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

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

Henrik Mouritsen

ELECTIONS, MAGISTRATES AND MUNICIP AL ELITE Studies in Pompeian Epigraphy

»L'ERMA« DI BRETSCHNEIDER ROMA MCMLXXXVIII

!

-~

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

. . . . . . . .

125 160 180 215 217 217 219 223

!

)

~

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

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

.....

...... 7

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

•

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

.......

...... 9

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

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

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

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

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

.....

'

,I

.t

13

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

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

•

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

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

~-

......

I!

"'

II

15

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

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

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

~-

.....

!

I I

17

II

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

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

18

Electoral inscriptions The centrat argument, and the only explicitly formulated one, in Della Corte's identifications of occupants in Case ed abitanti is his theory of identity between persons who feature as supporters in an electoral notice outside a house and the occupants of it. This principle is laid down as a fixed rule, and governs more than four-fifths of all Della Corte's identifications of Pompeian occupants. As a kind of proof of this hypothesis, five examples are examined, in which, according to Della Corte, there is a concordance between electoral supporters and the occupants of the house on which the inscriptions are placed. 59 This is more in the nature of a postulate than a proof, and a generat investigation of the relation between the placement of the inscriptions and the residence of the supporters will therefore be undertaken, in order to test Della Corte's theory. A check of this kind can be carried out partly by finding the rogatores whose residence can be identified with certainty and comparing this with the position of the electoral posters, and partly by comparing the placement of the inscriptions in those cases where there are several electoral appeals from the same person, since any discrepancies here would indicate that some of the inscriptions are not on the rogator's own house. The identification of a supporter's house will be considered sufficiently certain , firstly, if corroborative material, primarily amphora inscriptions and seal stamps, in which the same name as in the recommendation is found in the same house , secondly, if m1merous recommendations from the same person are found on one and the same house, or thirdly, if archaeological remains that confirm indications of profession in the inscriptions are also extant. Electoral inscriptions in which a person is encouraged to support a candidate are utilized by Della Corte in the same way as the rogator inscriptions. As nothing suggests that any difference exists between the placement of these inscriptions and that of the aforementioned type, they are considered here tobe equivalent to the rogator inscriptions. In considering whether an inscription is deviantly placed in relation to the electoral supporter's dwelling, the main rule here is that the inscription be placed on another insula fa<_;ade than the one where the rogator lived or clearly at a distance from his own house fa<_;ade. When the criteria outlined above are employed, 21 rogatores can be placed with reasonable certainty. They recommend or are called on 67 tim es altogether; 14 or 67% of these rogatores have posters on other houses than their own , and this group of inscriptions makes up 22 or 33% of all their notices. 60 Corresponding information can be obtained from those rogatores who recommend or are canvassed several times, without their residence being known. lf their posters are spread over several insulae , it is clear that one or more of them must be on houses other than the rogator's own. As the rogator's address is unknown, it is not possible to decide which inscriptions are "correctly"

.._

-..

19

placed, and which anomalously, and the investigation can therefore reveal only how many of these supporters have posters on other people's houses. The investigation comprises 52 rogatores, who recommend or are appealed to several times, and whose inscriptions can all be securely placed. The inscriptions of 19 of these, or 37%, spread over several houses or insulae. 61 These investigations thus show that almost half, or 45% , feature as rogatores on house fa<;;ades otber tban tbeir own. From tbis one must tberefore conclude tbat it is not possible with sufficient certainty to equate occupation witb placement: in other words, Della Corte's rogator rule is not a valid procedure for establisbing occupant identifications. Della Corte also uses tbe programmata to identify the candidates' residence. This occurs by means of the notices in which vicini declare their support, the house on which the inscription is placed being in several instances interpreted as the candidate's own. However, if we investigate tbose cases in which the candidate recommended by vicini can be placed with reasonable certainty, we find that only one out of a total of ten of tbeir inscriptions is at the bouse that seems to be tbe candidate's own. 62 The others are found in tbe vicinity of their houses or at a great distance from them. Among the non-placeable candidates tbere are also two who are supported by vicini on different insulae , and tbree whose neighbours' recommendations are found at several different sites in the town; in this case it might be wondered whether the neigbbours in question were those of the candidate's relatives and not of the candidate himself. 63 It must be concluded that vicinal recommendations are no reliable indicatiOI:t of where the candidates lived. The result of this examination of the source types employed can thus be summarized as follows: the source material must be generally described as far less suited to furnisb information on tbe identity of tbe occupants of the individual houses than Della Corte believed, and none of tbe sources is so reliable that a single indication, without corroboration from other sources, can warrant a definite occupant identification. By far the majority of Della Corte's identifications must on this basis be rejected as spurious.

Della Corte's methods Tbe next part of our examination of Case ed abitanti will consist of a scrutiny and evaluation of Della Corte's relation to the sources and his metbods of establishing occupant identifications. This will take the form of an analysis of some of the most important features and tendencies in the book. An important feature of Della Corte's principal work is his failure to understand the elementary principles of prosopograpby, as exemplified in bis collation of name elements found in different inscriptions and bis identification of Pompeians on tbe basis of a single preserved onomastic element. When a fa<;;-

20 ade features two independe nt name elements in different reco mmendations, for example Fabia and Prima on 1,6, 15, or where a nomen has been found inside a house and a cognomen in an electoral notice outside it, Della Corte collates the two names and by this means identifies a Fabia Prima and 39 other Pompeians with both nome n and cognomen. 64 The method is formally based on his theory of the placement of electoral inscriptions on the houses of the rogatores, which has been rejected above as both undocumented and spurious. Even if the hypothesis were correct, it wot,.dd not justify such a procedure , since there might have been several families, and thus different gentilicia, occupying the same house. Della Corte also makes identifications of Pompeians on the basis of a single name element. When he encounters an unusual cognomen or nomen , e.g. Libella, and a person of this name is known through other sources, in this case M. Alleius Luccius Libella, who occurs inter alia in a funerary inscription, he simply identifies the bearer of the name with this person , reasoning that he is the only one with this name known to us from Pompeii. 65 In this manner, several known Pompeians are placed on the Pompeian map. 66 As we know only a small part of the inhabitants of Pompeii through the epigraphical material, we cannot make such deductions, and the consequent identifications must be rejected as undocumented. Characteristic of Case ed abitanti is also Della Corte's arbitrary and selective relationship to his sources. This is manifested in a large number of sourcesnot being meJJtioned in the treatment of the individual houses. It is thus impossible to form a correct picture of the extent and composition of the source material pertinent to the individual identifications from the evidence set out in Case ed abitanti. Della Corte selects his sources and omits not only to justify this, but eve n to state that any selection has taken place. This procedure is particularly marked where graffiti are involved , since many more graffito inscriptions in the individual houses than those mentioned by Della Corte are frequently extant. In V ,2,i, for example, a certain Spendusa is identified on the basis of two graffiti, one found in the house and one on a fa<;ade opposite the house. 67 The reliability of this occupant identification is considerably weakened when it can be shown that this house has yielded no less than 19 different names in graffiti , of which some are repeated several times, one moreover on the same insula fa<;ade as Spendusa. 68 This omission of material that could sow doubt about Della Corte's identification can also be detected in his treatment of the amphora inscriptions with names in the dative. Examples of inscriptions passed over in silence are 9612 to C. Valerius Rufus and 9421 to Pompeius Priscus, since they are found in I,6,2 and I,10,4 respectively, in which Della Corte places the gens Lucretia and the gens Poppaea .69 A similar omission of source material occurs when De11a Corte fails to mention that the name of a person placed in one spot also occurs in others. Thus, L. Laelius Trophimus, who on the basis of a seal stamp. is placed in VI ,7,23, is also mentioned in a graffito in III,14. 70 Nor is the amphora inscription 5862, naming Marcius Fortunatus as recipient,

~-

.... 21 mentioned: this must be due to the fact that he is placed in the vicinity of 1,8,15 on the basis of a dipinto 7309, and that in VI,15,6, where the amphora was found, an A. Caesius Valens and a N. Herennius Nardus were identified as occupants by Della Corte on the basis of two seal stamps. 71 It should also be remarked that Della Corte's relationship to his source material is marked by inconsistency and Iack of systematic approach. The same type of source is interpreted at one moment in one way and at the next in another. The vicinal inscriptions are used both to argue that the candidate recommended by his neighbours lived near the inscription and that he occupied the very hause where it was found. 72 Nor does Della Corte seem to notice that several candidates are recommended by their neighbours at several different places in the city. 73 His admittedly sporadic use of amphora inscriptions in which the name is in the genitive is also a sign of inconsistency towards the sources ,74 and the same applies to the seal stamp impressions on the walls, which are generally rejected , but nevertheless utilized in one case. 75 His aforementioned quite unsystematic nomination of owners, tenants and freedmen on the basis of seal stamps must also be accounted an example of inconsistency. 76 This is, however, most obvious in Della Corte's relationship to the electoral inscriptions and rogatores, since he is often obliged here to refer to posters placed "opposite", "beside", "near" the hause, etc., apparently without causing him to doubt the value of his rogator rule. The purpose of Case ed abitanti is to Iist the occupants of particular Pompeian houses. But Della Corte does not seem to have considered when these people lived in the houses, and his Iack of chronological insight or discrimination seriously detracts from the value of the book. 77 For Della Corte, ancient Pompeii appears to have been a place without a past, and every inscription is regarded as a source on the situation in the year 79 AD. Nowhere does he enquire whether an inscription could be from an earlier period, and it is among other things this implicit belief that the sources are in principle contemporaneous that provides the rationale for his combination of independent inscriptions and names. 78 Amphorae , graffiti and signacula could, however, have been preserved over a Ionger period, and although the electoral inscriptions must generally be dated to the city's final c. 10-17 years, there is no certainty that the houses were occupied by the same people throughout this period. 79 lt cannot therefore be ruled out that persans placed by Della Corte in the same hause and called busband and wife or master and slave/freedman, never actually met, since they occupied it at different periods. Among the most suspect of Della Corte's methods for the establishment of occupant identifications is his Iack of fidelity to the sources themselves and his manipulated references to them . This is apparent bothin his conjectural restorations of fragmentary inscriptions, and in his sometimes spurious additions to them. His restorations of lacunae not infrequently alter the entire character of the inscription, for example by adding a "rogat/nt" to an inscription where

•

22 nothing suggests that it is an electoral notice. A generat feature is also the insertion of names of which there is no trace in the inscription itself and which rest entirely on his a priori theory of the occupants' identity. 80 These inscription supplementations are usually given in parenthesis, but since elementary explanations of, for instance, abbreviations too are placed in parenthesis, it is often difficult to evaluate whether Della Corte's addition is justified by the inscription or is merely an attempt to fit the inscription to his theory. The incorrect renderings of inscriptions are not nearly so frequent as the tendentious restorations, but are important as testimonies to the quality of Della Corte's scholarship. They arenot just the casual inaccuracies which few works of the size of Case ed abitanti can avoid, but deliberate attempts to fit thc material to his a priori hypothesis of who lived in particular houses. Among the most significant examples is the rendering of 1048, which in CIL reads: "Q·P·P·IUVENEM/ AED·OVF-D·R·P· / SABINUS·ROG·COPO", but by Della Corte is cited: "Q P P (M. Epidius) Sabinus rog(at) 0 copo Prime". 8 1 The inscription was found in IX,1 ,16-17, and the addition is due to Della Corte having identified as the Iandlord of th~ caupona IX,1,15-16 a Primus, who occu.rs in 953 and 966, and to his having nominated the known magistrate M. Epidius Sabinus as occupant of IX,1 ,20. By adding the exhortation " 0 copo Prime", Della Corte manages both to install the said Primus as owner of the tavern and show that Sabinus, despite the placement of the inscription, does not belong to the caupona, but may weil be Epidius in IX,1,20. Similar manipulations of the material occur, for instance by conflating two independent inscriptions into one, or placing them elsewhere than indicated in C/L.82

Another kind of manipulation may be observed in Della Corte's arrangement of the material. In dealing with the occupants of the !arge establishment Casa del Citarista, 1,4,5 , which has several entrances from different sides of the insula, the indications for his identification of LL. Popidii Secundus et Ampliatus as owners of the house are first discussed in detail, and then , after dealing with several other houses, it is mentioned that there must also have been a Iodger in the house, since a seal stamp for L. Rapinasius Optatus has been found. Several pages further on Della Corte finally reaches the Casa del Citarista's last entrance 1,4,28, and installs in this part of the house a Q. Octavius Romulus, who is named in another seal stamp found in the central peristyle of the house. By arranging the source material in this manner, Della Corte precludes a confrontation of his identification of the Domus Popidiorum with contrary indications. Theseare presented only at a later stage, after the house and its owners have beendealt with ; they thus acquire by implication the character of insignificant sources. 83 It can be concluded after this analysis of Case ed abitanti that the work is marred

by such considerable methodological weaknesses that its status as a work of

...

,

...

..... 23 schalarship must be seriously questioned. The dubious prosopographical method, the selective, inconsistent and to some extent unfaithful relation to the sources and the chronologically one-dimensional picture of Pompeii as a place without a past, clearly demonstrate Della Corte's inadequate understanding of some of the basic principles of scholarship. 84 This special methodological approach has also determined the form and nature of the entire book. The investigation of Pompeii's inhabitants does not seem to have been motivated by a wish to examine the possibilities of identifying and locating these and thereby to attain a deeper understanding of the make-up and living conditions of the community. Nowhere isanegative result admitted or a word of caution offered about the limitations of the material. Nor is any overall objective in undertaking these occupant identifications, which are never subjected to a synthesizing analysis, apparent. Della Corte is primarily interested in telling entertaining stories, and the identifications are therefore kept on a personal Ievel and are often almost of an anecdotal nature. Among the subjects may be mentioned schoolchildren and their teachers, tavern life, the rich Jewish freedman, club life , the infatuated mayor, the baker and his lawyer brother,85 and this form was chosen because it was the only one giving Della Corte the opportunity to display his special narrative talent. His intellect was not analytical, but anecdotal, and his strong pointwas his vivid imagination, which allowed him to create a living Pompeii on the basis of very slender sources. Della Corte's true vocation seems therefore rather to have been that of the author, and his ambition to be a scholar a misjudgement of his own abilities, which was to have adverse consequences for Pompeian studies as a whole.

.I

Della Corte as an epigraphist If we go on to examine Della Corte's contribution to Pompeian epigraphy, it must be acknowledged that he here occupies a central position and more than any other person in this century has left his mark on this discipline. Practically all Pompeian inscriptions found between c. 1905 and 1962 passed through his hands, 86 and he undertook both their provisional publication in Notizie degli Scavi and their definitive publication in Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. A considerable part of the inscriptions are graffiti, and these constitute a special branch of epigraphy, on account of the quite special problems attending their reading and interpretation. Della Corte's treatment of this type of inscription has never been properly investigated, but it is nevertheless clear that he was not the authority on graffiti which he was believed tobe, both by his contemporaries and by himself. Although Della Corte's reputation as a Pompeian scholar thus to a large extent rested on his work in this field, he was, as H. Solin established in his thorough review of the posthumous 4th part of CIL IV suppl:

]·

I

24 III, unable to bring the necessary philological and historical expertise to bear on the wall inscriptions. 87 This belated recognition of his inadequacy is particularly regrettable with respect to the incised inscriptions: not only have many of them subsequently disappeared, but they are also very difficult to decipher, even for experienced epigraphists. lt may thus be noted that even Mau and Sogliano could very often seriously disagree in the reading and interpretation of graffiti, 88 and in the very few cases in which other archaeologists and epigraphists had access to Della Corte's field of work , they frequently achieved quite different results. 89 lt has to be acknowledged how very unfortunate it is for Pompeian studies that the inscriptions, from the time when they were found to the time when they were finally published, were in !arge part never read and interpreted by other scholars than Della Corte himself. As far as the painted inscriptions are concerned, matters are somewhat different. With the graffito inscriptions the problern is quite basic: whether the inscription should be read and understood as CIL states. By contrast, the uncertainty with the dipinti is more a question of Della Corte's conjectural restorations of the inscriptions and commentaries on them. This is due to their different type of script and formalized and uniform character, which make them much easier to read. Della Corte's restorations of dipinti in CIL are problematic in terms not only of the actual quality of the restorations but also of the way in which they are rendered. With respect to the publication form, it is regrettable that the common bracket system, which clearly shows what is legible , what is uncertain, and what has entirely disappeared, is not employed. Instead, italics are used both to indicate uncertainties in reading and pure interpolations; it is therefore often difficult to decide where the Iegihle part of the inscription stops and where Della Corte's supplementations start. There may also be doubts as to the extent to which the restorations are based on extant fragments. 90 This problem, which is serious enough in itself, is compounded when the foundation on which Della Corte bases his restorations is investigated. lt is often not a matter of completion of elementary abbreviations or the reinstatement of easily recognizable names, but of actual additions, which originated solely in Della Corte's own .theories on Pompeian prosopography. It may be an attempt to fit the inscriptions to his occupant identifications, or to make them conform with his ideas about what candidates ran together in the election campaign. 91 Apart from errors in restoration of this kind, there are also a number which are simply due to Iack of forethought and thoroughness; theseinter alia take the form of wrong identifications of the inscriptions' candidates and offices. 92 The commentaries on the inscriptions must generally be described as entirely unacceptable for a publication of this kind , since they do not follow the usual practice of merely giving references and briet explanations, but often take the form of resumes of the occupant identifications proposed in Case ed abitanti and are as such unusable. 93 Della Corte, in other words , has been unable to keep separate his publication of the inscriptioris and his inter-

""'"

25

pretations of them, and it is partly to make amends for this serious deficiency in CIL IV suppL III, that the second part of the present publication undertakes a revision of and commentary on the electoral notices. Della Corte's epigraphical work too must thus be termed unsatisfactory, since he lacked the necessary expertise in palaeography and textual criticism, nor had he any understanding of what a scientific publication of inscriptions ought to involve. 94 It has thus been established that Della Corte's epigraphical and historical work

as a whole is of a calibre requiring that it be treated with the greatest caution. The Ievel of schalarship is generally unacceptable, and as a scholar and epigraphist Della Corte must be termed an amateur in both senses of the word: he was distinguished by both the dilettante's enthusiasm and his Iack of scientific training and discipline. Della Corte nevertheless reaped great recognition from his Pompeian research. But I believe that his reputation as an epigraphist to a great extent rested on the fact that there were simply no other epigraphists working in Pompeii at the time. After 1910, he was practically alone in collecting inscriptions in Pompeii, which became, as it were, hisprivate preserve. Nor was there anyone to check his transcriptions , or be aware of- stillless question- his Iack of qualifications. 95 The general endorsement of his prosopographical and historical theories can, as far as the acceptance of their scholarly quality goes, also be explained by the unique character of Pompeian epigraphy as a one-man enterprise, since no one eise had his profound knowledge of the sources or was able to spot the many inconsistencies , manipulations and errors which mar his work. In order to understand thoroughly the background for the spread of his ideas, we must take a Iook at the development which occurred within Pompeian research during this period, and of which Della Corte's activity has been considered apart. Around 1910, there was, as mentioned earlier, an important development in Pompeian studies in the fields of history and archaeology. Since Fiorelli's time, schalarship had mainly been devoted to the collection, registration and systematization of the material, but during these years, the antiquarian phase was superseded by a new direction in research. Interest centred now on Pompeii as a source of information on the ordinary Roman 's daily life, his material conditions , and the cultural and political environment in which he lived. The centrat characteristic of this new wave, which has subsequently been called the Pompeianist tradition , was thus a desire to gain insight into how people in antiquity exemplified by the inhabitants of Pompeii had lived and thought. The aim of almost all research in this periodwas to capture that special aspect of Pompeii which was called "umanita pompeiana" .96 This fascination with Pompeii as a human document could sometimes become directly sentimentalizing, but this was not peculiar to Pompeian research at the time and does not alter the fact

26

that the scientific foundation of the tradition was generally impeccable and in no way weaker than that of its later critics. With its concentration on the individual and stress on Pompeii as a source on man , it was, however, contrary to the basic attitude of the Pompeianist tradition to investigate social structures and to synthesize results; only in a few areas was a coherent overall picture of life in the city obtained .97 Against this background, the immediate popularity and wide distribution of the Case ed abitanti articles was perfectly understandable, since with their listing of named Pompeians' houses, family relations, occupations, religion, etc., they touched on the basic idea behind the Pompeianist tradition, namely the isolation and characterization of the individual citizen of Pompeii. This explains at the sametime why Della Corte has been confused with the tradition, although with his quite special approach to the sources, he really stood apart from it. The distinction between on the one hand the Pompeianist tradition as this is represented by among others Magaldi, Maiuri and Spinazzola, and Della Corte on the other, is in my opinion important for an understanding of the development of Pompeian studies. Della Corte was, as I have attempted to establish here, a unique phenomenon in Pompeian studies, and simply because of his special position, he cannot be identified with the Pompeianist trad ition, nor can his weaknesses be laid at its door. On the contrary, Della Corte created his own independent tradition in Pompeian studies, a tradition which lives on, and the existence of which, I believe, is the real reason for what has been called " Ia decadere degli studi pompeiani" .98 It can be defined as a research tradition which bases itself partly on Della Corte's ideas and theories , and partly perpetuates his special methods and perception of the sources. The utilization of Della Corte's results as a basis for their own investigations is a widespread practice among many scholars, and the quality of these results must seriously diminish the value of their research . Several of Della Corte's successors, however, not only build on his results but embrace the same methods and principles on which Case ed abitanti is based. The same tendency to draw extensive and imaginative conclusions from a sparse and ambiguous source material can thus recurrently be found. This occurs inter alia by preferring the more complex to the moresimple conclusions, by drawing generat conclusions from isolated examples and by generally overestimating the importance and extent of the phenomenon being treated. Della Corte's influence can be traced, however, not merely among his own adherents but also among scholars representing "modern Pompeian research", who have otherwise disavowed his approach. This applies first and foremost to P. Castren, since many parallels can be drawn between his and Della Corte's Pompeian research. In Castren's principal work Ordo Populusque Pompeianus, the same combination of fanciful hypothesizing and unsystematic approach that characterizes Della Corte's production can thus be found. 99

...

..... 27 Della Corte's legacy is thus still with us, but manifests itself, as for example in Castren's case, not in a direct dependence on Della Corte's theories, but in the predominant approach to the subject of Pompeii. Della Corte succeeded in creating a belief in many scholars that the Pompeian material can furnish far more exact , unambiguous and exhaustive information on antiquity than is actually possible. The surprising but spurious results that Della Corte obtained in Case ed abitanti and elsewhere have raised generat expectations as to the possibilities of Pompeian research, which the sources are in fact unable to satisfy. This seems in Jarge part to explain the tendency so often apparent in Pompeian studies to overlook the weaknesses of the material and draw far-reaching, but insufficiently founded results: a tendency that Jives on to this day.

28

II. Political institutions in Pompeii In the following investigations into Pompeian epigraphy, the administration of Pompeii will be examined more from a socio-historical than from a juridical viewpoint. Abrief introductory description of the offices and institutions which were to be found in the city and which formed the framework of political life is given below. Tbe administrative structure of Colonia Cornelia Veneria Pompeianorum, which was Pompeii's official name, was defined in the Lex with which the colony was furnished at its foundation. No traces have so far been found of this law during the excavations, and it was presumably destroyed in the earthquake of 62 AD or removed after the Vesuvian eruption. 100 It seems possible, however, to reconstruct tbe city's political institutions on tbe basis partly of the preserved Pompeian inscriptions, tituli, programmata, etc., and partly of material, including Ieges, from other Italian and provincial towns. 101 Tbree political institutions existed in Pompeii: the magistrates, the comitium and the ordo decurionum. The magistrature, wbicb is tbe institution most often met with in the Pompeian sources, may in modern constitutional terms be cbaracterized as the city's executive body, which also bad j uridical functions. The magistrates were thus responsible for tbe city's judicial system , admin istration and public works and buildings. These functions were divided between two offices, the duumvirate and the aedility, eacb in tbe charge of two magistrates with equal competence , tbe duumviri and aediles , respectively. The offices were held for one year, and tbe magistrates replaced at the end of their term of office. The junior office was that of the aediles; they bad responsibility for more or less tbe same functions as tbe aediles in Rome, including care of the streets, public buildings and temples , regulation of street trading, and management of public Iands. 102 The aediles were also called "duumviri V ASPP", and altbough the interpretation of this acronym is not absolutely clear, Willems' suggestion duumviri viis aedibus sacris publicis procurandis seems to be the most plausible. 103 Tbe official title of the duumviri was "duumviri iure dicundo" , and their primary responsibility was, as tbe name. suggests, the administration of justice. 104 Tbe duumvirs also presided over the proceedings in the ordo and the elections in the comitium, and they were cbarged witb tbe administration of the city exchequer. Every fifth year, the duumvirs were appointed as "duumviri iure dicundo quinquennales" . Tbis officewas reckoned to be the most important in tbe colony. It was the responsibility of the quinquennales to undertake the official census of all citizens and revise the Iist of members of the ordo; their function thus corresponded tothat of the Roman censors. 105 Tbe Roman juridical sources report that officials bad to serve in tbe junior capacity before holding the senior office, and they stipulate an interval of some

.

I I

I

I.

~

.._

.....

)

29

years between two different offices and five years between holding the same one. As the quinquennales had the title of duumviri , and ordinary duumviri and quinquennales were not elected in the same year, the quinquennales should from a juridical point of view be regarded merely as duumviri with extended powers, and the quinquennialate thus not be considered a higher office than the duumvirate. 106 No actual requirement of service in the duumvirate prior to the quinquennialate seems to have been stipulated: the fact that this was in practice most often the case was due entirely to the importance of the office, which required a mature man. In fact the quinquennialate often marked the culmination of a long career. 107 In order to be eligible for municipal office, the candidates had to have a series of qualifications. The candidate had to be male and a~ a rule over 25 years old, though exemption from this proviso could sometimes be granted. 108 He also had to have an unblemished reputation and be in possession of a fortune above a certain Ievel, census decurionalis, which was presumably about 100,000 HS, although this is by no means certain. 109 The magistrates were elected in the comitium, the people's assembly, which was divided into curiae or tribus, of which alladult men with citizenship in Pompeii were members. The popular assembly in the Roman municipalities had been reduced from its originally legislative function and lost its importance: its sole function at that time was to elect the magistrates. The candidates were placed on the official, publicly displayed Iist of candidates, the election itself being held some time later. 110 The election was presumably initiated by the electoral supervisor, the elder duumvir in office, by calling all tribus to the ballot at the same time, uno vocatu, but in such a way that each cast its votes in a special enclosure. The elector cast his vote by writing the candidate's name or initials on a slate and placing this in the ballot box, the contents of which were counted for each tribus. The candidates who received the most votes in a tribus were adjudicated to have won it ; and the candidates who had won in most tribus were elected. After serving as aedile, the magistrates could hold a seat in the ordo decurionum, which served as the city's ""legislative" body , and whose decisions the magistrates were charged with implementing. The council could thus make decisions on the city's income and expediture, ager publicus, etc., appoint extraordinary magistrates , offer magistratures to members of the imperial house and nominate patroni coloniae among the capital's and the local nobility . 111 The number of decurions in the ordo is not known, but seems commonly to have been 100. 112 For membership of the ordo, roughly the same qualifications were required as for magistrates, 11 3 who were almost automatically admitted after serving an aedileship. Non-magistrates could also become decurions, however, either as adlectus, which gave the same status as a magistrate, or as pedarius , which gave the right to vote but not to speak. Outside the official number, praetextati , sons of notable decurions, could also be elected. These two last

•

30

groups ranked lowest in the album, the decurion Iist in which 't he members were listed by seniority and former magistrature. 114 The official adoption into the ordo occurred every five years, when the quinquennales revised the Iist of members and exercised their right to adopt new decurions and exclude those who no Ionger fulfilled the conditions of membership. Exclusion from the ordo must, however, have been a rare occurrence, and membership was usually for life. Since the size of the ordo was thus regulated by death, and new decurions could be adopted only every fifth year, the number of decurions must often have been below the official figure, which was apparently merely an upper Iimit.

I

I

1

......

.......

31

111. Programmata recentiora The Pompeian electoral inscriptions , also called programmata , are, as mentioned above, a unique type of inscription within Latin epigraphy, occurring only in Pompeii. From Iiterary and epigraphical sources, 11 5 however, we know that they also existed elsewhere, and the isolated occurrence in Pompeii must thus be regarded merely as a reflection of the quite extraordinary conditions of preservation which characterize this site. The electoral notices are painted , and therefore ephemeral, inscriptions placed on the outer walls of houses in support of one or more candidates in connection with the annual election of new officials. They are usually painted in red or black , most often on a white background, so that they could stand out from the red wall wash which covered a Iarge part of the fa<;ades . 116 Their format and size can vary considerably, ranging from a Ietter height of under 10 cm to one of over a half metre, naturally depending on how much space was available on the fa<;ade. With respect to content, the inscriptions are highly formalized and consist of only a few components , most of which could be omitted. Only the candidate's name was ob Iigatory, and even this could be reduced to initials or to just one of the names , so that the shortest possible programma merely consists of three Ietters or a single name . The candidate's name is always in the accusative, since it formspart of the formula "oro/oramus/orat/orant vos faciatis", which is nearIy always abbreviated "OVF" in those inscriptions where it occurs explicitly rather than being merely implied. The predicate to this is the office being contested, which is one of the most frequently occurring elements in the electoral inscriptions. The abbreviations "VB", virum bonum, and "DRP" , dignum rei publicae are also frequently encountered. A few Iess common expressions, all of a very stereotype character, arealso found. 11 7 Finally, a number of inscriptions refer to a named individual or collective advocate, who after the most commonly used formula is called rogator, while in a small group of inscriptions one or more persons are asked to support the candidate. This occurs with the use of the vocative and the verbfacerein the imperative. The inscriptions are characterized by the extensive use of ligatures, 11 8 for example R> for "AED" and cF for "OVF", and their practical execution seems generally to be very professional. The inscriptions are thus boldly arranged and painted in an easily Jegible, often elegant actuarial script: there can be Iittle doubt, therefore, that the posting of electoral inscriptions on wallswas the work of professional painters, scriptores. 119 In some cases the painters have signed their work, and we thus know the names of several of them. 120 They seem to have been able to work alone, in pairs or in teams of three or four, and sometimes a dealbator is mentioned , who was apparently responsible for the white ground colour.

32 The working procedure employed by these painters has been much discussed. It has been claimed inter alia that the painting was done at night. This theory is based on inscription 7621, which contains the addition "lanternari tene scalam" , and on the signature under 3884, which advertises a gladiatoral show, "scr(ipsit) Aemilius Celer sing(ulus) ad luna(m)" . The identification of the word lanternarius is uncertain , however, since instead of a lamp-holder it could refer to a lamp-maker, and Aemilius Celer's indication of the time of work could quite possibly be due to the very fact that work at night was unusual. It would certainly have involved some practical difficulty, and I must therefore express some reservations about this hypothesis, which seems to put too much value on Juvenal's remarks on nocturnal activity in Rome as a source for conditions in a provincial town like Pompeii.

The dating of programmata recentiora The natural starting-point for an analysis of the newer programmata is an investigation of the chronological position and extent of this group of inscriptions. This question has only rarely been dealt with and never subjected to thorough analysis. The common view, however, is that the earthquake of 62 AD must have entailed the loss of almost all existing electoral inscriptions, and that the preserved programmata recentiora must therefore with few exceptions derive from Pompeii's last 17 years. 121 The validity of this hitherto undocumented assertion can be tested by investigating to what extent the not insignificant number of magistrates independently known from the period c. 50-61 AD are documented in electoral inscriptions. Through apochae Jucundianae, graffiti and tituli, 27 magistrates are known who with varying degrees of accuracy can be assigned to the years c. 50-61. Two of these were not ordinary elected magistrates , but were appointed in the middle of the normal period of office after the riots in the amphitheatre. 122 Of the remaining 25, the following possibly feature in electoral inscriptions: 123 Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius, who was quinquennalis in 55, and is recorded as aedilician, duumviral and quinquennial candidate in one inscription each and as candidate for unspecified office in two inscriptions. He seems, however, to have been duumviral candidate or possibly quinquennial candidate at some time after 62, and only two of the inscriptions must thus predate 62. 124 Q. Bruttius Baibus was aedile in 56, and there are two electoral inscriptions supporting a Balbus, who is probably identical with Bruttius. Ti. Claudius Verus was duumvir in 61 and is securely attested in 13 inscriptions, and a further 9 probably refer to him. The greater part of the inscriptions must, however, derive from his later duumviral candidature after 62, although a few, for example 3828, could derive from the electoral campaign of 61. 125 Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus was one of the two duumvirs in 59 who

.....

-..

33

were replaced in the middle of their period of office; he is attested in two electoral inscriptions, one of which is in conjunction with his colleague Cn. Pompeius Grosphus. Sex. Pompeius Proculus, who was duumvir in 57, features as candidate in two inscriptions. He may also be referred to in one other inscription, which merely mentions a Pompeius and which must also be dated prior to 62, since no candidates of this name are known after the earthquake. Q. Postumius Modestus is known to have been duumvir in 56: one inscription is extant in which he is duumviral candidate, while another supports his aedilician candidature. Two other magistrates, the duumvir C. Cornelius Macer and the aedile T. Terentius Felix , are not securely attested in electoral inscriptions, the candidates C. Cornelius and T. Terentius being apparently not identical with the magistrates. 126 This means that 7 of the 25 known magistrates from the period c. 50-61 are documented in electoral inscriptions, and that 12 inscriptions definitely antedate 62. Of these, 10 are from 55 or later, while the two earliest presumably date to the years 50-53. This result confirms to some extent the traditional view of the dating of the electoral inscriptions, since very few electoral inscriptions appear tobe earlier than 62. Nonetheless it is hardly possible on this basis to assume that the earthquake was responsible for the Ioss of all electoral inscriptions prior to this date. The effect of earth tremors on the preservation of electoral inscriptions can be tested by investigating the walls on which the inscriptions of poorly documented candidates were placed. A considerable part of the walls that were rebuilt after the earthquake can be clearly distinguished from former walling. 127 It is thus very often a question of the re-utilization of older building materials. That the reconstruction after 62 was characterized by haste , is all too apparent from the poor workmanship of the walling. Thesefeatures enable us to date many of the wall structures with a considerable degree of certainty in relation to the earthquake, and thus to establish a terminuspost quem for the electoral inscriptions appended to them. Admittedly, the reconstruction in question could have been carried out before the earthquake, but considering the extent of the destruction in 62, the probability is that an atypical repair or reconstruction post-dates the earthquake. Since the majority of the electoral inscriptions clearly date to the last years of the city, it may thus be relevant to examine the placement only of the inscriptions ofthe poorest-documented candidatesthat might predate the earthquake. This investigation consequently comprises a very limited group of programmata , which is further reduced by the difficulties of localizing the earliest recorded inscriptions. Some types of walls, e.g. opus latericium, arealso very difficult to date in relation to the earthquake. It is thus quite fortuitous which candidates can be dated in this way, and the absolute figures can therefore not be em-

34 employed in any kind of statistical calculation. In dating an inscription to the period after the earthquake, it has been a requirement that the whole of the wall derive from the reconstruction , orthat the plaster in those cases where the wall has been only partly rebuilt have been renewed during the restoration. Using this method of dating, it is found that several candidates attested in only one or two inscriptions nevertheless probably stood after 62: Sex. Attius Amus, Consius, Julius Modestus, M. Salvius, Seppius , A. Trebius Valens, quinq. cand., L. Varius, Vibius Cac[-]. Several_candidates attested in 3-4 inscriptions can also be documented after the earthquake: C. Ateius Capito, Ti . Claudius Claudianus and P. Gavius Proculus. 128 It can also be established that Ti. Claudius Verus, who was duumvir in 61, must have run again some time after 62, several of his inscriptions having been found on rebuilt walls. 129 Also the quinquennalis from 55, Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius, seems to have stood for the duumvirate after 62. 130 This result, which shows that no mean part of the poorest-documented candidates can be dated to the time after the earthquake, brings in question the idea of the earthquake as the primary factor in the destruction of the electoral inscriptions. As also candidates with very few extant inscriptions are datable to Pompeii's last period , many inscriptions must have disappeared due simply to the ordinary weathering and repainting of the fa<;ades. In any case their average life must have been less than the 17 years which elapsed between the earthquake and the eruption of Vesuvius. The extensive darnage caused by the earthquake undoubtedly resulted in the loss of most of the electoral inscriptions ofthat time, but it can hardly have radically affected the number of preserved inscriptions, since these , by their very nature, would not have survived until the year 79 in any case. The picture of the dating of the electoral inscriptions established here is counter to that in P. Sabbatini Tumolesi's investigation of Pompeian edicta munerum. 131 She finds that most of the likewise painted edicta munerum stem from the period prior to the earthquake, and concludes that considerably more dipinti than hitherto assumed must antedate it. 132 As this conclusion totally disagrees with the dating which seems to apply to the programmata recentiora, the premisses for Sabbatini Tumolesi's conclusions must be examined more closely. Several methodological weaknesses can, in my view, be detected in her analysis. 133 Firstly, her investigation includes graffiti mentioning gladiatorial games, and since this type of inscription due to its indoor placement has generally been subjected to quite different and usually more favourable conditions of preservation than dipinti, a dating of dipinti cannot be undertaken on the · basis of material which comprises both dipinti and graffiti. 134 Secondly, it is methodologically dubious whether, on the basis of an investigation of the dating of edicta munerum, conclusions can automatically be drawn about the chronological collocation of all other dipinti, of which the programmata constitute the main part. The two types of painted inscriptions

.....

--

35

may weil have had a different distribution in the various periods, and it would not be surprising if the incidence of gladiatorial dedications was lower after the earthquake on account of the economic burdens imposed by the rebuilding of the city. Thirdly, it can be established that Sabbatini Tumolesi's conclusion rests on a precariously small proportion of the inscriptions examined, since only 34 of the catalogue's 81 dipinti and graffiti are dated. 135 Sabbatini Tumolesi places a considerabie proportion of the dated inscriptions before the earthquake. These must be studied rnore closely, since they are at variance with rny dating of the painted inscriptions. Sabbatini Tumolesi dates the two , possibly three , inscriptions (1182, 1183, 1184?) in which N. Festius Ampliatus is mentioned, to the Claudian-Neronian era and bases this on the association with A. Umbricius Scaurus, on whose putative tomb one of the inscriptions (1182) was found. 136 But V. Kockel has been able to demoostrate clearly that the tomb in question is not that of A. Umbricius Scaurus, but of N. Festius Ampliatus himself, and that the tombin any case cannot antedate the earthquake. 137 Sabbatini Tumolesi's arguments for an early date are thus invalidated, and the inscriptions seem on the contrary to date to Pompeii's last period. Among the most widely discussed Pompeian edicta munerum are the four in which D. Lucretius Satrius Valens and his son D. Lucretius Valens feature as sponsors (1185 , 3884, 7992, 7995). 138 D. Lucretius Satrius Valens isspoken of here as "flamen Neronis Caesaris Augusti fili perpetuus", and Sabbatini Tumolesi and others have therefore dated the inscriptions to 50-54, when Nero was designated heir to the throne and had his own cult. That the four inscrip- ,1/ tions date to the years 50-54 can, however, be entirely ruled out . D. Lucretius d Valens in every case features with his son, which must rnean that the latter was adult at the time and presumably about to embark on a municipal career, which the dedications would ease the way to. 139 D. Lucretius Valens is known as aedilician candidate in no less than 13 programmata , and his candidature can therefore hardly be much earlier than 68-69 and under no circumstances older than 62. Finally , 7992 is stated in CIL to be painted over 7633, in which a Trebius is recommended as quinquennial candidate. This Trebius also occurs in 7488, which in the foregoing could be dated to after 62 on the basis of an examination of the wall on which it was placed. 140 1t may also be mentioned that 7992 at the time of the excavation of the Casa di Trebio Valente was in so perfect a condition that it could hardly have been 25 years old in 79 . 14 1 The inscriptions should therefore be dated to the end of Nero's ireign , and the unusual title "flamen Neronis Caesaris Augusti filii perpetuus" must, as already suggested by E. Magaldi , represent a life-Iong title of honour, as indeed the addition " perpetuus" also indicates. 142 Ti . Claudius Verus is known as munerarius in two or three inscriptions (1181 , 7988c, 7989a ,c) , which Sabbatini Tumolesi dates to 61-62, when he held the duumvirate. 143 1t is virtually certain, however, that Ti. Claudius Verus stood

36 for the duumvirate again and was thus active in municipal affairs also at a later 144 date. If he was magistrate when he made the dedication, it is more likely that this happened during a later duumvirate. 145 An important argument for the early dating thu s falls to the ground, and the dating then rests entirely on the mention of athletae instead of gladiatores, this being interpreted as the result of the prohibition of gladiatorial games after the riots in the amphitheatre in 59. Four edicta munerum , in which Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius is mentioned as munerarius, are also dated on t.his criterion to 59 (1177 , 1178, 3883?, 7993). 14fi But since there is no certain evidence linking this donor with th e year 59 either, this deduction from th e mention of athletes is purely hypothetical. 147 Moreover, since the prohibition , according to Tacitus, was supposed to have Jasted 10 years, the inscriptions could easily be later than 62. 14H The above-mentioned edicta for Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius refer to a dedication of "opus tabulamm", which probably consisted of pictorial representations of earlier dedicated gladiatorial games. In Sabbatini Tumolesi's opinion this refers to the dedication he made when he was quinquenn alis (1179, 7991), and which she therefore dates to 55 , when Nigidius is known to have held this of149 fice. It seems likely , however , that Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius could have held the quinquennial office severa\ times. He probably played a prominent röle in municipal affairs right up into Flavian times. 150 In a programma which it has previously been possible to date to after 62 , he features as duumvir candidate; 15 1 this could conceivably be a fragmentary quinque nnial inscription. 152 During the above analysis of some of the edicta dated by Sabbatini Tumolesi to before 62, this group has been red uced considerably: incleed the evidence shows that th ere cannot have been any preponderance of inscriptions of this type from the periocl c. 50-62. A small number of edicta may , however, on the basis of references to the imperial house or on onomastic, prosopographical , Orthographie or palaeographical criteria, be dated to Augustan-Tiberian times, 153 and there seems to be a special reason for th eir preservation ; in fact, with one special exception, 154 they were all founcl on tombs, where everything suggests that conclitions of preservation were far better than on house walls. Thus outside the Porta Vesuvio , three electoral inscriptions for M. Stlaborius (Veius) Fronto , who was quinquennalis in 25 AD (7976a-b , 7977, 7978), have been found, and the Nucerian electoral inscriptions found in the Porta Nocera necropolis also appear tobe considerably older than the Pompeian programmata. 155 The reason for this enhanced preservation can partly be sought in the smaller number of inscriptions placed on tombs, and consequently their smaller risk of being overpainted; th e main factor, however , was presumably the rarer occurrence of replastering and repainting of tombs. The dating of edicta mune rum , in other words, provieles no basis for a new eval uation of the gene ral dating of the dipinti . The result of the above investi-

-

37

gation conforms by and )arge to the earlier established picture , though this has been modified on one point: namely, that the inscriptions placed on tombs may be considerably older than the other dipinti.

Pompeian fasti Several scholars have in the past been attracted by the idea of compiling Pompeian fasti specifying the individual candidates year by year. These attempts at dating must be seen as a manifestation of a natural desire for a greater systematization of the copious inscriptional and prosopographic material. Since a Iist of this kind would have independent value and contribute to a more precise dating of the entire inscription group, the possibilities of undertaking precise datings of candidatures and inscriptions will here be examined. The earliest attempts at a dating of candidatures, which were carried out by Guarini, Willems and Etienne, are today of interest only in the context of the history and development of Pompeian research. 156 But J .L. Franklin has recently treated the question from a more systematic point of view and undertaken an exact dating of a considerable number of candidates from the years 71-79. 157 In Franktin 's extensive investigation, the material employed and the background for every dating are meticulously presented, and an evaluation of the possibilities of establishing fasti must inevitably take their point of departure from his investigation. Franklin's chronology is based on several types of material , but its principal feature and the point in which it differs from previous attempts is his utilization of superimposed or overlapping inscriptions which are sometimes recorded in CIL and which ought in theory to permit a relative dating of the candidates. 158 In some cases, the whole inscription is superimposed on another one, but often it is only part of the white ground that overlaps an earlier inscription. In some cases the chronological relationship between 3-4 inscriptions can be determined in this way. The recording of these special features pertaining to the relative placement of the inscriptions, their superimposition or overlapping, is, however, very sporadic and uncertain and was not performed reasonably systematically until the beginning of the Nuovi Scavi. In the very earliest transcripts of inscriptions there are no indications of overlays, and Zangemeister and Mau were the first to make occasional remarks on the relative age of different inscriptions. It is sometimes unclear in C/L whether the overlays in question are proper ones . Sometimes they merely seem tobe based on a comparison of the state of preservation of the inscriptions. 159 These observations must be accorded considerable value, however, not least on account of their rarity, and of the two epigraphists' generally impeccable publication of wall inscriptions. In Della Corte's CIL supplement, inscription overlays are difficult to evaluate, the terminology employed not always being clear. The term "sub" is thus always employed in the more detailed descriptions of inscription overlays, and when used alone it might also indicate such an overlay. Thus Franklin often

38 interprets "sub" in this way. 160 In one instance it can be ascertained, however, that "sub" does not indicate an overlay, but the position on the wall, 16 1 and it must therefore be rejected as a criterion for the identification of inscription overlays in CIL. This Ieads in turn to a rejection of apart of Franklin's "overlay" material, which also contains several other weaknesses. A considerable number of certain and presumptive overlays are thus not included in his Iist, 162 nor is there any differentiation between the aforementioned early-registered overlays and the more securely documented ones fo und in the latest CIL Supplement. It can also be ascertained that Della Corte's registration of inscription overlays was fairly erratic, for in the sparse pictorial material which exists for programmata recentiora, several distinct overlays are found which are not mentioned in CIL. 163 Nor do these occur in Franklin's material. 164 An important source for the dating of individual candidatures is the inscriptions in which several candidates feature together. It is usually a case of two candidates for the aedileship or the duumvirate, but the combination of aedilician and duumviral candidates, or at tim es all four candidates together, may also occur. These inscriptions, which teil us who ran for office at the same time, allow us to extend the knowledge deduced from the overlays about the age of individual candidates relative to that of other candidates and thus to operate with blocks of candidates instead of individual candidates. Owing to the way in which the shared electoral inscriptions have been published, however, they are very difficult to work with. In the earliest transcripts, independent inscriptions are often confused, so the task involves separating true joint programmata from those which are the result of erroneously conflated transcripts. Faced with this problem, Franktin formulates the principle that only inscriptions in which candidates are connected by an "et" can be accepted as joint programmata. 165 This criterion is far too stringe nt, however, since an investigation of the inscriptions for securely documented candidate pairs shows that a very considerable proportion of these do not include an "et". 166 An inscription thus cannot on this criterion be rejected as a joint inscription; the epigraphical form of the inscription, and not least the form and relative position of the two candidate names, need tobe evaluated instead. Due to weaknesses in the transcripts of the early epigraphists, the reproduction in C/L is frequently open to doubt. Joint programmata in which there is no linguistic connection or copula between the candidates must therefore generally be treated with caution, unless it has been possible to examine the physical appearance of the inscriptions by actual inspection or in photographs. 167 Another source of dating is that of inscriptions for candidates to the post of duumvir quinquennalis, since it has been possible from dated inscriptions , ministerial dedications and apochae J ucundianae to establish the years divisible by five as quinquennial years in Pompeii. 168 While this source material for the

~-

......

39

establishment of Pompeian fasti is employed in Frank! in 's investigation, the information on the relative dating of candidates embodied in the formulations "fac et ille te faciet/fecit" and "fac, qui te fecit" has been omitted. They occur in several programmata and allow the chronological relationship between the candidate and the person who is solicited for support to be determined. 169 On the basis of this discussion of the source material on which an attempt to establish Pompeian fasti must be based, it can be ascertained that due to the often unsatisfactory publication of the inscriptions, considerable uncertainties are involved, and that the material on which Franktin bases his datings is incomplete and to some extent marrcd by Iack of a systematic approach. The procedure by which Pompeian fasti may be established on the basis of this material is quite simple, the candidates first being grouped together into blocks which are placed in relation to one another with the aid of the overlays and then dated absolutely on the basis of the quinquennial years. This is the "ideal" method, but it should be made clear from the outset that the material is not !arge enough to permit an absolute dating of the candidatures. This is due partly to the fact that only a few duumviri quinquennales feature in the overlay material, so that an absolute date cannot be derived from the quinquennial years, and partly to the fact that the number of recorded overlays is in general too small to produce overlays for every year. Franklin establishes his candidate chronology by starting with those notices that arenot overlain by others. These he dates to 79. Then those candidates overlain only by the candidates for 79 are found and dated to 78 and so forth down to 71, where Franklin's Iist stops. This procedure is possible only if the overlay material is so !arge that all years can be presumed to be represented , and the immediately underlying candidates to date to the previous year. This seems, as mentioned above, a very doubtful assumption , since many candidates are either not represented at all in the 148 overlays , or only once or twice; the chronology which can be deduced on this basis is thus only relative and not absolute. These inherent limitations in the material mean that Franklin's lower Iimit becomes arbitrary. It should also be pointed out that his fasti do not include all candidates from the period. In consequence, it has tobe recognized that no absolute dating of the candidates can in generat be undertaken from the extant material. A careful examination of the inscriptions shows that an attempt of this kind is faced with far more fundamental difficulties than hitherto assumed. Two major questions more particularly need tobe posed in connection with this type of investigation: firstly, whether the overlying inscription always derives from a Iater election campaign, and secondly, whether the candidates could stand for the same office several times. Franktin seems to believe that all overlays, with a single exception, were produced by the superimposition of an inscription from a later year over one dating to an earlier one. 170 It is naturally not possible to demoostrate that an over-

40

I

Ii

lay occurred during the same election campaign - i.e. during the same yearand that the two candidates are thus contemporaneous. But I see no reason in principle why this should not have occurred; the requests , admittedly few, not to spoil the notices would suggest that it could. 171 Where the chronology is based on only a few overlays- which is not unusual- consideration ought to be given to the feasibility of the candidates having stood in the same year despite the overlays. The other, and at least equally important, question of whether the candidates ran again seems to have escaped Franklin's attention; he has thus entirely ignored the many known examples of the repeated holding bf the duumvirate. 172 They must of necessity have entailed several candidatures for the same office, and there are clear indications that candidates could run again even after an election defeat. This can be demonstrated for candidates for the aedileship in particular, since it may be presumed from the placement of the office as the first step in the cursus honorum that it was not held for more than one term. The clearest examples of repeated candidatures for the aedileship will be examined below. There is a considerable degree of certainty that M. Samellius Modestus ran for the aedileship in conjunction with Cn. Helvius Sabinus against the pair L. Popidius Secundus and C. Cuspius Pansa in 79. This dating seems difficult to alter. There are clear indications, however, that this was the second time he had sought the aedileship. He is thus overlain by another, illegible, electoral inscription ,173 and occurs in 3674 in conjunction with M. Casellius Marcellus. This shared programma is rejected by Franktin with reference to the missing "et", but Mau notes "haud dubia eadem manu" in the commentary. And in another slightly erased post er for Samellius (498), Zangemeister reads "CASH(-]", which may be interpreted as CASEL[-]. M. Casellius Marcellus also seems tobe datable to one of the latest years of the city. In his case, the following additional arguments can be adduced to support an earlier candidature. In 187 heran with the quinquennial candidate L. Veranius Hypsaeus, 174 and hislast candidature with L. Albucius Celsus must have occurred after the quinquennial year 75. Casellius is also overlain by the somewhat earlier C. Sallustius Capito (322/323), 175 and at his hause, 3643, "Casellio Mareelle feliciter", painted partly over the Casellius programma 3644, was probably posted in connection with an election campaign. Cn. Helvius Sabinus, aedile candidate of 79 , also seems to have stood at an earlier time. Not only is he overlain by Fuscus aed. (7966/7965) and by Ti. Claudius Claudianus, 176 but the Popidius family, whose member L. Popidius Secundus also ran in 79, recommend him in 705 . Finally, the electoral inscriptions of Cn. Helvius Sabinus in several instances occur in a far worse condition than the programmata of other candidates found at the same place . This applies among others to 7774, which seems tobe clearly older than 7775 and 7772 for L. Ceius Secundus and C. Cuspius Pansa. 177

.....

..... 41

1

L. Popidius Secundus features with C. Lollius Fuscus in 295, which is groundlessly rejected as a joint programma by Frank! in , 178 and other indications also point to a previous candidature. A. Vettius Firmus thus overlies a L. Popidius, who is probably Secundus, since L. Popidius Ampliatus seems tobe later than A. Vettius Firmus. Similarly, P. Paquius Proculus aed. cand. is painted over a Secundus who cannot be L. Ceius Secundus , si nce his candidature presumably postdates Paquius' duumviral candidature. 179 There are thus numerous indications to show the existence of renomination at the Pompeian elections. Since the demonstration of renomination must occur not by direct proof but by a concurrence of circumstantial arguments, this is possible only with the very best documented candidates. But considering the number of these who with some certainty can be identified as candidates for a second time , it seems to have been quite a common phenomenon. This result has serious consequences for the value of both overlays and joint programmata as a source for a precise dating of candidatures. An overlay is thus no Ionger a reliable proofthat one candidature is older than another, since the overlain inscription may derive from the first nomination and thus not yield information on the second and probably better-documented candidature. The same applies to joint programmata in which it can be established only with difficulty whether a joint campaign embraces the candidate's first or second candidature. To sum up, it can now be ascertained that the feasibility of overlays having been produced during a single election campaign, and the apparently common existence of renomination, throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the relative chronology constructed on the basis of overlays and shared inscriptions. The conclusion must be that Franklin's datings were possible only because the material on which his investigation was based is defective, and because of the doubtful stringency with which the investigation was carried out. 180 Exact datings of Pompeian candidatures must simply be rejected as generally impossible to achieve on the basis of the extant source material. Despite this negative result, the material does seem to furnish some possibilities for providing an approximate dating of some of the candidates. 1t must be assumed that the candidate's earlier attempts tobe elected are far more poorly documented than the later ones, on which attention should therefore be concentrated. A considerable number of overlays pointing in the same direction are thus more likely tobe associated with the later candidature and could justify an approximate dating. The same must apply to candidate pairs, since a joint campaign far better documented than the candidate's other joint candidatures is presumably later than these. By leaving out of account isolated deviant overlays and shared inscriptions, it should thus be possible to date several welldocumented candidates within a few years, although considerable reservations would still have tobe made. Such a dating can be established for among others the six candidates C. Cuspius Pansa, L. Popidius Secundus, M. Samellius

42 Modestus and Cn. Helvius Sabinus, aed. cand., and C. Gavius Rufus and M. Holconius Priscus, dv. cand., who on all accounts stood in 79, since they overlie pradically all other well documented candidates from the tatest years and are not themselves overlain by these. One of the quinquennial candidates in 75, Q. Postumius Modestus, can also be dated precisely, while L. Albucius Celsus, M. Casellius Marcellus, aed. cand., and L. Ceius Secundus and C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. cand., must be placed in the second half of the 70s. 181 L. Ovidius Veiento and A. Vettius Firmus, aed. cand., and A. Vettius Caprasius Felix and P. Paquius Proculus , dv . cand., in turn, date to the firsthalf ofthat decade. 182 A number of other candidates can also be dated to the last c. 10 years of Pompeii's history. 183 These datings of Jater candidatures may prove an important aid to a dating of the electoral inscriptions as a whole, but a presupposition is that a survey of the distribution of the inscriptions between the various candidatures be conducted. A survey of this kind encounters certain difficulties , however, since due to a Iack of information on nomen, cognomen or office, a significant proportion of the inscriptions cannot be attributed to a particular candidature. Yet these inscriptions cannot be ignored in the investigation, since they are very unequally distributed among the candidates, and considerable distortion in inscription distributions would inevitably occur if this were disregarded. Some candidates stood only for the aedileship and have names that do not otherwise occur among the candidates, while others ran both for the aedileship and the duumvirate and have nomen and/or cognomen in common with other candidates. The result is that a high proportion of the inscriptions of the latter cannot be identified with certainty. 184 To avoid this distortion, the procedure adopted hereisthat those inscriptions which cannot be definitely placed are distributed proportionately between the possible candidates and added to their authenticated inscriptions. This is naturally a procedure attended by misgivings, but should nonetheless be preferred to omission, which would give a far more unreliable result. The distribution of inscriptions between the candidates known in the programmata recentiora is shown as a co-ordinate in figure 1, where the inscriptions in which the candidate's name is entirely or partly preserved are shown on the Y -axis, and the various candidatures on the X-axis. The curve shows an extremely uneven distribution of inscriptions , a minority of candidates being associated ~ith a disproportionately high percentage of the inscriptions. Over 25% of the inscriptions were thus posted for only 5 candidates, 185 and while the 25% best-documented candidates have 82·5% of the inscriptions , the percentage for the following quarters is 12·7%, 3·4% and 1·4%. Such a distribution could suggest a high survival percentage in a relatively limited period, and since those candidates whom it was possible to date to Pompeii's last decade feature in 80%. of the inscriptions , there seems to be reason to conclude that the preserved inscriptions were generally no more than

......

.... 43 y

l

I I

I

~----r-----~----~----~----,-~----x 25 50 75 100 125 131 Candidates

Fig. 1. Distribution of inscriptions between candidates. The curve shows the cumulative distribution of.the 2466 inscriptions between the 131 diff erent candidates. The bestdocumented candidates are to the left and the poorestdocumented to the right. ,

10 years old in 79. This conclusion accords exactly with the results reported above, which showed among other things that the earthquake was not a decisive factor in the disintegration of the electoral inscriptions. The most likely scenario for the inscriptions' preservation and dating can thus be presented as follows. The earliest electoral inscriptions found on the hause walls date to c. 50 AD , but from the entire period from th en until 62, only a few inscriptions have been preserved. A !arge proportion must naturally have disappeared during the earthquake , but this does not seem tobe the only explanation for the low survival rate. There are thus very poorly documented candidates even after 62 AD. In fact , the ordinary decay and overpainting of the inscriptions usually prevented them from surviving for more than c. 10 years. A large number of inscriptions for one candidate must therefore be a decisive argument for a dating to the last decade of the city, just as a number of c. 4-5 should preclude a datihg before 62. The criterion cannot, however, be applied in reverse, since there may be great differences in the number of inscriptions for contemporaneous candidates, and a smaller number cannot, therefore, generally be construed as an argument for an early dating. 186 This result allows certain calculations of the number of candidates to the elections for the various offices to be made. A total of 131 candidatures are known from the programmata recentiora , distributedas follows: aed. cand. 69 , dv. cand. 35 , quinq. cand. 13, candidates for unspecified office 14. Ifwe assume that 90% of the candidates postdate 62, we obtain an average of 6·9 candidates a year in the last 17 years of the city's life. 3·6 of these are candidates for the aedileship, while candidates for the duumvirate are 4 in quinquennial years and

44

2·3 in ordinary elections. For 0·7% the office is not known. The actual figures must be considerably high er, however. In the first place it is quite likely that the elections were suspended during the first year after the earthquake, correspondingly reducing the number of electoral years. In the second place, in view of the very poorly documented candidates after 62, it is improbable that we know all the candidates for the period 62-79. And in the third place, the apparently quite common practice of renomination for both the aedileship and the duumvirate means a considerable increase in the number of candidates in the individual elections. This implies that the candidate frequencies given above must generally have been somewhat high er, but does not affect the relative distribution between offices. This conclusion directs attention to the ordinary duumviral elections where the number of candidates is markedly lower than in elections for the aedileship. In year 79, when it is possible to identify the candidates with considerable accuracy, there also seem to have been only two candidates for the duumvirate; this should not be taken , however, as an expression of a general absence of competition in elections for the duumvirate , but should ratherbe perceived as a natural feature of Pompeii's political system. In order to run for the duumvirate, a candidate was obliged to have previously held the aedileship , and the identical number of aediles and duumvirs must quite logically have reduced the number of potential candidates to the latter office, so that uncontested elections to the duumvirate could occur. The average of at least 2·3 for duumvir candidates clearly shows that there often was a contest between the duumvir candidates, just as the number of quinquennial candidates of 4 per year vitiates Franklin's claim that the duumviratewas in reality decided in the ordo. 187 The small number of du um viral candidates was a consequence of the administrative system in Pompeii , which meant that political interest was concentrated on the aedileship, which gave access to the ordo, and on the quinquennialate, which enjoyed the highest renown and political power in the city. The election to the duumvirate was of lesser importance, simply because the duumviratewas in fact open to a !arge proportion of those who had achieved the aedileship.

The function of electoral inscriptions in the election campaign and in Pompeii's social structure The aim of this investigation is to elucidate the röte of the Pompeian electoral notices in the election campaign and evaluate the possibilities of ascertaining their importance in the city's social structure. Thesequestions have never been fully investigated, although several scholars have presented theories on the function of the inscriptions and the relation between the electors and electoral propaganda. 188 Thus , many have interpreted the inscriptions as a manifestation

....

....

I

d J

45

of the individual citizen's great interest in the elections and wish to express his civic views, 189 whilst others have perceived them as apart of traditional electoral campaigns conducted by the candidates themselves. 190 The problern can be very bricfly sketched as follows: who was responsible for posting the inscriptions, how werc they posted , and why? The point of departure for answering the first and the last question must be a clarification of the procedure for posting the inscriptions; this will therefore be examined first by means of an investigation of the inscriptions' form and placeme11t. The basic question in connection with the posting procedure is whether the inscriptions were commissioned privately by individual citizens on the basis of their personal sympathies, or whether they are the result of campaigns conducted on the initiative of the various candidates. It thus needs to be ascertained whether there are common features separating one candidate's inscriptions from those of the others, and this requires that an overa11 view of the composition and structure of the inscriptional material be established. 191 Greater emphasis must, to this end, be placed not on isolated chance phenomena, but on the form and content of the inscriptions as a whole. This means that attention must be concentrated on their common denominators, i.e. on the form of features that occur in all inscriptions: in other words, on the candidate 's name. As the briefest possible programma consists merely of this, and all other parts may be - and often are - omitted, an analysis of the different form s of the candidate's name is the only means of achieving a fully comprehensive view of the composition of the inscriptions as a whole. The candidate's name may be written in various ways , and although praenomen, nomen and cognomen are frequently given, they are often curtailed to one or two names ; initialsalso occur. Fig. 2 is a survey both of the total distribution of possible name elemcnt combinations and of some of the bestdocumented candidates. The !arge proportion of fragmentary inscriptions , 12·5% , is due to the fact that all inscriptions in which part of the name would seem to be missing, or in which the restoration of lacunae does not appear to be weil founded, are assigned to this category. The individual candidate distributions have been selected among the most fully documented candidatures in order to reduce the statistical uncertainty as much as possible; emphasis has also been placed on ensuring that the Iarger part of the inscriptions of the candidate concerned can be clearly identified and not confused with others due to shared names . With respect to the total average, it can be ascertained that no form of nomenclature predominates, butthat six typcs occur with a frequency of between 9% and 26%. Of these tria nomina is the most common. This average is , however, merely a mean calculated from very different single distributions, which never show a picture corresponding to the mean. The deviations can be marked: the number of tria nomina for example range from 66% to 3%, while the combination of praenomen and nomen may occur in as many as 42% of

,...

46 one candidate's inscriptions and not occur at all in those of others. Fig. 2. Namedistribution of 12 well-documented candidates. The total number of inscriptions for each candidate, the number offragmented inscriptions from which the name cannot be restored, and the incidence of the various combinations ofname elements: praenomen (1), nomen (2), cognomen (3) and initials (Init.). The incidence is shown as a percentage of the intact inscriptions. For candidates to which a group of inscriptions are attributable with a high degree of certainty, less secure inscriptions are included. This applies to inscriptions for Marcellus, Gavius, aed. cand, Postumius aed. cand., Postumius aed. cand., Modestus aed. cand, and Trebius.

Candidate

Office Total Frag.

1+2

1+3 1+2+3 2

3

23

Init.

Init. +3

Average L. Albucius Celsus L. Caecilius Cappella M. Casellius Marcellus L. Ceius Secundus M. Cerrinius Vatia C. Cuspius Pansa C. Gavius Rufus Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Julius Polybius Q. Postumius Proculus

I

I I

:I

Ii

,:

!I

I'

! !1 :J

!:

M. Samellius Modestus A. Trebius Valens

aed. dv. aed. aed. dv. aed. aed. aed. dv. aed. aed. dv. aed. aed. aed.

2466 82 54 177 21 76 88 96 19 35 133 14 37 44 65 50

310 6 4 4 2 4 4 5 1 1 11

1 1 2 3 4

13 42 8 7

1

10

4 34 1 6 8 5 8 6 10 8 15

1

26 4 4 3 47 33 24 21 6 50 6 54 47 38 24 7

21 40 14 59 31 9 8 12 61

17 3 42 21 1 8 30 11

11

4

14 1 12 4 5 20 4 29 16 28 14

38 13 14 26 61

21

12 6 17

9 9 18 6 5 27 22 6

2 2

3 11

28 26 15

6

A possible explanation of these major deviations could be differences in the everyday nomenclature of the candidates , but this does not seem to have played any important part. One might assume that an unusual name , or the element distinguishing the name from that of other candidates would occur relatively more frequently, and that this would be the same every time the candidate ran. No such pattern can be discerned in the material. M. Cerrinius Vatia's unusual cognomen thus occurs remarkably rarely in his inscriptions, and the same applies to A. Trebius Valens , aed. cand. , who is hardly ever mentioned by his cognomen. There are likewise a !arge number of inscriptions for L. Popidius, aed. cand., and Popidius , aed. cand., although two candidates with this name ran for office within the space of a few years. Similarly a !arge number of inscriptions are extant for Secundus and Sabinus, which are otherwise very widespread cognomina. It may also be remarked that, for example, L. Ceius Secundus' nomenclature changes from his aedilician to his duumviral candidature, and that his nomen, which occurs in 31 o;; of his aedilician inscriptions, occurs in only 9% of his du um viral inscriptions. Moreover, differences in the way the candidates are mentioned in everyday talk cannot explain the marked devi-

......

....

47

ations in the proportion of initials, which varies from nil to 27%. The different ways in which the candidate names are rendered seem in other words rather to be ~onnected with the electoral inscriptions and the Candidatures than with the andidates themselves. This supposition is strengthened by several interesting f atures in the name distributions. A clear connection between the name dis ribution for candidates who stood together can thus be ascertained. This c~~ be observed with the well-documented candidate pairs L. Albucius Celsus ~nd M. Casellius Marcellus and A. Trebius Valens and C. Gavius Rufus, who all stood for the aedileship. Tria nomina and nomen plus cognomen, the two Iongest name combinations, thus occur in only 5% of L. Albucius Celsus' inscriptions and 7% of M. Cnsellius Marcellus' with 40% on average. The corresponding percentages for tria nomina ~nd nomen in the inscriptions of A. Trebius Valens and C. Gavius Rufus are 7 and 61 and 6 and 61, respectively. For neither of thesc two candidates do initials occur. For the running-mates M. Cerrinius Vatia and Q. Postumius Proculus, however, an unusually )arge percentage of initials (22% and 26% respectively) can be ascertained, and similar observations can be made for several other candidate pairs. These special features with respect to the way candidates are referred to in the electoral notices clearly invalidate the theory that the electoral inscriptions are the result of the individual citizen's own initiative and an expression of his political preferences and hopes. Not least the marked statistical deviations in the proportion of initials and the connection between running-mates' nameform distributions cannot possibly have arisen by random posting, which would have resulted in a far more uniform distribution of name-forms between the various candidates. The inscriptions of the individual candidate and the individual candidate pair must in other words have been posted collectively and been subjected to control. The conclusion can thus, I believe , be drawn that the Pompeian electoral inscriptions must have resulted from an initiative taken by the candidate hirnself or by persons connected with him, and thus be interpreted as part of election campaigns under the control of the candidates themselves. The big differences in the way the candidates are referred to in the inscriptions presumably derive, therefore , either from the painters who looked after the practical side of the campaigns , or from directives from its managers, the candidate and/or his supporters. But a final clarification on this point cannot be given on the existing basis. The next factor to be studied is the topographical distribution of the inscriptions, which has likewise to be investigated with a view to attributing responsibility for their posting. This requires that we obtain an overview of their topographical location in the city, which is attended by certain difficulties. This is primarily due to the defective recordings from the earliest phases of Pompeian research; a !arge part of the inscriptions found in the 18th century and firsthalf of the 19th are very difficult to locate topographically. L92 This applies first and

'

~'I>

48 6C)J
~'

6666"_;

iI I I

r

II

'

.

~

~

.

Fig. 3. Total geographical distribution of the electoral notices. Jnscription density f or each insula faqade has been calculated and assigned to a graduated scale from 0·05 to 1·3 inscriptions per faqade m etre.

~()

~-

......

49

foremost to the regions VI, VII and VIII and the earliest-excavated main streets. It is usually possible, however, to narrow down the location of the inscriptions to one street section or one insula fac;ade, which reduces the problern considerably, since the inscription frequency will be investigated for each insula fac;ade . Only the inscriptions along the Via di Nola are so inadequately documented that not even an approximate position can be given; 193 they are therefore distributed like other inscriptions that cannot be located within a single insula fac;ade proportionally within the possible street sections. Using this procedure , the result shownon the map fig. 3 is obtained. Examination of the distribution map reveals an extremely uneven distribution of the inscriptions, some streets having only a few inscriptions or none at all, while the density in other streets attains up to 1· 3 inscriptions per fa9ade metre. Within the same street there is also considerable variation in inscription frequency. But before the distribution picture can be analysed in greater detail , it has to be considered to what extent the varying excavation procedures employed in Pompeii may have caused changes in the preservation percentage: in other words, whether the existing picture corresponds to the situation in 79 AD. Pompeii's excavation history can conveniently be divided into three phases.194 From the discovery of Pompeii in 1748 up to 1860, Pompeian research , Iike antiquarian research in general , was characterized by learned dilettantism which placed greater store upon spectacular single finds than upon the systematic acquisition of information on everyday Iife in the ancient city. The recording of the finds from this period was therefore unsystematic and in many cases topographically unspecific. When Fiorelli took over the direction of the excavations in 1860, new and more careful excavation methods were adopted. At the same time, the attitude to Pompeii changed: it was no Ionger regarded as a quarry for "antiques" , but as one of the most important sources on Roman history. This naturally had a positive effect on the recording of inscriptions, which in the hands of Fiorelli, Mau and Sogliano attained a high scientific Ievel. In 1910, the "Nuovi Scavi" were initiated in the eastern part of the town, and under Spinazzola's direction the excavations approached a modern scientific standard. At this juncture, Della Corte also began his work as the leading epigraphist in Pompeii . Despite all the weaknesses which attend his work, it can be ascertained that the collection of inscriptions was now carried out systematically and almost exhaustively. The areas uncovered in the course of these three periods, which mark a development towards a more systematic recording of inscriptions , are shown on the map fig. 4, where the insula fac;ades are classified according to time of excavation. When figs. 3 and 4 are compared, it is apparent that there is a clear agreement in several points between excavation time and inscription frequency ; the

..

50

ratio is generally lower in the earliest-excavated parts of the city. In all three excavation zones there are streets entirely or almost without elec.:toral inscriptions, and interest must therefore be focused on changes in inscription frequency within comparable streets and street sectors. It must thus be noted that the inscription frequency in the latest-excavated section of the Via dell' Abbondanza is more than four times higher than in the part which was excavated in the period 1748-1860. In the other main streets, the Via Stabiana and Via di Nola/ Via Fortuna, the frequency is comparable tothat in the earliest-excavated part of the Via dell' Abbondanza, but on one insula fac;ade, IX,8, which was exposed later than the rest of the Via di Nola, 195 a frequency is found which is three times higher than the average for this stretch. Similar differences can be observed in the Via dell' Abbondanza, where there are three times as many inscriptions on the later-excavated fac;ade IX,1 than on the opposite house I,4, excavated in the earliest phase. 196 Although not all main streets and street sectors had necessarily an equal coverage of inscriptions, there are good grounds for supposing that the recovery percentage in the first phase of Pompeian research was considerably lower than in the two later phases , and that a very }arge number of inscriptions have thereby been lost. However, this factor does not seem to have significantly distorted the picture that otherwise emerges of which streets had a high inscription frequency, but merely to have resulted in a general reduction in the quantity of inscriptions in the area excavated before 1860. The distribution pattern obtained isonein which the bulk of the inscriptions are located in the following streets: Via dell' Abbondanza, Via Stabiana, Via di Nola/Via Fortuna, Via Consolare, Via degli Augustali and its extension east of Via Stabiana, Via del Foro, Via di Mercurio, Via di Vesuvio south of Vicoletto di Mercurio, Viadei Vettii and to a lesser degree Vicoletto del1e Nozze d' Argento and Via dei Teatri. Several of these streets were major thoroughfares: namely the Via dell'Abbondanza, Via Stabiana, Via di Nola/Via Fortuna, Via Consulare, Via del Foro, Viadei Vettii, through which traffic passed from the Portadel Vesuvio to the Forum, and the Vicoletto delle Nozze d'Argento, which seems to have served to link the Porta di Capua to the Forum area. Other streets were characterized by numerous taverns, etc., such as the Via degli Augustali and its extension, or like Viadei Teatri led to the city's two theatres. Common to these streets were the commercial activity and traffic which distinguished them, 197 and the very siting of the electoral inscriptions in them supports the conclusion on the responsibility for the posting of electoral inscriptions which was drawn above. lt thus seems self-evident that, in an election campaign, notices supporting the candidates would have been placed where they were most likely tobe seen by as many people as possible- i.e. in the main streets - whereas it would be difficult to explain why only people living on the main streets took part in the election campaign. Although the effect of posting electoral inscriptions in the side streets would naturally have been less, it could

......

S86~-C:~6~

C:~6~-098~ 098~-8PH

--

001

"'

• 001

,

- - ----------

---------~

J

:

52 hardly have prevented the inhabitants from expressing their electoral sympathies. The concentration of inscriptions along the most frequented streets must, in other words, be the result of planning and be due to their being part of an election campaign in support of one or two candidates. This conclusion is further confirmed by analysing the placement of the inscriptions of the individual candidates and candidate pairs, since these exhibit several features which can be interpreted as manifestations of higher control. The placement of the candidates' inscriptions thus seems to be individual and disclose very considerable differences from candidate to candidate. Consequently, the total distribution described above is merely a sum of all the divergent distributions and does not reveal any uniform Standard for the placing of electoral inscriptions. There are candidates whose inscriptions to a great extent reflect the average distribution pattern, but these do not seem to be more frequent than the other distribution types. Very often, the inscriptions are concentrated in a few of the main streets, while none or only a few are found in other streets normally weil covered by other candidates. They may be concentrated in streets and quarters which otherwise lie outside the normal distribution pattern. Markedly deviant concentrations may also occur. As examples of different types we may cite A. Trebius Valens, a very !arge part of whose inscriptions are placed along the Via dell' Abbondanza (fig. 5), and C. Cuspius Pansa, whose distribution is close to the normal distribution, although neither the Via di Mercurio nor the Viadei Vettii are included (fig. 6). M. Cerrinius Vatia's inscriptions are to a remarkable degree concentrated in the northern part of the city, whilst the latest-excavated part of the Via dell ' Abbondanza, where all inscriptions must be assumed to have been recorded, is not included in his campaign area at a11 (fig. 7). Not least this unusual distribution pattern gives rise to speculation as to what influence the varying preservation percentages in the various quarters may have had on the number of preserved inscriptions for the individual candidates. lt is thus clear that a far !arger proportion of A. Trebius Valens' inscriptions have been preserved than of those of M. Cerrinius Vatia, since the latter's were concentrated in areas which were among the earliest to have been excavated in Pompeii. The placement is in other words of great importance for the survival of the individual candidate's inscriptions, and the deviant topographical distributions must consequently have given rise to major distortions in the relative number of inscriptions preserved for individual candidates. 198 It is naturally not possible to ascertain what motives lay behind the inscriptional distributions and the selected campaign areas, but the candidates' dwellings seems to have played apart. It is thus not unusual to find a concentration of inscriptions in the vicinity of the candidate's putative home. For instance, A. Trebius Valens seems to have lived at 111,2,1 on the Via dell'Abbondanza, 199 and the same phenomenon can be observed with respect to inter alia C. Julius Polybius/00 L. Ceius Secundus201 and Q. Postumius Proculus (fig. 7),

~-

' t·

f

·pue~ SU<3JB/\ sn!qaJl 'V ·::> ·pae suaJe/\ sn!qaJl. ·v 9

•

'"

OOl

•oot

'\'0

54

r '' ' // / '

/

,,,, ,,

/ / / / //

'

/

/"

·',,/

'' /

I'

,,

oooo

~

'~

Fig. 6. The location of C. Cuspius Pansa's inscriptions for his aedilician candidature. His hause cannot be placed precisely, but may have been situated in IX, 1IIX, 7, or /, 411,6.

z() ......

......

~

-o

()

C1l

::J

oro

u

-o > C1l

a:~ Ul

55

c

Q)

::JUJ

-E-~

~

~-E ·E oaJ-::J

a.ücii)

d~~& •••

0

i!

~

Fig. 7. The location of Q. Postumius Proculus' and M. Cerrinius Vatia's inscriptions. lnscriptions for "Postumius aed. cand." must generally be assumed to derive from the former's candidature, and their location is therefore also marked. The circle shows in which quarter Q. Postumius Proculus probably lived. M. Cerrinius Vatia may possibly be linked to the Via di Nofa.

..

z()

56

and not least M. Casellius Marcellus and L. Albucius Celsus (fig. 8). The distribution of this well-documented candidate pair is particulary interesting, because it is possible to ascertain a clear connection in the placement of the two candidates' inscriptions. L. Albucius Celsus would seem to have been the owner ofthe Casa delle Nozze d'Argento V,2,i, 202 while M. Casellius Marcellus presumably lived in the street between IX,3 and IX,2. 203 The inscriptions of both have a considerable neighbourhood concentration, but are found not only in the vicinity of the candidate's own dwelling, but alsoofthat of his runningmate, which clearly speaks for a co-ordinated posting of their programmata. A similar conjunction in the placement of candidate pairs' inscriptions can be seen interalia with M. Cerrinius Vatia and Q. Postumius Proculus, M. Cerrinius Vatia having several inscriptions in the neighbourhood of the dwelling of Q. Postumius Proculus in the middle of region I. 204 The electoral inscriptions of Cn. Helvius Sabinus and his running-mate M. Samellius Modestus also reveal collocation , the concentration of electoral inscriptions in the presumptive neighbourhood of the latter in the northern part of the town being shared with the form er. 205 These examples, tagether with the aforementioned accordance in nomenclature, make it likely that the joint candidates were "allies" , with a co-ordinated or joint poster campaign. 206 At the same time, they represent a further argument for the campaign theory, in that the concentrations in the neighbourhood not only of the candidate himself, but of his running-mate, strongly suggest that the electoral propaganda in questionwas not just a case of neighbours' unsolicited backing of a candidate whom they knew and had sympathy for, but was organized by the candidates themselves. The reasons for this penchant for placing inscriptions araund the candidate's home can for obvious reasons not be properly explained, but a possible explanation could be the candidate's wish to rnake hirnself known to the ~lectors in his own constituency, his tribules, since we know from Cicero that there was considerable prestige involved in winning in one's own tribus, and that candidates arnong other things distributed special perquisites arnong thern. 207 This explanation rnay also elucidate the special recommendations from neighbours, whose support thus strengthened the candidate's position to a special degree. 208 As regards the question as to whose initiative it was to post the electoral inscriptions, it can now be concluded that there are strong indications pointing to the candidates thernselves or their supporters as the probable parties behind the extensive electoral propaganda. The crucial argurnent is the individual character of each candidate's inscriptions: this can have arisen, in my opinion, only frorn a planned and co-ordinated posting of all the inscriptions of the candidate or candidate pair. With this identification of whose initiative it was to post the electoral inscriptions, the question arises of the röle of th(f voters in the electoral campaign,

......

...... (/)

57

-oc

.2 Q)(/)

uro

~:::J

ro..!Q

-o

~Q)

(/)0

Q)

ro

:::J(/) =:::J -·!/l:::J

(/)

:::J wu -Q5 J:9c:~ <( ·- ro

~_j~~ •

-4

•

0

I

,; ~

o<:JOo ~

~

Fig. 8. Tlze location of M. Casellius Marcellus ' and L. Albucius Celsus' inscriptions. Along with the two candidates' secure inscriptions, inscriptions for "Marcellus cand. ", probably referring to M. Casellius Marcellus, are included. The slzading indicates what was probably L. Albucius Celsus' home (V,2,i), the circle the possible location of M. Casellius Marcellus'.

..

z()

58 and of the connection between them and the inscriptions on their house fa~ades.

It might be thought that the Romans with their strict enforcement of ownership rights would not have accepted the unauthorized use of house walls for purposes of electoral propaganda. Nonetheless there is much to suggest that they did so, and that the fa~ades of their homes could be freely used for inscriptions of all kinds. Both the overall distribution pattern and a number of individual inscriptions provide support for this hypothesis. The overall distribution of inscriptions shows a massive concentration in certain streets, where practically all fa~ades were covered in dipinti of various kinds, programmata, edicta munerum and greetings, etc. That this was very unsightly can be seen from contemporary photographs from the excavation of the Via dell'Abbondanza. 209 Moreover, as the fa~ades were often decorated , for example with tall red panels or the like , one would have thought that these inscriptions could hardly have been welcomed by the people living in the houses thus defaced. Theoretically , of course, the electoral notices could have expressed the inhabitants' own sympathies and thus have been tolerated by them. Butthisexplanation is ruled out by the occurrence of inscriptions of no conceivable interest to them, for example edicta munerum, which are often very prominently displayed. Also the frequent repainting of the fa~ades, which the rather short lifetime of the electoral inscriptions indicates, seems to signify that people were aware of, and took steps to rectify, the damaging aesthetic results of the electoral propaganda. There are even some inscriptions which actually vandalize the fa~ades , since they are placed over paintings and other decorations and can certainly not have been carried out with the owner's approval. 2 10 One area of Pompei which enables us to ascertain with great certainty that the painters of the inscriptions worked entirely without authorization is that of the funerary monuments outside the town. From other Italian towns, where the same tradition of written propaganda evidently existed, a number of tituli from monuments have been found in which the scriptores are requested to spare the tomb. 211 Naturally, examples from other areas cannot be automatically applied to Pompeii, but as concern for the upkeep of the family monuments may be assumed to have been equally great all over ltaly, the Pompeians are hardly likely to have been more tolerantly disposed to the defacement of their tombs with electoral propaganda than the inhabitants of other towns. Features of the contents of the inscriptions themselves, too, may sometimes speak for the inscriptions having been posted without reference to the houseoccupants, especially inscriptions mentioning persons other than the candidate himself. The considerable number of inscriptions in which a person is addressed and more or less politely called on to vote for , or otherwise assist, the candidate would thus seem to have been posted without that person's permission and perhaps even without his knowledge, since the form of the inscriptions would otherwise not be comprehensible at all. 2 12 It has been established above that a

....

...... 59 5ignificant percentage of the rogator inscriptions were placed on the house of a neighbour, 213 who is hardly likely to have agreed to ]end his fa~ade to others' recommendations, werehe asked. The same must presumably apply to those inscriptions in which the scriptor hirnself has inserted his own name in lieu of that of the rogator. 214 There are thus several indications for the hypothesis that the scriptores enjoyed a free hand in posting election propaganda. lt is therefore my beliefthat house fa~ades were considered a part of the public street and were thus at the free disposal of scribes and scribblers of all kinds, from the professional scriptores to the perpetrators of private graffiti. A few programmata must , as I have said, have been posted against the wishes of the occupants, but the semi-official nature of the electoral notices which made it possible to assign responsibility for them to painters and candidates shows that such an unauthorized posting can hardly have been in conflict with accepted norms, Iet alone illegal. Finally , it may be pointed out that the formal tone and uniformity of the inscriptions for a particular candidate do not argue for the occupants' personal participation in their posting, which would have left traces in the form of declarations of support of a moreindividual character. If the theory of the nocturnal posting of electoral inscriptions be accepted, as it is by many scholars, this would constitute a further impediment. A nurober of arguments can thus be adduced against any obligation on the part of the occupants to have approved or authorized the inscriptions, and even against their participation in the electoral campaign at all. The propaganda seems, in short, to have been planned , financed and carried out exclusively by the candidates and their supporters and helpers, without popular participation. Yet a single, but powerful, argument against this picture of the election campaign can be advanced: namely , that the explicit mention of individual and collective supporters in the inscriptions must indicate that these in some way played apart in the election campaign. Consideration must therefore be given to whether the rogator inscriptions are also due to an initiative on the part of the candidates, and what posting procedure they entailed. To start with, it can be ascertained that this group of inscriptions does not differ markedly from the others with respect to form , content and placement, and consequently fulfils the criteria by which the electoral inscriptions as a whole have been interpreted as forming part of a candidate-directed campaign. There is thus much to suggest prima facie that the rogator inscriptions too were posted on the initiative of the electoral agents and not the expression of any particularly strong interest in the election among individual voters. The quesion is, therefore, how the individuals whose names feature in the electoral inscriptions were chosen. In my opinion , they must have been selected by the agents, who knew beforehand whom they wished tobe rogatores. lf this were not the case, some kind of general canvassing of all the inhabitants of the campaign area would have to be imagined: this would have been anachronistic, and

60 have entailed a highly unlikely placement procedure. The rogator inscriptions in fact comprise only 20% of the electoral notices, and a disproportionately !arge number of enquiries would have had to be rnade, with most of those canvassed answering in the negative. In the event of a refusal being received , an inscription without the narne of a rogator would then have been posted. Such a procedure seems inconceivable : the rogatores must have been nominated by the candidate and the campaign tearn. This conclusion draws attention to the rogatores and their connection with the candidates; this group will therefore be subjected to a closer scrutiny.

Rogatores A rogator can be defined as a person or group of persons who in an electoral inscription is referred to in the nominative and usually in combination with one of the conventional verbs of recornmendation, of which rogare, cupere and facer(! are the rnost cornrnon. 215 Sometirnes several other expressions occur, serving to underline the rogator's support for the candidate. The recommendations can be divided into two types, collective and individual. These cannot be clearly separated , since both may sometimes be found in the same inscription. Individual rogatores are found in 444 inscriptions, and collective in 117. They will be treated separately below. In connection the individual recommendations, pleas to individual voters will also be exarnined in the light of the result obtained. Elucidating the extent of the group of individual rogatores, which is a prerequisite for a detailed analysis of its make-up, is attended by certain difficulties. lt may thus be difficult to decide whether the rogator in two or more inscriptions is one and the same person. lt was established above that Della Corte's identification of occupants on the basis of a combination of rogatores' nomina and cognomina is generally worthless. 216 But in those cases where other sources attest the existence of a name whose elements are found separately in the electoral inscriptions, the question arises of whether an identity can be established among the separate name elements. 217 A decision on this point must be based on an evaluation of the rarity of the names and the distance between them. During the discussion of Della Corte's use of rogator inscriptions, it was thus established that there is never any great distance between a person's recommendations, since they are usually placed in the vicinity of his house. In the 402 inscriptions in which the rogator's name is legible, 329 different, named individuals can be identified as rogatores. The frequency with which they occur is given in the table below, where the starting point is the nurnber of different Fig. 9

Frequency Rogatores Recommendations

1

280 280

2 33

3

4

5

10

5

-

66

30

20

-

6 1 6

329 402

.._

..... 61 recommendations, repeats of the same inscription being omitted. This table reveals that only 5% are documented more than twice, and that the rogatores on average supported 1·2 different candidates. I have earlier argued that the electoral inscriptions had an average life of about 10 years, 218 and explicit recommendations of magisterial candidates must therefore for most of the rogatores have been a very rare occurrence. This result is also corroborated by the distribution of inscriptions along the Via dell ' Abbondanza: for the people living on this street, which was in the campaign area of 9 out of 10 candidates, included many who apparently never recommended a candidate. Thus no rogatores feature on several house fa~ades where electoral notices have otherwise been found and which thus cannot have been newly painted in 79. 219 This presumably indicates that at no point in a ten-year period.did the occupiers support any candidate at the elections, although the possibility exists that their inscriptions were placed on a neighbour's fa~ade. The rarity which thus characterizes candidate recommendations makes the status and social and family relations of rogatores more interesting. This will therefore be examined below. Firstly, it should be remarked that the placement of the inscriptions is not a suitable criterion for a social allocation of the rogatores. The inscriptions were not always posted on the rogator's own house ; they could be painted on a neighbour's, and occupant identification thus cannot be made on the basis of electoral notices. There are only a few other sources for identifying the homes of individual Pompeians, and it is therefore not feasible to carry out an investigation of the social position of the rogatores based on their dwellings. Rogatores' names, on the other hand , can yield important information on gender, family links, and to some extent social and juridical position. The distribution of men and women among the rogatores is relatively easy to ascertain in the material , only a few names not being gender-determinable. 220 45 or 14·5% women and 266 or 85·5% men can be determined . This result can only be called remarkable, since women did not enjoy the suffrage, and were thus unable themselves to participate directly in the elections. The family background of the rögatores is considerably more difficult to elucidate, since our knowledge of Pompeian prosopography is very fragmentary, and we Iack among other things the information on marriage, etc., which the funerary inscriptions often contain. The investigation thus has tobe limited to a treatment ofgentilicia. Moreover, on account of the frequent use of cognomen at the expense of nomen, only 106 rogatores can be included in our analysis of gentilicia, though these must be assumed to constitute a representative sample. 22 1 Of primary interest in this connection is whether the rogatores belong to otherwise politically active families , and to this category will be allocated families which are represented among the candidates and magistrates in Pompeii's last period from 50-79. Of the rogatores whose nomen is known, 62 or 58% are members offamilies who participated actively in munitipal politics,

62 and this must have been a considerably larger percentage than these families represented among the population as a whole. The value of cognomina as a source on the bearer's social and juridical position has been a matter of some discussion over the years. 222 It is, however, a well-attested sociological phenomenon that names can have varying social distribution, and especially in a society marked by strong dass division, as was Roman society, one would expect this to have been even more marked than in modern society. A cognomen was given individually; and not least the fact that the free part of the population was responsible for naming the unfree, argues for the possibility of a sharp divide between the names Romans gave their children, and those they gave to their slaves. The problern thus consists of separating those cognomina which can be regarded as mainly servile. The two most widely used name types, the Greek and the Roman cognomina , must here be separately evaluated. The question of the Greek cognomina's social character seems to have been treated definitively with H. Solin's investigation of the urban-Roman Greek onomastic material. Sol in conclusively showed that Greek names in Rome were a sign of servile origin in the first or second generation. 223 This is presumably due to Greek names early being associated with the oriental slaves who came to Romein the 2nd and 1st centuries BC, which gave them an enduringly servile ring. Despite Pompeii's profound Hellenization and the Greek influence from Neapolis in particular, there is nothing to suggest that the Greek names current in Pompeii should have had a wider use. 224 Bearers of Greek names must thus be considered slaves, freedmen , or children of freedmen. The Latin cognomina also include names with a distinctly servile ring to them; others were almost entirely confined to the free part of the population. Attempts have been made to explain this difference in the use of names by classifying the names according to their meaning, and investigating the proportion of identifiable slaves and freedmen among the bearers. I. Kajanto has on this basis indicated names "relating to circumstances" as moreservile than, for example, names "relating to age". 225 Kajanto's procedure and results were employed by J. Andreau, among others, in his analysis of the witnesses in apochae Jucundianae. 226 But as the meaning of the names hardly seems to have played any decisive röle in Roman name-giving in relation to formal criteria in particular, it does not seem to be a valid means of elucidating the social position of the rogatores. 227 General criteria can, in my view, only to a limited degree be laid down for the use of Latin cognomina, and the individual names must therefore be evaluated separately to ascertain their special character. For this, Kajanto 's listing of the social dispersion of the individual names is our only tool. But not only do the given proportions of slaves and freedmen - on average 8% for the sources of Imperial tim es- fail to give a correct picture of the composition of the source material , but the sources, which mainly consist of funerary inscriptions, arealso not representative of the population as a whole. In fact

.._

.....

63

over 80% of the Romans known from sepulchral inscriptions must have been freedmen, 228 and the proportion of freedmen among bearers of Latin cognomina in the urban-Roman funerary inscriptions was as high as 60%. 229 Kajanto's individual figures and percentages cannot therefore be employed to determine the social status of the rogatores, but the relative deviations in the names' proportion of slaves/freedmen can give an important indication of the social distribution of a given name. It must be stressed, however, that even with names where slaves/freedmen make up a relatively large part of the bearers, the likelihood that a given bearer of it is a freedman is generally far smaller than with the Greek cognomina, for the vast majority of the bearers of Latin cognomina were freeborn. 230 The rogatores ' cognomina can now be divided into four categories: 1) Greek cognomina, in which barbarian cognomina , which have the sameservile character, also figure. 2) Latin cognomina that are represented with more than twice the average of slaves/freedmen in Kajanto's Iist, and therefore can be regarded as servile. Rarely occurring cognomina arenot included, unless formal criteria, for example the ending -io , argue for inclusion. 3) Latin cognomina without demonstrable servile character. 231 4) Cognomina whose origin cannot be determined. Of 86 of the 329 different rogatores, only the nomen, and not the cognomen, is known, and the cognomina of the remaining rogatores are distributed between the four categories as shown in fig. 10. Fig. 10

Category Number Percen tage of 1 + 2 +3

1 83 35

2 45 19

3 111 46

4 4

243 100

The two first categories comprise altogether 54% of the names, and it can thus be ascertained that over half of the rogatores bear cognomina which with varying degrees of certainty indicate that they were freedmen or descendants of freedmen. In a few cases, the inscription also specifies the occupation of the rogator, the most freq uen tly occurri ng bei ng caupo and fullo, each of which occurs four tim es, while dissignator occurs twice and the following once each: veterarius, faber , fornacator, lupinarius , perfusor, pistor and pomarius. 232 lt may be noted here that these professions also include definitely low-status jobs, such as caupo, pistor and fullo. 233 Sometimes the rogator is also designated cliens or libertus. Thus 12 or 4% of the identifiable rogatores are termed cliens, and 5 or 1· 5% libertus. 234 Scrutiny of the extent, frequency and composition of the individual rogator group has yielded a number of results which can help clarify the relationship between rogatores and candidates. As earlier ascertained, there must have been a personal connection between the rogatores and the candidate, for the

64 initiative for the recommendation seems to have been taken by the campaigners, and the rarity with which it occurs suggests doser relations. This in itself indicates a dient or amints relationship, and the composition of the rogator group provides a powerful argument for this. Not least the indusion among the rogatores of 14·5% women, who did not have the suffrage, provides support for such an interpretation. Their direct involvement in the election campaign would otherwise have cast a doubtful light on the candidate's campaign and thus have a totally undesirable effect, but becomes much more understandable if they featured in the capacity of members of the candidate's clientela. The same condusion is suggested both by the predominance among the rogatores of members of politically active families, and the presence among them of freedmen and other persons of low social standing, whose explicit recommendation could hardly have increased the candidate's prestige unless it was a sign of membership of his own or his allies' dientela. In addition, electoral notices and recommendations, in the light of the Iack of competition which sometimes occurred with the duumviral elections, can hardly be perceived as traditional election propaganda, but rather as an attempt by the candidate to spread his name and increase his personal prestige by recommendations from his dients and amici. The great rarity with which rogatores are mentioned as dients cannot argue against such an interpretation, since the appellation would be both superfluous if the rogatores' relationship to the dient was weil known, and insulting to the voters. The word cliens seems namely to have had a somewhat ·derogatory ring, and was not usually employed by the patron in direct address.235 The dientela system's extent and importance in Roman society is still under discussion, and the above remarks should therefore be regarded as conjectural. But the above analysis of the Pompeian electoral inscriptions and the recommendations found therein provides, in my view, a plausible basis for attributing to these personal ties no negligible influence. on the form of the election campaigns and possibly even on the election results.

((Fac" inscriptions There are a considerable number of inscriptions in which an appeal is made to one or more persons to support a candidate. The request may be formulated in various ways, of which "fac" is the most common. 236 It seems dear that these inscriptions must have been posted at the instigation of the organizers of the election campaign, and consideration must therefore be given to how they reIate to ordinary rogator inscriptions. Examination of the 43 different persons appealed to shows that their cognomina with respect to Greek and servile Latin forms do not differ essentially from those of the rogatores, and that here too a certain nurober of freedmen must have been involved. 237 On the other hand, a somewhat greater number

~-

l ;{

-·

65

of magisterial candidates can be ascertained in this group: 26% as against 4% of the rogatores. 238 An investigation of the actual formulation used in the appeals attests to the various social Ievels occupied by the persons appealed to. Some of the forms of address, including cupis, vigila and dormis, thus have a somewhat sharper or more peremptory ring than others, such as fac and fave , which may be considered more neutral and polite. This accords with the fact that only 2 of the 14 candidates are addressed with other than "fac" and "fave", while 6 out of the 8, for whom a sharper tone is adopted and whose cognomen is known , have a Greek cognomen. 239 This could suggest that a number of those appealed to were clients of the candidate, and that these inscriptions consequently differ only formally from the rogator inscriptions. By contrast, the polite solicitations, which are addressed to candidates among others, can be regarded as a Iinguistic reflection of the admittedly fluid border between clientes and amici: amici could, in contrast to clientes, expect to be treated as the patron's equals, even if this was not really the case, and thus to be addressed in correspondingly polite language. Some of the appeals may naturally be Straightforward requests for support , but it is not possible to ascertain how great a proportion they represent. Most of the fac inscriptions do not, in my opinion, essentially differ from the rogator inscriptions, but seem to be a different expression of the relationship between the candidate and the electors which the recommendations evince.

I

Collective recommendations The recommendations in which a group of persons pledge their support for a candidate or are urged to do so can be divided into three categories: occupational groups, neighbours, and others. They will be treated separately below. Great importance has often been ascribed to the participation of occupational groups in the electoral campaign: it has been interpreted as a sign both of the complexity and liveliness of the election campaign and of the prominent position of the colleges in Pompeian society. 240 Both these deductions seem to go too far, however, and to some extent Iack documentation. The trade associations, which according to this theory are supposed to have played so prominent a röle in social and political life , arenot clearly attested in Pompeii. The word collegium occurs in only one Pompeian inscription, the inscription on the tomb of Cn. Alleius Logus, and in this case may represent not a trade association, but a priestly college, for example. 241 In a few electoral inscriptions the word sodalis occurs, but there is nothing to suggest that it should mean a member of a college here .242 Nor does Tacitus' mention of proscribed colleges after the riots of 59 define these explicitly as collegia opificum. The groups in question might have been religious associations or burial clubs. 243

~r.

66 The recommendations of occupational groups are, moreover, very rare in relation both to the total number of inscriptions and to the number of recommendations: the 34 known examples in fact comprise only 6% of the recommendations and 1% of all inscriptions. 244 There is also great differentiation between the occupational groups; 23 different occupational terms occur in the inscriptions, so that they recommend on average only 1·5 times in the course of the period in which we can follow the election campaigns. The Iocation of the inscriptions conforms exactly to the typical main street distribution. Thus only one inscription deviates from this pattern, 245 and the initiative here, too, must be assumed to have been the candidate's. Nor does the form of the inscriptions otherwise deviate from the other programmata. Theseobservations clearIy controvert the claims that have been made for an independent and extensive activity of the colleges in the electoral process. The question then arises of whether the occupational groups of the electoral inscriptions are necessarily always identical with colleges. Through literary and epigraphical sources from other towns, we know of a substantial number of professional colleges from the early Imperial period. It must therefore be assumed that colleges also existed in Pompeii, although, as mentioned, there is no written evidence for their existence. Yet it is not a foregone conclusion that these were always the same as the recommending groups, for some of these were very specialized and otherwise unknown in a collegial context. More than half of the occupational groups in the electoral inscriptions are thus not documented as colleges elsewhere in the Roman Empire. 246 In other words, if the recommending groups were professional colleges, Pompeii must have had an unusually varied collegiate life, for so many insignificant occupations to occur independently in the inscriptions. This is noticeable not least in the conspicuous absence of more considerable groups such as fabri and masons. The automatic linking of rogator groups and colleges, which is often made, seems on this basis doubtful, and in several cases the recommendation could merely be regarded as a reference to a single workshop or to more informal groups of practicants. 247 The references to colleges which the material presumably contains, must attract considerable interest as some of the very rare examples in Roman history of an apparently accepted interference by private organizations in public affairs. Yet the very rarity of the recommendations, mentioned above , and the candidates' probable initiative in posting them make it inadvisable to endow them with too much importance, since these two factors could point to an interpretation which to a greater degree harmonizes with our remaining picture of Roman and Pompeian politics. In the same way that the candidate's clients and amici seem to have been involved in their poster campaign, so it would not seem unlikely that a candidate who was patron of a college should have Iet this group feature as rogatores in order to publicize his position. Roman colleges had one or more patrons among the leading families of the town, and as the

......

Ji

......

\

67

magisterial candidates came from the same social group, candidates must sometimes have been patroni collegiorum. The recommendations in which vicini feature in the röle of rogatores differ from the other collective rogator inscriptions in that they do not seem to refer to any concrete group of persons. The 32 inscriptions follow quite the same pattern as the electoral inscriptions generally and must therefore be assumed to be the result of the same placement procedure and part of the same election campaigns. There were no local assernblies or the like which could lend their suppoit to a candidate. Naturally, the recommendation of vicini may in some cases have been appended after consultation with the candidate's neighbours, but the formulation "vicini rogant" is so vague that no actual persons need in my view stand behind the inscription's recommendation. The purpose of these inscriptions was tostatethat the candidate enjoyed the support of his neighbours, and this supportwas evidently accorded great importance. Just as popularity among the candidate's tribules was desirable in Rome, so it may be imagined that neighbour support had a considerable propaganda effect in a municipal election and was presumably used as such in the inscriptions, without any explicit neighbourhood initiative lying behind them. The rogator category "others" comprises 42 recommendations from 27 different groups. Only a few of these, however, can be identified: for example clientes, liberti and sodales, who often occur in conjunction with named persons and are therefore merely casual additions made in the interests of propaganda to give the recommendation greater weight. The interpretation of several rogator groups is very uncertain. Thus in the case of the celebrated serebibi, latrunculari, etc., it is unclear whether real recommendations from a group of people, counter-propaganda carried out by opponents, or mere jokes to which it would be wrong to accord too much importance are involved .248 Wehave no other sources at all on the clubs to which the inscriptions are presumed to refer, and the theory of real recommendations by an organized group of people, and the consequent picture of a lively club life is thus built on a very slender foundation. Nor do we have any knowledge of other electoral notices in which opponents are referred to. Besides, in view of the general tone of urban-Roman politics, it seems unlikely that in the few cases in which the intention was to embarrass opponents, so subtle a form should have been used as to makE~ the meaning obscure. I am therefore inclined to regard these recommendations as jokes, although it cannot of course be ruled out that some of them refer to "clubs". The source material does not allow this question tobe properly elucidated, but it can be established that the inscriptions in question at all events constitute only a very insignificant proportion of the recommendations in toto. Another controversial group of collective recommendations are those made by campanienses, forenses, salinienses and urbalanenses. Since the last two apparently designate quarters in Pompeii, they have been interpreted as inhabi-

68 tants of various Pompeian constituencies, tribus. 249 As Urbulana , Saliniensis and Campana were the names of city gates, the association with different quarters seems plausible enough. 250 The inscriptions seem therefore tobe on a par with the vicinal recommendations and like these to have served to demoostrate the candidate's popularity among his neighbours and tribules. Considerable importance has also been attributed to the participation of religious groups in the election campaign, but the two types, isiaci and veneri , are only very sparsely and insecurely documented. 25 1 Thus isiaci feature only twice as rogatores, while the incidence of veneri in 1146 and veneriosi in 7791 appears to be associated with the "balneum venerium" found in Insula Juliae Felicis, II,4. This leaves only 7978, which was found on a funerary monument and can be dated to 25 AD, or more than 50 years before the destruction of Pompeii. The extent and significance of religious groups' interest in the elections seems on this basis to have been much exaggerated .

Summary

I I

I

I

l I

l

•\

In connection with this analysis of the extensive source material which the Pompeian electoral inscriptions comprise, an attempt has been made to find some generat patterns concerning their posting and function in the election campaign; it is in my opinion important to bear in mind that we are dealing with generalities. The total picture was undoubtedly far more varied than the above presentation would suggest. It can thus by no means be ruled out that some inscriptions were due to an individual voter's wish to demoostrate his support for one particular candidate. 252 Nor could the planning or execution of the election campaigns have taken place without improvisation and deviation from the norm. There are therefore several inscription groups, recommendations and additions to inscriptions which seem inexplicable today, because they were the result of unique or locally contingent circumstances which were known in the provincial town of Pompeii, but which are impossible for us to penetrate on the basis of the extant material. The deviant, and for us inexplicable, circumstances in the election propaganda must be perceived as unavoidable in a society like that of Pompeii , where candidate, scriptor and voter may have been acquainted and purely personal circumstances alluded to in the election inscriptions. But the existence of these does not affect the overall picture presented here, which ignores the individual cases and concentrates on the common denominators. The general interpretation of the programmata I have advanced attributes the initiative for the electoral programmata, and for the conducting of regular campaigns, to the candidates themselves. On the basis of an investigation of the form and location of the inscriptions, individual features in the inscriptions of the individual candidates and candidate pairs can be demonstrated which seem to corroborate such a theory. Several indications suggest that painters were given a free hand in conducting the inscription campaigns. On some

.......

i

'J

'

-..

69

houses a specific person was named as a supporter, and the frequency with which this occurs and the form employed suggest that the candidate's clientes and amici were involved . The same seems to be the case with some of the collective recommendations, though some of these must be pure propaganda . The exhortatory inscriptions which address one or more persons do not differ essentially from the rogator inscriptions. These results present a picture of the elections in Pompeii which clearly contrast with the "democratic" interpretation of the electoral inscriptions which has influenced our perception of political life in Pompeii . No form of popular participation in the election campaigns can thus be ascertained . When the citizens do feature in them, it is not in the form of independent voters but in the röte of the candidate's personally bound allies and subordinates. The mention of the candidate's clientes and amici in the election inscriptions was undoubtedIy intended to strengthen his prestige , which to a great degree depended on the extent of hispersonal connections. It was presumably also intended to serve as areminder to them to make an effort on his behalf: an appeal that is explicitly made in some of the inscriptions. The Pompeian election inscriptions are, according to this interpretation , not the manifestation of popular interest in the government of the town, but the result of a contest between the leading upper dass families over the highest offices of the town. They also constitute an indication that personal links may have played no negligible part in this political rivalry.

I

70

IV. Pompeian magistrates and magisterial candidates in the period 80 BC - 79 AD The names of a considerable nurober of magistrates and magisterial candidates from Pompeii's Roman period , 80 BC- 79 AD, have been handed down with the extensive and varied epigraphical material preserved from this provincial town . On the basis of these sources, it is the intention in this chapter to investigate the family make-up of the leading social group and thereby try to establish the degree of continuity and mobility in the upper dass and to plot any developmental tendencies in the course of the last 159 years of Pompeii's existence. The period will therefore be divided into three main phases for which the source material will be treated separately, and a Iist of known magistrates and magisterial candidates established. Finally, an overall analysis of the whole source material will be given, with an evaluation of the feasibility of carrying out detailed prosopographical investigations in Pompeian source material.

The Republican period The magistrates in this period, which we will initially call the Republican period, and the duration of which will be determined later, are known through two types of sources: dipinti (i.e . programmata antiquissima) and tituli, which consist of dedicatory and funerary inscriptions. They both present dating problems which call for separate treatment. After a principal discussion of the most important dating criteria, the Pompeian tituli from this periodwill be treated individually, after which the dipinti will be evaluated typologically with a view to attempting an overall dating of the inscriptions. After a complete Iist of known Pompeian magistrates and candidates from the Republican period has been estabished, the principal questions in connection with Roman Pompeii's early political history will be evaluated in the light of this survey.

Republican tituli Only a very small nurober of tituli mentioning magistrates have survived from the Republican period, but the dating of these involves several important problems relating to the constitutional status of earliest Roman Pompeii. Among the questions which also need to be answered are the determination of when exactly cognomina were introduced and the possibilities of dating on orthographic and epigraphical criteria. Earliest Roman Pompeii's constitutional position and structure have been the subject of a great deal of controversy, which I do not propose to expatiate

...

71

on, merely to note the principal views expressed. The purpose of the present investigation is to define and date the offices mentioned in the inscriptions. The discussion revolves about the nature of the constitutional status that Pompeii enjoyed in the period between the Roman conquest in 89 BC and the establishment of the Sullan colony in 80 BC, andin the immediately following period. 253 Among the most prominent participants in this debate was H. Rudolph, who in 1935 suggested that Pompeii was granted Roman citizenship by Cinna in 87, and was a Roman municipality governed by quattuorviri in the period from 87 to 80. 2.54 Partsofthis theory were adopted by G.O. Onorato in his article of 1951 in which he presents the following picture of Pompeii's status between 87 and c. 65. In 87 Pompeii was transformed into a Roman municipium which, as a survival from the former Oscan administration , was qoverned inter alia by aediles and a quaestor. When the colony was established in 80, this municipium was not rescinded but lived on for a brief period independently of the colony, so that there were in reality - according to Onorato- two urban societies in Pompeii: one for the native inhabitants and one for the colonists. 255 The administrative offices in the Sullan colony underwent a complex development in the course of a few years. They were first under the direction of two duumviri and two junior officials, then - in connection with the incorporation of the municipium into the colony- of coequal quattuorviri, and finally of two duumviri iure dicundo and two subordinate duumviri who later had the title "VASPP" appended. Onorato thought he could find literary evidence for his hypothesis of a Pompeian "double community" in Cicero's Pro Sulla andin Pliny the Elder, 256 but has been challenged from several sides on this point. 257 Several scholars have even been dubious about the very existence of the municipium, so that no concensus on Roman Pompeii's earliest form of government has been reached. 258 Thus P. Castren believed that the period 89-80 comprised an interregnum with changing interreges at the head of the town, and that the native Pompeians in the period after 80 were entirely excluded from filling posts and perhaps even deprived of the right both to stand for office and to vote. 259 To begin with, it can be established that no Pompeian municipality is unequivocally mentioned, as claimed by Onorato , either in Cicero or Pliny the Eider, and that there is thus no firm literary evidence for one. 260 An evaluation of the question of Pompeii's status in the period must therefore rest on the epigraphical material, which will be discussed for each of the possible offices below. The quattuorvirate is known in Pompeii through two Latin inscriptions: X 800, in which the magistrates M. Porcius, L. Sextilius, Cn. Cornelius and A. Cornelius are called "Illlviri" in connection with a dedication in the Temple of Apollo; and X 938, in which Cuspius, M. Loreius, L. Septumius and D. Claudius feature as Illlviri, also in association with a dedication. In addition there is the funerary inscription X 1075 for Vibius M.f. Coeianus Nucerinus

1

72 Illlvir, but since it is uncertain whether he held office in Nuceria or Pompeii, the inscription must be excluded from this investigation of Pompeian magistrates. 261 X 800 can be dated to the colony's first period, since M. Porcius features as duumvir and duumvir quinquennalis with C. Quinctius Valgus in the dedicatory inscriptions X 844 and X 852 made respectively in connection with the construction of the covered theatre and the amphitheatre. C. Quinctius Valgus was among those who enriched hirnself during Sulla's dictatorship, and is also attested in Aeclanum, where he made major dedications in the 80s. 262 Degrassi and Onorato have doubted the identity between M. Porcius in X 800 and C. Quinctius Valgus' colleague in X 844 and 852. 263 But as no other members of the gens Porcia are known in Pompeii, and the inscriptions seem to be epigraphically coeval, this scepticism does not seem justified, and Onorato's theory of the quattuorvirate as a transitional phenomenon some time after 80 BC thereby also collapses. X 938, too, must postdate 80, since several ofthe magistrates have Roman gentilicia, which would suggest that they did not come to Pompeii prior to the colonization. 264 The same conclusion is reinforced by X 937, in which the magistrates Cuspius and M. Loreius in X 937 dedicate a wall which has been assumed tobe identical with the town wall damaged during the siege of 89. 265 The quattuorvirate was not, in fact, necessarily an independent post, but as Mommsen already suggested, a comprehensive term used when the duumvirs and aediles acted together. 266 Cuspius and M. Loreius are thus mentioned in another inscription as duumviri, and several quattuorviri feature as duumviral and aedilician candidates in the oldest electoral inscriptions. 267 This interpretation of the quattuorvirate, which also casts doubt on Onorato's theory on the development of the duumvirate, has a bearing on the evaluation of the title's extent in Pompeii, for X 800 and 938 are the only inscriptions from the early colony in which all four magistrates are mentioned. It cannot therefore be ruled out that other magistrates too, who are known as duumvirs and aediles, may have borne this title. The comprehensive term "quattuorvir" for duumvirs and aediles seems, however, to have been employed only in the early colony , for later in Republican times we find the magistrates called "duoviri ID" and "duoviri VASPP" in the same inscription. 268 There is, in my opinion , no certain evidence for the existence of the quaestorate in Roman Pompeii, and the extensive research carried out into this question seems to have overlooked one very important point. The discussion has been pursued on the basis of X 794, in which Vibius Popidius Ep.f. dedicates a porticus on the forum, and the electoral inscriptions 29, 30 and 36 for Q. Caecilius and 7014 for C. Laecanius [-]ssus . The latter, however, is not, as claimed, a programma antiquissimum, and should therefore be left out of account. 269 In all the above inscriptions, the office is abbreviated as "Q", 270 but in the programmata this need by no means stand for quaestor. Castren suggested that

··-

~

...... 73

it designates quattuorvir, but this theory in my opinion runs into serious difficulties.271 Firstly, it is remarkable that only one or two of the many candidates should feature as a quattuorvir candidate when the title must have applied to them all. Secondly, candidates can hardly have run for an office which was not an independent magistrature, but merely a comprehensive term for duumviri and aediles. And thirdly, "Q" is not an abbreviation which is otherwise used for the quattuorvir office/72 it should rather be construed as an abbreviation for "quinquennalis". This interpretation has considerable advantages over both the quaestor and quattuorvir interpretations. Firstly, the office is known at an early stagein Roman Pompeii and is thus a much simpler solution than quaestor, which is attested only in pre-Roman inscriptions. 273 Secondly, it can explain why the abbreviation occurs so rarely in electoral inscriptions, since this officewas filled only once every five years. Thirdly, examples can be cited from the late inscriptions of "Q" standing for the quinquennialate. 274 X 794 is a problematical inscription, due to the fact that the most important indications for a dating conflict with each other; attempts have therefore been made to reinterpret the dating evidence. A dating of the inscription must reconcile the facts that 1) the inscription is in Latin, 2) the office is designated "Q", 3) the magistrate is a member of an ancient Pompeian family, 4) the forum's southern portico which the inscription probably refers to cannot be much Iater than 100 BC/755) the inscription shows clear epigraphical similarities to the early Roman inscriptions, and 6) it is cut in marble, of which there are no pre-Roman examples. 276 The most common interpretation dates the inscription on the basis of the archaeological evidence to around 100 BC and under no circumstances to after 89 BC, and explains the use of Latin as a result of the Roman influence that was also discernible before Sulla's conquest. 277 The office is then interpreted as the ordinary pre-Roman office of the quaestorate, which is documented several times in Oscan dedicatory inscriptions. 278 Onorato has, however, argued convincingly that the use of Latin was unthinkable in an official inscription before 89, and has, by attempting- unsuccessfully- to connect X 794 with another portico, used it to reinforce his theory of a Pompeian municipality from 87 BC, with the existence inter alia of quaestors. 279 The office designated in X 794 should, in my opinion, be interpreted as quaestor, since the abbreviation "Q" is not used in official inscriptions for duumviri quinquennales or quattuorviri, and the quaestorate is, as mentioned above , known in Samnite Pompeii. We can therefore establish that two clear indications point unequivocally to a date before 89 , namely the dedicated portico and the office , while the Latin text, the execution and the substrate argue against this dating. This disagreement between the inscription's content and its form suggests a disparity between the date when the dedication was made, and the date when the inscription was put up . A possible explanation could be that the construction took so long that the portico was started in Samnite times and

..

74 completed only in Roman times. 280 The inscription would then have had tobe in Latin, but at the same time to have mentioned the Oscan office the magistrate had at the time of the dedication. The donor's family was also active in the early colony and may have been involved in erecting the belated inscription. Thus this inscription, too, does not seem to furnish any evidence for the existence of a Pompeian quaestor in Roman times, either between 87 and 80 or Jater. The aedilician title was thought by Onorato to have been reserved for the magistrates in the Pompeian municipium. 281 This conclusion is based partly on the inscription I 1636, which mentions the aediles L. Acilius and A. Livius and seems to date from early Roman times, and partly on the absence of this title from Pompeii until the city's last years and on its consequently unique character in the early period. 282 There are, however, inscriptions which clearly contradict this theory. D. Claudius and P. Veius, whose Latin gentilicia clearly show them to have been Roman immigrants, thus feature several times as aedilician candidates, and the two aediles in I 1636 seem also to have been of Roman origin. The hypothesis of the almost 150-year-long absence of the aedilician title is invalidated by the Tiberian funerary inscription X 1036, in which M. Alleius Luccius Libella is described as former aedile, and in my view the title was in uninterrupted use up to 79 AD. The misunderstanding has arisen on account of the composition of the source material and some very special rules for when and how the office is mentioned in Pompeian tituli. In cursus honorum listing, the aedileship is thus normally not included, unless the magistrate had held only this office; this must be due to the fact that the aedileship was an obligatory stepping stone to the duumvirate. 283 It also seems to have been the custom to designate the aediles as "duumviri V ASPP", if "duumviri ID" are mentioned in the same inscription. 284 This title is thus attested in Pompeian tituli only when both aediles and duumvirs feature together, and in Augustan/JulioCiaudian times, ministerial dedicatiohs in which all the magistrates are represented are indeed the only source for identifying the lower magistrates in Pompeu. Castren has advanced the theory that the period 89-80 was an interregnum in Pompeian politics, a theory he bases on a handful of electoral inscriptions for C. Popidius, in which he is called "INTER". 285 This could be an abbreviation of "interrex", but the word is nowhere complete, so it is entirely a matter of conjecture. 286 The function of the inscriptions as part of an electoral campaign also seems tobe incompatible with the interrex office's provisional character of extraordinary magistrature. If, with Castren, one accords this interregnum the same function as it had in Rome, then interreges must have been nominated by the ordo, not by the people , and electoral inscriptions would then have been totally superfluous. It may also be wondered why only one of the several interregesthat must have existed in the years 89 to 80 is documented in inscriptions, and this no less than six times. The fact that "INTER" occurs

.._

I

-·

75

only in connection with C. Popidius, who might weil have been an ordinary candidate, since a Popidius occurs in both aedile and duumvir inscriptions, 287 suggests that it is rather a supplementary remark on this person than a designation of the office he stood for. 288 On this basis I do not find Castren's interpretation sufficiently convincing and must therefore reject his theory of an almost 10-year-long interregnum in Pompeii. lt can now be concluded that the Latin inscriptions mentioning the quattuorvirate and the aedility can be dated to after 80, and that neither of these offices can be associated with one of the two population groups in particular. The quaestorate seems not to have existed in Roman Pompeii, and an important argument for Onorato's double community theory thus seems to collapse. 1t should thus be possible to fix a terminus post quem for the Roman aedilician and duumviral offices at about 80 BC, since no traces of them prior to the establishment of the colony have been found. The status of Pompeii between 89 and 80 and the civil position of the Pompeians after 80 still remain undecided here: a discussion of them will be resumed following a treatment of the other epigraphical sources on the period's magistrates. Another question which needs answering in our discussion of the Republican inscriptions is the possibility of basing the dating of magistrates on any cognomen. As a generat method applying to all Roman inscriptions, this criterion must naturally be rejected as unreliable, but in Pompeii's special case, where a good chance exists on account ofthelarge quantity of datable tituli, of determining when cognomina became widespread within a limited area , I believe that the question should be seriously considered. In the same way that there may have been regional differences in the use of cognomina, socially determined variation must also have existed, and the survey will therefore concentrate on the social group which is of especial interest in this connection, namely the magistrates. One problern that immediately arises is that all three names are not always induded in certain types of source, e.g. dipinti and graffiti. Therefore only those inscriptions in which the entire nomenclature is assumed tobe normally given, which is to say tutuli- dedicatory , honorific and funerary inscriptions- will be included in our investigation. 289 The first examples of cognomina in Pompeii occur as early as the earliest Roman inscriptions from Sullan times, and the presence of a cognomen can thus not be the basis for dating inscriptions. The use of cognomina is, however, extremely sporadic in the early colony ,290 and the problern consists of deciding when this name element became widely used and at what time it became obligatory. The latter question can be answered relatively quickly, since no magistrates after Augustus seem to Iack a cognomen. In the dedicatory inscription X 904 from 40 AD , the aediles are , admittedly, given without a cognomen, but as both duumvirs have one , it would merely seem that the aediles' cognomina have been omitted, as is also the case in X 827, 900 + EE 853 and X 901, where the cognomina of one pair of magistrates, documented elsewhere, are

76 omitted from the inscriptions. 291 The transition to the general use of cognomina must have occurred in Augustan times, and there is much to suggest that it should be placed at the beginning rather than the end of this period. Among the considerable number of magistrates who on other criteria can be dated to the period c. 30 BC to 14 AD, there are thus only a few who do not feature with a cognomen: the three tribuni militum a populo L. Gellius, A. Veius and M. Tullius; and Q. Cotrius, who like M. Tullius features in inscriptions from 3 AD. Cn. Clovatius, P. Sallustius and L. Saginius cannot be dated precisely, but seem to be Augustan. M. Melsonius from 14 BC also Iacks a cognomen, but this may have been omitted from the inscription to make room for the addition "ITER", which indicates that it was his second duumvirate. The small number of magistrates without cognomen, and the circumstance that they include relatively many of high rank and therefore probably long-standing magistrates already by Augustan times, furnishes a basis for assuming that the transition to the use of tria nomina had been nearly completed by the beginning of Augustan times. The occurrence of several magistrates without cognomen likewise suggests that their inscriptions should be cautiously dated to somewhat before 30 AD. Under Augustus, however, a few magistrates still occur without cognomen, and isolated examples cannot for this reason be dated more closely on this criterion alone. 292 The possibility of basing the dating of Pompeian tituli on the epigraphical form of the inscription has never been examined in detail, probably due to the - quite justified - scepticism concerning the employment of this criterion. It has to be said, however, that the situation in Pompeii is quite different from that elsewhere in the Empire: a much larger amount of the original number of inscriptions has been preserved; a relatively Iarge proportion can be dated precisely or within a short interval; and the period to which these inscriptions belong is relatively short, defined by the years 80 BC and 79 AD. Taken together, all these factors mean that it is far easier to construct an inscription typology in Pompeii and to chronologically plot the changesthat occur within it. In defining the various inscription types, attention should be paid not only to the form of the individual letters, but also to the overall graphic impression, so that a few an omalies alone ought not to determine an attribution. Qualitative differences in the actual execution of the inscriptions, which might have caused variants not chronologically determined, should also be taken into account. 293 Using thesesimple epigraphic criteria, three main types of Pompeian inscriptions can be identified. These may be termed the pre-classical, the classical and the actuarial type. The classical type of script is defined as the well-known script ideal, usually called Augustan antiqua. It differs in both overall visual appearance and Ietter form from the foregoing Republican pre-classical form, which is generally far more irregular, variably proportioned and more poorly executed. 294 The post-classical actuarial script in its pure form can be clearly differentiated from the classical, in that the letters change shape and become

.._

.....

l

77

more curviform and narrower, and the picture becomes both closer and more difficult to follow. 295 The aim _in this and the following sections is to construct an exact chronology for these three types and to investigate to what degree they occur in the individual periods. This is crucial for the reliability and accuracy with which datings can be made using this criterion. The transition from a pre-classical to a classical script type occurs smoothly in Pompeii, but it is not possible to follow the whole development in detail, our material from Jate Republican times being too limited. Everything suggests, however, that the introduction of the new script type did not occur until Augustan tim es, both as a modification of still pre-classical inscriptions, and occasionally as pure or almost pure classical inscriptions. The earliest example of a largely classical inscription is from c. 25 BC, but not until between 14 and 3 AD does this form seem to have become widespread. 296 Hitherto, a !arge part of the inscriptions were entirely or partly pre-classical. Pre-classical features are thus no valid criterion for separating the two periods, but an inscription with an approach to classical form can be dated with considerable certainty to after 30 AD. The Orthographie dating criterion must also be mentioned as important for the establishment of a Iist of Republican magistrates. Pre-classical orthography, such as ei for i, double s, peq(unia) for pec(unia), and coero for euro, thus occurs preponderantly, and with great frequency, in Republican inscriptions. As preclassical orthography, however, can also occur in Augustan inscriptions, 297 a single example of such orthography is not sufficient in itself to validate a dating to the Republican era. Some of the most important criteria for dating the oldest Republican tituli have now been examined. In the following the inscriptions whic~ can be dated on this basis to the period 80-30 BC will be separately discussed. The beginning of the period has been defined as the establishment of the Roman colony when the duumvir-aedile system was introduced , while the closing y~ar is based on a reasonable estimate of a dating of the changes in nomenclature and epigraphy which allow various magistrates to be placed in time. X 819, 29 OS. In X 819 a duumvir ID L. Caesius C.f. and two duumviri C. Occius M.f. and L. Niraemius A.f. feature , while L. Caesius also features in the sepulchral inscription 29 OS. The dedicatory inscription X 819 is assumed to refer to the construction of the Forum thermae, which can be dated to the early colony on archaeological grounds / 98 and several other indications support such a dating of the magistrates. The designations for officials in X 819 could, as mentioned above, suggest that the aedile title "duumvir V ASPP" , which occurs later in Republican times, had yet tobe introduced. The employment of the pre-classical form peq in both inscriptions, the absence of cognomina, and the epigraphical form, which is distinctly pre-classical, also point to an earlier Republican dating. This coincides with an evaluation of the funerary monument 29 OS , which may be dated quite plausibly to c. 50 BC. 299

78 I 1636. In this inscription, two aediles, L. Acilius L.f. and A. Livius A.f., are referred to. They can be dated only on orthographical and epigraphical criteria. The form s(t)l(ocum) = locum is thus highly unclassical. 300 Together with the epigraphical form of the inscription, which is very irregular and among the most archaic Latin inscriptions from Pompeii, this may justify a dating to the very first years of the colony. X 800, 844, 852, 956, 997. The five inscriptions are alllinked by the incidence of M. Porcius, and thus clearly date to the earliest colony. In X 800, which is a twice repeated inscription on an altar in the Temple of Apollo, M. Porcius M.f. features as IIIIvir with L. Sextilius L.f., A. Cornelius A.f. and Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. In X 852 and 844 the same magistrate is referred to as duumvir quinquennalis and duumvir with C. Quinctius C.f. Valgus , in which capacity he dedicates the amphitheatre and the covered theatre. X 997 is a funerary inscription which does not mention offices, while in the fragmentary X 956 M. Porcius is referred to as duumvir. 30 1 C. Quinctius C.f. Valgus is documented in other sources, both literary and epigraphical, and can thereby be dated to Sullan times. 302 This dating is corroborated by the archaeological remains (the amphitheatre and odeon both seem to derive from this period), by orthographical features in the inscriptions (X 844 and 852 contain no less than seven examples of pre-classical orthography), and by the epigraphical form of the inscriptions, which seems homogeneous and is typical of the late Republic (pl. 10: 1). X 829. This inscription, in which C. Uulius C.f. and P . Aninius C .f. dedicate a laconicum and destrictarium in the Thermae Stabianae, can be dated only on the basis of internal evidence , since its archaeological context does not permit closer dating. 303 It contains, however, no less than three Orthographie deviations , and since it has very clear similarities to the Porcius/Quinctius inscriptions X 844 and 852, there seems to be a basis for dating the inscription to the early colony( pl. 11 :2). X 937, 938. Cuspius T.f. and M. Loreius M.f. feature in both inscriptions: in the formeras duumviri andin the latteras quattuorviri with D. Claudius D.f. and L. Septumius L.f. They should in my opinion be dated to the earliest colonial period. This is suggested by the fact that "quattuorviri" are referred to; that the inscriptions contain three examples of pre-classical spelling; and that the epigraphical form is distinctly pre-classical. In X 937, "murum et plumam" are dedicated, and while "plumam" cannot be identified, "murum" could at this juncture be a restoration of the town wall , which was damaged during Sulla's siege. 304 X 803, 804. In this dedicatory inscription, two exemplars of which are found, two duumviri ID, Q. Tullius Q.f. and M. Cinnius M.f., and two duumviri VASPP, C. Mammius L.f. and C. Naevius M.f., feature. None of these magistrates has a cognomen, which suggests a Republican dating, since Iack of cognomina occurs only sporadically und er Augustus. The inscription 's form is moreover unclassical andin itself a clear argument for such a dating .

.....

.....

79

17 OS, 11634. 17 OS is a memorial inscription for the gens Tillia, including also the duumvirs C. Tillius C.f. Rufus and Tillius C.f. I 1634 is a marble base on the front of which a dedication made by C. Tillius C.f. Rufus duumvir iter. and P. Maccius P.f. Melas duumvir is referred to. 305 The Tillius inscription 17 OS can, on the basis of prosopographical and epigraphical evidence, be dated to the first decades of Augustus' reign. The duumvir Tillius C.f. and his brother? C. Tillius C.f. Rufus are referred to as "tribuni militum leg. X equest. " , and this Iegion has been identified with Caesar's and Antonius' favourite, the Tenth. 306 Epigraphically, the inscription a1so contains certain pre-classical features pointing to an early Augustan dating. 307 The duumvir Tillius C.f. can therefore be placed in the period 30 BC- 14 AD, since his magistrature cannot be precisely dated and must therefore be attributed merely to the period in which he is attestedas a person. There are, however, clear indications that the magistratures of C. Tillius C.f. Rufus and P. Maccius P.f. Melas are considerably older and should be dated to around the middle of the 1st century BC. I 1634 thus contains several examples of pre-classical orthography, and the designation of office "II vir iur deic" otherwise occurs only in early Latin inscriptions from Pompeii. In 17 OS, the spelling duovir for Tillius junior, and the distinctly archaic form duomvir for C. Tillius Rufus, both occur. This Orthographie inconsistency may be explained as the reverent retention of the archaic wording of the original funerary inscription for Tillius senior, when he at a later juncture was commemorated on the family tomb. 308 On top of I 1634 there is also the scarcely legible inscription "L. Mevius L.f./ T. Vibius C.f. Varus/ Duovir ID". The inscription is shallowly incised and seems tobe a later addition, so that the two magistrates should be dated after C. Tillius Rufus and P. Maccius Melas, who presumably served in c. 45 BC. 309 Interna} criteria, L. Mevius' Iack of a cognomen, and the form "duovir", point to a late Republican or early Augustan dating. But based on the publication in CIL I, which indicates a pre-classical form, the magistrates are here placedcircumspectly- in the Republican period.

Programmata antiquissima

1

The other important source on Republican magistrates and candidates comprises the early Pompeian electoral inscriptions called programmata antiquissima in CIL, which make up a special category within Pompeian epigraphy. This group of inscriptions has never been investigated in depth, and the most important problern in this connection is how it should be dated. But before the question of dating can be answered, the extent of the group must be determined, and this requires that the possibilities of identifying programmata antiquissima with certainty be considered. I will therefore first Iook at the criteria which allow older inscriptions to be distinguished from new ones and then investigate whether all inscriptions with these characteristics must inevitably date to Re-

~J

·~ J.

80

'·a

publican times, or whether they also comprise electoral inscriptions from the later periods. The oldest electoral inscriptions, which make up less than 5% of all programmata, can be distinguished from the later ones on three criteria: 1) make-up and content, 2) inscription substrate, 3) type of script. 1) The make-up of the oldest notices corresponds in many respects to that found in the later inscriptions, but there is a general tendency to even greater brevity. Thus they usually consist merely of a name, an office, and sometimes the formulae OVF and VB. Several of the inscriptions contain special features, however , clearly separating them from the newer ones: abbreviation of candidate names, which occurs only in the oldest programmata and may sometimes hamper identification of the candidate; 310 appeals to COL(oni); and preclassical spelling of candidate names, e.g. "Aqutius" for "Acutius" and "Uulius" for "Ulius". It may also be remarked that rogatores do not feature in the oldest inscriptions, and this practice must therefore have first arisen at a later time. 2) Zangemeister mentions that the oldest electoral inscriptions, unlike the later ones posted on plastered walls, are painted directly on the tufa. 311 No newer programmata have been found on completely bare walls, and this seems therefore tobe a valid criterion. But as Zangemeister says of several programmata antiquissima that they were found "in opere tectorio", 312 this can only apply one way, and a placing on plaster cannot argue for a late date. 3) The palaeographical criterion is the central one in the dating of programmata antiquissima: it is the only one that covers all inscriptions. Although only a few programmata antiquissima are extant in photographs, a marked difference in script types in relation to the later inscriptions can be ascertained. While the later programmata are executed in actuarial style with narrow curviform letters, the earliest electoral inscriptions are far more angular and coarse in style. A clear difference can also be discerned in the shape of the individualletters, corresponding exactly to that between pre-classical tituli and post-Augustan inscriptions in actuarial style. 313 It should also be remarked that the publishers of C/L nowhere express doubts or reservations about the dating of an electoral notice, and I therefore believe that we can accept CIL's Iist of programmata antiquissima as being substantially correct. Given that the feasibility of separating new and old inscriptions is good, the question now arises whether all inscriptions with old types of script are programmata antiquissima, or whether they can be confused with inscriptions from Augustan/Julio-Claudian times. This cannot be answered on palaeographical criteria alone, because sufficient material to plot the palaeographical development in the painted inscriptions is not available. But everything nevertheless suggests that the likelihood of inscriptions being preserved from Augustan/ Julio-Claudian times is very small. This assumption rests on the fact that none

J·l

...

....

"

:j

~

·r

I

h

81

of the 75 magistrates who are known from this period, and who comprise about half of its total number, can be securely documented in inscriptions on the house fa<;ades. Several inscriptions which seem to date to this period have been found on sepulchral monuments , but this must be due to the especially favourable conditions of preservation which such monuments afford. 3 14 There thus seem to be only two possibilities of classifying electoral inscriptions: recentiora and antiquissima, which can be clearly separated. The more recent ones stem from the period c. 50 to 79 AD , and the dating of the earliest will be investigated in the following. The evidence on which an attempt to date the inscription group must be based is of two kinds: internal - information derived from the actual inscriptions - and external, i.e. information from other types of sources, in which candidates occurring in programmata antiquissima feature. The early electoral notices contain only a little information contributing to a dating of this group of inscriptions. In a few there are , as mentioned above, examples of pre-classical orthography pointing to Republican times but not permitting more precise dating. In nine inscriptions supporting five different candidates , however, there is an explicit appeal to coloni, abbreviated "COL" or merely "C" . 315 These programmata must date to the early colony, where the two population groups had not yet been merged and could clearly be distinguished. Nine of the candidates in the programmata antiquissima arealso documented in tituli: A. Cornelius and L. Sextilius in X 800, L. Caesius and L. Niraemius in X 819 , C. Uulius in X 829, C. Quinctius Valgus in X 844 and 852, D. Claudius and L. Septumius in X 938, and Cuspius in X 937-938. These can all be dated to the early colony. 316 Thus, while there is nothing, in either the internal or the external evidence, which refers to periods other than the first decades of the colony, there are numerous inscriptions pointing explicitly to this period. I will therefore examine whether there is a basis for dating all electoral inscriptions to this period, and what its duration might have been. The question can be illuminated by investigating the distribution of inscriptions among the candidates. There are altogether 124 programmata antiquissima in which the candidate can be identified. Their distribution among the 45 different candidates is shown in fig. 11 , where inscriptions are on the Y -axis and candidates on the X-axis. As is to be expected, we find a !arge number of candidates known only through a very small number of inscriptions, but also candidates with as many as ten inscriptions, while the 25% best-documented candidates comprise no Iess than 55% of all the inscriptions. This suggests that a considerable proportion of the inscriptions derives from a rather limited period, otherwise these high frequencies could not occur. This assumption is supported by the number of candidatures for the individual candidates . Herewe find that only three are known as both aedilician and duumviral candidate, and since a considerable

82 y

Fig. 11

lnscriptions

10

50

25 L---~----~--~~---r--~---x

10

20

30

40 45

Candidates

number must have stood for both offices, many candidatures close in time to the epigraphically documented ones must have existed but left no trace in the inscription material. The period from which the inscriptions derive seems also to have been quite sharply defined, for there are no signs that the chances of preservation have been gradually reduced and that the most poorly documented candidates date to a later period than those with high frequencies. In the aforementioned tituli in which candidates from the programmata antiqissima feature, magistrates with several inscriptions, magistrates with one or two, and magistrates who do not figure in the programmata antiquissima at all are found side by side. 317 The differences in the number of extant inscriptions per candidate must therefore ·be due to the candidates' originally not having the same number of inscriptions, which corresponds closely with the distribution in the later electoral inscriptions. There is thus no basis for generally dating the poorly documented candidates differently than the well-documented ones. The question of durability can also be elucidated by investigating those tituli in which candidates from electoral notices feature as magistrates, and thus presumably date to the same period as these, and by ascertaining how great a proportion are represented in the programmata antiquissima. In the tituli, 14 different magistrates are mentioned, and of these, 9 also feature as candidates in the programmata. It may thus be deduced that about two-thirds of the candidates in the preservation period are known through the programmata antiquissima. As the period to which the inscriptions have tobe dated seems, as mentioned above, tobe relatively sharply defined, this proportion must be assumed to have been largely constant. If we assume, for example, that the number of candidates was double the number of offices to be filled with new officeholders , which is to say four per annum, only the aediles being new, this gives a preservation period of about 16 years. There are several uncertain factors in this calculation. The two-thirds proportion of known candidates must thus be

.....

r .Ii

I. l

.1

I

'

1

;

I•

t

t

-..

83

treated with caution, because tituli in which none of the magistratesfigurein the electoral inscriptions arenot included in the count, and the number ofyears is considerably reduced if there were more candidates per annum - which is not unlikely. The number 16 must therefore be taken only as a rough estimate. It can on this basis be ascertained that the oldest programmata must be the result of some unusually favourable conditions for preservation which applied for a very short period in early Roman Pompeii. What special circumstances obtained iri these years and thus made preservation of this group of inscriptions possible is not clear: an answer to this question would require an archaeological investigation of the wall structures in Pompeii. As the internal evidence does not permit a closer dating, and none of the tituli mentioned can be precisely dated, it has to be recognized that the programmata's period of preservation cannot be exactly determined, and that the candidates cannot be dated any more precisely than to "the early colony". After this examination of the sources for the years 80 to 30 BC, it is possible to construct the following Iist of known Pompeian magistrates from this period. Apart from name and office, also the relevant sources are cited. 3 18

C Aburius dv. cand. 7118 , cand. 7121 ?; early. L. Acilius L.f aedile I 1636; early. L.Acutius dv. cand. 2: 4 ~7 Y 10~ 12~ 2885t; cand. 14'; early. Alleius? dv. or quinq. cand. 7126; 319 early. P. Aninius Cf dv. X 829; early. Q.Arrius? 320 aed. cand. 2883v2894': early. M.Artorius dv. cand. 8~- 16; /68~ 2886: 6602~ I 1642h , cand. s : 11' add. p. 460; early. C Cacosius cand. 31'; early. . ./ 1 Q. Caecilius quinq. cand. 29~ 30 , 36 : cand. 24; early. L. Caesius Cf dv. X 819 , 29 OS, cand. 3352; early. L. Canius cand. 7117; early. P. Carpini"us dv. cand. 17 Ycand. 48a~~"add.; early. M. Cinnius M.f. dv. X 803-804. ~ 32 1 D. Claudius D.f Illlvir X 938 , aed. cand. 3Z add., 69, 288(,2890~2898', cand. 38( 3348 t early. A. Cornelius A.f Illlvir X 800, cand. 66; early. Cn. Cornelius Cn.f. IIIIvir X 800; early. Cuspius T.f IIIIvir X 938, dv. X 937 , cand. 23vadd.; early. o/ Q. Enius cand. 37; early. P. Furius dv. cand. 67~ 2892: cand. 2l add.; early. . v'v( ' o/ L. Gavtus dv. cand. 34, 78 add. , 2897 , 3350 , cand. 33; early. M. Herennius 322 cand. 48; early. Q. Herennius cand. 2g, 2899';' early. A. Livius A.f aedile I 1636; early. o/

rr

84

"

M. Loreius M.f IIIIvir X 938 , dv. X 937; early. P. Maccius P.f Melas dv. I 1634. C Mammius L.f aedile X 803~804 . / 323 . d d 3 v 5,/ 58/ 61./ 334 v d d ?v M. Manus ae . can . , 4 ·, , , 7, v. ca n . 3345., cand. 1, 43/, 44,,,. ./ 46; early. V t/ M. Melissaeus 324 cand. 3342, 3344, 7116, 7127; early. L. Maevius dv. cand. 7125, cand. 6604~ 9823; early. L. Mevius L.f. 325 dv. I 1634. C Naevius M.f aedile X 803-804. / L. Niraemius A.f dv.=aedile X 819, dv. cand. 21; early. C Nunidius dv. cand . 55: 62; early. C Occius M.f dv.=aedile X 819; early. . 326 V ./ ,/ c/ V L. Olzus dv. cand. 11, 25 , cand. 57, 22 add. , 2919, 3353; early. M. Orcinius? aed. cand. 6; early. L. Paccius dv. cand. 7123 ;327 early. M . Pomponius 328 aed. cand. 27~ 82~cand. 2910?; early. V V C Popidius 329 aed. cand. 74~ dv. cand. 7120, cand. 13v, 5if, 53 , 54 add. p. 460, 70( early. -M. Porcius M.f IIIIvir X 800, dv. X 844, X 956, 330 dv. quinq. X 852, without office X 997, Ns 1899, 497; 331 early. C Quinctius Cf Valgus dv. X 844, dv. quinq. X 852, cand. 2887; early. c/ v T.Salenus cand. 63, 2891 ; early. .,/ L. Septumius L.f IIIIvir X 938, dv. cand. 23 add. ; early. . ,/ M.Septumzus dv. cand. 40 add .; early. v L. Sestius dv. cand . 6601; early. ./.: L. Sextilius L.f Illlvir X 800, cand. 3341 ;332 early. C Tillius Cf Rufus dv. 1634, 17v""O S. M. Tullius dv. cand. 7119, cand. 42 ; early. Q. Tullius Q.f dv. X 803-804. v v C Uulius Cf dv. X 829, aed. cand. 51 , 59; early. P. Veidius 333 aed . cand. 2895) dj. c~_n~. 20~ can~. 289~;early. N. V eius Barcha dv. cand. 45, 49, 72, w1thout office 75; early. P. Veius aed . cand. 18: 47? ( early. M . Velassius dv. cand. 35"add ~334 7122 ;335 early. . v r-J/ v P. Velunus dv. cand. 39, 4v add., cand . 65; early. L. Veranius Codes? cand. 9( early . Cn. Verginius aed. cand. 41"; early. . v V/ v-;: M. Vesbzus dv. cand. 52, cand. 19, 71 , 2889, 9824; early. • v P. Vettzus dv. cand. 2893; early. T. Vibius Cf Varus dv. I 1634. V

Tl'

~

I'

fr.

Pompeii's position between the Roman conquest in 89 and the colony's establishment in 80, andin the period immediately following, is still an unanswered

.......

~

I.

...... 85 question. It will now be evaluated in the light of the above examination of the Republican inscriptions and of the view thus obtained of the dating of the sources. It could be established that the painted inscriptions must stem from a brief period after 80 BC, and that dipinti are preserved only from this and the very latest period of Pompeii's history. This result draws attention to the preserved Oscan dipinti , since these may date to the same early period of preservation. Two kinds of Oscan dipinti are found on the house walls: eiluns inscriptions, and election notices. There now seems to be generat agreement as to how the former should be interpreted. 336 They were of a military nature and dealt with the deployment of citizen soldiers in the defence of the town. 337 They must at all events date to the period prior to 80, since this type of communication could not possibly have been written in Oscan after that date. They have been attributed to the siege of 89, 338 but as the whole period 89-80 BC was marked by political and military instability in Rome and Italy, it cannot be ruled out that they are later than 89. Ten Oscan electoral inscriptions are preserved , andin four of these the office can be identified. 339 In each case IIIIviri are involved, and the question is how these inscriptions should be dated and to what civic status they refer. It can b'\ established from the outset, firstly , that the quattuorvirate is unattested in the pre-Roman Samnite administration, in which the offices in Pompeii were meddix, aedil and quaestor, 340 and , secondly, that it seems to be an original Roman office .341There are therefore good grounds for supposing that the office did not come to Pompeii until the Roman conquest, and that the inscriptions must thus stem from the period after 89, a supposition confirmed by the generat dating of the early dipinti . This suggests in turn two possible interpretations of the Oscan electoral inscriptions: either that they are coeval with the Latin ones and form part of the same election campaign, the office being the colony's~ or that they belong to a separate Pompeian municipium administered by quattuorviri. Several arguments speak against the first explanation and in favour of the second. Above all, none of the Latin electoral notices mentions quattuorviral candidates , and it would be remarkable if the same office were spoken of quite differently in the Oscan and Latin inscriptions. It has also been demonstrated above that the quattuorvirate was not a special office in the colony, but a common term for the combined aedility and duumvirate. It is therefore unlikely that the candidates would be called quattuorvir candidates, since they occur singly in electoral inscriptions, nor does this appellation allow the office being contestedtobe identified. The small number of Oscan inscriptions in relation to those in Latin is in my opinion one further argument ag\}inst seeing them as part of the same election campaign. A considerable number of the candidates were native Pompeians ,342 and it would be remarkable if only so few should have appealed to the Pompeian electors in their own language. In other words, one would

86 have to suppose that Oscan was replaced by Latin only a few years after the colonization, and the Supposition that a change of language should have occurred over so short a period seems implausible. 343 Conversely, both the office in the Oscan inscriptions and the probability that the Pompeians acquired Roman citizenship already between 89 and 80 argue for the existence of a Pompeian municipium. The reference to the candidates as quattuorviral candidates suggests that , in contrast to the quattuorviral candidates in the colony, true quattuorvirs were involved, which is the characteristic type of office in Roman municipia established after the Social War. 344 The establishment of this Pompeian municipium seems to have occurred in connection with the granting of Roman citizenship to conquered Italic allies, which Cinna carried out in 87 BC to ensure support for his party in the Italic towns. There are clear indications that Cinna on this occasion also carried out an administrative reform with the establishment of municipia administered by quattuorviri. 345 There are thus no grounds for regarding the Oscan electoral inscriptions as coeval with the Latin ones and as a part of the same election campaign in the early colony. They are better explained as relics from a short-lived Pompeian municipium, the existence of which cannot be demonstrated, but which on the basis of the above can be claimed as a plausible hypothesis. 346 The duration of this municipium, and thus the dating of the electoral inscriptions, have yet to be elucidated. Two possible answers to this question will be discussed in the following. The Pompeian municipium may either have been abolished with the foundation of the colony in 80 BC, or it may have lived on for a while after this date independently of the colony, and thus have formed a "double community". The theory of a municipal structure of this kind in early Roman Pompeii was, as mentioned above, first advanced by Onorato. But all the epigraphical arguments he advanced in support of this theory have subsequently been refuted , and only Cicero's remarks remain. It was established above that Cicero's remarks in the speech for P. Sulla do not constitute proof of the existence of a double community in Pompeii. But can they at least be construed as indicative of it?. Cicero's remarks on the conditions in Pompeii were occasioned by an accusation against his dient, Pompei's deductor, P. Sulla, for having exploited disputes between "coloni" and "pompeiani" and through the latter having sought to control the town in connection with the Catiline plot. Cicero dismisses this allegation by pointing out that the dispute had already been resolved by the patrons, among them P. Sulla. As to the substance of this dissensio, Cicero merely says that it was a question of "ambulatio" and of the Pompeians' "suffragium". The usual translation of ambulatio, 'promenade', 'portico' , is meaningless in conjunction with suffragium. Here it must carry the same meaning as ambitio, which also occurs as · textual variant in one of the manuscripts. 347

....

87

Nothing in Cicero's description of the dispute suggests a double community, and as Gabba pointed out, the submission of the question of the Pompeians' suffragium to the patrons of the colony can only be interpreted to mean that Pompeii, at least at this juncture, was no double community. 348 Only the existence of the two separate groups, coloni and pompeiani, might suggest such an administrative division of the town, but this distinction need not refer to a division into two independent citizenships. It is therefore difficult to take Cicero's words as indicative of the double community theory. The primary objection to a Pompeian double community theory is, however, the sheer rarity of the phenomenon itself and the dubiousness of the sources on which it is based. Only a few doubtful examples of this kind of government can be cited, and several scholars have even doubted the existence of double community as a special form of urban administration. 349 Double communities must thus be considered not an indisputable fact, but at best hypothetical. Yet the dating of the dipinti does provide support for the theory of a Pompeian municipium coexisting with the Roman colony, since the oldest Pompeian electoral inscriptions in Latin, as demonstrated earlier, must have been preserved en bloc and constitute a chronologically uniform group from the earliest period of the colony. This is an important argumentalso for placing the Oscan inscriptions after 80, although with the eituns inscriptions we have occasional examples of pre-Roman dipinti. The centrat idea behind the double community system is the administrative separation of the two population groups, so that Pompeians were governed by Pompeians and colonists by colonists. The question is therefore whether the epigraphical material provides any evidence to support such a separation of magistratures. Investigations of this type are hampered by the residual uncertainty about determining the origin of persons on the basis of gentilicia. Gentilicial names can be placed geographically by investigating where they otherwise occur in literary and epigraphical sources and on purely linguistic criteria, but none of these methods is by any means certain. lt is thus often impossible to determine the origin of gentilicial names on other epigraphical evidence. This applies both to names scattered throughout the Italic peninsula and to quite unique names, and even when the material does permit geographicallocalization, there is no certainty that several homonymous gentesarenot involved. The linguistic criterion is likewise doubtful, and here, as with the epigraphical and literary method, it has tobebornein mind that Oscan names were found in Rome at an early stage and that there could have been Romans living in Pompeii before its colonization. The individual evaluations of the candidates' and magistrates' family background must therefore be treated with due caution, although their total distribution may be assumed to give a largely realistic picture of the original distribution of colonists and Pompeians in the material. Of the total of 52 magistrates and candidates who can be dated to "the early colony", 22 seem to be of Roman and 15 of Pompeia:n origin, while

88 the remainder cannot be determined with sufficient certainty. 350 This controverts Castren's assertion that Pompeians were excluded from taking part in the administration of the town in the earliest period after 80 and were thus entirely absent from magistrate and candidate lists. 351 No difference between Romans and Pompeians can be found in the distribution of offices, and as examples of the two groups united in a single inscription are found, 352 there is much to suggest that a large proportion of these early dipinti and tituli derive from a period when Pompeii was a single political entity. We cannot decide, however, whether this period lies immediately after 80. It cannot therefore be ruled out that a double community operated in the city for a few years. The inscriptions in which M. Porcius and C. Quinctius Valgus feature are of particular interest in this connection. As mentioned above, the latter is known as a supporter of Sulla, and the inscriptions of both seemall datable to the very earliest colony. In X 852 they jointly donate the amphitheatre to "coloneis" , an unusual formulation, which could be interpreted as a conscious antithesis to the Pompeians' municipium. All the four magistrates mentioned in X 800 bear Roman nomina, two indeed the name Cornelius, which would be a strange coincidence, if the electorate consisted of both native Pompeians and colonists. Also in the very early I 1636, both aediles appear to be of Roman origin. The faint outlines of a purely Roman colony in the period just after 80 can thus perhaps be detected. 353 The familial composition of the remaining early material shows that this separation can only have been brief, but it accords with Cicero's pronouncement on the Pompeians' dispute over "ambulatio/ambitio" and "suffragium": a dispute which could have arisen when the municipium was incorporated into the colony, but which according to Cicero had already existed for a long time before being resolved at some juncture before 62. What the disagreement actuaJiy involved we cannot determine today, but there is nothing in the epigraphic material to suggest that the political rights of the Pompeians were curtailed in relation to those of the colonists, as has been suggested from several quarters. 354 After this discussion of the arguments for and against a Pompeian "double community" , it can be ascertained that the source material is too limited and uncertain to provide a definitive answer to the question. The generat dating of the dipinti and some special features of a few early tituli can be interpreted as supporting the theory. But none of these indications are really secure and unambiguous, and the phenomenon is so controversial that the least doubt must weigh against it. It must therefore be maintained that although the double community theory is plausible enough , sufficient basis for accepting it as the final answer to the question of Pompeii's position after 80 AD does not exist. 355 It should now be possible to evaluate how "random" the source material per-

taining to magistrates and candidates in the period 80-30 BC is, and thus how reliable a picture of the familial composition within the politically active upper

......

-..

89

class it is able to yield. The questions now posed are 1) whether the "ethnic" distribution is authentic, 2) whether particularly prominent magistrates were favoured, and 3) whether the sources are chronologically evenly distributed. 1) The first question is whether the distribution of Pompeians and Roman colonists in the inscriptions corresponds to the real composition of the city's upper dass, and here it must be recognized that the existence of any double community would distort the distribution a little. On account of the uncertainty on this question, and thus of the dating of the Oscan electoral inscriptions, the Pompeian candidates who feature in Oscan election propaganda and may have been the contemporaries of some of the colonists have to be exduded from the Iist of candidates and magistrates. But since a double community must at all events have been short-Iived, any predominance of colonists would be sosmall as to scarcely influence the overall picture. It could also be ascertained that a considerable proportion of the candidatcs and magistrates were Pompeians and that no curtailment of their political rights thus seems to have taken place. This possibility can therefore be left out of account in the evaluation of the presence or absence of particular families in this period. 2) The other question, which not only affects this period, but must be asked of all Pompeian material, concerns the representativeness of the sources with reference to the distribution of the more and the less important- i.e. more or less wealthy - magistrates. The problern becomes a real one if a significant proportion of the magistrates are known only through honorific inscriptions and inscriptions posted in connection with dedications carried out on their own . initiative, at their own expense, and outside their ordinary responsibilities , and there is thus a dear connection between our knowledge of the person and his economic and political capabilities. This is not, howcver, the case with any of the Republican magistrates and candidates, and the transmitted names can therefore be regarded as having been preserved quite at random. 3) Finally it must be considered whether the source material is chronologically evenly distributed within the period, and it is here that the greatest weakness in the Republican material is found. There is thus a clear predominance of magistrates and candidates from the early part of the period, which is primarily due to the concentration of electoral notices covering a few years relatively soon after the establishment of the colony. This very special feature of the sources on the period's politically active families makes it difficult to draw generat condusions with respect to the Republican decurion dass, which has tobebornein mind when family continuity throughout Pompeii's history after 80 BC is tobe evaluated.

90

The Augustan and Early Imperial period The beginning of this period has already been put, epigraphically and onomastically, at 30 BC. However, as a few magistrates can be dated only very broadly, the period is not brought to a close until40 AD. This produces a disproportionately long investigation period. To achieve a more accurate picture of the composition of the ordo, the period's magistrates will, wherever possible, be grouped as Augustan and post-Augustan, since the material in several respects permits a dating before and after 14 AD. The source material for the magistrates in this period of Pompeii's history consists almost entirely of tituli, which in this period comprise four types: dedications, honorific inscriptions, sepulchral inscriptions and ministerial dedications. In the following, the general dating criteria, namely consular names, military titles, epigraphy and orthography, will first be treated, after which an attempt will be made to date the individual magistrates and inscriptions. In this regard, the ministerial dedications, which make up a special genre within Pompeian epigraphy, will be treated separately and their chronological extent and epigraphical development as far as possible determined. This will also entail a discussion of Castren's theory of a "Claudian crisis". One question which requires clarification before the investigation is embarked upon concerns those cases in which it can be established with some certainty that the magistrate's career started in a different period than that in which he is epigraphically attested. As the purpose of this entire investigation is to ascertain the importance of different families in various phases of Pompeii's history, interest must primarily centre on the time of their entry into the ordo, and the magistrateswill therefore generally be placed in the period when they held the aedileship. But, for certain magistrates, it cannot be clearly determined when they were aediles or magistrates at all, and they thus have to be placed in the period in which they are actually documented.

Dating criteria The most secure and precise dating can be made for the inscriptions in which the consuls of the year in question are given. lt is here often possible to date the inscription exactly. But in some cases the consuls are otherwise unknown, or the names are preserved only in fragments, so that the dating of the inscriptions requires a choice between several years. This dating criterion is applicable only to ministerial dedications, since no other tituli mention the consuls. Four different military titles occur in connection with the period's magistrates: tribunus militum a populo, tribunus militum, praefectus fabrum and centurio primi pili. The first may be considered a form of honorary title , and Mommsen and later Nicolet established that it was used only under the Emperor Augustus. A secure dating to the Augustan period is thus established. 356 The

.......

..... 91 dating of tribuni militum is considerably more uncertain. This military rank was under the Republic reserved for the equestrian dass, but was conferred in Augustan tim es on members of the municipal aristocracy, who usually held the office after the duumvirate. 357 Considering the close connection of the title to nobiles municipales in imperial times, a dating of Pompeian tribuni militum to the Augustan or post-Augustan period seems likely. The title "praefectus tabrum" does not permit precise dating, either, but must nevertheless be regarded as an indication of a dating after the end of the Republic. Under the Republic, it designated a high military post , which , however, in Augustan times passed to young knights from the municipia as a start to a municipal career. 358 "Centurio primi pili" was a title widely employed in all periods and can therefore not be used in dating. The epigraphical form of the inscriptions underwent several important changes in the course of the period under consideration. In many cases these changes permit a closer dating on epigraphical criteria. At the start of the period , the pre-classical script type was still predominant, but the new Augustan classical style was gradually introduced into the inscriptions, and became universal until the actuarial script began to spread. As could be ascertained in connection with the treatment of the Republican inscriptions, the early Augustan pre-classical style seems to have been completely superseded by the pure classical script between 14 and 3 BC. This script, first attested in c. 25 BC, was used for all inscriptions during the subsequent period. At no time did it cease tobe used: in fact it continued tobe employed right up to 79 AD in sepulchral, honorific and dedicatory contexts parallel with, and sometimes in the same inscription as, the actuarial script. The earliest datable examples of actuarial script are found at the beginning of the 20s AD, and in the course of this and the following decade it became more and more widely used. 359 To sum up , it can be ascertained that 1) a pre-classical form indicates a dating within the first 25 years of the period, 2) classical types of script occur throughout the period and therefore cannot be generally used as an argument for a closer dating, and 3) an actuarial style is a clear indication that the inscription is post-Augustan and probably later than c. 20 AD. 360 Orthographie deviations can be utilized as a dating criterion only to a limited extent, since a uniform classical orthography was introduced in the early part of the period and employed without change until 79 AD. Only very rarely is pre-classical spelling encountered in Augustan inscriptions, 361 and after the birth of Christ only one certain example is known , which also seems tobe atypical. 362 Such departures from classical orthography can therefore be regarded as a largely reliable indication of a datenot later than the Augustan period. A further linguistic dating criterion must also be mentioned, namely the form "duovir" instead of "IIvir". It occurs regularly in Republican inscriptions and thereafter only in early Augustan ones: its incidence thus indicates a dating to the 1st century BC. 363

92

Ministerial dedications Ministerial dedications constitute an easily recognizable and quite uniform group within Pompeian epigraphy They were executed in connection with dedications made by one of the ministerial colleges which were established primarily to safeguard and foster the imperial culto The inscriptions are usually incised on marble slabs of varying size, although they may also occur on bases and pilasters, and consist of three invariable elements: the names of the dedicating ministri in the nominative, the formulation "iussu" plus the magistrates' names in the genitive, and a dating in the form of consular nameso The indication of magistrates - either duumviri and aediles or merely duumviri- may be due to the dedications' having been officially made at the bebest of the city officials, but may also have served as a kind of local dating parallel to the consuls, which is underlined by the few cases in which the magistratesarespoken of in the ablativeo 364 Sometimes the words "receptum" or " novatum" allude to an older dedication being commemorated in a later inscription , but the background for this is not quite clear. 365 Several inscriptions date to the same year. Replicas of the same inscription frequently occur, and inscriptions with identical magistrates, but different ministri, due to the fact that their offices were not concurrent, arealso encounteredo Three different colleges of mainly servile ministri, who tagether undertook dedications, existed in Pompeii: the ministri Augusti who seem to have been identical with the former ministri who performed dedications to Mercury and Maia (Mercurio Maiae sacrum), the ministri Pagi Augusti Felicis Suburbani and the ministri Fortunae Augustae Of these, the dedications undertaken by the ministri Augusti are by far the most frequent, and I will therefore allocate those dedications in which the college cannot be identified with certainty, to the ministri Augustio 366 Thus calculated, this group comprises a total of 48 inscriptions, 22 of which are definitely ministri Augusti or "ministri Mercurii Maiae" inscriptionso 367 Again, 22 can be dated on consular indications or mention of emperors to 15 different yearso 368 The earliest are from 14 AD and the latest from 40 AD If the epigraphical form of the inscriptions is examined, an important devel~p­ ment in style can be observedo The first dated inscriptions from 14 AD arestill pre-classical , but the immediately following one from 3 BC is truly classical Augustan, and the same applies to all the inscriptions up to the early 20s, when the inscriptions in the actuarial script begin to occur In the following years up to 40 AD, the inscriptions are executed in an easily recognizable actuarial style or contain significant features associated with this type of script. 369 The fact that the classical and actuarial scripts seem to have been used not concurrently, but successively, in the ministerial dedications gives far better possibilities of dating on the basis of script typeso Using epigraphical criteria, itis now possible 0

0

0

0

.....

.l

f,

I

~.!

..

,

....

93

to corroborate Mommsen's theory of a development from ministri dedicating to Mercury and Maia through ministri Augusti Mercurii Maiae to ministri Augusti,370 the transitional form ministri Augusti Mercurii Maiae, X 888, being fuiJy classical in execution and consequently later than the ministri Mercurii Maiae inscriptions. A close dating of a number of hitherto undatable inscriptions and magistrates can now be attempted. X 887. Due to the dedication to Mercury and Maia and its unclassical form , the inscription and thus the duumvir "[-] Celer" can be dated to before c. 10 BC; pl. 8:2. X 888. The title ministri Augusti Mercurii Maiae argues for a dating between c. 14 BC and 2 BC, which is supported by the pure classic~fl style of the execution. Unfortunately the nomen of the duumvir Marcellus is not known, and he must therefore, like Celer in X 887, be excluded from the investigation. X 907/908. One of the duumviri, D. Alfidius Hypsaeus, was aedile in 2 AD (EE 316), and everything therefore suggests that both magistrates' careers started prior to 14 AD, even if X 907/908 should be post-Augustan. X 910. This inscription is fully classical in its form and closely resembles among others the Augustan Holconius inscriptions X 837 and 996; hence, a dating of the magistrate Ti. Babinius to this period, although by no means certain, must be considered highly likely; pl. 7:3. X 914. The inscription, which mentions the duumvir Q. Ollius Pontianus and the aedile L. Abonius Iucundus, 371 has distinct actuarial features afid mus~ therefore be datable to after 20 AD; pl. 7:2. X 915. The reading given in CIL of the duumvir's nomen as "Cassi" is incorrect, for the Ietter before "a" cannot be "c", but is clearly an "I" (see pl. 8:3). Closer scrutiny of the fragment also shows that the name is more Iikely a cognomen, and the duumvir can therefore be identified as N. Curtius Vibius Salassus , who is already known through a graffito (1886), in which he is spoken of as duumvir quinquennalis with M. Holconius Rufus. 372 The latter is known inter alia to have been duumvir for the fourth time in 2 BC, and this, together with the classical form of the inscription, suggests that N. Curtius Vibius Salassus' magistrature should be dated to the second half of Augustus' reign. X 916. Without having had the opportunity to examine the inscription more closely, I believe that the duumvir's name from the reproduction in CIL "[-]RICAT[-]" can be identified as the name Piricatius already known in Pompeii. 373 X 917. This fragmentary inscription, which mentions the dummvirs "[-]li" and A. Audius, contains a few important actuarial features, which should justify a dating to after 20 AD. NS 1912, 71 This fragmentary ministerial dedication, in which the duumvir N. Velasius features, was not accessible to me, but Della Cortestatesthat the type of letters used points to the 1st century BC, which should indicate a pre-

94 classical form and justify a dating to before 10 BC. 374 NS 1936, 348. This inaccessible inscription fragment contains the names "[-]udi Rufi/Vesoni [-]", the first magistrate being interpreted by DeJJa Corte as Ti. Claudius Rufus, for which there is no basis. No such person is known , and all the evidence points to A. Audius Rufus, who is documented in X 857b and probably also X 917. M. Vesonius Marcellus was duumvir in 33 AD. A. Audius Rufus in X 857b seems to be Augustan, but as Vesonius in NS 1936, 348, on the basis of his position might weil have been aedile, a dating to the twenties is not inconceivable. That would also be in agreement with the dating of X 917. 375 Only one dedicatory inscription for the ministri Pagi Augusti Felicis Suburbani is known, X 924, and this differs in important respects from the ministri Augusti inscriptions, in that the verbposieruni is included and magistrates are not mentioned. It dates to 7 BC when the college was established, which is indicated with "primi" appended to the ministers. There is thus nothing to suggest that regular dedications as undertaken by the ministri Augusti were undertaken at the instigation of the magistrates, or at least that they were commemorated in inscriptions. The college of ministri Fortunae Augustae was established in 3 AD, when the temple of this deity was built. 376 In the dedicatory inscription for this year (X 824), the ministers are namely spoken of as "primi". There are only four inscriptions which unambiguously mention dedications undertaken by this college (X 824, 826, 827, 828), in addition to an unusual inscription mentioning ministri Fortunae Augustae (X 825). This is from 45 AD, and besides the early X 824, only X 826 from 56 AD can be dated securely. In the two remaining inscriptions, the consuls can either not be identified (X 827) or their names have been effaced (X 828). A dating of these requires that Castren's theory of a Claudian crisis in Pompeii, and the chronology of the inscriptions he proposes in the light of it, be evaluated. An evaluation of Castren's theory is also of considerable importance for the interpretation of the source material in the period 40-52 AD. Castren's theory holds that the period 40-50 AD was marked by an internal crisis, which was manifested in the absence of magistrates in these years andin a radically altered composition of the magisterial body before and after the crisis. 377 The claim that familial composition changed will be later evaluated in connection with the treatment of all the magistrates and candidates in the period 80 BC to 79 AD, but the hypothesis of the absence of magistrates in the period 40-50 AD will be discussed in the following. Castren's theory is based on the following arguments: 1) X 825 from 45 AD mentions no magistrates and falls chronologically outside the other ministri Fortunae Augustae dedications, 2) there are Nucerian electoral inscriptions in Pompeii which date to Claudian times, 3) an inscription from the same period was erected in honour of a highly placed official from Rome, and 4) no Pom-

......

I

.J I ~

u

.,

.1

... I

'

......

95

peian magistrates are known who certainly held office during this period. 1) Castren bases his interpretation of X 825's deviant status in relation to the other ministri Fortunae Augustae inscriptions on a theory that this type of dedication is one of a number of official acts associated with a new emperor's assumption of power. 378 The five preserved inscriptions are thus linked with the five emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula , Claudius and Nero, who reigned successively from 3 AD to the destruction of the temple in 62 AD. X 825, which was executed four years after Claudius' ascension, is interpreted in turn as an expression of the extraordinary conditions in the city. There is, however, no basis in fact for interpreting the ministri Fortunae Augustae inscriptions in this way. In the first place the number of extant inscriptions is purely a matter of chance , only a few of them having been found suo loco; others may have been lost when they were scattered and fragmented after the earthquake. Moreover, a few of the inscription fragments grouped under ministri Augusti may in fact belong to ministri Fortunae Augustae dedications. 379 In the second place, Castren 's dating of the inscriptions to the five Julio-Claudian emperors' accessions to power is purely conjectural. The earliest from 3 AD (X 824) dates to the ministerial college's first years and does not conform to Castren's pattern. The allegedly "Tiberian" (X 828) is fragmentary and cannot be dated. This also applies to X 827 from 39 AD, in which the consuls cannot be identified. The Claudian (X 825) is also, as mentioned, an exception to Castren's rule, while the last from 56 AD (X 826), erected two years after Nero assumed power, might possibly be evinced in support of the theory. Therefore, only one of these inscriptions could without further discussion be intcrpreted as forming part of the acts carried out when a new reign started, although it is surprising that , in this case , two years should have elapsed before the dedication took place, especially if - as Castren maintained - there was close contact between Rome and Pompeii. The other dedications are all exceptions to the rule or impossible to date. Not least the dating of X 827 to 39 AD seems very doubtful. This inscription has clear epigraphical similarities to X 826 from 56 AD ,380 and the aedile C. Vibius in X 827 would seem tobe identical with the duumvir C. Vibius Secundus in X 826 ,38 1 so that the inscription should ratherbe dated to late Claudian times. Castren's hypothesis consequently Iacks not only a factual corroboration but also credibility, and X 825 can therefore be considered unconnected with Claudius' assumption of power in 41 AD. Castren's correlation of X 825 with the four ministri Fortunae Augustae inscriptions is altogether very dubious. The form of the inscription deviates from the norm in every way , and the beliefthat the five inscriptions belong together rests solely on the a priori theory that they have a special connection with the imperial cult. The theory of the purpose of the inscriptions in other words determines the size of the group, which, by a circular argument, provides the rationale for its purpose, thus begging the question.

)

96 X 825 cannot in my view be regarded as a ministerial dedication on a par with the ministri Fortunae Augustae and ministri Augusti inscriptions, since it differs from them both in form and content. It is placed on the front of a Iow statue base, and contrary to custom starts with the names of the consuls, followed by the name of the donor. Contrary to all normal practice, he is not referred to as minister, and his name is included in the account which follows in the next five lines: "TAVRO·STATILIO/ TI·PLATILIO.AELIAN·COS/ L·STATIVS·FAVSTVS·PRO/ SIGNO·QVOD·E·LEGE·FORTVNAE/ AVGVSTAE MINISTORVM·PONERE/ DEBEBAT· REFERENTE·Q POMPEIO· AMETHYSTO/ QVAESTORE· BASIS· DV AS· MARMORIAS· DECREVER[ u]NT/ PRO SIGNO PONIRET". The quality of the inscription is clearly poorer than that found in other ministerial dedications, not merely in the form of the characters, but also in the composition and alignment of the text , see pl. 11:3. It contains no fewer than three Orthographie errors: "ministorum", "marmorias" and "poniret". Moreover, one of the consuls is called Platilius instead of Plautius . The text, which is syntactically fairly clumsy, as in the repetition of "pro signo", relates that at the instigation of the quaestor Q. Pompeius Amethystus, it has been decided that L. Statius Faustus instead of the "signum" which he should otherwise dedicate in accordance with the law on the ministri Fortunae Augustae, shall erect two marble bases. Similar information is found in no other dedicational inscriptions, and as the inscription seems in alJ respects tobe deviant, the omission of magistrates cannot be adduced as evidence of their total absence. Indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that it was the practice of ministri Fortunae Augustae to commemorate their dedications with inscriptions. From the establishment of the college until c. 50 AD, no datable ordinary inscriptions are known, and the anomaly in X 825 is therefore that it was executed at all. This seems to have happened because in that year a departurewas made from the usual dedicatory practice stipulated in the statutes of the college, occasioning an explanation to the public. 382 The reason for altering the dedication from a statue to two bases may have been economic: an appeal from the college's treasurer, the quaestor, is referred to, and two bases must have been eheaper than a statue. The absence of any mention of magistrates is, in other words, quite natural, since we are not dealing with a ministerial dedication as this has previously been defined. The inscription still constitutes a highly unusual phenomenon within Pompeian epigraphy, but cannot be employed to elucidate politicallife and does not become more comprehensible in the light of a "political crisis". There is thus no obvious reason why such a crisis should have resulted in a change in the practice of the priestly colleges with respect to dedications and their related inscriptions.

..

..

J

'j

-l I

}

I

I I

...... 97

2) A substantial quantity of electoral inscriptions have been found on the tombs outside the Porta Nocera and along the Via Nucerina. 383 They were postedonbehalf of candidates from Nuceria , and have been dated to Claudian times , which Castrensees as one further sign of an internal crisis in Pompeii. 384 No explanation of the connection between the presence of Nucerian electoral inscriptions and a Pompeian crisis is offered, and their positionoutside the city walls along the road to Nuceria makes it clear, in my view, that they were addressed to Nucerians, who apparently visitcd Pompeii in !arge numbers to attend the gladiatorial games. 385 The dating of the inscriptions to Claudian times is also purely conjectural: it is based on the mention of the offices of tribunus piebis and pr(aetor), 386 which are assumed to have been the result of Claudius' attempt to reintroduce Republican magistrates' titles. 387 A closer examination of the archaeological context in which the inscriptions are found is therefore desirable to test this hypothesis. A terminus ante quem for the inscriptions can be established in 62 AD, since the Via Nucerina does not seem to have been in use subsequently 1 and no inscriptions are placed on funerary monuments erected after the earthquake.388 As practically all the tombs with inscriptions stem from Augustan times, a lower chronological terminus can also be fixed. 389 The tatest inscriptions are presumably Neronian, for the no fewer than eight inscriptions for L. Munatius Caeserninus differ palaeographically from the others and closely resemble the programmata recentiora. 390 AI arge part of the other inscriptions must be older, however, and 7 out of 17 candidates can be dated on archaeological and palaeographical evidence to the last years of the Republic or to Augustan-Tiberian times , which is not unique when inscriptions on funerary monuments are involved. 391 These early dated candidates also include applicants for the posts of tribunus piebis and pr(aetor) , which was otherwise the main argument for the Claudian dating. 392 lt can therefore be established that both the theory of the offices being linked to Claudius' initiative and the overall dating of the inscriptions to his reign are without foundation in the source material. As the Nucerian inscriptions placed outside the Porta Nocera were in fact made over a long period , and the offices of tribune and praetor were already attested in Nuceria at an early stage, 393 none of the inscriptions can be connected with the period 41-54. 3) The Turranius inscription , X 797, was found in the cella of the Temple of Jupiter on the front of a small base and commemorates the career of Sp. Turranius Proculus Gellianus in Rome and Lavinium. lt contains the special letters introduced by Claudius, and can therefore be dated to the years 47-54, pl. 9:3. At the bottom of the inscription is "LOC· D· D· D", locus datus decreto decurionum , and Castren asserts that it was executed "in honour of" Turranius, whom he believes was an imperial delegate sent tobring order to the city after the crisis. 394 The inscription is, however, not honorific. Firstly, the name is in the nominative and not the dative. And secondly, honorific inscriptions are

98 always associated with statues of the person being honoured, which could not have been the case here, since the size of the base would not have permitted a figure taller than approximately one metre. The occasion for the inscription must have been a dedication performed by Turranius, and the reference to the decurions merely indicates that it occurred with the approval of the authorities, since the erection of statues on the city's Capitolium was not permitted without due authorization. 395 Turranius was thercfore no imperial delegate to whom the city shows its gratitude, but an unknown Roman, who dedicated a small statue in one of the city's temples. His connection with Pompeii is naturally an interesting question, but Castren's explanation seems quite incompatible with the form both of the inscription and of the base. 4) No known Pompeian magistrates can be dated to the years 41-51, and this is interpreted by Castren as showing that no magistrates existed in Pompeii in this period. 396 In making this assumption, he fails to pose one of the questions a historian should primarily ask: whether a change actually occurred or reflects nothing more than the vagaries in the survival or not of the source material, and there is indeed much to suggest that the absence of magistrates in Claudian times can be interpreted as the result of the latter. From Augustan times to 40 AD, all our datable material containing magistrates' names with a few exceptions consists of ministri Augusti dedications, which stop entirely in that year. A considerable number of inscriptions of this type survive from previous years, and everything therefore suggests that the absence of ministri Augusti inscriptions after 40 AD is a manifestation of the actual cessation of these inscriptions. In the early fifties, instead of ministri Augusti inscriptions , we find ministri Fortunae Augustae inscriptions, examples of which are otherwise not known since the inaugural dedication of 3 AD. Besides these inscriptions , our entire datable inscription material after 50 consists of apochae Jucundianae. The evidence shows that what we are dealing with is not the temporary disappearance of a type of source and its re-emergence unchanged at a Iater date: an actual change in the source material occurred, and between the disappearance of one type and the appearance of the others an interval of c. 10 years elapsed. The indication of which magistrates requested the ministerial dedications is clearly quite secondary in relation to the mention of the ministers and merely included in order to underline the official nature of the inscriptions and to function as a local time reference. There is thus no basis for assuming that the end of the ministri Augusti inscriptions coincided with the end of magistrates. Nor do I see any immediate reason why the suspension of magisterial elections should have brought about an end of ministerial dedications, for the ministers were appointed by the ordo, which, as we found with X 797, was still functioning under Claudius. The end of the ministri Augusti dedications in 40 AD and the new epigraphic activity of the ministri Fortunae Augustae college after decades of passivity should consequently be interpreted as an expression of changes in the imperial

.._

-·

99

cult and not of a crisis in the city's politicallife. As such, it attracts considerable interest. It may be noted that the ministri Augusti inscriptions ceased at the very same time that the J ulian family descended the imperial throne. That a connection exists between the two is possible. The antipathy to the personal imperial cult that Claudius is said to have feit possibly also played apart, 397 and the cultivation of imperial fortuna rather than the emperor's own genius could conform with such an explanation. To summarize, Castren's theory of a period of crisis without magistrates in the years 40-50 is untenable. None of the inscriptions referred to in itself indicates a crisis and all ofthem can be satisfactorily explained without being placed in such a context. The absence of magistrates, which in Castren's view is both the main argument for the crisis and its only characteristic, reflects, as I have suggested, not a political crisis, but a change in the source material. It can therefore be concluded that political life in Pompeii, judging by all the evidence, continued to function without major interruptions. It has also been ascertained that the end of the period in 40 AD coincides with an important change in the source material, since the ministri Augusti inscriptions do not occur thereafter: a firm terminus ante quem can thus be established for this group of inscriptions. After this discussion of the ministerial dedications, the magistrates who cannot be dated through this type of inscription will be treated below. M. Alleius Q.f Minius, dv., is known through an inscription found outside the Porta Stabiana (EE 318). The tomb has the form of aschola: a type oftomb most commonly attested in Augustan tim es. 398 A dating to this period is also supported by the inscription's location and epigraphical form, which shows clear similarities with the "schola Mamiae" outside the Porta Ercolano. 399 N. Arcaeus N.f Arellianus Caledus, dv., dedicated together with A. Clodius A.f Flaccus the "mensa tabularia" on the Forum (X 793). The inscription is early Augustan in its execution, and since A. Clodius Flaccus was duumvir for the third time in 2 BC, everything speaks for a dating to the first decades of Augustus' reign. Atullius C.f Bassus, dv., features only in an unpublished fragmentary inscription in which the name is in the dative; it may thus be either an honorific ormore likely- a sepulchral inscription. 400 It contains no external clues, but several features of its epigraphical form could suggest an Augustan dating. 401 T. Atullius C.f Celer, dv., features in one of the cuneus inscriptions placed around the arena in the amphitheatre (X 854). Altogether, eight inscriptions ofthistype are extant (X 853-857d), and besides T. Atullius Celer, the following five duumviri occur: L. Saginius, N. lstacidius N.f Cilix, A. Audius A.f RuJus, P. Caesetius Sex.f. Capito and M . Cantrius M.f Marcellus. We are dealing here with dedications of stone seats in replacement of the original wooden ones. 402 Most of these inscriptions point to a relatively homogeneaus dating,

..

100 probably to Augustan times. Their wording is largely identical , with the number of abbreviations the only variation , and their external form is also rem~rk­ ably uniform, so that a plausible assumptionisthat they were made in the space of a few years ..In one of the inscriptions, the dedication is made by themagistri Pagi Augusti Felicis Suburbani (X 853); this must at all events be postRepublican . L. Saginius features without his cognomen (X 855-856), which might suggest an Augustan dating. This is also supported by the form of the inscription, which does not contain any pre-classical features and seems distinctly Augustan. Further, the duumviral name "(-]Ii Celeris" occurs in a fragmentary ministri Augusti inscription from 14 AD: a name it would seem obvious to associate with T. Atullius Celer, since no other known magistrates from this period bear this combination of names. 403 As mentioned above, A. Audius Rufus is presumably documented in two ministri Augusti inscriptions which must be dated to after 20, but a later duumvirate could here be involved. 404 These six magistrates mentioned in cuneus inscriptions may on this basis be dated to the end of Augustus' reign. L. Avianus L.f Flaccus Pontianus, dv., dedicated with his colleague Q. Spedius Q.f Firmus the paving of a road outside the Porta Stabiana, and on this occasion set up an inscription which is our only source for these two magistrates (X 1064). They can be dated only on internal evidence in the inscription , and although certain features in the otherwise classical form could point to a relatively early date, the uncertainties are so great that the magistrates should me rely be assigned to the interval 30 BC to 40 AD. 405 L. Ceius L.f Labeo, dv. II, quinq. ,. is known only through a sepulchral inscripon whose original location is unknown (X 1037), both tomb N 38 and tomb N 39A outside the Porta Ercolano being possibilities. Kockel, however, has established that whichever tomb the inscription derives from, the magistrate commemorated in it must have he ld office in Augustan or Tiberian times. 406 A few features in the epigraphical form of X 1037 might also point to an Augustan dating; the punctuations thus have a markedly oblong form, which in Pompeii is otherwise attested only in inscriptions from the Augustan era. 407 Cn. Clovatius Cn.f, dv., is refe rred to as tribunus militum in the sepulchral inscription X 1065, which is the only source for this magistrate; this might suggest a dating to post-Republican times. At the same time , the Iack of a cognomen is a clear indication that the magistrate in question is not later than Augustan times. The inscription has not been accessible, but, on the basis of the above, a dating to the Augustan period must be considered likely. 408 C. Cuspius C.f Pansa, dv. IV, quinq., praefectus e lege petronia, is known through two inscriptions, which give a recapitulation of his career in almost identical wording. One is astatue base found on the Forum (X 790), and both the base and the inscription , which states inter alia that it was erected at public expense, have a great resemblance to X 788, which was put up afte r the earthquake of 62 . The other is situated unde r a niche in the northe rn cryptoporticus

...

...... 101 of the amphitheatre (X 858). The name is here in the nominative signifying that C. Cuspius Pansa has carried out a dedication; and as the amphitheatre was quickly restored after the earthquake, and the niche is placed in one of the supporting arches erected on this occasion , there is much to suggest that C. Cuspius Pansa and his son C. Cuspius Pansa paid for the amphitheatre's restoration.409 The inscriptions must in any case have been set up just after 62, when the formerwas probably praefectus e lege petronia. But since he had already been duumvir four times and had a son who had already held the duumvirate and was pontifex, there are good grounds for supposing that his career had started before 40 AD. C. Egnatius Postumus, dv. /I, carried out, with M . Holconius Rufus, a reconstruction of the Temple of Apollo (X 787). 410 He is further attested in another not quite secure inscription, which cannot contribute to a dating (EE 323). In X 787, M. Holconius Rufus is stated tobe duumvir for the third time, and since his fourth term was in 2 BC, we have a certain terminus ante quem for X 787. As the dedicatory inscription is clearly pre-classical in its form , and C. Egnatius Postumus is given as duumvir iterum, his career must presumably have begun in early Augustah times. L. Gellius L.f, dv. , is documented in a funerary inscription preserved in situ in the Porta Nocera necropolis (4 EN). L. Gellius is given here as tribunus militum a populo, which with the Iack of a cognomen points to an Augustan dating, while the inscription 's pre-classical form could suggest that it was made in the firsthalf of Augustus_' reign. N. Herennius N.f Celsus, dv. /I, made an inscription for his wife Aesquillia Polla on her tomb outside the Porta di Nola (Ns 1900, 390). The magistrate is spoken of as praefectus fabrum, which could point to a post-Republican dating, and the tomb is of the so-called "schola" type that was common in Augustan and Tiberian times. 411 The inscription is classical in form, but a few features nonetheless seem to argue for a post-Augustan dating. The interpunctuations have thus an especially elongated and curved comma-like shape (see pl. 11:1), which is otherwise unknown in classical inscriptions and rather belongs to actuarial inscriptions, in which it is frequently encountered in Pompeii. 412 Theinscription seems, therefore, to be datable to the Tiberian period. M. Herennius A.f Epidianus, dv., is known from four different inscriptions: two dedications (X 802 and 831), a funerary inscription (11 ES), and one whose character cannot be determined (X 939). In X 831, "schola et horologium" are dedicated, which might suggest an Augustan dating, 413 whilst none of the others can- be dated on external criteria. All the inscriptions are, however, distinctly pre-classical in Ietter shape, and the tomb inscription also contains the pre-classical form "caussa", just as the other three use the term "duovir", which all argue for a dating to the first decades after Augustus' assumption of power. 414

102

:I·I 'I !

·t

l I

"'

I

I

'

M. Holconius M.f Celer, dv. quinq., features both in dedicatory inscriptions with M. Holconius Rufus, who was duumvir for the fourth time in 2 BC, and in a considerable number of honorific inscriptions. He is acclaimed in these as quinquennalis designatus Augusti sacerdos and quinquennalis divi sacerdos, and it has therefore been assumed that he was nominated as quinquennalis in Augustus' lifetime, but first took office after the Emperor's death in 14 AD. 41 5 M. Holconius Celer's career can thus be dated to the secend half of Augustus' reign, which is in accordance with all other epigraphical, archaeological and prosopographical data. M. Lucretius Decidianus Rufus, dv. Ill, quinq., is known from a number of honorary and dedicatory inscriptions in which he is referred to inter alia as tribunus militum a populo, which is a sure indication for an Augustan dating. The classical form of the inscriptions also points to the Augustan period, although several arenot original, but were posted again after 62 (X 788, 789 and 851). M. Oculatius M.f Verus, dv. , is attested in two dedicatory inscriptions which on their linguistic, Orthographie and epigraphical form can be dated to Augustan tim es (X 845, 955). One of these inscriptions (X 845) is thus very similar in its wording to the cuneus inscriptions in the amphitheatre, in which "ID" is similarly omitted in mentioning the duumvirate. The spelling "peq" speaks for a dating hardly later than Augustan times, while the classical script type precludes a Republican dating. L. Piricatius L.f., dv. ll, is documented in a sepulchral inscription whose frequent use of "i" and "t" rising above the line suggest that it is not pre-Augustan (Ns 1900, 344). 416 The absence of cognomen is at the sametime a clear indication against a post-Augustan dating. L. Piricatius possibly also features in the ministri dedication X 916, where "ricat" seems to be legible. This too argues against a pre-Augustan dating.'117 Q. Sallustius P.f, dv. quinq., is documented in an honorary and a sepulchral inscription (X792, 958), both datable to the Augustan period. The absence of cognomen thus precludes a post-Augustan dating, while the perfect classical form rules out an origin under the Republic. 41 8 L. Sepunius L.f Sandelianus, dv., with M. Herennius Epidianus, can presumably be dated to early Augustan tim es on the basis of their common dedications X 802 and 831. The funerary inscription for L. Sepunius Sandelianus found in the Porta Nocera necropolis can , with its modeststeleform and pre-classical execution, provide further confirmation of this dating (32 EN). 419 A. Sextilius A.f Gemellus, dv.? //, is not definitely attested as a magistrate, since he is mentioned only as "iter(um)". This formulation seems, however, to be applied exclusively to duumviri , and the office must therefore be assumed to be implicit. The source is a sepulchral or dedicatory inscription (X 959) which was re-utilized after 62 in Eumachia's edifice, and now bears the inscription over the entrance from the Via dell'Abbondanza. This provides a certain terminus ante quem, and as quite fresh inscriptions were presumably not re-

......

-·

,.

103

utilized, a dating prior to 40 AD must be considered likely. P. Sextilius P.f Fa!. Rufus is attested in a sepulchral inscription X 1273 from Nola as "aid(ilis) iterum II vir quin( quennalis) Pompeis decurio adlectus ex veterib(us) Nola". He was therefore a Nolan who held several posts in Pompeii and also held a seat in Nola's ordo. Since the aedileship , as the lowest-ranking office in Pompeii, was hardly held more than once, "iterum" probably refers to the duumvirate, cf. X 1037, in which "iter" is also prefixed. In C/L X , Th. Mommsen dated the inscription without explanation to "aetatis ad summum Flaviae" , but as he shortly afterwards seems to have modified his view on its historical background , this untenable suggestion can be ignored. 420 The formulation "ex veteribus" must refer to the division of the population into newcomers and natives which followed the establishment of colonies, andin Nola deductions are documented in Sullan , Augustan and Flavian times.42 1 X 1273 is usually associated with the Sullan colony, but the inscription , judging by its form and the use of cognomen, can hardly be pre-Augustan. 422 P. Sextilius Rufus's gentilicium also speaks against a Sullan dating, since he presumably belongs not to a native Campanian, but to an immigrant Roman family. 423 Moreover, as the pre-classical form " aid" does not seem to occur in postAugustan tim es, 424 the inscription, and hence P. Sextilius Rufus ' offices in Pompeii must be dated to the period 30 BC to 14 AD. The establishment of the Augustan colony must have created a new division into novi and veteres , and as the Iatter at this point must also have comprised the Sullan colonists, this may explain Sextilius' connection to "veteres", despite his presumably Roman gentilicium. M. Tullius M.f, dv. /// quinq. The dating of this magistrate is linked to the Temple of Fortuna Augusta , which he built at his own expense. The first ministri made a dedication herein 3 AD , and since he is also called tribunus militum a populo , the Augustan dating must be regarded as certain. A . Umbricius A.f Scaurus, dv. , is known only from a sepulchral inscription in the Porta Ercolano necropolis. Its original placement is uncertain, but Kockel has now convincingly determined its provenance and on this basis dated X 1024 to before the middle of the 1st century AD. 4-25 It therefore seems reasonable to date the beginning of his career to between 14 and 40 AD. A. Veius M.f , dv. // quinq., is attested as tribunus militum a populo in a funerary inscription which is the only source for this magistrate. He should therefore be datable to Augustan times, which is confirmed by the Iack of cognomen and the classical script (X 996). C. Vibius N.f Figul(us), dv., is attested only in an unpublished sepulchral inscription, which is difficult to date. 426 The magistrate is spoken of as "cent(urio) primi pili", which is not in itself an argument for a dating. The inscription 's dating must therefore rest exclusively on its epigraphical form, which is quite unclassical. As pre-classical inscriptions often occur after 30 BC, and Republican inscriptions are generally very rare, an early Augustan dating must

104 be considered the most plausible. , It is now possible to compile a Iist of known Pompeian magistrates from the period 30 BC to 40 AD. Wherever possible, a precise or approximate dating is given. 427 When the magistrate can be precisely dated, the year of appointment is stated.

J

I 'II,I

L.Abonius Jucundus aed., X 912, 914; c. 20-40 AD. C.Adius aed ., X 904; 40 AD. L. Aelius Tubero dv., X 895; 23 AD. L. Albienus Staius dv. , X 899, 900 + EE 853; 31 AD. L.Albucius Celsus aed., X 901/902; 33 AD. D.Alfidius Hypsaeus aed., EE 316; dv. X 907,908,; 2 AD (aed.). M.Alleius Luccius Libella aed., dv., praef., quinq., X 896, 1036, Ns 1895, 215; 25 AD (quinq.). 428 M.Alleius Q.f Minius dv., EE 318; Aug. C.Annius Marulus aed, EE 316; 3 AD. N.Arcaeus N.f Arellianus Caledus dv., X 793; early Aug. Atullius Bassus dv., unpublished; Aug. T. Atullius C.f Celer dv., X 854, 894?; Aug., perhaps 13 AD. A.Audius A.f Rufus dv. II?, X 857b, 917?, Ns 1936, 348; late Aug. L.Avianius L.f Flaccus Pontianus dv., X 1064. Ti. Babinius dv., X 910; Aug. P. Caesetius Postumus aed., X 890; 2 BC. P. Caesetius Sex.f Capito dv., X 857c; Aug. M. Cantrius M.f Marcellus, dv., X 857d; Aug. L. Ceius L.f Labeo dv. II, quinq., X 1037; Aug. A. Clodius A.f Flaccus 429 dv. III, quinq., X 793, 890, 936, 960, 1074d; 2 AD (dv. III). Cn. Clovatius Cn.f dv., X 1065; Aug. Q. Cotrius Q.f dv.; x 892, EE 316; 2 AD. N. Curtius Vibius Salassus dv., quinq., X 915, 1886, IV: 1919; Aug. C. Cuspius C.f Pansa dv. IV, quinq., praef. lege Petron., X 790, 858; 20-40 AD (aed. ). C. Egnatius Postumus dv. II, X 787, EE 323, unpublished replica of X 787; early Aug. L. Eumachius Fuscus aed, X 899, 900 + EE 853; 31 AD. M. Fulvinius Silvanus aed, X 896; 25 AD. L. Gellius L.f dv., 4 EN; early Aug. M. Herennius A.f Epidianus 430 dv., X 802, 831, 939, 11 ES; early Aug. N. Herennius N.f. Celsus dv. II, Ns 1910, 390; Tiberian. N.Herennius Verus aed., X 899,900 + EE 853; 31 AD. M. Holconius M.f Celer431 dv., quinq., X 833, 834,835 , 840,943, 944,945 , 946; late Aug., 15 AD ( quinq.).

·-

.....

~1

r.

'

105

M. Holconius Gellius dv., X 895; 22 AD. M. Holconius Macer praef, X 904; 40 AD. M. Holconius M.f Rufus dv. V, quinq. II , X 787 + unpublished replica, 830, 833,834,835,837,838,839,890, 947,948, 949, IV: 1886, 1918; 2 BC (dv. IV), Aug.432 N.Istacidius N.f Cilix dv., X 857a; Aug. L. Licinius aed., X 904; 40 AD . Cn. Lucretius Decens aed., X 895; 22 AD. M. Lucretius L.f Decidianus Rufus dv. Ill, quinq., X 788, 789 , 815, 851, 952, 953, Ns 1898, 171; Aug. 433 M. Lucretius Epidius Flaccus praef., quinq., X 901, 902, 904; 33 AD (praef.), 40 AD (quinq.). M. Lucretius Manlianus dv., X 899, 900 + EE 853; 31 AD. D. Lucretius Satrius Valens434 aed., dv. X 901, 902, t. 52, 101, 139, IV: 1084, 1185, 2993y, 3884, 7992, 7995; 33 AD (aed.), 53-61 AD (dv.) Cn. M elissaeus Cn.f Aper dv. II, X 817, 824, 893, 1008; 3 AD. M. Melsonius A.f dv. II, X 885, 886; 14 BC. M. Ninnius M.f Pollio aed., X 885, 886; 14 BC. M.Numistrius Fronto dv., X 892, EE 859; 2 AD. L. Obellius Lucretianus aed., X 884, 891, Ns 1900, 270 ; 1 AD. M. Oculatius M.f Verus dv., X 845, 955; Aug. Q. Ollius Pontianus dv., X 914; c. 20-40. N. Paccius N .f Chilo aed ., X 885, 886; 14 BC. A. Perennius Merulinus aed., X 891, Ns 1900, 270; unpublished fragment of X 884; 1 AD. L. Piricatius L.f dv. II, X 916, Ns 1900, 344; Aug. Q. Pompeius Macula aed., X 896; 25 AD. M. Pomponius Marcellus dv., X 884, 891, Ns 1900, 270; 1 AD. P. Rogius P.f Varus dv., X 885, 886; 14 BC. L. Saginius dv., X 855, 856; Aug. Q. Sallustius P.f dv., quinq., X 792 , 958; Aug. Seius Flaccus aed., X 894; 13 AD. L.Sepunius L.f Sandelianus dv., X 802,831,32 EN; early Aug. A. Sexfilius A.f Gemellus dv.? II, X 959. P. Sexfilius P.f Rufus aed., dv. II, quinq., X 1273; Aug. Q.Spedius Q.f Firmus dv., X 1064. M.Staius M.f Rufus dv. II , X 817, 824 , 893; 3 AD. M. Stlaborius Veius Fronto dv. II, quinq., X 806, 896, Ns 1910, 405, IV: 7976, 7977, 7978; 25 AD (quinq.). Tillius C.f 435 dv., 17 OS; early Aug. N. Tintirius Rufus aed. X 890; 2 BC. M. Tullius M.f dv. III, quinq., X 820, 821, 822, EE 330?, IV: 9979, 9980, 9981a; 436 Aug.

106 A. Umbricius A.f Scaurus dv., X 1024; c. 20-40 AD. L. Valerius Flaccus dv., X 884, 891, Ns 1900, 270; 1 AD. A.Veius M.f dv. II, quinq. , X 996; Aug. N. Velasius dv., Ns 1912, 71; Aug. C. Vergilius Salinator aed., X 895; 22 AD. M. Vesonius Marcellus 437 aed.?, Ns 1936,348, dv., X 901, 903; 33 AD (dv.). P. Vettius Celer dv. , X 907, 908; late Aug. C. Vibius N.f Figulus dv., unpublished , early Aug.

The above table shows that 75 magistrates can be dated to the period 30 BC to 40 AD, and they seem to be by and I arge evenly distributed within the various phases. But in contrast to the previous period, there seems to be a slightly greater favouring of important magistrates, since 6 out of the 75 are known only from honorific inscriptions or from dedications made on their own initiative and at their own expense. 438 This proportion is, however, not I arge enough to give rise to doubts as to the representativeness of the material, and it may thus be assumed that we have here an essentially full picture of the distribution of magistrates in the period.

The period 50 to 79 AD The last phase of Roman Pompeii is, with respect to magistrates and magisterial candidates, far better documented than the foregoing. The composition of the source material is also entirely different. lt consists primarily of three types of inscriptions: tabulae ceratae, programmata recentiora and tituli. Insofar as they have not been treated earlier in our investigation , thesewill be discussed separately below. With the individual magistrates and candidates, a dating will be attempted in relation to the year 62, when the earthquake is believed to have caused major upheavals in Pompeii. Since the electoral inscriptions overlap this date, the period cannot be divided into two separate phases, although in some respects a change in the source material can be traced tothat year. The beginning of the period is fixed at 50 AD to indicate that although the earliest datable magistratures first occur in 52, several of uncertain date could weil be earlier. Any precise delimitation will naturally be arbitrary, but the year 50 as the start of the period seems to conform with the dating of the programmata recentiora and to coincide with the putative start of the career of several of the magistrates in question.

Tabulae ceratae Several types of tabulae ceratae have been found in Pompeii , but the only relevant type in this connection is the so-called apochae Jucundianae, the receipts

.....

...... 107

of the banker C. Caecilius J ucundus. This is not the place to carry out a detailed analysis of this material; only its possibilities as a source on magistrates in the periodwill be examined here. 439 Apochae Jucundianae are a collection of receipts found in C. Caecilius Jucundus' house V,1,25. They are written on wooden tablets which were originally covered in wax, and each receipt consists of several such tablets. AI arge part of the total of 153 receipts can be dated through consular names, and with two exceptions, t. 1 from 15 AD and t. 2 from 27 AD, they were all written in the period 52-61 AD. The undatable tablets can thus with reasonable certainty also be assigned to this period. The receipts are from persons who received money from sales and transactions which C. Caecilius Jucundus carried out on their behalf. The payments in question, which the recipient hirnself signed for, were also attested by witnesses, whose number varies. Jucundus' receipts may, according to the nature of the transaction, be divided into two types: private and public. 440 Given their varying composition and content, the value of each of these two types as a source for the magistrates in Pompeii must be evaluated separately. In the receipts from private vendors , no explicit information on the magistrates of the year is furnished, but several magistrates and candidates feature among the witnesses, and are often accorded a prominent place signifying their position in the city. Sometimes, however, this rule is departed from, and Augustales too are usually highly placed among the witnesses. 44 1 It has tobe recognized , therefore, that magistrates cannot be identified in this type of receipt on the basis of their position in the Iist of witnesses. The other type of receipt is considerably more useful as a source on magistrates. The recipient here is a servus coloniae, who always features at the top of the Iist of witnesses. Moreover, in receipts ofthistype it is stated under whose duumvirate the receipt is issued, and one or sometimes both magistrates serve as witnesses. This latter circumstance is very important for the fragmented receipts in which the duumviral designation has disappeared, since the first witness after the servus coloniae can be surely identified as a duumvir.

Programmata recentiora The dating ofthistype of source has been treated earlier in detail, so here only the main results will be outlined. The very earliest programmata found on house walls seem to be from around 50 AD, but by far the majority are considerably later in date and seem tobe from the town 's last c. ten years. This implies that the earthquake of 62, although naturally responsible for the loss of many programmata, was not the critical factor in the breakdown or reduction of this inscription material. Candidates after 62 can also be very poorly documented, and a small number of inscriptions cannot ipso facto justify a dating to before the earthquake. But as we have ascertained that only a few programmata are

108 preserved from the period before 62, the existence of a significant number of inscriptions for a candidate argues strongly against dating before this date. Some magistrates are attested in other types of source than the above , and these individual cases will be treated separately in the following . In the ministri Fortunae Augustae inscription X 827, the duumviri L. Julius Ponticus and P. Gavius Pastor and the aediles Q. Poppaeus and C. Vibius feature. The inscription exhibits, as mentioned above, p. 95, distinct similarities to X 826 from 56 AD, and since the aedile C. Vibius in X 827 seems tobe identical with the duumvir C. Vibius Secundus in X 826, a dating of X 827 to c. 50-54 AD seems plausible. 442 X 801 is a dedicatory inscription found in the Temple of Apollo; it states that M. Fabius Secundus made a dedication "permissu aedil/ A. Hordioni Proculi/ Ti. Juli Rufi". M. Fabius Secundus is known as both vendor and witness in apochae Jucundianae, and this is the only indication for a dating. 443 As he may have made the dedication before or after the period for which his commercial activity is documented, the dating must be very uncertain, and it is therefore with certain reservations that these magistrates are provisionally placed in the period 50-62. C. Cuspius C.f Pansa features in two inscriptions corresponding exactly to the two dedicatory inscriptions (X 790, 859) which, in our discussion of C. Cuspius Pansa could be dated to the years shortly after 62. 444 C. Cuspius Pansa filius is referred to as duumvir, and it seems likely that his duumvirate could have been held in the previous decade. A graffito first published by A. Baldi and later corrected by H. Solin seems to contain a quinquennial dating, since the words "Hecio et Maiio quinquennal" occur. 445 Maius may be Cn.Alleius Nigidius Maius, who was quinquennalis in 55, and his colleague interpreted as Hegius , no other members of a gens Hecia being known . M. Obellius M.f Firmus is known as duumvir through a sepulchral inscription and is also attested in electoral notices, in which he features as rogator or is solicited for support. 446 Some programmata with his name have also been found in hisputative house IX,14. The restoration of this house was not complete in 79 and the house was probably not lived in after 62, so his candidature and magistrature were presumably before this date. At the same time, he seems to have had some position in 61, when he was exhorted in a programma to support Ti. Claudius Verus, since the address reads "Obelli fave cum patre". M. Obellius Firmus pater is also known from a receipt, andin another the witness may be either father or son. 447 There is therefore much to support a dating to the period 50-62. T. Terentius T.f Felix maior, aedil. This magistrate is attested bothin a sepulchral inscription found outside the Porta Ercolano (X 1019), and in a receipt in which he features as first witness (t. 80). The tomb seems to be older than

......

...... 109 62. 448 This, tagether with his position in the receipt, makes a dating of his magistrature to 50-62likely. Some have considered him tobe the T. Terentius who occurs in six programmata recentiora. 449 But both the epithet "maior" and the number of inscriptions, which preclude a dating before 62, clearly point to father and son. C. Veranius Q.f Rufus, dv., is known from a funerary inscription FN3 found in the Via Nucerina necropolis. This tomb is on typological criteria dated to the Neronian-Fiavian period. The father of the magistrate has therefore been identified as the Q. Veranius Rufus who features in the graffito 3952 with the Neronian-Flavian magistrate P. Vedius Siricus .450 In the following Iist of magistrates and candidates which it is now possible to compile for the period 50-79 AD ,45 1 the sources are given only for magistrates unattested as candidates in programmata. 452 Epigraphic documentation for the others is found in the catalogue of electoral inscriptions, to which the reader is referred for information on criteria for evaluating the individual programmata .453 L. Aelius Magnus cand. L. Albucius Celsus aed. cand.; Flavian. L.Albucius Iustus dv., t. 70, 142, 143, 147, 150; 58 AD. Cn.Alleius Nigidius Maius aed. cand., dv. cand., quinq. cand., quinq; 55 AD (quinq.). Appuleius dv. cand. C. Ateius Capito aed. cand . Sex. Attius Amplus aed . cand. Cn.Audius Bassus aed. cand., quinq. cand. Q. Bruttius Baibus aed. cand., aed., dv. cand.; 56 AD (aed.). L. Caecilius Capella dv. cand.; Flavian. M. Calventius cand. ; Neronian. Calventius Quietus, dv. cand. C. Calventius Sittius M agnus aed . cand ., dv. cand.; Flavian. M. Casellius Marcellus aed. cand.; Flavian. L. Ceius Secundus aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. M. Cerrinius Vatia aed. cand.; Flavian. T. Cinius cand. Ti. Claudius Claudianus dv. cand. Ti. Claudius Verus dv. cand., dv., dv. cand li; 61 AD (dv.). Q. Coelius Caltilius Iustus dv., t. 79, 138; 52 AD. C. Consius aed. cand. L. Cordius aed . cand. C. Cornelius aed. cand. 454 C. Cornelius Macer dv., t. 141, 145, 146; 57 AD. C. Cuspius Pansa dv., X 791, 859; 50-62 AD.

110 C. Cuspius Pansa aed. cand.; Flavian.

M. Epidius Sabinus aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. Fabius Rufus cand. Fadius aed. cand. Fervenius Celer aed. cand. P. Gavius Pastor dv., X 827; c. 50 AD. P. Gavius Proculus dv. cand. C. Gavius Rufus aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. Hegius, quinq. , Baldi 1967 pp. 480-85; 55 AD. L. Helvius Blaesius Proculus dv., t. 138; 52 AD. Cn. Helvius Sabinus aed. cand. ; Flavian. N. Herennius Celsus aed. cand.; Flavian. Holconius Celer cand. M. Holconius Priscus aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. Holconius Rufus cand. C. Holconius Ser. cand. A. H ordionius Proculus aed. , X 801; 50-62 AD. lgius Fuscus cand. Julius Modestus aed. cand. C. Julius Polybius aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. L.Julius Ponticus dv. , X 827; c. 50 AD. Ti. Julius Rufus aed. , X 801; 50-62 AD. M. Julius Simplex aed. cand. M.Junius, aed. cand., quinq. cand. C. Laecanius quinq. cand. L. Laelius Fuscus aed. cand., dv. cand. M. Licinius Faustinus aed. cand; Flavian. M. Licinius Romanus aed. cand. M. Licinius Romanus dv. , t. 87 , 153; 52-61 AD. 455 C. Lollius Fuscus aed. cand.; Flavian. Q. Lollius Rufus aed. cand. M. Lucretius Fronto aed. cand., dv. cand., quinq. cand. D. Lucretius Valens aed. cand. , c. 69 AD. L. Maesonius dv. cand. M. Mallius aed. cand. Q. Marius Rufus aed. cand.; Flavian. M. Melissaeus quinq. cand. C. Memmius Junianus aed. cand. , aed. 56 AD. L. Naevius Rufus aed. cand. M. Nollius cand.; Neronian. L. Nonius Severus aed. cand. L. Numisius Rarus aed. cand.; Flavian. C. Numitorius Serenus aed. cand.

.....

...

~

'J

1

I

111

M. Obellius Firmus (dv. cand.), dv ., de Franciscis, Cronache Pompeiane 2 (1976), p. 246: 3829, 6621, 7806, 8970, t. 8?; 50-62 AD. C. Osforius cand. L. Ovidius Veienfo aed. cand.; Flavian. P. Paquius Proculus aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. L. Pericatius cand. Cn. Pompeius Grosphus dv., t. 143; 59 AD. Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus cand., dv. 59 AD. Sex. Pompeius Proculus cand., dv. 57 AD, praef. 60 AD. L. Popidius Ampliatus aed. cand.; Flavian. N. Popidius Rufus aed. cand. , dv. cand.; Flavian . L. Popidius Secundus aed. cand.; Flavian. Q. Poppaeus aed., X 827; c. 50 AD. Q. Postumius Modesfus aed. cand., dv. cand. , dv., quinq. cand.; 56 AD (dv.). Q. Postumius Proculus aed. cand. , Flavian. M. Pupius Rufus aed. cand., dv. cand. L. Rusficelius Celer, dv. cand. A. Rusfius Verus aed. cand., dv. cand. C. Sallustius Capifo aed. cand. M. Salvius, aed. cand. M. Samellius Modesfus aed. cand.; Flavian. N. Sandelius Messius Balbus, dv. , t. 144; 60 AD. M. Satrius Valens dv. cand. Seppius cand. Sepfumius cand. L. Sexfilius Latus cand. L. Sexfilius Restitutus aed. cand. L. Sexfilius Syrticus dv. cand . P. Sittius Coniunctus dv. cand. P. Sittius Magnus aed. cand. L. Sfatius Recepfus dv. cand. A. Suettius Certus aed. cand., dv. cand., Neronian-Flavian. A. Suettius Verus aed . cand .; Flavian. T. Terentius aed. cand. T. Terentius T.f Felix aed. , X 1019, t. 80; c. 50-62 AD. A. Trebius Valens aed. cand.; Flavian. A. Trebius Valens quinq. cand. M. Valerius aed. cand. L. Varius cand. P. Vedius Nummianus aed. cand.; Flavian. P. Vedius Siricus dv. cand., dv., quinq. cand.; 60 AD (dv.). L. Veius Rufus aed. cand. L. Veranius Hypsaeus dv., quinq. cand.; 58 AD (dv.).

112 C. Veranius Q.f Rufus dv., A. d'Ambrosio & S. de Caro 1987, FN3. M. Vesonius Marcellus dv. cand. C. Vestorius Priscus aed. cand. , aed. A. Vettius Caprasius Felix aed. cand., dv. cand.; Flavian. P. Vettius Celer cand. A. Vettius Firmus aed. cand. A. Vettius Syrticus aed. cand. P. Vibius Cac. cand. C. Vibius Secundus aed., dv. , X 826, 827, t. 145, 149; 56 AD (dv.). Vibius Severus aed. cand. , dv. cand.

The candidates and magistrates from the last period are attested almost completely at random: in only one case is our knowledge of a magistrate due to his position (C. Cuspius Pansa, dv.). Tabulae ceratae, sepulchral inscriptions, dedications and not least programmata are quite unaffected by the magistrate's wealth and influence, and we have therefore an extremely reliable picture of the composition of the magisterial body. The chronological distribution is difficult to evaluate, but there is presumably a predominance of candidates in Flavian times. Butthis is to a certain extent compensated for by the considerable number of magistrates known from the years 50-62, so that the total distribution appears to be relatively even.

Analysis of the composition of the magisterial body in the period 80 BC - 79 AD The three foregoing sections on magistrates and candidates in Roman Pompeii reveal that altogether we know 255 magistrates and candidates, coming from 153 different gentes. Y et this does not enable us to calculate how many of the Pompeian magistrates we know, because the material is unevenly distributed , and both magistrates and candidates are included. A calculation like the one carried out by Castren of how many filled magistratures are known to us is quite irrelevant , because it is the number of known magistrates which interests us, not their offices. Only two new persons per annum could enter the magisterial group, which means that for a given period we can determine exactly how many individual persons belonged to the magisterial dass , and it is this figure with which the number of known magistrates should be compared in an analysis of the extant percentage. In the following analysis, the magistrates are accordingly treated purely quantitatively and not qualitatively, in that no notice is taken of which office they held. Candidates will also be treated on a par with magistrates, because differentiation would not only make such an investigation impossible, but would also be misleading, since their candidatures show that

•

..

.

......

113

they enjoyed the same financial, and to some degree also the same social, status as magistrates. 456 The Roman period in Pompeii's history is divided in the survey below into three phases: 80-30 BC, 30 BC- 40 AD and 50-79 AD, which will be called phases 1, 2 and 3. The representation of magisterial families in each of these phases is shown in the diagram fig. 12: here the consecutive phases in which the families are documented either with magistrates or candidates are plotted on the le~t. In the next three columns 1, 2 and 3, a proportional breakdown of the variously distributed family types between respectively the Republican, Augustan/Julio-Claudian, and Neronian-Fiavian families is given. Fig. 12

I

80-30 BC 1 54% 29 1·0 2 3 1+2 11% 6 1·2 20% 11 1+3 1·2 2+3 1+2+3 15% 8 1·3 54 1·1 n 60

2 30BC- 40AD

56% 20% 21% 13% 75

35 6 13 8 62

3 50-79 AD

1·1 61%

50

1·3

13% 1·6 16% 1·5 10% 1·2 120

11 13 8 82

1·7 1·7 2·0 1·5

1·0

I

In each of these columns three figures are indicated on each line , the first indicating how large a percentage of the families in this period occur in a particular phase or phases, the second giving the absolute figure, and the third how many times on average the families are represented. Below, the sum offamilies for the period and the total family average are given, and in the bottom row the total number of magistrates. As an example of the way the table works we can take the second occupied line in column 1 opposite 1 +2. This shows that 11% offamilies in the Republican period occur only in this and the succeeding period, comprising 6 families, while the percentage figure 1·2 indicates that these families are represented by 7 magistrates and candidates, or 1·2 on average. The figures in the table cannot, however , as they stand, furnish the basis for an analysis of the development in the familial make-up of the magisterial body. The material is too unevenly distributed between the various phases of Pompeii's history, and this implies a distortion of the relationship between the family types, especially in the last period, and a considerable uncertainty about the distribution in the Republican period. If we examine the three periods separately, the differences become very clear. In the Republican period, 90% of the known magistrates and candidates date to a relatively short span in the first part of the period, a phase which is thus very fully documented, while the

114 magistrates of later years are largely unknown. In Augustan and early Imperial times the material is far more diffuse, but in the 70-year-long period from 30 BC to 40 AD, only 75 or about half of the total of 140 different magistrates who served in this period are known. This proportion clearly contrasts with the last period in Pompeii's history, when the source material is extremely !arge, and we can assume from our knowledge of 120 magistrates and candidates that we know practically all gentes who held office during a period only 29 years long. This means that a number of displacements in the relative representation of family types must be taken into .account. The principal change occurs in the latest phase 50-79, from which many more families than shown by the table must have been represented in the period 30 BC- 40 AD. It could be ascertained earlier that the source material is preserved largely at random, and this implies that the unknown half of the Augustan and early Imperial magisterial families presumably had the same structure as those attested. 34% of the known families from the periodalso occur in the last phase, and this must also apply to the unattested families. Since in the last period we know practically all families, a number of them which are not attested before could have been among the unattested families from the previous period. About 20 families must be involved , but as they could also have been attested in Republican times, they arenot all found in category "3" but also in "1+3". Owing to our imperfect knowledge of the Republican period's magistrates, things are more uncertain here, but in all probability a considerable part of the unattested Republican magisterial families are also represented in the later periods. We can thus conclude that category 1 + 2 may have been I arger, drawing from 1 and 2, just as 1 +2+ 3 must generally lie somewhat above the indications in the table. In the last period, especially 3 and 1 +3 seem to be too large in relation to 2+3 and 1 +2+3, whereas there is no marked change in the percentage of Republican and Augustan and early Imperial families represented in the last period. This result means that very considerable uncertainties attend prosopographical investigations within Pompeian history and society, and that one cannot argue or draw conclusions on the basis of single examples; for no family's entry into or absence from the ordo is generally dernonstrahle or datable with any degree of certainty. For many years , M. Gordon's rather superficial investigation of the ordo was the only attempt at an analysis of the structure of the upper dass; her view of a democratic Pompeii with great social mobility went largely unchallenged. 457 On the basis of archaeological investigations of the settlement structure after the earthquake of 62, A. Maiuri varied this picture by restricting its validity to the period 62-79 AD, when he believed that the rise of many new families took place at the expense of the old aristocracy. 458 This interpretation of the effect of the earthquake on the power structure has since been countered by

.....

...... 115

J. Andreau, who maintained that it did not necessarily Iead to a reversal for the established upper class. 459 Most recently, P. Castren's investigation of Pompeian prosopography has furnished a new and far more detailed picture of the composition of the ordo in the period 80 BC to 79 AD. 460 In the early colony it was, as mentioned above, Castren's opinion that only colonists held office, although after some time Pompeians were admitted to the ordo. At the beginning of Augustus' reign, a major change occurred: according to Castren, a number of new families now began to dominate political life, and the colonial families almost completely vanished. The new group of families preserved its strong position in Julio-Ciaudian times, but after "the Claudian crisis", the picture changed completely. The domination of the Augustan families was broken, and numerous quite unknown families now held magistratures or stood for them, just as in the tatest phase descendants of freedmen began to feature among magistrates and' candidates. Several aspects of Castren's hypothesis have already been discussed; other aspects, tagether with the other theories on Pompeian social history referred to , will be dealt with in connection with the following discussion of the table fig . 12. As mentioned above, it is very difficult to generalize about the Republican period, for, by and Iarge, source material exists only from the earliest phase, and the following characteristics can thus apply only to this part of the Republican era. It may be noted here that a Iarge proportion offamilies do not occur later, and that a relatively modest part is also represented in Augustan/Julio.,. Claudian times, although it must be somewhat !arger than the material would seem to show. The remarkably Iarge proportion of families documented only in periods 1 and 3 is also misleading , since many of these must in reality have featured in period 2. A picture thus emerges in which less than half concern themselves only occasionally with politics, while the remainder maintain their influence in Augustan/Julio-Claudian tim es, or in the case of 30-35%, until the last phase ofthe town's history. The later documented families are more strongly represented than the others and thus make up a relatively larger part of the period's magistrates and candidates. The distribution of the early colony's immigrants and Pompeians in these categories can be deduced only with difficulty, because the possible origin of many families cannot be determined. But if we take as our starting point the families who could previously be grouped as Pompeians and Roman immigrants ,46 1 we obtain the following result: 50% of the identifiable Roman immigrants and 71% of the native Campanian families also occur in later periods. The ratio of later represented families is far higher than in the Republican material as a whole, for which reason the figures can be used only relatively and not absolutely, but it seems to be possible to discern a tendency for the original Pompeian families to maintain their position to a greater extent than the colonists.

116

In the Augustan/Julio-Ciaudian period, too, we find a very large proportion of families known only from that period, although some of these must have been represented among the many unknown Republican magistrates. A few may also have been present in the last period, but the percentage offamilies who did not maintain their participation in the government of the city in the last period must nonetheless have been of the order of 60-65% . The remaining 35-40% occur in the Neronian-Fiavian period, and a considerable proportion of these were probably also active during the Republic. These families are considerably more strongly represented th~m the others, for categories 2+ 3 and 1 +2+3 make up 34% of the families, and 43% of the magistrates. The period stretches from 30 BC to 40 AD, and by considering the period 14-40 AD separately, we may investigate whether the magisterial composition was stable, or changes occurred. 24 magistrates from 19 families can be more securely dated to this period, and their make-up differs in some respects from that of the period as a whole. Thus , more than half the families also occur in the last period, while only 21% are attested in the foregoing Augustan period, although the figure may actually be somewhat higher. 42% are documented only in the years 14-40 AD. The distribution of magistrates and candidates in the last period is, due to the distortions caused by the various preservation percentages, difficult to determine precisely, but it is certain that here, as in the foregoing periods, a considerable group occurring only in that period can be demonstrated. Its extent seems not to exceed that known from previous periods, and was probably somewhat smaller. This gives a relatively high er proportion of earlier represented families, and the categories 2+3 and 1 +2+ 3 in particular must comprise a considerably larger part of the families. The individual families are generally more strongly represented in this period than in the foregoing one. This must be due to the far high er degree of transmission, but here too it may be remarked that earlier known magisterial families feature relatively more often in the material. Some scholars have, as mentioned above, believed that the earthquake of 62 affected the composition of the upper class , but if the family representation among magistrates who can be dated to 50-62 is compared with the general distribution, there seems tobe no essential difference. The 26 magistrates who are datable to this period come from 23 families , and of these 48% are otherwise unknown as magisterial families. There is thus a deviation of 13% in relation to the 61% of the period as a whole, but this could be explained by differences in the source material, since those datable to 50-62 are all elected magistrates, principally duumviri, while the others are nearly all attested only as candidates. After this examination of the three periods from 80 BC to 79 AD, it is now clear that most of the various theories about the developments within Pompeii's upper class have no foundation in the epigraphical source material. Castren's hypothesis on the exclusion of Pompeians from magistratures in the early colo-

......

-..

I·

!

117

ny has already been refuted, 462 and the only difference between the two groups which can be traced in the material is a certain tendency among the original Pompeians to preserve their position in the upper echelons to a greater extent than the colonists. This could be due to the colonists' access to the ordo depending to some degree on a temporary weakening of the traditional upper dass after the establishment of the colony. Castren's theory that a radical change in the composition of the upper dass occurred at the beginning of the Augustan era can be neither confirmed nor refuted: it remains pure hypothesis. In order to evaluate such a thesis we need to know the family composition, both before and after the change, and forthe last 20 years at least before Augustus assumed power, there is practically no datable material. According to Castren, the period from 14 to 40 AD was a stable period in Pompeii's history, in which the established Augustan families maintained their predominant position. Butthis view finds no support in the source material , since only four Augustan families arealso known in this period , in which they make up a good third of the magistrates. The other 15 families are quite unknown among the Augustan magistrates, which does not point to a marked continuity in the upper dass in this period either. The hypothesis of a "Claudian crisis" in the decade 40-50 AD has already been refuted elsewhere, nor does the claim for a radically altered composition of the magisterial body before and after the crisis conform to the sources. Indeed a significant continuity on both sides of the decade can be traced: over half of the magisterial families from 14-40 are known in the last period, and the same proportion of them documented in the period 50-62 is ascertained in the period 30 BC - 40 AD. The proportion of already known families is furthermore considerably high er in the period 50-62 than in the - in Castren's view- very stable period from 14 to 40. Finally, it can be established that the earthquake did not leave tangible traces on the magistrates' familial composition in the form of a dedine of the well-established families, which argues in favour of Andreau's interpretation of the earthquake's social and economic effects. To sum up , it can be ascertained that no major breaks and developments in the make-up of the Pompeian upper dass can be demonstrated, because - to the extent that they occurred at all - they either occurred in periods when the source material is too sparse to allow them to be distinguished, or they overlapped those period divisions which the material allows us to make. This negative result concerning the feasibility of writing a "history of the Pompeian upper dass" is counteracted, however, by the value of the investigation as a source of information on the basic structure of the Pompeian upper dass. The statistical treatment of the Pompeian material furnishes new possibilities for plotting the degree of its continuity and mobility. But due to the make-up of the source material and the special circumstances in the early colony, this daim can apply only to the last c. 100 years of Pompeii's history.

118

Throughout this period two basic types of magisterial family can be demonstrated. One can be described as the traditional type represented through several generations; it may be regarded as a kind of Pompeian nobility. It makes up c. 30% of the families as a whole, but a !arger percentage of the magistrates, since families of this type are frequently represented by several magistrates in the same generation. Often their influence goes right back to the early colony or even to before its establishment. The other basictype of magisterial gentes comprises those families not previously represented in the ordo. Their participation in the administration of the town was usually brief, and their representation weaker than that of the traditional magisterial families. Their representation is difficult to decide exactly, but seems to vary between 40% and 60% in the individual periods. The picture may naturally have been more varied, and it has to be assumed that variations between these two basic types could also have existed. Due to the inherent uncertainties of the material it is, however, not possible to map the extent of variant types, and they must at all events be considerably rarer than the two principal types. The family distribution ascertained here shows that there was a very considerable renewal in the upper dass. There can be several explanations for this. Two factors which are often overlooked are the low mean longevity found in pre-industrial societies and the Roman laws of inheritance, according to which the estate was divided equally between all sons and daughters. 463 The latter circumstance resulted in a reduction in the family fortune at each change of generation, and also encouraged a reduction in the number of heirs. The high infant mortality and susceptibility to epidemics and the like could in themselves threaten the survival of families, but the curtailment of the number of children which the Roman laws of inheritance encouraged must have still further increased the risk of upper dass family demise. These factors can without doubt explain pül l, but presumably not all of the heavy family turnover, and the family distribution can in my opinion be taken as an expression of a considerable degree of social mobility in Pompeian society. New families seem to have had a good chance of acquiring a place in the ordo, and the continuous exchange of members speaks for a considerable economic dynamic in Pompeian ~ ociety, since part of the new fortunes must have been acquired through commerce. This result does not c.. ntail, however, confirmation of Gordon's old theory of a bourgeois democracy in Pompeii or Castren's picture of Pompeian society in the last period , when new families deriving their income from trade allegedly predominated and had free access to the city administration. Not only is there no evidence that the new families constituted a plutocracy, but more especially, the existence throughout Pompeii's Romanhistory of a constant group of families with continuously strong influence can be demonstrated. These families must on the strength of their inherited authority and stable economic foundation have had substantial control of !arge parts of society and to a cönsider-

.._

-..

119

able degree been able to control political life in the city As it cannot be demonstrated that this group offamilies had an essentially different economic backgmund than the parvenus, there cannot - as daimed by Castren - have been any generaldass conflict between the old and the new families: on the contrary they must have been dependent on each other and may perhaps sometimes have stood in a mutual client-patron relationshipo 464 Political rivalries must thus have been between groupings within the traditional upper dass and their supporters among the newer families oCastren has attempted to identify such "family groups" As part of an investigation of the possibilities of using prosopographical methods to draw up a more varied picture of political and social life in Pompeii , the methods employed by Castren will be evaluated in the followingo The backhone of Castren's picture of the Augustan period is his claim that there existed three important "family groups" who had close links with the Augustan regime and controlled political life until 40 AD 465 According to Castren, the mostprominent of these were the gentes Clodia, Gellia, Holconia, Lassia, Eumachia and Alleia, while the gentes Lucretia, Obellia, Herennia and Sornia made up the "Augustan partisans", and the oldest group consisted of the gentes Mamia, Tullia and Veiao Within the first group a certain kinship can be ascertained between several of the familieso A Lassia Mofo thus married into the gens Clodia, and a Lo Gellius Calvos seems to have been wed to a Clodiao The existence of a Mo Holconius Gellius suggests a family connection between the gens Holconia and the gens Gellia , and this family thus allegedly forms the link between the gens Clodia and the gens Holconiao The value of marriage as an indication of political alliances must, however, be called doubtful. Firstly, we know of only a very few marriages between upper dass families, which makes it a questionable idea to accord too much importance to the few surviving examples, and secondly, a marriage is not necessarily the same as ari allianceo In Republican Rome, several political opponents were related, 466 and not least in Pompeii, where the number of upper dass families must have been limited, it can hardly always have been possible to plan marriages with a view to forming political allianceso Finally , it seems a doubtful procedure to demoostrate alliances through "third parties", when one considers how many alliances this would entail in the whole of Pompeii 467 No connection between the gentes Eumachia and Alleia, and between these and the others, can be demonstratedo Eumachia L.fo did, however, dedicate a building which contained clear references to Augttstan propaganda , and members of other families , L. Gellius , Ao Clodius Flaccus and M oHolconius Rufus, were tribuni militum a populo , while Mo Holconius Rufus and Mo Holconius Celer were respectively flamen Augusti and Augusti sacerdoso In Castren's second group, the gens Herennia and gens Lucretia were the dominant families, but no connection is known to have existed between themo Mo Lucretius Decidianus Rufus was , however, tribunus militum a populo and praefectus fabrum and No Herennius Celsus prae0

0

0

0

120

!i I

I I I

!

fectus fabrum. This title was also borne by T . Sornius, who is notattestedas a magistrate. Nor are the families of Castren's last group known to have been related, but their representation among the Republican magistrates and candidates was in Castren's view, characteristic of them. This, however, was not peculiar to these three Augustan families, since the gentes Alleia, Pomponia, Vettia, Melissaea, Velasia and Herennia also occur in both periods. It can hardly, moreover, be an argument for an alliance between families. However, from these families, too, some highly distinguished members are known in the Augustan period. Thus the priestess Mamia P .f. is known to have erected a Temple of Augustus , just as M. Tullius, who was tribunus militum a populo, dedicated the Temple of Fortuna Augusta, and A. Veius also bore the title tribunus militum a populo. It can thus be established that no evidence is found for alliances within the three important family groups. These accordingly take on the character of largely random groupings of magisterial families. Only in one respect is it possible to point to features common to several families, since in several of them the titles tribunus militum a populo and praefectus fabrum occur, and several are associated with priestly offices within the imperial cult or were responsible for dedications in favour of it. This applies to the families Holconia, Clodia, Gellia, Lucretia, Herennia, Veia, Tullia, Mamia and to some extent Eumachia, and instead of the three rather arbitrary groupings, Castren could have been content with this one. The only connection between them is their connection to the central power, and according to Castren's thesis this connection is not merely the linking element in their power bloc but also the very basis for their dominant position in the city. 468 This gives rise to a serious distortion in the whole of Castren's picture of the Augustan period in Pompeii, for this theory confuses cause and effect. If we Iook at the title "tribunus militum a populo" , it was, as Castren rightly believes, a title of honour bestowed on prominent citizens who were thereby elevated to the equestrian dass, while praefectus fabrum was a military post filled by distinguished young men from the municipia and thus not in itself a sign of any connection with the government in Rome. The priestly offices of flamen Augusti and sacerdos Augusti were highly prestigious and filled by the city's leading citizens . They were official distinctions bestowed on already prominent and wealthy citizens, and must thus be the result, not the cause, of the elevated position of the persons thus honoured. Dedications of temples and similar buildings must also have required considerable wealth: they might weil have been the result of upper dass rivalry, and served more to strengthen the prestige of the donors in Pompeii than to support the emperor in Rome. Several of the families in question are also known to have been magisterial families already under the Republic- the gentes Veia , Tullia, Mamia, and Herennia- and the absence of the gentes Holconia and Lucretia in particular before · the Augustan period cannot be accorded any importance, since the deficient sources for the late Republican period rule out

.._

...... 121

.#

deduction ex silentio. There is consequently no basis for Castren's theory of a tightly knit block of families which controlled Pompeii on the basis of the Emperor's support. The families in question seem on the contrary to have been weil established and powerful magisterial families , who as part of Augustus' attempt to win over the municipal aristocracy received official distinctions and marks of honour and in return supported the imperial cult - to the greater prestige both of themselves and the Emperor. Also the strong interest in the internal affairs of Pompeii which Castren attributes to the central powers in Romemuston this basis be dismissedas both undocumented and im probable. Another important developmental feature within the Pompeian upper dass which Castren believes can be demonstrated by prosopographical means is the marked increase in influence acquired by persons of servile origin in the last period of the city's history. Thus, he concludes that "it is very plausible to maintain that sons of freedmen also gained access to the ordo in this period" 469 and that "entry to the ordo decurionum had become much easier for newcomers ... and even descendants of freedmen" .470 Butthis result is based on a combination of wrong information, manipulation of the sources and untenable methods. Castren's method is purely prosopographical and not onomastic, assuming that magistrates and candidates from new families, ofwhich a freedman is known to have been a member during the same or an earlier period , were descended from or related to these freedmen. By this method, members of the gentes Calventia, Ceia, Cerrinia , Fabia, Lollia, Nonia, Rustia, Sittia and Suettia are all identified as descendants of freedmen, and although reservations are made in every case, the conclusion Castren draws from this is nevertheless stated in a clear and uncompromising way. It should be pointed out straight away that prosopography of this kind is quite unacceptable, due to the extent and composition of the source material. As mentioned above, practically all represented families are known in the Neronian-Flavian period and only about half of them in the rest of the century. At the same time we have knowledge of a large number of prominent freedmen through ministerial dedications, magister pagi inscriptions, tabulae ceratae and sepulchral inscriptions. This very bias in the source material in favour of freedmen in relation to both magistrates and other freeborn makes it naturalthat in the Neronian-Flavian period , candidates and magistrates can be found betonging to families previously represented by prominent freedmen. A family might consequently very weil be ancient, important and descended from freeborn ancestors, despite the fact that its mostprominent members previously attested in the sources were freedmen or persons of servile origin. Moreover, a number of the examples Castren gives of presumptive servile family members are either manipulated or erroneous. The manipulation consists, for example, of mentioning quite irrelevant freedmen from far earlier periods in connection with the treatment ofNeronian. and Flavian candidates. This faulty method is applied to L. Ceius Secundus, who is claimed to be descended from the late Republican L. Ceius Serapio,

122 although the magistrate L. Ceius Labeo is known in Augustan times, 471 and to the gens Lollia, which Castren seems to think was descended from a minister Augusti documented in 1 AD. 472 Also questionable is his treatment of the gens Fabia, in which M. Fabius Eupor is assigned to the pre-Neronian period, although his two recommendations are from the last two years of the town. 473 The mention of a scriba Rustius, of whom A. Rustius Verus was allegedly a descendant or relative, is also quite wrong. This person never existed, but is Castren's own ad hoc invention. 474 In connection with AA. Suetti Certus et Verus, Castren states that the family was formerly represented only by an apparently servile munerarius and his freedman. He omits to mention that their incidentally undatable dedication pertained to Puteoli, so they hardly had any connection with Pompeii. 475 Castren's assertion that the descendants of freedmen enjoyed a changed status and stronger representation in the ordo in the period 50-79 must on this basis be considered undocumented. The wealth which several freedmen , primarily Augustales, demonstrably possessed does not seem to any marked degree to have given their children admission to the ordo. Only descendants of imperial freedmen are quite fully represented among candidates and magistrates , and this must be attributed to the very special position this group occupied in Roman society. This detailed discussion of two of Castren's prosopographical sturlies on Pompeian history clearly shows the weaknesses that attend this kind of investigation, and underlines once again that the material is too deficient to allow deductions to be made from individual cases. The special value of the Pompeian source material lies in the possibilities of investigating a complete urban structure; in all analyses of the Pompeian sources, the emphasis must therefore be placed on the overall picture and not on detail .

Concluding remarks on the social and political structure of Pompeian society A comprehensive picture of Pompeian society cannot be presented on the basis of these detailed sturlies of the epigraphic material. But certain main features which have not previously been accorded much attention in Pompeian sturlies can be defined. The evidence shows that the elections to municipal offices in Pomeii cannot be compared to a modern democratic process in which theoretically independent electors vote in accordance with their personal preferences. These elections, judging by all the evidence, were rather in the nature of a trial of strength between the participating families and their amici, with the clients as a kind of auxiliary elector reserve. The electoral notices and the recommendations they

.._

...... 123

I

feature indicate that dient and amicus relationships were accorded considerable importance in the elections, and it is not unlikely that this factor also affected the structure of the upper dass, since the nobility with its control of the voters must to some extent have been able to control admission to the ordo. Examination of the make-up of the decurion dass shows that a small group offamilies formed a strong and permanent core of influence, while the make-up of the rest of the ordo was marked by frequent change. By dint of their inherited authority, both economic and social, the core of the decurion families undoubtedly exercised a considerable dominance, and acceptance by at least part of this group was presumably a precondition for the entry of new families into the ordo. The structure of the upper dass was accordingly characterized by a process of controlled dynamic change, because while extensive change and social mobility among the decurion families can be demonstrated, the presence of an inner cirde that maintained its position of power can simultaneously be descried. In a wider perspective, this implies that the ambitions of the parvenu families could be fulfilled within the framework of the existing institutions, without the basicpower structure being affected. The system's elastic nature, which permitted the necessary diffusion between the different dasses, must have had a stabilizing effect on Pompeian society, and the relative openness must therefore be seen more as an expression of the system 's strength than as a sign of . weakness or dissolution. A key to understanding the unusual stability that, despite enormous social and economic inequalities, characterized Roman society seems to be its ability to satisfy or conciliate the ambitions of underprivileged groups by external advancement, which left the underlying power structure intact. Slaves could thus - in the cities at least - hope for manumission and thus for social and juridical advancement, but did not thereby acquire any real freedom or equality in relation to the freeborn. As freedmen, they were still under the control of the patron and were among other things barred from the magistrature, but they could aspire to a number of priestly offices which were status-giving but substantially without any real content or power. The heavy turnover in the Pompeian ordo also provides support for such an interpretation of Roman society, since the municipal offices which seem to have been so easily attainable for new families did not in reality confer much authority, with only the quinquennialate as a possible exception. Decisive authority lay not with the magistrates but with the ordo, in which the core families forming the backbone of the nobility continued to dominate Pompeian political life by virtue of their relatively stronger representation and the social control they exerted over the other members. These personal bonds between persons of different or identical sociallevel seem to have played a very important röle in the maintenance of social stability through their neutralization of dass conflict. They presumably contributed to

124 an acceptance by the freedmen and the free Iower dass of their underprivileged econ?mic and social position, and could also have been actively employed by the upper dass to maintain its own domination, first in the elections themselves and later in the ordo. The system presumably also had an economic aspect. Client relationships may thus, as suggested by J .E. Skydsgaard, have played apart within the economic basis of the upper dass and worked as a decentralizing factor in trade and production. 476 On the generat economic structure in Pompeii it is, however, difficult to say anything definite on the basis exdusively of the epigraphical investigations conducted here. But analysis of the composition of the ordo does seem to indicate a very considerable economic activity, since social dynamics must in principle be assumed to reflect corresponding economic dynamics. As commercial activity is by nature more dynamic than farming, and presumably offered better opportunities for acquiring wealth, it seems not implausible that commercial activities should have played a larger röle in the economic fortunes of the upper dass than hitherto assumed.

.......

-..

125

Catalogue of programmata recentiora

I

r

I

I•

This catalogue collects all the Pompeian inscriptions and inscription fragments that can be identified as programmata recentiora, which is to say programmata with the following attributes: 1) painted inscriptions, dipinti, 2) posted in public places, on house fa<;ades , on sepulchral monuments or on public buildings, 3) including a name in the accusative, one of the municipal office'S or one or more of the formulae which characterize programmata , 4) referring to elections in Pompeii , 5) composed in the Pompeian actuarial script, or, if this cannot be checked , published in CIL under programmata re.centiora. Under each candidate , the inscriptions are grouped under the different candidatures to which they pertain. ldentification of the candidates follows the principle that otherwise known Pompeians, who are not securely documented in programmata recentiora with at least nomen and cognomen, will be left out of consideration in the identification of candidates whose names are not given in full. By contrast, a candidate for a specified office may be identified here on the basis of cognomen alone, which is otherwise a departure from usual prosopographical method. 477 This is due to the fact that the limited name material allows a clear overview tobe obtained of the use of various cognomina; it can thus be demonstrated with some certainty whether a name applies to only one candidate in the material. 478 As many of the inscriptions have been deficiently transmitted , the identification of tenuously attested candidates can be problematic. Here the main rule is that candidates featuring in only one inscription have generally not been accepted if they differ from other candidates only in the praenomen; in this case the presumption is made that the name might have arisen through the erroneous reading or transcription of a single Ietter. The same applies if the name consists of e lements common to several candidates, since a confusion of independent inscriptions could be involved. The inscriptions marked with an asterisk are dealt with in the notes, where the reading and publication are supplemented or corrected .

126

I

L. Aelius Magnos Othersources: 1991,7243,7247, 10039. Cand.: 670*. 670: In line 2 the addition "iudicis Aug" has been accorded great importance as a testimony to the interference of the central powers in local elections. However, a "fel/feliciter" is likely to have been lost, since the formula "iudicis Aug fel" frequently occurs in Pompeii. The inscription therefore probably has no particular connection with the election. L. Albucius Celsus Other sources: 4156, 4219, 5768. Aed. cand.: 86,182, 184*, 186,188,197,358,433,448,482,484,491,494,573,663, 664, 902,904,935,937,949*,967,987, 1154, 1169*, 1170, 1171*,2963,2979,2983, 3402,3404,3413,3469,3474,3488,3492,3520,3551,3563,3615,3623,3678,3680, 3686, 3700, 3705, 3725*' 3845, 3855, 6609, 6642, 6647' 6662, 7012, 7028*' 7040, 7046, 7048,7050, 7051,7178,7215,7334,7365,7387, 7452*, 7511*, 7549,7568/9, 7600,7631, 7637,7683,7710,7723,7746,7785,7846,7883 , 7905, 7960. 184: Praenomen is given as "M. ", but since there are no other indications of the existence of a M. Albucius, it is presumably a scriptor's error, as suggested by Zangemeister. 949: "Fabium" in line 3 must pertain to a different inscription , since the placement under OVF is odd, and the conjunction of initials and nomen otherwise unseen. 1169: This is clearly a confusion of two inscriptions. Note, for instance, the position of the names in relation to each other, the singularform "iuvenem" and the repeated "aed"; this suspicion was confirmed by examining the plaster, now at the Museo Nazionale. 1171: The nameform "Minca" seems doubtful, and several other readings are possible, e.g. "Minia" , which demands only small changes in the transmitted text. 3725: Due to the punctuation before "L. Albucium", the two names must , despite the missing "et", be accepted as part of the same shared inscription. 7028: See M. Casellius Marcellus. 7452 and 7511: Apparently, no basis exists for the addition "aed". Cn. Alleins Nigidius Maius Othersources: 138,1177,1178, 1179, 1180, 1483?, 3453,3883, 7989b, 7990, 7991 , 7993, t. 143, Baldi, 480. Quinq. 55 A.D. Aed. cand.: 512. Dv. cand.: 499*. 499: Seen. 131 and p. 161. Quinq. cand.: 504, 3785*. 3785: A "C" has presumably disappeared from the beginning of the inscription. Cand.: 7690, 7980*. 7980: Presumably Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius, no C. Alleius being otherwise known.

......

I

...... 127 Appuleius Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 3417, 3421, 3506, 3526. C. Ateius Capito Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 3441 *, 7861c*, 9918. 3441: C . Alfius Capito is probably a misreading for Ateius (the certain 9918 was published subsequently). 7861c: Della Corte's "Aelium" is possible, but to judge from C/L , "Ateium" is more plausible. Sex. Attius Amplus Other sources: t. 74. Aed. cand.: 3699, 3818. Cn. Audius Bassus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 7613, 7808. Quinq. cand.: 7488, 7943*. 7943: Photographs show that there was probably a line 2, but this was on exposure already so indistinct that Della Corte's reading is purely hypotheticaL Cand.: 7453* , 7704*. 7453: Nothing connects the two candidates: hardly, therefore , a shared programma. 7704: To judge from photographs we are, in spite of the missing conjunction between the candidate names, clearly dealing with one inscription. The placement of "DVIR/ QUINQ" could suggest that Cn. Audius Bassus ran foranother office than M. Satrius Valens, but this is by no means certain. Q. Bruttius Baibus

Other sources: 2958 , 3159, 5783, t. 56, t. 74, X 826. Aedile in 56 A.D. Aed. cand.: 3724, 7903. Dv. cand.: 611 , 935g*, 3702, 3773*, 7152. 935g: The disposition of offices between the candidates suggested in C/L is not convincing. P. Vettius Syrticus is unattested as duumviral candidate, while Q. Bruttius Baibus was already aedile in 56. It seems more plausible, therefore, that the duumvir in question is Bruttius. As for the formulation "II vir aedil" for the aedileship, it is probably inspired by the title "II vir V ASPP". 3773: "lVI" in line 3 may weil be part of [I]IVI[R]. Cand.: 935c, 3607. L. Caecilius Capella Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 105 , 450, 530, 536, 582, 588*, 590*, 612, 694, 729, 819, 850, 968a, 1141, 1148, 2949, 2951 , 3398, 3473 , 3479, 3548, 3582, 3627 , 3656, 3657, 3664, 3673,

128 7199, 7278, 7299, 7305a, 7308c*, 7322, 7424, 7540, 7578,7582,7599, 7617,7648, 7654,7680,7719, 7740, 7804,7830,7833,7845,7857,7891 *, 7936,7972,9834,9875, 9933. 588: Probably a shared programma . Formally, nothing contradicts this, but the rarity of combined duumvir and aedile postings can give rise to some doubt. 590: "aed" in line 2 must belong to another inscription. 7308c: It is not possible to deduce a rogator's identity in one inscription from recommendations in other programmata , and Della Corte's restitution is therefore arbitrary. In view of "rogat" (line 2), the missing name must be an abbreviation for "facit" and have been in the nominative. 7891: In line 2, the commendatory verb can also be interpreted as " [fac]it", wh ich is commoner than "cupit" . Attribution rejected: 9855*. 9855: Della Corte's interpretation seems quite unacceptable, and the inscription can neither be assigned to L. Caecilius Capella nor be regarded as an electoral notice. C. Calventius Sittius Magnus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 3689. Dv. cand.: 276, 376, 423, 526, 722, 858, 872, 873, 956, 964, 969, 2939*, 3751 *, 3759, 3839, 7148, 7173, 7225, 7230, 7286, 7294, 7295, 7318, 7326, 7406, 7407, 7421 , 7465, 7480, 7487, 7499, 7575, 7647, 7686, 7713, 7720, 7884, 7892, 7904, 7908, 7933. 2939: The make-up of the inscription does not suggest a joint inscription . 3751: The construction of this inscription appears peculiar, and it is not certa in that Mau's view that it is a recommendation from "Urbanus" is correct. The "VR" to the right need not be the Urbanus from 3752, but could very weil be an abbreviation of "VIR". Note the position of "VR" after "li", similar to the duumvir inscriptions of C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, 376, 858 and 872, and L. Ceius Secundus, 936, 3391, 7645, 7651, 7865 and 9913. On this reading, " idem facit" belongs to the fragmented line 2. Cand.: 747, 3840, 7140b, 7198*, 7293, 7515* , 7852, 7952, 7975. 7198: The inscription's line 2 is almost entirely the result of Della Corte's restitution, which seems quite hypothetical, and the inscription can therefore not be assigned to the candidate's duumviral inscriptions. 7515: Della Corte's restitution of line 2 is uncertain , since cognomen, as we know, was not obligatory in electoral inscriptions. Calventius Quietus Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 7604.

..

...

...... 129 M. Calventius Other sources: None. Cand.: 518*. 518: Although there is only a single source for this candidate, and his name differs from C. Calventius Sittius Magnus' by only a single Ietter, he has to be accepted, because heruns with another likewise unknown candidate, M. Nollius, and we thus seem to be confronted by an early programma recentius. C. Calventius Dv. cand.: 85, 292*, 921 *, 7844. 292: There is no reference to the office filled by Herennius, who otherwise is unattested as candidate for the duumvirate. Hardly, therefore, a shared programma for the two candidates. 921: The rogator's name is partly illegible, but the reading "Theorus", which is also preferred by Mau, must be regarded as the most plausible. Cand.: 688, 7159a, 7244a. Calventius Dv. Cand.: 843, 7812, 7870. Capito Aed. cand.: 381, 392, 411, 7029. Carus Aed. cand.: 7132. M. Casellius Marcellus Other sources: 2352, 3643, 3668, 4999. Aed. cand.: 93, 136, 145, 160, 163, 172,173, 178, 179,182, 187, 188, 194,209,211 , 215,223,236,238, 319,323,324,328,343,374,414,431,433,449, 472, 473,485*, 490,491,493,494, 498*, 510,519,520,524,527,529,534,535,537,539*,540,541, 546, 551,557,573, 583,587,588*,601,602,606,621,626,629,637, 661,672,684, 690, 766,770,839*,842,847,856,862,868,874a,881,892,902,935,938,967,1042, 1204*, 2928a, 3392, 3402, 3422, 3427, 3439, 3469, 3474, 3484, 3487, 3489, 3490*, 3493,3499,3504,3518,3523,3530,3532,3551,3559,3565,3566,3574,3586,3620, 3628,3630,3644,3647,3649,3661,3662,3666,3669,3674*,3678,3684,3686,3703, 3731,3833,3842,3845,6609,6651,6655,6659,6671,6672,6680,6683,7009,7010, 7012,7015, 7028*, 7031 , 7035,7042,7046, 7050,705 1,7163,7323,7331 , 7366,7391, 7433,7437,7441,7472,7505, 7581 *,7602,7631 , 7653 ,7710,7798,7803,7846, 7924, 7960. 485: Like P. Castren, 1975, p. 195, I believe that the first part of line 4 has been wrongly transmitted. Guarini's alteration of C. Nisio to Calvisio seems plausible, above all because the other rogatores are all mentioned by nomen , and references to gens Nisia very rare. 498: Lines 2 and 3 of this inscription for M. Samellius Modestus read, ac-

130 cording to Zangemeister, "M .... ./ CASH ... ", although he expresses some uncertainty. Line 2 can easily be construed "M[odestum ]", and the fragment in line 3 can, not least in the light of the shared inscription 3674, be read as "CASBL[LIUM]". 539: Della Corte, 1965, p. 174, renders the second name as " eami" equivalent to aemi = aemili. All three glosses seem doubtful to me. The name does seem to end with "i" or "e", however, and a vocative would be in accordance with "roga". 588: See L. Caecilius Capella, dv. cand. 839: Rubellius features in the nearby 842. As the reading " Rubrisius" seems uncertain , Mommsen's suggestion " Rubellius" should be adopted. 1204: Listed under edicta munerum, but doubtless an amalgam of a programma and an edictum: names in the accusative are uncommon in edicta munerum and seem contextually meaningless. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi similarly , 1980, pp. 101-02. 3490: There is a slight possibility that this is a joint programma, but a combination of nomen and cognomen without a joining "et" is disturbingly rare. 3674: See p. 162. 7028: Theoretically, we may be dealing with M. Samellius Modestus, but as L. Albucius Celsus and M. Casellius Marcellus are a very weil documented pair of candidates, the identification with the latter seems preferable. 7581: Della Corte's interpretation entirely Iacks parallels, and seems unlikely. "IVRAMVS" may be regarded as the rogator's name, and everything points to a misreading of "Puramus" ( = "Pyramus"). "Fac" thereby becomes an abbreviation for facit, whilst "roga", as suggested by Della Corte, can stand for rogamus or perhaps rogat. Attribution rejected: 3688*. 3668, see incertus cand. L. Ceius Secundus Other sources: 8815?. Aed. cand.: 1140, 1149, 2993g, 7129b, 7195, 7239*, 7347, 7368, 7370, 7378*, 7397, 7542*, 7565,7586,7725 , 7771 , 7907, 7921 , 9856*, 9920*, 9935. 7239: Behind Della Corte's restitution "Masculus" is his- untenable- theory that all recommendations were placed on the rogatores' houses. In fact, several other readings are possible , e.g. Proculus, besides a !arge number of diminutive form s. 7378: The restitution of the rogator name is purely hypothetical, there being nothing to suggest that clients who recommend necessarily belonged to the candidate's own gens. 7542: "verecun[-]" need not have been in the superlative: a positive form is also possible, cf. 2989. 9856: The aediles were in reality duumviri. The office " Ilvir aed" must therefore designate the aedileship and be a conjuction of the titles "IIvir vaspp" and " aedil" (cf. 935g).

......

.... 131 9920: In line 2, Della Corte conjectures "S[ ecundum ]". Yet such a construction would be unusual: a rogator is much more likely. Dv. cand.: 716, 737, 746,748, 775*, 780,840, 851,853, 908,936,944,979,995,997, 1000,1002,1005,1009,1015,1023, 1024, 1083*, 1157, 1162*,2993i,2993u,2993z, 2993zy, 3366, 3367 , 3369, 3380, 3391, 3397, 3423, 3433, 3478, 3849, 6646, 6648, 7134a, 7214, 7251, 7258, 7298, 7303, 7307, 7395, 7458, 7460, 7464, 7490, 7539*, 7627, 7645, 7651, 7658, 7676, 7699,7717, 7737,7760,7767, 7782,7791,7792,7865, 7873, 7876d, 7974,9906,9909,9913, 9915,9931a. 775: GIL is in doubt as to whether "Postumiu[. ]" is candidate or rogator. The name's position in the inscription shows clearly that he must have been rogator. 1083: Possibly a joint programma, but the repetition of OVF as well as the general rarity of the duumvir-aedile combination argues for perceiving it as two independent inscriptions. 1162: Della Corte's emendations of line 2 as " [I]uven[e]s [V]ene[r]i" are highly doubtful manifestations of his well-known "Iuventus" theory. 1965 , p. 391. 7539: Here Della Corte suspected a variation of the traditional OVF formula O(ro) vel O(ramus), U(t) F(acias); given its formulaic character, such speculation is futile. Cand.: 268, 687, 741, 781a, 988, 1006, 1055,7415 , 7491, 7583*, 7775, 9846, 9853, 9908. 7583: There is no basis for the restitution of line 1. Attribution rejected: 7177*. 7177: See incertus cand. Celer Cand.: 9829, 9932. Celsus Aed. cand. : 201,415-16,599,607, 611a, 682,820, 946, 977, 996*, 3382,3396, 3447, 3536, 3727,6650, 6656,7030,7032,7033,7043,7801. 996: Zangemeister's identification of the candidate is not convincing, since it seems to presuppose a combination of cognomen and initials , which is not known in joint inscriptions. M. Cerrioins Vatia Other sources: None. 95 , 115 , 120, 124, 128, 149, 150, 151, 153, 156, 159, 164, 177, 190, 196, 207, 221, 224,230,234,235,239*,240,246,253,256,264,266* , 269, 274,277,288,296,340, 346, 355,368,387,443,445,480,483,487,489,492,502,522,556,575*,576,581, 598,604,608,616,624,646,701, 742,801*,802,803,810,811,818,891,900, 975*, 1073, 1080, 1132, 2924a, 2932, 3677, 3682, 3745*, 7036, 7245e, 7252*, 7300, 7302, 7377 , 9830, 9832, 9835,9851 , 9878, 9926*. 239: Like P. Castren, 1975, p. 191 , I prefer to construe the rogator name as "Mescenia" , since this gens is well documented in Pompeii. 266: See Q. Postumius Proculus. 575: "Macerio" has been interpreted in various ways (see addendum p. 696), but

132 the transmission does seem to be correct, for the name can be explained as a combination of the known cognomen Macer and the suffix -io. 801 : In view of the punctuati on between the names, it is not unlikely that M. Cerrinius Vatia runs here with C. Sallustius Capito and perhaps M. Lucretius Fronto. The commentary in C/L: "fortasse disiungenda sunt" must refer to the three uppermost names distinct from A. Suettius Certus at the botto m. 975: Along with 974 probably a joint programma for M. Cerrinius Vatia and Q. Postumius Proculus, later attested several times as running-mates. 973 may also be part of this inscription , which would thus COAlprise both duumvir and aedile candidates. 3745: Praenomen is given here as P., but the existence of a P. Cerrinius cannot be proved. 7328, which is given by Castren, is thus very uncertain. lt therefo re seems to be a scriptor's error or a confusion of different inscriptions. 7252: The conjectural " N[iraem]ius" is question able, numerous other names being possible; besides, no Niraemius is attested at Pompeii after the R epublican period. 9926: Della Corte's "[Gr]anius" is unacceptable. The distance between the inscription found 1,15 ,3 right and this rogator's recommendations, 9869, !,13,10 left, 9883,9884, II,1,10 right, is too great to allow an identification . Attribution rejected: 874a*. 874a: See incertus aed. cand . T. Cinius Other sources: None. Cand. : 830a. Ti. Claudius Claudianus Other sources: 1732?. Dv. cand.: 2947, 7304c, 7912. Ti. Claudius Verus Othersources: 1118, 1181,3760,5229, 7988c, 7989a, 7989c, t. 151-152. Duumvir61 AD. Dv. cand.: 367, 369*, 440,3461,3496,3714 ,3741 , 3756*, 3764,3820,3828, 7308a*, 7308b. 369: Seen. 174. 3756: The cognomen is not preserved, but the posi tion near 3764 for Ti. Claudius Verus and Mau's indication of the extent of the lacuna makes it possible to assign th e inscription to this candidate . 7308a: There is no basis for the restitution of "Verum" and "Successus rog" in the preserved fragments.

..,..,

..... 133 Ti. Claudius Dv. cand.: 391, 418, 425, 364, 3708, 7135c. C. Consius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 3743, 7860. L. Cordins

Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 7013. C. Cornelius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 29931, 7190. C. Cuspius Pansa Other sources: 1068, 1071. Aed. cand.: 97, 117, 144,251,275 ,281,289,317,339,342,382,385,438,509,515, 516, 525, 533, 542, 547, 559, 562, 566, 572, 579, 610*, 619*, 622*' 623, 625, 686, 702,707,708,710,777,785, 785a,835,845,855,869,871,884,948,959,960, 1006, 1011, 1013, 1022, 1025, 1049, 1153, 1172, 2940, 2972, 3641, 3787, 7129a, 7144, 7159b, 7179, 7181 *, 7188, 7200, 7201, 7220, 7242, 7257, 7289, 7320, 7404, 7435, 7445, 7463, 7492, 7518, 7601, 7630, 7684, 7686a, 7742,7743, 7772, 7777, 7850, 7875, 7899,7900,7913,7919,7955,7959,7963,9854. 610: The restitution of the rogator's name seems doubtful. On the basis of the transmitted fragments, the name could also have been, for example, Fidelis. 619: Avellino's reading "or fac " is clearly wrong, while Zangemeister's suggestion can be accepted without reservation. 622: Unlike P. Castren, 1975, p. 214, I see no reason to doubt the correctness of the nameform "Rutullius". The form is also accepted by Castren, p. 161. 7181: The candidate's praenomen and "rog" in line 2 are purely conjectural. Attribution rejected: 1014*, 1046*. 1014: Identical with 1013. 1046: Identical with 7181. M. Epidius Sabinus Other sources: 3157?, 8144?. Aed. cand.: 222, 232, 462, 470, 471, 474, 618, 660, 698, 6605, 7666, 7674*, 9930*. 7674: According to Della Corte, the rogator name Piranus is a corruption of Pinarius, who features in two graffiti found at the same place, but as this would require several changes in the text, I am sceptical. 9930: The inscription's line 2 does not seem to give any meaning, since a recommendation from "pauci" can hardly be regarded as positive. H: Solin has suggested the reading "Pacci", and this has major advantages over Della Corte's, although it does not explain the unusual form " nigrae": 1973, p. 264.

134 Dv. cand.: 122, 359-60*, 373,409, 447*, 468,641, 665*, 666, 667, 738*, 768,791, 797, 961, 1032, 1037, 1056, 1059, 1142, 2964, 3692,3716,6688,7203, 7329,7576, 7579,7584,7605,7635,7664,7675,7773,7780*. 359-60: "dicanum", which should presuma bly be construed "dignum ", must, due to the number , belong to a different inscriptio n , as suggested by Guarini. In line 3, Zangemeister's plausible suggestion "Potitus" seems to be confirmed by 3732 and 3736, which were presumably found in the vicinity and contain recommendations from a Potitus. 447: Nothing in the inscriptio n's constructio n suggests that lines 1 and 2 belong together. Not only is the name of the aedilician candidate placed at the top, but the nome nclature is remarkably different. 665: Surely two different inscriptio ns: M . Epidius Sabinus was the aedil e candidate when he stood with P. Paquius Proculus, and the combination of initi als and no me n in a joint programma is otherwise unattested. 738: Zangemeister denies that "POSUMI" can be read "Postumi ", but eve rything pointstothat family: the immed iate neighbourhood produced a vicinal recommendation for Q. Postumius Modestus , 778. Presumably therefore, a scriptor's erro r. 7780: The identification of the candidate as M. Epidius Sabinus is based excl usively on the presence of a greeting to a Clemens, who is probably Suedius Cle mens, Vespasian's de legate, referred to , for exampl e in X 1018. He features in several other electoral inscriptio ns for M. Epidius Sabinus and is attested only with this candidate (768, 791, 1059, 7203, 7579). It is, however , not quite certain that the greeting belongs to the electoral inscription , and the ide ntification of Epidius must therefore be treated with so me caution. Cand. : 243, 244, 714, 2930*, 7790*. 2930: No clear connection between lines 1 a nd 2. Everything suggests that they belong to inde pe nde nt inscriptions. 7790: From Della Corte's text it does not eme rge whether the restitution of the praenomen is based on preserved fragments. Attribution rejected: 1030*. 1030: The inscription is ide ntical with 768. M .? Fabius Rufus Othersources: 4994,9079, Giordano 1966 1,4, 5, 13, 14, 15. Aed. cand.: 949 , 9871. L.? Fadius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 1067a , 1068 , 2957, 2988. Felix Quinq. cand.: 7268. Fervenius Celer Other sources: None.

.._

...... 135 Aed. cand.: 2993dy. [-]ssius Firmus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 7450*. 7450: Della Corte's "[Ti. Cra]ssium Firmum" is unfounded: this individual features as a witness in an apocha Jucundiana, t. 31, but is not known as a magisterial candidate. Thus also J. Andreau, 1974, p. 203. Firmus Aed. cand.: 617, 1055*, 7255, 7721,7847,7949. 1055: Two inscriptions have apparently been conflated, one for L. Ceius Secundus and the other for a Firmus, who can be either A. Vettius Firmus or .. ssius Firmus; hardly M. Obellius Firmus (Castren , 1975 , p. 151), since this magistrateis not documented in electoral notices. Fuscus Aed. cand.: 278, 457, 962a, 6634, 7157, 7231, 7430, 7876, 7887, 7966. P. Gavius Proculus Other sources: t. 96. Aed. cand.: 825, 895, 6686. C. Gavius Rufus Other sources: 6810, t. 89? Aed. cand.: 118, 869, 1135, 3426, 3462, 3516, 3556, 7287,7455,7735,7927, 9860, 9883. Dv. cand.: 103,155,198, 262*, 297,506,644,650,757, 929*, 972, 1007*, 1061 ,1167, 2973,3471,3480,3642,6668,6685,7202,7242, 7266*,7330,7412, 7442,7468,7538, 7553, 7566, 7606, 7753, 7811, 7856, 7890. 262: The inscription seems from its construction tobe a joint programma, and since the two candidates are a well-attested candidate pair for the duumvirate, the indication of office "aed" would seem to be a scriptor's error. 929: The position of "II VIR ID OVF" and the Iack of reference to the office of Q. Marius Rufus (known only as aedilician candidate), suggest that this is not a joint programma. 1007: According to Zangemeister, there is no certainty that M. Holconius Priscus' running-mate is C. Gavius Rufus, but Minervini's reading of "Gavium" must be an important argument for this identification. 7266: There is no justification for the restitution of praenomen and the addition "I D OVF" in the extant fragments. Cand.: 704, 753, 870, 1063, 3550, 7815. Attribution rejected: 7401 *. 7401: The name of A. Trebius Valens' running-mate for th e aedileship has been obliterated, and as candidates could run several times for the same office, Della

136 Corte's suggestion C. Gavius Rufus is quite uncertain. Gavius Aed. cand.: 331, 3414, 3460, 3519 7537, 7679, 9899. Cand.: 978, 3564, 7261b. Cn. Helvius Sabinus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 241 *, 306, 307, 357, 408,417, 436, 447*, 477,486,496, 507*, 531 , 571, 605,647,662,705, 706*, 787,843,852,857, 859,896 , 922,923,930, 935a, 935d, 945, 1066, 1075, 1079, 1083* , 1145, 1151, 1168, 2962, 2969, 2992, 2993d, 2993e, 2993k, 2993t, 3403, 3410*' 3446, 3450, 3459, 3470*' 3477 ' 3482, 3485 *' 3514, 3517, 3535,3567, 3588,3589,3638,3640,3675,3838, 6616 , 6628,6649,6661,6663,6684, 7008, 7034*, 7041 , 7045, 7053, 7191 , 7213, 7217, 7240* , 7241 , 7254, 7256, 7260, 7273,7301 , 7317,7336, 7337*, 7340,7348,7372,7399,7420,7462, 7467, 7525 , 7593, 7595,7611 , 7623,7628,7638,7659,7663,7708,7733 , 7747 , 7774,7794,7800,7810, 7831,7843, 7849*, 7862,7866, 7869* , 7889,7914,7922,7928, 7948,7965 *, 9846a, 9859, 9872* , 9879, 9885 , 9901,9907, 9914* , 9919,9928. 241: Della Corte, 1965, p. 43., restores line 2 "Hermes Colo[n](iae) [ser](vus)", but the indication of servile status in a recommendation is quite unheard of: along with CIL's "COPO", the interpretation "colo[nus]" would be a possibility, which also seems to suit the extent of the lacuna. 447: See M. Epidius Sabinus duumvir candidate. 507: None of Zangemeister's conjectural emendations of line 3 seems convincing, and in fact it seems to belong to another inscription. 706: Although both "die" = dignum and "rog" can occur without "est" and an explicit rogator, it is likely that this is an ordinary recommendation, and the suggestion "Dio rog" is plausible. 1083: See L. Ceius Secundus, dv. cand. 3410: The recommendation "Primigenia rog" must belong to 3410, 3411 or 3412: since the two last are found underneath 3410, the reading is uncertain. 3470: "ariph[-]" in line 1 can hardly be anything but a rogator's name. 3485: The meaning of "alliari" is dubious: whereas Della Corte offers the fanciful "aleari" , 'dice-players', de Franciscis (followed by Castren) opted for the far more plausible "alliari" , 'garlic sellers'. Della Corte, 1965, pp. 90-95; A . de Franciscis, 'II significato de Ia parola "aliari" in un programma elettorale Pompeiano', Rendieanti dell'Accademia dei Lincei 1 (1935-1940), pp. 46-49; P. Castren, 1975, p. 116. 7034: The indication of office "DV VIR" must be apart of the aediles' official title "DV VASPP", since Cn. Helvius Sabinus is known only as aedile candidate and can be dated to the last years of the city. 7240: Della Corte's interpretation of "codatis" as equivalent to caudatis and his explanation of this most unusual group of rogatores is highly fanciful. The possibility of a misreading must therefore be considered , and the reading "sodalis" corresponding to soda/es seems tobe likely. Reference to persans as "sodalis" is not unusual in electoral inscriptions (cf. "cum sodal ibus" in 7665 and "cum sodales" in 221) .

......

-·

137

Accusative with cum is not unusual either ( cf. 221, 275 and 698, with the comments of V. Väänänen , 1959, pp. 204-05). 7337: Della Corte's restitution is very doubtful, but the identification of the candidate as Cn. Helvius Sabinus seems likely, since only one programma has been found in which Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius runs for the aedileship , and the inscription is placed underneath 7336, which also supports Helvius. 7849: Della Corte's restitution of the candidate's cognomen is unfounded. 7869 : lt is not clear whether the restitution of praenomen is founded on proper evidence or is merely conjectural. 7965: The cognomen suggested by Della Corte is pure conjecture. 9872: The adding of " OVF" seems purely conjectural. 9914: It is uncertain whether the lacuna at the beginning of line 1 provides space for a praenomen. Attribution rejected: 7272*. 7272: See incertus aedile candidate. N. Herennius Celsus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 122, 131, 292*, 299,312, 359-60,379,478,501, 577*, 597,634,767,833, 3639,3676,3683,3719,3730,3732,3771,3835,3841,7587,7809. 292: See C. Calventius, dv. cand. 577: The reading "Vitalio" does not accord easily with the reproduction in C!L. As it may derive from a later examination, it should, however, be accorded greater value than its predecessor. Holconius Celer Other sources: None. Cand.: 7561 *. 7561: As a generat rule , a single inscription is not sufficient documentation for a candidate whose nomen and cognomen are found with other candidates, for a confusion of different inscriptions could have occurred. There are, however, arguments in favour of accepting this inscription. In the first place 7561 was found at a juncture when scholars were more conversant with the electoral inscriptions and the candidates featuring in them; in the second , the name Holconius Celer has previously been attested in Pompeii's history and might well have been perpetuated in the gens Holconia, as happened with the name Holconius Rufus. M. Holconius Priscus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 140, 161, 206, 216, 309, 570, 649, 657, 822, 828, 860, 863 , 876, 904a, 966*,981,3429,3486,3723 , 7162, 7612, 7712, 7934*,9935a. 966: According to its position in line 2 after the rogator, "Proculu(-]" might be interpreted as a scriptor. However, as a Proculus features in the nearby inscription 1067a, he may be recognized as a second rogator, although this entails a rather atypical composition.

-~-

-

138 7934: Della Corte's assertion that a house-owner, Sextilius, supervised the execution of the inscription , is purely conjectural, nor can his restitution be accorded much value. Dv. cand.: 96,103,127, 155,157,202, 262*, 297,341,506,623,633,644,648,681, 718, 745, 767a, 927, 943, 1007, 1010, 1065, 1099*, 3428, 3637, 3837, 6685, 7164, 7202, 7242, 7554, 7585, 7589, 7597, 7622, 7685 , 7842. 262: See C. Gavius Rufus, dv. cand. 1099: If the candidate in line 2, as I suppose, is L. Popidius Secundus (q.v.), M. Holconius must be the duumvir candidate M. Holconius Priscus, for they are known to have run together, cf. 7242. Cand.: 199, 280, 304, 321, 890, 2939*, 3466, 7235*. 2939: See C. Calventius Sittius Magnus , dv. cand. 7235: None of the extant parts of the inscription can justify the add ition of a praenomen , and it is uncertain whether it builds on fragments. Attribution rejected: 3502 *. 3502: See C. Vestorius Priscus, aed. cand. M. Holconius Rufus Other sources: t. 70. Cand.: 7140a. C. Holconius Ser. Other sources: None. Cand.: 786a *. 786a: Several corrections for "Ser" are suggested, but as the praenomen, too, differs from that of other known candidates, we must be dealing with an otherwise unknown candidate, and "Ser" be part of the candidate's cognomen, for example Serenus. M. Holconius Aed. cand.: 432 *, 880, 2980, 7825 *. 432: "pinum" must in my opinion be an erroneous reading of "dignum" . 7825: Della Corte rightly suggested that we are dealing with two candidate names, M. Holconius and Siricus; a M. Holconius Siricus is otherwise unattested. lt is also possible that two different inscriptions are involved. P. Vedius Siricus, who is the only known bearer of this cognomen in Pompeii, was thus duumvir in 60 and is not documented as aedile candidate. The indication of office therefore presumably belo ngs exclusively to "M. Holconium". Dv. cand. : 792, 994, 3491, 7481. Cand.: 313,377, 505* , 517,565,700,878,887,7558. 505: "II" can due to its placement not belong to "M. Ho", but must like lin e 2 belong to another inscription. Holconius Aed. cand.: 375, 400*, 752,894.

...

;

... 139 400: Line 2 probably featured a formulation lik e 768 "ob merita eius et probitatem". Dv. cand.: 291,371,578,951,3430,7459. Quinq. cand.: 2927. Cand.: 300,831,869, 1166, 7548*. 7548: The candidate's praenomen is Della Corte's conj ecture; it seems safer, therefore , to assign the inscription to "Holconius". Igius Fuscus Other sources: None. Cand.: 208. Julius Modestus Other sources: None . Aed. cand.: 3747, 3768. C. Julius Polybius Othersources: 98, 114, 1226,7316,7942,7945, Giordano, 1974, 11 , 12, 14. Aed. cand.:429,699, 1050,3384,7279, 7333*, 7409,7588,7621,7923, 7925*, 7958*. 7333: In line 2, the lacuna leaves room for e mending th e roga tor's name as "Mac[er] " 7925: In line 3, "fa[cite]" is also possible: cf. 7132, 7819. 7958: "et Ilvir" must be an addition to an already existing programma made when the candidate at a later juncture stood for the duumvirate. It does not seem to be an independent electoral inscription and is therefore not included in the Iist of C. Julius Polybius' duumvir in scriptions. Dv. cand.: 99, 108, 113, 121, 132, 133, 134, 146, 147, 271-72, 316, 348, 523, 875 , 886, 909, 973, 1034, 1053, 1060, 7136, 7167, 7189, 7204, 7232, 7264, 7277 , 7345, 7841,7864, 7867*, 7872,7888,7941 , 7956,9831,9837. 7867: The add ition of a praenomen seems tobe pure conj ecture . Cand.: 258, 2935 , 3363, 3766, 7304a, 7410, 7688,7957. M. Julius Simplex Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 451 , 668, 3599. C. Julius Aed. cand.: 94, 830c. Julius Aed. cand.: 9896. M.Junius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 1069.

140 Quinq. cand.: 412*. 412: !he "Q[-]" in "M. Junium Q[-]" does not necessarily designate the quinquennialate: it may be a fragmentary cognomen. The candidature is therefore uncertain. Cand.: 7906. C. Laecanius [Succe]ssus Other sources: None. Quinq. cand.: 7014*. 7014: Seen. 320. L. Laelius Fuscus

Other sources: t. 10? , 13, 15, 35, 103. Aed. cand.: 102. Dv. cand.: 3592. Cand.: 7128. M. Licinius Faustinus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 119, 185, 247, 248, 252, 265, 399, 453, 554, 731, 906, 958*, 3393, 3399, 3401,3424, 3595,3601,3602,3611,3612, 3613,3749,3750, 3852,3853*, 7142,7428, 7881, 7909, + note. Note: In a watercolour from Pompeii painted around the middle of the previous century, an inscription for "Faustinum" is placed VII,7 ,26 left. This inscription is not registered in CIL , but there is much to suggest that it is authentic. The picture is reproduced in Pompeji. Leben und Kunst in den Vesuvstädten, Essen 1973, p. 249. It has number 362, but the legend stands under no. 371 and states that it was painted by Giacinto Gigante 1806-1876. 958: Zangemeister's correction in line 2 to "Earinus" must be preferred to both acta and Minervini. 3853: The restitution is not quite certain, for "Faust[-] could also be a rogator, e.g. Faustus. Due to the position of the inscription in the immediate neighbourhood of 3852, the interpretation must be regarded as plausible, however. M. Licinius Romanus Other sources: 699. Aed. cand.: 218, 829a, 1031, 3614, 3594, 7456, 7519*, 7640*, 7935*. 7519 and 7640: There does not seem tobe basis for adding a praenomen in either inscription. 7935: The office can also be restored "[ aed]/V ASPP" , for this form occurs in 3594 and 7456. M. Licinius Aed. cand.: 337, 405, 683, 830b*, 1028, 3463, 3600, 7398*, 7594, 7822b. 830b: Otherwise, there is no reference to C. Licinius in an electoral context. As the

~-

..... 141 inscription has been doubtfully transmitted, it is permissible to alter the candidate's praenomen from C. to M. 7398: Della Corte's restitution is purely conjectural, for the nome n can just as weil be followed by cognomen as by the indication of office. C. Lollius Fuscus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 84,282,295,345,347,388,419,442,444,678,711,734,795,832,1067, 1078,3360,3827,7196,7234,7411 ,7461,7596,7607,7619,7644, 7646,7662, 7668*, ' ·,. 7824,7848,7863,7874,7916. / 7668: D ella Corte's restitution and commentary express greater ceriainty than is justified, for the candidate can also be M. Licinius Faustus. C. Lollius Fuscus is, however, the only one of these two who features with initials, and that no less than 7 times, and it is therefore probably this candidate who is attested here.

Q. Lollius Rufus Other sources: 8128. Aed. cand.: 9840. Lollius Aed. cand.: 314, 380*, 740 , 771 , 790, 793,796, 1052, 2981, 3411,7155,7263, 7285 *, 7422, 7473 , 7670, 7693, 7868, 7901, 7932. 380: A Lollius Magnus is otherwise unknown. As the inscription has been badly transmitted, we may weil be dealing with an amalgam of two inscriptions, or perhaps a joint programma. 7285: Della Corte's identification with C. Lollius Fuscus is not certain, Q. Lollius Rufus being another possibility. M. Lucretius Fronto Other sources: 6633, 6795, 6796. Aed. cand.: 3740, 3754, 6613, 6625, 6626* 3740: The last " A " probably stands for aed , while the first may be a fragment of an "M ", which could be a praenomen or the final Ietter of the nomen . 6626: Mau remarks that the inscdption was written in the same hand as 6613 and 6625, and that it therefore must be from his aedilician candidature. Used indiscriminately , such criteria should be suspect, but in view of the close proximity of the inscriptions, may be accepted in this case. Dv. cand.: 271-72, 973, 2975, 9877, 9922. Quinq. cand.: 7184, 7416. Cand.: 801 *, 3758, 3744, 7871. 801: See M. Cerrinius Vatia. D. Lucretius Valens Other sources: 1185, 3884, 7992, 7995, 8590. Aed. cand.: 3571, 7453*, 7555, 7557, 7563* , 7626, 7695, 7757* , 7898*, 9843,9898.

142 7453: See Cn. Audius Bassus, cand. 7563: Della Corte's restitution of the inscription is doubtful, but the identification of the candidate must be correct. The spelling "filum" thus also occurs in 7695, and D. Lucretius Valens is the only candidate who almost consistently isspoken of as "filius" . 7757: Asthis candidate is datable to Pompeii's last ten years, the indication of office "D V" must be a scriptor's error. 7898: Obviously "Silium" is an error for "filium". The gens Silia is not attested in Pompeii, the order cognomen nomen is abnormal, and "filius" is also a fixed part of D. Lucretius Valens' nomenclature. Lucretius Cand.: 96, 6614, 6637, 7305d, 7979. Attribution rejected: 92 *. 92: The inscription cannot be accepted as a programma for Lucretius, because the name is in the nominative. L. Maesonius

Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 3554, 3557,7513, 9897. Magnos Aed. cand.: 310*. 310: "Magnium" follows a nomen , and it therefore seems tobe an erroneous rendering of "Magnum". Dv. cand.: 836, 992. Cand.: 380*, 563, 829*, 9864 *. 380: See Lollius, aed. cand. 829: The punctuation betwee n " Rufum " and " Magnum" and the identical Ietter height indicate that it may be a joint programma. 9864: The name is not quite certain, since the reading "[di]gnum" is also possible. But " [-]neum", which could be interpreted "[ido]neum" is a contraindication. Marcellus Cand.: 111 ,284,628,925,3432,3475 ,3495,6660,6665 , 7379*. 7379: Della Corte conjectured that the officewas the aedileship, and that the candidate was M . Casellius Marcellus. This cannot be upheld, since the candidate might be M. Vesonius Marcellus instead. M. Mallins Other sources: None . A ed. cand.: 260. Q. Marius Rufus Other sources: None.

..._

..... 143 Aed. cand.: 152, 222, 455, 660, 698, 926, 929*, 934, 941, 9923. 929: See C. Gavius Rufus, dv . cand. Martialis Cand.: 349. M. Melissaeus Other sources: None. Quinq. cand.: 208,394, 1175*. 1175: "C" cannot belong to "Melissaeum", but must, if part of the same inscription, be the praenomen of a running-mate. C. Memmius Junianus Other sources: X 826. Aedile in 56 AD. Dv. cand.: 3591. Modestus Aed. cand.: 143, 213,446,645, 837, 1071 , 3373, 3434, 3505, 6645, 6652, 6658, 6681 *, 9932a. 6681: The identification of M. Samellius Modestus is not certain, since both Q. Postumius Modestus and Julius Modestus are documented as aedile candidates. Cand.: 242, 7211, 7886. L. Naevius Rufus Other sources: None.

Aed. cand.: 475, 3824. Nepos Aed. cand.: 401, 3823. Neptualis Aed. cand.: 1070. M. Nollius Other sources: None. Cand.: 518*. 518: See M. Calventius, cand. L. Nonius Severus Other sources: None.

Aed. cand.: 7169, 7206, 7514, 7759,7763. L. Numisius Rarus Other sources: 1567, t. 22?

Aed.cand.:287,293,308 , 315,511 ,561,838,844a ,874,883,885,3416,3648,3755.

144 C. Numitorius Serenus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 970, 7305b, 7305c. Attribution rejected: 2943*. 2943: See incertus aed. cand. C. Ostorius Other sources: None. Cand.: 9838 *. 9838: Della Corte has construed the candidate's name as Hostrius , but has since been corrected by H. Solin , 1973 , p. 264, who regards Hostorius as identical with Ostorius.

L. Ovidius Veiento Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 1039, 1160, 3618, 3850, 3851,7143,7154,7171,7212,7228,7288, 7429*, 7448, 7482, 7703, 7739, 7745, 7766*' 7783, 7930, 9869. 7429: There is not, as asserted by Della Corte, reason to invent a M. Ovidius Firmus Veiento, and the praenomen M. must be a scriptor's error. On Della Corte's theory , seealso the CIL commentary to 9869. 7766: Castren, 1975 , p. 217, finds in line 2's "Satrium ins rogamus aed" proof of the existence of an aedilician candidate Satrius, but the interpretation of the inscription is too doubtful to form the basis for a new Pompeian. Thus "rogamus" seems to give a recommendation, and everything suggests that the unusual form "ins" must belong to this. Since members of the gens Satria possibly lived at Il ,3,1-3, opposite which the inscription was found, Della Corte's interpretation "Satrium=Satriorum ins(ulari)" seems interesting. The word "insularius" in the sense "dweller in an insula" is uncertain, however, but the interpretation "ins(ula)" could perhaps also be considered. See B.W. Frier, Landlordsand Tenants , Princeton 1980, p. 29. P. Paquius Proculus Other sources: 7210. Aed. cand.: 354, 415*, 3728, 3735. 415: Zangemeister doubts whether "aed" belongs to 415 (see commentary to 354). To judge from the construction, it does. Dv. cand.: 222,227,228,361,366,404,420,454,460, 464*, 500,660,784,903,919, 933, 935h, 940, 985, 1122, 1146, 1158, 3583, 3622, 7129c, 7197, 7208, 7237, 7265, 7476,7501,7543,7570,7572,7661,7671,7682,7724,7729,7736,7744,7758,7814, 7836,7858,7880,7902,7920,7944,9845,9880,9881,9882,9905,9910*,9911,9929. 464: "fili aed" is meaningless- Zangemeister suggested "IT vir i d" , probably rightly, for P. Paquius Proculus and A. Vettius Caprasius Felix are known only as runningmates for the duumvirate. 9910: "PR" may also stand for Priscus. As 9911 was found at the same spot, it must , however, be considered probable that it refers to this candidate. Cand.: 318,356, 370*, 405a , 407,435,463, 505 *, 521,591, 665*, 841, 891a, 893,

.....

......

I

I

145 897,912,939,955,1166, 2931*,2931a, 3585,3633*,3653, 3734,3767,3830,7388, 7390*,7821,7861b,9921. 370: The reading "verecundiss[-]" must be preferred to the unparalleled "Verus condis[cipulus]". 505: See M. Holconius, cand. 665: SeM. Epidius Sabinus, dv. cand. 2931: "POV" could be interpreted [DR]P OV [F]. 3633: As Mau also points out, the reading is doubtful: two different inscriptions must be involved. 7390: Della Corte's addition of cognomen is purely hypothetical. Attribution rejected: 334* , 723*, 7226*, 7262*, 7427*, 7819*. 334: See Proculus cand. 723: See Proculus, aed. cand. 993: See incertus aed. cand. 7226 and 7262: See Proculus, dv. cand. 7427: The first candidate name is restored in CIL as "Paquium", but as only "ium" is preserved, this is purely hypothetical. The candidates could run several times with different running-mates. 7819: A. Vettius Caprasius Felix stands here with one candidate whom Della Corte identifies as P. Paquius Proculus. As the "vicini" recommend, and Paquius may have lived in IX, 7,1, this is possible but by no means certain. L. Pericatius Other sources: None. Cand.: 7185.

Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus Other sources: t. 143,· 145. Duumvir 59 AD. Cand.: 1178*, 7882. 1178: The inscription is assigned to edicta munerum , due to the fact that it has been linked to an announcement for games given by Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius. From the reproduction in CIL there does not seem, however, tobe any clear connection between Alleius' edictum and "Grosphos" , who is placed some distance away. Mommsen suggested the interpretation "Grospho s[ alutem ]", but the inscription's remarkably !arge format in relation to the edict makes it unlikely that a greeting to a third party not connected with the edict could be involved. The reading "Grosphos" thus seems to be correct, and it is therefore reasonable to perceive it as a programma for the two known magistrates of this name. Parallels to such a recommendation of two candidates of the same family are known from 597 and 643, where AA. Suetti Certus et Verus feature. Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Other sources: t. 143. Duumvir 59 AD. Cand.: 1178* . 1178*: See Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus.

146 Sex. Pompeins Procnlns Othersources: t. 141 , 144-146. Duumvir 57 AD, praefectus I D in 60 AD. Cand.: 325. Pompeins Dv. cand.: 3757. Cand.: 327.

L. Popidins Ampliatns Other sources. Aed. cand.:2978,3549,3558,3848, 7168,7175,7210,7275,7290,7313,7405,7413, 7423*, 7443,7474,7510,7517,7526,7618,7624,7632,7650,7665,7702,7706,7781, 7851,7896,7950, 7961*, 7967. 7423: The addition "aed" in line 2 is purely conjectural. 7961: Della Corte's addition .of "aed ovf" is not cogent. If the inscription is in fact fragmentary , other readings are possible. N. Popidins Rnfns Othersources: 1107, 1116, 1186, 1188,4989,7346. Aed. cand.: 116, 393, 603, 800*, 826, 986, 3381, 3385, 7444. 800: The word before " rog" must be the rogator's name , for none of the fixed formulae start with "N", and only the suggested "Neo" seems able to fill the available space. Dv. cand.: 589, 631, 632, 735, 899, 931, 932, 2961, 3375, 3400, 3548, 3621, 3660, 3729,3844,7475,7503,7642,7649,7656,7667,7707,7709,7728,7761,7931,9870, 9886, 9903. Cand.: 403, 560, 798, 829*, 3383, 3561, 7471 , 7484, 7508. 829: The punctuation between "Rufum" and "Magnum", and the common Ietter height in " Mag" and the foregoing , suggest that one inscription might be involved . L. Popidins Secnndns Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 285,295,305,351,382,421,424,428,461,476,525,693,707,717,720, 744, 772*, 773, 785a, 789,898,915,968,1012,1019, 1020*, 1021,1022,1040,1041, 1045,1062, 1099* , 1143,1144,1159 , 1161,2940,3394,3409,3631,3718,3738,7135, 7146, 7166, 7172, 7182*, 7242, 7282*, 7400, 7414, 7418, 7440*, 7451 , 7469, 7489, 7495*, 7498, 7500, 7509, 7524*' 7530, 7614, 7681, 7692, 7749, 7787' 7796, 7816, 7963. 772: To judge from the ensuing "Popidium Secund um", 773, the painter has simply misspelt the candidate's cognomen. 1020: L. Popidius Secundus appears to have been aedile candidate in Pompeii's last years and is not known as duumvir candidate. " II vir" is therefore probably a mistake. It could possibly be a part of " II vir V ASPP". 1099: Line 2 can be rendered "Eo[pid Sec]undum, Land P being ligatured in 7161, 7221, 7259 and 7910. This candidate's name is often abbreviated: thus "Popid" is

...

.....

l

147

J

I

,

found in 1144, and perhaps also in 7419, while L. Popfeatures in 7170, Popius in 7321, Secum in 693 and Secund in 744, 7440 and 7530. The two candidates are also known to have runtagether in 79, where M. Holconius Priscus was the duumvir candidate , cf. 7242. 7182: Della Corte's restitution of the praenomen and office and the insertion of rogator are purely conjectural. 7282: The candidate could also be L. Ceius Secundus, but as he, in cantrast to L. Popi?ius Secundus, is not known with filiation, this seems unlikely , cf. 1143, 7414, 7963. 7440 and 7495: It seems very doubtful whether there is basis for adding the indication of office "aed". 7524: lt is unclear whether the praenomen has evidential support. Attribution rejected: 709*. 709: The inscription must in my opinion be identical with 785a, where, in addition , a part of line 1 is preserved. They have the same wording , thus the same unusual formulation "dignos r p", and the "c" in "scr" is missing in both places. True enough, Popidius Secundus' praenomen has been included in 785a and not in 709, but this could weil be due to deficient registration, neither Zangemeister nor Mommsen having seen the actual inscription . L. Popidius Aed. cand.: 508, 721, 749, 754, 776, 779, 998, 1036, 1064, 1076, 2966, 2974, 7133,

7156,7161,7170,7221,7222, 7259*, 7321,7419,7507,7655,7765,7910. 7259: As the two possible candidates L. Popidius Ampliatus and L. Popidius Secundus are both known only as aedile candidates, "li vir" must be interpreted as apart of " li vir V ASPP". Popidius Aed. cand.: 137, 727, 952, 3379, 3651, 3836, 7417 , 7434, 7516, 7608, 7652, 7657, 7788, 7832. Cand.: 372, 1133, 1166*, 2958, 3761, 6609, 6664, 7615, 7854*. 1166: The cognomen has been interpreted as "Rufum", but this seems very doubtful. 7854: Neither the addition of "aed" nor of "probum" appears convincing, and the inscription must therefore be assigned to Popidius, cand.

Q. Postumius Modestus Othersources: 5352,5353,5354, 10167, X 826, t. 96. Duumvir 56 AD. Aed. cand.: 805. Dv. cand.: 6617. Quinq. cand.: 195, 279, 736, 756, 778, 786, 1156, 1160, 3679, 7224, 7466, 7486*, 7502, 7580, 7598, 7609, 7629, 7705, 7732, 7918, 7970. 7486: lt is uncertain whether the insertion of a cognomen is based on fragments. Cand.: 963, 7567, 7577*, 7741. 7577: There are no parallels to recommendations by "iuvenes", whose existence as

~

148 an organization is more than doubtful at Pompei i; "vene(ri] " is a far moreplausible reading (cf. 1146 and "veneriosi" in 7791). Alternatively, "(iu]vene[m]" also seems possible. Q. Postumins Proculus Other sources: 8506?. Aed. cand.: 267*, 479,685, 691,695, 782,864, 974, 1016, 1048, 1081, 1165,2937, 2993h , 2993s, 3359, 3387,3435, 7194*, 7238, 7245e, 7250,7253,7300,7338,7344, 7357,7364,7374, 7385,9829a, 9832,9835,9851,9878,9925. 267: Zangemeister believes that this inscription for Q. Postumius shou ld possibly be linked to 266 for M. Cer rinius Vatia. Since a number of common inscriptions for this pair of candidates have since been found , the hypo thesis seems highl y plausible, cf. 7245,7300,9832,9835,9851, 9878. 7194: Spinazzola, 1953 , p. 257, questioned the validity of Della Corte's reading of the rogator name. As Della Corte's reading has a direct connection with hi s identification of the occupants of 1,6, 15, Spinazzola's objectio n must be accorded considerable weight. Postumins Aed. cand.: 126,849,861, 984*, 991, 1008,3415,7363,7373. 984: In line 3, the seco nd word has been uncertainly handed down , but the first letters should according to Zangemeister be " iar" and the fourth seems to be " n", for which reason the reading " Iar[i]n[ o ]" seems plausible. Cand.: 98*, 101 , 585 , 614, 758a, 781 ,866,952, 980*, 987a, 1047,3372,3604,3709, 3762, 6677*' 7183*' 7449, 7915 , 7969, 9890, 9902. 98: Zangemeister relates that all except acta have "fecit" instead of "facit" , and as "fecit" must be termed lectio difficilior, I am inclined to prefer this reading. 980: "papid ovf" probably belongs to 980, since "ovf" is already fo und in 979. "Papid" can be interpreted as rogator name and be restored " Papid(ius)", corresponding to Popid(ius) , found in 1144 and perhaps 7419. 6677: In line 2, "d" ca n stand for either " dignum" or "duumvir", and th e office can therefore not be ide ntified with sufficient accuracy. 7183: Della Corte's restitution is highly doubtful. Inversion of name and cognomen is extremely rare, and everything suggests th at it is a matte r of two nomina, the latter being "Postumius" and the first unidentifiable. Priscus Aed. cand.: 261, 580*, 608,914, 1001 , 1018,2956,2989,3625,3629,7029,7636, 7727, 7734, 7859. 580: To judge from the fragments, "Cotta" will not do. and it has tobe recognized that the rogator's name is illegible. Cand.: 263,513,584,600, 1054, 2954b, 3690,7431, 7544*. 7544: Della Corte's M. Holconius Priscus is no t cogent: C. Vestorius Priscus is also known as candidate. The Popidius Priscus suggested by P. Ciprotti is not attested in electoral inscriptions or as magistrate: Studia et Documenta Historiae et luris, 18

......

-..

149

(1952) , p. 267. Proculus A ed. cand.: 723*, 3483. 723: The ide ntificatio n of Proculus as P . Paquius Proculus is uncertain , since the running-ma te, of whose name only "sium" is preserved , is not necessaril y A. Vettius Ca prasius Felix , but could , for instance, be Numisius. Dv. cand. : 7226*, 7262*. 7226 a nd 7262: In both inscriptions, the candid ate is identified as P. Paquius Proculus, but Sex. Po mpeius Proculus is also a possibility. The addition of a who le line, which the re is appare ntl y no trace of, is also suspect. Cand.: 334*, 378, 848, 1073a, 2930*, 3608, 7139*, 7359. 334: Zangemeiste r interpre ts the inscriptio n " P . Pro[-]/ Sabi[-]/ O.V.V .D[-]" as referring to P. Paquius Proculus and M . E pidius Sab inus, but this is do ubtful , firstl y beca use the first name, if P. is praeno men , could also be P . G avius Proculus and , if it is no me n , Q. Postumius Proculus, a nd secondly because the combina tion of na mes in lines 1 and 2 cannot justify such an identification , since Sabinus can weil be a rogator a nd not candidate . 2930: See M . E pidius Sabinus, ca nd . 7139: Della Corte's restitution "PR[ usti]VM" is erroneous, since the candidate Rustius has the prae nome n Aulus, and of the two possible readings, Priscum a nd Proculum , the la tter sho uld be preferred due to the size of the lacuna. M. Pupins Rufus Other sources: 3537, 4615, 6678. Aed. cand.: 142. D v. cand.: 302, 3527, 3529, 3534. Cand.: 3562. Rufus A ed. cand.: 406, 1155, 3378. Dv. cand.: 671, 935f, 3626, 3854, 7319, 7324, 7802. Cand.: 219, 220 , 287, 725, 897*, 3455, 7145a. 897: T he restitution of thi s in scription cann ot be accepted . T he re thus seems to be evidence neither for the ide ntificatio n of the ca ndid ate as C. Gavius Rufus no r fo r that of the offi ce as the duumvirate . L. Rusticelius Celer Other sources: None.

D v. cand. : 301 , 329, 406*, 3569, 3572. 406: Za ngemeiste r seems in the restituti on o f the inscription , adde ndum p . 194, to regard "gra nde m" as a cognome n, but no such is known , and it must be an adj ective governing th e fo regoing "[-]ne m", which co uld be inte rpre ted as " [iuve]ne m".

150 A. Rostins Verus Othersources: 1451,1731,3738,3750,3751,4183. Aed. cand.: 427, 459, 2984, 3742. Dv. cand.: 1028, 2947, 3760, 7942. Cand.: 390,397,586,638,971,2931,3581,3793, 7954*. 7954: Della Corte's restitution is highly suspect, because there is in the first place no certainty that Rustius here is duumvir candidate, and in the second place , that Polybius is candidate and not rogator, since neither ending nor verbis preserved. Sabinus Aed.. cand.: 114, 158*, 180, 413,430, 467,550,635, 673,817,928,965,3467, 3490*, 3522*, 7229*, 9904. 158: No " [-]rius Sabinus" is known , and it can therefore be a question either of a misreading or of an otherwise unknown candidate. 3490: See M. Casellius Marcellus. 3522: Mau's identification of the candidate as Cn. Helvius Sabinus cannot be upheld , M. Epidius Sabinus also being known as aedile candidate. 7229: Della Corte's restitution is quite hypothetical, and it seems doubtful whether there ever was a line above the extant one. Cand.: 396,514,751,809,957,982, 1026, 1038, 1058, 3368*, 7754,7940. 3368: Mau's restitution of the roga tores is not inconceivable, but on the other hand not sufficiently certain to warrant acceptance. C. Sallustius Capito Other sources: None . A ed. cand. : 104, 298, 322, 336, 365, 380*, 439, 493a , 801 *, 888a, 3778, 7209. 380: See Lollius, aed . cand. 801: See M. Cerrinius Vatia . M. Salvius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 7380. M. Sameilins Modestus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 125 , 189, 192,203,210,212,217,231,233,255,286,290,335,350,384, 398, 422, 441 , 465 , 481 , 498*, 532, 627, 639, 854*, 889a, 1169, 3497, 3501, 3524, 3531 ,3538,3560, 3624,3674*,3694,3826,6610,6615, 6616,6618,6627,6628,6633, 6657,6667,6669,7039,7044,7049,7054. 498: See M. Casellius Marcellus. 854: The inscription is hardly a joint programma, since there is no clear connection between the names, nor any indicatio n of office or formulae, which is unusual in shared inscriptions. 3674: See p. 162.

-.. 151 M. Satrius Valens Other sources: 7454, 9888. Dv. cand.: 7371. Quinq. cand.: 7556, 7564, 7620, 7704 *. 7704: See Cn. Audius Bassus cand. Cand.: 9900. Secundus Aed. cand.: 352, 769, 947, 1004, 1150, 2970, 3440, 3715, 3834, 7233, 7408, 7536, 7551, 7696, 7779. Cand.: 410, 724, 692, 1017, 1035, 1078a, 1161, 7129d, 7218,7547, 7731,7799. Seppius Other sources: 3781. Aed. cand.: 3779. Septumins Other sources: None. Cand. : 9844. Severus Aed. cand.: 3696, 3697, 7945. Cand.: 854*, 7150*, 7402* , 7893. 854: See M. Samellius Modestus. 7150 and 7402: The identification of the candidate as Vibius Severus is quite uncertain, since also L. Nonius Severus is known as a candidate. L. Sextilius Lalus Other sources: None. Cand.: 9836 * . 9836: Like H. Solin, 1973, p. 264, I am doubtful about Della Corte's reading of the candidate's cognomen, and his existence can therefore be accepted only with considerable reservation. L. Sextilius Restitutus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 7826*, 7947*, 9858*. 7826 and 7947: No candidate is known of the name of Vettius Restitutus , and Della Corte's identification of the candidate Iacks all foundation. 9858: Castren, 1975, p. 221, believes that inscriptions for L. Sextilius and Vettius Restitutus can have been confused, but as the candidate Vettius Restitutus is exclusively the result of Della Corte's restitution of 7826 and 7947, this hypothesis must be rejected. L. Sextilius Syrticus Other sources: 5538.

-:..

152 Dv. cand.: 799, 7762. L. Sexfilius Dv. cand.: 7187, 7550. Aed. cand.: 7917*. 7917: No candidate M. Sextilius is otherwise known, and his existence is therefore too uncertain to be accepted. Cand.: 2993r, 7192, 7358, 7711, 7951, 7962, 9833, 9841. P. Sittius Coniunctus Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 712, 726, 2938, 3425, 3468. P. Sittius Magnos Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 135 ,391,774,976, 1077,7529, 7730*. 7730: Della Corte suggests in the commentary that "P" has inadvertantly been written for "C" . This correction is quite superfluo us and must be due to Della Corte's not being aware of the existence of P. Sittius Magnus. Sittius Magnos Aed. cand.: 989, 7436. Cand. : 553, 7236, 7776, 9876b. P. Sittius Cand.: 907, 1135a. Sittius Aed. cand. : 130, 245, 3503. Dv. cand.: 7778. Cand.: 2982, 7052. L. Statius Receptus Other sources: None. Dv. cand.: 3775. M. Stlaborius V eins Fronto Other sources: X 806, 896, Ns 1910, 405. Dv. II quinq. 25 AD. Quinq. cand.: 7976a,b, 7977, 7978. A. Suettius Certos Other sources: 1189, 11 90, 1191, 7987. Aed. cand.: 821*, 7361 ,7677, 7823a*, 7823b. 821: As both rogator and scriptor are mentio ned in the inscriptio n, " larin[-]" should be a greeting, and the formulations " Iarine vale" and " Iarino sal(utem)" are possi-

"

...

i:

-. 153 bilities. 7823a: "II" must, as Della Corte remarks, be a misreading of "d", and as the two inscriptions 7823a and b seem to belong together, 7823a must also be an aedile inscription. Dv. cand.: 109,122, 359-60*, 373,409, 447*, 597,641,643,797, 801*, 901 , 7312*, 7660, 7700, 7752, 7768, 7877. 359-60 and 447: See M . Epidius Sabinus, dv. cand. 801: See M. Cerrinius Vatia. 7312: The addition of the praenomen has no foundation in the preserved parts, and it is uncertain whether it is based on fragments. Cand.: 865, 7496, 7837. 7496: Both the addition of praenomen and the office appear to be purely hypothetical , and the inscription can therefore not be assigned to the duumviral inscriptions. A. Suettius Verus Other sources: 3068. Aed. cand.: 122, 131, 312, 359-60*, 426, 597, 643, 1043, 1137, 3639, 3652, 3683, 7180, 7223, 7325,7483, 7512, 7541, 7559,7616,7643,7660,7691,7722,7726,7748, 7751,7789,7809,7813,7828,7878, 7926*, 7939,7968. 359-60: See M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. cand. 7926: Della Corte's reading and interpretation of line 2 is not convincing. Not only does the reading of the last Ietter as a ligature of "CR" seem tobe doubtful, but it seems unlikely that a rogator should be represented by only two linked letters arid without any usual commendatory verb. Suettius Aed. cand.: 250, 395, 434, 593, 1057, 3663, 3665, 3843, 7834, 7853, 7885, 9842. Cand.: 106, 137, 257, 488, 3736, 3777, 7879. Syrticus Cand.: 7953. T. Terentius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 697, 808, 3370, 6629, 6678,7980. A. Trebius Valens Other sources: 7429, 7605, 7614, 7617, 7618, 7619, 7627, 7624, 7632, 7658, 7630, 8815, 8824. Aed. cand.: 118, 123, 332, 338, 437, 555, 677, 743, 1135 , 1138, 3408, 3426, 3462, 3498,3515,3516,3521,3555,3556,3634,3655,7176, 7227,7287,7426*,7432,7438, 7455, 7477, 7485, 7610, 7641, 7669, 7672, 7735, 7750*, 7770, 7818, 7861a, 7927, 7983,9860,9866,9884,9931. 7426: The restitution is doubtful, for the praenomen is not necessary, and it is

154 doubtful whether the addition is based on fragments . 7750: Due to the construction of the inscription , I am sceptical abo ut Della Corte's reading, because the inversion of nomen and cognomen does not otherwise occur, and a corresponding formation is known with inscriptions for D. Lucretius Valens, who is often call ed "filius". This applies in 7557, 7563, 7626, 7695 and 7898, andin 7557 one find s the very wording "Valentem/ filium aed vaspp ovf", so a correction of "[-]bium" to "(fi]lium" could be considered. A. Trebius Valens Other sources: None. Quinq. cand.: 7488, 7633. Trebius Cand.: 7153,7269,7327, 7401*, 7446. 7401: Della Corte's restitution is not certain , for it has not been taken into account that it can also be A. Trebius Valens, quinq. cand. Valens Aed. cand.: 9868. Quinq. cand.: 3712. M. Valerius Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 154. L. Varius Gallica[-] Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 162. P. Vedius Nummianus Other sources: 916, 917. Aed. cand.: 100 , 755, 758, 765, 910, 913, 1166 , 2977, 3549, 3558 , 3846, 7151 *, 7219, 7564,7817, 7827, 7835. 7151: D ella Corte believes that the candidate can be either P. Vedius Nummianus or Ti. Claudius Claudianus, but as the latter is attested only as duumvir candidate, this inscription , like 100, must be assigned to P . Vedius Nummianus. P. Vedius Siricus Othersources: 916,3952, 5157?, s. 97 , t. 144. Dv. 60 AD. Dv. cand. : 805. Quinq. cand.: 214, 596, 824, 7134b, 7138, 7332, 7937. Cand.: 92*, 713, 805b, 911,924 ,1072, 7825 *. 92: Only "Sir" of this inscription is preserved, uncertainly transmitted. " Munatius" in line 2 must be a rogator , while " (Luc]retius" probably belongs to another in-

•

...... 155 scription. 7825: See M. Holconius, aed. cand. P. Vedius Cand.: 905, 954, 7047, 7135d. L. Veius Rufus Other sources: 5916. Aed. cand.: 3431. L. Veranius Hypsaeus Other sources: t . 142, 143, 147, 150. Duumvir 58 AD. Quinq. cand.: 170, 181, 187, 191 ,200,270,3670,7160,7193. Attribution rejected: 193*. 193: See incertus quinq. cand.

Verus Aed. cand.: 609, 3754, 7457. Dv. cand.: 362*, 552, 3707, 3737, 3752. 362: Guarini's correction of "descende" to "discentes" seems reasonable, since "descende" is meaningless, while "discentes" occurs in several insta:nces, cf. 275, 673, 694, 698. Cand.: 2976, 3453*, 3587, 3633* , 3717,3748. 3453: Seen. 148. 3633: See P. Paquius Proculus, cand. M. V esonius Marcellus Other sources: t. 143. Dv. cand.: 3528, 7147*, 7769. 7147: Della Corte's addition of the rogator name is pure conjecture. Quinq. cand.: 7130, 9876c. Cand. : 273, 830, 3448. C. Vestorius Priscus Other sources: 8538, Ns 1910, 402. Aed. cand.: 107*, 719, 1051, 3502*, 6643,7011, 7134c, 7271,9861,9863,9916. 107: The inscription is read in CIL as "C I Priscum", but as no candidate of this name is known , it is reasonable to make the alteration "C [V] Priscum " and assign it to C. Vestorius Priscus. 3502: The candidate is identified in the commentary as M. Holconius Priscus, but as Sogliano reads "[-]bium" and Mau "[-]orium", "Vestorium " seems tobe more likely. The cognomen of C. Vestorius was not known when 3502 was published, which explains the wrong identification.

•

156 A. Vettius Caprasius Felix Other sources: None. Aed.cand.:204,205,229 , 344, 567, 574,615,620, 636,703,750, 823,846,888,935b , 935e, 935i,953, 983, 990, 999,3636,3659,3685 , 3687 , 3701,7165. Dv. cand.: 222, 404, 420, 454, 460, 464*, 660, 935h, 1003, 1158, 2985. 2986, 3776, 7427, 7724, 7758, 7836, 7858,7944,9852, 9862*,9881,9882, 9912, 9927. 464: See P. Paquius Proculus, dv. cand. 9862: I cannot share Della Corte's doubt as to the identification of the candidate, and the inscription can without further ado be assigned to A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, A. Vettius Firmus not being known as duumvir candidate. Cand.: 283, 564, 630,877, 935k, 1044,3632, 7793*, 7819. 7793: Della Corte's restitution is far moreextensive than the evidence would admit. Attribution rejected: 3585 *. 3585: P. Paquius Proculus' running-mate is hardly A. Vettius Caprasius Felix , since Paquius is referred to by his initials and his running-mate's name starts with a " C", which means that it would be a combination of initials and nomen, which is unheard of. P. Vettius Celer Other sources: None. Cand.: 2990, 3541, 7470. A. Vettius Firmus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 171, 174, 175, 176, 183, 380*, 402, 456, 558, 827, 1067a, 1077, 1147, 1152, 3610, 3618, 3733, 3850, 3851, 7143, 7205*, 7280, 7439, 7479*, 7504, 7506*, 7738,7820,7829,7838,7911 *, 7929,7930,7964,7971. 380: See Lollius aed. cand. 7205,7479, 7506,7911. In all these inscriptions, cognomen is added andin 7506 also office, without justification in the material. P. V ettius Syrticus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 568, 935g*. 935g: See Q. Bruttius Balbus, dv. cand . Attribution rejected: 9936: The candidate "P. Vettius [-]r[-]/ aed" has been identified as P. Vettius Syrticus, but this seems unlikely for several reasons. No securely identified Pompeian candidates feature in the Porta Nocera necropolis, only candidates from Nuceria. The inscriptions must also stem from the period before the earthquake, since the Via Nucerina was destroyed by this and fell into disuse , while P. Vettius Syrticus' candidature must be dated to after 62 , for his running-mate Q. Bruttius Baibus is attested in five inscriptions. 9936 is thus presumably a Nucerian e lection notice .

•

...

~

r

... 157 A. Vettius Aed. cand.: 497,7718,7797. Cand.: 303, 363, 7447. P. Vettius Cand.: 2959, 3606, 7981. Vettius Aed. cand.: 689. Cand.: 764, 942, 7478, 7494, 7897. P. Vibius Cac[·] Other sources: None. Cand.: 166. Vibius Severus Other sources: None. Aed. cand.: 897,3654. Dv. cand.: 333, 730, 739, 888, 1033, 3831, 7281, 7291. Cand.: 469, 569, 651, 889. Vibius Cand.: 613. Incertus Aed. cand.: 255,353,452,466,642,732,867, 874a*, 993*, 1036, 1092*, 1151, 2923a, 2943*, 2981a, 3472, 3537, 3650, 3667, 3746, 6607, 6608, 6638, 6639, 6644*, 6691, 7022,7151, 7158*, 7207a, 726la, 7272*, 7276, 7292a, 7292b, 7304b, 7304e, 7335, 7376, 7639, 7673*, 9900a. 874a: Both the nominative and the position after "aed ovf" suggest that "Cerrinius" here is a rogator, and that the candidate's name is wanting. 993: Zangemeister mentions that the praenomen can be P., which is to say P. Paquius Proculus, but Q., i.e. Q. Postumius Proculus, is also a possibility. 1092: Castren, 1975, p. 180, identifies in this inscription an aed id Cn? Junius Iarinus, which must be a misunderstanding, for "Iarinus" is in the nominative and consequently must be rogator and not candidate. The first part of line 1 seems to be a doubtful transmission, and the candidate must therefore be considered unknown. 2943: As "Numitorius" is in the nominative , he cannot be regarded as candidate in this inscription, in which the candidate's name is presumably found in the fragmentary line 2. Due to his position, Numitorius can hardly be rogator either and perhaps belongs to another inscription. 6644: Mau restores "[-]eil[-] as Casellius, but both Marcellus and Samellius are eligible. 7158: Della Corte's restitution "se[cundum ]" is very doubtful , "se[ verum ]" also being possible.

158 7272 and 7673: Della Corte's identification of Cn. Helvius Sabinus on the basis of "[-]vium" is very uncertain, P. Paquius Proculus, C. Gavius Rufus' and P. Gavius Proculus' names also including this combination of letters. Dv. cand.: 254, 518*, 757, 2966a, 3371,3454, 3476*, 3605*, 3616,3635,3720,3781, 3829, 3847, 7137, 7304d, 7304e*, 7304g, 7795, 9873, 9874*. 518: "Fausto[-] is presumably a rogator and a misreading of "Faustus", for no other candidate is known by this name, and M. Licinius Faustinus was not duumvir candidate. 3476: Instead of "fullones rogant", line 2 can weil be interpreted as "fullo rogat", cf. 998. 3605: It is dangeraus to identify candidates from only two of their initials, and since C. Cuspius Pansais otherwise not documented as duumvir candidate, the interpretation must be rejected. 7304e: Della Corte's restitution "[Ve]rum" is uncertain, the reading "[Seve]rum" also being possible. 9874: Della Corte's interpretation of the inscription is very doubtful , there being no certainty that "[-]culu" is the candidate's cognomen, and besides, Sex. Pompeius Proculus could also be involved. Quinq. cand.: 193*, 962,2955, 7283*, 7328*, 7697. 193: The identification of the candidate as L. Veranius Hypsaeus cannot be accepted, M. Melissaeus also being documented as quinquennial candidate. 7283: Della Corte's interpretation of the fragmented candidate name as Vesonius is doubtful: it could also be Veranius. 7328: Della Corte's identification of a quinquennial candidate P. Cerrinius is based on inadequate testimony. lt is thus in principle a suspect procedure to identify candidates from incompletely transmitred initials, and 3745, which is referred to, is apparently a miswriting forM. Cerrinius. Cand.: 107, 129*, 223,237, 311 , 458, 660a, 717a, 783, 834, 916, 978a, 2925, 2932*, 2933*, 2971, 2993da, 2993dß, 2993p, 3412, 3465*, 3511*, 3540, 3552, 7562,3573, 3617,3619,3668*,3739,3772, 7027,7145,7174, 7177*, 7207b, 7261d, 7267, 7274*, 7306b, 7314,7315, 7316*, 7375*, 7493,7523,7545,7560, 7562*, 7694, 7701*, 7784, 7822b, 7946, 7973 , 9876a. 129: The suggestion for reading the candidate's name appears tobe very uncertain. 2932: lnstead of the suggested reading " [Ve]ttium", there could be "[Sue]ttium" or "[Si]ttium". 2933: The reading "[Mar]c[ell]um" appears doubtful, and i.a. "[L]C[ei]um" is a possibility. 3465: The reading of an inscription such as "[Ce]ium a[ed]" appears hypothetical. 3511: The suggested reading "Rusti[celium] is not tenable, for one can also read "Rusti[ um] [-]". 3668: There is much to suggest that Casellius is not candidate in this inscription but is on the contrary solicited for support. Thus Mau mentions that the name does not seem to end in "-um" in the usual manner , and the extant fragments after "Caselli" can be read "[f]av[e ]" or possibly "[f]a[ c]". The "vi" at the end of line 1 could possibly be restored "[ d]vi[d]", but this is purely conjectural. The candidate's name

......

I

-..

159

according to this interpretation stood in a now missing line above the extant ones. This interpretation is supported both by the fact that M. Casellius Marcellus is weil documented as aedile candidate and could thus strive for the duumvirate, and that he is known with great certainty to have lived in the street where the inscription was found. 7177: The initials "L C [. ]" can besides Della Corte's suggestion L. Ceius Secundus also stand for L. Caecilius Capella. 7274: No C. Julius Fronto is known. 2923a is referred to, but is fragmented, and the reading very uncertain. The initials "CI F" in 7274 can be a misreading or scriptor's error of C. I(ulius) P(olybius) or C. L(ollius) F(uscus). 7316: The identification of the candidate and the office as A. Rustius Verus, dv. cand. is pure conjecture and as such quite unacceptable. 7375: Besides the interpretations "[Veiento]nem" and "[Frorito]nem" which have been suggested, there is also "[Capito]nem". 7562: The restitution "[Se]verum" appears doubtful, since any fragments in front of "verum" can be the remains of a nomen. Moreover, the identification of Severus as Vibius Severus is uncertain, L. Nonius Severus also being known. 7701: The Ietter in front of "ianum" is said to be missing , so besides the suggested reading "[Numm]ianum", "[Ciaud]ianum" ia also a possibility. The unpublished inscription is found in the area exposed in 1916-17 between III ,4,d and e, and is today only partly accessible, for its left side, where the candidate's name must be, is covered by vegetation. The right part reads: "PAMPHILUS ROG/ ET ACESTES/ [-]", line 2 being much bleached, but stilllegible. At the top of line 2 there are some letters which it has not been possible to decipher, written in atiother hand. Attribution rejected: 7839*, 9934 *. 7389: Delta Corte regards the inscription as a programma and " drapetae omnes" as rogatores, but the illustration Ns 1933, p. 324, shows no traces of an uppe r line with a candidate's name, and the theory must therefore be rejected: Della Corte, 1965, p. 306. 9934: Castren, 1975, p. 206, identifies on the basis of this inscription a candidate by the name of A. Pumponius Magonianus, but as the name is in the nominative and there are none of the elements present which otherwise characterize programmata, it cannot be accepted as an electoral notice.

160

Catalogue of individual and collective rogator~s This catalogue is in two parts, comprising individual and collective recommendations, respectively. The former contains all individuals who feature in the nominativein an electoral notice, omitting those who can be identified as professional scriptors, and simple greetings from the scriptor to other persons. Appealsare listed separately after the ordinary recommendations. In the second group, collective recommendations and solicitations are not given separately. This group is divided into three categories: professional groups, neighbours, and others. Foreach rogator the following information is furnished: the CIL number, the wording of the recomm endation, and the candidate supported, giving his full name where this is known - not the wording of the actual inscription.

----~-----------------~~-.,..--~--- ~

-·--

....

Individual recommendations

Acastus Acceptus Acestes Adiutor479 Aegle Aequanus Africanus Agna L. Albucius Thesmus480 Amandio Amandus

Amandus Amandus Amarantbus Amiullius Cosmus Ampliatus Animula Appuleia Ariph .. Ascula481

Asellina Asellus Athictus Aufidius Primus Aurelius Auxilio L. Betutius Placidus 482

2925 3595 unpubl. 748 7862 133 817 818 740 2983 7213 7231 7257 7900 634 3707 9829a 737 7377 7542 425 3527 3470 7288 7291 7295 7863 7873 227 7523 7375 499 3439 7275 7278 7279 7290

Acastus cliens faci[t] Acceptus rog Pamphilus rog/ et Acestes/ [-] Ver et Adiutor/ rogant Aegle rogat Aequanus Africanus rog Africanus rog cum Victore Agna ro[-] Thesmus libert rog Amandio cum sua rog Amandus sacerdos Amandus/ rog Amandus sacerdos rog Amandusrog Amandus rog c[um] reliquis Amarantus pompeianus rog/ Papilio Amiullius Cosmus cum/ [-]ario rog Ampliatus rog Ampliatus r [cum]/ libertis Animula facit Appuleia/ cum Mustio vicino fl et Narcissus vos roga[t] Ariph[-] Ase[-] rog [. ]scla rog Ascla rog Asellinas rogat/ nec sine Zmyrina Asellina rog Ase![-] Athictus rog Aufidius/ Primus Aurelius fac Auxilio rog Placidus/ cliens rog Placidus rog Placidus cliens rog Placidus rog

incertus cand. M. Licinius Faustinus incertus cand. L. Ceius Secundus Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Julius Polybius Sabinus , aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia Lollius, aed . L. Albucius Celsus Cn . Helvius Sabinus Fuscus, aed. C. Cuspius Pansa C. Cuspius Pansa N. Herennius Celsus Verus, dv. Q. Postumius Proculus L. Ceius Secundus , dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Ceius Secundus , aed. Claudius, dv . M . Pupius Rufus, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Ovidius Veiento Vibius Severus, dv. C . Calventius Sittius Magnus , dv . C. Lollius Fuscus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. P. Paquius Proculus , dv. incertus cand. incertus cand. Cn . Alleius Nigidius Maius , dv. M. Casellius Marcellus L. Popidius Ampliatus L. Caecilius Capella C. Julius Polybius, aed. L. Popidius Ampliatus

f

...... 0\ ......

.. ~:-:--:

Biria/Birii Q. Bruttius Balbus483

Q. S. Caecili J ucundi

Caecilius Phoebus Calvisius484 Calvus Campanus Canices Canthus Capella Capito Caprasia Caprasius Cassia Sex. Ceius Celer Cerialis Cerialis

f

Cerrinius M. Cerrinius Clodius Clodius Clodius

9885 935b 935d 935h 2958 3433 3428 785 485 3674 371 1172 3440 1140 1149 617 2993g 387 458 171 207 935g 7669 7974 7333 7334485 1016 7669 7671 874a 2993p 752 3716 7712 901 708

Biri cum Biria rog/ Onomaste cupide fac Baibus cupidus feci[t] Baibus fecit Baibus facit Balbu[-] Q S Caecili Jucundi rogam Jucundus rog Caecilius/ P[h]o[eb]us rog lignari/ plostrari rog Lassi/ cum [F]abio et Crimio et/ C Nisio I[n]fantione/ ubiq Pyramus Olympionica/ Calvos rog V[ ett]ius Donatus et Cam[ -] Campanus rog Canices Proculus et Canthus r[o)g Cantus/ facit Capella/ facit Cape/ lla rog Capito rog/ scr Fructus pycta vicini/ cum Capitone/ rog Caprasia cum Nymphio rog/ una et vicini Nymph[ odot]us cum Caprasia rog Caprasiu[-] Cerialis/ acratopfn6n cum Cassia rog Sex Ceius f[-] Mac[- ]I Ce[-] Tigillinus/ Celer afr[-] c~ri~li~ rog cliens Cerialis/ acratopfn6n cum Cassia rog Cerialis rog Cerrinius M Cer[-]bert Clodius Clodius Clodius Clodius Nymphodotus cupidissimus rog Coelius Caldus fQ~

Co. Helvius Sabinus ........ 0\ A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. N Co. Helvius Sabinus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix + P. Paquius Proculus, dv. Popidius L. Ceius Secundus, dv. M. Holconius Priscus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa M. Casellius Marcellus M. Casellius Marcellus + M. Samellius Modestus Holconius, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa Secundus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, aed. A. Vettius Firmus L. Ceius aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia incertus cand. A. Vettius Firmus M. Cerrinius Vatia Q. Bruttius Balbus, tlv. + P. Vettius Syrticus, aed. A. Trebius Valens, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. C. Julius Polybius, aed. L. Albucius Celsus Q. Postumius Proculus A. Trebius Valens, aed. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. incertus, aed. incertus cand. Holconius, aed. M. Epidius Sabinus , dv. M. Holconius Priscus, aed. A. Suettius Certus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa

Cognatus Colepius Colepius Coniunctus Copiosus Cornelia P. Cornelius Tages486 Coronatus Crescens Crescens

Crimius Cuculla487 Curvius Demetrius Dio Donatus Earinus Earinus Elainus Epagatus Epaphra Epidia Epidius Hymenaeus

Erastus Euhodia Euhodus

215 246 582 7817 989 3479 7314 7315 502 507 3450 7448 7455 7462 485 7841 2986 3619 2993z 3359 706 616 958 7387 597 1015 7357 6610 7509 7691 7692 7708 7709 179 3595 515

Co[g]natus rog Colepius/ rog secario[-] Colepius rogat Coniunctus/ facit Copiosus rogat Cornelia rog [-]Tages rog [-]nelius rog Coronlrog Corona Crescens rog Crescens rog Crescens cupidus rog Crescens rog lignari/ plostrari rog Lassi/ c•1m [F]abio et Crimio et/ C Nisio I[n]fantione ubiq Cuculla rog Curvius facit Curvius rog Demetrius rog Demetrius rog Di[o] rog Donatus rog Earinus rog Earinus rogat Elainus dissign rog Epagatus Oylo/ rog Epaphrarog Epidia nes sine Cosrpo rogat Epidius Hymenaeus rog Hymenaeus rog et cupit Epidius Hymenaeus r Epidius cum suis/ vol et probat Epidius rogat Erastus cpit Euhodiarog [E]u[h ]odus rog

M. Casellius Marcellus M. Cerrinius Vatia .L. Caecilius Capella, dv. P. Vedius Nummianus Sittius Magnus, aed. L. Caecilius Capella incertus cand. incertus cand. M. Cerrinius Vatia · Cn. Helvius Sabinus Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Ovidius Veiento A. Trebius Valens + C. Gavius Rufus, aed. Cn. Helvius Sabinus M . Casellius Marcellus C. Julius Polybius, dv. A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, dv. incertus cand. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. Q. Postumius Proculus Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Licinius Faustinus L. Albucius Celsus AA. Suetti Certus + Verus + N. Herennius Celsus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. Q. Postumius Proculus M. Samellius Modestus L. Popidius Secundus A. Suettius Verus L. Popidius Secundus Cn. Helvius Sabinus N. Popidius Rufus , dv. M. Casellius Marcellus M. Licinius Faustinus C. Cuspius Pansa

f

~

0\

w

Euhode Euxinus Fabia Fabii Fabius Fabius

Fabius Celer Fabius Eupor Fabius Memor Fabius Ululitremulus Faustin .. Faustus Faventinus Felicio

~

Felix Felix Felix Felix Festus Floronius Florus Fortun .. Fortunat .. Fortunata Fructus Fufudius Successus

Fulbungm~ 488

840 9851 7189 3591 3592 217 485 7205 3659 3841 117 120 3841 7963 434 518 235 3423 3483 174 1008 7261d 9911 625 7777 9877 695 831 111 934 7304a 7305b 7305c 7308a 7308b 7345

Euhode perfusor cum Secu[-] Euxinus rog/ nec sine Iusto scr Hinnulus Fabia/rog Fabi rog Fabi rog Fabiusrog lignari/ plostrari rog Lassi/ cum [F]abio et Crimio et/ C Nisio I[n]fantione/ ubiq Fabius rog Fabius Celer r[-] Fabius Memor cum Celere Fabius Eupor princeps libertinorum Fabivs Evpof fQg Fabius Memor cum Celere Fabius Ululitremulus cum Sula rog Faustin[-] rog[-] Fausto[-] Faventinus cum suis rog Felicio Jupinarius/ rog Felicio/ lupinipolus rog Felix cupit Felix rog Felix pomar rog Felix rog Festus rogat Floronius rog/ sodalis Fundilius Eugamus/ cum Floro suo rog Fortun Fort[ u]na[-] r[-] Fortunata cupit Fructus cu[-] Fufidius r Fufidius Successus Successus Fufudius rogat Fufid[-] Fufidius rog Fulbunguis rog

L. Ceius Secundus , dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia + Q. Postumius Proculus C. Julius Polybius, dv. C. Memmius Iunianus , dv. L. Laelius Fuscus M. Samellius Modestus

M. Casellius Marcellus A. Vettius Firmus A . Vettius Caprasius , aed. N. Herennius Celsus C. Cuspius Pansa M. Cerrinius Vatia N. Herennius Celsus C. Cuspius Pansa + L. Popidius Secundus Suettius, aed. incertus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Ceius Secundus , dv. Proculus, aed. A . VettiusFirmus Postumius, aed. incertus cand. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa C. Cuspius Pansa M. Lucretius Fronto , dv. Q. Postumius Proculus Holconius Marcellus Q. Marius Rufus C. Julius Polybius C. Numitorius Serenus C. Numitorius Serenus Ti . Claudius Verus Ti. Claudius Verus C. Julius Polybius, dv.

.......

0\ ~

Fundilius Eugamus Furius Fuscus

Fuscus Fuscus Gallus T. Genialis Granius

Gylo Helpis Helvius Vestalis Heracla Herrn es Herrn es Herrnes Herrnes Hilario Hilarus Himer .. Iarinus Iarinus Iarinus Ingenuus

Inventus Inventus Iphigenia C. Julius Polybius

9877 666 175 176 216 747 3582 3583 7302 3680 3702 9869 9883 9884 1015 2993zy 202 726 85 241 441 7489 7722 913 3521 3820 124 223 1092 7155 7157 7163 327 932 457 98 114 7945

Fundilius Eugamus/ cum Floro suo rog Furius [-] Fuscus cum Vaccula facit Fuscus Fuscus facit Fuscus rog cupidus/ Fuscus fecit Fuscus cupidus/ fecit Gallus facit T. Genialis Infantio rog Gen[-]Ir[-] Graniu[-] Graniusrog Graniusrog Epagatus Gylo/ rog Helpisafra rog pomari universi/ cum H elvio Vestale rog Heracla rogat H[e]rm[e]s ro[g] Herrn es colo[-]/ cum gallinaris rog Hermrog Hermes/ cupit Herrn es Hilario cum sua rogat Hilarus r[o ]g scr Aemilius Celer/ vicini Himer[-] Iarinus [-] Iarinus rog [-] Iarinus Ingenus rog rog Ingen[-] Ingenosrog Inventus rog I[n]ventus rog Iphigenia facit J ulius Polybius collega/ fecit Juliüs Polybius Polybius rogat

M.lucretius Fronto, dv. M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. A. Vettius Firmus A. Vettius Firmus M. Holconius Priscus, aed. C. Calventius Sittius Magnus L. Caecilius Capella P. Paquius Proculus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Albucius Celsus Q. BruttiusBalbus, dv. L. Ovidius Veiento C. Gavius Rufus, aed. A. Trebius Valens, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. M. Holconius Priscus, dv. P. Sittius Coniunctus C. Calventius, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Samellius Modestus L. Popidius Secundus A. Suettius Verus P. Vedius Nummianus A. Trebius Valens, aed. T. Claudius Verus M. Cerrinius Vatia incertus cand. incertus, aed. Lollius , aed. Fuscus, aed. M. Casellius Marcellus Pompeius N. Popidius Rufus, dv. Fuscus, aed. Postumius Sabinus, aed. Severus, aed.

t

~

0\ V1

Junia Junianus Justus Juvenis489 Lassi

1168 7181 9851 3618 485

Lesbianus Libella M. Licinius Romanus Lollia Lollius Synhodus Loreius

9870 7014 699 1053 7418 7724 7727 7728 7729 7735 644 6633 7333 575 995 579 894 3622 3728 7866 291 7666 7238 7240 7419 7423 158 164 209

Lucius490 M. Lucretius Fronto491 Macer Macerio Maenianus Magonius Marcellus Marcellus Marcus492 Maria493 Marius Q. Martialis Masculus

~

Maximus Melissaeus Memor Menecrates

636

Juniarog Junianu[s] Euxinus rog/ nec sine Iusto scr Hinnulus [-]ius Iuvenis facit lignari/ plostrari rog Lassi/ cum [F]abio et Crimio et/ C Nisio I[n ]fantione/ ubiq Lesbianus [-] rogat Li[-]Ha hoc iubet Licinius Romanus/ rogat et facit Lollia/ cum suis Lollius Synhodus cliens rog scr Papilio Loreiusrog Loreius rogat Loreius/ facet Loreiusrog Loreius rog Lucius/rog Frontal facit Mac[-]/ Ce[-] Macerio dormientes/ universi curn/ [-] Passaratus nec sine Maeniano/ rog Magonius rogat Marcellus rogat Marcellus rog Marcus/ cum une[-] o [-] Maria rogat Marius rog Q. Martialis Masculus rog Masculus cum codatis ubiq Maxirn/ us r[-] Maximusrag [M]elissaeus et Tintirius/ rog Memorrog rog/ Memor sodalis facit c[-] Menecrates/ et Vesbinus rog scrib Ascaules

Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Cuspius Pansa M. Cerrinius Vatia + Q. Postumius Proculus A. Vettius Firmus + L. Ovidius Veiento M. Casellius Marcellus N. Popidius Rufus, dv. C. Laecanius [-]ssus C. Julius Polybius, aed. C. Julius Polybius, dv. L. Popidius Secundus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix + P. Paquius Proculus, dv. Priscus, aed. N. Popidius Rufus, dv. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. C. Gavius Rufus + A. Trebius Valens, aed. M. Holconius Priscus + C. Gavius Rufus, aed. M. Samellius Modestus C. Julius Polybius , aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Ceius Secundus , dv. C. Cuspius Pansa Holconius , aed. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. P. PaquiusProculus, aed. Cn. Helvius Sabinus Holconius, dv. M. Epidius Sabinus, aed. Q. Postumius Proculus Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Popidius, aed. L. Popidius Ampliatus Sabinus, aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Casellius Marcellus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed.

........ 0\ 0\

Postumii Postumius Pothinus Potitus

995 437 3678 7749 304 567 9916 103 2949 7674 7502 7503 7516 7682 7685 7688 7702 368 3379 705 2939 1041 2966 2974 1011 357 9919 9922 738 775 1165 359-60

Passaratus nec sine Maeniano/ rog Pelorus rog Statia et Petronia rog Pherusarog [-] Philippus gaudens Pilipphus rog [-] Phüogenes/ [-]operans Phoebus cum emptoribus/ suis rogat Phoebu[s f]acit Piranus rog Polites facit Polites rogat Polites rog Polites rogat Polites cliens Pol[-] Polites rog Pollia rog rog/ Polybius Popidi/ rog Ampliatus/ r[-] Dionysius 1rog Dionysius fullo rog liber Dionysius/ rog/ Infans dormis/ et cupis Popidius Natalis cliens cum isiacis rog Poppaei aed fieri rog Porcellus cum suis rog Porcellus rogat Pos[t]umi faciunt Postumiu[-] Pothinus rog/ scr[-] [P]otitus [et]/ Sabinus rogant

Potitus Praedicinius

3732 3736 593 7608

Potitus rog Potitus cum[-] Potitus cliens r[-] Praedicinius rog

Passaratus Pelorus Petronia Pherusa Philippus Philippus Philogenes Phoebus Phoebus Piranus499 Polites

Pollia Polybius Popidii L. Popidius Ampliatus500 L. Popidius Dionysius

Popidius Natalis Poppaei Porcellus

L. Ceius Secundus, dv. A. Trebius Valens, aed. L. Albucius Celsus + M. Casellius Marcellus L. Popidius Secundus M. Holconius Priscus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. C. Vestorius Priscus M. Holconius Priscus + C. Gavius Rufus, dv. L. Caecilius Capella M. Epidius Sabinus, aed. Q. Postumius Modestus , q. N. Popidius Rufus, dv. Popidius, aed. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. M. Holconius Priscus, dv. C. Julius Polybius L. Popidius Ampliatus M. Cerrinius Vatia Popidius, aed. Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. L. Popidius Secundus L. Popidius, aed. L. Popidius C. Cuspius Pansa Cn. Helvius Sabinus Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Lucretius Fronto , dv. M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. Q . Postumius Proculus A. Suettius Certus, M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. A. Suettius Verus, N. Herennius Celsus N. Herennius Celsus Suettius Suettius, aed. Popidius, aed.

f

,_. 0\ -.....)

Rustius Capretanus Rutullius Sabinus

7212 3410? 3773 7230 2930 7495 7499 170 358 953 966 7299 727 966 1067a 1140 3651 7941 3537 7919 3674 3703 7581 9903 1083 9878 839 842 3403 3738 3750 3751 7371 622 359-60

Primanus rog Pri[m ]ig[e ni]a rog [Pri]migenia ro[-] Primilla rog Primio [-] [P]rimio Primio rog Primusrag Primus rog Primus rog Primus rog Proculu[-] Primus r Proculus rog Primus rog Proculu[-] Proculus r Proculus et Cantbus r[-] Proculus rog Prunicus/ rog Pupius Rufus facit/ idem probat Purpurio cum paridianis Pyramus Olympionica/ Calvos rog Pyramus rog Iuramus fac/ roga Quietus rog Recepta nec sine Thalamo Receptus rog rog RQl;rriSiQS [-] rog Rubellius Parthope rog/ cum Rufino Rustius facit scrib[-] Rustius rog Rustius facit [c]um [-] Rustius Capretanus/ rogat Rutullius rog [P]otitus [et]/ Sabinus rogant

Sabinus

629

Sabinus cupit

Primanus Primigenia Primigenia Primilla Primio Primio Primus Primus Primus Primus Proculus Proculus Proculus Proculus Prunicus M. Pupius Rufus Purpurio Pyramus Pyramus501 Quietus Recepta Receptus Rubellius Rufinus Rustius 502

•

(

L. O vidius Veiento incertus cand. Q. Bruttius Baibus, dv . C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. Proculus L. Popidius Secundus C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. L. Veranius Hypsaeus L. Albucius Celsus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. M. H olconius Priscus, aed. L. Caecilius Capella Popidius, aed M. Holconius Priscus, aed. A. Vettius Firmus L. Ceius Secundus, aed. Popidius, aed. C. Julius Polybius, dv. incertus aed. C. Cuspius Pansa M. Casellius Marcellus + M. Samellius Modestus M. Casellius Marcellus M. Casellius Marcellus N. Popidius Rufus, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia + Q. Postumius Proculus M . Casellius Marcellus M. Casellius Marcellus Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Popidius Secundus M. Licinius Faustinus C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. M. Satrius Valens, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa A. Suettius Certus, M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. A. Suettius Verus, N. H erennius Celsus M. Casellius Marcellus

~

0\ 00

Sabinus Sabinus Sabinus

Sagata Salarius Crocus 503

Salvius5().1 Saturninus Samminus Scymnis Secanis Secundus Secundus Sema Seppius Sergius Felix Sestius Proculus Severus Sextilius Sextilius V erus Siccia Sothericus Specla Statia Statius Stephanus Stronni .. Successa

768 880 969 1048 1049 9880 756 3491 6645 6647 6667 3493 275 7498 7658 491 558 840 668 3781 7829 765 735 7931 1080 1081 9860 7432 7635 7167 3678 3683 7767 7172 7267 9915 1062

Sabinus dissignator cum plausu facit rogat/ Sabinus Sabinus rogat Sabinus rog copo Sq.oi~Jv~ rog

Sabinus rog

Sq.gq.tq. rogq.t Salarius Salarius rog Crocus cupi[t] Crocuscsf Salvius rog Saturninus/ cum discentes rog Saturninus rog Scymnis nec sine Trebio/ Infantio scr Secanis [-]o/ et uni[-] ~ \lllliSi \lS J ucundus cum S~CVIJQQ/ ~t Yictore rog Euhode perfusor cum Secu [-] Se mal cum pueris/ rog Seppius rog Sergius Felix rog Sestius Proculus rog Severus rog Sextilius/ facit Verus innoce~ f~wit/ Papilio Sextilius Verus facit Siccia rog Soteric[-] Sotericus rog Specla Statia et Petronia rog Statia rog Statius f[-] Stephanus rog Stephanus rog Stro[-] Suc[c]essarog

M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. M. Holconius , aed. C. Calventius Sittius Magnus , dv. Q . Postumius Proculus C. Cuspius Pansa P. Paquius Proculus , dv. Q. Postumius Modestus , q. M. Holconius, dv. Modestus, aed. L. Albucius Celsus M. Samellius Modestus M. Casellius Marcellus C. Cuspius Pansa L. Popidius Secundus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Albucius Celsus + M. Casellius Marcellus A. Vettius Firmus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. M. Julius Simplex incertus dv. A. VettiusFirmus P. Vedius N ummianus N. Popidius Rufus, dv. N. Popidius Rufus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia Q. Postumius Proculus A. Trebius Valens + C. Gavius Rufus, aed. A. Trebius Valens, aed. M. Epidius, dv. C. Julius Polybius, dv. L. Albucius Celsus + M. Casellius Marcellus A. Suettius Verus + N. Herennius Celsus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Popidius Secundus incertus cand. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Popidius Secundus

f

,...... 0\

'-C

Success. Sucula505 Sula Sutoria Primigenia Taedia Secunda Terentius Neo Tertius Thalamus Thalamus Theorus Thyrsus Thyrsus Thyrsus Tiburtinus Tigillinus Tintirius A. Trebius Valens

Tullius Tyrannus Urbanus

f

Vaccula Valentinus Vatia Vatinia Vedius Ceratus P. Vedius Nummianus/ P. Vedius Siricus Venus507 Verna

9876c 159 7963 7464 7469 871 3831 933 1083 921 829 3640 7190 7524 7530 7334 156 158 7605 7617 7627 7630 7658 214 221 224 3751 506 3752 175 698 132 7347 910 916

Succ[-] [-] Sucula rog Fabius Ululitremulus cum Sula rog Sutoria Primigenia cum suis rog Astyle dormis Taed[i]a Secunda cupiens avia rog et fecit Terentius/ Neo rog Tertius rogat Thalamus cliens facit Recepta nec sine Thalamo [Th]eorus rog Thirsus cum [-] Thyrsus facit Tyrsus [ro]gat Tiburtinus rog Tiburtinus/ rogat Tigillinus/ Celer afr[-] Tintirius rog [M]elissaeus et Tintirius/ rog Trebius cliens facit Trebius soda facit/ Trebius rog Trebius nec sine Trebius fac Scymnis nec sine Trebio I Infantio scr Tullius faci[-] Tyrannus cupiens/ fecit cum sodales Tyrannus rog Ur[-]/ idem faci t Urbanus sal[-] Fuscus cum Vaccula facit Valentinus cum/ discentes suos rog Vatia rog Vatinia/ [cupi]de facit Ceratus lib rogat rog Siricus et Nummi[-]

M. Vesonius Marcellus, q. M. Cerrinius Vatia C. Cuspius Pansa + L. Popidius Secundus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Popidius Secundus C. Cuspius Pansa Vibius Severus, dv. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. C. Calventius, dv. Magnus Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Cornelius, aed. L. Popidius Secundus L. Popidius Secundus L. Albucius Celsus M. Cerrinius Vatia Sabinus, aed. M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. L. Caecilius Capella L. Ceius Secundus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa L. Ceius Secundus, dv. P . VediusSiricus,q. M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Cerrinius Vatia C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. Verus, dv. A. Vettius Firmus M. Epidius Sabinus + Q. Marius Rufus, aed. C. Julius Polybius, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, aed. P. Vedius Nummianus incertus cand.

546 694

Venus/ [-] Verna curn/ discent rog

M. Casellius Marcellus L. Caecilius Capella

~

-.)

0

Verpus508 Verus Verus Vesbinus Vesbinus Vescinus Vesonius Primus

Zosimio

793 748 7145a 636 786 418 3471 3477 3478 3480 3482 237 371 3522 532 3746 558 818 878 577 7221 7863 7864 229

Verpus rogat Ver et Adiutor/rogant [-]s Verus rogat Menecrates/ et Vesbinus rog scrib Ascaules [-] cum V~sbino rog Vescinus rogat Vesonius Primus rog Vesonius/ Primus rog Primus fullo ro[-] Pri[ -] Primus cum suis fac Vesvi[-]/ rog[-] V[ett]ius Donatus et Cam[ -] [-] Restitutus rog Vettius rog [-]briaeus cum Vibial rogat ~1.1rnisi1.1S Jucundus cum S~<;I.!OQQ/ ~t Yictore rog Africanus rog cum Victore Yinii.!S Secundus rog Vitalio Ismurna rog Asellinas rogant/ nec sine Zmyrina Zmyrinarog [Z]osimio rog

Lollius, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. Rufus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. Q . Postumius Modestus, q . Claudius, dv. C. Gavius Rufus , dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Ceius Secundus, dv . C. Gavius Rufus, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus incertus cand. Holconius, dv. Sabinus, aed. M. Samellius Modestus incertus aed. A. Vettius Firmus M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Holconius N. Herennius Celsus L. Popidius, aed. C. Lollius Fuscus C. Julius Polybius, dv. A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed.

fornacator fullo fullo pistor510

1150 998 3476 875

fornacator rog fullo rog ful Studiosus et pistor

Secundus , aed. L. Popidius, aed. incertus, dv. C. Julius Polybius, dv.

Vesvi .. Vettius Donatus Vettius Restitutus509 Vettius Vibia Victor Victor Virrius Secundus Vitalio Zmyrina

t

~

-......) ~

f

146 297 340 537 610 667 707 720 780 884 923 983 1159 2940 952 2993i 3366 3369 3585 3635 3739 6607 7179 7187 7233 7239 7252 7258 7308c 7364 7378 7639 7643 7891 7903 9913 9926 9932

[-]nio rog [-]ellus fecit rog [-] [-]nnius caupo rog [.]i[ .. ]lis rog [-] rog Fa[-]mis[-] rogcum sui[s] [-]vius [-]umus cupit/[-]o facit [-]/ facit Titus/ [-] rog [-] rog/ Caprasia fac [-]ius rog [-] ro[-] [-] rog [-] rog [-]b[-] rog [-]iniu[-] cliens rog [-]unnus rog cupidus [-]I rog [-]us facit [-]or puer rog [-]us cupit [-] rog [-] multis fecit benigne [-] rog [-]v[ · ]us cupit N[-]ius ro[g] [-]usrog [-] fac/ rogat [-] rog [-]us clien[s ]/ rogat Tic[-]/ fac[-] [-]ct[-]us/ veterarius rogat [-]it [-]fus faci t pater facit fili[-] [-]anius amator Quintu[-]

C. Julius Polybius , dv. M. Holconius Priscus + C. Gavius Rufus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Casellius Marcellus C. Cuspius Pansa M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa + L. Popidius Secundus L. Popidius Secundus L. Ceius Secundus, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa Cn. Helvius Sabinus A. Vettius CaprasiusFelix, aed. L. Popidius Secundus C. Cuspius Pansa + L. Popidius Secundus Popidius, aed. L. Ceius Secundus , dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. P. Paquius Proculus incertus dv. incertus cand. incertus aed. C. Cuspius Pansa L. Sextilius, dv. Secundus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Caecilius Capella Q. Postumi us Proculus L. Ceius Secundus, aed. incertus aed. A. Suettius Verus L. Caecilius Capella Q. BruttiusBalbus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, dv. M. Cerrinius Vatia Celer

..... -......)

N

Appeals to individuals

Acisculus Alipus Anicetus Athictus Attalus Betutius Placidus Bruttius Baibus Caecilius Jucundus Capella Caprasia M. Casellius Marcellus Cerialis Ti. Claudius Verus511 Clodius Crescens C. Cuspius Pansa Diadumenus Faustus Felix Fidelis Graphicus Julius Philippus C. Julius Polybius Loreius

Lucius Lutatius Magius Melissus Menecrates

102 7694 29931 7545 3718 7280 935i 3473 619 923 3668 7670 3760 3502 7909 7910 1068 1071 2975 3421 9882 540 7649 7650 7316 7942 7517512 7539 7733 426 7443 7636 488 7306c 822

Aciscule [-] Alipe cupis Anice fac Athicte fac Attale dormis Betuti fac Balbe rogamus J ucund/ facis Capella Qf f1;1.c;: [-] rog/ Caprasia fac Caselli [f]a[-]vi/ illi te Ilvir Cerialis fac Vere/ fac qui te fe[-] Clodi fac Crescens/ fave Crescens scio te cupere Cuspi fac Pans[ a ]/ f1;1.c;: f1;1.c;ias Diadumene scio te factu[-]/ scr Protogenes Fauste[-] Felixfac Fac/ fi<;l~li~ ebrli Graphice vigula Graphicae dormis/ et cupis Iuli Philippe fac/ et ille Polybium faciet Polybi collega fac Lorei vicinae vis et dormis Lorei et ille te faciet Lorei fac et ille te faciet Luci fave vicini/ surgite et/ rogate/ Lutati f[ -] Lutati fac Magi/ vi(g]il( a] Melisse rog Menecrates cliens b(-] dormis

L. Laelius Fuscus, aed. incertus cand. C. Cornelius, aed. incertus cand. L. Popidius Secundus A. Vettius Firmus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix , aed. L. Caecilius Capella C. Cuspius Pansa Cn. Helvius Sabinus incertus cand. Lollius, aed. A. Rustius Verus, dv. C. Vestorius Priscus M. Licinius Faustinus L. Popidius, aed. L.? Fadius Modestus, aed. M. Lucretius Fronto, dv. Appuleius , dv. P. PaquiusProculus + A. Vettius CaprasiusFelix, dv. M. Casellius Marcellus N. Popidius Rufus, dv . L. Popidius Ampliatus incertus cand. A . Rustius Verus, dv. L. Popidius Ampliatus L. Cei4s Secundus, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus · A. Suettius Verus L. Popidius Ampliatus Priscus, aed. Suettius ...... -.J incertus cand. (.,;.) M. Holconius Priscus, aed.

·.

t

Ubonius P . Vedius Siricus

9899 494 3828 9885 7703 385 635 7578 6678 3409 7632 7174 7429 7614 7618 7619 7624 7632 858 805

nor[ -]/ fac Novici caupo fac Obelli cum patre fave scis Vero favere Biri cum Biria rog/ Onomaste cupide fac Polites vigila Posido fac Proeule fac et ille/ te faciet Proc dorm Pupi fac Rufine fave et ille te faciet o te fac/Trebi et Soteriche et vigilate [S]tephan[e] fa[c] Trebi Valens fac aed et ille te faciet Trebi Valens dormis Valens fac et ille te fecit Infan Trebi surge fac Trebi surge/ fac o te fad Trebi et Soteriche et vigilate Uboni vigula Sirice fac facias

Gavius, aed. L. Albucius Celsus + M. Casellius Marcellus Ti. Claudius Verus Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Ovidius Veiento C. Cuspius Pansa Sabinus, aed. L. Caecilius Capella T. Terentius L. Popidius Secundus L. Popidius Ampliatus incertus cand. L. Ovidius Veiento L. Popidius Secundus L. Popidius Ampliatus C. Lollius Fuscus L. Popidius Ampliatus L. Popidius Ampliatus C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, dv. Q. Postumius Modestus, aed.

cliens faber

7668 7147

cliens/ surge fac faber/ vigula et roga

C. Lollius Fuscus M. VesoniusMarcellus,dv.

283 406 539 7145 7572 7973 9896

[-] faciet fac facias [-] roga [-] ille te faciet [-] fac [-]at[.]rfac [-]le te [-]

A. Vettius Caprasius Felix L. Rusticelius Celer M. Casellius Marcellus incertus cand. P. Paquius Proculus, dv. incertus cand. Julius, aed.

Nicanor Novicius M . Obellius Firmus Onomastus Polites Posido513 Proculus Proculus M. Pupius Rufus Rufinus Soterichus Stephanus A . Trebius Valens

~

-.....}

.+:>.

~

.. a:..._"..

Occupationalgroups agricolae alliari aurifices caupones cupari clibanari fullones gallinari infectores lignari lignari plostrari muliones

offectores piscicapi pistores pomari

quactiliari saccari sagari tegettari tonsores unguentari vindemitores

490 3485 710 336 99 677 7164 241 373 7812 951 960 485 97 113 134 864 826 886 7273 149 180 183 202 206 7809 7838 274 497 753 7473 743 609 6672

agricolae rog aliari rog (}.l,lrifices universi/ rog caupones facite <;:l)ypari rog clibanari rog fullones universi rog Herrnes colo[-)/ cum gallinaris rog gallinari rogant infectores/ rog lignari/ [-] ligl)?fi Vl)iYttfSi t"Qg lignaril plostrari rog Lassi/ cum [F]abio et Crimio etl C Nisio I[n)fantione/ ubiq muliones universi muliones rog muliones rog offectores rog piscicapi fac[-] multum/ pistores rogant pistores rog et cupiunt cum vicinis pomari rog pomarirog pomari facite pomari universi/ cum Helvia Vestale rog pomari rog quactiliari rogant quactiliari rog saccari ro[g] saccari rog [-] sagari rog tegettari tonsores unguentari facite rog vindemitores rog

M. Casellius Marcellus Cn. Helvius Sabinus C. Cuspius Pansa C. Sallustius Capito C. Julius Polybius, dv. A. Trebius Valens , aed. M. Holconius Priscus, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus A. Suettius Certus + M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. Calventius, dv. Holconius, dv. C. Cuspius Pansa M. Casellius Marcellus C. Cuspius Pansa C. Julius Polybius, dv. C. Julius Polybius, dv. Q. Postumius Proculus N. Popidius Rufus, aed. C. J ulius Polybius, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Cerrinius Vatia Sabinus, aed. A. Vettius Firmus M. Holconius Priscus M . Holconius Priscus, aed. A. Suettius Verus + N. Herennius Celsus. A. Vettius Firmus M. Cerrinius Vatia A. Vettius, aed. C. Gavius Rufus, dv. Lollius, aed. A. Trebius Valens , aed. Verus, aed. M. Casellius Marcellus

f

1--'

-.]

VI

Vicinal inscriptions ~

171 193 204 367 440

f

443 458 778 852 1059 2978 3387 3460 3649 3666 3687 3775 3820 6625 6627 7048 7132 7195 7197 7273 7443 7642 7757 7819 7925 7927 7928

Caprasia cum Nymphio rog/ una et vicini vicini volunt vicini vicini rogant vicini rogant vicini vicini/ cum Capitone/ rog vicini [-] vicini fac[-] Suedius Clemens sanctissimus/ iudex facit vicinis rogantibus vicini rog rogant vici[-] rog vicini rog rog vicini vicini rogant vicini rogant vicini/ Aemilius Celer vic scr/ Aemilius Celer/ vicini Hirn er[-] vicini rogamus vicini rogant vicini/rog vicini facite vicini rogant vicini cupidi faciunt pistores rog et cupiunt cum vicinis vicini/ surgite et/ rogate/ Lutati f[-] vicini rog vicini faciunt vicini facite vicini fa[-] V!Clni

vicini rog

A. Vettius Firmus incertus quinq. A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. Ti. Claudius Verus Ti. Claudius Verus M. Cerrinius Vatia incertus cand. Q. Postumius Modestus , q. Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Epidius Sabinus, dv. L. Popidius Ampliatus Q. Postumius Proculus Gavius, aed. M. Casellius Marcellus M. Casellius Marcellus A. Vettius Caprasius Felix, aed. L. Statius Receptus Ti. Claudius Verus M. Lucretius Fronto , aed. M. Samellius Modestus L. Albucius Celsus Carus, aed. L. Ceius Secundus, aed. P. PaquiusProculus, dv. Cn. Helvius Sabinus L. Popidius Ampliatus N. Popidius Rufus, dv. D. Lucretius Valens A. Vettius Caprasius Felix C. Julius Polybius, aed. C. Gavius Rufus + A. Trebius Valens, aed. Cn. Helvius Sabinus

-l 0\

Other groups

campanienses clientes

coloni discentes

dormientes emptores forenses furunculi incolae isiaci latrunculari liberti paridiani pauperes pilicrepi pompeiani populus propin facientes pueri putiani salinienses serebibi sodales spectaculi spectantes

470 480 7490 7808 7818 9918 275 362 673 694 698 575 103 783 576 9918 787 1011 7851 7542 7919 9932a 1147 1122 1145 7657 7787 668 3730 642 128 581 221 7240 7585

campanienses rog campanienses rog rogant clientes clientes rogant clientes rogamus coloni et incolae Saturninus/ cum discentes rog o~s<;:~t:lO~

discentes rogant Verna cum/ discent rog Valentinus cum/ discentes suos rog Macerio dormientes/ universi cum/ [-] Phoebus cum emptoribus/ suis rogat forenses rog furunculi rog rogamus coloni et incolae isiaci/ universi rog Popidius Natalis cliens cum isiacis rog Montanus cliens/ rogat cum latruncularis Ampliatus r [cum ]I libertis Purpurio cum paridianis [-]tari et pauper[-] facite pilicrepi facite uni ver[ si] pompeiani fecerunt po[p]ulus rogat populus/ facit et rogat propin facientes/ rogant Sema/ cum pueris/ rog poveri rog putiani salinienses/ rog serebibi/ universi rogant/ scr Florus cum Fructo [-] Tyrannus cupiens/ fecit cum sodales Masculus cum codatis ubiq spectaculi spectantes rog

M. Epidius Sabinus , aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia L. Ceius Secundus , dv . Cn. Audius Bassus , aed. A. Trebius Valens, aed. C. Ateius Capito C. Cuspius Pansa Verus, dv. Sabinus, aed. L. Caecilius Capella M. Epidius Sabinus + Q. Marius Rufus, aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Holconius Priscus + C. Gavius Rufus , dv. incertus cand. M. Cerrinius Vatia C. Ateius Capito Co. Helvius Sabinus C. Cuspius Pansa L. Popidius Ampliatus L. Ceius Secundus, aed. C. Cuspius Pansa Modestus, aed. A. Vettius Firmus P. Paquius Proculus, dv. L. Popidius Secundus Popidius, aed. L. Popidius Secundus M. Julius Simplex N. Herennius Celsus incertus aed. M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Cerrinius Vatia M. Cerrinius Vatia Cn. Helvius Sabinus M. Holconius Priscus, dv.

r

~

-....]

-....]

urbulanenses

veneri veneriosi

l

7676 7706 7747 1146 7978 7791

urbulanenses rog urbulanenses rogamus urbulanenses/ rog veneri rogant veneri veneriosi rog

L. Ceius Secundus, dv. L. Popidius Ampliatus Cn. Helvius Sabinus P. Paquius Proculus, dv. M. Stlaborius Veius Fronto L. Ceius Secundus, dv.

254 322 551 898 2993s 3368 3385 3586 7401 7802

faciunt [-]emini [-)d[-] rogant hinc rogant [-)mi rogant rogant [-]ari rogant [-] rogant hincrogant [-] cuncti rog a balneo/ rog

incertus dv. C. Sallustius Capito M. Casellius Marcellus L. Popidius Secundus Q. Postumius Proculus Sabinus N. Popidius Rufus , aed. M. Casellius Marcellus A. Trebius Valens Rufus , dv.

~

-.....J 00

.......

179

Notes 1. E. Vetter, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte,

2.

3.

4.

4a.

5.

Heidelberg 1953, pp. 46-67, which has been supplemented and revised by P. Poccetti, Nuovi documenti italici, (Orientamenti Linguistici 8) Pisa 1979, pp. 84-93, and R. Antonini, ' Iscrizioni osche pompeiane', Studi Etruschi 45 (1977), pp. 317-40. These subjects are treated by M. Gigante, Civilta delleforme Ietterarie nell'antica Pompei, Napoli 1979, and V. Väänänen , Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompeiennes, Helsinki 1937 (2nd edition in Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1958:3, Berlin 1959). It should be remarked that a total of 17 painted inscriptions have been found in Herculaneum, in which, however, there are neither electoral notices nor edicta munerum, CIL IV 10478-94. Since the completion of the manuscript, a painted electoral inscription from Herculaneum has been published. The publisher, M. Pagano, seems to claim that the inscription , " M. Caecili/Potitum/ quaestor" , indicates the existence in Herculaneum of electoral campaigns similar to the Pompeian. The cursive shape of the letters does not give, however, the impression of being the work of a professional scriptor. The inscription could thus easily be a unique case and is no proof of such campaigns in Herculaneum. Only future excavations can bring an answer tothat question. 'Una iscrizione e lettorale da Ercolano', Cronache Ercolanesi 17 (1987) , pp. 151-52. The oldest electoral inscriptions are treated on pp. 79-83, while the dating of the more recent ones is discussed on pp. 32-44. In an article that appeared after the completion of the manuscript , A. Varrone published five new programmata recentiora. They have not been included in this investigation or in the catalogue. It should be noted, however, that Varrone's dating of the inscription for L. Rusticelius Celer (no. 5) to Augustan times cannot be sustained, neither the palaeographical nor the prosopographical arguments being cogent, cf. n. 403. A. Varrone, 'Nuovi tituli picti pompeiani', Rivista di Studi Pompeiani I ( 1987), pp. 91-106. These inscriptions are collected in P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, Gladiatorum Paria (Ti-

6.

7.

8. 9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15. 16.

tuli ·1), Roma 1980, which is discussed pp. 34-36. Thesealsare published in CIL X no. 8058, while Della Corte's complete Iist in Case ed abitantidiPompei, Napoli 1965,pp. 465-70, is discussed in n. 31. Un impegno per Pompei. /:Studie contributi. J/: Fotopiano e documentazione della Necropoli di Porta Nocera, Milano 1983, published by L. Vlad Borelli, F. Parise Badoni , 0. Ferrari, A. d'Ambrosio, S. de Caro. A. d'Ambrosio , S. de Caro, La Necropoli di Porta Nocera. Campagna di scavo /983. Römische Gräbers/rassen. Selbstdarstellung Status- Standard (Ba yerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Abhandlungen 96), Müneben 1987, pp. 199-228. See thus n. 367, 400, 410 and 426. Of the !arger bibliographies pertaining to Pompeii may be mentioned F. Furchheim, Bibliografia di Pompei, Ercolano e Stabia, Napoli 1891 (reprinted 1972) , and H.B. van der Poel, Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum IV. Bibliography, Rome 1977. Extensive references arealso given in A. & M. de Vos, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, Roma 1982, pp. 350-65. The two first articles were published in Neapolis 2 (1914), and the remainder in Rivista lndo-Greco-/talica 3-9 (1919-1925). Della Corte published in 1933 his own bibliography under the title I studi e pubblicazioni del Dr. M. Della Corte da/1908 a/1933, Pompei. The most complete survey of his production is found in H.B. van de r Poel, 1977, pp. 89, 170-83 & 274-91. Nuovi Scavi is described by V. Spinazzola, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di Via dell'Abbondanza (1910-1923), Roma 1953 . M. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, Oxford 1957 (2nd ed.- Ist ed. 1926), passim; T. Frank, An Economic History of Rome, London 1927 (2nd ed.), pp. 245-70. J. Day, ' Agriculture in the life of Pompe ii', Yale Classical Studies 3 (1932), pp. 165-208; R.C. Carrington, 'Studies in the Campanian "villae rusticae'" , JRS 21 (1931), pp. 11030. M. Gordon, 'The OrdoofPompeii',JRS 17 (1927), pp. 165-83. The termwas e mployed for the firsttime by J. Andreau in ' Remarques sur Ia societe

180 pompeienne (a propos de tab le ttes dc L. Caeci lius Jucundus)', Dialaghi di Arehealagia 7 (1973), pp. 2 13-54. 17. G.O. Onorato, 'La data del terremoto di Pompci 5 febraio 62 d.CR. ', Rendieanti Aui deii'Accademia dei Lincei 4 ( 1949), pp. 64461, and ' P ompei municipium e colo nia romana', Rendieanti deii'Accademia di Napali 26 (1951), pp. 115-56; E. Leporc, 'Orie ntamenti per Ia storia sociale di Pompei', in:

Pampeiana. Raccolta di studi per il secando eentenaria degli seavi di Pampei, Napoli 1950, pp. 144-66. 18. See p. 23 and n . 87. 19. J. Andreau, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (Collection de I'Ecole Fran<;aise de Rome 19), Rome 1974. Also relevant are idem, ' Histoire des se ismes et histoire economique; le tremblement de terrc de Pompei (62 a p. J-C)', Annales E.S. C. 28 (1 973), pp. 369-95 and idem, 'Pompe i; Maisou sont les vetcrans de Sylla?', R EA 82 (1980), pp. 183-99. 20. P. Castren , Orda Populusque Pompeianus. Pality and Soeiety in Roman Pompeii (Acta lnstituti Romani Finlandiae Vlll), Roma 1975. The views in this publication are repeated in 'L'ordo di Pompei in una nuova luce', in: Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Recklinghausen 1975, pp. 235-41; in ' H elle nismus und Romanisierung in Pompeji ', in: P. Zanker (cd.), Hellenismus in Mi/leiitalien, Göttingen 1976, pp . 356-62; in 'Cambiamenti nel gruppo dei notabili mu nicipali dell'ltalia centro-mc ridion ale ncl corso del I secolo A.C', in: Les "bourgeoisies" municipales italiennes aux II" e /"" siedes av. 1.-C. (Colloques inte rnat io na ux duCentre National de Ia Recherche Scientifique 609), Paris-Napies 1983, pp . 91-97; and in ' L'amministrazione municipale', in: F. Zevi (ed.), Pompei 79, Napoli 1984, pp. 45-55. 21. G. Pucci, 'Considerazioni sull'artico lo di J. Andreau, "Remarques s ur Ia socie te pompeienne (apropos des tablettes de L. Caecilius Jucundus)"', Dialoghi di Archeologia 910 (1976-1977), pp. 631-47. 22. This po int o f view seems to havc becn countered o nly by A. de Franciscis in a comme nta ry on J. Andreau, 1973 I , in Cranache Pampeiane 2 ( 1976), pp. 250-5 1. 22a. Recently, an interesting contribution to the study of Pompeian society has been made by W. J ongman: The Economy and Saciety of Pompeii (D utch Monographs o n Ancient History and Archaeology 4), Am-

sterdam 1988. H owever, some of the hypotheses put Forward in this doctoral thesis seem opcn to serious do ubt. They will bc dea lt with in a fo rthcoming a rticlc. 23. M. Gigante, 1979. 24. J.L. Frank tin Jr ., Pompeii: The ElectOJ·al

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30 .

31.

32. 33.

Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A. D. 71-79 (Papers a nd Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 28), Rome 1980. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980. V. Kocke l, Die Grabbauten vor dem herkulaner Tor in Pompeji (Beiträge zur Ersch liessun g hellen istischer und ka iserzeitlische r Skulptur und Architektur 1), Mainz 1983. Un lmpegno per Pompei, 1983. Rcfcrence is to the third editio n of 1965, (a n almost unm odified reprint of the second edition). References to individua l ide ntificatio ns employ this numbering and not the page numbers. G. Fiorclli, Descriziane di Pampei, Napoli 1875; the number of owner identifications and the m akc-up of the material employed are treated in Della Corte, 1965, p. 4. Thc sea l stamps found in Pompeii prior to 1883 have bcen pub1ished by Mommsen in CIL X 8058, while thc 1ater o nes are e ither not pub1ished or sporadically mentioned by differe nt epigr aphists. In Case ed abitanti they are, however, collected in an appe ndix pp. 465-70, and th e numbe ring ofthis Iist is the most widely used a nd will be e mployed hcre. Della Corte gives the wording, provenance a nd publication, but th is info rmation is not a lways cor rect. Thus when the locatio n ofs. 29 isgiven as Yll,4,15 (incide ntally a misprint for Vlii ,4, 15), this is due entirely to Della Corte having ident ified the owner of this hause with thc person mentio ned in thc seal inscriptio n. Thc act ual provenance of the inscription is in fact unknown. Alsohis use of parentheses in the re ndering of the tcxt is unfortu nate. Thus " P. Opetrei (Pulli)" (s. 67) designates that " Pulli" is not found at the same place on the seal as "P. Opetrci", whereas "Cn. (Poppaeus) H a(bitus)" (s. 46), is an attempt to complcte the name and not apa rt of thc text of the seal stamp. Similar restitulians are found, inter alia for s. 16, 35 and 97. Delta Corte, 1965, p. 5. The plate is no t always rectangular, but can, for instancc, be shaped like a foot, a hcart or an S. There a re a lso examples of consider-

.

"..

...... 181 ably !arger seal platcs, s. 86 for insta nce measuringc. 2Vz x 12cm. Sometimcs therc is a lso a n inscription o n the outside of the ring itself, so th a t two diffe rent sta mps could be made. Thc inscriptions may also include va ri o us dcvices, a nd he re a mpho rac a nd ja rs are the m ost commo n figures. 34. S. 4 bis, 28, 45, 64, 95, 103, in add it ion to 7, which was found as an impressio n in a lum p of white pigment. 35. s. 5, 16, 32, 38, 49, 54 , 75. 36. T he inscription o n s . 3 1, for example, reads "C. Cornel i Diadumcni Com. I. ", D c lla Corte's interpretation being that Com (munis) is C . Cornelius Diadumenus' freedman ( 1965, p . 202). Jt must bc the othcr way a ro und . 37 . S. I , 11, 18, 19,22,23,31 , 33,35,4 1,45,48, 52, 55, 71, 72, 75 bis , 76, 8 1, 85 bis, 86 , 88, 96 . On thc social cha racter o f th c G rcck names, sec p. 62. 38. Thc italicizcd numbers indica te tha t the name is abbreviated o n the seal. Ampliat us s . 84, Auctuss. 59 , 87,Communiss. 15,50, C rcscens s. 4 bis, Faustus s. 34, 106, Inve ntus s . 80, Maximus s. 3, Optatus s. 62, 77, Q uartio s. 65 bis, Rcstitutus s. 100, Saturninus s. 85, Secundio s . 8, Primus s. 20, 63, 65, Successus s. 44, 73, Ianua rius s. 28. The question of servile Latin cogno min a is dealt with o n pp. 62-63. 39. (P. Vcdius) Siricus o n s. 97 . 40. Thus in the e ntirc materia l o nly thc following seem to be ide ntical with the owners of thc houses: AA. Vctti Conviva et Rest itutus o n s. 98,99 a nd 100, (A. Vedius) Siricus on s. 97, N . Fufidius Successus o n s. 44 a nd perhaps N. Popidius Priscus o n s. 74. 4 1. Thc 13sealsare:s. I , 15,23 , 29,36,53,56, 58, 61, 85 , 86, 94 and 105. 42. S. 3and55 inVI ,7,20-21;s. 4 bisinllf,4,2 ; s. II in VI, 14,22; s. 34, 98, 99 a nd I00 in VI,15,1;s . 35 iniX ,2, 15-16;s. 41,62a nd74 in VII ,2,20; s. 44 and 49 in V ,2,f; s. 66 and 77 inl ,4,5;s. 8 1, 88and92 inVI , I5 ,5;97in VII,1,25; s. 102 in Vll,2,18; a nd s. 38 in IX, l ,20. 43. S. 55,74,44, 98,99 , 100,97,102,4 bis,38. 44. S. 97 merc ly contains the nam e Siricus; s. 98, 99, which reads "A V CO", and I 00 are all found in th e Casa de i Vettii, VI, 15, l. 45. S. 8 a nd 10 in VI,16,32; 17 a nd 48 in V1 , 15,6; 52 and 65 in VII,l5, 12-13; 54 a nd 76 in V , 1, 13; 63 and 90 in IX ,9,b-c; a nd perhaps 2, 15 and 89 in VII, 13,9-12. 46. Th. Mommscn, CIL X, p. 9 15.

47. Likewise M.-A. Dollfus, 'Les cachets de bronze romains', Bulletin Archeologique 3 (1967), pp. 130-33. J . Andreau, 1974, p. 274, scems to believe that they were connected with commercial activity. 48. The Pompeian a mpho rae arc trcated in J . Andrcau , 1974, pp . 223-71. 49. 5559 , 5650,5664,57 12,5740,5752,5766, 5768,5773,578 1,5783,5788,579 1,5792, 5794,5795,5799,5862,5880,5902,5909, 6927,9320,9362,9394 , 9398,9418,9419, 942 1, 9429, 9437,9452,9460,9476,9486, 9517,9540,9591,9612, 10329. In 9429 it is no t possiblc to decide whether o ne of the persons is the sende r , since "ab" ma y have been cffaced, as has happe ned fo r cxample in 5912. In 9460 the na me is givcn in initials, but thc person can be idcntified as th e rccipie nt , since there is a lso a se nde r. In 9362 a nd 9452 the formula is "in usum" a nd a na mc in th c ge nitive, which must indicatc the pcrson who reccivcd the a mphora. 50. E.g. no. 680. Della Corte a lso identifics a Ga via Seve ra in VII ,7 ,2-5 based on 5737, 574 1, 5743, 5744 a nd 5843 and a Calav ia Optata in I ,6,11 based o n 9481 , despite the fact that it is not possible to decide whethe r the n a mes are in th e ge nitive or the dative. 5 1. 5650 in IX ,7 ,20; 5768 in V ,2,i; 5788 in V,l ,26; 5902 in V,2, 10; 9437 in 1,7, 11 ; 9460 in III ,4,3; 9617 in III ,4,3; and pcrh aps 5795 in VII ,7 ,5. 52. Thus 5783, which was sent to Q. Bruttius Balbus, was found in V,2,e, while he bimself scems to be ide ntifiable as occupant of IX,2, 15-16. 1n cases likc th is, o ne may ask whcthcr it m ay be a m atte r o f a re -utilized a mphora, from which an earlie r inscription has no t been removed . 53. 5664 was thus found in TX,8,6, where everything suggests that the owne r is not the Scxtilius named o n the amp hora, but e ither a Rustius o r Ti. C laud ius Verus. In ho use IX ,9,c , from which the two a mphorae to Caesia H e lpis 579 1, 5792, derive, two seal stamps have a lso becn found: s. 63 and 90. 9419 to Horatius Amandio was found in the same house, III ,4,3, as those to Epidius Hymen aeus and Polites, 95 17 a nd 9460. In I, 10 ,4, where 942 1 to Pompeius Priscus was found, the well -k nown sta mp s. 75 bis for Q. Poppaeus E ros was c ncountered. 54. The women Caesia Helpis a nd Coelia Procula occur in 579 1-92 and 9362, a nd the following slaves: Successus Pacciae (5902) , Valens Vibiaes (5909), a nd Epaphroditus

j

182

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

Suetti (10331). T he Iast-mentioned inscription is not found in the Iist in n . 49 , because it cannot be assigned to a pa rticu lar house. The following G reek cognomina also occur in the material: Synhodus (9398) , E ulogus (9418), Eutychus (9394) , Po li tes (9460), He rmes (9476), H ymenaeus (9517). To these may be added the mainly se rvi le Latin cognomina Restit ulus (5794) , l an ua rius (5799), Fortunatus (5740 and 6927) , Amandio (9419), and Successus ( 10329). E.g. the two amphorae with the name of Caesia H e lpis in the dative , 5791 ,5792, and the three with her name in the genitive, 5789, 5790, 5793, all found in IX,9,c. The following occupant identificatio ns a re thus based solely on graffiti: 27, 29, 93, 148, 151, 153, 175, 185, 282, 283, 30 1, 354 , 356, 380,423,427,430a,526,527,528,681,682, 698, 699,700 ,7 13-1 8, 723a, 726f, 776,789, 790, 796, 797. For example in the rather modest ho use IX,2,26 the fo llowing no mina have been fo und: Pupius (5013) , Actius (5018) , C rosius (5022) , R e nius (5033-34), Curtius (5047), Tullia (5048), Furia (5048) ; and these cogno mina: Crescens (5001) , Mopsus (5005) , Zosimus (5007, 5051, 5052), Felicio (5015 , 5044) , Nicomachus (50 14), Threctus (5028) , Seia nus (5032), Onesimus (5033) , Fructus (5042), Successus (5043, 5058), Vitalis (5044) , Secundus (5057), Philanus (5041) , Crestus (5023), Pyrrhichus (5008), E uplia (5048). D e lla Corte thus imagines that L. Ce ius Secundus, who is known as a candidate for both the aedileship and the duumvirate, was responsible for the inscriptions 2993b-c, 8365-66 and 8364, in which a Secundus greets a Prima and asks whether she loves him . 1965 no . 540. Dell a Corte, 1965, pp. 9-20. Also amo ng the sources treated in the standard examples, which were supposed to prove D e lla Corte's rule of rogatores, electoral inscriptio ns are found on the ho uses of adjacent and opposite neighbours. Thus 805 is placed opposite Vedius Siricus' house and 3471 a nd 3482 are fo und on the houses adjoining Vesonius Primus' fulling-sho p: nothing ind icates that the Iatte r owned the large estabIishment next door. (Cf. n. 78.) A lso Caecilius Jucundus feat urcs in a n e lectoral inscri ption , 3473, placed o n the insula opposite his house. It comprises the following persons, for each

of whom the dwelling a nd inscriptions are give n. The a nomalously placcd inscriptions are ita licized. Amandus, 1,7 ,7?, 723 1,7257, 7900; Ascul a, 1,8,7-8, 7288, 7295; Betutius Placidus , 1,8,7-8, 7275 , 7278, 7279, 7280, 7290; Q. Bru tti us Ba lbus, IX,2, 15, 935b , 935d , 935 h, 935i, 2958; L. Caecilius Jucundus , V , l ,26, 3428, 3433, 3473; Caprasius , IX ,7,20, 935g; P. Cornelius Tages, 1,7, 10, 7314, 7315; M. Epidius Hymenae us, III ,4,3, 7509,7691,7692,7708, 7709; Julius Phil ippus, IX , 13,1, 7316; C. Julius Po lybius, IX,l3, 1, 7942, 7945; M. Lucretius Fronto, V ,4,a, 6633; M. Obellius Fi rmus, lll , l4, 3828, 3829; Polites, III ,4,2-3, 7502, 7503, 7516,7682,7685 ,7688,7702, 7703; L. Popid ius Ampliatus, 1,4,25, 2939 ; L. Popidius Dionysius, IX, I ,26, 1041 ,2966, 2974; M. Pupius Rufus, VI , 15,5?, 3537, 6678; Rufinus, V, I, 18,3403 , 3409; A. Trebius Vale ns, lll ,2,1 7429,7605,7614 ,76 17,76 18,7619, 7624,7627,7630,7632 , 7658; P. VediusSiricus, VII ,1,47 , 805, 916; Veso nius Primus, VI ,14,2l -22, 3471 , 3477,3478, 3480, 3482; Vettius Restitutus, VI,1 5,1-27, 3522. 6 1. The foll owing persans are invo lved: Caprasia (171, 207) ; Salarius Crocus (349 1, 6645, 6647, 6667); C urvi us (2986, 3619); Fabius Ccler (3659, 3841) ; Felicio (3423, 3483); Fuscus (1 75, 176, 216); Genialis (3680, 3702); G ranius (9869, 9883, 9884); Hermes (7489, 7722); Lo reius (7517, 7539,7724, 7727, 7728, 7729, 7733, 7735), Lutatius (7443, 7636) ; Me mo r (164, 209); Menecrates (636, 822) ; Postumius (738, 775); Proculus (966, 1067a) , Pyramus (3674, 3703), Rubellius (839, 842), Sotericus (7432, 7632 , 7635) Zmyrina (7221, 7863, 7864). 62. 8 candidates are involved: L. A lbucius Celsus, V ,2,i; M. EpidiusSabinus, IX,1,20; M. Lucretius Fronto, V ,4,a; D. Lucretius VaJe ns, II ,3, 1-3; C. Julius Polybius, IX, 13, 1-3; L. Popidius Ampliatus, 1,4,5; A. Trebius Valens, III ,2,1; A . Vettius Caprasius Felix, IX,7 ,20?. Of these o nl y M. Epidius Sabinus' vicinal inscription is placed on his own ho use. 63. M. Casellius Marcellus is supported in IX,3,11-12 (3649) , andin IX,3 ,17 (3666) and T i. Claudius Ve rus in V ,2,1 7-20 (367), and IX ,9,d (3820). Cn. H e lvius Sabinus' vicina l recommendations are found in IX,3,25 (852), IX, 13,1 (7928), and 1,8,7 (7273), A. Vcttius Caprasi us Fclix' in VI ,8,22-23 (204) , and IX ,3,20-2l (3687), and L. Popidius Ampliatus' in IX, 1,27

....

~

.... 183 (2978), a nd in 1,12,5 (7443). 64. The Fabia Prima example is no. 541 , and the other ide ntifications made using this method are no. 13, 34, 35, 52, 101 , 135, 172, 180, 181,198,212,213,214,222,273,280,281, , 285,286,298,422,471,488,495 ,525,535, 541a,578,583,593,595,624,627,640,642, 790e, 7901, 801, 807. 65. De ll a Corte, 1965, no. 154 . 66. By thi s mcthod Della Corte also identifies M. Cerrinius Vatia (20), M . Ubonius Cogitatus (42), N. Nigidius Vaccula (44) , L. Caecilius Capclla (345), C. Lollius Fuscus (387) , M. Vesonius Primus (564) , P. Sittius Coniunctus (57 1) and P . Gavius Proculus (115). Based o n the presence of a presumptive N . Popidius Priscus, thc known N. Popidius Celsinus and his parents N. Popidius Ampliatus and Cornclia Celsa (266-68) are insta lled in VII,2,20. His decoding of the seal sta mps is sometimes ex tremely dubio us. Thus in 134 "L. Val. F." is transposed as L. Vale rius Flaccus, in 189 " L.T. Fa." as L. Tullius Faustus, in 363 "C. T. F." as C. T ettius Fa ustus andin 383 "Ti. C. Ep. " as Ti. C laudius Epaphroditus. Della Corte also suggests that VI ,6, 1, Casa di Pansa , could be T. Olius', Poppaea's father's , residence, sincc hc believes that it was occupied in 79 AD by a n Olius Primus (173). 67. Della Corte, 1965, no. 151. Inscriptions 4184 a nd 7086. 68. Firmulus (4155) , Lucius Albucius (4156) , Rusticus (4157) , Scamander (4159), Ampliatus (4164) , C. C uspius Crescens (4165 , 4166), E uphiletus (4165), Successus (4168), Myrine (4179) , Surus (4179), Rustius (4183), Sabina (4185), Sittia (4186), Serenus (4197), Julius (4201, 4211) , Verus (4202), Faustus (4203) , Helenus (4206) , Primige nius (4218). Successus also features in 7075 on thc fac;ade opposite the house. In VI ,11 ,9-10, Della Corte a lso ide ntifies a Fuficius Ianuarius as owner on the basis of three graffiti with his name, 1433-35, no. 27, but fails to inform us that the following nomina were fo und in graffiti in the same ho use: A. Veius M.f. Felix (1418, 1430), Clutilius (1420) , Q. Sempronius Q.l. (1429) , M. Junius (1440) , N. Clovatius (1442), Terentius (1443 , 1444), ~· Ovius (1447a), and va rio us cognomina. 69. De lla Corte, 1965, nos. 618, 583 and 593. 4921 receives cursory mention p. 298, as a trivial source. lt is moreover called a salutary inscription , which is contrary to the publi-

catio n in CIL. 70. Inscription 8957, no . 31. 7 1. D ella Corte 1965, nos. 688 and 78-79. Note also the omission of amphora 5664 sent to a Sextilius and found JX ,8,6, where A . Rustius Vcrus is installed , no. 2 16; 5799 to P . Caninius Ianuarius found in VIJI ,5,15-39, where Acceptus and Euhodia are idcntified as occupants from an e lectoral inscription, no . 505; and 9394 se nt to Fulvius E utychus found in 1,8,17, where Della Corte places an L.V .P, no. 697. 72. In the case of nos . 58, 115, 489,540 and 638, the vicini recommendations are e mployed to show that the candidate lived in thc ho use whcre the inscription was found, andin nos. 41, 150, 161 , 498 and 707, to show that hc livcd in the vicinity of the inscriptio n . 73. Seen. 63. 74. The identification of M. Epidius Primus in r,8, 14 (no . 680) is thus largely based o n on1y three amphora inscriptions in the genitive, 9519-21, and the ide ntifications 75,439 and 577a on amphora inscriptions whe rc dative and genitive are identical, and it cannot bc decided whether it is a sende r or recipient-. Tn 638, Della Corte employs a clear indicatio n of thesender, 9334, as an argume nt fo r his owner identification , which is also at variance with his usual practice. 75. S. 4 bis, no . 778, which is also the o nly one which is not shown as an impression in Dell a Cortc 's I ist. 76. Della Corte thus admits for nos. 80-82 that not all the persons in the three seal stamps could have occupied the ho use, which seems in fact to have belonged to a fourth person, and terms it " un strano caso". In o thcr cases the otherwise unknown person in the seal stamps is nominated as the house's owner ( e.g. nos. 220, 418, 474), te nant (321, 502), freed procurator (434, 592) o r even a te nant's freedman ( 45). 77. In the preface, 1965, pp. 21-22, Della Corte makes some remarks on th e dating of the inscriptions, but they are quite superficial, and in the individual identificatio ns he seems to have e ntirely overlooked this question. 78. Naturally D ella Corte realizes that , for example, Oscan inscriptions a re far o lde r than 79 AD , but nevertheless in several cases derivcs occupants ofthat year from such mate ri al, e.g. nos. 183 and 455. Also the installation of the fuller Vesonius Primus as owner o f VI ,14,20 builds on an inscription,

184

79.

80.

81. 82.

X 865, found on a he rm datable to Augustan times: A. de Fra nciscis, II ritratto romano a Pompei (Memorie dell 'Accademia di Archeologia , Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli 1) , Napoli 1951 , pp. 30-31. Thus among the dated amphoraewefind ma ny which in 79 AD were more than 20 years old, which must mean that they we re re-utilized. On ly a fe w graffiti can bc da ted, e.g. 1886 , 1918 and 2450 from Augusta n times, but since a !arge numbe r are placed inside the houscs, the possibilities of preservation were much better than those fo r the electoral inscriptions of the outside walls. In connection with the electoral inscriptions, 7261 may be mentioned as having furnished the basis for an ide ntification of the owne r of I ,8, 1 as " pomarius" ( no. 662), although the tavern clearly served as a wine-shop in 79, and the inscriptio n apparentl y de rives fro m an earlie r building phase. V . Gassner, Die Kaufläden in Pompeii, Wien 1986, p . 22. lnscriptions 666 in Case ed abitanti nos. 431, 3688in211, 1082in534,695 in451,3507 in 91, 7306b in 696, 3584 in 388a and 7389 in 629 all have an appended recomme ndatio n in the form of " rogat/nt", whe reby the ir nature is radically alte red , since none of the m in fact seems to be a n electoral notice. The addition of quite hypothe tical names to the inscriptions occurs ve ry freque ntly , e .g . nos. 13, 20, 34, 35, 39, 42 and 52. Della Corte, 1965 nos. 42lc and 489h. As a parallel to the example 1048 may inter alia be mentione d Della Corte's ide ntificatio n of L. Ceius Secundus in I ,6, 15, which in many respects is interesting and will the refore be treated in de tail. No. 540 builds o n 7 187, 7 194, 7195, 8273, 8303 , 8309 , in addition to 2993b-c, 8270, 8365-6 and 8364. 7195 is a vicini inscription found in 1,6,15. As I have argued, this is no indication that the candidate occupied the hause. 7194, likewise found at 1,6, 15, is rendered by De lla Corte "Cei rog(ant)", and he omits to mc ntion that Spinazzola found not "Cei" but " Vei". In 7187 D ella Corte adds a "Ceius rogat", of which the re is no trace in the inscription. The two graffiti 8272 and 8303 are re nde red in Case ed abitanti "Secundus; L. Ceius", which is a heavy manipulation , since they were no t found together. Both de rive from the ho use fa<;ade opposite 1,6,15, a nd 8303 reads in CJL merely "Ceiu ". There is therefore no evidential basis for the praenominal abbreviatio n "L"

and for thc e nding "s". 8309 is cited by Della Cortc " [L.] Cei Secunde va(le)", but not o nly is "Cei S" in CJL sa id tobe illegible, and is the refore purely hypothetical, but the inscription's " M" is alte red to "L" with refe re ncc to the fact that Ceius Secundus was called Lucius. Della Corte has in othe r words transmuted an M. Secundus into an L. Ceius Secundus. The remaining graffiti are all scattered communications from a Secundus to a Prima or vice versa , and considering thc widespread occurrcnce of the namc Secundus and L. Ceius Secundus' position , I see no reason to consider them ide ntical. We can thus establish that what at first sight seems tobe imposing evidence, in reality consists only of a vicini inscription a nd a graffito "Ceiu " found o n two differe nt ho uses, and that the othcr sources are e ithe r very uncertain, adapted , or inve nted. The \ conjunction of independent inscriptions can, for instance, be obscrvcd in no. 318, where an Aemilius Fide lis is ide ntifi ed on the basis of 539, which is re nde red "fac Fide lis A e mili ", while it is pointed out that " A emili" reads "Eami .. ". This inscriptio n does not exist , howeve r . It is a combinatio n of 539 "Eami roga" and 540 "fac Fidelis fQrl i ", which were both found in the proximity of VII ,S, 16, whe rc "Acmilius Fide lis" is installed. A change in the location of the inscription is encounte red in the identification o f the slave Musa and his mas ter H . Herennius Castus as occupants of V ,2,e, no . 156. S. 49 has been found the re, and as confirm ati on of this evide nce, refere nce is made to a graffito , 4268, which read " Musa" and was placed "a destra de ll'ingresso". It was, however, found to the right of V ,2,a or about 60 m away. 83. T he identification of LL. Popidii Secundus e t Ampli atus as owners of 1,4,5, nos. 497498, is made on pp. 249-55. L. Rapinasius Optatus is me ntioned on p . 256, no. 502, and Q. Octavius Romulus, no. 522, is me ntio ned on p . 264. 84. E. Magaldi gave a similar characterization in Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 1 (1935), pp . 199-214, where he in a review o f apart of Della Corte's article 'A ugustiana', among o the r things wrote: " .. un certo e rrore di metodo ehe e alla base de l lavoro, come e alla base della personalita scie ntifica del suo autorc", p . 200, and " II Dclla Corte, non possede ndo un concetto adeguato de lla ricerca scie ntifica , no n sentc neppure i lim iti

...... 185

85.

I 86.

87.

88.

89.

~·

90.

di essa", p. 201. Magaldi's criticism of Della Corte was later fo llowed up in Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 ( 1936-1937), pp. 239-250. These headings can be assigned to the occupant identifications 152, 124, 14, 82lff., 540 and 280-81. Among the examples of this anecdotal interprctation of the sources, no. 430a should also be remarked, giving as it does an excellent idea ofDella Corte's personal attitude to the sources. Thus Delta Corte has hirnself pronounced that from 1905 a lso Soglia no's, Spano's, Spinazzola's and Maiuri's inscription publications, mainly in Notizie degli scavi, were based on bis apographa: 'L'epigrafia pompeiana nell'ultimo quarantennio' , in: Pompeiana. Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenariodegliscavidi Pompei, Napoli 1950, pp. 88-89. H. Solin , Gnomon 45 (1973), pp. 258-77. This cvaluation of Della Corte's abi lities has later been endorsed by M. G igante, 1979, p. 25. T hese two great epigraphists strongly disagreed, for example, on the reading of the fo llowing graffiti: 4l14, 4122,4246,4459, 4550, 4588,4598,4653,4678,5301,6789. It was also o n Pompeian graffiti that Th. Mommsen remarked: " .. Dipinte e Graffite, gegen die in derTat alles übrige Inschriftenlesen Kinderspiel ist". L. Wickert, Theodor Mommsen. Eine Biographie, II , Frankfurt a.M. 1964, p. 179. Thus it is remarked that the "Cei" inscription 7194 and the known "alumnus tiburs" inscription 7534, which are both of great importance for Della Corte's theories, are rejected by Spinazzola, and in the latter instance photographs clearly show that Della Corte's rendering is erroneous: V. Spinazzola, 1953, pp. 257, pp. 421-34 and fig. 490. A lso H. Solin could in the article 'Pompeiana', Epigraphica 30 (1968), pp. 105-25, based on photographs of graffiti, undertake numerous emendations to Della Corte's readings, as happened in the review of bis CIL supplementum. In fascicle 1 from 1952, Della Corte makes the restitutions in the text itself and not in the commentary. This means that in 7793, for example, which is rendered "A. Velliwn cAPRASIUM/ Felicem iuvenem INNOCENTEm", one cannot decide what remains in the inscription and to what extent the length of the lines can be discerned. Corresponding problems arise with, for ex-

91.

92.

93.

94.

arnple, 7198, where alrnost a whole line is added in italics, and very often the candidate's narne is filled out so as to make it impossible to judge whether this occurred on the basis of fragments, or is merely information to the reader on the candidate 's nomenclature. The lattcr seems to be the case in 7205, where the photographs show that there is no trace in the inscription of the praenomen appended by Delta Corte. The sameproblern is found in the following inscriptions: 7140, 7152, 7181, 7182, 7226, 7229, 7262, 7271, 7272, 7312, 7316, 7390, 7401, 7402, 7423 , 7426, 7450, 7479, 7486, 7496,7506,7515 , 7519 , 7524,7544,7562, 7563, 7583, 7599, 7633, 7639, 7640, 7673, 7780,7790,7793,7867,7869,7911,7943, 7954, 7961, 7965. There are thus examples of rogator names being appended to fragmentary inscriptions, for example 7147,7182, 7239 and 7378, solely on the basis of Della Corte's theories on who lived in the houses. In other cases, candidate names are inserted on the basis of the notions Della Corte might have on who ran tagether, e.g. 7401, 7427 and 7819. In 7316 and 7954, the restitution of entire candidate names is quite unfounded, andin 7826 and 7947 a new candidate is invented, VettiusRestitutus. A lso7817, 7343 and 7362 and the many inscriptions in wh ich allusions to "luventus" are inserted are highly tendentious reconstructions. This kind of mistake consists, for instance, of identifying candidates on the basis of inadequate information. Sabinus in 7229 is identified, for example, as Cn. Helvius Sabinus, which is quite unwarranted, since other candidates bear this name. This fault occurs regularly, inter alia in 7283 , 7285, 7402,7150, 7673, and 7668. Also characteristic is Della Corte's restitution of 7139 "PR .... UM", which is read "PRustiUM", although the candidate Rustius has the pracnomen Au lus, and the reading "Pr[ocul]um" is much closer. Here merely a few examples wi ll be mentioned: 7132, 7182, 7278, 7517, 7534, 7687 , 7724, 7963 and not least 8310-8357. It is remarkable that the first inscriptions Della Corte recorded, 6663-65, which were later published on the basis of bis apographa in ClL suppl. Il, were already registered 30th J anuary, 1903. At this juncture he had no historical, archaeological or philological educatio n. His post was purely administra-

186 tive. Not untillater, in L911, did he obtain a degree in fettere. When he began his work of recording inscriptions he was in other words an autodidact. On Della Corte's carcer, see M. Grieco's panegyric, I giorni e /e apere di Matteo De//a Corte, Cavadei Tirreni 1976. 95. Della Corte may to some extent havc aggravated this Situation, since he seems to have deliberately sought to kccp other scho lars away from Pompeian epigraphy a nd among other things refused to collaborate with E. Magaldi on the publication of the ncw CI L supplementum . On this see Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 (1936-1937), pp. 101-12. 96. The clearcst formulation of the Pompcianist tradition's principal starting point is found in E. Magaldi, 'Gli studi pompeiani e illoro orientamento futuro' , Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 1 (1935), pp. 1-88, where this very " umanita pompeiana" notion is stressed. 97. The severe criticism of the tradition which was expressed in the 1970s by J. Andreau, P. Castren and G. Pucci seems in this light tobe both indiscriminate a nd partly also unjustified: indiscriminate because it is directed at the tradition as a whole, and therefore unaware of the differences within this a nd of Della Corte's special position in relation to the tradition, and unjustificd, because it fastens upon features that arenot at all characteristic of the tradition. This is namely attacked for its general conception of Pompeian society , and if there was one thing the tradition omitted to do, it was to formulate a synthesis of the structure of socicty in Pompeii: one interpreted the individual phenomena and examples and attempted in this way to find the Pompeian of antiquity. Modern structure-oric nted research was foreign to the tradition. 98. This expression is employed by F. Zevi in his sketch of the history of Pompcian studies in the compendium Pompeii 79, Napoli 1984, p. 5. 99. A discussion of Castren' s theories is found in the investigation of the Pompeian upper dass pp. 70-122. 100. P. Ciprotti, 'II no me e Ia Iegge di Pompei colonia romana', Cronache Pompeiane 2, 1976, pp. 21-28. Here Pompeii's " Iex" is treated on the basis of the preserved inscription material from the city. 101. The principal work on Roman municipal administration is still W. Liebenam, Städteverwaltung in römischen Kaiserreiche, Lei pzig 1900. Note also: F.F. Abbott & A.C.

102. 103. 104. 105. 106.

107.

108. 109. 110.

Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, Ncw York 1926; W. Langhammer, Die rechtliche und soziale Stellung der Magistratus municipa/es und der Decuriones in der Übergangsphase der Städte von sich selbstverwaltenden Gemeinden zu Vollzugsorganen des spätantiken Zwangsstaates (2.-4. Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit), Wiesbaden 1973; P. Castren , 1975, pp. 55-82; and latest F. Jacques, Le privilege de /iberte. Po/itique imperiale et autonomie municipa/e dans/es cites de I'Occident romain (161 -244) (Collection de l'Ecole fran<_;aise de Rome 76), Rome 1984. W. Liebenam, 1900, pp. 263-65. P. Willems, Les e/ections municipales a Pompei, Paris 1887, pp. 13L-42. W. Liebenam, 1900, pp. 256-57. W. Liebenam, 1900, pp. 257-59. In support of this view , the electoral inscriptio ns for Cn. Audius Bassus can be mentioncd, on ly the candidatures for the aedileship and the quinquennial duumvirate being documented for this candidate. Likewise the recordings of cursus honorum in Pompeian tituli point in this direction . These recordings were usually ma rked by a very strong textual economy. Thus the aedileship, as obligatory before the duumvirate, does not feature alo ng with the higher office; X 1036 is the only exception from this rule. Howevcr, in memorial inscriptions, we find former magistrates mentioncd both as "dv. quinq. iterum" (e.g. X 806,996, 1037) and as "dv. quinq." (e.g. X 792, 944, 1036). lf the ordinary duumvirate were obligatory before the quinquennialate, thc addi tio n of " iterum" would bc quite superfluous, whereas " iterum" would distinguish those magistrates who had held the duumvirate before the quinquennial office from those who had not. P. Castren, 1975, pp. 66 and 83, assumes, howevcr, that all quinquennales must previously have been o rdinary duumvirs, and does not seem to have considered whether the quinquennial office from a juridical point of view was a higher one. C. Vestorius Priscus was aedile at a n age of 22 (Ns 1910, p. 402). On this, see, for example, F.F. Abbott & A.C. J ohnson , 1926, p. 66 The principal source on the electoral procedure in the municipalities is the "Iex"

.._

...... 187

111. 112.

113.

114.

115 . 116. 117.

118.

119.

120.

preserved from the Iberian town of Malacha. This was pro mulgated under Domitian , a nd its ordinances, which are said to go back to an edict of Vespasian, can hardly have differed much from those applying in ltaly. W. Liebenam, 1900, pp. 271-72; E.S. Staveley, Creek and Roman Voting and Elections, London 1972, pp. 223-26. W. Liebenam , 1900, pp. 226ff. W. Liebe nam, 1900, pp. 229-30; R. Duncan-Jones, The Economy ofthe Roman Empire. Quantitative Studies, Cambridge 1974, pp. 283-87. From these, too, dispensation could be granted. Note the admission of the sixyear-old N. Popidius N .f. Celsinus after the rebuilding of the Temple of Isis. X 846, 848. This Iist is known especially through the famous album from Canusium , which has been preserved from Severan times. The ordo contained there considerably more adlecti and pedarii than seems to have been the case in Pompeii , see n. 456. For these sources, see K. Zangemeister in CIL IV p. 10. For Pompeian house fa~ades, see V. Spinazzola, 1953, pp. 245-49. Thus in particular the laudatory "dignus est" and " iuvenem" and vario us adjecti ves, of which "probum" is the commonest. On ligatures and abbreviations in electoral inscriptio ns, see E. Magaldi , 'Le abbreviature ne lle iscrizio ni parietali pompeiane', Bolletino della Accademia di Stenografia 7, 1931, pp. 66-69. The re is a copious Iiterature on these painters: A. de Marchi , 'Gii "scriptores" nei proclami elettorali di Pompei'_, Rendieanti dellstituto Lombardo49 (1916) , pp. 64-73; E. Magaldi , 'Le iscrizioni parietali pompeiane con particolare riguardo a l costume ', Atti deli'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 11 (1929-30), pp. 13-160, especially pp. 49-76; M . D e lla Corte, 1965, pp. 66 and 167-69; P. C iprotti , 'Brevi note su alcune scritte pompeiane', in : Neue Forschungen in Pompeji, Recklinghausen 1975, pp. 274-75 ; J .L. Franklin , ' No tes on Pompeian prosopography, Programmatum scriptores', Cronache pompeiane 4 (1978), pp. 54-74; P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 122-24. Sometimes no n-professionals also appear to have tri ed their hand at painting, which

can make identification of scriptores difficult. The following professio nals seem , however, to be securely documented : Aemilius Cele r (660, 3775,3820,7494, 7980? , 9873), A stylus (423, 7525, 9831), Fructus (230, 387, 581), Hinnulus (2993da, 3367, 7373,7374, 9851), Infantio (120, 230,239, 485,709 ,785a, 789 ,984,2974,3680,7191, 7343, 7348, 7374, 7618 , 7658, 7665) , Papilio (480, 908, 1157,3367,7251, 7298,7418, 7465, 7536, 9829a), Florus (95 , 230, 581, 803?) . In addition, A scaul es (636), Philo[-] (7027), [-]sius (222), Proto(genes) (2975) a nd Sabinus (230) each occur once , and they can therefore hardly be identified as professional scriptores. Pa ris (821), Po rcellus (9925) and Mustius (3529) are likewise documented only o nce as painte rs, and all occur as rogators as weil. J .L. Franklin, 1978, pp. 66-72, a lso identifies a Iarinus, a Secundus and a Victor as scriptores, but in my opinion on slender grounds. The expression "hic et ubique", which possibly occurs in 818, thus does not designate , as Franktin believes, a Scriptor signature, but is a common formula for a greeting. On this , see P . Castre n, 'Hic et ubique ; Survival of a formul a' , Aretos 16 (1982), pp . 7-9. Victor and Secundus arealso such common na mes that one cannot without clear indications point to any bearers of these names as inscriptio n painters. None of the inscripti ons o n which the identification of l ari nus as scripto r rests mentions him specifically as a painter, and the identification must therefore be conside red hypothetical. 121. Thus initially A.W. van Buren, 'Gnaeus Alle ius Nigidius Maius of Pompeii ', AJPh 68 (1947), pp. 382-93, and subsequently, for example, W. 0. Moe ller , 'Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius. Princeps Coloniae ', Latomus 32 (1973), p . 517. 122. The inscription material for this period is treated separately pp. 106-109, and the following magistrates can be dated to these years: L. A lbucius Iustus, Co . Alleius Nigidius Maius, Q. Bruttius Balbus, Ti. C laudius Verus, Q. Coelius Caltilius Iustus, C. Cornelius Macer , C. Cuspius Pansa, P. Gavius Pastor, Hegius, L. H elvius Blaesius Proculus, A. Hordionius Proculus, L. Julius Ponticus, L. Julius Rufus, M. Licinius Romanus, D . Lucretius Satrius Valens, C. Memmius Junianus, M . Obellius Firmus, C n. Po mpeius Grosphus, Cn. Pom-

188

123.

124. 125.

126. 127.

128.

129.

130.

peius Grosphus Gavianus, Sex. Po mpeius Proculus, Q. Poppaeus, Q. Postumius Modestus, N. Sandelius Messius Balbus, T. Terentius T.f. Felix , P. Vedius Siricus, L. Veranius Hypsaeus, C. Vibius Secundus. The two duumvirs who took office in 60 were N. Sandelius Messius Baibus and P. Vedius Siricus. T he sources for the individual magistrates are fo und on pp. L09112 and in the catalogue of programmata. Not included here are the inscriptions in which M. Obellius Firmus is mentio ned , since they were found in siele his own house III,14 and therefore canno t be regarded as ordinary electoral notices. ·s ee pp. 34, 36 and n. 130. This inscription addresses M. Obellius F irmus a t his home III , 14. The ho use does not seem not to have been repaired after the earthquake in 62. The inscriptio n sho uld the refore predate 62. Thus also W. Jong1nan, ' M. Obellius M.f. Firmus, Pompeian Duovir' , Talanta L0-11 (1978-79), pp. 62-65. See pp. 108-09 a nd n. 454. The central work o n the rebuilding of Pompeii after the earthquake is A. Maiuri, L 'ultima fase edilizia di Pompei (Studi R oma ni 20), Roma 1942; seefurther J .-P. Adam, 'Observations techniques sur \es suites des seismes de 62 a Pompei' , Tremblements de terre, eruptions volcaniques et vie des hommes dans Ia Campanie antique, Naples 1986, pp. 67-87. T he datings have been based on the following inscriptions, the position of each of which is marked: Sex. Attius Amplus (3699, IX,5,19 left), Consius (3743, IX,8,2-3), Julius Modestus (3768, IX,8 ,7 left), M. Salvius (7380, I,10,18 right) , Seppius (3779, IX,8,a left) , A. Trebius Vale ns, quinq. cand. (7488, II , l ,1 right), L. Varius (162, VI,10,7 right) , P. Yibius Cac[-] (166, VI,10,7left) , C. Ateius Capito (3441 , Y,1 ,29), Ti. C laudius Claudia nus (7912 , IX,12,6 right), P. Gavius Proculus (895, IX,3,9-10). The walls o n which the inscriptions were placed are pictured in pl. 2-5:1. In the archaeological treatment of the mate rial, I have received valuable assista nce fro m Flemming G. Andersen, Hj0rdis Nielsen and Inge Nielsen. 3741, IX,8 ,2-3, pl. 3:1, in addition to the slightl y more uncertain 3756, IX ,8,6-7 and 3461, VI,13,16 left. 499, which reads "[-] ium Maium d v i d/

131. 132. 133. 134. 135.

136. 137. 138.

139.

140. 141. 142.

143.

144. 145.

Aurelius civem bonum fac", was thus according to D ella Corte, 1965, p. 146, found VII ,4,14-15 in the part of the socalled Porticus Tulliana that Maiuri dated to after the earthquake . Maiuri, 1942, p. 163. P. Sabbatini T umo lesi, 1980. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi , 1980, pp. 11 3-116. Thus also A. Hön le , Gnomon 54 (1982), pp. 473-77. 2476 , p. 75,2508, pp. 71-74, and 4299, p. 107. P. Sabbatini Tumo lesi herself gives the figure 36, but a dating to the period from 55 AD to Flavian times is too loose to be of any use. 1980, pp. 43-44 , cat. no. 16-17. P . Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 62-69. V. Kockel , 1983, pp . 75-85. P . Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 24-32, with a bibliography of previous research p. 27. The connection betwee n 0. Lucretius Valens' edicta munerum and electoral inscriptions ca n be clearly observed in programma 7626, which is placed below 7992 andin its execution contains re markable similarities to this edictum . The two inscriptions must therefore have been posted at the sametime and could be regarded as linked. See V. Spinazzola, 1953, fig. VII. See p. 34 a nd n. 128. See the illustration Ns 1936, 318, fig. 7. E. Magaldi, 'Echi di Roma a Pompei', Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2 ( 1936-1937), p. 95. P. Sabbatini T umo lesi, 1980, pp. 44-50 . Like Sabbatini Tumolesi, I find no evidence for placing 3822 " Pro salute Ner[onis) in terr[-]" unde r Ti. Claudius Verus' edicta , whereas I see no reason to doubt Soglia no's plausible interpretation " in terr[ ae motu ]" and his linking of this inscription with the episode in Puteoli, where Nero in 64 escaped a n earthquake in the amphitheatre, occasioning dedications Prosalute Neronis (Tac. Ann. 15 , 35, Suet. Nero., 20, 3). There is thus much to suggest that this inscription should be dated to 64-65. A. Sogliano, Ns 1888, p. 517. See pp. 32 and 34 and n. 129 and 172. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 129-33, believes that it was a part of the magistrates' respo nsibility to arrange and finance glad iatorial contests, but this is ha rdly likely, since from the entire history of Pompeii we know of only seven poten-

--·~

-.. 189 tial magistrates who have sponsored such contests. This figure is far too low for it to havc bccn an established custom. The aedilcs probably organized the performances paid for by the city, but they do not seem to have bccn announced in the samc way as those which were privately financed. To propagatc thc name and reputation of the sponsor the lattcr announcements wcre madc in scveral copies and in several towns. There is in other words no basis for automatically regarding a sponsor as the sitting magistrate. Thus also V. Kockel , 1983, pp. 83-84, n. 274. 146. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 38-41. Thus also 3883, but the identification of neithcr "athle tae" nor Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius is ccrtain . 147. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, p. 33, and P. Castrcn, 1975 , p. 110, believe that a connection exists between Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius and Ti. Claudius Verus on the basis of 3453 and 7989b. 3453 is a dipinto with the wording "N·ALLEI·NIGID VER UM". lt is, however, in the first place not certain that " Verus" is Ti. Claudius Verus, a nd in the second place evcrything suggests that they are two independent inscriptions. Thus one notes the Iack of punctuation between "Nigid" and " Verum" and the quite atypical structure for a joint programma. Moreover, as "N. Al Ie i Nigid" is not accusative, this inscription cannot be regarded as an electoral inscription. 7989b is a greeting to " Maio principi coloniae" and does not seem to have any conncction with 7989a,c, an edict of Ti. Claudius Verus and a greeting to him, respectivcly. The misunderstanding is due to the publication in CIL, where the inscription is placcd between 7989a and 7989c, although it was found at some distance from thesc. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, p. 32, also finds indications for a connection betwecn Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius and the persons behind the amphitheatre performance in 59, which triggered the riots betwce n Pompe ians and Nucerians, mentioned in Tacitus, Ann. 14, 17. She bases this o n a graffito published by A. Baldi , 'Un graffito pompeiano inedito' , Latomus 26 (1967), pp. 480-85, and later corrected by H . Solin, 1968, p. 122. This contains both " Hecio et Maiio quinquennali" and the name " Regulus", but not only is most

148.

149. 150.

151. 152.

153. 154.

155. 156.

of the inscription illegible a nd its meaning unclear, but R egulus is not necessarily ide ntical with the ex-senator Livincius R egulus, who was exiled after the riots. Finally , the mention of the quinque nnales, as suggested by Solin, can scrve to datc and thus be quite independent of " Regulo". Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, pp. 32 and 41, mentions further that in 1178 the namc "Grosphos" occurs, which should spcak for a connection between Cp. Alleius Nigidius Maius and the duumvirs in 59, Cn. Pompeius Grosphus and Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus. It is, however, doubtful whether this is one inscription, for the placement of "Grosphos" is strange , a nd an accusative form like this is difficult to cxplain as part of an edict. Tf the rcading "G rosphos" is correct, it would rather seem to be an electoral notice for the two duumviral candidates. See also p. 145. In Tacitus it is stated that "coetus cius modi" was prohibited in Pompeii for tcn ycars after 59, but this regulation scems to have bcen repealed before the end of this period. A. Suettius Certus' aedileship must prcdate 68, for his edict mentio ns "Nero(nianorum/nis] muneribus". As his candidature is documented in abo ut 7 inscriptions, it can hardly prcdatc thc prohibition, but must be late Neronian in date. P. Sabbatini Tumolesi , 1980, pp. 42-43. Thus both A.W. van Buren, 1947, p. 389, and P . Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, ibid., date Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius' edictum 11 80 to Flavian times. See p . 34 and n. 130. As the most important objection to a second quinque nnial term, P. Sabbatini Tumolesi, 1980, p. 35, pointsout that it is not spoken of as " iterum", but since nonc of Ti. Claudius Verus' duumvira l inscriptions contains such an addition, this is not cogent. 1196,3881,3882,7994,9969,9979,9980, 9981a. 7994, which mentions "muneri[bus] Augustorum ", was placed III ,4, 1-2, and was like the eiluns inscription found at the samc spot plastered over at a later time and the reby preserved. See V. Spinazzola, 1953, p. 728 a nd fig. 700. See p. 97. R. Guarini, Fasti Duumvirali di Pompei, Napoli 1837; P. Willems , 1887; R. Etien nc , La vie quotidienne aPompei, Paris

190 1966, pp . 143-45. 157. J.L. Franklin, 1980. 158. J.L. Franklin, 1980, pp. 44-58. Also R . Etienne, 1966, ibid., mentions this material, but does not seem to have made much use of it. 159. In the following inscriptio ns published by Zangemeisterand Mau , the re are formulations which could be inte rpre ted as descriptions of overlays: 322/323, 89112954b , 984/986, 985/986, 988/989' 105711 056, 106611067, 1075/1078,2974/2975,2974/ 2976, 2983/2984, 3410/3411, 3523/3522, 3537/3538, 3715/3716/3717 , 374113742, 3761/3759, 3777/3778, 3827/3828, 6644/ 6643, 6651/6650 , 705117052. The remaining inscriptions are, however , designated merely as posterior or antiquior in rclation to the other: 841/840, 904/904a, 1004/ 1003, 1075/1077, 3460/3461, 3462/3463, 3474/ 3475, 3529/3528, 3535/3534, 3668/3670, 3724/3723, 3744/3743 , 3760/3759/3758, 376113762, 376413766, 3764/3767, 6633/ 6634, 6646/6647, 6664/6665. 160. The following overlays merely indicated by "sub" a re included in Franklin's material: 7 52617 529' 770217703, 791 917925, 7972/ 7975, 9832/9833, while six other cases in which this formulation is employed have been omitted: 714617142,737217373,7399/ 7401 ,740017401,787017871 , 790817909. 161. The depiction in pl. 5:3 shows that 7871, designated "sub" 7870, is not overlapped by this inscription . 162. 3221323, 8411840 , 2983/2984, 3523/3522 , 3537/3538, 3724/3723, 3744/3743 , 6651 / 6650, 731817319, 748017482, 748117482 , 748317484 , 767017669, 768117683, 7820/ 7821 , 788517886,791917918. In addition there arc four incorrect or highly dubious ove rlays 818/825, 864/862, 2979/2978, 6642/6643 and three that are quite irrelevant , since there arc no ide ntifiablc candidates or only one, 3410/3412, 3668/3670 a nd 3812/38 13. 163. Thus Della Corte does not mention the overlays 754017543, 753817543, 762217621, 721017211 a nd 7210/7212, which are depicted in V. Spinazzola , 1953, p. 423, fig. 487, a nd the two photographs found between p. XXIV and p. I in the 1954 cdition of Della Corte's Case ed abitanti. Scrutiny of the inscriptions which are now preserved in Museo Nazia nale in Naplcs has also shown that 121 is painted over 122, see pl. 6:2-3.

164. One further dating element, which ne ithe r Franktin no r others have previously been aware o f, must also be mcntioned. This is the form and relative pl ace ment of the inscriptions on the individual walls, since it is sometimes possiblc to decide with ce rtai nty which was the first to be painted . The dcpiction in pl. 6:1 thus shows clearly that 7832 "Popidium aed" is earlie r than 7831 "Helvium aed", since the bottom of the latte r touches the top of the form e r, which would no t occur if 7831 bad been painted first. Similarly 7872 "C. l.P . Ilvir d .r.p ." must be older than 7871 '' M. Lucretium Frontone m" , sincc the latte r, which at its right side is contiguous with the form e r , is abbreviated with ligatures and smalle r letters: sce pl. 5:3. The feature cannot bc thoroughly investigatcd , however, the photogra phic mate rial with programmata recentiora being too limited. 165. J .L. Franklin, 1980, pp. 127-32. 166. The conjunction "et" is thus omitted in 103,155, 188,222,262 ,271 -272 , 297 , 359360, 404,409,447,506 ,597,641,644,660, 1007, 3474,3686,3850,6616,6685,7242, 7245e , 7300,7660,9835 ,9851,9878, and it does no t occur, for example, in 9 o ut of 10 shared notices for the duumviral candidates M. Holconius Priscus and C. Gavius Rufus. 167. This appli es interalia to 1169, which is now kept a t the Museo Nazianale in Naples, and which eve rything suggests is made up of two inde pende nt inscriptions . 7704, howevc r, judging fro m a photograph in the archives in Pompe ii , is obviously a joint inscription for Cn. Audius Bassus and thc quinquennial ca ndidate M. Sa trius Va lens. In additio n to this jo int inscription , sevcral others have been o mitted from Franklin 's Iist. Thus 3725 (L. Albucius Celsus/[-)nius), 518 (M. Calventius/ M. Nollius), 498, 3674 (M. Cascllius Marcellus/M. Samcllius Modestus), 187 (M. Cascllius Marcellus/L. Veranius Hypsaeus quinq .) , 973-974-975 (M. Cc rrinius Vatia/Q. Postumius Proculus/C. Julius Polybius/M. Lucretius Fronto), 262 , 506 (C. Gavius Rufus/M. Holconius Priscus, dv.), 271-272 (M. Lucretius Fronto/C. Julius Polybius), 295 (L. Popidius Sccundus/ C. Lollius Fuscus), 3754 (M. Lucre tius Fronto/Vcrus aed.) , 1077 add. (P. Sittius Magnus/A. Vettius Firmus), 9881, 9882?

••

r

.....

r

191

I

~·

168. 169.

170. 171. 172.

173. 174 .

175.

(P. Paquius Proculus/A. Vettius Caprasius Felix dv.). Sevet:aJ other corrections have alsotobe made to Franktin 's mate rial. 208 thus occurs under aediles, but no office is give n in the inscription , andin 935g, Q. Bruttius Baibus must be duumvi r and P. Vettius Syrticus aedile candidate. In the inscriptio ns 177,709,723,7401,7427, 7819, only one candidate's name is known, and there is therefore no basis for classifying them as jo int programmata for two candidates. As the interpretation of the office in 464 is also very dubious, the gro unds for perceiving P. Paquius Proculus a nd A. Vettius Felix as running-mates at the election for the aedileship d isappear. Finally, 380 must be rejected as a joint inscription for C. Sallustius Capito and A. Vettius Firmus. The inscriptio n is uncertain ly transmitted, a nd as there is neither linguistic connection nor punctuation between the candidates' names, and the candidates' nomenclat ure is also deviant, everything suggests that it consists of two independent inscriptions. Th. Mommsen, CIL X, p. 97. These formul atio ns occur in 635, 3409 , 3668,3760,7145,7316,7429,7539,7618 and 7733. The exception is 7421/7422: J.L. Franklin , 1980, pp. 63-64. See, for example, 3775. Throughout Pompeii's history one e ncounte rs both second- and third-te rm duumviri, the record being held by M. Holconius Rufus, who was duumvir no less than five times. lt has also been found that Ti. C laudius Verus ran again after 62, without this being explicitly no ted in the inscriptions, and the three overlays 3764/3766, 3764/ 3767 and 374113742, where he overlies Flavian candidates, confirm this conclusion. There is also the possibility that this was his third candidature, since G ua rini in 369, where he seems to have the most complete record, reads the addition " te rt" , which could be the remains of " tertio duumvir", cf. 187. The overlay 3537/3538 (not in Franklin), seems certain. There is no reason to doubt that this is a joint inscription. T he candidates are spoken of as "optimos collegas". Overlay not in Franklin , but CIL 323 no tes " infra praecede nte m, cuius v.2 in huius v.l summo positus est".

176. Ove rlay rejected by Franklin , 1980 p. 62, unconvincingly; in fact Ti. Claudius Claudianus runs with A. Rustius Verus, who overlies the Flavia n duumviral candidate C. Calve ntius Sittius Magnus and M. Lucretius Fronto; despite the small number of inscriptio ns for them, they thus seem tobe relatively Iate. 177. See the depiction Ns 1936, p. 322 fig. 8. Likewise 7794 must be older than 7792 for L. Ceius Secundus dv. cand .; 7623 had o n exposure almost e ntirely van ished. By contrast, the adjace nt 7622 for M. Holconius Priscus dv. cand. seems more recent , see Ns 1936, 331 fig. 9, and V. Spinazzola, 1953, fi g. VII. 178. The rejectio n is inconsiste nt with F ranklin's own crite ria fo r accepting do uble programmata, the joint inscrip tion being quite regular and containing "et". 179. Overlays 7506/7507 and 7129c/7129d. 180. Franklin 's hypothesis is in this respect selfaffirming. Some of the overlays and joint programmata are dismissed simply on the grounds that they conflict with other evide nce and wi ll prevent the construction of an exact candidate ch ro no logy. The circularity of the argument is evide nt in his mcthod of adjusting evidence in conflict with his own chro nology: Frank lin 19SO, pp. 39-40,56,58,62-63,73 n. 37,74 n. 38, 75 n. 48, 83-84 and 127-132. 181. Similarly with A. Suettius Verus and N. H ere nnius Celsus, aed. cand. , and with the duumviral candidates M. Epidius Sabinus and A . Suettius Certus. 182. Likewise the aedilician candidates A. Trebius Valens, C. Gavius Rufus, Q. Marius Rufus, M. Epidius Sabinus, A . Vettius Caprasius Felix a nd possibly Vibius Severus dv . cand. 183. I. e. the aedilician candidates L. Ceius Secundus, M. Cerrinius Vatia, Q. Postumius Proculus, M. Licinius Faustinus, C. Lollius Fuscus, P. Vedius Nummianus, the duumviral candidates L. Caecilius Capella, N . Popidius Rufus, M. Lucretius Fronto, C. Julius Po lybius a nd the candidate P. Vettius Cele r. 184. Cf. , for instance, L. Popidius Secundus, whose inscriptio ns can be confused with those ofL. Popidius Ampliatus, N. Popidius Rufus and L. Ceius Secundus, while M. Cerrin ius Vatia's names do not occur among othe r candidates. 185. M. Casellius Marcellus, Cn . Helvius Sabi-

I

192

186.

187.

188.

189.

190.

191.

nus, L. Popidius Secundus , L. Albucius Cclsus and C. Cuspius Pansa , whose corrected number of inscriptions is 649 or 26%. Thus, in the year 79, the best-documented candidate can evince more than twice as ma ny inscriptions as the poorestdocumented. This may partly be due to some candidates having stood before , but can hardly account for the whole differe nce in the a mount of preserved inscriptions. J.L. Franklin, 1980, p . 120. Moreove r, this theory is decisively invalidated by the overlay 1211122 ( pl. 6:2,3), which alters Franklin's chronology of duumvirs. Not least Della Corte's treatmc nt of the question is inte resting, because his fundamenta l " law on rogatores" is selfcontradictory with respect to the procedurc for the posring of e lection no tices and the initiative for this. Thus he statcs "Tutte le volteehe uno scriptor ne l suo giro di propaganda per Ia citta si trovava davanti alla casa di un e lettore influe nte, o a lmeno di un a ttivo propagandista ... sfruttava il nome di que ll'e le ttore o propagandista con l'annoverarlo pubblicame nte tra i fautori del candidato per il quale egli lavorava ... " 1965, p. 19. H ow such a posting procedure, in which the scriptores "sfruttava il nome" can harmonize with the existe nce of "attivi propagandisti" a nd citize ns who " mostra no di appoggia re Je varie candidature", p. 19, is not clear. Dell a Corte does not seem to have conside red thc question pro pe rly , and the procedure skctche d sho uld merely serve as a basis for his occupant ide ntifications. T his view has been wide ly accepted inter alia by H. Tanzer, The Common People of Pompeii, Saltimore 1939, pp . 89-95. R . Etienne, 1966, pp. Ll 7-46 and P. Castre n , 1975, pp. 114-18. T hus initi ally, T. Frank, 1927, p. 269 n. 47, late r E. Magaldi, 1930, pp. 13-160, especially pp. 45-48, and L. Richardso n , ' Po mpeii : The casa dei Dioscuri a nd its painters', Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 23 (1955), p. 82. Rccently , J. L. Frank! in , 1980, pp . 25 and 87-88, but his position is not clear. As for the palaeographical form of the inscriptions, the re is un fo rtunatc ly not e no ugh photographic materia l to permit a survey of differences and similarities with-

192.

193. 194.

195.

196.

197.

in the individual candidates' programmata. Only a few inscriptions a restill extant, a nd the pictorial material with programma ta recentiora is ve ry spa rse a nd unsyste matic , so that not even the in scriptions found in the present cen tury , since the Nuovi Scavi wcre initiated, ca n contribute to a palaeographical analysis eithcr. ln this connection I have to thank Professor A. Bülow-Jacobsen , who has previously concerned bimself with the question, for his kindn ess in putting his rcsults and pictorialmaterial at my disposal. K. Zangemeister accou nts in the introduction to Cl L IV for the difficulties co nnected with locating the earliest published and no Ionger accessible inscriptions, and says among othe r things: " ... summi ac molcstissimi mihi,fuit laboris in c is (inscriptionibus) pictis quae cx actis ta ntum , Museo Borb. a liisque quibusdam libris notae sunt, quarum in hac re tanta saepe a mbiquitate usi sunt , vix ut crcdi possit", praefatio, 35. See CIL IV p. 26. The most recent accounts are Pompei 17481980. I tempi della documentazione, Roma 1981, in which F. Zevi, pp. 11-21 , briefly but precisely sketches the developme nt , a nd Pompei. Travaux et envois des architectes fran(;ais au X/Xe siede, Napoli 1980, pp. 3-35 (with a copio us bibliography and excellent illustra tio ns). Note a lso R. E tie nne, 1966, pp. 45-81, A. Maiuri, 'Gli scavi di Pompei dal1879 al 1948', in : Pompeiana. Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei, Napoli 1950, pp . 9-40, J. Overbeck , Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümem und Kunstwerken, Leipzig 1884 [4th cd.), pp. 25-30, a nd E . Corti 's popular Untergang und Auferstehung von Pompeji und Herculaneum, Münche n 1940. The excavation of Casa de l Centenario bega n in 1879, a nd acco rdin g to Sogliano, Ns 1880, p. 97, also the fa-.;adc to the Via di Nota was excavated at that time. On the Via degli Augustali, one also remarks a distinct difference in th e incidence of inscri ptions east a nd west of Vic. Storto/ Vic. di E umachia, whe re the density is rcspectivcly 0· 1 and 0-4 inscriptions per mctre fa<;adc. The o nl y exceptio n is the Via di Mercurio, which is a cul-de-sac cha ractcrizcd by !a rge mansions. But thc unusual width of the street and its placcment in extension of the

..,...

I

-· Via del Foro could weil explain the relatively high incidence of inscriptions. 198. This means that one cannot derive anything certain from the way inscriptions are distributed between the individual candidates. The conclusions which J. Franklin .I draws on this basis are therefore invalid. It I is, moreover, problematic that Franklin's Iist comprises only inscriptions in which the candidate can be securely identified. This gives further distortions between candidates , since the "certain" ones are very unevenly distributed, cf. p. 42. J.L. Franklin, 1980, pp. 94-100. 199. The source material for this occupant identification is collected in Della Corte, 1965, pp. 344-45. ·200. C. Julius Polybius lived in IX,13,1-3: C. Giordano, 'lscrizioni graffite e dipinte nella casa di C. Giulio Polibio', Rendieanti dell'Accademia di Archeologia Napofi 49 (1974), pp. 21-28. 201. L. Ceius Secundus is recommended by vicini, 7195, at 1,6,15 right; as for his house, see n. 82. 202. For the identification, see Della Corte, 1965, p. 104. 203. M. Casellius Marcellus is recommended by vicini, 3649, 3666, in this street and also features in the inscriptions 3668, 3643 and 4999 found at the same spot. 204. Q. Postumius Proculus is recommended 3387 by vicini, found 1,3,22, while M. Cerrinius Vatia in 443 is supported by neighbours on the Via di Nola. 205. Thus in 6627 found V,4,c left, vicini feature as rogatores forM. Samellius Modestus. 206. There is nothing to suggest that the joint inscriptions are expressions of proper political alliances, for they do not seem to have played any major part in the elections. Not all candidates are thus covered in the joint inscriptions, and with few exceptions these make up only a very small proportion of all the preserved inscriptions of the candidates in question. Nor are there any sure examples of two candidates standing together for both the aedility and the duumvirate (see discussion n. 167). 207. On this, see for example L. R. Taylor, Party Politics in the Age of Caesar, Berkeley 1949, pp. 62-63, 67. 208. On this, see pp. 67. 209. See for example V . Spinazzola, 1953, fig. 360 p. 319 and fig. 475 p. 766.

193 210. IX,7,2 right, IX,7,7 right, IX,7,7 left, and the Via Fortuna, 347. 211. These inscriptions are collected in Zangemeister's introduction to the programmata recentiora in C/L IV p. 10, e.g. CIL XI 4126: "Ita candidatos quod petit fiat tuus/ et ita perennes Scriptoropus hos praeteri/ hoc si impetro a te felix vivas bene vale", CIL V 1490: "lta valeas scriptor hoc monumentum/ praeteri", CIL VI 14313: "Sei hoc monumento ullius candidati nomen/ inscripsero ne valeam". 212. These inscriptions are discussed on pp. 6465. 213. See pp. 17-19. 214. This has happened in the following inscriptions, in which the rogator can with great certainty be identified as a professional scriptor: 660, 1157, 2993da, 3367, 3680, 7348, 7373, 7494, 7525, 9831, 9873. 215. These three verbs of recommendation have the following distribution: facere 13%, cupere 6% and rogare 81%. 216. See pp. 19-20. 217. Note for instance 6647 and 6667, in which a Crocus recommends, and 3491 and 6645, which were found in the vicinity and feature the rogator Salarius. X 826 from 56 AD yields a minister Fortunae Augustae named M. Salarius Crocus: Salarius and Crocus are therefore perhaps one and the same. 218. See p. 43. 219. If one examines, for example, the c. 100m long stretch of the Via dell'Abbondanza from 1,7/IX,ll to IX ,13/1,9, it is found that the fa<;:ades IX ,11,4-8, IX,12,3-6, IX ,13,24, 1,7,2-5 and 1,9,1-5 yield no rogatores. 220. Ariph .. (3470), Faustin .. (434), Fortun!. (695), Fortunat.. (831), Himer.. (3820), Papid .. (980), Secanis (491), Stro .. (9915), Succ .. (9876c), Sula (7963) and Vesvi .. (237), in addition to the inscriptions in which the rogatores are a gentilicium in the plural: 357, 485, 705, 738, 3591, 3592, 9930. 221. This includes not only rogatores whose nomen is given directly in the inscription, but also those where from other sources or indications in the inscription we can with reasonable certainty establish the subject's nomen gentilicium. In the rogator inscriptions one finds the names distributedas follows: nomen 24%, cognomen 66%, nomen and cognomen 8% and tria nomina 0·5%, in addition to a few

194 rarer name combinatio ns . Jt is thus seen that the cogno me n a lready in the 1s t cen tury AD completcly predo minates in relation to the nomen. This develo pme nt s urfaced much later in the literm·y a ncl e pigra phical sou rces but it would havc char acte rized eve ryday socia l intercourse at a much earlier time. Also inte resting is the a lmost comple te disa ppearance of the praenomen. Fora parallel develo pme nt in lite rary so urces, see H. Th ylander, btude sur !'epigraphie /atine (Skrifter utgivna av svenska Institutlet i Ro m V) , Lund 1952, pp. 77-81. 222. On this subj cct, see A .M. Du ff, Freedmen in the Early Roman Empire, O xford 1928, pp. 109-11 a nd 52-58, J . Baumga rt , Die römischen Sklavennamen, Bresla u 1936, H . Thylander, 1952, pp . 122 a nd 143-67, a nd above a ll H. Solin, Beiträge z ur Kenntnis

der griechischen Personennamen in Rom

223. 224.

225.

226. 227 .

(Commentationes Humanarum Litte rarum 48 ) , H e lsinki 1971, with the mate rial co llection Die griechischen Personennamen in Rom. Ein Namenbuch, Be rlin a nd New Y o rk 1982 1-III. H . Solin, 1971, p. 137. Greek namcs thus occur extre m ely ra re ly among members of the freebo rn uppe r class. In Augustan a nd Julio-Cia ud ian times, thc re is o nly o ne unequivocal example of this, the m agistrare N . Paccius N. f. C hilo from 14 BC. From the last periocl there is C. Julius P o lyb ius (presumably a descenda nt o f a n impe ria l freedman) , a nd the two C n . Po mpe ii Grosphi and L. Sextilius Lalus, who is, however , very te nuo usly documented. I. Kajanto, The Latin Cognomina (Commentationes Huma na rum Litterarum 36,2), He lsinki 1965, p. 131. J . Andreau , 1974 , pp. 13 1-62 and 275-77. There are thus many examples of names with ide ntical o r re lated meanin g, but which are d iffere ntly d isposed a mo ng slaves and freedm en , and th e re fore li kcly to have had different social connotations. Note for insta nce Faustus and Fa ustinus, with slave coverage of respectively 25% and 4%, and F eli x and Felicia nus, with respectively 15% a nd 3%. Both examples illustrate th e importa nce of th e suffix. La nge r endingstend to have hig her sta tus, j ust as the ending -io had a distin ctly servile r ing to it. In o ther cases, the diffe rences can not be imme di ate ly explained, for ex-

ample Primus has a slave/frceclman proportio n o f J7% a nd Secundus of 8%, whilc Rufus with 2% was a cognomen ingenuum, and Rufa with 35% was predominantl y servile. A single group of namcs, those with r elation to the body, seem to have had an independent social character of cognomi na inge nua. This is, ho weve r, due in my opinion not to thei r mea ning, but is a histori ca lly de tc rmine d phenomenon: fro m carly on they were po pul ar in the R o m an uppe r class, a nd throug h th e ir pro mine nt bearers they thereby attaincd hig h social sta tus . Based on a n investigatio n of the developme nt in R o m an nomenclature from R epublica n to C hristia n times, H. Solin has com e to a similar conclusio n , the most important cha nge in the course of this peri od no t being in the names' m ea ning, but in their form. H. Solin , ' Die inn ere Chronologie des rö mische n Cogno me ns', in: L 'onomastique latine , Paris 1977, pp. 10345. 228. The proportion of slaves/frcedmen in the urban-R o ma n inscri ptions has been calcula te d o n the basis partly of Solin's figures for the distribution o f na m cs am o ng pcrsons ex plicitly sta ted to be s laves/freedme n a nd freebo rn and partly of Kajanto's count of Lat in , G ree k a nd barbaria n cognom ina in the urban-Ra m a n inscripti o ns. Solin gives the freedme n distributio n of 31% Latin , 67% Greck a nd 2% ba rbaric a nd the freemen 's as 89%, 10% a nd 1%, while Kajanto's fig ures fo r the to ta l distri butio n is41·5% Latin,56% Greekand2·5% barbaria n . Solin 's figures show that the number of barbarian cogno min a has probably been o ve rsta te d by Ka ja nto, an d if we igno re this insignificant gro up , the following eq uatio n can be de rived, w here X a re freeborn and Y freedme n , tagether m aking up 100 %: La tin cogno min a X x 0· 10 + Y x 0·67 = 56 Greck cognomina X x 0·89 + Y x 0·31 = 41·5 The first gives X = 19·3 a nd Y = 80·7 and the second X= 18·1 and Y = 81·9. H. Solin , 197 1, pp. 124 a nd 156. I. Kaj anto,

Onomastic Studies in the Early Christion lnscriptions of Rome and Carthage (Acta In stituti R omani Finlandiae 2 (1963)) , p. 51. 229. On the basis o f the figures in n . 228, this pro porti on is calculated as follo ws: 0·31 X 8 1·3/(0 ·3 1 X 81 ·3 + 0·89 X 18·7).

.......

... 195 230. lf onc assu mes, for example, that freedmen madc up 20% of the population, the following calculatio n can be made with the aid of the figures in n. 228: 0·31 X 20 X 100/(0·31 X 20 + 0·89 X 80), / which shows that on ly 8% of the beare rs of Latin cognomen we re slaves/freedmc n. 23 1. Whc n cvaluating na mes, I have fo llowed Solin's principl e that names which for phonetic rcasons or by tradition have proba bly bccn pcrceived as Latin sho uld be classificd under Latin cogno mina. H. Solin 1971, pp. 49-55. 232. Thus 494, 537,597, 768,840,875,998, 1048,1150,2966,3423,3476,3478,3483, 3529, 7147, 7261 , 7643; it sho uld be added that494 and 7147 arc appcals to the named party. 233. On the ordinary sta nding of these occupations, see R. MacMullc n , Roman Social Relations, Ncw H avc n & London 1974, pp . 138-40. 234. "Cii cns" Features in 593, 822, 933, 1011 , 1016, 2925, 7275, 7279, 7418, 7605, 7685 a nd 7851, ancl " libe rtus" in 910, 1041 , 2966, 2983 and 2993p. 235. On this, sec for example R .P . Salier, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire, Cambridge 1982, pp. 8-11. 236. T he rc ca n bc some difficulty in identifying thesc inscriptions, because "facit" is sometimcs abbrcviated " fac", for example 499 a nd 7630, a nd a few " fac" inscriptions, whcrc the vocative form does no t differ fro m the nominative, can thus be ordinary rogator inscriptions. The ab brevia tio n " rog" for " roga" can a lso occur, e.g. 7306c, a ndin some inscriptio ns where the vocativc cannot be distinguishecl it may be an ap peal instead of a recommendation. 237. Of36 identifiablecognomina 15 are Greek a nd 4 servile Latin. 238. Also thosc who are not themselves documcntcd in the c lectora l inscriptions, but are promised suppo rt in a fut ure candidature, arc regarded as candidates, and the group thc refore comprises the following candidatcs: Q. Bruttius Baibus (935i), M. Cascllius Marcellus (3668), Ti. C la ucl ius Verus (7360), C. Cuspius Pansa ( 1068, 1071 ), C. Julius Polybius (7942), Lorcius (7517, 7539, 7733), M. Obellius Firmus (3828), Proculus (635), M . Pupius Rufus (6678), Rufinus (3409), A. Trebius Va le ns (7429, 76 14, 76 18, 7619,7624, 7632), P.

Vedius Siricus (805). 239. Thus the candidates in 7517, 7614 and 7632 and thosc appealed to in 822, 3718, 7632, 7649, 7650, 7703 and 9885. 240. Thus P. Willems, 1886, pp. 26-35, J .-P. W a ltzing, Etude historique sur /es corporations professionelles chez /es Romains, Bruxelles 1895-1900, I pp. 169-72, Ill , pp. 11 5-18; W . Liebena m , Zur Geschichte und Organisation des römischen Vereinswesen, Le ipzig 1890, pp. 35-37; M. De lla Corte, 1965, pp. 59-60, 121, 146, 181-82, 188-89, 208,229-30, 259-60; T. Frank, An EconomicSurveyofAncient Rome, 1959, p. 260; R. Etienne, 1966, p. 139; H. SchulzFalkenthal, 'Die Magistratswahlen in Pompeji und d ie Kollegien', Altertum 17 (197 1), pp. 24-32; W.O. Moeller, The Woo/ Trade of Ancient Pompeii, Leiden 1976, pp. 83-97, 105-1 1; P.Castren, 1975 , pp. 11 5-16. 241. In the inscription found in the Porta Nocera necropo lis, 11 OS, he isspoken of as "omnium collegiarum benemeritus", but as a lso J. Andreau has concluded: " ... Ia significa tio n reste obscure": J . Andreau, 1974, p. 208. 242. 209,221, 7240,7617,7665,7777. This does not include 3529: "Mustius fu llo fac it et dealbat scr unicus sine reliq sodali b .. ", which can ha rdl y be called a recommendation from sodales. 243. Tacitus, Ann. 14, 17: "Et ru rsus rc ad patres relata, prohibiti publice in dece m annos e ius modi coetu Pompeiani collegiaque quae contra Ieges institueran t disso luta". 244. Three carry appeals to occupational groups: 183, 336, 609. 245. 609 found VII,9,13. 246. The following Pompeian groups represented in Wa ltzing's Iist o f "corporations municipalcs du Haut-Empire", 1895-1900, II pp. 145-57 are attested on ly in Pompeii: agricolae, a/liari, lignari plostrari, offectores, pomari, tegettari, tonsores, unguentari, aurifices, clibanari, gallinari, {ignari. 247. Only a few occupations can be localizcd in pa rtic ula r houses, a mong them fullingshops a nd bakeries, and in the vici nity of the fo llowing recommendations from these occupational gro ups, an establishme nt can be identified: 7164 in 1,6,7, 864 in IX,3,32, 78 12 in IX,7 ,2, 886 in VII,2, 1-2 and 7838 in 1X ,7,7. 248. Such rogatores feature in 575 , 576, 58 1, 11 47, 7585, 7787 and 7851.

196 249. 128, 470, 480, 783, 7676, 7706, 7747. On the interprctation of this, see: P. Willems, 1887, pp. 86-69; A. Mau, 'ßibliografia Pompeiana', Römische Mitteilungen 4 (1889), pp. 299-300; G. Spano, 'Porte e regioni pompeiane e vie campane', Rendieanti deii'Accademia di Archeologia Napoli 17 (1937), pp. 267-360; I. Sgobbo, 'Un complesso di cd ifici sannitici e i quarticri di Pompei per Ia prima volta riconosciuti' , Memorie deii'Accademia di Archeo/ogia Napali 6 (1942), pp. 15-41; P. Castn!n, 1975, pp. 79-82. 250. As "Forenses" among othcr things can a lso refer to "Forum traders", the identification of this group is less certain. Thus E. Magaldi, ll commercio ambulante di Pompei, Napoli 1929, pp. 27-28. 251. Likewise V. Tran Tam Tinh, Essai sur le cutte d'Jsis a Pompei, Paris 1964, P. Castre n , 1975, p. 115, and N. Rouland, Pouvoir politique et dependancepersonelle dans l'Antiquite romaine. Genese et rote des rapports de dientele (Coll. Latomus 166), Bruxelles 1979, pp. 581-602. 252. In a fcw instances the inscriptions thus seem to have been painted by the houseowners themselves, e.g. 3529, sce n. 53; in other cascs, where CIL comments "manu impcrita", we are perhaps dealing with the product of an amateur scriptor. 253. On the date of the Roma n conquest, sce G.O. Onorato, 1951, pp. 124-31, a nd C. Gatti, 'Sull 'ordinamento istituzio nale di Pompei dopo Ia conquista romana' , Atti del Centro studi e documentazione su/1'/ta/ia romana 6 (1974-75), pp. 167-71; on the colony's dating V. Weber, 'Entstehung und Rechtsstellung der römischen Ge me inde Pompeji', Klio 57 (1975) , pp. 182-87. 254. H. Rudolph, Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien, Leipzig 1935, pp. 151-52, 88 n. 2 and 93 n. 1. 255. G.O. Onorato, 1951, pp. 115-56. 256. ProSulla60-62. PlinytheEider,HN2.137 and 14.38. 257. Thus for example E. Gabba, rcview of F. Sartori, Problemi di storia costituzionale itaLiota, Roma 1953, in Athenaeum 32 (1954), pp. 287-88, reprinted in Esercito e societa nella tarda repubblica romana, Fire nzc 1973, pp. 600-09, and H.-J. Gehrke, 'Zu r Gemeindeverfassung von Pompeji', Hermes 111 ( 1983), pp. 485-87. 258. A. Degrassi, 'La questura di Pompei' (Epigraphica III , 13), Memorie dei/'Accade-

259. 260.

26 1.

262.

mia dei Lincei 13 (1967), pp. 46-49, reprinted in Scritti vari di antichita III , Venczia 1967 , pp. 145-48; V. Weber, 1975, pp. 198-99; C. Gatti, 1975, pp. 165-78; H.-J. Gehrke, 1983, pp. 47 1-90. P. Castren , 1975, pp. 49-55. On Cicero's reference, sec pp. 86-87; Pliny the E lde r's remarks are generally considcred worthlcss as a source an Pompeii's status in this period, since at the time when Pliny mentioned Pompeii as a municipium , thc distinction between coloniac anclmunicipi a was no Ionger so rigidly maintained, ancl " municipium " was employed of both typcs of town, almost as a synonym for oppidum. Thus also H.-J. Gehrke, 1983, p. 477. P. Castren, 1975, p. 5 L. Forsimilardoubts, sec A. Degrassi, 'Q uattuorviri in colanie romane e in municipi retti da duoviri', Memorie deli'Accademia dei Lincei 2 (1949), pp. 28 1-344, p. 287 n. 49, reprinted in Scritti vari di antichita I , Roma 1962, pp. 99-177; F. Sartori, Probfemi di storia costituziona/e italiota, Roma 1953, p. 155; and C. Letta in: E . Campanile & C. Lctta, Studi sul/e magistrature indigine e municipali in area italica (Orientamenti lingu istici 11), Pisa 1979, p. 78 n. 216. Nuceria sccms after the Social War, like other me mbers of thc Nucerian League, to have been transformed into a municipium , which must have Iasted hcre till afte r Philippi, when a colony was established in the town, L. Keppie, Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in ltaly 47-14 BC, Rome 1983, pp. 150-52. The officials are not known , but since by far the major part of the municipi a established after 89 were governed by quattuorviri, everything suggests that Nuceria, too , had this type of administratio n. I do not find Sartori's theory of a municipium ad ministered by duumviri as a relic from the Oscan meddices convincing , F. Sartori, 1953, pp . 145-58. In Hcrculaneum, which should be a parallel to Nuceria, there was thus one meddix before 91 and duumviri aftcr, see C. Letta, 1979, ibid. The magistratein X 1075 can thus weil have he ld an official post in Nuceria, where the q uattuorvirate seems to havc existccl considerably Ionger than in Pompeii. A late r dating woulcl also better fit the in· scription 's well-disposecl structure, which see ms latcr than the one normally seen in the early colony. H. Dessau , 'C. Quinctius Valgus, der Er-

......

...... 197

263. 264.

265.

266 .

267. 268. 269. 270.

bauerdes Amphitheate rs zu Pompeii' , Hermes 18 (1883), pp . 620-22; H . Gundel, 'C. Quinctius C.f. Va lgus' , RE 24 ( 1963), 1103-1104; and P.B . Harvey, 'Socer Valgus, Valgii, and C. Quinctius Va lgus', in: Classics and the Classical Tradition . Essays Presented to Robert E. Dengier on the Occasion ofhis Eightieth Birthday , Pe nnsylvania 1973, pp. 79-94. H. Gundei doubts Dessa u's ide ntification with the Valgus/ Valgi us who features in Cicero's De lege agraria 3.2.8. and 3.4.1 4, but P .B. Ha rvey argues convincingly for it. G.O. Onorato, 1951, p. 152 n. 3 ; A. Degrassi, 1949, p. 288 n . 50. L. Septumius and D. Claudius. P. Castre n also regards Cuspius a nd M . Loreius as colonists, but furnishes no evide nce for this: Castren 1975 , pp. 161 and 184. In fact M. Loreius' gentilicium has a distinctly Oscan ring. Thus, for example , C. Gatti, 1975, p. 166 and E. Gabba, 1954, p. 288. P. Castren, 1975, p. 88. On the darn age resulting from the Roman bombardment, see A .W. van Buren , 'Further Studies in Pompeia n A rchaeology', Mem oirs of the American Academy in Rome 5 (1925) , pp . ll0-11. The dating ofX 844 and 937 to early Roman times is supported by the absence of " 10" after the duumvirate . This definition Features in all other Republican tituli in which duumvirs a re a ttested , a nd it the re fo re already seems to have come into widespread use in the course of the colony's earliest period. This clearly contradicts H. Rudolph's hypothesis tha t it was first introduced in connection with Caesar's municipal reform: H. Rudolph , 1935, pp. 108-09 . Cf. the criticism in A.N. Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, Oxford 1973 (2nd ed .), pp . 162-64; and A .J . Toynbee, Hannibal's Legacy, Lo ndon 1965, I, pp. 235-36. Th. Mommsen , CIL X, p. 93. Also: A. Degrassi, 1949, pp. L07-08; E. M anni , Per la storia dei municipi fino alla guerra sociale, Rom a 1947, pp. 203-04 ; and G. Wesen e r, ' Quattuorviri ' , RE 24 ( 1963) , 855. See p. 78 and the Iist o f candidates a nd magistrates pp. 83-84. X 803/804. See p. 78. See n. 3 18. A "Q" also features in 7126 for Alleius, but it is uncertain whether this designa tes the

office, since Iine 2 reads " .. V VB Q I.. ", a nd "[ IIJV" may be restored at the beginnmg. 271. P. Castren, 1975, p. 51. 272. " Q " features in lists of abbreviat ions e mployed in Latin inseriptions as abbreviation only for quaestor and quinquennalis. 273. The earliest known Po mpeian duumviri quinque nnales are C. Qu inctius Valgus and M . Porcius in X 852 , dated a bove to early Roma n times. 274. For example 7629. By fa r the commonest abbreviation in programmata rece ntiora is " quinq ", but the o ldest electoral inscriptions are generally more summary than these . 275 . H. La ute r, ' Be merkunge n zur späthelle nistischen Baukunst in Mittelitalie n', Jahrbuch des deutschen archäologischen Instituts 94 (1979), pp . 390-459, p. 423. 276. The inscriptio n's Substrate is me ntioned by A. Sogliano, 'II foro di Po mpei', Mem orie dell'A ccademiadei Lincei l (1925), p . 250 , a nd idem, Pomp ei nel suo sviluppo storico. Pompei preromana , Ro ma 1937, pp. 255. 277. A.Sogli ano, 1925, pp . 249-5 1, a nd 1937, pp. 254-57; E. Maga ldi , 1937, p . 60; A. & M. de Voss, 1982, pp . 32-33. 278. E. Vette r, 1953, no. II , 12, 16, 17, 18 , 19. 279 . G.O. O no rato, 1951, pp. 116-24. Also H. Nissen, Pampeionische Studien zur Städtekunde des Altertums, Leipzig 1877, p. 307 no te, A. Degrassi, 1967, p. 47, and V. Weber , 1975, p. 200, de ny that Latin could be used in an official inscription in Samnite Pompeii. 280. A s a pa rallel to this, one may merely refe r to the trave rtine portico on the Forum which was already begun in the early Imperial pe riod, a nd was still not fini shed whe n the ea rthquake occurred in 62. 28 1. G .O . Ono rato, 1951, pp. 137-39. 282. This theory has been adopted from A . Mau, CIL IV, p. 460, and it is reiterated in E. Manni , 1947, pp. 205-07, V. Weber, 1975, pp. 202-03, and C. Gatti, 1975, p. 174. 283. The above-mentioned fu ne rary inscriptio n X 1036 is the only Pompeian instance eommemorating the aedileship along with the subj ect's higher offices, whereas it is mentioned in the funerary inscriptions Ns 1910,402 and X 1019, in which the magistrates have served only as aedi les. 284. For the unique collocation of duumviri 10 and aediles, see the two tituli X 826 a nd

198

285.

286.

287. 288.

289.

827 from the fift ies AD, while it sho uld be noted, for example, that the aedile title is employed in X 801 and I 1636, where on ly these two officials a re involved. Th is can also explain the unusual disposition of offices in the Republican inscri ption X 819, where both a duumvir ID and two duumviri occur . The latter must be identical with aed iles, but have, due to the aversion to the combination " duumviri ID" and "aediles", not been designated as such, and as the additio n " V ASPP" had not yet been introduced, they are merely called "duumviri". 50, 53, 54, 56, 70. P. Castre n, 1975, p. 174, also identifies a M. Herennius as interrex candidate on the basis of 48 and 9827. In CIL , however, 48 rcads "M .. H.R.NTI .... " and sho uld therefore rather be restored M(A].H[E]R[E]N[NIUM] than M(A].H(E]R(I]N(TE] which Castren would seem to favour. In 9827, which features the candidate " M. HER", Castren e me nds "IMP" to " JNT", which seems to me to be palaeographically extremely dubious. Furthermore, the inscription does not date to the ea rly colo ny, but to a considerably later time (see n. 314), and H ere nnius, if he is a magisterial cand idate, is more li kely Nucerian. R.S. Conway, The ltalic Dialects, Cambridge 1897, I p. 55 n. 2, has suggested that this ward be interpreted " liner", which is the Oscan term for duumvir, but as CI L 56, 54, 53 reproduces this as the ligature Il"f, where T is amalgamated with the second hasta of N, this interpretation cannot be sustained. 74 and 7120. Interpreted as interrex, " inte r" might for example refer to a magistrature that Popi dius had already he ld at an earlie r juncture. T hus, if he had ser ved in a provisional capacity during the Social War or immediately afterwa rds, the me ntion of it in the e lectoral notices could be explained as a kind of agnomen acquired by this office. There is great uncertainty among scholars as to when the cognomcn came into widespread use among !arge parts of the population. The discussion has often been impression istic, and it has common ly been overlooked that there are regional and socia l d ifferences. Th. Mommsen claimed that the municipal uppe r dass some way into the Imperial era features without cog-

290.

29 1.

292.

293.

294.

295.

296.

nomen , Römische Staatsrecht, Leipzig 1887, lll, p. 210, and this view recurs in A. Mau , 'Cognomen', RE 4 (1900), 226. W. Schulzedates its widespread adoption to Claudian times, Zur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen, Berlin 1904, p. 497, whereas R. Cagnat, Cours d'epigraphie latine, Paris 1914 [4th ed.], p. 52, maintains "a partir de Sylla on les re ncontre d 'une faC10n a peu pres constante". H. T hylander, 1952, concludes p. 103 that " le surnom est employe habituellement a partir de l'epoque d'Auguste". Most recently 0. Salomies has treated the subject in Die römischen Vornamen. Studien zur römischen Namengebung (Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 82), Helsinki 1987, pp. 277-311, and estimated( p. 389) that the cognomen at the birth of C hrist bad a dispersion of c. 30%, rising to 65% a nd 85% in 50 and 75 AD. T he early period yields two ce rtain instances of magistra res with cognomen: C. Quinctius Va lgus and N. Veius Barcha. Note also the doubtfu l L. Veranius Cocles. X 824, where Cn. Melissaeus Aper's cognomen is omitted, shows that this cou ld also happen to o ne of the d uum viri. This examination has shown that the introd uction of cognomina must have been earlicr than hitherto assumed. Jt is worth considering whether it was introduced administrative ly in connection with Caesar's Lex Julia Municipalis from 45 BC. The Iex ordained that a person must on census registration give "nomina praenomina patres aut patronos tribus cognomina e t quot a nnos" (CIL 1(2) 593 line 146). T he treatmcnt of the Pompe ian inscriptions' epigraphical fo rm is bascd on an examination of all inscriptions still found in situ in Pompeii, and most of those preserved in the National Museum at Naples and the store-rooms in Pompe ii; a few havc, however, not been accessible , whilc a few could not be traced. C lear examples of the two types, the preclassical and the classical, are shown in pl. 10: L (X 852), 11:2 (X 829), 8:2 (X 887), 7:3 (X 9 LO, X 892) and 8:4 (X 947, X 1037. T he actuarial scrip t can be illustrated with pl. 8: 1 (X 905), 9:2 (X 826) and 9:3 (X 797). T he earliest Iargely classical inscription is the honorific in scriptio n X 832 for the

.....

-~

199

j 297. 298.

299. 300. 301.

302. 303.

304. 305.

306.

city's pa tron M. Claudius C. f. Marccllus, Augustus' "crown prince" in the years 2523 BC, pl. 10:2. The latcst data ble inscriptio n with pre-classical features is thc dedication X 885-886, which can be datcd to 14 BC , pl. 7: 1-3 . T he likewise pre-classical dedica tion of magistri pagi Augusti Felicis suburbani , X 184, may, howeve r, be later tha n this, for in X 924 fro m 7 BC the ministri a re called " primi". Thus in X 787, 810,820, 955 , 960, 1074, 11 ES. For example A. Mau , Pompeji in L eben und Kunst, Leipzig 1908, p. 186, a nd A. & M . dc Voss, 1982, p. 49. Un impegno per Pompei, 1983, no. 29 OS. A. Sogli ano, Ns 1900, p. 148. In CIL doubt is ex pressedas to whc the r the inscription 's " M. Po[-]" is M . Porcius or M . Popidius. Yet the M . Popidius Ap.f., who features in thc fun era ry inscription X 957 , is, unlike M. Porcius, not documen ted as a magistrate; the le tters of X 956 are, mo reover, distinctly Re publican, whcreas X 957 sccms to bc early Augustan . On the dating of M . Popidius Ap.f., see V. Kocke l, 1983, pp. 175-76. In this connection it should be no ted that Castre n (1975, p. 207) inve nts a ncw Pompeia n, M. Popidius, who is, he claims, diffe re nt fromM . Po pid ius Ap .f. in X 957. The suggestio n fo undcrs on the fact tha t Cl L 's hypothc tical inte rpre tation ofX 856 as refe rring to M . Popidius is a conseque nce of thc cxiste nce of M . Popidius Ap.f. in X 857. See n. 262. On the inte rpretation and placement of this laconicum and destrictarium , see H. Eschebach , '" ... laconicum ct destrictarium faci und ... locarunt. .. ". U nte rsuchungen in der S tabiane r T he rmen zu Pompej i', RM 80 (1973) , pp. 235-42. Seen. 265. P . Maccius' cogno me n is uncerta in , but H. -J. Gehrke's suggestio n that hebe idc ntified with P. Maccius Velasianus, who is docume nted in Ns 1898, 422, can hardly be acceptcd. M au's reading " Melas" is inter alia confirmed in Cl L I ,2, a nd neithcr Sogliano nor Mancini reads Velas but Selas a nd Veius. Moreover , a n abbreviation of Velasia nus to Velas does not seem imm ediately plausible. H .-J . Ge hrke, 1983, p. 481. P. Castre n, ' About the lcgio X eq uestris',

307.

308.

309.

3 10.

3 11. 312. 313. 3 14.

Aretos 8 (1974), p. 5-7; R. Frei-Sto lba, ' Legio X Equestris' , Talanta 10-11 (197879) , pp. 44-61; L. Keppie, 1983, p. 32. The tomb itsclf does not seem to furnish grounds for a closer da ting ; it may be Republican. Un impegno per Pompei, 17 OS. On this basis, the following chronology in the activity of the gens Tillia can be p ropounded. Aro und 50 BC, the gens Tillia arri ved in Po mpeii, after Tillius senior had been aedile ID in A rpinum a nd both he and T illius junior augurs in Verulae. They must have bcen respective ly 50-55 a nd 2025 years old. Up to c. 40 BC , Tillius senior twice fill ed the duumvirate in Pompeii , and d ied shortly afterwards. His sons served in thc 40s and 30s in the C ivil Wa r as tribuni militum , a nd o ne of the m thc n bccame duumvir in Pompeii. Around 20 BC, a t least one of the Tillii juniores dicd, a nd the mo nume ntal inscription 17 OS was put up. Taking account of I 1634's archaic charactcr , ofTillius jun ior's augurate in Verulae , and of thc service o f both sons in the X leg. equest. , this reconstructio n is, I believe, fa r more p la usible than L. Keppie's cla im that the a rri val of the ge ns Tillia in Pompeii postdated the B attle of A ctium (1 983, p. 107). This inscri ption, whi ch was first discovered scveral years after the sto ne's other one , sec ms tobe very wcakly incised. Thus Ma u wro te Cl L X p. 968: "Secundus titulus fortasse venit ab otioso quodam qui priore m neglegentc r aut expresserit aut imitatus sit", a nd altho ugh , on p. 1006, afte r reexaminati on, he abandoned the idea that it derived "ab ho mine otioso", thcre can be no doubt that he considered it tobe a la ter addition. The endings -ium and -um are thus very freque ntl y o mitted: in con trast to thc later programmata, the re are man y ligatures in the candidate na mes. K. Zangemciste r, CJL IV , p . 1. 8, 9, 10, 27, 40 , 73, 75, 82. See , for example, the illustratio n in Ns, 1936, p . 331 fi g. 9 , and CIL IV , pl. 1 no. 1. 9826 and 9827 found in the Porta Nocera nccropolis refer respectively to a [ C l]odius and a M . He r(ennius) imp , who are presumably Nuceria ns (see n. 429). The inscriptions have been published as programmata a ntiquissima, but can on archacological evidence be dated to the last yea rs of thc Republic or to the Augustan pcriod . This

200 underlines the fact that dipinti sccm to have been better preserved on tombs tha n on fat;ades (cf. p. 36). T he two inscriptions are from tomb 6 EN ( dated in Un impegno per Pompei 11) .

315. L. Acutius (7), P. Furius (2892), M . Marius (43, 3347), M. Septumius (40 add.), N. Veius Barcha (45, 49 , 72), and an unknown candidate (80). 316. L. Maevius in 6604, 7125 and 9825 has been considered identical with L. Mevius L.f. in I 1634, which could be dated to la te Republican times. Such a dating of programmata antiquissima will , however, conflict with all othe r indications for the chrono logica f placement o f this gro up o f inscriptions, and it is thcrefore morc likely a case of father a nd son. 3 17. This applies, for example, to X 938: D. Claudius is known through 7 inscriptions, L. Septumius a nd Cuspius are known through one each, a nd M. Loreius is not attested at a ll in programmata. 3 18. Scveral ca ndidates whom D e lla Corte or Castren have dated to this period do not feature in the Iist: Vibius Cac., whom Castre n dates to R epublican times, is attested onl y in 166, which is a programma recentius (Castren, 1975, p. 240). Cassius and Casellius I have no t found a ttested, a nd their inscriptio ns occur unde r Velassius (see n. 334-335). C n. Nigidius, who features in Castren , is very doubtful, for 2905 reads merely "Cn. N i[-]", and several other gentes could be involved: Castren, 1975, p. 195. The C. Laecanius [Succe]ssus inscription 7014 was assigned by Mau to dipinti rece ntio res, but Della Cortc, invoking the script, which he claimed was a ntiq uissim a , as weil as the abbrevia tion "Q" (which he believed stood for quaestor), later suggestcd that it was a programma antiquissimum : Dclla Corte, 1965, pp. 106-7. H e identified the rogator Libellaas M. Alleius Luccius Libe lla (quinquennalis in 25 AD). T here is a serious inconsistency he re. D ella Corte seems at the same time to argue for a Republican and T iberian date. The formerwas adopted by A. Degrassi, 1967, p. 48, V. Weber , 1975, p. 201 n . 142 and C. Gatti, p. 173 n. 68, who date the inscription to the early colony, the la tter by P. Castren , who dates it to Julio-Ciaudian times, 1975, p. 180. T he identification of the inscription 's Libella with the known magistrate from 25

3 19.

320.

32 1.

322.

323.

324.

AD must, from the sta rt, be termed purely conjectural, and the re is in my opinion no basis either for regarding the inscription as a progra mm a a ntiquissimum . Firstly, Mau placed thc inscription be tween the morc rece nt dipinti without remarking on e ither the inscription 's agc or its palaeography, a nd his evaluatio nm usta t a ll evcnts bc accorded greater value than Dcll a Co rte's (cf. pp. 13-26 a nd H. Solin , 1973, pp. 258ff.). Secondly , the abbreviation "Q" can , as demonst ra tcd earlie r, be inte rpreted otherwise than as quaestor. Thirdly, no o ther exa mples of rogatores are known in programmata a ntiq uissima, and fo urthly, both rogator and ca ndidate have cogno me n, which is very unusual in the early colo ny. The inscription must thcrefore be assigned to programmata reccntiora and be da ted afte r 50 AD. Castren, 1975, p. 133, places this inscription among those of the Ne ronian magistrare Cn. Alleius N igid ius Maius, but in fact it is a programma a ntiquissimum from the Republican period. T he existence of this candidate is doub tful , bangi ng on a combinatio n of the frag ments "RRI" from 2883 and "Q. AR" from 2894. T he fami ly is, however, attcsted in Pompeii, and as 2894 ca nnot be M. Artorius, the interpretation must be regarded as plausib le. In Castren's Iist of D. C laudius' inscriptions, 32, 2898, 2890 and 3348 are omitted without discussion, a ltho ugh they all una mbiguously me ntio n this candidate. 1975, p. 154. This candidate could , as suggested by Castren, 1975, p. 174, be identical with thc Ma. Herennius who occurs in a n Oscan programma, Vetter no. 30 , for the praenomen in 48 might be interprcted as " Ma. ". lf so, this will be a corroboration of the dating of programmata antiq uissima to the early colony. 8 1 is restored in CJL as M. Marius and occurs in Castre n , 1975, p. 189 under that candidate. But as only "M.M" is preserved, it may a lso be the Iater known candidate M. Me lissaeus. In Castren , J975, p. 190, there is with this candidate a confusion of new and old programmata, which - by way of compromis..:? - a re datecl to A ugusta n tim es. Two candidates are in fact involved , a Republican a nd a Neronia n- Flavian. 7 127 is also omit-

....

-· ted without any explanatio n. 325. lt is suggested in C/L that 6603 be rcndcred as "[Maev]iu(m) ", which is a totally inadequate basis for a rcstitution. 326. 2919 and 3353 are not included in Castre n, I 975, p. 199, but they seem no less doubtful than 25, which is accepted. 327. Castren, 1975, p. 201, seems tothinkthat the inscripti on is post-Augustan, butthat dating ne ithe r agrees with his usual dating of programmata a ntiquissima nor, I believe, with the date of this category of inscriptions. 328. Of 82 a nd 2910, only "OM" is prescrved , but Pomponius is the only candidate in programmata antiquissima whose name includes this combination of letters. 329. 74 is not included in CastnSn's catalogue, and 7120 features between the Flavian ca ndidate L. Popidius Rufus' inscriptio ns: Castn!n , 1975, p. 207. A lthough praenomen does not occur in these inscriptio ns, they a re he re attributed to C. Popidius, no othe r Popidii featu ring in the oielest electo ral inscriptio11s. 330. See 11 . 301. 331. Ofthis inscription fragme11t 011ly " (-]ORCI(-]1(-]EDER(-]" is preserved , a nd line 1 is construed by A. Soglia no as Porcius. The material , which is trave rtine, sho uld according to Soglia no confirm the identification of M. Porcius M. f. It seems othe rwise to bc a dcdicatory inscriptio n , since line 2 can be read "dederunt". 332. O nl y "SEXT[-]" is preserved of 3341, but as the praeno me n is never written in full , it must convey a gentilici um , which in this period can only be Sexti lius. 333. The cand idate namc in 9822 is interpre tcd by Delta Corte in CIL and by Castrcn , 1975 , p. 234, as " [P]. VE[ID]JUM" , but as the fragmentsalso permit the readings "Vesbius" a nd " Vettius", the inscription cannot be brought un der P. Veidius. 334. By inadvertence Zangemeister first read "ACASS(-]L", and later " M . VE[L]ASSID". Castre n accepts both rcadings, th ereby turning o ne candidate into two. As Zangemeister's later reading should be accorded precedence, therc is no evidence for a Republiean cand idate called Casellius: 1975, pp. 150 a nd 235. 335. Della Corte construed "ASSI UM" as "Cassium", a nd this conj ecture is accepted by Castren , 1975, p. 150, who ide ntifies the candidate with thc- imagin ary -

201

336. 337.

338. 339.

340.

341. 342. 343.

344.

Augusta n magistrate of the same name in X 915 (see p . 93). No Cassi us is known in thi s period , and it is a priori mo re likely th at we a re dealing with thc Velassius a lready attested in 35 add. Vetter, no. 23-35, a nd R. A nto nini , 1977, pp. 33 1-38. T hus H. Nissen, 1877, pp. 496-5 10, followcd inter afia by E. Vetter, 1953, pp . 5455. Fora recent discussion, see A.L. Prosdocimi , ' Le "eftun s'" Popofi e civilta deff'ftafia antica, 6 ( Lingue e diafetti), Roma 1978, pp. 874-78. H . Ni sse n, 1877, ibid. Vetter, no. 29-30a-h , and R. Antonini, 1977, pp. 336-37. The officc is found in Vette r no. 29, 30 , 30e, 30h. Thc Oscan magistraturcs a redealt with by E.T. Salmo n , Samnium and the Samnites, Cambridge 1967, pp. 84-9 1, A.Sogliano, 1937, pp. 153-58, and F. Sartori , 1953, pp. 70-71. E.T. Salmo n me ntio ns on p. 89 that the quattuorvirate was "possibly" found in Auficlena a ncl re fe rs to Vetter 110. 141. H crc thc word pettiur = quattuor does occur , but the inscription is fragmentary, and nothi ng suggests that it is an offi ce. E. Vetter, 1953, pp. 102-03, considers it purely nume rical. Sec, for example , H . Rudolph, 1935, p. 87. See pp. 87-88 a nd n. 350. In E truria , which in ma ny respects may be compared to Oscan Campa nia, since he re, too , there was an a ncient high ly developed cu ltu re prior to Romanization , it has been estim ated that the change of language was first completed after two gcnerations: J . Kaimio , 'The Ousting ofEtruscan by Latin in Et ruri a', Studies in the Romanizarion of Etruria (Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae 5), Roma 1975, p. 220. On the quattuorvirate, see: H. Rudolph , 1935, pp. 87-105; A. Degrassi, 1949; G. Wcscncr, 1963, 849-57; E. Kornemann, ' Municipium' , RE 16,1 (1933) , 616-25; E. Manni , 1947, pp. 171-208; F. de Martino , Storia deffa costituzione romana TII , Napoli 1966, pp. 297-304; A .N. Sherwin-White, 1973, pp. 159-73; U. Laffi, 'Sull'organizzazio ne ammini strativa deii'Italia dopo Ia guerra sociale', in: Akten des VI. Internationalen Kongresses für Griechische und Lateinische Epigraphik, München 1972 (Vestigia 17), München 1973, pp. 37-53; E.T. Salmon , 1982, pp. 177-8 1.

202 345. Thus L.R. Taylor , The Voling Districts of the Roman Republic (Pape rs a nd Monographs of the Ame rican Acade my in Ro me 20"(1960) ), p. 106, a nd C. Le tta, 1979, pp. 83-85. 346. T hus also C. Le tta, 1979, pp. 74-75, and M.W. F rede riksen , Campania, Lo ndo n 1984, p. 143. 347 . This ward has for many yea rs been the subject of discussio n . R . Garrucci, Questioni Pompeiani, Napoli 1853, pp. 31-33, proposed that it be inter pre ted as ide ntical to "am bitio", b ut this meaning of "ambul atio" is otherwise unattested (cf. TLL s .v.). C. Gatti, 1975, pp. 175-76, be lieves that a por tico is refer red to, but o ne whe re the votcrs wcre assem ble d for the e lections, so that it approaches "suffragium" in meaning. T his inte rpreta tio n seems, however , tobe p ure speculation , a nd I find it hard to bclieve tha t C ice ro wo uld te ll his R o man public that the Po mpeia ns d isagreed a bo ut the e lections by referring to such a phe nome non in so cryptic a ma nne·r. Most recently, T.P. Wiseman has in Live1pool Classical Monthly, 2,1 (1977), pp. 21-22, s ubscri bed to the trad itio na l interpretation "porticus" a nd pointed to the portico south of the theat res as the disputed build ing to which the native populatio n was refused admission. Wiseman's inte rpretation does no t solve the problern o f the collocatio n , qui te incomprche nsible fo r R oman readers, of suffragium a nd ambulatio; it is moreover based e ntire ly on Castre n's unfo unde d picture of the re latio n between colo nists a nd Pompe ia ns in the early colony (see pp. 87-88) . lt is tempting the refore to accept the ambitio in the mss. B fro m Bruxcllcs. Thus, fo r exampl e, O no rato, 1951, p. 141 n . 1, has prefe rred "amb itio" to "ambulatio". 348. E. Gabba, 1954, p . 287. 349. Among others P .A. Brunt , l talian Manpower225 B.C.- A. D. 14, Oxfo rd 197 1, pp. 306-08, E. Kornemann , 'Colo nia', RE 4 ( 1900), 584, a nd E.T. Salmo n , Roman Colonization under the Republic, London 1969. pp. 130-31 (a nd 1982, p. 132), support the theory of Ro ma n do ub le communities, whils t F. V itti nghoff, ' R ömische Stadtrechtsforme n der Kaiserzeit', Zeit-

schrift der Savigny-Stiftung f ür Rechtsgeschichte, R o manistische Abte ilung 68 (1951), pp. 443ff., F. H a mpl , 'Zur römische n Ko lonisatio n in de r Z e it de r ausge-

350.

351.

352. 353.

354.

355.

he nde n Republik und des frühen Prinzipals', Rheinisches Museumfür Philologie 95 (1952), pp. 68-76, and L. Keppie, 1983, pp. 102-03, are considerably more sccptica l. A lso E. Gabba has under thc infl uencc o f H ampl's a rticle changed his mincl about the ex tent of double communi tics aftcr the Sulla n coloniza tio n, but does not secm to do ubt their existe nce: Republican Rome. The Army and the Allies, London 1976, p. 204 n . 218. Consiclered to be Roman arc thc gentes Abu ria, Acilia, Acutia, Caecilia, Claudia, Corn elia, Furia, L ivia, O lia, Porcia, Qu inctia, Scptumia, Sestia, Sextilia, T ulli a, Yeia, Vera nia, Verginia and Vettia, while the following ge ntilicial names are Oscan or attested in Pompeii or Campani a before 80: Alleia, Arria, A rtoria, Cuspia, Gavia, H e rc nnia, Lo reia, Me lissaea, Paccia, Pompo nia, Popidia, Yeidia, Velasia, Vcsbia. See n. 259. Castren's assertio n is d ue partly to the fact tha t Pom pe ian cancl iclates like L. Paccius, A lle ius, C. Po pid ius a nd M . M e lissaeus do not feature in his Iist of Republican ca nd idates, a ncl to prcsumably Pom peian gentes being interpreted as Roman, for example Loreia and Gavia, but it a lso contlicts wit h some of the information in his fa mily catalogue. The gentes Artor ia, Herennia and Yesbia a re thus spoken of as o ri ginal Pompeian or Campa nian fa milies. Gens C uspia is a special case, since here the ge ns is inte rpreted as lta lic, but the bearer o f the na me is identi fied as Roman . X 938 a nd 23 add. Castrc n, 1983 , p. 92, add uces thc e lectoral inscriptions in which a n appeal is madc to col(o ni) as evidence for the exclusion of t he Pompeia ns. Yet, if the e ieetara te consisted merely of colonists, there would have been no need to be so explicit. We may j ust as weil be dealing wit h an appeal to o ne of two groups. T his vicw is found in A. Degrassi, 1949, p. 286, F. Hampl, 1952, pp. 65-66, E. Gabba, 1954, p. 287, P. A. B runt , 1971, p. 306, C. Ga tti , 1975, pp. 174-76 a nd P. Castren, L975, pp. 54-55 and 87, but is contradicted by H .-J . Ge hrke, 1983 , p. 487. In connection with a discussio n of thc municipal status of Syracuse a ftc r the establis hme nt ofacolo ny in thecity, F. H ampl, 1952, p. 73, mentions the colony's official

~-

..... 203

356.

357. 358.

359.

360 .

36 l. 362.

363.

364. 365.

na mc "Colo nia Syracusanorum " (X 7 L3 1) as an argument against "ein Fortbeste he n der alten Geme inde". T he colo ny in Pompcii was, as we know , calle d "Colonia Corne lia Vene ria Pompeianorum" (X 787 , t. 138, 144-48, 151), a nd this sho uld acco rding to Hampl a lso speak agai nst a Pompc ia n double community. T h . Mommsen, Römische Staatsrecht, Le ipzig 1887, II, p. 578; C. Nicolet, 'Tribuni militum a populo', Metanges de l'Ecole Franr;aise a Rome 79 ( 1967), pp. 29-76. J . Le ngle, R E 6,A,2 (1937), 2439-48. E. Korne mann, R E 6 ,2 (1909), 1920-24. P. Castre n , 1975, pp. 95-97, hassuggcstcd that the praefecti fabr um were despatchcd by Augustus to c nsure Support for his rcgimc in the municipi a, but there is no corrobora tive evidencc for this theory in Pompe ii . T he carliest datable actua ri al inscriptio n scems tobe X 905 , which is probably from 2 1 o r 22 AD , pl. 8: I (see n. 368) . Thc two culogies fo r A e neas a nd Romulus in E umachia's edifice from c. 20 A D arealso cxccuted in actua rial style (X 808 a nd 809). As the ea rliest instance o f the actuari al style are from the 20s AD , a lso inscriptio ns thal are not executed in clear actuaria l style, but include significant features frorn this type ofscript, a re like ly to postda te the rc ign of Augustus. Arnong the featUJ·cs that cha racte ri ze act ua rial script, 1 have in assigning inscriptio ns in pa rticular laid c rnphasis o n the form of the le tte rs A, M a nd N , which in actua ri al script a re charactcrized by the lines no t meeting a t the top o f the script line, but unde r it , so that the first runs obliquely into thc second . Examplcs of this are found , for examplc, in pls. 8: I a nd 9:2,3. Sec n. 297. The latest example of pre-classical or thography is " peq. " for "pec( unia)" in X 8 10 , on the fa<$ade a rchi trave of Eurnachia's building. Given thc c mpha ticall y Augustan character of the building's dccorati ve progra mrne , the spelling is undoubte dly a de libe rate archa ism . It occurs in inscriptions X 802, 831, 844, 852,937,939,956, and in 17 OS a ndin the unpub lished o nc in n. 426. Magistrates referrcd to in the ablati ve thus occur in X 892, 900 + EE 853 and 904. X 884 (dcdication from 25 BC but rne ntio ned in an inscripti on frorn 2 BC), X 893

366. 367.

368.

369.

from 4 AD a nd Ns 1895, 2 15 (ded icatio n a ntedating the birth of C hrist, rnentioned in a T ibcria n inscription). In this I fo llow the practice a lso employed in CI L X. The group includes ( l) the inscriptions published in CIL X unde r the heading " inscriptiones rninistro rurn Mercurii Maiae, postea A ugusti", X 884-923, (2) X 963 and 964, with consular dates sirnilar to ministerial dedications, (3) EE 3 16, EE 853, Ns 1895,2 15, Ns 1899 , 496a, Ns 1899, 496b, Ns 1900 , 270, Ns 1912, 71, and Ns 1936, 348, a nd (4) the unpublishcd fragme nt of X 884: "[-]MERVLTNII(-]A·S·P·P" and this likewise unpublished inscription: "L · A~RO(-]/ I ZM[-)/ PRIM(-]/ FA VON(-]/ R ECEP(-]/ M ·A VRELI[-]/ AVG [.]EX[-]/" . The first fragment is found in the store-rooms in Pompeii and the othe r in the National Museum at Napies. X 884,885,886,890,891,892,893,894 , 895, 896, 897, 898, 899, 900 + EE 853, 901, 902, 903 , 904 , 905 , 963, EE 316, Ns 1900, 270 . T he consul Q. Sanquinius (Max irnus) in X 905 cannot be date d precisely, but his consula te has bee n placed in 21 o r 22 AD by A . D egrassi, 'Osservazi_oni su a leuni consoli suffe tti dell 'eta di Auguste e Tibe rio', Epigraphica 8 ( 1946) , p. 37. Accord ing to R. Syrne, The Augustan Aristocracy, O xford 1986, p . 163, the year28 is a lso a possibility. X 897 features the consul A . Pla utius . CI L would - with some reservatia ns- da te the inscriptio n to 29 AD , but thi s is implausible. T hus thc name is followed by an "A", which is not in accordance with A. Plautius' colleague in 29 AD be ing L. Nonius A sprenas, and the inscription is executed in the classical style, which othc rwise seems to have been out moded in this pcriod in this type of inscription. In fact, it has clear similarities to X 893 from 4 AD . Moreover , a nothe r A. Pla utius was consul in 1 B C, a nd sincc his colleague was A. Caecin a Severus, everything speaks fo r a dating to this year. In X 964, the consula r Statilius T a urus features, but consuls of this namealso occur in the years 11 , 16, 26, 44 a nd 45 AD . The inscription has no t been accessible, so dating could not be unde rtaken on an e pigraphical basis e ith cr. X 896 from 26 AD , in which the form of A , M and N is uncl assical, a nd X 895 fro m 23

204 AD, which d ue to its rathe r in accessible positio n a nd da rnage to the surface has bee n legible on ly with difficulty , so th at ev·a tua tion of the script type must thus be trea ted with some caution. H e re, too , the re does seem to be an influence from the actuarial style. 370. Th. Mo mmsen , CIL X , p. 109. The ministe rs who perfo rmed M ercurio Maiae sacrum occur in inseriptions X 885, 886, 887, 889, 906 and Ns 1895 , 2 15. The four first ean e ilherbe da te d to 14 BC or are cl early pre-classical (see pls. 7:3,1 and 8,2), while 906, which has no t been accessible , is refe rre d to in Cl Las " litte ris a ntiquioribus". Ns 1895,215 is probably from the Tiberian pe riod, but the additio n " receptum " in dicates that the dedieation is o lder tha n the inscription . A discussio n of the re ligiohistorical content of this deve lopment is found in G. Grethe r , ' Pompe ian m inistri', Classical Philology 27 (1932), pp. 59-65. 371. L. Abonius lucu ndus is re ferred to in Castn!n , 1975 , p. 129, as duumvir, but an ana lysis of the inscription fragment X 914 shows rather that he was aedi le, see pl. 7:2. The fragme nt conta ins parts of the inscription 's threc bottom lines, "[-] EX·D· D ·l (VSSY]/ (-]Q OLLI·PONT(-J! [-]L ABON HVC(-] ", a nd the re is much to suggest that the penultimate line carried the names of two duumviri and the last that of two aediles. Mommsen's reconstructio n of the fragments X 912-13-14 thus shows tha t the fourth line from the bo ttom containcd the names of mini ste rs, so that the fragment's first line must have been conside rably Ionger a nd conta ined the wo rds " MIN A YG " , which are a lways present just before "EX D D IVSSV". A restitution with on ly one magistrate's name on each line would therefore imply a ve ry a typical disposition of the text, j ust as the modest dimensions of the fragme nt argue against this possibi lity. 372. The fragment has been further reduced since Mommsen 's publication , for the top line, which appare ntly contained the names of ministri , has disappeared , see pl. 8:3. Based o n this line a nd the placeme nt of " (IY)SSY" a t the extreme right of the inscriptio n , one can , however, by referring to usua l practice in this type of inscription , ded uce that the first line must have read " MIN A YG EX DD IVSSY ". " (-)LASSI" is written in conside rably smalle r le tte rs tha n both " (IV]SSY " and the " (-]YCAE"

373.

374.

375.

316.

377. 378.

379.

380.

be low, which may be pe rce ived as the e nd of a cognomen. If Lassi is rega rde d as nome n , a reasonable reconstructio n of thc three partly preserved lines ca nnot be made, for the fragm ent's second line wou ld the n conta in the names of two duumviri a nd the third carry the indieation of office " DVID" a nd the na me of one aed ile in la rge r le tte rs than th e duumviri.lfthe duum vir in line 2 is ide ntifi ed as N. Curtius Yibius Salassus, however, his extra nome n explains the use of sma lle r le tte rs than for the duumvir in line 3. L. Piricatius L.f. dv. 11 is discussed p. 102, and othe r examples of the gens Pirica tia are found in P. Castre n , 1975, p. 204. P. Castre n offers no da ting for this magistra te , who is not included in bis ge ns catalogue or magistra te Iist. D e lla Corte's inte rpre tatio n is accepted by P. Castre n , 1975, p. 154 , who-in contrast to the genera t dating of ministe ria l dedications- dated the inscription to the Ne ro nia n-Fi avian pe riod . H e probably based this assumptio n o n De ll a Corte's pure ly conjectural praenomen T iberius with its Julio-Claudian eonno ta tio ns. The other magistrate, Vesonius, is no t mcntioned in Castren's catalogue. See A. Ma u , 1908, pp. 118-2 1, a nd CIL X 820,821 a nd 822 (M. T ullius M.f. building a te mple o n his own la nd and a t his own expcnse). P. Castre n , 1975, pp . 76-77, 105-07. P. Castre n , 1975, pp. 76-77. Castre n suggests o n the basis o f X 825 that the ministri Fortunae Augustae were charged with de dicating a statue of the new e mpero r, but a n examination of the base, thc front of which bears the first de di cation X 824 from 3 AD , controverts this hypothcsis. On its to p , which measures 29Vz x 42 cm, there are traces of a round statue socle with a diame te r of27 Vz c m , hardly for a life-size effi gy, see p l. 10:3. T hus Th. Mommsen , CIL X, p. 109, unde rlines that the distinction between fragmentary ministri Augusti dedications and inter alia ministr i Fortunae Augustac ded ications is insecure. T he inseription is thus p1aeed on a marble slab of la rgely the same fo rma t as X 826, and the type of seript is in both cases markedly actua ria l. One also notes a more exte nsive use o f a pices tha n in any other min-

---

-· 381. 382.

383.

384. 385. 386.

387.

sterial dedications, where they largc ly occu r only with " iussö" . Finally, in bo th inscriptions , thc tcrm "acdiles'' is usecl instead of " II viri V ASPP", which is otherwise a lways used in ministerial dedications, pls. 9:1 ,2. Thus also PIR C 344 (Groag). Astatue has stood on this base, a nd must have been of a.n e ntire ly different type than the o ne on the base X 824, see n. 378. On the top of X 825, which measures S0 1/2 X 23 cm, there are thus distinct traces furthest to the left of a round supporting pilla r, in the centre of the right foot , le ngth 20 V2 cm , and to the right o f the left forefoot , see pl. 11:4. The statue seems to exploit the form of the top of the base very precisely, and base a nd statue may owing to this agree ment be assumed to have been made at the same time . But this does not acco rd with the inscription X 825, whieh actuall y refers to dedications of two bases instead of a statue , so that base X 825 cannot be one of the two dedicated by L. Statius Faustus. As a second dedication of a sta tue with base has hardly been ca rried out on the same occasion without mention in the inscription , the base and associated sta tue must be a n earlie r object of dedicatio n , re-utilized in 45 for the college's a nno uncement X 825. This implies that base a nd statue were o riginally dedicated witho ut inscription , and this practicc could explain why from 3 to c. 50 AD no dedicatory inscriptions for ministri Fortunae Augustae have been found, despite the fact that these according to the " Iex" of the college were obliged to erect "signa". 3857 ,3858,3861,3862,3863,3865,3868, 3871, 3872,3873,3874, 3875, 3876 ,9826, 9936, 9937, 9938 , 9939 , 9942, 9943 , 9944 , 9946 ,9947a ,9949,9950 , 9951,9952,9953, 9954 , 9955 , 9956, 9957a, 9957b, 9958, 9959, 9961, 9961 a. A . ci'Ambrosio & S. de Caro , 1987, DN3, AN. P. Castre n , 1975, p. 107. C f. Tacitus, Ann. 14, 17. Tribunus piebis features in 3872, 9949 , 9953, praetor in 9952, 9956, 9961 , 1987, A. d 'Ambrosio & S. de Caro, 1987, DN3. The offices duumvir, aedile and quinque nnalis a lso feature in the N uceria n inscriptions. K . Schubring, 'Epigraphisches aus Kampanische n Städten ', Hermes 90 (1962), pp. 239-40 .

205 388. Un impegno per Pompei, I, pp. 24-25. 389. Thus A. Maudates the tombs in the Fondo Pacifico sector of the Via Nucerina to early Imperial times, RM 3 (1888) , p . 121; outside the Porta Noce ra , 1 OS , 17 OS, 4 EN, 6 EN, 10 EN, 12 EN , 14 EN a nd 38 EN , A. d 'Ambrosio & S. de Caro, 1987, DN3, arc late Republican or Augustan, 31 OS is Republican, whilst 22 EN is assigned to the first half of the Ist century AD. These datings are given in Un impegno per Pompei , 11 , and A . d' Ambrosio & S. de Caro, 1987. 390. 3857,3858,3865,3874 ,3875, 9939 , 9942, 9959, A . d'Ambro~io & S. de Caro, 1987, AN. On this, see A. Mau , 1888, pp. 120 and 142. 391. Three candidates can be dated o n a rchaeologica l evidence. 3861-62 for L. Lusius Saturninus predates a mo nument raised in Tiberius' reign , which made the wall on which they a re situated inaecessible. The same applies to 9953 for A. Fabius on 12 EN: 14 EN late r hineiered access to it. 14 EN is of unce rtain date, but as it bears 9956 for L. Lusius Saturninus, it seems from thc dating oftha t candidate tobe Augustan . T he dating of9947 for C. Corne lius Pon[-] on 6 EN is based o n corresponding criteria: the ca ndidate is ea rly Augustan o r late Republican. U sing palaeographical crite ria, M. Magius Cclcr, C. Tampius Sabcinus, C. Antistius and (CI)odius are datable to the early pe riod . Thus C. Tampius Sabeinus' a nd (CI)odius' inscriptions in their use of Iigatures and abbreviations are very similar to programmata an tiquissima. Moreover Mau , 1888, pp. 142-3, describes 3872 for Tampius a nd 3871 for Magius as executed in o lder Ie tter types . This is also evident from the reproduction of9949 forTampiu s in Un impegno per Pompei , II , 10 EN. In CIL , D e lla Corte also describes 9954 for C. Antistius as executed " litteris crassis", just as 9826 for (CI)odius is assigned to programmata antiquissima. These examples suggcst that programma ta in Augusta n times could still have a pre-classical appearance, but as Mau reports that 3871 was far more unclassica l than the o the r Magius inscriptio n 3873 (1888, p. 143) , a development seems to have been in progress at that juncture. Thus o ne also remarks that Della Corte does not notice anything unusua l in the form of 9953, which could be

206

392.

393.

394. 395.

396. 397. 398.

399.

400.

dated archaeologically to the Augustan era. L. Lusius Saturninus is pr. cand. in 9956 and A. d'Ambrosio & S. de Caro , 1987, DN3, and dv. cand. in 3861, A. Fabius is tr. pl. cand. in 9953 and so is C. Tampius Sabeinus in 3872 and 9949. M. Torelli has asse rted that the office of tribunus piebis did not exist in the municipia and suggested instead that the refere nce is to the urban Romantribunal office, access to which was eased for equites municipales in Augustus' reign: "'Tribuni Piebis" municipali?', in: Sodalitas. Scritti in onore di A. Guarino, Napoli 1984, III , pp. 1397-1402. This hypothesis, which could fit the dating of the inscriptions, is, however, quite incompatible with their character of e lectoral notices. It thus presupposes a situation in which, in order to spread the news of a Iocal Campani an's holding of an urban Roman office, electo ral notices were posted which in their form did not differ from o rdinary programmata, but which recommended the candidate for an office that did not exist outside Rome and which he bad already achieved. Such an interpretation of the inscriptions is not convincing, and the tribunate must therefore be accepted as a municipal office in Nuceria. P. Castn!n, 1975, p. 107. A clear parallel to this is X 814, which comprises two hermae with the portrait of C. Norbanus Sorex, which magistri pagi Augusti Felicis Suburbani erected in the Temple of l sis andin E umachia's building "EX·D·D ·LOC·D". The decurions merely sanctioned the hermae and did not the mselves stand behind the dedication. P. Castren, 1975, p. 106. Dia Cassius, 60,5,4-5. A treatment of scholae is found in V. Kockel, 1983, pp. 18-22, and A. Pellegrino, 'Considerazioni sulle tombe a "schola" di Pompei', Antiqua 4 ( 1979) (Pompei 79 XIX centenario) , pp. 110-15. Thus also A. Mau, RM 5 (1890), pp. 27981, E. Pozzi, 'Exedra funeraria pompeiana fuori Porta Nota', Rendieanti dell'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 35 (1960) , p. 183 n. 18; A. Pellegrino, 1979, p. 111 ; V. Kockel, 1983, p. 168. The inscription, which is found in the store-rooms in Pompeii reads: "AT[.]LLIO·CF/ BASSO·H·VIR/ [-]lS[-]" .

401. A few features pointing back to preclassical script are in volved. The termination of the V above is thus cut at rightangles and does not follow the line, and the diagonal line in the R almost touches the hasta . 402. A. Mau , 1908, p. 202. 403. X 894. In C/L , R. Schöne's reference to L. Rusticelius Celer is me ntioned, but the magistrate in X 894 cannot be ide ntical with this Neronian-Fiavian candidate, who is documented in six electora l inscriptio ns. P. Castren, however, accepts the theory, 1975, p . 214, and proposes a JulioC iaudian date - contrary both to the date of X 894 and to t he dati ng of p rogrammata recentiora. 404. See pp. 93-94. 405. A few letters have thus a slightly preclassical shape, and it is also noted in the fo ur bottom lines, which are o the rwise closely packed a nd relatively irregular, there are no actuarial features. 406. V. Kockel, 1983, pp. 178-79. .407. The inscription is, with X 947, which contains the same type of punctuation, shown in pl. 8:4 For further parallels, see X 960 and 996. 408. From Cl L it appears that the inscriptio n is cut into the back of a stone bench, which might corroborate an Augustan dating, for this feature is characteristic of the schola type used in the A ugustan-Tiberian period. 409. A. Maiuri , 1942, pp. 83-87, J .-P. Adam, 1986, pp. 74-75 and pl. 18. 410. There is an unpublished replica of X 787 in the Pompeii store-rooms. The inscription is fragmentary, and the three extant pieces read: "M·HO[-]/ EGN(-]/ EX·D·D ·IV[-]/ OBSTRVE[-]/ REDEME[-]/ PR[-]/ VSQ(-] AT·(-]/ FACIVNDV(-]''. 411. E. Pozzi, 1960, p. 184, and Iater A. Pellegrino, 1979, have identified the magistrate with the Flavian aedile candidate of thc same name attested in 26 programmata recentiora. As V. Kockel has already pointed out, this rests on a misunderstanding, for this individual is known o nly as aedilician and not duumviral candida te. Archaeological evide nce, too, argues agai nst a late dating. V. Kockel, 1983, p. 20. 412. Thus, for example, X 826, 1051, 15 ES, 22 EN and the T. Suedius Clemens inscription outside the Po rta Nocera. 413. The schol a grave type was, as me nti oned,

. ....

.......

207

4 14.

I 415. 4 16. 4 17.

418.

4 19.

420.

used in Augusto-Tibe ria n times, ancl th e inspiratio n fo r it could have derivecl fro m this structure, for which reason a n early Augustan clating seems plausible. This clating is strc ngthe necl by certai n features of the epigraphical form of 11 ES, since we find here a peculiar punctuation mark , which in Po mpe ii otherwise occurs in the Augustan inscriptio n X 8 14. Th. Mo mmseri , CIL X, commentary to 840. This fcature thus cloes not occur in a ny of the pre-classical Pompeian inscriptions. P. Castren, 1975, p. 204, dates L. Piricatius " Jui.-C1a ucl?", because he considers the magistrate in Ns 1900, 344, a ncl the cancliclate in the programma recentius 7185 to be one a ncl the same person. The dating thus sccms to be a compro mise between two highly conflicting clating crite ria. In fact two persans are involved, an Augustan a nd a Neronian. P. Zanker believecl that we are dealing with a late Republican mo nument, whi ch under Augustus was tra nsferred from the south siele of the Forum to the eastern long siele. At this occasio n, the inscription was re newed, so that the magistrate is in reality o lder than the inscription . The date of the six origin al equestrian sta tues o n the south siele of the Forum appears tobe uncertain, howcver, and an early Augustan dating not inconceivable. Nor docs it seem likely that in moving an o ld monument of which a ll parts were preserved, a new inscription should have been made. P . Za nker, 'Zur Bildnisrepräsentation führenden Män ner in Mittelitalien und campanischen Städten zur Zeit der späten Republik und der J ulisch-Clauclischen Kaiser', in: Les "bourgeoisies" municipales italiennes aux !Jl' et r siedes av. J.-C. (Colloques internationaux duCentre National de Ia Recherche scie ntifiquc, no. 609), Paris-Napies 1983, pp. 259-60. On the statues o n the Forum, see also A. Soglia no, 1925, pp. 263-66. T his type of tombstone , which a mo ng membe rs of the ordo is known, for M. Porcius, Cn. Melissaeus Aper ancl M . Tullius, is not associated with post-Augusta n magistra tes. In CIL X, 1883, Mo mmsen does not me ntion (p. 142) any Sullan colo ny in Nola. "Veteres" a nd " novi" are perceived as the na tive Nola ns and the Augustan colo nists, respectively , a nd X 1273 assignecl a F lavi-

42 1.

422.

423.

424.

425. 426.

427.

a n date. H owever , in a n article published in the same yea r, but probably written Jatcr than CI L, Mommsen consiclers the existence of "veteres" in X 1273 tobe the prima ry argume nt for a Sullan colony in Nola. The division into new ancl old citizens is hereby moved right down into the Sullan period. This must actually preclucle a Flavia n date fo r X 1273, for such a d ivisio n could harclly have been maintained for more than 150 years unaffected by the clemographieal regroupings e nta iled by Jatcr colo ni al decluctions. Thus, cha nging his view o f the Sull an colo ny in Nola, Mommsen must at.the sametime have revised the clating of X 1273. G iving the late Flavian date in CIL , Mo mmscn may have seen Sexti li us' ret urn to Nola as a consequence of Pompeii 's destruction in 79 AD, but such a decluction can o nl y bc hypothetical. Note, moreover, that Sextilius' Pompeian activity, which allegedly unfolded in the last welldocumented pe riod of the tow n 's existc nce, has left no epigrap hical traces at all . T h . Mo mmsen, 'Die italischen Bürgercolo nien von Sulla bis Vespasian', Hermes 18 ( 1883), pp. 161-213, reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften, Bc rlin 1908, 5, pp. 20353, p . 226. Colo nial decluctions to Nola aredealt with by E. Gabba , ' Ricerche su ll 'esereito professio nale romana d a Ma rio ad Augusto', Athenaeum 29 (1951), pp. 171-272, p. 23536, P.A. Brunt, 1971, pp. 306-07, and L. Kcppie, 1983, p. 152. CIL X describes the inscription as " litteris optimis", which usually inclicates the use of classical script typcs. In pre-Augustan timcs, these we re certainly not in use in Pompeii - nor, presumably in Nola. P. Castren, 1975, p. 221, th us a lso considers the Pompeian Sextilii to be Roman colo nists o r their clescenda nts. The form thus occurs in the following datable inscri ptions, which must all stem from late Republ ican or Augustan times: CIL I X 1 L33, 5369, X 5679, 5916, 6082, 6105, 6108, 6238. V . Kockel, 1983, pp. 74-75. T hc inscription, which is preserved in the store-rooms of Pompei i, reads: "C·VIBIVS·N·F·FIGVLI DVO·VIR/ CENT- PRJMTPILI". Trebius is not included in the Iist. I n 111 ,2, .1, where A. Trebius Vale ns presuma-

208

428.

429.

430 .

431.

bly lived, re ma ins were found of a round statue base with the inscription: " tr. mit. [-]/ duovir quater", Ns 19 19 242, and De lla Cortc thc refore beli eved that a Trebius was involved, 1965 , p. 346. Butthis base, which judging from the o rthography and type of script must be from the e nd of the 1st century B C, is no t o nly so fragme nte d that a mong o ther things the name o f the magistrate has been cffaced, but was found upsidc down. Its preservation in 111 ,2, 1 is therefore hardly a tribute to - in Dell a Corte's words - "sacre me morie di glo rie familiari". The existcnce of this Trcbius as magistrare cannot thcrefore be acccpted. A. Sogliano (Ns 1895, 215) dated thc inscription to 26 AD, when M . Allc ius Luccius Libella was quinque nnalis, but this is unsupported , for wc may be d ealing with an earlier duumviratc. Sogliano resto res the office, too, as " II VID" , and thc clating is consequently inconsiste nt. The [Cl]odius in 9826 could be idc ntical with A . C lodius Flaccus, for the inscription must on acco unt of its form and location be late Republican or early Augustan , but not o nly has the na me been fragme ntarily transmitte d , but it may a lso be that o f a candidate from Nuccria. Among thc 17 different candida tes from the inscriptio ns o f the Porta Noce ra necropolis, two a re certainly described as Nucerians, and five run for officesnot found in Pompei i; as for the others, none can be unequivocally ide ntified with known Pompcian candidatcs. In three instances, the re is, it is true, a theoretical possibility of a n ide ntification with a Pompe ian magistra re o r candidate - Clodius, M. Herennius a nd P. Vettius- but as none of these is quitc una mbiguo us, it seems safer to conclude that the Porta Nocera necropolis, from a ll we know , remained unto uched by the Pompe ian c lections. M. H e[r](e nnius) in 9827 could from the dating of the inscriptio n be ide ntical with M . H e re nnius Epidianus , but the candidate sho uld ratherbe regarded as a Nucerian , and it is not even certain that an e lectoral inscription is involved: the case cannot be read a nd the additio n " imp" (imperator?) is inexplicable as part of a programma . P . Castren, 1975 , p. 176, believcs tha t the candidate Holconius Ce le r in 7651 is ide ntical with the Augustan magistratc of thc

432.

433.

434.

435.

same na me. This is highly unlike ly. Not only a rc progra mmata from this pe riod extreme ly rare and almost exclusivc ly preserved on ly on fun e ra ry monumc nts, but D e lla Corte offers no rcmarks on its fo rm or prcservation that could support an early dating. Castren furth e r suggests that MM. Holco nii Cele r and Rufus we re brothers, but from thc dating o f the ir careers it seems mo re like ly that they were fa the r a nd son . X 949 is no t quitc sccure, only " M·F·RVF" being preserved, but the slightly prc-classical form is redolc nt o f that founcl in M. Holconius Rufus' early inscriptio ns, a nd the identification of this magistrate must the refo re be considered plausi ble . 2927 has not been included, for both MM . Holconii Rufus and Celc r are possible. No evidencc supports P. Castre n 's ide ntifica tion of M. Lucretius in X 954 as M. Lucretius D ecidianus Rufus: several o the r M. Lucre tii we re active in this pe riod . Usually the aedile in 33 AD , D . Lucretius Vale ns, and D. Lucretius Satrius Vale ns, known as duumvir in Neronian timcs and flamen Neronis filii Caesaris perpetuus, are considcred to be fathcr and son , but thcre is much to suggest tha t they wcre onc and the samc person. The omission of bis second nomen Satrius in X 902 is no obstacle: cognomina were frcqucnt ly o mitted (c.g. X 901), and not even thc nomina wcre obligatory . X 788,896,904, Ns 1895,215 and Ns 1910,405,omit o neoftwon omin a. D. Lucretius Satrius Va le ns was appointed flamcn Neronis filii Caesaris perpe tuus in the years 50-54, wh c n Nero as he ir apparent acquired bis own cult. The fla minate bei ng a prestigious priesthood, Lucretius must havc been an impo rtant a nd re latively maturc man. lt does not therefore seem like ly tha t his fath er should have been aedile only 17 yea rs be fore the son was honored with one of thc city's highest priesthoods. One could bccome aedile at the age of 22 years, and if we ass ume that M. Lucretius Satrius Valcns was 25 years old whe n he was elected aedi le in 33 AD, he was only 4 1 when hc became fl a men , and 59 when his son D . Lucretius Valens around 68/69 ran for the aedileship. In fact all thc cvidence fits the career of one individual. See p . 79 .

...

,

II !

... 209 436. P. Castren, 1975, p. 231, considers M. Tullius, who featurcs in thesc edicta muncrum outside the Porta Nocera , and thc Augustan magistrate , to be two d ifferent pcrsons. As there a re several examples o f dipinti fro m this period prcscrved on fun erary monuments, I see no grounds for in venting new Pompe ians. In any casc, the lacking cognomen argues against a postAugustan date. 437. P. Castren, 1975, p . 238, idcntifies the duumvir in 33 AD with thc ho monymo us duumvir and quinquennial candidate docume nte d in e ight progra mmata reccntiora. This candidate can, howcve r, bc dated to the second half of the 60s at the earliest, which involves a n inte rva l of ovcr 30 years between the first a nd sccond d uum v iratc. There is consequentl y more likc lihood of two magistrates th an one. 438 . L. Avia nius L.f. Fl accus Po ntian us, C. C uspius C.f. Pansa, M. Holconius M.f. Cele r, M . Lucretius D ecidian us Rufus, Q . Sallustius P.f. . Q. Spcdius Q.f. Firmus. 439. Fora dctailed discussio n. see J. Andrcau, 1974. 440. Priva te receipts t. 1- 137 a nd public rcceipts t. 138- 153 . 441. See J . Andreau , 1974, pp. 2 14- 17. 442. See p. 95 . 443. t. 28, 83 a nd 90, in additio n to a sea l stamp with his na me, s. 42. 444. Sec pp. 100-01. 445. A. Bald i 1967, pp. 480-85, H . Solin , 1968, pp. 122-23. 446. This magistrate has been carcfull y treated in W.M. Jongman , 1979 , pp. 62-65. 447. P. Castre n , 1975, p. 198, asse rted tha t M. Obellius Firmus pater, too, was a magistrate , but this is quite unattested, the hypothcsis resting e ntircly on thc positio n in the sequence ofwitnesses -con/ra J. Andre au, 1974, p. 200, and W.M. Jo ngman , 1979. 448. V. Kocke l, 1983, p. 117. 449. V . Kocke l, 1983, p. 11 6. 450. A. d'Ambrosio & S. de Caro, 1987, pp. 209- 12. 45 1. In cases where eie fa ult of a lte rnative cvidence and/or a significant amount of in scriptio ns im poscs caution , I ha ve abstained from a tte mpting a closer dating of the individua l candidates. This freque ntly conflicts with the approach o f Castre n , severa l of whose dates sccm rather a rbitrary. Thus thc o therwise unknown candidates L. Cordius, Ferve nius Cele r, C. Nu-

I

mito rius Serenus and L. Stat ius Receptus, who are, accord ing to Castre n , a ll a ttested by o nl y one programma, are datcd respectivcly "Neron. -Fiav.?, D ate?, Flav. , Neron .": P. Castren , 1975, pp. 157, 167, 198, 225. 452. I disca rd C. Numitorius Audius Bassus. Accordin g toP. Castren, 1975, p. 198, he was aedile or duumvir in 6 1, but to J . Andreau, 1974, p. 215 , he he ld magistraturc in the previous year. This difference reflects a dispa rity in thcir crite ria for identifying him as a magistrate, which in fact seems dubious. C. Numitori us Audius Bassus is a ttcsted in two tabulae ce ratae: t. 22 from 56, whe re he is first witness, and thc public receipt t. 151, where he is third witness after the se rvus coloniac and the duumvir in 61, Ti. C la udius Verus . Andreau 's mistake is in ide ntifying L. Nu misius Ra rus, who is sccond witncss in t. 22 afte r Numitorius, with the wclldocumented aedilician candidate of the same name, a nd in dating his candidature to ''l'e poque julio-cla udienne", p. 202. This gives Numitorius a very high position, which sho uld make likc ly a magistraturei n connection with t. 15 1, where he features just after thc magistrate. L. Numisius Rarus is, however, a ttested in no less than 1·4 programmata rece ntio ra a nd must the re fo rc be Fl avia n , which - if he is identical with the witness in t. 22- a lters his position in 56 AD complete ly. Position in witness lists is a lso ge nerall y cha racterized by so many uncerta in factors th at the idcntification of magistrates cannot be based on it. Castren bases his dating to 6 1 on t. 151, but as o nly the second witness afte r servus coloniae ca n be ide ntified as d uum vir, this source is sti ll no indication tha t L. Numitorius Audius Bassus was a magistrate. Castre n's suggestion that Numito rius could have been aedilc a lso Iac ks a ny fo undatio n , since aed iles a rc not known to have acted as e ith c r second or th ird witness in public receipts. D. Lucrc tius Satrius Vale ns must a lso have been duumvir in the period 52-61, but as hi s career startedas ea rl y as 33 AD, hc is placed in the fo rcgoing pe riod. His magistrature cannot be prcciscly dated , since thc public rcceipt in which he features as sccond witness is fragmc ntary. P. Castren's theory that it sho uld have been in 53 o r 54, whe n he became fl amcn Nero -

210

453.

454.

455.

456.

457.

458. 459. 460.

nis filii Caesaris perpetuus, is not cogent: he could weil have become flam e n without holding a magistrature at that precise juncture, 1975, p . 186. I discard the following -largely fictitious candidates from Castren's catalogue: M. Albucius, C. Alleius, P. Cerrinius, T. Crassius Firmus, Cn. Junius Jarinus, C. Licinius, Lollius Magnus, N. Nigidius , A. Pumponius Magonianus, Satrius, M. Sextilius , Silius Valens, and A. Vettius Restitutus; for a discussion , see the catalogue of inscriptions. The candidate is hardly identical with C. Cornelius Macer, who was duumvir in 57 AD . It would be odd if only the inscription from the aedilician candidature and not that from the later duumviral candidature should be preserved. Moreover , it does not seem likely that the two inscriptions should predate 55. 7190 (from the fa~ad e ofi,6,15) seems too weil preserved to have been 25 years old in 79. See V. Spinazzola, 1953, p. 259, fig. 284. This magistrate does not feature in Castren, but as he is second witness in the public receipt t. 153, it must be considered almost certain that he was duumvir in the period 52-61, which the fragmentary inscription can merely be dated to. Also in CIL, his magistrature is considered likely: CIL IV, p. 405. I discard persans merely referred to as decurions. These were not necessarily magistrates: they might have been adlecti,pedarü or even praetextati, who were not even ordinary members of the ordo. The group includes the following decurions: L. Gellius L.f. Calvos (X 1074, Augustan), M. Alleius Libella (X 1036, Tiberian), M. Herennius (Pliny theElder, HN2,137, c. 63 BC) who can weil have been identical with the candidate in 48, M. Lucretius (879), N. Popidius N .f. Celsinus (X 846 and 848, after 62 AD). Only five decurions not securely attested as magistrates are known , and there are thus strong indications that there was no !arge group of non-magisterial decurions in the Pompeian ordo, like the one in the farnaus album from Canusium. M. Gordon, 1927, pp. 165-83. For criticisms, see J. Andreau, 1973 I , pp. 213-54, and P. Castren, 1975, pp. 33-34. A. Maiuri, 1942, pp. 162 and 217. J . Andreau , 1973 II, pp. 369-95. P. Castren, 1975, pp. 85-124.

461. Seen. 350. 462. See pp. 87-88. 463. The significance of these factors is underlined especially in K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal, Cambridge 1983. In this study of the composition of the Roman senate in Republican and Imperial times, Hopkins and G. Burton reach conclusions which in se.veral respects accord with those sketched above, since here, too, a very considerable family turnover can be ascertained. 464 . Especially J. d' Arms' investigations of the commercial activity of the R o ma n upper class have shown that the boundary between agrarian and commercial groups in society was far morefluid than hitherto assumed. Large sections of the upper classes seem to have been indirectly involved in · commerce and production: Commerce and Social Standing in Ancient Rome, Cambridge Mass. & London 1981. Moreover, Castren 's identification of new fami lies with " plutocrats" is fully in line with the "Pompeianist tradition" which he otherwise attacks strongly. 465. P. Castren, 1975, pp. 92-103. 466. T.P. Wisema n thus asserts with respect to Republican Rome that "family trees do not make factions, or even 'groups' in the political sense": Roman Studies, Literary and Historical, Liverpool 1987, pp. 83-85. 467. On Rome, T.P. Wiseman thus sta tes: "If every family tie entailed a political imperative, the Roman politicians would have been paralysed", ibid. 468. " These new equestrian families formed a tightly grouped aristocracy of gentes, aristocracy which had almost all the municipal power in their hands by virtue of individual re lationships or obligations contracted with the princeps": P. Castren, 1975, p. 99. 469. P. Castren, 1975, p. 121. 470. P. Castren, 1975 , p. 124. 471. P. Castren, 1975, p. 118. 472. P. Castren, 1975, p. 119. 473. P .Castren , 1975,p. 119. Intheprogrammata 117 and 120, M. Cerrinius Vatia and C. Cuspius Pansaare supported, both of whom can be dated to the last years of the city. M . Fabius Eupor's appearance as a witness in apochae Jucundianae in 57 AD does not justify a pre-Neronian dating, and there is therefore nothing to suggest that he is earlier than the candidate M. Fabius

...... 211

f /

Rufus, who is known in only two programmata. 474". P. Castren, 1975, p. 120. Castren refers to this person as " ... the scriba Rustius who actively supported various candidates". In his catalogue p. 214 there is, however, no , "scriba", but a rogator Rustius in 3738, 3750 and 3751, suggested tobe identical with the candidate A. Rustius Verus- the relative of the "scriba". 475. P. Castren , 1975, p. 120. 9970, in which A. Suettius [-]tenio and A. Suettius Niger libertus dedicate gladiatorial games in Puteoli. 476. J.E. Skydsgaard, 'The disintegration of the Roman labour market and the clientala theory', in: Studio Romana in honorem Petri Krarup septuagenarii, Odense 1976, pp. 44-47. 477. For example, since L. Caecilius' cognomen Capella seems unique a mong the cand idates, it is quite adequate for a secure identificatio n . Moreover, in the case of L. Popidius Ampliatus, the candidate may be identified on the basis of the cognomen, but not of the no men, which is borne by several other candidates. 478. On this basis it is possible to carry out a seeure identification of a I arge number of inscriptions not included in P. Castren's catalogue of Pompeian gentes. Castren 's method thus entails that more than half of L. Ovidius Veiento's inscriptions a re omitted, 43% of L. Popidius Ampliatus' and 29% of C. Cuspius Pansa's. Castren's catalogue is also in other respects unsystematic and defective. The following examples must suffice. Referring to the candidates of the gentes Calventia a nd Sittia amalgamated in C . Calventius Sittius Magnus, no less than 19 inscriptions have been o mitted or mislocated: 1975 , pp. 148 a nd 222. This is a very high proportion, considering that Castren o n principle gives references only to CIL IV suppleme ntum III when more than ten sources are involved. In the case of C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, the duumvir and aedile inscriptions arenot distinguished; 7198, 7293, 7515, 7852, 7952 and 7975 are claimed to be d uumviral inscriptions, but carry no designatio n of office. 688, 7159a and 7244a figure unde r C. Calve ntius (Sittius Magnus) dv. cand. , although no office is referred to. 843, 7812 and 7870 a re parallel cases, in

479.

480.

481.

482.

483.

484. 485.

486.

487.

which neither office nor praenomen is mentioned; they could thus equally weil refer to C. Calventius Sittius Magnus' aedilician candidature or M. Calventi us' candidature. Inscription 292 fo r C. Calventius dv. cand. is, however, o mitted from this category. Oftwo inscriptions for "Sittius", 2982 and 7052, o ne is entirely omitted, and the other not given as an electoral inscription. Likewise the two inscri ptions for"Sittius Magnus aed. cand . ": 989 is placed under P. Sittius Magnus aed. cand. and 7436 under C. Sittius Magnus dv. cand. 907 and 1135a for P. Sittius feature under P. Sittius (Magnus) aed. cand., although no office is mentioned. Della Corte's identification of the rogator as C. Cornelius Adiutor, s. 29, is questio nable. The provenance of the seal is not known, and the locatio n b uilds solely o n the ide ntificatio n of the occupants of VIII,4,15 as members of the gens Cornelia: 1965, p. 238. Rogatores spoken of as " liberti " generally seem to have been the candidate's own freedmen, and in the present case this hypothesis is strengthened by the existence of a L. Albucius Thesmus in t. 71. This name is not, as claimed by Della Corte, a woman's, but a man's , and the putative married couple L. Betutius Placidus and his wife Ascula must be disavowed: 1965, p. 325. The rogator can be identified from an amphora inscription, 9614b, fo und in 1,8,8-9, where the programmata were also located. Probably Q. Bruttius Balbus: apart from the e lectoral inscriptio ns, IX,2,15-16 also yielded a graffito, 3159, referring to "Q. Bruttium". See p. 129. Della Corte regards "Celer" and "afr" as two different persons, but it is not unlikely that africanus is an adjective qualifying Ce!er, cf. 2993zy, Helpis afra. The inscriptions in which Cornelius and Tages recommend were both found at 1,8,19; the house opposite yielded two amphora inscriptio ns " Publio Tegeti " , 9437, and "P. Cor. ", 9493. As the existence of a P. Cornelius Tages has already been attested in apochae Jucundianae, t. 67, 76, 101, 113 and 115, this seems a reasonable identification. It is uncertain whether the name is male o r fe male. I follow I. Kajanto here, who, with

212

488. 489.

490.

491.

492.

493.

494. 495.

496. 497.

498.

499. 500.

501. 502.

reservations, favours the latter: I. Kajanto, 'Cognomina Pompeiana', Neuphilologische Mitteilungen , 66 ( 1965), p. 345. Forthis unusual name , see V. Väänänen , 1959, p. 179. " luvenis" is probably a cognomen, since it is placed just after the nomen. As an epithet it is cmployed only for candidates, never for rogatores. By this time, the praenomen was on the wane. lt does not seem likely , thcrefore , that a rogator should be called by this name alone. It could be a cognomen, but more like ly it is a member of the gcns Luccia who is documented in Pompeii (sometimes ·rendered with only one "c": see P. Castren, 1975, p. 184-85). The rogator was probably M. Lucretius Fronto: the inscription stems from V ,4 ,a, which there is little doubt was his home. Apparently the name was not followed by a nomen. Again, praenomen used in this way would berather Singular; better, therefore, a cognomen: I. Kajanto, 1965 ll , p. 173. According to Dclla Corte, a Jewish cognomen; although this is a possibility , it is more likely that it is a feminine form of Marius, which is an attested gentile name in Pompeii. See p. 126. Obellius must here be identical with M. Obellius Firmus , for the inscription was found outside IX , I4 , where he doubtless lived. See p . 133. P. Castren , 1975, p. 201, and Della Corte, 1965, p. 2 10, construe the cognomen as Alexander; yet Alexa is a good Greek name. The candidate P. Paquius Proculus is recommended at 1,7,1 by his neighbours, 7819; the same spot yielded an a mphora marked "PP P", 9333: an identification with this seems reasonable. See p. 133. The supporter may possibly be the candidate L. Popidius Ampliatus, for he is recommended by vicini in the immediate neighbourhood , 2978, andin thc Casa del Citarista, several inscriptions have been found indicating a connection between the gens Popidia and this mansion. See p. 130. Dell a Corte, 1965, p. 133, ide ntifies this

503.

504.

505.

506. 507.

508. 509.

510.

511.

512.

rogator as the candidate A . Rustius Verus. This is doubtful, however, no inscriptions with the whole name having been found near the recommendations. These four inscriptions were found in the immediate vicinity of one another; as a M. Salarius Crocus is documented in X 826, Salarius and Crocus may plausibly be considered onc and the same person. Salvius can be both nomen and cognomen, but considering that 305 examples are known of the cognomen, and that the gens Salvia has been attested only twice in Pompeii , it is he re probably a cognomen: I. Kajanto, 1965 I , p. 177, P. Castren, 1975, p. 216. The name is not as claimed by Della Corte, 1965, p. 58, a woman's, but must as diminutive of sus be masculine. See p. 128. Near the inscription , a graffitowas found, 1625, "Venus es Ve[-]"; it is therefore likely that a real person is referred to and not Pompeii's patron goddess. I. Kajanto , 1965 II , p. 359, identifies this name as barbaric. The recommendation was found outside the Casa dei Vettii. Note, from the same location, the seal s. 100 inscribed " A. Vettius Restitutus". Ide ntity therefore seems like ly. Studiosus is in my opinion not, as claimed by Della Corte and Magaldi, a profession "studiosus iuris" , but an adjective with the meaning 'energetic, zealous', corresponding to gaudens a nd cupidus: Della Corte, ' Publius Paquius Proculus', JRS 16 (1926), pp. 145-54, E. Magaldi , 'Di Proculo, principe dei panettieri pompeiani, e studioso anche', Nuova Cultura 8 (1928), pp. 49-59. This must be an appeal toTi. Cla udius Verus, for not only is his form er candidature referred to, but he features in a nearby graffito, 5229, and is supported by vicini in 367 , 440, and 3820, all found in the neighbourhood. Della Corte disputes Väänänen's rendering of "vicinae" as vicine corrcsponding to "Graphicae" = Graphice, 7650, poi11ting out that the distance between the inscription and the candidate's dwclling, 1,4,5, is far too great. This objection cannot be upheld , however, since candidates are often recomme nded by ne ighbours in several parts of the city, and 7443 for L. Popidius Ampliatus found I ,12,5 indeed appeals to

.......

-. 213 "vicini": V. Väänänen, 1959, p. 24. 513. The name is otherwise unknown and could be a corrupted form of the Greek name Posides.

/

214

Bibliography Except for the initial reference, the following books and a rticles will be cited by name and date alone. Abbott, F.F. & A .C. Johnson, 1926, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire, New York . Adam , J .-P., 1986, 'Observa tions techniques sur les suites des seismes de 62 a Pompei', Tremb/ements de terre, eruptions volcan.iques et vie des hommes dan.s Ia Campan.ie antique , Naples, pp. 67-87. Andreau , J. , 1973 I , ' Remarques sur Ia societe pompeie nne (apropos de tablettes de L. Caecilius Jucundus)', Dialoghi di Archeologia 7, pp. 213-54. Andreau , J. , 1973 li, ' Histoire des seismes et histoire economique; le tre mblement de te rre de Pompei (62 ap. J-C)', Annales E.S.C. 28, pp. 369-95. Andreau, J ., 1974, Les affaires de Monsieur Jucundus (Collection de I'Ecole franc;aise de Rome 19) , Rome. Antonini , R. , 1977, ' Iscrizioni osche po mpeiane', Studi Etruschi 45, pp . 317-40. Baldi , A., 1967, 'Un graffito po mpeiano inedito' , Latomus 26, pp. 480-85. Brunt, P.A., 1971, ltalian Manpower 225 B.C.A.D. 14, Oxford . Castren , P ., 1975 , Ordo Populusque Pompeianus. Polity and Society in Roman Pompeii (Acta Instituti Romani F inlandiae VIII) , Ro ma. d' Ambrosio, A. & de Caro, S., 1983, 'La necropoli di Porta Nuceria. Campagna di scavo 1983', in : Röm ische Gräberstrassen. Selbstdarstellung - Status - Standard (Abhandlungen der baye rische Akademie de r Wissenschafte n 96) , Münche n, p. 199-228. D egrassi, A. , 1949, ' Quattuorviri in colonie romane e in municipi retti da duoviri', Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei 2, pp. 281-344, reprinted in Scritti vari di antichita I , Ro ma 1962, pp. 99-177. Degrassi , A., 1967, ' La questura di Pompei' , (Epigraphica 111, 13), Memorie dell'A ccademia dei Lincei 13, pp. 46-49, reprinted in Scritti vari di antichita 111, Venezia , pp. 145-48. D ella Corte, M ., 1965, Case ed abitanti di Pompei, Napoli (3rd ed. ). de Vos, A. &M. , 1982, Pompei, Ercolano, Stabia, Ro ma. Etie nne, R. , 1966, La vie quotidienne a Pompei, Pa ris.

Fiorelli , G. , 1875, Descrizione di Pompei, Napoli. Fra nk , T., 1927, An Economic History of Rome, London (2 nd ed.). Franklin Jr. , J.L. , 1978, 'Notes o n Po mpeian prosopography, Programmatum scriptores', Cronache pompeiane 4, pp. 54-74. Franktin 1r. , J. L., 1980, Pompeii: The Electora/ Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A. D . 71-79 (Papers a nd Monographs of the American Academy in Rome 28), Rome. Gabba, E., 1954, reviewofF. Sartori , Prob/emi di storia costituzionale italiota, R oma 1953, in Athenaeum 32 (1954), pp. 287-88, reprinted in Esercito e societa nel/a tarda repubblica romana, Fire nze 1973, pp. 600-09. Gatti , C., 1974-75, 'Sull'ordinamento istituzionale di Pompei dopo Ia conquista romana', Atti del Centro studi e documentazione su/1' ltalia romana 6, pp. 165-78. G e hrke, H. -J ., 1983, 'Zur Gemeindeverfassung von Pompeji' , Hermes 111, pp. 471-90. Gigante , M. , 1979, Civilta delleforme Ietterarie ne//'antica Pompei, Napoli. G iordano , C. 1966, ' Le iscrizioni della Casa di M . Fa bio Rufo', Rendieanti de//'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 41, pp. 73-89. G iordano , C. 1974, ' Iscrizioni graffite e dipinte ne lla Casa de C. G iulio Polibio' , Rendieanti dei/'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 49 (1974), pp. 21-28. Gordo n, M. , 1927, 'The Ordo of Po mpeii ', Journal of Roman Studies 17, pp. 165-83. H a mpl , F., 1952, 'Zur römischen Kolonisation in der Zeit de r a usgehenden Republik und des frühe n Prinzipates', Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 95, pp. 68-76. Jo ngman , W., 1978-79, ' M. Obellius M.f. Firmus. Pompeia n Duovir', Talanta 10-11, pp. 62-65. Kaj a nto, 1. , 1965 I, The Latin Cognomina (Commentationes Humanarum Litteraru m 36,2), H e lsinki. Kaja nto, 1. , 1965 11, 'Cognomina Pompeiana', Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 66, pp. 446-60. Keppie, L. , 1983, Colonisation and Veteran settlement in ltaly in 47-14 B. C., Ro me. Kockel, V ., 1983, Die Grabbauten vor dem herkutaner Tor in Pompeji (Beiträge zur Erschliessung hellen istische r und kaiserzeitlische r Skulptur und Architektur 1) , Mainz. Le tta , C., 1979, E. Campanile & C. Letta, Studi sulle magistrature indigine e municipali in area

....... 215 italica (Orientamenti linguistici 11), Pisa. Liebenam, W., 1900, Städteverwaltung im römischen Kaiserreiche, Leipzig. Magaldi, E., 1929-30, 'Le iscrizioni parietali pompeiane con particolare riguardo al costume', Atti dell'Accademia di Archeologia di Napali 11, pp. 13-160. Magaldi, E., 1936-37, 'Echi di Roma a Pompei I', Rivista di Studi Pompeiani 2, pp. 25-100. Maiuri , A., 1942, L'ultimafase edilizia di Pompei (Studi Romani 20), Roma. Manni, E., 1947, Per Ia storia dei municipifino alla guerra sociale, Roma. Mau, A., 1888, 'Sepolcri della Via Nucerina' , Römische Mitteilungen 3, pp. 120-149. Mau, A., 1908 (2nd ed.), Pompei in L eben und Kunst, Leipzig .. Nissen , H. , 1877, Pampeionische Studien z ur Städtekunde des Altertums, Leipzig. Onorato, G.O., 1951, 'Pompei municipium e colonia romana ', Rendieanti dell'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 26, pp. 115-56. Overbeck, J., 1884 [4th ed.], Pompeji in seinen Gebäuden, Alterthümem und Kunstwerken, Leipzig. Pellegrino, A ., 1979, 'Considerazioni sulle tombe a "schola" di Pompei, Antiqua 4 (Pompei 79 XIX centenario), pp. 110-15. Pozzi, E., 1960, 'Exedra funeraria pompeiana fuori Porta di Nola', Rendieanti dell'Accademia di Archeologia di Napoli 35, pp. 175-86. Pucci, G., 1976-77, 'Considerazioni sull'articolo di J. Andreau, "Remarques sur Ia societe pompeienne (apropos des tablcttes de L. Caecilius Jucundus)'", Dialoghi di Archeologia 9-10, pp. 631-47. Rudolph , H., 1935, Stadt und Staat im römischen Italien, Leipzig. Sabbatini Tumolesi, P. 1980, Gladiatorum Paria (Tituli 1), Roma . Sartori, F.,' 1953, Problemi di storia costituzionale italiota, Roma. Sherwin-White, A.N., 1973 (2nd ed.), The Roman Citizenship , Oxford. Sogliano, A., 1925, ' II foro di Pompei', Memorie dell'Accademia dei Lincei, 1, pp. 221-72. Sogliano, A., 1937, Pompei nel suo sviluppo storico. Pompei preromana, Roma. Solin, H., 1968, 'Pompeiana' , Epigraphica 30, pp. 105-25. Solin, H. 1971, Beiträge zur Kenntnis der griechischen Personennamen in Rom (Commentationes Humanarum Litteramm 48), Helsinki. Solin, H. 1973, Review of CIL IV, supplementum 111, 4. Lieferung, Gnomon 45 , p. 258-77. Spinazzola, V. , 1953, Pompei alla luce degli

scavi nuovi di Via dell'Abbondanza (19101923), Roma. Thylander, H. 1952, Etude sur l'epigraphie latine (Skrifter utgivna av svenska Instituttet i Rom V), Lund. Un impegno per Pompei. 1: Studi e contributi. l/: Fotopiano e documentazione della Neerapoli di Porta Nocera, Milano 1983, published by L. Vlad Borelli, F. Parise Badoni, 0. Ferra ri , A. d 'Ambrosio, S. de Caro. Väänänen , V., 1959, Le Latin vulgaire des inscriptions pompeiennes, Helsi nki 1937 (2nd edition in Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1958:3, Berlin). van Buren, A.W., 1947, ·'Gnaeus Alleius Nigidius Maius of Pompeii', American Journal of Philology 68, pp. 382-93. van der Poel, H.B., 1977, Corpus Topographicum Pompeianum IV. Bibliography, Rome. Vetter, E., 1953, Handbuch der italischen Dialekte, Heidelberg. Waltzing, J.P. , 1895-1900, Etude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains , Bruxelles. Weber , V., 1975, 'Entstehung und Rechtsstellung der römischen Gemeinde Pompeji', Klio 37, pp. 179-206. Wesener, G., 1963, 'Quattuorviri', RE24, 851-55. Willems, P. , 1887, Les elections municipales a Pompei, Paris.

216

General index Aeclanum 72 acdility 27, 40, 44, 74f; n. 145,283-84 amici 64f, 69, 122f amphitheatre 72, 78, 88, 99-102 amphora inscriptionsl0,16- 18,2 l ;n. 48-55,79 Anthony 79 apochae Jucundianae 10, 13, 32, 38, 62, 98, 106108, 121, 135; n. 447,452,473 Arpinum n. 308 athletae 36 Augustales 107, 122 Augustus 121 Caesar 79; n. 265, 292 Canusium n. 1 14, 456 centurio primi pili 91 Cicero 56, 71, 86f; n. 262, 347 Cinna 71,86 city gates 50, 68, 100 Claudius 97-99 clientela 63-65 , 69, 119, 122-24 clubs 67, 136 cognomina , dating of, 75f; n . 289 cognomina, Greek, 14, 17, 62-65; n. 224 cognomina, Latin, 15, 62f; n. 227,230 collegia 65 comitium 28 dealbator 31 dipinti 9, 24 double community 71, 86-88; n . 349, 355 duumvirate 27, 44, 75; n. 106, 265 earthq uake of 62 AD, 27, 32-34, 43f, 97, lOOf, 107f, 117 earthquake, rebuilding after, 33-35, 102; n. 125, 127 edicta m unerum 9f, 13, 34-36, 58, 130, 145; n . 145 e lections 28; n. 110 electoral districts 28, 56, 67f Etruri a n. 343 E umachia's building 102f; n. 359, 362, 395 fac-inscriptions 18, 39, 58, 64f, 69; n. 236 flaminate 35, 119, 120; n . 434 , 452 Forum 50, 72, 73; n . 280, 418 Forum baths 77 freedmen 14-17,62-64 , 115, 121-23 ; n. 228,480 gladiators 36 graffiti9 , 13f, 17, 20f, 24, 32, 34, 108f; n . 56-58, 67-68, 79 H erculaneum 15; n. 3, 261 impe rial cult 35, 92-96, 98f, 120f interreges 71, 74f; n. 286,288 Juvenal32 lanternarius 32 Lavinium 97

magistri Pagi Augusti Felicis Suburbani 121; n. 296, 395 ministe rial dedications 38, 92-96, 98f, 12 1 ministri Augusti 92-94, 122 ministri Fortunae Augustae 94-96, 98f, 108; n. 378, 382 ministri Pagi A ugusti Felicis Suburbani 94, I 00 municipium 7 1, 74, 85f Neapolis 62 Nero 35; n. 143 Nola 103; n . 420-21 nome nclature, candidates', 45-47 nomenclature, rogatores', n. 221 Nuceria 72, 97; n. 261, 393 Nucerian electoral inscriptions 36, 94, 97, 156; n. 386, 391, 429-30 ordo decurionum 27-29, 44, 98; 11. 112-14 Osca n ge11tilicial na mes 87f,; n . 264, 350-51 O scan inscriptio11s 9, 73 , 85-87, 89; n. 78, 322 Oscan magistrates 73f, 85; n. 340 pedarii 28; n. 114, 456 Pliny the Eider 15, 71 ; n. 260, 456 Porto Ercolano necropolis 13, 99f, 103, 108 Porta Nocera necropolis 11 , 13, 36, 97, 101. 109; n. 241,314,389,391, 429 Porta di Nola necropolis 101 Porta Vesuvio necropolis 36 praefectus e lege Petronia 100-01 praefectus fabrum 91, 120; n. 358 praetor 97; n. 386, 391 programmata antiquissima 9, 79-83, 87; n. 353 programmata recentiora 9-11 , 13, 17-19, 21, 31 f, 44-69, I07f Puteoli 122; 11. 143 quaestorate 7 1-75; n . 3 quattuorvirate 7 l f, 75, 85f; n. 340 quinquennialate 27f, 44, 73, n. 106-07 riots and 59 AD, 32, 36; n . 147-48 rogatores 18, 21, 59-69 Rome 32, 62, 67, 97, 119; n. 393,463 Scriptores 31f, 47, 58f; n. 3, 119-20 signacula 10, 14- 16, 18,21 ; n. 6,31,33-47,75-76 slaves 14-17, 107, 123; n. 54 Stabian baths 78 T. Suedius Cleme ns 134 Sulla 72 P. Sulla 86 Syracuse n. 355 Tacitus 36, 65 teatrum teeturn 72, 78 Temple of Apollo 71, 78, 101 , 108 Temple of Augustus 120 Temple of Fortuna Augusta 103, 120 T emple of Isis n. 113

.._

..

... 217 Temple of Jupiter 97f Tile stamps LO, 14 tituli 10, 14, 32, 76f, 91 f tribules 56, 67f tribunus militum 91 tribunus militwn a populo 76, 90, 120 tribunus piebis 97; n. 386, 393 Sp. Turranius Proculus Gellianus 97f Ve rulae n. 308 vicini 19, 21, 56, 67f, 134; n. 62f, 72,201,203-05

218

Index of inscriptions C/LI

C/LIV

1634 1636 29-30 35 36 48 81 92 98 107 129 158 121-22 184 187 193 239 241 262 266-67 292 295 310 322-23 334 359-60 362 369 370 380 400 406 412 415 432 447 464 485 498 505 507 518 539 575 577 580 588 590 610 619 622 665 670 705

79 74, 78, 88; n. 284 72 n. 334 72 n. 285,322 n. 323 142, 154 148 155 158 150 n. 163 , 187 126 40 158 131 136 135 148 129 41 142 40; n. 175 149 134 155 n. 172 145 141 139 149 140 144 138 134 144 129 40, 129f 138 136 129, 158 130 131f 137 148 128 128 133 133 133 134, 145 126 40

706 709 723 738 772 775 785a 786a 800 801 821 829 830b 839 854 874a 897 921 929 935g 949 966 973-75 980 984 993 996 1007 1014

1020 1046 1048 1055 1083 1092 1099 1146 1162 1166 1169 1171

1175 1177 1178 1179 1181 1182-85 1204 1886 2905 2930 2932-33 2939 2943

136 147 149 134 40, 146 130 147 138 146 132 152 142,146 140f 130 150 157 149 129 135 127 126 137 132 148 148 157 131 135 133 146 133 22 135 131 157 138, 146f 68 131 147 126; n. 167 126 143 36 36, 145; n. 147 36 35 35 130 93 n. 318 134 158 128 157

-· C/LIV

/

3368 3410 3441 3453 3465 3470 3476 3485 3490 3502 3511 3522 3585 3605 3633 3643-44 3668 3674 3725 3732 3736 3740 3745 3751 3756 3773 3785 3822 3828 3853 3883 3884 4268 4921 5862 6603 6626 6644 6677 6681 7014 7028 7034 7122 7126 7139 7147 7150 7151 7177 7178 7181 7182 7183 7194

219 150 136 127 n. 147 158 136 158 136 130 155 158 150 156 158 145 40 158 40 126 134 134 141 132, 158 128 132 127 126 n. 143 32 140 36 32,35 n. 82 n. 69 20 n. 325 141 157 148 143 72; n. 318 130 136 n. 335 n. 270 149 155 151 154 159 157 133 147 148 148; n. 82,89

7198 7205 7210-12 7226 7229 7235 7239 7240 7252 7259 7261 7262 7266 7272 7274 7282 7283 7286 7304e 7308a 7308c 7309 7312 7316 7328 7333 7337 7375 7378 7379 7389 7398 7401 7402 7423 7426 .7427 7429 7440 7450 7452 7453 7479 7486 7488 7495 7496 7506 7511 7515 7519 7524 7534 7539 7542 7543

128; n. 90 156; n. 90 n. 163 149 150 138 130 136f 132 147 n. 79 149 135 158 159 147 158 141 158 132 128 21 153 159 132,158 139 137 159 130 142 159 141 135f, 154 151 146 153f 145 144 147 135 126 127 156 147 35 147 153 156 126 128 140 147 n. 89 131 130 n. 163

220 C/L IV

7544 7548 7561 7562 7563 7621 7623 7626 7633 7651 7668 7673 7674 7701 7704 7730 7750 7757 7766 7774-75 7780 7790 7791 7793 7794 7819 7823a 7825 7826 7832 7849 7854 7861c 7867 7869 7871 7872 7891 7898 7911 7917 7925 7926 7934 7935 7943 7947 7954 7958 7961 7965 7966 7976-78 7978 7980 7988

148f 139 137 159 142 32; n. 163 n. 177 n. 139 35 n. 431 141 158 133 159 127; 11. 167 152 154 142 144 40 134 134 68 156; n. 90 n. 177 145 153 138 151 n. 164 137 147 127 139 137 n. 161, 164 n. 164 128 142 156 152 139 153 138 140 127 151 150 139 146 40,137 40 36 68 126 35

CJLX

7989 7991 7992 7993 7994 7995 8303 8309 9421 9612 9822 9826 9827 9836 9855 9856 9858 9862 9864 9872 9874 9910 9914 9920 9926 9930 9934 9936 787 788 789 790 792 793 794 797 800 801 802 803-04 810 814 819 824 825 826 827 828 829 831 832 837 844 845 851 852

35; n. 147 36 35; n. 139 36 n. 154 35 n. 82 n. 82 20 20 n. 333 n. 314,429 n. 285,314,430 151 128 130 151 156 142 137 158 144 137 131 132 133 159 156 101; n. 410 100, 102 102 100, 108 102 99 72-74 97f

71f, 78, 81' 88 108; n. 284 101 78 n. 362 n. 395, 414 77, 81; n. 284 94f; n. 291,378 94-96; n. 382 94f, l08;n. 284,380 75,94f, 108;n. 284,380 94f 78,81 101 n. 296 93 72,78, 81 102 102 78, 81,88

........

...... 221 CILX

I

EE Ns 1895

1899 1900 1900 1910 1912 1936

853 854 855-56 857 858 859 865 884 885-86 887 888 894 897 900 901 904 905 907-08 910 914 915 916 917 924 937 938 939 949 954 955 956 957 958 959 997 1019 1024 1036 1037 1064 1065 1075 1273 8058,18 318 323 215 497 344 390 402 71 348 11 ES 170S 290S

99f 99 99f 94, 99f 101 108 n. 78 n. 367 n. 296 93 93 n. 403 n. 368 75 75 75 n. 359, 368 93 93 93; n. 371 93; n. 372 93,102 93f 94; n. 296 72,78,81 71f, 78,81;n. 317 101 n. 432 n. 433 102 78;n. 301 n. 301 102 102 78 108; n. 283 103 74; n. 106,283 100 100 100 71; n. 261 103; n. 420 15 99 101 n. 428 n. 331 102; n. 417 101 n. 283 93 94 101; n. 414 79 77

222

Index of Pompeians L. Abonius Jucundus 93; n. 371 L. Acilius 74, 78 L. Aelius Magnus 126 L. Albucius Celsus 40, 42, 47, 56, 126, 130; n. 62, 185 D. Alfidius Hypsaeus 93 Alleia 119f M. Alleius Libella n. 456 M. Alleius Luccius Libella 20, 74; n. 318 M. Alleius Minius 99 Cn. Alleius Nigidius Maius 32, 34, 36, 108, 126, 137, 145; n. 146-47, 150 P. Aninius 78 Appuleius 127 N. Arcaeus Arellianus Caledus 99 C . Ateius Capito 34, 127; n. 128 Sex. Attius Amplus 34, 127; n. 128 Atullius Bassus n. 400 T. Atullius Celer 99 Cn. Audius Bassus 127; n. 106, 167 A. Audius Rufus 93f, 99f L. Avianius Flaccus Pontianus 100 Ti. Babinius 93 Q. Bruttius Baibus 32, 127, 156; n. 52, 60, 483 L. Caecilius Capella 127f, 159; n. 183, 477 L. Caecilius Jucundus 10, 107; n. 59-60 P. Caesetius Capito 99f Caesia Helpis n. 53-55 L. Caesius 77, 81 Calventia 121 M. Calventius 129 n. 478 Calventius Quietus 128 C. Calventius Sittius Magnus 42, 128f; n. 176, 478 M. Cantrius Marcellus 99f M. Casellius Marcellus 40, 42, 47, 56, 129f, 142, 157-59; n. 63, 185, 203 Ceia 121 L. Ceius Labeo 100,122 L. Ceius Secundus 40-42, 46, 52, 121, 128, 13031, 135, 147, 159; n. 58, 82, 183,201 L. Ceius Serapio 121 Cerrinia 121 M. Cerrinius Yatia 46f, 52, 56, 131f; 148; n. 183, 204 M. Cinnius 78 D. Claudius 71, 74, 78, 81; n. 321 Ti. Claudius Claudianus 34, 40, 132, 159; n. 128, 176 Ti. Claudius Verus 32, 34-36, 108, 132; n. 53, 63, 143, 147, 152, 172, 511 Clodia 119f A. Clodius Flaccus 99, 119; n. 429 Cn. Clovatius 76, 100

C. Consius 34, 133; n. 128 L. Cordius 133 A. Cornelius 71, 78, 81, 88 C. Cornelius 33, 133; n. 454 C11. Cornelius 71, 78, 88 C. Cornelius Macer 33; n. 454 P. Cornelius Tages n. 60, 486 Q. Cotrius 76 Ti. Crassius Firmus 135 N . C urtius Vibius Salassus 93; 11. 372 Cuspius 71f, 78, 81 C. Cuspius Pansa I 100f, 108 C. Cuspius Pa11sa II 108 C. Cuspius Pansa III 40f, 52, 133, 158; 11. 185 C. Egnatius Postumus 101 M. Epidius Sabinus 22, 133f, 149f; n. 62, 181f Eumachia 119f Eumachi a 119 Fabia 121f M. Fabius Eupor 122; n. 473 M.? Fabius Rufus 134; n. 473 M. Fabius Secundus 108 L. Fadius 134 Fervcnius Celer 134f N. Festius Ampliatus 35 P. Gavius Proculus 34, 135, 149, 158; n. 128 C. Gavius Rufus 42, 47, 135f, 149, 158; 11. 182 Gellia 119f L. Gellius 76, 101, 119 L. Gellius Calvos 119; n. 456 Hegius 108 Cn. Helvius Sabinus 40, 42, 56, 136f, 150, 158; n. 63, 185 H erennia 119f M. Herennius n. 285, 322, 456 N. Herennius Celsus I 101, 119 N. Herennius Celsus II 129, 137; 11. 181 M. Herennius Epidia11us lOH; n. 430 Holconia 119f M. Holconius Celer 102, 119; 11. 431,433 Holco11ius Celer 137; n. 431 M. Holconius Gellius 119 M. Holconius Priscus 42, 137f, 147f, 155 M . Holconius Rufus I 93, 10lf, 119, 135; n. 172, 431-32 M. Holconius Rufus II 137f C. Holconius Ser. 138 A. Hordionius Proculus 108 lgi us Fuscus 139 N. lstacidius Cilix 99f Julius Modestus 34, 139, 143; n. 128 C. Julius Polybius 52, 139, 150, 159; 11. 60, 62, L64, 183, 200, 224 Ti. Julius Rufus 108

..:V

J

J

..... 223 M. Julius Simplex 139 M. Junius 139f C. Laecanius 72, 140; n. 318 L. Laelius Fuscus 140 L. Laelius Trophimus 20 Lassia 119 ,Lassia 119 M. Licinius Faustinus 140f, 158; n. 183 M. Licinius Romanus In. 455 M. Licinius Romanus li 140 A. Livius 74, 78 Lollia 121f C. Lollius Fuscus 41, 141, 159; n. 183 Q. Lollius Rufus 141 M. Loreius 71f, 78 Lucretia 20, 119f M. Lucretius n. 456 M. Lucretius Decidianus Rufus 102, 119 M. Lucretius Fronto 132, 141; n. 60, 62, 164, 176,183,491 D . Lucretius Satrius Valens 35; n. 434, 452 D. Lucretius Valens 35, 141f; n. 62, 139, 434 P. Maccius Melas 79 L. Maesonius 142 L. Maevius n. 316 M. Mallius 142 Mamia 119f Mamia 99, 120 C. Mammius 78 M. Marius n. 323 Q. Marius Rufus 135, 142f; n. 182 Melissaea 120 M. Melissaeus 143, 158; n. 323 Cn. Melissaeus Apern. 419 M. Melsonius 76 C. Memmius Junianus 143 L. Mevius 79; n. 316 C. Naevius 78 L. Naevius Rufus 143 L. Niraemius 77, 81 M. Nollius 129, 143 Nonia 121 L. Nonius Severus 143, 151, 159 L. Numisius Rarus 143, 149 C. Numitorius Audius Bassus n. 452 C. Numitorius Serenus 144 M. Obellius Firmus I 108; n. 447 M. Obellius Firmus II 108, 135; n. 60, 123, 125, 495 C. Occius 77 M. Oculatius Verus 102 Q. Ollius Pontianus 93 C. Ostorius 144 L. Ovidius Veiento 42 , 144 N. Paccius Chilo n. 224

P. Paquius Proculus 41f, 134, 144f, 149, 156-58; n. 167, 498 L. Piricatius I 93, 102; n. 417 L. Piricatius II 145; n. 417 Q. Pompeius Amethystus 96 Cn. Pompeius Grosphus 33, 145 ; n. 147, 224 Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus 32f, 145; n. 147, 224 Sex. Pompeius Proculus 33, 146, 149, 158 Pomponia 120 Popidia 40 C. Popidius 74f M. Popidius n. 301 Vibius Popidius 72 L. Popidius Ampliatus 22, 41, 46, 146f; n. 60, 62-63,477,500 ,512 N. Popidius Celsinus n. 66, 113, 456 N. Popidius Priscus 148f; n. 40, 66 N. Popidius Rufus 146; n. 183 L. Popidius Secu11dus 22, 40f, 46, 138, 146f; 11. 185 Poppaea 20 M. Porcius 71f, 78, 88,; n. 273, 301, 419 Q. Postumius Modestus 33, 42, 134, 143, 147f Q. Postumius Proculus 47, 52, 56, 132, 148f, 157; 11 . 183, 204 A. Pumponius Mago11ianus 159 M. Pupius Rufus 149; n. 60 C. Quinctius Valgus 72, 78, 81, 88; n. 273 Rustia 121 L. Rusticelius Celer 149; n. 14a, 403 A. Rustius Verus 122, 149f, 159; 11. 71 , 176,474, 502 L. Saginius 76, 99f Q. Sallustius 76, 102 C. Sallustius Capito 40, 132, 150 M. Salvius 34, 150; n. 128 M. Samellius Modestus 40f, 56, 129f, 143, 150, 157; n. 205 N. Sa11delius Messius Baibus n. 122 Satria 144 M. Satrius Valens 127, 151; n. 167 Seppius 34, 151; n. 128 Septumius 151 L. Septumius 71, 78, 81 L. Sepunius Sandelianus 102 L. Sextilius 71, 78, 81; n. 332 L. Sextilius Lalus 151 n. 224 L. Sextilius Restitus 151 P. Sextilius Rufus 103; 11. 420 L. Sextilius Syrticus 151f Sittia 121 P. Sittius Co11iunctus 152 P. Sittius Magnus 152; n. 478 T. Sornius 120 Q. Spedius Firmus 100

224 L. Statius Fa ustus 96; n . 382 L. Statius R eceptus 152 M. St1abo rius Veius Fronto 36, 152 Suettia 121 A. Suettius Certus 122, 132, 145, 152f; n . 148, 181 A . Suettius Verus 122, 145 , 153; n. 181 T. Tere ntius 33, 109, 153 T. T ere ntius Felix 33, 108 f Tillia n. 308 Tillius 79 C. Tillius Ruf us 79 A. Trebius Va1e ns I 34f, 154 A . Trebius Va1ens II 46f, 52, 135, 153f; n . 60, 62 , 128, 182, 427 Tullia 119f M. Tullius 76 , 103, 120; n . 376, 419, 436 Q. Tullius 78 A . Umbricius Scaurus 35, 103 C. Uu1ius 78, 81 M. V a1erius 154 L. Varius Gallica. 34, 154 ; n. 128 P . Vedius Nummianus 154, 159; n . 183 P . Vedius Siricus 109, 138, 154f n. 39-40 ,59-60, 122 Veia 119f A . Veius 76, 103, 120 P . Veius 74 L. Veius Rufus 155 M . Ve1assius n. 334-35 N. Ve1asius 93 L. Veranius Hypsaeus 40, 155 , 158 C. Veranius Ruf us 109 Q. Veranius Rufus 109 M . Vesonius Marcellus I 94; n. 437 M . Vesonius Marcellus T11 42, 155, 158; n. 437 Vesonius Primus n. 59-60, 78 C. Vesto rius Priscus 148, 155; n. 108 Vettia J20 A. Vettius Caprasius Fe 1ix 42, 144f, 149, 156; n . 62f, 167, 182 P. Vettius Ce1er 156; n. 183 A . Ve ttius Conviva n. 40 A . Vettius Firmus 41f, 135, 156 A . Vettius Restitutus n. 40, 60 , 509 P. Vettius Syrticus 127, 156 Vibius Cac . 34, 157; n. 128, 3 18 Vibius Coeianus Nucerinus 71 C . Vibius Secundus 95 Vibius Severus 151, 157, 159 ; n. 182 T . Vibius Varus 79

~b

...........

_

~

N

PORTA Dl NDLA Wll

100 •

TO ~H

100

lOO

400

"'

n,

....

~ .:-""" "'r] 0

c.,

.

::l

~

:::: : . ~

· !:::> ~~

c::;

n,

._

t:) ~

'"i:l

~· ~

~=t

~ ....

~

~"\:::;

~;:s

0

;:s "

es·'-"'>

/::; 0

~ ~ ~. ~

"\:::;

[Q

;=:;-::=ö

~~

~~

- o

() $:l..

0"

~~

~

§"·.; ;::::

::t:. . ~ ,... ~-~ c:; ::t:. n,

~

lO U ( w

>::>

""""1j ~0~

~·

....., ....

~f}~

t

J

~ ':1

~

~~

CO~

.......

.....;

o\

C"l

;:::..~

<""i

~

.......

0-.

,..,.,~

rv)

~~

-

f

f

"

"';i <'-1 oo' >-::'

-:

....

.~

..:::

00 .....

......;

...;

~

- -

!'-..

~

~

.~ :...

~ !'-..

c:::;;

-

:...

.~

..s:::

,-,.)

......

~-

(',)-

'0

c:::;;

.....

..... ;:::,..

-...

;:::,..

~

...... .....; .....;

f

;

..

I

I 00 ~

..s c....

~

"' 6\ "'

~

0::

~

~ .....

t---'

~

Ir)

~

~

~

0\

~

C'.j

cv)

-:

.....;

~

<"i ~ <"i

~

<"i ~
~

..": ~

.QJ

. .._...._\

LU u

C2