Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:59:00.074Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Puteoli in the Second Century of the Roman Empire: a Social and Economic Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. H. D'Arms
J. H. D'Arms
Affiliation:
The University of Michigan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

τὰ γὰρ τὸ πάλαι (sc. ἄστεα) μεγάλα ἦν, τὰ πολλὰ σμικρὰ αὐτῶν γέγονε. The period of high prosperity in Roman Puteoli extended from the late Republic until the early years of the second century A.D., after which economic primacy in Italy passed from the great port city on the Bay of Naples to Ostia at the Tiber's mouth. Or so, at any rate, it is now commonly believed: Charles Dubois was the first scholar to develop the thesis that Puteoli declined in the second century, and his arguments have been accepted, with modifications, both by economic and social historians and in most recent investigations of the two Roman cities. But inevitably, given the nature of our sources, there are elements of subjectivity in the criteria used to measure historical change; ‘decline’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘growth’ are relative, and therefore often ambiguous, terms, particularly when applied to pre-industrial cities and towns. In this article I hope to modify the prevailing opinion by a closer scrutiny of the evidence for social and economic conditions in second-century Puteoli. In part one the various arguments for a decline are critically reviewed; parts two and three are attempts to exploit a substantial body of local evidence, which is largely inscriptional, to shed light on the nature of Puteolan society and on the economic conditions prevalent in the city; the results of the study are set forth in a brief conclusion.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 64 , November 1974 , pp. 104 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © J. H. D'Arms 1974. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Dubois, Ch., Pouzzoles Antique (= Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d'Athènes et de Rome, fasc. 98, Paris 1907), 81Google Scholar (herafter Dubois, PA); Frank, Tenney, Economic History of Ancient Rome v (Baltimor 1940), 127–132;Google ScholarRostovtzeff, M., Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire 1 (Oxford, 1957), 162Google Scholar ff. (with 610, n. 25) (hereafter Rostovtzeff, SEHRE2); Annecchino, R., Storia di Pozzuoli (Pozzuoli, 1960), 133–134;Google ScholarMeiggs, R., Roman Ostia (Oxford, 1960), 60–61Google Scholar (hereafter Meiggs, RO). Frederiksen, M. W., ‘Puteoli’, RE 23 (1959), 2044–45Google Scholar (hereafter P-W, ‘Puteoli’), alone produces much of the evidence for continuing prosperity in Puteoli through the late second century, observing that with Ostia's attraction of eastern shipping away from Puteoli ‘im 2. und 3. Jhdt n. Chr…. begann fur P(uteoli) der allmähliche Abstieg’ (2050). See also Ling, R., PBSR N.S. xxi (1966), 28;Google ScholarRougé, J., L'Organisation du commerce maritime en méditerranée sous l' empire romain (= École pratique des hautes études — VIe section, centre de recherches historiques, 21), 138;Google ScholarLepore, E., in Storia di Napoli i (Naples 1967), 316Google Scholar (where decline is dated to the period of Commodus); D'Arms, J. H., Romans on the Bay of Naples (Cambridge, Mass. 1970), 138, 163Google Scholar (hereafter RBN). In the following pages all dates, unless otherwise indicated, are A.D.

2 Meiggs, RO 60.

3 IG xiv, 917–918.

4 CIL x, 1729 on which see now Weaver, P. R. C., Antichthon v (1971), 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar f.; cf. proc a]d an[nonam, Eph. Epigr. viii, 396. Antoninus Pius: CILx, 1562 (= ILS 344): Aug. disp(ensator) a fruminto (sic) Puteolis et Ostis. Pius and the harbour: CIL x, 1640–1641 (139).

5 Procurator: D'Arms, J. H., Parola del Passato xxvii (fesc. 145, 1972), 255–270Google Scholar. Parallel treatment by the emperors of Puteoli and Ostia: Suet., Claud. 25, 2, cohorts of vigiles sent to both cities to protect the granaries.

6 But see below, p. 120, for signs of continued vitality of Eastern trade and cult.

7 IG xiv, 830 (=OGIS 595; IGRR i, 421); Dubois, PA 83 f.

8 ibid., lines 6–14.

9 IG xiv, 830, line 17; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2045; La Piana, G., ‘Foreign Groups in Rome during the first centuries of the Empire’, HTR xx (1927), 256–260Google Scholar.

10 See Duncan-Jones, R. P., The Economy of the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 1974), 210, 236Google Scholar (no. 1187), who argues that the numeral should read HS 100,000.

11 IG xiv, 830, lines 31–38.

12 CIL x, 1814; AE 1920, 45.

13 Raoss, M., ‘Note di Epigrafia latina e greca’, Epigraphica xxx (1968), 96–102,Google Scholar where the text is plausibly restored ‘loc(us) adsig(natus) per [Na-] sennium Marcellum cur(atorem) [ope]r(um) pub(licorum)’.

14 See Mancini, G., ‘curator rei publicae’, Diz. Epigr. (Spoleto, 1910), 1368Google Scholar f; curatores are attested at Aeclanum, Aesernia, Ameria, Ancona, Aquinum, Ariminum, Caere, Comum, Cremona, Faventia, Formiae, Lanuvium, Lavinium, Matilica, Minturnae, Nola, Otesia, Pisaurum, Plestia, Tarracina, Tibur, Verona and Vettona.

15 CIL xi, 3614 (113–14); Pliny discharged his duties as legatus Augusti in Bithynia in 110, but the office of curator rei publicae may, as one scholar has suspected, in fact have originated under Domitian: cf. Oliver, J. H., The Ruling Power (= Transactions of the American Philosophical Society N.S. xliii, part 4), Philadelphia 1953, 974;Google ScholarGarnsey, P., Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1970), 81Google Scholar n. dates the origin of curatores to the reign of Nero.

16 JRS xxx (1940), 56–74Google Scholar.

17 CIL x, 1814: Locus datus ex auctoritate Flavi Longini Cl(arissimi) V(iri) cur(atoris) r(ei) p(ublicae), adsignat(us) a M. Valerio Pudente Ilvir(o).

18 Compare CIL xiv, Suppl. 1, 4702, for a Roman praetor declaring that Ostian territory near the Tiber was the public property of the Roman people (Meiggs, RO 32); and, at a later date, CIL x, 1018 (= ILS 5942), T. Suedius Clemens interfering on behalf of the city of Pompeii, and on the authority of Vespasian, to restore to the city loca publica a privatis possessa. For the installation of curatores in wealthy cities with a view towards curing fiscal waste and mismanagement, cf. White, A. N. Sherwin, The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), 526–27;Google ScholarMillar, F., The Roman Empire and its Neighbours (London, 1967), 203–4Google Scholar.

19 Meiggs, RO 61.

20 cf. P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2050: ‘Von dem Leben in P(uteoli) während der Kaiserzeit können wir uns nur ein unvollkommenes Bild machen.’

21 The texts are being edited by Giordano, C., RAAN N.S. xli (1966), 107–121;Google Scholar N.S. xlv (1970), 211–231; N.S. xlvi (1971), 183–197; see also the critical reactions of Degrassi, A., MAL xiv (1969), 136Google Scholar f. Already in the nineteenth century the actual provenance of many of the inscriptions in the Neapolitan collections was unknown, and Mommsen's practice (CIL x, pp. 183, 190) was to assign to Puteoli all stones the origins of which could not be established on the basis of internal or other evidence. While the passage of time has generally vindicated Mommsen's procedure (cf. also PBSR N.S. xiv [1959]. 81)Google Scholar much new material has subsequently come to light, and some texts classed among those of Puteoli in the Corpus have had to be reassigned elsewhere. I have attempted in this study, which is based primarily upon inscriptional evidence, to reduce elements of uncertainty to a minimum by accepting as Puteolan only those texts for which a Puteolan origin is either securely established or clearly inferable. An element of subjectivity, inevitably, accompanies impressions as to the dates of sepulchral texts; furthermore, not all of those once visible in the Naples museum are still available for inspection. In what follows I accept A. Degrassi's conclusion (Riv. Fil. Class. N.S. xxxvii, 1959, 213)Google Scholar that the abbreviation of the formula D(is) M(anibus) is unlikely to be earlier than the Flavian epoch, and is attested with frequency only by the second century; and I treat epitaphs of the type exemplified by CIL x, 2557, 2878 as Julio-Claudian in date. Other chronological indicators, such as the presence in epitaphs of freedmen of praenomina and gentilicia of individual emperors (see Weaver, P. R. C., Familia Caesaris [Cambridge, 1972], 24–30)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, have been exploited wherever possible, always in preference to palaeographical criteria, which, since local fashions in lettering varied widely from city to city, remain notoriously imprecise: Reynolds, J. M. and Perkins, J. B. Ward, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (London, 1952), 5–6;Google ScholarReynolds, , JRS 1 (1960), 204–05Google Scholar.

22 CIL x, 1782 (= Sherk, R. K., Municipal Decrees of the Roman West, Arethusa Monographs 2, 1970, no. 33;Google Scholar hereafter Sherk, MD): ‘… in curia basilicae Augusti [An]nianae.’ CIL x, 1783 (= ILS 5919; FIRA iii2, no. III; Sherk, MD, no. 34): ‘…in curia templi basilicae Augusti Annianae.’

23 CIL x, 1786: ‘… curia basilicae Aug(usti) Annian(ae).’

24 CIL x, 1784 (= ILS 6334; Buresch, K., Rh.Mus. xlix [1894], 459–60;Google Scholar Sherk, MD, no. 35).

25 CIL x, 1787 (= Sherk, MD, no. 36); D'Arms, J. H., AJA lxxvii (1973), 160–162Google Scholar (no. 11, 113); Eph. Epigr. viii, 371 (although the fragmentary nature of the edict permits five possible dates between 140 and 220, M. Ihm, the editor, believed the lettering to be more appropriate to the third than to the second century, Eph. Epigr. viii, ad loc.); Eph. Epigr. viii, 372 (= Sherk, MD, no. 39).

26 Cic., II Verr. 5, 154; CIL x, 1784; CIL x, 1782.

27 CIL x 1781 (= Degrassi, ILLRP, 518); 1787.

28 105 B.C.: CIL x, 1781; Q. Granius the praeco: Cic., Brut. 172; Münzer, , RE vii, 1818 (no. 8)Google Scholar.

29 78 B.C.: Val. Max. 9, 3, 8; Plut., Sulla 37, 3. P. Granius: Cic., II Verr. 5, 154.

30 A. Granius: Caes., BC 3, 71, 1; cf. Censor. 3, 2. Granius Petro: Taylor, L. R., Voting Districts of the Roman Republic (PMAAR xx, 1960), 218;Google ScholarWiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B.C.-A.D. 14 (Oxford, 1971), 234Google Scholar (no. 197).

31 CIL x, 1783 (Atticus); 1782 (Longinus).

32 Giordano, C., RAAN N.S. xlv (1970), 212 (no. I)Google Scholar.

33 Cic., ad Att. 13, 46, 3; 16, 2, 1: T. Hordeonius, along with Cicero, was one of the heirs of M. Cluvius of Puteoli in 45 B.C.; he carries the same praenomen as the homonymous decurion of 196: CIL x, 1786.

34 Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xli (1966), IIIGoogle Scholar (= AE 1969–70, 94); cf. RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 185, 189, 190, 192, 193:Google Scholar ‘ara Augusti Hordioniana’. For the chalcidicum Hordionianum, cf. Sbordone, F., RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 174Google Scholar.

35 Annii: CIL x, 2055–2068; Eph. Epigr. viii, 370, 389; RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 177, 195Google Scholar (no. 9). The frequency of the name in local contexts, together with repeated instances of buildings named for members of municipal families (e.g. Hordeonius, Suettius), makes it unlikely that the basilica Augusti Anniana received its name from the imperial Annii (cf. Mommsen's note on CIL x, 1783). Granii: CIL x, 2187, 2484–89, 2607, 2651, 8191–92. Hordeonii:CIL x, 3014, 3063, and cf. also 1806, a flamen of Divus Augustus who was thrice Ilvir; although the findspot of the stone is unknown, the man's tribe, Falerna, makes Puteoli the probable city of origin, cf. Peterson, R. M., The Cults of Campania (= PMAAR 1, 1919), 116Google Scholar (hereafter Peterson, Cults): I suggest in an article forthcoming in Historia that the gentilicium be restored [Horde]onio. Tettii: L. Tetteius L.I. appears in an unpublished inscription dated to A.D. 13, discovered in the recent excavations of S. Proculo at Pozzuoli.

36 Hatzfeld, J., BCH xxxvi (1912), 41;Google Scholaribid., Les Trafiquants Italiens dans l'Orient Hellénique (BEFAR 115) (Paris, 1919, hereafter Trafiquants), 94 (Mitylene), 70 (Chalcis).

37 Frederiksen, M. W., ‘Republican Capua:A Social and Economic Study’, PBSR N.S. xiv (1959), 126–130, nos. 2Google Scholar (= CIL i2, 673; CIL x, 3774, restoring [Ho]rdioni M.I., 112 or III B.C.), 8 (= CIL i2, 677; x, 3779; ILS 3340, 106 B.C.), 11 (= CIL i2, 679; x, 3780; ILS 3341, 104 B.C.), 17 (= CIL i2, 682; x, 3772; ILS 6302, 94 B.C.); See further 119, with references to trading commitments in the East.

38 CIL x, 1781 (C. Blossius Q.f.); AJA lxxvii (1973), 161–62, no. 11Google Scholar (Ilvir, 113); on the earlier history of the gens see art. cit. (above, n. 37), 117. Observe C. Blossius Celadus, named as an iudex in a transaction of 52: Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 187Google Scholar.

39 CIL x, 1784; Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 187 (no. 6)Google Scholar; the plate shows that there is space for Coss[ut]ius, or possibly Coss[in]ius, and that Giordano's ‘Cassius’ is unacceptable. Cf. art. cit. (above, n. 37), 127 (no. 10); Hatzfeld, , BCH xxxvi (1912), 30Google Scholar (Delos); id., Trafiquants, 228 (Athens, 174 B.C.).

40 Hatzfeld, , BCH xxxvi (1912), 14;Google Scholar art. cit (above, n. 37), 127 (no. 10, 105 B.C.), 128 (no. 15, before 94 B.C).

41 Schulze, W., Zur Geschichte Lateinischer Eigennamen (Berlin, 1904), 242Google Scholar. On ‘Etruscan’ nomenclature in Campania before the Roman occupation cf. art. cit. (above, n. 37), 116.

42 Lepore, E., PdP x (1955). 430:Google Scholar the gens is prominent in Herculaneum and known also in Pompeii (CIL x, 1074Google Scholar d, an Augustan Ilvir); Hatzfeld, , BCH xxxvi (1912), 27;Google ScholarSbordone, F., RAAN N.S. xlvi (1971), 176–77Google Scholar (L. Clodius Rufus); CIL x, 1783 (A. Clodius Maximus). For the name at Puteoli, see CIL x, 2297–98, 3142.

43 Hatzfeld, , BCH xxxvi (1912), 19Google Scholar (Aufidii); 45 (Laelii); 60 (Oppii); 82 (Stlaccii).

44 Art. cit. (above, n. 37), 128, no. 17 (Aufustius); 129, no. 24 (Egnatius, Opius).

45 CIL x, 787 (Egnatius); 1233 (Oppius), and cf. also AE 1967, 88.

46 Egnatii: Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlv (1970), 221 (51)Google Scholar; it is uncertain if the city of origin of the M'. Egnatius M'. 1. Lucullus of Augustan date (CIL x, 2381) was Puteoli; cf. AJA ii (1898), 387 (no. 35)Google Scholar, which must be early. Oppii: CIL x, 2810. Stlaccii: P. Stlaccius P.I. is mentioned in the unpublished Puteolan inscription of A.D. 13 (above, n. 35); CIL x, 1930. The Laelii are attested in Puteoli by 163 B.C: RBN 7.

47 Aufidii: CIL x, 2125, 2130 (T. Aufidius T.f. Fal[erna tribu] Templitanus). Laelii: CIL x, 2639, 2640, 2642. Oppii: an Oppia T.fil. Bassilla was married to an early Aug. l.: CIL x, 2810.

48 To this group Viguetius Liberalis, the late-second-century decurion, ought probably to be added, for the name seems indigenous, despite absence of parallels in local epigraphy (CIL x, 1782).

49 CIL x, 1782.

50 CIL x, 1782, 1783 (Ti. Claudius Quartinus); 1786 (P. Aelius Eudaimon).

51 Gordon, M. L. ‘The Freedman's Son in Municipal Life’, JRS xxi (1931), 65–77;Google Scholar see now P. Garnsey, ‘Descendants of Freedmen in Local Politics’ in The Ancient Historian and his Materials (essays in honour of C. E. Stevens, forthcoming).

52 CIL x, 540. Although found in Salerno, Mommsen was surely right to assign the inscription to Puteoli; see his comments ad loc; and cf. Dubois, PA 294 f; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2045, lines 36–40. Purpurarii of Puteoli: Dubois, PA 129.

53 CIL x, 1910 (two slaves of a Cn. Haius Proculus); 1786 (Cn. Haius Pudens); see further Dubois, PA 129.

54 Cn. Haius Diadumenus: NSc. 1891, 204; Diadumenianus: CIL viii, 9366; PIR2 H 8.

55 CIL x, 1807.

56 For the date, see Altmann, W., Die römischen Grabaltäre der Kaiserzeit (Berlin, 1905), 88;Google Scholar and especially Lippold, G., Die Skulpturen des Vaticanischen Museums iii, 2 (Berlin, 1956), no. 619a (pp. 93–94)Google Scholar.

57 Meiggs has shown conclusively that beginning with the Flavian period new families of freedmen origin were rising to prominence alongside members of the earlier aristocracy at Ostia, but their ascendancy is not securely established before the early second century: C. Julius Proculus, Ilvir in 108, was probably a local man descended from an imperial freedman of the early empire, and a Ti. Claudius (his cognomen has not been preserved) was very probably of similar background (RO 204). C. Silius C.f. Vot(uria tribu) Nerva held the duovirate before 105; his father, C. Silius Felix, was an Augustalis (CIL xiv, 415; Meiggs, RO 204). At Pompeii, the arrival of sons of freedmen in the ordo came considerably earlier, and was very likely linked with the economic upheavals attendant upon the earthquake of 62: see now Andreau, J., ‘Le tremblement de terre de Pompéi (62 ap. J.-C.)’, Annales (Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations) xxviii (1973), 391Google Scholar f. N. Popidius Ampliatus, apparently a freedman, secured entry into the ordo for his son Celsinus, only six years old, as a result of the elder's reconstruction of the temple of Isis (CIL x, 846 = ILS 6367 = Onorato, G. O., Iscrizioni Pompeiane (Florence, 1957)Google Scholar, no. 51, with commentary on pp. 135–136); and C. Julius C.f. Polybius, from whose name servile ancestry has justifiably been inferred, stood for election as aedile in the latest period: CIL iv, 886; 449; cf. Wiseman, New Men in the Roman Senate 90, n. 3.

58 For the officina at Puteoli see P. L. Bruzza, Bull. Corr. Arch. 1875, 242 ff; for the date, between 40 and 20 B.C., Oxé, A., Rhein. Mus. lix (1904), 130Google Scholar. See further Dubois, PA 121; Frank, , ESAR v, 189Google Scholar f; Treggiari, S., Roman Freedmen in the Late Republic (Oxford, 1969), 91–92Google Scholar.

59 cf. C. Iulius C.f. Puteolanus, adlected into the ordo of Puteoli before his death in his seventeenth year (CIL x, 1804 = ILS 8236). Gordon believed that the honour stemmed from benefactions undertaken by the man's freedman father (JRS xxi (1931), 66–67)Google Scholar; it is more likely, given the concentration in the area of former slaves of the Caesars, that it was from association with the emperors that the family acquired local respectability; cf. Julius Capretanus et al., above nn. 49–50.

60 Stat, ., Silv. 3, 1, 91Google Scholar f.; 2, 2, 133 f.; for his villa at Surrentum cf. Silv. 2, 2. and RBN, 220–221.

61 Local office has been inferred from the mention of suffragia in Silv. 2, 2, 133: see e.g. P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2051; on Pollius' descent cf. Beloch, K. J., Campanien 2 (Breslau, 1890), 269;Google Scholar CILs., 1781.

62 Silv. 3 praef., 3, 1, 91–93 (wealth); 2, 2, 112–117; 95–97 (culture).

63 Dignitas senatoria: Silv. 4, 8, 59–62; Silv. 4, 8 celebrates the birth of a third child to Julius Menecrates, on whom see further PIR2 I 430.

64 Neapolitan property: Eph. Epigr. viii, 337 (= ILS 5798); RBN 221–222. Turba nepotum:Silv. 4 praef.

65 CIL x, 1574.

66 CIL x, 1563 (= ILS 6320).

67 Puteolan glass: Dubois, PA 124–125; Syrian production and Puteoli: Frank, , ESAR v, 196Google Scholar.

68 CIL x, 1576 ( = ILS 4326): ‘iussu Iovis optimi maximi Damasceni sacerdotes M. Nemonio M.f. Pal. Eutychiano sacerdoti, honorato equo publico ab imp. Antonino Aug. Pio p.p., adlecto in ordinem decurion. Puteolanor., aedili, M. Nemonius Callistus p(ater?) sacerdos remissa collatione.’

69 Lepore, E., ‘Orientamenti per la storia sociale di Pompei’, Pompeiana (Raccolta di studi per il secondo centenario degli scavi di Pompei) (Naples, 1950), 166Google Scholar. At Gigthis and Volubilis in Imperial times the self-perpetuating character of the municipal oligarchies is now clear: Jarrett, M. G., ‘Decurions and Priests’, AJP xcii (1971), 532–536Google Scholar.

70 Tac, , Ann. xiii, 48:Google Scholar ‘Isdem consulibus auditae Puteolanorum legationes, quas diversas ordo plebs ad senatum miserant, illi vim multitudinis, hi magistratum et primi cuiusque avaritiam increpantes. Easque seditio ad saxa et minas ignium progressa ne caedem et arma proliceret, C. Cassius adhibendo remedio delectus. Quia severitatem eius non tolerabant, precante ipso ad Scribonios fratres ea cura transfertur, data cohorte praetoria, cuius terrore et paucorum supplicio rediit oppidanis concordia.’ I have discussed this passage in The Ancient Historian and his Materials (essays in honour of C. E. Stevens, forthcoming).

71 CIL x, 1813–3154 are almost exclusively sepulcrales; 82 persons named in these 1341 texts are certainly ingenui, for filiation is explicit; i.e. a ratio of freedmen to freeborn of 16:1. The likelihood that a number of other persons among these texts were freeborn but did not make their ingenuitas explicit is counterbalanced by the fact that most of the texts mention more than one person. Even allowing for accidents of survival, for the uncertain provenience of some of the texts, for the likelihood that liberti were more anxious to erect funeral monuments as a mark of newly acquired status (Taylor, L. R., ‘Freedmen and Freeborn in the Epitaphs of Rome’, AJP lxxxii, 1961, 129–30)Google Scholar, and for the fact that the proportion of freeborn is much higher in the approximately 300 dedications, decrees, and career inscriptions which precede the sepulcrales in CIL x (more than one half of the persons named in these texts are ingenui), the large number of liberti in Puteolan inscriptions remains impressive. Further, a ratio of 10:1 is maintained in the major additions to Puteoli's inscriptions published since 1883, the date of the appearance of CIL x. See Eph. Epigr. viii, 387–424; AJA ii (1898), 374Google Scholar f.: 3 certain ingenui in a total of 36 texts; AJA lxxvii (1973), 151Google Scholar f.: 9 of 37 Puteolani are freeborn; in the wax tablets from Pompeii (above n. 21) only 5 of the more than 60 persons known thus far are freeborn, the remainder liberti or servi. I. Kajanto has employed criteria in addition to filiation in determining freeborn, as opposed to freedmen and uncertain status, at Puteoli (although he does not stipulate whether he has exploited epigraphical material in addition to that of CIL x): his figures show that approximately one person in seven was ingenuus (‘The Significance of non-Latin Cognomina’, Latornus xxvii, 1968, 523)Google Scholar.

72 Stat, ., Silv. 3, 5, 75–76Google Scholar.

73 For the sources, see P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2044, 2053–54.

74 See Gordon, M. L., ‘The Ordo of Pompeii’, JRS xvii (1927), 178Google Scholar.

75 CIL x, 2472, 2473.

76 CIL x, 1784 (= ILS 6334); 1785 (= ILS 6333). Further advancement of this family is a distinct possibility. Curtius Crispinus, the equestrian husband of Gavia M.f. Marciana (x, 1784), was perhaps the father, as Stein suggested, of a similarly named man of senatorial rank, known to us from a fragment of priestly fasti datable to the reign of Commodus: CIL vi, 32321; Stein, A., Der römische Ritterstand (Munich, 1927), 133Google Scholar.

77 Hatzfeld, , BCH xxxvi (1912), 22Google Scholar; CIL x, 1796; AJA lxxvii (1973), 161–62 (no. II)Google Scholar; CIL x, 1786.

78 CIL x, 1631 (a vicus bore their name); 1797 (trade with the east), 1613 (L. Calpurnius built the temple to Augustus); 1784 (the decurion).

79 For example, the Cluvii: N. Cluvius M'. f. held magistracies in a number of Campanian towns, including Puteoli, in the early first century B.C. (CIL x, 1573 = ILLRP 561; x, 1572 = ILLRP 182); M. Cluvius of Puteoli left property to Cicero in 45 B.c. (Cic, ., ad Att. 13, 48,Google Scholar I, etc; cf. RBN 52–53). But of the four Puteolan epitaphs recording members or freedmen of the gens (x, 2305–07, 2511) only one is likely to be later than the first century; and aside from an early imperial magistrate at Nola (x, 1233, dated to 32), Cluvii are rare elsewhere in Campania. With the death of M. Cluvius the family's days in Puteoli may have ended—as is suggested, indeed, by the large number of extra-familial legatees who shared bequests with Cicero. N. Fufidius N.f., and Q. Fuficius Q.f., were in positions of influence in 105 B.C. (CIL x, 1781); later Fuficii are extremely rare in Puteoli (see NSc, 1926, 233 f.), Fufidii unattested. But the names occur in inscriptions of Naples, Herculaneum, Pompeii and Capua: perhaps only collateral branches of these families settled in Puteoli, in insufficient numbers to establish durable local prominence.

80 E.g. the Vestorii. The economic importance of C. Vestorius Puteolanus in eastern and local markets through the Augustan period was considerable (CIL x, 1631: regio vici Vestoriani …; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2048), but the name is subsequently extremely rare in the local inscriptions. C. Vestorius Priscus was aedile in the latest period of Pompeii: if, as was suggested long ago, he was a direct linear descendant of Cicero's banking friend, the family will have left the town (Gordon, , JRS xvii (1927), 173;Google Scholar for the Pompeian aedile, whose tomb stands outside the Vesuvian gate, cf. NSc. 1910, 402). It will be recalled, furthermore, that the owner of the Murecine villa near Pompeii appears to have lived and worked in Puteoli between 35 and 61: for the villa, see Elia, O., RAAN N.S. xxxv (1960), 29Google Scholar ff.

81 Annius Modestus, Annius Numisianus, Annius Proculus, T. Aufidius Thrasea, M. Caecilius Publiolus Fabianus, Calpurnius Pistus, A. Clodius Maximus, Cossutius Rufinus, Q. Granius Atticus, Granius Longinus, T. Hordeonius Secundus Valentinus, M. Laelius Atimetus, P. Manlius Egnatius Laurinus, T. Oppius Severus, Cn. Papirius Sagitta, M. Stlaccius Albinus, Viguetius Liberalis. This statistic requires special emphasis in the light of Gordon's misleading observation (JRS xxi (1931), 70)Google Scholar that ‘among the decurions and municipal officials of Italy whose names are known to us from the inscriptions, about 33 per cent may be suspected of servile descent at Ostia, Puteoli, and Capua …’

82 ILS 9014: ‘T. Caesio T. fil. T. n. L. abn. Pal. Anthiano … Puteolani pub[lice] civi indigenae’ (early third century). Three generations are attested only rarely: CIL x, 1792 (C. Avianius C. f. C. n. Flaccus, Augustan: D'Arms, J. H., HSCP lxxvi, 1972, 207Google Scholar f.); CIL x, 1685, (= ILS 1397); 1686, L. Bovius 1. f. L. n. Celer, Domitianic: Pflaum, H. G., Les carrières procuratoriennes équestres i (Paris, 1960), 126–128Google Scholar (no. 55).

83 M. Fabius Firmus was among the decurions in the late second century: CIL x, 1783.

84 The children of Gavius Puteolanus (above, n. 76) were M. Gavius Fabius Justus and Gavia Fabia Rufina, respectively: it is likely that their mother belonged to the distinguished local branch of the Fabii (see preceding note). If so, it might be conjectured that Gavius Puteolanus, as a new man, was anxious to contract marriage ties with a family better established in local politics. So also, perhaps, L. Bovius Celer, an eques and local dignitary of the Domitianic period (see n. 82): his wife, Sextia L.f. Nerula was in all probability of a highly respectable local family: a porticus Sextiana, which must have been the benefaction of a prominent member of the gens, stood in Puteoli in 51 (Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlv (1970), 221–223)Google Scholar.

85 See above, p. 109 and below, p. 116.

86 P. Castren's study, Ordo Populusque Pompeianus:a Study of Social Structure, is to appear in Helsinki, probably during 1974; cf. Annales E.S.C. xxviii (1973), 391,Google Scholar n. 109. Castrén reports that 16 of the 160 families known to have held office (which he estimates to be more than 70 per cent of the total number of families which produced magistrates) are prominent in both periods, namely the Caecilii, Casellii, Cuspii, Gavii, Herennii, Holconii, Loreii, Marii, Popidii, Sallustii, Septumii (Septimii), Sextilii, Trebii, Veidii (Vedii), Veranii, and Vibii.

87 Meiggs, RO 193 (Lucilii Gamalae); 196 (Egrilii, on whom see also Zevi, F., MEFR lxxxii (1970), 279CrossRefGoogle Scholar f.); 199 (C. Fabii).

88 ibid. 209.

89 For Augustan policies see P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2043; RBN 81–82. The Augustan colony, long a matter of dispute, is now unequivocally attested: Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlv (1970), 219 (no. 6,Google Scholar 11. 24–25): ‘actum in colonia Iulia Augusta Put(e)olis’ (A.D. 36).

90 Petr., Sat. 76; on which see Veyne, P., ‘Vie de Trimalcion’, Annales E.S.C. xvi (1961), 213–247,Google Scholar substantially modifying the view of Rostovtzeff, SEHRE2 57–58.

91 Consul: Proculus, T. Aquillius (CIL x, 1699;Google Scholar PIR2 A 1000; the year of office is unknown but his funeral monument suggests a mid-second-century date). Cf. A. Aquili[u]s Proculus, decurio in 196, CIL x, 1786. Senators: For Granius Petro, q. des. for 46 B.C., see n. 30 above; I argue in an article forthcoming in Historia that Hordeonius Flaccus, legatus Germaniae superioris in 68 (Tac, ., Hist, i, 9Google Scholar etc.) came from Puteoli. For the Puteolan connections of C. Egnatius Certus (suff. ann. inc.), see Eph. Epigr. viii, 376; PIR2 E 20; RBN 212. Note also the Caesonii, two of whom held proconsulships in Africa in first half of the third century: CIL xiv, 3902 = ILS 1186; PIR2 C 209, a L. Caesonius C. fil. Quir., curator rei publicae [P]uteolanorum; CIL x, 1687 = ILS 1206; PIR2 C 212, son of the foregoing, L. Caesonius L.f. Quir. Quintus Rufinus Manlius Bassus; cf. also PIR2 C 210. For earlier presence of the gens at Puteoli, cf. CIL x, 1923 (a faber tignarius); x, 1874 = ILS 6330 (an Augustalis); x, 2198, 2200, 3580 (gravestones); and especially Giordano, , RAAN N.S. xlv (1970), 221:Google Scholar a chalcidicum Caesonianum stood in Puteoli's forum in 51.

92 For the equites see above, n. 54 (Cn. Haius Diadumenianus); C. Aelius Gaurus (Eph. Epigr. viii, 368 = ILS 2748); M. Artorius Priscillus Vicasius Sabidianus (CIL vi, 32939 = ILS 2700; Pflaum, , Carr. proc. eq. 185–86, no. 88)Google Scholar; M. Bassaeus Axius (CIL x, 1795 = ILS 1401; PIR2 B 68; Pflaum, , Carr. proc. eq., 552, no. 207)Google Scholar; Celer, L. Bovius (CIL x, 1685Google Scholar = ILS 1397; PIR2 B 149, and see above, no. 82); T. Caesius Anthianus (ILS 9014; Pflaum, , Carr. proc. eq., 827, no. 321)Google Scholar; L. Valerius Valerianus, equestrian praefectus Mesopotamiae et Osroenae under Caracalla or slightly later, and perhaps descended from M. Valerius Pudens, Ilvir in 161 (CIL x, 1814; Duncan-Jones, R. P., CP lxiv (1969), 229Google Scholar f., ibid. CP lxv (1970), 107 f; see further Reynolds, J. M., JRS lxi (1971), 147Google Scholar.) For all of the above, working posts are attested, usually in combination with municipal responsibilities. In contrast, the following equites held no administrative posts in the equestrian cursus: L. Annius Modestus (CIL x, 1782), Curtius Crispinus (CIL x, 1784 = ILS 6334), M. Gavius Fabius Justus (CIL x, 1785 = ILS 6333), and Veratius A.f. Severianus (CIL x, 3704 = ILS 5054; Mommsen assigned the stone to Cumae—with hestiation, since mention of the duovirate is inappropriate to Cumae, where the chief magistrates were praetores. Puteoli is the more likely city of origin, particularly since the deus patrius mentioned in line 6 is now certainly attested in Puteoli: see PdP xxvii (1972), 255 ff.)

93 T. P. Wiseman has persuasively shown that for the late Republic ‘the prejudice against senatorial participation in commerce was neither universal nor applied in practice’ (New Men in the Roman Senate, 78), and argues also that viri municipales in important towns near the locations of senatorial villas (31, 47–50), as well as those placed in strategic positions near the main trunk roads (28), could cement ties with Roman dignitaries and so prepare for their eventual entry into the senate. Puteoli was especially favoured in these respects; yet only one of Wiseman's 563 entries (Granius Petro, above, n. 30) was a Puteolanus. That we happen to know of no others may be no more than an accident of our evidence; but perhaps one ought to distinguish the activities of men already within the senate from those of municipales anxious to rise. Among the latter the practice of artes inhonestae might well continue to impede political advancement—as Wiseman himself recognizes (82).

94 P-W ‘Puteoli’, 2053–54.

95 See e.g. Hammond, M., JRS xlvii (1957), 74Google Scholar f., with a summary of the period A.D. 64–235; White, A. N. Sherwin-, The Letters of Pliny: a Historical and Social Commentary (Oxford, 1966), 377–78,Google Scholar with refs. ad loc. For oriental senators, see now Bowersock, G. W., Augustus and the Greek World (Oxford, 1965), 141–145Google Scholar. The period 60–138 has been most recently studied by Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970)Google Scholar.

96 CIL x, 1792, on which see D'Arms, J. H., lxxvi HSCP (1972), 207Google Scholar f.; for L. Avianius Flaccus Pontianus, duovir at Pompeii in an unknown year, cf. CIL x, 1064 = ILS 5382, on which see Onorato, , Iscrizioni Pompeiane 139, no. 58Google Scholar.

97 See above, n. 42; CIL x, 1403 (Herculaneum), with Lepore, E., PdP x (1955), 430Google Scholar. For the economic effects at Puteoli of the destruction of the Vesuvian towns in 79, see below, p. 121.

98 CIL x, 1208.

99 CIL x, 3699. This onomastic diffusion throughout Campania has been discussed briefly, for Neapolis, by Lepore, E., in Storia di Napoli i, 302–3Google Scholar with n. 16, 364.

100 On Puteoli's tribe cf. P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2042, where it is emphasized that the presence of some persons in Falerna may have been due to the expansion of Puteolan territory under Vespasian to include that which was previously part of Capua (where the tribe is also Falerna). But see Taylor, Voting Districts 323, who correctly observes that no occurrences of Falerna in Puteoli's inscriptions can be dated later than the first century A.D. For Ostia, cf. Meiggs, RO 190. The great ports of Italy—including Aquileia—show, as is to be expected, a heavy concentration of enrolments in Palatina.

101 CIL x, 2131 (Aufidius); 2640 (Laelius); 1806 (Hordeonius—if the restoration of the gentilicium is correct; cf. above, n. 35).

102 ILS 9014; CIL x, 1777 (notcertainly Puteolan); CIL x, 1795 = ILS 1401.

103 CIL x, 1877, a dedication to Q. Insteius Diadumenus by his heirs, is dated to the year 176; x 1872, the funeral altar of M. Antonius Trophimus and his wife, carries their portraits which on stylistic grounds—the drilling of the eyes, plasticity of drapery, length of the busts, coiffure, depth and rounded setting of the portraits—can scarcely be earlier than the time of M. Aurelius; and in quality it bears comparison with contemporary metropolitan monuments.

104 Note, for example, the following dedications, none of them erected by persons known to have been member s of ruling families: CIL x, 2191, 2220, 2338, 2343, 2462, 2492, 2500, 2782, 2858, 2878, 2998, 3142; Eph. Epigr. viii, 394; AJA ii (1898), 377, 384Google Scholar.

105 CIL x, 1784 (= ILS 6334); x, 1785 (= ILS 6333).

106 CIL x, 1782.

107 CILx, 1783 (= ILS 5919).

108 The exact meaning of solarium aedifici is uncertain: see Ruiz, V. Arangio, FIRA iii 2, no. III;Google Scholar for ‘ground rent’, cf. Digest 43, 8, 2, 17; 7, 1, 7, 2 etc.

109 Eph. Epigr. viii, 371.

110 CIL x, 1786.

111 CIL x, 1783 (above, n. 107): in curia f(uerunt) n(umero) LXXXXII; the economic implications of this figure are stressed also in P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2042.

112 e.g., CIL x, 1594: two private citizens, in the reign of Pius, donate columns, epistyle and entrance court of a temple; x, 1585 (211–212): dedication by the priestess Stlaccia to the Thiasos Placidianus; x, 521 (= ILS 6325, surely Puteolan: AJP lxxxviii [1967], 195Google Scholar f.): a dedication by the regio Hortensiana to a patron. Cf. also x, 1787 (honours to Cn. Tettius).

113 CIL x, 1633; 1634.

114 Eph. Epigr. viii, 360; the second inscription, discovered in 1972, is unpublished.

115 CIL x, 1642, 1643; see further Dubois, PA 61; cf. also Maiuri, A., ‘L'anfiteatro flavio puteolano’, Memorie dell'Accad. di Arch., Lett. e Belle Arti di Napoli iii (1955), 47,Google Scholar for late-second-century evidence from the amphitheatre.

116 Eusebeia: SHA, Hadr. 27; Artemid, ., Oneir. 1, 26;Google Scholar IG xiv, 737, line 7; for the inscriptions see P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2052, citing Moretti, L., Iscrizioni agonistiche greche (Rome 1953)Google Scholar, nos. 73, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84, 87, 88, 90.

117 CIL x, 1647.

118 Meiggs, RO 79; CIL x, 1648 (dedication by Fl(avius) Pytheas); de Franciscis, A., Bollettino d'Arte xxxvii (1952), 290–92Google Scholar (bust of Commodus).

119 CIL x, 1650; 1651 (196).

120 SHA, Tac. 19, 5;Google Scholar cf. 7, 5–6: RBN 158, 108.

121 CIL x, 1655. Fourth-century revival: Napoli, M., Bollettino d'Arte xliv (1959), 113, n. 1;Google ScholarRBN 121–22, n. 27. Evidence continues to accumulate: see Camodeca, G., Atti dell'Accad. Sci. Mor. Pol. Napoli lxxxii, (1971), 1Google Scholar ff.; D'Arms, J. H., PdP xxvii (1972) 258,Google Scholar with n. 3. Note also that Puteoli heads the list of the cities which benefited from Constantinian repairs to the Serino aqueduct: the implication is that the city was the most important of those served in the region (so also I. Sgobbo, NSc. 1938, 80).

122 The third largest of its kind in Italy, with an estimated seating capacity of 40,000–60,000 persons: A. Maiuri (above, n. 115), 9 ff.; Dubois, PA, 315 f.; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2058.

123 P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2058; Dubois, PA 286 f.; Ward-Perkins, J. B., in Etruscan and Roman Architecture (London, 1970), 298:Google Scholar imported granite and Carystian marble columns in the Severan phase of the macellum.

124 Maiuri (above, n. 115), 66–7; 69. Corinthian capitals, in the Asiatic style, which appear in the Severan period at Ostia, have been compared with the remains of a second-century temple discovered in Via Terraciano at Puteoli: Pensabene, P., Scavi di Ostia vii (Rome 1973), 237Google Scholar f.; 233, n. 14; 244, n. 18.

125 Maiuri, NSc (1927), 320 for the total area of the complex; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2059.

126 See n. 115, above, for dedications by the collegium scabillariorum; n. 4 (repairs of the harbour); n. 116 (Eusebeia); n. 112 (temple of Serapis).

127 CIL x, 1784 (187): in templo divi Pii; the temple of Augustus, however, was constructed probably during his lifetime (CIL x, 1613–14; P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2052).

128 A. De Franciscis, NSc. 1954, 285 f., on which see now Gilliam, J. F., CP lviii (1963), 26–28Google Scholar.

129 The stucco decoration in a number of the tombs confirms what the masonry suggests: the majority of the structures date from the Flavian epoch (Ling, R., PBSR N.S. xxi [1966], 28)Google Scholar, but later specimens are known: Maiuri, NSc (1927), 326 f. (a tomb of Antonine date on the Via delle Vigne); J. B. Ward-Perkins (above, n. 123), 300–01 (Via Celle); and W. Johannowsky informs me that the expansion of the cemetery towards Quarto and Murano in the Flavian period (cf. CIL x, 1894: an ager religiosorum at Quarto) can be plotted by the surviving funeral monuments in the district, many of which are of second-century date. Cf. in general A. De Franciscis and Pane, R., Mausolei Romani in Campania (Naples 1957), 28Google Scholar f.

130 RBN 131–164.

131 Becatti, G., JRS li (1961), 205Google Scholar.

132 CIL x, 1562 (after 139; reused under Valentinian); x, 1655 (282–83; reinscribed in 355: x, 1695); x, 1696, 97 (mid-fourth century; the dates of the earlier inscriptions are unknown); PdP xxvii (1972), 255Google Scholar ff. (176; reinscribed in mid-fourth century); x, 1814 (161; x, 1815 dates from the second half of the fourth century); Eph. Epigr. viii, 365 (fourth century; the earlier text cannot be dated).

133 Sidon. Apollin. 59–61.

134 Purpurarii: P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2048; Dubois, PA 127–29; glass: P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2048; Dubois, PA 124–125; for the later imperial glass vases, manufactured in Puteoli and probably sold as souvenirs, see Picard, Ch., Latomus xviii (1959), 23–51Google Scholar. For other local manufacture, cf. Dubois, PA 117 ff.

135 On the roadways, completed by the reign of Trajan, see P-W, ‘Puteoli’, 2054.

136 Navicularii: Maiuri, NSc. 1927, 322; id., L'anfiteatro flavio Puteolano (above, n. 115), 54. Negotiatores: CIL x, 1931Google Scholar (negotiator et ferrariarum et vinariariae); x, 1872 (late Antonine negotiator sagarius); vascularius: M. Claudius Trypho, described in an unpublished inscription in Puteoli's amphitheatre as Augustalis dupliciarius, negotiator, vascularius, argentarius; mosaicists: Dubois, PA 123, citing CIL xiii, 3225 (Lillebonne); Maiuri, (above, n. 115) 47 (late-second-century work in the amphitheatre); marmorarii: CIL x, 1648. A ship wrecked off Torre Sgarrata near Taranto in the late second century was carrying nearly 170 tons of rough cut marble from Aphrodisias, and the size of this marble shipment does not seem to have been extraordinary: see Bass, G. F. (ed.) A History of Seafaring (London, 1972), 75–76Google Scholar. Cf. Eph. Epigr. viii, 405 (mercator); IG xiv, 841, 854 (naucleros).

137 Oriental Liber, early third century: CIL x, 1585; cf. 1583, 84; cf. also Maiuri (above, n. 115), 52–53; in general, Peterson, Cults 143 ff. Dusares: CIL x, 1556 (and unpublished examples in the amphitheatre at Pozzuoli); Juppiter Optimus Maximus Damascenus: x, 1576.

138 No IIviri are named in the late inscriptions; individual initiative seems to have given way to the benefactions of patroni, whose sources of wealth lay increasingly outside the city (cf. the generalized phrase ordo populusque in late inscriptions, e.g. CIL x, 1815). Of the seventeen known patroni of Puteoli, all but four fall within the period between 250 and 400, with the heaviest concentration in the latter portion of the fourth century: it is however clear that even in this period, when the gulf between rich and poor had widened, patroni were at work in general in the interests of preserving municipal amenities. Cf. Sherk, MD 85 ff.

139 Rostovtzeff, SEHRE 2 192 ff, especially 205–206; more recently and more convincingly, for the cities of Magna Grecia, Kahrstedt, U., Die Wirtschaftliche Lage Grossgriechenlands in der Kaiserzeit ( = Historia Einzelschrift 4, Wiesbaden 1960), 121Google Scholar ff. For Neapolis in the second century, cf. E. Lepore, in Storia di Napoli i, 314 ff. Cf. also Vogt, J., The Decline of Rome (tr. Sondheimer, J.; London, 1967), 21Google Scholar ff.

140 For the Campanian estates of C. Bruttius Praesens, see Pliny, , Ep. 7, 3, 1;Google ScholarRBN 204.

141 Cassiod, ., Varia 8, 33,Google Scholar 3 (‘industriosa… Campania’); 12, 22, 3 (‘Campania, urbis regiae cella penaria’). On the farming-systems employed in Campania, see Russell, G. E., The Classical Tradition in West European Farming (Newton Abbot, 1972), 31,Google Scholar with n. 22. Campania was exceptionally well endowed for the production of cereals (Pliny, , NH 18, 111)Google Scholar, and the land could thus be cropped all the year round, in a three course rotation consisting of barley-millet-turnips-barley or wheat: White, K. D., Roman Farming (London, 1970), 121Google Scholar f.

142 For the economy of Venice in the sixteenth century see Luzzatto, G., ‘La decadenza di Venezia dopo le scoperte geografiche’, Archivio Veneto 5th series, liv–v (1954), 162Google Scholar ff. (with earlier bibliography); id., Storia economica di Venezia dal XI al XVI secol (Venice, 1961); Stella, A., Archivio Veneto 5th series, lviii–ix (1956), 17–69;Google ScholarBraudel, F., ‘La vita economica di Venezia nel sec. XVI’, in La civiltà veneziana del Rinascimento (Florence, 1958)Google Scholar. On Palladian villas and their economic implications see Ackerman, J. S., Palladio (London, 1966), 48Google Scholar ff.

143 Above n. 139.