^{page 198 note 1} Joseph, . BJ 7.401Google Scholar informs us that Masada, the last stronghold of Jewish resistance, fell on 15 Xanthicus, but of what year? A.D. 72, argued in unconvincing detail by Niese, B., ‘Zur Chronologie des Josephus’’, Hermes 28 (1893), 211–12Google Scholar, is still assumed by Garzetti, A., From Tiberius to the Antonines, trans. Foster, J. R. (London, 1974), p.233Google Scholar. The most frequently cited date is A.D. 73–cf. inter alia Yadin, Y., Masada. Herod's Fortress and the Zealots' Last Stand (New York, 1966), p.15Google Scholar; Brandon, S. G. F., Jesus and the Zealots (Manchester, 1967), p.143Google Scholar-but an ingenious epigraphic argument for A.D. 74 recently promulgated by Eck, W., ‘Die Eroberung von Masada und eine neue Inschrift des L. Flavius Silva Nonius Bassus’’, ZNTW 60 (1969), 282–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Senatoren von Vespasian bis Hadrian (Munich, 1970), pp.93–103Google Scholar, has not failed to obtain support; cf. Schiirer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, rev. and ed. Vermes, G. and Millar, F., I (Edinburgh, 1973), pp.512 n.139, 515.Google Scholar Despite the sensible criticism of this date in Jones, C. P., Gnomon 45 (1973), 689Google Scholar, and AJPh 95 (1974), 89–90Google Scholar, there is a danger that it will acquire a broader following. The termini for Domitian's offensive against the Chatti pose a similar dilemma; cf. Braunert, H., ‘Zum Chattenkriege Domitians’’, BJ 153 (1953), 97–101Google Scholar; Jones, B. W., ‘The Dating of Domitian’’s War Against the Chatti’’, Historia 22 (1973), 79–90Google Scholar; contra, Evans, J. K., Historia 24 (1975), 121–4.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} The diplomatic link between Tib. Iulius Alexander and Vespasian in the months immediately before the latter's proclamation in A.D. 69, it has been plausibly speculated, was a certain Basilides; see Scott, K., ‘The Role of Basilides in the Events of A.D. 69’’ JRS 24 (1934), 138–40.Google Scholar The part is assigned to Berenice by Sullivan, P. B., ‘A Note on the Flavian Accession’’, CJ 49 (1953), 67–70, 78.Google Scholar In an important paper, ‘Titus and Berenice’’, AJPh 72 (1951), 162–75Google Scholar, Crook, J. A. has claimed that the very nature of their positions made Titus and Mucianus natural rivals after the Flavian victory, and that this split dominated the politics of Vespasian's reign. The argument throughout has the force of logic, but there is no evidence to confirm it.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 3} This nameless magistrate-elect is undoubtedly D. (?) Valerius Asiaticus, for several months in A.D. 69 Vitellius’’ son-in-law. He is addressed as consul designatus earlier in the narrative of this same Senate session, where he-also appears as the author of proposals honouring various members of the Flavian leadership (Hist. 4.4Google Scholar). For the vicissitudes of his career in 69, and for a possible explanation of the curious suppression of his name in Hist. 4.6, 8–9Google Scholar, see Townend, G. B., ‘The Consuls of A.D. 69/70’’, AJPb 83 (1962), 125–9.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} The statute in question was the lex Cornelia de falsis, quae etiam testamentaria vocatur (Inst. 4.18.7Google Scholar; cf. Dig. 48.10.1.1)Google Scholar as emended by the SC Libonianum, perhaps of A.D. 16 (see ThMommsen, , Röm. Strafr., p.671)Google Scholar, and edicts of Claudius (Dig. 48.10. 14.2, 15 praef.)Google Scholar and Nero (Suet. Nero 17).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 2} Tac., Hist. 4.10:Google Scholar ‘proximus dies causae destinatur…’’

^{page 199 note 3} Rogers, R. S., ‘A Criminal Trial of A.D. 70 (Tacitus, Histories, 4.44)’’, TAPA 80 (1949), 348Google Scholar, rightly deduced from th'e language of Hist. 4.39–40Google Scholar that the minutes of two different sessions were being para- phrased. Tacitus dates the first to the kalends of January, and Rogers believes the second to be the meeting regularly scheduled on the ides. That may be correct, but it could also have occurred on 3 Jan., when the senators assembled to pray for the emperor's well-being (Plin., Ep. 10.35, 100; Dio Cass. 59.24).Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 4} Dig. 48.10.1.13:Google Scholar ‘poena falsi vel quasi falsi deportatio est et omnium bonorum publicatio’’. Arnim, H. von, ‘Egnatius’’ no. 16, RE 5 (1905), 1996, mistakenly says that he was put to death.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 1} ‘Simul eos qui coeptam, deinde omissam actionem repeterent, monuit sermone molli et tamquam rogaret.’’ It was again Rogers, R. S., TAPA 80 (1949), 348Google Scholar, who acutely observed the relevance of Dig. 48.16.4.1Google Scholar to this passage. Cf. Mommsen, Th., Röm. Strafr., p.500.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 2} On the Marcii, father and daughter, see Miltner, F., ‘Marcius’’ nos. 38, 126, RE 14 (1930), 1549–50, 1606–7.Google ScholarCIL 6.31766 = ILS 953 has preserved his paternal ancestry for three generations; for its signifi-cance,, see p.201 n.4 below.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 3} PIR ² B 55.Google Scholar Although he does not elaborate, Syme, R., Tacitus (Oxford, 1958), p.829, claims that the two men were in fact one and the same.Google Scholar

^{page 200 note 4} It is usually assumed that this was (Flavia) Iulia; cf. Weynand, P., ‘Flavius’’ no. 207, RE 6 (1909), 2698Google Scholar; Miltner, F., RE 14 (1930), 1607Google Scholar;PIR ² F 399, 426Google Scholar; Townend, G. B., ‘Some Flavian Connections’’, JRS 51 (1961), 57Google Scholar, but Castritius, H., ‘Zu den Frauen der Flavier’’, Historia 18 (1969), 492–94Google Scholar, has ably argued that Iulia was the daughter of Arrecina Tertulla, with the infant born to Marcia Furnilla one of the unknown filiae of Titus attested by Philostr, . VA 7.7.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 1} Townend, G. B., JRS 51 (1961), 57 n.10.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 2} See Ritter, H. W., ‘Zur Lebensgeschichte der Flavia Domitilla, der Frau Vespasians’’, Historia 21 (1972), 759–61.Google Scholar Ritter‘s contention cannot be discounted simply because the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus prohibited the marriage of a senator and freed-woman (Dig. 23.2.44 praef.)Google Scholar. Vespasian could have petitioned for exemption from the law, and if he did so early in A.D. 39 Gaius, who had already favoured his political career (Suet. Vesp. 2Google Scholar: ‘aedilitatis ac mox praeturae candidates, illam non sine repulsa sextoque vix adeptus est loco, banc prima statim petitione et in primis’’), certainly would have readily assented. Two items argue precisely this date for the marriage: Suetonius links it (Vesp. 3.1Google Scholar) with Vespasian's activity as praetor (2.3), and Titus was born on 30 Dec. of that year; see Braithwaite, A. W., C. Suetoni Tranquilli Divus Vespasianus (Oxford, 1927), pp.24–5.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 3} Cf. Townend, G. B., JRS 51 (1961), 58Google Scholar; Birley, A. R., ‘Petillius Cerialis and the Conquest of Brigantia’’, Britannia 4 (1973), 182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 201 note 4} Her paternal grandfather, Q, Marcius Barea, was proconsul of Africa in A.D. 41/2–42/3 (CIL 8.11002Google Scholar, 19492; AE, 1935, 32, 1951, 85)Google Scholar; cf. Miltner, F., ‘Marcius’’ no. 37, RE 14 (1930), 1549Google Scholar; Thomasson, B. E., Die Stattbalter der römiscben Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus, ii (Lund, 1960), 31–2. He seems to have been the source of the family's splendor.Google Scholar

^{page 201 note 5} Both were honoured during his reign with undeserved consular legateships. Garzetti, A., ‘L. Cesennio Peto e la rivalutazione flaviana di personaggi neroniani’’, Mélanges d'arcbiologie et d'béstoire offerts à Andre Piganiol (Paris, 1966), p.788Google Scholar, has argued that Paetus was appointed governor of Syria because of his eastern experience, but Groag, E., ‘Caesennius’’ no. 9, RE 3 (1899), 1309, has correctly emphasized the decisive impact of the marital bond. Dynastic considerations will have similarly prompted the dispatch of Cerialis to Germany and Britain.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 1} Tac. Hist. 4.6: ‘ruina soceri in exilium pulsus, ut Galbae principatu rediit, Marcellum Eprium, delatorem Thraseae, accusare adgreditur. Ea ultio, incertum maior an iustior, senatum in studia diduxerat: nam si caderet Marcellus, agmen reorum sternebatur. Primo minax certamen et egregiis utriusque orationibus testatum; mox dubia voluntate Galbae, multis senatorum deprecantibus, omisit Priscus …’’Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 2} A.D. 70/1–72/3 (ILS 992 = McCrum- Woodhead 271)Google Scholar; see Eck, W., Senatoren, pp.83 n.31, 235Google Scholar. Bosworth, A. B., ‘Vespasian and the Provinces: Some Problems of the Early 70's A.D.’’, Athenaeum N.S. 51 (1973), 76, very neatly terms it ‘a change of air’’.Google Scholar