Provenance and location

Ancient city: Roma
Modern city: Rome (Italy)
Province: Urbs
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Rome, Roman Forum (precise location uncertain)
Current location: Rome (Italy), Lapidario Forense, inv. 6049
Ancient location: public space: Roman Forum

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Honorary inscription for the praetorian prefect

Latin text

Critical edition

Edition based on CIL, with modifications.

1: [- - -]I[- - -]: EDH 032699
4: [ob insignem? e]rg̣ạ [se benevolentiam?]: Panciera 1996a, CIL 06, 41346 (see commentary)

Translations

English

“... two times, ordinary consul, praetorian prefect ...”

French

“... deux fois, consul ordinaire, préfet du prétoire ...”

Italian

“... due volte, console ordinario, prefetto del pretorio ...”

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

This marble fragment, now kept in the Lapidario Forense (inv. nr. 6049), was found in the Roman Forum. It was probably part of a statue base and the front still retains a very small portion of the inscription that was chiselled on the monument. The fragmentary text was first published in 1996 by N. Petrucci (Panciera 1996a, nr. 70, pp. 224-225, with pl. XVIII, 1 = AE 1996, 0176) and re-edited in 2000 by G. Alföldy as CIL 06, 41346.

The fragment contains four lines of text and the surviving letters show that the inscription recorded a cursus honorum. The editors have proposed to integrate secun]do in l. 2, before the supralineate reference to the consulate, c̅o̅n̅s̅(uli), that Alföldy completes with ordinario. On the following line, the inscription registered the office of the praetorian prefect, praefecto prae]torio p[er - - -, probably with the indication of the regional area(s) of competence (as in PPRET 46, 59, 75) or the length of the tenure (p[er annos - - -], as in PPRET 10; CIL 06, 41383 = AE 1928, 0080 = LSA 1521 = EDR 073082; cf. Porena 2014, pp. 195-214). Finally, - - - ]rga[ - - - in l. 4 may stand for erga in a sentence that provided the motivation for the setting up of the statue in the Forum. Petrucci tentatively suggests ob insignem erga se benivolentiam («for his renowned benevolence towards them»; cf. CIL 06, 41346), but considering the location in a public space, a solution with erga rem publicam or similar is to be preferred, because erga se better suits dedications made by specific groups or communities that were usually exhibited in the domus of their patrons (see PPRET 59, to Petronius Probus from his clients in Venetia and Histria ob insignia erga se remediorum genera; cf. CIL 06, 01772 (p. 4756) = ILS 1230; CIL 10, 01125 = ILS 2942; CIL 11, 04096 = CIL 06, 00871 = LSA 1632 = EDR 167764; CIL 11, 04097 = ILS 5697 = LSA 1633 = EDR 167763).

Both Petrucci and Alföldy have associated secundo, that comes before cons(uli), to an office other than that of the consulate: the office would have been recorded in the lost part of the inscription (at the beginning of l. 2 or in ll. 1-2) and conferred twice to the figure being honoured. Furthermore, assuming an original width of about 80-90 cm for the statue base (CIL 06, 41346), Alföldy’s proposal to integrate ordinario after cons(uli) at the end of l. 3, leaves no room for the recording of another position between the consulship and the praetorian prefecture. According to this reconstruction, the fragment would have preserved the last part of a cursus honorum ending with: 1) a first office or position that the honorand held twice; 2) the ordinary consulate; 3) the praetorian prefecture.

A different reconstruction has been proposed by F. Mitthof (reported in CIL 06, 41346) who suggests that the fragment should be reconstructed in following way: - - - secun]do, cons(ulari) [Campaniae (?), procos. Africae (?), | praef. prae]torio p[er Illyricum iterum, praef. | praetorio pe]r Ga[llias - - -. As noted by Alföldy, this solution presupposes a width of the epigraphic field that it probably did not have. The sequence and separate registration of three praetorian prefectures of Illyricum and Gauls (we know of no official who cumulated these three tenures) is also problematic, while the reading consularis for cons in l. 2 is possible, although less frequently attested than consul (see Gordon 1948, pp. 72-73; for cons(ularis) cf. PPRET 45, 93; for cons(ul) cf. PPRET 32, 54, 63, 80, this last one too carrying the straight-line above cons(uli)). The reading proposed in the editions ought thus to be retained. Regarding l. 2, the combination of secundo and the consulate is hampered by the problem of identification (only Rufius Volusianus and Petronius Maximus held two consulates, but both after the praetorian prefecture/s: their careers are discussed below) rather than the order, because in the few cursus honorum where it is used for the iteration of an office, all dated within the 5th Century, secundo is recorded three times before the post and two times after it (CIL 06, 01727 (p. 4744) = ILS 1275 = LSA 1435 = EDR 137769: secundo urbi praefecto; CIL 06, 01761 (p. 4754) = ILS 1285 = LSA 1465 = EDR 122366: praefectus urbi secundo; CIL 06, 41389 = LSA 1434 = EDR 073749: secundo consuli ordinario; CIL 05, 08120 = ILS 1301 = InscrIt 10,05, 1273 = EDR 091273: p(raefectus) u(rbi) sec(undo); CIL 13, 03674 = ILS 8992: s(e)c(un)do c(on)sul; see also PPRET 98).

This document can be added to the many testimonies we have on monuments decreed to praetorian prefects, or by praetorian prefects to the emperors, that were displayed in the political centre of Rome in late antiquity (see the list in PPRET 03; on the late Roman Forum, cf. Bauer 1996, pp. 7-79, 397-408; Niquet 2000, pp. 18-23; Chenault 2013, pp. 103-132; Machado 2019, pp. 95-123). The poor level of preservation of the inscription makes any dating based on palaeography alone hazardous (while Alföldy suggests a mid-4th Century date or later, Petrucci prefers a date within the 5th Century) but the prestigious offices listed in the text invite speculation about the possible identity of the honorand. The combination of the consulate and the praetorian prefecture is not very helpful in itself, because from Diocletian to the disappearance of the consulship, no less than 82 officials held both offices. But their order in this inscription, with the consulate indicated first, is quite unusual. Petrucci and Alföldy have proposed two different interpretations of this sequence, that we will discuss separately.

A descending cursus?

According to Petrucci (Panciera 1996a, nr. 70, pp. 224-225), the inscription registered a cursus honorum in descending order. The official would have been praetorian prefect (PPO), then consul (CONS) and finally appointed to another position that he had already held some time in the past: in such a prestigious career, that position can only be a second urban prefecture (PVR).

Petrucci listed four officials as potential candidates for this outstanding cursus:

- C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, PPO in 309/310 AD, PVR in 310-311 AD and CONS in 311 AD under Maxentius, then again PVR in 313-315 AD and consul ordinarius in 314 AD under Constantine (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 52-58; PLRE I, Volusianus 4, pp. 976-978; Porena 2003, pp. 259-272);

- Fabius Titianus, CONS in 337 AD, PPO of Gauls from 341 to 349/350 AD, PVR under Constans (339-341 AD) and PVR a second time under Magnentius in 350-351 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 107-111; PLRE I, pp. 918-919; cf. PPRET 22, 23);

- L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius, “proconsul perfunctus praefectura praetorio” in 330 AD, PVR in 337-338 AD, CONS in 340 AD, again PVR under Magnentius in 351-352 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 96-102; PLRE I, Proculus 11, pp. 747-749);

- Virius Nicomachus Flavianus iunior, three times PVR (392-394 AD, 399-400 AD and 408 AD, the first tenure under Eugenius), PPO of Italy, Africa and Illyricum in 431/432 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 239-244; PLRE I, Flavianus 14, pp. 345-347; cf. PPRET 93).

As already noted by Alföldy (CIL 06, 41346), this last possibility has to be ruled out because Flavianus iunior was never appointed to the CONS. Some doubts arise concerning some of the other candidates also: the offices that Ceionius Rufius Volusianus held under Maxentius were not recognized in the early years of Constantine (see CIL 06, 01707 (cf. p. 4740) = ILS 1213 = LSA 1415 = EDR 118373); they appear in a later inscription but with the two CONS listed first (CIL 06, 41318 = CIL 06, 01708 = CIL 06, 31906 = ILS 1222 = LSA 1416 = EDR 093555). The same problem of the offices held under a usurper affects the candidatures of Fabius Titianus and Valerius Proculus that were both PVR for the second time under Magnentius. Moreover, Proculus did not hold the PPO of Africa, but a proconsulate with a special mandate as judge in lieu of the emperor with jurisdiction over all the African provinces (see Porena 2003, pp. 453-454), while Titianus received the CONS before the PVR and the PPO and this order does not match the sequence assumed by Petrucci for our inscription (PVR II-CONS-PPO).

The exceptional honour of a second appointment to the PVR was granted to very few officials in Late Antiquity. In addition to those already mentioned by Petrucci, only other five dignitaries are attested in the 4th Century, but none of them also held the PPO (Aradius Rufinus, PVR III and CONS 311 AD; C. Annius Anullinus, PVR II and CONS 295 AD, before the prefectures; Publilius Optatianus signo Porphyrius, PVR II; Aurelius Celsinus, PVR II; Maemmius Vitrasius Orfitus signo Honorius, PVR II; for the Anullinus PPO of Severus, cf. Porena 2003, pp. 237-254).

The Fasti of the urban prefecture for the 5th Century are less well documented (cf. PLRE II, pp. 1252-1255; Humphries 2012, pp. 179-182), but among the known prefects there is at least one candidate that might fit the needed requisites: Petronius Maximus. This Roman aristocrat, who rose to the imperial purple after the assassination of Valentinian III, was able to hold four prefectures during his unequalled career (he was twice PVR and twice PPO) and two consulates (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 281-286; PLRE II, Maximus 22, pp. 749-751; Delmaire 1989, pp. 190-194). The correct sequence of these posts is discussed, but before the appointment to the second PPO (439-441 AD) and the second CONS (443 AD), he had held two PVR, the PPO and the CONS. The first PVR came in 420 AD when Petronius Maximus was only twenty-four years old (CIL 06, 01749 = ILS 0809 = LSA 1458 = EDR 122364); the first CONS was granted to him in 433 AD (CLRE, pp. 400-401). The chronology of the second PVR and the first PPO are unknown, but the discovery of another fragmentary inscription in the Roman Forum, near the Curia, has shed some light on the relationship between the PPO and the CONS (Panciera 1996b, pp. 277-297 = CIL 06, 41398 = LSA 1525 = EDR 093620). The text records the dedication of a statue to the praeceptor of the emperor Valentinian III, that Panciera persuasively identifies with Petronius Maximus. His cursus honorum is only partially preserved, but the document suggests, after minor offices, the sequence PVR-PPO-CONS. Considering that the monument cannot be later than 437 AD (Panciera 1996b, p. 292), this sequence means that the first PPO of Maximus predates the consulship of 433 AD. However, it is not possible to ascertain whether the inscription registered a single or iterated PVR. According to Chastagnol (1962, p. 284, n. 190), his second Roman appointment should precede the PPO and the CONS because they are not mentioned in three inscriptions where Petronius is simply styled PVR for the second time (CIL 06, 36956b = ILS 8948 = LSA 1373 = EDR 071729; CIL 06, 37109 (cf. p. 4818) = LSA 1375 = EDR 149393; CIL 06, 37110 (cf. p. 4818) = LSA 1376 = EDR 071730). But these inscriptions, which are probably related to the restoration of statues in the Roman Forum and bear a very essential text (Petronius Maximus, v. c., iterum praef. urb., curavit), may refer only to the office occupied at that moment by Petronius Maximus (PLRE II, p. 750 recalls the analogous example of Fabius Titianus that, after the CONS and the PPO, is merely praefectus urbi iterum in CIL 06, 01654 (cf. p. 4727) = LSA 1335 = EDR 122104; also this inscription refers to the restoration of a statue). If the second appointment to the PVR had followed the first PPO and the CONS, at some time between 433 AD and 438 AD the cursus honorum of Maximus may have been registered as in the sequence proposed by Petrucci, giving prominence to the iteration of the roman post over the other offices.

The identification with three other officials that held (at least) two prefectures of Rome, a praetorian prefecture and a consulate, should be excluded considering the sequence of their offices:

- Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus was three times PVR and once PPO of Italy, Illyricum and Africa before his CONS in 438 AD (that is, in ascending order, PVR III-PPO-CONS; he was appointed to another PPO in 442 AD: Chastagnol 1962, pp. 286-289; PLRE II, Faustus 8, pp. 452-454);

- a later candidate, probably too late (see below), Fl. Nar. Manlius Boethius, was CONS in 487 AD after having already been PPO and two-times PVR (according to his consular diptych, CIL 05, 08120 = ILS 1301 = InscrIt 10,05, 1273 = EDR 091273, he was still prefect of Rome, for the second time, during the consulate. But the urban office was registered before and this should mean that the appointment predates 487 AD; cf. PLRE II, Boethius 4, pp. 232-233);

- finally, Fl. Albinus, that may be identical with Caecina Decius Aginatius Albinus, was appointed to the CONS in 444 AD after having received the codicils of one/two PVR and two PPO (PLRE II, Albinus 7 and 10, pp. 50-51 and 53; cf. Chastagnol 1962, pp. 273-275).

Other officials that were PVR (at least) two times and CONS in the 5th Century are Rufius Praetetxtatus Postumianus (PVR II and CONS in 448 AD, see PLRE II, Postumianus 4, pp. 901-902), Rufius Achilius Sividius (CONS in 488 AD, see PLRE II, pp. 1017-1018) and Speciosus (PVR III and CONS in 496 AD, see PLRE II, pp. 1024-1025). They are not attested as PPO, but this may be due to the paucity of our sources on 5th Century praetorian prefects rather than a conclusion of their careers after the CONS (Postumianus reached this honour in 448 AD when he was still quite young according to CIL 06, 01761 (p. 4754) = ILS 1285 = LSA 1465 = EDR 122366, a later appointment to the PPO cannot be excluded with certainty). The identification with a candidate who had pursued a similar career (receiving the PPO as the last office) would exclude the hypothesis of a cursus recorded in descending order.

A cursus in ascending order

This solution has been proposed by G. Alföldy who preferred to see in this fragment the remains of a cursus inscribed in chronological order because of the possible reading erga in l. 5, that excludes the registration, after the mention of the praetorian prefecture, of the minor offices occupied by the honorand (CIL 06, 41346). According to his reconstruction, the official praised in the inscription would therefore have ended his career with: 1) an office or a position that he had already held (secundo); 2) a consulate; 3) a praetorian prefecture. This order does not recommend the recording in the cursus of the PVR: secundo may also refer to a minor post detained by the honorand for the second time before the appointment to the consulship or maybe to the rank of judge vice sacra conferred twice but in different offices (cf. PPRET 25, where Placidus is iudex sacrarum cognitionum tertio; the second appointment, however, is indicated as iudex iterum). Another possibility attested in late antique inscriptions is the use of secundo to indicate the number of the embassies at court (CIL 06, 01739 (cf. pp. 855, 4748) = LSA 1441 = EDR 129603; CIL 06, 01740 (cf. p. 4748) = LSA 1442 = EDR 129604; CIL 06, 01742 (cf. p. 4749) = LSA 1444 = EDR 129606; CIL 06, 01767 (cf. p. 4754) = CIL 06, 31926 = ILS 1282 = LSA 1466 = EDR 118428 and EDR 118429; in PPRET 77 and 80, Praetextatus is legatus a senatu missus V<II>, legatus amplissimi ordinis septies).

In the edition of the fragment, Alföldy did not propose any possible identification. However, his solution, as the one suggested by Petrucci, limits the choice to a very few potential candidates, because the supreme honour of the consulate was usually conferred to officials in service, as the crowning achievement of a prestigious career. In the 4th Century, we know of only two western officials that were appointed for the first time to the praetorian prefecture after having already held a consulate: Maecilius Hilarianus, CONS in 332 AD and PPO only in 354 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 103-105; PLRE I, Hilarianus 5, p. 433); Fabius Titianus, CONS in 337 AD and PPO of Gauls from 341 AD. They were both PVR between the CONS and the PPO which would have meant recording the Roman office after c̅o̅n̅s̅(uli) [ordinario] (?) in ll. 2/3, an order that we have already deemed unlikely given the hypothetical width of the epigraphic field. An association with Petronius Probus is equally unlikely. Although his second, third and fourth PPO followed the CONS, they are always combined in the Latin dedications to this official, with his first praetorian tenure and registered before the CONS (see PPRET 60, 62, 63, 65, 66). Even in this scenario, therefore, identification with an officer serving in the 4th Century seems unlikely.

We know three officials in service in the first half of the 5th Century who held their (second) PPO after the CONS. The careers of two of them have already been discussed above. They are:

- Petronius Maximus, whose second PPO (439-441 AD) followed the first CONS (433 AD; he was granted a second consulate in 443 AD) and presumably the two PVR;

- Anicius Acilius Glabrio Faustus, PPO for the second time in 442 AD after the CONS (438 AD).

- the third one is Fl. Anicius Auchenius Bassus, CONS 434 AD and PPO in 426 AD and a second time presumably in 435 AD (PLRE II, Bassus 8, pp. 220-221).

Faustus was PVR tertio, not secundo, at the time of his second PPO (references above) and therefore not even in this case can his cursus honorum match that of the honorand in the inscription. Regarding Bassus, he was comes rerum privatarum before the PPO and the CONS and this position can hardly be linked with secundo. The identification with Petronius Maximus, at this time of his career (439-442 AD,) would lead us to the rather problematic recording in l. 3 of another indication for the iteration of the PPO (in CIL 06, 01198 (cf. p. 4335) = ILS 0807 = ILS 0808 = LSA 1312 = EDR 129978, Maximus grouped his prefectures without distinction between the urban and the praetorian tenures: post qua[tt]uor praefecturas).

All the other known candidates were in service later, post 476 AD. They are: Fl. Caecina Decius Maximus Basilius iunior, CONS in 480 AD and PPO in 483 AD (PLRE II, Basilius 12, p. 217); Fl. Anicius Probus Faustus iunior Niger, CONS in 490 AD and PPO in 509-512 (PLRE II, Faustus 9, pp. 454-455); Albinus iunior, CONS in 493 AD and PPO 500/503 AD (PLRE II, Albinus 9, pp. 51-52); Rufius Magnus Faustus Avienus iunior, CONS in 502 AD and PPO in 527-528 AD (PLRE II, Avienus 2, pp. 192-193); Fl. Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator, CONS in 514 AD and PPO 533-537 AD (PLRE II, Cassiodorus 4, pp. 265-269). Faustus iunior and Cassiodorus can be excluded because they were appointed to palatine offices before the PPO; for the other officials, we do not know of any other position held between the CONS and the PPO, but this silence may depend on the few sources we have on their career (particularly lengthy is the interval between the two offices held by Avienius iunior). For the same reason, it is difficult to find any position that they might have detained twice before the CONS. Identification with one of these officials, however, raises problems of chronology because the later honorary monuments for officials in the Roman Forum date to the mid-5th Century (see the list in Bauer 1996, pp. 405-408; cf. Chenault 2012, p. 132; Machado 2019, pp. 116-121). A statue base dedicated to one of these praetorian prefects in the post-imperial period would be a unicum in our documentation.

Conclusion

To sum up, the fragment testifies to an honour granted to a high-ranking official in the Roman Forum. From the very small portion of the cursus honorum that survives on the fragment, the honorand seems to have held the consulate not at the end of his career, but before the appointment to another office, the praetorian prefecture or the prefecture of Rome. This peculiarity narrows down the number of candidates, but does not allow a definite identification. Together with the extremely fragmented condition of the text, the main problem is the different degree of completeness of our consular and prefectural lists: while all the names of the consuls are attested, we lack information on many urban and praetorian prefects. This problem especially affects the Fasti of these offices in the 5th Century and therefore suggests a chronology for our fragment within that century, with the caveat, however, that the sharp decline of these honorary monuments pleads against a post 450/460 AD date. The use of secundo in the cursus to indicate the iteration of a position and the peculiar hierarchy of offices attested all point to a 5th Century date. In the 4th Century very few careers extended beyond the ordinary consulship. The examples cited above are often attributable to the support provided by an official to a usurper who then went on to reward them with a “second career”. Conversely, the earlier access of members of senatorial families to the highest administrative positions (Chastagnol 1982, pp. 189-192), resulted in a large number of 5th Century careers in which the consulship might have been the prelude to new prestigious appointments, such as the prefecture of Rome and the praetorian prefecture. We have seen above that among the officials serving in that period, only the career of Petronius Maximus may fit the two possible sequences of our fragment. But the identification with another 5th Century functionary whose cursus honorum is only partially known cannot be excluded.

Bibliography

Bauer F.A., Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spätantike. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spätantiken Städten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz 1996.

Chastagnol A., Les fastes de la préfecture de Rome au Bas-empire, Paris 1962.

Chastagnol A., La carrière sénatoriale du Bas-empire (depuis Dioclétien), in Epigrafia e ordine senatorio (Atti del Colloquio Internazionale AIEGL, Roma 14-20 maggio 1981, Tituli 4), Roma 1982, 167-193.

Chenault R., Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity, JRS, 102, 2012, 103-132.

Delmaire R., Les responsables des finances impériales au Bas-Empire romain (IVe-VIe s.): études prosopographiques, Bruxelles 1989.

Gordon A.E., Supralineate Abbreviations in Latin Inscriptions, Berkeley – Los Angeles 1948 (repr. Milano 1977).

Humphries M., Valentinian III and the City of Rome (425-55): Patronage, Politics, Power, in Grig L., Kelly G. (eds.), Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford 2012.

Machado C., Urban Space and Aristocratic Power in Late Antique Rome, AD 270-535, Oxford 2019.

Niquet H., Monumenta virtutum titulique: senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spätantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmäler, Stuttgart 2000.

Panciera S., Iscrizioni greche e latine del Foro romano e del Palatino. Inventario generale - inediti – revisioni, Roma 1996 (a).

Panciera S., Il precettore di Valentiniano III, in C. Stella, A. Valvo (a cura di), Studi in onore di Albino Garzetti, Brescia 1996 (b), 277-297 (= Petronio Massimo precettore di Valentiniano III, in Id., Epigrafi, epigrafia, epigrafisti. Scritti vari editi e inediti (1956-2005) con note complementari e indici, Roma 2006, 1153-1166).

Porena P., Le origini della prefettura del pretorio tardoantica, Roma 2003.

Porena P., La scelta fra iterazione e durata delle cariche nei cursus honorum epigrafici dei senatori tardoromani in Occidente, in Caldelli M.L., Gregori G.L. (a cura di), Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni dopo (Tituli 10), Roma 2014, 195-214.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit