This
text can now be recognised as a draft of a letter from Cerialis to Crispinus.
The association with the correspondence of Cerialis is established by the
identity of this hand with that of [227], where the name of
Cerialis is to be found in the nominative. There are six other fragmentary
texts ([226], [228]-[32]) written by the same
hand, and it may also be at work in the closure in [242].ii; see
also [466]. The hand, discussed in detail in the ed. pr., is very
idiosyncratic and unlike those found in texts which we suppose to have been the
work of "professional scribes"; for this reason we think it probable
that it is the hand of Cerialis himself, although this cannot of course be
proved.
Minor
revisions of the readings in the ed. pr. are signalled in
the notes. Our view of the general sense and purpose of the letter has not
changed. A.R.Birley (1991), 95-100, has suggested that Cerialis is asking for a
transfer or promotion; it is certainly possible that this is the implicit point
of the request for patronage but there is nothing explicitly about promotion in
this or the other letters of Cerialis. Nor is it clear that we should regard
this as an example of litterae commendaticiae in which the writer
recommends himself, cf. Speidel and Seider (1988).
We
are confident that the name of the addressee in Cerialis' draft was correctly
read as Crispinus. The cognomen is common and we cannot identify him.
Our original view that the draft should not be associated with what we
identified as the "Archive of Crispinus" has been proved correct by
the recognition that the name of the principal person in that archive is, in
fact, Priscinus ([295]-[8]). The terms in which
Cerialis writes suggests that Crispinus is an important man (note line 6, d]ominum
meum) and well-placed to assist an equestrian prefect by interceding
with the governor. He might therefore be of senatorial status, a laticlave
tribune or a legionary legate (cf. [154].5-6 note).