Three Roman Documents on BronzeNicolay SHARANKOV

The paper publishes three Roman documents on bronze from the collection of the Numismatic Museum in Ruse1: two military diplomas of AD 158 and AD 222 and a copy of Licinius’ letter on privileges of soldiers and veterans of 10 June 311 AD.

1. Diploma of antoninus pius for a thracian from ala Vii phrygum in syria palaestina, 6 february 158 aD

Two tablets of a diploma, unknown provenance in Bulgaria (figs. 1-4). Height of tabella I 12.7 cm, of tabella II 12.4 cm; the width of both tablets is 9.5 cm. Tabella I has uneven thickness from 0.5 to 0.8 cm; its weight is 71.09 g. Tabella II is 0.9 cm thick and weighs 96.63 g. The number of holes in the tablets is different: tabella I has two central binding holes and two hinge holes in its right corners, while tabella II has two central holes matched by those in the first tablet, but only one hinge hole corresponding to the top hole of tabella I (similarly to other diplomas of the period). Traces on the extrinsecus of tabella II indicate the place of the device which protected the wires and witnesses’ seals. Double framing lines are engraved on both outer faces of the tablets.

The text on the outer faces of the tablets is well engraved and neat, but seem-ingly by different hands. The script on tabella II intus is by two hands – the first one wrote (in slightly larger script) the date, the location of the original, the ab-breviated COH intended to be part of the name of the unit, and probably a large C to the left of the date; the second hand added the part with the name of the unit (which was indeed an ala, so the previously engraved COH remained unused), the commander and the recipient (see further details and comments infra). The text on tabella I intus is carelessly written, apparently by a hand different from both hands of II intus, with too much errors. Moreover, there are several blank spaces with no traces of letters at all, although the text surely demands letters there. The text on I extrinsecus also contains significant errors2, which it is hard to explain. It appears to me that someone has copied the text on both sides of tabella I without fully understanding it, or probably from a not quite legible diploma. I should also note that the upper edge of tabella I is uneven and rough, as if the tablet has been cut from a larger plate of bronze and the edge not smoothed afterwards. Bearing in mind all this, as well as the unequal thickness of the two tablets, the different number of holes, and the too many hands, I have serious suspicions about the genuineness of the diploma and its first tablet in particular. Nevertheless, even if my suspicions are well-founded, the text should have been copied from a genuine diploma3, and it appears reasonable to publish it.

Tabella I extrinsecus:impcaesdivihadrianifdivitra●ianiparthicnepdivinervaeproneptaelivshadrianvsantoninvsavgpivspontmaxtrpotxxiimpii cos iv p peqvitibetpeditqvimilitinalisiiiqvaeappelgalloret hrconstetanian (!)galletihretvii phryg hcohxiivgemel (!)cretithr∞ etisebast∞etidm ascar (!)

ArchAeologiA BulgAricA XIII, 2 (2009), 53-72

1 I thank Prof. D. Draganov for drawing my attention to these documents as well as for the permission for publishing them.

2 IHR for THR, ANIANA for ANTIANA, H for ET, VI CALLAEC for IV CALLAEC, VES for VLP (Ulpia confused with Vespasiana?), DALAESTINA for PALAESTINA, AERER for AEREA.

3 The two other diplomas from this constitution are partially preserved and recently published, cf. infra.

54 nicolay sharankov

Fig. 3. Diploma for Syria Palaestina, AD 158. Tabella II intus.

Fig. 4. Diploma for Syria Palaestina, AD 158. Tabella II extrinsecus.

Fig. 1. Diploma for Syria Palaestina, AD 158. Tabella I extrinsecus.

Fig. 2. Diploma for Syria Palaestina, AD 158. Tabella I intus.

three roman documents on bronze 55

men sag eti montetiflcretietiivesg alateti iietvicallaecbracaravg (!)etivetvi vlppetretsvntinsvriadalaest (!)svbivlioseverolegqvinqetvigintst (!)pendemerdimisshonestmissqvornom ● ●svbscriptsvntcivitromanqvieornonhaberdeditetconvbcvmvxoribqvastvnchabviscvmestcivitisdataavtcvmisqvaspostdvxiss dvmtaxatsingvlis ad viii id feb sex svlpiciotertvllo cos q tineio sacerdoti (!)alae vii phrygvm cvi praestroscivs capitolinvs exgregalebringae basvsei f thracdescriptetrecognitextabvlaererqvaefixaestromaeinmvroposttempl diviavgad minervam ●Tabella I intus:i mp caes d i v i h riani f d iv i t raia (!) n i parth n d ivi n erv aepron tae li vsh adrianvsantoni nvsavgpivs pon max t r p otxxi imp 'ii cos iv ppeqvtetiedq m na●lisiiiqagalle t r cost (!) etantian l e t r etvii pi ryetx gme (!) c ret i th r ∞ etaebast∞etidam s rgt (!) monetiflcreieiiivlp alatet i (!) bracavg v et v i vlpp resvn p a estsvbivlioseverolegxxv s em di m h onmisqvornom●svbsc rsv t ci vr q v eor n on h a dedetc oncvm xor tvnc i abcvmes ci vitis da aav cv mis (!) qvaspostdvx isdvm taxa t sing v li s● ●

Tabella II intus4:● a d iii k mart (!)c tertvlloetsacerdote cos ●alae coh vii phrygcvipraest (!) roscivs capitolinvs exgregaleb ringae basvsei f thrac ●descriptetrecocnitextabvlaerea qvaefixaestrominmvrpost templdiviavgadminervam

4 The text by the second hand is printed in italic type.

56 nicolay sharankov

Tabella II extrinsecus: m s ervili getae l pvlli chresimi m sentili ● iasi ti ivli felicis c belli ● vrbani c pomponi statiani● p ocili prisci

Text on the extrinsecus:Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi Hadriani f(ilius) divi Traiani Parthic(i) nep(os) divi

Nervae pronep(os) T(itus) Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Aug(ustus) Pius, pont(ifex) max(imus), tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XXI, imp(erator) II, co(n)s(ul) IV, p(ater) p(atriae),

equitib(us) et pedit(ibus), qui milit(averunt) in alis III, quae appel(lantur) <G>allor(um) (!) e(t) Thr(acum) Const(antium) et An(t)ian(a) (!) Gall(orum) et <T>hr(acum)5 (!) et VII Phryg(um), <et> (!) coh(ortibus) XII – V Gemel(la) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et I Thr(acum) (milliaria) et I Sebast(enorum) (milliaria) et I D(a)masc(enorum) (!) Armen(iacum) sag(ittaria) et I Mont(anorum) et I Fl(avia) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et I et II U<lp>(iae) Galat(arum) et III et <IV> (!) Callaec(orum) Bracaraug(ustanorum) et IV et VI Ulp(iae) Petr(eorum) et sunt in Syria <P>alaest(ina) (!) sub Iulio Severo leg(ato) quinq(ue) et vigint(i) stipend(iis) emer(itis) dimiss(is) honesta miss(ione),

quor(um) nom(ina) subscript(a) sunt, civit(atem) Roman(am), qui eor(um) non haber(ent), dedit et conub(ium) cum uxorib(us), quas tunc habuis(sent), cum est civit(as) is data, aut cum is, quas post(ea) duxiss(ent), dumtaxat singulis.

A(nte) d(iem) VIII Id(us) Feb(ruarias) Sex(to) Sulpicio Tertullo Q(uinto) Tineio Sacerdoti (!) co(n)s(ulibus).

Alae VII Phrygum, cui prae(e)st Roscius Capitolinus, ex gregale Bringae, Basusei f(ilio), Thrac(i).

Descript(um) et recognit(um) ex tabul(a) aere<a> (!), quae fixa est Romae in muro post templ(um) divi Aug(usti) ad Minervam.

Text on the intus:Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi H(ad)riani (!) f(ilius) divi Traiani Parth(ici) n(epos)

divi Nervae pron(epos) T(itus) Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Aug(ustus) Pius, pon(tifex) max(imus), tr(ibunicia) pot(estate) XXI, imp(erator) II, co(n)s(ul) IV, p(ater) p(atriae),

equ(i)t(ibus) (!) et <p>ed(itibus) (!), q(ui) m(ilitaverunt) (i)n (!) alis III, q(uae) a(ppellantur) Gall(orum) e(t) T(h)r(acum) Co(n)st(antium) et Antian(a) (Gal)l(orum) (!) e(t) Thr(acum) et VII P<h>ryg(um) (!) et (cohortibus) (!) X(II – V) (!) G{a}e(mella) (!) c(ivium) R(omanorum) et I Thr(acum) (milliaria) et <I S>ebast(enorum) (!) (milliaria) et I Dam(a)s(cenorum Armeniaca s)ag(ittaria e)t (!) (I) (!) Mon(tanorum) et I Fl(avia) c(ivium) R(omanorum) e(t) I e<t> (!) II Ulp(ia) (G)alat(arum) (!) et I(II et IV Callaecorum) (!) Brac(ar)aug(ustanorum et I)V (!) et VI Ulp(ia) P(et)r(eorum) (!) e(t) sun(t in Syria) (!) Pa(la)est(ina) (!) sub Iulio Severo leg(ato) XXV s(tipendiis) em(eritis) dim(issis) hon(esta) mis(sione),

quor(um) nom(ina) subscr(ipta) su(n)t (!), civ(itatem) R(omanam), qu(i) eor(um) non h(aberent), ded(it) et con(ubium) cum (u)xor(ibus) (!), q(uas) tunc <h>ab(uissent) (!), cum es(t) civit(as) is da(t)a (!), au(t) cum is, quas post(ea) duxis(sent), dumtaxat singulis.

A(nte) d(iem) III K(alendas) Mart(ias) (!) {C} Tertullo et Sacerdote co(n)s(ulibus).Alae {coh(ortis)} (!) VII Phryg(um), cui prae(e)st Roscius Capitolinus, ex gregale

Bringae, Basusei f(ilio), Thrac(i).Descript(um) et recognit(um) ex tabul(a) aerea, quae fixa est Rom(ae) in mur(o)

post templ(um) divi Aug(usti) ad Minervam.

5 Same error in a diploma of Pannonia inferior of 19 May 135 AD on tabella I extrinsecus: I IHR. The same diploma has PADO instead of PAPO (Roxan 1999, 250).

three roman documents on bronze 57

Witnesses:M(arci) Servili Getae, L(uci) Pulli Chresimi, M(arci) Sentili Iasi, Ti(beri) Iuli Felicis,

C(ai) Belli Urbani, C(ai) Pomponi Statiani, P(ubli) Ocili Prisci.

The constitution

The constitution of 6 February 158 AD for Syria Palaestina is attested in two more diplomas (fragmentarily preserved), both for soldiers of Thracian origin from ala VII Phrygum under Roscius Capitolinus (Eck / Pangerl 2006; Eck / Pangerl 2007); there is another diploma for the same ala, but under a different commander (RMD V, 421), dated to AD 1576. As noted by W. Eck, the recruitment of these soldiers in AD 132-133 coincides with the beginning of the Bar-Kochba revolt (Eck 2007, 125; Eck / Pangerl 2007, 287).

The two dates

The date on tabella I extrinsecus is the correct date of the constitution for the units in Syria Palaestina, a. d. VIII Id. Feb. Sex. Sulpicio Tertullo Q. Tineio Sacerdoti cos. (6 February 158 AD), attested in the diploma for Aulutralis Rebocenthi f. (Eck / Pangerl 2007), but it does not agree with the date on tabella II intus. In fact, the date a. d. III Kal. Mart. Tertullo et Sacerdote cos. (27 February 158 AD) on the intus is connected with another constitution of Antoninus Pius for the units in Britannia, known from a diploma found near Ravenglass (RMD V, 420): a. d. III K. Mar. Sex. Sulpicio Tertullo Q. Tineio Sacerdote cos. Therefore the date on the intus of the present diploma was not due to a casual mistake, but was rather taken from the constitution for the Britannic units. As I noted, on tabella II intus the date, the location of the original and COH were written by one hand, and the rest of the text by another. Presumably, one engraver had made a half-finished diploma for the units of Britannia with the date, the location and the abbreviated coh.7 inscribed, and with blank space left for the names of the unit and the recipient, which had to be added later. But, obviously, another engraver took the partially prepared tablet and, without noticing the different date (probably mislead by the same names of the consuls or because he had to prepare diplomas for both constitutions?), entered the details about the unit, the commander and the recipient.

The recipient

Both the name and the patronymic of the recipient are Thracian. Bringa is variant of Brinca, cf. Brincasus/Brincasis/Βρινκαζεις and Βρινκα-ζερις8, with voicing of c in the cluster nc. The unattested before Basuseis9 is derived from the root of Βασσο(υ)ς (not to be confused with the Latin Bassus)10 and the suffix -s(e)is/-ζ(ε)ις, cf. Mucasis/Μο(υ)καζ(ε)ις (gen. Μουκαζει), Αυλουζεις, Durazis, or the already mentioned Βρινκαζεις11.

6 Cf. also the small fragment RMD I, 60 (= Reeves 1979), of uncertain date ca. AD 149-161 (note the similarity of the script to that of the present diploma).

7 The constitution of 27 February 158 AD for Britannia was for the discharged soldiers of

four alae and seventeen cohorts. Probably the first engraver of the tabella II intus of our diploma had to prepare diplomas for veterans from at least two different cohorts (but not from any of the alae) and therefore wrote only COH.

8 Detschew 1957, 88-89. Cf. ICVR II, 4932: nomine Brinca (or Bringa).

9 Although the form Basusei appears to be genitive of the second declension and therefore a nomina-tive *Basuse(i)us could seem more appropriate, Thracian personal names

in -eus/-εος are quite rare, see Vlahov 1963, 354, 363.

10 Cf. Detschew 1957, 44-45; Sharankov 2005, 240.

11 Some authors consider these names hypocoristic of names in -ζενις/-ζερις (Георгиев 1977, 43-44).

58 nicolay sharankov

2. Diploma of elagabalus anD seVerus alexanDer for the praetorian/urban cohorts, 7 January 222 aD

First tablet of a diploma, unknown provenance in Bulgaria (figs. 5-6). Height 14.5 cm, width 11.2 cm, thickness 1-1.1 mm; two central binding holes. The surface at the holes shows that they were punched from the outer face of the tablet. A small piece of the central part of the tablet is lost. Double framing lines engraved on the extrinsecus. The text on the outer side is well engraved and neat, the words are di-vided by points; the script on the intus is more careless, as typical for the diplomas of this period. Parallel scratches are seen on the intus, apparently left over from the preparation of the surfaces12. An area on the inner surface has obviously been unsuitable for writing and is therefore left uninscribed (fig. 7).

12 Similar scratches in Lőrincz 2000, 251, Abb. 2 b, as noticed by P. Holder in his description of the diploma (RMD V, 461, AD 221 or 222); Weiss 1999, Taf. VI (diploma for an eques singularis, 7 January 222 AD); Eck 1995, 16, Taf. XIV, XVa (diploma for the Misene fleet, 29 November 221 AD). Cf. Weiß 2004, 251.

Fig. 7. Diploma of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, AD 222. Detail of tabella I intus.

Fig. 5. Diploma of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, AD 222. Tabella I extrinsecus.

Fig. 6. Diploma of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, AD 222. Tabella I intus.

three roman documents on bronze 59

Tabella I extrinsecus:imp·caes·divi·antonini·magni·pii· fil·divi·severi·pii·nepos·m·avrellivs·antoninvs·pivs·felix·avg·sacerdos· amplissimvs·dei·invicti·solis·elagabali· pontif·max·trib·pot·v·cos·iiii· p · p · e t·imp·caes·m·avrelli·antonini·pii·felicis·avg·fil· divi·antonini·magni·pii·nep·divi·severi·pii·pronep· m·avrellivs·alexander·nobilissimvs· caes·imperi·et·sacerdotis·cos· nomina·militvm·qvimilitavervnt·incohor tibvs·praetoris·antoninianis·decem·i·ii·iii· iiii·v·vi·vii·viii·viiii·x·piis·vindicibvs·qvi·pie·et fortiter·militia·fvncti·svnt·ivs·tribvimvs· ● ● convbii·dvmtaxat·cvmsing . . is·et·primis· vxoribvs·vtetiam·s . pe . egrini·ivris·femi nas·inmatrimonio svo·ivnxerint·proinde· liberos·tollant·acsi·exdvobvs·civibvs· romanis·natos·ad · vii · idvs · ian ·imp·m·avrell·io·antonino·pio·felice·avg·iiii· (!) m·avrellio·alexandro · caes· c o s · coh·vii· pr·antoniniana·p·v· m·avrelio·m·fil·vlp·artemido ro·nicopoli· descriptet·recognit·extabvl·aerea·qvefixest· romae·inmvrpostempl·divi·avg·adminervam·

Tabella I intus:impcaesdiviantoninimagni·pii·fil·divisever pii· n e p · m·avr·antoninvspivsfelixavgsacer dosamplissimvs·dei·mti·solis·elagabali· (!) pont·ma vac. x·trib·pot·v·cos·iiii·pp·et·imp·caes· diviant vac. ontni·pii·fil·divi·severipii· (!) nep vac. m·avr a●ntoninipiifelicavr· (!) alex vac. and r·nominamilitvm· militv vac. mq imilit·incoh·r·vrb· (!) qvattvor·antonianis·qvavttvrx (!) xi·xii·xiiii· qvb· f o rt●irtemilitiafvnct (!) ivstribvim·convbidvmtaxat·v xorib· inmanis·svoinmatrimonio· (!) svoacsiexdvobvscivibvsroma nisnatos

Text on the extrinsecus:Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi Antonini Magni Pii fil(ius) divi Severi Pii nepos M(arcus)

Aurellius Antoninus Pius Felix Aug(ustus), sacerdos amplissimus dei Invicti Solis Elagabali, pontif(ex) max(imus), trib(unicia) pot(estate) V, co(n)s(ul) IIII, p(ater) p(atriae), et

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) M(arci) Aurelli Antonini Pii Felicis Aug(usti) fil(ius) divi Antonini Magni Pii nep(os) divi Severi Pii pronep(os) M(arcus) Aurellius Alexander, nobilissimus Caes(ar) imperi et sacerdotis, co(n)sul.

60 nicolay sharankov

Nomina militum, qui militaverunt in cohortibus praetori(i)s Antoninianis decem I, II, III, IIII, V, VI, VII, VIII, VIIII, X Piis Vindicibus, qui pie et fortiter militia functi sunt.

Ius tribuimus conubii, dumtaxat cum sing[ul]is et primis uxoribus, ut etiam s[i] pe[r]egrini iuris feminas in matrimonio suo iunxerint, proinde liberos tollant ac si ex duobus civibus Romanis natos.

A(nte) d(iem) VII Idus Ian(uarias) Imp(eratore) M(arco) Aurellio Antonino Pio Felice Aug(usto) IIII, M(arco) Aurellio Alexandro Caes(are) co(n)s(ulibus).

Coh(ors) VII pr(aetoria) Antoniniana P(ia) V(index), M(arco) Aurelio M(arci) fil(io) Ulp(ia) Artemidoro Nicopoli.

Descript(um) et recognit(um) ex tabul(a) aerea, qu(a)e fix(a) est Romae in mur(o) pos(t) templ(um) divi Aug(usti) ad Minervam.

Text on the intus:Imp(erator) Caes(ar) divi Antonini Magni Pii fil(ius) divi Sever(i) Pii nep(os)

M(arcus) Aur(ellius) Antoninus Pius Felix Aug(ustus), sacerdos amplissimus dei <Invic>ti Solis Elagabali, pont(ifex) max(imus), trib(unicia) pot(estate) V, co(n)s(ul) IIII, p(ater) p(atriae), et

Imp(eratoris) Caes(aris) divi Anton<i>ni (!) Pii fil(ius) divi Severi Pii nep(os) M(arci) Aur(elli) Antonini Pii Felic(is filius?) (!) Aur(ellius) Alexand[e]r.

Nomina militum {militum} (!), q[u]i milit(averunt) in coh(o)r(tibus) urb(anis) quattuor Antoni(ni)anis (!) {quauttur} (!) X, XI, XII, XIIII, qu(i)b(us) forti{r}te(r) (!) militia funct(i).

Ius tribuimus conubi, dumtaxat uxorib(us) <singul>is (?)13 {suo} (!) in matrimonio suo ac si ex duobus civibus Romanis natos.

The constitution

The constitution of 7 January 222 AD14 for the praetorian cohorts is known from four other diplomas: RMD I, 75 (C. Aurelius Valens, Serdica, Seventh praeto-rian cohort); RMD IV, 308 (M. Aurelius Purrus, Serdica, First praetorian cohort); Pferdehirt 2004, 153-4, # 54 (C. Iulius Gaianus, Nicopolis, Sixth praetorian co-hort); CIL XVI, 140 (fragment, name and unit not preserved). The fragment of a praetorian diploma RMD V, 460 (= Lőrincz 2000, 249-251, # 1), dated to AD 222, is most probably a fifth copy of the same constitution; two more small fragments, CIL XVI, 141 and RMD V, 461 (= Lőrincz 2000, 251-252, # 2), could also belong to it.

The errors and the different text on the intus

On the present diploma, the titles of Severus Alexander on the intus are wrong. The engraver apparently began to write instead of them the titles of Elagabalus again and when came to the emperor’s names M. Aur. Antonin… suddenly realized his error. He could not do anything better than just writing the cognomen in the geni-tive. However, he did not add filius after it – possibly because he already had divi Antonini (actually, ANTONTNI) Pii fil(ius) at the beginning – but simply wrote Alexander at the end, as well as some not very clear letters15 resembling Aur(ellius) before it. This was not his only error in the text – he repeated twice militum, quat-tuor/quauttur (!), and suo, but preferred the haplography in Antonianis, misplaced the second R in FORTIRTE, and abridged so heavily the formula about ius conubi, that it became meaningless.

The present diploma has different texts on both sides: the extrinsecus has the constitution for the ten praetorian cohorts, while the intus gives the one for the four urban cohorts (of the same date). We see exactly the same case in the complete diploma RMD IV, 308, where the text on the extrinsecus is for the praetorian co-

13 The text in the beginning of the line is rather unclear – the first letter seems to be I, then N or M, then probably M, followed by something like A; then S or N, and then IS, followed by SVO.

14 On the titles of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander, and in particular the latter’s title nobilissimus Caesar imperii et sacerdotis, cf. Dušanić 1964, Dušanić 1980, Kienast 1996, 172, 177-178.

15 There are even some scratches from the chisel around these letters, so the engraver probably tried to erase them.

three roman documents on bronze 61

horts and the recipient is M. Aurelius Purrus from Serdica (of the First praetorian cohort), while the intus is intended for the four urban cohorts and has as recipient L. Pompeius Hon[or]atus from Ostia (of the Tenth urban cohort). Unfortunately, we do not have the second tabella of the diploma of Artemidorus, but it is very likely that the name of the recipient on the inner side was different16.

The recipient

One [Aur]elius Artemidorus of the Seventh praetorian cohort appears in the lat-erculus CIL VI, 32564.b4 (there is another Artemidorus in the same inscription, b10, of the Eighth praetorian cohort, as well as several Thracian names); however, it is supposed to be of a slightly later date, around the middle of the third century. Besides, Artemidorus is one of the most frequently attested names in Moesia inferior and Thrace17. Therefore I can not insist on identifying the recipient of the diploma with the praetorian soldier mentioned in the inscription from Rome.

3. seconD copy of licinius’ letter on the priVileges of solDiers anD Veterans, 10 June 311 aD.

A large bronze table, said to have been found in the vicinity of Durostorum (mod-ern Silistra), contains the second extant copy of emperor Licinius’ letter on the privileges of soldiers and veterans (written in Serdica, on 10 June 311 AD), which was previously known from another bronze table, found in Brigetio (now Szőny-Komárom in Hungary)18. This important document has been thoroughly studied by many scholars19, therefore I will confine myself to presenting an edition of the new copy with a few comments concerning its peculiarities and differences from the Brigetio copy.

The bronze table was brought to my attention by Prof. D. Draganov, and after I recognized it as the well-known Licinius’ letter, it was exhibited in the Regional Museum of History in Ruse as part of the collection of the brothers Bobokovi (now the Numismatic Museum in Ruse), with an explanatory note about its iden-tification and Bulgarian translation of the text20. An Italian scholar learned about the new copy from an Internet forum and – after a Bulgarian who had visited the museum sent him a scan of the leaflet for the exhibition with a photograph of the table – hastily prepared a preliminary publication of the text, without seeing the table itself and therefore with some inaccuracies (Fezzi 2008). Incredibly, he not only published the text without permission, but even boldly declared he was publishing it before inquiring to which collection it belonged (information he could easily obtain from the same leaflet he used for the photograph, or by writing a letter to the museum in Ruse). It is therefore not surprising he was unable to conjecture that, since the decree was accompanied by an explanatory note and a Bulgarian translation in the exhibition, someone had already studied it. Possibly, one would not find L. Fezzi’s behaviour appropriate for a scholar, but rather would think it resembles these verses: cuncta … fatebor vera: … nec, si miserum fortuna Sinonem finxit, vanum etiam mendacemque improba finget…

The document (figs. 8-13) is inscribed on a bronze table, adorned with pedi-ment (the top missing) and acroteria, of which the left is partially lost; the borders are edged with attached strips of bronze. Width 40.2 cm in the upper part to 41.3 cm in the lower part; height to the top of the pediment 60.8 cm, to the top of the right acroterion 61 cm; height of the rectangular inscribed field 51 cm; thickness of the table 0.9 cm, together with the attached frame 2.1 cm. Small part at the bottom of the table is missing. On the back (fig. 9), the table is strengthened with four crossing ribs of bronze soldered to the surface.

16 Cf. Weiß 2004, 252.

17 Cf., for example, IGBulg III, 2, 1834, a dedication by Aur. Diodorus, βετρανός, and Aurelius Artemidorus, συνβετρανός, or the name of Aur. Artemidorus in a cave sanctuary near Tabachka (IGBulg II, 751, revised edition in Шаранков 2007, 72-73, # XIII).

18 AE 1937, 232. English translation in Campbell 1994, 241-243, # 393.

19 E.g. Passerini 1942; van Berchem 1952, 75-88; Mann 1953; Chastagnol 1977; Corcoran 2000, 145-148, # 53; Fezzi 2008. The letter has been attributed by some scholars to both Constantine and Licinius, whose names are written on the frame of the Brigetio table; however, the two lines with the names were in fact added later (cf. infra about their lack in the Durostorum copy), and now the prevailing opinion is that the letter was issued by Licinius alone. On the privileges of veterans in general see Wolff 1986.

20 Given here in the Bulgarian summary.

62 nicolay sharankov

Fig. 8. Durostorum copy of Licinius’ letter on privileges. Fig. 9. Back side of the Durostorum table.

Fig. 10. The letters on the pediment. Fig. 11. Detail of ll. 19-24.

Fig. 13. Detail of ll. 35-40.Fig. 12. Detail of ll. 20-25.

three roman documents on bronze 63

The inscription consists of three letters on the pediment, letter height 2-2.1 cm, and 40 lines of text in the rectangular field of the plate, letter height 0.8-1.3 cm. The lines have been ruled by slight incisions (fig. 13); the letters are neat and deeply cut, with small serifs. The text is carefully arranged: the engraver always divided words syllabically, sometimes leaving blank space at the end of the line. No separation marks were used except a leaf engraved at the end of line 22 (fig. 11); its purpose, however, was rather to fill the large blank space left at the end of this line. There are a few mistaken letters (mostly F instead of E, cf. ll. 10, 23, 24), some of them corrected afterwards. Above the letters E S L on the pediment, a slightly incised sign resembling Greek Λ (fig. 10).

e s l cvminomnibvsprodevotioneaclaboribvssvismilitvmnos trorvmcommodisΛdqvevtilitatibvssemperconsvltvmesse (!) cvpiamvsinhocetiamdispositionvmnostrarvmprovisio5 neisdemmilitibvsnostrisconsvlendvmessecredidimvs terticarissimevndeintventeslaboreseorvndemmilitvm nostrorvmqvosproreipvblicaestatvetcommodisadsidvis discvrsibvssvstinentprovidendvmacdisponendvmessecredidi mvsvtetmilitiaesvaetemporeivcvndislaborvmsvorvmfrvcti10 bvsfxnostraprovisioneseperfrvigavdfantetpostmilitiaeqvi (!) (!) etootioetcongrvasecvritatepotiantvritaqvedevotionitvae significandvmessecredidimvsvtidemmilitesnostri militiaeqvidemsvaetemporeqvinqvecapitaivxtastatvtvm nostrvmexcensvadqveaprestationibvssollemnibvsan (!) (!)15 nonariaepensitationisexcvsenteademqveimmvniaha beantadqvecvmconpletislegitimisstipendiishones (!) tammissionemidemfverintconsecvtisedethiiqvilicet postvigintistipendiaadeqvehonestammissionemadep (!) tifverintabannonariotitvlodvocapitaexcvsentidest20 tamsvvmqvamaetiamvxorissvaeacsiqvisforteexproeli (!) ovvlnerecavsarivsfveriteffectvsetiamsiinfraviginti stipendiaexeacavsarervmsvarvmvacationemfverit consecvtvsadbfneficivmeivsdemindvlgentiaenostrae (!) pfrtineatitavtetsvvmetvxorissvaecapvtvγsvpradictvm (!) (!)25 estexcvsetadqvevtomnimodotamqvietissvaesecvritati (!) qvamaetiamcommodisconsvltvmprovisionisnostrae (!) beneficioidemmilitesgratvlentvrliceteivsmodiante hacconsvaetvdofveritvtcvmplvrimihominessimvl (!) honestammissionemadvceperciperentpenesactvarivm30 missoriapermanenteexemplasibisingvliqviqveexcipe renttamenvolvmvsvtcvmvelhonestamvelcavsariamsicvti svpradictvmestmissionemmilitesconsecvntvrsingvliqviqve specialemadvceinpersonamsvamaccipiantmissionemqvopro bationeveritatisacfideiapvtsepermanentesecvritatesta (!)35 biliacfirmissimaperfrvantvrpervidetsanedicatiotva eosqvidelictisvigratiademittvntvratbeneficivmlegis (!) (!) eivsdempertinirenonpossecvmvtrivsqvereirationemabe (!) (!) rioporteatacvitaeprobabilisinstitvtaadqvehonestam (!) missionemsedetmerita vac. militiaepraemiaano biscon40 dignaperciper tvt . te.vsdemindvlgentiae nostraeben tesperfrvantvrac

64 nicolay sharankov

L. 2: I in SVIS higher than the rest of the letters.L. 3: ΛDQVE, horizontal bar of A omitted.L. 10: lowest horizontal stroke of E omitted in FXNOSTRA and GAVDFANT.L. 16: STIPENDIIS probably initially written STIPENDIS, second I added in

the narrow space between I and S.L. 21: the engraver tried to change INFRA in INTRA smoothing the middle

horizontal stroke of F and extending the upper to the left (fig. 11).L. 22: X in EXEA corrected from another letter (fig. 12).L. 23: BFNEFICIVM, lowest horizontal stroke of the first E omitted.L. 24: PFRTINEAT, lowest horizontal stroke of the first E omitted; VγSVPRA,

γ instead of T.L. 35: BILI corrected from BIII; PERFRVANTVR initially written

PERERVANTVR, the lowest stroke of E erased afterwards (fig. 13).L. 37: NONPOSSE seems to have been initially written NONIOSSE and the

loop of P added later (fig. 13).L. 39: vacat between MERITA and MILITIAE (probably corresponding to

a page/column break in the draft?); a narrow letter/vertical stroke was initially engraved between O and B in NOBIS and erased afterwards.

L. 40: traces of the upper parts of several letters are to be seen just above the break (fig. 13): part of an upper horizontal stroke, tips of two oblique/vertical strokes, upper horizontal, one letter missing, two upper horizontal strokes, nar-row letter missing, part of V, i. e. TVT . TE.V.

E(xemplum) s(acrarum) l(itterarum). Cum in omnibus, pro devotione ac laboribus suis, militum nos- trorum commodis adque (!) utilitatibus semper consultum esse cupiamus, in hoc etiam dispositionum nostrarum provisio-5 ne isdem militibus nostris consulendum esse credidimus, Terti carissime, unde intuentes labores eorundem militum nostrorum, quos pro rei publicae statu et commodis adsiduis discursibus sustinent, providendum ac disponendum esse credidi- mus, ut et militiae suae tempore iucundis laborum suorum fructi-10 bus <e>x nostra provisione se perfrui gaud<e>ant, et post militiae (!) qui- eto otio et congrua securitate potiantur. Itaque devotioni tuae significandum esse credidimus, ut idem milites nostri militiae quidem suae tempore quinque capita iuxta statutum nostrum ex censu adque (!) a prestationibus (!) sollemnibus an-15 nonariae pensitationis excusent; eademque immunia ha- beant adque (!) cum conpletis legitimis stipendiis hones- tam missionem idem fuerint consecuti; sed et hii, qui licet post viginti stipendia adeque (!) honestam missionem adep- ti fuerint, ab annonario titulo duo capita excusent, id est20 tam suum, quam aetiam (!) uxoris suae; ac si quis forte ex proeli- o vulnere causarius fuerit effectus, etiam si infra viginti stipendia ex ea causa rerum suarum vacationem fuerit consecutus, ad b<e>neficium eiusdem indulgentiae nostrae p<e>rtineat ita, ut et suum et uxoris suae caput, u<t> supra dictum25 est, excuset; adque (!) ut omni modo tam quietis suae securitati, quam aetiam (!) commodis consultum provisionis nostrae beneficio idem milites gratulentur. Licet eiusmodi ante- hac consuaetudo (!) fuerit, ut cum plurimi homines simul

three roman documents on bronze 65

honestam missionem a duce perciperent, penes actuarium30 missoria permanente exempla sibi singuliquique excipe- rent, tamen volumus, ut, cum vel honestam, vel causariam, sicuti supra dictum est, missionem milites consecuntur, singuliquique specialem a duce in personam suam accipiant missionem, quo pro- batione veritatis ac fidei aput (!) se permanente securitate sta-35 bili ac firmissima perfruantur. Pervidet sane dicatio tua eos, qui delicti sui gratia demittuntur (!), at (!) beneficium legis eiusdem pertinire (!) non posse, cum utriusque rei rationem abe- ri (!) oporteat, ac vitae probabilis instituta adque (!) honestam missionem. Sed et merita militiae praemia a no[[.]]bis con-40 digna perciper[e convenia]t, ut [e]t e[i]usdem indulgentiae nostrae ben[eficio perpetuo idem mili]tes perfruantur ac - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Peculiarities of the text and differences from the Brigetio table

The Brigetio table (hereafter Brig.) has, on the frame above the text, the names and titles of Constantine and Licinius: X21 Imp. Caes. Fla. Val. Constantinus P(ius) F(elix) In(victus) Aug., p(ontifex) m(aximus), tri(bunicia) p(otestate) VII, imp. VI, co(n)s(ul), p(ater) p(atriae), p(ro)co(n)s{s}(ul), et | Imp. Caes. Val. [[Lici(nianus) Licinius]] P. F. In. Aug., p. m., tri. p. IIII, imp. III, cos., p. p., p(ro)co(n)s{s}(ul). It is, however, suggested that these two lines, apparently engraved by a different hand, were added (much) later (Seston 1937; Seston 1937a, 211-213; Seston 1955, 295-296, n. 6; Chastagnol 1995, 123-124). Now the lack of the names of the emperors in the Durostorum table proves they were not present in the original text of the letter.

L. 1: Brig. has Exempl(um) sacra(rum) litterarum, followed by the salutation have, Dalmati carissime nobis.

L. 3 (cf. 14, 16, 25, 38): adque instead of atque reflects the typical for the Late Latin substitution of t with d, especially before consonant or in Auslaut (in in-scriptions, adque is probably the most frequently attested example; cf. Mihăescu 1978, 196). Brigetio also has adque (and even adquae, l. 27).

L. 5: for isdem militibus Brig. has the incorrect eiusdem militibus.L. 6: note the different addressee, Dur.: Terti, Brig.: Dalmati.L. 7: Brig. has nostrum for nostrorum and publicae abbreviated to pub.L. 10: post militiae, with a genitive instead of accusative, as if another noun was

omitted, e. g. post militiae munera; Brig., however, has pos (!) militiam with the accusative, therefore we should consider militiae a mere error of the engraver.

L. 10-11: Brig. has the hypercorrection quiaeto.L. 13: Brig. has the hypercorrect form quinquem with added final m.L. 14: adque, cf. l. 3 (Brig.: adque); prestationibus (the same in Brig.) instead of

prae- is result of the monophthongisation of the diphthong and the loss of quantity (Mihăescu 1978, 184-185); cf. adeque (l. 18) as well as the hypercorrections aetiam (ll. 20, 26) and consuaetudo (l. 28).

L. 16: adque, cf. l. 3 (Brig.: adque); conpletis is a recomposition, Brig. has com-pletis; legitimis stipendiis in reverse order compared to stipendiis legitimis in Brig.

L. 17: Brig. has qu(i) abbreviated.L. 18: Brig. has posd for post; adeque (the same in Brig.) instead of adaeque, cf.

prestationibus in l. 14.L. 19: Brig. has kapita.

21 This X is sometimes regarded as Christian sign (Greek letter chi, i. e. Χριστός), cf. Seston 1937a, 214-215; Seston 1937, 485.

66 nicolay sharankov

L. 20 (cf. 26): aetiam for etiam (Brig.: etiam) is hypercorrection, cf. consuaetudo (l. 28), as well as quiaeto and adquae in Brig.; for the confusion ae~e see presta-tionibus (l. 14) and adeque (l. 18); ac omitted in Brig.

L. 20-21: Brig. has preli instead of the correct form proelio provided by the new table.

L. 21: for infra, which the engraver attempted to correct to intra, Brig. has intra.

L. 24: for pertineat Brig. has pertniat with omission of i and change ea > ia; the conjunction et in ut et suum omitted in Brig.: ut suum; Brig. has uxsore written with xs and kaput with k.

L. 24-25: Brig. does not have the addition ut supra dictum est.L. 25: adque, cf. l. 3 (Brig. also adque).L. 26: aetiam (Brig.: etiam) as in l. 20.L. 28: consuaetudo instead of consuetudo (Brig. has con|{con}suetudo, with dit-

tography) is hypercorrection, cf. aetiam (ll. 20, 26); for ut cum plurimi Brig. has ut plurimi, without cum.

L. 29: Brig. has actarium with u omitted instead of actuarium.L. 31: Brig. omits u in ca(u)sariam.L. 34: aput se with the frequently attested change of final d (here before s) to

the voiceless t (Mihăescu 1978, 198). Brig. also has aput, but se is omitted (aput permanente) and has been supplied by the editors of the text; now the Durostorum table confirms the restoration.

L. 35: instead of ac Brig. has at, probably result of a confusion of ac and et.L. 36: Brig. has dilicti erroneously written with i, but dimittuntur correctly with

i; demittuntur in our table could be explained through confusion of the verbs demittere and dimittere due to the similar pronunciation, or probably hypercor-rection; at beneficium instead of ad b. (Brig.: ad b.) is probably hypercorrection, cf. adque and aput.

L. 37: pertinire instead of pertinere (Brig.: pertinere), if not a graphic error, shows change of accented e to i, which is not uncommon in Late Latin (Mihăescu 1978, 172-173; cf. vulg. lat. tenire, fr. tenir). One could compare pertniat (instead of pertineat) in Brig. (l. 18), but there the change e (unaccented) > i is due to the following a (Mihăescu 1978, 187)22; for rationem Brig. has ratione with the final m omitted.

L. 37-38: aberi instead of haberi (Brig.: haberi), written without the unpro-nounced nota aspirationis (Mihăescu 1978, 169).

L. 38: adque, cf. l. 3 (Brig.: adquae).L. 39: Brig. has merit[a m]ilitiae and premia instead of praemia.L. 40: Brig. has conveat, which is unanimously understood as conve<ni>at,

therefore I restore the correct form in our table (besides, the meaningless conveat would have been too short for the available place).

L. 41: Brig. has beneficio perpetuo idem milites perpetuo perfruantur, therefore either the engraver of the Durostorum table has omitted the second perpetuo (he could have been mislead by the following word, perfruantur, which also started with per-), or that of Brigetio erroneously repeated perpetuo (similarly confus-ing it with perfruantur); one would probably prefer the first possibility, because, although the text is abundant in repetitions and pleonasms, the two repeated perpetuo here appear much too close.

The last part of the letter (probably about 10 lines) is missing, but it should have been identical with that of the Brigetio table, which reads: ac sempiterna dis-

22 However, the result in both forms has to do with confusion of conjugations, a frequent phenomenon in Late Latin (Mihăescu 1978, 232).

three roman documents on bronze 67

positionis nostrae provisio obtineat firmitatem, volumus tenorem huius indulgentiae nostrae describtum (!) per singulaqu(a)eque castra aput signa in tabula aerea con-secrari, quo ta[m] legionarii milites, quam etiam equites in vexillationibus constituti Inlyriciani23 (!), sicuti similis laboris militiae suae sustinent, ita etiam provisionis nostrae similibus conmodis perfruantur. Et manu divina: Vale Dalmati24 carissime nobis! Divo Maximiano VIII [[et d(omino) n(ostro) Maximino Aug(usto) iterum]] co(n)ss(ulibu)s, (ante diem) IIII Idus Iunias Serdica.

The provenance and the addressee

According to the text of the letter, a copy of it on a bronze tablet (in tabula aerea) had to be enshrined per singulaqu(a)eque castra aput signa, “among the military standards in each military camp” (Campbell 1994, 242). The new table is said to have been found near Durostorum, therefore it was probably displayed at the camp of legio XI Claudia, which was stationed there25. Similarly, the other copy was found in Brigetio, camp of legio I Adiutrix.

The Brigetio copy was sent to Dalmatius, while the Durostorum copy is ad-dressed to a certain Tertius. It is now obvious that the copies of the letter destined for the single military camps bore the names of the appropriate officials; however, the exact post of both Dalmatius and Tertius remains unknown. Several different positions have been proposed for Dalmatius of the Brigetio table – a praetorian prefect, vicar, dux, or praeses26; similar suggestions could be made for Tertius of the new copy. Judging upon the provenance of the new tablet and the various hypotheses about Dalmatius, our Tertius, who had under his authority the area of Durostorum or the military units stationed there, could have been either dux or praeses of Moesia secunda (or even vicarius of the diocese of Thracia?).

Significance of the new copy

The Durostorum table is a proof that the text, as stated in the letter itself, had to be displayed in different military camps and therefore copies of it were sent to the appropriate persons in charge. It also gives us the name of Tertius, an oth-erwise unknown official, possibly dux or praeses of Moesia secunda. Besides, the Durostorum copy confirms some of the emendations proposed for the text of the Brigetio table and verifies some of the disputed phrases. The lack of emperors’ names above the text bears out the supposition that the names on the upper frame of the Brigetio table were a later addition and the letter was issued by Licinius alone and not by Constantine and Licinius.

23 The meaning of equites Inlyriciani has been explained in a purely geographical sense (Seston 1955, 287-288, n. 4) or as a designation for elite units (e. g. van Berchem 1952, 81).

24 If this addition existed in the Durostorum table, it should have read “et manu divina: vale Terti carissime nobis”.

25 Ritterling 1925, 1698-1700. On Roman and Late Roman Durostorum see Иванов 1999, 268-275; Иванов 2003; Ангелова / Бъчваров 2008.

26 E.g. van Berchem 1952, 80-81, considers several pos-sibilities like the half-brother of Constantine, vicarius, or dux (of Pannonia), but only to reveal their improbability;

the authors of PLRE I, 240, s.v. Dalmatius 2, regard him as “military commander (in Illyricum)”, who “had duces subordinate to him”, and do not support his supposed identity with Constantine’s half-brother (PLRE I, 240-241, Fl. Dalmatius 6); Barnes 1982, 232, notes Dalmatius’ post “is neither stated nor identifiable with certainty”, but in a footnote

criticizes the confidence of the authors of PLRE and thinks Dalmatius “could be vicarius of the diocese of Pannoniae or Licinius’ praetorian prefect”; other authors seem more certain: “wohl Prätorianerpräfekt” (Herzog et al. 1989, 58); “there is therefore no reason why Dalmatius could not have been praeses of Valeria” (Corcoran 2000, 147).

68 nicolay sharankov

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ангелова, Ст. / Ив. Бъчваров. 2008. Дуросторум през Късната античност (ІV – VІІ век). – В: Римски и ранновизантийски селища в България, т. ІІІ. София, 82-101.

Георгиев, Вл. 1977. Траките и техният език. София.

Иванов, Р. 1999. Долнодунавската отбранителна система между Дортикум и Дуросторум от Август до Маврикий. София.

Иванов, Р. 2003. Дуросторум (Durostorum) през епохата на принципата. – В: Римски и ранновизантийски селища в България, т. ІІ. София, 75-86.

Шаранков, Н. 2007. Скалният комплекс Водна – Тъмно край Табачка: Античните надписи. – Известия на Регионален исторически музей – Русе 11, 64-77.

Barnes, T.D. 1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Campbell, B. 1994. The Roman Army, 31 BC – AD 337. A Sourcebook. London – New York.

Chastagnol, A. 1977. L’impôt payé par les soldats au IVe siècle. – In: Armées et fiscalité dans le monde antique (Paris, 14-16 octobre 1976), Paris, 279-301.

Chastagnol, A. 1995. Mises au point autour de l’empereur Licinius. – In: Studia in honorem Georgii Mihailov, Sofia, 123-130.

Corcoran, S. 2000. The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284–324. Oxford.

Detschew, D. 1957. Die thrakischen Sprachreste. Wien.

Dušanić, S. 1964. Severus Alexander as Elagabalus’ Associate. – Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 13, 487-498.

Dušanić, S. 1980. Nobilissimus Caesar imperii et sacerdotis. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 37, 117-120.

Eck, W. 1995. Ein neues Militärdiplom für die misenische Flotte und Severus Alexanders Rechtsstellung im J. 221/222. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 108, 15-34.

Eck, W. 2007. Rom und Judaea. Fünf Vorträge zur römischen Herrschaft in Palaestina. Tübingen.

Eck, W. / A. Pangerl. 2006. Eine Konstitution für die Truppen von Syria Palaestina aus dem Jahr 158. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 157, 185-191.

Eck, W. / A. Pangerl. 2007. Eine Konstitution für die Hilfstruppen von Syria Palaestina vom 6. Februar 158 n. Chr. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 159, 283-290.

Fezzi, L. 2008. Una nuova tabula dei privilegi per i soldati e i veterani. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 163, 2007 [2008], 269-275.

Herzog, R. et al. 1989. Restauration und Erneuerung. Die Lateinische

Literatur von 284 bis 374 n. Chr., herausgegeben von R. Herzog (= Handbuch der Lateinischen Literatur der Antike, Bd. 5). München.

Kienast, D. 1996. Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. 2. Auflage. Darmstadt.

Lőrincz, B. 2000. Zwei Militärdiplome aus Dunántúl (Ungarn). – Arheološki vestnik 51, 249-252.

Mann, J.C. 1953. ‘Honesta missio’ and the Brigetio Table. – Hermes 1981, 496-500.

Mihăescu, H. 1978. La langue latine dans le sud-est de l’Europe. Bucarest – Paris.

Passerini, A. 1942. La tavola dei privilegi di Brigetio e i diplomi militari. – Athenaeum 20, 121-126.

Pferdehirt, B. 2004. Römische Militärdiplome und Entlassungsurkunden in der Sammlung des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums (= Kataloge vor- und frühgeschichtlicher Altertümer, 37). Mainz.

PLRE I = A.H.M. Jones / J.R. Martindale / J. Morris. The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire. Vol. I, A.D. 260–395. Cambridge, 1971.

Reeves, C.N. 1979. A New Diploma for Syria-Palaestina. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 33, 117-123.

RMD = M.M. Roxan / P. Holder. Roman Military Diplomas, vol. I-V, London 1978-2006.

Ritterling, E. 1925. Legio. Geschichte der einzelnen Legionen der Kaiserzeit bis zu Diocletian. – In:

Real-Encyclopädie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, XII, 1367-1829.

Roxan, M. M. 1999. Two Complete Diplomas of Pannonia inferior: 19 May 135 and 7 Aug. 143. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 127, 249-273.

Seston, W. 1937. Sur les deux dates de la table de privilèges de Brigetio. – Byzantion 12, 477-486.

Seston, W. 1937a. Recherches sur la chronologie du règne de Constantin le Grand. – Revue des études anciennes 39, 197-218.

Seston, W. 1955. Du comitatus de Dioclétien aux comitatenses de Constantin. – Historia. Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte 4, 284-296.

Sharankov, N. 2005. Unknown Governors of Provincia Thracia: Late I – Early II Century AD. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 151, 235-242.

van Berchem, D. 1952. L’armée de Dioclétien et la réforme constantinienne. Paris.

Vlahov, K. 1963. Nachträge und Berichtigungen zu den thrakischen Sprachresten und Rückwörterbuch. – Annuaire de l’Université de Sofia, Faculté philologique 57/2, 219-372.

Weiss, P. 1999. Zwei Diplome für Equites singulares Augusti, 222 und 223 n. Chr. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 127, 239-245.

Weiß, P. 2004. Neue Fragmente von Flottendiplomen des

three roman documents on bronze 69

Три римски документа върху бронз

Николай Шаранков(резюме)

В статията са обнародвани три документа от сбирката на Нумизматичния музей в Русе – две военни дипломи от 158 и 222 г. и императорско писмо за привилегиите на войниците и ветераните от 10 юни 311 г.

1. Военна диплома на император Антонин Пий за тракиеца Бринга, син на Басусис, служил в Седма фри-гийска ала в Сирия Палестина, 6 февруари 158 г.

Дипломата (обр. 1-4), с неизвестно местонамиране в България, се състои от две плочки и е добре запазена. В текста на първата плочка има твърде много грешки, а върху вътрешната страна са оставени много празни места, на които би трябвало да има части от текста; дебелината и броят на дупките не отговарят на тези върху втората плочка, твърде различни изглеждат и почерците: особености, които предизвикват известни съмнения за автен-тичността и. Но дори да е така, изписаният текст трябва да е бил взет от оригинална диплома, затова смятам публикуването му за оправдано.

Досега бяха известни две частично запазени дипломи за тази дата (по всяка вероятност също произхождащи от България), също издадени на войници с тракийски произход от Седма фригийска ала. Трябва да се от-бележи, че върху вътрешната страна на втората плочка – където личат два почерка – е изписана друга дата, 27 февруари 158 г., която всъщност се отна-ся към помощните войски в Британия. Очевидно един гравьор е подготвил плочката, изписвайки датата в горната част и формулния текст за разпо-ложението на оригинала в Рим. Той е оставил празно място за добавяне на името на войника и военната част, като е изписал само думата “кохорта” (въпреки че и сред частите в Британия, и сред тези в Сирия Палестина, е имало и али, и кохорти). След това друг гравьор е взел полуготовата плочка и е добавил името на войника и военната част от Сирия Палестина, без да забележи, че датата е различна, може би подведен от консулските имена (Секст Сулпиций) Тертул и (Квинт Тиней) Сацердот, които са едни и същи и за двете конституции.

Името и патронимът на получателя на дипломата Бринга и Басусис са тракийски, незасвидетелствани досега, но сродни с добре познати имена (срв. Βρινκα-ζερις и Βασσους).

2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. Mit einem Beitrag zum Urkundenwert des Außentexts bei den Militärdiplomen. – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie

und Epigraphik 150, 243-252.

Wolff, H. 1986. Die Entwicklung der Veteranenprivilegien vom Beginn des 1. Jahrhunderts

v. Chr. bis auf Konstantin d. Gr. – In: W. Eck, H. Wolff (eds.). Heer und Integrationspolitik. Die römischen Militärdiplome als historische Quelle, Köln – Wien, 44-115.

70 nicolay sharankov

2. Военна диплома на Елагабал и Александър Север за Марк Аврелий Артемидор от Никополис, служил в Седма преторианска кохорта, 7 януари 222 г.Запазена е първата плочка на дипломата (обр. 5-7), с неизвестно местона-миране в България. От тази конституция досега бяха известни 4 дипломи за преторианци (сред тях един е от Никополис ад Иструм, двама са от Сердика, а името на четвъртия не е запазено). От посветителен надпис от ІІІ в., намерен в Рим, познаваме един Аврелий Артемидор от Седма прето-рианска кохорта, който би могъл да е идентичен с получателя на дипломата, но всъщност името Артемидор е твърде често срещано, включително сред произхождащи от нашите земи войници, за да ни послужи за сигурно отъждествяване.

Интересно е, че двете страни на дипломата са надписани за различни части – от външната страна за десетте преториански кохорти, а от вътреш-ната – за четирите градски кохорти; от вътрешната страна е сгрешена и титулатурата на Север Александър. Това не е първият пример за подобна небрежност (твърде опасна, доколкото вътрешната страна, защитена с печа-тите на седмината свидетели, се е използвала за проверка на истинността на текста върху външната) – една от дипломите от същата конституция според външната си страна е за преторианеца Марк Аврелий Пурус от Сердика, а според вътрешната – за войника от Десета градска кохорта Луций Помпей Хонорат от Остия. За съжаление от дипломата на Артемидор е запазена само първата плочка и не знаем какво име е стояло от вътрешната страна на втората, но по всяка вероятност не е било неговото.

3. Ново копие от писмото на император Лициний за приви-легиите на войниците и ветераните от 10 юни 311 г.Писмото на император Лициний, издадено в Сердика през 311 г., досега беше известно от преписа си върху бронзова плоча, открита през 1930 г. в Бригецио (днес Сьони-Комаром в Унгария), където е бил установен Първи легион Помощник (legio I Adiutrix). По предварителни данни новото копие (обр. 8-13) е намерено при Дуросторум (Силистра), т. е. произлиза от лагера на ХІ Клавдиев легион, където е било посветено в съответствие с дадената в текста заръка. Гравирано е върху бронзова плоча, украсена с фронтон и акротерии; надписът се състои от 41 реда, от които първият, представляващ съкратена заглавка на текста, е изписан върху фронтона (обр. 10). Липсва краят на писмото, който, съдейки по копието от Бригецио, би заел около де-сет реда при тази ширина на плочата. Надписът е умело изработен, текстът е подреден грижливо, така че думите да не прекъсват в края на реда или да се пренасят на срички. Има няколко случая на сгрешени букви (най-често F вместо E), някои от които впоследствие са били поправени.

Превод на текста на плочата от Дуросторум (краят е допълнен според копието от Бригецио): “Копие от свещеното писмо: Както във всичко ос-танало винаги сме желали да се вземат решения с оглед благото и изгодите на нашите войници заради тяхната отдаденост и усилия, така и при на-стоящото предписание за разпоредбите си преценихме, предраги ни Терций, че трябва да се вземе решение в полза на същите наши войници. Затова, вземайки под внимание усилията на същите наши войници, които те – без да се спират нито за миг – поемат върху плещите си заради устояването и благото на държавата, преценихме, че трябва да предпишем и разпоредим така, че те благодарение на нашата предвидливост да могат и по време на

three roman documents on bronze 71

военната си служба да се наслаждават на облагите от приятните плодове на своите усилия, и след военната си служба да разполагат със спокойна почивка и съпътстващата я сигурност.

И така, преценихме, че трябва да съобщим на теб, нашия предан служи-тел, следното: нека съобразно с нашето постановление същите наши вой-ници по време на военната си служба бъдат освободени заедно с още четири лица от ценза и от обичайните разходи по годишните данъчни задължения; нека тези войници се ползват от същите облекчения и след като, отслужи-ли установения от закона брой години, получат почетно уволнение; но нека и тези, които, макар и (само) след двадесет отслужени години, по същия начин са достигнали почетно уволнение, да бъдат освободени заедно с още едно лице – т. е. както те, така и съпругите им – от годишните задъл-жения; и ако поради рана, получена в сражение, се наложи някой случайно да бъде обявен за негоден, нека и той, дори да е получил освобождаването си след срок на служба по-малък от двадесет години, да се облагодетелства от същата наша снизходителност, така че да бъде освободен и той, и съпругата му, както беше казано по-горе; и нека по всякакъв начин същите тези войници се радват на това решение, резултат от благодеянието на нашето предписание – както за сигурността на тяхната почивка, така и за облагите.

Макар и по-рано да съществуваше такъв обичай, че когато много хора получаваха едновременно почетното си уволнение от военачалника, всеки един поотделно вземаше копие от документа за уволнението, който се съхраняваше при деловодителя, все пак ние искаме – когато, както беше ка-зано по-горе, войниците получават било почетно уволнение, било уволнение поради негодност – всеки един поотделно да получава документ за уволне-ние, предназначен специално за него, лично от военачалника, за да могат чрез това потвърждаване на истинността и верността (на документа) пред тях да се радват на една неизменна и в пълна степен непоклатима сигурност.

Твоя Светлост, разбира се, ясно вижда, че онези, които биват разжалва-ни заради някакво свое провинение, не могат да бъдат облагодетелствани от този закон, тъй като е необходимо да има и едното, и другото основа-ние – и благоприличен начин на живот, и почетно уволнение.

Прочее, редно е същите тези войници да получават от нас по най-досто-ен начин и заслуженото възнаграждение за военната си служба, така че да се наслаждават на постоянното благодеяние и на тази наша снизходител-ност, и [за да добие това предписание на нашата разпоредба сила за вечни времена, искаме съдържанието на тази наша снизходителност, записано на бронзова плоча, да бъде посветено при бойните знаци във всеки отделен лагер, за да могат както войниците в легионите, така и установените във вексилациите илирийски конници, по същия начин, както поемат върху плещите си еднакви усилия по време на военната си служба, да се наслажда-ват и на еднакви облаги от нашата предвидливост.

И от божествената (т. е. императорската) ръка: Бъди здрав, предраги ни Терций! (в текста от Бригецио името е Далмаций)

В осмото консулство на божествения Максимиан и второто консулство на нашия господар Максимин Август, на четвъртия ден преди юнските иди (10 юни 311 г.), в Сердика.]”

Новото копие на документа показва, че текстът му е бил разпратен в различни военни лагери, за да бъде изложен пред войниците. То помага да

72 nicolay sharankov

бъдат поправени някои грешки в текста от Бригецио и потвърждава някои оспорвани думи и изрази. Адресатът на писмото Терций е неизвестен от други източници; адресатът на копието от Бригецио, Далмаций, също е неизвестен и за длъжността му са изказвани най-различни предположения – преториански префект, викарий на диоцеза, военен командващ (dux), управител на провинцията (praeses); има дори хипотеза за тъждествеността му с (твърде младия по това време) полубрат на Константин Велики Флавий Далмаций. Подобни са и възможностите за Терций – дукс или презес на Втора Мизия, или дори викарий на диоцеза Тракия.

Nicolay Sharankov MADepartment of ClassicsSofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”15 Tzar Osvoboditel Bd.BG-1504 Sofiansharankov@yahoo.com