Talk:Servius Cornelius Dolabella Petronianus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Publius or Gnaeus?[edit]

The consul in 55 was Publius, not Gnaeus. So, he was son of Publius or, possibly, son of Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella, brother of Publius (consul in 55), and adoptive son of Galba. This would explain why he (Servius' father) was executed by Vitellius. José Luiz talk 23:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping:@P Aculeius:, @Llywrch:
The only ancient source I've found that gives his father's praenomen calls him Gnaeus (Suetonius, "The Life of Galba", 12). PIR identifies him as Gnaeus, and says that Servius was his son. None of the sources say that he was ever consul, although it's not impossible that he was at some point. But (and my Latin is dubious, so feel free to verify this) PIR appears to say that Gnaeus was adopted by Galba. I don't see any sources indicating that Servius was the son of a Publius Dolabella. So I would say that Gnaeus is probably correct, and that Publius was indeed his uncle. P Aculeius (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry for the delay in answering; family demands intervened, as well as the need to do some research before responding.) Well, I have to disagree. There is a primary source that gives the praenomen of Servius' father as Publius: CIL IX, 3154, which gives the filiation of the consul suffect of AD 113 as "Ser. f. P. nep. P. pronep. P. abnepos". Thus Patrick Tansey uses this to identify his father as Servius Cornelius Dolabella, his grandfather Publius Cornelius Dolabella, & his great-grandfather as Publius Cornelius Dolabella. (See Tansey, "The Perils of Prosopography: The Case of the Cornelii Dolabellae", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 130 (2000), pp. 265-271). Giuseppe Camodeco uses the same inscription to identify one of the suffect consuls of 55 as Publius Cornelius Dolabella. (See Camodeco, "I consoli del 55-56 e un nuovo collega di Seneca nel consolato: P. Cornelius Dolabella (TP.75[= 140 +135)", Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 63 (1986), pp. 201-215 -- if you can read Italian, or are willing to feed it paragraph by paragraph thru a translation website.)

Of course, this raises the problem P Aculeius presents: Suetonius offers us a different praenomen for a Cornelius Dolabella of the same generation. Was Suetonius wrong about the name? (He wrote a couple of generations after the events of The Year of Four Emperors.) Or maybe the text is defective at this point? Or maybe the Cornelius Dolabella involved in that civil war was a different man than the suffect consul of AD 55? (Our knowledge of the membership of the Senate of the first century is notably incomplete.) Sometimes all we can do is explain the problem & leave it to the reader to decide. -- llywrch (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the filiation is that it's not certain that Marcellus, the consul of 113, is the son of of Petronianus. He could be the grandson of Petronianus' uncle, who would be the consul of 55. None of the sources say that the Dolabella who was Servius' father was ever consul. It looks like the only evidence that Marcellus was Petronianus' son is his filiation, indicating that his father was named Servius. But there could be numerous members of this family whom we don't know anything about; we barely know anything about the ones whose names we have. What we have is contradictory evidence:
  • Publius Cornelius Dolabella was consul in AD 55;
  • Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella was Galba's son-in-law, and put to death by Vitellius;
  • Servius Cornelius Dolabella, son of the one put to death by Vitellius, was consul in AD 86;
  • Servius Cornelius Ser. f. P. n. P. pron. P. abn. was consul in AD 113.
The unresolved, and perhaps unresolvable question is, was the consul of 113: (A) the son of the consul of 86, grandson of Gnaeus, and his filiation is wrong; (B) the son of the consul of 86, grandson of Galba's son-in-law, who might be the consul of 55, with Suetonius erroneously calling his grandfather Gnaeus; or (C) the grandson of the consul of 55, and son of a different Servius from the consul of 86? Unless additional evidence comes to light, each of these is a possible explanation. However, the first two possibilities each require that one piece of evidence is mistaken about the grandfather's name; the third is possible if both are accurate. A fourth possibility suggested itself just as I was getting ready to post this: Servius, the consul of 86, was the son of Gnaeus, but adopted by his uncle, Publius, after Gnaeus was put to death, thus legally becoming the son of Publius. Pure speculation, of course, but in my opinion all of these solutions are speculative. P Aculeius (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've made a mistake here, confusing theories with the facts we have. The facts are:
  • The filiation of Servius Cornelius Dolabella, consul in 113.
  • The name of the consul of 86 was Servius Cornelius Dolabella Petronianus. This is pretty certain.
  • The name of the consul of 55 is attested only as far as "Cornelius Dolabella"; his praenomen is not yet definitely known.
  • Suetonius mentions one Gnaeus Cornelius Dolabella, whom the Praetorian Guard respected; he may be the same Cornelius Dolabella who was related to Galba & later murdered by Vitellius.
Everything else, say the praenomen in Suetonius is wrong for whatever reason, falls into the category of theory or opinion. Otherwise, P Aculeius, you are correct. Quite clearly we don't have all of the facts about this family, & some of them conflict. For example, was the Cornelius Dolabella who appears in histories of The Year of the Four Emperors the Cornelius Dolabella who was consul in 55? If so, does that mean he was the grandfather of the consul of 113? Except for Ockham's Razor, there isn't any reason to assume these three are the same person -- although one reliable secondary source (Patrick Tansey, mentioned above) thinks so. And he doesn't mention this contradiction in his paper, although he makes much of the fact both the consul of 55 & 113 belonged to the same patrician priesthood; Tansey is mostly concerned with the ancestry of the consul of 55, & the P. Cornelius Dolabella consul in AD 10, & how earlier theories about their parents & children were demolished with the discovery of new evidence in the form of inscriptions. (Glancing thru Syme's The Augustan Aristocracy, he seems to avoid the problem.) This is why I might sometimes appear to be very tentative in the more recent articles I've worked on: I am well aware of just how much inference, reasoning, & sometimes unabashed guessing there is in relationships of this period. (In other articles, I may avoid taking a tentative position simply because I'm in a hurry to finish the article. And some articles remain unwritten because I'm still working on how to balance two contradictory interpretations of the facts.) IMHO, sometimes the best solution is to quote the expert who seems to have the best answer, yet mention the facts which contradict his theory. And that might be the answer here. Follow Tansey about the name of his father while mentioning that Suetonius provides a different praenomen. -- llywrch (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok by me. But I would suggest also that the praenomen adopted in this article for the consul in 55 (or lack thereof) be the same used in the list of consuls (Gnaeus here and Publius there as of yet). And congratulations for the thorough research. José Luiz talk 22:26, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There, think I've given a proper explanation. Have a look and see if it's okay. P Aculeius (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! José Luiz talk 19:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Servius_Cornelius_Dolabella_Petronianus&oldid=1201152277"