Provenance and location

Ancient city: Portus (Ostia)
Modern city: Fiumicino (Rome - Italy)
Province: Urbs
Diocese: Italiciana
Regional prefecture: Italia Illyricum Africa
Provenance: Christian Basilica of Portus (Ostia), South side of the Trajan’s port
Current location: Ostia antica (Rome), deposit of Portus, inv. sc. 21a-e, 3013-3014
Ancient location: public building

Type and material of the support and text layout

Text category

Building inscription

Latin text

Critical edition

Edition based on Nuzzo 2013.

Translations

English

“... restored (?) ... Ulpius Limenius ... responsible for the restoration ...”

French

“... il a restauré (?) ... Ulpius Limenius ... responsable de la restauration ...”

Italian

“... restaurò (?) ... Ulpius Limenius ... curando il restauro ...”

The inscription and its prefects: critical commentary, updating, overviews

The five joining fragments of the inscription were found inside the christian basilica of Portus. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, the town of Portus grew up around the harbour, built by the emperors Claudius and Trajan at the mouth of the Tiber (cf. Bruun, Gallina Zevi 2002; Keay, Millett, Paroli, Strutt 2005; Keay, Paroli 2011; Keay 2012; further recent and forthcoming bibliography, see the website ‘Portus Project’ https://www.portusproject.org/). After 313 AD, the town was elevated to the rank of city by the emperor Constantine (Civitas Flavia Constantiniana Portuensis), and a Christian community is attested here (Lenski 2016, pp. 144-147). Around 430 AD, a Christian basilica was built within the large hall of a domus, dating from the second half of the 4th century. The basilica is located on the South-West side of the Trajan’s port and is North of the ‘Fossa Traiana’ (for the location, cf. Paroli 2013, p. 2, fig. 1.1). The Christian basilica was enlarged and restored several times during its long history, finally being abandoned in the 13th Century. It was re-discovered in 1865 during the excavations of the Torlonia family and was identified by G.B. De Rossi as the so-called “Xenodochio di Pammachio”. Thanks to new excavations in 1991-2007, archaeologists have reconstructed the building's phases, uncovering more than 100 Latin inscriptions - including two Greek ones - together with the fragments pertaining to our inscription. The fragments of the inscription form a square stone slab, that had orginally been cut from the lower left corner of a larger inscribed block. At some point, and no earlier than the 10th Century, the latter was cut for reuse in order to line in a subterranean tomb inside the christian basilica. They are currently stored in the deposit of the Porto archaeological site (for the basilica and the find spot, cf. Paroli 2005 and 2013).

Although the fragmentary inscription does not explicitly mention the title of praetorian prefect, it does cite the name of Ulpius Li[menius]. In 342 AD, we know that Ulpius Limenius was proconsul of Constantinople and that from June 12th 347 AD to April 8th 349 AD, he was exceptionally praetorian prefect of Italy, while being also prefect of Rome at the same time. He was honoured with the ordinary consulship in 349 AD (Chastagnol 1962, pp. 128-130; PLRE I, p. 510; CLRE, pp. 232-233 for whom he is a senator of Constantinople; according to Moser 2018, p. 100-102, he is a member of the Roman aristocracy, but originally from Greece). The source for this new dual office – praetorian prefecture of Italy together with the prefecture of Rome – is, as always, the official list of the urban prefecture in the ‘Chronographus anni CCCLIIII’ (MGH AA 09, Chron. Min. 01, pp. 68-69; on this particular text, cf. Salzman 1990; Burgess 2012; Divjak, Wischmeyer 2014). During his mandate, Limenius received two constitutions from the emperor Constans, CTh 09, 21, 06 (February 12th 349 AD) and CTh 09, 17, 02 (March 28th 349 AD). He held the consulship from January 1st 349 AD, but the ‘Chronographus anni CCCLIIII’ states that on April 8th 349 AD, Limenius left office, which implies that there must have been 41 days in which no one holding either post (but cf. Jones 1964, p. 82 for the replacement by Eustathius). Finally, on May 19th 349 AD, the emperor Constans appointed Hermogenes to the prefecture of both Italy and Rome (PLRE I, p. 423; he remained in office until February 27th 350 AD, when Rome and Italy were controlled by Magnentius). Perhaps Limenius was discharged and remained consul for the other eight months of the year, or maybe he just died while in office (see Chastagnol 1962, p. 129 with previous bibliography and PLRE I, p. 510; Machado 2019, p. 32).

The union of the praetorian prefecture of Italy with that of Rome was an innovation of the emperor Constans, which occurred during the last part of his reign (347-350 AD). It is highly probable that in 346/347 AD Constans assigned the praetorian prefecture of Illyricum to Anatolius (regarding the identity of this prefect and the existence of two homonymous praetorian prefects, Anatolius Azutrius and Vindaeonius Anatolius, see PPRET 47). Then, from at least 347 to 350 AD, the emperor assigned the Illyririan praefecture to Vulcacius Rufinus (see PPRET 32, 33). At the beginning of the 350 AD, Constans was assassinated by Magnentius, who ruled Italy while Vetranion reigned in Illyricum. From 346 AD and until the beginning of Julian’s principate, the praetorian prefecture of Italy (less Africa) and Illyricum, each had its own praetorian prefect, but the union of the praetorian prefectures of Italy and Rome remained an experiment by the emperor Constans, and was confined to the years 347-349 AD (the usurper Magnentius seems to have held a praetorian prefecture which was distinct from the urban prefecture in Rome). On the praetorian prefecture of Constantius II and Constans and on the double prefecture of Limenius and Hermogenes cf. the different interpretations of Palanque 1955; Jones 1964, pp. 81-82; Neri 1974; Vogler 1979, pp. 110-144; Barnes 1987, pp. 17-22; Barnes 1992, pp. 255-259; Migl 1994, pp. 95-124 (but in his opinion the prefectures are not yet regional before 364 AD); for a mixture of ‘regional’ and ‘ministerial’ praetorian prefectures between 337 and 355 AD cf. Davenport 2016, in particular for Limenius pp. 228-229; Moser 2018, for Limenius pp. 107-110 (prefect only of the southern part of the Italian diocese); on Constans’ relations with Rome cf. Harries 2012, pp. 189-196; Moser 2017, on how the prefectures shared power pp. 42-46.

A short clarification. The author of this entry does not agree with the hypothesis of the existence of a regional praetorian prefecture alongside a ministerial praetorian prefecture. Nor does the author agree with the idea that the offices of the praetorian prefects operated without any pre-defined and precise territorial limits. In our opinion, all praetorian prefectures from Constantine (only Augustus) onwards are regional and the prefects are no longer the internal officers of the comitatus of the Augusti (or of the Caesars). Despite the gaps in the documentation, in the seventy years from 326 to 395 AD, the praetorian prefecture of Illyricum tends to be distinct and autonomous from the praetorian prefecture of Italy. The two prefectures only appear united in the large prefecture of Italia-Illyricum-Africa in the periods 338-344 AD, i.e. in the first half of the principate of Constans, and 361-376 AD, that is to say, during the reigns of Iulianus and Valentinianus I. Concerning the double prefecture of Limenius, a division of the Italian diocese between the praetorian prefects Vulcacius Rufinus in the North (Annonaria regio) and Ulpius Limenius then Hermogenes, in the South (Suburbicaria regio) is not considered possible.

The inscription, although fragmentary, clearly refers to building restorations in the city of Portus in Late Antiquity, while the praetorian prefects themselves are remembered as supervisors of civil and military constructions (see PPRET 08, 14, 15, 16, 30, 33, 42, 44, 49, 68, 69, 90). Significantly, Portus was in the district administered by Ulpius Limenius, praetorian prefect of Italy and prefect of Rome. From the 4th Century AD, the management of buildings and the infrastructure of Portus and Ostia fell within the competence of the prefect of Rome (cf. Chastagnol 1960, p. 368; for a former praetorian prefect who builds in Ostia, see PPRET 41 and 42). The dimensions and the elegance of the letters of our inscription and the presence of the verb in l. 1 would suggest a restoration financed by the (distant) Augusti, whose names occupied the first position in the text, now lost. The restoration seems to have been supervised by the praetorian prefect of Italy and Rome (l. 2) and carried out in Portus by another authority, perhaps the prefect of the Annona (l. 3; cf. Pavis d’Escurac 1976, pp. 287-289). The editor of our inscription suspects that the inscription refers to works carried out by the prefect of the Annona on building(s) in Portus (cf. Nuzzo 2013, pp. 498-499, with references to other late-antique sources).

Given the incomplete onomastics and the lack of an explicit reference to Ulpius Li[menius] as the acting official, we cannot be sure that the personage referred to in the Portus fragments, is indeed the praetorian prefect of Italy and prefect of Rome and consul of Constans Augustus. Furthermore, the palaeography of this inscription is such that a 5th and even early 6th Century AD cannot be excluded. In this regard, I would like to thank M.L. Caldelli and M. Turci for the report concerning fragments of an inscribed slab from Ostia, which probably date to the restoration of a part of the Baths of Porta Marina (493/526 AD; article in print). In the fragment, the curator of the work is named as Ulpius, but the senator’s cognomen and office are unfortunately lost in a lacuna. The surviving letters of this unpublished inscription are elongated, while the stroke of the ‘A’ is broken, two characteristics which are similar to the letters of our inscription from Portus. Although most scholars attribute the restoration mentioned in the Portus fragments to Ulpius Li[menius] caution should still be exercised.

Bibliography

Barnes T.D., Regional Prefectures, in Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1984/85, Bonn 1987, 13-23.

Barnes T.D., Praetorian Prefects, 337-361, ZPE, 94, 1992, 249-260.

Bruun C., Gallina Zevi A. (a cura di), Ostia e Portus nelle loro relazioni con Roma. Atti del Convegno all’Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, 3 e 4 dicembre 1999, Roma 2002.

Burgess R.W., The Chronograph of 354: its Manuscripts, Contents, and History, JLA, 5/2, Fall 2012, 345-396 Caldelli M.L., Turci M., Ostia: un’iscrizione inedita e i restauri di età teodericiana alle Terme di Porta Marina, c.d.s..

Chastagnol A., La Préfecture urbaine à Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris 1960.

Davenport C., The dynamics of imperial government: collegiality and regionalism, in N.J. Baker-Brian, S. Tougher (eds.), The sons of Constantine, AD 337-361: in the shadows of Constantine and Julian, Palgrave 2020, 223-254.

Divjak J., Wischmeyer W. (hrsg.), Das Kalenderhandbuch von 354. Der Chronograph des Filocalus, 2 voll., Wien 2014 (cf. rec. R.W. Burgess, ZAC, 21, 2017, 383-415).

Harries J., Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363. The New Empire, Edinburgh 2012.

Jones A.H.M., Collegiate Prefectures, JRS, 54, 1964, 78-89 (= Id., The Roman Economy, Oxford 1974, 375-395).

Keay S. (ed.), Rome, Portus and the Mediterranean, London 2012.

Keay S., Paroli L. (eds), Portus and its Hinterland. Recent Archaeological Research, London 2011.

Keay S., Millett M., Paroli L., Strutt K. (eds), Portus. An archaeological survey of the Port of imperial Rome, 2 voll., London 2005.

Lenski N., Constantine and the cities. Imperial authority and civic politics, Philadelphia (Pa.) 2016.

Machado C., Urban Space and Aristocratic Power in Late Antique Rome, AD 270-535, Oxford 2019.

Migl J., Die Ordnung der Ämter. Prätorianerpräfektur und Vikariat in der Regionalverwaltung des Römischen Reiches von Konstantin bis zur Valentinianischen Dynastie, Frankfurt am Main-Berlin-Bern 1994.

Moser M., Ein Kaiser Geht auf Distanz: die Rompolitik Constans’I, Ant Tard, 25, 2017, 41-58.

Moser M., Emperor and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II. Maintaining Imperial Rule between Rome and Constantinople in the Fourth Century AD, Cambridge 2018.

Neri V., Le prefetture del pretorio in Occidente nel periodo 346-350 d.C., RSA, 4, 1974, 89-111.

Nuzzo D., Le iscrizioni, in M. Maiorano, L. Paroli, (a cura di), La Basilica Portuense. Scavi 1991-2007, II, Borgo San Lorenzo 2013, 493-519.

Palanque J.-R., Les préfets du prétoire sous les fils de Constantin, Historia, 4, 1955, 257-263.

Paroli L., in collaborazione con A.L. Lionetti, M. Maiorano, The Basilica Portuense, in S. Keay, M. Millett, L. Paroli, K. Strutt (eds), Portus. An archaeological survey of the Port of imperial Rome, London 2005, 258-268.

Paroli L., Ricerche e studi sulla Basilica Portuense, in M. Maiorano, L. Paroli (a cura di), La Basilica Portuense. Scavi 1991-2007, I, Borgo San Lorenzo 2013, 1-8.

Pavis d’Escurac H., La Préfecture de l’annone. Service administratif impérial d’Auguste à Constantin, Roma 1976.

Salzman M.R., On Roman Time. The Codex-calendar of 354 and the rhythms of urban life in Late Antiquity, Berkeley 1990.

Vogler C., Constance II et l’administration impériale, Strasbourg 1979.

Praetorian prefects and epigraphic habit