No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2012
In 1921 Mr. Léon Homo published an elaborate study in the Revue Historique on ‘Les privilèges administratifs du Sénat romain sous l'Empire et leur disparition graduelle au cours du IIIe siècle. I have not seen any critical consideration of that study: in the following note I desire to discuss the conclusions of Mr. Homo so far as they are concerned with the edict of Gallienus and its application down to the military reorganisation of Diocletian. Mr. Homo's treatment of the problem is based upon his view of the historical value of the Historia Augusta: for a detailed statement of that view the student should consult his earlier paper on ‘La grande crise de l'an 238 ap. J.-C. et le problème de l'Histoire Auguste.’ His position he has summarised thus: the Historia is not a vast falsification dating from the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century: ‘Non. Il s'agit bien d'un recueil authentique de biographies rédigé sous la dynastie dioclétiano-constantinienne, et, par consequent, l'historien du IIIe siècle n'a pas le droit de la rejeter systématiquement. Mais deux réserves capitales sont nécessaires. Tout d'abord, l'Histoire Auguste abonde en anachronismes, dus à l'information médiocre et au manque d'esprit critique de ses auteurs.
page 195 note 1 Vol. cxxxvii (July-Aug. 1921), 162–203; cxxxviii (Sept.-Oct. 1921), 1–52.
page 195 note 2 Revue Historique, cxxxi (1919), 209–264Google Scholar; cxxxii (1919), 1–38.
page 195 note 3 ibid, cxxxvii, 162–3.
page 195 note 4 In this section of his paper Mr. Homo's treatment of the use of the title dux in the third century (pp. 169–179) contains a valuable discussion of the epigraphic evidence, though the reader misses a reference to Mommsen's Anhang to Von Sallet's Die Fürsten von Palmyra (cf. Ges. Schriften, vi, 204 f.), which first pointed the way to the solution of the problem.
page 196 note 1 Cf. Baynes, Norman H., ‘The Date of the Composition of the Historia Augusta,’ Classical Review, xxxviii, 165–169Google Scholar, and the monograph, The Historia Augusta: its Date and Purpose, shortly to be published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford.
page 196 note 2 Cf. Homo, L., ‘L'empereur Gallien et la crise de l'empire romain au IIIe Siècle.’ Revue Historique cxiii (1913), 1–22, 225–267Google Scholar.
page 198 note 1 It is common knowledge (cf. Pichlmayr's Preface to his edition of Aurelius Victor, Leipzig, 1911) that both our MSS. of the Caesares are derived from a single archetype. Here the Cod. Parisinus reads amissa, the Bruxellensis amisso I prefer the reading of the Bruxellensis.
page 199 note 1 Keyes, C. W.: The Rise of the Equites in the third century of the Roman Empire. Princeton Dissertation (Princeton University Press, 1915), pp. 49–54Google Scholar.
page 199 note 2 It is of course possible that even the equestrian governor before the reign of Diocletian was deprived of his military command; but I know of no evidence which would tend to support the view. Grosse's ‘Fingerzeig’ (Römische Militägeschichte, Berlin, 1920 p. 11Google Scholar) does not impress me.
page 200 note 1 Cf. his remarks upon C.I.L. viii, 2572, at p. 54.
page 200 note 2 Seeck's attribution of this Panegyric to Eumenius (cf. Seeck, O., ‘Die Reden des Eumenius,’ Jahrbücher für klassische Philologie, cxxxvii, 713Google Scholar) in Geschichte des Untergangs, etc., ii (1901), p. 507Google Scholar, and P.-W. v, 2, 1869, has misled Mr. Homo, who quotes the passages as from the speech pro restaur andis scholios. Homo, p. 171.
page 200 note 3 Cf. Reiche, F., Ueber die Teilung der Zivil und Militärgewalt im dritten Jahrhundert der römischen Kaiserzeit. Programm. Breslau, 1900Google Scholar.
page 200 note 4 p. 51, cf. Grosse, , Römische Militärgeschichte. Berlin, 1920, p. 10 n2Google Scholar.
page 200 note 5 I.G.R., 39, 40.
page 201 note 1 Stein, Ernst in Byzantinische Zeitschrift xxv, p. 387 n. 1Google Scholar.
page 202 note 1 P.-W., xii, 2, 1348.
page 202 note 2 ‘Diese Legion ist somit eine Schöpfung Aurelians, errichtet aus Mannschaften seiner illyrischen Legionen die den Sieg über das orientalische Reich hatten erfechten helfen.’ Ritterling, E., ‘Zum römischen Heerwesen des ausgenenden dritten Jahrhunderts’ in Hirschfeld Festschrift, Berlin, 1903, p. 347Google Scholar, and on Legio IV Martia cf. ibid, n4. Similarly on IV Italica as a creation of Alexander Severus or Gordian III, cf. Ritterling in P.-W. xii, 2, 1329 f. and 1337; IV Parthica he would attribute to Diocletian cf. ibid. 1329 f. with 1556.
page 202 note 3 Cf. L. Homo, Essai sur le règne de l'empereur Aurélien, p. 200.
page 202 note 4 Ritterling: P.-W. xii, 2. 1346–7.
page 202 note 5 See P.-W. xii, 2, 1350.
page 203 note 1 P.-W. xii, 2, 1404–5.
page 204 note 1 Seeck, O.: Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (Berlin, 1901) ii, 483–4Google Scholar; cf. Grosse, R.Römische Militärgeschichte, etc. (Berlin, 1920), p. 59Google Scholar.
page 204 note 2 ‘Quatre Préfets du Prétoire contemporains de Constantin,’ in Comptes Rendus, Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1924, pp. 229–233.
page 204 note 3 Cf. Atlas archéol. de la Tunisie: feuille de Grombalia, s. v. Tubernac, no. 20.
page 205 note 1 Cf. Athanasius Epist. heort. 4: his name is given as Fabius Pacatianus by Lietzmann Fasti Consulares Imperii Romani, p. 35.
page 205 note 2 Seeck: Regesten, etc. p. 64, 34.
page 205 note 3 Cf. Seeck: Regesten, etc. p. 144, 26 ff.
page 206 note 1 Cf. Seeck, Regesten, etc. p. 83, 5.
page 206 note 2 Cf. de Lessert, Palke, Fastes des provinces africaines, etc. II (Paris 1901) pp. 178–181Google Scholar.
page 206 note 3 Cf. C.J. xi, 60, 1.
page 207 note 1 Cf. Maurice, , Numismatique Constantinienne I, pp. clxvi, sqqGoogle Scholar.
page 207 note 2 And not 336 as the French editors suggest: this would mean that Pacatianus was again Prefect in the interval between 21 November, 335 and the date on which there was issued in Constantinople the constitution which was published by Gregorius in Carthage, on 21 July, 336.