Peter Kirby

I am taking a history class on the Roman Empire. A paper is due at the end of the semester (15-20 pages). I have finished writing a possible abstract and a bibliography.

I would like to hear about (a) what you would like to know about the topics discussed and (b) any comments you have on how I should go about writing my paper. Or (c) whatever.

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Imperial Correspondence
Who Wrote It, and How Did It Work?

The purpose of this paper is to provide a description of communication between the Roman emperor and the provinces. First, the reasons for writing and the nature of the contents of correspondence with the emperor are explored. Second, the nature of the cursus publicum is considered. This includes an evaluation of whether and where the government had way stations, like the Pony Express, and the important question of how long a letter would take to go between Rome and the outskirts of the empire. Third, the different types of correspondence, the libelli and epistulae, are distinguished, along with the corresponding bureaucrats who aided the emperor in receiving them and acting upon them, in many cases by writing the responses, particularly with the genre of rescriptus. Finally, the paper concludes with a statement of the importance of this correspondence to the functioning of the empire, as well their legal ramifications across the centuries.

Primary Sources

Barrow, R. H. 1973. Prefect and Emperor, The Relationes of Symmachus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cormack, J.M.R. “A Letter of Hadrian in Beroea.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 30, Part 2, 148-152.
Grenfell, Bernard P. and Arthur S. Hunt. 1898-present. The Oxyrhynchus papyri, edited with translations and notes. London: Egypt Exploration Fund.
Haines, C. R. 1950. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Loeb Classical Library), 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hunt, A.S. and C. C. Edgar. 1956. Select Papyri (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gonzales, Julian and Michael H. Crawford. “The Lex Irnitana: A New Copy of the Flavian Municipal Law.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 76, 147-243.
Marshall, A. J. 1968. “Pompey’s Organization of Bithynia-Pontus: Two Neglected Texts.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 58, Part 1, 103-109.
Oliver, James H. 1954. “A Roman Interdict from Palestine.� Classical Philology, Vol. 49, No. 3, 180-182.
Oliver, James H. 1958. “A New Letter of Antoninus Pius.� The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 79, No. 1, 52-60.
Oliver, James H. 1971. “The Epistle of Claudius Which Mentions the Proconsul Junius Gallio.� Hesperia, Vol. 40, No. 20, 239-240.
Oliver, James H. 1978. “On the Edict of Severus Alexander (P. Fayum 20).� The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 99, No. 4, 474-485.
Oliver, James H. 1989. Greek constitutions of early Roman emperors from inscriptions and papyri. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Radice, Betty. 1969. Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus (Loeb Classical Library), 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Watson, Alan. 1985. The Digest of Justinian, 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wright, Wilmer. 1923. Julian (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Secondary Sources

Abbott, F.F. 1900. “Roman Indifference to Provincial Affairs.� The Classical Review, Vol. 14, No. 7, 355-356.
Bourne, Ella. 1918. “Augustus as a Letter-Writer.� Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 49, 53-66.
Cary, M. 1936. “Direction-Posts on Roman Roads?� The Classical Review, Vol. 50, No. 5, 166-167.
Eliot, C.W.J. 1955. “New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post.� Phoenix, Vol. 9, No. 2, 76-80.
Hooper, Finley and Matthew Schwartz, ed. 1991. Roman letters: history from a personal point of view. Detriot: Wayne State University Press.
Honoré, Tony. 1981. Emperors and Lawyers. London: Duckworth.
Jones, A.H.M. 1968. Studies in Roman Government and Law. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Lintott, Andrew. 1993. Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration. New York; London: Routledge.
McFayden, Donald. 1921. “The Princeps and the Senatorial Provinces.� Classical Philology, Vol. 16, No. 1, 34-50.
Millar, Fergus. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Millar, Fergus. 2004. Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 2. Chapel Hill; London: University of North Carolina Press.
Ramsay, A. M. 1920. “A Roman Postal Service under the Republic.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 10, 79-86.
Ramsay, A. M. 1925. “The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 15, 60-74.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

leonarde

Well, it looks interesting. Just as a GENERAL comment, my observation is that a common problem in writing a serious term paper (after laziness/no time and having NO idea for a topic are dispensed with) is: the topic is too broad, especially given the limited length of the treatment intended. So, it is POSSIBLE, after you have gotten knee-deep in the research, that you will find that you need to narrow the topic further: either chronologically (take the correspondence of one or two Caesars, or the correspondence of one century) or thematically (to concentrate on this or that administrative or other purpose that the correspondence serves). This would be particularly true if the correspondence's role changed quite a bit from administration to administration (ie from Caesar to Caesar). But really only you can make that determination.

(Don't know how serious you are about history but the TOPIC appears rich enough to support a Ph.D. dissertation........)

Vivisector

Peter,

From the (c) whatever category, it would be great if, when you finish, you can post a link to it - it looks like a fascinating topic to those of us who are interested in nuts and bolts of how things worked back then.

I agree with Leonarde that this appears to be, speaking conservatively, light years beyond any of my requirements in undergraduate history classes; what level of class is this? And are you considering submitting it for peer-reviewed publication when you're finished?

Best of luck to you,

V.

Peter Kirby

Believe me, I plan to write a 20 page paper and not a dissertation on this subject.

I believe that I can write the paper within the limit of 20 pages space. However, if I have to focus it more, I will. The greatest changes took place in the reign of Diocletian, as I understand it. So I have already narrowed it to the Roman Empire of the first three centuries.

If anything comes of this that would be submittable for a peer reviewed publication, it would have to be something new, which means, something that Fergus Millar (who has published the best scholarship on this topic) hasn't covered. I wouldn't be able to publish my term paper; I would have to write a new paper, perhaps as brief as a couple pages, based on one specific point of interest to scholars.

The class is an upper division course, which is taken by history majors and those pursuing a Master's in history. This is the only written assignment for the course.

I will share the final version with all of you when it gets done.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Today I have to explain the purpose of my project and lead an oral discussion on it for at least ten minutes. The paper is due Friday after next.

I have decided to center the discussion around a few selected letters that I have included below, and that I will print on a handout. I will be asking the class to consider the rhetorical form of these documents, including the differences between the "rescriptus" response from the emperor and the letters from Trajan to Pliny, as well as the genre and purpose of these documents, which I have already classified.

Please continue to comment on all this as I go into the final stretch of writing this paper!

thanks,
Peter Kirby

Some Letters from Pliny and the Emperors Trajan and Hadrian

Upon Accession to the Throne
Pliny to Trajan, Book X, Letter 1, A.D. 98
Your filial feelings, august Emperor, prompted your desire to succeed your father at the latest possible moment, but the immortal gods have hastened to put our country in your hands, a task to which you have already been assigned. Therefore I pray that you, and through you all mankind, may enjoy every prosperity, as befits your reign; and as an individual no less than as an official, noble Emperor, I wish you health and happiness.

Trajan to the Alexandrians, A.D. 98
Trajan Augustus Germanicus, pontifex maximus, tribunician power for the second time, consul, to the Alexandrians.---Appreciating your city’s extraordinary loyalty to the Augusti, and remembering the benefactions which the divus my father conferred upon you previously in the early days of the reign, and, as far as these claims are concerned, having, I too, a personal feeling for you, I commended you first to myself, then also to my friend and prefect Pompeius Planta, in order that he might see with every care to your undisturbed tranquility and your food-supply and your communal and individual rights…

Hadrian to the Delphians on Their Freedom and Autonomy, A.D. 118
Imperator Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, son of divine Trajan Parthicus, grandson of divine Nerva, pontifex maximus, tribunician power for the second time, consul for the second time, to the city of the Delphians greetings. I was pleased when I read the letter about the city received from you [----], and because the antiquity and nobility of the city are well known to me from far back, and not least because you made your zeal for me clear when you were congratulating me upon my succession to the ancestral office and were calling upon the god to grant me the blessings. Therefore I guarantee the freedom and autonomy of your city as well as the gifts from the emperors who preceded me, just as they were maintained also by my father, the divine Trajan. Ambassador Julius Antigenes. Farewell.

The Rights of a Society
Pliny to Trajan, Book X, Letter 33
While I was visiting another part of the province, a widespread fire broke out in Nicomedia which destroyed many private houses and also two public buildings (the Elder Citizens’ Club and the Temple of Isis) although a road runs between them. It was fanned by the strong breeze in the early stages, but it would not have spread so far but for the apathy of the populace; for it is generally agreed that people stood watching the disaster without bestirring themselves to do anything to stop it. Apart from this, there is not a single fire engine anywhere in the town, not a bucket nor any apparatus for fighting a fire. These will now be provided on my instructions. Will you, Sir, consider whether you think a company of freedmen might be formed, limted to 150 members? I will see that no one shall be admitted who is not genuinely a fireman, and that the privileges granted shall not be abused: it will not be difficult to keep such small numbers under observation.
Trajan to Pliny, Book X, Letter 34
You may very well have had the idea that it should be possible to form a company of firemen at Nicomedia on the model of those existing elsewhere, but we must remember that it is societies like these which have been responsible for the political disturbances in your province, particularly in its towns. If people assemble for a common purpose, whatever name we give them and for whatever reason, they soon turn into a political club. It is a better policy then to provide the equipment necessary for dealing with fires, and to instruct property owners to make use of it, calling on the help of the crowds which collect if they find it necessary.

Extract from an Edict of Hadrian on Privileges of Dionysiac Artists
Extract from an edict of the deified Hadrian concerning the gifts granted to the society of the Artists: Inviolability, right to front seats, freedom from military service, immunity from public liturgies, to keep without tax whatever they procure for sacred use or the contests and to use it as they see fit, the right not to present guarantors of their immunity from taxation, the right to meet together for sacrifice, the right not to be compelled to accommodate strangers with billets, freedom from imprisonment or any other form of detention…death penalty.

Acceptance or Refusal of Divine Honors
Trajan to Pliny, Book X, Letter 9
You have given me many reasons, as well as every official explanation, for your application for leave of absence, though I should have been satisfied with the mere expression of your wishes. I do not doubt that you will return as soon as possible to your exacting official duties. You have my permission to set up my statue in the place you have chosen for it; I am generally very reluctant to accept honours of this kind, but I do not wish it to seem that I have put any check on your loyal feelings towards me.

Hadrian to the Achaean League, A.D. 126
Imperator Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, son of divus Trajan Parthicus, grandson of divus Nerva, tribunician power for the tenth time, thrice consul, to the Commonalty of the Achaeans, greetings.—other honors voted by you [I accepted]—I was able to see---[I approve] the goodwill which [you continue to] have [for me, but that] you vote me successive series of honors---[of the honors] that have been decreed by the synhedrion----and I did not hinder those----festivals and sacrificies and---to be proclaimed—to go on an embassy---agreement---Ambassadors were----[Let the] travel money [be] paid…

Request for Citizenship
X.5. To the Emperor Trajan
Having been attacked last year by a very severe and dangerous illness, I employed a physician, whose care and diligence, Sir, I cannot sufficiently reward, but by your gracious assistance. I entreat you therefore to make him a denizen of Rome; for as he is the freedman of a foreign lady, he is, consequently, himself also a foreigner. His name is Harpocras; his patroness (who has been dead a considerable time) was Thermuthis, the daughter of Theon. I further entreat you to bestow the full privileges of a Roman citizen upon Hedia and Antonia Harmeris, the freedwomen of Antonia Maximilla, a lady of great merit. It is at her desire I make this request.
X.6. To the Emperor Trajan
I return you thanks, Sir, for your ready compliance with my desire, in granting the complete privileges of a Roman to the freedwomen of a lady to whom I am allied, and also for making Harpocras, my physician, a denizen of Rome. But when, agreeably to your directions, I gave in an account of his age and estate, I was informed by those who are better skilled in the affairs than I pretend to be, that, as he is an Egyptian, I ought first to have obtained for him the freedom of Alexandria before he was made free of Rome. I confess, indeed, as I was ignorant of any difference in this case between those of Egypt and other countries, I contended myself with only acquainting you that he had been manumitted by a foreign lady long since deceased. However, it is an ignorance I cannot regret, since it affords me an opportunity of receiving from you a double obligation in favour of the same person. That I may legally therefore enjoy the benefit of your goodness, I beg you would be pleased to grant him the freedom of the city of Alexandria, as well as that of Rome. And that your gracious intentions may not meet with any further obstacles, I have taken care, as you directed, to send an account to your freedman of his age and possessions.
X.7. Trajan to Pliny
It is my resolution, in pursuance of the maxim observed by the prince my predecessors, to be extremely cautious in granting the freedom of the city of Alexandria: however, since you have obtained of me the freedom of Rome for your physician Harpocras, I cannot refuse you this other request. You must let me know to what district he belongs, that I may give you a letter to my friend Pompeius Planta, governor of Egypt.
X.10. To the Emperor Trajan
I cannot express, Sir, the pleasure your letter gave me, by which I am informed that you have made my physician Harpocras a denizen of Alexandria; notwithstanding your resolution to follow the maxim of your predecessors in this point, by being extremely cautious in granting that privilege. Agreeably to your directions, I acquaint you that Harpocras belongs to the district of Memphis. I entreat you then, most gracious Emperor, to send me, as you promised, a letter to your friend Pompeius Planta, governor of Egypt.

Peter Kirby

This is quite a rough draft. Any kind of comment would be appreciated.


This paper is a description of communication between the Roman emperor and the provinces. The nature of the cursus publicum, the imperial post, is considered first. This includes a description of the system of waystations and an evaluation of how long it would take a letter to travel between Rome and the frontiers of the empire. The two types of correspondence sent to the emperor, the libelli (petitions) and epistulae (letters), are distinguished, along with the corresponding bureaucrats who aided the emperor in receiving and acting upon them, which in some cases included writing the responses, particularly with the genre of subscriptione (rescript). The rescript and the letter sent from the emperor are contrasted in terms of the literary form that they take. The purposes of this correspondence are identified and classified, as there are some recurring themes. Because of the great extent of the literary remains, this paper emphasizes the correspondence of only two emperors, Trajan and Hadrian. The paper concludes with a statement of the importance of this correspondence to the functioning of the empire, as well as its legal ramifications across the centuries.
The Roman postal system, or cursus publicum, was quite unlike any modern postal system, chiefly in the respect that it was not available to the people but rather only to those authorized by the emperor. Pliny and Trajan write about the necessity of those who wish to send things via the imperial post to keep up-to-date licenses (footnote?). Diplomats, tax revenues, and correspondence traveled along the cursus publicum—this paper concerns only the last of these three.
Another term, perhaps more accurate if less common, for the cursus publicum is the cursus vehicularis, particularly in the period before the reforms of Diocletian.(footnote) As Altay Coskun notes in a review of Anne Kolb’s work done in German, the system “simply provided an infrastructure for magistrates and messengers who travelled through the empire. It consisted of thousands of stations placed along the main roads; these had to supply fresh horses, mules, donkeys, and oxen, as well as carts, food, fodder, and accommodation.� Thus, there was no “department of postal service� with employees paid by the emperor. The one writing would have to supply the courier, and the stations had to be supplied out of the resources of the local areas through which the roads passed. An exception was made in the time of Caracalla(?), who supported the post at his own expense, but this was quickly reversed.(footnote)
The Romans adapted their state post from the Persians. As the Greeks report (footnote?), the Persians had a remarkably efficient means of transmitting messages important to the functioning of the kingdom. Riders would be stationed at certain intervals along the road, and the letters would be handed from one courier to another as they made a journey of a few hours. By this means mail could go at X speed (Footnote?). Augustus at first followed the Persian method of having mail handed from one courier to the next, but he soon switched to a system whereby one man made the entire journey with the parcel. The clearest reference to the establishment of the Roman postal system by Augustus is by Suetonius:
To enable what was going on in each of the provinces to be reported and known more speedily and promptly, he at first stationed young men at short intervals along the military roads, and afterwards post-chaises. The latter has seemed the more convenient arrangement, since the same men who bring the dispatches from any place can, if occasion demands, be questioned as well.

Tacitus says that couriers from Judea and Syria brought news to Vitellius that the legions of the East had sworn allegiance to him, and this also shows that the relay system was displaced by a system in which the original messenger made the entire journey. Augustus modified the Persian system, as Suetonius notes, because a courier who travels the whole distance can be interrogated by the emperor upon arrival, in order to receive additional information verbally. This may have had the additional advantage of adding security to the post, as one man had the responsibility to answer for the successful delivery of the message. This does not come without a cost, because the Romans could not relay a message as quickly as they could if it passed from one rider to the next.
Procopius provides one of the few direct descriptions of the Roman post that allows us to estimate the average rate of travel overland. In the fourth century, but describing an earlier time, he writes:
The earlier Emperors, in order to obtain information as quickly as possible regarding the movements of the enemy in any quarter, sedition or unforeseen accidents in individual cities, and the actions of the governors or other persons in all parts of the Empire, and also in order that the annual tributes might be sent up without danger or delay, had established a rapid service of public couriers throughout their dominion according to the following system. As a day’s journey for an active man they fixed eight ‘stages,’ or sometimes fewer, but as a general rule not less than five. In every stage there were forty hourses and a number of grooms in proportion. The couriers appointed for the work, by making use of relays of excellent horses, when engaged in the duties I have mentioned, often covered in a singly day, by this means, as great a distance as they would otherwise have covered in ten.

INSERT an analysis of Procopius based on where you received the information.
INSERT an analysis of the exceptional cases, based on A. M. Ramsey
INSERT Ramsey’s evidence for the speed of the post
INSERT the other guy’s evidence for the speed of the post
INSERT evidence on the speed of naval travel from Lionel Cassons
The libelli and the epistulae were two quite distinct types of correspondence conducted with the emperor. The libellus was a formal document, potentially from any citizen but usually from an official or assembly or city, requesting some favor or asking for a decision on some dispute. Although potentially any citizen could present one, it would find more success in all respects if it were attached to the letter of a Roman official, as it often was. An example is provided by Pliny.(footnote) A letter would be written only by a Roman official or a friend of the emperor. It could be written on any number of topics. Some examples of more personal letters from the emperor survive in the literary corpuses of Pliny with Trajan, Fronto with Marcus Aurelius, and Julian the Apostate with various persons. A large number of both formal letters and rescripts survive in inscriptions around the Mediterannean.
INSERT something on the various offices of ad libelli and ad epistulae, based on the book in the Fullerton college library
INSERT something on people writing for the emperor in some cases, based on Fergus Millar
The rest: analysis of the sources from Trajan and Pliny

Ted Hoffman

Peter,
This looks very interesting. I will be looking forward to whatever you produce. Btw, I wrote to Doughty on your criticisms of his arguments regarding Pliny's letters. He has not responded yet.

Peter Kirby

Here is the essay that I submitted. Any comments?

Peter Kirby
Roman Empire

Imperial Correspondence
What Was It, and How Did It Work?

This paper is a description of communication between the Roman emperor and the provinces. The nature of the cursus publicus, the imperial post, is considered first. This includes a description of the system of way stations and an evaluation of how long it would take a letter to travel between Rome and the frontiers of the empire. The two types of correspondence sent to the emperor, the libelli (petitions) and epistulae (letters), are distinguished, along with the corresponding bureaucrats who aided the emperor in receiving and acting upon them, which in some cases included writing the responses, particularly with the genre of subscriptione (rescript). The rescript and the letter sent from the emperor are contrasted in terms of the literary form that they take. The purposes of this correspondence are identified and classified, as there are some recurring themes. Because of the great extent of the literary remains, this analysis emphasizes the correspondence of only two emperors, Trajan and Hadrian. The paper concludes with a statement of the importance of this correspondence to the functioning of the empire, as well as its legal ramifications across the centuries.
The Roman postal system, or cursus publicus, was quite unlike any modern postal system, not least in the respect that it was not available to the people but rather only to those authorized by the emperor. Pliny and Trajan write about the necessity of those who wish to send things via the imperial post to keep up-to-date licenses. Diplomats, tax revenues, and correspondence traveled along the cursus publicus—this paper concerns only the last of these three.
Another term, perhaps more accurate if less common, for the cursus publicus is the cursus vehicularis, particularly in the period before the reforms of Diocletian. As Altay Coskun notes in a review of Anne Kolb’s work done in German, the system “simply provided an infrastructure for magistrates and messengers who traveled through the empire. It consisted of thousands of stations placed along the main roads; these had to supply fresh horses, mules, donkeys, and oxen, as well as carts, food, fodder, and accommodation.� Thus, there was no “department of postal service� with employees paid by the emperor. The one sending a missive would have to supply the courier, and the stations had to be supplied out of the resources of the local areas through which the roads passed. As seen in several rescripts and in the correspondence of Trajan and Pliny, the emperor will sometimes pay for the cost of sending an ambassador to Rome along the cursus publicus, particularly in cases where the cause is just.
The Romans adapted their state post from the Persians. As Herodotus reports, the Persians had a remarkably efficient means of transmitting messages important to the functioning of the kingdom. Riders would be stationed at certain intervals along the road, and the letters would be handed from one courier to another as they made a journey of a day’s length, which allowed messages to travel with good speed. Augustus at first followed the Persian method of having mail handed from one courier to the next, but he soon switched to a system whereby one man made the entire journey with the parcel. Although it is possible that a courier service existed for a time under the Roman republic, the clearest reference to the establishment of the Roman postal system by Augustus is by Suetonius:
To enable what was going on in each of the provinces to be reported and known more speedily and promptly, he at first stationed young men at short intervals along the military roads, and afterwards post-chaises. The latter has seemed the more convenient arrangement, since the same men who bring the dispatches from any place can, if occasion demands, be questioned as well.

Tacitus says that couriers from Judea and Syria brought news to Vitellius that the legions of the East had sworn allegiance to him, and this also shows that the relay system was displaced by a system in which the original messenger made the entire journey. Augustus modified the Persian system, as Suetonius notes, because a courier who travels the whole distance could be interrogated by the emperor upon arrival, in order to receive additional information verbally. This may have had the additional advantage of adding security to the post, as one man had the responsibility to answer for the successful delivery of the message. This does not come without a cost, because the Romans could not relay a message as quickly as they could if it passed from one rider to the next.
Procopius provides one of the few direct descriptions of the Roman post that allows us to estimate the average rate of travel overland. In the fourth century, but describing an earlier time, he writes:
The earlier Emperors, in order to obtain information as quickly as possible regarding the movements of the enemy in any quarter, sedition or unforeseen accidents in individual cities, and the actions of the governors or other persons in all parts of the Empire, and also in order that the annual tributes might be sent up without danger or delay, had established a rapid service of public couriers throughout their dominion according to the following system. As a day’s journey for an active man they fixed eight ‘stages,’ or sometimes fewer, but as a general rule not less than five. In every stage there were forty horses and a number of grooms in proportion. The couriers appointed for the work, by making use of relays of excellent horses, when engaged in the duties I have mentioned, often covered in a singly day, by this means, as great a distance as they would otherwise have covered in ten.

If we knew the distance between stages, we would know how much distance there is between five stages or eight stages, and we would know the average rate at which correspondence moved along the cursus publicus. This is calculated by A. M. Ramsey in the following way: “It appears from the Jerusalem Itinerary that the mansiones, or night quarters on the roads, were about twenty-five miles apart, and, as Friedlander points out, the distance between Bethlehem and Alexandria (about 400 Roman miles) was reckoned to be sixteen mansiones, that between Edessa and Jerusalem (by Antioch nearly 625 miles) twenty-five mansiones. Although no Itinerary gives a complete list of mutationes and mansiones for any road, the general rule seems to have been two mutationes between each two mansiones. This would make the ‘stage’ about eight and a third Roman miles.� With a little multiplication, one can deduce that the typical trip was made at the rate of between forty-one and sixty-seven miles per day.
There are several cases in which urgent news or eager officials traveled at a faster rate. There is the journey of Tiberius mentioned by Valerius Maximus, the news of the mutiny of Galba as recorded by Tacitus, and the news of the death of Nero as described by Plutarch. In the last two cases, it is worth keeping in mind that bad news traveled faster than good news, and quite explicitly: a laurel was attached to the correspondence with news of victory, but a feather, as indicating haste, was fixed to the spear of a messenger carrying bad news. In all three cases, as A. M. Ramsey points out, the journey is especially urgent, and the time of travel may be recorded because of its exceptional rapidness. Such cases could not be used to find an average speed of the Roman post for carrying the vast majority of items.
Ramsey, following Wilcken, illustrates the speed of the Roman post over land with examples of the amount of time it would take a message to travel from Rome to Egypt about the accession of a new emperor (in a season other than summer, when the message would travel by sea from Rome to Alexandria). In the case of Pertinax, news of the accession, which took place on January 1 of 193 CE, took over sixty-three days to reach Egypt, being announced on March 6 in Alexandria. Since the route that would be taken over land consisted of about 3,177 miles, and since it took about sixty-three days or a little more for the message to arrive in Alexandria, this confirms an average rate of about fifty miles per day for the Roman post.
Another example, based on a Latin inscription, is cited by Ramsey. Gaius Caesar died in A.D. 4 on February 21 in Limyra, which is on the coast of Lycia. The news about his death is found on an inscription dated April 2 at Pisa. The amount of time that the message took to arrive at Pisa is not less than thirty-six days. Since a voyage by sea would be too dangerous at this time of year, the message would be sent over land, a distance of about 1,345 miles. This again confirms the calculation of an average rate of about fifty miles per day.
In his article “New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post,� Elliot agrees with A. M. Ramsey that the typical speed was about fifty miles per day and illustrates this with another instance, the time that it took news of the proclamation of the emperor Septimius Severus to reach Carnantum from Rome.
These estimates are for journeys that took place over land, making use of the cursus publicus (or, cursus vehicularis). Lionel Casson, in his book on ancient sea travel, gives statistics for the amount of time that sixteen voyages took between various ports in the Roman Empire. These voyages, which were made by and recorded by the Romans, are recorded specifically as taking place under favorable wind conditions. Under such conditions, when the average is computed, a vessel could travel by sail at a speed of about five knots or 120 miles per day. Casson provides another table of ten voyages made under unfavorable conditions. With these voyages, the average speed is about two knots or 50 miles per day.
The libelli and the epistulae were two quite distinct types of correspondence conducted with the emperor. The libellus was a formal document, potentially from any citizen but usually from an official or assembly or city, requesting some favor or asking for a decision on some dispute. Although potentially any citizen could present one, it would find more success in all respects if it were attached to the letter of a Roman official, as it often was. An example is afforded by a letter of Pliny. A letter would be written only by a Roman official or a friend of the emperor. It could be written on any number of topics. Some examples of more personal letters from the emperor survive in the literary corpuses of Pliny with Trajan, Fronto with Marcus Aurelius, and Julian the Apostate with various persons. A large number of both formal letters and rescripts survive in inscriptions around the Mediterranean.
Of the large array of inscriptions and literary remains consisting of imperial correspondence, selections from period of the empire at its greatest extent, under Trajan and Hadrian, are analyzed here for insight into the reasons for writing and rhetorical patterns of correspondence with the emperor.
A time for most every governor and city to write to the emperor was immediately upon his accession to the throne. The idea was to get into the good graces of the new emperor early, affirm your loyalty to the emperor, and, for an allied city, to receive a guarantee of ones continued rights under the new regime. An example of an individual writing to the emperor to wish him well on becoming emperor is supplied by Pliny the Younger, writing to Trajan. For cities writing to the emperor upon accession, there are two instances of replies from the emperor set in stone, Trajan to the Alexandrians in 98 CE and Hadrian to the Delphians in 118 CE. Since the city of Alexandria did not actually have any independent status, however, all that Trajan can say is “Also having a personal feeling for you, I commended you first to myself, then also to my friend and prefect Pompeius Planta,� who oversees the governance of Alexandria.
Another occasion for writing to the emperor concerned the conferral of divine honors, such as the erection of a statue. Pliny the Younger, for instance, requests to set up a statue to Trajan, and he replies, “You have my permission to set up my statue in the place you have chosen for it; I am generally very reluctant to accept honors of this kind, but I do not wish it to seem that I have put any check on your loyal feelings towards me.� In a letter of Hadrian to the Achaean League, written in 126 CE, the emperor refuses to receive additional divine honors. This practice of the refusal of divine honors is a tradition stemming from the imperial modesty displayed by Augustus, who did not receive any divine honors until after his death.
A third occasion for writing to the emperor was to request rights for an association, or society. An example of a successful request is found in the reply of Hadrian to the Dionysiac artists, preserved in an inscription. Here these artists are exempted from military duty and taxation, and they are given the right to front seats at events. An example of an unsuccessful request is found in the correspondence of Pliny the Younger with Trajan. After a fire that broke out at Nicomedia, Pliny requests permission to form a fire brigade limited to 150 members, to prevent future mishap. Trajan refuses on the grounds that such associations have the tendencies to become political clubs.
Yet another occasion for writing was provided by the requests of governors for clarification of the emperor on some point of law or another. Many examples of this can be found in the literarily preserved correspondence of Trajan and Pliny the Younger, who was trained as a lawyer. At least one example can be found in an inscription dated 119 CE that presents a copy of the text of a letter of the emperor Hadrian. In it, the emperor Hadrian writes a private letter, similar in form to those written by Trajan to Pliny, in which he elaborates on a decision to allow the sons of soldiers to inherit the property of their father, even though Roman soldiers were forbidden to marry and their children were illegitimate. The argument in the letter is based on a legal reading of an existing edict which Hadrian purports to be just upholding. The motive for this move may have been to provide an incentive for the loyalty of the troops, always a factor that a wise ruler keeps in mind.
There are, of course, other occasions for writing to the emperor, indeed too many to enumerate. As far as the rhetorical pattern is concerned, the letter is more fluid than the rescript. A letter could be informal, discursive, even jovial. The rescript is always formal, to the point, and serious. In the letters of Pliny to Trajan, the only invariable aspect of the format is that Trajan is addressed as “Lord,� domine, and “emperor,� imperatore. The replies of Trajan to Pliny, as they are recorded, omit both greetings and farewells, and titles of any kind are not mentioned. In the rescript, by contrast, both the titles and the offices of the emperor are given great prominence. A letter of Hadrian, for example, written in 118 CE, begins with the words “Imperator Caesar Trajan Hadrian Augustus, son of divine Trajan Parthicus, grandson of divine Nerva, pontiex maximus, tribunician power for the second time, consul for the second time.� This piling on of titles served the purpose of establishing the authority of the contents of the rescript and made it fit for public display, besides enhancing the reputation of the emperor in the eyes of those who see the response. The same letter immediately continues, “to the city of the Delphians, greetings� and closes with the word “Farewell.� This follows the format expected of formal correspondence in the Roman world: The name of the sender, the destination or recipient, a greeting, the body of the letter, and a farewell.
As the correspondence of Pliny and Trajan shows, governors would write to the emperor for advice on settling legal matters, handling difficult situations, or dealing with petitions from citizens. Aelius Aristides states forthrightly that this is a common affair: “And if the governors [of the provinces] should have even some slight doubt whether certain claims are valid in connection with either public or private lawsuits and petitions from the governed, they straightaway send to him [the emperor] with a request for instructions what to do, and they wait until he renders a reply, like a chorus waiting for its trainer.� The mass of this correspondence was great, but a letter wasn’t simply left in an imperial mailbox. Fergus Millar notes that letters from governors, cities, and even individuals “were presented in person by embassies or interested parties.� In a letter by Fronto, the emperor is discovered (and, in a show of sophistry, chastised for) spending both day and night dealing with legal business and addressing the embassies sent to him. The oral aspect of imperial correspondence meant that an emperor could only benefit from having the ability to speak extemporaneously, as well as to write, in order to address the representatives that came before him.
The emperor was not alone in dealing with this correspondence, however. For letters written to the emperor, there was an office ab epistulis to assist him in composing responses. This office was divided into the ab epistulis Latinis, who handled letters written in Latin, and the ab epistulis Graecis, who handled letters written in Greek. The position of chief secretary was one of prestige, held by men such as Suetonius. There was also an office a libellis, which concerned itself with all the petitions that came before the emperor for his resolution.
Noting that complex and frequent legal arbitrations required expert legal opinion, Tony Honoré argues that the secretaries in the office a libellis often wrote for him. His case, made at book length, is based on a detailed examination, using stylistic clues and discourse analysis, of the authorship of the over 2,500 private rescripts surviving from the period between Septimus Severus and Diocletian (193 to 305 CE). Honoré detects sudden changes in style and deduces the demarcations in a series of successive hands in the writing of the rescripts. These do not always coincide with the times that successive emperors reign, and this implies that these secretaries contributed substantially to the writing of these texts. In some cases, it is most likely that the emperor had no part in the writing process, just as the President’s signature on the bill is no voucher that he helped to formulate it.
Here it will suffice to note some of the more direct evidence of the degree of participation the emperor took in composing subscriptiones. A direct reference, from an admittedly dubious source, comes from the Historiae Augustae in its account of the way that Severus Alexander dealt with paperwork: “The afternoon hours he always devoted to subscribing and reading letters, while the officials in charge of the correspondence, the petitions, and records were always in attendance ... with the clerks and those in the record office re-reading everything to him, in such a way that Alexander would add with his own hand whatever was to be added, adopting the opinion of the man who was regarded as the most expert.� Fergus Millar makes reference to an inscription from Brigetio that contains an epistle written by Constantine and Licinius, which concludes, “and in the divine hand: ‘Farewell, Dalmatius, dearest to us’� (et manu divina: Vale Dalmati carissime nobis). At another point in the Historiae Augustae, this time on Commodus, it is said, “[I]n many of his letters he merely wrote the word ‘farewell.’� The implied criticism here, that the letter contained only one word, is based on a misunderstanding: more likely the letters (or their subject matter) had become tedious, and Commodus simply appended a word by way of authorization.
The correspondence of the emperor was an essential part of the law-making apparatus of the Roman Empire. Gaius mentions letters of the emperor as a source of law: “in imperial constitutio is whatever the emperor lays down (constituit) by decretum or edictum or epistula.� Ulpian mentions both the letter and the rescript as establishing legal precedent: “Therefore whatever the emperor has laid down by epistula and subscriptio, or has determined in giving justice (cognoscens decrevit), or has given extrajudicially as a provisional judgment or has ordered by edictum, is agreed to be a law.� As seen from the fact that many rescripts were collected into the law code compiled by Justinian, the imperial correspondence of the first few centuries had lasting effects on history. Not only were they essential to the functioning of the Roman government in the Principate, they formed the backbone of the legal system of the age-spanning Byzantine Empire and also have had an influence, by dint of their contribution to Roman law, on the law codes of Western Europe.

Works Cited
Cary, M. 1936. “Direction-Posts on Roman Roads?� The Classical Review, Vol. 50, No. 5, 166-167.
Casson, Lionel. 1971. Ships and Seamanship in the Ancient World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Coskun, Altay. 2002. “Review. Transport und Nachrichtentransfer im Roemischen Reich.� Bryn Mawr Classical Review 03.14.
Dewing, H.B. 1961. Procopius (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Eliot, C.W.J. 1955. “New Evidence for the Speed of the Roman Imperial Post.� Phoenix, Vol. 9, No. 2, 76-80.
Haines, C. R. 1950. Marcus Cornelius Fronto (Loeb Classical Library), 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Honoré, Tony. 1981. Emperors and Lawyers. London: Duckworth.
Hunt, A.S. and C. C. Edgar. 1956. Select Papyri (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Oliver, James H. 1989. Greek constitutions of early Roman emperors from inscriptions and papyri. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
Magie, David. 1961. The Scriptores historiae augustae (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Marincola, John. 1996. The Histories of Herodotus. New York: Penguin Books.
Millar, Fergus. 1977. The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC-AD 337). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Millar, Fergus. 2004. Rome, the Greek World, and the East, vol. 2. Chapel Hill; London: University of North Carolina Press.
Moore, Clifford H. 1962. The Histories of Tacitus (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Perrin, Bernadette. 1959. Plutarch’s Lives (Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Radice, Betty. 1969. Pliny: Letters and Panegyricus (Loeb Classical Library), 2 vols. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ramsay, A. M. 1920. “A Roman Postal Service under the Republic.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 10, 79-86.
Ramsay, A. M. 1925. “The Speed of the Roman Imperial Post.� The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 15, 60-74.
Sherwin-White, A.N. 1966. The Letters of Pliny: A Historical and Social Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Thomas, J.A.C. 1975. The Institutes of Justinian: text, translation and commentary. Capetwon: Juta.
Watson, Alan. 1985. The Digest of Justinian, 4 vols. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wright, Wilmer. 1923. Julian (Loeb Classical Library), vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.