Selected Essays in Roman History and Epigraphy 9788617172273 [PDF]

Zitiervorschau

Скенирао: Μίλοβαν έν Χριστω τω Θεω πιστός βασιλεύς καί αύτοκράτωρ Σερβίας καί 'Ρωμανίας

Selected Essays in Roman History and Epigraphy Slobodan D m anic ★

This edition copyright © by “Zavod za udžbenike” Published in October 2010 by “Zavod za udžbenike” first edition, 2010 ISB N 978-86-17-17227-3

B e lg rad e * 2 0 1 0

Contents Preface I.

Edition Studia Serbica Editorial Board: Prof. Nikola Tasic, Vice-President o f the Serbian Academy, Ambassador Dr. Dusan T . Batakovic (President), Prof. Slobodan G . Markovich, Mr. Miloljub Albijanic and Dr. Vojislav Pavlovic The book is a special publication within the edition Studia Serbica, a joint project o f Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company and the Balkan Institute o f the Serbian Academy o f Sciences and Arts ZAVOD f Λ

THE SERBIAN TEXTBOOK COMPANY I

ί? *

G

9

l

I

^ tcKwhdfc u3E_J

Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company Obilicev Venae 5,11 000 Belgrade, Serbia www.zavod.co.rs For Zavod — the Serbian Textbook Company: Director and Editor-in-Chief Miloljub Albijanic Editor-in-Chief o f Special and University Editions Prof. Slobodan G . Markovich

Balkan Institute o f the Serbian Academy o f Sciences and Arts Knez Mihailova 35,11 000 Belgrade, Serbia www.balkaninstitut.com For the Balkan Institute: Director Prof. Nikola Tasic Book art and Cover Design by Tijana Rancic Print Production Davor Palcic The book has been published in collaboration with the Faculty o f Philosophy, University o f Belgrade

1.

MILITARY DIPLOMATA

Pre-Severan Diplomata and the Problem of ‘Special Grants’

!3

2 . The Award of the Military Diploma

73

3. Three Sidelights on the Early Diplomata Militaria

1 21

4. Fragment of a Military Diploma from Moesia Superior

l 63

5. An Upper Moesian Diploma of A.D. 96

189

6 . A Military Diploma of A.D. 65

212

7. Military Diplomata and War Expeditions

235

8. The Issue of Military Diplomata under Clau­ dius and Nero

246

9. Loci Constitutionum Fixarum

268

10 . The Witnesses to the Early “Diplomata Mili-

taria”

297

1 1 . The Sailor’s Calendar Notes on the Day-Dates of Military Diplomata

318

Notes on the Early Diplomata Militaria: CIL XVI 20, RMD 1 and Affairs in Germany, A .D .72-74

331

12 .

13. An Early Praetorian Diploma

346

14. Military Diplomata for the Auxiliary Soldiers from the Hellenophone Provinces: The Prob­ lem of the Recipients’ Roman Name-Formu­ lae 15. Three Diploma Fragments from Viminacium 16. An Early Diploma Mi/itare 17. A Diploma for the Lower Pannonian Auxilia of the Early 140 s Π. MINING IN ILLYRICUM

1. Aspects o f Roman Mining in Noricum, Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia Superior

III.

ROME, ITALY AND TH E PROVINCES

1. The Greeks, the Illyrians, and the Origin of the Salentini (Varro apud Ps. Prob. ad Verg. Buc. V I 31)

777

2. Bassianae and its Territory

81 8

3. The End of the Philippi

86o

4. Severus Alexander as Elagabalus’Associate 5. A Foundation-Type on the Coinage of the Municipium Stobi

878

895

6 . Nobilissimus Caesar Imperii et Sacerdotis

914

7. On the consules suffecti of A.D. 74-76

920

2. Roman Mining in Illyricum: Historical A s­ pects

8. The Era of Viminacium

937

3. Mounted Cohorts in Moesia Superior

9. Moesia and Pannonia in Domitian’s Last War on the Danube

947

10. Imitator Alexandra and Redditor Libertatis. Two Controversial Themes of Galerius’Polit­ ical Propaganda

960

11. The Frontier and the Hinterland: the Role of Scupi in Domitian’s Wars on the Danube

986

4. The Roman Mines of Illyricum: Organiza­ tion and Impact on Provincial Life 5. The Legions and the Fiscal Estates in Moesia Superior: Some Epigraphical Notes 6.

Late Roman Mining in Illyricum: Historical Observations

7. Epigraphical Notes on Roman Mining in Dardania

12. The Jovian Propaganda of Philip II

1010

8. An Imperial Freedman Procurator at Sočanica

13. The Flamen Quirinalis at the Consualia and the Horseman of the Lacus Curtius

1030

9. The Administrative History of Roman Mines in North-western Dardania: a Lost Document

14. The Five Standards of the Pre-Marian Le­ gion. A Note on the Early Plebeian militaria

1050

10. The Miners’ Cults in Illyricum

15. Asinius Maximus in AD 253

1074

11.

16. The Imperial Propaganda of Significant Day-dates: Two Notes in Military History

1089

17. Notes on a Severan Document (CIL III 731 = 7395)

1108

Bibliography

1125

General Index

1128

Army and Mining in Moesia Superior

12. Diocletian’s Visits to Quarries and Mines in the Danubian Provinces 13. Julian’s Strategy in AD 361 14. The Princeps Municipii Dardanorum and the Metalla Municipii Dardanorum

Preface

The present book unites Roman papers — mostly written by me alone but some o f them the fruit o f joint efforts with Miloje Vasić and Žarko Petković 1 — which I hope may be of wider interest. They are grouped thematically in three parts, which are entitled, respectively: Military Diplomata (Ess. 1 1-17), Mining in Illyricum (Ess. I I 1-14), and Rome, Italy and the Provinces (Ess. Ill 1-17) — the unity o f this last being less obvious than that o f chapters I and II. A ll three parts open with separate studies which deal generally with the matters analysed in the articles which follow2. W ith rare exceptions, the Essays are in the form in which they appeared in classical journals or collections.3 Owing to the limi­ tations o f space, no important corrections or critical completions have been proposed, nor reviews from learned periodicals noted, despite their relevance. M y sincere thanks are due to the editors o f the original papers for their consent to reprint them here. The publication o f this bulky volume was made possible through the generous financial assistance o f two institutions, my ---------------------------- *

1Ess. 1,4; ΙΠ, 14,15. 2 W hile these general studies are not presented in simple chronological order but appear at the top o f the respective units (I—III), the remaining articles are arranged according to the dates o f their printing (1964-2005). In the table o f contents the general studies appear in bold type. 3 T h ence the double numeration o f pages (i.e. the pages o f the original publication above and those o f the main body o f the present book below).

9

alma mater,; Belgrade University’s Faculty o f Philosophy, and the Serbian State Publisher of Textbook (Zavod za udžbenike). Let me record my warmest gratitude to the Faculty’s editorial board and its Dean o f the period, professor Aleksandar Kostić. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Slobodan Marković, Zavod’s Editor-in-Chief, who kindly agreed to include the manuscript in the series o f Studia Serbica. I would also like to thank my friends and colleagues from the Faculty’s Centre d’etudes epigraphiques et numismatiques “Fanoula Papazoglou”, especially D r. Vojin Nedeljković and Dr. Žarko Petković. Their manifold support in the preparation o f the manuscript and the General Index, as well as the reading o f difficult proofs, proved invaluable.

MILITARY DIPLOMATA -k ★

Belgrade, September 2010 S. D.

I

IO

1. PRE-SEVERAN DIPLOMATA AND TH E PROBLEM O F ‘SPECIAL GRANTS’ ★ ★ ★

Manibus Alfredi de Domaszewski

This paper has been written1 in the conviction that the (so-called) radical theory, which “postulates that virtually all the constitutions /diplomata name only those units/soldiers possessing extraordinary merit”2 (mainly participants in expeditiones belli but also in certain peacetime efforts3 matching, in importance, such expeditions),

1 In addition to the standard bibliographical abbreviations, the following two will be used: Roxan, Distribution (= Μ . M . Roxan, T h e Distribution o f Roman Military D iplom as, Epigr. Stud. 12 ,1 9 8 1 ,2 6 5 ff.), and Award (= S. Dušanić, T h e Award o f the Military Diploma, Arh. Vest. 3 3 ,1 9 8 2 ,1 9 7 ff.). Th e suggestions referred to simply by the authors’ names derive from the discussions which took place during our Colloquium. 2 S. Dušanić, N otes on the Early Diplomata Militaria: C I L X V I 20, R M D 1 and Affairs in Germany, A .D . 72-74, in: Studien zu den Militiirgrenzen Rom s III, Vortrage des 13. Intern. Limeskongresses in Aalen 1983, Stuttgart 1986, 730; cf. Award 197 £ , with bibliography. 3 For instance, heavy building works or naval accomplishments o f some consequence such as the overseas transport o f the Emperor with his suite etc, or o f numerous troops in difficult situations. “Other factors may also have been relevant from time to time, e. g. the Emperors wish to secure or recompense the loyalty o f his soldiers” (S. Dušanić, Z P E 47,1982,150); the donativum-\ik.z grants marking the new reign (cf. C I L X V I 24 [on it: S. Dušanić, Loci Gonstitutionum Fixanim, Epigraphica 46,1984,109]) constitute a similar case.

13

190

191

provides the most economical basis for interpreting the extremely complex features o f the diplomata militaria as a documentary genre. In other words, it is assumed in this paper that virtually all the I—II century diplomata were ‘special grants’; to my thinking, this holds for the post-Severan bronzes too4, but their case is different both typologically (the exclusion o f candidates from the provincial forces) and statistically, and certainly appears more difficult to assess from the standpoint o f the radical conception5. The following argumentation is centred around the salient points o f the radical theory susceptible o f modification or improvement when one considers how they have been treated in recent scholar­ ship. M any remaining details will be dealt with subsequently, in other places.

★ *----------4 Various indications, o f unequal value, have been adduced, or m ight be adduced, to support this claim; see e. g. Award 218 f. n. 97 (the argument from the praetorian diplomata dated A .D . 221,225 etc. being inconclusive as the rhythm o f the guardsmen’s honesta missio may have been faster in the third than in I—II centuries; but cf. R M D 1 1, o f A .D . 73) and 99. N ote i. a. the temporal concentration o f the diplom ata for the Equites Singulares (all the four known so fa r— C I L X V I 144; 146; R M D I I 134; Z P E 6 4 ,1 9 8 6 ,2 1 9 — fall within the reigns o f Severus Alexander and M axim inus Thrax), a concentration which belongs to the category o f significant ‘anomalies’ o f the statistical order (cf. infra, ch. 1, and the next footnote). 5 T h e ratio o f pre-Severan and post-Severan diplomata for the Praetorians (6 or 7 to 20) favours the latter considerably more than expected, “even allowing for the larger numbers o f the guard” in ΙΠ -early IV cent. (Roxan, D istribution 271 f. + fig. 1 [cf. infra p. 284 fig. 1], who reckons with the evolution o f the factor o f the conubium in the whole matter). Like the ‘anomaly’ concerning the diplom ata for the Equites Singulares (the foregoing note), it suggests a switch, under the Severi, in the policy o f issue o f our aera. W hatever the attraction the post-212 diplom ata actually had for the Praetorians, this switch cannot be understood i f matters are analyzed, traditionally, from the sole perspective o f the soldiers’ needs. T h eir merits, generic and/or individual, constituted another and the decisive criterion, which explains the post-212 exclusion o f provincial’ candidates from the aere incisio. Coinciding with the marked increase in the production o f praetorian diplom ata, the post-Severan reduction o f the circle o f recipients to the members o f the Urban and Italian troops had nothing to do with the objective need the soldiers o f the whole exercitus Rom anus felt for the conubium (civitas/civitas liberorum), as this ius (these iura) must have been much more useful to the men from the provincial armies than to their comrades in R om e and Italy, whose social and legal status, together with their regular place o f service, tended to minimize the interest in the civitas or the conubium with peregrine wives. C f. infra, ch. 9.

Η

(1) The fundamental difficulty with the (so-called) traditional thesis6, which takes the ‘normal’ diploma as an automatic reward for every man having spent, in major non-legionary troops, the prescribed term o f service (XX V plurave stipendia for the aux­ iliaries, XXVI [XXVUI] plurave stipendia for the sailors), arises from the indications that the material known so far (C IL XV I + R M D I + RM D II) markedly deviates from the numbers to be expected in view o f the effectives o f certain units, classes o f soldiers and provincial armies involved7; analogous statistical deviations may be observed if we focus on the temporal distribution of diplomata. O f these latter, the most instructive concern the early di­ plomata. It has already been remarked that the total o f the Claudio-Neronian documents published so far “is so low that the automatic grants thesis appears quite implausible for that period at least”8. Indeed, the strong contrast between the paucity o f the pre-68 bronzes (six or seven from more than 15 years9), and the comparative frequency o f those dating from, and/or reflecting the events of, the year o f the Four Emperors (eleven or twelve from A .D . 68 and 70-7110) is best understood if a change in the criteria regulating the eligibility for diplomata is assumed: owing to the then politico-military circumstances, the grants o f A .D . 68-71

6 A list o f its protagonists may be found in Award 210 n. 10; on the qualifications recently introduced into it by D r. Roxan (Distribution 273; 274 f.) see Z P E 47,1982, 149 n. 2 and below, nn. 13 and 150. Further modifications o f the traditional theory were proposed at the Colloquium in a form which does not affect its essence (cf. notably Professor H .-J. Kellner’s observations on the “Fundstatistik”o f diplomata and the possibilities o f an explanation o f its paradoxes [tabellae ligneae etc.]: infra p. 241 ff.). 7 C f. Award 204 (where “the striking preponderance o f Danubian material” has been stressed) and 205 (the high percentage o f the recipients from the first-named units among the auxiliary aere incisi after c. A .D . 148); infra, chs. 4 ,5 and 6c. 8 Award 205. 9 1. e. from the period beginning with the first diploma datable with precision (C IL X V I 1, A .D . 52): 1 naval, 5 auxiliary (C IL X V I 1 ,3 -5 ; R M D I I 79). T h e seventh, C I L X V I 2 (aux. Illyr.), may have been as early as the 40 s (infra p. 232). io 5 ‘legionary’, 6 or 7 naval (C IL X V I 7-17, cf. 19 [Z P E 4 7 ,1 9 8 2 ,1 5 2 n. 10]).

15

192

193

were much less exclusive than the previous ones11. And — to remain with the auxiliary diplomata, the most illustrative statistically — the whole evolution o f their temporal distribution up to Trajan attests to an inflation in their production12, an inflation which resulted more from a loosening o f the criteria just mentioned than from the creation o f new alae and cohorts13. In the same sense, the fact that no pre-Claudian diploma (or a bronze diptychon similar to the ‘standard’ diplomata introduced by Claudius) has been discovered as yet — despite all the probability that analogous certificates were in use under the Julians 14 — * -----------------------------

11 W hich is reflected, am ong other things, in the fact that we possess three individual copies o f the lex o f A .D . 68 (G . Forni has underlined, with good reason, its statistical relevance: cf. infra p. 294 £ ), and two copies o f two leges o f A .D . 70-71 ( X V I 12 f.; IS f. ). T h e collective beneficiaries o f those three constitutions (leg. I Adiutrix, cl. Misenensis) would not have been much stronger, as to the number o f candidates to the aere incisio, than the auxilia cited in the unit lists o f the Claudio-N eronian diplomata (e. g. C I L X V I 4 refers to seven cohorts) i f the selection o f candidates depended on the same principles in both cases. A fresh find (R M D I I p. 231, no. 2: fragm ent o f the fourth diploma for a member o f I Adiutrix; obviously, A .D . 68) makes this all the more evident; cf. also A E 1983,523, issued c. A .D . 70? (infra, note 167). 12 See Roxan, Distribution 274 (fig. 1), completed infra p. 284 fig. 1. T h e inflation left its traces also in the gradual lengthening o f the unit lists (infra, nn. 37 and 42). 13 Contra, Roxan, Distribution 275. From the principates o f the Flavians, N erva and Trajan some 65 extant diplomata for the auxiliaries are registered, from the Claudio-Neronian age only 6; the ratio is too favourable for the form er — given the comparatively sm all difference in time (c. 49 vs. c. 17 years) — to be explained as a consequence o f the known additions to auxiliary strength under N ero, Vespasian and D om itian. D r. Roxan is inclined to ascribe the dearth o f diplom ata o f the pre-Flavian epoch also to the postulate that the “men serving under native chieftains” were denied these certificates (Distribution 27 4 f.). However, wide employment o f native chieftains is not to be assumed for the regular alae and cohorts, even in the reigns o f C laudius and N ero (D . B . Saddington.Th e D evelopm ent o f the Rom an Auxiliary Forces from C aesar to Vespasian [49 B .C . — A .D . 79], Harare 1982,85 f.; 188 £ ; cf. the occurrence o f coh. I and II Thracum in R M D II 79, units whose members had been recruited before the formation o f provincia Thracia), so that the status o f the auxiliary commanders should not be considered an im portant factor in the whole matter. 14 C f. e. g. C I L Χ ΙΠ 1041 (= X V I A pp. 15), line 3: aere incisso (!). T h e expression alludes to a diploma-like bronze, ju dging from the parallels o f C I L V 889 (= X V I A p p. 14), lines 5 -6 , and o f the epikrisis papyri (χαλκά). C f. Award 209 n. 6 (contra, J . C . M ann ); O . Behrcnds, supra p. 133 ff. (E . Birley, infra p. 2 49 ff., defends, on the contrary, H . N esselhauFs terminus a quo under Claudius). 16

should be put down to the severity of the first three principes in evaluating the merits of candidates, among their soldiers, to the diplomata militaria. I f the entire line of the temporal distribution o f the first-century diplomata is viewed in terms o f a gradual inflation — a process dictated by the increasing generosity o f the emperors15 and accelerated by the Claudian reform and the consequences o f the Civil War o f A.D . 68-69 — the rarity o f the pre-Claudian documents becomes easily comprehensible. It does not rule out the very existence of those documents; on the contrary, the modest total o f their Claudio-Neronian equivalents tends to imply that Claudius’ measure was a standardisation o f the earlier practice rather than an innovation revolutionary in its indiscriminative application16. A s to the former point, two kinds o f such ‘anomalies’ seem especially significant because they both stem from large samples and may be given coherent, if tentative, explanations. (a) On the level o f the three classes o f troops receiving the bulk o f pre-Severan bronzes (alares, cohortales, classiarii), it is evident that the cavalry had more than its statistical share and the Fleets far less17. Among the individual beneficiaries of the auxiliary diplomata known to us18, the alares are over-represented in comparison to the cohortales: 41 vs. 7419*, whereas the normal ratio

15 Comparable e. g. to their increasing generosity in the distribution o f donativa (Award 202; 216 n. 82). 16 F or a different view, E . Birley, infra p. 257. 17 Award 204 f.; 220 nn. 118 f. 18 From C I L X V I + R M D I + R M D II; as a general rule, the material included in these publications provides the basis for the analyses offered in the present paper — the diplomata edited or made known after the completion o f R M D II have been taken into account only exceptionally. 19 T h e figures cited by D r. Roxan in her report (infra p. 281) are somewhat different (42 alares [the diplomata + C I L X V I A pp. 2] vs. 63 cohortales); the difference immaterial for our purpose— probably stems from the cases wherein the exact status o f a cohortalis (pedes or eques) remains uncertain. (D r. Roxan’s Table I categorizes the recipients acording to their being cavalrymen or infantrymen, not primarily according to their being alares or cohortales. T h e ratio o f equites cohortales and pedites cohortales among

r7

194

should have been 1 vs. 3 or 420. The relatively small share o f sailors — those from the provincial classes at least — is best illustrated by the scarcity o f the (Trajanic and post-Trajanic) diplomata citing the classici together with the auxiliaries o f the same command: eight or nine have been edited21, vs. more than one hundred Antonine diplomata with purely auxiliary lists. T o appreciate fully this and other similar disparities, we have to remember the formu­ lation o f C IL X V I 38 and 40 (the singular dimisso) which implies that — on the traditional theory — the item classico or classicis must have been entered on the list whenever there were emeriti (even one or two o f them only) with no better qualification than XXVlplurave stipendia\

X95

(b) On the geographical level, several deviations o f a statistical nature have been observed22which cannot be put down exclusively to the hazards o f modern field research23. The most notable concern three provinciae inermes on the limes that obtained considerably more constitutions — Raetia 30, D acia Porolissensis c. 9-11, Mauretania Tingitana 27 — than the commands with

larger auxiliary garrisons, whether in the provinciae armatae (e. g. Britain 12, both the Germanies together 14, Syria 7+3) or the provinces without legions (e. g. Mauretania Caesariensis 1 ) too24. (2) The ‘anomalies’ outlined in the preceding chapter, when taken together25 and closely examined, lead to the inevitable con­ clusion that certain non-legionary emeriti nevertheless were not given the bronzes to which their stipendia apparently entitled them. A category o f such people will have figured in the epikrisis documents as the χωρίς χαλκών veterans26*. O f the alternative identifications of these Egyptian sine aeribus, two have been popu­ lar, though both seem untenable: with the causarii from the --------------------------- *

24 Slightly different figures (in a different presentation) are found in Professor Kellner’s report (infra p. 247). In the discussion at our Colloquium, D r. Roxan cited statistics which leaves out the majority o f diploma fragments; her picture therefore gives the three procuratorial provinces a smaller share in the whole production.

22 Award 204 -2 0 6 ,2 2 0 η. 116. O f course, the temporal aspect o f such disparities should not be overlooked either: D acia Porolissensis “h ad a comparatively short life in the period o f the auxiliary diplomata (c. A .D . 120 — A .D . 200)” (Award 204); the Syrian diplomata tend to concentrate in the first century (5 out o f 7), etc.

25 Methodically, it is not advisable to analyze their three types — temporal, geographical and that concerning the diverse classes o f troops — as wholly separate phenomena. During our Passau discussions, such separate treatment o f them produced proposals to attribute the prominence o f cavalry diplomata to the differences in age and material position favouring the equites as against the pedites (G. Alfoldy et al.), or to explain the disparities o f the provincial distribution o f diplomata as a result o f differing needs and traditions o f soldiers serving in various parts o f the Empire (H.-J. Kellner et al.), or to interpret the vacillations o f the graph illustrating the temporal distribution o f the second-century diplomata for auxilia (auxilia/classis) exclusively in the context o f the history o f the iura (civitas, conubium, civitas liberorum) accorded, explicitly, by the corresponding constitutions (M. Roxan et al.). As to this last point (cf. Roxan, Distribution 278), the sharp decline in the numbers o f diplomata after c. A .D . 165/167 will have reflected the difficulties created by the Marcomannic Wars rather than the change o f formula in auxiliary constitutions o f A .D . 140 (Award 229 n. 184). A similar decline may be observed with the naval and praetorian diplomata o f the same season (Roxan, Distribution 272; 283 [figs. 1; 5]; note the irregularity o f the guardsmen’s discharge at the same time approximately: M . Durry, Les cohortes pretoriennes, Paris 1938, 263) though, naturally, their constitutions underwent no change bearing on the civitas liberorum posterorumque.

23 H .-J. Kellner, infra p. 245 (contra Roxan, D istribution 279). Professor Kellner’s warning against the attempts at ascribing the “so auffallende Unterschiede” o f the Fundstatistik to “einen unterschiedlichen Erforschungsstand” holds good on two points: the ‘anomalies’ concerning the distribution am ong the provinces, and the modalities o f the distribution within particular provinces. (T h e abundance o f diplom ata for R aetia and, to a certain extent, for M auretania T ingitana cannot be ascribed to “the effects o f long-term excavation at specific sites” [Roxan, loc. cit.].) C f. Award 220 n. 116.

2S/,X II, 1981, p. 284 with note 63) unless it merely coincides with a station o f Baslel’s ship. Furthermore, the -1- element o f the two anthroponyms involved would postulate the Ligurians (cf. Vetter, PIV, X III, 1926, col. 528; cf. e.g. Ursaris Tornalif. Sardus, X V I, 9, with the characteristic consonantism o f the patronimic), which in turn makes Corsica or possibly Sardinia (Samensis may have been short for the correct Sardiniensis; one should not forget that Corsica was an administrative part o f Sardinia at that time) rather attractive candidates. C f. Paus., IV, 32, 4 (Aristomenes at Leuctra); Tac., Ann., II, 8 , 1 (D rusus and G erm anicus in Germ any); the medaillon o f A .D . 145 dealt with by Beaujeu, op. cit., p. 2 9 4 (the D ioscuri/the batde o f Lake RegUlus — Antoninus Pius/the victory in Britain). 55

56

Pfister, PfV, Supplb. IV (1924), col. 293 f.

283

104

seem to have existed among the personnel responsible for the production o f diplomata, the selection o f the loci constitutionum fixarum and the design o f the imperial coin-types57. 4. The results o f our analysis o f X V I, 7-1 7 (19) encourage us to search for the echoes o f military topicalities in the other loci too. T o avoid arbitrariness, we shall concentrate upon the diplomata whose loci are openly ‘victorious’ and whose issue bears inde­ pendent signs o f a special grant58.

57 All these clerks probably belonged to the ab epistidis. F o r the ‘state’ signatores o f the diplomata see D essau, 167 ~ X V I, 33, t. 4 (A .D . 8 6 ), a prosopographical rapprochem ent due to the erudition o f J . M orris and M . R oxan, “A rh. Vestnik” (L ju bljan a), X X V III (1977), p. 330. A s to the authors o f the propaganda expressed through the loci and the coin-types, their belonging to the ab epistu/is is nothing m ore than a conjecture b ased on the fact that such a task demanded highly educated people w ho were to be found only in the ab epistulis department o f the im perial offices (cf. e.g. F . M illar, The emperor in the roman world, 13 B .C . — A .D . 337, Ithaca, N . Y., 1977, p. 85 ff. esp. p. 89 [T itin iu s Capito, D om itians ab epistidis, with his historical interests]). 58 T h is is not to say that the loci which do not sound ‘victorious’ inevitably mark constitutions promulgated under peaceful conditions (see, on X V I, 1 -3 , Z P E , X L V II, 1982, p. 161 ff.; on X V I, 26, The aw ard... [supra, note 38], p. 214, note 51). A s to the ‘victorious’ monuments supporting the leges whose issue cannot as yet be ascribed to a war occasion on independent evidence, the following combinations may be tentatively proposed (the m en­ tion o f troops has been omitted in the case o f X V I ,21 and 31, whose recipients do n ot seem to have shared the efforts to which the loci presumably allude; o f the two propagandist elements spoken o f supra, at the end o f the first paragraph o f ch. 3, the loci o f X V I, 21 and 23 consequently seem to reflect the first only): X V I, 21 — operations o f C . Rutilius G allicus and/or Sex. Sentius Caecilianus in A frica (Stat., Si/v., 1,4 ,8 3 -8 8 ; A E p , 1 9 4 1 ,7 9 ); X V I, 158 — Lower German auxilia in Agricola’s campaigns against the Britons (on T itu s’ reverses with the trophy and the two captives see B M C , Π, p. L X X II); X V I, 30 — Pannonian auxilia in the German war on the mid-Danubian limes (on that event, Z s. Visy, “A cta arch. H u n g.”, X X X , 1978, p. 54 ff.); X V I, 31 — the campaign against the N asam ones (cf. G arzetti, op. cit., pp. 270,289, and the table in Visy, loc. cit., p. 58) or, perhaps, the distinction o f the A frican troops on the Pannonian front (cf. D essau, 2127). X V I, 29 may have alluded to D o m itian s decision to introduce the stipendium quartum (cf. M . Speidel, “Jo u m . R om . S t.”, L X III, 1973, p. 141), a decision taken after the Chattan W ar (D io, L X V II, 3, 5) and datable accordingly to the spring o f 83 (with H . Braunert’s early chronology o f the expedition accepted, cf. Garzetti, op. cit., p. 655); D om itians sestertii advertised the raise o f the m ilitary pay as late as (the beginning o f?) 84 (C . M . Kraay, “Am er. N um ism . Soc. M u seu m N o tes”, IX, 1960, p. 109 ff.), not long after the actual payment o f the additional stipendium at the close o f 83 (see R. O . R nk, Roman military records onpapyrus, A nn A rbor 1971, n. 6 8 f. with comm. [esp. ad 69, line 27]; cf. Speidel, loc. cit., p. 141 ff. and R . D uncan-Jones, “Jo u m . Rom. St.”, L X X I, 1981, p. 133 with note 177).

X V I, 5 and “Germ.”, 1978, p. 462, obviously belong to this group. The years o f A .D . 64 and 65 saw the production o f numerous coins celebrating Nero’s Parthian victories59; we have already tried to explain the current interest o f the basis Q. Marci Regis in that respect (XVI, 4). The dynastic and martial connotations o f the basis Claudiorum Marcellorum may also have contained a topical touch: the prisca virtus revived in Domitius Corbulo60. On the other hand, the units listed on the diplomata X V I, 5 and “Germ .”, 1978, p. 462 indicate that the two con­ stitutions rewarded the very soldiers who had taken part in the Armenian expedition; the structure o f the witness catalogues in 65, perhaps in 64 too, endorses this conclusion6162.The case o f XV I, 4 may have been similar. Its aedes thensarum — a triumph-like symbol — would suggest a connection with the Senate’s decree of A .D . 58, which ordered i.a. the erection o f an arcus in honour o f the victoria Armeniacct’1. Military events and the building works63 o f the following years maintained the topicality o f the theme as shown e.g. by the coinage from the Roman and the Cappadocian mints64*. The auxilia o f X V I, 4 have recently been assumed —

59 B M C , I, pp. C L X X IV , C L X X V III ff. D io , LX 1I, 19, 2. W here there some other points in the evocation o f Claudius M arcellus a propos o f the Parthian campaigns o f the 60’s? Two circumstances will be noted here: Claudius M arcellus’ victories in the Second Punic W ar may have been taken as announcing N ero’s victory against Parthia, because o f H annibal’s alliance with Syria, a prefiguration o f the Parthian danger (cf. G . Am iotti, Gli oracoli sibil/ini e il motive del re d'Asia nella lotta contro Roma, “Politico e religione netprimo scontro tra Roma e I'Oriente", M ilano 1982, p. 18 ff.; on the H annibal-Antiochus axis in the Roman propaganda, see A . M astrocinque, ibid., p. 119); thanks to his complex lineages, D om itio-Claudian and Julio-C laudian , N ero could be represented as a uniting symbol o f the anti-Oriental activities o f both Claudius Marcellus (with Octavia’s son as his alter ego) and Dom itius Corbulo. T h e Capitoline basis recalls a tessera (Obv.: N ero’s head, nero caesar; Rev.: M ars, clavdior) misinterpreted by Rostovcev, op. cit., p. 58). 60

m

“G erm ania”. LV I (1978), p. 469 f f ; Z P E , X L V II (1982), p. 155 ff.

62

Tssc,Ann., X III, 4 1 ,5 .

63

C f. ibid., V, 1 8 ,1 (A .D . 62).

B M C , I, p. C L X X V III, C L X X X V (on p. 281, n. 405 f f ) ; cf. J. Reynolds, Z P E, X L III (1981), p. 3 2 4 f. (on n. 10 f.).

64

285

284

105

106

io 7

nothing more than a conjecture — to have belonged to D om itius Corbulo’s alae cohortesque ex IHyrico65. The duo arcus o f A .D . 74 point, again, to a triumph-like occasion. We should attribute their occurrence on X V I, 20 to G n. Pinarius Cornelius Clemens’ success in the contemporary actions in U pper Germany, which won him the ornamenta triumphalia6b. T h at distinction itself sufficed to give the locus some topical symbolism. Risking a bold hypothesis, more could be deduced. T h e phrasing o f the corresponding formula o f X V I, 20 implies the juxtaposition o f two arches, possibly connected through their historical context*67. A pair o f the Julio-Claudian arcus dedicated to some G erm an victories would be a plausible guess — regarding all the indications discussed in the present paper. I f their location was on the C apitol, the posthumous arches o f Germanicus and D rusus the Younger would appear attractive candidates, because o f their anti-G erm an connotations68 and their juxtaposition, both real and symbolical69. Now, the day-date o f the constitution o f X V I, 20, M ay 21st, was ★■ 65

Z P E , X L V II (1982), p. 161 with note 39 (~ T ac,Α ηη ., X V , 2 6).

66 D essau, 997, cf. CIL, VI, 37088. See H . Lieb, Zum Clemensfeldzug, “Studien zu den Mi/itdrgrenzen Roms", Vortrage des 6 . int. L im eskon gresses in Suddeutsch lan d, K oln-G raz 1967, p. 96 f., and the im portant archaeological analyses by H . Sch onberger (“Journ. Rom . S t.”, L IX , 1969, p. 156 f.; “Roman Frontier Studies 1 9 7 9 ”, II, B A R Int. Series 71, Oxford 1980, p. 542; “Limesforschungen", 1 9 ,1 9 8 0 , p. 41 f.).

N o identification o f these arches has been proposed so far (supra, note 31) b ut H iilsen, “Festschrift O. Hirscbfeld", cit., p. 427, rightly inferred from the ph rasin g o f the form u la that it indicates the area Capitolina itse lf (“Festschriftfur H . Kieperf', p. 2 1 5 ). T h is is a conclusion o f som e interest since the diplomata o f A .D . 8 8 refer to the tabularium publicum using the same label in Capitolio w hich w as previously applied to the area Capitolina only, really, the intro euntibus tends to exclude the clivus Capitolinas (along which there were more than one arcus triumphalis) for, i f the clivus w ere m eant, the verb escendere would have seemed m ore appropriate (supra, note 18, and L iv y ,X X X V II, 3 ,7 ). 67

68

C f. Tac ,Α ηη ., II, 62-64; on the tropaea Germanici (X V I, 3 2 f.) see infra.

T h e actual position o f the arches erected for G erm an icu s and D ru su s the Y o u n ger after their deaths is still unknown (Tac.,A nn., II, 8 3 ,2 [A .D . 19]; IV, 9 ,2 [A .D . 2 3 ]; cf. Kahler, loc. cit., col. 383, n. 16 f.; in our opinion, the [hypothetical] location o f th ese arcus within the area Capitolina — a rem arkable honour for the two princes — w o uld w ell accord with the posthum ous character o f the m onum ents) but, undoubtedly, the arches stood close each other (cf. Tac., Ann., IV, 9, 2: eadem quae in Germanicum), like the 69

286

close enough to the birthday of Germanicus (May 24th) to allow the engravers o f the tabulae to complete their work in time for a celebration commemorating, virtually, the revenge o f the Varian disaster70. Germanicus’ birthday, it is well known, preserved its popularity — at least within military circles — long into the third century71. I f our proposal proves correct, the topicality o f the duo arcus not only becomes a very marked one; it also acquires an interesting new facet, o f a calendric type72. The actual murus between the two structures could be attributed to the needs o f the

previous arches o f Germ anicus and Drusus, on both sides o f the temple o f M ars Ultor (Tac.,Ann., II, 64 ,2 , cf. Kahler, loc. cit., col. 383, n. 15 f.). According to some (Kahler et al.), our evidence o f the two pairs o f arcus should be interpreted as referring to one pair only, that on the Forum Augusts; however, such a simplification would clearly contradict diverse details found in Tacitus, locc. citt. From the Tabula Siarensis, frg. I, lines 9-11 (J. G onzales, Z P E , LV, 1984, p. 58), we learn now that Germanicus’ arch spoken o f by Tacitus, Ann., II, 8 3 ,2, stood incirco Flaminio. T h is does not wholly exclude the location o f a parallel monument (together with its later equivalent erected for Drusus) on the C apitol (cf. Tac. loc. cit.: statuarum locorumve, in quis coleretur, handfacile quis numerum inierit) but a pair o f Flavian arms would seem a more plausible identification for the locus o f X V I, 20 (see infra, note 72, on the day-date o f X I, 7556; in A .D . 74, the vicinity o f Germ anicus’birthday must have added a meaningful touch to this Flavian symbolism). 70

C f. c.g. G . W ebster, The roman imperial army, London 1969, p. 268, note 2.

71

Fer. Duranum, II, 12 f. (Fink, op. cit., p. 425, n. 117).

C f. c.g. X V I, 25 (A .D . 72 },R A ID , p. 24), issued on Dec. 30th, the birthday o f Titus, or P. R y l, 611, the privilegium o f which (A .D . 87) was probably issued on Sept. 13, D om itian’s dies imperii (W olff, “Chiron”, 1974, p. 508, with note 57). There is a still closer parallel: X V I, 7 -9 (for IAdiutrix; D ec. 2 2,69) was dated with regard to the legions dies aquilae (the same case with IlA diutrix, X V I, 10 f.), which, in its turn, depended on G alba’s devotion to Fortuna, but at the same time announced the Em peror’s near birthday, D ec. 24 (E . Ritterling, PIV, X II, 1383, col. 1439). T h e calendric anticipations such as those on X V I, 7-9 (D ec. 22 — Dec. 2 4 ),X V I, 20 (M ay 21 — M ay 24) or the AFA fragm ent quoted above, note 5 (June 26 — July 1), have not been dealt with by W . F. Snyder in his useful work on the Public anniversaries in the roman empire, ‘Y ale Class. S t.”, V II, 1940, p. 225 ff.). D ue to the obstacles o f a practical order, the direct correlation between a locus and a day-date m ust have been infrequent enough but there seem to be three further examples, all the three presupposing a one-day anticipation: X V I, 7-9 (ara gentis Iuliae: D ec. 22 — the date o f Augustus’ conception [on it, Buchner, loc. cit., 1976, p. 346, note 80], in addition to the G alban dates ju st noted), A IT , 31 (Iuppiter Africus: Sept. 5 — a festival o f A m m on [IG R R , 1 ,1130: cf. H erz, “ Untersuchungen”, cit., p. 268]) and X V I, 35 + R M D , 3 (Saturnus’ tabularium: Nov. 7 -[?] a festival o f that god \AEp, 1 9 6 9 /7 0 ,6 5 7 ; cf. H erz, “ Untersuchungen , cit., p. 296]). 72

287

io 8

moment, like the statues o f Liber and Minerva spoken o f above. A ll this fits in with the unit and witness lists o f X V I, 20, which reveal their men’s merits in Clemens’ German warfare o f 7 3-7473. One more probative element will be cited. T h e find-spots o f diplomata, when different from the recipients’ places o f origin or normal service7475, tend to reflect the recipient’s participation in distant expeditiones belli™. XV I, 20 is uninteresting in this respect for its find-spot, Sikator in Pannonia, agrees with its beneficiary’s origo. But the praetorian fragment o f the late 73 (R M D , 1), found at Augst, has already been connected (H . Lieb) with the ‘Clemensfeldzug’, precisely on account o f its remarkable pro­ venance76. H . Lieb’s convincing combination supports our belief that Clemens’ distinction was followed by special issues o f military diplomata77. The next items o f interest here are X V I, 23 f., the loci o f which seem to refer to the Flavian succession, naturally topical in the summer o f 79. In the second chapter o f this article, we have drawn the reader’s attention to the possible military aspect o f Vespasian’s identification with Romulus and Titus’ with N um a. M ore im ­ portant, this aspect accords, very probably, with the circumstances o f the two grants. Disagreeing -with both the recipient’s origo (Trever) and the province o f his exercitus (Germania Inferior), the ‘irregular’ find-spot o f XV I, 23, W iesbaden78, suggests an U pper G erm an

73 D ušanić, Notes on the early diplomata militaria: C IL X V I 20, R M D , 1 and affairs in Germany, A .D . 72-74, “Acta o f the 13th int. Limeskongress (Sept. 1983, A a le n f, fo rth ­ coming. 74

C f. Roxan, loc. cit., Table 3 and p. 2 82 f.

undertaking shared by some detachments from the neighbouring provinces79. An action connected with the Agri Decumates appears likely — and has the advantage o f giving the Romulus notion a precise value: the extensions o f the populi Romani fines link Vespasian to the founder o f Rome80. By contrast, the peaceful N um a colours a constitution which — it has already been surmised 81 — marks the beginning o f a new reign (a donativum-Mks. grant), not the end o f a successful war. Numa, an alter ego o f Titus as the conservator Pads (Dessau, 259), acquires even more meaning when the formulation itself o f the diploma is examined. X V I, 24 obviously opens the series o f constitutions belonging to Type II in the Alfoldy-Mann classification, con­ stitutions which, in our opinion, group together the soldiers with greater {qui militant) and lesser (qui militaverunt) merits o f a fighting nature82. N o doubt, the fresh inclusion o f the latter tended to reduce somewhat the martial connotations o f the di­ ploma militate and consequently demanded a locus which sounded rather peaceful. Lasdy, there was a topical point in the choice o f the tropaea Germanici for X V I, 32 f. The allusion to the contemporary victo-

o f ‘the delicate angle between the Rhine and the D anube’ which witnessed intensive attem pts on the Flavians’part at the final pacification and fortification c. 7 8-80 (cf. Inscr. Bav. Rom., 1 9 6 ,3 3 1 ; see G arzetti, op. cit., p. 255 f. and, especially, H . Schonberger’s works referred to supra, note 6 6 , with the maps). T h e matter will be fully examined elsewhere. H ere, we should draw the reader’s attention only to the unusual structure o f the auxilia list o f X V I, 23 (six alae, one cohort), which reflects — by the high share o f cquites — a distant — detachment (cf. The aw ard..., cit., supra, note 38, p. 202). 79

C f. Livy’s words quoted above, note 28 {[Romulus] ... hello ... civitatem aux.). F or Vespasian, the conquest o f the Agri D ecumates (A .D . 72-74), completed c. 78-80, seem s to have been the reason for the extension o fpomerium in 75 (Waynand, PW, V I, 1907, col. 2666, on D essau, 248 etc.). A monetary type o f c. 78 probably discloses the renewal o f the topicality o f the auctip.R. fines theme, BM C , II, p. X L (with M attingly’s reserves, not well founded).

80

See, on X V I, 2 8 ,3 3 and 46, D ušanić, Moesia a n d Pannonia in D om itian's L a s t War on the Danube, “Ž iva A ntika”, X X X III (1983), p. 21 w ith note 45. 75

76

Lieb, loc. cit., p. 97.

In 72-73, a coin-type o f Vespasian and T itu s obviously alludes to the G erm an foe (BM C, Π, p. L ). I t is best connected with C lem ens’ contemporary activities and m ay im ply T itu s’ presence on the Rhine; thence the praetorian recipient o f R M D , 1, at A u gu sta Rauricorum and the glorious locus o fX V I , 2 0 ? See m y paper cited above, note 73. 77

78 Both the W iesbaden fort and A ugusta R auricorum (X V I, 2 6 [the last three u nits o f the catalogue o f the auxilia] ~A E p , 1 9 7 1 ,2 7 7 ; cf. supra, note 5 8 init.) lay on the borders

288

81

The aw ard.. ., cit., supra, note 38, p. 217, note 81.

Ibid.: X V I, 2 4 (Type III) + the (yet undiscovered) complement o f Type I actually form a Type II constitution. T h e unexpected use o f the term veterani on X V I, 24 underlines the peaceful character o f that particular grant. 82

289

109

no

ties o f Domitian, another Germanicus, is evident: in 85 and 86 , “the aes coin-types, not very significant in this (Dom itian’s) reign until now, show a great and varied efflorescence, and a new and elaborate concentration on the German victories”8384. B ut it is the historical shading o f that propaganda which matters here. A type with a composite trophy on the reverse, popular during these two years, deliberately imitates Claudius’ aurei and denarii issued in honour o f Nero Drusus and inscribed D e GermanisM. Given the close connection between the Rhenish exploits o f Germ anicus and those o f his father and forerunner (Germanicus too), the reproduction o f Drusus’ trophy under Claudius and Germ anicus’ under Domitian must have produced virtually the same effects o f a propagandist order85; furthermore, Claudius’ commemorative coins inevitably contributed to the intelligibility o f the message imparted through the locus o f X V I, 32 f., which presumably had an antecedent in the duo arcus o f X V I, 20. T h e record o f the beneficiaries o f X V I, 3 3 — perhaps also o f X V I, 32 — correlates with the selection o f the tropaea for die supporter o f the corresponding tabulae. Again, the find-spot o f the diploma is revealing. It has been unearthed, quite surprisingly, deep in Barbarico — not far from N apoca (Cluj) in the future province o f Dacia. Am ong tentative explanations o f this anomalous provenance o f the bronze86, the only plausible is to assume its recipient’s participation in the Danubian wars o f Domitian, together with the other vexillations from Syria and Africa87. Captured, mortally wounded or killed in action, the soldier was buried apud Dacos — and his diploma too, naturally.

The reference to the tropaea Germanici shows that the aes was received on the Danube, not in Iudaea, and earned thanks to the Northern campaigns, not to a long service beside the Jordan. Domitian’s warfare against the Dacians was intermingled with that against the Danubian Germans, so that the tropaea Germanici suited well the aere incisi o f the early 86 serving in western Dacia later in the same year88. As to XVI, 32, its sailors may have transported the troops from the South and the East to the Balkans, like e.g. the classici o f XVI, 56 (A.D. 107), whose grouping with the auxilia o f Mauretania Caesariensis on that diploma seems to reflect their efforts o f the same type, made on the occasion of the Trajanic wars against Decebalus, wars which also rallied distant vexillatione^9. In that case, the locus o f XVI, 32 would fully accord with what the beneficiaries o f the constitution actually did before obtaining their privi/egia, for earlier examples show that the transmarine transport o f soldiers tended to be equated with the participation o f these soldiers in the war expedition to follow, the equation naturally pertains to the respective ‘qualifying events’ necessary for the auxiliaries and sailors to become aere incisi90. But we must not forget the alternative that the ‘German victory’ as a slogan o f the moment was applied to a minority o f diplomata whose recipients had nothing to do with the Rheno-Danubian fronts, just as, for instance, Domitian increased military pay thanks to his Chattan triumph ’ 1 but extended the new stipendium to the entire exercitus

See, on D essau, 2127 and D io, L X V II, 7 ,1 , Visy, loc. cit., p. 58 f. (the Pannonian helium Germanicum was over by September, 85; the death o f the recipient o f X V I, 33 [Type I diploma!] probably resulted from one o f the two Dacian campaigns in 8 6 [G arzetti. op. cit., pp. 288 f., 656 f.], perhaps from the latter, though that o f 8 8 should not be ruled out either [cf. D essau, 9200]). T h e provenance o f X V I, 33 tends to confirm the im portance o f the ‘west’ Dacian operations in 8 6 - 8 8 (E . Kostlin, K. Patsch et al). 88

Grant, op. cit., p. 194. F o r ‘G erm anicus’ as D om itian’s ‘verum nom en’ see R. Merkelbach, Z P E , X X X IV (1979), pp. 6 2 -6 4 . 83

84 B M C , Π , 366 n. 311; B M C , 1, 179, n. 104 ff.; 199, n. 2 4 1 . C f. G ran t, op. cit., p. 1 94 f., who also notes “that A .D . 85-8 6 w as the year o f one o f N ero D ru su s’ greatest anniversaries — the century o f his first im portant victory in 15 B .C . . . . ”.

C f. e.g. Tac,,Λ ηη., II, 8 ,1 . T h e question m ay be posed w hether N ero D ru su s’ trophy was situated within the area Capitolina; i f not, it could not have served as the su pporter o f X V I, 32 f. F o r D om itian’s restitutio o f G erm anicus asses, B M C , II, 4 1 6 , n. 5 1 1 . 85

D ušanić, “A rh. Vestnik” (Ljubljana), X X X III (1982), p. 538 f. (the review o f N . Benseddik’s Les troupes auxiliaires de I'armee romaine en Mauretanie Cesarienne sous le H aut-Em pire, A lger 1982). 89

86

Cf. Roxan, loc. cit., p. 283.

Z P E , X L V II (1982), p. 164 ff. (on X V I, 1, A .D . 52); cf. B A R Int. Series, 71 (ΠΙ), L on don 1980, p. 1063 (on X V I, 72; A .D . 127).

87

See m y article referred to supra, note 75.

91

290

90

D io , L X V II, 3 ,5 . 29 1

m

Romanus, regardless o f the given unit’s share in the success o f 83. A happy epigraphical find could help us to tell whether the tropaea Germanici o f X V I, 33 meant a precise reference to the record o f the Egyptian sailors in the m id-80’s or only reproduced a theme o f more general propaganda.

112

5. The history o f the loci constitutionum fixaru m throws som e light on the evolution o f military diplomata as a whole, as well as on the basic nature o f that category o f document. First, the changes o f the loci till A .D . (88-)90 show, indirectly, that the production o f the diplomata was not a routine m atter depending on the predictable dates, occasions and quantities o f the tabidae aeneae. This conclusion follows, primarily, from our analysis o f the propagandist value o f the loci, but diverse observations concerning our material corroborate it. A reform introducing the grant o f aera to all the emeriti from all the auxilia, fleets etc. w ould have otherwise led to the erection o f a suitable big supporter — analogous to the murus post templum D iv i Augusti, a wall presumably built by Domitian 92— much earlier than A .D . (88-)90, probably from the very beginning o f the so-called standard diplomata under Claudius. Besides, there were in the Claudio-Flavian period certain topographical returns to the loci previously used, a practice which does not seem to have been regulated by any conceivable dem and o f a utilitarian order. T h u s, X V I, 26 (A .D . 80) notes a murus post aedem F id e ip . R ., a tem ple which otherwise does not figure in ourform ulae after X V I, 1 f. I f there stood a free wall behind the aedes Fidei, why did it rem ain unused till A .D . 80? O f the two possible answers to that question, both accord with the deductions proposed in the presen t article: either the loci o f X V I, 3 ff. becam e m ore attractive for propagandist purposes so that the temple o f Faith and its vicinity lost their attraction for a while, or — the alternative which seem s more convincing — the murus o f X V I, 26 was constructed as late

92 C ontra (e.g.) M om m sen, Ges. Schr., V, p. 4 4 f., w ho inclined to u nderstand th e m uri o f our form ulae as the tem ples’ periboli’.

292

as 8093, at a moment when the aedes Fidei symbol became topical for some reason. The case o f the columna... quae est secundum lovis Africi appears similar (XVI, 31, A .D . 85). The return to the Iuppiter Africus through the erection o f a columna near that Jove’s basis would be compatible with the military history o f the eventful year o f 8594. And the earliest (so far) occurrence o f the Iuppiter Africus (XVI, 2 1 , A .D . 76) also illustrates the non-utilitarian character o f the changes o f our loci for it chronologically divides the two virtually identicalformulae referring to the tribunal deorum (A .D . 75, 78). The parallels may be multiplied (cf. the return to the aedes Opts in 83 or to the thensarium vetus in 84), and will probably be multiplied by the future discoveries. Second, we are inclined to modify the hypothesis (which is a corollary to the assumption o f the ‘practical’ criteria in the selection o f the loci) that the tabulae aeneae were, displayed on their supporters for a number o f years before being removed to make way for the originals citing the new recipients95. Such a practice probably prevailed during the post-(88-)90 period96*; before that, it seems inconceivable. The locus with its tabulae was something more than a juridically necessary combination: it also served as a propagandist device. This is well illustrated by Vespasian’s measure related by Suetonius in his description o f the Flavian restoration o f the Capitol: aerearumque tabularum tria millia, quae simul confagraverant, restituenda suscepit. Undique investigatis exemplaribus, instnimentum imperii pulcherrimum ac vetustissimum conjecit, quo continebantur paene ab exordio Urbis senatus consulta,

93

N o t earlier as a ‘peribolo’, (‘muro di recinto’) o f the aedes Fidei (cf. the preceding note).

94

C f. above, note 58.

95

C f. Roxan, loc. cit., p. 268, note 14 (on X V I, 153).

However, the intervals dividing the display o f the tabulae from their removal may have been longish ones; the diploma X V I, 153, o f A .D . 248, was probably engraved on a fragm ent o f such a removed original dating — to judge by the high proportion o f peregrine names (without the praenomina or with the origines Pann and Bessus) — from an epoch much earlier than the Constitutio Antoniniana. T h e III—IV cent, practice o f taking away the antiquated tabulae consequently does not lend an unqualified support to the theory o f the autom atic grants o f later diplomata. 96

293

113

114

plebiscita de societate etfoedere acprivilegio cuicumque concessis ( Vesp., 8). Though Suetonius does not specify that the originals o f die military constitutions were restored too, this is alm ost self-evident, to judge from the numbers involved (tria millia) and the mention o f the individual privileges. Generally speaking, the cosdy and painstaking re-engraving o f the tabulae under Vespasian would have ill accorded with the practice ju st mentioned i f the latter had been instituted as early as the first century. A nd, after all, the formulae listed here do not give any argument in favour o f the assumption o f the periodical removals o f the p re-(88-)90 originals. On the contrary, the discreet locus o f X V I, 29 (A .D . 83), intra ianuam Opts.. ., indirecdy attests that the other walls o f the temple were still covered by constitutions like X V I, 3 (A .D . 54). Third, the main stages in the history o f the loci are instructive in more than one respect. T h e transition from the aedes F ideip.R . to the aerarium militare (aedes Opis) c. A .D . 54 and to the ‘victorious’ monuments in A .D . 60 at the latest is to be explained, to our thinking, by a certain change in the conception o f the diploma militare. In a previous paper, we have tried to show that various indications reveal that the diploma started to connote, rather early, a signum virtutis, possibly implying som e cash com pensation rather than an instrumentum civitatis, which could be produced in less expensive ways97. The aerarium militare o f X V I, 3 etc. suggests a more positive formulation about the com pensation in money. Probably, the aere incisi received together with their diptycha som e speciafyramz'd; in any case, the aerarium militare as the locus o f the originals o f the constitutiones emeritis datae m inim izes the attraction o f the conjecture 98 that the recipients themselves had to pay for their aera. Generally taken, both the aspects o f the transition ju st mentioned — to the aerarium militare and to the places associated with victorious batdes -— w ould be difficult to interpret without envisaging the extrajuridical, m oral and material, aspects o f the privilegium, which seems to have been

denied to a number o f the recipients’ coemeriti. Perhaps, the aerarium militare as a locus symbolizing the mentioned praemia alludes to that exclusiveness o f the aere incisi circle, for — under Augustus at least— the military treasury must have been reserved for the legionaries, the praetorians and the urbaniciani". I f the same state o f affairs is to be assumed for the Claudio-Flavian epoch, the beneficiaries o f the diplomata among the auxiliaries and the sailors should be regarded as privileged people whose (comparatively high) praemia militiae, unlike those o f their commilitones, fell on the aerarium militare, not on another chest; the discrimination would be ascribed, o f course, to the criterion o f civitas regulating the status o f both the treasury and the aspirants to its money (the aere incisi equated with the citizen soldiers). But there is the alternative possibility that the auxilia and classes were placed in the full competence o f the aerarium militare at a later date, possibly around A .D . 5499100, which would lend a topicality to the locus o f X V I, 3. Lastly, the final placing o f the bronze tables on the wall behind the templum D ivi Augusti is illustrative o f the process o f gradual standardization and inflation o f diplomata. An analogous change occurred under Vespasian, when the ‘private’ signatories o f di­ plom ata were replaced by ‘government’ ones. Both the changes show that the distribution o f diplomata, initially an execeptional event, tended to become systematic. T h e problem is whether the theory o f the diploma as a non-automatic (mainly ob virtutem) grant — a theory which finds support in the analyses developed in the present article — should be retained for the aera in the post-(88-)90 period. T o our mind, it should. D espite all the signs o f the diploma becoming less and less a rare privilege, the second century evidence still seems to favour, distinctly, the view propounded by A . v. Dom aszew ski and

D io , L IV , 2 5 ,5 f. and LV, 2 3 ,1 ; cf. Corbier, “Arme'es etfiscalite dans le monde antique", Colloques du C N R S , 936, Paris 1976 (1977), p. 207 ff.

99

97

C f. The aw ard ..., cit., supra, note 38, p. 2 2 7 f., notes 163 and 167.

98

E .g. W enger, PW, I I A (1921), col. 2417.

294

A m easure going together with the Claudian organization o f the state finances (G arzetti, op. cit., p. 134)?

100

295

“ 5

defended by m yself101. Though matters are less clear with regard to third (and early fourth) century material, there is so far no p roof that it was ever an indiscriminant reward intended for all the emeriti from a class o f troops o f the exercitus Romanus.

10. T H E W ITNESSES TO T H E EARLY “DIPLOMATA MILITARIA” ★ ★ ★

Chronologically, the diplomata for auxilia and navy★1 constitute, as to their choice o f signatores, two major classes. From the Flavian epoch onwards, the names o f signatories read there tend to be repeated, and it is generally assumed — an inevitable assumption — that the men who bore them belonged to some public office or offices permanently situated in Rome2. Probably, to the ab epistulis, as the case o f T i. Claudius Erastus 3 would suggest. O n the earlier diplomata, however, the names o f witnesses constantly vary4, even within the scope o f individual copies o f the same constitution5. Their choice must have depended in a certain manner on the personage o f the document’s recipient. This conclusion is supported by an analysis o f the additional information

1 The

so-called legionary diplomata o f A .D . 6 8 and 70 are in fact a special variant o f the naval, J . C . M ann, Epigr. Studien 9 (Bonn 1972) 233 f.

2 T h . M om m sen, C I L . 3 (1873-1902) p. 917 and 2035; W . Kubitschek, W iener Jahreshefte 17 (1914) 64 ff.; L . W enger, R E . 2 A (1921) 2417; H . Ncsselhauf, C IL . 16 (1936) 199; A . D egrassi, R F IC . 53 (1925) 529 ff. = Scritti vari 1 (1962) 45 IF.; J . M orris and M . R oxan,Arh. Vestnik 28 (Ljubljana 1977) 327, et alii.

T (estis) 4 o f C I L . 16. 33 (A .D . 8 6 ). H e seems to have been identical with Ti. Claudius divi l(ibertus) Erastus scriniarius ab epistulis, IL S . 1671 (cf. M orris and Roxan, lac. cit. 330).

3

★--------------101 See The a w ard ..., cit., supra, note 38, p. 205, for X V ], 106 (A .D . 157) and the other ‘special grants’ o f the A ntonine epoch.

296

4

W ith the exception o f C IL . 16. 11 (t. 7) and 14 (/. 7); cf. infra, nt. 63.

s See infra, C I L . 16. 7 -9 . 297

271

(the filiation, tribe, origo, status) which their signatures provide, frequendy but not regularly or uniformly, till the Flavians’ times; it has already been found that the early signatories were “fellow soldiers or compatriots o f the recipient”6.

272

The date o f the replacement o f the personal’ w itnesses by the ‘government’ or ‘clerical’ ones cannot be fixed, though A .D . 73/74 has been commonly taken as such7. True, the first signator identified with confidence as ‘clerical’ appears in A .D . 74 (P. Atinius Rufus o f C IL . 16. 20, t. 5). H is administrative position is clearly revealed by the fact that he figures on several later diptycha, till A .D . 84 at the least8. But P. Atinius Rufus’occurrence on C IL . 16. 20 does not imply that the whole witness list there belongs to the ‘government’ category, for his co-signatories o f A .D . 74 are met with only once in that capacity. I f this last circumstance does not suffice by itself to qualify them as personal’ witnesses — the signatores appearing no more than once are sporadically attested even in the period o f the complete acceptance o f the ‘clerical’ signatores9 — there are indications, as we shall see, that t. 1-3 o f C IL . 16. 20 continue the ‘commilitones et conterranei’ tradition. Hybrid lists, uniting both types o f witness, should be allowed also for some other first-century diplomata; we should not forget that a fictitious testis — the use o f whom reflects the difficulties o f a practical order which provoked the Flavian reform dealt with here — is recorded as early as A .D . 71 (C IL . 16. 16, t. 4 )10.

6

C f. below, text and nt. 28 ff.

7

Nesselhauf, M orris-R oxan, locc. citt.

The change may have been only gradual, like so many with our bronzes; after all, it was not so marked as might be imagined for the post-Flavian recruitment o f witnesses from among the clerks of central officia was closely anticipated by that o f the municipal clerks, commencing with C IL . 16.1 (t. 3) itself11. A transitional period — say, Vespasianic — must be postulated. In A.D. 78 the recurring signatories are still rare (C IL. 16.22: one to six; C IL. 16.23: two to five)12, in A .D . 79 and 80 they are in strong preponderance (C IL. 16. 24,26: six to one). Some occasions and/or provinces may have perhaps revived the old practice from time to time; it is very probable 13 that it was retained for the City troops till the end of their diplomata, at the beginning o f the fourth century14. In the absence o f fully reliable criteria which would enable us to separate the ‘personal’ from ‘government’ witnesses in every case, the present analysis will treat all the preserved lists, down to the list o f the diploma o f A .D . 75, whose signatores still cite their patronymics and their tribes. Around that year the additional information just mentioned ceases15*. I f there were ‘personal’ witnesses afterwards, their status is difficult to demonstrate on the tria nomina only. N ot that the additional data always imply a ‘personal’ testis: they are lacking altogether on C IL . 16. 2 (‘ante a. 52’) and 5 (A .D . 64), whose signatories, partly at least, must have been ‘personal’, and occur for the ‘clerical’ P. Atinius Rufus on C IL . 16. 20 (tribu Pa/atina). But their definitive abandonment certainly results from the same process o f standardisation and

11

Infra, text and notes 48 f. C f. also the preceding footnote, on C IL . 16. 2, /. 6 .

But, on the name coincidence referred to in our nt. 10, at least /. 5 o f C IL . 1 6.22 and t. 3 o f C I L . 1 6 .2 3 should also be ranged am ong the ab epistulis clerks. T h e same holds for Roxan, R M D . 2 (A .D . 75), t. 7. For the lists af. A .D . 85 and 8 6 (C IL . 16. 3 1 ,33), with no recurring signatories, see above, nt. 3 and 9 12

8

C IL . 6 .2 2 - 2 4 ,2 6 ,2 8 ,3 0 , cf. 29.

9

M orris and Roxan, loc. cit. 309 ff.; cf. supra, nt. 3, on C I L . 16. 3 3 , t. 4.

10 H ere, Alexander the G reat recalls the sacral w itnesses such as the T h e a P arth en os o f IP E . 1. 3 5 7 ,3 5 9 ,3 6 1 ,3 8 6 and 388. — Even the (tem porary) use o f ‘go v ern m en t’ testes m ight be traced back to the C laudio-N eronian diplom ata. T o ju d g e fro m h is gentile, uncommon enough, t. 6 o f C I L . 1 6 .2 could belong to the sam e fam ilia as the sign ato r o f the aes o f A .D . 114, /. 6 (Μ . M . R oxan, R om an M ilitary D ip lo m a s 1954—1977, hereafter: Roxan, R M D . [L ondon 1978] no. 14) and, probably, o f three oth er fragm en ts o f the T rajano-H adrianic epoch (R oxan, R M D . p. 105, In d.). O n th at co m m u n ity o f nom ina am ong the ‘governm ent’ testes see C I L . 16. p. 199.

298

13 Ju d gin g from the constant varying o f the names (there are no additional data after C I L . 1 6 .1 8 ) and the significant occurrence ofT h racian cognomina (C IL . 16.1 3 6 , t. 5; 1 8 9 ,1 .1; 143, t. 3; Roxan, R M D . 77, t. 5). 14

C f. M orris and Roxan, loc. cit. 300.

It is absent from the diptycha o f A .D . 78 and later, but our knowledge is too fragm entary for A .D . 7 6 -7 7 (as well as for A .D . 72-73) to speak o f a sudden end. 15

299

273

inflation o f diplomata which both demanded the wide use o f the ‘government’ testes and produced many alterations in the formulae and other features o f these documents.

(3) M. Valeri Firmi tribuni19, (4) L. Numeri Lupi tribuni b(eneficiarii), (5) M. Titini Maori centurionis, (6 ) Sex. Apulei Macri centurio(nis), (7) L. Valeri Volseni m(i)ssi(cii) cl(assis),Bessi.

Given the importance o f that process, the Festschrifi for the eminent student o f Roman Law offers an appropriate occasion for a re-examination o f witnesses to the early diplomata. Th eir legal role seems to have been imperfectly defined by modern scholarship; moreover, a better knowledge o f their concrete situations will contribute to a better understanding o f the documentary character o f the diploma militare. T h e evidence available consists o f the followig eighteen lists16:

C IL . 16. 5 (64, Iun. 15; Cattaus Bardi f. Helvetius, greg. alae Gemellianae; S; the name o f the province lost2021; Geiselbrechting prope Traunstein, Nor.): (1) L. Lucili Proculi, (2) C. Pacili Prisci, (3) Q. Lusi Saturnini, (4) L. Renni Orientis, (5) Cn. Cornell Ionici, ( 6 ) L. Pomponi Hygini, (7) T. Sexti Primi, ( 8) L. Lucili Aristonis, (9) L. Lucili Chresimi. Germania 56 (1978) 462 (65, Iun. 17; Liccaius Liccai f. Breucus, pedes coh. VII Breucorum; S; Germania; prope Cibalas, Pann.): (1) C. Marci Nobilis Emoniensis, (2) Sex. Tei Nicerotis Aquileiensis, (3) C. CaecinaeHermaes Aquileiensis,(4) T. Picati Carpi Aquileiensis, (5) L. Hostili Blaesi Emoniensis, ( 6 ) M. Treboni Hygini Aquileiensis, (7) L. Anni Potentis Aquileiensis.

C IL . 16. 1 (52, Dec. 1 1 ; Sparticus D iuzeni f. D ipscurtus Bessus, gregalis classis M isenensis; V; Stabiae): (1) L. M e s t iL .f Aem. Prisci Dyrrachini, (2) L. N utri Venusti Dyrrachini, (3) C. Durrachini Anthi Dyrrachini, (4) C. Sabini Nedymi Dyrrachini, (5) C. Cornell Ampliati Dyrrachini, ( 6 ) T. Pomponi Epaphroditi Dyrrachini, (7) N . M in i Hylae Thessalonicensis.

C IL . 16. 7 ( 68 , Dec. 22; Diomedes Artemonis f. Phrygius (L)audic(ea) (!), veteranus leg. I Adiutricis; Stabiae): ( 1 ) 77. Iulius Pardala Sard(ianus), (2) C. Iuli Charmi Sardian(i), (3) 77. Claudi Qui. Fidini Maonian(i), (4) C. Iul(i) C.f. Col. Libon(is) Sard(iani), (5) Ti. Fonteius Ceria/is Sard(ianus), ( 6 ) P. GraltiP.f. Aem. Provincial(is) Ipesius(!)2\ (7) M. Arri Rufi Sardiian(i)).

C IL . 16. 2 (ante a. 54, Febr. 13; D ases D asm eni f. Cornacas, eques coh. II Hispanorum ; S; Illyricum; prope Sirm ium , Pann.): (1) L. Vitelli Sossiani, (2) Q. Vibi Saurici, (3) T Gratti Valentis, (4) C. Antistii) M arini, (5) P. Servili Adiutoris, ( 6 ) A. Cascelli Successi, (7) M . Heleni Primi.

274

C IL . 16. 8 ( 68 , Dec. 22; Matthaius Polai f. Surus,vet. leg. I Ad.; Stabiae): (1) C. Iulius Agrippa Apam(e)a, (2) C. puljius Saceos(l) Antio(chia), (3) L. Velina Nauta Antioc(hia), (4) Ti. Claudius Chaerea Antioc(hia), (5) L. Cornelius Optatus Antioc(hia), (6 ) L. Secura Alexandrus(l) veteranus, (7) M. Valerius Diodorus veteranus.

C IL . 16. 3 (54, Iun. 18; Romaesta Rescenti f. Spiurus, eq. alae Gallorum et Thracum Antianae; S; the name o f the province lost17; prope Durostorum , M oes.): (1) Sex. M a g i Rufi b(eneficiarii) navarchin , (2) C. Cassi Longini tribuni b(eneficiarii), ~k

16 A s is well known, these lists contain nam es w hich are normally in the genitive and seven (the legal m inim um ) in number. In addition to th e reference to the basic publication, we give som e particulars which seem essential for our d iscussion: the date o f the diplom a; the recipient s names, origo, rank, u nit and situation at the m o m e n t o f the grant (Sferving soldier] for the qui m ilitant form ula, V feteran] fo r th e q ui m ilitaverunt one); the province (F leet/L eg. I or II A diutrix/C o h . U rbana) to w hich the constitution pertained, and the find-place o f the bronze. 17

Probably Syria (N esselh au f adnu m .).

18

O r Sex. M agi, b(eneficiarii) R u fi navarchi (N esselh auf). 300

C IL . 16. 9 ( 68 , Dec. 22; Ursaris Tornali f. Sardus, vet. leg. I A d.; Anela in Sardinia): (1) D. Alari Pontificalis Caralitani, (2) M. Slavi Putiolani Caralitani, (3) C. Iuli (S))enecionis Sulcitani,

-----------

19 Tribuni [b(eneficiarii)] N esselh auf (“aerarius litteram atramento fortasse pictam incidere om isit”).

R aetia rather than N oricum (N esselhauf a d num.)·, a connection with the exercitus o f U pp er G erm any should be admitted.

20

21

A m is-spelling for Ephesius? (M om m sen et al.). 301

(4) L. Graeci[n]i Felicis Caralitani, (5) C. Herenni Fausti Caralitani, ( 6 ) C. Caisi Victoris Caralitani, (7) M . Aemili Ca[p]itonis ve[t(erani)] leg(ionis) I Adiut[r]ic(is), ( 8 ) C. Oclati [MJacri Caralitani, (9) L . Valeri Hermae Caralitani.

275

C IL . 16.15 (71, Apr. 5; M(arcus) Damaef. Surus Garasenus(l), greg. cl. Misenensis; V; Pompei): (1) Appi D idi Praxiae Laudiceni eq(uitis) R(omani), (2) C. Iuli Agathocli Laudiceni(l), (3) Cn. Cessi Cn. f . Col. Cesti Antioches(is)(!), (4) L. Cornell Simonis Caesarea Straton(is), (5) Ti. Claudi Epaphroditi Antioches(is)(!), ( 6 ) C. Iuli Theopompi Antiochesis(l), (7) Ti. Claudi Demosthenis Laudic(eni)(!).

C IL . 16. 10 (70, M art. 7; D ules D atui f. natione Bessus, causarius leg. II A d.: Breznik in territorio PPautaliense, Th r.): (1) P. C aru lliP .f Cal. (!) Sabini dec(urionis) Philippiensis, (2) C. Vetidi C.f. Vol. Rasiniani dec(urionis) Philippiensis, (3) L . Novelli Crispi veterani Philipp(iensis), (4) P. Lucreti P.f. Vol. Apuli mil(itis) coh(ortis) I X pr(aetoriae) Philippiens(is), (5) T. Iuli Pudentis Philippiensis, ( 6 ) M . Ponti Pudentis veter(ani), (7) C. Iuli Aquile(!) Aprensis.

C IL . 16. 16 (71, Apr. 5; Baslel Turbeli f. Gallinaria Sarniensis23, vet. cl. Misenensis; Algaiola in Corsica): (1) Ti. Iuli Fab. Cestiani, (2) C. Iuli Cornel. Nigri, (3) M. Valeri Alexsand(ri)(!), (4) Alexsandri(l) Magni Macedon(is), (5) L. Valeri Veri, ( 6 ) L. Licini Pudentis, (7) L. Rufini Chaerea[e]. C IL . 16. 18 (?73,24, M ai. 30; L. Flavius L . f. Cla. Sabinus, Savariens(is), ?vet. coh. I vel X III Urbanae25; prope Taurunum, Pann.): (1) C. Aconi Maximi Sisc{iani), (2) T. Flam Festi Sisc(iani), (3) Sex. Iuventi Ingenui Sirm(iensis), (4) C. Curti Secundi Sirm(iensis), (5) M. Statori Sabini Sirm(iensis), ( 6 ) M. Lucili Satumini Sisc(iani), (7) M . Rutili Hermetis Sisc(iani).

C IL . 16. 11 (70, M art. 7; N erva L aidi f. D esidias, vet. leg. II A d.; Herculaneum): (1) G. H elvi Lepidi Salonitani, (2) Q. Petroni Musaei Iadestini, (3) L . Valeri Acuti Salonit(ani), (4) M . Nassi Phoebi Salonit(ani), (5) L . Publici Germulli, ( 6 ) Q. Publici Macedonis Neditani, (7) Q. Publici Crescentis. C IL . 16. 12 (71, Febr. 9; Hezbenus D ulazeni f. Sappa(eus), centurio classis M isenensis; V; Sappaean strategia22, T h r.): (1) D. Liburni Rufi Philippiesis(l), (2) C. Sallusti Crescentis m(ilitis) c(o)h(ortis) H II pr(aetoriae) (centuria) Augur(is vel s i m j Philipp(iensis), (3) P. Popili R ufi Philippiesis(l), (4) L . Betuedi Valentis Philippiesis(l), (5) L. Betuedi Primigeni Philippies(is)(!), ( 6 ) Cn. Cornell Flori Philippiesis(l), (7) C. Herennulei Chryserotis. C IL . 16. 14 (71, A pr. 5; Plator Veneti f. M aezeius, cent. cl. Ravennatis; V; Salonae, D alm .): (1) T. Iuli R u fi Salonit(ani) eq(uitis) R(omani), (2) P. Vibi M axim i Epitaur(iensis)(!) eq(uitis) R(omani), (3) T. F an i CelerisIadestin(i) dec(urionis), (4) C. M arci Proculi Iadestin(i) dec(urionis), (5) P. Caetenni Clementis Salon(itani), ( 6 ) P. L u ri Moderati R isin itan (i), (7) Q. Poblici Crescentis Iadest(ini).

a Tw o, probably contradictory, versions o f the finding-place o f C I L . 1 6 .1 2 have been reserv ed b ut both point to the recipient’s patria.

3°2

C IL . 16. 19 (64/7426; the fragment offers no data on the recipient or his unit (the unit’s province); prope Lederatam, M oes.): (the names o f t. 1 - 2 are completely lost), (3) [---- ] S, (4) [---- ] T · dec(urionis), (5) [— ] ens(is), ( 6 ) [---- ] · L · V IL L , (7) [ — ]ens(is)27. — Fig. 1.

22 B aslels 24

origo, not identifiable with confidence, may have been Corsica.

O n the date, D egrassi, Scritti v ari I. 46 f.; N esselhauf ad num.

C f. H . Freis, D ie Cohortes Urbanae (K oln-G raz 1967) 1 4 ,4 9 ,6 1 ,1 3 2 (after D egrassi and N esselhauf); Notes d ’epigraphie et d'archeologie lyonnaises (Lyon 1976) 48 f.

25

C f. N esselh auf a d num. Perhaps A .D . 6 8 or 70 (cf. C IL . 16. 9, line, 17; 11, line 22), if the remains o f the last two lines o f intus should be restored [ — aram/arae gejntis / p u liae latere dextrjo.

26

T h e fragm ent belongs to tab. I, its lower right corner (cf. the foregoing note for the m eaning o f the letter-traces o f intus). Preserved (as inv. no. A a 3329) in Vršac M useum (Banat, Yugoslavia), it has not been seen by Nesselhauf, its first and only editor (it is noted a d num. “Im aginem photographicam, ad quern descripsit N ., misit A . Alfoldy”). H e printed a som ew hat different text (with H , not T , in line 2, with H , not ■ L , in line 4, and with a [non-existent] S as a line 6 o f extrinsecus), commenting justly, “Extr. reliquiae

27

303

276

C IL . 16. 20 (74, M ai. 20; Veturius T eutom i f. Pannon(ius), greg. alae Scubulorum; S; Germ ania; Sikator, Pann.): (1) A C a e c iliL f Quir. lovini, (2) L. Cannuti Luculli Clu. Tuder(tini), (3) A lull C.f. Silvini Carthag, (4) Sex. lu ll C.f. Fab. Italici Rom(ani), (5) P. A tini Rufi Pal., (6) C. Semproni Secundi, (7) M . Salvi Norbani Fab. Roxan, RM D . 2 (75, Apr. 28; H era Serapionis f. A ntioc(hia), pedes coh. I Raetorum; S; M oesia; Taliata, M o es.): ( 1 ) L. DomitiL.f. Col. Veri, (2) P. Coeli Q.f. Fal. Bruti Rufi, (3) Q. lu ll Lentuli, (4) Q. Aquili C.f. Cam pan\i vel sim .], (5) T. Lossi T.f. Gal. Severi, ( 6 ) Sex. Lossi T.f. Gal. Apollinaris, (7) P. A tin i P f i Vel. Augustalis. The variety and inconsistences o f form are perceptible at once in the lists quoted. The reader is tem pted to think that som e o f these formulary divergences betray different suppliers (military camps, municipal or Urban offices) o f the data cited on particular bronzes; however, too speculative inferences, especially those ex silentio, should be avoided. In the previous studies o f our material, two basic conclusions have been arrived at: (a) the signatures certify the authenticity o f the copy (diptychon with the recipient’s name) in question and consequently derive from men w ho had seen the original, and (b) the task o f verifying the docum ent’s text ★

-----------

sunt nominum testium, quibus domus (-ens(is)) et fortasse dignitatcs quoque (dec(urionis)?) adscriptae erant”. T hanks to the kindness o f S. Barački, the K eeper o f the Museum’s Roman Department, I w as able to collate the bronze (in July, 1981) and obtain the photograph reproduced here. A s we shall see, though a rare cognomen like Villaticus (cf. I. Kajanto, The L atin Cognomina [H elsinki 1965] Ind. p. 4 16, for the nam es in Vi/!-), or a rofpjowfn-occupational title Villicus (cf. G . Vitucci, D E . 4 [1958] 915 f.: Graphicus, Viator), remain theoretically possible, line 4 would normally run (note the sym m etrical position o f the Vill and D ec parallelled by the similar dispositions on C I L . 16. 14) [ ---- col(oniae) or (e.g.) C (ai)] l(iberti) viU(ici)\ for the spelling villicus, w ith the double liquid, see e.g. K. Schneider, R E. 8 A (1958) 2136 f. T h e m ans tria nomina preceded, according to a form ula occasionally employed by the liberti ( Vitucci, loc. cit. 913 f. 917). T h e T o f line 2 m ay have been the end o f a shortened cognomen (cf. C I L . 16. 7, t. 4, 6 ) but the origo abbreviation seems more probable (it is engraved before the dec. on C I L . 1 6 ,1 4 , t. 3 - 4 ). Lastly, it cannot be ruled out that, i f the T hides a cognomen, the E N S o f line 3 b elongs to the sam e entry; in that case, the lines 4—5 would also contain one signature only and the w hole fragm entary list should be numbered t. 5 (line 1), 6 (lines 2 - 3 ) and 7 (lines 4 - 5 ).

3°4

was conferred upon the beneficiary’s co-provincials and/or fellow soldiers282930. This community o f origin has been explained as in­ strumental to a higher rating of the privilegium in the veteran’s milieu, which would usually have been that o f his patria2'*. The complex evidence inevitably led to certain (contradictory) modi­ fications o f these premises following more detailed research. A s to (a), those scholars who had concentrated on signatores unlikely to be in Rome at the time o f signatio30 have suggested (a1) that the diploma may have been witnessed in provinces; thus the de­ veloped formula description et recognitum ex tabula aenea quaefixa est Romae (with its not infrequent mentions o f the numbers of tabula, pagina and locus/caput) would have nothing to do with the witnessing itself, which guaranteed the quality o f the copy on the collation o f a quasi-original transportable far away31 or without any collation whatsoever32. As to (b), the scholars who are inclined to insist upon the link between the formula descriptum et recog­ nitum ex tabula aenea quaefiixa est Romae and the occurrence o f the signatories’ names duly postulate (b1) the presence in Rome o f all the seven persons involved, at the moment of signing at least; practically speaking, that would mean that only soldiers and veterans were eligible to witnesses, i.e. people presumably avail­ able at short notice, when in the Capital, by the imperial secretariat dealing with the diplomata33. N o wonder that, along this fine o f reasoning, the role o f the Praetorian witnesses o f C IL . 16. 10 (t. 4) and 12 (/. 2) has appeared especially characteristic34.

28

Beside the works cited above, n. 2, see e.g. M . Kaser, R E . 5 A (1934) 1029 ff.

M om m sen, D egrassi et al. However, the recipients o f C IL . 16. I, 7, Roxan, RAID. 2, did not return to their patriae.

29

8

, II, 15, and

I.e. all the signatores who expressly note their non-Roman domiciles or membership o f the non-C ity troops (Nesselhauf, C I L . 16., p. 197 f.).

30

Kubitscheck, loc. cit., 185 (endorsed by W enger and some others). T h e hypothesis involves the im possible assum ption o f the early diplomata being engraved in provinces, not R om e (criticized with good reason by Nesselhauf, C IL . 16, p. 152 and 198).

31

32

N esselhauf, C I L . 16, p. 198.

33

M orris and Roxan, loc. cit. 326; cf. Roxan, Epigr. Studien 12 (1981) 267 f.

34

M orris and Roxan, loc. cit. 326.

3°5

277

An unprejudiced analysis o f our material tends to eliminate (b + b1) and support a modification o f (a + a1). First, there are serious reasons to question the hypothesis that all the soldiers/veterans known to us as testes were in Rome at the time o f issue o f the corresponding aera. Leaving aside the naval signatores o f the somewhat specific35 document C IL . 16. 3, whose base should be sought along the Mediterranean coasts rather than on the Tiber36, we should draw the reader’s attention to the other 278 military witnesses whose garrisons normally lay outside o f Italy. Thanks to a happy epigraphical rapprochement, it is known that t. 1 o f C IL . 16. 2 was a Syrian notable37. A round A .D . 5 0 he m ust have been an army officer, since the alternative identifications with a municipal dignitary or with a ‘governm ent’ clerk seem impossible because o f his origin (no link can be otherw ise traced between Heliopolis and the Pannonian coh. 1 1 H ispan orum ) and his high social rank respectively. A s the prefecture o f the cohort was held by another man at the time, L . V itellius Sossianus will have served in a legion or perhaps com m anded a Syrian vexillatio o f nonlegionary troops; both w ould naturally prevent us from postulating Sossianus’ stay in R om e com patible with the munus recognoscendi. A nalogous reasoning can be ap­ plied to the Italian(s) and a Carthaginiensis o f C IL . 1 6 .2 0 (/. 2 -3 and ?4), obviously legionaries38. T h e Salonitan P. Caetennius Clemens (C IL . 16 .1 4 ,/. 5) offers an especially probative example. A fresh find records him as a veteranus legionis V II Claudiae,

settled after his discharge at Scupi (Moesia)39. On April 5,71, the day o f C IL . 16.14, he is more than likely to have been in Moesia, whether as a colonus deducticius at Scupi or as a serving soldier on the limes40. Namely, from the Claudian or early Neronian period, VII Claudia’s permanent garrison was apnd Moesos, and the legion’s temporary detachment to Italy in the season o f A .D . 69 must have been over by the spring o f 70, because of the barbarian danger on the Danube41. Even if close to his discharge in about A .D . 69-70, Clemens would not be granted the bonesta missio before the legion’s return from Italy to Moesia — both military and political needs would forbid such a procedure. And, surely, his deductio to Scupi favours the view that his missio took place somewhere in VII Claudia’s province or its vicinity42. Second — a new fact — our lists disclose the presence o f a particular class o f civilians, not necessarily the recipient’s compatriots, viz. municipal dignitaries and their clerks. Though o f course there were military decuriones and equites Romani, /. 1—2 o f C IL . 16. 10, /. 1-4 o f 16.14, /. 1 o f 16.15 and t. 4 o f 16.19 are better identified as members o f local senates43. This is indirectly shown by the title vill(ictis), born by a l(ibertus)44*, which is found (on our reading) on C IL . 16.19 (/. 6): the army had no vilici while --------------------------- * 39

H .-G . Pflaum. Argo

1

(Ljubljana 1962) 2, p. 47 f.; cf. A. et J . Šašel, ILIug.

1

no. 34.

Naturally, we do not know the number o f Caetennius’ stipendia in A .D . 71 (according to Pflaum’s arbitrary proposal, he was a veteran then).

40

35 T h e

arrangement o f its text, close to th at o f the diptychon quoted below (nt. 5 9 ), differs from the usual. T h a t circumstance, though, cannot bear out N esse lh a u f s su pposition that C IL . 16. 3 was inscribed somewhere in a province (p. 198, cf. in fra, nt. 61). 36 It seems that M orris and Roxan, toe. cit. 326, thought o f the classici o f Italian fleets stationed in Rome. 37

IG L S y r. 6 .2 7 6 0 , H eliopolis.

Perhaps from V II G em ina, w hich co-operated w ith V eturius’ ala ( C I L . 13. 6212), enlisted — as a Spanish legion — not only Italians (/. 2 , 4 ) b ut also the m en fro m the Iberian peninsula (G . Forni, II reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Dioc/eziano [M ilano-R om a 1953] 226 f.; t. 3 will have originated in the S pan ish C a rth a g o , I L S . 3 .2 , p. 613 Ind.) and participated with distinction in C lem ens’ ‘F eld zu g '(in fra, nt. 84). 38

306

41

E . Ritterling, R E. 12 (1924) 1620.

42

lb. 1274 f.

D espite N esselhauf, C IL . 16, p. 197 (our decurions and equestrians were ‘officia militaria’) and M orris-Roxan, lot. cit., 326 (‘cavalry decuriones), 329 (military Equites Romani). F or what it is worth, to judge from the local inscriptions many o f the nomina o f / « / « j u s t enumerated do appear am ong the magistrates Cor the upper classes at least) and their liberti in the corresponding towns; cf. e.g. the prominence o f the Petronii and the N assii (C I L . 1 6 .1 1 ,/. 2 ,4 ) at Iader and Salona, and that o f the Vibii and Lurii (C IL . 16. 14,/. 2 , 6 ) at Salona and Risinium respectively (see J. J. W ilkes, Dalmatia [London 1969] 3 0 3 ,3 0 4 f. 307).

43

T h e vilici used o f course to be slaves, but some freedmen are also recorded (ILS. 4689; C I L . 3. 7147). Th ere was no obstacle to choosing freedmen as testes to the military diplom ata, see supra, nt. 3, and M orris-Roxan, loc. cit. 329 (on T . Flavii o f A .D . 97 f.).

44

307

2 79

280

the position o f the abbreviation vill. on C IL . 16.19, corresponding to that o f the dec. one or two places above, suggests a certain parallelism o f professions o f these men. The municipal vilici were generally on minor administrative duties45, and different kinds o f scribae used to be cited as witnesses in various documents, often in the low portions o f lists46. Further, onomastic indications make it probable that the administrative coloniarum liberti figure as testes on other early diplomata, which induces us to look also for higher municipal officials in the same lists. T h e Publicii o f C IL . 1 6 .1 1 (/. 5-7) and 14 (t. 7) may be recognized as libertipublici thanks to their gentiliciaA1\ the same holds for the Durrachinius *48 o f C IL . 16. 1 (/. 3)49. Through the coincidences o f anthroponymy, C IL . 16. 5 discloses a municipal magistrate as t. 1 (L . Lucilius Proculus) with two o f his freedman apparitores as t. 8-9 (Lucii Lucilii A risto and Chresimus)50; the additional interest o f this example stem s from the facts that the recipient o f the diploma was a serving soldier, not a veteran, and an eques alaris, not a sailor51. Finally, less conclusive arguments could be adduced to attribute some more testes to this category, above all the slave-freedman connotations o f cog nominaS2. The case o f the bronze o f A .D . 65 deserves to be put forward. Its Aquileian signatories were not co-provincials o f the * --------------45

See on the vilici summarum and the vilici calendarii Schneider, loc. cit. 2141.

« Ι Ρ Ε 1.3 5 9 (A D . 129/130), line 35 f.; 363, line 12; cf. 2, line 32 f. T h e order o f seniority in the early witness lists has been assumed by Kubitschek {loc. cit. 170 ff.), with go o d reason in some cases at least (C IL . 16. 10, 14: the opening places). I t certainly regulates the arrangement o f the post-H adrianic lists, as ably demonstrated by M orris and Roxan.

recipient; all the same, the Greek cognomina would identify t. 2 ,3 and 6 as local officials o f freedman status too. On the basis o f the observations in the foregoing paragraphs we are entided to envisage a novel qualification o f our signatories. Generally speaking, the task of a signator to an act was to warrant both the authenticity o f its text (which would be here restricted to the munus recognoscendi) and the trustworthiness o f its content53. Factually, in some cases he cannot have been responsible for both aspects o f his function. The diplomata militaria admittedly belong to those cases, but we should not accept the contention o f modern scholarship that the witnesses to the military aera retained the first, more superficial part o f their task. Rather the opposite. Both the municipal officials and the soldiers from the non-City troops54 like the legionary P. Caetennius Clemens cannot have been normally in a position to check the Capitoline tabula aenea, at least not all o f them on one day, the day o f issue o f the diploma in question and o f display o f the corresponding tabula. The composite structure o f some lists which combine people o f different occupations residing in several different places, none o f them Rome or the recipient s camp/veteran settlement — for a very instructive instance see C IL . 16. 14, with its testes from Salona (/. 1 ), Epidaurum (/. 2 ),Iader (/. 3,4,7), Risinium (/. 6) and M oesia (/. 5), and its beneficiary colonized in Pannonia55 — minimizes the possibility o f such signatories ever being together

48

T h e form D urrachinus preferred by M om m sen and others is also possible.

49

Vitucci, loc. cit. 913 (Interamnius, O stiensis, V enafranius, A m iternius and the like).

(the Aemilia points to Dyrrachium; a municipal magistrate rather than a commilito); also, /. 1 o f C I L . 16. 20 (the Quirina o f a Flavian city from Pannonia) and Roxan, R M D . 2 (the Collina o f Antiochia) will have been the beneficiaries’ conterranei, though o f unidentifiable status (perhaps commilitones who did not necessarily belong to the beneficiaries’ units).

50

N ote the G reek cognomina and low position in the list o f A risto and C h resim us.

53

47

Vitucci, loc. cit. 913 f.

For, the em ployment o f certain liberti (and/or their descendents?) should b e allow ed for the F leets (cf. W ilkes, op. cit. 310 nt. 6 , on C I L . 13. 6827); the national auxilia present quite a different case. 51

52 C IL . 1 6 .1 , t. 2 , 5 , 6 ; 2, t. 5; 5, t. 5 - 6 ; 11, t. 4; 12, t. 7. A nother criterion fo r a plausible distinction between the personal’ and ‘governm ent’ signatores, and fo r determ ining the recipient’s com patriots am ong the former, are the tribe abbreviations: C I L . 16. 1, t. 1

308

Kaser, toe. cit. 1021 and 1027 ff. (esp. 1028, lines 56 IF.); cf. M . Amelotti, in A N R W 2. 13 (1980) 388.

54

Even these latter m ay have witnessed deeds rather than texts, see infra, nt. 77.

T h e deductio in Pannoniam (Paestum), expressly envisaged by the constitutions o f C IL . 16. 12 -1 6 , was really carried out (cf. Ann. ip. [1975] 251, and epigraphic and num ism atic evidence examined by D ušanić, Istorijski Glasnik [Belgrade 1980] 15 f. [in Serbian]) though the majority o f its participants, including Plator, eventually deserted.

55

309

281

and able to perform their alleged duty o f apographum a d exemplare recognoscendi, even if it could have been carried out in a province. We prefer therefore to see in all these men real witnesses, whose testimony pertains to the substance o f the documents discussed and, unlike the munus recognoscendi56, may have been individual and communicated in a written form57. T h e other object o f their testimonium, the correctness o f the copy’s text, was obviously considered less important and put aside as being already warranted by the state production o f the diptychon58. A document similar in character, shape and w ording to the diplomata militaria corroborates what has ju st been said and opens up the possibility o f a closer understanding o f such complex, partly written, testimonies o f our signatores. T h e well-known tabella lignea (the diptychons second leaf) o f A .D . 94, a private copy o f Domitian’s constitution granting the conubium and civitas liberorum to a number o f leg. X Fretensis’ (ex-) members, ends with the beneficiary’s explicit statement59: Ibi M . Valerius M .f. Pol. Quadratus coram ac praesentibus eis qui signaturi erant testatus est iuratusque dixit: “per I.O.M . et genium sacratissimi Imp. Caesaris Domitiani Aug. Germanici, in militia sibi L . Valerimn Valentem et Valeriam Heraclun et Valeriam Artemin omnes tres s(upra)s(criptos) natos esse eosque in aere incisos civitatem Romanam consecutos esse beneficio eiusdem optumi principis”. T h e exact purpose o f that statement, unparalleled on military aera, seems to have been to give the copy the value o f an official document, which the actual diplomata did possess thanks to several easily recognizable features. Being only semi-official60, like the choice o f its witnesses,

56 W hich, except for an inconceivable procedure (such as those assum ed by K u bitsch ek and N esselhauf), m ust have presupposed all the signatores being in im m ediate contact, at the same time, with the real original (i.e. the C apitoline tabulae aeneae, in our case). B u t see below, text and note 58.

the tabella lignea needed a clause specifying the source o f respon­ sibility for its character o f a personal certificate; the responsibility could not fie with its (private) signatories alone, whose authority obviously suffered from their having been appointed by M . Valerius Quadratus himself, but was assumed or shared in a way by the beneficiary, through his testatio et iuratio (coram ac p r a e ­ s e n t i b u s ei s q u i s i g n a t u r i e r a n t ...). Notwithstanding all the extraordinary elements o f M . Valerius Quadratus’ diptychon, its use o f signatories, though, was intended to resemble the use o f witnesses on the bronze diplomata as far as possible, both in manner61 and matter. The statement o f its beneficiary illuminates this last point: the testimony o f Quadratus (and, implicitly, of the signaturi) required the testis’ knowledge o f relevant facts, based on the experience (in militia sibi natos) and on the consultation o f a public act (eosque in aere incisos) alike, or (according to a very plausible inference) on either o f these two, for cases whose nature differed from that o f Quadratus’ case.

282

The twofold composition o f the majority o f our fists — soldiers and civilians o f the administrative branch — becomes less enig­ matic now. The former were directly acquainted with their commilitones, the latter, it may be supposed, were in contact with various papers containing indirect information, which would correspond to the tabula (in aere incisos) quoted by Quadratus or to the postal evidence consulted by the Rome clerks from the ab epistulis offices figuring as testes on the post-Vespasianic diplo­ mata. Besides, the clerks had the practical advantage o f com­ bining, in the same person, a testis and a wheel in the bureaucratic machine producing the diplomata; as to the municipal officia, it is well known that they were generally obliged to help the state administration o f the army62 and other affairs. W e are nevertheless

57

C f. Kaser, loc cit., 1051 f.

58

C f. N esselh auf s com m ent (C IL . 16, p. 198) on I L S . 5918a.

61W.

Ch r. 463 lists, in m argin eoithe (second) tablet (cf. C IL . 1 6 .3 ; supra, nt. 35), nine (cf. C I L . 16. 5 ,9 ) signatories, all veterans, obviously former commilitones o f Quadratus (I L S . 9059, nt. 20). Seven o f them cite the filiation and the tribes.

59

W . Chr. 463 = I L S 9059 = C I L . 16. A p p. 12 (Philadelphia A rsin .).

62

60

C f. H . W olff, Chiron 4 (1974) 496 f f , esp. 499. 310

A . Η . M . Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602 2 (Oxford 1964) 748; the practice was a very old one, see e.g. C IL . 1,1166 = 10.5807. C f. also G . P. Burton, JR S . 65 (1975) 103 ff. 3 1!

283

tempted to surmise that the occurrence o f local officials as witnesses does not necessarily imply, for every constitution, a special post correspondence between the Secretariat o f diplom ata and the municipality in question, a correspondence to take place in the interval — the shorter the better — which separated the candidature to the aera from their actual distribution (cf. infra, nt. 80). Much time might be saved if the Secretariat could simply cite, from time to time, the names o f responsible persons found in the acta already in Rome — those concerning the transfers to, or recruitment of, City troops for instance. Such a formalist use, adumbrating the use o f the fictitious and ‘government’signatories o f later diplomata, may be expected primarily in the periods o f massive production o f the aera and traced in fists o f very diversified structure63. Conversely, the normal patterns underlying the inter­ related procedures o f the issue o f early diplomata and the appointment o f their testes will be appropriately studied from documents with the fists completely or prevailingly hom ogeneous as to the origo and/or status o f the signatores. O f eight witness catalogues which are expressly entered in that group (C IL . 16. 1 ,3 ,7 ,9 ,1 0 ,1 2 ,1 8 and the diplom a o f A .D . 65), five attest to the virtual departure from the ‘conterranei’ principle. The Dyrrachini o f C IL . 1 6 .1 (/. 1-6) lived in western M acedonia, the recipient, a Bessus, originated in Thrace, a R om an province after A .D . 45. The presumably municipal testes o f that bronze had nothing to do with Sparticus’ recruitment 64 or his after-missio refuge, at Stabiae (to judge from the finding-place o f the diptychon). The same holds for C IL . 16. 7, with its c/assici6S Sardiani signing {t. 1 -5 ,7 ) the diploma for a Phrygian also settled at Stabiae. The example o f C IL . 16. 18 is close, as the recipient, a

Savariensis, had all his (military)66witnesses from the other corner o f Pannonia, though his own native town was a Claudian colonia civium Romanorum. However, Sabinus’ choice o f signatores and his settlement in the neighbourhood o f Sirmium may have been not wholly unconnected; the Sisciani and Sirmienses were probably his fellow soldiers (from the same centuria?), and that circumstance will have determined Sabinus’ retirement to the Sirmian parts o f Pannonia67. Here too the origins o f witnesses dependend on the recipient’s situation during service rather than on that before or after his military term. These ‘irregularities ‘o f C IL . 16. 1, 7 and 18 look less striking when we turn to the remaining two diplomata, issued for active soldiers instead o f veterans, and consequently reflecting in a more direct way the whereabouts of the auxilia involved. The centuriones and beneficiarii o f C IL . 16. 3 ( 7. 1-6) were not Thracians — at least their cognomina do not allow o f such an attribution68 — and there is no indication or probability that they, like Romaesta Rescenti £, ever lived on the territory o f Durostorum. On the diploma o f A .D . 65 for a Breucus who was born and buried in the south-east Pannonia, the Aquileienses (t. 2 -4 ,6 -7 ), probably local magistrates / scribae, could not have witnessed anything concerning his enlistment or colonization; even the Emonienses o f the same fist (t. 1,5) do not necessarily figure there as the man’s co-provincials 69*. The conclusion follows that the composition o f the witness fists depended in all these cases on the place and conditions o f the

--------------- ★ T h e commilitones would be typical signatores o f the Praetorian diplomata in general (supra, nt. 13-14). Besides, t. 2 “was evidently a recently enfranchised auxiliary, possibly prom oted to thepraetoriani for distinguished services in 69” (Morris-Roxan, /or. cit. 329).

66

O n the principle that a prom ising deductio rallies veterans familiar one to another, thanks to their having served together in the preceding period (cf. e.g. Tac. Ann. 14.27).

67

63 Thence probably the double occurrence o f CL Publicius C rescen s in A .D . 7 0 - 7 1 (C IL . 1 6 .1 1 ,/. 7; 1 4 ,/. 7). 64 W hich, i f administered by a M acedonian city, m ust have been due to P h ilipp i, tow ards which the Bessi gravitated.

65 A ll the signatories o f A .D . [the cognomen'.], 6 -7 ; 9, t. 7).

68

seem to have been sailors or ex-sailors ( C I L . 16.

312

8

, t. 3

C o n trast the T hracian name, patronymic and ethnic o f the recipient and the Thracian cognom en ( Volsenus ( Aulusenus) o f t. 7. N o t accidentally, this latter is expressly styled, alone, Bessus.

68

I t is possible that E m on a formed a part o f the regioX in A .D . 65; this is almost certain for c. A .D . 40, when Liccaius had been recruited into his cohort. C f. J. Sašel, R E . Suppl. 11 (1968) 573 f.

69

313

284

candidature o f the beneficiaries to their aera (i.e. the form ulation o f the corresponding act to be sent to Rom e), not on the bene­ ficiaries’ wishes dictated by their intention to return to their patriae after the honesta missio70. W here the m aterial o f our five documents seems to reveal the presence o f the recipients’ com ­ patriots — not unexpected i f we believe that the testim ony pertained to, among other things, such item s as the recipients’ identity, origo and family situation at hom e 71 — it is given only a negligible part72, certainly far smaller than could have been as­ sured i f it were desirable73. O f the three diplomata whose signatories m aintain the conterranei’ principle (C IL . 16. 9 ,1 0 and 12), the earliest may be safely grouped with C IL . 16. 7 and 18. T h ou gh both the recipient’s conterranei and commilitones, the testes to C IL . 16. 9 figure there in the capacity o f Ursaris’ close fellow soldiers in the Misene fleet (from the same galley?) / I A diutrix and / or his equals in sharing G alba’s belated confidence and benevolence, rather than on their mere Sardinian nationality74. T h e case o f C IL . 16. 10 and 12, however, is more complex, due to the p o s­ sibility that their expressed preference for the Philippienses had depended on the recipients’ place o f recruitment: it is very probable that the dignitaries and clerks o f colonia Philippi helped the army authorities in recruiting, under C laudius-N ero at least, ★ 70

See above, nt. 29.

71 C IL . 16. 2 names D ases’ wife and three children, C I L . 16. 5 (w hich perh aps go es together with the group o f C I L . 16. 1 ,3 , 7, 9 etc.) C attau s’ w ife (a H elvetian too), son and a daughter. 72 There are no strict compatriots (with the possible exception o f C I L . 1 6 .5 , w h ose t. 4 ,6 and 7 may have had their domus in Iuvavum, the centre o f the N o rican H elv etii) and the quasi-com patriots receive only low places in C I L . 16. 1 (/. 7), 3 (t. 7) and 7 (/. 6 ). 73 E .g. the coh. V II Breucorum m ust have contained m any o f L icca iu s’ clansm en, som e o f them Rom an citizens (which w as a condition to the signatio) probably. A sim ilar inference could be made for C I L . 16. 12, with regard to the presence o f num erous Thracians in the Italian classes. 74 Otherwise, the preponderance o f the Caralitani w ould have been in explicable; the find-spot o f the bronze (“in planitie flum inis T irsi” N esse lh a u f) did n o t lie w ithin Carales’ territory.

the Thracian sailors and auxiliaries. Such an explanation would accord with a mechanical choice of witnesses, reflecting a period o f overproduction o f diplomata; the names o f 1.1-2 ,4 o f C IL . 16.10 and 2 ,7 o f 16.12, possibly o f all the names o f 1 .1 -2 ,4 o f C IL . in various files o f the ab epistulis. But the composition o f these two lists need not have been entirely formalist. It may have been intended also to acknowledge the contribution o f Philippi to Vespasian’s victory in the Civil War; as such it would comply, to a degree, with the tradition that the signatores testify to the end of the recipients’ service rather than to its beginning. The city of Philippi was proud o f the successes o f II Adiutrix and Classis Augusta A le x a n d ria in A .D . 69, as two honorary monuments from its forum abundantly show★75. This pride, which may have extended to the other naval victories o f thepartes F/avianae, seems to have been motivated by the courage the real Philippienses and men enlisted at Philippi displayed during A .D . 6976. Even the Praetorians o f our two fists may have been added there on account o f their participation in the helium Neronis on the Flavian side77, not (only) because o f their origo Philippis. M any uncertainties remain, naturally enough. The present paper, succinct as it must be, closes with some comments on the candidature spoken o f in the foregoing fines. There is little doubt that it was noted, on the initiative o f an army officer78 and, sometimes, with the aid o f the municipal officia, within either the recipient’s regiment or his military camp, which could rally several classes o f troops and lay (when distant expeditiones belli and similar detachments occurred) outside o f the regiment’s province too; then the camp in question should be sought near to the battlefield or, in case o f a long return journey, somewhere between the

75

C f. F. Papazoglou ,ANRW . 2. 7 ,1 (Berlin — N ew York 1979) 345 with nt. 189.

A nd som e palaeohistorical reasons perhaps; the connotations o f C IL . 16.1 6 , t. 4, will be dealt w ith elsewhere.

76

77 T h e y may have been prom oted to their Praetorian posts in A .D . 69-70, like t. 2 o f C I L . 1 6 .1 8 (above, nt. 6 6 ). 78

C f. e.g. I L S .

8888

.

375

battlefield and the unit’s mother province. Now, one feature o f our evidence deserves to be pointed out in this connection, the high percentage o f witnesses who had nothing to do with the unit’s 86 mother province / regular garrison or the recipient’s places o f birth, recruitment and after-missio settlem ent'9. T h e lists seem to reflect much more o f war expeditions than o f routine candidatures7980. Such a state o f affairs does not support the view, universally accepted in modern scholarship, that the diplom a represented an automatic grant to every emeritus from every auxilium and fleet. A complex analysis o f m ilitary diplom ata, including the lists o f their testes, suggests a different thesis on the eligibility to this privilege. O ur documents represented special grants for special merits, prevailingly martial, which were not shared by the bulk o f the emeriti*1. Th ey usually reward the valour displayed in an event close to the recipients’ honesta missio; though not specified in the texts o f the constitutions, those events may be identified through an examination o f various details o f the particular bronzes (date, province, formulae, regiments and — in the pre-Vespasianic period — signatories listed). T h e identification o f occasions leading to the issue o f our eighteen diplom ata requires an exhaustive discussion o f problems o f military history 82 and cannot as yet be ascertained in every case. Tentatively, we should attribute C IL . 1 6 .1 -2 to the Claudian conquest o f Britain, C IL . 16. 3 to the Cilician operations o f A .D . 52-53 and C IL . 16. 5 to N ero’s Parthian War. This last event caused the issue o f the U pper

Germ an diploma o f A .D . 65 too83. C IL . 16. 7-16, perhaps even 18, reflect the troubles o f the year of the Four Emperors. C IL . 16. 20 has already been connected with the so-called Clemensfeldzug 84. Finally, the M oesian diptychon o f A .D . 75 also seems to have been due to Clemens’ campaign in Germania Superior (r. A .D . 74); the beneficiaries o f that constitution, like those o f all the Claudio-Neronian diplomata published so far, were rewarded for their distinction in battles fought far from their permanent posts.

79 Beside the more obvious examples already discussed, note C IL . 1 6 .1 6 ,1 .1, who was probably an Oriental and the officer o f some non-naval troops. T h e Fabia is the luliorum tribiis. 80 So the candidature for C IL . 1 6 .1 w ent from D yrrhachium , for the d ip lo m a o f A .D . 65 from Aquileia, for C I L . 16. 2, 3, (?) 16 and 20 fro m expeditionary cam ps (w hich united different classes o f troops producing com posite w itness lists). In this connection, the role o f D yrrhachium and A quileia is analyzed in the paper referred to infra, nt. 82. 81 T h is thesis, anticipated by A . v. D om aszew ski, has been developed by m e in the M ilitary D iplomata an d War Expeditions {BAR. Int. 71 [L o n d o n 1980] 1 0 6 1 - 1 0 6 9 ) and The A w ard o f the M ilitary Diploma, Arh. VestniklZ (L ju bljan a 1982) 1 9 7 -2 3 0 .

C f. S. D ušan ić, The Issue o f M ilitary D iplom ata under Claudius a n d N ero ( Z P E . 47 [1982] 149 ff.). 82

316

--------------- ★ 82

Germania 56 (1978) 470 ff.

H . Lieb, Studien zu den Militargrenzen Roms ( 6 . Int. Limeskongr. [K oln-G raz 1967]) 96 f. w ith nt. 31; above, nt. 38.

84

317

11. T H E S A IL O R ’S C A L E N D A R Notes on the D ay-D ates o f M ilitary D ip lo m ata *

233

★ ★

It is a fact, established long ago but remaining rather neglected, that some o f the imperial constitutions underlying the extant diplomata militaria were passed on days marked by a propaganda and/or festive character. Such a choice o f dies constitutionum datarum would imply that the production o f m ilitary diplom ata was not — or not always, in any case — a routine measure depending in all its aspects on merely practical’ requirem ents1. There are other indications to support the thesis that the issue o f diplomata was regarded as a somewhat ceremonial act o f wider interest for the Romans, both the A rm y and the civilians. For instance, the places on the Capitol where the diplom a originals were exhibited till A .D . 88 seem to have been selected with a purpose beyond the practical’ one, and the topographical sym-

★

1■ '

1 Contra, Z s. Visy, Regelmafiigkeiten in der E n tlassun g der A u xiliarsoldaten aufgrund derM ilitardiplom e, “A cta o f the Lim eskon gress in A alen (O cto b er 1 9 8 3 )”, forth com ing (in the last analysis, the day-dates o f auxiliary dip lom ata were ‘a b h an g ig von den geographischen und klimatischen U m standen />., 12 provide a d ifferent type o f departure from the “scribendi ratio” o f norm al diptycha). T h e fact that the engraver(s) o f the diplom a chose it instead o f the usual arrangem ent m ay be connected w ith the early date o f the docum ent (probably a copy o f the first constitution for the praetorians) and certain other peculiarities o f its form and content (cf. below ). Anyhow, we have no reason to suppose that the U trera fragm en t form ed a part o f a triptychon. 4L o c . cit, p p . 9 1 - 9 4 . W e q u o te h is co m m en tary in a som ew hat abbreviated form , an d w ith o u t th e fo o t- n o te s; tw o m isp rin ts have been corrected. T h e S I I C do es not a p p e a r in J . G o n z a le z ’ tra n scrip t (p . 9 1 ), w here it is replaced by four crosses; it ex p resse s h is co m m e n ts on line 1 int. to be quoted in the sequel (see also in fra, n o te s 6 , 9 3 f. 98).

347

exer[citus], o bien que E R sea el comienzo del nombre del militar; ambas hipotesis resultan, sin embargo, indemostrables. Tam bien podriamos pensar en exer[citator e(quitum) R(omanorum)], e, incluso, en [centurio] ex e(quite) R(omano), denom ination norm al en los centuriones de las cohortes urbanas o pretorianas; sin em bargo, la rareza de la abreviatura e(quite) o e(quitum) nos obliga a movernos con suma cautela. E l numerate V IIII puede corresponder al niimero de la unidad militar o a la indicacion del lugar donde estaba escrito en la lex el nombre del m ilitar...”. Line 3 “(natus) [Clujniae ?, [Nescajniae}”. extrinsecus: t(abula) I I [ — ] / M(arcus) Attius Lo[nginus ? --- ] / [— Line 2 . el primer nombre de los siete ciudadanos rom anos necesarios para dar fe de la autenticidad del diplom a y de la copia”.

11

Referring to line 5 int., [in] Capitolio, J. G on zalez dated the fragment, with good reason, before the change o f c. A D 90 which had introduced the formula in muro post teinplum divi Augusti ad Minervam. H e was inclined to attribute the diplom a to as early as Claudius’ reign, in the belief that in line 6 int. the sam e locus constitutionisfixae had been cited as in C IL, X V I, 1 (A D 52), but proposed no identification o f the military unit(s) involved or explanation o f the historical circumstances which had led to the grant and the recipients decision to settle in Baetica. In 1990, J. Gonzalez has re-edited the “D ip lom a M ilitare ex Baetica”5. H is new text departs from the editio princeps in one point only, fine 1 extr., where he reads now T(itus) Li[cinius? ---- ]. However, his commentary envisages (on fine 6 int.) two p o s­ sibilities for dating the diploma: “en el reinado de C lau dio o principios de la dinastia Flavia”.

3 J . G onzalez Fernandez, Broncesjuridicos Komanos de Andalucia, Sevilla 1 9 9 0 , p . 141 f. (with fig. X IX ). L in e 2 int., “V III”, is a slip for V IIII.

348

J. Gonzalez’ text o f 1983 has been reproduced by P. Le Roux in AEp, 1983,523, with slight differences6. The eminent epigraphist has added some welcome critical comments. “Le lieu d’affichage se prete a d ’autres restitutions, car on ne peut exclure les solutions [... sinisjteriore ou [... exjteriore qui se trouvent entre 54 et 88 et concernent par exemple le lieu adaram gentis Iuliae et d’autres. Le document pourrait fort bien etre posterieur a Neron, mais on ne saurait dire a quel type de soldat il se refere, d’autant que le nom conserve du temoin, au nominatif, ne paraet pas connu par ailleurs”. T o my knowledge, this is the most developed attempt at reconstruction and clarification o f the Utera diploma published since the first edition7*. It seems that the reading, restoration, dating and the historical interpretation o f the fragment and its find permit further progress. T o begin with, two details suggest that it belonged to a praetorian diploma. (A) The VIIII o f line 2 int. is best read [coh.] VIIII, and the high numeral makes one think at once o f the City garrison. T h e abbreviations in the lettering at the end o f the line can be reconciled with that conjecture. Though no praetorian diploma published so far cites the recipient’s rank, the ex sugge-sts there, in J. Gonzalez’ words, an “indicacion del grado militar”

6 T h e question-m arks at the end o f lines 1 and 2 int. and 1 extr. emphasize P. L e Roux’s doubts as to the reading S1IC (S T I G in the “Annee epigraphique’’), E R (E R in the “A nnee epigraphique”) and t(abula) U : “la lecture n’est pas ćtablie avec certitude, semble-t-il, en ce qui concerne les lignes 1 et 2 intus et la ligne 1 extrinsecus". 7 M y notes in W . E c k and H . W o lff (edd.), Heer und Integrationspolitik. Die romischen Militardiplome als Historische Quelle (hereafter: R M D H Q ), “Passauer historische Forschungen”, II (1986), pp. 192 n. 11 and 226 f. n. 167, summarize a part o f the present article. C f. the list o f “Forthcom ing diplom as . .. ” in Μ . M . Roxan, Roman Military D i­ plomas (hereafter: R M D ) 19 7 8 to 1984, London 1985, p. 231 η. 1, where J. G onzalez’ publication o f 1983 is registered with a remark concerning the date o f the fragment: “Certainly issued before A D 90, and probably before A D 73/74”, and W . E ck — F. Fernandez, Z P E , 85 (1991), p. 21 4 , where it is said o f it: “ist vielleicht der neronischen Z eit zuzuw eisen”. F. B . Lloris, “C h iron”, 10 (1990), p. 271, writes: “en el fragmento sevillano no se ha conservado ni el nombre del veterano, ni su origo, ni el nombre de la provincia en la que sirvio” , adding (foot-note 74) “G on zalez... p. 94 se inclina a considerarlo h ispano”.

349

12

13

comparable to exgregale, expedite, ex equite (this last found i.a. in the diplomata o f Equites singulares) etc. T h e absence o f an adjective qualifying the [coh.\ VIIII — pr(aetoria) or the like — could be understood with regard to the phrasing o f the introductory part o f the constitution (the form ula nomina ... militiim ... qui in cohortibus ... praetoriis sc. militaverunt, with certain variations after A D 73), which left no place for doubt as to the identity o f the unit concerned8. T h e ex accords o f course with the “veteran” style o f that formula (qui militaverunt). T h e remaining E R 9, in our opinion, cannot be expanded to produce a single military term whose occurrence would appear plausible within the context. W e propose therefore to divide the er into two abbreviations supplemented (in the ablatives depending on the ex)w e(quite ?) r(evocato ?). Epigraphically and historically, the expansion seems attractive. Th e fact that the punctuation-m ark has been put after the E X but omitted between the E and the R should not embarass us. Inconsistence in the use o f punctuation is a characteristic o f diploma texts, especially on the inner faces o f the aera. Parallels close enough (an ex dem ands a point after it, even within a formulaic expression or a single word; two consecutive radical abbreviations engraved w ithout a point separating them) can be quoted from the pre-Flavian and early Flavian material11. Although rare, both the abbreviations ★ ----------------------

8 T h e formula: R M D , 1 and, in general, R M D H Q , pp. 32 4 —3 2 6 (H . L icb ). Iden tity o f the unit: after Vespasian’s reform o f the C ity troops, in w hich the V itellian cohortes praetoriae — partly overlapping, through their num erals, w ith the cohortes urbanae X I-X 1V — were disbanded, the unity o f the series form ed by the praetorian and U rban regiments was restored. 9 D r. F. Fernandez confirms (per litteras) w hat J . G o n zalez has read fro m the bronze (the photograph tells us the same): the E R is certain; there is no letter-trace after the R. 10 It may be noted that an ex e(quite ?) rfevocati ?) — the (substantivized) genitive depending on the case o f the recipient s name — w ould not be im po ssib le either. N o t to mention other difficulties o f such an expansion o f the R , however, it w ould contradict the qui militaverunt (the “veteran” style) o f the form ula ju st quoted. 11 Punctuation after E X : E X 'T A B V L A , C IL , X V I, 1 (line 19 extr.), 4 (line 2 0 extr.), 5 (line 13 int.), 7 ((line 17 int.), 9 (line 16 int.), the U trera fragm en t (line 4 in t.) ,X V I , 16 350

postulated here are attested in military inscriptions (E = eques, R = revocatus)12. On the other hand, the revocatio o f veterans was a wide-spread measure in the troubled periods o f the history o f Roman army1314; as more than one feature of the Utrera diploma indicates a grant immediately following, and reflecting, the events o f the Civil W ar o f A D 68-69 (see infra), the expansion ex e(quite ?) r(evocato ?) gains in probability. Theoretically speaking, the e(ques ?) o f our document may have been a member o f an auxiliary unit, even a legion (in the not very likely case o f a lex issued for legio VIIII Hispana), not only o f a praetorian cohort, but the circumstance that, in the same time and within the same regiment (cob. IX p r.), another revocatus is met with strongly supports the conjecture that the Utrera fragment was a part o f a praetorian diploma1·*. Needless to add, the attribute r(evocatus ?) could be not without relevance in the documentary context o f a diploma and the name list accompanying the original o f the corresponding constitution exhibited in Capitolio, as the revocati must have enjoyed more privileges than the other ex-soldiers, probably even than the majority o f the aere incisi, at least in their miss to agraria or nummaria.

(line 19 int.), etc; E X 'A V C T O R A T I (single w o rd !),X V I10 (tab. II extr., line 4). — Two radical abbreviations engraved continuously: P R (= populi Romani), CIL, X V I, 2 (tab. II int., line 14), 26 (tab. I extr., line 3 4 ),3 2 (tab. I extr. line 24), 33 (tab. I extr., line 28). — A n early Flavian diplom a with the radical abbreviation o f the recipient s rank: CIL, X V I, 12 (the > o f extr., cent, o f int.). Still more relevant parallels are furnished by the latercula praetorianorum: D D , F C , et sim. (for an E C see the following note). 12 E : e(ques) a(lae) and e(ques) K(omanus) in CIL, III, p. 2561 (Ind.). CIL, VI, 32536 (laterculumpraetorianorum), c, 11, line 19, would provide a parallel close in many respects, i f the E C is read e(ques) c(omicen), not (as with the editor) ju st eiq(ues)) (on the cornicines in the praetorian cavalry, M . Durry, Les cohortespre'toriennes, Paris 1938, p. 100 f. with note 2 on p. 101). — R: D essau, 505 (cf. Durry, op. cit., p. 115 note 8). — [Centurio] ex e(quite) R(omano) figures am ong several possibilities discussed by J. Gonzalez in his 1983 attem pt at explaining line 2 int. but — purely epigraphical obstacles to such a reading apart — an ex equite Romano would have been too important a personage to have been the recipient o f a diploma. 13 See e.g. E . D e Ruggiero, D izE p , II, p. 2173 f. 14 Infra, text to notes 8 8 -9 2 .

351

Η

(B) Line 3 obviously contained the recipient’s origo. J. G onzalez has thought the same but his explanation o f the toponym’s (unusual) ending (“un nombre de ciudad en locativo”) is untenable since the military aera and related inscriptions (like the latercula praetorianorum) have ablatives in the corresponding places; cf. e.g. [ CJlunia, Aquis Statellis, Nuceria, Agunto — to quote some exam­ ples which concern praetorians and the members o f the cohortes Urbanae among the aere incisi1516. Th e only acceptable solution o f that difficulty would be, in my opinion, to restore the [---- ] niae as a genitive qualifying a toponym proper, now wholly lost but originally engraved, in the ablative case, at the beginning o f the line. In fact, there is only one name o f such a com posite structure that may be traced that satisfies the ending -niae, the estimated width o f the line (see infra) and the other dem ands o f the epigraphical context. It is \Luco Fero]niaeu . I f that restoration is followed, it strongly corroborates the observations m ade under (A). With his origo in an Italian colonia civinm Romanorum, recorded at a date as early as c. A D 70 (cf. below), the recipient will have been a civis Romanus and a soldier o f a C ity unit, most probably o f a cohorspraetoria. By an interesting coincidence, Lucus Feroniae has already produced evidence o f a praetorian1718*. The restoration \Luco Fero\niae helps us to determine the approximate number o f letters that have disappeared with the left part o f lines 1 - 6 . Assuming that line 3 contained nothing more than the (two-word) indication o f the recipient’s p a tr ia x%, which was symmetrically arranged within the line and in relation to the

15 CIL, X V I, 2 5 ,2 1 ,9 5 ,9 8 . T h e ethnic in the dative o f n. 18 is exceptional; the locatives G !evi{CIL, X V I, 30; A D 159 ?) and Lugduni {C IL , X V I, 133; A D 192) occur in an ep­ och when the syntax o f the diploma texts becomes increasingly irregular. 16 On the city, see the short articles by Philip, PW, X III. (1 9 2 6 ), col. 1 709 f, and G . Radke, Kl. Pauly, III (1975), col. 768. C f. J . Reynolds, “Jou rn . R o m . S t.”, 61 (1 9 7 1 ), p. 142 f.; AEp, 1985,377 f.

other lines — both the assumptions seem inevitable, — the lost portion o f lines 2 -6 may be estimated, roughly, to have contained twice as many letters as those extant per lineam. Actually, in the case o f lines 2 and 4—6, the share of lost letters will have been slightly better than two-thirds. According to the usual practice o f engravers o f diplomata, lines containing a very small number of words, or abbreviations, and consequently displaying quite wide margins, have those words (abbreviations) separated by more space than in the scriptura continua o f normal lines10. I f such was the ordinatio o f our line 3, which seems likely, it would imply that the original width o f the Utrera tablet(s) was somewhat greater than c. 15 cm, the total arrived at on the basis o f an estimate of the number o f letters lost in fine 3 that does not presuppose a vacat dividing the [Ltico] from the \Fero\niae. The difference between the two totals is approximately c. 0,5 cm. or 1-2 letters in lines 2 and 4-6. Judging from the tentative reconstruction of the length o f line 1 extr. to be proposed infra, which leads to the conclusion that the original height o f the Utrera bronze was c. 17-18 cm, a width o f c. 15,5 cm. would seem plausible, and the fragment’s thickness (0,2 cm) is not big enough to make us assume a larger tablet; a diptychon measuring 17,7 χ 15,5 χ 0,29-0,3 cm. was produced in A D 70, the year to which this document may be assigned on a variety o f criteria20. T o sum up, line 2 int. will have held c. 28-29 letters (ofwhich 9 are extant), line 3 c. 12 (4), line 4 c. 28-29 (9), line 5 c. 28-29 (9) and line 6 c. 22-23 (7). Line 1, which, in its present form, is shorter than the rest (it displays the traces of five [?] letters [cf. infra], quite close to the righthand margin) must have numbered more than 35 letters. Needless to say, all these numbers, with the exception o f c. 12 for line 3, are to be taken as a rough approximation only. These measurements imply that the names o f the beneficiary of the Utrera diploma — i.e. his praenomen, nomen, filiation, tribe,

17 D essau, 2049: P. Octavius P. f d . Vol. Marcellinus. E tru ria as the source o f the praetorians: T ac,Α ηη., IV, 5.

19 C IL , X V I, 9 (line 13 int.), 11 (line 22 extr.), etc.

18 A s is the case with the recipients’ origines (ethnics) in naval (legionary) dip lo m ata generally, as well as in the majority o f the praetorian diplom ata o f I I /I I I cent.

20 C IL , X V I, 10. T h e dim ensions o f the other diploma known from that year are not un­ like (n. 1 1 :1 7 ,6 χ 14,7 χ 0 ,2 cm).

352

353

15

16

and cognomen21 — were inscribed in line 2. T h e space o f c. 20—21 letters in the lacuna (barely) sufficed to include his names and the subsequent [coh.]n , provided that the name o f his tribe was abbreviated ([Fo/.]?)21223. T hat restoration would presuppose a comparatively short gentile and/or cognomen, probably in the genitive24; o f course, the possibility should be adm itted that the total o f letters lost exceeded somewhat the c. 20—2 1 proposed above, owing for example to the presence o f many slim letters in the first half o f the line. But the resultant text need not have made line 2 too crowded, as illustrated by the name formulae, o f moderate lengths, in CIL, X V I, 25 (Praet., A D 72 ?), [.] Stai C f Galeria Saturnini (23 letters — 19, i f the tribe-indication were abbreviated Gal); 18 (coh. Urb., A D 73?), L. F lavio L.f. Cla. Sabino (18 letters), and 21 (Praet., A D 76), L. Em tio L.f. Tro. Feroci (17 letters). On the other hand, the alternative placings o f the names o f the former citizen o f \Lucus Fero]niae in line 1, or lines 1 and 2 , seem ruled out. Th e first o f these alternatives would create an empty space at the beginning o f line 2 , which w ould be difficult to fill: we should have been compelled to restore a complex, quite unprecedented, formula noting the beneficiary’s rank after the revocatio and have cohortis unabbreviated. Besides, a line o f more than 35 letters would be too long for the beneficiary’ names alone, not to speak o f the fact that the letters A S IIC ( VSIIC) or ASIICIA ( VSIICIA) are hard to interpret as the end o f a cognomen in the genitive or dative case (on line 1, infra). T h e second alternative would postulate a unique case o f the division o f a single, and important, epigraphical item between two fines. A s

the fines o f the Utrera diploma were arranged with regard to axial symmetry (cf. e.g. fine 3 int.), the second alternative must also be discarded. The considerations o f space are also helpful in the controversy about the remaining text o f intus. J. Gonzalez’ fines 4 (containing 32 letters) and 6 (27 letters) are somewhat too long for the total, calculated above, o f c. 28-29 (fine 4) and c. 22-23 (fine 6 ) letters respectively. H is restoration o f fines 4—5, which have quite a transparent meaning, should be retained however, on condition that a certain abbreviation (or abbreviations) is (are) introduced to shorten fine 4 by some four letters (e.g. descript, recognit, or the like)25. Line 6 is another case. As already observed by P. Le Roux, the formula specifying the locus constitutionis fixae may have referred to a site connected with the am gentis Inline rather than the aedes Fidei26. A tentative restoration may be ventured. In the form e.g. [ad aram inpodio dexjteriore it contains 23 letters27. The ellipsis a t a (gentis Iuliae) is naturally expected during Galba’s interlude 28 and in the early years o f Vespasian’s reign (till at least the second half o f April, 71)29, when no less than seven military constitutions had their originals exhibited in various parts of that altar30. They were issued for the legionaries o f I and II Adiutrix, and the sailors o f the classespraetoriae; this document is the first to suggest that, among them, there was at least one lex pertaining to the cohortes praetoriae.

25 C IL , X V I, 5 (line 13 int.: descript, et recognit), 16 (line 14 extr.: descriptu. et recognitu.), 17 (line 13 extr.: recogn.), 128 (line 24 int: descriptu. et recognitu.) etc. 26 Supra, text to notes 6 -7 .

21 R M D H Q , pp. 320 (G . Forni) and 326 f. (H . Lieb). 22 Or [cho.\ as e.g. in CIL, X V I, 21. 23 T h e tribe o f Lucus Feroniae was probably the V oltinia: G . F o rn i, L e tribit romane, I I I lclepseudo-tribii, R om a 1985, p. 87 with note 23. G enerally speaking, the abbreviations o f tribes in diplomata have three letters, R M D H Q , pp. 3 1 5 -3 2 1 (G . Forni). 24 According to the spelling conventions o f diplom ata, genitives (cf. C IL , X V I , 2 5 ) end, for the majority o f nomina and cognomina, in - i (not -it) and are thus sh orter than the usual datives in -io, -o {C IL , X V I, 1 8 ,2 1 etc.).

354

27 C f. the sim ilar indications in A D 68 {C IL , X V I, 8: in Capitolio ad aram i.e. gentis Iuliae [despite the shortness o f the formula, it has been preserved complete]), 70 (n. 11: inpodio arae gentis Iuliae latere dextro) and 71 (n. 14: ad aram gentis Iuliae de foras podio sinisteriore). 28 C IL , X V I, 7 - 9 , and “A rheologija", 26, 2/3 (Sofia 1984), pp. 79 ff. (all the four o f Dec.

22, 68). 29 C IL , X V I, 1 0 -11 (M arch 7 ,7 0 ), 12 f. (Febr. 9 ,7 1 ), 14-16 (April 5 ,71), and 17 (April 1 4 /3 0 ,7 1 ), c f.n . 19. 30 R M D H Q , pp. 3 0 3 -3 0 9 (G . Forni).

355

17

18

The attribution o f the locus constitutionis fix ae o f the Utrera diploma to the ara (gentis Iuliae) becomes all the more probable when the fragments line 1 extr. is considered. From the photograph (fig. 2), it may be read T -IIP [ ----- ]; after a close inspection o f the end o f the line in the bronze itself, D r. F. Fernandez has been able to confirm and complete that reading by proposing a “PA, despues de II”. A restoration t(abula) I I pq(^ina) (pa(gina) or the lik e ) ---- ] imposes itself. A reference to the locus o f the pagina may, but need not, have been included too, in the space after the numeral which followed the p a [g ·] (pa. vel sim .)31 Minor uncertainties remain bearing on the num ber o f signs lost in the lacuna at the end o f the line 32 but it may be assumed, safely enough, that slightly less than h alf o f the fine has been preserved, which in its turn implies that the original height o f the Utrera tablet(s) was c. 17-18 cm33. J. Gonzalez’text o f 1983 (abandoned in 1990) cam e near to the reading and interpretation o f line 1 extr. set forth here34. In addition to the line’s lettering itself, several “palaeographical” characteristics o f the extrinsecus seem probative: the form at o f the signs in line 1 , which markedly exceeds that o f the letters in line 2 ; the bar above the II, which signals a numeral; the shortness o f line 1 (it begins some four letter places to the right o f the beginning o f line 2 ), and, finally, the size o f the interval between lines 1 and 2 , which is two or three times as big as the interval separating line 2 ★--------------31 Loco or loc. (kap.. in C IL ,X V 1,5) + the numeral is found in C IL , X V I , 9 - 1 1 and 13 f., 16, but CIL, X V I, 12 has only a reference to tab. I, om itting any m ention o f the p a g in a and the locus. T h e reference to pagina in usually abbreviatedp ag. ( C/Z., X V I , 5 ,9 - 1 1 ,1 4 ,1 6 ) ; CIL, X V I, 13, however, offers a fullpag(i)na. 32 It may, but need not, have included the pagin a unabbreviated, as w ell as the reference to locus (loc. or loco). T h e degree o f abbreviation o f the p ag in a ( if it w as abbreviated at all) cannot be determined. T h e same m ust be said o f the length o f the num erals follow ing the pagina (and, if the formula consisted o f three parts, locus); so far, p ag. I, II, V and VI have been recorded, and loc. Ikap. X I, X V I, XV III, X I X , X XV , X X X X I U I an d X X X X V I. 33 See above, text and note 20, for the parallel o f C IL , X V I, 10 (h. 1 7 ,7 cm ) and 11 (h. 17,6 cm). 34J . G onzalez’ commentary o f line 2 int. (quoted at the b egin n in g o f the presen t paper), however, admitted the possibility that a reference to the locus should be so u gh t in VUII.

356

from line 3 (visibile in traces only). These indications are eloquent enough to neutralize the circumstance that, reading t(abula) II pa[g(ina) — ] in fine 1 extr., we introduce two novelties in the epigraphy o f diplomata, viz. the radical abbreviation o f t(abula), which is without a parallel so far, and the placing o f the whole formula in tab. II extr. instead o f tab. I extr., which, though not quite unexpected35, contrasts with the normal practice o f CIL, X V I, 5 and 9 ff.35. Now, all this has its bearing on the inter­ connected problems o f the diploma’s chronology and the restoration o f line 6 int.: the notes concerning the tabula etc. are met with, practically speaking37, only in diplomata o f A D 68-71, which cite the ara gentis Iuliae 2.S the locus constitutionumfixarumzs. Some further comments on fines 6 int. and 1 extr. are in order here. I f the reading [in podio dexjteriore39 is correct, the lex from which the Utrera diploma derived had its original affixed to the right side o f the ara s podium, a siting very well attested in late 68 -early 71 but probably definitively abandoned in the period after February 9, and before April 5 , 7140. The vicinity of a signum Liberipatris, as well as the symbolical meaning o f the whole o f the ara gentis Iuliae, underlined the political message o f the locus and the grant itself — its fink with the Civil W ar o f 68-69 to be exact41. It is possible that the symbolical importance o f that locus

35 In C IL, X V I, 1 2 ,1 4 and 16, the formula figures at the very end o f the text o f tab. I extr. Th ere are indications that, in the case o f our document, the tab. I extr. lacked the free place for it (infra, note 108); so, the engraver put it at the head o f tab. II extr. 36 W here the formula either continues the descriptum et recognitum phrase (C IL , X V I, 10, 1 2 ,1 4 ,1 6 ) or figures in the lines connected with the name o f the recipient or that o f his unit (X V I, 5 ,9 ,1 1 ,1 3 ) . 37 T h e only exception known so far (C IL , X V I, 5 o f A D 64) refers to the pagina and kaput but not to the tabula, obviously because the complete original covered one tabula only. 38 Supra, notes 28 and 29. 39 T h e photograph (fig. 1) seem s to suggest that the bronze has preserved the rest o f the top o f the left hasta o f the X preceding the teriore. 40 C f. R M D H Q ., pp. 3 0 7 -3 0 9 (G . Forni). 41 S. D ušan ić, “Epigraphica”, 46 (1984), pp. 101-104; for a different view, R M D H Q , p. 30 4 note 35 (G . Forni).

357

19

was so high that the contemporary leges (if there were such) for auxiliary units and provincial fleets were given other places to exhibit their originals42. Actually, several other indications tend to confirm our hypothesis that the Utrera fragment reflects the events o f the year o f the Four Emperors.

20

First, more than one element o f its text, in addition to lines 1 (on which, infra) and 6 o f the scriptura interior and line 1 o f the saiptura exterior, points to the late 6 0s or the early 7 0 s o f the first century AD , i.e. to a time during which the phrasing o f som e parts o f the text o f military diplomata, above all praetorian, still varied to a high degree43 (it should be remarked that no certain pre-Flavian aes for a member o f troops in Rome has been published as yet)44. So line 2 int. o f the Utrera fragment, if our restoration is correct, bore the recipient’s names written before (as in CIL, X V I, 25, A D 72?)45, not after (as in C IL,XV I, 21, A D 76; 81, Hadrian; 95, A D 148; 98, A D 150, etc.), the coh. + numeral. The numeral is followed by the abbreviations recording the recipients rank, a feature unknown from the praetorian diplomata edited so far. A sim ilar chro­ nological inference may be made from the engraver’s choice to reserve a whole line for the name o f the recipient’s patria**'. O ne

42 I f that was the case, the fragm entary C IL , X V I, 17 will have been a d ip lo m a o f a sailor from the Ravennate Fleet, not the Pannonian or Syrian (all the three attributions have been envisaged [G . Forni, in R M D H Q , p. 3 09] but the fin d -sp o t o f the bronze — easiest to explain i f the recipient’s land o f origin was Illyricum — does n o t recom m end the Sy r­ ian possibility, regardless o f the degree o f im portance we attach to the d o cu m en t’s locus constitutionisfixae). 43 Cf. above, note 3. 44 W hich may but need not be accidental: M . R oxan, E p igrStud, X I I (1 9 8 1 ), p. 2 6 9 f; R M D H Q , pp. 224 f. note 156 (S. D ušanić) and 3 2 4 ,3 4 2 (H . L ie b ). 45 However, the recipient’s names and cho. I I p r . are separated in th a t d ip lo m a by the indication o f the recipient’s origo, [CJlunia, and do no t fo rm a con tin u ou s line as (according to our restoration) in the U trera fragm en t (in tus). — C IL , X V I , 2 5 w as issu ed on Decem ber 30 o f either A D 71 or 72 {R M D H Q , pp. 105 n ote 160 [H . W o lff] an d 32 4 with note 16 [H . L ieb]); the latter date is m ore likely, fo r a variety o f reaso n s. 44 See above, note 18. T h e corresponding toponym s are not given separate lines in C IL , X V I, 2 5 ,1 8 ,2 1 ,8 1 ,9 5 ,9 8 , and 124. 35»

more chronological pointer will be found in the fact that the gentile o f the first witness o f the diploma (line 2 extr.)47, possibly also the names o f the other witnesses (the lost lines 3 ff.), ran in the nominative case, not in the genitive, as was usual48. The only two parallels for the nominative construction o f the list o f tab. II extr. are both recorded in A D 68 49. Finally, to quote Dr. M . Roxan, “an early date for the fragment is supported by the lack o f engraved framing lines around the preserved edge o f the outer face; this lack may be observed in most, though not all, extant examples o f military diploma prior to A D 70” (letter o f April 24,1992). Second, the find-spot o f the fragment. It is natural to assume that the recipient o f the diploma lived somewhere in the neighbourhood o f Hispalis (modern Seville) after his honesta missio, though it may appear strange, at first sight, that an ex-praetorian born in Italy should settle in a province50. T h at (extraordinary) choice o f his must have had something to do with his military career and/or his family situation resulting from the career’s geographical framework51. H e may have been a praetorian stationed at Hispalis; such important centres o f traffic and commerce were posted by praetorian stationarii from time to

47 H is cognomen (G onzalez, A E p: Lo[nginus ?]) is best left without a restoration. Th e length o f the fines o f extrinsecus (supra, text and note 33) makes it probable that the signatores o f the U trera diplom a were cited with (abbreviated?) notes concerning their origo and/or rank. 48 M . Attius Lo[ ] probably did not belong to the circle o f the so-called clerical witnesses which, in the case o f diplom ata for auxilia and navy, would usually imply a pre-73/74 docum ent (cf. Μ . M . Roxaris com m ent quoted supra, note 7). But, as the Utrera frag­ m ent is best attributed to a praetorian diploma, we arc inclined to see in Attius a praeto­ rian, the recipient’s commilito and, probably, conterraneus (for the Etruscan origin o f the name A ttiu s, W . Schulze, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin 1904, p. 68 f). — T h o u g h the editors o f the U trera bronze om it to mention it, there are, to judge from the photograph, clear ( if unidentifiable) traces o f a fine 3 extr. 49 C IL , X V I, 7 (the names o f the first and fifth witnesses are in the nominative, the rest in the genitive) and 8 (all the seven witnesses have their names in the nominative). 50 C o n trast the m aterial collected by Μ . M . Roxan, EpigrStud, X II (1981), p. 270 f., and M . D urry, op. cit. (supra, note 12) p. 301 f. 93 C f. R M D H Q , p. 328 with notes 58 and 59 (H . Lieb).

359

21

time52. But an alternative explanation seems more probable. It is tempting to believe that the anonymous recipient had served, as a member o f the legion X Gemina, in Spain — perhaps in H ispalis itself53. The Emperor Galba will have introduced him into the praetorium at the moment o f the legions transfer from Carnuntum (the temporary fortress o f X Gem ina after A D 6 2 -6 3 ) to its former province54. The anonym’s promotion would well accord with Galba’s tendency, in 68 , to rely upon collectivities and individuals whom he already knew, mostly those with a Spanish background55. Galba must have been closely acquainted with X Gemina during the early years o f his tenure o f Tarraconensis (A D 60-62); even the possibility should be adm itted that the Lucoferonensis o f the diploma him self had had an opportunity, as a soldier o f that legion, to meet the future C aesar then and be remembered by him56. The legionary’s appointment to the G uard may be attributed to, and synchronized with, Galba’s attempts to purge it from the Emperor’s enemies, real or imaginary (Suet., Galba 16, 3: ceterum praetorianos etiam metu et indignitate commovit, removens subinde plerosque lit suspectos et Nymphidi socios). It is all the less probable therefore that his discharge, indirectly attested by the U trera bonze, occurred within the same short reign. A s for O tho, so far as we known, he discharged no praetorians; on the contrary, he did everything he could to gain and preserve the G u ard ’s support57.

52 Durry, op. cit. (supra, note 12), pp. 59 f, 98 and 27 8 f. 53 Baetica and X Gemina: E . Ritterling, PW, X II (1925), col. 1678 ff.; R . T h ouvenot, Essai sur la province romaine de Betique, Paris 1940, pp. 176 ff.

Vitellius’ policy was different on that point, and that Emperor felt bound to eliminate certain o f Galba’s (Otho’s) men from the praetorium (cf. Tac, Hist., II, 67, 1; 96, 2 ),58 but (aside from the question o f whether he would have been willing to reward veterans o f suspicious loyalty with diplomata) the history o f the diploma genre makes it difficult to assign our document to him. N ot only are pre-Flavian aera for the praetorians unkonwn as yet, it seems that Vitellius, like Otho, issued no constitutiones de civitate et conubio militum veteranorumque et all; moreover, the locus constitutionis fixae restored in the Utrera fragment ([ara (gentis Iuliae)}]), with its political connotations, would have conflicted, rather than harmonized, with Vitellian propaganda59. Consequendy, it is proposed to date what might be termed the Lucoferonensis’ first honesta missio (producing no diploma) to Vitellius’reign, his revocatio to the season o f Vespasian’s revolt (the latter part o f A D 69 saw many veterans — the ex-praetorians in the first place — recalled to the [Flavian] colours)60, and his second (obviously, last) honesta missio, immediately followed by the grant o f the Utrera diploma, to the aftermath of G. Licinius Mucianus’ remarkable lectio praetorii o f A D 70 (spring). That sequence o f events would provide the best solution o f the historico-chronological problems presented by our fragment. The lectio resulted in a massive discharge (line 1 extr. o f the Utrera fragm ent also implies a massive grant, with the name-list o f its beneficiaries at least as long as two tabulae), the participants of which — as well as the praemia involved — were selected on diverse criteria61. T h e Lucoferonensis, whose legionary service may be presumed to have begun in the 50’s62, will have been one of those “whose age and length o f service warranted” their honourable

53 Cf. Ritterling, loc. cit. (the previous note), coll. 1265 and 1680. 55 T o cite some evidence concerning the praetorians only, see S uet., Galba, 1 0 ,3 (evocati); Tac, Hist., 1 ,3 1 ,3 (Pompeius Longinus); the Clunian o f C IL , X V I , 2 5 “p erh aps . .. en­ tered the praetorian guard o f G alba” (Roxan, loc. cit. [supra, note 5 0 ], p. 2 7 0 ). C f. also R. Syme, Tacitus, II, Oxford 1958, p. 592. 56 E.g., the Lucoferonensis m ay have belonged for som e tim e to, o r been in co n tact w ith, the officium o f the governor at Tarraco (cf. Ritterling, loc. cit. [supra, note 5 3 ], col. 1680, on CIL, II, 4151 and 4176). 57 Durry, op. cit. (supra, note 12), pp. 3 7 2 -3 7 4 et passim . 360

58 Ibid., p. 37 4 f. 59 D ušan ić, loc. cit. (supra, note 41), p. 101 note 39. Cf. E .S . Ramagc, “H istoria”, 23 (1983), pp. 2 0 6 -2 1 4 . 60 T ac, H ist., II, 8 2 ,1 and 4; cf. 6 7 ,1 and 9 6 ,2 . 61 C f D urry, op. cit. (supra, note 12), p. 376. 62 Supra, text and notes 5 3 -5 6 .

361

22

23

discharge63. From the Flavian point o f view, his record o f a revocatus (possibly also o f a donis donatus) m ust have also deserved a special reward64. On the other hand, the series o f epigraphical details enumerated supra (text and notes 3 9 -4 9 ) — especially those which tend to bring the fragm ent near G alba’s diplom ata (the ellipsis am and the reference to the righthand part o f the monument, witness name(s) in the nominative) — are easiest to understand if the fragment is placed at the very beginning o f Vespasian’s reign, i.e. in a period which, in view o f the probability that Otho and Vitellius distributed no diplom ata, im m ediately follows the issue o f December 22, 68 . In any case, the m iddle o f 71 may be taken as a terminus ante quern for our bronze i f 6?77. XVI, 25 — a copy o f a constitution which cannot be identified with the constitution from which the Utrera diplom a derived — is considered to have been part o f the earliest issue 65 o f praetorian diplomata under Titus’ praefectura praetorii, the prefecture obviously beginning immediately after T itu s’ return to R om e in about June, 71. Third, the end o f the Civil W ar and the missio agraria o f the aere incisi. A review o f the evidence concerning the veterans o f the City and other troops who were discharged (and, not seldom , given diplomata) by Vespasian in the early 70’s shows that many o f them received land, together with the honesta missio, as a part o f

63 Tac, Hist., IV, 46,4 (transl. J. Jackson, L C L ). T h e case o f the Clunian discharged in (?) 72 {CIL, XVI, 25) must have been the same. It would be w rong to think that all the dimissi o f A D 70 were the Vitelliani, while all o f the victores remained active. Tacitus’ passage clearly shows that the two groups were united by M ucianus as eiusdem imperatoris milites, though, o f course, the Vitellians alone (or almost alone) were the candidates for the ob culpam discharge. Cf. L . Keppie, “Papers British School Rom e”, 52 (1984), p. 92 w ith note 100. 64 O n the dona m ilitaria o f C . Vedennius M oderatus, in fra, text and notes 8 8 - 9 2 (espe­ cially note 92). 65 T h e day-date o f C IL, X V I, 25, coinciding with T itu s’ natalis (D ec. 3 0 ), seem s sign ifi­ cant in that connection, unless it is explained as a piece o f im plicit p ro p a ga n d a o f th e role o f T itu s’praetorians in Germany, A D 7 2 -7 3 (see infra, note 15). C IL , X V I , 2 1 (A D 76), the only other praetorian diploma from the period o f T itu s ’prefecture (o n the b egin n in g o f which, E .G . Turner, “Journ. R om . St. ”, 4 4 ,1 9 5 4 , p. 64) w h ose d ay -d ate is extant, w as issued on D ecem ber 2, not D ecem ber 30. 362

their praemia militiae66. An ex-praetorian o f Italian birth who chose to live in a province like our Lucoferonensis is a priori likely to have belonged to the number o f those dimissi missione agraria; otherwise, he could have transferred his (hypo-thetical) Spanish wife to (e.g.) Rome or Lucus Feroniae67. A plausible explanation o f his preference for Baetica will be found in Vespasian’s interdependent policies o f the Romanization o f Spain and the remuneration o f those provincials, as well as soldiers, who helped the Flavian cause win the belhim Vitellii68. There were several Latin municipia created by Vespasian in Baetica, in the aftermath (beginning in c. A D 73) and as a consequence o f the events o f A D 68-6969. Viritane deductiones o f the dimissi honesta missione with special merits for the Flavian victory must be assumed to have been an analogous measure in the same area, somewhat earlier in date than the foundation o f these municipia and slighdy different in character, though also conducive to the spread of Romanitas among the Iberians7071*. Such deductiones naturally concentrated on the territories o f the coloniae civium Romanorum, either Julio-Claudian or Vespasianic — among the former, especially those whose strengthening was demanded by political and/or economic factors; the logic o f the colony’s strategic position and the veteran’s personal wishes (usually, to live in the vicinity o f his former garrison) also influenced the Emperor’s choice o f the colony which was to give its land to a deducticius71. For Vespasian, financial considerations must have

66 R itterling, loo. cit. (supra, note 53), coll. 1273-1275; Keppie, loc. cit. (supra, note 63), pp. 9 1 -1 0 4 , ct alii. 67 C f. D urry, op. cit. (supra, note 12), pp. 301 note 4 ,3 0 2 notes 2 -3. 68 See, in general, J . Šašel, L a fondazione del/e cittis F lavie quale espressione di gratitudine politica, “L a citta antica comefatto di cultural, C o m o 1982, pp. 1-11. 69 P lin., N H , III, 3/30. C f e.g. F . M illar, The Emperor in the Roman World, 3 1 B C — A D 337, Ithaca — N Y 1977, p. 4 0 4 with notes 5 4 -5 6 ; H . Galstcrer, Untersuchungen zum romischen Stadtewesen a u f der Iberischen Halbinsel, Berlin 1971, pp. 36-50, and “Journ. R om . S t.”, 78 (1 9 8 8 ),p. 88; Sašel.loc. cit. (the previous n ote),p. 9 f.;J . G onzalez, “Journ. R om . S t.”, 76 (1986), p. 202 f. — all w ith bibl. 70 T acitus {H ist., I, 7 8 ,1 ) m entions O th o ’s sending o f thefam iliarum adiectiones to the colonies o f H ispalis and Em erita. 71 T ac, H ist., 1 ,7 8 ,1 (cf. the foregoing note), and A nn., X IV , 27. R M D H Q , pp. 226 f. (S. D u šan ić), 3 0 0 -3 0 3 (G . F o m i). 363

24

25

played a major role in the whole matter; the agri thus distributed were much less expensive, from the fiscus point o f view, than the missio nummaria. The conditions o f the aftermath o f a long Civil War certainly favoured that policy, but a similar pragm atism was not foreign to some earlier72 and later 73 Em perors either. With regard to all this it is tempting to suppose that the first owner o f the Utrera diploma came to colonia Iulia H ispalis to receive the land given him as a consequence o f his missio agraria (c. A D 70). The provenance and the proposed early dating o f the fragment support this theory. It may be further conjectured that Hispalis was selected in its double capacity o f the Lucoferonensis’ previous military post and a city which, because o f its im portance, had already profited from some viritane deductiones7* . A n d, o f course, Vespasian’s Spanish policy would provide a very likely general framework for that missio. Epigraphical parallels may prove instructive. T h e missio agraria o f praetorians is alluded to in a diplom a o f A D 72 (?), which prescribes “hoc quoque iis” (the praetorians) “tribuo ut quos agros a me acceperint quasve res possederunt... sint im m unes”75. T h e significant find-spot o f another aes, this time for a m em ber o f a

cohors Urbana (I or X III?; A D 73 ?)76, reveals that its recipient joined the colonia Flavia Sirmium7778*. Two grave inscriptions o f the praetorian veterans deducti ab divo Vespasiano Reate's probably also refer to the colonization at the very beginning o f the 70’s /9, an effort o f the Em pire engaging, beside the dimissi honesta missione from the City units80812, legionary veterans and certain ex-soldiers from less esteemed troops like the Italian fleets. T h e diplomata attest that these last were deducti Paestum {C IL , X V I, 12 f. 15 f., A D 71; Class. M is.) and in Pannoniam {C IL , X V I, 14, A D 71; Class. Rav.) respectively. The deductio Paestum (other sorts o f evidence make us believe that there was a parallel deductio Veliam81 and Panormumf1 particularly resembles the case o f our anonym, the colony in question having been chosen because o f its vicinity to the recipients’ base in Misenum, not to the recipients’/wfnVie83; besides, the south o f Italy was in a

opinion that, though the 1983 interpretation remains attractive, the document’s connec­ tion with the helium Vitellii should be considered as more likely. 76 C IL, X V I, 18; on the date and the unit o f the recipient o f that diploma, R M D H Q , p. 334 (H . Licb).

★ -------------- --- ---

72 Nero, for instance (Tac, Ann., XIV , 27; Suet., Nero, 9). 72 N ot to speak o f provinces and the other types o f evidence (cf. R M D H Q , pp. 5 0 with note 1 7 ,5 4 f. [H . W olff]), the fact that praetorian diplom ata have been discovered in several Italian places which are difficult or im possible to identify w ith the recipien ts’ domiciles or slationes is best explained as a result o f the E m p erors’ w ish to reward their ex-Guardsmen with land and, at the sam e time, to help the perm anent, i f virtually h o p e­ less, programme o f repopulating Italy (cf. C ass. D io , L I II , 2 5 ; Strab ., IV, 20 6 ). S ee Z P E , 70 (1987), pp. 185-188 (r. A D 130 ?); C IL, X V I, 95 (A D 148), 151 (A D 2 4 6 ), 155 (A D 254), and 156 (A D 298); cf. infra, notes 7 8 -8 0 , 84, and C IL , X V I , 144 (A D 2 3 0 ; Eq. Sing.). A n analysis o f these cases form s a part o f my paper, in preparation, on the “M issio Agraria and the Find-Spots o f M ilitary D iplo m ata”. 74Above, notes 53 and 71-72. O n the “V iritanassignationen” in general, R M D H Q , p. 55 note 46 (H . W olff). 75 CIL, X V I, 2 5 (see also supra, note 45; infra, notes 95 and 1 41). A d ecade a go , I su p­ posed that the issue o f that diplom a had been determ ined by the events in G erm an y o f A D 72-74, not by the Civil W ar o f A D 6 8 - 6 9 (S. D u šan ić, Notes on the E a rly D iplom ata M ilitaria: C IL X V I 20, R M D 1 an d A ffairs in Germany, A D 7 2 -7 4 , “Studien z u den Militdrgrenzen Roms”, III [Aalen 1983], S tu ttgart 1986, p p . 7 3 0 - 7 3 5 ). I am now o f an 364

77 For the fin d-spot o f C IL, X V I, 18 as an indication o f the recipient’s missio agraria, S. D ušanić, The Witnesses to the Early Diplomata M ilitaria, “Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di An­ tonio Guarino", N apoli 1984, p. 283, and R M D H Q , p. 227. See also infra, note 140, and R M D H Q , p. 185 with note 51 (M . Mirkovic). 78 C IL , IX , 4682 f. Speaking o f the missio agraria alluded to in CIL, X V I, 25, H . W olff (R M D H Q , p. 105 fi) remarks “M oglicherw eise handelte es sich sogar um die A nsicdlun g in R ea te ..." See also Keppie, loc. cit. (supra, note 63), pp. 93-95. 77 R itterling, loc. cit. (supra, note 53) col. 1273; RJVIDHQ, p. 106 note 162 (H . W olff). 80 A veteran o f the coh. X I U rb(ana), deductus a divo V[espas(iano) ?] to N ola (CIL, X , 1263), was probably transferred from leg. XVApollinaris to coh. X I Urb. in A D 70 or 71 (H . Freis, D ie Cohortes Urbanae, EpigrStud, II, 1967, pp. 1 4 ,4 9 and 123; Keppie, loc. cit. [supra, note 63], p. 95). H is later deductio to N o la m ay imply that his elder commilitones, discharged at the very beginning o f Vespasian’s reign, obtained their land in N ola too (the “c. A D 71” in m y note 175, R M D H Q , p. 228, should be understood in that sense). 81 R M D H Q , p. 301 note 19 (G . Form ). 82 R itterling, loc. cit. (supra, note 53), col. 1275. 83 R M D H Q , pp. 2 2 6 note 165 (S. D ušanić) and 3 0 0-303 (G . Forni); Keppie, loc. cit. (supra, note 6 3), pp. 9 8 -1 0 4 . 365

26

need o f repeopling 84 in a way analogous to Spains need to reinforce its Rom an element. T h ough the interest o f the State had its part in the grants of agri to the participants o f the Civil War (the veterans ex praetorio themselves were not eager to accept the land as long as there was a chance to remain sub sign isf5, there can be little doubt that the deductiones were publicly presented as a reward for soldiers who helped the Flavians to defeat a tyrant8687*. That the [coh.] V1III of the Lucoferonensis had something to do with the Flavian victory __ i e. the events producing CIL, XVI, 12-16 18, and 25 (?), am ong related documents — may be inferred from a number of pieces o f indirect evidence. In the texts of diplomata, the amgentis Iuliae (+ signutn Liberi Patris) as the locus constitutionis fixae common to C IL , X V I, 12-16 and the Utrera bronze, probably also to nn 18 and 25 (whose lines noting the place of the bronze table o f the original lex have not been preserved), seems illustrative of that link, owing to the altar’s propaganda value. The presence o f a mil(es) cob(ortis) VIIII pi{aetoriae) among the signatores of CIL, X y j IQ — issued for a causarius o f leg. II Adiutrix in A D 70 and copied from the constitution exhibited in the same locus — may also imply that the cohors V IIII or a part of it played a prominent pro-Flavian role in the helium VitelliP7. The long career of C.

27

Keppie, loc. cit. (supra, note 63), p. 106 f. N ote that C IL, X V I, 95 (AD 148), issued for a in etorian born in N ueeria, was found in Paestum, the city-bencficiary o f the deductio o f A D 7 0 -7 1 · W ith regard to the low density o f the population o f the Italian south, the case o f C II X V I, 156 (perhaps n. 157 too, if the recipient’s patria was not in the neighbour­ hood o f m odern Abellino) will have been similar. C f. above, notes 71-74,78, and 80-82.

sj

ss T i c H ist., IV, 4 6 , 4; cf. Ann., X IV , 27. T h e find-spots o f diplomata recording the deductiones o f sailors in 71 equally show that the missio agraria need not have been desir­ able for all (above, note 83). 86 T h e qu\busfa rth e r et pie m ilitia f metis formula (though standard after r. A D 73, per1 ins even in the pre-F lavian tim es if there were praetorian diplomata before c. A D 70) must have been especially eloquent here. C f. CIL, XV I, 10 (A D 70): leg. IIAdiutrix pia fide/is (aptly pointed at by G . F orni in this connection, R M D H Q , p. 310) and CIL, X V I, 17 (A D 7 1): [quo\d se in expeditions belli fortiter industriequegesserant... F or the broader political context, supra, notes 68 and 69. D u šan ić, loc. cit. (supra, note 77), p. 285. I f CIL, X V I, 10, with its fourth testis is to be taken to p resu pp o se a case (form ing the so-called qualifying event o f the grant) o f a close

87

Figs. 1-2. Sevilla, Museo Arqueo/ogico. The fragment o f a military diploma (1: tab. II intus, 2: tab. II extr.), c. A D 70

367 366

28

Vedennius Moderatus (Dessau, 2034 + A dd., p. C L X X V I )88 seems to corroborate our inference concerning the merits o f the coh. VIIII praetoria for the Flavian cause in A D 69. A ccording to his inscription, Moderatus mil(itavit) in legione) X V I Gal(lica) annis X, tran(s)lat(us) in coh(ortem) I X pr(aetoriam ) in qua milit(avit) ann(is) VIII·, missus honesta mission(e); revoc(atus) ab Imp(eratore)·, fact(us) evoc(atus) Aug(usti), arc(h)itec(tus) arm ament(arii) Imp(eratoris), he was that annis X X III, till the end o f his service. It is also said o f him donis militarib(us) donat(us) bis ab divo Vesp(asiano) et Imp(eratore) Domitiano Aug(usto) G erm fanico). His honesta missio was obviously due to V itellius and his revocatio to Vespasian and the special circumstances o f A D 6 9 89; it is quite probable that he earned his first dona m ilitaria as Antonius’ soldier or technician in the batdes o f Bedriacum and

collaboration o f certain members o f the cob. I X pr. with the (ex-)R avennates o f I I Adiutrix in the Flavian operations o f A D 69, that occasion is best dated to the tim e o f the battles o f Bedriacum and Crem ona (cf. Ritterling, loc. cit. [supra, note 5 3 ], col. 1438 f; infra, note 90). 88 Its chronology was determined by T h . M om m sen ( Gesammelte Schrften, I T , Berlin 1910, p. 8 with note 1) in the following way: legionary, A D 5 9 /6 0 - 6 9 ; mites cob. I X p r ., A D 6976/7; revocatus, A D 76/77; evocatus Augusti, A D 7 6 /7 -9 9 /1 0 0 . T h a t reconstruc­ tion ofM oderatus’ service — based on M om m sens conviction th at the m em b er o f X V I Gallica “kam ... unter Valens mit den iibrigen niedergerm anischen T ru p p en nach Italien und war unter denen, die nach der U ebergew altigung O th o s in die neue G arde iibergingen” — has been commonly followed by later students (D essau , ad n.; R itterling, loc. cit. [supra, note 53], col. 1763; Durry, op. cit. [supra, note 12], p. 2 4 3 and note 6, et alii); H. Lieb (R M D H Q , p. 328 note 58) is an exception, but th at scholar did n o t enter into an analysis o f the problem. M om m sens dating o f the changes in M o d e ra tu s’ m ili­ tary life is untenable, however; if the inscription were really erected under T ra jan , after Domitian’s damnatio memoriae, the Flavian em peror w ould not have been referred to as Imp. Domitianus Aug. Germ, (the commentators o f the m onum ent were aw are o f that difficulty but, wrongly, did not hold it fatal for the 5 9 /6 0 - 9 9 /1 0 0 h y poth esis). In fact, there are good reasons to dissociate M oderatus'translatio in coh. IX pr{aeto rian i) fro m the events o f A D 69 and to put it in A D 62 (infra, notes 89 and 91); consequendy, h is career will be placed in the framework o f the years 5 2 -9 2 : legionary, A D 5 2 - 6 2 ; miles coh. I X p r .,A D 6 2-69; missus honesta missione by Vitellius and revocatus by V esp asian s in A D 69; evocatus Augusti, A D 69-92. 89 Vitellius discharges the praetorians (M oderatus had more than 16 stipendia in A D 69, according to our calculation [the foregoing note]): supra, text and note 5 8 . V esp asian s revocati o f A D 69: supra, note 60.

368

Crem ona90. T h e record o f the Lucoferonensis, reconstructed here as identical to M oderatus’ in the period before the evocatio (? a legionary transferred to thzpraetorium at a delicate moment o f the G uard’s history91; revocatus by Vespasian in an early phase o f the revolt), may have been similar to it with regard to the two men’s military perform ance in the second half o f 69 as well; as a member o f the sam e cohort which gave Moderatus the occasion to obtain his first decorations, the Lucoferonensis was able — it may be supposed — to display valour in the same battles, if not with equal consequences for his own career92*. It is hard to avoid the con­ clusion that the number o f Vitellius’ enemies was greater in coh. Villi than in the other regiments o f the praetorium. T o the foregoing comments we may add, as a fourth point, the testimony o f line 1 int. o f the fragment discussed in the present paper. T h e photograph published by J. Gonzalez made it possible to believe (in 1985 for the first time) that, after the letters SU C the lower parts o f which are clearly visible, there are traces o f what may be two more letters. N ot noted by the editor primus or P. Le

90 It is natural to assum e that M oderatus’ evocatio and his first dona were due to his role in the sam e crisis of .AD 69. O n the performance o f praetorians at Bedriacum and Cremona, supra, note 87; M oderatus may have displayed his engineering skill — to which, for the post-69 period, both the arcitec. armament, and the relief o f his monument refer — in the siege-efforts described by Tacitus, Hist., I ll, 27 ff. (cf. e.g. 29, 1: ballistd). The Flavian storm ing o f R o m e m ay be taken as the third possibility (cf. e.g. Tac, Hist., I ll, 8 4 ,1 : tormenta). A m o n g the signatores o f CIL, X V I, 12 (the diploma issued for a centurio c/assis Misenensis in A D 71), there is a miles cobortis IH I practoriae (/. 2); if the bond linking the two men and their units is identified with a Flavian victory (on the notion o f the so-called qualifying event, supra, note 87), it is best found in the battle for Rome. 91 A D 62 (su pra, note 89) w itnessed Burrus’ death and Tigellinus’ appointement as a praefectus praetorio — two unpopular events, which must have made Nero wish to strengthen the G u a rd w ith dependable soldiers. Moderatus, the Emperor’s compatriot (an A ntias), obviously appeared an appropriate candidate from that point o f view; on the ^>rae/onH/H-Nero-Antium trinity see Suet., Nero, 9 (Vespasian, the City troops and Reate fo rm ed an analogou s chain, supra, note 78). 92 T h e L u co fe ro n en sis probably did not stay in service as an evocatus Augusti after c. A D 70, and w e do n o t kn ow w hether or not he became a donis donatus, But his aere incisio and missio agra ria certainly m ean t a reward o f a kind. 369

29

30

Roux93, they seemed identifiable with the bottom o f an I and the end o f a slant stroke, the left hasta o f an A ; the point that we thought discernible, in J. Gonzalez’ photograph, after the stroke may have been the finishing serif o f that A. So the extant lettering o f the close o f the fine would read SIICIA, with F , P, T as alternatives for the second 94 and fifth signs, and T for the third sign. It is remarkable that both these remains o f letters and the fine’s ordinatio exclude the consular dating formula, expected to come immediately before the recipient’s names in the “norm al” diplomata for praetorians. N or can the SIIC IA be reconciled with the formula granting, in the praetorians’ diplom ata, the usual ius conubii (civitas liberorum). W e saw no way to explain that feature o f our fragment other than to postulate a clause analogous to the just quoted “hoc quoque iis tribuo...” o f C IL , X V I, 25, located in that part o f the diploma o f A D 72(?) which corresponds to our fine 1 int. and the preceding fines95. Consequently, we were inclined to propose a restoration [ ---- per mea au\spicia. Dr. F. Fernandez’ careful collation o f our reading o f fine 1 int. with the bronze itself has shown, however, that som e at least modifications o f the [aujspicia are indispensable. H e kindly wrote me: (96) “Podria ciertamente leerse SP IC . D ificilm ente S P IC IA , pues la IA finales son simples aranazos, ciertamente antiguos, pero

93 However, J . Gonzalez has “una G or C ” after S II, P. L e Roux a G (cf. su pra, notes 4 and 6). Both the scholars seem tho have read as one letter, the G (for J . G o n za lez, the G is only an alternative for a C , and we have quoted his 1983 texto flin e 1 int. with th e c a s — in our opinion — the better reading o f the two), the traces we attributed to tw o letters, C and I. According to this interpretation o f their reading, J . G onzalez and P. L e R oux had identified what we took to be a bottom o f an I as the short, straight dow nstroke o f a G ; but such a G would have been without a proper palaeographic parallel (cf. J . S. G o rd o n — A .E . Gordon, Contributions to the Palaeography o f L atin Inscriptions, Berkeley and L o s Angeles 1957, pp. 102 if.; the G o f CIL, X V I, 14 [A D 71] — the ph otograph o f that diploma in CIL, X V I, T . I shows that it stands closest to nn. 7 and 8a in the G o rd o n s’ typology, p. 103 — is quite unlike the letter-traces o f the end o f line 1 int. o f the U trera fragment). A m ong other irregularities, it would have contained, as its vertical, a stroke that, ending rather high and with a serif, does not jo in the curve o f the letter a t all.

que no parecen letras. Y lo que de ninguna manera puede pensarse que diga es [AV] SP IC IA , pues con toda claridad la letra que precedia a la S era una A. Podria pensarse tambien en una M , pero es logicamente mas dificil de admitir... L a transcription correcta, por tanto, de esa primera linea deberia ser A SP IC , pues la filtima letra es, como usted dice, una C y no una G .” In my opinion, this leads to a restoration [ ---- per mea\ a(u)spic(ia) or [----- meis] q(n)spic(iis)969798, though an q(n)spicia9S or [ajuspicia99, perhaps, cannot be completely discarded either. T o interpret the [ ] SIIC as the remain o f a phrase referring to the imperial auspices would be in harmony with epigraphical and historical considerations alike. A s to the former, what has been left from the somewhat crowded and not quite regularly engraved text o f the end o f line 1 int. shows nothing that would contradict the transcription A S P IC (or VSPIC). T h e proposed identification o f the second sign is certain, o f the last two very probable. The extant vertical o f the third sign being low, an (open) P with its curve lost is quite possible, and demanded phonetically (o f course, a S T sequence rem ains a theoretical alternative if the A S IIC is analyzed in abstracto, from the phonetical angle only). I f the om ission o f the V after the A is assumed (the engraver may have m ended it by a subsequent insertion o f a small supralinate letter between the A and the S 100 or by a transformation o f the A into

96 T h ere were two collations, at our request, in the second h alf o f 1991. W e quote from D r. F ernandez’ letter o f October, 30 th. 97 T h e two turns are more or less equivalent. W e prefer the former (on it, e.g. Bannier, T h L L , II [1 9 0 0 -1 9 0 6 ], col. 1547, lines 9-1 0 ), though the less usual, because o f the anal­ ogy o f Babullius’ inscription (line 4), infra. 98 W h at D r. F . Fernandez called “simples araiiazos” (“ciertamente antiguos”!) may still be letter-traces, though engraved shallow and irregular enough. L ine 2 extr. would pro­ vide a parallel for that imperfect writing.

94 A T according to P. L e R oux’s proposal.

99 A ccording to a suggestion by D r. P. Petrović (Archaeological Institute, Belgrade), who has kindly examined the photographs o f the fragment, the trace o f a character visi­ ble before the s o f the S I I C may have belonged to a V too, not an A or an M only, cf. the righthand strokes o f the V s in lines 2 (the first sign o f the numeral, with its seriffed end) and 4 int., w hich are (also) vertical or almost vertical.

95 C f. R M D H Q , p. 227 note 167.

100 C f. e.g. the supralineate additions to the text o f CIL, X V I, 10.

37°

371

31

a ligature A, V101, with the right hasta o f the latter vowel commencing high), it should be probably taken to reflect a vulgar spelling typical o f words beginning in au-102, though the possibility o f a simple slip should be admitted too. Both the forms o f a vulgar language and simple omissions o f letters are frequent in diplomata (the scriptura interior has them even more than the scriptura exterior), including early Flavian examples103. T h e same may be said o f abbreviations, especially in the places which, like theASHC o f the Utrera fragment, combined the end o f a line with the end o f a section o f the document s text104105. A ll this seems the more indicative when we turn to a tentative reconstruction o f the length o f the formulae constituting the main body o f the lex from which the diploma derived. Since the number o f lines o f the entire text o f intus (i.e. on both the tablets o f the Utrera aes) am ounted to c. 32 (tab. I: c. 17, tab. II: c. 15), according to a conservative calculation based on the height o f the fragment (8 cm, with alm ost six lines o f text and a blank space c. 3 cm. high) and the estim ated height o f the complete tablets (c. 17-18 cm )103, our docum ent must have been by several lines longer than the “norm al” praetorian diplomata. (Despite the approximate nature o f that estimate and the differences o f dimensions 106 — possibly also o f the introductory clauses107 — between the Utrera diplom a and CIL, XVI, 21, o f Dec. 2, 76, which is the earliest diplom a for a praetorian whose [“normal”] text has been fully preserved [tab. I

101 Cf. e.g. the ligature N , T in CIL, X V I, 12 (tab. 22 extr., line 9), obviously a subsequent correction o f the vulgar habuisse. 102 Agustus, Are!(!)ius, ascultare etc. H . M ihaescu, L a langue tatine Hans le SnH-est He LEurofe, Paris 1978, p. 185 f. 103 CIL, XV I, pp. 211-213 and 248. 104 E .g. S IN G in CIL, X V I, 16 (extr., line 11), 17 (extr., line 9). 105 Supra, text and note 33. 106 CIL, X V I, 21: H eight 16,6 cm, width 13,6 cm, thickness 0 ,25 cm . T h e U trera di­ ploma: H eight [17-18 cm], width [c. 15,5 cm], thickness 0,2 cm. (tab. II). 107 On the (incompletely known) changes o f formulae concerning the conubium and the troops o f beneficiaries in Vespasian’s praetorian diplomata, R M D H Q , p. 3 2 4 f. (H . Lieb).

extr. and int.], it should be noted that the outer script o f n. 2 1 consists o f no more than 2 1 lines; thus, it markedly contrasts with the total o f c. 32 lines proposed here for the intus o f the Utrera diploma108). Those additional lines are best attributed to a “special” clause similar to, but more developed than, the “hoc quoque iis tribuo” (4 lines long) o f CIL, XV I, 25, and ending in something that may be restored, exempli gratia, \(iis) — qui sunt deducti in Hispaniam/Hispanias (or: in colonias c. R.; or: in colonias municipiave) per mea\ a(u)spic(ia). Variant restorations o f the last words — [---- meis] a(u)spic(iis) / [a]uspic(iis). or [ ----- per mea\ q(u)spicia. / [ajiispicia— would not alter the sense o f the phrase109. A s to the historical considerations, the mention o f the Em peror’s auspicia and its implications presumed to relate to the distribution o f agri to the veterans would well accord, in several respects, with the situation o f the early seventies o f the first century A D . O ur points two and three, dealing with the realities o f the Flavian settlement o f the veteran problem, may be supplemented here through a brief comment on the legal procedure and terminology. Th e text o f the already quoted CIL,

10s q '|1L. numbers o f (the corresponding) lines on the outer and inner faces o f diplomata do not differ importantly in the period under discussion here; the greatest difference in favour o f intus is that o f 5 -6 lines {C IL , X V I, 10; 16) but such cases are exceptional and, not infrequently, the text o f extrinsecus (tab. I) contains the same number o f lines as, or even more lines than, that o f intus {C IL , X V I, 8 ,1 1 ,1 4 ,3 1 ; R M D , 2, etc.). A s the Utrera diplom a had a codex-like arrangement o f the text o f intus (above, note 3), it seem s likely that these numbers were approximately the same. O n the other hand, with their (usu­ ally) sm all letters and narrow intervals dividing the lines, the texts o f tab. 1 extr. can com ­ prise a comparatively large number o f lines, even i f the tablet is not too high; cf. e.g. tab. I (18,6 x 14,8 x 0,15-6,25) o f C I L ,X V I ,2 0 :31 lines; tab. 1 (16,8 χ 13,8 χ 0,1) o ( C IL ,X V I,

38: 31 lines, and others. See also supra, note 35. 10‘’ T h e deductiones were usually to the colonies, but some munkipia (e.g. Vespasian’s ances­ tral Reate [supra, notes 78-8 0 ]) profited from them too. — O n the analogy o f Babullius’ inscription (infra, text and note 114), we might think also o f a [ ---- qui sunt dimissi et deducti----per mea] a(u)qspic{ia). I f that restoration is followed, the reference to the missio o f veterans would imply that the mentions o f auspicia in line 1 had more than one legal point: it stresses the tact that the deductio in question was initiated by the Em peror him self (cf. infra, text and notes 110-112) and, at the same time, legitimizes as it were G . Licinius M ucianus’ lectio praetorii o f A D 70 (supra, text and note 61; infra, note 113).

373

33

XVI, 12-16 is near enough to the restoration o f line 1 int. ju st proposed as it too refers to the deducti (Paestum; in Pannoniam), but it does not cite Vespasian’s auspicia introducing the action o f the deductio. This difference between CIL, X V I, 12—16 and the Utrera diploma (if our interpretation o f the latter is accepted) should not be overstressed, however. T h e deductiones coloniarum and the related viritane deductiones™, when initiated by the central administration o f the Imperium Romanum, had to be perform ed under the auspices o f the Princeps111. T h e official context o f the mention o f deductio in CIL, X V I, 12-16 presupposed that the colonization in question was undertaken on the central initiative (or, in other words, under Vespasian’s auspices); consequently, it did not seem necessary to refer to the auspicia explicitly. T h e “special” clause(s) o f the Utrera bronze probably granted the Lucoferonensis, inter alia, immunity from obligations that otherwise would have arisen from his possession o f the goods he obtained from the.praemia militiae. It was indispensable therefore to make it clear that the immunitas is valid only with regard to the agri received from the Emperor, not those he bought him self, or inherited from his father, or obtained from a city alone, to take an instance o f the less privileged deducticii.112 T h e “special” clause o f

110I.e., in the latter case, those ex beneficio Principis (infra, note 112). T o our knowledge, imperial auspicia are not attested for such viritane deductiones, but they m u st be postulated on the principle that every lex presupposes the auspicium o f the m agistrate in authority. For the adlectio decreto decurionum that would be a m agistrate o f the city in question. 111E . Kornemann, PW , IV (1901), coll. 5 7 0 -5 7 3 . C f. e.g. C IL , V III, 1 4395: col. Septim ia Vaga nomini et auspiciis divinis eorwn (sc. o f Septim ius Severus, C aracalla, and G eta) inlustrataper T. Flavium Decimum procos. c. v. colonia deducta. 112 O n the coloni adlecti decreto decurionum w ithout the E m p ero rs beneficium , see T h . M omm sen, St.-R , ΠΙ, p. 801 note 2. C f. D essau, 6 6 0 4 ,7 0 3 5 etc; contrast 6 8 7 5 ,6 9 3 3 etc. — It should be noted that the “special” clauses o f the Utrera diplom a regulated th e privi­ leges o f all the beneficiaries o f the corresponding constitution, in clu ding th o se born out­ side o f Italy and the coloniae c. R. (i.e. those whose fam ily estates did n o t co n stitute ager immunis; the lands they bought themselves or recieved, viritim , fro m a municipium usu­ ally belonged to the same, non-privileged category). W e are perm itted to a ssu m e that Vespasian’s main motive for restricting the im munitas to the “q u o s agro s a me ... acceperint” (C IL, X V I, 25; ~ the Utrera docum ent?) w as to induce th e d ip lo m a recipi­ ents to go to their new domiciles, and so endorse the S tate’s p rogram m e o f colonization.

374

CIL, X V I, 2 5 makes the same distinction, in a simpler way: quos agros a me (sc. Vespasiano) acceperint... sint immunes. Moreover, a rather well known document from Paestum, close in time and content to the Utrera diploma, seems to have also referred to Vespasian’s auspicia in connection with the colonization o f veterans. Though that reference could not have had the legal point here assumed for the stipulation o f line 1 int.113, other similarities o f the two texts are so important that the Paestan parallel deserves to be quoted. It is found in lines 2 -4 o f the inscription o f P. Babullius, who was i.a. procurator) divi Vespajsiani / [missus ad agro]s dividendos veteranis qui su[nt dimissi et] deductji] /4 [c. 10 letters] a eius in colonia Flaviaprim a Paesti™. Babullius’ mission pertained to the same Flavian foundation as the deductio which is mentioned in the diplomata o f A D 71 for the M isene Fleet; what interests us here is the lacuna o f line 4 in., left without a restoration by previous editors. W e propose (qui su[nt ---- ] deductpD [per auspicija eius, i.e. o f the [divus Vespa]sianus o f line 2 fin.; both the sense o f the whole context and the space available at the beginning o f line 4 are concordant with that proposal. T h us established, the (pardonably ungrammatical)115* phrasing o f lines 3 -4 provides links — still eloquent if not very specific — with the texts o f diplomata analyzed in the present

113 Lines 3 - 4 o f BabuUius’ inscriptkm imply the well-known dual notion ductu legati (i.e. o f a man lacking the ins aitspiciorum and collaborating with Babullius, whose task constituted from the divisio agrorum only) — auspiciis Imperatoris, without citing its former part (on the legati replacing the founders o f colonics, Kornemann, loc. cit. [supra, note 111], col. 570 f.). U nder the auspices o f the Emperor, the legate’s action probably consisted from both the missio and the deductio o f the Italian fleet veterans o f A D 7 0-71; on G . Licinius M ucianus and the end o f line 1 int. o f the Utrera fragment see above, note 109. 114 L . K eppie’s text (loc. cit. [supra, note 63], p. 99), better than that o f the previous edi­ tions (M . M ello — G . V oza, Le iscrizioni latine di Paestum, I—II, N apoli 1968, p. 128 n. 86; Λ Ερ, 1 9 7 5 ,2 5 1 ; cf. R M D H Q , p. 301 f. [G . Forni]; P M E , B , l,w ith refs.). W e print it with the i o f line 3 fin. bracketed and with several letters dotted (cf. the fac-sim ile o f the inscription published in L . Keppie, loc. cit. [supra, note 63], p. 100). A lso, our esti­ mate o f the length o f the lacuna o f line 4 in. is slightly different; a com parison with line 3 in. suggests th at it contained som e ten, not nine, letters. W e have not see the stone itself. 1,5 In a letter o f Novem ber, 1985, the late Professor G . Forni kindly warned the present author that, strictly, the eius should have m eant BabuUii, not Vespasiani.

375

34

35

paper {CIL, XVI, 25: agri; 12-16: deduct!, the Utrera fragment: [per...] q(u)spic(iq) o f the Emperor); an [indulgentija eius (vel sim.) would be certainly less attractive. And it is worth pointing out that the theme o f the imperial augurate — connoting the imperial auspicia among other things — was topical enough under Vespasian to appear in a series o f coin-reverses that starts in A D 70 precisely116. ★ To sum up. The text o f the Utrera fragm ent may be read and restored as follows: intus117: ----] / [ --- per tnea] a(u)spic(ia). / [----- {c. 17—18 letters: the recipients praenomen, nomen, filiation, tribe — probably, Vol{tinia) — and cognomen, in the genitive rather than dative) ---- . Coh(ortis)] VIIII, ex e(quite ?) r(evocato ?). / [Luco Ferojniae. / [Descript(um) et recognit(mn) e]x tabula ae/5 [nea quae fix a est Romae in] Capitolio/[ad aram in podio(?) dexjteriore.

extrinsecus118: T(abula) IIpq[g(ina) --- ] / M . Attius L o [ ---- ] / [ ---36

The date o f the diploma is probably A D 70 (spring?); it certainly cannot be earlier than Galbas reign or later than c. A D 73.

116 RIC, Π, London 1926, p. 15 η. 1, p. 18 f. nn. 2 9 - 3 0 ,4 2 , p. 2 3 n. 80, p. 3 0 n. 137 = B M C C . Rom. Emp., II, London 1930, p. 8 n. 48, p. 9 nn. 4 9 -5 3 , p. 11 n. 64, p. 2 6 n. 144 p. 56 n. 326, p. 60 nn. 1-2. Probably, Vespasian’s stress upon the form ality o f auspicia was inspired, in this connection, by his wish to imitate the precedents o f the R epublican and Augustan colonization (cr. Keppie, Ioc. cit. [supra, note 63], p. 106). 117 For the variant readings/restorations o f line 1 see above, text and n otes 9 7 - 9 9 109; o f line 2, text and notes 10,22,24; o f line 4. text and note 25; o f line 6, text and notes 2 7 ,3 9 ([latere] being an alternative for the [in podio?]·, though not probable, a restoration [exjteriore is also possible). In line 2, the [coh.] may be expanded in the nom inative too. 118 For the restorations o f line 1 see above, text with notes 31 and 3 2 ; o f line 2 and the following, text with notes 4 7-49. 376

T h e Lucoferonensis ended his life, in Spain, as a veteranus deducticius, and his aes must have recorded, among other things, the privileges (e.g. immunitas) granted to him in that connection. It is hard to say whether its conubiutn clause — if engraved, as expected, in the lost parts o f the diptychon in the traditional form 119 mentioning the feminae peregrinae but not the feminae Latin i iuris — was understood as implying that the recipient obtained i.a. the right o f matrimonium iustum with women o f Latin status120, who were soon to become (after A D 73) rather numerous in the vicinity o f his new domicile121. It should be added, finally, that thanks to its line int. 1 the fragment throws some light on the development o f the so-called special formulae typical o f the constitutions issued from A D 68 to A D 72 approximately. T o put it simply, the clause ending with line 1 int. o f the Utrera bronze (if we understand it correctly) may illustrate — when compared with the whole of the known produc­ tion o f that period — their tendency to become increasingly shorter and less specific, and to disappear eventually. It may also help us to explain certain modalities, as well as reasons, o f that process. A s concluded in the foregoing discussion, it seems that the “special” formula o f the Utrera document was, legally and otherwise, similar to, but less laconic than, the immunitas formula o f CIL, X V I, 25 (Dec. 30, A D 72 ?). Differing from both — particularly from the earlier o f them, the more developed,— CIL, X V I, 18, issued probably for an Urbanicianus on M ay 30, 73 (?), shows no “special” clause in the lines preceding the names o f the consular pair and the diploma’s recipient. Th at absence o f “special” prescriptions — an absence common to all the later diplomata of the City' soldiers — is all the more surprising as the military record (a member o f a cohort Urbana with merits for the Flavianae partes) and the post-missio status (a veteranus deducticius probably given

119 C f. R M D H Q , pp. 223 note 1 5 1 ,2 2 4 f. note 156 (S. Dušanić). 120 Roxan, loc. cit. (supra, note 44), p. 272 f; alitcr, RIvlDHQ, p. 223 (S. Dušanić). 121 Above, note 69.

377

37

the immimitas among other privileges) o f the recipient o f CIL, XVI, 18 must have been close enough to those o f the bearers o f the two praetorian bronzes just mentioned and the other beneficiaries o f their constitutions. After all, the missio agraria (+ immunitas etc.) must be assumed for many o f the later aere incisi from the class formed by the praetoriani-Urbaniciani122. Such a state o f affairs brings us back to our previous hypothesis that the “special” clauses known from certain, comparatively rare, diplomata — praetorian as well as auxiliary and naval — cited the privileges which, in fact, were obtained by the aere incisi much oftener than the record o f diplomata themselves attests123. T o paraphrase the hypothesis briefly, the “special” clauses usually appear in diplomata in the immediate sequel o f w hat we have called the events qualifying the soldiers with many stipe?idia, and/or the dimissi honesta missione, for the aere incisio124. There were two reasons for that concentration in time. First, the propaganda value o f the constitutions exhibited in the C apitol and their copies distributed to the soldiers/veterans throughout the Empire was much greater in a period during which the qualifying events (mosdy victories in war) and their reflections in the “special” clauses were still topical. Second, it was more convenient to issue such constitutions, with the lists o f their beneficiaries, at a time when the categories o f soldiers/dimissi obtaining specific privileges were numerous enough; it should be remarked that there was usually a possibility for a candidate for a diploma to choose am ong several sorts o f praemia125, which may have resulted in several types o f “special” clauses for the recipients o f the diplomata rewarding participants in the same qualifying events and consequently increase the number o f constitutions and shorten their nam e-lists to still a

higher degree. Later, the administration in Rome would have been compelled, if it continued to issue, over many years, particular constitutions with “special” clauses for the candidates to diplo­ mata sharing one qualifying event (by now devoid o f publicity) and one choice o f praemia, to produce systematically leges for no more than one or two men. Such a state o f affairs was not imaginable as a lasting practice★126. Instead o f accepting it, the administration preferred to revert to the constitutions with the “normal” wording (which could unite i.a. those whose claim to diplomata rested on different qualifying events) and leave the grant o f “special” privileges to be certified by personal docu­ ments127. Corollaries o f diplomata, those documents were acces­ sible to the aere incisi only but were usually written on perishable materials, cheaper than bronze128. I f the Utrera fragment alone does not suffice to confirm our reconstruction o f the diachronic relationship between the so-called normal and special issues, it nevertheless adds some weight to the reasoning summarized above. The hypothetical element in its restoration is not as important as it may seem; the comparative material provided by diplomata — the relative regularity o f their formulae being especially helpful in this matter — and other inscriptions, as well as the indirect testimony o f the fragm ent’s provenance, suggest with a fair amount o f plausibility that it is early Vespasianic and “special”. On the other hand, various types 129 o f overtly “special” diplomata, naval and auxiliary, reflecting the wars o f the later Flavian and the Antonine epochs130, not only support our thesis that “special” issues tend to be frequent

126 F o r a partial exception see CIL, X V I, 38 and 40 (dimisso). ★

127 R M D H Q , p. 227 f. (S. D ušanić), on two complementary decrees o f Pompeius Strabo (IL LR P , 515).

122 Above, notes 74 and 80.

128 C f C P L , 103 f. = D aris, 100 and 104.

123 Dušanić, locc. citt. (supra, note 75: pp. 7 3 0 -7 3 5 , and, especially, R M D H Q , pp. 213-229). 123 R M D H Q , p. 217 note 118.

128 Branching into “two-province” diplom ata (C IL , X V I, 28; R M D , 9 f; CIL, X V I, 61; R M D , 21 f.) and those explicitly referring to the recipients’ war record and/or special privileges (C IL , X V I, 160; 60; 99; R M D , 53; C IL, X V I, 132).

125 Ibid. p. 228 note 175.

130 R M D H Q , pp. 208 ff.

37«

379

38

39

in the years which closely follow the qualifying events but also show that such a practice had its permanent logic. T h e circumstance that no overtly “special” diploma for the praetorians is known from the post-Vespasianic period does not deny the essence o f that conclusion. Obviously, the stipulations regulating the questions o f the veterans’ agri (+ immunitas etc.) became traditionally reserved for the personal documents. A s to the more exclusive additional privileges o f the praetorian acre incisi (som e o f those additional rights may have been cited by the U trera diplom a before the agri + immunitas clause, to judge by the high number o f the extra lines o f intus)131, the possibility o f their sporadic recurrence in diplomata must be admitted. T h e year o f the Four Emperors with its immediate postcedents was alm ost unique in the masive engagement o f the Guard. L ater occasions o f a similar nature will have produced documents with similar form ulae but much rarer and consequently less likely to be preserved and discovered by the moderns132. Also, the organization and the effectives o f the Guard, ad well as the phrasing o f the praetorian constitutions, were such that, by themselves, they excluded the usage o f certain formulae which, in auxiliary and fleet bronzes, reveal “special” occasions behind a specific grant (e.g. the formulae o f the “two-province” diplomata). The diplomata o f A D 68-71 distributed to soldiers other than those from the City troops seem to confirm the foregoing comments on two points.

131 On the wide scope o f possibilities for those more exclusive rew ards for the (cx-) praetonans distinguished service see R M D H Q , pp. 4 8 -1 1 5 (H . W o lff). T o b egin with, the simple immunitas clause such as found in C IL , X V I, 2 5 w as susceptible o f b eing d e­ veloped to cover the recipient s family and posterity; H . W o lff rightly ob serves a propos o f it: “Am interessantesten ist daran, dass diese im m un itas nicht fur kiinftige Erwerbungen gait und offensichtlich auch nicht erblich w ar oder Fam ilienm itglied er einschloss” {R M D H Q , p. 105). 132 Domitian’s expedition which brought M oderatus his second dona m ilitaria m ay have been such an occasion. — Cf. R M D , 124, line 9 extr. (with the ed ito r’s note 4 ) and, on the other hand the diplomata for the Equites Sin gu la rs — their late debut an d their rela­ tive frequency within the short period o f the reigns o f Severus A lex an d er and M aximinus Thrax {K M D H Q , p. 190 f. note 4).

There is an eloquent contrast between the fact that Galba’s constitution for I Adiutrix has left four copies published so far, and the absence o f analogous documents later than A D 68 133. A similar, i f less marked, contrast can be observed in the case o f Vespasian’s diplomata for the men from II Adiutrix134, which likewise have no extant equivalent from later times. Obviously, the ex-classici from these two legions who received their honesta missio with the accompanying rights after 68 and 70 respectively were much less numerous than the beneficiaries o f the constitutions o f G alba and Vespasian just quoted 135 — nothing to say o f the circumstance that the events o f 68-69 gradually lost their propaganda value136. It is even possible that the ex-classici in question received, instead o f diplomata, tabellae honestae missionis and related documents as the political importance o f their units and military' record diminished after c. A D 73. T h e deducti-formula o f CIL, X V I, 12-16, strikingly short, has no legal relevance within the texts o f the corresponding constitutions as transmitted through those diplomata. The quorum nomina subscripta sunt clause, referring to the Capitol list o f the names o f sailors for whom the constitutions were issued sufficed to define the circles o f the beneficiaries, and the beneficiaries themselves, o f those laws. W e are therefore permit­ ted to suppose that an aspect o f the t/cvzWz-formula used there was connected with the propaganda o f the Flavian victory and colonization137. But it may be also understood as an allusion to the instrument^ spoken o f above, written in materials cheaper than bronze and regulating the recipients’personal rights to thepraemia

133 Supra, note 28. 133 C IL , X V I, 10 f. 135 C f. R M D H Q , p. 192 note 11 (S. D ušanić). N ote that CIL, X V I, 9, refers to tab. II, pug. V, loc X V III, and that analogous references, im plying extensive grants too, arc met w ith in nn. 10 {tab. I, pag. I, loco X X V ) and 11 {tab. I, pag. V, loc. ΧΧΧΧΙΙΙΓ). 136 O n the loci constitutionum jix a ru m after A D 74 and their political m essages, S. D u šan ić, loc. cit. (supra, note 41), pp. 93 ff. (esp. 106-108). 137 S ee above, notes 4 1 ,6 8 , and 86.

3«i 3 80

40

41

militiae. Strictly speaking, the