An important statement I had overlooked from Wilkes' DALMATIA...
After citing his guess that Artorius had fought in Armorica under Commodus, Wilkes says about Castus' Liburnian procuratorship "as special governor (procurator iure gladii) -
"No other person is attested as holding such a post, which must have represented an infringement of the power of the consular senator governing Dalmatia. It may have been another appointment made by Perennis. Even allowing for the confusion which must have followed the Marcomannic Wars one would hardly have expected trouble in Liburnia, the most urbanized area of the province."
It is this last point that is critical. Why would Castus have been made governor with power of the sword over part of Dalmatia when the wars were over?
The only time that makes sense for such a rank is the ONSET of those wars, when we are specifically told in the sources that Verus and Marcus, right around 170 A.D. or a little before, militarily reorganized Dalmatia. This included recruiting the hillman and bandits of the region. One of the principal roles of a procurator was to recruit.
I've written pretty extensively about this, and over a dozen scholars in the Balkans agree that Castus' procuratorship must have occurred in the early period, not when the Marcomannic Wars had been ended by Commodus. I really only have a couple of holdout scholars, and these are men who pushed the late theory early on and have refused to consider the evidence and reasonable logical argument in favor of the earlier founding of the province. Included among these scholars are Dr. Linda A. Malcor.
One question only remaining for us, really: does not the iure gladii rank point to a situation more in line with what was going on in Dalmatia at the beginning of the Wars, rather than at the end? I can't imagine why he would have had to have the right of the sword AFTER the Wars.
If Commodus wanted to reward Castus for his role in the Perennis affair, he could have just appointed him procurator of all of Dalmatia and let him enjoy a peaceful term prior to retirement. The iure gladii would have been unnecessary.
A few of my earlier articles on the subject of the founding date for Liburnia:
I have put this question just now to Professor Roger Tomlin and will post his response here as soon as I receive it.
Tomlin's response received one day after I sent him the query:
"This is a good point, even if it might be evaded by diehards. The ius gladii makes better sense at the beginning of a military crisis, not after it was over, especially in coastal Dalmatia. But it is emphasised in the inscription, so it might be argued that it was regarded as an honour – to give a successful equestrian-rank general quasi-senatorial status as a reward – rather than a necessary part of his special office. But why not then simply vice legati? The balance of the argument tilts very much your way."
I then asked him a follow-up question:
"I think vice legati not likely unless he were that over all of Dalmatia. The division of Liburnia from Dalmatia is a true separation. He wouldn't be acting legate for just part of Dalmatia, but rather for all of it. He would be vice legati of the whole of Dalmatia only if there currently weren't a real governor. He wouldn't be acting governor of a new division of a province already ruled over by a governor.
Is this not correct?"
To which he replied:
"That's right. When I referred to the term vice legati I meant only that it would be the accepted way of honouring an equestrian governor with quasi-senatorial status, not iure gladii, which would suggest special powers. Which are what we suspect here."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.