THE MISUSE OF THE PRAEPOSITUS CLASSIS RANK OF LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS FOR DATING PURPOSES

Over the past several months, I have sytematically demolished the various dating "proofs" established for the Lucius Artorius Castus stone by Dr. Linda A. Malcor and her colleagues, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani.  There was only one argument left to counter.  In their paper "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription" (https://www.jies.org/docs/jies_index/authors.html), the authors claim that the rank of praepositus classis "did not exist before the year 170 CE."  As with all their other attempts to force a late date onto the memorial stone inscription, this one is designed to preclude the possibility of Castus having gone to Armenia in the early 160s.  They require that ARMENIOS not be allowed (or preferred) as a reading for the fragmentary ARM[...]S of the inscription, for by doing so Castus would be separated from the Sarmatians sent to Britain c. 175.

When I set out to investigate their claim that there were no praepositii of fleets prior to 170 A.D., it did not take me long to discover that this claim was false (or based on the usual ignorance).

The Malcor contingent would have us concentrate on the epigraphic evidence alone.  And, if we do, we encounter what appear to be unimpeachable sources like the following:

Professor Michel Redde (https://www.ancientportsantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/ETUDESarchivees/Navires/Documents/Redd%c3%a9-MareNostrum1986.pdf), Dr. Heinrich Clemens Konen (Migration und Mobilität unter den Angehörigen der Alexandrinischen und Syrischen Flotte. Laverna 14, 2003, 18–47) and Hubert Devijver (https://books.google.com/books?id=nK4Ek8rwKwUC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=%22P.+Aelius+P.+f.+Palatina+Marcianus%22&source=bl&ots=2yXZzHGlO-&sig=ACfU3U2C0OlX8fwOR4fWrDlCGY8W_RQ7Ng&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi9hp_V3tT0AhUPHzQIHYjPB0UQ6AF6BAgLEAM#v=onepage&q=%22P.%20Aelius%20P.%20f.%20Palatina%20Marcianus%22&f=false).  These scholars have argued convincingly that P. Aelius P. f. Palatina Marcianus (CIL VIII, 9358 = ILS 2738), the earliest extent iname bearing the  praepositus classis rank  (of Syriacae et Augustae), had his cursus c. 170 A.D.

However, what Malcor and colleagues do not tell us is that we have a LITERARY RECORD for a praeposistus of the very same fleet over which Castus held the rank dating from the 1st century!  By relying solely on the epigraphic evidence, they have once more slipped into the error of equating  Absence of Evidence = Evidence of Absence.  In other words, we can't possibly know how many other stones with praepositus classis/classibus written on them have either been destroyed or remain undiscovered. 

I would urge my readers to see https://www.romansonline.com/Src_Frame.asp?Lat=L&DocID=His_Bk02_a0.  Note that Lucilius is promoted as praepositus of the fleet of Misenum.  To this we may compare the praeposito classis Misenatium on the Castus memorial stone.

Historiae by Tacitus

Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb

Book II Chapter 100: Revolt of Vespasian. Caecina marches [AD 69]

Caecina, having embraced Vitellius and received tokens of high distinction, left him, and sent a detachment of cavalry to occupy Cremona. It was followed by the veteran troops of the 4th, 10th, and 16th legions, by the 5th and legions, and the rear was brought up by the 21st (the Rapax) and the first Italian Legion with the veteran troops of three British legions, and a chosen body of auxiliaries. After the departure of Caecina, Valens sent a despatch to the army which had been under his own command with directions that it should wait for him on the road; such, he said, was his arrangement with Caecina. Caecina, however, being with the army in person, and consequently having greater influence, pretended that this plan had been changed, so that the gathering forces of the enemy might be met with their whole strength. Orders were therefore given to the legions to advance with all speed upon Cremona, while a portion of the force was to proceed to Hostilia. Caecina himself turned aside to Ravenna, on the pretext that he wished to address the fleet. Soon, however, he sought the retirement of Patavium, there to concert his treachery. Lucilius Bassus, who had been promoted by Vitellius from the command of a squadron of cavalry to be admiral of the fleets at Ravenna and Misenum, failing immediately to obtain the command of the Praetorian Guard sought to gratify his unreasonable resentment by an atrocious act of perfidy. It cannot be certainly known whether he carried Caecina with him, or whether (as is often the case with bad men, that they are like each other) both were actuated by the same evil motives.

Caecina e complexu Vitellii multo cum honore digressus partem equitum ad occupandam Cremonam praemisit. mox vexilla primae, quartae, quintaedecimae, sextaedecimae legionum, dein quinta et duoetvicensima secutae; postremo agmine unaetvicensima Rapax et prima Italica incessere cum vexillariis trium Britannicarum legionum et electis auxiliis. profecto Caecina scripsit Fabius Valens exercitui, quem ipse ductaverat, ut in itinere opperiretur: sic sibi cum Caecina convenisse. qui praesens eoque validior mutatum id consilium finxit ut ingruenti bello tota mole occurreretur. ita adcelerare legiones Cremonam, pars Hostiliam petere iussae: ipse Ravennam devertit praetexto classem adloquendi; mox Patavii secretum componendae proditionis quaesitum. namque Lucilius Bassus post praefecturam alae Ravennati simul ac Misenensi classibus a Vitellio praepositus, quod non statim praefecturam praetorii adeptus foret, iniquam iracundiam flagitiosa perfidia ulciscebatur. nec sciri potest traxeritne Caecinam, an, quod evenit inter malos ut et similes sint, eadem illos pravitas impulerit.