In one of the fragments of the Fasti Feriarum Latinarum there are listed consules suffecti of four successive years. J. Asbach assigned these consuls to the years 101 to 104 inclusive, and his conclusions were supported by Huelsen and followed by Liebenam. Huelsen gives the fragment as follows: Recently J. Brunsmid has shown, from the evidence of a new military diploma, that this list belongs to the years 98 to 101. The proof, which is conclusive, consists in the identity of the third pair of consuls in the list with those of the new diploma dated surely in 100. Not only do the cognomina agree, but there is also nothing in the consular fasti of these four years to prevent the insertion of the four pairs of consuls as the evidence of the diploma directs. The diploma gives the consuls' names in full, T. Pomponius Mamilianus and L. Herennius Saturninus, and the date May 8,6 and so permits the emending of the list. An additional support to the identification and the dating of 1C.I.L. 12 p. 59, h. ed. by Huelsen C.I.L. VI, 2018=XIV, 2243. * J. Asbach, Analecta Historica et Epig. Latina, Bonn, 1878, p. 23ff. 4 Fasti Consulares, Bonn, 1909, pp. 18-19. See ref. in note 1. 5 Messager de La Société Archéologique Croate. N. S. XI (1910-1911), pp. 23-39 = L'Annte Épigr. (1912), 128. See especially the summary of Brunsmid's article by L. Cantarelli in Bulletino Commiss. Archeol. Comun. XL (1912), pp. 280-281. I have not been able to consult Brunsmid's article at first hand, but have used Cantarelli's summary, and the diploma as published in A.E. The editors of A.E. erroneously give the date as 103; so too C. L. Cheeseman in The Year's Work in Classical Studies, 1912, p. 95. A.E. gives, "VII Idus Mai"; Cantarelli gives, "l'8 maggio (VIIII Id. Mai)"; Dessau, Inscr. Lat. Sel. III, 1, index p. 275, gives May 8. 7 The order in which the names appear is the reverse of that in the list. The fragmentary letters in line 7 of the list are no doubt ER. the Fasti list in 98-101 is to be found in the fact that the date of the diploma is in the same period of the year as the dates of the Fasti. It should be noted also that Huelsen, in his notes on these Fasti inscriptions in the Corpus, has called attention to the fact that regularly the names of four or five pairs of consuls are inscribed on one stone. Now there is a stone which undoubtedly names consules suffecti of 106-109. By dating our list in 98-101, there are just four pairs of consuls to be accounted for, enough to fill one other stone. The first pair of consuls in the list, L. Maecius Postumus and Vicirius Martialis, find mention in one other inscription. This inscription3 also gives "Imp. Nerva Traiano Caes. Aug. Germ. III." Now Trajan was consul for the third time in 100. If, however, the consular number of this inscription is emended to II, then the date will be 98 in agreement with the emended list. In June 99, as the list should now be read, Barba and Afer were consuls. In August of this year other consuls are known, Barbarus and Faustinus.10 These established dates prove that the consular terms in 99 cannot have been of four months each, as these known terms would thus overlap, and so, assuming that all terms within a year were of the same number of months at this period, must have been of two or three months. They were then probably of two months each, since terms of three months are extremely rare."1 Barba and Afer were then probably consuls in May and June only; Barbarus and Faustinus in July and August. Now Mommsen12 has argued with probability that Ti. Iulius Ferox was consul suffectus in 99, and if so certainly not early in that year. Hence his term must have been within the last four months, since the previous four were occupied by others. His term then was for September and October, or for November and December. The dating of the consules suffecti in May 100 in the diploma enables us to settle definitely the question of the beginning of the consulship of Pliny the Younger, and its length.13 Pliny himself states that notes. C.I.L. II, 2344 emended by Asbach, op. cit., p. 27 ff. See also Huelsen, C. I. L. I, p. 59, h. and 9 Asbach, 1. c., emended to IIII. 10 Diplomas XXX and XXXI; August 14, 99. 11 Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, Leipzig, 1887, vol. II, p. 86, note 4. Liebenam, op. cit., p. 5. J. Asbach, Fasti Consulares in Bonner Jahrbücher 72 (1882), p. 29. 12 Ges. Schriften IV, p. 426, note 1. Liebenam, op. cit., p. 18 13 Mommsen, Ges. Schriften IV, p. 425 and note 5, proved, on the basis of Pliny's statements, that the term was either in July, August, September, or September and October. follows him. See too Schanz in Müller's Hbuch VII, II, 2 (1913), p. 350. Jeune, Paris, 1901, vol. I, p. 316, favored the term of two months. His statements are based on Mommsen. Trajan in his third consulship (100 A.D.) extended his term beyond its usual limits and honored two men by making them colleagues of himself, the emperor.14 Now these two terms, which Trajan and his colleagues served in the first months of 100, cannot have been of three months each, or any longer period, for the new diploma gives still other consuls in May, the fifth month. The terms of Trajan were then of two months each. This fact creates a presumption that the other terms of the year were of two months each. Such is the usual arrangement.15 If terms of four and two months occur in the same year, the longer terms seem to come first.16 In this year of 100 furthermore Trajan was honoring, in the consulship for the early months, men of very high standing.17 It is not likely that younger men of little importance at the time would have been honored by a longer consulship. But there is further evidence to settle the length of the terms through 100. Trajan and his colleagues occupied the first four months. In May, Mamilianus and Saturninus are known as consuls. Their term then began in May, and must have extended at least through June, since terms of one month are extremely exceptional at any period, and are quite out of the question at this early date.18 The last six months of 100 remain to be occupied. Now Pliny states that he and his colleague Tertullus were consuls in September of 100.19 We have inscriptional evidence for the consulship of Aelianus Celer and Sacerdos Iulianus in December.20 There is in this evidence nothing to prevent the assigning of Pliny and Tertullus to the months July, August, and September, and of Aelianus and Sacerdos to the last three months of the year. We have seen, however, that terms of three months are extremely rare, and that in this particular year it is not likely that longer terms would follow the short terms of two months of the emperor and his colleagues. And can one doubt that Pliny would have informed us in the Panegyricus, if his term had been lengthened beyond that of the earlier consuls? In such a situation this negative proof is a strong one. If we divide this six months period by assigning four months, July, August, September, and October to Pliny and Tertullus, and the last two months of the year to 14 Pliny, Panegyricus 61. 15 J. Asbach, Zur Gesch. des Consulatus in Festschrift Arnold Schäfer, Bonn, 1882, p. 207. 16 Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 1. c. and note 2. 17 Pliny, Panegyricus 61. |