Officially Bestowed Pay Grades and the CENTENARIO of the Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription

CENTE and NARIO on two lines of the LAC memorial stone

For a few months now, I've been engaging in an intense debate with Dr. Linda Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani.  In their paper (2019) Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription, Journal of Indo-European Studies (https://www.jies.org/), the authors argue that the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the inscription should read 'ARMATOS', for armed men.

In the meantime, I had discounted ARMORICOS as a possible reading.  The only way to make this work was to be able to connect LAC to the so-called Deserters' War, headed by one called Maternus.  Unfortunately, while Gaul was involved in this "war", so was Spain and Italy, and even Germany.  For LAC to have claimed that he was bringing three legionary detachments against the Ar[e]morici, therefore, makes little sense.  We also have not found a single other inscription bearing a form of the name Armorica.

My own belief, following a great many experts in the field (including Tomlin and Birley), was the we should see in ARM[...]S the word ARMENIOS [1] for "Armenia."  This is an old idea, but has been met by stiff resistance by Malcor et al.  Although I can show ample use of Armenia and the title Armeniacus in stone inscriptions and written sources, the standard objection is that LAC would instead have said ADVERSUS PARTHICOS.  And this despite the fact that the war was fought in phases, and Statius Priscus, the governor of Britain who would presumably have taken LAC with him to Armenia disappears from history after the Armenian War is completed.  We know that M. Claudius Fronto took over command in 163 and led the Parthian phase of the campaign.  We can't know what might have happene to LAC, but it is conceivable he was not a part in further action or even that he was wounded and could not continue on into Parthia proper.

I also found extremely attractive the fact that the only known military reorganization of Dalmatia occurred in 168 under Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.  To my eye, this would have been the most logical moment for the new province of Liburnia to have been created.  As LAC may actually have been born in Dalmatia (or had family there), this would have been the right time in history to install him as the Liburnian procurator.  There is nothing unusual in a prefect becoming a procurator; we have plenty of examples of such.  That he was given the power of the sword doubtless had to do with the new military standing of Liburnia as a buffer between Italy and the Marcomannic Wars happening to the North.  

While my certainty as to ARMENIOS grew, I was thrown a curve ball by Antonio Trinchese.  He told me (and supplied me with epigraphic evidence) that the title 'procurator centenarius' on LAC's stone was an official rank with pay grade that appeared only in the Severan period.  I investigated this claim, and found it true, for the most part.  There was one exception, a C. Annius Flavianus who was a procurator centenarius in 190, i.e. under Commodus.  This meant the title did occur on stones in the late Antonine as well.

But this didn't help me much.  It still seemed to put Armenia out of the picture for the LAC stone, as LAC could not possibly have been a prefect of the Sixth, fought in Armenia and then was only made procurator in the reign of Commodus.  I found myself once again looking into abyss that exists between the letters M and S of ARM[...]S. I flirted again with the possibility of ARMATOS, but everytime I did that I ended up with the same comparative analysis that had shown before it was not only too vague and unspecific, but literally nonsensical.  

Even when I looked again at rare epigraphic phrases [2] such as

dux vexil(lationum) IIII / Germ(anicarum) VIII Aug(ustae) XVIII Pr(imigeniae) I / M(inerviae) XXX Ulp(iae) advers(us) defectores / et rebelles

which told of a commander of legionary vexillations fighting a specific type of enemy.  I then corresponded at length with Professor Roger Tomlin on this problem, and one of his best responses is as follows (and I quote verbatim):

"Castinus specifies just where his troops came from, and this is typical of vexillation-inscriptions. That is what he thought mattered. His opponents were men who had taken up arms outside the law – and I don't think armatos can carry such a force. It simply means 'armed men'. I made a casual search after the phrase, and I found Tacitus, Ann. i 59, which reports a speech made by Arminius mocking a major campaign by the Romans which achieved only the capture of his wife who was pregnant. Whereas he had destroyed three Roman legions and fought against armed men, he said, not pregnant women: sibi tres legiones, totidem legatos procubuisse; non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatos bellum tractare.

I think armatos is a neutral term, and that a Roman general wouldn't have congratulated himself on fighting against 'armed men', any more than he would have recorded a campaign against inermes [unarmed men]. 

Claudius Candidus is another general like your Castinus. He was legate of Hispania Citerior, et in eo duci terra marique adversus rebelles h(ostes) p(ublicos) (Dessau ILS 1140). It is the nature of the command that matters, and that the opposition were (internal enemies) armed illegally; not that they were armed men, period."

This critcism is telling, and I cannot get past it.  But if Tomlin and others are correct in their assessment of ARMATOS for the LAC inscription, and the only good candidate looks to be ARMENIOS, how to we get past the apparent dating problem caused by the 'procurator centenarius' on the stone?

Well, as it happens, there is ample evidence that centenarius (and other pay grades) were being applied officially during the reign of Marcus.  We may begin first with the well-known inscription of Marcus Valerius Maximianus.  He tell us that he was "placed in charge with the honour of centenarian rank of the cavalry of the peoples of the Marcomanni, Naristi, and Quadi journeying to punish the insurrection in the east (i.e. the revolt of Avidius Cassius, AD 175), with an increased salary appointed to the procuratorship of Lower Moesia." 

[http://rimskelegie.olw.cz/pages/articles/legincz/mvaleriusmaximianus_en.html]

Tomlin then kindly referred to me the book A HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EQUESTRIAN ORDER by Professor Caillan Davenport:

"If you look at Prof Davenport's book, you will see that Chapter 7 begins with Q. Domitius Marsianus, quoting and translating the inscription (AE 1962, 183) honouring him at Bulla Regia. This quotes Marcus Aurelius' letter of appointment, appointing him to 'the splendour of a ducenarian procuratorship'.

Why can't we have LAC as a centenarian procurator in the same reign?"

Tomlin then continued in a separate email:

"I am worried that this [insistence on using centenario in the LAC inscription to deny the ARMENIOS reading] may be a case of Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence. Just because we can't find a centenarian procurator earlier than Commodus in an inscription, we conclude there is no such thing." 

When I asked Tomlin to summarize his position on the centenario problem, he kindly provided this:

"You will have to make up your own mind about centenarius (etc.), but bear in mind AE 1928, 97, the procurator M. Aurelius Mindius Mattidianus Pollio, who is explicitly ducenarius under Commodus; likewise ILS 1455, M. Aurelius Papirius Dionysius, ducenarius and centenarius also under Commodus. Valerius Maximianus you know already, and you should remember that Suetonius, Divus Claudius 24, refers to procuratoribus ducenariis. Even if this is not evidence that the term existed in Claudius' reign, it attests it in Hadrian's, which is when Suetonius was writing.

There is sufficient evidence that the pay grades (centenarius, etc.) existed before the reign of Commodus, and (as I believe) long before. LAC may have specified his pay grade only to emphasise that when he was first appointed procurator, he was not at the lowest rate of pay. He carefully emphasises that he was virtually a provincial governor.

As camp prefect LAC was the most senior equestrian officer in the legion, out-ranking many commanders of auxiliary units (two-thirds of whom ranked with the equestrian tribunes of a legion or below), and he was thus virtually the legion's second-in-command. Many former chief-centurions (primi pili) go on to become procurators – nothing remarkable in that. LAC had the extra qualification of having commanded an expeditionary force – think of Pontius Sabinus, procurator of Narbonensis, who had commanded a legionary vexillation in a British campaign (ILS 2726).

There is no need to start inventing high political services to warrant his promotion.

That said, he received (or sought) special favour in becoming procurator of his native province. He treats this as a glamorous post before retirement."

Alas, if LAC fought in Armenia in the early 160s and became procurator c. 168, he could not have been in Britain when the Sarmatians were brought there in 175.  

In closing, I should say the ius gladi(i) or the 'power of the sword' of LAC's procurator rank is not a problem for the Antonine period, either.  In fact, we find a very early instance of it attached to a procuratorship:

publication: IGLS-06, 02796 = Legio-XV-Apo 00217 = D 09200 = Freis 00050 = IDRE-02, 00406 = ZPE-64-265 = AE 1903, 00368 = AE 1904, +00095 = AE 1907, +00134 = AE 1912, +00264 = AE 2011, +00051 = AE 2015, +01742

dating: 96 to 117         EDCS-ID: EDCS-16300627

province: Syria         place: Baalbek / Balabakk / Heliopolis

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 comprimendas do/nis donato ab Imp(eratore) Vespasiano et Imp(eratore) / Tito bello Iudaico corona vallar(i) / torquibus <ph=F>a[le]ris armillis item / donis donato corona murali / hastis duabus vexillis duobus et bel/lo Marcomannorum 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 gladi(i) hic missus in Parthiam Epipha/nem 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 aquilife[r] vet(eranus) leg(ionis) XV Apollinar(is)

inscription genus / personal status: milites;  ordo equester;  tituli honorarii;  tria nomina;  viri

[1]

Here is 'ADVERSUS ARMENIOS' from Tacitus' ANNALS 13:37:

At Tiridates super proprias clientelas ope Vologaesi fratris adiutus, non furtim iam, sed palam bello infensare Armeniam, quosque fidos nobis rebatur, depopulari, et si copiae contra ducerentur, eludere hucque et illuc volitans plura fama quam pugna exterrere. igitur Corbulo, quaesito diu proelio frustra habitus et exemplo hostium circumferre bellum coactus, dispertit vires, ut legati praefectique diversos locos pariter invaderent. simul regem Antiochum monet proximas sibi praefecturas petere. nam Pharasmanes interfecto filio Radamisto quasi proditore, quo fidem in nos testaretur, vetus adversus Armenios odium promptius exercebat. tuncque primum inlecti Moschi, gens ante alias socia Romanis, avia Armeniae incursavit. ita consilia Tiridati in contrarium vertebant, mittebatque oratores, qui suo Parthorumque nomine expostularent, cur datis nuper obsidibus redintegrataque amicitia quae novis quoque beneficiis locum aperiret, vetere Armeniae possessione depelleretur. ideo nondum ipsum Volgaesen commotum, quia causa quam vi agere mallent; sin perstaretur in bello, non defore Arsacidis virtutem fortunamque saepius iam clade Romana expertam. ad ea Corbulo, satis comperto Volgaesen defectione Hyrcaniae attineri, suadet Tiridati precibus Caesarem adgredi: posse illi regnum stabile et res incruentas contingere, si omissa spe longinqua et sera praesentem potioremque sequeretur.

We can find ARMENIOS in other Classical authors.  Here are several examples I found after doing a brief search:

Armenios Cilicasque feros Taurumque subegi (Line 594)

per Armenios et Cappadocas occidentem petit (66)

Tibullus

iactat odoratos vota per Armenios

Tactius Annals II (second occurence of the word in Tacitus)

ed praeverti ad Armenios instantior cura fuit

Ammianus Marcellinus (admittedly, a later author), Book XXXI, 2, 17-25

"itidemque Armenios discurrentes et Mediam

Florus 1.47.4

Armenios etiam et Britannos

[2]

This following response to Antonio Trinchese's support of ARMATOS was posted in the Facebook KING ARTHUR: MAN AND MYTH group page.  My passages of rebuttal are all in Italics. 

The word "armatus" as a noun has been used many times by Latin authors. Julius Caesar, for example, uses it in this passage:

“Ei repentino malo perterriti diffugiunt ad sua praesidia; quae nostri ut viderunt, acrius contra armatos incitati neminem ex eo numero vivum capi patiuntur. Profugit inde cum paucis Lucterius nec se recipit in eastra.

"They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp”

In this context, we are informed exactly who the armed men are. Here is a bit fuller version of the account:

35 Having collected great store of corn, Drappes and Lucterius established themselves not more than •ten miles from the town, intending from this point to convey the corn into the town by degrees. The commanders divided the duties between them: Drappes stood fast with part of the force to guard the camp, Lucterius escorted the train of animals to the town. Having posted several detachments thereabout, he began about the tenth hour of the night to carry the corn into the town by narrow paths through the woods. The camp sentries noticed the noise thereof, and scouts, being sent out, reported what was afoot; so Caninius moved speedily with  p565 cohorts (which had stood to arms) from the nearest forts and attacked the corn-carriers just before dawn. They were panic-struck by the sudden blow, and fled helter-skelter to their own detachments. When our men saw it they dashed the more fiercely against the armed men, and suffered not one of the number to be taken alive. Lucterius fled away from the spot with a few followers, and did not return to the camp.

36 After his success Caninius discovered from the prisoners that a part of the force was with Drappes in camp not much more than •twelve miles away.

In Tacitus we find examples of both the use of "adversus armatos" as “against well armed men, soldiers” and of the word "armati" as a synonym for "mutiny soldiers":

Tacitus, Annales, 1, 59, “non enim se proditione neque adversus feminas gravidas, sed palam adversus armatosbellum tractare.

For he practised war, not by the help of treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms”.

Once again, the context tells us exactly who the armed men are. And the fuller passage:

59 1 The report of Segestes' surrender and his gracious reception, once it became generally known, was heard with hope or sorrow by the advocates or opponents of war. Arminius, violent enough by nature, was driven frantic by the seizure of his wife and the subjugation to slavery of her unborn child. He flew through the Cherusci, demanding war against Segestes, war against the Caesar. There was no sparing of invectives:— "A peerless father! a great commander! a courageous army! whose united powers had carried off one wretched woman. Before his own sword three legions, three generals, had fallen. For he practised war, not by the help of  p345 treason nor against pregnant women, but in open day and against men who carried arms. In the groves of Germany were still to be seen the Roman standards which he had hung aloft to the gods of their fathers. Let Segestes inhabit the conquered bank, and make his son once more a priest — to mortal deities:11 one fact the Germans could never sufficiently condone, that their eyes had seen the Rods, the Axes, and the Toga between the Elbe and the Rhine. Other nations, unacquainted with the dominion of Rome, had neither felt her punishments nor known her exactions: seeing that they had rid themselves of both, and that the great Augustus, hallowed as deity, and his chosen Tiberius had departed foiled, let them never quail before a callow youth,12 before a disaffected army! If they loved their country, their parents, their ancient ways, better than despots and new colonies, then let them follow Arminius to glory and freedom rather than Segestes to shame and slavery!"

The armed men are, obviously, his Roman enemy.

Tacitus, Annales, 1, 32:

“Cassius Chaerea, mox caede Gai Caesaris memoriam apud posteros adeptus, tum adulescens et animi ferox, inter obstantis et armatosferro viam patefecit.

Cassius Chaerea, soon to win a name in history as the slayer of Caligula, then a reckless stripling, opened a way with his sword through an armed and challenging multitude”.

This episode took place during a mutiny of the Roman troops in Germania.

Which once again proves the point: the context tells us who the armed men are.

The word "armatus", in its various cases, is widely used also in Latin epigraphy. There are 73 examples in the Clauss-Slaby database: in many cases they are personal names; in two cases, precisely in Dalmatia, they indicate a local divinity (Daniel Hunt was the first to point out this evidence to me); in other cases, finally, they indicate "armed men" or "troops".

And in not one of these instances in ARMATOS used the way you are proposing it is used in the LAC inscription.

An example of the use of the word "armati" in epigraphy is given by the epigraph CIL 02-05, 01022, containing the so-called "Lex Ursonensis", granted by Marcus Antonius in 44 BC.

“...103. Quicumque in colonia Genetiva IIvir praefectusve iure dicundo praerit, eum colonos incolasque contributos quocumque tempore coloniae finium defendendorum causa armatoseducere decuriones censuerint, quot maior pars qui tum aderunt decreverint, id ei sine fraude sua facere liceto. Eique IIviro aut quem IIvir armatispraefecerit idem ius eademque animadversio esto, uti tribuno militum populi Romani in exercitu populi Romani est, itque ei sine fraude sua facere liceto ius potestasque esto, dum it, quot maior pars decurionum decreverit, qui tum aderunt, fiat.

Whenever a majority of the decurions present at any meeting determine to draft armed menfor the purpose of defending the territories of the colony, it shall be lawful, without prejudice to themselves, for every duumvir or prefect charged with jurisdiction in the colony Genetiva Julia to draft under arms colonists, resident aliens, and "attributed" persons. And the said duumvir or any person placed in command of such armed forceby the duumvir shall have the same right and the same power of punishment that belongs to a military tribune of the Roman people in an army of the Roman people; and he shall exercise lawfully and properly such right and power without prejudice to himself, provided that all acts performed are in accordance with the decree of a majority of the decurions present at the said meeting”.

Particularly interesting is the example of the inscription, which contains instructions from the praetorian prefect to the governor of the province Macedonia, not far from Dalmatia, referring to previous provisions specifically concerning "armed men".

And yet again, we are specifically told who these armed men are. The LAC inscription does not.

In addition to the geographical proximity, the dating of the epigraph in the year 192 is interesting, given that the dating proposed by us for the epigraph of Lucius Artorius Castus is the year 197:

SEG-53, 00617 = AE 2014, 01178: “Exemplum epistu(lae) [scrip]tae Messalae Rutiliano a praef(ecto) prae[torio. Ci]rca armatoset circa ceteros comme[antes sat]is provinsum est principalibus consti[tutionib] us, qua certum est te non ignora[re, ut si s]ecumdum ea partibus tuis functus [sis, nequ]e diplomatibus commeantes neque [coloni] vel stabularii iniuriam patientur = Copy of the letters to Messala Rutilianus written by the pretorian prefect. Concerning those bearing arms and other travellers, the imperial constitutions, which you surely know, take ample care of; if you perform your duties accordingly, neither those travelling with a diploma nor the peasants nor the station personnel will suffer any wrong”.

This is an intentionally vague reference, as it is written about laws pertaining to whoever happens to be armed and may be encountered by travelling. Using this example for comparison with a supposed ARMATOS on the LAC inscription is arguing apples and oranges.  No one could possibly know who all the armed men are wondering about, and so there is no effort to tell us who they are.  This is mere common sense.  You can't be specific if you are speaking in general terms ON PURPOSE.    But we do know who is being spoken about here.  So in that sense, we are not kept in the dark.

In those years many "armed men" toured the Empire, legally or not. "Armati" is, notoriously, also a synonym for "soldiers", and during the last years of Commodus' reign and during the subsequent civil wars for the conquest of the throne, there were soldiers mutinied to their commanders, but faithful to the emperor, or vice versa, or real deserters constituting almost a regular army, even with claims to the imperial throne, in the well-known case of Maternus:

Herodian [1.10.1] “But before long another plot was organized against Commodus. It involved a former soldier named Maternus, who had committed many frightful crimes.He deserted from the army, persuading others to flee with him, and soon collected a huge mob of desperadoes. At first they attacked and plundered villages and farms, but when Maternus had amassed a sizable sum of money, he gathered an even larger band of cutthroats by offering the prospect of generous booty and a fair share of the loot. As a result, his men no longer appeared to be brigands but rather enemy troops”.

Have you bothered to look up 'enemy troops' in Herodian? You need the Greek text here. But, in any case, we are once again looking at an enemy CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE LITERARY ACCOUNT. We have no doubt who these armed men are: they are the armed men who follow Maternus.

No one would put on his stone that he had fought armed men. As Tomlin has pointed out, who else would he have fought? Inermes (unarmed men)? Unless you specify on the inscription whose armed men they are, the term is obvious and does not need to be stated.

You are consistently confusing true literary sources with inscription texts.