No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
I. A Lost Caesarea
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
Extract
The fundamental document for Diocletian's provincial re-organization is a list of the Dioceses and Provinces of the Roman Empire preserved in a MS. at Verona, which though printed by Maffei in 1742 escaped the notice of historians till Mommsen published it in 1862 in the Abhandlungen of the Berlin Academy, with a commentary in which he easily showed that it is the earliest provincial list we have, earlier than the lists of the Breviarium of Festus, of Polemius Silvius, of the Notitia Galliarum, and the Notitia Dignitatum. He attributed it to A.D. 297, and argued that it represented the new organization of Diocletian which he assumed to have been completed in that year. This conclusion, I believe, is wrong, though, like some other errors of Mommsen, it has been very generally accepted. He admitted, however, that strictly speaking the lower limit of the date of the List is A.D. 342 and the upper A.D. 297. For the present purpose it is enough to point this out; I hope to discuss the question fully in another place.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1925
References
page 2 note 1 See Haverfield in Ephemeris epigr. IX. 997; and in Archaeologia, LXIX. (1920), 188.
page 2 note 2 III. 8. 2; cf. M. Platnauer, Septimius Severus, p. 189.
page 2 note 3 I am at a loss to understand why Mr Sagot says that Pannonia is an exception to the rule (La Bretagne romaine, p. 105). Other instances are Venetia inferior for the part of Venetia in which Aquileia was situated (Not. Occidentis, xi. 49; XXII. 3), and Numidia sup. and inf. (see Mommsen's preface to C(orpus) I(nscriptionum) L(atinarum), p. xvi).
page 2 note 4 LV. 23.
page 3 note 1 Another African inscription (at Mustis) mentions a functionary of B. inf. but supplies no data for its situation. C. I. L. VIII. 1578.
page 3 note 2 Cf. Hübner, C. I. L. VII. p. 132; Cheesman, The Auxilia of the Raman Imperial army, p. 143. A definite time for the presence of this cohort in Britain is given by the inscription in honour of Gargilius Martialis at Auzia (Aumale) in Mauretania Caes. He had been its prefect, and the stone is dated March 26, 260. C. I. L. VIII. 9047.
page 3 note 3 A somewhat parallel case is the tombstone of Ummidius Avitus at Nîmes. He had belonged to the Spanish legion vii gemina felix, and was appointed beneficiarius by the consular legate Junius Omullus. But this does not mean that Omullus had anything to do with Narbonensis; he was no doubt legate of Tarraconensis. C. I. L. XII. 3168.
page 4 note 1 The province Senonia had also originally the title Maxima (C. I. L. XIII. 921), but it was called after Magnus Maximus who evidently created it. The title was dropped after his fall, and the province appears as Lugdunensis Senonia or quarta in the Notitia Galliarum.
page 4 note 2 I used to think that Valentinian named the new province Valentia in compliment to his brother Valens. But now I agree with the late Mr Haverfield (C. Med. H. I. 378), and Ammian's words (28. 3. 7) arbitrio principis velut ovantis suggest this. It may be noted that the MSS. of the list of Polemius Silvius give Valentiniana (or Valentino).
page 4 note 3 E.g., caesarei leones in Martial, 1. 7. 3; Pallas caesariana, id. VIII. 1. 4; caesariana celeritate, Cic. ad Att. XVI. 10; cum caesareanum teneret imperium, Hist. Aug. xxx. 16. 2 (where caesar has the technical sense of a subordinate to the Augustus); and the caesariani (subaltern fiscal officials) Cod. Theod. 10. 7.
page 5 note 1 Mommsen's apparent assumption that the “Einrichtung der neuen Diocesen” was made c. A.D. 296 (“Verzeichniss d. röm. Prov.” Abh. of Berlin Acad. 1862, p. 517) cannot be admitted. All Diocletian's general reforms were begun at the beginning of his reign. Compare Seeck, Untergang, I. pp. 8 and 412.
page 5 note 2 It seems possible that Cirencester had been the residence of the legatus of B. sup. It was a good central position for the metropolis of a province extending from North Wales to Kent.
page 5 note 3 In favour of the second alternative is perhaps the fact that Cirencester was the residence of the governor of B. prima. It seems a little unlikely that his headquarters should have been at the extreme west of his province.
page 5 note 4 c. A.D. 442, see my “Notitia dignitatum,” J. R. S. x. 153.
page 6 note 1 Caesarea recorded, apparently as a name of Jersey, among the islands in the Ocean between Gaul and Britain (in the later part of the Itin. Anton., distinguished as Itin. maritimum) need not be considered.
page 6 note 2 Sir Ramsay, W., “Colonia Caesarea (Pisidian Antioch) in the Augustan Age,” J.R.S. VI. (1916), 86.Google Scholar
page 6 note 3 Ib.
page 6 note 4 In some cases the name may have been a compliment to Julius Caesar. Sir W. Ramsay suggests that this was the case with Caesarea Germanica in Bithynia (ib. p. 85).
page 7 note 1 Ancient Britain and the Invasion of Julius Caesar (1907), Chap.'viii.
page 7 note 2 IV. 5, 3.
page 7 note 3 Horace, Epod. VII. 7, intactus aut Britannus ut descenderet sacra catenatus uia.
page 7 note 4 Tinc[ommius], in Numism. Chron. Fourth series, XVIII. 1918. Mr Rice-Holmes (op. cit. 366 sq.) has some interesting conjectures as to the possible relations between these two princes; but it does not seem certain that they visited Rome together or on the same occasion.
page 8 note 1 These two were sons of Commius, brothers of Tincommius. The descendants of Cassivellaunus may be shown thus: 
page 9 note 1 The ambiguous expressions of Ammian left it uncertain whether it was Valentinian I who named Londinium Augusta; but in the light of the discussion of Sir Arthur Evans in his important “Notes on the Coinage and Silver Currency in Roman Britain from Valentinian I to Constantine III” (Num. Chron. xv. 1915), with its convincing interpretation of LA on a group of coins of Valentinian I, Valens, and Gratian, as L(ondinii) A(ugustae), there can no longer be any doubt.