The paper reprises the discussion concerning the phrase Dacia restituta within Pan. IV  uttered on March 1st, 297 at Augusta Treverorum by an anonymous orator on the occasion of celebrating the Quinquennalia, in the honour of Constantius becoming a Caesar. The first part features an overview of the opinions formulated regarding the localisation of Dacia mentioned by the orator. Hence, some believe that it is the North-Danubian province, “taken back” by the Empire around 289 or even 297. Others point out that it is the extreme southern area of the former province, controlled permanently by the Romans through the fortifications on the left bank of the river. Others yet, without denying that the orator was referring to the former trans-Danubian province, only credit the information with the value of rhetorical expression, as more of an ideological than a realistic claim. Finally, certain researchers pinpoint that the orator must have referred to the South-Danubian province of Dacia as a whole or to one of the provinces by that name (Dacia Ripensis, Dacia Mediterranea) situated on the left side of the river. The following lines feature the significations of the term restituta (-us), in general, then in the Panegyrici Latini. The paper also includes an internal analysis of the fragment where the phrase Dacia restituta is featured, as well as of other contexts within the speech where the lexeme in question is used, leading to the conclusion that the phrase can only refer to a Dacia that the Empire considered an integrant part of it—a provincia—and that was restored, reintegrated in the initial structures (administrative, legal, tax-related, etc.) of the state, after the perturbation of the natural evolution by the barbarian incursions. Hence, it could not have been the former province of Dacia in the north of the Danube, given that its legal Roman status had ceased de jure and definitively upon the official abandonment of the province, but the province of Dacia in the south of the Danube, in close connection with the events requiring the presence of Diocletian on the Danubian front in 289, 290–291, 293–294, 296. A further argument to support this idea is the frequency of the opposition amissa-recepta, not amissa-restituta. Finally, the foreign policy ideology of the 297 speech is worth highlighting; namely, the view according to which the Empire was a closed space, a stable world, where territorial acquisitions on the left bank of the Danube were excluded.