Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University
in Warsaw
Procuratores aquarum – the Guardians of Water
or Crooks? The Procurators’ Activity in the Eyes of Frontinus*
ABSTRACT: Per la prima volta i procuratores
aquarum furono nominati dall’imperatore Claudio. Furono impiegati
inferiori, aiutanti dei curatores aquarum.
Con loro i procuratores sorvegliarono
la distribuzione dell’acqua pubblica nella città di Roma. Tuttavia Frontino nel
suo trattato De aquaeductu urbis Romae
di regola accusò i procuratores aquarum di
truffe e diversi abusi, che commisero nel corso del mandato.
During the Principate, starting from the
reign of Octavian Augustus, the custody over aqueducts and the distribution of
water within the area of the city of Rome was exercised by the curatores aquarum. Since the emperor
Claudius’ rule, they were supported by the procuratores
aquarum. Frontinus described the circumstances of their nomination in his
treatise, De aquaeductu urbis Romae.
Front.,
De aq. 105.2: Procuratores
autem primus Ti. Claudius
videtur admovisse, postquam Anionem Novum et Claudiam induxit.
As he put it, the offices were created on
the initiative of Claudius after the Anio
Novus and Aqua
Claudia[1] aqueducts had been built, i.e. probably
as early as in 52 AD[2]. However, there could be various reasons
for the nomination of the first procurators. It seems probable that the
construction of the above-mentioned water supply system could be one of them.
As more and more aqueducts were built and the amount of water supplied to the
city of Rome increased, there emerged a growing need for a group of people who
would specialize in the distribution of water and control over the technical
condition of the supply system.
A slightly different view is presented by
Ch. Bruun[3]. The author is of the opinion that the
office of procuratores aquarum was
created as a result of establishing, also by Claudius, the familia
Caesaris[4], the second division of aqueduct emergency service, the
first being familia
publica. He claims that procurators were intended
to be chairmen of familia Caesaris.
Unfortunately, due to insufficient
information on both familia Caesaris and procuratores aquarum it is not possible to definitely determine
the relation between the two events. Additionally, Frontinus made it even more
complicated to find arguments confirming the Bruun’s thesis. Although he
mentioned the existence of a body that managed familia
publica and familia
Caesaris, he simply
styled it as praepositor, i.e. a supervisor.
Front., De aq.
117.4: Tam amplum numerum utriusque
familiae solitum ambitione aut neglegentia praepositorum in privata opera
diduci revocare ad aliquam disciplinam et publica ministeria ita instituimus,
ut pridie quid esset actura dictaremus
et quid quoque die egisset actis comprehenderetur.
As stated in the fragment referred to above, both familiae were under the authority of supervisors whose role was to
assign tasks and monitor their proper performance. Unfortunately, as regretted
by Frontinus, slave workers who formed familiae,
instead of carrying out tasks to the benefit of the public, were frequently
used by praepositores for their own
purposes that were in conflict with the interests of the general public (in privata
opera diduci revocare).
It is probable that the cited fragment was also used by another
researcher, R.H. Rodgers[5], who formulated a thesis that procuratores
aquarum supervised familia publica
and familia Caesaris. In the author’s
opinion, it was the officer styled as praepositor[6]. He also believes that Frontinus might have intentionally described the
officer he referred to in such an ambiguous manner. Malpractices of ambitio or neglegentia were typical of procuratores,
vilici and even curatores[7]. Using such a general term, Frontinus could avoid allegations that he
unjustly accused public officers of acts that compromised the interests of the
public. It is therefore crucial to determine the features and principles of
holding the office by the procurator
aquarum. However, this topic should be addressed
taking into consideration the time frame of the functioning of the office of
procurators. It is important because a century after the introduction of the
office it undergone significant organisational modifications that affected its
character and function. The first period covers the times from establishing the
office to the beginning of Trajan’s rule (98-117), and the second, the time of
the rule of this and successive princeps.
From the very beginning, the office of procurator
aquarum had an ancillary function in relation to curator aquarum.
Front.,
De aq. 2.1: Neque
enim ullum omnis actus certius fundamentum crediderim, aut aliter quae
facienda quaeque vitanda sint posse decerni, aliudve tam indecorum tolerabili viro, quam delegatum officium ex adiutorum agere praeceptis, quod fieri necesse est, quotiens imperitia praepositi ad illorum
decurrit usum; quorum etsi
necessariae partes sunt ad ministerium, tamen ut manus quaedam et instrumentum agentis.
The cited fragment starts with general
comments about how officers should perform their duties. Only later did the
author share his critical opinion about the work of individual officers who
definitely included procuratores
aquarum, although the term
was not explicitly mentioned. Frontinus shared his opinion that there was no
other stronger basis for any action or no other possibility to distinguish what
should be done or avoided, as there was no greater dishonour to a rightful man
than to exercise his powers according to the directions of his subordinates.
However, such a situation was inevitable when the office was held by a person
who lacked sufficient knowledge and thus had to rely on the experience of
subordinates. Whereas, although participation of such subordinates in
performing the function was necessary, they were only a kind of hand and a tool
for the person who managed the fulfilment of the functions.
The first thought-provoking feature is
the fact that procurators were mentioned at the very beginning of Frontinus’ De
aquaeductu urbis Romae. Even though, at first it may seem that the author’s
intent was to emphasize the role and significance of these officers, the tone
of his expression and the manner he presented them indicate quite the opposite.
The very construction of statements about procuratores raises questions.
Noticeably, when referring to these officers, Frontinus avoided using their
title. This approach was consistently kept by the author throughout his work. Summa summarum, the term procurator was used in only two cases in the entire report,– in the
Front., De aq. 105.1-2 and Front., De aq. 112.3 fragments. In all other references, the
officers were styled as praepositores or adiutores, depending on the context. The latter term was used
in the discussed fragment Front., De aq. 2.1 with the
meaning of assistants. It seems that Frontinus had a reason to apply this term
to procurators. Probably, his main objective was to express criticism about the
fact that he himself had to hold the office of curator
aquarum not in cooperation with but
at the direction of these lower-rank officers. Clearly, he was appalled by the
fact that procurators, who were to provide assistance to curators, actually, took
their place. Curators were not without the blame. They were higher rank
officers who due to lack of knowledge subordinated themselves to lower rank
officers, moreover, freedmen[8]. This gives
rise to a question whether Frontinus actually had grounds to be so indignant
about the activities of his predecessors, who held the office of curators for
water affairs. Were they the only persons to be blamed for the situation or
maybe there were also other factors that strengthened the position of
procurators at the cost of their supervisors? In search for answers to these
questions, the reasons and circumstances of establishing the office of procuratores
aquarum should be
considered. Apart from practical purposes of creating this position, as
mentioned above, there was another, a strictly political motivation. Since the
Augustus’ rule, the administration of public water was within the competences
of curatores aquarum nominated by the princeps
in agreement with the Senate[9].
This was a common practice until the
times of Claudius who, in his endeavours to reinforce the emperor’s position as
the central authority, attempted to reduce, as far as possible, the role of the
Senate in the country. It was reflected in limiting the Senate’s influence on
filling public positions and delegating such positions to emperor’s freedmen[10]. The newly established offices included procurator
aquarum.
Thus, if as a result of the reforms
introduced by Claudius, the role of the council of curatores aquarum was reduced in favour of procuratores and
became almost dependant on them, it was obvious that Frontinus perceived them
as a source of all evil and implicitly but fiercely criticised them.
Unfortunately, his subjective opinion affects the reliability of the
representation of these officers and hinders an accurate assessment of their
activities[11].
Modifications to the personnel policy of
the emperor’s administration initiated by Claudius are visible as early as
during the rule of Vespasian. Beginning from 69, the character and nature of
the emperor’s offices began to change, which was reflected in curator
nominations for people from the equestrian class[12]. Although, these were rare cases at that
time, such an approach clearly indicated the return to the model of the
officers structure that included equites
as initiated by Augustus. Such a policy was aimed at taking over the authority
in the country from the representatives of the senators’ rank. The process of
changes started by Vespasian was consistently continued by Domitian (81-96),
however the final construction of the public administration relying on the
knights’ rank was established by Trajan and his successors: Hadrian (117-138)
and Antoninus Pius (138-161)[13].
Changes to the personnel policy in the
emperor’s administration also affected the area of public waters management.
However, they were introduced later in time, as the earliest records about the
first equites holding the office of procurator
aquarum come from the times of
Trajan’s rule[14]. On the other
hand, it is interesting that although this office became equestrian, emperor’s
freedmen were not completely removed from power. The traces of their activity
were preserved in the inscriptions made on the measuring nozzles (fistulae)[15]
they supervised during Hadrian’s rule.
Therefore, there are grounds to assume that from the second half of the 2nd
century also this public function was monopolized by the equites[16]. The question is who held this office
before that time. If, as mentioned above, starting from the rule of Vespasian,
this function was assigned to equites,
could it be possible that before that time the office had been held by two
people, an eques and an emperor’s
freedman concurrently? Was it possible that two people with such a distinct
social background exercised one function? Did dignitas
of an eques suffer due to his having a
emperor’s freedman as his peer in this function. These concerns have generated
controversies in the literature for a long time, and have even acquired its own
term – “dual procuratorship”, “Pseudokollegialität”
or “collégialité
inégale”[17].
There are two aspects that should be
particularly considered in order to, at least to some extent, deal with the
controversies and characterize the office of procurator aquarum.
First, what was the purpose of creating an office of this kind. Second, what
was a reasonable justification for the need of establishing an office that was
so grossly disproportional in terms of the ranks’ discrepancy?
Some scholars are of the opinion that the
disparity in the social background between the two officers is not so flagrant
if it is assumed that a procurator-freedman
was only an assistant to a procurator- eques. However, such an explanation is
not fully satisfactory because it does not sufficiently explain the idea of
establishing libertum Caesaris as
a procurator
for water affairs. Consequently, according to the studies conducted by Ch.
Bruun[18],
it may be presumed that the purpose of
this solution was for a princeps to attain two goals. The first and most
important from the perspective of the emperor’s policy was to ensure a
long-term control over the activities of equites.
Most likely, as already mentioned, from the times of Trajan, equites held the office of procurator on an
exclusive basis. The second reason was to enhance the work of a procurator- eques to whom a
emperor’s freeman was assigned as an assistant[19]. This kind of
explanation is further supported by the fact that, as a rule, the emperor’s
offices were one-person roles.
It is also
difficult to determine a procurator aquarum term of the
office. In the opinion of Ch.
Bruun[20],
it was up to two years. The author came
to this conclusion based on calculations derived from inscriptions. Namely, he
counted all the procurators whose names were recorded on the water pipes, and
compared the number to the timeline of their terms of the office. According to
his studies, between 83 and 96, under the rule of Domitian, the office was held
by at least seven people, which would indicate that the term of the office for
each of the procurators did not exceed two years.
The term of the office of procuratores
aquarum is also
related to the method of their nomination. First of all, considering the fact
that they were emperor’s officers, it is highly probable that they were
nominated. However, there are doubts about who nominated them. On the one side,
since they were emperor’s officers, it would be reasonable that the only body
authorized to nominate was the princeps. Nonetheless, in the modern literature
it is claimed that it were curatores aquarum who nominated
procurators[21].
This opinion seems well grounded, as procuratores
were ancillary personnel to curators.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of source texts, the reliability of this theory
cannot be confirmed.
The final issue to be considered is the
scope and nature of procuratores aquarum competences. The main source of information is, once again, the treatise De
aquaeductu urbis Romae, although some data from the inscriptions is also
helpful. Unfortunately, whereas Frontinus cannot be said to lack credibility in
his descriptions of the system supplying water to Rome, his reluctance towards
the office of the procurator gives raise to doubts about the reliability of his
report. The author described the tasks, in particular, the manner of their
execution by procurators in a very critical way due to the fact that he accused
them of a series of unfair acts, which he believed they committed during and in
relation to the performance of their functions. The examples of such criticism
may be found in almost every fragment of his treatise reefing to procuratores:
Front.,
De aq. 105.4-5: Procurator calicem eius moduli, qui
fuerit impetratus, adhibitis libratoribus signari cogitet, diligenter intendat mensurarum
quas supra diximus modum et positionis notitiam habeat, ne sit in arbitrio
libratorum, interdum maioris luminis, interdum minoris pro gratia personarum
calicem probare. Sed nec statim ab hoc liberum subiciendi qualemcumque plumbeam
fistulam permittatur arbitrium, verum eiusdem luminis quo calix signatus est
per pedes quinquaginta, sicut senatus consulto
quod subiectum est cavetur.
In the above-mentioned fragment,
Frontinus referred to the role of procuratores
in the process of awarding the water licenses. The author explains that they
exercised technical supervision over the use of public water. When an
interested person brought a letter from the emperor to the curator confirming
the awarded license, the curator appointed a procurator who was to perform the
activity of connecting water to the licensee’s property. The procurator’s main
duty was therefore to put stamps on public installations that supplied water to
a particular entitled person. After that, the procurator was to control the
exercise of rights by such a person[22].
Thus, every time a private person was
granted a license, the procurator’s duty was to put a fistula
marking with a size corresponding to the
granted amount of water and to control the dimensions and location of
individual nozzles. These were the tasks that frequently generated fraudulent
behaviours of the procuratores. Frontinus described the substance of these
activities in the following fragment of his treatise.
Front.,
De aq. 112.2-3: Ampliores quosdam
calices quam impetrati errant positos in plerisque castellis inveni et ex iis
aliquos ne signatos quidem. Quotiens
autem signatus calix excedit legitimam mensuram ambitio procuratoris qui eum
signavit detegitur.
As stated by the author, one of the most
widespread abuses was the installation of incorrect connections to the pipes
supplying water. Such an activity was unlawful because the pipes installed in
the distribution nozzles (castella) were made of bronze (calices)
and had a greater diameter than it was
permitted under a granted license[23].
Frontinus called it a deceitful activity
and put the blame on the pipe system keepers, i.e. aquarii, and their
supervisors namely, procurators. His reasoning was that being the persons who
marked every new fistula, they would have no difficulty in fixing nozzles in
sizes different from required. As the water transfer installations were
directly adjacent, they were able to fix and mark them as compliant fistulae
but in fact,
their diameters were greater than indicated in the license. Additionally, in
some cases, the nozzles were not marked at all. This led to an increase in both
the amount of water used illegally for private needs and the number of the
recipients. Thus, it is difficult to argue with the main accusation formed by
Frontinus against both aquarii and
procurators that their acts were fraudulent and negligent.
There is also
another reason why Frontinus would present the activities of procuratores
aquarum with such
criticism. Namely, he himself performed the duties of curator
aquarum under the rule of Nerva, i.e. at the time when the office of procurator
for water affairs was often held by equites. But, his criticism was
addressed to procurators-freedmen. By presenting such a negative opinion about
them, Frontinus might have intended to emphasize that it was a huge mistake to
entrust this role to people representing this social class. Exposing their
misconduct, he wanted to publicly express his disapproval of this model of the procurator
aquarum office, and
perhaps even warn against repeating the mistake that, as it turned out, caused
damage to the country and its people.
If it is
assumed that Frontinus’ words cited above from the fragments Front.,
De aq. 2.1 and 117.4 were addressed to procuratores, which is
most probable, then there emerges another function of the officers. Namely, it
is highly possible that they also dealt with financial aspects of the familia
Caesaris activities. It should be remembered that procurators
were a body that supervised and coordinated the works of this familia, and that was created solely on the
initiative and at the expense of the ruler (fiscus
Caesaris). The competences of procuratores
aquarii probably involved
deciding on the expenditures necessary to maintain familia
Caesaris and perform its
individual tasks[24].
Apart from the procuratores aquarum, there were also other procurators,
including procuratores domicilii, who were responsible for hydraulic works in the
city of Rome and also for the supply of public water. Such a conclusion may be
drawn from the inscriptions preserved on individual elements of water
installations, in particular, the measuring nozzles. As already mentioned, the
duty of procuratores aquarii was to mark fistulae
in order to confirm that it was legal. However, the inscriptions on the
measuring nozzles both in and outside of Rome provide no indications that procuratores
aquarii[25]
were the only procurators competent in
that respect. That is, most of the officers recorded on fistulae
were simply styled as procuratores. In some cases, there are also
inscriptions of procuratores domicilii. On the other hand, there are many
inscriptions from the times of Hadrian and his successors that mention the procuratores
patrimonii as the officers dealing with emperor’s
land[26].
Only in some cases they were styled as procuratores
aquarii[27].
Consequently, it could be assumed that
there was an extensive group of ancillary officers who participated in the
management of public water in Rome.
In all probability, procuratores
aquarii were not the only
officers who assisted in the management of and control over the municipal
infrastructure during the Principate. It is believed that it was Claudius who
nominated the first procurator Augusti ad ripam Tiberis responsible
for the coordination and supervision of the works ordered by the princeps to
construct the artificial port in Ostia[28].
Interestingly, this office probably
existed only during the reign of Claudius. These facts confirm the thesis
formulated at the beginning of this discussion, that procuratores aquarum were nominated for stricte
political reasons rather than for the
purpose of serving the City. In the records of, among others, Frontinus,
procurators were presented as fraudulent and negligent officers who perceived
their role only as an opportunity for quick and easy enrichment.