Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:32:10.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHAT'S IN A NAME? THE EVOLVING ROLE OF THE FRVMENTARII

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 July 2019

Stuart McCunn
Stuart McCunn*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the first century a.d. to the late third there existed a group of soldiers known as the frumentarii. Centralized in the late first century, they became an increasingly important force throughout the second century until Diocletian abolished them at the end of the third. Modern scholarship has usually seen their purpose as encompassing three roles: couriers, military police and secret police, with the last attracting the most attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , May 2019 , pp. 340 - 354
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Reynolds, P.K.B., ‘The troops quartered in the castra peregrinorum’, JRS 13 (1923), 168–89, at 170Google Scholar; Wedeck, H.E., ‘Ancient spies’, Classical Weekly 39 (1945), 31–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sinnigen, G.H.W., ‘The Roman secret service’, CJ 57 (1961), 65–72, at 65Google Scholar; M. Clauss, ‘Untersuchungen zu den principals des römischen Heeres von Augustus bis Diokletian: Cornicularii, speculatores, frumentarii’ (Diss., Bochum, 1973), 91; Cascio, E. Lo, ‘The Age of the Severans’, in Bowman, A.K., Garnsey, P. and Cameron, A. (edd.), CAH 2 (Cambridge, 2005), 12.137–55, at 151Google Scholar.

2 Secret agents: Sinnigen (n. 1), 67; Mitchell, S., Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor (Oxford, 1993), 1.229Google Scholar; Kos, M.Š., ‘The 15th legion at Emona—some thoughts’, ZPE 109 (1995), 227–44, at 243Google Scholar; Lo Cascio (n. 1), 151. Secret police: Reynolds (n. 1), 180; Sherk, R., ‘The inermes provinciae of Asia Minor’, AJPh 76 (1995), 400–13, at 413Google Scholar; Sinnigen (n. 1), 65; Rankov, N.B., ‘M. Oclatinius Adventus in Britain’, Britannia 18 (1987), 243–9, at 245CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mann, J.C., ‘The organization of frumentarii’, ZPE 74 (1988), 149–50, at 149Google Scholar; Southern, P., ‘The numeri of the Roman imperial army’, Britannia 20 (1989), 81–140, at 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bird, H.W., Aurelius Victor: Liber De Caesaribus (Liverpool, 1994), 174CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bowman, A.K., Garnsey, P. and Rathbone, D. (edd.), CAH 2 (Cambridge, 2000), 11.1185Google Scholar; Zuiderhoek, A., ‘Government centralization in late second and third century a.d. Asia Minor: a working hypothesis’, CW 103 (2009), 39–51, at 47Google Scholar. Spies: Wedeck (n. 1), 31–2; Rickman, G., Roman Granaries and Store Buildings (Cambridge, 1971), 275Google Scholar; Clauss (n. 1), 92; Rankov (this note), 245; Mann (this note), 149; Carrié, J.M., ‘Developments in provincial and local administration’, in Bowman, A.K., Garnsey, P. and Cameron, A. (edd.), CAH 2 (Cambridge, 2005), 12.269–312, at 288Google Scholar; Carlà, F., ‘Tu tantum praefecti mihi studium et annonam in necessariis locis praebe: prefettura al pretorio e annona militaris nel III secolo d. C.’, ZPE 56 (2007), 82–110, at 107–8Google Scholar; Urano, S., ‘Kolletiones and frumentarii: new readings of TAM V 3, 1417–1418. Two petitionary inscriptions from Ağabey Köy and Mendochora’, ZPE 176 (2011), 179–88, at 186Google Scholar. Internal security agency: Austin, N.J.E. and Rankov, N.B., Exploratio: Military and Political Intelligence in the Roman World from the Second Punic War to the Battle of Adrianople (London, 1995), 136Google Scholar.

3 Mann (n. 2), 149.

4 Bradshaw, G., Dark North (Sutton, 2007) (as the ‘grain commissary’)Google Scholar; Sidebottom, H., Warrior of Rome: Fire in the East (New York, 2008)Google Scholar; Brown, N., Agent of Rome: The Siege (London, 2011) (as ‘grain men’)Google Scholar; Douglas, M., Frumentarii (Amazon Media, 2014)Google Scholar (although he seems to have confused them with speculatores).

5 Rankov, B., ‘The origins of the frumentarii’, in Olivé, M. Meyer i, Baratta, G. and Almagro, A. Guzmán (edd.), XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae: Provinciae Imperii Romani Inscriptionibus Descriptae (Barcelona, 2007), 1169–72Google Scholar is the only major source to question this and believes that frumentarii got their name from the fact that they received frumentum rather than collected or distributed it. This is an interesting theory, but one that is purely speculative and requires the discarding of several inscriptions (most notably P.Gen.lat. I recto II. D.7; AE 1977, 171 Ostia). Clauss (n. 1), 12–13 accepts the frumentarii’s connection to supply officials, but believes that the connection between supply and espionage was already present under the Republic and that therefore the military unit of that name was always intended to be spies.

6 Reynolds (n. 1), 183.

7 AE 1977, 171.

8 SHA Hadr. 11.4–6, Marc. 12.4–5, Claud. Goth. 17.1. Fündling, J., Kommentar zur Vita Hadriani der Historia Augusta (Bonn, 2006), 589–90Google Scholar notes that the adjective curiosus is used to describe Hadrian immediately before the mention of frumentarii. Curiosus was a position held by agentes in rebus, often cited as the frumentarii’s successors, which suggests that this passage may be drawing an anachronistic connection between the two.

9 There has been much work done on this unusual source, but the best examination of its unreliability is probably Syme, R., Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971)Google Scholar; see also Cameron, A., The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2011), 743–82Google Scholar.

10 Mason, H.J., Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto, 1974), 19 and 32Google Scholar regards ἀγγελιαφόροι and γραμματοφόροι as the official (and interchangeable) Greek terms for frumentarii in literary documents. Paschoud, F., ‘Frumentarii, agentes in rebus, magistriani, curiosi, veredarii: problèmes de terminologie’, in Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1979/1981 (Bonn, 1983), 215–44, at 221–2Google Scholar argues forcefully that we cannot automatically make this association. He points out that there is one instance each where Dio uses ἀγγελιαφόρος or γραμματοφόρος during periods well before the frumentarii corps could have been formed (Dio Cass. 2 [Zonar. 7.10], sent by Sextus Tarquinius; 49.18, sent by Mark Antony) and comments on the irregularity of having two official Greek words for an official Latin position when usually a single Greek term was chosen. His caution is useful and these two words cannot be seen (as they often have been) to automatically indicate frumentarii, but it does not follow from this that none of these couriers is from that unit. It is certainly difficult to avoid the identification of the spy chiefs in charge of the couriers as anything but the principes peregrinorum in charge of the frumentarii. It is also worth noting that five of the eight times the words appear in Dio are in the section on Caracalla and Macrinus (ἀγγελιαφόρος: 79.15.1, 79.39.3; γραμματοφόρος: 79.4.3; 79.14.1, 79.34.7). This certainly suggests the rise of an important courier unit at this time and if not the frumentarii then who?

11 τὸ πολλὰ αὐτῷ τῶν ἀγγελιαφόρων σφᾶς ἡγουμένους πρὸς τὰς ἀνοσίους πολυπραγμοσύνας.

12 CIL 10.6657 (Antium).

13 Sinnigen, W.G., ‘The origins of the “frumentarii”’, MAAR 27 (1962), 212–24, at 221Google Scholar has cited the example of Macrinus in support of the idea that frumentarii did indeed operate in disguise. According to Dio, Macrinus disguised himself as a ‘soldier serving as a courier’ by ‘wearing a dark garment over his purple robe, in order that he might, so far as possible, resemble an ordinary citizen’ (στρατιώτης τις τῶν ἀγγελιαφόρων and ἐσθῆτα φαιὰν κατὰ τῆς ἁλουργοῦς, ἵν᾽ ὅτι μάλιστα ἰδιώτῃ τινὶ ἐοίκῃ [Dio Cass. 79.39.2–3]). As has already been noted, ἀγγελιαφόρος cannot automatically be taken to mean frumentarius. Furthermore, ἰδιώτης is more likely to mean that Macrinus was disguised as a common soldier rather than being a comparison between soldier and civilian. For these reasons this argument cannot support the weight placed on it.

14 Clauss (n. 1), 82.

15 Austin and Rankov (n. 2), 180.

16 Rankov, N.B., ‘Frumentarii, the castra peregrina and the provincial officia’, ZPE 80 (1990), 176–82, at 179Google Scholar.

17 nec ducum quisquam aut non amari a militibus aut amari timet (Plin. Pan. 18.3).

18 Greek authors also refer to the agentes in rebus using the terms ἀγγελιαφόροι and γραμματοφόροι (e.g. Lib. Or. 2.58, 18.135, both unambiguously describing the agentes), but gradually adopted the term μαγιστριανοί. The initial vagueness of titles may account for some of the confusion regarding the exact relationship between these units.

19 SHA Max. 10.3; Hdn. 7.7.5. This is one of the main reasons why γραμματοφόροι and ἀγγελιαφόροι are associated with frumentarii. Clauss (n. 1), 87 believes that the Historia Augusta gets this fact from Herodian and is just speculating about them being frumentarii.

20 This inscription is somewhat unclear, as the engraver does not seem to have known Latin. CIL 3.14191 Appia has pe[r] Didymum mili[t]e[m f]rum(entarium), while Rostovtzeff, M., The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1957 2), 74–5 no. 26Google Scholar reads pe[r] Didymum mil(item) frum(entarium), but many recent editions have followed Williams, W., ‘The libellus procedure and the Severan papyri’, JRS 64 (1974), 86–103, at 97Google Scholar no. 87, and regard it as reading per mili(tem) generum. See Hauken, T., Petition and Response: An Epigraphic Study of Petitions to Roman Emperors, 181–249 (Bergen, 1998), 145 (Aragua 3)Google Scholar, especially the footnote.

21 Clauss (n. 1), 89–90; Eck, W., Die  Verwaltung  des  römischen  Reiches  in  der  hohen  Kaiserzeit (Oxford, 1995), 69–70Google Scholar. Kolb, A., Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im römischen Reich (Berlin, 2000), 160–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar distinguishes between stationes militum and stationes used by the cursus publicus, but also admits that they were sometimes found at the same place. Somewhat perversely given the statements of literary sources, she identifies frumentarii found at the latter type of statio as serving merely as sentries.

22 Paschoud (n. 10), 223–32 argues against the identification of frumentarii as official couriers at all. His argument is based on the fact that Aurelius Victor is the first literary source to mention the frumentarii and he uses the phrase ‘appeared to have been established’ (instituti uiderentur) rather than saying directly that they were established, and then compares them to the agentes in rebus of his time. From this Paschoud has concluded that Victor did not know what the frumentarii actually were and just assumed that they were the same as the agentes in rebus, because they were sometimes used as messengers. All subsequent authors must therefore have based their description of the frumentarii on his, since three separate authors make the same mistake and call the frumentarii the predecessors to the agentes in rebus. This clever line of reasoning unfortunately does not have any force behind it, since there is no evidence that any of the three sources consulted Victor and no real reason to question what Victor says in the first place. Jerome's gloss of frumentarii as agentes in rebus in a linguistic commentary on the Bible (Jer. In Abd. 17.18 [574–6]) is most unlikely to have borrowed such information from a pagan Latin epitome, as is John Lydus writing in Greek almost 200 years later (Lydus, Mag. 2.10 [30]). As far as Victor's ‘mistake’ in identifying frumentarii as agentes in rebus, Victor is not nearly detailed enough about their organization to be considered as anachronistically imposing a centralized structure on them in contradiction to the epigraphical evidence. He says only that they were replaced by a group that performed similar duties (which is broadly true), and then mentions their corruption and extortion in isolated parts of the Empire, which does in fact receive epigraphic support from inscriptions throughout Anatolia; see Hauken (n. 20). Kolb (n. 21), 290–4 largely accepts Paschoud's argument and considers them to be unofficial couriers to no greater degree than regular soldiers.

23 Kolb (n. 21), 286–9.

24 Hauken (n. 20), 35–57 (Ağabey Köyü).

25 Clauss (n. 1), 100.

26 CIL 11.1322 Luna; CIL 3.4787 Tiefen; CIL 3.4861 Feldkirchen; AE 1936, 61 (Jabal Dokhan). See also Hirt, A., Imperial Mines and Quarries in the Roman World (Oxford, 2010), 174, 195–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Fuhrmann, C.J., Policing the Roman Empire: Soldiers, Administration, and Public Order (Oxford, 2012), 201–38Google Scholar.

28 Rankov (n. 16), 181–2.

29 Paribeni, R., ‘Dei milites frumentarii dell'approvvigionamento della corte imperiale’, in Mitteilungen des kaiserlich deutschen archäeologischen Instituts, römische Abteilung (Rome, 1905), 20.310–20Google Scholar.

30 This is the difficulty with the conclusions reached in Reynolds (n. 1), 184–5, and adopted by many works since.

31 Rickman (n. 2), 275–6.

32 Hauken (n. 20), 165–8. One of them can be dated to late in Philip's reign (247/248), while two others date from a time where there were two Augusti, which limits them to his reign, the brief rule of Pupienus and Balbinus, or that of Septimius Severus. Given their similar content and the appearance of the same otherwise unattested figures, it is simplest to identify them all as Philippian and view the conflicts described within as due to the chaotic situation towards the end of his reign when the usurpations of Pacatianus, Jotapianus and Decius were leading towards the fall of the ephemeral dynasty.

33 Hauken (n. 20) includes all the main sources, organized by location: Ağabey Köyü (35–57), Kemaliye (58–73), Kavacık (162–8), Demirci (244–6) and Kassar (247–50). All five mention kolletiones and frumentarii, but stationarii appear in Demirci 4 and Kassar 10–11, while praetoriani appear in Kavacık 7–8. Rea, J.R., ‘Proceedings before Q. Maecius Laetus, Praef. Aeg., etc.’, JJP 19 (1983), 91–101, at 97–100Google Scholar no. 26 provides a good overview of the Egyptian evidence. The example Rea cites (from c.200–203) does show the kolletiones in what seems to be more of a military policing context, with the decurion Julian of the unit having just arrested 650 bandits (λῃσταί) and unjustly torturing several. It is unclear in what context this occurred, and other works have considered them tax collectors rather than military police (Crawford, D.J., ‘“Skepe” in Soknopaiou Nesos’, JJP 18 [1974], 169–75, at 173Google Scholar). Hauken (n. 20), 165–8 believes that the Egyptian kolletiones are unconnected to the Anatolian ones but does not provide any clear reason why. See also Urano (n. 2).

34 Clauss (n. 1), 104; Rankov (n. 16), 177.

35 ἵνα δόξῃ τις τῆς τοσαύτης αὐτοῖς θ[ρασύτ]ητος ἀπολογία καταλιμπάνεσθαι, ἐνέα σ[υλλαβό]ντες καὶ ἐν δεσμοῖς ποιήσαντες ἔφασκ[ον παραπ]έμπειν ἐπὶ τοὺς κρατίστους ἐπιτρόπ[ους τοὺς ὑμ]ετέρους (Ağabey Köyü 1–8: Hauken [n. 20], 38–41). For a somewhat fuller reconstruction of the text, see also Urano (n. 2), 180–1. Urano (n. 2), 188 no. 60 suggests that there is additional proof of their military policing role from the line προφάσει εἰρήνη[ς … ἀλλὰ] πολέμου τρόπῳ on the nearby Kavacık inscription, which he translates as the soldiers acting ‘on the pretext of peace(keeping), (but) in the manner of war’ (Kavacık 9–10: Hauken [n. 20], 163–4). This reconstruction is possible, but since about two-thirds of the line have been chiselled away following εἰρήνη, it is impossible to say with certainty at this point what the text was actually saying.

36 ἐξαναλουμένην αὐτὴν εἰς τὰ ἄμετρα δαπανήματα τῶν ἐπι[δη]μούντων κ(αὶ) εἰ[ς τ]ὸ πλῆθος τῶν κολλητιώνων ἀπο[στερεισθ?]α[ι] μὲν λουτροῦ δι᾿ ἀπορίαν, ἀποστερεῖσ[θ]ε [δὲ κ(αὶ)] τῶν πρὸς τὸν βίον ἀ[ν]ανκέ[ω]ν ἀ[π]α[γ]ό[ρ]ευε…ε..πρὸς τὰς (Kassar 15–24: Hauken [n. 20], 248–9).

37 τὴν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν[ό]χλησιν γεινομένην ὑπό <τ>ε τῶν κολλητιώνων καὶ τῶν ἐπὶ προφάσει ἀρχῶν ἢ λειτουργιῶν τοὺς ὑμετέρους ἐνοχλούντων καὶ σκυλλ<ώ>ντων γεω[ρ]γούς (Ağabey Köyü 34–8: Hauken [n. 20], 38–41).

38 P.J. Rhodes, ‘Liturgy’, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider (edd.), Brill's New Pauly (2006).

39 Hauken (n. 20), 69. Mitchell (n. 2), 1.229 goes so far as to confidently identify them as ‘military tax collectors’. Haensch, R., ‘Kolletiones et canalicularii’, in Wolff, C. (ed.), Le métier de soldat dans le monde romain (Lyon, 2012), 503–11Google Scholar believes that they were civilian assistants to soldiers. Urano (n. 2), 186–8 argues that, rather than referring to gathering taxes, collectio is actually being used to describe a unit of regionarii that have been gathered together in a single unit. There is a Moesian cohort from around the same period identified as the III Collecta and it has been suggested that the otherwise unexplained abbreviation N.C.R. stands for numerus collectus regionariorum. Thus, the kolletiones appearing in inscriptions would be a collection of soldiers originally from different units stationed in the region of Philadelphia. This is an ingenious explanation for these figures, but it is just as speculative as any other explanation. Rea (n. 33), 98 argues that, rather than being a transliteration of a Latin term, kolletiones instead comes from κολλάω and is a translation from the uncommon Latin word glutinator, meaning scroll-binder, which in this case would presumably refer to the scribes and record-keepers of the military police units. This view has not gained wide acceptance. Sinnigen (n. 1), 58 rather confusingly believes that kolletiones was just an ‘epithet’ applied to the frumentarii. How they could then serve alongside frumentarii and other soldiers is unstated.

40 ἀλλὰ ἀεὶ βαρύτερον ἀντιμαχομένου[ς ταῖ]ς ὑμετέραις νομοθεσίαις, εἴτε φρουμενταρίοις προμ[εμήνυν]το (?), εἴτε ὁμοίαις τάξεσιν, κελεῦσαι καὶ χρηματίσαι νόμῳ τι[νί, ὡς τὴν ἀν]αίδιαν αὐτῶν αὐτοῖς <ἡ> ἡγεμονεία προσάγει (Kemaliye 14–19: Hauken [n. 20], 62–4). Urano (n. 2), 183–6 views the kolletiones alone as the subject of these laws, translating the text as follows: ‘even if the enactments had been pron[ounced] either to frumentarii or to similar staff officers (to curb kolletiones’ or, more generally, any officials’ misconducts)’. Whichever reconstruction is true, the villagers were clearly familiar with the behaviour of frumentarii and were accustomed to their presence.

41 Hauken (n. 20), 164. Urano (n. 2), 179–86 argues that this is in fact true of all the petitions and has reconstructed the petitions from Kemaliye and Ağabey Köyü to detach the frumentarii from the main complaint. This is based mainly on the idea that the kolletiones were not officiales like the frumentarii but merely ordinary soldiers with no officium (τάξεις). Given our murky knowledge of their organization, this seems a fragile rationale for such a reinterpretation.

42 Mitthof, F., Annona Militaris: Die Heeresversorgung im spätantiken Ägypten (Florence, 2001), 37–50Google Scholar.

43 Mitchell (n. 2), 1.197

44 Mitthof (n. 42), 73–81.

45 Mitthof (n. 42), 62–4.

46 Bowman, A.K., ‘Egypt from Septimius Severus to the death of Constantine’, in Bowman, A., Garnsey, P. and Cameron, A. (edd.), CAH 2 (Cambridge, 2005), 12.313–26, at 318–19Google Scholar; Mitthof (n. 42), 70–6.

47 Zos. 1.20.2. It is unclear how far Priscus’ remit extended. He was prefect of Mesopotamia and ruled from Antioch but as rector he clearly controlled a wider area that encompassed the East. There seems no reason to doubt that he was in charge of Asia as well. See Vervaet, F.J., ‘The re-appearance of the super-provincial commands in the late second and early third centuries c.e.: constitutional and historical considerations’, in Hekster, O., de Kleijn, G. and Slootjes, D. (edd.), Crises and the Roman Empire (Leiden, 2007), 125–39, at 137Google Scholar.

48 Parsons, P.J., ‘Philippus Arabs and Egypt’, JRS 57 (1967), 134–41Google Scholar; Thomas, J.D., ‘The introduction of the Dekaprotoi and Comarchs into Egypt in the third century a.d.’, ZPE 19 (1975), 111–19Google Scholar.

49 [ἡ πόλις τὸν δεῖνα] ἑκατόν[τ]αρχον φρουμεντάριον ἁγνῶς καὶ ἀνδρ[ε]ίως ἀναστραφέντα ἐν τῷ τῆς Ἀσίας ἔθνει εἰνοίας καὶ στοργῆς ἕνεκεν τῆς εἰς αὑτὴν ἠμείψατο (Roueché, C., ‘Rome, Asia and Aphrodisias in the third century’, JRS 71 [1981], 103–20, at 113–14Google Scholar). The epimelētēs Antonius Nicomachus mentioned as erecting Aurelius Gaius’ statue appears again in an inscription dated to Valerian's reign (115).

50 It is unclear whether this unit was created by Diocletian or Constantine, but given the fact that Diocletian abolished the previous courier force it seems safer to attribute it to him.

51 Aur. Vict. Caes. 39.44; Jer. In Abd. 17.18 [575–6].

52 There are examples of soldiers referred to as frumentarii Augusti and we see something similar in a Valerianic(?) era (253–260) dedication to a pair of centuriones frumentarii in Aphrodisias that leaves out their home legion (ILS 9476 = IGRR 3.80; AE 1977, 60; ILS 9473; CIL 13.1771; Roueché [n. 49], 115). But even in this latter example, the frumentarii are being praised for their service to the province. No inscriptions have yet been found that connect frumentarii to soldiers of a different province than the one from which they came. See Clauss (n. 1), 83.

53 Jones, A.H.M., The Later Roman Empire: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey (Norman, OK, 1964), 578–82Google Scholar; Vogler, C., Constance II et l'administration impériale (Strasbourg, 1979), 197–209Google Scholar; Clauss, M., Der magister officiorum in der Spätantike (Munich, 1980), 23–39, 45–50Google Scholar.

54 Jones (n. 53), 61–6; Mitthof (n. 42), 168–200.

55 Mitthof (n. 42), 207–8.

56 See Lee, A.D., Information and Frontiers (Cambridge, 1993), 166–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.