^{page 290 note 2} In this section, I follow the fasti as given by Smallwood, 4 ff., which is based on, but brings up to date, the list in Degrassi, 15 ff.

^{page 290 note 3} I include in my reckoning the ordinarii and all suffecti who might, on any grounds, have held office during A.D. 54 even though they were appointed by the previous emperor. (Claudius died on 13 October—cf. P.I.R.² C. 942.) As will be evident from Sections II and III, I disagree on a large number of the dates given by Smallwood and Degrassi, but the primary aim of this first Section is to determine the recorded months of a consul's tenure rather than the actual year, which will be dealt with in Section II.

^{page 290 note 4} I adopt Smallwood's practice of including the eponymous consuls immediately after the year in question.

^{page 290 note 5} C.I.L. 16. 6 even if correctly dated by Kubitschek to A.D. 54 is of no help, as the fragment containing the date has been lost.

^{page 290 note 6} So also Groag in P.I.R.² C. 1605.

^{page 291 note 1} An asterisk placed before a year indicates that all the suffects are known for that year.

^{page 291 note 2} Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Tabulae Herculanenses III’, P.P. viii (1953), 455 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 291 note 3} Carratelli, G. Pugliese and Arangio-Ruiz, V., ‘Tabulae Herculanenses IV’, P.P. ix (1954), 54 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 1} Gallus' tenure of the consulship for eight months was irregular for an ordinarius under Nero (see below), but the evidence of the tablet must be accepted as it has been by Smallwood, 5. The surviving evidence for Gallus (cf. P.I.R.² A. 437) is insufficient to explain his extended tenure.

^{page 292 note 2} I see no reason why this cannot be the general Suetonius Paulinus (suff. shortly after A.D. 41). No son of the same name is attested (see P.I.R.¹ S. 694). For the contrary view, De Laet. nos. 1544, 1545; Birley, A. R., ‘The Roman Governors of Britain’, Epigraphische Studien iv (1967), 66.Google Scholar

^{page 292 note 3} According to the editors of C.I.L. 6. 8639 and 0. 6637, Nero's name has been erased on the inscription as a result of the abolitio memoriae which followed his death. A number of undated inscriptions attest Italicus and Trachalus in office together (I.L.S. 5025; 9059 = C.I.L.16, p. 146, 12. For an explanation of the latter see Townend, G. B., ‘The Consuls of A.D. 69/70’, A.J.Ph. lxxxiii (1962), 118). It is uncertain whether Italicus was Trachalus' colleague in I.L.S. 6125 = C.I.L. 10. 5405. Another inscription (C.I.L. 3. 7005) records the following—CCC/RIII/IALIC COS. The editor comments: ‘Fortasse, ut observat editor, Italico cos., Neronis nomine scilicet suppresso.’ This must remain highly doubtful as evidence since it cannot be dated, there is no trace of any colleague, and it is not even certain whether it belongs to the Italicus presently under discussion. Trust should rather be placed on those inscriptions cited in the text above. Cf. Hohl, R.E. suppl. 3, 391 who says Nero was consul ‘ohne Kollegen’.Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 1} Galba was called to arms by Vindex at the end of March (Suet. Galba 9. 2; Plut. Galba 4–5; Dio. 63. 23) and declared himself legatus S.P.Q.R. on 2 April (Dio 64. 6. 52; Plut. Galba 5. 2; Suet. Galba 10. 1–2; cf. Dio. 63. 23; Plut. Galba 22. 2). Nero would have heard of the revolt in Spain towards the middle of the month. (Cf. the journey of Icelus from Rome to Spain in seven days—Suet. Galba 22; Plut. Galba 7. 1–3). Nero probably assumed the consulship during April, for the context of Suet. Nero 43. 2 suggests that the emperor took office at some time before he heard of the outcome of the battle of Vesontio which took place probably about the middle of May. (For this date, I am largely in agreement with the arguments of Mattingly, H., ‘Verginius at Lugdunum?’, N.C. ⁶ xiv [1954],Google Scholar 32 ff. and Brunt, P. A., ‘The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero’, Latomus xviii [1959], 541).Google Scholar

^{page 293 note 2} I include in this place only the evidence indicating the months of a particular suf fect's tenure. For more detailed discussion of the various individuals, see Section II.

^{page 293 note 3} Carratelli, G. Pugliese, ‘Tabulae Herculanenses I’, P.P. i (1946), 373 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 294 note 1} His testimony has been accepted, but without detailed examination, by M. Hammond, The Antonine Monarchy, 291, 305 n. 16, and Townend, A.J.Ph., loc. cit., 114.

^{page 294 note 2} I assume here some of the conclusions of Section II below. The list could easily be conflated by the addition of those suffects who are directly attested in office during August. (See what follows in Section I.)

^{page 295 note 1} The exceptions are: three of Nero's four consulships (A.D. 55, 57, and 58); the extended consulship of Gallus (A.D. 62); the death of M. Iulius Vestinus Atticus (A.D. 65); the resignation of Fonteius Capito (A.D. 67), and the forced resignation of Silius Italicus (A.D. 68).

^{page 295 note 2} Suet. Claud. 46; Vesp. 4. 2.

^{page 295 note 3} The truth of this hypothesis was assumed in passing by Townend, A.J.Ph., loc. cit. 114, 117 n. 11, 123, but without elucidation.

^{page 296 note 1} Eprius Marcellus is only directly attested for November/December, but there is no cogent reason why he was not Marullus' partner for the September/October suffection as well. Compare the four months' tenures of Mucianus and Macer and of M. Arruntius and M. Vettius Bolanus.

^{page 296 note 2} This pair was not one of those designated by Nero (Tac. Hist. 77; Plut. Otho I. 2) but was installed by Galba. The appointment of Natalis who came from Vienna (cf. P.I.R.² B. 101) was clearly the result of Galba's efforts to honour that city for its allegiance (Tac. Hist. 5. 65; cf. Town-end, A.J.Ph., loc. cit. 117). However, pace Townend, it is not necessary to assume that their tenure was of only three months' duration, i.e. from October to December, just because the surviving evidence (cf. P.I.R.² B. 101) directly attests them in office during these months. A regular pair of Neronian suffects would presumably have come into office on 1 July. (Unfortunately no evidence as to their identity has survived.) If Natalis and Asiaticus did become suffects on 1 October, their predecessors would have held office for either three months (if the regular July suffects continued in office) or for one month (if a further pair assumed office in September). No evidence for such irregular lengths of tenure is known (cf. Smallwood, 4 ff.; Degrassi, 55 ff.). Nor should too much weight be placed on the fact that Galba did not arrive in Rome until about September (Tac. Hist. 1. 6). Although absent from Rome, Galba as elected emperor must surely have had the final say regarding those who would hold the consulship after the initial two months' tenure of those in office during July and August. Therefore the interpretation presented in the text is equally as plausible as that propounded by Townend. On the above view, then, Galba's system of symmetrical consular terms with periods of three months (on which see further Townend, 158 ff.) did not begin until the beginning of A.D. 69.

^{page 297 note 1} There is no evidence to suggest whether Vestinus Atticus, who committed suicide it April, was or was not replaced. Nero' practice in such cases seems ambiguous, for on the one hand there is Suetonius' report (Nero 15. 2) that on one occasion defunctoque circa Kal. Ian. altero e consulibus neminen substituit improbans exemplum vetus Canini Rebili uno die consulis, while on the other hand it is known that when Fonteius Capito left office before the end of six months in A.D. 67 he was replaced by L. Aurelius Priscus.

^{page 297 note 2} They are: C. Fuufius? (Fufius ?); Cn Minicius; P. Volasenna; Q. Futius; P Calvisius; L. Iunius Gallio Annaeanus; M. Aefulanus; M. Vettius Niger; M. Iuniu Silanus; A. ----; Lurius Varus; Pornpeius Paulinus; P. Sulpicius Scribonius Proculus; Sulpicius Scribonius Rufus; C. Velleius Paterculus; M. Manilius Vopiscus; Cn. Pedanius Salinator; L. Velleius Paterculus; A. Ducenius Geminus; Q. Manlius Tarquitius Saturninus; T. Petronius Niger; Appius Annius Gallus; L. Verulanus Severus; Caesennius (or Caesonius) Maximus; (M. Annius) Afrinus; (C. Paccius) Africanus; C. Licinius Mucianus; Q. Fabius Barbarus Antonius Macer; Hordeonius Flaccus; Rubrius Gallus; Vibius Crispus; Ti. Ant{t}ius; Q. Vibius; M. Aponius Saturninus; Acilius.

^{page 298 note 1} C. Fuufius? (Fufius?); Cn. Minicius; Q. Futius; P. Calvisius; A. Ducenius Geminus; M. Iunius Silanus; Pompeius Paulinus; P. Sulpicius Scribonius Proculus; Sulpicius Scribonius Rufus; Hordeonius Flaccus; Vibius Crispus: Caesennius (or Caesonius) Maximus; M. Aponius Saturninus; Rubrius Gallus; Acilius Glabrio.

^{page 298 note 2} See the first ten suffects listed in the previous note.

^{page 298 note 3} On this possibility see the sagacious remarks of Syme, R., ‘Governors of Pannonia Inferior’, Historia xiv (1965), 355, referring to the reigns of Hadrian and Pius. The principle stands true for the reign of Nero as well.Google Scholar

^{page 298 note 4} In the interest of brevity, I have deliberately kept at a minimum the citation of evidence in this section and consequently I have only quoted that evidence from the careers of the various individuals which is directly relevant for the dating of their consulship.

^{page 299 note 1} Degrassi, 14, gives his praenomen as C. or P.; P.I.R.¹ V. 616 prefers C.; Schneider, no. 372, is uncertain, as is De Laet, no. 1166.

^{page 299 note 2} See further, Thomasson, i. 22 ff.; Eck, 82 ff.

^{page 299 note 3} See the fasti given by Magic, , ii, 1582, and his remarks at ii 1422 n. 77. W. H. Waddington, Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques de l'Empire Romain, no. go, suggested A.D. 62/3 —he is followed by De Laet, no. 1166, and Schneider, no. 372.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 4} Magic, ii. 1582.

^{page 299 note 5} For this principle see the list of Asian governors with consular dates given by Syme, App. 23; also Historia, xiv (1965), 349.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 6} Indeed, if the fasti as given by Magic, , ii. 1582, is correct, the consulship of Volasenna should be placed ‘before 52’ as his successor in Asia, Barea Soranus, was consul in that year (Smallwood, 4).Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 7} Cf. De Laet, no. 1016, who would place them in A.D. 54 or 55.

^{page 299 note 8} Moretti, L., ‘Vicus Cornicularius’, Arch. Class. X (1958), 231 f. A.E.Google Scholar 1960, 61–2 and Smallwood, E. M., ‘Consules Suffecti of A.D. 55’, Historia xvii (1968), 384, clarifying C.I.L. 4.3340 tab. 45. The date is accepted in P.I.R.² I. 757. Cf. Degrassi, 15, who gave ‘A.D. 53–5’ as did De Laet, no. 1030. Syme, 839, thought ‘C. A.D. 54’.Google Scholar

^{page 299 note 9} Magic, ii. 1582.

^{page 299 note 10} See above, n. 2.

^{page 299 note 11} No date is given in P.I.R.² A. 115, by De Laet, no. 930, or by Rohden, von, R.E. I. 1. 476.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 1} Magie, ii. 1421 n. 72, 1582.

^{page 300 note 2} A date c. A.D. 50–1 is suggested by the normal interval. Niger's predecessor, C. (or A.) Pompeius Longinus Gallus, was cos. ord. in A.D. 49 (Smallwood, 3) and his successor P. Volasenna was consul most likely before A.D. 52 (see above). Hanslik's date of A.D. 47 is far too early (R.E. 8. A. 2. 1861). Cf. P.I.R.¹ V. 334, Schneider, no. 534, and De Laet, no. 1148, who prefer ‘Before 63’.

^{page 300 note 3} By Syme, R., ‘Missing Persons (P.-W. VIII. A)’, Historia V (1956), 210;Google Scholar also in his review of Jagenteufel, A., Die Statt. Dalmatia, Gnomon xxxi (1959), 518.Google Scholar See as well, P.I.R. ² I. 834.Google Scholar

^{page 300 note 4} Magic, ii. 1582. I adopt Groag's suggestion (P.I.R.² D. 201) of A.D. 67/8 as the correct year for his governorship.

^{page 300 note 5} Magic, ii. 1582.

^{page 300 note 6} Cf. De Laet, no. 1008, who gives ‘c. A.D. 56/7’, which is demonstrably wrong. Groag, R.E. 5. 2. 1754 f., would place Geminus in ‘one of the first years of Nero’.

^{page 300 note 7} Groag's attempt (‘Prosopographische Bemerkungen’, W.S. l [1932], 202 if.) to identify him with a personage under Gaius has found little favour; e.g. see Petersen, P.I.R.² L. 428.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 1} Brunt, P. A., ‘Charges of Provincial Maladministration under the Early Principate’, Historia X (1961), 225, also prefers a Claudian date.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 2} See also Ritterling, E., Fasti des römischen Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat, 49.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 3} So Hanslik, R.E. 21. 2. 2281.

^{page 301 note 4} Ritterling, op. cit. 50 f., no. 8; Syme, R., ‘Pliny the Procurator’, H.S.C.Ph. lxxiii (1969), 206.Google Scholar

^{page 301 note 5} Ritterling, 45 fl'. On the other hand, it ought to be remembered that Duvius Avitus probably took up his governorship within a year after his consulship, which was held during November and December A.D. 56 (Smallwood, 4).

^{page 301 note 6} See Syme, 591; Colonial élites, 20.

^{page 301 note 7} So Syme, 591, 786; H.S.C.Ph., loc. cit. 206.

^{page 301 note 8} Ritterling, 49, no. 7 prefers A.D. 54, as does Hanslik, R.E. 21. 2. 2281. Schneider, no. 500, gives no date but thinks that the governorship came quickly after the consulate. If Paulinus was consul under Nero, he will have to have held office during November and December A.D. 54.

^{page 301 note 9} Whatever the year of his consulship, Paulinus was certainly designated by Claudius.

^{page 301 note 10} Ritterling, 51, prefers a Neronian date. See also Groag, R.E. 2. A. 1. 889. For the governorships of Vetus and Mancia, Ritter-ling, 16 f., nos. 8–9.

^{page 301 note 11} Schneider, no. 365, would like to place him before A.D. 50, but his argument betrays an inadequate knowledge of the fasti for the reigns of Claudius and Nero.

^{page 302 note 1} Ritterling, 49, nos. 7–8; 51.

^{page 302 note 2} Cf. Schneider, no. 366. De Laet, nos. 1109–10, suggests no date for either brother.

^{page 302 note 3} For a survey of earlier scholarship on this passage from Seneca see Hammond, M., ‘The Tribunician Day During the Early Empire’, M.A.A.R. xv (1938),Google Scholar 28 ff. The text of Seneca has been rightly supported by its most recent editor T. H. Corcoran, Loeb edition ad loc. For acceptance of the above date, Hanslik, , R.E. 8. A. I. 660;Google Scholar R. Seager, Tiberius, 267; Sumner, G. V., ‘The Truth About Velleius Paterculus’, H.S.C.Ph. lxxiv (1970),Google Scholar 278 n. 124, 297; more cautiously, Degrassi, 16 f.; Syme, 786. C. Velleius Paterculus is known to have been leg. Aug. leg. III Aug. at some time after A.D. 39, possibly even after A.D. 45 (C.I.L. 8. 10311; for the latter date, Thomason, , ii. 147) which is no impediment to a consulship held in A.D. 60.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 4} Nero dated his tribunician power from 4 December A.D. 54. See further, M. Hammond, M.A.A.R. loc. cit., 23 ff.

^{page 302 note 5} For this year also, M. Hammond, M.A.A.R., loc. cit. 29 if.; Groag, , R.E. 19. I. 23;Google Scholar Hanslik, ibid. 8. A. I. 660; with hesitation, Degrassi, 17. Cf. Syme, 786, suggesting ‘60 or 61’ and Carratelli, G. Pugliese, P.P. I (1948), 382.Google Scholar

^{page 302 note 6} See Rose, K. F. C., ‘The Author of the Satyricon’, Latomus xx (1960),Google Scholar 821 ff., with full bibliography. Also identifying Petronius as Neronian, Rankin, H. D., ‘On Tacitus' Biography of Petronius’, C. & M. xxvi (1965), 233 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 1} See the fasti given by Magic, ii. 1590 f. The only governor of the late 50s and early 60s who can be securely dated is M. Tarquitius Priscus in A.D. 59/60.

^{page 303 note 2} For the date, I.R.T. 300; Thomasson, , ii. 46 f.; Eck, 89 f.Google Scholar

^{page 303 note 3} The normal interval between the consulate and the proconsulate of Africa at this time was between eight and ten years—see Thomasson, 29 f.; Eck, 89 f. The twelve-year interval for L. Calpurnius Piso (cos. ord. A.D. 57; governor A.D. 69/70) is unusual (Thomasson, 44 f.; Eck, 89). The interval clearly shortens after this time to the usual eight to ten years. (See the list in Eck, loc. cit.)

^{page 303 note 4} Syme, 743. At 387 n. 6 he says ‘c. 62’.

^{page 303 note 5} e.g. by Rose, loc. cit. 822, and Smallwood, 7. Degrassi, 17 f., allots Niger to ‘. 62’ but also includes a C.? Petronius Arbiter whom he assigns to ‘prima del 66’.

^{page 303 note 6} Syme, 826, and ‘Missing Persons II (P.-W. VIII. A. 2)’, Historia viii (1959), 207, also favours A.D. 66. Cf. Schneider, no. 493, who suggests ‘Between 62 and 70’; De Laet,. no. 1294, prefers ‘Between 62 and 6g’; Ritter-ling, 21, opts for ‘Between 64 and 68’, as does Klebs, R.E. 1. 2. 2268, while Groag, P.I.R.² A. 653 thinks ‘Between 62 and 64’ or ‘Between 66 and 69’.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 1} So also Groag, R.E. 3. 1. 1307. Schneider, no. 495, thinks that he was probably Neronian, while De Laet, no. 959, attempts no date.

^{page 304 note 2} For his career see now Benario, H. W., ‘C. Paccius Africanus’, Histories viii (1959), 496Google Scholar and Eck, 90, 124, correcting P.I.R.¹ P. 7–8 and R.E. 18. 1. 2063 ff., nos. 7, II. Cf. Wiseman, T. P., New Men in the Roman Senate, 248, no. 301.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 3} First published by Goodchild, R. G., Fasti Archaeologici i (1946),Google Scholar 263 f., and with revisions, ‘Two Monumental Inscriptions of Lepcis Magna’, P.B.S.R. xviii (1950), 77 ff. See also now, Eck, 90 n. 77. For acceptance of the date, Thomasson, ii. 47 f.; Syme, 669; Degrassi, 18; Eck, 524, and Benario, loc. cit. 497.Google Scholar

^{page 304 note 4} Eck, 89; cf. Thomasson, 48, who cautiously gives ‘Ende Vespasianus—Anfang Domitianus’.

^{page 304 note 5} See above, p. 303 n. 3.

^{page 304 note 6} Cf. Syme, who wavers between the years A.D. 66 and 67–333 n. 6 (66); 668 (67); 787 (67), and 844 (c. 66); Benario, 498, thinks ‘66 or a little later’; Degrassi, 18, prefers ‘67 o poco dopo’, as does A. Dobó Die Verwaltung der römischen Provinz Pannonien von Augustus bis Diocletianus, 33, no. 20; Eck, 8g, says ‘c. 68’ but at go leaves it as ‘Between 66 and 68’.

It might be argued that Africanus' proconsulate of Africa was held later than usual because of his prosecution in A.D. 70 (Tac. Hist. 4. 41 ‘ad Paccium Africanum transgressi eum quoque proturbant, tamquam Neroni Scribonios fratres concordia opibusque insignis ad exitium monstravisset. Africanus neque fateri audebat neque abnuere poterat: in Vibium Crispum, cuius interrogationibus fatigabatur, ultro con-versus, miscendo quae defendere nequibat, societate culpae invidiam declinavit.’) That need not be the case, for Vibius Crispus was also attacked at the same meeting of the senate yet only two years later (A.D. 72/3) he was proconsul of Africa (see below). Further, there are on record a number of important Neronian ministers who became allies of the new dynasty with no interruption to their curses—e.g. Eprius Marcellus (suff A.D. 62; proconsul of Asia, A.D. 70–3); Vibius Crispus (suff. 63 or 64; proconsul of Africa, A.D. 72/3); Silius Italicus (cos. ord. A.D. 68; proconsul of Asia, A.D. 77/8) and P. Galerius Trachalus (cos. ord. A.D. 68; proconsul of Africa, A.D. 78/9). In general, see Syme, 594; App. 12.

^{page 304 note 7} Supporting the date, Dobó, op. cit. 33; W. Reidinger, Die Statthalter des ungeteilten Pannonien and Oberpannoniens von Augustus bis Diokktian, 46 f., no. 12; Townend, G. B., ‘Some Flavian Connections’, J.R.S. (1961), 60f.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 1} Eck, 112 ff., esp. 114 n. 11, would place him in Pannonia as early as A.D. 70.

^{page 305 note 2} For his governorship of Galatia, R. K. Sherk, The Legates of Galatia from Augustus to Diocletian, 30. Jones, C. P., ‘The Teacher of Plutarch’, H.S.C.Ph. lxxi (1966), 208 ff., has argued cogently that the Athenian inscription, I.G. 2/3². 4184, refers to the Annius under discussion. He suggests further that the consulate was held in Greece during Nero's tour and therefore must have been assumed in July A.D. 67. I concur. Groag's date of ‘Under either Claudius or Nero’ (P.I.R.² A. 630) was followed by De Laet, no. 938, but it has rightly been rejected by recent scholars, e.g. Dobó, op. cit., 33.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 3} For the date, Magic, ii. 1386 n. 48, 1598; Syme, 790.

^{page 305 note 4} For the principle, Syme, R. in his review of Degrassi, J.R.S. xliii (1953),Google Scholar 152 f.; ‘Consulates in Absence’, xlviii (1958),Google Scholar ff., esp. 2 f.; Historia xiv (1965), 342;Google Scholar ‘Legates of Cilicia under Trajan’, Historia xviii (1969), 353.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 5} See P.I.R.² C. 691; also the fasti for Syria given by Seyrig, H., ‘Légats-propréteturs de Syrie entre 63 et 137’, Syria (1941), 174 f.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 6} So also De Laet, no. 1042, and Schneider, no. 498; cf. Petersen, P.I.R.² L. 216.

^{page 305 note 7} Cf. Barbieri, G. (R.S.I. lxvi [1954], 418, cited by Petersen, P.I.R.² L. 216) who argued for this year. A.D. 67 was established by Borghesi, but this date, which held sway for many years, has been rightly rejected by Kappelmacher, R.E. 13. I. 437.Google Scholar

^{page 305 note 8} De Laet, no. 1042.

^{page 305 note 9} Petersen, P.I.R.² L. 216, rightly doubts whether Bull. Comm. 1885, 162 attesting a Mucianus in office during November refers to C. Licinius Mucianus. An examination of the fasti after A.D. 59 shows no other suffections of six months' duration for the reign (see Section III). For some other Muciani to whom the inscription might refer, see Degrassi, 259. Cf. Schneider, no. 598.

^{page 305 note 10} Also supporting this year, Syme, 785, 787, Igo; ‘Antonin Relatives: Ceionii and Vettuleni’, Athenaeum xxxv (1957), 311; Townend, , loc. cit. 54, also suggests ‘c. 64’. Cf. Degrassi, 18, who prefers ‘prima del 68’.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 1} Ritterling, 19 f.

^{page 306 note 2} He may even have been a contemporary of Galba who was born in 3 B.C. (P.I.R.¹ S. 723).

^{page 306 note 3} See Stein, A., Die Legaten von Moesien, 32 f.; Eck, 115.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 4} Münzer, , R.E. I. A. 1172 thinks ‘wahrscheinlich Consul suffectus unter Nero’.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 5} Mentioned in P.I.R.¹ I. 847; see now Equini, E., ‘Un frammento inedito dei fasti Ostiensi’, Epigraphica xxix (1967), II ff.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 6} For the identification, Eck, 58 ff., 91, 118, 130 n. 82, 255; Equini, op. cit. 14 ff.It is uncertain whether Crispus was adopted by an L. Iunius (Eck) or was polyonymous (Equini). In general on Crispus, P.I.R.¹ V. 379; R.E. 8. A. 2. 1968 ff.; as an amicus, Crook, J., Consilium Principis, 188.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 7} So also, G. Alföldy, Fasti Hispanienses, 18 f.; McDermott, W. C., ‘Fabricius Veiento’, A.J.Ph. xci (1970), 136; Eck, 60 f.; cf. Degrassi, 24, who gives ‘81/2? (certamente prima del 87)’.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 8} Œuvres, iv. 534, 538.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 9} Degrassi, 19, suggests ‘prima del 68’. He is followed by Alföldy, op. cit. 18; Thomasson, ii. 45; Eck, 89.

^{page 306 note 10} Hanslik, , R.E. 8. A. 2. 1968.Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 11} Syme, 387 n. 6; H.S.C.Ph., loc. cit. 209, 215.

^{page 306 note 12} The date has now been firmly established by Syme, R., ‘Deux proconsulats d'Afrique’, R.E.A. lviii (1956), 236 ff.; H.S.C.Ph., loc. cit. 215. Accepted by AlfOldy, op. cit. 18; Eck, 89; cf. Thomasson, ii. 45, who prefers ‘vor 77’, but at 46 he notes: ‘Vielleicht wird sich einmal 72/3 als das Richtige erweisen.’Google Scholar

^{page 306 note 13} See above, p. 303 n. 3.

^{page 306 note 14} For this date, I.R.T. 300; Syme, R.E.A. loc. cit. 238: Thomasson, i. 46 f.; Eck, 89.

^{page 307 note 1} R.E. (s.n. Vibius 28), 1969.

^{page 307 note 2} Degrassi, 19 suggests ‘prima del 68?’ and would also connect the Q. Vibius with Vibius Crispus.

^{page 307 note 3} McCrum, and Woodhead, , Select Documents of the Principate, s of the Flavian Emperors, II P.I.R.²F. 91.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 4} McCrum and Woodhead, 5; Equini, Epigraphica, loc. cit. 12, 19.

^{page 307 note 5} See now, Dušanic, S., ‘On the consules suffecti of A.D. 74–6’, Epigraphica XXX (1968),Google Scholar 59 ff.; Torelli, M., ‘The curses honorum of M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa’, J.R.S. lviii (1968),Google Scholar 174 n. 22; cf. McCrum and Wood-head, 5, who wrongly place Neratius Pansa in this year following a suggestion by Syme, R. reviewing Degrassi, J.R.S. xliii (1953), 151.Google Scholar

^{page 307 note 6} See Herzog, R.E. 17. 2.1421.

^{page 308 note 1} See Stein, Moesien, 32; Syme, R. reviewing Stein, J.R.S. xxxv (1945), III;Google Scholar Rohden, von, R.E. 2. I. 172.Google Scholar

^{page 308 note 2} Syme, 787.

^{page 308 note 3} Stein, Moesien, 32; Eck, 512; Townend, J.R.S., loc. cit. 60.

^{page 308 note 4} For the date, Syme, 594 n. 1; Eck, 82, 519; Magic, ii. 1582, gives no year, but the governorship of his predecessor Eprius Marcellus is known to have been held between A.D. 70 and 73 (Magic, loc. cit.; Eck, 82, 115 ff.; P.I.R.² A. 938 and E. 84).

^{page 308 note 5} e.g. Degrassi, 19; Eck, 82.

^{page 308 note 6} De Laet, no. 1304; Syme, 787, and Groag, P.I.R.² A. 938.

^{page 308 note 7} See Magic, ii. 1582; Eck, 82 f.

^{page 308 note 8} One must not fail to consider the possibility that a change in dynasty might have affected the normal pattern.

^{page 308 note 9} See the fasti in Magic, ii. 1582; Eck, 82 f.

^{page 308 note 10} To judge from the limited evidence available (see next note), there seems to have been no regular interval between the consulate and the assumption of the promagistracy of the Arval brethren. It would be unwise to posit a minimum interval of, say, five years, as happened with L. Salvius Otho Titianus (see below). In the case of Aponius Saturninus, the often proved consulate/proconsulate of Asia interval is far more trustworthy and it will not allow a consulship c. A.D. 61.

^{page 308 note 11} See the lists in Eck, 22 f., and M. W. H. Lewis, The Official Priests of Rome under the Julio-Claudians, ch. II.

^{page 308 note 12} ‘Who was Acilius ?’ forthcoming in P.P. This identification finds support from Townend, G. B., ‘The Earliest Scholiast on Juvenal’, C.Q. xxii (1972), 376 ff., who argues plausibly that Schol. luv. 4. 94 is based on a source which recounted the reign of Nero and the early years of Vespasian as a contemporary.Google Scholar

^{page 309 note 1} De Laet, no. 1084; Schneider, no. 561.

^{page 309 note 2} De Laet, no. 1348; Schneider, no. 578.

^{page 309 note 3} The latter is preferred by Townend, A.J.Ph., loc. cit. 118, 124.

^{page 309 note 4} I have adopted Smallwood's system for giving the years of tribunician power in brackets. My suggested revisions are italicized.

^{page 311 note 1} Morris, J., ‘Leges Annales under the Principate. Political Effects’, Listy Filologické, lxxxviii (1965), 22 ff., at 23 f., argues that, from the beginning of Claudius' reign until A.D. 65, it was usual to have six consuls per annum, and that after A.D. 65 eight consuls per year became the norm. This generalization is not supported by the evidence presented in this paper.Google Scholar

The large number of possible candidates suggests that there were in fact 8 consuls in A.D. 54; there were 7 in A.D. 55 (this figure probably should be increased to g as September/October appears to be vacant); 7 in A.D. 56 (and perhaps there would have been 8 if Seneca had not taken for himself an extended tenure); 3 in A.D. 57; 5 in A.D. 58 and 4 in A.D. 59. There were possibly 6 in A.D. 60 and also in A.D. 61 (but the latter might just as easily have contained 8); 5 in A.D. 62; possibly 6 in A.D. 63 (but there may have been 8) and in A.D. 64. There may have been 6 or 8 in A.D. 65; there were 6 in A.D. 66; possibly 6 or 8 in A.D. 67; and there were probably 7 in A.D. 68.