JONES,Titus and Some Flavian Amici

8/12/2019 JONES,Titus and Some Flavian Amici

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/jonestitus-and-some-flavian-amici 1/10

Titus and Some Flavian Amici

Author(s): Brian W. JonesSource: Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte, Vol. 24, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1975), pp. 454-462Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435457 .

Accessed: 08/04/2011 04:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Historia:

Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435457?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4435457?origin=JSTOR-pdf




TITUS AND SOME FLAVIAN AMICI1

It has long been admitted that an emperor's amici had a significant role to

play in the administration of the empire, a fact that was recognised even by

observers at the time2; but the policy adopted in their selection is a matter of

some dispute and far less easy to determine, since it is essential to take into

account such divergent and almost irreconcilable elements as the continuityof these administrators from one reign to the next3, and, on the other hand,

the emperors' not uncommon practice of coopting individuals with particu-

lar talents on certain occasions only4. These and other factors make it some-

what hazardous to attempt to devise the policy adopted by any one emperor

In this paper, the following abbreviations, in addition to the standardones, have been used:

Alfoldy = G. Alfoldy, Fasti Hispanienses, enatorisrcheeichsbeamtend Offiziere n der spanischen

Provinzdesromischen eicbes onAugustusbis Diokletian(Wiesbaden, 1969);

Crook = J. Crook, ConsiliumPrincipis Cambridge, 1955);Dusanic = S. Dusanic, On the consulesuffecti f A. D 74-76 , Epigraphica 0 (1968), pp. 59-74;

Eck, Senatoren W. Eck, SenatorenonVespasianbisHadrian(Munich, 1970);

Eck, PompeiusSilvanus= W. Eck, M. Pompeius Silvanus, Consul Designatus Tertium - ein

VertrauterVespasians und Domitians , ZPE 9 (1972), pp. 259-276;

Garzetti = A. Garzetti, Nerva (Rome, 1950), the Albo Senatorio nel Regno di Nerva , pp.

103-164 (certi) and pp. 165-204 (incerti);

McW = M. McCrumand A. G. Woodhead, SelectDocuments f he Principates f the FlavianEm-

perors Cambridge, 1961);

Pflaum = H. G. Pflaum, Les CarrieresProcuratoriennesquestres sous le Haut-EmpireRomain

(Paris, 1960), Vol. I;

Pistor = H. H. Pistor, Prinzepsund Patriziat in der Zeit vonAugustusbis CommodusDiss. Frei-

burg, 1965);

Stech = B. Stech, SenatoresRomaniquifuerint ndea Vespasiano sque d Traianiexitum(Leipzig,

1912);

Syme, I or II = R. Syme, Tacitus Oxford, 1958), Vol. I or Vol. II;

Townend = G. Townend, Some Flavian Connections ,JRS LI (1961), pp. 54-62.

2 nullum maius boni imperii instrumentum quam bonos amicos esse , Tacitus, Hist. IV. 7. 3,

with Helvidius Priscus speaking.

3 Men such as Arrius Antoninus, P. Calvisius Ruso Julius Frontinus, Cn. Domitius Lucanus,

Cn. Domitius Tullus, Fabricius Veiento, Ti. Julius CandidusMarius Celsus, Sex. Julius Frontinus

andL.

Julius Ursus are listed by Crook (pp.148 ff.) as amici both of the Flavians and also of Tra-

jan.

4 e. g. the younger Pliny, who was euocatusn consiliumEp. VI. 31. 1) and in consiliumdsumptus

(Ep. IV. 22. 1) on occasions which demanded a man with his particularexpertise.

Historia, Band XXIV/3 (1975) ? Franz SteinerVerlag GmbH, Wiesbaden, BRD



Titus and some Flavian Amici 455

in this regard, and even more so with an emperor whose reign was as brief as

Titus'.

Not surprisingly, then, most modern commentators have tended to be re-

ticent on this topic. Crook, however, has observed that Vespasian and Titus

approached the problem quite differently; according to him, it was Titus' de-

sire to remove those of his father's amici who had opposed him that led to the

judicial murder of Eprius Marcellus and of Caecina Alienus; but the unfa-

vourable reaction forced him to revise his policy in an amazingly rapid vol-

te-face , although, suggests Crook, once more securely seated he (Titus)

might well have reopened the campaign against his father's amici 6. The

theory is interesting, but doubts must persist as to whether there was any

such change of tactics as Crook envisages. In this paper, it will be argued that

Titus had a clear and consistent policy in selecting his amici, and that he did

not abandon the campaign against his father's appointees when he reached

the throne, but rather persisted with it in a more subtle manner.

Now Suetonius provides some information on the policy he followed in

selecting his amici:-

arnicos elegit (Titus) quibus etiam post eum principes ut sibi et rei publi-

cae necessariis adquieuerunt praecipueque sunt usi.6

In one respect - whether or not Domitian persevered with his brother'spolicy - this would appear to contradict7 Dio's comment on the treatment

meted out by Domitian to the amici of his father and brother: -

no)vixatEavrovV'TEpePfldA-TO IVTz TrovnoVaTpO'jp TOV TE d6eqoif qItAOvaTtuwOE xat o cOpko uesraxetptaet.8

Presumably Dio is referring to men such as M'. Acilius Glabrio, M. Arre-

cinus Clemens and T. Flavius Sabinus, all of whom Domitian executed9; but

he provides no information on Titus' policy as distinct from Vespasian's,

and one cannot, from his statement, infer that Titus retained every one of his

father's amici. Suetonius, on the other hand, implies that Titus either discard-ed the men chosen by Vespasian and appointed entirely new amici, or else

that he added to their number some of his own choice, and that they were

retained by the post eumprincipes. It would not in fact be inconsistent with

5 J. Crook, Titus and Berenice , AJP LXXII (1951), pp. 171-172.6 Diuus Titus, 7. 2.

7 Crook, p. 49, note 10, discusses the apparentcontradiction. See further note 10 below.8 LXVII. 2. 1. There is also Pliny's comment on C. Julius Bassus (Crook, no. 172; PIR2 J. 205

and R. Syme,JRS XXXVI (1946), pp. 162-163) - ,,Titum timuit ut Domitiani amicus (Ep. IV.

9. 2); but one hesitates to draw any conclusion from this convoluted piece of information(K. H. Waters, The Characterof Domitian , Phoenix18 (1964), p. 64, note 35).

9 Glabrio - PIR2 A. 67, Crook, no. 3; for his death, Suetonius, Dom., 10. 2; Clemens - PIR2 A.1072, Crook, no. 31 and Suetonius, Dom., 11: according to Townend, p. 57 with note 9, there is apossibility that Clemens was exiled and not killed; Sabinus - PIR2 F. 355, Crook, no. 151 b: hisdeath is mentioned in Suetonius, Dom., 10. 4.



456 BRIAN W. JONES

either ancient source to suggest that Titus appointed additional candidates of

his ownl0. Indeed, one must go further; an examination of the careers of a

number of prominent Flavian amicireveals that many of them lost favour un-

der Titus but were later promoted by Domitian in the first two years of his

reign. In other words, Titus continued with the campaign he had begun in

the last year of his father's reign, directed as it was against those entrenched

Flavian amiciwho were either related to Vespasian or else had been appoint-

ed as a reward for their services in the civil war.

In attempting to determine any emperor's selection policy in this regard, it

is not enough to consider as an amicusonly those attested as such in inscrip-

tions and literature since many important figures would inevitably be omit-

ted; recipients of such marks of favour as an iterated consulship or perhaps

the praefectura rbis1'must also come into consideration. And whilst it can be

maintained that Titus had few opportunities between June 79 and Septem-

ber 81 to make awards of this nature, it would not be unreasonable to com-

pare the policy he followed in his reign with that of Domitian over a similar

period of time. On this basis, the careers of four particularly prominent

Flavian amici are worthy of consideration: each of them was honoured early

in Vespasian's reign, not promoted by Titus, but rewarded by Domitian in

the first two years of his reign.

Q. Petillius CerialisCaesius Rufus12,who was probably Vespasian's son-in-

law, had been legate of the IX Hispana in Britain, and was a notable Flavian

supporter in the civil war. Honours then came to him rapidly - a consulship

inabsentia13,with Mucianus as his colleague, followed by two successive con-

sular legateships (in Lower Germany and Britain)14.Returning to Rome, he

was to hold a second consulship with another prominent Flavian, Eprius

Marcellus, in the memorable15year of 74; and whilst we have no evidence

that Titus promoted him, he was, it seems likely, cos. ord. III in the second

10 Crook (note 7 above) argues that it would be truer to say that Titus kept the amici of his

father . . . than that he chose them in the first place ; on the other hand, Suetonius' elegilis quite

clear and ought not be completely rejected.

1' These are the criteria suggested by Crook, pp. 25-26 with note 10, and also by R. Syme,

Some Friends of the Caesars AJP LXXVII (1956), p. 266.

12 PIRI P. 191; Stech, no. 44; Crook, no. 252a; Duganic, pp. 71-72; A. R. Birley, The Roman

Governors of Britain , ES 4 (1967), pp. 66-67 and pp. 99-100, and ibid. Petillius Cerialisand the

Conquest of Brigantia , Britannia4 (1973), pp. 179-190.

13 R. Syme, Consulatesin Absence ,JRS XLVIII (1958), p. 6 with notes 65 to 70.

14 The evidence for these two commands is listed by A. R. Birley, ES 4 (1967), pp. 66-67.

16 The consulesrdinariior the year were Vespasian and Titus, and they were followed, duringthe period from Januaryto April, by four prominent Flavian supporters - Plautius Silvanus, Vi-

bius Crispus, Petillius Cerialisand Eprius Marcellus, each of whom received a second consulship.

See, in general, Dusanic, p. 72; the evidence for the date of Vibius Crispus' second consulship,

which Alfoldy, p. 19, wrongly assigns to ,,einem unbekannten Jahr , is given by Petersenin PIR2

J. 847.




year of Domitian's reign'8-, a promotion that serves to underline Titus' poli-

cy towards his father's appointees. T. Flavius Sabinus 7,grandson of Vespa-

sian's brother (cos.45), and also Titus' son-in-law, is listed by Crook as an

amicus of all three Flavians'8; however it was Domitian and not Titus who

appointed him ordinary consul in 8219.

The same pattern can be observed in the careers of two other politicians,

both of whom were quite adept at swimming with the stream20- L. Junius

Q. Vibius Crispus21and M. Pompeius Silvanus Staberius Flavinus22. Vibius

Crispus, skilfully navigating the surges of civil war 23,held four consular

appointments under Vespasian - as curatoraquarumto 71), proconsulAfricae

(71), leg. Aug. pr. pr. Hispaniae Citerioris (73 or 76), and cos. 11 (74, attestedin March24) but was not promoted by Titus; in 83, he received a third con-

sulship25. Pompeius Silvanus, curatoraquarum mmediately after Vibius Cris-

pus and cos.II in 76, was another experienced and skilful politician whom Ti-

tus saw fit to overlook; once again, Domitian favoured one of his father's

administrators, designating him to a third consulship for 8326. These four

statesmen had somewhat similar careers, with (apart from Sabinus) at least

one senior post early in Vespasian's reign and another during the first two

years of Domitian's; and whilst Titus may not have excluded them com-

pletely from his administration, it is remarkable that not one sign of approvalwas bestowed on any of them during his reign.

Again, other Flavian amici not promoted by Titus were honoured early in

his brother's reign - not in the first two years in all cases, but at least by 85.

T. Aurelius Fulvus27, commander of the III Gallicain the Orient and then in

26 A. R. Birley, Britannia4 (1973), pp. 186-187.27 PIR2 F. 355; Stech, no. 177; and Townend, passim. 18 Crook, no. 151b.

19 Eck, Senatoren, p. 48-54 and especially p. 53, argues for this at some length.20 numquam derexit bracchiacontra/torrentem , Juv. IV, 89-90 (of Vibius Crispus).21 PIR' V. 379; PIR2 J. 847; Stech, no. 14; Alfoldy, pp. 18-19;

Pflaum, pp.128-136 and

espe-cially p. 132; R. Syme, HSCP 73 (1969), p. 216 and REA 58 (1956), p. 239 with note 6.22 PIR' P. 495; Stech, no. 7. A. Jagenteufel, Die StauthalterderrimisrchenrovinzDalmatia von

Augurtusbis Diokletian(Vienna, 1958) no. 12, pp. 42-44; Dusanic, pp. 59 ff.; and, in particular,

Eck, PompeiusSilvanus, pp. 259-276.23 Syme I, p. 100 (of Vibius Crispus and Eprius Marcellus).24 The date of his Spanish legateship is disputed; Eck, Senatoren, . 226, note 477, convincingly

argues for a date after his second consulship, which now must be assigned to March, 74 (see note

15). 26 McW, p. 11; Eck, Senaloren,pp. 58-61.26 Eck, PomptiusSilvanus,pp. 259-267 argues that he was cos.des.III for 83.27 PIR2 A. 1510; Stech, no. 90 (Fulvus no. 318, p. 44, is not this man, as Stech suggests, but

rather his son); Crook, no. 50; Syme II, p. 793, no. 4; Alfoldy, pp.19-21; and Pflaum, pp. 95 if.Born in Nemausus, he first appearsas one of Corbulo's legates (ILS 232), and after the civil war,

was probably granted patrician status by Vespasian (Pistor, p. 57). In 85 he was ordinary consul

(see note 31), an honour his son was to receive in 89; this was a rareaward for non-Flavians and

even rarerfor provincials in the period from 70 to 96, and furthermore,apartfrom Vespasian and

his two sons, no fatherand son held ordinaryconsulships in the Flavian period.



458 BRIAN W. JONES

Moesia (to 69), was awarded the fasces in 69 or 70, presumably as a reward

for services rendered; his legion had taken the lead in bringing over the

Moesian army to the side of Vespasian28, and moreover, since he was no lon-

ger in command when the III Gallicainvaded Italy29, t is not impossible that

he had gone to join Vespasian himself. Later in the reign, he was appointed

consular30 egate in Spain. He next appears as ordinary3' consul (II in 85) and

City Prefect under Domitian32. Q. Julius Cordinus C. Rutilius Gallicus, listed

by Crook as an amicus33 of Domitian (but not of Vespasianor Titus), had re-

ceived a consulship in 71 or 723, possibly as a reward for his services in the

civil war; thence he was sent on a special mission to Africa and later appoint-

ed consular legate of Lower Germany3: - clearly he was regarded as a loyal

supporter or Vespasian. Though Titus did not promote him, Domitian gave

him a second consulship36, possibly as early as 8237, and later in the reign he

became praefectusurbi38(presumably betore Aurelius Fulvus). Again, the

brothers Domitii - Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus39and Gnaeus Domitius Tul-

lus40- held a praetorian legateship and the consulship in Vespasian's reign,

were both at that period adlected into the patriciate4 and are said by Crook

to have been amici of all three Flavian emperors; they next appear as procon-

suls of Africa in Domitian's reign42.

28 R. Syme, Consulates in Absence , JRS XLVIII (1958), p. 7.28 The legate was then C. Dillius Aponianus (RE XII, 1529). For his career, see PIR2 D. 89,

Stech, no. 172 and D. McAlindon, JRS XLVII (1957), p. 193; of Spanish origin, he had served

as leg. eg. under his relative Aponius Saturninusin 69 (Syme II, p. 594, note 1, and p. 785), and was

awardedthe fascesc. 73 (McW, p. 6).

30 That his legateship in Spain was praetorianwas suggested by R. Syme, HSCP 73 (1969), p.

216, note 50, but denied by Pflaum, p. 97, Alfoldy, p. 19 and Eck, Senatoren, . 226, note 478.

31 McW, p. 8, hesitatingly lists L. Valerius Catullus Messallinus as cos. ord. in 85; but Syme II,

pp. 638-639 convincingly argues for Messallinus as cos. suff., with Aurelius Fulvus as cos. ord.for

85 (accepted by Alfoldy, p. 20, note 105).

32 Syme II, p. 644 (Appendix 13); it is possible that he was still in office in 97 (Syme II, p. 793).33 PIR1 R. 167. Stech, no. 43; D. McAlindon, op cit., p. 191; and Crook, no. 287.

34 McW, p. 6.Il AE 1936,28 (Africa); CIL XVI, 23 (Lower Germany). 3* McW, p. 11.

37 There are numerous gaps in the Fasti for the years 82 and 84. Groag's suggestion (RE 1 A,

1261) that his second consulship is to be assigned to 90 must be rejected,for the consuls from 86 to

92 (the year of his death) are all known. It should be noted that he had been adlected into the sen-

ate by Claudius(AE 1920, 55), and not by Vespasian, as Groag assumed.

3S Syme II, p. 644 (Appendix 13).

39 PIR2 D. 152; Stech. no. 106; ILS 990; and Crook, no. 135a. His daughter, Domitia Lucilla

(PIR2 D. 182), married P. Calvisius Tullus Ruso (PIR2 C. 357), and the child of that union, Domi-

tia Lucilla (PIR2 D. 183), was the mother of MarcusAurelius.40 PIR2 D. 167; Stech, no. 107; ILS 991; and Crook, no. 135a. He held a second consulship in

98 - see R. Syme,JRS XLIV (1954), p. 81 with note 6. It is to be noted that both brothers were

Narbonensian. 41 Pistor, p. 46.

I The dates of their various offices are disputed. Eck, Senatoren, p. 91-92 and p. 234, argues

for 70-72 (praetorianlegali), 76-77 or earlier (consuls), and 89-91 (proconsuls of Africa). McW, p.




These four administrators were loyal supporters of Vespasian whom

Domitian employed in senior posts fairly early in his reign; and whilst Titus'

failure to advance them may be less significant than his attitude to the other

four more prominent statesmen, one cannot fail to note once again that

Domitian's approach to the appointment of senior administrators was, un-

like his brother's, extremely conservative, and that the last of the Flavians,

like the first, relied very heavily on the family's traditional supporters. Of

course, Titus could not possibly have promoted all of these men; but, as

Domitian showed, it was not necessary to ignore them all. He saw fit to

award third consulships to three of them and an ordinary consulship to other

during a period some two months shorter than Titus' reign; and given the

rarity of these awards under the Flavians, the difference is particularly strik-

ing and surely significant43, indicating a deliberate policy either to exclude

them completely or else to lessen their influence.

A more positive indication of Titus' intentions can be obtained from four

of his senior appointments; whilst these men cannot be classified as amici,

their promotions may be taken as showing the sort of men on whom he

meant to rely. It is very likely that the proconsul of Asia in 80, C. Laecanius

Bassus Caecina Paetus (PIR2 C. 104 and L. 33) was the younger son of

A. Caecina Paetus (C. 103) and of Arria (A. 1113); his sister Arria (A. 1114)had married Thrasea Paetus (C. 1187), whilst his niece Fannia (F. 118) was

the second wife of Helvidius Priscus the Elder (H. 59). Presumably he had

some sympathy with his family's beliefs, and this may in fact have prompted

his promotion44; for Vespasian was known to have been on friendly terms

with Barea Soranus and Thrasea Paetus before his accession46. Again, Titus

had married Soranus' niece Marcia Furnilla; but the relationship had been

clearly and publicly severed in 6646 when Titus divorced Marcia so as to

preserve his political career. He may have considered that now, fourteen

years later, he could with profit revert to his family's policy of friendship withthe opposition47 in order o broaden is baseof support.

11, following Groag in PIR2 D. 167, suggests that they held thefascesin Domitian's reign, but this

is most unlikely (C. P. Jones, Phoenix22 (1968), p. 119, and Syme II, p. 794 and p. 834).43 Syme II, p. 643, lists nine iterated consulships of Domitian's reign, to which one might well

add those of Petillius Cerialis(IIM) nd of Pompeius Silvanus (cos.des.III) and subtract that of Q.

Petillius Rufus II (= Petillius CerialisIII - see A. R. Birley, Britannia4 (1973), pp. 186-187). It is

noteworthy that Domitian made four of these awards in 83 and seven of them by the end of 85.44 It is hardly likely that anyone unacceptable to the emperor would receive the proconsulship

of Asia.

4

fuisse Vespasiano amicitiam cum Thrasea, Sorano.. . , Tacitus, Hist. IV, 7. Crook in-cludes them in Vespasian's amici (nos. 57 and 103), but they should be left out (R. Syme, AJPLXXVII (1956), S. 267). 4' Townend, p. 57 with note 10.

47 This seems to have been Domitian's policy too, for he awardedsuffectconsulships to philo-

sophers such as Helvidius Priscus (before 87), Arulenus Rusticus (92) and Avidius Quietus (93),

as I have argued in Domitian's Attitude to the Senate AJP XCIV (1973), pp. 79-91.



460 BRIAN W. JONES

Perhaps this was the reason for the belated consulship awarded to

M. Tittius Frugi in 8048.Ten years previously, he had been legatusof the XV

Apollinaris and participated in Titus' Council of War49; but, for some un-

known reason, Vespasian did not promote him and it was not until his for-

mer commander's accession to the throne that he received his consulship.

Yet other legionary commanders of 68/69 who had displayed loyalty to the

new dynasty received the fasces almost at once6?. Now Titus may simply have

been rewarding an old colleague; on the other hand, his motives may have

been more complex, and, if he was moving away from traditional Flavian

supporters, one would expect to see promotions such as this. A legionary le-

gate from the civil war period with a career similar to that of Tittius Frugi

was M. Roscius Coelius, commander of the XX Valeria Victrix5l; his unit

was stationed in Britain in 69 but it was not until March 81 that he received

his suffect consulship52.He had been involved in a mutiny against the gover-

nor of Britain, Trebellius Maximus53,whose policies were very unpopular

with the army and were in no small measure responsible for the revolt54.But

whereas Trebellius had fled to Vitellius, Coelius remained loyal to the new

dynasty, and had there been any doubts about his attitude, he would never

have been promoted. Once again, Titus was promoting a man whom his

father had deliberately overlooked, with the intention, presumably, of seek-ing support beyond the traditional Flavian area. Finally, there was L. Tettius

Julianus, commander of the VII Claudiain 68/69 whilst it was stationed in

MoesiaB5;in 80, he was awarded the Numidian command by Titus, and

granted thefasces by his brother three years later . Vespasian's failure to ad-

mit him to the consulship is puzzling, since he must have been loyal and

clearly was a capable soldier - he had been given the Moesian legion whilst,

like Titus, still of quaestorian status57,and subsequently was considered by

Domitian to be capable of directing the campaign on the Danube, a task

which he performed most efficiently, as his famous victory at Tapae in 88 in-

*8 PIR1 T. 208; Stech, no. 121; Garzetti, p. 197 and McW, p. 8. 49 RE XII, 1755.60 e. g. M. Ulpius Traianus(leg.leg.X Fretensis,67/68 and cos. suff. ?70), T. Aurelius Fulvus (leg.

leg. III Gallicae, 64/69 and cos. suff. 69 or 70), L. Annius Bassus (legleg. XI Claudiae,69 and cos.

suff. 71), Sex. Vettulenus Cerialis (leg/eg. V Macedonicac, 67/70, X Fretensis,71 and cos.suff. ?73),

Cn. Pompeius Collega (leg.leg.IV Scythicae,69/70 and cos.suff. ?73) and C. Dillius Aponianus (leg.

leg.III Gallicae,69 or 70, and cos.suff. ?73).I PIR' R. 67; Stech, no. 124; Garzetti, p. 192; and RE XII, 1778. 62 McW, p. 7.

63 PIR' T. 239; Stech, no. 15; and A. R. Birley, ES 4 (1967), p. 66.

64 Tacitus, Hist. I. 60 and Agricola7. 3. The revolt is discussed by R. M. Ogilvie and I. Rich-mond, Core/lii Tacitide Vita Agricolae,(Oxford, 1967), p. 155.

PIR1 T. 102; Stech. no. 92; Garzetti, p. 196; and RE XII, 1625.

AE 1954, 137 (Numidia) and McW, p. 8.

67 The three men of the period who were given command of a legion before becoming praetors

were Titus, Tettius Julianus and A. Larcius Lepidus Sulpicianus (PIR2 L. 94).




dicated 8. Furthermore, he seems to have had powerful connections in the

senatorial and equestrian hierarchy; for between Domitian's two Danubian

commanders, Tettius Julianus and Funisulanus Vettonianus (governor of

Dalmatia, Pannonia and Moesia Superior in succession between 79 and 8759),

a link was provided by Funisulana Vettulla60, the wife of Domitian's first

Prefect of Egypt, C. Tettius Africanus8l. Titus' promotion of this capable

and well connected general is consistent with the theory that he was looking

beyond his father's men and seeking supporters of his own.

On the other hand, Titus neither attempted nor intended to replace all of

his father's amici. He was slowly moving towards a new policy, having

learned from the Eprius Marcellus - Caecina affair that sudden, violent

change, however desirable, could produce unnecessary hostility. Therefore,

M. Arrecinus Clemens62,his first wife's brother, who had received a consul-

ship from Vespasian, was appointed consular legate of Spain by Titus, so it

appears, and subsequently given a second consulship by Domitian. A. Di-

dius Gallus Fabricius Veiento63, another amicusof all three Flavians, received

his second consulship from Titus and a third from Domitian64. These men

and, no doubt, others like them were regarded by Titus as either too capable

or too dangerous to be passed over.

Some conclusions, then, emerge. The promotion by Domitian, so early in

his reign, of a number of his father's amicionly serves to emphasize the fact

that over a similar period of time Titus awarded them not a single honour.

Domitian's attitude towards senior administrative appointments was as tra-

ditional as that of his brother was radical; for example, apart from Oppius

Sabinus in 84, a Domitianic governor of an imperial consular province who

had not served in a similar position under Vespasian or Titus cannot be at-

tested until the eighth year of his reign65. Such was not the way of Titus.

Having ruthlessly removed Eprius Marcellus and Caecina, he determined to

58 R. Syme, CAH XI (Cambridge,1936), p. 172.

'l PIR2 F. 570; Stech, no. 77; Alfoldy, pp. 126-127; and Garzetti, p. 124. The evidence for his

three successive consular legateships is listed by Eck, Senaloren, p. 127-138.6' PIR2 F. 571.

SI PIR1 T. 100 and A. Stein, Die PrafekienvonAgypienin der romischenKairerzeit, Bern, 1950),

p.41.62 PIR2 A. 1072; Stech, no. 58; Crook, no. 31 and Alfoldy, pp. 22-23, For his sister Arrecina

Tertulla, see PIR2 A. 1074, and Townend, p. 62.

63 PIR2 F. 91; Stech, no. 91, Garzetti, p. 121; Syme II, p. 633 (Appendix 5); W. C. McDermott,

Fabricius Veiento AJP XCI (1970), pp. 129-148; and Crook, no. 148.

4 AE 1948, 56 (cos. II) and Eck, Senatoren, p. 58-60 (cos.III).a6 i. e. P. Valerius Patruinus,who is attested as governor of Syria in a Diploma of November 7,

88 (CIL XVI, 35). One might well compare Titus' policy in this regard- A. Caesennius Gallus

(PIR2 C. 170 and G. 56; Stech, no. 76), whose consulship is to be assigned to Vespasian's reign,

was appointed to the Cappadocia-Galatiacomplex very early in Titus' reign (ILS 263; ILS 268

and CIL III, 14184, 48). It was his first such post.



462 BRIAN W. JONES,Titus and some Flavian Amici

persist with this policy and establish his own base of support, using his own

ratherthen his father's men. Thus he sought supporters from such groups inthe senate as the opposition and capable generals who had not obtained the

advancement they deserved. On the other hand, the traditionally Flavian

politicians were not overlooked completely, and Crook's view66 that he kept

the amiciof his father is partly correct; they were retained, but only in so far

as it was politically expedient for Titus to do so. It may well be that they

outnumbered the new men , but this is not a reliable guide to the empe-

ror's intentions or to the policy he was following in selecting his amici.Inev-

itably, this is an aspect of the imperial administration where caution is essen-

tial and where few definite trends can be established. One cannot, then, af-ford to ignore the obvious signs - the absence of iterated consulships during

Titus' reign and the bestowal of them by Domitian, in the first two years of

his reign, on men who might well have received them from his brother. This

was as clear an indication as one could expect of the policy that Titus had de-

vised. In essence, it was the one he had initiated before his accession, only

now he pursued it more subtly.

University of Queensland Brian W. Jones

66 See notes 7 and 10 above.