Foreign Clientelae in the Roman Empire Foreign Clientelae in The

Home , Ernst Badian

Since the publication of Ernst Badian’s publicationofErnst Since the hanced the positionandinfluenceof hanced the relationshipsen- these assumed that Empire.to Moreover, controlthe itis but alsoheavily inorder relieduponthem of patronage ( andlanguage form inthe Mediterranean communitiesalloverrelations with the ingly, Rome not only conceptualized her Roman Empire.studies ofthe Accord- for dominantinterpretation become the provincial elites ofthe members has tions between Roman senators and in 1958, rela- personal hisemphasis onthe study“Foreigngroundbreaking hanced the positionandinfluenceof hanced the relationshipsen- these assumed that Empire.to Moreover, controlthe itis but alsoheavily inorder relieduponthem of patronage ( andlanguage form inthe Mediterranean communitiesalloverrelations with the ingly, Rome not only conceptualized her Roman Empire.studies ofthe Accord- for dominantinterpretation become the provincial elites ofthe members has tions between Roman senators and in 1958, rela- personal hisemphasis onthe study“Foreigngroundbreaking Badian’s publicationofErnst Since the hanced the positionandinfluenceof hanced the relationshipsen- these assumed that Empire.to Moreover, controlthe itis but alsoheavily inorder relieduponthem of patronage ( andlanguage form inthe Mediterranean communitiesalloverrelations with the ingly, Rome not only conceptualized her Roman Empire.studies ofthe Accord- for dominantinterpretation become the provincial elites ofthe members has tions between Roman senators and in 1958, rela- personal hisemphasis onthe study“Foreigngroundbreaking Badian’s publicationofErnst Since the amicitia, patronus, cliens amicitia, patronus, cliens amicitia, patronus, cliens Clien telae Clien telae Clien telae ) ” ) ” ) ” appropriately. more same timeassessingitssignificance analysing “Foreign for offers afreshapproach volume thus Empire seemsto beoverestimated. The Romans for andfornomenon both the the phe- ofthe importance andthe tained clientelae for usualmethods identifyingforeign the studies. Asaresult,itbecomesclearthat appli cation by meansofdifferent case- aswell paradigma asitsactual of this some underlying assumptions theoretical reexamine 18 from6countries authors volume, home.Inthis Roman noblesback appropriately. more same timeassessingitssignificance analysing “Foreign for offers afreshapproach volume thus Empire seemsto beoverestimated. The Romans for andfornomenon both the the phe- ofthe importance andthe tained clientelae for usualmethods identifyingforeign the studies. Asaresult,itbecomesclearthat appli cation by meansofdifferent case- aswell paradigma asitsactual of this some underlying assumptions theoretical reexamine 18 from6countries authors volume, home.Inthis Roman noblesback appropriately. more same timeassessingitssignificance analysing “Foreign for offers afreshapproach volume thus Empire seemsto beoverestimated. The Romans for andfornomenon both the the phe- ofthe importance andthe tained clientelae for usualmethods identifyingforeign the studies. Asaresult,itbecomesclearthat appli cation by meansofdifferent case- aswell paradigma asitsactual of this some underlying assumptions theoretical reexamine 18 from6countries authors volume, home.Inthis Roman noblesback by identicnamescannot besus- by identicnamescannot besus- Franz Steiner Verlag www.steiner-verlag.de by identicnamescannot besus- Franz Steiner Verlag www.steiner-verlag.de 9 Franz Steiner Verlag www.steiner-verlag.de 9 isbn 978-3-515-11061-7 9 7 isbn 978-3-515-11061-7 8 isbn 978-3-515-11061-7 7 Clientelae 7 8 3 Clientelae 8 5 3 Clientelae 3 5 1 5 5 1 1 5 5 1 ” while at the ” whileatthe 1 1 1 ” while at the ” whileatthe 0 1 ” while at the ” whileatthe 1 0 6 0 6 1 6 7 1 1 7 7 Hist 238 Hist Hist

Martin Jehne / 238 -E Martin Jehne / 238 Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire Martin Jehne / -E Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire Francisco Pina Polo -E Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire Francisco Pina Polo Franz Steiner Verlag Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag Alte Geschichte Franz Steiner Verlag Alte Geschichte in the Roman Empire in the Francisco PinaPolo Edited Jehneand by Martin Reconsideration A Foreign in the Roman Empire in the Francisco PinaPolo Edited Jehneand by Martin Reconsideration A Foreign in the Roman Empire in the Francisco PinaPolo Edited Jehneand by Martin Reconsideration A Foreign clientelae clientelae clientelae Historia –Einzelschriften 238 Historia –Einzelschriften 238 Historia –Einzelschriften 238

Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire Edited by Martin Jehne and Francisco Pina Polo historia Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte | Revue d’histoire ancienne | Journal of Ancient History | Rivista di storia antica einzelschriften Herausgegeben von Kai Brodersen, Erfurt | Mortimer Chambers, Los Angeles | Mischa Meier, Tübingen | Bernhard Linke, Bochum | Walter Scheidel, Stanford

Band 238 Foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire

A Reconsideration

Edited by Martin Jehne and Francisco Pina Polo

Franz Steiner Verlag Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek: Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über abrufbar.

Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist unzulässig und strafbar. © Franz Steiner Verlag, Stuttgart 2015 Satz: DTP +TEXT, Eva Burri Druck: AZ Druck und Datentechnik, Kempten Gedruckt auf säurefreiem, alterungsbeständigem Papier. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-515-11061-7 (Print) ISBN 978-3-515-11062-4 (E-Book) TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Contributors ...... 9

Martin Jehne / Francisco Pina Polo Introduction ...... 11

1. Clientela at Rome and in the Provinces: Some Methodological and Historiographical Remarks

Francisco Pina Polo Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique ...... 19

Angela Ganter Decline and Glorification: Patron-Client Relationships in the Roman Republic ...... 43

2. Rome and Italy: Interstate Relations and Individual Connections

Hans Beck Beyond ‘Foreign Clienteles’ and ‘Foreign Clans’. Some Remarks on the Intermarriage between Roman and Italian Elites ...... 57

Fernando Wulff Alonso Italians in Badian’s Foreign Clientelae ...... 73

Wolfgang Blösel The Etruscan and Italic Clientelae of Scipio Africanus Maior (Livy 28.45) – A Fiction? ...... 93

3. Foreign Clientelae in the Western Empire: Hispania, Gaul and Africa

Estela García Fernández Client Relationships and the Diffusion of Roman Names in Hispania. A Critical Review ...... 107

Enrique García Riaza Foreign Cities. Institutional Aspects of the Roman Expansion in the Iberian Peninsula (218–133 B. C.) ...... 119 6 Table of Contents

Francisco Beltrán Lloris The Hospitium Publicum of Gades and Cornelius Balbus ...... 141

Michel Christol Foreign clientelae, la Gaule méridionale: un modèle d’intégration ? ...... 153

Frédéric Hurlet Le gouverneur et les clientèles provinciales : la province romaine d’Afrique de sa création à Auguste (146 av. J.-C. – 14 ap. J.-C.) ...... 165

Arnaud Suspène L’apport de la documentation numismatique à l’étude des Foreign Clientelae : le cas de Juba II de Maurétanie ...... 185

4. Amicitia and Foreign Clientelae in the Eastern Mediterranean

Michael Snowdon Beyond Clientela: The Instrumentality of Amicitia in the Greek East ...... 209

Paul Burton Nabis, Flamininus, and the Amicitia between Rome and Sparta ...... 225

Claudia Tiersch Von personaler Anbindung zu territorialer Organisation? Dynamiken römischer Reichsbildung und die Provinzialisierung Zyperns (58 v. Chr.) ...... 239

5. The Impact of Foreign Clientelae in Rome: Political and Military Aspects

Cristina Rosillo-López Reconsidering Foreign Clientelae as a Source of Status in the City of Rome During the Late Roman Republic ...... 263

Jonathan R. W. Prag Auxilia and Clientelae: Military Service and Foreign Clientelae Reconsidered ...... 281

6. Foreign Clientelae Beyond the Republic

Martin Jehne From Patronus to Pater. The Changing Role of Patronage in the Period of Transition from Pompey to Augustus ...... 297

Claude Eilers Change and Decline in Civic Patronage of the High Empire ...... 321 Table of Contents 7

Bibliography ...... 337

Index of Persons ...... 365

Subject Index ...... 371

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Hans Beck, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Francisco Beltrán lloris, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain WolFgang Blösel, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Germany Paul Burton, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia MicHel cHristol, Université de Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, France claude eilers, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada angela ganter, Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany estela garcía Fernández, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain enrique garcía riaza, Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Spain Frédéric Hurlet, Université de Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense, France Martin JeHne, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany Francisco Pina Polo, Universidad de Zaragoza, Spain JonatHan r. W. Prag, University of Oxford, United Kingdom cristina rosillo-lóPez, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, Spain MicHael snoWdon, York University, Toronto, Canada arnaud susPène, Université d’Orléans, France claudia tierscH, Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Germany Fernando WulFF alonso, Universidad de Málaga, Spain

INTRODUCTION

Martin Jehne / Francisco Pina Polo

For more than fifty years, Badian’s Foreign Clientelae has been the standard reference book for the relationships between Rome and foreign states or individuals in the provinces of the Empire during the Republic. In his Ph. D. dissertation Badian followed in the footsteps of scholars such as Fustel de Coulanges, Premerstein, Gelzer, Syme and Harmand (although his book was published too late to be taken into account by Badian). All had previously published on clientelae in Rome and in the provinces, and had thus been responsible for shaping a particular view of the subject. Badian took most of his fundamental ideas from his predecessors, but as an innovation he developed a methodology to identify provincial clientelae globally across the whole of the Mediterranean, mainly through the onomastics contained in the epigraphy of the Early Empire. According to Badian, the abundant client-patron ties that were formed between provincials and prominent Roman citizens during their time in the provinces were the basis of Roman control after military conquest. This client-patron network had a double impact, on international politics and on Rome’s internal politics. Although some of Badian’s statements have been chal- lenged, his main conclusions have influenced scholarship deeply for decades, and indeed to the present day. A conference on the topic of ‘Provincial clientelae in the Roman Empire: A reconsideration’ was held at the University of Zaragoza (Spain) on 14–15 March 2013.1 This book collects the contributions presented at the conference. It intends to proceed beyond the paradigm that has dominated scholarship since the publication of Badian’s Foreign Clientelae, and even earlier. Understandably, Badian is very much present in most of the articles, generally from a critical point of view. This volume aims to review the political role played by foreign clientelae in Italy and the provinces as well as in Rome during the Republican period, with the exception of the last paper, which focuses on the High Empire. To this end, the relationship between Roman imperatores or governors and provincials is explored in the Western Empire (Hispania, Gaul, North Africa) as well as in the Eastern Mediter- ranean. How foreign clientelae were perceived in Rome and to what extent they

1 The conference was the last step of the project ‘Provincial clientelae in the Western Roman Empire’ (HAR2010–16449), financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitivi- dad. The project was based at the University of Zaragoza and was coordinated by Francisco Pina Polo. The colloquium was also sponsored by the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung and the Institución Fernando el Católico. The editors would like to thank Charlotte Tupman for checking the English version of several articles included in the volume, as well as María García Magán (Zaragoza) and Fabian Knopf (Dresden) for their collaboration in the edition and for the indices. 12 Martin Jehne / Francisco Pina Polo could influence internal politics, are likewise scrutinised. One paper focuses on the significance ofclientelae for military service. Finally, the last contributions explore the role of provincial clientelae beyond the Republic. The volume begins with a section that serves as a methodological introduction: Clientela at Rome and in the provinces: Some methodological and historiographical remarks. Consequently, the first two articles are in a sense complementary. Francisco Pina Polo first makes a historiographical introduction to the topic of foreign clientelae. He then rejects the methodology used by Badian to identify provincial clientelae globally through onomastics, since it has led to a distorted view of the expansion and significance of provincial clientelae. Pina Polo consequently argues for a re-evaluation of the phenomenon as a necessary means to understand with greater clarity the relations between Roman aristocrats and provincials. On the basis of Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ definition of clientela, Angela Ganter then deconstructs the historiographical approaches to urban clientelae at Rome as a comparison with the similar process for foreign clientelae. Her contribution challenges the prevailing perception of the history of Republican clientelae as a process of decline, and instead proposes to read the ancient authors as witnesses of contem- porary mentalities rather than echoing their conceptions of Roman history in a lit- eral manner. The subsequent papers focus on Italy: Rome and Italy: Interstate relations and individual connections. Hans Beck analyses how the family connections between Roman elite and Italian aristocracies forged by intermarriage had a significant impact on the relationship among communities during the early and middle Republi- can period. Accordingly, Beck emphasises the importance of the human factor as a means of explaining the relations between Rome and its allies, as well as the specific role played by women. Fernando Wulff Alonso makes a profound and very detailed dissection of Badian’s view of Rome’s changing relations with Italy throughout the Republic, notably of how after the Hannibalic war clientela was, in Badian’s opinion, a key factor for the consolidation of Roman control over Italy and increasingly over the provinces. Wolfgang Blösel, for his part, focuses in particular on a passage of Livy (28.45) that he claims to be fictitious. As a result, Livy’s story cannot be used according to Blösel as evidence for the existence of extensive foreign clientelae in Italy acquired by the Scipio family as early as the end of the third century B. C. The third section is devoted to three territories in the Western Roman Empire: Hispania, Gaul and North Africa. The first three papers in this section refer to His- pania. Estela García Fernández discusses the relationship between clientela and Latin onomastic dissemination in Hispania, providing an alternative historical explanation for this phenomenon. Upon reviewing the evidence, she argues that there may have been a larger number of communities in Hispania with Latin status during the Republic than had previously been assumed. Therefore, supposed examples of name imitation would actually be instances of populations with Latin status making legal use of Latin names. Enrique García Riaza analyses the diplomatic relationships between Rome and Hispanic communities from the Hannibalic war until 133 B. C. In contradiction to Badian, he states that Roman expansion in Hispania was Introduction 13 not supported by individual connections that could be characterised as client-patron ties. From the beginning of the conquest there was rather a significant Roman institutional factor perceived as a reality by the indigenous population, to some extent because of the legacy of the organised Punic presence in the Iberian Peninsula. Fi- nally, Francisco Beltrán Lloris focuses on the institution of hospitium publicum granted by provincial cities to prominent Romans. He claims that this legal institution was something more than a mere appendix of patronatus. To this purpose, Beltrán Lloris uses as a case study the appointment of Balbus the Elder as hospes publicus in Gades in southern Hispania, which is the earliest known example of hospitium publicum bestowed upon a Roman citizen by a provincial city. The case of Balbus and Gades reveals the differences between hospitium and patronage in the first century B. C., and shows that hospitium was not simply an instrument for the control of provincials. Michel Christol aims to go beyond Badian’s catalogue contained in Appendix B of his Foreign Clientelae. Christol analyses the dispersion and exact location of names of Republican imperatores such as Marius, Domitius, Valerius and Pom- peius in Transalpine Gaul, as well as their significance for the integration of provincial elites in the Roman Empire. The next two articles are focused on North Africa. Frédéric Hurlet examines, from the creation of the province of Africa in 146 until the Augustan age, the relationship between Roman governors and provincials as a possible source of clientelae, as well as their territorial extension and durability. Hurlet takes the critical use of North African onomastics in relation to the known governors and the granting of Roman citizenship to provincials as a starting point. Although the identification of North African clients comes with great methodological difficulties, to Hurlet it is plausible that the presence of Roman governors resulted in the creation of individual and collective clientelae in the province. How- ever, it is highly uncertain whether such clientelae can be characterised by their long fidelity to specific patrons. Arnaud Suspène uses numismatics as his principal source of evidence, in particular the coinage of King Juba II of Mauretania. Sus- pène explores the personal way in which Juba II was able to exhibit and emphasise his friendship with Rome through the carefully designed monetary politics that he developed. Juba’s strategy strengthens the idea of amicitia and societas being the best terms to describe the different relationships established between kings and Rome in the Roman Empire, instead of the generalised and ambiguous use of the term clientela. The fourth section of the book considers the Eastern Mediterranean: Amicitia and foreign clientelae in the Eastern Mediterranean. One of the main points refers to the debate about the definition of interstate and personal relations within the se- mantic field of amicitia, or rather clientela as used by Badian in a broad sense. Michael Snowdon focuses on the documentary material preserved in the epigraphic record as the best source to study the interactions between Rome and other states, for epigraphic texts are, in his words, real “artefacts of the functioning Empire.” This approach allows us to understand the real significance of the word friendship when used in a Roman senatorial decree or in a Greek civic decree. Friendship was not, as Badian argued, a polite word preferred in order to avoid the supposedly more 14 Martin Jehne / Francisco Pina Polo appropriate but embarrassing term clientela. Amicitia fits perfectly the relationship between Rome and the Greek cities looking for a balance between traditional Greek freedom and increasing Roman hegemony. Paul Burton analyses the war launched in 195 by Flamininus against the Spartan King Nabis. He does not see it as a mere war of aggression in the broader context of Roman imperialism, but rather as a moral response that ought to be understood within the prerogatives and obligations of international friendship, in this case the Roman-Spartan amicitia. Finally, the process by which the province of Cyprus was created in the year 56 B. C. is the topic addressed by Claudia Tiersch in her article. Direct provincialisation was often rejected by the Roman senate, because it necessitated the installation of a magistrate with largely uncontrolled military resources. During the Late Republic this strategy of refusal could no longer work, because the security of several regions became problematic as a consequence of deficient administration. For all of this, the process of the provincialisation of Cyprus, inspired only by the aim of using the province’s income to bolster the Roman state treasure, with no concern for administrative responsibilities, can nonetheless illustrate that Roman internal interests alone shaped provincial policy. No substantial differences between optimates and populares could be established in this aspect of policy. One of Badian’s conclusions was the indisputable political impact, in his opinion, that provincial clientelae had in Rome. According to Badian, some politicians, most notably Pompey, took advantage of their more or less extensive connections in the provinces in order to gain a privileged position in Roman society and politics. The next section of the book is devoted to some aspects of this subject, as well as to the possible influence of foreign clientelae on military service: The impact of foreign clientelae in Rome: political and military aspects. Cristina Rosillo-López reconsiders the widely acknowledged view that foreign clientelae were a source of status for Roman politicians, especially during the first century B. C. According to her, the existence of foreign clients was difficult to com- municate to other members of the elite and to the people within the city of Rome. Furthermore, the sources suggest that the existence of such clients was unpopular among non-elite citizens, due to the association of the former with extortion trials and the undue enrichment of the elite. In contradiction to the communis opinio, Rosillo-López concludes that foreign clientelae did not constitute a source of prestige for senators in the city of Rome. To what extent did the relations between Roman and non-Roman elites facili- tate military service of provincial soldiers (auxilia externa)? This is the question addressed by Jonathan Prag. The role of such military service was undervalued by Badian, except in relation to the dynasts of the civil war period. Direct evidence for recruitment through client networks is lacking, but military service of this sort, according to Prag, was generally facilitated by elite interpersonal relationships. Such relationships may be categorised in terms of amicitia, but other ways of construct- ing a relationship with the Roman state were no less important, such as grants of citizenship. However, even if such military service should not be examined in terms of client-patron relationships, it nevertheless remains the case that the interpersonal Introduction 15 elite relations that military service generated could provide the basis for the development of personal patronage on the part of elite Romans. The last section of the book (Foreign clientelae beyond the Republic) deals with the changes experienced during the last decades of the Republic and the beginning of the Principate. It is widely accepted that the great Roman war heroes of the late Republic won great clientelae in the Empire and that the princeps Augustus surpassed them all, obtaining a dominant position as patron of all his subjects. Yet this view was called into question by Claude Eilers, who examined the evidence for city patronage and found that Augustus seems to have become more and more reluctant to accept this honour and that his successors no longer became city patrons. Building upon the research of Eilers, Martin Jehne looks at the reasons for a change in attitudes towards patronage from Pompey to Augustus. Since patronage is inher- ently particularistic, the idea of the emperor as a universal patron is difficult, as his obligations to a client would permanently be in conflict with his obligations to the client’s competitor, who was also the emperor’s client. In fact, there are relatively clear indications that shortly after Actium Octavian/Augustus had already begun to switch from the partisan argumentation of the patronage system to universalistic argumentation based on rational criteria. Yet patronage continued to act as an important system of distribution and was an unquestioned way of thinking in the Ro- man Empire, so it could not be eliminated. The Emperor had to establish himself as a fair distributor of justice, one who was above partisanship. Consequently, he had to be considered by all people across the Empire as pater, not as patronus. The volume ends with Claude Eilers’ article, which focuses on the much-de- bated question of the possible decay of civic patronage during the early Empire. During the Republic, city patrons were exclusively senators. Under the Empire, by contrast, patrons were increasingly drawn from the sub-senatorial orders. In his paper Eilers argues that this phenomenon was part of a set of changes best characterised as decline, and opposes Nicols’ assertion that patronage remained vital. To conclude, this book challenges the way in which foreign clientelae have been detected through provincial onomastics. Doubts are raised about the political role played by foreign clientelae at Rome as a source of prestige, and in the provinces as a means of subjugation. The usual interpretation of amicitia as a word concealing a real client-patron relationship is questioned. The thesis of Augustus as a universal patron for all inhabitants of the Empire is rejected. A complex picture of social relations between Rome and provincials is depicted through examples taken from both the Western and the Eastern parts of the Empire. In short, this volume gives a new perspective that facilitates a reconsideration of the traditional approach to the topic of foreign clientelae in the Roman Empire.

1. CLIENTELA AT ROME AND IN THE PROVINCES: SOME METHODOLOGICAL AND HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REMARKS

FOREIGN CLIENTELAE REVISITED: A METHODOLOGICAL CRITIQUE

Francisco Pina Polo

This paper begins with a brief analysis of the most important studies of provincial clientelae in the Roman Empire until Badian’s renowned book of 1958, which became the major reference work for decades to come. Badian adopted some of the theses proposed by scholars before him, in particular the idea that victory over an enemy was the main source of provincial clientelae. However he endeavoured to provide an overall view of how Rome had established relations with other territories in the Mediterranean, and how Roman elites had entered into personal relationships with provincials. Badian also contributed a methodology for identifying foreign clientelae through provincial onomastics. Despite criticisms later expressed regarding some of Badian’s conclusions, his insights continue to influence current research on this topic. It is my purpose to challenge both his methodology of identifying provincial clientelae and some of his conclusions. To this end, I shall refer to some specific instances in the western Empire, in particular to Hispania.

FROM MOMMSEN TO BADIAN: A BRIEF HISTORIOGRAPHICAL REVIEW

In the first footnote of his Foreign Clientelae, Badian mentioned Mommsen, Pre- merstein, Gelzer and his mentor Syme as authorities on the concept of clientela.1 The work of these scholars, along with that of Fustel de Coulanges, constituted at the time the basis of doctrine on clientelae and patronage in ancient Rome. In actual fact, they had all focused on the diachronic study of those relationships within the city of Rome, and had taken into consideration the creation of clientelae in the provinces without delving deeply into the matter. In a paper originally published in 1859 Mommsen pointed out some of the traits of clientela in Rome based on a comparative analysis between this institution and the hospitium, which he saw as broadly similar, though with some differences.2 Clientela was a relationship established between individuals from different social backgrounds, the patronus always being superior to the cliens. This also applied to

* This paper has been produced within the framework of the research project “Las clientelas provinciales en el Occidente del Imperio romano” (HAR2010–16449), financed by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. All dates are B. C. unless otherwise indicated. 1 Badian 1958a: 1 n.1. 2 Mommsen 1864: 319–390, esp.355–390. 20 Francisco Pina Polo the ties between freedmen and their former owners, as well as those between Ro- mans and defeated peoples. The relationships created were hereditary. There was no contract between patrons and clients setting forth the rights and duties of each party; these were, nonetheless, defined by custom. Fustel de Coulanges pointed out that client-patron links were voluntary and uneven by nature as they involved persons of different social status.3 The authority of a Roman aristocrat depended on the number of clients he had. In turn, clients needed a patron in order to be protected. A client could freely change patron as he saw fit, yet client-patron ties were hereditary. According to Fustel de Coulanges clientela was sometimes concealed by amicitia, since some prominent Romans referred to their high-class clients as amici. It was a form of courtesy that did not, however, alter the inequality between patronus and cliens. The clientela was in practice an extra-legal institution, because the rights and duties of the parties were not fixed by law. On the matter of clientelae Gelzer mostly followed the theses of Fustel de Cou- langes, whose guidelines he initially reproduced: an informal structure with no legal contract; reciprocal nature; hereditary yet voluntary ties; and the possibility of dissolving it at any time and replacing it with another client-patron relationship.4 But he also paid some attention to provincial clientelae. Gelzer drew upon a text in Cicero’s De officiis that states that it was an ancestral custom for Roman generals who had defeated other peoples and cities to become their patrons, as representa- tives of the new socii in their relations with Rome’s central power.5 A good example of this was C. Fabricius Luscinus, who became a patronus of all the Samnites after his triumph in the third century.6 Gelzer’s conclusion was that, to a greater or lesser degree, virtually every governor established client-patron relationships with provincials while in charge of a territory.7 In other words, a province or a city could end up with several patrons, consecutively and simultaneously. Thus, for instance, the Marcelli, the Lentuli Marcellini and the Scipiones were all patrons of the Sicilians, as Gelzer claims,8 pointing out the particular honour granted to Cicero by the inhabitants of Capua in appointing him their sole patron, which was clearly an unusual circumstance.9 The posthumous work of Premerstein, Von Werden und Wesen des Prinzipats, was published in 1937.10 He maintained that clientelae were essential to understanding the creation of Augustus’ Principate. Premerstein considered the clientelae gradually formed during the late Republic around the great political and military

3 Fustel de Coulanges 1900: 205–225. 4 Gelzer 1983 (1912): 49–50. 5 Cic. off. 1.35. Gelzer 1983 (1912): 50–53. 6 Val.Max. 4.3.6: “…qui a Samnitibus, quos universos in clientela habebat…” Cf. Gell. 1.14. 7 Gelzer 1983 (1912): 71: “Die Überlieferung erlaubt den Schluß, daß sozusagen jeder Statthal- ter in der von ihm verwalteten Provinz Patronate übertragen bekam.” 8 Gelzer 1983 (1912): 71. But Cicero was also the patron of the Sicilians after his quaestorship (Cic. Att. 14.12.1), and so was Verres (Cic. Verr. 2.2.114; 2.2.154). 9 Cic. Sest. 9. 10 Anton von Premerstein had also published in the RE the term ‘clients’, which Badian still considered as “the standard article” on this topic (Badian 1958a: 1 n.1). Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique 21 leaders as decisive, and referred to them as ‘Klientelparteien’.11 Despite the fact that other individuals and families could equally create powerful clientelae, Pre- merstein referred in particular to the example of the Pompeii and the way in which they had built up their clientelae over three generations, from Pompeius Strabo to Sextus Pompeius. In his opinion, the great strength of the Pompeian ‘party’ rested precisely on its enormous clientela.12 One of the keys to understanding the late Republican period might be the client-patron link of entire provinces to one particular person who had become their patronus. In this respect, Pompey the Great could be, once again, the best example. He was able to secure vast clientelae in Hispania and in the huge regions he conquered in the Eastern Mediterranean, and to add them to those he had inherited from his father in Picenum. But Caesar also managed to create countless clientelae, both in Hispania Ulterior, where he served as a magistrate on two occasions, and during the conquest of Gaul.13 Despite his schematic and slightly simplistic approach, Premerstein placed provincial clientelae at the heart of the Roman political scene, in particular during the Late Republic. He saw the struggle between the great imperatores to a large extent as a conflict ofclientelae , to the point that the various stages on which the civil war between Pompey’s and Caesar’s supporters was fought could have been determined by the presence of clients from one side or the other. In fact, according to Premer- stein, the war between Antonius and Octavianus, which was to result in the sole power of Augustus, divided the entire Empire into two large zones of clientelae in favour of one or other of the contenders. Consequently, the work of Premerstein became decisive in the creation of a line of thought which, implicitly or explicitly, was to be present for decades in scholarship: having provincial clientelae was considered to have been conclusive in the historical unfolding of the late period of the Republic, and had caused the great imperatores to endeavour to secure as many clients as possible throughout the provinces of the Empire. Harmand published his work on patronage in 1957.14 The book could not be used by Badian because, as he admits in the preface to Foreign Clientelae, his monograph was completed by the summer of 1956, though it was published two years later. In fact, Badian does not even mention Harmand in his bibliography. The French scholar analysed the relationships of patronage with communities, not with individuals. For the Republican period, Harmand’s starting point was that any victorious general was a potential patron for the defeated peoples: what he called “le patronat par droit de conquête.”15 He nonetheless admitted that only a few texts in ancient sources could expressly support this fact.16 Livy’s account of the taking of Syracuse by Marcellus between 212 and 210 was, according to Harmand, arche- typical of how patronages developed from a military operation that resulted in the

11 Premerstein 1937: 16. 12 Premerstein 1937: 16–17. 13 Premerstein 1937: 20–21. 14 Harmand 1957. 15 Harmand 1957: 13: “tout conquérant est un patron en puissance.” 16 Harmand 1957: 14–15. 22 Francisco Pina Polo conquest of a city or territory.17 The conquest created profound inequality between the winners and the losers, and inequality was the basis of any client-patron relationship. The conqueror certainly acted in the name of Rome, though his leading role was obvious, as he had been fought against, negotiated with and surrendered to. The conquering general was in control of the fate of the defeated people and this naturally led to his becoming a patronus, thus moving from the role of victor to that of protector.18 In Harmand’s opinion, any conquest involved two complementary aspects: while the conquered region added to the territory controlled by the Roman Empire, the subdued peoples added to the clientelae of the triumphant general.19 In other words, while Harmand initially admitted that few sources expressly referred to the creation of clientelae as a right of conquest, he eventually linked both events closely, and implicitly assumed that military victory automatically involved increasing the number of personal clientelae in the provinces. Serving as a magistrate in a province could also involve securing clientelae during the stay in the territory, in this case by nonviolent means. These clientelae could be newly created or linked already to the magistrate’s family.20 According to Harmand, these were not the only paths to acquiring provincial clientelae. The founders of new colonies, in his view, would have become the patrons of the newly created community.21 Likewise, a magistrate could become the patronus of a city or community as a result of an official mission conducted on the orders of the Roman senate.22 Such missions could have had a civil or military purpose, and could consist of a legation to deal with certain communities or military campaigns to eradicate a danger to Roman interests. That would have been the origin of the clientelae of Cato Uticensis in Cappadocia and Cyprus,23 or of Pompey the Great in Cilicia after defeating the pirates and founding or re-founding towns along the coast of the region. Finally, the defence of provincials in court could also result in those who had been defended becoming the clients of the orator who had acted in their defence.24 Ernst Badian adopted a different methodological perspective from that of Har- mand and conducted the first monographic study of what he called ‘foreigncliente - lae’. He criticized Premerstein’s very legalistic approach, erroneously interpreting deditio as a ‘treaty’ between the victorious Roman general and the defeated community when in fact surrender was unconditional. Badian also rejected ‘Mommsen’s extreme view’ that anyone surrendering to Rome would automatically become a

17 Liv. 25.29; 26.32. Harmand 1957: 16–19. 18 Harmand 1957: 19: “tout général victorieux est un oikiste à sa manière.” 19 Harmand 1957: 20–21: “l’incorporation dans la communauté romaine se double d’un fait d’or- dre privé: la receptio in clientelam, c’est-à-dire la formation, sans que l’on constate apparem- ment aucune intervention de l’État, de liens personnels entre le général victorieux et ses adver- saires de la veille.” 20 Harmand 1957: 39–48. 21 Harmand 1957: 23–26. 22 Harmand 1957: 27–33. 23 Cic. fam. 15.4. 24 Harmand 1957: 34–39. Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique 23 client, when circumstances actually varied and ought to be considered in the light of attested evidence. Yet his starting point, following that of previous scholars, was that victory after a war, and the subsequent deditio of the defeated peoples, was the most common means of acquiring foreign clientelae.25 As in any client-patron relationship, it was unequal, though it originated in a voluntary agreement. Badian ad- mited that he applied the term clientela to the Roman world in a broad sense, and that various forms of client-patron relationships may be included within the concept, as one single form of ‘foreign clientelae’ could hardly be expected to have existed.26 In the first part of his book, Badian conducted a general review of Rome’s ex- ternal policy in Italy and in the Mediterranean until the year 133. He analysed the development and evolution of client-patron relationships between Rome and the Mediterranean states, based on the fact that these relations typically involved a superior party, Rome, and an inferior party, the rest of the Mediterranean peoples.27 In the second part of his book, which is more relevant here, Badian studied clientelae created by Roman generals on an individual basis in provinces during the Late Re- publican period, in particular until the year 70. One entire chapter dealt specifically with Pompey the Great, the paradigmatic politician with a vocation to become a universal patronus who, in Badian’s view, would to a large extent have reached his powerful position in Rome thanks to his very numerous foreign clientelae. Despite some criticisms,28 Badian’s book was to become the reference work on this topic for decades to come, and had a huge impact on scholarship’s view ever since of the relationships between Rome and provincials through the patronage of a large number of members of the Roman aristocracy.29 One of the reasons for the success of this book is the fact that it represents the very first time that this question was studied thoroughly, proposing a methodology for identifying provincial clientelae. It is also important to bear in mind that Badian’s theses perfectly befitted the context of scholarship at the time. After the prosopographical works of the influen- tial Münzer, Gelzer and Syme, amongst others, the idea prevailed that society and politics in Republican Rome were totally dominated by the elite on the basis of a close personal network of kinships, marriages and, above all, clientelae. Badian’s approach simply transferred onto the provinces a form of action in the Urbs which was considered fully endorsed. Thus his theses seemed to have particular credibility as they made sense of a provincial world on whose society Rome exerted her control, following the same hierarchy as that of society within Rome. Badian maintained that the numerous client-patron relationships created between provincials and Roman citizens were the basis of Roman control over the provinces after military conquest. Those provincial clientelae were, in his view, sought out deliberately by the Roman imperatores as a means of expanding their

25 Badian 1958a: 4–7. 26 Badian 1958a: 11–13. 27 See the criticism expressed by Burton 2003 and 2011. 28 See for example the review by J. Bleicken in Gnomon 36, 1964, 176–187. Cf. Wolff 1980: esp.248–249. 29 On Badian’s work see recently Thomas 2013. 24 Francisco Pina Polo prestige and increasing or consolidating their power in Rome. Pompey was the foremost example of such behaviour.30 Clientelae were created during the stay of the imperatores in the respective provinces as consuls, proconsuls, praetors or pro- praetors. The stability of the Empire rested on the foundations of the personal loyalty of many provincials, in particular members of local aristocracies, towards the most prominent Roman families. This loyalty was hereditary and lasted for generations even after those Roman families had ceased to have any presence in the province or any importance within the society and politics of the Urbs.31 That vast network of permanent provincial clientelae served both to buttress Roman dominion in the provinces and to raise to power certain individuals who were particularly apt at creating loyal clientelae. In Badian’s view, that client-patron network therefore had a dual effect on international politics and also within Rome’s internal politics.

ONOMASTICS AND PROVINCIAL CLIENTELAE

Probably Badian’s most decisive methodological contribution was the use of onomastics as a tool to identify provincial clientelae across the Empire. Given that Republican inscriptions are extraordinarily scarce in the Western Roman Empire, Badian based his conclusions on the epigraphy of the early Empire. From his point of view, the provincials mentioned in inscriptions dated to between the first and third centuries A.D. whose names match those of conspicuous Romans in the Re- publican period were the descendants of those who had taken those names at the time as a tribute to their benefactors. In other words, for instance any Hispanians called Fabius, Sempronius, Porcius, Pompeius, etc., were in his view the descendants of those who, during the period of the conquest of Hispania in the second and first centuries, had become the clients of individuals who were members of those families, and had for this reason changed their indigenous names and taken a Latin name. Many would have been granted Roman citizenship by an imperator of that name during his presence in the province. At any rate, Badian considered that onomastics proved the influence of the gens in question: all these provincials and their descendants were for generations their loyal clients.32 In theory, onomastics in epigraphy from the early Empire would therefore al- low us to identify the most influentialgentes in the provinces of the Empire. It was even possible to map that influence. In the case of Hispania, two decades after Badian had published his Foreign Clientelae both Knapp and Dyson followed in his footsteps and maintained that the names of leading Roman families amongst Hispa- nians would reveal the existence of provincial clientelae throughout the Iberian

30 Badian 1958a: 252–284. 31 Badian 1958a: 262: “The basis of Roman control over the provinces was, in an important sense, not political but personal – as that of Roman control over Italy had been… The Empire was based on the personal loyalty of leading men throughout the provinces to leading families at Rome, and this attachment proved to be independent of political vicissitudes and on the whole unaffected even by the fortunes of those families.” 32 Badian 1958a: 256–257. Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique 25

Peninsula.33 Neither of them specifically linked the creation of those client-patron ties to the provincials involved becoming Roman citizens. Yet, in any event, taking a particular name was not in their opinion a matter of chance, but was chosen specifically because it was the name of their Roman patron. This was Knapp’s main conclusion: “I hope to demonstrate that the prosopography of Iberia and southern Gaul… is a direct outgrowth of patronage extended by prominent Romans to non- Romans; the native clients took the name of the Roman patron, and so the local prosopography reflects the Roman patronage.”34 Dyson, in turn, made a chart of clientelae in Hispania and accompanied his analysis with a series of maps showing the distribution of some Roman nomina mentioned in Hispanian inscriptions that matched the names of governors in Hispa- nia in the Republican period: Porcius, Sempronius, Aemilius, Fabius, Iunius, Li- cinius, Caecilius, Pompeius and Sulpicius.35 Taking into consideration this distribution of the nomina, Dyson pointed out an apparent coincidence with the territories in which these imperatores acted within the Iberian Peninsula. In other words, Dy- son worked on the assumption that, for instance, an individual called Pompeius mentioned in an inscription of the second century A.D. in Tarraco was the descend- ant of someone who had changed his indigenous name to that of Pompeius at some point during the Republican period and had become the client of that family. Dyson seems to imply that those Hispanian families remained in the same place for centuries. That certainly cannot be proved, and it is also unlikely to have happened in many cases. Some families might have died out and others may have moved, which seriously questions the reliability of the nomina distribution maps, which are based on an alleged permanence of the population in one particular place. On the other hand, families were obviously of different sizes, so several inscriptions mentioning individuals of the same name in one town or region could correspond to one single family and all its branches. Besides, other factors may account for the presence of certain names without necessarily involving the presence of provincial clientelae created during the Republic. Many could correspond to emigrants of Roman-Italian origin who could have settled in Hispania either in the Late Republic or in the early Empire, as Dyson takes into consideration inscriptions spanning a long chronological period. It is hardly a coincidence that all the nomina analysed have a widespread presence in the principal cities along the coast, where trade con- centrated in such places as Barcino, Saguntum or Olisipo, in the provincial capitals of Corduba, Emerita Augusta and Tarraco, or in a highly dynamic economic area such as the Guadalquivir Valley. In my opinion, it is not at all necessary to explain the relatively abundant presence of Porcii, Sempronii, Pompeii, etc., in those cities – some still non-existent in the Republican period – as a consequence of the creation of Republican provincial clientelae.

33 Knapp 1978; Dyson 1980–81. 34 Knapp 1978: 187. 35 After the publication of Dyson’s work, new inscriptions have appeared which have obviously modified, though not substantially, the list and distribution ofnomina he analysed. 26 Francisco Pina Polo

It is not appropriate here to delve into the various distribution maps, but some observations must be made. If we take a look at the map of the Sempronii,36 we note that these names are scattered throughout almost the entire Iberian Peninsula, though the highest concentration can be found in Tarraco, in the western half of Hispania and in the Guadalquivir Valley. Three Sempronii were governors in Hispania Cite- rior and Ulterior in the first quarter of the second century (see below). They are obviously eligible to have created clientelae that would have taken on their name. Yet it is evident that at the time when all three of them were fighting in Hispania, they can hardly have created a client-patron network along the Duero or the high Ebro rivers, as these regions were beyond the reach of Roman troops until later on. The Sempro- nii attested in Tarraco, Corduba and Emerita Augusta must be connected with the fact that all three cities later became administrative capitals. Emerita Augusta was only founded by Augustus at the end of the first century, and its location within Lusi- tania was far from being under Roman control when Sempronius Longus was the governor of Hispania Ulterior in 184–182. The remarkable number of Sempronii in Dianium and its environs in the Mediterranean and in Lara in the Duero may be due to a family of that name settling in each of those towns. In contrast, the lack of Sem- pronii in the central part of the Ebro Valley or in Celtiberia is quite surprising precisely because these regions were the main areas of action of Sempronius Gracchus in his struggle against Celtiberians in 180–178. It is striking that in Gracchurris (Alfaro, La Rioja), a city founded by Gracchus as a “monimentum operum suorum” bearing his name,37 no Sempronius has been found either there or in the surrounding area. There is, however, evidence of a Sempronius in Iliturgis, a city presumably also founded by Gracchus,38 and more have appeared in nearby localities. Epigraphic finds are obviously not precisely representative, but should not more Sempronii be expected to appear in cities founded by a Sempronius if we accept that this must have generated a close relationship between the inhabitants and the founder?39 As for the Pompeii, they are scattered throughout practically the whole of His- pania. Two Pompeii were governors in Hispania, Q. Pompeius in 141, who fought against Celtiberians, and Pompey the Great during the first century. As Dyson high- lights, the relatively small number of inscriptions with Pompeii in comparison with other nomina is remarkable if we bear in mind Pompey’s reputation for having a large number of clients in Hispania.40 On the other hand, the high concentration of Pompeii in some cities is as striking as their absence in large regions where they could be expected. As in the case of all the other nomina, there is a high number of Pompeii in Tarraco, Saguntum, Carthago Nova and Olisipo, that is, coastal cities

36 Dyson 1980–81: 263–267. 37 Liv. per. 41. 38 Wiegels 1982. 39 According to Harmand 1957: 24, “les personnages chargés de la deductio coloniae devenaient ipso facto ses patrons.” Neither Iliturgis nor Gracchurris had the status of colonies: they were instead civitates peregrinae inhabited by indigenous people. Harmand’s principle, however, should also apply to these towns, and all the more so because they resulted from Gracchus’ triumph over Hispanian peoples. 40 Dyson 1980–81: 288–291. Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique 27 with a dynamic trading business, as well as in Emerita Augusta. As already stated, their presence might not necessarily be related to Pompeian clientelae but to the very circumstances and characteristics of these cities. The same could be said about the Pompeii of the western half of the Peninsula (in Galicia, Asturica Augusta, lower Duero river), as neither Q. Pompeius, a gover- nor of Hispania Citerior, nor Pompey the Great set foot on these territories. The Pompeii of the Guadalquivir Valley, not very abundant though curiously concen- trated around Baena probably because they were members of the same family, could hypothetically be linked to Pompey’s sons and their last stand against Caesar in 46–45. Yet, should this explanation be correct, many more Pompeii would be expected in this zone as during the bellum Hispaniense a large number of towns backed the Pompeian side. Conversely, three inscriptions with Pompeii were found in Gades, a city which always remained loyal to Caesar and received from him the status of Roman municipium. The most surprising fact, as Dyson points out,41 is that no Pompeii are found in the region where Pompey was most active: not one in the entire Ebro Valley, the scene of his confrontation against Sertorians, nor in the territory of the Lacetani, where his son Sextus Pompeius, according to Cassius Dio, sought shelter after the battle of Munda because he had the support of the indigenous population who were loyal to the memory of his father.42 The scarcity of Pom- peii in Pompelo (Pamplona) is equally noticeable as this town was presumably founded by Pompey at the end of the Sertorian war.43 Instead, a good number of Pompeii are attested to in the upper Duero, a region in which a significant part of the Sertorian conflict unfolded, in particular in Clunia and Uxama, which resisted to the end against Pompeian troops. Similar observations could be made regarding the maps of other nomina. In conclusion, based on the distribution maps of Roman onomastics in Hispania known to us through the epigraphy of the early Empire, it cannot be surmised that these necessarily represent provincial clientelae created during the conquest in the Republican period. It is incorrect to assume that, for instance, whenever a Sempro- nius or Pompeius is found there existed in the Republican period a client of the Sempronii or the Pompeii. Some of the bearers of Roman nomina in Hispania could have taken the names of imperatores who were involved in the conquest (a different matter is whether this necessarily implies a long-lasting client-patron relationship), but many unquestionably were emigrants from Italy who had nothing to do with the creation of provincial clientelae. Other names may correspond to freedmen who took the name of their patrons, which could be concealing another type of clientelae in the provinces, which is not the same as provincial clientelae. All in all, the key question is whether onomastics is a reliable method in identifying provincial clientelae. Should it be so, fixed rules would have been in place for a provincial to take on a Latin name. Badian considered that whenever a provincial was given Roman citizenship, he immediately adopted the name of his new

41 Dyson 1980–81: 289. 42 Cass.Dio 45.10.1–2. 43 Str. 3.4.10. 28 Francisco Pina Polo patronus. However, available data do not confirm this at all. Even Badian included in the list of persons given Roman citizenship (his Annex B) some individuals whose Latin names where completely different from those who had promoted them in becoming citizens.44 Knapp and Dyson assumed that patronage was directly linked with the client changing his name to that of the patronus, apparently even in cases in which the provincial was not given Roman citizenship. Yet could a peregri- nus have had permission to use Roman names? We must not rule out the possibility of cases of illegal use of Latin onomastics, though this undoubtedly cannot have been widespread, as it counted upon Rome’s consent through provincial governors. Consequently, if a number of provincials with Latin names existed in the Republi- can period, should we presume they were Roman citizens? This poses another problem because in the pre-Caesarean period Rome was extremely cautious about granting citizenship. Few instances are known, the Bronze of Ascoli being the exception due to an emergency for Rome at the time of the bellum Sociale. It is unlikely that a provincial governor in Hispania in the last two Republican centuries granted Roman citizenship to a large number of Hispanians. And it is even more unlikely that he did so as part of a personal scheme to create as vast a network of clientelae as possible in order to obtain power. Besides, the matter of citizenship did not rest exclusively on the will of an imperator. Ultimately it was the Roman state which granted citizenship. In the context of the war against Serto- rius, Pompey and Metellus apparently granted citizenship to some Hispanians as a reward for their loyalty.45 Nonetheless, their actions could only take effect after a law promoted by the consuls of 72, the lex Gellia-Cornelia, had been passed. The very fact that a consular law was required, obviously with the support of the senate, reveals that it was an exceptional circumstance, the result of a war that had lasted almost a whole decade and which, at some point, senators had feared could have spread to Italy. If this happened in the year 72 it is implausible to think that there might have been massive granting of citizenship in Hispania prior to this, as we do know that the senate – and the Roman people – had traditionally been reluctant about such actions. The senate can hardly have endorsed personal initiatives under- taken by members of the aristocracy that clearly contradicted the general policy of Rome. And even in that year of 72, the Hispanians who were given citizenship were certainly but a select group, a few hundred at the most. In short, the granting of citizenship by imperatores who acted in the provinces during the Republican period cannot have been so abundant as to result in vast clientelae. On the contrary, it must have been minor and exceptional. Consequently, this can hardly have been the origin of Latin onomastics which continued to exist throughout the Principate and apparently revealed the existence of an extensive client-patron network.46

44 Badian 1958a: 302–308. 45 Cic. Arch. 26 claims that Metellus gave citizenship to many (“civitate multos donavit”). 46 Recently García Fernández 2011, based on a certain continuity of onomastics between the Re- public and the Principate documented in her opinion in Hispania, has pointed out that it could originate in the fact that the Latin status applied to a certain number of communities in Hispania during the Republic. See also her paper in this volume. Foreign Clientelae Revisited: A Methodological Critique 29

At any rate, the question remains as to whether those who were given citizenship always took the name of their benefactor, that is, of the magistrate or promag- istrate who granted it. The answer is that they did not. In the year 1966, Géza Alföldy published a paper analysing the changes in the names of those who received Roman citizenship, mainly based on the available epigraphic data.47 Alföldy’s work focused chronologically on the Principate, in particular on the first century, and from a geographical point of view dealt with the western provinces of the Empire, though the most detailed instances referred to Central European provinces, in particular Dalmatia, Noricum and Pannonia. The results, however, are largely applicable to the Republican period. In his general conclusions, Alföldy considered that it was frequent for peregrini who received Roman citizenship to take the nomen and the praenomen of the emperor who had granted it. But he stated categorically that this was not a compulsory rule. On the contrary, there is clear evidence that a large number of new Roman citizens freely chose the name they wished to have from that moment on, and often took Italic names that were widely used throughout the Empire.48 In other words, new citizens had some capacity to choose their names. Sources confirm this: the clearest instance is that of the Balbi from Gades, who were given Roman citizenship by Pompey the Great as a reward for their collaboration during the Sertorian war.49 This must have happened in 72 and it was validated by the aforementioned lex Gellia-Cornelia.50 In theory, Balbus should have become Pom- peius Balbus, but his name was Cornelius Balbus.51 That is, Balbus was not named Pompeius despite having been granted Roman citizenship by way of a Pompeius. What is more striking and unsettling for the theses maintained by Badian and his followers is that when the Balbi went to Rome they became loyal amici and allies of Caesar, rather than clients of Pompey. How could this chain of events be ex- plained using Badian’s perspective? The case of the Balbi is not unique. Cicero, in his speech in defence of Balbus, mentions a Q. Fabius from Saguntum who was given Roman citizenship by Metel-

47 Alföldy 1966. 48 Alföldy 1966: 39: “En outre, un autre probleme apparaît dans le fait que, d’apres certains indices, les citoyens romains pouvaient aussi choisir librement leurs nomina: à certaines époques et dans certains territoires de l’Empire, on avait la possibilité de prendre un nomen quelconque selon son choix propre;” 46: “Tout cela montre que les nouveaux citoyens romains de l’Empire n’ont pas tous pris un gentilice impérial: un nombre grand de citoyens a choisi librement ses nomina. Ces nomina étaient ou bien des gentilices italiques partout répandus, ou bien des déri- vations patronymiques.” 49 Pina Polo 2011a. 50 Cic. Balb. 19: “Nascitur, iudices, causa Corneli ex ea lege quam L. Gellius Cn. Cornelius ex senatus sententia tulerunt; qua lege videmus esse sanctum ut cives Romani sint ii quos Cn. Pompeius de consili sententia singillatim civitate donaverit. Donatum esse L. Cornelium praesens Pompeius dicit, indicant publicae tabulae.” 51 We do not know why they took the name Cornelius. See Rodríguez Neila 1992: 26–27 and 44–45. Knapp 1978: 189 and 192, thinks that the Balbi would have taken their nomen from some Cornelii prior to being given citizenship and maintained that name afterwards. Those Cornelii would therefore be the patrons of the Balbi. In this sense also Dyson 1980–81: 289.