Talk:Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul AD 47)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arrecina Clementina[edit]

Settapani's conjecure of an Arrecina Clementina being his wife is just that. Others conjecture his wife's name as Plautia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.180.36.194 (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea where this came from. When revising this article (while working on the article on the Flavia gens) I followed the extensive biography in the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology. But there was already a page here, and it must have contained the information about his supposed wife and conversion to Christianity. I'm very suspicious of Settipani and like sources myself, but there are editors out there who swear by him. It shouldn't be any trouble to label this part as speculation. The children and other information are corroborated by reliable sources; it's just the wife and conversion that seem dubious. P Aculeius (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Consul[edit]

Flavius Clemens was 47 consul, not 52. see Tortoriello: I fasti consolari degli anni di Claudio --Μίκυθος (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not having that source to consult, I'll have to take your word for it. Sabinus' biography in the DGRBM says that after fighting under Plautius in Britain in 45, he remained there for seven years; the date of his consulship isn't given. But in the chronology of Roman history, in the back of volume III, Sabinus is listed as consul ex kal. Nov. in AD 52, which corresponds with the statement that he remained in Britain for seven years. I've looked for any ancient source that would corroborate either year, but so far I've had no luck. Evidently consules suffecti at this time weren't particularly noteworthy in and of themselves; several sources discuss Sabinus' conduct later, in the year of his death, but none of them seem to mention that he had been consul at all.
Do you suppose we can find an ancient source (even an inscription) that would clearly identify the year? Even if only by giving the context (such as his colleagues, predecessors, or successors in office, or events occurring that year), it would be an important clue. P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, trying to untangle the mess of the first century (some of which I've made), I've found the evidence does support Mikythos, although it's not quite as clear-cut as P Aculeius might like. The evidence is as follows:
  • Cn. Hosidius Geta & T. Flavius Sabinus were attested to have been colleagues as suffect consuls on 1 August of an unknown year. Source: AE 1953, 24 This is what Degrassi (writing in 1952) had to work with, & I believe he accepted the traditional date of 52. E. Mary Smallwood, writing in the 1960s, moved the year back to 45 for reasons I can't provide at the moment. (My copy of her Documents illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero is at home; IIRC, she kept most of Degrassi's dates for consuls, but would add a short note where she differed.)
  • When Gallivan started his work on the list of Claudian consuls, there was knowledge of the Pompeian Wax Tablets, but they were proving hard to read. At the time he wrote (1978) the relevant tablet (Gallivan fails to supply any further details which one it was) had been dated to 44 -- which is the year he provides (& which Werner Eck also offers in a 1975 article in Historia.)
  • Since then, Camodeca has studied these tablets further, & in 1991 published a paper where he was able to show the pair had been suffect consuls in 47. (The wax tablet that he cites is TP. 29, available as AE 1973, 150.) In adding this section to the List of Roman consuls I inadvertently listed Cn. Hosidius & his several colleagues twice, once in 44 & again in 47, & just discovered my mistake -- which I've since fixed. I'm still reviewing the years from 40-45, since I suspect some of my errors still linger there.
The consular fasti of the first century AD is in some ways like a Sodoku puzzle, where the values in one part depend on the values in another. If one changes the values in this part of the puzzle one must change the values in other parts. So here, if I add T. Flavius Sabinus & friends to 47, I must also remove him & his friends from 44, which opens new spots where other undated consuls might fit. (I have two pairs of consuls which could be dated now to 40, 41 or 44 -- although Camodeca has provided a pair of suffects for 41, which mean I may need to invoke WP:IAR in order to provide them homes.) That I've now done, & now I may be able to also correct more of my mistakes. -- llywrch (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that's fine, but it'd be a good idea to leave a footnote explaining the discrepancy, or else to discuss it in their individual articles. This one would have to be moved, of course. P Aculeius (talk) 23:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Titus Flavius Sabinus (consul AD 69)[edit]

Titus Flavius Sabinus, consul in AD 82, and Titus Flavius Clemens, consul in 95 was children of Titus Flavius Sabinus III, consul suffectus in AD 69.

Flavian family tree, indicating the descendants of Titus Flavius Petro and Tertulla.

Андрей Бондарь (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this, other than a 10-year-old graphic with no citations? It doesn't make a lot of sense chronologically, since that would mean that only thirty-five years elapsed between his consulship and his grandson's, and we know that Sabinus was strong and vigorous in AD 69, thirteen years before the consul here claimed to be his grandson. Conventional wisdom is that the consul of 82 was his son, while the consul of 69 was probably the son of an elder brother. P Aculeius (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)