Provenance and location

Ancient city: Puteoli
Modern city: Pozzuoli (Naples, Italy)
Province: Campania
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Pozzuoli, first seen around the 16th Century in Naples by some humanists (see commentary below), before being brought to Rocca di Porto Ercole a century later (Grosseto).
Current location: National Archaeological Museum of Florence, “cortile dei Fiorentini” (from 1868)
Ancient location: public place

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary inscription for the praet. prefect Caecilianus Placidus by Regio Palatina of Puteoli

Latin text

Critical edition

This edition is based on CIL 10, 01700 and EDR 153006 (G. Camodeca), that restored through 16th Century manuscripts the lower side of the inscription, now lost (see commentary below).

Translations

English

“To Marcus Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus, of clarissimus rank, who was major pontiff, public augur of the Roman people of Quirites, member of the college of fifteen for sacred rites, corrector of Venetiae and Histria, prefect of the Annona of the sacred city with jurisdiction over life or death, count of the first order, count of the East, Egypt and Mesopotamia, judge with the faculty to institute sacred trials for three times, for the second time judge authorized to the sacred trials, praetorian prefect and judge with the faculty to institute sacred trials for the third time, ordinary consul, very prodigal patron, the Regio Palatina set up.”

French

“A Marcus Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus, clarissime, pontife majeur, augure public du peuple romain des Quirites, quindécemvir chargé des rites sacrés, correcteur des Vénéties et d’Histrie, préfet de l’annone de la ville sacrée avec droit de condamnation à mort, comte de premier ordre, comte d’Orient, d’Egypte et de Mésopotamie, juge avec la faculté d’instituer des procès sacrés à trois reprises, à nouveau juge avec délégation aux procès sacrés, préfet du prétoire et juge avec la faculté d’instituer des procès sacrés pour la troisième fois, consul ordinaire, patron très généreux, la région Palatine a posé.”

Italian

“A Marcus Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus, chiarissimo, pontefice maggiore, augure pubblico del popolo romano dei Quiriti, quindecenviro per le cerimonie sacre, correttore delle Venezie e dell’Istria, prefetto dell’annona della città sacra con diritto di condannare a morte, conte del primo ordine, conte d’Oriente, Egitto e Mesopotamia, giudice con la facoltà di istituire sacri processi per tre volte, di nuovo giudice con deleghe ai sacri processi, prefetto del pretorio e giudice con la facoltà di istituire sacri processi per la terza volta, console ordinario, patrono assai generoso, la Regio Palatina pose.”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

The statue base is a funerary altar: the patera on the right side can still be seen although the urceus on the left, was only visible during Renaissance (see Ciampoltrini 2002, p. 91). It is clear that the base originally stood in Pozzuoli, because Regio Palatina was known to be one of Pozzuoli’s city quarters (see Camodeca 1977 = 2018, pp. 52-53).

The marble monument was then moved in Naples and it has been recorded and described (when it was still undamaged) by many humanists between the end of 16th and the beginning of 17th Century. It was seen in the base of the house of G. Ajaccio, a nobleman of Capua, and then at “Vico della Pellecteria” and also in “Somma piazza presso Pozzo Bianco” (see CIL 10, 01700; Ciampoltrini 2002, p. 91). The humanists include Antoine Marillon, a Belgian scholar, Giovanni Giocondo, humanist and lover of epigraphy, Martinus Smetius, a Flemish scholar, Michelangelo Accursio and some others.

Through their manuscripts and copies of them, we have been able to restore the entire text, when over half of it was missing (circa ten lines are lost). The marble base would appear to have been damaged around the 17th Century, when it was transferred from Naples to the Fortress of Porto Ercole (Grosseto), after which the block was worked in a circular shape (corners chiselled away) and its upper surface was dug into (40 cm depth), in order to convert it into a drinking trough. Finally, the monument was transferred to the Archaeological Museum of Florence in 1868, where it is still displayed to this day.

This inscription and its statue (also lost), was set up in honour of Caecilianus Placidus, who was honoured as a patron by the Regio Palatina, a city quarter of Puteoli, corresponding probably to today’s Rione Terra in Pozzuoli (Camodeca 1977 = 2018, p. 53).

M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus (PLRE I, Placidus 2, pp. 705-706) was an influent member of an aristocratic family of African origin (from Gightis), of senatorial rank from the reign of Septimius Severus (see Camodeca 1980-1981 = 2018, pp. 398-399; cf. Settipani 2000, pp. 143-144). His cursus honorum was typical of a high senatorial man and included priesthoods of the ancient capital (pontifex maior, augur publicus, quindicemvir sacris faciundis). He was corrector Venetiarum et Histriae (cf. Cecconi 1994, p. 211) and prefect of the Annona at Rome. According to Chastagnol (1962, p. 125; 1960, pp. 298-299), the reference to his right to life and death (ll. 7-8: praefecto annonae urbis sacrae cum iure gladii) suggests a date not before 337 AD for this office. The title of count of the first order (comes ordinis primi), attested from around 330 AD, it may have been granted to Placidus by Constans Augustus (Scharf 1994, pp. 14, 59). Later Placidus became comes of the East, Egypt and Mesopotamia between 340 and 341 AD (cf. PLRE I, Placidus 2, pp. 705-706; Moser 2018, pp. 94, 107), an unusual expansion of his mission, compared to the more usual count of the East (the same expanded jurisdiction is attested for Vulcacius Rufinus, who had a similarly prestigious cursus honorum in the same period: PPRET 32; comes Orientis is Lollianus Mavortius, PPRET 45). Placidus was praetorian prefect of Italy-Illyricum-Africa in 342-344 AD: CTh 12, 01, 037 shows that he was still in charge on May 28^th 344 AD; the prefectural letters from Delphi (PPRET 23) show that he succeeded Antonius Marcellinus, perhaps in the second half of 342 AD (see PPRET 22). He was consul in 343 AD during his prefecture (CLRE, pp. 220-221); after Constantine, also Constantius II and Constans used to promote their praetorian prefects to consuls (years 340, 341, 344, 347, 348, 349 AD). Finally, he was prefect of Rome in 346-347 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 125-128). Since the text exceptionally records all the offices held by Placidus right up to the monument’s dedication – an invaluable source – the lack of the urban prefecture (from December 26^th 346 AD to June 12^th 347 AD) helps us to date the monument to between 343 AD (consulate) and 346 AD. It is possible that the monument was decreed when Placidus was discharged from the praetorian prefecture: if this hypothesis is correct, then it would have been dedicated after May 344 (last time he is attested as praetorian prefect) and before December 346 AD (his appointment to the prefecture of Rome).

Placidus was an expert in law and a high-ranking judge. The emperors delegated judicial decisions to him on many occasions (for appeals see Harries 1999, pp. 110-117; Pergami 2000; Dillon 2012, pp. 214-250). The inscription records the iterations of these special mandates: first the ius gladii granted for his prefecture of the Annona, then the three sacred mandates for justice in the place of the emperor, on the occasion of the Eastern comitiva, extended to Egypt and Mesopotamia (first time), alone (second time), and on the occasion of the praetorian prefecture (third time). But the numerals of these appointments as high judge in our inscription posed problems. The (first) adjective tertio (l. 12) according to Chastagnol (1962, p. 125) would indicate a three-year term of office. But it could indicate that his appointment had been expanded to incorporate three sectors of the East (Oriens, Aegyptus, Mesopotamia), therefore not three times, but a threefold assignment. More probably, the adjective had been inserted next to the first sacred deputy mandate (for the Oriens) to summarize and highlight the primacy of Placidus. The adverb iterum (l. 12) recalls the second mandate, not connected to an office (possibly associated with the comitiva of the first order). The (second) adjective tertio (l. 16) associated as one would expect with the praetorian prefecture (CTh 11, 30, 16, on August 1^st 331 AD, with Pergami 2006) would be synonymous with ter and would close the sequence. In brief, the Puteolans wanted to exalt the primacy of their patron.

Placidus evidently was a powerful protector of the Puteoli community. According to Camodeca (2018, pp. 393-395), his patronage could be explained by the presence of properties in the Phlegrean area, whose existence appears to be attested by archaeological finds and in particular to two fistulae aquariae bearing Placidus’ name (EDR 130026 and EDR 134905; see Camodeca 1980-1981 = 2008, p. 399 nt. 157). In 2002, a leaden fistula aquaria was found under the S. Celso’s church in Rione Terra on which were engraved the names of two people of senatorial rank: Acilius Glabrio and Maecia Praetextata. The couple were, in fact, the owners of a building (probably a domus) which was partially identified during the excavations that brought also to light the fistula. Prosopographically, Camodeca suggests that Maecia Praetextata was related to our Placidus, who of course had property in the area (see Camodeca 2018, pp. 392-394).

Hence, Placidus was probably connected to the city of Puteoli through both property and economic interests. Indeed, thanks to his powerful influence and ability to defend their interests, the local communities may well have chosen this aristocrat as their patron. The institutional relationship of patronage requiring protection by a rich patron led to the setting up of monuments like ours, since it was one of the ways that the community could express its gratitude for benefits received. This is the first time in late antiquity (284 AD) that an inscription actually refers to a praetorian prefect as patronus. Although praetorian prefects, as early as the 1st Century AD, were linked to the patronage system through spontaneous forms of generosity, this kind of late antique patronage was the result of the Constantinian reforms that allowed the praetorian prefecture to spread its local roots while at the same time consolidating its institutional and administrative power. Since praetorian prefects had control over fiscal dynamics, they were therefore able to protect cities and entire provinces from the damages of an adverse fiscal situation (as Antonius Marcellinus did; see PPRET 21). This power made them particularly sought-after patrons in the central and peripheral areas of the empire. For praetorian prefects benefactors or patrons see PPRET 21 (Marcellinus in Gortyna); PPRET 29 (Philippus in Perge); PPRET 32 (Vulcacius Rufinus in Rome); PPRET 35 (Anonymus prefect in Syria); PPRET 43 (Musonianus in Hierapolis); PPRET 47 (the wife of Anatolius in Perge); PPRET 52 (Salutius in Pisidian Antioch); PPRET 54 (Sallustius in Rome); PPRET 57, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 63 (Petronius Probus); PPRET 70 (the wife of Q. Hermogenianus Olybrius).

Bibliography

Beloch J., Campanien. Geschichte und Topographie des antiken Neapel und seiner Umgebung, Breslau 1890.

Camodeca G., L’ordinamento in regiones e i vici di Puteoli, Puteoli, 1, 1977, 62-98 (revised and updated version in Id., Puteoli Romana: istituzioni e società. Saggi, Napoli 2018, 41-82) .

Camodeca G., Ricerche su Puteoli tardoromana (fine III-IV secolo), Puteoli, 4-5, 1980-1981, 59-128 (revised and updated version in Id., Puteoli Romana: istituzioni e società. Saggi, Napoli 2018, 351-422).

Camodeca G., I ceti dirigenti di rango senatorio, equestre e decurionale della Campania romana, I, Napoli 2008.

Camodeca G., Puteoli Romana: istituzioni e società. Saggi, Napoli 2018.

Cecconi G.A., Governo imperiale e élites dirigenti nell’Italia tardoantica. Problemi di storia politico-amministrativa (270-476 d.C.), Como 1994.

Chastagnol A., La préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-empire, Paris 1960.

Chastagnol A., Les Fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire, Paris 1962.

Ciampoltrini G., Storia di un marmo napoletano (CIL X, 1700), Rassegna di archeologia: classica e postclassica, 19(b), 2002, 91-95.

Dillon J.N., The Justice of Constantine. Law, Communication, and Control, Ann Arbor (Mich.) 2012.

Harries J., Law and Empire in Late Antiquity, Cambridge 1999.

Moser M., Emperor and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II: Maintaining Imperial Rule between Rome and Constantinople in the Fourth Century AD, Cambridge 2018.

Pergami F., L’appello nella legislazione del tardo impero, Milano 2000.

Pergami F., L’attività giurisdizionale dei prefetti del pretorio nell’assetto costituzionale della tarda antichità, in Labruna L. (dir.), Baccari M.P., Cascione C. (a cura di), Tradizione romanistica e Costituzione, vol. II, Napoli 2006, 1301-1314.

Scharf R., Comites und comitiva primi ordinis, Mainz 1994.

Settipani C., Continuité gentilice et continuité familiale dans les familles sénatoriales romaines à l'époque impériale: mythe et réalité, Oxford 2000.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit