The column of Trajan was completed in 113 A.D. to commemorate the victory in the Dacian War. This paper reexamines the meaning of two sacrificial scenes (86, 98-99), which have been interpreted as the pledge for victory. In scene 86, the emperor performs sacrifice in front of a theatre in a harbor, while he pours libation in front of the huge bridge over the Donau allegedly constructed by Apollodorus of Damascus in scene 98-99. Before the reign of Trajan, sacrificial iconographies for the pledge of victory usually have temple architectures in the background, which implies gods the sacrifices are dedicated to. However, in the two scenes, typical roman architectures are represented in the background. I would argue that the two scenes represent not the pledge for victory, but commemorating the completion of typical Roman architectures. Two scenes may also have a meaning of praising Trajan, who completed the great construction in Roman colonies. This characteristics can also be seen not only in other scenes on the column of Trajan such as constructing roads, military camps and bridges, but also in the inscription on the base of the column.

抄録全体を表示

In 96 A.D. Roman Emperor Domitian was assassinated and M. Cocceius Nerva, an old Italian noble, was proclaimed emperor. But about one year later, Nerva adopted a Spanish general, M. Ulpius Traianus (Trajan) and nominated him as his coruler. Most scholars consider that this adoption is one of the most significant events in the history of the principate, because it inaugurated a new system of succession (Adoptivkaisertum). One of them regards it as an expression of the Stoic ideal, another one considers that by accepting this system the principate was reconciled with the philosophy which had opposed Nero and the Flavian Emperors. In the Panegyric, however, Pliny the younger insisted that the important point about this adoption was not the method but the person adopted. And he described Nerva as a helpless old man and a tool of the God for Trajan's adoption. How are we to understand his opinion? In this paper we have tried to clarify the political process to this adoption and Pliny's political position under Nerva. Our arguments are as follows. As a candidate for Nerva's successor, Trajan had a rival whose career G. Alfoldy and H. Halfmann reconstruct. His name is M. Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatius Maternus. He was connected with Domitianic senators and perhaps the praetorian prefect, Casperius Aelianus. In the summer of 97, Casperius and his troops rose in revolt to avenge Domitian. Succumbing to their demands, Emperor Nerva had a tendency gradually to agree with Nigrinus and Domitianic group. But this political situation was changed by L. Licinius Sura. He made Nerva's final choice fall upon Trajan. (We must make much of Epitome de Caesaribus XIII, 7; it means not Sura's proposal but his real political maneuvering.) Therefore, in the process to the adoption we can find neither new system nor philosophical principle. We can see only a scramble for political power. Then, by our interpretation on the political process, we can explain the political position and opinions of Pliny. He was one of the anti-Domitianic senators. He accused a Domitianic senator, Publicius Certus who was supported by Nigrinus. So Pliny was helped by the adoption and nomination of Trajan (not Nigrinus). He couldn't praise Nerva except for the final choice, because Nerva had leaned toward Pliny's political opponents for a while. These personal affairs influenced his opinions on the adoption and the picture of Nerva in the Panegyric.

抄録全体を表示

Nel 123 aC fu istituito da C Gracco il sistema della distnbuzione del grano a Roma (frumentationes) che garantiva ai cittadini romani di poter comperare ogni mese una certa quantita a un prezzo politico Nel 53 a C il sisitema fu sostituito da P Clodio con una nuova forma di distnbuzione annonaria A partire da questo periodo i cittadini romani in particolari condizioni potevano godere del grano gratuito dallo Stato Il numero massimo della plebs frumentaria poteva arrivare fino a 320000 Cesare e l'lmperatore Augusto ndussero il numero dei nceventi Nel periodo augusteo la citta di Roma aveva circa un milione di abitanti e quasi tutti i loro fabbisogni dipendevano dalla produzione cerealicola delle province d'oltremare Nel 22 a C Augusto acetto direttamente tutta la responsabilita dell'approvvigionamento del grano (cura annonae] Di consequenza, lo Stato doveva provvedere non solo alle frunmentationes, ma anche all'mtera procedura annonaria della Capitale Alia foce del Tevere si trovava la citta portuale di Ostia con cui Roma fu collegata dalla via fluviale La citta fu fondata mizialmente con un obbiettivo militare difensivo, ma divento un centre di raccolta e di distnbuzione dei vari prodotti provinciali in virtu dei potenziamenti portuali eseguiti dagli imperatori Claudio e Traiano per assicurare l'importdzione del grano d'oltremare Dal punto di vista infrastrutturale del trasporto del grano, il sistema annonario fu completato A Roma era distnbuito il grano e ci si trovavano i fornai (pistores] Alcuni potevano mangiare il pane prodotto da loro, ma la maggior parte dei poveri dovevano mangiarlo come puls Traiano, secondo Aurelio Vittorio, escogito il collegium pistorum e lo rafforzo Anche ad Ostia si trovano sei aree delle attivita dei fornai e ci rimangono nove iscnzioni relative al collegium (corpus) pistorum Come era la relazione fra il corpus pistorum e la cura annonae ad Ostia? Per questo, prendiamo in considerazione una iscnzione onorana di M Licnio Privato scoperto nella citta (CIL XIV 374=ILS 6165) Questa epigrafe e composta da 20 righe Le righe 3^a, 7^i, 12^a e 14^a incise con i caratteri piu piccoli sono state inserite in un secondo momento in quella originale Ma tutte le righe ongmali e inserite sono relative alla stessa persona M Licino Privato Le righe originali ci mdicano che l'onorato fu magister quinquennalis del collegium tignuariorum Ostiensium e fece la donazione dei 50000 sesterzi alia citta di Ostia Per questa munificenza gli fu concesso I'honor biselli Le quattro righe msente ci indicano che lui fu quaestor et quinquennalis del corpus pistorum Ostiensium et Portensium Mentre suo figlio e suo nipote diventarono decuriones della citta, a lui stesso furono concessi solo gli ornamenta decunonalia Considerando le 31 iscrizioni riguardanti la concessione degli ornamenta negli ambiti municipali dell'Italia, la maggior parte dei nceventi era di condizione libertina e furono concessi gli ornamenta come un riconoscimento ai loro atti evergetici verso una citta Una delle tre iscnzoni, rmvenute ad Ostia sulla concessione degli ornamenta dei decunoni, indica che gli ornamenta furono dati a un procurator annonae Ostiensis (CIL XIV 2045=ILS 5651) Perche gli ornamenta decunonalia furono concessi a chi lavorava sotto il controllo dello State? M Licinio Privato non era che un magistrate del corpus pistorum e non apparteneva alla gestinone della cura annonae Ma, ad Ostia c'erano molti lavoratori nell'ambito annonario Oltre a questi ci stanzavano anche i vigiles Nella loro caserma non c'e nessuna traccia dell'attivita della panificazione Il corpus pistorum di Ostia doveva fornirgli il pane Pensando alla ragion d'essere della citta, possiamo giungere a una conclusione partecipare all'attivita annonaria, ad Ostia, significava contemporaneamente dare un contribute alla citta stessa e gli ornamenta furono

(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)

抄録全体を表示

The Alimentary Tables of Veleia and Ligures Baebiani provide us with most important information on landholding conditions in Italy during the early Empire. Many scholars who have investigated these tables conclude that they, especially the Baebian Table, testify to the survival of small holdings, though they indicate the development of latifundia as well. But in the Table of Baebiani, the landowners don't register all of their estates. The data in this table is therefore not as instructive as is often thought. We should examine the landholding conditions mainly through the analysis of the Table of Veleia. My conclusion regarding landholding distribution is as follows. (1)In the Table of Veleia six large landowners (including one who appears only as a neighbour) are found. They seem to have possessed the larger part of the land in this district. (2)At least sixty or seventy medium-sized landowners (including at least twenty or thirty neighbours) form the middle class. (3)More than a hundred and fifty who do not register their estates and appear only as neighbours, perhaps together with those who never appear in this table, form a large group of small-owners. The estates of wealthy landowners composed of many component fundi each of which was made up from a few smaller fundi. The component fundi are in many cases contiguous. Therefore an estate of a wealthy landowner was either a single integrated estate or consisted of groups of contiguous component fundi. This landholding situation has already been seen in the Alimentary Tables and is in accordance with evidence provided by the agrimensores and Younger Pliny. The landowners of this period endeavoured to integrate their estates, through such incidental opportunities as inheritance or purchase. These efforts, however, did not lead to large-scale cultivation. Their estates were probably divided into small or medium size parcels of land.

抄録全体を表示