Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-07T02:38:08.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fasti for A.D. 70–96*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Paul Gallivan
Paul Gallivan
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The political and administrative requirements of the Roman state during the early years of the Principate demanded an increase in the annual number of consulars. When Augustus finally acted to remedy this situation in 5 b.c., he introduced a system of suffect consuls and thereby increased the number of consuls from the two per annum of the Republic to four. A regular practice became established whereby one or both of the ordinary consuls retired at the end of June to be replaced in office for theremainder of the year by a suffect consul. For the reigns of Gaius and Claudius additional suffects were included in many years and a new pattern can be seen to have emerged. It was usual now for each ordinarius to hold office for the first six months of the year except in some special cases where the ordinarii resigned at the end of two months and their place was taken by a pair of suffects who remained in office for the next four months to serve out the more regular tenure of the ordinary consuls. Under Nero, the innovation of this two-month ordinary consulship was not perpetuated and ordinarii usually remained in office for the full six months. Suffect consulships throughout the period a.d. 38–68 were held for periods of either two, four or six months.

The Civil War of a.d. 68/69 and the consequent changes of emperor broke the above pattern. For 69, there are no fewer than sixteen consuls known to have held office during the year. Such confusion, however, would not be unexpected given the startling events of this year. Of considerable importance to students of the early Empire, therefore, is the question of what happened to the system of allocating consulships during a particular year when the state had once again settled itself down to running in routine under the victorious Flavian emperors. The answer to this question will be of particular importance for prosopographers of the early Empire for whom chronology is the backbone of their investigations, since the fasti for the reigns of Vespasian and Titus are notable for the number of years in which the complete list of consuls is lacking.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , May 1981 , pp. 186 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See Degrassi, 5 ff.; Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius (Oxford, 1963), 3 ffGoogle Scholar.

2 For detailed argument, see Gallivan, P. A., ‘The Fasti for the Reign of Gaius’, Antichthon 13 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Fasti for the Reign of Claudius’ CQ N.S. 28 (1978), 407 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 ‘Some comments on the Fasti for the Reign of Nero’ CQ N.S. 24 (1974), 290 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Degrassi, 19 f; MW4; Townend, G. B., ‘The Consuls of a.d. 69/70’ AJP 83 (1962), 113 ff.Google Scholar, esp. 124.

5 See the excellent account in Wellesley, K., The Long Year A.D. 69 (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

6 In general I have followed the list of Degrassi, 19 ff. but have altered some of his conclusions as a result of more recent discoveries.

7 Carratelli, G. Pugliese and Ruiz, V. Arangio, ‘Tabulae Herculanenses’, PP 10 (1955), 471Google Scholar.

8 See Zevi, F.'s re-examination of this fragment in Modugno, S., Panciera, S. and Zevi, F., ‘Osservazioni sui consoli dell' 85 d. C.’ RSA 3 (1973), 103 ffGoogle Scholar. This confirms the hypothesis of Morris, J., ‘The Consulate of the Elder Trajan’, JRS 43 (1953), 79 fGoogle Scholar. For an attempt, unsuccessful in my view, to transfer this fragment to 72, see Vidman, L., ‘Traianus der Ältere’, LF 98 (1975), 66 fGoogle Scholar. Also in favour of 70 see Bowersock, G. W., ‘Syria under Vespasian’, JRS 63 (1973), 133Google Scholar; non-committal is Syme, R., ‘Antonius Saturninus’, JRS 68 (1978), 12 n. 3Google Scholar.

9 Given the importance of Mucianus and especially his status as cos II and given, further, that there were at least two other pairs of consuls after him in the fasti, he must have replaced Vespasian on 1 July.

10 The editors of CIL vi. 200 assigned it to the year 70 but Passerini, A., ‘M. Arrecino Clemente’, Athenaeum 18 (1940), 153 fGoogle Scholar. largely to fit his own thesis about the career of Clemens, suggested the year 71. With some hesitation, Degrassi 20 followed him. However, T. V. Buttrey in his forthcoming study Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titulature ( = Beiträge zur klassichen Philologie [Köln, 1980]Google Scholar) has correctly argued that CIL vi. 200 is one of a group of dedications (see esp. CIL vi. 196; 2052) largely found together and apparently erected at the same time. He concludes that ‘the coordination of the several inscriptions by locus, dedicators and content, and the appeal to a standard set of Flavian divinities, permits them to be taken as a single group chronologically and to be attributed by the reference to Fortuna Redux to Vespasian's return in 70’.

11 For this date, PIR 2 A1295; F269.

12 At Dom. 13, Suetonius says: ‘consulatus septemdecim cepit, quot, ante eum nemo; ex quibus septem medios continuauit, omnes autem paene titulo tenus gessit nee quemquam ultra Kal. Mai., plerosque ad Idus usque Ianuarias’.

13 The chronological limits of CIL xvi. 18 are 71–74. (So Nesselhauf ad loc.) The pair cannot be accommodated in any year within this period except 73. For this date also, PIR 2 G93.

14 Degrassi's list for 74–76 is now superseded by the investigations of Equini, E., ‘Un frammento inedito dei Fasti Ostiensi del 74’, Epigraphica 29 (1967), 11 ffGoogle Scholar. and S. Duŝanic, ‘On the Consules Suffecti for 74–76’, ibid. 30 (1968), 55 ff.

15 It is now clear that CIL iv. 5526c does not refer to Aelianus – see Duŝanic, op. cit. (n. 14 above), 55 ff., esp. 67 f.

16 Cited by Equini, op. cit. (n. 14 above), 12.

17 For the date, see further below.

18 op. cit. (n. 14 above), 60 ff.

19 Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Tabulae Herculanenses’, PP 3 (1948), 165 ff. tabl. xiii, xivGoogle Scholar.

20 Quoted by Duŝanic, op. cit. (n. 14 above), 64 f. I have not been able to see the complete text of this diploma which was to have been published by Vuĉkovic-Todorovic, D. in Starinar 18 (1967)Google Scholar.

21 For a catalogue of the evidence, see Duŝanic, op. cit. (n. 14), 61 f.

22 For the pair, L. Tampius Flavianus and M. Pompeius Silvanus, attributed to this year by Duŝanic, op cit. (n. 14), 73, see §II below.

23 It has been brought to my attention that Agricola's consulship in 77 canot be put earlier than the July/August nundinum which makes his arrival in Britain media aestate impossible. A, similar result would be obtained if he were put in 78, for he cannot be placed earlier than May/June in this year. Only the November/December nundinum in 77 seem available as L. Pompeius Vopiscus C. Arruntius Catellius Celer and M. Arruntius Aquila are attested in office during September/October.

24 Vidman, L., Fasti Ostienses (Prague, 1957), 15Google Scholar cited by Eck, 57 n. 7. For the identity of Innocens as a Servaeus, see Syme, 325 n. 6 and for Modest(us?) as perhaps C. Arinius Modestus proconsul of Crete and Cyrene c. 73–74, see Eck, 120 n. 43.

25 For the identity of this consul, see §II below.

26 Pflaum, H. G., ‘Une tessera numularia inédite’, Bull. Soc. Franç, de Numis. (1961), 72 f, 86 f.Google Scholar; Eck, , RE 119Google ScholarPubMed.

27 This Gallus was perhaps C. Raecius Gallus according to Syme, R., ‘Pliny the Procurator’, HSCP 73 (1969), 229 n. 101Google Scholar.

28 For the arrangement of consuls in this year, see now the convincing exposition by Modugno, Panciera and Zevi, op. cit. (n. 8), 87 ff.

29 Alfieri, N., ‘I fasti consulares di Potentia’, Athenaeum 26 (1948), 120 ffGoogle Scholar. These fasti are complete for the years 87–92, 94–96.

30 The year was wrongly said to be complete by FPot. (= Alfieri, op. cit. (n. 29), 122 f.). It is now known that Libo Rupilius Frugi belongs in this year, See Zevi, F., ‘Nuovi frammenti dei Fasti Ostienses’, Akten des VI internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik (München, 1972), 438Google Scholar.

31 Zevi, op. cit. (n. 30), 438.

32 For the inclusion of Naso, see R. Syme's reading of FPot. given in his review of Degrassi, , JRS 43 (1953), 153Google Scholar. The consulship of Hadrianus is revealed by a new fragment of FO quoted by Zevi, F., ‘I consoli del 97 d.Cr. in due frammenti già editi dei Fasti Ostienses’, LF 96 (1973), 133 n. 38Google Scholar.

33 For this new diploma see Duŝanic, S. and Vasic, M. R., ‘An Upper Moesian Diploma of A.D. 96’, Chiron 7 (1977), 291 ffGoogle Scholar.

34 More detailed discussion of each of the following is given in §II below. I give here only the evidence for the months in which they are attested in office.

35 M. Plancius Varus is to be deleted from the Flavian fasti because it is now known that he never reached the consulship. See further Gallivan, op. cit. (n. 2), 411 n. 14.

36 For the identification of this pair, see §11 below.

37 Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Tabulae Ceratae Herculanenses’, PP 1 (1946), 383Google Scholar.

38 This much-mutilated tablet belongs most likely to the year a.d. 53 – see Gallivan, op. cit. (n. 2), 423, 425.

39 Pugliese Carratelli, op. cit. (n. 19), 149; Eck, , RE xv. 92Google Scholar.

40 He is identical with the Pa… listed above.

41 This consul is identical with Ser. Servianus, Iuliussuff. 90Google Scholar – see further Syme, 636; PIR 2 I 569, 631.

42 This consular mentioned by Philostratus, (Vit. Apoll. 7. 8. 3Google Scholar; 8. 7. 36) is almost certainly to be identified with one of the other Rufi mentioned in the fasti as consul before 92.

43 Degrassi, 28 wrongly assumed that the elder son of Silius Italicus was also named Silius Italicus. This was not the case. He was, in fact, Decianus, L. Siliussuff. 94Google Scholar – so also Syme, 597 n. 3, Sherwin-White, A. N., The Letters of Pliny (Oxford, 1966), 227Google Scholar.

44 The consular date of Plarianus is now known to have been Hadrianic – see Zevi, F., ‘Nuovi documenti epigrafici sugli Egrili Ostiensi’, MEFR 82 (1970), 302 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 A better reading of the relevant coin legends shows that this consul was in fact Tullus, L. Baebiussuff. 95Google Scholar. See further Stech, B., ‘Senatores Romani qui fuerunt inde a Vespasiano usque ad Traiani exitum’. Klio, Beiheft 10 (1912) no. 1017Google Scholar; PIR 2 B29.

46 According to Martial, (Epig. 10. 78)Google Scholar this Macer was governor of Dalmatia in 98. Dalmatia was at this time a province of praetorian rank. (See Jones, B. W., ‘The Status of Dalmatia under Domitian’, CP 69 (1974), 48 f.Google Scholar; ‘Dalmatia again’,ibid. 71 (1976), 256 f.). Therefore Degrassi's date at the very least should read ‘after 98’, but (here is a strong possibility that Macer is identical with -cius or -lius Macer suff. 100 (see further, Jones, ibid. 71 (1976), 257).

47 This consular is almost certainly to be identified with Cerealis, M. Tulliussuff. 90Google Scholar. Syme, R., ‘People in Pliny’, JRS 58 (1968), 137Google Scholar argues for retention of this consular with the rare nomen at Pliny, , Epist. 2. 11. 9Google Scholar but I think the coincidence of a Tuccius Cerealis and a Tullius Cerealis in the senate at the same time is too great. Sherwin-White, op. cit. (n. 43) 170 comes to the same conclusion.

48 For the date of this inscription as ‘The second half of the first century’, see Eck, , RE 285Google Scholar. More detailed discussion is given in §II below.

49 Note the remarks of Syme quoted at Zevi, op. cit. (n. 30) 439 – ‘Das Jahr 93 biete, wenn das Fragment so datiert werden könne, wie es Zevi tat, neue Einsichten für die domitianische Innenpolitik.’

50 I give in italics the suffect who replaced the emperor.

51 For this date, see further below.

52 ibid.

53 This depends on the consulships of M. Marcius Magnus Pompeius Silo and T. Aurelius Quietus who were in office during Sept./Oct. For arguments in favour of their placement in 82, see §II below.

54 e.g. MW5.

55 See FFL = I.I. xiii. 1. 143 ff., esp. 151.

56 ibid. For similar strictures against this widely held assumption, see Duŝanic, op. cit. (n. 14),68 n. 44.

57 I have excluded those which I rejected above but kept those who may be identical with consuls already in the fasti.

58 For their names, see §III. As an added check, I give a table on which the period is broken up into smaller units to ensure that all consuls whose consulships must fall before a certain date can be fitted into the relevant years.

There is, of course, some overlap in the years for which a number of consuls may be candidates.

59 In the interests of brevity, I have attempted to confine myself only to the evidence from individual careers which is directly relevant to the dating of their consulships. For the same reason, I have been content simply to refer to treatments given in modern handbooks where I have no reason to dispute the evidence contained therein.

60 See Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses (Wiesbaden, 1969), 19 f.Google Scholar; Eck, , RE 68 fGoogle ScholarPubMed. cf. Syme, who had previously suggested (op. cit. (n. 27), 216 n. 50 and ‘Consulates in Absence’, JRS 48 (1959), 7 f.Google Scholar) that he was a praetorian legate in Spain andperhaps held the consulship in absentia.

61 See previous note and add Kreiler, 31 n. 3.

62 Also Kreiler, 70.

63 ibid.; Syme, R., ‘Legates of Cilicia under Trajan’, Historia 18 (1969), 363Google Scholar.

64 Thomasson, 2. 48 f.

65 So also Eck, 234.

66 For this inscription as Flavian, see the arguments of Groag, at RE xvii. 876Google Scholar.

67 For the date of this inscription as ‘the latter half of the first century’, see Eck, , RE 285Google ScholarPubMed.

68 Braithwaite, A. W., C. Sueloni Tranquilli Divus Vespasianus (Oxford, 1927), 57Google Scholar.

69 For his status, see Sherk, R. K., The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian (Baltimore, 1951), 26Google Scholar.

70 For this dating see Bosworth, A. B., ‘Vespasian and the Provinces: some problems of the Early 70's A.D.’. Athenaeum 51 (1973), 62 fGoogle Scholar.

71 ibid. 62 ff., esp. 69.

72 See Groag, 's comment at PIR 2 D 89Google Scholar.

73 Aponianus' immediate predecessor was Valerius Festus, C. Calpetanus Rantius Quirinalissuff. 71Google Scholar and his successor was Caecina Paetus, C. Laecanius Bassussuff. 70Google Scholar. For the status of the curatorship see Eck, W., ‘Beförderungskriterien innerhalb der senatorischen Layfbahn, dargestellt an der Zeit von 69 bis 138 n. Chr.’, ANRW. ii 1. 207Google Scholar.

74 Eck. 139; Kreiler, 50. cf. Magie, D., Roman Rule in Asia Minor to the End of the Third Century after Christ (Princeton, 1950)Google Scholar, 1434 who assigns his governorship to 83/84.

75 Eck, 85 f.; Kreiler, 52.

76 Kreiler, 42 f.

77 At this time it was 13–14 years; Eck, 82 ff.

78 Ritterling, E., Fasti des römischen Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat (Wien, 1932), 22 fGoogle Scholar.

79 So Eck, 242; Syme, 804.

80 See Gallivan, op. cit. (n. 2), 424.

81 Duŝanic, op. cit. (n. 14), 70 f. attempting to retain what he considers is reliable in CIL iv. 5526c suggested that Flavianus might have replaced Titus in 13 January and have been Domitian's colleague until he was in turn replaced by Silvanus. Thus Flavianus would have been in office from 13 January/?April or ?June. There is as yet no way of deciding this point.

82 To be taken in conjunction with Eck, 108 n. 96a and Eck, , RE 265Google ScholarPubMed.

83 He is attested in Lycia-Pamphylis in 73/74 by AE (1929), 27and was most probably there c. 73/74–74/75 (Kreiler, 53, 106; Eck, , RE 265Google ScholarPubMed). For his Asian governorship, ibid.

84 See also Bosworth, op. cit. (n. 71), 62 ff.

85 Eck, 119 f.; Kreiler, 82 f.

86 For its consular status, see H. G. Pflaum reviewing Sherk (op. cit. n. 69), Historia 4 (1955), 120Google Scholar and Eck, 2 f. Degrassi's error is perpetuated by Torelli, M., ‘M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa’, JRS 58 (1968), 174 n. 21Google Scholar.

87 Syme, 593, n. 2, thinks c. 72.

88 G. Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 60), 139.

89 Titus is IMP. XII on the inscription but was IMP. XIII by 1 January 78. I owe this point to Buttrey op. cit. (n. 10), table II.

90 So also Syme, op. cit. (n. 47), 144.

91 See also Eck, 143; Thomasson, 2. 51.

92 For the date, Eck, 122.

93 On the identification of Asprenas, see Birley, E. in his review of Thomasson, JRS 52 (1962), 223Google Scholar.

94 So also Eck, 234.

95 For the evidence, see Eck, , RE 842Google Scholar.

96 Mirković, M., ‘Die Auxiliareinheiten in Moesien unter den Flaviern’, ES 5 (1968), 177 fGoogle Scholar.

97 Eck, , RE 842Google ScholarPubMed.

98 For further detail, see Syme, R., ‘Antonine Relatives: Ceionii and Vettuleni’, Athenaeum 35 (1957), 312 fGoogle Scholar.

99 Eck, 127; Ritterling, op. cit. (n. 78), 23.

100 Eck, ibid.; Wilkes, J., Dalmatia (London, 1969), 445Google Scholar.

101 Eck, 122.

102 Pugliese Carratelli, op. cit. (n. 37), 383.

103 Gallivan, op. cit. (n. 3), 310 f.

104 PIR 2 C 1354 and 1362.

105 cf. PIR 2 C 1520.

106 See Gallivan, op cit. (n. 3), 309 ff.

107 For detailed argument see Barnes, T. D., ‘The First African Consul’, CR N.S. 21 (1972), 332Google Scholar. The inscription cannot refer to Pactumeius Fronto, Q. Aureliussuff. 80Google Scholar because his consular colleague is already known.

108 e.g. MW298; Eck, 104 n. 62.

109 e.g. von Rohden, in PIR P24, 26Google Scholar; RE viii. 1058; Dessau, H., ‘Die Herkunft der Offiziere und Beamten des römischen Kaiserreichs während der ersten zwei Jahrhunderte seines Bestehens’, Hermes 45 (1910), 21Google Scholar.

110 Torelli, op. cit. (n. 86), 170 ff.

111 ibid. 174.

112 For this date, Kreiler, 106. Eck, 115, 117 and ‘Die Legatenvon Lykien und Pamphylien unter Vespasian’, ZPE 6 (1970), 74 n. 40Google Scholar prefers c. 70–72.

113 Kreiler, 84; Sherk, op. cit. (n. 69), 42 f.

114 See further Eck, op. cit. (n. 73), 207; Gordon, A. E., ‘Quintus Veranius, Consul A.D. 49’. Univ. Cal. Publ. Class. Arch. 2 (1952), 280 fGoogle Scholar.

115 Syme, op. cit. (n. 32), 151; Kreiler, 85 n. 4; Eck, , RE 285Google Scholar.

116 op. cit. (n. 86), 174 n. 22.

117 For this date, C. P. Jones reviewing Sherwin-White (op. cit. n. 43), Phoenix 22 (1968), 120Google Scholar; for an attempt to date it from the summer of 73 see Birley, A. R., ‘The Roman Governors of Britain’, ES 4 (1967), 67Google Scholar; ‘Petillius Cerealis and the Conquest of Brigantia’, Britannia 4 (1973), 189Google Scholar.

118 So also PIR 2 I 322; Kreiler, 43.

119 For the date see McDermott, W. C., ‘Fabricius Veiento’, AJP 91 (1970), 130Google Scholar.

120 cf. the ‘c. 72’ of Syme, 664.

121 Pflaum, H. G., ‘Légats imperiaux à l'intérieur de provinces sénatoriales’, Hommages A.Grenier (Brussels, 1962)Google Scholar = Coll. Latomus 58 (1962), 1235Google Scholar; Eck, , RE 383 fGoogle ScholarPubMed.

122 Eck, op. cit. (n. 112), 65 ff.; Eck, , RE 275Google ScholarPubMed; Kreiler, 103 ff.

123 op. cit. (n. 112), 68 f.

124 cf. Kreiler, 105 n. 8, who placed them in 72 in the mistaken belief that 71 was filled by L. Annius Bassus and C. Laecanius Bassus Caecina Paetus.

125 PIR 2 A xvi.

126 Reidinger, W., Die Statthalter des ungeleilten Pannonien und Ober pannoniens von Augustus bis Diokletian (Bonn, 1956), 51 f.Google Scholar, puts him in charge of the province for the period 79–82/83; Dobó, A., Die Verwaliung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus (Amsterdam, 1968), 35 prefers 80–82/83Google Scholar.

127 Syme, 828.

128 To be read in conunction with Eck, 125 n. 63.

129 Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 60), 160.

130 Eck, 117; Kreiler, 137.

131 Kreiler, 64 f.

132 If Montanus, T. Iunius, suff. 81Google Scholar during May/June, was in fact Peregrinus' predecessor in Asia (see further Kreiler, 62 ff.) then Peregrinus' consulship will not have been held before July/August of 81.

133 See Champlin, E., ‘Pegasus’, ZPE 32 (1978), 269 ffGoogle Scholar.

134 I see no reason to doubt this although some do, e.g., Champlin, op. cit. (n. 133), 277 and Syme 805.

135 For the date see Syme, R., CAH xi. 162 f.Google Scholar; Evans, J. K., ‘The Dating of Domitian's War Against the Chatti Again’, Historia 24 (1975), 121 fGoogle Scholar.

136 J. Wilkes, op. cit. (n. 100), 444; for the Flavian praefecti, see Vitucci, G., Ricerche sulla Praefectura Urbi in Età Imperiale (Rome, 1956), 115 fGoogle Scholar.

137 The provincial fasti have a gap between 70 and 80. Wilkes, op. cit. (n. 100), 444 suggested c. 71–74; Eck, 223 also thinks that Pegasus' command belongs to the early years of Vespasian's reign.

138 In general see Eck, op. cit. (n. 72), 210 f.

139 Alföldy, G., Die Legionslegaten der römischen Rheinarmeen = ES 3 (1967), 6 fGoogle Scholar.

140 Kreiler, 40 ff.

141 So also Groag, in PIR 2 C 1425Google Scholar; Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 139), 6 f; Eck, , RE 375Google ScholarPubMed, cf. his earlier view at Eck, 161 n. 213. Against, Syme 805 and Danubian Papers (Bucharest, 1971), 203Google Scholar.

142 Pugliese Carratelli, op. cit. (n. 19), 149.

143 Cominius may have been related to T. Cominius Proculus, proconsul of Cyprus in 43 or 44 (PIR 2 C1270). L. Minicius may have been related to Rufus, L. Miniciussuff. 88Google Scholar and Natalis, L. Miniciussuff. 106Google Scholar.

144 See Groag, at PIR 2 D 152Google Scholar and Alföldy, G., Die Hilfstruppen in der römischen Provinz Germania inferior = ES 6 (1968), 131 ffGoogle Scholar.

145 Morris, J., ‘Leges Annales under the Principate’, LF 87 (1964), 332 fGoogle Scholar.

146 Eck, 234; Thomasson, 2152 ff.

147 See also Groag, op. cit. (n. 144).

148 op. cit. (n. 144), 131 f.

149 Eck, 118 f.

150 For the details, see Bosworth, op. cit. (n. 70), 62 ff.

151 On Alföldy's reconstruction (op. cit. n. 141) he was consul c. 74. He is followed by Eck, 91.

152 See Groag, at PIR 2 D 167Google Scholar and Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 144), 131 ff.

153 cf. Alföldy, op. cit. (n. 144), 131 f. who places this post before his adlection.

154 CIL vi. 2002 apparently refers to the Salii Palatini, but see Syme, R., ‘The Ummidii’, Historia 17 (1968), 80 fGoogle Scholar.

155 So Syme, ibid.

156 Eck, 145; Kreiler, 61.

157 Veiento, is very probably the recipient of AE (1952), 168Google Scholar as argued by McDermott, op. cit. (n. 119), 141 f. Eck, W., ‘M. Pompeius Silvanus, consul designatus tertium — ein Vertrauter Vespasiens und Domitians’, ZPE 9 (1972), 259 ffGoogle Scholar. has attempted to attribute the inscription to M. Pompeius Silvanus but this seems unlikely given what else is known about him — see PIR P495, Thomasson 2. 37, Syme, R., ‘Governors of Pannonia Inferior’, Historia 14 (1965), 345Google Scholar.

158 See n. 135.

159 No credence can be placed in McDermott's (op. cit. (n. 119) 142 f.) wild restoration of AE (1952), 168 to make Crispus the colleague of Veiento. cf. the remark of Syme, 633 — ‘It cannot be taken as certain that he (Crispus) shared them (the fasces) with Veiento the third time, but it might be so.’ In my view seniority and senatorial dignitas make this unlikely.

160 See now Alföldy, G. and Halfmann, H., ‘M. Cornelius Nigrinus Curiatius Maternus’, Chiron 3 (1973), 331 ffGoogle Scholar. esp. 353 f.; Eck, , RE 107 fGoogle ScholarPubMed.

161 Kreiler, 64.

162 Eck, 107.

163 ibid. 108.

164 ibid. 129 ff.; Kreiler, 86.

165 Kreiler, 87 thinks ‘78 or 79’; Syme, 664 prefers ‘c. 76’.

166 Eck, 130 f.

167 Eck, 138; Kreiler, 48.

168 Syme, op. cit. (n. 98), 313 gives ‘c. 76’.

169 Kreiler, 110.

170 Buttrey, op. cit. (n. 10, table III).

171 See PIR 2 A374; Eck, 60 n. 32; Syme (op. cit. n. 8), 13.

172 Kreiler, 88; also ‘P. Valerius Patruinus — Statthalter in Galatien-Kappadokien 83–87 n. Chr.’, Chiron 4 (1974), 451 fGoogle Scholar.

173 Eck, 138 ff.

174 See the arguments of Eck, 152 f. esp. n. 273, 155 n. 79.

175 Eck, 156 n. 189.

176 See further Eck, 150 n. 162.

177 So also Eck, 234; Syme, 842.

178 Birley, , ES 4 (1967)Google Scholar, op. cit. (n. 117), 68.

179 Eck, 133 with n. 97.

180 Eck, 140 and see also ibid. 73 n. 109 for a full discussion of both Marinus' career and that of his son.

181 ibid. 1, 248.

182 Townend, G. B., ‘Some Flavian Connections’, JRS 51 (1961), 59Google Scholar.

183 See Birley, , Britannia 4 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, op. cit. (n. 117), 186.

184 For this possibility, ibid. 187; in favour, Eck, op. cit. (n. 157), 271.

185 cf. Syme, 643 who places it c. 73.

186 See Eck, , RE 285 fGoogle ScholarPubMed.

187 Kreiler, 120; Syme, op. cit. (n. 63), 363.

188 Kreiler, 46.

189 Syme, 634 f.; Eck, 225.

190 cf. the ‘ ?c. 72’ of Syme, 655 n. 4.

191 For a survey see Jones, C. P., ‘Sura and Senecio’, JRS 60 (1970), 98 ffGoogle Scholar.

192 See now Zevi, op. cit. (n. 32), 135 f.; Mattingly, H. B., ‘Tacitus' Praenomen: the Politics of a Moderate’, RSA 2 (1972), 175 fGoogle Scholar.

193 For this second possibility, see Jones, C. P. reviewing Eck, Gnomon 45 (1973), 690Google Scholar.

194 Tribunician years are given in parentheses. Vespasian's and Titus' years of tribunician power ran from 1 July to 30 June while Domitian's ran from 14 September to 13 September.