« ForrigeFortsett »
latter (whose existence is proved by epigraphic evidence, op. C. I. L. vi. 323S) naturally ceased when, under Constantine's new regime, the praetorian prefect ceased to have military functions.
The earliest instance of a protector Augusti whose date we can control is that of Taurus, who was consul in 261 A.d., and held the office oi praetorian prefect. An inscription (whose date must fall between 261 and 267 A.d., Orelli, 3100) mentions that he had been a protector Augusti. Mommsen calculates that he must have held that post before 253 A.d., and infers that protectors were instituted about the middle of the century, by Decius or possibly Philip. The full title of the protector was protector dirmi latcris Augusti nostri, preserved in one inscription found at Ocriculae (Orelli, 1869); for this form cp. Cod. Theod. vi. 24, 9. The abbreviation protector Augusti is the regular formula up to Diocletian; after Diocletian it is simply protector.
The protectors were soldiers who had shown special competence in their sen-ice, and were rewarded by a post in which they received higher pay (they were called ducenarii from the amount of their salary) and had the expectation of being advanced to higher military commands. Gallienus hindered Senators from serving as officers in the army, and from that time the service of the protectors became a sort of military training school (Mommsen, 1. c. p. 137) to supply commanders (ad regendos milites, Ammianus). From Aurelian's time (ib. 131) the protectors seem to have been organized as a bodyguard of the Emperor, with a captain of their own. (The earliest mention of the Bervice in legislation is in a law of 325 A.d., Cod. Th. vii. 20, 4.)
Constantine completely abolished the praetorian and the military functions of the praef. praot. With this change we must connect his reorganization of the protectores (ib. 135). The nature of this reorganization was determined by his abrogation of the measure of Gallienus which excluded senators from military command. A body of guards was instituted, called Domestici or Houseguards, which was designed to admit nobles and sons of senators to a career in the army. Thus there were now two corps of palace guards, that of the Protectors who were enrolled for distinguished service, and were consequently veterans, and that of the Domestics who were admitted nobilitate et gratia, through birth and interest. But the two were closely connected and jointly commanded by captains called Counts of the Domestics; and the two names came to be interchangeable and used indifferently of one or the other.
It cannot indeed be strictly demonstrated that Constantine organized the Domestics, who are first mentioned in a law of 346 A.d. (Cod. Th. xii. 1, 38); hut this hypothesis is far more likely than any other. At the same time the pay of the guards was probably increased—a necessary result of the new monetary system of Constantine.1 The epithet duoenani was given up, and became attached to the schola of agentes in rebus. The rank of a guardsman was perfectissimus, but the first ten in standing (decern primi) were clarixsimi.
By a law of Valentinian (Cod. Th. vi. 24, 2) veterans were enrolled in the guards gratis, while all others had to pay. The ultimate result was that veterans ceased to be enrolled altogether, and the post of domesticus or protector was regularly purchased. The traffic in these offices in Justinian's time is noticed Toy Procopius, Hist. Arc c. 24.
14. THE TRAGEDY OF FAUSTA AND CRISPUS—(P. 208 s??.)
The attempt of Gibbon to show that Fausta was not put to death by Constantine was unsuccessful; for the text on which he chiefly relied has nothing to do with Constantine the Great, but refers to an Emperor of the fifteenth century (see above, App. 1, p. 534); and from the subsidiary passage in Julian (p. 211, n. 25) no inference can be drawn. On the other hand, as Seeck has pointed out, the sign
1 We may guess that under Diocletian they were still ducenarii, and so profited by his raising the weight of the aureus from i-7oth to i-6cth. Constantine would not have reduced their pay; so that they would no longer be ducenarii.
of the Constantinople mint appears on coins of Constantine I. and II., Constantiua, Constans, Helena, Theodore, Delmatius and Hannibalianus, in short all the members of the Imperial family who survived the foundation of the Capital (11th Mar, 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. Kusebius, the writer of the Anonymous Valesian fragment, and Aurelius Victor are silent as to the death of Fausta; but this proves nothing, on the principle, as Stuck observes, "im Hause des Gehenkten redet man nicht vom St rick e ".
The evidence as to the circumstances of the tragedy is investigated in a suggestive manner by Seeck, "Die Verwandtenmorde Constantins desGrossen," in Ztsch. f. wiss. TlieoL 33,1890, p. 63 tqq. 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 of 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 points: the manner of Fausta's death; her guilt in causing the death of Crispus; her 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 Phaedra 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. Gbrres, Z. f. wiss. Theol., 30, 1887, 843 tqq.). Seeck conjectures that Constantino's law of 82nd 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, Ac., 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 Gorres 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 firBt 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. I>ater 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 tho 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 Haemue), 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 Fannonia, Dacia, Macedonia, Thrace and Asia.
As to (1), a passage in the De Mort., our earliest authority, is quite decisive; ino. 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 Oonstantine) 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, C»s., 39,30, does not mention Spain; his Galliae might = Gaul + Britain, or = Gaul + Britain + Spain. Praxagoras mentions neither Africa nor Spain.) As to (2), oiu authorities are Praxagoras and Victor, and the truth has been obscured by following the statements of later writers. Praxagoras assigns to Galerius -ris T« 'eaas8« *ai T*« Kd.Tui 'Affiat (tai Opa*i)s; to Diocletian ri)S re Bidvfiat jcai rqs At^iii]? «ai riff Aiyvnrov. 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. Bptravuw ipaai\.), 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 (i *iTM 'Ana, to designate the diocese, not the province) mark the line of partition on the side of Galerius, whoso 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 (to.): 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 oould be attached to Asia, is proved by the next division on incontestable- good evidence.
II. A. D. 305. (1) a, Severus: Maximian's portion with Diocese of Paunonia; 6, Constantius: as before, with Spain (?). (2) c, Maximin: Egypt, the East; PontuB (?) except Bithynia; d, Galerius: as before, with Bithynia, but without Fannonia.
Anon. Val. iii. 5. Maximino datum est orientis imperium: Galerius sibi Illyricum Thracias et Bithyniam tenuit. (Thraci<e: 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; qua: Iouius obtiuuerat to Maximin. Anon. Val. 4, 9. Severe Fannonia: et Italia; urbes et Africae contigerunt.
III. A.d. 30G (on death of Constantius). (1) a, Constantino: 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 Coesar Severus had Diocese of Pannonia, he oould 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. Constantino 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 in the beginning of an administrative connexion between Thrace and the East; they would now be governed by the same I'ratorian Prefect.
Praxagoraa (F. H. G. iv. p. 3): 'eaa»s<k T« Iu MamSovtat <n Tw «aru (ita leg. pro Kara) 'Ao-i« were acquired by Constantine. Anon. Val. 18; Licinius: orientem, Asiam. Thraciam, Moesiam, minorem Scythiam.
V. *. D. 335. [The arrangement of this year was not a division of the Empire, but partly a confirmation of the assignment of administrative spheres, already made to his sons, and partly a new assignment of administrations to his nephews. Constantine did not directly sacrifice the unity of the Empire, which was atill realized in his own sovereignty, though he adopted a policy which might at any moment endanger it. "Von einer Erbtheilung ist daliei nicht die Redo, sondern nur von einem Antheil an der Verwaltung" (Ranke, Weltgeschichte, iv. «. 870). J
(1) Constantine had Caul, Britain and Spain (= the later "Prefecture of Gaul"); (8) Constantius, Asia and Egypt; (3) Constans, Italy, Africa, and Illyrioum (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 Galcrius reaches Nicomedia, per circuitum ripa ttriga. where the emendation lUricceis doubtless right] to be interpreted as Eastern Illyrioum (—dioceses of Docia, Macedonia, and Thrace)? So Schiller (ii. *35), Ranke, Burckhardt and others. But the Epitome of Victor (41, 80) includes in the share of Constans '' Dalmatia, Thrace, Macedonia and Achaia ". Ranke supposes that Dalmatian* here is a scribe's mistake for Dalmatim, 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 read: Dalmaci<us Daci>am Thraciam Macedonian! Achaiamque.
But a view that necessitates tampering with a text which in itself gives perfect sense cannot be accepted as satisfactory. There is a further objection 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 thoy 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. 07). 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 interpretation 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,1 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 bv Eusebius, Panegyr. ch. iii., which only proves that Delmatius (unlike Hannibalian) was a Ctesar, and thus co-ordinate in dignity with his cousins.
VL A-u. 337-8. (1) Constantius: as before, along with the kingdom of Hannibalian, and the four provinces of D. Thrace, south of Haemus;* (8) Constans: as
1 Chron. Pasch., p. 533, ed. B. gives Mesopotamia to Delmatius (Godefroy accepted the statement). 1 conjecture that M^o-on-ora^iae may have arisen from Mvaiav irapairora/iuzv -Moesiam ripenaem.
'He pretends to mark it as it existed at the death of Constantine (before the destruction of Delmatius); though be 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 Oothica, including Moesia II. and Scytbia; 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 wu to divide the provinces hold by the two nephews into three parts. To secure geographical continuity Constans would naturally take the rim Oothica, and hand over some part of his western dominions to Constantino; he likewise resigned Thrace south of Haemus (not Moesia and Scythia, I infer from Zos. ii. 39, who gives to Constans and Constantino Td n«pt To* EDfcipof *optop) to Constantius. The war whioh 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 Tillemout) has accepted from the Chron. Alex, of Eutycbius a curious notice (under ()1. 879) that Constantine the younger 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 Eutycbius 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 havo been subsequent. But without further cvidenoe it is better to leave the Eutyohian 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 Constantine.
The division of 338 A.u. is given as follows in the Life of St. Artemius (Acta Sanot., Oct. SO)—a document whioh merits more criticism than it has received:—
(1) Constantine: at £tm raAAuu teat ra frotfira '\Avtvi> (an expression often used to include Spain), at re Bpcrravucal vriaoK (Britain and the Orcades, etc.? cp. Eutropius 7, 13, and the interpolation in the Laterculus of Folemins Silvius, see
above, App. 11), aat <•« Tou iawtpiov aacarou. (S) Constans: at tci-rta raAAiat rfyovr at 'iToAtat (Italy with its adjuncts, Sioily, Africa, etc.), m aim V?»i">. (3) Constantius: To rijf dvaroAirr ucpoc, Bv^oVrtoF, rd dno rov 'lAAvptxou (implying that Illyricum went to Constans) ftc'ypt r^c npoaomooc oiroera iiaijaoa roic 'Paiuatotf njp re Ivpiav xat IlaXatoTH'Tjc teat Meo-oiroTautav icat Atyvaror aat rdf vrf<rovt diraaac.
The Vita Artemii (the Greek text was first published by A. Hai in Spicileglum Romanum, vol. iv.) was composed by "John the Monk," and professes to be compiled from the Ecclesiastical History of Fhilostorgius and some other writers. Eusebius, Socrates and Theodoret are also referred to. There is evidence that Fhilostorgius 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 Callus 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 (t« at** raAAi'ac rat Td cvcvftra'AXirewf e«5 Tou co-ircpiov 'nxeavov., except that instead of "the British Isles" the imperial geographer says "as far as tho city of Canterbury itself" (KdvroSotv). The expression u nra raAAiat is also used, out, 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; (S) Valens: Prefecture of the East, including D. of Thrace.
VIII. A.d. 378. (1) Gratian and Valentinian ii.: Prefectures of Gaul and of Italy, including Western Illyricum: (?) 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,