Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum: Papers presented to the conference in Oxford December 13 to 15, 1974 9780904531589, 9781407330655

Table of contents :
Cover Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
LIST OF PLATES
LIST OF TEXT-FIGURES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR ILLUSTRATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
PREFACE
WHAT WAS THE NOTITIA DIGMTATUM FOR?
THE ILLUSTRATED MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NOTETIA DIGNITATUM
THE GYNAECEA
PRE-SEVERAN AUXILIA NAMED IN THE NOTITIA DIGNETATUM
CHANNEL COMMANDS IN THE NOTITIA
BRITAIN IN THE NOTITIA
THE NOTITIA GALLIARUM: SOME QUESTIONS
THE LIMES OF LOWER EGYPT
MAURETANTA IN AMMANUS AND THE NOTITIA
NOTITIA DIGNITATUM OMNIUM, TAM CIVILIUM QUAM MILITARIUM
THE NOTITIA DIGNITATUM IN ENGLAND

Citation preview

Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum Papers presented to the conference in Oxford December 13 to 15, 1974 by

J. C.Mann, J.J. G. Alexander, J. P.W"ild, M.M.Roxan, J.S.Johnson, M.W.C.Hassall,

A. L. F.Rivet, R.M. Price, J. F.Matthews, R. S. O. Tomlin, C. E. Stevens edited by

R. Goodburn and P. Bartholomew

BAR Supplementary Series 15

1976

British Archaeological Reports 122, Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 7BP, England

GENERAL EDITORS A. C. C. Brodribb, M.A. Mrs. Y. M. Hands

B.A.R. Supplementary Series 15, 1976: © The individual authors.

A. R. Hands, B.Sc., M.A., D.Phil. D. R. Walker, M.A.

"Aspects of the Notitia Dignitatum."

The authors’ moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted.

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780904531589 paperback ISBN 9781407330655 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780904531589 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com

C.)

CONTENTS

Page List of plates

ix

List of text-figures

xiii

Acknowledgements for illustrations

xiv

Abbreviations

xv

Preface

xix

J. C. MANN,

What was the Notitia Dignitatum for?

J. J. G. ALEXANDER,

The illustrated manuscripts of the

J. P. WILD, M. M. ROXAN,

1

Notitia Dignitatum

11

The gynaecea

51

Pre-Severan auxilia named in the Notitia Dignitatum

59

J. S. JOHNSON,

Channel commands in the Notitia

81

M. W. C. HASSALL,

Britain in the Notitia

A. L. F. RIVET,

The Notitia Galliarum:

R. M. PRICE,

The limes of Lower Egypt

143

J. F. MATTHEWS,

Mauretania in Ammianus and the Notitia

157

R. S. 0.

Notitia dignitatum omnium, tam civilium

TOMLIN,

C. E. STEVENS,

103 some questions

119

quam militarium

189

The Notitia Dignitatum in England

211

LIST OF PLATES

FRONTISPIECE, A

Campania.

Norwich, Castle Museum.

Drawing byF. Sandys. FRONTISPIECE, B

Campania.

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 167V. FRONTISPIECE, C

Campania.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10291, f. 221". PLATE

I

Itinerarium Antonini.

Schloss Harburg,

Fit rstlich Oettingen-Walle rstein'sehe Bibliothek, 1, 2, 2, 37, f. 2. PLATE II

Hadrian and Epictetus.

27

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10291, f. 78.

PLATE III

PLATE

IV

PLATE V

.

Hadrian and Epictetus.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10291, f. 176g.

29

Palestine. Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. 86.72, f. 1.

30

Palestine.

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 128V. PLATE V.

Palestine.

VI

Insignia magistri officiorum. Castle Museum.

PLATE

VII

PLATE IX. a

32

Norwich,

Drawing by F. Sandys.

Africa, Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. 86.72, f. 4V Africa.

31

Norwich,

Drawing by F. Sandys.

Vicarius dioceseos Asianae. Castle Museum.

PLATE VIII

31

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 10291, f. 198V PLATE

28

33

34

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 147.

ix

35

Page PLATE

PLATE

PLATE

IX.b

X

XE

Africa.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 210.

35

Constantinople. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 84.

36

Frontispiece. Ms. Canon.

PLATE

MI

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Misc. 378, 1. fV •

Frontispiece.

37

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, 1. 2. PLATE

XIII

Coin of Tiberius.

38

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum.

(B.M.C. I, Tiberius No. 155). PLATE

PLATE

XIV

XV

39

Coins. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. l7lV. Coins.

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 70. PLATE

XVI

41

Martin Le Franc presenting his book to Philip the Good.

Brussels, Bibliothque royale

Albert 1er, 9466, f. 1. PLATE

XVII

The Death of Dido.

42

Vatican, Biblioteca

Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3225, f. 41. PLATE

XVIII

Aeneas approaching Sicily.

NIX

Britannia.

XX

Casket;

45

detail with Rome and Provinces

bearing tribute.

Budapest, Magyar

Nemzeti Mlzeum. PLATE

XXI

Rome.

46

Munich, Bayerische Staatsbiblio-

thek, Clm. 10291, f. 177. PLATE

XXII

Vicarius dioceseos Asianae.

47 Oxford,

Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, 1. llO. PLATE

XXIII

44

Munich, Bayerische Staats-

bibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 212. PLATE

43

Vatican,

Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3225, f. 31g. PLATE

40

Probianus diptych.

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek

Preussi seher Kulturbesitz, Ms. lat. f. 323. x

48

theol. 49

Page PLATE

XXIV.a

Castellum Citofactense (Kherbet Ain Soitane), south of Sitifis.

(From Cahiers Archkiogiques

14(1964), FIG. 23, opp. PLATE

XXIV.b

p.

37).

173

Casteilum of Ferinus, Ksar ei Kaoua. (From Gsell, Les monuments antiques de 1'Algerie (1901), I, PL XV, opp. p. 103).

PLATE

XXV

173

Insignia of the vicarius Britanniarum. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f.

PLATE

XX\TI

j50V•

Insignia of the comes sacrarum largitionum. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f 142V

PLATE

XXVII

XXVIII

197

Insignia of the comes rerum privatarum. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 144R

PLATE

196

198

Insignia of the magister officiorum. Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 141R

xi

199

LIST OF TEXT-FIGURES Page FIGURE 1

The commands of the comes litoris Saxonici and the dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani limitis.

85

FIGURE 2

The three Notitia commands on the Channel coast-lines.

92

FIGURE 3

Administrative hierarchy of the British diocese.

FIGURE 4

106

Gold cross-bow brooch found near Moffat, Dumfriesshire.

108

FIGURE 5

The evolution of the Gallic provinces.

137

FIGURE 6

The civitates of Gaul and Britain.

FIGURE 7

The Notitia Galliarum.

FIGURE 8

The limes of Lower Egypt.

FIGURE 9

Mauretania and Numidia.

139 141 155 187

ACKNOWLEDGE1VIENTS FOR ILLUSTRATIONS

For permission to reproduce photographs we are grateful to the following: Ashmolean Museum, Oxford:

Pl. XIII.

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich:

Frontispiece, C,

Pis. II, III, Vb, IXb, XIV, MX, XXI. Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana:

Pis. XVII, XVIII.

Bibliothque royale Albert 1er, Brussels:

Pl. XVI.

Bodleian Library, Oxford: Frontispiece, B, Pis. Va, IXa, X, XI, MI, XV, XXII, XXV J XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII. Cahiers Archéologiques (P. -A. Fvrier and A. Grabar): Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge:

Pl. XXIVa.

Pls. IV, VIII.

Ftfrstlich Oettingen-Wallerstein'sche Bibliothek, Schloss Harburg: Magyar Nemzeti Mzeum, Budapest:

Pl. XX.

Norfolk Museums Service (Norwich Castle Museum): Pis. VT, VII. Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin: R. L. Wilkins:

Pl. I.

Frontispiece, A,

Pl. XXIII.

Pl. XIII.

The original drawings belong to the respective authors.

xiv

ABBREVIATIONS

AE

Anne epigraphique

The Abinnaeus archive

H. I. Bell, V. Martin, E. G. Turner, D. van Berchem, The Abinnaeus archive:

papers of a Roman officer in

the reign of Constantius II (Oxford, 1962) Amm. Marc.

Ammianus Marcellinus

Arch. Esp. Arq.

Archivo espaflol de arqueologia

BCTH

Bulletin archologique du Comit4 des travaux hi sto rique s

B.G.U.

Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden

Bticking

E. Bdcking (ed.), Notitia Dignitatum (Bonn, 1839-53)

CIL

Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum

CJ

Codex Justinianus

CR

Clasical Review

CRAI

Acadmie des inscriptions et belleslettres, Comptes-rendus

CSE L

Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latino rum

CTh

Codex Theodosianus

Chron. Min.

T. Mommsen (ed.), Chronica minora saec. IV.V.VI.Vfl.

(Monuments.

Germaniae historica, Auctores antiquissimi, 9, 11, 13) (Berlin, 1892-98) Daris

S. Daris, Documenti per la storia dell'esercito romano in Egitto (Milan, 1964)

Diokietians Preisedikt

S. Lauffer (ed.), Diokietians Preisedikt (Berlin, 1971)

Hoffmann, Bewegungsheer

D. Hoffmann, Das spätrömische Bewegungsheer und die Notitia Dignitatum, I

-

II (Epigraphische Studien, 7)

(Düsseldorf, 1969-70) xv

IEJ

Israel exploration journal

IGRR

Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pe rtinentes

ILAig

St. Gsell, Inscriptions latines d'Algérie (Paris, 1922)

ILCV

E. Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (Berlin, 1925-31)

ILS

H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (Berlin, 1892-1916)

ILT

A. Merlin, Inscriptions latines de la Tunisie (Paris. 1944).

IRT

J. M. Reynolds & J. B. Ward Perkins, The inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania (Rome, 1952)

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

Jones, Later Roman empire

A. H. M. Jones, The later Roman empire, 284-602:

a social, economic and

administrative survey, I 1964) MEFR

-

III (Oxford,

Mélanges d'archologie et d'histoire de l'cole française de Rome

MacMullen, Soldier and civilian

R. MacMullen, Soldier and civilian in the later Roman empire (Cambridge, Mass., 1963)

P. Abinn. P. Fayum

See The Abinnaeus archive B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt & D. G. Hogarth, Fayiim towns and their papyri (London, 1900)

P. Lond.

F. G. Kenyon & H. I. Bell, Greek papyri in the British Museum (1893.1917)

P. Mich.

Michigan papyri (Vols.1

-

8 published

in University of Michigan studies, humanistic series) P. Oxy.

The Oxyrhynchus papyri (Egypt Exploration Society, Graeco-Roman memoirs)

P.S.I.

Papiri greci e latini (Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana per la ricerca dei papiri greci e latini in Egitto)

P. Thead.

P. Jouguet, Papyrus de Théadelphie (Paris, 1911)

xvi

PG

J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca

PIR

P rosopographia imperii Romani, saec. 1. Ii. 111

PL PLRE

J. P.

Migne, Patrologia Latina

A. H. M. Jones, J. R. Martindale & J. Morris, The prosopography of the later Roman empire, vol. I, A.D. 260395 (Cambridge, 1971)

Pan. Lat.

Panegyrici Latini

Pliny, NH

Pliny, Naturalis Historia

RE

Paulys Real -Encyclopdie der ciassischen Altertumswissenschaft

REA

Revue des etudes anciennes

RIB

R. G. Collingwood & R. P. Wright, The Roman inscriptions of Britain, I (Oxford, 1965)

SB

F. Preisigke & others, Sammelbuch griechischer Urkunden aus Agypten

SE

Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum

TLL

Thesaurus Linguae Latinae

Wilcken Gr.-Ostr.

U. Wilcken, Griechische Ostraka aus Aegypten und Nubien, I

-

II (Leipzig,

1899)

NOTE Unless otherwise indicated, references to the Notitia Dignitatum are to the edition of 0. Seeck (Berlin, 1876).

xvii

The colour illustration of this volume was made possible by generous grants from The Craven Committee of Oxford University The Marc Fitch Fund

PREFACE

All the papers in this volume stand wholly or substantially as delivered; but there have been some changes to correct, amplify or bring up to date what was said at the conference. Many friends and colleagues participated in the planning and presentation of the conference, and in the publication of these papers.

Mr. M. W. C.

Hassall, Dr. W. 0. Hassall, Mrs. J. Jakeman and Dr. J. S. Johnson helped with preliminary advice and discussion.

Dr. B. C. Barker-Benfield put in

an enormous amount of work to prepare the splendid exhibition mounted in the Bodleian Library to coincide with the conference.

Dr. R. W. Hunt, Keeper

of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian, gave us his full support, and his good offices made possible the loan of the Fitzwilliam Museum Notitia.

In

this connexion we are grateful to Miss P. M. Giles and Mr. P. Woudhuysen, successive Keeper Librarians of the Fitzwilliam Museum, for their help in bringing Fitzwilliam MS.86.1972 to Oxford.

The exhibition was also enor-

mously enhanced by the loan of the Sandys water-colours from Norwich Castle Museum by the Norfolk Museums Service:

our thanks go to Miss E. B. Green

and Dr. J. S. Johnson, who identified the pictures as coming from the Notitia and brought them to Oxford. The conference was held under the auspices of the University of Oxford Department for External Studies, and to Mr. R. T. Rowley and his colleagues we are indebted for the organization and smooth running of the conference. Professor S. S. Frere, Dr. R.

Reece, Dr. Johnson, Professor Rivet and

Dr. Tomlin acted as chairmen; summing-up.

especial thanks go to Mr. Hassall for his

Finally, it is a source of great sadness to everyone concerned with this volume that Tom Stevens did not live to see its publication.

At least this

collection of papers, his especially, will form a happy reminder of the warmth of his company and the vivacity of his scholarly interests.

Roger Goodburn Philip Bartholomew

November 1976

xix

WHAT WAS THE NOTITIA DIGMTATUM FOR? by J. C. Mann

I should not think that anyone who has spent even a little time in the company of the Notitia Dignitatum is likely to assume that we can answer that question completely. it.

If we could, we would not need a conference to discuss

What Iwish to do is to bring out one or two points, which have not so far

been noticed, which may help towards an understanding of the nature of this curious document, and more particularly of the form in which it has come down to us. It is evident that the Notitia is much concerned with seniority and order of precedence, and at first sight it might seem reasonable to suppose that one of its purposes was simply to enable officials, as it might be the Primicerius of the Notaries, to keep the record straight.

The fact that there are no dis-

crepancies in the basic order between east and west might lend support to this view.

But in fact a little consideration soon shows that this cannot be the

case, for alongside the order of precedence of those who held office, there are no entries for those who had received honorary codicils of office, or for those who (by 425) had held office inter agentes

as vacantes.

To take a

simple case as an example, a vicar who received the honorary rank of praetorian prefect was elevated, not to rank with the praetorian prefects, but with proconsuls, and with precedence over a mere honorary ex-proconsul.

1

The

fact is that in the late empire questions of precedence absorbed an enormous amount of misguided energy.

2

Not that the whole system was necessarily

much more ludicrous than our own order of precedence, where, Imay remind you, the younger son of a marquess ranks above the Bishop of London. There is, in the Notitia, not a single reference that I have come across, to honorary office.

The lists are concerned only with offices actually held.

One prime object no doubt was to ensure that the fees charged for codicils of appointment were efficiently extracted.

(The grant of honorary codicils, in

contrast, always seems to have been a corrupt practice which the government could find no way of stopping.

The absence of reference to honorary rank in

the Notitia is perhaps thus explained). In the sixth century (and thus probably earlier also) officials subordinate to the Primicerius of the Notaries are known with the title laterculenses. They were presumably concerned with the laterculum maius itself, as is confirmed by the insignia of the Primicerius.

-

the Notitia

Similarly, at

the same period, the Quaestor of the Sacred Palace had laterculenses on his staff. 3

Their concern was with the laterculum minus

-

the lists of old-style

alae and cohorts which now constituted the lowest grade of limitanei.

The

function of the Quaestor in issuing commissions to commanders of alae and cohorts is attested by the efforts of two Quaestors of the east in the early

1

fifth century, Eustathius and Sallustius, to regain control of the issuing of these commissions from the eastern magistri militum, who had taken them over. Why were there two latercula, on the one hand a much less important list under the Quaestor of the Sacred Palace, on the other a more important one under the Primicerius of the Notaries? The distinction reflects the extraordinary change which had come over the Roman army. It is easy to get so immersed in the tangled problems of the new armies, particularly the field forces, that one forgets that the remnants of those once near-invincible armies which had brought the Mediterranean basin under Roman rule now lay mangled and neglected at the very bottom of the heap. Well, not quite all of them. The legions had managed to retain a toehold in respectability, ranking as ripenses and not in the lowest grade of all. Nevertheless, we are reminded that appointments to the command of units during the principate had been made through the ab epistulis. In time, probably in the late third century, the title of the office was changed to magister epistularum. When Constantine created the office of Quaestor of the Sacred Palace, the scrinia, that is the offices of the magistri in charge of the departments of epistulae, libelli and memoria, all seem to have come virtually under the Quaestor's control. (In passing, we may note that they seem for a time to have come under the magister officio rum very long.)

-

hence his title but he cannot have maintained control of them for The functions of the scrinia seem to have been re-distributed in -

a rather arbitrary fashion between the Quaestor and the three magistri, and it seems to have been in this way that the granting of appointments, once made through the ab epistulis, came eventually to be afunction of the Quaestor of the Sacred Palace.4 But this remained true only of the old alae and cohorts. Diocletian so classified the legions (and units derived from them, like the lanciarii) with new-style cavalry formations, that they formed a superior class of troops in the frontier provinces, the class first designated as ripenses in a complicated law of 325. 5 Ido not think that works on the later empire define clearly enough the name and status of units classed as ripenses (or riparienses).

I

suspect that the name arose at a time when new units, particularly cunei of cavalry, were being established on the banks of the Danube, perhaps under Constantine. To these, auxilia were later added, so that a law of 375 can refer to those, qui in ripa per cuneos auxiliaque fuerint constituti. 6 Cunei and auxilia appear mainly in the Danube ducates. In Scythia and Moesia Secunda the legions associated with them are termed legiones riparienses. Elsewhere units of equivalent status are mostly called equites, milites or numeri. Their status seems intime to have been depressed, no doubt by the fact that they were associated (as is indicated most clearly in the chapters of the duces on the eastern frontier) with units of the laterculum minus. But it was mainly from units of the ripenses that units of comitatenses seem to have been formed, and the right of issuing codicils of appointment to commands in the ripenses and comitatenses alike was at some date assigned to the Primicerius of the Notaries, presumably in his capacity as head of the secretariat of the Consistorium. It was no doubt in this role that he also became responsible for issuing codicils of appointment to all dignitates. The

2

first notary appears under Constantine. PLRE is one Bassus, in 358.

7

The earliest Primicerius named in

The new units would need to be catered for as

soon as they began to be formed, but there seems to be no clear evidence on the way in which they came within the scope of the Primicerius. The existence of the two latercula is clear in the eastern Notitia.

But

even then, although the laterculum minus is mentioned in the eastern ducates, and in that of Moesia Secunda, it is not regarded as of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the Quaestor' s chapter.

In the chapter of the Primicerius,

on the other hand, the Notitia naturally looms large.

In the east, his chapter

also has the words scolas etiam etnumeros tractat.

While this alone does

not prove that he issued commissions to the commanders of any military units, it does presumably explain why units from the laterculum minus as well as units from the laterculum mafus appear in the Notitia at all.

He presumably

originally kept the register of all military units, and in the east was still doing SO. In the western Notitia, there is no reference to the Primicerius being concerned with scolae or numeri.

The words have presumably been removed,

because at some point he ceased to keep these records.

At least it does not

look as though these words are omitted in the chapter of the western Primicerius because he had never had these functions.

The removal of the entry

is generally, and I think correctly, taken as evidence of that growth in the power of the magister peditum praesentalis which the western Notitia otherwise reflects.

The pointers in this direction are well known:

First, the listing of comites and duces at the head of the chapter of the magister peditum, where they are described as being under his dispositio. words they came directly under his control.

In other

This probably also means that

he appointed them. Secondly, he apparently gained from the Primicerius control of the granting of commissions to unit commanders:

a slave of Stilicho is mentioned who

forged a letter of appointment of a tribune. 8 Thirdly, the listing under the magisterpeditum of all western field army units. Admittedly, all cavalry units (a smaller total number) are also listed under the magister equitum praesentalis, but it is evident that he was a mere cipher in the time of Stilicho. 395-408.

It seems indeed possible to find only two during the period

Of these, one appears nowhere on the political scene, but only in a

poem of Claudian,

9

the other is mentioned merely in order to be murdered in

408, as a supporter of Stilicho. 10 Fourth, the appointment of the princeps, commentariensis and numerarii of western military officia from the officia of the praesental magistri, in some cases from the officium of the magister peditum alone. Lastly, the mere inclusion in the western Notitia of a distributfo numerorum, a geographical listing of all field army units which, as such, can hardly have been of any interest to the Primicerius, along with the listing of a mixed bag of units and quasi-military formations, the Praepositurae of chapter XLII (specifically described as being under the control of the magister peditum), a list which would once have been of interest to the Quaestor of the Sacred

3

Palace, consisting as it does of units which will have been originally listed in the laterculum minus. The laterculum minus was now firmly in the hands of the western magister peditum.

It seems that the eastern magistri, at some time before 415, copied

the action of their western opposite number, and gained control of the eastern laterculum minus.

As I mentioned earlier, it was only in 415 that one eastern

Quaestor got back some of the appointments (40 of them), and in 424 that another Quaestor regained all of the laterculum minus. Neither the distributio nor the Praepositurae appears in the eastern Notitia., Their inclusion in the western Notitia suggests that it has been distorted in the interest of the magister peditum.

Neither appears in the western Index, which

is strictly comparable with that of the east. heading magister equitum in praesenti, Gallias.

In the western Index, after the

comes the entry magister equitum per

And sure enough, when we turn to chapter VII, where the magister

equitum per Gallias ought to come, we do indeed find his officium, but hidden away in the distributio, while his units are simply lumped together with all the other field army units.

In other words, chapter VII is the entry for the magister

in Gaul, distorted out of all recognition to become a geographical list of all field army units.

Significantly enough, in chapter VII, in contrast with practically

every other military list in the Notitia (both eastern and western), infantry units are listed first, before cavalry units. is illustrated. When did this happen?

The ascendancy of the magister peditum

After 408, no further magister seems to have been

appointed in Gaul until about 428. 12

Does this mean that the chapter was con-

verted to a distributio in this interval?

If so, then the retention of the officium

of the magister equitum per Gallias is interesting.

Is it merely a dormant

record, waiting to be reactivated, as convenient?

Or does the chapter date

after the apparent re-introduction of a magister in Gaul in 428 or thereabouts? The insignificant place accorded the magister per Gallias does not seem to suit the latter alternative, least of all after 429, the year when Aetius probably became magister in Gaul.

13

On the whole, a 'dormant' place in the period 408-

428 may seem the most likely.

It is interesting to note then, that the entry for

the infantry units of the comes Britanniarum omits the words intra Britannias. The geographical designation is nowhere else omitted in the distributio.

Not

even, rather oddly, at the head of the entry for the cavalry units of the comes Britanniardm.

The simplest solution here is perhaps that an order was given,

after 410, for the deletion of the words intra Britannias, as no longer applicable, and the slovenly clerk forgot that the entry appeared twice. As mentioned already, there is no entry in the Index to correspond with chapter XLII, the Praepositurae, which like the distributio has no place in a list of dignitates appointed through the Primicerius.

I suggest that the western

Notitia as we have it was a document no longer controlled by the Primicerius of the Notaries.

It is as if a clerk in the War Office had taken a copy of Whitaker' s

Almanack for 1960, had corrected and amended, in rather piecemeal fashion, the sections dealing with the military establishment during the succeeding years, and the resulting document had then been copied out whole.

The copy would

still proclaim the name of the publisher as if he were responsible for all the entries, but in fact, while everything except the military section was correct

4

for 1960 (allowing for copying errors), the military section was relevant to a much later date, and its information in no way the responsibility of the publisher. Similarly with the Notitia. Isuggest that the version we have is a copy which had been acquired by the officium of the magister peditum praesentalis. The clerks of that officium have attempted, in a rather crude fashion, to convcrt the document into one aimed solely at recording military information of interest to the magister peditum. Indeed the particular clerks involved seem to have been primarily interested in the field armies, and apparently tried to keep the information on them up to date, but less interested in other parts of the military establishment. In other words, they were mainly interested in chapter VII, the distributio. The fact that they were clerks in the officium of an infantry department could go some way towards explaining why they deleted intra Britannias in the infantry entry for the comes Britanniarum, but failed to do so for the cavalry entry: things outside one's own immediate sphere often do not really exist. What this means is that, however late a date we put on the latest entry in the distributio, it will not necessarily carry any other part of the Notitia with it. In any rational situation, chapters V and VI, the chapters for the praesental magistri, ought of course to tally with VII.

As is well known, they do not,

although some attempt has obviously been made to keep them in step. I suggest that in any attempt to pin down an 'original' date for the composition of the Notitia as it were, to revert to my earlier analogy, to find the original date of publication of the copy of Whitaker we must simply ignore chapters V-Vu -

-

(and presumably XLII also) and concentrate on those parts which will have had no particular or exclusive interest for the officium of the magister peditum praesentalis. Ido not propose to do that now. The basic document can hardly date before the separation of 395. (Every time there was a change from two emperors to one, or back from one emperor to two, a new Notitia would have to be drawn up, with the correct number of quaestors, magistri officiorum, financial officers and so On.) The materials which were used may not all have been up to date in 395+.

The document has clearly been amended later, even before it fell, if my

suggestions be accepted, into the hands of the magister peditum praesentalis. In connection with the study of the possible history of the document, Iwould however like to say something about the text. In particular, Iwould like to remind you that, apparently mainly in order to try to explain the omission of some chapters, Seeck has arbitrarily altered the order of others. In the margins olt Seeck's edition, it will be seen that he gives Bticking's order of pages. Inspection of Böcking's text shows that he, unlike Seeck, kept the text in the order in which he found it.

In passing, we may note that in the original

text, the chapters of the duces of the eastern desert frontier are arranged in a straight-forward geographical order, from the dux of Palestine in the south to the dux of Mesopotamia in the north, part of the anti-clockwise order of these chapters around the eastern empire. Seeck re-arranged these chapters to tally with the order in the eastern Index.

The order of the Index is not geo-

graphical. It does not seem to reflect the order of creation of these ducates, since Phoenice comes first. It is not alphabetical. Icannot tell what it is. But Isee no reason for altering the rational geographical order of the chapters to agree with it. 5

More important is the case of the western military comites.

Here again,

Seeck has re-arranged the chapters to tally, more or less, with the order in the Index, which is the same as the order of comites at the head of the chapter of the magisterpeditum praesentalis.

More or less, but not quite.

To tally

exactly, the chapter of the comes Britanniarum (Seeck' s XXIX) should have come before that of the Count of the Saxon Shore (Seeck' s XXVIII).

When the

chapters of the comites are put back into their correct order, that order is Africa Tingitania Litus Saxonicum Britannia Italia A rgentorate -

that is, two in Africa, two in Britain, one in Italy followed by one in Gaul.

This is not a geographical order.

What then is the order?

The first point to note is that clearly the original purpose of the chapters of the comites, like those of the duces, was to list commanders of limitanei, with their limitanean troops only.

But the last three were not commanders

of limitanel, and thus their chapters have no troops.

The purpose of the chap-

ters (to list frontier commanders and their troops only) has at some point been modified.

For the first three, Isuggest that the order indicates the order of

elevation of frontier ducates to comitival rank

-

the chapters were simply re-

moved from the geographical ducal list, as and when a comes began to be permanently appointed in place of a dux.

(The only exceptions to the geographical

order of the duces are that the late creation of the dux Mogontiacensis is tacked on to the end of the list, surely replacing Germania Prima, while in the Index an over-officious clerk has decided that Pannonia Prima looked better before, rather than after, Pannonia Secunda, thus upsetting the geographical order in that part). The earliest comes Africae known is one Taurinus, attested shortly before 345, followed by Silvester in 345.

The earliest comes of Tingitania,

Memorius, probably dates before 367.

Flavius

Ammianus may imply that the com-

mander of the Saxon Shore held the rank of comes by 367.

Scrappy and un-

certain as the evidence is, it supports the idea that order of elevation is correct, for Africa, Tingitanla and the Saxon Shore. Until a late date in the fourth century, all permanent posts of comites ret militaris (and Istress that I refer to permanent posts) were elevated frontier ducates.

15

In the west, it is my view that it was Stilicho who began the

practice of creating small permanent field-armies, too small to qualify for the appointment of a magister, and which were therefore put under the command of men with the next lowest rank, which was that of comes. two quite different kinds of military comites

-

There were now

elevated frontier duces on the

one hand and junior field-army commanders on the other, except that, to complicate matters a little, in Africa and Tingitania the same man combined both offices (as the Notitia shows).

Of the field-army comites whose chapters

were now added to the series, I would suggest that the comes Britanniae was created at the time of Stilicho's restoration of the situation in Britain soon after 395, the Counts of Italy and Argentorate very little later. 6

But the Counts of Italy and Argentorate not only have no troops, they have no officium.

It is an easy way out to say that the posts had ceased to exist,

and that only the insignia were left in the Notitia. reverse of what happened to the magister in Gaul: but his units and officium remain.

This would be the exact his insignia were removed,

Iwould like to suggest another answer.

When we look at the distributio, we find troops assigned to the comites of Tingitania, Africa and Britain, and to the newly-created comites in Illyricum (probably created in 409) and Spain (created before 419), but not to the Counts of Italy or Argentorate.

The list of troops in Italy is indeed simply headed

intra Italiam, without reference to the commander.

I suggest that the Counts

of Italy and Argentorate were merely operational assistants, or vicarli, of the magistri in Italy and the magister in Gaul, that that is why they have no separate officia, and that the troops they commanded are to be found in the distributio, in the lists of those described as serving in Italy and Gaul respectively. The comes Italiae could have operated from Ravenna, or very near it, while Strasbourg is no great distance from Trier. To take Italy first, the infantry units divide into two lists, with legions followed by auxilia in each case, at a point between VII 27 and 28;

the cavalry

units at a point between VII 162 and 163, giving two sections each headed by a unit entitled comites. For Gaul, the infantry units divide at a point between VII 81 and 82, the first list ending with a unit named after Honorius, the second beginning apparently with a legio palatina.

The cavalry divide at a

point between VII 172 and 173, the first list ending with two units created by Honorius.

In each case, the first part of the list presumably lists troops

under the magister, the second part those under his assistant comes.

For

the practice of magistri militum appointing vicarii, Imust admit that the best evidence comes from the east, where they appear in the early fifth century, for example in the law of 413 dealing with the order of precedence, and continue to be appointed later.

They usually have the rank of comes. 16

It

seems reasonable to believe that they were also appointed in the west,

at

least in the period when the western command still had some sort of grip on the military problems which faced it. As to the order of commands in the distributio, neither the infantry nor the cavalry list is geographical. The infantry list is more complete, and ought to repay examination. The praesental magister and his assistant come first, followed by Illyricum, which must have been closely associated with the praesental command. Then comes the magister in Gaul with his assistant. Spain comes next, perhaps again in association with Gaul, but equally possibly, it stands at the head of a simple geographical list of the remaining more isolated and independent commands. That is at least a plausible explanation of the order. Perhaps others can be found. But the cavalry list is hardly coherent.

Illyricum and Spain are omitted altogether, but it is

difficult to believe that neither had a cavalry unit in its field force. tania is tacked on at the end,

as if it were an afterthought.

units has the word 'comitatenses' added to the name. forms part of the name of a unit.

Tingi-

Each of its three

'Comitatenses' never

It is always merely a classification.

Tingitania was one of the two commands where a single count acted as both field army and frontier commander, and in his chapter, unlike any other, his frontier forces are specifically designated as 'limitanei'.

7

It was surely

merely ineptitude which carried over the word 'comitatenses' into a field army list.

But perhap's this means that there existed somewhere a list of

all the forces under the Count of Tingitania, appropriately divided into two sections, headed comitatenses and limitanei.

But does the treatment of the

cavalry units in the distributfo not perhaps again illustrate prejudice, or lack of concern, or both, on the part of 'infantry' clerks towards, as it were, unwanted outsiders? Ihave not said a great deal specifically about dating.

Iassume in general

that the document was collated after 395, and was then brought up to date, in a haphazard way, down to about 408. dux Germaniae primae.

When it was drawn up there was stur a

The creation of the post of dux Mogontiacenss,

presumably in his place, is something which clearly happened after the basic document was drawn up. creation of that post.

Unfortunately we have no evidence for the date of

Other changes are also vague as to their precise im-

port, but Ido not think that we are required to go outside the late 390s for the date of our basic document.

But in considering the Notitia, I suggest that we

must distinguish between the main part of the document, corrected down to about 408, and those chapters, more precisely chapters V-VII and XLII, which suggest that the particular version of the Notitia which we have derives from a copy used in the officium of the magister peditum praesentalis, the purpose of which was primarily to maintain a record of the field armies.

ADDENDUM The publication of the collection of articles by the late A. H. M. Jones, The Roman Economy, allows a further point to be made, which I had missed, on the officium of the magister peditum praesentalis (who in fact from Stilicho onwards is always entitled magister utriusque militiae).

Not only did the

magister assume the leading role in the administration of the western empire, with the title of Patricius (Jones, Later Roman empire, 1, 343-4), he was the virtual ruler of the westfrom the mid-450s down to the end of the western empire in A.D. 480.

His officium must have ranked above all others;

supplies the reason why, as Jones noted (Roman Economy, 370-1

=

this

JRS 52

(1962), 128-9), Theodoric used the officium of the magister praesentalis as his administrative organ in Italy.

The continuing existence of the officium

in Ravenna would provide a context for the survival, presumably in a pigeonhole, of that early fifth-century version of the magister' s copy of the Notitia which we possess.

Department of Archaeology, 46 Saddler Street, DURHAM.

8

NOTES AND REFERENCES

General reference may be made to the valuable discussion of the Notitia Dignitatum by A. H. M. Jones in The Later Roman Empire, Vol. III, Appendix II, and to my paper ?Duces and Comites in the Fourth Century', given to the Saxon Shore Forts Symposium, organized by the University of Southampton, 1975 (Council for British Archaeology Research Report, forthcoming). 1.

CThV1.22.7 (383).

2.

Cf. the law of 413, CTh VT. 13.1 with 14.3; 20.1.

3.

Jones, Later Roman empire, II, 575-6, quoting CJ XEI.33.5.4 (524) and CJ XII 19 13 .1 (518-527) .

For inter agentes, CThVI.22.8 (425). 15.1;

17.1;

and

.

4.

Jones, Later Roman empire, I, 367-8.

5.

CThVII.20.4.

6.

CThVII.13.7.

Cf. also CThVJI.13.1(326/354);

VII-22.8 (372);

and VII.1.18=CJXJI.35.14(400).

7.

Eusebius, de vita Constantini iv.44.

8.

Paulinus, Vita S. Ambrosii 43 (PL XIV).

9.

Carmina minora 50 (lacobus).

to.

Zosimus v.32 (Vincentius).

11.

CThI.8.1 (415);

12.

Life of St. Hilary of Aries vi.9 (PL L, 1227).

13.

Chron. Min. I, 472.

14.

16.1;

VIJ.4.14(365);

1. 8.2 and 3 (424).

PLRE, under the appropriate names, with Amm. Marc. xxvii .8. 1. Flavius Memorius had the rank of vir perfectissimus.

He presumably

dates therefore before 367, by which date frontier commanders had become ciarissimi (AE 1941, 12, correcting CIL 11110596 Cf. also Amm. Marc. xxi.16.2.

=

ILS 762).

15.

See my paper to the Saxon Shore Forts Symposium, referred to above.

16.

CThVI.13.1.

Cf. Jones, Later Roman empire, II, 609.

9

THE ILLUSTRATED MANUSCRIPTS OF THE NOTETIA DIGNITATurvr 1 by J. J. G. Alexander

In 1550 the Count Palatine Ottheinrich (1502-59) received as a gift from the Chapter of the cathedral of Speyer an illustrated manuscript copy of a famous ancient codex preserved in their library.

Ottheinrich had it bound

with a medallion portrait of himself on one cover and with his arms and the date 1551 on the other.

Entitled Itinerarium Antonini, today it is Cim. 10291

in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich (M).

In addition to the Antonine

Itinerary it contains a number of other texts all copied from the Speyer original (Codex Spirensis), of which the most important for their illustrations are the Notitia Dignitatum utriusque imperii, with eighty-eight pictures, Anonymus, De rebus bellicis, with twelve.

3

2

and the

There is also a miniature with

a personification of the city of Rome prefacing the Notitia urbis Romae, a miniature of the Emperor Hadrian in dispute with the philosopher Epictetus prefacing the Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi, and a Table of Relationship with below at each side two goats in a landscape prefacing a short treatise De gradibus cognationum. A long inscription on folios 1_IV records the gift to Ottheinrich 'antiquitatis amatori studiosissimo' and then goes on to give some further interesting information.

Apparently Ottheinrich was not satisfied with the illustrations in

the copy sent to him because they did not correspond sufficiently closely with those in the exemplar, Iveteris atque archetypi exemplaris schematibus' They were in a contemporary style and introduced modern details.

He there-

fore had the original illustrations copied again and this second set of pictures (M 2 )was added at the end of the manuscript and numbered for easy reference with the text (Frontispiece, C and Pis. Irr, Vb, IXb, XIV, XIX, XXI).

A com-

parison of the two miniatures of the Altercatio shows clearly the contemporary German Renaissance style of the copies to which Ottheinrich objected (Pis. II, III). The manuscript sent in 1550 by the Chapter had been made earlier since two of its miniatures bear the date 1542.

From the Chapter records we know

that because of Ottheinrich' s complaints the Chapter eventually gave leave for the miniatures of the Spirensis to be traced on oiled paper.

4

A list of

Ottheinrich's books made in 1556 includes both 'M' and the 'old parchment copy', i.e. the Spirensis, so either he borrowed the Spirensis and did not return it in 1551, or he got hold of it later. The second set of illustrations was reproduced in outline by Otto Seeck in his edition of the Notitia of 1876. 5

In his preface Seeck records the dis-

appearance of the exemplar, the Codex Spirensis, and continues that as we have four careful copies of the text and Ottheinrich's careful copies of the illustrations 'non est cur jacturam magnapere doleamus'.

11

Historians of

book illumination will not agree with him, for there are too many questions which are still unanswered about the date, the place of production and the sources of the illustrations of the Spirensis.

The object of the present paper

is to consider two questions;

first, the accuracy of the various later copies

of the Spirensis illustrations;

and secondly, what we can in turn infer about

the relationship of the Spirensis illustrations to their model or models. A fragment of the Spirensis survives, having been discovered in 1906 (Pl. I).

6

It contains parts of the Antonine Itinerary only and therefore has

no illustrations.

That it is a fragment of the Spirensis, the exemplar of 'M',

is shown both by the resemblance of the text to that in 'M' and by the fact that it is bound up with records of court cases in the area of Neuburg in

C.

1602-3.

The last record of the Spirensis is as being in the library of the Count Palatine Wolfgang, Ottheinrich' s heir, at Neuburg in 1566. was evidently dismembered as worthless.

At some time after this it

Paul Lehmann dated the fragment

late ninth or early tenth century7 and Professor Bernhard Bischoff kindly informs me that he prefers the slightly later date.

Though both Carolingian and

Ottonian illuminators knew the Notitia illustrations, as is evident from the use they made of them,

8

there appears to be no evidence of their being copied or

adapted again until the fifteenth century.

The earliest evidence that the

Spirensis illustrations were known then are the drawings of war machines in Konrad Kyeser's Bellifortis, written before 1405:

for these appear to be in-

fluenced by the machines in the De rebus bellicis. The first of the extant later copies of the Notitia known is Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, MS.

86 ' .72, a manuscript bequeathed by Professor

Francis Wormald in 1972 (Maier' s 'L'

).

This is only a fragment with seven

illustrations (Pis. IV, VIII) on five leaves misbound from their original order. Fortunately one of them bears a colophon:

'Explicit Mappa Mundi scriptum

per Antonium Angeli de Aquila sub anno 1427'.

The Fitzwilliam manuscript

was bought by Sir Thomas Phillipps of Middlehill at the sale of the notorious book thief, Guglielmo Libri, at Sotheby' s, 23rd July, 1862, lot 342. It had appeared the year before at Puttick and Simpson, 10th July, lot 705, with an unknown vendor, and presumably Libri had acquired it then. 10 'L' was first published by Omont in 1890.11

In 1926 Schnabel drew

attention to the fact that the Spanish scholar Jeronimo Zurita (1512-80) used for his notes on the Antonine Itinerary a manuscript in the library of the Carthusians at Saragossa, which, he said, had been written in 1427 and had belonged to the Cardinal Orsini, bishop of Albano, after being in the Naples royal library. 12

Cardinal Giordano Orsini, archbishop of Naples (d. 1438),

was papal legate in Germany in 1426. He was keenly interested in classical antiquity and had a notable library which he bequeathed to the Benedictine monastery of S. Biagio in Rome. From there it was transferred to the Vatican under Pius 11(1458-64). 13 The Notitia is identifiable in a list of Orsini' s manuscripts where it is described as ' Liber de armis et insigniis Rbmanorum antiquorum et de istris bellicis in ipsis' . 14

It

is not clear what evidence Zurita had for his assertion that the manu-

script had been in the Naples royal library before it belonged to Orsini. Orsini was in touch with other scholars who were searching for classical texts

12

in Germany, in particular Njcholas of Cusa who later gave him a manuscript, which he had discovered there, containing hitherto unlmown plays of Plautus.15 It is very likely, therefore, that it was either Orsini or someone connected with him, perhaps Cusanus himself, who first discovered the Notitia in Germany in 1426. The Zurita manuscript could, on the other hand, have been in the Naples library later, and indeed in a list of the Aragonese library sent to Lorenzo il Magnifico (d. 1492) there appears a Líber de insignibus Romanorum, a title significantly like that given to Orsini' s manuscript.16 It is unclear what happened later to Orsini' s manuscripts; but it seems on the whole more likely that the Zurita manuscript was not Orsini' s own copy but an apograph, perhaps presented by him to Queen Joanna II of Naples (d. 1435) or to Louis III of Anjou (d. 1434) and therefore bearing his arms. It is significant both that the scribe of 'L', Antonius, comes from Aquila in southern Italy and that the Italian illuminator, whose style suggests that he may have been Neapolitan, has inserted a reference to the Angevin claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Pl. IV) . 17 The manuscript could then have passed to Spain via the Aragonese library. Further light is shed on the problem of whether or not 'L' is part of Zurita' s manuscript by the recent discovery in the Castle Museum, Norwich, of three drawings by a Norwich school artist, Frederick Sandys (1829-190 4).18 They are stated to be copies of 'portions of an illustrated MS. of the "Notitia I mperii" found framed in cottages in the neighbourhood of Walsingham, (Norfolk) '. Unfortunately they are not dated, but they are so carefully done, even down to the accurate copying of the script, that there can be no doubt that the leaves were from the same manuscript as 'L' (Frontispiece, A; Pls. VI, VII). Maier has traced Zurita' s manuscript from the Carthusians at Saragossa via the collection of Gaspar de Guzmán, Duke of Olivares (d. 1645), to the Discalced Austin Friars at Lyons where it was in 1 700.19 Dr. W.O. Hassall, librarían at Holkham Hall, Norfolk, has pointed out that Thomas Coke bought manuscripts from the Augustinians at Lyons during the Grand Tour he made in the years 1712-18.2º This suggests a possible route by which Zurita' s manuscript may have reached England. In 1436, nine years after 'L' was written, another Italian churchman and humanist, Pietro Donato, Bishop of Padua, had a.>J.other copy made of the Notitia. A colophon states that the 'Cosmographia que Scoti dicitur' was copied with the pictures from a very old codex (' vetustissimo codice' ) which Donato had from the library of Speyer whilst he was presiding for Pope Eugenius IV over the Council of Basel in January 1406. The manuscript, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Canon. Mise. 378 ( 'C' in older sources, Maier' s ' 0' ) is complete and the illustrations have been attributed on stylistic grounds to an artist working at the time for Amadeus of Savoy (Frontispiece, B; Pls. Va, IXa, X, XI, XII, XV, XXII, XXV-XXVIII).21 Amadeus was then in retirement on Lake Geneva but four years later, in 1440, was to be crowned Pope as Felix V by the Council. The artist, Perronet Lamy, whose identity is established from payments for a still extant Apocalypse made for Amadeus, also painted a frontispiece for Donato' s lectionary, now in the Pierpont Margan Library, New York, M.180, which was written in Basel in the same year by Johannes de Monterchio, a scribe in Donato' s household. 22 Presumably, therefore, the Spirensis was borrowed and brought to Basel. 13

A second very similar copy of the Notitia is in Paris, Bibiiothque Nationale, latin 9661 (P). 23

Dr. Edmunds, who first identified Lamy and

established his oeuvre, attributes the illumination in 'P' to him too. 24

The

scribe, who is not the same as in 1QT, also wrote three manuscripts for Francesco Pizolpasso, archbishop of Milan (d. 1443), in Basel in 1436. Sabbadini suggested in 1903 that 'P' belonged to the Milanese humanist Pier Candido Decembrio;

this was on the basis of correspondences between the

text and notes made on the Notitia by Decembrio, some of which bear the date 1437.26

A little later Duke Humfrey of Gloucester writing to Decembrio

c. 1441 says that he is eagerly awaiting various books from Decembrio ineluding 'librum ilium de totius imperii romani dignitatibus et insignibus'. 27 Whether Duke Hunifrey ever received a copy we do not know.

'Pl bears a

partially erased ex libris of the Celestines in Paris, in a later 15th-century French hand. Quite a number of other illustrated manuscripts of the Notitia survive, but these four, 'M', 'L', '0' and 'P' would appear to be the most important witnesses for the illustrations. The general impression given by the second set of illustrations of 'M' supports the natural deduction from 0ttheinrich's preoccupation with their accuracy that they are the most reliable source for our knowledge of the Spirensis pictures.

They are based, as we know, on tracings and their

colouring also is in general more convincing. 28

In each of the other three

manuscripts there are gothic features introduced which cannot possibly have been present in either a late antique or a Carolingian exemplar. For example, we can see atonce that the artist of 'L' did not copy his model faithfully.

His miniature for the Province of Palestine (Pl. IV) shows

a seated three-quarter-face figure who firstly is bearded, but should be female, secondly wears a medieval crown rather than the correct late antique city wall crown of a Tyche, and thirdly is backed by fleur-de-lys in gold on blue.

'M

2 'shows

these details more convincingly and the figure is female

and strictly profile (Pl. Vb). of the Imperial period.

The type is comparable to that on many coins

The fleur-de-lys and the crown in 'L' probably

allude to the claim of the Angevin rulers of Naples to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as suggested by Miss P. M. Giles. 29

Lamy in '0' preserves the crown

better and also the profile figure, but he, too, shows Palestine as a bearded man (Pl. Va). Lamy, like the artist of 'L', introduces gothic details. This is clear in his cities as compared with both 'M' and 'L', and in many other ways his copies can be faulted.

However, 'M

2 'is

not always the more reliable.

For example, on the page of the Dux Foenicis (f. 194) the last casteilum, Danaba, is omitted;

but it is included by Lamp in both '0' and 'P'.

Again,

in the miniature of the Proconsul of Africa (Pls. VIII, IXa, IXb) we have a standing female figure at the top and, below, two ships laden with sacks of grain. In 'L', '0' and 'P' the personification of Africa carries some sort of foliage, possibly intended originally as ears of corn. These can be seen on a fifth-century mosaic of the City of Carthage now in the Louvre or in the personification of Alexandria in the Filocalus Calendar of A.D. 35430 if we compare 'M

2 'we

see that 'L' has preserved the dress of the Africa better;

14

but in Lamy' s miniatures the ships, the first with two, the second with three sails, are more accurately copied. 'M 2 ' (f. 210), however, shows the Africa grasping two birds by the neck which must be a mistake made probably at the colouring stage. So far it has been assumed that the Spirensis was the only model available to the various artists copying the Notitia pictures. We must now consider if there are any discrepancies amongst the later copies which might suggest the survival of any other early illustrated manuscript of the Notitia apart from the Spirensis. Crucial for deciding this is the view taken of certain miniatures in '0'. There are three miniatures included in '0' which are not found in The first of these precedes the text of the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae and is generally agreed to be an addition made by Lamy, since it occurs in none of the other copies, not even 'P' (Pl. X). It corresponds to the miniature preceding the Notitia Urbis Romae (Pl. XXI), but whereas Rome is shown as apersonification, Constantinople is represented by a topographical view. Since the beginning of the text is missing, a miniature of Constantinople corresponding to that of Rome had also no doubt been lost from the exemplar. The cities are commonly represented as paired personifications on coins and ivories.

31

Lamy' s representation intended to fill the lacuna is, in any case,

anachronistic because it includes both Justinian' s church of Hagia Sophia and the famous column he set up in the Augusteum with an equestrian statue on the top. 32 The representation of the latter may well derive from a drawing made by or for Ciriaco d' Ancona who had visited Constantinople in 1418 and 1425, for there is material at the end of '0' added in Ciriaco's own hand. 33 The other two miniatures not found in 'M' form the frontispiece in '0', folios 1"-2 (Pis. XI, XII). On the verso are the letters 'S.P.Q.R. tin gold capitals on red, with, above the frame, 'Res publica Romanorum 1 On the recto a black eagle is perched on a globe divided into blue and grey and flanked by the letters 'S.C.' with, above the frame, 'Divus Augustus pater'. The .

frontispiece also occurs in 'P' where it is condensed onto one page and in certain other manuscripts copied from '0'.

It does not occur in 'M'.

Did

Lamy invent this picture too? Or did he copy a different exemplar? Or was a frontispiece lost at the beginning of the Spirensis by the time the artist of 'M' came to copy it? The eagle is naturalistically painted at atime when studies from nature were still only in their infancy.

It should be stressed that Lamy' s other work

does not show him as especially inventive or as particularly interested in the new naturalism this in itself might suggest that he had access to a good late antique or Carolingian model in illusionistic style. In Imperial art the eagle -

is more commonly represented in semi-profile with head turned back in a contraposto position. 34 However, in '0', the pose is more regular and heraldic and the details of the bird' sbeak, tongue and neck recall contemporary representations of the arms of the Holy Roman Emperor or the King of the Romans. Perhaps a reference to Sigismund of Bohemia crowned Emperor by Eugenius TV in 1433 is intended.

Nevertheless the frontal pose is found in some

classical works and in particular on a commemorative coin of Tiberius where the Eagle is similarly perched on a globe (Pis. Xlfla, b). Moreover, on the 15

coin we find the inscription 'Divus Augustus pater'

.

35

There seems no reason

for the use of the inscription in aii early fifth-century context nor any reason why a Carolingian artist should have inserted the frontispiece. The conclusion here too must be that Lamy invented the whole thing, again presumably on the instructions of his patron. Now, Dr. Reece has shown that Lamy had access to a coin cabinet. 36 At the beginning of the De rebus bellicis, the author speaks about the reform of the coinage and the passage is illustrated by two miniatures in all the manuscripts. In 'M 2'the coins are not identifiable and appear to be a sort of classical pastiche (Pl. XIV).

In '0', however, we have clearly recognizable

coins issued under Tiberius, Nero and Domitian (Pl. XV). Again they have no relevance to the text or to the late fourth- or early fifth-century context of the treatise. types illegible.

Perhaps in the exemplar the page was damaged and the coin Lamy, again presumably on the instructions of his humanist

patron, painted real but irrelevant coins in their place.

When he illuminated

'P' neither the coins nor '0' were available. Finally there is another miniature in which 'O' differs from the other copies, that of Campania, in which the figure sits in abox-like interior whose floor, wall and ceiling all recede in perspective (Frontispiece, B). Again we have a representation which is rather advanced for its date. This type of interior either presupposes a knowledge of the most recent developments in painting or, alternatively, it might possibly derive from a late antique source. It can hardly be either a Carolingian or a medieval addition. Dr. Edmunds has shown that Lamy was aware of some recent developments in Netherlandish painting and it may be that he has added the interior setting with knowledge of such apainting as the Master of Flma1le' s Mérode triptych, which is generally dated about 1426.

37

But if that was the case one might

have expected at least some medieval details. Such details occur in another miniature showing an interior attributed by Dr. Edmunds to Lamy, that prefacing a copy of Martin Le Franc' s Champion des Dames (Pl. XVI). 38 This is the dedication copy to Philip the Good of Burgundy and, since Le Franc, who was apostolic secretary to Felix V (the former Amadeus of Savoy), wrote his work c. 1441-2, the miniature must be later than the Campania picture. Neither the tiled floor nor the ceiling are the same, and the Presentation scene is not even a true interior. Lamy is still using the diaphragm arch as developed by the so-called Boucicaut Master in Parisian illumination of the early 15th century. 39 In the Campania miniature there seems to be an attempt, not very successful, admittedly, to show a coffered ceiling as opposed to the roof of planks in the Le Franc miniature. This in itself must lead us to ask again whether in this case there might have been a late antique model for the miniature.

In-

terior views are very uncommon in such late antique manuscript painting as has come down to us; but there are two examples from precisely the milieu in which, as we shall see, the archetype illustrations may have originated, picturae 26 and 27 of the Vatican Virgil illuminated in Rome in the early fifth century (Pl. XVII). 40 Moreover a Carolingian Bible from Tours made C. 840 whose miniatures probably go back to a source similar in style to the Virgil, transmits a third such interior to us. 41

16

Since Lamy added the miniature of Constantinople in '0' and probably also the frontispiece, it seems more probable that he altered his model here too. In the Virgil the side walls are not shown, so these, in any case, like the medieval tiled floor, must have been added by Lamy. Nevertheless a doubt remains, for Lamy seems a rather careful copyist on the whole and it is hard to see any motive for the added interior as opposed to the other additions. The page of the Spirensis might, after all, have been damaged and illegible in 1436 or become so later when the copyist of 'M 2' saw it. Ottheinrich was told by the Chapter that the Spirensis was in bad condition. In Lamy' s miniature the blue-grey band at the bottom is unexplained and this also might suggest he is copying something which he did not fully understand -

or which was damaged. 42 On the other hand there is no sign of the interior in the earlier miniature from 'L' as transmitted by the Norwich water-colour (Frontispiece, A), so this, too, suggests that the interior is an addition by Lamy. Yet, whatever the verdict, Lamy' s miniatures are interesting because they show an early stage of that antiquarianism in relation to the arts which is particularly associated with humanistic circles in north-east Italy in such centres as Padua, Venice and Verona, and which later strongly affected the art of Andrea Mantegna and the Paduan school. 43 It is precisely because they are so authentic in tone that it is hard to be quite certain that they are additions. If we accept that 'M 2'is the most accurate copy of the Spirensis, what can we in turn deduce about the model the artist of the Spirensis had before him? The pictures of the Notitia have generally been taken to be copies of a late antique series of illustrations. 44 They are closely linked to the text and sufficient parallels for many of their features can be found in fourth- to fifth-century art, particularly in Rome. Carolingian inventions can be ruled out.

The alternative that they are

For example, the landscape conventions in the Notitia by which various areas are represented as bird' s eye perspectives, can be compared to those 2n the

early fifth-century Vatican Virgil (Pis. XVIII, XIX) or in the nave nosaics of the Sta. Maria Maggiore of c. 430. 45 The representations of owns can be compared to those in the Virgil or in the sixth-century Agrimensor. 46 The figures of Provinces bearing offerings or cornucopiae

are another common feature of later imperial art, being found on coins, reliefs, etc.: for example, the bronze plaque from a casket now in Budapest, which has been dated to the mid-fourth century (Pl. xX).' In the casket the central figure of Rome as a female personification can also be compared with the representation of the city in the Notitia. The latter is seated frontally, slightly off axis, with a shield beside her to her right (Pl. XXI). Other similar representations are in the Tabula Peutingeriana, 48 the famous but much-restored Barberini painting, possibly of the Constantinian period according to Professor Toynbee, 49 and the Filocalus Calendar of 354. The latter two show the City holding a globe surmounted by a winged victory, a detail which is also common on the coins but omitted in the Notitia.

The shield is more usually on the

figure's left side. Objects often represented in the Notitia and which can be paralleled on the contemporary ivory consular diptychs but which would hardly

17

have been intelligible later, are the ink stands with representations of the Emperors shown half-length (Pl. XXII).

They were part of the insignia of a

Vicarius Urbis and are shown on the Probianus diptych of c. 400 (Pl. XXIII). 50 The illustrations of the De rebus bellicis are stylistically homogeneous with those of the Notitia in many of their features such as the type of frame, the landscape details and the figure style.

The use of reverse perspective

Is also consonant with an early fifth-century date.

lt seems likely that they

derive from the same model as that which contained the Notitia pictures. However, since the text was written earlier for the years 366-75

-

-

Professor Thompson argues

the pictures must have been invented then, perhaps in

the Eastern Empire, and only copied in our hypothetical fifth-century model. It Is significant, therefore, that the pictures of oblong shape are set in the text in the manner shown by Professor Weitzmann to be characteristic of papyrus rolls, whilst the Notitia pictures are rather square in shape and mostly whole-page, the format gradually being adopted for the illustration of the codex 51 at this date. The origin of the frontispiece of the Altercatio, a text perhaps compiled in the fifth century, is more doubtful, as it could also be a Carolingian invention (Pl. 111). 52

The figure of Epictetus with drapery bunched over his arm can

be paralleled in the Vatican Virgil, however, and the two figures are labelled, as is the practice both in the Notitia and in the Virgil.

Even in the Table of

Relationship picture the landscape in which the goats stand has a late antique look. The iconography of the 'M 2 'pictures accords well, therefore, with a fifth-century date. eastern model.

The parallels adduced all suggest a western and not an

The nature and purpose of the model remain a matter of

speculation, but such a de luxe production would have been, so far as our limited knowledge of late antique book production goes, quite exceptional, and suggests a patron of great importance, even the Emperor himself. 53

It is

unlikely to have been for office use even if it depends, as presumably it must, for many details (for example the military shields) on official records.

Cer-

tain pictures, for example that of Rome, obviously have a much older ancestry, but the possibility that the hypothetical fifth-century model might have copied in turn an earlier illustrated book of the same kind would need further study. As Byvanck points out, the atmosphere of the pictures seems different from, less exuberantly pagan than, the Filocalus calendar illustrations of 354. The early fifth century is a period of renewed Augustan classicism in the arts in Rome which provides just the right context for the creation of a de luxe copy of the Notitia.

Other works besides the Vatican Virgil testify to this

self-conscious harking back to the great days of the early principate example, the ivories of the Symmachi and Nicomachi families.

54

-

for

In the de-

tailed features of their style, however, the M2 1 pictures cannot be compared either to the ivories or to the illusionistic paintings of the Virgil (Pis. XVII, XVIII).

The figures are wooden and stilted, the forms painted in flat, un-

modelled, often abstract colour and the drapery folds are shown by linear conventions which have often lost all meaning.

It would seem, therefore, that,

as with the text, so with the pictures, we must reckon with various stages of transmission between the model of the fifth century and the Spirensis, stages

18

in which the style of the original pictures was lost even though most of their outline was preserved.

If this is so, can we decide when these stages were?

It is likely for palaeographical reasons that the Spirensis was not a direct copy of a late antique manuscript but only of an earlier Carolingian one. 55 There is also reason to think that the Notitia illustrations were known in the earlier Carolingian period.

In a Gospel Book of Charles the Bald (840-877)

made c. 870, the Provinces bearing tribute may be alluded to.

56

One of the

texts in the Spirensis, Dicuil' s Liber de mensura orbis terrae, was written about 825 and the collection of texts found in the Spirensis may well have been first put together at that date.

57

At his death in 814 Charlemagne, as Einhard

tells us, left three silver tablets of which the first was square and contained a representation ('descriptio' )of Constantinople, the second was round and represented the city of Rome ('Romanae urbis effigie figurata est'

)'

and the

third and largest contained a representation ('descriptio' )of the whole world.

58

Could the two representations of Rome and Constantinople have

derived from an illustrated Notitia? The surviving Carolingian copies of antique manuscripts made in the first half of the ninth century (Aratus, Terence, the Physiologus) are still in an extremely classical style.

59

The stylistic transformation reflected in the

illustrations of 'M 2 ' can hardly have taken place at this stage.

The most

likely explanation is that it is the contribution of the late Carolingian artist responsible for the Spirensis itself. tion could be due to a later fifth- or

60

The alternative that the transforma-

sixth-century intermediary seems un-

likely. So far as Ican see at present, therefore, there is no evidence that any of the miniatures in the various copies of the Notitia considered have any ultimate source other than the Spirensis, with the exception of the few miniatures in '0' and 'P' and their derivatives.

These are likely to be later additions.

No other earlier illustrated manuscript was available in addition to the Spirensis. It is interesting finally to reflect on the conditions in which the various copies were made and the motives behind them.

The cycle of pictures is so

closely connected with the text that in all cases the artist must have known that accuracy was essential.

Unfortunately we do not know who may have

been responsible for the Carolingian copy or copies, though it is not difficult to see that the pretensions of the Carolingian Emperors as heirs of Constantine would have provided the necessary motives for the copying of the text and pictures.

Interest in the text revives only at the Renaissance, and in each

case we owe the copy to a patron' s particular interest in classical antiquity. The first of the copies, 'L' ‚does not scruple to introduce anachronistic details with a contemporary relevance.

In the next copy, '0' ‚the artist at the

patron' s instigation tried to fill lacunae and improve his illustrations rather as a piece of classical sculpture might have been restored to improve it at the same date.

It is only in the second set of illustrations of 'M' that we finally

get a copy in which additions and distortions are consciously avoided and which aims at being a facsimile. 61 History of Art Department, The University, MANCHESTER M13 9PL. 19

NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.

Numerous friends and colleagues have answered questions or made suggestions during the research for this paper.

Ihave particularly bene-

fited by reading an unpublished lecture on the Notitia illustrations by Professor Otto Pacht.

I should also like to thank, for help of various

kinds, Mr. B. Barker -Benfield, Dr. A. C. de la Mare, Professor S. Edmunds, Miss P.M. Giles, Mr. Roger Goodburn and Professor C. Nordenfalk.

I am also grateful to the libraries and other institutions

which have allowed me to consult their manuscripts or have provided me with photographs.

I should like to offer this paper as a tribute to

Dr. R. W. Hunt on his retiremert as Keeper of Western Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. 2.

Detailed discussions of the manuscript sources and printed editions of the Notitia and the problems of the transmission of the text are to be found in two articles by Dr. I. G. Maier, 'The Giessen, Parma and Piacenza codices of the "Notitia Dignitatum" with some related texts' Latomus 27 (1968), 96-141, and 'The Barberinus and Munich codices of the "Notitia Dignitatum omnium"

‚

Latomus 28 (1969), 960-1035 (re-

ferred to below as Maier Iand II).

Dr. Maier, who is preparing a new

edition of the Notitia, makes many points of importance on the illustrations too.

He lists the constituent texts of the Spirensis, 1, 96-97.

For these

and the problems of when they were combined into one volume see also L. Bieler, op. cit. inn. 57 below. 3.

E. A. Thompson, A Roman reformer and inventor, being a new text of the treatise "De Rebus Bellicis"

(Oxford, 1952).

His figures I-XII re-

produce the illustrations of '0'. 4.

The Chapter records show that Ottheinrich from the beginning of the negotiations in 1548 wanted the old exemplar copied and that permission for this was at first refused on the grounds that it was in need of repair. Maier, II, 995 ff.

5.

0. Seeck, Notitia Dignitatum (Berlin, 1876).

Seeck used 'M 2 ' for the

other illustrations but for some reason 'Ml' for the insignia magistrorum militum, as he explains, pp. XXVIII-XXIX. 6.

Schloss Harburg, FUrstljch Oettingen- Wall ersten' sche Bibliothek, I, 2,

2°, 37.

A. Diemand, 'Ein in Wallerstein aufgefundenes Bruchstuck

des Itinerarium Antonini' 22 (1909), 1ff.

‚

Jahrbuch des historischen Vereins Dillingen

lt was recogniz d as part of the Spirensis by K.

Schottenloher, Pfalzgraf Ottheinrich und das Buch (Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte, 50/51. 7.

MUnster in Westf.

‚

1927), 10.

P. Lehmann, 'Die mittelalterliche Dombibliothek zu Speyer' Sitzungsberichte der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. -hist. Abt. 1934, iv, 15 ff.

20

S.

See below p.

17ff.

9.

Thompson, op. cit., 18.

For a facsimile see Konrad Kyeser aus Eich-

sthtt, Bellifortis, Umschrift und Übersetzung von GLitz Quarg (DUsseldorf, 1967). 10.

As discovered by Dr. A. C. de la Mare to whom Iowe this information. It was acquired by Professor Wormald from Messrs. Robinsons in 1948. It was formerly Phillipps 16397.

if.

H. Omont, 'Le plus ancien manuscrit de la Notitia Dignitatum', Memoires de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, sór. VT, 1 (1890), 225-44.

12.

P. Schnabel, 'Der verlorene Speirer Codex des Itinerarium Antonini, der Notitia Dignitatum und anderer Schriften'

‚

Sitzungsberichte der preus-

sischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil. -hist. Ki. 29 (1926), 242-57. 13.

For Orsini's library see E. Ktlnig, Kardinal Giordano Orsini (Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, ed. H. Grauert, 5, i. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1906).

14.

F. Cancellieri, De secretariis Basilicae Vaticanae veteris ac novae II (Rome, 1786), 895, 909. TI (Rome, 1829), 185 ff.

E. Pistolesi, Ii Vaticano descritto ed illustrato Iowe these references to Professor 0. Pcht

who first recognized the connection of 'L' with Orsini (see his letters of 1948 and 1973 kept with the MS.). 15.

See P. Kristeller, 'A Latin translation of Gemistos Plethon' s de fato by Johannes Sophianos dedicated to Nicholas of Cusa' in Nicoib Cusano agil inizi del mondo moderno:

atti del congresso internazionale in occasione

del V centenario della morte di Nicol'o Cusano, Bressanone, 1964 (Florence, 1970), 175 ff. 16.

In inventory 'B' printed by T. de Marinis,

La Biblioteca Napoletana dei

re d'Aragona (Milan, 1947-52), II, 197, item 176. 17.

See below p.

18.

The drawings were discovered by Miss Barbara Green, Keeper of Archaeology, Castle Museum, Norwich, and the text identified by Dr. Stephen Johnson.

They were exhibited at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, during

the Conference in December 1974 through Mr. Roger Goodburn' s offices. Mr. Barker-Benfield of the Bodleian recognized their origin and Iam grateful to him for information on them and for the suggestions made as to their history. officiorum (Seeck,

The drawings show the Insignia viri illustris magistri p.

and Campania (Seeck,

144), the Vicarius dioceseos Asianae (Seeck, p.

220).

vicar of Stody and Hunworth

p.

52),

They were prepared for the Revd. Bulwer,

1848-79), to illustrate a copy of Blomefield' s

Norfolk, but they were not incorporated. 1946 with the R.J. Colman collection. this information.

21

They came to the Museum in lam grateful to Miss Green for

19.

Maier, II, 1003, n. 1.

The Lyons catalogue is printed by H. Martin,

Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothque de l'Ars enal VIII, 253, no. 57.

(Paris, 1885-94),

The Arms of Orsini are recorded, but there is no

mention of any provenance from the Naples royal house. 20.

S. de Ricci, A handlist of manuscripts in the library of the Earl of Leicester at Holkham Hall (Oxford, 1932), p. ix. The cataloguing of the Holkham manuscripts'

‚

See also J. E. Graham, Transactions of the

Cambridge Bibliographical Society 4 (1964-68), 128-54.

If the MS. was

at Holkham it might have gone astray in 1822 or soon after when plates were being engraved for the proposed catalogue by Roscoe.

I am grate-

ful to Mrs. Graham for this suggestion and other information which Ihave not yet been able to follow up. 21.

See 0. Pacht and J. J. G. Alexander, Illuminated manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

1: German, Dutch, Flemish, French and

Spanish schools (Oxford, 1966), no. 666; 1970), no. 599.

and 2: Italian school (Oxford,

22.

M. Harrsen and G. K. Boyce, Italian manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library (New York, 1953), no. 61.

23.

H. Omont, Notitia Dignitatum Imperii Romani:

reproduction rduite des

105 miniatures du manuscrit latin 9661 de la Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris, 1911). 24.

S. Edmunds, 'The missals of Felix V and early Savoyard illumination' Art Bulletin 46 (1964), 138-40.

25.

Iam grateful to Dr. A. C. de la Mare for this information.

See R. W.

Hunt and others, The survival of ancient literature (2nd issue, Oxford, 1976), corrigenda to No. 146. Maier concludes that the scribe and the artist of 'P' knew both '0' and its examplar, but that the illustrations of 'P' were created before those in '0' were completed, II, 1022-4; also 978 n. 1, 982 n, 1. and I, 134-5.

see

1do not follow his reasons for

assuming an intermediary exemplar from the archetype for '0' and 'P' nor do

ragree

that 'P' is illuminatedby a different hand.

The Greek

inscriptions copied in 'L' and 'M' could have been left out by Lamy.

He

may well have had assistance since presumably time was short, but the direction must have been his. 26.

'P' is simply a less grand copy.

R. Sabbadini, 'Spogli ambrosiani latini: Dignitatum"

'

‚

di un nuovo codice della "Notitia

Studi italiani di filologia classica 11 (1903), 257-63.

Decembrio' s notebook is Milan, Ambrosiana, R. 88 sup. see Maier II, 978, n. 1. 27.

For the date

M. Borsa, 'Correspondence of Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester and Pier Candido Decembrio', English Historial Review 19 (1904), 524.

28.

Commentators have lamented the lack of colour facsimiles of the MSS. Colour slides of all the illustrations in '0' are easily available from the Bodleian Library, Roll no. 159B.

Ihave used these to compare with

'M 2 ' and found many divergencies both in the figure scenes and even in the insignia pages. Unfortunately there appears to be no independent way of checking the accuracy of the latter.

22

29.

In her unpublished typescript catalogue entry for the MS.

30.

H. Stern, Le calendrier de 354 (Paris, 1953), pls. XXVIII. 3 and 11.2.

31.

E.g. W. F. Volbach, Elfenbeinarbeiten der Spatantike und des fruhen Mittelalters (Mainz, 1952), no. 38, ivory diptych in Vienna.

32.

For the statue see P. W. Lehmann, 'Theodosius or Justinian?: sance drawing of a Byzantine rider' C. Mango, ibid., 351 ff.

‚

A Renais-

Art Bulletin 41(1959), 39-57, and

Iowe the reference to Professor C. Mitchell.

Mrs. Lehmann does not mention the present miniature. 33.

For Ciriaco' s journeys see E. W. Bodnar, Cyriacus of Ancona and Athens (Collection Latomus, 43.

Brussels, 1960).

The Budapest drawing dis-

cussed by Mrs. Lehmann is also connected with Ciriaco by an inscription. The column and rider are represented in certain MSS. of Buondelmonti' s Liber insularum dedicated to Cardinal Orsini in 1420. have been the source. 34.

.

cit.

‚

Again Ciriaco may

53.

For example the cameo of the apotheosis of Caracalla, R. Bianchi Bandinel.li, Rome:

35.

See Lehmann, op

the late empire (London, 1971), colour p1. p.22.

H. Mattingly, Coins of the Roman Empire in the British Museum, I: Augustus to Vitellius (London, 1923), Tiberius no.

36. R. Reece, 'The Anonymus:

155, pl. 26.5.

a numismatic commentary'

‚

in the pro-

ceedings of the symposium on the De rebus bellicis, held at the Institute of Archaeology, London University, and to be published in British Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series.

Dr. Reece has sug-

gested to me that the 'S.P.Q.R.' page is intended to represent a watered silk banner, which seems very likely. 37.

E. Panofsky, Early Netherlandish painting, I(Cambridge, Mass., 1953), 164 ff.

38.

Brussels, BR. 9466.

39.

Panofsky, op. cit., 57 ff.

40.

Vat. Lat. 3225. J. de Wit, Die Miniaturen des Vergilius Vaticanus (Amsterdam, 1959).

41.

Grandval Bible, British Library, Add. 10546.

Edmunds,

2•

cit. (n.24), 131 and fig. 22.

C. Nordenfalk, 'Book

illumination' in A. Grabar and C. Nordenfalk, Early medieval painting (Geneva, 1957), p1. p.152. 42.

A similar band appears at the base of the Tours Bible miniature and also at the base of another copy of a late antique picture, the Ezra miniature in the Codex Amiatinus, Nordenfalk, op

43.

.

cit., p1.

F. Saxi, A heritage of images (Harmondsworth, 1970), 43 ff.

p.

119. M. Meiss,

Andrea Mantegua as illuminator (Hamburg, 1957). 44.

See especially A. W. Byvanck, 'Antike Buchmalerei' 3, 8 (1940), 186 ff.;

‚

Mnemosyne, ser.

0. Pcht, 'Die Illustrationen des Liber und die

Antike' in Historiae Romanorum:

Codex 151 in scrin. der Staats- und

Universitatsbibliothek Hamburg, facsimile with commentary by T. Brandis (Frankfurt, 1974), 207. 23

45.

W. Oakeshott, The mosaics ‚of Rome (London, 1967), 73 ff. Pacht, 2p

46.

‚

pls. 46-60.

cit., Taf. XXVI-XXVHI makes the comparison.

.

O.A.W. Duke, The Roman land surveyors: ensores (Newton Abbot, 1971).

an introduction to the Agrim-

47. H. Buschhausen, 'Die spltrbmischen Metaliscrinja und frtlhchristlichen Reliquiare', 1.Teil (Weiner byzantinische Studien, ix. 1971), 23 ff. 48.

Vienna, ÖNB. Cod. 324, a copy made in south Germany in the late 12th or early 13th century of a late antique original of probably the second half of the 4th century. A. and M. Levi, Itineraria Picta: allo studio della Tabula Peutingeriana (Rome, 1967).

49.

contributo

J. M. C. Toynbee, 'Roma and Constantinopolis in late-antique art from 312 to 365' JRS 37 (1947), 135 ff. ‚

50.

R. Deibrueck, Die Consulardiptychen und verwandte Denkm1ler (Studien zur spatantiken Kunstgeschichte, 2.

Berlin, 1929).

Hassal for first drawing my attention to this point. Magistratibus, gives the Greek name 0r 51.

Ithank Mr. Mark Lydus, De

for the ink stands.

K. Weitzmann, 'Book illustration of the fourth century', reprinted in his Studies in classical and Byzantine manuscript illumination, ed. H. L. Kessler (Chicago, 1971), 96 ff.

52.

For the dating of the text see L. W. Daly and W. Suchier, Altercatio Hadriani Augusti et Epicteti philosophi (Illinois studies in language and literature, 24, 1-2.

Urbana, 1939) and E. Ltfstedt, 'Zur Datierung

der Altercatio Hadriani et Epicteti' 146-9.

‚

Classica et Mediaevalia 7 (1945),

For the history of dialogue and dispute pictures see J. J. G.

Alexander, Norman illumination at Mont St. Michel, 966

-

c. 1100 (Oxford,

1970), 100-2. The illogical spatial disposition of the figures at least must be a Carolingian distortion, cf. Wandalbert of Prüm, Martyrologium, Vatican Reg.

Lat. 438, presentation miniature, Reichenau, second half

9th century, P. E. Schramm and F. Mütherich, Denkmale der deutschen Könige und Kaiser (Munich, 1962), no. 36, Taf.

The artist of 'M 2 ' has

distorted the arch into an ogee shape and perhaps misunderstanding an arch filled with acanthus pattern in his model given his arch the strange internal crockets.

He may have had in mind contemporary and earlier

arches and columns carved to simulate branches and foliage, for which see K. Oettinger, 'Laube, Garten

nd Wald:

si'ddeutschen Sakralkunst 1470-1520'

‚

zu einer Theorie der

Festschrift für Hans Sedlmayr,

(Munich, 1962), 201-228. 1owe the suggestion and the reference to Dr. P. Crossley, University of Manchester. 53.

Byvanck, 22 .

.

cit., 195, suggests the young Valentinian HI.

Thompson,

cIt., 6, 14, speaks of the De rebus bellicis being intercepted by a

civil servant and pigeon-holed without ever reaching the Emperor. 54.

Volbach, 2P• cit., nos. 55, 57.

55.

Seeck, 2p

.

. 2. 1 Lt.

p. IX, posited an exemplar with open 'a'.

But the frag-

ments of the 5pirensis discovered since he wrote show a closed 'a'.

24

56.

Munich,

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 14000.

Mütherich,

2p . ct. (n. 52), no. 52, Taf.

Schramm and

They are also represented

in the portraits of Otto 11, Otto 111 and Henry H, ibid. nos. 82, 108, III. Hence presumably the suggestion of H. Swarzenski, 'The role of copies in the formation of the styles of the eleventh century' in Romanesque and Gothic art:

acts of the twentieth international congress of the history of

art, i (ed. M. Meiss et aL, Princeton, 1963), 13, that the Notitia was .

copied at Trier by the so-called Gregory Master in the late 10th century. 57.

L. Bieler, 'The text tradition of Dicuil' s Liber de mensura orbis terrae' Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 64, section C, no. 1965), 1-32.

1 (Dublin,

58.

Eginhard, Vie de Charlemagne, 6d. et traduite par L. Haiphen (Paris, 1947), 98-101.

59.

See Nordenfalk, 2l• cit.

‚

91 ff. and C.R. Dodwell, Pai n ti ng i n Europe,

800-1200 (Harmondsworth, 1971), 22-3, pis. 10-13, on Carolingian facsimiles. 60.

I have not been able to find any close parallel.

A Gospels written on

the order of Bishop Anno of Freising (854-75), Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm. 17011, has something of the same linear drapery folds.

JubiHtumsausstellung, 1958, no. 10, Taf. 8.

sibility should be mentioned: passed via England.

One other pos-

that is that the transmission might have

As already pointed out to Professor Pacht by

Sir Edmund Craster (letters of 1943) Bede mentions a 'Cosmographiorum codex' brought back from Rome by Benedict Biscop.

And about 770

Bishop Lullus of Mainz tried to get from York 'libros Cosmographiorum'. See W. Levison, England and the Continent in the eighth century (0)ford, 1946), 42. 61.

For the Renaissance attitude to the restoration of antiquities see E. Mandowsky, C. Mitchell, Pirro Ligorio's Roman antiquities (London, 1963).

25

I

PLATE I.

Itinerarium Antonini.

Schloss Harburg, FUrstlich Oettingen-

Wallerstein'sche Bibliothek, I, 2, 2°, 37, f. 2.

DJS PVT.-TiO ArnU4N1 AV6:rr £PICTLTI PHI

PLATE II.

Hadrian and Epictetus.

j

Munich,

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 78.

PLATE III.

Hadrian and Epictetus.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 13291, f. l76V.

tBttbf1o4to

cltint con'

pinct tt Ptnv

PLATE IV.

ttU

cø

Palestine.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum, Ms. 86.72,f. 1.

S \

PLATE V.

a.

Ms.

PLATE V.

1 A

.

Palestine.

S P A 1, 1

N A L

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Canon. Misc. 378, f. l28.

b.

Palestine.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Clrn. 10291, f. 198".

ktwtiv 1n

L't11ldUtact

C-qtco rY11tttn) &rO I VI '".tti

U1ttlPt4Lfl

conut,

.xtut

(Iqttitß

I,

dbtt4tC-

V.1 I"

41ItUtt

tniiwr l'rtt4n1ian1 l*flt t11t

utt*ztt?

tt.1fl

(flrnliun

t

LP1Utt

EtA

utr

COfl1flt4 qnt

lt1W3

:uUt

hui+' i,

.iiut

cFquth

.ibtu

(c-fr

j utM

0 6

uitir ttdt.n

lUi4i

tt

ttr

ii4' kttini ?qt ttvCn

txh4ut

hiolt.1n (n

thLtAnj

ilat'Lfuin 1 111111`41111.11 " t

r a 'at alij felt

1ø

Luttz4

Jzit

ç tu*iti

9uft U 1n'h

;L1U ',rnti

1t1tt (..-ttttv

1

(1.1tZ1Vt

ttt.r

C.fl,.Utdt.111

ittay

5i 1Ut'

1tWU

qttoittttj

Insignia magistri officiorum.

Museum.

tnh co luttz 1'ntntmruu Cos tmfrtrLutt

cfti.

aOz 4t%fl4 F ir

Lkt

PLATE VI.

iro

tttflettz

j« ilzt1'kfl.im

oqhxq

11ttV1 '11 ,1111t . —i

4thØ'

Norwich, Castle

Drawing by Frederick Sandys.

'ttt,

rj

fplt)Ic Uffi

Ati lle plicti:

' fl}fl-

All

ctr «line It Itzi f4Li iut>rkilek C

-

It c9

PaTHRIta

tflhSlltl)L;

UWtLtI(L

't't1.

UAp1

QVL

fLt4 VO4 1t141I

fc-t8

ifalutarnq.nr uir fptibd

0 1 6m

PLATE VII.

'vcci

'\iewt

Vicarius dioceseos Asianae.

Museum.

ci'

Norwich, Castle

Drawing by Frederick Sandys.

ub

(c'i

tuXL lj xCM l nlw

tQ.nI. c

PLATE VIII.

.cc:ti t.)

Africa.

Cambridge, Fitzwilliam Museum,

Ms. 86.72, f. 4v.

PLATE IX.

a.

Africa.

Oxford, Bodleian

Library, Ms. Canon. Misc. 378, f. 147.

PLATE IX.

b.

Africa.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 210.

CON

PLATE X.

J-AN T1t'1OP.)LTTANA NOVA KOMA -

Constantinople.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon.

Misc. 378, f. 84.

R...FSPVI\LICA

PLATE M.

IO AAA fOKVA\

FronLispiece.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms.

Canon. Misc. 378, f

jV

PLATE XII.

Frontispiece.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon, Misc. 378, f. 2.

a.

Obverse.

.

b.

Reverse.

PLATE XIII.

Coin of Tiberius.

Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. (B.M.C. I, Tiberius No. 155)

PLATE XIV.

Coins.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 171'.

I'LATE XV.

Coins.

Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ms. Canon. f. 70.

Misc. 378,

PLATE XVI.

Martin Le Franc presenting his book to

Philip the Good.

Brussels, Bib1iothque royale Albert 1er, 9466, f, 1.

PLATE XVII.

The Death of Dido.

Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,

Vat. Lat. 3225, f. 41.

PLATE XVIII.

Aeneas approaching Sicily.

Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica

Vaticana, Vat. Lat. 3225, f. 31V.

PLATE MX.

Britannia.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim. 10291, f. 212.

4JX') d'

•

c1.iI

PLATE XX.

L(YC.

N

o

r

h? ti

I

Casket;

detail with Rome and Provinces bearing tribute.

Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Muzeum.

PLATE XXI.

Rome.

Munich, Bayerische

Staatsbibliothek, Cim, 10291. f. 177.

VI CAfk 1 v.c

PLATE XXII.

1) 11) C. Ii S I 0

Vicarius dioceseos Asianae. Ms. Canon.

Oxford, Bodleian Library,

Misc. 378, f. 1fO'.

PLATE =II.

Probianus diptych.

Berlin,

Staatsbibliothek Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Ms. theol. lat. f. 323.

THE GYNAECEA by John Peter Wild

Fourteen procurators of fourteen gynaecea appear in Chapter XI of the western Notitia under the control of the comes sacrarum largitionum. With them are listed the procurators of two linyfia and nine bafia or groups of bafia. The comes rerum privatarum (Chapter XII) is responsible for gynaecea in two places, but; no linyfia or bafia. The corresponding entries for the eastern provinces refer to gynaecea, bafia, ]inyfia and linea vestis, but give no detailed geographical information. 1 My brief is to examine the gynaecea. about them:

2

Iwill try to answer three questions

first, what was the physical character of a gynaeceum and what

industrial activities were associated with it?;

secondly, what were the

reasons behind the geographical distribution of the listed gynaecea?; why were the gynaecea necessary?

thirdly,

The primary meaning of the term gvnaeccum (a Greek loan-word in Latin) is of the women's quarters in a house. 3

In due course the term came to

embrace the main household activities carried out there, spinning and weaving. 4 Gynaeceum and textrinum, 'weaving shop', are not quite synonymous in the fourth century;5

for the compilers of the Notitia distinguish between

linyfia, 'linen-weaving shops', and gynaecea.

The latter appear to have been

devoted to weaving wool cloth, or at least fabrics with a high sheep's wool content.

In late antiquity the girls of the gynaecea earned a name for certain

activities other than spinning and weaving; further.6

but we need not pursue these

No archaeologist has yet claimed, so far as Iknow, to have found a ynaeceum in any of the places where the Notitia records one.

This is not surprising, for

we could not tell him what to look for. The Theodosian Code has many references to gynaecea and those who worked in them, but no description of what constituted a gynaeceum.

Nevertheless,

reading the relevant passages of the Code, one is left with the impression that the gynaeceum was a physical entity and not merely an administrative unit. Thus defined, the range of possibilities is still quite wide. On the one hand one might visualise the gynaeceum as a factory, like a woollen mill of the industrial revolution.

Alternatively, one could argue that it was principally an adminis-

trative building at the centre of a cottage industry.

Ithink, however, that the

evidence, meagre though it is, allows us a greater measure of precision. The commercial production of wool cloth in the Roman Empire depended on a series of interlocking processes. was washed and dyed in the fleece. rare in classical antiquity).

7

The wool clip from the sheep's back

(Hank and piece-dyeing were comparatively

The combing of raw wool by professional lanarii 51

to separate the long and short fibres is attested by inscriptions; process it could be bypassed. homes, was the next step.

but as a

Spinning, usually by women in their own

For weaving, technical skill and experience were

more important than sophisticated apparatus, and most ancient looms were simple enough to be set up or folded away at will.

The last stage in textile

production, fulling the wool cloth to cleanse and shrink it, was a distinct industrial craft which required special tanks, as the surviving fullonicae in the towns of Italy show.

8

Making up the finished garments before or after fulling

was once more a domestic task. How many of these processes may be attributed to the gynaeceum?

What

plant and accommodation would they require? A curious constitution in the Theodosian Code, issued from the court at Milan in A.D. 395 to the proconsul of Africa, seems to be the only extant relevant document.

9

In it the emperors state:

'we have learnt that the normal

goods (species solitas) are being supplied as usual by the guildsmen of Carthage to the weaving shops or gynaecea, but unreasonable prices (inmodica pretia) are being paid for the same.

We do not wish the guildsmen to lose by this,

and so let your Excellency set a fixed price-level'.

The meaning of inmodica

must be 'too low', not 'too high', as one would more naturally construe it; for if the price for the compulsory purchase were too high, the gynaeceum, not the corporati, would have suffered.

Some editors, not unexpectedly, have

resorted to textual emendation to resolve the apparent inconsistency.

But

from our point of view it is the vagueness of the phrase species solitas which is frustrating.

The corporati may have supplied the gynaeceum with wool

clip, with combed wool or even with dyed wool; 1 ° for the bafia along the North African coast were only concerned with the murex-purple dyestuff, not with the cheaper dyes.

11

There can be little doubt that weaving (probably by men) was the main preoccupation of the gynaeceum. 12

But to keep one loom in full-time operation

several spinsters would have been needed to spin yarn for warp and weft. Hand-spinning with a suspended spindle was second-nature to the really experienced

so much so that spinning could be combined with other routine

-

domestic tasks.

13

As in the private workshops of Pompeii, measures of

wool would have been distributed to the wives and daughters of the

'ynaecearii

to spin into yarn in their own quarters. 14 What slight evidence there is suggests that the gynaecea produced readymade garments, not just bolts of cloth.

We do not know how the cloth was

finished, whether by fullers within the gynaeceum or corporati outside.

15

Perhaps the latter are more likely in view of the obligations which the state placed upon the guilds in late antiquity. What Ihave described so far may sound a loose-knit chaotic

-

-

if not outright

industrial establishment, and Ithink this is probably a correct

impression.

The weaving firm owned and run by Apollonius of Heptacomia

in Egypt in the reign of Hadrian sounds strikingly similar. 16

From the sur-

viving documents we learn that Apollonius made paenulae, hooded capes of wool.

The wool had to be bought;

to be self-sufficient. dent dyers

-

for he himself did not keep enough sheep

His mother Eudaemonis had the wool dyed by indepen-

she seems to have provided them with the dyestuffs, too.

52

Apollonius' wife normally supervised the spinning of the yarn by slave-girls in her house, and sometimes had to hire extra hands to do piece-work. is hardly mentioned in the archive;

Weaving

but the weaving-manager, Chaeremon,

seems to have had a good deal of responsibility.

The only possible reference

to weavers is when a group of Apollonius' employees demonstrate in the street for higher wages. Ihave not postulated the existence of special premises for the gynaecea.

I

believe, however, that a proportion of the weavers, if not all of them, worked together in a weaving-shed or rooms set aside for that purpose.

The weaving-

sheds must have functioned as prison-workshops in many gynaecea, to judge by the number of convicts sent there. 17

Those of whom we know were essen-

tially non-violent, but they could hardly have been left unsupervised.

The lot

of these particular gynaecearii was not a happy one, to quote Constantine I, and gynaecearii often ran away. 18 Although workshops in which weavers worked together are rarely mentioned in the Roman period, they are attested nevertheless.

19

Iargued in Latomus

26 against the view expressed by Professors Persson and Jones that the gynaecea were purely cottage industries. ting to the eastern provinces. 20

Their case rests on evidence rela-

Professional weavers, however, were far

more numerous there than in the west, and it is easy to confuse the work for the clothing levies with that of the gynaecearii. 21 To sum up:

the procurator of the gynaeceum and his staff would have

needed an office for administrative purposes.

They would need a covered

store for the wool clip and warehousing for the finished textiles.

No special

accommodation was required for those spinning yarn, but the weavers would need workshops.

The gynaeceum presumably owned living accommodation

for its work-force.

The whole establishment, I suspect, was housed in con-

verted domestic buildings requisitioned by the state. The geographical distribution of the gynaecea invites comment and Iwant to discuss that briefly. The western Notitia gives what I take to be a full list of western gynaecea, including some changes of location. For the eastern provinces the Notitia is defective; but on other grounds we can locate a gynaeceum at HeracleaPerinthus and another at Tyre. 22

Further references suggest that there were

others at Cyzicus, Caesarea in Cappadocia and Scythopolis. 23 Three factors seem to determine the siting of the western gynaecea: the disposition of military field-forces in the frontier provinces; the location of the main administrative centres and their staff;

first,

secondly,

thirdly, the

economic geography of Roman sheep farming. Let us take the gynaecea listed in Chapter XI first.

We can begin in Gaul.

The gynaecea of Reims and Tournai in Belgica II, and of Trier and Metz (which succeeded Autun) in Belgica I, lie within convenient distance of the Rhine army, the principal consumer.

The staff of the praetorian prefect in Trier may also

have made demands on their local gynaeceum.

The weaving-mills sited at

Arles, at Lyons and for a time at Autun had good communications northwards. The fact that the gynaeceum at Autun was moved at some stage to Metz demonstrates where the centre of gravity was. 24

53

The contrast with Spain is interesting;

for there were no gynaecea in the

Iberian peninsula, and few troops; although Spain was a wool producer. 25 Reims lay in the plain of Champagne where the light chalk soils and open countryside were ideal for sheep farming.

The Belgic tribes of that region

were already famous for fine wool in the time of Strabo. 26

Tournai may have

shared with Reims the wool of the Atrebates, the Ambiani and the Nervii whose products caught the attention of the compilers of Diocletian's Edict. 27 The regions around Milan and Aquileja also enjoyed a reputation for high quality wool,

28

and it is no surprise to find that the Apulian towns of Canusium

and Venusia attracted gynaecea.

The gynaeceum at Rome was presumably

just an administrative convenience.

The provinces of Africa were known, if

not noted, for their wool, on which the gynaeceum at Carthage drew. 29 The strategic importance of the weaving-mills in the Illyrian diocese is self-evident, but their economic base is less clear.

Two lay on the lower

Save at Sirmium and Bassiana, and another at Aspalatum on the coast, presumably in Diocietian's palace.

Later, the gynaeceum at Bassiana was ap-

parently transferred to Salonae nearby.

Professor Wilkes has suggested that

this was a defensive measure in face of increased barbarian pressure on the Danube at the end of the fourth century. 3 ° Britain, with just one gynaeceum at the elusive Venta, seems ill-provided for.

It had a large static garrison and a field-army.

If Venta is Winchester,

then the apparent stagnation in the town in the fourth century may be explained as the result of government interference. 31 We can now turn to the two relevant entries in Chapter MI.

The weaving-

mills in res privata at Trier (the plural gynaeciorum is used in the Notitia) and at Vivarium-Viviers on the Rhone were more closely associated with the imperial court. Trier was an imperial residence in the fourth century; but I cannot explain the attraction of Viviers.

Viviers lost its gynaeceum to Metz

in due course, and from Metz in turn there was a move to Aries

-

Iassume

at the end of the fourth century. 32 it has long been recognised that the estate contained within the Landmauern (Langmauern) in the Eifel was imperial property, and Professor Hawkes argued very persuasively for a link between flocks kept inside the Landmauern and the gynaecea at Trier. 33

Recent review of land-utilisation in the estate

has, alas, undermined his arguments. 34

But the emperor certainly owned flocks

of sheep, oves dominicae, which are attested by inscriptions in Italy. 35 The gynaecea assigned to the sacrae largitiones made soldiers' and civil servants' uniforms

-

cloaks, long-sleeved shirts and blankets. 36

The

emperors' private gynaecea had the monopoly of purple-dyed pure silk cloth and fabrics interwoven with gold thread. 37 My final question is:

why were the gynaecea necessary?

The short

answer is that the conventional clothing levies and taxation in kind were no longer adequate to clothe the army. child of Diocletian;

The gynaecea may have been the brain-

at any rate they existed by the time of Galerius 38

Two documents from Egypt show that under the early empire the cost of clothing supplied to the legionary soldier was compulsorily deducted from his 54

wages. 39

Quadratus, for example, in the Flavian period, was charged 325

drachmae 5 obols over sixteen months tions.

against 339 drachmae for his ra-

-

While this sum was debited to his account, it was the army's respon-

sibility to provide the garments.

He could supplement the issue, if he

wished, by buying in the civilian market, or

-

as some auxiliaries did

-

rely

on help from his relations •40 The results of this policy can be seen at the end of the first century at ndol.anda

-

Chesterhoim.

The woollen textiles from the recent excavations

re technically extremely competent and fibre-analysis suggests that they were locally woven.

The quality of the weave is in striking contrast to the

clumsiness of the stitching

-

presumably the handiwork of the soldiers

themselves 41 At first the army raised the necessary clothing through contracts with civilian weavers, but soon an element of compulsion crept in.

Professional

weavers in Egypt were obliged to weave a specific quota of garments for the government, for which they were paid in advance. 42

This obligation was ad-

ditional to the straightforward taxation in kind to which they were subject. 43 I think that the weavers of Cyzicus, Caesarea and Scythopolis whom Imentioned above stand at the end of this line of development, working virtually full-time for the sacrae largitiones and in that respect being difficult to distinguish from gynaecearii. In the fourth century every provincial was obliged to render an annual quota of clothing for the army (vestis militaris), calculated on the basis of a variable number of iuga and capita. 44

The formula for Egypt in the late

fourth century is i vestis per 30 iuga, where I vestis or clothing-unit comprised 5 cloaks, 6 shirts and half a blanket.

At first compulsory purchase,

this later became a levy in kind, and was ultimately commuted into a cash payment by the end of the fourth century. 45

The garments listed in the Edict

of Diocletian as indictionalis may be what the unfortunate provincial had to buy to make up his vestis assessment in kind. 46 In the preamble to the Edict Diocletian grumbles about the prices being charged for commodities on the open market and is particularly angry that his soldiers are suffering so heavily from inflation. 47

Taxation in kind and

the various clothing levies were apparently insufficient to meet their requirements.

The gynaecea were thought to be the answer, and it was perhaps

their success

-

though this is speculative

-

that allowed the vestis militaris

to be commuted into gold by A.D. 400. 48

Ferry Cottage, Milton, PETERBOROUGH.

55

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.

Or. XIII. 16;

XIII.17;

XIII.20;

XIII.14.

2.

For an earlier study see J. P. Wild, 'The gynaeceum at Venta and its context', Latomus 26 (1967), 648ff.

3.

Plautus, Mostellaria 759;

4.

Isidore, Etymologiae (ed. W. M. Lindsay) xv. 6.3.

5.

CThXI.1.24;

6.

C. du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae Latinitatis (repr., Paris, 1883-7), s.v. gynaeceum.

7.

J. P. Wild, 'Textiles 1, in D. Strong and D. Brown (edd.), Roman C rafts (1976), 167-178.

8.

See, e.g., V. Spinazzola, Pompei alla luce degli scavi nuovi di via dell' abbondanza, II (Rome, 1953), 763ff.

9.

CThXI. 1.24.

10.

X.20.9;

Terence, Phormio 862.

1.32.3.

Cf. Amm. Marc. xiv. 6.17.

For levies of wool clip for the government:

P. Thead. 37

(C.

A.D. 326).

Ithink the species are less likely to be spun yarn, pace A. H. M. Jones, 'The economic life of the towns of the Roman empire', Recueils de la Soci ete Jean Bodin 7 (1955) (= The Roman economy (Oxford, 1974), 50). Ultimately the wool must have come from the local landowners, but there is no record of their dealing directly with the gynaeceum. 11.

Occ.XI. 69.

12.

Seen. 5 supra.

13.

J. P. Wild, Textile manufacture in the northern Roman provinces (Cambridge, 1970), 31ff.

14.

For women in the gynaecea: xxi.4 (PL VII. 228);

Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum

CTh X.20.3;

iuniorem 4 (PGXLVIII.604).

John Chrysostom, ad viduam

For Pompeii:

CIL IV. 1507.

15.

Corpusfullonum:

CThXIfl.4.2(A.D. 337).

16.

E. Wipszycka, L'industrie textile dans l'Egypte romaine (Warsaw, 1965), 81ff.

17.

CTh IV. 6.3; Eusebius, de vita Constantini ii. 34 (PG XX. 1012); Sozomen, Historia Ecciesiastica i.8 (PG LXVII. 877).

18.

Eusebius, loc.cit.

19.

P. Oxy. 2340;

cf. Amm. Marc. xiv. 6.17.

56

20.

CThX. 20.6;

X. 20.8;

cf. Sozomen, Historia Ecclesjastjcay. 15.6

(PG LXVII. 1256f.). 21.

W. 0. Moeller, 'The male weavers at Pompeii', Technology and Culture (Detroit Soc. for the Hist. of Technol.) 10(1969), 561ff.;

Wipszycka,

op.cit., 47ff. 22.

SEGXVI. 417;

23.

Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica v. 15.6 (PG LXVII. 1256f.) 362);

(C.

A.D.

Gregory of Nazianzus, in laudem Basilii LVII (PG XXXVI. 569)

(A.D. 381); 24.

Amm. Marc. xiv. 9.7.

0cc. M. 59.

CThX. 20.8 (A.D. 374). Itake the last place-name of the entry to be the latest

site of the gynaeceum, although the case-endings Augustoduno and Mettis could be either locative or ablative and are therefore ambiguous. 25.

Varro, de re rustica ii. 11.8;

Descriptio totius mundi (ed. MUller)

A59 (if this is not merely an echo of Pliny, NH viii. 191);

Diokletians

Preisedikt XXV. 7. 26.

Geographica iv. 4. 196.

27.

Diokletians P rei sedikt XXV. 13;

28.

Columella vii. 2.3;

29.

Diokletians Preisedikt XIX. 35, 54, 68;

XIX. 72;

Pliny, NH viii. 190;

XIX. 44. Diokletians Preisedikt XIX. 50.

Polybius xii. 3.3-4;

cf. CIL

VIII. 4508. 30.

J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (London, 1969), 437.

31.

Antiquaries Journal 50 (1970), 311ff.

The so-called intrusive graves

of class D in the Lankhills cemetery may contain officials of the gynaeceum or officers of a small military force assigned to guard the gynaeceum in the latter half of the fourth century (Antiquaries Journal 52 (1972), 94ff.; 32.

Britannia 5 (1974), 386ff.).

The text of this section is hopelessly corrupt (see n. 24 supra), and the moves which Ihave proposed here must remain speculative.

33.

Archaeological Journal 104 (1947), 70;

cf. Antiquity 41(1967), 304ff.

34.

H. Wrede, Die spatantike Hermengalerie von Welschbillig (Berlin, 1972), 9; E. M. Wightman, Roman Trier and the Treveri (London, 1970), 170ff.

35.

CIL IX. 2438;

cf. CIL VIII. 23956;

36.

Latomus 26 (1967), 661;

CTh VII. 7.2 (A.D. 365).

A. W. Persson, Staat und Manufaktur im

rdmischen Reiche (Lund, 1923), 91

A. H. M. Jones, 'The cloth

industry under the Roman empire', Economic History Review 13 (1960), 189 (reprinted in The Roman economy (Oxford, 1974), 360). 37.

CThX. 21.1 (A.D. 369);

38.

Lactantius, de mortibus persecutorum xxi. 4 (PL VII. 228).

39.

R. Cavenaile, Corpus papyrorum Latinarum (Wiesbaden, 1958), nos. 106, 109;

CThX. 21.3 (A.D. 424).

cf. Historia 5 (1956), 335, 337.

57

40.

Cavenaile, op.cit., no. 250;

41.

II. von Petrikovits, 'Römisches Militärhandwerk: Forschungen der letzten Jahre

Britannia 5 (1974), 475ff. archäologische

Anzeiger der phil.-hist. Klasse der

österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 111 (1974), 13. 42.

E. Wipszycka, 'Das Textilhandwerk und der Staat im römischen Agypten', Archiv fur Papyrusforschung 18 (1966), 4ff.

43.

Anabolicum:

44.

CTh VII. 6.3.

45.

CTh VII. 6.3;

46.

Cf. note on

47.

Diokietians Preisedikt, praef. 13, 14.

48.

CTh VII. 6.5.

p.

ibid., 8f.

VII. 6.5. 262 of Diokietians Preisedikt.

58

PRE-SEVERAN AUXILIA NAMED IN THE NOTITIA DIGNETATUM by Margaret M. Roxan

It may be argued that the survival of names of pre-Severan auxilia in the Notitia lists measures only the degree of conservatism (Or laissez-faire) of the Roman High Command. Our knowledge of the actual composition of these units, and of the degree to which their organisation resembled that of their earlier counterparts, is relatively slight. Even in the principate, as students of the auxilia are aware, the ethnic titles of most regiments ceased to have any true relation to the tribal or national origins of the men serving in them soon after they had left their homelands .1 The name of each unit presumably continued to serve as a focus for esprit de corps, and as a means of distinguishing it from other auxiliary groups for purposes of administrative convenience, much as the Dragoons retained their title in the British army. But this traditionalist attitude, common to most armies, gives valuable clues to the threads of continuity, in this case between the early and late Roman military establishments. A study of the names of auxiliary units which survived into the third and fourth centuries from the early principate is instructive in two ways: 1.

It throws light upon the probable stages of alteration of the composition of the late Roman army. This field was covered by A. H. M. Jones, 2 but, since his canvas was so large, he was concerned with trends rather than with details and his tables for the Notitia gave figures for the survival of numbers of alae and cohortes rather than the full titles of units. He was clearly correct in regarding as late additions to the military establishment those units which were inserted into the lists out of sequence and (or) named for emperors like Theodosius and Arcadius, but some reservations may be made concerning his views about alae and cohortes styled Herculia (to take but one instance). Not all of these need have been raised in the Diocletianic period and named in honour of Maximian. The older nomenclature may have been recognised as anachronistic when reorganisations involving a change of location were being effected, and other imperial titles may fall into the category of battle honours like those granted in the early empire. 3

2.

We are lamentably short of epigraphic evidence for the presence of the pre-Severan auxiliary army in certain areas of the empire where we may be sure regiments were stationed. We have no diplomas for Spain (and very few other inscriptions relating to the auxilia), only one for Thrace, 4

one for a province of Asia minor (Lycia Pamphylia), none

for Arabia and one for Mauretania Caesariensis, to name some of the more notable deficiencies. The Notitia lists may enable us to fill in some gaps.

59

There are pitfalls to be avoided in this study. There is a tendency for tentative suggestions concerning the identities of specific units to pass into later literature as facts. This is particularly true of the analyses of alae and cohortes made by the great scholar Cichorius. 5 Although no comparison is intended between his weighty opinions and the conclusions reached here, it is to avoid this danger that the accompanying tables have been drawn up under the headings of 'demonstrable', 'probable' and 'possible' equations between pre-Severan auxilia and homonyms in the Notitia Dignitatum. For these tables approximate equations have been made between the area of provinces named in the Notitia and those of the principate, 6 and therefore the order followed is not invariably that of the chapters of Seeck's edition. The old domain of Egypt is taken to be roughly equivalent to Aegyptus, August amnica and Thebais; Syria to be Syria and Phoenice, but as Osrhoene (a Severan creation) contains material pertinent to this area its army has been considered as having a possible overlap with that of Syria. 7 Palaestina and Arabia of the late empire both possessed common ground with the older provinces, but Palaestina Salutaris, in spite ofit s name, was a su b- division of Arabia. 8 For the rest the ascriptions are fairly clear. Provincia Rhodopa, of the command of the Duke of Moesia Secunda (Or. 40), was situated within the bounds of old Thrace, and Dacia Ripensis lay in an area created by annexing terrain from the provinces of Upper and Lower Moesia. The tables deal with 96 units. Table I(p. 73) speaks largely for itself; it lists instances where there is an almost exact correspondence of title and geographic situation between utiits of the principate and those extant at the time of compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum. Several of these identifications will require comment because they depend upon new evidence, some of it unpublished. A general observation concerns the Armenian, or Cappadocian, list. In the past the Notitia has been used to assist in the interpretation of Arrian's Ectaxis, 9 but, as the table shows, his descriptive terminology is not precise. It is necessary, therefore, to demonstrate that each of the units concerned had a pre-Severan existence independent of Arrian's account, and that it was likely to have been stationed in Cappadocia.

Unfortunately,

inscriptions relating to equestrian careers may serve the former purpose but not, apparently, the latter. It may be noted, however, that certain equestrians tended to opt (or to be thought particularly suitable by the imperial staff) to serve their militiae in eastern (or Greek-speaking) provinces of the empire. Where a regiment is represented in an apparently 'Eastern-based' career of this nature, and is also noted by Arrian and in 'Armenia' of the Notitia, the three indications have been regarded as sufficient reason to ascribe it to the army of Cappadocia, albeit cautiously. The British lists have not been set out in full, although figures for them are appended to Table I, because their contents have been discussed in greater detail than space would permit here by a number of eminent scholars. 10 Continuity of name and provincial station is demonstrated for 53 regiments in Table I.

60

The 'probables' list adds another 17 units. In Table II (p. 75 )under this heading eight alae have been marked with an asterisk, and a further four are so identified in Table ifi (p. 77 ). These asterisks indicate a belief that Ritterling was correct in proposing that certain alae, named in the Notitia, could be identified with cohortes of the principate; 11 that is to say, at some stage, perhaps during the third century under Gallienus, or possibly during the Diocletianic and Constantinian reorganisations, cohorts which were already part-mounted were converted to full cavalry units, the intention behind such conversions being to introduce the mobility required for the defence of the empire in the later period. Again continuity of name and proximity of site provide the main criteria for acceptance of the equations. Under the last heading (Table III, p. 77 )there are a number of very speculative identifications. Some are included there because the evidence we possess is very fragmentary and it would be wrong to make too positive a claim for the identities proposed: in the case of others the titles of units suggest the faint possibility that they are survivals rather than fourth-century creations and it seems reasonable to leave the options open. This table should be regarded as a prelude to discussion rather than a solution of problems. In his article 'Alae and cohortes milliariae', 12 Professor Eric Birley estimated that there were upwards of 310 cohorts and 100 alae in existence in the second century. The Notitia lists are incomplete but, on the basis of what is there, the lowest estimate for survival of pre-Severan regiments (in name at least) is 13%. If we include the list of 'probables' it rises to 17% and in the unlikely event of the acceptance of all the 'possibles' the figure increases to 23%. This means that more than 77% of the auxilia of the principate remain to be accounted for; but this figure applies to number of units rather than manpower, for, as already remarked, we do not know to what extent the size of regiments varied in the late empire. Even with a succession of most inept, overburdened emperors in the third century (and not all may be so described) so many regiments can scarcely have been annihilated, and it must be supposed that both whole and depleted units were incorporated into the fourth-century army as part of the comitatus. Taking all the alae and cohortes listed as limitanei in the Notitia, whatever the period of their creation, we find that they amount to 83% of the number of alae which existed in the second century but only to 35% of the number of cohortes. If we look at the figures cited in another way, 32% of the preSeveran auxilia prove to be cavalry, but by the time of compilation of the Notitia Dignitatum the number of pre-Severan alae surviving (in name at least), or raised to that status from cohorts, is 46% of the total. 13 These figures give some measure of the swing towards cavalry even among lowgrade troops in the late Roman army; and this, together with the demands made by the mobile 'field army', must have created grave strains upon the suppliers of mounts for the army, strains which may be reflected in at least one instance in the Notitia lists, as will be seen. 14 Attributions made in the tables More than forty diplomata have been found since the publication of CIL XVI and Supplement.

Some of these are mere fragments, whilst others 61

relate to praetorian cohorts or to fleets, but at least twenty-four concern the auxilia and among these may be fOund new evidence for the dispositions of a number of units.

References are given in the tables to periodicals where

new diplomata may be found, but four remain unpublished. 15 Table I, No. 1. and 91; latest;

Ala veterana Gallica appears in Syrian diplomas for 88

it is next attested in Egypt, through papyri, beginning c. 130, at it appears in the Egyptian diploma issued between 156 and 161, and

is still in that domain late in the reign of Caracalla. Wagner 16 followed Cichorius 17 in equating this regiment with ala veter(ana) Gallor(um). identified it with ala Gallor(um) veteranor(um)

( cf

He also

two career inscriptions of

the late and early second century respectivel3, 18 although the latter title could refer to a different formation.

19

Nevertheless, it is probably correct to regard

all three versions as variants of one name, and to see the unit of the Notitia list in terms of the survival of a long-established unit. A new diploma from Syria, of A.D. 88, fails to include ala veterana Gallica but does show ala Gallorum et Thracum constantium and ala Gallorum et Thracum Antiana among the five alae listed (ala Gallorum et Thracum constantium appears also in a Syrian diploma of 91).20

Ala Gallorum et

Thracum Antiana should be the ala Antiana Gallorum of Syria Palaestina and, as Lamb rino originally suggested,

21

is probably ala Ant(i)ana dromedariorum

of the command of the Dux Palaestinae (Table II, No. 10 and see also n. 23). Now the diploma of A.D.

54,22

which Nesseihauf wished to attribute to an

Eastern province, may fairly firmly be placed among those of Syria.

Further,

the names of the alae listed there may be regrouped to give us four instead of three of the five alae originally inscribed in the document. 23

The changes

proposed are set out in Table IV, and the inference is that ala veterana Gallorum (Gallica) and ala Gallorum et Thracum Antiana (probably, as their names imply, among the oldest of the auxilia of the principate) continued to serve in an eastern venue for more than three centuries. Table III, No. 1.

Ala quinta Raeto rum comes into the category of converted

cohorts to which reference has already been made; Raetian alae in the principate.

there are no known

The problem with this ala concerns the identity

of the cohort from which it was raised.

The only fifth Raetian cohort of which

we have certain knowledge is that recorded in the British diploma of 122.24 It is true that the existence of two fourth cohorts might be inferred from the presence of inscriptions from Moesia Superior and from Cappadocia, which in turn might suggest that there was a double series of Raetian cohorts, but it is likely that the true explanation lies, as Ritterling and Wagner thought, 25 in the transfer of the Moesian cohort to Cappadocia by Trajan (cf. Table I, No. 19).

If there was only one cohors V Raetorum, our best guess at

present is that it was moved to the east from Britain at a date after 122.

A

very tentative suggestion might be that it went as part of a contingent drawn from Britain accompanying Julius Severus to fight in Hadrian ' s Jewish War 26 and remained in the east thereafter.

If it was later posted to Egypt, a failure

to appear in diplomata need occasion no surprise, because there is only one diploma extant for Egypt of a post-Hadrianic date, and even that is fragmentary. 27 Table II, No. 1.

Ala II Ulpia Afrorum is not attested during the first two

centuries of our era, but the honorific implies that it had a pre-Severan 62

existence.

A first cohort of that title was stationed at, or near, Alexandria,

as a Hadrianic career inscription reveals, Egypt.

28

and the Notitia places the ala in

These two circumstances suggest that we are dealing with another

converted cohort and there are two possibilities to canvass: 1.

The copyist, or one of the chain of copyists, of the Notitia lists misread the numeral and produced a two instead of a one; 29

2.

both in the Egyptian diploma of 156/161 from the Fayyum

31

and in a papyrus of A.D. 177

cohors II Ulpia Afrorum should be restored rather

than the first cohort of the same name..

R. Cavenaile has certainly

adopted the latter restoration in a recent study32 but, unfortunately, his reasons are not stated. Economy suggests the first alternative is more probable, for the evidence for one cohors Ulpia Afrorum is sparse enough, but we should not entirely close our minds to the idea that Trajan raised two African cohorts for his eastern campaigns and that both were later stationed in Egypt. Table III, No. 3 has special interest for students of Roman military affairs in Britain, for it raises the question of the identity of cohors II Astarum of Busiris in Egypt.

There is no doubt that an Asturian cohort is meant but

hitherto only one second cohort, of a series of that name, has been presumed to have existed in the principate.

This cohort, it is said, was stationed first

in Lower Germany and then transferred to Britain in c. A.D.

100,33

remain-

ing there at least until A.D. 225 when it was rebuilding a granary at Greatchesters. 34

In the list item per lineam valli the Notitia places a FIRST

Asturian cohort at Greatchesters (Aesica, 0cc. 40, 42).

We have seen that

a scribal error is not impossible, and although this is the solution preferred by several scholars, it leaves out of account two facts: near-homonym;

a) the Egyptian

b) the evidence which appears to site a cohors IAsturum in

Britain in about the middle of the third century. 35

With regard to the latter

it might be profitable to consider whether the version of the inscription accepted both in CIL and ILS could be mistaken, and that

Q. Gargilius Martialis

began his military career commanding the second Asturian cohort in Britain, but only a personal inspection of the stone (or of a good photograph) may decide this point. 36

Leaving this question on one side, we must now consider the

origins of the cohort listed in Egypt.

It could have been a late formation,

but Egypt has a very large number of old-style survivals in the Notitia lists, and there is no reason why there should not have been two cohortes II Asturum during the principate, since two first cohorts of that title certainly existed

Once that is admitted, we may ask if the statement concerning

the movements of one cohors II Asturum is necessarily correct. The cohort of Lower Germany was stationed there after A.D. 89, for it bore the honorary epithets p(ia) f(idelis) D(omitiana) on an altar found at Brohltal. 38

The British-based cohort lacks these honorifics in all inscrip-

tions so far attributed to it.

It may be argued that the cohort would have

been likely to have dropped all of these titles after the damnatio of Domitian, but other units did not do so

-

with praiseworthy discretion they merely

shelved the epithet Domitiana.

63

The British cohors II Asturum may have formed part of the invasion force, or have been transferred there on some other occasion between A.D. 43 and 100;

lack of first-century inscriptions referring to auxilia in Britain means

very little, as we are sadly aware.

Furthermore, the homonym of Lower

Germany (if such it is) may have as easily departed for the east as the west early in the second century, for Trajan, as former legate in Germany, may well have had a bias towards his ex-commilitones when selecting troops for his Dacian and then his Parthian campaigns. Not all of the troops gathered by Trajan were sent back to their former stations when Hadrian renounced the scheme of eastern conquest, and the paucity of second-century diplomata for Egypt makes it difficult to assert positively that the second Asturian cohort was not there at any time during this period.

If this argument is valid

there is no reason for accepting the identity of the British-based cohors II Asturum and the unit under the aegis of the Comes limitis Aegypti, and one of the objections to the putative scribal error in the entry for Aesica is removed.

Finally, it must be admitted that this is only an alternative solution

to that offered hitherto but it may remain in the table of possibilities pending confirmation or disproof. Table II, No. 2. the Notitia. 1.

Cohors IV Numidarum is nowhere attested apart from

The only known pre-Severan cohorts with a Numidian title are:

cohors INumidarum of Syria, which may be that mentioned by Arrian 39 as forming part of the army of Cappadocia during the reign of Hadrian;

2.

cohors IFlavia Numidarum of Moesia Inferior and later Lycia Pamphylia; 40

3.

cohors II Flavia Numidarum of Dacia Inferior. 41

A cohors INom... is mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus

o f296, 42

however,

and the most economical solution might be to suppose that this is cohors I Flavia Numidarum transferred from Lycia to Egypt during the course of the third century, and that, somewhere along the line of Notitia copyists, the strokes representing IFL. were translated into the Roman numeral IV.

This

is a very tentative suggestion, but failing this we may have to subscribe to the existence of two otherwise unattested Nurnidian cohorts. Table II, No. 3.

Ala II Hispanorum has been listed as a probable converted

cohort because the only known second cavalry unit of Spaniards of the early empire (ala II Flavia Hispanorum) has an alternative location in the Notitia, and there is some evidence suggesting the presence of a second Spanish cohort in Egypt during the second century. At this point it may be noted, by one who has Seeck's edition of the Notitia Dignitatum open at Or. 31, that ala IQuadorum has not been included as a preSeveran possibility in spite of the (somewhat remote) chance of its inclusion (or the inclusion of its homonym) in the British diploma of 124. 43

It seems

simpler to suppose that the ala of Or. 31, 56 was recruited, like other alae with barbarian names, in the post-Severan period. Regiments of dromedarli, on the other hand, are known to have been raised for use in the near east during the second century, which argues that those recorded in the command of the Dux Thebaidos (Table III, Nos. 7 and 8) may have had an early origin.

64

The army of Phoenice (Or. 32) has a very late appearance, as might be expected.

Apart from one very conjectural suggestion (Table III, No. 10)

the only candidate for consideration is ala I Damascena placed as a converted cohort in Table II, No. 6.

The cohort concerned was earlier in Syria Palaes-

tina and is the only unit known to have been recruited from the vicinity of Damascus. Similarly the short list of auxilia under the Dux Syriae has produced only one sure identification of an early cohort, namely cohors IUlpia Dacorum (Table I, No. 9), whose title suggests it was raised by Trajan from defeated Dacians and sent for service in the east. Osrhoene offers one probable and one fairly sure equation:

Table II,

No. 7, ala II Paflagonum, whose title and station argue that it was converted from the cohort previously in Syria;

and Table I, No. 10, cohors I Gaetulorum.

The latter unit has only been identified in an eastern venue quite recently, a fact that is of considerable interest for those engaged in prosopographic studies of equestrian military commanders. The Duke of Mesopotamia had no units under his command whose names suggest a pre-Severan origin, which is hardly surprising;

but the list of the

Dux Palaestinae is more productive. Table II, No. 9.

Ala Imiliaria Sebastena may have been an upgraded

cohort, for there is an exact infantry counterpart on the strength of Syria Palaestina;

but the new Syrian diploma of 88 names an ala Sebastena.

This

might conceivably have been raised to milliary status in a later period, although we have no knowledge of any intermediate posting. Table II, No. If.

The elucidation of one of the many problems concern-

ing the multiplicity of Thracian units in the auxiliary army may be furthered by the publication of the new diploma for Syria of 88, for the second cohort named is cohors IAugusta Thracum.

In a 'Note on an inscription from

Kurnub' Dr. John Mann suggested an equation between cohors I Thracum of the Iudaean diploma of 86

44

and cohors IAugusta Thracum of the text from

Kurnub, and went on to identify it with cohors I Thracum of the Arabian list of the Notitia (Table I, No. 13).

The presence of this unit, with three others,

at a site in the southern Hauran, is attested in a building inscription of A.D. 212, 4 5 so that the latter part of this identification must be correct; but the fact that it was in Syria in 88 makes it very much less likely that it was two years earlier in Iudaea, particularly as there was a cohors I Thracum milliaria in Syria Palaestina in 139.46

It seems probable that the Iudaean

first Thracian cohort remained there and was raised to milliary size, perhaps as a consequence of the Hadrianic Jewish War.

This cohort may be

considered as a candidate for conversion to ala Imiliaria (Table II, No. 11). Cohors I Thracum milliaria noted in the Syrian diplomata of 88 and 91 perhaps was transferred to Arabia on the creation of that province c. 106 (for it appears no more in Syria) to be listed in the Notitia as cohors Imiliaria Thracum (Table II, No. 13). Cohors II Galatarum (Table I, No. 11) requires no comment, nor does cohors IFlavia (Table I, No. 12).

Cohors II Cretensis is unrecorded in pre-

Severan inscriptions but cohors ICreturn was in Moesia Superior47 so that

65

the possibility of an earlier existence for the second cohort is not completely out of the question (Table III, No. 14). Table II, No. 12.

Ala VI Hispanorum is probably the upgraded sixth co-

hort, which was at Eumeneia in Phrygia at some period of its existence. However, the inscription of 212, which records cohors I Thracum in Arabia, also mentions c(o)h. VI Hisp. 48 and the Notitia entry makes it likely that it remained in that province. Table II, No. 14.

Cohors VIII voluntaria is usually equated with cohors

VIII voluntariorum, which was in Dalmatia during the major part of the first three centuries of our era, the last record belonging to 245. that it may have marched to the east with Aurelian. 49 Table III, No. 15.

It is thought

Cohors III Alpinorum presents another problem.

There

were three such units listed in the Notitia, although one of them possesses the additional title Dardanorum.

The history that has been reconstructed for

cohors III Alpinorum places it in Dalmatia from the early first century to the end of the second5° and removes it to the eastern frontier of Pannonia in the third century.

It may be that this unit then went to the east in the same army

as cohors VIII voluntariorum and was drafted to the same province after the final defeat of Zenobia, but there is another possibility to be considered.

One

of the third Alpine cohorts of the Notitia was actually in Pannonia Secunda at Siscia and this seems a far more likely destination for the cohort earlier on the Pannonian frontier (Table II, No. 17). Cohors III Alpinorum Dardanorum looks very like an amalgamation of a section of the Pannonian-based Alpine cohort with remnants of the cohorts of Dardani raised by Marcus (Table III, No. 16).

We are left with a query concerning the origins of the

Arabian-based unit (Table

III,

No. 15).

It may be that this unit was part of

the early garrison of Arabia but, since this would entail the existence of three cohorts of that name and number in the pre-Severan army and there is at present evidence for only one 51 second cohort of the series, it is more economical to suppose that the Dalmatian and Pannonian evidence refers to two separate cohorts.

In this case the Dalmatian cohors III Alpinorum may

have accompanied cohors VIII voluntariorum specifically as part of a contingent drawn from that province. Provincia Rhodopa lies within ancient Thrace.

By a stroke of good fortune

the sole diploma we have for Thrace tables cohors IV Gallorum (Table I, No. 24).

In the same section of N.D. Or. 40, under the main heading Dux

Moesiae Secundae, cohors III Valeria Bacarum may well be a mis-spelling for one of the cohortes III Bracaraugustanorum. One of the cohorts of this title and number was probably in Moesia Inferior, at least at the beginning of the second century (Table II, No. 16). When we turn to the section in partibus Occidentis it seems logical to follow Moesia II with the Pannonian auxilia rather than adhere to the numbering of the published document.

Here the only recognisably pre-Severan elements

are the two Alpine cohorts, already mentioned, and yet one more Thracian first cohort;

the latter, however, bears the distinction civium Romanorum,

which makes reasonably sure its identity with the cohort earlier recorded in Pannonia Inferior (Table I, No. 25).

66

The Danubian provinces as a whole possess few name survivals.

The

struggles and reorganisations spanning two centuries would have destroyed not merely many units (or sections thereof) but also the traditionalist spirit in those areas.

In spite of this, two old-style cohorts of Raetia (or at least

their titles) survived into the later period, namely cohors III Brittorum [sic] and cohors IX Batavorum (Table I, Nos. 27 and 26), and it may be that others of the Raetian auxilia also emerged from the holocaust. German scholars run counter to this.

The opinions of many

Their reasons for rejecting an early

origin for certain cohorts lies in the destruction that overtook so many of the forts of the province in the second half of the third century and in the honorifics attached to the titles of the regiments of the Notitia:

Flavia for the house of

Constantine, Valeria for Diocletian and Herculia for Maximian.

All that is

attempted here is to emphasise that this need not be the only explanation, cf. Table III, Nos. 17-22. ing example.

Cohors VI (Valeria) Raetorum provides an interest-

This unit is rather sparsely attested in Britain:

in the latter

half of the second century it appears at Greaichesters and, presumably in the third century, at B rough -unde r-Stainmore.

When consideration is given to

the coincidence of title and number one possibility that occurs is that, subsequent to tidying-up operations after the fall of Allectus, Constantius Chiorus removed what could be reasonably spared of the British auxilia for more pressing service on the Continent.

52

Troops must have been scarce in the

western empire following events of the previous fifty years, and the additional title Valeria would fit in with the reorganisation of the period, as it honours Diocletian. Lack of space forbids detailed analysis of the auxilia of (Mauretania) Tingitana;

some suggestions have been made elsewhere 53 and these have been

incorporated in Table I, Nos. 28, 29 and 30 and Table III, No. 23. Table I, No. 31.

Ala II Flavia Hispanorum civium Romanorum is the

best-documented regiment in the Iberian peninsula.

It is attested there from

the late first century at Rosinos de Vidriales, a site identified as Petavonium in the Antonine Itinerary (423, 3).

An unpublished inscription 54 shows the

ala still occupying that fort in the joint reigns of Gallus and Volusianus (2513).

This leads me to believe that cohors II Flavia Pacatiana, of Paetaonio

[sici in the Notitia, is to be identified with that ala, in this case down-graded to a cohort.

It is true this is a reversal of the procedure so far ascribed to

the Roman High Command, but a good reason for the change might lie in the creation of the Constantinian mobile field army.

For such an army horses

(and skilled riders) would be at a premium and an ala in Spain might be considered to be a luxury when men and mounts were needed for more pressing tasks.

The retention of part of the title of the ala (II Flavia) supports the

idea of continuity.

The most obvious interpretation of Pacatiana is as an

adjectival form of the cognomen Pacatus in which case it might represent the name of the commander under whom the change of status was effected. 55 However, the practice of forming titles of units from personal names of commanders was apparently restricted to the very early principate; 56 thereafter titles of honour derived from nomina and then cognomina of reigning emperors were increasingly bestowed.

Pacatiana may hardly be derived

from the cognomen of Ti. Claudius Marinus Pacatianus, whose brief career as usurper belongs to the reign of Philip the Arab,

67

57

nor does the evidence

support a connection with the town Pacatiana of Tingitana whose creation is ascribed to C. Julius Pacatianus,

58

an equestrian of the Severan period.

If

the explanation offered for the change in status of the unit is accepted, a likelier origin for the honorific lies in the career of L. Papinius Pacatianus who was praetorian prefect in 332-337.

59

Under Constantine the duties of praetorian

prefects were no longer strictly military but they were concerned with recruitment and supplies for the army.

The impetus for a rationalisation of men

and resources implied by the change could have originated with Pacatianus, and the reconstructed unit therefore may have been retitled cohors II Flavia Pacatiana Hispanorum.

The falling into disuse of the ethnic part of the title

may be paralleled elsewhere in the auxilia, for example, with alae named for former commanders like ala Petriana;

or Hispanorum may have been

omitted by the copyist. The main task of this survey has been stated to be the tracing of namesurvivals but glimpses of policies have also emerged.

The move towards

mobility, even of low-grade troops stationed in vulnerable areas, in the later empire has been illustrated and a counter-trend indicated in at least one case (there may have been more) where the situation suggested a saving in trained men and mounts.

What is now required is a new edition of the

Notitia Digriitatum, with a full critical apparatus, so that all the changes traceable in the late Roman army may be integrated into a coherent picture.

Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, LONDON WCIH OPY.

68

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.

The exception being units of oriental origin.

Cf. G. L. Cheesman,

The auxilia of the Roman imperial army (Oxford, 1914), 82ff.; B. Dobson and J. C. Mann, 'The Roman army in Britain and Britons in the Roman army', Britannia 4 (1973), 193-5. 2.

Jones, Later Roman empire.

3.

These and other possibilities not discussed by Jones are noted in the text and accompanying tables.

4.

Iowe knowledge of this to Professor Eric Birley, who kindly passed on to me the text of an unpublished Thracian diploma of 114, which had been communicated to him by Dimitroff.

5.

RE I, col. 1224ff. (s.v.);

IV, col. 231ff.

(s.v. cohors).

6

These areas have been based upon Jones, Later Roman empire, map II.

7.

Cf. Jones, Later Roman empire, map I.

8

Cf. the analysis given by G. W. Bowersock, 'A report on Arabia Provincial, JRS 61(1971), 219ff.

9

E.g. H. F. Pelham, 'Arrian as -legate of Cappadocia', in his Essays on Roman history (Oxford, 1911); Cheeseman, op.cit., 159-160.

10.

See S. S. Frere, Britannia, 2nd ed. (London, 1974), 248ff., and bibliography, 448ff.

11.

'Military forces in the senatorial provinces', JRS 17 (1927), 31, n. 3.

12.

Corolla memoriae Erich Swoboda dedicata (Graz-Ktiln, 1966), 54ff.

13.

Numeri, which were undoubtedly part of the pre-Severan army, have not been included in the calculations. the basis of a separate paper.

14.

They might with justification form

It is apposite to remark here that a larger number of cohorts were partmounted than is usually suggested.

In the case of those auxilia with which

Iam best acquainted, namely units raised in the Iberian peninsula, more than 56% of infantry units proved to be equitatae. 15.

Apart from the Thracian diploma referred to above (n. 4) the most important of the unpublished diplomata for present purposes is one for Syria of A.D. 88.

This will appear in Zeitschrift fUr Papyrologie und

Epigraphik some time in 1975.

Iam grateful to Professor Ronald

Mellor and Mr. Edward Harris for permission to quote from this prior to publication.

69

16.

W. Wagner, Die Dislokation der rimischen Auxiliarformationen in den Provinzen Noricum, Pannonien, Moesien und Dakien von Augustus bis Gallienus (Berlin, 1938), 42.

17.

RE I, col. 1245.

18.

ILS 1368 and AE 1935, 167.

19.

Veterana was an epithet conferred on a regiment when it was the longerestablished of two homonymous units stationed in the same province, according to Cichorius.

Veteranorum does not have quite the same

significance, in the strict sense, since it clearly refers to the ethnic title of the regiment (in this case Gallorum).

Unless evidence to the

contrary emerges it is more economical to presume a lack of precision in the use of these terms in this particular case. 20.

AE 196t, 319.

21.

CRAM 1930, 131ff. and Revue de philologie, 3me sére, tom. 5 (1931), 251ff.

22.

CILXVI.3.

23.

The diploma of Syria Palaestina of 139 (CIL XVI .87) reads: AL Ill III

GAL ET ANT ET VII PHR Extrinsecus: GALL ET THR ET ANT GALL ET VII PHRY.

Intus: ALlS The careles-

sness in execution of post-Trajanic diplomata allows us to suggest a variant interpretation to that offered by Nesseihauf: . 2t

aus III

(1) Gall(orum)

(2) Thr(acum) et Ant(iana) Gall(orum) et (3) VII Phry(gum). If this proves

acceptable as demonstrating the presence of an ala Gallorum in the general Syrian area, it may give the reason for the addition of the epithet veterana to the title of the other Gallic regiment.

It should also be noted that if

Nesselhauf's reading of CIL XVI.3 was correct there should have been no need for a distinguishing epithet to have been bestowed on ala veterana Gallorum et Thraecum since the other two alae Gallorum et Thraecum both possessed additional titles (Antiana and constantium), as we are now aware. 24.

CIL XVI.69.

25.

Wagner,

.cit., 180 and n. 737.

26.

Diolxix.13.2.

27.

CIL XVI.184.

28.

ILS 8867.

29.

In this respect it seems very likely that somewhere along the line the Roman numerals of the primary documents were changed into the prima, secunda, etc. which appear in Seeck's edition.

30.

See n. 27.

31.

B.G.U. I, 241.

32.

'Prosopographie de l'arme romaine d'Egypte d'Auguste Diocltien, Aegyptus 50 (1970), P. 257 no. 1.019 and p. 224, no. 242. a

70

33.

E. Stein, Die kaiserlichen Beamten und Truppenkörper im römischen Deutschland unter dem Prinzipat (Vienna, 1932), 165;

E. Birley,

Roman Britain and the Roman army (Kendal, 1953), 22ff.;

G. Aiftildy,

Die Hilfstruppen in der rtlmischen Provinz Germania Inferior (DUsseldorf), 1968, 43. 34.

RIB 1738.

35.

ILS 2767.

36.

This type of problem highlights the necessity for publication of provincial corpora of inscriptions with good photographs or 'contact drawings' along the lines of those produced in RIB.

37.

Stationed in Noricum and Germania Superior respectively.

38.

CILXIII.7705.

39.

CILXVI.35;

40.

Bulletin de la Soci ete archologique 'a Staune 9 (1952), 1ff.;

41.

CILXVE.75 and AE 1962, 264.

42.

P. Mich. 7, 450

43.

CILXVI.70 and Ste in,

44.

IEJ19(1969), 211ff.

45.

E. Littmann, D. Magie Jr., D. R. Stuart, Syria: Princeton Univ. arch.

Ectaxis3.

+

455

=

CIL XVI 128. .

Daris 12. 149.

Cf. CILXVI.33.

exped. to Syria in 1904-5 & 1909,111 (Leyden, 1921), A, 2, no. 17. 46.

CILXVI.87.

47.

CILXVI.39, 46 and 111.

48.

See n.45.

49.

J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (London, 1969), 141-2;

G. Aiftildy, Acta

archaeologica Academiae scientiarum Hungaricae 14 (1962), 271. 50. 51.

J. J. Wilkes,

.cit., 140ff.;

G. Aiftildy,

263ff.

There is a possibility that the evidence so far interpreted as referring to a single cohors 11 Alpinorum may refer to two cohorts, but the argument is rather tenuous unless further inscriptions are found to give it support.

52.

Cf. S. S. Frere, Autun in 297-8.

.cit., 386, referring to British craftsmen sent to

53.

'The auxilia of Mauretania Tingitana', Latomus 32 (1973), 838 ff.

54.

Iam indebted to M. P. le Roux for knowledge of this inscription.

55.

Concerning such titles see Cheesman,

56.

This point was made to me in a written communication from Professor Eric Birley.

71

24 and 45-6.

57.

In any case his sphere of influence would have been restricted to the Danubian area where the arny raised him to power.

58.

Cf. H.-G. Pflaum, Les carrferes procuratoriennes iquestres sous le haut-empire romain, (Paris, 1960-61), 605ff.

59.

PLRE, p. 656.

72

TABLE I.

Demonstrable equations between pre-Severan auxilia and units named in the Notitia Dignitatum

Notitia No.

I.

OR.28.28.

Unit

ala veterans Gallorum

Notitia Command

Main dated pre-Severan evidence

Cornea limitis Aegypti

ala veterans Gallica.

Syria 54

*

(Q.3),

88

(D•)

and 91 ( AE 1962, 264);

Egypt 130(P. Load. 482=flar1838)to 3rd C., eg.B.G.U.H, 614. 2.

OR.28.32.

ala Apriana

Cornea limitis Aegypti

ala Apriana.

Egypt 41-68 (P. Mich. III, 159) toe. 175 (P.Fayum 105,

Frag. A, col. 111, 24-25). 3.

OR.28.41.

cohors IAugusta Pannoniorum

Cornea limitis Aegypti

cohors IPannoniorum.

Egypt 83 (.29), 105 (Syria 44 (1967),

p. 3391.) and 156/161 (.i84). 4.

OR.28.44.

Comes limitis Aegypti

cohors II It[ulrneorum

cohors II Ituraeorum equitata.

Egypt 39

().!

8899), 83 @. 29 ).

105 (Syria 44 (1967), p. 339f.), 156/161 (.184) and 177 L SB IV. 7362=Darls 97). 5.

OR.28.45.

Cornea limitis Aegypti

cohors II Thracum

cohors H Thracum equltata.

( AE

(p.35) and 91

Iudaea 86 (33);

1961, 319);

perhaps Syria 88

certainly Egypt 105 (Syria 44 (1967),

p. 3391.) and 167 (Wilcken Gr.-Ostr. H, 927). 6.

OR.31.58.

cohors I L[u]sitanorum

Dux Thebaidos

cohors IAugusta Lualtanorum.

Iudaea 86 (33);

Egypt 105 (Syria 44

(1967), p.3391.), and as cohors IAugusta praetoria Lusitanorum to end of 2nd century and beyond, cf. CIL 511.22 of 288. 7.

011.31.59.

cohere scutata civium

Dux Thebaidos

8.

OR.31.60.

cohors scutata c.R.

Egypt from reign of Tiberius QLS 2692 and 6579)

to 143/4 (B.G.U. III, 741).

Romanorum Dux Thebaidos

cohors IApamenorum

cohors IApamenoruna sagittarlorum. 156/161 l,.184) and 3rd C.

9.

011.33.33.

Dux Syriae

cohors IUlpla Dacorum

cohors IUlpia Dacorum.

Egypt 144 (B.G.U. III, 729),

(P. Oxy. 1511).

Syria 156/7 (Q.106) and ILS 2724 (Dessau

gave III Dacorum in the latter). ;10.

011.35.32.

cohors IGaetulorum

Dux Osrhoenae

cohors IGaetulorum.

Syria 88 (new diploma), 99 ( AE 1961, 319);

2nd C. careers cf. ILS 1437 and ILS 8853. Ii.

011.34.44.

cohors ilGalatarum

Dux Palaestinae

cohors II Galatarum.

Syria Palaestina 139 (87).

12.

011.34.45.

cohors iFlavia

Dux Palaestinae

cohors IFlavia 0.11.

Syria 88 (35), Syria Palaestina 139 (D.87)

13.

OR.37.32.

cohere Thrac[um)

Dux Arablae

and ILS 2724. cohors IAugusta Thracum.

Syria 88 (new diploma);

Arabia c.106?

(J. C. Mann, [EJ 19 (1969), p.2liff.).

:14.

011.38.21.

ala IAugusta Colonorum

Dux Armeniae

ala IColonorum.

Pamphylia (IGRRIH. 797);

Arrian Ectaxis 1,

"Colonenatum". 15.

OR.38.22.

ala Auriana

Dux Armenlae

ala II Ulpia Aurlana.

Cappadocia/Armenia

U_LS

2535);

Arrian

Ectaxis 1, "(Is)aurianorum". 16.

OR.38.23.

ala IUlpia Dacorum

Dux Armeniae

ala IUlpia Dacorum.

Cappadocia (ILS 1077);

ArrisnEctaxis 8,

"Getarum". 17.

OR.38.24.

ala 11 Gallorum

Dux Armeniae

ala II Gallorum.

Cappadocia, Arrian Ectaxts 9, "Calactica";

and probably AE 1925, 44. 18.

011.38.27.

cohors TH Ulpia miliaria

Dux Armeniae

19.

011.38.28.

cohors ifi Ulpia Petraeoruni (ILS 9013) ("milliarta" ILS 9471); Cappadocia, Arrian Ectaxis 1, "equItes Petraei".

Petraeorum cohors IV Raetorum

Dux: Armeniae

cohors IV Raetorum (LE 1915, 49);

and Arr1anEctaxis 1,

"quartos Rhaetorum". 20.

011.38.29.

cohors mil[ia(rla Bosporiana

Dux Armenlae

cohors IBosporiana (Ij

8864);

and Arrian Ectaxis 3 and 18,

"Bosporiani". 21.

OR.38.30.

cohere miliaria Germanorum

Dux Armeniae

cohors IGermanorum (milllaria) (L LS 1428) qLS 8851, 3rd C.)1 Arrian Ectaxis 2(7), "Celtae".

22.

OR.38.34.

coborsApule[I]a civium

Dux Armeniae

Romanorum

cohors Apula (AE 1966, 478); 1973),

23.

011.38.35.

cl. G. E. Bean, The Inscriptions

of Side (1965), no. 155 and J. M. Cook, The Tread (Oxford,

cohors ILepidiana

Dux Armeniae

p.

412, no. 50.

cohors I Lepidiana.

Pannonia 80

( D. 26);

Lepidiana c.R) 99 and 114 (.45 and 58). Armenia 199

(1

Moesia Inferior (I Armenia (ILS 2590);

1908, 22).

24.

OR.40.46.

cohere lVGallorum

Dux Moestae II

cohors UI Gallorum.

25.

OC .32.59.

cohors IThracum civium

Dux Pannoniae II

cohors IThracum c.R.

Thrace 184 (unpublished diploma). One of two units with similar titles In

Romanorum Inferior (‚i64) 167 (.123). Pannonia110 Inferior andand Superior. Probably that LAE of Pannonia 6.

OC.35.24.

cohors nova Batavorum [sic]

Dux Raetiae

cohors IX Batavorum milliaria. 174), and 3rd C. career

27.

OC.35.25.

cohors HI Brittorum [sic)

Dux Raetiae

QLS

cohors UI Brttannorum eq.

Raetia 147 (.94), 167/8 ( AE 1961,

8852). Raetta 107 (.55), 166 (.121), 213

( 211, 111. 11950). 8.

OC.26.14.

cohors llilispanorum

Comes Tingltaniae

cohere H lllspanorum c.R.

Mauretania Tingltana 109

(Q.161),

156/157 (.181 and 182). 29.

OC.26.16.

cohors ILet)[I[tyraeorum

Comes Tingitaniae

cohors IIturaeorum c.R.

Mauretania Tingitana 109 (.161),

156/157 (.181 and 182). 0.

OC .26.19.

cohors ifi Ast[u]rum

Comes Tlngitaniae

cohors III Asturum c.R.

Mauretania Tingitana 109 (.162), 156/7

(Q.181 and 182). Si.

OC.42.27

cohors H Flavia Pacatiana

"In provincia Callaecia"

ala U Flavia Hispanorum c.R.

At Petavonlum

1937, 166, Arch.

Esp. Arq. 34 (1961), p. 105, and an unpublished Inscription of 251-253). 32.

OC .42.30.

cohors Celtibe[r(a

"In provincia Callaecia"

cohors ICeltiberorum eq. c.R.

Callaecia from 132 (Boletin

Auriense 1(1971), p. Of. and ILS 9125, 9127, 9128). 33-

OC .40.33-

cohortes:

52.

OC.40.56.

IFrisiavonum, IBatavorum,

IV I(inlgo[n]um,

Dux Britanniarum "Item per llneam valli"

I. Thngrorum, IV Gallorum, IAst[u]rum, H Dalmatarum, IAdia Dacorum, U L[injgo)n(um, IHispanoram, II Thracum, IAelia classics, IMorinorum, UI Nerv[i)orum, VI Nerviorum; alan: II 53

•

OC .28.18.

IAst[u]rum, Sa(b)inlana,

[A]st[u[rum,

Petriana, IHercul[e]a;

cohors IB[a)etasiorum

Comes litoris Saxonicl per Britanniam

Note:

D.

CIL XVI.

TABLE II.

Probable equations between pre-Severan auxilia and units named in the Notitla Dignitatum

Notitia No. 1.

OR.28.38.

Unit ala llUlpiaAfrorum

Notitla Command Comes limitis Aegypti

Main dated pre-Severan evidence None but the name and the existence of cohors IUlpia Afrorum in Egypt. Copyist's error or mistaken restoration int).184, of. B.G.U. I, 241?

2.

OR.28.46.

cohors IV Numidarum

Comes limitis Aegypti

OR.31.43.

ala II Hispanorum

Dux Thebaidos

OR.31.45.

ala IV Britonum

Dux Thebaidos

Cichorius suggested this mtght be an early cohort although not attested as such (

*3

4.

IV col. 320).

There are alight indications of a moors II Hispanorum in Egypt (Dana 3, cot. M, 1.8 and perhaps CIL 111.50 and 6590). Not attested.

The existence of a cohors VI Brittonum (CIL I•I.

2424) makes it reasonable to infer a fourth cohort of the series. 5.

OR.31.57.

ala IValeria dromedariorum

Dun Thebaidos

ala IUlpia dromadarlorum milliarla.

Syria 156/7 (.l06), perhaps

to be equated with ala Valeria dromedariorum also attested in Syria (ILS 2541). *6

OR.32.33.

*7 8.

als Damascena

Dna Foenicis

OR.35.29.

ala llpaflagonum

Dux Osrhoenae

cohors II Ulpia Paphiagonum.

OR.35.30.

al s. IParthorum

Dux Osrboenae

Cichorius ( EE

cohors IDamascenorem. Existing in the reign of Trajan commanded by a friend of Pliny (Secundus) QLS 2722); Syria Palaestina 139 (p.87). -

Syria 156/7 (.i06) and ILS 2724.

ml. 1257) wished to equate this with ala Parthorum

veterans, which was briefly in Germania early in the ist century. (ILS 9147, and perhaps AE 1959, 188). If so it may have returned to the east, cf. ILS 9013. *9

OR.34.32.

ala Imiliaria Sebastena

Dux Palaestlnae

a)

cohors ISebastena.

Syria 88 (.35) and 91 (&E 1961, 319);

Syria Palaestina as milliaria (39 (p.87). Or, b)

ala Sebastena recorded only in the new diploma of Syria for 88.

10

011.34.33.

ala Auburn dromedariorum

Dux Palaestlnae

ala Gailorum et Thrnecum Antlana. Syria 54 (D.3) and 88 (new diploma); as ala Antlana Galloruni in Syria Palaestina. 139 .87).

11l

011.34.36.

ala I miliaria

Dux Palaesttnas

cohors IThracum. (now milliaria).

l2.

OR.37.26.

ala VI Hispanorum

jInx Arabtae

cohors VI Hispanorum.

13.

011.37.31.

cohorsl miliaria Thracum

Dun Arabiae

cohors Imilliaria. 1961, 319).

14.

OR.37.33.

cohors VIII volurnitaria

Dux Arsbtae

cohors VIII voluntariorum cdi.

ludea 86 (p.33);

Syria Palaestina 139

Phrygta (IGRR IV.728 and CIL XI.4376).

Syria 88 (p.35).

IThracum miularta 91

(L III

IS.

011.38.36.

cohors lClaudia equitata

Thia Armen.lae

Earlier evidence for existence in career (AE 1934, 107).

16.

011.40.49.

cohors III Valeria Bacarum

Dux Moesine II

cohors III Bracarauguatanorum.

17.

OC.32.57.

cohors III Alpinorum

( AE

Dalmatia probably from A.D. 6-9,

94(13.38) and numerous inscriptions toA.D. 245

(Bracar.?, Bocldng)

.87)

9724(2706)).

Moesia Inferior 2nd century?

( CCIL

Vffl.3005, gf . E. Birley, Carnuntum Jahrbuch 1963/64, p.26). Dux Pannoniae U

cohors III Alpinorum eq. Dalmatia 94 (.38 and numerous inscriptions both earlier and later). Pannonia 3rd century (tile stamps. e.g. CIL 111.3759, m.4665 and 1966, 301). Unless the Pannonian cohort is different from that in Dalmatia, in which case the Dalmatian cohort may have gone east with cohors VIII voluntarlorum cf . Table U No. 14 and Table UI No. 16.

*

Alae marked thus In this Table and in Table III are suggested as converted cohorts.

TABLE In.

Possible equations between pre-Severan auxilia and units named in the Notitia Dignitatum

Notitia No. *1. 2.

OR.28.30. OR.28.35.

Notitia Command

Main dated pre-Severan evidence

ala VRaetomm

Comes limitis Aegypti

cohors V Raetorum.

cohors III Ga[ilatarum

Comes limitis Aegypti

None, but cohortes Iand II Ulpia Galatarum were in Syria Palaestina

Unit

in 139 (.87),

Britain 122 (2.69), and one career

cf. Table INo. Ii.

1400).

This may be part of the early

series but so far unattested. 3.

OR.28.36.

cohors ilAstarum

Comes limitis Aegypti

In the east?

4.

OR.28.40.

cohors I sagittarlorum

Comes limitis Aegypti

Cichorius (RE IV col. 330) suggested this might be cohors IUlpia

5.

OR.28.42.

cohors lEpireorum?

Comes limitis Aegypti

Seeck wished to infer cohors IIturaeorum.

OR.31.44.

ala Germanorum

Dux Thebaidos

011.31.54.

ala If Hereulia dromedarloruni

Dux Thebaidos

sagittariorum of the Parthian campaign of Verus (ILS 2724).

*6

7.

M. Suipicius Felix, much of whose career was spent in the east, commanded cohors IGermanorum in his first past (

iTable

*9

011.31.48.

ala III dromedariorum

Dux Thebaidos

011.31.50.

ala VII Herculia voluntaria

Dux Thebaidos

1931, 36).

(The existence of ala IUlpia dromadariorum miliiaria in Syria (see 11 No. 5) and an ala dromedariorum in Arabia (H. Seyrig,

Syria 22 (1941), S.

Cichorius thought thi s

unlikely. cohors IAugusta Ituraeorum was last recorded in Supe ri or 158 (.108). Dac i a]

p.

219, Nos. 7 & 8) makes it possible that other

ldromedarii were used in 2nd century. Perhaps cohere VII voluntarlorum attested in AE 1954, 145 but this is far from certain.

10.

011.32.40.

cohors III Herculia

Dux Foenlcis

(Either of these could be a third cohort renamed. Likeliest candidates are those already possessing an Imperial honorific, e.g. cohors m

11.

011.33.34.

cohors II IValeria

flux Syriac

gonum of ILS 2724.

12.

011.34.41.

cohors lVFrygum

Dux Palaestinae

Cheesman commented upon the high number of ala VII Phrygum

Augusta Thracum in Syria 156/7 (p.106) or cohors III Ulpia Paphla-

(The auxilia of the Roman imperial army (1914), 61, n. 7).

Perhaps

alae and cohortes were numbered in one series in which case this could be early. 13.

011.34.43.

cohere lequitata

Dux Palaestinae

ILS 2724 includes cohors 11 equltata so the first cohort may be inferred. It might also be any pre-Severan cohors equitata whose ethnic title had been dropped.

14.

011.34.47.

cohors II Cretensis

Dux Palaestinae

None;

but a cohors ICretum is found in diplomas of Moesia Superior

(D.39, 46 and 111). IS.

16.

011.37.35.

cohors III Alp[i(norum

No cohort known in the east.

Dux Arabiae

OC .32.53.

cohors III Alpinorum Dardonorum

Dux Pannoniae II

OC.35.23.

ala IFlaviaflaetorum

Dux Raettae

Stationed in east

The Dalmatian cohort of that name.

cohors

m

Arabia?

-

Alpinorum in Pannonia in 3rd C., see Table 11 No. 17.

cohortes Iet U Aurelia Dardanorumof Moesia (Superior) (e.g. CIL 111.8251 and ILS 9154).

*j7

Possibilities:

a) b)

Amalgamation of parts of these cohorts?

Converted cohors IRaetorum with Flavin as a Constantinian honorific? Perhaps that of Germania Inferior test attested at Katwijk (CIL 1(111.8827) early in 3rd century.

£8.

OC.35.27.

cohors VI Valeria Raetorum

cohors VI Raetorum.

Dux Raetiae

Britain (RIB 1737, and lead seals, g.

Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society, n.s., 36(1936), p. 118). 19.

OC.35.28.

cohors IHercules Raetorum

Dux Raetiae

cohors IRaetorum.

20.

OC.35.29.

cohors V Valeria Frygum

Dux Raetiae

cl. Table III No. 12.

Raetia 107

and 167/8 (

1961, 174).

21.

011.35.30.

cohors III Hercules Pannonlorum

Dux Raetlae

A third Pannonian cohort may be assumed because of the existence

(With additional title in honour of Diocletian

in his reorganization).

of a fourth cohort in Dacia.

A tile stamp

(5jj

111.3752, --H III P)

M ay site it in Pannonia (Inferior).

122.

OC.35.34.

cohors Hercules

Dux Raetiae

Remnants of one of the cohortes Pannoniorum?

Pannonlorum 23.

OC.26.13.

ala Herculea

Comes Tingitaniae

ala Augusta Gallorum renamed for Maximian? 88 (.159) to 151/160

24.

OC.42.28.

cohere II Gallica

"In provincia Callaecia"

25.

OC.42.29.

cohors Lu(cjensis

"In provincia Callaecia"

(LE

Probably a long-established cohort. Gallicam".

Mauretania Tingitana

1960, 103). It is sited "ad cohortem

Knowledge of the auxiliary establishment in Spain is still

limited. cohors

m

Lucensium?

this cohort in Callaecia 26.

OC.42.32.

cohors lGallica

"In provincia Tarraconensi"

There is some rather dubious evidence for

(.

CIL 11.2584 and 11.4132).

If Table III No. 24 is possible this cohort might also be part of the earlier army.

Identifications enclosed in square brackets are very conjectural but are included because an alternative explanation to the one usually offered is possible.

TABLE IV CILXVL3:

June 18, 54.

List published by Nesseihauf:-

Proposed new reading:-

equitibus, qui militant in ails qulnque] quae appellantur: 1)

veterana Gallorum ei Thraecum

et 2)

Gall[o]rum et Thraecum [A)ntiana

et 3)

Gallorum ei Thraecum"

1) et 2)

veterans Gallorum 1 Thraecum 2

et 3)

Galilo) rum et Thraecum [Alntiana

et 4)

Gallorum et Thraecum [Constantium)

Notes 1.

cf. CIL XVI.35 of 88, AE 1962, 264 of 91 and several career inscriptions.

2.

Thraecum. Perhaps ala Thracum Herculiana, lacldng that part of its title indicating it had been named for a former commander, or (more probably) ala IAugusta Thracum, which appears later at Gerasa.

In Egypt before 130.

3.

The diploma breaks off at this point but the restoration seems reasonable in view of the new Syrian diploma of 88 and that of 91 (A.E 1961, 319).

CHANNEL COMMANDS IN THE NOTITIA by Stephen Johnson

This paper is an attempt to determine the date at which the command of the litus Saxonicum was instituted, with reference, in the main, to the text of the Notitiat and relevant passages of Ammianus Marcellinus. In so doing, the paper deals not only with the origins of the command of the comes litoris Saxonici, but also with the two Continental commands those of the dux tractus Armoricanj and the dux Belgicae Secundae which the Notitia records in the area of the Channel., 2 -

-

There can be no certainty that any of the separate commands which the Notitia lists was formed at the same time as any of the others, and the correct way of separating the various chronological strands has for long been a major puzzle. 3

One can determine from imperial titles given to bodies of troops

within a command the dates at which they were raised: thus commentators have tried to argue that the Notitia commands were instituted at a date contemporaneous with the earliest troop unit to be found within them 4 It is clear, .

however, that the litus Saxonicum per Britannias as shown in the Notitia was not an immediate creation at the moment when the earliest troops there named moved into the area: the cohors IBaetasiorum seems to have been at Reculver early in the third century, at a date before many of the other forts in the Saxon Shore command in the Notitia had been built. 5 We must look elsewhere for indications of the date at which the command was formed: one pointer to follow is the occurrence in the title of the name Saxonicum. Saxons and the Saxon Shore The term litus Saxonicum can be taken in two ways:

either as the 'shore

attacked by Saxons' or as the 'shore settled by Saxons'. Since the term appears in the Notitia and there alone, and this document is datable in its final form to A.D. 425-430, those who favour the 'shore settled by' interpretation have to show that Saxon settlement had already begin in such numbers by that date that the term could have been produced for this reason and brought into official usage by then.

Indeed, it is much more likely that the name is older

than this, for not only does evidence from the forts of the Saxon Shore suggest that they were not occupied at a late date, but also there are signs that the term Saxon Shore was in use before some of the other commands were created. That Saxons were present in the area of eastern Britain which formed the Saxon Shore is undeniable, but the date at which they arrived is doubtful. The recent publication of finds from the cemetery of Caistor-by--NorwichG has suggested that there may have been pockets of Saxons living there as early as the end of the third century. But though pagan Saxon pottery is known from some of the Saxon Shore forts, there is as yet no indication that any of it sig-

81

nifies a Saxon presence as early as that at Caistor. The type of pottery known as 'Romano-Saxon' has also been thought to signify the presence of Saxons within Britain before the end of the Roman period. But this pottery, while it does have distinctive Germanic decoration, cannot be taken in isolation as definite evidence of Saxon settlement, nor is its dating at all certain. 7 Though mainly concentrated in eastern areas, its distribution is not completely confined to the Channel and North Sea coasts. The finds of so-called 'laetic' military equipment of Germanic style show a clear distribution pattern much wider than one limited to the south-east. 8 There had been Germanic troops serving with the Roman army since the earliest imperial days, 9 but the presence of troops does not necessarily imply that there was also settlement, and in the Notitia list of troops under the command of the comes litoris Saxonici there are none which display a distinctive Saxon origin. In fact the Saxons were treated with such distrust and unscrupulousness that no emperor would have dared settle them within the empire. 10 Unless the sources fall into the error of failing to distinguish one Germanic tribe from another, there is no literary record of their settlement anywhere in the Roman world, at least in the fourth century. 11 The first mention of Saxones (apart from the reference in Ptolemy) comes in Eutropius, who wrote in the period 365_380. 12 Their entry into his historical account is clearly dated since it was as a consequence of their raids that Carausius was appointed in 286 to take charge of the Channel fleet. How much earlier Saxons had been molesting the coasts of Britain cannot be known, but the existence of forts at Reculver and Brancaster by the early part of the third century suggests that there was some trouble on the eastern sea-coasts at least fifty years previously. Debris of burnt buildings containing samian datable to c. 200 has also been found at several sites in Essex between Colchester and London 13 and this seems to attest some hostile activity at this time. Though the destruction is not necessarily evidence of Saxon penetration at such an early date, it is difficult to suggest any other enemy in that particular area who was so mobile and so hostile. The Saxons are also mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus, whose history as we have it begins only in 353. Under the year 365 he records successful attacks on Britain by Saxons among others, 14 and two years later, in the socalled'barbarica conspiratio', although Ammianus says that the Saxons were attacking the 'Gallicanos tractus', it is hard to believe that they did not attempt to land on the southern coasts of Britain, where the pickings at this time were as rich as those in Gaul. 15 That the Saxons for long afterwards continued to be a menace to the northern coasts of Gaul and the eastern coasts of Britain is shown by further references in Ammianus, Claudian, and Sidonius Apollina ri s. 16 It is therefore clear that, though the evidence for Saxon settlement on the shores of Britain in the latter years of the Roman period is at present slight, their attacks on that area are well documented. f7 It is unusual, however, for a frontier system to be called by the name of its attackers. All other limites for which aRoman name exists are called by the name of the province in which they lie.18

But nowhere else is there a limes 19 which is so obviously coastal

and which thus links the shores of several provinces. Since the whole of Britain was a frontier area, the separate commands within the British provinces -

82

had somehow to be given their separate identities; only a single, well-defined, frontier.

most other provinces had

Britain was surrounded on three sides

by enemies who might attack. The Wall to the north 2 °and the litus Saxonicum to the south-east 21 covered two of them. The other flank, attacked by Scotti from Ireland, was not so comprehensively defended, both because the topography did not support such an arrangement and possibly because, unlike the Saxons, the Scots were of limited mobility. 22 It is therefore likely that the litus Saxonicum was a convenient term for those areas molested by the Saxons, comprising as it did parts of two of the British provinces 23 and areas of Gaul, and it is in this sense that it is best interpreted.

24

From what date, then, does the term originate? This depends primarily on the date when the Saxons were first recognised as the sea-raiders of the third and fourth centuries.

Their first literary appearance, as we have seen,

is in Eutropius, writing between 365 and 380.

Unlike Aurelius Victor, his

near contemporary, he calls them 'Franci et Saxones'; 25 Victor, either showing a historian's scepticism or translating the term for a wider audience calls them simply 'Germani'. 26 But this occurrence of the name 'Saxones', despite its use in reference to events eighty years ago, need not mean that the term was in current use in the later years of the third century: it does not occur in the panegyrics of that date 27 and there the allies of the breakaway British empire are called 'Franci'.

The name of Saxons may, therefore, not

have been current then. The Coastal Commands in Gaul The Notitia affords other evidence about the date of the litus Saxonicum. Two of the forts belonging to the Gallic commands are described as 'in litore Saxonico', and this shows that originally they formed part of a command thus called which embraced both sides of the Channel. 28 Since these two forts appear in the Gallic lists, the date of their insertion into their Gallic commands has a bearing on the date at which the term litus Saxonicum was in use, and clearly forms a terminus ante quem for the older command. The tractus Armoricanus, however, which contains one fort, Grannona, which lay 'in litore Saxonico', had held the name Armoricanus or Aremoricus from early on in the history of Roman penetration into this area of Gaul. 29 In the Notitia, the commander of this area is described as the dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani limitis 3° and together with the dux Belgicae Secundae, in whose territory Marcae, the second Gallic Saxon Shore fort, appears, 31 defends the Channel coast in Gaul. It is precisely these regions which are mentioned by Eutropius when describing the command given to Carausius in 286 as 'per tractum Armoricani et Belgicae'. 32 If Eutropius, in writing this, was taking his names from command areas which existed in 365-380, then we have a clear date before which the term litus Saxonicum must have been in use. Unfortunately, there is no agreement about the date at which these Gallic commands were established. Hoffmann considers the tractus Armoricanus at least to be early, since some posts have detachments of legions which he dates to Diocletianic times. 33 That the milites primae Flaviae at Constantia 34 and the milites Martenses at Aleto' 5 are in origin Diocletianic troops

83

need not be doubted: but Hoffmann is here tacitly assuming that a legion here on duty as limitanei could not have been transferred to its post at some subsequent date from the higher grade field army36 and therefore must have begun its career in this position on the Armorican coastline. There is nothing intrinsically impossible in the idea that troops once in the field army might be posted to a frontier command if the need arose: a detachment of troops from a parent legion might serve as replacement for a unit transferred or lost. Stevens, too, appears to consider that this chapter is early. 37

He pointed

to the anomaly that the dux is in charge of the tractus Armoricanus and limes Nervicanus, and since the only Nervii known are round Bavai, formerly their cantonal capital, he assumes that this name is avestigial survival of what was once a greater command, extending to include the line of posts along the so-called 'limes Belgicus', which was thought at one time to have been the northward extent of the Roman empire in late Roman times. 38 It is an attractive suggestion that the dux controlled this wide area and originally took in part of Belgica Secunda, but the Notitia, perhaps in a gloss or in a later version, delineates the specific areas over which this dux had control, while stressing his title 'Nervicanus' .9 Though the text is not sound, his area seems to be Aquitanica Prima and Secunda, Lugdunensis Senonia (Quarta), Secunda and Tertia. It is not impossible that originally the command was wider, and the insistence of the Notitia on the full title is perhaps an indication that the command had been curtailed, despite its official title. 4° Though the combination of tractus Armoricanus with limes Nervicanus seems an odd one, it does represent a broad sweep of territory immediately adjoining what were more clearly defined frontier areas (see Fig. 1, and further P. 91). On the other hand, Van Berchem considered that commands which contain many units of milites are likely to have been established comparatively late in the Roman period. 41 The chapter of the dux tractus Armoricani, on this interpretation, is possibly one of the latest chapters in the western section of the Notitia, since all but one of its units are milites. 42 The exception, significantly, is Grannona, which housed the tribunus cohortis primae novae Armoricanae. Grannona, we have assumed, since it is part of the litus Saxonicum, may have an earlier origin than the rest of the forts in the command: the posting there of the only troop unit of an older style in the area confirms this belief. As a cohors, the garrison of Grannona must have been at the fort since the latter years of the third century at least, since only in unchanged postings of the old style would such aunit as a cohort have been maintained. A change of posting would have meant a change of organisation. 43 Jones also considered the chapter to be late. He noted that it is one of only two commands which are not included in the chapter of the magister peditum44 and attributed the mistake to the fact that the scribe who was including the new command failed to insert it in all the places he should have done.

This is, however, explained by White and Nesseihauf by means of the

assumption that the Gallic command had ceased to operate by the date that the magister peditum chapter was written. This Nesseihaul dated to 4j7_9,45 but White shows on Nesselhauf's own arguments that it dates possibly to 424. 4 6 There was some military activity, however, at Saintes on the Armorican coastline as late as the mid fifth century.

84

Sidonius Apollinaris wrote urging

0

-

Köln

Marcae

Grann$iia

AQULtAN iCA I

'

I II

• Forts on Extent of)?

-

Litus

Saxonicum

• Forts of Tractus Armoricanus Provincial

Nervicanus

Boundaries

(approx)

Limes

400 Km

FIG. 1.

The commands of the comes litoris Saxonici and the dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani limitis.

caution to his friend Namatius, who was posted there on guard against Saxon raiders, about whose savagery Sidonius had heard terrible tales. 47 The evidence for the foundation date of this command presents an ambiguity at least in part caused by the disagreement among scholars as to what sort of evidence is admissible to show the date of its inception. Omission from the list of commands under the magister peditum may have been occasioned as much by the fact that the tractus Armoricanus lay behind the frontier and was therefore not strictly a frontier command, as by its being a new command and therefore accidentally missed off the list by a scribe. There is some slight evidence for its existence before 395: one of the forts under the command of the dux is Blabia (or Blavia), which Ausonius, in one of his poems, describes as 'militaris'. 48 This does not necessarily mean that the dux had been appointed by the date that this poem was written (C. 390), but it is sufficient indication that the tractus Armoricanus held forts with garrisons by then. We thus have a possible terminus ante quem of 390 for the term litus Saxonicum. 49 The other Gallic coastal command, that of the dux Belgicae Secundae, contains the fort of 'Marcis in litore Saxonico'. 50 There is even less evidence for dating the origins of this command than there is for that of the dux tractus Armoricani. Since it appears in the list of the magister peditum, it is earlier, if Jones is correct, than its neighbour. 51 At Marcae, the garrison is one of equites, which are also found on the litus Saxonicum at Branodunum and Gariannonum:

in Britain these garrisons probably date to the time of the

Tetrarchy 52 and that at Marcae may be dated similarly. Of the other two units under this command, there is no evidence elsewhere for the Classis Sambrica 53 of locus Quartensis sive Hornensis, and the garrison of Portus Epatiaci is a detachment of milites Nerviorum, under a tribunus.5 4 These Continental chapters are of little help in fixing the date of the litus Saxonicum for two reasons: first, we cannot fix precisely the date at which the commands themselves were instituted; and second, even if this were possible, we cannot be certain at what date the forts which were formerly part of the litus Saxonicum were added to Continental responsibility. Since the forts of the Saxon Shore head their respective chapters, it might be supposed that they formed an original part of the two continental commands, to which, by the time of the Notitia lists, they belonged. But even if transferred at some later stage, forts once 'in litore Saxonico' might naturally have headed the Continental lists because their garrisons were units carrying a higher status than others in the same command. 55 At all events, however, the application of the name 'litus Saxonicum' to areas on both sides of the Channel shows that there may be a chronological sequence in the commands to which these forts belong. The most likely explanation is that the former large command of the litus Saxonicum which included both Grannona and Marcae was at some date split up so that the Gallic sections were assigned to the Continental duces. The Notitia shows, however, that the litus Saxonicum did not break up immediately upon the transfer of these Continental holdings, and we cannot assume that the most likely date for this transfer is the moment when Britain was lost by the Romans. The comes litoris Saxonici in the Notitia holds his command 'per Britannias'; at some date it had been wider, but it was still an effective command though now confined to the island.

86

At the same time, it is scarcely

reasonable to suppose that the original litus Saxonicum was a completely British command, and that the forts in Gaul called by that name merely reflect the defensive system opposite which they lie. The Galle forts are 'in litore', not 'contra litus'; they had therefore once formed part of the same command. The very word 'litus' used in the singular for two shores on different sides of the Channel shows also that both sides at one time had been viewed singly. Each of the Continental commanders held only a single fort of the Saxon Shore command. 56 This would present problems if the two Continental commands were not contemporary creations, for the prestigious position of the Saxon Shore forts perhaps shows them to have formed an original part of the newly-formed Continental arrangements. But the forts must have been handed over to their Continental officers simultaneously, since it is unlikely that the comes litoris Saxonici would cede separate portions of his Continental territory at different times, and since the retention of the older style of troops in Grannona suggests that it, at least, was not unoccupied for any length of time. 57

The loss of this territory from the Count's command is

surely a matter of policy. He could hardly hand Grannona over to the dux tractus Armoricani while keeping Marcae and the rest of his Continental holdings. The organisation of the Gallic commands is likely therefore to be the result of a single policy, despite the evidence afforded by the omission of the dux tractus Armoricani from the Notitia list of the magister peditum, and despite the different style of the appointment of the princeps on the staff of the dux Belgicae Secundae; 58 though this still gives us no indication of the date at which they were instituted. Originally the litus Saxonicum designated those areas of Gaul and Britain menaced by Saxons. The introduction of the term must belong to a period which recognised the habitual raiders as Saxons and saw the coastal shore command on both sides of the Channel as a single unit: how else the term can have originated.

it is difficult to see

From Carausius onwards, and prob-

ably even before, the defence of the British shores had been based on Boulogne 59 and Dover with the classis Britannica; the troops stationed at Reculver and Richborough 60 from the late third century onwards may have been calling their posting the litus Saxonicum as early as this, before it was finally crystallised into official military parlance by the creation of a comes as C -in-C. of the system. But the silence of the panegyrics about Saxons possibly shows that the name was not yet officially current in c. 300. .

The comes litoris Saxonici The post of comes litoris Saxonici has been recognised as an anomalous one. 61 it is probably an upgraded ducal command (see p. 6). The office of comes in general is a development of Constantine 62 and the mobile comites rei militaris (to deal with emergencies) first appear under his sons 63 The holder of such an office would naturally be in charge of comitatenses, who .

formed the field army, and yet, in the Notitia, the comes litoris Saxonici is in charge only of limitanei. No other comes appears to be in a similar position: the comitatenses in Britain are under the charge of the comes Britann1arum 64 and in a near-parallel situation those comites in Africa who are in charge of limites seem also to have sole charge of the comitatenses of the 87

province they are in.

This curtailment of the forces of the comes litoris

65

Saxonici strongly suggests that originally he held a wider command 66 and it would be more fitting for the status of comes for it to be over an area which included portions of Britannia, Gallia and perhaps Germania; 67

for these all

seem to have been included in the original extent of the litus Saxonicum.

A

frontier command of such importance and spanning such a diverse area would require both limitanei and cornitatenses, ready for campaigns wherever they were needed at short notice, and might well have needed a man of more than ducal status to handle it. The office of comes, therefore, is most likely to have been introduced at the time when the litus Sa.xonicum still spanned both sides of the Channel. His chapter of the Notitia betrays signs that it had been revised down to 395, at which date appointments to the command were still being made, since the appointment of the princeps, the chief of staff, has been demonstrably made in accordance with a new ruling made in or around that year. command was divided, as we have seen from Ausonius:

68

But by now, the

the office of comes

had therefore been created earlier. Now an article by Martin 69 attempts to show that if there was a comes in Britain in the fourth century, he was the precursor, not of the comes litoris Saxonici, but of the comes Britanniae.

Martin dates the creation of the post

of comes litoris Saxonici to 395 (or possibly 398), since he sees it as impossible that the position could have been downgraded, and he therefore argues that it must have originated in the form which it takes in the Notitia.

We need

briefly to examine the question of the comes Britanniae and the text of Ammianus, from which Martin draws these conclusions. Ammianus' account of the events of 367 is the particular passage which is here of relevance

Martin argues that the two generals there mentioned

are the only two military commanders in Britain at this time:

'nuntio percel-

litur gravi, qui Britannias indicabat barbarica conspiratione ad ultimam vexatas inopiam, Nectaridumque comitem maritimi tractus occisum, et Fullofauden ducem hostilibus insidiis circumventum':

'A serious report ar-

rived indicating that the British provinces were in severe difficulties because of a conspiracy of barbarians.

Nectaridus, the comes maritimi tractus had

been killed, and Fullofaudes, dux, had been captured in an enemy ambush.' (xxvii.8.1).

After this setback, the first to be sent to attempt to remedy the

situation were Severus, 'etiam turn domesticorum comitem':

'then still

comes domesticorum', and Jovinus, who returned to say that a large army was needed.

Comitatenses must have existed in Britain, since to all appear-

ances Severus and Jovinus did not take many troops with them;

but there

were insufficient in the island to provide adequate defence and resources for a sustained campaign.

Theodosius was appointed and within a year restored

some semblance of order.

Responsibility was now given to Civilis, who was

to rule Britain 'pro praefectis'

-

as vicarius

-

and to Dulcitius, who was to

be the new army commander 'ducem scientia rei militaris insignem'.

71

Martin argues that the two officers who succumbed in 367 were those in charge of military affairs in the north and west of Britain, since Ammianus records only that the Picti, Attacotti and Scotti were attacking Britain. 72 The Franci and Saxones, who are also mentioned, were harassing the

88

'Gallicanos tractus', usually interpreted as the Gallic coastline opposite Britain. 73 But in the context, this is a strange interpretation: Ammianus is talking about Britain and the barbarica conspiratio which has there broken out. If events have so conspired as to make the barbarian attacks seem like a concerted effort, it is strange that the seemingly irrelevant aside, that some of the barbarians were in fact attacking Gaul, is inserted. It is clear from the campaign of Theodosius that Britain was the main object of the raiders, since he did not halt on the Gallic coastline to deal with the menace there, but made straight for Richborough and London, which was in the hands of the enemy. The south-east was evidently under attack, however we are to interpret 'Gallicanos tractus' .74 But Martin, assuming that the south-east was not threatened, shows that the dux Fullofaudes is most likely to be the holder of the post of dux Britanniarum, whose command would include the Wall in the north. The 'comes maritimi tractus' is more difficult to place: Martin argues that since, in his view, the Saxons were not a threat to Britain, the 'maritimus tractus' must lie elsewhere, and be the western flank of the island vulnerable to raiders from Ireland. 75 This comes cannot be identical with the comes litoris Saxonici because 'tractus' does not mean the same as 'litus'.

Nor does it imply a

'fixed defensive system'; and 'it is obvious that Ammianus, writing c. A.D. 390, does not refer to the litus Saxonicum either because it did not exist then or it was so new a term that he was not cognizant of it. Certainly the term did not exist in A.D. 367, otherwise it would have been well known to Ammianus. t76 To argue that what Ammianus did not mention cannot have existed is clearly dangerous. Ammianus is notorious for not using technical terms, and 'comes maritimi tractus', despite its use of the word 'tractus' incidentally one of Ammianus' favourites for describing the areas menaced by the -

Saxons 77

-

seems an obvious periphrasis for comes litoris Saxonici. 78 If we

need to explain why Ammianus did not use the term, it is equally possible that he failed to use it because by the time he wrote, the command was beginning to break up. The latest view of the date of composition of these books of Ammianus is 390-395. 79 By this date, as we have seen, the Continental coastal commands were probably in operation, and it may be that the litus Saxonicum system was almost a thing of the past: coastal defence in Britain continued, but the claim of Magnus Maximus to imperial power had deprived Britain of much of its garrison. By 401, when more troops were withdrawn from the island by Stilicho, the litus Saxonicum must have been severely weakened, and can hardly have existed long after that date. 8° Clearly Martin, in dating the inception of the command of the litus Saxonicum to 395, is giving the appointment less importance than it deserves. In his account of 367, Ammianus' 'comes maritimi tractus' is therefore most likely to have been the comes litoris Saxonici.

The chapter of the

distributio in the Notitia is recognised as one of the latest chapters of the whole work, and though by the time of writing Britain must have been lost, it shows the comes Britanniarum with a very small arniy; 81 in his own chapter he appears to have the whole of Britain in his charge. 82

It seems a far

more likely interpretation either that this comes Britanniarum was a late post,

89

replacing that of the comes litoris Saxonici whose position was curtailed by the continual withdrawal of troops, or (possibly) that they are both earlier creations, and originally shared control of the field army in Britain. Ammianus implies, but does not state, that there were only two military commanders in Britain in 367: if there was no comes Britanniarum, then any field troops in the island would naturally belong to the army of the comes who was posted there, the comes litoris Saxonici. By the time of the distributio chapter, this post was obsolete, and had been superseded by that of the comes Britanniae, who may have had to attempt, with his field army, to garrison the frontier posts of the former dux Britanniarum and the comes litoris Saxonici. If Nectaridus, then, was 'comes litoris Saxonici', was the command by then divided? A strong clue is given by the reference to 'Gàllicanos tractus'. 83 The two occurrences of 'tractus' in the same passage may be significant. Ammianus' insistence on the word perhaps signifies a date when the 'tractus Armoricanus' was a better known and used phrase, but the fact that he records a 'comes' in that region shows possibly that he is recording a time when the comes litoris Saxonici was active there. If this comes was responsible not only for the British Saxon Shore, but also for the Gallic one, then Saxon attack on the Gallicanos tractus in 367 would understandably be a two-fold attack on Britain: if there were only two army commanders in the island and its environs, this attack would stretch the resources to the full. Another passage of Ammianus is here relevant.

Another comes, Nannenus,

stemmed a tide of Saxon invasion in 370. The text runs: 'Enipit Augustis ter consulibus Saxonum multitudo, et Oceani difficultatibus permeatis, Romanum limitem gradu petebat intento, saepe nostrorum funeribus pasta: cuius eruptionis primae procellam Nannenus sustinuit comes2 regionibus eisdem appositus dum diuturno bellorum labore compertus': 'In the year when the emperors were consuls for the third time, a vast horde of Saxons burst upon the empire, crossing the Ocean and all its difficulties, and set their sights on the Roman frontier, hungry for our blood as they had been many times in the past.

A comes, Nannenus, checked the first storm of this eruption: he

was appointed to that area, with a long experience of heavy fighting. 84 Here we have Saxons met by a 'comes' 85 as they advance, after crossing the sea, towards the limes. The limes is surely that of the litus Saxonicum, 86 for it is difficult otherwise to relate the details Ammianus gives with the topography of the northern part of Gaul. Nannenus realises that he has not enough troops to meet the emergency, and sends for Severus, who arrives, seemingly without crossing the sea, and negotiates with the Saxons, who conclude a peace treaty. But just as they reach the Rhine frontier on their way home he ambushes and massacres them. 87 Clearly the comes who met the initial onslaught was in Gaul: if Ammianus' term is to be trusted" he was possibly the magister equitum Galliarum, 89 who was, like his counterpart, the magister equitum praesentalis,9 0 of comitival status.

But it is not at all certain that such a

post yet existed: in 367, when Britain was in trouble, the first reinforcement to the island was brought by Severus, who was then 'comes domesticorum'. Jovinus, sometimes referred to as the magister equitum per Gallias,

91

was

not sent (even at the time of the British crisis) until later to attempt to remedy the situation. Theodosius is usually seen as a comes rei militaris on a specific mission, a kind of appointment which had been made to meet cases of extreme

90

urgency earlier in the fourth century.

92

It has been argued that the splitting

of the command of the comes litoris Saxonici may have meant the creation of at least one of the two ducal commands on the Continental coast.

In this

passage of Ammianus, the Saxons who presumably came by sea should have been met by the dux of the region in which they landed, if the Continental commands were already in operation.

But they were met by a comes, and

if it is assumed that he was in command of the Saxon frontier, this can surely have been none other than the comes litoris Saxonici, still at this time exercising his authority over the Gallic coastline, and forming the first defence against Saxon raiders. The break-up of the Saxon Shore into its British and Gallic parts can be dated therefore to some time between 370 and 395, when the Notitia was written down and could already include the two Continental duces, each with his fort 'in litore Saxonico'.

Perhaps the most likely time for the command to have

thus split is as a result of the usurpation of Magnus Maximus in 383-8, when he severely weakened parts of the garrison of Britain by taking troops abroad to fight for his cause.

93

The loss of security in Britain would have an effect

on Gaul, too, and might necessitate some strengthening of what was now becoming increasingly a frontier area.

94

The evidence for this split in the litus Saxonicum is admittedly meagre. Several points are assumptions, and can only be so.

Ihave suggested that

the litus Saxonicum carries the earlier of the two British comitival appointments, and that its commander, as comes, was possibly originally the only man in Britain in charge of comitatenses, as well as a series of defences specifically turned towards the Saxon menace in the east.

As a mobile comes,

this gave him control over lowland Britain and the faculty for defence against threats from east or west- 95

The creation of the Continental commands may

have been a response to the threat posed by the break-up of the British defences, at the end of the fourth century. earlier:

It could, however, have been

it is as well to remember that the tractus Armoricanus also has,

as its sub-title, the expression Nervicanus limes.

96

If it and the litus

Saxonicum were in existence at the same time, this would fit well with the conception of the litus Saxonicum as a command spanning both sides of the Channel.

The dux tractus Armoricani may well have held the area behind

the coastline of Gallia Belgica (the road from Ktfln to Bavai) 97 and the stretch of Armorican coastline not so directly threatened by Saxon pirates who would be kept at bay by a limes system working in the actual Channel straits. 98 The comes litoris Saxonici, on the other hand, would originally have held not only the forts in Britain, but the coastline of Gaul from the Rhine mouth to the Seine, including not only Boulogne, but also the 'Saxon Shore' forts of Grannona and Marcae. 99

A later stage of development was necessary, prob-

ably after the loss of Britain, when the Saxon Shore command per Britannias was no longer effective.

With the loss of the British forts, any attempt to

blockade the Dover Straits would be impossible:

the creation of a new com-

mand was seen as the answer to the problem (Fig. 2):

the dux Belgicae

Secnndae took control of the area formerly under the comes litoris Saxonici, including at least one of his former forts.

Since Grannona lay outside

Belgica Secunda, it was naturally included in the area of the dux tractus Armoricani

If it is necessary to explain the omission of the command

91

?Portus Adurni

Marcac

Grationa1CA 4

II

CA

LUG. U

LU

-

'-UGDUN ENSjS

III

/I'

ft

4 3

AQU I1ANICA I

II

•

Litus

Saxonicum

•

Tractus

Armoricanus

A

Bclgica

Secunda

Provincial

Boundaries

C)

FIG. 2

The three Notitia commands on the Channel coast-lines.

400

Km

of this dux from the list of frontier commands under the magister peditum 101 perhaps the simplest solutioii is that it was never strictly a frontier command. In both phases, the tractus Armoricanus lies behind the litus behind the sphere of operations in Belgica Secunda. The

Date

of the

Saxonicum and

Command

If the comes litoris Saxonici existed in 367, as has been suggested is the most likely interpretation of the passage of Ammianus dealing with the events of that year, then the first appointment of a comes is likely to have been under Constantine or his sons, during whose reign the rank of comes was first established.

The forts of the Saxon Shore had been maimed since the time of

the Tetrarchy, and in some cases before, and presumably there had been a commander, perhaps a dux, with a similar commission to that of Carausius, appointed to be in charge of the defensive system from that date.

That this

system was first called the 'litus Sxonicum' through local familiarity, and that a transference of the name 'Saxonicum' into the military vocabulary was only effected at the period when the dux or comes was appointed, has been suggested above:

it was the establishment of the post of frontier commander

and the consequent transference of the name Saxones into the records which brought the term to the notice of later historians. 102 The earlier years of the fourth century are usually considered to have been years of peace and prosperity in Britain, an impression strengthened by quotations from Zosimus 103 and Julian 104 which portray Britain as secure and untroubled.

But there is some indication that this was not so:

there is a

recorded insthnce of Gratian being sent to Britain at some time before 350 as 'comes', presumably to sort out some particular difficulty. 105

Constans,

too, visited Britain personally for some reason which was described in a lost book of Ammianus, who explains 'et quoniam cum Constantis principis actus componerem, motus adulescentis et senescentis oceani, situmque Britanniae, pro captu virium explanavi, ad ea quae digesta sunt semel, revolvi superfluum duxi

..

.

.':

'since when Iwas recording the deeds of Constans Iexplained the

ebb and flow of the Ocean and the situation of Britain, I considered it unnecessary to return to what Ihave already said once.. In describing this 'ebb and flow' of the Ocean, perhaps Ammianus was also describing the working of the defensive system round the south-east coast of Britain which Constans may have invested with new importance through the appointment of a new officer with the rank of comes. That Britain was under continual harassment at this period need not be doubted, for it is absurd to suppose that though the Rhine frontier was being attacked at this time 107 the British shores stayed unmolested, and the island's comparative peacefulness (if it is a true picture) can only have been maintained by the continual effectiveness of the frontiers. portant were two:

Of these, the most im-

not only Hadrian's Wall under the control of the dux Britan-

niarum in the North, but also the limes shared in part with Gaul, which commanded an impressive series of comparatively new defences in the southeast under its comes, standing guard against the approach of the Saxon, 'omni hoste truculentiort.

108

Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments, 23 Savile Row, LONDON, W.1. 93

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.

All references to the Notitia Dignitatum are to the edition of 0. Seeck (Berlin, 1876).

2. 3.

0cc. XXVIII, XXXVII and XXXVIII. General consideration of the date and purpose of the Notitia will not be made here.

The subject has been widely discussed, notably and most

recently in Jones, Later Roman empire, III, Appendix 2, where the author comes to the conclusions that the document is an official list of civil and military postings, prepared in both halves of the empire in or around the year 395, and that the copy which survives is that originally belonging to the western half of the empire.

Even though this summary

is accepted by most scholars in broad outline, there is still much uncertainty over the exact dating of individual elements within the Notitia (see J. H. Ward, Britannia 4 (1973), 253 ff. for one interpretation of the 'card-index' system on which the document as it now stands may have been compiled).

Some scholars have denied that the list is in fact an

official compilation on the grounds that it contains many inconsistencies unacceptable in a working document prepared for governmental use (E. Birley, Transactions of the Cumberland and Westmorland Antiquarian and Archaeological Society, n.s., 39(1939), 210 ff., followed by S. S. Frere, Britannia (London, 1967), 229; 27 (1968), 96 ff., especially n. 3 on

p.

see also I. G. Maier, Latomus 97).

Ido not consider it impos-

sible that there should be inconsistencies in an official document, though, if the document is not an official one, and compiled by 'an interested clerk', much of my argument rests on somewhat more tenuous grounds. 4.

Thus Hoffmann, Bewegungsheer.

In I, 190 he dates the inception of the

tractus Armoricanus to the time of the Tetrarchy because he claims that troop units stationed on the Armorican coastline were Diocletianic in origin.

The original method of attempting to separate the chronological

strands was developed by H. Nesseihauf in Die sptrtimische Verwaltung der gallisch-germanischen Lander (Berlin, 1938). 5.

Tiles bearing the stamp CIB have been found during recent excavations and there exists an inscription (JRS 51(1961), 221) which attests the fort's construction under

Q. Aradius Rufinus in the 230s. On the de-

velopment of coastal defences in the third and later centuries, see B. W. Cunliffe, 'The British fleet', in Cunliffe (ed.), Fifth report on the excavations of the Roman fort at Richborough, Kent (1968), 255 ff. 6.

J. N. L. Myres andB. Green, The Anglo-Saxon cemeteries of Caistor-by-Norwich and Markshall, Norfolk (1973), 44-5.

7.

D. A. White, Litus Saxonicum (Madison, Wisconsin, 1961), 73 ff. J. N. L. Myres (Anglo-Saxon pottery and the settlement of England

94

(Oxford, 1969), 67) supposes that the case for a distribution of this kind of pottery significantly related to the eastern coastal defences is strengthened by its discovery mainly in the eastern parts of Britain. At first sight, this seems reasonable, but it remains to be shown that finds of pottery do presuppose a Germanic element of settlement in the area, and that this element is specifically a 'Saxon' one. eh. 5, passim.

See Myres, op.cit.,

On Romano-Saxon pottery, see Frere, Britannia, 348-9

and his review of White in Medieval Archaeology 6-7 (1962-3), 351-2. 8.

S. C. Hawkes and G. C. Dunning in Medieval Archaeology 5 (1961), 1ff. For later distribution maps see Birmingham and Warwickshire Archaeological Society, Transactions, 85 (1971-1973), 149 and Britannia 5 (1974), 391-2.

9.

For example, the Batavians, Tacitus, Hist. i.6;

on the presence of

these troops in Britain see M. W. C. Hassall, Britannia 1(1970), 131 ff. 10.

On the unscrupulousness and immorality of Rome's dealings with the Saxons see Amm. Marc. xxviii .5.1, and the following events, together with Ammianus' comment (xxviii.5.7), which seeks to justify the action. In general, on Roman dealings with barbarians in an earlier period, see A. Alfiildi,

'The moral barrier on Rhine and Danube' in E. Birley (ed.),

The congress of Roman frontier studies 1949 (Durham, 1952), 1ff.

The

fear of the Saxons' approach is well illustrated in several places, e.g. Amm. Marc. xxviii .2.12;

for their brutal treatment of prisoners, cf.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.5 and Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. viii.6.13-15. 11.

White, !.cit. (n. 7), 77-8 on the confusion of terminology between Franci and Saxones.

Allectus used Franci as mercenaries, who after

his defeat reverted to their former plundering habits and were only just prevented from turning on London by the timely arrival of Constantius (Pan. Lat. viii (v).16).

White suggests that within the scope of the

term Franci the Panegyrist included Frisii and Chamavi, the former of which he classes as Saxon.

But even so, the employment of mercenaries

under Allectus does not show that there was settlement;

and after the

events of 296, the Roman authorities must have had second thoughts about the advisability of employing such mercenaries in future. of Saxones is mentioned in the Notitia:

Only one unit

this is at Or. XXXII.37, the

ala prima Saxonum at Verofabula in the command of the dux Foenicis. U.

Eutropius ix.21;

on the date of Europius' writings see RE VI, col. 1521ff.

The Breviarium goes down to the death of Jovian in 364, and was already being translated into Greek by 380.

The earliest mention of Saxons seems

to occur in Ptolemy, writing c. A.D. 200;

but this is merely in his

description of the various Germanic tribes, and has no direct connection with the raiders who at some later time began to threaten the eastern British coast. 13.

Information from Mr. W. J. Rodwell, prior to publication of the details of burnt structures and debris from Wickford and other Essex sites. See further Britannia 1 (1970), 242 for a pit filled with debris from a building burnt at Wickford at this date;

other similar evidence for

destruction at the same time has been found all over this part of Essex.

95

Another site which may have been affected in this way was Bitterne, where a group of samian bowls of similar date burnt severely in a fire has been recognised.

(I am indebted to Mrs. V. Swan for this last

piece of information). 14.

Amm. Marc. xxvi.4.5.

15.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.5.

16.

Amm. Marc. xxviii .2.12; Stilichonis ii.254-5;

xxviii .5. 1;

xxx.7.8.

in Eutropium i.392.

Claudian, de Consulatu

Sidonius Apollinaris, Kp.viii.

6.14. 17.

White was forced to postulate that the system of defences which, he held, were originally used against the forces of Rome by Carausius were reused later to meet the threat of Saxon invasions;

.cit., (n. 7), 50.

On this, see Frere, reviewing White's book, in Medieval Archaeology 6-7 (1962-3), 350-2. 18.

This seems to be so.

There is no ancient evidence for the term limes

Sarmatiae being used in the Roman period, though it has been applied to the system of banks and ditches which stretch out from the Danube into the Tisza basin (see S. Soproni in Archaeologiai Ertesi to 96 (1969), '

N

(

43 ff.).

The only evidence comes from Claudian, carmina minora xxv.

88, who mentions the Sarmaticae ripae, 'the Danube frontier', and this may only be a poetic periphrasis. 19.

That the litus Saxonicum is a limes is stated specifically in the Notitia, where the comes litoris Saxonici is included in the list of the comites limitum infrascriptorum (0cc. V.125-132).

20.

The command of the dux Britanniarum is 0cc. XL.

21.

Occ.XXVffl.

22.

Ann Dornier, 'Was there a coastal limes in western Britain in the fourth century?' in S. Applebaum (ed.), Roman frontier studies 1967 (Tel Aviv, 1971), 14-20.

23.

J. C. Mann, Antiquity 35 (1961), 316-20 points out that the comes litoris Saxonici holds his command per Britannias (0cc. V.132):

the fact that

the chapter heading (0cc. XXVIII.1 and 12) describes him as per Britanniam shows the inconsistency of the Notitia as regards singular and plural names of provinces.

Similar examples are afforded by Hispaniae.

In 0cc. 1.27 mention is made of the vicarius Hispaniarum:

the heading

of his chapter describes him as vicarius Hispaniae (0cc. =. 1), but in line 6 of that same chapter, Hispaniae is again in the plural.

The occur-

rences of the British names are as follows (all references are to the western part of the Notitia): vicarius Britanniarum (only plural): comes Britanniae: Britanniarum:

1.35;

1. 29;

XXIII. 1 and 8.

XXIX.1 (? and 5, Provincia Britannia); V.131;

1/11.153;

VII.199;

comes litoris Saxonici per Britanniam: litoris Saxonici per Britannias:

1.36;

96

XXIX.4.

XXVJII.1 and 12;

V. 132.

comes comes

The fact that three of the four officials have entries which occur in the singular as well as in the plural has been taken to have a chronological significance, with the singular use referring to a time when the island was once again without provinces

-

that is, after 410.

But here too

little account is perhaps taken of scribal errors in the Notitia text (see also n. 56):

a scribe might easily write singular for plural or vice

versa, especially if he was sufficiently conversant with Latin to know for example the name of Britain but not the number of the British provinces. 24.

Forts in Gaul:

Marcis, 0cc. XXXVIII.7;

25.

Eutropius ix.21.

26.

Aurelius Victor xxxix.20.

27.

Pan. Lat. viii (v) .17.1.

and Grannona, 0cc. XXXVII.14.

Ptolemy (n. 15 above) had already mentioned

Saxons, but not in a context implying they were hostile. 28. 29.

Seen. 24. The name is used in Caesar, B.G. v.53.6, vii.75.4 and viii.31 .4 for the whole Gallic coastline between the Loire and the Seine. to Pliny (N.H. iv.105),

30.

According

Aquitanica was formerly called Aremorica.

See further on this title n. 39.

We learn from 0cc. XXXVH .24 that

a fuller title was dux tractus Armoricani et Nervicani limitis. 31.

0cc. XXXVIII. 7.

32.

Eutropius ix.21.

33.

Hoffmann, Bewegungsheer, I, 190.

34.

0cc.

35.

0cc. XXXVII.19.

36.

XXXVII.20.

Though never stated as a principle, this tenet is tacitly assumed by many in the study of the Notitia. by D. van Berchem,

The contrary view is, however, put

'On some chapters of the Notitia Dignitatum relating

to the defence of Gaul and Britain', American Journal of Philology 76 (1955), 139:

'It would be a mistake to believe that the field army, cre-

ated at the expense of the frontier army, never in return reinforced the latter or filled its gaps.'

If, as seems often to be assumed, the frontier

posts were stripped of their troops before the distributio chapter (0cc. VII) was written, so that many former frontier units listed there appear to have been upgraded, who was guarding the frontier at the time? 37.

C. E. Stevens,

'The British sections of the Notitia Dignitatum', Archaeo-

logical Journal 97 (1940), 125 ff. 38.

On the so-called limes Belgicus, see J. Mertens and C. Leva in Mlanges d'archologie et d'histoire offerts 1063 ff.

Andre Piganiol, II (1966),

For fuller bibliography, H. von Petrikovits, Das rtimische

Rheinland (1960), 83, n. 148.

97

39.

The problems of this command are even more difficult than they seem at first sight, for the tractüs Armoricanus, if it runs from the Seine to the Garonne, seems to have very little to do with the road which ought to be the area of the limes Nervicanus (see Fig. 1).

Possibly originally

the dux tractus Armoricani controlled both the tractus and the series of posting stations in Gallia Belgica along this road. 40.

There is no evidence that the Nervii had moved.

See further

p.

91.

Bavai, formerly their

capital, was transformed in the late third century into a small, heavily defended fort-like area, enclosing only the forum of the former town and some 4 hectares.

There seems to be some evidence from recent

excavations that life continued there in the fourth century outside the walls, but there is no mention of the tribe in the later period.

A troop

of milites Nerviorum was stationed at Portus Epatiacus under the dux Belgicae Secundae, which might have been a local posting, but there is no civitas Nerviorum mentioned in the Notitia Galliarum in Belgica Secunda.

It seems, however, that Camaracum (Cambrai) for some

reason was now transformed into the capital of the Nervii, possibly because Bavai itself was now in use as a fort. Antiquitd classique 21(1952), 338 ff. 41. 42.

See G. Faide r-F eytmans,

cit. (n. 36), 138. Like that of the dux Mogontiacensis (0cc. XLI).

This chapter is recog-

nised by Jones (Later Roman empire, III, 354-5) to be late, both because of the troops with milites names, and because he considers that it replaces a lost chapter of the dux Germaniae Primae. 43.

Van Berchem,op-cit. (n. 36), 145-6, who recognises that units such as alae and cohortes must have been established in their positions under the Tetrarchy and not moved since.

m,

44.

Jones, Later Roman empire, explanation).

354 (see

45.

Nesseihauf, 22.cit. (n. 4), 37-48.

46.

White,

47.

Sidonius Apollinaris, jjj?•

48.

Ausonius, jjp.

49.

It must be stressed that this is only a terminus ante quem, and that the

p.

93

for an alternative

.cit. (n. 7), 67. viii. 6.13-15.

vi. 16, to Paulus.

actual term may have been in use for a long time before that date.

The

fact that it has been preserved in a military manual, and the fact that the command was already so prestigious that forts still preserved their link with the command although they had been transferred to others (as Grannona and Marcae did) both show that the name was already well established by the time of the transfer.

xxxvin .7.

50.

0cc.

51.

Jones, Later Roman empire, III, 354.

Though he nowhere dates this

chapter, he implies that it is earlier than that of the dux tractus Armoricani, by calling that one late.

See, however, White, 2P. Lit.

(n. 7), 65-6, apparently reversing this chronology. 98

But see also n. 68.

52. 53.

Jones, Later Roman empire, II, 602 ff. Occ

XXXVIII. 8.

Tile stamps reading C LSAM have been found at

Etaples, and possibly show the presence at some period of a classis Samarica, which could be the correct reading of the Notitia. (White, op-c i t. (n. 7), 58.) 54.

OCC.XXXVTIJ.9.

55.

On the retention of the older-style garrisons of cohortes and alae, see n. 43.

56.

The fact that the caption to each fort's pictura, on the page opposite the text of the relevant chapter, reads 'litus Saxonicum' (or 'Saxoniciani') need not mean that all the forts in the command are part of the system. The scribes who drew the picturae in general seem to have called the fort they were drawing by the name which occurs at the end of the line of text which describes the fort.

Thus, where they did not understand

the names, there are some garbled versions (e.g. 0cc. XXXIII.5, 'Nuncinercisa', and XXXXVII .6, 'Corumosismis').

Thus since 'litus

Saxonicum' appears at the end of the relevant lines in both chapters, it was given in the title above the forts, partly no doubt for purposes of prestige. 57.

If the cohors prima nova Armoricana had moved since its original posting at Graanona under the Saxon Shore command, it might have been demoted to a mere unit of milites. See n. 43.

58.

See further n. 68.

59.

Eutropius ix.21.

60.

On the date of the transfer to Richborough, see G. C. Boon, Isca: the Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon, Mon. (3rd ed., Cardiff, 1972), 62 ff.

61.

S. S. Frere, Dritannia, 236.

62.

0. Seeck, 'comites', RE IV, especially col. 630 ff.

63.

If the appointment of Gratianus is seen as such, contrary to the opinion of Seeck, op.cit. (n. 62), col. 663-4, no. 77, the office existed before A.D. 350.

Otherwise, Seeck's examples (77b) are CTh VI.14.1 (in 372);

Amm. Marc. xxvii.1.2, at Cabillona; order' appointment, in 397). 64. 65.

0cc.

and CTh

VI. 14.2 (for a 'second

Vfl.153-156, and 199-205.

comes Africae, 0cc. XXV, and VII. 140-152 and 179-198;

comes

Tingitaniae, 0cc. XXVI, and VII. 135-139 and 206-209. 66.

67.

For a contrary view, and disbelief that he can thus have been downgraded, see Martin (.cit., n. 69), 417, n.1. This is more properly the realm of the dux Germaniae Secundae, though no official is mentioned as holding this post.

There is a serious gap in

the Notitia in the defences north of the junction of the Rhine and Moselle, which can hardly have been filled either by the dux Germaniae Primae or by the dux Mogontiacensis. 99

68.

T. Mommsen, Historische Schriften, I(= Gesammelte Schriften, IV) (Berlin, 1906), 552. Thishas abearing on the relative dates of the chapter of the dux Belgicae Secundae and that of the dux tractus Armoricani. The princeps of the dux Belgicae Secundae is appointed in the old style ex eodem corpore: that of the dux tractus Armoricani in the new.

Therefore, Nesseihauf argued that the office of the dux

Belgicae Secundae was extinct after 395 (in common with other commands which have the same appointment of princeps). He does not admit it as a difficulty that this dux, like all other duces, is called spectabilis, in accordance with the term's first occurrence in CTh 1.7.3, but assumes that all the lists must have been revised, and all the titles changed at some later date (p.cit. (n. 4) 43, n. 5). It is possible, however, that the appointment of the princeps to the staff of the dux Belgicae Secundae was in fact brought up to date; and this change was not recorded in his chapter, either as a result of careless copying or because the chapter had little or nothing else in it which needed changing in 395, and could therefore be left containing an anachronism. Moreover, the command, unlike that of the dux tractus Armoricani, does occur in the chapter of the magister peditum (0cc. V. 140), and this can be taken to mean that it was still in existence after that of the dux tractus Armoricani. Undoubtedly, one or more of the inconsistencies and mistakes in the Notitia are scribal oversights, and not deliberately recorded facts: it is unfortunate that we have no way of knowing which are the errors and which the correct details. 69.

K. M. Martin, 'A reassessment of the evidence for the comes Britanniarum in the fourth century', Latomus 28 (1969), 408 if.

70.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.1-8.

71.

As Martin points out (.Lt. (n. 69), 418, n. 5), Jovinus was probably replaced in the command because of lack of dynamism. Martin concludes that Ammianus here uses the term 'dux' while really meaning 'comes', "as he was accustomed to do". The position of Dulcitius, he supposes, was really that of comes rei militaris. But since the Ammianus passage is ambiguous, he might be 'dux' and appointed, despite Ammianus' use of the technical phrase 'rei militaris', to the vacant ducal position in the island, that of the dux Britanniarum.

72.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.5.

73.

For example, by J. C. Rolfe in the Loeb edition of Ammianus, Vol. 3, 53, n. 4.

74.

We should not be misled by the description of Richbo rough in Ammianus as 'stationem tranquillam' into thinking that the southern coast of Britain was not troubled at this time. 'Tranquillam' probably refers only to the sheltered nature of the harbour.

75.

He argues that anywhere in Britain might be called 'maritimus tractus', which is possibly true, but not helpful to his case. If Nectaridus was comes Britanniae, why did not Ammianus simply call him 'comes', instead of including a periphrasis so obviously meaning that he was

100

specifically responsible for some shore area in particular, and not the whole of Britain, 'inside which the comes Britanniae/Brjtanniarum cannot be closely tied down to any particular area? 76.

Martin, op.cit., (n. 69), 416ff.

77.

See, for example, xxvii.8.5;

78.

As noted by Frere, Britannia, 212.

79.

R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1968), chapters 3 and 4.

80.

Frere, Britannia, 360-3.

81.

Seen. 64.

82.

0cc. XXIX.5:

83.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.5.

84.

Amm. Marc. xxviii.5.1. The PLRE (!.v. Nannienus) says of this passage that Nannenus 'was perhaps comes tractus Armoricani, less

xxx.7.8.

'Provincia Britannia'.

probably comes litoris Saxonici or Britanniarum, as the Roman reinforcements are not said to have come by sea'.

There is no evidence

that there was ever a post with the title of comes tractus Armoricani. Later, a fact which reinforces the comitival status of Nannenus, he was a general on the upper Rhine, Ipari potestate' with Mallobaudes, the comes domesticorum (Amm. Marc. xxxi .10.6). 85.

The text has been emended to produce the word 'dux' in place of 'dum'; but 'comes' is a sound reading.

Ammianus' usage of such technical

terms is admittedly slack, but surely not so bad as would be suggested if Nannenus were not really of comitival status, since the word is possibly the most superfluous (yet given a highly accented position) in the sentence as we have it. 86.

For its status as a limes, see n. 19.

87.

An entry in Jerome's Chronicle for A.D. 373 (anno 2389) reads, 'Saxones caesi Deusone in regione Francorum'. in the region of Deutz:

This possibly means

see RE nA, s.v. Saxones, coil. 315-6.

88.

Seen. 71 and n. 85.

89.

0cc. VJI.63 and 166.

90.

0cc. VI. 41.

91.

By Martin, 2p.Lit. (n. 69), 418, with Amm. Marc. xxvii.2.1 as his source for the information.

92.

Cf. for example, Gratianus: not provided.

93.

See Frere, Britannia, 360 ff.

94.

Possibly the more frequent use of the word 'tractus' is here relevant.

Amm. Marc. xxx.7.3.

But a date is

First used by Eutropius in the 360s for the Armorican coastline, it

101

is used increasingly, and especially in Ammianus, for the frontier areas. This is clearly the period during which the tractus Armoricanus assumed a great importance. 95.

He was thus, in fact, the forerunner of the comes Britanniae.

96.

Cf. n. 39.

97.

Cf. the literature cited inn. 38.

98.

The development of this idea will be found in my own book, The Roman forts of the Saxon Shore (1976).

See also my paper, 'The frontier of

the Saxon shore', in the proceedings of the X. Internationaler Limeskongress (forthcoming). 99.

The tractus Armoricanus was probably extended a little to include that small part of Gallia Lugdunensis which lies north-east of the Seine mouth between the river and the border of Gallia Belgica.

This border

appears to have reached the Channel somewhere near Dieppe.

It is

in this area, possibly near Le Havre, that Grannona may be expected to lie.

At the same time, the dux tractus Armoricani will have lost

his control of the Nervicanus limes, of which the greater part lay in Belgica Secunda. 100.

Seen. 39.

101.

0cc. V.133-143.

102.

The date of the final abandonment of the command is not really within the scope of this paper.

Ifind it difficult to see the British section of

the litus Saxonicum being in any way effective after, at the latest, 410, since the whole chain of forts acts as a unitary limes, and if one is left unoccupied, the chain is broken.

On the limes system in the Channdl

and on the east coast, see The Roman forts of the Saxon Shore. Arguments such as that of J. H. Ward, 'The British sections of the Notitia Dignitatum:

an alternative interpretation', Britannia 4 (1973),

253ff., for the remanning of the Saxon shore forts at some date in the 420s, go well beyond the evidence which is available to us, and certainly do not follow from a mere study of the troops which constitute the Saxon shore garrisons (pp. 256-7).

Broadly, it seems that,

eventually, the litus Saxonicum command was suspended, and replaced by the smaller command of the comes Britanniarum: Britannia, 236-8. 103.

Zosimus iii.5.2.

104.

Julian, Ep. adAth. 280 A.

105.

Seen. 92.

106.

Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.4.

107.

Cf. the campaign of Nannenus, above

108.

Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. viii.6.14.

102

p.

90.

Frere,

BRITAIN IN THE NOTITIA by M. W. C. Hassall

A detailed examination of a single diocese of the Gallic prefecture as it appears in the pages of the Notitia might seem to be of relatively local interest. However, the British diocese can be regarded in some ways as typical of a frontier area of the empire and to appreciate its place in the late imperial bureaucracy is to know something about the workings of the late imperial bureaucratic machine as a whole. At the local level the survey needs no justification, for the Notitia is a prime source for Roman Britain in the fourth and early fifth centuries;

it is, however, a source that has, in the present writer's

opinion, sometimes been misused. This has stemmed from general misconceptions about the nature of the document; and a second function of this study will be to re-examine one or two basic assumptions that have been made about it. Finally, the attempt at the end of this paper to take another look at two of the units under the command of the duke of the Britains, along with some of the identifications of the garrison forts in his chapter, will be of use if only as a reminder that we know little about any specialist functions that his troops may have had and that the Latin place names on the Ordnance Survey maps of Roman Britain do not have the authority of Received Truth that they are sometimes accorded. It is to the general questions concerning the nature of the Notitia that Ishall turn first. 1.

The function of the Notitia

Work by students of Roman Britain on the Notitia places great emphasis on the notion of "returns" made by local army commanders to the primicerii notariorum. An extreme example of this is the recent study by Ward. I The doctrine implicit behind this article is that the Notitia troop lists were constantly being revised by the primicerii in the light of fresh status reports sent in by local army commanders even during the fluid conditions of a single -

campaign

-

and that the anomalies in the troop lists can be explained by this

method of procedure for compiling the Notitia lists. Of course there is good evidence for actual status reports, both daily records of individual units, monthly summaries and the, perhaps yearly, pridiana. 2 Hunt's pridianum, moreover, is probably a composite document based on the pridiana of several units.3 It is just this sort of document that could have been compiled by the legate at provincial headquarters and forwarded by him to his imperial superior.

But how frequently were such reports sent?; did the practice con-

tinue rigorously into the early fifth century?; how often would the primicerius have revised his lists?; and, above all, how often would this information have been incorporated into the Notitia? The answer to all these questions is that we do not know; and we still would not know even if we were justified in assuming with Ward, that there ought to be no "glaring examples of incompetence

103

or sloth on the part of the Roman Chancery". This assumption is reminiscent of the plea of Professor E. Birley who, when arguing for the Notitia as an unofficial compilation, claimed that this theory would at least "allow us to suppose that there were rational men in the Roman Record Offices". 4 In fact it would be rash to adopt such optimistic attitudes towards Roman Chancery procedure as the case of Abinnaeus shows: "Their imperial majesties (Constantius and Constans) had appointed Abinnaeus to the command of the ala at Dionysias. But when he arrived at Alexandria and handed in the imperial letter of appointment, he was met with the information that other gentlemen had also arrived with similar letters of appointment to the same command a situation which, while it smacks of comic opera, was perhaps not uncommon in these times".5 ...

Yet if Abinnaeus' difficulties reveal the Chancery in an unfavourable light, we need not necessarily explain the anomalies and inconsistencies in the Notitia by mere incompetence. After all, what was the document for, was it really intended as an up-to-date status report on the condition and resources of the empire? It certainly was part of the duties of the primicerius to have at his finger-tips the relevant information for such a report, and the poet Claudian is explicit on this: Regnorum tractat numeros, constringit in unum/sparsas imperii vires cuneosque recenset/dispositos.6 But he had another function also, cunctorum tabulas adsignat honorum:7 that is to say he issued the codicils of appointment to imperial appointees to office. These codicils were presumably illuminated with the insignia that accompany the relevant sections of the Notitia, copied directly from the examplars provided in that document. If a post remained unfilled, its section in the Notitia, including the master copy of the insignia, naturally remained "on file". It is misleading to say that, at the date when the Western Notitia was compiled, certainly after 410, the inclusion of the British sections was anachronistic: for they were only "out-of-date" once the British diocese was officially renounced and this probably never actually happened. If Britain had been recovered and new appointments made, the lists of troops under the relevant commanders would, of course, have had to have been revised. While the diocese remained lost to Rome this could not be done, but it might still be useful to know what the old establishment had been for each command, while it is even possible that some of the old units, especially those under the command of the dux, actually remained on the island. 2.

The military and civil organization of the British diocese The individual sections of the Notitia devoted to each of the high civilian

officials or military commanders consist of three elements: the insignia of office (discussed above); a "statement" of the sphere of competence of the official concerned (often taking the form of, or including a list of, his hierarchical subordinates), introduced by the phrase sub dispositione followed by the title of the officer in the genitive; and finally a listing of some of the members of the immediate office staff attached to the post. The total of such minor officials has been estimated8 for the British diocese as approximately one thousand.

The listing of the hierarchical subordinates renders the

construction of a simple administrative chart of the British diocese a straight-

104

OFFI

OFF

DVX V.5.

OFF V.S. COMES LIT. SAX. CH.

COMES VS

BRITANNIARVM CR40

BRITANNIAE CH29

OFFIC IVM

OFFICIVM

V.'. MAGISTER EQVITVM CH.6

VI. MAGISTER RED ITVM CH.5

V. I. COMES RERVM PRIVATARVM CR12

ADI VTORE S V. S.

0 F

RATIONAL IS REl PRIVATAE PER. BRIT.

PRAE P0 SIT VS IHE SAVROR VM AVG VSTE NSIVM

A

PRIMIC ERl VS

A V C.

NOTARIORVM

V. COMES SACRARVM LARGITIONVM CR. II

V T.

CR. lb ADIVTORES

0 F F.

NVMERARIVS SCRI Nil

L

BRIT.

OFFICIVM

OFF IC IVM

/\

VARIOUS DEPTS.

RAT IONALIS SVMMARVM BRITANNIARVM

PROC VRATOR GYNAECEI (IN BRIT) VENTENSIS

V.1. PRA EFEC TVS PRAE TORIO PER GALLIAS CH.3

V. I. MAGISTER OFF ICIORVM CH.9

0 F F.

ANNONA/

AIR.

CAPITATIO

V.5. VICAR IVS BRITANNIARVM CH. 23 OFFICIVM

CVRIOSI OMNIVM PRO VINC

V. P. PRkSES FLAy. C OFF.

V.P PRkSES BRIT.0 OFF.

V. P. PRISES BRITI OFF.

V.C. COS. VAL OFF

V. C. COS. MAX. C. OFF.

P. Prfrceps c = Cbmmentar,'ns/s N Nurnerariüs Al. P. Agentes fr Pebus V I Vir /1/ustris V.5 Vir Spec tabi/is V. C.= Vfr-C'/ar/ss»nus VP= Vi Perfect/ss/mus COS = Consularis The princioes and commentar/ens/s in the off/c/a of Dux and Comes were appointed alternately each year from the off/c/a of the two Mag/str! Mi//turn. .

FIG. 3.

Administrative hierarchy of the British diocese.

forward matter (see Fig. 3).

The chart shows in diagrammatic form the

hierarchical relationship which those civil (financial and administrative) and military officers and officials who were actually stationed in the diocese bore to the centralized bureaucracy; this bureaucracy being personified by the two western financial comites, the two western magistri militum and the praetorian prefect of the Gauls. To take financial officials first: the representative of the count of the Res Privata, the rationalis, was primarily responsible for imperial property throughout the diocese. Such property will have accrued to the emperor partly through legacies and partly by confiscations. For the former category we have the direct statement of Tacitus that Prasutagus, king of the Iceni, left Nero co-heir in his will together with his own daughters. 9 For the latter we can assume that confiscations were made of property belonging to the adherents of the British usurpers from Clodius Albinus at the end of the second century to Magnentius and Magnus Maximus in the fourth. The supporters of Magnentius particularly seem to have suffered badly at the hands of the notary Paulus. 1-O The estates themselves, whether they came by way of legacy or confiscation, will in some cases have been administered directly by procuratorsil or other imperial agents, while in others they will have been leased out to tenants. Parallel to the department of the Res Privata was that of the Sacrae Largitiones. Subject to the count of this department were three officials stationed in the diocese: the procurator of the gynaeceum at Venta, variously located at Winchester or Caistor-by-Norwich, 12 the nature of whose operations is the subject of the paper in the present collection by John Wild; the praepositus of the diocesan treasury at the diocesan capital Augusta, London; 13 and the rationalis summarum Britanniarum who, operating at local level through tax collectors (some, but not all, of whom were drawn from the curial classes of the individual civitates), collected taxes and levies. It would be out of place to go into detail about these: but they included levies for clothing and recruits, both eventually commuted to payment in gold); a land tax; a surtax (collatio glebalis) on the property of senators, some of whom may actually have held estates in Britain;14 levies of gold, made on the accession of emperors and on each quinquennial anniversary, which were imposed on senators (au rum oblacticium) and the civitates (au rum coronarium); and a similar levy imposed on merchants and traders (collatio lustralis). To be connected with the levies of bullion by the count of the sacred largess, or rather with the distribution made to favoured officials and soldiers on imerial accessions and at quinquennial celebrations, are the finds of silver gots of fou rth-century date st udi ed recen tl y b y Kenneth Painter: 15 no less

L

n twenty-four of these have been found at various sites in the British Isles, one from the Tower of London even recalling the presence of the diocesan treasury in the city. The broken open-work gold cross-bow brooch from near Moffat, Dumfriesshire (Fig. 4), with its inscription commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the accession of Diocletian on 20th November, 303, no doubt also emanated, as an official gift, from this department, or the res summa as it was then called, perhaps being lost by an officer during Constantius Chiorus' campaigns against the Picts two years later. 16 Other gold

107

FIG. 4.

Gold cross-bow brooch, found near Moffat, Dumfriesshire. Approximately original size. restored.

Arms, terminals and pin

cross-bow brooches have been found at Caernarvon, 17 Odiham, Hants., 18 and, in fragmentary condition, at an unrecorded site in Montgomeryshire. 19 More important in the financial sphere than the count of either the Res Privata or the Sacrae Largitiones was the praetorian prefect of the Gauls, whose function as a financial official is not apparent from the Notitia, which lists only the provinces and dioceses under his command and his personal officium.

It does not, for example, mention the scrinia which dealt with the

finances of each diocese under their own numerarii or the tractatores who dealt with the accounts of individual provinces. 20 Finance came into the sphere of the prefect's duties because he was concerned with the supplying of the army and the civil service and was minister for (certain) public works and transport. For the up-keep of both of these latter ad hoc levies in kind were made and compulsory labour exacted (munera sordida). To provide the army and quasi-military civil service with ration and fodder allowances

108

(annonae and capita, from the Greek

wt'tóv

fodder), the provincials

had long been subject to requisitions of corn (the annona militaris).

By the

third century this had become a regular tax based on the amount of land and property held, including numbers of cattle and agricultural workers.

This

accounts for the fourth-century name of the tax, capitatio (a poll-tax from the Latin caput). In the course of the century the supply of foodstuffs was -

commuted to money payments. The details of the system are described by Jones, 21 to whom this survey, especially the financial section, owes so much. It is enough to say that the officials who made the collections were curiales. A rescript issued to Pacatianus, vicar of Britain in 319, by Constantine, 22 shows that at that date at any rate, the land-owning curial classes in Britain were responsible for the tax obligations of their own estates and those of their tenants, but did not underwrite the total amount to be collected from their own civitas. The praetorian prefect of the Gauls was the hierarchical superior of the vicarius of Britain who acted vice or as deputy to his chief. His subordinates, in turn, were the governors of the five provinces that formed his diocese: the consulares of Maxima Caesariensis and Valentia and the praesides of Flavia Caesariensis, Britannia Prima and Britannia Secunda. Valentia was the creation of Count Theodosius after the troubles of 367. Its precise location and capital have long been matters of dispute; but it can hardly have been anywhere but in the north of the diocese, where Theodosius' reorganization is most clearly attested, in particular by the newly-built signal stations on the northeast coast of Yorkshire. Its capital, as befitted the status of its governor, a consularis, must have been at York, the old York province Flavia Caesariensis becoming a rump perhaps centred on Carlisle.

It is possible

that the governor of Flavia had previously been a consularis but became a praeses after this administrative change. The arguments of John Mann 23 for the location of the other provinces and their capitals seem to me to be conclusive and there is no need to repeat them in detail here. In accordance with the principles of the Diocletianic system each of the two Severan provinces was in turn subdivided. Britannia Inferior, the Severan northern province, is known from an inscription from Bordeaux 24 to have included the two coloniae of York and Lincoln, and these naturally became the capitals of the new Flavia Caesariensis (as originally constituted) and Britannia Secunda respectively. Britannia Superior, the Severan southern province, was split to form Maxima Caesariensis (which, with its relatively high-ranking governor, a consularis, must have been based on London) and Britannia Prima, which is shown by an inscription from Cirencester25 to have had its capital in that city, after London the largest in the diocese.

The fourth-century date of this inscription, which records a

dedication by the praeses of Britannia Prima, Lucius Septimius, to Jupiter Optimus Maximus on the restoration of a monument erected "by the old religion" (prisca religione), has been doubted by A. R. Birley on the basis of the inclusion of a praenomen for the dedicator. 2 6 The objection, however, is hardly conclusive, 27 and the natural inference, as Haverfield, cited by RIB, long ago pointed out, is that the restoration took place during the reign of Julian. In this connection it may be worth noting that Alypius, the

109

vicarius of Britain on Julian's accession, was later an enthusiastic ally of the emperor in the attempt to restore paganism 28 Turning now to the military organization of the diocese, we find three subordinates of the western magister peditum stationed in Britain: the duke of the Britains commanding the troops of Hadrian's Wall and its hinterland; the count of the Saxon Shore, whose command Ihave discussed at length elsewhere; 29 and the count of Britain, with his small field army. The latter's troops, as comitatenses, are given not in the short section devoted to him in the Notitia but in the chapters of the western magistri militum, while the designs on their shields appear with the shields of the other comitatensian units as the insignia of office of the two commanders. These two chapters do not, of course, actually attribute the units to the count of Britain, for all the units are listed in them in order of seniority and not according to geographical location. But the so-called distributio numerorum does give a geographical breakdown of the two magistri lists, and the count's six cavalry and three infantry regiments are duly specified there as belonging to his command. The date of the creation of the count's command is controversial. As is well known, Gratian, the father of Valens and Valentinian, had held the office of comes in Britain; 30 but this was probably an ad hoc appointment, like that of Count Theodosius in the late 360s, and the position only became institutionalized at the end of the fourth century. Some of the units under the count have been thought by many to be identical with similarly-named units under the command of the count of the Saxon Shore and the duke of the B ritains, but only in one case is the name actually identical the equites Stablesiani, who appear on the Saxon Shore and even this may not be significant as there were many regiments of Stablesiani in the field armies of the late empire. -

-

Before dealing with problems of the command of the duke in greater detail we should call attention to one aspect of the chart not yet commented upon: the appointment of principes and, in some cases, other officials, such as commentarienses and numerarii, to the officia of the administrative and military officials in Britain from the officium of a hierarchical superior, or sometimes from a body such as the corps of the agentes in rebus which had no obvious connection at all. Jones points out that such appointments would have carried perquisites, since many of the documents countersigned by higher members of the various officia would have carried a fee. 31 He also points to the "security" aspects of the system 32 and the chart reveals this particularly clearly:

the magister officiorum would have had a contact in the

officium of the vicarius who could report back directly to him, while the praetorian prefect of the Gauls had his own sources of information in the officia of the two consulares. Again, the hierarchical superior of the dux Britanniarum and comes Britanniae, the western magister peditum, had his own representatives in the officia of both these commanders

-

but so did the

magister equitum, so that an independent check was provided. This sophisticated system of checks and counter-checks would have made collusion between any particular grouping of these civil and military officials virtually impossible. The magister officiorum also had his own official inspectors, curiosi, in all provinces of the diocese, whose reports need not always have been confined to the state of the cursus publicus, their official concern.

110

3.

The section of the duke of the Britains

-

some problems

The text of the section on the duke of the Britains is, if one ignores the tailpiece on his officium, divided into two parts: first, the units and forts of the hinterland of Hadrian's Wall (these alone are represented on his insignia); and secondly, those of the list per lineam valli, which includes the Cumbrian coast. The first part begins with three units of equites and continues with the barcarii Tigrisienses and nine units of infantry, all numeri. Many of their fort sites are known: for example the sequence of fort names Lavatres, Verteris, Braboniaco (Bowles, Brough under Stainmore, and Kirkby Thore) occurs also in the Antonine Itinerary and their identification is certain. This particular sequence runs from east to west. Braboniaco is followed by two entries with fort names that cannot be so easily tied down, Maglone and Magis. One of these sites must surely be Old Carlisle, which lies west of Kirkby Thore and from which comes an altar 33 set up to Jupiter Optimus Maximus and Vulkan for the safety of Gordian by the Viic(ani) Mag(lonenses) or Mag(enses). The dedicators are usually interpreted as being Vik(ano rum) Mag(istri); but against this interpretation and in favour of our own, it can be argued, first, that, normally, magistri would precede vicanorum (though vicomagistri as masters of wards are attested in the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae); secondly, magistri of vici are rare in the western provinces, the officials most commonly mentioned on inscriptions being curatores (Aelius Mansuetus, who is introduced by the phrase curam agente on the dedication by the vicani from Carriden, 34 and the unknown man introduced by the similar phrase on the vicani dedication from Vindolanda 35 were both presumably curatores); and thirdly, such semi-official dedications are normally made by the vicani themselves, and they usually qualify themselves by a geographical epithet (e.g. the Vicani Vindolandesses of the Vindolanda inscription). The second problem treated in this section is the precise function of two of the units listed in the first part of the duke's section, the numerus Directorum at Verteris, Brough under Stainmore, and the numerus Supervenientium at Derventio. The word director is derived from the verb dirigere = "to aim", or specifically "to shoot". It seems to me that it is just conceivable that the meaning intended is that of "direct", in the sense of "send" or "dispatch". Brough has produced the unique series of lead sealings studied by Professor Richmond, 36 which were, it seems, originally attached to bundles and packages routed to the south from northern forts through a forwarding depot at Brough. A possible parallel for this use of the word would be directoria, some form of dispatch dockets or address labels mentioned at one place in the Theodosian Code. 37 The Supervenientes (Petueriensiuth) were linked in their function by Bbcking 3 8 with the technical word superventus, "surprise", used by Vegetius in describing the fourth-century British scouting vessels, called in army slang "pictae": cruisers.

"In addition, light scouting vessels are attached to the battle

These have a crew of about forty, twenty rowers on each side.

The Britons call them Picts, and they use them for superventus. They can prevent the coming of the enemy at all times and forestall their plans by careful scouting.

Both sails and rigging are painted sea blue so that the scout

ships don't give themselves away.

Even the wax that they use to calk their

111

vessels is dyed.

The crews wear camouflaged clothing so that when they

make their sorties they escape noiice by day as well as by night" .39

The

other possible meaning of superventus is "reinforcements" and this is preferred by Roger Tomlin,

but the fact that Petuaria, the old station of the

40

Supervenientes from which they derived part of their name, was a naval base, supports the claim that the word has a nautical meaning.

As regards the

location of Derventio there are two possibilities, Papcastle and Malton, both of which were known by that name. B rough -on--Humber

-

The proximity of the latter to Petuaria

-

makes the equation with Malton the more likely, but the

inland position of Malton on the Yorkshire Derwent all but precludes the use of boats.

This fact sheds light on the way in which the strategy behind the

north-east coastal defences changed during the course of the fourth century. Down perhaps to the middle of the century fleets may well have been stationed on the Humber, Tees and Tyne; B rough -on-Humbe r as a harbour, wanting.

but silting was reducing the usefulness of 41

and in 367 the defences were found

Count Theodosius therefore instituted a new system, more passive

but possibly more effective, which allowed raiders to land, their approach being signalled back from the series of new signal stations on the north-east Yorkshire coast, and their retreat being intercepted by troops based at Malton, Piercebridge and elsewhere. The final problem concerns the identification of sites in the second part of the Duke's section, per lineam valli.

It has long been recognized that if

one could identify a Notitia unit with a unit epigraphically attested at a particular fort on the wall, it would be possible to deduce the actual name of the fort from the Notitia lists.

Occasionally the evidence of inscriptions can

even be used to check the accuracy of the Notitia. Thus the first cohort of Astures recorded in the Notitia at Aesica is almost certainly a mistake for the second cohort, which is known from inscriptions to have been stationed at Great Chesters.

Yet such discrepancies are small, and with the aid of

inscriptions it is possible to show that the Notitia is working along the line of the wall from east to west. But after the fort of Camboglanna 42 (usually held to be Birdoswald, but see below), things get more difficult, for an inscription from Papcastle 43 which mentions a cuneus Frisionum Aballavensium was thought at one time to show that that fort was the Aballaba of the Notitia, which, if correct, would prove that the Notitia list had left the line of the Wall.

Fortunately in the 1930s a new inscription studied by Professor E.

Birley44 showed that the numerus Maurorum Aurelianorum, the Notitia unit at Aballaba, was present at Burgh-by-Sands, thus demonstrating that the Notitia sequence sticks to the Wall. Meanwhile Richmond, by studying the sequences of sites in the Ravenna Cos mogra phy ,4 5 showed that Maio or Maia, which appea rs i n thi s d ocumen t but not in the Notitia, was probably Bowness on Solway.

This meant that a

piece of evidence that had long been neglected, the famous Rudge Cup, could be brought into play. This small enamelled vessel, with its stylized representation of the Wall and its turrets, has a list of five names round its rim: 4 6 it begins with the sequence a Mais, Aballava, and was now recognized to be a list of the Wall forts, running from west to east. a similar cup from Amiens

-

In 1951 Heurgon published

the so-called Amiens Patera

with six Wall fort

names instead of five, but otherwise confirming the names on the Rudge Cup

112

and, like it, working along the Wall from west to east. 47

There are still

difficulties, however, which are reflected in the discrepancies in Latin place-name attributions between the third edition (published in 1956) of the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain, and the first and second editions of the map of Hadrian's Wall (1964 and 1972).

The problem is that Camboglanna

of the Notitia and the Rudge Cup seems unquestionably to be placed at Birdoswald because of the presence there, attested by inscriptions, of the Notitia garrison, cohors IAelia Dacorum.

This means that there is no room

for the Banna of the Rudge Cup and Amiens Patera lists before the next fort, Great Chesters (Aesica or Esica) is reached. omission of Banna from the Notitia series.

A second difficulty is the

The solution of the compilers of

the Ordnance Survey Hadrian's Wall maps was to regard Banna as an alternative name for Magna (Carvoran)) since this fort is not mentioned on the Cup and the Patera.

This, however

is improbable because Carvoran is not

physically attached to the Wall iii the same way as the other Wall forts.

On

the other hand, Richmond and the compilers of the Ordnance Survey Map of Roman Britain detached the name Banna completely from the Wall series and placed it at Bewcastle, a suggestion which is even more implausible.

There

is yet another problem if, as is usually accepted, the Petriana of the Notitia were the original name for Stanwix, for Petriana does not occur in the Rudge/ Amiens lists at all;

yet Stanwix was the most important of all the Wall forts,

garrisoned as it was by the ala Petriana, the sole milliary ala in Britain. One solution to all this would be to regard Banna as the name for Birdoswald, an interpretation supported by an inscription found at the site which mentions the Venatores Banniesses,

4 8 and

to place Camboglanna at Castle-

steads, its name perhaps connected with the first element in the name of the river, the Cambeck, that flows at the foot of the hill upon which it stands. The Uxelod(un)um of the Rudge/Amiens lists would then be the original and alternative name for Petriana

-

Stanwix.

This means emending the text of

the Notitia, which would now seem to contain no reference to Birdoswald. In the Oxford manuscript the entry in the list for cohors IDacorum, which like many entries occupies twJ lines, is split between the last line of one column and the first of the next. If this reflects something of the lay-out of the archetype, then Ibelieve that we can restore in the text of the Notitia an unsuspected lacuna which consists of two lines and was caused by damage at the bottom of the folio: Tribunus cohortis primae Aeliae Dacorum (Banna Tribunu s coho rti s secundae Tungrorum) Camboglanna It will be recalled that the presence of cohors II Tungrorum at Castlesteads is attested by RIB 1981-3. As those familiar with the problcms posed by the list of Wall names in the Notitia will realize, the succeeding names still do not correspond to the order of the Rudge/Amiens lists.

Again, the puzzling name Congavata 49

is present in the Notitia but absent from the Rudge/Amiens lists, while Mais, as we have seen, occurs in the latter but not in the former (unless it is represented by Magis which appears in the list of hinterland forts).

113

One is

thus forced to admit that until more inscriptions with the names of units are found from forts on the west end of the Wall and the western coastal forts that continue the series, it will probably be impossible to make more sense of the Notitia.

However, until these are found, the evidence of the Ruclge Cup and

Amiens Patera should at least give us the names of the forts on the western end of Hadrian's Wall even though we cannot yet place the Notitia units in them.

Institute of Archaeology, 31-34 Gordon Square, LONDON WCIH OPY.

114

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.

J. H. Ward, 'The British sections of the Notitia Dignitatum: tive interpretation', Britannia 4 (1973), 253 ff.

an alterna-

2.

R. 0. Fink, Roman military records on papyrus (Cleveland, 1971), nos. 47-57 (daily records), 58-62 (monthly summaries), and 63-64 (pridiana).

3.

ibid., no. 63.

4.

E. Birley, 'The Beaumont inscription, the Notitia Dignitatum, and the garrison of Hadrian's Wall', Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society, n.s., 39 (1939), 210.

5.

The Abinnaeus archive, 7-8.

6.

Claudian, Epithalamium of Palladius and Celerina 86-88.

7.

ibid., 85.

8.

By Professor A. H. M. Jones in a lecture on "Roman Britain in the fourth century" given on behalf of the Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies at Exeter in 1966.

9.

Tacitus, Annals xiv.31.

10.

Amm. Marc. xiv.5.6.

11.

RIB 179, from Combe Down, near Bath.

12.

J. P. Wild, 'The Gynaeceum at Venta and its context', Latomus 26 (1967), 648 ff.; W. H. Manning, 'Caistor-by-No rwich and Notitia Dignitatum', Antiquity 40 (1966), 60 ff.

13.

For the name cf. Amm. Marc. xxvii.8.7 and xxviii.3.1.

14.

Cf. Vita S. Melaniae Junioris 11-12, 18-21, 37 (Analecta Boilandiana 8 (1889), 19-63 (Latin) and 22 (1903), 7-49 (Greek)

).

15.

K. S. Painter, 'A late-Roman silver ingot from Kent', Antiquaries Journal 52 (1972), 84 ff.

16.

J. Curie,

'An inventory of objects of Roman and provincial Roman

origin found on sites in Scotland not definitely associated with Roman constructions', Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland 66 (1931-1932), 370-1.

Cf. R. Noll, 'Eine goldene 'Kaiserfibel' aus

Niederemmel vom Jahre 316',,Bonner Jahrbtfcher 174(1974), 221 ff. 17.

R. E. M. Wheeler, Segontium and the Roman occupation of Wales (London, 1924), 130-1.

18.

J. W. Braiisford, Guide to the antiquities of Roman Britain, 3rd ed. (London, British Museum, 1964), 20.

115

19.

J. R(omiily) A(llen), 'Gold objects found in Montgome ryshi re', Archaeologia Cambrensis, 5th series, 7 (1890), 156.

20.

Jones, Later Roman empire, I, 449-50.

21.

ibid., 448-462.

22.

CThX[.7.2.

23.

J. C. Mann, 'The administration of Roman Britain', Antiquity 35 (1961), 316-20.

24.

AE 1922, 116.

25.

RIB 103.

26.

A. R. Birley, 'The Roman governors of Britain', Epigraphische Studien 4(1967), 85.

27.

See, e.g., the late fourth-century inscription from nearby Lydney, which probably reads T. Flavius Senilis (CIL VII.137).

28.

Amm. Marc. xxiii.1.2-3.

29.

'The historical background and military units of the Saxon Shore', in the proceedings of the Saxon Shore Forts Symposium, organized by the University of Southampton, 1975 (Council for British Archaeology Research Report, forthcoming).

30.

Amm. Marc. xxx.7.3.

31.

Jones, Later Roman empire, II, 580.

32.

ibid., I, 128.

33.

RIB 899.

34.

JR.S 47 (1957), 229-30.

35.

RIB 1700.

36.

I. A. Richmond, 'Roman leaden sealings from Brough-under-Stainmore', Transactions of the Cumberland & Westmorland Antiquarian & Archaeological Society, new series, 36 (1936), 104 ff.

37.

CThXIV.15.3.

38.

Bicking, II, 879, cf. I, 446-7.

39.

Vegetius iv.37.

40.

R. S. 0. Tomlin, 'Numerus Supervenientium Petueriensium', in J. S. Wacher, Excavations atBrough-on--Humber, 1958-1961 (1969), 74-75.

41.

J. S. Wacher,

.cit., 81.

42.

The text of the Notitia reads Amboganna, but Camboglanna is the generally accepted form.

43.

RIB 883.

44.

E. Birley, op.cit. (n. 4), 191-4.

116

45.

I. A. Richmond, 'The Rudge Cup:

U, the inscription', Archaeologia

Aeliana, 4th series, 12 (1935), 334-42. 46.

The Rudge cup list runs as follows: A MAIS ABALLAVA UXELODUM CAMBOGLANS BANNA.

47.

J. Heurgon, 'The Amiens Patera', JRS 41 (1951), 22 if.

The Amiens

Patera list runs as follows: MAIS ABALLAVA UXELODUNUM CAMBOG[LANI]S BANNA ESICA. 48.

RIB 1905.

49.

In uncials Congavata, minus the first 'a', would look suspiciously like the torquata title of the ala Petriana.

117

(cf. ILS 2728 and RIB 957).

THE NOTITIA GALLIARUM:

SOME QUESTIONS

by A. L. F. Rivet

The Notitia Galliarum is widely regarded as a sort of supplement to the Notitia Dignitatum, as a contemporary document which fills in the civilian detail of the area which it covers with a precision that is unattainable elsewhere in the western empire; and for this reason it is often used to illuminate not only late Roman Gaul but, by analogy, other provinces too. How far we are justified in accepting it as a guide, however, must depend on the answers which we give to a number of questions, which it is the purpose of this paper to raise. The fundamental question concerns the very nature of the document itself. The Notitia Galliarum may be either of two things: either it is, as A. H. M. Jones maintained, Ia secular imperial document which was put to ecclesiastical uses, or, as Mommsen held, 2 it is an ecclesiastical document with a secular imperial basis. There is at any rate no doubt about its ecclesiastical use, for this is stated in the rubric: it was preserved ut antiquitas nulla possit convelli condicione. In fact antiquity suffered a number of convulsions in the Gallic and early French church and some of them are reflected in alterations made to the Notitia in some manuscripts. These manuscripts are themselves a proof of ecclesiastical use, not only in the additions and amendments made to them, 3 but also in their number: there are more than a hundred of them, ranging in date from the 6th century to the 15th. This does not in itself prove an ecclesiatjcal origin, for in the eastern empire the Synecdemus of Hierocles, which almost certainly was a secular document, was put to similar uses; 4 but neither should the secular origin of the Synecdemus prejudice us in respect of the Notitia Galliarum. We shall return to this question later. The second question to be considered is that of date.

Since the original

document was certainly compiled earlier than the writing of the earliest extant manuscript, and since changes of the kind indicated above were introduced, it is obvious that one cannot simply take the 6th century manuscript and say that it best represents the archetype. Rather the archetype has to be laboriously established by comparison and by the use of internal evidence. This has been done by Seeck, 5by Riese 6 and finally by Mommsen, 7 and it is essentially Mommsen's text which is reproduced in Appendix I(p. 127 ff.)7a This appendix also includes cross-references in the Notitia Dignitatum and notes of the more important changes made down to the 9th century partly to illustrate their nature, but also because some of them are relevant to this question of date. -

As Mommsen noted, the broadest bracket of date is provided by the fact that Grenoble (XI.3) appears as Civitas Gratianopolitana, and not as Cularo, so that the document must be later than A.D. 367; 8

119

at the other end of the

scale, Eauze (MV. f) ceased to be the ecclesiastical metropolis of Novempopulana at the end of the 6th century when, as noted, it was supplanted by Auch (XEV.2). 9 A closer terminus post quem might be provided by a comparison of its dispositions with those of Ammianus Marceiiinus: 1° for example, while the Notitia Galliarum, like the Notitia Dignitatum, has four Lugdunese provinces, Ammianus, like the Verona List, has only two. The difficulty here is that one cannot be sure whether Ammianus was describing the state of affairs at the time of writing (C. 380) or that which prevailed when he himself was in Gaul with Ursicinus (355-357). Some of his errors, notably the ascription of Bourges to Lugdunensis Prima instead of to Aquitanica Prima (of which it was actually the capital), suggest that he was writing from memory, and in any case not using an official list. A closer terminus ante quem, however, is certainly provided by the list for the province of Viennensis, where Vienne (M.1) appears as the metropolis and Aries (M.12) is merely in twelfth place. If the document is ecclesiastical ,, this list must antedate the letter written by Pope Zosimus in A.D. 417 which gave metropolitan (and in some respects supra-metropolitan) rights to Arles 11something which is reflected in later amendments to this section. The dispute over primacy between Vienne and Arles, with which Zosimus was trying -

to deal and which emerged at the Council of Turin,

12

was presumably sparked

off by the transfer of the Praetorian Prefecture of the Gauls from Trier to Arles which should establish the date if the document is secular. In a recent paper Andre Chastagnol 13 has argued powerfully that the transfer of the Pre-

fecture took place in 407 and the Council of Turin (or rather, the second Council of Turin) on 22nd September, 417. This is later than Palanquets date of 398, 14 but in either case the compilation of the Notitia should fall in the late 4th or early 5th century and it can therefore be accepted as contemporary with the Notitia Dignitatum. The information yielded by the Notitia Gallianim may be used at two levels, the provincial and the local, and it will be convenient to dispose of the former first. There is no reason to doubt that in its attribution of particular cities to particular provinces it reflects reality

-

that is, not only ecclesiastical

but also secular reality. This is valuable, because it enables us not only to give the provinces reasonably firm boundaries in this period, but also to argue backwards and correct errors like those of Ammianus. As a result, it is possible to produce maps showing the evolution of the Gallic provinces from Republican times to the fifth century, as on Fig. 5. There are, of course, some equivocations in all these maps. In the first, the boundaries of the Provincia are over-hard; in the second, the situation regarding Alpes Graiae' et Poeninae is a little obscure; in the third, there is the vexed question of the boundary between Belgica and Germania Inferior, whose answer depends on the view one takes of the Bulla Regia inscription; 15 in the fourth, there are all manner of difficulties, especially over Viennensis and Narbonensis, which were so well discussed by Jones; 16 and throughout the presentation of Britain is partly subjective. Nevertheless, the general picture not merely -

the progressive fragmentation but also the size of the units at each stage

-

has some value, especially when one is applying analogies drawn from one area to another.

120

in.

It is when we proceed to the lower, local, level that doubts begin to creep Superficially we have a' fairly clear picture, simply the transition from

the political organisation of the early Empire (Fig. 6) to that of the later Empire (Fig. 7). Some changes have obviously taken place: perhaps those most often cited, at least in a British context, are the re-emergence of the Catalauni, who in earlier times were merged in the Remi, and the appearance of the Civitas Aurelianorum (Orleans) within the earlier area of the Carnutes. But these pieces of information could be gathered from other sources, and what we need to consider are facts, or impressions, which depend on the Notitia Galliarum alone. In the 17 provinces which it covers, the Notitia Galliarum lists 115 civitates, or cities, but it also includes six or seven places with the description castrum and one place called simply Portus Bucini (IX-9).

This last is

unique and so no argument can be based on it. Its only other appearance is in a life of St Urban, the 4th-century bishop of Langres, in which the archdeacon Valerius, on his way from Langres to the Jura, came 'ad locum quem ex antiquo incolae appellant portum Bucinum': 17 it seems to be Portsur-Saône, 10 km north-west of Vesoul, in an area which is still called le Portois. But its presence in the list, and that of the places called castrum, raises again the central question of the Notitia: astical document?

is it a secular or an ecclesi-

The development in the meaning of the word castrum is discussed in Appendix II. Here, it may merely be suggested that, although it had by now come, in common parlance, to mean any town below the rank of civitas, its use in this sense in an official imperial document is still unlikely. This suggestion is strengthened by a consideration of the actual places involved. In political or military terms they are a very odd collection indeed: Cabillonum or Chalon-sur-Sa6ne (1.4); Yverdon (IX.6);

Vindonissa or Windisch (IX.5);

Argentaria or Horbourg (IX.7);

Ebrodunum or

Bogorra, which is linked

with Turba or Tarbes (XIV -11); and Ucetia or Uz es (XV.6); and others are subsequently added Rauraca or Augst (IX .8), which may even belong in the original list, Matisco or Macon (in Lugdunensis Prima) very soon, and -

places called Nando (in Senonia), Cana Venusta (in Alpes Graiae et Poeninae) and Castrum Arisidensium (in Aquitanica Prima) much later. As may be seen from the cross-references, some are still operative military or naval stations in the Notitia Dignitatum; others, like Vindonissa, have been military stations in the past; and at least one, Ucetia, never had been nor, for that matter, have any town walls been identified there. They are, in fact, -

such a heterogeneous collection that it seems impossible to find any convincing reason why any secular official list should include these particular places and only these particular places, for the omissions are as odd as the inclusions: -

where, for example, is Carcassonne, whose walls imply considerable official interest and which is, as noted in Appendix II, actually called castellum in the Bordeaux Itinerary? As to their possible ecclesiastical significance, Mommsen subscribed to the view that they were the seats of chorepiscopi. This is now generally discounted, on the grounds that such appointments were not made so early in the western provinces. 18 In discussing Vindonissa, Ebrodunum and Rauraca, Hermann Vetters 19 has suggested that they represent not separate bishoprics, 121

but alternative seats of the bishops of the civitates in whose territory they lay. This receives some support froth a consideration of the other evidence. For example, at the Council of Vaison in 44220 the bishop Constantius and the deacon Principius are shown as coming from Eucesia oppido (TJz'es), but no one is listed from Nimes, nor is there any other identifiable bishop from Nimes among the signatories to the letter to Pope Leo in 451, 21 where Constantius's name again appears. Similarly, at both orange in 44122 and at Vaison in 442 the bishop Augustalis is listed as coming from loco Telonensi (Toulon, which is not even mentioned in the Notitia Galliarum), but there is no-one from Marseille. Finally, a suggestion of ecclesiastical importance may also be found in the fact that down to the 12th century the incumbent of Horbourg (Castrum Argentariense) retained some peculiar rights, including the visitation of the Priory of St Peter, in Colmar, which grew up to eclipse Horbourg under Charlemagne and his successors. 23 On balance, therefore, the places called castrum seem to fit more comfortably in an ecclesiastical than in a secular list, and with this in mind we may turn now to a consideration of the civitates; and since the main burden of the argument is against the view taken by Jones, it is not inappropriate to preface this part of the discussion with a quotation from him: 'The absence of a name in ecclesiastical documents is no proof that it was not a unit of government and, conversely, the presence of aname is no proof that it was': 24 or, to put it another way, while the church normally based its Organisation on that of the secular power, one cannot automatically assume that the one reflects the other in every single detail. It will be simplest if we consider the material by areas, taking the north (that is, the old provinces of Lugdunensis and Belgica) first. We have already mentioned two new features, the transformation of Cenabum into the Civitas Aurelianorum and the re-emergence of the Catalauni, and we may now note some more. Autisiodurum (Auxerre) has been separated from Sens, Virodunum (Verdun) from Metz, and Bononia (Boulogne) from Thérouanne. These are all additions and need cause us no surprise, even though the precise date and circumstances of the elevation are sometimes obscure. For example, we still do not know when the separate Civitas Bononensium was created, though the latest writer to discuss i t 25 suggests that the pagus Gesoriacensis got its independence as a result of the sacking of Tarvenna, the central city of the Morini, in the raids of 275-276. Similarly the emergence of the cities of Moguntiacum and Argentorate in places which began as merely legionary fortresses is easily acceptable

-

and is in fact well documented archaeologically

and epigraphically. But the trend is not all one way, and there are losses as well as additions. In the north-east, most of Germania Inferior has gone, presumably abandoned to the Franks, and in the same area the old Civitas Menapiorum and Civitas Nerviorum, centred on Cassel and Bavai, have been replaced by the Civitas Turnacensium and the Civitas Camaracensium respectively.

This, too, is

a development which may have its roots in the third century: after those raids Bavai had been reduced to a mere strongpoint, with the late wall enclosing only what had once been the forum. Further to the west, the tribal civitas of the Unelli has been replaced by the civitas of Constantia, presumably after the elevation of Coutances 122

to municipal status, and the civitas of the Velliocasses has similarly been replaced by Rotomagus, or Ruen. But Rouen, which had been a provincial capital for about a century, now seems to have attributed to it not only the territory of the Velliocasses but that of the Caletes too. This should imply that luliobona (Lillebonne) had been downgraded, which is possible, since the Seine may already have been leaving its port high and dry. 26 Yet the territorial name of les Caux survives, along with that of le Vexin, so that one is bound to ask whether we are here dealing with ecclesiastical or secular reality, or both. The same question is raised by the situation which we find around le Mans. The Arvii (if indeed they are correctly located on the river Erve, for even the site of their city, Vagoritum, is uncertain)2 7 have disappeared, evidently absorbed by the Cenomamii. Now later on, at least in ecclesiastical terms, the same fate was to befall the Diablintes, which is why Jublains is no more than a village today. But in the later Empire Jublains, like Bavai, had no proper town wall, only a small and simple burgus. Thus one must ask again whether the Notitia Galliarum is reliable evidence that it still ranked as a city at the turn of the 4th and 5th centuries, or whether it was, so to say, a vestigial bishopric, soon to follow its city into oblivion. 27a When we turn to the south (that is, to the old provinces of Aquitania, Narbonensis and Alpes), we find one straightforward division, the splitting off of Ecolisna (Angoulme) from the Santones, but elsewhere the changes are of a rather different kind. The little province of Alpes Graiae et Poeninae has two cities but no metropolis. This does seem to reflect the ecclesiastical situation, since the bishop of Tarantasia (here called by the tribal name of Ceutrones) was directly subordinate to the bishop of Vienne. But does it, indeed can it, also reflect the secular situation? In the province of Viennensis itself, a matter which requires explanation is the omission from the original list of Carpentorate (Carpentras). This was a colonia with Latin rights in the early Empire and there seems to be no reason why it should have lost the status of city. Moreover, on the ecclesiastical side, Constantianus, the bishop of Carpentras, was present at Orange in 441 and Vaison in 442 and signed the letter to Pope Leo in 451. 28 If one claims that the Notitia is a secular document, one seems to be committed to supposing that this city lost its secular rank, yet within a generation of the compilation of the document had acquired a bishop. It is surely easier to suppose that it was always a city but, for religious reasons, did not become an independent bishopric until the later date. Further to the west, Albi now appears for the first time. This looks like the re-emergence of those elusive Ruteni Provinciales of Caesar, although, since Augustus had put all the Ruteni into his enlarged province of Aquitania, it is in Aquitanica Prima that we find them, not in Narbonensis Prima.

But

once again, does their appearance here necessarily imply that they had achieved a separate existence in secular as well as ecclesiastical terms? As we began in the north-east, so we may end in the south-west. The map at Fig. 7 is a little misleading, since it does not show relief and so hides the fact that the proliferation of little civitates in the Alps and the Pyrenees is

123

no more than a reflection of geography: little valleys, separated from each other by high mountains, form natural units for secular and ecclesiastical administration alike. But even when allowance is made for this, some explanation must still be sought for the huge empty area between Narbonne and the Pyrenees, the whole area of the Roussillon. What it really all attributed to Narbo, as the map seems to suggest? In trying to answer this question, we can leave Ruscino (Castel Roussillon) out of account, for it was already a ruin, and that is why it is today deserted and its place taken by Perpignan. But Ruscino is not the only town in these parts. We have already noted the absence of Carcassonne, even from the list of places called castrum, and Eine is still more worthy of consideration. This place had a chequered history. Important in the time of Hannibal, when it was called Illiberis, it had by Pliny's time sunk to magnae quondam urbis tenue vestigium, 29 but by the fourth century it was again important enough to be renamed Helena and it achieved notoriety by the murder there of Constans in 350. It occupies a fine hill-fort site, rather like Bziers, and, as is noted in Appendix I, it, like Carcassonne, did eventually have a bishop: the fact that he is first attested later, in the sixth century, may perhaps be attributed to the Visigothic occupation of Septimania. Like most sites in the Roussillon, Elne is not very well documented archaeologically, but M. Bassde and his colleagues have made a beginning and have established the existence of at least one large house in the late imperial period. 30 As the title indicates, this is essentially an interrogatory paper, and the questions it raises may be summarised as follows: First, what do the places called castrum (and the odd place called Portus Bucini) really represent, and why are they selected for inclusion in the list? Second, while one can accept most of the additions and subtractions, there are a number of queries relating to the civitates. Had the Civitas Caletum disappeared by this date? Was the Civitas Diablintum still apolitical unit? Had Carpentorate lost the rank of city, and had Albi gained it? And was there really no city authority between Narbonne and the Pyrenees? Third, and most important, is this a secular or an ecclesiastical document; and if, as is argued here, it is ecclesiastical, what sort of a guide is it to secular reality? Until these questions are satisfactorily answered, it seems rash to accept the Notitia Galliarum as an indicator of civic status in late Roman Gaul and, still more, as an analogy on which to base speculation as to the state of affairs, in other provinces, such as Britain.

Department of Classics, The University, KEELE, Staffs.

124

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1.

Jones, Later Roman empire, II, 712: 'The Notitia Galliarum, an official register of the administrative units of two dioceses of Gaul and the Seven Provinces....'; III, 225, n. 2: 'There can be no doubt that it is a civil register, not a list of bishoprics, as in the province of Viennensis it ignores the ecclesiastical province of Aries.'

2.

See his edition of the Notitia Ga1iiarum 612, passim.

printed in Chron. Min., I, 552-

3.

Several add lists for Germany and one 12th century MS (Mommsen's No. 98) actually includes Spain, Poland, Denmark and Sweden.

4.

Text, Hieroclis Synecdemus, ed. G. Parthey (Berlin, 1866);

comment

and discussion, A. H. M. Jones, The cities of the eastern Roman provinces, 2nd cd. (Oxford, 1971), 514-21. 5.

See Seeck's edition of the Notitia Dignitatum, 261-74.

6.

A. Riese (cd.), Geographi Latini minores (Heilbronnae, 1878), 141-4.

7.

See n. 2.

7a.

For a fuller bibliography see P. -M. Duval, La Gaule jusqu'au milieu du Ve si'ecle (Paris, 1971), II, 681-2.

8.

The name Gratianopolis is actually first attested in the canons of 'the Council of Aquileia, A.D. 381.

9.

Chron. Min., I, 554.

10.

Amm. Marc. xv.11..

11.

PL XX.665;

for a discussion of this and other letters written by Zosimus

see A. Chastagnol, 'Le repli sur Aries des services administratifs gaulois', Revue Historique 249 (1973), 36. 12.

See C. Munier (cd.), Concilia Galliae, A.314 tianorum, series Latina. CXLVIII.

-

A.506 (Corpus Chris-

Turnhout, 1963), 52-60.

Mommsen's references to this Council are confused by the fact that he took it to have been held at Tours, not Turin, and so dated it by reference to the death of St. Martin. 13.

Qp.cit. (n. 11), 23-40.

14.

J. R. Palanque, Revue d'Histoire dc i'Eglise dc France 21(1935), 481501.

This is the date accepted by Munier in the Corpus Christianorum.

15.

AE 1962, 183.

16.

A. H. M. Jones, 'The date and value of the Verona list', JRS 44 (1954), 21-29. This article is reprinted as chapter XII of Jones' The Roman economy (Oxford, 1974). 125

17.

Cited by Mommsen, Chron. Min., I, 598.

18.

As Iam informed by ecclesiastical historians;

cf. Jones, Later Roman

empire, ifi, 295, n. 13, referring to a special case in Gaul in A.D. 439. 1 1 Of the other two examples he cites, that of Eugrafus of Salona dates fron C.

600 (y. J. J. Wilkes, Dalmatia (1969), 433), while the evidence from

Corduba relates to the early 7th century. 19.

H. Vetters, 'Zum episcopus in castellis', Anzeiger der tSsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 106 (1969), 75-93.

Iam grateful to Dr.

Stephen Johnson for this reference. 20.

C. Munier,

21.

Ibid., 109.

22.

Ibid., 87.

23.

2.cit.

(n. 12), 102.

C. Laplatte, s.v. Colmar in A. Baudrillat, A. de Meyer and E. van Cauwenbergh (eds.), Dictionnaire d'histoire et de gographie ecclsiastiques (Paris, 1956).

24.

A. H. M. Jones, The cities of the eastern Roman provinces, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1971), 520.

25.

R. Delmaire, 'Civitas Morinorum, pagus (esoriacus, civitas Bononensiurn', Latomus 33 (1974), 265-79.

26.

The origins of the large meanders of the Seine are very ancient

('.

A.

Cholley and l'Abbe Firmin, Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des seances de l'Acadmie des Sciences 221 (8 Oct. 1945), 418-20), but the estuary is affected by both river silting and tidal action, necessitating dredging and resulting in many changes of course. bonne in the 16th century (when François but this need not imply continuity.

Small boats could reach Lille1er

first developed Le Havre),

The river now runs some 4 km from

the town. 27.

For a recent discussion, arguing for a site on the river Vaige 1.5 km south of La Bazouge-de-Chemére, see A. Chastagnol in R. Chevallier (ed.), Littérature greco-romaine et geographie historique: offerts

27a.

aRoger Dion (Paris,

melanges

1974), 367-78.

Early Christian organisation at Jublains seems now to be demonstrated by the discovery (since the Conference) of an early church overlying the town baths and underneath the present church.

28.

Munier, 22. ! Lit. (n. 12), 87 (Orange),

102 (Vaison), 109 (letter).

noted in Appendix I, Carpentras does appear later

-

As

and later still it

is replaced by the safer site of Vindasca (Venasque), which became the capital of the Comtat Venaissin. 29. 30.

Pliny, Nlliii.32. L. Bass'ede, 'Les fortifications d'Elne et d'archologie 18 (1969), 31-44.

126

Cahiers ligures de prhistoire

CC

0

CC 0 C) C)

E a a I PROVINCIA LUGDUNENSIS PRIMA:

CIVITATES N.11.

IN PROVINCIIS GALLICANIS DECEM QIJAE CIVITATES SINI

'g

CCCCCC

CC

Cl)

0000v

a

CC 0

ro

C)

41

(1) cd

CO

0)

cd

.-

0

t-0 P

°

Co

• C

HP,

CI

PROVINCIA LUGDUNENSIS SENOMA:

CO

0)

0) 0)

IV

I!)

CO

CIVITATES N.Vll

0

000000 Co 0) C

Ln

CO

1- cOO) -' - I-,

•

LC

0)

00

cd0) * C

g.

H I!)

C')

CLC

cC)

III

pq

‚-

-

—

PROVINCIA GERMANIA PRIMA:

CIVITATES N.flhI.

Ambianensis spatharia et scutaria

z

Metropolis civitas Mogontiacensium (Moguntiacum/Mainz)

Civitas Silvanectum (Augustomagus/Senlis)

U) U)

— '-

c

C') '-.

a) 0 C'1

U)

‚-

U)cD•

CIVITATES N. II.

Castruin Rauracense is indented by Mommsen as possibly not in the original list and so is omitted from the map at Fig. 3

Civitas Vesontiensium (Vesontio/BesançOn)

PROVINCIA GERMANIA SECUNDA:

III

to

-

z

0

4)0)4)4)4)0)0)0)0)

.

.'.

..

.

.

4)0)

000000000 00

.

.

After civitas Arausicorum:

C!)

Civitas Massiliensium (Massilia/Marseille)

0

sive Arelati

PROVINCIA VIENNENSIS:

z

11111 Iliii

I

a o

0

C)

C)

0

‚9 0

0

cd

H

a 0 CC()

CC •

a)

Cd

4)

Cd

0 ca a) 0

•00

CD

II

CC C/) •

_0

Z

CC

IHI

•

C.)

rj

CD