? 27 Gellius on 27 guardians of Roman sacra during Gallic sack 26–7 Caiatia 510 Cales 157, 475(?), 486–7, 496–7, 502 Campania 35, 39 Campanians 28, 29 Hellenistic architecture 7 Municipia 23 Praefecti sent to 36 Canusium 478–9 Capua 16, 18 n. 76, 23 n. 94, 36 n. 147, 37, 38 n. 153, 39, 80–1 restoration as Caesarian colony 99–100 retention of local language and magistracies in third century 37–8 Carteia 19
Index Nominum Casinum 508 Caudium 475 Cavaturines 141 Celtiberians 32 Cereatae Marianae 504 Chalkidike 37 Cimbri 32 Circeii Cisalpine Gaul 31 n. 120, 127, 203–4 Clusium 8 n. 31, 480–1, 482 Contrebia 121 Copia Thurii 477 Cora 496 Corfinium 469, 500–1 Corsica 35 Croton 135–6 Culloden 1 Cumae 4 n. 15, 39, 97 Cumani 21, 23, 24, 27–8 Cupra Maritima 508 Etruria 38, 165 Etruscan 5 survival of 5 Etruscans 28, 38 n. 156 Falerii 4 n. 15, 469 Fidenae 504 Ferentium 479–80 Ferentinum 157 Ferentinates 85 Forentum 4 n. 14 Formiae 95–6, 97 Formiani 27–8 Forum Clodi 89–90 Forum Novum 507 Frusino 95–6 Fundi 95–6, 97, 98–9, 166 Fundani 27–8 Gallia Cisalpina 11, 40, 169, 174 incorporation into Italy 12 jurisdiction in 83 Gauls 33 Genua 140, 142 Greeks 38 n. 156 Heraclea 2 n. 6 Herculaneum 505–6, 509
Herdonia 499 Hernici 28, 29 n. 112 Hispania 18 Hispellum 482 Interamna Lirenas 486 Interamna Nahars 469, 492 Italica 26 Iuvanum 39 Karthage 113, 154 Roman treaties with 33–5 Karthaginians 32 Lanuvium 4 n. 15, 28 n. 110 Lanuvini 27–8, 29 n. 112, 105 Larinum 38 n. 155, 201, 206 Latium 29 n. 112, 33, 35 Latium Antiquum 34 n. 138 Latium Adiectum 34 Latini 28, 29, 32, 154, 159, 165 Latini in prayers at Ludi Saeculares 34 n. 138 Libya 35 Ligures Baebiani 498 Luca 29 Lucenses 27–8 Lucani 18 Luceria 477, 478, 491 Magna Graecia 36 Magnesia 138 Marruvium 469, 491 Marsi 4 n. 13, 5 Massilia 34 Mentovines 141 Messagne 5 n. 18 Messapians 38 n. 156, 154 Messapic 5 n. 18 Mevaniola 502 Molise 38 Monte Vairano 7 Neapolis 2 n. 6, 133, 139 Nepesini 27–8 Nola 29, 139, 205, 475, 476 Nolani 27–8 Numantia 32 n. 127
555
556
Index Nominum
Ocriculum 492, 503–4 Odiates 141 Olynthos 37 Oscan language 4, 39, 152 abandoned in public contexts at Cumae 39 Latinization of at Bantia 143, 147 retention of Oscan at Bantia 143–4 Paeligni 5 Perusia 8 n. 31, 501–2 Petelia 201, 202, 498–9 Picenum 4 n. 13, 38, 472 Pietrabbondante 4 n. 14, 39 Pisani 27–8 Placentia 482–3, 494–5 Placentini 27–8 Pompeii 261–7, 447–56, 475 inscriptions of 4 n. 14 Potentia 489 Praeneste 4 n. 15, 34, 133–5 Praenestini 27–8, 34 n. 133 Priene 138 Privernum 95–6 Puteoli 101–3, 474–5 exclusive nature of ruling elite 102–3 Rhodes 2, 7 Rubicon 57 Rubi 499 Sabini 29 n. 112, 32 Albucius as ‘Sabinus’ 107 Samnium 2, 4, 38, 205 Samnites 18, 32, 33, 34 Sardinia 35 Strabo on 2 n. 4 Sassina 482, 494, 502 Scotland, Highlands 1 Sentinum Battle of 55 Setia 485 Signia 484–5 Sipontium
Sora 485–6 Spoletium 493 Statonia 480 Sutrini 27–8 Tarentum 201, 208, 506 Taras 34 Tarquinii 34, 469, 479 Tarracina 34 Teanum Sidicinum 4 nn. 14, 15, 5 n. 20 Teura/ager Teuranus 117 Tiber, river 34 n. 137 Tibur 29, 34, 132–3, 473–4, 484 Tiburtes 27–8, 132 Tiriolo 117, 121 Transpadanes 11 Trea 471, 508 Trebula Balliensis 497 Trebula Suffenas 507 Tusculum 4 n. 15, 28 n. 110 First municipium 14 Tusculani 27–8, 29 n. 112 Umbria 165, 472 Umbrian 5 Iguvine Tables 5 Urbinates 27–8 Utica 26 Venafrum 95–6 Venetic 5 n. 18 Venusia 142, 143, 149, 151, 157, 503(?) Vestini 4 n. 13, 5 Vibinum 153 Vibo Valentia 117, 118, 464, 488–9 Vicetia 18 n. 77 Viturii Langenses 140, 141 Volaterrae 492 Volcei 489 Volsci 28, 29 n. 112, 34 n. 136 Volsinii 57, 469, 492 Vulci 491 Westminster 1
Index Rerum ager adsignatus 19 ager priuatus 125 ager publicus 126–7 extent of in 133 61 and Bacchanalian affair 93, 118 legal action relating to 126 leased by communities 77 left in possession of original owners 72 possessores of 70 ager Romanus 76–87, 122 estimated population of 37 aediles: allied 129 municipal 10, 482 Alps, as a wall protecting Italy 59 altars 493 ambulation, meaning of referred to Pompeii 448–50 antiquarians: as political writers 17, 19–20 compared to historians 17, 30 definitions historically contingent 17–18, 21, 23, 30, 31 apparitores 503 ara 508 arbitration 36 arches 487–8 architects 510 area 484–5, 506 Armistice between Italy and Allies, 1943 8 arsenal 490–1 augur, colonial 494–5 augur, municipal 484, 490–1, 494–5, 496 Augustan Principate 8 artistic / architectural fashions of 8 autonomy: and fundus fieri 27 loss of on enfranchisement 9 of Italian peoples 2 of Roman muncipia 11, 29 Bacchanalian crisis 91–5, 116–23, 137 Roman religious objections to 118–19
basis (of a statue) 484, 508 baths 157 balneum 499 boundaries, setting of 139, 140–141, 502, 504 cippi 140 fines 140 termini 140 calles 69 campus 476, 508 castella 77 censor: allied 482 Roman 136 Census: in Latin colonies, closer supervision of 118 municipal 151 census, Roman 11, 154–5, 204 decentralization of 11 centuriation (limitatio) 71–2 centurions 477, 485–6 chalcidicum 505–6 Cinnani 161, 172 Cippis Abellanus 39, 205 cisterna 498 citizenship, Roman 27–8, 160 antiquarians’ denial of for municipes 31 extended to Cisalpine Gaul 31 n. 120 granted to the defeated as a reward 32 n. 127, 106 Italian demand for 114 obtained through lex repetundarum 127–31 obtained through magistracy in Latin colony 174 ciues: adscripti 172 municipal 31, 122, 496 optimo iure 12, 16, 29, 110 Romani 26, 122 ciues sine suffragio 10, 28
558
Index Rerum
ciues sine suffragio (cont.) military service of 23 n. 94 civil law: procedures in municipia 151, 205 ciuitas sine suffragio 23, 30, 35, 56 and Caere 27 and distance from Rome 36 restrictions inherent in 36 ciuitates foederatae 28, 29 clientes 486 coloni 476, 483, 507 colonies 84, 101–3, 136, 476 and ager publicus 77, 123–7 co-extensive with praefecturae 96 differences from municipia 10, 11, 12, 24–5, 26, 108 land allotments in 156 Latin (socii nominis Latini) 29, 35, 74, 75, 79, 113, 118, 119, 130, 151, 174 Latin, fictive 175 Latin, libertine 19 Latin, leges for 37, 142, 149, 151–2, 153–4, 156, 175, 206 Latin, magistrates in 130 new settlers in 156 old-fashioned regulations at 148, 149 Roman citizen 76, 77, 471 Roman, leges of 151, 206 vacatio militiae for 101 colonization 10, 34, 65 deductio of colony 19, 80, 207, 485–6 triumviral involvement in 125,154 commercium 125 conciliabula 12, 76, 87–8 conquistores 85–6 conscripti 494, 496, 502 conubium 18, 19 crepidines 481, 487 crypta 484–5 cultural change in Italy 3–7, 39, 159 timescales of 3–4, 7–8, 45–6 in inscriptions 8 n. 31 cultural identity 2, 7, 144, 160, 206 curator aedis, colonial 494–5 Curia 498, 505–6 decuriones 475, 487, 488–9, 490–1, 494–5, 497, 498, 499, 505–6, 508, 509, 510 deditio in fidem 105
demographic changes in Italy 8 dictator, municipal 10 Digest 27 n. 106 dispersed settlement 38, 70 Doric frieze 155 Duoviri passim, esp. 380–404, 472 continuity from indigenous Sabellian magistracies 399–400 Elogia Tarquiniensia 153 Elogium of Brudisium 152–5 enfranchisement 2, 7, 9 and means of control of new citizens 19–20, 23 attitude to after Social War 29 by populi 10, 29, 30, 208 consequences for communities of origin 129 consequences for new citizens 11, 161 consequences for Roman commonwealth 9, 23 measures governing after Social War 161–87 restriction of right to hold office after 28 restriction of vote after 23, 167, 171 scale of after Social War 9–10, 19, 163 equestrian order 116 etymology 20 euergetism 147, 475, 476, 481, 484–5, 487, 490–1, 492, 493–4, 496–7, 505–6 Exercitus Cannensis: exclusion of from Italy 66 exhedrae 474 exsilium 133 fall of the Republic 8 flamen, municipal 479 Foedus Cassianum 34, 35 foederati, meaning of 118, 120 fora (settlement type) 12, 87–90 public life in 88–9 formula togatorum: implications of 23, 62 fornix 506 fora (settlement type) 76, 87–8 forum 155, 487–8, 490–1, 498 forum pecuarium 509 Frankenstein’s monster 46 fundus fieri 25, 26–7, 131, 162, 166, 187–9
Index Rerum funerary commemoration 479 Gaelic 3. n. 7, 145 genera hominum 18, 19, 96 gladiatorial games 478–9 Gracchan land holdings 71, 124 Gracchan legislation 77 gradus 500, 508 Greek language 3, 4. n. 13 Hannibalic War 80, 101, 113, 153 confiscations after 117, 118 Hellenistic culture: influence on Italy 6–7, 36, 153 influence on Rome 3, 6–7 Highland clans 1 horologia 484, 491 hospitium: between Romans and non-Romans 122 between individual and community 97–9 immunitas and uacatio 17 n. 75 imperialism, Roman 32, 34 limitations of Roman intervention 37 imperium, Roman 32, 33 consular 94, 158 incolae 136, 489, 496 inscriptions: dating of, and problems of dating 42–4, 248–53 funerary 5 in Italian languages 5 language of Roman laws 62 publication of 121, 123 Roman leges 50–1 Roman public instrumenta (other than leges) 50–1, 123, 146 use of Latin in official texts 121, 146, 147 isopoliteia 36, 37 Italia: as consular province 54, 58, 68 as Social War rebel state 56 meaning of in Polybios 115 Italian elites 2 attitudes to Rome 3, 4 n. 15, 5, 7 n. 26, 147, 206 decay after Social War 2 n. 5 ‘Hellenization’ of 7
559
honoured in their home communities 490–1 opportunities for involvement in Roman politics 8, 23 proficiency as orators 4. n. 1 preservation of local identities 7 right to stand for office after enfranchisement 28 Roman attitudes to 157, 171 self-representation of 39, 147 ‘Italian question’ 40 Italici 2 n. 5 Italio¯tai 2 n. 2, 40 Italy: and Mediterranean economy 3 approaches to the study of 39–40 cultural diversity within 10, 38, 39, 40, 74 demographic changes after Social War 8 defined in opposition to Gallic threat 55–6 fluidity of conceptions of 54–6 resentment of Roman hegemony in 73, 113, 139, 157–8 Roman control over 118, 119,132–3, 138, 158 Roman expansion in 10, 32, 33–4, 113 settlement pattern, changes in 38 unity/unification before Social War 114, 134 unity/unification after Social War 3 iura: allied 135 Latin 154 iuris peritus 479 iustitium 94 juridical categories, ambiguity of 19, 82, 111 jurisdiction, local 83, 111, 142, 151 magistrates possessing 86, 120 magistrates subject to fines 148 jurisdiction, Roman: consular 93, 115 relating to agrarian reform 127 Lacus 497 Latin League 36 Latin War 33, 35, 105
560
Index Rerum
Latin War (cont.) settlement following 104–5 legis actio 150 legionary service 22–3 legions 477, 485–6 levying of 85–6, 115 letters 122 consular regarding Bacchanalian affair 120 lex Aebutia 150 lex Baebia 127 lex Calpurnia 172–3 lex de pariete faciundo 101–3 Augustan redaction 102 concern with financial probity 102 lex Iulia de ciuitate 161, 162–72 and municipia fundana 165–6 disputes over extent of 163 importance of 162–4 senatus consultum authorizing 164–5 lex Plautia Papiria 172, 173 lex Pompeia 173–5 influence of 174–5 lex tabellaria at Arpinum 112 linguistic change 1, 2–3, 4–6 Latinization 4–5 survival of indigenous languages 37–8 local administration Roman respect for 10 locatio, municipal 475, 488–9, 496–7 Lorica 503 Lucus 487 Macella 490–1, 507, 509 Maceria 476, 508 Maenania 487–8 magisterial titulature 5 n. 20, 129–30, 151 evolution of in muncipia 47 manners, change of 1, 3 manum iniectio 150 Marians 161 Meddı´ss 38, 148 muncipalization passim, but esp.: as template for organization of western Empire 11 contemporary evidence for 32, 51 development of concept over time 31–2, 38 differential development 39
importance of for Italy 52 influenced by development of colonies 37 legislation covering 38 n. 153, 40–2 literary evidence for 40 Mediterranean context of 36–7 political context of after Social War 161, 173, 204 scale of after Social War 11, 38 unifying effect of 39–40 Municipes 35, 105, 479, 489, 490–1, 496, 508 abuse of the word according to Gellius 108 antiquarian definitions of 17–31 as immigrants to Rome 24, 30 benefits of being 35–6 leges for 37–8, 142 link with ciues sine suffragio 13, 14, 28 obligation to undertake duties 15, 23 original meaning 14–16, 22, 31 original meaning, debated by antiquarians 20, 21 origins of 35 priority over muncipium 13, 14, 21 restrictions inherent in original status 22–3 Municipia passim, but esp.: and ager publicus 77, 111 and fundus fieri 27 antiquarian definitions of 17–31, 103–4 co-extensive with praefecturae 96, 98–9 definition of 11, 12–13, 24–6 definition debated by antiquarians 20, 25, 28, 30, 31 difference from colonies 24–5, 26, 108 municipia foederata 109–10, 166 municipia fundana 165–6 historical evolution of 14, 151 in lex agraria 77 leges of 24–5, 111–12, 151–2 levelling effect of after Social War 29 municipalia sacra 103–4 obligation to undertake duties 18, 26, 28 origins of 13–38 patronage of, formal 476–7 patronage of, informal 13 place within Roman commonwealth 11, 40, 52, 111
Index Rerum pre-Social War municipia, creation of 9–10, 40 pre-Social War municipia, difference from later ones 30 role in decentralization of power in Roman commonwealth 11 separate res publica 11, 26, 29, 31, 104, 112 substituting for formerly sovereign communities 9, 29, 40, 49 Murus 474, 476–7, 488–9, 493–4, 498, 499, 502, 506 myth-maps 58–9 nobility, Roman: domination of the consulship 103 oaths in public life 148 octouiri 10 oppida 469 Meaning of 87 optimates 18 oral tradition 153 ordo 205 pagano-vicanic settlement pattern 10 pagi 10, 12, 500 patroni appointed under the lex repetundarum 64 patroni of municipia 476–7 pecunia conlaticia 489 Piscina 503, 506 plebs, Roman: attitude to new citizens 9, 23 polis, limitations partly transcended by Roman expansion 37 pontes 493, 498 pontifices: colonial 485–6 municipal 491, 496 Roman 104 popular election, municipal 494–5 populares 19 populi, Italian 28 populus, municipal 148500 populus Romanus 23 n. 95, 26 maiestas of 35 n. 140 porticus 474, 481, 487–8, 498, 507 porticus pone scaenam 474
561
portae 476–7, 488–9, 494, 496, 498 praefecti Capuam Cumas 36, 38 n. 153 praefecturae 76, 95–100 as places 96 co-extensive with colonies and municipia 97–9 in formam praefecturae redigere 99–100 praefectus cohortis 501 praefectus fabrum 483–4, 486, 494–5, 501 praefectus iure dicundo 12 praefecturae : co-extensive with municipia and coloniae 12, 472 jurisdictional circumscriptions 12 persistence of the name after autonomy 12 relation to ciues optimo iure 12 Praetors: allied 129, 482 Latin colonial, replaced by duouiri 130 municipal 10 Roman 12, 120, 157, 492 pro coloniis 78–9 pro municipiis 78–9, 111 ‘proconsuls’ 492 pronaos 474 prouocatio: and lex repetundarum 127–31 as alternative to citizenship 128 publicani 116 publication of official decrees/laws municipal 490–1 quaestores, colonial 471, 494–5 allied 157 Roman 492 quattuorvirate, passim as typical municipal magistracy after Social War 200 quinqueuiri ils cis Tiberim 95 res publica, Roman 3, 16 res publica, municipal 132, 496–7 separate from Roman 21, 22, 23 roads, Roman public 68–71, 94 and fora 88 Via Postumia 140 roads, municipal 473–4, 481, 485, 492, 504, 509
562
Index Rerum
Roman citizenship value of 2 n. 6 vote acquired with 8 ‘Romanization’ 3, 4 n. 12, 5, 39 Sabellians 38, 38 n. 156 sacra: Lanuvine shared with Rome 105 Roman attitudes to allied 119 Sanctuaries, rural 39 Schola 476, 505–6 Semita 476 senate, municipal 473–4, 476–7, 481, 486, 487–8, 489, 493, 496, 498–9, 500, 502 senate, Roman 18, 203–4 as arbitrator in Italy 132, 138–42 as arbitrator outside Italy 138 and Bacchanalian affair 120 controlled by oligarchic clique 164 embassies to 132 extent of influence over Italian allies 39, 115, 131–2 responsibility for state contracts 116 resistance to building permanent theatres 7 senatus consulta 92 seriation of artefacts 252 Social War 1 aftermath of 161 changes as a result of 7–9, 40 damage caused by 7, 48 Lucullus’ poem on 41 outbreak of 114 Roman recovery during 168 urban decay after 2 social mobility in archaic period 36 socii 29, 113 adoption of Roman leges 158–9, 162 and ager publicus 126 foedera with Rome 74–5, 164 military obligations of to Rome 61–2, 75, 76, 137, 158 revolt in Social War 164 Roman influence on constitutions 143 socii nominis Latini, see colonies, Latin solarium 476 state-formation 39
statues 484, 506, 508 struggle of the Orders 36 sumpoliteia 36 n. 145, 37 tabernae 507 tabula Bembina 77 tabulae Caerites 23 n. 94, 25, 27 temples 484, 494–5 Terra Italia 60–8, 73 territoria (type of settlement) 77 theatres 500 threshold principle 12 Tota Italia 122 touto 148 traditions, invented 23 treaties: early Roman with Italian states 33–5 inequality of Roman treaties with allies 35 n. 140 Romano-Karthaginian 33–5 tribuni militum 483–4, 485–6, 494–5 tribuni plebis, colonial 494–5 tribuni plebis, Roman 492 trientabula, land in held by communities 77–8, 80 Turris 476–7, 494, 499 Twelve Tables 150 urbani 486, 503 urbanization 3 n. 9, 38, 147, 174 vacatio (militiae or muneris) 128 veteran settlement 8, 17 n. 75 viasiei 69–71 vicani 69–71 vici 11, 12, 77, 91 magistrates and public life in 91 villas 3 n. 9 viridia 484–5 voting tribes 11, 17, 203, 204 new additions after Social War 163, 167, 169 water rights 121 water supply, in municipia 490–1, 496–7 xystum 495
Index Locorum L I T E R A RY T E XT S A N D PA P Y R I Ammianus Marcellinus 20. 4. 8: 18 n. 77 Appian BC 1. 46. 203: 170 1. 49. 214: 167, 170 1. 65. 294: 29 n. 114 Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics 1170b31: 37 Politics 3, 1275a2-b22: 37 n. 148 3, 1275b18: 37 Bellum Alexandrinum 52: 108 Cato de Achaeis: 66–7 Origines F85P ¼ iv. 10C ¼ iv. 10BW: 59 Cicero ad familiares 9. 19. 2: 18 n. 77 pro Balbo 17: 16 21: 2 n. 6, 159, 162 31: 29 n. 112 35–7: 35 n. 140 Brutus 99: 9 n. 38 156: 22 169: 2 n. 13, 6 n. 23 De Officiis 1. 33: 139 1. 34–8: 32 De Oratore 3. 43: 6 n. 23 De republica 1. 31: 124 3. 41: 124
In Catilinam 2. 17–23: 18 n. 77 Philippics 3. 15: 109 3. 38: 11 & n. 45 Columella RR 12. 1. 4:16 Digest 50: 16 50. 1. 1: 15, 16, 29, 31 50. 1. 17: 16 n. 71 50. 4. 1: 16 n. 71 50. 16. 18: 15 Dio Cassius 60. 11. 7: 35 n. 140 Diodoros 16. 45. 8: 34 n. 133 37. 12: 4 n. 13 Ennius fr. 494–5 Skutsch: 34 n. 138 Fannius ap. ORF 4 32: 9 n. 38 Festus p. 126L: 21 p. 164L: 104 Aulus Gellius NA 10. 3: 156–7 15. 27. 5: 18 n. 77 16. 13. 1–5: 25, 108 16. 13. 6–9: 15, 24–5, 27 C. Gracchus ap. ORF4 48, F21–2: 9 n. 38 de legibus promulgates: 156–7 Livy 6. 27. 7: 34 n. 133 7. 16. 3–6: 33 n. 128 7. 19. 4: 33 n. 128
564 7. 28. 1–6: 33 n. 128 7. 29: 32 n. 127 8. 11 .5: 13 n. 56 8. 14. 2: 105 8. 23: 32 n. 127 9. 20. 5–10: 36 n. 147, 38 n. 153 23. 7. 1: , 18 n. 76 27. 38. 1–2: 37 n. 152 29. 15. 9–10: 118 34. 42. 5–6: 85 36. 3. 4–6: 37 n. 152 38. 44. 4: 26 n. 102 39. 17. 4: 122 42. 1. 8–11: 135 43. 4. 1–4: 19 nn. 78, 79 44. 41. 1: 16 45. 29. 4: 26 n. 102 Lucilius 202M: 15 1088M: 9 n. 38 Paulus p. 117L: 15, 24, 26, 29 n. 116 p. 155L: 26, 27–8 Plautus, Amphitruo 827: 15 Asinaria 812: 15 Trinummus 1: 15 Pliny HN 7. 136: 19 n. 78 11. 234: 15 Plutarch Marius 45.4: 2 n. 3 Polybios 3. 22. 11: 34 n. 135 3. 24: 33, 34 6. 12–13: 115 6. 14. 8: 133 6. 17: 116 18. 27. 2: 26 n. 102 29. 5: 26 n. 102 Ps.-Sallust Ep. ad Caesarem 6. 4: 32 n. 127 Quintilian Inst. 1. 6. 34: 27 n. 105 1. 6. 44–5: 23 n. 95
Index Locorum Sallust Iug. 63. 6–7: 9 n. 38 Sisenna F17P: 173 Strabo 5. 3. 10, 238C: 2 n. 4 5. 4. 11, 249–50C: 2 n. 4 6. 1. 2, 253-: 2 n. 4, 7 Suetonius Diuus Iulius 77: 19 n. 80 Diuus Augustus 28, 2: 8 n. 34 Gramm. 3. 1–2: 20 n. 81 6. 2: 20 n. 81 11. 1: 20 n. 81 12. 2: 20 n. 81 13. 2: 20 n. 81 19. 2: 20 n. 81 27. 2: 20 n. 81 28: 20 n. 81 30. 5: 20 n. 81 Tacitus Annales 1. 58: 32 n. 127 3. 40: 32 n. 127 6. 37: 32 n. 127 Valerius Maximus 2. 2. 2: 4 n. 13 Varro LL 5. 7–8: 20 n. 83 5.179: 21 9. 5–6: 23 n. 94 Velleius Paterculus 2. 17. 1: 29 n. 112 2. 27. 2: 2 n. 6 Xenophon Hellenika 5. 2. 12: 37 n. 149
INSCRIPTIONS fragmentum Atestinum: 76, 151, 201 Lex agraria: 51, 84 1–7: 60, 63
Index Locorum 11: 60 13: 60 19: 63 22: 63 27: 60 29: 63 30–1: 77, 126 43–4: 127 lex Antonia de Termessibus col. 1, 7–8: 26 n. 102 lex coloniae Genetivae: 150, 207, 208 ch. 66: 15 n. 64 ch. 72: 15 n. 64 Lex Flavia: 11 n. 46, 207, 208 n. 14 Lex Osca Bantina: 4, 5 n. 20, 142–52 date of: 146 4: 148 7: 148 8–13: 148 13–18: 149 Lex repetundarum ¼ RS i. no. 1: 17 n. 75 78–9: 15 n. 64, 128 88–9: 128 Lex Roscia de Gallia Cisalpina ¼ RS i no. 28: 11, 76, 82–3 Ch. 21. 2–3: 83 Ch. 22: 12, 83 Ch. 23: 12, 83 SC de Bacchanalibus: 116–21 SC de Tiburtibus: 131–2 3: 132 7: 132 9: 132 sententia Minuciorum: 139–42 3: 140 7: 140 8: 140 10: 140 11: 140 13: 140 14: 140 15: 140 16: 140 17: 140 18: 140 19: 140 20: 140 21: 140 22: 140
565
23: 140 38–40: 141 Tabula Heracleensis: 11, 76 159–63: 165–6 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25 Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30 Q31 Q32 Q33 Q34 Q35 Q36 Q37 Q38 Q39 Q40 Q41 Q42
¼ Inscriptiones Italiae iv/1. 20: 473 ¼Inscriptiones Italiae iv/1. 21: 473–4 ¼Inscriptiones Italiae iv/1. 19: 474 ¼ CIL i2. 1530: 474 ¼ Epigraphic Landscape 67: 474 ¼ Epigraphic Landscape 67: 475 ¼ CIL i2. 1630: 475 ¼ CIL i2. 1631: 475 ¼ CIL i2. 3127: 476 ¼ CIL i2. 1727: 476 ¼ CIL ix. 1728: 476 ¼ CIL i2.1722: 476–7 ¼ AE (1976), 315: 477 ¼ ILLRP 502: 477 ¼ CIL ix. 806: 477 ¼ CIL ix. 936: 478 ¼ CIL i2. 3182: 478 ¼ CIL i2. 3183: 478 ¼ CIL i2. 3184: 478–9 ¼ AE (1986), 193: 479 ¼ CIL i2. 1997: 469, 479 ¼ AE (1978), 305: 469, 479 ¼ CIL i2. 2635: 469, 479–80 ¼ Ostraka (1995), 286: 469, 480 ¼ CIL i2. 1999: 480–1 ¼ ZPE 68 (1987), 164: 481 ¼ CIL i2. 3359: 8 n. 31, 481 ¼ ZPE 68 (1987), 183, no.12: 481 ¼ CIL xi. 7122: 8 n. 31, 482 ¼ CIL i2. 3382: 469, 482, 502 ¼ CIL i2. 3385: 469, 482 ¼ CIL xi. 6514: 470, 482 ¼ CIL xi. 1217: 470, 482–3 ¼ CIL i2. 2200: 470, 483 ¼ CIL i2. 2201: 470, 483 ¼ Inscriptiones Aquileiae i, no. 38: 470, 483–4 ¼ Inscriptiones Italiae iv/1. 22: 484 ¼ CIL i2. 3094: 484 ¼ CIL i2. 1503: 484 ¼ CIL i2. 1505: 484–5 ¼ CIL x. 6467: 485 ¼ Supp. It. 6, 26 no. 8: 485
566 Q43 Q44 Q45 Q46 Q47 Q48 Q49 Q50 Q51 Q52 Q53 Q54 Q55 Q56 Q57 Q58 Q59 Q60 Q61 Q62 Q63 Q64 Q65 Q66 Q67 Q68 Q69 Q70 Q71 Q72 Q73 Q74 Q75 Q76 Q77 Q78 Q79 Q80 Q81 Q82 Q83 Q84 Q85
Index Locorum ¼ CIL x. 5713: 485–6 ¼ CIL i2.1542: 486 ¼ AE (1988), 243: 486 ¼ AE (1989), 176: 486–7 ¼ CIL i2. 1730: 299–302, 487 ¼ CIL i2. 1721: 487 ¼ CIL i2. 3192: 487–8 ¼ CIL i2. 3166: 488 ¼ CIL i2. 3166a: 488–9 ¼ CIL i2. 3163a: 489 ¼ Inscriptiones Italiae iii/1. 36, no. 51: 489 ¼ CIL i2. 3173: 490–1 ¼ CIL ix. 803: 491 ¼ CIL i2. 3209a: 469, 491 ¼ AE (1988), 465: 469, 491 ¼ CIL i2. 3344: 469, 491 ¼ CIL i2. 2515: 469, 492 ¼ CIL ix. 1744: 469, 492 ¼ Epigraphica (1941), 150: 492 ¼ CIL i2. 2098: 492 ¼ CIL xi. 4800: 493 ¼ CIL xi. 4809: 493 ¼ CIL i2. 2107: 493 ¼ CIL i2. 3384: 469, 493 ¼ CIL xi. 5391: 469, 493–4 ¼ CIL xi. 5422: 469, 494 ¼ ILLRP 661: 470, 494 ¼ Epigraphica (1981), 253: 494–5 ¼ CIL xi. 1219: 470, 494–5 ¼ Inscriptiones Aquileiae i, 40: 470, 494–5 ¼ CIL i2. 2198: 470, 496 ¼ CIL i2. 1514: 496 ¼ CIL i2. 3118: 496–7 ¼ CIL i2. 3119: 497 ¼ CIL ix. 2642: 497 ¼ CIL i2. 3194: 497–8 ¼ CIL i2. 3191: 498 ¼ AE (1981), 249: 498 ¼ CIL i2. 3164: 498–9 ¼ CIL i2. 3176: 499 ¼ CIL i2. 3188: 499 ¼ Epigraphica (1990), 142–3: 349–55, 501, 502 ¼ CIL i2. 3276: 355–6, 501
¼ MEFRA (1979), 653: 8 n. 31, 469, 501–2 Q87 ¼ CIL xi. 6510: 502 Q88 ¼ Supp. It. 11 (1993), 97, no. 3: 502 Q89 ¼ CIL i2. 1574: 502 Q90 ¼ CIL i2. 1714: 503 Q91: 503 Q92 ¼ CIL i2. 3372: 470, 503 Q93 ¼ CIL i2. 2643: 470, 503–4
Q86
D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 D11 D12 D13 D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 D20
¼ CIL i2. 1502: 504 ¼ CIL i2. 2664: 504 ¼ CIL i2. 2537: 504 ¼ RAAN (1958), 297, no. 484: 505 ¼ CIL x. 1453: 505–6 ¼ AE (1986), 212: 506 ¼ CIL i2. 1693: 506 ¼ CIL i2. 3167: 506–7 ¼ CIL i2. 3186: 507 ¼ Supp. It. 4, 168–9, no. 34: 507 ¼ CIL ix. 4789: 469, 507 ¼ Supp. It. 5, 182 no. 15: 507–8 ¼ CIL i2. 1917: 472 n. 11, 508 ¼ AE (1990), 303: 472 n. 11 508 ¼ CIL x. 5159: 508–9 ¼ CIL i2. 1625: 509 ¼ Arch. Class. (1969), 15: 509 ¼ CIL i2. 1533: 509 ¼ CIL i2. 1576: 510 ¼ ZPE 103 (1994), 161–70: 510
FIRA i7.69 (edictum de ueteranis): 17 n. 75 ILLRP 7: 5 147: 5 n. 16 502 ¼ Q14: 477 661 ¼ Q61: 494 Sherk, RDGE no. 7:138 no 58 (letter for Seleukos of Rhosos): 17 n. 75 SIG iii3. 618: 26 n. 102 Stastsvetra¨ge iii. 536: 33 n. 130 Vetter, Handbuch 1 ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte Cm1: 39, 205 220 ¼ Rix, Sabellische Texte Mv 5: 5 n. 16
