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