Alba Regia. Annales Musei Stephani Regis. – Alba Regia. Az István Király Múzeum Évkönyve. 11. 1970 – Szent István Király Múzeum közleményei: C sorozat (1971)

Irodalom – Beschprechungen - Fitz Jenő: The Governors of Pannonia Inferior I. XI, 1970. p. 145–150.

in Trajan's time (CIL, III, 1004), before the assumption of the title Parthicus by the emperor (20 Febr. 116). Thus if we investigate the history of the legio in itself, it seems probable that it was garrisoned in Dacia after 106, possibly up to its march for the eastern campaign, in spite of the scanty evidence. The second question is : if the legio IV Flavia has stayed in Dacia till the reorganization of that province, which was the second legio of Moesia Superior? In spite of the numerous Dacián linds alluding to the IV Flavia, we cannot take it as an established fact that it was garrisoned in this province from 106 till the reorganization of Daciája continually. It is only certain that during the governorship of C. Avidius Nigrinus, at about the middle of the 110-s (in the time of the Parthian War), it belonged to the army of Dacia. From this fact we may perhapsjmfer (since the cursus honorum of Maximus contradicts the fact that the two legions commanded by him may have stayed simultaneously in Dacia after 106) that the legio I adiutrix, marching for the eastern campaign, was supplied by the IV Flavia. But there is also another solution to the problem.lt is possible that the south-western part of Dacia, the region from which the relics of the legio IV Flavia are known in the first place, belonged to Moesia Superior for a while after the end of the Dacián War (I. GLODARIU, o.e., p. 435). Consequently we cannot define the activity of Maximus as a legio legátus but by suppositions. The selection of the relatively most probable inference is hindered also by the Jazigian War of 107/108 (L. BALLA, Guerre Iazyge aux frontières de la Dace en 107/108. ACÜ 5, 1969, pp. 111 — 113). Naturally the statement of A. Dob ó as to the equestrian origin of Maximus on the basis of the sevir equitum Romanorum (o.e. p. 45) is absolutely unfounded. P. Afranius Flavianus was the governor of Pannónia Inferior on the 1st September 114 (CIL, XVI, 161). He may have held his office between 112 and 114/115 or between 114/115 and 117. In my summary I adopted the latter dating. In this case Flavianus' consulate fell to 117 or the following year (so: li. SYME, Gnomon 29, 1957, p. 522). In his recent paper (História 14, 1965, p. 349) II. S y m e has dated the Asian proconsulate of Flavianus to 130, consequently he has corrected the date of his consulate to 115. Therefore he must have been the governor of Pannónia Inferior prior to 115, as the immediate successor of T. Iulius Maximus Manlianus. The Pannonian side of the early career of Q. Március Turbo has been dealt with by A. Dobó (o.e. pp. 47 — 48). By an erroneous dating of the tombstone of C. Castricius Victor (Dobó has the wrong Castrius!) Turbo has become centurio of the legio II adiutrix in Aquincum during [104/105. This dating has been refuted by R. S y m e earlier (The wrong Március Turbo. JUS 52, 1962, p. 91). The stele of Castricius (T. NAGY, BpR 13, 1943, p. 463) comes from the end of the first century, i.e. from the time in which a vexillatio of the legio II adiutrix, garrisoned in Moesia Superior, was stationed in Aquincum between 89 and 92 (G. ALFÖLDY, AArchHung 11, 1959, p. 128). It was in this time that Turbo served as a centurio of the legion, therefore his friendship with Hadrianus was not made during his service in Aquincum (Data to the Career of Q. Március Turbo. Alba Regia 6/7, 1965/66, pp. 201 202). Possibly it dates from 95, as it is stated by Dobó without any proof. Hadrianus was really a tribunus latielavius of the legio II adiutrix in this time (here Dobó gives his correct name, contrary to his statements on p. 43 and in note 213, where also the dating is false), stationed in Moesia. It is possible that Turbo belonged\ to this legio yet at this time. However, we may reckon with several other chances of the meeting between Hadrianus and Turbo (Alba Regia 6/7, 1965/66, p. 202). In dating the career of L. Neratius Priscus iunior the starting point is, as it was, the consulate of his father, the elder L. Neratius Priscus (in 97). This does not reveal more, however, than that the younger Neratius Priscus either preceded (114/115-117) or followed (118/119-) Március Turbo in Pannónia Inferior. In my paper I have adopted the latter dating (o.e., pp. 253 — 254) and so did R. Syme (História 14, 1965, pp. 350-351), while A. Dobó admitted both possibilities (o.e. pp. 48 — 49, dating his consulate to 119/120 in both cases, nevertheless). Being a patrician, the younger Neratius Priscus (R. SYME, Hermes 85, 1957, p. 492) may have reached the praetura suo anno, i.e. at about the 29th year of his life. If this has preceded his Pannonian governorship with 2 or 3 years, he may have been nominated at about 111 — 113 in the first case and between 116 and 118 in the second. On the basis of this calculation the year of his birth may be dated to 82 - 84, or 87 — 89, respectively, or to somewhat earlier in both cases. We may infer that the elder Neratius Priscus got his consulate also suo anno in 97 (his elder brother, Marcellus, was a suffectus in 95, the two years' distance may express their difference in age), thus the year of his birth may be 64. In any case this approximate dating bears out the inference that the term oi office of Priscus junior in Pannónia Inferior may be dated to the years following the extraordinary commission of Március Turbo. R. Syme has supposed that between L. Neratius Priscus and L. Cornelius Latinianus (from about 127) only one unknown governor ought to be reckoned with (História .14, 1965, p. 344), meaning that the eight years from 119 and 127 ought to be divided among two legati. Consequently he thought it possible that Priscus had stayed longer in Pannónia than customary (similarly to Sex. Iulius Severus, governing Dacia between 119 and 126). His consulate, if he did not reach it in his absence, cannot be dated to a later year than 126 (o.e., pp. 350 — 351). As a matter of fact, we may reckon with a longer activity in Pannónia than usual, but lacking the proof we may regard it as one of the possibilities only. Nothing supports the suggestion that Pannónia Inferior would have bean ruled by two governors only between 119 and 127. The general practice induces us to think, on the contrary, that L. Neratius Priscus was followed by two unknown persons between ?1

20/121 and ? 124, then between ? 124 and ? 127. Being a patrícius, the younger Priscus may have been suffectus about his 33rd year; this also contradicts the suggestion that his commission in Pannónia would have lasted longer than usual. The statement by A. Dobó, according to which Priscus governed Pannónia Superior at about 120 (o.e., pp. 49, 106), needs correction in any case. Among his successors Cornelius Proculus became the governor of the province of three legions in the sixth year following his consulate (124?), T. Haterius Nepos (suff. in 134) four years later, whereas L. Minicius Natalis, his predecessor (suff. in 106) had to wait for ten years until his nomination to the governorship of Pannónia Superior. Judged by these analogies, we are hardly entitled to think that Priscus should have returned to the Danubian region immediately after his consulate at about 121. He could do it at about 125, i.e. 4 to 5 years later at.the earliest; nor is it excluded that he was the immediate predecessor of Cornelius Proculus. 1 have dated the Lower Pannonian governorship of L. Cornelius Latinianus to the years 128 to 130, or 134 to 136, respectively, identifying him with a man figurwing in the so-called Hunt's Pridianum (BM Papyri 2851), Latinianus, procurator of Lower Moesia (o.e., pp. 255 — 257). Á. Dobó voted for the years 134 to 136 (o.e., pp. 50 — 51). However, this dating proved to be erroneous ; the Latin papyrus, namely, had not been issued in 115 but at about 105-108 (R. SYME, JRS 49, 1959, p. 58 ; J. F. GILLIAM, Hommages à Albert Grenier. Collection Latomus 58, 1962, p. 747). Thus the Latinianus mentioned in Moesia Inferior cannot be identified with the governor of Lower Pannónia, much more with his father. Consequently the legátus did not rule in the late phase of Hadrian's reign as the successor of L. Attius Macro, but he preceded the latter in the years ?127 to 130, or even earlier, from 125 to 128 (R. SYME, História 14, 1965, p. 351). The governor is mentioned also by a recently published inscription at Aquincum. The fragmentary name of the governor on the inscription has been read by J. S z i 1 á g y i as L. Cu[spius Ga]llus Salinianus (AErt 94, 146