User:Llywrch/sandbox

Visions & revisions

See also My references

For the years following the retreat of Theodore Laskaris from Hereaclea, David's life is a blank. Earlier scholars, beginning with Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer, had placed the death of David during the siege of Sinope in 1214.(Savvides (2009), p. 38 n. 39) Michael Panaretos never mentions David, so he is of no help on that matter. Vassiliev commented that the lack of reference to David Komnenos in the Treaty of Nymphaeum was evidence that his former suzerain had no further use for him and abandoned him in order to gain a peace with Theodore. More recently the truth of his fate was rediscovered: a marginal note written at Mount Athos records David died as a monk of Vatopedi monastery on 13 December 1212. (Bryer, "David Komnenos", p. 184) But this knowledge raises more questions than it answers. How did he end up there?

The Komnenos brothers were an early favorite for recovering Constantinople from the Latins and restoring the injured Byzantine Empire; their closest rival, Theodore I Laskaris in western Anatolia, was preoccupied during his first years with simple survival, now attacked by Henry of Flanders on his northern frontier, now attacked by Kaykhusraw I on his southeastern frontier. But by 1212 his borders were at last secure enough for Theodore to join with his onetime foe Kaykhusraw in an offensive against Alexios I, which ended with Theodore capturing much of Paphlagonia and Kaykhusraw Sinope, which became the Seljuk's major port on the Black Sea. (Shukurov 2005, pp. 75-86) This effectively isolated the Trapezuntines from Constantinople, and as a result their interests turned away from the capital city for the next two generations.

Sinope remained a point of contention between the Seljuks and Komnenoi. Following a punative raid on the Black Sea port by Alexios' successor Andronikos I Gidos, the Seljuks besieged Trebizond in 1225. The siege was unsuccessful, and the Seljuk Sultan was forced to sue for peace. Almost 30 years later, during the reign of Michael Megas Komnenos, Sinope was captured by the Trapezuntines 24 June 1254, likely with the approval of the Ilkhanite Mongols, the overlords of both the Seljuks and Trebizond. (Kuršanskis, "L'empire de Trébizonde et les Turcs au 13e siècle", Revue des études byzantines, 46 (1988), p. 12) This consolidated Trebizond's hold over the Black Sea. It was not until the reign of his son Andronikos II that the Seljuks recovered Sinope. Despite the efforts of Andronikos' successor George, the Empire's position did not improve, and in 1280 George "was treacherously betrayed by his officials on the mountain of Taurezion" and replaced with his brother John II, who mended the riff between Trebizond and the Palaiologians who now controlled Constantinople and had become the accepted rulers of the restored Byzantine Empire. With this act, the polity the Megas Komnenoi ruled had dwindled to minor importance.

To do

On Siege of Trebizond (1222–23), need to add a couple of paragraphs about effect of battle on Seljuq-Trebizond relations. Did Trebizond achieve independence? Was Melik as defeated as Lazaropoulos writes he was? Etc.

Quotations

Gibbon: "The feeble Comnenus was subdued by his own fears, and the example of a Musulman neighbour, the prince of Sinope, who, on a similar summons, had yielded a fortified city with four hundred cannon and ten or twelve thousand soldiers." Context is an aside describing the end of Demetrios Palaiologos, who had surrendered to the Sultan. (ch. LXVIII)

Babinger: "It would not have occurred to his weak and cowardly person that it was preferable to be buried, with his family and property, under the ruins of his empire rather than to purchase through a shameful peace the false glitter of a dishonored existence." (p. 194)

Finlay: "There can hardly be a doubt that had Trebizond been defended by a man possessing a small portion of the courage and military skill of the Albanian prince Scanderbeg, Mohammed II. would have been compelled to abandon the siege and withdraw his army until the following spring; or, had he persisted in attacking the place so late in the year, he would have met with a repulse as disastrous as that which he suffered under the walls of Belgrade. ... In all probability, therefore, if the emperor of Trebizond had boldly refused to listen to any terms of surrender, and contented himself with offering an increase of tribute, and a sura of money to the sultan for the expenses of the war, prudence would have induced Mohammed to accept these terms as the best he could obtain, and withdraw his army without loss of time. The Othoman troops could never have passed the winter encamped in this secluded corner of Asia without suffering great losses, and exposing even the empire of Mohammed II. to some great disaster." (pp. 491f)

Runciman: "It is hard to blame him. Uzun and his Turkish allies had failed him. No Western power could reach him with aid; and the Georgians would not intervene alone. Trebizond with its strong fortifications might have held out for several weeks; but no one was coming to its rescue." (p. 175)

Nicol: "The last Emperor of Trebizond was not called upon to meet his death doing heroic deeds at the walls of his city like the last Emperor of Constantinople." (p. 408)

Mark Eugenikos: "The city is secured with firm walls and towers. It is protected on each sideby a river and a ravine and further fortified all around by a circuit of rough terrain. On top, in the place of the acropolis, it is strongly fortified by a splendid palace situated in the most opportune location hard by the peaks. It always deters the approach of the enemies from afar and provides complete safety to the inhabitants. It is clear that neither up to now nor even in the future will it ever fall to the hated enemy. Even when it was surrounded by such nations of barbarians, the city never knew a servile day..." (opening of his Encomion to Trebizond, translated by Cyril Mango in The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453, (Toronto, Buffalo, London, 1986), p. 27; cited in Aslıhan Akışık, "Praising A City: Nicaea, Trebizond, and Thessalonike" in Journal of Turkish Studies In Memoriam Angeliki E. Laiou ed. Nevra Necipoğlu and Cemal Kafadar, (Harvard University, 2011), pp. 11f)

Varronian chronology

Varronian chronology is the commonly accepted chronology or time-line of Roman history before 300 BC. It is characterized by the dates assigned to these three events: the Battle of the Allia at the third year of the 97th Olympiad, or 390 BC; the foundation of the Roman Republic at 509 BC, when the Fasti consulares began; and the foundation of Rome at the first year of the seventh Olympiad or 752/3 BC. (Drummond, p. 559, argues that Atticus/Varro both had 244 years for the monarchy & Dictator years.)

This chronology is named after the Roman scholar Marcus Terentius Varro, whose chronology is based on the Liber Annalis of his contemporary, the antiquarian Titus Pomponius Atticus. The chronology was inscribed as part of the arch of Augustus in Rome; though that arch no longer stands, a large portion of the inscription has survived under the name of Fasti Capitolini.

While other dates for the foundation of Rome were provided by the ancients, the only other known chronological scheme is the "Catonian", named for Cato the Elder. Its most notable characteristic was providing an alternate date for the Foundation of Rome, 432 years after the Trojan War, which Dionysius of Halicarnassus equated to the first year of the seventh Olympiad. All of these chronologies -- the Varronian, the Catonian, and the Fasti Capitolini -- assume that each pair of consuls corresponds to a calendar year, either lunar or solar.

Issues with consular dating

Roman dating was subject to the following issues: (1) imperfections in the list -- names added to glorify families, or lost due to errors in transcription; (2) not accounting for the periods of the interreges; (3) the vaguarities of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, which was begun on different dates through Roman history until the reforms of Julius Caesar in 44 BC.

Date of the Battle of Allia

The date of the Battle of Allia, which led to the Gallic capture of Rome, was part of an invasion of a band of warriors that also affected the Western Greeks; the contemporary Sicilian historian Philistus recorded this event, and Plutarch notes Theopompus and Aristotle also recorded the Gallic capture of Rome. Thus this event is important for Roman chronology because it is the earliest one that can be synchronized to the more reliable Greek chronology. Moreover, lack of records before this date was explained by attributing their destruction to the pillaging & looting of the Gallic invaders.

The Romans dated the capture of Rome to "the second year before the taking of the city there was a census of the Roman people, to which, as to the rest of them, there is affixed the date, as follows: 'In the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus, in the one hundred and nineteenth year after the expulsion of the kings.'"

Greek sources all concur on the date of this capture, 386 BC: Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1.74.4); Polybius (1.6). Diodorus Siculus (14.110). Now the problem was that the consular lists lacked enough sets of consuls & consular tribunes to match the Greek date. The list was 4 sets short. This shortfall could have been caused by lacunae in the consular list, not accounting for the periods of the interreges, the vaguarities of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, or a combination of these.

The pre-Julian calendar began the year at different times. The consular year had begun on 15 March until 154 BC, when the Senate moved the date the consuls took office to accommodate Quintus Fulvius Nobilior, who was confronted with the Second Celtiberian War in Spain & needed to depart before that date; they changed it to 1 January. A few changes like this could have easily resulted in the loss of one year.

Roman historians had a tradition of manipulating their history to either to conform to certain beliefs, or to provide lessons in morality & ethics. (Example: Valerius Antias, although none were as willing to fabricate events & details as he.) The Roman historians had these options to solve this problem:

• Assume that the lack of consuls/consular tribunes for 4 years was due to an anarchy caused by Licinius & Sextius. This is what Livy did. (Aulus Gellius Attic Nights 5.4 show that there was no such lengthy anarchy.)
• Assume the existence of 4 dictator years. This is what Atticus did.
• The Chronography of 354 inserted six fictitious consuls.

Because the FC combined the first two options -- expand the anarchy of no consuls/consular tribunes & assume the existence of 4 dictator years -- the conventional date of the Battle became 390 BC. (Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronology, which he dates to A.M. 1626 = 391 BC p. 200k // another example from Joseph Scaliger)

Date of the Foundation of the Republic

In the accepted version of the Fasti consulares, 119 sets -- or colleges -- of magistrates separate the foundation of the Republic from the Battle of the Allia, thus placing its foundation in 509 BC. Thus if the Battle of the Allia took place in 390 BC, then the first consuls took office 120 years before. Dionysius uses this very fact to set that date to "the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the same year that Isagoras was archon at Athens" (1.74.6) -- 507 BC.

However, the Varronian chronology dates this event to 509 BC, in an intentional synchronism with the expulsion of Hippias from Athens & the establishment there of a free state. (per author of the article on Varronian chronology at livius.org) Add to this Livy's chronology at 7.18.1, where the consuls Gaius Sulpicius Peticus for the third time and Marcus Valerius Poplicola assume office a.u.c 400, the 35th year after the Battle of the Allia. (Drummond, "The Dictator Years", p. 552)

Date of the Founding of Rome

"This Livius exhibited his first performance at Rome in the consulship of M. Tuditanus, and C. Claudius the son of Caecus [240 BC], the year before Ennius was born, and, according to the account of my friend Atticus, (whom I choose to follow) the five hundred and fourteenth from the founding of the city. " (Cicero, Brutus, 72.) Atticus' Liber Annalis. The duration of the Roman Kingdom was calculated by assigning a generation to each king, then calculating back from 509 BC. (who? Contrast with Forsythe's "numerology") Since competing arguments for the specific year were not based on such a simple & obvious methodology, Atticus' date of 753 BC came to be accepted as the canonical date.

Years of anarchy & Dictator years

Drummond notes the "Latin Fabius" seems to have had at least 3 years not occupied by consular tribunes. (p. 568) Were the dictator years invented to address defects in the Samnite Wars the Greek sources revealed? (p. 569) Drummond proposes these were created (likely by Atticus) to provide J. Caesar with a precedent for his annual dictatorships.

Effect on the Fasti Consulares

The effect Varronian chronology had on the consular list -- which the consensus is that it is, in general, reliable -- was to force the insertion of 4 fictitious dictators who held their office an entire year, & to expand the anarchy caused by the vetoes of the tribunes Gaius Licinius Stolo and Lucius Sextius to five years. The Fasti Capitolini includes both of these modifications; while Livy has an anarchy of six years in length, & he mentions three of the four Dictators, they appear under the consuls of the preceding year, where their activities are recorded. Drummond shows that if the Dictator years are omitted from Livy's chronology, then all but two dates fit with a Foundation Date for Rome of 750 BC.

Diodorus Siculus offers a more difficult case. On the one hand, he does not show any knowledge of the 4 dictators; on the other hand, he offers two dates concerning the Second Samnite War which agree with the Varronian chronology (at 19.10.1 & 20.101.5) and further conflict with the figures he provides in another passage (14.93.3ff). Drummond explains these contradictions as Diodorus taking them from the Varronian chronology & not his usual source. "Consequently, it is possible that Diodorus went to a separate source to secure it, a source which registered (or offered a ready means of computing) war years and also provided a precise calculation of the length of the war (not a standard practice in Roman historiography). The most obvious source for this would be a chronographic work of the type popular in the mid-first century. Such a work has been plausibly suspected as the source of some of the variants Diodorus cites in the course of his Roman history, and if he used that source for his figures in XIX.10.1 and XX.101.5 the difficulties over the appearance of the dictator years are resolved: Diodorus, writing sometime after Caesar's murder, will be using a very recent production which employed the chronological scheme of Varro and Atticus." (Drummond, p. 562)

Influence of Varronian chronology

By its adoption in the Fasti Capitolini, the Varronian chronology offered a consensus date for the Foundation of Rome, & encouraged the use of a.u.c. dating. Despite this, dating by pairs of consuls remained the dominant practice until abolished by Justinian; the consuls named, however, eventually were limited to the consuls ordinaris. (need cite)

Through its use by the third-century writer Censorinus, whose De Die Natali was the ultimate influence of Joseph Justus Scaliger's work to establish a scientific basis of ancient chronology, it became familiar.

References

Graph doodles

Regibus Iov[e] et Minerv[a]
iterum, M(anio) Acilio
Glabrione C(aio) Bellicio
Torquato cos(ulibus), mystae pii
[s]acra acceperu[n]t V idus Novembr[es]
[Q(uintus) Plan]ius Sardus Va[r]ius Ambibulus pro[cos(ul)]
[provinci]ae Mac[e]doniae
[- 8-] us leg(atus) [p]ro pr(aetore) prov(inciae) eiusdem.

CIL VIII, 2359
[I]mp(eratore) Caes(are) divi Traiani Parthici [fil(io) divi]
[Ner]vae nep]ote Traiano Hadriano Augusto [pont(ifice)]
maxim[o tr]ib(unicia) pot(estate) XVI cos(ule) III p(atre) p(atriae) d(ecreto) d(ecurionum) p(ecunia) p(ublica)
[L(ucius)] Variu[s Ambibulus] leg(atus) Aug(usti) pr(o) pr(aetore) patronus coloniae dedicavit


"This is the last text that allows us to better interpret the other four stones." It is now understood that one wanted to distinguish between the father of Varia Pansina, L. Varius Ambibulus, an imperial procurator, and his namesake son, who had been knighted and had reached the consulate Suffect. Also the stone of Interpromium Paelignorum, where we meet firmus the vilicus of Varius Ambibolus — older form for Ambibulus — and his daughter Varia Firma must be contemporaries of the Imperial Procurator. It is also, no doubt, the dédicant of the stone raised to his freedman Actiacus. In contrast, Priscus, the bird feeder of L. Varius Ambibulus filius, served the son of the procurator in his young age, while Photinus, he, was freed by the same person, but during or after his consulate of 132 or 133.

In addition, Nola's inscription tells us very usefully about the family of L. Varii Ambibuli. The sister of the consul Suffect, called Varia Pansina, married L. Corellius Celerra Fisius Rufinus, patron of the colony of Nola, but otherwise unknown. This, however, is not the case of the son of this couple, L. — like his father — Corellius Pansa, Consul Ordinary of the Year 122 (1). This great honor assumes more than Father L. Corellius Celerra Fisius Rufinus not only belonged to the Senate order, but still that he was consul Suffect, if ever the rule of E. Groag (2), postulating this precondition for accession to the ordinary consulate, should not be denied. It can also be recorrected a little by the bright suggestion of Sir Ronald Syme (3), that the cognomen Pansa of the consul of 122 went back to M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa, Consul of 74 (4) and consular legate of Cappadocia and Galatia (5). The only difference is the fact that L. Varius Ambibulus, Proc. Aug. and father of Varia Pansina had to be the husband of a Neratia Pansina, daughter of M. Hirrius Fronto Neratius Pansa.

"A final word finally on the names Fisius Rufinus, which appear in the nomenclature of C. Corellius Celerra Fisius Rufinus." We once had to deal with this gens Fisia of Osco-Umbrian origins (6), when we knew, in the Bulletin of the French Society of Numismatics, XVI, 1961, p. 72-73 and 86, a new Tessera Nummu Laria from the collection of W. Frohner, whose text is as follows:

Arsinas Iuli sp(ectavit) (ante diem) VIII k(alendas) Mai(as)
C(aio) Fisio Sabin(o) M(arco) Annio Messal(a) cos(ulibus).

The date of this pair of consuls otherwise unknown is determined by the appearance under Vespasian of the second of them as the legate of the Province of Africa in the text of an inscription of Lepcis Magna (1). We therefore proposed the years of the beginning of the reign of Domitian, before the year 86, from which the consular Fasti are complete up to 92 inclusive (2). By raising the porters of the Gentilice Fisius we observed that a number of them met in Campania, in Capua (3), in Pozzuoli (4) and also in Nola. However, among the Fisii of this colony one can pick up a certain Fisia Sex(ti) f(ilia) Rufina soror Fisi Sereni aug(uris) (CIL X, 1269), to which is also dedicated another stone (CIL X, 1299) with the following text: Fisiae Sex(ti) fil(iae) Rufinae Modesta Fisia Rufina. Finally a polyonymous M(arcus) St...us Al(arci) f(ilius) Pal(atina tribii) P[...]cus Fisius Serenus Rutilius Caesianus II vir augur (CIL X, 1275) certainly belongs to the same family of notables of this great city of Campania. It can be concluded that the lines of L. Varii Ambibuli probably originated in Capua, C. Corelli Celera and Pansa and C. Fisii, presumably from Nola, allied with the Neratii of Saepinum, which also have close relations with the Fisii, as evidenced by the following inscription.

AE 1976, 00195: "Ibid. G. Camodeca, in Atti Accad. di Scienze mor. e polit. Napoli, 87, 1976, p. 1-20, photo, proposes to restore in a new way the missing part has Dr. and to understand:

"L. Neratius L. f. [Vol. Priscus] \ praef. aer. Sat., cos., l[eg. pr. pr. in prou.] I Pannonia. \ L. Neratius L. f. Vol. Pr[iscus, q. tr. pi. pr. cos.] | VIluir epul., leg. Aug. pr. pr. i[n prouinc. Germania] \ Inferiore et Pannonia

"The first L. Neratius Priscus, the father, would be an adlectus inter praetorios of Vespasian and Titus in 73-74, prefect of the Treasury of Saturn in 84-86, Consul Suffect in 87, Legate of Pannonia between 90 and 95. The second, the son, is the Jurisconsult: Consul Suffect in 97, it becomes Legate of Germania Inferior from the end of 97 to 100-101 (it is he who then receives the letter ii, 13 from Pliny), then Legate of Pannonia from December 102: perhaps he was the last governor to administer the undivided Pannonia, which was divided in 106; he's plebeian, not patrician. In passing, good reasons are provided (pp. 8-9) to attribute to L. Licinius Sura the anonymous cursus of CIL VI, 1444 = I.L.S., 1022."

Q. Pompeius Sosius Priscus

1. Quintus Roscius Coelius Murena Silius Decianus Vibullius Pius Julius Eurycles Herculanus Pompeius Falco (suff. cos. 108)

• Werner Eck provides the names of his parents: Sex. Pompeius Priscus & Clodia P.f. Falconilla. And a brother, Q. Pompeius Pr[iscus] ("Senatorische Familien der Kaiserzeit in der Provinz Sizilien", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 113 (1996), pp. 109-128)
  • Salomies notes that "Falco" came from his mother. (p. 122)
  • Family origins in Sicily (Salomies, p. 124)

In an informative aside, Ronald Syme ("Ummidius Quadratus, capax imperii", Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 83 (1979), pp. 294f) explains the evolution of this polyonymous name:

• When governor of Moesia Inferior (AD 115-118) his name was "Q. Roscius Sex. f. Quir. Coelius Pompeius Falco" (By accident, "Murena" was omitted.) From an inscription of his grand-daughter his birth name can be extracted as "Q. Pompeius Falco"
  • Roscius Coelius Murena – Both Syme & Birley (pp. 81f) connect this to the suff. cos. 81; but that consul was Marcus Roscius Coelius. There is also the proconsul of Bithynia, M. (Roscius) Murena, his son M. (Roscius) Murena, & his grandson M. Roscius Quirnia Lupus Murena, quaestor of Creta-Cyrene (Salomies, p. 122). Salomies however argues that his adoptive parent had to be Quintus Roscius (p. 123) who may have also come from Sicily (p. 124), & Q. Roscius may have been of the tribe Quirina as was Falco. (p. 123)
• A later document (CIL X, 6321=ILS 1035) exhibits additional items:
  • Silius Decianus – suff. cos. 94
  • Vibullius Pius Julius Eurycles Herculanus – Euryclids of Sparta, died 136/7 (A.J.S. Spawforth, "Balbilla, the Euryclids and Memorials for a Greek Magnate", Annual of the British School at Athens, 73 (1978), pp. 254f)
    • Eurycles Herculanus was the heir of L. Vibullius Pius, died by 116/117 (A.J.S. Spawforth, p. 258) Pius was a cousin of Atticus Herodes
• For his cursus honorum, ILS 1035, 1036
  • Dabrowa (1993), pp. 36-38; Birley (1981), pp. 95-100
• married Sosia Polla, daughter of Q. Sosius Senecio (cos. 99, 107) & the daughter of Sextus Iulius Frontinus (cos. 97, 98, 100) Tombstone: ILS 1037
• a possible relative was L. Roscius M.f. Qui. Aelianus Maecius Celer (cos. 100), who most likely came from Sicily, less likely Spain (Salomies, p. 125)

2. Quintus Pompeius [...] Bellicus Sollers Iulius Acer Ducenius Proculus Rutilianus Rufinus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Claudius Fuscus Saxa Amyntianus Sosius Priscus (ord. cos. 149) CIL VI, 31753, AE 1966, 115

• Is he the son of #1? CIL VIII, 7066=ILS 1105 omits his name, but Géza Alföldy lists him as the son, & A.R. Birley considers #3 Falco's grandson. Salomies also considers him Falco's son (p. 66).
• Bellicus Sollers – suff. cos. ante 118 (A.R. Birley, pp. 289ff; Olli Salomies, pp. 45-47; K. Strobel, "Zur Reconstruktion der Laufbahn des C. Velius Rufus", ZPE 64 (1986), pp. 284-286; Pliny Ep. V.4; see CIL V, 3356 & CIL V, 3337)
  • Note: Publius Cornelius Dexter Augus[tanus Alpin]us Bellicus Sollers Metilius [...]us Rutilianus CIL III, 12116 = ILS 1050

    (Olli Salomies suggests (p. 144) his name should be completed Augus[tanus Alpin]us Bellicus Sollers Metilius [Nepos Rufin]us Rutilianus based on the next name)

• "Iulius Acer" or "Iulius Aper"? If the latter, note speaker in Tactitus' Dialogue (McDermott, Ancient Society, (1976), p. 237)
  • Note: Marcus Sedatius Severianus Iulius Acer Metilius Nepos Rufinus Tiberius Rutilianus Censor, cos. suff. 153
• Ducenius Proculus – suff. cos. 87
• Wife yet unidentified
• Daughter Pompeia Q.f. Sosia Falconilla (Salomies, pp 70f)

3. Quintus Pompeius Senecio Roscius Murena Coelius Sextus Iulius Frontinus Silius Decianus Gaius Julius Eurycles Herculaneus Lucius Vibullius Pius Augustanus Alpinus Bellicius Sollers Iulius Aper Ducenius Proculus Rutilianus Rufinus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Claudius Fuscus Saxa Amyntianus Sosius Priscus (ord. cos. 169)

• The portion "Rutilianus Rufinus Silius Valens Valerius Niger Claudius Fuscus Saxa Amyntianus" inherited from father, NB RE: Amyntianos 2 (CIL VI, 1980, "Q. Voconius Saxa Amyntianus")
• For cursus honorum, CIL XIV, 3609; cf. CIL VI, 31753
• Wife yet unidentified

3a. Pompeia Sosia Falconilla

• Authoress of CIL VIII, 7066=ILS 1105
• married M. Pontius Laelianus (ord. cos. 163)
• Their son M. Sosius Laelianus Pontius Falco (salius Palatinus 170-171); see RE Suppl. XIV Pontius 29a, & see Salomies p. 78

4. Quintus Pompeius Sosius Falco (ord. cos. 193)

• married Sulpicia Agrippina

• William C. McDermott, "Stemmata quid faciunt? The Descendants of Frontinus", Ancient Society, 7 (1976), pp. 229-265
• James H. Oliver, "Greek and Latin inscriptions", Hesperia 10 (1941), pp. 237-261

Tao Te Ching

In 2009 Peking University announced it had acquired a number of manuscripts in the form of bamboo slips, which included a document that has come to be known as the Beida Laozi. At first this was believed to be a forgery, an opinion most championed by Professor Xing Wen; his arguments have been met with a number of responses, most notably in English by Thies Staack of the University of Hamburg and by Christopher Foster. While no thorough study of this text has been published, from published reports it appears this presents a recension very close to the Mawangdui texts. Although with fewer missing characters. Expert analysis dates this manuscript to the middle of the Western Han dynasty, some point from near the end of Emperor Wu's 武帝 reign (140–87 b.c.e.), yet no later than the reign of Emperor Xuan 宣帝 (73–49 b.c.e.).

References

Karl Strobel, Zur Rekonstruktion der Laufbahn des C. Velius Rufus

[p. 284] Ti. Claudius Augustanus Alpinus L. Bellicius Sollers, (87) under his original name Ti. Claudius Ti(berii) f(ilius) Quir(ina tribu) Alpinus, first went through an equestrian career, (88) which led him through the posts of the prefect of a coh(ors) II pr(aetoria), military tribune of the legio II Augusta in Britannia, and prefect of the Ala (Veterana) Gallica in Syria. (89). The legion tribune at II Augusta does not need to refer to any relations of his father Ti. Claudius Augustanus, who probably rose to the procurator of Britannia in early Flavian time. (90) After his command of the ala and before his appointment as (ducenary) procurator of Dalmatia and Pannonia, (91) which however was preceded with some certainty by an unknown centenary procuratorship, (92) Alpinus was adopted by [p. 285] (a senator ?) L. Bellicius Sollers. Around AD 105 we meet (Alpinus) Sollers then as vir praetorius in a letter of the younger Pliny (93) and finally reaches in a still unknown year under Trajan the suffect consulship. (94) He was very probably appointed by an Ulpian inter praetorios into the senate. Sollers died around 119-123 AD.

[footnote 87:"About him see H.-G. Pflaum, Scripta Varia II (Paris 1981), (= AEA 39, 1966, 2-23) pp. 373f.; ibid. (o. Anm. 3) 160-163; H. Devijver, Prosopographia militiarum equestrium quae fuerunt ab Augusto ad Gallienum, I (Leuven 1976), pp. 241f. C 122; A.R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford 1981, 289-291; G. Alfoldy, in "Epigrafia e ordine senatorio II", Tituli 5, Rom 1982 [1984], 342 Nr. 22; 364f. Nr. 11; also PIR2 B103. // However, his identification in AE 1968, 525 was based on a misreading; cf. H. Halfmann, Die Senatoren aus dem ostlichen Teil des Imperium Romanum bis zum Ende des 2. Jh. n.Chr. (Gottingen 1979), p. 13."]
[footnote 88:"CIL V, 3356 = ILS 2710"]
[footnote 89:"There 54, 88, 91 A.D. attested by CIL XVI, 3 (probably reliable attestation), 35; RMD 5. Later the unit was in Egypt (CIL XVI, 184; 156/161 A.D.)"]
[footnote 90:"CIL V, 3337; cf. Birley op. cit."]
[footnote 91:"CIL III, 13250 (p. 2328 3) = ILS 5968"]
[footnote 92:"See, for example, Pflaum (supra note 3) 162; also Maxfield (supra note 19) 26f., 159."]
[footnote 93:"Plin. epist. V 4,1; for the date see A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny Oxford 1966, pp. 41, 318f"]
[footnote 94:"CIL V, 3338 = ILS 1031; see also A. Degrassi, I fasti consolari dell'impero romano (Rome 1952), p. 114"]

From the knightly officer career of Alpinus, the most important event recorded in CIL V, 3356 from Verona is the receipt of the dona militaria from an unnamed emperor, who is rightly identified with Domitian, (95) namely an award bello Germ(anico). Unfortunately, the composition of the dona is not listed, so that their assignment to the three levels of the militia equestris remains open for the time being. For the dona could appear in the inscription independent of the sequence of the officer batches as a separate section of the career description. But the time of his decoration can be narrowed down. Alpinus was certainly not awarded as tribune of the Legio II Augusta, because this legion cannot be proved in the Chattian War of Domitian, but at that time certainly fought under Agricola in Scotland. However, in 89 A.D. its vexillation at the middle Danube was in strength of probably about one cohort under the command of Velius Rufus, Primipilaris in the rank of a tribune of the Cohortes Urbanae. The year 92 A.D. is already excluded due to the duration of the career of Alpinus. Also the Ala Gallica has certainly not fought at the Danube in 89 or 92 A.D., because it is documented in Syria in this time. (96) But an alen command already 83/84 AD at the Rhine is again hardly compatible with the progress of the career of this man. Thus, as a reason for the award of Alpinus, as has been assumed so far, only his command of the coh(ors) II pr(aetoria) and a date to the Chattian War or the Pannonian War of Domitian of 89 AD remains. (97) Of course, this command was not the command over the second cohort of the Pratorian Guard, (98) but an auxiliary cohort with the number II and the epithet praetoria, (99) more precisely, the inscription probably only brings the shortened form of the troop's name, to which, for example, the Cohors I Augusta Praetoria Lusitanorum equitata (100) could offer a parallel, without us currently approaching a more precise identification of the troop. Now (Alpinus) Sollers can have held his procuration of Pannonia and Dalmatia only as a predecessor or successor of C. Velius Rufus, who in turn can be dated to ca. 90 - beginning 93 AD (see above). Since the former must be excluded due to the far too short time span between cohort prefecture and ducal procuratorship, (Alpinus) Sollers can have taken over the post in Dalmatia and Pannonia at the beginning of 93 A.D. at the earliest, which means that, assuming an approximately three-year term of office, the periods between ca. 93 - 96 or 96 (101)- 99 A.D. would come into question. The latter date might be preferable in our case, since we can probably connect the rise of this knight in the senate with the events around the accession of Trajan (102). In this important internal political power struggle the legate of Dalmatia, the younger C. Cilnius Proculus, belonged to the partisans of Ulpius. (103) A similar attitude of Soller as the then procurator of Pannonia and Dalmatia would well explain his admission to the Senate and the later receipt of the consulate. We find this reasoning confirmed by the fact that C. Vibius Maximus (I) is attested as procurator of Pannonia and Dalmatia in 95 A.D., towards the end of his term, and thus may have been Soller's predecessor in office. (104)

[footnote 95:"See also Maxfield 164."]
[footnote 96:"See above note 89"]
[footnote 97:"Cf. also Pflaum 161; G. Stehlik, "Die epigraphischen Zeugnisse für die Kriege Roms von Augustus, 27 v.Chr., bis Commodus, 192 a.d.", Diss. Vienna 1969, 60f. No. 74. The assumption of a possible award on the occasion of the Saturninus revolt or the ominous 2nd Chattian war of Domitian, which has been made on various occasions, can be excluded with certainty."]
[footnote 98:"So still Corradi, DE II 3, 1922, Sp. 1977; G. Perl, Klio, 63 (1981), 564f. fn. 10"]
[footnote 99:"Thus already rightly Cichorius, RE IV 1, 1900, 325."]
[footnote 100:"For this unit see M. Roxan, "The auxilia of the Roman army raised in the Iberian peninsula", Diss. London 1973 (Masch. schr.) 499-514"]
[footnote 101:"Cf. the Pannonian change of governors in mid-96 AD (see notes 106, 66 below)."]
[footnote 102:"Cf. Strobel (note 36 above) 26ff."]
[footnote 103:"Cf. ibid. 56-58."]
[footnote 104:"Stat. silv. IV 7, 13-16. for him see Pflaum (supra note 3) 151-156; Devijver (supra note 87) II, 1977, 866f. V 100; not reliably R. Hanslik, RE VIII A 2, 1958, 1975-1977 nos. 40-41."]

Thus, the following picture emerges for Soller's career:

• About 83 - 84 AD Cohort prefect.
• Around 85 - 87 AD military tribune of Legio II Augusta. Around 88 - 90 A.D.
• Prefect of the Ala (Veterana) Gallica in Syria.
• 1st half of 90s centenare procurator.
• About 96 - 99 AD procurator of Pannonia and Dalmatia (CC).
• Probably 100 AD Admitted to the Senate with other equestrian partisans of Trajan (105)
• ? Suffect consulship.

[footnote 105: "See Strobel, p. 56"]

scratch

WP:NOPAGE

Ambrose, Ep. 51