« ForrigeFortsett »
of the Constantinople mint appears on coins of Constantine I. and II., Constantius, Constans, Helena, Theodore, Delmatius and Hannibalianus, in short all the members of the Imperial family who survived the foundation of the Capital (11th May, 330); but in the Fausta series as in the Crispus series the sign never appears, and in the Trier mint the latest coins of both belong to the same emission. Eusebius, the writer of the Anonymous Walesian fragment, and Aurelius Victor are silent as to the death of Fausta; but this proves nothing, on the principle, as Seeck observes, “im Hause des Gehenkten redet man nicht vom Stricke”. The evidence as to the circumstances of the tragedy is investigated in a suggestive manner by Seeck, “Die Verwandtenmorde Constantins des Grossen,” in Ztsch. f, wiss. Theol. 33, 1890, p. 63 sqq. He distinguishes four independent testimonies. (1) Eutropius (on whom Jerome and Orosius depend) states simply that Constantine put to death his son and wife. (2) Sidonius Apollinaris mentions (Ep. v. 8 that Crispus was poisoned, Fausta suffocated by a hot bath. These kinds o death were suitable to avoid the appearance of violence. (3) Philostorgius (ii. 4) assigns causes. He says that Crispus, calumniated by Fausta, was put to death, and that she was afterwards found guilty of adultery with a cursor and killed in a hot bath. (4) A common source, on which the Epitome of Victor, the account of Zosimus, and that of John the Monk in the Vita S. Artemii (Acta Sanct. 8th October) depend, stated that Fausta charged Crispus with having offered her violence; Crispus was therefore executed; then Helena persuaded Constantine that Fausta was the guilty one, and induced him to kill her by an overheated bath. Then Constantine repents; the heathen priests declared that his deeds could not be expiated; Christianity offered forgiveness and he became a Christian. Seeck points out that this unknown source agrees with Philostorgius in three j the manner of Fausta's death; her guilt in causing the death of Crispus; er connexion with a story of adultery. In the details (which Gibbon, p. 210-11, combines) they differ. Seeck argues for the view that the drama of Fausta and Crispus was a renewal of that of É.i. and Hippolytus. It is certainly by no means impossible that this is the solution; the evidence for it is not absolutely convincing (especially as the Vita Artemii is of extremely doubtful value; cp. Görres, Z. f. wiss. }. l., 30, 1887, 243 sqq.). Seeck conjectures that Constantine's law of 22nd April (C. Th. ix. 7, 2) which confines the liberty to bring accusations of adultery to the husband's and the wife's nearest relatives, and in their case converts the liberty into a duty, &c., was partly occasioned by the Emperor's own experience. But I cannot regard as successful Seeck's attempt to show that the younger Licinius (1) was not the son of Constantia, but the bastard of a slave-woman whom Constantia was compelled to adopt, and (2) was not killed in 326, but was alive in 336; by means of the rescripts Cod. Theod. iv. 6, 2 and 3. Cp. the criticisms of Görres in the same vol. of Z. f. wiss. Theol. p. 324-7.
15. DIVISIONS OF THE EMPIRE, A.D. 293 to 378—(P. 214, 224)
The chief interest of the divisions of the Empire in A.D. 335 and 337-8 lies in their connexion with the general subject of the lines of geographical division drawn by Imperial partitions in the century between Diocletian and Arcadius. The divisions in the first half of this period (A. d. 285-338) present various difficulties, from the circumstance that the statements of our best authorities are not sufficiently precise, and those of secondary authorities are often divergent. Here I would lay stress upon a principle which has not been sufficiently considered. Later writers were accustomed to certain stereotyped lines of division which had been fixed by the partitions of A.D. (364 and) 395; and they were determined by these in interpreting the geographical phrases of earlier writers. It is therefore especially important in this case to consider the testimonies of the earlier writers apart from later exegesis. It is also clear that names like Illyricum (which came to be distinguished into the diocese [Western] and the prefecture [Eastern]), Thrace (which might mean either the diocese or the province, or might bear, as in Anon. Val., its old sense, covering the four provinces south of Mount Haemus), Gaul (which might include Spain and Britain), were very likely to mislead into false and various explanations. I. Division of A.D. 293. (1) a, Maximian: Italy, Africa, Spain; b, Constantius: Gaul and Britain. (2) c, Diocletian: Dioceses of Pontus and the East, including Egypt; d, Galerius: Dioceses of Pannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, Thrace and Asia. As to (1), a passage in the De Mort., our earliest authority, is quite decisive; in c. 8, Africa vel (=et) Hispania, are assigned to Maximian. , Against this, we cannot entertain Julian's ascription of Spain to Constantius (Or. ii. p. 65); an error which would easily arise from the inclusion (under Constantine) of Spain in the Prefecture of Gaul. Under Diocletian the division of the west is drawn across the map, by Alps and Pyrenees, not downward. (Victor, Caes., 39, 30, does not mention Spain; his Galliae might = Gaul + Britain, or = Gaul + Britain.-Spain. Praxagoras mentions neither Africa nor Spain.) As to (?), ou, authorities are Praxagoras and Victor, and the truth has been obscured by foliowing the statements of later writers. Praxagoras assigns to Galerius ris re'EAAé$os kai rās kāra, 'Agias Kat 9poxms; to Diocletian Tàs re Bovias kai ris ABüns kai ris Aiyurrow. Now in this enumeration a rough principle may be observed. He enumerates countries which mark the lines of division. Less well informed as to the west, he does not commit himself about Spain. Beginning at the north, he gives Britain to Constantius (K. Bperavias Baaria.), and Italy to Maximian ; implying that Maximian's realm began, where Constantius's ended. Thus Gaul is implicitly assigned to Constantius; Africa to Maximian. From the extreme south, Diocletian's part reaches to Bithynia, which implies the Dioceses of Pontus and the East; while Thrace and Asia (* Káro 'Agia, to designate the diocese, not the province), mark the line of partition on the side of Galerius, whose realm in the other direction stretches, it is implied, to Italy. (Hellas is mentioned, doubtless, because the writer was an Athenian.) There is no good reason for rejecting this evidence; the same assignment of Asia is repeated (on the same authority) at the later division of 315. It is at least not contradicted by the not precise statement of Aur. Victor (ib.): Illyrica ora adusque Ponti fretum Galerio; cetera Valerius retentavit. Later writers, accustomed to the later division of the Prefectures of Illyricum and the East, could hardly realize this cross division; the utmost their imaginations could compass would be to connect Thrace with Illyricum instead of Asia Minor. That the statesmen of Diocletian's age did not regard the Propontis as a necessary geographical boundary, and that a part of Asia could be as easily attached to Europe as a part of Europe : be attached to Asia, is proved by the next division on incontestably good evidence. II. A. D. 305. (1) a, Severus: Maximian's portion with Diocese of Pannonia; b, Constantius: as before, with Spain (?). (2) c, Maximin: Egypt, the East; Pontus (o) except Bithynia; d, Galerius: as before, with Bithynia, but without Pannonia. Anon. Val. iii. 5. Maximino datum est orientis imperium: Galerius sibi Illyricum Thracias et Bithyniam tenuit. (Thraciae: the point of the plural is probably to include Moesia ii. and Scythia; as, in 18, the singular excludes them. See below.) Victor, with his usual vagueness (40, 1), gives Italy to Severus ; quae Iouius obtinuerat to Maximin. Anon. Val. 4, 9. Severo Panmoniae et Italiae urbes et Africae contigerunt. III. A.D. 306 (on death of Constantius). (1) a, Constantine: Britain and Gaul; b, Severus (Maxentius): as before, with Spain. (2) c, d, As before. It is clear that, since (according to Anon. Val.) the Caesar Severus had Diocese of Pannonia, he could not have also had Spain; for his realm would have been quite out of proportion to that of the Augustus Constantius. We may therefore assume that on Maximian's resignation Constantius took over Spain, but that after his death it was claimed by Severus, as Augustus, and actually held for a time by Maxentius. IV. A. D. 314. Constantine now has all the dominions that from 293 to 305 were held by Constantius, Maximian and Galerius, with the exception of Thrace. Licinius has Diocletian's part, along with Thrace. The important point in this
arrangement is the beginning of an administrative connexion between Thrace and the East; they would now be governed by the same Praetorian Prefect. Praxagoras (F. H. G. iv. p. 3): 'EAAados re ra. Marešovods ra. 1 is rarw (ita leg. pro cara) Agias were acquired by Constantine. Anon. Val. 18; Licinius: orientem, Asiam, Thraciam, Moesiam, minorem Scythiam. V. A. p. 335. [The arrangement of this year was not a division of the Empire, but partly a confirmation .# the assignment of administrative spheres, alread made to his sons, and partly a new assignment of administrations to his nephews. Constantine id:". directly sacrifice the unity of the Empire, which was still realized in his own sovereignty, though he adopted a policy which might at any moment endanger it. “Von einer Erbtheilung ist dabei nicht die Rede, sondern * von einem Antheil an der Verwaltung" (Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iv. 2, 270). (1) Constantine had Gaul, Britain and Spain (= the later “Prefecture of Gaul”); (2) Constantius, Asia and Egypt; (3) Constans, Italy, Africa, and Illyricum (including Thrace). For Delmatius the ripa Gothica was cut off from the portion of Constans; Hannibalian had (at the expense of Constantius) a “kingdom” composed of principalities in the regions of Pontus and Armenia. The question is, what were the limits of the province of Delmatius: Is ripa Gothica [I have not seen noticed a parallel expression in De Mortibus, 17, where Galerius reaches Nicomedia, per circuitum ripa, strigae, where the emendation Istricae is doubtless right] to be interpreted as Eastern Illyricum (=dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia, and Thrace)? So Schiller (ii. 235), Ranke, Burckhardt and others. But the Epitome of Victor (41, 20), includes in the share of Constans “Dalmatia, Thrace, Macedonia and Achaia”. Ranke supposes that Dalmatiam here is a scribe's mistake for Dalmatius, and that we should interpret the ripa Gothica of the Anonymous by the words thus amended. If we adopted this view, it would be better to o Dalmacious Daci-am Thraciam Macedoniam Achaiamdue. But a view that necessitates tampering with a text which in itself gives perfect sense cannot be accepted as ... There is a further o; here. The text of the Epitome agrees remarkably with the statement of Zonaras, xiii. 5, which assigns to Constans Italy, Africa, Sicily and the islands, Illyricum, Macedonia, “Achaia, with the Peloponnesus”. The Epitome was not a direct source of Zonaras; but the agreement is explained by the fact they both (the author of the Epitome directly, Zonaras indirectly) drew from a common source (probably Ammianus: cp. L. Jeep, Quellenunt. zu den gr. Kirchenhistorikern, p. 67). Thus the assumption of a textual error in the Epitome means the assumption of an error in the text of an earlier authority; and therefore becomes decidedly hazardous and unconvincing. Add to this that the o of ripa Gothica to include or to imply Macedonia and Greece is extremely forced. The natural meaning of the expression is: the provinces of Dacia, Moesia I. and II, and Scythia," and perhaps Pannonia and Noricum. The actual testimonies of the two best authorities, that are explicit, concur in showing that the main division of A. D 335 was tripartite—between the Emperor's three sons—and that only subsidiary (though highly responsible) posts in frontier regions were given to the two nephews. This view is also more in accordance with Zosimus, ii. 39, who distinctly marks a triple division.” Nor is it contradicted by Eusebius, Panegyr. ch. iii., which only proves that Delmatius (unlike Hannibalian) was a Caesar, and thus co-ordinate in dignity with his cousins. WI. A.D. 337-8. (1) Constantius: as before, along with the kingdom of Hannibalian, and the four provinces of D. Thrace, south of Haemus;* (2) Constans: as
1 Chron. Pasch., p. 532, ed. B. gives Mesopotamia to Delmatius (Godefroy accepted the statement). I conjecture that Meoromorautav may have arisen from Mwatav traparoraputav =Moesiam ripensem.
2 He pretends to mark it as it existed at the death of Constantine (before the destruction of Delmatius); though he seems really to give the subsequent division.
3 The dates in the early edicts of the C.Th. are not certain enough to permit us to draw an inference from xi. 1, 4 (professedly issued by Constantius at Thessalonica in November 337).
before, along with ripa Gothica, including Moesia II. and Scythia; and without (?) Raetia or part of Africa; (3) Constantine: as before, along with some part of Africa or of the Diocese of Italy (?). We have not data for determining the details of this partition. The problem was to divide the provinces held by the two nephews into three parts. To secure geographical continuity Constans would naturally take the ripa Gothica, and hand over some part of his western dominions to Constantine; he likewise resigned Thrace south of Haemus (not Moesia and Scythia, I infer from Zos. ii. 39, who gives to Constans and Constantine rà rept tow Evêstrov movrov) to Constantius. The war which broke out between Constans and Constantine was probably connected with the question of the territorial compensation to be received by the latter; seeing that Zos. ii. 41, ascribes it to a dispute about Africa and Italy. Gibbon (with Tillemont) has accepted from the Chron. Alex. of Eutychius a curious notice (under Ol. 279) that Constantine the yo. reigned for a year at Constantinople. The only possible support I can see for this statement must be derived from the passage of Zosimus. He groups together the lands of Constantine and Constans, as if they ruled jointly over an undivided realm, in which he includes “the regions of the Euxine". A defender of Eutychius might urge that for some months at least Constans did not assert his independence, that his elder brother may have governed for him, and that the transference of Thrace to Constantius may have been subsequent. But without further evidence it is better to leave the #o notice aside; and I may call attention to Ranke's remark that there is a tendency in the account of Zosimus, who desiring to justify Magnentius is hostile to Constans and anxious to throw on him the blame for the war with Constantime. The division of 338 A.D. is given as follows in the Life of St. Artemius (Acta Sanct., Oct. 20)—a document which merits more criticism than it has received:— ." Constantine: ai äva, Taxata, kai rā insixeiva "AAwesov (an expression often used to include Spain), aire Boerravukai vigot (Britain and the Orcades, etc.? cp. Eutropius 7, 13, and the interpolation in the Laterculus of Polemius Silvius, see above, App. 11), kai aws row someptov dreavow. (2) Constans: ai xário Taxxia. iryout. at 'Iraxia. (Italy with its adjuncts, Sicily, Africa, etc.), ra, airn # ‘Péun. (3) Constantius: to ris àvaroa is uépos, Bukavrov, rā ārb row Laavpirot (implying that Illyricum went to Constans) uéxpt ris IIpomovričos ordaa imiroa rois ‘Panaiots riv re oupiav kat IIaMalorrivny kai Megororaputav kai Aiyvrrow kai rās viorovs dirtigas. The Vita Artemii (the Greek text was first published by A. Mai in Spicilegium Romanum, vol. iv.) was composed # “John the Monk,” and professes to be compiled from the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius and some other writers. Eusebius, Socrates and Theodoret are also referred to. There is evidence that Philostorgius was largely used, and consequently the Life of Artemius becomes an important mine of material for the restoration of the history of that Arian writer. The story of Gallus is, I presume, derived from him, and I conjecture that the statement of the partition of the Empire among the sons of Constantine comes from the same source. If so, both passages ultimately depend on Eunapius, who was doubtless the source of Philostorgius. From the same source is certainly derived the statement of the partition in Constantine Porphyrogennetos, de Them., ii. 9 (ed. Bonn, p. 57). The portion of Constantine is described in exactly the same words as in the Vita Artemii (rås iro Taoxias rat rā oréxetva'AAméay gos roo to reptov 'nxeavoo, except that instead of “the British Isles” the imperial geographer says “as far as the city of Canterbury itself" (Kávrabow). The expression at kara, Taxxia, is also used, but, in expanding the concise expressions of his source, Constantine falls into error and assigns Illyricum and Greece to Constantius. VII. A.D. 364. (1) Valentinian i: ; Prefectures of Gaul, and of Italy and Illyricum; (2) Valens: Prefecture of the East, including D. of Thrace. II. A.D. 378. (1) Gratian and Valentinian ii. : Prefectures of Gaul and of Italy, including Western Illyricum : (2) Theodosius: Prefecture of the East, along with Dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia (Soz. vii. 4). This partition, which drew a new line of division between East and West,
probably established definitely the system of four prefectures which Zosimus attributed to the express enactment of Constantine. Up to this time three pr. prefects seem to have been the rule, four an exception. But now, instead of adding Eastern Illyricum to the large Prefecture of the East, Theodosius instituted a new Prefecture.
16. THE SARMATIANS-(P. 216)
It is often asserted that “Sarmatian” was a generic name for Slavonic peoples. It is certain that a great many Slavonic tribes must have been often described under the name, but it is extremely doubtful whether any of the chief Sarmatian peoples—the Bastarnae, the Roxolani (? Rox-alani) or Jazyges—were Slavonic. I believe that Šafarik, in taking up a negative position on this question, was right (Slawische Alterthümer, ed. Wo. i. 333 sqq.). But I cannot think that he has quite made out the Slavonic race of the Carpi (ib. 213-4), though this is accepted by Jireček (Gesch. der Bulgaren, p. 77); he has a more plausible case, rhaps, for the Kostoboks. On the other hand it is extremely #. though it cannot be absolutely proved, that in the great settlements of non-German É. made in the third and fourth centuries in the Illyrian peninsula by the oman Emperors, some Slavonic tribes were included. This is an idea which was developed by Drinov in his rare book on the Slavic colonization of the Balkan lands, and has been accepted by Jireček. There is much probability in the view that Slavonic settlers were among the 300,000 Sarmatae, to whom Constantine assigned abodes in 334 A.D. It is an hypothesis such as, in some form, is needed to account for the appearance of Slavonic names before the beginning of the sixth century in the Illyrian provinces. Safarik tried to show that the Alani, Roxolani, Bastarnae, Jazyges, &c., were # ‘. race, allied to the Persians and Medes,<-like the Scythians of erodotus.
17. BATTLE OF SINGARA–(P. 227)
I have shown in the Byzantinische Zeitschrift (vol. 5) that we should accept Júlian's notice as to the date of this battle (and place it in A.D. 344), instead of following Jerome's date (adopted by Idatius), A.D. 348. One might be tempted to guess that there were two battles at Singara, and that the nocturna pugna was placed in the wrong year by an inadvertence of Jerome; this might be considered in connexion with Forster's reconstruction of the corrupt passage of Festus, Brev. ch. 27: Verum pugnis Sisaruena, Singarena, et iterum Singarena praesente Constantio ao Sicgarena, &c. The vvorouaxia is described below as: nocturna Elliensi prope Singaram pugna. Elliensi is mysterious.
#. events of the Persian wars of Constantius and Julian are briefly narrated by General F. R. Chesney in his Expedition for the Survey of the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris, vol. 2, p. 430 sqq. (quarto ed.).
18. SOURCES AND CHRONOLOGY OF ARMENIAN HISTORY
Some works bearing on Armenia have been mentioned in connexion with general oriental history in vol. i. Appendix 13. In addition to these must now be mentioned (besides St. Martin's Mémoires sur l'Arménie and the notes to his edition of Lebeau's Bas-Empire): Ter Mikelian, Die armenische Kirche in ihren Beziehungen zur byzantinischen (saec. 4-13), 1892; Chalatianz, Zenob of Glak (in modern Armenian ; known to me through Stackelberg's summary in Byz. Zeitschrift, 4,368-70), 1893; and above all Gelzer's highly important essay, Die Anfange der armenischen Kirche (in the Ber. der kön. sachs. Gesellschaft der Wiss.), 1895.
1. Sources. (a) Faustus. For Armenian history in the fourth century after 4eath of Trdat (Tiridates), A.D. 317, our only trustworthy source is Faustus, who