NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

The Legacy of the Famiïy of Pompey the Great in Sicily

A study of the clientela, property, and reputation of the Pompeii Magmi in Sicily with comparisons to their legacy in the province of Asia, to Juiius Caesar's in the province of Aquitania, and to that of other families in Sicily

by

Mauro Lo Dico

A thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in confomity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Queen's University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

January 2000

copyright Q Mauro Lo Dico 2000 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A OU4 Ottawa ON KIA ON4 Canada Canada Your fi& Votre référence

Our fik Notre rBfBrence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distnbute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/fïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou su.format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may Se printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. A bstraet

This dissertation studies the impact that Pompey the Great and his family had on

Sicily. As the fist members of the gens Pampeia on the island, they were aIso the most

often in contact with it and even owned land there. Many of the isIandls inhabitants

became their clients, and even adopted thek names if they were granted Roman

citizenship by the Pompeii. The extent of the family's influence on the Sicilians is

examined through that relationship, both as a process of Romanisation in a province and

as a province's contribution to the Roman world.

The introduction to this thesis reviews the scant literature on the topic and

provides the pertinent background. The first chapter surveys all the members of the gens

Pompeia involved with Sicily, since they could make the provincials Roman citizens.

The second chapter examines the Sicilians granted citizenship by the Pompeii, for the

status of the former in their locality reveals the type of relationship that both parties

shared and, thus, the kind of auence that the Pompeii had there. The third chapter

contrasts those Sicilian Pompeii with other groups so that they are viewed within the greater context of the Roman Empire. Comparisons are made with: a) the Pompeii from another province, noting any regional similanties or differences; b) another distinguished gens fiom yet another province, to gauge the degree to which the Sicilian Pompeii were established in the Empire; and c) other prominent gentes in Sicily, thereby detennining the status of the Pompeii both on and off the island.

The dissertation argues that there was a substantiai Pompeian presence in Sicily, acting as a Romanishg agent which produced citizens who were not al1 passive participants in the Empire, as is traditionally held, but rather who played an active role in its expansion, consolidation, and prosperity.

Acknowledgements

My fïxst thanks must go to my supervisor, Professor Bernard J. Kavanagh, who guided me through al1 the stages of this dissertation. Mention should also be made of the rest of the staff and students in the Department of Classics at Queen's University, namely

T. Smith, Professors Falkner and Hagel, but especidiy Professor R S. Kilpatrick. 1am fûrther iixdebted to my fiiends at McGiil University: PhiI Smith for bis editing, Franco

Taddeo for his books, and Marc TemeLini for his discussions. My gratitude also extends across the Atlantic to Professor R. J. A. Wilson fiom the University of Nottingham for providing me with the opportunity to work in Sicily and to his students whose Company can still be feLt I cannot thank Spyros Caragiannis and Marcus McHafne enough, nor

Emily Chen who went beyond proof-reading. The contributions of Antonio Sorge and

Silvio Ursino will never be forgotten- Final, but foremost, acknowIedgement is expressed to my family, both here and in My,namely my brother Gaetano and his wife Julie, my mo ther, and mygrandmo thers. Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgements

List of Tables vii

List of Figures viii

Ab breviations

Introduction Literature Review Methodologv Background

Chapter 1 The Original Pompeii in Sicily The gens Pom~eÏa The Branch of the Bithynici/Rufi The Branch of the Manni a) The AccompIishments of Pompey the Great b) The Children of Pompey Other Pompeii with a Connection to Sicily Conclusion

Chapter II The Sicilian Pompeii Roman Enftanchisernent Sicilian Cifentela a) The Ancient Literature b) The DatabIe Inscriptions c) The Less Datable Inscriptions Conclusion Chapter III Cornparisons fot the Sicilian Pompeii Pom~eiiand the Province of Asia 78 Iulii and the Three Gauls (especiallv the Province of Aauitania) 85 The Gentiiicia in Sicilv 92 Conclusion 96

Thesis Conclusion 98

Tables 106

Figures 116

Bibliography Primaw Sources Translations Consulted Secondary Sources List of Tables

A GenealoPicaI Tree of the Pompeii BithvniciRufi 106 Sources: CIL suppl. IV: 192-3; W. K. A. Drumam Geschichte ~om?IV Hildesheim 1964: 308-596; & F. Miltner RE XXI.ii (1952) 1992-5.

A Genealofiical Tree of the Porntxii Mami 107 Sources: E. Babelon Description historique et chronologique des Monnaies de la Répblique romaine 2 vols. Bologna 1963: 336-7; M. Gelzer ~om~eiu.?Munich 1959; J. Leach Pompey the Great London 1978: 9; MKR; Pi..; R. Syme Histo~in Ovid Oxford 1978: 156-68, The Augustan Aristocracy Oxford 1986: 505-57; & A- B. West "Lucilian Genealogy" AJPhil. XLIX 1928: 240-52 at 252.

A Genealoaical Tree of the Pomtxii FaIcones 111 Sources: W. Eck "Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien" ZPE CMII 1996: 109-28 at 1 17; E. Groag, "Prosopographische Beitriïge" JmXVIII 19 15: 265-80 at 273; G. Libertini Centuripe Catania 1926: 43; PIR' Ill: 66 (P #459); & I. Scheid Lesfières desParis 1975: 380,

A Genealogical Tree of the Sicilian Roscii 112 Sources: W. Eck "Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien" ZPE CXIII 1996: 109-28; PBZ' III: 133-5 (R #64-74); RE 2"d ser. 1: 11 16-28; RP; & O. Salomies Adoptive and Poiyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire Helsinki 1992.

A Genealogical Tree of Theophanes of MvtiIene 113 Sources: V. 1. Anastasiadis & G. A. Souris "nieophanes of Mytilene" Chiron XXII 1992: 377-83; J. M. Bertrand "Apropos de deux disparus" ZPE LM 1985: 173-6; P. A. Cartledge & Antony J. S. Spawforth Hellenistic and Roman Sparta London tNew York 1989; PB' Il1 67 (P #471); & RE XXI.ii (1 952) 2276-9 1 (Pornpeius #92-124).

A Genealoaical Tree of the Cn. Pompeii Herrnipvi 114 Sources: E. J. Champlin "Miscellanea Testamentaria" ZPE LXUC 1987: 197-206 at 200-2 & H. Halfniann "Die Senatoren aus den Kleinasiatischen Provinzen des Romischen Reiches" in S. Panciera (ed.) Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio Rome 1982: 603-50 at 629.

Seven Grou~sof Gallic Mii from the Province of Aauitania 115 Sources: J. F. Drinkwater "The Rise and Fa11 of the Gallic Iulii" Latomus XXXWI 1978: 8 17-50 at 8 19-22 & R Syme Tacittts 2 vols. Oxford

vii List of Figures

Mat, of the Roman Empire 116 Source: K. H. Scullard & A. A. M. van der Heyden Shorter Atlas of the Classical World New York 1967: Map 12.

Map of Italv Source: CM* X: 416 @lap 3).

Map of Sicilv 118 Source: R. J. A. Talbert Atlas of ClassicaiHistoryNew York 1985: 148.

A Mosaic in Ostia Il9 Source: G. Becatti Scmi di OsfiaIV Rome 1961: pl. CXXIII (#68).

Mar> of the Province of Asia 120 Source: R. J. A. Talbert Atlas of Classical History New York 1985: 158.

Map of Transabine Gad 121 Source: R. J. A. Talbert Atlas of Classical History New York 1985: 136.

viii ~b breviations'

duumvir

A. Aulus A&R Reynolds Aphrodisias and Rome AC L 'Antiquitéclassique add. addendurn ad L. Ver. Fronto Epistles to Emperor L. Vem ad M Caes. Fronto Epistles to Emperor M-Aurelius ad Pium Fronto Epistles ro Emperor Antoninus Pius AE Année Epigaphique aed. aedilis (aedile) MA Pasoli Acta Fratrum Arvalium Am Ancient History Bulletin AJA A rnerican Journal of Archaeology AJAH American Journal of Ancient History AJPh American Journal of Philology ANRW Aufstïeg und Niedergang der romischen Welt AP- Appius Builetfino della Commissione archeologica cornunale in Roma Archives of the British School at Rome

C. Gaius cm2 Cambridge Ancient History (second edn.) CIL Corptrs Inscriptionum Latinarum Cl. Claudius Cn. Gnaeus cols. columns COS. consul CQ Classical QuarterZy

D. Decimus desig. designated dict. dictator eh. edition eds. editors Emp. emperor

For ancient authors and theit works, the standard abbreviations are used (as listed in OC& h-liv).

ix FE Forschungen in Ephesos figs. figures Fm Riccobono Fontes IdRomani Antefmtiniani FI. Flavius fi m. fiater arvalis (arval brother) gov. governor

IdiCos Segre Iscrizioni di Cos LEph Merkelbach Die Imchr~penvon Ephesos IG Imcrrptiones Graecae IGRR Cagnat Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes I, 1. de Gaule Wuil Ieumier Inscrï#ions latines des Trois Gaules ELRP Degrassi Inscr@tiones Latinae liberae rei publicae ILS Dessau Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae Inscr. Ital. Imcr@tiones Italiae Im Priene Hiller von Gaertringen Imchrrjten von Priene

JahresheJie des Osterreichischen Archiïologischen Instituts Journal of Roman Studies

L. Lucius L&P Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (ninth edn.) LCL Loeb Classical Library LCM Liverpool Classical Monthly kg. legatzcs (legate) LF Lis@jzologické

M. Marcus M.' Manius Marn. Mamercus nw-a Mitteilungen des deurschen archüoZogischen Instituts: Athenische Abteilung Broughton Magistrates of the Roman RepubCic

Numerius Ferrua Note e Giunte alle Iscrizioni Christiane Antiche della Sicilia NSA Notizie degli scavi di antichità NSER Maiuri Nuova silloge epigrajica di Rodi e Cos oc@ Oxford Classical Dictionary (third edn,) OCT Oxford Classical Tèxt OLD Oxford Lutin Dictionary ord. consul ordinarius (ordinary consu1) P. Publius Pergamon Frankel& Habicht Die Inschrzjien von Pergamon PLU Prosopgraphia Imperii Romani Pr- praetor procur. procurator propr. propraetor Ps.-ASC. Psuedo-Asconius Public. Plutarch Lge of Publicola

Quintus quaestor tribu Quirina (the Quirina voting tribe)

Revue archéologique Rendr'conti dell' Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli RCC Crawford Roman Republican Coinage RDGE Sherk Roman Documents_Fom the Greek East RE Pauly- Wissowa Real-Encyclopàdie REL Revue &s ?tudes latines WNS Rheinisches Museum@ Philologie (New Series) RI% Matting ly Roman hperial Coinage RP Syme Roman Papers NP)* Spurius sen. senator ser. series Ser, Servius Sex. Sextus Sic. Appian ZLKE~LX-~~ Sic. Arch. Sicilia Archeologica SIG^ Dittenberger Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum (third edn.) suff. consul suflechrs (suffect consul)

T. Titus TAPhA Transactions of the the American Philological Association Ti@). Tiberius tr. mil. tribunus milifum (military tribune) tr. pl. tribunus plebis (plebeian tribune) v. Vibius vol. volume

ZPE Zeitschrzpfur Papyrologre und Epigraphik

died Introduction

Literature Review

While modem scholars have noted a close affiliation between Sicily and Pompey the

~reat,~one of the greatest generals of Republican Rome, they have done so superficially. M.

Hadas, A. Holrn, and G. Manganaro, for instance, each discussed it in a footnote, while E. S.

Jenison, G. Libertîni, M. V. Hatzopoulos, H. H. Scullard, and R. J. A. Wilson made but a passing reference, and A. N. Sherwin-White mentioned it en passant through three pages? E.

Badian and R Seager wrote a paragraph each on the topic, while P. A. Brunt added little more than that, and A. M. Ward touched upon it brieflyP The most notable study is an 11- page survey by V. Casagrandi, written over a century ago and in need of updating if not total revision because he omitted some of the epigraphic record? As one cm see, what is most disconcerting in each of these cases is that a common conchsion has been reached with little analysis. Consequently, the attention to the prirnary sources required to determine Pompey the Great's impact on Sicily is lacking and a thorough discussion on the subject is warranted.

The legacy of Pompey in Sicily, therefore, is the topic of this dissertation. For, as one of the numerous processes of Romanisation on the island, his influence also provided the

Cn. Pompeius Magnus (106-48; F. Miltner RE XXI.ii Cl9521 2062-2 1 1 [Pompeius #3 11). Al1 dates are BC unless otherwise indicated. M. Hadas Sexm Pompey New York 1930: 72 11-60;A. Holm Storia della Sicilia neli'antichità (tram. G. B. DaI Lago, Graziadei, and G. Kirner) 3 VOIS. Torino 1896-901 (repr. Bologna 1965): 224 n.15; G. Manganaro "Un senatus consultum in Greco dei Lanuvini e il rinnovo della cognatio con i Centurïpini" RQANXXXWII 1963: 23-44 at 11.99, "La Sicilia da Sesto Pompeo a Diocleziano" MRW II. Il.1 (1988): 3- 89 at 51, and "Iscrizioni latine nuove e vecchie della Sicilia" Epi~aphicaLI 1989: f 61-209 at 11.102;E, S. Jenison The History of the Province of Sicily (diss. Columbia University) Boston 19 19: 59; G. Libertini Cemripe Catania 1926: 44; M. V. HatzopouIos O EMqvrotros qsZrx~A~as xara qv Pwyaroxparsra (x~pio8os264-44 rcX) Athens 1980: 68; H. H. ScuIlard From the Gracchi to h'ero5 London and New York 1982: 94; R J. A. Wilson SiciZy under the Roman Empire Warminster, Wiltshire 1990: 29; and A. N. Sherwin-White The Roman ~itirenshlj>2Oxford 1973: 306-8, E. Badian Foreign CIienfetae Oxford 1958: 270-1; R Seager Pompey Berketey and Los Angeles 1979: 10; P. A. Brunt "Patronage and Politics in the Verrines" Chiron X 1980: 273-89 at 275 and 282; A. M. Ward Marcus Crassus and the Late Roman Republic Columbia & London 1977: 42-5. V. Casagrandi (ed.) RaccoIta di studi di storia anrica 2 vols. Catania 1893 -6: 5- 1 5. opportunity for the province to contribute back to the state.

Traditionally, scholars have considered SiciIy during the Imperia1 period to have been

a passive province, inhabited by obedient taxpayen who left no mark beyond the island?

Recent evidence has shown that Sicilians were in fact active in the Imperia1 political scene,'

and in one instance, they alrnost contributed an emperor to Rome (p.68). Most of these

Romanised Sicilians carried the narne "Pompeius" and, when exarnined ciosely, can be traced

back in one forrn or another to clients of Pompey the Great and his family.8

Some scholars have attempted to understand Pompey's reputation, while others have

anafysed his property and clienteZaybut apparentfy the ideas have never been combined. In

2994, R G. A. Cluett wrote his doctorai dissertation on The Posfumous Reputation of Pompey

the Great, which concentrates on literary sources pnor to the begiming of the second century

AD, but ignores those provinces where he was influential as well as his clients, who are

ultirnately the flesh and blood of his lasting influence? A more tangible picture than that

conveyed solely by ancient authors is needed. M. S. NicoIs, on the other hand, has written a

doctoral thesis on Pompey's clients, entitled Appearance and ReuZify: A Studj of the Clientele

of Pompey the Great, in which she discussed the allegiance of his clients. Yet, since she

believes that "in the shaping of Pompey's public image it 1i.e. their allegiance] proved to be a

critical ingredient," the long-term ramifications of their fidelity or lack thereof are not

examined.l0 When studying the "public image1' of an individual who is worthy of such

G. P. Verbrugghe ltinera romana: Sicilia Beni 1976: 7;M. 1. Fidey A Hisrory of Siciiy: Ancient Sicify to the Arab Conquest London 1968 (revised as Ancient Ski& 1979): 154; G. Manganaro "1senatori di Sicilia e il problema de1 latifondo" in S. Panciera (ed.) Atti del Colloquio internazionale AiEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio Rome 1982: 369-85 at 377-8; and Wilson (n.3): 179. ' W. Eck "Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien" ZPE CXIIL 1996: 109-28. A cliens was a dependant of apatronus (patron), who Iooked afler the former's interests while receivuig support fiom him (OLD:336-7 and 13 1 1). This relationship was very common in Roman society, working on different social levels and for various purposes. R. G. A. Cluett The Posthumous Reputation of Pompey the Great (diss. Princeton University) Ann Arbor 1994, 'O M. S. Nicols Appearance and Reality (diss. University of California) Berkeley 1992: Abstract. attention, it is vital to determine not only the influence he enjoyed during his lifetime, but

what it meant for fùture generations, since the impact of his actions tend to survive him.

Methodolow

It is for those reasons that the legacy of Pompey the Great and his family has been

chosen for study, and not simply their immediate impact on Sicily. Legacy, as defined in this

dissertation, is more than mere influence; its definition includes the duration of that influence

and its impact while it lasted. Three main factors are included here, namely, Pompey's

property, clients, and reputation, and those three factors, when taken together, demonstrate

not only his presence in an area, but also the extent of his power. As will be seen with the

Pompeii, evidence of property is found in conjunction with the study of their clientage, while

their reputation ultirnately rests on the rapport that they had with their clients. Thus, the key

is to analyse the patron-client relationship.

As today, the ancient Romans had various types of relationships with others. They

could be fiends (amicitio), neighbours (vicinitas), and guests or hosts (hospitium). Aithough

these relationships are usually seen between persons (or even states) of approximately equal

standing, the dominance of Rome and the correspondingly greater political power wielded by

its citizens tended to tum non-Romans into clients." As a result, there are different kinds of clients, some of whom are more attached to their patron than others.

Roman patrons acquired clients in various ways: manurnitting slaves, enfranchising fiee men, or simply providing protection to someone in return for favours. The last instance, which tended to occur in a political context, laid the groundwork for a very loose relationship.

This is due to the fact that clients would change patrons according to ever-shifiing political

" T, P. Wiseman New Men in the Roman Senate Oxford 1971: 34. situations, or they would amass various patrons in order to be assured of aid. This was

especially true in Sicily, where individuals such as Dio of Halaesa had a nurnber of prestigious Romans as patrons (Cic. II Verr. 2-7-19 - 8.24). Sthenius fiom Thermae

Himeraeae (today Térrnini Imerese) is the best exampie. He had hosted local Romans and

Sicilians who are regrettably not narned (IIVem. 2.37.9 1), C. ~arius'~(IIVem 2.46.1 13),

Pompey the Great, C. Claudius Marcellus @r. 80),13 L. Cornelius Sisenna (p. 78) among others (II Ver. 2.45.1 IO), C. Verres (IIVerr. 2.34.83; admitîedly, by force), and finally

Cicero (II Vew. 2.47.1 17). Patronage extended to whole comrnunities as well. According to

Cicero, in 70, the inhabitants of Agrigentum (today Agrigento) were clients of L. Manlius

~ulso'~(IIVer. 2SO.l23), P. Rupilius (cos. 132) was patron of Heraclea Minoa (today

EracIea Minoa; II Vem. 2.50. lZ), C. Claudius Pulcher (cos. 92) was patron of Halaesa (II

Verr. 2.49.122) as well as Messana (today Messina; II Vem 4.3.6), and P. Cornelius Scipio

~asica"was patron of Segesta (II Vew. 4.35.79 - 37.8 1) and perhaps Themae Himeraeae (II

Vew. 2.35.86-7) by inheritance f?om Scipio Afiicanus.16 Although individual Romans were patrons of specific cities, apparently the Claudii Marcelli inherited the clientage of the whole island fiom Marcellus (Cic. Div. Caec. 13 and II Verr. 3.1 8-45), who had sacked its leading city Syracusae (called Syracuse in English) in 21 1 @ivy 26.30-2). Cicero also boasted of being the patron of the entire island (Div. Caec. 2 and At?. 14.12.1).

Some of those patrons even neglected their clients - for exarnple, the Segestans had complained that a statue of their patron goddess Diana, returned by Scipio Afiicanus after his

'' The consul seven times. A consul was one of the pair of highest annual magistrates of the Roman Republic (OLD:423). After his year of office he had proconsular powers and thus could govern a province or cornrnand an army (OLD:1469). l3 Govemor of Sicily in 79 (Cic. II Verr. 3.16.42,9 1.2 12, and 4.40.86-7). l4 Govemor of Sicily in 197 (Livy 32.28). '' Known later as Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica, consul in 52 (Mtinzer RE il1 [1899] 1224-8 [Caecilius #99]). ru nt (n.4): 274 n.8. capture of Carthage in 201 and consecrated in his name, was camed off by Verres (II Yen--

4.36-79-80)- Cicero scolds P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, Afncanus' descendant, for not

addressing the issue (IIVew, 4.37.80-1). In view of that type of clientage, then, some light is

shed on the irresponsibility of certain patrons.

More accuate gauges for the examination of patronal influence are manumission and

enhchisernent, because clients greatly appreciated such benevolent and personal acts, which thus formed a stronger bond between both parties. When a master fieed his slave, the latter nonnally received Roman citizenship as well (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom, 4-22-34), but he was still dependent on his past master. Such dependence took the fonn of uperae @art-time services), possible remunerated work, the obligation of obsequium (compliance), and some inheritance rights due to the patron fiom his new fieedman."

Enhchisement of free men, especially by the end of the Republic, not only became

"a favorite way of conciliating [for Rome] foreign princes and men of outstanding wealth and infl~ence,"'~but also a means for the patron to attach such lofty individuals to himself personally. Those patrons, mostly generals, represented Rome and derived much respect as a result. As Rome expanded its fiontiers (264 BC - AD 117), its citizenship became increasingly desirable because, arnidst other privileges, came exemption of taxes and protection against repressive provincial govemors. Moreover, the only ones who could participate in government and Iead amies to victory were citizens. The higher the office of govenunent an individual attained, the greater his dipitas (stahis or honour) grew, and the greater his opportunity to win gloria on the battlefield.

l7 A. Watson Roman Slave Law Baltimore and London 1987: 35-43. For the sake of clarity, a fieedrnan was a slave who wasfieed and a fkee man was an individuai who was neither a slave nor a Roman citizen, i. e. born fiee. 18 C. E. Goodfellow Roman Citiiemh@(diss. Bryn Mawr College) Lancaster 1935: 6. Once granted, Roman citizenship manifested itself when the beneficiary adopted his

patron's name as a sign of enfranchisement. That adoption of the patron's name was also a

sign of manumission, since the fieedrnan eventually obtained citizenship as well (p.5).

Typically, and especially during the Republic, the average Roman male had three naines, in

Latin trio nomina, although two or four were not unusua~.'~A pertinent example of that is

Pompey the Great whose fiil1 Iegal narne was Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. The first name is

called the praenomen, the middle the nomen, and the 1stthe cognomen. Upon

enfianchisement, the custom was to adopt thepraenomen and nomen of the Roman

responsible for the grant, while the cognomen was the beneficiary's original name?' The

reason for this was "that as soon as a Roman fieedrnan was legally released fiom bondage he

became a hilly-fledged citizen as far as civil status was concerned, but he could only do so by

joining a family, a ged' - that of his former master, now his patron, whose name he took and

whose family cult he adopted from then on."" Hence, when nieophanes of Mytilene in

'' A. E. Douglas "Roman Cognomina" G&R 2d ser. V 1958: 62-6 and 1. Kajanto The Lutin Cognomim Helsinki 1965: 19-20. A female usually only had a nomen, without apraenomen and rarely a cognomen. Ln that event, her name reveals fess about her background (especially if she came fiom a large family) than a man's name does. That observation presents one of the limits of pmsopography (for others, see p.7). T. Mommsen Gesarnmeke Schr@en IV Berlin, Dublin, & Zurich 1906: 407-8 and J. Moms "Changing Fashions in Roman Nomenclature in the Roman Empire" LF XI 1963: 34-46 at 36-8, 2' A gens was in fact a clan of families who shared the same nomen and apparently a cornmon male ancestor (OLD:759-60), but the latter cannot always be proven by blood relation. For instance, Ap, Clausus (of the various names attested for this person, B. J- Kavanagh "The Admission of the Claudian Family to Rome" AHB iV.6 1990: 129-32 at 129-3 1 argues for this one) founded the gens Claudia, one of the largest clans in Rome, but it is not known exactly how M. Claudius Marcellus @.4), fiom the plebeian branch of that family, is related to hirn or if they were direct relatives at dl. The current view is that the Marcelli were not directly descended £iom Ap. Clausus, but still eligible to inherit the property of his patrician branch if there were no more members surviving (A. A1flJId.iEady Rome and the Latins Ann Arbor 1963: 161 and Kavanagh 1990: 132). The Claudii and their known relations are found in RE III (1899) 2662-900 (especially the stemmab on coIs.2665-6,2673,273 1-2,2870, and 2892). * C. Nicolet The World of the Cifizen in Republican Rome (îrans. P. S. Falla) London 1980: 23. An example of this is found in App. B Civ. 1.100: "To the plebeians he CL. Cornelius Sulla Felix] added more than 10 000 slaves of proscribed persons, choosing the youngest and strongest, to whom he gave fieedom and Roman citizenship, and he called them Cornelii after hirnself, in this way he made sure of having 10 000 men among the plebeians always ready to obey his commands." (TG 8& &jpo roùs 806hous rGv &qpq~ÉvwvsoÙs veos&rous TE xai dp&mous pupiwv xh~ious&heuht&oas iyxarihe& xai ~ohi~as&xÉcprlv~'Popahv xai KopvqAious &pl &ausoÜ xpoa~Lxev6xws &roipots Ex rGv ~YJ~OTGVttph T& ~apayy~M6pvapupio~s ~pwo). AIthough fieedmen could legally hold office, their poverty and lack of popularity (when compared with the nobles) very rarely eamed them a seat in the Lesbos, the historian and advisor of Pompey the Great (Strabo l3.2.3), was given citizenship

by the Roman general (Cic. Arch. 24), he becarne legally known as Cn. Pompeius

The~~hanes.~

There are always exceptions to the nomenclatorial rule, however. Q. Lutatius

Diodorus fiom LiIybaeurn (today Marsala), for example, was enhchised by Sulla, but at the

request of Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78; Cic. II Vem 4.17.37). L. Cornelius Balbus (cos. 40)

fiom Gades (today Cadiz in Spain) received his citizenship fiom Pompey the Great in 72

(Cic. Bah. passim). He, however, claimed to have had a very strong comection with L.

Cornelius Lentulus Crus (cos. 49; Cic. Aft. 8.1 Sa and 9.7b), who had probably served under

Pompey during the Sertorian War in Spain (76-71) as many other Cornelii (including those of the Lentuli branch) seem to have done? Balbus, therefore, seems to have been enhchised by Pompey at the request of Crus in 72, especially since bills validating such grants of citizenship by Pompey in Spain that year were carrïed by the consuls L. Gellius Publicola and

Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus (Cic. Bah 19,32-3, and 38). Nevertheless, such instances of name adoption were rare.

As a result, the clients of Pompey can be fairly traced by their name when no other evidence is available to state their relationship with the general explicitly. Moreover, since the children of the enfianchised were born Roman citizens (the narne "Pompeius" was passed through the following generations), so endured the legacy of Pompey the Great. That legacy is, therefore, best represented by those individuals for whose Roman citizenship Pompey or a relation was responsible.

Senate (Sherwin-White En.31: 324-7). By early Imperia1 tirnes, laws appeared banning freedmen Eom the magistracies (ILS 69 14 and im?.hst. 1-5.3). xi According to an inscription published in L. Robert "Théophane de Mytilène à Constantinople"CM 1969: 42-64 at 52-3. 24 R Syme The Roman Revolution Oxford 1960: 44 & his n.2 and add a C. Cornelius (Asc.: 57). The nature of the evidence for Sicilian clients requires some explanation, so that both

the weak and strong points of such a study are noted- The sources for their names are for the

most part epigraphical, although there are literary references. The problem with the former is that the inscriptions are dificult to date and ofien only a name is preserved with no other

information about the individual.= nie ancient literature, although mentioning fewer Sicilian clients than the epigraphic record, contaSns more data about each individual. In the case of the Sicilians enfranchised (or fieed) by Pompey the Great or his farnily, i.e, the Sicilian

Pompeii, many of them are found in the literary sources.

Yet, when both the epigraphical and Iiterary evidence is compiled, the Claudii are the largest gentilicium in ~icil~?~To qualify this staternent, a greater number are mentioned in inscriptions. thus, the Sicilian Pompeii are better documented. That result seems reasonable not only because the nornen "Claudius" was wideIy difised throughout Republican tirnes

(Plut. Public. 21), but some emperors later carried that name as we~l~~when the power to grant citizenship was greater than it was during the time of pompey." The gens Claudia was also of considerably older stock, and many of its members had frequented Sicily since the island had corne under Roman dominion. For instance, there are three Sicilian Ti. Claudii:

Claudianus (first century AD; AE 1977: 33 1 and 198I :465), Ce.. . (Imperial; CIL X.7044),

zs Wilson (n.3): 29-30 demonstrates how almost al1 of the Latin inscriptions in SiciIy are Imperia1 in date. 26 A gentiiCium is a substantive adjective ceferring to the nornen of a particular gens (OLD: 760), therefore it does not necessarily denote a blood relation. "AE 1977: 33 1 and 333,198 1: 465, and 1994: 758 and 760; the indices in CI.X and IG XIV, Manganaro (n.3) 1989: 32b, 7 1, and 85; and M. T. Manni Piraino Iscrlzioni Greche Lapidarie del Museo di Palermo (%c~Arxa VI) Palermo 1973: 144. The literary references are: Cic. Fam. 13.32 & 14.4.6, II Verr. 2.43.107 & 57.140 (with 4.17.37) and Suet, Gram, 29. The Emperors Tiberius (AD 14-37; Ti. Claudius Nero before adoption in AD 4, Gelzer RE X [1919] 478 Dulius #154]), Claudius (AD 41-54; his MI name being Ti. Claudius Nero Germanicus, Gaheis RE III [1899] 2778-839 [Claudius #256]), and Nero (AD 54-68; his IÙll name was Ti. Claudius Nero Ceasar, Hohl RE suppl. 3 [1918] 349-94 pomitius #29]). 29 Morris (11.20): 37-8 and R. Syme Tacifus2 vals. Oxford 1958: 783, and (Clodius) Atilianus (Impenal; CU ~.7061).~*Their citizenship, or their ancestors', may

have been acquired fiom any of about a dozen Roman officiais named Ti. Claudius who are

recorded to have been in Sicily over four centuries? Since few of those Romans can be

comected by blood and since they are spread over four hundred years, it is almost impossible

to trace the legacy of a Roman Claudius and his family (if there was a iegacy) without the

sources specitically stating which Claudius was the "enfranchi~er."~~Large nurnbers of

narnes do not always tell the whole story. When studying the Sicilian Pompeii, although also

well represented numerically, many of these problerns do not arise.

In ternis of structure, the dissertation is divided into three chapters. Chapter I presents

the family of Pompey the Great and his clients from elsewhere who had connections with

Sicily, for they are the ones who would have been the patrons of, and therefore granted

citizenship to, the inhabitants whom they encountered. in other words, this chapter surveys

the potential enhnchisers, who are referred to as the "original" Pompeii because they were

not from the province in question. Once the original Pompeii have ken identified, the study

of the Sicilian Pompeii can begin.

Chapter II concentrates on the Sicilian clients of, especially those who were made

citizens by, the original Pompeii. In the first instance, the specific enfranchiser for each

30 "Clodius" was the vulgar spelling for "Claudius" (J. BWch "Au ni 5 und 6 ni au Un Latein" Gloria XXVI 1938: 145-78 and E. H. Sturtevant The Pronunciation of~reekand Lutin2 PhiladeIphia 1940: 131). E. Courtney A Cornrnenrary on the Satires of Juvenal London 1980: 30 1 holds the extreme view that the altemation of -au- to -O- "is not historically true among the [noble] Claudii", but A. Traina L 'alfabeto e la pronunzia del Latino4 Bologna 1973: 40 n. 1 demonstrates through literary and epigraphic evidence that the s elling of that family narne often switched unpredictably between both forms. )'Ti. Claudius C. f. (First hicWar; AE 1983: 446), Herodianus (AD 203; CIL X.7286), Magnus (c. AD 107; Bursians Jahresbericht CLX)CXIX 1921: 28), Nero (cos. 202; Livy 30.27-39), Nero (gov. 181; Livy 4O.l8), Nero (gov. 167; Livy 45-16), Nero (late Repubiic; Suet. Tib. 6), Saethida Caelianus (c. AD 16 1-9; CIL II1.495), Secundius L. Statius Macedo (AD 147; AE 1934 and CIL V.867), Xenophon (c. AD 190; CIL III.7127), and the emperors mentioned in n.28. " The relations of that gem are seen in W. K-A. Drumann Geschichte ~orns~II Hildesheim 1964: 140-342 (especialIy the stemmata on pp.140-1 and 326) and in RE (n.21)- The problems with the Claudii for this type of study are surnrnarised in E. Rawson "The Eastern Ciientelae of Clodius and the Claudii" Roman Culture and Society Oxford 199 1: 102-24 at 103-4 (and especially at p. 107 for Sicily). Sicilian Pompeius is identified. Once that information is secured, the social status,

occupation, etc. of the individual who was grantted citizenship are studied in order to establish

how important that person was in Sicilian society. Depending on the importance of the enhchised individual, the influence and status of the benefactor may be discovered as well,

When al1 of îhat information on the Sicilian Pornpeii is collected and possibly associated with the farnily of Pompey the Great, the evidence for their legacy on the island can begin to take shape.

Following that, Chapter III compares the Sicilian Pompeii to other enhchised provincials in order to place them in the greater context of the Empire, and to show if and where their influence (and in turn the legacy of Pompey's family) stands in view of the rest of the Roman world. The third chapter is subdivided into three sections. The first contrasts the

Sicilian Pompeii with the Pompeii from another province to note if the former are of greater or lesser importance than those elsewhere. The second part compares the Sicilian Pompeii with a different provincial gentilicium that was granted citizenship by one whose reputation was similar to that of Pompey and his relatives. That sets up a parallei to which the Sicilian

Pompeii can be compared. The last section contrasts them with other Roman gentilicia in

Sicily in order to mark the extent of the former's influence there and its possible significance to the rest of the Empire.

Background

Before discussing the Pompeii and Sicily, a brief history of the province pnor to their arriva1 would be helpfûl to offer a context. The island, the largest in the Mediterranean Sea

(25 460 km2), is located just off the "toe" of ltaly." Its triangular shape explains its original

-- 33 See Figs. 1, II, and III and Wilson (n.3): 2. narne in antiquity, Trinacria (three promontorïes; Plin. HN 3.86-7). This probably derives

fiom Homer's western island @prvaxiq (Thrinakie [trident-land]; Od 11.107, 12.127, 135,

and 19.275). In fact, the province's symbol is that of a female head with three protmding

legs, called the triskefe? Sicily's terrain is mostly rugged, becom ing more mountainous

towards the interior. In fact, the island boasts the still active Aetna (Mt. Etna; over 3300

metres high), which is near the middle of its eastern Coast and the larger of the two vo~canoes

in the ~editerraned~By con- just south of that peak lies the largest area of flat land in

the province, the extremely fertile campus Leonfinu (Plain of Catania) covering 430 square

ki~ometres.~~

Indeed, the island's fertility was proverbial (Strabo 6.2.7). It was Rome's principal

granary during Republican tirnes (Cic. II Verr. 2.5), but seems to have lost its monopoly in

the Empire when Egypt was ~on~uered?~Still, Sicily continued to play a vital role in grain

supply, for it featured as one of the four major grain-producing areas of the Roman Empire in

a Hadrianic (AD 117-38) mosaic fiom Ostia, the port of Rome where the grain shipments were received and stored.3' Thece is also numismatic evidence confirming Imperia1 Sicily as a major grain supplier?g

Arnong the island's earliest inhabitants, there were three groups of indigenous peoples whose exact identities are uncertain, but cm be broadly divided into the following categories: the Elymians in the West, the Sicels in the East, and the Sicans in between (Thuc. 6-2). In the

34 rprmc7ajs means three-legged (US@:1822). See bottom-left hmeof Fig. IV and Wilson (n.3): 2-3. An article on the triskeles is forthcornhg by Wilson (see BibIiography). 35 D. K. Chester et al. Mount Etna Stanford 1985: 2. The other volcano is Vesuvius in Campania at 1277 metres in height (M. Frederiksen Campania Hertford 1984: 6). 36 Wilson (n.3): 6. 37 G. Rickman The Corn Supply ofAncient Rome Oxford 1980: 61 and 105-6. 38 R Meiggs Roman 0stid Oxford 1973: 149-71 on Ostia as Rome's po~pp. 278-98 for Ostia as Rome's grain storage, and fkally p.448 for the date of the mosaic. See Fig. IV for a copy of the rnosaic; the other personifications of grain producing areas (according to Meiggs) are Spain on the bottom right, Afiica at the top le& and Egypt at the top right. 39 H. Mattingly Coins of the RomEmpire in the Brirish Museum III London 1936 (rev. edn. 1976) # 1670. eighth century, Greeks colonised the central and eastern parts of Sicily, while the

Phoenicians, who had founded Carthage about the same time, followed suit in the western

part. Tensions existed, and periodically wars broke out between the Greek East and the Pvnic

West- That was the Sicily on which Rome first stepped in the third century, although it had

already known of the island since the end of the sixth, having negotiated treaties with

Carthage delineating Sicily as a buffer zone between both States (Polyb. 3.21-8).

By 265, Rome had completed its conquest of Italy, extending its sway to the Freturn

Siculurn (Straits of Messina), just over three kilometres away fiom ~icil~.~Double-dealings

on the part of Mamerthe-occupied Messana sparked yet another Greco-Punic conflict on the

island, but this time Rome was introduced to the mkwhen the Mamertines asked for help

(Polyb. 1.7-12).~' That situation triggered the First Punic War (264-241), in which Rome was

eventually victocious. Annexing the western, Le. Punic, half of the island as the first Roman

province, Rome established the eastern, Greek half, which was under the control of the

fiiendly Hieron II of Syracuse, as a "client-kingdom" (Diod- Sic. 23.4). It was not untif some

of these Greco-Sicilian cities proved unfaitfil during the Second Punic War (21 8-20 1) that

Rome punished them and turned the entire isiand into a province. Rome quickly understood

the importance of Sicily, not only militarily because of its proximity to Italy, but

economically as well. With Carthage subdued, the Romans were now a major Mediterranean

force. The province of Sicily, with its many ports and strategic position at the centre of the sea, was very conducive to trade.

Sicily was placed under the governorship of a Roman who acted as a mere supervisor, for the island enjoyed a large degree of self-government (Livy 25.28.3). The province was

40 FulIey (n.6): 3. 41 The Mamertines were mercenaries fkom Cmpania hired by Agathocles, King of Syracuse (c. 3 19-289). After his death in 289 they began to ravage northeasten Sicily (CAH~VIl.ii: 473-4,537-45; G. Tagliamonte Ifrgli di Marte Rome 1 994; and A. Valone "1 Mamertini in Sicilia" Kokalos 1 1955: 22-6 1). organised by dividing its cities into two basic categories: free (ide. exempt fiom the ~i'ecwna~~)

and non-fke (Le. payment of the decuma). AI1 Sicilian comrnunities held the latter status,

except for Netun (today Noto), Tauromenium (Taormina), Messana, Centuripae (Centunpe),

Halaesa, Panhormus (Palermo), Segesta, and Halyciae (Salemi) (Cic. II Vew. 3.6.13 and

5.22.56). nie Iack of direct Roman involvement, except when collecting taxes, coupled with

self-government of communities, are perhaps the main reasons why Romanitas ("Roman-

ness") did not penetrate much of the province during the Republican period.

That arrangement remained in effect until the end of the Republic when Octavian,

following his victory in the civil war against Sextus Pompey (the Sicilian War, 38-36),

reorganised the cities in a manner much more conducive to Romanisation. The war was waged mostly on the northem and eastem coasts of the island; therefore, by the year 2 1, as

AU~US~US,he set up colonies of his veterans in the major cities located there in order to insure the IoyaIty of those areas (RG 28). These Roman colonies, the first in Sicily, included

Syracuse, Catina (Catania), Tauromenium, Tyndaris (Tindari), Thermae Huneraeae, and

~anhormus? Augustus reorganised the remaining cities in a manner befitting their history of allegiance to him; some became rn~nic@ia,~~either with full Roman citizenship (e.g Lipara

[Lipari] and Messana) or with Latin IRights4' (Netum, Centuripae, and Segesta). The status of other rnunicipia is uncertain: Halaesa, Haluntium (S. Marco d'Alunzio), Hema (Enna),

Lilybaeurn, and Agrigentum had either the Roman or Latin franchise. In the instance of

'* The denrmo was the tribute paid in grain (V. M. Scramuzza "Roman Sicily" in T. Frank (ed) An Econornic Stlryey ofAncient Rome ïII Baltimore 1937: 225-377 at 237-40). 43 Scramuzza (n.42): 346-8 describes the entire settlement and lists ail the Sicilian cities whose status is known. The ones given in this survey are limited to those that appear throughout the remainder of this dissertation. 4;' A municipium was a self-governing cornmunity (OU2 1 145). 45 lus Latii was an inferior franchise to the Roman citizenship. It mainly conferred upon its holder iur conubii (the right of intermarriage) and ius commercii (the nght of commerce; Dion. Hal. 6.63.4; 7.53.5; 8.352 and 762). Mylae (Milazzo), Pliny the Elder writes that it was an oppidum,," but Scramuna believes that

"Epigraphy shows, when available, that every Sicilian city PIiny designates as oppidum was

in fact a muni~ipiurn.''~'Furthemiore, the fact that al1 those cities held some sort of hchise

probably exempted them fiom taxation. The remaining Sicilian communities had to pay

taxes; these included Agyrium (S. Filippo d'Argiro), Entella (Rocca dEnteIla), Halicyae,

Murgentia (Morgantina), and Drepana (~rapani)." The Augustan settlement remained, for

the most part, unchanged for the next two and a half centuries.

By that time, the Roman Pompeii had already made their mark on the island, a fact

that the first two chapters will demonstrate. The civil war in Rome between Marius and Sulla

(88-86), and Italy's proximity to Sicily were bound to include the province in the conflict.

With Sulla victorïous, the surviving Marians fled to Spain, Afiica, and Sicily, yet none of

them would escape the young Pompey.

j6 An oppidum was a town without any type of franchise, not Roman or Latin (OLD:1255). 47 Scramuz~a(n.42): 347 (including the epigraphic evidence). 48 The status of Eryx (Erice) is dficult to determine because the town's small size seems to have made it a part of Segesta, Lilybaeum, or Drepana (CIL X: 713 and 747), al1 equi-distant to Eryx yet al1 three of which were in different categories (pp. 13-4). See Fig. III. Chapter 1 The Original Pompeii in Sicily

nie gens Pomveia

The origin of the gens Pompeia is controversial. Sorne scholars believe that the

Pompeii came fiom north of Latium, others that they originated in campania? For this

dissertation, it sufices to howthat they were not from Sicily.

Not al1 of the members of that gens can be directly connecteci by b~ood.'~The

ancients themselves were not sure about the relations among that clan as a quote fiorn

Velleius Paterculus reveals: "there were either two or three families of Pompeii" (seu duae seu tres Pompeiorumfiere familiae; 2.21 -5). Modern scholars agree that the clan can be divided into two basic branches, though a characteristic comrnon ancestor shilar to Appius

Clausus for the Claudian family cannot be identified (n.21):' Velleius' divisions were probably based on the commonest cognomina shared among its members: Bithynicus,

Magnus, and Rufus. When the praenomina of these individuals are exarnined, a clear dichotomy among the Pompeii is revealed: the first narnes "Aulus" or "Quintus" were generally used by the Bithynici and Rufr, while the Magni had either "GnaeusYyor "Sextus" as

49 For Picenum, F. Münzer Roman Aristocratie Parties and Families (trans. Thérèse Ridley) Baltimore & London 1999: 50, J. van Ooteghem Pompée le Grand Brussels 1954: 27-9, Syme (n24): 28, and A. M. Ward "The Early Relationship between Cicero and Pompey until80 B.C." Phoenix XXIV 1970: 11 9-29 at 120; Sabinurn or Umbria, L. R Taylor The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic Roma 1960: 244-7 and 336; Etruria, J, Duchesne 'Note sur le nom de Pompée" AC III 1934: 8 1-9; and Campania, Dnimann (n.32) IV: 3 12 and F. Miltner RE XXI.ii (1952) 2199. See Fig. II for the regions. 'O Drumaun (n.32) IV: 3 10-596 (especially the stemmata on pp.3 10-1); RE XXLii [1952] 1992-2321 (especially the sternmata on coIs.205 1-2); and G. V. Sumner "The Pornpeii in Their Families" AJAH II 1977: 8-25 (especially the sternmata on pp.10-1). Drumann (11.32) IV: 3 12; M. Gelzer "Cn. Pompeius Strabo und der Aufstieg seines Sohnes Magnus" Kleine Schr@en II Wiesbaden 1963: 106-38 at 108-9; F. Miltner RE XXT-ii Cl9521 2050-3; and Sumner (11.50): 8-1 1. praeno~ina?2 It should be noted that the cognomen "Magnust1was not employed by

Pompey's ancestors, but was adopted by the great general himself (]?lut. Pomp. 13).

The Branch of the ~ithmici/~ufi'~

The Fasti Cornlares (CIL 1': 16-29) demonstrate that a Q. Pompeius was the tim

member of the Pompeian family to have reached the consulship, in 141 (CIL 12: 26)."

Plutarch exaggerated the origins of Q. Pompeius by writing that he was the son of a flute- player, ul6~a\iAq.roG (Reg et imper. apophfrh. in Steph. Byz. 200 C.2), but this rnay be a

Greek pun on his father'spraenomen, "Aulus." Cicero wrote that this Quintus was a successful politician, mainly because of his oratoncal prowess (Brut. 25.96). Quintus had also fought at various times in Spain (App. Hisp. 76-9),and had become censor in 13 1 alongside Q. Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus (cos. 143). It is hard to imagine then, in view of such an education and career, that his mer, AULUS,was a lowly historical figure.

Although there is no concrete proof, it is likely that A. Pompeius was a senator because such a position would have easily paved the way for his son's successful public career providing

"Q. Pompeius A. f. wuintus Pompeius AuZif;Zizrs (Q. Pompeius, son of Au1us)l with more of a background than he has traditionally been given.""

Quintus had a brother named Aulus (after their father) who had a son, again named

Aulus, who died as iribunmplebis (tribune of the People) in 102 (Diod. Sic. 36.13). This

YQuin~''rnay have been a popular narne in this family because it is the Lath (guinque) equivalent to the Oscan pompe (Duchesne Cn.491: 8 1-9), both of which mean "£ive-"Oscan was spoken in southern Iraly, especially Campania (E. milgram The Tongues of Italy Cambridge, Massachusetts 1958: 162-3,2 17,225, & 342 and E. Vetter Handbuch der italkchen Dialecte Heidelberg 1953: 8-139). s3 Follow Table 1. " Cicero, furthemore, describes hirn on nurnerous occasions as a novus homo (New Man: Brut. 25.96, 76.263; Font. 23; Mur, 7-8.16-7; and II Verr. 5.7O-l.'18 1). A noms homo was the first man of a family to have reached the Senate (B Afi. 57), or sometimes also used to describe the fmt man of a famiIy to have reached the consulship (Cic. 0)1.138). 55 Sumner (n.50): 10- 1 and 2 1. Aulus (tr. pl. 102) had three sons A SIG^ L 125), one of which is most interesting because his

praenomen was "Sextus," suggesting some comection with the other branch of the gens

~ompeia.'~This Sextus' brother, Aulus, had a son who became a quaestor (EL@ 364). The

third brother, Q, Pompeius Bithynicus, took his cognomen fiom his service in Bithynia where

he was sent in late 75 as a legatus (legate) in order to help organise the province ('est.

320~)~"Little else is known about Q. Pompeius Bithynicus, except that he was killed in 48

along with Pompey the Great and his fleet in Egypt (Oros. 6.15.28). This information is

interesting because it shows cooperation between two members of the gens Pompeia who

were each hma different branch; perhaps f5rther evidence of closer blood relations between

both parties. Q. Pompeius Bithynicus also had a son, Pompeius Bithynicus, who govemed

Sicily from 44 to 42 (Cic. Fam. 6.16-7 and 23.1) and will be discussed in context with Sextus

Pompey below (pp.26-8)?8

To retum to Q. Pornpeius (cos. 141) and his descendants, his son Q. Pompeius Rufus

becarne consul in 88 with Sulla (Cic- Ch. II; Leg. agr. 11,0,2.38; and Bruf. 306).

Anticipathg his command against Mithradates VI (App. B Civ. 1-63), Sulla still wanted to

keep Italy under his control. He therefore married his daughter, Cornelia, to his consular

colleague's son, also named Q. Pompeius Ruhs (Vell. Pat. 2.1 8.6), bringing both farnilies together in order to confirm the other consul's allegiance. Sulla then put Q. Pornpeius Rufus

(cos. 88) in charge ofthe legions in My, which were stationed in Picenum under Cn.

Pompeius Strabo, the father of Pompey the Great (Vell. Pat. 2.29.2). When Rufus amved, the legions refused their new leader and lynched hh, apparently with Strabo's approval (App. B

" Sumner (n.50): 14-5 and 2 1. Cognomina were often merely nichames used to distinguish particular farniIies within a large gens @ougIas Cn.191: 62-6; Kajanto [n. 191: 20; and Morris [n.20]: 34-6). '* Thepraenomen "Aulus"is usually given to this Pompeius Bithynicus, but it is not attested (MM III: 161; Sumner [n.50]: 15 and "The Lex Annalis under Caesar (conrinued)"Phoenk XXV 197 1: 357-7 1 at 360). Civ. 1.63). That poorly described incident in Appian may suggest a rift or feud between the

two branches of the gens Pompeia.

This Q. Pompeius Rufus (cos. 88) had two sons, both of whom, oddly, received their

father's full One was sent to Capua as praetor in 63 to raise soldiers against

Catilinarian conspirators in Carnpania and Apulia (Sall, Cat. 30.5). He was also propraetor

with consular powers in the province of Afilca Proconsularis fiom 62 to 59 (Cic. CaeL 73-4).

Of his brother (p. 17), little is known except that he had by Cornelia a son and daughter. The

son, also named Q. Pompeius Rufus, was a plebeian tribune in 52 and imrnediateiy aRer his

year of ofice was prosecuted by his colleague M. Caelius Rufus (pr. 48) and exiled to

Campania (Val. Max. 4.2.7). The daughter, Pompeia, was married to Julius Caesar from 67

(Suet. lul. 6) to 61 (PM.Caes. 5). The date of that marriage is significant because it occurred

just ahrCaesar had returned fiom his quaestorship in Further Spain, at a tirne when Pompey

the Great was at the height of his power and populanty (p.23). Caesar may have chosen this

Pompeia as his wife as a means of getting doser somehow to Pompey and thereby advancing

his own status and career. If this assumption is correct, then it may suggest that there was

indeed sorne familial tie between both branches of the Pompeii. Mer40 BC, no member of

the Pompeii BithynicVRufi appears historically or epigraphically.

The Branch of the ~arni~'

The other branch of the Pornpeii, the one on which this dissertation concentrates, begins with the grandfather of Cn. Pompeius Strabo, the otherwise unknown Cn. Pompeius

59 Sumner ([nSO]: 12-3) explains both sons having the same praenomen as evidence of an adoption. He beiieves that one was adopted when the other died in early 88 (Plut. SuIl. 8 and Mar. 35). Tempting as that solution may be, adoption is usuaiiy denoted with an agnomen, a name afier the cognomen to show the kinship of the original family (OLD: 87); one which this individual is not recorded to have possessed. Follow Table II. (CIL ~~.i:27). Al1 that is known of this individual is derived from his two sons, Sex.

Pompeius Faustulus (RRC 235) and Cn. Pompeius. The latter was a senator c. 129 (RDGE

12), while the former was govemor of Macedonia fiom c, 121 (AE 1993: 1385) until 1 19 when he died in action repulsing raiding Cela SIG^ 700). In order for Faustulus to have governed a province he rnust have been a praetor previously, perhaps in 122. It is likely, then, that his father was a senator, since Faustulus had reached an office as prestigious as the praetorship and his brother Gnaeus was a senator as well. That hypothesis can be paralleled with that of A. Pompeius, the father of Q. Pompeius (cos. 141), who was also probabfy a senator. Both branches of the Pompeii therefore seem to have broken into the Roman nobility in the early second century BC.

Faustulus may have been the first Pompeius with an interest in or at least a connection with Sicily. His wife Lucilia was the sister of the satiric poet C. Lucilius who possessed rnuch property (Cic. De or. 2.284), in Bruttium, near Tarenturn (today Taranto) in Calabria

(Lucil. 594), and especially in Sicily (Lucil. 594 and 667). He died a single man c. 102, about

17 years after Faustulus did, and even if Faustulus could not have inherited any of this property, his children were in line to inheritO6'

Faustulus had two sons: the polymath Sex. Pompeius, whom Cicero describes as brilliant in mathematics and jurisprudence (Brut. 175; Phil. 12.27; 0fl 1.19; and De or. 1-67,

3-78}, and Cn. Pompeius Strabo. With regard to this first son and his descendants, Sex.

Pompeius' son was Q. Pornpeius, who was a fkiend of Cicero (Fam.13-49), and this Quintus, in turn, had a son named Cn. Pompeius who became consul sut-ectus in 3 1 (CIL r2: 61 and

6' Lucilius as a bachIor is argued by F. Marx (ed.) C. LdiiCarminum Reliquiae (Teubner) 1 Leipzig 1904- 5: xix and dates his death on pp-xxii-xxiü. 66)P2 This Gnaeus was also amermvaiis by 20 (MA8) until he died in AD 14 when his

son succeeded to the same office (MA 107)P3 Nothing else is known about this son, also

narned Cn. Pompeius, except that he was still an arval brother in AD 20 (AFA 10). The most

interesting feature of this particular line is the presence of a Quintus arnong a host of Gnaei

and Sexti. Just as one example of thepraenomen "Sextus" is found in the BithynicVRufi, so a

Quintus is found in this branch. Perhaps it is more evidence of a comection between both

branches of the gens.

Sex. Pompeius had a homomymous son who was a member of Cn. Pompeius Strabo's concilium (advisory board) in 89, according to an inscription that records the enfranchisernent of a Spanish cavalry squadron by Strabo at that time (ES 8888). This Sextus in tum had a son also with the same narne (hcr. Ifal. XIII.1.136 and 508-9) who served as consul for 35

(Cass. Dio 49.18.6 and 33.1). This last Sex. Pompeius seems to have been the grandfather of the Sex. Pompeius who was consul ordinarius in AD 14~as well as governor of Macedonia in AD 8-9 (Ov. Pont. 4.5.33-4) and of Asia in 24-5 (Val. Max. 2.6.8)? The consul in AD 14 owned property in three different parts of the Empire: in Macedonia (probably acquired from his govemorship or inherited fkom that of his great-great-grandfather ~austulus~,in

Carnpania (probably because it was a popular Roman vacation spot6' or the Pompeian place of origin Cp. 15 n.49]), and in Sicily (Ov. Pont. 4.15.15-20).

" #en a consul retired or died, a suffect consul was appointed for the rest of the former's office (OLD: 1860). From 5 BC onwards a suffect consul took office after the first few months of an ordinary consul (consui orditzarïiur) in order to raise the number of total consuls in a year and hence the opportunity to become one (Syme [n.î4]: 197,373-4, and 420). " The arvai brethren was a priestly college in hperial Rome (which included the worship of the Imperia1 cul&i.e. the Emperor) consisting of 12 members chosen fkom senatoriai families (J. Scheid Les Frères anraïes Paris 1975). a Suxmer (11.50): 1O & 20 and R Syme History in Ovid Oxford 1978: 157-8 & 162. nie dates are derived 6.om B. E Thornasson LaterdPraasidunt 1 Goteborg 1972: 18 1 Kl3.10 and 2 1O #26.32; add Pergamon 11.420 as Merevidence. Cn. Pompeius Strabo, the great-granduncle of this Sextus, was aiso govemor of Macedonia (see p.21 n.70). 67 J. H. DIArrns Romans on the Bay of Naples Cambridge, Massachusetts 1970. To return to the other son of Faustulus, Cn. Pompeius Strabo was also married to a

Lucilia, the niece of Faustulus' wife (Vell. Pat. 2.29.2). Strabo might therefore have owned

Sicilian land through his wife, who was thus also the niece of C. Lucilius the poet. Since it is

presumed that Lucilius probably never married, his closest living relatives, including this

Lucilia, may have inherited his possessions in 102." Strabo, however, is not recorded to have

ever been in Sicily, but rather in Sardinia where his senatonal career began when he was

elected quaestor in 106 (Cic. 08 2.50). He was also plebeian tribune in 104 (Cic- DN. Caec.

19-63)? elected praetor, and then served as propraetor in Macedonia, Iike his father, but

exactly when is unclear?' In early 90, he fought in the Social War (9 1-87; Cic. Font- 43).

InitiaIIy, Strabo's military record was poor, but he quickly began to make progress until

success rewarded him with his first consulship the next year (App. B Civ. 1.40-50). He had

the first major breakthrough of the war with the capture of Asculum (today Ascoli Piceno;

App. B Ch 1.47) and this helped to bring the war swiftly to a conclusion (Diod. Sic. 37.2),

although not without much destruction (Flor. 2.6.14). Strabo died from a plague in 87 while

trying to seize control of Rome during the civil war between Marius and Sulla (Vell. Pat.

221)?l

a) The Accomplishments of Pompey the Great

Pompey the Great was born to Cn. Pompeius Strabo and Lucilia on 29 September 106

BC (Plin. HN 37.13). From very early ,in Pompey's life, he was never very far away fkom his

68 3. Leach Pompey the GmtLondon 1978: 15; van Ooteghem (11.49):33 and n.2; A. B, West "Lucilian Genealogy"AJPhiL XLIX 1928: 240-52 at 247-8; and see Table Ila. 69 The dates are calculated by E. Badian "ThreeNon-TciaIs in Cicero" KZio LXVI 1984: 291-309 at 306-9. " According to a honourific inscription found on the Acropolis of Athens (P. Groebe "RUmische Ehreninschriften. 1. Eine Athenische Ehreninschrift des Cn. Pompeius Strabo cos. 89 v. Chr." MDM (A) XXXIII 1908: 135-8). 7' Needless to Say, Strabo was not popular for desiroying Asculum and playing that selfish role during the civil war (see p.49 for more evidence of his unpopulan'ty). father. At the age of 16 (90 BC), Pompey served with Strabo in the siege of Asculum (Cic.

kg.Man. 28) and he was also a member of his fathefs concihm in 89 (p.20). When Strabo

died in 87, Pompey remained in Picenum and began recruiting rnany of his fathefs clients

(Cic. Q Fr. 2-3.4and Phil. 5.44). Although he was in effect cornmanding troops at this tirne,

Pompey did not receive his own rnlperium (command), formally approved by the Senate, until

82 when Sulla sent him to battle the Marian forces that were under Cn. Papirius Carbo

(cos.III 82) and M. Perperna Veiento (pr. 82) in Sicily (Livy EpiL 89).

It is worth noting at this point that Pornpey may have owned some property in Sicily aiready, for the evidence seems to show that his relatives, the Lucilii, were land-owners there.

Perhaps Sulla sent the youth to the island because he felt that Pompey had vested interests there as well as clients who would help him? Once there, Pompey defeated the Marian faction quickly and peacefilly (Cic. Leg. Man. 30) as Carbo went into hiding while Perperna evacuated the province, for both were in fear of the magnitude of Pompey's forces? Pompey immediately organised the province (Plin. HN 7.96), such as regulating the decuma (Cic. II

Vem 3.16.42). Unlike his father, he sought the popularity of the ~eo~le;~and so treated the province with care (Plut. Pomp. 10): for instance, he had the swords of his troops sealed to their scabbards and inquired about any broken seals (Plut. Mor. 203C). Impressed, Sulla gave

Pompey another command in 8 1, again approved by the Senate, to do battle against the

Marian resistance led by Cn. Domitius ~henobarbus~'in the province of Afnca (Plut. Pomp.

- - * Sulla ais0 carefully noted the Picene legions under Pornpey and so did not want to repeat the mistake that he had made with Strabo in 88 (see pp. 17-8). He therefore took Pompey under his wing and secured his loyalty by giving him his stepdaughter Caecilia Aemilia to marry (Plut, Pornp. 9 and Sull. 33). Sulla also probably did not want someone with so many armed men to take over while he was re-establishing the oligarchy madian Cn.41: 270 and n2). Badian (n.4): 270 and n.1 estimates that Pompey cornmanded six legions by the time that he was in Sicily. 74 Seager (n.4): 5-6 and see n.7 1 above. 75 No title for this individual is preserved (Mihuer RE V [1905] 1327-8 [Domitius #22]). 1 1). Once more, Pompey swiftly conquered his opponent (Plut. Pomp. 1 1-4). It was fiom

these victories that Pompey assumed his cognomen "Magnus" (p. 16) and slowly began to drift fiorn the Sullan party as his confidence uicreased, even while Sulla was still alive (Plut.

Pomp. 14-5 and Sull. 34).

After Pompey had defeated Q. Sertorius and Perperna in Spain in 72, the last of the

Marians (Plut. Pomp. 20- l), he took credit for ending M. Crassusf (cos.II 55) Slave Wax the next year against Spartacus (73-71) by defeating a detachment of 5000 slaves who had escaped to Etruria (Plut. Crass. 1 1). As a result he became the most prominent man in Rome, and shedthe consulship of 70 with C'rassud6 It was no surpise when, in 67, he received total control of the Roman navy to repel the Cilician pirates (Cic. Phil. 11-18), who infested the Mediterranean Sea (Plut Pornp. 24). The pirates made raids on such sources of grain as

Sardinia and Afnca (Cic. Leg. Man. 34), but especially on Sicily where they had been raiding since the govemorship of Verres (73-71; Cic. If Verr. 3-5 passim). Hence, that campaign was probably Pompey's second presence in Sicily.

The naval command introduced Pompey to the East, or more specifically to Cilicia in

Asia Minor. Mer successfuliy sweeping the sea clean of pirates, he was given another command, this time against Mithradates VI (Plut. Pomp. 30). During this campaign (67-62), not only did Pompey defeat the Pontic king, but he conquered most of what would become the eastern half of the Roman Empire and he buffered those provinces with a multitude of adjacent client ki11~dorns.7~He himself boasted of this feat, proclaiming that he found Asia as a Roman fiontier and lefi it at the centre of the Empire (Plin. MV 7.98-9).

" Pompey became consul at the age of 35 despite the new lex Annafis drawn up by Sulla only a decade earlier (in 81) stipulating that 42 was the minimum age required for the consulship (Cic. Phil. 5.48 and Leg. Man. 62; A. E. Astin The LaAnnalis before Sulla Bruxelles 1958: 3 1-41). Seager (n.4): 52-4 describes Pompey's eastem settlement in detail. Subsequent to his eastern conquests and return to Rome in 62, Pornpey rernained

mostly in Italy, involving himselfmore with political than military events, until the civil war

with Julius Caesar erupted (49-48). From 57 to 52 he was given a grand position in the

otherwise modest maunnonae (the grain commission) which had proconsular imperium and

15 legates attached to it, but no army (Cic. Att. 4.1-7). Plutarch recorded that Pompey

travelled to Sicily, as well as to Sardinia and Afiica, whenever there were diffrculties with the

corn supply during those years (Pomp. 50 and Mor. 240c). The corn commission was clearly

associated with Sicily, as Cicero reveals when he notes the anger of Cassius at being given

such a position in 44.'8 The orator wrote that the tyrannicide would not go to Sicily (se in

Siciliam non iîumm), and quotes him asking rhetorically, "ShouId 1 accept an insult as a favour?" (egone ut beneficium accepissem conttimelim; Cic. Att. 15.1 1). That Somation thus provides evidence of the third capacity in which Pompey came into contact with Sicily.

It does not seem that Pompey ever again visited the island because at the end of his command of the grain supply in 52, civil unrest led to his sole consulship, the first ever at

Rome (Plut. Pomp. 54). Such conditions escalated to civil war in 49 against Caesar who quickly secured Sicily, as well as Sardinia. His motives were not only to control the grain and to cmsh any plans that Pompey may have had of using a fleet," but also perhaps to neutralise the Sicilians from providing Pornpey any help. The conflict culminated in the

Battle of Pharsalus in Macedonia, which Caesar won in the following year (Cic. Fam. 7.3.2).

Pompey fled to Egypt where he was imrnediately killed, on 28 September 48 BC, the day before his fifty-eighth birthday (Caes. B Civ. 3.1 03.3).

78 For Sicily as a granary, see also p. 1 1. * C. G. Starr The Roman Imperid N& London 1960: 5 and 9 n. 14. 6) The Children of Pompey

Pompey the Great had a nurnber of wives, but he only had children who survived by

Mucia Tertia (Suet. lui. 50): Gnaeus was the olden son but his age is not known (Luc. 2.63 l),

Sextus was bom in 76, and Pompeia whose age is completely unattested.BOFloms writes that

in 67 during the war against the Cilician pirates Pompey placed both sons in charge of the

Egyptian Sea (1.41 .%IO), but this might not be true as Sextus, for instance, would have been only 8 or 9 years old.8' Gnaeus' first known command was in 49 when he cornmanded ships from his fatheh Egyptian Beet (Caes. B Civ. 3.4.4,5.3, and 11 1.3).82 After Pharsalus, he continued Pornpey's war effort in Mcain 47 (Plut. Cic. 39.1-2 and Cat. Min 55.3) and

Spain in 46 (B Hisp. 30- 11, but failed at both attempts and was eventually killed after a desperate defence near Lauron in Hispania Tarraconensis (Cic. Att. 12.37a). His brother, although ultimately defeated, was considerably more successful.

Little is known about Sextus Pompey until afler the Battle of Pharsalus in 48, when he heard of his father's death and joined his brother fmt in Afkica and later in Spain (Cass. Dio

43.30.4). It was during the Spanish War in 46 that Sextus was given his first military command, for he was in charge of a garrison at Corduba (today Cordoba) in Baetica (B Hisp.

3.1,4.4 and 1 1.1). It was there, upon receiving word about the death of his brother (B Hisp.

32.4), that he took it upon hirnself to continue the Pompeian war effort.

'O Hacias (n.3): 3-9 and J. Rougé "La date de naissance de Sextus Pompde" MLXLVI 1968: 180-93. '' Sumner (ln.501: 15 and 21) hypothesises that the Pompei iuvenes to whorn Florus refen as Iegates in the Egyptian waters may be A. and Sex. Pompeii, the brothers of Q. Pompeius Bithynicus (p.17). This theory is enticing because the brothers were roughly the right age to be Iegates and Flow rnay have confirsed the Sextus with Pompey's son. If those two brothers did help Pompey, then it would be fiirther evidence of a connection between the branches, however it does not take into consideration the possible rift between the two families as evidenced by the Iynching of Q. Pompeius Rufus in 88 by Strabo's troops @p. 17-8). 82 With regard to Sumner's suggestion in the previous note, Florus may also have confused the Pompei imenes in Egyptian waters with this Gnaeus' Egyptian command in 67 andior with the death of Q. Pompeius Bithynicus in Egypt with Pompey's fleet in 48 (p.17). Initially, Sextus opted to build up his forces quietly (B Hisp. 37.5), waiting for an

opportune time to return to the political scene (Cic. PhX 13-13). The moment came when

Julius Caesar was assassinated. Since the Senate believed that, along with the Republicans

Brutus and Cassius, Sextus was the only credible rival to Caesar's powerfùl political deputy,

Mark Antony, it offered him complete control of the Roman navy on 20 March 43, a

cornmand similar to that which his father had enjoyed in 67 (Cic. Phil. 13 .so).~~With that

naval command, Sextus came to be recognised as the last hope for the Republic, whose

syrnpathisers quickly flocked to him, as did runaway slaves and adventurers (App. B Civ.

4.84-5). By the close of 43 he had about seven legions (Cic. Aa 16.4.2) and 130 vessels."

In organising his neet against Antony, Sextus understood that he first needed a seif-

sufficient base impregnable by land.85 Sicily was the obvious choice for several reasons: its

fertility could sustain his troops, his father had established a favourable reputation among its

inhabitants, it was close to Italy, and behg an island it complemented his sea-borne military

povm. meonly problem was that Antony was trying to consolidate the province by offering

the Sicilians Roman citizenship (Cic. An. 14-12), an attempt that the Senate eventually

blocked (Diod. Sic. 13.35.3 and 16.70-6). Sextus, therefore, first attacked Mylae (App. B Civ.

4.84) and then Tyndaris (Vell. Pat. 2.72.4). He besieged Messana where Pompeius

Bithynicus, who governed the province, was stationed (Livy Per. 123)~~~They eventually

came to an agreement, for while Bithynicus held the tegal jurisdiction, Sextus had formidable forces (Vell. Pat. 2.73.3). As a result of that understanding Sextus eventually gained control

83 Syme (n.24): 464 argues that the Romans did not have a word for "Republican,"therefore "Pompeian" was the closest description. For the calcdations, see J. Kromayer "Die Entwickelung der mmischen Flotte vom Seeriiuberkriege des Pompeius bis zur Schiacht von Actium" Philologus LVI 1897: 426-9 L at 439-46. By the time that Sextus was defeated in 36, he had about 10 legions (P. A. Brunt Ilalian Manpower Oxford 1971 [repr. with kostscript 19871: 499) and 350 ships (Kromayer 1897: 450-8). Hadas (n.3): 7 1-2 and 83. 86 This is the son of Q. Pompeius Bithynicus (p.17). of Syracuse, the capital of the province (Cic. II Verr- 2.S3.I33,4.53.ll8, 5.12.30, and 3 1.80),

and the rest of the island by December 43 (Cic. Fm12.28).

The degree of clout that Pompeius Bithynicus possessed at this point is not known, It

is assurned that his governorship began in 44 because T. Furfanius Postumus was govemor

there only during the year 45 and no one else is known to have filled this position until

Bithynicus in 43 (Cic. Fm. 6.9 and 8.3)." This suggests that Bithynicus was sent to the

province by Caesar, who had been consul that year and dictator since 49 (Caes. B Ch

2.21.5)?

T. EL S. Broughton, W. K. A. Dnimann, and M, Hadas al1 believed that in 44, shortly before his death, Caesar made Bithynicus govemor of Sicily, but they do not provide any expianation." Caesar's decision was probably twofold. One was that they had previously been connected by a rnarriage, Le. Caesar's third wife, Pompeia king a member of the same branch as Bithynicus e.18). He perhaps knew him well and long enough to trust hirn.

Caesar may also have given Sicily to Bithynicus specifically because he thought that the inhabitants would respect their new governor simply because his nomen recaIIed Pompey the

Great; furthermore, Bithynicus' father, as already seen (p. l7), was on Pompey's side of the civil war.

The CO-ruleof Pompeius Bithynicus and Sextus Pompey was very uneasy, the proof of that being in 42 when the latter killed the former on the grounds that he was conspiring against hirn (Livy Per. 123). Cassius Dio confirms Bithynicus' treachery (48.19.1) and Risse supports that viewmwAppian wrote about how Sextus did not like to listen to his advisors (B

'' MRR II: 307. Sumner (n.58): 360 is sceptical about Pompeius Bithynicus' governorship in 44, but does not rule out the possibility. 88 If not by Caesar, then certainly a Caesarian, most probabty Antony (see p.26). 89 MRR II: 329; Dnimann (11.32) IV: 568; and Hadas (n.3): 72. C. Risse De Gestis Sexri Pompei (diss. Monasteni Guestfalonun) 1882: 12. Civ. 5.8.70), and modern scholars point out that his continued success was increasing his self-

confidence?' It may, on the other hand, be a second piece of evidence of a possible feud

between both branches of the gens Pompeia.

The suspicion which prompted Bithynicus' murder took the form of an attack led by

Q. Saividienus Rufiis Salvius (desig. cos. 39), one of Octavian's generals; but Sextus, who

established himself at Messana in order to control the Fretum Siculum, repelled hirn (App. B

Civ. 4.84-5). Octavian had to respect Sextus' generalship, for Sextus had already penetrated

north to Gad (Cass. Dio 48.30) and southwards to Afnca (App. B Civ. 5-67), al1 in an effort to obstruct the grain supply to Italy. Rome began to starve (B. Civ. 5.143) and the Second

Triumvirate could not do much else but corne to terms with Sextus by signing a peace treaty in 39 at Misenum in ~arn~ania.~~It oficially gave Sextus Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and any other islands already in his possession (Plut. Ant. 32) as well as the Pelopomese (Vell. Pat.

2.77.2), in retm for alleviating the grain blockade. Sextus' political career was at its peak as a result ~f the Treaty of Misenum, as is illustrated by the inhabitants of the Aeolic islands who supported him soon afterwards. They saw hirn as more of a champion of the Republic than they did the Trumvirs (Cass. Dio 48.48.6)?3 In theory, Sextus was now in full control of the western Mediterranean Sea, if not the whole body of water.

When Antony, for various reasons, had not handed the Pelopomese to Sextus by 38

(Plut. Ant. 67.3), the surviving son of Pompey the Great sent one of his lieutenants,

Menecrates, with a fleet to ravage Campania in protest (Cass. Dio 48.46.1). Octavian used this opportunity as a pretext to attack Sicily, claiming that Sextus had broken the Treaty of

'' Dnimann (11.32) N: 569; 1. D. Seiffen De Sex. Pompeio Magno Cn Magni F. (diss. Traiecti ad Rhenum) 1846: 64; and Hadas (n.3): 79. '' The second set of triumvirs were Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus, who together had been controUing the state since 27 November 43 BC (App. B Civ. 4.7). 93 Octavian, however, thwarted the inhabitants of Lipara, the largest Aeolic island, by settling them near Neapolis (today Naples) in Campania until the Sidian War was over (Cass. Dio 48.48.6). Misenum, but he was defeated (App. B Civ. 5-77-84). In 36, Octavian renewed the assault,

not only on the northem coast of the island, but this time ordered the (suffect) consul of that

year, T. Statilius Taunis, to attaçk the eastern coast, and Lepidus, the triumvir, the southern

(App. B Ch 5.109). Sextus prepared by fortiwg two islands, Lipara to the north of Sicily

and Cossyra (Pantellaria) to the south, and also the mainland town of Tauromenium to the

east (Cass. Dio 49.5.2). He stationed in LiIybaeum a legion under one of his lieutenants, L.

Plinius Rufus, in order to help oppose Lepidus' land forces fkom Afica, and he himself again went to Messana (App. B Civ, 5.97) so that he could control both the northern and eastern fronts.% Octavian sailed out on 1 July (Cass. Dio 49.i.l), but two days later strong winds destroyed some of Lepidus' ships and forced Statilius to tum back to Tarentum (App. B CN.

5.98). A month later Octavian renewed the attack ttirough his capable admiral, M. Agrippa, who took the Aeolic islands from the Pompeians (Vell. Pat. 2.79) and later Mylae, and several toms, except for Tyndaris (Livy Per. 129). Two weeks later Sextus only had the northeastern tip of Sicily and eventually lost that at the Battle of Naulochus in September

(App. B CN. 5.107-8).

Since Lepidus was now out of the picture, Sextus, envisioning a clash between

Antony and Octavian, fled to Antony in the ~ast?' Antony, however, had different ideas, and sent a representative, M. Titius (suff. 3 l), to confkont Sextus in Asia. Antony's arnbassador caught Sextus at Midaeum in 35 (Strabo 3.2.2). The son of Pompey the Great was brought to

Miletus, and killed there, most probably by order of Antony (App. B Civ. 5.144).

The year of Sextus' death is interesting because the consul of that year was another

94 Strategically, Messana was very important because, as both Octavian and Sextus knew very well, the size of the isiand demanded a significant land force for takeover and that part of Sicily was closest to Italy for transporthg troops quickly and safely fkom the peninsula (Hadas In.31: 129). 95 Hadas (n.3): 149-50. Sex. Pompeius (Cass, Dio 49.1 8.6), his third cousin and the great-grandson of Faustulus,

Oztavian, who by this tirne was in control of the West, knew that Rome still revered Pompey

the ~reat? In fact, even though he owed his status to Caesar, Octavian was begiming to

distance hirnself fkom the memory of his adopted fatherP7 As Augustus, he had never

claimed to have set up an empire governed under his sole rule (RG 1-5-6), but rather "to have restored the ~e~ublic."~*He also knew that Pompey was more closely associated to the

Republican form of govemment than was caesarSw In fact, in one episode of the Aeneid,

"which concentrated especially on the origin of ~u~ustus,"~~Anchises tells Caesar in the underworld to lay his weapon down in fiont of Pompey (6.834-5). Sextus had obstructed

Octavian, so the Iatter was forced to eliminate him. That he was a Pompeius, another son of

Pompey the Great, was merely a matter of circumstance. The consulship of 35 was proof that

Octavian did not punish an entire farnily because he had problems with one member. That practice was repeated in 3 1 when Cn. Pompeius was a suffect consul, when he and bis son

Cn. Pompeius were Arval Brethren c. 20 BC to c. AD 20 (pp.19-20), and the last year of the

Emperor Augustus' life (AD 14) when Sex. Pompeius, the grandson of the consul in the year

35 BC, was ordinary consul (p-20). In fact, Augustus also ernployed M. Pompeius Macer, the

% Sumner (n.50): 20. '' This can be seen fiom the numismatic evidence presented in P. Zanker The Power of images in the Age of Augzrstus (trans. A. Shapiro) Ann Arbor 1988: 47-57, where Octavian gradually stopped using the sidus lulr'a (Julian cornet), the syrnbol of Caesar's apotheosis, after intially exploiting it when his adoptive father had died 98 rem publicam ... libertarem vindicavi (RG 12-3); reipublkae constituendae creavir (1.9); and $poaiov xpa#pkav xarop9o~s(7-1-2). 99 See p.26 n.83 for the association between Pompey the Great and the Republic, and p.28 for the People's reference of Sextus over the Second Triurnvirate. quocimaxime studebat ... Augusfi origo (Suet Yita Yerg 21). son of Cn- Pompeius Theophanes fiom Mytilene (Strabo 13,2.3), as his personal Iibrarian

(Suet lul. 56.7)!01

One might add that Livia, the wife of Augustus (Suet- Aug. 62), was allied with the

Pompeii in the early years of that civil war- She was first married to Ti. Claudius Nero (pr.

42; Suet. Tib. 4), and ahrthe Siege of Perusia in 40 (App. B Cix 5.3249) she fled with hirn and their son, the friture Emperor Tiberius, among others, to Sextus in Sicily (Vell. Pat. 2.75).

There, also, Livia's husband was helped by Pompeia, the sister of Sextus (Suet. Tib. 6.3)-

It appears that a11 of Sextus' family may have been with him in Sicily, for even his aunt Pompeia, the sister of Pompey the Great, is recorded to have kenthere (?lut- Pomp. 1 1).

This is not surprising as Sextus would not want to leave any loved ones easy targets for

Octavian. Mthough what appears to be Pompey the Great's last descendant does not die until c AD 70,1°2 there is no record that any of his descendants played a subsequent role in Sicily's history and as such do not figure in this study.

Other Pompeii with a Connection to Sicily

There are other Pompeii recorded historically who went to or had business in Sicily, but who cannot be securely placed in either of the branches discussed. Some may have been related to one of the noble branches of the Pompeii, while others may have simply been their clients. The earliest exampie is Pompeius Varus, a fighting cornpanion of the Augustan lyric poet Horace on the losing Republican side at the Battle of Philippi in 42, who fled to Sextus in Sicily (Acro Carm. 2.7) as did many others.'03 In light of his nomen, it is tempting to

'O1 Macefs praenomen "Marcus"seems very dubious, but it is the reading found in that passage of Strabo's Geopphy (132.3). J. M. Bertrand "Apropos de deux disparus: Cn. Pompeius Theophanes, M. Pornpeius Macer" ZPE LX1985: 173-6 accepts this narne, See the comment by Syme in n.222. 'O2 See Table n[ (especialiy Ilb-d). 103 After Bmtus and Cassius Iost the Battie of Philippi, some of the survivors went over to Sextus and others to Antony, Ocfavian, and perhaps even to Lepidus (Cas Dio 48.19.3 and VeIl. Pat, 2.72.4). consider that he was comected in one way or another to Sextus, but there is no such proof.

His praenomen is not known, and his cognomen is unique with respect to the gens Pompera,

therefore there are simpiy insufficient primary sources available to arrive at any sound

conclusion about him.

Another individual is M. Pompeius Macer who had travelled together with Ovid, the

poet, through the provinces of Asia and Sicily c. 23 (Pont. 2.1 0).14 Scholars suggest that a

certain M. Pompeius Macrinus Neos Theophanes (suff. AD 100), governor of the island

province c. AD 118 (AE 1979: 599, may have been Macer's great grandson.'05 These

individuals, both descendants of Cn. Pompeius Theophanes of Mytilene, are discussed at

greater length in the third chapter because of theù origins in the province of Asia (pp.80-1).

The next historical figure is Pompeius Paulinus, praefectus annonae (prefect of the grain supply) c. AD 48 (Sen. Dial. 10.1 8-9).lM He was a Romanized Gallic knight fkom

Arelate (today Arles-sur-Rhône) in Narbonensis (Plin. MV 33.50.143), whose ancestor was probably enfranchised by Pompey the Great.''' As with Pompey when he was mator

------104 It is not certain whether this Macer and the personal Librarian of Augustus @p3O-1) are the sarne person or two different individuals. The connection is endorsed by many scholars: PIR' ïIk 67-8 #472], A, L. Wheeler "Topics fiom the Life of Ovid" AJPh XLVI 1925: 1-28 at 21 & n.34, and Syme (11.64): 73); negated by P. Green (Ovid The Erotic Poem English trans. P. Green Penguin Classics Hamondsworth 1982: 26-8 and The Poems of Exile English trans. P. Green Penguin Chsics Harmondmorth 1994: 329); confused in RE CR, Hanslik XXLii Cl9521 2276-7 rornpeius #92] and R. Helm 23 15-6 [#144]); B. K, Gold is ambiguous by not mentioning hidtheirpraenomen ("Pompey and Theophanes of Mytilene" AJPh CVI 1985: 3 12-27 at 323); and P. White does not resolve anything ("Pompeius Macer and Ovid" CQ XLU 1992: 210-8). Hanslik (1952): 2276 also names hirn "Gnaeus," because he is described as the son of Cn. Pompeius Theophanes (Bertrand [n. 1O 11: 173-6 claims that Gnaeus is the praenomen of Marcus' brother). In this dissertation both identities, Le. Ovid's tnend and Augustus' librarian, are considered to belong to the same person, because the evidence sufficiently suggests as much with no real reason for such scepticism. 105 Kiass RE XM.ii (1952) 2278-9 (Pompeius #5); Moms (n20): 3; PIR' III: 68 #475]; and see Table V. Notice also thepraenomen of M. Pompeius Macrinus Neos Theophanes, IO6 O. Hirschfeld "Die getraideverwaltung in der ramischen kaiserzeit" Philologus XXIX 1870: 1-96 at 95-6 established the identity and background of this individual. 'O7 Many Narbonesians carried the name "Pompeius" (the index in CIL XII shows a large number of examples), probably as a result of Pompey's recruitment when passing through that province to fight Sertorius in Spain. Enfranchisernent as a reward for military service has already been seen with Pompey's fkther, Strabo, who granted citizenship to a Spanish cavairy @2O). For more on the granting of citkenship to veterans as a rewzrd for service, see pp. 36-8,85-6, and 95. annonae, Paulinus may have conducted some business in Sicily with regard to the grain

supply. The fact that not many holders of this ofice are known for the early Empire and that

one of them was a ~orn~eius,'~~continues to reinforce the apparentiy strong co~ection

between the idand and the gens. That office, however, was held by Paulinus in the reign of the Emperor Claudius who, in the words of Suetonius (Claud L8.1), "always gave scrupulous attention to the care of the city and the supply of grain" (urbis unnonaeque curam sollicitissime semper egit). Perhaps Claudius, who had a particular attachent to ~auls,'~~ made Paulinus praefecm annonae simply because he felt that the important corn supply would be in safe in the hands of a Rornanised Gaul and not necessarily a Pompeius.

Lady, there is a certain Q. Pompeius Balbus, govemor of Sicily sometime in the early second century AD (CE Vm.954). His cognornen is unique to the gens Pompeia and his praenomen suggests a co~ectionto the branch of the Bithynici/Rufi. As has already been noted, however, that is not always the case. In addition, since Balbus was present in the early second century AD, it is unlikely that he was a member of the gens Pompeia at al1 which seems to have died out a generation or two earlier (p.3 1).

Conclusion

That both branches of the gens Pompeia are connected seems to be a fair assurnption; in what manner is difficult to determine. Proof of this relation can be seen in many ways.

First, the contemporary lives of A. Pompeius and Cn. Pompeius (the oldest members of each branch) seem to have paralleled, mainly in view of the similar careers of their almost

log Rickman (1137): 218 lists al1 those who are known. 'O9 Claudius enfranchised Alpine tribes (CIL V.5050) and admitted a few Gauls (only three are certain: AE 1925: 85, CIL X.6520, & ILS 968) into the Senate (XIII. 1668ii=FIR4 1.43 and Tac. Ann. 1 123.1 -XI), perhaps because he himself was boni in Lugdunum (today Lyon) in Gallia Lugdunensis (Suet- Claud 2.1). contemporaneous sons: on the one hand Q. Pompeius (cos. l4l), on the other hand Faustulus

(pr. 122) and his brother Cn. Pompeius (sen. 129). Second, the presence of two Pompeii as

consuls, one in 89 and the other in 88, each f?om different branches, is too suspicious to be

considered a mere coincidence. Third, the extremely rare use of the praenomen "Quintus" in

the branch of the Magni and "Sextus" in the other demonstrates that the Pompeii in general

chose fiom an established pool of four first narnes (Aulus, Gnaeus, Quintus, and Sextus).

Fourth, Pompey the Great may have sought the help in 67 of two brothers Pompeii from

outside his branch, simply because they were related and he couId thus trust thern. Fifth, Q.

Pompeius Bithynicus fought alongside Pompey the Great in the civil war. Sixth, Caesar was

married to Pompeia perhaps simply to get closer to Pompey, even though she was not fiom

the same branch as he. These facts may lead one to think that the two branches were related.

Other evidence may not negate the fact that they were related, but may indicate a possible rifi

between the two branches (i.e. Strabo and Q. Rufus, Sextus Pompey and Pompeius

Bithynicus). The evidence, then, seems to suggest that the Pompeii were somehow together

around the third century, split about the beginning of the second (when they had broken into

the Roman nobility), and the branch of the BithyniciRufi died out by the end of the first

(with some help fiom the Magni), while descendants of the Magni themseIves survived

another hundred years.

In Sicily, it was the family of the Magni who made first contact. Although it is

dificult to Say whether FaustuIus or Strabo was in SiciIy before Pompey the Great, original

Pornpeii can be found established on the island from at Ieast the begiming of the fkst century

BC untiI the early second AD, either conducting business or retreating to their estates. The

Magni remained prominent there until the defeat of Sextus Pompey in 36. Although

Pompeius Bithynicus was govemor in 44-42, his presence was probably a result of the good name that the Magni had there. Of the Pompeii after Sextus, there are scattered references to the island king fiequented either by foreign clients of the Magni ssuch as M. Pompeius

Macer, by direct relatives of Pompey's farnily such as Sex- Pompeius (cos. AD 14), or finally by persons like Q- Pompeius Balbus whose relationship to Pompey the Great cannot be determined with any certainty. That Sicilian presence of the Pompeii, mostly Magni, undoubtedly af5ected the inhabitants, on whom the attention of the dissertation is now focused. Chapter II The Sicilian Pompeii

Roman Enfranchisement

Before the Sicilians who were granted citizenship by the Pompeii can be studied, a

brief survey of enfranchisement seems appropriate. The Romans, unlike the Athenians, were

quite liberal with their enfranchisement-110 As Rome expanded throughout Italy (509-264)

it developed three types of relationships with the rest of the peninsula- The first was the

enfranchisement of Italian communities that had helped it in wars or other tirnes of trouble.

For instance, the Etruscan tom of Caere (today Cerveteri) received fùll citizen rights

because it had aided Rome during the Gallic sack in 390 (Schol. ad Hor. Ep. 1.6.62). The

second was the granting of izcs Latir' to some Italian communities with which Rome had

struck treaties of fiiendship. The third and 1strelationship between Rome and the Italians

was a subject status whose specific ternis were delineated in military pacts, some on

favourable terms and some not, depending on whether they had succumbed to Roman

hegemony voluntarily or were conquered. Those Itatian communities did not have either

Roman or Latin status; they were called socii (allies).l11

Italians comprised more than half of the Roman Republican army,l12 yet they still

had to pay a tribute to Rome (Cic. OJgr 2.76), and the distribution of booty usually favoured

Roman citizens over Roman allies.113 Marius was one of the fint to recti& that situation by

------

"O Two examples of Greek stnctness when granting their own citizenship are found in Hdt. 9.33 and Thuc. 8.65.3. "' By the end of the third century there were more than 150 separate treaties conduded effectively making al1 the peoples of My,who wcre not Roman or Latin, into socii (A- Afkelius Die romische Erobemng I~aIiemCopenhagen 1942: 62). Il2 Brut (n.84): 44 and 4 16-34 demonstrates that distribution. ln App. B Ci 1.29-30 is an example of Roman discontent when the Italians received a larger share of foreign land, whicfi had been seized ftom the Cirnbri, a Germanic tribe. granting citizenship as well as land to Italians for military service.114 Such an act thus

turned his soldiers into his clients, creating the first Roman private army.

Sulla would take this precedent one step Merby extending the fianchise to non-

Italians. He made Spanish and Gallic soldiers citizens (Cic. Arch. 10.25), and also

rnanumitted a multitude of slaves, perhaps to increase fûrther his clientela (n.22).115 The

provincial manpower that could be derived fiom such a practice was great, as other generab

would soon discover.

Cn. Pompeius Strabo was a contemporary of Marius and Sulla. Following their

example, he did not waste any tirne in acquiring his own private army, because he had

witnessed how important clients could be, especially those bearing swords and shields - "as

a lever against the Senate or as a safeguard of one's own position."l 16 Thus, during his

consulship in 89, Strabo enfranchised a squadron of Spanish cavalry on the field of battle just

as Marius had done with the two cohorts fiom Camerinum (n.114). Strabo also extended the

ius Larii to the Cisalpine Gauls north of the river Padus, so that he could cal1 upon them for

manpower in retum for that favour (Strabo 5.1.6).117 In fact, Transpadane Gaul would

become a chief recruiting ground for his son in 67 when he drafted men there for his

comrnand against the Cilician pirates (Plut. Pomp. 27) and again in 55, when he raised a

legion (Caes. B Ch.6.1.2-4). It appears that Strabo (and Sulla) reveaied how the future of

Rome's military power would be based on provincials (Tac. Ann. 3.40).

'14 He enfranchised on the field of battle two cohorts (c. 1000 soldiers) fkom Camerinum (today Camerino) in Umbria for their exceptiona1 bravery in the war against the Cimbri, whom he drove out in 104-10 1 (Plut. Mar. 14-28). Il5 Sulla ais0 enfianchised the Sicilian Q. Luîatius Diodoms (p.7). '16 Seager (n.4): 6. ".'ïhe kxIufia of 90 BC gave Roman citizenship to a11 Italians south of the river Padus (today the Po; ILLRP 515). Pompey the Great had been sewing under his father at least as early as the age of 16-

He had thus learned a great deal about military tactics, the value of clients (especially fiom

the provinces), and the importance of king loved by the People plut. Mor. 203B). These were al1 the characteristics of a good general and patron, the perfect mix for the head of a private army. Besides his army, Pompey himself boasted Iater in his career about his patronage of diverse kings and peoples (Cic. Fam. 9.9.2), but he well knew that that accomplishrnent would not have been possible without the support of his troops. The military commander was now not much different from what would soon be lcnown as the

"emperor." Rome, as a whole, functioned on the patron-client relationship, for its Empire rested on interdependence and$des (trust). Pompey did not wait long to begin collecting supporters after his father's death, and in the province of SiciIy on his very first command he did not squander the opportunity to increase his clientela.

Sicilian Clientela

Before the study of the Sicilian clients of the Pompeii cm begin, the dates of their existence must be established. Otherwise, the analysis risks becorning a haphazard discussion of names. For this reason, the Sicilian Pompeii are grouped into three categories: those found in ancient literature, those fiom datable inscriptions, and those in epigraphic records which are difficult to date.

a) The Ancient Literature

The earliest Sicilian clients of the Pompeii are found in Cicero's Verrine Orations.

Those speeches were delivered in prosecution against Verres in 70 (1 Vew. 7.18). They are divided into two parts: the first constitutes the "Divination against Q. Caecilius Niger" (divinattio in Q. Caecikm [DN. Caec.]) and the "Fint Delivery" (actio prima CI Verr-1); 11 8

the second includes the "Second Delivexy" (actio seda Verr-1). Only the first part was

ever given because the evidence against the defendant was so overwhelming that he fled into

self-exile before Cicero could continue (PL-Asc.: 126, 153, and 156). That fact should not,

however, render the second part of the speeches any less historically reliable, because the

entire work was eventually published.l 19 Moreover, Verres' flight is substantial proof that

what Cicero had to Say, or write, was tme, even if it is embellished rhetorically.120

Throughout his speeches, Cicero mentions a total of £ive Sicilian plaintiffs who bore the narne "Pompeius," One, Cn. Pompeius Theodorus, described as "the most highly approved and adorned in the reputation of all" (probatissimus et omnium existimatione ornatissimzls), was clearly a client of Pompey the Great (n.2.42.lO2). Unfortunately, Cicero does not provide the hometown of this Theodorus. The wealthy Cn, Pompeius Philo fiom

Tyndaris was also Pompey's client @.4.22.48), as was the Mamertine Cn. Pornpeius

Basiliscus, who owned a "very expensive and grand house" (domus locupletissima et amplissima), and the Percemii, a "much respected" (honestissima) family also from

Messana, "who now Zikewise were Pompeii" (qui nunc item Pompeii sunt; fI.4.11.25). Those men were the descendants of the third century Marnertines, the Campanian mercenaries mentioned in the Introduction (p.12 11-41).

The last Sicilian Pompeius, Sex. Pompeius Chlorus (11.2.8.23 and 42.102), may be the onIy one in the Verrines who cannot be so readily attached to Pompey the Great. In both

A 'ldivination'lin Roman [egal tems means "an inquiry held to determine which of severai accusers should conduct the prosecution of the person accused" (OCD:564). '19 M. Fuhrmann Cicero and the Roman Republic (tram. W.E. Yuill) Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford 1992: 44-6. ''O Examples of Ciceronian exaggeration in the Verrines can be found in G. Kennedy The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World Princeton 1972: 156-66. instances of Cicero's speech, no mention of him is made in conjunction with Pompey the

Great as was done with the others above. Chlorus is presented as "one who took the case of

Dio of Haiaesa and was directly acquainted with al1 the circumstances, a man of the highest

character, whose merit has long earned hirn Roman citizenship, and is nonetheless to be

reckoned the most important and distinguished of ~icilians."l21That he was the lawyer of

that Dio, i-e. Q. Caecilius Dio fiom Halaesa (TI.2.7.19-20 and rnentioned in p.4), suggests that

he too may have been fkorn there. Hispraenornen implies that he was not e-chised by

Pompey or even Strabo, but seemingly by Sex. Pompeius Faustulus who, it was argued in the

first chapter @.19), may have been the first Pompeius comected with Sicily- He cannot be

the son of someone enfrsinchised by Faustulus because his "merit @ad] long emedhim

Roman citizenship," therefore he himself had received the fianchise. Pompey the Great may

then have acquired Chlorus' clientage through inheritance.122 It is interesting to conjecture

whether some of the other Sicilian Pompeii mentioned, mainly Cn. Pompeii, were also

enfranchised by Pompey or rather Strabo, but regardless at that point they were al1 Pompey's clients.

Cicero also mentioned two more Sicilian clients of Pompey, but they were not granted citizenship. The first is the aforementioned (p.4) Sthenius of Thermae Himeraeae

(11.2.34.83 - 47.1 18). The second seems to be the "eloquent, well educated, and well endowed with virtue" (disertissirnus efomni doctrina atque virtute ornafissimus)Sosippus of

12' qui causant Dionis egit, qui amnibus rebus inrefiit, homini$ honestissirni, tametsi civk Romanus virtutis causa iam diu est, tamen omnium Siculorum primi ac nobilissirni (II.2.8.23). lnheriting clients bas aiready been seen @.4), the best example being when Pompey recruited his father's dependants in Picenum (p22). It is possible that Chioms had an unrecorded brother, in which case Pompey may have enhchised both: one with the praenomen "Gnaeus," the other (Le- Chloms) with "Sextus." That theory is less attractive because of the complete absence of any data on Chlorus' relatives. Agrîgennim, who on behalf of the Sicilian farmers went directiy to Pompey for help after al1

the destruction that Verres had wrought (IX.3.88.204).

Lastly, there is a reference to an Eubulidas Grospus tiom Cenniripae (II.3.23.56), "the

leading man of his town by virtue, nobIe birth, and wealth" (homo cum virtute et nobilitate

domi suae furn etiam pecunia princeps) and "the most honoured person of a most honoured

cornrnunity" (honestissimae civitatis honestissirno). His unusual last name appears to

originate fiom the Greek word "grosphos" (ypchpos), meaning "a type of javelin."l*3 Of

that name two variant spellings exist in the manuscripts of the Verrines; where O reads

graspus and p reads grosphus. 124 It should then probably read "Grosphus," since in the

ancient testimony there exist four Grosphi, but no other Grospus. While there is no reference

to Eubulidas Grosphus being comected to Pompey in the Vewines, there are subsequent

references where individuais bearing this unusual name are Pompeii. First, there was

Pompeius Grosphus a "Sicilian Roman equestrian" (equifem Romanum Siciliensem; Pompon.

Carm. 2.16), who owned much land in Sicily and was a friend of Horace (Cm. 2.16.7 and

Ep. 1.12.22). 125 Since this person was contemporary with Horace, he lived sometirne around the Augustan age (27 BC - AD 14). A second reference is found in an inscription dating to 10 July AD 59 fkom the Campanian city of Pompeii bearing the names of its duoviri:126 Cn. Pompeius Grosphus and Cn. Pompeius Grosphus Gavianus (CIL N suppl.1 .cxliii20 and 29 p.428). If they are descended from Pompeius Grosphus, one might

'" L&P:361. '24 Cicero Orationes: Divina~ioin Q. Caeciiium, in C-Verrem ed W.Peterson OCT Oxford 1 9 16: 1.1. 12' 12' An eques or knight was a member of a social class whose wealth by Imperia1 times ranked him second in status just below the senatorial order (see OLD: 614). Pompeius Grosphus is treated in greater detail on p.57. 12' 12' A duumvir was one of two annual heads in a cornrnunity (OLD:580), usually Iocals (A. Linttott lmperium Romanum: Politics and administration London & New York 1993: 145 and 147)- work backwards and suggest that hispraenomen may have been "Gnaeus" as well. A final

reference cornes from the first century AD epic poet Silius Italicus who mentioned a

Grosphus, leader of a cavalry force from Acragas (Agrigentum) who helps the Romans in the

Second Punk War (Pm 14.208-17). At Agrigentum, Pompey the Great already had a client

in Sosippus (pp.40-1) and there is an inscription in Rome dating c. 55 dedicated to Pompey

by Italians conducthg business in Agrïgentum (CLL 12.ii2710).127 The existence of a

comection between Grosphi, Pompey the Great, and Sicily is clear, but its exact nature is

not. Since Pompey the Great is not mentioned alongside Eubulidas in the Verrines, it is

possible that the latter became the former's client at some point after the trial.

Those eight or so clients of Pornpey were not the only plaintiffs against Verresf

misgovement. Most of the accusers were SiciIians who, fkom Cicero's text, cannot be

comected to any Roman patron, 128 and they even included representatives of whole cities

which had been wronged by Verres.129 Many plaintiffs were even Romans (or Italians) who

Iz7 G. Manganam "Tre tavole di bronzo con decreti diproxenia del Museo di Napoli e il problema dei proagori in Sicilia" Kokdos iX 1963: 205-220 at 215 dates the inscription to about 55 because he thinks that the Italian businessmen were thanking him for his work as grain commissioner. 12' 12' There are about 40 of them attested ail over the island: Aeschylus @.4.22.48), Agonis (Dix Caec. 17.55-7), ApoIlodorus Laphiro (II.2.7.19-20), ApoIlodoms Pyragrus (11.3.3 1-74),Apollonius Geminus (II.5.7.16 - 9.24), Archagathus (E.4.23 -51 - 24-53)>Aristodamus (iI.5,7.1 S), Aristuç (1[1.2.12,29), Cratippus (TI.4.12.29), Demetrius (I1.4.42.92), Diodes Phirnes (Ii.3.40.93), Diodonis (II-4.18.38 - 19-41), Epicrates (II.2.22.53 - 27.65 and 57-140), Eubulidas (U.S.42.ll0, 46-7.123, and 49. l28), Eumenides (II.5.7.15), Dionysiarchus 01-423.50), Heraclius of Amestratus (Misiretta; II.3.39.88), Heraclius of Centuripae a.2.27.66-7), Heraclius of Segesta (IIS.43.111), Heraclius of Syracuse and son of a Heiro (II.2.5. 15), Heraclius a high rnagistrate of Syracuse (U.4.6 1.137), Herodotus (tI.2.52.128-30), Leo (II.5.7.15), Leonidas (U.5.4.10 - 5.1 Z), Mnasistratus (iI.3.46. log), Nurnenius of Centuripae and brothers Nymphodorus & Sostratus (I1.3.23.57), Nympho (II.3.20.53 - 21-54), Nyrnphodorus of Agrigentum (II,4.22.48), Onasus (II.5.45.120), Phalarcus (IT.5.40.105,44.116-7, and 46.122), Philinus (II.3.34.80), Philocrates of Agyrium and brother Sosippus (II.2.9.25), Phylarchus of Centuripae (II.4.12,29), PhyIarchus of Haluatium (II.5.34.90 and 46.122), Poleas (II.4.42.92), Polemarchus (lï.3 23.56), Posides Macro (IL2.42.102), Sopater of Halicyae (11.2.28-68 - 30.75) and his son (33.80), Sopater of Tyndaris (IL4.39.85 - 42.92), Thraso (II.4.22.48), Tyracinus @.3.56.129), and Xeno & his wife (II.3.2235). Iz9 There are around seven: Aeneas for HaIaesa (lI.3.73.170-l), Andro and Artemo for Centuripae (11.2.64.156 and 3.45.1 O8), Artemidorus 01.3 .44.105), Artemo, Meniscus, and Sositheus for Enteiia (11,3.87.200), Diodorus for Syracuse (II.4.62.138), Nicasio, Numenius, and Theodorus for Henna (11.4.5 1.1 13), and Posidorus for Thermae Himeraeae (11.3.42.99). owned businesses or land in ~icil~.l30The most interesting plaintiffs for the purpose of this

study, however, are those Sicilians comected to Romans who may have been their patrons,

for they provide the evidence with which to compare Pompey's patronal influence in SiciIy at

the time.

Other Roman patrons who had Sicilian clients whose names are given, as recorded in

the Verrines, are the following, Cicero had been the guest of a Pamphilus fiom

~il~baeuml31(U.4.14.32) as well as that of the already mentioned Cn. Pompeius Basiliscus

and Pompeii Percennii at Messana (II.4.11.25,61.137, and 64-6.145). Sulla, at the request of

Q. Lutatius Catulus, made Q. Lutatius Diodoms fiom Lilybaeurn a citizen (p.7). An

Eupolemus of Calacte (today Caronia) was a client of L. Licinius Lucullus (cos. 74) and his

farnily (II.4.22.49). C. Claudius Marcellus (gov. 79) was the guardian of a young boy at

Lilybaeum narned Heius (II.4.17.37). There is an A. Claudius (or Clodius) Apollonius from

Drepana (ZI.2.57.140 and 4.17.37) whose enfianchiser is difficult to detemine because there are only two A. Claudii attested, neither of whom are ever recorded to have been in Sicily.

A. Clodius was a ftiend of Caesar (B Ch. III.57 and go), and A. Claudius Caecina .. .aeus was a hoyrarijs fiom Cyzicus in Asia during the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius (AD

130 There were roughly 22: C. Annaeus Brocchus (II.3.40.93 and 41.96-7 wanganaro (n.6): 381 and Wiseman (n.11): 212 argue that he was not Sicilian]), P. Annius Asellus and his daughter Annia (II.l.41.104 - 42,7,44.113-4,46.118, 58.153, and 2.7.2 l), Cn. Cdidius CfI.420.42 - 21 A),C. Cassius (11.3.4 1.97-8), M. Coelius (f1.4.16.37), L. Curidius @.420.44), L. FIavius (II.l.S.l4,5.7.15, and 59.155 - 6O.l56), L. Fufius Calenus @1.2.8.23), C. Gallius a.3.65. l52), P. Gavius (II- l.S.l3,3.3.6,24.S9,4.lO.î4 - 11.26, and 5.61.158 - 67.172), P. Granius (lI.5.59.154), Q. Lollius and 2 sons M. & Q. (II.3.25.61-3), C- Matrinius (II.3.24.60-1 and 57-15), Q. Minucius (IL228.69,29,72 - 30.73,33.80,3.64.148-51,4.27.62, and 31.70), t. Papinius (II.4.21.46), M. Petiiius (Il.229.71-2 and 30.75), L. Raecius (II.5.62.161), P. Scandilius (II.3.58.135 - 6 l.l4O), Q. Septicius (iI.3.14.36-7), C. Servilius (II.SS4.140-2), L. Suettius (n.1.5.14,2.12.3 1, and 5.57.147), M. Terentius Varro LucuIlus (II.2.8.23-4), and P. Venius Chilo (II.3.7 1.166 - 72.168). 13' Sicily had two annual quaestors (Cic. Il Verr. 2.4.1 l), one was in Syracuse and the other in Lilybaeum (Ps.-Asc.: 187 and 259). In 75, Cicero was quaestor in the western part of the island (DN.Caec 12and 11 Verr. 3.78.182,92.2 15 - 93.2 l6,4.34.74, & S.l4.35), when and where he probably met Parnphilius, 138-61) (IGRRIV.152).132 Similarly, M. and P. Cottii are brothers fiom Tyndaris

(II.5.64.165) who caimot be comected to any Roman since no Cottii are hown to have been

on the island nor do any carry thosepruenomina.133

The patron of Q. Caecilius Dio of Halaesa needs some explmation. Cicero wrote that

he was given citizenship by "Q. Metellus" (U.2.7.20), presumably Q. Caecilius Metellus

Creticus (cos. 69) or Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius (cos. 80) who are often mentioned

thughout the Verrines, especially in that section on Dio (II.2.7.19 - 8.24).134 This Q.

Metellus also helped Verres to obtain the inheritance of the son of Dio in 73.135 That man

could not have been Pius because he did not return fiom the Sertorian War in Spain until71

(Sall. Hist. 4.49). Conversely, that Q. Metellus in 73 was very likely Creticus because he was

then praetor in Rome (praetor urbnnus),l36 in which capacity he would have been able to

make a decision on the inheritance. The only other candidate for Dio's patron is Q. Caecilius

Metellus Numidicus (cos. 109; II.3.90.209 and 4.147), but nothing is heard of him after 99

(Livy Per. 69), if he was even alive by 73.

Before continuing, one more relationship between Q. Caecilius Dio and a possible

Roman patron seems in order. Servilia, the mother-in-law of Q. Hortensius Hortalus (cos.

69), the lawyer of Verres (1.1 1.34) and leading orator (Cic. Brut. 1,93,319-94, and 323), was once a guest in Sicily of Dio of Halaesa and on another occasion she was his hostess in Rome

(II.2.8.24). Hortensius rnay therefore be another patron of this Dio. Servilia was also the

13' A logistes was a curator reipublicae or civitatk, i.e. an Imperia1 auditor (L&S): 1056). Stein (RE III [1899] 268 1 [Claudius #go]) believed that this A. Claudius Caecina .. .aeus may have been related or identical to an A- Claudius Cae[c]ina Pausanias Grom Cyzicus (MDAI[A] iX [1884]: 19). 13' Groag RE ïV (1901) 1677-8. ''' Badian (n.4): 302. 13' That shocking betrayal of a patron against his client is explained below in tenns of the role that the Metelli played in this trial (pp.50- 1). Irresponsible patrons have already been seen (pp.4-5). 13' B. W. Frier "Urban Praetors and Rurai Violence" TAPhA CXUI 1983: 224-33 at 224,229, and 233. mother (or step-rnother) of Q. Lutatius Catulus (Cic. De or. 3.228). This probably means that

Dio was also close to Servilia's husband, Q. Lutatius Catulits (cos. 102). Dio may therefore

have had a great number of patrons, narnely, Creticus, Hortensius, the Q- Lutatii Catuli, and

Servilia, among others (p4).137

Q. Caecilius Metellus Creticus was most probably also the patron of Q- Caecilius

Niger and bis brother Marcus (DN.Caec. passim). Q. Caecilius Niger was a candidate to head the prosecution of the Vemne trial, a cornpetition that Cicero won (p.38-9 n. 118)- The latter claimed that the former was not fit to act as accuser because he was one of Verres' quaestors in 73 (DN.Caec. 4,28,3 1-5, and 60-73) and therefore that conflict of interest would tum the case into a farce. On the subject of Niger's clientage to Creticus, it should be clarif~edthat the former was not Sicilian (Ps.-Asc.: 185), but only educated at Lilybaeum

(Div. Caec. 39). P. A. Brunt, G. Manganaro, and T. P. Wiseman al1 believe that a Metellus had once enfianchised Niger's farnily, which was probably Italian, especially with regard to the Latin c0~nornen.138 Creticus thus seems to have inherited the dientela of Q. Caecilius

Niger and his brother Marcus, who were involved in Sicily (perhaps businessmen) but not themselves Sicilims.

Q. Caecilius Niger was probably himself a patron of a Sicilian client. In 73, he had a

"secretary and fiiend" (scribam etfamifiarem) on the island named L. Papirius Potamo (Div.

Caec. 9.29). This individual seems to have been a SiciIian with Roman citizenship because he had a Roman duonomina and a Greek cognornen.139 One problem is that the only Papirii

13' Brunt (n.4): 274. By extension, Servilia and her son-in-law Hortensius may aIso have been patrons of Q. Lutatius Diodorus (pp.7 and 43). Brunt (n.4): 275 n. 17; Manganaro (n.6): 381; and Wiseman (n.11): 16 n.3,22, 71 n.3,84, & 218 #73. '39 Two of the most well known individuals named Potamo are Greek: one rhetorician fiom Mytilene c. 75 BC to AD 15 (E. Wiist RE XX1I.i [1953] 1023 potamo #1]) and a philosopher fkom Alexandria in Egypt at the time of Augustus (H. J. Mette RE XXII.I Cl9531 1023 (potamo #2]). xo~apckmeans "river" (L&S": 1453). attested in Sicily are M. Papirius Carbo, praetor there in 114 (Cic. Fam. 6.21.3), and Cn.

Papinus Carbo who escaped to the province with Perperna and the Marians once Sulla had

taken over Rome (p.22). The Carbones did not use "Lucius" as apraenomen, but other

branches of the gens Papiria did.140 Not too much faith, however, should be placed in those

nomenclatorial niles, as has aiready been discussed in the Introduction (p.7). Since there is

no other Sicilian Papirius with whom to compare Potamo, he was probably enfranchised by

M. or Cn. Carbo, despite hispraenomen. Cicero revealed more about L. Papirius Potamo,

namely that after Niger left Sicily as quaestor in 73, Verres befnended Potamo and together

they cornrnitted crimes @.3.60.137,66.154, and 4.40.44).

Verres' relationship with his fiiends and clients was notorious. Other examples corne

fiom Dexo (11.5.42-108 and 49.128) and his son Aristeus (5.42.1 10) of Tyndaris, C. Heius of

Messana, and Lyso fiom Lilybaeum (4.17.37 and 26.59). Al1 four had hosted Verres at

different occasions, and the governor had taken advantage of them ail. In other words, these

individuals were hosts of Verres and plaintiffs at the same time. Furthermore, Cicero reveaIed that two of Verres' cronies in Sicily, Artemidorus the doctor and Tlepolemus the painter, both fiom the province of Asia, carried the nomen "Cornelius" but were never citizens (11.3.27.69). As a result, it is diEcult to deduce who in fact was a loyal client of

Verres, and who was a mere 0~~ortunist.14~Perhaps only a certain Timarchides, a fieedman

'4.0 RE MILiii (1949) 1002-75. 14' In the Verrines many names appear of individuals, approximately 54 of them, both Roman and Sicilian, who are helping Verres govern his province: Aemilius Alba (II.3.62.145-6 and 63.148), M-Aemilius Scaunis (IL1.38.97), Aeschrio (11.2-14.36,21.50-1, 3.33.77 - 34.78,4.26.59), Agathinus (112.36.89 - 37.90, 38.92-4,47.116), L. Annius (II. 1.41.105 and 43.1 IO), Anthropinus (11.5.34.90), Antistius (11.3.71.167-8), Q. Apronius (I1.2.44.108,3.9.22 - 58.134, and 5-27-70), Archonidas (II.3.56-129 and 4-26-59),Artemo Climachias (II.2.52.129-30), Attalus (II.4.26.59), Attidius (11.3.32.75), Bari~bal(I1.3.39.89)~Q. Caecilius Metellus Nepos (1.2.6 - 3.9 and II.l.l1.30), Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (XI.4.36.79 - 37-81}, P. Caesetius (TI.1.39.99,2.4.I 1-2,4.65.146, and 5.25.63), M. Caesius (11.1.50.130 and 3.39.88), L. Carpinatius (II2.70.169 - 7 1.173, 75.184,76.186 - 77.190,3 -71.165-7, and 4.6 1-137)- P. Cervius (11.5.44.1 14), Chelido (II.3.34.78), Chrysogonus (II. 1.36.92), C. Claudius (11.2.43.107 - 44. log), of the governor m.2-5 passim) and whose Iegal narne would thus have been C. Verres

Timarchides, can be considered true. In that case too, however, the slave may have paid the

greedy governor hard cash for his fieedorn. 142 it is those very uncertainties that render

dangerous the inclusion of Verres' acquaintances in a cornparison with the clients of Pompey

the Great or even with the plaintiffs in general. Whatever the case, the loyalty of Verres'

"clients" would not have lasted beyond 70, the year afier which Verres retired fiom public

life. In other words, the power of Verres in Sicily, abusive or othenvise, was that which he wielded as governor, fiom 73 to 71 only.

To return to the Sicilian plaintiffs, the next one is an example of fuaher deviance fiom the rules of nomenclature. Much like Eubulidas Grosphus (pp.41-2), Diocles Popilius of Lilybaeum (II.4.16.35) has a last name, but it is in Latin. He may be descended fiom a client of P. Popillius Laenas (cos. 132), the praetor of Sicily in 135 (ES 23), the only recorded Popillius ever there. Perhaps the lack of one letter "1" in the Siciliants last name, negates that possibility, however. F. Münzer believed that Diocles had simply taken the narne "Popilius" without being a Roman citizen on the strength of Cicero's statement:

"surnamed Popilius" (PopiZius cognornine).143

Cleomenes (iI.2.14.36,21.50-1,4.26.59,5.3 1.82 - 52,l37), L. Cornelius Sisenna (Li.2.45.ll0, 4.15.33-4, and 20.43), Critolaus (IL4.26.59), Diognetus 01.3.38.86), Dionysodorus (II.2.2 1.50- l), Docirnus w.3.34.78-9 and 36-83), Dorotheus (II.2.36.89 - 37.90), L. Hortensius (II.3.16,42), Isidorus (iI.3.34.78, 5.12.3 1, and 3 1.81), Lamia (II.4.26+59), Maevius (iI.2.11.29, 30.75, and 3.72.168 - 80.187), M. Modius (II.2.48.119), P. Naevius Turpio (II.2.8.22,3.39.90 - 40.91, and 5A1.108), Nice (II.2.14.36,21.51, 5.12.31, 3 1.82,35.92,40.104, and 43.1 12), M. Pacilius 01.2.38.94 and 40.98), Pipa (IL3.33.77 - 34,78,5.12.3 1, and 3 1.81), M. Postumius (II.2.18.44), Cn, Sergius (II.3.43.102), Cn. Sertius (11.2.48.1 19), P. Servilius m.3 -71.167-8), Sextius (II.3.67.156,5.43.I 13,45.118-9,47,125, and 54.142), Symmachus (II.3.40.92-3), P. Tadius a.220.49 and 5.25.63), Teaia (II.3.34.78-9,36.83, 5.12.3 1, 16.40, and 3 1-8l), Theornastus (II2.2 1.50-1,5 l.l27,3.43.lO 1,4.26.59, and 66.148-9), L.Tullius (ii.3.7 l.l67), A. Valentius (11.3.37.84-5 and 4-26-58), Valerius (II2.30.75,3.21.54,26.66, and 60.137), Venuleius (II.3.42.99), T. Vettius Sabinus (11.2.4.11-2,3.72.168, and 5.44.1 14), Volcacius (11.2.925 - 10.26- 23 -56 - 24.58,3,73.171, and 76.175-6), and Volusius (II.2.30.75,3.11.28,2 1.54, and 60.137). '42 A. R. Birley Nadrian London 1997: 190. '43 Münzer RE V (1905) 795 (Dioues #39). There are probably other exarnples of plaintiffs, but it is difficult to determine fiom

their narnes given in the Vewines whether one was fiom Rome (or ItaIy) or a Sicilian with

Roman citizenship because, in the case of the latter, Cicero, for instance, sometimes omits

the cognomen (ie. the provincial's original name).l44 He would purposefully do this in

order to stress the fact that the plaintiff was a citizen, with the added effect that Verres was

committing crimes against Romans.

Amongst those rnentioned in the Vemines then, no Roman patron seems to have more

than two Sicilian clients (e.g. Q. Lutatius Catulus (cos. 78), patron of Q. Lutatius Diodoms

and perhaps of Q. Caecilius Dio). The exception is Pompey the Great who had eight, five of

whom carried the name Pompeius (the Pompeii Percenii, Sex. Pompeius Chlorus, and the Cn.

Pompeii Basiliscus, Philo, and Theodorus), while three others were apparently not yet citizens (Eubulidas Grosphus, Sosippus, and Sthenius). The greater presence of Pornpey's dependants in the speeches may not be mere coincidence however, for he was consul in 70

@.23), the year that the trial of Verres took place.

Cicero probably wanted to add weight to his prosecution by showing a large number of the popular consul's clients wronged by the defendant. The orator also had his own reasons for being interested in this case: to prosecute the obviously guilty Verres, and to show up Hortensius as the Ieading speaker in Rome, to support his own Sicilian clients, and thereby to promote his own advancement. 145 Although both Pompey and Cicero had served together under Strabo in 89 (Cic. Phi(. 12.27), their careers did not cross paths until that

14' 14' Ttiere are 17 of them: Annaea (II.1.43.11 I), C. Cacurïus (II.4.16.37), L. Caecilius (II.2.8.23), L. Canuleius (II.2.70.17 1,72.176-7, and 74.182-3), M. Castricius (II.3.80.185), Sex, Corninius (II.4.10.24), M. Cossutius (II.3.22.55 and 8O.l85), C. Fuficius (II.2.12.3 l), the C. Heius (11.2.5.13 and 4.2.3 - 9-19), T. Manlius (II2.8.23), C. Numitorius (IIS.63.163 - 64.165), L. Racilius (11.2.12.3 l), L. Rubrius (II.3.57.132 and 58.135), Q. Rubrius (11.3.80.185), L. Titius @.4.26.58), Q, Varius (i12.48.119), and L. Vibius (II.2.74.182). 14' B. Rawson The Politics of Friendshb Sydney 1978: 47-8 and Seager (n.4): 25. eia1.146 Evidence of a political fnendship, therefore, does not seem to take place until70,

that is after each realised that the military experience of one and the political talents of the

other could create a powefil alliance.

That friendship was probably forged by mid year. In that year, Cicero had first to

compete against Q. Caecilius Niger as the more worthy accuser, then go to Sicily to collect the evidence against Verres, and afierwards prosecute him in court (IIVem 1-6-15-6). At one point in the Divination agalnst Q. Caecilius Mger (1 9.62), Cicero informs the jury that it is illegal for a minor magistrate to sue his ~u~erior.147The orator reinforces that claim by naming specific situations in the past where quaestors were not allowed to prosecute their praetors (19.63). One of these quaestors was Cn. Pompeius Strabo. If Cicero and Pompey the Great were political fiends at that time, then the orator surely would not use the general's father as a negative example in a court of law, especially if he was îrying to help Pompey. It seems that they becarne fiiends after Cicero won the rïght to prosecute Verres, but before he lefi for Sicily to gather evidence. For, when Cicero arrived on the island, he stayed at the houses of Pompey's clients: Cn. Pompeius Basiliscus and the Pompeii Percemii (p.43).

Despite his interest in the case because of the involvement of his clients, Pompey the

Great wanted to keep a low profile during the trial for two reasons. His experience was military, not political or judicial. Although he was consul, this was his first political office, his earlier propraetorian or proconsular cornmands having been awarded as ernergency

'* Ward (11.49): 119-29 showed how Cicero and Pomepy may have been Eends since the 90s, but none of the connections that he made concern theu careers. His conclusion, then, that they had often both been working together in terms of politics before 70 is unfounded, for similar connections can be made between any contemporaries living in the same city, especially one Iike ancient Rome. Note T. P. Wiseman's comment: "all the great politicians were linked by farnily ties of one sort or another." ("Factions and Family Trees" LCM 1.1 1976: 1-3 at 3). 14' 14' For, in 73, Niger was Verres' quaestor (see p.45). measures.148 Secondly, he was dent lest he seem to have been infiuencing the final

decision.149 AI1 this would probably explain why the references to Pompey throughout the

Verrines "are usually neuû-al or involve the standard respectfiil phrases to be expected of a

consul or successfil general, e.g. distinguished and brave ~ortissimtrset clarissimus, Verr-

1.44; CE 2.2.L02,5.5,5.153)."150

Pompey the Great's interests may also have sdaced in the Vewines for a reason other than patronage. As consul that year, he was not only Iargely responsible for returning the office of censor as well as the legislative powers to the plebeian tribunes, but he also heIped to pass laws for changïng the composition of the law courts from senatoial to a mixture of senators and knights (Sall. Hist. 4.45-6). Although this move clearly seems to have been made in response to the trial of Verres, there was also much popular pressure to do so since

74 (Cic. Ch. 1.72-96 and I Yen. 10.29, II. 1-6 1.157). It is for those reasons, among others, that Pompey has been labelled as a supporter of the populmes in ~orne.151Since Cicero was apopulmis himself and Verres, his Iawyer Hortensius, and Q. Caecilius Metellus

Creticus and his brothers, who were al1 working together (following paragraph), were solidly optimates, it may be tempting to view the trial in tems of politics, Le. as a clash between both factions.

Verres had bnbed Creticus by financing his consular campaign for 69 (iVerr. 9.26).

He also seems to have bribed Creticus' brother, L. Caecilius Metellus, who was the next

14* Pompey even had Varro, the ancient scholar and one of his presiding officers, prepare a handbook of legal procedures for him (Gell. 14.72). 149 M. Geber "Das erste Consulat des Pompeius und die Übertragung der grossen Imperien" Kleine Schr19en II Wiesbaden 1963: 146-89 at 168 and Cicero Wiesbaden 1969: 37 n.8. lS0 Rawson (n. 145): 46 n. 16. "' in late Repulican Rome, there existed a struggle between the political factions of the optrinates (champions of the Senate) and the pupulares (champions of the People) (P. A. Brunt The FaiZ ofthe Roman Republic Oxford 1988: 32-45 and 470-88). governor of Sicily (70 BC; Livy Per. 98). This Lucius had at ffrst sympathised with Verresr

victims by revoking some of the previous governor's laws, but soon for reasons unclear he

began to daim Verres as his fnend (IIVerr. 2.26.64 - 27.65). Verres, fiom his large Sicilian

resources, is also presumed to have bught the praetorship of M. Caecilius Metellus (brother

of Quintus and Lucius) in 69 and Hortensius' consulship, again for that same year. 152 In

other words, if Verres could have prolonged his trial until69, which was his aim (1 Verr. 9.26

- 10.32), he would have been acquitted because al1 of his political fnends would be in power

that year. It is simply too much of a coincidence that the lawyer of Verres and so many

members of one family, the Metelii, who were al1 allied politically with Verres, had obtained

so many prestigious offices al1 at the same crucial time. 153

The notion of the trial as a possible clash between the optimates and the poplares,

may be reinforced by a supposed persona1 conflict between Pompey the Great and the Metelli

family.154 There was some rivalry between Pompey and Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius during the Sertorian War (82-73/2), but nothing became of it; in fact, they both celebrated their triurnphs together in 71 (Vell. Pat. 2.30).155 A clash between Creticus and Pompey did not occur until67, three years after the Verrine tria1.156 Also, Pompey was always on good ternis with Creticus' cousins, Celer (Cass. Dio 36.54.2-4) and Nepos (Cic. Fam. 5.1-2, Art,

lS2 Brunt (n.4): 280-2 and Seager (n.4): 25-6. Hortensius also received f?om Verres a valuabk ivory sphinx as a gift (Plin. HN 34.48 and Plut. Cie. 7.6), even though lawyers were not allowed to accept fees for their legal services (according to the faCincia de donis et muneribus; G. Rotondi Leges Pubficae Populi Romani Milan 1912 [repr. Hildesheim 19621: 26 1-3). '* Brunt (n.4): 279-87; E. S. Gmen The Lat Generation ofthe Roman Republic Berkeley, Los Angeles & London 1974: 42; Rawson (n. 145): 48; Scullard (n.3): 94; and Seager (n.4): 25-6. '54 Badian (n.4): 283; B. A. Marshall "Q. Cicero, Hortensius and the lex Aurelia" WNSCXVLTI 1975: 136-52 at 147; and A. M. Ward "Cicero and Pompey in 75 and 70 B.C." Luromus 1970: 58-7 1 at 6 1 '" In 76, the Senate sent Pompey to Spain to help fight Sertorius because the curent commander Pius was not as able, thus creating tension between both generals (Plut, Pomp. 18). 156 When Pompey received his great Mediterranean naval comrnand against the Cilician pirates in 67 @.23), he decided to interfere in Crete, which was governed by Creticus, placing both at odds with each other until 62 (App. Sic. 6.2)- 1.13.5, and Sest. 62), and c. 80 married Mucia Tertia (p.25), their half-sister (Cic. Fam.

5.2.6). Furthemore, in 82 Pompey was married to Caecilia Aemilia, the granddaughter of L.

Caecilius Metellus Delmaticus (cos. 1 19; Asc.: 24), and in 52 to Cornelia, the daughter of Q.

Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica (Plut. Pomp. 55). A conflict between Pompey and the

Metelli, therefore, may have existed at some point, but not at least in 70.157

As one cm see, the Verrines can shed Iight on many facets of Roman civilisation.

They are an excellent source for Roman jurisprudence and provide dues for the political

situation in Rome at the time (e.g the condition, or corruption, of the courts I[ Verr.]). The

speeches also reveal something about the politics abroad, in the backdrop of provincial

administration (especially Asia Verr. 11 and, of course, Sicily PI Vew. 2-51). Only so

much, however, cmbe derived fiom the Verrines in terms of provincial political life. As

already noted (pp.43-8), there were plaintiffs in the bial who were clients of Metellus

Creticus, Hortensius, and other optirnotes. Surely Verres would not have comrnitted crimes

against his political friends and their dependants. The Verrines, therefore, do not reveal such

political factions, i.e. thepopulares and optimates, in Sicily as there were in Rome. There is

no evidence suggesting, for instance, that clients of Pompey or the populares were at odds with those of the Metelli or optimates. In fact, those Sicilians were fighting a common enemy in Verres. What the Verrines do Say, however, is that various Romans felt that the island contained individuals important enough to befnend or to do othenvise - perhaps for political motives, perhaps for other reasons as well.

That the greatest number of clients in the Verrines belonged to Pompey the Great is probably not a misrepresentation by Cicero. The orator could not have concentrated more on

"'Bmt (n.4): 283 & his n.63 and Seager (n.4): 26. the dependants of Pompey, for example, and less on those of the Metelli, because there

probably were very few, if any, Sicilian Caecilii at the tirne. Epigraphy has recorded a srnaIl

number of Caecilii in Sicily, the opposite of which, as will be seen (pp.61-74), is quite true

for the Pompeii. With regard to the Caecilii, one inscription fiom Halaesa, dated to the late

first or early second century AD, reveals a Q. Caecilius Humer(i)us, the fkeedman of a Q.

Caecilius (AE 1973: 270). Since Q. Caecilius Dio was from Halaesa as well, Humer(i)us

may have been manumitted by an enfianchised Sicilian just as easily as by any Roman

citizen. A pot dated rather broadly to the Imperial period and found fiom sorne unrecorded

spot on the island has the name of a L. C(a)ecilius, the fieedrnan of a M. Caecilius, inscribed

on it (CEX.806213). There are only four more inscriptions, two of whose dates can (like

the above example) only be loosely placed in the Imperial period.158 The only other Sicilian

Caecilius (with no praenomen nor cognomen) is fiom Caleacte. He was a frrst century BC

rhetor and historian whose entry is found in the Suda, a Byzantine lexicon, and who was a

fkiend of Dionysius of Halicarnassus (Pomp. 3.20). There is no mention of Verres or his trial

in his few surviving hgments. Since the identity of the enfranchiser(s) of those Sicilian

Caecilii is unknown, one cannot even tell whether he was fiom the Metellus branch.159 The only certain Metellan client fiom Sicily is Q. Caecilius Dio, and he was a plaintiff. The plaintiffs in the Verrines, one might argue, do not seem to have been purposefully selected by

Cicero, but rather truly represent the variety of Sicilian clients and their Roman patrons.

C(a)ecilia f?om Catina (no date; 1G XIV.542), Caecilia daughter of a Cassius fiom Melita (no date; IG XN2406.27), Caecilia Attica fiom Panhomus (CIL X.73 18), and Caecilia Zotica firom Tyndark (Manganaro Ln.31 1989: 164-5 #12), Is9 Of the Roman officials who carryied the nomen "Caecilius"in Sicily there were: L. Denter (pr- 182; Livy 40.1); C. Marcellus (procos- c. AD 98-135; CIL XTV.2498); L. MeteIlus (c0s.H 247; Zonar. 8.14-6); L. Metellus (propr. 70; Oros. 6.3.5); L. Metellus (qu. 52; lGRR 1.50 1); Q. Niger (qu. in Lilybaeum 73; Ps.- Asc.: 195); and L. Rufus (procos. 56; CIL 12:ii.761). Perhaps a discussion of the other consul of 70, M. Licinius Crassus (c0s.1155)~cm

shed some more light on patronage in the Verrines, since Cicero often mentions Pompey, but

hardly ever Crassus (lI.3.53.123 and 5.2.5). When the orator does so, it is never in

connection with Sicily, probably because Crassus simply did not have any clients in Sicily,

nor is there a record of him visiting the island- The only known Sicilian Licinii are: D.

Licinius, the fkeedrnan of a L. Licinius (Imperial; CIL X.8061.17); A. Licinius Moteles

(late Republican; Cic. Fam. 13-52), L. Licinius Daphnus, fieedman of a L. Licinius

(Imperïal; CE X.7154); P. Licinius Licinianus (Imperial; AE 1977: 332 and 1981: 467);

Licinia, daughter of a C. Licinius (Imperial; CE X.73 16); and Licinia Megisto (Imperial;

CIL X.7468). It is dificult to comect any of them to Crassus, mainly because they do not cany the praenornen "Marcus," but not solely for that reason- L. Licinius Lucullus is a better candidate, especia1ly since he is already recorded to have had a client in Sicily (p.43). His homonymous Mer @r. 104) was also govemor there in 103 @ioda Sic. 36.8.1-8). The previous year, a P. Licinius Nerva govemed the province (Diod. Sic. 36.3-6) as did a C.

Licinius Sacerdos in 74 (Cic. II Verr. 1.27,2.2 1-2,68-8 1,3.go, and 5.108). There is also a statement from the Verrines which may confirm the hypothesis that Crassus lacked Sicilian clients: "It is comrnon knowIedge that large deputations were constantly being sent .. . to Cn.

Pompeius, at that time consul-designate [71 BC], and to al1 other friends of the province."l60

Pompey seems to be singled out because he had more interests on the island than anyone else, including Crassus.

It is also possible that Cicero avoided mention of Crassus because he did not particularly like him. Crassus arrived on the political scene in 84 as a late supporter of Sulla,

''O quonrm quanti conventus ... ad Cn Pompeium mm consulem designamm ceterosque i/h.rprovinciae necessariosfieri soliti sint quk ignorat (II.3.18.45). the leader of the optimates at the time (Plut. Crass. 6). Cicero, in his Pro Quinctio delivered in 81, criticised those who went over Iate to Sulla fiom Marius when they saw that Sulian victory was certain (Quinct. 25-6 and 68-70).161 Verres had been one of those late defectors as well (Cic. II Verr. 1-14.36 - 1 5.38), Merexplaining why Cicero wanted so desperately to be the prosecutor of the case. Yet, Pompey had fought late under Sulla as well, begi~ing in 82 with Sicily. Two explanations, then, for Cicero's concentration in the Verines on

Pompey and not Crassus are that Cicero and Pompey had settled their differences in 70, and that Pompey had Sicilian clients to protect. In the end, amid al1 of Cicero's rhetoric and the confûsing politics at Rome, the Verrines demonstrate that although Pompey the Great was not the only patron in Sicily in 70, he was the leading and indeed most powerfùl one. It would not be surprising if many other Sicilians, especially the disenchanted clients of the optimates, became dependants of Pompey and Cicero after their successfùl prosecution. 162

In addition to the fact that Pompey had more Sicilian clients than any other patron, as mentioned above they were also men of local distinction (pp.39-42). In fac&the majority of these Sicilian clients have been described by Cicero as either having been wealthy or distinguished mernbers of their towns. They can thus be considered as local aristocrats. A

Roman patron wanted very prestigious clients because the more important they were, the greater his influence would becorne. In 82, when Pompey was in Sicily for the first tirne, he did not enfranchise soldiers, for he had plenty of troops and the SiciIians were too many, rather he lhited the franchise to the few, the Sicilian nobility, with the hope that by winning them to his side their communities would follow. He would continue this practice throughout

16' Rawson (n. 145): 29. 16' 16' Eubulidas Grosphus is a good exampie of one who may have won Pompey's patror age as a result of the trial (see p.42). his career in other provinces, and because of irsuccesses, it was adopted by his successors.

From the Verrines alone then, Pompey's influence in Sicily seerns clear, but there is more

evidence.

Like the Pompeii Percenii, the farnily of the Ovii, also from Messana, were edknchised by Pompey the Great (Cic. Mb. 5 1). Unfortunately, it is not hown exactly when they were granted the citizenship, but it was before 56 since that was the year that

Cicero delivered the Pro Balbo (M.61), the source of this information.163 In the sarne passage where the Ovii are found, Cicero included other provincials whom Pompey ehchised and "who defend our Republic at the cost of their own toi1 and danger" (qui suo labore etpericulo nostram rem publicam defendunt). In the case of the Pompeii Ovii, Cicero may be referring to their participation in 67 with Pompey against the Cilician pirates, since

Sicilians were usually included in the Roman navy.164 Cicero also continues: "Therefore they [i-e.commanders like Pompey] have both enrolled as citizens brave men from eveqwhere and have very often preferred ment without exalted birth to nobility without energy" (itaque et cives undique fortes viros adsciverunt et horninum ignobilium virtutern persaepe nobiiitaiis inertiae praetulerunt). This rhetorical motif is in contradiction to the backgrounds of the Sicilian Pompeii mentioned in the Verrines. The Pompeii Ovii may not have been in Pompey's navy afier all, but Sicilian aristocracy.

The Pompeii Ovii are interesting for one more reason. They, like the Pompeii

Percemii and Cn. Pompeius Basiliscus, are from Messana, the dominating class of which

D. Matz An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-27 B.C. Jefferson, North Carolina 1997: 179 and Cicero Pro Caelio, De Provinciis Consularibus. Pro Balbo with English trans. R Gardner LCL Cambridge, Massachusetts & London 1958: 618, '" Sicilians had mi1itar-y and naval obligations delineated in their treaties with Rome (AE 1973: 265 and Cic. II Vem 5,19.50 & 33.86). was called Mamerfini at least until the latter half of the first century AD (Plin. ~~3.88).165

The Mamertines came from Campania and such names as "Percemius" and "Ovius" seem to

be 0scan.166 Since Pompey the Great seems to have had more Sicilian clients from

Messana than fiom anywhere else on the island, it may have been due to the possible origin

of his family in Campania as well (p. 15). With fellow Campanian descendants living in

Sicily, the Roman Pompeii with their possible Campanian identity may have nurtured a patrodclient relationship.

The next Sicilian Pompeius found in the ancient literature is the aforementioned fnend of Horace, Pompeius Grosphus (pp.41-2). If his praenomen was indeed "Gnaeus," then his father (Eubulidas Grosphus?) may have been enlFranchised by Pompey the Great, for

Pompeius Grosphus was more contemporary with Sextus Pompey. That would also explain the Sicilian lands of Pompeius Grosphus -- a possible inheritance from Eubulidas- Pompeius

Grosphus' fiiendship with Horace, who was very close to the Imperial family (Suet. Vita

Hor.), is not surprising because, as seen in the previous chapter, Augustus brought many

Pompeii into the ruling class (pp.30-1). The wealth and connections of Pompeius Grosphus make him a rather powefil figure in his time, ifnot in Rome then at least in Sicily.

The early first century AD historian Velleius Paterculus wrote that two of Sextus

Pompey's main naval cornrnanders, Menas and Menecrates, were "paternal fieedrnen"

(paternos libertos; 2.73.3), i.e. manumitted by Pompey the ~reat.167For Menas at least, that status is confirmed by Appian (B Civ. 5.79). Yet, Pliny the Elder (HN35.58.200) and

16' 16' Cicero especially uses this appellation, found in the Verrinu (passim) and the Pro Balbo (5 1-2). '" RE XVIII.ii (1942) 1996-7 (Ovii) and RE XKi(1937) 588-9 (Percennii). Marnertinzls is a.Oscan form equivalent to the Latin Martinus (Festus GZoss, Lat. p.158). See also n.52. 16' Appian sornetimes refers to Menas as Menodorus, because "Menas is simpIy the 6vopa 6xoxoptmrx6v [fair narne] for the longer form" (Hadas Cn.31: 70 n.5 1). Cassius Dio (48.30.4 and 46.1) describe both as fkeedrnen of Sextus. Appian also mentions

two other lieutenants of Sextus' forces who were his Bz~h~69~poc(fieedrnen): Dernochares

(B Civ. 5.83) and Apollophanes (5.84). Most probably what is meant here, at least in the case

of Menas and Menecrates, is that they were rnanumitted by Pompey the Great and eventually

became Sextus' clients through fieritance, just as Pompey had inherited his father's

clientage in Picenum and probably the clientship of Sex. Pompeius ChIorus fkom his

grandfather Faustulus (p.40 n. 122). The legal narnes of these fieedmen were thus Cn.

Pompeius Menas, Cn. Pompeius Menecrates, (Cn. or Sex.) Pornpeius Dernochares, and (Cn.

or Sex.) Pornpeius ~~ollo~hanes.l68

Hadas wrote that "the Greek narnes of al1 four [admirais] are likely to denote an

eastem origin."169 In fact, about Menas and Menecrates he says specifically that "they were

in al1 probabil@ ex-pirates .. . whose names indicate an Anatolian [Asia Minor] origin." 170

Hadas appears to think that they were Cilician pirates captured by Pompey in 67 and then

fieed. The sources, however, mention them only in the context of the Sicilian War; as for

their names, they are as Greek as any found in Sicily and rest of the Hellenic world.

Furthemore, Sicily already had a long tradition of service in the Roman navy (n.164); hence,

Sicilians were experienced in sea-faring, especially in their own waters. Sextus may have

given Sicilians such high commands in the hope that they would defend their island patriotically, and he simply trusted them because Pompey the Great had developed a good reputation there, leaving behind trustworthy clients. It is therefore quite possible that Menas,

Menecrates, Dernochares, and ApoIlophanes were Sicilian Pompeii.

MRR II: 384. 16' 16' Hadas (n.3): 83. ''O Hadas (n.3): 70. Menas, however, was not very loyal to Sextus Pompey. Two years afier he had taken

Sardinia for Sextus in 40, Menas restored the island to Octavian, only to come back to Sextus

in 36 (App. B Civ. 5.66-102). That retum was short-lived as Sextus remained suspicious,

prompting Menas to join Octavian once more, and with the adopted son of Caesar he stayed

until his death in 35 (Cass. Dio 48.30 - 49.37). Such switches of allegiance were common in

civil war as one usually sought to be on the wiming side at whatever cost, e.g. the aforementioned Marians who went over to Sulla once they saw that the dictator was going to win (pp.54-5). Sometimes, as in the case of Menas, gratitude for fieedom and citizenship was overlooked.

There may be, however, a problem with the hchise and Sextus. In 39, after the

Treaty of Misenum, Sextus' presence in Sicily was legally acknowledged, but in the next year

Octavian accused Sextus of breaking the treaty (pp.28-9). If Sextus was an outlaw, then the thousands of Republicans with him in Sicily were considered outlaws as well. Cassius Dio

(48.53.3) writes how in 37 Rome was experiencing a lack of oficials to take up office including "those who were with Sextus at the time whose disenfranchisementwas in a mannerjustified" (ri& yàp Sov r+ZLcq &TE dvrov hs xai xasà Gixlv 84 rrva

&~rpac96vrov). Yet if the Repubicans were "disenfranchised," then L. Scribonius Libo, one of the Iast adherents of Sextus (App. B Civ. 5.53 and 73), could never have obtained his consulship in 34 (Cass. Dio 49.38.2). Adrnittedly Scribonius abandoned Sextus in 35 for

Antony (App. B Civ. 5.139), who may have reinstated his citizenship, if indeed it had been taken away, as Cassius Dio claims. Still, it is unlikely that Rome was able to disenfranchise the thousands of individuals who were with Sextus, and then "re-enfranchise" those who sought pardon. In this instance, Cassius Dio seems to be exaggerating.171 If so, any

individuals whom Sextus harboured, manumitted, or enf'ranchised, remained Roman citizens.

In other words, outlaw or no& Sextus' grants of citizenship were al1 binding.172

The Iiterary sources have demonstrated a long relationship between the Roman

Pompeii and sicily.173 It begins in the end of the second century BC with Sex. Pompeius

Faustulus and his client Sex. Pompeius Chlorus, and ends with the weIl co~ected(Cn.?)

Pompeius Grosphus of the Augustan age, Faustulus may have been invoIved with Sicily through his brother-in-law (the poet C. Lucilius) who owned Sicilian land or due to the possible Campanian origins of the gens Pompeia as seen fiom the Mamertines who were clients of Pompey the Great, The Verrines showed many fkee men of high social distinction in their respective towns attached to Pompey the Great. The Pro Balbo provided sirnilar information with the Pompeii Ovii. Appian, Cassius Dio, Pliny the EIder, and Velleius

Paterculus showed how the next generation of the gens Pompeia continued to play a major roIe on the island. Sextus, while acquiring his own clientela (Dernochares and

Apollophanes), became the new patron of his father's clients as well, some of whom are known to have been fieedmen (Menas and Menecrates), signiming that Pompey the Great had enfranchised persons of various classes, both fiee men and slaves. Although Menas was

17' Cassius Dio does not seem to take into consideration the wider implications of such statements, creating generalisations which are a cornmon feature throughout his mammoth work. His history totalled over 80 books composed over 22 years (23.5), which may explah his fiivolous style (F. Millar A Sfu& oflassius Dio Oxford 1964: 32). ln In any case, in the absence ofa wrïtten constitution, legality in ancient Rome became whatever the policy of the current political faction in power was (Syme [n.24]: 152-3). '" In a Ietter written by Pope Gregory 1 (9.170), there is mention of a Pompeius f?om whom the Pope bought an estate at Panhormus in AD 599 called the massa Papyrianensis. Unfortunately, only the nomen "Pompeius" remains of this landowner, and so his origins are unknown. Al1 that can be inferred is that in order to have owned a massa (a group offindi [OLD: 10821, which are large, Ianded estates [OLD 7471) he was very wealthy. The closest possibIe connection that he could have had with the established Sicilian Pompeii was to Q. Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus (desig. pr. c. AD 220-5) who lived approxirnately three centuries before him (p.68), and is therefore too remote in the to consider a feasible tie. His existence can be viewed only as a pleasant coïncidence in the present context, not particularly loyal, that is a rariv because there is evidence, such as the Aeolians

discussed in the first chapter (p.28), which dernonstrates that the Sicilians were particularly

fond of the Roman Pompeii. Finally, Horace, with his tfiend Pompeius Grosphus, showed

how the Sicilian Pompeii had not anly a place in the Empire, but in the imer circie. The

Vewines then, in view of the fervent attention given above, should be considered as more

than the major source; they are the beginning of a developing trend which, when seen as a

whoIe (especially at the end of this chapter), suggests a Iegacy of Pompey the Great's family

in Sicily.

b) The Daîable Inscriptions

The epigraphic record is very useful in providing names of Sicilians who were enfianchised by the original Pompeii, and there is a substantial nurnber of inscriptions which can be dated with a fairly high degree of accuracy.

After the Augustan period, Le. aRer Pompeius Grosphus, no Sicilian Pompeii are attested in the literary sources throughout the Julio-Claudian reign. At Rome, in the meantirne, the members of the gens Pompeia enjoyed some influence, mostly unrelated to

Sicily. Cn. Pompeius Magnus, for instance, the great-great-great-grandson of Pompey, mamed in AD 41 Claudia htonia, the daughter of the Emperor Claudius (Suet. Clad

27).174 In 46, Claudius killed him along with his parents, perhaps suspecting them of aspirations to the purple (Sen. Apocol. 11). Similarly, L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, the brother of this Cn. Pornpeius Magnus, was killed with the Emperor Galba by Otho in 69 because he was to succeed to the throne (Tac. Hisi. 1.14-43). This L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi

'" Follow Table II. Licinianus was the last member of Pompey the Great's family. A11 those executions are not

surprising since, considering the family's Imperia1 history for example, the Emperor Caligula

(AD 37-41), the nephew of Claudius, ofken stripped a number of aristocratie families of their historical distinctions, including the cognomen of Cn. Pompeius Magnus (Suet. Caiig. 35).

With regard to Siciiy, only the large landowner Sex. Pompeius (cos. AD 14) is recorded in the Julio-Claudian period. He may be the very rich Pompeius whom Seneca the

Younger wrote about and whom Caligula killed so that he could confiscate his property

(Tranq. 111.10). The Emperor here is described as an "old relative" (vehrs cognatus) of this

Pompeius. Al1 this data on weaith, property, and age led the editors of PIR to identie this

Pompeius with the consul of AD 14.175 Yet, Caligula in his late 20s can hardly be considered "old." The word vetus probably refers to a long familial co~ection,for Cassius

Dio did write that Sex. Pompeius was somehow related to Augustus (56.29.5), and Caligula was Augustus' great-grandson. Since there is a generation gap between the reign of Augustus and that of Caligula, the Pompeius whom Caligula murdered is perhaps better identified as a son of the consul of AD 14. This son was very likely also named Sex. Pompeius since every other male in that line was so narned.176 The mention ofthese Sex. Pompeii serves to reveal the possible enfianchisers of the following Sicilian family.

Only recently has the revision of old inscriptions and publication of new ones finally revealed the origin of one of the most famous provincial Pompeii, Q. Pompeius Falco fkom

Centuripae. 177 Falco was bom c. AD 70 and led a very illustrious career, begi~ingas a

17' 17' PIR1 III: 64-5 (P #MO). '76 See Table Ila. Eck (n.7): 109 n.l and 114-121. vi'ntumvir during the reign of the Emperor Domitian (AD 8 1-96). 178 Aftenvards, he

became rnilitary tribune of the Legio X Gemina (the Tenth Twin Legion) in Lower Germany, was later elected quaestor at Rome, and then plebeian tribune. Although none of these events can be dated, his praetorship occurred either in AD 99 or 100. He commanded the Legio V

Macedonia (the Fifth Macedonian Legion) during the first Dacian War (AD 10 1-2) and consequentIy received military decorations. He govemed Lycia-Pamphylia and then Judaea, with imperium over the legion XFretensis (where Fretensis refers to the Freturn Siculurn, the

Latin phrase for the Straits of Messina).l79 Falco was the fmgovernor of Judaea to cornmand the army stationed there, since previously only generab were given forces because it bordered Parthia, Rome's great eastern enemy. He finally became suffect consul in

September AD 108 in absentia. When he returned to ltaly the next year he became curator of the via Traiana fiom Beneventurn (today Benevento) to Brundisiurn (Brindisi). He served as

XVvir sacris faciundis, 180 and fiom AD 11 6 to 11 7 was governor of Moesia Werior. After

Hadrian's ascension to the throne in AD 1 17 (SHA Ha& 5), Falco was sent to Britannia perhaps a year afterward in order to attend to a rnilitary threat and probably began construction on Hadrian's Wall in AD 120.181 By 123-4, he was proconsul in Asia and after

Falco's career is outlined in A. R Birley "The origin and career of Q. Pompeius Falco" ArheoloSki Vestnik XXVIII 1977: 360-8, fiom which the following is a summary. The vigintivirate was a board of minor magistrates at Rome whose membership was a precursor to the quaestorship, which spelt the beginning of a senatonal career (Cic, Leg. 3.3 -6). 179 OLD:734. The narne of the iegion irnplies that it fUst participated in naval batties near those straits, most probably during the Sicilian War. It watherefore probably levied in 38 by Octavian (Cas Dio 48.49. l), who named it so as a result of its victory over Sextus Pompey in 36 (L. Keppie The Making of the Roman Army New Jersey 1984: 126 and 208). ''O A quindecimvir sacrisfaciundis was one of the 15 priests who were responsible for the Sibylline books and its ceremonies (OLD:1556 and H. W. Parke p.C. McGing, ed.] Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in ClaiFslCal Antiquiîy London & New York 1988: 190-215). ''' C. E. Stevens The Building of Hadrian's Wall London 1966: 39 and 52. Falco, being Sicilian, would certainly have been farniliar with such defenses since they were probably inspired by the construction of Dionysius 1's great Syracusan citadel; this does not mean, however, that the idea of br:ilding the Wall derived from Syracuse (Bïrley [n. 1421: 133). a 20 year gap is next and last mentioned in a letter written in AD 143 by the fûture Emperor

Marcus Aurelius (1 61 -80) to his fiend, M. Cornelius Fronto (SUE.AD 143). The

correspondence describes how M. Aurelius and his adoptive father, the Emperor Antoninus

Pius (138-61) had gone to Falco's estate three years earlier (adM. Caes. 2.1 1). A. R. Birley

hypothesizes that Antoninus Pius may have visited Falco in order to discuss the construction

of the Antonine Wall, since the Sicilian may have participated in the construction of

adr ri an's -182

Q. Pompeius Falco does not seem to have corne fiom a very illustrious family.183

His father was a certain Sex. Pompeius Priscus (CIL ~.6321),184and his mother a CIodia

Falconilla, fiom whom he derived his cognomen.185 Since neither inscriptions of his parents clah any senatorial dignity before him, Q. Pornpeius Falco was very likely a novus homo.186 Falco also had an older brother named Q. Pompeius Priscus (AE 1993: 829), of whom nothing else is known. Aside fiom his military victories and political offices, the rise of Falco to eminence can also be seen in his marriage to Sosia Polla (CI.. III.7163), the daughter of the highly esteemed Q. Sosius Senecio, consul ordinurius in both AD 99 (ES

1105) and 107 (CIL VI.3 1 142).187 The Sicilian was connected to many other notables, however, as an examination of his full name will reveal.

'" Birley (n. 178): 360. Ig3 Follow Table UI. Eck (n.7): 1 16-7 and 0.Salomies Adoptive and Poiyonyrnous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire Helsinki 1992: 123-5. '" From an inscription at Centwipae (Likrtini In.31: 42.1-3, revised by Manganaro [n.3] 1989: 168): [CL]ODI[AE] P. F(iiiae) / FALCONTLLAE MATRI[-] / POMPE1 FALCONIS [-] ("to Clodia, the daughter of P. (Falco?), mother of Pompeius Falco"). Ia6 A. N. Sherwin-White The Letters of PZiny Oxford 1966: 139. Is7 RP II: 668 n.3 & III: 1165 and C. P. Jones "Sura and Senecio" JRS LX 1970: 98-104 at 102-4 think that Senecio is fiom Cilicia because of some enfranchisements made by C. Sosius (cos. 32), Mark Antony's govemor of Syria and Cilicia (PIRI 111: 2534 #556]). Although the person in question is generally referred to as Q. Pompeius Falco, he had

a much longer full narne as attested in that inscription which mentions his father (above):

Q(uinto)ROSCIO - SEX(ti)F(ilio) / QVIR(ina) - COELIO MURENAE / SILIO DECIANO

- VIBULL(i)O 1 PI0 IULIO EVRYCLI - HERCULAN[O] 1 POMPE10 - FALCONI (which

expands to "for Q. Roscius, the son of Sextus, from the Quirina tribe, Coelius Murena Silius

Decianus Vibullius Pius Iulius Eurycles Herculanus Pompeius ~alco").188 By working

backwards, one finds the "Falco" component ofthat extended narne already discussed, thus

prompting the "Pompeius" part. A. R Birley suggested that Pompey the Great granted one of

Falco's ancestors citizenship.189 Yet, the praenomen of Falco's father implies that it is not

necessary to go as far back as the great Republican general to find a benefactor for the

ancestor of Falco. Sex. Pompeius (cos. AD 14), or more likely his son, were the only

Pompeii known to have had connections with Sicily at the time, and the son was a

contemporary of Sex. Pompeius PL~SCUS.~~~The praenomen of Falco's father may allow that

the son of the consul in AD 14 was responsible for his citizenship.191

The "VibuIIius Pius Iulius Eurycles Hercuianus" section of Falco's name alludes to C.

Iulius Eurycles Herculanus L. Vibullius Pius, a senator c. AD 100 and a descendant of the

wealthy Euryclid family in ~~arta.192That connection was apparently made through Falco's

father-in-law, Q. Sosius Senecio, not only because both Senecio and Eurycles knew each other in the capacity of senators (for Falco was in that circle as well), but due to the fact that

lg8Salomies (n. 184): 122-3 and nn.95-6. Ig9A. R Birley The Fasti of Roman Britain Oxford 198 1: 97. Pompeius Paulinus was also present then (pp.32-3), but since his £htname is not recorded (probably "Gnaeus"},the father and son Sex. Pompeii becorne the best candidates. Salomies (n.184): 124 daims that it was someone named Sex. Pompeius; whom exactly, he does not seek. '* P. A. Cartledge & A. J. S. Spawforth Hellenistic and Roman Spartu London & New York 1989: 98 and M. Woloch Roman Citizemhb and the Athenian Elite, A.D. 96-161 Amsterdam 1973: 1 16-7. Senecio had many cIients in Sparta (IZS 1035-6). 193 "Silius Decianus" is associated with L.

Silius Decianus, suffect consul in AD 94 and son of Silius Italicus, the poet of the ~unica.194

In what way Falco and both these Silii were connected is not known.195

The first component of Falco's extended nomencIahire, "Q.Roscius Coelius,"

suggests a comection, most probably by adoption, to one closely related to M. Roscius

Coelius (suff. AD al), if not to that consul himself since he is the only man recorded to have

carried the nomina "Roscius" and "Coelius" t0~ether.196The rare cognomen "Murena" is

found arnong the Roscii in which three senatoriat M. Roscii Murenae are recorded: M.

(Roscius) Murena was proconsul of Bithynia-Pontus about AD 160, who had a son similariy

narned and praetor at some unknown date, who in tum fathered the quaestor M. Roscius

Lupus Murena (RA 1890: 443 and n.135).197 These Murenae were a11 from the Quirina

voting trïbe, including L, Roscius Aelianus Maecius Celer (suff. AD 100) the son of the

above mentioned M. Roscius Coelius (ILS 1025),198 which is the component last examined

in this discussion on Falco's nomenclature.

The Quirina was very weli represented in Sicily, especially in the eastem half.199

There were also many Roscii (and Coelii) in that part of the island, the most interesting example (CIL VI.2535 1) being the Syracusan M. Raecius Roscius Clodianus Siculus whose

193 Jones (n. 187): 103. 19' 19' A. Garzetti Nema Rome 1950: #39 & #134 and Sherwin-White (n.186): 227. lgs RP III: 1165 and Sherwin-White (11.186): 139. '% Buley (n. 1 89): 97; G. E. F. Chilver A Historical Cornmentory on Tacifus' Histories I and II Odord 1979: 122; RP TV: 98 & V: 639-40; and L. Schumacher Prosopographkche C/nrersuchungen zur Besemng der vier hohen r6mischen Priesterkollegien im Zioitalter der Antonine und der Severer Berlin 1973: 256. 19' 19' Eck (n.7): 125-6 and Salomies (n.184): 122-3. Follow Table W. 19* BkIey (n.189): 270; RP V: 642; and Salomies (n. 184): 134 & n. 128. Ig9 The large representation of the Quirina tnbe in Sicily has already been studied by Eck (n.7): 112-28, Manganaro (n.3) 1988: 41-2, and Salomies (n. 184): 122-5. daughter, Clodia Roscia, recalls Clodia Falconilla, the mother of ~alco.200Modern scholars

have suggested that Falconilla was related to the ~oscii,201if so it would probably explain

Q. Pompeius Falco's adoption by M. Roscius Coelius or a close relative who was probably

narned Q. Roscius ~oelius?O2 At this point, it should be noted that Falco and his brother Q.

Pompeius Priscus shared the same praenomen, suggesting that even Q. Pompeius Priscus was

adopted by that certain Q, Roscius Coelius. Those observations, compounded by the fact that

both families (i-e.adopters [poscii] and adopted pompeii]) were fiom the same voting tribe, suggests that they were al1 fiom the same area of the island, thus facilitating the apparent

As J, Moms shrewdly observed, al1 those "narnes comprehend a dozen different persons, most of whom were near contemporaries, in the generation of Tacitus and Pliny [the

Younger]; it is unlikely that they were al1 direct ancestors, but they al1 belonged to families related by marriage, comected in office, and on the same social level; they do not inctude any of the surviving old nobility, the Pisones, Scipiones, Glabriones, Dolabellae, of the

Flavian 69-961-Trajan [AD 98-1 171 epoch, nor any of the new patriciate of the Flavians,

Arrii Antonini Annii Veri, Neratii Vettii [sic]; almost al1 the persons concemed were men new to the Senate in the late first century ~.~."204In other words, it seems that by the end of the first century AD a new nobility was taking shape, one originating fiom the provinces.

200 The Roscii in eastern Sicily are: CIL X-70 19; IG XIV.414,438,486,500; Manganaro (n.3) 1989: 52, and NSA 19 15: 23 1. Two are in the Quirina (CEX.70 19 and NSA 1953: 360). in the meantirne, there are 3 Coelii there (CILX.6982 & 6997 and Libertini Cn.31: 45). Aside fkom the family of Q. Pompeius Falco, the Pompeii Falcones, there were also other Pompeii in that tribe and in that part of the island as this chapter will continue to reveal (p.71). 'O' Salomies (n. 184): 124 & Sherwin-White (n. 186): 139. 'O2 RP N:162; Salomies (n. 184): 122-5; and Sherwïn-White (n. 186): 139. There are some Q. Roscii in Rome (al1 lmperial CIL VI.25479,33639,38088a and BCAR LXIX 1941: 187 #130) and a patron firom Capua (today S. Maria di Capua Vetere) in Campania in 106 BC (CIL 12.678 [=X.3778]). 'O3 Salomies (n, 184): 122-5. His view is supported by Eck (n. 177). 204 Morris (n20): 44. The concept is furthered later (pp.75-6), for the moment there still rernains the descendants of

Q. Pompeius Falco to trace.

With Sosia Polla, Falco had a son, Q. Pompeius Sosius Priscus (LCS 1 105), ordinary consul in AD 149 (AE 1971: 33).205 He, in tum, had two children: Q. Pompeius Senecio

Sosius Priscus (CEVI.3 1752-3), the polyonymous consul of AD 169 (CIL VI. 1984 and

~1~.2408),206and Pompeia Sosia Falconilla (AE 1935: 26). The latter manied M. Pontius

Laelianus Larcius Sabinus, ordinary consul of AD 163 (CE VI.1497 and 1549), and they produced M. Sosius Laelianus Pontius ~a1co.207Q. Pompeius Senecio Sosius Priscus also held various religious positions (CIL X.6322) including pontifex (VI. 1491). His son, Q.

Pompeius Sosius Falco (Cass. Dio 72.22.2), ordinary consul in AD 193 (CE11.4125 and

VI. 1173c), was considered by the rebellious Praetorian Guard as a suitable candidate for the purple in that year. This consul in AD 193 had a son by Sulpicia Agrippina named Q.

Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus, who becarne a pontifex and designated praetor c. AD 220-5

(CIL ~.1490).208It is not sure whether this Sicilian Pompeius ever became praetor, let alone consul, or that he even had any children, spelling the decline of this very prominent family of Q. Pompeius Falco.

'O5 His full name was Q.Pompeius Senecio Rutilianus Rufmus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Claudius Fuscus Saxa Arnyntianus Sosius Priscus (CIL V1.3 1753). To go into detail for that name or any other names of Falco's descendants is pointiess for the purpose of this dissertation. It is sufficient to mention that the other names found were derived f?om prominent contemporary Roman citizens, probably by honourary adoption (SaIomies [n. i 841: 66 n. 16 and 144), contiming to demonstrate the family's lofly connections. The discussion of Falco's name was sufficient for the origins of his entire family since he was the first to be ennobled. zo6 His full name was Q. Pompeius Senecio Roscius Murena Coelius Sex. Iulius Frontinus Silius Decianus C. Iulius Eurycles Herculaneus L. Vibullius Pius Augustan(i)us Alpinus BeIlicius Sollers Iuiius Aper Ducenius Proculus Rutilianus Rufmus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Cl. Fuscus Saxa Amyntianus Sosius Priscus (CIL XIV.3609 = ILS 1104), the longest attested Roman name. 20' E. Groag "Prosopographische Beitrtige" JOIA XVIII 1915: 265-80 at 270 and 273-4. 'O8 Groag (n.207): 272-4 and PIR' III: 66 (P #459). On a sarcophagus in Syracuse there is inscribed the name of a certain Q. Pompeius

Eipistos (IG XTV.add.45a). The cogmmen strongly implies that he was a Greek SiciIian,

while his praenomen suggests an enfianchisement by either Q. Pompeius Balbus, the early

second century AD governor, or one of the Pompeii ~alcones.209That Syracuse was the seat of the provincial government makes the likelihood that Elpistos met Balbus slightly more possible than his meeting Falco (who was fkom Centuripae) or one of his descendants

(who would probably be found more often in Rome than on the island). Although the date of the sarcophagus is not known, inhumation is noted to have become more popular after about

AD 160 as evidenced by the increased use of sarcophagi by the upper-classes throughout the

Roman world?lO The mid-second century AD date coincides well with the govemorship of

Q. Pompeius Balbus, who may have enfkmchised Elpistos or his mer.

Lastly, on a tombstone found in the cemetery of St. John in Syracuse there is inscribed the narne of a Christian, Pompeia, daughter of Dionysia, who died in early AD 403

(NG 8). This person, unfortunately, as is the case with the very late sixth century Pompeius fiom Panhomus (n. l73), lived too late to be associated with any degree of certainty to any of the Pornpeii, original or provincial, under discussion here.

c) The Less Datable Inscriptions

G. Manganaro initially dates the following inscription fiom Murgentia to the first century BC because both legible names ("Pornpeius" and "MarceIlus,"ll.3-4) are very

'O9 In view of hispraenomen, nomen, and office in Sicily, it is possible that Balbus was reIated to or enhchised by the Pompeii Faicones, but there is no proof. "O In the midde of the second centwy, this form of herary rite (iower classes in the ground and upper classes in sarcophagi and crypts) gained popularity over uni cremation (1. Morris Death-Ritual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity Cambridge 1992: 42-6 1), which Tacitus descnbed as "Roman custorn" (mosRomanus; Anm 16.6). Republican: [- / -1 ALB[--1 / POMPEI[O] / MARCELLO / PATRON0 SU0 / [OPT(imo))

BENE M(erenti) ("Nb.. . to his great patron Pompeius Marcellus, well merited" or "to his

great patron Alb.. .Pompeius Marcellus, well rnerited")?ll It is a funerary inscription

dedicateci by a fkedman to his patron Pornpeius Marcellus. Since the ending of the name

"Alb.. ."is 105% it is dificult to tell whether it is the narne of the freedrnan or part of the patron's, Manganaro writes without any explanation that the name of the fieedman was

"certainly Cornelius (?) Pompeid (certamente Cornelius (?) [sic] Pompeiw) and thus the patron's full narne was "[-Cornelius] Alb[inianus] Pompeius Marcellus.'' To complicate matters fûrther, the scholar then adds that if the inscription is Imperia1 in date instead, then this Cornelius Albinianus Pompeius Marcellus may be connected in some way with Ser.

Cornelius Dolabella Metilianus Pompeius Marcellus £rom Corfinium (today Corfinio), suffect consul in AD 113, who has no known connections with Sicily.

Manganaro's ktcentury BC date seems misguided, because there is no one in

Republican times recorded with the narne of both the Pompeian and Claudian (Marcellan) families, especially two as prominent in Sicily as those, unless this Pompeius Marcellus is evidence of intermarriage. Another individual who may be comected to the patron from the inscription is the Spaniard Pompeius Marcellus Umbonius Silo, who had occupied various offices around the Empire during the reign of Claudius (Cass. Dio 60.24.5-6). Like Ser.

Cornelius Dolabella Metilianus Pompeius Marcellus, however, there is no evidence suggesting that Umbonius Silo was ever in Sicily. Still, it may be enough to presume an early Iinperial date in view of the similar nomenclature during that period. The only certainty is that there was a patron and fkeedman named "Pompeius" in Murgentia.

Manganaro (n.3) 1989: 187 and n. 102. There are two tiles fiom Catina, one bearîng the stamp CN P A and the other CN

POMP A (CE X.8045 17b)- The name might be that of the manufacturer or owner of a tile

factory or an estate. The nomen can be either "Pompeius" or "Pomponius." 1t is most 1ïkeIy

the former because of the small nurnber of Pomponii recorded in Sicily, none of whom

carried the praenomen "~naeus."212 This Cn. Pompeius A.. ., if not a businessman or

landowner fiom Rome, may have been a Sicilian who was (or whose ancestor was) given

citizenship by Pompey the Great. Unfortunately there is not enough information to continue

speculating in any productive manner.213 What is clear, however, is that he was the head of

an estate or Company, thus another prominent Pompeius in Sicily.

At nearby Centuripae, an inscription was found dedicated by a Roscius to a Cn.

Pompeius, son of a Cn. Pompeius, fiom the Quirina tribe (NSA 1915: 23 1). It is tempting to connect this Cn. Pompeius with Cn. Pompeius A.. . fiom Catina, because of their names and the proximity between both cities. Moreover, the fact that Cn. Pompeius fiom Centuripae was important enough to have been honoured may point to the wealth of Cn. Pompeius A. .. fiom Catina. What is probably more interesting than equating both men, however, is the inclusion of a Roscius to the picture. His presence not only gives a terminuspost quem of the late ficentury AD for the inscription (pp.66-7), but also strengthens the suggestion of a

212 There are a total of four: M. Pomponius Di.. . fiom Syracuse (Imperial; IG XIV: 9), Pomponia Aema fiom Messana (Iate first century BC; CIL X.6986), Pomponia Maxima fiom Thennae Himeraeae (no date; IG XIV: 333), and M. Pomponius Matho (gov, in 204 and commander of a Roman fleet guarding the coast of Sicily in 203-202 bivy 27-3 Il). Scramuzza (n.42): 356 also believes that this abbreviation POMP is the nomen "Pornpeius." 213 Compare this tile with the ones found in central southem Sicily which have CAL or CALVI inscribed on them. The so-called Antonine Itinerary of the fourth century AD, based on a second century AD original, indicates a massa Cafvbianathere, presumably named after its owner @. Adamesteanu "Due problemi topografici del retroterra gelese" Rendiconti della Classe di scienze rnorafi 8h ser. X 1955: 198-210). The date of Cn. Pompeius A. .,'s apparent estate (or tile factory) cannot be confmed without a dated reference like the Antonine itinerary. connection between the Sicilian Pompeii and ~oscii.214S ince the praenomen "Gnaeus" is

not present among the Pompeii Falcones however, it is unlikely that this Cn. Pompeius of

Centuripae was related to Q. Pompeius Falco.

On two different epitaphs, there is an inscription from Lipara (IG XIV.395-6)that

reads: a) ZiErJou I nopqiou 1 "Axpou I I-IaAxhaxou and b) nop~r&s1 [XiE-r]ou /

[nopqiou'Alcpou] I ~~AQxou("Pompeia [the daughter] of Sex. Pompeius Apros (or

Aper) PaIakos;" it was revised in AE 1968: 202). The editors of the kkonof Greek

Personal Names date it to the Augustan age, perhaps on the evidence of the pruenomen which is associated with Sextus Pompey or Sex. Pompeius (cos. AD 14), one of whom was probably responsible for Apros Palakos' citizenship.215 It is possible that by that reasoning the benefactor may also have been Sex. Pompeius Faustulus, but his presence in Sicily is hardly as established as the other Sex. Pompeii. Sextus Pompey is the best candidate because he had much support fiorn the Aeolic islands.

Similarly, found in Messana is a fûnerary inscription bearing the name of a Sex.

Pompeius Phoibos who was "fiom Rome" (&KA 'Popqs; IG XIV.413). By hispraenomen and Greek cognomen, he may have received citizenship by Sextus Pompey or Sex. Pompeius the consul in AD 14 (or his son; or perhaps even Faustulus), but the inscription cannot otherwise be dated. Furtherrnore, since he is presumably from Rome, then he may have been enfranchised (or manumitted) from any of the Sexti in the gens Pompeia at the capital.

There is also a Sex. Pompeius Mercator fiom Panhormus who as a sevir Augustalis erected an altar of Victory "fiorn his own pune" (de suopenulia; CIL ~.7269).216Again,

''' Eck (n.7): 122 and Salomies (n. 184): 124. P. M. Fraser & E. Matîhews (eds.) A Lacicon of Greek Personal Names nIa Oxford 1997: 371. 2'6 A sevir Augrrstah was a citizen and religious magistrate of the Imperia1 cu1t us~allya wealthy fieedman and mostIy found in the western Roman Empire (OLD: 1750). he or an ancestor, was somehow comected either to Sextus Pornpey or Sex. Pompeius (cos.

AD 14, or his son). Mercator was undoubtedly rich, as his priesthood and altar imply. In view of his cognomen, which rneans "merchant" in Latin, it is fitting that he should be from

Panhorrnus, a busy port city (Diod. Sic. 22.10.4).

A funerary inscription on an urn fiom Panhormus gives the name of a deceased M.

Virginius Pornpeius, who Iived until the age of 25, and that of his rnother, Pompeia Atticilla, who dedicated it (CIL X.7322). There are no other Virginii attested anywhere; but there are

Verginii, none of whom, though, can be atîached to ~icil~.217M. Virginius Pompeius clearly received his cognomen from his mother, in much the same way as Q. Pompeius Falco did fiom his (p.64). This fashion in nomenclature began about the middle of the frst century

AD, one of the earliest and most famous examples being the Emperor Vespasian (T. Flavius

Vespasianus) whose father's name was T. Flavius Sabinus and his mother's was Vespasia

Polla (Suet Vesp. 1-2).218 Unfominately, nothing else is known about Pompeia Atticilla, except that her father was a Pompeius. That M. Virginius Pornpeius was cremated provides a terminus ante quem of around the middle of the second century AD (n.2 10). The urn cm thus be dated between the mid-first and mid-second centuries AD.

At Thermae Himeraeae, there is an engraving of the name "Pompeia Rodia" (CIL

X.7429). This Iast name is noteworthy because it may hint at Rhodian migration to this province. Prominent trade had been occurring between Sicily and Rhodes since the second century BC (Polyb. 9.27.8), and many examples of Rhodian wine amphorae dating fiom the second century until the early Empire confirm that commerce.219 V. M. Scrarn-

'17 '17 IZE 2ndser. V1II.G (1958) 1507-44 (Verginii). 2'8 Note that Vespasian's older brother T. Flavius Sabinus had the same cognomen as their father, in much the sarne way as Falco's older brother Q. Pompeius Priscus did b.64). '19 Wilson (n.3): 403 n. 13 1. comments that Pompeia Rodia may have been a slave from Rhodes who was brought to

Sicily, where she was manumitted.220

Another Sicilian Pompeius, othemise unknown, is C. Pompeius Felix fiom Catina,

His wife, Scribonia Restituta (CEX.7084), bears an interesting first name because

"Scribonia" was aIso the narne of Sextus Pompey's wife and later became rather common in

the extended family of Pompey the ~reat.221 Felix'praenornen "Gaius" is rare for a

Pompeius, and so a date anymore specific than Imperial is impossible to infer, especialIy

since the inscription contains no further data.222 There is also a Pompeia Epictesis, fiom

Catina as well, who set up a funerary inscription for her husband, Publicius Nicon, who died

at the age of 55 (CEX.7086). Neither names are attested elsewhere, so only a generic

Imperial date can be attributed to that Latin inscription. Finally, there is a Pompeia Victoria

found on an inscription fiorn Thermae Himeraeae with no other data (CIL X.7430). There is

no known Pompeia Victoria anywhere else.

ConcIusion

From Sex. Pompeius Faustulus c. 125 BC until Q. Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus c.

AD 220-5, a definite trend appears demonstrating a relationship between the Pompeii and

Sicily. It varies fiom "the most important and distinguished of Sicilians" (omnium SicuIorum primi ac nobilissimi; p.40 n.121) such as Sex. Pompeius Chlorus to manumitted slaves like

Pompeia Rodia. By the first quarter of the first century BC, Pompey the Great was already

Scrarnuzza (n.42): 370. See TabIe IIb and d. 2z2 Note Syme's comment on the use of "Gaius"by the Pompeii: "No senator of the Repubfic carried it, Provincial habits or anomalies with praenomina cm sornetunes be detected." (RP VI: 223 n.111). See n. 10 1 for the praenomen "Marcus" as another example, the most powerfbl patron on the island, not only because his family may have had earlier

connections to it but probabIy also because he was the most powerfûl man in Rome. His son,

Sextus Pompey, inherited that patronage when he controlled the island during the period

fiom 43 to 36. Although the occupation at that time can be easily explained by force of anns,

Sicilian loyalw to the Pompeii was clear when Julius Caesar specifically chose Pompeius

Bithynicus to govern the province in 44. AIthough Menas may be an example of a client's

Iack of loyalty to a Pompeius, at the same time the Aeolians are a greater instance of the

contrary.

The ensuing Augustan regime witnessed the first Sicilian Pompeius becoming

recognised in Rome, nameIy Pompeius Grosphus. At the same time many Pompeii held

prestigious positions under Augustus as Sex. Pompeius did, the fouah cousin of Pompey the

Great, when he was consul in AD 14. During the JuIio-Claudian period, some Sicilian

Pompeii are known (mostly Sexti as seen from the inscriptions above bp64-731223)~but they are not as celebrated as Pompeius Grosphus, for instance, During that period, the

Roman Pompeii steadily lost their eminence and eventually died out. There certainly seems to have been a comection between the Pompeii in Rome and those in Sicily in order for both their fates to have run such parallel courses.

The brilliant career of Q. Pompeius Falco seems to de@ al1 that. His father, as perhaps other Sicilian Pompeii, probably owed his citizenship to Sex. Pompeius, the son of the consul in AD 24. AIthough by c. AD 70 the Roman Pompeii were gone, along with the support for their clients of course, it did not spell the demise of the Sicilian Pompeii. The

Empire was changing; the new Flavian dynasty, Italian (as opposed to Roman) in origin, did

U3 That observation is also noted by Salomies (n-184): 124.

75 not look to the old Roman aristocracy of the Julio-Claudian penod for cooperation in

govemment. With the senatorial ranks decimated by the civil wars in AD 68-9, Vespasian

refilied them with his supporters, not surprisingly mostly Italian and even provincial (Suet.

Vesp. 9.2); the most famous being the Spaniard M. Ulpius Trajanus whom Vespasian

immediately made suffect consul in AD 70 (the first in his family) and a honourary patrician

three years later ('lin. Pan 9 and 5Q.224 The following reign, that of Vespasian's son Titus

(AD 79-81), witnessed what seems to have been the fmSicilian senator on record, M.

Roscius Coelius (SUE.AD 8 1).225 No doubt the adoption into the family of this M. Roscius

Coelius sparked Q. Pompeius Falco's senatorial career in the successive reign, that of

Domitian, Titus' younger brother. It was no surprise, then, when Falco eventually became consul in the reign of the first emperor fiom the provinces, who, quite fittingly, was the son of M. Ulpius Trajanus (suff. AD 70)?26 Falco was not the only Sicilian to reach that office under Trajan, however, whose assumption to the purple in AD 98 clearly inspired even greater possibilities for provincials everpvhere.227

As can be seen, the Sicilian Pompeii were not excluded fiom such shifts in Imperia1 power at Rome. With their umbilical cord cut f?om the capital c. AD 70, the seemingly influential Sicilian Roscii now considered them worthy of their attention. The Pompeii

224 This is not to say that the Julio-Claudians did not have provincials in central govemment (see n.109 and pp.80- 1, for examples), but that the FIavians hcluded many more. The diverse composition of the FIavian mling class has been the subject of numerous studies, most recently treated in B. Levick Vespasian London 1999: 170-83 with a fiil1 bibliography on pp.262-6. The gens Ulpia originated f?om Tuder (today Todi) in Umbria (Aur. Vict. Cam. 13.1) and migrated to Italica (Santiponce) in Spain perhaps at the founding of the city in 206 BC (A. Cabailos Ruho Los senadores hispanorromanosy la romanizacion de Hispania (slglos I-IiI) Seville 1990: 309-1 1). 225 Manganaro's article (n.6) on Roman senators originating f?om Sicily, the only work of its kind, reveals no one earlier than L. Acilius RufUs (suff. AD 106 or 107). Only with the recent discovery of the Roscii's and Pompeii Faicones' Sicilian origins can the list be expanded to include M. Roscius Coelius (pp.66-7). Trajan (M. Ulpius Traianus; W. H. GroB RE suppl. X [1965] 1035-1 13). *' As mentioned (p.66), L. Roscius Aelianus Maecius Celer was suffect consul in AD 100, and L. Acilius Rufus suffect in AD 106 or 107 (11.225). Falcones can probably represent the Sicilian Pompeii at the time because as has been seen a

Roscius is recorded together with the prominent Centunpan Cn. Pompeius who cannot be

comected to the family of Q. Pompeius Falco (pp.71-2). In any case, beginning in the

Flavian dynasty, the Pompeii Falcones remained in the forefiont of the Roman senatorial aristocracy until the begming of the third cenhiry AD, and almost produced an emperor in

Q, Pompeius Sosius Falco. That entire legacy can be traced back to the work of the Pompeii

Magni.

With the relationship between the Pompeii and SiciIy established, an examination of how the Sicilian Pompeii stood amidst the rest of the province and Empire at this point is necessary in order to place their importance into perspective. Only then cmthe influence of

Pompey the Great and his family in Sicily be hlly determined. Chapter III Cornparisons for the Sicilian Pompeii

Pompeii and the Province of Asia

in order to place the Sicilian Pompeii in the context of the greater Roman world they will be compared with other provincial gentes. The first comparkon will study the impact of the Pompeii in the province of Asia, a good location for comparkon because it too seems to have been frequented by many original Pompeii. One might add, as already seen briefly in the previous chapters, that some Asians enfranchised by the Roman Pompeii have even been discussed in comection with Sicily.

The first attested member of the gens Pompera in Asia was Pompey the Great. He first carne in contact with the province in 67 during the war against the Cilician pirates. After quickly defeating them, he was given the command against Mithradates, whom L. Licinius

Lucullus had been fighting since his consulship in 74 (Plut. Luc. 6-7). From Asia, Pompey conquered much of the East while pursuing Mithradates, who had fled to the Crimean part of his kingdom and eventually committed suicide (App. Mirh. 1 11)). By 62, Pompey had settled the East into a set of provinces and client kingdoms. Before leaving Ephesus for Rome and his triumph (App. Mith. 116), Pompey visited Lesbos, where he was warmly received; he retumed the favour by declarïng the island fiee (Plut. Pomp. 42)?

The connections that he established during that campaign proved very useful throughout the rest of his career, especially during the civil war against Caesar. Before that last conflict even began, for exampie, Pornpey fled fiom Rome with his fifth wife, Cornelia, and son Sextus (Cic. Att- 7.10 and 9.10.2) to keep them safely at Mytilene on Lesbos (Plut.

"'Al1 the isIands along the coast of Asia Minor belonged to the province of Asia, which was constituted in 133 (Strabo 14-1-38); see Fig. V.

78 Pomp. 66,74.1, and 76.1 ), perhaps with his fnend and client Cn. Pompeius The~~hanes.*~

The Asians also gave him ships, money, grain, and two legions (Caes. B Ch- 3-34).

It was no coincidence that Sextus, under similar circumstances in Sicily in 36,

retreated to Lesbos as well (App. 5.133), for he probably wanted to winter at the house of

Theophanes, whose descendants he had inherited as clients fiom his father. Early in 35,

Sextus was still in Asia recmiting an arrny and strengthening his navy (App. B Civ. 5.137).

He held Lampsacus and recruited some of its Italian col~nists,~unsuccessfully attacked

Cyzicus, and then retired to the Harbour of the Achaeans in the Troad, collecting provisions.

His stay in Asia did not last long, because he was killed by one of Antony's men that sarne year (p.29). The last member of the gens Pompeia recorded in Asia is Sex. Pompeius (cos.

AD 14) when in AD 24-5 he sewed there as govemor.

There were many other Pompeii connected to Asia, mostly their clients, and who were therefore not necessarily related to the gens Pompeia- M. Pompeius Macer both govemed it (Strabo 13.2.3) and travelled with Ovid through it as well as through Sicily. The mention of Sicily is noteworthy, as three Sicilian Pompeii are recorded to have governed

Asia: Q. Pompeius Falco in AD 123/4, Q. Pompeius Sosius Priscus in AD 164, and Q.

Pompeius Senecio Sosius Priscus c. AD 184 who was also a Iegate there at some other tirne

(CIL X.3724 and ~1~.3609).~~'Since Asia, along with Afnca Proconsularis, was considered by the senatorial class as the most prestigious province to govern, it is no wonder that individuals as prominent as the Pompeii Falcones were some of its go~ernors.~~~C.

"9 Gold (n. 104): 3 12-27. Caesar had colonised Larnpsacus (App. B Ch5.14.137) c. 46-44 (Bmt In.841: 600). =' Thornasson (n.65) 1: 224 #26.112 and 230 #26.147 and D. Magie Roman Rule in Asia Minor II Princeton 1950: 1589 provide the dates- =' "It is very likely that some provinces were considered more desirable than others on grounds of distance fiom Rome, size, wealth, or climate, and that therefore these were îhe areas most keenly sought after." (R, J. A. Talbert The Senate of imperid Rome Princeton 1984: 352). Of the senatorial provinces, as opposed to those govemed by legates of the emperor, Afnca and Asia had consular rank, while the rest (hcluding Sicily) had praetorian status (W. Eck Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadian Munich 1970: 1-21. Since both Pompeius Longinus Gallus (cos. AD 49) also governed Asia in AD 59-60 (AE 1968: 485), as

did Pompeius Severus in AD 127 (BCH 1887: 1 IO), of both of whom little else is known.

Other Roman oficials in Asia named "f ompeius," besides governors, include Cn. Pompeius

an Imperia1 legate (hPriene 247), whose exact date is uncertain, and Cn. Pompeius

Hermippus Aelianus, a quaestor in the end of the second century AD (AE 1924: 76) who, Iike

Macer, was fiom Asia, and is therefore discussed En greater detail below.

A select few Asian Pompeii wiI1 serve to represent the almost 100 who are known

fiom the province. M. Hadas and A. N. Sherwin-White have aIready noted that stronghold of the Pompeii in Asia but, as in the case of Sicily, they have done so in a rather perfunctory ma~er.~~That large presence there has also been seen fiom the number of Roman magistrates in Asia carrying the name "Pompeius" just mentioned (pp.78-80).

The Asian Pompeii span fiom the late Republic, begiming with Cn. Pompeius

Theophanes, and continuing until the late third cerrtury AD, with a certain senator narned Cn.

Pornpeius (IEph 3038)- Theophanes and his fmily are the only Asian Pompeii mentioned in the ancient Iiterature. He was Pompey the GreaE's advisor and historian, accompanying him on the campaign against Mithradates from 66 to 62 (Strabo 1 1S. 1). One of Theophanes' two sons shared his name and became a legate of Augustus (I.Priene 247), while the other son, M. Pompeius Macer, Ovid's fnend, was the Emperor's Iibrarian and governor in Asia,

Macer had a daughter, Pompeia, who married Iulius Argolicus, son of the wealthy C. Iulius

Laco Senior from Sparta (Tac. Ann. 6.18). Macer also had a son named Q. Pompeius Macer who reached the praetorship in AD 15 (Tac. Ann. 1-72), becoming the first known senator

provinces were governed mostly by consuls, "Asia and AWca decIare social eminence or political success." (RPIV: 325). 233 Hadas (n.3): 154 and Sherwin-White (n.3): 308-9. 234 See Tables V-VI. fiorn the ~ast? His descendant is presumed to have been the suffect consul of AD 100, M.

Pompeius Macrinus Neos Theophanes, because his narne suggests a close relation and he was

also fkom Mytilene (p.32 n. 105)- He had a grandson named M. Pompeius Macrinus, ordinary

consul of AD 164, (CLL XIII.8203 and XV-1369). This Iast Macrinus was the brother of

Pompeia Agrippinilla, who married a consul ordinarius of AD 150, M. Gavius Squilla

Gallicanus (IG XII.ii.237). They had a son, M. (Gavius) Cornelius Cethegus, an ordinary

consul in AD 170 (CIL W.1978), who is the Iast attested member of this line- The farnily is

comparable to the Pompeii Falcones, both having participated in the highest ranks of

governrnent-

On about six inscriptions another very prominent family of Asian Pompeii can be

traced for over a cent~r~.~~It begins with Cn. Pompeius Hermippus fkom Ephesus, an

asiarch during the middle of the second century AD (IEph 2069).~' The identity of the

individual who gave him citizenship is not given, but it can be assumed either that it was Cn,

Pompeius the legate (p.80), or that one of Hermippus' ancestors was enhchised by Pompey the Great. Hemippus had three children: Pompeia Titimiana (IEph 71Oa), a gymnasiarch

Cn. Pompeius Titianus Amoenus Quartinus (IEph 1150),2~'and Cn. Pompeius Hermippus

Aelianus who was governor of Lycia-Parnphylia sometime in the late second century AD (AE

1924: 76). Aelianus had four sons, ail of whom were senators: two Cn. Pompeii, a Cn.

Pompeius Hermippus Aelianus (Eph 1120 and 41 13), and a Pompeius Cassianus who was more specifically a military tribune in the Legio XFretensis (IEph 2069). One of the two Cn.

Pompeii had a son who was also a senator, while the other Cn. Pompeius had a son named

B. Levick Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor Oxford 1967: 105 and White (n. 104): 2 13 and n. 18. 236 Follow Table W. An Oradp~rlswas the highest religious official under the Romans in the province of Asia 256). usA yupam&pxqsoversaw the civic palaestrae (L&P:362). That position, so central to daily iife, was coveted by mzny (A. H. M. Jones The Greek Cifyfiom Aiexander to Jwtinian Oxford 1940: 221-6), even Mark Antony who was proud to be a honourary one in Athens (Plut. Ant. 33.10). Cn. Pompeius Antonius Amoenus, a quaestor in LycidPamphilia and a plebeian tribune

sometime in the rniddle of the third century AD (Eph 1150). Antonius Amoenus' son,

another senator named Cn. Pompeius (IEph 30381, is the last known member of this line. The

recurringpraenomen "Gnaeus" seems to have been used, together with the nomen

"Pompeius," simply as a title to prove the possession of one's Roman citizenship and probably

also as a long comection to an eminent Roman, in this case Pompey the ~reat.~~

The remaining Asian Pompeii were more Iocalfy based. !?hile a great number seem

to have belonged to the upper echelons of their society, still others were fiom other parts. Of

the aristocratie Asian Pompeii, there are possibly two representatives, the gynmasiarchs T.

Flavius Pompeius Marcellinus and Pompeius Sestullianos, who are found in an inscription

named alongside the aforementioned Cn. Pompeius Titianus Amoenus Quartinus (p.8 1). This

inscription can thus be dated accordingly to the late second century AD (IEph 1 151). There

were also Cn. Pompeius Beratianos (FIE KB44) and T. Pompeius Hermogenes (iX.B54),

members of the prytanein in Ephesus during the reign of the Emperor Cornmodus (AD 180-

92).240 The non-aristocratie Asian Pompeii comprised Pompeius (no praenomen or

cognomen), an agoranomos in Pergarnurn around the late second century AD (Pergamon

111.58)~~'as well as L. Pompeius Marcellinus, a negotiaforfrom Ephesus during the Flavian period (CEIII.435). The livelihood of a L. Pompeius Apollonius from Ephesus is unknown, but that he was wealthy is apparent, for he dedicated a sacrifice to L. Mestrius Florus (suff.

AD 75), govemor in AD 8819 SIG^ 820):~~

239 J, F. Dnnkwater ("The Rise and Fa11 of the Gallic Iulii" Latomus XXXVII 1978: 8 17-50 at 8 18,828, and 847) introduces this theory for Gaul, where a very large number of individuals are called "C. Iulius." Morris (11.20): 36-41 suggests the same as a general trend throughout the Empire. 240 A zpu~av~iawas the local senate-house (L&& 1543). 241 An &yopav6~0swas a market-clerk/adminisû-ator(L&$: 13). 242 Governor worship in Asia Minor had been cornmon since the second century BC (S. F. R Price Rituals and Power Cambridge 1984: 42-7) until AD 1 1 when Augustus banned such acts (Cass. Dio 56.25.6). In early AD 88, there appeared in Asia a false Nero who had Parthian suppoc but was quickly surrendered The identities of the benefactors of these Asian Pornpeii, especially those with the

pruenomina "Lucius" and "Titus," are difficult to establish since none of the original Pompeii

in Asia canied suchpraenornina. However, those praenornina may have inexplicably come

into vogue as did that of "Marcus" in the family of Cn. Pompeius Theophanes (M. 10 1 and

105), for as has been seen thus far, Imperia1 (especially provincial) nomenclature is not very

predictable (11.222). Nonetheless, most of those original Pompeii who were in contact with

Asia were either related to or clients of Pornpey the Great.

It would seem then, that the legacy of Pompey the Great was greater in Asia than in

Sicily because there were numerically more Asian Pompeii, and two senatonal families as

opposed to the Sicilian Pompeii's one. Yet that discrepancy in numbers can be explained in

terms of demography. Asia was a larger province243supporting a greater population than

Sicily and thus it had a larger pool from which to produce such n0tables.2~~It is therefore the

quality of the legacy that must be compared here, and not the quantity of those who represent

it. The Sicilian Pompeii demonstrated a wide diversity in social status (Le. fiom aristocrats to

former slaves) whereas that of the Asian Pompeii does not seem to have been as diversified.

From the sources, the latter seemed to have possessed no status under that of bourgeois, but

that information reflects the prosperous economic conditions of the eastern province,

especially during the second century AD, the penod in which such documents are in most ab~ndance.~~'A skewed representation of the social strata in the province of Asia may be the case here, resulting fiom the type of evidence that has survived. As already mentioned, Asia

(Suet. Nero 57). That incident may have sparked a minor reaction against the already unpopular Domitian, causing some, like L. Pornpeius ApolIonius, to honour the governor Uistead of the emperor. 243 8 1 615 square lan (converted £kom 48 969 square miles in T. Robert S. Broughton "Roman Asia Minor" in T. Frank [ed.] An Econornk Szuvey ofRome IV Baltimore 1938: 499-918 at 8 15). 2u Wilson (n.3): 171 calculates a total population of roughly 600 000 for the province of Sicily c. AD 200. Broughton (11243): 8 12-6 roundIy estunates 4 600 000 for Asia in the middle Empire; Le. aimost eight times more than Sicily. 245 There is much archaeological evidence of an economic boon in Asia Minor, especially at Ephesus during the second century AD (Broughton [n.243]: 752-5). and Afica Proconsularis were also considered by the senatorial class as the most lucrative

provinces to govern @.79 n.232). As such, when the quality of the Iegacy is taken into

consideration, it seems to work out evenly in both Sicily and Asia. Members of both

provincial Pompeii belonged to different social classes in their respective localities and also

produced individuals who were involved in politics at Rome.

Finally, there is an apparent connection between the Asian and Sicilian Pompeii, for

at times each governed the others' native province. Furthemore, the Asian Pompeius

Cassianus was in the Le*o XFretensis, a legion originally raised near if not in Sicily, and

once commanded by at least one Sicilian, Q. Pompeius Falco Q~.63).~&Those provincial

Pompeii may have had afinities with each other, for three reasons: firstiy, and most

obviously, is that ~-eyshared a common ancestral patron in Pompey the Great; the sec0nd.i~ that since Sicilians and Asians were both mainly Greek-speakers, or at least very Hellenised, they would govern Greek provinces for the sake of convenience; and the third reason is that it rnay simply have been a connection based on similar status, since these nobler provincials would have met in Rome during senatorial meetings and social gatherings, interacting with men of the same class.

The next comparison with the Sicilian Pompeii involves a provincial group fiom the

West and whose benefactor was even greater in reputation than Pompey the Great. A western province is preferred because it balances the extremity of Asia in the Greek East, Sicily being unique in that it was both western and preponderantly Greek.

"'The X Fretensis was also commanded at one time by C. Popil(1)ius C. f. Quu. Carus P edo (CIL XN.36 10) a suffect consul in AD 147 and governor of Asia in 149/50 (R. Hanslik RE XX1I.i CL9531 65-8 popillius #37]). The "Pedo"component of his name may suggest a connection to Pompeius Pedo, a consular fiend of the Emperor Claudius (Sen. Apocol. 134). Both spellings of "PopiI(l)iusWare found in Sicily (p.47), and this C. Popil(1)ius Cams Pedo also belonged to the Quirina tribe. in view of a11 that, he may have been Sicilian. Iulii and the Three Gauls (especiallv the Province of Aquitania)

The Iulii fiom the Gallic province of Aquitania are a sound choice to compare with

the Sicilian Pornpeii for several reasons: the former's main enfranchiser, Julius Caesar, is

comparable to Pompey the Great in reputation; the Gallic Iulii's citizenship cm be traced only

as far back as Caesar because he was the first Iulius there; and the fact that Gaul became

quickly pacified after he had annexed itZ4' That Iast motive brings to mind Sicily, the very

frrst province of Rome, and therefore one of the more peacehl provinces by late Repubiican

tirnes. Lady, the Gallic Iulii in general have been wel! studied in modem scholarship, thus

placing the cornparison on solid ground.

When Caesar conquered Gaul(59-SI), he rewarded those natives who helped Rome

and punished the other~?~~There was no middle ground; one was either with Rome or

against it. Those who were most helpfbl to the dictator, he made citizens, hence the

incredibly large nurnber of Iulii in those Octavian, whose full Iegal narne afier Julius

Caesar adopted hirn in 44 (but before he became emperor in 27) was C. Iulius Caesar

~ctavianus,~~was in Gaul from the end of 39 to the beginnkg of 38 after it fell to him (App.

B Civ. 5.75). As Augustus, he visited Gaul on a few more occasions, but by that time his

name was oficially Imperator Caesar Augustus and he was Iess generous with the fianchise

than Caesar, for the emperor preferred Italians (Suet. Aug. 40.3). His successor, Tiberius

247 The "Gaul" referred to here is that conquered by Caesar, hown as Gallia Comata (long-haired Gaul) or Tres Galiiae (the Three Gauls): Aquitania in the southwestern part, Lugdunensis in the centre, and Belgica in the northeast (Caes. B Gall, 1). The histories of these three provinces are basicaIIy identical, and therefore difficult to separate; hence, Aquitania will be discussed when specific examples are being examined in order to compare Sicily with one and not three provinces. Cisalpine Gaul and the province of Narbonensis, although Gallic, do not feature in this context because they have a different history with Rome. See Fig. VI. Many examples of such Gallic leaders who were killed and tribes substantially destroyed defending their country fiom the Romans are found in Caesar's Gallic Wars. Of the Aqutanian leaders there were Sedullus the Lemovican (7.88) and Vercingetorix the Arvernian (7.89), and of the tnies the Bituriges (7.12-5). 249 The Iulii are the most numerous of al1 in Gaul, especially those whosepraenomina are "Gaius" (where praenomina are known). In the 23-page index of nomina to CIL XIII, the Iulii occupy two and a half pages. The next largest group is the Claudii with three quarters of one page, Qctavian/Augustus ernployed many different names throughout his career (RP 1: 361-77). Iulius Caesar Augustus (his name afler his adoption by Augustus in AD 4251),assumed

Augustus' policies in their entirety and also did not grant citizenship often.= Tiberius is

recorded as campaigning in Germany afterwards, fiom AD 4 to 6 (Cass. Dio 54.36.3-4),

which means that he travelled through Gaul to do so. He never returned to Gad, and fewer

tha.20 Ti. Iulii are found there as opposed to the hundreds of C. 1u1ii.~Those Ti. Iulii were

probably recruited along the journey to the German carnpaign, and were awarded citizenship

afterwards for good service. Caligula was in Gaul once as Emperor, fiom the autumn of AD

39 to the summer of the next year, but he did not accomplish much (Suet. Ca@ 43-9);

furthemore, his reign was hardly four years long? It was his successor, Claudius, who had

gone as far as adlecting Comatan GauIs into the Roman Senate (n. 109). In fact, the Claudii - especially those with the praenomen "Tiberius" -- are the second most prominent ~auls?~

ïhe majority of the Gallic Mi, especially the C. Iulii, would have been enfranchised, or

descendants of those granted citizenship, by Julius Caesar. If they were made citizens by one

of the emperors above, this legacy in Gaul is still traced to Caesar because the Julio-

Claudians were related to him.256 * As mentioned @.85), Julius Caesar enfranchised the Gauls who most actively helped hirn in his war, and they may have been some of the 4000 cavalrymen recruited throughout al1 of Gad (Caes. B Gaz 1.15). Caesar also summoned those individuals to aid him in his war against Pompey the Great (Caes. B Civ. 1.39.2). The commanders of the Gallic cavalry were

Before the adoption, his name was Ti. Claudius Nero (see n.28). AJA 1896: 580 #65 = IGRR 1.958, CIL II. 1660 = ILS 16 1, and CIL Vi.930 = ILS 244 are some instances where Tiberius uses his entire hperial nomencIature. 252 P. A. Brunt ("The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regime" CQ XXXIV 1984: 423-44 at 425 and n.7) demonstrates how many decisions made during Tberius' reign mhicked those made during Augustus'. 253 The figures have been gathered in G. AlMldy "La Politique provinciale de Tibére" Lafornus XXTV 1965: 824-44 at 837-44. ~4 His full name was C. Iulius Caesar Germanicus (Gelzer RE X [lg 191 38 1-423 [Iulius #133]). 255 Claudius' full name was Ti, Claudius Nero Germanicus (n.28). See also 11249. 256 Tiberius was related by adoption. most likely the men whom Caesar rewarded best, while he executed those who resisted

(n.248)- Caesar therefore turned those Gauls whom he trusted into the new Gallic aristocracy

by awarding them the fianchise, Not only was this new nobility chosen mainly on their military capability, but he considered their youth equally paramount so that a f?esh generation of pro-Romans would fo~low.~Octavian, for instance, continued to use Gallic cavalrymen for his civil wars (App. B CN. 4.88) and as Augustus he included them as an officia1 part of the Roman army (CIL X.4862). Needless to Say, those Galio-Romans acquired great wealth fiom the booty that they had collected under Caesar, which can be seen from the great estates throughout the Three Gauls of the first century AD.=' "Ownership of land was the principal deteminant of ~ealth,"~~and wealth led to a high involvement in both local govemment and, eventually, purely Roman affairs, as has ken seen with al1 regional aristocraties discussed thus far.

It was not until the reign of Claudius that provincials from the Three Gauls began to participate a greater deal in govemment at Rome, rather than only concerning themselves with local affairs. In the latter half of the Julio-Claudian period, they and the Gallic Iulii in particular are known to have possessed important Roman offices, mostly of senatorial rank.

That privilege was regretted in the spring of AD 68 when the Aquitanian C. Julius Vindex

(Suet. Ner. 40.1) revolted? After the rebellion was suppressed, few Gallic Iulii were involved in Roman affairs again, since they rarely occur in the literary and epigraphic record afier the third quarter of the first century AD and virtually disappear from the sources altogether after the middle of the second century AD?'

257 Drinkwater (n.239): 828 ZZ8 J. F, Drinkwater "Gallic Personal Wealth" Chiron IX 1979: 237-42. 259 E. M, Wightrnan Gallia Belgr'ca London 1985: 103. 260 He was governor at the tirne of perhaps Lugdunensis (Thornasson Cn.6511: 39 #82). See Table VIL Syme ([n.29]: 462 and n.2) demonstrates their gradua1 disappearance fiom the Roman political scene after c. AD 70. For that phenornenon, J. F-Drinkwater (Roman Gad Beckenharn, Kent 1983: 192) offers some exptanations, one of which is discussed beIow (p.90). In the province of Aquitania for instance, the Gallic IuIii began their rise by

occupying the most prestigious local offices? One C. Iulius Rufus from the capital of the

Santones, Mediolanum (today Saintes), was sacerdos, the priest of Roma and Augustus, in

AD 19 (CEXUI, 1036). That religious office was common in the western half of the Empire,

inciuding Gaul (Cass. Dio 54.32-4), and was centred on the Imperia1 cult, Such a position was usually held by one of high social standing and, more importantly, wealth, much Iike

Sex. Pompeius Mercator in Panhomus (pp.72-3)- Rufus also erected a monumental arch in his hometown and provided hnds for the beautification of the cuIt centre at the Confluence

(on the rivers Rhône and Saône in Lugdunensis; I: I. de Gaule 217), al1 testiQing his wealth.

According to the inscription, his father was C. Iulius Otuaneunus, and his grandfather C.

Iulius Gedomo was a client of Julius ~aesar?~C, IuIius Victor was also a sacerdos fiom

Saintes (CLL MII. 1037) whose homonymous son made a dedication in AD 49 to Claudius and was pruefectrus fabru (military officer), military tribune, and later also high prkt (CE

XIII. 1042-5). The earlier Victor's father was a C. Mus Congometodubnus, and his grandfather, C. Iulius Acedomopatis, it would seem by virtue of the chronology of generations, probably received his citizenship fiom Caesar himselfla

One can deduce from such Latin cognomina as "Victor" or "Rufûs" that by the time of

Tiberius' reign the aristocrats of the Three Gauls were becorning increasingly more Roman and less Gallic. In fact, they had become so assimilated that they already had much renown in the field of oratory. Iulius Florus (Quint. 1' 10.3.13) and his nephew IuIius Secundus

(Quint. lmtt 10.1.1 18-20,3 - 12 and 12.10.1 1) were eloquent speakers from the Three Gauls.

262 Follow Table VII. 263 W. Seston ("Les donateurs de L'amphithéâtre des Trois Gaules" in M, Renard [ed.] Hommages à A. Grenier Brussefs 3 vols. 1962: 1407- 17 at 14 14-5) calculates that Gedorno was alive during the conquest of Gaul, deducing fiom his praenomen and nomen that he was enfranchised by Julic - Caesar. *" See previous note. Secundus appears to have been the praetor who financed an aqueduct or public bath at

Burdigala (today Bordeaux; CIL XIII.596-600). A C- Iulius .. . erected three statues in the

same city for Claudius and his family in AD 42 (CE XIII.589-91). It is also this generation

of Gallo-Romans that began to participate in affairs at Rome, as Tacitus illustrates in his

Annals (6-7.5): a Santonian, Iulius Africanus, is said to have been executed in AD 32 for

possibly playing a part in the conspiracy of Sejanus. His son may have ken the Iulius

Afiicanus who gave the famous double-edged address to Nero in AD 59 on the emperor's

matricide (Quint. IW 8-5-15)? This AEncanus had a grandson, also with the sarne name,

who was an eloquent lawyer in Rome (Plin. Ep. 7.6.1 1-3).

Furthemore, not as eloquent but just as important was the father of C. Iulius Vindex,

a "senator of the Romans" (@ouA~u+sr6v 'Popaiov;Cas. Dio 63.22.1). Vindex was

governor, it seerns, of Lugdunensis, when he sparked the revolt that spelled the beginning of

the end for Nero (n.260). There was also a Santonian during the lulio-Claudian period:66 C.

Iulius Marinus, who was a quaestor, then duumvir, later priest, and Iastly curaforcivium

Romanorum consistentd6' in his town (CIL XIII.1048). A Biturïgan, L. Iulius Equester, is

also recorded as being a duumvir and then priest (CEXIII. 1376-7) by the begiming of the

second century AD.268 He had two sons who wereflamines Rornae et Augusci (CIL

XIII. 1376-7).~~'In view of their Latin cognomina, oratorical prowess, and high govemmental

positions (both local and at Rome), the Gallic Iulii from the province of Aquitania seemed to

have been very Romanised by the early Julio-Claudian period. Yet very few are fond in the

Drinkwater (n.239): 820, Gerth RE X (1 9 19) 114 (Iulius #45), C. Jullian Histoire de Gaule VI Paris 1920: 143 n.3, and Syme (11.29): 282 & 800 al1 believed that both Iulii Aûicani were father and son; B. J. Kavanagh "Julius Africanus, Senator?" Historia XLV 1996: 241-3 at 243 challenged that view. 2" The date is established by J. F. Drinkwater "A Note on Local Careers in the Three Gauls Under the Early Empire" Britannia X 1979: 89-100 at 92. 26' A "patron of Roman citizens domiciled in but not natives of a ciwitas [city]" (Drinkwater [n.266]: 97). *'* DTinkwater (n.266): 95. 269 Amenwas a type of priest of the Imperia1 cult (OLD:710). historicai record derc. AD 70, with the exception of L. Iulius Equester, his sons, and the

Iulii Afncani, and ahnost none fierthem-

J. F. Drinkwater believed that the central explanation for the demise of the Iulii in

Gaul is the rise of a trading c~ass?~*Inscriptions dating to the second and third centuries AD reveal an urban artisan and merchant class across the Three GauIs and even the two

Germanies: butchers (CE XIII.94 1, 7521, and 8390), teachers (1 393 and 6247), and wholesalers in clothing (6366 and 8568), to name a few. Only one ofthe negotiatores is a

Gallic Iulius, C. Iulius Matrenus, found in an inscription fiom Germania Superior dating to

AD 217 (CEXIII. 118 12). The Pax Romana (Roman Peace, 27 BC - AD 235) that was established as a result of the Empire is perhaps the primary reason for this nascent bourgeois class to which practically no politically minded Iulii belonged. The times had changed fiom war to peace, and an aristocratic group based on military prowess became obsolete. The state sought those who could contribute to the economy and raise the standard of living; it no longer needed to single out pro-Romans to keep watch over already Romanised provinces.

When Vespasian came to power in AD 69, for instance, the off~ces(which are known through the suwiving sources) were given to other preferred Gauls @erhaps businessmen), most probably enfranchised (or manumitted) under his reign. As a result, narnes of Iulii dropped fiom the record and those of the Flavii are found. Even though the Gallic Miwere still present, they simply fell out of favour in the new regime. The Gallic Iulii were therefore strictly high nobility during the gradua1 transition fiom crumbling Republic to outright

Empire (c. 50 BC - AD 68), who could not cope with the changing ernphasis towards trade.

The claim to fame of the Gallic Iulii is the speed with which they clirnbed the social ladder. While the Sicilian Pompeii occupied some local offices, they did not do so to the

"O Drinkwater (n.239): 832-8. extent of the Gallic Iulii. Where the Sicilian Pompeii differ fiom the Gallic Iulii is in their

diversity. The former were able to adapt better to the Pax Romana because the original

Pompeii did not Ihit their gants of citizenship to certain types of social classes in Sicily as

the Caesares did in Gaul. Whether or not the Sicilian Pompeii were able to develop a trading

class as the Gallo-Romans did after AD 70 cannot be ascertained, but an individual such as

Sex. Pompeius Mercator may be proof of such evolution. V. M. Scramwhas shown that

Sicily did have a prosperous non-aristocratie class comparable to the Gallic trading class?"

The riches of ancient Sicily afways laid in its fertile land, and its inhabitants knew that it was

a stable market with Rome as its primary consumer. Sicily produced rnuch income for its

landowners, many of whom were Sicilian Pompeii, such as Pornpeius Grosphus and perhaps

even Cn. Pompeius A.. .. The Gallic Iulii, convetçely, did not take advantage of their landed

estates in the same way that the Sicilian Pompeii did, thus opening the way for a trading class to rise and take over as the dominant class in Gaul. This ability to adapt ftom a primarily martial era to one of peace gave the Sicilian Pompeii the luxury of time to produce eventually a consular family, narnely the Pompeii Falcones. With the exception of some individuals, one must bear in rnind, however, that the family of Q. Pompeius FaIco is only one group of

Sicilian Pompeii found after AD 70. By that tirne, the great majority of Sicilian Pompeii had vanished fiom record, much Iike the Gallic Tulii.

In addition to, or perhaps even because of, the rise of a trading class, other gentes

(mostly from Imperia1 families, such as the Claudii) rose to power in Gaul. The Iulii, therefore, became a phase in Gallic history. Yet, the same occurred throughout the rest of the

Empire, including Sicily. The Gentiiicia in Sicilv

The last cornparison of the Sicilian Pompeii is with other gentikia on the island in

order to detennine the overall influence of the former there and its significance to the rest of

the Empire. M. Claudius Marcellus, as consul in 210, was the first known patron of Sicilians

Civy 26.30-2). By 70, the Claudii Marcelli were considered "the most ancient patrons of

Sicily" (antiquissimos Siciiiae patronos; Cic. 11 Verr. 3-18.45). Besides the consul in 2 10,

there are four other Roman officiais named "Claudius Marcellus" attested in Yet, there are only six Sicilian Claudii with the praenomina "Gaius" and arcus us,"^^^ who may

have been enfranchised, or descended by those enfranchised (or manumitted), by members of

the Marcelli, for such were the praenomina of that plebeian branch of the greater gens

cloudia." Not only is that a small total for a supposedly influential farnily, but other

members of the gens Ciaidia use the praenomen "Gaius" as we11.~~*One cmot assume,

therefore, that the Sicilian C. Claudii necessarily received their citizenship fkom the

~arcelli.2'~Furthemore, it is unlikely that those clients of Marcellus (cos. 2 1O) were mily

loyal, since he had acquired them through fear @.4), in much the sarne way as Verres had

acquired his (Cic. II Vem. 2.2 lSO-î,34.83,46.114, and 63.1 54).277

There were also equestrian statues of the members of the Marcelli branch standing in most fora of Sicilian towns (Cic. IL Verr. 4.40.86), yet there were also gilded ones of Verres

C. Claudius Marcellus (procos. 79; 1G XIV.435), M. Claudius Marcellus (pr. 198; Livy 32.27.3), M. Claudius Marcellus (cos. 196; Livy 32.8), and M. Claudius Marcellus (qu. date unknown; CIL ~~.ii:764). "C. Claudius of Syracuse (Imperial; AG 1994: 758), C. Claudius (late Republican; Cic. II Verr. 2-tO7), M. Clodius Archagathus of HaIaesa (late Republican; Cic. Fum 13.32), C. Clodius Philo of Halaesa (late Republican; Cic. Fum. 13.32), C. Clodius Premio of Lipara (no date; IG XIV: 393), and a Claudia Donata of Thermae Himeraeae, fkeedwoman of a Marcus (Imperial; CIL X.7355). 274 '4 III (1899) 273 1-71 (Claudius ~cellus]#214-34). 275 See n.2 1. 276 The only exception being C. Clodius Philo, the immediate relative of M. Clodius Archagathus (Cic. Fam. 13.32). "The more tyrannical a governor was, the more prudent it became to shower honours on him, so long as he retahed the power to do injury." (Brunt [n.4]: 276). and his farnily (Cic. II Verr- 2.2 lSO-1,46.114,T5.137 - 69.168; 3.78.180; and 4.62.138 -

64.143). Games also took place in Syracuse called Marcellia in their family's honour

(II.2.21 SI), while festivals honouring farnous Romans were cornmon in other provinces as

well, such as the Mucia in Asia (Cic. II Vew- 221.5 1). With few enfranchised clients and

only standard expressions of honour like statues and games, the legacy of the Marcelli in

Sicily was more symbolic than rea:.

An explanation for that lack of real influence may be a result of the rneager amount of

sources available or more probably the decline in the Marcelli family fortunes in Rome der

the first half of the second century BC. The first member of their branch to have reached the

consulship was in 33 1, and fkom then until 152, members of the family occupied a total of 11

of those offices; the next consulship did not follow unti151 That century of silence

signifies a lack of power in Rome and by extension the Empire, including ~icil~.~'~The

inhabitants of the island then probably turned to other Roman families for able patrons, such

as to the Pompeii Magni. By the time that the trial of Verres took place, although there were still Marcelli with Sicilian clients, Pompey the Great was the most powerful patron.

As the Verrines demonstrate, there were many other patrons in Sicily during the

Republic (pp.43-8). One group of ekchised Sicilian clients, the Comelii, are quite large; approximately 25 narnes are recorded?' The excessive diffusion of the Comelii in

Republican times, however, makes the study of their legacy in any locale very difficult, much like the Claudii as seen in the Introduction (pp.8-9):" For instance, there are four Sicilian L.

278 Those games were celebrated in memory of Q. Mucius Scaevola (cos. 117), and his son likewise named (cos. 99, who were the only Mucii recorded to have been active in Asia. Other examples of Roman festivals in the provinces are discussed in F. Bernstein Ludi Publici Stuttgart 1998: 325-6. 279 Cn. Cornelius Lentulus Marcellinus (cos. 56) was a member of the Marcelli branch, but his father P, CorneLius Lentulus MarcelIinus was adopted by a Cornelius Lentulus (Drurnann [n.32] U: 340 and n.6). 280 Brunt (n.4): 278 and Ward (n.4): 43 n.36. Cic. Fam. 13-36; AE 1920: 85, 1980: 515-8. and 1982: 419; and the indices in CIL X and IG XIV. t8t Badian (n.4): 309. The onIy difference between both those gentes is that there was never an emperor who bore the name "Cornelius." Comelii attested: Aquila (c. AD 35; AE 1920: 85), Auctus (late 2nd-early3* cenhiry AD; AE

1980: 515), Campester (hperial; CI.X.7040), and Onesimus (no date; IG WV; 38). They

could have received citizenship, or descended fiom one enfranchised (or manumitted), by any

of the six Roman officiais who bore the narne "L. Cornelius" and who had been in Sicily,

spanning four Those Roman L. Cornelii were also from different branches of the

gens Cornelia, perhaps the largest clan in Rome, and therefore the i~terrelationsare not very

certain?84 Like the Claudii (pp. 8-9 and 92-3), it is difficult to trace that Comelian influence

to one man or his family. Nothing more specific cm be said about the Comelian impact on

Sicily, except that their Iegacy can be constructed only slightly further via evidence of an

Imperia1 aqueduct at Thermae Himeraeae called Aquae Corneliae, built perhaps by a Sicilian

~ornelius?~~

The Iulii are another interesthg gentilicia in Sicily . There are even more Sicilian Iulii attested than CorneLii - over 30 -- and al1 (of those whose full narnes are given) carry the not so surprisingpraenomen of a ai us."^^^ The only exception is one L. Iulius Attilianus whose son Lucius died at the age of 19 at Thermae Himeraeae (Imperial; CLL X-7414):" Of their

283 Dolabella Wvir of the navy AD 180; Livy 40.42.8), Lentulus (pr. 137; Flor. 2.7.7), Lentulus Cmcellio (Ieg. of Sextus Pompey; App. B Civ. 4-39), Marcellus (que and leg. Julio-Claudian; CIL X.7266), Scipio Asiaticus (with his brother P. Afiicanus in 193; Livy 34.55), and Sisema (propr. 77 and Pompey's leg. in 67; Cic, II Verr. 22.5.1 10). One might include Sulla and Cinna (cos.IV 94 BC) to that list because they were so powerhl, but they are not recorded to have ever been on the island, The Sicilian P. Cornelii are even more difficult to study as there are even more Roman P. Comelii known to have been on the island (Wilson Ln-31: 101). "P. Cornelius" was also the most cornmon name in Rome (Moms [n.20]: 35). Al1 those Comelii were probably fiom Sulla's very large nurnber of manumissions (n.22, p.37, and Goodfellow [n.18]: 36). The relations between the members of that gens are shown in Drumann (n.32) II: 359-529 (especially the stemmata on pp. 360-1,446-7,475,481,499,5 1 1, and 526) and in RE N:1249-602 (especially the stemmata on cols. 1290, 1359-60, 1387-8, 1429-30, and 1599)- **' Wilson (n.3): 101 and 370 m.271-2 discusses the date, while 0. Belvedere L'ucquedotto Cornefio di Termini Imerese Rome 1986: 179-83 its constntctor. AE 1945: 64, 1960: 202, 1973: 273, 1975: 453, 1989: 34 1, 1991: 898, and 1993: 832; the indices in CIL X and IG XIV; Manganaro (n.3) 1989: 34,37a, and 90; and Manni Piraino (n27): 141. Note that al1 this evidence is epigraphical, and the majority of those inscriptions (mostly Latin) only contain names, thus rendering the dating to only the broadest of penods, mainly hperial. 287 Attilianustpraenomen can be explained in the same way as Sex. Pompeius Chiorus' was (n.122), i.e. he may have had a brother who had already taken "Gaius." possible benefactors, the only Roman C. IuIii known to have been on the island were Julius

Caesar (B Afi. L-2,34, and 37), Octavian, Caligula (Suet- CaIig. 204, C. Iulius Super (gov.

AD 160s; CE 111.4423~~~)~and C. Iulius Priscus (naval commander AD 238; CIL VI.1638).

The situation here is clearly similar to that in Gaul. Although it is possible that Priscus and

Super may have made the Sicilian Iutii citizens, it is much more likely uiat the dictator and emperors are responsible for their citizenship, since they possessed the highest of offices which made such grants very easy to bestow. Moreover, Julius Caesar recniited some soldiers fiom Sicily during the Afiican War (B Afr. 1-3 and 34-7), thus probably rewarding them with the hchise for their service as many other cmrnanders had done before him and as he had done in Gaul. If so, then it may explain why Caesar granted the Latin status to the entire island (Cic. AH. 14.12) -- yet more evidence suggesîing that he and the Iulian emperors were the patrons of the Sicilian lulii. Octavian did, it should also be remembered, defeat

Sextus Pompey there and later reorganised and colonised it. Once more, influence in the provinces seems to stem fkom Rome; the Sicilian Iulii may have gained more influence in the lulio-Claudian period than the Sicilian Pompeii simply because they enjoyed the patronage of the Emperor himself.

The example of the Iulii and Sicily, and even GauI, can be extended to other provincial gentdicia. Most of the remaining names found on the island seem to have been derived from emperors. The Sicilian Flavii, for instance, number to about 20,'~' and of those whose praenomina are known they mostly bear the name "Titus," after al1 three Flavian emperors? The trend continues with other Imperia1 dynasties as, for instance, almost al1 of

288 The date is Çom Holrn (n.3): 640. 289 AE 1959: 25; the indices in CIL X and IG XIV; Manni Piraino (m.27): 9; and P. Orsi "Frammenti E i fici Sicelioti" Rivista di storia antica 1900: 39-66 at 42. 29pglaviusYepasiaouus (Weynand RE VI [L909] 2623-95 [Flavius #20206]), Tirus Flavius ifespsianus (Weynand RE VI [1909] 2695-729 Flavius #207]), and T. Flavius Domitianus (Weynand RE VI [1909] 2541-96 [Flavius #77]). the numerous Sicilian Aelii carry thepraenomen "Publius" after the Emperor P. Aelius

Ha&ianus (AD 117-38).~'' It has also been demonspated that any inscription containing the

name "Aurelius" can be dated quite precisely fiom the late second century AD onwards,

because of enfkanchisements made under the Emperors T. Aurelius Fulvius Boionius Arrius

Antoninius Pius (138-61), M AureZius Verus Caesar (1 6 1-80), L. Aurelius Verus (1 61-9), L.

Aurelius Cornmodus (1 80-92), M. Aurelius Antoninus (Caracalla, 21 1-7), M. Aurelius

Antoninus (Elagabalus, 218-22), M- Aurelius Severn Alexander (222-35), M. Aurelius

Valerius Claudius Gothicus (268-70), etc.292

That a group of the Sicilian Pompeii, the Pornpeii Falcones, was able to survive and even thrive during those times, arnongst the power of Imperia1 dynasties, albeit with the help of the Roscii, is still teIIing of the type of legacy that Pompey the Great and his family had left. In much the same way for the Iater Republican period, the Vewines have shown that the influence of Pompey in Sicily was afready well established arnidst other noble Roman families possessing clients there. The island included Claudii and Cornelii in general, but some were concentrated in particular areas, such as the Roscii in the east during the Imperia1 period. The Sicilian Pompeii are represented in their province one way or another, by large number or small, fkom the first century BC to the early third AD (especially in the northeastern part of the island), despite the shifts of power in Rome which are mirrored throughout the Empire.

Conclusion

From those cornparisons, then, cornes a clearer picture of the Sicilian Pompeii. They

29' AE 1989: 34 1; L. Bernabo Brea Akrai Catania 1956: 25.2-3;and the indices in CIL X and IG XN. 292 A. S. Hall "Two Veterans of Legio XII1 Gemina at Iconium" in S. MitcheH (e :.) Armies and Fronriers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia Oxford 1983: 35-9 at 38 and Moms (11.20):45- seem to have been relatively prominent on the island for over three centuries, as were the Iulii

in the province of Aquitania although for a much shorter duration, and permeated the various

levels of the social strata like the Asian Pompeii. They were aIso as involved in external

affairs as were the Asian Pornpeii and, to a lesser extent, the Iulii in Aquitania, thus revealing

an important aspect of Romanisation - participation in centrai government.293 That factor

gave them the opportunity to go beyond the island and to have their own impact on the

Empire as statesrnen or military corrunanders,

The longevity of the impact of the Sicilian Pompeii, similar to the longevity of that of the Asian Pompeii, is also very important. Both groups suwived until the third centwy AD: the fonner with the Pompeii Falcones, and the latter with the Cn. Pompeii Hermippi. The chaotic decades of the Mid-Third Century Cnsis (AD 235-84) may have been responsible for the demise of such nobility founded in the Flavian dynasty @p.75-6).294 Afterwards, the complete reorganisation of the Empire by Diocletian (AD 284-305) introduced its own aristocracy? Roman society had changed once more, yet untii then it seems that provincial

Pompeii were generally quite influential, offering by extension a comment on the legacy of

Pompey the Great in Roman history and not merely in individual parts of the Empire. While mention here can only be made of the Sicilian Pompeii, they do seem to have been in the end as significant as any of the provincials mentioned in this chapter.

293 RP W- 620. 294 "The farnilies of the late Roman [AD 284-4761 senatorial arktocracy were not al1 as old as they liked to pretend, and much land was either deserted or ravaged by warfare, making it easy and cheap to acquire." (A. Cameron The Later Roman Empire Cambridge, Massachusetts 1993: 118). In Sicily, a good example may be Piazza Armerha where the eady fourth century AD villa with its famous mosaics was constnicted upon the foundations of a previous building, which was erected in the late first or early second century AD, and probably abandoned or sold in the third century (R. J. A. Wilson Piazra Armerina London 1983: 34). w5See previous note. in Diocletian's reign, senators could no Ionger cornriand military posts (Aur. Vict. Caes. 33-5 and 37) and their provincial governorships were greatly diminished (J. G, C. Anderson "The Genesis of Diocletian's Provincial Re-Organization" JRT XXI 1932: 24-32), while equestrians won much Imperia1 favour (C. W. Keyes The Rise of the Equires in the Third Century Oxford 19 15). The senatorial order received its largest blow since Augustus, when Constantine the Great (AD 305-37) instituted in Constantinople another senate whose rnembers were of Eastern (and therefore more recent) backgrounds (Lib. Or. 42). Thesis Conclusion

The degree to which Sicily was influenced by the Pompeii now seems clear. The

connection began in the last quarter of the second century BC with Sex. Pompeius Faustulus

as evidenced fiom the presence of the elderly Sex. Pompeius Chlorus in the Verrines. Those

speeches by Cicero reveal, arnong other things, that Pompey the Great was the leading patron

throughout the island. The IoyaIty of his clients is confirmed a generation later when his son

Sextus selected that province as his base of operations durhg the civil war. Although his

arrned forces certainly were a factor in winning over the island, it is difficult to believe that

the Sicilians would refuse to support one who had the backing of such notable Republicans as

Ti. Claudius Nero and L-Scribonius Libo and, in addition, was the son of the great Pompey,

who had helped Sicilians on past occasions. Although Menas is evidence of disloyalty to the

Pompeii, he is only one example in the context of Sicily; in another instance the Aeolians

actively supported Sextus Pompey. Further proof of Sicilian loyalty to the Pompeii in general

is seen in Caesarfs choice for the governorship of the island, Pompeius Bithynicus. Since

Bithynicus was not on the Pompeians' side during the civil war, it implies that Sicilians could

be ratlied for any cause under the name "Pompeius," and Sextus Pompey also was well aware

of that fact.

The inheritance of a military and poiitical reputation in Roman Society has already

been defined by G. Veith as Hausmachtpolitik (family power-politics).296 M. Hadas utilised

that concept to explain why Pompey the Great's older son, Cn. Pompeius Magnus, had chosen

Africa and then Spain as the grounds to fight Caesar and why his younger son had decided on

-

296 G. Veith "Die Strategie der MiIizzeit" in J. Kromayer & G. Veith (eds.) Heerwessen und Kriegsfihmng der Griechen und Romer Munich 1928: 454-69 at 464-5. Sicily as his headquarters and then fled to Lesbos in ~sia?" That notion perhaps Mer

explains why Sulla sent Pompey to Sicily in 82, for Pompey may have already had clients,

Iike Sex. Pompeius Chlorus, inkterited fiom his grandfather Faustulus and father Strabo, as

well as fiom the side of his mother and materna1 grandmother, the Luciliae.

Hammachpolitik can also be extended to the rest of the gens Pompeia, such as to Sextus

Pornpeius (cos. AD 14), who rnay have owned part of Pompey the Great's property, some of

which may have been ~icilian?~~Furthemore, the son of the consul of AD 14 was probably

responsible for the enfranchisement of Falcofsfather as a result of that Sicilian land that he

would have inherited and visited (p.62).

After Octavian's defeat of Sextus Pompey, the fortunes of the Sicilian Pompeii ran

ever more parallel to those of the gens Pompeia. The Augustan govemment contained

members of the Pompeian clan, while Sicily produced the well connected Pompeius

Grosphus, fiiend of Horace who was a member of the Augustan circle. Even when the

members of the gens Pompeia began to fa11 fiom grace during the Julio-Claudian period at

Rome, less notable Sicilian Pompeii, such as Sex. Pompeius Mercator, are known. By AD 70

the gens Pompeia had died out, and although Sicilian Pompeii are still present, none are of

any great importance.

The influence of the Pompeii in Sicily may also have manifested itself in the literature

of the time. The fictional C. Pompeius Trimakhio Maecenatianus in the Saîyricon of

Petronius (dated to the reign of ~ero~?States, "now 1 want to connect Sicily to my lands so

that when 1 take a fancy to go to Africa 1 rnay sail through my own territory." (nunc

w7 Hadas (n.3): 154. ~9'Note that this Sex. Pompeius had property in the provinces of Macedonia and Asia as weil (p.20), both Pompeian strongholds (pp. l9,2l, and 78-84). 299 P. Veyne "Trimaichio Maecenatius" in Marcel Renard (ed-) Hommages a Albert Grenier 3 vols. Bruxelles 1962: 16 17-24 at 1624. coniungere agellis Siciliom volo Ur cum Afiicarn Iibuerit ire per meos fines nmiigem; 48.3).

Trimalchio's fùll name clearly denotes that he is a fi-eedman, and P. Veyne adds that the

nomen "Pompeius" was chosen by Petronius to designate manumission "fiorn a prestigious

patron1' (d'un grand seigneur), and accounts for the characterls great wealth?OO Although the

praenomen "Gaius" may be poking fiui at such contempotary men as C,Pompeius Longinus

Gallus (pp.79-80), it may also have ken used to allude purposefidly to the most farnous Cn.

Pompeius without making the connection too blatant, Le. a double pun.30' Trimalchio's desire

to possess Sicily may be a satiric observation, consistent with the nature of the author's work,

of the great Pompeian influence there. In the previous line Trimachio says, "ln fact whatever

[wine] reaily tickles your palate this evening, it cornes fkom an estate of mine which as yet 1

have not seen. It is said to be adjacent to my estates at Tarracina [today Terracina] and

Tarentum!' (deorum beneficio non emo sed nunc quicquid ad salivam facit in suburbano

nasciîur eo quod ego adhuc non novi. dicitur conFne esse Tamaciniensibus et Tarentinis;

48.2). This description covers rnost of southem My, where indeed Pompey the Great owned

many estates, including one at Tarentum (Cic. Att. 5.6). If Petronius was ailuding to

Pompeyls property, then the influence of the Pompeii in Sicily may have been common knowledge to the ancient reader.'02

Besides prcperty and clients, a more concrete example of the legacy of Pompey the

300 Veyne (n.299): 16 17. 30' The only other Pompeii with the praenomen "Gaius" is C. Pompeius ProcuIus, a knight at the time of Augusrus (R Hanslik RE XXI.ii [2 9521 2286 [Pompeius # 1OS]), and C. Pompeius Felix of Catina (p.74). 302 One more observation on Trimalchio's name seems to conhPetronius' knowledge of the island's popuIation. "Trimaichio" can be divided into îri and malchio: the former component is self-exphnatory, while the latter is Semitic for "God is king" (F. Zucker "Semitische Namen auf den neu gefundenen Inschriflen von Minturnae" Hermes LXXViII 1943: 200-4 at 204), explainhg his eastern origin (Sat. 75. IO). Epigraphy, archaeoiogy, and ancient literature have not only proven the existence of Jewish communities throughout Imperia1 Roman Sicily, but shown that they had interacted with Sicilians as well (J. B. Curbera "Jewish Names fiom Sicily" ZPE CX 1996: 297-300). If Trimaichio is an example of an enfianchised Jew with connections to that particular province, then Petronius' choice of "Pompeius* for his character's nomen may not be accidental. Great and his farnily on the island is the via Pompeia (the Pompeian way), It was located

near Messana (Cic. II Ver 5.66.169)'03 and ahnost certainly built or repaired by Pompey in

82,"" the only known period of tirne that he was there before 70,the year that the sole source

about this road, the Verrines, was written and delivered. Et has been argued that perhaps Cn.

Pompeius Strabo constmcted or upgraded it, but there is no proof that he was ever in

~icil~~~~and unfortunately, no milestones have been found near the road to confirm that

conject~re."~Consequently, Pompey the Great is the best candidate for the road's

builderhepairer. That it is located near Messana, where Pompey had many clients, Mer

supports the hypothesis that there was a relationship between the city's Mamertine

descendants and the Pompeii, who were of supposed Campanian origins- Yet, the via is not

only another symbol of his impact on Siciiy, but also a feature of Romanisation.

303 G. Uggen "La viabilità romana in Sicilia con particolare riguardo al ïII e ai IV secolo" Kokalos XXVIIIBCXD( 1982/3: 424-60 at 429 believes that the via Pompeia extended South Çom Messana, whiie Verbrugghe (n.6): 5 1 thought that it is another name for the via Valeria between Messana and Lilybaeum. See Fig. III. 304 "built or repaired" because "In the absence of any totally fiesh urban foundations and of the consequent need to lay out new highways to service them, Roman road-building in Sicily was confmed to upgrading already long existing roads." (Wilson [n.3]: 11)- 305 The same can be said for Faustulus. Drumann (n.32) IV: 326-7 believes that Pompey the Greaf and not his father Strabo, built or repaired the road, Verbrugghe (n.6): 5 1-2 does not mention Strabo at al1 when discussing the via Pompeia, and Wilson (n.3): 11 and n.30 (citing Uggeri [n.303]: 429 11.20) thinks that "the via Pompeia .. . reflects mer[road-building] activiw En the 90s during the govemorship of Gn. Pompeius Strabo, or else in the late 80s, when Pompey the Great was in Sicily securing the corn supply for Rome." Strabo's governorship was in Macedonia (see p.21 and n.70), not Sicily, Pompey the Great was in Sicily in "in the late 80s" (82 BC) primarily fighting the Marians, not "securing the corn supply" which occurred in 57-52. There is evidence that Pompey did coIlect the decuma honestly in 82 @.22), but this seems to be one of many settlements that he made on the island at that tirne, "while he pompey] was thus engaged in settling the affairs of Sicily" (sacra [6 rIopr-ijYos] ngrksw.~Ev Z~x~hiaxai ;rohtscu6 ycvos ; Plut. Pomp. I 1). One of these afTairs was probably work on the via Pompeia, in addition to collecting the grain tiîhe- 306 Drumann (032)IV: 326 n.9 and 33 9 n. 1 and Verbmgghe (n.6): 5 1-2. A mil0iarium (milestone) is a typical feature of Roman road construction. in Republican times îhey were inscribed with the names of the magistrates concerned with the building or upgrading of the road. in fact there is only one milestone in al1 of Sicily, reading: URELIUS/COITAS/ OlVSUL engraved on it. Found near Palermo, it con~sthe existence of the via Aurelia constnicted by C. Aurelius Cotta (cos. 252 & 248; Zonar. 8.14-6), which connected Panhomus and Agrigentum (A. Di Vita "Un milliarium del 252 a. c. e, I'antica via Agrigento- Panorno" Kokalos 1 1955: 10-1 and "Una recente nota e la datazione del miliario siciliano del console C. AureIio Cotta" Latomus XXII 1963: 478-88), the only known Roman road in Sicily (see n.304). Pompey the Great received, what is thus far considered, the first dedication fiom

Sicily in Latin, aibeit by Italian businessmen (p.42 n.127). Previously, rnost Latin

inscriptions from the island (very hgmented and perhaps as few as ten) were produced by

Roman officiais, since the Sicilians preferred to write in ~reek?" One other Latin inscription

fiom Lilybaeum in good condition is dated to the occupation of Sextus Pompey and inscribed

by his lieutenant, L. Plinius ~ufus.)~~Although only two inscriptions, they are both of the

best preserved and longest specimens concerning Republican Sicily and may suggest the

begiming of a serious attempt at the Latinisation of the island. Although Augustus holds the

claim for being the most significant catalyst in Romanising Sicily because of the many

colonies he established there, it was his distant relative Pompey the Great who really began the process.

A very good indicator of Romanisation in a region is the senator-consul-emperor progression, since the goal of an ambitious citizen was to enter the Senate and eventually become consul, perhaps even emperor? The first senator to have supposedly corne from

Sicily was M. Roscius Coelius (SUE.AD 8 l), who (or a close relative) seems to have been the adoptive father of Q. Pompeius Falco. The next Sicilian senators were the suffect consuls L.

Roscius Aelianus Maecius Celer in AD 100, the son of M. Roscius Coelius, and L. Acilius

RufÙs in AD 106 or 107 (p.76 11.227). Only a year or two later Q. Pompeius Falco reached the same position, and his son Q. Pompeius Sosius Priscus became the first attested consul ordinarius of Sicilian origin in AD 149. The consulships continued arnong the Pompeii

Falcones until the end of that century, and even Iater for the Roscii until L. Roscius Aelianus

'O7 Wilson (n.3): 30 and 356 n.97. On the lack of Romanitas in Republican Sicily, see pp.12-3. 308 L. Bivona iscrizioni latine lapidorie del Museo di Palermo Palenno 1970: 24-5 and pl. IV. For the date, see p.29 on L. Plinius Rufis' occupation of Lilybaeum in 36. 309 RP VII: 620. Paculus Salvius Iulianus (ord. AD 223):'' Although the island did produce other senators

after L. Acilius Rufûs who were not Pornpeii Falcones or Roscii, both those families do

represent the bulk of Roman senators fiom Sicily (n.225).

It is significant that Sicily became highly involved in Roman politics during the reign

of Trajan, the fiaprovincial emperor. With the introduction of a provincial emperor, the provinces were confirrned as welcome participants in the Roman state, rather than as subjects.

The provinces became ever more Romanised as Rome continued to include provincials in its highest ranks. In the case of Sicily specifically, the bief reign of the Emperor Pertinax is most revealing?ll Disgruntled praetorians conspired unsuccessfully to set Q. Pompeius

Sosius Falco, the ordinary consul at the time (AD 193), on the throne. The Guard felt that this consul was a worthy candidate "because he was distinguished for both his family and wealth (6zr xai Y&YLL xai xpjpacr~vflxpa& mkoxpd~opaESCLAÉYOYT~L; Cass. Dio

73.8.2). This Q. Pompeius Sosius Falco, then, was just shy of becoming the most important individual in the known world, the only one fiom a Sicilian background who would ever have reached such a position.

The year AD 193 is interesting. After Pertinax, Didius Julianus became Emperor, if only for a few mon th^.^'^ Although his father was fkorn Mediolanum (today Milan), his mother was North Afi-ican (SHA Did. IuZ. 1). The following emperor was Septimius Severus fiom Lepcis Magna in Afi-ica Proconsularis (SHA Sev. 1) who established an Imperia1 dynasty with his family (AD 193-235)y3 Before the Severans, al1 Roman emperors had

310 See Table IV. 3'L P. Helvius Pertinax was Emperor fiom 3 1 December AD 192 to 28 March 193 (Conradt RE suppl. III [lg 181 895-904). 3 12 M. Didius Severus Iulianus Augustus reigned fiom 28 March to 2 June AD 193 (von Wotawa RE V [1905] 412-24 pidius #SI). "'L. Septimius Severus Pertinax Augustus reigned fiom AD 193 to 21 1 (Fluss RE 2ndser. II Li9231 1940- 2002 [Severus #13]). corne fiom ~uro~e?'~By the second century AD, the wealth of Africa was proverbial and the

senators fiom there fonned the Iargest western provincial group in Rome, one of the more

famous members being M. Cornelius Fronto fiom Cirta (today Constantine in Algeria) in

Africa Proconsularis who was fiiends with the Antonine emperors (adPium, ad L. Ver., and

ad M ~aes.)."~It was only a rnatter of time before they would assert themselves, a process

that peaked in AD 193. Early that year, a Sicilian alrnost wore the purple toga, which was

fmally domed by a half-African, who was then succeeded by Septirnius Sevems. Sicily was

more than the geographical bridge between both continents; it was at the centre of that

transitional phase of Imperia1 power that had been spreading outwards fiom Rome since AD

69 (n.3 14), and Q. Pompeius Sosius Falco personifles that change in AD 193.

That was not the only moment when the fate of the Sicilian Pompeii had been

intimately tied with Rome, a reoccurrhg theme bp.75-6,93-7, and 103-4). From the rise of

the Pompeii Magni at the end of the second century BC to the Severan period, Sicily, in tenns

of the Pompeii, can be seen as a microcosm of Rome. To conclude the observation, the last

Sicilian Pompeius, Q. Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus, lived during the reign of Severus

Alexander, who was the final emperor to provide stability throughout the Empire before the

Mid-Third Century Crisis stnick. The Roman world had changed substantiaIIy since the

Flavian dynasty, and the Pompeii Falcones, the Iast of the Sicilian Pompeii, couid not adapt.

3'4 in fa- a general trend in the orïgins of the imperial dynasties can be noticed: the Julio-Claudians were fiom old Roman Republican families, the FIavians from outside Rome (Reate, today Rieti, in Sabinum), the Adoptive and Antonine Emperors (Trajan - Comrnodus) from western Europe, and the Severans from Afiica. 315 M. Corbier "Les familles clarisshes d'Afrique proconsulaire (lm- IIIe siécle)" in S. Panciera (ed.) Alri del Colfoquioinfernazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio Rome 1982: 685-754 and M. Le Glay "Sdnateurs de Numidie et des Mautetaines" also in S. Panciera (ed,): 755-81, For the prestige of governing Afiica Proconsularis, see p.79 n. 232. Fronto, who has already been rnentioned @.64), was also quaestor of Sicily in AD 138 (CIL V111.5350). Septirnius Severus in AD 189 (SHA Sev. 4.2), and his brother P. Septimius Geta sometime between AD 180-8 (AE 1946: 13 l), both govemed SiciIy- It was also then and there, apparently, that the would-be Emperor Severus was unsuccessfilly accuscl of having aspirations to the throne (SHA Sm. 4.3). StilI more interesting than the question of Romanisation is that of Sicilian

contribution to Roman society. QI Pornpeius Falco, for instance, helped to expand the

fiontiers of the Roman Empire by successfÙlly commanding an army during the Emperor

Trajan's Dacian campaigns (AD 101-6; Cas. Dio 58.6-14). He also consolidated its territory

by guarding the East with a legion, suppressing a revolt in Britain, constructing Hadrian's

Wall, and was perhaps even responsible for the Antonine Wall. Also, the island, partly

through Q- Pompeius Sosius Falco, was key in extending the purple to Afiicans, namely the

Severans who brought stabiiity to the Empire after t!!e troubIesome months that followed the

death of Commodus in AD 182.

Falco was only one man, however, and his farnily cannot represent al1 the Sicilian

Pompeii nor Sicily. Yet, the Pompeii Falcones (alongside the aforementioned consular Roscii

with whom they were very close, if not related316) do, nevertheless, dispel some of the

traditional views that current scholarship holds about Sicilians as passive tax-pay ing

provincials who never lefi any signature beyond the island (p.2 and n.6). In the end, the

island seems to have been as involved as any other province in the Empire, and the Sicilian

Pompeii had accomplished as much as any other provincial group. The purpose here is to

explain those events as a result of the work perfomed by the Pompeii Magni, a legacy that

lasted for over three centuries. As M. Hadas had so intuitively noted, there truly was an

"enduring influence of the EIder Pompey in the island [of ~icil~]."~"

3'6 Eck (n.7): 109-28, 317 Hadas (n.3): 72 n.60.

- -LI 5- C --AU- CI

Table N A Geneafoticai Tree of the Sicilian Roscii

M. Roscius Coelius (suff. AD 81) I

I i L. Roscius M. f, Qui. Aelianus Maecius Celer A. (Roscius?) Coelius Lupus (suff. AD 100) (of Cerituripae) 1 L. Roscius (Qui. Aelianus) Paculus &/or Domitia Vettilla = Maecius Celer M.. . Postumus Mamilianus ,- . Vergilius Staberianus M. Roscius M. f. Qui. Cyronnus (suff. afier AD 132) (of Cent uripae) I Wor 1. L. Roscius Melanio M, Raecius Roscius Clodianus Siculus (of Centuripae) (of Syracuse) I &/or

L. Roscius L. f. Qui. Rufiis 3 (eques & military commander, of Catina) I I M. (Roscius) Murena ? (procos. Bithynia-Pontus c. AD 160) I Volumnia Caleda L. Roscius Aelianus I (ord. AD 187) M. (Roscius) Murena I 1 child 1 (son?)

M. Roscius Qui. Lupus Murena = daughter L. Roscius Aelianus ~aculusSalvius Iulianus (ord. AD 223)

Roscia Pacula

cJ- cc..-

Figure 11 Map of Italv

Land over 1,000 rnetres

0 =b sa, O 100 200 km 9 O- 50 100 miles WN riil El l5fE El

Figure IV

.4 Mosaic in Ostia Figure V Figure VI

t 1 I c 0 ROMAN GAUL AND THE ALPINE REGION \ "if Bibliography

Primary Sources

Acro Acronis et Porphyrionis Comrnentarii in Q- Horatium FIaccum ed. Ferdinand Havthal 2 vols. Berlin 1 864 (repr. Amsterdam 1 966).

Appian Historia Romana 1-XLTed. A. G. Roos & P. Viereck Teubner Leipzig 1939 (rev. E. Gabba 1962).

Appian Historia Romana AZ?l-.1ed. L. Mendelssohn & P. Viereck Teubner Leipzig 1905.

Asconius Orationum Ciceronis Quinque Enurratio ed. Albert C. Clark OCT Oxford 1907.

Aurelius Victor Sexti Aurelii Victoris de Caesaribus ed. Franz Pichlmayer Teubner Leipzig 1993.

Babelon, Ernst Description historique et chronologique des Monnaies de la République romaine 2 vols. Bologna 1963.

Becatti, G. Scavi di Ostia IV Rome 196 1.

Bernab6 Brea, Luigi Akrai Catania 1956.

Bivona, Livia Iscrizioni latine lapidarie del Museo di Paiermo (.Zcxdtxa V)Palenno 1970.

Bosch, E. Quelien zut- Geschichte der Stadt Ankara im Altertum Ankara 1967.

Caecilius Caecilii Calactini Fragmenta ed. Emest Ofenloch Teubner Stuttgart 1907 (repr. 1967).

Caesar, Julius Cornmentariorurn ed. R. Du Pontet OCT 2 vols. Oxford 1900- 1.

Cagnaî, René et al. (eds.) Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes 3 vols. Paris 1906-27.

Calder, W. M. et al. Monuments Asiae Minoris Antiqua (1 O vols.) various 1928-93.

Cassius Dio Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Hisroriarum romanarum quae supersunt ed. Ursul Philip Boissevain 5 vols. Berlin 18%- 193 1.

Cicero Orationes ed. Albert C. Clark et al. OCT 6 vols. Oxford 19 12.

Cicero Orartiones: Divinatio in Q. Caecilium, in C. Verrem ed. William Peterson OCT Oxford 1916. Cicero De OBciis Libri Tres ed. Paolo Fedeli, S. Casciani Val di Pesa 1965.

Cicero Orafiopro Sex. Roscio Amerino ed. Helrnut Kasten Teubner Leipzig 1968.

Cicero De Orarore ed. Kazimierz F, Kumaniecki Teubner Leipzig 1969.

Cicero BFW~ed. Henrïca Malcovati Teubner Leipzig 1970.

Cicero De ~egibded. Woldemar Goerler & Konrat Ziegler Freiburg 1979.

Cicero In M. Antonium OrafionesP hilippicae XTY ed. Pao Io Fedeli Teubner Leipzig 1982.

Cicero Tusculanae Disputaliones ed. M. Pohlenz Teubner Stuttgart 1982,

Cicero Orationes de Lege Agraria, Oratio pro C- Rabirio Perduellionis Reo ed. Viclav Marek Teubner Leipzig 1983.

Cicero Epistulae ad Attimrn ed. David Roy Shackleton Bailey Teubner 2 vols. Stuttgart 1987.

Cicero Epistulae ad Familimes ed. David Roy Shackleton Bailey Teubner Stuttgart 198 8.

Cicero Epistdae ad Quintum Fratrem, Epishrlae ad M. Bmtum ed. David Roy Shackleton Bailey Teubner Stuttgart 1988-

Corpusjwis civilis 1: Imtitutiones ed. Paul Krüger Berlin & Dublin 1928.

Crawford, Michael Hewson Roman Republican Coinage 2 vols. London & New York 1974.

Degrassi, A. 1nscrr;DtionesLatinae liberae reipublicae (Imagines) vol. l.12 & vol.11 Firenze 1965 & 1963.

Dessau, Hermann (ed,) Inscr@fionesLatinae Selectae 3 vols. Berlin 1962.

Diodorus Siculus Bibliothaca Historica ed. C. T. Fischer & F. Vogel Teubner 5 vols. Leipzig 1888-906.

Dionysius (of Halicarnassus) Antiquifatum Romanarum ed. C. Jacoby Teubner 4 vols. Leipzig 1885-925.

Dittenberger, Wil heln Sylloge inscr@tionumgraecanim3 4 vols. Leipzig 1960.

Di Vita, A. "Un miZ!iarium del 252 a. c. e. I'antica via Agrigento-Panonno" Kokalos 1 (1 955): 1O- 1. Ferrua, A. Note e Giunte alie Iscrizioni CrisfianeAntiche della Sicilia (Pontificio Isîituto di Archeologia Chrisîiana, Sussidi allo Studio delle Anfichità Cristiane iX) Vatican City 1989.

Fesîus, Sex. Pompeius in Glossaria Latina izmu Academiae brifannicaeedifa (see Lindsay).

Floms L. Anmei Flori quae exstan? ed. H. Malcovati Rome 1972.

Forschmgen in Ephesos veroffentlicht vom OsferreichischenArchaeologischen Imtitute 9 vols. Wien 1906- .

Frankel, M. & Chr. Habicht (eds.) Die Inschrzpen von Pergamon 3 VOIS. Berlin 1890- 1969.

Fraser, P. M. & E. Maîthews (eds.) A Lexicon of Greek Personal Names IIIa (The Pelopomese, Western Greece, Sicily, & Magna Graecia) Oxford 1997.

Fronto Epistuiae ed. M. P. J. van den Hout Teubner Leipzig t 988.

Gellius, Aulus Noctes Atticae ed. P. K. Marshall OCT 2 vols. Oxford 1968.

Gerstl, A. Supplernentum epipaphicum zu CIL UIfir Karnten und Osttirol, 1902-1961 (diss.) Wien 196 1.

Gray, E. W. et al. Sources for Roman History 133-70 B.c.' Oxford 1986.

Gregory 1, Pope (eds. Paul Ewald & Ludo Moritz Hartmann) Registrum epistolarum (Monuments Germanise historica) 2 vols. Berlin, Weidrnann 189 1-9.

Grueber, H. A. Coins of the Roman Republic in the British Museum 3 vols. London 19 10.

Herodotus E?istoriae3ed. Karl Hude OCT 2 vols. Oxford 1926-7.

Herzog, RudoIf Koische Forschwgen und Funde Leipzig 1899.

HiIler von Gaertringen, F. Inschrz@en von Priene Berlin 1906.

Homer operd ed. Thomas W. Allen OCT 5 vols. Oxford 19 17-9.

Horace Q. Horati Flacci operd ed. David Roy Shackleton Bailey Teubner Stuttgart 1995.

Jacoby, Felix Fragmente der griechischen Historiker Berlin & Leiden 1923- .

Kalinka, E. et al. (eds.) TifuliAsiae Minoris Wien 190 1- .

Libanius Opera ed. Richard Foerster Teubner 12 vols. Leipzig 1903-63. Lindsay, Wallace M. et al. (eds.) Glossaria Latina ius~uAcademiae britumicae edita 5 vols. Hildesheim 1965.

Livy Ab urbe condita 1-Ved. Robert Maxwell Ogilvie OCTOxford 1974.

Livy Ab urbe condita Med. Robert Seymour Conway & Cari Flamstead Watters OCT Oxford 1919.

Livy Ab urbe condira XXT-.ed. Thomas Alan Dorey Teubner 2 vols. Leipzig 1971-6.

Livy Ab urbe condita XXyI-XXXed. Patrick G. Walsh Teubner 4 vols. Leipzig 1982-9.

Livy Ab urbe condita m-XZV ed. John Briscoe Teubner 4 vols. Stuttgart 1986-9 1.

Livy Ab urbe condita XI-XE V ed. M. Mueller & W. Weissenborn Periochae, Fragmenta, Iulii Obsequentis Prodigiorum Liber ed. Otto Rossbach Teubner IV Stuttgart 1981.

Lucan M Annaei Lucani De bello civili Iibri Xed. David Roy Shackleton-Bailey Teubner Stuttgart 1988.

Lucilius, C. C. LuciZii Carminuriz ReZiquiae ed. Friedrich Marx Teubner 2 vols. Leipzig 1904-5.

Maiuri, Amadeo Nuova siZloge epigrajka di Rodi e Cos Firenze 1925.

Malcovati, E~ca(ed.) Oratorirm Romanorum Fragmenta liberae reipublicae4 Torino, Milano, & Padova 1967.

Manganaro, Giacomo "Iscrizioni latine nuove e vecchie della Sicilia" Eplgraphica LI 1989: 161-209.

Manni firaino, Maria Teresa Iscrizioni Greche Lapidurie del Museo di Pdermo (~cxdcxaVI) Palenno 1973.

Mattingly, H. et al. Roman Imperial Coinage 9 vols. London 1923-67.

Mattingly, H. Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum III London 193 6 (rev. edn. 1976).

Merkelbach, Reinhold (ed.) hchrifen griechischer Stadte am Aïeinmien Bonn 1972- .

Merkelbach, Reinhold et al. Die Inschr@en von Ephesos 7 vols. & 1 suppl. Bonn 1979 -81.

Orsi, PaoIo "Frarnrnenti Epigrafici Sicelioti" Rivista di storia antica 1900: 3 9-66.

Ovid Tristia ed. Georg Luck 2 vols. Heidelberg 1967-77. Ovid P. Ovidi Nasonis Fastorum libri saed. E, H. Alton et al. Teubner Leipzig 1978.

Ovid Metamorphoses ed. William Scovil Anderson Teubner Leipzig 1982.

Ovid Epistulae ex Ponto ed. John A. Richmond Teubner Leipzig 1990.

Psrsoli, E. Acta Fratmm ArvaZium Bologna 1950.

Pliny îhe Elder Naturalis historiae libri xxwlI ed. Jan von Ludwig & Karl Friedrich Theodor Mayhoff Teubner 6 vols. Stuttgart 1967-86-

Pliny the Younger Epishrlarzim libri decern ed. Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors OCT Oxford 1963.

Plutarch Plutarchi Vitae parallelae ed. Hans Gartner et al, Teubner 2 vols. Stuttgart 1993.

Plutarch Moralia ed. Gregor N. Bernardakis Teubner 6 vols- Leipzig 1888-96.

Polybius Polybii Historiae ed. Theodor Büttner-Wobst & Ludwig August Dindorf Teubner 5 vols. Stuttgart 1905.

Pomponius Porphyrio Acronis et Porphyrionis Comrnentarii in Q. Horatium Flaccum (ed. Ferdinand Havthal) 2 vols. Berlin 1864 (repr. Amsterdam 2966).

Pseudo-Acro Pseudacronis scholia in Horatium vetutiora ed. Otto Keller Teubner Stuttgart 1967.

Psuedo-Asconius Ciceronis Orationum SchoZiastae ed. Thomas Stangl Vindobonae 19 12.

Quintilian Institutiones oratoriae ed. Michael Winterbottorn OCT 2 vols. Oxford 1970.

Res Gestae Divi Augusti The Achievements of the Divine Augustus ed. P-A. Brunt & J. M. Moore Oxford 1967 (with corrections 1988).

Reynolds, Joyce Maire Aphrodisias and Rome (JRS Monographs 1) London 1982.

Riccobono, S. et al. (eds.) Fontes Iuris Romani Antehtiniani 3 vols. Florence 1940-3.

Robert, Louis "Théophane de Mytilène à Constantinople" CRAl1969: 42-64.

Sallust Catalina, Iugurtha, Hisforiarumfiagrnenta selecta C. Sallusti Crispi. Appendh Salhstiana ed. Leighton Durham Reynolds OCT Oxford 1991.

Scriptores Historiae ~ugutae~ed. Emest Ho hl Leipzig 197 1.

Segre, Mario Iscrizioni di Cos 2 vols. Roma 1993.

Seneca the Younger L. Annaei Senecae Opera quae supersunt ed. Emil Hermes Teubner 2 vols. Leipzig 1905. Seneca the younger ~~ocoio~ntosii?ed. C. F. Russo Rome 1965.

Sherk, Robert K. Roman Documentsfi.orn the Greek East: Senatus consulta and epistulae to the age ofAugtrstus Baltimore 1969.

Silius Italicus, Punica ed. Josef Deiz Teubner Stuttgart 1987.

Stephanus (of Byzantiurn) E@NIKRNed. August Meineke 1849 (repr. Chicago 1992).

Strabo ûeographica ed. August Meineke Teubner 3 vols. Leipzig 1877-95.

Suda Suidae Lexicon ed, Ada Adler Teubner 5 vols. Stuttgart 1971.

Suetonius C. Suetoni Tranquilli opera ed. Maximilian Ihm Teubner Leipzig 1908.

Tacitus P. Cornelii Taciri Libri qui mpersunt ed. Heinrich Heubner Teubner 2 vols. Stuttgart 1978.

Tacitus Annales et Historiae ed. Stephanus Borzszik & Ke~ethWellesly Teubner 2 vois. Leipzig 1986-9.

Thucydides îlucydidis Historiae ed, Henry Stuart Jones OCT 2 vols. Oxford 1942.

Valerius Maximus Factorum et dictorum mernorabilium libri novem ed. Karl Friedrich Kempf Teubner Leipzig 1 888.

Velleius Paterculus Vellei PatercuZi Historiarum ad Ad Vinicium Consulem libri duo ed. William Smith Watt Teubner Leipzig 1988.

Virgil P. VergZ Mwonis Opera ed. Roger Aubrey Baskerville Mynors OCTOxford 1972.

Wuilleurnier, P. Imcr@tions latines des pois Gaules Pa& 1 963.

Zonaras Epitorne HIStoriarum ed. L. Dindorf Teubner 6 vols. Leipzig 1868-75.

Translations Consulted

Cicero Pro Caeiio. De Provinciis Consuluribus. Pro Balbo with English trans. R. Gardner LCL Cambridge, Massachusetts & London 1958.

Orosius Histoires: contre les paiens with a French trans. Marie-Pierre Arnaud -Lindet Budé 3 vols. Paris 1990- 1.

Ovid The Ero tic Poems EngI ish tram Peter Green Penguin Ciassics Hamondsworth 1982.

Ovid The Poems of Exile Engl ish trans. Pete r Green P enguin Classics Hannondsworth 1994. Secondary Sources

Adamesteanu, Dinu "Due problemi topografici del retroterra gelese" Accademia nazionale dei Lincei Rendiconti della Classe di sciente morali 8& ser. X 1955: 198-2 1O.

Afze 1ius, A. Die rômische Eroberung Italiens (340-264 v. ChrJ Copenhagen 1942.

Alfildi, A. Early Rome and the Latins Am Arbor 1963.

AIBldy, Géza "La Politique provinciale de Tibère" Latomus XXIV 1965: 824-44.

Anastasiadis, V. 1. & G. A. Souris "Theophanes of Mytilene: A New Inscription Relating to his EarIy Career" Chiron XXII 1992: 377-83.

Anderson, J. G. C. "The Genesis of Diocietian's Provincial Re-Organization" JRS XXII 1932: 24-32.

Astbury, Raymond "Varro and Pompey" CQ LX:403-7

Astin, A. E. The Lex Annalis before Sulla Brussels 1958.

Badian, Ernst Foreign Clientelae: 264-70 B.C. Oxford 1958.

Badian, Ernst "Three Non-Trials in Cicero" Hio LXVI 1984: 291-309.

Baldson, J. P. V. D. The Emperor Gaius (Caligpla) Oxford 1934.

Belvedere, O. L'acquedotto Cornelio di Termini herese (Istituto di Archeologia deli' Università di falenno, Studi e Materiali, 7) Rome 1986.

Bennett, Julian Trajan Optirnus Princeps: A Lfe and Times London & New York 1997.

Bérard, François et al- Guide de l'épigraphiste: Bibliographie choisie des épigraphies antiques et médiévale? & supplement, Paris 1989 & 1990.

Bernabb Brea, L. & M. Cavalier Archeologia subacquea 2. Isole eolie (Supplement to BA^ XXDC) Rome 1985.

Bernstein, Frank Ludi Publici: Untersuchungen nrr Entstehung und Entwicklung der offentlichen SpÏele im republikanischen Rom Stuttgart 1 998.

Bertrand, J. M. "Apropos de deux disparus: Cn. Pompeius Theophanes, M. Pompeius Macer" ZPE LIX 1985: 173-6.

Birley, Anthony Richard "The ongin and career of Q. Pompeius Falco" ArheoZoSki Vesinik XXVIII 1977: 360-8.

B irley, Anthony Richard neFasti of Roman Britain Oxford 1 98 1. Birley, Anthony Richard Hadrran: The RestZess Ernperor London 1997.

Bound, M. "Amphorae fiom the harbour at Lilybaeum" Progress in Underwater Science X 1985: 135-57.

Broughton, T. Robert S. "Roman Asia Minor" in Temey Frank (ed.) An Economic Survey of Rome vol- IV Baltimore 1938: 499-9 18.

Broughton, T. Robert S. The Magistrates of the Roman Republic 3 vols. New York & Atlanta 195 1-86.

Briich, J. "Auzu 6 und 6 zu au im Latein" Glorta XXVI 1938: 145-78.

Brugnone, Antonietta "Bolli anforari rodii dalla necropoli di Lilibeo" Kokalos XJQCII 1986 (published 1989): 19-100.

Brunt, P. A. "Patronage and Politics in the Verrines" Chiron X 1980: 273-89.

Bnint, P. A. "The Role of the Senate in the Augustan Regirne" CQ XXXIV 1984: 423-44.

Brunt, P. A. ItaZian Manpower 225 B.C. - A.D. 14 Oxford 1971 (repr. with postscnpt 1987).

Bmî,P. A. neFaZZ of the Roman Republic and ReZated Essays Oxford 1988.

Caballos Rufino, A. Los senadores hispanorromanos y la romanizacion de Hispania (sigles 1-m) Seville 1990.

Carneron, Averil The Later Roman Empire: AD 284-430 Cambridge, Massachusetts 1993.

Cartiedge, Paul A. & Antony J. S. Spawforth Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A tale of two cities London & New York 1989.

Casagrandi, V. (ed.) Raccolta di studi di storia antica 2 vols. Catania 1893-6.

Charnplin, E. J. "Miscellanea Testamentaria" ZPE LXIX 1987: 197-206.

Chester, D. K. et al. Mount Etna: The anatomy of a volcan0 Stanford 1985.

Chilver, G. E. F. A Historieal Comrnentary on Tacitus' Histories I and II Oxford 1979.

Cluetî, Ronald George Andrew The Posthumous Reputation of Pompey the Great (diss. Princeton Universis) Ann Arbor 1994.

Corbier, M. "Les familles clanssimes d'Afrique proconsulaire (Ier- IIIe siède)" in Silvio Panciera Afti del Colloquio internazionale AEGL su epigrafla e ordine senatorio, Roma, 14-20 maggio 1981(Tituli V)Rome 1982: 685-754.

Courtney, E. A Commentary on the Satires of Jtcvenal London 1980. Curbera, Jarnie B. "Jewish Names fiom SiciLy" ZPE CX 1996: 297-300.

DtArms, John H, Romans on the Bay of Naples: A Soczal and Cultural Study of the Villas and their Ownersfiom 150 B.C. to A.D. 400 Cambri.ige, Massachusetts 1970.

Degrassi, Attiiio 1fasti consolari dell'I'mperoromano dal50 uvanti Cristo al 613 dopo Cristo Rome 1952,

Dessau, Hermann et al. (eds.) Prosopographia Imperii Romani Saeculi I, fi IP 3 vols. Berlin 1897-8 (second edn. E. Groag et al. [eds.] 5 vols BerIin & Leipzig 1933- ); soon to be up-dated on-Iine at http:!. ~\-ww.bbw-.de.~vIi~ir-indes.litrnl, according to Werner Eck & Klaus Wachtel "Die Prosopographia Imperii Romani im Intemet" ZPE CXXV 1999: 232.

Di Vita, A. "Una recente nota e la datazione del miliario siciliano del console C. Aurelio Cotta" Latomus XXII (1963): 478-88.

Dom Seiffen, 1. De Sex. Pompeio Magno Cn. Mupi F. (diss. Traiecti ad Rhenurn) 1846.

Douglas, A. E. "Roman Cognomina" G&R 2°d ser. V 1958: 62-6.

Drinkwater, John Frederick "The Rise and Fa11 of the Gallic Iulii: Aspects of the Development of the Aristocracy of the Three Gauls under the Early Empire" Lafornus XXXVII 1978: 817-50.

Drinkwater, John Frederick "GalIic Persona1 Wealth" Chiron IX 1979: 237-42.

Drinkwater, John Frederick "A Note on Local Careers in the Three Gauls Under the Early Empire" Britannia X 1979: 89- 100.

Drinkwater, John Frederick Roman Gaul: Three Provinces, 58 BC-AD 260 Beckenham, Kent 1983.

Drurnann, Wi lhelm Karl August Geschichte Roms in seinem Ubergange von der republikanischen zur monarchischen Ve$assung oder Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero und ihre Zeitgenossen nuch Geschleechtern und mit geneaiogischen ~abeilen~ 5 vols. Hildesheim 1964.

Duchesne, J. "Note sur le nom de Pompée" AC III 1934: 81-9.

Duggan, Christopher, et al. A History of Sicily London 1986.

Eck, Werner Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian: Prosopographische Untersuchungen mit Einschlufl der Jahres- und Proviyxzia,fasten der Sratthaiter Munich 1970.

Eck, Werner "Senatorische Familien der Kaiserteit in der Provinz Sizilien" ZPE CXIIi 1996: 109-28. Falsone, G. & M. Bound "Archeologia subaquea a Marsala" Archeologia subacquecz 3 (Supplement to BA^ XXXVH-XXXVIII) Rome 1986: 161-76.

Finley, Moses 1. A History of Sicily: Ancient Siciiy tu the Arab Conquest London 1968 (revised as Ancient Siciiy 1979).

Frank, Tenney "On the Migration of Romans to Sicily" AJPh LVI 1935: 6 1-4.

Frederiksen, Martin Campania Hertford 19 84.

Frier, B. W. "Urban Praetors and Rural VioIence" TAPhA CXIII 1983: 224-33,

Fuhrmann, Manfred Cicero und the Rornan Republic (tram. W.E. Yuill) Cambridge, Massachusetts & Oxford I9W.

Garzetti, A. Nerva Rome 1950.

Gelzer, Matthias ~om~eiu!Munich 1959.

Gelzer, Matthias "Cn. Pompeius Strabo und der Aufstieg seines Sohnes Magnus" Heine Schrzjten 11 Wiesbaden 1963: 106-38.

Gelzer, Matthias "Das erste Consulat des Pompeius und die Übertragng der grossen hperien" Kleine Schrzjten II Wiesbaden 1963: 146-89.

Gelzer, Matthias Cicero Wiesbaden 1969.

Gold, Barbara K. "Pompey and Theophanes of Mytilene" AJPh CVI 1985: 3 12-27.

GoodfeIlow, Charlotte E. Roman Citizenship: A Shrdy of Its Territorial andNumerical Expansionfrom the Earliest Times to the Death ofAugmtus (diss. Bryn Mawr College) Lancaster 1935.

Groag, E. "Prosopographische BeiMge" JOL4 XVIII 19 15: 265-80.

Groebe, P. "Romische Ehreninschriften. 1. Eine Athenische Ehreninschrift des Cn. Pompeius Strabo cos. 89 v. Chr." MDAI (A) XXXIII 1908: 135-8.

Groebe, P. "Zum Seeriiuberkriege des Pompeius Magnus (67 v. Chr.)" Klio X 1910: 374 -89.

Gmen, Erich S. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic Berkeley, Los Angeles & London 1974.

Hadas, Moses Sextus P0mp.y New York 1930. Halfmann, Ifelmut "Die Senatoren aus den Kleinasiatischen Provinzen des RGmischen Reiches vom 1. Bis 3. Jahrhundert (Asia, Pontus-Bithynia, Lycia-Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Cilicia)" in Silvio Panciera (ed-) Atti del Colloquio internazionale MEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatario. Romu, 14-20 maggro 1981 (TituIiV) Rome 1982: 603-50.

Hall, AIan S. "Two Veterans of Legio XII Gemina at Iconium" in Stephen Mitchell (ed.) Amies and Frontiers in Roman and Byzantine Anatolia: Proceedings of a collaquium held at University College, Swansea, in April198I Oxford 1983: 35-9.

Hatzopoulos, Miltiades V. O EMr)vrapos qs&dras xaorsa qvPoparoxpa~ra (xopio80s 264-44 xX.) Athens 1980.

Hirschfeld, Otto "Die getraideverwaltung in der romischen kaiseaeit" Philologus XXM 1870: 1-96.

Holm, Adolfo Storia della SiciZia nell'antichità (trans. G. B. Da1 Lago, Graziadei, & Giuseppe Kirner) 3 vols. Turin 1896-190 1 (repr. Bologna 1965).

Isler, H. P. "Bolli d'anfora e docmenti affini dagli scavi di Monte Iato" in M. J. Fontana et al. (eds.) Orhias x&pt.v. Miscellanea di studi classici in onore di Eugenio Manni Rome 1980: 1213-29.

Jenison, Elsie Safford The History of the Province of Sicily (diss. Co lumbia University) Boston 1919.

Jones, A. H. M. Dze Greek Ciwfiom Alexander to Jusfinian Oxford 1940.

Jones, C. P. "Sura and Senecio" JRS LX 1970: 98-104.

Jullian, Camille Louis Histoire de Gaule 8 vols. Paris 1908-26.

Kajanto, Iiro The Latin Cognomina Helsinki 1965.

Kavanagh, Bernard Joseph "The Admission of the Ctaudian FamiIy to Rome" AHB IV.6 1990: 129-32.

Kavanagh, Bernard Joseph "Julius Afi-icanus, Senator?" Historia XLV 1996: 24 1-3.

Kennedy, George me Art of Rhetoric in the Roman WorZd Princeton 1972.

Keppie, Lawrence The Making of the Roman Amy: From Republic to Empire New Jersey 1984.

Keyes, C. W. neRise of the Equites in the nird Centzuy Oxford 19 15.

Kromayer, J. "Die Entwickelung der romischen Flotte vom Seerauberkrïege des Pornpeius bis zur Schlacht von Actium" PhiloZogzis LVI 1897: 426-91. Leach, John Pompey the Great London 1978,

Le Glay, M. "Sénateurs de Numidie et des Mautetaines" in Silvio Panciera (ed.) Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL su epigrafia e ordine senatorio, Roma 14-20 rnaggio 1981 (Tituli V)Rome 1982: 755-8 1.

Levick, Barbara Roman Colonies in Suuthern Asia Minor Oxford 1967,

Levick, Barbara Vespasian London 1999.

Libertini, Guido CenrurMe Catania 1926.

Linttott, Andrew lmperium Romanurn: Politics and administration London & New York 1993,

Magie, David Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the end of the second cent- @er Christ 2 vols. Princeton 1950.

Manganaro, Giacomo "Tre tavole di bronzo con decreti di proxenia del Museo di Napoli e il problema dei proagori in Sicilia" KokaCos IX 1963: 205-220.

Manganaro, Giacorno "Un senatus consultum in Greco dei Lanuvini e iI rimovo della cognatio con i Centuripini" RAANXXXVIII 1963: 23-44.

Manganaro, Giacomo "1 senatori di Sicilia e il problema del latifondo" in Silvio Panciera (ed.) Atti del Colloquio internazionale MEGL su epigra$a e ordine senatorio, Roma 14-20 rnaggr'o 1981 (Tituli V)Rome 1982: 369-85.

Manganaro, Giacomo "La Sicilia da Sesto fompeo a Diocleziano" ANR W II.11.I (1988): 3-89.

Marshall, B. A. "Q. Cicero, Hortensius and the lex Aurelia" RhMNS CXVIII 1975: 136 -52.

Mat., David An Ancient Rome Chronology, 264-2 7 B. C. Jefferson, North Carol ina 1 997.

Meiggs, Russell Roman 0stid Oxford 1973.

Millar, Fergus A S~dyof Cassius Dio Oxford 1964.

Mommsen, Theodor Gesammelte SchrzjZen 8 vols. Berlin, Dublin, & Zurich 1905- 13.

Morris, Ian Death-Rilual and Social Structure in Classical Antiquity Cambridge 1 992.

Morris, John "Changing Fashions in Roman Nomenclature in the Roman Empire" LF XI 1963: 34-46.

Münzer, Friedrich Roman Aristocratic Parties and Families (trans, Thérèse Rid ley) Baltimore & London 1999. Nicolet, C. The World of the Citizen in Republican Rome (tram. P. S. Falla) London 1980.

Nicols, Marianne Schoenlin Appearance and Realiiy: A Studj ofthe Clientele of Pompey the Great (diss. University of California) Berkeley 1992.

Nissen, Heinrich Italische Landeskunde 2 vols- Amsterdam 1967.

van Ooteghem, J. Pompée le Grand: Bâtisseur d'empire Brussels 1954.

Parke, Herbert W. (B. C. McGing, ed.) Sibyls und Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquiîy London & New York 1988.

Pauly, A. et al. (eds.) Reai-Encyclopadie der klassiscen Altertumswissenscha$t Stuttgart 1893- .

Pelagatti, P. "Akrai. Ricerche nel territorio. Contrada Aguglia 1960-2, la fattoria tardo -ellenistica" NSA 1970: 447-99.

Price, S. R. F. RituaZs and Power: The Roman imperial cult in Asia Minor Cambridge 1984.

Pulgram, Ernst The Tongires of Itaalyr Prehistory and History Cambridge, Massachusetts 1958.

Purpura, G. 'Nuove anfore nell'antiquarium di Terrasini" Sic. Arch. X 35 (1977): 53-7 1.

Rawson, Beryl The Politics of Friendrhip: Pornpey and Cicero Sydney 1978.

Rawson, Elizabeth Roman CuZfzire und Society= Collecfed Papers Oxford 199 1.

Rickman, Geofiey The Corn Supply ofAncient Rome Oxford 1980.

Risse, Caspams De Gestis Sexti Pompei (diss. Monasterii Guestfalomm) 18 82.

Rotondi, Giovanni Leges Publicae Populi Romani Milan 19 12 (repr. Hildesheim 1962).

Rougé, J. "La date de naissance de Sextus Pompée" REL XLVI 1968: 180-93.

Rubincam, Catherine Reid "The Chronology of the Punishment and Reconstruction of Sicily by Octavian/Augustus" AJA LXXXIX 1985: 52 1-2.

Salomies, Olli Adoptive and Polyonymous Nomenclature in the Roman Empire Helsinki 1992.

Scheid, John Les frères males: recrutement et origine sociale sous les empereursjulio claudiens Paris 1975.

Schumacher, L. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur Besetzung der vier hohen romischen Priesterkollegien im Zeitalfer der Antonine und der Severer Berlin 1973. Scramuzza, V. M. "Roman Sicily" in Temey Frank (ed.) An Economic Survey of Ancient Rome III Baltimore 1937: 225-3 77-

Scullard Howard H. From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome 133BC to ~~68~ London & New York 1982.

Scullard, Howard H. & A. A. M. van der Heyden Shorter Atlas of the CZassical Worid New York 1967.

Seager, Robin Pompey: A Poiïtical Biography Berkeley & Los Angeles t 979.

Seston, William "Les donateurs de l'amphithéâtre des Trois Gaules" in Marcel Renard (ed.) Hommages à A. Grenier Brussels 3 vols. 1962: 1407- 17.

Shenvin-White, A. N. The Letters of PZiny Oxford 1966.

Sherwin- White, A. N. The Roman ~itizenshïp~Oxfôrd 1973.

Starr, Chester G- The Roman Imperial Nàvy 31~.~.-~.~.324~London 1960.

Stevens, C, E. T%e Building of Hadrian !s Wall London 1966.

Stone III, Shelley C. "Sexnis Pompey, Octavian and Sicily" AJA LXXXVII 1983: 11-22 & pl. 7.

Straznilla, V. Museum epigraphicum seu inscript- Christ. quae in Syrac. Catacumb. Repertae sunt corpusculum Palemo 1897.

Sairtevmt, Edgar H. The Pronunciation of Greek and ,5atin2 Philadelphia 1940.

Sumner, G. V- "The Lex Annatis under Caesar (continued)" Phoenix XXV 1971: 357-71,

Sumner, G. V. ''The Pompeii in Their Farnilies" AJAWII 1977: 8-25.

Susini, Giancarlo "Q. Pompeius Senecio, console ne1 169 d. C.: alcune note" in Raymond Chevallier (ed.) Méanges d'archéologie et d'histoire offerts à André Piganiol Paris 3 vols. 1966: 289-99.

Syme, Ronald Tacita 2 vols. Oxford 1958.

Syme, Ronald The Roman Revolution Oxford 1960.

Syme, Ronald History in Ovid Oxford 1978.

Syme, Ronald Roman Papers 7 vols. Oxford 1979-9 1.

Syme, Ronald The Augustan Aristocracy Oxford 1986. Tagliamonte, G. Ifigli di Mmte: mobilitù, mercenari e mercenariato italici in Magna Grecia e Sicila Rome 1994.

Talberî, Richard J. A. The Senate of Imperral Rome Princeton 1984.

Talbert, Richard J. A. Atlas of Classical History New York 1985.

Taylor, Li1y Ross The Voting DIStricts of the Roman Republic: The Thirty-five Urban and Rural Tribes Rome 1960.

Thornasson, Bengt E. Lotercuii Praesidum 3 vols. Goteborg 1972-90.

Traina, Alfonso L'arfabeto e la pronumia del ~atino~Bologna 1973.

Uggeri, G. "La viabilità romana in Sicilia con particolare riguardo al III e al IV secolo" K~kdosXXWWXXE 1982/3:424-60.

Valone, A. "1 Mamertini in Sicifia" Kokalos 1 1955: 22-61.

Veith, Georg "Die Strategie der Miliueit" in Johannes Kromayer & Georg Veith (eds.) Heenvesen undlbiegsfihmng der Griechen und RDmer Munich 1928: 454-69.

Verbrugghe, Gerald P. ltinera romana: Sicilia Bern 1976.

Vetîer, Emil Handbuch der iralischen Dialecte Heidelberg 1 953.

Veyne, Paul "Trïmalchio Maecenatius" in Marcel Renard (ed.) Hommages a Albert Grenier 3 vols. Bruxelles 1962: 1617-24.

Veyne, Paul "Un gouverneur impérial en Asie" in Raymond Chevallier (ed.) Mélanges d'mchéologie et d'histoire offerts ci André Piguniol3 vols. Paris 1966: 1395-6.

Ward, Allen Mason "Cicero and Pompey in 75 and 70 B.C." Latomus XXIX 1970: 58-71.

Ward, Allen Mason "The Early Relationship between Cicero and Pompey until 80 B.C." Phoenk XXIV 1970: 1 19-29.

Ward, Allen Mason Marcus Crassus and the Lare Roman Republic Columbia & London 1977.

Watson, Alan Roman Slave Law Baltimore & London 1987.

West, Allen B. "Lucilian Genealogy" AJPhil. XLM 1928: 240-52.

Wheeler, Arthur L. "Topics fkom the Life of Ovid" AJPh XLVI 1925: 1-28.

White, Peter "PompeiusMacer and Ovid" CQ XLII 1992: 2 10-8.

Wightman, Edith Mary GalZia Belgica London 1985. Wilson, Roger John Antony Piazza Armerina London 1983,

Wilson, Roger John Antony "Un insediamento agricolo romana a Castagna (Cornune di Cattolica Eraclea, AG)" Sic. Arch- XVIII 57-8 (1985): 11-35.

Wilson, Roger John Anthony Sicily under the Roman Empire: The archaeoiogy of a Roman Province, 36 BC -AD 535 Warminster, Wiltshire 1990 (a second edn, is in preparation for 2000 or 200 1).

Wilson, Roger John Antony "Triskeles" (tentatively entitled) in Studi di archeoiogia meditewanea in onore di Ernesto de Miro Rome (forthcoming).

Wiseman, T. P. New Men in the Roman Senate 139 B. C. - AB. 13 Oxford 1971.

Wiseman, T. P. "Factions and Family Trees" LCM 1.1 1976: 1-3.

Woloch, Michael Roman Citizenship and the Athenian Elire, A.D. 96- 161 :Two Prosopographical Catalogues Amsterdam 1973.

Zanker, Paul The Power of Images in the Age ofAugustus (trans. AIan Shapiro) An.Arbor 1988.

Zucker, F. "Semitische Namen auf den neu gefùndenen Inschtifien von Minturnae" Hermes LXXVIII 1943: 200-4.