Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:22:55.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Division of Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

J. C. Mann  and
M. G. Jarrett
J. C. Mann
Affiliation:
University of Durham
M. G. Jarrett
Affiliation:
University College, Cardiff
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mr. Graham's article on the division of Britain in the early third century usefully collects much of the relevant evidence. He concludes that Herodian is wrong in claiming that Britain was divided in A.D. 197, and suggests that no division took place until the reign of Caracalla. But he fails to take into account the possibility that a division was indeed made in 197, on different lines from those which applied later.

The one piece of new evidence produced to help in refuting Herodian is an Ephesian inscription which mentions embassies to the emperors Severus and Caracalla in Upper Germany and Britain. The grounds are that, in the wording of the inscription, Germany is qualified as τὴν ἄνω, while Britain is not qualified. But Germania without qualification would be too vague to be allowed to stand; it could even lead to confusion with free Germany. Britannia, on the other hand, is clearly merely a geographical description.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Roman Studies , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , November 1967 , pp. 61 - 64
Copyright
Copyright ©J. C. Mann and M. G. Jarrett 1967. Exclusive Licence to Publish: The Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 JRS LVI, 1966, 92–107Google Scholar.

2 III, 8, 1–2.

3 In his discussion of the later boundaries between the two Britains, he ought to have noted the relevance of the centurion of VI Victrix at Ribchester, RIB 583, dating to the reign of Gordian and placing Ribchester firmly in Britannia Inferior. The boundary at that date thus lay very little north of Chester. Further, it is possible that RIB 575, a dedication by a centurion of VI Victrix, is evidence that Manchester also lay in Britannia Inferior.

4 SEG XVII, 505, quoted by Graham, loc. cit. 100, with references at note no. 110.

5 CIL XIII, 3162, iii, 1–3, with Pflaum, , Le marbre de Thorigny (Paris, 1948), 9Google Scholar.

6 Oc. I, 36; V, 132.

7 Oc. XXVIII, 1 and 12.

8 II, 14, 1.

9 VI, 7, 2–3.

10 An illustration of this may be the promotion of the municipium of Carnuntum to colonial status, AÉ 1929, 218, cf. ILS 7122, a promotion also enjoyed by Aquincum in Lower Pannonia, ILS 7124a, cf. ILS 2157, 2410.

11 Dio LXXV, 3, 2.

12 ILS 1353.

13 Gilliam, J. F., AJP LXXIX, 1958, 241–2Google Scholar, on the basis of P. Dura 60B = AÉ 1933, 107.

14 It is here assumed that there was no intention to change the permanent station of any legion within Britain.

15 BG 1, 54, with II, 1–2; II, 35; III, 9; V, 1–2; VI, 44, with VII, 1.

16 Agr. 19 and 21. The description of Agricola's civilian activity is no doubt schematized; we are not to conclude that Agricola did no administrative or judicial work in the third and subsequent winters.

17 For example, the visit of Constans to Britain in winter, Maternus, Julius Firmicus, de errore profan. relig. 28, 6Google Scholar, probably in the early months of 343, since C.Th. XI, 16, 5 = C.J. XI, 75, I was issued at Boulogne on 25th January 343.

18 Domaszewski, Rangordnung 41.

19 CIL II, 4122, cf. 4083.

20 CIL III, 7549.

21 CIL III, 7542, a dedication of A.D. 155; other officiates include a candidatus of the governor, CIL III, 6154, and a vet. ex q(uaestionario) whose son served as mil. off. pre[sidis], CIL III, 1421428.

22 PSI IX, 1026 = CIL XVI, Appendix no. 13.

23 RIB 19: the dead man was enrolled in tribe Galeria; there is no reason to think that London was his origo. It may be that RIB 17 represents a legionary centurion who was princeps praetorii–he carries a scroll in the left hand.

24 Domaszewski, Rangordnung 33. For the London evidence cf. also Antiquity XXXV, 1961, 316–320Google Scholar.

25 de Caes. 20, 27.

26 He generally uses urbs, de Caes. 13, 1; 16, 8 and 13; 33, 18–19; 37, 4; 38, 3; 39, 45; or oppidum, de Caes. 16, 1; 20, 19; 26, 1; 28, 1; 33, 3; 40, 28.

27 Lanuvium, , de Caes. 15. 2Google Scholar.

28 This is implied by C.J. III, 32, 1, issued at York on 5th May, 210

29 The tombstone of an exactus cos., CIL III, 5812, and a librarius cos., CIL III, 5814, and of an official of the governor in CIL III, 5823 are individually inconclusive, but taken together, and with the evidence of CIL III, 5822, the third century tombstone of a singularis of the governor set up by an aedituus singularium (the correct reading is given in ILS 2526) make the case virtually certain. The case would be finally clinched if the correct reading of CIL III, 5803 is optio [p]raet[o]ri.

30 CIL III, 4803, enrolled in leg. I Noricorum: this Mithraic dedication is probably of the third century, and not of the fourth (when it would refer to an official of the governor of Noricum Mediterraneum, cf. CIL III, 4796).

31 CIL III, 4812, a dedication by two singulares cos.; CIL III, 4836 = 11507, the tombstone of a strator cos., set up while he was still alive.

32 CIL III, 5631 shows only that a veteran, whose son joined the army, was buried at Ovilava—having presumably settled there. The man known from CIL IX, 2593 to have served at Ovilava was not necessarily beneficiarius of a tribunus sexmestris, as Domaszewski claimed.

33 Dio LV, 23, 2.

34 Herodian V, 3, 9–12; for Raphaneae as the station of III Gallica earlier, Ptol. V, 14, 12.

35 CIL III, 138 with p. 970, 14385b; the equites singulares qui [in] officio eius fuerunt, CIL III, 14387f, are inconclusive: they may have been honouring a citizen of Heliopolis, and not a governor of Phoenice.

36 RIB 1138.

37 PIR 2 I, 367. The Julius Julianus of Dig. 48, 21, 2, of Severan date, and the (?proconsul) Julius Ju[ … of Frag. Vat. 119 cannot be identified with any certainty with the L. Julius Julianus, legate of II Augusta, honoured in CIL XI, 4182. The names Julius Julianus are too colourless to assume identity. Note now, for a comparable case, the Julius Julianus legate of Arabia in 125, Polotsky, H. J., Israel Exploration Journal XII, 1962, 259Google Scholar, not to be identified with the object of PIR I2, 366.

38 RIB 658. A n earlier dating, probably c. 160–180, still seems desirable for the legate of VI Victrix who dedicated RIB 2034, cf. PIR I2, 848.

39 It will not unfortunately explain the coupling of Oclatinius Adventus with Alfenus Senecio in RIB 1234, and probably in 1462. But it is worth noting that this important individual had served as frumentarius and princeps peregrinorum (Dio LXXVIII, 14, 1) and went on to be consul and Praefectus Urbi. Procurators named along with governors on non-military inscriptions elsewhere throw no light on his activities in Britain. His appearance on military building inscriptions suggests that he had special functions as a direct representative of the emperors. It is not impossible that he was concerned specifically with the preparations for the campaigns into Scotland. That Alfenus Senecio should have moved from Syria Coele to Britannia Inferior is not impossible. It seems unlikely that, after the creation of the province of Mesopotamia, the two-legion province of Syria Coele can have been regarded as more important than a consular command in Britain. But even if it were, the needs of the situation in Britain in and after 205 could easily explain the apparent ‘demotion’ of Senecio–we need only cite the transfer of Julius Severus from Britain to Judaea under Hadrian (ILS 1056) or of Statius Priscus from Britain to Cappadocia under Marcus (ILS 1092).

40 To be included in this class (‘pro pietate ac devotione communi’) are RIB 928, 976, 1202, 1235, 1278 and 1305. No others are certain.

41 RIC Caracalla 206. He obviously planned deliberately to substitute, for a victory which was not really his (in Britain), a victory which was all his own (in Germany).

42 RIC Geta 172, 178, and 180; cf. Caracalla 230–1.

43 RIC Severus 195b, 295–7, and 311.

44 JRS LV, 1965, 223Google Scholar, no. 10; cf. PSAS XCVII, 1963–1964, 202–5Google Scholar.

45 e.g. RIB 722, where if we had only the first three letters of the first line, we should be wrong in assigning the inscription to the reign of a sole emperor.

46 If the inscription RIB 311 from Caerwent in fact refers to Claudius Paulinus, then he will probably have been the first legate of II Augusta after the setting up of consular Britannia Superior, in 212 or 213. There is time for him to govern Narbonensis and Lugdunensis, and to get to Britannia Inferior by 220.

47 It can hardly be dismissed as merely a ‘repeat’ of the division of Syria in 194, since Herodian does not in fact mention the latter.