Pertinax
According to Dr. Linda A. Malcor, the equestrian prefect of the Sixth Legion, Lucius Artorius Castus, became the de facto (or ad hoc?) governor of Britain after Pertinax was relieved of his post.
While scholars unanimously do not accept her claim that the dux command of legions (or legionary detachments) granted to prefect Castus has the meaning she assigns to it, I thought it might be useful to examine just what we know - and what we don't - about the period of the "missing" governor of 187-192.
We may begin with the HISTORIA AUGUSTA's account of the British governship of Pertinax:
5 After Perennis had been put to death, Commodus made amends to Pertinax, and in a letter asked him to set out for Britain.23 6 After his arrival there he kept the soldiers from any revolt, for they wished to set up some other man as emperor, preferably Pertinax himself. 7 And now Pertinax acquired an evil character for enviousness, for he was said to have laid before Commodus the charge that Antistius Burrus and Arrius Antoninus were aspiring to the throne.24 8 And certainly he did suppress a mutiny against himself in Britain, but in so doing he came into great danger; for in a mutiny of a legion he was almost killed, and indeed was left among the slain. 9 This mutiny Pertinax punished very severely. 10 Later on, however, he petitioned to be excused from his governorship, saying that the legions were hostile to him because he had been strict in his discipline. After he had been relieved of his post...
The only information we glean from Cassius Dio runs as follows:
4 While Pertinax was still in Britain, after that great revolt which he quelled, and was being accounted worthy of praise on all sides...
The soldiers in Britain chose Priscus, a lieutenant, emperor; but he declined, saying: I am no more an emperor than you are soldiers"
The lieutenants in Britain, accordingly, having been rebuked for their insubordination, — they did not become quiet, in fact, until Pertinax quelled them...
After these events in Britain, we have utter silence until we arrive at the tenure of the governor Albinus, the successor of the unknown governor. I'm providing extracts from The Roman Government of Britain by Anthony R. Birley (Oxford University Press, 2005) on Pertinax and his predecessor:
34. 185? Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus (cos. a. inc.),
acting-governor
CIL vi. 1336=ILS 1151, Rome: M(arco) An[tio . . . ] | Crescent[i] Calpurniano, [cos. ?,] 4|
proc[o](n)s(uli) prov(inciae) M[aced(oniae)], | XVvi[ro s(acris)] f(aciundis), iurid(ico) Brit(anniae) | vice
leg(ati), leg(ato) pr(o) pr(aetore) | prov(inciae) [ . . . , cur(atori)] r(ei) p(ublicae) 8| Marsorum Marruvior(um),
pr[aet(ori) . . . ].
To Marcus Antius Crescens Calpurnianus, consul(?), proconsul of the province of Macedonia,
quindecimvir sacris faciundis, iuridicus of Britain (and) acting-legate, propraetorian legate of the
province of . . . , curator of the commonwealth of the Marsi and Marruvini.
The acting-governorship of this man is known only from this fragmentary
inscription. An approximate chronology may be obtained, for he is also
named on three other, dated, inscriptions. Two at Ostia show his presence
there as pontifex Volcani in 194 and 203; the third, the Acta of the Saecular
Games of 204, attests his participation as a quindecimvir.¹⁴⁹ His tenure of that
priesthood is registered on his cursus inscription in what seems to be chronological
order. This led to the conclusion that his service in Britain, mentioned
next, must have come not long before 204. Early 203 was excluded, since he
was at Ostia on 24 March in that year, and it was assumed that he was actinggovernor
c.200 on the death or sudden departure of Virius Lupus (Gov. 37).¹⁵⁰
But nothing whatever is known about the end of Lupus’ governorship, so this
dating lacks any basis. Crescens was elected to the college after service in
Britain and before the proconsulship of Macedonia. But it does not follow that
he held these posts just before the games of 204. If he was praetor at the
normal age, 29, his service in Britain probably came when he was in his midthirties
(the cura of an Italian community and the legateship in a proconsular
province would not occupy more than three years or so). Hence he probably
became a quindecimvir at about 38. He could have remained an active member
for at least another twenty years.
Acting-governorships were the product of special circumstances, in most
cases (before the third century) the sudden death of the governor. Sometimes
an imperial procurator assumed the role, but there are several cases where a
legionary legate took over. One precedent in Britain is from the year 69, when
the legionary legates governed the province jointly after the flight of the
governor Trebellius Maximus (Gov. 7, cf. LL 8). Under Domitian a legionary
legate called Ferox (LL 12) may have been acting-governor after the death of
Sallustius Lucullus (Gov. 12). In 184 or soon after, when Ulpius Marcellus was
recalled, there were no legionary legates, as they had been replaced by
equestrians (see under Gov. 33). Hence it is plausible that Crescens was actinggovernor
for several months—as the only senator left in the province. He
presumably remained in post, the army still being mutinous, until the arrival
of Pertinax in 185.¹⁵¹
A quindecimvir died c.185, C. Aufidius Victorinus (cos. II ord. 183) (Dio 72. 11.
1).¹⁵² Calpurnianus could have replaced him—as a reward for meritorious
service in Britain. That might also explain his relatively rapid progress to the
consulship, after only one further post, as proconsul of Macedonia. By contrast,
Sabucius Major (iurid. 5), after being iuridicus of Britain not long before
Crescens, went on to be prefect of the military treasury, governor of Belgica,
and proconsul of Achaia, before becoming consul in 186.
It is unknown whether Crescens held further posts after his consulship. It
would not be surprising if he preferred to devote himself to private or local
concerns, for example at Ostia, presumably his home. The times were precarious,
although there is no reason to believe that he was related to M.
Antonius Antius Lupus, one of Commodus’ many victims.¹⁵³ No certain relatives
or descendants are on record, but M. Antius Grat[il]lianus, quaestor of
Sicily in 213, could be his son.¹⁵⁴
35. 185–187 Publius Helvius Pertinax (cos. 175, II ord. 192)
Dio (Xiphilinus) 72(73). 9. 22: Those [sc. the soldiers]¹⁵⁵ in Britain then, when they had been
rebuked for their mutinous conduct (for they did not in fact quieten down until Pertinax quelled
them) now chose out of their number one thousand five hundred javelin-men and sent them to
Italy.
73 (74). 4. 1: While he [sc. Pertinax] was still in Britain, after that great mutiny which he quelled,
and was being thought worthy of praise from all, a horse called Pertinax won a race at
Rome.
HA Pert. 3. 5–4. 1: occiso sane Perenni Commodus Pertinaci satisfecit eumque petit per litteras, ut ad
Brittanniam profisceretur. 6. profectusque milites ab omni seditione deterruit, cum illi quemcumque imperatorem
vellent habere et ipsum specialiter Pertinacem . . . . 8. et seditiones quidem contra Commodum ipse conpescuit in
Brittannia, verum ingens periculum adit seditione legionis paene occisus, certe inter occisos relictus. 9. quam
quidem rem Pertinax acerrime vindicavit. 10. denique postea veniam legationis petit, dicens sibi ob defensam
disciplinam infestas esse legiones. 4. 1. accepto successore alimentorum ei cura mandata est.
3. 5: To be sure, when Perennis had been killed, Commodus made amends to Pertinax and
asked him by letter to set out for Britain. 6. On his arrival, he deterred the soldiers from all their
mutiny, although they wanted to make any man whatever [sc. other than Commodus] emperor and
especially Pertinax himself . . . . 8. And he did indeed suppress the mutinies against Commodus
in Britain, but came into huge danger, being almost killed in a mutiny of a legion—at any rate
he was left among the dead. 9. This affair, of course, Pertinax punished very severely. 10.
Finally, after this he sought to be excused from his legateship, saying that the legions were
hostile to him because of his having upheld discipline. 4. 1. When he had been given a successor,
the supervision of the alimenta was entrusted to him.
The career of Pertinax is one of the most remarkable in the principate. He is
also exceptional, if not unique, among governors of Britain in being the subject
of an ancient biography, a distinction owed to his brief reign as emperor.
The vita in the HA, although not free from contamination, is one of the more
factual in that work; the details of his career which it supplies have been
authenticated by a number of inscriptions. These include one from Brühl,
near Cologne in Lower Germany, recording most of his career before he
entered the senate.¹⁵⁶ Further confirmation of some items, not least of his
British governorship, is supplied by Dio.
He was born on 1 August 126 at his mother’s villa at Alba Pompeia in
Liguria, his father being a freedman named Helvius Successus (HA Pert. 1. 1–2;
cf. Dio 73(74). 3. 1). Initially he became a schoolmaster, in the footsteps of his
own teacher Sulpicius Apollinaris (HA Pert. 1. 4). Finding this insufficiently
lucrative, he applied for a centurion’s commission, using the good offices of his
father’s patron Lollianus Avitus (cos. ord. 144). This application was evidently
unsuccessful (HA Pert. 1. 5) and he had to be content with the less permanent,
if more honorific, status of equestrian officer, gained through another patron,
Ti. Claudius Pompeianus (cos. II ord. 173) (Dio 73. 3. 1, HA Pert. 1. 6). He took
command of the cohors VII Gallorum equitata in Syria, before the death of
Antoninus Pius. After distinguishing himself in the Parthian war, which broke
out soon afterwards, he was promoted to a tribunate in the British legion VI
Victrix. This was followed by another post in the militia secunda in Britain and
then the command of an ala ‘in Moesia’ (Pert. 2. 1–2). His posting to Britain
may have been on the recommendation of Julius Verus (Gov. 27), governor of
Syria c.163, while the transfer from Britain to the Danube may reflect the
career of Calpurnius Agricola (30), who probably made this move himself
c.166, and may have taken Pertinax with him.
Pertinax now began a procuratorial career, in charge of the alimenta along
the via Aemilia, an important region c.168, when there were major concentrations
of troops there for the German war. He then became prefect of the
classis Germanica (Pert. 2. 2), and was soon promoted to a procuratorship in
Dacia, before 170 (2. 4). He was dismissed as the result of an intrigue; but
shortly afterwards was recalled, to assist Pompeianus—now son-in-law of M.
Aurelius—in the task of clearing the German invaders out of Italy (2. 4, Dio
71(72). 3. 2). His conduct won him adlection to senatorial rank, followed by
promotion to the rank of ex-praetor and the command of the First Legion
(Adiutrix) (2. 5–6). In this post he achieved a remarkable victory in barbarian
territory, c.172.¹⁵⁷ He probably then held a special command over an army
corps, obtaining the consulship, held in absentia, in 175. He accompanied M.
Aurelius to the East as comes Augusti in 175–6 and went on to govern Lower
Moesia, Upper Moesia, and the III Daciae (attested there on 1 April 179).¹⁵⁸
He was probably appointed to govern Syria after M. Aurelius’ death, in
180,¹⁵⁹ returning to Rome c.182 to enter the senate-house for the first time after
governing four consular provinces, as the HA records (3. 2). The guard prefect
Perennis, then dominant, compelled Pertinax to retire to his father’s estate in
Liguria (3. 3). For three years he engaged in business there (3. 4), and it was
only after Perennis’ death in 185 that Commodus asked him to assume the
governorship of Britain (3. 5, quoted above), where the army was still
mutinous. Dio (Xiphilinus) twice records that Pertinax finally suppressed the
mutiny. The HA adds details: apparently the troops still wanted another
emperor, preferably Pertinax himself, but he managed to repress them with
difficulty, and nearly lost his life in a riot at the hands of one legion. He then
requested the emperor to send a replacement, since the legions resented his
restoration of discipline.
On his return to Rome, probably in 187, perhaps sooner, he was was made
prefect of the alimenta (Pert. 4. 1), followed by a year as proconsul of Africa, at
latest 188–9 (4. 2).¹⁶⁰ Soon after this he reached the pinnacle of the senatorial
career with the prefecture of Rome, in addition to which—as was customary
for city prefects—he was given a second consulship, as ordinarius for the year
192, with Commodus as his colleague (HA Pert. 4. 2–3).¹⁶¹ At latest during 192,
a conspiracy was hatched by the guard prefect Q. Aemilius Laetus, in which
Pertinax was probably involved. It led to the murder of Commodus and the
proclamation of Pertinax as his successor on the last day of the year.¹⁶² But his
reign lasted only until 28 March 193, when he himself was murdered.¹⁶³
His career had been truly astonishing. In this context it must be noted that
his governorship of Britain was the product of very exceptional circumstances.
His wife was Flavia Titiana, daughter of T. Flavius Sulpicianus, appointed
city prefect to succeed Pertinax himself, unsuccessful candidate for the throne
against Didius Julianus, and probably the same man as the ‘Claudius
Sulpicianus’ put to death by Severus.¹⁶⁴ Their son, also called P. Helvius
Pertinax, and daughter both survived him; the son was murdered by
Caracalla in 212.¹⁶⁵
It is probable that an unknown governor was Pertinax’s immediate successor.
36. 192–197 Decimus Clodius (Septimius) Albinus
(cos. a. inc., II ord. 194)
Etc.
By the time we reach Albinus, everything in Britain seems to be in order. So much so that Severus, in Herodian's words -
"...was anxious about the army in Britain, which was large in numbers and very powerful with very warlike men. The commander of this whole force was Albinus..."
To try and satisfy Albinus' imperial ambition, were he to have it, Severus makes him Caeser. Of course, we all know how that turned out! But it is important to note that there is no indication whatsoever that Albinus was dealing with disaffected British troops.
And this is where Dr. Malcor would have Castus set foot upon the stage. Although Pertinax is said to have quelled the post-Marcellus rebellion, the methods he employed to do so were so severe as to make him unpopular. He wisely requested to be replaced.
To begin, there is no reason to think that at this stage an equestrian would be made governor. If we are to allow this to have happened, the mechanism by which it did must be explained. It is assumed by historians that once the Praetorian Prefect Perennis had been killed at the insistence of the British soldiers, his policy of removing legionary legates and replacing them with equestrians had been reversed. It is also true that a legion's equestrian prefect had over him more than just a senatorial legate. There was the senatorial tribunus laticlavius:
"The prefect of a legion might be its acting commander if the legate and the tribunus laticlavius were not available. That was the usual succession. Military tribunes of senatorial family ('laticlavius') could temporarily replace the commander (legate) of their legion." [Roger Tomlin]
So at a time when senators were once more in charge of the legions, and senatorial tribunes were second-in-commands, how are we to get a equestrian prefect raised over both of these leaders to the level of legatus Augusti pro praetore, the governor of an entire province, especially one as large as Britain?
Okay, let us create a scenario in which both of the Sixth Legion's senior officers are dead. That would allow Castus to take over as commander of the legion, at least temporarily. But unless all the other legionary legates and senior tribunes were also dead, and he is either the last prefect standing or considered the best of the three, and the governor and anyone who would naturally have become acting governor (like the iuridicus listed above) were also out of action for whatever reason, there is simply no way that Castus could have suddenly found himself governor.
Malcor's claim that he was made governor because there weren't any senators available is baseless, not only because that is a highly improbable statement, but an unprovable one as well.
Now, once again, Dr. Malcor and her colleagues try to avoid this whole difficulty by interpreting Castus' dux rank as something other than what it is - a temporary command of a military force. Despite the academic world being united against their interpretation (as Professor Werner Eck, perhaps the expert on the Roman praefectus rank recently reinforced, the kind of dux Dr. Malcor wants "only existed in the second half of the 3rd century"), they continue to promote it.
We might have a better chance of accepting their reading of dux in the Castus inscription if it was put differently. For instance, if what we had was merely "duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britan(n)ici-
–{an}arum", we might scratch our heads and wonder about what was being said. "Commander of Three British Legions"? Huh? But this is not what we have on the Castus stone. We have instead -
"[pr]aef{f}(ecto) leg(ionis) VI Victricis duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britan(n)ici{an}arum adversus Arm[...]s"
In other words, we are not permitted to read only that he was commander of three British legions (or three legionary vexillations; see Robert Saxer, where over 40 such inscriptions listing legions are recognized as implied vexillations). No! We must accept that he was a prefect of the Sixth Legion who was granted a temporary military command of legionary forces against a specific enemy. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THAT PHRASE ABOUT CASTUS BEING GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN.
As Professor Roger Tomlin and others have emphasized, Castus would have written praefectus vice legati, a known pre-Gallienus title for a prefect replacing a legate. He would, in essence, be acting as his 'deputy' until another legate is appointed. We might also have seen agens vice legati or, for a legion,
praefectus agens vice legati legionis. We even find titles like agens vice praesidis, a praesides being a governor. In Tomlin's words:
"There are some procurators who are governors of their province, pro legato. Plenty of 'prefects' of legions, but (by implication) not their commanders except in Egypt – until Gallienus, when all legions are commanded by prefects. But note Licinius Hierocles in the reign of Alexander Severus, who is prefect of Leg II Parthicae vice legati (CIL viii 20996). Castus would surely have added vice legati, if he had been.
LAC was never a senator, and never legate of VI Victrix. His inscription would have said so. He was only the legion's prefect – as you say, ranking after the legate and the tribunus laticlavius, but vastly more experienced than either – and he might serve as its acting-commander: pro legato or agens vice legati."
I've written a great deal on this subject on my blog over the years and will not spend more time on it in this post. I just wanted to make sure my readers understood the nature of the massive mistake Dr. Malcor and her colleagues are making in interpreting Castus' dux rank as being the equivalent of a provincial governor.
Back to our missing British governor of 187-192...
Dr. Malcor uses her vague, nonspecific, ambiguous, opaque and indeterminate reading "armatos" (armed men or, in some contexts, soldiers) for the ARM[...]S lacuna of the Castus stone. She insists it is the only reading that "fits" in the gap in the broken stone. But readers need to understand that what she actually means is that ARMATOS fits the space without having to resort to ligatures. However, as the inscription itself is replete with ligatures, and it is extremely common in general to employ ligatures in inscriptions, this statement is actually quite meaningless.
What ARMATOS allows its originators to do is conjure any martial activity they wish for the 187-192 period - a period which in the extant sources shows no activity at all. Dr. Malcor and her colleagues go into great detail with a purely imaginary construct (this is even more true in Malcor's book ARTORIUS: THE REAL KING ARTHUR) of just what their governor Castus was up.
It is not my intention here to atomistically analyze their many unsubstantiable claims regarding the military actions carried out by Castus in 187-192. Only one thing needs to be said: when called upon to provide textual or archaeological evidence to support what is plainly sheer speculation, they are unable to produce anything.
So, whether intentional or otherwise, Dr. Malcor has found a convenient historical void in which to insert her governor and a lacuna reading that allows for a completely open-ended identification of his foes. This is all neatly tied together by an erroneous interpretation of Castus' dux rank, which does not indicate that he was ever a provincial governor.
The sources make it plain that Pertinax quelled the mutiny in Britain. While the severity with which he did that made him unpopular with his troops, and he wisely requested to be replaced by a new governor for whom the soldiers did not bear such animosity, had the rebellion continued and someone else had to put it down, then surely that someone else, rather than Pertinax, would have been credited with quelling the mutiny.
Hence Malcor's claim that the mutiny continued after Pertinax and was put down by her governor Castus (her ARMATOS, in this context, at least, being the rebelling Roman soldiers in Britain) canot be squared with the sources. One might also ask what garrison(s) or auxiliaries in Britain would be foolish enough to go against all three British legions (assuming these were full legions and not legionary vexillations - something Malcor insists upon).
Of course, Malcor has also numbered among her ARMATOS British tribes in various locations, including the south (the Iceni, even!), despite the fact that we have no account of trouble with the tribes between Pertinax and Albinus. The sources state only that Marcellus defeated the northern tribes and that they did not stir again until after Albinus had withdrawn the troops from Britain for his civil war with Severus.
As we are pointedly told that Pertinax was relieved of his post, there is no reason to believe that a good senatorial candidate could not have been found to replace him. This would be in keeping with the usual practice. What we can't do is explain why a prefect of the Sixth Legion would have been chosen as his successor.
In summary, Dr. Malcor and her colleagues have concocted a "theory" for L. Artorius Castus that is totally unsupported by the facts. As such, it is without merit. Castus was not the governor of 187-192. And the martial activity assigned to him for that period is a fiction.
A gap in knowledge is called that for a reason.
