Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-w95db Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-14T07:55:31.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Enigmatic Sospes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

Ronald Syme
Ronald Syme
Affiliation:
Wolfson College, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Inscriptions found at Pisidian Antioch disclose the careers of several senators. They afford various instruction, the prime specimen being ‘] P.f. Stel. Sospes’. The stone was discovered by Hamilton, and it will be a suitable tribute to epigraphists if one reproduces the copy made by the careful and exemplary Sterrett.

P·F·STEL·SOS

TI·FETIALI·LEG·AVG

PRO·PR·PROVINC·GAL

PISID·PHRYG·LVC·ISAVR·

PAPHLAG·PONTI·GALA

PONTI·POLEMONIANI

ARM·LEG·LEG·XIII·GEM

DONAT·DON·MILITARIB

EXPEDIT·SVEBIC·ET·SARM

COR·MVR·COR·VALL·COR

AVR·HAST·PVR·TRIB·VE

XILL·TRIB·CVRAT·COLO

NIOR·ET·MVNICIPIOR·PRAE

FRVM·DAND·EX·S·C·PRAETOR

AED·CVRVL·Q·CRET·ET·C

TRIB·LEG·XXIII·PRIMIGEN

IIIVIR·A·A·A·FF·

THIASVS·LIB

The document touches large fields of imperial history, not mere dates and detail in the record of a single senator. Hence abundant debate, and it goes on. Economy and clarity counsel a direct approach to the text. The last two posts held by Sospes offer some prospect of precision.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 67 , November 1977 , pp. 38 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © Ronald Syme 1977. 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 Sterrett, J. R. S., An Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor (1888), 125, no. 98Google Scholar; then CIL III. 6818 = ILS 1017. The first two lines of the photograph of a squeeze are reproduced in JRS XV (1925), pl. XXXVI.

2 ILS 2719, cf. E. Ritterling, RE XII, 1444; Syme, R., JRS XVIII (1928), 47 fGoogle Scholar. Note also the ‘bellum Germa. et Sarmatic’ of CIL XI. 5992: the ‘priores principes’ who decorated this centurion, once only, are a euphemism for Domitian.

3 For the full evidence, Gsell, S., Essai sur le règne de l'empereur Domitien (1894), 224 fGoogle Scholar. The year 93 was advocated by Hanslik, R., Wiener Studien LXXXIII (1948), 126Google Scholar, also ‘93/4’ in RE VIII A, 603 f.; and ‘either 92 or 93’ occurs in Mócsy, A., Pannonia and Upper Moesia (1974), 85Google Scholar. An aberration.

4 Mommsen, , Hermes III (1869), 115Google Scholar = Ges. Schr. IV, 447; Dessau, ILS 1017 and PIR 1, S 567.

5 S. Gsell, op. cit., 227; Köstlin, E., Die Donaukriege Domitians (Diss. Tübingen, 1910), 20 f.Google Scholar; E. Ritterling, RE XII, 1716; Patsch, C., Wiener S-B 217, Abh. 1, 40Google Scholar; R. Syme, in CAH XI (1936), 177, in Danubian Papers (1971), 109, and elsewhere.

6 Noted in Hermes LXXXV (1957), 493 = Roman Papers (1977), 351 f. The diploma still lurks unpublished in the Museum at Sofia.

7 See below, Epilogue.

8 After the deposition of Aristobulus (PIR 2, A 1024) in 72—or perhaps in 71.

9 For Satala see now Mitford, T. B., JRS LIV (1974), 160 fGoogle Scholar.

10 As conjectured in Tacitus (1958), 31. See further Bowersock, G. W., JRS LXIII (1973), 134 fGoogle Scholar. For doubts, Kreiler, B., Die Statthalter Kleinasiens unter den Flaviern (Diss. München, 1975), 35 fGoogle Scholar.

11 For the list, Sherk, R. K., The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian (1951), 39 f.Google Scholar; Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970), 239Google Scholar. There is a gap between A. Caesennius Gallus (probably 80–3) and Ti. Julius Candidus Marius Celsus (suff. 86). P. Valerius Patruinus (suff. 82) is suggested by B. Kreiler, op. cit., 88 f.; Chiron IV (1974), 451 f. He went on to Syria, where he is attested in November of 88 (CIL XVI. 35). There is a chance that an Ignotus intervenes between Patruinus and Julius Candidus, who may not have been appointed until 89.

12 Dio LXVIII. 19. 1.

13 ILS 1041.

14 ILS 1039. Governor after being praetor and legate of a legion, therefore on the straight path to the consulate.

15 ILS 1038 (Antioch); L. Cossonius Gallus is revealed by AE 1928, 101 (Iconium). Identity is doubted in PIR 2, C 1541—and denied for Gallus, the suffectus of 119, in E 71. See, however, Historia XIV (1965), 345 = Danubian Papers (1971), 229; XVIII (1969). 359 = RP (1977), 781. In CIL VI. 32374 the consul suffect can stand as ‘C]o[ssoni]o Gallo’. Accepted by Eck, W., Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (1970), 185Google Scholar.

16 PIR 2, L 98. It is there suggested that Larcius Macedo might be identical with the Ignotus of ILS 1039.

17 ILS 8971.

18 AE 1964, 4 (Comana of Cappadocia). The inscription happens to show no post between quaestor and praetor. He is therefore described as ‘certe patricius’ in PIR 2, J 489a. Not likely.

19 ILS 8819, cf. the numerous inscriptions listed in PIR 2, J 507. The only exception is furnished by three milestones of Caesennius Gallus, which in fact were set up in Galatian territory (ILS 263; 268; CIL III. 1418448).

20 Ramsay, W. M., however, assumed him a iuridicus, JRS XIV (1924), 192Google Scholar); and by inadvertence he was included with Julius Quadratus and Julius Celsus in Tacitus (1958), 68, n. 5.

21 Magie, Thus D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1437Google Scholar.

22 Levick, B., Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor (1967), 230Google Scholar.

23 Add now AE 1968, 145 (Saepinum): the cursus of the legate M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa (suff. c. 75), showing ‘pro]vinciae Ca[.’ Furthermore, the whole complex is sometimes styled ‘the Cappadocian province’ (e.g. ILS 8819).

24 Only ILS 1017 includes Pontus Galaticus; and Isauria is elsewhere registered only on Pergamon VIII. 3, no. 21, the inscription of C. Julius Quadratus Bassus (suff. 105), governor from 108 to 111.

25 AE 1925, 126.

26 Martial IX. 30. 1 f. In 91 the ‘impia Cappadocum tellus’ had carried off Camonius Rufus of Bononia, aged twenty (VI. 85).

27 Seneca, Epp. 12, 8: ‘Pacuvius, qui Syriam usu suam fecit.’ Attested already in 19 as legate of VI Ferrata (Ann. II. 79. 2).

28 Strabo III, p. 166 f.

29 Ann. IV. 45. 1.

30 As argued in JRS XLVI (1956), 20 f. = Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 56 f.

31 Thus C. Caetronius Miccio (CIL II. 2423: Bracara), as restored and interpreted by Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (1969), 67 fGoogle Scholar. His next post was the command of II Augusta. That scholar puts L. Piso in the same category (ibid. 67).

32 Tacitus, Hist. II. 60.

33 Hence perhaps a brief tenure by a praetorian legate. That is Fulvus (AE 1952, 122), identified as T. Aurelius Fulvus (cos. II 85): previously legate of III Gallica in the East and in Moesia. For this conjecture, JRS XLVIII (1958), 8 = RP (1977), 389.

34 Josephus, BJ VII. 58, mentioning L. Caesennius Paetus (cos. 61).

35 Pliny, Epp. IX. 13. 11.

36 ILS 1055. At the same time C. Julius Proculus, having been ‘q. Augustorum’, turns up anomalously as laticlavius of IV Scythica (ILS 1040): clearly acting commander. For this reconstruction see Tacitus (1958), 16; 631 f.

37 And perhaps one, or two, more. L. Caesennius Paetus (cos. 61) is not heard of after 72; and Marius Celsus (suff. 69), attested in 73 (ILS 8903), cannot have had a long tenure.

38 Alföldy, G. and Halfmann, H., Chiron III (1973), 331 f.Google Scholar, interpreting a fragmentary inscription from Liria in Tarraconensis (AE 1973, 283). There is a chance, however, that Nigrinus was governor for a brief tenure from 89 to 90/1.

39 above, p. 40 n. 24.

40 viz. Q. Pomponius Rufus (suff. 95), cf. CIL XVI. 38.

41 As deduced from Dio LXVII II. 6, cf. Tacitus (1958), 69.

42 ILS 1041.

43 cf. hesitant remarks of Groag, PIR 2, C 558. If Catilius married the widow of Cn. Domitius Tullus (II suff. 98), who is mentioned in Pliny, Epp. VIII. 18. 8, he would become the stepfather of Domitia Lucilla (D 182), the grandmother of Marcus. For that conjecture, Historia XVII (1968), 95 = RP (1977). 683. A previous conjecture suggested that Catilius might have become a ‘substitute grandfather’ to Marcus by marrying Lucilla herself, cf. Tacitus (1958), 793.

44 cf. below, Epilogue.

45 One of the superior priesthoods often accrued about the time of a man's consulship.

46 ILS 995, cf. PIR 2, F 440.

47 As argued now by Griffin, M., Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics (1976), 230Google Scholar; 456 (reverting to Borghesi, against Stein in PIR 2, F 352).

48 The year of Q. Veranius and Pompeius Longinus Gallus.

49 Paetus arrived in 62, not in 61 (as argued by Groag in PIR 2, C 173).

50 Josephus, BJ VII. 220. He reached Syria late in 70 (ibid. 59).

51 Pliny, Epp. IV. 29; V. 4; 9; 12; VI. 5.

52 Identity is doubted by Sherwin-White in his commentary on Epp. IV. 29, denied in PIR 2, L 220. But the son of a novus homo (praetor in 105) is not likely to have reached the consulate as early as 127.

53 AE 1950, 66 (Mactar); IRT 545.

54 Pliny, Epp. VII. 3.

55 Arrian, fr. 85 (Roos). Cf. Historia XVIII (1969), 352 = RP (1977), 774.

56 Tacitus (1958), 243.

57 Dio LXVIII. 19. 2, with the reading of Gutschmid and Boissevain: to be accepted in the face of strong doubts expressed by Magie, , Roman Rule in Asia Minor (1950), 1464 fGoogle Scholar.

58 Rhandeia is supplied by Dio LXII. 21. 1. The name is unique. For the site, Kiessling, RE IA, 227 f.

59 Ann. XV. 28. 2.

60 Ann. XV. 10. 3; 13. 1.

61 Pliny, Pan. 67. 5: ‘egit cum dis ipso te auctore, Caesar, res publicaut te sospitem incolumemque praestarent.’

62 Ann. VI. 7. 2.

63 Only one other specimen occurs, viz. L. Casperius Innocens (CIL XIV. 2337), cf. Kajanto, I., The Latin Cognomina (1965), 252Google Scholar.

64 Suetonius, , Otho 10. 1Google Scholar.

65 Lucretius I. 31; Lucan I. 171. Observe ‘domi res tranquillae’ (Ann. I. 3. 7), the sole occurrence of the word in Tacitus.

66 For an attempt to put his birth as early as 61 or 62, see Baldwin, B., Acta Classica XVIII (1975), 67Google Scholar.

67 CIL III. 6793 (territory of Lystra); VI. 1057. 7, l. 49. Cf. I. Kajanto, op. cit. (n. 63), 232.

68 CIL VI. 2162.

69 CIL VI. 13937.

70 See Historia XIII (1964), 113 = RP (1977), 590 f., where the Antonian partisan Caesennius Lento is discussed, also a Caesennius proscribed for his wealth (Appian, BC IV. 115), the latter absent from RE. For the family tomb, Torelli, M., Studi Etruschi XXXVI (1968), 469Google Scholar.

71 Pro Caecina 10; 27.

72 CIL XI. 3415 f.; 7569. Add now the dedication on a bronze altar at Graviscae: ‘Isi et Serapi | Caesennia L.f. Prisca | Vitellia Sp. f. Ingenua | Caesennii Prisci | s.p.p.,’ Not. Scavi (1971), 210.

73 AE 1973, 141 f.

74 viz. Junius Paetus (suff. 127); (?Junius) Paetus (suff. 154); (?D.) Junius Paetus (suff. 145): PIR 2, J 790 f. The first of these, it is there suggested, might have been a ‘D. Junius L. Caesennius Paetus’ and related to L. Caesennius Antoninus (suff. 128).

75 ILS 2927.

76 For 61, Weidemann, U., Acta Classica XVIII (1975), 149 f.Google Scholar; for an earlier date in preference, Eck, W., Historia XXIV (1975), 343 fGoogle Scholar.

77 viz. P. Marius and L. Afinius Gallus.

78 AE 1968, 6 (Fasti Ostienses). Hence his governorship of Tarraconensis (AE 1939, 60) should probably run from 74 to 77.

79 Tacitus (1958), 387; 743. In the Annales as extant Vibius Crispus only crops up in annotation on his equestrian brother (XIV. 28. 2).

80 Tacitus, Dial. 8. 3: ‘cum quadam reverentia diliguntur’.

81 PIR 2, C 174.

82 Josephus, BJ II. 510; 513; III. 31.

83 At least on the showing of Josephus.

84 BJ VI. 237 (the legates of V, X, and XV).

85 BJ VII. 18 f.

86 PIR 2, A 170; R. K. Sherk, op. cit. (n. n), 46 f. The fourth milestone shows that he has become XV vir s.f. (CIL III. 1418448).

87 Compare L. Funisulanus Vettonianus who commanded IV Scythica in the army of Caesennius Paetus (Ann. XV. 7. 1): not consul until 78.

88 Tacitus, Agr. 40. 1.

89 CIL XVI. 30; 28.

90 For the cursus of M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa, see the new inscription from Saepinum, published by Torelli, M. in JRS LVIII (1968), 170 f.Google Scholar, whence AE 1968, 145. Torelli suggested that Fronto might have been legate of VI Ferrata in 69. Which is attractive. But it is not certain, as he assumes (ibid. 174), that Caesennius Gallus was still legate of XII Fulminata.

91 W. Eck, op. cit. (n. 11), 144.

92 To be sure, this man might be a grandson of the consul of 79.

93 ILS 1095.

94 Pliny, Epp. I. 18. 3: Not. Scav. 1950, 70.

95 Tacitus (1958), 301 f.; 478 f.

96 Ann. IV. 5. 2: ‘dehinc initio ab Suria usque ad flumen Euphraten, quantum ingenti terrarum sinu ambitur, quattuor legionibus coercita, accolis Hibero Albanoque et aliis regibus qui magnitudine nostra proteguntur adversum externa imperia’. See further ‘How Tacitus wrote Annals I–III’, Publications de la Faculté de Lettres, Université de Louvain (1977), forthcoming.

97 Ann. XV. 6. 4.

98 Dio LXVIII. 20. 3.

99 Including Caesennius Gallus. But the ‘Caesennius Maximus’ in a long list of persons banished after Piso's conspiracy (Ann. XV. 71. 5) and registered as PIR 2, C 172 is more safely to be regarded as a Caesonius (Martial VII. 44. 1): the historian himself, not a scribe, may have made an error. Martial terms the man an ex-consul (VII. 44. 6).

100 Ann. III. 18. 4.

101 Early Vespasianic, R. K. Sherk, op. cit. (n. 11), 90; for the time of Marcus, A. Mócsy, op. cit. (n. 3), 102. It may be recalled that Domaszewski long ago assigned ILS 1017 to the reign of Antoninus Pius.

102 HA, Hadr. 6. 6, adduced by Pflaum, H. G., Historia II (1954), 431 fGoogle Scholar. (at 435). He was followed by Dobiáš, J., Omagiu lui C. Daicoviciu (1960), 147 fGoogle Scholar. For brief disagreement, Danubian Papers (1971), 109.

103 HA, Hadr. 6. 8: ‘cum rege Roxolanorum, qui de imminutis subsidiis querebatur, cognito negotio pacem fecit’.

104 Warfare on the borders of Dacia in 117/8 happens to be attested by the inscription on Julius Quadratus Bassus, (Pergamon VII. 3Google Scholar, no. 21); and there is the ensuing command of the knight Marcius Turbo, embracing Dacia and Pannonia Inferior. Not strictly relevant, however, to the interpretation of HA, Hadr. 6. 6 f.—and the date of ILS 1017 was subsequently modified by the author of the theory.

105 cf. above, p. 39. For his dating of Sospes Pflaum was under constraint to deny that Gallus (ILS 1038 was Gallus the suffectus of 119, op. cit. (n. 102), 434.

106 Pflaum, H. G., Bonner HAC 1968/9 (1970), 184 fGoogle Scholar. Endorsed by W. Eck, op. cit. (n. 3), 11.

107 Emperors and Biography (1971), 126 f.

108 R. Hanslik, RE, Supp. X, 1089: ‘Tr. trennte, wahrscheinlich auch schon im Hinblick auf seinen geplanten Partherkrieg, im J. 110 die beiden Gebiete.’

109 Thus, following Pflaum's revised dating, W. Eck, op. cit. (n. 3), 10 f.; RE, Supp. XIV, 81.

110 H. G. Pflaum, op. cit. (n. 102), 431: ‘il vaut mieux nous reporter au document rate.’

111 e.g., E. Kornemann, RE IV, 1807.

112 e.g., E. Kornemann, op. cit., 1780 (following Hirschfeld); M. P. Charlesworth in CAH X (1934), 468; Momigliano, A., Claudius, the Emperor and his Achievement (1934), 50, cf. 107Google Scholar; van Berchem, D., Les distributions de blé (1939), 72Google Scholar; 77.; H. G. Pflaum, op. cit. (n. 102), 441; 449. Also PIR 2, J 523 (M. Julius Romulus).

113 See the list appended to Pflaum's paper.

114 Vigorous dissent was raised by G. E. F. Chilver, AJP LXX (1949), 7 f. His interpretation of AE 1925, 85 (the career of M. Julius Romulus) was not noticed by Pflaum in 1954, op. cit. (n. 102), 446 f.

115 ILS 1017 was omitted by McCrum and Woodhead, Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors (1961).

116 The earliest known curator of the Latina belongs c. 95 (Statius, , Silvae IV. 4. 60Google Scholar). For the full list, Pflaum, , Corolla Memoriae Erich Swoboda Dedicata (1966), 188 fGoogle Scholar.