Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 10. 1969 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1969)

Szemle – Rundschau - Fitz Jenő: The Governors of Britain. X, 1969. p. 179–180.

selves are not convinced of the correctness of this solution by now. The ligature V-S, used in the inscription of L. Ulpius Marcellus, does not occur in Pannónia earlier than in 188 (BARKÓCZI L., AÉrt, 1941, 25-29), whereas Marcellus served as a legate of one Augustus in Pannónia inferior. His altar dedicated to Virtus and Honos is decorated by the reliefs of Victoria and Mars, and we may behold the figure of a vanquished Germanian at Mars' feet. Should the Pannonian governor be identical with Caracalla's governor in Britain, he could have governed Lower Pannónia as a praetorius as a successor of C. Valerius Pudens, between 194 and 197 only. If we regard him as a person different from both consulares of Britain, however, we are unable to define the period of his activity with sufficient exactness. C. Junius Faustinus Postumianus. Like PIR- (I 752), the author does not identify Postumianus with C. lunius Faustinus [?Pl]a[?ci]dus Postumianus, as we have done following E. Groag and A. Stein (Laufbahn ... 25 — 27). This distinction, though possible, is by no means necessary. C. lunius Faustinus [?Pl]a[?ci]dus Postumianus governed Moesia inferior before 194 (his name does not occur in the Marcianapolis and Nicopolis coins), then he was comes under two Augusti. As we have pointed out at another occasion, without being refuted by the recent enumeration of the author, the governors of Moesia were promoted to the governorship of Britain regularly (Laufbahn ... 56 — 59). Therefore this Postumianus, if we may reckon with the order of promotion of Britain's governors and his career was not interrupted by anything, may claim to be reckoned with as a governor of Britain. As a matter of fact, CIL, VIII, 11763 is a witnees for the fact that Britain had a governor called Postumianus. How could we justify the suggestion that there were two distinct persons and that Britain was governed by two people of a similar name at the end of the second century or at the beginning of the third? Neither the inscription CIL, VIII, 597, nor 11763 may be dated exactly, but there is no circumstance which would prevent us in dating the first legend to the central phase of a career and the second to a certain time after the governorship in Britain, after the close of the career. If Postumianus governed Moesia inferior between 176 and 178 and Britain at about 190, as we have assumed, his tombstone may have been erected well at about 210. We have one more objection to the dating of the author. The inscription CIL, VIII,

11763 called Postumianus the praeses of Britain, not of Britannia superior. It is hardly likely that Britannia superior was called simply Britannia after 213, as the partition of the province was recent and the distinction against both the earlier situation and the other Britain (Britannia inferior) may have boon essential. In those years the simple name may have meant the undivided province emphatically The fact that the inscription has Hispánia instead of Hispánia citerior cannot serve as an argument for the abbreviation. No misunderstanding could arise from this language, as the status of that province was unchanged for a long time. The shorter variety of its name occurs at another place too (in the case of Pollenius Auspex, D., 8841). Therefore if we see the name Britannia on the exactly not datable inscription of Postumianus from Gelat es-Senam, this is no proof for a time after 213 but much more before that year. Summing up, we have no reason to change our earlier view at present. Some additional remarks. The author dated the consulate of Virius Lupus to the years about 196, but we disagree. At the turn of 196/197 Lupus stayed in Germania inferior (Dio LXXV 6, 2), hence he was transferred to Britain after February 197. We do not know the year in which he took office in Germania, but there is no proof for dating this to 196 either. Of all the possible cases this seems to be the least likely : he would have been promoted with an unjustified speed, after having sufferred defeat. In our judgment, the mandate of Virius Lupus in Germania inferior was an important military and confidential mission on the part of Septimius Sever us, and against Clodius Albinus. Thus we think that Lupus may have been in Germany at least from 195 on, as the relations of both rulers became strained; nor is it impossible that he was the governor of Germania inferior as early as in 193, at the accession of Septimius Severus (see this problem in our paper on the personal policy of Septimius Severus in more detail). In the first case his consulate cannot be dated later than to 193/194, in the second it would fall between 190 and 192. (The comparison with C. Valerius Pudens, who was suffectus at about 194 and ruled Britain in 2Ô5, may support the latter dating.) Similarly we think that the consulate of D. Clodius Albinus (cca 192) and L. Alfenus Senecio (cca 200) are assessed a bit late. Knowing the practice, it is likely that both have governed another province before Britain, or Syria Coele, respectively. The author is also of the view that Albinus governed Germania inferior before his office in Britain; so he could hardly be a suffectus after 188/189. In the case of P. Cluvius Maximus Paullinus and T. Fl. Longinus Q. Március Turbo the author is justified in rejecting the suggested reading of the inscriptions alluding to the governors. Nevertheless, we are not convinced that these senators may be dropped for good from the list of those whose careers enable us to complete the sequence of the governors of Britain. P. Cluvius Maximus Paullinus who commanded the legio XIVgemina and governed Moesia superior (A. DEGRASSI, Epigraphica 1, 1939, 307 — 321) was one of the senators whose further careers led them to Britain. Since he ended his promotions by becoming the proconsul of Asia, his governorship of Britain may be suggested. The road of T. Flavius Longinus may be followed till Moesia inferior (IGR, I, 622), so his promotion to Britain is a possibility at the most. In his study the author refrained from making use of the regular features in the preferment of the governors of Britain, a research which has been started by E. Birley in his day. We lack this the more as the statement regarding the partition of Britain modifies our results on the use of the order of promotion to a certain degree. As we wrote our study, E. Birley's paper on the partition of the province (Transactions of Cumberland and Westmoreland 53, 1954, 59 — 61) was inaccessible to us, thus we based our conclusions to the earlier views and dated the end of the order of promotion to 197; on the other hand, the careers of the turn of the century bear out the inference that the system was in general use even in the first decade of the third century (Virius Lupus, Pollenius Auspex, C. Valerius Pudens). But if the province was not partitioned before 213, in the period of Caracalla, we may extend the validity of the order of promotion to this date. This change raises the problem of a regular promotion, beside the mentioned three legates whose earlier career contained the governorship of Germania inferior, or Moesia inferior, respectively, as regards L. Alfenus Senecio and Ulpius Marcellus too. No statement is available as regards the earlier career of the latter, but the career of Senecio may reveal a hitherto unknown governorship if we consider the order of promotion. As it is known, L. Alfenius Senecio ruled Syria Coele at about 200 (J. F. GILLIAM, AJPh, 79, 1958, 228-230), i. e. in a period in which Septimius Severus stayed in the East, in the second Parthian war and after. As he governed the important military province at this time, we may be justified in assuming that he belonged to the confidential followers of Septimius Severus. On this basis it may well be that he governed the province from 197 already, since the time when Severus travelled to the East to lead the war against the Parthians and after February 197, as the civil war has come to an end and the Emperor rewarded his immediate followers with the government of the mose important provinces. (See our paper on the personal policy of Septimius Severus in more detail.) If it is true that, following the order of promotion in Britain, Senecio governed one of the two Germaniae, or the two Moesiae, respectively, before February 197, we may think of Germania superior above all, the governor of which is unknown between 193 and 197. All this is but an inference, to be justified later. However, the first decade of the third century was a time in which the most important military positions were occupied by the immediate followers of Septimius Severus, those who stood at his side from the beginning of the civil war and were active in achieving victory. It will suffice to mention the threelegion province Pannónia superior where L. Fabius Cilo, Ti. Claudius Claudianus, Egnatius Victor and Fulvius Maximus followed each other, all partisans in the civil war. Among the governors of Britain we may equally characterize Virius Lupus, Pollenius Auspex and C. Valerius Pudens in this way. All this may serve as a justification for our statement regarding L. Alfenius Senecio. /. Fitz 180