Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:19:25.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fasti for The Reign of Claudius

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

Recent years have brought to light much new evidence which has sometimes compelled considerable revision of the consular fasti of the early Empire. Of especial importance have been the large number of tabulae ceratae forthcoming from the area around the Bay of Naples and the new fragments or reinterpretations of known fragments of municipal fasti The aim of the present paper is to examine the effect which recent discoveries have had on knowledge of the fasti for the reign of Claudius and in the light of the interpretation of this new evidence to produce a revised list of consuls for the period 41–54.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , December 1978 , pp. 407 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1978

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 For a survey see Reynolds, J., ‘Roman Inscriptions, 1971–5’, JRS 66 (1976), 184, esp. n.129.Google Scholar

2 All dates are A.D. unless otherwise specified.

3 Smallwood, , pp.2, ff.Google Scholar

4 For the most recent discussion of whom see Thomasson, B. E., Senatores Procuratoresque Romani, pp.53 f.Google Scholar

5 See further on this list from Antium Weaver, P. R. C., ‘Dated Inscriptions of Imperial Freedmen and Slaves’, ES 11 (1976), 215 f.Google Scholar

6 For the full name see Barbieri, 1967Google Scholar, 6; Eck, W., RE Suppl. xiv. 51.Google Scholar

7 Forthe full name see now AE (1978), 549Google Scholar; Eck, W.‘M. Pompeius Silvanus, consul designatus tertium — ein Vertrauter Vespasians und Domitians’, ZPE 9 (1972), 259Google Scholar ff; RE Suppl. xiv. 437.Google Scholar

8 So also Eck, W., ZPE op.cit. 264 n.l5.Google Scholar

9 See also Barbieri, G., ‘Ancora sui consoli dell'anno 40’, Epigraphica 30 (1978), 185Google Scholar correcting his earlier attribution of this tablet to A.D. 40 in Barbieri, 1967, 3.Google Scholar

10 Barbieri's report of a tablet which places Vespasianus in office on 30 October (Barbieri, 1967, 9Google Scholar f.) is clearly erroneous. The error has also been noted by Eck, 1975, 339 n.94.Google Scholar

11 For more detailed discussions of each of the following see § II.

13 Barbieri, 1967, 3Google Scholar, 7 wrongly attributed a wax tablet to this pair which he thought placed them in office during January and February of 40. A revised reading attributed the tablet to the ordinarii of 49 – see now Barbieri, G., Epigraphica 30 (1978), op.cit. 185.Google Scholar

13 Corte, M. Delia, ‘Tabelle cerate Ercolanesi’, PP 6 (1951), 226.Google Scholar

14 I wish to thank Professor G. W. Houston for pointing out to me that these individuals known only from coins of Apamea (BMC Phrygia, 94Google Scholar nos. 143, 147) were not governors of Asia (as assumed in Gallivan 1974, 300 following Magie 1582) but were in fact either real or honorary local officials at Apamea. See further Houston, G. W., ‘M. Plancius Varus and the Events of A.D. 69–70’, TAPHA. 103 (1972), 173Google Scholar f. and Jameson, S., ‘Cornutus Tertullus and the Plancii of Perge’, JRS 55 (1965), 58.Google Scholar

15 See Degrassi, , pp.5Google Scholar ff., Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M., Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, pp.38 ff.Google Scholar

16 Degrassi, , pp.7Google Scholar ff., Ehrenberg, V. and Jones, A. H. M., op.cit., pp.40 ff.Google Scholar

17 Gallivan, 1974, 294 f.Google Scholar

18 Ianus Pater is described as – … is designatus erat in kal. lulias postmeridianus consul. … (Sen, . Apoc. 9Google Scholar). I accept the Senecan authorship of this work and a date for its publication of November or December 54; see further now, the discussion by Griffin, M. T., Seneca. A Philosopher in Politics, pp.129 f.Google Scholar

19 AE (1973), 166Google Scholar = Giordano, 1971, 194Google Scholar tablet 17 reads in part – I (Actum) (Puteol) is XIII K[alendas] Aug[ustas] I (Sex. Palpellio Histr)o, L. Pediano Secundo co(n)s(ulibus), i.e. 20 July. Barbieri, 1975, 155Google Scholar placing the consular pair in 43 accepts the date without hesitation. Misreadings of these tablets are not unknown (see e.g. Degrassi, A., ‘Epigraphica IV’, RAL 14 (1969), 138Google Scholar) but the Aug. of the tablet cannot be questioned (see Giordano, 1971Google Scholar loc.cit.). However, recently discovered fragments of the Fasti Potentini (see Barbieri, 1975, 153) show that the fasti for 43 contained ten consuls (see § III). It is impossible to accommodate all of these in 43 if Hister and Secundus were still in office during July since no consul can be shown to have held office for less than two months during the Claudian and Neronian periods, (see § III. The two (?) week consulship of C. Antistius Vetus in 46 is clearly unique.). The tablet must therefore be in error. In all probability the consular pair in question will have left office at the end of June thus leaving six months to accommodate the three pairs of suffects still to be fitted into this year. For a further complication about the year 43 see below.Google Scholar

20 The individuals involved, with two exceptions (the favoured Q. Veranius and C. (or A.) Pompeius Longinus Gallus), were holding the consulship for either the second time or the third time in the case of L. Vitellius or the third and fourth time in the case of Claudius himself.

21 I give in italics the suffects whose terms of office need to be added to those of the ordinarii to make up the six-month period of office.

22 Suet, . Claud. 46; Vesp. 4.2.Google Scholar

23 Gallivan, 1974, 295 f.Google Scholar

24 The unique case of C. Antistius Vetus consul for a maximum period of two weeks, need not be taken into account here.

25 See below for further discussion of this date.

26 Seen.10.

27 Seen.13.

28 CIL x. 4881Google Scholar = ILS 8530 reads: C. Herennio C.F. | Ter. Melai | aedili 11 vir | L. Nonio Asprenate cos. | 111 non. Sept. h. X natus est | A. Gabinio Secundo cos. | 111 non. Sept. h. X moritu[r]. | Mel ant a filio.Google Scholar

29 PIR1 2 G. 4 ff.; Taylor, L. R., The Voting Districts of the Roman Republic, p.217.Google Scholar

30 Gallivan, 1974, 296 f.Google Scholar

31 T. (or L.) Mussidius Pollianus; C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus; Pompeius Pedo; C. Suetonius Paullinus; C. Calpetanus Rantius Sedatus (Metronius?); C. Fuufius? (Fufius?); Cn. Minicius; L. Popillius Balbus; P. Anteius Rufus; P. Volasenna; Pompeius Paulinus; Lurius Varus; C. Calpurnius Piso; Ignotus I; Ignotus II; P. Sulpicius Scribonius Proculus; Sulpiciu Scribonius Rufus; Caesennius (or Caesonius) Maximus; Cluvius Rufus; Hordeonius Flaccus and Rubrius Gallus. The last six consuls are just as likely to have been Neronian consuls but it is not possible on the present evidence to dismiss them from the Claudian fasti.

32 This would be the number if C. Suetonius Paullinus were the same person as either Ignotus I or Ignotus II.

33 DE. ii. 1331Google Scholar f.; Hirschfeld, O., Die Kaiserlichen Verwaltungsbeamten bis auf Diocletian, p. 205.Google Scholar

34 Mommsen, Th., Römisches Staatsrecht, ii 3.669 n.5.Google Scholar

35 e.g. Groag, , RE xvi. 901; De Laet no. 255.Google Scholar

36 Degrassi, A., ‘Osservazioni su alcuni consoli suffetti dell' età di Augusto e Tiberio’, Epigraphica 8 (1946), 38 f.Google Scholar

37 See e.g. the fasti in De Laet 231 f.

38 Op.cit. (n.33), pp.206 f.

39 These extraordinary curatores were allocated the task of looking after roads close to Rome. See further Hirschfeld, op.cit. 206Google Scholar following Mommsen, op.cit. ii 3. 668 ff.Google Scholar

40 Cf. his handling of the Aerarium (Tac, . Ann. 13. 29).Google Scholar

41 Ritterling, E., Fasti des römischen Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat, p.14.Google Scholar

42 Ibid., pp.12 ff.

43 For this date see Wilkes, J., Dalmatia p.114.Google Scholar

44 So also, PIR 2 L. 449.Google Scholar

45 Cited by Alföldy, G. in the Addenda et Corrigenda to PIR 2 L. 449.Google Scholar

46 Add now the recently discovered inscription from Aquinum, AE (1973), 188Google Scholar = Gianetti, A., ‘Epigrafi Latine della Campania e del Latium Adiectum (REGIO 1)’, RAL 28 (1973), 476.Google Scholar

47 He was perhaps in charge there from 31 to 37. So Syme, R., ‘The Ummidii’, Historia, 17 (1978), 74Google Scholar. Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses, 136 dates his governorship ‘etwa 31–39’.Google Scholar

48 Whether this means that he was governor of Pannonia or Dalmatia is uncertain. See further, Wilkes, J., Dalmatia, p.443Google Scholar; Jagenteufel, A.op.cit. (n.60), pp.32Google Scholar ff. A military diploma of 61 (CIL xvi.4Google Scholar = ILS 1987 = Smallwood no. 296) calls Pannonia Illyricum which might suggest that Quadratus was governor of that province rather than Dalmatia.Google Scholar

49 See further, Syme, R., ‘Consulates in Absence’, JRS 48 (1958), 1 ff.Google Scholar

50 See n.58.

51 On this connection see further Syme, R., Historia, 17 (1978), 78 f.Google Scholar

52 For acceptance of this date, ibid., 74 Wilkes, J., Dalmatia, p.443Google Scholar and Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses, p.136Google Scholar

53 This date is accepted by Thomasson, B. E., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus, ii. 242Google Scholar but Miltner (RE iv A. 591 ff.) has argued that Dio has combined the campaigns of Paullinus which, he argues, ought to be assigned to the autumn of 41 and those of Paullinus' successor Cn. Hosidius Geta which ought to be assigned to the summer of 42, in his view. I can find no evidence in favour of Miltner's view against the date given by Dio.Google Scholar

54 42 is preferred by Birley, A. R., ‘The Roman Governors of Britain’, ES 4 (1967), 66Google Scholar; 43 by Syme, R., Tacitus, p.387Google Scholar n.2 and Ogilvie, R. M. and Richmond, I. A., Cornelii Taciti de vita Agricolae, p.145.Google Scholar

55 It would be tempting to identify Paullinus with the L.S — of the fragment of the Fasti Potentini for 43 but according to Barbieri, 1975, 153Google Scholar f, the praenomen L. seems certain. Paullinus could of course be one of the two Ignoti on the same fragment.

56 Supporting this year see Eck, 1975, 342Google Scholar n.120 who unfortunately overlooks the fact that the November/December suffection in 45 is unfilled. So also Barbieri, 1975, 156 f.Google Scholar

57 Favoured by Syme, R., ‘Domitius Corbulo’, JRS 66 (1970), 28.Google Scholar

58 e.g. Gallus, A. Didiuscos. 39Google Scholar (not 36 as previously believed – see now Barbieri, G., ‘A. Didius Gallus e Ti. Iulius lulianus’, RAL 29 (1974), 259Google Scholar); Cn. Domitius Afer cos. suff. 39, praetor in 25 Tac, . Ann. 4. 52Google Scholar) and C. Ummidius Durmius Quadratus cos. suff. c.40 (see above), praetor in 18 (ILS 972). Others were clearly in the pipeline and are duly recorded in the fasti for the early years of Claudius, e.g. Sex. Palpellius Hister cos. suff. 43 (see § I) who was given as a comes to Tiberius by Augustus (ILS 946) and Rufus, Q. Curtiuscos. suff. 43Google Scholar (see below) who was elderly when he held the governorship of Upper Germany in 47 (Tac, . Ann. 11. 21. 3).Google Scholar

59 For the intervals between holding the consulship and receiving the governorship of Britain under Claudius see Birley, A. R., ES 4 (1967), 64 f.Google Scholar

60 Jagenteufel, A., Die Statthalter der römischen Provinz Dalmatia von Augustus bis Diokletian, p.39Google Scholar; Wilkes, J., Dalmatia, pp.83, 444.Google Scholar

61 e.g. by Wilkes, J., Dalmatia, p.536.Google Scholar

62 Römisches Staatsrecht, ii 3. 588, 642.Google Scholar

63 The case would be strengthened further if Groag (RE xix. 1216Google Scholar) is correct in identifying this Petronius Lurco with the Lurco, A. Petroniuscos. suff. 58. However M. Petronius may be a younger brother.Google Scholar

64 Dobson, B., ‘The Praefectus Fabrum in the Early Principate’, in Britain and Rome, 65.Google Scholar

65 Mommsen, , Römisches Staatsrecht, i 3. 300 n.5; ii3. 98 n.4.Google Scholar

66 The new order of names has been occasioned by the recently discovered fragment of the Fasti Potentini (Barbieri, 1975, 153).Google Scholar

67 Syme, R., JRS 60 (1970), 38.Google Scholar

68 See also Barbieri, G., RAL 29 (1974), 259.Google Scholar

69 See Gallivan, 1974, 300 where it is argued that the vacant September/October suffection in 5 5 should be filled by M. Iunius Silanus and A. Ducenius Geminus.Google Scholar

70 See also Harrer, G. A., Studies in the History of the Roman Province of Syria, pp.64 f.Google Scholar

11 See the lists ibid. 63 f.; De Laet 241 f.

72 Jagenteufel, A., op.cit., p.34Google Scholar; Wilkes, J., op.cit., p.444.Google Scholar

73 Jagenteufel, A., op.cit., pp.18Google Scholar ff.; Wilkes, J., op.cit., pp.443 f.Google Scholar

74 This date was deduced by W. H. Waddington, Pastes des provinces asiatiques de I ‘Empire romain, no. 90 (followed by Magie 1582 and Eck, 1975, 339Google Scholar) on the grounds that a coin with the name Volasenna bears a portrait of Poppaea Sabina whom Nero married in 62 (Tac, . Ann. 14Google Scholar. 59 f.; Suet, . Nero 35Google Scholar; Dio 62. 23) and who was killed by the emperor in 65 (Tac, . Ann. 16. 6).Google Scholar

75 L. Salvius Otho Titianus was proconsul for 63/4 (Tac, . Agric. 6);Google Scholar L. Antistius Vetus for 64/5 (Magie 1582; 1422 n.78) and M'. Acilius for 65/6 (ibid. 1582). Since C. (or A.) Pompeius Longinus Gallus was proconsul in 59/60 (ibid. 1582; 1421 n.72), we are left with only two years, 60/1 and 61/2 for Volasenna and Marcius Barea Soranus (ibid. 1582; 1422 n.77).

76 Cf. Gallivan, 1974, 299.Google Scholar

77 Seen.75.

78 Cf. Eck's view (Eck, 1975, 339Google Scholar) – ‘bleibt mit grösserer Wahrscheinlichkeit nur noch das Jahr 54 übrig, in dem P. Volasenna die Fasces geführt haben kann’. P. Volasenna (the praenomen is given by coins BMC Phrygia, 58Google Scholar nos. 1 ff.) is perhaps the younger brother of C. Volasenna Severus suff. 44 (see below). It is highly unlikely that the two Volasennae should be one and the same person despite the confusion over the praenomen of the governor of Asia (see PIR, V. 616Google Scholar), for an interval of almost twenty years between the consulship and the proconsulship of Asia is unparalleled for these years (Magie 15181 f.; Eck, 1975, 339).Google Scholar

79 Zevi, F., ‘Nuovi frammenti dei Fasti Ostienses’, Akten des VI internationalen Kongresses für griechische und lateinische Epigraphik München 1972, p.437.Google Scholar

80 See the discussion under P. Trebonius/Q. Caecina Primus below.

81 Gallivan, 1974, 301.Google Scholar

82 Ibid., 300 f.

83 See PIR 2 C. 284 and, most recently, Scheid, J., Les Frères Arvales, 206 ff.Google Scholar

84 Gallivan, 1974, 301.Google Scholar

85 Ibid. 304.

86 So also Alföldy, G., Fasti Hispanienses, pp.16Google Scholar f. Syme, R., Tacitus, pp.293 f. suggested that Josephus may have added anachronistically.Google Scholar

87 Gallivan, 1974, 305 f.Google Scholar

88 Seen.78.

89 Zevi, F., op.cit. (n.79), p.437.Google Scholar

90 RE Suppl. xiv. 810.Google Scholar

91 I follow Smallwood's practice of giving Claudius' years of tribunician power in brackets. My suggested revisions are italicized.

92 The year is complete because one of the two pairs C. Vibius Rufinus/M. Cocceius Nerva and P. Fabius Firmianus/L. Tampius Flavianus belong in July/August.

93 Gallivan, 1974, 299 f.Google Scholar