Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 6.-7. 1965-1966 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1966)

Szemle – Rundschau - Fitz J.: When was Caracalla in Pannonia and Dacia? VI–VII, 1965–66. p. 202–205.

Macedonia (Dio LXX, 16, 6; Herodianus IV, 8,1, SHA V. Car. 5,8); the 7 to 9 months spent in travel seem disproportionately long to reach the western shore of Asia from Rome. Therefore on the basis of the dates of 214 it "seems impossible to me that the imperial march would have proceeded to the east on the shortest road without coming into contact with the Danube provinces. Moreover the time in comparison to the length of the journey supports the possibility that the emperor had to make a considerable detour. 5. According to C. Daicoviciu's arguments those inscriptions put on the rebuilt gates of Porolissum are very important in addition to the Dacián visit of the emperor in 213. According to the tablets dated between January 1 and October of 213 the construction was ordered by the emperor himself: Imp. Caes. M. Aur. Antoni/nus Pius Aug. Felix Part(h)i/cus maximus, pontifex / max., Brit, max., trib. potes. / XVI. imp. II cos. IUI, p. p., procos, fecit. (C. DAICOVICIU: Dacia 7/8, 1937—1940, 326; M. MACREA published two additional inscriptions with similar texts: SCIV 8; 1957, 223, 224—225.) According to the author these inscriptions found on a very fragmentary tablet and several relics which cannot be more exactly dated (M. MACREA: op. cit.) are undispu table proof that the construction took place in the presence of Caracalla and Iulia Domna. In my opinion the fact that the construction was done by order of the emperor does not necessarily imply the presence of the emperor and it is certainly not an argument which could make the contradictions of and doubts in their dating ignorable. This is especially so because the wording of the tablets themselves suggest trying a more accurate dating; according to this my statement has to be placed around the middle of 213, then Caracalla was likely already in Raetia. On all three tablets of Porolissum Caracalla Pius Aug. Felix may be regarded as authoritative instead of Pius Felix Aug. It is known that when Caracalla was minting coins the attributive felix occurred around the summer of 213, during the second emissio of the year (K. PINK: op. cit.) Sporadically they may be found on inscriptions from 201 mainly in Rome and Italy (ILS 129, 425, 426, 427, 2157, 2186, 5686, 5859, 6616) and in Africa (ILS 448, 9287). The order Pius Felix Aug. generally developed during the age of Commodus. It is possible that in these cases the unofficial inheritance of the titles of the previous Antoninus must be considered. This assumption is supported by the variation Aug. Pius Felix which is occasionally found (ILS 6597). An order similar to that of the Porolissum tablets may be found on the milestone set in 201 in Upper Pannónia under the governorship of L. Fabius Cilo (CIL III 4622?, 4624, 4638, 4654). Under the autocracy of Caracalla in the provinces of the Danube area the first inscriptions including Pius Felix Aug. occur on the Upper Pannonian milestones dated between December 10 and 31, 212. (CIL III 4628, 4639 = 11 343) and on the inscription from Carnuntum originating, from the same period (CIL III 4452 = 11 093). It is possible that Pius Aug. is the correct completion of an inscription (CIL III 15 203 = HS 603) dated also to December of 212. Among the inscriptions from the Danube area dated to 213, the one from Intercisa calls Caracalla Pius Aug. (Intercisa I. no. 338) while the inscriptions froin Alsóilosva (= Ilisua) Pius Felix Aug. (CIL III 795, 796) is mentioned. The undated stone relics which may be dated to 213 have a similar distribution (Pius Aug.: CIL III 1070, 1565, 7520, 7645; Pitts Felix Aug.: 1309, 7836, 7958?, 14 502

1

, Ann. Ép. 1909: 112, JÖAI 12, 1909, Bfo. 179, no. 44.). In the official use the Felix attributive, as I have mentioned, occurred around the middle of 213 (the emperor was called felicissimus during the convention of the Fratres Arvales on May 20.). Consequently it seems evident that there may be a time difference between the two groups of the mentioned inscriptions of the Danube area: in accordance with the official practice in the first half of the year the emperor was addressed as Pius Aug. and after receiving the attributive Felix he was called Pius Felix Aug. The Pius Aug. Felix order of address legible on the tablets of Porolissum might be the result of te early uncertainty regarding the use of the title. In addition to these we know of one more inscription having the same order (from Vimioacium: CIL III 13 805). Here Caracalla is already called a Ger. max. and thus the stone is not previous to October of 213. Even if on account of the earlier occurrences sporadically found the Felix attributive of the emperor refers only generally to the middle of 213, nothing can justify the dating of the Pius Felix attributive to the first half of 213 even in those cases when there are no irrefutable proofs of earlier origin. If, the three tablets of Porolissum did not originate from before 213 the assumption that the reconstruction work took place in the presence of the emperor becomes untenable to begin with. This statement is otherwise supported by Caracalla's title of procos. legible on the three inscriptions of Porolissum which do not occur before May on the inscriptions of 213. (On the basis of all the facts summarized here certain modifications are necessary on the inscription fragment of Porolissum which M. Macrea reconstructed in his quoted work. According to this completion Caracalla was supposedly a Pius Felix Aug. but the procos. is missing from among his titles. The remaining fragments of the tablets hoever are not enough even for providing sufficient guides as to whether they were set up at the same time as the other three?). 6. C. Daicoviciu associated the correspondance of the legate of Dacia afflicted whith damnatio memoriae (A. STEIN: Die Reichsbeamten von Dazien, Diss Pann 1/12, 1944 63.) and the inauguration of L. Marius Perpetuus to the emperor's visit dated to 213. It would be hard to agree with this historical reconstruction even if I accepted the dating; of the Dacián trip to 213. According to the inscription from Napoca set up for Dea Syria, L. Marius Perpetuus was cos. Ill Daciarum in 214 (Ann. Ép. I960: 226) but this relic is rather from the end of his term of office than from its beginning. His successor in the administration of Dacia was С Iulius Septimius Castinus (A. STEIN: op. cit. 65—67), the friend and secret supporter of Caracalla who in April, 217, at the time of the assassination of Caracalla was still in office, i. е., during the term of office usually lasting 3 years. Consequently his taking office can be dated the earliest to 214, i. е., to the time when, in my opinion, Caracalla was in Dacia or to the following year. His consulship can be dated to 213 (Acta Antiqua 11, 1963, 286) which mainly shows that he probably took over their province from L. Marius Perpetuus in 214 during the emperor's trip to the east to see to the measures instituted in the Danube provinces. This dating seems to fit also for L. Marius Perpetuus' career, especially because the former, quite inaccurate dating of his career is largely clarified by the inscription from Napoca. As it is known he was the legate of legio XVI Flavia in Syria Coele around 200 under the governorship of Alfenus Senecio (J. F. GILLIAM :AJPh 79, 1958, 228—230). Afterwards he governed Arabia (H.

—G. PFLAUM; Syria 34, 1957, 137) approximately between 200 and 202. In light of the inscriptions from Napoca which does not necessitate the unusual concentration of succeeding officers, this likely took place some204