80UTHEBN ROMAN BARRIER IN BRITAIN. 139' 



The paucity of remains of the latter part of the fourth century, and 

 the total absence of inscriptions and coins after the first decade of the 

 fifth, including any evidence of Christianity in the period, strongly 

 militate against this theory, that gains but little support from such 

 authorities as Claudian or Gildas. I incline to Horsley's inferences, as 

 modified by Mr. MacLauchlan, and think it very probable that the 

 wall and works were repaired and altered in the times of Theodosius 

 and Stilicho. 



Turning from this question, regarding which (as I have never seen 

 the remains and have no personal knowledge of the locality) I cannot 

 but feel — non nostrum — tantas componere lites, I shall merely add to 

 these prefatory remarks, with a view to the clearer apprehension of the 

 statements in the subjoined analysis, that, in addition to a few inci- 

 dental notices in classical authors, the authorities for the troops in 

 Britain during the Roman occupation of the island are — ^JVotitia 

 Dignitatum et Adminisirationum omnium tarn civilium quam milita- 

 rium. in partibus Orientis et Occidentis ; three Tabidse Honestse Mis- 

 sionis found in the island, viz., Trajan's of A.D. 104, Trajan's of A.D. 

 106, and Hadrian's of A.D. 124 ; and other inscriptions, chiefly British ; 

 whilst the authorities for geographical items are -\PtolemcBi GeograpJiia, 

 J Antonini Itinerarium, and || Anonymus Ravennas. 



* The date of this work is uncertain. Panciroli was of opinion that it was 

 written at the close of the reign of Theodosius Junior, i. e. about the middle of 

 the fifth century. This opinion is rejected as evidently erroneous, by Booking. 

 Gibbon was of opinion that it was composed between the division of the empire, 

 A.D. 395, and the successful invasion of Gaul by the barbarians, A.D. 40*7. 

 Guizot refers it to the time of the Emperor Theodosius I. that is, in the fifth 

 century, when the empire was already divided into Eastern and "Western. Mr. 

 Hodgson Hinde, History of Northumberland, vol. 1, pp. 18-19, suggests reasons 

 for inferring that " the Notitia was compiled in or about the year 403, the date 

 of the battle of PoUentia." I have strong doubts that all the statements in it 

 are records of the same year, and suspect that the original has in some places 

 been modified. We may however, I think, safely assume that its notices do not 

 extend lower than about the beginning of the second decade of the fifth century. 



There is an able article on the Roman army in Britain, by Hiibner, in the 

 Eheinische Museum fiir PhUologie, n. 1, 1856. 



f Flourished A.D. 150. 



X The date of this work, also, is uncertain. The Antoninus after whom it is called 

 has been regarded as Marcus Aurelius, but there is reason to believe that this 

 road-book of the Roman Dominions was commenced by order of Julius Csesar, 

 and completed in the reign of Augustus. The copy of it, that we at present 



