From the moment of its first publication in 1903 the career inscription of C. Velius Rufus has been the subject of a great deal of attention and scholarly debate. Why this should have been so is clear enough: the text records the career of a man who, beginning as a centurion (probably not in the ranks), not only rose to the coveted primipilate but went on to important independent field commands and an administrative career which culminated in major procuratorial governorships. More important still for historians of the period, the career included special commands which shed vital new light on the otherwise often obscure warfare of the reign of Domitian. The interpretation and chronology of the career as it appears in standard textbook treatments of the period may be said to be essentially that of Ritterling as modified and refined by a succession of eminent scholars, notably Syme, Pflaum and Dobson. This mainstream interpretation was summarized most recently by the last of these in 1978. From the outset, however, and in parallel with the development of this standard view, there have been a number of dissenters: von Domaszewski disagreed with Ritterling on a crucial point and, since then, there have been challenges to various aspects from, for example, McElderry, Hanslik, Saxer and Visy. Indeed, in the same year as Dobson presented a refined restatement of the orthodox interpretation, Visy coincidentally, offered a major re-examination. These earlier challenges, however, tend often to disagree with one another and, just as many to-day will be unconvinced by Visy's proposed revisions so, in most cases, his forerunners have found little support. This should not, however, obscure an important point, namely that there has been persistent dissatisfaction with the standard view from the outset. Nor should the implausibility or weakness of the proposed alternatives detract from the very serious nature of some of the objections raised.