REVIEW OF “ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR”, BY LINDA A. MALCOR AND JOHN MATTHEWS (AMBERLEY PUBLISHING, 2023)

My Preferred Reading of the L. Artorius Castus Memorial Stone

(The Upper Image is Courtesy Alessandro Faggiani)

In their new book, ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR, Dr. Linda A. Malcor and John Matthews make their case for the 2^nd century Roman officer Lucius Artorius Castus being the actual King Arthur of legend. Although the sources plainly describe Arthur of the Britons as a 5^th-6^th century figure (the two established dates for him are c. 516 and 537), his chronological displacement by some three and a half centuries through mysterious folkloristic processes is proposed. This argument is maintained despite the occurrence of better known, more historical Arthurs appearing in our record immediately after the more famous war-leader of the early medieval period.  These subsequent Arthurs all belong to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain.

My methodology is simple and straight-forward: treat of those points in the book’s narrative which are nonfactual or, at least, highly questionable. If evidence is wanting, that will be pointed out. Evidence to the contrary will also be admitted. Ironically, in a sense, the authors and I are working at cross-purposes, for I, too, hold to a “Sarmatian Connection” for the historical Arthur. However, I can maintain that association through what I believe to be a valid argument, one that preserves a Dark Age Arthur and does not force us to default to one from the Roman period.  My own theory, expounded in detail in THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER, will become apparent as the review unfolds and a conclusion is offered.

 

I will not concern myself with matters pertaining to anything that is purely speculative in nature.  ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR abounds in such material, and while it is often entertaining in a way that would be more appropriate for a work of fiction, we cannot allow for statements that are not strictly supported by literary or epigraphic records.  For example, the possibility that LAC (as I shall affectionately refer to L. Artorius Castus from hence forward) was involved in the settlement of 5,000 Sarmatians in Britain is fun to think about, although such an assertion lacks all foundation.  By all means describe what we know of the various units he served with, but do not pretend to know what he did in those units. I am also not particularly interested in LAC’s religious affiliation with this or that goddess, as that has no bearing on our quest for a historical Arthur. Similarly, I will skip over the detailed treatment of the gens Artoria, as it does not bring us closer to an understanding of the Dark Age origin for Arthur.  The authors’ analysis of the gens, its history and the possible etymology for the Artorius name are things which lie outside the purview of my knowledge base, so I cannot vouch for the accuracy of their assertions.  The same is true, of course, for Sarmatian studies.  I will leave that field to those whose interests lie properly with that ancient people.  My interest in them extends only to their veteran settlement at Ribchester, which I have identified as the possible birthplace of the Dark Age Arthur.  I have many articles that provide very convincing arguments for viewing the more interesting facets of the Arthurian tradition as derived from a Celtic substratum, overlain with Classical and Christian learning. These have been ignored by Malcor and I do not consider them as contributing to our understanding of a historical Arthur.  To date, I've been unable to substantiate a single Sarmatian-Alanic contribution to the corpus of Arthurian legend.  For those interested in Arthurian motifs such as the Sword in the Anvil (or Lake), the Round Table, the Grail, Lancelot, Merlin, Avalon, etc., I refer you to my blog site, where you will find essays like these:

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-anvil-stone-of-sir-kay-discovered.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-round-table-of-arthur-discovered.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/08/the-casting-of-excalibur-into-lake.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-sword-in-anvil-and-sword-in.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/05/very-brief-post-on-alain-de-gros-grail.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-holy-grail-of-arthurian-tradition.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/04/diwrnach-irishman-new-interpretation-of.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/11/lancelot-of-lake-from-mysteries-of.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/02/merlin-aka-myrddin-sans-geoffrey-of.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/08/who-is-green-knight.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2018/03/by-popular-request-goddesses-of-avalon.html

https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2019/04/a-northern-prototype-for-arthurian.html

THE READING OF THE PRIMARY MEMORIAL STONE

Malcor and Matthews make several mistakes in their rendering of the main LAC inscription.

The first one has to do with their claim that LAC held the rank of prefect of the Sixth Legion twice.  They base this determination on the doubling of the /F/ in PRAEF.  [I will point out that the other small stone for LAC has PRAEFECTUS.] Unfortunately, I’ve not found a single respected Latin epigrapher who accepts this as anything other than a carving error:

"... praef(ectus) was cut as PRAEFF, although the repeated F should indicate a plural ('prefects'). I don't know of any instance of the final letter being repeated in this way, to indicate repeated tenure. It will be spelt out, with ITERVM. He would have remained prefect while dux. I can't put weight on the double F of PRAEF. On the stone, it looks so much as if someone drew PRAFF (as if a mistake for PRAEF) and then inserted E ligatured to A.” – Roger Tomlin

"The stonecutter might have confused himself with the word PRAEF having the ligatured letters AE before the FF, but there seems no reason why that should have affected the FF. There clearly isn't a second prefecture mentioned." – Lawrence Keppie

We may also consult the second LAC inscription, where the carver has properly written PRAEF-, i.e. the singular (see http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/).

The authors then insist that the stone tells us LAC was procurator of Liburnia six times.  This is decidedly not what the stone says.

"No good. '6 times' procurator is absurd: even 'twice' would be highly unusual. Nor can it be the duration of his office: 'annos' would have been specified, and anyway, the length of tenure is not specified in career inscriptions.

An inscription will either centre each line, or (more usually) will take each line to the end, even if it means breaking words. This is all the draughtsman has done. He has then centred the bottom line for appearance. VVS cannot be an abbreviation for VIVVS, and almost unacceptable as an error.

I attach the relevant entry from AE on the only example I could find on VVS for VIVVS.  As you can see, it is not comparable: it is very brief and almost every word is abbreviated.

Martio / v(i)v(u)s fec(it) sib(i) / et Lupo fil(io) / kar(issimo)

AE 1977, 0596" – Roger Tomlin

"The start of the last line is difficult to read, but VVS seems secure. The stonecutter (or Castus himself) is guilty of overkill, in emphasizing his personal involvement:   the words IPSE and SIBI aren't both needed. I looked up the combination of these words, and there's only a couple of other examples." – Lawrence Keppie

Finally, the really big one: their use of ARMATOS for the fragmentary ARM[…]S.  This, as it happens, is the most important word on the stone and it is truly unfortunate that we don’t have it intact.

ARMATOS, ‘armed men’ (and, in some contexts, by extension, ‘soldiers’) does not work.  The use of this word for ARM[…]S I considered ridiculous by every good epigrapher and military historian I have consulted.  The phrase 'armed men' is simply too vague, non-specific and out of character with the detail found in the rest of the LAC stone.  He would no more say that he was taking detachments of three British legions against armed men than he would say he was taking them against INERMES, 'unarmed men.'  That his enemy was armed would be assumed by anyone reading the memorial stone.  Several other very specific terms were available to him ('hostes/publici', 'defectores', 'rebelles', or even 'desertores'), as well as regional designations or personal names.  We can't apply ARMATOS to the army of Maternus, and we can't apply it to the Praetorians of Perennis (who, in any case, were never engaged in battle by the 1500 British spearmen).  We can't apply it to Britain as a matter of internal security, for once again a specific term would have been used, most probably a tribal designation or something regularly used of mutinous troops. Proponents of the ARMATOS idea insist that this word is used in many Latin literary sources, yet in each and every cited instance context clearly shows who the armed men are or, at least, where they are (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/my-rebuttal-of-antonio-trincheses.html).  Such is not the case with the LAC inscription. This proposed reading must be abandoned as utterly wrong.

The authors get themselves into more trouble when they insist on a literal reading of “three British legions” and the dux rank, in this context, as referring to LAC, an equestrian in the time of Commodus (see below under my discussion of ARMENIOS for ARM[…]S), as a de facto governor of Britain. 

There is universal agreement among Roman military historians that the rank of dux did not come to designate an officer acting in the capacity of a provincial governor until the reign of Diocletian.  This is adequately demonstrated in the epigraphic record. And we have evidence for detachments being inferred in exactly the way we find them on the LAC stone for other stones.  I would refer readers of this review to any number of my blog articles on the subject, but perhaps most particularly to these six: https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/12/why-historians-and-epigraphers-accept.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/10/proof-positive-that-vexillations-are.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/acting-governor-m-antius-crescens.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/l-artorius-castus-praefectus-castrorum.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/l-artorius-castus-command-of-deputation.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/11/why-lucius-artorius-castus-as-dux-was.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/why-praepositus-title-of-l-artorius.html.

Had LAC been acting governor of Britain (pro legato), he would have said so on his stone.  He did not.  He also does not say merely that is was dux of three British legionary detachments.  He informs us that he was dux of a force that he was leading against an enemy. Had he merely said that he was dux of three British legions and left it at that, we might raise an eyebrow and wonder what exactly he meant.  But, now, he was leading an expeditionary force as a temporary military commander against ARM[…]S.  And it is time we took a closer look at who ARM[…]S might have been (as ARMATOS is not a candidate).

Scholars tend to favor ARMENIOS for ARM[…]S.  This is the conclusion reached recently by Professor Roger Tomlin, and agreed upon by Birley just prior to his passing. The idea is that LAC and his legionary force accompanied the Roman governor Statius Priscus to Armenia during the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Despite the previous attempts of Malcor and her colleagues to suggest that it was a Parthian War and not an Armenian War, we have textual evidence of the first phase of the campaign being conducted solely in Armenia proper, and we also have plentiful literary and coin evidence to support the contention that Armenia could have been seen as a separate venture, especially as Priscus did not take part in any actions after those in Armenia (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/01/excerpts-from-various-essays-proving.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/bello-armeniaco-et-parthico-armenian.html, etc.).

I hold to the ARMENIOS reading myself.  Why?  Well, principally because I had managed to show, pretty conclusively, that the province of Liburnia, as separate from Dalmatia, could only have been founded shortly after the Armenian War by Marcus and Lucius Verus (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-problem-of-liburnia-lucius-artoris.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/02/the-date-of-lucius-artorius-castuss.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/another-croatian-scholar-weighs-in-on.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/12/more-recent-scholarship-favoring.html). Now, Malcor continues to deny this and opts instead for a foundation date of Liburnia during the time of Commodus, who ended the Marcomannic Wars. Not a single professional Roman historian I have consulted agrees with her assessment – and this includes those academics who reside in the Balkan states.

Given that the only recorded instance of a military reorganization of Dalmatia (and one of the roles of a procurator such as LAC, given the division of a prior province, was of recruitment) occurred under Marcus and Lucius, it seemed a logical conclusion to settle on ARMENIOS as a reading for ARM[…]S of the LAC stone. However, other than a possible ARMENIOS on the LAC stone, there is no record of British legionary vexillations going to Armenia.  The same is true of the Armenian campaigns of Caracalla and Alexander Severus:

"The British legions contributed to Caracalla's German campaign, to judge by RIB 369, but I don't know any evidence that they contributed further east. No evidence that I can think of, but worth checking in Saxer to see if any vexillation is attested. [Saxer was checked, and nothing for British vexillations in the time of Alexander.]" - Roger Tomlin

We know Antoninus Pius put up a client king over Armenia, but no military campaigns are mentioned.

However, we do know the British governor, Statius Priscus, was sent to Armenia, and he could easily have taken Castus with him, or sent Castus separately with some troops.  This is the view of Tomlin and, just before he died, of Anthony Birley.  I have since achieved a high level of scholarly consensus that regards this as the most probable scenaro for Castus. 

The only actual known instance of a British expeditionary force composed of the equivalent number of troops needed to form three legionary detachments is that which was supposedly sent to Rome to demand the removal of Commodus’s Praetorian Prefect, Perennis. Because there are some variant accounts of this story, it has been cast into doubt.  However, some scholars have chosen to see this force as being sent to Armorica to fight in the Deserters’ War.

Malcor and Matthews OMIT ANY MENTION OF THESE 1,500 SPEARMEN from their book, as they are stuck on the incorrect notion that vexillations is not implied on the stone's reference to three legions being led by Castus against ARM[...]S. This notion has been disproven. They need for the three legions to be three entire legions because they use that as one way of claiming that Castus was a governor of the province. 

As it happens, Armoricos fits on the LAC stone just as well as ARMENIOS does (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/05/well-this-is-embarrassing-arms-can-in.html, https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-lucius-artorius-castus-stone-with_14.html).  Scholars who have studied the Deserters' War, including the related archaeology of the period, have suggested that the disturbance may have started in Gaul - and Armorica was part of Gaul. 

Yet Armorica has problems as a reading for the stone that Armenios lacks.  Once again, in the words of Roger Tomlin (who is responding to my query, quoted first):

"Does it make sense to you that L. Artorius Castus, in fighting deserters and Maternus' mixed mob in Armorica, would have put ADVERSUS ARMORICOS on his stone? I assume he would have been serving under Pescennius Niger, who according to the Augustan History had been made governor of Gallia Lugdunensis in order to deal with the deserters."

Tomlin's response:

"It seems inherently unlikely to me – it is who he is fighting, not where, that matters. If the enemy lives there, well and good, but not if the geographical term relates only to where the fighting took place. 

It is as if, in 1941, General Freyberg recalled his unsuccessful defence of Crete against the Germans as being a campaign against the Cretans.

To pursue the analogy ... Freyberg might have referred to the 'Cretan campaign', just as Castus might have referred to the 'Armorican campaign', but not by using the term adversus."

To this observation we need to add that according to the Roman sources, the deserters were not just in Gaul: they were in Germany and Spain as well.

As other than ARMENIOS (which does make sense with ADVERSUS [1]), ARMORICOS is our only possible reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the Castus memorial stone, it would appear that the former must continue to be strongly favored over the latter.

Roger Tomlin was kind enough to explain to me how he thinks LAC's mission under Priscus might have gone:

"I see Statius Priscus as being transferred at short notice from Britain to take command in Armenia. He did not necessarily travel with troops from Britain – indeed, since his mission was urgent, I expect he went ahead of them. I have only suggested that he chose a reliable man whom he knew to take command of the (hypothetical) British contingent. Other contingents were being dispatched from the Rhine and Danube frontiers. LAC was only commanding an improvised unit in – according to my reconstruction – the field army that was assembled to campaign in Armenia. Statius Priscus was its commander-in-chief, but he did not 'command' each of its components as well, except in the sense that a modern lieutenant-general commands all the battalions in his army, each under its own lieutenant-colonel."

THE BATTLES OF ARTHUR

Most of my Arthurian research (over a quarter of a century now, on and off) has concerned finding the best possible sites for the HISTORIA BRITTONUM battles.  I noted with some disappointment that Malcor and Matthews did not take advantage of my findings, even though these have long been in publication.  Instead, they offer the following:

“The River Glen in Northumberland, though the River Glen in Lincolnshire is also a possibility”

If we have a Northern Arthur, the Northumberland Glen is to be preferred.  For an extensive discussion of this site and all the others, please see my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF THE NORTH.   

“The River Dubglas, which could be any of a number of rivers, though the River Douglas in Lancashire and the Douglas Waterway south of Glasgow are excellent possibilities”

The best site for the Dubglas in Linnuis, given the location of the other battles along or adjacent to the old Roman Dere Street, is the Devil’s Water at Linnels, near the Wall and the Corbridge Roman fort. Dr. Richard Coates believes Linnels is composed of a British name meaning ‘lake-elbow.’ Devil’s is a corruption of Dubglas.

“The River Bassas unidentifiable”

Not so.  While some Celticists have looked at the word and seen its root as being composed of W. bas, ‘shallow, ford’, Dr. Graham Isaac, in viewing it without language bias, readily accepts it as containing a Saxon name, Bassa. There was such a stream in the parish of Bridlington, East Riding of Yorkshire.

“Cat Coit Celydon, a wood ‘within range of Glasgow and Carlisle, perhaps the moorlands round the upper Clyde and Tweed valleys’”

Probably more specifically around the fort of Trimontium, as there is a river-name in the vicinity whose original form was Keledenlee, 1175, Kaledene, 1296, now the Caddon Water.

“Castle Guinnion unidentifiable, though other scholars have suggested fort Vinovia near modern Binchester”

“Chester for ‘urbe legionis’, though recent research makes York the more likely location”

I agree that York is the right place.

“‘The Strand of the Pierced or Broken (Place)’ for the Tribruit, with no named location suggested”

In a Footnote, Malcor and Matthews opt for the River Ribble. I long ago found this site at the Height of the Dog’s Head’ trajectus in North Queensferry Harbor. Tribruit directly corresponds in meaning to the Latin trajectus and the poem PA GUR implies the crossing in question is near the border of Edinburgh and involves action on the part of Manawydan son of Lir. This points to Manau Gododdin (as the Manann place-names were linked to Manawydan's name). The name of the headland lent itself to Arthur’s Tribruit opponents, the Dogheads.

“Fort Bremenium (High Rochester) for Breguoin”

In the text, the authors suggest because the first element is the same, this could instead be the Sarmatian fort of Bremetanacum.  This is not possible.  Breguoin is found as Brewyn in a Urien poem BOOK OF TALIESIN), and the suffixes of Bremetanacum and Bremenium are not comparable.

The Footnote looks to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Maiden Castle, and points to the Roman fort of that name between Cumbria and Durham.  We may ignore Geoffrey, as always.  Agned is a corruption of W. agued, and refers either to Catterick (the word is used of the action at that site in the GODODDIN) or is a descriptor for what happens at Bremenium, wrongly taken by a later copyist as a proper place-name.

“Badon (which has a number of possible sites, including Dumbarton Rock)”

Malcor has long fixeted on Alclud/Dumbarton as Badon.  This is odd, as she relies on Geoffrey of Monmouth for the supposed significance of the Alclud battle and chooses to ignore that the same medieval writer tells the story of the battle of Bath separately!  She also omits any explanation of how she manages to equate Badon with Alclud/Dumbarton philologically. Truth is, there is absolutely no connection between the two places and the two names. As Dr. Graham Isaac has explained (in excruciating detail), Badon is the natural British reflection of Anglo-Saxon bathum. She is also, apparently, unaware that there is a known bathum (called such in connection with the ancient road that led there) at Buxton in Derbyshire, the Roman period Aquae Arnemetiae.  This site lies on a main Roman road not far south of Ribchester.  It is the single best candidate for Arthur’s Battle of Badon.

THE FATHER OF ARTHUR

To their credit (although the idea is scarcely new!), Malcor and Matthew do recognize that the Pendragon epithet given to Arthur’s father in the tradition might indeed be an allusion to the draco standard.  They appear to be ignorant, though, of the late Roman imperial rank of magister draconum.  Pendragon could, theoretically, be a perfect Welsh rendering of the Latin title. 

Unfortunately, other than tying the Roman draco to the Sarmatians, neither Malcor nor Matthews seem to have further investigated the identity of Uther.   In my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF THE NORTH, I relate the draco - and Uther - to the Hadrian's Wall fort of Birdoswald, with its known sub-Roman royal hall.  The fort was garrisoned in the late period by Dacians, who were particularly well known for their draco.  

CONCLUSION

For those interested in Lucius Artorius Castus, ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR, is not, I’m afraid to say, a recommended read. Even less so can it be promoted to anyone who finds it more reasonable to ascribe to the probability of a Dark Age Arthur. 

Mostly, I object strenuously to the blunders they commit in translating the LAC memorial stone. 

True experts will not try to assign specific dates to any of the ranks held by LAC.  There is consensus for a date spanning the period from Marcus and Lucius Verus up through Commodus.  Some will go a bit past that, but there is no way to prove a later date.  Malcor and her colleagues (in “Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription”, Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 47, 2019, pp. 415-437, by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani) employed various attempts based upon when a certain rank could have been held, or when a certain rank was first abbreviated in such and such a way.  These attempts failed. 

For example, Antonio Trinchese informed me that his work on the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone had revealed that the 'Procurator Centenarius' formula could not be found prior to the Severan period.  After some additional digging, I was able to extend that back to the reign of Commodus (c. 190) with  C. Annius Flavianus. They tried the same tactic with the praepositus rank (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2021/12/the-misuse-of-praepositus-classis-rank.html). Each and every time they sought to pin down the precise date of the stone, precedents were found to negate the perfect chronology they so desperately needed.

Malcor and colleagues even resorted to exploiting errors in such a way as to amplify the greatness of LAC.  I have already mentioned above how they made him twice prefect and six times procurator. It would seem that it is better to glorify one’s hero, rather than adhere to our best approximation of historical veracity.

Roman stones are replete with errors. Any epigrapher worth his salt knows this. Sometimes we just have to admit that what we’ve tried to carve out is wrong.