Pompeii: The Electoral Programmata, Campaigns and Politics, A.D.71-79 (American Academy in Rome: Papers & Monographs)

.. r:'RS., "N.I). pAp ... C ' 11 .1 .

l·rvfOI'r()G~I) . . . -'I \

OF TJ-JE

fDvfi;RI u . ·"-'Al\J "· 1

AC:AI')f"NP ... lJl

IN ROME VOLt:·\JF '\''\V!JI

l%0

7

A· PH." . . L~

POJ\i1PE1 I: TH>' ELECTORAL PROGRAMMAT A, CAMPAlGNS /\ND POLJTJCS, A.D, 71-79

A _'\.1" L R f CA ?\: /\ C _<\ D f \1 Y 1

Q

i) ()

_! :'\

R 0 _V! F:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLFS .. " .. " .... " .... " " " ........ " .... , " LIST OF ABBREV!AT!ONS , " " .. "". " , .. , . , " .. , . . . . . .

II 13

PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5

CHAPTER

L

THEPROGRAMMATA, .. ., ...... .,... Elementsand Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rogateres ............. , .... , .......... , , . Scriptores ............................... ,

!L

RECONSTRUCT!ON OF THE ANNUAL SLATES OF CAND!DATFS FOR MAG!STRAC!FS ..... , . , .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . The Problem and :vlethod of Approach . . . . . . . . . The Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Programmata rccommending two or more candidatcs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The layering of the programmata ....... , The Reconstruc1ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.D. 79........................... A.D. 78 ................... , ...... " A.D" 77 ............ , ....... , . .. . .. AD. 76 ........ " , .. , .. , ..... "" . " . " iU). 75 .... , , .. , . , ...... " . . . . . . . . . A.D. 74, ............ , . . . . . . . . . . . . . i\.D. 73 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i\.0.72 ........ A.D. 71 ....................... , . , . <

••••••••••••••••••

17 18 21 24

33 33 36

36 44 58 61 62 65 66 66 67 67 68 68

llL J:ViPORTANTHO\ISE FV' ' , 1 , r yADES,

<

,

,

,

••••••

77

lndi",..idual House Far;ades ............... , , ..

7R

Domus AA. Trebiorum Valentium .. , .. Domus M. Epidii Hymenaei, Casa del Moralista .. Caupona Masculi ..................... , . , . , Candidates for Aedile in 77 and 78 ............ ,

79

<

•••••

,,

!V, PATTERNS, FREQUENCY, AND QFAL!TY OF SUPPORT, " , " , , .. , , , " , , , , .. , , , , , , , .. , Patterns of Support . , , . , , , , , .. , , .......... . MajorStreets., ....... ,., .......... . Neighborhoods .. , .... , ............ . Frequency of Support. ..................... . Gentes Quinquennaliciae, .. , ......... . The Patron-Client Relationship .. , .... , ...... . Popidius Natalis, cliens C. Cuspii Pansae . A. Trebius Valens, cliens M. Epiclll Sabini. Lollius Synhodus, cliens L Popidii Secundi Montanus, cliens L Popidii Ampliati .... L Vetutius Placidus, cliens L, Popidii Ampliati et C lulil Polybii ..... , ..... . :'vL Cerinnius ·vaüa, pa!ronus mulionum, , Helvius Vestalis. patronus pomariorum ... Continuity of Support ...... . CONCLUS!ONS: POMPElAN POL!T!CS,,, , , , , , , , , , , ,

80 82 83 87 87 87 92 94

101

USTOFTABLES

103

L Aedilician Candidates Paired in thc Programmata,. . . . .

37

104 104 105 105

' "'

Duoviral Candidatcs Paired in the Programmata ... , . . .

41

3, Duoviral and Aedilkian Candidatcs Paired in thc Programmala .................... ,.............

43

4, Layering ofthe Programmata .............. , .. , . . .

46

!06 !09

5. Attested Blocks of Candidates .. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

110

6, Reconstruction of the Annual Slates, , , , , , , , , , , , , ... ,

69

7. Programmata Requcstlng Support . , . , , . , , , , , . , , .. , ,

89

Programmata Favoring Duoviral Candidates, , . , , ... , ,

96

112

119

8,

APPENDIX: M!SCONSTRUFD READlNGS, INCORRECT PA!RlNGS, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 127

9, Programmata Favoring Aeclilician Candidates ... , . , , . ,

97

10. Known Quinquennlal Candidates .............. , , , , .

102

INDEX ()F NAMES .. , , . , ..... , ........ , . , , ....... .

1L Attested Qujnquennial Candidatcs . , ...... , ....... , ,

l 02

12, \.}s':'less and l\·1istaken Pairlngs in the- CJL . . . . . . . . . . . . .

130

135

LISTOF ABBREVlATIONS

Abbrevimions: of tltles of works of dasslcal authors follow thosc of the scconcl edition of tbe Oxford C!assical Dlctionary. Abbreviations of iitles of journals and standard reference works follmv The American Journal of Archaeology 74 (1970) 3-8. Abbreviations for frequently clted works included in neither of these lists are:

A ttiTib: A tti e Memorie della Socletil Tiburfina di Storia e d·'Arte,

Attil'lap.· Atti della R" Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arü di Napoli.

BAN: Bullettino Archi?Ologico Napolitano. C&A: Della Corte, l'viattco, Case ed abitanti df Pornpei, 3rd ed" by

Pletro Soprano. Naples: r·:austo Fiorentino, 1965.

i

Castren: Castren, Paavo. Ordo Popu!u,sque Pompeianus: Polfry and Society in Roman Pompeii. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae, 8, Roma: Bardi, 1975,

C!EGL: Congrfs international d·'epigraphie grecque et latine. Eschebach, Entevicklung: Eschebach, Hans, Die städtebauliche Entwicklung des antiken Pompeji. Miu.ellungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung, Erganzungsheft 17, Heidelberg: F. H. Kerle, 1970. Franklin, "Scriptores:" J. L Franklin, JL "Notes on Pompelan Prosopography: Programmatum Scriptores," Cronache Pompeiane4 (1978) 54-74.

Gelzer, Nobility: Gelzer, Matthias. The Nobility of the Roman Republic. Translated by Robin Seager in The Roman .Nobility, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1969. Mau, Pompeji.· Mau, August. Pompeji ln Leben und Kunsr. 2nd ed. Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1908. Mommsen, StR: Mommsen, TheodoL Römisches Staatsrecht. 3 vols. 3rd ecL Leipzig: S. Hlrzcl, 1887-88.

P.A,!i.: Fiore!li, Giuseppc. Pompeianarum Antiquitatum Historia, 3 vols. Naples: n.p., 1860. Richardson: Richardson, Lat\Tence, jr. Pompeii.· The Casa dei Dioscuri and Its Painters, AfAAR 23 (1955).

SDHI: Studia et Documenra Hic;toriae et Iurfs. Stavele)', Elections: Staveley, E.S. Greek and Roman Voting and Elections. Aspects of Greek and Roman Life Serics, London: Thames and Hudson, 1972.

TabCer: Corpus Inscriptionurn Latinarum, Volumen IV, Supplcmentum I, Pars L Tabulae Cemtae Pompeis Repertae Annis A1DCCCLXXV et l\1DCCCLXXXVIJ, editae a Carolo Zangemeister. Vetter: Vetter, EmiL Handbuch der italischen Dialekte. 1st voL Heidelberg: C. \\'inter, 1953. Willems: \Villems, P. G. H. Les C!ections municipales d Pompii. Paris: Ernest Thorin, 1887; reprint ed., Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1969.

PREFACF

Completing a book rr.ust be onc of lifc's most humbling experiences. Thc llst of friends who have encouragcd this author, de!vcd into hls manuscrlpt, and offered advice is lengthy, to say the least. The amoum of time spent over ydlow pads and typcwriters seems frightcningly disproponionatc to thc number of thoughts and Observations that havc survivcd. Final!y came the confrontation wlrh my limited ability even to read proof. Yet in retrospect the entire proccss rcmains oddly S<Jtisf:ying, perhaps more when acknowledging debts and affering thanks than at any other time. This boÜk began several years ago as a doctoral dissertation at Duke University {1975). To my tcachers and advisors thcrc. Lmvrcnce Richardson, jr, John F. Oates, and frands Newton, l O\ve cnormous thanks; only they can know how much thcy have shapcd and nourished my thoughts and carecr. ln thc writing of my dissertation I was blessed with the Romc Prize of the Amcrican Academy ln Rome (1973-75), the value of \\·hich cannot be ovcrcmphasized. The Academy's atmosphcre is inteilectually the most stimulaüng J havc known, and its library, directed then by lnez Longobardl and now by Rogers Scudder, nothing short \lf a scholarly paradise. Thc library st.aff is \Vithout match. Subjcc1 to revision, my dissertation \vas accepted for publication in this series by Professor Frank E. Brovm, who has never ceased warm!y to encourage me in my \Vork. Revisions were aided ln the summer of 1976 by a Grant-In-Aid frorn the Amerlcan Councü of Learned Societies. Subsequent summers sa'v revision continued, the product being in thc end quite different from thc original thanks in !arge part to Professor John f-L D'Arms, then Director of the American Academy. and an anonymaus board of readers who affered telling commcnts for preparing thc manuscript for publication. Jn the publication process Lucy Gordan Rastelli, Editorial Assistam, aided again Jn the fine fashion for w)lich she is known at the Academy. For the second llalf of this study it proved necessary to assemble catalogues of an the programma1a postcd in support of each candidatc, as \'-'ell as maps on v. .·hich each programma is

located, can_did~'te by candidate. As the printlng of thcse would have o'JOS ' prolhlltlv_cly 1 '1 · · _,n -.. ~proveel · t -~ .e__,anc. expensive, I have offered ~;:~~Je .. t_o .hc_.llbr~J)' of the Amencan Academy in Rome; there a,r<,.one l~tere"t~d m the programmata may consult them. Ce _ ~,t F ~~pe1 Scavi the thcn Director, Dottorcssa Giuseppina - · J 1dt ~~-eJn, Y>'as warmly receptivc \Vhencver I turncd to the · for ,· · rums . c'l"t't'l~' . ._ , "a,JOn an d un derstanding. ~ l:l ~u~·ham, Rome, Nn~- York, Wellesley, and Ann Arbor nea, · my ta lk· of progn:unmata, y r; h• everyone ·• ~ . I know . . lt"S ,~1 115·t en";"d tO 1 A-:hout SUGl 1nends, vnhmg to endure my often vacuous chattcr. I \~ould have accomplished liulc 11 is a jov to thank t]·-"'m all. vvhlle "C ( · · h-J., ' ~" .cep m~ as. my own \Vhatevcr errors and faults remain. ~ ~·T~l,ough 11 ,all, one man has stood reassuringly behind mC', '"' ?~.d~·"' _'.~) my a 1d whcnever I callcd, hclping me from the morass Lc!\ JU_lKS for the unwary beneath the covers 0 c r'te 01 a·11, Pom h'" · ' , 1 1 , rycmn ~l.L t1cat10ns. From thc early stages of mv dissertatio~ co ,mal edumg_ and proofing of this rnanuscripL ~o one could 1Fl\'e pro\'ed mo~e ] · f l ''"' · t ' · ~ ' 1ctp.u or understanding. To my· friend and men.or, Protcssor Lawrence Richardsot1 ir •'n's ·book 1·5 dedicated, ' warmly

1

J

••

'·'

'·

-

·-

CHAPTER I

THE ELECTORAL PROGRAMMATA

W'hen \Va1king the streets of the earlier excavated reglons of ancient Pompeii, today's visitor is oftcn surrounded by vmlls that present almost uniformly blank surfaccs. Yet fadcd upon thosc surfaces -,vhere stucco com1ngs remain and someilme:; even on unstuccocd tufa blocks are scattered uaces of largc red and black letters \Yhich once -,vere political posters, or elcctoral programmma. Along the Via dell'Abbondanza in the area of the Ne>v Excavations, howevcr, and particularly between doonvays 3 and 4 of insula 9.11, programmata are protected from thc elcment.s. by glass and give a dearer notion of the heavily inscribcd fa<;:ades \vhich thc busier quarters of thc city once presented. On thesc walls notices in well drawn rustic capitals \vere regularly painted atop one another on successive patches of vvhitewash as occasion demanded. Preserved in the layers of Iapilli and ash whlch covcred the ciTy beginning with thc disastraus eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, these programmata were uneavered as the excavatlons progressed and, bcing once again exposed to the \Veather, have since slowly faded, often in10 illegibility, Schalars had iong realized that these wen: valuable documcnts that were fading and had recorded thc readings of the programmata from thc bcginning of rhe excavations. Car1 Zangemeister undenook to gather a definitive collection for the Corpus Jnscriptionum LatinarunL This -;,vas first published in 1871, and as the cxcavatlons have proceeded, supp1ements to his founh volumc of thc CJL have kepl the coliection up 10 date. August Mau's addition (C!L IV. supp1ement 2) appeared in 1909, followed by Matteo Dclla Corte's ln 1952 (CJL 1V. suppiemcnt 3, fascich~ 1)< 1n 1970, in a posthumaus Della Corte col!ection edited by Puleher \Veber, the programmata uneavered ln the excavations

i of 1951-56 were pub1ished {C!L IV. Supplement 3, fasdde 4'), 1 Despite their obvious importance f or thc srudy of ancient Roman electoral procedures, these programmata bave been largely ignored by srudents of ancient life and politics. Indeed, onl:v' that distinguished student of Rome's political lnslitutions, P. G. I--L Wiilems, examined them a1 aU syslematically in a small book, Les etections munidpales ii Pompr?i. 2 Contrary to '-vhat one mlght deduce from their comparative ncglect, the programmata contain an astanishing array of information and have larger implications.

I appear in ligature, a!though in this programrna they do not, and are abbreviat.ion for thc phrase oro vos faciatis. ~ Bere is the reason for putting the canclidate's name in thc accusatlve; it is the objcct of the verb jaciatis, Although 7960 comains only the geniilicia_ls of the candidates rccommended, it is also clear: Albucium et Casellium aed. In the enüre corpus, on1y L. Albucius Cclsus and 1\.1. ':'v1arcellus carrv thesc names and are rccommcnded aedileship in su~h sharcd notices, They must be our men A programma may bc more specific than these, 894. likc many others, namcs the candidate's supporter:

Elementsand form Evcn 'vhcn survivlng only in fragmems, the programmata are easily clistinguishcd from other paintcd notkes and graffiti because of thelr reCluring form. In its shonest form, thls is the name of the candidatc ~ one, tivo, or all three of its ekments, praenomen, nomen, and cognomen --·· in the accusative, or merely the candidate's initiak 3 For example, thcrc is lvL Holconius Priscus, for whom programmata supporting Holconium (371), Priscum (584), Holconium Priscum (309), and iv1. Holconium Priscum (304), as wcll as f\L!:LP. (657) are all knO\vn. Because we know Holconius' whole name, programmata which preserve it only in part are intelligible, However, werc thcrc- another Holconlus or Priscus active in the last years of Pompeil's politics, confusion would result. Thls is inded thc case wüh several of thc candidates. Easily confused arc the tv.;o Popiclli and the different Celsi and Secundi, among others. \Vhen a programma suppons a man on1y by the use of a confusable name element, we are unable to asslgn it to a particular candidate on the basis of its reading a1one" l\iiost of the programmata, hovvcver, are expliciL So, for instance, \ve havc 344: A" Vettlurn Caprasium Felleern aed. o.v.f.

Hereis thc canclidate's entirc name, A. Vettlus Caprasius Felix, fol1owed by the abbreviation for aedilc, the office for which he stood, and the Jettcrs o, v.f. "'fhcse three Jettcrs usually

Casellius for the here. ho·wever;

Holconium ied. l'v1arccllus rogat

I l i

Maneo De!la Cortc careful1y examlned al1 such programmata in whlch the supporter of thc candidate is named, and he has shown that this supponer is nearly always rhe mvner of, or inlimatcly connccted with, rhc hause on thc L1;;:ade of which thc programma appears.' Our notice, for example, comes from rhe house of I\'~· Casellius Marccllus at 9.2.26. Here the entirc verb form rogat 1s recorded, but this is not usually the case. Nonnally rog. or fac. stands for rogar orfacit. But 7542 has simpl)-' r. for rogaL 6 The pcrfect tcnse of facto occurs eleven times in the corpus, apparently in programmara posted after an election. ·· Five of thc-se (C!L IV. 221. 935b, 935d, 3582, 3583} contain a formula rogandi timt dcscribes the rogator as cupidus, and another (7469) boasts that its poster was grandmother (avia) of the candidate L Popidius Secundus. These notices apparently '''ere pos1ed b:y fervcnt supporters vdlO celebratcd the victory of t heir candidates m Lhi~s manner, perhaps cxpecting recognition of their campaigning. Abbreviation is ubiquiwus. \Ve havc seen that aedilern was shortencd w aed.; this ls a very simple instancc. Elsewhere arc found aed. v,a,s.p
Pompeianorum, Pompeil had an annually elected administratlon composed of two pairs of duoviri, one refcrred 10 in r.hc vernacular as aedi1es, but properly duoviri viis aedibus sacris publicisque procurandis, tbc mher commonly called duoviri, but properly dum··iri iure dicundo. '" Thc acdilcship was the office of lower rank, thc duoviratc of highcr. To avoid confusion \vhen the proper tcrms were used in programmata. thc offices v".·ere speciflcd by the abbreviations v.a.s.p.p. and i.d. Hence the altcrnal<:: and proper --· abbreviation for aedile, Ilvir v.a.s.p,p. Thus if a programma \vhich recommended a man for 1hc aeclileship and cmployed the proper tcrm survives only in part (lacking the !!J!S.p,p.), it could be mistaken for one supporting a duoviral candidate. The use of aed., often ln ligature, was always far more common, hovvever, and thc problern is minimal. The abbreviation aed. occurs in severai more combinatlons, An aedile p,a. (817) is apparcntly procurandis aedibus, a simplified form of thc proper title, as is aedi!is sac1_·orum (9859). llvir aed, (623) is an obvious combination of Ilvir v.a.s,p.p. and aed.; and an aedile d.r.p, v,a.s.p.p. is dignus rei pub!icae as wel1 as viis a('dibus sacris publicisque procurandis. Evcry fifth year the duoviri 'vere 1ermed quinquennales and bore additional magisterial responsibilities akln to those of the Roman censors. This affice is generally abbreviated as quinq, m thc programmma, but occasionally, as in 7629, simply q. appears. A common commendation, virum bonum, is found as v.b.; another, iln'enem probum, appears not to have been much abbreviatcd, but in 3537 is simply i.p. Fraise of a candidme is nearly ahvays in such stercotyped formulae, but occaslona1ly a bit more ls said. C. Iulius Pol:ybius, for example, is recommcnded in 429 because panem bonurn jert. And l'vL Epidius Sabinus made good use of the supporl of T, Suedius Clcmens, a trihune sent under Vespasian to clear the pomerialland araund the city walls, as w,~ll as that af the Pompelan ordo, or senatc. ' 0 He is supp6rted in such phrases as ex sententia Suedi Clementis and sanctus ordo consensu populi facit. 11 An impressive electoral inscription is an elegiac couplet commending C. Cuspius Pansa: Si qua verecunde viventi p!oria danda esr I !wie iuvenf debet g!oria digna darf. Comparable is Lhe v~.rse prograrnma supporüng M. Lucretius Fronlo: Si pudor in vita quicquam prodesse putatur I Lucrerius hic .Fronto dignus honore bono est. 12

't

In 1924 Iv1attco Dclla Cortc collectcd the evldence at Pompeii for the co!legium iuvenum, an empire-wide mganilation dedicarcd to gymnastic cxercises, equestrian training, and arms drill. 13 He concludcd that at Pompeil this coliegium or sodalicium was under the spccial protection of Verms Pompeiana and had i1s headquarters Jn a bullding of which t\Yo rooms have been excavated at 3.3.6, 1 ~ Cansidering the sodalicium a training ground for the civil magistracics, hc counted as members all those candldates recommendcd as iuvenes in programmaHL It seerns unlikely, howevcr, that this was the significance of the ward, In all, h appears in forty-three, probably fon}'-four, programmata, but only twice (7456, 7791) clearly withoLH a modifier such as probus, egregius, innocens, cxtolling character. 1 ~ }fad the word carried a rccommendation in itself, such adjectives wauld be unnecessary. It sccms far more likely that thc programmata extolling candidates as moral youths are emphasizing qualitics which would recommend them for office rather than their membershlp in a sodaticium. Twenty-eight af these notices rccommend aedilician candidates, -.,vho in making thcir first try in politics could no doullt aptly be termed iuvenes. Six more recommend candidates for an unspccified office; only ten support duoviral candidates.

Rogatores Not on1y the great and pcnverful supported candidates. Programmara posted by a candldatc's vicini arc common, 16 and apparcnt1y all the inhabitams of thc insula Satriorwn posted programma 7766 in support of L Ovidius Veiento. r.: There are, in addition, many more explicit notices. In 2966, for cxamplc, the freedman Dionysius, .a fuHer, expressed his pn:ference: L. Popidius (L f.) aed. o.v.f. Dianysiu~ fullo rog. llber.

Such posters of individual tradesmen are common, as arc those of tradesmen in groups, ihe \'>'orkcrs ln one shop or entire m!legia. 18 So we havc, for example, 7812, posted by a team of h~j'ectores outslcle their shop at 9.7.1, andin cantrast 149, 180, and 206, apparently programmata of tlle city's pomarii as a whole, posted an 1he wall af a taberna \vhich served as thcir 21

collegial hcadquarters at 6.8.12·13" Programmaw .Li), 0'74, ana 698, a!l posred by a shop O\Vner cum discentes [sicj arc also

interesting, for v. .·hile further attesting the \\'ish of a group of workers to express thcir opinion, thcy may show as weil the sort of control a shoo o\vner exercised over his apprentices. Group pmgrammata we1:c also cxploited for humor. In 576 we find thc furunculi supporting their candiclate and in 581 the seri hibi universi, while in 575 the dormientes universi rogant the passersby, 19 . Other group programmata \vhicl1 highlight socia! strucmres are preservcd in the corpus. In 787, for instance, the worshippers of lsis, Jsiaci universi, are apparemly unanimous in thdr support of Cn. Helvius Sabinus. Funher down the Via del Tempio d'lside cerLain .hiaci supported C. Cusplus Pansa. 10 Also found are programmata pos1ed by the Veneri or Veneriosi, scemingly either the v,--orkcrs in, or pauons of, the halnewn Venerium et lVongentum at 2AA. 2; Then there ls a programma which rcads 5pecraculi spectantes rog. and recommends M, Holconius Priscus for the duovirate cither m1 the ba:sls of games he had given earlier or on the expectation of such in the f\Jture" n The great majority of programmata, however, are posted by individuals rathc:: than groups. \Ve have already noticed the example of the fuller Dion:ysius; as this suggests, persans of all sons posted their preferences. \Vomen apparemly wieldcd somc influence, for manv programmata postcd by them are found in the corpus. n An . especially inreresting series was posted by Asellina, Zmyrina, Maria, and Aeg!e, women whom Della Corte linked to the thermopolium of Asellina at 9. 11.12. 24 Either C. Iulius Poiybius, who 1s supported m one of Zmyrina's recommendations (7864}, did not appreciate her support, or she became disaffected with him, for her name has been erased from the programma, while thc remainder is left untouched. That the same fate overtook a programma (7841) painted up by a similar wor:han, one Cuculla, in the next insula at 9,8.5, suggests that it was Polybius wbo thought it best to forego the women's acdalm. 25 A noteworthy group is that composed of posters painted in support of a patronus by the candidate's clientes. There are seventcen of these, and they clearly attcst thc personal quality of Pompelan politics, 2& No doubt a great many more notices also 22

represent a patron-dient relationship, alrhougll they do not spccify it. Exemplary is CIL lV. 7275: ' I'Jal"l·n·l aed o \ f cliens Placidus /-'l.mp ·' · · rog. In the extcnsion of the Via di Nocera running north of the Via dell'Abbondanza bet\veen insulae 3<3 and 3.4 was programma 7668. further indication of the imponance of the patron-dient rdationship" Clearly it is exhonation to a diens slow in suppon of his patron, C Lollius Fuscus: <

'<

<

(C) L F. aed. cliens surge fac

\Vorking from programmala such as these, we can mea.sure the importance of parrocinium in the Pompeian elections. 27 Especially interesting are programmata postcd to influence a particular individuaL Typical is C!l lV. 7614, \-vhich suppons Popidius Secundus for aedile and concludes wlth the words Tre_bi Valens dormi.
Valens and slgned by rhe letterer lnfantlo; Popidium L. L Ampliatum @cL Valens fac et ilie tc fecit Infan(tio) Akin to these are four others whic:h prcserve the -plural form facite and are addressed to groups, in each case where they \VOuld be best contacted, Thosc addressed to thc pomarii, caupones., and

unguemarii were found outside the tabernae or cauponae \\'hkh Della Corte has idcntificd as the seats of their sodalicia. 29 Another (1147), addressed to the pilicrepi outside the balneum Venerium et Nongentum, \vbere they would havc been exercising, is similar. :1o Typical i~ C!L JV. lEG: Jl

Vettium Firmum aed. o.v.f. dign. est pomari facite

As has been stated, the programmata are inlarge, well formed letters, both red and black. These werc painted on \Yhiiewash, oftcn over prevlously existing notices. lndeed, their superior execution, highlighted by occaslonallong and elegant hastae, and the range of abbreviation::; and ligatmes point 1.0 a profcssional body of Scriptores who lettered not only programmata, but aiso noticcs of games and other public advertisements, Comparison >.,vith the nearly illegiblc graffiti of the unskilled serves to underscore the high qu.ality of the programmata. Nor is the impression of professional scriptotes ill-founded, for, as Emilio Magaldi dcmonstrated in an important study, hints in the prograrnmata and notices of games attest to the profession and its modus operandi. ' 2 And, at 1.7.16. Della Corte even identified an ojficina scriptorum. 3 ' Occasionally attachcd to the programmata is some form or abbreviation of the \VOrd s·cribo follo\-ved by the name of a man \vho must be the scriptor and/or the phrase hic et ubique, which Mag8.ldi referred to the movemem of the scriptores around tmvn as they palnted programmata, Jr. In all, tvienty-five such narrles appear at one place or another in the city. Yet of these, (Os?)sius (222), Sabinus (230), Ascaules (636), Phyloterus (653), Florillus (803), Paris (821), Sexti , , , , (1200), Protog, , , , (2975), L Livius Severus (2993a), Istmus (2994), PhiL . , . (7027), Ataude (9968b), and Prim. , (9971) occur only once. 35 ln addition, Onesimus is once named (222) as a whitewasher, dealbator, and Ocella once as scriptor by the appearance of his name in a gamcs advcrtiscment, CIL IV. 7993. It ls undear \Vhether these mcn only once attestcd as saiptores >vere >

24

•

professional letterer::;, or whether they regularly pursued other trades and only upon occasion painted notices. Evidence for thE' lattcr comes from CIL IV. 3529, clcarly painicd by a fuller, Mustius: Mustins fullo facit et dealbat scr(ibit) unicus s(in)e reliq(uis) sodalib(us) non(ls) In contrast, Astylus, P. Aemilius Celer, Florus, Frucrus, Ffinnulus, Iarinus, Infantio, l\iJelicertes, Papilio, Polybius, Sccundus, and Victor arc frequently attestcd and can safely be regarded as professional scriptores. 3" As Magaldi has shmvn from analysis of comments painted up with the noüces, the scriptores worked gcneraUy in teams, different mcmbers doing different pans of ihc work - as, for example, the whitevv·ashlng or the actuallettcring - and al night. Evidemly as at Rome, the candidate hirnself was forbiddcn to takc up activc campaignlng. \Ve see that the signcd programmata are at least ostensibly posted by men who support thc candidatc rather than by the office seekcr himse!f. Yet the llUmerous noticcs pos1ed by groups of supporters such as vicini suggest somc organiz.ation above the lcvel of the individual. Probably a candidatc bad an ad hoc committee for his clection, composed of his pm.verful friends and relatives, who hired scriptores to post programmata throughout the city -"v]Jerever the owner of a hause permitteil It is likely that mosi programmata found their origins in individual choices and emhusiasms, yct smdy of the locations of programmata reveals ccrtaln patterns of postings wo cleverly designed tobe unplanned. 3' The life span of any given programma \Va.s thc time it remained visibie before bcing covered over by anmhcr. In some cases, as \-VC shall see, this was a considerable number of years, especially, one would assume, if the candidate had grown to be a powerful politician and influence was wieldcd by reminding him of past support. A programma which had been painted on the fa<;:ade of the candidatc's own house will have also becn prescrvcd, to add to the honor of Lhe famlly. H will have reminded the pa::;scr-by that this was the seat of an importam man and kept the gentilicial name in the public cye, Howevcr, it 1s clear from the extensive repmrs undcrtaken aftcr the 25

earthquake of A.D, 62, that fe1.v posters rcmain frorn time previous 10 that, although there ckarly are somc. JB Such obvimJsly older programmata arc classed separately as Programmara Antiquissima in thc C!L 39 Apan from such exceptions, the programmafa attest canclidacics of Pompcii's last few years of existence . .1o

CHAPTER l

NOTES

i Prog.rammata arro herein ciled aecorcling to C!L tnurnermion; e.ih CJL IV. JOO. For brc'>ity, howe\n, tbc citation is oftcn kept to merel_y thc programma nmnbe1·. tProgramma:a 3256-3296 in Zang.emcister's Auctarium Addendorum are rcrwmbered and included in Mau's collection. from which tlKY are cited here.) A f~w programmata have been rctovered within houses; as thcsc carmot l1ave bcen meant for public notice, !hey are exduded from this study.

2 This study \vas originally published in Bulletins de f'Acadblit: royale t.fps sciences, des lettres, et des bMux-arts de Belgique. Series 3, 12 (!886) 51· 190. In 1887 it appearcd in book form (Paris: Emcst Thon'n) and was rcprint,..d in 1969 (Am:i1erdam: Rodopi). 3 The lnitials o.re immediately intc:!Ilgible to one a1 all familiar -;,-ith the candidatec, and slates and serv;; a> a conveniem short·form rcferencc. They arc very clever advertising bcsides, if L R. Tay1or (Roman Votin;; Assembfies, Jcrome Lcctures, Eighth Serics, Ann Arbor: Uni\·ersity of \·1ic:higan Press, 1966, pp. 35 and 80) is concct in her sug__Restion th:::n the candidates' inltials were v,'hal the dectors inscribed on their voring iabkts in the electora\ comitia. ,; P. Raffaelc Oarucci, "Sulle sigle dellc iscrizioni pompeiane dip1ntc a penndio, e sulla difficolt3 cti ben trascrivere daUe pareti i cararteri diplnti." BA1'i n.s. l (1853) 4-8, o;eems to have bcen the first 10 propose this intcrpreunion. Previously thc abbreYiation was though\ to stand for oral ut javeat, ·whkh comp!-ecely altered thc meaning of the noiices. Garucd argued from CJ.L IV. 61, faci. I oro I'OS. In SUl~pon, '0/iilerns 80, n. !, cited also CIL JV. 456, o.v.fociatis, and CTL !V. tii8, o.v.f. jaciati(5). In Cil. lV. 7889 the formula i> allered to v.o.f. mg.

s Ir; C&A 9-23 Deila Cone estab!ishes the rule, the basis of his pioneering srudy of th<e poputation of Pompeii. There are variations, however. Programmata posted by T. Arrius Polites, e.g., appear not only on bis own h01.1se facade at 3.4.2 (CJ.L IV. 7682, 7685, 768SL bur also may to hls ncighbor's fa~Rde at 3.4.3 (Cll. lV. 7502. 7503, 7516), tht house nf l\-l. fpidius Hymcmeus (C&A 778-781). 6 Willems 79-85 contendcd that rogo v..-as used by a

26

st~pportt:r

bcforc the

27

offidal nomination of candida!cs to encouragc hi' man, whlle' far:io wao emp1oycd oniy aftcr the nomination ccremony. He r:quatcd tbe thcn atte-sted voto and cupio with rogo; now probo ;, also known. Hi~; srgument is undm1c by the ;non~ gcently recovercd programma 77R7, \\"hieb rcads faciemes rogant. Facientes must simply reflcn tbe post~rs' intemions, ror;ant their rcqwcsL Similar is 1059, Suedius Cfemens sanctissimus iudex jaci! vicini's rorproved :'dommsen's conteruion {C!L X. Pompeji 17, p. 109) lh81 thc ktters ~tand for votis Augusta!ibus sacris pubficis procurandis, which would associmr: the aedi!e-s v.:i1h 1he minisrri Au_gusli, rather 1hm1 lhe city governmcnt. On this tlt:C, sec now AHilio Dcgrassi, "Duo\·iri aeJilicia potcstJ.te, duovh-i aedilc>. aediles duovirL" Sfl/(li in onore di Aristide Caiderini e Roberio Paribeni, vol. l:

!·.t

lbitL 60-71- Also C&A

76.'1~67.

1' cn 1v. 15&:·286~31{ 31~(372';··4s6:-··.w;·,·671';~7o:. 706:·· ..!0.9. no, 749~.­ ;ssa:--94f 95( 1007'; 1022~· 1048:· 1059·:' Hl&s;-· 1145, .. 1169,-'3409'. 34f\3;· 346', 3524:··--3537·:· , 6615:··6668;-6669';· fif\84·:·7o49;/720l. 7456,7482,7560,7579, 779L 7793, 7822c, 7854. 9869. Of \h~sc, 319. 372. 1048, 7822c, 7854 are itKO~ple1e. The word wilh near cenaintv can be rcstored to 7793. !h Prorammata oosted by vicini appe:u passim. Sec ah,o CIL IV. 77R7, which vari~; from the. us-ua1 vicini in empioyin_fl propin., clcarly a shoncned form of propinqui. !n oniy onc plate is therc confusion rcsulting: from a P''o•e··i hv a candidate's 1•icini. C!L !V. 443 snppons' Va1i
153. t~

9 011 nmnicipal adrninistrmion of Roman colonies in gcncra], ;;ee RE, s.v.

"Colonise," by E. Korncmann, especially 5iB-88. On Pompe-ii, sce Castren 5582. panicuiarly 62-7, !0 C!L X. 1018 contalns a record of Suedius Clcmens' servlces for Pompeii: Ex aw:toritale Jmp. Caesaris Vespasiani Aug. loca pub!fco a privaris possessa T. SuEdius Cfemens trihunus causis cognizis e1 mensuris factis rei pubiicae Pmnpeianorum resrimit. A duplicatc inscription was fmmd outside thc Porta Vesuvio (NSc [!9!0'1 399A0ll; a ;hird, as ye-1 unpubli<:lwd, i.s outside the Pona di Noccra_ !! CIL 1V. 791 and 7584 respectively. There are several of theseimpressive programmata pooted in favor of )1..'!. Epidim Sab!nus. Programma 7203 reads, sancrus ordo f{}_l:it Sut!dio Ciementi sancro iudici felicitf'r; '7579 is similar: 7576 reads, onlo sanctiss(imus) facit; and 7605 hCLS Trebius cliims facit consentienle sanr:tissinW ordine.

1? The ve-n;ec; are recorded in CIL IV. 7201 and 66:26 respectively. De!la Corte (at thc C!L entry) citco for cornparison with the forrncr the initial lines of Catullus 76. Programma 6626 was found on the [8(:-ade of thc house of Lucretim Fronto (5.4,a). whkh tl'1e hic in the pentamcter empbasizes at the cosc of thc metcr. Sec also Augusr ;\·1;n;, ";"~-1etrisches ;ns Pomre-_iL'' R6mJ1itt 19 (1904) 263-64. 13 Matt\'o Della Corte, Iuvemus (Arpino: Gio,·mmi Fraioli, 1924), Thc: collegium is dnuibed on p. 14.

Such is Dell8 Corte-'s cxpamion d

tlw ahbnviated Satrium ins.

ro{!amu.>. Sec ClL !V. 7766.

13 Della Cone- has identificd the colk.:riai medng place of thc pomarii at 6.8.12-13 (C&A 59): of tlw saccarii at 7.4.15·16 (C&A 259]; of the unguentarii etl '.9.i3 (C&A .339"40): of rhc aur(fices at 8.3.9 (C&A 458); of thc !igr:arii at 92.1-2 (C&A 409); and of the pis!ores at 1.8.7 (C&A 674). i9 Apparently not to be taken as humoraus i> C!L IV. 3485, postcd a1 6. !4.28 the afiari ( = a!eari. or dicc"playcrs. according to Dclla C:one, C&A 124). Mall, Pompeji 403, ;md /\. De Franciscis, "ll significato della parola 'aliari' in un programma elet1oru/e pmnpciano," Rl?ndl.in.c serits 7, vol. i (i940) 46-49, tak~ thc >.vord to signify "garlic,dealcrs.'' Della Corte. C&A 3f\Ra, citcs remains of whal scems to be anmher, though older and fragmcntary. in~criplirm naming o!iari, Cll. l\', 3584, fmmd outsid~ what is probably a gamblin9: housc at 7.15.4"6. Similarly, CJL JV. 7851, ai!hough pos1ed by the latruncufari, chess,players, secms not \0 be meant humorom\y, panicularly ns they po.stcd the programma jointly wi!h a l'dontanus who identifies himsdf as cliens of his candidare, Popidius Ampliatus. J_(>

CIL IV. 1011: Cuspium Pansm-n aed, Popidius Notdis cliens cum Isiacis

rog.

:: CIL !V, 1146 is at 2.4.4-5, 7791 m 3.7.1, and 7978 outside H1e Porta Ve-suvio; the proximity of the first two to ;)w bmhs su~gest'. this in:crprc1a1ion. CJL JV. 1!43 i.\\ 2.4.5-6 Bnd 1162 nt 2.3.4 may aisn bear the narne Veneri, but arc mu1ila\ed. The nnme of the<,e hatbs is prestrved in CJL JV. 1136, aremal

29

noticc at 2.4.6. The signillcam:e of nonp.emum is nol clear, but Plinv, iv' H

vw,"> hJ' 1~ · · · · -~ · ···. , ,, • t" r 1 -' e wmnum !1(mgeml vocabamur ex omni!:ms decii ad custodif'.~da.s- sujjragiorum cirtas in comitiis. Tlle terrn is us~d in the same contcxt at tabu!a Hebana 13-lli. 1\·Jau_. Pompeji 508, takes this w ~ignify a b;n_h des:gncd to anract U1c 'nauorJ:i'''E' of 1he bc"l pconlc Dc'la C"'''~ J"'"'"""'' .. ,.nn",c "' 9''t' c )• ,_ "'· ,,,,",~, ,,_' and C&A 821-5lm. describc<: \h'~ <1> llw gyrnnasium ot thc fr,-venes Venerii Pompei(lni, This is unlikciy, and thc argumcnt hang:s on lli:; rendering ef CJL

cq 7 '11

wrire~

lV. 1162: (i}uven[e]s fV!en(erji jroganij. The programma, howevcr, cannot Süppon such a rew:ling; ir i;, quitc ;mdear. Thc un(Jerstcdlding of rhc Veneri 8 ~ 1he v,orkc;s or patron;; of ehe baf,1eum VPnerium er ,Vom;enillm ic:" Je,s rOf''ed rc , '· ' . -...). .a.siren 115 ~;c·ho bclieves thc Veneriosi \VOnllippcrs of v~mti. (~

~·

~

2 . ;: ~~'JL [V. 7585. Thc p1'ogramma probably rcfen; to Hok\.lnius· ltrm as aecllle when l1e would ha\'e pTO'iidcd gamc~ as part of the ctutie.s of office. i\nna Scalera. "La dorma nclle elezioni municipali a Pompei,'" RendUne series 5, 28 (1919) 383 (h<:n'after cüed as Scaleru, "La donna,"), notcs thc impcrtar:ce of gam~s. to the Pompeian popuiace :and cxplains somc of the suppon cf M. C~se1iu:s. Y'..farn;ilu;: for aedik by tiw apparcm promi.'e of finc gamö thar CJL l\,.· · ----· ~'~·tl (\f ('as!J11·wm ,/odarceilum , ... 49''m .'/' ('ld"' ~ J' OL•11: 1·. aedi!em l!onum Pi mtmerarium magnwn. 25

Tho•c;e {Jrogr<:trmnala posted bv women which mc fwuncl c~lkction<; 0f Zangt•meistn and Mau havc been gathered and siudicd .by "La donna.'' JSi-405. /\ cursory stDdy ll~<s aloo been nub ;,h, cct hv D .<\Yino, 1'11e YVomen of Pompeii (;-..;ap1cs: Loffredo, 1967i. ... -.

in 1he Scalera_.

~,-],·,+,"''' ,, ,, ~•"

~,, CJL IV, 7862. 7863, 7864. 7866, 7S73. On tl1est.:, s<'e C&A 634-37.

25 Suci-' is Della CDrtt''s iraerprclafifm, C&A 569 Br,d 634<15. Scaler8, "La donna," 399, ngreeo 26 CJL !'V. 593, 822, 101), 1016, 292.\ 3366, !2'~5. 7?.79, 7490,7605,7668,7685,7808,7818,785\, 27 See bciow, pp. i03-JJ2.

DeJh •'-'

2.S TfbCer 151, shows thac Ch.HHlilF Vcms was duovir in 61/2. This i3

·· · 01- UC: 1 '1DLtfpfet8.t10ll

c-~,·,~·-

''"

"1TCW:r2.f!lm<; "~

(l~

n ..,., T11 ,OL . . p. . . .11'"\ ~···""··'~

\\d( ('".,:!

exact !ocatiol! of Claudiu.s Vrn;.< hmc:;e io uncntain, bll\ i: -i, in one ol t!w~e opening on the south sid~ of insu!a 5.3 !C&A 215a·<-).

!O

nkeiihood

>These T',.. rnl!,t''.','.l''~•'',, .. '. <", · · '"' · ·- ~,, ·~" •,!,.• <'.·.·~, - •d•i'"'.~ ''-"·"· · 'tl',,,,;,' ,, mc,?!>c,n.<.:Jndt«('nderence.~ Delis Conc s ickntificmions arc:

C!L

J"'ii.

C&A

30

an

l83 330 609 340b

pumurii caupones unguemarii

6.8.12-lJ 6.14.12-16?

(C&A lg8)

7 .9.13

iC&A 339)

(i
7.9.13

fC&A 60)

I

II A

1 :!

.10 Cf. C&A f\23. Della Corte assodates this notice wüh thc soda!idll'l1 iuventmis.

31 On progrmrmu:1ta thm e;nploy a form of th. 11 (1929-30), panc 2:49-76. This cornp\cteiy superscdes the only previous o1udy of the scriptorPs: A. Oe \hrthi, ··c;u 'snipiort'>' n~i pwchmi clnorali di Pompei,'' RendhiLomb 49 il9l6) 64 .. /3. On thc ;;pecial U\legor:· of pmsopogmphicJl evickncc !el t by these scriplores. :,ee J. L. Franklin, .!r. "NOlö on Pompeian Prosopopnphy· Programmmwn Scriprores." Cronacfw Pompeimrf' 4 ( 19'::8) 54" 74. l-lerea i'l er 1his anick is cir~d as Franklin. "Scripwrf's. '• .1.1 C&A 650-54. At C&A 30'7 Della Conc also provides a ohwt dcscrip1ion of the u·ripiores and their work. J;l Magaldi< "l.e iscrizioni parie!ali pompeiane con particobre riguarcb ai CO<;t"nme,'' 57·."<3.

:;:- ln r he officina scripwrvm sr 1 .7. 16 Deila Cone \<'oulU indude thc scn~Qfm· Tythicus (C&A 654). f\lthou.(rh thc name does appear insideehe shop in CiL JV. 7249. \here is no C\'ide1v::e thal T ychicus actua 1\y workcd as a sr::ripror. Ot'l\a Conc>; readirrg of corrado (9968d) as 1.hc name of a scriprorhas hecn retemly corn:ned by H eikki Sohn in his reYiew of thc Dclia C orte Cll. volumes, Gnnmon 45 ( 1973) 265. 1 . 6 Astvlus is artesied in CJL IV. 421,7243, 7248.;)):1. !464, 7525,7794, 9831; P. Aemihus Cekr in 3775,3790.3792.. <79.-.J..-3806, 3812: 382o':·3Nf', -3884,5288, 5289a .. b, 5294,5309, 5"325, 5328,53 7980; Florus in95, 23(!, 58!; Fructus in230, .. ·o>·. -'" i ·'-387. S81, H1Pnuh,s ,n 2993do, 2993z" 3366 {?}:'"3367.~7J7j: 7F4'.-985T;~hrinlF in 124.223,821, 1092. 1228, 3397(?), !243: lnfantif' in 120. 230. 2J9, 465,709, 785Cl, 789, 984, 1226, 3680. 7191, 7343, 7348. 73!4. 7618, 7658. 7665 ('?); \'leliccncs in 2903n, 7JS6: Pilpi\io in 480,908, 1()80, 1157. 3367, 725!, !2.98, 7418·, 7465;·75:W,' 7X29a: PoiYbius in l (!7, 7992; Sez:undno; ir; 5.58. 840 ('!), 1190: Vic;N in 55R, 652, !'.53. f54, 818 (?). ll<JO. ,_~

.,~.·-

37 See below. pp. 87-94. -'~ On the date d' thc eanhqual<e, sce G" 0. Onorato, "'La data öel terremoto di Pompei 5 febbraio 62 d .C.," RendUne series 8, vol. 4 (1949) 644-61.

}9 Othcr o!der programmata are preserved among lhe Tiwfi Pkti Recentiores. Theseare nolcd as antiquiores or prisall; by 1he various dilors. Cll. IV. 412, e.g. i~ in iitu?ris antiquioribus, as is 475; fill is in lf'Cior{( stratura antiquiore.

""So .t'L W, V an Buren, "Wa>Time ?roductivity in [taly<" AlP 68 (1947) 19. and "'Gnaeus Allcius Nigidius \hius of Pompcii," AJP68 (1947) 3S2.

31

CHAPTER II

RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ANN!JAL SLATES OF CANDIDATES FOR MAG!STRAClES

Tbc Pro!J!ern mu:i Met!md of Approach

!n 1887 Pierre G, H. \Villems, professor at the University of Louvain and Student of the polideal institutlons of Rome, published a minor \Vork, Les klecrions municipafes iJ Pompei, in which hc r:Htempted to date the candidacies attested by the Pompeian programmata. 1 This was the first and remains the only anal.ytical study of these political nmlces. 2 But in 11\87 V./illems bad available only the wo:rk of Zangemeister (1871) and the programmata published Jn various journah through 1883, not üw. CIL supplemcnts of Mau 0909), Della Cone (1952), and Della Corte··\Veber (1970). His corpus of programmata was thereforc less than half of t.hose nmv published and limited to but a rraction of thc area.s of the ancien1 city now cxcavated.! The doubling of the available corpus of the programmaHl Js ir1 itsd f suffident to \·l'arrant a re-cxamination of the cvidence and Willcms' conclusions from it. But other factors also contribme to the desirability of a fresh analysis. In the first place, Zangemeister's original volume contalns the readings of a!l pr-eviously publishcd programmata, many of thern by men with nei1hcr epigraphical training nor awareness of the clemcnrs likcly to bc- part of such no1ices. as their different readings of the same notice frequentty show. Zangemeister's publication of them oftt::n has to show multiple variant readings, major differences ln interpretatlon of the relationships between programmata, and conglomerations \vhich clearly originally werc two or more notlccs." Mau and Della Corte, on tl1e orhcr hand, camc t.o thcir tasks '.vith a firm knowledge of the existlng corpus of inscrlptions and great experiencc in Pompelan studles, 5 "fhe programrnata they rccorded were s1il! visible as they worked and 33

so available for re-examination, and both men (cspedally Della Cone) included cornmcnts on location and noteworthy peculiaritics of 1he programmata. Consequcmly, their :supplcments are rnore trustwonhy and, by virlUc of their more exact readings and observations, allow for thc correction of many obvious enor.s in Zangemci.ster's somces, The limited area from which \Villcms' sample comes is aiso significant. He hirnself noted the programmata of thc candidates' vicini and saw that overall support varled from locality to locality \Yithin the city. ö Bur he failcd to observe that on a !arger sca!e his sample, which carne from only a fraction of the city, could be dislorted by such regional prefcrences; even thc hest supported candidatc he kne\v mlght have bccn weakly supported, or even unsupported, else'~Nhere, invalldating his conclusions. Now, with our enlarged sample, it is clear that this is the case. that programmata _, not only thosc postcd by the vicini -- are dustered in c-enain areas. \\·'illems, for example, countcd seventyfive programmata supporting M, Cerrinius Vatia for the aedileship. 7 In the later CIL volumes of Mau and Dclla Corte, ho-;,1.:ever, only fourteen recommendations of him (collected frorn a greatcr area of the city) occur. 0 Such statistical discrepancies also invite a re~examlnatior1 of the evidence. This is espccially the case inasmuch as Vi/illems' approach v.:as essentlally an e!emcntary statlstical analysis of the programmata. Those candidades most frequently auested \\'Cre taken to be the most recent, those least frequently attested most remote, wlth a graduated continuum betwcen, Thc !ist is modified, however, to accommodale candidacie::> attested by programmata endorsing two or more mcn and thus necessari!y of the sllme year. 9 But the shortcornings of this system are immediatcly dear, Is it not possible that a candidate jn an earlier year, pcrhaps whh only a small personal follo"ving or of a less dlstinguished family, simply posted hundreds of programmata, while a stronger candidate later posted on1y a fcw? And how is the regional coocentration of a candidare's programmata to be understood and ~;valumed? 1n Given the nature of bis evidence, essentially a list of the programmata with variant readings and locations noted, Willems cmploycd all !he facrors availab1e to him in his analysis. The 34

evidence, ho\VC\·'Cr, is far morc complex than his study \Vould lead one to suppose. In addition to their confusing array on the \valls, thc notices are often paint.cd atop onc another on coats of \vhitewash >vhich fade and Oakc and permit programmata to show !hrough overlapping layers, making the latest. one difficult to read "-vhile giving tantalizin_>; glimpscs of inscriptions beneath. Fortunately, the supplcmcnts of Della Corte and Della CorteWeber try ro record full delails of the relative age ancl ac-mal layering of the programmaLa. Zangemeister and tvlau only rarely spedfied that onc programma was older than another, whereas Della Corte carefully noted v,·hich programmata overlay others and which could be read through the overlylng coats of white\vash. These additional details have made an entirely DC\'-' approach to a reconstruction of the annual slates of candidatcs possible. Obviously, those programmata \vhich overlie or overlap others must be more recent than those they cover, This basic stratigraphlcal principle permhs dming of the prograrnmata relative to one another: by stud;iing their interrelationships, tlw actual progression of the candiclacies can be in !arge part \'>'Orked out. Thosc candidades supponed by notices overlaid by no others at any place throughom the city can be assigned ro 79, and solicitations for the quinquennial duovlrate can, as Mommsen showeci, bc dat.cd w 75, 70, or shou!d there be sufficient evidence, even 65.;; These are the fixed points in relatlon to >-vhich other candidades can be assigned lO the intervening years. i l In this analysis, the evidence for candidates who stood in the same year, cu!led from notices \vhich support more than one candidate, is very important, for whcn it is kno\Yll that t\vo n1en stood for office in th<: same year, the factors available for dating their candidades to a particular year are greatly lncreased, Such an approach has distinct advantagcs over Wiilems'. 1nasmuch as the acrual count of programmala is irrelevant, regional biases will be automatically ovcrcome. 1-' Thcn too, the evidencc of Jayering allows for Lbe discover:y of any repeated candidades that may exist and would ha,. c distortcd \Villems' counL Shouid programmata supportlng a candidate for the samc office be datablc to different years through the analysis of evidence providcd b:y the layering of the programmata, he musl have twice been candidate for that office, 3.5

TABLE 1

There an;, of rour~.e. limitations. I1 is possible that our resu!ts could bc seriously fla\,_-ed by stif'f competition \\·hich dnwc thc candidates' supporters to covcr their opponems' programmata with their own in any giH:'n ycaL However, thc sla:es as they emergc in the reconstrucrion show a singlc instancc of this, and show on the other hand that programmata wcre ofren not painted 0ver until two or thrcc years aftcr thcir original posting, and in somc cases renmirred for several years. :" A seconcl limümion is thc irnpossibility of assigning certain candidades to an exact ycar. The evidcnce in sorne cases is simp!y not explicit enough for dating morc precise than a two or thrcc~ ycar span. Yet all the bener attested candidacics can be assig_ned definitely to partkular ycars through the analysis of la_yering statistics and by programmata \Vhich support mon:- than onc candidate; it is {mly ihose \Vho appear to have becn minor candidates Jbout \t-hom illere i.s any doubt.

AEDIUCIAN CANDJD.A. TES PAIRED IT' THE PR0GRA~·1tv1ATA* Candidafes L. /\!buduo C:eisuo '\l. C:1>tliim ,\Jarct!iu:s

C. (;avius Rufm .''-.. Trd:ius \'akns C. Cmpi\.1:; Panss. L Pepidius Secumius /\.

The

"i

Evidenct~

Evidence for this anctl:~:sis cornes from tlw progn-lrnmata thermelves and falls into t\\'O categories: J) the information containcd in the rcadings of thc programmaw, and 2) thc loyering of thcse noticcs on the walls. The programmaw actuall;i comain abundant material for a study of the social order at Pompeii, but of pdme concem :o a dating analysis are thosc \\·hich endorse t\VO or more men seeking office in thc same year.

Therc an:- recorded in the CIL some 120 programmata that 1.:learly support more than one candidate. ;< i\s a ru!e, these notices recommend two mcn for the same office, eithcr duovirate (jndudlng the quinquennial duovira1c) or aedilcship, and only exccptional1y cnd.orse a candldate for duovir a~ well as one for aedlle. Rare!y -- fivc times - ar:;> t•xo candidatcs for each office listed. From thcsc shared programmata it is C\.-ident thai thosc men listcd in Table 1, supportcd by a1 least one noticc ln common, stood for the aedileship in thc same year.

Suc1tiu~

Verus Her<'rmius Celsu'i

ClL JV

26

li\8, 433. 49LLI94,

902, 935) 96:' 3''02. 3469.3474, 3~5L 3678. 3686.3845.6609,7012, 702fi, 7046, 7050, 7051' 7631, 77!0. 7ii46. 7960 1!8. j ]35, 3426,3462 35Hi, 3556,7287. 740!. 7455.7735,7927,9060 3S2,525. 707.709, 785a. 1022.2940.7242,7963

9

122. 131' 312, 359-360, 597' J639. 3683.7809

!\-1. Epidius Sabinus Q. i\'larius Rufus l.. Ovidius \'eicnto A. Vctins Firmus

222. 660, 698

)

361iL 3850.3851. 7143·:: 7930 /f-,,";c;.

5

A. Vettius Capmsius Felix F'. Paquius Proc1du;.

464,

Cn. Helvius Sabinus \·f. Sanwllius ?vlodestu~

6616.6628

(7819),(7836)

2( -;-21

2 2

L. Popidim .Amplimu> P. Vedius ]';ummiam.1<

Q. Pos1umi1.1S P;-oculus \4. Ccrrinius Va1i<1

177, '245c, 7300,9832. 9S51.9P8

C- Sa!lus\ius Capi1o

380

.

98~5,

A. Ycttius Firmus i\I. l\.'!dissa<eus

208

- lgiu" Fu>c:w; --Cap]W

.......

i

I

?029

Pri.>cu~

'lnciudc·d ,,, :h" :;\i'•k a:<: cdi n'.'U',T' ''lnr:h ,·"r k ckn1•.'nq·;.ws!:' k\\',' '''~'>· ,"__.,_: ''"'''' c"Cim!i;i;le'\C'' !''' th•,' ~wcidt'hii'. C>Cf' !! :;,>\1 iTCi,C''11' o1!(!1\ i;,;_,•. l::d-«1 ..: ''''" ii~ncc ''' :hc· t'i:;,.,· ··:•c·,·;li ·:. ,:i Pc;c:uH:'· p,-,,, ,_,;"; '•'•"-''.i ({,, h'i!' :~!c' e
,, ·' .'

,,

,-'

Several of the programmata on thc Iist, howevcr, are not so specific as \VC couid wish. ;vlany times thc namcs in the corpus arc abbrcvlated and thcrcfore not dear. because of the many sharcd nornina and cof!,nomina. fs a refercncc to a Celsus, for example, actuaHy to N, Hcrcnnius Cclsus or L Albucius Cdsus? ln all such lnstances on our list, cxcept thc last, there are other programmata containing thc names in a morc comp!cie form, so that the proper idcntification c;:m he dcduced. Such is the casc \',;Jth 494, In this programma Marcellus and Celsus are the candidatcs; from more complete programmata supporting iv1. Casellius Ivfarcellus and L. Albucius Celsus we know vvho these must be. In likc manner, rnan:r' other seemingly doubtfu! refcrences can bc ldcntified. Fortunately, the less frequcntly attested pairs are so fully named that no such confusion arises. The list facilitates also the correction of a confusion in names of another sort. On CJL IV. 7429, a programrna supponing Ovidius Veiento for aedile, Della Corte 'A'rotc: Candidatus, qui nunc appEllatur Ovidius (1160, 3618, 3B5l), nunc Veiento (1039, 7143, 7212, 7228), semellvf. Firmus Veicnto (3850). nunc demum M. Ovidius Veiento, videtur fuisse unm et idcm duobus cognominibus usus M. Ovidfus Firmus Veiento. Diversus autem fui1 secundum praenomen L Ovidius (7448, 7482). In fact, he has confused the names of two men, A. Vcttlus Firmus and L. Ovidius Veiento, who siood for tll~' acdile~hip in the same year and shared thc recommcndation of five programmata, as our !ist shmvs. The mistake is easily underswod \vhen 3850, one of their shared programmata wh)ch is extam only as a fragrnent, ls reproduccd: ~vf.

Firmum Velenwn

A similar programrna, 380, is shared by 'Vetlius Firrnus and Sallustlus Cap!to in thc same year:

f

...

Vettium Firm um Sallustiurn ct_?.SL-;, o.v.t.

In the first, the two cognomina appear io belang to ihe same man, but the Sailustium of the second shows how the presentation of the namcs could be confused in a programma, leading the umvary to join the disparate ekments in 3850 and make Dclla Cor1e's crror. He also thought that thcre was evidence of bor.h lVJ and L a5 Ovidius' praenominal initial. Thc

evldence for M. however, is from notices 3850 and 7429. As can be seen abO\'C.- 3850 is broken off at the Tight sidc and possibly too at tbe left, w1~1ich wou\d have gone unrecorded, sincc the beginning of the programma was preserved, or so he believcd. It scems likely that Del!a Corte's M is the final !elter of 8 missing Vettium as, again, in programma 380. The \'1 of 7429 is a letter of less than half 1he size of the othcrs and almost cenainh' of another programma. On the other hand, the cvidence for Las thc praenominal initlal in notin~s 7448 and 7482 is securc. There is no !vL Ovidius Firmus Vciento, but there are two men, L Ovidius Vciento and A. Vettius Finnus, whose names became conflated. ;6 Programma 709 appears in our list as a noticc supporting both Cuspius Pansa and PopidJus Secundus. In the CJL, hmvever, only Popidius Secundus is recorded, and explanation is necessary. The descriptive phrase in this noticc, iuvenes probos dignos, is in the plural; therefore the notice originally supported morc than one man, The namc L Popidius Secundus still remaJned when the programma was recorded, and inasnmch as Popidius shared programmata with only one other man in the entlre corpus, the notice can, as Zangemeister suggested, bc restored to suppon also C Cuspius Pansa. CJL IV. 785a, a near duplicate, confirms this restoration. For our purposes, the last two pairs on thc list arc useless. Notice 208 contains the narnes ;\'i, ~vTelissaeus and Igius r·uscus, apparent candidates for the aedileship although no office is spedfied,. \vho elsewhcre in t.he programmata are unattested. :- \Ve kno\v oi the gens Melissaea at Pompeii, but the evidence for their political acti~·itv is all of an carlier clate. 13 L. Richardson has observed that Igius must be conupt, and hc has convincingly argued for the co;rection Nigidius Fuscus, whom he iden1ified as one of thc occupants of the Casa dei Dioscuri (6,9.6-7), apparcntly rhe father of N. Nlgidius Vacc11la. Arguing from the paucity of programmata supponing Fuscus' candidacy for the quinquennlal duovirate, he dated Fuscus' polilical career and this programma to a time several years before rhe city's destruction. 19 It is dearly an older notlce than can bc of use in this study. The Caplto and Prlscus who appear in 7029 are simply unidentifiable. The cognomen Priscuc, \\'as shared by thc candidates Hokonius, Popidlus, and Vestorlus: and there are tbree Capitoncs, Sa!lustius, A!fius, and Ateius attestcd in the 39

corpus. 7\\ Mau described our programma as ... lftteris subti!fbus in tectorio rudi dmlbato, evanida et antiquior, bcsidcs; it too belongs to an carlier period. ln Tab!e 2 is a similar list of those supported for thc duovirale in pairs. There again are thosc programnwta which can bc comp1eted ancl unclerstood with the hclp of evidcnce from other programmata. So, for e.xample, 660, which reads .P.P.P.A V. CF, is posted in support of P. Paqulm Proculus and A. Vettius Caprasius Felix. V/ith thc exccption of thc quinquennial candidates Trebius Valcns and Auclius Bassus, \vho seem to havc stood prior to our period, and the final programma, all the men on this !ist arc well attested in lhc corpus and clearly fall \\Ühin the scope of this study. The final notice on the !ist, 2947, was posted in favor of Claudius Claudianus and a Rustius, who nms1 be Rustius Verus, rhe only Rustius kno\vn to huve stood Fm officc, Schoene described lt as fadcd \Vhen he saw it bctween 1865 and lRfi7, and apparcntiy Zangemeister did not sec i1 at all. ?i There is in addltion only onc programma (7304c) recorded which Supports Claudianus for the duovirate and one othcr for him (7912} in which the office is missing< Flve others recommend Rmtius for duovir (1028, 1731, 3760, 7942, 7954), \Vhile another five do not specify an office (390, 397, 586, 638, 971). No evidcnce from laycring securcly ties their candiclacies to the last y·cars of Pompeii's existence. It should be notcd that, with onl;,.' onc exception, the aecli11cian candidme A. Vettius Firmus who shares a programma bmh with OvJdius Veiemo and Sallustius Capiio, a11 thc candidates supponed by shan::d programmma share the recomm~ndations with only one other man, who i<; always the samc. Had the posters of the programmata mercly announced their chokes for an office from a number of possibilitles, it ls inconceivablc that \VC should find throughout the city notices ahvays supporting the same nvo mcn, and neither with anyonc else. Ckarl.Y this is evidence for some sort of political organization, and wc sha!l examine it as such later. lts signiflcance for our rcconstruction isthat such strict pairing limits the imerconnecüons within a given year. H four aedilician candidates belong to a particu1ar year, for Pxampk, there will be no shared programmata to link ihe nvo teams of two men cach. 40

TABLE 2 DUOVIRAL CANDlDATES PAIREil IATHF PROGRAVIMATA'''

CIL IY

Candlds.tl's P. Paquius Procuius A. Vcttius Caprasius Felix

222. 404, 420, 454, 460, 660. 935h, 1l SR, 7427. 7724, 77SS, (7819), (7836), 7858, 7944

!YL Ho!conius Priscm

C. GaYius Rnfus

103, !55, 297' 644, 1007' 6685. 7202, 7242

A. Suettiu~ Ce:rtu' ;v1. [pidius Sabim:s

LL2. ~t9...:3_@., 37J. 409, 447.641.797

/\. Tre:bius \-"aien;; .. . Cn. Audws Ba.\sus

,

Qt~m.

C. lulius Pülybius

Total

7488 '•.,

.: 973

,,

.- '··,

\1. Lucreliu;; fronto L. Caeciliu~ C:apeila :-;. Poridius Rufu;;

3548

·· Claudius Claudianus - Rus;ius

2947

.;'lnc1udcd ::o 1hi;, ;abk mc 'i"oi-:-!1 c:n io;· cknH'i"lCfr~tcd :c' hJ\C '>U)"1p0nd :can' Cil!!ciidacic' ;,_,: th· dc
,_,!!"ic~.

41

'--··-····

Thcre are, however, a lirnlted numl1er ofintercormections 10 be gathcred from those noticcs supporting candidates for both thc aedileship and the duovirate, Theseare prescnted in Tabk 3. There are the fivc programmata (122, 222, 359-60, 660, 7242) which join togcther the namcs of four men in a single ycar and which are thereby among thc most valuabk for our reconsrructiO!L By joining thcse candidates, the programmata attest three large blocks of four rather than twclve individual candidacies tobe placed ln the annual slates. There are only two prob]ematic notices induded in the lisL Programma 7660 supports A. Suettius Certus and A Suettius Verus, bU1 does not record the office for which they SlOod. Fonunately, thesc arc \vell recorded e!sewhere. Programmata 122 nncl359-60, two of those five \vhich name four candidates, as well as 643, sbow that Ccnus, apparently rhe father, stood for the duovirale, \vhile 'v'erus. the son, was canclidate for the aedileship. 22 Notice 7564 is suspicious because it seerns possible to read the first linc as a complete unit and separate from the second: . , quinq. Satr(m)m d.r.p. et Numm(ian)um rvroreover, this is the only notice in the corpustimt recommends both a quinquennial and an aedilician candidate. 2 ' It may in fact bc 1hat the second iinc in suppon. of Vedlus Nummianus, ,".,ho is knmvn to havc stood f"or aedilc, \vas addecl to the original programma. Yct the conjunction is prcsent, and it therefore seems best to assign thc candidates to the same ycar, though perhaps not as two putting thcmselves forward toge1her. The Satrii and the Vedii are t\VO of the familld known to have sought the quinqucnnial duovlrate. These fami!ies seem to have workcd closely tagether regularly, and it thcrefore seems possible that Satrius' candidacy for the quinquennlal duovlrate was expecled to help Vedius' for the aedilcship. even if the connection ,"·as not explicity rccognlzed except in thls not.icc. \Ve have from who \'.:ere supported the candidacies so Generally they will 42

TABLE 3 DUOVIRAL AND AED!UC!AN CAND!DATES PAIRED IN THE PROGRAl'vUv1ATA

Candidates aml Offkes A. Suettius Certus, duo. \'l. F.pidius Sabirms, duo. :\. Herenniu;; Cc·lsus, aed. A. Sucttius Verm, acd.

CILIY 122, 359
A. Suettius Cer11.1S, duo. A. Suenius Verus, aed. N. Herennius Ceisus, aed,

A. Suenius Certus,-

MJ, 7660

A. Sucnius VntF,-

P. Paquim Pwculus, dm>. !\. Vcttius Caprasius Fclix, duo. Q. :Vf:niu;; Rufus. ;J.cd. ;'--.-1. Epidius Sabinus, aed.

222, 660

C. Gavius Rufus, duo. \"!. Hokonius Priscus, ducL C, Cuspiu~ Pamn. acd. L. Popidius Secundus, aed.

lVl. Hok0nius

Priscu~.

duo.

623

(C. Cuspius) Pansa, acd.

!v:L Satfius Vakns, quin. P. Vedius Nummianus. duo, _,\, Venius Caprasius Fe1ix. ae-d. - Vibius Scvcrus, duo.

";'564

SRS

Q. Brunius Balbw:, aed. P. V\'!tius Synicus, duo.

these three tables a slz.able numbcr of men for office in palrs, and ln any reconstructlon attested must belong w the samc year, bc tV·iO nwn seeking either thc duoviratc- or .:[';

acdilcship, bm frorn rlle thlrd table v.:c can pmd:ucc candldmes for both the duoviratc and aedileshir in the same year.

I

The !ayering of tlw prngrammatn

In additlon w these palrs, rhere is for our reconstruction a second dass of cvidence, the details of layering prescrved especial!y in thc CIL supplcments of Della Cone and Della Corte\Veber. In fact, on!y thcse pro,·ide acmal observmions of laycring, bllt Zangemeister ancl Mau occasionallv nxord that a givcn programma is oider than another, and s.uch inf ormation can supplcrnent thc la~ycring" Bccause they rcly ultimare!y on thc recorder's cw, ho\vever. we s\1a!l sce thm Zangemci:>ter's and Mau's reports a~c sornetime.~ amiss, a~ can be proven from morc trustworthv evldcnce. So fc)r cxam~le, 7angemeisLer recordcd that 961 seen~ed to be of e'qud age Wlth 960: 961 supra 960, eiusdem aetatis ur videmr. Tn 960 Cuspius Pansa is supportccl for thc aedileship, and in 961 . . . . . us Sabinus is supportcd for 1hc duoviratc. This ]atter rnust be l\-L Epidius Sabinus, 1hc only Sabinus known to have stood for duovlr in this period. Zangemeisrer's Observations would date the two candidades to the sarne yem, -yet a\ 7772-73 Della Corte recorded that a programma supporting Cuspius Pansa (7772) overlay an older noricc (7773) supporting an Epidius for duovir, :vho again must be Epldius Sabinus. ClearJy one of thc reports is m error. Inasmuch a.s Della Corte was recordim: overlavs and not his impression of the relative ages of prollr;mmata,· we must prcfer his observation. The significance of i'.:J:aü's phra~c eiusdem _".·c! W?tatis, morcover, is unclear. Rather than :--"of the samc vear." this rnay better bc translated "of the same period" in cont~ast :tO his antifJJuior and antiquissimus. Other comments: also will _prove of no value to us. At CIL lV. 3831 and 3833, for example, Mau wrote that thc ?r~gr.ammata were , .. in muro qui amw p. C. 63 posterior esL fh1s JS no doubt true, bur inasmuch as we .shaJl be dealin1z onlv v.:hh .candidates of at least eight years afrer 63, such a co;me;t prondes no useful inforrnalion. Similarly Zangemeister wrotc of 657: . : . in porta [sc. marinaj prope priscan; [sc. JH'Of?T~mma antrqwus] n. 79 in tectorii stratura recentiore. By \vriting that 44

!

the noticc is painted on a coat of plaster morc rccent than one of thc oldest programmata preserved, Zangemeister has provided no>hing of value for our reconstructlon. In Tab!e 4, a list of the overla:ys, the programmata arc so arranged as to reproduce the actua! layering, Tlms in the first pair 583 overlics (and is morc reccnt than) 584. In each case the name l1as been put in the nominative an_d the office sougJTt recorded, A dash indicatcs lhat rhc offlce is. not specifled on 1tc programma as it survives. An asterisk indicates that tbe programma is explained or ernended in the subsequent discussiorL \Vith thcse instances of layerlng, there is agaln the nroblcm of confusion among names" \Vhen a notlce supports' only a Popidius, for example, it is impossible to ascenain >vhether it shou\d be assigned to L. Popidius Sccundus or L Popidius Ampliatus. \\'hile ü seems probable that any notices still remaining from the candidacy of whichever Popidius stood for office first wcrc takcn to support also lhe second in his candidacy, for a programma tobe of use in a reconstruction, the original ycar of posting must be known. If we cannot defin1telv attributc a programma to thc man for whom it was orü6nall~, postcd, i1 mu~I be discarded as evidence. Fortunatel}·, th~ probl-el'n ls l'tmi'tcd to somc of thc most common]y acclaimcd candidates -- Ceius and Popidius, both Secundi, and thc Popidii - so tllat therc are numcrous other programmata on chcir behalf for use in tlw study of layering. As a rule, the scriprares posted sufficiem name elements to avoid the possibility of confusion, for the candidates thcmselves, of course, -...vjjj not have \vish-ed tobe confused. lt is cspecially programmata surviving only in pan tha1 could mislead. There is a similar problem \\'it.h notlces in whlch thc ofüce sought by a candidate kno>vn 10 have swo-d for hoth acdile and duovir is not preserved, There regularly are other notices \Nhich do specify the office, hm these rarely stand in the same rclation 10 a sccond programma as the undcar reference, and valuable int.orm3.tion is thereby lost. The loss is not complete, hm-vevcr, for both those programmma with incomplete names and thosc lacking indication of office can be employed as a check afler rhe recons!ructlon is completcd from thc other CYidencc. They -c.an confirm a scquence when the overlays thcy re-cord can be placcd within it, or call it into question if noL

TAB!E 4 CIL IV

LA YERING JN THE PROGRAMMATA

,,1004 '1003

Programma'tJ are so arranged as to reproduce the actual Jayering. Thus in thc firstpair 583 overties (and is more recent than) 584. In each case the name has been put in the nominative and the offic-e sought recordcd. A dash indica1es that rhe office is not specificd on the programma as it survives. An asterisk indicates that the programma is explained OT emended in the subsequenl discussion.

C!L IV

Caudidates and Offlees

. 58J ,}84

Casel!ius, aecL Priocus. --

·.-81 8 ii25

M. Ce;_Tini1J;;,:aed. Gavius Procuius, -·· U-f. Add. on 825)

891 2954h

l\I. Cerrinius,Priscus, -·-·

,1[!57

)056 1066 '1067 _1075 ,!077

-,1075

Posturnius, aed. N. Popidius Rufus, aed.

SR9

46

- - - · · - - .....--"""'--·--·---···-

Secunduo, aed. Caprasius. duo. A. Sueuius, aed,-~-\ 1VLE.(S,),d110.~ /

Cn. Helvius Sahinus, cttd. C. Lol!ius, ··-

CrL Heh·ius, ad. P. Sittius, aed,

Cn. H dvius, aed.

c. L. (f.),-

29742975

L Popldius, aed. Lucretius, duo.

2974 __2976

L Popidius, aed.

2979 2978

L. Albudus. aed. Ampliatus, aed.

3410 3411

CrL Hehim Sabi.nm, aed.

3410 3412

Cn. Htlvim Sabinus. Be-::!. Prob.s,-

; 3460

Gavius, acd. Ti. C!audius V,;-rus, duo.,

-_3462 3463

Vt'rus, -·

LDll .

Trebius Vaiens et Gavius Rufus, -· Litinius. ,...

,_,3474 '3475

Albucius et 1\larcellus, ··:!\
,.,3529

M. Pnpius Rufus, duo. (M .} \/(,•sonius, duo.

'3528

-.-988

..... -~~-

Hns cf. Add.

346! Albncius,Mcl. \L H. P" aed.

C:;mdidates aml Offices

·-··~--···--'""""--""'"'"-

Paquim Protulus, dno.

3535

N. Popidius Rufus, aed.

;3534

Cn. HeJv·ius Sablrms. -· ?vl. Pupius Rufus, duo_

Ctius, -··

3716 _3717

Secundus, aed. Sabiuu~, duo. Verus,-

Sitiius Magnus, aecl.

47

CILIY

Candidaies and Offites

'- 3741 _-'3742

Cisud!us Verus. duo. RU>lius, aed.

- 3760 ,3759 ,3758

C. C S. \L duo.

Rusüm Verus, duo.* Lunetius Fronto, --..

··---······-7134a b

'

----C'Ciuo Secundus, duo. P. Vedius Siricus, qtJin. Veswrius, ---

7142 7143

Licinius Famtinus, sed. Veiento ct Venius, acd. L Popidius Sccundus. aecL

,3759

(". C S. l\L duo,

71,\6 7!47

,J761 3762

Popidiw;, ---

7]

Q, Postumius.-

7158

'3764 ,3766

C. lulius Pdybius,-

7162

Holconius Priscus, aed .

. 3764 3767

Ti. C\audiu'i Verus, dno.* P, Paquiuo Proculm.

7166 7 17()

L Popidius Secund1JS, aed. L Pop.,-.. ~

_-\, Sucttius,Sa!lustius.

; !68 _.7]71

L. Popidim Arnplistus, aed. Veiento,-

7184 7185

Lucrelius fronto, quin. L Pcricatius, --..

7188 7189

Pansa, aed. C. blins, Juo.

7202

;'vl. Holconius Pri$CLG et C Gavius R11fus, dw.\, :-,-1, Epidiu:; Sabinus, duo.

Popidius. -··--

,3812 3813

Ce!cr,-

c. c. c, ··-

c. Lollius ruscus, ....... Ti. Claudju;; Veruo, duo.

3817 3828 6fi33 _6634

!vl. Same!lh1s l'dodesws, aed. Fuscus, aed.

6642 6643

L. A. C" aed. . cstorius,

722'7 722R

Trebim Vslens, aed. \'cicnto. aed.

7233 7234

Secnndus, acd . C:. Lnllius, --

725R 725-9

L Cciu.'i Secundm. duo, .us, duo.

Paquius, duo.

7273

Secundm, -~

7274

Cn.l--leh'ius Sahinm. 2ed. C. L. F., -*

Popidiu5,I\•!arce!lus, -Albucius et Ca;;el1ius, acd. Sirt\ _

'71293 b

'd

L. Popidius, aed.

P. Paquius Procu1us, ciuo. Sallustiuo, aed.

Ceius Sccundus, ducJ. *

.)051 7052

"IJed.

7208 7209

.,aed.

L A!bucius, aed '-'

6664 66-65

7203

Sc.

A. Vettius Firmus, e1ed.

. estorius, -""

66-46 ...6047

.7161

L. P;:pidiuo, aed.

7205 7206

.eH .

6644 6643

48

Ti. Ciaudius Vems, chw. ~

56

l\1RLLM, duo.

C.C.P.,aed. L Ceius Secundm. aed,

Ncmius, -·

49

ü.wdidutes :aml OWces

CIL!V

Camlidates 11nd Offices

7280

Veuius Firmu.>. ac:d,

7281

Severus, duo.

7487 7488

C. Ca1vcntiu;; Sit1lm Magnus, duo. A- Trebiu;; \'alem c:t Cn. Audius B~bsus, quir\.

7489 7490

P0pidius Secund1.1s. aed. L. Ceiu> Scccmdm, duo.

7495 7496

Popidiu> Secundus, _.... A. Suettiv; Cenus,-

7503 7504

VeHius firmus, aed.

7506 7507

A. Veniu> Firmu:,, L. Popidius, -~

7509 75!0

L Popidius Secundus, aed,

:?509 l1

L. T'opidius Secundus, aecL L. Albucius, ... -

7~18

Cuspius Pansc;, ad. .s Ro, . us, acd.

7282

Sc~undus,

7283

Ve.

aed. .us, quiTJ. ~­

)291

L. Popidills A.mp!ifnll-S, Vihius Sevcrm, duo.

7312

A, Suettius Cenus, duo.

7313

L. Popidius Ampiiaws, -·

_]290

..7325

A.S. V.,-

)324

Rufus, duo.

._7JJO

C. Gavim Ruht;-, dcw .

7332

Siricus, quirl.

7348

Hclvius Sabim:s, HecL L Ceius Secundus_. aed.

7347

7401 7402

Scverus,-

"7408

(C. Gav\u' R ufus) et Trt>bim \.' alf'nS, --··

,7519

Popidi11s. duo. ~­

L. Popidiw, A.rnplia< us, aed.

L PopiCEm Ampli·a.n s, ow:L

Sccundus. aed,

752.6 7529

74!1

C. LoHius. aed.

.-7539

7421

S!tüus lvJagnus, duo. *

7543

L. Ccius Secundus, duo . p_ Paquh:s, duo,

7422

Le.llius, acd,''

7556

;,.·). Smrius, quin.

7555

D. Luc. V.

7428

,7429

Licinius- F<wstinus, acd.

..7559

!'vl. Ovidius Vekmo.

J430 7431 7451

Pri~cus,

... --

7452

Popidius Senwdus. at'd. L Albudus,-

74:55

Tr~bius

7456

M, Licinius Homam.1s _aed.

7469 .. 7470 . 7476

M. Holconius,-

7604 7605

Caln:ntiu5 Quietus, duo. *

7607

P. Paquius Proculus, d110.

Epidius Sabinus, duo.

(. Gavim Rufm, duo. (, Lol!ius Fuscus, aecL

.}612

Cn. Hdvlus Sabinus, sed. Holc-onitts Priscus, aed .

,.7614 .}615

L. Popidius Secundtls, a<:
7611

L Popidiu~ Srocundus, acd. P \-'W.iw.Cekr,--

A. Suettius Verus, a\'d .

7558

)606

et R ufus. aed.

p, Sit;]uo, aed.

5!

50

f

IT(Ib/C 4 t"i'in!il'lued)

OLIV

Camlld<;~!C5

,7616 17

A. S. V., aed. Caecllius. duo.

,}630 7631

Cuspius Pansa, acd. L AlbuC'ius et Casdlius, aed.

7651 7652

Cn. Hdvius Sabinm. acd. A. Sucttius ('erws ct A. Suc<' us Veru:-,

7676 '·- 7677

L. Ceius Sccundus, duo. A. Sue~~:ius Ccrtus, aed.

-7681 :.-1682

L Popidius Secundus. aecL Paquius Protulus, dc1o.

7685 7686

Hokonius Pri;;cu~, chw. C. C. S. M., duo.

7692 7693

L PopidiliS Sccundm. acd. Lollius,acd.

77()()

___

Office~

7776 ,_777fj

Siuius, dcw.

}'l79

Secundus, aed.

:7782

L. Ceius Secundus, duo.

7-783

L. Ovidim Vei-"-nto, aeJ.

7788 7_789

Popidius,aed.

~-

Sneuius Verus, ...L. Ccim Secundus, düo. .apras;u;;, ~-

7792 7793

77%

l\·l. C. \;J ., >!ed.

7799

Secundus, ---

7/)j 4

P- Paquius Proc'(J]us, dun.

7815

C. GaYius,-

-7818

Trebius, aed.

.7819

Caprasius el (Paquius),-....

.. 7825

:'vl. Hdconius Siricus, aed . Ri:stit:.:tus, - ..

:/7722 ,)723

A, Suenius Verus, aed.* LA!budus,aed.*

7726 .7725

A. Suettius Vcrm, aed. L. Ceius Secundus. i.\(~d.

7826

7737 7738

Cdus Se<::nndus. duo. A. Y<:ttius firrnus, aed.

"7837

Cuspius Pansa, oH:d. L.(hidius,aed_

.7852 7853

CCS.i\-L-

.7745 ./7744 ,:7"745

Paquius, duo. L Ovidius. aed.

)858

Caprasiuo; ct Paquim, duo.

)760 ,7761

L Cei1JS Si:cundus, duo. !\. Popidius. d110.

"7859

Priscus. aed.

7767 ) 7768

Ceius Secunduo, duc-. A. Sue;_\)u<; CeT(\lS, duo,

7743

~

Suenius Certus,p Paquiw; Proculus .,-t A. V"'c\.'\ÜE Felix,-

)836

7ß6la

%-

52

___

L Ceius Secundus, ~ Sittius Magnus, ·-

,]775

7706 771 !

',

,,,,,_,_,,,,,,

M. Epidius, duo.

A. Suettius Cenus, duo. L Popius [sie] Amp1ia1US,
7702 -..7703

Candidates and Pansa, aed.

7T!2

Celus, duo. Popidius. aE-cL

,.7659 7660

',

CIL IV

und Offlees

Trebius, aed.

b

Paq.

c

A ... u~, ---

53

fTabiP 4 comfmwd)

Cf LIV

Cundid:ates and Offlees

CIL I\'

C:wdidates lmd Offices

7875 7876

Cuspius P;w:;a, aed. Fuscu;,,acd.

)952 __ )953

C. C. S. M., -S... rkus, .....

7877

A.

,.7966

7878

A. Suettius Verus, at:'d. *

Fuscus.aed.* Cn. He. , .

)88]

Litinius Fausf.inus, 8.td. et. Cn., duo. G
,_.7882 --7896

Suruiu~.

Certus, duo.~­

)897

AmpiiatUs, aed. VetJius, - ...

,)898 7899

Valt'tl." filius, aed."' Pansa, acd.

7900

Pansa, aed. Lo!Jius. ·-

7901 7912 _79]4

Ti. Claudius Claudianus, "'·-"' Cn. H. S ... aed.

791 s

Q. Posturnius.-

)924

Casellius, aed. C. luliu." Po-:ybius, ac('L

_7923 _]9 !9

C. Cuspiu~ Pansa, acd . Po\ybius, aecL

.}925 )928 }931 7933 7934 7935 7936 7937

7944

7965

-·.*

7970 7971

Q. Postumius !Vlod~srus, quir;,

_1972

L Caeci\ius, duo. C. C. S. M.,-

'7975

A. Vet:iusFirmus,-..

9832 9833

Va.ia et Postumit1S,Sexrilhrs --

9843

Lucre:lus Vakns, -Septumiu.,-

_9844

(Layering is also indicated at: 862 -. ~64

case!liuö, ~--Pos\umius Procu\us, wcd.

although it \;; undear th-a.t 1'.62 overlies 864 cmtil after the recmmruction is completed.)

Cn, Helvius Sabimn, acd.

N, Popidim Rufus, duo. Sittiusl\-lagnus, duo.

k

M. Hokonius Prisr::us,aed, Licinius Romanus. acd. L. CK-ci1itLs Cape!la, duo. Siricus, quin.

Paquius !:'t Capmsius, duo.

-7945

S;;;-vnus, aed.

7950 7951

Amp!iatu>, aed_ Sntilius. -.. -

54

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

55

But sevcral of thesc prognumnata nccd darification or emendation bcforc the:y are taken as evidence. Thc First is 7274. Ü('!Ja Corte read thls as Cl.F., with no office spedfied. However. there is no knov·n candidate tvhose initials are CJ .F.; clcar!y something is amiss. 2 ·-~ \\'e do know of C:. Lollius Fuscus and C 1ulius Pol}'blus, either of \ovhose initials might havc hecn mistaken for C.LF. were one !eHer nol dcar. The mistaklng of an I for an L or an F for a P would be almost equal!y probable, ycl it scems likelr that our programma supports C.LF., or C Lol1ius Fuscus. Fus-cus was, as we shall sec, a candidate of 78, while Polyb!us stood in 74; it is simply more probabk that the programma from the later campaign survived. :s Programma 7898 also needs exp!ication. This Della Conc rook :o support Silius Va!ens, who, hc noted at hls ClL entry, is unatttsted elsewhere: Valentern Silium aed, G.'J. Yet il is most unusual that thc gentillcial name should follow the cognomen and be \vritten at smaller sca!e, The rcading Silium must be, ln fact, incorrect. The programma must Support A. Trcb)us Valens,filius, as do a few others, notably 1557, of \Yhich it is nearly a copy: 26 Valentem filium aed. v.a.s.p.p. o.v.L "_-'"~~

Trebius filius is the acdilician candidatc of our period, His father is attested by 7488, vihich recommends him for the quinquennia! duoviratc in conjunction ·.vith Audius Bassus. ~-· Della Cortc also used too much imagination in ediflng three mher notices. He read 7147 as a programma supporting lviar,ccllus for the duovlrate. Although therc is one notice (3528) supßorring M. Vcsonius, apparently M. Vesonlus Marcellus, for the duovirate and another (7769) recommendlng slmply a lv1arcellus, no one bearing tllis cognornen is \Velt enough attested to have stood for duovir in the last ten years of Pompeii's existence. 1 ~ Programma 7147 is rnoreover hy no means clear; lt actually reads AfRILAf and so appears in Table 4< \Ve can do no rnore w1tll il. Della Cone also restored 7259 to support L< Popidius for duovlr. No L Popidius is known to have stood for

56

duovlr, and agaitJ rhe reading is undear. In fact, \Ve ha\;C only the bcginning, L and P in lig_aturc, and the concluding um, \vith the abbreviation [h-'fr. Finally, Della Cortc restored 7283 to read Vesonium, bm the middle Jetten:; are misslng, and it may as \vel! have becn Vemnium. On our list lt appears as Vc ... us. On only one occasion, \vhen describing programma 7966, did Della Cone offer comments on the relative age of a notlce apart from indication of layering. Programma 7966 supports a ftuscus, no doubt C. Lol!ius Fuscus, for aedi!e. This, Del!a Corte \Hüte, was . , . supra 7965 recentior. Nmice 7965 is fragmemary and Supports Cn. He . . . . , who should be Cn. Helvius Sabinus, Ihc on\y known Pompeian vr·hosc name would suit this beginning, Yet four overlays (1066-67, 1075-78 cLAdd., 3410-11, 7273-74) sho\v pmgrammata supporting Cn. Hclvius Sabinus on top of others recommending .Lollius Fuscus, ft must bc, then, thm, unless hc misread the fmgmentar:v 7965, Della Corte's cye failcd him hcre, and that lf relative age can be determlned, progra1l1ma 7966 is older than 7965_ The correciion appears morc like!y since Della Cortc's original cxcavadon repon made no such observation. ='~ The detail is on-e- whtch has crepl in bet,vecn the rcport and lhe later CIL compi!ation. Thls and the four conflicting overlays prove i!s inaccmacy. In a fev-i lnstances, too, vihat appears ro be information from !aycring~ is misie.?.ding and must be disrcgarded. Such are programmata 7166 and 7170, 7614 and 7615. Thcy all appcar to be noriccs supporting L. Popldius Secundus, painted atop older noüce.~ for anothcr Secundus or Popidius_ It is clear from Della Cone's note at 7166 and 7170, hmvever, that the painter was simp!)r not satisfied ·with his first abbrevlated attempr and then painted ii over with a cornpkte programma. 30 lnasmuch as the same may also have happencd in the other two cases, ü seems ~vvise to treat them as re\vorkings and not to take them as evidenct." for the reconstrucdon, 31 For a different reason the evidence frorrl certain othcr overlays \Vill not be usef11l. They arc ovcrlays lnvolving tituli antiquiores, programmata supportlng candidades in a period earlier than that encompassed in this study. Programmata 352829 and 3534-35 are so iden1ified b:r l\-1.au. ·1 : There are scveral more noticcs, too, which although not termcd antiquiores in the CIL, _yet seem to fall outside the present study, and no

ev!dence links them to the reconstruction. Fina!ly, it ls necessary to mention thc ovcrlay of 7877-78; 7877 supports A. Suettius Ccrtus for duovir, 7878 A. Suettius Verus for aedlle. These men vvere dearly kin, most probably father and son, and they stoocl for thcir respective offices, according 1o programrnata 122, 359-60, 597. and 7660, in the samc year. \Vhy, then, would onc's programma cover thc other's? Even had Verus stood for aedilc earlier. there would be no reason for covering the programma in the year he \vas again seeking that office. And there is no evidence 1hm Verus had stood for aedile pn''iiously and that subsequent w his candidacy, yet previous to the time ihey stood tagether, Cenus stood for duovir. Perhaps thc best explanat!on is to suppose that the scriptor was engaged to post here a programma for Certus. If our c.andidates arc in fact father and son, it seems possible that the same scriptor would also have been painting notices for Verus, that hc could easily have become confused in the night on his rounds 'vi1h no onc to question, and could hm'e painted a poster for the wrong SueUius. He would then have been obliged toreturn and correct his mistake, thus producing our overlay.

TABLE 5

A TTESTED BLOCKS OF CANDIDAfES

om.::cs aml CIL l\' Refrrem:es Duoviri (797): Botll Offices (122):

A'cd i\e;; (7 R/_i<J):

Dmwirl ('7'724): Botll Officö (222): Acdi\cs {66ü):

Cenus N. Hcrcnnius Cdsu:;

A. Suet1ius

P. Paquic1;; Procu!us

A.Nettith Capwsius Felix

Q. l\·Iarius

ivL Ep',dius Sabinus

Hufus

V~·rus

··············-~··~-

Dunviri (7202): Botl1 Offices (7242.): Aedite<; (7963):

C-Gavius Rufly,

\'1.1-l<JkonitE Priscus

c:. C'us]liuo

L Popicbs

Pansa

The Re-construction

Frorn the successful combination of the -evidence provlded by the readlngs and layerings of the programmata, the reconstruction of the annual slates emerges, The projcct is more complex than its descrlption as the method of approach, for lt is a cumulative process in which each step builds on the preceding one, and lt is best presented both diagrammatically and in discus,sion. r-\s it is desirable 10 \vork \-vith as few variables as possibic, the flrst step in this process is the combination im.o larger blocks of all thc candidades v..'hich can be joined tagether in one year on the basis of thc evidencc fwm programmaHl ~upporting more than one man_ l\ is at thi~ point that thc rrn~rammata naming four umdidates are va!uable, for a~ ha~ hccn nutcd, in only one instance has a man bccn recorded with nwrc than c•m' runningmare for lhe same officc. In thc following ~:hart of the<,e b!och nl l~~-llldidates, Tab!e 5.

fvl. Fpidius Sabim:s

A. Sueuim

·"--

St'tundus "~

..

~~

Duo,-ir: ßoth Officeo: (75641: (Vakm and ~urrmtiam1s)

Aedilö (3549):

P. Vcdim :'--iumrnianus

L ropidiw, Ampliatus

Vibius SevenF Both Offices (888}: {Sc,·cru;; and Vettiuo) AedUes\464):

/\edile:; 080: Sal1ustius and Verrim: 3851 : VettilL' anö 0' idiu<;): ~~--·······"""""

A.

Veniu~

P. Paquiw

(apras "' Fclix

Proc:ulu,

C. Sa\lusrim

A. \'c'!111h

Capi1o

Firmu~

L., (hJdJU' Vciento

illustrative CJL refercnces display not only the larger blocks, bttt also the interconnections between thc smaller Lcams of two candidatcs, So in !he first block, Suenius Certus and Epidius are supportedas a team in progrCJ.mma 797, Herennius and Suctlius Verus in 7809. Al! four candidatcs are supponed in 122. \Vith the inc!usion of evidence gathercd from thc layering of programmata. thesc blocks of candida1cs known from the readlngs of shared noliccs to have slood in thc same ycar can be arrangcd chronologically relative to one another and dated. And to thcm can be addcd other candidates shown ro have stood in the same years. Before progrcssing, however, an obvious but important observalion must be rnadc. Thc evidence from Jayering attests both candidates v,:lw preccded (programmata supporting rhem would bc covercd by others supporting the man standing at the momcnt) as wcll as those who followcd any given man (thclr programmata would cover our rnan's). Thc evidcnce is imerlocking_ and must agrce ln both directions" So, for example, L Cciu.s Senmdus, duoviral candidate of 78, is suppor1ed for thm office by programmata 1vhich, if overlaid, are covered only by notices supponing candidatcs of 79. L.ikewise, programmata rccomrnending him overlie only programmata for candidates of carlier years" In most instances, overlays involvc candidates of the ycars immedüucly preceding and following. Such evidence js interlocking and se!f-confirming \-vhcn all the recorded overlaYs fit imo the reconstruction 'vvith no unexplained conflicts. · The interlocking of the layering evidence is less than perfeci with only tcn candidacies in the cntire reconstruction. No programrna supponing eight of these mcn is recorded overlyins: notices supporting mcn of the year immediately prcceding, so ~ha'~ there is direct confirmmlon from the evidence from laverim: for the d<\ting of their candidades in onc direction only . .1< .-Hm\~ver, inasm'bch as it is more !ikely that evidencc rcmains from candidacies more recent than more remotc, the-se candidacics, lVith threc exceptions explained belov;:, have been dated to as recent a year as the evidencc from layering perrnits. \\·1orcover, onl;/ two of tl1ese threc ex:ceptions, the cand!dacies of C:errinius Vatia and PostumJus Proculus for thc aedilcship, could reasonably be moved to a more reccm year; these •vill be proved in a sub-sequent study to belong to 77 and the third, that of Lo!lius Fuscus, to 78, 1he ycars to which they have bccn assigned 60

in our recomtructiorL Specla1 considerations affecting the datlng uf the ninth and tcnth candidades -· thosc of C Iulius Polybius and l\·1. Lucretius Fronto- are discusscd below. lnasnmch as a full cxarnination of ever;,r bit of evidcncc for cach candidatc would fili many pages y".-Jth necdless deuül, the follm\ 111,\! d1c,cuc,sion cu'!tt'rs on on!y thc moq important ovcrlays in coch caoc. ·r hrou,,~hout, the inter!ocking nawre of the evidcnce shou!d be appan'nt. i.'\t'H \\hcn not e\pres~!~- \tatcd. 'I"he finished rt'CCln,ttuui(m will '--'llnT<-lm al! thc rcquJsitt information in a grarhil: t'(1rm mnrc
A.Il. 79

-'!

To hegin, we observe that none of rhe programmata paimed up throughout the ci1y in snpport of Ga".·ius Rufus and Hokonlus Priscus for duovir is anywhere covered by othcr more recem programmata, while no1iccs suppor(lng all other duo-vital candida1es are some\vhere covercd by more recent noticcs. Gavius and Holconius, thcrefore, witl have stood in 79; 1hcy arc thc most recent candidates. ·rhey are also joincd in one of our attestcd blocks of candidates with Cuspius Pansa and Popidius Secundus, candidates for thc aeclileship. Yet programma 7899, ''-'hich supports Pansa for thc aedileship is overlaicl by 7898, \o.-·h!ch rccommends Valcns filius for the aedileship, so that t.here seemc; immediately to bc a f!aw in the e"'·idencc. The explanation, hmvever, is simple. Just as \\·e have sccn that there were two AA. Trebii Valentes, pater et filius, (above, p. 56), thcrc \verc thrcc prominem CC Cuspii Pansae. T\0\'0 inscriptions found carvcd beneath opposing statuar:y niches in the northwest emrance to thc amphithcatrc prescrYe their honors. CJL X. 858 revcals thal Pansa pater had becn four tim es duovir, once quinquennial, and once prefect:

C Cuspius C. L Pansa patcr (Lv.Ld. IIJJ quinq. praef. i.d. ex d. d. lege Petron. 61

CJL X 858 sho\vs hls son to have been a pontifcx and duovir:

C Cuspius C. L f. Pansa pontiL d.vir i.d. His son, in turn, v,·iJl have been our cand!date of 79, of a Iater date than Valens filius. ·q The Pansa recommendcd bv 7899 must be thc intermediate Pansa, who stood for office at an. earlier da1c than Valcns filius. Gavius Rufus and Holconius Priscus, duoviral candidates, and Cuspius Pansa and Popidius Secundus, aedilician candidates, therefore stood in 79. To these can be added CJL Helvius Sabinus and IvL Samellius Iviodestus, \Vho share recommendation in two notices. None of the notices supporting Samellius Modestus is anywllcre ovcrlaid b:y others, and his candidacy clearly belongs to 79, '{et programma 7914, \vhlch recommends Helvius Sabinus, 1s, according to Della Corte, overlaid by 7912, v,'hich supports a TL Claudius Claudianus. This Claudianus is supported by oniy thrce other programmata in the corpus, and all four notices are fragmentary or faded. -' 5 Notlee 2947 also records that Claudianus stood for officc with a certain Rustius, almost surely A, Rustius Vcrus, who is sligh1!-y bettcr attestcd; we bave alreadv observed when examining the pairings of candidates that both .candidates secm to be too ear!y to be included ln this studv. 5 6 StilL at first sight the la.yering evidence seems to prove that CJaudüw~ts was .a. more rccent candidatc than Helvlus Sabinus. The reconclliaüon of the Contradietory evidcnce can be discovered frorn a closer examination of Della Corte's notes. He did not \Yrite that 7914 was found under 7912 after it crumbled, but that it showcd through, trans!ucei. Programma 7914 is cornposed of Helvius' lnltials and the ligawred abbreviation for aedile only, and it takes up but a small sectlon of the v,rhitewash of the lcft side of 7912, so Della Corte must havc bcen mistakcn as to which programma showeq through v..-hich, Our other cvidence proves ovenvh~lmingly that 1his must be the casc, that Della Corte's rccorded overlay at 7912-7914 must bc reversed. 3·; SameHius l'vfodestus and He!vius Sab'1m1s also stood for office ln 79.

A.D. 78 Examining the notices supporting L. Ceius Secundus for the

duovirate, we find that some are overlaid by programmata recommending candldates now assigned to 79, but that none is over!aid bv other programmata. Thc samc is true of C Calventius .Sittius Magnus. )8 Tl1ese will have been the duoviral candidates of 78. ' 9 To them can be added the aedilician candldates M. Caselllus Marcellus and L Albucius Celsus, They were rccommended in twent;,'-six shared programmata, and for Casellius were posted 174 programmata in toto, the most we kno1-v for anv candidate. Such a statistic lndicates that Casdlius' candldacv. a~nd "1-Yith lt that of Albucius, ~vas among the latest undertak~n at Pompeii, especially inasmuch as only one programma supporting Casellius and two supportlog Albucius are o1.:erlaid with other notices. These three programmata (7451··52, 7509-ll, 7630-31} are all covered by others in favm of cand1dates of 79, so that the candidades of Casellius and Albucius can be dated to 78, Mau noted that 6646, which supports Ccius Secundus for duovir in 78, wm more recent than 6647. in favor of Albucius for aedilc, but he \VCts commcnting only on appeara.ncc, not Jayering. The overlay recorded by Della Corte at 7722-23 is more difficv!i. It indicates that Albucius stood for aedile before Sucnius \'erus, who, as \VC shall see, stood in 77. \\'cre we to acccpt this evidence, Albucius \Vould havc stood in 76 at the Iatest, and this is most unlikeiy bccause of the high number of programmata extant for Case1lius, with \Yhorn Albucius is insenarably 1\nked. Thc over!ay at 7722-23 is, moreover, thc onl:v such evidence; Della Corte must have simply misrcad or mi::;recorded this merlay, accidentaUy re\-ersing the sequcnce of lhe notices. Albudus Celsus, and with him CascllJus Marcellus, musr havc stood in 78, fo11owing rather than precedlng Suettius Vcrus. C. Lollius Fusc.us also v:iH have sought the aedileship i.n 78. No fe\ver than eleven of the noticcs supporting him are overlaid b\' thcse of candidates of 79. One other is covcred by a ~~comrnendation of Calvenüus Sittius Magnus. duoviral candidare in 78 (742i-22). lnasmuch as this is 1hc only instance of a notice supporting Lollius r:·uscus covered by another from any year other than 79, and as therc are eleven overlays involving candldacles of 79, it seems probable that Lollius will have stood in 78 and that the painter of 7421 wil! have failed to rcallze thal the programma he was covering supponed a candldatc of the 63

same ~year as Calvemius Sitlius Magnus, or even have becn instructed TO cover the norice for Lollius, llad a scriptor, for exarnple, mistakenly paimcd up a notice for Lollius Fuscus and thcn corrcctcd his error wlth a notice for Cah'cmius Sittius 1\hgnus, our owrl.ay would resulL Such an overlay cannot be taken as cvidcnce of intense competition in 78, for the men werc t:t.anding for different officcs, not competing. J.l-rogramma 7604, posted in support of Calventim Quietus, candidate for duovir, can bc understood at this point. lt ls posted a1 3.1.6. the taberna of Praedicinius, and i~ painted over a programma, 7605, pos1ed by Trebius Valens. Trebjus' house occupies the ncxt c·orncr (3.2.0, but several of hls programmata are posted on Lhe f'ayade of this taberna. 4 (.\ Calvcntius Quietus, who is also named in thc 1vax tablets of L. Caecilius lucundus, 41 seems very unlikely w have been a candidate for the duoviratc, not only because he is no\vhere attested as acdilc, the office he must have held to have stood for duovir, but also because this is the only electoral programma with his name. The only Calventius Quietus known to us was a wealthv and liberal au:;:ustalis, and, as the inscription on his tomb states, was granted the honor of thc biseflium for his generosity; C. Calventio Qnkto

augusta!i huic ob munificenr(iam) decurionum dccreto et popu!i consesu bise!ii hcmor datus cst ,: 2 De1la Corte knew the tomb, and therefore identified thc Quietus of the programma as a grandson (nepos) of this Calvenlius; morc recently, Castren has hesitat1ngiy idcntifiecl him as the son of this Calvenrius, "3 Ho\veycr, the Iack of evidence for such a desc~1dant and, in particular, tbe lack of evidence for such an aedile, undermine these ldcntifications. Programma 7604 cannot be corrcct, and v>'c are faced with a chaHenging riddle. Evidcnce from the reconstructlon can supply a partial solution, Programma 7605, Viflieh 7604 overlies, supports l'vL Epidius Sahlnus for thc duovirate" The reconstructed slates show !hat Epidiu~ Sabinus stood for duovir in 77, and therefore Calvcntius' apparent candidacy must havc been in 78 or 79. Jn 78 another Calvcntius, C. Calventius Sittius Ivlagnus, possibly the 64

adopted son of Calvenilus Quietus 4 \ was candidate for duovir; our programma must somehow belong to this candidacy, pcrhaps intended 10 recall the glory of the generous auf?USta!is when his dcsccndant stood for office. The details are beyond recovery, but it is clcar thm C Calventius Quietus was not really a candidate for duovir and that cvidence from layering dates programma 7604, which commends him as candidate, to 78 at earllest, the year of the candidacy of C Calvemius Sittius l\.1agnus.

A.O. 77 Programmata supponing A, Sucttius Verus for the aedileship are overlaid not only by notices recommending candldates we havc assigned 10 79, but also by onc supporting Ceius Secundus for the duovirate in 78 {7767-68). Suettius Verus will consequently probablJ·' have stood in 77, and \Yith him \\·iJl have becn the candidates of a second of our blocks of four men known to have \tood in the same year. These are A. Suettius Certt1s and !VL Epidius Sabinus, candidate~ for duovir, and N. Herennius Celsus, candidate for aedilc. Also in 77 \vill have stood the tcam of Cerrinius Vatia aml PostumJus Proculus. Programmata supporting a Q. Postumius with no off\ce specif\ed are covered b:;,: others supporting Helvius Sablnus, sure candidatc of 79 (7914-15), as wcll as a Popldius {3761-62), pcrhaps Popidius Secundus also candidatc in 79. But Q. Postumius Modestus stood for 1.he quinquennial duovirate in our period, and we sha!l sec that his candidacy for that office belongs to 75; 4" our programmata may havc bcen posted for ;'v1odestus rather than Procu\us. Programmata supporting our men overlic only those supporting unidentifiable or far carlier candidatcs (818-25, 89l-29:54b, 984+86, 9832-33), a!though the Priscus of 2954b may well be Holconius Priscus, aedilician candidate in 76, as v.;"e shall see. At notio:cs 862-64 there ls evidcnce for an overlay between prograrmnata supporting CaselJius, who must be Casdlius Marcellus, who stood for aedile in 78, as we have seen, and PostumJus Proculus, candidatc for aedile, but Jt is undear 'v.illich overlies \vhich, It is unlikely that we can assign Postumius and with hlm Ccrrinius to 79, for that wouid lcave us with six aedilician candidatcs in 79, thrce in 78,

65

nvo in 77< Besides, as >ve have se-en, posten; in support of Postumius may be ovcrlain by those of candidates of 79. \Vere we Lo assirrn the candidades to 78, therc would bc conflict with thc overla~· 862-64 as well as fivc aedilician candidates in that year, only. two in 77. And as \ve shall sec from a subseque:11 study of patterns of snpport, it is impossible that they all stood m 78.46 PostumJus Proculus and Ccrrinius Vatia must have stood for thc aedileship in 77, the latest year in which they could have done so.

A.D. 76 To 76 can bc dated the duovira'J candidac-ies of L Caecilius Capella and N. Popidius Rufus. A sharcd programma (3548) shcnv~ that thev stood in the same year, and Programmata recommending both are covered by notices \vhich favor Suettius Vcrus for aedile in 77 (7616-17 and 7324-25). Thc )'ear 76 is the iatest in which our rnen could have stood, and \Ve shal! date their candidades to iL Hcrc there are no ovcrlays to rcveal what candidates thcy followed, bm we shall not be far wrong in dating them to as late a year as possible on the assumption that the latcr a candidacv will have bccn. thc better attestcd it will bc. Since 76 is the latcs; year for \\-'hich -there is evidence for the candidacies of Cacci!ius Capella and Popidius Rufus, the)' almost certainly v,:iJl have stood in that veaL Programma 7726, \Yhlch also supports Sucttlus Verus, overlies 7725, which recommends L Ceius Secundus for the aedilcship. Sccundus, who shares no recommendation of a programma with anyone else, will havc been an aedl1ician cand.idalc in 76. To 76 wc shall also date the acdilidan candidacy of lvL Holconius Priscus, another who sharcd no programmata whcn standinrr for thc aedileship, There ls but one overlay of a progra~ma f~voring him for this officc {904-904a), which reveals that he stood prlor to Albucius Celsus' candidacy in 78, Holconius thus conceivably could have stood in 77, Bm this wmi]d bc thc fiflh candidacy for aedile in that year, 'Nhile vve would have but one in 76. Not only is it unlikely that five men stood in 77, but also that \VC cannot date another candidacy to 76. Holconlus' is thc only rcmaining candldacy which can be

66

dan:d to 76, and \Ye can with near certaimy placc lt in that yeaL

A.D. 75 There are very fcv,· overlays involving programrnata for candidalcs of 75, but imerconnectlons among the known candidatcs permit the rcconstruction of much of the year's slaLe, Shared programmata connect L Popidius Ampliatus, P. Vedius Nummianus, and l'vt Satrius Valens, whom \VC know to have been a candidate for the quinquennial duoviratc. Their candidades can be datcd to 75 because overlays (7700, 7702, 7703) revcal that Ampliatus stood for acdile betwecn Ovidius Veiento, aedilician candidate of 72, and Suettius Ccrtus, duoviral candidate of 77. The quinquennial year 75 is thc only onc between these dates, and our candidatcs rmm belong w iL Flnal!y we can add Q. Posrumius Modestus, \Yho is supported as a quinquennial candidate by programma 7970, which overlics 7971, postcd for Vettius Firmus, candidate for aedlle in 72."'"

A.D. 74 Programma 7129b, whlch suppons Cclus Secundus for aedilc, overlies 7129c, \Vhich recommcnds P. Paquius Proculus for duovic Paquius cannot have stood in 75, for that \0\-as a quinqucnnial ycar, and Paquius is recommended for the ordinary duo-,.irate, \Ve must date the candidacy of Paquim and the group of men linked \vith him by programma 222 to 74, the latest ycar in >vhich 1hev could have stood. These are A, Vettius Caprasius Felix for du~vir and Q_ Marius Rufus and M. Epidius Sabinus for aedllc. "-~

A.D. 73 Prograrnma 7814, a sccond notke- V'>'hich rccommcnds Paquius for the duovirate, ovcrlies 7815, a recommendation of Gavius Rufus for thc aedileship. Sevcral shared programmata join his candidacy with that of A, Trebius Valens for the

67

l.:tj'-''"0 '1-!UU!l(5 l\J

U<~VVH
uH;L,.UctlC~

l l)l

\.Hl.~

)"Cctl, UUi- l)!ll)' Ul!C

pair of duoviral candidmes, C. Iuli.us Polybius and tvL Lucrctius Fronto remains ro be datecL Onty one overlay involves either of thcse men. This is that of programmara 7188-89 and reveals simply thac Po!ybius swod before 79, nm: very hdpful information, Follovving our procedure of dating Candidaeies ro as late a year as the layering evidence permits, bur modifying this in the light of [he reconstn.!clion as it DO\V stands, vvhi.ch shows that on!y rwo men seem to have soughr the duovirate in an)' given year, \N;; musl dare the duoviral candidades of fulius Polybius and Lucrelius Fromo to 73.

A.D. 72

fur duoviri for ar;di!c:s

Programma 7280 supports Vettius Firmus for the aedileship, a candidacy jmt assigned to 72. The nodce overlies 7281, which suppons Vibius Severus for the duovirare, and we can assign his candidacy and those of i\. Vettius Caprasius Fc!ix and P. Paquius Proculus for the aedil.;:-ship w 71. The three men are the last of our groups of candidates already known to have stood for office in the same year. At this poim, the evidence falls, for rhere is no inmtnce of Jayering in whkb a notice supponing Vi.biu.s Severus or the other

68

•j

C Gavius

/

Rufus

C Cusph!L:'~"... L:_fopidius S,;cu.ndus Pansa

=--·-.........

Programma 7227, which favors Trebius Valens for rhe aedileship, overlies 7228, a notice recommending L. Ovidius Veiento, also for rhe aedileship. Shared programmara reveal that Ovidius swod for aedile in the sarne year as C. Sallustius Capito and A. Vcttius Firmus. These will have becn the aedilician candidates of 72. It is possib!e, however, that Sallustius Capi\.o's candidacy does nm belong to thts year. As Vettius Firmus is rhe only candidate known 10 have shared endorsements with nvo other candidaws, it may be that he lwice stood for aedile, ow;e in loose coalirion with each man. if so, his stand \Vith SalhmilJS, \\'hich is an es red only by 380, \.villluve been the earlier.

,u). Tl

.·'Ll.\1. 79l\t Holconlus Priscus '·,

Cn. Hdvius PA. Sam,;iiius Sabinus---.. .\lodesws

, . ",

--~-- · ,JiL ~6 _

. ..-· -

---- ---··-

7~·29~9-L• ---- .... _

--

- 76

-"·"·---------··---7..)51-52.-

r-·-/~.n

. 75

.;'LO. 74

jor duoviri

!vt Satrius Va!ens

Q. Po>wmius \olod
_(or aedi!es

P. Vedius Nummüwus

L PopiJius Ampiiaws

P. Paqui'!_~ Proculus

"'

Q. IVlarius /"' Rufus

Thi: !'u!!01\ing e
TABLE 6 RECONSTRiJCTION OF THE ANNU.'\L SLATES

AJJ. 78 L Ccius S,;cundus

A,D, 79 for

duuviri foc m:di/r:s

l\L Hokonius Priscus -.,

C Cavius

Rufus

/

"-.,/

' C·uspms-·· -. /~'P ... '-· ''-- opJmus --·-·---· Pansa Sccumlus

:--1, S;-u1Jtl!ius ·· !\·lodesius

Cn. Hdvius SabiJ1us -:'68'-%

"""""""'"""""

----·-·

-···--·---""' -C-
L Albuci:n

\·Lncdlus

Cdsus

---~

Ctnus~

Sinius Magnus

!\·1. C<J.sellius

..

ftLD. 7i A. Suenius

C. Calventius

/

>(

Epidius

Sabinu<;

A. Sucnius' N Herennius V,;ni.S-"·-----Cebus

C. Lollius Fuscus

___ "

M. Cerrinius Vatia

'"" 76] 6-l 7 ···-7725-26-

._, 6 30-31 ~606 . (\~

""'

--·········---371~-k-

; . ~51-5.~

" " " ----···--~------

____ ....... 9('hl-'l

· - - -·---

·----~68

·-66JJ 34

"

r-----------------·--------·-------···-..·-· jor duoviri j'or

ar;·diles

AJ:J, 75 :VL Smrius Vakns P. Ve-diu-;

Q. Po~;wmius Ylodesrus

z\.D. 74 P. Paqui~----- . . . ~- Venius Proculus Caprasius Felix

L. Popidius

Numrni;;;:m:;_;;. _. _A:mplia; us

-----77%-99-- """

""""

--·"-·-········--·; l2Y 0<----~·--····----·~---A.D. 72

A,D. 73

---...,/.

Q. \1arit;s__,.---.---x ....... \l. Epidius Rufus --··· ..... Sabinus

:=:·:~~-=-~---~=-=-_:_-=-73 ~~! 5 ---- _ .

-:üH

0;,- --

Iu!i~!5 .. _____

Potybius

M, Lundius Fromo

A. Trebius Yalens

C. Ga;,·iu-; Rufm

C.

=~~-

C. Sal!ustius

. . .-·-· - · .~·· .

7227 .;8

\!. Lcinius Fausmws,

,.,l?.~cd

~~diic.

ur, ',hc ~,·:öw·;e 01 ''"''d\ng::

Cand!dacy can k d;.n;;:J aflcr 72

(\!l('i

kiy 71--12---U\.

\1. !..i<:inius Roma1iu;, ~(:dik. Umdidacy priur l0 73 ( ü\'criay 7,155-56!. P. VwiH> Cek,-, - . CandiJa~y can bc J~1~li b.;,w.~un 7--\ (uverby "N70"76l ;,w,i 79 i ,_,,·erby 7-JW... '!OJ_ P. SüTi1.1> -··,:milk. CwJi;Ll.,;y pnor to 75 (ovcrlay 7)2.(:<:9),

··-···

--·-·-··--·---·-·------.. - - - - · · - - " · - - - - - - - - - - """-"'"''"-- ~ 8 j 8" \ ~ --·

--------····--·-""'""""-"""-~"M---~---·"---------- 79'7i>7l--~·---•-••-~--"'' ____ ",_"", ___ "" _______ ,__

'11lc fc\lo'"iq; (Ctn<\Ot bt

A, Yettius

Capiw---~--Finnus

""•--"'"-'>•-••--•••---··-

TABLEG RECONSTRUCT!ON OF THE ANNUAL SLATES

.'LD.i7

A.D< 18

ius

\l. Samellius

;;··---~~~-Üdesms

l. Ct:iuo S.,:cundus

C. Calvemim Si' .ius Magnus

M. CastlEus \hrcdlus "

l. i\lbucius ('d.sus

c. LDHius

A. Sucrtius/ Yerus

Fusws

~

--~--~-~-------

'489-90~---------:;;w:;;----· --

!6~==-=····--- ·=···

~-- ~---- ;;51~::_~=- -:~;%0-·--=c,,jJ H---.·'C<\6-07---- -·- -·· . ---·37!5

A.D. 76

A, Suett~.\1~'~~ M.:. Epidius C.:nus~ / Sabinus

7,67 H

~~

z

N_ Herennius Cdsus

L Caecili.:ss__ _______!'i._Popidius Q. Postmniu~ Vmia -···---·~oculus

M, Cerrinius

Capetl:i

Rufus

L. Ceius

"vL Hoiconius

SecundLts

PriSC1JS

__:_ 7hj 6- 17 -··--· · ·-· -:_,]) 5-26·-~-=========~7~]~2.4;-~2;5===~----~-

·-···-···------··-- ~0'-l,l----------------------~--· __

""""

-

.::==------~----7795-99-~~ ·--··

':104

:-·-·-.. ---------~~--------~~----~-----------~-------- 7 !.29 b-c----------------------~---------------------1

A,D. 74 P. Paquius Procu!us

A.D. 73 C. Iulius Polybius

i\, Venius

""'"

Caorasim Fdix /-

A. Trebius 1/akns

Rufus- ......·-·-··-····-·sablmts

--

-----------"""______

·-···-

:'i">'ring_:

htd afttr ~2

((!l'~rlay

7142-4.').

73 IGVf.r!ay '455-56).

-,ctn '74 \01'et!ily 7471} 76) and 79 1_0\'~riay 7469-iü), l'f 7526-29),

"

-··----7208-09

Sevcrus

c. Sal!usiius

A. Vcnius

l. Ovidius

Capito

FimlUS

Vekl-1to

Rufus

-

---~·---7970-71-·-··------==.:::=:-:-:.:::===-

--7814-15- --"

A.D,/1 Vibius

Fronto

_______ _(._ (Javius

Q. !\·1arim / __ X, __ \l. EDidius

--

A,D.n M. Lnaetius

--

--"

7227 ·28 ----

··-·

-----=~

--.

I

A. Vetti_!l~ ___ ,.._,_E..:J:uquius Caprasius Felix Proculus

7280-8! - - - .

---=~-~:==~~8-19--------

---

--~---

men iinkt•d with him in sharcd noticcs covers anothcr prog_ramma. A diagram of these rcsul1s follow.s in ·rablc 6. Bclow cach year's slate of candidatcs, lines brokcn to include C!L numbers indlcme the ovcrlays we havc just discusscd. VviU be provcd to belong to the years to which >ve have assigned them. Then thc programma1a will be examined for indications of how candidades wen; undertaken and supported, From the layering cvidence itsclf, howevcr, there comes an important confirmation of the reconsuuction as it now stands: cvery one of the rccorded ovcrlays fits lnto the rcconstruction, For lcgJbility and ease of refcrence, only the most importam over1a:rs are recorded on the schema, but all can be locatcd within the rcconstruction.

69

CHAPTERH bt'~Cn paim~d up in 74. while 1004 war; posted in 78, On Delb Cürtc's Y()]Urne>, w: 1hc revicw by I·leikki Solin in Gnomon 45 (1973) 258-77. Solin has many correctiom to offer e.specially to Dclla Conc's last Sl.lpplcmcnt5 (CJL !V. suppiemcnt 3, fascidcs 3 and 4) and his readings of grafflti. A~ thc programmata arc far more formu\aic, 1heir readings posed correspondingly fe\'i·'ff problem.s.

NOTES

f

\Villems 10 and 43.

lb\d. 92-93.

E CIL IV. 3617, 3682, 3745, 7036, 7252, 7300, 73()2. 7377. 9830, 9832, 9B35. 9851, 9878, 9926. Willem5 apparcntly had m:ccss to :he pwgrammaw published in \-Iau's supplemem. in tow, 87 known progwmrnata iuppor-t Ccrrinius Yalia (sec bdow, p, 115, n. 11).

2 ln 1837 Raimondo Guarini had .a-nernptcd a recon5truction in hio- f(tstf duwnvimii di Pompei (Naples: Raffac1e lvliranda, JS37)_ He lackcd, however, an analytical apprcw:h to thf,:. sub.icci and did little mnre than colleu thc. mnnes of pron:incr.t Pompeians, combining thosc known fron1. honorary and funcrary in<;criptions to have l1eld oft'ice and thosc known t'rom programmata to ha"-e ~1ood fm offitc, Panicubrly chncssing is bis f-ailun:- to renlize !hat the ekctora\ Dff}iirllmmata b-d'..mg a)most c.xclusive]y to the hsr years of PompC'ii's e:dsl mce and ~trcst careers morc reccnt 1han thosc knO\>-n from funerary in;;criptions,

9 Wi]iems 1 12 and !22. \Vithoulexpre%]y ~lGting the ruk Wi'llems seerm \;~ have fch that six candidat.es for the acdileship and four fm the duovir:>te made a normal.slate. Theseare the numbcrs of candidateo: he asoipw-d to 1be dcqions of 79 (Vi/iilcms 9 and 1 i 1-24), though he \·aricd the numbcr~ in earlier ycal':<.

!0 Tbc obvious deficienc:ie~; invohed in \Villcm< approach 1vere finT emmciated by i\ ugust Mau. "Bibiiografia Pompda;la/' R Oi11ltiftt 4 (1889) 300·02.

3 Ther;c are now DDbiiohed in ;he C!L abouf 2SDO pro.namrr;;J.H\; :he count j;;: inexaq be;::au;;c manyn.<1T!lbt'red entries are subdiddcd. \Vi!lems estirnated that h: had accc~s 10 some 1350 programmata (\\'iEems 4 and 6-1. I'or a c:omp\etc list ,,f his source~, sce \ViUcms 90.

11 From C'vide!ltC in !he wax !ablets of L Caeciliuo lucund,ts. Mommsen cak;JJat<::d thc quinquennial years in Pornpeii Bt C!L X.[-'. 92. That the candidaein attested by prograrnmata ovcrlaid by no others at a11y j)]ace throughout lhc city belong to thc election5 for 79 and nm 80 is clearly shown by the fnct tila: none is !or the quinquennia) duovimte. J\'brtOYer, Pompeii was O\-el'whelmed in Allglb\ uf 79 (PEny, E'p. 6.!6). The Pompciun magismnes entered their officcs l .luiy cach year and wcrc elected 1hree momhs earlier, in March (l\-·1omm5tn. CIL X. pp. 90 .. 91; Wlllerm 8). Tin;s in August 79< thc rnagistrat\75 would hac·e recently emerecl upon their· duties, and thc ekc:ions fN HOwould have been sevc!t months off.

~' Willcms- J3D sbows thaL he was c;crl• transcript1on ol thc programmara an;j llOtl{:C'> Js, ,!diUc,.,, u -'" ' " " ~ delk iöcriz.ioni j:'('mpeiane diplnte a penneilo c sulla difficohä di ben trasGiver'-" da!le pareli i caratteri dipinti. "'BAN n.s. 1 ( 1853) 4··!\. ~5 Zamremcistec\ sh\1 and succe;;s should nCri be undcrestimatcd. \:Vhencver l)os.;-it#ie he ,~.·cnt w tbe prograrnmata tbemsclves to <:>heck bis sourccs, and mnrc ~c<:::emlv reco>·ucd r;:vidcnce frt;que'ntly cm1firms his judgment. HLo source~ (1he Acta i~nr l ApriL 1853, nov-.' availabie in Giu~eppe Fiordli's Pompeianarum · · · - ano,,''1m:venwm .. ' " ßA"· Anl!qwtatum H!Stona ''ü' n.s. '\'"'Cll!Sc-)"'"··~"~mn\ea~,., ' !0.. ·--, ,,,< '"' "'·'"", ,.. , '.'" in direcc comradic
70

!2 This mctbod was firs; Stlggested by \·lau, "Bihiiografia Pompeiana," R(lrnMirt 4 (1889} 302. Robcrt Etienne ncxt suggestcd the approach in hi;; La vfe quondienne d Pomph(n,p: Hatil.f'11e, 1%6) 14J-44, but failed 1-0 e:nploy it in his cakulac ions of the ekctions.

'.

H ll is truC' that neCldy an tbe recordcd overkys comc from Dclia Corte\ S11ppknKfl1s, '.Vhich de,cribe only 2 part (eoscntially n. ~,

il

1' See the Appendix for a discussion of '-Vhat criieria are required of the prog:rummata: used in this study and why certain programmara apparcntly recommcndinp.:1>vo candidates are excluded. lf This corrcction, withom explamnlon, \-Vf!S suggesteJ by Pio CiprotLi in an early reviev: of Dcllil Cone, SDHJ I 8 {1952) 267. :~ Richardson 84 takes the Lmclear rcadings of CJL IV, 193 and 394 to suppon a tvl elissaeus in his bid for the quinquenniG.l duovirHtc.

18 CIL X. 817, R24, 893 mcntion Cn. Melissaeus ApeL duovir for thesecond time in A.D. 3. Othcr !\'klissati ar·e named in the '->·ax tabkts of L. Caecilino Iumndus, TabCer8. 24, 37, 38, 57, 66, 93, 94, 103.

19 Richardson 84-85. 2\1 Sa!lustiw is mmed Jn CIL 1\i. 322 and 336; Alfius isin C'!L 1\'. 3441; Ateius in CIL JV. 99l8a and püssibly 7861c. Camion 133, follo1ving Della Cone's notc ai CJL IV. 9918a, suggeslo that Alfius may b~ a misreadi1'1g of Ateim. 2! As his soun::e for this programmn, Zangemeister notes only.

26 See alsn C!L !V. 7557, 7563, 7695. This cnrrecüon, without explanation was suggested also by Pio Ciprotti in his review of Della Corte, SDHf 18 (1952)

269. 27 A~ Dc!!a Cerfe observed at C&A 739, thereis little evidente for this ReriS at P.ompeiL CfL X. 1078 is a funcra! inscriplion for a Traebia F ortnnata, and a jar of garum found in the caupona at 1.7,8 was addressed to a Trebius Synhodus iClL !V. 9398: g(arijf(los) Scombr(l) I A. Tn·bio Synhodo). The only other e>:idence would seem to bc an honorary inscription carved on a clrcular Noccra tufa s1a1ue basc .55:rn tall, tapering in diametcr from lm at the base ro .80m at the top, perhap~ bwught to tl'rf peristyk of thc house of' rhe Trcbii aftt-r thc carthquake of 62. ll record~ the career of a Trebiuo who was four tim es military tribune and four times ciuovlr(h'Sc 1919: 242): tr. mit. Ilf! I duovir quater.

n lhere are in ai1 four nmices (CJL JV. 273, 8}0, 3448. 3528) for Vesonius Marcei1us; of 1hese only 3528 is clearly B recommc:ndation for lh(' duovirate. l\·1omms~n (CIL X. p. 92) has dated hls first duovirale w i\.D. 34 He could, of course, have stood again afler 1hat date. 2() Della Cone, lv'Sc 1913: 146, nn. l3 .and 15.

. Henricus

tVissen et Richardus Schoene amici qui a. 1867 i'Licriptiones haud paucas post m. Ju/ium a. 1865 ej[ossas descripserunt descriptasque mecum communicaru/11.

Y\ C!L !V. 7170: Sub 7166trans!uabat inceprus, d6m1e dealbarione defetus.

(CJL !V,p. xii).

Fathcr and son teams in Pompelan politic~ nrc no1 unkno-wn. Onc of thc most famous \1-·as rhat of Cn. Pompeius Gro>phm and hls adopted son Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus, duo\-iri in thc year 59, whcn a riot erup1ed in the amphithcatrc. Their duovirale is attested tn TabCer 143. 22

2.1 \\'crc we to accept as evidence ClL lV. 952, it too ,"_·ould recommend men fm quinquennial duovir and aedile. This notke rmmes a Postumius and a Popidius, b\11 it is fragmcntary and lacks a conjunclion: hence \':e have disqualified lt as l:'videncc. The only Pm•tumius and Popidius who did otand tn tl1e same year wen: candidales for quinquennial duovir (Postumius l\-lodestus) and aediie (Popidius Ampliatus) in 75.

l 24 Della Corte belicved 1his programma to support a C lullus Fronto (CJL IV. 7274). He cited ClL !V. 2923a as confirmation, bulthat programma is very fragmentary and undecipherable. Ncit.hcr of these notices can be accep1ed a:;. (:videm::e. 25 Regard1ess of which man this prograrnma supports, the same information is elscwhere provided by otlwr overtays. Programmata !066 and 1067 support Cn, Helvius Sabinus and C. Lotiiw; Fuscus, making rhe overlay in question, as do 1075 and 1078 c.f. Add. Although no over!ays are knnwn bctwcen Helvius Sabinus and C. luhus Poiybi1.1S, it is clear from numerous overlays that Polybius· candidacy preceded that ofHelvius,

72

31 The only possible candidates of 7615, if it is not L. Popidius Sccundus himsdL are N. Popidiw; Rufus, duoviral candidatc of 76, or L. Popidius Ampllntm. aedilician candidate of 75_ Progmmmatn ;;t;pponing both arc o.-crlaid by severa] oth~rs posred in r11c year scparating the candidacy of Popidius from chcir

32 At CJL f\'. 3534, l\-1au identified the programma for !Vl. Pupius Rufus as tiwlus antiquior. This must t!ren bc lme af 3529, another notice for PL:pius Rufus

and, comequcntly, 3528, v;hich ?vlau notedas olcler 1harJ 3529. 3'1 These arc the duoviral candidacy of Calventius Sittiu~ Magnus and the nedilician candidacics of Lol:ius Fuscus, Cerrinim Vmia, Ponrmius Procu!us, Ceiu;; Secundus, Hokonius Priscus, Trcbius Vaiens, Gaviu~ Rufus. JA

For an assemblage of the eYidcncc fer this gens at PompeiL see Castr&n

l6L

"!5 CIL fV,21WX,2947, '7304c. y; Sec above, p. 40.

37 De11a Corte a]so rec:mded :hat 7912 overlay 7915, for 7914, w1'1ic:h he though1 to be overlaid by 7912, dees overlie 791 S ao he reporied. The actuai

]]

iayeringl1Ne rnust haw bccn '7915 fin;f, 7912 next, $.üd 79i4 on the top< Hencc 7914 would havc appcared to ;:.ovcr ml::; 79]), for it ac1ually cwerlappcd only 1he ,,.hitcwa!;h, not thc lettering of 7912- 1f 7915 Slipports PostumJus \·lodesms who stood for quinquc:mial duovir in 75, cither his duo,-irai or. perhaps morc iikely, his acdil\cian candidacy couicl have precedecl Claudianus' duoviral candidacy. This m usr. b·or of Cw;pius Pansa for duovlr. This will havc been Pansapoter. His entire career (he was four rimes duovir, once quinquennial duo\·ir, and once prefect; C!L X. 858) an1edatcs our per\od, and 1his io, consequcml_v a v~ry old programma oYET which are posled four more notices coming do>vn 10 the last years of Pompeii'o cxistence. Di.'lla Cone wrotc at C!L IV. 7913, Aream eondem, quam tenerunt programmara 7910 et 7912, renuerat iam lertium perlonrr.um, . , An indication of th~ age of 1his third (7913) mav bc th.e usc of Cispius for Cuspius R .S. Conway, The Jta!ic Dia!ecn, 2 vds. \Camhrldgc: L'niversi;y Pn~ss, 1897), 1: !64, list~ Cisplus as an early Campo.nian r;arne, and from it C'u.>pius dcar!y derives. The carly form appears i11 three inscripHons, of which onc is from Puteo\i (C!L X. 1756) and t1vo from Thermac Himeraeae in Sicily (C!L X. 7389, 7390), The name also appears on a smali vaster had fa1kn from rhe 1-va\l, and it ',s r.eponed that this wa;; hü\'-' 3760 was found. ln eight y<'als' time. we~Hhning \vould ilave faded 3758 .and 3759 comiderab!y, while 3760 had been protectcd ::md >O c..ppe8 ·ed rnmcc rec.ent. P;-ogramma 3759, supporting Calvtn1ius, canno1 bc oldcr

74

,',(' DellaCorte,C&A 739m-o.

43 ClL !V. 7604; Castren 147-48. .:H

So Castren 147-48 and 222 .. 23.

.. .-, " foJ"sc rii.r I 11e \\-"- ' · ', ·,. •\ -.ee n wrotc of Proculus neu -·renonce in t!lc officeo 1hcv sought w•l•"~,m ' 1t -1 ;;o:iovn.ne. ";n8n lv1odö\tiO. Ttte dll- ·. . ... l ,· , 11ip wonld be fad1\"T anL. " ..·,, ,;J"" .'il)ppNts this. Thc llkehesc ,e a;JOtly.ears of ea"'l o,, ~,

''" Dd\e. ~orte a\·

<,()\].

A

& . 46.'. _c___

is somewhete in t1lc vi.C'inity lC&A 215a . ·e, 216:±-cl, and he muy have \\'an;ed hls candidac:y remer:nbereü), Claudius Verns' canüidac:y canno1' havr: followcd tbose of luliu" Poiybiuo; or Paquius Proculus for dthcr tbe aedilcohip or dnoviratc, fort hey are a\\cotect to have been c-andidates in 74 anct 73. Mau's mistake is probab\y ;:Jt\ributabie ttl the age of thcsc notices, whieh >vould pwbbly have facted b-rd]y by \he time of the crupt iorL "-9 Thc cognor!'U?tl of this Sittiu~ is not re-::o-verabh; from thc programmaw., \'or 1Y<'o PP. Sittii, tv·lagnu~ ct Coniur;ctus, are attested, and rhere is no mcans to asoign a notice suppon\ng on!y a P. Sittius. The ev\t\ence for the ,>:fns is pun.1ing. Both ;\1ag_nu~ and C0niDDCtus stood for dv0'-'ir a" well as acdile. but both peclfy an offke. Coniunct.us is rcr~mm'endcd.-t>vi~e for d1e duo\.:irme (712, 726)., ilnd by three other nolices spccifying nc> office (2938. 3425,/34681'. ., •' ~ Programmata 13(). 245, 391. 907, 1077 (cf. Adä. p. \9\i), \lJ5, 2982, 3503. 7ü52~_ .. 7529v.S1lppGn sil·~ply '·r. silciu?: Neithcr 1'\'Iagm;> nor cOt'iiuncn.;:S i' tllC better attcstcd, and \h<' ntarly <'C\Uill numbers of prograrnnw.w :
j'

f: fMPORTANT HOUSE FA(ADES

.

-'"See above, p. 68.

!'

l

ln reconstructing thc nnmml slates of candidates our crnphasis has been on the l-ayering of tl1e programmata on the waHs. A_ttention can TIO\'-,- be turned to other imponam aspects of the noti~e.s. ln this and the follov,;ing chapter, the readings, Jocalions, and counts of the programmata are examined in a series of studlcs undenaken first to check and confirm our reconstruction and t.hen 10 probe for an unclerstanding of the forccs at v\·ork in thc municipal ele:::tions. Cautlon must be exercised, for the evidente is not complete. N-ot only are wc deatlng wirh only a portlon of the programma1a \,·.-hich once exi-sted, but we also cannot bc cenain that the notlces in our corpus were fully and properly rccorded. Those notices coHectecl in Zangemeister's compendimn of earlier reports which werc posted in the sections of the city exc2.vated bcfore ?v1au and Delta Cone bcgan thelr work were recordcd with varying degrees of accurac;', \Vith the resull that the half of the city west of the Strada Stabiana must bc comiderecl \ess sciemifically examined 1han that 10 the ea5!. fvloreover, a number of thc recorded programrnata support men \Ve cannot idcntil\ bcc;ausc only a name shared in common wi1h others appcars ln thc notlccs; these an; consequendy cxdudcd from our swdy. )-'el. since on!y two candidates, Casellius ~·1arccHus and Vibius Sevcrus, scem to be exempt from such confusion, ihc los::; of c!ocumemation applies in some measurc to all the othcrs, aithough it ls clearly not a!ways equaL

The ploneering dctecti,··c work of Matteo Della Cortc, a,;;sembled and expanded in Case ed ahitanti äi Pompei, ls also very lmportant. Through patlent sifting of thc archaeotogic.al evidence, Delta Corte \vas abic to ldentify the houses and shops of hundreds of Pompcian.s, His method, beginnlng with the

bronze signacu!a, or brcad-stamps, found in many houses, an.d proceeding from thcre to graffiri and electoral programmata, JS illustrated in thc opening pag,es of his hook,' Il ls his idendfications, supp!ementcd by Hans Eschcbach's gencric ~atcgorizations of thc shops ;:-tnd hottses of unidemifkd Pompcians, which are the g.rmmd>York for these studics. ~

Individual House Fa.;ades Re>tularlv each March at PompeJi two duuviri and nvo aediles -~vere. elected. Follo'.ving \vel! es-tablished Roman voting proccdure, an elector cou!d cast as many votes as there wcre officcs to be filled; J thm a man 1-vas compclled to cast four vote~, hmvever, i::; nowherc implied in the ancient cvidcncc, and programmata painted on even thc rnosi hcavily inscribed fayades show that a man often activeiy supported only one candidate, and often none. Our reconstruction ~hows that only two candidate:: stood for rhe dunvirate in each of the ycars we are considering, 'i"O that an elcctor was apparently given no choice as to which men hc electcd duoviri. Contrasted with thi~ h thc aedilician contest, for it is evident from thc reconstruction supplemented by those candidates for w·hom tllcre i~ insufficiem evidencc for inclusion Jn a particu!ar annval slate that 1'herc "1-Yere several candidates each ycar from among whom an elcctor mighl choose two. As a man could vote for only two men, it follmvs that hc would have supported no more than two candidates per offinc in any ycar. Should a man bc discovcred supponing more tban two of the candidatcs assigned to a given year in our rcconstruction, lt would requirc explanation. BU1 thc lack of such conflicts. bcing only negative evidence, cam101 confirm the rcconstruction. At,_ most points throughout thc city onl:y t\YO or threcprograrhmata arc rccorded, so that 1he possibilities of such a study an: limitecL Yet because of thc great numbcr of programmata painted on the fa>:;:ade of thc house of' the Trebii Valentes, a!Jnost wlthout parallel clsewherc, it is possib!e to follmv Valens' entln\~,iasrns in rhc years \ve arc comidcrlng and to find cvidence that he supponed no morc lhan t\vO men for an office Jn any' ycaL Then, from examination of other house fa1:;:adcs w-e may be able to confirm thosc anangerncms of our

rcconstruction not obtaincd from the evidence from ]ayering a!onc.

Domus: AA, Trebiorum Valemium

Thc house of the Trebii ls at 3.2.1, a but programmala carr;.-'ing the name Trebius as rogator appear also across the narrow strcet separating insulae 3.1 and 3.2 on the taberna of his neighbor Praedicinius. 5 as well as at 3.3.6, which Della Corte has Jdentificd as the schola iuventwis Pompeianae, further east on the Via dcU' Abbondanz.a. 6 Those notlces favorlng candidates for thc aedileship and thc years in which those candidates stood are as follows:

C!L IV

CandMate

Year

7611,7623,7628

Cn, Hdvius Sabirms

7630

C. Cuspius Pansa L Albucius Celsus M. Casellius MarceUus A. Suettius Verus YvL Ho!conlus Priscus A. Trebius Va!ens Cn. Audius Bassus D. Lucrctius Valens,fiffus C IuliusPolybius

79 79 78 78

7631, 7637 7631 7616 7612

7610 7613

7626 7621

77

76 73

,,

In addition, the follo\ving, posted both on the house fa~ade and across 1'he street on the caupona at 1.12.3 contain the name Trcblus, althougb not as rogator: 7 C!LIV

Candidate

Year

7614

L Popldius Sectmdus C. Lollius Fuscus L Popidius Amp!iatus ]'vL Ovidius Veiento

79 78

7619 7618,7624, 7632 7429

75 72

i9

From the first of these lists lt is clear that Trebius Valens supported two men for the aedileship in 79 and 78, the years for \Ovhich \VC would expect to have the best evidence, and only one candidate in othcr ycars, sofaras we kno\v. The candidatcs in :.he sccond ]ist, hQ\vever, arc supported at these locations in notices addressed to Trcbius, but not posted by him. These were for men \vho wou!d benefit by his support, but vv·ho had not received his endorsemenL So it is imponant, for examp!e, not to be mlsled by 7614, which seems to recommend Popidlus Secundus, but which ends with the phrase, Trebi Valens dormis, \Vere lt evidence of Trebius' support, as !t clearly is not, Valcns would have supported three men for 1he aedileship in 79. Never is this the case; Trebius Valens supported only one or two men per office per ycar.

;~

Cl LIV

Candidate

7692, (7696?)

L. Popidius Secundus

80

79

Candidatt'

YeHr

7708 7693

79

7691

Cn, Helvius Sabinus C. Lollius Fus~:us M, Casellius Ivlarcellus L. Albucius Celsus A. Suettius Vcrus

7695

D. Lucretius Valcns,filiu.y

7710 7710

Oomns M, Epld!i Hymenaei, Casa drl Moralista On thc hause fa;;;ade at 3.4,3 were nventy-nvo programmn\a evidenrl;.' posted by Epidius Hymenaeus or members of his houschold. °Four of these (7691, 7692, 7708. 7709) contain Epidius' name as rogator, while one each names Clodius (7712) and Alipus (7694), both of whom Della Cortc identifiecl as members of the household referrcd to in the full fonnula rogandi of 7708, Epidius cum suis vo!{t} et probat. 9 Inasmuch as the preferences of Clodius and Alipus may have varicd from Epidius', it is necessary to exdude thesc last tVI.-o notices and to be avvare that Alipus' or Clodius' endorsements may also bc reprcsented by other notices as \vell. In addltlon, almost direct!y across 1.he street at 2. L4, programma 7509, also signed by Epldlus Fiymenaeus as rogator, was posted. Of all these, six support idcntifiab1e candidares for the aedileship, while onc more (7696) recommends only a Secundus, perhaps Popidius Sccuddus, sincc another of the group endorses this candidate. The mcn they rccommcnd and the ycars in \vhich those mcn swod for office arc as follmvs;

C!LIY

'

)i

78

,,

'7 •. ,

78 77 ?

~~:ntunately, Epidius' name appears as rogator in nmices 7692, ~nd I ;08; consequently- we know thm he supported both Ponidius Secuml~s and Helvius Sabinus for the aedi!eship in 79. N.otices supportmg three men for aedilc in 78 werc recorded on this facade h~wc~er, and this seem to rcquire explanation. But neither 7693 no; 7 I 1? 15 signed by a rogator, and hence either may represcnt the chmce of Alipus or (]odius rather tllan Epidius, Perhaps 7710 located further from the doo0vay of 3AA, \Vhere Epidius; programmata duster and nearer to 7712 ' \Vhich- W"'S ~;on"d bs' . ~. ~·e C, ~l?ct:us as rogator, will have been posted by Clodius. ln that ca.s~, Em~m2 supported for the aedileship two men in 79, one in 78 and onem!7.ll\ ' His choices, moreover, are panlcularly in1eresting, for thev suppon our hypothesis that a man would supporl no more than tv>'; men per office each year. \Ve have seen that., as manv shared programmata attest, Cusplus Pansa and Popidius Secund.us stood togeth:r as some son of team in 79, as did Heh,ius Sabinus and Samell:us fv1odestus. Epidius, however, chose ro support onlv one m~n of 1he fJrst ofthese pairs, Popidius Secundu.s, for whom h; had pamted up one programma, as we!l as posslbly a sccond namln12: only.-"~ecundus. To Cuspius Pansa, who stood tagether with Pop1ums, he preferred Helvius Sabinus, candidme \Vith Same11ius ~o?~stu.s, and painted up 7708 in support of Helvius> Simüarly. I rebms Valens chosc one man from each of these two teams in Fron: thdr choices of one man from each of nvo teams of i'NO candldates we see not only that a man \VOU!d support only t\vo men, but ~lso thm he was not bound to follow v,.-hat appear to be the cand;dates' preferences for fellmv rnagistrates.

79:

That Epidius and Vcilens could pick and choose from amon;:o thc candidates should not be surprising. Tables 1 and 2 (pp, 37

and

81

40, which >ve examined \Vhen studying thc shared programmata in our reconstruction, !ist the paired candidates for acdile and duovir. The numbers of the programmata that recommend these ~en always in the same pairs are strong evidencc for coopcrmion bctwecn thcnL "Yet thcrc is no indication that the candidades werc tightly linked. The pairings may be takcn as evidencc lhai a particular candidatc vvould havc prcfcrred holding office 1-vith anothcr, but ccrtainly nm that he would haYc acccptcd elcction onlv tagether \vi1h that other candidal.c. The programmaia, in fact, shm~· c\·en the most frequcmly attested pairs to llave bccn madc up from 1W(' individual candidacies. Albucius Celsus and Cascllius \·1arcel!us, for examplc, an: supponcd by twcn1.y-six shared programmata, but therc >vere also 148 recorded notices posted in faH)f of Cascllius as an indh·idual, fifry-four in favor of Albudus. Simi1arly, thirtccn (possibl;,-' fiftecn) programmaHl recommended both Paquius Proculus and Vettius Caprasius Felix when thcv stood for the duovirate in 74; forty-threc o1.hers supported Procul~s as an individual, nine othcrs Feiix, From such statis:lcs wc can onlY concludc that pairs of candidates were not officially rccogniz.ed when votes wcre cast and rhat an dector- chosc his mcn without resuiniorL !!

[ I I"

!

!

I

accessible to all. That it is only roughly plastered and that the programmata painted on it bear the names of no rogatorf's reinforce the impression. Thls would explain the closc proximity of both a notice supporting Helvius Sabinus for thc aedileship (7241) and also one supporting Holconius Priscus and Gavius Rufus for duovir as wcll as Cuspius Pansa and Popidius Secundus for acdilc (7242), all of whom >vcre candidates in 79. The evidence is confused, for Della Cone, who \\TOte both 1he original reporr and thc CJL entry, provieles in different reports different detai!s about thc locmion of 1hc five pwgrammata bctwccn I. 7.13 and 1. 7, 15. n ll sccms likely, howevcr, that programmata 7241 and 7242 aretagether somcwhere on this east wall, for both reports discuss them togethcr, and the C!L -··- presumably a more considered opinion --· locates them here. GiYen the easily explained exccp1ions of this side walland the fw:,'ade of the house of Epidius Hymenaeus, on no fapdc docs a hou-::e O\Yner or rogaror recommend more tban two of the mcn shmYn by our reconsnuction to han: slood in the same ycar. None of the datlngs of candidacies for t.he aedilcship. in consequencc, is called into question, and this, vvhile not e:.:.pressly confirming, nevertheless supports rhc auangcment. \·Joreover. on certain fa\:ades there is evidence that does cxplicitly confirm parts of thc reconstruction.

Cauporw. Mast'llli

, Thcr~ are_ gc~·teraJ1y· but three or four notices on a glven fapdc, so Jt must be s1gmficant that, apan from the exccption of thc fayadc of the house of Epidius Hymenaeus, \vhich can bc explained, at only one point arc therc notices posted supporting more tban t\VO of the men '""l"10m our reconstruction shows to have stood for aedile in the same year. Here too, thc situaüon is unusuai, for the location is thc soul_h end of thc east wall of insula 1. 7, j ust off the Via di Casrricio. Thii wall, faced wilh rough plastcr, stretches the comiderable lengrh from doonvay 13 to the southcast comer of the Insufo. In the wall at this samc corner opens doonvay 14; both it and doorway 13 lead (O thc caupona of \-'Iasculus. Thc O\Vner of this caupona has been identified from thc thrce programmata which flank the cntrance at. l. 7 .13, cach of \Yhich c;nries his name as rof!,aror. :? The Stretch of wall to the south of this doonvay secms t.o have reccived thc programmata of no onc in particular, but to have been 82

Candidaies for Aedl!r in 77 and 78 It ha~ already been noted (abcwe, pp, 63-4) that progmmma 7421, '""·hich Supports Calvcntiu:, Sittius \·lagnus for the duovirate._ over!ies 7422, a noticc rccommending LoHius Fuscus for the aedileship. Becausc the only other ovcrlaid programmata supporting .Lollius arc clcvcn covered b:y rccommenda1ions for candidmes of 79 and no othcr ycar, 14 we havc cxplained the overlay al 7421-22 as a. rnistake of thc scriptor in 78, and assigncd Lolllus' candidacy· t0 that year along 'Xith thosc of Casdlius :\-iarccllus and Albucius Cel.'ilF, rather tlw.n w 77. \\-'e hm·e assigncd thc candidacics of Cerrinius \i'atia and Postumins Proculus to 77 a1ong with thosc of Suenius \'erus and Hcrcnnlus Ceisus, becausc it Js moreprobable that thcre \vere three candidates in 78 and four in 77 than thai there were five in 78 and two in 77. Examination of thc locations of the programrnata supporting 1hese candidatc~ prm-cs that this arrangement is correcL ~·, ~

li.J

Vicre \•ie to consider oniy the evidence from layeriilg, it would be possible to reverse thc order of Lollius and Cerrlnius and Postumius, assignlng Lollius to 77, Ccrrinius and Postumins 10 78, On the house fat;ade of Ti. Claudius Eulogus at L 10.11, L' hmvcvcr, werc palntcd up notlces favorlng Cnscllius {7366) aild Albucius (7365) as \\'Cl! as Postumius (7364). \Ve havc established that Claudius would a!mos! cenainly not have supported thrcc candidatcs for officc in the sarne year, so prcsumably thcsc three men did not stand for acdile togeTher in 78. Postumius, and wüh him Cerrinius, cannot then have stood in the samc year (78) as Casellius and A!bucius. •6 Moreovcr, on thc hwade at 6.13.4~5, thc domus and textrina of l\J. Tcrcntius Eudoxus, 1 ~ norices favoring Suettius and Hcrennius (312) as we-ll as Lollius (314) were posted. Therefore, they cannot have stood in the same ycar, and we cannot date all three of thcir candidacies to 77, Thc onh' other possib!c rcarrangernent would bc to date thc candidacies of Cerrinius, Postumius, and Lollius to 78, and those of Casellius, Albucius, Suettius, and Herennius to 77. Given the !arge numbcr of extam programmata supponing Casel!ius, such an arrangement \vould be unlikely, but still posslble. Yet it too proves to be impossible when the cvidence of the locations of thc programmata is also consldercd. At 9.3<19-20. the pistriman and pcmefidum of Papirius Sabinus, on either side of door,Nay 19, arc r_wo programmata, 3678 and 3683, both posted by Staüa, accordlng to Della Corte a managcr ofthe shop. 15 3678:

CHAPTER Hf

NOTES

I C&A pr. S\-7.3. TJ1e bread-munps are c:ol\etted M CIL X. BD58. More \lSeful, however, is Del!a Corte's ov._·n caralogne of these, reproduced :n C&A pp. 465-70.

2 Eschebach, Entwicklung J 15" l 55. 3 Mommsen, S;R 3.1: 402-03, first cnunciated 1his printiplc. !Jrsu!a Hall, "Voting Proccdure in Roman ;\s5emblies," Hi::toria 13 (1964) 297·304, rcexamlned his evidence and addiüonal evidence anc:l confinned ;·he principle.

; C&A 73L

" Deila Corte, luvenras (Arpino: Gio1·anni Fraioli, J924), passim, and C&A

76H7. 7

This shop is discussal a1 C&A 756.

E CIL lV. 7691·7697 fl.nd 7699-7713.

~·~

l\1. Casellium et L, Aibucium aed. o.v.f. Statia et Pctronia rog. 1aks cives in colonia in perpcruo 3683: Herennium et Suettium aecL Statia rog. li is dear that Caseliius, Albucius, Suettius, and Herennius could nor have stood in the same year, for Statia supported them allandin separate programrnata, which shc \vould not have donc had rhey stood at the samc time. Our rcconsrruction of these years thus stands confirmed, for the only possible aliemme datings of the candidades are untenable, Cascllius, Albucius, and Lollius stood in 78, Suettius, Hcrennius, Ccninius, and Postumius in 77.

84

9 C&A 782-83, 10 I1 remains possibk that Epidius supported either Casellius or Albucius niong with Lollius Fuscus in 7k and that om notice 7710 supponing both Casd1ius and Albucius '-Vas mistakenly post~d and a1lowed to stand by Epidius. I i Cf. Custr&n 79, who believes that the Pompeians were compellecl to vote for teams of candidate::; rather than individuals,

;2 C&A 649, l3 The original report CVSc 1946; 84<'1 is LHldear a:s to which door the prop.:rammuta posted by !\-1aseulu~ (CIL JV. 7238,7239, 7240) surrmmd. Jna~mllch as door 14 llas no spac~ fo;- programmata to i1s right und on~ is so located (/1/Sc 1946: 85. n. _;; (/I i\. 7240]), they must be around door !3, which facc;; eust. This :~ the iocation given in thc CJL; at C&A 649, Della Corte di;;cus;;c;, the

85

doorways tog~iher as also in hisoriginal report. Continuing 1n the l\'Sc, ho\vever, after discns;;ing:_ the samc wa11 hc writes of CJL !V. 7241 and 7242, "Svohando nd vicolo verso nord si stendono sulla parcte rnzzameme intonacam, due altri programrni, ma questa volta anonhni" (p, 85, nn. f,"ß'). This implies :ho.t he has bcen studying the ;;o;nh ,.,-al! all along and i:; now considcring the eas1 wall n~a;· dom 13. ln contrast, 1he CJL repon locatcs these prograrnmata on the east wall, a mono comprehemibie location. [ havc· follov.-ed thc ClL repon,

CHAPTER IV

PATTERNS, FREQUENCY, AND QUALJTY OF SUPPORT

14 C!L IV. 1066-67, 1075 and 1071\,3410-11,6633--34,7233-34, 727P4, 7408 aml741L 7606-07,7692-93, 7875~7fi, 7900-01. lö C&A 618.

Patterns of Support lfi At ClL IV. 864, Zangemeister noted that pmgramma f\64 was parth mingled with and panly Jower on thc >vall than nnticc 862., but he did not indico\1<. whidr he t.hm1gh1 rn:er!ay the other. Not ice 862 suppons Casellius 1v1arcelluo for an umpecified nffice \Vhich must be the aedileship, thc only officc he is known w have sought; notice R64 support, Po~1Umius Pmculus for the aedileship. !t i:; itnlikdv that these notices wcre painted ifl the samc year. fm as \SC haYc sccn, thcrt is only 0ne instoncc in which two programmau belonginf! 1(1the oame y<'ar can be ohown to lie nne atop the otllcr (pp. 63-4 and 83 ). Thus we must havc hcrc further e':idcnce that either Casd\ius or Postumius stood for officc at lecr't one vear beforc thc other.

n C&-4 185.

The locations of the programmata are not haphazard; as a rule, they were painted on a hause or sbop fayade \vith thc knov,dedge and approval of the occupanL 1 In Case ed abitanti di Pompei, in fact, Della Corte \Yas able to demonstrate that \\'hen a programma carried thc name of a rogator he was nearly a!v. .·ays the cnvner of, or lntima\dy connecred \vÜh, the house or shopOll the fayade of which the notice appeared.: In a few cases, programmata appear across the street from a man's house, but evcn thi\ varialion emphasizes the significance of geographical pro:xirnity: no programma is ever found any great dlstance from 1hc building with which its rogator was connected. 3 Furthermore, noliccs signed b:y a man'~ vicini are invariably found dose to his house, not scmtered across the city, as thcy conceivab!)r might bc, ~ Inasmuch as there is this c-orrespondcnce bet\veen a man's housc and 1hc programmata he posted in every case in which a noticc ca:rrics his name as rogator, it is highly likely that an the programmata on a fapdc were understood to indicate the prefercncc of the occupant, whether signed by him as rogator or not. Certainly !he formulaic o. vJ, oro vos faciatis, would indicate as much to the passer-by. 5

Even a cas.ual perusa'r of the CJL volumes sho'-VS that tlw programmata \vcrc most thickly posted on the city's Lhrce main streets, thc Via Stabiana, Via Nolana, and Via dcll'Abbondanza. In addltion, the Via Consolarc, \vhich !eads from thc Porta

Ercolano tmvard the forum, the Vicolo del Vettii, which runs part of tl1e shortest route to thc forum from the Porta Vcsuvio, and the Via degli Augustall were secondary streets along vvhich man:y programma1a \verc foumL Glven the role that the programmata must have played in Pornpcii's clcctions, the importancc of having notices advertising a man's candidacy a!ong these streets ~hould not bc underestimated. Here they wou!d have been seen by many more reople than programmata elsewhere. ft will consequently have been importam for all but the most powerful candidates to find surporters and have as many notices as possiblc posted along thcse streets. To this con.sideration perhaps even morc than to polnical or social importance we owe those programmata addressed to a householder, soliclting his support. The majority of this ''aricty of programma was found along the Vla dell' Abbondanza. ln our study of tbe programmata posted by Trebius Valens, who llvecl on thc Via dell'Abbondanza at 3.2.1, wc hav-e already observed the six programmata secking his endorsemcnt. 6 In all, therc are fifty-t.hree notices cmploying the imperative or clearly requcsting ~upport, and tcn others which may contain an imperative. These arc collecred in Table 7. 7 Of the certain fiftythree, rhirty--fivc appearcd along the Via dcll' Abbondanza, six along other of thc main streets, cight along the secondary street:s, and only four elscwhcre w the city. Along thc Via dell'Abbondanza thcre are solicitations of nelghbors (7132, 7443, 7819), of a bronze-worker (7147), a fu11er (7174), cauponakeepers (7280, 7545), a mat-maker (7649, 7650}, and a tabernakceper (7909, 7910), none of them presumably of any political importancc. B , Moreover, striking proof of thc value of having prdgrammata along thesc sucets can be_ fmmd in examinatio-n of the notices endorsing particular candidates. Programmata favoring Calventius Sittius Magnus for duovir {in 78), the Suettii Certus and Verus for duovir and aedile (ln 77), Lollius Fuscus (in 78) and Popidius Ampliatus (in 75) for aedlle, and Postumius Modestus for quinquennial duovir (in 75) \vere posted almost exclusively on the main streets< A similar, but less marked concentration is found for Caecilius Capella (in 76) and Holctmius Priscus (in 79), candidates for duovir. g

88

TABLE 7 PROGRAMMATA REQUEST!NG SUPPORT

CH . IV Lo<:atlon

18J, 336.. 406,.426_-

Formul2

Candidatc & Offlee

UU3-l4 6.14.12··16 5.4.3 Via Nolana Via Nolana 7.15.13-corner

pomari faci1e caupones facite fac faci1e Luci f
Vettius Firmus, aed. Sallustius Co.pito, aed. c: Rufus, aed. Suettius Verus, aeJ. Suenius,;\'larcel!us e1 Celsus, aecL Verus, aed. (cf. Add.) Sabinus, aed. (Post)umim \-Iodes;m. ~1ed< !\·1. Holconius Pri;;cus, aed.

C Ca!ven:ius Sittiw;, duo. Fadius, aed. l\'Iode~tus, acd. A. Vetlim Fimms, acd.

Lucretim, duo. Comc!ius, aed. Popidim ScTtmdus, aed. (Hok)D(n)ius Ptiscus, ncd.

Rustius Veruo, duo.

fe{ eil)

6678'·'

7!32 7145 7147

6.!6.32 1.6.2 1.6.3 ] .6.3

Pupi fa(: vidni fache

...

-~Te

T erem ius, acd. Carus, duo.

faciet

faber I vigula [sie] el roga

:vJRLLl\1 duo. iter

1\9

(Tubic ?n;r,!hued)

CIL IV

Lncatinn

Fmmula

Candidate & Off!.n~

CIL j\'

l..OClliiun

- - - - -. 7174 7280 7316

7429 7443 7517 7531 7532 7539 7545 7572 7578 76!4

L6.7 1.8.7 1.9.1

LU .12.5

2.1.6 2.2,2

2.2.2 2.2.4 2.2.4

z.:u 2.4.7 3.2.1

(S)tephan{e) fi:-.(c) Betmi fuc Juli Philippe fac: I er l!k Polybium faciet

79!0 Vettius f'ir(mus). ited.

. .ius.

Trebl Vakns fac aed. et ilk te faciet

(O)vidiu'i Veient(l. aed.

vicini i smgite er/

/'>.mpliatus, L.L acd.

rogatr I Lutati flac) Lorei vicinae ,,-js et dormis Lord clie( ns} (Dar qu( cm) dilig(is) aedilis fav(e) Lorei c; ille te facitl Athicte fac Adue? fac Proc(ule) dorm(is) Trebi Valens dormis

Ampliatns, acd.

Paqui\J:; Probus, duo,

Capella, duo. L. Popidius.Secundus, f., aed.

Valens fac et ilk te fecitlnfan

Popidius L. f. AmpEan.\5, aed.

7619 7624 7632

3.2.1 3.2.1 3.2.1

Trebi surg'-' fac T rebi surgc fac o te fac Trebi e1 So'!erichc vigilatc

LoBhiS Fuscus, aed. Ampiiatus, aed. L. Popiclius L L Ampliatu~, aed.

7636 7649

3.U. 3.3.4

Lmati fac Graphite vigula {sie]

Pristus, acd. Popidius, duo,

7650.

3.3.4

Grapichae [sie] dormis

Ampliatus, aed.

7694 7703 7733

C'uspius, aed. ;"vl. Casciiius, aed,

385-.. ·

5.l. 7

540

7,5 .14-corner

Posldo fac fac / Fiddis

619_

7.12.4-5

ebrh!?l Capdla o.v.L

R26

facl?) piscicapi fac,

Popidius Rufu~, aed.

852,,

Strada dci Theatri 9.3.25-corncr

vicini facl///ii

Cn. Helviu~ Sabinus, acd.

923(b)

9.2.9·10

Caprasia fac

3387

L3.22

roganl / vici(ni)

3482

6.14,}4

Primm cc1m wis fac Cerialis f'ac Felix fac

fa(cite) 1·og['!] 7fi7()

3A.b

98820

2.1.8

(C)n. Heh·ius Sabin-us, a.ecL Loliim, ned. Caprasius, duo.

I et cupls

3.3,6 3.43 3.4.3

3.5. 3

7819

9.7_3

7909

9. 12.6

90

ln addi1ion, thcrc a1·e the following which may have cithcr the irnperative or an

L Ctius Secundus, du0.

3.2.1

7668

9.12.6 2.L12 7.9.!3

abbrevimion of.facit orjaciunr:

7-618

'

9885 9932a

Candidat-e & Offk!i' .....- -. · - - - - - - " .........- -..--L. Popidius, acd. Crcscens scio te CUJKH" Onomac,;e cupide fac Hei>:iu' Sabinuo, ad. .. tari et paup~r. l// ~vlodeslm, aed. faci1e

Furmu!a

·----·--""~----

tliens wrge fac A!ipe cupis Polites vigula {sie] Lord fac e\ iHe l.e fadet vicini facitc Crcsecn;; fave

{C.) L F., ad, Veiento, aed.

Cn. Hthius Sabinus, acd. Capra I sius e1.. stinus, aed.

91

Such paHems cannot be accidentaL The candwates clear1y considered programmata on these streets of far more value than any posted elsewhcrc and set out to sc:curc as many supporters hcrc as possible.

Nelghborhoods

Vhthout noting the conccntration of prograrnmata along Pompcii's main streels, Willcms observed that a candidatc's popularity varied from quartcr to quarter of the city, and wclnve secn that one of the most popular candidates in Willems' samplc of the programmata, M. Ccrrinius Vm.ia, is only \veakiy supported in the more recently exca,mted areas of the city. 1\1 Nmv thi:; and cenain other pattcrns of suppon become intelliglble. In Case ed abitanti di Pompei, De1la Cone was ablc to idemify the houses of sevcral of our candidatcs. This information i.lluminates certain c!usters of prog_rammata and explains some of the regional variations in supporL Cerrlnius Vatia, candidate for aedile, for example, livcd at 6.lns.Occ.36, and his strongcst support came from his ncighbors in regio 6. 1 : He -"vas also somehovv assodated with an unexcavated buildlng in insula 4.2, and got considerable support along the Via Nolana, although the cvidence is very confused. 12 Such support, originating presumably \Vith the candiclme's immediate friends and neighbors, seems quite natural, but Cerrinius Vatia appears to havc relled on it almost exclusi>'cly. Indeed, the programmata indicate that Support for him was virtually non-existent along the Via Stabiana and Via del1' Abbondanza. ,A similar pattcrn cmerges from the programmata reco~mending Ceius Secundus for duovir, According to Della Corte, hc Hved a1 1.6,15, and, although he is endorsed by several notices on the Via Stabiana and Via del!' Abbondanza, his support is strongest in the area around hls house. J.\ The sarne appears to be true of programmata recommending him for the aedileship, but the evidence is sparse. The same may be true of Samel!ius Modestus. Eschebach has identified as his the house at 5.4.c, ·whlch has yet to be excavated. IJ Programma 6625, nearby at the domus of Lucretius Fromo (5.4.a), 11 recommends him on

92

behalf of his vicfni, and lf Samemus lived ncarby, the dustering of noticcs favoring him in this pan of town could be understood. There is no programma in support of Samcllius l\1odestus recorded a1ong thc Via dell' Abbondanza. Study of the programmata dustered araund our candicla1es' properties can be carried a step further. More programmata were posred in support of the candidacy of Casellius l'vlarcellus for aedile than any other. In fan, Caseliius almost seems to have been suppor\cd by a "saturation" advcrtising campaign. ' 6 Programmata endorsing him were thick along all the city's main and secondarv streets, as well as through rhe central and northern auaners of the citv. Thc geograph;.' of his support is complcx, for Programmata du;ter not only around his house at 9.2.26, but also around the house of Albucius Celsus, the candidate with whom he shared recommendations, at 5.2.L 1·; And this same pattcrn emerges whcn the programmata supponing Albucius are considered. ln addiüon to those posted along the city's main streets, others are dustered around both his O\\'TI and Casellius' houscs. Our candidates therefore appcar actively to have supported each other in thcir conslstuendcs as the shared programmata mlgh1 have suggested. Nor arc these the only instances of such clustering. for allhough 1hcrc are very few notices extant frorn Popidius Rufus' bid for thc duovlratc, they wen: posted in conccntration ncar insula 3.3, 'vhere his house secms to have becn located, and near thc house of Caecilius Caneila. with whom he stoocl, at 7.12.3. 1 ~ . Fo; other candidates such clusters are discernible if lcss pronounced. Programmau~ supporting Paquius Proculus for duovir surround his house and that of Vettius Caprasius Felix, with whom hc stood. 1\) Those recommending Epidius Sabinus, another duoviral candidate, arc con_centratcd near his hou~e. '- 0 For Postumius Procu1us, Vedi.us Nummianus, and Trebius Valens, candidatcs for aedile, the samc is t.rue. Li In all, we can say that programmata in support of twe!ve candidates tend to duster around their ovm houses, and occaslonally also around thcir running-mates' houses. But in othcr instances, the dustering of programmata cannot bc cxplained so easily. lt is undear, for example, why so many notices supporting the acdi!iclan candidate Holconius Priscus are thick halfway down thc Via Stabiana, or those of Belvius

,,, ';!._-

Sabinus in regio 5 and in';tdae 9, 1, 9,2, 9,3, and 9.7. For these men. hov;:ever, no house has yel becn ldcmified. Finally, there an:: the candidades supported by programmata that are wncemratcd in no panlcular area. These arc the majori'ty of the candldacies in the ;econs-tructcd slatc:< but tllcy arealso l"lw less \\'CU aw:sted candidacies. Yet it is most imronant thar wc can in se'>·ual instances --· notably m the programmata supporting Calventius Sittius I\-'lagnu
Frequency of Support

Wiliems took for ihe basis of his study the coum of then knmvn noticcs supporting cach candidaic for offlce. His assumption was that ß mon: recent candidacy should be bctter attested than ont: more remole, n \Vc have already no1ed thc morc obYious objcctions ro thls assumption, put fonh almosi imn~c-diatcly by )'vJau. 23 \\'illems die! nOl admit 1.he pos::ibility that an ~lection of an carlier year mighl have been morc hotly contested than a latcr one and, consequentl'y, thal mo-re programmaJ.a might remain from the earlicr ycar. Nor did he admit tbat programmata supporting one candidate of an earlicr yt:ar mighl not bc as of1en oblilenueJ hy later no1ices as those endorsing: a secend candidatc of the same or evcn a later ycar. )'e1 eve11 if 'V.ie do not e:xpect \Villcms' hypothesis ro work m every case, we migh1 expect a gcncral decline in frcquency of attest<:Hion as 1he years grow more rcmo1c.

94

i'

The- numbers of programmata supporting: each candidate arc chronologically arranged in the numerical columns of Tatdes 8 and 9. ~" Shared programmata are included in the count of notices for each candldate Lhey recommend. Jn neithcr tablt' docs such a ~<:encral dedinc appear. ~ln fact, thc. counts are smprising, for lhere are great disparities in 1he numbers of programmata supponing not on!y the men 1.vhorn om reconstruction shows to have been candidates in the sanK year, but even those '"''hü are recommended in shared programmata. So in 79, the :,:ear for which the programmata -ex;ant should yield tbe most reliable counts, the nurnbers of norices supporting rhe duoviral candidates, who are also supported in shared programmma, ,,..ary by thlrteen. And the clifference bet\veen the numbers of nmlces posted in favor of Helvius Sabinus and Samel!ius ;-,..·1odestus, candidates for aedile ;,vho !ikeV>'isc shared recommendations in several progn:nnmma, is sixty-nine. 'Thm is, there are extant over t"''ice as many programmata supporting Helvius {132) as those supporting Samellius (63). Tbe cases of Cuspius Pansa and Popicllus Sccundus are lcss extreme, for thc difference in the to:als rccommending them is only eightcen. '{et lhis i~ still equal to over nventy perccm of thc notices supporting Popidius. The dlfference in totals of noticcs supporting Casellius l'v1arcellus and /\lbucius Cel.sus. candidates fm aedi!e in 78 who benefited also from shared norices, is ninety-four, founeen more tlmn the number of thosc recommending Ail:mcius, \\'ith such disparties evident in the numbers of programmara supporting candidates in the latest years, it is clcar that the coun1 of the programmma is always unreliablc infonnation. His in l_be contes<.s \vr the aedileshl-p in the year:;: 77, 78, and 79 thal the numhers or programmata endorsing individual candidates vary most dramatically. And, il is in these last fc\\. years of Pompcii's cxistencc which are best attested and to which we can assign thc most candidates, that we should be able to idemif:v the basic forccs and ingrediems in Pompeian politics. In fac1, thc factor lhat seems most directly to affect 1he numbcr of programmata endorsing a candidate is his fami1y's promincncc-. ln 77, for example, a Suettius, a Hercnnim, a Cerrinius, and a Postumius stood for ac-dilc. ~- The loosc team of Sucttlus and I-lerennius opposed Cerrlnius and Postumüls, though 1)_::;

TABLE 9

TABLE 8

PROGRAMMATAFAVOR!NG THEAED!LlC!AN CANDIDATES

PROGRAMMATA F AVOR!NG THE DUOVIRAL CANDlDATFS

Datesand Candidßotes

T ota! Ext:mt }'rogn>mm:Ha ,_~

lhtcs ;,nd Candida !es

Total Extrmt l'rogrammata

79 M. Holconiuo PrisnlS C, Ga;,·ius Rufus

79 C. Cuspius Pansa L. Popidius Secundm Cn. Helvius Sabirms

45 32

?\1. Sameliius ,'v1odö!!l.s

84 66 132

63

78

78 L. Ceius Secundus

73

1... Albucius Celsus

80

C. Caiventius Sinim \-l'agnus

47

C l.dlius Fuscus

57

21

A. Suelüus Verus N. Hercnnius Cdsns M. Cerrinius Va::ia (). Postumiu~ Proculu~

34 25

\1. Casellius 1\hrcellus

--,,

77 A. Suettius Certus Tv1. Epidim Sabinus

32

76

;.

L CaeciliU!; Capella N. Popidius Rufus

}fi

L. Ceius Secundus \-L Hokonius Priscus

22

L. l-'opidius Am;,Jiutu> P, Vcdius Numrr,ianus

74 P. Paquius Proculm

56 (&2?)

74

A. Ve1tius Caprasius Felix

22 (&2?)

Q. Mariu~ Rufus l'v'L Epidius Sablnus

73

-

Vibiu;; SE'Vl'r\.15 ,

__ """--~- ,,,,,,~~-""'

33 4

,_

~--~- __

,

__,

--~---

1 I"

96

30 12

11 10

"

!.") "'

72 No duoviral candida1e known

---~

47

75

4

C.lulius Polvbius \.'1. 1.!une1iu.~ Fronto

87

42

76

23

75 Q. PostumJus Modes1m \-I. Satrius Vaiens

174

46

A, Trebim Valens C. Gavius Rufus

21

72 C Sallmtius Capito A. Vetliusfirmns

37

L Ovidius Vciemo

l6

A. VeHius Caprasius Felix P. Paquius Procuiu;,

97

it must be remembered that the votcr cast his ballot for tvm individuals, not a teJm, and that thereforc far more noticc.s support ca-eh of thest: mcn as an individual than suppon the pairs. NO\'-' the remarkable fact is that it is Cerrinius, the only kncl\vn candidate of his family, \VhO is rccommended by morc than twic:e as many programmata as any other candidate of the vear. I\Aorccrvcr. .Herennius, candidate of the most prominent of !hese four eenz~s, one that is attested at Pompcü as far back as the Oscan ~criod and had produced a recem duovir, i1_pparemly the father of our Herennius, is endorscd by tbe fewes-t noticcs. 20 And again in 78, it is thc man of the least prom_inent f~mily, Case!iius fv1arcellus, who is supported by morc U1an twKe as many programmata as rccommend cithcr of his rivals, an Albuclus and a Lollius. r In 79 the pattcm changes, for in that year Same!lius Modestus, the only Pompelan we know of his gens and to our knowledg:e the least prominent candidatc. is supported by the fcwesi. programmata. In this case, our evidencc may be di~tortcd, for it appcars that Samellius' hause is at 5.4.c, on the very edgc of the area at present excav-ated. > Nearly all thc programmata supponlng his candidac:y cluster near this housc and in thc nonheast area of rczio 6; it may be 1hat further cxcavation will dramaticalh- increa;c thc number of programmata endorsing Samellius. ßut >vith Bclvius Sabinus. one of whosc forcbcars was duovir in 52, the pattern holcls. 20 . He stood in coalition 1-vith Samellius against a Cuspius and a Popidius, both men of illustrious gentes. He1vius is supportcd by nearly nvice as many programrnata as Popidius, by nearly fifty morc than Cuspius. w Thcre is less variation in the counts of notices supponing the duoviral candidates in these veafs, although in 78 Ceius Senmdus seems to have had notlceabi:y m~rc notices posted on his behalf than did Calventius Sittius Magnus. This count may be connected wlth the intcresting fact that Ceius and Calventius Sittius shared no recommcndation, \vhereas the duoviral candidates of thc surrounding years are all supponed in shared programmata. Apparently tl1ese two men preferred competi1ion to cooperation, even thou2.h there was no alternative candidate. \Vhen each stood for the a;dileship, too, he stood alone, never supported by a programma which recommended another man as weil. lt is clear no1 only from his reference to his ovm success in thc In Pisonem,

98

but alw from his attcmpt to makc light of thc notion in lhe Pro Nfurena, !hat for Cicero to bc thc first candidatc elected to those

'

!

offices for which he stood was a distinct honor; such honor might explaln thc appcarance of competition in this clection and thc~ hiizher count of recordcd programmata. ' 1 The striking '-'2.ria1ions in the counts for 75 and 73, on the othcr hand, seem to resul! from the candidacics of t'>vo of thc most prominent men in Pompeii during our periocL In discussing candidacie:. remo;;cd from our t2rminus ante quem by as many as six vears, it must bc rcmembered that thc factor:; affecting the com;t are numcrous, and that the coum is increasingly unre!iable the earlier dJe dcction. So, for examplc, ü would be difficu]t to explain \vhy so many monc programmara remain attesting :he candidacy· of Vettius Caprasius Fdix rhan thosc for Paqums Proculus when both stood for acdilc in 71, \Yhile the revcrse is the case for 74, when they stood for duovir. Ncvcnhclcss, for thc comests of 75 and 73 thc evidencc is forceful. In 75. I\·L Satrius Valens was candidate for quinqucnnlal duovir al~ng with Q. Postumins \'1odestus. As Castren has pointcd out, the Satrii ", . , wen: onc of thc most. prominent indi 2 enous families of Campania," ~~ Ahhough the Pompeian gen;·· seems not to have been poliiically active sincc thc days of tbe Roman colony, an o.~c-:::tn inscription attcsts their prominence earlier, and, if' Della Cone is con-ccL in his rcading of CIL IV< 7766, the family may haw still owncd insu[a J.(i in our period. 13 Thanks to this prominencc, Satrius scems not to h;:n-e had his candidacy .supponcd \vith anything like the intensity shown for the second candida1e of this year, Q. PostumJus I\·1odestus. In contrast to Satrius, Postumius Modcstus seems to have been the first rnan of his gens to attain prominence at Pompeii. 'J Four programmata survive endorsing Satrius' candidacy, rwenty-two Pos1Umius'. A similar pattern can be discerned in thc programmata acclaiming the candidates of 73, C Iulius Polybius and 1\L Lucrctius '"i-:-ronto, In our period, the Lucretii, in several branchcs, wcre pcrbaps the most important gens in PompeJi, though '-VC cannot trace them back further than Augustan timcs. '.j Consequcmly, it would appcar, therc v. .'as liHle need for Frontoto round up supoort for his candiJacy·. In cantrast stands C. lulius Polyblus, eYidently the descendant of an imperial frt'edman. y,

99

Prtsumabiy his name Vi·-aS relatively unknown, and so hc nccded extra suppon. i\'L Lucretius Fronto's candidacy is recommended hy four programmata that survive, C fulius Polybius' by thirt:ythrec - onc rnorc, that is, than support one of the candidates in 79. It is thus clear that the man of a prominent famil-,r' dre\V on that political capita!, V..'hile the lc-ss \ve-ll knmYn encouraged thc ad\"l~rtisemem of hls name as wldel:y as possibie. Thc resuh ls that the most powcrful candidate in any given year is likely to be thc least weU supported by' the programmata. ?viatthias Geizer, quot.lng Uvy nd Cicero, h;1:. noted a preference for wc!l knmsn families in Roman politics as weiL 3 " \Ve ~hould cxpecr such diffcrences to be played up in the contests for aedilc, for \Yhich there is evidenc-e of genuine competition. But thar such holds true for thc duoviral elcctions, in which only rwo men sought the of'fice each year, \vith the result that thc election of both \\'as assured from 1]le outset, ls surprising. Presurnably cacfl candidme \Yas intcrestt·d in having his name linkccl with thc dty's chief magistrac:y in programmata that rcmained visible for scveral years. \\hcrc it \vould bccome ever more fami!iar to the elenoratc, and the dection of a desccnclant could in comequence bc accomplished with ever increasing case, Sincc a rnan's elcnion tu the duovirate 'A'as vinually assured, this seerm to be thc most logicai cxplanation for the widc adverth<.'mcm. Indeed, thc concern of political figurcs for their descendants proves an intcrcsting study. Perhaps the most famous father-son relationship a1 Pompeii is that of Cn. Pompcius Grosphus and Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Ga-vianus, duoviri in 59 when the riot bttwe~n Pornpelans and Nucerians ~rupted in 1he amphithean:-e. n In pur period too, apparen1ly a fathcr and son, the Suettii, Certus and Verus, stood for office together, father for duovir and son for aedile. ' 9 'I'his secms tbe ideal way to introduce one's son to politlcs, but clcarly dlfference in age .and the course of a fatlwr's career made it rare< ln fact, in our reconstructlon therc are no other father-son re!a1ionships to be traccd, while records for the years during \Yhlch fathers of rnen active in om period shou!d themscives have been actiYe arenot extant. MJ Yet a study of those men \vhorn \YC know to have been quinquennial duoviri hclps to completc the picture, ]()()

Gt>ntt:'S Quinquenna!idae

From honorary inscriptions and the \vax t<'tblets of Cacdlius lucundus, Mommsen sa\v that the men listed in Tabie 10 held the quinquennial duovirate in lhe years indicatcd. '' 1 Table 11 comains the namcs of thosc men who are atlcsted b-y dipinti 10 havc been candidates for the quinquennial duovirate and 1he CJL numbcrs of the programmata recomrnending them. 1n 1his admitted!y incomplete sample of twenty-four qulnqucnnial duovlri and candidates, therc are nincteen gentes represented, \Vhile Castren in his stud;.' of the prosopography of Pompeil from thc time of thc Roman colony to A,D. 79 has been able to identify 479. 4 ~ \Ve arc c]early dealing with a restricted group, although much less so than it mlght have been, for no gens dominates our lists. Rathcr, familie"S 1end to risc and fall, cven mon: rapidly than might be expected. Indeed, only the Lucretli appear on both of our llsts. r'v1. (Lucretlus) EpidillS Flaccus was quinquennial duovir m 40/41, ivi. Lucretius Decidianu~ Rufus was quinquennial duovir in an undated year. and I'vl. Lucretius Fronto was a candic.btc attested in the programmata, Thrce other anciem f!entes of lang: .standing prominencc cominucd to pla"y a role in Jocal polltics in out pcriod, thongh nonc of 1heir most rcccnt representalives had reached quinqucnnial duoviral candidacy by 79. It seems quite likcly, howcvcr, ihat om Cuspius Pansa, candidatc for acdilc in 79, onc of whose homonyrnous forcbears had bccome quinquennial duovir, was destined forthat office himselL Likewisc, Holconius Priscus, duoviral candidarein 79, two of whose family, had beld thc quinqucnnia! duoviratc, would in all likelil1ood havc reached equal prominE'nce, In cantrast is Sal!ust!us Capito, candidatc for aedile in 72. One of his family, a Q, Sallusrlus, hacl hdd the quinquen11ia.J duovirate, though in what ycar js unkmJ\\fl, whilc our Saliustius docs not reappear as a duwn:Jl candid-Utl' after hi.s stand for aedilc; possibJ:>-.-, thercforc. hc failed C\Ctl tn wn1 '2kct\on to the lower office. One promising member of the gens Satrla, represented by tlle quinquennial duoviral candidate Satrius Valens, \vas adoptcd into rhe gens Lucretia, Apparemly Satrius' son or brother be;::ame D, Lucretius Satrius Va!ens, .fiamen .Neroni.<;; his son, D. Lucrctius 101

TABLE 10 KNOWN QULNQOENNLAL DUOVLR! Qutnquennlal tl1l€Jviri l\L Al!eim I .uccius Libd!a Cn. A11cius Nigidius ivlaius L. Ceius L f. Labeo A. Clodius F:accus N. Curtius Vihus Salassus C. Cuspius C:. f. Pansa (pater) !'vl:. Heic(miusCclcr \1. Hokoniuo !\i. L Rufus ;\1. Lucrciius Decidianus Rufu~ l'd. (Lucrclius) Epidius Fiaccu;; \-1. Porciu~ !Vl. f. C:. Quinctim C. f. Valgus Q. Sa 1lustius P. f. \-1. Stlaborius \;"eiu~ Fromo M. Tullius !\!. L A_ Vciw ;\'l. f.

X. 896. 1036 lV. il79 X. 1037 X. 960, !074 lV. 1886 X. 790, l\58 X. 840 X. 830, 83S X. 85l X. 904 X. 852 X. 852 X. 792 );:_ 8()6, 896 X. S20, 822

2S. 6 55/6 anti?

3 BC.

annA.D. !4

15/6 ante 14 bis

40/1 or 35. (\ 70"50 B.C. 70--50 l3.C

25/6 J

U/.

X. 996

TABLE ll

ATTESTED QUJNQUENN!AL CAND!DATES

Valens, fi/ius, appears to have becn a candidate in our period, though no cvidence from layering links hlm into our reconstruction. Like\vise, the earlier quinquennial duoviral gentes Decidia and Veia secm to havc been absorbed into the genres Lucretia and Stlaboria respectively. On the other hand, vve can see one gens, the Postumia, coming to the fore in the last years of Pompeii's existence. The quinquennial candidate PostumJus Modestus is the first prominent member of his gens knov·nL In 75 he stood for the quinquennial duovirmc, doubtless the capstone of his carcer, Then, doubtless taking advantagc of this prcstige, his son Pos1 umilL5 Proculus appears as candidate for aedile in 77. 43 h is difficult to identify otber aucmpts to use a father's prestige to advance a son into political officc. The gens Vedia, howe·ver, ma:y have taken a different tack. Vedlus Siricus had bccn a candidate for the quinquennlal duovirate in an unknown year, possibly as !atc as 70, 1n 75, his son Vedit~s Nllmmianus stood for aedilc; once wc even find his narnc coupled -.,vith that of one of the candidatö for the quinquennial duovirate of thc year, Satriw; Valens (CIL J"V. 7564). 4 ·1 Il seems Jt least possibk that thc Vedii v.,. ere playlng on the rncmory of the father'~ rccem tcnure ofthat officc, secking to remind the peoplc of t.he name in thc neu. quinquenn\al elections, and starting Nummianus' carcer with good auspices.

--······--·

Q. Postumius .\-Iodestus

195, 279, 736, 77ti, 786, ] 156, 1160, 3679, 7224, 7466, 7406, 7502, 75W, 7598, 7609, 7629, 7705, 7732,7741,7918,7970

L Veranius Hypsucus

170, 187' 191 , 200, 270. 3670, 7160, 7193

P. VedimSir-icus

214,596,824, 7J34b, 7138,7332,7937

MJ?Satrim Vakns

7556,7564,7620,7704

M. Lucretim Fromo

7li'A, 7416

Cn. Audius

B::~ssuc:

A TrebiusVelens

7488, 7943 7488

Veranius Hypsants may al~o bc supponed by 1hc fr2gmennny 193 und 394, 85 cwl1 8S 8 graffito found imidc thc housc a1 9.7.16. CJL lV. 535:?.: "Q. Posrumilts Tvfodestus I fEu)fogiK\' Veranium I Quinq, ''

CIL lV. 37]2 cndorses a Valens v.-ho rn2y who may ha;;e be'-'n eilher SatriuO' or Trebius. 102

The

Patron~(Jicnt

Relationship

Thcre an: in the corpus seventecn programmata thar rccord a patrorHlient relationship . .15 Of these, four (2925;·· 3366, 7378, 753!) are fragmcntary and Iack the name of one or the othcr, whilc three others (7490, 7808, 7818) do not indude the name of a .specific clicnt but wcre pos1.cd simpty by a candidalc's c!ientes. Of the rcmaining rcn, v..-e know the houscs of both men named in :.-ix (1011, 7275, 7279, 7418, 7605, 7851). Through a comparison of thc programmaw postcd on the fayades of thcse men's houses, \IC can sce to what extcnt a patron's political prcferenccs 1nfluenced those of his client. iOJ

Popidius Nata!is. c!iens Cmpli Pan:-;;ar Programma 1011 ·was posted in Support of his patron Cuspius Pansa, candidatc for thc aedilcship in 79, hy Popidius Natalis, apparcntly a priest of Isis, cum Jsiacis: ·16 Cuspium Pansam aed, Popidlus Natalls cliens cum 1siacis rog. This programma \vas postcd across thc strect from thc Temple of Isi~ on insula 8.4, at thc corncr of the Via dd Tempio d'lside and thc Strada Stabiana. lt is thc only noticc recorded as posted by Natalis; \A·e can. therefore, in this instance ronclude lit1le more than rhat Popidius Natahs supported his pmron Cuspius Pansa whcn hc stood for the aedileship in 79. He does not, hmvever, appear to have been able to stop his felloiY Isiaci from supporting a sccond candidate in 79, for at the oppositc corner of in<;ula BA across from the temple is notke .!SJ.S"'fin support of Helvius Sablnus, in which the lsiaci universi are thc rogatores.

A. Treblus 'Valens, dlens M. Epidii Sabin:i

fn notice 7605, posted by Trebius Valens on lhe fa~ade- of the taberna of Praedicinius a1 3,.!,6, v.-e learn thal Trcbius v,:as cliens of l\-t Epidius Sabinus, whom this notice supports for the duoviratc n Epidius livcd in thc !arge house wilh devated sidewalk at 9,1.20, but few notices posted by him remalrL 4 g Della Cortc identified the Sabinus who posted three notices supporting Calventius Sittius fviagnus for duovir {969), Postumius Proculus for acdile (1048), and Cuspius Pansa for aedile (1049), on tbe fa~;adc of the wberna of Primus at 9 .1.15·· 16 as Epidius Sabinus, th~ugh thc identification hangs on thc cognomen Sabinus alone. _.,~-, ln addition, on Epidius' fa~ade was found 2969 in support of Cn. Hclvius Sabinus. Notice 1066, ·which also supports Helvius, was probably posted b;,-' Epidius, as also 1065 in favor of Flokonius Priscus for duovlr, but these may be[ong rather to the taberna ai 9.1.21; wc know only tha: they were between doorways 20 and 2L As we have secn (above, pp, 79-80), three programmata on the fa~ade of the Trebii Valentes at 3.2.1 support Hclvius Sabinus (7611, 7623, 7628), onc (7630) Cuspius 104

Pansa. Only for rhcsc ae-dilician candidatcs of 79 do the choices of Epldius and Trebius coincide, but there is littie evidence of Epidius' political preferences.

LoHins Synhod:us 1 diens L Popldii Secundi

Programma 7418, posted by Lolllus Synhodus on the Ca~adc of hls house at 1.1 J .5, announces that he was a clicm of L, Popidius Secundus, whom he supportcd for acdilc in 79. -' 0 Popidius Sccundus llvcd, apparently v,·Jth his brother Ampliatus, in rhe large house at L4.5,28. 51 On the fac;adc of this house there are onlv two programmata recorded, and they may have been posted by eilher Popldiu~, for n<~lther carric~ the name of a rogator. No1ice 1006 ~urrnr1cd Cuspiu~ Pansa for aedile in 79; 10(J2 supponcd Ccnl'> Secundth for duo\·ir in 78. Lollius S;nlfwdus poS!cd only thc one propamma, 7418. Becausc of the paucity of rwtirc\ postcd by rhe'>c mcrL thcre is again no opportunity 10 .,L'L' wrrelatwn ('f rnlnkal \Uppon bet\Yeen patron
\\-'c karn from prograrnma 7851 that the other inhabltant of

the housc at 1.4.5,28, Popidius Ampliatus, hacl as clicnt a cenain Montanus, \vho lived at 9.7.9: 5 " L, Popidium L

L Ampllatum

aed. :tv!omanus cliens ' ro1:-

'

In addition to those two programmata posred on tl1e house facadc of the Popidii, there are t>vo others, one on the Ianus J-I~>lconlorun1·. and thc seconcr~'kt 9,1.26-27 opposite the rcar cc,> "?·'{!:;'· emrance (1.4.28) to the house, signed by a rogator, Ampliatus, ""/ 2·:<;-',~ A-_<, ·whom Della Corte ld~'ntificd cü our Popidius. 53 The programmata Posted by Amp!iatus and those posted on the house _;".:,';:::· fapdc of Momanus are llsted belm.Y. Therc andin the lis1s that fo!low an asterisk indicates that thc noticc bears thc name of thc 105

ror:ator. Those t\\'O notices on 1he fw;:ade of the Popidii are not induded, for they may have been paintcd up by cither Ampliatus or Secundus. L. Popidius Ampliatus

Monianus

79

79 C. Cuspius Pansa, aed, 7850

C Gavius Rufus, duo. 2973

Cn. t . Jclvius Sabinus, aed. 7849

78 C. Calvemius Slüius \1agnus duo. 2939* 75 CANDIDA TE HlMSELF

78 C lollius Fuscus, acd. 7848

75 L, Popidius Amplia1us, aed. 7851 ~

From such a small samplc, no conclusion can bc drav,'rL There secms, howevcr, tobe no correlatiorL L. Vetutius P!addus, diens L. Popidii Ampllati et C. lulii Polyhii

From 7275 we know a sccond dien:;· of Ampliams, L Vetutim Placidus, who wüh Ascla or Ascula, apparemly his wifc. ran thc caupona at l.R. 7-8. '" A list of the programmata painted up benYeen 75 and 79 on the fayade of the caupona wirh those painted by Ampliatus for comparison follows:

L. Popldius Amp!iatus

L, V rtmius Placidus

79

79

C. Gavius Rufus, duo. 2973

C Cu.splus Pansa, aecL 7289

78 C. Calventius Sittius Magnus, duo. 2939*

78

76

C. Calvcntius Sütiu.s Magnus, duo. 7286, 7294,7295 (*Asda) C L. ollius Fuscus, aecL 7274, 7285

76

L Caedlim Capella. duo. 7278* 75 CANDIDATE H!MSELF

10()

75 L Popidius Ampliatus, 7275*, 7290*

aed.

Here there might seem tobe evidencc of more coordination bet\Ycen patron and dient, for Pladdus not only posted t\vo noticcs in favor of Ampllatus for aedile in 75, but also four, onc of which Ascla signcd as rogator, in support of Calventlus Slttius I'vlagnus, duoviral candidate in 78. Ampliatus also supportcd Cah·entius Sinius !\·1agnus. However, in 79 Placidus supportcd neither (i-avius Rufus, thc cholce of Arnpliatus for duovir, nor Popidius Secundus, believed tobe Ampliatus' brother. Finally< there is programma 7279, which reveals that Placidus had a sc-cond pa1ron, C lulius Polybius, whom hc recommcnded for the aedileship. Della Corte idemified the house at 9.13.l-3 as tha1 of Polyblus, and it is at present being excavatcd. ' 0 Yet thc programmata on this fw;:adc actually carrying thc name of Polybius a~ rof!,ator all supported candidates of an earlier perlod than that covercd by this study. Thc mos1 recen1 (7942) asked the support of Polybim for A. Rustius Vcrus, duoviral candidate, and another (7954) supportcd Rustius for um.pecified office. A th.ird (7945) supponed a Scverus, who must be Vibius Se\·erus, for aedile. "6 Evidence from layering links nonc of these candidades to our reconstruction. Tbc only other programma on t.his fayade bearing thc namc Polybius is 7958, a programma supporting him for office which was firs1 painted up when he stood for aedile and larer expanded 10 recommcnd him for the duovlratc _,.. There arc besides onc programma (7931) carrying the narne of Scxtilius as rog-atof, ,-"~ 1 and another (7934) which wcll may haH' also, ahhough only the .-:..-kucrs " . . lius" rcmain. Th-erc arc also 1hree graffiti {8428, 8455, 9118) containing this name. Della Corte suggested that Sextilius rented part of the house from Polybius, but it may be tlmt Sexlilius succeeded Polybius as householder. co Tbc t>No programmata of Sextilius support K Popidius Rufus for duovir (7931) and fvL Ho!conius Priscus for aedile (7934) in 76 and arc latcr than the candidades recommended by Polybius, /\lthough lt ls not known \vhether Polybius did move from this house, a comparison of the programmata postcd on this fw;:ack witll those of the caupona of Vctutius Placidus proves instructive. -_ / I-- _.c

/-/

L luHus Po!ybius

L lie-tutius PhiCldus

79

79

C. Cuspius Pansa, aed. 7955

C. Cuspius Pansa, aed. 7289

/J. -- (

""-:d'·

!07

r

t,~·.

1/. ' Iu !ins Po!vbins -

'L Vciutlus Placidus

For 72 and 73, the lattcr thc year in whicb lulius Poiyblus stood for duovir, prograrnmata recommending thc same candidates appear on both fa~ades. Althoug:h 7288 was posted in favor of Ovidius Vcicmo in 72 by Asda, presumed to be the \vife of Vetutius, and 7927 was postcd on the fayade of Polybius by the vicini of Gavius Rufus and Trebius Valens in 73, they may be taken as indicative of the sentiments of Vetutius and Polybius. lt seems likely that Ascla and Vetutius \vould both have favored the men for \1/hom they posted notices individually, and that Polybius would have supported th<:' men whose programmata he ailowcd tobe painted on hls llouse" In 76 programmata recommcncling Caecilius Capelia appear on borh fa;;:ades, as also for Lollius Fuscus in 78 ancl Cuspius Pansa in 79. \Vhllc the strong similarity bwvecn thc 1\VO fa(,:ades in 72 and 73 suggests that the patron Polybius did live at 9.13"1-3 and that thc dient Vctutius follovn;d his patron's political inclinations, it is not clear that Polybius continued w live in thls housc orthat the latcr agreements arc more than fortuitous. To these exampks of individual patron-dient rclationships can be added nvo others sllghtly differenL Della Cortc has idcndfied Helvius Vestalis as the patronus pornoriorum and ;\1. Cerrinlus Vatiaas the patronus mulionum, and inasmuch as these co!legia or s·odalicia posced programmma just as did indl·viclual.s, a comparison of rhe candidates rhey recommended v;ith those recornmended by their pauons is possible. s'f

Cn. Helvius Sabinus, aed. 7928 ( l'icini)

78

78

C. Lolllus Fuscus, aed. 7932

C Cah'entius Sittiusl\·1agnus, ducL 7286, 7293, 7294,7295 (*Ascla)

C

Lollius Fuscus, aed. 7274(?),

7285 77 A. Suettlm Verus, aed, 7939

76

76

L Caedllus Capella, duo. 7936

I.." Caedlius Capella, duo. 7278*

75

75 L

Popidius Ampliaius, acd.

7275*' 7290*

74 P. Paquius Procu1us, duo. 7944 A. Vettius Caprasius Fdix, duo,

74

7944 73 .l-Il\ilSELf CANDIDA TE C lu!ius Polybius, duo. 7956, 7958 /\. Trebius Valens, aed. 7927 (vicini)

73 C. Iullus Polybius, duo. 7277 A. Trebius Valcns, aed. 7287 C. Gavius Rufus, aed, 7287

l\L Cerrinius Vatia. patrmms muUormm

C Gavius Rufus, aed. 7927 {vicini)

72

A. Vettlus Firrnus, accL 7929, 7930 L. Ovidius Vciento, aed. 7930

",,

A. Vettius Flrmus,
L

Ovldlus Veicnto, aed. 7288

(* Ascla)

71

71 - Vibius Severus, duo, 7281, 7291 108"

For Cerrinius Vatia and the mu!iones, thcrc is littlc evidence, 6.Ins.Occ.36, \Vhilc the muliones had stationes at 1.1.8 and 6.1 A. 60 The only programma definitely posted by Ccrrinius Vatia on thc fa<;ade of his housc is 132, which bears his name as rogator and Supports C. Iulius Polybius for the duovirate. Also on thc fa<;adc of his house is 134, which like·wise supports Iulius Polybius but whlch was posted by the mu!iones" ln addition, at 6.1A, one of the stationes mulionum, is 113, also posted by the muliones and supporting lulius Po!ybius. In support of this candidate, the muliones seem 10 have followed the lead of Cerrinius Vatia; programma 134, signed by thcm and posted on thc fa;;:ade of the house of Vatia is evidcnce of this. The only other Varia secms to havc !ived at

(* Ascla)

i

!09

programma posted by thc mu!iones (this time univer<,'i) is 97, andin 1his instance it is impossible to know whether the;/ followed thc prcference of Vatia in -supporting Cuspius Pansa. Helvius \resw!is, patrmms JWmariorum . For He1vius Vcstalis, who lived at 6"8.22-23, and the pomarii, ll!S c!ientes \.vhose soda!icium a_pparemly mer in the upslairs room of the wberna at 6.8.12~i3, the evidcncc is more complex. G! 1\-Joreover, beu{use the pomarii apparently did not own the raherr;a in ·whlch they mct, only 'lhose programmata at 6<8.12-13 actually sizned bv thern can bc accepted as evidencc. The programmata posred -at thcs~' locations are as follcnvs: Helvius Vesta!is

Pomarii

79

79 I"v'L Holc(mius Priscus, duo.

M. Holconius Prisc11:i, dno, 202

202. C Gavius Rufus, duo. 198 1'>'1. Samellius l\1odestus, aed. 203

78 L Albucius Ce!sus, aed. 197

l

77 1\L Cerrinius Vatia, acd. 196

!'vL Cerrinius Vatia, aed. 149

76 M. Holconius Priscus, aed. 206

76 ;vL Holconius Priscns, acd. 206

74

74 J\1. Epldius Sabirms, duo, I 80

In aJdition, 183, add!"essed

!0 the ponwriL requests their support for A. VcttiusFirmus. ln 79, in suppon of lioiconius Priscus for the duov"irate. He1vius Vcstalis and thepomarii jointly postcd on the fapdc of l~i~ house programma 202:

:'v'L Holconium Priscum Ih-ir i.d. 110

pomari tmiversl cum Hehrio Vestale rog.

Here the pomarii were in conjunction with their patron in supporting this candidatc. Apparent!:y the same was true when Holconlus Priscus stood for acdile, for although it iacks the name Vestalis, programma 206 in favor of Holconius \vas also posted on Vestalis' house fa~ade by the pomarii. Again in 77 'lestalis and tbe pomarii supported the samc man, Cerrinius Vatia, for the aedileship. ln orher respects, hmvevcr, their choiccs seem to havc varled. h should be nmed, though, thal programm.a 183 is a solicitm.ion of the pomarii and does not necessarily indlcate that thcy supported Vettius Firmus in 72. Taken tagether, thc evidence from thcse patron-clicn1 relationships is inconclusive, 1t seems clear, hov,:cver, rha1neither a dient nor a g:roup of cliems was compelled to follow thc politlcal prefcrcnce of a patron. In 79, for cxample, Popidlus Ampliatus supponed Ciavius Rufus for duovir, but his dient I'v1ontanus supported only Cuspius Pansa and Hclv]us Sabinu~ for aedilc. In so doing, he failed c,.-en to favor Ampliatus' relation, Po_pidim Sccundus. who, as many programma!a auest, stood \'iÜh Cuspius Pama. And in the same year a second dient of Ampliatus, L, Vetutius Placldus, also failed to follow his lead in supporting Gavlus Rufus. ProgrammaHl on Vetutius' shop fapde recommend only Cuspius Pansa for aedi1e, whik none names Popidius Secundus. "\-1oreover, in nehher of these cxamples is there lack of evidcncc for the inconsistency. \Vhile it is possible that Ampliatus supponed more candidat.es than Gavius Rufus and that the programmata \0/ent unrccorded in the earlier exca~;ations, it is most uniike!y that Della Cortc faile-d w nmice additional programmata from 79 at the two locations he \Vas responsiblc for, the domus of l'vlontanus and caupona of Vetutius Placidus, ''{er bct\veen the patron lulius Polybius and the dient Vetut.ius Placldus, l.hcre is cvidence which secms to sho\v 1hat Vetutius and his wife follmvcd -elosely the prefcrences of Po!ybius in 72 and 73. At the houses of both are notlces rccommending tbe same three men in 73, the same two in 72. 'rhe consistency with which a c!iens followed the political Jead of hls patronus appears very variable, In support of his own patron, hov.-cver, a client sccms to haH~ been expectcd to be loyaL Of the relatlonshlps we have already examined, Popidius Naralis supported Cuspiu;:. Pansa in 79, Trebius Valcns supported Epidius Sabinus ln 77, Lolllus Synhodus supported Popidius Secundus in 79, both !viontanus and Vetutius 111

P1acidus supponed Iulius Polybius in 73< He1vius Vestalis, patronus pomariorum, did not hirnself stand for office. In the light of this evidence, thc fact that no programma postcd by thc muliones in support of their patron Cerrinius Vatia is rccorded is highly interesting. Is it possib!c thal Ccrrinius Vatia ·was no longer their patron? Consiclcring how many patron-dient rela1iomhips there must have been at PompeJi, it is surprising that so few programmata mention them. JV~Iost likclv this is because loyalty '.vas cxpected and in consequcnce meant liitle. C!ientes, too, must oflcn have had divided loyalties. Yet there are anomalies" When both Holconius Priscus and Lollius Fuscus stood for the acdileship, one of thc clientes of each had to be especially encouraged to declare his supporL The notices actuall~/ read: l'vL Holconium Prlscum aed, . dormls \-1enecrates cliens b .. , . (C.) LF. aed. cliens

7668:

surgc fac Thcrc is no noticc recordcd in which M.enecrates supported Holconius Priscus for the duovirate, cither.

comparison ofthc locations of notlces posted in their support on the separate occasion~ is surprising. Thcrc is no conespondence in location belween thc lists of programmata recommending ?vL Epidius Sabinus for the two officcs, alt.hough in neither yew- is his candidacy particularly \vcll anesuxl. Only the fa\Udc of the house of i'dessius Ampliatus preserved notices recommcnding Gavius Rufus for acdlle (7537) as lVell as duovir (7538, 7553), and only He!vius Vestali~ and the pomarii (202, 206), Caecilius lucundus (3428, 3429, 3430!, and Trebius Valen~ (7612, 7622) poslcd notices in favor of Holconlm Priscus for both offices,

i;

! \

1

r'

I

\{

l-;il

1 f

CmHinuity of Support

For only one other pa1ron·dient relationship is it possible to check a client's support for his patron in both the aedilician and duoviral elections. \\ie have already seen that Vctutius supponed Iulius Polybius, his patron, when he stood for duovir (7277). Programma 7279 shows that he had recommended Polybius also for the aedileshlp: C IuHum Polybium aed. o,v.L Placidus ciiens rog< T o judge from the programmata, howcver, continuity of suppon tvas nevcr strong, \Vithin the ycars covered by our rcconstruction, three mcn stood for both aedile and duovir, A

<

'

r' jj

'

l iIl ~

:11 '\

·!i

l'' 'ij 113

;/

!/

CHAPTER IV

(Aedi{ldum Eumachim! on 'Vitol.o di EiJilW.chia), 793(7.9.:U-34), 795 (].9.3 H2''), 796'"(Vjco!o di Eumachja), 832'~9.4.1-;:orncrj. i052'p.1.l8-i9), 1001 (9. l .20
NOTES

1078'-(9.1.24-25), 298((9.1.27), 3360-(1.2.)9), 341'1_)5.!,!9), 382'1'(9.10.2), 715.\ (L6.6), 7!51"(!_.6Ji), 7l9(i"(I.7.l), 723f(L7)), 7263 il.8.2), 7274 (?) (1.8._?), 728~ (1.8.7), 741J''Ü.ll.3), 7430--'(1.12.3}, 746!"(!-!).2), 7473'(1.13.5), 7596__(3.1.3), 7607'--(3.1.6), 76!9'-'(3.2.1}. 7644'-'(3.3.3), 7662 (3.3.6), 7668 (3,3.6), 7670'(3.4.b), 7693"(3 ,4.3), 7824 '(9. 7 .3), 7R4s'-(9. 7 ,9), 7863' (9.) l-2). 78611 (9-) L2), 7874 (9. i ! .3), 7 87{{-(9 .11 .3), 7887 (9 .11 '7L 790 ((9.12.2i, 791 ((9 .12. 7). 7932"(9.!3 .l), iO \Villems 43. Seeabove, p. 7lnn. 7 and 8.

r Those nmices addressed m a man and asking for his snpport wm have becn posted 'Nilhout hi< kn,wlcdge. Thce are col!ecteU in Tabk 7 and discussed above, pp. 89··91.

~l Fxamples arc the notices posred by A. Trebius Vak:ns on his own la<;ack ;n 3.2.1 and also at 3.1.6. ehe neighboring tabr'rrw nf Praediciniuo (C&A 739a-p and /3!: S'O~
Problematic in this re5pect is only CIL lV. 443. It puts neighbors of

Ceninim Vatia near insu!a 4.2 anoss town frnm what De!!a Cone (C&A 249) has idcmificd as hi' house, 6Jn\.Occ.36. :"'lost likcly Ccrrinius sirnply owned a second

piece ofpropcny in insu!a 4.2. ~ As \~"<"Juld, of conrsE'. thl" c-xpamion of o. 10 orar. Thc tl1ird person singular \vould naturally be takcn as meaning thc householder.

6 CfL !'V. 7429,7614,7618,7619,7624, 7632.Seeabove,pp, 79-80. ' N'ot tobe confused wi1h these arc two notices addres>ed by one so·iptor to another, perhaps hl5 apprentice, Ascylus. Astylus seem~ to have fallen asltCCfJ whcn he sbould have been at 1vork, and his colleaguc or masvor recorded rhe fact: Asty/us dormis (7464, 7794}_ In 7464 hc even ske\ched up a cock to wake the s\eepin.~ sr:riptor. See Franklin, "Scr(mores,'' 64-5,

I & On CJL IV. 7147, see C'&A 585; on 7174, C&_A 580; on 7280, C&A 672; on 7545, C&A 804; on 7649 and 7650, C&A 762: on 79()9 and 7910, C&A 659.

9 The nrm":rammata endorsing Lol!im Fuscus for thc aedikship in 78, a ycar for whkh we- shZuld f.>:pect to have ~·oiid evidence, arc perhaps mosl illusnative of this rattern_ On!v 17 of the 57 total knu;vn notices endorsinio: hirn do not Ene the Yia d,:o]l'/\,bbcmd~nza, RecommendinR him. with thcir locations indicatd, are thc :·c,llowing: CJL.lV. 84 '(-via dei Sep-;!chri), 282'-(7.4.57), 295 J6.JO.l2·-13), 314"1fL JJ .3-4), 345"{-Via dclla Fonuna), 34T-{V ia ctelb Fortuna), 353/iVia Nolana), 671\ ,__ (7.9.50-51), 711' (8.5.6--7), nr--(8.4,7-SJ, 740 ___(8.4_9 .. JOL 771'/(8.4.7-9?), 790

114

! 1 C&A 20. Rccommending Cerrinim Vsiia, with ihelr locations indicmcd, arc: eiL JV. 95 (6.l.''}. 115 (6.Ins.Occ.3-4}, 120 (6.Jns.Occ.3()), 124 (6Jns.Occ30), 128 (6.lns.Occ.'?), 149 (6.!0.8-corncr), JSO (6.!0.8~co!·ncr), 151 (6.10.8-corncf), !53 (6,10.8-corner), 156 {6.10.8.-corner), 159 (6,10,8-corner). 164 ((d0.7J, ]77 (6.9.3-5), 190 (6.8.17-18}, 196 (6.8.21-22), 207 (6.8.22-23), 221 (6.7.20), 224 (6.7.18-19). 230 \6.9.8), 234 (fl."::.
i64

c:

1::: C&A 249. Vatia's comKction in this par! of tov.:n is proved by CIL JV. 443. postcd in his support by his vicini. i3

C&A .540.

!4 Fschcbach, Entwicklung 128. On the basis of the l'icini progrsmma (CIL IV. 6627}, ~\'lau (atthe CJL enlry) and Del!a Cone (C&A 163) postviared thm the house j$ in this area, although neither idcntified it.

!5 C&A,pp, ll-!3. fü ln alL 174 nroQ:rammil!ti endor~e Ca~dlius l\--1arccl1us, This is 42 rnNe 1han suppor1 thc next m~st hcavily cndorsed candidare, He!vius Sabinus,

1'.' C&.4 379a-g and l50a-crespcctively.

115

1~: Dclla Corte, C&A 775, locate~: the houst of Popidius Rufus in ihis rcgion on thc e~·idcm:e of C!L lV. 7642, J'Ui\ed in hi> favm b~· 11\c, vici:n.i. His \dentification of Capdia's bouse (C&A 345) hangs on the 'ognomcn Capella, 'Shic]J onl\· Caeciliuo is known to ha
:9 The house 0f Paqnim Proculus is at l 7 l t_<.:-&A 63R); that of Vettius Caprasius Felix io at 9.7.20 (C&A 426). ~')

The

hou~e

of Epidiw: Sabinus is at 9. l .20 (C&A 4-X9)c

]I The house of Postumius Pron1lw: is al 8.4.4 (C&A 470--71); that of' Vedius Nummi;mus is m 7.1.25,47 (C&A 406 and pp. 9-ll); tha1 0f Trebius Valens is ar :U.l (C&A 739).

29 L HelYius Blaeslm Pu\ttllus is atw;ted as duovir in A.D. 52 hy TabCer 138. W On thc;;e gentes, sce CastrCn 16 l, I 73-74, 207-09. 2!6 . .11 Cicero. Pis. 2: Afe cum quaestorem in primis, aedilem prforem, praewrem Dtimum cunctLt suffragiis popu!us Romamtsfaciebat, homini illf' honorem, non [;eneri, moribus, non maioribus mds, virtwi pETJpectae, non auditae nobi!itaii de(erebat. In /'v/ur. JR is his attemp1 10 make light ofthis •;ery notion: Neque fllim vt~-rrwn quemquam fugfi, cum multi pares di:;:nfwre fiarit, tmus autem primum sofus po.ssi! obtinere, non eundem esse ordinern dignitoiis er renuntilltionis, propterM quod remm1iatio gradus ha/)eat, di;matis autem sil persaepe eadem ornniimL ::vJommsen.. StR 3.1: 4!4, fe1t that priority of elec·tion was not m1ponan1, but &ee lL Hall, "Vming Proccdurc in Romcm Assemblic~:' Hiswria 13 (l964j

290,

D-

95.

:12 Castren 216·1 7 colkcts the cvidence for ;hc gens, ~-' A. ~-lau.

"Bibiiografia Pompeiana," Römi\1it! 4 (1839) J00-0::.. (S;:t'

;:d:w\·e, p. 34). 2-'< Only 1hose pwp.:ramma1a cleariy aue~iling each candidatc are included in theoe counts: any admining (he po~sibility of <;>onfusion of names is cxdudcd_ Thu;: our counts may secm i.O differ from CastrCn"s assernb1a_ge of an tiK eoidence a!testing each 0f ;hegemes he h2s identified at Pompcii. ~'

Onthcscgenres, sec Castr-i-n

152~53,

]74-75, 210, 226.

21i The Oscan inscription is at V~t:er, no. 30. That an N, Herennius N. f, ~-' praefr:crus fabrum is knov-:n from \he inscript\on on thc tonlh of his 'vife, located outside the Porta di ;-.iola: /\·'. Heremius i'/. f IV!l!f!. I Cf'f>us d. v.i,d. iter praef I fabr. I Aesquil!ae C. f Po!fae I uxori vixit XXI! I !ocus sepulturat' pub!ice datus I d. d, Castren 174"75 di'!tingui:
Cdsu' was !wice duovir cts wcl1

27 Casellius Marccl1us is onc of the mcn whose namcs are carried by no oiher cancjidate, so tha1 the count of no1iccs supporting him is naturally highcr. thcre bcin~ no pos~ibility of confusion. lntcrestingly, his running-mati.'\ A lbuciuo Celsus, camc from a wdl attcstu\ gens 'hat already boasred a duovir. lf we were w consid.er the 26 notices endorsing botb Casellius and Albuclus the result of efforts on Casdlius' part and subtract ihern fmm the. 101al ~upporting Albucius, Albucius would be kft with oniy 52 programmata, a nurnber n<:arl:; equal tothat supporting the third candidacc of thc year, Lo!!ius Fuscus, whose gens is aboul a.> wdl m:e~!ed as the Albuö;:,
116

.l3 The Oscan ]nscription is Ve(H:-r, no. ~0. On C!L !V. 7766, sec Della Cor(e at chcC!L cmry and at C&A 8JO.

.l( Tbid, 178--79, J'' Gelzer 27·-28 quorcs Livy 4.44.2, and Cicero, Pis. Ciccronian pa~sages at Sest. 21 ;·1nd Plane. 67. -'~These men'~

and cites similar

duovirale is allesred in TabCer 143.

W Cl3"\T':On 226 sugge;,ts tha1 Verus may be ei01er -son or yOtmger l>rothcr of Certus. ~o Thc wax ublels of Caecilius Incundus providc informa;ion for thc yeurs 53-62, during v,.-hich no fa1hcr of a man of our period held the duu\"ira1c, unieso A!bucius Just1E, d;wvir in 58/9 '''as father of our Cdsus. 11 seemo more likcly, however, thal an ear!ieJ A!buciu.s Cdsus, aedi1e in 33/4 (CJL X. 901. 902) "·as our man's father. 'II

CJLX,pp<9\-2<

<; Della Cone, C&A 471, n, 1, isuncenain cf the relationship of fviodcstusand Proculu'i. C asl ren 210 also SiJgg~sts that they wen: fathcr and son. 1 ·~

'I i

44 Nelther Della Corte, C&A 406 and pp< 9-l l, nor Castren 23'-1-5 spccularcs on the relationship of thesc men, although a;; Siricus wm duo\'ir in 6tlil ( TabCer 144) and Nummianus swod for aedik only in 75, thc fnther-son rebtinnship i~ not unlikel;•. 45 C!L IV. 593:"822;·-·Jf)JJ<' lOJ

CONCLUSlONS

POMPElAN POLIT!CS

292.5':"3366, 7275,7279.7378,7418.7490,

753i, 7605, 766iL 7S()(L 7Rl8, 785!. 46 At C&A 515 Del!a Corte ~o identmed om man, suggcsting that he lived in 1he dependcncics of the Temple of Isis. 47 Three noticcs (CJL JV. 7605, 7617, 765S) carrying thc namc Trebius as rogator appear on the front of this !abcrno. Sec Della Corte's treatmcnt oi' the honse- of 1he Trebii a nd the programmata pested by them m C &A 739. 1 ' "

C&A 489.

4'}

C&A 489h,

:u On Lollius Synhodus< seeC&A 73f\. ~; C& A 497 "98. DeHa Corte did net s;weulate on 1he rela! ionship ü r 1hesc-- two rtH"L Onr r-ecom.tm~üon :;hov--·s them (0 have. s1o0d fn\' tiK acdiles\1\p in "15 (Amplialwi) and 79 (Secundusl. That thcv wou1d llave stood for the same office ;,vithin so fcw :-~a;s of each other >ugge~ls thal they wert' brothcr;;, not fatller and ~Oll-

Ji C&A 6'72-73.

56 Vibius Senrm is the only canclidatc knewn wbo bore ehe cognomcn

Sevt'rus,

57 At C!L fV_ 7958, Ddla Corte \'--TOte, Candidatum simu! p!!tiisse a!!dilitaiem e1 duumviratum incredibi!e mfhi videtur, Sec! nihif pt?l'iil, nec vestigia ad:limt programmotis afterius, ad quod titu!i partem rejerendam pwaveris_ Th<"' ob,-iou.s explanatlon isthat the duoviral recommendation was adi.lcd la: er. sg C&A 709.

·' 9 De11a Cort~'s idemifkations are at C&A 49 and 21 respecdveiy. Fe! On Ceninius Yatia, 1 'l

118

see C&A 20; Oll thc mu!iones, seeC&A 4-5 and 21.

On He1YÜt<; '\-'estalio, >ee C&A 49; on thepomarii, sec C&A 59-00.

Pompeii, properly the co!onia Veneria Corne!ia Pompeianorw-n, had a typical Roman colonial admlnistration. 1 The city's dellberativ-e and legislative body was thc ordo decurionum, modelcd after the Roman senate, \'>'hllc the administrative branch \vas composed of nvo pairs of elected duoviri. The duoviri iure dicundo were the senior magistrates, the duoviri viis aedibus sacrLJ publicisque procurandis (or, more simply, aediks) thc junior, Every fifl.h year, the duovlri iure dicundo assumcd additional responsibili1ics akin to thosc of the Roman censors and \vere 1errned quinquennales< These were the offices for v-.--hich our candidates were standlng. As thcir full title states, the acdilcs saw to the upkeep of roads and sacred and public buildings. They also ovcrsaw fair cxchangc in the marke1places and, of course, sought to make their incumbencies memorable wbcn it came time to offer games. The aedileship \vas especially lmportant, ho\vever. as a stepping stone to membership in the ordo decurionum. Ever~y fifth ycar, the ordo was reviscd undcr tbe direction of the quinquennial duovirl; to places vacated by the death or disqualification of older decuriones, thosc young men 1-vho had he1d the acdileship and had the rcquisite census were apt to be first namcd. The competition for the acdilcship at Pompeil indicates thc importance atwched 10 membership in the ordo. The duovirate must have been a far more burdensome offlce, As thc tü!e iure dicundo indicates, thes-e magistnttes spent much of thcir time presiding: in courL Thcy were in chargc of the public monics, presided at meetings of thc ordo, and offered speda1 games. In addltion, quinquennial duoviri undertook thc census of the colony and the revision of the ordo decurionum. Although their duties must ahvays have bcen onerous and expensive, tlw 119

duoviri, espcciall;,' the qulnquennial duoviri, 'Nill ha-ve bccn highly conspicuoüS, and as cponymous magistrmcs of thcit ycar their tenure of offlcc will have redounded to thcir ov..'n and their f amille~' gtoria, Thc acdileship was the office for \Vhich one competed. '0/e see a wide range of candidates standing for it and nurnbers of programmaw that indicate real and intense comests. Thc duovirate, whethcr rcgular or quinquennial, appears to have bcen very different. Jn the first place, only thosc who had alrcady held thc aedileship and had subsequcmly been named to the ordo could stand for this office. Secondly', therc \vere never, in our pcriod. more l.han two candidatos for the two places w be filled. In this light, the numbers of programmata supponing several of the duoviral candldatcs are enlightening. As there can havc been no true competition. exccpt for that compctüion to be first elected vvhich 1.ve hypothesizcd bet\"-'een Ceius Secundus and Calventius Sittius )\hgnus, we must look foranother explanation of the function of these notices. Then, the programmata can only be secn as altempts at increasing gentilicia1 _g!oria by coupling a man's namc \Nith high officc in thc public mind, so that his descendarm might be the more rcadily dectcd. As the programmata were lcft on the walls long afrcr the actua1 clections wcrc hcld, the:y hclped perform this functionc Gelzer long ago demonstratcd thc importance of family prominence a[ Rome; therc is cvcry indicatlon that the sarne imponance obtained at Pompcii. Indeed, wc haw already seen that family prominence is reflected in the number of programmata supporting our candidates, especially those for the aedileship> In general, the betler known a gens, 1·he fewer thc programmata that were postcd in s,upport of rhe man standing for office. Conversely, Cascllius 'Maifce!lus, a membcr of one of the least knmvn gentes a.nd candldate in 78, is by far the best mtested candidate in our lisL \\/e can, perhaps, carry our observations on family prominence further bv closer examinatlon of the team candidades attested in our period" In 79, for example, Cuspius Pansa and Popidius SecuneJus must. ha,,..c been the strongest candidates. Cenainl:y Cuspius Pansa, the third of that narne to eng_age in local politics was almost surc- tobe electcd. 2 Popldius belonged to an old gens long in eclipse (perhaps to a branch thercof that had

!20

servile origins) which \Vas again coming strongLv to the fore and had other candidares as wcll in om period. 3 \\'ith such impressive opposition, Hclvius Sabinus, only member of rhis gens kno,vn, can scarcely have had hopes of success with the electorate," In 77, none of the candidates was of the calibre of Cuspius Pansa, nor did the t\VO strongest candidates prcsent a coalition; in consequencc the d:ynamlcs of the election are far more interesting. \Vhile Albucius Celsus and CaseUius fvlarccllus share the recommendaüons of many noticcs, ü i.s Albucius and the third candidate of 1he year, Lollius Fuscus, v;ho came from roughly equally prominent gentes, though neither se~ms to have been particularly well known. 5 Apparentl:y Casellius, the only man of his gens known, wili have had some hope of election, given his alliance V·iÜh A!bucius and the impressive number of programmata posted in hi.s behalL 6 Even so, Lollius must appear the stronger candid::ltc. Jt would be vcry interesting to knü'IN the omcomc of these clcctions in 78; Casellius' success or failme woutd tcll us mucb about ehe dfkacy of the programmata, A second look at our reconstruction and the temm of candidares sbows patterns recurring throughout. ln some cases, tv/0 men frorn wel! cstablished gentes stood togethcr, virtuaHyguaranteeing their ele-ction, while at othcr timcs, a man of lesser family coupled his candidacy INith that of a man of bettcr, obvicmsly hoping w win election on the strcngth of hls runnlngmatc. As 1here was nevcr real compe1ition for t.he duovirate, the tcams standing for this office are particu1arly informati"l.'e, Obvious1y thc two candidates had agrecd to stand and work tagether. Obviously too, thcy met the standards of those ~ prcsumably the ordo - who managed the nominations. So the duoviral elections of 73 are particu!arly striking. V/e have already noticed thc prominence of thc gens Lucretia; that Lucretius Frolli.o would have stood for offlce wil.h Iulius Polybius is su.rprising_. 7 Clearl:y Polybius must have bcen a man of grear wcalth and great abilities, vdw was being givcn a strong band up into the inner circk of power. There is, moreover, onc further way in which \,\'e can idcntify certain pü\Vtrful political figures our pcriod, As thc successful cornplellon of a term as aedile \Vas rcquisi1e for candidacy for duovir, it is clear that all our duoviral candidates had prcviously held the acdilcship_ Fivc of these umdidates had stood for aedi!c

or

121

\Vithin thc years covcred by our rcconstruction, and the rapidltJ' v,·Jth \Vhich the:y reappearcd as duoviral ':andidates may \Veil indicate their wealth and political imponance, Gh'en that these candidades were obviously manipulated, it cannot have been a man's ambition or sense of duty alone that deu:rmined \vhen he stood for hig:her office. Of thesc five, the one who rosc most s!owly from office to office was C Gavius Rufus. l·Ie stood for aedilc in 73 and for duovir six years latcr in 79. His running~matc in 79, Holconius Priscus, had swod for aedilc in 76, so 1ha1 only a thrcc>year interval separated his candidacies. Thc gens Fl:okonia was one of thc most powcrful in Pornptii in our period, and thc rapidit;,' of Hokonius' risc ls not surprising. 8 Gavlus came from a far less prominent family; to om knov... ledge, only one mcmber, P. Gavius Pastor, had bcen duovir, and one, P. Ci-avius Proculus, candidate for aedilc, probably previous to our period. ') in addition, C:n. Pompeius Grosphus Ga-vianus, who \-vith his adaptive father Cn. Pompelus Grosphus was duovir in A D. 59 1vhcn thc riot brokc out in the amphitheatrc, nms1 have bcgun bis lifc as a Gavius. !\' In 71, the team of A. Vettius Caprasius Felix and P. Paquius Proculus stood for the acdileship. This they must have won and held in 72, for in 74 they again appeared as candidates, rhis time for tlle duovirate. The Vettii, in two branches, the PP. Vettii and AA, Vettii (not to bc confused \VÜh the owners of rhe Casa dci Vettii) produced several candidates bothin our period and emlier; they dearly \vere a pmverful gens. i The Paquii, on the othcr hand, arc tittle known to us, and the fact that our Paqulus Proculus stood for both aedile and duovir togcther with Vettius \\'ould seem to indicate an alliancc by which Paquius was assured a rapid rise. 12 ,Flna!ly, there ls L Celus Secundus, whose gens is not padicularly >vel1 attcstcd, apart from a good number of frecdmen." One member, L C:eius Labeo, had bcen duovir and quinquennial duo-vir, hmvcver. Our Ceius stood for aedilc in ~;6, for duovir in 78; presumably, thercforc, he was far more politically povverful than our evidence for his gens would lead us to suspecL 1~ [n cantrast w thesc \vhose political rises can be followed. therc is one conspicuous man, Treblus Valens (jilius), who stood for aedile in 73 (together \vith (i-avius Rufus) and does not 1

122

reappear as duoviral candidaie by 79, whcn our evidence ceases. He could not llave stood in SO either, forthat "vas a qulnquennial vear. Aithough the ·rrebii Valentes (Valens pater had been a quinquennial candidate prior to om period) are particularly \vell known to modern scholars because of their house with its \Yealtb of programmata on the Via dell'Abbondanza, they may have been far Je~~ weil known in antiquity. lc The numbcr of programmaia r-equesting their support for candidan:s may >ve11 be duc as much w thc loca1ion of their house as to thcir political power. SJO\Ycr progrcss, if any, also -seems to poim lO the novi homines and men of less well established families in our rcconstructlon, Apart from Iulim Polybius. who may have been helped to thc duovirate by superior forces and other consiclcrations, there is no man of clearly nC\Y family standing for duoviL ]1. scems uniikely that thc lcsscr known candidatcs can cvcr often havc beten elected 10 the acdileship ~ cvcn, as Ül the case of Casellius 1\'larcellus, when aided by an alliancc with a bettcr cstablished man and Jiterally hundreds of programmata. Givcn the political sccne dominated by the better establishcd J;entes that we can draw from our reconstrucrion and studies, onc ;nay bcgin to wondcr why a candidate unlikely to succeed \Vould ha\'C mounted a campaign wlth such vigor and then, as >ve havc secn from our recomtrucnon, failed to stand again if unsuc-cessfuL It is remarkable that of all o-ur candidates only A. Ve!lius Firmus, who ~tood for aedile in ma:y have bcen a candidate earlieL Yet in the llght of lhe uitcrlor moü-,·es 1-vc musl assume for the programmata posted in support of men \~-110 would be elected cluoviri \Vhether supportccl by programmata or noL -.,ve may surmise thm there wcrc ultcrior motivcs for some of our aedilician candidates as welL For if Pompeli's well established famili(:'~ saw to the posting of programmata Jargely 10 keep thelr names in thc public eye, smel.y the unestablished could see the same advantagc. Although, lhat is, Cascllius fvlarcellus or Samellius Moclestus ma)' havc bccn himself unknown, bis name will have been read and rcrcad many times by every 11terate Pompelan in programmata lcft on walls for years \vhen the next Casemus or Samellius stands for office. Bm this is not to suggest that campaigns appear to havc bet"n undenakcn only 'A·'ith ulterior motives. On the contrary, we have _!2.)

sccn that severa! candidates wen1 beyond 1he normal sources of support among thdr friends and neigllbors to arrange for the po5ting of programmata along the cit.v's main streets where they vvould bc st>en by thc greatest number of passers-by and havc greatcst effccL And it is clear from our studlcs as wel1 that \\'hile a cliens may wcll have been free to support whomcver hc wished on o1her occasions, hc- was expected to support his patronus when the patronus himself stood for office, ·rhere is every indication that these \vere genuine campaig_ns. In viöv of the largc numbcr of ]lrogrammata and \Vide '\-·aricty of pcrsons signing thcm \YC cannot doubt that there \vas a liveliness and intensity in Pompeian politics. But from the arrangement of nominations for duovir, whether regtdar or quinquennial, and thc slow rise of men from the less well establishcd famJJies, wc cannot discoum the strength of thc entr-enched ariswcracy. As a rule, families did not rise to prominencc in a singlc gcneration.

CONCI-CSlONS:

NOTES

! On Roman colonial governrnen in generaL sec OCD 2 , s.v. "Coknizmion, Roman" by A.N. Shcnl"in-Whit~. For thorou;!h discussions of

ehe

magistracie~

and their dntie>, sec DarS<1g, s.v. ';Aedilcs Coloniürum ct

1\·Junicipion.lm,"" "DmnTIYiri Juridicundo,'· and "CmsOJ l\-'lunicipalb," all by

G. Humbert. On thc officc;; at Pompcii. sec Castr0n 62-67.

''

2

Casutn 16!.

'

Jbid. 207,{)9.

'

lbid. 173-·74.

'

l_bld. 132 and 183.

(\ Jbid. 150. ' Ibid. 178-79 and 185-86. g

lbid. 176.

,, lbid. 170··/L !fJ

1bid. 205-06.

Ii

lbid. 239-40.

!2

lbid. 2.02··03.

ß

lbid. !5 1··52.

i4 C:tiliS' dose 51Jttession d candidaties also demonsrrmes thar iacer regula;ion, (Dig. 50.1 .18; 50.4.14; Cod. i0.4 1.2) govcrning tllc inter--als bctween standing for office did not apply at Pornpeii at 1his lirne. These comc from 1hc timcs of Sewrw' and Gordiamb. and sccm to havc becn designed to protec; a man from lhe disaslrous e.xpcn;;c of repeated ekction to magisu-acies. Tb;y

]24

varied from town to 1own even w, Cf. Dig. 50.L17; Praescriptio temporum, quac in honoribus repewndis vei aiiL~ suscipiendis data f'SI, apud eosdem servatur. non ap!ld a!ios.

APPENDIX

M!SCONSTRUED READ!NGS, !NCORRECT PA!R!NGS

15 Castri:n 230-31.

Of the prügrammata supporting two or morc mcn, sevcral recorded in the original vo1ume of Zangemeister and a fcv,.· in Lhc supp!cment of I\-iau are suspicious and umeliable. Ncarly ahvays they rcpresent two programmata by error read as one; thc reasons their readings cannm be accepted are of three sorts. Severa! programmata lac:k a conjunctlon between the names and, in the absence of another notice c:onfirming their reading, in a!l likelihood are elemems of t"wo or more programmata rcad as onc Programma 137, for example, seems to suppon a Sueoius and a Popidius: A. Suettlum Popidium aed.

But the et is lacking, and the names appear in unusual comblnation. Thc inltial represcnting the praenomen of Suettius is included, >vhilc tha1 of Popidius is omined. Zangemeister too ·was suspicious of Ihis reading, At CJL IV. 137, hc wrore, lvfanca est post Suettium, nisi forte duorum programmatum refiquiae sunt male con.fusae. Most import.ant, there is no other programma supponing a Suettius and a Popidius in wbich their names are joined by a conjunction and whlch contains sufficient elements for the identification of thesc men. Without othcr cvidence that a Suettius and a Popidius did swnd for officc in the same year, we musr believe that, as Zangemeister suggcsted, thls programma is in fact two notices combined. Thc first supportcd a. Suettius, \Vhlle th(' S('cond recommended a Popidius for thc aedileship. Lack of other evidence forces the excluswn of all similar programmat::l. \\-'hcn thcrc is other C\'idcnce 1hat confinns the reading of such a programma, howcver, its rcading c:an be acceptcd. This is 126

127

the case only three tirnes. ln programma 447, thc second llne reads: L Sucttium Fpidium Hvir i.d.

Although irs palnter or recorder madc an error m Suettius' pracnominal initial and omitted Epidius', this noticc can bc taken as a recommendation of A. Suettius Certus and IVL Epidius Sabinus for lhc duovirate, for a!though it lacks a conjunction, it joim names also joincd by othcr, trustworthy cvldence (CIL IV. 122, 359-60, 373, 409, 641, 797). Thc second instance is programma 3850, which Supports Venius Flrmus and Ovidius Veiento for the aedileshlp. As is the casc \Vilh 447, its readlng is confirmed by other programmata (CJL JV. 36l8, 385L 7143, 7930). Also, although lt too lacks a conjunction, programma 623 seems to be correct as recordcd in the CJL. The t\YO rnen whom it pairs, Holconlus Priscus and Cuspius Pansa, are shnwn to have been candidates in the same year, though for different offices, b:>' nmice 7242, so agaln there is confirmatory evidence. ln addition, even though it lach direct confirmation, programma 380 has been taken as evidence that Vettius 'Flrmus and a Sallusrius, \Vho musr be Sallustius Capito, rhe on!v Sallustius known to have stood for office in thio.: period, stc)od i;1 the sanK :year. Tlw form of this programma, as we have remarked (above, pp. 38~9), is much like and hc!ps explain 3850, suggcsting that thc same painter execmed both, designing them as programma1a primarily in support of Venius Firmus, !\loreover, the reading is by .iv1ommscn. Programma 447 will serve as an cxamp!e of those notlccs oi fla\;;,-ed rcading \vhich fall into a second category. Theseare thosc >vhich comain, associated with cach name, enough elernents tobe under-swod as more than one programma. Here is the CJL cmryin ~ts enlirety, not mercly the sccond line, \vhlch we hm'e alrcady examined: 1

CrL Helviu$ Sabinum aed. d.r.p, o. vJ.

L Suettium Epidium Ilvir i.d, '

Clearl)r these arc two separate programmata, each conwfete ln onc line. The flrst supports Cn. Helvius Sabinus and can bc expanded to Cn. Helvium Sabinum aedilem dignum rei publicae oro vos faciatis, The sccond suppons A. Sucttius Certus 128

and M. Epidius Sabinus for the duovirate. Fina!ly, thcrc are thosc programmata too fragmenwry to bc of use. Noticc 311 is typical:

[t docs seem originally to havc supported l\\'0 men, for it secms to contain thc conjunction et linking their initial~, but the names are not recoverable from the remaining fragmenL Se'-'Cral of the programmata which must be excluded contain two of these three sons of flawed readings. Table 12, which follows, categodzes each. Tothat table must bc added programma 295, \Vhich, although i1 does not comain any of the three typical flaws, cannot be acceptcd as trustvmrth:y evidcncc. lt ls, in the firsl place, the only cvldence we have that C. Lollius Fuscus and Popidim Secundus stood for office in the samc year. 'T'his in itself Jeaves it open 1.0 challcnge, and other aspects of the programma force us 10 exclude iL As \Ve have obscrved, the programrnma remained ofren for scveral years after their original purpose as political poslers had passed. Consequently, the paintcrs took pains to balance thc elements of 1he nmices and to makc them aesthetically pleasing. Thi~ is a mark of the scripfores' profcssionalism. In general, lincs are of the samc length or, if not, appropriately spaced and balanced 10 form a pattern. Even a cursory survey ofthe CJL and cxcavation repor1s will show this. But 1his is no1 true of 295:

Cl

C Lo!lium Fuscum Popidium Secundum

... ,v.b.o.vJ. ;'vioreover, a[though there is no other evidente that Lollius Fuscus .;:md Popidius Secundus stood for office in the same year, thcrc is abundant evidcncc to the contrary, for at threc points in the city, programmata (CIL 1V, 7233-34, 7408 & 7411, 7-692-93) supponing Popldius overlay others posted for Lollius. Wc must conolude !hat hcre again \\'C h::1ve fragmentary remains of two programmata rather !han one suppor1ing two men, ·rhe unusual spacing of two othcr programma1a also confinm that they arenot single notices, Theseare 271··72 and 506. both of which areenteredas single programmara in the CJL

TABLF 12

271--72:

USFL.ESS AND MlSTAKEN PA!RlNGS IN THE CIL

CILrr

Too fragml:'nt>lq

---

Lac1:ing Cnnjtlnttion

137 187

X X

262 271-72

X X

292

X

295 Jj 1 * 334 396"'

X X

406~

X

Two Compkte Programmata

506 .518* 623 665 801

X X X

843 854

X

869 8R9 929 952 1006

1025_-26 X

1036 ]()77 (cL Add.

506:

I'vL Holconium

X X X X X X X

d

X

X

Thc sccond line of cach is ;;paced too far from thc first to sui1 thc practice of Pompclan lctr.crers. The comp!ctc request of linc 1 of 27i-72 and thc Iack of conjunction connecting the two lincs. thc strange placemcnt of rog. in 506 and thc lack of~conjunction provc t hat each is two separate programmata. i\ similar problern affects 3G74. Here, HlOSt unusually, similar elernems of quite different scalc appear in the same line: --~

fvLCl\L AED. M.S.!\L aed. Pyramus Oh'mpionica Calvos rog. Clearly t.here arc two different prognrmmata here. The first supported M. Casellius l\iarcellus for aedilc. Close tothiswas 1ntcr paimed the programma rccornmcndin_g "tvL Samclllus Modestus, aLso for the aedilcship. Both 1hc difference in sizc and the repeated abbreviation for aediic provc this tobe two programmata. Consider 518: Fausto.

X

{ A'i/"- ·

.f i

,.-~

X

c/_ i

C. (G)avium Rufm{?f'·

X

X X X

cLi.d.

o.v.L

lVL Lucrctium (F)ro ... , Olher

X

415-16 447

C Iu1ium Polybium

Jivir

p. i99i

10S3 2930 21"39 349() 3585~ 3596~

3674 3725 3736~

3754 7704

HO

X X X

K NolllumetM. Calventium . . . .

X

X X X

X

X

X

X X X

Premmably the second and fifth Encs contained the name of the pcrson \vho authorized the programmata and rhe formulaic o. vJ, \Vc would thcn oncc again have nvo programrmna rnistaken for one noticc. Unfortunately, thc office is lacking, andin ihe absence of other evidencc for thcsc mcn, the informa1ion is uselcss for this study. lf programma 3754 ·was in fact a sharcd notice, it too wus tnn 1.11

APPENDIX:

fragmcntary to prcscn-'e any useful lnfonnaticm, As recorded it reads:

NOT ES

on

Ver et Front cm aed. Thls scems 1ikely tobe mlstaken, ho>xever, There is only one Fronto attested in the programmata, JVl. Lucretius Fmnto, who was endorsed in the famous couplet, CIL IV. 6626. inscribeJ on his hause fa~adc at 5.4.a. 2 Lucretius' candlclac;,' for thc aedileship seems. to judge from the few programmata endorsing him, to belong to an eadier period than that of this study. Qulte possibly !Vlau misread one JeHer in 3754; ü can then be corrected to a notice in favor of Fronto alone; fLJu~ret(ium)

acd.

From

on

em

1 Ar: altern21e reading rttords a variBnt secend 1int for this notke, Priscum I!vir aed'·: rather than Priseton JJvir f. d., '-Vhich Zang~meistcr preferrcd. Ilvir aed. coulJ be an abbre,·iation for tlk aedileship based on t!ie dfida! titl~ duovir riis aedibus sacrL> rmhlicisque procurandis. lf rhis shou1d be 1he correct reading, the. CJL ermy mttst be separated imo two progrmmtJata, for Hoiccmius and Cusrrius ;;re rrovcd in our reconsnudon to have stood fo; aedile in different years_ Although Zangemciwcr\ f('ading is herc preferred. ii makes no differente to this study which r<eadin,c is accepjed; in eBch ca>C the same informat!on is recordcd in mher progx·ed for not ice fi23, 2 C&A 161 andpp. ll-!3.

,__ f!.

lNDEX OF NAMES I. Nomina P. Aemilius Celer 25, 31 . Aesquillla Pol!a 116.

L Albucius Celsus t9, 37, 38, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 63, 66. 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 93, 95, 97, 98, 110, 116, l2J, Table6. AlbuciusCdsus 117. Albucius Iustus 117.

Alflus Capiw 39, 72. M. Alleius Lucdus Libct1a 102. Cn. AlleJus Nigldius Malus 31, 102.

T. Arrius Polites 27, 90. Atdus Capito 39, 72Cn< Audius Bassus 40, 41, 51, 56, 79, 102. Q. Bruttlus Balbus 43. L Caecilius Capclla 41, 52, 54, 55, 66, 88, 90, 91. 93, 96, 106, !08, 109, 116, Tab!e 6.

LCaedliusiucundus64, 71, 72, 75,100,113. M. Calventius !31. C. Calvemius Quietus 51, 64-65. C. Calvemius Sirtim 1\iagnus 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54. 55, 6>·65, 7.:L 74, 75, 76, 83, 88. 89, 94, 96, 98, 104, 106, 107, 108, 120. Tabk 6.

Caprasia 91. l'vL Casellius Marcellus 19, 30, 37, 38, 46. 47, 48, 52, 53, 54. 55. 63, 65, 7'7, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 89, 91, 93, 95, 97, 98, ll5, ll6, 120, 12l, 123,131, Table6. L Ceius Labeo 102, 122. L Ceius Secundus 45, 46, 48, 49. 50,51-, 52, 53, 60, 62-63,65,66, 67, 70, 73, 90, 92. 96, 97, 98, 105, 120, 122, 125, Table6. !'vL Cerrinius Vatia 29, 34, 37, 46, 55, 60, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 83, 84, 92, 95, 97, 98, !09-10, 111, 112, 114, 115, 118, Tab!e6, Claudius Claudianus 40, 41, 54, 62, 74. TL Claudius Eulogus 84. TL Claudius Verus 23, 30, 47, 48, 74, 75-76. ClodJus 80-81, 89. A. Clodius Flaccus 102.

135

Corne!ius 89. M. Curtius Viblus Salassus 102. C. Cuspius Pansu (candidate) 20, 22, 29, 37, 39, 43, 44, 49, 5!, 52, 53, 54, 59, 61-62, 79, 81, 83, 89, 91, 95, 97, 98, 101, 104-05, 106, 107, 109, 110,111,120,128,132, Table6. C Cuspius Pansa (filius) 54,61-62. C, Cmpius Pansa (pater) 61-62, 74, 102. l\L Epidius Hymenaeus 27, 80-82,83, 85, M, Epidius Sabinus 20, 28, 37, 41, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, 53, .59, 60, 64, 65, 67, 93, 96,97, 104-05, 110, 111, 113, 116, 128, Table 6. Fadius 89.

P, Gavius Pastor 122. P. Gavius Proculus 46, 12L C. Gavius Rufus 37, 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, 51, 53, 59, 61, 62, 67, 73, B3, 96, 97, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 122, 131, Table 6. L. Helvius Blaesus Proculus 117. Cn. HelviusSabinus22, 37,47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 55, 57, 62, 65, 72, 79, 81, 83, 89, 90, 91, 93-94, 95, 97, 98, i04< 106, 108, 11 l, 115, 121, 128, Table6. Helvius Vestalis 109, 110-12, 113, J 18. N. Herennius Celsus 37, 38, 43, 59, 60, 65, 83, 84, 95, 97, 98, Table ti, N. HerenniusN. f. Celsus 116.

M. Holconlus Celer l 02. M. Holconius Priscus 18, 19, 22, 30, 39, 41, 43, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 61, 62, 65, 66, 73, 79, 83, 88, 89, 93, 96. 97. !0!, 104.107, 110, lll, 112, 113, 122, 128, 131, 132, Table 6. M. Holconius Rllfus 102. M. Ho!conim Siricus 53. (Iglus) 37, 39, cL Nigidius Fuscus. lulfus Philippus 90. C. !ulius Polybius 20, 22, 41, 48, 49, 54, 56, 61. 68, 72, 75,76, 79, 90, 96, 99-100,106,107-09,111,112,121,123, l31, Table6, IVL Lkiniu' Faustinm 49, 50, 54, 69, Tablc 6. M. Licinius Romanus 50, 54, 69, Tab Je 6, L. Livius Severus 24. C. Lollius Fuscus 23, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 5.5, 56, 57, 60, 6l·64, 69, 72, 73, 79, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94, 97, 98,106,108,109, 112,114, 116, !21,129, Tab!c6. . 'II~ I."

Lollius Synhodus !05, 111, 1 1S.

Loreins 90. Lucius 89. Lucretius 89.

M. Ltlcretius Deddianus Rufus 1OL 102. M. (Lucretius) Epidius flaccus 101, 102. M. Lucretius Fronto 20, 18, 41, 47, 48, 49, 61, 68, 74, 92, 96,99-100, 101, !02, 121, 131, 132. Tablc 6. D. LucTetius Satrius Valens 1Ol.

D. Lucretius Valens 5 i, 55. D. Lucreliu~ Valens,filius 79, 81, 101-0f, Lutatius 90. Magius 89. Q. l'v1arius Rufus 37, 43, 59, 67, 97, Tabl<:h, Melissacus 37, 39, 72. Cn. Tv1elissaeus Aper 72. Messlus Arnpliams 113. Mustins 25. Nigidius fuscus 39. N. Nigldius Vaccu!a 39< Nollius i 31. Nonius 49. Novicius 89. L Ovidius Veiento 21, 37,38-39,40, 49, 50, 52, 53, 59, 67, 68, 69, 79, 90, 97,108,109,128, Table6. Paplrius S.abimL'i 84. Paquius Probus 90. P. Paqulus Proculus37, 40, 41, 43, 46. 48, 49. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 67, 68. 75-76, 82, 93, 96, 97, 99, 108, 116, 122, Table 6. L. Pericatius 49, Petronia 84. Cn. Pompdus Gmsphus 72, 100, l22. Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavlanu~ 72, 100, 122. Popidius 127. L. Popldlus 2l, 91. L. Popidius Ampiiatus 23, 37, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 59, 67, 72, 73, 75, 79, 88, 90, 94, 97, 105, 106-07, 108, i ll, l J8, Tablc 6 .

Popldius NaJalis 29, 104, 11 L Popidius Priscm 39.

Terern:ius 89, l\,1 _Tcremius Endoxus 84.

?'-L Popidius Rufm 41, 46, 50, 51, Table 6.

54, 66, 73, 90, 91, 93, 96, 10'7, 11fi,

L. Popidius Secundus 19, 23, 37, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 73, 75. 79, 80-81, 83, 89, 90, 95, 96, 98, 105, 106, 1()7, 111.118,120,129, Table6,

l'vL PoreJus lOL Q. Posiurnius Modeslus 55, 65, 67, 72, 74, 75, 88, 89, 96, 99, 102.103,117, Table 6. Q. Postumius fv1odestus Eulogus l02.

Q. Postumins Proculus 37, 46, 48, 54, 55, 60, 65, 66. 69, 73, 74, 75, 83, 84, 86, 93, 95, 97, 103, 104, ll6. 117, Table 6.

Traebia Forlunata 73. Trcbim 73. Trebim Synhodus 73.

A. Trebius \'alens 23, 28, 37, 47, 49, 5C 53, 54, 56, 61, 62, 67, 68, 73,7980, SL 88, 90, 93, 97, 104-·05. 108, l09, lll, 113, JJr.L 1!6, 118,122, 123, Tablc 6. A. "frebius Valenspater40, 4L 51, 56, 6L 79-RO, 102, 118, 123. !'vL Tuliius 102. Ubonius 89

.f k·-··' .... 1.,-.,_.·. u~

P. Vedius Nummianus37, 42, 43, 59, 67, 93. 97, 103, .ll6, 1 Jti, Table 6.

Praedicinim 64, 79, 104, 114. Pupius 89.

P. VedlusSiricus49, 50, 54, 89, 102, 103, 118.

\·1. PupiusRufus47, 73, C Quinctius Vaigus JOL

VeraniLts57.

A. Veius 102.

L. Vemnius HypsaetE- I02.

A. Rustius Verus 23, 40, 41, 48, 62, 74-75, 89, 107. Q. Sallmlius l Ol. 102.

l'vi. Vesonius I\·iarcellus 47. 56, 57, 73.

C. Sallustiu> Capito 37, 38, Tab!e6.

Sex1ilius 54, 55, 107.

A. Vettius Caprasius Fclix 18, 37, 40. 4!, 43, 4'7, 53, 54, 59, 67, 68, 70, 82, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 99, 108, 116. 122, Tabk 6. P. VeniusCfler48, 50. 69, and Tablc 6. A. Venlus Firmus 24, 37,38-39,40,49, 50, 51, 52, .54, 55, 59, 67, 68, 69, 89,90,97, 108,110, llL 123,128, Tabl~: 6. P. VeniusSyrticus43. L. Vewtius Placidus 23, 90, 106-09, 111.

L Sextilius 52.

Vibius Sevems43, 50, 54, 59, 68, 77, %, 107, 108, 118, Table 6.

)9,

40, 48, 49, 59, 68, 69, 72, R9, 97, 101, 128,

rvL Samellim Modestus 37, 40, 62, 75, 8L 92. 93, 95, 97, 98, 110, 116, 123, 131, TabkO. !VL Satrius Valens 42, 43, 5 L 59. 67, 96, 99, 101, 102, 103, Table 6. Septumins 55.

Vestorius Pri<;CU'i 39, 48, 49, 53.

P. Sinius47, 51, 69, 76, Table6, P. Si.ttius Coniunctus 76.

P, ~ittius )\rlagnus 76. Statia 84.

!'v·I, S1:laborius Vcius Fronto J 02. T. Suedius Clernens 20, 28. Suettius -89, 127. A. Sucttlus Ccrtus 41, 42, 43, 48, .50, 5L 52, 53. 54, 58, 59, 60, 65, 67, 88, 94, 96, JOO, 117, 128, Table 6. A. Suenius Verus 37, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 79, 81, 83, 84, 88, 89, 94, 95, 97, JOO, 108. 117, Tablc 6.

IJ. Cognomirm Aegle 22. Alipus 80-Bl, 90, Ank(et"?)us 89. Ascaules 24. Ascla 106-09, Asdlina 22. Astylus25,31, 114, Ataude 24,

Aihic:tus 90. Calvosl3l. Carm 89. Cerialis91. Crescem 23, 90, 91. Cucu!la 22.

Diadumenus 23, 89. Dionysius21, 22. Fausw _., J3L Felix 91, cL A. Vetllm Caprasius Felix. FloriHm 24. Florus 25, 31 Frucms 25, 31. <

Gavianus 54. cL ÜL Pompeins Grosphus Gaviarms. Graphicm 23, 90. f--Iinnu!us 25, 31. Jarinus 31. In.far;s 89. Inf'antio 23, 25, 31, 90. Istmus 24. Maria 22. Masculus 82-83, 85~ Melicertes 25, 31. I'v1enecratcs 89, 112.

Polybius 25,31, cf. C Iuiius Polybiu.s. Posido91. Prim ... 24. Primus9l, 104. Priscus 90, ivL 1-lokonius Priscus, Popidius Priscus, Vcstorius Priscus. Proculus 89, 90, cf.P. Gavius Proculus, L Helvius Blacsus Proculus, P. Paquim Proculus, Q. Postumins Procuius. Protog ... 24. Pyramm 131. Restitulus 53. Rufinus89. Rufus 89, cf. C. Gavius Rufm, M. Hokonlus Rufus, 1\L Lucrelius Decidianus Rufm, Q, fdarius Rufus, N. Popidius Rufus, lvi. Pupi11s Rufus. Sabinus 24, cf. !'vL EpiJim Sabinus, Cn. Helvius Sabinus, Papirius Sabinus. Secundus 25, 31, cf. L Ceius Secundus, L. Popidius Secundus. Sexti ... 24. Soterichus 90. Stephanm 90. ·rychicus 31. Victor 25, 31. Zmyrlna 22.

I\-1odestus 89,91, cf. Q. Posrumius !'v!odesius, YvL Samellius Modestus. I\.1ontanus 105-06,111. Oceila 24. Olympionica 131. One;;imus 24. Oncfmastus 91. (Os?)sius 24. Papi!io 25, 31. Paris 24. Phil ... 24. Phyloterus 24, Placidus 23, cL L Vetmius Piacidus. PolitE"s 90, cf, T. Arrius Polües. i .li i

141

:i !

} ' CG"\H'OS1Z10;-.;EE STMWA

i\CV
MlJL TIGRAFICA EDJTRICE S.rJ. \"IAU'·:OFiQl..c\TTROI.TV!"l .'2 R0)>1"' LLGUO 1900

I