This paper follows the evolution in the institutional role and power of governors of the provincial districts in Italy from Diocletian to Justinian. There is no single governor's model which can be applied to the entire provincial territory, nor is there one which is valid in Italy for the entire period when a Roman provincial system can be considered as in force. Throughout the 4th century, and in the early years of the 5th century, in the central-south regions the great Roman-Italic landowning aristocracy was prominent in administration. The emperors knew how to take advantage of the mediating and even governing potential of their political-administrative methods and patronal traditions. Even though this élite was not excluded from office in Italia "Annonaria", the presence of imperial seats in Aquileia and, above all, in Milan, as well as the greater proximity to the military frontiers and the different social and economic background very likely required a more "bureaucratic" interpretation of the role of governor, and in some cases also the ability to deal with military emergencies. We may surmise that these needs certainly influenced the selection of the governors, even if the scarce nature of prosopographical information does not allow us to form definite conclusions. From the point of view of competence and authority, the Italic governors were no different from all the others: their main duties included the collection of taxes (but even in this context the provisioning of Rome had peculiar implications for the suburbicarian area and also for the cursus honorurn) and the administration of justice. In this respect, unjustified reservations have been expressed regarding the capital jurisdiction of the Italic governors, due, in part, to an inadequate examination of the evidence. Militarization and attempts at centralization progressed relentlessly in the 5th and the 6th centuries. In the 5th century once again we come up against the difficulties caused by inadequate documentation. It is assumed however that the great families belonging to the senatorial aristocracy tended to avoid positions of intermediate administrative responsibility (which is how a governorship must be considered, at least for many peninsular provinces), preferring to move on directly, and at an early age, to higher positions, be they palatine or connected with territorial government. This phenomenon seems to continue in the Ostrogothic age, and as far as the recruitment of governors is concerned, preference is given to the upper classes at the regional level and perhaps to civil functionaries linked to the Gothic court. In this period there are discontinuities in terms of functions, inasmuch the traditional responsibilities of the governors are reduced to a certain extent. From the point of view of the general structure of the districts, the dioecesis Italiciana regresses with respect to the situation in the 1st century and a half after provincialization. This is due both to the losses caused by invasions and to internal structural changes. Considering the Lombard invasion and the reduction in size of the Byzantine districts, and taking into account the gradual petering out of the traditional tax system and the increasingly extensive militarization of society and administrative figures, it no longer makes sense to speak about (civil) provincial governors based on the Roman model, even though sources continue to use the terms iudices and praesides sporadically up to the 7th century. The article ends with an appendix which contains information regarding recently found documents or new discussions of a prosopographical nature.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
May 1, 2005
Timothy D Noakes 
