Equestrians Acting as Governors in Senatorial Provinces (AD 160-260)
Since 2019, Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues
(see https://www.academia.edu/124525794/Missing_Pieces_A_New_Reading_of_the_Main_Lucius_Artorius_Castus_Inscription) have insisted that the dux rank/descriptor found on the L. Artorius Castus memorial stone should be seen as, in effect, a synonym for an equestrian governor of the province of Britain. And this is so despite universal rejection of the idea. In the past, I and others have written a great many refutations of the Malcorian "theory", citing highly respected scholarly sources and personal testimony from the world's top Latin epigraphers and Roman military historians. All have been ignored and merely said to be "wrong" by Dr. Malcor and her colleagues.
The gist of their argument is that dux, long known as a term for a commander of a temporary military action prior to Gallienus and, in some cases after Gallienus (and being later codified by Diocletian), as a term for an equestrian given command of a province's military forces, is an artificial distinction. In their view, the later kind of dux existed much earlier - indeed, early enough so that Castus can be neatly inserted into the 187-191 AD gap in the British governors list.
While it would be a waste of my time and energy to repeat everything that has been said on this matter over the years, those who wish to consult my various blog articles on the subject are welcome to do so. In fact, I encourage my readers to do just that. For now, I will restrict myself to a sort of brief, rational treatment of the problem.
Point No. 1
There is no precedence for a non-senatorial governor of Britain. All governors up to the division of Britain under Severus or Caracalla or later were senators. We have a record of a iuridicus acting as governor on a temporary basis. But the iuridicus was himself of the senatorial order. Even under Commodus, whose reign is supposedly blessed with Castus the governor, all known governors of the province are senators. Severus continued the practice. In the entire stretch from Marcus Aurelius through Severus, there is not a single attested equestrian governor of the province.
Point No. 2:
From Malcor's "Missing Pieces":
"This is important because a Senator who ruled a province was called “legatus Augusti propraetore”, but sometimes the governor of a province could also be called "dux", as in the case of Sextus Cornelis Clemens, “dux trium Daciarum”, “governor of the three Dacias” in the years 170-172 CE, under Marcus Aurelius (Migliorati 2011:247)."
The inscription referred to is this one:
The problem with this particular example?
Dated to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Commodus' predecessor, it tells of a senator who styles himself 'consul and dux of the three Dacias.' I was puzzled as to how this inscription helped Alessandro Faggiani's argument. He then explained that a) Commodus had replaced the legates in Britain with equestrians, allowing us to equate Csstus with Sextus Cornelius Clemens and b) the use of dux here proved that the title could be used in the early period for governor.
Needless to say, we know the governor of all three Dacias after Aurelius was a consul, while the individual provinces were governed by equestrians. Dux of three Dacias here merely means in the context of a senatorial consul that he was also the supreme military commander of the Dacian military.
He then sent me CIL 02, 04114, another consul and senator of the very late 2nd century who held the dux title as a special command against rebels and public enemies.
Once again, this man - Tiberius Claudius Candidus - is a senator.
In fact, Candidus is a governor of a province already when he is given his dux command, and as that command is against stated foes it is clearly a command of military forces for a specific purpose and not a term being used to designate him as a governor.
The "Missing Papers" then goes on to list other men who are meant to bolster the authors' dux-as-governor argument:
"Once more the dating of the inscription becomes
important. While “dux legg(ionum)” was used during Philip the
Arab’s reign (244-249 CE; CIL 016145), examples of
“dux…adversus” also date to Septimius Severus’s reign.25
25 An inscription about Quintus Mamilius Capitolinus (CIL 02, 02634) is from
the Severan period, and a third inscription, about Valerius Claudius Quintus
(CIL 03, 04855) dates to the last half of the third century. Tiberius Claudius
Candidus (CIL 2, 41414) and Caius Iulius Septimius Castinus were well-known
generals for Septimius Severus."
All of them are totally meaningless in the context of Castus during the reign of Commodus. Once again, most are senators, so we have a pathetic apples-and-oranges claim going on here.
Only Valereius Claudius Quintus is vaguely interesting, but he belongs to the reign of Gallienus:
"The reign of Gallienus seems to represent an important
stage in the development of the titles praepositus and dux as as applied
to field army officers. Assuming Pflaum's dating of the inscription
to be correct, Valerius Claudius Quintus in 253 is first dux legionis
III Italica , and then dux et praepositus legionis III Augustae. The
explanation seems to be that he was appointed to the first post during
a campaign against the Alamanni in Raetia. After Valerian's successful
putsch, he was appointed praepositus commanding a vexillation of III
Augusta, and sent to Africa with the powers of a dux to quell a revolt
of the Mauri."
Having failed with the preceding examples to demonstrate that dux in the Antonine or early Severan periods meant governor, I asked Dr. Malcor to supply me with more applicable inscriptions to work from. She had her colleague Alessandro Faggiani send the following inscriptions. I will list each with my discussion of them in order:
C(aio) Vallio | Maximiano | proc(uratori) provinciar(um) | Macedoniae Lusi|taniae Mauretan(iae) | Tingitanae fortis|simo duci | res p(ublica) Italicens(ium) ob|merita et quot | provinciam Baetic(am) | caesis hostibus | paci pristinae | restituerit | Dedicata anno | Licini Victoris et | Fabi Aeliani IIvirorum | pr(idie) Kal(endas) Ianuar(ias)
The "duci" of this inscription, paired with fortissimo, is not a rank or title, but an honorific. The relevant passage may be translated thusly:
A strong leader of the Italian republic, for his merits and for restoring the province of Baetica to its former peace after slaying its enemies.
C(aio) Velio Sal- | vi f(ilio) Rufo p(rimo) p(ilo) leg(ionis) XII | Fulm(inatae), praef(ecto) vexillari- | orum leg(ionum) VIIII: I Adiut(ricis), II Adiut(ricis), | II Aug(ustae), VIII Aug(ustae), VIIII Hisp(anae), XIIII Ge- | m(inae), XX Vic(tricis), XXI Rapac(is), trib(uno) co- | h(ortis) XIII urb(anae), duci exercitus Africi et | Mauretanici ad nationes quae | sunt in Mauretania conprimendas, do- | nis donato ab Imp(eratore) Vespasiano et Imp(eratore) | Tito bello Iudaico corona vallar(i) | torquibus, fa[le]r[is], armillis, item | donis donato corona murali | hastis duabus vexillis duobus et bel- | lo Marcommannorum Quadorum | Sarmatarum adversus quos expedi- | tionem fecit per regnum Decebali | regis Dacorum corona murali has- | tis duabus vexillis duobus, proc(uratori) Imp(eratoris) Cae- | saris Aug(usti) Germanici provinciae Panno- | niae et Dalmatiae, item proc(uratori) provinciae | Raetiae ius gla[d]i(i). hic missus in Parthiam Epipha- | nen et Callinicum regis Antiochi filios ad | Imp(eratorem) Vespasianum cum ampla manu tribu- | tariorum reduxit. M(arcus) Alfius M(arci) f(ilius) Fabia O- | lympiacus aquili[f]e[r] vet(eranus) leg(ionis) XV Apol[l]inar- | is.
tribune of cohors XIII Urbana, leader of an army created in Africa and Mauritania to suppress the nations that live in Mauretania, and was given rewards by Imperator Vespasian and Imperator Titus during the Judaean War – a wall crown, torques, phalerae, armillae – and also given rewards – a mural crown, two spears, two banners – and again given, during the war against the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmati – against whom he conducted an operation across the realm of Decebalus, king of the Dacians – a crown of ramparts, two spears and two banners, and who acted as procurator of the emperor Caesar Augustus Domitian in the Pannonian and Dalmatian provinces, and as procurator and highest penal authority in Raetia.
This tribune was sent to Africa with an army, then later commanded a force in Dacia before holding procuratorships.
Duci does not here mean governor. Would we translate it as
"governor of an army (exercitus) created in Africa and Mauritania to suppress the nations that live in Mauretani"?
To read the inscription that way would be absurd. Yet that is, apparently, how the Malcorians would have us translate duci in this context.
Point No. 3:
When Malcor speaks of the duci clause in the Castus inscription, she invariable refers to a truncated form of it:
DVCI LEGG [………….]M BRITANICI
MIARVM
To her, this plainly means that this prefect of the Sixth Legion (PRAEFF LEG VI VICTRICIS) is governor of the British legions, i.e. military governor of the British province.
She gets away with this (in certain uneducated company) by first refusing to acknowledge the well-known and demonstrable fact that the rank of praefectus castrorum legionis was abbreviated to praefectus legionis in the 2nd century. She does this so that she can claim Castus was something more than a camp prefect. This reading is not accepted by a single mainstream scholar I have consulted.
By omitting the second part of the clause -
ADVERSVS ARM[….]S
- Malcor distracts from the fact that the duci command exists solely within the confines of Castus' leading of legionary troops AGAINST a specific enemy. By isolating the dux of three legions from the ADVERSUS ARM[...]S, she produces a phrase that reminds us of the Diocletian rank of Dux Britanniarum.
Castus role of dux was a special command given to a junior officer, an officer assigned a temporary military task. Had Castus instead merely said 'dux of three legions', well, we might then be left scratching our heads and such a statement would definitely give us pause. But he does not say that. He goes out of his way to tell us that he was leading the legionary force against someone - NOT THAT HE WAS GOVERNOR OF BRITAIN! Nor does he call himself dux Britanniarum, 'commander of Britain' (to borrow the later phrase). He does not employ pro legato or agens vice legati, as he most certainly would were he acting governor.
Point No. 4:
Dr. Malcor has on numerous occasions resorted to what I call a version of the "God of the Gaps" argument to support her contention that Castus was the governor of 187-191. Converted into a simple syllogism, her argument reads as follows:
1) We don't know who was governor of Britain for the period 187-191
2) Castus was dux (viz. "military governor") of Britain around this time
3) Therefore, it naturally follows that Castus was the governor of Britain in 187-191
I don't need to point out the logical fallacy of this syllogism - that is plain to see. But I should say something about Castus' prefect rank as it relates to the the other potential candidates for governor who would have been available in 187-191.
First, we had the senatorial legionary legates, whom scholars assume were restored to their posts after the execution of Perennis in 185. Then we have whatever other qualified senators from elsewhere who could have been drawn from. [Malcor claims without evidence that none were available for the job.] Of course, we also have the senatorial senior tribunes in each legion. We even have the senatorial provincial iuridicus. We know of one during the reign of Commodus (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2022/11/acting-governor-m-antius-crescens.html?m=1).
What that all means is that there were numerous candidates for the governor of Britain in 187-191 who were higher-ranking than Castus and would, presumably, have been chosen over an equestrian camp prefect.
Point No. 5:
To conclude this article, we need for a moment to treat of the dreaded ARMATOS, Malcor's proposed reading for the ARM[...]S lacuna in the Castus inscription.
Armatos means armed men or, sometimes, soldiers. It is marvelously vague. Malcor often proclaims that it is the only word that fits in the lacuna. This alone has convinced many of the uneducated that she is correct.
But what that statement actually means is that it is the only reading that doesn't require abbreviation or the use of ligatures - methods of contraction that are commonly employed in Roman epigraphy and which are present aplenty in the Castus inscription itself. Look only at LIBURNIAE, truncated to LIB.
The use of armatos in the inscription tells us - indirectly - only one thing about Castus' adversary. As he does not state these armed men were outside of the province, we must assume that given there is no record of the Sixth legion or detachments from it ever having left Britain after it was fixed at York, that the foe was an internal one.
Otherwise, the vagueness of the term serves to allow Malcor and her colleagues to imaginatively construct any martial activity they wish for the historical gap of 187-191. At one time or another, they have made the armatos out to be various tribes and/or rebellious soldiers. They insert these into the gap despite the fact that we have no record if indigenous unrest between Ulpius Marcellus and Severus. We are also told that Pertinax - the governor just before the gap - quelled the British troop rebellion. Malcor will go on and on insisting he didn't, claiming without basis that he had to flee rebellious troops in the province. The actual account in Cassius Dio leaves no doubt that she is wrong about this:
"While Pertinax was still in Britain, after that great revolt which he quelled..."
The HISTORIA AUGUSTA provides more details:
"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. This mutiny Pertinax punished very severely. 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..."
It is clear from this account that not only was the mutiny ended, but that Pertinax was relieved of his post via the usual process and that he would have been replaced with another man of senatorial rank who could establish a better rapport with the troops.
Armatos, then, is the perfect servant to the Castus = Governor theory. As there is no evidence whatsover for an equestrian prefect becoming governor in 187-191, so is there an utter lack of evidence for any kind of military action during that period. Armatos allows its creator complete freedom in conjuring imaginary events for a purely imaginary governor.
Point No. 6:
The existence of the "governor gap" is itself a rather flimsy a priori argument. As Birley makes clear in his THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT OF BRITAIN:
"He was probably not the direct successor of Pertinax, whose tenure terminated abruptly, at his own request, hardly later than 187. Otherwise, Albinus would have been in Britain for over five years by the time of Commodus’ death: not impossible, but it is a priori likelier that he was appointed in one of the years 190–2."
I would merely comment on the length of the reign of Ulpius Marcellus, also from Birley:
"The diplomas now show that Ulpius Marcellus was already governor under
Marcus and Commodus, in March 178—and had probably been appointed
the previous year. Hence there is no obstacle to his being the governor
under two emperors of the Benwell altar. It cannot be excluded that he was appointed in 177 but had been replaced, perhaps soon after Commodus’ accession as sole ruler in 180—and then sent back again after the disaster incurred by the unnamed ‘general’, who would then be his successor as well as his predecessor.¹³⁷ This would be almost unparalleled, but there is the case of
Corbulo, legate of Cappadocia from 54/55 to 60, then moved to Syria, but in 63 sent back to Cappadocia, after the debâcle incurred by his successor
there.¹³⁸ It is no doubt safer to concede that it was only a legionary legate that lost his life, presumably of VI Victrix, the legion nearest to the wall—which wall is not specified in the Dio passage, but it was no doubt that of Hadrian, since the Antonine Wall had evidently been out of commission for over twenty years (see under Gov. 27).
Of course, if he had really served uninterruptedly from 177 to 185, his governorship would have exceeded even that of Julius Agricola (Gov. 11), exactly a century earlier. The replacement of the legionary
legates by equestrian commanders would have meant that for a time the only senatorial official in the province was the iuridicus, who was made acting-governor."
Now, if 8 years for Marcellus is not impossible, even if divided into two separated terms of service, why do people balk at 5 for Albinus?
3-5 years was a normal term for a governor of an imperial province. The following is from https://www.britannica.com/topic/province-ancient-Roman-government:
"Under the empire (from 27 bc), provinces were divided into two classes: senatorial provinces were governed by former consuls and former praetors, both called proconsuls, whose term was annual; imperial provinces were governed by representatives of the emperor (called propraetorian legates), who served indefinitely."
In other words, the placement of a hypothetical governor in the supposed gap of 187-191 may be an exercise in futility, for the said gap may not, in reality, exist at all.
Point No. 7:
Dr. Malcor has recently informed me that her colleague Alessandro Faggiani has built a case for using Junius Severus of the HISTORIA AUGUSTA'S life of Clodius Albinus as proof that the equestrian Castus was made governor in 187-191.
This approach, unfortunately, is ill-founded. Firstly, Faggiani assumes Junius to be of the equestrian class. This is not stated in the account, where this man is merely referred to as the contubernalis of Commodus. A contubernalis could be any number of things, including a young trainee from the senatorial class or even a consular colleague.
Thus it is probable that Iunius Severus - if he existed (as the HA life of Albinus is considered mainly fiction by many, including Birley) - was of the senatorial class. And, indeed, if Commodus was trying to replace Albinus with an equestrian, he would have been attempting to repeat the slain Perennis' mistake on a larger scale. That seems ridiculous to me.
For an example of the word used of a high ranking individual, see
Publius Licinius Crassus (son of triumvir)
"The secondary education of a Roman male of the governing classes typically required a stint as a contubernalis (literally a "tentmate", a sort of military intern or apprentice) following the assumption of the toga virilis around the age of 15 and before assuming formal military duties."
"As a contubernalis, the sons of senators were accompanying the magistrates in the provinces. Contubernalis could be simply a colleague, for instance a consular colleague. Thus, in wider sense the word designates the notion of “companion” or “colleague”."
Secondly, we are told only that Junius was sent to replace Albinus, whom Commodus had previously made governor. But Junius never did successfully assume the post, for the Emperor was assassinated before he could do so. Albinus held onto his office.
From this dubious episode Faggiani somehow extrapolates that his equestrian Governor Castus was likewise appointed to his office by Commodus after Pertinax was relieved of his command.
This is a clumsy and ineffective argument at best, and a desperate one at worst.
