The Date of Agricola's Governorship of Britain Author(s): R. Knox McElderry Source: The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 10 (1920), pp. 68-78 Published by: Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295789 . Accessed: 17/06/2014 07:34 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Roman Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:34:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE DATE OF AGRICOLA'S GOVERNORSHIPOF BRITAIN By PROFESSORR. KNOX McELDERRY. Did the seven years' governorshiprecorded by Tacitus begin in A..D. 77 or in 78 ? The question has been often discussed: it is of some importance for the history of the time, and of special interest in our own country. Most authorities have hitherto supported the later date; but recent writers are still divided, and the latest and fullest discussion seems to require some additions and qualifications. 1 In the absence of evidence directly conclusive, the decision depends upon a series of indirect arguments, which raise subsidiary questions of some independent interest. Hence it may be permissible to return to the subject. I. The dates of Frontinus's term as Agricola's predecessor would be important or conclusive if we could fix them exactly. But there is no precise evidence. A fragmentary inscription has been thought to fix Frontinus's consulship to July, 74; and since Cerialis, his next recorded predecessor, was at Rome for his second consulship not later than May I, 74, another governor has been assumed as implied, though not named, by Tacitus, in order to fill the resulting interval of at least six months between the two in Britain: so long an interregnum would have been improbable. Frontinus's govern- ment has thus been dated as late as 76-78.2 But only the letters ON remain in the inscription from which to restore his full name- a very insecure foundation; and, even if the interpretation given to Tacitus were possible in itself, we cannot suppose that he would thus exceptionally have passed over the name and deeds of the unknown governor. Frontinus was rather the immediate successor of Cerialis, and his consulship must be dated conjecturally not later than 73,3 which accords sufficiently with the other known facts of his career. He was thus qualified for the governorship before Cerialis's recall. If then he governed until the middle of 78, his tenure was con- siderably longer than the average,4 without any probable justification from Tacitus' narrative. The final conquest of the Silures need not 1 Asbach, Gsell, Dessau (Hermes 46, 191I, p. 159, Tac. Agr. 17, 3, 'et Cerialis quidem alterius suc- n. 5, which presumably corrects P.I.R. I, 84) and cessoris curam famamque obruisset . .'; and lastly Gaheis (P.W. x, 130) support 77; Mommsen, Dessau, P.I.R. I, 216 (1897) seems to agree; but Furneaux, Haverfield, Weynand (P.W. vi, 2671-2), cf. n. I. Tac. and Mr. G. C. Sleeman (on Agr. 9) especially J. 3So Asbach, and Waddington, Fastes, 1o3, fol- Anderson (Cl. Rev. 34, I920, PP. I58-i6I) prefer 78. lowed by Furneaux and Kappelmacher in P.W. But Prof. Haverfield in P.W. viii, 1389-perhaps his last reference-seems to suspend judgment. ' 2 So Borghesi, followed by Hiibner and recently 4Dio 52 23, 2, Kal'Xc\rrov dpXToav ferT by Vaglieri (s.v. Consules in Ruggiero's Dizionario ErTv TptWv, el t"f 7-s da6&KcjreL TL, t Tre 7rXeov Epigrafico, ii, 1027), interprets C.I.L. vi, 20o6, and vr4vre: in practice the lower limit was usual. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:34:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions THE DATE OF AGRICOLA S GOVERNORSHIP OF BRITAIN. 69 have meant a long war, seeing that Agricola disposed of North Wales- in the end of a single summer. II. A primary consideration is the exact dating of Agricola's consulship, which qualified him for his British command. Not the year (which was 77) but the particular nundinium is in dispute; if it did not fall within the first half of 77 the earlier date for his governorship becomes impossible, because he must have left Rome by July at latest. So it is argued that the imperial consules ordinarii of that year must have held office to the end of April and that the suffecti probably also had a four-months' term; and, if so, Agricola could 1 not have been free by July I. For no year of Vespasian's or Titus's reigns have we full records; but, such as they are, they do not afford sufficient warrant for such a view.2 No ordinary consulship of four months is certain except in 78 and possibly in 76, and no suffect consulship except in 71, when Domitian was colleague of two bi-monthly suffecti in succession, and in 80, when Lamia probably had a similar honour; the first certain case of a four-months' pair of suffecti is in 89. On the other hand, two-months' consuls are certain for 71 (four pairs, if Domitian is counted twice) and for 8I (three pairs) including the ordinarii in each case; also for 80 as noted. For these three years our records are most nearly complete. It may be added that Vespasian's own first consulship was held in the last two months of 5I. There is thus no difficulty or improbability in assigning a two-months' term to Agricola in the first half of 77. The instances of 71 and 8i show that even March-April is a possible nundinium3; in any case, May-June is open. Again, Tacitus4 implicitly excludes a later term. Agricola had long been on the waiting-list for the consulship; the governorship of Aquitania was recognised as a stepping-stone, and in fact the emperor had informally designated him to the office. His term in Aquitania was shortened from the normal three years, evidently in order that he might be the sooner available for higher office-the word detentus is significant. And we are expressly told that his recall carried with it the immediate prospect of the consulship.5 1 Mr. Anderson, p. I59 b. 5The date of the consular comitia under the 2 1 have consulted Liebenam, Fasti consulares Flavii is somewhat uncertain, and no strong argu- Imp. Romani, and Vaglieri, s.v. Consulescited above; ment can be based thereon. But since Nero on also Mommsen, Staatsr. Fr. trans. iii, pp. 96-9; Jan. 3, 59, was cos. desig. for 60 (Acta Arval.) and esp. p. 97, n. 2, ' La division de l'annee (A.D. 69) under Trajan the suffecti also were elected at the en une fraction de quatre mois et quatre fractions beginning of their year (Plin. Pan. 65 ff, 92) it is de deux mois etablie soit par Neron, soit par Galba, very probable that the coss. ordinarii for the next semble avoir servi de modele 'a la pratique pos- year and the suffecti for the current year were terieure.' normally chosen together in the first days of Jan. 3 Even if Domitian held office till April 30, Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. Fr. trans. ii, pp. 252, n. 5; Vespasian may have resigned on Feb. 28; and so 253, nn. 4, 5; 255, n. 3. Agricola may have returned Agricola might well have been Domitian's colleague. to Rome before the end of 76, in good time for that We should rather expect Tacitus to be silent in date, though the presence of candidates was not that case. Suet. Dom. 13 states Domitian's own necessary. If he had an interval of private life practice, which favoured short terms. (Dio 52, 23, 3) it was before the consulship rather 4 Agr. 9, passim. than after it. This content downloaded from 195.78.108.81 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 07:34:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 70 THE DATE OF AGRICOLA'S GOVERNORSHIP OF BRITAIN. Furthermore,we may fairly think that he was deliberatelypreferred as being pre-eminently qualified for the British command. He had repeated experienceof the province; his later servicesthere had been rewarded by the patriciate and other promotion; his return as governorhad been foreshadowedby popularrumour. The greatness of the task assigned to him and the abnormal lengthening of his command sufficiently justify by retrospect the impression left by Tacitus of his value in the eyes of the government. The special honour of the pontificate is additional confirmation. In the face of all this it is and somewhat to that that perilous ' arbitrary argue impressionis due merely to skilful eulogy,' and that there is ' not a jot or tittle of evidence to show that Agricola did not enter on office (as consul)in Septemberor November.'1 If he was kept waiting so long, for a less honourablenundinium, and thereforeleft for Britain only by midsummer78, Tacitus is indeed misleading.