"Another dating issue noted by Salway is the replication of letters "Legg" (or "Augg" ""praeff") to show a potential plural. I cannot find a single example of this anywhere in the empire before Sept. Severus (201 CE), though it occurs frequently after."
- Dr. Abigail Graham on the dating of the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone
When I first read that statement by Dr. Graham, it didn't really hit me how important it was for the dating of the Castus inscription. I've since come to realize that this treatment of praeff and legg on the stone helps us once and for all clinch the Severan dating I've recently proposed.
Determining the veracity of Dr. Graham's claim became top priority for me. I began by sending her entire treatment of the stone's age to Professor Roger Tomlin, who wanted it to be Antonine, and for the inscription's ARM[...]S lacuna to stand for ARMENIOS (and hence the Armenian War in the 160s).
His response was a bit alarming. First, he had to admit that the fine lettering style of the Castus stone that he had used to determine the Antonine date was found in a Severan example Graham had found in neighboring Pannonia. He also admitted that Graham and Salway might be right about the many ligatures in the stone pointing to the Severan period. But, most worrisome of all, he confessed to not having bothered to check on the LEGG and PRAEFF abbreviations in terms of whether these were found in Antonine inscriptions.
I, therefore, took it upon myself to search the databases (duplicating Dr. Graham's efforts) for LEGG and PRAEFF. What I discovered confirmed her statement about these abbreviations.
Utilizing Trismegistos and EDCS, I found 40 odd examples of LEGG and 15 of PRAEFF. One legg inscription dated to the 180s looked off, and research into P. Plotius Romanus revealed that subsequent research puts him in the 3rd century. The Castus stone is cited with a 180-230 range, but only because of Tomlin. One or two other inscriptions are totally undatable and so supplied with a very open date-range, but even these embrace the Severan era.
PRAEFF was even more seriously slanted to the Severan era. On the few stones (like the Castus one again, where the abbreviation was carved by mistake) given early beginning dates, the concluding dates of their age-ranges embrace the Severan period. The more undatable the stone, the broader its age-range. But taken in the context of the many examples that are clearly Severan or beyond, we are not justified in accepting a pre-Severan date for the few wild card inscriptions.
When it came to PRAEFF, I had availed myself of Prof. Dr. Dr. Werner Eck's expertise, as he knows a great deal about the rank of praefectus. I asked him if he knew of any examples of PRAEFF before the Severan period. He responded:
"I don't know of any earlier examples than, say, the Severan period.
Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. mult. Werner Eck, FBA
http://alte-geschichte.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/eck.html
Historisches Institut/Alte Geschichte
Universität zu Koeln
D-50923 Koeln"
Having accomplished the above tasks, I wrote to Tomlin with my findings. His reply:
"Thanks for these further details. The Cibalae fragments confirm that the lettering could well be Severan, and I take in the LEGG / PRAEFF argument as well. I would still see Castus' career as reaching its peak under Marcus Aurelius, but I am quite happy (as no doubt he would be) to allow him a longer retirement, into the reign of Septimius Severus."
To which I countered:
"But equestrian prefects of legions were 50ish or older when they took that post. If he was in his fifties when he went to Armenia, we tag on the years up to 163 (end of the Armenian War), then ascribe his procuratorship to c. 168-170, when Liburnia was formed at the onset of the Marcomannic Wars, and we give him, say, 5 years of that, then he would be 65-70. Commodus ended the wars c. 180. Unlikely he was procurator for the whole decade, but not imposssible.
We then need to get him from being that old to, at the minimum, 193 for the carving of his stone. Probably a few years need to go by for the FF and GG innovations to become fashionable and appear in general use. So, to be conservative, let's say c. 200 for the carving of the stone.
By my calculation, that makes Castus to be 90-100 years old when he makes his stone.
I think this highly unlikely.
I mean, most equestrians who reached the prefect level in middle age retired after that post. The procuratorship was a special extra for Castus.
So how would you calculate his age with Armenia in the 160s and a stone carved while he was yet alive c. 200?
Sure, we can say 193+. But we would have to accept that praeff and legg appeared immediately upon the accession of Severus."
He answered with an excellent query.
"This is a problem, and you are more familiar with the numerals than I am. It might be worth checking whether legionary prefects were always as old as this."
Well, as it happened, I knew just who to go to for this one: Prof. Eck.
"Legionary prefect can mean very different things. Either the praefectus castrorum of a legion, which has always existed. But legionary prefect can also mean a praefectus legionis, who took the place of the former legatus legionis; however, this only existed in the second half of the 3rd century. That's a completely different position.
For the praefectus castrorum, which L. Artorius Castus certainly was, if you assume that former primipili then became praefecti castrorum, then they have completed their 25 years of service in the legion. That roughly brings us to the age Dobson mentions for p.c."
In other words, it looks implausible for Castus to have fought in Armenia in the 160s and to have then carved his stone sometime after 193.
The Castus stone - with all due respect to Prof. Tomlin - does not appear to be Antonine. It would instead seem to be Severan.
And putting that date to the stone makes my proposed ARM.GENTES reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna more attractive.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.