408 Case of Puteoli and Tarracina 



that Rome, and later Constantinople, stood quite alone in receipt of 

 food-favours. The case of two Italian municipalities, reported on 1 by 

 Symmachus in 384-5, proves the contrary, and we have no ground for 

 assuming that they were the only instances. The important port-town 

 of Puteoli was granted 150000 modii of corn yearly towards the feeding 

 of the city by Constantine. Constans cut down the allowance to 75000. 

 Constantius raised it again t;o looooo. Under Julian a complication 

 arose. The governor of Campania found Tarracina in sore straits 

 (evidently for food) because of the failure 2 of the supplies due from the 

 towns long assigned for that purpose. Now Tarracina had a special 

 claim to support, since it provided Rome with firewood for heating the 

 baths and lime for the repair of the walls. It seems that the governor 

 felt bound to keep this town alive, but had no new resources on which 

 he could draw. So he took 5700 modii from the allowance of Puteoli 

 and gave them to Tarracina. Final settlement was referred to Julian, 

 but not reached before his death in the Persian war (363). The next 

 stage was that a deputation from Capua 3 addressed the emperor Gratian, 

 confining themselves to complaint of their own losses. By this one- 

 sided representation they procured an imperial order, that the amount 

 of corn allowance which Cerealis 4 had claimed for the people of Rome 

 should be given back to all the cities deprived of it by his act. But 

 under this order the total recovered for sustenance of the provincials 

 only reached 38000 modii of corn that had been added to the stores of 

 the eternal city. So Puteoli refused to hand over even the 5700 to 

 Tarracina. And the provincial governor did not go carefully into the 

 terms of the order, but ruled in favour of Puteoli. An appeal followed, 

 and it came out that the grant of 5700 to Tarracina was not an ordinary 

 bounty but an earmarked 6 sum granted in consideration of services to 

 Rome. The governor did not feel able either to confirm it or to take 

 it away. Therefore the matter was referred to the emperors for a final 

 settlement. This strange story gives us a momentary glimpse of things 

 that make no figure in general histories. The abject dependence of the 

 municipalities on imperial favour stands out clearly: not less so the 

 precarious nature of such favours, a feature of the time amply illustrated 

 by the later imperial laws, numbers of which were simply issued to 

 withdraw privileges previously granted, under the stress of needs that 



1 relatio 40. 



2 quod nihil subsidii decreta dudum oppida conferebant. This seems to imply a previous 

 grant to Tarracina, levied on other towns. Cf relat 37 decretae provinciae, referring to supply 

 of Rome. 



3 Capuana legatio. Meaning Campanian, I take it. 



4 Neratius Cerealis, praef annonae 328, praef urbi 352-3, consul 358. Godefroi's Pro- 

 sopographia, Wilmanns inscr 1085, and cod Th xiv 24. The order is given thus, eurn 



frumenti numerum, quern Cerealis ex multis urbibus Romano populo vindicarat, restitui 

 omnibus. e secretum. 



