Sie sind auf Seite 1von 168

Album senatorum

vol. II
Senators of the Severan Period (193–235 AD).
A Prosopographic Study

Marito optimo
U N I W E R S Y T E T SZC Z EC I ŃSK I
ROZ PR AW Y I S T U DI A T. (M L X V I I ) 993

Da n u ta Okoń

Album senatorum
vol. II
Senators of the Severan Period (193–235 AD).
A Prosopographic Study

Sz c z e c i n 2 018
Szczecińskie Studia nad Starożytnością
vol. VII
Original title: Senatorowie epoki Sewerów (193–235 r. n.e.). Studium prozopograficzne

Publishing Board
Tomasz Bernat, Anna Cedro, Urszula Chęcińska, Beata Kędzia-Klebeko
Małgorzata Makiewicz, Małgorzata Ofiarska, Aleksander Panasiuk
Małgorzata Puc, Karol Sroka, Renata Urban, Grzegorz Wejman
Marek Górski – Chairman of the Publishing Board
Elżbieta Zarzycka – Head of the Scientific Publishing House

Reviewed by
prof. dr hab. Edward Dąbrowa (Jagiellonian University)

Translated by
Piotr Jakubowski

Technical editorial and text design


Wiesława Mazurkiewicz

Proofreading
Elżbieta Blicharska

Cover design
Paweł Kozioł

© Copyright by Uniwersytet Szczeciński, Szczecin 2018

ISBN 978-83-7972-163-4
ISSN 0860-2751

WYDAWNICTWO NAUKOWE UNIWERSYTETU SZCZECIŃSKIEGO


Wydanie I. Ark. wyd. 9,5. Ark. druk. 10,5. Format 170/240
Table of Contents

Preface 7

Chapter I. Number of Senators 9


Chapter II. The Origo of Senators 22
Chapter III. Social Origin of Senators 30
Chapter IV. Senatorial Careers – Conditions 38
Chapter V. Career Models 53
Chapter VI. Consuls and Consulars 93

Summary 105
Resumé 109

Appendix I. A List of New Senators of the Severan Period 115


Appendix II. The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) 124
Appendix III. Senatorial Gentes of the Severan Period 152

Selected bibliography 157


List of abbreviations 161
Index of authors 163
Index of persons 165
Preface

The first volume of Album senatorum, titled Senatores ab Septimii Severi aetate usque
ad Alexandrum Severum (193–235 AD), features biographic entries of 1,682 senators
of the Severan period. The collected material constituted the basis for further analy­
ses and answers to many crucial questions posed in the contemporary literature of
the subject. These are included in this volume – the second one, approaching such
issues as: the number of members of the Senate, territorial and social origin of sena-
tors, conditions underlying senatorial careers, career models, the profiles and signifi-
cance of consuls and consulars in the political life of the Imperium Romanum. Due
to their significance, each issue is discussed in one (of six) chapters of this volume.
The discussion is complemented with Appendices (new senators, origo of senators,
senatorial gentes), including listings of such length that they significantly exceeded
the scope of footnotes, yet these were so important that their omission would render
the monograph incomplete.
The bibliography of the second volume is limited to the list of the quoted works,
whereas a complete bibliography is found at the end of the first volume. Similarly,
the index of the second volume includes only the first names of persons found in the
main text. Due to the comprehensive character of the footnotes, quite often includ-
ing long lists of senators, I excluded them from the index.
It is my hope that that the two-volume Album senatorum will be appreciated
by Readers both in terms of its content as well as the way in which the information
is conveyed.

***
As for technical issues – nomina of persons found in the work are provided using
their Latin spelling.
If senators with an identical nomen or anonymous senators are found in the
main text or the footnotes, I provide the numbers of their biographic entries from the
first volume (to avoid ambiguity).
8 | Preface

Additionally, the names of Roman offices are provided in their Latin version,
in the form featured in inscriptions, which I make references to. Hence such terms
as quoted below are found side by side: IIII vir viarum curandarum and quattuor-
vir viarum curandarum or X vir stlitibus iudicandis and decemvir stlitibus iudicandis,
which may appear as inconsistent, though it is intentional in order to reflect the
message of the original.

***
I wish to thank the Reviewers of both volumes – Prof. Edward Dąbrowa and
Prof. Marian Szarmach for their insightful comments, due to which some lapsus and
typos were avoided.
I also extend my gratitude to the authorities of the Faculty of Humanities rep-
resented by Prof. Urszula Chęcińska. Had it not been for her financial support, this
work would not have been published.
Chapter I

Number of Senators

As I started my work on the senatorial order in the Severan Period (193–235 AD),
I decided that the primary research goal is to create a complete album senatorum
that would illustrate the elite of the Imperium Romanum at that time. A new album
provides, among others, the opportunity to answer two key questions that recur in
the literature of the subject:
1. How many senators from the Severan Period do we know of?
2. How many members were there in the Senate in the decline period of the
Early Empire?
According to the initial research hypothesis, the number of senators in the pe-
riod in question ranged between 1,200 and 1,800. It was adopted on the basis of the
findings common in the literature of the subject that the number of senators ranged
between 600–900 at that time1, and during the 42 years of the Severan rule there
was one generation change.
The scholars who were inclined to accept the number of 600 as the up-
per limit of the Senate membership include first of all: G. Alföldy2, K. Hopkins3,

1 
Since the beginning of the Roman Senate, the number of its members showed an upward trend.
This natural process was connected with the social and territorial development of the Roman state.
At the beginning of the royal period (according to tradition) the Senate had 100 members, and at the
end the number was 300, while during the Republic (starting with Sulla) there were 600 senators, and
finally the number reached even 1,000 members during Caesar’s reign. During the Empire, Augustus,
strengthening his position and the prestige of the Senate at the same time, restored the level of 600
senators. In the case of later emperors, the data on the number of members of this respected body is
lacking. Given this situation, the only way to provide the number of senators is through deduction
based on the known number of senators, which leads to significant differences in the researchers’
estimates (see the text).
2 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur
senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977, pp. 17–18.
3 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2, Cambridge 1983, e.g.,
p. 147.
10 | Chapter I

R.J.A. Talbert4, F. Jacques5, A. Chastagnol6, C. Letta7. A different view was presen­


ted, for instance, by: G. Barbieri8, F. Vittinghoff9, W. Eck10, admitting the number
of 800–900. Hence it should be noted here that even though in the majority of cases
the researchers adopted values derived from many years of research, these were not
based on specific analyses and prosopographic comparisons.
Among the aforementioned scholars, it was only G. Barbieri who could support
the suggested number with factual comparisons in the form of a prosopographic al-
bum of the senatorial order11. According to his calculations, 937 senators are known
for the period of the reign of Septimius Severus and Caracalla, and in the period
from Macrinus to Severus Alexander the number is 471, i.e. theoretically 1,40812 for
the entire Severan period, hence from 78 to 88% of the Senate composition assumed
by the researcher (900–800). Unfortunately, the names of clarissimi living during
the times of subsequent emperors were repeated in Barbieri’s book, and they were
entered a number of times; consequently, in practice, the number of identified and
precisely dated senators is much lower than the declared ones. Moreover, one should
add further senators from the later period, who began their careers during the Sev­
eran rule – these were mentioned by Barbieri in two separate lists (with an additional
division into known and uncertain ones). Names from these lists partly overlap with
the earlier ones, which results in confusion, lack of clarity and the inability to reliably
indicate the number of senators, whose lives and activity can be dated to the years
193–235 A.D. It should be added that at the end of the work new senators are found

4 
R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton 1984, pp. 29–30.
5 
F. Jacques, L’ éthique et la statistique. À propos du renouvellement du Sénat romain (Ier–IIIe siècles de
l’Empire), Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 42e année, no. 6, 1987, pp. 1287–1303.
6 
A. Chastagnol, Le Sénat romain à l’ époque impériale. Recherches sur la composition de l’Assemblée et le
statut de ses membres, Paris 1992, p. 110.
7 
C. Letta, Settimio Severo e il Senato, [in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine sena-
torio, 30 anni dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, pp. 127–141.
8 
G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285), Roma 1952, particularly p. 431.
9 
F. Vittinghoff, Rez. G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285) (1952), Gno-
mon 29, 1957, p. 110 and n.
10 
W. Eck, Das Eindringen des Christentums in den Senatorenstand bis zu Konstantin d. Gr., Chiron 1,
1971, p. 396.
11 
It should be noted, because of a chronicler’s duty, that Barbieri’s book was preceded by a monograph
by P. Lambrechts, La composition du Sénat romain de Septime-Sévère à Dioclétien (193–284) (Disserta-
tiones Pannonicae ser. I, fasc. 8), Budapest 1937. Lambrechts compared lists of 461 senators from the
time of Septimius Severus and Caracalla and 363 from the time of Elagabalus and Severus Alexander;
unfortunately, he failed to provide an estimate of the numerical limit of the Senate membership.
12 
This number includes 885 known senators and 523 uncertain ones. Barbieri obtained this result
by summing up 604 known senators and 333 doubtful senators from the time of Septimius Severus
and Caracalla, and 281 known and 190 uncertain ones from Macrinus to Severus Alexander. See
G. Barbieri, L’albo..., pp. 415–416, 442 and nn.
Number of Senators | 11

(marked with digits and the addition of letters: a, b, c) in the Aggiunte e correzioni
section, and some of them have double numbering (e.g., no. 264/5 is identical to no.
1280/1) – consequently, using this work becomes problematic13.
At this point, one should mention the works by G. Alföldy14 and his follower
P.M.M. Leunissen15, although focused on the leading classes of the senatorial order
(e.g., consulars), but containing numerical data that is of significance for my discus-
sion. Following G. Alföldy’s conclusion that every other senator in practice became
consul16 and the calculations by P.M.M. Leunissen, who established the number of
consuls of the Severan period (with the exclusion of emperors and consuls for the sec-
ond time) to be approx. 55017, we arrive at the number of 1,100 (550 × 2) senators of
the Severan period. Obviously, this number is just a speculation, and it is in no way
supported by the sources, which is a good illustration of the fact that calculations not
based on specific and comprehensive research may distort the final outcome (as is
proven below).
One can fall into a similar trap when using the speculative percentage of the
so-called material representativeness. Generally, researchers (e.g., Eck, Leunissen)18
agree that the identification of ordo senatorius is approx. 50% of the factual state of
affairs. Given the assumed limit of 1,200–1,800 senators for the entire Severan pe-
riod, we should thus know 600–900 of them. However, Barbieri (even taking into

13 
Barbieri’s system of calculations was subject to detailed criticism by K. Dietz, Senatus contra prin­
cipem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen Kaiser Maximinus Thrax, München 1980,
p. 261 and n.; I fully support his remarks.
14 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat...
15 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180–
235 n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im römischen Kaiserreich, Am-
sterdam 1989.
16 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat..., p. 19.
17 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 11. At first glance, this number seems a bit overestimated. Annu-
ally, there were generally 12 consular posts to be filled in the Imperium Romanum (2 ordinary and
10 suffect consuls), which gives the number of 504 consuls over the period of 42 years. However, this
number has to be reduced by consul-emperors and second-time consuls, and it should be increased by
consuls and consulars, who were active in the Senate under Commodus (and even Marcus Aurelius),
and were still alive at the beginning of the Severan reign. Taking these elements into account, I find
P.M.M. Leunissen’s calculations reliable.
18 
W. Eck, Sozialstruktur des römischen Senatorenstandes der hohen Kaiserzeit und statistische Methode,
Chiron 3, 1973, pp. 381–385 assumes that we know approximately 50% of all senators from the
Principate period, whereas in the article titled Imperial Administration and Epigraphy: In Defence of
Prosopography, [in:] A.K. Bowman, H. Cotton, M. Goodman, S. Price (ed.), Representation of Empire,
Rome and the Mediterranean World, Oxford 2002, p. 133 state that in the case of proconsuls from Asia
and Africa the level of identification exceeds 50%. P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 11, in the case of
consuls of the Severan period provides similar values. According to the author’s findings, consuls are
one of the better known groups (besides the proconsuls from Asia and Africa) – e.g., 15% of curatores
operum publicorum are known to us.
12 | Chapter I

account repetitions) already identified 1,408 senators (including 885 known ones),
and in my album (which will be discussed in detail later) there are 1,682 of them (in-
cluding 1,196 known ones); given the assumption that I managed to collect data on
50% of all senators, the album should be expected to contain 3,364 names (2,392, if
we take into account only the known ones), and the Senate would consist of approx.
1,700–1,200 clarissimi viri!
When the literature of the subject is subjected to serious criticism, one should
conclude authoritatively that currently the proposals, found in the known publica-
tions, on: the number of senators, the numerical composition of the Senate, and the
level of representativeness of the available sources, fail to meet the expectations of the
scientific world.
Therefore, taking a critical approach to the comparison made by G. Barbie-
ri and the data from subsequent archaeological findings (mainly epigraphic, pub-
lished, for instance, in “L’Année épigraphique”, new volumes of Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum and mentioned in Prosopographia Imperii Romani), I decided to create
a comprehensive, updated list of all known senators from the Severan period, and
consequently to determine the numerical limit of the Roman Senate in the decline
period of the Early Empire.
I wonder whether with respect to the years 193–235 it is worthwhile at all to
assume a division of senators into those of the periods of Septimius Severus – Cara-
calla and Macrinus – Severus Alexander (as was done by Barbieri). On the one hand,
over the period of 42 years a generation change took place, although some senators
from the beginning of the dynasty could have lived even until the end of the rule of
Severus Alexander. The best example is C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, who was
a military tribune under Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus’ commander and Alex-
ander’s companion (comes) during the Persian expedition. During the time of Severus
Alexander (around the year 230), his son became a consul, thus at least for 10 years
both the father and the son served in the Senate together. It should be assumed that
this was not an isolated case19.

19 
Demographic studies show that the average life expectancy of senators was higher than that of the
general population. It is assumed (for the general population) that approx. 30% who survived beyond
the age of 5 could have lived up to the age of 60. See, for instance: W. Suder, “Census populi”. Demo-
grafia starożytnego Rzymu, Acta Universitatis Wratislaviensis, no. 2467, Historia CLX, Wrocław 2003,
p. 229 and n. Suder to a large extent relied on the literature of the subject published worldwide, for
instance, on the studies by R.P. Duncan-Jones, B.W. Frier, K. Hopkins, and E. Lo Cascio. It should be
added that the majority of demographers (e.g., K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal..., e.g., pp. 147–148,
F. Jacques, L’ éthique et la statistique..., pp. 1287–1303) state that a senatorial career, starting at the
age of 25, lasted at least 30 years. However, this value is not derived from detailed prosopographic
studies, but it is driven by the desire to match the length of the lives of senators to the mathematical
model based on the number of 20 quaestors entering the Senate each year. The number we obtain
after 30 years is 600 senators (20 quaestors × 30 years = 600 senators) and the Senate is completely
Number of Senators | 13

On the other hand, the period of civil wars caused fluctuations in the Senate,
elimination of some senators (as part of purges)20 and rapid advancement of new
people; consequently, a rigid division into the times of “early” and “late” Severans
in an album devoted to one dynasty, ruling for 42 years, is unsubstantiated. In my
opinion, it is reasonable to compile one list for the entire period, divided into catego-
ries – senators dated to the Severan period with certainty and senators possibly dated
to this period.
It must be admitted that in the album alone a large portion of nomina known
from Barbieri’s work – more specifically 1,38321 – remain uncorrected, although
I supplemented them with information about their careers, family relationships or
even identification of specific individuals. As an exemplum we can point to P. Fu(...)
Pontianus, a legate of Moesia, previously commonly considered to be Furius, but
in fact identical with the recently discovered legate of Pontus-Bithynia C. Pon­tius
Pontianus Fuficius Maximus22 or identifying an ordinary consul from the year
234 found in the sources as [Su]lla Urbanus as [M. Munat]ius [Su]lla Urbanus, the
son of M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis, an ordinary consul of the year 21523.
A good example of making progress in the identification of senators is the
anonymous father of Tullia P. f. Marsilla Quentinia Rossia Rufina Rufia Procula,
who, owing to the fleet diploma published by W. Eck and H. Lieb from 20624, was

renewed (without taking into account additional external adlectiones!). Hence the lifespan (55 years on
average) was determined starting with the assumption that there were approximately 600 members of
the Senate. Such calculations should be treated with caution, bearing in mind that life does not always
fit into mathematical schemes, especially those established from a perspective of almost 2000 years.
20 
See: D. Okoń, Septimius Severus et senatores. Septimius Severus’ Personal Policy Towards Senators in
the Light of Prosopographic Research (193–211 A.D.), Szczecin 2012 (reprints 2013 and 2014), Impera-
tores Severi et senatores. The History of the Imperial Personnel Policy, Szczecin 2013 (reprints 2013 and
2014); eadem, Septimius Severus et senatores once again. A Debate with Cesare Letta, Вестник Санкт-
Петербургского университета, Bыпуск 4, Sankt Petersburg 2016, pp. 174–185.
21 
I obtained such a number after the verification of Barbieri’s lists: elimination of repetitions, adding
senators entered in “Aggiunte e correzioni”, separation of persons counted as one and removing those
from the list who, in view of recent research, should not be dated to the Severan period. Some of the
individuals were shifted from the category of uncertain to known senators (or the other way around),
and consequently the number I obtained is 1,383, out of which I considered 1,030 as known and 353
as uncertain.
22 
R. Haensch, P. Weiss, Statthaltergewichte aus Pontus et Bithynia. Neue Exemplare und neue Erkennt­
nisse, Chiron 37, 2007, pp. 183–218, published an inscription of the legate of Pontus-Bithynia. For
identification, see D. Okoń, P. Fu(...) Pontianus once again, Philia, Journal for the Ancient History and
Cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean 1, 2015, pp. 129–135.
23 
A. Krieckhaus, Vater und Sohn. Bemerkungen zu den severischen “consules ordinarii“ M. Munatius
Sulla Cerialis und M. Munatius Sulla Urbanus, ZPE 153, 2005, p. 283 and n.
24 
W. Eck, H. Lieb, Ein Diplom für die classis Ravennas vom 22. November 206, ZPE 96, 1993, p. 75
and n. The authors suggest kinship of the consul with Tullia Marsilla, known from the inscription NS
1919, 207, whereas I furthermore consider them to be a father and a daughter.
14 | Chapter I

identified by me as consul P. Tullius Marsus mentioned in this document. As a re-


sult of many years of studies and analyses, I added 29925 names (167 known and
132 uncertain) to the verified list by Barbieri, i.e. a list of 1,383 names. One can
find a few representatives of senatorial families among them: Aiacii26, Aradii27, Asi­
nii28, Attii Rufini29, Calpurnii Reginiani30, Carminii31, Marcii32, Cn. Pompeii33 from
Ephesus, Sollii34, the other senators are the only representatives of their gentes in this
list. The entire group includes 107 consuls, of whom very few belonged to the old
senatorial aristocracy: Asinii35, Calpurnii Reginiani36, Claudii Pompeiani37, Claudii
Severi38, Pompeii Falcones39, Nonii Arrii40, while the others (as far as we know) were
homines novi.
In the majority of cases, adding new nomina to the list is a consequence of
epigraphic findings, while in a few – the result of separating individuals previously
considered as one.
When we add this to the number of previously known senators, we get the
number of 1,682 (1,196 known and 486 uncertain) clarissimi viri attested in the
sources.

25 
See Appendix I.
26 
Q. Aiacius Censorinus Celsinus Arabianus, L. Aiacius Modestus Aurelianus Priscus Agricola
Salvianus.
27 
(P?) Aradius Paternus – cos. suff. ante a. 231, P. Aradius Paternus Rufinianus Aelianus [Iu?]-
n(ior), Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, P. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus Tiberianus,
Ti. Aradi[us Saturninus?].
28 
C. Asinius Rufus Nicomachus – cos. suff. sub Severis, Sex. Asinius Rufinus Fabianus, M. Asinius
Rufinus Valerius Verus Sabinianus – cos. suff. sub Severis?
29 
Attius Rufinus (no. 138) – cos. suff. sub Severis, Attius Rufinus (no. 139) – cos. suff. inter a. 238
et 240, Attius Rufinus Metillianus.
30 
Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 232) – cos. suff. saec. III parte priore, Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 233).
31 
(M. Ulpius) Carminius Claudianus (neoteros), T. Flavius Carminius Athenagoras Claudianus.
32 
Marcius Maximillianus – cos. suff. ante a. 240, P. Marcius Maximillianus, (Q?) Marcius Victor
Faustinianus, Marcius Vic[tor].
33 
[Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 817), [Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 818), Cn. Pompeius Antonius Amoenus.
34 
[... Sollius ...] – cos. suff. saec. III, M. Sollius At[ticus].
35 
C. Asinius Rufus Nicomachus – cos. suff. sub Severis, M. Asinius Rufinus Valerius Verus
Sabinianus – cos. suff. sub Severis?
36 
Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 232) – cos. suff. saec. III parte priore.
37 
(Ti. Claudius? vel Vettulenus) Pompeianus – cos. suff. inter a. 192 et 218, fortasse ca a. 212,
(Ti. Claudius?) Pompeianus – cos. suff. ca a. 212, L. Clodius Pompeianus – cos. suff. a. 202 aut 203.
38 
(Cn. Claudius?) Severus – cos. suff. inter a. 192 et 218, fortasse ca a. 212, Cn. Claudius Severus –
cos. suff. a. inc., cos. II ord. a. 173.
39 
[Pompeius F]alco – cos. suff. sub Severis?
40 
M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus Manlius Carbo – cos. suff. a. 189 aut 190.
Number of Senators | 15

Assuming these numerical values to be complete and bearing in mind that


there was one generation change in the Senate during the Severan period, one can
determine the number of Senate members in the period under discussion.
Given the assumption that the Senate consisted of 600 members, and during
the reign of the entire dynasty (42 years) there were 1,200 senators in total (with one
generation change), then taking into account certain senators that are known to us
– 1,196, we would know almost all of them (99.6%). In turn, if we assume known
and uncertain senators as the basis for calculations – 1,682, we come across a contra-
diction – there are definitely too many of them on the list.
Assuming that there were 800 senators in the Senate (thus 1,600 in total), we
come to the following conclusions: if known senators are adopted as the basis for
calculations, we arrive at the level of representativeness of 74.7%, but with known
and uncertain senators there is a contradiction again.
One can try to explain perceivable inconsistencies by a greater number of gen-
eration changes in the Senate than the assumed ones.
For the Senate to “fit in” 1,682 senators, given the upper limit of 600, three
changes would have had to take place (1,682 : 600 = approx. 2.8), whereas with the up-
per limit of 800, this indicator would be around approx. 2.1 (1,682 : 800 = approx. 2.1).
However, demographers agree that the average lifespan of a senator was 55  years,
and the period of public service was 30 years, hence there were not even 2 complete
generations in the Senate during the Severan era (42 : 30 = 1.4)41. It follows from
the above that the calculations could be correct if we adopted a systematic decline in
the average lifespan of senators. For example, with the first option – 600 persons and
2.8 of a change within 42 years, a statistical senator would live up to only 40 years
of age (42 years : 2.8 = 15 years; 25 years + 15 years = 40 years)42. With the other op-
tion, 800 senators – the average lifespan would be 45 years (42 years : 2.1 = 20 years;
25 years + 20 years = 45 years). This means that senators would live 15 and 10 years
shorter respectively than it is assumed in contemporary demo­graphic studies43.
This is impossible, especially since we are dealing with a population of adult, rich,
well-fed men provided with the best medical care. If we follow this line of reasoning,
we would have to assume that only some lived up to hold consulship, which is in
clear contradiction with our data.

41 
Even taking into account the fact that lists of the senatorial order feature boys above the age of
infancy (who for the most part grew into adulthood and entered the Senate) and clarissimi, who theo-
retically failed to enter the public service, or rather of whom the data on their public service is lacking.
42 
For the sake of full clarity – 42 years is the period of the reign of the Severans, whereas the limit
of the age of 25 is due to the fact that the majority of senators at that time held the quaestorship, thus
starting their public career in the Senate.
43 
See footnote no. 19.
16 | Chapter I

At this point, it is worth reiterating that in the communis opinio of the research-
ers of the period, the representativeness of our source material is at the level of 50%44.
The data I have collected is certainly not complete (although I assess its representa-
tiveness to be more than 50% – see below), and every year brings discoveries of new,
so far unknown senators.
In this situation, both analyzed upper limits of the number of the Senate mem-
bers, 600 and 800, should be regarded as too low and rejected.
One may approach the issue from a different perspective – if Severus inher-
ited the number of 600 senators in the year 193, and if we add quaestors to this
number (disregarding external adlectiones for now), who entered the Senate during
the 42 years of the Severan rule (42 × 20 = 840), the list of Senate members should
include 1,440 names. If we assume only the senators dated with certainty to the Sev-
eran period as the basis for calculations (thus approx. 1,200), we would know 83%
of them. With the Senate membership of 800, we get the number of 1,640 senators
(800 + 840) and our knowledge of the material is estimated at 72.9%; with the
Senate membership of 900 persons – 1,740 senators (900 + 840) and identification
at the level of 68.7%, whereas with the Senate of 1,000 persons we get the total of
1,840 senators (1,000 + 840) – and in this case we would know of 65% of them. If we
additionally take into account external adlectiones (5–8 per year), the percentage of
material identification will continue to decrease further approximating a reasonable
level (e.g., 900 for the Senate – approx. 60%).
It is therefore worth identifying the factors that affected the actual number of
Senate members. These were:
–– Advancement of young quaestors to the Senate,
–– Adlectiones to the Senate,
–– Average life span of senators,
–– Repressions.
If we assume (following demographers) that the public service for a generation
lasted 30 years (from the age of 25 to 55), the basis for calculations is as follows: each
year 20 young quaestors commenced their senatorial career, and additionally 5–8
adlecti entered the Senate, who were promoted to various steps of the career ladder45.

44 
Obviously, this refers only to senators. For comparison, it is worth adding that, for instance, in
the case of equestrian officers the level of material identification is estimated at 4% (see: H. Devijver,
Veränderungen in der Zusammensetzung der ritterlichen Offiziere von Septimius Severus bis Gallienus,
[in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit
der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993, p. 205 and n.), and for the entire equestrian order in the
2nd century at 5% (S. Demougin, Appartenir à l’ordre équestre au IIe siècle, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopo­
graphie und Sozialgeschichte, Köln 1993, p. 240).
45 
It is impossible to determine the number of adlectiones precisely due to the absence of sources. Cur-
rently, I assume that 239 senators from this period were homines novi, and some of them certainly
Number of Senators | 17

Over a period of 30 years, the number of senators entering the Senate would amount
to 600 while holding the quaestorship and 150–240 adlecti, which gives a total of
750–840 new senators in one generation.
Another factor contributing to a higher number of senators is the increasing
number of provincial quaestors caused by, for instance, administrative reorganization.
If the appointment of, for instance, 3–5 additional quaestors annually is as-
sumed, then within one generation this would mean approx. 90–150 “additional”
clarissimi viri.
Given the economic growth, increase in the level of wealth and progress in
medicine, a longer life span should be assumed, which would consequently mean46
that despite a generation change the number of senators from the “old Establish-
ment”47 was constantly increasing.
Bearing in mind the presented analyses, it can be concluded that the member-
ship of the Senate from the Severan period was approx. 900–1,000 persons, and the
number of senators was 1,800–2,000. The validity of this conclusion is evidenced by
the collected source material.
However, the impact of imperial repressions on the composition of the Sen-
ate was negligible, as over the period of 42 years they affected (to varying degrees)
96  sena­tors48 that are known to us by name (or careers in the case of damna-

received latus clavus before the quaestorship, and some of them were promoted during their equestrian
careers. Due to the shameful concealment of this fact by those concerned, this number must remain
imprecise, however out of 1,682 senators that are known to us the origin from senatorial families is
attested in the case of only 540 senators. The others (over 1,000) could have equally well been homines
novi, as well as members of the old gentes. If only a half of them were homines novi, the number of adlec-
tiones must have been quite significant, contrary to what is claimed by P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln...,
p. 90 n. and idem, Homines novi und Ergänzungen des Senats in der hohen Kaiserzeit: Zur Frage nach
der Repräsentativität unserer Dokumentation, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte,
Köln 1993, p. 88, establishing the number of laticlavii from the Severan period (promoted before the
quaestorship) as 55, and adlecti as 36. For recent publications on adlectiones, see: G. Assorati, L’adlectio
in senato e l’epigrafia tra metà del I e metà del III sec. d. C., [in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epi­
grafia e ordine senatorio. 30 anni dopo, Roma 2014.
46 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal..., p. 148, calculated that due to the extension of the life span of
senators from 55 to 57.5 years, the number of members of the Senate increased by 28 (from 582 to
610). Assuming an increase in the average life span, the number of senators should be respectively
higher.
47 
In these circumstances, maintaining a rigid upper limit of the number of Senate members (for
instance, 600) would constitute a significant impediment for the advancement of young clarissimi,
not to mention the equites. This would inevitably cause tension and result in a bottom-up pressure on
increasing the number of Senate members.
48 
According to my latest calculations: under Septimius Severus – 55, under Caracalla – 15, Macrinus
– 9, Elagabalus – 14, Severus Alexander – 3. This data is probably (as I have already written in my
books) the lower limit of the number of victims, whereas the upper limit, in the absence of sources,
remains an open question. Lately, C. Letta, Settimio Severo e il Senato..., pp. 127–141, has stated that
under Septimius Severus 111 persons were victimized. It should be borne in mind that this calculation
18 | Chapter I

tio memoriae), which amounts on average to approximately two convicts per year
(approx. 2.3).
It seems that the problem that the “new” senators faced was not meeting the
financial conditions required of them. Cassius Dio points out that during the reign
of Augustus the requirement was to own property of the value of 1 million sester-
ces (54, 26, 3), while Suetonius provides the amount of 1.2 million (Aug. 41, 3).
It is unknown how these standards were followed during the reign of the Severans
(although the sources, including Cassius Dio living at that time, do not mention
changes in this respect). However, due to the increasing devaluation, the requirement
of owning adequate property was easier to meet than under Augustus. It should be
borne in mind that under Septimius Severus and his successors, equestrian officers
of higher and lower rank rewarded for their meritorious service were promoted to the
Senate, thus possibly the requirements were more relaxed. The period of the civil war,
notably, was not favorable to strict observance of the law. In addition, the Emperor
probably replenished the property, post factum raised to the required minimum.
With the vast amount of land confiscated from defeated political opponents,
these operations were probably easier.
It seems that the increased number of Senate members had no impact on the
way in which it functioned as a significant number of senators was simply absent
during the meetings. This was due to the distances between the provinces and Rome,
which were definitely inversely proportional to the number of senators from a given
province that actively participated in the debates. Even the absence of a significant
portion of senators was not an obstacle to enacting the laws that applied to the whole
Empire. It should be borne in mind that senatus consultum Beguense from the year
138 (CIL VIII 270 = 11451 = 23246) contains information that CCL[...] senators
particip­ated in the proceedings (since the inscription is damaged, it can only be
concluded that the number of senators did not exceed 300). At the same time, it is
noteworthy that under Severus Alexander, for a law to be regarded as being in force,
the presence of 50 (!) participants was sufficient49.

is largely intuitive. What raises doubts are particularly calculations based on summing up of the
known persons and anonymous ones listed in historiography (for instance, two anonymous senators,
7 Niger’s legates, 3 Albinus’ legates, at least two other killed senators, 29 senators sentenced to death),
as we cannot be certain whether the same individuals are involved. Moreover, there are objections as to
considering 35 senators that were acquitted by Severus after the battle of Lugdunum as “emargi­nati”.
Without knowing their names, it cannot be established whether the Emperor was not merciful with
them (as was the case with Caesar or Augustus) and denied them a chance to pursue a further career.
For my polemics with C. Letta, see: D. Okoń, Septimius Severus et senatores once again..., pp. 174–185.
49 
This is what the analysis of two sources shows: HA, vita Alex. Sev., 16, 1 and Cod. Theod. 6, 4, 9.
For more information on this topic, see: Imperatores Severi et senatores..., pp. 119–120.
Number of Senators | 19

This low senatorial participation level in ruling the Empire can also be suggest-
ed by a large number of inscriptions, in which a given senator is titled as clarissimus
vir, without providing his cursus or with listing of only the regional functions. To sup-
port this claim, one can recall the fate of representatives of four contemporary fam-
ilies from distant provinces of Rome: Arrii from Africa, and Attii, Carminii and
Claudii Cleobuli from Asia Minor.
1. Out of seven representatives of the Arrii family: C. Arrius Antoninus
(no. 104), (C. Arrius Antoninus?) (no. 105), C. Arrius Antoninus (no. 106), Arrius
Maximus (no. 111), Arrius Maximus (no. 1249), C. Arrius Pacatus (no. 112), C. Ar-
rius Pacatus (no. 113), only one – Arrius Maximus (no. 111 or no. 1249) served in the
capacity of legate of Syria, and nothing is known of the cursus of the others.
2. Out of five representatives of the Attii family: P. Attius Clemens, P. Attius
Clementinus Rufinus, P. Attius Pudens, P. Attius Pudens Rufinus Celsianus, P. At­
tius Ulpius Apuleius Clementinus Rufinus, no administrative career has been at­
tested for any of them50.
3. Out of five representatives of the Carminii family: (M? Ulpius?) Carmi-
n­ius Flavius Athenagoras Claudianus, M. Fl(avius) Carminius Athenagoras Livianus,
Carminius Claudianus, (M. Ulpius) Carminius Claudianus (neoteros), T. Flavius
Carminius Athenagoras Claudianus. It is only in the case of the first one that we
know of his having been a proconsul of Lycia and Pamphylia (located in Asia Minor!)
and a consul.
4. Out of three representatives of the Claudii Cleobuli: Ti. Claudius Cleobulus
and two of his sons – Claudius Acilius Cleobulus and Claudius Acilius Iulius. Only
the elder of the brothers held an unspecified office in Crete.
Many similar examples can be provided, but the conclusion is quite obvious –
some members of the senatorial order, while being honorati, were completely satisfied
with the title of clarissimus vir and were not involved in the service for the whole Em-
pire. This state of affairs was accepted by the legislation, which permitted a family to
enjoy the status of clarissimi for three generations, without holding senatorial offices
by its representatives. In my opinion, this principle was to protect senatorial families
from social degradation, which for some reason failed to have representatives in the
Senate in some of the generations51. However, this trend should not be exaggerated,
as the scale of this phenomenon is unknown to us. It is due to the lack of data that we

50 
It is worth pointing out that in the case of three Attii Rufini (probably related to the ones mentioned
above) only one office has been attested in the cursus: Attius Rufinus (no. 138) was proconsul of Asia,
Attius Rufinus Metillianus was his legate, Attius Rufinus (no. 139) was legate of Syria Coele.
51 
See: Digesta 1.9.8; 1.9.10; and particularly 50.1.22.5.
20 | Chapter I

do not know whether a given senator resigned from the public career or it is simply
beyond the scope of our knowledge.
It is worth mentioning that a somehow supplementary trend can be observed
– a certain percentage of senators was engaged in ruling the Empire, assuming func-
tions only in their or a neighboring region. This eliminated the need for burdensome
travels and staying in distant provinces, far away from home. For example:
–– M. Claudius Demetrius, originating from the East, was a proconsul Achaiae
et legatus Augusti pro praetore missus ad corrigendum statum civitatium libera­
rum Achaiae, and after consulship (probably held in absentia) legatus pro
praetore Ponti-Bithyniae,
–– Cn. Claudius Leonticus, originating from the province of Achaia, proconsul
Achaiae et legatus Augusti pro praetore missus ad corrigendum statum civitatium
liberarum Achaiae, Delphis, Megarae, Epidauri,
–– Tib. Claudius Telemachus, originating from Lycia, stayed in the East of the
Empire holding various functions: princeps gerusiae Sidymorum, quaestor
Achaiae, legatus proconsulis [As]iae or [Acha]iae, conditor ac restaurator Laodi­
ceae et Hierapolis, curator civitas Callatinorum.
In addition, these careers that were strictly regional offered a chance of reaching
the consulship, although to a much lesser degree than careers of the Empire-wide
scope (see Chapters IV and VI).
It should be borne in mind that in the Dominate period, the Senates of Rome
and Constantinople were each formally composed of approx. 2,000 members, which
was probably an attempt to resolve personnel problems encountered by successive
emperors. There is nothing to hold us back from concluding (taking into account the
above calculations) that the process of enlarging the Senate under Septimius Severus
and his successors was partly due to the low participation of senators in ruling the
Empire (a fact noticeable in the source material).

Conclusions

To sum up this discussion, it must be concluded that we currently know of 1,682


(including 1,196 known with certainty) senators from the Severan period – thus the
number of 600 as well as 800 must be ruled out as the upper limit of the Senate
membership. In my opinion, it should be assumed that the membership of the Im-
perial Senate was approximately 900–1,000 persons. Taking this fact into account,
it should be concluded that during more than forty years of the Severan rule, the
album senatorum featured approx. 1,800–2,000 senators. Given these circumstances,
Number of Senators | 21

the level of representativeness of the source material I collected is at approx. 60%, for
known senators, and for all of them taken together (known and uncertain) – above
84%.
It is worth considering the reasons for the increase in the number of senators,
unnoticed by ancient sources and unjustified by any resolution. It seems that these
were standard reasons: the growth of the Empire, the low degree of participation of
senators in the management of the Empire, the need for more officials, the growth
of the wealth of provincial elites, and the formation of their own parties in the Sen-
ate by successive emperors. It should also be noted that not too many senators were
persecuted during the Severan period, and the sources do not mention any major
epidemics, but stress the influx of new people to the Senate. All of this indicates
that the process of gradual enlargement of the Senate was natural, evolutionary and
as such unnoticed, unlike the time of Caesar, when a similar increase in numbers,
though abrupt in its nature (and recorded by historiographers), caused a common-
place reaction in the society.
Chapter II

The Origo of Senators

The issue of the origo of senators of the Severan period is an important aspect of the
research conducted by prosopographers, who try to directly or indirectly answer the
following fundamental questions:
1. How many senators of the Severan period can be identified in terms of their
territorial origin?
2. What was the role of the representatives of Italy in the Senate during this
period?
3. To what extent did the origo of emperors affect the composition of the
Senate?
4. What was the course of the provincialization of the Senate that had been
noticeable previously?
Particularly important works that discuss these issues include the following
studies that have been cited on a number of occasions: G. Barbieri, G. Alföldy,
K. Dietz, P.M.M. Leunissen1, where specific numerical data, which I intend to refer
to in this text, is presented. At the same time, I wish to present the progress of the
research as well as my own analyses.
The most detailed monograph (among the aforementioned ones) – the album
by Barbieri, contains a comprehensive, as it is assumed, list of clarissimi viri with
their origo. This Italian scholar tried to localize the provinces of origin, and grouped
them into four regions: Italy, the West, Africa, and the East (two senators from Egypt
are found here). It should be emphasized that such a division is utterly valid in the
case of the rule of the Severan dynasty. It enables us to capture the influence of the

1 
This listing does not include the work by P. Lambrechts (La composition du Sénat romain de Sep-
time-Sévère à Dioclétien (193–284), Budapest 1937), whose calculations were expanded and replaced
by the results of Barbieri’s study. However, the discussion of Lambrecht’s works, for instance: A. von
Domaszewski, F. Sintenis, M. Fluss, K. Bihlmeyer, M. Rostovtzeff, A. Stein may be of interest to
enthusiasts of the history of historiography.
The Origo of Senators | 23

emperor on the representation of their native regions (Africa, the East), the status of
the cradle of the Empire– Italy and the extremely low number of senators from the
West – the evident consequence of the war between Severus and Clodius Albinus,
and the pacification that followed2. Barbieri divided the prosopographic material
into two subgroups (the periods of early and late Severans). However, he abandoned
the idea of calculating the percentages for cases of certain and probable localizations
of senators separately, combining both categories and providing one common result.

Table 1. Origo of senators of the Severan period according to G. Barbieri (%)3

Under Severus and Caracalla From Macrinus to Severus Alexander


Region (calculated for 479 known (calculated for 238 known
and uncertain persons) and uncertain persons)
Italy 43.0 49.0
West 8.8* 7.5**
Africa 15.0 14.0
East 32.6 31.9
*
Barbieri provides calculations of senators from Dalmatia, Moesia and Noricum (5 persons in total).
**
Barbieri provides calculations of senators from Dalmatia and Pannonia (3 persons in total).
Source: G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285), Roma 1952, pp. 432–447.

What draws our attention in the results (in both columns) is the high percen­
tage of senators from Italy, who constitute nearly half of the Senate. However, this
means that over half of the representatives come from the provinces – an evident
effect of the provincialization of the Senate. The second region in terms of the num-
ber of senators is the East, while the status of the West is striking given its poor rep-
resentation. It is also noteworthy that the number of senators from Africa is almost
twice the number of clarissimi viri coming from occidental provinces.
It should be stressed that almost as many senators came from the native regions
of the Severans (Africa and the East) as from Italy – this well reflects the impact of
the origo of emperors on the structure of the Senate.

2 
It should be mentioned that senators and equites from Gaul are generally poorly represented in
inscriptions due to the absence of epigraphic traditions in this area. See: W. Eck, Überlieferung und
historische Realität: ein Grundproblem prosopographischer Forschung, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie
und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopogra-
phie, Köln 1993, pp. 365–395.
3 
The author provided approximate percentage values, and senators from the Danubian provinces
were not taken into account in percentage calculations, thus the total (in both columns) is not 100%.
Therefore, calculating a precise common value for the entire Severan period would be a simple specu­
lation. As a side remark, it should be added that most of the persons listed in tables 479 and 238
overlap.
24 | Chapter II

Thirty seven years after the publication of the work by Barbieri, P.M.M. Leu­
nissen published a monograph on consuls and consulars under Commodus and the
Severans. Having analyzed biographic entries of viri consulares, he came to the fol-
lowing conclusions regarding their origo (for the Severan period):

Table 2. Origo of consuls and consulars of the Severan period


according to P.M.M. Leunissen (%)

Known origin Uncertain origin


Region
(calculated for 104 persons) (calculated for 54 persons)
Italy 38 31
West 23 30
Italy/West – 26
East 36 13
Undetermined origo 3 –
Source: P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander
(180–235 n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im römischen Kaiserreich,
Amsterdam 1989, p. 80.

The presented percentage data show that the phenomenon of provincialization


observed in the Senate to an even greater extent applies to the office of consul. Repre­
sentatives of the provinces outside Italy (in total) dominate, although it must also be
stated that the position of Italy (by individuals) remains the strongest. The second re-
gion in terms of the number of senators (as in the study by Barbieri) is the East, whereas
the West (counted together with Africa!) reaches a value that is close to the one we get
by summing up representatives of the West and Africa in Barbieri’s work. The shift
in the percentages between Italy and the East (in favor of the latter one) points to the
increase of eastern influence in the Senate during the Severan period and shows that
none of the representatives of this dynasty came from Italy. Regrettably, the fact that
Leunissen failed to distinguish Africa as a separate regio makes it impossible to provide
an assessment of the personal policy of the ruling dynasty in this respect.
The drawbacks of the analyses quoted above are the following: in Barbieri’s
case – out-of-date information; in Leunissen’s case – failure to separate senators from
Africa and the West, which gives a wrong impression of a strong position of occiden-
tal provinces.
After many years of research on the entire senatorial order of the Severan peri-
od, I conclude that in the case of 944 senators, i.e. 56.1% (of 1,682 featured in the
album), we are able to determine their territorial origin4. This is a high percentage

4 
See Appendix II.
The Origo of Senators | 25

and we can draw specific conclusions on the composition of the Roman Senate at the
turn of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Table 3. Origo of senators of the Severan period according to D. Okoń5

The origin of senators The origin of senators


(calculated for 944 known (calculated for 944 known
Region and uncertain persons) and uncertain persons)
numerical values percentage values
Italy 351 37.1
East* 291 31.0
Africa 206 21.8
West 96 10.1
*
Given the low number of inscriptions that confirm expressis verbis the eastern origin, onomastics proved to be
of great help – it can be assumed with high probability that senators with nicknames, such as Aristo, Athenaeus,
Diodotus, Philippianus, Seleucus, Trypho, came from eastern provinces. However, each case was subject to addi-
tional source verification.

The presented data change the view of the role of the Severans prevailing in
science on the formation of the structure of the Senate, and thus the findings on the
provincialization of this body. The center of gravity is clearly shifting from Italy (43–
49% in Barbieri’s work, 37.1% in my studies) to the provinces (57–51% in Barbieri’s
work, 62.9% in my studies), and the role of the cradle of the Empire is definitely
decreasing. Interestingly, my results are close to the results obtained by Leunissen for
the group of consulars6.
It is clear that compared to the previous album by Barbieri there was an increase
(in the group of senators identified in terms of origo) in the percentage values of the
representatives of Africa (15–14% in Barbieri’s work, 21.8% in my studies). This
makes my conviction stronger that – contrary to popular beliefs – Severans pre­
sented the attitude of local patriotism and promoted the advancement of their fellow
countrymen. It should also be noted that there were many African senators in the
immediate entourage of the emperors who played key roles in the administration7.

5 
Provinces were ranked based on the obtained values — from the highest to the lowest.
6 
Similar results were obtained 80 years earlier by P. Lambrechts, La composition..., pp. 79–80, for
a smaller group of identified senators. According to his calculations, out of 461 senators under Severus
and Caracalla, the origin of 183 is known, of whom 36% were representatives of Italy, and 64% came
from provinces. However, when it comes to 363 senators from the time of Elagabalus and Severus
Alexander, the origo of 132 senators was identified, of whom 42% were representatives of Italy, and
58% came from the provinces (in this case the Author provided numerical values, which I converted
into percentages).
7 
For instance: C. Fulvius Plautianus, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus)
Aper, P. Septimius Geta, L. Alfenus Senecio, Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus, Tib. Claudius Candidus,
26 | Chapter II

Representativeness of the East and Africa was not so quantitatively different, as


was demonstrated by Barbieri (32.6–31.9% for the East and 15.0–14.0% for Africa),
although in my opinion the East definitely prevailed over Africa in the Senate (31%
to 21.8%). However, it is noteworthy that two native regions of the Severans had
a majority in the Senate – 52.8% seats in total8. This value speaks for itself and no
additional comment is needed.
The number of identified senators from the West remains at a low level (8.8%–
7.5% in Barbieri’s work, and 10.1% according to my analyses). It should be em-
phasized that the majority, for instance, of Spanish senators belonged to just a few
families, some of whom were friends with the emperor9.
The tendencies observed in the Severan period must be confronted with the
analyses of the personal policy of the Antonines. First of all, this means that we must
refer to the study by G. Alföldy for the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius.

Table 4. Origo of senators from the Antonine period according to G. Alföldy (%)

Known origin Uncertain origin


Region
(calculated for 106 persons) (calculated for 110 persons)
Italy 47 48
West 28 32
East 25 14
Undetermined origo – 6
Source: G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchun-
gen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977, p. 64; P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 80.

Just a cursory glance at the data presented in the table shows a strong position
of Italy and a definitely weaker position of other regions. Nearly half of the seats in
the Senate was taken by representatives of the cradle of the Empire, the West ranked
second (including Africa), and the wealthy East came as the last one. Given these
findings, the assessment of the situation in view of my own research is unambiguous
– as time went on, the Senate of the Roman Empire was increasingly losing its Italian

Ti.  Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, C. Iulius
Flaccus Aelianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Au-
relianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), L. Naevius Quadratianus, M. Opellius Macrinus (a future
emperor).
8 
It is worth mentioning that according to the calculations by J.-P. Coriat, Les hommes nouveaux
à l’ époque des Sévères, RD 56, 1978, p. 9, members of the “African-Oriental” group constituted 2/3 of
the homines novi advanced to the Senate under Severans.
9 
Alfenii, Alfii, Caelii Balbini and friends with the Severans: Cornelii Anullini, Fabii Cilones, Manilii
Fusci.
The Origo of Senators | 27

character and grew to become more provincial. The analyses by P.M.M. Leunissen
on the reign of Commodus complete this picture.

Table 5. Origo of consuls and consulars under Commodus


according to P.M.M. Leunissen (%)

Known origin Uncertain origin


Region
(calculated for 70 persons) (calculated for 36 persons)
Italy 40 44
West 31 28
Italy/West – 28
East 29 –
Undetermined origo – –
Source: P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 78.

First of all, what is evident is that the process of the decrease in the number of
the representatives of Italy can be observed as early as during the reign of the last of
the Antonines – Commodus. Given this situation, the rule of the Severans should be
regarded as an evolution, and not a revolution of the system. It should also be em-
phasized that the observed provincialization of the Senate is derived from the process
of Romanization of the elites of various regions of the Empire. As they became more
“Roman”, they gradually gained a position that was suitable for them10. What is im-
portant is the fact that both the Antonines and the Severans (dynasties of provincial
origin) opened up career paths to other families from their native regions as they
themselves moved up the political career.
It is worth considering whether the tendencies observed in the Senate continued
in the post-Severan period. At this point, one should recall the study by K. Dietz,
who analyzed biographic entries of all senators, more specifically of those dated to
the years 235–238.

10 
This process had already started at the time of Caesar, though it raised a lot of controversy at that
time – Suetonius, Divus Iulius 80.
28 | Chapter II

Table 6. Origo of senators under Maximinus Thrax according to K. Dietz (%)

With no doubtful cases With uncertain cases


Region
(calculated for 45 persons) (calculated for 45 + 15 = 60 persons)
Italy 53.06 51.66
West 12.25 11.66
Africa 12.25 15.00
East 20.40 20.00
Danubian provinces 2.04 1.66
Source: K. Dietz, Senatus contra principem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen Kaiser
Maximinus Thrax, München 1980, pp. 270–272.

The results of the research come as a surprise, as they differ radically from the
results of my analyses. The percentage of the representatives of Italy in the West is
higher, and it is lower for Africa and the East. Thus a question arises – could the
proportions in the Senate have changed to such an extent in just three years?
It seems that we are dealing with a real personal revolution, but this impression
is misleading. K. Dietz collected biographic entries of senators represented in the
sources, and for the period of 235–238 these are most frequently members of the
opposition (primarily Italian) fighting against Maximinus Thrax. Hence the results
reflect not the structure of the Senate as such, but the aforementioned group of those
involved in the civil war. Finally, it should be noted that G. Barbieri did not notice
any radical changes in the Senate of the Empire, as he analyzed the period after the
death of Severus Alexander11; the proportions of origo of the senators from this period
are close to those provided by the Italian researcher for the Severan period.

Conclusions

To sum up this discussion, it should be concluded that during the reign of the Sev­
erans it is possible to identify the territorial origin of 944 senators (out of 1,682).
The process of provincialization of the Senate, which we can observe in the source
material, was evolutionary and involved the decreasing number of senators of Italian
origin (down to 37.1%) with the simultaneous increase of clarissimi viri from Africa
(21.8%) and the East (31.0%). Two native regions of the Severans were in the major-
ity in the Senate – 52.8% of the seats.

I refer those interested in this topic to the study by G. Barbieri, L’albo..., p. 453, though I am fully
11 

aware that it needs to be updated.


The Origo of Senators | 29

Interestingly, the cursus of the incoming provincials was definitely longer than
that of the representatives of Italy (for details, see Chapter V); thus their appoint-
ments were not accidental.
Undoubtedly, the process of provincialization (and therefore of the weaken-
ing of the position of senators from Italy) was a result of the personal policy of the
Severans (who continued the traditions of Commodus) – this tendency was clearly
evident during the reign of the founder of the dynasty, Septimius Severus. Compared
to his successors, he had a particular propensity to surround himself with his fellow
countrymen from Africa (according to my calculations, they constituted 40.0% of
his associates). On the other hand, the number of the senators from the West was at
a constant, low level (10.1%) throughout the entire Severan period.
The nature of the Senate during this period was definitely less Italian than one
could assume given the literature of the subject (following Barbieri’s work).
Chapter III

Social Origin of Senators

Answers to the following questions are provided in this chapter:


1. How many senators of the Severan period can be identified in terms of their
social origin?
2. What were the proportions of gentes senatoriae and homines novi in the
Senate?
3. Where did homines novi come from?
4. How many senatorial families can be identified in the Senate in the Severan
period?
5. What was the nature of the fluctuations of senatorial elites?
The discussion on the social composition of the Senate during the Severan pe-
riod has continued for many years in the literature of the subject. It should be objec-
tively concluded that the progress of research in this respect is rather mediocre1. Two
chapters of the book by G. Barbieri are devoted to the issues of the social origin of
senators2. The following topics are discussed in the first chapter: nobles, patricians,

1 
As regards older publications, one should recall the album published in 1937 by P. Lambrechts,
La composition  du Sénat romain de Septime-Sévère à Dioclétien (193–284), Budapest 1937. In notes
to this work, the author listed 29 patrician families in the Senate of the Severan period. In addition,
the scholar noticed significant fluctuations in the group of gentes patriciae – out of 43 families from
the time of the Antonines until the end of the 2nd century, 31 of them had disappeared. This fact
forced Severus to appoint new patricians. Lambrechts extrapolated the observed phenomenon of the
extinction of old patrician families (few of them were represented by 1 or 2 generations in the Senate)
to all gentes senatoriae. Consequently, he concluded (sharing the opinion of A. Stein, Der römische Rit-
terstand, München 1963, p. 359) that the Senate of the 3rd century was composed of promoted equites
and their descendants. Contemporary research verified the findings presented by Lambrechts with
regard to numerical analyses, however the description of the mechanisms of fluctuation remains valid
to a certain extent. I also discussed these issues in my own research, but in a broader perspective – of
the entire senatorial order (see below).
2 
G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285), Roma 1952, ch. III and IV in
the “Conclusioni” part.
Social Origin of Senators | 31

senators from senatorial families (descendants of senators, founders of senatorial fam-


ilies, relatives of senators). In the next chapter, he dealt with the issue of adlecti to the
Senate, classifying them into: descendants of the equites, equites becoming senators,
descendants of dignitaries, provincial or urban notables, military men, persons of
humble descent, other homines novi. On the one hand, such a method of presentation
systematized the material – but on the other hand it rendered it highly fragmented,
therefore no precise conclusions could be made. Finally, Barbieri failed to count the
number of senators from both chapters at all. He only stated in general terms that the
scale of advancement of equites and municipal aristocracy to the Senate was smaller
than it had been previously assumed, and advancement of persons of even more
humble descent was exceptional3.
This study was to a limited extent supplemented by J.-P. Coriat, who approached
the issue of (only) homines novi in the Senate of the Severan period. In his article,
he determined their number as 95, including 40 adlecti and 55 laticlavii. This clas-
sification became a framework for the entire discussion – the scholar discussed the
social and territorial origin of both groups and the types of careers typical of these
senators separately. Specific names of senators were provided in the analyses, but he
failed to present a comprehensive list of these names. Interestingly, he noted that
during the reign of subsequent Severans the number of adlecti increased, which was
accompanied by a simultaneous decrease in the number of laticlavii. Based on the
data he collected, the Author concluded in rather general terms that what facilitated
the advancement of equites and municipal notables was the extinction or destruction
of many old families4.
These findings were approached by P.M.M. Leunissen, who provided the fol-
lowing numbers for homines novi in the group of consuls and consulars: during the
reign of Severus and Caracalla – 66, under Macrinus, Elagabalus, Severus Alex­
ander – 265. Then, the Author (recalling the study by G. Alföldy) concluded that in
comparison to the Antonine period, under the Severans the number of homines novi

3 
Ibidem, p. 553.
4 
J.-P. Coriat, Les hommes nouveaux à l’ époque des Sévères, RD 56, 1978, pp. 5–23.
5 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180–235
n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im römischen Kaiserreich, Amster-
dam 1989, p. 95. Specific names listed on pages 99–100: under Severus and Caracalla: 44 laticlavii,
22 adlecti, under Macrinus, Elagabalus, Severus Alexander: 8 laticlavii and 14 adlecti, and additionally
3 laticlavii in general under the Severans. The total is 91, which is inconsistent with the sum of the val-
ues of 66 and 26, provided on p. 95. It is possible that this difference (of 1) is due to multiple counting
of Adventus, a consul of the year 217, although the author remains silent on this issue and I can only
presume this to be the case. The same findings by the Author, see idem, Homines novi und Ergänzun-
gen des Senats in der hohen Kaiserzeit: Zur Frage nach der Repräsentativität unserer Dokumentation, [in:]
W. Eck (ed.), Prospopographie und Sozialgeschichte, Köln 1993, p. 88 (footnote 31), p. 92.
32 | Chapter III

among consuls increased, and this trend reached a climax under Septimius Seve­
rus. Leunissen stressed that the influx of new persons to the Senate was due to the
discontinuation of senatorial families caused by social and political factors. In the
course of the analyses, similarly to G. Barbieri (and to some extent to J.-P. Coriat),
he listed many senators of senatorial (including the consular) and non-senatorial or-
igin. However, he failed to provide calculations in this respect.
K. Hopkins, a demographer, also voiced an opinion in this discussion. In his
monograph titled Death and Renewal, he stated that among senators of the Severan
period only every fourth (approx. 26%) senator could boast two or more senatorial
generations in his genealogy6. His calculations were based primarily on the prosopo­
graphic studies by Lambrechts7 and Hammond8, which were already outdated at
the time of the publication of the book under discussion9. In addition, there are
doubts as to the Author’s conclusion of the functioning of the advancement system
struggling with the formation of the hereditary administrative elite in the Roman
Empire10. The findings by Hopkins are in line with the concepts typical of research-
ers from the first half of the 20th century, who emphasized the broad scale of the
phenomenon of the influx of homines novi to the Senate.
My research on the senatorial order of the Severan period is comprehensive;
it differs quantitatively and methodologically from the analyses of my predeces-
sors. The greatest challenge was to determine the gens of individual senators – there
were difficulties to a lesser or a greater extent. The first of these, in my opinion, is
the identification of the descendants of the old aristocracy – we are certain of their
origin due to the recurring components of the family nomenclature in their nomina
(e.g., M’. Acilius Glabrio belonged to Acilii Glabriones, C. Bruttius Praesens to Brut-
tii (Praesentes)) and frequent recalling of a senator’s ancestors in inscriptions devoted
to a given senator. In cases where such guidelines are missing, the analysis of cursus
honorum is of help, as it often points to the superb origin of a given senator11. Owing
to this fact, the ability to identify members of this group is much greater than in the
case of homines novi. In the case of the latter group, the problem is the lack of data

6 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2, Cambridge 1983, p. 143
and n.
7 
P. Lambrechts, La composition...
8 
M. Hammond, Composition of the Roman senate A.D. 68–235, JRS 47, 1957, pp. 74–81.
9 
Unfortunately, Hopkins failed to make full use of the works of his contemporary authors. Another
reason for criticism may be the poor use of the fundamental work by Barbieri.
10 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal..., p. 174: “By establishing different though linked ladders for
promotion to honours (praetor, consul) and to offices (governor, legate), the emperors also created,
consciously or unconsciously, a system which prevented the formation of a powerful hereditary elite”.
11 
For more on this topic, see Chapter IV of this work.
Social Origin of Senators | 33

– an equite promoted to the Senate would rarely boast of his origin in inscriptions,
just as he was equally infrequently reminded of the fact of being granted latus cla-
vus12. Inscriptions, where next to the senatorial functions of a given official his earlier
functions were recalled – those of an equite – are found slightly more often13.
The collected material confirms our conviction that the humble beginnings
of cursus honorum were concealed for fear of shame (or were passed over in silence),
hence we arrive at a small number of attested homines novi, which must have been
higher in reality.
Therefore, we come to a conclusion that adhering closely to the aforementioned
characteristics (adlectio, awarding latus clavus, equestrian-senatorial career) is inef-
fective and requires a change in the research methodology. I suggest the following
criteria for homines novi:
1. Those, who do not have attested senatorial ancestors. This is a sine qua non
condition, which must be supplemented with one of the conditions below.
2. They can boast five and more offices of praetorian rank (typical of homines
novi)14.
3. Their equestrian ancestors have been identified (on the basis of the
nomenclature)15.
4. Those, who have a brother/brothers of the equestrian order.
5. They are contemporaries of the homonymous eques (or of equites), which
implies a conclusion of identification or very close kinship. In the case of
identification, the necessary condition is the non-excluding cursus honorum.
No explanation is needed in the case of the first four criteria, whereas as regards
the last one let me use an example for the sake of full clarity. The following persons
have been attested from inscriptions for the Severan period (each person holding one
office):
–– P. Aelius Hilarianus, consul suffectus,
–– P. Aelius Hilarianus, procurator (Asturiae et Callaeciae?),
–– Hilarianus, procurator (vice proconsulis) Africae.

12 
The lato clavo exornatus formula appears under the Severans in inscriptions (very few) in honor of:
M. Aurelius Asclepiodotianus, M. Coculnius Quintilianus, P. Postumius Romulus, whereas C. Vet-
tius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes is presented as translatus in amplissimum ordinem. See: A. Chastagnol,
“Latus clavus” et “adlectio”. L’accès des hommes nouveaux au sénat romain sous le Haut-Empire, RD 53,
1975, pp. 375–394, particularly pp. 386–387.
13 
For equestrian-senatorial careers, see Chapter V.
14 
For details, see Chapter V.
15 
Equites were a natural senatorial reservoir, whereas persons from other classes were hardly ever
given such advancement.
34 | Chapter III

Due to the convergence of time and nomenclature we can assume that we are
dealing with the same person (homo novus, representing the type of a mixed career16).
When analyzing data on senators, their cursus must always be taken into ac-
count. The premise for a senator’s affinity with homines novi is a career attested in
inscriptions only from a certain stage (e.g., from praetorship/praetorian offices), so
we can suspect adlectio. Obviously, this issue should be approached with caution,
as senators with distinguished origin could have not mentioned the lower steps of
their career ladder (especially if it followed a standard course); however, taking into
account good identification of gentes senatoriae, there should be very few errors.
Surprisingly, marriages contribute very little to our discussion. Research shows
that 13% of identified wives of senators came from the equestrian class17, and as
a rule these were regional relationships, to a lesser extent interregional18. However,
the analysis of the sources demonstrates that both “freshly appointed” senators and
their colleagues with a more prominent genealogy married equestrian women19.
The presented selection and material analysis criteria are general guidelines,
which must be adapted to each individual case. By applying such an approach, I es-
tablished the social origin of 779 senators (out of 1,682, that is approx. 46.3%). This
group included 540 senators by birth and 239 homines novi. Hence it can be con-
cluded that in the identified source material the ratio of gentes senatoriae to homines
novi is over 2 : 1. However, it cannot be assumed that it was the same in the entire
ordo senatorius. Assuming hypothetically that all unidentified senators were homines
novi, old gentes would constitute approximately 1/3 of ordo senatorius, whereas in the
opposite case this would be as much as 7/8. Thus we obtain the threshold values for
the number of members of gentes senatoriae (and, obviously, of homines novi: 2/3 and
1/8); unfortunately, more accurate estimates are impossible to establish20. I maintain

16 
For further details on this type of a career, see Chapter V.
17 
K. Wachtel, Zum  Einfluß der Familienpolitik  auf soziale Stellung und Laufbahn von Angehörigen
ritterlicher und senatorischer Familien in der frühen Kaiserzeit, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und
Sozial­geschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie,
Köln 1993, p. 193. See also: A. Stein, Der römische Ritterstand, p. 349; G. Alföldy, Die römische Gessel-
schaft, Stuttgart 1986, pp. 187–191; M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier, Égalité et inégalités dans les couches
supérieures de la société romaine sous le Haut-Empire, L’Egalité 8, 1982, p. 452 and n.
18 
D. Okoń, Mariage de Septime Sévère avec Julia Domna au fond des stratégies matrimoniales des fa-
milles sénatoriales romaines à la charnière des IIe et IIIe siècles, Eos 97, 2010, pp. 45–62.
19 
See, for instance, the marriage of Q. Tineius Sacerdos, ordinary consul of the year 158 and Volussia
Laodice. The opposite situations were also the case, when women from old families were married to
persons of a lower rank – see, for instance, the casus of Acilia Frestana from Acilii Glabriones, married
to Ti. Claudius Cleobulus homo novus, or Tiberia Claudia Aurelia Arsasis, a praetor’s daughter, mar-
ried to an eques M. Aurelius Heracleides.
20 
For difficulties in reconstructing the composition of the Senate, see, for instance: T.P. Wiseman,
New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.–A.D. 14, Oxford 1971, p. 5; W. Eck, Sozialstruktur des
Social Origin of Senators | 35

my previous statement that the majority of unidentified senators were homines novi
concealing (as I have mentioned) their humble origins. What makes me convinced
about this fact is the analysis of the closest entourage of the emperors, in which homi­
nes novi definitely predominated. Investigation shows that only 14 representatives of
the senatorial aristocracy and as many as 52 homines novi were close associates of the
Severans21.
It is worth investigating the territorial origin of the identified homines novi
to capture the general tendencies regarding advancement. Among those identified
with respect to their origo 194 (out of 239) – 78 came from the East, 57 from Africa,
46 from Italy, and 13 from the West. What is surprising about this data is the low
(third) position of Italy, as according to the data from the tables presented in Chap-
ter II representatives of Italy were in the majority, followed by inhabitants of the
East, Africa, and the West. My calculations clearly show the progress of the process
of provincialization– as years went by the Senate was becoming less “Italian”, and
increasingly more “provincial”.
The persons identified among homines novi belonged to various circles, for in-
stance: officials of the central administration, provincial notables, military men of
different ranks (e.g., equestrian praefecti, primipilares, centuriones)22. A brief review

römischen Senatorenstandes der hohen Kaiserzeit und statistische Methode, Chiron 3, 1973, p. 387;
P.M.M. Leunissen, Homines novi..., p. 84 and n.
21 
For specific calculations, see: D. Okoń, Imperatores Severi et senatores. The History of the Imperial
Personnel Policy, Szczecin 2013, p. 163.
22 
For the sake of full clarity, it is worth quoting the following data: sons (or grandsons) of praetorian
prefects were: (Aemilius Papinianus?), M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, L. Tulcidius? Peren-
nis. The sons of the prefects of Egypt were: L. Mantennius Sabinus and L. Mantennius Severus, the
son of vice-prefect of Egypt was Claudius Herennianus, whereas [Ti?] Cl(audius) Subatia[nus ...],
Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, Geminius Modestus were sons of Egyptian epistrategi. The sons
(or grandsons) of imperial procurators were, for instance: L. Alfenus Senecio, Aurelius Basileus, Cal-
purnius Maximus, M. Claudius Demetrius, C. Claudius Paternus, Cl(audius) Xenophon, (Crepere­
ius?), (Aurelius?) Euphrates, (Flavius?) (no. 438), L. Flavius Honoratus Lucilianus, Flavius Marcianus,
T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus, Gellius Maximus, C. Iulius Flaccus Aelianus, C. Iulius Philippus,
L. Lucilius Priscilianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700),
Marius Pudens Cornelianus, Ofilius Valerius Macedo, Q. Sa[llu]stius Mac[ri]nianus, Valerius Ca-
tullinus, L. Valerius Turbo, (C?) Annius Armenius (vel Arminius) Donatus, M. Censorius Paulus,
Ti. Claudius Serenus, L. Crepereius Fronto, (Flavius) Callaeschrus, Flavonius Lollianus, P. Flavonius
Paulinus, C. Rufius Festus Laelius Firmus, T. Sallustius T. Flavius Athenagoras, whereas Aelius An-
tipater was son of advocatus fisci, just as P. Messius Augustinus Maecianus. The descendants of pro-
vincial notables were, for instance: L. Aconius Callistus, C. Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus, Aurelius
Athenaeus, Cl(audius) Apellinus, Cl(audius) Attalus, L. vel Ti. Claudius Attalus, P. vel Ti. Claudius
Attalus Paterculianus, Claudius Cassianus, Ti. Claudius Cleobulus, Claudius Diogenes, Ti. Claudius
Me[vius] Priscus Ruf[inus I]unior, Ti. Claudius Paulinus, Cl(audius) Piso, Tib. Claudius Telemachus,
Anonymus Theopropi filius (no. 1195), Ti. Claudius [...]la(s?) Theopropus, (Flavius?) (no. 441), T. Fla-
vius Clitosthenes, T. Flavius Damianus, Flavius Phaedrus, P. Flavius Pudens Pomponianus, Flavius
Rufinianus vel Rusonianus, T. Flavius Vedius Antoninus, Fulvius Faustinus, Ti. Iulius Licinianus,
36 | Chapter III

clearly shows that homines novi were not a homogeneous group, on the contrary – it
is evident that emperors introduced outstanding representatives of various circles,
without favoring any of them. Even though there were many military conflicts under
the Severans, this did not result in the domination of military men in the group of
the promoted individuals.
What is interesting is the fact that at least 76 homines novi (approx. 32%) in-
troduced their descendants to the Senate, thus becoming founders of new gentes
senatoriae23. In my opinion, these values are too high to support Hopkins’ thesis
about creating a system of advancement by emperors that would hinder the forma-
tion of hereditary ruling elites, especially that the total of 249 senatorial families can
be identified in the source material24. On the one hand, the presented calculations
illustrate the scale of the fluctuation of senatorial elites, and on the other hand the
persistence of the core of the Senate formed by the old gentes senatoriae. The disap-
pearance of old families was caused not as much by imperial repressions, but rather
by natural factors. Replacing them by homines novi, rewarded for their meritorious
service for the dynasty (and their descendants), undoubtedly gave the elite of the
State a new shape that was convenient for the ruler. In this way, novitas and vetustas,
by complementing each other, coexisted in the Senate forming a bridge between the
old days and the present.

(Iulius Maximianus?), C. Pontius [Ul?]pius Verus [...]nianus Victor, [Fl(avii)?] Aur(elii) Eili cognatus,
Quintilii Eumenis nepos, L. Aconius Callistus signo Cynegius, M. Aurelius Amarantus, Aurelius
Attinas, Tib. Claudius Hermias (Theopropus), L. Fabius Pollio, C. Fulcinius Fabius Maximus Opta-
tus, C. Iulius Maximianus Diophantus, (Iulius?) Titianus, Q. Lusius Laberius Geminus Rutilianus,
Cn. Pompeius Hermippus Aelianus, (Septimius?) Silvanus Nicolaus. The descendants of the military
men were, for instance: L. Alfenius Avitianus, L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, Iunius Balbus, C. Iunius
Numidianus, M. Maecius Probus, L. Naevius Quadratianus.
23 
New families (excluding emperors and their families): Aelii Antipatri, Aelii Coerani, Aelii Secundini,
Aelii Severiani, Agrii, Aiacii, Alfenii, Anicii, Annii Honorati, Antii, Antonii Gordiani, Aradii, Asinii Le-
pidi, Bassaei, Caesonii, Calpurnii Aemiliani, Calpurnii Maximi, Cassii Marcellini, Catii, Claudii Attali,
Claudii Cassii, Claudii Cleobuli, Claudii Galli, Claudii Hermiae, Claudii Macrinii, Claudii Paulini,
Claudii Pompeiani, Claudii Severi (from Ephesus), Claudii Telemachi, Claudii Vibiani, Clodii Pupieni,
Cornelii Repentini, Egnatii Proculi, Egnatii Victores, Fabii Cilones, Flavii Clitosthenei, Flavii Damiani,
Flavii Philostrati, Flavii Philini, Flavii Pudentes, Flavii Rufiniani, Flavii Secundi, Fufidii, Fulvii Pii
(from Africa), Fulvii Plautii, Gessii, Iasdii, Iulii Apronii, Iulii Aspri, Iulii Iuniani, Iulii Maximiani,
Iuventii, Licinii Rufini, Lusii, Maecii Probi, Manilii, Marcii Bietis, Marii Maximi, Memmii Caeciliani,
Mevii, Munatii Sullae, Ocratii, Octavii Suetrii, Pollenii, Prosii, Pullaieni, Ranii, Rubreni, Rufii Festi,
Sallii Aristaeneti, Sallustii Macriniani, Sulpicii Polliones, Valerii Turbones, Vettii, Virii, Umbrii.
24 
See Appendix III.
Social Origin of Senators | 37

Conclusions

During my research, I managed to establish the social origin of 779 senators (out of
1,682). This group included 540 representatives of gentes senatoriae and 239 homines
novi. This evident domination of the old gentes (over 2 : 1) is due to the specific na-
ture of the sources — descendants of senators (unlike homines novi) boast of their
origin. I am still convinced that the real number of homines novi was much higher,
but it did not exceed 2/3 of all members of the Senate.
The promoted persons came primarily from the East and Africa; the repre-
sentatives of Italy only came in the third position, and those from the West ranked
last. This is a good illustration of the progress of the provincialization of the Senate
and its gradual loss of its Italian character.
249 senatorial families are identified in the source material, and 76 out of these
had the status of new ones. Undoubtedly, this was (to a great extent) a result of the in-
evitable demographic changes, of which Severans made use to replenish the Senate’s
membership in a way they found advantageous – however, one should note (contrary
to popular opinion) the significant degree to which gentes senatoriae continued to
persist.
Chapter IV

Senatorial Careers – Conditions

As I analyzed careers of senators of the Severan period, I aimed at answering the


following questions:
1. What were the regular tendencies in the senatorial cursus honorum during
the period under discussion?
2. Why does the application of previous typologies of senatorial careers fail to
bring satisfactory results?
3. How should senatorial careers be analyzed?
4. What classification of careers can be adopted?
Senatorial careers, despite the efforts to formalize their structure, were subject
to permanent evolution1. Efforts to standardize them (e.g., lex Vilia annalis from 180
B.C.) failed to bring permanent results – subsequent decisions of the Senate, comitia,
and later emperors repeatedly changed the shape of the senatorial cursus honorum.
Augustus – the founder of many new offices – made a great contribution in this re-
spect. Years of the reign of his successors resulted in the emergence of more provinces
and legions (which needed: governors and commanders, respectively) and the need
to establish posts that would improve the efficiency of the management system (e.g.,
iuridici provinciae and iuridici regionum in Italy). Consequently, the catalog of offices
found in cursus was expanded, and the options of senatorial careers under Severans
were much more numerous than, for instance, during the Republic. At the same

1 
The literature on the subject of senatorial careers is very extensive. One of the most recent publi-
cations worth recommending is the work by W. Eck, Die Amtsträger: Instrumente in den Händen des
Princeps und Begrenzung der Autokratie. Traditioneller Cursus und kaiserliche Ernennung, [in:] J.-L. Fer-
rary, J. Scheid (ed.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giuridici e fattori sociali del potere
imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, Pavia 2015, pp. 659–678 — for a synthetic summary of many years
of research, from previous studies, see A.R. Birley, The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford 1981, p. 4 nn.,
and the repeatedly recalled works by G. Alföldy, G. Barbieri, P.M.M. Leunissen. For Polish literature,
see, for instance: D. Okoń, Senatorski cursus honorum w okresie republiki i wczesnego cesarstwa. Wybrane
zagadnienia, Xenia Posnaniensia, series tertia, no. 5, Poznań 2016.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 39

time, however, elevating the upper limit of the number of members of the Senate did
not make it easier to make a career than it had previously been.
A career of every senator is to some extent the result of the following standards
generally applicable in the administration, personal talents and endeavors, and, most
importantly, a great effort of gentes and familiae, who supported their representa-
tives in many ways (e.g., by financing pre-election activities or earning support of
influential personages2). The success in life of a particular citizen and his senatorial
advancement were a success of the entire family, thus establishing its position in the
native province and all throughout the Empire. In this way, we can see how the sen-
atorial ethos functioned. It required individuals to add glamor to the family and at
least measure up to their ancestors’ position3.
The significant role of marriages should also be noted. They were the binding
forces of family alliances, leading to the significant strengthening of political influ-
ence of both gens and its particular representative4.
Undoubtedly, the situation in the country was also an important element that
conditioned individual and family advancement. Thus, in case of a civil war, the
stance represented by a given senator, expressed not even in the form of active, but
passive support of the Curia, could have been decisive in either earning great fa-
vors or, given the wrong choice, ended up in a disaster. The reign of the Severans,

2 
See, for instance: Plinius, Epistulae, 6, 6; 10, 2.
3 
Following F. Jacques, I must disagree with the view presented by K. Hopkins, Death and Re­
newal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2, Cambridge 1983, p. 153, who concluded that: “Nor
were all senators hell-bent on promotion to top jobs. Some might not want a life of administration
spent outside Rome and Italy, in the provinces.”, suggesting that some of the aristocracy (with the
emperor’s support) voluntarily resigned from the senatorial career. For critical opinions, see also:
J. Hahn, P.M.M. Leunissen, Statistical Method and the Problem of Inheritance of the Consulate under
the Early Roman Empire, Phoenix 44, 1990, pp. 60–81; W. Eck, Überlieferung und historische realität:
ein Grundproblem prosopographischer Forschung, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte.
Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993,
pp. 365–395, A. Klingenberg, Sozialer Abstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Risiken der Oberschicht in
der Zeit von Augustus bis zum Ende der Severer, Paderborn 2011, particularly p. 165.
4 
It should be noted that the majority of senators’ marriages were limited to one region or even a prov-
ince – supra-regional relationships were extremely rare. For this topic, see D. Okoń, Mariage de Sep-
time Sévère avec Julia Domna au fond des stratégies matrimoniales des familles sénatoriales romaines à la
charnière des IIe et IIIe siècles, Eos 97, 2010, pp. 45–62. See also S. Demougin, Clarissima versus
egregius: remarques sur les mariages inégaux, [in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine
senatorio, 30 anni dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, pp. 99–110; M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier, Les femmes séna-
toriales du IIIe siècle. Étude préliminaire, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien
zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993, pp. 147–163;
M.-Th. Raepsaet-Charlier, Le mariage, indice et facteur de mobilité sociale aux deux premiers siècles de
notre ère: l’exemple senatorial, [in:] Ed. Frézouls (ed.), La mobilité sociale dans le monde romain. Actes
du colloque organisé à Strasbourg (novembre 1988) par l’Institut et le Groupe de Recherche d’Histoire ro-
maine, Strasbourg 1993, pp. 33–53, eadem, Égalité et inégalités dans les couches supérieures de la société
romaine sous le Haut-Empire, L’Égalité 8, 1982, pp. 452–477.
40 | Chapter IV

abundant in conflicts and civil wars, required a sense of political intuition. Even
though opportunities for advancement were plenty, senators were frequently forced
to face a struggle for their lives5. Therefore I wonder why Fortuna/Tyche was a god-
dess that was so rarely worshiped by clarissimi viri6 .
A Roman of the senatorial order was its member by birth (in the case of descen­
dants of gentes senatoriae), or was promoted to this status (homines novi) – generally
from ordo equester, the second social class of the Empire, through adlectio, awarded at
different stages of a career. Its culmination was consulship (most frequently a suffect
one) preceded by: quaestorship, tribunate/aedileship, praetorship and a whole range
of offices, the number of which depended on many factors. As previously mentioned,
every fourth senator reached the consular rank.
The best starting point to achieve this rank was to be a member of the senato-
rial order by birth. Having reached the age of 18, such individuals could commence
their preparations for the official career, holding one of 20 offices of the vigintivirat
(operating in 4 colleges: III viri monetales, X viri stlitibus iudicandis, IIII viri viarum
curandarum, III viri capitales) or (and) undertaking military service as lower rank
officers (tribunus militum). Military service was not obligatory, but in the long run it
offered greater prospects of being awarded (by the emperor) the command of a legion
(legatus legionis), and, first of all, governorship of a province with a legion (legatus
provinciae). Tribunes were appointed by governors of provinces, who often recom-
mended their relatives, kinsmen, or sons of their friends for this function.
Sometimes, what we find in the cursus of young clarissimi viri are offices such as
sevir equitum Romanorum or praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum. Their significance
was not as much political as it was primarily honorary. As a rule, it was awarded
to representatives of the patrician class, although there were also exceptions to this
custom7.

5 
According to my most recent calculations, 96 senators were persecuted during the reign of the Sev-
erans. For detailed lists, see: D. Okoń, Septimius Severus et senatores. Septimius Severus’ Personal Policy
Towards Senators in the Light of Prosopographic Research (193–211 A.D.), Szczecin 2012; eadem, Impe­
ratores Severi et senatores. The History of the Imperial Personnel Policy, Szczecin 2013; additionally, for
victims of the reign of Septimius Severus, see eadem, Septimius Severus et senatores once again. A Debate
with Cesare Letta, Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета, Bыпуск 4, Sankt Petersburg
2016, pp. 174–185. Some corrections of the lists included in the aforementioned monographs were
introduced in this paper.
6 
For trials and tribulations that different senators had to face due to a conflict with the emperor, see:
A. Klingenberg, Sozialer Abstieg... (Appendices in particular).
7 
It is noteworthy to recall the example of Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, an eques. Having been promo­
ted to the senatorial order, he became praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum and L. Insteius Flaccianus,
a plebeian (holding the plebeian tribunate by him is a confirmation of this fact), who was honored
with the function of sevir turmarum. Rutilius owed his advancement to his stance during Carcalla’s
crack-down on Geta, whereas in the case of Insteius it was his family that probably assured his position.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 41

Some of the young clarissimi viri could have also become members of presti­
gious religious colleges: XV viri sacris faciundis, fratres Arvales, VII viri epulonum,
salii Palatini or salii Collini, augures, fetiales, sodales of one of the deified emperors
and could have assumed the function of one of pontifices and flamines. If the cursus
featured such offices, this usually meant that a person belonged to a strong and in-
fluential gens or at least had, for example, a father, an uncle, or a grandfather that was
favored in the emperor’s entourage.
The first stage of a strictly senatorial career was the quaestorship (quaestu-
ra), which theoretically could be held at the age of 25 at the earliest. Every year,
20 quaesto­rian posts were ready for young senators8 – 2 quaestores Augusti, 2 quae-
stores urbani, 4 quaestores consulum and 12 quaestores provinciae. From this moment
on, the career of a senator (according to demographic studies) lasted (on average) at
least 30 years9.
Subsequently, after a two-year interval (required by the law), a senator had to
serve the function of a plebeian tribune – one of 10 tribuni plebis (generally, patri-
cians omitted this stage of the cursus) or one of 6 aediles (2 aediles curiales, 2 aediles
plebis, 2 aediles Ceriales)10.
It should be noted that the biographer of HA attributed Severus Alexander with
an important innovation with regard to the mode of senatorial advancement, which
involved a privilege for “quaestores candidati”, who were to become praetors and
province governors immediately after completion of their service in the quaestor-
ship11. This led to many discussions in the literature of the subject. Th. Mommsen
assumed that this passus should be interpreted as evidence for the elimination of the
senatorial function of tribunes of the plebs from the cursus12, whereas S. Brasloff con-
cluded that the information provided by HA refers to the omission of the tribunate/
aedileship by quaestores candidati Augusti (which had previously been the privilege
of the patricians)13. His opinion is supported by A. Jardé, who provided examples

8 
Under the Severans, this number could have been higher due to the reorganization of the provinces,
see Chapter I.
9 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal..., p. 148 (table) takes two possibilities into account in his analyses
(30, and 32, 5), while F. Jacques, L’ éthique et la statistique. À propos du renouvellement du Sénat ro-
main (Ier–IIIe siècles de l’Empire), Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 42e année, no. 6, 1987,
p. 1297 and n., provides the average period of 30 years.
10 
During the Republic, a particularly honorable function was that of aedilis curialis. However, during
the Principate it lost its significance for the tribuni plebis favored by the princeps. See: A. Daguet-Gagey,
Le choix de l’ édilité ou du tribunat de la plèbe sous le principat, [in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.),
Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, pp. 111–124.
11 
HA, vita Alex. Sev., 43, 3.
12 
Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht³, vol. 2, Leipzig 1887, p. 559.
13 
S. Brasloff, Patriciat und Quaestur in römischen Kaiserzeit, Hermes 39, 1904, p. 618 and n.
42 | Chapter IV

of aediles and tribunes attested under Alexander and in the later period14. These
conclusions are consistent with the results of the research conducted by G. Barbieri
and P.M.M. Leunissen, who recorded both patrician careers with the omission of
the tribunate and the presence of aediles and tribunes of the plebs in the epigraphic
material of this period15. The entire account of the reform of the senatorial cursus
under Alexander was rejected by K. Dietz, who also treated the biographer’s remarks
about the emperor consulting the appointments of officials and other pro-senatorial
gestures in a similar way16.
In view of such an unclear situation, provoked by the information provided in
HA, it is worth, in my opinion, recalling the casus of L. Mummius Felix Cornelianus,
who became quaestor candidatus, then tribunus plebis and praetor candidatus under
Alexander17. Using this example, it can be concluded that precise determination of
the scope of changes in the senatorial cursus honorum based exclusively on literary
evidence is impossible, and the aforementioned administrative reform is not fully
attested in other sources.
After their service in the quaestorship or the tribunate/aedileship was comple­
ted, young senators often served the function of legate of a provincial governor (most
often their relative)18 (legatus provinciae, legatus proconsulis), a secretary of the Senate
(ab actis senatus), or a curator, for instance, of smaller towns.
The next stage of the career was the praetorship19 (praetura) – naturally held
with the obligatory two-year interval after the service in the tribunate/aedileship.
This paved the way for the prestigious functions of the praetorian rank: governors
of provinces, legates of the legions, and also curators of roads (curator viae) or towns
(curator rei publicae), prefects of the grain distribution (praefectus frumenti dandi),
prefects of the military treasury (praefectus aerarii militaris), prefects of the state
treasury (praefectus aerarii Saturni), juridical legates (iuridicus), etc.
At each of the basic stages (quaestor, tribune/aedile, praetor), a senator could get
support from the emperor or apply for an office as candidatus Augusti. Individuals

14 
A. Jardé, Études critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925, p. 44 and n.
15 
This is evident in lists of senatorial careers included in both works, see: G. Barbieri, L’albo senato-
rio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285), Roma 1952, in a relevant album, and P.M.M. Leunissen,
Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander (180–235 n. Chr.). Prosopogra-
phische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im römischen Kaiserreich, Amsterdam 1989, in the final
comparison.
16 
K. Dietz, Senatus contra principem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen Kaiser Maxi-
minus Thrax, München 1980, p. 286 and n.
17 
CIL VI 1464.
18 
The number of legates in the service of the governor depended on the status of the province – for
instance, proconsuls of Asia and Africa were entitled to three legateships.
19 
At that time, there were already 18 praetors.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 43

officially presented as emperor’s candidates were obviously certain of obtaining


a given post, and the very fact was mentioned in honorific inscriptions as particularly
honor­able. The relations between candidati and the emperor were not always close.
This privilege was often arranged for a young senator “in absentia” by a well-con-
nected relative or a friend (e.g., a cousin in the case of Septimius Severus).
Some of the senators could be transferred to a higher official level through ad-
lectio (adlection) between, for instance, former quaestors, tribunes/aediles, praetors
or (exceptionally) consuls (inter quaestorios, tribunicios/aedilicios, praetorios, consu-
lares) without serving the very function itself. This accelerated the career, and thus its
higher stages could be reached more quickly20 – this was internal adlectio. The other
type – introductory adlectio, i.e. external one, was used when equites were enrolled in
the Senate at various ages, at different stages of the career. In fact, this was reduced
to two model cases:
1. If advancement involved a person aged 18–28, it was an introduction to
a normal, standard senatorial cursus. This has been defined in the sources in
two ways – adlectio in amplissimum ordinem (in senatum), or at times as lato
clavo exornatio. A particular feature of the cursus of such persons (i.e. lati-
clavii) is usually the absence of equestrian offices (except for functions from
the group of tres/quattuor militiae)21, while simultaneously their careers were
extended, particularly at the praetorian level – homo novus, on his way to the
consulship, had to earn this post through his merits. Honorific inscriptions
did not conceal the equestrian beginnings of careers, as they are simply ab-
sent, and the careers of such laticlavii were no different from the careers of
representatives of the plebeian gens senatoria.
2. If the advancement concerned persons above the age of 2822, adlectio was
usually applied to an adequately higher senatorial level – the determinant of

20 
An interesting example of such “acceleration” is adlectio of T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus for
the third time. Having served in the military tribunate (in the legio VII Gemina), he became adlectus
inter quaestorios, tribunicios, praetorios, to be granted command of legions I Minervia et XIIII Gemina
and governorship of Lugdunian Gaul. It all shows that advancements were given during the period
of Severan civil wars (particularly with Clodius Albinus), and the governorship of Gaul was granted
to him after the battle of Lugdunum. We do not know of his initial status. If he was an eques, he was
given external adlectio, which was followed by internal adlectio twice (!). However, if we assume that
he was a senator, then we would be dealing with a case of internal adlectio for the third time. It should
be added that his son (evidently due to his father’s merits), as a puer, became adlectus inter patricios.
21 
Tres/quattuor militiae can be compared, in terms of the position and the rank in the cursus, with
the military tribunate (laticlavius) at the stage of the preparation of young senators for the strictly
senatorial career.
22 
See: P.M.M. Leunissen, Homines novi und Ergänzungen des Senats in der hohen Kaiserzeit: Zur
Frage nach der Repräsentätivitat unserer Dokumentation, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und
44 | Chapter IV

this level was the age, connections, and merits of the promoted individual23.
In case of younger and less experienced senators, the emperor applied ad-
lectio inter quaestorios, tribunicios/aedilicios, and with respect to those, who
were slightly older and boasting more merits inter praetorios was awarded.
In the last case, the elements of the imperial personal policy are particularly
evident – this is the way in which the emperor honored people, for whom
he had specific plans, for instance, granting governorship of a troublesome
province24.
Inscriptions of persons from the other group (contrary to the first one) feature
equestrian offices, followed by adlectio and further offices – senatorial this time.
It should be objectively concluded that such inscriptions are few. The majority of
honorific inscriptions conceal the fact of inferior origin for fear of shame, provid-
ing only senatorial functions (numerous in the case of homines novi) assigned after
advancement. Thus potentially almost all inscriptions from the cursus commencing
with, for instance, praetorian functions could be suspected of such manipulation,
obviously except for persons whose senatorial origin by birth is attested.
It is worth noting that homines novi – adlecti from both of the aforementioned
groups, despite the appearances that they maintained for public purposes (concealing
their equestrian ancestors), undoubtedly formed a major part of the Senate, although
the determination of the proportion of homines novi and representatives of old gentes
on the basis of the available data is a difficult task.
It should be emphasized that adlectiones were a significant instrument in the
process of replenishing the Senate, supplementary in comparison with the standard
co-option, i.e. through annual advancement of 20 young quaestors25. This was the
way for the emperor to control the intake of the personnel, which was particularly
crucial when talented and loyal administrators and commanders were needed. Such
a personal policy changed the Senate in a way that was favorable for the ruler and
created better relations between them. The origo of senators in this case was of signif-
icance – as I have already presented (chapter II: The Origo of Senators), Severans sup-
ported their fellow countrymen (originating from Africa and the East) both in terms
of advancement as well as in the Senate. It should be borne in mind when conducting
a detailed analysis of cursus honorum of given senators and general career models.

Sozialgeschichte, p. 84 and n.; A. Chastagnol, “Latus clavus” et „adlectio”. L’accès des hommes nouveaux
au sénat romain sous le Haut-Empire, RD 53, 1975, pp. 385, 388.
23 
For details, see: ch. V, subchapter Mixed careers.
24 
For instance, C. Pescennius Niger Iustus after the completion of adlectio inter praetorios was as-
signed a special mission in Dacia, and L. Lucilius Priscillianus after the same adlectio was granted the
governorship of Achaia through a special procedure.
25 
For more information on the number of quaestors, see Chapter I.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 45

The next step of the senatorial career was the consulship; this highest senatorial
office of Republican origin was held by approx. 25% of senators. In most cases they
were awarded suffect consulship, as there were only two consules ordinarii – usually
the emperor, his successors, closer and distant relatives, associates, the chosen ones,
and senators with merits. The option for others willing to hold this office was one out
of 10 consules suffecti. Consulship could be awarded at the age of 32 at the earliest,
without holding any offices after the praetorship (patrician), whereas there was no
limit as to the upper age. It is not hard to establish that persons, who served in many
offices at the praetorian rank (even as many as 8), were awarded consulship around
the age of 45–55. The number of praetorian offices depended (as has already been
mentioned) on many factors: birth, connections, the ruler’s support, talents, and
one’s own merits. Patricians of noble birth reached the consulship quickly, without
intermediate offices, whereas the other senators at a slower pace – with homines novi
being awarded this office at the latest period (after 5–8 offices of the praetorian
rank).
Being awarded consulship was of great importance for everyone – inscriptions
often include information only about this particular office, simply using consularis
vir to address the honored person. Undeniably, these consulares viri were the elite of
both the Roman Empire and the senatorial order.
Some of the former consuls with extraordinary experience could hold various
consular posts: governorships of large provinces, that is the function of proconsul or
legatus provinciae, praefectura alimentorum (supervision over orphans), juridicate of
one of 4 regions of Italy (iuridici Italiae), curatorship of cities, i.e. curator civitatium,
urban curatorships of high rank: aedium sacrarum et operum locorumque publicorum
(temples, public works and buildings), alvei Tiberis et riparum et cloacarum Urbis
(the river bed, banks of the Tiber River and the sewers), aquarum (aqueducts)26, and
the highest office of the prefect of the City, i.e. praefectus Urbi, which crowned the
senatorial career.
Among urban curatorships, those related to public buildings and the bed of
the Tiber River were awarded immediately after consulship, whereas the curatorship
of aqueducts was of a higher rank. Therefore, it was awarded as the last one, usually
at the end of the career27.
Consulars could also serve various religious functions (listed previously), which
were a measure of their popularity and position, although formally they did not

26 
It should be borne in mind that adiutores of curators, often simply called curators of the aqueducts,
were of the praetorian rank.
27 
A list of senators holding these three curatorships was compiled by K. Kapłoniak, Urzędy kurator-
skie administracji miejskiej Rzymu od Augusta do Dioklecjana, Kraków 2013.
46 | Chapter IV

affect the course of advancement and were not part of the administrative cursus hono­
rum. Having analyzed senatorial careers during the Severan period, I came to the
conclusion that a significant part (the majority) of senators with the known cursus
held such offices.
Some of the most meritorious senators could attain the second consulship, or
theoretically, the third one. However, under the Severans nobody from outside the
imperial family was honored in this way; even the closest friends were awarded the
consulship twice, first the suffect one (consul suffectus or ornamenta consularia), and
only then the ordinary consulship (consul ordinarius).
The persons that were outside the discussed framework of advancement (from
the equestrian order or lower) were those with so-called atypical careers – comprising
adlectio inter consulares or ornamenta consularia28 . While in the first case we are cer-
tain that this was a transfer to the senatorial order, in the other case there are some
doubts in this respect. The sense of awarding ornamenta consularia can be captured
by analyzing further fate of the equestrian officials honored in this way; five prae-
torian prefects (C. Fulvius Plautianus, Q. Maecius Laetus, T. Messius Extricatus,
M. Oclatinius Adventus, P. Valerius Comazon), after being honored with this func-
tion, were granted ordinary consulship, which in this case is counted as the second
one29. This is clear evidence that ornamenta consularia were considered equivalent to
the suffect consulship, thus, de facto, they changed the social status of the benefi-
ciaries. In this context, the biographer of HA in Vita Alexandri Severi (21, 3–5), who
provides information that all prefects under Severus Alexander were honored with
advancement to the Senate, could have referred to the practice of awarding ornamen-
ta consularia to those officials30. It must be clearly emphasized that, in the light of
my research, the office of the praetorian prefect retained its equestrian character and
only some of those serving this function (which has been confirmed) attained the
senatorial status.

28 
This is the only type of ornamenta that is attested in the inscriptions of the senators from the
Severan period. This is why I have doubts as to attributing Q. Cerellius Apollinaris with ornamenta
praetoria, which was suggested by: M. Christol, La carrière de Q. Cerellius Apollinaris, préfet des vigiles
de Caracalla, [in:] J. Tréheux (ed.), Mélanges d’ histoire ancienne offerts à William Seston, Paris 1974,
p. 126; R. Sablayrolles, Libertinus miles. Les cohortes de vigils, Rome 1996, p. 498, and it was repeated
after them (as one of the options) P. Faure, L’aigle et le cep. Les centurions légionnaires dans l’Empire des
Sévères, Bordeaux 2013, p. 570.
29 
Read notes in Prospopographia Imperii Romani, which contain lists of inscriptions with titles of the
aforementioned prefects cos. II: PIR 2 F 554, PIR 2 M 54, PIR 2 M 518, PIR 2 O 9, PIR 2 V 59. As for the
most recent literature on the subject of the careers of praetorian prefects, it is worth recommending
the following: S. Ruciński, Praefecti praetorio. Dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do
282 roku po Chr., Bydgoszcz 2013.
30 
It should be noted that we have no confirmation of adlectio inter consulares being applied in the case
of any praetorian prefect.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 47

Careers of persons, who were enrolled between former consuls (adlectio inter
consulares) due to their special merits were also quite peculiar. These merits could be
of any type, for instance: participating in a conspiracy that brought a new emperor to
power31, or elimination of the emperor’s competitor32. Nevertheless, the significance
of these merits was always of such magnitude that it accounted for such spectacular
advancement. The functionality of this distinction is evidenced by the fact that all
adlecti later served as governors of the consular provinces.
Thus we can conclude that both special distinctions (adlectio inter consulares,
ornamenta consularia) were the means leading to the change of the status of the bene­
ficiaries to the senatorial one33.
Given all of the above remarks, it can be concluded that certain trends formed
as regards senatorial careers in the Roman Empire. Their main shaping factors were:
social origin and the course of the public service, however, we must take into account
the fact that the emperor always played a decisive role and could change the rules for
the chosen persons34.
The most frequently applied typologies of senatorial careers found in the litera-
ture of the subject are based on the following criteria: social origin, the type of offices
held, or both the criteria together.
Depending on the social origin, senatorial careers are classified in the follow-
ing way: patrician, senatorial, equestrian-senatorial, special, whereas in terms of the
senatorial offices held: in the senate’s service, in emperor’s and senate’s service, in
emperor’s service. These typologies are applied in analyses of biographic entries of
persons with well-known or very well-known cursus honorum, although it must be
openly admitted that there are few of such people (approx. 10%). As I have men-
tioned a number of times, the absence of sources (due to, for instance, the passage
of years or falsification of reality) significantly limit our systematizing efforts. In the
case of the other typology (based on the type of the served offices), it should be noted
that there were few senatorial offices, and the list of candidates to these offices was
subject to approval by the emperor – failure to take these factors into account may

31 
For example: Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus, adlectus inter consulares, awarded in the year 217 by
Macrinus and appointed as legate of Pannonia Inferior by him. His advancement is attributed to the
murder of Caracalla.
32 
Casus of Claudius Aelius Pollio, a centurion, adlectus inter consulares in the year 218, for capturing
Diadumenianus. After the advancement, he was awarded governorship of two provinces of the consu-
lar rank (Pontus-Bithynia, Germania Superior).
33 
For details, see: ch. V, subchapter Atypical careers.
34 
Literary evidence provide the following advancement factors for the Early Empire: origo (origin),
vita (education, own talents), stipendia (successes and experience in public service), suffragium (fa-
voritism of influential persons), voluntas principis (will of the ruler). See: D. Okoń, Senatorski cursus
honorum..., p. 16 and n.
48 | Chapter IV

lead to oversimplification. It should also be added that the classification based on


the criteria of social origin and the type of the held offices applied by G. Alföldy and
P.M.M. Leunissen not only failed to produce satisfactory results, but also introduced
additional confusion, which is evidenced by the models of senatorial careers they
suggested35. Hence a question that still remains valid is how to assess and classify sen-
atorial careers of the Severan period bearing in mind that the abundance of offices
in the Roman Empire multiplies the number of career variants, which can be found
in the source material.
Before I present my classification, I will try to briefly outline the general mech-
anisms shaping Roman senatorial careers; this is necessary to explain the nuances of
this concept.
In my opinion, the career of every senator should be evaluated in three stages –
before the praetorship, from the praetorship to the consulship, after the consulship.
Each of these stages features different dynamics and regular developments. At each
stage, we are dealing with senators at various ages, with different levels of maturity
and experience.
The course of the first stage of the career (de facto composed of two parts:
before the quaestorship and from the quaestorship to the praetorship) was mainly
determined by the social origin (familia, gens, ordo), as in the case of such young
people it is hard to speak of specific talents or experience, which not overly demand-
ing initial offices didn’t provide. As I have mentioned, the more well-connected gens,
the more honorable offices were awarded to its representatives. It should be added
that in the case of equites promoted to the Senate, this stage was shortened (with
adlectio inter quaestorios, tribunicios/aedilicios), or omitted at all (with adlectio inter
praetorios). Under these conditions, a typology based on the course of the first stage
is unsubstantiated.
The dominating elements, at the second stage, from the praetorship to the
consulship, are the already recognized talents and abilities, particularly crucial in
the case of officials who were given control of legions and provinces. The number
of the offices held depended on many factors, of which the main one was undoubt-
edly the ability to act efficiently (losers would finish their careers quickly). As a rule,
the course of the career of descendants of old senatorial families was different. In
order to attain consulship, they did not have to hold any praetorian offices at all

35 
See: G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchun-
gen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977, p. 33 and n., P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 24
and n. The reason for the failure in case of both of these scholars was not the fact that their typology
was based on two factors, but applying them separately.
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 49

or their number was minimal, which is perfectly evident in the source material. It
can be assumed that this stage was decisive as to the position of the senator and his
further career.
The most important factor at the third stage – after the consulship, was expe-
rience – the longer the previous career (especially at the second stage), the greater
the experience. Hence those senators who held many offices of the praetorian rank,
had great chances for a career after the consulship; the others could count primarily
on the honorary religious offices. It should be noted that the goal of every senator
willing to serve in the public service – whether a patrician, a representative of gens
senatoria, or homo novus – was to attain the highest number of consular offices,
although there was a (small) group of senators who resigned from a further admin-
istrative career. Hence a classification based entirely on the course of the third stage
of the career cannot be reliable.
The above general statements help us better understand the mechanisms (con-
stituting the basis of my typology) governing Roman senatorial careers.
In order to fully illustrate the discussed regularities, let me provide examples of
careers of two senators: a patrician and homo novus.
1. L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus, a patrician, at the first stage of the
career, until the praetorship, was triumvir monetalis aere argento auro flando
feriundo, quaestor candidatus. At the second stage of the career, after the
praetorship, he held no offices. Nevertheless, he became an ordinary consul,
and after the consulship he was engaged only at the religious level (pontifex,
perhaps also flamen Augustalis, sodalis Antoninianus or sodalis Titii).
2. C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, homo novus, served four functions
before the praetorship (praefectus cohortis II Comagenorum, tribunus mili-
tum legionis I Italicae, quaestor, tribunus plebis), of which the first two were
equestrian, while the next ones were senatorial. After the praetorship he
served as many as nine functions (legatus provinciae Asiae, legatus Augusti ad
ordinandos status insularum Cycladum, iuridicus per tractus Etruriae, Aemil-
iae, Liguriae, legatus legionis III Italicae, legatus Augusti rationibus putandis
trium Galliarum, legatus legionis XIIII geminae cum iurisdicatu Pannoniae
superioris, praefectus aerarii Saturni, legatus Augusti pro praetore Pannoniae
inferioris, praepositus vexillationibus ex Illyrico missis ab imperatore M. Anto­
nino ad tutelam urbis). Honored for his military service, he was awarded suf-
fect consulship, which was followed by other five administrative functions
(curator aedium sacrarum, curator rei publicae Puteolanorum, legatus Augusti
III Daciarum et Dalmatiae, legatus Augusti pro praetore Pannoniae superioris,
proconsul Africae), and at least one religious (sodalis Titii).
50 | Chapter IV

This comparison proves the significance of the social origin in the initial phase
of the career, and in the subsequent ones – talents and experience, determined by the
number of offices held.
As we analyze senatorial careers in stages, it is easy to see some correlations and
apply them in research – if we know the first stage of the career of a given senator, we
can anticipate the subsequent ones, and knowledge of one of them makes it possible,
with a high degree of probability, to reconstruct the other stages. This method of
drawing conclusions increases the chances of achieving more complete results of the
analyses of senatorial cursus honorum, which is of great significance to a contempo-
rary researcher.
In practice: if a senator was born as a patrician, we can assume that after the
first and the second stage he would attain consulship, and the third stage would be
limited to the minimum. In the case of an eques promoted to the Senate, on the
contrary, the first stage (equestrian or equestrian-senatorial) would be longer, and the
subsequent ones would be equally long.
However, if there is only one office of the praetorian rank in the second stage
(or there is none), the beginnings of the career are probably senatorial, and the last stage
would be limited to a minimum due to the lack of experience. However, if there are five
or more offices of the praetorian rank, then it is almost certain that we are dealing with
homo novus, who would be active in the administration after the consulship.
If the third stage is exceptionally long, we are almost certainly dealing with
homo novus.
However, this method must be applied with caution – there is always a possibil-
ity that a senator with one religious function after the consulship is not a patrician,
but a sick and aged homo novus, who was awarded the consulship at the age of 45–55
and is too weak to go to the province. A similar danger lurks at the second stage –
a senator known from the praetorship and one office of the praetorian rank before
the consulship was not necessarily a senator by birth, but an eques adlectus to the
Senate at the age of 45–50, who was awarded the consulship due to his age. There-
fore, as far as it is possible, the identification of the initial social status of a senator
(familia, gens, ordo) must be included in the analysis of the cursus.
As we look at the senatorial career through the perspective of the three stages,
we come to the conclusion that a senator’s usefulness for the Empire was primarily
determined by experience, i.e. the course of the second stage – the praetorian one,
which provided this experience (at the appropriate level).
Bearing the above conclusions in mind, I suggest the classification of senators
of the Severan period to be based on two factors: social origin and the course of
the subsequent stages of the career with particular focus on the praetorian stage
Senatorial Careers – Conditions | 51

(terminated with the consulship, because it is only then that we know the complete
number of offices of the praetorian rank that had been held by a given senator).
Therefore careers can be classified into the following categories: A) Senatorial;
B) Mixed; C) Atypical. Category “A” comprises individuals born in the senatorial
order or promoted before the commencement of the administrative career, having
completed (at least potentially) three stages of the career; the internal classification
factor is the number of offices of the praetorian rank. Category “B” includes equites
with equestrian and senatorial offices in their cursus, who were promoted to the
Senate; their careers could comprise three or two stages (the second and the third).
The  individuals we find in Category “C” are promoted equites and persons from
lower ranks featuring the consular level of senatorial advancement (through orna-
menta consularia or adlectio inter consulares); their careers included only the third
stage (consular). These assumptions provide a basis for the differentiation of senators
in terms of the length of their careers.
It is noteworthy that the majority of inscriptions commemorated advancement
to the consulship, which was the goal of every senator. Owing to this fact, we have
the data on the first and second stages of the career; information about the third
stage is provided primarily by sepulchral inscriptions. However, they constitute only
a small part of the preserved inscriptions. Therefore, my classification is also based
on the nature of the sources available to a contemporary researcher.

Senatorial careers – classification


(my suggestion)

A. Senatorial:
– Shortened (without offices of the praetorian rank),
– Short (one office of the praetorian rank),
– Standard (2–4 offices of the praetorian rank),
– Long (5 and more offices of the praetorian rank).
B. Mixed (equestrian and senatorial offices).
C. Atypical (senatorial advancement at the consular level):
– ornamenta consularia,
– adlectio inter consulares.
52 | Chapter IV

Conclusions

To sum up this discussion, it should be concluded that the following factors influ-
enced senatorial advancement under the Severans: social origin, the course of the
public service, relations with the ruler. Family relationships (matrimonial policy) and
favoritism of influential people were also of great significance. Successes of particular
senators determined the positions of their families, therefore the careers of clarissimi
viri were often a common enterprise of the family and gens.
To provide a model, it can be assumed that cursus was divided into three stages:
until the praetorship, from praetorship to the consulship, after the consulship. Each
of them featured different dynamics and regularities. A stage analysis of senatorial
careers provides a possibility of reconstructing the other stages of the career on the
basis of one of the stages of a given senator (given the lack of sources). Such an at-
tempt may be burdened with the risk of an error, but the argument in its favor is that
it provides us with the possibility to pursue our complete knowledge of the problem.
Previous classifications of careers on the basis of the social status and the type
of the offices held (senatorial, imperial) prove to be unsatisfactory. It is for this reason
that I applied the following criteria in my classification: social origin and the course
of subsequent stages of the career with particular focus on the second stage – the
praetorian one. Consequently, I suggest classifying the careers into the following
ones: senatorial, mixed, atypical, and conducting an analysis of the biographic entries
of senators from the Severan period based on such a classification.
Chapter V

Career Models

Assuming the presented classification of senatorial careers as the starting point, let
me move on to the analysis of individual models. I intend to answer the following
questions:
1. How many and what type of senators are found in individual models of the
career?
2. What are the distinguishing features (types of offices, the ratio of advance-
ment, the duration of the cursus) of the consecutive models?
3. What was the role of senators, whose careers match individual models, in
the administration of the state?

A. Senatorial careers

1. Shortened (without offices of the praetorian rank)

The list of persons representing this type of a career is limited to 15 senators1: L. An-
nius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus, C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus,
L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Al-
binus, Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius, L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us],
[V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius
Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus, L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea

1 
I do not include L. Mummius Felix Cornelianus, cos. ord. a. 237 and L. Virius Lupus Iulianus,
cos. ord. a. 232 in this group due to the fact that their careers (although they are consistent with the
model under discussion) are reconstructed from various inscriptions, which do not cover the entire
cursus. As a result, it is possible that they held one, or a few, offices of the praetorian rank that are
unknown to us.
54 | Chapter V

Priscus Minicius Natalis, L. Annius Ravus, C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sulli-
nus Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus, Anony-
mus (no. 1606), Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus, Q. Insteius [...], [...] Arrianus Aper
Veturius Severus, Anonymus (no. 1122). The first 11 were patricians, the next four
were plebeians2.
As far as origo is concerned, we know that eight of them came from Italy3, four
from Africa4, one from the East5, none of them represented western provinces, and
the origin of two is undetermined6.
Based on this initial listing, a conclusion can be drawn that this group was
dominated by patricians and representatives of Italy, which is clearly indicative of the
functioning of the traditional criteria of elite selection in the public life.
As we analyze the cursus honorum of the presented persons, it is worth focusing
on the pre-senatorial offices they held: vigintivirat, military tribunate and honorary
offices (sevir equitum Romanorum, praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum).
The cursus of 12 persons features vigintivirat – what is of significance is the fact
that as many as eight of them served the most prestigious function among vigintiviri
– III vir monetalis (C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus, L.Ti. Claudius Au-
relius Quintianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, L. Pulla[ienus]
Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us], L. Annius Ravus, C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus
Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus, [V]alerius
Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius Priscil-
lianus) Maximus, L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius
Natalis). The next three commenced their careers as X vir stlitibus iudicandis (L. An-
nius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus, Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius, Anonymus
(no. 1606)), and only one (Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus) as III vir capitalis. Only in
the case of three senators we have no data on the vigintivirat; possibly they failed to
serve it as it was not obligatory.
Only three (of 15) served in the army as military tribunes: L. Valerius Publicola
Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis, [...] Arrianus Aper Veturius

2 
Which can be concluded unquestionably on the basis of the fact that they served the function of
tribunus plebis.
3 
L. Annius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus,
[V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius Priscil-
lianus) Maximus, L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis, L. An­
nius Ravus, Q. Insteius [...], C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus Vatinianus Anicius Maximius
Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus, Anonymus (no. 1122).
4 
C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus, Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus, Q. Octavius Volusius
Thuscenius, L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us].
5 
L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus.
6 
These were: [...] Arrianus Aper Veturius Severus, Anonymus (no. 1606).
Career Models | 55

Severus, and Anonymus (no. 1606); and the last of them was even a tribune of two
legions. There is one plebeian among the aforementioned individuals ([...] Arrianus
Aper Veturius Severus), and two patricians.
The cursus of as many as seven of them featured the office of sevir equitum
Romanorum: Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio
Albinus, Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius
Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus, L. Valerius
Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis, C. Matius (vel Mat-
tius) Sabinius Sullinus Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Martialis Pisibia­
nus Lepidus, Anonymus consul (no. 1606), while one – L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius
An]tiqu[us] was praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum.
It can be concluded from this presentation that the majority of them at the
pre-senatorial stage were engaged in the public life, serving various honorable admin­
istrative functions and presenting themselves (presumably showing their good side)
to the emperor, the Senate, and the Roman people. Very rare cases of military service
prove that it was not attractive to the group of senators under discussion, since it
entailed hardships and some risk, which they were not forced to take.
At the first stage of the strictly senatorial career, we come across elements that
point to the special support of the emperor – recommendation to the office as candi-
datus Augusti and internal adlectiones.
As many as ten of them (66.6%) were emperor’s candidates to the obliga­tory
offices (six of them twice): L. Annius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus: quaestor kan-
didatus, praetor kandidatus, C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus: quaestor
candidatus, praetor candidatus, Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus: [quaestor] candidatus,
tribunus (plebis) candidatus, L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus: quaestor candida-
tus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus: quaestor candiatus and praetor
candidatus, Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius: [quaestor candidatus], praetor candida-
tus, L. Annius Ravus: quaestor candidatus, C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus
Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus: praetor can-
didatus, Anonymus (no. 1606): quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus, Anonymus
(no. 1122): [tr(ibunus) p]l(ebis) candi[d(atus)].
Such a large group of candidati Augusti is evidence to the fact that we are deal-
ing with privileged individuals; it should also be added that as many as eight of them
were patricians7.

7 
The other two: Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus and Anonymus (no. 1122), were plebeians.
56 | Chapter V

The emperor used the adlectio – inter praetorios only twice in the case of L. Vale-
rius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis8 and inter quae-
storios in the case of C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus Vatinianus Anicius
Maximius Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus. The explanation of this fact is
simple – there was no need to accelerate the advancement of senators from this group
as they, as a rule, received it at the earliest possible date.
Holding only obligatory offices was a standard at the first stage of the career.
An exception to this rule was M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, who
served as many as three additional functions: curator Car[thaginensium?], legatus pro-
consulis provinciae Africae (perhaps his father’s) and electus ab Augustis ad cognoscen-
dum sacras [cognition(es)]. In his case, this resulted in a spectacular consular career,
which he would not have attained (as a relative of Didius Iulianus) without such
a level of activity.
Of the entire group of senators under investigation, four were consules ordinarii
(L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albi-
nus, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius
Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus9, L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea
Priscus Minicius Natalis) – they belonged to families distinguished by a long family
history or extensive family relationships. One of them was a descendant of Marcus
Aurelius (L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus), the other was a kinsman of Didius
Iulianus (M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus), whereas two Valerii be-
longed (at least theoretically) to the gens with an old Republican genealogy. The other
11 served the suffect consulship, but did not attain the ordinary consulship later on.
At the third stage of the career (after the consulship), apart from four senators
actively engaged in administration (M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albi-
nus, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius
Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus, L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea
Priscus Minicius Natalis, Anonymus (no. 1122)) the others, as far as we know, served
only curatorships of towns or the honorary functions of patrons, which is fully con-
sistent with their short praetorian careers. It should be emphasized that only by gain-
ing experience in the administration (and thus making a decision to serve additional
functions) could a person get a chance for a successful consular career. Holding
complementary offices, given these circumstances, should be considered as proof of

8 
L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis was a quaestor Augus-
torum (of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus), thus he attained the consulship 16–18 years after the
quaestorship. This delay can be explained by Commodus’ aversion (particularly towards the military
circles, and Valerius served in legio II Adiutrix), which Septimius Severus tried to make up for by
awarding this patrician adlectio inter praetorios and a particularly honorable ordinary consulship.
9 
He was (probably) awarded the ordinary consulship for the second time in the year 256.
Career Models | 57

the determination of a senator, who wished to play some political role without termi-
nating his career with a quick consulship.
At all stages of the senatorial career, senators served various prestigious reli-
gious functions. The cursus of as many as 13 out of 15 had them: L. Annius Italicus
(Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus – XV vir sacris faciundis, C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus
Honoratus – augur, L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus – pontifex, M. Nummius
Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus – salius Palatinus, pontifex, Q. Octavius Volusius
Thuscenius – salius Collinus, L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us] – XV vir sacris
[faciundis], C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus Vatinianus Anicius Maximius
Caesulenus Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus – salius Palatinus, flamen Iulianus divi Iulii,
[V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius
Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus – pontifex maior, augur, L. Valerius Publicola Mes-
salla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis – VII vir epulonum, salius Collinus,
L. Annius Ravus – salius Palatinus, pontifex, [...] Arrianus Aper Veturius Severus –
XV vir sacris faciundis, Anonymus (no. 1606) – salius Palatinus, VII vir epulonum,
Anonymus (no. 1122) – sacerdos Caeninensium.
It is hard to resist the impression that the emperor purposefully assigned sena-
tors from this group to serve representative and religious functions, which were the
foundations of the Roman tradition.
Owing to these comments, we can establish a model of an average representa-
tive of this group with a shortened type of a career (without offices of the praetorian
rank): a patrician, an inhabitant of Italy, most often III vir monetalis, sevir equitum
Romanorum, candidatus Augusti at least to one of the obligatory offices preceding
the consulship, a suffect consulship, functioning in various religious colleges. It is
certain that members of this group had easier access to the consulship, although they
cannot be called the pillars of the administration of the Empire. We do not find close
friends and associates of the ruler (or their children) in this group. In addition, they
were not particularly favored when consular offices were awarded. Thus this was the
part of the Senate, which, keeping up the appearances of emperor’s support, had no
real power.
It should be added that we know a few other persons, who attained the prae-
torship quickly and who had careers typical of the group under discussion. However,
the absence of inscriptions to attest their entire cursus (including the consulship)
makes further investigation impossible10.

10 
For example: P. Alfius Maximus Numerius Licinianus: X vir stlilibus iudicandis, quaestor urbanus,
tribunus plebei candidatus, praetor Parthicarius.
– L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus Tiberianus: triumvir (!) stlitibus iudicandis, sevir equestrium
turmarum, [quaestor] kandidatus, augur, curio, patronus Privernatium.
58 | Chapter V

2. Short (one office of the praetorian rank)

There are eight persons in the group with careers of this type11: C. Arrius Calpur-
nius Longinus, L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus, Anonymus (no. 1607),
C. Iulius Camilius Asper, M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus,
[P]riscus, C. Porcius Priscus Longinus, A. Caecina Tacitus. In the aforementioned
group: the first four were patricians, the next two were plebeians, and there is no data
in the case of the last two. Nothing points to any of them being homo novus.
As far as origo is concerned, it is known that: four persons came from Italy12,
one from Africa13, and the origin of three is undetermined14. What draws our atten-
tion is the fact that there are no representatives of the eastern or western provinces
of the Empire in this group – we get the impression that the traditional selection
criterion, also typical of the group with shortened careers, prevails.
However, when we look at the analysis of the pre-senatorial offices held by
these groups: vigintivirat, military tribunate, and honorary offices (sevir equitum Ro-
manorum, praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum), we can see the differences between
both groups. The office of the vigintivir in the group of short careers was held by
5 senators: only one (C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus) was III vir monetalis, four were
X viri stlitibus iudicandis (M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus,
C. Porcius Priscus Longinus, [P]riscus, Anonymus (no. 1607)), the others probably
did not hold the vigintivirat. Two of them served in the army as military tribunes
(M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus, [P]riscus); the first of

– Sex. Caecilius Aemilianus: X vir stlitibus iudicandis, quaestor Augusti candidatus, legatus pro praetore
provinciae Africae, tribunus plebis, praetor, VII vir epulonum, patronus (Thibiucensium) et alii oppidi.
– C. Caerellius Fufidius Annius Ravus Pollitianus: III vir monetalis aere argento auro flando feriundo,
tribunus laticlavius legionis III Cyrenaicae, sevir equitum Romanorum turmae primae, quaestor candi-
datus Imp. Caesaris M. Aurelii Antonini Pii Felicis Aug., tribunus plebis candidatus, praetor hastarius,
sodalis Marcianus Aurelianus Commodianus Helvianus.
– T. Flavius Vedius Damianus: IIII vir viarum curandarum, quaestor candidatus, tribunus plebis candi-
datus, praetor candidatus.
– Q. Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus: quaestor k[and(idatus)], praetor designatus, pontifex, salius Collinus
or Palatinus.
– C. Passienius Cossonius Scipio Orfitus: sevir equitum Romanorum, decemvir stlitibus iudicandis,
quaestor urbanus, curator rei publicae Sutrinorum, praetor candidatus, adlectus inter patricios, augur
publicus populi Romani Quiritium.
11 
Senators known from only one praetorian office, but their cursus is not fully attested, are ex­cluded
from these listings. It is also supposed in this case that they could have served more functions and
(consequently) represent a different type of a career. See, for instance: Q. Marcius Faustinianus,
M. Caelius Flavus Proculus, C. Fulcinius Fabius Maximus Optatus, Q. Gargilius Macer Aufidianus.
12 
L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus, M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flac-
cus, C. Porcius Priscus Longinus, A. Caecina Tacitus.
13 
C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus.
14 
C. Iulius Camilius Asper, [P]riscus, Anonymus (no. 1607).
Career Models | 59

them later made use of his experience commanding the legio XIII Gemina. It should
be noted that none of them were patricians. The honorary office of sevir equitum
Romanorum was held only by M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flac-
cus, none of them were praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum.
This short listing shows that the group of senators under discussion differs from
the previous one (shortened careers) given its less favorable starting position for the
public service. Its members served fewer strictly honorary functions, and the offices
of the vigintivirat they held belonged rather to the second category.
At the first stage of the strictly senatorial career, the situation in both groups
becomes similar – four (50%) were (twice) emperor’s candidates for obligatory of­
fices: L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus: [quaestor candidatus], praetor can-
didatus, A. Caecina Tacitus: quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus, [P]riscus:
[quaestor] candidatus, [praeto]r candidatus, Anonymus (no. 1607): quaest[or candi-
datus], praetor candidatus. The emperor used adlectio only in the case of one person
(also twice) – C. Porcius Priscus Longinus became adlectus inter quaestorios and inter
praetorios. Although the honorary status of candidati requires no explanation, the
double adlectio is of interest. He was the only one whose cursus featured three senato-
rial offices: two before the praetorship (aedilis curulis, and an additonal one – ab actis
senatus), and one after the praetorship (proconsul Lyciae Pamphyliae). This suggests
that he enjoyed a good position in the Senate, and the fact that the advancements
coincide with the rule of Severus Alexander cooperating with this body may explain
the double adlectio.
The level of special support from the emperor is slightly lower than in the pre­
vious group. However, it is evident that after a slightly less favorable start, the position
of senators from both groups shows a tendency to level up. The differences disappear
just to reemerge after the praetorship (in the form of the praetorian rank office).
At the second stage of the career we notice great variation of the offices held:
legateships and proconsulships of a province (C. Porcius Priscus Longinus, A. Caeci-
na Tacitus, [P]riscus) or of its part (C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus), curatorships of
roads (C. Iulius Camilius Asper), supervision of conscription/judicial supervision over
a region (L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus, Anonymus (no. 1607)), and even
the command of a legion (M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus15).

15 
He was the only commander of a legion in this group, and (which is understandable) there was no
such a person in the previous one. Consequently, the conclusion formulated by W. Eck, Beförderungs­
kriterien innerhalb der senatorischen Laufbahn, dargestellt an der Zeit von 69 bis 138 n. Chr., Aufstieg
und Niedergang der römischen Welt II, 1, Berlin–New York 1974, p. 184 and n., for the pre-Antonine
period that legionary legateships accelerated the advancement of senators can only be applied to the
careers of homines novi.
60 | Chapter V

Senatorial offices were featured in the cursus of as many as 3 out of 8 senators16.


Therefore, the proposal suggested by G. Alföldy with regard to the Antonine period
that offices of this type slowed down consular advancement cannot be sustained17–
this issue will still be discussed later in the present work.
Of the entire group (8), only one senator attained the ordinary consulship
(C. Iulius Camilius Asper, owing to his father’s position and due to the difficult
situation in the year 212), the others were only suffecti.
As far as we know, none of them held any important state office after the con-
sulship, except for honorary patronages of towns and provinces18. The conclusion
is obvious – one function of the praetorian rank is not enough to ensure a further,
intensive career.
At all of its stages, senators from the group under discussion were awarded and
served various prestigious religious functions, and these functions are highlighted in
the cursus of as many as 7 senators from this group: C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus
– augur, L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus – pontifex, M. Herennius Faustus
[...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus – VII vir epulonum, sodalis Augustalis, C. Iulius
Camilius Asper – sodalis Augustalis, pontifex, C. Porcius Priscus Longinus – curator
fani Herculis Victoris, magister fratrum Arvalium, A. Caecina Tacitus – VII vir epulo-
num, Anonymus (no. 1607) – salius Collinus.
In this group (as in the previous one) there were no close associates of the rulers,
their relatives and friends – they came from different circles and represented a totally
different type of careers (see below). Senators with shortened and short career mod-
els, apparently favored, were in fact marginalized, which is confirmed by the analysis
of their cursus, particularly the consular one. It seems that – as the group mentioned
above – the function of this group of senators was not to be the ruling elite, but they
served the representative function of the Imperium Romanum. In this context both
groups can be treated as one, although a selective classification seems to be more
justified.

16 
These were: C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus – legatus provinciae Africae dioecesis Carthaginiensium,
C. Porcius Priscus Longinus – ab actis senatus and proconsul Lyciae Pamphyliae, A. Caecina Tacitus –
proconsul provinciae Baeticae. All three of them held the praetorian rank office during the obligatory
interval between the praetorship and the consulship, so in fact it did not delay the attainment of the
consulship.
17 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur
senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977, pp. 33–60.
18 
C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus: civis et patronus Avioccalensium, L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius]
Aemilianus: patronus Lugdunensium, C. Iulius Camilius Asper: patronus provinciae Mauretaniae Tin-
gitanae, provinciae Britanniae, C. Porcius Priscus Longinus: patronus municipii Tiburtini.
Career Models | 61

3. Standard (2–4 offices of the praetorian rank)

The career type with 2–419 offices of the praetorian rank can be observed in the case
of 44 senators20, of whom 1621 held two such offices in their careers, 1022 held three
offices, and 1823 held four offices. This type is attested most frequently in the source
material, and therefore based on this fact it can be considered as the most common
one (standard).
The analyzed group (44) features only 924 patricians and as many as 2125 ple-
beians (their cursus includes the stage of the tribunate/aedileship); there is no data in
the case of the others.

19 
I established the upper limit of four offices based on the fact that the last of the patricians can be
found among persons holding four praetorian offices.
20 
Many senators are eliminated from this group due to the fact that their consulship has not been
attested, for instance: Q. Cornelius Valens Cu[...]ius Honestianus Iunianus, P. Flavius Pudens Pom-
ponianus, Q. Mamilius Capitolinus, Cn. Petronius Probatus Iunior Iustus, Q. Ranius Terentius Ho­
noratianus Festus, M. Aureli[us ...], Caecilius Laetus, L. Calpurnius Proculus.
21 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gal-
licanus, M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus
Lollianus Gentianus, C. Iulius Philippus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Pro-
culus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus, T. Statilius Barbarus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, M. Um­
brius Primus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...], T. Flavius Philinus, Q. Pomponius
Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus. Three persons out of this
group (C. Aemilius Berenicianus, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gallicanus, T. Flavius Philinus)
held only senatorial offices at the praetorian stage, which in their case (as can be seen) was not an
obstacle to quick consular advancement.
22 
[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, T. Clodius Pupie­
nus Pulcher Maximus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius
Maximus L. Calvinianus, L. Albinius Saturninus, L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis,
L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, C. Mevius Donatus Iunianus.
23 
P. Aelius Coeranus, M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter,
[Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catin-
ius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius
Salamal­lianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius
Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus, L. Ovinius
Rusticus Cornelianus, L. Publilius Probatus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus, P. Iulius
Geminius Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus, Anonymus
(no. 1630). It should be added that emperor Septimius Severus, prior to coming to power, had a stan­
dard cursus with 4 offices of the praetorian rank.
24 
Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, M. Rubrenus Virius
Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publi-
cola Balbinus Maximus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter
and probably T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus and P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376). Five of
them had careers with two offices after the praetura, two of them with three offices, and two held
four offices.
25 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, T. Flavius Philinus, Q. Pom-
ponius Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus, [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, P. Septimius
Geta, L. Albinius Saturninus, L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, C. Mevius
62 | Chapter V

Hence we can see a continuation of the downward trend in the number of pa-
tricians (and the upward trend among the plebeians). Starting as a dominating group
(shortened careers), followed by an equal status (short careers), patricians had become
a minority, thus yielding their position to the plebeians. The following questions may
arise: who were these few patricians, whose careers were not typical of their social
origin, and what were their relations with the rulers? It should be stressed that two
of them (Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376))
were friends of Septimius Severus, while four of them were children of his asso­ciates
(Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus,
Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus). Hence
no discrimination of any kind can be assumed in their case, and it makes sense to
conclude that they held pre-consular offices of their own will26. This gave them the
experience they needed to attain further, consular stages of advancement. The same
can be said of the other three patricians (M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus
Magianus Proculus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publicola
Balbinus Maximus). They were not associates of the ruler, but they held two offices
of the praetorian rank each (mainly the curatorship).
In anticipation of further discussion, let me mention that two (or three) of the
group of nine patricians under discussion later held the honorable office of praefectus
Urbi (L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376),
and probably L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus).
It should be noted that out of the entire group of 44 senators, 16 had senato-
rial ancestors known to us27, whereas 11 were definitely homines novi28. The social

Donatus Iunianus, Anonymus (no. 1630), P. Aelius Coeranus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Pos-
tumianus, Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus, L. Marius Perpetuus
(no.  701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus, L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus, L. Publilius Probatus,
L.  Rago­nius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus, P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso
T. Vib­ius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus and probably T. Statilius Barbarus. Another plebeian was
also L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), as his son (or nephew) L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701) still belonged
to this class.
26 
It should be noted that two senators: Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lol-
lianus Gentianus, served in the army as military tribunes.
27 
M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lol-
lianus Gentianus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus, C. Vettius [Gratus]
Atticus Sabinianus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...], L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus
Maximus, [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, T. Clo­
d­ius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus, P. Aelius Coeranus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, M. Fabius
Magnus Valerianus, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus, L. Marius
Perpetuus (no. 701), Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus.
28 
L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gallicanus, C. Iulius Philippus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus,
M. Umbrius Primus, T. Flavius Philinus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, L. Marius
Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus
Career Models | 63

origin of the others (17) remains undetermined. This is the first group where we
find persons, who are definitely “new people”, with no background of senatorial
traditions.
As regards the origo, it is known that: 17 came from Italy29, eight are traced back
to the East30, six are of African origin31, and four came from the West32, while the
origin of the others (9) is undetermined. What becomes clearly evident is the gradual
predominance of “provincial” senators – they constitute over 50% of the members,
which is commensurate with the distribution of power in the Senate (see Chapter II:
The Origo of Senators).
The model: a patrician and a representative of Italy, so typical of the previous
types of careers, slowly changes into a diametrically different one – a provincial and
homo novus (dominant in the group of long careers – see below). One can get the
impression that the model of standard careers is, on the one hand, a peculiar conse-
quence of the features typical of the shortened and short models, and of the long one
on the other hand.
The differences between the standard model and the previously presented ones
are evident as early as at the pre-senatorial stage, when holding such offices as: vigin-
tivirat, military tribunate, and honorary offices (sevir equitum Romanorum, praefectus
Urbi feriarum Latinarum).

Fulcinianus, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maximus
L. Calvinianus.
29 
M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus
Lollianus Gentianus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus, M. Umbrius
Primus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...], L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Max-
imus, L.  Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus, L. Albi­
nius Saturninus, M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, L. Cestius
Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valeria­
nu[s ...] Severus, M. Marius Titius Rufinus, L. Publilius Probatus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius
Quintianus.
30 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, C. Iulius Philippus, C. Sallius Aris-
taenetus, T. Flavius Philinus, P. Aelius Coeranus, [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], L. Iulius Apronius
Maenius Pius Salamallianus.
31 
L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, C. Mevius Donatus Iunianus, C. Iunius Fausti-
nus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701), P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus.
32 
[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus,
P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus
Fulcinianus.
64 | Chapter V

The office of the vigintivir was held by 27 senators: four33 – III viri monetales,
15 – X viri stlitibus iudicandis, four35 – IIII viri viarum curandarum, four36 – III viri
34

capitales.
The function of the military tribune was served by 2037 senators (i.e. nearly
50% of the entire group), and 14 senators out of this group later commanded a legion
(or legions or vexillationes). What is noteworthy is the fact that three of them were,
by turns, tribunes in two legions (C. Aemilius Berenicianus, P. Iulius Geminius Mar-
cianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus). The honor-
ary office of sevir equitum Romanorum was held by 7 senators: T. Statilius Barbarus,
C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus,
[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, M. Marius
Titius Rufinus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus (16% in total), none of
them were praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum.
These short listings show that the group of senators under discussion differs
from the previous ones by a smaller number of honorary offices and a less favorable
starting position in their efforts to attain the consulship. It may be presumed, based
on the very fact that vigintivirat was held by 27 of senators from this group, that the
others failed to attain this office, thus adlectio (the award of latus clavus) marked
the beginnings of their careers, and their first public function was the quaestor-
ship38. The small number of honorary seviri equitum Romanorum and the absence of

33 
Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, T. Clodius Pupienus
Pulcher Maximus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter.
34 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gallicanus, M. Gavius Crispus
Num[isi]us Iunior, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus, C. Sallius Aristae-
netus, T. Statilius Barbarus, M. Umbrius Primus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...],
L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, P. Septimius Geta, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius
Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Pos-
tumianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus.
35 
C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis,
L. Publilius Probatus, and probably (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero.
36 
L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus, L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus
(vir kapitalis auro argento aere flando formando (!)), P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius
Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus.
37 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior,
Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, T. Statilius Barbarus,
C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, M. Umbrius Primus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus
[Flavius?...], L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lu-
tatius Natalis, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, M. Fabius Magnus
Valerianus, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius
Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus, P. Iulius
Geminius Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus.
38 
Adlecti at the higher level is characterized by equestrian-senatorial cursus, thus they represent the
mixed type of a career (see below).
Career Models | 65

praefecti Urbi feriarum Latinarum can be considered as characteristic of this group.


It should be emphasized that III viri monetales were, with no exceptions, patricians.
At the first stage of the strictly senatorial career, 19 (of 44) individuals were em-
peror’s candidates for the obligatory offices, including 7 of them that were candidates
twice (except for one, all of them were patricians), and one of them three times39:
L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gallicanus – quaestor candidatus, M. Gavius Cris-
pus Num[isi]us Iunior – quaestor candidatus, tribunus plebis candidatus, praetor candi-
datus, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus – quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus
tutelaris, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus – quaestor candidatus, praetor can-
didatus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus – tribunus plebis candidatus,
praetor candidatus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus –
quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus – praetor candidatus,
C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus – [quaestor kandidatus], praetor kandidatus
tutelarius, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...] – [qu]aestor ca[ndid(a-
tus) Augusti], L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus – quaestor kandidatus, prae-
tor kandidatus tutelaris, [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus – praetor candidatus,
L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus – quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus,
T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus – quaestor candidatus, L. Marius Perpetuus
(no. 700) – quaestor candidatus, P. Aelius Coeranus – tribunus plebis kandidatus, Ser.
Calpurnius Domitius Dexter – quaestor candidatus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus –
quaestor candidatus, L. Publilius Probatus – praetor candidatus, Iulius Pompilius Piso
T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus – praetor candidatus.
The above group features only three homines novi and as many as 10 inhabit-
ants of Italy. It may thus be concluded that imperial favoritism was enjoyed mainly
by persons from old Italian gentes senatoriae, which means that imperial policy in
this respect was extremely conservative. Those of the senators who earned emperor’s
support by virtue of their territorial and social origin were closer to senators with
shortened and short careers than those with standard ones. It should be emphasized
that eight out of nine40 patricians were the emperor’s candidates for at least one of
the offices.

39 
This was M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, the son or grandson of M. Gavius Appalius Maxi-
mus, the consul of 155, the cousin of Camurius Numisius Iunior, the consul of 161, probably related by
marriage to consular families of Gavii Cornelii Cethegi and Fulvii (Gavii Numisii Petronii) Aemiliani.
The career of this senator coincides with the turn of the rule of the Antonine and the Severan dynasty.
40 
It should be added that the only patrician who was not candidatus Augusti was P. Cornelius Anulli-
nus (no. 376), promoted to the patriciate only at the end of his life. It can be concluded from this fact
that patricians were candidati Augusti at different stages of the career.
66 | Chapter V

Candidati constituted 43.2% of the entire group, while in the group of shortened
careers this percentage was 66.6%41, and 50%42 in the group of short careers. Hence
a downward trend is clearly visible, which should come as no surprise taking into
account membership of all of these groups.
Only seven senators (of 44) had (internal) adlectio in their cursus: C. Aemilius
Berenicianus – adlectus inter tribunicios, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Galli-
canus – adlectus inter praetorios, [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus – adlectus
inter tribunicios, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus – adlectus inter
quaestorios, L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus – adlectus inter tribunicios, L. Publilius
Probatus – le[ctus inter] tribunicios, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus
Berenicianus – adlectus inter tribunicios.
This number is not high, particularly in the context of the career path: the
careers of senators under discussion, slightly longer than in the previous groups,
were a great opportunity for the emperor, who could advance the career of a tal­
ented, efficient (in terms of the administrative functions) senator, to act accordingly.
The emperor quite rarely used internal adlectio in case of this group and this may be
due to the fact that a career with 2–4 offices of the praetorian rank was viewed as
standard and it was advanced in only a few cases. In addition, if the emperor wished
to have experienced personnel at his disposal, it was not to his benefit to shorten their
standard careers (and, as can be seen, he did so only on rare occasions).
The reasons for the presented adlectiones are hard to define, although the
fact that three adlecti (C. Aemilius Berenicianus, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius
Salamallianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus) had
military functions in their cursus, may serve as a clue. What is significant is the fact
that none of the patricians had adlectio in their cursus, as in the case of the repre-
sentatives of this group (as I commented previously) advancement of careers was not
needed.
A noteworthy example of senators with special imperial support is the case of
C. Sallius Aristaenetus, who was quaestor designatus et eodem anno ad aedilitatem
promotus43, i.e. promoted to the aedileship already in the first year of holding the
quaestorship. This is the only senator known to us who was advanced in this way.
Looking at his biographic entry, it can be concluded that he owed this to his own
talents – he was a famous attorney, orator, and rhetor from Byzantium, appointed
later as the tutor of Caracalla and Geta.

41 
The proportion was 10 out of 15 senators.
42 
The proportion was 4 out of 8 senators.
43 
CIL VI 1511 cf. 3805 et addenda p. 4707 n. = ILS 2934, CIL VI 1512 (pp. 3142, 4708, 4774) =
CIL VI 31668.
Career Models | 67

Few senators from the group under discussion held additional offices before the
praetorship. We come across six of such cases: (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero – ab
actis senatus, legatus [(proconsulis) Asiae?], Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus: legatus
Augustorum provinciae Asiae, P. Septimius Geta – curator Anconitanorum, L. Cestius
Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis – ab actis senatus, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus
Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus – legatus pro praetore provinciae Narbonen-
sis, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus – legatus Augusti provinciae Africae
dioeceseos Karthaginensis. This number is not high, bearing in mind the character of
this group, composed primarily of homines novi – what this means is that they made
no efforts to gain experience before the praetorship, probably as they realized that no
opportunity of this kind would be available after the praetorship. It should be kept in
mind that few homines novi had relatives serving the function of senators, whom they
could accompany, for instance, on their way to the province as proconsuls.
The second stage of the career features great diversity of the of-
fices held. Following the praetorship, senators were: legates or proconsuls of
provinces (27)44, legionary legates (23)45, town curators (17)46, proconsular

44 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gallicanus, M. Gavius Crispus
Num[isi]us Iunior, T. Statilius Barbarus, M. Umbrius Primus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus
[Flavius?...], T. Flavius Philinus, Q. Pomponius Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus, T. Clodius Pupienus
Pulcher Maximus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maxi-
mus L. Calvinianus, L. Albinius Saturninus, L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis, C. Me-
vius Donatus Iunianus, Anonymus (no. 1630), P. Aelius Coeranus, M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus,
[Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius
Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a-
[ci]dus Postumianus, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus, L. Marius
Perpetuus (no. 701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus.
45 
M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus Lol-
lianus Gentianus, T. Statilius Barbarus, [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...], L. Mar-
ius Perpetuus (no. 700), Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maximus L. Calvinianus, L. Cestius Gallus Cer-
rinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis, L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, Anonymus
(no. 1630), P. Aelius Coeranus, [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fa-
bius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, L. Iulius
Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, L. Marius Per-
petuus (no. 701), M. Marius Titius Rufinus, L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus, L. Ragonius Urinatius
Larcius Quintianus, P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus
Berenicianus. Three of them: L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus, P. Iulius Geminius
Marcianus, Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus Laevillus Berenicianus were in command of a le-
gion more than once. Interestingly: L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, P. Aelius
Coeranus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, L. Ovinius
Rusticus Cornelianus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus were legionary legates, though they
had not served the tribunate previously.
46 
Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, C. Iulius Philippus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pompo­
nianus Magianus Proculus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus, [P? Max]imus Numerius Avi-
tus, L.  Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta,
C. Mevius Donatus Iunianus, P. Aelius Coeranus, M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, Ser. Calpurnius
68 | Chapter V

legates (15)47, curators of roads (7)48, iuridici (7)49, praefecti frumenti dandi (5)50, prae-
fecti aerarii Saturni (3)51, praefecti aerarii militaris (1)52 or served other functions (5)53.
Hence the areas of activity assigned to senators are clearly evident, as well as
the level of demand for qualified personnel appointed from the group under dis-
cussion that existed in the Empire. It should be noted that senatorial proconsuls
(14) prevail in provincial governorships, while legates of imperial provinces are in
the minority (7), and additionally six senators were both proconsuls and province
legates. The 14 : 7 ratio may be due to the fact that the term of office in the case of
proconsuls was generally annual, while in the case of legates the term of office lasted
2–3 years, thus the rotation of proconsuls was greater54. It should be borne in mind at
this point that during the Severan period the emperor appointed not only his legates,

Domitius Dexter, [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, M. Marius Titius
Rufinus, L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus, L. Publilius Probatus.
47 
C. Aemilius Berenicianus, (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus Gal-
licanus, C. Iulius Philippus, T. Flavius Philinus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus, [P? Alfius
Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, L. Marius Vegetinus Mar-
cianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dex-
ter, [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus], P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Publilius Probatus, P. Iulius
Geminius Marcianus.
48 
C. Sallius Aristaenetus, M. Umbrius Primus, Q. Pomponius Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus,
Anonymus (no. 1630), M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701), L. Ovinius
Rusticus Cornelianus.
49 
Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus, P. Aelius Coeranus, M. Antius
Crescens Calpurnianus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus,
L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus.
50 
[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Marius Vegeti-
nus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus, M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valerianu[s ...]
Severus, L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus.
51 
(M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, L. Albinius Saturninus, L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Luta-
tius Natalis.
52 
L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus.
53 
(M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero: legatus missus ad corrigendum statum Galatiae, item [ad cognoscen­
das] vice Caesaris [cognitiones], C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus: curator Flaminiae et alimento-
rum, T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus: vice operum publicorum, electus iudicio sacro (imperato-
ris) ad census acceptandos per provinciam Velgicam (!), Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter: curator viae
Aemiliae et alimentorum, L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus: legatus Augusti vice quinque
fascium provinciae Belgicae.
54 
There were 22 provinces of the praetorian rank at that time: 8 senatorial and 14 imperial prov­
inces. In 214, after the change of the status of Pannonia Inferior and Asturia et Gallaecia to the
consular one, the number of (praetorian) imperial provinces decreased to 12. Taking into account the
number of praetorian provinces of both types and the duration of their governorship, the ratio of 14 : 7
presented in the text is not surprising. It should be noted that a proconsul of 3 consecutive senatorial
provinces and a legate of an imperial province remained in service (both of them) for three years each
and having attained consulship after the completion of their term of office in the province they were
of the same or similar age (taking intoaccount intervals between proconsulships).
Career Models | 69

but also preselected candidates prior to the sortitio of senatorial provinces. Hence
ultimately it was the emperor who made decisions in both cases. A question arises
whether G. Alföldy’s conclusion about the Antonine period, that senatorial offices
were awarded to senators with a less favorable starting position and contributed to
the extension of the cursus and increasing the age of attaining the consulship, remains
valid for the Severan period55. Having analyzed the biographic entries, I come to the
conclusion that out of 44 senators from the group with standard careers: 16 senators,
after the praetorship, held offices only in the emperor’s service, two of them only
in the service of the Senate, and as many as 26 featured offices of both types in
their cursus; hence the latter ones are the dominant group. The quantitative domi-
nance of strictly imperial careers over senatorial careers can be explained by a higher
– than senatorial – number of imperial offices of the praetorian rank. It is worth
investigating how this issue was manifested in the extreme category in the group,
namely in the case of patricians and homines novi. Of nine patricians in the group
under discussion, six senators held offices of both types, three of them held imperial
offices. Of 11 homines novi, after the praetorship, five senators held only imperial
offices, two only senatorial offices, and four held offices of both types. Based on the
presentation of the above information, it can be concluded that senatorial offices did
not result in the extension of the duration of the cursus, especially since, as I have
shown, the majority of senators from the standard group (28 out of 44) served these
offices in their careers. Regardless of the starting position, these senators attained the
consulship at a similar age. Summing up, the conclusion formulated by G. Alföldy
cannot be automatically applied to the Severan period, both for the group of stan­
dard careers (which I have documented), and long ones (discussed below)56.
In the group of senators with standard careers, the following persons became
ordinary consuls: Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus
Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius
Dexter, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701)57, P. Septi-
mius Geta, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus. Of

55 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat..., p. 49 and n.
56 
To get a full picture of the situation, let me point to the fact that in the group of short careers (with
one praetorian office) five persons held an imperial office, and three persons served a senatorial office.
As can be seen, senators holding senatorial offices can also be found in this (highly privileged) group.
57 
He held his consulship during the post-Severan period, but what was definitely decisive in the
attainment of this distinction was his origin attributed to the Marii Maximi family, closely related to
the Severans.
70 | Chapter V

these eight senators, five of the former ones were patricians58, the next one was the
son of  a consul, while two of the latter ones were homines novi. Appointments of
homines novi should be briefly commented. Both were closely related to Septimius
Severus – P. Septimius Geta was his brother, while L. Fabius Cilo was his friend and
associate.
As we analyze the cursus honorum of ordinary consuls we come across three
consuls appointed for the second time (P. Septimius Geta, L. Fabius Cilo, P. Cor-
nelius Anullinus (no. 376)). Two of the former ones were born into the equestrian
class (the status of Anullinus is uncertain). The first consulship held by all of them
was the suffect consulship (prior to the proclamation by Septimius Severus). After-
wards, their long careers stood out as abundant in various merits. The factors that
were decisive in their advancement, apart from their unquestionable merits (however,
not greater than in the case of many other senators) were (once again) their relations
with the emperor; this is evidenced by the fact that both Severus’ brother and one of
his closest associates became consuls holding their office twice.
It is noteworthy that the group of senators with standard careers is the first one
that featured consuls holding their office twice – this can be understood by the fact
that senators from two of the previously discussed groups represented the type of
careers that were too short for them to achieve anything of special significance.
Of all 44 senators as many as 1059 attained the consulship (ordinary or suffect),
holding neither the office of a province governor nor command of a legion. This
peculiar group features five patricians (M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus
Magianus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus
Maximus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dex-
ter), and the tutor of the sons of Septimius Severus (C. Sallius Aristaenetus), who,
as can be seen, did not have to make any special efforts to achieve the highest dis-
tinction. The others ((M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, C. Iulius Philippus, [P? Alfius
Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Publilius Probatus) had civil offices in their cursus
– in most cases various types of the curatorship, which apparently was considered as
a perfect preparation for the consulship. Given this situation, it can be assumed that
curatorships were equally good in paving the way to the consulship – however, not
only the Italian ones, but curatorships served in the entire Empire. This is the only

58 
It is not known precisely when P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376) became a patrician, although it
seems probable that this distinction was accompanied by his nomination to the consulship for the
second time – the ordinary one.
59 
(M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, C. Iulius Philippus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus
Magianus Proculus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus, C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus, L. Valerius Publi-
cola Balbinus Maximus, [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinia­
nus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, L. Publilius Probatus.
Career Models | 71

thing that the whole group shared in common – unlike their ordo or origo. The career
model they represent may be referred to as a regional one – each of them served as
a curator in their native region, which perfectly reflects the phenomenon of the low
level of participation of some senators in the management of the Empire, as described
in Chapter I.
In statistical terms – the best method to attain the consulship was to hold of-
fices of the imperial scope (e.g., proconsulships, legateships of provinces and legions),
in contrast to the regional ones, which provided no opportunities for contacts with
the elite in power, thus offered no chances of presenting a person’s abilities in a con-
vincing way.
At the third stage of the career, senators from the group under discussion (af-
ter the consulship) served the following functions: 13 legateships of imperial prov­
inces60, 12 proconsulships of Asia or Africa61, 5 curatorships alvei Tiberis62, 4 town
curatorships63, 3 curatorships aedium sacrarum et operum publicorum 64, 1 curatorship
aquarum65, and 2 other offices66. It is easy to see that members of the group with the
standard type of a career (2–4 offices of the praetorian rank) attained competence to
serve important proconsular functions and were held in high esteem by the emperor.
It should be noted that there are 11 persons in the entire group closely related
to the Severan dynasty – Septimius Severus’ associates (Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus
Gentianus – cos. suff. ante a. 193, P. Septimius Geta – cos. suff. ante a. 191, cos. II
ord. a. 203, T. Statilius Barbarus – cos. suff. a. 198 or 199, P. Cornelius Anullinus
(no. 376) – cos. suff. ante a. 176, cos. II ord. a. 199, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius

60 
(M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus,
T.  Statilius Barbarus, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700), P. Septimius Geta, Q. Venidius Rufus Mar­
ius Maximus L. Calvinianus, L. Albinius Saturninus, Anonymus (no. 1630), P. Cornelius Anullinus
(no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a-
[ci]dus Postumianus, P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus.
61 
M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, Q. Hedius Rufus
Lollianus Gentianus, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus, T. Statilius
Barbarus, M. Umbrius Primus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, L. Albinius Saturninus,
Anonymus (no. 1630), P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus, and probably
L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700).
62 
L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maximus L. Calvinianus,
Anonymus (no. 1630), P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius
Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus.
63 
T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus, L. Albinius Saturninus, [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus],
L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus.
64 
T. Statilius Barbarus, T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus, M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus.
65 
L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus.
66 
Curator aquarum et Miniciae, praefectus alimentorum viae Flaminiae – L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus
Maximus, electus ad cognoscendos vice Caesaris cognitiones – L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus.
72 | Chapter V

Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus – cos. suff. a. 193, cos. II ord. a. 204, C. Iunius Fausti-
nus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus – cos. suff. ante a. 202–209), and their descendants and
cousins (Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus – cos. ord. a. 209; L. Caesonius Lucillus
Macer Rufinianus – cos. suff. inter a. 222–230, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maximus
L. Calvinianus – cos. suff. ca a. 199–203, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter – cos. ord.
a. 225, L. Marius Perpetuus – cos. ord. a. 237). Of these, four were epigraphically
attested comites Augusti (more specifically, of Septimius Severus): Q.  Hedius Ru-
fus Lollianus Gentianus, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus, L.  Fabius
Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, P. Cornelius Anullinus
(no. 376). In the case of the latter ones, the preserved inscriptions provide precise in-
formation as to the functions (military) they held and imperial expeditions in which
they participated. L. Fabius Cilo was praepositus vexillationibus Illyricianis Perinthi
tendentibus, comes in expeditione orientali, dux vexillationum per Italiam67, while
P. Cornelius Anullinus – dux Septimii Severi (against Pescennius Niger), and dux
Severi in expeditione Adiabenica68 .
Additionally, the significance of this group is confirmed by the fact that three
(or four) of its representatives held the most important senatorial office – praefectus
Urbi. City governors included: P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Sep-
timinus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Ru-
finianus, and probably L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus. Such advancement
often resulted in designation to the consulship for the second time – ordinary one
(as previously mentioned in the case of Anullinus and Cilo); however, this was not
tantamount to automatic advancement to the patriciate. A convincing example is the
casus of Cilo, who remained a plebeian. In my opinion, Septimius Severus intended
to award Cilo with this distinction when he terminated his service as the governor
of the City, thus crowning his career, but he failed to do so (the emperor died during
an expedition in Britain). The next emperor – Caracalla, given Cilo’s stand during
the dynastic crisis (Geta’s murder), removed him from office and was not willing to
award him with any distinctions.
Over half (25) of the senators held religious offices at various stages of their
careers: C. Aemilius Berenicianus – VII vir epulonum, L. Claudius Pollio Iulius
Iulianus Gallicanus – flamen perpetuus Nolae, M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior
– fetialis, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus – augur, Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus
Gentianus – salius Palatinus, augur, M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Ma-
gianus Proculus – salius Collinus, C. Sallius Aristaenetus – VII vir epulonum, sodalis
Augustalis, Q. Pomponius Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus – sodalis Titialis, XV vir

67 
See: PIR 2 F 27.
68 
See: PIR 2 C 1322.
Career Models | 73

sacris faciundis, L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus – XV vir sacris faciundis,


[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus – sacerdos Iun[onis?], lupercus, L. Caeso­nius
Lucillus Macer Rufinianus – frater Arvalis, T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus
– XV vir sacris faciundis, P. Septimius Geta – fetialis, Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Ma­
ximus L. Calvinianus – XV sacris faciundis, L. Albinius Saturninus – sodalis Antoni­
nianus, P. Aelius Coeranus – flamen Dialis Tibure, frater Arvalis, M. Antius Crescens
Calpurnianus – XV vir sacris faciundis, pontifex Volkani et aedium sacrarum Ostiae,
Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter – XV vir sacris faciundis, L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus
Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus – sodalis Hadrianalis, M. Fabius Magnus
Valerianus – XV vir sacris faciundis, C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus –
sacerdos Flavialis Titialis, L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701) – sace[rdos |...]nus, L. Publi­
lius Probatus – pontifex [coloniae Nolanorum?], L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quin-
tianus – sodalis Hadrianalis.
As in the two previous groups, religious functions are very common in the
entire group. However, a downward trend can be observed, which is due to the less
favorable starting position of the majority of senators with standard careers69. It may
be concluded that the number of religious offices in the cursus of senators in this
category was inversely proportional to its duration (and their administrative experi-
ence) – the longer the cursus, the smaller the number of these offices. In fact, this is
understandable – due to the fact that these offices were urban offices, and they were
not granted to legates and proconsuls who were permanently absent from Rome.
To sum up, the majority of offices found in the cursus of the representatives of
the whole group and the length of their careers, and the significance of the offices
they held lead to a conclusion that persons with standard careers can be considered
as the core of the Imperial administration. Having analyzed cases of senators with
full careers, we can see that (in comparison with the previous groups) this group
features more homines novi and provincials, whereas fewer candidati Augusti and
adlecti. The emperor’s support is less frequently manifested in honorary posts, career
advancement, recommendations to offices, and more often in increasing the num-
ber of functions that bring real power in the Empire. Members of the group served
numerous and various praetorian functions – the more functions they served, the
greater experience and emperor’s trust they had, which resulted in a successful con-
sular career. It is in this group that we come across, for the first time, consuls holding
their offices for two terms, praefecti Urbi and comites Augusti.

69 
Religious offices in the case of shortened careers were held by 13 out of 15 senators, 7 out of 8 with
short careers, and 25 out of 44 in the group with standard careers. Hence the aforementioned down-
ward trend is clearly evident. This trend will become even more apparent in the next group – with
long careers.
74 | Chapter V

4. Long (5 and more offices of the praetorian rank)

The number of senators in the group with such a career model that are known to us
is 26 70 persons, and the careers of 12 of them71 featured five offices of the praetorian
rank, 772 held six such offices, 673 – seven, and 174 senator held eight offices of this
rank.
None of the persons in this classification were patricians; senatorial origin can
be attributed to only five of these75, whereas the other 21 were probably homines novi.
The starting position of senators with long careers in comparison to members of the
previously discussed groups was definitely less favorable, which obviously affected
their cursus honorum. We can get the impression that we are dealing with a group
of “parvenus”, who had to earn their consular advancement through long, public
service.
As regards the origo, it is known that: 11 senators came from Italy76, eight are
traced back to Africa77, five are attributed to the East78, and the origin of the other
two remains unknown.

70 
Persons with a sufficient number of praetorian offices, but without the consulship, are omitted;
in such cases it is not known whether their entire careers are available to us. See, for instance, C. Lu­
xilius Sabinus Egnatius Proculus, Ti. Claudius Me[vius? P]riscus Ruf[inus I]unior, [...]us L. f. Fab.
Annian[us].
71 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, T. Clodius Aurelius Satur­
ninus, Ti. Claudius Gordianus, [Iasdius], L. Iulius Iulianus, Q. Petronius Melior, P. Plotius Romanus
Cassianus Neo, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1119), Anonymus (no. 1159),
L. Flavius Cleonaeus.
72 
P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, L. Marius Maximus
Perpetuus Aurelianus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus,
[...] unius [...] [...]cus Car[...] [...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]an[us], C. Sa-
bucius Maior Caecilianus.
73 
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, M. Domitius Valerianus, A. Egnatius Proculus, Tib. Iulius Frugi,
L. Saevinius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae.
74 
C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
75 
C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, L. Flavius Cleonaeus, Tib. Iulius Frugi, L. Saevinius Proculus,
C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
76 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, [Iasdius], L. Iulius Iulianus,
Q. Petronius Melior, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, C. Caesonius
Macer Rufinianus, A. Egnatius Proculus, L. Saevinius Proculus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
77 
Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, Anonymus (no. 1119), P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo
Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus
Acontianus, [...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...][...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]a­-
n[us], L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus.
78 
Ti. Claudius Gordianus, Anonymus (no. 1159), L. Flavius Cleonaeus, M. Domitius Valerianus,
Tib. Iulius Frugi.
Career Models | 75

What is noteworthy is the fact that when looking at senators as individuals (as
in the previous groups), representatives of Italy are the most numerous, although
inhabitants of provinces prevail collectively, which corresponds to the structure of
the Senate, where provincials held over 62% of seats. It is clear that the model: a pro-
vincial and homo novus, found in the group of standard careers becomes definitely
enhanced in the group of long careers.
An analysis of pre-senatorial offices: vigintivirat, military tribunate, honorary
offices (sevir equitum Romanorum, praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum), provides the
interesting data: vigintivirat was held by 12 senators: including five, who were X viri
stlitibus iudicandis 79, five – IIII viri viarum curandarum80, two – III viri capitales81.
Importantly, none of the members of the group held the most honorary office of
the III vir monetalis. Only 4 were seviri equitum Romanorum (L. Annius Italicus
Honoratus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus, Q. Petronius Melior, P. Plotius
Romanus Cassianus Neo), none of them served the honorary function of praefectus
Urbi feriarum Latinarum. Of the entire group, 11 senators served the function of
the military tribune (T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus
Neo, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, [Ias-
dius], Q. Petronius Melior, Anonymus (no. 1119), C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius,
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, M. Domitius Valerianus, Tib. Iulius Frugi)82; six
of them83 were later assigned functions of legionary legates or commanders of larger
military units. This short listing shows that the group under discussion differs from
the previous ones by its less favorable starting position for the public service. Its
members served few strictly honorary functions, and the offices of the vigintivirat
they held rather belonged to the second category. Given the situation, the choice of
a military path as a means of making a career is understandable. A similar trend
could already be seen in the group with standard careers – consequently, specialists,
so needed in the administration of the Empire, dominated in both groups.
At the first stage of the career (before the praetorship), there were only six
emperor’s candidates (23.1%) for various offices: T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus
– quaestor candidatus, praetor candidatus, Q. Petronius Melior – tribunus plebis

79 
T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, Q. Petronius Melior, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, L. Ranius
Optatus Novatus Acontianus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
80 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo, Anonymus (no. 1159), A. Egna-
tius Proculus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus.
81 
[...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...][...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]an[us],
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus.
82 
It should be added that four of the former ones served this function in two legions in succession.
83 
[Iasdius], Q. Petronius Melior, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus,
M. Domitius Valerianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus.
76 | Chapter V

candidatus, P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo – quaestor candidatus, C. Sabucius


Maior Caecilianus – praetor candidatus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus
– tribunus plebis candidatus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus – quaestor candi-
datus, tribunus (plebis) candidatus.
A further downward trend can be clearly seen in this respect: 66.6% in the
group of shortened careers, 50% in the group of short careers, 43.2% in the group
of standard careers, down to 23.1% in the group under discussion. Interestingly, as
many as four out of six candidati were representatives of Italy, thus the tendency of
supporting Italian aristocracy by the emperor was maintained84.
Internal adlectiones were equally few in number – they were attained only by
two senators: A. Egnatius Proculus and L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus
were adlecti inter praetorios.
Additional offices before the praetorship were held by only three senators
(T.  Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, C. Caesonius
Macer Rufinianus), all of them proconsular legates. The small number of
functions of this type points to (as in the case of the standard career model) more
limited opportunities for senators from this group. Senators with long careers
served various functions at the second stage of the career (after the praetorship).
They were: legionary legates (19)85, legates or proconsuls of provinces (19)86,

84 
In the group of shortened careers, 5 out of 10 candidati came from Italy, 2 out of 4 in the group with
short careers, while 10 out of 19 in the group of standard careers.
85 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, Ti. Claudius Gordianus,
[Iasdius], L. Iulius Iulianus, Q. Petronius Melior, L. Flavius Cleonaeus, P. Iulius Iunianus Martialia­
nus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, [...]unius [...]
[...]cus Car[...] [...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]an[us], C. Caesonius Macer
Rufinia­nus, M. Domitius Valerianus, A. Egnatius Proculus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelia­
nus, Tib. Iulius Frugi, L. Saevinius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae, C. Octavius Appius
Suetrius Sabinus. Of this group, in 6 cases (Ti. Claudius Gordianus, [Iasdius], Q. Petronius Me-
lior, [...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...][...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]an[us],
M. Domitius Valerianus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae) were in command more than once.
86 
Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, Ti. Claudius Gordianus, L. Iulius Iulianus, P. Plotius Ro-
manus Cassianus Neo, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1119), L. Flavius Cleonae-
us, P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus
Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, C. Caesonius
Macer Rufinianus, M. Domitius Valerianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, Tib. Iulius
Frugi, L. Saevinius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabi-
nus. Legati Augusti: Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, Ti. Claudius Gordianus, L. Iulius Iulianus,
P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no.  1159),
L. Flavius Cleonaeus, P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus,
C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus,
M. Domitius Valerianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, Tib. Iulius Frugi, L. Saevi­
nius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus. Proconsules:
Ti. Claudius Gordianus, L. Iulius Iulianus, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1119),
P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus
Career Models | 77

town curators (17)87, iuridici (14)88, curators of roads (12)89, praefecti aerarii milita-
ris (7)90, praefecti aerarii Saturni (4)91, proconsular legates (4)92, praefecti frumenti
dandi (3)93, praefecti alimentorum (1)94, or served other functions (10)95. It is an easy
task to distinguish the main areas of the activity of senators – these mainly involved
command of legions and governorships of provinces. Senators from the group with
long careers, in comparison to the group with standard careers, held more of­fices
of lower prestige: curatorships, prefectures, juridicates; their cursus also included
more non-standard offices, such as conscription or command of units other than
legions. The number of legateships accompanying a proconsul is significantly lower.

Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus, C. Caesonius
Macer Rufinianus, M. Domitius Valerianus, Tib. Iulius Frugi, L. Saevinius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?)...]us
legatus Numidiae.
87 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, [Iasdius], L. Iulius Iulianus, Q. Petronius Melior, P. Plotius Romanus
Cassianus Neo, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1159), L. Flavius Cleonaeus, P. Iu-
lius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus
Acontianus, [...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...][...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil-
[i]an[us], C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, A. Egnatius Proculus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus
Aurelianus, [...]ri[(us?) ...]us legatus Numidiae, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
88 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo,
C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1119), Anonymus (no. 1159), C. Iulius Septimius
Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus, [...]unius [...]
[...]cus Car[...][...]ntil[i]an[us] = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil[i]an[us], C. Sabucius Maior
Caecilianus, L. Saevinius Proculus, [...]ri[(us?)...]us legatus Numidiae, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius
Sabinus.
89 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, [Iasdius], P. Plotius Romanus Cas-
sianus Neo, Anonymus (no. 1159), P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Iulius Septimius
Castinus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus, C. Sabucius
Maior Caecilianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
90 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, C. Pomponius Bassus
Terentianus, Anonymus (no. 1159), P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus signo Leontius, C. Sabucius Maior
Caecilianus, Tib. Iulius Frugi.
91 
Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus, Ti. Claudius Gordianus, L. Flavius Cleonaeus, A. Egnatius
Proculus.
92 
Ti. Claudius Gordianus, L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus, C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus,
A. Egnatius Proculus.
93 
Q. Petronius Melior, A. Egnatius Proculus, Tib. Iulius Frugi.
94 
[Iasdius].
95 
L. Iulius Iulianus – praefectus Miniciae, P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo – legatus Augusti censibus
accipiendis Hispaniae citerioris, Anonymus (no. 1119) – agens vice praefecti Urbi, L. Flavius Cleonaeus
– curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum Urbis, C. Iulius Septimius Castinus – dux vexillationum quattuor
legionum Germaniae, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius – praefectus Miniciae, M. Domitius Valerianus
– legatus Augusti ad corrigendum statum civitatum Pamphyliae, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelia­
nus – dux exercitus Moesiaci apud Byzantium et apud Lugudunum, [...]ri[(us?)...]us legatus Numidiae
– leg. Augus[ti ad cens]us accipi[endos per] provinc[...], C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus – praepositus
vexillariis Germanicae expeditionis.
78 | Chapter V

It should be stressed that as many as 18 senators held, after the praetorship,


both senatorial and imperial offices; the cursus of only eight featured imperial offices
exclusively. This is the ultimate fact to convince that holding senatorial offices did
not extend the path leading to the consulship (as shown by G. Alföldy for the Anto-
nine period), in just the same way as their absence did not accelerate advancement.
At the second stage of the career, senators from the group under discussion
(after the consulship) served the following functions: 8 legateships of imperial prov-
inces96, 3 proconsulships of Asia or Africa97, 5 town curatorships98, 2 curatorships
aedium sacrarum et operum publicorum99, 1 curatorship alvei Tiberis100, 1 curatorship
aquarum101, and several other functions102.
Two senators (L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, C. Octavius Appius
Suetrius Sabinus) after their first, suffect consulship and a long successful service
subsequently attained ordinary consulship for the second time. Both of them were
close associates of the Severans; Aurelianus was awarded the ordinary consulship at
the end of his life by Severus Alexander, whereas Sabinus was given this office also
at the end of his life by Gordianus III (for his merits in the war against Maximinus).
The circle of emperor’s associates included, apart from the aforementioned persons:
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, C. Iulius Septi­
mius Castinus, C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus. Of the aforementioned ones, two
– L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, and C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus
(if he was the same person as Bassus, the prefect) held the highest senatorial office –
praefectus Urbi.
Such a large number of imperial associates serving important public functions
undoubtedly points to the great significance of at least a part of the group with long
careers.

96 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, [Iasdius], C. Iulius Septimius Casti-
nus, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius, C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, L. Marius Maximus Per-
petuus Aurelianus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
97 
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, C. Octavius Appius
Suetrius Sabinus.
98 
T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus, Anonymus (no. 1159), L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus,
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus.
99 
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus, T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus.
100 
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus.
101 
C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus (aquarum et Miniciae).
102 
T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus – censor provinciae Galliae Lugdunensis, T. Clodius Aurelius Sa­
turninus – electus ad apellationes Caesarianas vice sacras iudicandas, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sa-
binus – iudex ex delegatione cognitionum Caesarianum, praefectus alimentorum, electus ad corrigendum
statum Italiae.
Career Models | 79

Religious offices were held by 11 (of 26 senators): L. Annius Italicus Honora-


tus – sodalis Hadrianalis, Ti. Claudius Gordianus – sacerdos, fetialis, Q. Petronius
Melior – sodalis Augustalis Claudialis, Anonymus (no. 1119) – XV vir sacris faciundis,
L. Flavius Cleonaeus – VII vir epulonum, C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius – sodalis
Titii, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus – sodalis Augustalis Claudialis, C. Caesonius
Macer Rufinianus – sodalis Augustalis, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus –
sacerdos fetialis, Tib. Iulius Frugi – frater Arvalis, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabi-
nus – pontifex et augur. The number of religious offices was relatively similar to that
of the standard group, however, the offices they held (the majority) were definitely
of a lower rank.
The group of persons with long careers was not homogeneous. It consisted of
officials, who had long tried to attain consulship (this office often marked the end
of their careers of the imperial scope), and close associates of the emperor, who suc-
cessfully continued their careers after being awarded consulship. Based on this fact,
a conclusion of the dual nature of this group may be drawn. We can get the impres-
sion of the similarity of the fate of senators with standard and long careers. However,
a close analysis shows that the latter ones differed from the former group due to
the fact that their starting position was less favorable and (in part) the offices they
held were less prestigious. However, due to their number, it can be concluded that
although senators with shortened or short careers were the representative elite of the
Empire, those with standard and long careers were its administrative elite.

B. Mixed careers (equestrian and senatorial offices)

The presented career type is quite peculiar, since it contains elements of the
equestrian and senatorial cursus. It was typical of persons advanced to the Senate dur-
ing their administrative careers. We come across this kind of a career in the case of
21 homines novi103: P? Aelius Coeranus, Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Clau-
dianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, C. Domitius
Antigonus, C. Iulius Avitus, M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus,
[L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus], M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus, Sex. Varius Marcellus,

103 
This group does not include such senators as, for instance: M. Aurelius Asclepiodotanus Asclepia­
des, M. Coculnius Quintilianus, T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus, Gessius Marcianus, L. Lucilius
Priscillianus, P. M(a)evius Saturninus Honoratianus, Marcius, Marius Secundus, [... Quinct?]ilius,
[...]s Verus, Anonymus legatus Aquitaniae (no. 1611), Anonymus proconsul Cypri (no. 1629), who
were promoted equites, but who failed to attain the consulship or, for instance, M. Asinius Rufinus
Valerius Verus Sabinianus, Betitius Pius Maximilianus, and Cornelius Repentinus, who attained the
consulship, but it cannot be determined whether adlectio found in their cursus was external.
80 | Chapter V

M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, M. Valerius Maximianus, C. Vettius Sabinia­


nus Iulius Hospes, P. Aelius Hilarianus, Aelius Romanus, P. Aelius Secundinus,
C. Iulius Quintilianus, Marius Valerianus, M? Cassius Apronianus104.
One of them came from Italy105, five were of African origin106, nine – came from
the East107, two – from the West108, the origin of the others is unknown. The major-
ity are representatives of the East and Africa, both cradles of the dynasty; in contrast
to the previous groups, the inhabitants of Italy are definitely a minority. The prevail-
ing model is hence: a provincial and homo novus, which was dominant already in the
group of long senatorial careers.
Having analyzed the cursus honorum at the equestrian stage, it can be con­cluded
that in the case of 15 members of the group we come across military functions: as
many as 11109 senators held offices that were a part of tres/quattuor militiae, and the
next three110 were awarded posts of a different type. As far as it is known, this group
of fifteen members should probably also be expanded by three111 persons serving
procurator functions. This is due to the fact that very many procurators started their
careers in the imperial administration with military service. In the case of these three
persons gaps in the equestrian cursus make this hypothesis probable.
Out of the whole group (21), only four had a strictly civilian cursus (P? Aelius
Coeranus, M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, Sex. Varius Marcellus112, and probably M. Ul-
pius Ofellius Theodorus), while all the others were consiliarii Augusti or imperial
secretaries, which explains their advancement. Bearing in mind this data, it can be

104 
The last six from this list are senators identified as homonymous equites – for principles of identi-
fication of homines novi, see Chapter III.
105 
Rutilius Pudens Crispinus.
106 
P. Aelius Secundinus, Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?)
Gallus, Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus.
107 
P? Aelius Coeranus, P. Aelius Hilarianus, M? Cassius Apronianus, C. Domitius Antigonus, C. Iu-
lius Avitus, M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus], M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus, Sex.
Varius Marcellus.
108 
M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, M. Valerius Maximianus.
109 
Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, Ti. Claudius
Suba­tianus Proculus, C. Domitius Antigonus, C. Iulius Avitus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, [L? S]ep-
t(imius) Maria[nus], M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, M. Valerius Maximianus, C. Vettius
Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
110 
P. Aelius Secundinus praefectus classis Miseni, C. Iulius Quintilianus praefectus vigilum, Marius
Valerianus centurio III cohortis praetoriae. It should be added that their careers are known to us frag-
mentarily, and the aforementioned offices are the only attested ones at the equestrian stage.
111 
P. Aelius Hilarianus procurator Augusti (Asturiae et Callaeciae?), procurator (vice proconsulis) Afri-
cae, Aelius Romanus procurator Galliae Lugdunensis, M? Cassius Apronianus procurator Augustorum
(Lyciae Pamphyliae?).
112 
He was, indeed, vice praefectus praetorio, but all the facts show that he was a civilian deputy of the
prefect, especially as he combined this office with the vice-prefecture of the City.
Career Models | 81

concluded that experienced officers were in the definite majority over civilian ad-
ministrators in this group, hence the provincial and homo novus model is enriched by
an additional element – military experience113.
The stage at which external adlectio was made largely depended on the age,
connections, and the course of public service. This can be quite easily illustrated.
Hence Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, having served just one military function, (prae-
fectus cohortis I Lusitanorum equitatae quingenariae) was promoted to the senatorial
order and commenced his pre-senatorial career starting with the vigintivirat (IIII vir
viarum curandarum). His success was probably due to the fact that as a young officer
he supported Caracalla during his conflict with his brother – Geta. This earned
him special favors, for instance, the office of praefectus Urbi feriarum Latinarum,
generally awarded to those born in the senatorial order. The next two: Ti. Clau­
dius Subatianus Proculus114 and C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes115, after proving
their value in the army (at several posts), started their senatorial careers with the
function of a quaestor. A special case is that of Tib. Claudius Candidus, the only one
who became adlectus twice – inter tribunicios item praetorios116. Being a talented and
a reliable officer, which is shown in his cursus honorum, he participated in military
campaigns organized by Septimius Severus on a number of occasions. Two others:
Ti. Claudius Claudianus, C. Iulius Avitus, are addressed in inscriptions as praetors,
thus in their case adlectio can be assumed at a lower stage of the career (inter tribuni-
cios/aedilicios?). The advancement of M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, a known lawyer, is
equally interesting. He was the only one of the four aforementioned imperial coun-
selors to become adlectus inter tribunicios/aedilicios?; the other three: P? Aelius Coe­
ranus, Sex. Varius Marcellus, M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus, who had better con-
nections, attained adlectio inter praetorios117. Such a distinction was also awarded to
five experienced military men: Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, C. Domitius Antigonus,

113 
I extend my thanks both to A.R. Birley for sending me the text of Viri Militares Moving  from
West to East in Two Crisis Years (AD 133 and 162), [in:] E. Lo Cascio, L. Tacoma (ed.), The Impact of
Mobility and Migration in the Roman Empire, Leiden–Boston 2017, pp. 55–85, in which the terms vir
militaris and homo militaris are discussed, and W. Eck, whose numerous papers, which were kindly
made available to me, made me aware of the complexity of this issue.
114 
After serving 4 military functions each: praefectus cohortis III Alpinorum, tribunus cohortis VI ci­
vium Romanorum, praefectus alae Constantium, subpraefectus classis praetoriae Misenatium.
115 
After serving 2 military functions each: praefectus cohortis II Comagenorum, tribunus militum le-
gionis I Italicae.
116 
After serving 3 military functions and civilian procuratorship: praefectus cohortis II civium Ro-
manorum, tribunus militum legionis II Augustae, praepositus copiarum expeditionis Germanicae secundae,
procurator XX hereditatum per Gallias Lugdunensem et Belgicam et utramquae Germaniam.
117 
In the case of Rufinus, the factor that could have determined his adlectio to a lower level was his
education – it is possible that the emperor came to the conclusion that, being an experienced lawyer,
he should hold the preatorian office.
82 | Chapter V

M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex, M. Valerius Maximianus and probably


[L? S]ep­t(imius) Maria[nus].
Only in the case of six senators (P. Aelius Hilarianus, Aelius Romanus, P. Aelius
Secundinus, C. Iulius Quintilianus, Marius Valerianus, M? Cassius Apronianus) we
are unable, due to the lack of source materials, to determine the level of adlecti they
were awarded.
Only two individuals out of the whole group (21) are known to us as candi-
dati Augusti: Ti. Claudius Claudianus (praetor candidatus) and Ti. Claudius Suba-
tianus Proculus (tribunus candidatus, praetor urbanus candidatus). This was due to
two reasons. First of all – adlectio was often inter praetorios (8 attested cases), which
automatically eliminated standard offices, to which emperor’s commendatio could be
granted, from their cursus. Secondly – the evidence of special imperial support in the
group under discussion was adlectio to the Senate itself. Another distinction – a rec-
ommendation to the office was awarded to particularly loyal individuals, which is
convincingly proven by two of the aforementioned candidati. Hence – Ti. Claudius
Subatianus Proculus was a commandor of the Misenum fleet, who took the side of
Severus during the march to Rome in 193, whereas Ti. Claudius Claudianus – a tal-
ented military man, who was immediately assigned to the military service again after
his adlectio and praetura – commanded legions V and XIII, which was followed by
praepositus vexillationum Daciscarum in the war against Albinus.
To sum up this discussion, there is a correlation between a career at the equestrian
stage and the next one – the senatorial stage. The higher the stage (due, for instance,
to age and experience) at which individuals were promoted, the shorter the first stage
of the senatorial career (in the case of adlectio inter praetorios – non existent). Hence it
was different among various members of the group and consequently shorter in cases
other than the career models under discussion (even the shortened ones). However, the
consequence of the duration of the previous cursus – the equestrian one, was that they
attained the relevant distinctions later than senators with strictly senatorial careers.
At the second stage of the career (after the praetorship), the number of attested
offices ranges from one to nine118. Such a range may be due to the large age difference
of the promoted individuals and the various course of their service – for instance,
Rufinus (1 office), a lawyer, whose entire career flourished in imperial chancellaries,

118 
More specifically: 1 office of the praetorian rank was held by: M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, and per-
haps [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus], 2: C. Iulius Avitus, Sex. Varius Marcellus, M. Macrinius Avitus Ca-
tonius Vindex, M? Cassius Apronianus, 3: Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, C. Domitius Antigonus,
4: Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, 6: Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, 7: M. Valerius
Maximianus, 8: Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, 9: C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes. We lack data on
the praetorian careers of such senators as: P? Aelius Coeranus, P. Aelius Hilarianus, Aelius Romanus,
P. Aelius Secundinus, C. Iulius Quintilianus, Marius Valerianus, M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus.
Career Models | 83

was promoted to the senatorial order (adlectio inter tribunicios/aedilicios) quite late.
Hence it comes as no surprise that he was awarded governorship of one small province
(Noricum), which was followed by consulship. It may be concluded that the emperor,
by elevating the rank of his counselor, wished to thank him for his loyal service.
The case of Hospes (9 offices) is radically different – he was advanced to the
senatorial order (translatus in amplissimum ordinem) at an early age, after two mili­
tiae. He served standard magistratures: quaestorship, tribunate of the plebs, praetor-
ship. Having served the praetorship, he became: legate of Asia, legate of the Cyclades,
iuridicus of three districts (Etruria, Aemilia, Liguria), rationibus putandis legate in
Gauls, prefect of Saturn’s treasury, legate of Pannonia Inferior, but also a commander
of the following legions, in succession: legio III Italica, XIV Gemina, Illyrian vexil-
lationibus; he was also awarded for his participation in the Germanic and Sarmatian
expedition. His career clearly shows that we are dealing with a talented administra-
tor and an experienced commander suited for holding responsible posts in difficult
times. A comparison of the careers of Rufinus and Hospes is convincing enough to
show that the length of the praetorian stage was also determined (apart from the age
and experience) by connections with the emperor. This general conclusion can also
be applied to the entire group, bearing in mind that careers of experienced military
men were generally longer.
Analyses prove that the most numerous careers in the whole group were those
with 2–4 offices of the praetorian rank, followed by 5 and more, and the least rep-
resented were careers with one office. The group with 2–4 offices included, for in-
stance: emperor’s brother-in-law (C. Iulius Avitus), the husband of the empress’ niece
(Sex. Varius Marcellus), and a relative of the praetorian prefect (M. Macrinius Avi-
tus Catonius Vindex). The group with 5 and more offices included, without excep-
tion, experienced military men (Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus,
M. Valerius Maximianus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius
Hospes), emperor’s trusted men, although not connected by marriage.
The number of praetorian rank offices makes careers of senators from this
group similar to the previously presented career models. Without knowing their
equestrian origin, these homines novi could be erroneously classified, thus distorting
the real picture of the Senate; on many occasions, it would also be hard to explain
their senatorial cursus honorum.
The offices held at the second stage of the career (after the praetorship) were di-
versified: ten were commanders of legions (or army groups)119, including five several

119 
Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, Ti. Claudius Suba­
tianus Proculus, C. Domitius Antigonus, C. Iulius Avitus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, Sex. Varius
Marcellus, M. Valerius Maximianus, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
84 | Chapter V

times120, ten – legates or province proconsuls121, six – town curators122, three – pro-
consular legates123, one – curator of road124, two – iuridici125, one – praefectus aerarii
militaris126, one – praefectus aerarii Saturni127. The comparison shows the universal
nature of the members of the group; a large number of the functions of military
command and province governorships also emphasizes their significance for the effi-
cient functioning of the state. One of the distinguishing features of the model under
discussion is the fact that none of its representatives attained the ordinary consulship.
At the third stage of the career (after the consulship), representatives of this
group were also diversified and important for the administration of the state. These
include: twelve legates and province proconsuls128, one emperor’s comes129, one dux
exercitus130, one curator operum publicorum131, two curatores aedium sacrarum132 , one
praefectus alimentorum133, two XX viri rei publicae curandae134 (during the war against
Maximinus Thrax), one town curator135.
It should be added that in the group of province governors with the mixed career
model (both at the second and the third stage) we come across persons who, apart

120 
M. Valerius Maximianus – 7 such functions, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes – 3, Claudius
(Catulus?) Gallus – 3, Ti. Claudius Claudianus – 2, C. Domitius Antigonus – 2.
121 
Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, C. Iulius Avitus, M.Cn. Licinius
Rufinus, [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus], Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, Sex. Varius Marcellus, M. Macri­
nius Avitus Catonius Vindex, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, M? Cassius Apronianus. From this
group, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, M? Cassius Apronianus were also senatorial proconsuls.
122 
Tib. Claudius Candidus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, C. Domi-
tius Antigonus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex.
123 
Tib. Claudius Candidus, [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus], C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
124 
Rutilius Pudens Crispinus.
125 
Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
126 
Sex. Varius Marcellus.
127 
C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
128 
Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus, C. Domitius An-
tigonus, C. Iulius Avitus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus, M. Macrinius
Avitus Catonius Vindex, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, C. Iulius Quintilianus, Marius Valeria­
nus, M? Cassius Apronianus. Out of this group, C. Iulius Avitus was also the proconsul of Asia, and
C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes was the proconsul of Africa.
129 
C. Iulius Avitus (twice).
130 
Tib. Claudius Candidus.
131 
Ti. Claudius Claudianus.
132 
C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes, Aelius Romanus.
133 
C. Iulius Avitus (twice).
134 
M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus.
135 
Rutilius Pudens Crispinus.
Career Models | 85

from imperial legateships, also served senatorial proconsulships136. A close analysis of


the cursus provides evidence that their careers were not different in terms of the rate
of advancement and the number of offices from those only in the em­peror’s service.
Given this situation, classifying careers into imperial-senatorial (which is frequently
found in the literature of the subject) is ungrounded in this case as well. Interestingly,
none of the analyzed careers feature province governors, who would only hold sena-
torial offices (extending the cursus as stated by researchers), and we still come across
persons with long careers.
None of the members of the group (21) attained the second consulship, and the
praefectura Urbi, although there were many associates of the emperor among them
(Tib. Claudius Candidus, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus,
Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus, T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus, M.Cn. Lici­nius
Rufinus), their kinsmen (C. Iulius Avitus, the husband of Iulia Maesa and Sex. Var­
ius Marcellus, the husband of Iulia Soaemias), and the favorites (P? Aelius Coeranus,
C. Domitius Antigonus). It seems that humble origin and equestrian beginnings of
the career made it impossible for them to reach the highest senatorial distinctions,
which were available even to senators with long careers, but strictly senatorial ones.
Religious functions were featured in the cursus of 10 senators (out of 21): P. Aelius
Secundinus – VII vir epulonum, frater Arvalis, Tib. Claudius Candidus – XV vir sac-
ris faciundis, Ti. Claudius Claudianus – VII vir epulonum, sacerdos Laurentium Lavi­
natium, C. Iulius Avitus – [sodalis Titialis?], M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus – sodalis Titii,
Rutilius Pudens Crispinus – sodalis Marcianus Antoninianus Commodianus Helvianus
Severianus Antoninianus, M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex – augur, M. Valerius
Maximianus – pontifex Poetovionensium, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes – so-
dalis Titii and perhaps [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus] – q[uindecemvir sacris faciundis?],
although (as in the model of long senatorial careers) these were not always offices in
the most prestigious colleges. We can get the impression that religious functions were
of secondary significance, as opposed to the primary functions – served in the state
administration.
The analysis of careers shows that senators from this group were closer in terms
of the course of advancement to senators from the group of standard and long careers
rather than shortened or short ones.
This is understandable given the fact that if a certain person was promoted to
the Senate and supported by the emperor, the choice was not accidental, but the per-
son was needed by the state in different areas. Consequently, these people (apart from
senators with standard and long careers) constituted the administrative elite of the

136 
At the second stage: Rutilius Pudens Crispinus, M? Cassius Apronianus, at the third stage: C. Iu-
lius Avitus, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes.
86 | Chapter V

Empire, especially that consulship was the crowning and marked the end of careers
for many senators with short and standard careers.

C. Atypical careers (senatorial advancement at the consular level)

This type of a career has been attested in the case of 15 persons137, whose cursus
honorum features ornamenta consularia or adlectio inter consulares. These were special
distinctions, just as the careers of those who were awarded them. In both cases, they
initiated the senatorial career starting with the consular stage.

1. Ornamenta consularia

Ornamenta consularia were received by: (M. Aurelius?) L. Domitius Honoratus,


C. Fulvius Plautianus, Q. Maecius Laetus, T. Messius Extricatus, M. Oclatinius
Adventus, M. Opellius Macrinus (future emperor Macrinus), P. Valerius Comazon,
[...]atus, and probably – M. Aedinius Iulianus, Flavius Maternianus, [Iuli?]us Pauli-
nus. These were equites, praetorian prefects (or vice-prefects138) exclusively. It should
be emphasized that consular distinctions were generally awarded to this very cate-
gory of people. Historiographic sources confirm the custom of awarding praetorian
prefects with the senatorial status, which is also evidenced by epigraphic sources
addressing the aforementioned prefects as clarissimus vir139. Hence this office, which
crowned the equestrian career, provided an opportunity for senatorial advancement.
Following the ornamenta, five of the aforementioned individuals140 were awar­
ded ordinary consulship, following the ornamenta, counted as the second one, which
proves that (in the context of the entire cursus) ornamenta were formally considered
as equivalent to the suffect consulship.
What is interesting is the fact that a change of the status to the senatorial one
did not entail taking away praetorian prefectures. A noteworthy case is the casus of

137 
M. Aedinius Iulianus, Aelius Antipater, Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus, Claudius Aelius Pollio,
(M. Aurelius?) L. Domitius Honoratus, Flavius Maternianus, C. Fulvius Plautianus, Q. Maecius Lae­
tus, Marcius Claudius Agrippa, T. Messius Extricatus, M. Oclatinius Adventus, M. Opellius Macri-
nus, [Iuli?]us Paulinus, P. Valerius Comazon, [...]atus.
138 
These were: Flavius Maternianus and [Iuli?]us Paulinus. Both served (at the same time?) the func-
tions of vice praefectus praetorio and vice praefectus Urbi, which is a premise for the recognition that,
due to their exceptional position, they were also honored with ornamenta consularia.
139 
This was mentioned in Chapter IV.
140 
C. Fulvius Plautianus, Q. Maecius Laetus, T. Messius Extricatus, M. Oclatinius Adventus, P. Vale-
rius Comazon.
Career Models | 87

Fulvius Plautianus, who commanded a guard not only after being awarded orna-
menta, but also during and after the completion of the ordinary consulship in 203.
Hence we can see the evolution of the office of the praetorian prefect – a question
arises as to what extent ornamenta of prefects were a way to honor trusted associates
(without them blocking consular posts), and to what extent this was a method to
open greater opportunities for them (e.g., taking action in the Senate).
We know that two of the entire group came from Africa141, two from the
East , one from Italy143, additionally one (T. Messius Extricatus) originated from
142

Italy or from the West, thus he was a representative of the Latin-speaking part of the
Empire. We can see that representatives of native regions of the Severans prevail over
representatives of other regions of the Empire.
The beginnings of careers of future prefects-senators are poorly known. Most
of them probably had military experience144, and two of them (P. Valerius Comazon,
M. Oclatinius Adventus) apparently started their careers as common soldiers. Only
M. Opellius Macrinus, advocatus and procurator for many terms of office had
a strictly civilian course of the career, pursuing (as, for instance, Aemilius Papinianus
previously) the prefect-lawyer model, which was supplementary to the prefect-mili-
tary man model.
Five of them were (equestrian) governors of provinces before they assumed the
prefecture. M. Aedinius Iulianus, was legatus (vice praesidis) Galliae Lugdunensis,
praefectus Aegypti; (M. Aurelius?) L. Domitius Honoratus procurator Arabiae, prae-
fectus Aegypti; Q. Maecius Laetus procurator Augusti provinciae Arabiae, praefectus
Aegypti; M. Oclatinius Adventus procurator in Britannia; [Iuli?]us Paulinus corrector
Achaiae.
The significance of four of them (C. Fulvius Plautianus, M. Oclatinius Ad-
ventus, M. Opellius Macrinus, [...]atus) is additionally emphasized by inscriptions
addressing them as: comes, amicus, consiliarius.
It should be noted that several prefects played a key role during the civil wars –
C. Fulvius Plautianus helped Septimius Severus by capturing Niger’s sons; M. Ocla­
tinius Adventus supported Macrinus, while P. Valerius Comazon provided his sup-
port to Elagabalus, and then Severus Alexander.

141 
C. Fulvius Plautianus, M. Opellius Macrinus.
142 
P. Valerius Comazon, [Iuli?]us Paulinus.
143 
M. Oclatinius Adventus.
144 
Prior to commanding the guard, C. Fulvius Plautianus was praefectus vigilum. If, following
G. Alföldy, the inscription CIL VI 1640 = 31855 = 41185 is attributed to Q. Maecius Laetus, then
he would also have military experience, prior to the prefecture, involving: [praepositus vexillation?]um
coh(ortium) praet(oriarum).
88 | Chapter V

This presentation demonstrates a group of officials with rich administrative


experience (both military and civilian), who supported consecutive emperor. Hence
it is not surprising that at the third stage of the career (consular) five of the afore-
mentioned individuals became consuls for the second time145 – ordinary, and two
(M. Oclatinius Adventus and P. Valerius Comazon) additionally praefecti Urbi.
However, none of them were awarded legateship of a consular province, which im-
plies that rulers were unwilling to dispose of reliable associates and awarded them
offices, which could be held without leaving Rome146.
Based on the collected data, the fact of holding religious offices by the follow-
ing persons is confirmed: C. Fulvius Plautianus (pontifex, XV vir sacris faciundis),
Q. Maecius Laetus (XV vir sacris faciundis), [...]atus (pontifex minor). As in the case
of the previous group (mixed careers), it can be concluded that religious functions
were no match in terms of their significance to administrative functions served for
the emperor.

2. Adlectio inter consulares

During the Severan period, adlectio inter consulares was applied in the case of the
following persons147: Aelius Antipater (secretary and consiliarius of Septimius Seve­
rus, the tutor of his sons), Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus (praefectus legionis II Parthicae,
Macrinus’ trusted man), Marcius Claudius Agrippa (Caracalla’s secretary, praefectus
classis, Macrinus’ supporter), Claudius Aelius Pollio (a centurion, who captured Di-

145 
C. Fulvius Plautianus (cos. II ord. a. 203), Q. Maecius Laetus (cos. II ord. a. 215), T. Messius
Extricatus (cos. II ord. a. 217), M. Oclatinius Adventus (cos. II ord. a. 218), P. Valerius Comazon
(cos. II ord. a. 220). Macrinus, who was awarded consulship for the second time as the emperor, is not
included in this narrow group.
146 
A case of interest is that of [...]atus, who is the object of a broad discussion. According to the in-
scription CIL VI 41191 = 3839b = 3177b + 3861 = 31875, he was awarded ornamenta consularia and
the functions of praefectus annonae and praefectus praetorio. It is possible that both functions were
served together during the first, difficult months following Elagabalus’ arrival to Rome, and the orna-
menta were to boost his prestige in the Senate and among the people of Rome.
147 
It is possible that [L. Ant...?], senator – homo novus, adlectus should be added to this group by
virtue of his unknown merits for the emperor with his nomen removed. He was promoted from the
equestrian class early enough (adl[ectus inter quaestorios]) to go through the standard senatorial cursus:
aedilis plebis, [pr(aetor) ca]n(didatus?) Augusti, praefectus Min[iciae], [iuridicus Flaminiae] et Umbriae.
Owing to the office of the plebeian aedile, we can date back his cursus more precisely to the period
of the reign of the Severans-Maximinus Thrax. If he was adlectus inter consulares under the Severans,
then he would be the only senator to be awarded such a distinction. In my opinion, the emperor that
promoted him was Maximinus Thrax, which is evidenced by the meticulous removal of the imperial
nomen (damnatio memoriae). The reign of Macrinus is a possible alternative, but then this senator
would not survive the period of the rule of Elagabalus, and a senatorial office for hisson would also be
out of the question (though his son became X vir stlitibus iudicandis).
Career Models | 89

adumenianus, Macrinus’ son). Advancements were probably motivated by the desire


to grant them governorships of consular provinces. This state of affairs is described
by Cassius Dio (78, 13, 1–4) as reprehensible, when commenting the beginnings of
the rule of Macrinus (and cases of Agrippa and Triccianus). The period of civil wars
made such appointments a necessity, though it was not welcome by the senatorial
aristocracy. The traditional patterns of cursus honorum, with few exceptions, were
still in force. Exceptions of this type also included adlectio of a meritorious educator
Antipater by Septimius Severus, or of an efficient centurion Pollio by Elagabalus.
The low origin and humble beginnings of the careers of the distinguished per-
sons were also met by senators with reserve. We know that Aelius (Decius?) Tric-
cianus, and Claudius Aelius Pollio, started their careers as common soldiers, and
Marcius Claudius Agrippa was apparently a slave. On the other hand, Aelius Anti-
pater, a sophist, whose entire career was strictly civilian, came from municipal circles.
Our data with respect to the territorial origin of the adlecti is incomplete.
We know that one came from the East148, and one from the West149.
All adlecti inter consulares were awarded the governorship of imperial provinces
at the third stage of the career. Aelius Antipater – of Pontus-Bithynia, Aelius (Decius?)
Triccianus – of Pannonia Inferior, Marcius Claudius Agrippa – of Pannonia Inferior,
of III Daciae, of Moesia Inferior, Claudius Aelius Pollio – of Pontus-Bithynia, of
Germania Superior. None of them feature attested religious functions; their careers
are completed with governorships of consular provinces.
To sum up, the group with atypical careers is diversified and consists of eques-
trian prefects (and few vice-prefects) of praetorians distinguished with ornamenta
consularia and persons of more humble provenance promoted through adlectio inter
consulares. All of these homines novi, by virtue of the functions they served and their
merits, were closely related to emperor and their families; in their case decisions were
of the most personal nature.
The exceptional character of advancement puts all of the aforementioned per-
sons in one group, although their further fate is split once again into two career
paths: prefects remain with the emperor, adlecti go to provinces to watch over their
ruler’s affairs. Undoubtedly, the group under discussion had a significant impact on
the political life, incommensurate with their small number. Given the context of the
functions they served (and significant merits), they may be considered as some of the
most important persons in the administration of the Empire.

148 
Aelius Antipater.
149 
Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus.
90 | Chapter V

Conclusions

The suggested classification of careers, based on the criterion of social origin and the
course of the stages of the career (with special focus on the second stage – the prae-
torian stage) provides for the complete evaluation of the advancement principles that
were in force during the Severan period. The analysis of senatorial biographic entries
shows that in the case of only 129 persons, the second stage of the career, completed
with consulship, is known to us. Objectively, this number is not high (out of all
1,682 senators), although, in my opinion, it is quite satisfactory as for the Antiquity.

Table 1. Numerical list of complete senatorial careers, known to us,


from the Severan period

Career type Number of persons


Shortened (without offices of the praetorian rank) 15
Short (one office of the praetorian rank) 8
Standard (2–4 offices of the praetorian rank) 44
Long (5 and more offices of the praetorian rank) 26
Mixed (equestrian and senatorial offices) 21
Atypical (ornamenta consularia or adlectio inter consulares) 15
Total 129

The presented data illustrates that careers with 2–4, followed by 5 and more
offices of the praetorian rank, were the most numerous, and the least numerous ones
were those with one office of this type. This proves that the model of active partici-
pation in the administration of the state prevailed, and the majority of senators were
well prepared for this task by virtue of their rich cursus honorum. The social status of
a given person was of significance. The analysis of extreme groups of senators in this
respect, namely of patricians and homines novi, yields the following results:

Table 2. Patricians and homines novi in the career models under analysis

Career Patricii Homines novi


Shortened – 15 11 (73.3%) –
Short – 8 4 (50.0%) –
Standard – 44 9 (20.4%) 11 (25.0%)
Long – 26 – 21 (80.7%)
Mixed – 21 – 21 (100.0%)
Atypical – 15 – 15 (100.0%)
Career Models | 91

As can be seen, the breakthrough point is the category of standard careers – it


is in this category where we find the last patricians and the first homines novi, whose
number in the subsequent models is on the rise, to reach the level of 100% in the
last two categories (mixed and atypical). Non-patrician descendants of gentes sena-
toriae come somewhere in between these extremes. We find them in the group of
shortened (3), short (2), standard (7), and long careers (5). These findings provide
for the evaluation of the careers of other, less precisely identified senators. Thus we
can determine the social origin of a senator based exclusively on his career and vice
versa – only on the basis of the social affiliation we can hypothetically determine the
duration of his cursus.
Careers with a smaller number of offices of the praetorian rank particularly
feature many indicators of prestige (patricians were the leading group in this respect).
This fact is well illustrated by the following list.

Table 3. List of selected indicators of prestige in senatorial careers

Career Candidati Augusti Consules ordinarii Religious offices


Shortened – 15 10 (66.6%) 4 (26.6%) 13 (86.6%)
Short – 8 4 (50.0%) 1 (12.5%) 7 (87.5%)
Standard – 44 19 (43.2%) 8 (18.2%) 25 (56.8%)
Long – 26 6 (23.1%) 2 (7.7%) 11 (42.3%)
Mixed – 21 2 (9.5%) – 10 (47.6%)
Atypical – 15 – 5 (33.3%) 3 (20.0%)

Persons from old gentes could count on special treatment and a greater number
of distinctions than homines novi. A certain regularity can be observed – the shorter
the administrative career, the higher the number of religious offices in the cursus.
Further calculations show to what extent various regions of the Empire were
represented in particular career models.

Table 4. Territorial origin in the career models under analysis

Career Italy Africa East West Undetermined origin


Shortened – 15 8 (53.3%) 4 (26.7%) 1 (6.7%) – 2 (13.3%)
Short – 8 4 (50.0%) 1 (12.5%) – – 3 (37.5%)
Standard – 44 17 (38.6%) 6 (13.6%) 8 (18.2%) 4 (9.1%) 9 (20.5%)
Long – 26 11 (42.3%) 8 (30.8%) 5 (19.2%) – 2 (7.7%)
Mixed – 21 1 (4.8%) 5 (23.8%) 9 (42.9%) 2 (9.5%) 4 (19.0%)
Atypical – 15 1 (6.7%) 2 (13.3%) 3 (20.0%) 1 (6.7%) 8 (53.3%)
92 | Chapter V

A major group among those with shortened and short careers were inhabitants
of Italy, while representatives of provinces prevailed in the rest; representation of
Africa and the East increased gradually. The low number of senators from the West
(in all career models) is the result of repressions in the aftermath of the battle of Lug-
dunum and is evidence of the personal weakness of western provinces, which failed
to regain their former position even under Elagabalus and Severus Alexander. Hence
the ruling elite of the Empire was more provincial than Italian.
Finally, it can be concluded that the majority of senators with shortened and
short careers represented the following type: an inhabitant of Italy and a patrician,
while the others (careers: standard, long, mixed, atypical) represented the following
type: a provincial and homo novus.
Chapter VI

Consuls and Consulars

Despite many years of research on the elites of the senatorial order, the following
questions still remain valid:
1. How many senators were consuls (ordinarii and suffecti) during the Severan
period?
2. What was the quantitative and percentage share of consulars in the Senate
at that time?
3. What was the significance of the office of a consul?
4. What was the social origin of consuls and consulars?
5. Did the provincialization of the Senate, which could be observed, affect the
structure of appointments to the office of a consul? What was the share of
the representatives of Italy and individual provinces in appointments to the
consulship?
6. What was the procedure of appointments to the ordinary consulship? Were
the selection criteria for consules ordinarii and consules suffecti different from
each other?
If we make a simple assumption that pairs of consuls changed every two
months1, we arrive at the number of 12 consulships per year (2 consules ordinarii +
10 consules suffecti). Hence during the period of 42 years of the Severan rule, the con-
sular lists should feature 504 nomina (including 84 ordinary and 420 suffect ones)2.

1 
Cassius Dio, 43, 46, 5, wrote that “at present” nobody holds the office of a consul for longer than
two months.
2 
This listing does not take into account both ordinary and suffect consulships of the year 193, which
preceded the occupation of Rome by Septimius Severus. I also omit consuls from a part of the year
235, who served their term of office after the death of Severus Alexander, as it is unknown whether
they were nominees.
94 | Chapter VI

If this number is reduced by the consulships of emperors and their successors3, and
consuls appointed for the second term4, thus avoiding repetitions, we get the number
of 4795 – this is the number of senators that should theoretically be found in fasti
consulares for the years 193–235.
When this result is compared with approx. 540–550 nomina, as indicated by
P.M.M. Leunissen6 for the same group, we find a vast discrepancy. The Dutch re-
searcher concluded that during the civil wars appointments of new consuls could
have been more frequent, to fill the vacancies left by victims of the wars and per-
secution. Theoretically, this line of reasoning in not unsubstantiated, although it is
difficult to measure it reliably (lack of sources) – it should be borne in mind that
there were years when the number of consuls was generally smaller, for instance in
the year 218 (during the civil war) the consuls included Macrinus and Oclatinius
Adventus, the prefect of the City, who was replaced after the death of Macrinus
by a new emperor, Elagabalus, who served this function (together with Adventus)
until the end of the year. It is possible that there were also no regular replacements
of consuls in other years (for a variety of reasons). It should be added that, while
conducting my research, I have not come across a situation that would be similar to
that of the time of Commodus. It was during his reign that as many as 25 consuls
served their office in just one year (which is attributed to Cleander). Theoretically,

3 
16 in total: 194 – Septimius Severus and Clodius Albinus, 202 – Septimius Severus and Caracalla,
205 – Caracalla and Geta, 208 – Caracalla and Geta, 213 – Caracalla, 218 – Macrinus, after his death
(replacing him as ordinarius!) Elagabalus, 219 – Elagabalus, 220 – Elagabalus, 222 – Elagabalus and
Severus Alexander, 226 – Severus Alexander, 229 – Severus Alexander.
4 
Consuls appointed for the second term: suffecti, and subsequently ordinarii, were, in the chrono-
logical order (according to the date of the Ordinariate), the following: 196 – C. Domitius Dexter,
199 – P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), 204 – L. Fabius Cilo, 212 – C. Iulius Asper, 213 – D. Caelius
(Calvinus) Balbinus, 216 – P. Catius Sabinus, 219 – Q. Tineius Sacerdos, 223 – L. Marius Maxi-
mus Perpetuus Aurelianus, 224 – Ap. Claudius Iulianus, 225 – T. Manilius Fuscus, 228 – Q. Aia­
cius Modestus Crescentianus, 229 – L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio, 234 – M. Clodius Pupienus Maxi-
mus. Of the group of thirteen persons, four: C. Domitius Dexter, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376),
C. Iulius Asper, Q. Tineius Sacerdos served their first consulship under the Antonines, hence only
nine of them served consulship for the first and second time under the Severans, and this number
should be deducted from the total number of consulships of the Severan period. The listing includes
persons featured in inscriptions as cos. II, whose first consulship was in fact replaced by ornamenta
consularia: C. Fulvius Plautianus (cos. II ord. a. 203), Q. Maecius Laetus (cos. II ord. a. 215), T. Mes-
sius Extricatus (cos. II ord. a. 217), M. Oclatinius Adventus (cos. II ord. a. 218), P. Valerius Comazon
(cos. II ord. a. 220). Ornamenta (and also adlectio inter consulares), in contrast to the consulship, did
not result in holding the office in a specific period of time. This listing does not take into account
M. Opellius Macrinus, who became an ordinary consul for the second term as an emperor.
5 
For the sake of full clarity, let me add that the number of 479 was obtained by deducting 16 (impe-
rial consulships) and 9 (for the second term) from the number of 504.
6 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander
(180–235 n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite im römischen Kaiserreich,
Amsterdam 1989, p. 11.
Consuls and Consulars | 95

Severus, who was one of the aforementioned nominees himself, could have followed
in Commodus’ footsteps and used this convenient precedent to increase the number
of consulships. However, this could have caused a negative reaction of the public
opinion, which was undesirable in view of the efforts to stabilize the new dynasty.
Given this situation, the number of 479 I suggest should be regarded as more
probable and it should be assumed as the upper limit of consuls appointed by the Sev-
erans (bearing in mind that this number could be lower rather than higher). Hence
these persons, in the group of senators from the entire period (approx. 1,800–2,000),
constituted approx. 25% – in contrast to the findings presented by G. Alföldy not
every other7, but approximately every fourth senator, stood a chance of becoming
a consul. This changes the view, widely held in science, on the significance of consul-
ship and the composition of the elite of the Roman Empire. It should be concluded
that the highest office of Republican provenance was still difficult to attain and only
some of the senators could count on consular advancement. Consequently, the group
of consulars in the Senate was less numerous than it had previously been assumed.
The rank of consulship was not significantly diminished by ornamenta consu-
laria and adlectiones inter consulares, as these were few and exceptional8.
Regardless of the method of calculations, it should be emphasized that Leunis-
sen knew the nomina of approx. 283 consuls of the Severan period (247 excluding
uncertain ones), that is, in his opinion, 50% of all consuls holding their tenure (45%
excluding uncertain ones)9.
To approach this issue in a reliable manner, I selected, from my album senato-
rum, the following persons addressed in various sources: consul, consularis or consul
designatus10. The list developed in this manner contains as many as 63511 items with

7 
At this point, the basis for similar findings should be explained. Annually, quaestorship was joined
by 20 young senators, while 10 of those acknowledged as meritorious became consuls (excluding
2 ordinary consulships generally assumed by emperors and consuls appointed for the second term of
office). This gives an impression that the proportions, indeed, are at the level of 2 : 1, however, taking
into account, for instance, numerous adlectiones and the fact that the maximum number of consules
suffecti was not always appointed, this explains the definitely lower number of consulars in the Senate
than assumed by G. Alföldy.
8 
See Chapter V, subchapter Atypical careers.
9 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 11.
10 
For the title of consul designatus see: D. Okoń, Consul designatus. Desygnacja na konsulat w okresie
pryncypatu (30 r. p.n.e.–235 r. n.e.), Szczecin 2008. This publication includes, for instance, a list of
persons, attested in the sources, holding this title in the period of the Early Empire.
11 
Including 493 senators dated certainly for the Severan period and 142 senators dated with some
probability.
96 | Chapter VI

complete, partial, or missing nomen (or anonymous senators12) – which exceeds the
number of consular posts during the Severan period (479). This is obviously due to
the specific character of the sources available to us. On the basis of these sources,
the majority of senators known to us can be dated only approximately to the second
half of the 2nd century – the first half of the 3rd century13. Hence this list includes
both consulars of the Antonine period and nominees of the new dynasty, and also
those senators, who were to become consuls in the post-Severan period. Due to this
fact, the picture of the senatorial order of the years 193–235 is not very clear and
out of focus – we can only be certain of the fact that the group of 635 persons in-
cluded those serving 479 consulships during the Severan period. In my opinion, this
number should not be limited only to Severan nominees dated with certainty, as
this, apart from significantly reducing the group under investigation, would increase
the likelihood of drawing random conclusions. Even if the group of senators under
investigation includes those, whose consulship was not served during the Severan pe-
riod, they remain to be treated as senators of this period, and the tendencies evident
among them can be interpreted in a broader temporal perspective14.
It should be borne in mind that the process of the replacement of elderly, dying
out consulars by young ones was dynamic, subject mainly to strictly biological con-
ditions. Assuming that the changes proceeded smoothly, the percentage of consulars
in the Senate should be stabilized at the level of approx. 25%.
An issue of interest is the social and territorial origin of viri consulares that are
known to us (635). Of this group, only 211 (33.2%) originated from old aristocratic
families, which means that (given a broad time perspective) every third consul/con-
sular on average belonged to the gentes already present in the Senate15. It is difficult

12 
This list includes 62 anonymous senators (38 out of this group are dated to the Severan period with
certainty and 24 probably lived in this period), who could have been identical with one of the consuls
with traceable nomenclature, but they remain unknown from the cursus.
13 
The excluded group are, for instance, ordinary and suffect consuls, who served the office of prov-
ince governors of the consular rank, with their own mints (e.g., Moesia), and who were document-
ed with a number of monetary issues. For lists of these governors, see B.E. Thomasson, Laterculi
praesidum, vol. I–III, Lund–Arlöv 1972–1990 and Laterculi praesidum, vol. I (ex parte retractatum),
Göteborg 2009.
14 
For Readers who wish to explore the topic under discussion more, see my previous books, where
I provide an in-depth presentation of the policy of the Severans with regard to the appointment of
consuls. See: D. Okoń, Septimius Severus et senatores. Septimius Severus’ Personal Policy Towards Sena-
tors in the Light of Prosopographic Research (193–211 A.D.), Szczecin 2012 (reprint 2013); eadem, Im-
peratores Severi et senatores. The History of the Imperial Personnel Policy, Szczecin 2013 (reprint 2014);
publications available at: http://cyfrowa.bg.szczecin.pl/?v=b&id=49 and http://cyfrowa.bg.szczecin.
pl/?v=b&id=50.
15 
It was already K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2, Cambridge
1983, p. 134 (table) who drew our attention to the problem of the replacement of senators serving the
office of a consul by their sons. In addition, he determined the level of this phenomenon in the case
Consuls and Consulars | 97

to determine the group to which the other consulars belonged. Those, whose cursus
known from inscriptions commenced with equestrian offices, were certainly homines
novi. We know of only 3716 such cases, thus the origin of the majority of consuls
known to us are of undetermined origin.
Obviously, a conclusion that comes to mind in case of careers starting with the
praetura is that we are dealing with adlectus from the equestrian class (concealing
their humble beginnings), although this must be treated with caution due to the lack
of sources.
What remains to be discussed is the issue of the representativeness of the pre-
served source material. It is hard to resist the impression that wealthy aristocratic
families, holding their seats in the Senate for generations, had every opportunity
for their consulships to be commemorated more frequently than those of homines
novi. On a number of occasions, a single inscription of a representative of such a gens
makes it possible to reconstruct the entire senatorial family line, whereas inscriptions
of homines novi do not provide such an option. Even though an ambitious homo
novus, having attained the consulship, could brag about it (vide casus of Q. Anicius
Faustus, whose designation to the consulship is attested by a few dozen inscriptions),
his senatorial ancestors are nowhere to be found in these inscriptions.
The territorial origin of consulars identified in this respect (369) is as follows:
Italy – 147 (39.8%), the East – 114 (30.9%), Africa – 73 (19.8%), the West – 35
(9.5%). These results differ from the calculations provided by Leunissen for the

of ordinary consuls (so-called Family Status Maintenance) to be 24% (p. 140); in view of my research
this percentage was higher.
16 
These were: P? Aelius Coeranus cos. suff. ca a. 212, Tib. Claudius Candidus cos. suff. post a. 195,
Ti. Claudius Claudianus cos. suff. ca a. 199, Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus cos. suff. ca a. 203–204,
Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus cos. suff. a. 210 aut 211, C. Domitius Antigonus, cos. suff. ca a. 225,
C. Iulius Avitus cos. suff. sub Septimio Severo, M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus cos. suff. ca a. 220–230, Marius
Valerianus cos. suff. sub Severis, Rutilius Pudens Crispinus cos. suff. ca a. 235–238, [L? S]ept(imius)
Maria[nus] cos. suff. saec. II exeunte aut saec. III ineunte, Sex. Varius Marcellus cos. suff. ca a. 204–
212, M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus cos. suff. ante a. 218–222, M? Cassius Apronianus cos. suff.
ca a. 184–188; M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex cos. suff. ca a. 175, M. Valerius Maximianus
cos. suff. ca a. 185, C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes cos. suff. ca a. 175–176. This number (37)
also comprises several senators, whose equestrian beginnings of the career are not confirmed expressis
verbis, but they are homonymous with equites that are known to us. Hence a conclusion is drawn
that this could have been the same person: P. Aelius Hilarianus cos. suff. aetate Septimii Severi aut
Antonini (Caracallae), Aelius Romanus cos. suff. ante a. 210, P. Aelius Secundinus cos. suff. ca a. 210,
C. Iulius Quintilianus cos. suff. ante a. 215 and persons with atypical careers: (M. Aurelius?) L. Domi-
tius Honora­tus, C. Fulvius Plautianus, Q. Maecius Laetus, T. Messius Extricatus, M. Ocla­tinius
Adventus, M. Opellius Macrinus, P. Valerius Comazon, [...]atus, Aelius Antipater, Aelius (Decius?)
Triccianus, Marcius Claudius Agrippa, Claudius Aelius Pollio, [L. Ant...?], and also M. Aedinius
Iulianus, Flavius Maternianus, [Iuli?]us Paulinus.
98 | Chapter VI

Severan period quoted in Chapter II of this work17. According to my research,


the decrease of the number of senators from Italy and the compensatory in-
crease of the number of senators from provinces was lower than assumed by
the Dutch researcher. It should be stressed that despite promoting their fellow
countrymen in the Senate (whether from Africa or the East), the Severans were
unable to change the proportions in the appointments to the consulship, and
particularly the practice (and tradition) of awarding it to Italian senators, who
were naturally more frequently present during the meetings of the Senate, and
who were closer to the political center of events. The question as to what de-
gree this was due to the intentional actions taken by emperors, and to what ex-
tent this was the result of the geographical setting, must remain unanswered.
We get a clearer picture in the case of consules ordinarii, who are the only ones
affirmed with 100% certainty in the group of consulars. This group consisted of
68 persons18 under the Severans.
The results of the analysis of social origin are not surprising. Only 16 of
them were homines novi19, 51 (75%) belonged to the old families20, and in the

17 
For the purposes of this chapter, I summed up the numbers provided by P.M.M. Leunissen for
the group with uncertain and probable origin (104 + 54 = 158), and I calculated the corresponding
percentages:
Region Numerical values (158) Percentages (100%)
Italy 56 35
West 40 25
Italy/West 14 9
East 45 29
Undetermined origo 3 2

18 
We arrive at this number by subtracting the number of 16 imperial consulships from the number
of 84 ordinary consulships.
19 
The following persons were, with certainty, homines novi: Q. Aiacius Modestus Crescentianus,
C. Aufidius Marcellus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acil-
ianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, C. Fulvius Plautianus, C. Iulius Asper, Q. Maecius Laetus, T. Manilius
Fuscus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, T. Messius Extricatus, M. Oclatinius Adventus,
P. Septimius Geta, P. Valerius Comazon, and probably also: Cn. Cornelius Paternus (Agricola?),
C. Domitius Dexter, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus.
20 
M’. Acilius Faustinus, L. Annius Fabianus, M. Annius Flavius Libo, M. Aufidius Fronto, C. Aufi-
dius Victorinus, L. Aurelius Gallus, (Pomponius?) Bassus, L. Bruttius Crispinus, C. Bruttius Prae­
sens, D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus, Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, Sex. Catius Clementinus
Priscillianus, L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus, Ti. Claudius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus,
L.Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio, Cn. Claudius Severus, Ti. Claudius Severus
Proculus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 377), L. vel C. Cuspius Rufinus, T. Flavius Sallustius Paelig-
nianus, M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus, Fulvius (Gavius Numisius Petronius?) Aemilianus, Q. Hedius
Lollianus Plautius Avitus, (Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus, C. Iulius Camilius Asper, P. Iulius
Scapula Tertullus Priscus, M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, M. (Pomponius?) Maecius Pro-
bus, L. Marius Maximus, P. Martius Sergius Saturninus, [M. Munat]ius [Su]lla Urbanus, M. Nonius
Consuls and Consulars | 99

case of one senator (M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis) the issue must remain un­ -
resolved21.
The small group of homines novi awarded with the ordinary consulship inclu­
ded: emperor’s relatives, their close friends and associates, and loyal supporters of the
dynasty. The evident reasons for consular advancement in this category were blood
ties and friendship with the ruler and special merits. All of them (except for Cn. Cor-
nelius Paternus (Agricola?)) were awarded the ordinary consulship as their second
one. My research on the senatorial order of the Severan period shows that there
were many more homines novi with special merits for the emperors, however, these
were awarded only with suffect consulships. This was probably due to the numerous
group of representatives of gentes senatoriae, who “deserved” ordinary consulship by
virtue of tradition (see below).
Out of the group of 51 representatives of gentes senatoriae:
–– 28 were sons (grandsons) of ordinary consuls22; the majority came from fam-
ilies holding consular posts for generations, such as: Acilii Glabriones, Annii

Arrius Mucianus, M. Nummius Senecio Albinus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus,
C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus, L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus Salvius Iulianus, L. (or C?) Septi-
mius (Severus) Aper, T. Sextius Magius Lateranus, Q. Tineius Clemens, Q. Tineius Sacerdos, A. Tria­
rius Rufinus, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius
Priscillianus) Maximus, L. Valerius Messalla (Apollinaris?), L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius
Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis, C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, L. Virius Agricola, L. Virius Lupus
Iulianus, and probably L. Annius Maximus, P. Catius Sabinus, Ap. Claudius Iulianus. A change that
was made in comparison with my previous publications is the inclusion in this group of consuls
Ap. Claudius Iulianus (probably the son of Appius Claudius Martialis, the legate of Thraciae).
21 
A descendant of L. Munatius Gallus leg. pro pr. from Traianus’ time or homo novus.
22 
M’. Acilius Faustinus, son of M’. Acilius Glabrio cos II ord. a. 186; M. Annius Flavius Libo, the
great-grandson of cos. ord. a. 128 M. Annius Libo, grandson of M. Annius Libo cos. suff. ca a. 161;
M. Aufidius Fronto, son of C. Aufidius Victorinus Mul[vius ... Marc]ellinus Rhesius Pel[... Nu]m[i]-
sius Rufus Arrius Paul[inus ...?]lus Iust[us Co]cceius Gall[us] cos. suff. a. 155, cos. ord. a. 183; C. Au-
fidius Victorinus, son of C. Aufidius Victorinus Mul[vius ... Marc]ellinus Rhesius Pel[... Nu]m[i]sius
Rufus Arrius Paul[inus ...?]lus Iust[us Co]cceius Gall[us] cos. suff. a. 155, cos. ord. a. 183; L. Aurelius
Gallus, son of the homonymous cos. ord. a. 174; L. Bruttius Crispinus, the son of L. Bruttius Quintius
Crispinus cos. ord. a. 187; C. Bruttius Praesens, the son of L. Bruttius Quintius Crispinus cos. ord.
a. 187; D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus, grandson of P. Caelius Balbinus Vibullius Pius cos. ord. 137,
probably the son of Caelius Calvinus cos. suff. ante a. 184; L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus, the
son of cos. ord. a. 209 Ti. Claudius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus; Ti. Claudius Aurelius Com-
modus Pompeianus, son of Pompeianus cos. II ord. a. 173 or the son of Pompeianus Quintianus,
the brother of Pompeianus, or the son of Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, quaestor of the year
182/3; L.Ti. Claudius Pompeianus, probably the son of cos. ord. a. 209 Ti. Claudius Aurelius Com-
modus Pompeianus; Cn. Claudius Severus, son of Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus cos. ord. a. 200;
Ti. Clau­dius Severus Proculus, son of Cn. Claudius Severus cos. ord. II a. 173; P. Cornelius Anullinus
(no. 377), son of homonymous cos. II ord. a. 199; L. vel C. Cuspius Rufinus, grandson of cos. ord.
a. 142 L. Cuspius Pactumeius Rufinus; C. Iulius Camilius Asper, son of cos. ord. II a. 212 C. Iulius
Asper; P. Martius Sergius Saturninus, the son of P. Martius Verus cos. ord. II a. 179; [M. Munat]ius
[Su]lla Urbanus, son of M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis cos. ord. a. 215; M. Nummius Senecio Albinus,
son of cos. ord. a. 206 M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus; L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus
100 | Chapter VI

Libones, Aufidii Victorini, Aurelii Galli, Bruttii, Caelii Balbini, Claudii Pom-
peiani, Claudii Severi, Cuspii, Martii Sergii, Nummii Albini, Roscii Aeliani,
Sextii Laterani, Tineii, Triarii, Valerii Messallae; families boasting a shorter
genealogy included Marii Maximi, Munatii Sullae,
–– 17 were descendants of suffect consuls23,
–– 6 were descendants of lower rank senators24.
The above list shows that as many as 45 (28 + 17) consules ordinarii (66%) were
descendants of consuls. Hence we can observe the functioning of the principle of
“hereditary” consulship, formulated by G. Alföldy25 and repeated by P.M.M. Leu­
nissen26, and confronted by K. Hopkins27 and representatives of his demographic
school, in action. In view of my research, I regard the thesis of awarding consulships
to sons of consuls as proven – if a son of a consul failed to be awarded consular ad-
vancement, this was due to the unfavorable political situation (e.g., a civil war) or
premature death. This claim is additionally supported by the fact that out of the en-
tire group of 51 persons only 1028 had personal relationships with the emperor, while
others had no special merits for the dynasty of any kind whatsoever.

Salvius Iulianus, son of cos. ord. a. 187 L. Roscius Aelianus Paculus; T. Sextius Magius Lateranus, son
of homonymous cos. ord. a. 154; Q. Tineius Clemens, the son of Q. Tineius Sacerdos cos. ord. a. 158;
Q. Tineius Sacerdos, son of Q. Tineius Sacerdos cos. ord. a. 158; A. Triarius Rufinus, the son of Tria­
rius Maternus cos. ord. a. 185; [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius
(Claudius Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus, probably the son of L. Valerius Messalla cos. ord. a. 214;
L. Valerius Messalla (Apollinaris?), son of L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus
Minicius Natalis cos. ord. 196; L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius
Natalis, a descendant of the old consular family; L. Marius Maximus, if he was the son of an ordinary
consul.
23 
P. Iulius Scapula Tertullus Priscus, L. Annius Fabianus, L. Annius Maximus, M. Nonius Ar­rius
Mucianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus, Fulvius (Gavius Numisius Petronius?)
Aemilianus, L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus) Aper, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, (Hedius Lol-
lianus) Terentius Gentianus, (Pomponius) Bassus, C. Vettius Gratus Sabinianus, Ser. Calpurnius
Domitius Dexter, M. (Pompo­nius?) Maecius Probus, L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio, L. Virius Agricola,
L. Virius Lupus Iulianus, Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus.
24 
M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus, P. Catius Sabi-
nus, M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus, Ap. Claudius Iulianus, T. Flavius Sallustius Paelignianus.
25 
G. Alföldy, Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur
senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977, p. 100 and n.
26 
P.M.M. Leunissen, Konsuln..., p. 102 and n.
27 
K. Hopkins, Death and Renewal..., p. 140.
28 
Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter, P. Catius Sabinus, L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio, Q. Hedius Lol-
lianus Plautius Avitus, (Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus,
L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus) Aper, T. Sextius Magius Lateranus, L. Virius Agricola, L. Virius Lupus
Iulianus.
Consuls and Consulars | 101

The analysis of the territorial origin of ordinary consuls (68) is surprising to


some extent: Italy was represented by 30 consuls29, the East by nine30, the West
by eight31, Africa by seven32. The cradle of the Empire had more of its inhabitants
holding consular posts (56%) than all of the other provinces taken together. This
listing clearly shows that the consulship (ordinary) was the mainstay of tradition and
the Severans introduced no revolutionary changes in this respect. It is noteworthy
that only 16 consuls came from the native regions of the dynasty (Africa, the East),
obviously excluding the rulers. However, a high number of Italian consuls, given the
absence of family ties of the consecutive emperors with Italy, proves that these old
families continued to enjoy a strong position in the Senate.
A review of the personal composition of all consules ordinarii shows that these
includes: emperor’s relatives (P. Septimius Geta, C. Fulvius Plautianus, L. (or C?)
Septi­mius (Severus) Aper), imperial friends and associates (D. Caelius (Calvinus)
Balbinus, P. Catius Sabinus, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus, L. Cl(audius) Cassius
Dio, Ap. Claud­ius Iulianus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), C. Domitius Dexter,
L.  Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, (Hedius
Lollia­nus) Terentius Gentianus, Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus, C. Iulius
Asper, Q.  Maecius Laetus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, T. Messius
Extricatus, M. Ocla­tinius Adventus, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus,

29 
M’. Acilius Faustinus, M. Aufidius Fronto, C. Aufidius Victorinus, L. Aurelius Gallus, C. Domi-
tius Dexter, Fulvius (Gavius Numisius Petronius?) Aemilianus, Q. Hedius Lollianus Avitus, (Hedius
Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus, M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus, M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio
Albinus, (Pomponius) Bassus, Q. Tineius Clemens, A. Triarius Rufinus, T. Sextius Magius Lateranus,
L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis, C. Bruttius Praesens, P. Ca-
tius Sabinus, M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis, C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus, L. Valerius Messalla
Apollinaris, M. Oclatinius Adventus, Q. Tineius Sacerdos, L. Bruttius Crispinus, Ser. Calpurnius Domi-
tius Dexter, M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus, M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus, [M. Munat]-
ius [Su]lla Urbanus, M. Nummius Senecio Albinus, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscil-
ian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus. As compared to my previous research,
the list of Italians was expanded to include L. Annius Maximus, and the following senators were
shifted to the category of consuls with uncertain origo: C. Aufidius Marcellus, T. Flavius Sallustius
Paelignianus, L. Virius Agricola, L. Virius Lupus Iulianus.
30 
L. vel C. Cuspius Rufinus, Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus, Ti. Claudius Aurelius Commodus Pom-
peianus, P. Valerius Comazon, M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus, L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio, L.Ti. Clau­
dius Pompeianus, Cn. Claudius Severus, L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus.
31 
P. Martius Sergius Saturninus, P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376), M. Annius Flavius Libo, L. Fabius
Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus, D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus, P. Cor-
nelius Anullinus (no. 377), Sex. Catius Clementinus Priscillianus, T. Manilius Fuscus. As compared
to my previous research, the category of senators with uncertain origo was expanded by adding C. Vet-
tius Gratus Sabinianus.
32 
C. Fulvius Plautianus, P. Septimius Geta, L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus) Aper, Q. Aiacius Modestus
Crescentianus, L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus, L. Marius Maximus, M. (Pomponius?)
Maecius Probus.
102 | Chapter VI

T. Sextius Magius Lateranus, P. Valerius Comazon, and probably Cn.  Cornelius


Paternus (Agricola?)), loyal supporters of  the dynasty (Q. Aiacius Modestus
Crescentianus, C. Aufidius Marcellus, T. Manilius Fuscus), and also, as has already
been mentioned, representatives of distinguished Roman gentes. The latter group
includes descendants (Ti.  Claudius Severus Proculus, Cn. Claudius Severus,
Ti.  Claudius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus, L.Ti.  Claudius Pompeianus,
L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus), and kinsmen (C. Bruttius Praesens, L. Bruttius
Crispinus) of the Antonine dynasty. This leads to the conclusion that emperors from
the Severan dynasty were certain of their power and were not afraid to promote
potential rivals to the ordinary consulship.
As time went on, the group of consules ordinarii was enlarged also by descen­
dants of homines novi – supporters of the dynasty, who undoubtedly attained ordinary
consulships owing to the merits of their fathers. These were: P. Cornelius Anullinus
(no. 377), C. Iulius Camilius Asper, M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus,
L. Marius Maximus, [M. Munat]ius [Su]lla Urbanus, L. Virius Agricola, L. Virius
Lupus Iulianus, and probably Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter33. Hence we can
see regularities in the formation of the “new” aristocracy, supporting the rule of the
dynasty and establishing its position due to imperial favors.
It may be concluded that there were two starting points for the inheritance of
the consular position (depending on the family status) – descendants of old families
became consuls due to the position of their families, while sons of homines novi, who
were supporters and followers of the ruling family, attained this post owing to the
position of their fathers.
It should be noted that the sons and grandsons of homines novi, despite their early
advancement, were considered as representatives of gentes senatoriae, mingling with the
group of senatorial aristocracy boasting superior origin. Hence what we can observe in
this small, yet significant, group is the phenomenon of personnel fluctuation, probably
evident to a greater extent in the case of appointments to public offices of a lower rank.

Conclusions

Fasti consulares under Severans probably contained names of 479 senators serving
the functions of consul ordinarius or consul suffectus. Taking into account the num-
ber of clarissimi viri for the entire period (1,800–2,000), it can be assumed that

33 
If he was the adopted son of C. Domitius Dexter, consul for the second time, prefect of the City,
a friend of Septimius Severus.
Consuls and Consulars | 103

approximately every fourth had a chance for such advancement. Consulship during
the Severan period continued to be the most important post in the cursus honorum,
available only to the chosen ones. A large group of the descendants of the old aristoc-
racy and a small group of homines novi can be identified among consulars; due to the
lack of data we can only suspect that the unidentified ones belonged to the other cat-
egory as well. The origo of consulars is the evidence of conservatism in the appoint-
ments to this office. Of all the senators, representatives of Italy constituted 37.1%, in
the entire group of consulars 39.8%, while in the case of consules ordinarii this value
reached 56.0%. This means that the process of provincialization slowly reached the
highest levels of social advancement and that the process was evolutionary.
Ordinary consulship, as particularly valuable, was attained by rulers, their suc-
cessors, descendants of the old aristocracy (especially of the consular one) and those
among friends, who were most meritorious. It can be clearly seen that emperors could
not omit certain persons in their nominations. Consequently, the ruler had a limited
choice, and the tradition and the desire to maintain good atmosphere in the Senate
somehow forced him to make uncontroversial designations. Emperor’s decisions in
this case involved mainly the designation of the time frame for serving the consul-
ship by “hereditary” consuls.
Homo novus as consul ordinarius was rare, while personal relationships with the
rulers and personal merits were decisive in this case. The majority of imperial asso-
ciates from the group of homines novi and the other senators were awarded suffect
consulship. The decision to award this distinction depended on personal merits, as
well as a suitable cursus honorum proving experience in administration (so needed by
the Empire).
With regard to some of the senators, we are unable to determine what was
decisive in their advancement. However, due to the absence of information on their
cursus honorum and holding important national offices, it can be suspected that what
decided about their senatorial careers was their origin from the municipal elite. An
additional factor was the desire to complement the senatorial list with representatives
of provinces.
The final conclusion is that consulship continued to be viewed as an important
and valuable post in the senatorial cursus honorum, a reminder of the fame and glory
of a family and evidence of the merits of new persons – a bridge between the old and
the new aristocracy of the Empire.
Summary

For practical purposes, Album senatorum was published in two volumes:


I. Senatores ab Septimii Severi aetate usque ad Alexandrum Severum
(193–235 AD).
II. Senators of the Severan Period (193–235 AD). A Prosopographic Study.
The first volume features biographic entries of 1,682 senators in two lists: dated
with certainty (1,196) and dated with some probability (486) to the years 193–235.
Each of them includes: cursus honorum, a description of family relationships, as well
as social and territorial origin of a senator under discussion. Biographic entries were
developed by means of the prosopographic method, using all available sources, in-
cluding primarily epigraphic, historiographic, and numismatic sources. It should be
added that in comparison to the last work of this kind – by G. Barbieri from 1952,
the album features 299 new senators, including 107 consuls.
It is my hope that all those interested in senatorial prosopography and the his-
tory of the Severan period will find this volume useful.
The second volume contains comments and analyses, which refer to the mate­
rial presented in the first volume. The results of my research are as follows:
a) The number of the members of the Senate during the Severan period was
900–1,000 persons, which yields the number of 1,800–2,000 senators for
the entire period;
b) I identified 1,682 senators from the Severan period (which is approx. 93% of
the total number of 1,800 senators, and approx. 84% of the group of 2,000
senators);
c) I established the territorial origin of 944 (56.1%) out of 1,682 senators;
d) I demonstrated the degree of the provincialization of the Senate – the domi­
nance of provincials (62.9% of seats) over senators from Italy (37.1 % of
seats);
e) Two native regions of the Severans (Africa and the East) were in the major-
ity in the Senate – 52.8% of the seats in total. Hence it can be concluded
106 | Summary

that – contrary to popular beliefs – Severans presented the attitude of local


patriotism and promoted the advancement of their fellow countrymen;
f) I established the social origin of 779 (46.3%) senators out of the total num-
ber of 1,682, including 540 from gentes senatoriae and 239 homines novi, and
the approximate number of seats they held in the Senate:
–– representatives of gentes senatoriae held at least 1/3 of seats,
–– homines novi held 2/3 seats at the very most;
g) I pointed to the mutually supplementary processes of the continuation of
senatorial families and fluctuation – replacement of the old gentes with new
ones;
h) I suggested a new classification of careers based on the following criteria:
social origin and the duration of the career, with particular focus on its
praetorian stage:
A. Senatorial:
–– Shortened (without offices of the praetorian rank),
–– Short (one office of the praetorian rank),
–– Standard (2–4 offices of the praetorian rank),
–– Long (5 and more offices of the praetorian rank);
B. Mixed (equestrian and senatorial offices);
C. Atypical (senatorial advancement at the consular level):
–– ornamenta consularia,
–– adlectio inter consulares;
i) The most numerous careers, among well-known senatorial careers with at-
tested consulship (129), are those featuring 2–4 offices of the praetorian
rank (standard ones), followed by 5 and more offices of the praetorian rank
(long ones);
j) The social origin of a senator affected his entire career – what was typical
of patricians were shortened or short careers, of senators by birth – stan­
dard careers, while homines novi were characterized by all of them except for
shortened and short careers;
k) The higher the number of praetorian rank offices in the cursus honorum
(and consequently greater experience), the longer the career following the
consulship;
l) Senators with shortened and short careers (patricians in the majority) con-
stituted the representative elite, while those with standard, long, and mixed
careers (homines novi in the majority) – the administrative elite;
Summary | 107

m) Senators of the Severan period played a key role in the administration of the
State. By holding the highest posts, they formed the core of the Establish-
ment ruling the Empire;
n) I find the conclusion by G. Alföldy and P.M.M. Leunissen on the func-
tioning of the principle of “hereditary” consulship valid, however only with
respect to the ordinary consulship – as many as 51 (75%) persons out of 68
appointed to this office were descendants of old gentes;
o) What follows, the conclusion on the “hereditary” consulship with respect to
all consuls (ordinarii and suffecti), in my opinion, cannot be sustained. This
is due to the fact that the old gentes were represented by only 211 (33.2%)
out of 635 known consuls.
Although new findings may modify the numerical and percentage values pro-
vided in my work, I hope, that the description of the phenomena and processes pre-
sented in Album senatorum will remain valid for a long time.
Resumé

La monographie présentée – Album senatorum comporte deux volumes:


I. Senatores ab Septimii Severi aetate usque ad Alexandrum Severum
(193–235 AD).
II. Sénateurs de l’ époque des Sévères (193–235 ap. J-C). L’ étude prosopographique.
Le premier volume c’est l’album prosopographique. Il inclut (en ordre alpha-
bétique) des biogrammes des sénateurs en latin et des références bibliographiques
de base (p.ex.: Prosopographia Imperii Romani). L’album a été divisé en deux parties
qui comportent des sénateurs: sûrement et probablement datés des années 193–235.
Il faut ajouter que par rapport au dernier ouvrage de ce genre de G. Barbieri, de
1952, il compte deux cents quatre-ving-dix-neuf nouveaux sénateurs, y compris cent
sept consuls. Ces modifications (entre autres) m’ont poussé à écrire la monographie
ci-présente. Au total, sur ma liste se trouvent les noms de 1682 sénateurs, dont 1196
sûrement datés de l’époque des Sévères. Ces estimations constituent actuellement les
calculs les plus récents mais sans doute vérifiable. Je voudrais souligner ici que ma
liste a été créée comme l’effet de l’analyse des œuvres de nombreux historiens qui au
cours des années ont contribué par leurs travaux à son apparition.
Le second volume inclut en six chapitres les commentaires et les analyses présen-
tées dans l’album.
Dans le premier chapitre «Nombre de sénateurs», je présente des tableaux quan-
titatifs de mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux sénateurs. Je me réfère aussi au problème
du nombre de sénateurs à l’époque des Sévères. Les chercheurs précédents qui exami-
naient cette période-là indiquaient d’habitude le chiffre maximum de six cents à huit
cents sénateurs, pourtant ces estimations ne résistent pas à la critique basée sur les
sources connues aujourd’hui. Une longue liste des sénateurs reconnus actuellement,
admettant que c’est uniquement une partie du nombre réel, nous oblige à vérifier des
idées répandues. Même la division du chiffre 1682 par 2, c’est-à-dire la prise en con-
sidération de la relève entre générations qui a eu lieu au cours de quarante-deux ans
de gouvernements des Sévères montre clairement que le sénat a du être composé de
110 | Resumé

plus de huit cents membres. À mon avis, il était même plus nombreux, et le nombre
de clarissimi viri oscillait entre neuf cents et mille.
Dans le deuxième chapitre «Origo des sénateurs», je présente les données se
rapportant à la composition du sénat. Sur mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux sénateurs,
je peux établir l’origine territoriale de neuf cent quarante quatre d’eux (c’est-à-dire
56,1%, c’est un chiffre important pour l’époque antique).
Les résultats détaillés de mes recherches peuvent être présentés sous forme du
tableau ci-dessous:

Origine des sénateurs calculée pour 944 personnes


Région (sûrement et probablement datées)
Valeurs numériques et le pourcentage
Italie 351 (37,1%)
Orient 291 (31,0%)
Afrique 206 (21,8%)
Occident 96 (10,1%)

Les données présentées modifient l’image du sénat qui fonctionne dans la


science et les conclusions se référant à sa répartition par province. Il faut souligner que
jusqu’alors, dans la littérature on a donné un pourcentage de participation plus élevé
des sénateurs de l’Italie (même de 12% – Barbieri) et un pourcentage inférieur des
provinciaux, par conséquent, le rôle et l’importance des représentants d’Italie étaient
surestimés et ceux des provinciaux, sousestimés. J’en suis arrivée à constanter que les
habitants des provinces constituaient 62,9% de l’ensemble des sénateurs. Ce chiffre
est soi-disant et indique clairement qu’à la suite de l’évolution qui avait duré plus de
deux cents ans, sous les Sévères, le sénat de l’Empire a perdu son caractère italique.
Une autre question qui se pose est celle de l’influence de l’origine africaine et
orientale des Sévères sur la composition du sénat. Dans le groupe de sénateurs exa-
miné en ce qui concerne leur origo, nous remarquons un grand nombre de représen-
tants de l’Afrique (21,8%), ainsi que ceux de l’Orient (31%). Il serait digne de mettre
l’accent sur le fait que les deux régions d’origine des Sévères (l’Afrique et l’Orient)
avaient la majorité au sénat – au total 52,8% des sièges. Cela permet de constater
que, contrairement aux opinions répandues, les Sévères manifestaient une attitude du
patriotisme local et soutenaient les promotions de leurs compatriotes. C’est une que­
stion sousestimée dans la littérature parce que dans la plupart des travaux prosopo-
graphiques, l’Afrique est liée à l’Occident et on en crée une seule région, ce qui rend
une évaluation approfondie de ce phénomène impossible. C’est pour cette raison-là
Resumé | 111

que je me suis décidée à distinguer les sénateurs d’Afrique de mes estimations, ce qui
m’a amené à des conclusions présentées ci-dessus.
Le nombre de sénateurs de l’Occident reconnus se place à un niveau bas (10,1%).
Ce n’est pas étonnant, vu le fait que les provinces générales de cette région – la Gaule
et l’Hispanie ont été pacifiées par Septime Sévère en représailles à l’appui donné
à Clodius Albinus. Au sénat ceux qui sont restés finalement étaient des fidèles peu
nombreux, issus dans la plupart des cas de quelques familles qui sympathisaient avec
les Sévères (comme p.ex.: Alfenii, Alfii Aviti, Caelii Balbini, Cornelii Anullini, Fabii
Cilones, Flavii Apri, Manilii).
Dans le troisième chapitre «Origine sociale des sénateurs», je présente les ré-
sultats que voici: sur mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux sénateurs de l’époque des
Sévères, j’ai réussi à définir l’origine sociale de 779 d’entre eux, c’est-à-dire 46,2%,
où 540 étaient sénateurs de naissance et 239 homines novi.
Mes calculs, en ce qui concerne les homines novi, diffèrent de façon fondamen-
tale de ceux présentés dans la littérature pertinente. J.-P. Coriat en voit quatre-vingt-
-quinze, et P.M.M. Leunissen, quatre-vingt-douze (mais uniquement dans le groupe
de consuls). La différence est donc de 150 personnes environ. Elle résulte de deux
raisons: de l’écoulement du temps, le progrès des connaissances et de mon adoption
des critères de classification plus larges par rapport à ceux de mes prédécesseurs.
Un autre problème que j’aborde dans ce chapitre est la délimitation des propor-
tions de la représentation des gentes senatoriae et homines novi au sénat. Dans les sour-
ces examinées (46,3%), ces proportions sont presque de l’ordre de deux à un en faveur
de familles anciennes, mais pourtant, nous ne pouvons pas admettre que dans les
matériaux non reconnus, ces proportions étaient identiques. Dans les familles séna-
toriales qui étaient fières de leur origine, le degré d’identification est beaucoup plus
élévé que chez les homines novi, qui d’habitude dissimulaient leur origine mo­deste.
La conclusion: même si nous admettons que tous les méconnus étaient des homines
novi, alors d’anciennes gentes occupaient au moins un tiers des sièges au sénat, ce qu’il
faut reconnaître comme une valeur minimale. Dans ce cas-là, les deux tiers des sièges
appartiendraient aux homines novi et ce serait pour eux une valeur maximale.
Dans le quatrième chapitre «Carrières sénatoriales – leurs conditions», je
parle du développement du cursus honorum sénatorial à travers les époques. Je pré-
sente un élargissement de palette de magistratures, y compris l’impact de ce fait sur
les règles de la carrière sénatoriale, j’indique les conditions des adlectio et exornatio
lato clavo, et enfin, je propose ma propre classification des carrières sénatoriales basée
sur la combinaison de deux critères: l’origine sociale et le parcours des étapes de la
carrière, avec un accent particulier mis sur la deuxième étape – celle après la préture.
112 | Resumé

À mon avis, ces deux facteurs avaient une influence décisive sur les promotions d’un
sénateur jusqu’au consulat et après le consulat.
Classification:
A. Sénatoriales:
–– abrégées (sans magistratures après la préture),
–– courtes (une magistrature après la préture),
–– habituelles (2 à 4 magistratures après la préture),
–– longues (5 et plus de magistratures après la préture).
B. Mixtes (magistratures équestres et sénatoriales).
C. Atypique:
–– ornamenta consularia,
–– adlectio inter consulares.
La typologie présentée est aussi une tentative d’examiner les carrières des séna-
teurs dans une perspective plus vaste, celle de leur fonctionnalité pour l’État et pour
l’empereur et non pas seulement pour les succès personnels d’un individu et de sa fa-
mille. Il me semble qu’une telle vision est conforme à l’esprit de l’époque du principat.
Dans le chapitre cinquième «Modèles des carrières sénatoriales», j’applique la
typologie que j’ai proposée à la clasification des carrières des sénateurs de l’époque
des Sévères. Parmi mille six cent quatre-vingt-deux sénateurs, nous sommes capables
de reconstruire plus au moins précisement les carrières de cent vingt-neuf d’entre
eux. Ce n’est pas un chiffre élévé mais il s’inscrit sans problème dans le cadre d’un
échantillon statistique aléatoire standard.
La structure des carrières connues peut être présentée de la manière suivante:
A. Sénatoriales:
–– abrégées (sans magistratures après la préture ) – 15 personnes,
–– courtes (une magistrature après la préture) – 8 personnes,
–– habituelles (2 à 4 magistratures après la préture) – 44 personnes,
–– longues (5 et plus de magistratures après la préture) – 26 personnes.
B. Mixtes (magistratures équestres et sénatoriales) – 21 personnes.
C. Atypiques (avec ornamenta consularia ou adlectio inter consulares)
– 15 personnes.
Des personnes exercent de 2 à 4 magistratures après la préture dominent quan-
titativement, c’est pourquoi, j’ai considéré ce type de la carrière comme étant stan-
dard. En deuxième lieu, se placent celles qui font leurs carrières en assument 5 et plus
de magistratures après la préture, voire des carrières longues. Cela prouve clairement
que la tendance générale parmi les sénateurs était d’exercer d’un grand nombre de
fonctions administratives, ce qui se traduit par leur volonté d’appartenir à l’élite qui
gouvernait l’Empire.
Resumé | 113

Les résultats de mes recherches montrent que l’origine sociale du sénateur in-
fluait sur toute sa carrière. Les patriciens représentaient le plus souvent un type de
carrière abrégée ou courte, les sénateurs de naissance, celui standard, les homines novi
tous sauf abrégée ou courte.
Ce qui influait considérablement sur la carrière post-consulaire c’était le déroul­
ment de l’étape prétorienne de la carrière. Nous pouvons remarquer la régularité
suivante: plus de magistratures après la préture dans le cursus honorum (c’est-à-dire
plus d’expériences) rend la carrière post-consulaire plus longue. C’est pour cette rai-
son que les patriciens et les descendants d’anciennes familles sénatoriales qui n’exer-
çaient pas de magistratures au rang de préteur avaient peu de chance de parvenir
à d’importantes fonctions proconsulaires. Les conclusions ci-dessus résultent de mon
application d’une nouvelle typologie de carrières.
Le dernier chapitre, le sixième «Consuls et consulaires», se référe aux œuvres
prosopographiques de G. Alföldy et de P.M.M. Leunissen qui sont pour moi
fondamentales.
À la base de mes recherches, je soutiens la proposition des deux chercheurs
concernant le fonctionement du principe de «l’hérédité» du consulat, mais seulement
en ce qui concerne le consulat ordinaire. Parmi soixante-huit personnes désignées à
cet office, cinquante et une, voire 75% étaient des descendants des vieilles gentes. Par
contre, je ne partage pas cette thèse en ce qui concerne le consulat suffect et tous les
consuls (ordinarii et suffecti). Pour être plus précise, je vais me référer aux données
suivantes: sur six cent trente cinq consuls connus, les anciennes gentes étaient re-
présentées par deux cent onze consuls seulement ce qui fait 33,2%.
Dans ce cas-là, je considère que les recherches de Geza Alföldy et de P.M.M. Leu-
nissen sont partiellement actuelles et leurs travaux sont tout à fait dignes d’être
recommandés.
Appendix I*

A List of New Senators of the Severan Period

SENATORES CERTI
1. A[cu]tian[us] (no. 6).
2. Aelius Gordianus (no. 15).
3. Aelius Serenianus (no. 19).
4. P. Aelius Symmachus (no. 22).
5. A(l)fius Avitus (no. 48).
6. P. Alfius Avitus (no. 49).
7. Amicus (no. 55) – cos. suff. ca a. 215–216.
8. Appianus (no. 87).
9. (P?) Aradius Paternus (no. 93) – cos. suff. ante a. 231.
10. P. Aradius Paternus Rufinianus Aelianus [Iu?]n(ior) (no. 94).
11. Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus (no. 96) – cos. suff. aetate Septimii Severi aut
Antonini (Caracallae) aut Alexandri Severi.
12. L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus (no. 97).
13. P. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus Tiberianus (no. 99).
14. Ti. Aradi[us Saturninus?] (no. 100).
15. C. Asinius Rufus Nicomachus (no. 125) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
16. Sex. Asinius Rufinus Fabianus (no. 126).
17. Attius Rufinus (no. 138) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
18. Attius Rufinus (no. 139) – cos. suff. inter a. 238 et 240.
19. Attius Rufinus Metillianus (no. 140).
20. P. Attius Ulpius Apuleius Clementinus Rufinus (no. 141).
21. [...] T.f. Quir. Aurelianus (no. 150).

* 
The nomen of each senator is accompanied by a number (for the Reader’s convenience), where his
biographic entry can be found in the Album (vide vol. I: Senatores ab Septimii Severi aetate usque ad
Alexandrum Severum (193–235 AD)).
116 | Appendix I

22. Aurelius Athenaeus (no. 155).


23. Aur(elius) Aurelianus (no. 156).
24. Aur(elius) Mam[...] (no. 159) – cos. suff. ante a. 216.
25. Aurelius Trypho (no. 166).
26. M. Bassaeus Astur (no. 180).
27. C. C[...] Hasta (no. 194) – cos. suff. ca a. 185/190/191.
28. Q. Caeci[lius ...] (no. 195) – cos. suff. ante a. 202.
29. Q. Caecilius Speratianus (no. 208) – cos. suff. a. 202 aut 203.
30. P. Caecilius Urbicus Aemilianus (no. 209) – cos. suff. ca a. 208.
31. M. Caelius Faustinus (no. 213) – cos. suff. a. 206.
32. Caelius Felix (no. 214).
33. C. Calpurnius Ceius Aemilianus (no. 226).
34. Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 232) – cos. suff. saec. III parte priore.
35. Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 233).
36. Calvisius Rufus (no. 234) – cos. suff. aetate Severorum.
37. T. Flavius Carminius Athenagoras Claudianus (no. 239).
38. (M. Ulpius) Carminius Claudianus (no. 241).
39. Cassius (no. 246).
40. Cass[ius ...]ens vel Cass[ius ...]nus (no. 247).
41. C. Cassius Regallianus (no. 254) – cos. suff. a. 202.
42. Catius Clemen[s] vel Clemen[tinus] (no. 257) – cos. suff. saec. III prima parte.
43. Q. Cerellius Apollinaris (no. 265).
44. Claudius Acilius Iulius (no. 274).
45. Tib. Claudius Attalus Paterclianus (no. 286) – cos. suff. aetate Severorum.
46. Claudius Atticus Marathonius (no. 287).
47. Ti. Cl[audius?] M[odestus?] (no. 317) – cos. suff. a. 196.
48. Claudius Nysius (no. 318).
49. (Ti. Claudius? vel Vettulenus) Pompeianus (no. 327) – cos. suff. inter a. 192 et 218,
fortasse ca a. 212.
50. (Ti. Claudius?) Pompeianus (no. 328) – cos. suff. ca a. 212.
51. (Cn. Claudius?) Severus (no. 334) – cos. suff. inter a. 192 et 218, fortasse ca a. 212.
52. [Ti?] Cl(audius) Subatia[nus ...] (no. 341).
53. [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus] (no. 345) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
54. Claudius Venacus (no. 348).
55. Ti.[Claudiu]s vel [Claudius ...]s Vibianus Tert[ullus] (no. 349).
56. T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus (no. 353) – cos. suff. ca a. 223.
57. L. Clodius Pompeianus (no. 357) – cos. suff. a. 202 aut 203.
A List of New Senators of the Severan Period | 117

58. Cosinius Marcianus (no. 384).


59. Egnatius Leo (no. 409).
60. Egnatius Proclianus (no. 411).
61. Q. Egnatius Proculus (no. 414).
62. (Aurelius?) Euphrates (no. 420) – cos. suff. inter a. 202 et 206.
63. Fabius Sabinus (no. 430).
64. Flaccus (no. 435) – cos. suff. ante a. 217–218.
65. Flavius [An]tiochus (no. 450).
66. P. Flavius Pudens Pomponianus (no. 476).
67. Fonteius Maximus (no. 494).
68. C. Fulvius Ian[uarius?] (no. 503).
69. C. Fulvius Maximus (no. 504) – cos. suff. ante a. 210.
70. C. Fulvius Plautius Hortensianus (no. 508).
71. (M. Gavius) Galicanus (no. 523) – cos. suff. ca a. 180/185.
72. M. Gav[ius] M[aximus] (no. 524).
73. Gavius Tranquillus (no. 525) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
74. [...]lius Gratilianus V[...] (no. 531) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
75. Q. Iulius Licin[ianus?] (no. 583) – cos. suff. ante a. 236–238.
76. [L. Iulius Mess]ala Rutilianus (no. 590) – cos. suff. a. 192.
77. C. Iulius Rufinus Laberius Fabianus Pomponius Triarius Erucius Clarus Sosius Priscus
(no. 598).
78. C. Iul[ius ...] Titi[anus] (no. 608).
79. M. Iunius Concessus Aemilianus (no. 613) – cos. suff. a. 212.
80. Laelius Bassus (no. 634).
81. Manilius (no. 679) – cos. suff. sub Septimio Severo aut Antonino (Caracalla).
82. L. Mantennius Severus (no. 683).
83. P. Marcius Maximillianus (no. 691).
84. Marcius Maximillianus (no. 692) – cos. suff. ante a. 240.
85. (Q?) Marcius Victor Faustinianus (no. 694).
86. Marcius Vic[tor] (no. 695).
87. T. Murrenius Severus (no. 738) – cos. suff. a. 202.
88. M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus Manlius Carbo (no. 745) – cos. suff. a. 189 aut 190.
89. C. Octavius Suetrius Proculus (no. 765).
90. P[...] (no. 774).
91. C. (Passienus) (no. 779).
92. [...]pius (no. 804).
93. [Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 817).
118 | Appendix I

94. [Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 818).


95. Cn. Pompeius Antonius Amoenus (no. 819).
96. [Pompeius F]alco (no. 822) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
97. Pontius [...] (no. 836) – cos. suff. inter a. 202 et 211.
98. Pontius Fuscus Pontianus (no. 838).
99. C. Pontius Pontianus Fuficius Maximus = P. Fu(...) Pontianus (no. 841) – cos. suff.
ante a. 217–218.
100. Pontius Surus Iu[nianus] (no. 844).
101. [...]l(...) Postumus (no. 852) – cos. suff. ca a. 205–207.
102. Quintillius Marcellus (no. 865).
103. L. Ranius Optatus (no. 869) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
104. Romanus (no. 873) – cos. suff. inter a. 202 et 206.
105. (Iunius) Rufinus (no. 880).
106. [...]r[...]ius Rufinus (no. 881) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
107. (A?) Sellius Clodianus (no. 908) – cos. suff. ante a. 193.
108. [L. Sem?]pronius Senecio (no. 909) – cos. suff. sub Septimio Severo.
109. L. Sem[pr]onius [...] (no. 910).
110. [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus] (no. 916) – cos. suff. saec. II exeunte aut saec. III ineunte.
111. L. Serg[ius Paullus? M. Anton?]ius Zeno (no. 923).
112. [Cn. Su]ellius Rufus (no. 947) – cos. suff. ante a. 184/192.
113. [...] Tati(a)nus (no. 957).
114. Q. Tine[...] (no. 960).
115. Trebonius Fortunatus (no. 966).
116. P. Tullius Marsus (no. 970) – cos suff. a. 206.
117. Valerius Messalla (no. 983) – cos. suff. ante a. 236.
118. Valerius O[pta?]tianus vel Q[uin?]tianus (no. 985).
119. C. Valerius [Sabinia]nus (no. 991) – cos. suff. ante a. 214.
120. [L. V]aleri[us Valerianus? Paetus?] (no. 995).
121. Vib[...] (no. 1015) – cos. suff. sub Severo Alexandro.
122. Vibius Gallus (no. 1016).
123. Q. Vin[ius] Victorinus (no. 1017).
124. P. Vittius Honoratus [...]tianus (no. 1025) – cos. suff. saec. II exeunte aut saec. III
ineunte.
125. [...]anus (no. 1052) – cos. suff. sub Severo Alexandro.
126. [...]ianus (no. 1054).
127. [Iu?]cun[dius?] (no. 1055).
128. [...]nianus (no. 1062).
A List of New Senators of the Severan Period | 119

129. Anonymus, consul (no. 1075) – cos. suff. sub Antonino (Elagabalo) aut Severo
Alexandro.
130. Anonymus, curator (no. 1079).
131. Anonymus, iuridicus Ra[...] (no. 1081).
132. Anonymus, legatus Arabiae (no. 1083).
133. Anonymus, legatus pro praetore provinciae Baeticae (no. 1084).
134. Anonymus, legatus Bithyniae (no. 1085) – cos. suff. ca ante a. 213–214.
135. Anonymus, legatus Bithyniae (no. 1086) – cos. suff. ca a. 199–200.
136. Anonymus, legatus Britanniae sub Severo, Antonino (Caracalla) et Geta augustis
(no. 1087) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
137. [...]ARE [...] NL [...] (no. 1088) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
138. Anonymus, legatus Britanniae (no. 1089) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
139. [...]imus Di[...] (no. 1090) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
140. Anonymus, proconsul Cypri (no. 1094).
141. Anonymus, legatus III Daciae (no. 1095) – cos. suff. sub Septimio Severo.
142. Anonymus, proconsul Galliae Narbonensis (no. 1098).
143. Anonymus, legatus Germaniae (anonymus Minturnensis) (no. 1103) – cos. suff. sub
Severis?
144. Anonymus, legatus legionis I Minerviae (no. 1109).
145. Anonymus, legatus Lusitaniae (no. 1111).
146. Anonymus, legatus Moesiae inferioris (no. 1112) – cos. suff. sub Severis.
147. Anonymus, legatus Numidiae (no. 1116).
148. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae inferioris (no. 1118).
149. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae inferioris (no. 1120) – cos. suff. ante a. 218?
150. [...]na[...] legatus Pannoniae inferioris (no. 1121) – cos. suff. ante a. 228.
151. Anonymus, legatus Thraciae (no. 1123).
152. Anonymus, praetor candidatus? (no. 1125).
153. Anonymus, praetor (no. 1126).
154. Anonymus, adlectus inter praetorios (no. 1127).
155. T. [[...]] (no. 1129) – cos. suff. ca a. 195.
156. Anonymus, proconsul Siciliae (no. 1130).
157. Anonymus, salius Palatinus (no. 1131).
158. Anonymus, salius Palatinus (no. 1132).
159. Anonymus, sodalis Augustalis (no. 1133).
160. Anonymus, C[...] Cattunillae pater aut maritus (no. 1139).
161. Anonymus, Corneliae Privignae filius (no. 1143).
162. Anonymus, [Fl(avii)?] Aur(elii) Eili cognatus (no. 1147) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
120 | Appendix I

163. Anonymus, Quintilii Eumenis nepos (no. 1164).


164. Anonymus, Ve[...]tu[...] maritus (no. 1169).
165. Anonymus, [...]r Maxim[-i? vel -imilliani?] pater (no. 1178).
166. Anonymus, [...]i Maximi pater (no. 1179).
167. Anonymus, [Al- vel Ru]fiae Vestinae Maxi[mae] pater (no. 1193).

SENATORES PROBABILES
168. [...]us Aem[ilian]us (no. 1210).
169. Aemilius Macer (no. 1218).
170. Q. Aiacius Censorinus Celsinus Arabianus (no. 1220).
171. L. Aiacius Modestus Aurelianus Priscus Agricola Salvianus (no. 1221).
172. L. Allius Volusianus (no. 1226).
173. Anneius Ravus (no. 1232) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
174. M. Annius Proculus (no. 1236).
175. M. Asinius Rufinus Valerius Verus Sabinianus (no. 1250) – cos. suff. ca a. 183–185.
176. M. Aurelius Amarantus (no. 1258).
177. Aurelius Victor (no. 1264).
178. [... Bassidius?] [Cor]nelianus Agrippinus (no. 1266).
179. M. Benn[ius ...] (no. 1267).
180. Appius Caecina Suetrius Sabinus (no. 1273).
181. G. C[...] Calpurnius Rufinus (no. 1283).
182. M. Casineius Vassius Passenilianus Titianus (no. 1286).
183. Catulus (no. 1294).
184. L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis (no. 1298) – cos. suff. saec. II/III.
185. Ti. Cl(audius) Appius Atilius Bradua Regillus Atticus (no. 1301).
186. Claudius Flavius Catulus Munatianus (no. 1311).
187. Cn. Claudius Severus (no. 1317) – cos. suff. a. inc., cos. II ord. a. 173.
188. Ti. Cl[audius Vibianus? Te]rtullus (no. 1321) – cos. suff. sub Commodo?
189. Clodius Celsinus (no. 1323).
190. L. Cu[sp(...) Gal?]lus S[a]l[i]nianus vel L. Co[rne]lius L[a]t[i]nianus (no. 1344).
191. Sex. Decimius Verus Barbarus (no. 1345).
192. [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...] (no. 1352) – cos. suff. sub
Commodo?
193. Q. Fabius Clodius Agrippianus Celsinus (no. 1356) – cos. suff. ante a. 249–251.
194. Q. Fabius Iulianus Optatianus L. Fabius Geminus Cornelianus (no. 1358) – cos. suff.
saec. II parte posteriore.
195. Flavius Balbus Diogenianus (no. 1367) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
A List of New Senators of the Severan Period | 121

196. L. Flavius Cleonaeus (no. 1370) – cos. suff. sub Commodo?


197. T. Flavius Lollianus Aristobulus (no. 1373).
198. Flavius Marc(ius?) Scribonianus (no. 1374).
199. L. Fulvius Numisianus (no. 1389).
200. Sex. Furnius Faustus Sulpicianus (no. 1391).
201. Q. Gargilius Macer Aufidianus (no. 1393).
202. (Hortensius?) (no. 1403).
203. Tib. Iulius Frugi (no. 1414) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
204. Iulius Lepidianus (no. 1418).
205. L. Iulius Lucilianus (no. 1419).
206. L. Iulius Proculianus (no. 1423) – cos. suff. a. 179.
207. (C. Iulius Pudens?) (no. 1424).
208. (Iulius?) Titianus (no. 1429).
209. C. Iulius Victor (no. 1430).
210. [L. I]unius L. [f. Gal. Aurelius Ne]ratius G[allus Fulvius Ma]cer? (no. 1433).
211. [...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...] [...]ntilianus = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil-
[i]an[us] (no. 1434) – cos. suff. sub Commodo.
212. Iunius Victorinus (no. 1439) – cos. suff. in parte posteriore saec. II.
213. Lusius Severus (no. 1448).
214. P. Maenius Cornelianus (no. 1453).
215. Marcellus (no. 1456).
216. Mar(i)us Etruscus Gal(l)ianus (no. 1460).
217. [...] [M]artialis (no. 1462) – cos. suff. saec. II exeunte aut saec. III ineunte.
218. M. Martiannius Pulcher (no. 1463) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
219. L. Matucius Maximus (no. 1465).
220. Cn. Minicius Ticidianus Annius Faustus (no. 1472).
221. Munius Sinfius (no. 1475).
222. P. Nonius M[u?]tianus (no. 1481).
223. [...]inus Paternus (no. 1489) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
224. D. Plautius Felix Iulianus (no. 1495).
225. Q. Pomponius Munat[ius vel -ianus] Clodianus (no. 1500) – cos. suff. sub Severo
Alexandro?
226. C. Postumius Africanus (no. 1505).
227. [P]riscus (no. 1509).
228. Procu[l]us (no. 1510).
229. [...]iuenus vel [...]iuentius Re[.]entinus (no. 1515).
230. [Re?]stitutus (no. 1516) – cos. suff. inter a. 175 et 200.
122 | Appendix I

231. M[...] Rufinus (no. 1521).


232. [...]lius Rugianus (no. 1524).
233. Sa[...] (no. 1525).
234. [...] Scribon[ius ...] (no. 1532).
235. [...]cius [... Se?]cundus (no. 1534).
236. M. Sempronius Proculus Faustinianus (no. 1539).
237. (Septimius?) Silvanus Nicolaus (no. 1542) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
238. [Se]rgius Faustus (no. 1544).
239. Q. Servilius Pudens (no. 1547).
240. Severus (no. 1550) – cos. suff. a. 189.
241. [... Sollius ...] (no. 1552) – cos. suff. saec. III.
242. M. Sollius Atticus (no. 1553).
243. P. Sta[tius] Iulianus P(a)elignianus (no. 1556).
244. Q. Suetrius Pudens (no. 1558).
245. [...]ius T[...] (no. 1559).
246. Q. Tarquitius Catu[l]us (no. 1560) – cos. suff. sub Commodo?
247. Q. Ulpius D(omitius?) Ap(ollinaris?) (no. 1571) – cos. suff. ante a. 239–260.
248. Ulpius Flavius Claudius Ponticus (no. 1572).
249. Ulpius Quirinius Quadratianus (no. 1574).
250. Uranius (no. 1575).
251. Valerius Ianuarius (no. 1576).
252. Valerius Iunianus (no. 1577).
253. M. Valerius Senecio (no. 1581) – cos. suff. a. 186.
254. M. Vibius No[...] (no. 1587).
255. L. Vibullius Claudius Herodes (no. 1588).
256. [...]anus S[...], legatus Galliae Lugdunensis? (no. 1593).
257. [...a]nus (no. 1594) – cos. suff. cum [...]no.
258. A[.]re[...]ecun[...] vel [M?] At[tius?] Regul[us?] (no. 1595) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
259. [...]cus (no. 1596) – cos. suff. cum [...]esto.
260. [...]estus (no. 1597) – cos. suff. cum [...]co.
261. [...]nus (no. 1599) – cos. suff. cum [...a]no.
262. [...]mus (no. 1601) – cos. suff. cum App. Claudio Laterano a. 189 aut 190.
263. [...]rinus, fetialis (no. 1602).
264. [...]stus (no. 1603).
265. Anonymus, adlectus inter tribunicios (no. 1604).
266. Anonymus, curator operum publicorum (no. 1608).
A List of New Senators of the Severan Period | 123

267. Anonymus, legatus et curator (no. 1609).


268. Anonymus, legatus et curator (no. 1610) – cos. suff. a. inc.
269. Anonymus, legatus Aquitaniae (no. 1611).
270. Anonymus, legatus Arabiae (no. 1612).
271. Anonymus, legatus Galatiae (no. 1613).
272. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae inferioris (no. 1615).
273. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae inferioris (no. 1616).
274. Anonymus, legatus Phrygiae et Cariae (no. 1617) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
275. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae aut Thraciae (no. 1618).
276. Anonymus, legatus Raetiae (no. 1619).
277. Anonymus, praetor (no. 1623).
278. Anonymus, praetor (no. 1624).
279. Anonymus, proconsul Achaiae (no. 1626).
280. Anonymus, proconsul Achaiae (no. 1627).
281. Anonymus, proconsul Lyciae Pamphyliae (no. 1631) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
282. Anonymus, proconsul Siciliae (no. 1632).
283. Anonymus, quaestor Asiae (no. 1633).
284. Anonymus, sacerdos vel [Sace]rdos (no. 1635).
285. Anonymus, salius Palatinus (no. 1636).
286. Anonymus, XV vir sacris faciundis (no. 1639) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
287. Anonymus, Adaboniae Severinae pater aut maritus primus (no. 1640).
288. Anonymus, Attiae Sacratae pater aut maritus (no. 1649).
289. Anonymus, Cerelliae [Pa]uli[n]ae pater aut maritus (no. 1655).
290. Anonymus, Tiberii Claudii Alexandri cognatus (no. 1657).
291. Anonymus, Claudiae Rufinae maritus (no. 1659) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
292. Anonymus, Cl(audiae) Severae maritus (no. 1660) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
293. Anonymus, Flaviae Priscae pater aut maritus (no. 1663).
294. Anonymus, Ialliae Bassianae pater aut maritus (no. 1666).
295. Anonymus, Memmiae Nerullae pater aut maritus (no. 1670).
296. Anonymus, Rubriae Felicitatis pater aut maritus (no. 1675).
297. Anonymus, [Se]rgiae Au[reli]ae Reginae pater et maritus (no. 1678) – cos. suff. sub
Severis?
298. Anonymus, Vibiae Domnae pater aut maritus (no. 1681).
299. Anonymus, V[...]ii Sempronii Visellii cognatus (no. 1682) – cos. suff. sub Severis?
Appendix II*

The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West)

Italy
SENATORES CERTI
1. M’. Acilius Aviola.
2. M’. Acilius Faustinus.
3. M’. Acilius Glabrio.
4. Acilius Glabrio.
5. L. Aconius Callistus.
6. Aetrius Severus.
7. Annius Honoratus.
8. Annius Italicus.
9. L. Annius Italicus Honoratus.
10. L. Annius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus.
11. L. Annius Maximus.
12. M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus.
13. M. Antius Gratillianus.
14. (M?) Antonius Balbus (no. 73).
15. (M?) Antonius Balbus (no. 74).
16. M. Antonius Balbus.
17. M. Antonius Crispinus.
18. (Appius?).
19. C. Appius [...] Sabinus.

* 
The lists are based on the criterion of regional origin of senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West).
The basis for the systematization is the Album (vide vol. I), in which I presented the data on the origo
of senators (e.g., province, town). If a senator (or the whole family) is located in provinces belonging to
different regions, he is not listed in this Appendix. In case of senators with identical nomen or anony-
mous senators, I provide a number of his biographic entry found in the album for the sake of quicker
identification. The rulers are not taken into account in the listings.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 125

20. M. Arrius Clementianus.


21. Q. Atrius Clonius.
22. C. Atticius Norbanus Strabo.
23. L. Attidius Cornelianus.
24. Ti. Attius Iulianus.
25. Atulenus Rufinus.
26. Audius Bassus.
27. M. Aufidius Fronto.
28. Aufidius Severianus.
29. C. Aufidius Victorinus.
30. (Bassaeus?).
31. Bassaeu[s ...]anus.
32. M. Bassaeus Astur (no. 179).
33. M. Bassaeus Astur (no. 180).
34. Bassus (no. 181).
35. Bassus (no. 182).
36. C. Betitius Pius.
37. Betitius Pius Maximilianus.
38. L. Bruttius Crispinus.
39. C. Bruttius Praesens (no. 187).
40. C. Bruttius Praesens (no. 188).
41. L. Bruttius Quintus Crispinus.
42. C. Caecina Largus.
43. C. Caerellius Fufidius Annius Ravus Pollitianus.
44. Caerellius Marcianus.
45. C. Caerellius Sabinus.
46. Caesennius Servili[us Isauricus?].
47. [... C?]aese(nnius) Vinius.
48. T. Caesernius Sta[t]iu[s ...]ianus (fortasse [Quint]ianus).
49. L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus.
50. C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus.
51. Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter.
52. Calpurnius Maximus.
53. L. Calpurnius Piso.
54. (Calpurnius Piso?).
55. Calvisius Rufus.
126 | Appendix II

56. Cannutius Modestus.


57. Casperius Aemilianus.
58. Casperius Agrippinus.
59. (Cassius?).
60. L. Catius Celer.
61. P. Catius Sabinus.
62. (M.) Ceionius (vel Caeionius) Albinus.
63. Q. Cerellius Apollinaris.
64. Cerellius (vel Caerellius) Faustinianus.
65. Cerellius (vel Caerellius) Iulianus.
66. Cerellius Macrinus.
67. C. Cervonius Papus.
68. Ti. Cl(audius) Me[vius? P]riscus Ruf[inus I]unior.
69. T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus.
70. M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus.
71. T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus.
72. M. (Clodius?) Pupienus Africanus.
73. [C]odonius Taurus vel [...c]odonius Taurus.
74. L. Cossonius Eggius Marullus.
75. Cossonius Scipio Orfitus.
76. C. Passienius Cossonius Scipio Orfitus.
77. Didius Proculus.
78. C. Domitius Dexter.
79. Egnatius Leo.
80. C. Egnatius Lucilianus.
81. Egnatius Proclianus.
82. A. Egnatius Proculus.
83. Q. Egnatius Proculus (no. 413).
84. Q. Egnatius Proculus (no. 414).
85. Egnatius Victor.
86. L. Egnatius Victor Lollianus.
87. Egnatius (Victor) Marinianus.
88. Fabius Agrippinus.
89. Flavius Iulius Latron[ianus].
90. (C?) Flavius Iulius Latronianus.
91. T. Flavius Novius Rufus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 127

92. C. Fufidius Atticus.


93. Fulvius (Gavius Numisius Petronius?) Aemilianus.
94. Fulvius (Gavius Numisius) Aemilianus.
95. L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus.
96. C. Fulvius Maximus (no. 504).
97. C. Fulvius Maximus (no. 505).
98. C. Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus.
99. Gabinius Vindex Pompeianus.
100. (Gavius?) Cornelius Cethegus.
101. M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior.
102. (M. Gavius) Gallicanus.
103. M. Gav[ius] M[aximus].
104. Gavius Tranquillus.
105. Hedius Lollianus.
106. Hedius Lollianus Gentianus.
107. Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus.
108. L. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Avitus.
109. Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus.
110. (Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus.
111. Q. (Hedius Lollianus?) Terentius Rufus.
112. Hedius Lollianus Titianus.
113. P. Helvius Pertinax.
114. M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens Tadius Flaccus.
115. Herennius Nepos.
116. Q. Herennius Silvius Maximus.
117. [Iasdius].
118. Iasdius Domitianus.
119. L. Iasdius Aemilius Honoratianus Postumus.
120. Iulius Cassius Paulinus.
121. L. Iulius Faustinianus.
122. L. Iulius Iulianus.
123. Iunius Silanus.
124. M. Iuventius Caesianus.
125. M. Iuventius Secundus.
126. M. Iuventius Secundus Rixa Postumius Pansa Valerianu[s ...] Severus.
127. M. Iuventius Surus Proculus.
128 | Appendix II

128. M. Laelius Firminus Fulvius Maximus.


129. M. Laelius Maximus.
130. M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus Aemilianus.
131. Q. Licinius Nepos.
132. L. Licinius Sabinus.
133. T. Lorenius Celsus.
134. L. Lorenius Crispinus.
135. Q. Lucanius Valerianus.
136. C. Lucceius Camars.
137. C. Luxilius Sabinus Egnatius Proculus.
138. Maecenas.
139. Maecilius Fuscus.
140. L. Mantennius Sabinus.
141. L. Mantennius Severus.
142. Marcius.
143. M. Marius Titius Rufinus.
144. [...] Messalinus.
145. Minicius Opimianus (Minicius Timinianus Oppianus).
146. [...]cus Modestus Paulinus.
147. Modius Iulius.
148. Modius Tereventinus = Um[brius?] Tereventinus.
149. M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis.
150. [M. Munat]ius [Su]lla Urbanus.
151. Neratius Priscus (no. 742).
152. Neratius Priscus (no. 743).
153. M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus.
154. M. Nonius Arrius Mucianus Manlius Carbo.
155. M. Nonius Arrius Paulinus Aper.
156. Nonius Gracchus.
157. L. Novius Rufus.
158. Numit[orius].
159. M. Nummius Attidius Senecio Albinus.
160. (M.) Nummius (Ceionius?) Albinus.
161. Nummius Faustinianus.
162. M. Nummius Senecio Albinus.
163. M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio Albinus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 129

164. M. Oclatinius Adventus.


165. C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus.
166. C. Octavius Suetrius Proculus.
167. Papius Faustus.
168. C. (Passienus).
169. Pescennius Albinus.
170. Pescennius Aurelianus.
171. Pescennius Festus.
172. Pescennius Iulianus.
173. Pescennius Materianus.
174. P. Pescennius Niger.
175. Pescennius Veratianus.
176. Pescennius Vitulus.
177. Petronius Iunior.
178. C. Petronius Magnus.
179. Q. Petronius Melior.
180. Cn. Petronius Probatus Iunior Iustus.
181. L. Petronius Verus.
182. Pomponius Bassus (no. 827).
183. (Pomponius) Bassus (no. 828).
184. C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus.
185. P. Pomponius Cornelianus.
186. Pomponius Iulianus.
187. Pomponius Magianus.
188. L. Pontius Bassus.
189. L. Pontius Mauricus.
190. C. Pontius Pontianus Fuficius Maximus = P. Fu(...) Pontianus.
191. L. Pontius Verus.
192. Popilius Pedo Apronianus.
193. C. Porcius Priscus Longinus.
194. Postumius Severus.
195. C. Praecellius Augurinus Vettius Festus Crispinianus Vibius Verus Cassianus.
196. L. Publilius Probatus.
197. Ragonius Celsus.
198. L. Ragonius Urinatius Tuscenius Quintianus.
199. Ragonius Venustus.
130 | Appendix II

200. [Rubrenus].
201. M. Rubrenus Ma[gi]anus.
202. M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus Magianus Proculus.
203. Rufius Mar[cell]inus.
204. C. Rufius Proculus.
205. Rufrius Sulpicia(nus).
206. L. Rupilius Appianus.
207. Rutilius Pudens Crispinus.
208. [...]ius Sabinianus.
209. C. Sabucius Maior?
210. C. Sabucius Maior Plotinus Faustinus.
211. M. Saenius Donatus.
212. Saevinius Proculus.
213. M. Salonius Longinus Marcellus.
214. Seius Carus.
215. T. Sextius Magius Lateranus.
216. Sextius Torquatus.
217. M. Silius Messalla.
218. Silius Messalla.
219. [Cn. Su]ellius Rufus.
220. T. Suellius (Rufus?) Marcianus.
221. Sulpicius Arrenianus.
222. C. Sulpicius Arrenianus.
223. Sulpicius Priscus.
224. Tarius Titianus.
225. Q. Tine[...].
226. Q. Tineius Clemens.
227. Q. Tineius Rufus.
228. Q. Tineius Sacerdos.
229. Triarius Maternus Lascivius.
230. A. Triarius Rufinus (= ? Triarius [Iu]nius Ruf[inus P]ostumus [Vi]bianus).
231. P. Tullius Marsus.
232. M. Valerius Bradua Mauricus.
233. [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius Acil­
ius Priscillianus) Maximus.
234. Valerius Messalla.
235. L. Valerius Messalla (Apollinaris?).
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 131

236. L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis.


237. Venidius Quietus.
238. L. Vespronius Candidus Sallustius Sabinianus.
239. Vibius Gallus.
240. Q. Virius Egnatius Sulpicius Priscus.
241. [M. Rubrenus?] Q. Virius Larcius Sulpicius.
242. M. Umbilius Maximinus.
243. M. Umbilius Maximinus Praetextatus.
244. Q. Umbricius Proculus.
245. M. Umbrius Primus.
246. Anonymus, consul (no. 1076).
247. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae superioris (no. 1122).
248. Anonymus, adlectus inter praetorios (no. 1127).
249. Anonymus, Corneliae Privignae filius (no. 1143).
250. Anonymus, Geminiae Bassae maritus aut pater (no. 1154).
251. Anonymus, Mummiae Laenillae filius (no. 1158).
252. Anonymus, Rufiae Proculae maritus (no. 1165).

SENATORES PROBABILES
253. (Acilius?) (no. 1198).
254. (Acilius?) (no. 1199).
255. Acilius Aviola.
256. Acilius Glabrio.
257. Acilius Severus.
258. L. Aconius Callistus.
259. M. Aemilius Flavius Iulianus Latinianus.
260. L. Albinius Saturninus.
261. [L. Allius ...].
262. L. Allius Volusianus.
263. Anneius Ravus.
264. M. Annius Proculus.
265. Ann[ius Pu]blicius Honoratus.
266. L. Annius Ravus.
267. Q. Aquilius Niger.
268. Auf(idius?) Gallus.
269. Aurelius Appius Sabinus.
132 | Appendix II

270. M. Aurelius Saturninus.


271. Appius Caecina Suetrius Sabinus.
272. A. Caecina Tacitus.
273. [Caerellius ...?].
274. Caesennius Isauricus.
275. Calpurnius Piso.
276. Ser. Calpurnius Scipio Orfitus.
277. (Cannutius?).
278. M. Casineius Vassius Passenilianus Titianus.
279. M. Cassius Hortensius Paulinus.
280. M. Cassius (Agrippa Sanctus?) Paullinus (Augustanius Alpinus?).
281. L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius Natalis.
282. Ti. Claudius Bithynicus.
283. Ti. Claudius Serenus.
284. P. Cluvius Maximus Paulinus.
285. (Gavius? Cornelius) Cethegus.
286. M. (Gavius) Cornelius Cethegus.
287. Cornelius Scipio Orfitus.
288. Ser. (Cornelius) Scipio (Salvidienus) Orfitus.
289. (T.) Desticius Sallustius Iuba.
290. [Desticius? Iu]ba [... M]acer [R]ufus [...]tilius [...]avius.
291. [...iu]s Dexter.
292. C. Egnatius Certus.
293. M. Egnatius Postumus.
294. [Pris]cus Egrilius Plarianus.
295. [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus [Flavius?...].
296. (Fulvius?).
297. T. Fundanius Vitrasius Pollio.
298. Hortensius Paulinus.
299. (Hortensius?).
300. Q. Insteius [...].
301. L. Iulius Lucilianus.
302. L. Iulius Pompilius Vetulenus Apronianus.
303. Q. Iulius Strabo Tertullus Firmidianus.
304. [...] Larcius Lepidus.
305. T. Marcius [C]le[mens?].
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 133

306. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Mar-
tialis Pisibisnus Lepidus.
307. P. Metilius Tertullinus Vennonianus.
308. (Minucius?).
309. C. Neratius Fufidius Annianus.
310. C. Neratius Fufidius Atticus.
311. C. Neratius Fufidius Priscus.
312. [...] P. Neratius M[acer vel -arcellus].
313. P. Nonius M[u?]tianus.
314. Novius P[riscus?].
315. C. Novius Rusticus Venuleius Apronianus.
316. [...] Pontius Rabellianus.
317. [...] Pontius Verus.
318. M. Popilius Pedo.
319. L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus.
320. Rocius (vel [...]rocius) Piso nisi Proclus Piso.
321. Rufius Festus.
322. C. Rufius Festus Laelius Firmus.
323. C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus.
324. Saenius Donatus Saturninus.
325. L. Saevinius Proculus.
326. Seius Fuscianus.
327. Cn. Serius Oppianicus Augurinus.
328. [... Sollius ...].
329. M. Sollius At[ticus].
330. P. Sta[tius] Iulianus P(a)elignianus.
331. Q. Suetrius Pudens.
332. Q. Tarquitius Catu[l]us.
333. Q. [T]arronius Felix Dexter.
334. Tineius Longus.
335. Tiro.
336. L. Tulcidius? Perennis.
337. L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus.
338. C. Vesnius Vindex.
339. Vettius Scipio Orfitus.
340. [V]etulenus [A]pronianus.
341. Anonymus, adlectus inter tribunicios (no. 1604).
134 | Appendix II

342. Anonymus, legatus Aquitaniae (no. 1611).


343. Anonymus, legatus Pannoniae aut Thraciae (no. 1618).
344. Anonymus, salius Palatinus (no. 1636).
345. Anonymus, Adaboniae Severinae pater aut maritus primus (no. 1640).
346. Anonymus, Attiae Campanillae pater aut maritus (no. 1648).
347. Anonymus, Lusiae Rufiae Marcellae pater aut maritus (no. 1669).
348. Anonymus, Pacideiae Marciae maritus (no. 1672).
349. Anonymus, Passeniae Petroniae maritus aut pater (no. 1673).
350. Anonymus, Rubriae Felicitatis pater aut maritus (no. 1675).
351. Anonymus, Terentiae P[ris?]cae pater aut maritus (no. 1679).

The East
SENATORES CERTI
1. Aelius Antipater (no. 9).
2. Aelius Antipater (no. 10).
3. P? Aelius Coeranus (no. 12).
4. P. Aelius Coeranus (no. 13).
5. Aelius Diodotus.
6. P. Aelius Hilarianus.
7. P. Aelius Severianus Maximus (no. 20).
8. P. Ael(ius) Severianus Maximus (no. 21).
9. P. Aelius Symmachus.
10. C. Aemilius Berenicianus.
11. [A]nt(onius) Iuli[an]us.
12. (M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero.
13. Asinius Lepidus.
14. C. Asinius Lepidus Praetextatus.
15. C. Asinius Nicomachus Iulianus.
16. C. Asinius Quadratus.
17. C. Asinius Rufus Nicomachus.
18. P. Attius Clemens.
19. P. Attius Clementinus Rufinus.
20. P. Attius Pudens.
21. P. Attius Pudens Rufinus Celsianus.
22. Attius Rufinus (no. 137).
23. Attius Rufinus (no. 138).
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 135

24. Attius Rufinus (no. 139).


25. Attius Rufinus Metillianus.
26. P. Attius Ulpius Apuleius Clementinus Rufinus.
27. Aufidius Coresnius Marcellus.
28. M. Aurelius Artemidorus.
29. M. Aurelius Asclepiodotanus Asclepiades.
30. Aurelius Athenaeus.
31. Aurelius Basileus.
32. Aur(elius) Phi[lippus?].
33. Au[r(elius)] Polemo.
34. Aurelius Sanctus.
35. Aurelius Trypho.
36. [...]r Avitus.
37. Caecilius Aristo.
38. Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 232).
39. Calpurnius Reginianus (no. 233).
40. (M? Ulpius?) Carminius Flavius Athenagoras Claudianus.
41. T. Flavius Carminius Athenagoras Claudianus.
42. M. Fl(avius) Carminius Athenagoras Livianus.
43. (M. Ulpius) Carminius Claudianus.
44. Carminius Claudianus.
45. L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio.
46. Claudius Acilius Cleobulus.
47. Claudius Acilius Iulius.
48. Cl(audius) Apellinus.
49. Claudius Arabianus.
50. Ti. Claudius Artemidorus.
51. Cl(audius) Attalus.
52. L. vel Ti. Claudius Attalus.
53. Ti. Claudius Attalus.
54. Ti. Claudius (Antonius?) Attalus.
55. C. Claudius Attalus Paterculianus.
56. P. vel Ti. Claudius Attalus Paterculianus.
57. Tib. Claudius Attalus Paterclianus.
58. Claudius Atticus Marathonius.
59. Tib. Cl(audius) Aurelius Attalus.
136 | Appendix II

60. L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus.


61. Tib. Claudius Callipianus Italicus.
62. M. Claudius Caninius Severus.
63. Claudius Capitolinus.
64. Claudius Cassianus.
65. Claudius Ca[s]sius Agrippinus.
66. C? Claudius Clemens.
67. Ti. Claudius Cleobulus.
68. M. Claudius Demetrius.
69. Claudius Diogenes.
70. Cl(audius) Eudaem(on).
71. Ti. Claudius Flavianus.
72. Ti. Claudius Gordianus.
73. Claudius Gorgus.
74. Ti. Claudius Herodianus.
75. Claudius Iulianus.
76. Cn. Claudius Leonticus.
77. Claudius Nysius.
78. Claudius Orestes.
79. Ti. Claudius Paulinus (no. 322).
80. Ti. Claudius Paulinus (no. 323).
81. Cl(audius) Piso.
82. Ti. Claudius Aurelius Commodus Pompeianus.
83. (Ti. Claudius?) Pompeianus (no. 326).
84. (Ti. Claudius?) Pompeianus (no. 328).
85. Claudius Pompeianus.
86. Ti. Cl(audius) Pompeianus (no. 330).
87. Ti. Claudius Pompeianus (no. 331).
88. L.Ti. Claudius Pompeianus.
89. (Cn. Claudius?) Severus (no. 334).
90. Cn. Claudius Severus (no. 335).
91. Ti. Claudius Severus.
92. Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus.
93. Tib. Cl(audius) Stasithemis.
94. Claudius Stratonicus.
95. Tib. Claudius Telemachus (no. 344).
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 137

96. [Tib. Claudius Te?]lema[chus] (no. 345).


97. Claudius Teres.
98. Ti. Claudius [...]la(s?) Theopropus.
99. Ti. [Claudiu]s vel [Claudius ...]s Vibianus Tert[ullus].
100. L. Clodius Pompeianus.
101. (Clodius) Pompeianus.
102. (Crepereius?).
103. (Curtius Iulius?) Crispus.
104. L. vel C. Cuspius Rufinus.
105. Demetrius.
106. L. Didius Marinus.
107. [Dio]nysius.
108. C. Domitius Antigonus.
109. M. Domitius Valerianus.
110. Fir[mius?] Philopappus.
111. (Flavius?) (no. 438).
112. (Flavius?) (no. 439).
113. (Flavius?) (no. 440).
114. (Flavius?) (no. 441).
115. (Flavius?) (no. 442).
116. (T. Flavius?).
117. Flavius [An]tiochus.
118. T. Flavius Archelaus (vel Archesilaus).
119. T. Flavius Aristus Ulpianus.
120. T. Flavius Archelaus Claudianus.
121. T. Fl(avius) Claudianus.
122. T. Flavius Clitosthenes.
123. T. Flavius Damianus (no. 460).
124. T. Flavius Damianus (no. 461).
125. Fla(vius) Dryantianus Marathonius.
126. T. Flavius Hermocrates.
127. Flavius Menander.
128. P. Flavius Menander Africanus.
129. Flavius Phaedrus.
130. Flavius Rufinianus vel Rusonianus.
131. T. Flavius Secundus Philippianus.
138 | Appendix II

132. T. Flavius Stasicles Methrophanes.


133. T. Flavius Vedius Antoninus (no. 487).
134. T. Flavius Vedius Antoninus (no. 488).
135. T. Flavius Vedius Apellas.
136. T. Flavius Vedius Damianus.
137. T. Flavius Victorinus Philippianus.
138. M. Flavius Vitellius Seleucus.
139. Gellius Maximus.
140. Gessius Marcianus.
141. Heraclitus (no. 541).
142. [Her]aclitus (no. 542).
143. (Iulius?).
144. Iulius Antonius Seleucus.
145. L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius Salamallianus.
146. L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Avitianus.
147. L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius.
148. C. Iulius Avitus (no. 562).
149. C. Iulius Avitus (no. 563).
150. Iulius Fronto Tlepolemus.
151. M. Iulius Gessius Bassianus.
152. C. Iulius Marcus = Marcellus = Martius Iulius Marcus.
153. (Iulius Maximianus?) (no. 586).
154. Iulius Maximianus (no. 587).
155. C. Iulius Maximinus.
156. C. Iulius Philippus.
157. Iu[l]ius Sa[t]yrus Dryan[s vel -tianus].
158. Iulius Solon.
159. T. Iulius Tertullus Antiochus.
160. M. Iunius Hermogenes.
161. Iunius Rufinus.
162. M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus.
163. C. Licinius Telemachus.
164. Menyllius? Attalus.
165. [...] Musiarcus.
166. Ostor[ius].
167. [Iuli?]us Paulinus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 139

168. [Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 817).


169. [Cn. Pompeius?] (no. 818).
170. Cn. Pompeius Antonius Amoenus.
171. Pompe[ius Cassianus?].
172. Cn. Pompeius Hermippus Aelianus (iunior).
173. Tib. Pontius Pontianus.
174. Pontius Proculus Pontianus.
175. C. Sallius Aristaenetus.
176. [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus].
177. L. Serg[ius Paullus? M. Anton?]ius Zeno.
178. Severianus.
179. Spicius Antigonus.
180. Sulpicius Iustus Dr[y]antianus.
181. Sulpicius Pollio.
182. C. Sulpicius Pollio.
183. Tullius Menophilus.
184. Valerianus Paetus.
185. P. Valerius Comazon.
186. L. Valerius Paetus.
187. M. Valerius Paetus Aqui[la] vel Aqui[linus].
188. Q? (vel Cl?) Valerius Rufrius Iustus.
189. Varius Macrinus.
190. Sex. Varius Marcellus.
191. P. Vedius Papianus Antoninus.
192. M. Ulpius Arabianus.
193. M. Ulpius Domitius Aristaeus Arabianus.
194. M. Ulpius Eubiotus Leurus.
195. M. Ulpius Flavius Tisamenus.
196. Ulpius Leurus.
197. M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus.
198. M. Ulpius Pupienus Maximus.
199. Ulpius Soter.
200. M. Ulpius Tertullianus Aquila.
201. Anonymus, T. Antonii Claudii Alfeni Arignoti cognatus (no. 1137).
202. Anonymus, Cl(audiae) Ant(oniae) Sabinae maritus (no. 1140).
203. Anonymus, Cl(audiae) Bacchidis pater aut maritus (no. 1141).
140 | Appendix II

204. Anonymus, [Fl(avii)?] Aur(elii) Eili cognatus (no. 1147).


205. Anonymus, Flavii Diadumeni cognatus (no. 1148).
206. Anonymus, Flaviae Lepidae maritus (no. 1149).
207. Anonymus, T. Fl(avii) Lucii Hieraxis cognatus (no. 1150).
208. Anonymus, Flaviae Priscillae cognatus (no. 1151).
209. Anonymus, Fl(avii) Scriboniani cognatus (no. 1152).
210. Anonymus, L. Pomponiae Melitinae maritus (no. 1159).
211. Anonymus, Quintilii Eumenis nepos (no. 1164).
212. Anonymus, [...] Musiarci pater (no. 1180).
213. Anonymus, Theopropi filius (no. 1195).

SENATORES PROBABILES
214. Ael(ius) Saoterus.
215. P. Aelius Sempronius Metrophanes.
216. Aemilius Iuncus.
217. Antistius Zoillus.
218. M. Aurelius Amarantus.
219. Aurelius Attinas.
220. Calpurnius Proculus.
221. L. Calpurnius Proculus.
222. G. C[...] Calpurnius Rufinus.
223. M? Cassius Apronianus.
224. Cla[udius A]pollin[aris].
225. Ti. Cl(audius) Appius Atilius Bradua Regillus Atticus.
226. Ti. Claudius M. Appius Atilius Bradua Regillus Atticus.
227. Ti. Claudius Aristocles.
228. Ti. Claudius Cethegus Frontinus.
229. C. Claudius Clemens Licinianus.
230. [...]us Claud[ius] Corneli[anus vel Cornelia (tribu)?].
231. Ti. Claudius Draco.
232. Tib. Claudius Hermias (Theopropus).
233. Tib. Claudius Pausanias.
234. Cn. Claudius Severus.
235. Ti. Cl[audius Vibianus? Te]rtullus.
236. Cornelius Archelaus.
237. L. Crepereius Fronto.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 141

238. (Fabius?).
239. Fabius Aemilianus.
240. Fabius Demetrius.
241. Fabius Pro[culus] vel Pro[culianus].
242. (Flavius) (no. 1363).
243. (Flavius?) (no. 1364).
244. T. Flavius Archelaus.
245. Flavius Balbus Diogenianus.
246. (Flavius) Callaeschrus.
247. L. Flavius Cleonaeus.
248. T. Flavius Lollianus Aristobulus.
249. Flavius Marc(ius?) Scribonianus.
250. T. Fl(avius) Mon[tanus] Maximil[lianus].
251. T. Flavius Philinus (no. 1376).
252. [T. Flavius] Philinus (no. 1377).
253. L. Flavius Sulpicianus Dorio Polymnis.
254. M. Fl(avius) Vitellius Seleucus.
255. Flavonius Lollianus.
256. P. Flavonius Paulinus.
257. (Gellius?).
258. Hemerius.
259. C. Iulius Dionysius Honoratus.
260. Tib. Iulius Frugi.
261. C. Iulius Maximianus Diophantus.
262. Cn. Licinius Rufinus.
263. Licinnius Mucianus.
264. Marcellinus.
265. Marcellus.
266. Cn. Pompeius Hermippus Aelianus.
267. L. Pomponius Protomachus.
268. T. Sallustius T. Flavius Athenagoras.
269. Septimius Antipater.
270. (Septimius?) Silvanus Nicolaus.
271. M. Ulpius Astius.
272. M. Ulpius Boethus.
273. Ulpius Flavius Claudius Ponticus.
142 | Appendix II

274. Ulpius Quirinius Quadratianus.


275. Veturius Quintianus.
276. L Vibullius Claudius Herodes.
277. Anonymus, proconsul Cypri (no. 1629).
278. Anonymus, Aeliae Hegemonis filius aut nepos (no. 1641).
279. Anonymus, [Arr]unti[i ...]ini [A](q)uil[ini] (I)tal[icia]ni cognatus (no. 1644).
280. Anonymus, Attalianae pater aut maritus (no. 1645).
281. Anonymus, L[uc?]iae Aureliae Epi[ph]an[i]ae pater aut maritus (no. 1650).
282. Anonymus, [...i]i Charidemi cognatus (no. 1656).
283. Anonymus, Tiberii Claudii Alexandri cognatus (no. 1657).
284. Anonymus, Ti. Claudii Hermiae Theopropi filiae cognatus (no. 1658).
285. Anonymus, Claudiae Rufinae maritus (no. 1659).
286. Anonymus, Cl(audiae) Severae maritus (no. 1660).
287. Anonymus, Fl(aviae) Gel(liae) Antipatrae pater aut maritus (no. 1662).
288. Anonymus, filius senatoris signo Hemerius (no. 1665).
289. Anonymus, Pomponii Corneliani Lolliani Hediani cognatus (no. 1674).
290. Anonymus, Semproniae Romanae maritus (no. 1676).
291. Anonymus, [Se]rgiae Au[reli]ae Reginae pater aut maritus (no. 1678).

Africa
SENATORES CERTI
1. Q. A[elius?].
2. Aelius Celsus.
3. P. Aelius Secundinus.
4. M. Aemilius Macer Dinarchus.
5. M. Aemilius Macer Faustinianus.
6. M. Aemilius Macer Saturninus.
7. Afer.
8. Agrius.
9. Agrius Celsinianus.
10. L. Alfenus Senecio.
11. Q. Anicius Faustus.
12. (Sex?) Anicius Faustus Paulinus.
13. [C. Annius Anullinus Geminus Pe]rcennianus.
14. (P?) Aradius Paternus.
15. P. Aradius Paternus Rufinianus Aelianus [Iu?]n(ior).
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 143

16. Q. Aradius Rufinus.


17. Q. Aradius Rufinus Optatus Aelianus.
18. L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus.
19. L. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus Tiberianus.
20. P. Aradius Roscius Rufinus Saturninus Tiberianus.
21. Ti. Aradi[us Saturninus?].
22. C. Arrius Antoninus (no. 104).
23. (C. Arrius Antoninus?) (no. 105).
24. C. Arrius Antoninus (no. 106).
25. T. Arrius Bassianus.
26. C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus.
27. C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus.
28. Arrius Maximus (no. 111).
29. C. Arrius Pacatus (no. 112).
30. C. Arrius Pacatus (no. 113).
31. C. Arrius Quadratus.
32. Sex. Asinius Rufinus Fabianus.
33. M. Triarius Rufinus Asinnius Sabinianus.
34. Q. Aurelius Polus Terentianus.
35. M. Aurelius Seranus.
36. (Baburius?).
37. Caecilius Aemilianus.
38. Sex. Caecilius Aemilianus.
39. M. Caecilius Fuscianus Crepereianus Florianus.
40. Q. Caecilius Pudens.
41. M. Caecilius Rufinus.
42. Q. Caecilius Rufinus.
43. Q. Caecilius Rufinus Crepereianus.
44. M. Caecilius Rufinus Marianus.
45. Sex. Caecilius Volusianus.
46. M. Caelius Faustinus.
47. C. Calpurnius Ceius Aemilianus.
48. L. Calpurnius Fidus Aemilianus.
49. Calpurnius Front[i]n[us].
50. Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus.
51. Tib. Claudius Candidus.
144 | Appendix II

52. Ti. Claudius Claudianus.


53. Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus.
54. Ti. Cl[audius?] M[odestus?].
55. P. Claudius Pallas Honorat(us vel -ianus).
56. [Ti?] Cl(audius) Subatia[nus ...].
57. Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus.
58. M. Coculnius Quintilianus.
59. Q. Comius Armiger Crescens.
60. Cornelius Repentinus.
61. Q. Cornelius Valens Cu[...]ius Honestianus Iunianus.
62. Cosinius Marcianus.
63. P. Cosinius Felix.
64. L. Domitius Gallicanus Papinianus.
65. Egnatuleius Honoratus.
66. P. Flavius Pudens Pomponianus (no. 476).
67. P. Flavius Pudens Pomponianus (no. 477).
68. Fulvius Faustinus.
69. Fulvius Fuscus Granianus.
70. Fulvius Pius.
71. C. Fulvius Plautianus.
72. C. Fulvius Plautius Hortensianus.
73. Furnius Iulianus.
74. Sex. Furnius Publianus.
75. Sex. Furnius Sulpicianus.
76. (L. Pullaienus?) Gargil[ius] Antiqu[us].
77. Q. Geminius Marcianus.
78. Geminius Modestus.
79. L. Insteius Tertullus.
80. C. Iulius Cerealis.
81. C. Iulius Flaccus Aelianus.
82. Iulius Gaetulicus (no. 577).
83. Iulius Gaetulicus (no. 578).
84. P. Iulius Iunianus Martialianus.
85. (Iulius) Pompeius Rusonianus.
86. Iulius [Proculus].
87. C. Iulius Pudens.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 145

88. C. Iulius Septimius Castinus.


89. Iunius Iustus P[l]ac[id]us vel [Fl]ac[c]us.
90. C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Postumianus.
91. C. Iunius Faustinus Postumianus.
92. Lollius Professus vel Processus.
93. M. Maecius Probus.
94. M. (Pomponius?) Maecius Probus (no. 667).
95. M. Pomponius Maecius Probus (no. 668).
96. Q. Mamilius Capitolinus.
97. Marcius Tertullus.
98. L. Marius Maximus.
99. L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus.
100. L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 700).
101. L. Marius Perpetuus (no. 701).
102. M. Memmius Caecilianus.
103. C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius.
104. [Q?] Memmius Pudens.
105. Memmius Rufinus.
106. P. M(a)evius Saturninus Honoratianus.
107. P. Mevius Saturninus Honoratianus.
108. C. Mevius Silius Crescens Fortunatianus.
109. L. Naevius Quadratianus.
110. Ocratius Titianus.
111. T. Ocratius Valerian[us].
112. L. Octavius Iulianus.
113. Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius.
114. Pistorius Rugianus.
115. C. Pontius [Ul?]pius Verus [...]nianus Victor.
116. P. Porcius Optatus Flamma (no. 848).
117. P. Porcius Optatus Flamma (no. 849).
118. (Pudens?).
119. L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us].
120. L. Ranius Optatus.
121. L. Ranius Optatus Novatus Acontianus.
122. Q. Ranius Terentius Honoratianus Festus.
123. Q. Sa[llu]stius Mac[ri]nianus (no. 900).
146 | Appendix II

124. Q. Sallustius Mac[ri]nianus (no. 901).


125. Salvius Tuscus.
126. L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus) Aper.
127. P. Septimius Geta.
128. (Septimius) Severus.
129. Q. Servaeus Fuscus Cornelianus.
130. Q. Sicinius Clarus.
131. A. Terentius Pude(n)s.
132. A. Terentius Pudens Uttedianus.
133. C. Valerius Pudens.
134. Anonymus, praeses Pannoniae inferioris, legatus Macedoniae, legatus Dalmatiae
(no. 1119).
135. Anonymus, Corneliae Servianillae maritus (no. 1144).

SENATORES PROBABILES
136. L. Accius Iulianus Asclepianus.
137. Aemilius Frontinianus.
138. L. A[e]milius [Frontinus].
139. Aemilius Macer.
140. (Aemilius?) Sulla.
141. (Annaeus Fulvianus?).
142. L. Annaeus Maximus Aquila Fulvianus.
143. M. Annaeus Saturninus Clodianus Aelianus.
144. (C?) Annius Armenius (vel Arminius) Donatus.
145. [L. Ant...?] (no. 1239).
146. L. Ant[...] (no. 1240).
147. L. Antistius Burrus Adventus.
148. Q. Appaeus Felix Flavianus.
149. Arrius Maximus (no. 1249).
150. M. Asinius Rufinus Valerius Verus Sabinianus.
151. P. Attius Decianus Felix Matutinus.
152. M. Aureli[us ...].
153. Q. Caecilius Laetus.
154. Claudius Flavius Catulus Munatianus.
155. (Clodius?).
156. M. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Flavianus.
157. Sex. Cocceius Anicius Faustus Paulinus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 147

158. Sex. Cornelius Eucaerianus.


159. Sex. Cornelius Felix Pacatus.
160. L. Cornelius Felix Plotianus.
161. L. Cornelius Salvius Tuscus.
162. Cossinius Rufinus.
163. L. Flavius Flavianus.
164. Flavius Pollio Flavianus.
165. M. Flavius Postumus.
166. C. Fulcinius Fabius Maximus Optatus.
167. Sex. Furnius Faustus Sulpicianus.
168. Q. Gargilius Macer Aufidianus.
169. Q. Gran[ius ...].
170. Q. Granius Caelestinus.
171. M. Helvius Clemens Dextrianus.
172. (Hostilius?).
173. P? Iulius Castus.
174. P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus.
175. P. Iulius Iunianus Tironillianus.
176. (C. Iulius Pudens?).
177. M. Iulius Quintianus Flavius Rogatianus.
178. C. Iulius Victor.
179. L. Iunius Afer.
180. L. Iunius Aurelius Neratius Gallus Fulvius Macer (no. 1432).
181. [L. I]unius L. [f. Gal. Aurelius Ne]ratius G[allus Fulvius Ma]cer? (no. 1433).
182. [...]unius [...] [...]cus Car[...] [...]ntilianus = [I]unius [...] [...]cus Gar[gilius] [Qui]ntil-­
[i]an[us].
183. Q. Lusius Laberius Geminus Rutilianus.
184. [Lusius Laberius? S]eptius [Ruti]lianus.
185. [Memmius?].
186. C. Memmius Caecilianus Placidus.
187. P. Messius Augustinus Maecianus.
188. L. Messius Rufinus.
189. C. Mevius Donatus Iunianus.
190. L. Naevius Aquilinus.
191. Pompeius Faustinus Severianus.
192. L. Pomponius Dexter Celerinus.
193. C. Postumius Africanus.
148 | Appendix II

194. [P. P]os[t]umius Romulus.


195. (Pullaienus) Petronianus Decimus.
196. (Pullaienus) Titinius Pupianus.
197. Roscius Potitus (vel Potitius) Memmianus.
198. [...]lius Rugianus.
199. L. Septimius Flaccus.
200. L. Servaeus Amicus Potitianus.
201. Q. Servilius Pudens.
202. Anonymus, Caeliae Maximae pater aut maritus (no. 1654).
203. Anonymus, Clodiae Macrinae pater aut maritus (no. 1661).
204. Anonymus, [...]liae Honoratae pater (no. 1664).
205. Anonymus, Septimii Severi cognatus (no. 1677).
206. Anonymus, Tituleiae Paulae Rufinae pater aut maritus (no. 1680).

The West
SENATORES CERTI
1. Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus.
2. Aelius Ulpianus.
3. L. Alfenius Avitianus.
4. (L. Alfenius) Virius Avitus Avitianus.
5. L. Alfenius Virius Iulianus.
6. (Alfius?).
7. Alfius Avitus (no. 47).
8. A(l)fius Avitus (no. 48).
9. P. Alfius Avitus.
10. P. Alfius Avitus Numerius Maternus.
11. Alfius Maximus.
12. [P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus.
13. P. Alfius Maximus Numerius Licinianus.
14. M. Annius Flavius Libo.
15. [...]ius Aper.
16. L. Aurelius Gallus.
17. C. Bultius Geminius Marcellus.
18. C. Bultius Geminius Titianus.
19. Cv vel Cl[...]atianus.
20. D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 149

21. (Claudius?).
22. C. Claudius Paternus.
23. Claudius Sollemnius Pacatianus.
24. Q. Clodius Rufinus.
25. P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376).
26. P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 377).
27. P. Cornelius Saecularis.
28. (Fabius?).
29. L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus.
30. C. Fabius Fabianus Vetilius Lucilianus.
31. L.(M.) Fabius Fortunatus Victorinus.
32. C. Fabius Lucilianus.
33. Fabius Paulinus.
34. T. Flavius Aper Commodianus.
35. T. Floridius Natalis.
36. Furius Octavius.
37. C. Furius Octavianus.
38. Iulius Cassianus.
39. Q. Iulius Maximus.
40. D. Iu[nius?] Coelianus.
41. Licinius Serenianus.
42. [Maesius?].
43. C. Maesius Aquillius Fabius Titianus (no. 670).
44. C. Maesius (Aquillius Fabius?) Titianus (no. 671).
45. Maesius Fabius Titianus.
46. C. Maesius Titianus.
47. (Maesius) Titianus.
48. (Manilius?) (no. 677).
49. Manilius (no. 678).
50. T. Manilius Fuscus.
51. (Marcius?).
52. P. Martius Sergius Saturninus.
53. Maximius Attianus.
54. C. Messius Q. Decius Valerianus.
55. Ofilius Valerius Macedo.
56. Petronius Priscus.
150 | Appendix II

57. Q. Pompeius Falco Sosius Priscus.


58. [Pompeius F]alco.
59. Q. (Pompeius) Sosius Falco.
60. Vitalius Victor.
61. Anonymus, senator et consul? (no. 1077).
62. Anonymus, C[...] Cattunillae pater aut maritus (no. 1139).
63. Anonymus, Furiae L.f. Caeciliae maritus (no. 1153).
64. Anonymus, [...]i Apri pater (no. 1170).

SENATORES PROBABILES
65. P. Alfius Maximus.
66. L. Annius Longus.
67. M. Benn[ius ...].
68. Caelius Calvinus.
69. (Catinius?).
70. Catinius Canidianus.
71. M. Censorius Paulus.
72. Ti. Cl(audius) Marinus Pacatianus.
73. Claudius Varenus.
74. Q. Fabius Iulianus Optatianus L. Fabius Geminus Cornelianus.
75. L. Fabius Pollio.
76. L. Fulvius Numisianus.
77. Lusius Severus.
78. M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex.
79. Macrinus.
80. P. Maenius Cornelianus.
81. Q. (Maesius) Fabius Caesilius Modius Titianus.
82. M. Marcius Bietis Glaucus.
83. L. Marius Vegetinus Marcianus Minicianus Myrtilianus.
84. M. Martiannius Pulcher.
85. L. Matucius Maximus.
86. Cn. Papirius Aelianus.
87. M. Sedatius Severus Iulius Reginus.
88. [...]ius T[...].
89. L. Tutilius Pontianus Gentianus.
90. M. Valerius Maximianus.
The Origo of Senators (Italy, the East, Africa, the West) | 151

91. C. Valerius Respectus Terentianus.


92. Anonymus, quaestor Asiae (no. 1633).
93. Anonymus, Attiae Sacratae pater aut maritus (no. 1649).
94. Anonymus, Flaviae Priscae pater aut maritus (no. 1663).
95. Anonymus, Ialliae Bassianae pater aut maritus (no. 1666).
96. Anonymus, Iuliae Decimi filiae Cas(s)ianae maritus (no. 1667).
Appendix III

Senatorial Gentes of the Severan Period

1. Accii. 27. Aradii.


2. Acilii Glabriones. 28. Armenii.
3. Aelii Antipatri. 29. Arranii.
4. Aelii Coerani. 30. Arrii.
5. Aelii Secundini. 31. Asinii Lepidi.
6. Aelii Severiani. 32. Asinii Rufini.
7. Aemilii Frontini. 33. Attidii.
8. Aemilii Macri. 34. Attii.
9. Aemilii Iunci. 35. Aufidii Marcelli.
10. Agrii. 36. Aufidii Victorini.
11. Aiacii. 37. Aurelii Galli.
12. Alfenii. 38. Baebii Marcellini.
13. Alfii Aviti. 39. Bassaei.
14. Allii. 40. Betitii.
15. Anicii. 41. Bruttii.
16. Annaei Fulviani. 42. Bultii.
17. Annii Fabiani. 43. Caecilii Rufini.
18. Annii Honorati. 44. Caecinae Largi.
19. Annii Libones. 45. Caecinae Taciti.
20. Annii Maximi. 46. Caelii Balbini.
21. Antii. 47. Caerellii.
22. Antistii. 48. Caesennii.
23. Antonii Balbi. 49. Caesernii.
24. Antonii Felices. 50. Caesonii.
25. Antonii Gordiani. 51. Calpurnii Aemiliani.
26. Aquilii. 52. Calpurnii Maximi.
Senatorial Gentes of the Severan Period | 153

53. Calpurnii Pisones. 88. Cornelii Clementes.


54. Calpurnii Reginiani. 89. Cornelii Felices.
55. Carminii. 90. Cornelii Repentini.
56. Cassii Hortensii. 91. Cornelii Salvii.
57. Cassii Marcellini. 92. Cornelii Scipiones.
58. Catii. 93. Cosinii.
59. Catilii. 94. Cossonii.
60. Cervonii. 95. Cuspii.
61. Claudii Agrippini. 96. Desticii.
62. Claudii Attali. 97. Didii.
63. Claudii Attici. 98. Egnatii Proculi.
64. Claudii Arabiani. 99. Egnatii Victores.
65. Ap. Claudii Iuliani. 100. Egrilii.
66. Claudii Clementes. 101. Fabii (Athenae).
67. Claudii Cleobuli. 102. Fabii Agrippini.
68. Claudii Frontini. 103. Fabii Cilones.
69. Claudii Galli. 104. Fabii Magni.
70. Claudii Hermiae. 105. Flavii Apri.
71. Claudii Leontici. 106. Flavii Clitosthenei.
72. Claudii Macrinii. 107. Flavii Damiani.
73. Claudii Modesti. 108. Flavii Callaeschri.
74. Claudii Orestis. 109. Flavii Iulii Latroniani.
75. Claudii Paulini. 110. Flavii Philostrati.
76. Claudii Pompeiani. 111. Flavii Philini.
77. Claudii Severi (Pompeiopolis 112. Flavii Pudentes.
in Galatia). 113. Flavii Secundi.
78. Claudii Severi (Ephesus). 114. Flavii Sulpiciani.
79. Claudii Sollemnii. 115. Flavii Rufiniani.
80. Claudii Telemachi. 116. Flavii Vitellii.
81. Claudii Vibiani. 117. Fulvii Pii (Africa).
82. Clodii Celsini. 118. Fulvii Plautii.
83. Clodii Marcellini. 119. Fulvii Aemiliani.
84. Clodii Pupieni. 120. Fufidii.
85. Cluvii Maximi. 121. Fundanii.
86. Corfinii. 122. Furii.
87. Cornelii Anullini. 123. Furnii.
154 | Appendix III

124. Gavii Cornelii. 160. Lorenii.


125. Gavii Maximi. 161. Lucretii.
126. Gavii Orfiti. 162. Lusii.
127. Geminii. 163. Maecii Probi.
128. Gessii. 164. Maesii Titiani.
129. Granii. 165. Manilii.
130. Haterii. 166. Marcii Bietis.
131. Hedii Lolliani. 167. Marcii Victores.
132. Helvii. 168. Marii Maximi.
133. Herennii. 169. Martii Sergii.
134. Iasdii. 170. Mattii Pisibani.
135. Iulii Apronii. 171. Matucii.
136. Iulii Aspri. 172. Memmii Caeciliani.
137. Iulii Cassii. 173. Memmii Seneciones.
138. Iulii Crescentes. 174. Mevii.
139. Iulii Erucii. 175. Modii Iulii.
140. Iulii Frugi. 176. Minicii Opimiani.
141. Iulii Gaetulici. 177. Mummii Felices.
142. Iulii Iuniani. 178. Munatii Sullae.
143. Iulii Maximiani. 179. Neratii.
144. Iulii Maximini. 180. Nonii Arrii.
145. Iulii Proculi. 181. Novii Rufii.
146. Iulii Pudentes. 182. Nummii Albini.
147. Iulii Scapulae. 183. Ocratii.
148. Iulii Strabones. 184. Octavii Suetrii.
149. Iunii Faustini. 185. Octavii Iuliani.
150. Iunii Maximi. 186. Passienii.
151. Iunii Quintiani. 187. Papirii.
152. Iunii Rufini. 188. Peducaei Plautii.
153. Iuventii. 189. Percennii.
154. Laberii. 190. Pescennii.
155. Laelii Fulvii Maximi. 191. Petronii.
156. Larcii. 192. Pollenii.
157. Licinii Liciniani. 193. Popilii Pedones.
158. Licinii Nepotes. 194. Pompeii (Ephesus).
159. Licinii Rufini. 195. Pompeii Falcones.
Senatorial Gentes of the Severan Period | 155

196. Pomponii Bassi. 223. Silii Messallae.


197. Pomponii Corneliani. 224. Statilii.
198. Pontii Iuniani. 225. Statii.
199. Pontii Pontiani. 226. Suellii.
200. Pontii Veri. 227. Sulpicii Arreniani.
201. Porcii Optati. 228. Sulpicii Polliones.
202. Porcii Prisci. 229. Terentii Pudentes.
203. Prosii. 230. Tineii.
204. Pullaieni. 231. Triarii.
205. Ragonii. 232. Tullii.
206. Ranii. 233. Tutilii.
207. Roscii Aeliani. 234. Valerii Braduae.
208. Roscii Murenae. 235. Valerii Crescentes.
209. Rubreni. 236. Valerii Messallae.
210. Rufii Festi. 237. Valerii Paeti.
211. Sabucii. 238. Valerii Seneciones.
212. Saenii. 239. Valerii Turbones.
213. Saevinii. 240. Vedii.
214. Sallii Aristaeneti. 241. Vettii.
215. Sallustii Macriniani. 242. Virii.
216. Salvii. 243. Ulpii Arabiani.
217. Sedatii. 244. Ulpii Astii.
218. Seii. 245. Ulpii Attiani.
219. Septimii. 246. Ulpii Leuri.
220. Sergii. 247. Ulpii Pacati.
221. Serii Augurini. 248. Umbilii.
222. Sextii Laterani. 249. Umbrii.
Selected bibliography*

Alföldy G., Konsulat und Senatorenstand unter den Antoninen. Prosopo­graphische Untersu-
chungen zur senatorischen Führungsschicht, Bonn 1977.
–– Die römische Gesselschaft. Ausgewählte Beiträge, Stuttgart 1986.
Assorati G., L’adlectio in senato e l’epigrafia tra metà del I e metà del III sec. d. C.,
[in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni
dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, p. 473 and nn.
Barbieri G., L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285), Roma 1952.
Birley A.R., The Fasti of Roman Britain, Oxford 1981.
–– Viri Militares Moving from West to East in Two Crisis Years (AD 133 and
162), [in:] E. Lo Cascio, L. Tacoma (ed.), The Impact of Mobility and Mi-
gration in the Roman Empire, Leiden–Boston 2017, p. 55 and nn.
Brasloff S., Patriciat und Quaestur in römischen Kaiserzeit, Hermes 39, 1904, p. 618 and nn.
Chastagnol A., “Latus clavus” et “adlectio”. L’accès des hommes nouveaux au sénat romain sous
le Haut-Empire, RD 53, 1975, p. 375 and nn.
–– Le Sénat romain à l’ époque impériale. Recherches sur la composition de
l’Assemblée et le statut de ses membres, Paris 1992.
Christol M., La carrière de Q.  Cerellius  Apollinaris, préfet des vigiles de Caracalla,
[in:] J. Tréheux (ed.), Mélanges d’histoire ancienne offerts à William Ses-
ton, Paris 1974, p. 119 and nn.
Coriat J.-P., Les hommes nouveaux à l’ époque des Sévères, RD 56, 1978, p. 5 and nn.
Daguet-Gagey A., Le choix de l’ édilité ou du tribunat de la plèbe sous le principat,
[in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni
dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, p. 111 and nn.
Demougin S., Appartenir à l’ordre équestre au IIe siècle, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und
Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiser-
zeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993, p. 233 and nn.
–– Clarissima versus egregius: remarques sur les mariages inégaux,
[in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine senatorio, 30 anni
dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, p. 99 and nn.

* 
A collective bibliography of both volumes is presented in vol. I.
158 | Selected bibliography

Devijver H., Veränderungen in der Zusammensetzung der ritterlichen Offiziere von Septimius
Severus bis Gallienus, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialge­schichte.
Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Proso-
pographie, Köln 1993, p. 205 and nn.
Dietz K., Senatus contra principem. Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Opposition gegen Kaiser
Maximinus Thrax, München 1980.
Eck W., Das Eindringen des Christentums in den Senatorenstand bis zu Konstantin d. Gr.,
Chiron 1, 1971, p. 381 and nn.
–– Sozialstruktur des römischen Senatorenstandes der hohen Kaiserzeit und statis­
tische Methode, Chiron 3, 1973, p. 375 and nn.
–– Beförderungskriterien innerhalb der senatorischen Laufbahn, dargestellt an
der Zeit von 69 bis 138 n. Chr., Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt
II, 1, Berlin–New York 1974, p. 158 and nn.
–– Überlieferung und historische Realität: ein Grundproblem prosopographischer
Forschung, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien
zur Methodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie,
Köln 1993, p. 365 and nn.
–– Imperial Administration and Epigraphy: In Defence of Prosopography,
[in:] A.K. Bowman, H. Cotton, M. Goodman, S. Price (ed.), Representa-
tion of Empire, Rome and the Mediterranean World, Oxford 2002, p. 131
and nn.
–– Die Amtsträger: Instrumente in den Händen des Princeps und Begrenzung der
Autokratie. Traditioneller Cursus und kaiserliche Ernennung, [in:] J.-L. Fer-
rary, J. Scheid (ed.), Il princeps romano: autocrate o magistrato? Fattori giu­
ridici e fattori sociali del potere imperiale da Augusto a Commodo, Pavia 2015,
p. 659 and nn.
Eck W., Lieb H., Ein Diplom für die classis Ravennas vom 22. November 206, ZPE 96, 1993,
p. 75 and nn.
Faure P., L’aigle et le cep. Les centurions légionnaires dans l’Empire des Sévères, Bordeaux 2013.
Haensch R., Weiss P., Statthaltergewichte aus Pontus et Bithynia. Neue Exemplare und neue
Erkenntnisse, Chiron 37, 2007, p. 183 and nn.
Hahn J., Leunissen P.M.M., Statistical Method and the Problem of Inheritance of the Consulate
under the Early Roman Empire, Phoenix 44, 1990, p. 60 and nn.
Hammond M., Composition of the Roman senate A.D. 68–235, JRS 47, 1957, p. 74 and nn.
Hopkins K., Death and Renewal. Sociological Studies in Roman History 2, Cambridge 1983.
Jacques F., L’ éthique et la statistique. À propos du renouvellement du Sénat romain (Ier–IIIe
siècles de l’Empire), Annales. Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 42e année,
no. 6, 1987, p. 1287 and nn.
Jardé A., Études critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925.
Selected bibliography | 159

Kapłoniak K., Urzędy kuratorskie administracji miejskiej Rzymu od Augusta do Dioklecjana,


Kraków 2013.
Klingenberg A., Sozialer Abstieg in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Risiken der Oberschicht in der Zeit
von Augustus bis zum Ende der Severer, Paderborn 2011.
Krieckhaus A., Vater und Sohn. Bemerkungen zu den severischen “consules ordinarii“ M. Mu-
natius Sulla Cerialis und M. Munatius Sulla Urbanus, ZPE 153, 2005,
p. 283 and n.
Lambrechts P., La composition  du Sénat romain de Septime-Sévère à Dioclétien (193–284),
Budapest 1937.
Letta C., Settimio Severo e il Senato, [in:] M.L. Caldelli, G.L. Gregori (ed.), Epigrafia e ordine
senatorio, 30 anni dopo, Tituli 10, Roma 2014, p. 127 and nn.
Leunissen P.M.M., Konsuln und Konsulare in der Zeit von Commodus bis Severus Alexander
(180–235 n. Chr.). Prosopographische Untersuchungen zur senatorischen Elite
im römischen Kaiserreich, Amsterdam 1989.
–– Homines novi und Ergänzungen des Senats in der hohen Kaiserzeit: Zur Frage
nach der Repräsentativität unserer Dokumentation, [in:] W. Eck (ed.), Pro-
sopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkenntnismög-
lichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993, p. 81 and nn.
Mommsen Th., Römisches Staatsrecht (ed. 3), vol. 2, Leipzig 1887.
Okoń D., Consul designatus. Desygnacja na konsulat w okresie pryncypatu (30 r. p.n.e. – 235 r.
n.e.), Szczecin 2008.
–– Mariage de Septime Sévère avec Julia Domna au fond des stratégies matrimo-
niales des familles sénatoriales romaines à la charnière des IIe et IIIe siècles,
Eos 97, 2010, p. 45 and nn.
–– Septimius Severus et senatores. Septimius Severus’ Personal Policy Towards
Senators in the Light of Prosopographic Research (193–211 A.D.), Szczecin
2012.
–– Imperatores Severi et senatores. The History of the Imperial Personnel Policy,
Szczecin 2013.
–– P. Fu(...) Pontianus once again, Philia, Journal for the Ancient History and
Cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean 1, 2015, p. 129 and nn.
–– Septimius Severus et senatores once again. A Debate with Cesare Letta,
Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета, Bыпуск  4, Sankt Pe-
tersburg 2016, p. 174 and nn.
–– Senatorski cursus honorum w okresie republiki i wczesnego cesarstwa. Wybrane
zagadnienia, Xenia Posnaniensia, series tertia, no. 5, Poznań 2016.
Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I, II, III, E. Groag, A. Stein, L. Petersen, K. Wachtel,
W. Eck, M. Heil, J. Heinrichs (ed.), Berlin 1933–2015.
160 | Selected bibliography

Raepsaet-Charlier M.-Th., Égalité et inégalités dans les couches supérieures de la société romaine
sous le Haut-Empire, L’Egalité 8, 1982, p. 452 and nn.
–– Les femmes sénatoriales du IIIe siècle. Étude préliminaire, [in:] W. Eck (ed.),
Prosopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Methodik und Erkennt-
nismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln 1993, p. 147 and nn.
–– Le mariage, indice et facteur de mobilité sociale aux deux premiers siècles de
notre ère: l’exemple senatorial, [in:] Ed. Frézouls (ed.), La mobilité sociale
dans le monde romain. Actes du colloque organisé à Strasbourg (novembre
1988) par l’Institut et le Groupe de Recherche d’Histoire romaine, Strasbourg
1992, p. 33 and nn.
Ruciński S., Praefecti praetorio. Dowódcy gwardii pretoriańskiej od 2 roku przed Chr. do 282
roku po Chr., Bydgoszcz 2013.
Sablayrolles R., Libertinus miles. Les cohortes de vigils, Rome 1996.
Stein A., Der römische Ritterstand, München 1963.
Suder W., „Census populi”. Demografia starożytnego Rzymu, Acta Universitatis Wratislavien-
sis, no. 2467, Historia CLX, Wrocław 2003.
Talbert R.J.A., The Senate of Imperial Rome, Princeton 1984.
Thomasson B.E., Laterculi praesidum, vol. I–III, Lund–Arlöv 1972–1990.
–– Laterculi praesidum, vol. I (ex parte retractatum), Göteborg 2009.
Vittinghoff F., Rez. G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino (193–285)
(1952), Gnomon 29, 1957, p. 110 and nn.
Wachtel K., Zum  Einfluß der Familienpolitik  auf soziale Stellung und Laufbahn von Ange-
hörigen ritterlicher und senatorischer Familien in der frühen Kaiserzeit,
[in:] W. Eck (ed.), Prospopographie und Sozialgeschichte. Studien zur Me-
thodik und Erkenntnismöglichkeit der kaiserzeitlichen Prosopographie, Köln
1993, p. 191 and nn.
Wiseman T.P., New Men in the Roman Senate, 139 B.C.–A.D. 14, Oxford 1971.
List of abbreviations

AE – L’Année épigraphique
BHAC – Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium
CIG –
Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum
CIL –
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CLE –
Carmina Latina epigraphica 
Cod. Iust. –
Codex Iustinianus
Cod. Theod. – Codex Theodosianus
Dig. – Digesta
DNP –
Der neue Pauly
EE – Ephemeris Epigraphica
EOS –
Epigrafia e ordine senatorio
ES – Epigraphische Studien
FIRA –
Fontes Iuris Romani Anteiustiniani
2

HA – Historia Augusta
IDR – D.M. Pippidi, I. Russu, I. Piso (et al.), Inscriptiones Daciae Romanae
I.Eph. – H. Engelmann, D. Knibbe, R. Merkelbach, H. Wankel (et al.), Die In-
schriften von Ephesos
IG –
Inscriptiones Graecae
IGBulg –
G. Mihailov, Inscriptiones Graecae in Bulgaria repertae
IGLN (Novae) – J. Kolendo, V. Božilova, Inscriptions grecques et latines de Novae
IGLS – L. Jalabert, R. Mouterde, Inscriptions grecques et latines de la Syrie
IGR – R. Cagnat, Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes
IGSK –
Die Inschriften griechischer Städte aus Kleinasien 
I.I. –
Inscriptiones Italiae
ILAfr. – R. Cagnat, A. Merlin, L. Chatelain, Inscriptions latines d’Afrique
ILAlg. – S. Gsell, H.-G. Pflaum, X. Dupuis (et al.), Inscriptions latines de l’Algerie
ILingons – Y. Le Bohec, Inscriptions de la cité des Lingons
162 | List of abbreviations

ILMaroc – L. Chatelain, Inscriptions latines du Maroc


ILN –
J. Gascou, A. Chastagnol, B. Rémy (et al.), Inscriptions latines de Narbon-
naise (Paris 1985–)
ILNovae – J. Kolendo, V. Božilova, L. Mrozewicz, Inscriptions latines de Novae
ILS –
H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae
ILTun. –
A. Merlin, Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie
I. Olympia – W. Dittenberger (ed.), Die Inschriften von Olympia
I.Perge – S. Şahin (ed.), Die Inschriften von Perge
IRT – J.M. Reynolds, J.B. Ward-Perkins, The Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania
ISM –
Inscriptiones Scythiae Minoris Graecae et Latinae 
NS – Notizie degli Scavi di Antichità
PIR1 – Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I, II, III (editio prima)
PIR 2 – Prosopographia Imperii Romani saec. I, II, III (editio altera)
RE –
Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft
RE Suppl. – Real-Encyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft Pauly-Wissowa Sup-
plementum
RIB – R.G. Collingwood, R.P. Wright, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain
RIT –
G. Alföldy, Die römischen Inschriften von Tarraco
RIU – L. Barkóczi, A. Mócsy, B. Lörincz (et al.), Die römischen Inschriften Un-
garns
RMD I–III – M.M. Roxan, Roman Military Diplomas, vol. I–III
RMD IV–V – M.M. Roxan, P. Holder, Roman Military Diplomas, vol. IV–V
RS³ – Th. Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ed. 3
SEG – Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum
SPQR – B.E. Thomasson, SPQR. Senatores procuratoresque Romani nonnulli, quo-
rum cursus honorum munerumve post volumina Prosopographiae Imperii
Romani edita aut innotuerunt aut melius noti sunt, quomodo rei publicae
operam dederint
TAM – R. Heberdey, E. Kalinka (et al.), Tituli Asiae Minoris
TitAq –
Tituli Aquincenses
V.s. – Philostratos, Vitae sophistarum
ZPE – Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik
Index of authors*

G. Alföldy 9, 11, 22, 26, 31, 48, 60, 69, F. Jacques 10


78, 95, 100, 107, 113 A. Jardé 41
G. Barbieri 10–14, 22–26, 28–32, 42, P. Lambrechts 32
105, 109, 110
P.M.M. Leunissen 11, 22, 24–27, 31–32,
S. Brasloff 41 42, 48, 94–95, 97, 100, 107, 111, 113
A. Chastagnol 10 C. Letta 10
J.-P. Coriat 31–32, 111 H. Lieb 13
K. Dietz 22, 27, 28, 42 Th. Mommsen 41
W. Eck 10, 11, 13 D. Okoń 25
M. Hammond 32 R.J.A. Talbert 10
K. Hopkins 9, 32, 36, 100 F. Vittinghoff 10

* 
The index contains only the names of the persons mentioned in the main text.
Index of persons*

M. Aedinius Iulianus 86, 87 Arrius Maximus (no. 111) 19


Aelius Antipater 88, 89 Arrius Maximus (no. 1249) 19
P. Aelius Coeranus 65, 73 C. Arrius Pacatus (no. 112) 19
P? Aelius Coeranus 79, 80, 81, 85 C. Arrius Pacatus (no. 113) 19
P. Aelius Hilarianus 33, 80, 82 P. Attius Clemens 19
Aelius Romanus 80, 82 P. Attius Clementinus Rufinus 19
P. Aelius Secundinus 80, 82, 85 P. Attius Pudens 19
Aelius (Decius?) Triccianus 88, 89 P. Attius Pudens Rufinus Celsianus 19
C. Aemilius Berenicianus 64, 66, 72 P. Attius Ulpius Apuleius Clementinus
Q. Aiacius Modestus Crescentianus 102 Rufinus 19

L. Albinius Saturninus 73 C. Aufidius Marcellus 102

[P? Alfius Max]imus Numerius Avitus 64, 65, L. Bruttius Crispinus 102
66, 70, 73 C. Bruttius Praesens 102
Q. Anicius Faustus 97 A. Caecina Tacitus 58, 59, 60
L. Annius Italicus (Gavidius) [Torqu?]atus 53, D. Caelius (Calvinus) Balbinus 101
54, 55, 57 L. Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus 62,
L. Annius Italicus Honoratus 75, 79 65, 70, 72, 73
L. Annius Ravus 54, 55, 57 C. Caesonius Macer Rufinianus 12, 75, 76, 78,
M. Antius Crescens Calpurnianus 73 79

(M?) Antonius Memmius Hiero 67, 70 Ser. Calpurnius Domitius Dexter 62, 65, 69,
70, 72, 73, 102
[...] Arrianus Aper Veturius Severus 54, 55, 57
Carminius Claudianus 19
C. Arrius Antoninus (no. 104) 19
P. Catius Sabinus 101
(C. Arrius Antoninus?) (no. 105) 19
Q. Cassius Agrianus Aelianus 54, 55
C. Arrius Antoninus (no. 106) 19
M? Cassius Apronianus 80, 82
C. Arrius Calpurnius Frontinus Honoratus 53,
54, 55, 57 L. Cestius Gallus Cerrinius Iustus Lutatius
Natalis 67
C. Arrius Calpurnius Longinus 58, 59, 60
Claudius Acilius Cleobulus 19

* 
The index contains only the names of the persons mentioned in the main text (excluding emperors).
166 | Index of persons

Claudius Acilius Iulius 19 [...] Egr[ilius Plarianus Larcius Lep]idus


Claudius Aelius Pollio 88, 89 [Flavius?...] 65

Ti. Claudius Aurelius Commodus L. Fabius Cilo Septiminus Catinius


Pompeianus 102 Acilianus Lepidus Fulcinianus 67, 69, 70,
71, 72, 73, 101
L.Ti. Claudius Aurelius Quintianus 49, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 102 M. Fabius Magnus Valerianus 64, 65, 73

Tib. Claudius Candidus 79, 81, 83, 85 T. Flavius Carminius Athenagoras


Claudianus 19
L. Cl(audius) Cassius Dio 18, 89, 101
M. Fl(avius) Carminius Athenagoras
Ti. Claudius Claudianus 79, 81, 82, 83, 85 Livianus 19
Ti. Claudius Cleobulus 19 L. Flavius Cleonaeus 79
M. Claudius Demetrius 20 Flavius Maternianus 86
Claudius (Catulus?) Gallus 79, 81, 85 P. Fu(...) Pontianus = C. Pontius Pontianus
Ti. Claudius Gordianus 79 Fuficius Maximus 13
Ap. Claudius Iulianus 101 L. Fulvius Gavius N[umisius] Aemilianus 58,
59, 60
Cn. Claudius Leonticus 20
C. Fulvius Plautianus 46, 86, 87, 88, 101
L. Claudius Pollio Iulius Iulianus
Gallicanus 65, 66, 72 M. Gavius Crispus Num[isi]us Iunior 65, 72
L.Ti. Claudius Pompeianus 102 Q. Hedius Lollianus Plautius Avitus 62, 65,
67, 69, 72, 101
Cn. Claudius Severus 102
(Hedius Lollianus) Terentius Gentianus 101
Ti. Claudius Severus Proculus 102
Q. Hedius Rufus Lollianus Gentianus 62, 65,
Ti. Claudius Subatianus Proculus 79, 81, 82,
71, 72
85
M. Herennius Faustus [...] Iulius Clemens
Tib. Claudius Telemachus 20
Tadius Flaccus 58, 59, 60
Cleander 94
[Iasdius] 75
T. Clodius Aurelius Saturninus 75, 76, 78
Q. Insteius [...] 54
T. Clodius Pupienus Pulcher Maximus 62, 65,
L. Iulius Apronius Maenius Pius
73
Salamallianus 66
M. Clodius Pupienus Maximus 101
C. Iulius Asper 101
P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 376) 62, 69, 70,
C. Iulius Avitus 79, 81, 83, 85
71, 72, 101
C. Iulius Camilius Asper 58, 59, 60, 102
P. Cornelius Anullinus (no. 377) 102
Tib. Iulius Frugi 75, 79
Cn. Cornelius Paternus (Agricola?) 99, 102
P. Iulius Geminius Marcianus 64
C. Domitius Antigonus 79, 81, 85
[Iuli?]us Paulinus 86, 87
C. Domitius Dexter 101
Iulius Pompilius Piso T. Vibius [...]atus
(M. Aurelius?) L. Domitius Honoratus 86, 87
Laevillus Berenicianus 64, 65, 66
M. Domitius Valerianus 75
C. Iulius Philippus 70
A. Egnatius Proculus 76
C. Iulius Septimius Castinus 75, 78
Index of persons | 167

C. Iulius Quintilianus 80, 82 Q. Pomponius Munat[ius vel -ianus]


C. Iunius Faustinus [Pl]a[ci]dus Clodianus 72
Postumianus 65, 67, 72, 73 C. Porcius Priscus Longinus 58, 59, 60
M. Laelius (Fulvius?) Maximus [P]riscus 58, 59
Aemilianus 102 L. Publilius Probatus 65, 66, 70, 73
M.Cn. Licinius Rufinus 79, 80, 81, 85 L. Pulla[ienus] Gar[gilius An]tiqu[us] 53, 54,
M. Macrinius Avitus Catonius Vindex 80, 82, 55, 57
83, 85 L. Ragonius Urinatius Larcius Quintianus 64,
Q. Maecius Laetus 46, 86, 87, 88, 101 73
T. Manilius Fuscus 102 M. Rubrenus Virius Priscus Pomponianus
Marcius Claudius Agrippa 88, 89 Magianus Proculus 62, 65, 70, 72

L. Marius Maximus 102 Rutilius Pudens Crispinus 79, 81, 83, 85

L. Marius Maximus Perpetuus Aurelianus 75, C. Sabucius Maior Caecilianus 76, 79


76, 78, 79, 101 C. Sallius Aristaenetus 65, 66, 70, 72
L. Marius Perpetuus (no.700) 65 P. Septimius Geta 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 101
L. Marius Perpetuus (no.701) 69, 72, 73 [L? S]ept(imius) Maria[nus] 79, 82, 85
M. Marius Titius Rufinus 64 L. (or C?) Septimius (Severus) Aper 101
Marius Valerianus 80, 82 T. Sextius Magius Lateranus 102
C. Matius (vel Mattius) Sabinius Sullinus T. Statilius Barbarus 64, 71
Vatinianus Anicius Maximius Caesulenus Suetonius 18
Martialis Pisibianus Lepidus 54, 55, 56, 57
Tullia P. f. Marsilla Quentinia Rossia Rufina
C. Memmius Fidus Iulius Albius 75, 76, 79 Rufia Procula 13
T. Messius Extricatus 46, 86, 87, 101 P. Tullius Marsus 14
L. Mummius Felix Cornelianus 42 (M? Ulpius?) Carminius Flavius Athenagoras
M. Munatius Sulla Cerialis 13, 99 Claudianus 19
[M. Munat]ius [Su]lla Urbanus 13, 102 (M. Ulpius) Carminius Claudianus
M. Nummius Umbrius Primus Senecio (neoteros) 19
Albinus 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 M. Ulpius Ofellius Theodorus 79, 80, 81
C. Octavius Appius Suetrius Sabinus 75, 76, [V]alerius Claud(ia?) [Maximus?] Acilius
78, 79, 101 Priscilian[us] ? = L. Valerius (Claudius
Q. Octavius Volusius Thuscenius 53, 54, 55, Acilius Priscillianus) Maximus 53, 54, 55,
57 56, 57

M. Oclatinius Adventus 46, 86, 87, 88, 94, P. Valerius Comazon 46, 86, 87, 88, 102
101 M. Valerius Maximianus 80, 82, 83, 85
M. Opellius Macrinus 86, 87 L. Valerius Publicola Balbinus Maximus 62,
L. Ovinius Rusticus Cornelianus 66 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73

Q. Petronius Melior 75, 79 L. Valerius Publicola Messalla Helvidius


Thrasea Priscus Minicius Natalis 53, 54, 55,
P. Plotius Romanus Cassianus Neo 75, 76 56, 57
C. Pomponius Bassus Terentianus 78
168 | Index of persons

Sex. Varius Marcellus 79, 80, 81, 83, 85


Q. Venidius Rufus Marius Maximus
L. Calvinianus 72, 73
C. Vettius [Gratus] Atticus Sabinianus 62, 64,
65, 69, 70
C. Vettius Sabinianus Iulius Hospes 49, 80,
81, 83, 85
L. Virius Agricola 102
L. Virius Lupus Iulianus 102
[...]atus 86, 87, 88
Anonymus (no.1119) 75, 79
Anonymus (no.1122) 54, 55, 56, 57
Anonymus (no.1606) 54, 55, 57
Anonymus (no.1607) 58, 59, 60