User:Llywrch/sandbox3

Mireille Corbier, Les circonscriptions judiciaires de l'Italie, de Marc-Aurèle à Aurélien
[p. 659] [Here transcripts of = ILS 1172 from Ariminum &  = ILS 1193 from Bostra]
 * 17 -- M. Aelius Aurelius Theo

Commentators usually identify M. Aelius Aurelius Theo, patron of Ariminum, with Aelius Aurelius Theo, governor of Arabia appointed [p. 660] to the consulate under the joint reigns of Valerian and Gallienus. (1) Only one, A. Jardé, suggested that the first be recognized as the father of the second. (2)

[footnote 2:"In his census of iuridici Apuliae, J. Marcillet-Jaubert, Bull. Arch. alg., 3 (1968), p. 319, dated the juridicat of the anonymous Lydian in the first half of the third century."]

If we did not know the inscriptions of Bosra, (3) relating to consul designatus (4) of the years 253-259, we would not for a moment consider placing the cursus of Ariminum in the middle of the third century. The individual's nomenclature (first name, nobility, nickname, without any indication of filiation or tribe) and his advancement are rather reminiscent of the Severian period: the inscription includes a series of posts -- vigintivirat, military tribune, plebeian tribune in particular (5) -- which are appropriate for a senator of the end of the second century or the first third of the third century, but which are surprising for a consul of the years 253-259.

[footnote 4: "Theo was indeed a suffect consul in Arabia, as a recently published Bosra inscription testifies (AE, 1965, 19): Θέωνα / ύπατικον / Άντιοχιανός."] [footnote 6: "A note by Mommsen encourages me to formulate this hypothesis: in Droit public romain, V, p. 393, note 4, Mommsen cites the title of the iuridicus de infinito per Flam. Umbriam Picenum by way of illustration to the text of Dio Cassius, 78, 22 relating to the excessive powers of the iuridici which Macrinus would have put an end to."]

The title of this person, iuridicus de infinito, of which there is no other example, undoubtedly contributed to the acceptance of the late period suggested by the existence of the legate of Arabia of the same name. In fact, the very recent publication of a Greek inscription from Ephesus (see item no. 28) which testifies, for a certain period, to the addition of alimenta and cura viarum to the traditional activities of the iuridicus sheds new light on the formula of infinito. This may well apply to the extension of the powers of this official, which is attested to in the reign of Caracalla and probably dates back to Septimius Severus. (6) The district of Flaminia-Umbria-Picenum, reconstituted by Septimius Severus, ceased to exist in 212, when Caracalla joined Picenum to Apulia. I would therefore like to make the following hypothesis: M. Aelius Aurelius Theo administered the jurisdictional district of Flaminia-Umbria-Picenum during the reign of Septimius Severus [p. 661] with particularly extensive powers; perhaps he was the first to benefit from this increase in competence. This clarissimus could be the father of the legate of Arabia of Valerian and Gallienus.

The cognomen Theo suggests an oriental origin.


 * 28 -- Anonymous

[p. 671 -- Greek inscription]

[p. 672] The anonymous cursus of Ephesus that D. Knibbe has just published obliges us to question a certain number of preconceived ideas concerning Italian jurisdictions. Certainly, the district of Picenum-Apulia is already attested by the Roman inscription bearing the career of C. Sallius Aristaenetus (no. 26). Its creation dates back to the moment when the south of Italy ceased for the first time to constitute a single judicial district: the region of Apulia was attached to Picenum, while Calabria, Lucania and Bruttium remained associated. I have dated this reform to the beginning of the reign of Caracalla, probably in 212, on the basis of the respective titles of an anonymous Lydian (no. 16), δικαιοδότης 'Απουλίας Καλαβρίας Λνκαονίας to 211 again, and of Q. Herennius Silvius Maximus (no. 23), ''iurid. per Calabr. Lucaniam Brittios'', in 212. The last precisely dated testimony concerning the district of Calabria-Lucania-Bruttium is 240-241 (n. 34); at that time the grouping Picenum-Apulia was still to exist. Apparently, the anonymous iuridicus discovered at Ephesus could have been placed between 212 and 240.

But the novelty of the document lies in the title of the senator: ίονρίδικος Πεικήνον και 'Απονληίας αλιμέντων και [ο]δών, Greek transcription of a formula that would be: iuridicus Piceni et Apuliae alimentorum et viarum. There is no equivalent of this title in the documentation I have gathered. However, it seems to me very difficult to dismiss it on the pretext that the editors of Ephesus may have mistakenly grouped together several distinct Italian responsibilities. This text must be compared with a passage from Dio Cassius according to which, in 217, Macrinus reduced the powers of the iuridici to those they had received at the time of their creation by Marcus Aurelius. [Dio Cassius 78.22] This senate-inspired measure proves that, under the Severians at least, the judges of the regions had gone out of their primitive attributions. Commentators usually conclude that this momentary increase in competence was only in the judicial sphere. In fact, the inscription of Ephesus invites us to re-examine a thesis defended nearly a century ago by Hirschfeld: (2) he suggested that the iuridici had had to encroach on the administrative domain and deal in particular with the alimenta; to support his point of view, he had only one argument, the absence of praefecti alimentorum in the regions between the reigns of Commodus and Macrinus. Mommsen did not accept this hypothesis, the bases of which seemed to him [p. 673] too weak. (l) C. Jullian (2) and Kubitschek (3) followed Mommsen. It is undeniable that the Greek titulature of the new iuridicus provides notable epigraphic support for Hirschfeld's thesis. I will later devote a study to clarify the relations between iuridici, praefecti alimentorum and curatores viarum. (4)

[footnote 4:"It will be necessary to verify whether the chronological list of praefecti alimentorum and that of curatores viarum can explain why, in certain regions, at certain times, the iuridicus has cumulated civil jurisdiction, control of the management of food foundations and curatorship of roads."]

At the end of this analysis, it appears that the senator of Ephesus exercised his functions between 212, the year of the creation of the district of Picenum-Apulia, and 217, when Emperor Macrinus limited the activities of the iurididus to the judicial and administrative domains that had been theirs since Marcus Aurelius.

D. Fonteius Fronto, Proconsul de Lycie-Pamphylie
(Cite: Michel Christal & Thomas Drew-Bear, "D. Fonteius Fronto, Proconsul de Lycie-Pamphylie", GRB Studies, 32 (1991), pp. 397-413)

The name of this senator is recently known by the text a milestone of the Via Sebaste at the village of Bogazici, located south of Lake Burdur in the Pisidian highlands (see map Fig. 1). D. H. French first provided a short notice, before publishing the text in a more complete form a few years later. (1) According to French, the engraving is clumsy and the letters badly preserved. (2) But he does not give a photograph, neither of the stone nor of an engraving. He presents the text in this way:

Imp(erator) Caesar M(arcus) Aurelius Ant toni(n)us Aug(ustus) Armcniacus p(ontifex) m(aximus) trib(unicia) pot(estate) XIX imp(erator) II co(n)s(ul) III et Imp(erator) Caes(ar) L(ucius) Aurelius Verus Aug(ustus) Armeniacus p(ontifex) m(aximus) trib(unicia) pot(estate) V imper(ator) II co(n)s(ul) III per D(ecimum) Fonteium Frontonem proco(n)s(ulem) [...]

[footnote 1: "D. H. French, AnatSt 26 (1976) 11sq; "D. Fonteius Fronto, proconsul (of Asia)," ZPE 29 (1978) 211sq. The text is also mentioned in Roman Roads in Asia Minor II.1 (Oxford 1989: below 'French, Roads') 102 no. 268."]

In line 7 the mention of the great pontificate for Lucius Verus is irregular: it was only revealed from the pontificate, hence the title of pontifex which it bears in the text of the engraved inscription after his death in Hadrian's mausoleum ( [ILS 369]). More often, however, [p. 398] in his titles the pontificate is omitted.(4) Sometimes one finds mention of the great pontificate, for example, in an inscription of Narbonne ( [ILS 6965]) and one from Locres ( [ILS 361]). The inscription of D. Fonteius Fronto should therefore be added to the list of irregularities in the imperial titulature of Lucius Verus. (5) Moreover, the mention of a third consulate for Lucius Verus in line 8 is also irregular, because this prince was consul for the second time in 161 and for the third time in 167. (6) In the same line, the absence of indication of the title of proconsul for Lucius Verus is frequent but also irregular, because the prince was then on an expedition. On the other hand, this title appeared on the other mile stones of Lycia-Pamphylia, which will be discussed below. All these irregularities could be explained by a slavish transposition of elements of Marcus Aurelus' titles into those of Lucius Verus.

[footnote 4: " = (ILS 359), = (ILS 370), ; M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas 1954-1977 (London, 1978) nos. 63sq."]

This inscription dates from the interval 10 XII 164-9 XII 165, in accordance with the count of the Tribunican Powers of the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, who were responsible for the reconstruction of the road. D. Fonteius Fronto appearing only as their agent. In addition, both rulers carry the cognomen devictarum gentium of Armeniacus, which Lucius Verus received from the autumn of 163, but which Marcus Aurelius, who had remained in Rome, did not take until 164 AD. (7) On the other hand, as none of them received the third victory acclamation IMP III, and as Lucius Verus does not bear the title of Parthicus Maximus, we are probably before August-September 165. (8) One can thus place, in all likelihood, this mile post in the first half of the year 165 AD.

In his brief commentary, French considered this senator to be the proconsul of the province of Asia, and believed [p. 399 no text; p. 400] that from this assumption he could draw out some characteristics of his career. D. Fonteius Fronto would have been consul in 150/1 AD, since it is known that in the career of senators, an interval of fourteen to fifteen years usually separated the consulate, whether ordinary or sufficient, from the great proconsulates of Africa and Asia. (9)

[footnote 9: "For the Antonine era we will refer to W. Eck, ZPE 18 (1975) 92sq; G. Alföldy, "Consuls and Consulars under the Antonines: Prosopography and History," AncSoc 7 (1976) 295sq, and Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen (Bonn 1977: afterwards 'Alfoldy') 111sq. But some intervals are shorter: see Christol, MEFRA 98 (1986) 151 n.48."]

These prosopographic elements were accepted by various authors who had to deal with the administrative history of the Empire at that time. (10) Thus Alföldy (p. 379), in an appendix to his book on the consuls of the Antonine period, devoted a brief note to D. Fonteius Fronto, in order to present his career according to the scheme established by French, but with slight modifications: whereas his predecessor had chosen the interval 164-165 as the proconsular year, Alföldy preferred to retain the period 165-166, according to his reconstruction of the provincial fasti. (11) Similarly, B.E. Thomasson registered him among the proconsuls of Asia. (12) On the other hand, by not retaining this figure for his lists of senators who had exercised responsibilities in Anatolia in provinces other than Asia, B. Remy (13) also admitted what had become the common opinion. (14)

[footnote 11: "Alflödy 216, 278f. But the chronological elements provided by the text (see above) make it almost impossible to adopt this solution."] [footnote 12: "B. E. Thomasson. Laterculi praesidum (Goteburg 1984-90: afterwards 'Thomasson') I 26 (Asia), co!. 230 no. 148, proposes the year 164-165, one without hesitation: "vereor ne in vol. II ... nimis praeceps cum a. 164-165 posuerim""] [footnote 13: "See B. Remy, not only L 'evolution administrative de l'Anatolie aux trois premiers siecles de notre ere (Lyon 1986: afterwards 'Evolution'), Les carrieres senaloriales dans les provinces romaines d'Anatolie au Haut-Empire (Istanbul 1989: afterwards 'Carrieres'), but also "L'activite des fonctionnaires senatoriaux dans la province de Lycie-Pamphylie au Haut-Empire d'apres les inscriptions," De Anatolia Antiqua I (1991), pp. 151-82."] [footnote 14: "All the more so since for some authors, who considered that Lycia-Pamphylia could not be, during the joint reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, a province of the Senate and of the Roman People, the mention of an administrative proconsul necessarily referred to the province of Asia: see Thomasson cols. 282 ff. under the anonymous no. 42 for the status of the province. See our discussion of this problem below with notes 53, 57, 58."]

[p. 401] However, it should be noted that this interpretation is essentially based on the geographical location of the find. The first publisher has considered without hesitation that the milestone bearing this inscription was located within the boundaries of the province of Asia, and this assumption was never contested. But is it correct?

The place of discovery is part of the Pisidia defined in the geographical sense. (15) The Pisidian highlands were first attached to the province of Galatia. Let us not forget, in fact, that on the site of Bogazici himself was discovered a milestone of the governor Cornutus Aquila (16) recalling the creation of the Via Sebaste, (17) traced to the southern limits of Augustan Galatia. This is why it is assumed that at that time the province, created after the suppression of the client state of Amyntas, included within its boundaries those high plateaus where several colonies of Roman citizens had been founded. (18)

[footnote 16: "This milestone was reported by French, "The Roman Road System of Asia Minor," ANRW 11.7.2 (Berlin 1980: below 'Road System') 727 ("unpublished"), then recorded by this author in Roads 102 no. 267, and mentioned again in ZPE 29 (1978) 211."] [footnote 17: "On this way see B. Levick, Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (Oxford 1967: afterwards 'Levick') 38sqq, 211 ff; see for its historical context W. M. Ramsay, "Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age," JRS 6 (1916) 86sq; French, "Road System," 707. We have taken up and corrected the text of a mile stone of this road (no. 6 of French's list [727], then "unpublished"), edited by H. Waldmann, ZPE 44 (1981) 99sq: Christol and Drew-Bear, Tyche 1 (1986) 51 sqq with a facsimile fig. 2 and a photograph pl. 1 no. 2, but neither this text, nor our corrections, have been recorded in AE. This milestone was later republished by French, Roads 151 no. 395, without this author knowing our corrections to the edition by Waldmann, nor Remy, "L'activite des fonctionnaires senatoriaux dans la province de Galatie au Haut-Empire d'aprés les inscriptions," REA 98 (1990) 91 no. 10. We maintain our reading [Seba]stem (French: [Seba]sten), as on milestone, cf 12217."]

But then this region passed into the province of Lycia-Pamphylia. Several authors, following W. M. Ramsay, date this change of administrative boundaries to the Flavian period; (19) [p. 402] but this solution is unlikely, in the light of the documentation, to be a viable one, since Pisidia, at the time of this dynasty, was part of a vast province which associated Galatia with Cappadocia, (20) as is also proved, despite Christian Habicht, in a document from Pergamon. (21) Then, when [p. 403] Trajan defeated this large territory, Pisidia remained attached to Galatia. (22) It is preferable to date the transfer of Pisidia to Lycia-Pamphylia to a later period. Remy for his part proposes (Evolution 83), in a rather broad way, the end of the reign of Hadrian or the beginning of that of Antoninus. Perhaps it would be appropriate to resume his demonstration to clarify the conclusions.

[footnote 19: "W. M. Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, I.1 (Oxford, 1895) 320, and supra n.17) 104, 132; G. E. Bean, "Notes and Inscriptions from Pisidia: Part I," AnatSt 9 (1959) 67; a little more nuance: S. Mitchell, "Requistioned Transport in the Roman Empire: A New Inscription from Pisidia," JRS 66 (1976) 113."] [footnote 20: "W. Eck, Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian: Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschlufl der Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der Statthalter (Munich 1970: afterwards 'Eck, Senatoren') 2sq, cf R. K. Sherk, The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian (Baltimore, 1951: afterwards 'Sherk') 60-63, and H.-G. Pflaum, "La carriere de Sospes, legat de Galatie," CRAI (1953), pp. 307ff (= Scripta Varia II: La Gaule et l'Empire romain [Paris, 1981] 175sqq). Pisidia is explicitly named in the report attributed to Governor A. Caesennius Gallus by (ILS 268), ''per A. Caesennium Gallum leg. pro pro vias provinciarum Galatiae Cappadociae Ponti Pisidiae Paphlagoniae Lycaoniae Armeniae minoris stravit'': cf. Sherk 46sqq; PIR2 C 56 (1966); W. Eck, "Jahres- und Provinzialfasten der senatorischen Statthalter von 69/70 bis 138/139," Chiron 12 (1982) 304sqq; Thomasson I, col. 265 no. 9; Remy, Carrieres 190sqq no. 157. This is also true for L. Antistius Rusticus, AE (1925) 126, ''leg. ... pro pro provinciarum Capp(adociae) Galat(iae) Ponti Pisid(iae) Paphl(agoniae) Arm(eniae) min(oris) Lyca(oniae): cf Sherk 51 sq.; Eck, Chiron'' (1982) 320-32; Thomasson I, col. 266 no. 14; Remy, Carrieres 194sq no. 159. Pisidia also appears in the definition of the jurisdiction of the adjunct legate T. Iulius Celsus Polemeanus, I. Ephesos VII.2 5102 and 5103 (ILS 8971), [Greek text] cf. Sherk 43-46; PIR2 I 260 (1966); Eck 3 n.9; Thomasson I col. 265 no. 8; Remy, Carrieres 39sqq no. 24 and Fastes 149. For the plural provinciae or eparcheiai designating a single Roman province see Drew-Bear and C. Naour, ANRW II.18.3 (Berlin 1990) 1974-77."] [footnote 21: "Indeed, we would reestablish the restoration [Pisidi] as also in the inscription of Pergamum relating to the career of C. Iulius Quadratus Bassus. This restoration was adopted from the editio princeps by T. Wiegand, AbhBerl 1932.5 40 (AE [1933] 268), which was followed by many authors, in particular by W. Weber, AbhBerl 1932.5 77; A. von Premerstein, SBMunch 1934.3 15.22; A. Stein, Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien (Budapest 1944) 12; Sherk 56; PIR2 I 508; and finally by Thomasson I col. 268 no. 18: [Greek text] But subsequently other restorations of the lines which divide the definition of the provincial jurisdiction of this senator were proposed. That suggested by R. Herzog, S BBerl 1933 409, 411 sqq: [Bithuni]as cannot be retained because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of the data of the administrative geographic area of ​​Asia Minor. Also that of C. Habicht, Pergamon VIII.3: Die Inschriften des Asklepieions (Berlin 1969) 42sqq no. 21: [Frugi] as selected by Remy, Carrieres 202sq no. 163 and Fastes 121, must be excluded by the strict comparison with the formulas which characterize the competence of the colleagues of this senator that we have just enumerated in the preceding note (cf also Remy, Fastes 120) and which spread out, like him, governors of the Cappadocian ensemble. Indeed, the objection raised by Habicht is frivolous: "Tatsaechlich ist jedoch vor der erhaltenen Endung nur fuer 4-5 Buchstaben Platz, so dass [Frugi] as einzusetzen ist." But the restoration [Pisidi]as has only six letters, including three iota! On this kind of false acriby see J. and L. Robert, ''Bull. epigr.'' 1949 no. 51, p. 111, etc."] [footnote 22: "Cf. Eck 10sqq, corrected for L. Caesennius Sospes in Chiron (1982) 321 n.161, but we are wrongly scion; Remy, Evolution, pp. 67sq. Pisidia is then explicitly mentioned in the administrative jurisdiction attributed to L. Caesennius Sospes ( = 6818; ILS 1017), ''leg. Aug. pro pr. provinc. Gal(atiae) Pisid(iae) Phryg(iae) Lyc(aoniae) Isaur(iae) Paphlag(oniae) Ponti Galat(ici) Ponti Polemoniani Arm(eniae)'': cf. Thomasson I col. 256 no. 18; Remy, Carrieres, pp. 145sqq no. 108, in that of an anonymous legate, ''leg. Aug. pro pr. provinc. Galat(iae) Phryg(iae) Pisidi(ae) Lycaon(iae) Paphlag(oniae)'': cf. Eck, Chiron (1982), pp. 357sq; Thomasson I col. 256 no. 20; Remy, Carrieres 147sq no. 109, and in that of L. Cossonius Gallus Vecilius Crispinus Mansuanius Marcellinus Numisius Sabinus, ''leg. Aug. pro pro provinciae Galatiae, Pisidiae Paphlagoniae: cf PIR 2 G 71; Eck, Chiron (1982), p. 354 n. 292, 361; Thomasson I col. 256 no. 19; Remy, Carrieres'' 84-87 no. 65, 149."]

The documents that allow the analysis of the transfer of the region of Pisidia in the province of Lycia-Pamphylia are rare, it is true; but they are conclusive. They make it possible to establish the extent of the changes in administrative geography, and to set more or less precise chronological points of reference. It is the same in Comama, in a city of the South of Pisidia or a branch of the via Sebaste built by the legate Cornutus Aquila in the Augustan period, like the shows the discovery of a milestone signed by this governor, (23) there is a later inscription erected in homage to the emperor Antoninus the Pious: it was erected permissu Q(uinti) Voconi Saxae Fidi, leg(ati) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore). (24) [p.404] Now this individual is known from other documents as governor of Lycia-Pamphylia around 144-147 AD. (25)

[footnote 23: " (French, Roads II.1 110 no. 292)."] [footnote 24: " with Ramsay's observations (supra n. 17) 132."]

On the other hand, in Sagalassos, that is to say in a clearly northern part of Pisidia, there is a governor of the name of [ - - - - ] Proklos, (26) who has been proposed to identify with either Cn. Arrius Cornelius Proculus, legate of Lycia-Pamphylia in 139-140, (27) or to [Iul]ius Pro[culus], legate of the same province in 152 AD. (28) It is on these foundations that Remy placed this change of administrative geography in the interval that we have evoked below. In any case, the Proklos known in Sagalassos, the date of the government of Q. Voconius Saxa Fidus, c. 144-147, constitutes a terminus ante quem for fixing this administrative rearrangement in a solid manner. (29) But as will be seen later, other elements will help to specify this date.

[footnote 26: "K. Lanckoronski, Städte Pamphyliens und Pisidiens II (Vienne 1892) 226 no. 200 (IGR III 342)."] [footnote 27: "Rémy, Evolution 83 and Carrières 302sq no. 248; Thomasson I no. 28."] [footnote 28: "Thomasson I col. 282 no. 34; Remy, Carrières 305 no. 253."] [footnote 29: "This fact had already been highlighted by Ramsay (supra n. 17), then by Mitchell (supra n. 19) p. 113 with n.7 (where this author also refers to Ptolemy, but without fully appreciating the scope of the testimony provided by this author, as we will see)."]

But it is still necessary to determine exactly what the news was. the border of Lycia-Pamphylia, now clearly and extends to the North. Unquestionably the region of Antioch, on the southern slope of the Sultan Dag Massif, remained on the always under the authority of the Legate of Galatia, long before The city of Pisidia became, with the reforms of the Tetrarchic period, the metropolis of the Lower Empire (Levick 175 n.1): for this reason, at the end of the second century, the senator L. Fabius Clio was able to receive an official homage there. (30) But the inscription of Sagalassos, if it is convenient to find there a mention of a governor of Lycia-Pamphylia, would be a very valuable document, because it would show that the border had been clearly moved towards the [p. 405] interior of Anatolia. However, it could be objected that the evidence it provides is not incontestable.

Indeed, the following questions are now being asked in this regard the evolution of the administrative geographic of this region of Anatolia in the first century of our era: when were the above mentioned changes made, and what were the precise limits of the administrative units concerned, before and after? (31) This last question is of fundamental importance, for we are, as we shall see, on the borders of Asia, Galatia and Lycia-Pamphylia. To determine precisely what was the administrative function of D. Fonteius Fronto, whose name appears on the Via Sebaste, is therefore at the forefront of the problems to be solved. For if one follows the generally accepted opinion, this part of Augustan GaIatia would have passed into the province of Asia, and not into that of Lycia-Pamphylia.

[footnote 31: "Le carte de S. Mitchell, "Population and the Land in Roman Galatia," ANRW II.7.2 (Berlin 1980) opposite p. 1056, is ambiguous on this point."]

An essential document for this question has just been published. (32) It is about a thousand people from Tepecik, a Turkish village on the western shore of Lake Burdur, erected under Septimius Severe, Caracalla and Geta, on the initiative of Proconsul C. Sulpicius Justus Dryantianus. This senator was already known as governor of Lycia-Pamphylia at that time. (33) The new milestone not only provides a more exact date for his appointment to this office, but also shows that the repairs of the via Sebaste were, (34) in this sector, the responsibility of the proconsul of Lycia-Pamphylia, and thus this province was deep [p. 406] heart of Anatolia. (35) If this situation, which was discovered at the beginning of the Severian period, dates back to the above-mentioned reformations, the city of Sagalassos, whose territory was situated south-east of Lake Burdur, was also necessarily part of Lycia-Pamphylia. (36)

[footnote 32: "D. H. French, "Sites and Inscriptions from Phrygia, Pisidia and Pamphylia," EpigAnat 17 (1991) 55sq."] [footnote 33: "Remy, Carrieres 318sq no. 269: "early years of Septimius Severus." From now on we will date it exactly to 197/8 or 198/9, rather from the first period if we admit that at that time, in Galatia, L. Petronius Verus (Remy, Carrieres 157f no. 122) began road restoration work which was continued in 198, after his death, by C. Atticus Norbanus Strabo (Remy 158 no. 123). On the first of these governors see already Christol and X. Lariat, "The Pontus and its governors in the second third of the third century," in B. Remy, cd., Recherches epigraphiques: documents relatifs a l'histoire des institutions et de l'administration de l'Empire romain (Saint-Etienne 1986) 15."] [footnote 34: "This repair is part of the major road operations that took place in AD 198 in most of the provinces of Asia Minor, as we will show soon elsewhere. See now Christol and Drew-Bear, "Un castellum romain pres d'Apamée de Phrygie" (= DenkschrWien 189 [1987]) 37."] [footnote 35: "This observation on the north-western border of the province of Lycia-Pamphylia, taking up that of the former province of Galatia vis-à-vis the province of Asia, can be compared to the inscriptions in Duger and Yan Kay in the period of Nero establishing a boundary between the territory of Sagalassos and an imperial domain encompassing the village of Tymbrianassos, carried out by the Legate of Galatia Q. Petronius Umber and the procurator Pupius Praesens: G. Bean, AnatSt 9 (1959) 85 -88 no. 30; L. Robert, Hellenica XI-XII (Paris 1960) 596. Thus the region just west of the Via Sebaste, between the south of Lake Burdur and Cormasa, was also part of the province of Lycia-Pamphylia. It should also be considered that Takina belongs to the same provincial spring southwest of Lake Burdur, from which comes an inscription published by S. Sahin and French, "Ein Dokument aus Takina," EpigAnat 10 (1987) 133-42 (despite all its importance, this text has unfortunately not been collected in AE). If Takina was in Lycia-Pamphylus, all the problems relating to the rank of proconsul that Gavius ​​Tranquillus reverted and that M. Iulius Concessus Aemilianus would have vanished or solved."] [footnote 36: "French (supra n.32: p. 56) would draw the border along the Sogut and Barla mountains, to the North-West and North-East of Lake Burdur, according to W.M. Calder and G. Bean, A Classical Map of Asia Minor (London 1958); but French is wrong to write that "the boundary of the province Galatia has, in the past, been drawn along the same mountainous line," because Bean himself (supra n.35: p. 81 n.30) wrote that "Burdur Lake formed the boundary, "according expressly Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (London 1890) 57:" this view is unsatisfactory, as implying that a military road of the Province Galatia ran through a part of the Province Asia; but I am still unable to see any other way in which the [distance indicated on a milestone of the Via Sebaste] can be explained." On the other hand, French (this note) is also wrong to consider that the towns to the south of this line had been in the province of Lycia-Pamphylia from the reign of Claudius: see supra nn. 20sqq."]

However, the documents that must be related to this milestone in Tepecik come from the territory of Sagalassos and the surroundings of Perge respectively. One of them, which is in the immediate vicinity of the inscription of D. Fonteius Fronto, contains the names of Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus, in the dative, followed by the mention of the town of Sagalassos. This text was first made public by Ramsay (with the provenance: "Yari-Keui"), (37) and again in IGR III 332 (with the indication of provenance: "Yari-Keui", which is a neighboring village). Ramsay saw it [p. 407] as a "dedication," an indication that was later taken up again, in particular by Mitchell, (38) so that this text escaped the catalog of militants listed by French. (39) The rediscovery of the inscription, which we will deal with elsewhere, (40) allows, in addition to the revision of the text, to describe it as a "milestone-dedication." (41) Indeed, it is a cylindrical stone of characteristic shape, which cannot be assimilated to a column-shaped base that would have supported statues of named emperors. It does not differ from the other milestones which, coming from this region, mention the city of Sagalassos, but which are later. (42)

Moreover, the location of this stone, in Yazi Koy exactly, in a place quite far from the city of Sagalassos, precludes that it is a common public tribute. It is indeed in the western part of the territory of the city, the or this one was crossed by the Via Sebaste, staked out with milestones, among which the one of of Bogazici in the name of Cornutus Aquila (above n.16) which belongs to the period of its construction. We know from the [p. 408] text of the edict of the legatus Sex. Sotidius Strabo Libuscidianus that the responsibility of public transport weighed on the city of Sagalassos: it was certainly possible to use the help of people from other towns or villages on the route, but without modifying the essential role attributed to this community: praestare autem debebunt vehicula usque Cormasa et Conanan, according to the inhabitants of Sagalasos on line 13 of the edict. In fact, the via Sebaste passed on the western shore of Burdur Lake, (43) through Lysinia, Ilyas and Baris, where the execution of the services was still the responsibility of Sagalassos.

In any case, the text of this dedication to the dative case presents too close of a resemblance to the milestone of D. Fonteius Fronto to be dissociated from it: in fact, in this text also Marc Aurelius and Lucius Verus both bear the title Armeniacus, which makes the documents contemporary. The inscription of Yazi Koy thus fits perfectly in this context of road repair: it has the form of a milestone. But because of its position, further north than Bogazici, at the point where the main road left the shore of Lake Burdur, as well as its honorific value, it did not mark the entrance of this important road into the territory of the city, to underline the Sagalassos press-stem? Via Sebaste here was in the Julio-Claudian period under the administrative jurisdiction of the legatus of Galatia, and then, together with the territory of Sagalassos, under the authority of the governor of Lycia-Pamphylia. At the time of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the province was in the hands of the Senate, thus this governor was a proconsul.(44) There is nothing [p. 409] to prevent D. Fronteius Fronto from being considered, not as a proconsul of Asia, but as a proconsul of Lycia-Pamphylia. One had to be here, after the administrative reorganizations in the second century, on the territory of Lycia-Pamphylia, since it is still in the territory of Sagalassos, not in Asia.

The other comparable text still maintains us in Lycia-Pamphylia, since it is about a thousand discovered near Perge. It was first publicized by R. Heberdey and A. Wilhelm, (45) before finding its place in the Corpus of Latin Inscriptions, then in recent publications: (46)

Imp(erator) Caesar M(arcus) Aurelius Antonin- us Aug. [Ar]meniac[us] [p(ontifex) m(aximus)] tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XIX imp(erator) II co(n)s(ul) III et [Imp(erator)] Caesar L. Aurelius [V]erus Aug(ustus) Armeni- [a]cus tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) V imp(erator) II co(n)s(ul) II proco(n)s(ul)

This text resembles almost in all points the milestone of Bogazici that we have just discussed: same elements of the imperial count, made on the same date provided by the [p. 410] tribunican count (10 XII 164-9 XII 165); same mention for the two princes of the title Armeniacus, to the exclusion of any other. The only differences (which reveal a more exact wording) are the absence for Lucius Verus of the title of pontifex maximus, which is unusual in Bogazici's text, and the presence for this prince of the title of proconsul, which would have appeared in the other milestones as well, because from the principality of Trajan, when the prince is outside the city, he receives this title. (47) In any case, these two documents, which are close together, are best explained because they belong to the same works, in the same province, and emanate from a single authority, its governor. They are, moreover, the only two milestones (three if we add the Yazi Koy milestone, whose aspect is a little different) that make us know in Asia Minor of the works decided by Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. The unavoidable similarity also reinforces the conviction that the work attested on the via Sebaste was well within the provincial context of Lycia-Pamphylia.

First conclusion: D. Fonteius Fronto will be moved from Asia to Lycia-Pamphylia. He was there in 165 AD, and thus took his place among the first governors of this province when it passed into the hands of the Senate. (48) In fact, since the proconsul at of Ti. Iulius Frugi (49) can be dated only vaguely between 161 and 169, the testimony given by the inscription of D. Fonteius Fronto becomes invaluable, since it provides the most solid terminus ante quem on the passage of the province from the prince to the Senate.

This conclusion first of all obliges to modify the interpretation of the individual's career. In 165 A.D. we are no longer [p. 411] dealing with a seasoned consular, but with a senator who was waiting to receive the consulate, since the proconsulate of Lycia-Pamphylia was to lead, at a more or less patent expiry date, to the highest of the magistrates. (50) Perhaps he achieved this around AD 170, after having held one or two other offices. Presumably a homo novus, he must have been in his forties by then. But we miss the essence of his career and especially his later destiny.

The connection between this senator and D. Fronteius Frontinianus L. Stertinius Rufinus (PIR2 F472), known as the legate of the Legion III Augusta by numerous documents scattered from the end of the reign of Antoninus Pius over the beginning of that of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, and who was probably consul suffect in 162, will be maintained. (51) The latter was the elder brother of our proconsul. His wife was called Numisia Celerina, and a daughter of the union would be Fonteia Celerina. (52) Attached to the Fonteii and Numisii, without being able to say more, would be Numisia Fonteia Vera. (53) On the other hand, Fonteia Frontina (54) was more likely to belong to the descendants of D. Fonteius Fronto. Unfortunately, there is a considerable interval between her time and that of this lady, member of the senatorial order, wife of the ordinary consul of 245 AD. (55)

[p. 412] Second conclusion: since topographical information is the most important that have just been acquired are conclusive for define the extension of the Lycia-Pamphylia sector in this sector, as well as increases by a large of the Pisidia, and that they show that probably the whole region we have just visited. around Lake Burdur had been transferred to this province. at the latest before the proconsulate of Q. Voconius Saxa Fidus, under Antoninus Pius, is it not possible to go further again, thanks to Ptolemey, whose testimony, however well known, has not always been considered as a first-rate source? Certainly this author may have made mistakes or blunders, but what is now available thanks to epigraphy should provide some solid information.

Certainly the mention of Sagalassos in Lycia (Geogr. 5.3.6) will surprise. But further on, when this author passes to Pamphylia, among the cities located inside this province he includes part of Phrygia and Pisidia (5.5.4sq.): Seleucia of Pisidia, Antioch, Baris, Conana, Lysinia and Cormasa. Moreover, in his description of Galatia (5.4.11) he puts in this province Apollonia, Antiochus of Pisidia, Amblada and Neapolis. With the exception of the enigmatic Antioch, the data of Ptolemy are consistent with the information given by the mileposts, that of Septimius Severus at Tepecik, the northernmost, and that of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus at Bogazici and Yazi Koy, the westernmost. When Ptolemy was writing, the division of Pisidia had been completed. However, if we rely on one of the dates proposed since long time for his geographical work, around the third decade of the second century of our era, (56) we would thus have an approximate terminus ante quem to date these administrative measures. It is also the moment when, in 134 perhaps, the mission of C. Julius Severus took place in Pontus-Bithynia. (57) Moreover, in 135, on [p. 413] the initiative of the citizens of Apollonia, the boundary stone was placed which separated this city from Apamee, and also separated Galatia from Asia. (58) With the comparison of all these testimonies we have perhaps enough information to narrow a little more the date of these administrative reshuffles in Pisidia, for which Hadrian would be responsible. However, this conclusion remains hypothetical because of the existing uncertainty about the way the geographical work of Ptolemy was written, which makes the date of the version we have uncertain. (59) In any case, it must be admitted that Ptolemy provides a correct description of the borders of Asia, Galatia and Lycia-Pamphylia. (60)

La «tavola marmorea» de Bolsena et la famille sénatoriale des Pompeii
(Cite: "Mireille Corbier, La 'tavola marmorea' de Bolsena et la famille sénatoriale des Pompeii", Mélanges de l'École française de Rome; Antiquité 93 (1981), pp. 1063-1112)

[p. 1063] The inscription brought to light in July 1980 on the forum of Bolsena and published by the person in charge of the excavation, Pierre Gros, (1) has just provided the senatorial family of the Pompeii with a probable patria: the person honored is a proconsul of Africa that the Carthaginians have chosen as their patron; however, the monument erected by the Carthaginian suburb of Bolsena has meaning only if this senator, whose status as praetor Etruriae (2) confirms his Etruscan origin, is himself Volsinian.

Beyond the problems of restoration posed by a cursus of which only the right half is preserved, the new document invites to take again the record of the family, by taking into account other members of this one, already known or identifiable -- in particular a legatus of Thrace of Antoninus Pius and a "Quintus Pompeius", whom Mario Torelli has just proposed to identify as the proconsul. (3)

For it is in fact a whole gens, hitherto ignored, who suddenly appears to us documented over a whole century -- from the 70s to the decade 150-160 -- with several men, and, rarer still, two women, spread over, at a minimum, three and, presumably, four generations.

[p. 1064] This is a remarkable quantum leap compared to the information gathered recently on the names of Pompeia Celerina, Pliny's mother-in-law, and her father L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer. (4) Although limited, this documentation had recently allowed Sir Ronald Syme to direct his attention towards Volsinii, (5) because of the presence of Catellii and, especially, of the aforementioned "Quintus Pompeius".

Trois Homonymes?

 * 1-1 Le proconsul d'Afrique

From the monumental inscription of the forum of Bolsena (fig.1), the editor has proposed an overall restoration (fig.2); the total length of the epigraphic text has been determined by the supposition -- probable -- that in the last line the word PATRONO was engraved symmetrically to CARTHAGO in relation to the central group [COL. I]VLIA; a measure which in turn made it possible to appreciate the extent of the nomenclature and to suggest a polyonymn occupying the whole line: [? POMEIUS? F.POM.VOPISCUS C.ARR]VNT[IVS CATE]LLIUS CELER ALLIUS SABINUS.

The sequence of names ARRUNTIUS CATELLIUS CELER invites him to recognize in the Volcanian proconsul a descendant of a senator from the Flavian period, L. POMPEIUS VOPISCUS C. ARRUNTIUS CATELLIUS CELER, (6) whom we shall henceforth call "the consul of 77". (7) As a result of a new [p. 1065] marriage, the nomenclature has been enriched by the nominal group ALLIUS SABINUS.

In fact, the gentilice POMPEIUS and the cognomen associated with VOPISCUS are less assured by the connection with the ancestor -- who adopted them belatedly -- than by the existence of two senators of the second century who still bear these names -- one of them in Bolsena itself. It is they, and, more precisely, the legate of Thrace, strictly homonymous, which make "POMPEIUS VOPISCUS" as the initial name, rather than another senatorial family, descended from the consul of 77 by women.

Further, given the rarity of cognomen, (8) the proconsul of Africa [VO]PISCUS, mentioned on a mutilated inscription by Lares, in Tunisia, (9) has just been identified.

[p. 1066 -- diagram of reconstructed inscription]

[p. 1067] On the other hand, although perfectly conceivable, the attribution of the tribe of Volsinii -- POM(PTINA) -- to the proconsul should not be automatic, after the double adoption of the Ist century, (10) which we shall speak about again.

Pierre Gros also proposes a precise chronology for the various stages of this cursus around a key date, that of the expeditio iudaica of 133-135. In fact, he chooses this period as the one which earned the senator his decorations as a legate; he recognizes the joint command of two legions -- or, at least, of important detachments from each of them -- in Judea. The groups concerned belonged to the Danubian army: the Legio XIV Gemina from Carnuntum (in Upper Pannonia) -- whose number has been restored (11) -- and the Legio I Italica from Novae (in Lower Moesia).

Let us retain the essential: in the very first years of the second century, Pompeius Vopiscus -- as the editor calls him -- would have spent most of his career under Hadrian; but he would have been consul and proconsul under Antoninus -- around 140-142 and 155-156 respectively.


 * 1-2 Le legat de Thrace d'Antonin le Pieux

The existence of another Pompeius Vopiscus, legate of Thrace under Antoninus the Pious, (12) offers a precious, as yet unexploited clue to the permanence of the name and the durability of the family.

This person is known only from coins, struck by the cities of Thrace, with the image of Antoninus; these do not date precisely his term within the reign: 138-161. (13) In their "fastes" of the province, [p. 1068] A. Stein and W. Huettl had placed, without decisive proof, his office between 145 and 155. (14) According to the recent census of Geza Alfoeldy, (15) there would be only one available place for Pompeius Vopiscus: the penultimate, immediately before Gargilius Antiquus who, in 161, was both the legate of Thrace and consul designate - for 162, probably. (16)

Table I summarizes, according to Geza Alföldy, the certainties and hypotheses concerning the series of legates of Thrace. Note that this series remains rather loose [p. 1069] and that new documents (17) could call it into question: the interval between the office of Rubrius Vinicius and that of Antonius Zeno is wide enough to include the administration of Pompeius Vopiscus - which would make him younger by almost twenty years.

[Table I -- p. 1068]

Thrace is one of the praetorian provinces whose government was then in charge of the consulate. (18) It is therefore very likely that Pompeius Vopiscus also benefited from this promotion when he left office. And, if he had indeed been the predecessor of Gargilius Antiquus, he could have taken over the consulate between 158 and 161. (19)

Through the legend ήγ. or ήγε. or ήγεμ(ονεύουτος) Π. or Πο. or Πομ. or Πομπείου, or Πομπηίου, Ούοπείσκου, the Thracian coins have only transmitted only a couple of names, the first: was it also the most common one?

Only the Hadrianopolis coins can be read at ΗΓ.Α.Π. ΟΥΟΠΕΙΣΚΟΥ, with a clearly marked punctuation, has just been confirmed, (20) indicated a first name (21) which would be Aulus. But, often difficult on Greek inscriptions, (22) the distinction between the capital alpha and lambda is very random on coins; Arthur Stein had therefore proposed to restore to the legate the first name of his ancestor, Lucius, -- the only one that Géza Alföldy recognised for him. Arthur Stein's suggestion is tempting: for the confusion of the capital alpha and lambda may have also occurred in antiquity. (23) But the confirmation of the A on the coin invites caution: the legate will keep here the double first name Aulus or Lucius.

An inscription will perhaps specify one day and the complete nomenclature of the senator and the exact date of his legation.

[p. 1070]
 * 1-3 Le dedicataire de la "Tavola Marmorea" Quintus

Pierre Gros observed that the dedicatee of a marble fragment, discovered in 1976 in Bolsena and published by Werner Eck in 1979, (24) could also be a [CEL]ER A[LLIUS]; and he considered the identity of the proconsul of Africa and the senator probable.

However, the two authors did not notice that this four-line text, with its very meticulous lettering, is part of a "tavola marmorea" (25) of which small fragments had already been found in Bolsena at the beginning of the century. Published by Gabrici in 1903, (26) they were inserted by Bormann in the Corpus: CIL, XI, 7284 thus makes known a Q. PO[MPEIUS ...]| CAT[ELLIUS ...] -- at least, according to the restitution inspired to Bormann by the similarity of the names with those of the consul of the Flavian period. This is the person to whom Sir R. Syme has already drawn attention, always carefully naming him Q. Pompeius [...] Cat. (27)

The possible connection of the proconsul identified by Pierre Gros with Q. Po[mpeius ...] Cat[ellius] of CIL, XI, 7284 did not escape Mario Torelli - who admitted the identity of the two men, (28) but without establishing a link with Werner Eck's senator. In fact, Q. Po[mpeius] Cat[ellius] and [Cel]ler A[llius?] are one and the same person, because the inscription Gabrici (= ) and the inscription Eck are pieces of a single dedication. They do indeed have something in common (Figs. 3 and 4):

- the same medium: a "tavola marmorea" 0.025 to 0.027 m thick, broken similarly at the top and bottom, and preserved at a height of 0.34 to 0.36 m;

- the same order of the text (with ruling marks) on four lines: the first line is engraved in large letters, which are not measurable because they are broken; lines 2 and 3 in letters 0.07 m high; the letters on line 4 are also broken, but are about the same height as those on lines 2 and 3; the spacing between the lines is 3 cm.

[pp. 1071f have illustrations; p. 1073]

- an elegant, very characteristic script (shape of the letters, punctuation) and, moreover, very close to that of the monumental inscription in the forum (Fig. 5).

But they do not join together: one is the left border of the "tavola marmorea", the other a piece from the middle.

Reconstitution de la "Tavola Marmorea"
These fragments, unearthed three quarters of a century apart, all come from the spa area. We are sure of this for the inscription Eck, found in August 1976, during a cleaning of the thermal complex of the Poggio Moscini, carried out by the Superintendence. We can establish it for the Gabrici inscription, discovered in the same area, then called Poggio Madonna dei Cacciatori, during the excavations carried out by Pietro Moscini, in 1901 and 1902, on the property of his wife, Adele Golini. Under her name, the archives of the Superintendency in Florence keep a file on the work, which, although not clandestine, was nonetheless disastrous in the eyes of Inspector Gabrici, who sent a report to his superiors on the matter. (29) The area mainly affected seems to have been that of the thermal baths. (30) The epigraphic material from the Moscini excavations is kept in the Archaeological Museum of Florence. (31)

[p. 1074] The Gabrici inscription (Fig. 7) is in three pieces, the most important of which has itself been reconstructed from small fragments: nine fragments in all (inv. no. 81157 to 81165).

[fig. 7] (fig. 8) reproduces them in turn, distinguishing them by a, b, c, like Gabrici, with a commentary by Bormann:

[fig. 8] Examination of the stone (32) ensures that this is indeed the left edge of the original "tavola marmorea": the reverse side of the marble slab is preserved on the left, at the level of lines 2 and 4.

It also confirms the possibility of integrating fragment c in lines 3 and 4, which he intended to check:

X.VIRO CANDID

[p. 1075] Gabrici and Bormann had missed the integration: the commentary on thus suggests reading in line 1 of fragment e, [seviro equit.] Ro[m] and in line 2 [ae]dil[i]. But it was subsequently made at the Superintendency, as can be seen from the photograph above (fig. 3).

However, this examination also invites us to discard Bormann's fragment b, which is included in the reconstruction presented at the Archaeological Museum in Florence -- the group of letters VO, moreover indicated in Corpus as IO -- and which does not belong to the same inscription:


 * the letters are smaller in size and their engraving is less clear-cut incised than that of the "tavola marmorea".
 * the quality of the marble is different and the thickness of the slab is half (0.014 m).

Note that fragment b, reproduced by Gabrici, and accompanied by the of a question mark, bears little resemblance to Bormann's. An on-the-spot verification (33) allowed me to note that the Gabrici fragment b, preserved apart from the museum in Florence, is likely to belong to the "tavola marmorea" (same thickness and quality of marble; trace of rulings; as far as can be judged, the writing is quite similar) and, given its size, on the first line of the marmorea. However, the Grabrici drawing -- which only takes into account the smooth side (fig. 6) -- must be supplemented by a vertical line to the right of the O. The fragment does not fit any of the pieces found. It could, at a pinch, be read the other way round; but, as Gabrici presents it, the break at the top of the letter is in line with fragment a: of the series of readings it allows -OM (Pompeio or Pom-ptina), OP (Vopisco) or, conversely, IO (Pompeio, Arruntio) --, the first two therefore seem the most likely. However, it is impossible to give it a more precise place in the restitution.

The fragments a and c and that of W. Eck (Epigraphica, 41, 1979, p. 95, no. 4) thus make it possible to reconstruct the following text (Fig. 9: drawing by Henri Broise). (34) Only the fourth line is questionable: the large gap between candidato and Aug. would theoretically allow four letters to be inserted between candid. and Aug. that could only correspond to a strongly abbreviated emperor's name. A hypothesis that I have not accepted for lack of parallels.

[p. 1076] [fig. 9]

1 Q.PO[MPEI]O.L 2 CAT[ELLIO.CEL]ERI.A 4 X.VIRO.[STLITI]B.IUDI 4 CA[N]DID[ATO.A]UG.TRIB.

On line 1, the base of a letter, clearly visible on the stone after the O, should -- in view of the general order of the text (35) -- belong to filiation or (to the if this has not been indicated) to the cognomen. As the legate of Thrace of Antoninus the Pious, the dedicatee of the "tavola marmorea" probably bore the couple of names of their common ancestor, "POMPEIUS VOPISCUS". However, the interval with the letter Ο does not make it possible to restore a V. The trace of the letter therefore belongs to the filiation. One can hesitate between a vertical haste or an A; but, in lines 2 and 4, the base of the A is always very close to the previous letter. The first name of the father was therefore not Q(uintus). But was he L(ucius)?

The Pom(ptina) tribe will be restored with reservation, for the reasons already given. (36)

We shall therefore read:

Q(uinto) Po[mpei]o L(ucii) (?) [f(ilio) Pom(ptina tribu) Vopisco ...] | Cat[ellio Cel]eri A[llio? or ''-uguri? ...]| Xviro [stliti]b(us) iudi[cand(is)..., quaestori] | ca[n]did[ato A]ug(usti), trib[(uno) ou uno pleb(is) ou plebis ...]''.

[p. 1077] One certainty at least: the Q. Pompeius [...] Cat- of Sir R. Syme is indeed a Catellius Celer, like the consul of 77 and the proconsul of Africa. And the quality of "candidate quaestor" invites us not to situate the beginning of his cursus upstream of the reign of Trajan. (37)

Broken at the top and bottom, the inscription of the "tavola marmorea" could be limited to the four lines that have been preserved or could include a few extra lines. As for its extension, it depends on the names given to the dedicatee.

The monumental nature of the inscription tends to favour the complete nomenclature: this will lead us to add VOPISCO C.ARRONTIO to line 1. A shorter variant with only VOPISCO (38) would shorten the plaque by a good third and would therefore exclude the mention of the military tribunal (39) in line 3 - between the vigintivirat and the quaestor; line 4 of the inscription would then end with the praetor.

It should not be forgotten, but the only two hypotheses developed here, because in my opinion the most likely ones are in the first perspective.

One tends to identify Quintus with the proconsul of Africa and assumes that the "tavola marmorea" honours him at the end of his career as the dedication of the Carthaginian: it implies the disappearance of a few extra lines where the rest of the cursus was presented. The other, on the contrary, admits that the four lines whose fragments have been found and gathered together represent the whole of the epigraphic field.

It should be noted that the ten fragments discovered, three quarters of which are centuries apart, and which constitute four non-joining sets, all belong to the same four lines; and that the lower and upper breaks and the are approximately horizontal. Enough in any case for the hypothesis of a reemployment can be considered, but without allowing for the assertion that the the existence of a lower part: at most it could explain why at least [p. 1078] one piece of it has not been found. There remains the possibility that the first line retained being the first of the inscription, the fourth in is also the last one.


 * Hypothese 1

Quintus shares with the proconsul -- whose first name is not known -- the title of quaestor candidatus Aug. The temptation will be great to complete the text of the "tavola marmorea" with the data taken from the monumental inscription of the forum. The names "Q. POMPEIO.LF. POM. VOPISCO. C.ARRUNTIO" will occupy 29 letters in line 1 -- corresponding to 44 or 45 smaller letters in lines 2, 3 and 4.

On line 2, the name will be restored as "ALLIO SABINO". There will remain a gap of 19 to 20 letters, to be completed, since the cursus of Quintus is written in direct order, by the priests and honorary offices known to us: the group of words "COS.AUGURI. PR.ETRURIAE", taken from line 6 of the proconsul's inscription, fills the vacant space perfectly.

In line 3, the tribuns laticlavus will be inserted -- with the same uncertainty as to the number of the legion "P(IA) F(IDELIS)" in which the proconsul served.

Line 4 should include, in addition to "APPLICANTS IN AUG." the plebeian, the praetor, but also all or part of the first mention of the praetorian office. For this post, the forum registration has only retained a letter Ν (to be inserted - according to Pierre Gros -- at the end of the title). The title of PRAEPOSITUS VEXILLATIONIBUS - which can be abbreviated -- would correspond to perfectly to the mission in Judea defined by the publisher. But it does not seem attested for senators before the second half of the second century. (40) If one retains that the Proconsul of Africa was "legate" of the XIIII Gemina and the I Italica, it will be necessary to return - for the "tavola marmorea" and for the inscription monumental forum -- the name of a civilian post held immediately after the In the second century, the senatorial cursus were fairly structured.

Pierre Gros, for his part, suggested the praefectura alimentorum. At the time the reign of Hadrian, this function is always associated with a cura viae (however, the vacant space on the forum stone does not seem to be sufficient for an title as long), but, above all, when it is not already consular, it leads directly at the consulate; (41) it therefore has no place here.

[p. 1079] Before a double legionary command, one is less likely to find a proconsular legation, or even the praefectura frumenti dandi (42), than curatorship of a road. (43) We shall therefore retain the function of CURATOR VIAE: but the name of the via Flaminia which it would be tempting to suggest -- for the integration of the letter Ν and the link it evokes with neighboring Etruria -- does not seem very appropriate, as soon as the praetor is appointed. (44)

1 Q.POMPEIO.L.F.POM.VOPISCO.C.ARRUNTIO 2 CATELLIO.CELERI.ALLIO. SABINO.COS.AUGURI.PR.ETRURIAE 3 X.VIRO.STLITIB.IVDIC.TRIB.LAT.LEG[ ... ]P.F.QUAESTORI 4 CANDIDATO.AUG.TRIB.PLEB.PRAETORI.CUR.VIAE. [ ... ] [ ... ]


 * Hypothese 2

The epigraphic area will have the same width as in hypothesis 1. to accommodate a complete nomenclature, but will be limited to the four lines: Quintus' career will end immediately before or shortly after the praetor, depending on whether or not the name of a dedicant is given back - which may be limited to to the published d. d. formula.

Quintus will then be a relative of the proconsul - or the future proconsul. himself, honoured some twenty years earlier. In the first case, the lack of line 2 will be able to accommodate either A[LLIO SABINO] and a second pair of names; either A[LLIO SABINO] and priesthood or honorary offices; or A[UGURI], followed also by priesthood or honorary functions. In the in the second case, ALLIO.SABINO.AUGURI.PRAET.ETRURIAE must be returned, and to admit that the Etrurian praetor was not engraved in its place on the registration of the forum, where it appears after the consulate. (45)

[p. 1080] 1 Q.POMPEIO.L.F.POM.VOPISCO.C.ARRUNTIO 2 CATELLIO.CELERI.A(?) [ ... ] 3 X.VIRO.STLITIB.IUDIC.TRIB.LAT.LEG[ ... ]QUAESTORI 4 CANDIDATO.AUG.TRIB.PLEB.PRAETORI (?) [ ... ]

It remains to be seen, in either case, the reason for the dedication. The material, a "tavola marmorea", suggests two possibilities: either a funerary inscription (this had been W. Eck's first reaction), or a plaque fixed on a monument or public building. The presence of these some fragments in the thermal complex may be purely incidental and even if linked to reemployment. But we also know that, under the Antonines, the Tullii Varrones from Tarquinies and the Venuleii Aproniani from Pisa presented of the thermal baths to their fellow citizens. (46) The Pompeii could not make the same donation to Volsinii, already provided for since the first century. However, one of them could have financed a restoration or enlargement that would have justified a dedication on the spot to him (47) -- which would not exclude a later reuse of it. Pure conjecture, based on the location of the find.

Trois personnages en quete d'une identite
The "tavola marmorea" brings to three the number of senators of the second century who are probably called Pompeius Vopiscus -- even if, for two of them, these names are, in whole or in part, restored. The legate of Thrace is the only one to offer a reliable chronological reference: the reign of Antoninus Pius -- and, if we trust the "fastes" reconstructed by Geza Alfoldy, the end of the reign, with the penultimate place of governor. For the proconsul of Africa -- who has no first name -- Pierre Gros proposed a complete restitution of the cursus, which would have taken place between 120-121 and 155-156, under the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus. The inscription of Quintus does not offer any precise dating element other than the possible connections with the monumental inscription of the forum.

[p. 1081] The difficulty, in our perspective, which is the story of a family, remains to attribute to each of these three individuals a place on the stemma of the Pompeii. They should not be mistaken for one: whether his name is Aulus or Lucius, the legate of Thrace is obviously not Quintus. They can be entirely distinct. They can also be identified two by two. The rapprochement between Quintus and the proconsul of Africa seems the most relevant: we will consider it first. But that of the same Proconsul of Africa and the Legate of Thrace should not be discarded a priori; it would imply a revision in this sense of the dating and, on certain points, of the restoration proposed by Pierre Gros for the cursus of the first.

Two elements invite us to remember Quintus and the proconsul of Africa, who may also have in common the gentile Allius: the title "quaestor candidatus Aug." and the similarities in the script of the two inscriptions. Are these sufficient to ensure they are the same person?
 * 3-1 Quintus et le pronconsul, "Quaestores candidati Aug."

3-1-1. If the titulature of quaestor candidatus Aug. is not attested before Antoninus Pius, (48) it is not typical of his reign: (49) it is still in use for a quaestor of Commodus, (50) and would therefore be suitable for a quaestor of Marcus Aurelius for the years 170 to 175 when this prince reigned alone. It could even be envisaged for the reign of Hadrian: the expression candidatus Aug. is attested for him not for a quaestor, but for a plebeian tribune (51) and for a praetor. (52) It is thus not necessary, to date it to this reign, to use the excuse devised by Pierre Gros, who makes the proconsul a quaestor honored by Hadrian, under Antoninus, according to the formula that was in use under the latter. The chronological range remains in fact very wide.

And one will be tempted to go further: the name of quaestor candidatus Aug. has never, from Antoninus onwards, supplanted the earlier names of quaestor candidatus [p. 1082] in short or followed by the name of the emperor concerned. (53) Insofar as it does not serve to mask the name of an emperor who was the victim of the damanatio memoriae, its significance is not obvious; (54) and, even within the chronological limits envisaged (from Antoninus or even from Hadrian to -- at least -- Commodus), its usefulness as a factor of identification should probably not be exaggerated.

If the Pompeii family is held to be Volinian, there is nothing to prevent several of its members from having been honored with this title. For the real frontier remains that which separates the "candidates" of the prince from the others. A compulsory step for the sons of senators, the quaestor is not in itself a characteristic post; however, a line of clarissima can benefit from the princely favor over several generations: among the Venuleii Aproniani, the father would have been candidate quaestor of Trajan (55) and his homonymous son quaestor Augusti (thus candidate) of Antoninus. (56) Among the Oppii, the uncle benefited from Hadrian's commendatio, (57) the nephew from that of Antoninus. (58) Even more significant are the parallel careers of the two brothers Titi Caesernii under Hadrian (who could have been, with the Pompeii, those of a Lucius and a Quintus): first the eldest, triumvir monetalis, then Hadrian's candidate for the quaestor and the tribune, next younger decemvir stlitibus iudicandis, then Hadrian's quaestor and tribune candidate as well. (59)

3-1-2 In spite of the unequal hardness of their respective surfaces, volcanic rock of the "occhio di pesce" type for one, marble for the other, the two Bolsena inscriptions (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 5) present similarities [p. 1083] in script (the letter Q in particular is very characteristic), suggesting engravings that are similar in time. The two dedications are therefore likely to be contemporary. This explains the revival, among the various possible formulations, of the title quaestor candidatus Aug.

But the argument, like that of the commendatio of the prince, leaves several possibilities open, if it at least excludes the hypothesis of a dedication to the future proconsul, which predates the monument of the forum by more than twenty years. It can be the same person -- the proconsul -- honored at the same time, in the same place and with the same titles: the reconstruction of the "tavola marmorea" will then be the one we have presented in hypothesis 1. But Quintus L(ucii) (?) filius may also be a brother (younger) of the proconsul. Or his son. If the "tavola marmorea" is limited to the four preserved lines (hypothesis 2), Quintus has just passed thirty at the most, whereas the monument of the proconsul of Africa is addressed to a man of more than fifty years old.

If Quintus is distinct from the Proconsul of Africa - it is, of course, from this second possibility that we must leave to consider the other possible approach - can Quintus be confused with the Legate of Thrace? This identification would give Aulus or Lucius Pompeius Vopiscus the cursus he lacks. But it is only possible if the dating proposed by the editor is set back some twenty years and if the restitution of the proconsul's cursus is modified in several respects. We will focus on two points: the dona militaria and the legation of Cappadocia.
 * 3-2 Le proconsul d'Afrique et le legat de Thrace

The identification of the military expedition that earned the proconsul his Distinction is the key to Pierre Gros' argument: the method is standard, as we know, in epigraphy. (60) The argument precisely invoked here is that of the paucity of decorations. Whereas one would expect, for a legatus [p. 1084] legionis, three series of dona, (61) the future proconsul of Africa received only one (hasta pura, corona vallaris, vexillum argenteum). The only case of Q. Lollius Urbicus, who received a hasta pura and a corona aurea during the Iudaica expedition (62), is compared to that of Pompeius Vopiscus in order to pinpoint the military commands of the latter "under the same emperor and at the same time" - all the more so as we can report Hadrian's "parsimony" in this field.
 * 3-2-1 Le dona militaria

This argument is seductive and can be further strengthened by two additional elements: an incomplete inscription makes known Hadrian's gift of two coronae and a hasta pura to an anonymous legate of the X Fretensis (63) - precisely the legion of Judea. (64) The "modest" decorations of Pompeius Vopiscus would thus constitute both a third example and a third variant.

On the other hand, as there are no reliable documents attesting to the participation of the legions of Carnuntum and Novae in the repression of the revolt of 132-135, (65) it will be tempting to include in the record a text which, without having been read in this sense up to now, could -- if necessary -- indicate the presence (of at least one detachment) of the I Italica: an honorary inscription from Macedonia testifies to the transfer, under Hadrian, to the legion I Italica, of the centurion Octavius Secundus who had received dona for his participation in the [p. 1085] Jewish war in the ranks of the X Fretensis; (66) would this transfer have taken place in Judea precisely?

This observation invites us to tackle the problem of dual legionary command from the outset. It is indeed important to know whether we should look in Judea for one or the other of the legions commanded by Pompeius Vopiscus, or both, or for "vexillations" of one or the other, or again, of both.

Except where there is specific evidence in favor of their contemporaneity, (67) legations of legions connected by and are usually interpreted as successive responsibilities: (68) Pompeius Vopiscus is therefore more likely to have commanded successively the legions of Carnuntum and Novae (which are not confined to the same province) than both - or even large detachments of both, grouped under his authority in Judea.

For the presence of such "vexillations", (69) apart from the case - possible, but not conclusive -- of the centurion of the I Italica already mentioned, (70) we know the case of Sex. Attius Senecio, who actually led detachments in Judea (71): these could have belonged -- but some dispute this (72) -- to the X Gemina, the legion of Upper Pannonia of which he was previously tribune. (73) The rock inscription of Bethar, in Palestine, [p. 1086] probably has its place in the dossier: but its interpretation is no more certain than its reading and dating. (74)

We shall therefore confine ourselves to the enumeration of the dona published by Paul Steiner in 1906 (75): eleven examples of soldiers of all ranks surely decorated by Hadrian can be retained, (76) out of the fourteen proposed by the author. A twelfth was added later. (77) Seven cases explicitly concern Judea. Of the five remaining cases, two (nos. 114 and 115) and perhaps a third (no. 91) most probably refer to it - which brings the total to ten cases out of twelve --, the last two do not provide any element of location: which does not exclude, moreover -- we shall see -- Judea.

These decorations awarded by Hadrian are in fact distributed as the shows Table II; the twelve examples suggest two series observations: on the nature of the dona -- we will come back to this point later -- and on the units concerned.

*   *    *


 * 3-2-2 La legation de Cappadoce

Les Pompeii de Volsinii
We have deliberately multiplied the hypotheses: the most attractive ones leave room for doubt. But the important thing is elsewhere. Even reconstituted earlier in favor of a Catellius Celer, the "tavola marmorea" alone would not have been enough to establish the origo of the Pompeii. Thanks to the dedication of the Carthaginians, they can now be added to the senatorial families of Etruria, and more precisely of Volsinii.

Between the two points, one consul assured around 77, another possible between 158 and 161 -- the legate of Thrace -- we must restore at least two generations. However, we know two women, and now, thanks to the monumental inscription of the forum and the "tavola marmorea", two men -- the proconsul and Quintus -- whose identity must perhaps be admitted; and one can also deduce the existence of a third -- or simply a second -- to the previous generation.


 * 4-1 L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer, Cos. 77 (=Pompeius 1).

Volsinian himself, if his descendants are, the Flavian consul is known as C. Arruntius Catellius Celer as brother Arvale. first, in the acta of 75, (142) then as governor of Lusitania in 77, (143) finally as consul suffect, with M. Arruntius Aquila as colleague, at least as of October of the same year 77 - if one sticks to the date formerly proposed by Groag. (144) From the year 80 and until 91, he appears in the acts of the Arvales brothers as L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer, or, more simply, L. Pompeius Catellius Celer and L. Arruntius Catellius Celer. (145)

He would have exercised the responsibility - consular, it is believed - of curator viarum aedium sacrarum locorumque publicorum, known only through the cursus, written in Greek, of his deputy L. Vibius Lentulus, where he appears under the simplified name of L. Pompeius Vopiscus Catellius Celer. (146)

A second consular function, that of governor of Hispania Citerior, was attributed to him by Sir R. Syme, (147) who identified him with a certain "Celer", praised in an epigram by Martial, published at the end of 92 (VII, 52, ν. 3-6):

Me meas gentes et Celtas rexit Hiberos, nec fuit in nostro certior orbe fides. Maior me tanto reverentia turbai, et aures non auditoris, iudicis esse puto.

The chronology suggested by Sir R. Syme is based on some possible similarities between the terms chosen by Martial to honor "Celer". and the well known advancement of L. Vibius Lentulus, former adiutor of the consular. The knight, to whom Trajan later did not spare his favor, would have was a tribunus angusticlave of Legio VIIa Gemina, stationed in Tarraconnesis, in 88-89 precisely, when M. Ulpius Traianus was its legate. (148) But the appointment of Lentulus would itself be linked to the presence of his protector, Catellius Celer, governor of the province ("rexit", specifies artial). And it is the proclamation of Antonius Saturninus on the Rhine, in January 89, (149) which would have been, for the legate of Tarraconnaise, the occasion to prove his "fides", greeted by Martial.

In any case, Catellius Celer was present in Rome on May 27, 90, where he participated in a ceremony of the Arvales Brethren -- as in 91. For the proconsular year 91-92, he would have fulfilled the conditions to participate in the sortition for Asia or Africa; but, according to Sir R. Syme, to whom we owe this remark, (150) the provincial fastes would hardly show any room available: which is more true, moreover, for Asia than for Africa. (151) The name of Catellius Celer no longer appears in the acts of the Arvales Brethren of 101. (152) The senator's death thus occurred in the last decade of the century.

Provided with three gentilices -- a number still rare at the time -- the nomenclature of the consul of 77 has piqued Sir R. Syme's curiosity for a long time. (153) The Volsinian origo now offers a decisive element in clarifying the formation of the polyonym.

The future Pompeii were originally Catellii. Extremely rare in Italy, (154) the gentilice Catellius is represented, at Volsinii precisely, by a group of four freed from the same patron (two men and two women). (155) It could derive from Etruscan gentiles, (156) formed on the root Cat-: Cadi (fem.), Catle (masc.) and Caturu - the latter attested in Volsinii. (157)

At its first appearance in the documentation -- in 75 -- the consul of 77 is already endowed with the first name C(aius) and with the gentility Arruntius, which later on, a times the extended polyonymy, sometimes fall out of its nomenclature. (158) By means of an adoption, the Catellii Celeres of Volsinii seem to have taken the name of C(aii) Arruntii -- (159) which had been that of two senators of the early times of the empire, to whom no direct descent is known; they probably originated from Interamna Nahars, in Umbria, where their names are engraved on the same funerary inscription with that of the wife of one of them. (160) Hence an ingenious rapprochement, suggested recently, (161) between the family of Volsinii and the Pompeii of Interamna, (162) unfortunately unlikely.

Indeed, the group of names L. Pompeius Vopiscus -- including a rare cognomen (163) -- is exactly taken from that of a senator who took over the consulate during the crisis of 69, (164) and whom modern authors consider to have originated in Vienna: (165) Tacitus' remark that Otho had designated him to appease the Viennese, (166) would find support in the gentilice "Pompeius", widely diffused in the Narbonnaise. (167)

Only an adoption of the Volsinian by the Viennese seems to explain both the first place given in the nomenclature to a new pair of names -- Pompeius Vopiscus -- and the transmission of this one over several generations, to the point of becoming the main name: it is at least the one retained, thereafter, and the inscription of the proconsul of Africa, found in Lares, and the coins of the legate of Thrace. From the third generation, the Catellii Celeres appear on official documents as Pompeii Vopisci. Because of its late appearance in the official nomenclature of the consul of 77, the idea, suggested by Sir R. Syme, (168) of the official taking of the name once the consul of 69 had disappeared is not to be ruled out.

The origo of the Catellii Celeres also draws attention to a remark by Tacitus about the consul of 69: (169) an old friendship is said to have united the Viennese to Otto - himself a native of Ferentium. (170) Now, this Etruscan city and Volsinii, very close to each other, were traditionally linked. (171) Should the friendship of Otto be interpreted as a neighborly relationship, if the relationship between the Viennese senator and the Volsinian family was already old?


 * 4-2 Pompeia Celerina I

Pompeia Celerina, mother-in-law of Pliny the Younger, (172) is usually recognised as a relative of the consul of 77, but often also as his daughter. (173) Her name [p. 1103] and the probable time of her birth make this filiation very probable; at most, a further suggestion could be made, in case the transfer of the name -- and of the goods? -- from the Viennese to the Volsinian in the most classical way -- by a marriage between the latter and a daughter of the former: Pompeia Celerina would, moreover, be the granddaughter of the consul of 69 by her mother. A simple hypothesis, of course, but who would have the advantage of explaining the name she bears -- unless she too had changed her name when her father adopted her?

The first husband of Pompeia Celerina and their daughter, who was married by Pliny in second marriage are unknown; Pliny was widowed for the second time in the 97. (174) He remained on the best terms with his mother-in-law, herself remarried to a senator of Forum Novum in Sabina, Q. Fulvius Gillo Bittius Proculus: he was prefect of the treasury immediately before Pliny and consul suffect probably in 98. (175) Pompeia Celerina must have belonged to the generation of her second husband and her son-in-law, who was born around 62: (176) the matrimonial practices of the aristocracy would not prohibit it.

Pliny's correspondence bears witness to the wealth of Pompeia Celerina; it mentions in particular several properties belonging to him: these are were used as a stopover for Pliny on his journey to Tifernum Tiberinum. (177) One might even wonder -- now that the Etruscan ancestry of the noble lady is established -- whether Pliny's famous estate in "Tuscia" did not come from his late wife; (178) when he considered "rounding it off" by [p. 1104] buying neighbouring lands, Pliny was certain of obtaining a loan from his generous mother-in-law for this purpose. (179)

Pompeia Celerina also had a villa on the seashore in Alsium, which had belonged to Verginius Rufus, (180) Pliny's onetime guardian. (181) The same Verginius Rufus who had been a colleague of the Viennese L. Pompeius Vopiscus at the consulate, in March 69. (182) Would the second marriage of Pliny have been concluded through him?

Though wealthy, this great Etruscan lady was not, as one might have thought, a "spinster". For the continuity of the name in the 2nd century requires that we give her back at least one brother, who has not been identified to this day.


 * 4-3 (Pompeius 2)

Sir R. Syme's demonstration seems to have brought Martial's "Celer" very close to the former consul of 77, who became governor of Tarraconnaise, at least for the years 88-89. But, in case Martial's epigram was addressed to a "juridicus" as G. Alföldy had thought. (183) ("aures... iudicis" could indeed lead one to suppose, but not "rexit", it is true), the existence of a Pompeius ... Celer, brother of Pompeia Celerina, who could have started his praetorian career in the years 88-89, should not be forgotten.

The name of an unknown Celer among Pliny's correspondents is noteworthy: (184) because Pompeius 2 belongs to the generation of Pliny the Younger and Bittius Proculus.


 * 4-4 (Pompeia ?) Celerina II

The hypothesis of a marriage between the Pompeii of Bolsena and the Venuleii of Pisa has just been put forward by Mario Torelli, (185) in connection with the following two dedications:

[p. 1105]

1 - (Corliano, between Pise & Florence):

BONAE Deae ? L.VENULEIUS Montanus ? ET L.VENULEIUS ? APRON ianus LAETILIA ET CELERINA UXO res

2 - a (fistula):

L.L. Venuleior(um) Mont(ani) et Apron(iani).

The attribution of the gentilice Pompeia to Celerina is not certain. But this Mario Torelli's proposal seems to me to receive significant support because of the fact that the names of L. Pompeius C. Arruntius Catellius Geler, consul in 77, and L.Venuleius Montanus Apronianus, consul in 92, see in the acts of the Arval Brethren for the reigns of Titus and Domitian. (186)

The problem posed -- and independent of Celerina's gentility -- is that of the exact identity of the two Venuteti whose names are associated on two occasions (texts 1 and 2).

The solutions previously suggested will read better on the two stemmata:

[2 hypothetical stemmata]

[p. 1106]

This rich family from Pisa, patrician in the 2nd century, is indeed well known over three generations, (187) the only ones that have been paid attention to so far (188) - to the point of sometimes admitting access to the senate under the Flavians: (189)


 * L. Venuleius Montanus Apronianus, cos suff. 92.
 * L. Venuleius Apronianus Octavius Priscus, cos ord. 123; procos Asiae c. 138-139.
 * L. Venuleius Apronianus Octavius [Priscus?], cos suff. a. inc., cos II ord. 168.

Insofar as the very existence of a brother of the consul bis of 168 is purely hypothetical -- this was a suggestion by Groag --, (190) it seems reasonable to look for the two Venuleii mentioned on the same lead tube, undoubtedly identical to the respective spouses of Laetilia and Celerina , among the bearers of these names actually attested and likely to have been honoured together: this is also the case for a father and a son.

However, Sir R. Syme has just noticed that the consul of 92 probably already belonged to a senatorial and perhaps even consular family: (191) one can indeed spot, in the previous generation, a L. Montanus proconsul of (Pontus et) Bithynia, known only by coins of Nicomedia - (192) identical or not to a L. Venuleius Montanus which may have been consul before 69. (193)

[p. 1107]

If the layout of the Corpus is correct, the name of L. Venuleius [Montanus] Apron[ianus] -- attested only, in the present state of the documentation, for the consul of 92 -- could be restored to Celerina's husband (L. Venuleius [Montanus?], husband of Laetilia, being her father at the time).

And, in case Celerina was a Pompeia, her father was the consul of 77, Arval Brethern L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer, who is said to have married his daughter to his colleague L. Venuleius Montanus Apronianus, the consul of 92, at least fifteen years younger than him; the two men were linked by the same membership of a religious brotherhood of twelve members.

The chronology would not prohibit the identification of the wife of Venuleius of Pisa (nothing is known about her after 92) and Pliny's future mother-in-law (known in From 97 only, after the death of her daughter, when she herself was a child. remarried). But there are still too many uncertainties about the Bona Dea dedications. -- men and women -- from to commit ourselves to this hypothesis.


 * 4-5 (Pompeius 3)

The high dating of the proconsul's cursus - under Hadrian and Antoninus - has the merit of filling a missing male generation. In the hypothesis, in my view very fragile, where this character would have actually earned his dona in Judea in 134 (or 135), we would have to remain within the logic of parallelism with Q. Lollius Urbicus, admitted at the outset. The latter was consul sufficed before 138 and perhaps as early as 135 or 1361. (94) By restoring Antonine's title between legat(o) and [Cappad]oc(iae), Pierre Gros is forced to extend the career of his senator in time and to make him wait for a consulate which he would have assumed only around 140-142; hence the unexplained slippage of the double legionary command in 135-136 to reduce the hiatus with the Cappadocian legation. In fact -- as we have seen -- the size of the lacuna lends itself to multiple restorations, between which it is not possible to choose. By grouping together all the comments presented, we could propose as a possible chronology:

129 or 130 : praetor 130-131 : curator viae (-) 132-133 : leg. leg. XIV Gemina, at Carnuntum. 133-135 : leg. leg. I Italicae, at Novae & participation in the expedition to Judea [p. 1108] c. 135 or shortly afterwards : leg. Aug. Cappadoce before 140 : cos suff. between 152 & 155 : procos. Africae

The proconsul will then be the "Pompeius 3" of our stemma or one of his brothers. And, in case he identifies himself with Quintus (or has Quintus as his brother), the father of the latter -- L(ucius)? -- would be "Pompeius 2".

Based on this hypothesis, it is also conceivable that he would be the son of the proconsul, Quintus would belong to the generation of the legate of Thrace.


 * 4-6 (Pompeius 4) Le legat de Thrace Aulus ou Lucius

If one accepts for him the late dating proposed by Géza Alföldy, the his entire career is covered -- from the vigintivirate to the last praetorian post, if not even at the consulate -- took place under Antonin the Pious. But nothing proves that it stopped there. Any consular functions that may be carried out would place under Marcus Aurelius.

The possible identification of this senator with the proconsul of Africa, envisaged above but not retained, would give him a cursus. Around 155, he would have replaced, in Carnuntum, P. Martius Priscus himself as legate of Legio XIV, before coming to fight under his orders in Dacia, in 156-157, at the head of the legion of Novae. Legate of Thrace in 158-159, consul suffect in 160, he would govern Cappadocia in 162 and succeed in Africa to C. Septimius Severus, consul suffect in 160 and proconsul in 174. (195) Also one generation later, Quintus Lucii(?) filius could then be his younger brother. However, we would find ourselves without any indication on "Pompeius 3", as indeed on "Pompeius 2": the continuity of the lineage would be restored, but not documented over two generations instead of one. Yet another reason for preferring a high dating for the proconsul's cursus.

[p. 1109 -- proposed stemma]


 * 4-7 Les alliances des Pompeii

No wife's name was directly transmitted to us. But, between the consul of 77 and the proconsul of Africa who, in the most likely hypothesis, would be his grandson, the nomenclature was enriched by the gentilice Allius [p. 1110] who invited to restore, from generation I or generation II, a union with an Allia.

Allii can be found in Volsinii itself (196) and also in Tuscana, near Bolsena. (197) But the only noble family of the same name attested for the Antonine period seems to come from Milan. (198) The nearby town of Ferrentium can only attract attention for two reasons: on the one hand, its traditional links with Volsinii (199) -- we have even mentioned the possibility of relations between the Salvii, the family of Otho, and the Pompeii; on the other hand, the fact that its own Allii (registered in the local tribe, Stellatina) later became part of the senatorial nobility. (200) According to a recognizable mode of social ascension, (201) the alliance with the Pompeii of Volsinii could have favored, at intervals of a few generations, the promotion of the notables of Ferentium. This hypothesis does not explain the Sabinus cognomen. But one thing is certain: the only wife that can really be attributed to a Pompeius (1 or 2?), an Allia, was not of noble birth. For men, this type of unequal marriage, commonplace in the first or second generation of senators, is not necessarily limited to them.

On the other hand, it should be noted that women have apparently only been given to husbands of equal rank to their own -- and on occasions higher. Unless Pompeia Celerina I is confused with Celerina II, her first husband is not identified: but their daughter married Pliny. This son-in-law - Pliny the Younger -- and the second husband -- Bittius Proculus -- place the Pompeii in the senatorial milieu of the turn of the century: among the municipal families of Italy promoted to nobility, but without exceptional brilliance. In spite of the relative mediocrity of the senators drawn from to compose the college of the Arvales Brethern under the Flavians, (202) the renewal of the latter seems to have favored a rather brilliant marriage for Pompeia Celerina II.

According to the preserved Acta Arvalium, the Pompeii appear to no longer belong to the collegia under Hadrian and Antoninus. The proconsul is not a member of an imperial sodality either. But the augurate and the praetura Etruriae place him very clearly, as do the Venuleii -- his allies?-- amongst the senatorial nobility of Etruria. (203)

Conclusion
The collection of data now available on the Pompeii from Volsinii invites us to multiply the hypotheses and examine their implications, more than to choose between them artificially. If it is attractive, for the epigrapher, to bring the "tavola marmorea" and the monumental inscription of the forum and to read the career of the same character -- Quintus Pompeius, who would be in the Generation III -- caution advises to keep open the field of possibilities, while waiting for the discovery of documents that will make it possible to decide: senatorial families reconcile both polyonymy and homonymy and, in addition, commonplace parallel advancements for their homonyms, and different members.

The consul of 77 and the legate of Antoninus thus received, symmetrically, for ultimate praetorian office the government of an imperial province inermis: Lusitania on one side, Thrace on the other. And, if one follows the steps proposed by Sir R. Syme for the consular career of No. 1, this one was correct to wait for a proconsulate -- from Asia or Africa -- that No. 3, for sure, has obtained. Too little is known of No. 4 -- the legatus of Thrace -- to say that such a future was not reserved for him. Despite the gaps in the literature, the ensemble gives rather the impression of repetition, and one hardly sees the favor -- or disfavor -- of this or that emperor, if not at the beginning.

Promoted (considering L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer as the "capostipite") thanks to the possibilities opened by the revolution of 68-69 and also thanks to the adoption, consecrated under Vespasian by the entry into the college of the Arvales Brethren, then the consulate suffect in 77, the family continued for a good century -- until the end of Antoninus's reign, and perhaps under Marcus Aurelius -- simply maintaining its own rank.

The small number of people we met invites us to be satisfied, as if on the simplest hypothesis, with a single male line which, in the first two generations, and perhaps in the fourth, is that of the Ludi Pompeii - with a single adventitious element, Quintus [p. 1112] Lucii(?) filius. Hence the need to identify this Quintus as the proconsul (he could be, moreover, the brother of a Lucius who died without having made a career) or to recognize in Quintus the brother of a Lucius senator, known to us (the proconsul himself, or, at the next generation, the Legate of Thrace. (204) The important thing, beyond a identification, always uncertain, is to identify, over four generations, the stages of the fortune of a Volsinian family, and the network of its marriages.

Four generations, one lineage. Nothing there that should surprise: he has been observed that in each generation 20% of families have only daughters. (205) This explains the mathematical extinction, over a century, in three or, at most, four generations, of half of the male lineages. The fortune of that of the Ludi Pompeii coincides perfectly with this "century of the Antonine which began with Vespasian", according to the quip of Sir R. Syme. It does not seem to have been enriched by the marriage of cadets who had descendants. But, insofar as the starting point of its ascent was a double adoption, it would be tempting to reconstitute the lineage of the Catellii, by re-establishing the links between the lineage admitted to the rank of senatorial families and its eventual parents, who remained simple notables in Volsinii: but only L. Catellius, identified in Bolsena, rich enough besides to have had at least four freedmen, (206) is not precisely situated in time. (207) The discovery of simple Catellii at Volsinii would complete that of the Pompeian clarissimes.

The Pompeii do not even seem to have transmitted their names through women, as the onomastic practices of the time allowed. Less fortunate in that their "cousins" (?) from Pisa, the Venuleii Aproniani, whose lineage, older than their own, died out at the same time, but whose double name continued for a time in another senatorial family. (208)

Christol Michel, Préfecture du prétoire et haute administration équestre à la fin du règne d’Antonin le Pieux et au début du règne de Marc Aurèle
p. 120 He was succeeded by C(aius) Tattius Maximus, former commander of the singular equities in 142, 143 and 145. (28) This officer of the Praetorium then climbed the steps of the ducenary career and the Palatine Offices in about ten years, before reaching the Prefecture of the Vigilantes, which he held in 156. (29) Even if the details of the functions carried out during this period are not known, the speed with which he completed his career is remarkable: in this respect it is similar to that of M(arcus) Gavius Maximus. This career probably took place in the shadow of the powerful praetorian prefect. It is from this first prefecture that he passed directly to the praetorian prefecture, as had been envisaged by H.-G. Pflaum, followed by R. Sablayrolles. We can therefore admit that he held the command of the vigiles until mid-158. [p. 121] On the other hand, the starting point of this great prefecture is more uncertain. One may be tempted to go back in time quite clearly, to around 151, when [---]cors in this charge is known. (30) But the presence of an ignotus who did not continue beyond the prefecture of the guards might be more likely. Once established at the praetorian prefecture, C(aius) Tattius Maximus quickly disappeared, even before the death of Antoninus Pius. The date of the event can be set approximately in the second half of 160, since on September 28 of that year, T(itus) Furius Victorinus who was to replace him was still in office as Prefect of Egypt, (31) while his successor appears at the beginning of 161 (13/2/161).

[footnote 28: "a, cf. M. P. Speidel, Die Denkmäler, cit. supra, p. 49-51, no. 14; 31151 a, cf. M. P. Speidel, ibid., p. 51-52, n° 15; 31152, cf. p. 3758 (ILS, 2183 et add.), cf. M. P. Speidel, ibid., pp. 52-54, no. 16; H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres, cit. supra, pp. 325-326, n° 138."] [footnote 29: " = 30719 (ILS, 2161). R. Sablayrolles. Libertinus miles: Les cohortes des vigiles, Rome, 1996, p. 487-488, no. 13."] [footnote 30: "R. Sablayrolles, Libertinus miles, cit. supra, p. 487 considers '156 au moins'"] [footnote 31: "SB, 9869 a, 5; b, 5; G. Bastianini, "Successioni nella prefettura d’Egitto", Aegyptus, 58, 1978, p. 170. Before his departure from Alexandria, he received the homage of Fortunatus, an imperial freedman who exercised financial responsibilities in the province, even though his promotion was known, as A. Stein had noted in PIR2, F 584. On this inscription, lastly, L. Robert, Hellenica. Recueil d’épigraphie, de numismatique et d’antiquités grecques, XI-XII, Paris, 1960, p. 259-250. Édition princeps par Héron de Villefosse, BSAF, 1901, pp. 228-231 & 322. But one cannot assume, with L. Robert, p. 250, n. 2, that the inscription dates to 163."]