Abstract
This chapter surveys the historical background and thematic framework for the emergence, consolidation and eventual demise of the Constantinian dynasty. It begins by considering the influence of the Tetrarchy established by Diocletian on subsequent dynastic arrangements in the Roman empire, and the role of Constantius I in the Tetrarchic government. It then moves on to examine the central importance placed by Constantine I on dynastic rule and surveys both Constantine’s early and mature efforts to establish his own dynasty. The chapter then analyses the sons’ ambitions for the reformation of the imperial college following the death of their father in May 337 and concludes with a survey of the sons’ relations with one another, and their response to the imperial competitors who emerged during the final decade of the dynasty’s existence.
I am grateful to Shaun Tougher and Nicholas Baker-Brian for inviting me to the panel at Bordeaux and for the opportunity to contribute to this volume.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Vanderspoel 2012: 238–240.
- 2.
I follow the dates in Barnes 1982.
- 3.
See Barnes 2011: 40–41, revising his earlier view in Barnes 1982: 33–35, 125–126, that they had been Praetorian Prefects. A recently discovered inscription (AE 1987.456) lists only a pair of prefects in 296, indicating that Diocletian maintained the practice of appointing only two prefects for the empire; since Julius Asclepiodotus was the western prefect from 292 to at least 296, Constantius was not selected as Caesar from a prefecture under Maximian. See Porena 2003: 133–151, for discussion.
- 4.
Against the view that she was Maximian’s step-daughter, see Barnes 1982: 33.
- 5.
See, for example, Donciu 2012: 48. Valeria Maximilla was born before 293, since she married Maxentius in time to produce a son, Valerius Romulus, who was consul in 308 and 309 and identified at that time as nobilissimus vir (ILS 672) not puer. Of course, vir may be generous; even so, Valeria Maximilla must have reached puberty by the late 290s. An earlier wife solves the problems raised by the events of Maximilla’s life and eliminates any suspicion that Valeria was not completely sterile. Valeria Maximilla probably married Maxentius c. 298–300; see Barnes 2011: 48; Donciu 2012: 48.
- 6.
The marriage is often presumed to date to 293, but see Leadbetter 2009: 61, for an argument in favour of 289.
- 7.
- 8.
De mort. pers. 19.
- 9.
Barnes 2011: 48.
- 10.
Though the promotion of Maximinus Daia might seem to argue against this. See Leadbetter 2009: 143–145, for a suggestion that Galerius’ access to Diocletian helped him to supersede Constantius by arranging for the appointment of his nephew and his friend Severus.
- 11.
As Lactant., De mort. pers. 18.8–11, suggests.
- 12.
According to Lactant., De mort. pers. 18.11, Galerius felt that Maxentius despised him and that Constantine would not obey him.
- 13.
Rees 2004: 80: “As a constitutional experiment, it flopped; and if it was designed as an attempt to prevent crises of succession, it was a disaster.”
- 14.
The chronological details in this and the next paragraphs derive from Barnes 1982: 3–16.
- 15.
Rees 2004: 83–85, points out that Maxentius may have been deliberately anti-Tetrarchic, with thoughts of restoring a more traditional imperial government.
- 16.
See Lactant., De mort. pers. 29–30. At Pan. Lat. 6 (7) 20.3, Maximian is said to have committed suicide immediately after his failed attempt to regain the throne. Barnes 2011: 72–74, shows that the second story appeared after Maxentius accused Constantine of murdering Maximian, now called divus by a son who suddenly adored the very father who had attempted to depose him not long before.
- 17.
Constantine developed a relationship with Apollo while in Gaul, on the basis of a vision, according to Pan Lat. 6 (7) 21.4. Weiss 1993 argued that Constantine and his men saw a solar halo, which they interpreted as a sign from Apollo, and which Constantine later reinterpreted as a symbol from the Christian God. I have had access only to the English translation with revisions and additions of Weiss’ article, by Birley 2003. For a discussion of the argument and of scholarly reaction to it (more positive of late), see Barnes 2011: 74–80.
- 18.
There is no point in attempting to offer specifics or statistics; the requisite data is not available. On the other hand, it is clear that in many places Christians were a significant minority and that Christians could be found everywhere, even in the Senate at Rome. On the latter point, see Champlin 1982: 70–76; Barnes and Westall 1991: 50–61; Barnes 1995: 135–147.
- 19.
Barnes 2011: 80.
- 20.
Rather, these were devised to explain: Constantine’s adoption of the Christian God was so outlandishly unthinkable that only divine intervention could explain it, just as when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and Saul (Paul) became a Christian.
- 21.
See also the chapter by Christine Greenlee in this volume.
- 22.
For panegyric during the Tetrarchy see Rees 2002.
- 23.
Like others before him, Van Dam 2011: 129–140, credits the design of the arch and its inscription to senators and architects. That cannot be, not in the autocratic, image-conscious environment of the late Roman dominate. While architects and others may have submitted a series of drawings and discussed various points, no inscription was carved, no panel was stolen from another monument without Constantine’s prior approval.
- 24.
From that point of view, there was never any such thing as pagan monotheism: every supreme deity resided at the top of a hierarchy or was at least multi-faceted. See Edwards 2012: 141: “[S]trict monotheism—the choice of a single god to the exclusion of all others—was a rarity, but it was common style in magic, prayer and literature to adopt a single patron who subsumed the deities of many lands”.
- 25.
To put this a different way, only those who were already Christian could not countenance a perspective that included Christianity and other religions. Polytheists could add Christianity to their Mithraism, to their adherence to Sol Invictus, etc., without generating internal religious conflict.
- 26.
Barnes 1981: 39, notes that Galerius’ declaration ought not to be over-estimated. But it ought not to be under-estimated either, if only because of the opportunity given to, and accepted by, Constantine.
- 27.
See, for example, Drake 2012: 132, who states that the Edict of Milan legalized Christianity.
- 28.
The document is quoted at De mort. pers. 34.
- 29.
Barnes 1981: 48–53.
- 30.
Licinius promulgated the document at Nicomedia after driving Maximinus Daia out of the city in the spring of 313; see below. Lenski 2017 outlines a view of the document that argues derivation from an edict composed by Constantine on the principles outlined by Lactantius, in contrast to earlier views that generally regarded the document as not an edict at all, composed mainly by Licinius and with a limited geographical scope.
- 31.
For example, governments of both Canada and the United States have issued formal apologies, accompanied by (inadequate) monetary compensation, for the treatment of Canadian and American citizens of Japanese descent during the Second World War.
- 32.
Centuries of a Christianity-based western system of education have imposed a view of proper Christian belief, practice and behaviour that were not necessarily yet in vogue in the early fourth century. It is far more productive to consider the contemporary possibilities available to Constantine, particularly as an emperor, but also as a polytheist by background.
- 33.
The preceding paragraphs treat matters that have generated much controversy in the works of far too many scholars to cite here. My conclusions are those that I have developed in the course of many years. I have presented some of them at conferences and colloquia and in the classroom, but not in print until now, and it is not my brief here to examine these points in detail. I am grateful to all who commented at various points, and I acknowledge the role of the studies on all sides of the issues in the formation of my views.
- 34.
Perhaps he learned of the efficacy of a multi-cultic approach from Constantine or from his new bride. In any case, Licinius’ appeal to a full variety of religious groups seems to reflect the approach of Constantine as interpreted here, an approach that may well have been the imperial doctrine of the day generated by Galerius’ deathbed declaration.
- 35.
Nothing is known of Anastasia’s fate; according to Amm. Marc. 26.6.14, some baths at Constantinople were named after her. Perhaps, but since other baths were named after the later emperor Valens’ daughter Carosa who had a sister named Anastasia, it is at least possible that Valens named or renamed both baths after his daughters. Chausson 2007: 138–141, conjectures that the daughter of Gallus and Constantina was also called Anastasia.
- 36.
On the dates, I follow Barnes 1981: 66–67. Barnes suggests that Licinius refused a suggestion that Bassianus be made Caesar in Italy and that Constantine’s son Crispus be named Caesar in the East. The sources do not mention Crispus in this context, but given his appointment as Caesar in 317, he was presumably also under consideration earlier. Licinius’ rejection of that proposal seems sensible enough: though he and Bassianus were brothers-in-law, Crispus was related only to Constantine. Moreover, Licinius may have been unwilling to accept any proposal once he discovered, by late 314, that Constantia was pregnant.
- 37.
See Barnes and Vanderspoel 1984: 175–176, for the view that he was indeed a son of Fausta.
- 38.
As Caesar in most literary sources, as Augustus on coins; see Barnes 1982: 15.
- 39.
The legitimacy of the marriage, which may have occurred early in the 290s, has in the past been questioned, but most now regard Minervina as a wife, not a concubine. Pohlsander 1984: 80, lists the views recorded in earlier treatments; he himself regards her as a concubine. Barnes 2011: 49, speculates that she was a close relative of Diocletian. As Chausson 2007: 107, notes, there is no evidence to indicate whether she died or was put aside before Constantine married Fausta.
- 40.
At some point he married a woman named Helena, who produced a child in 322, as is evident from Cod. Theod. 9.38.1. Chausson 2007: 121–122, 127, suggests that she was a daughter of Fl. Constantius, consul in 327 and Praetorian Prefect 324–327, whom he conjectures to be a second son of Constantius I and Helena. It is possible that he was related in a different way, e.g. a nephew of Constantius, or not at all. PLRE 1: 225 (Fl. Constantius 5), notes that he may be a relative of Constantine, but without further specification. It is possible that Helena’s name derives from a different origin; for example, she may have been a relative of her husband’s grandmother Helena but otherwise not related to the family of Constantius. Despite later practice in the dynasty, an intra-familial marriage is not required.
- 41.
Barnes 1981: 70–73. Since he had previously lost two battles to Constantine, it is unlikely that he intended to incite his colleague into further military action. More likely, Licinius hoped to limit the growing impact of Christianity on government and society, perhaps in a mistaken belief that Constantine was still as committed to a multi-cultic perspective as he had been several years earlier and would therefore not object to his actions.
- 42.
Like Valens, as Caesar in most literary sources, as Augustus on coins; see Barnes 1982: 15.
- 43.
See PLRE 1: 509–510 (Licinius 4), for sources. According to the Anonymous Valesianus 5.29, Licinius left a wife and son behind him, but does not specify when the latter was killed. The other sources, including Eutr. 10.6.3; Oros. 7.28.26, link the death of Licinius the younger to that of Crispus; that would imply a date of 326. Jerome, Chron.s.a. 325, dates the execution to 325, but also names Crispus in the entry. If the main point of these comments is the execution of former Caesars, their appearance together is sensible, even if the dates of their deaths differ. On that basis, it is better not to be too specific about the date of Licinius’ death.
- 44.
See Drake 2012: 111–116, who also makes a point about parameters of discussion, though somewhat differently, and with different intent.
- 45.
See Barnes 1981: 208–212.
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
Euseb., Vit. Const. 4.9–13, includes a transcript; a translation appears in Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 150–152. Shapur was born in 302, after the death of his father Narses, and his reign is backdated in some sources to his time in his mother’s womb, presumably to deny legitimacy to previous successors to Narses. For the sources, see Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 143–144.
- 49.
Born exactly one year after his brother, on 1 August 317. See Barnes and Vanderspoel 1984: 175–176.
- 50.
A panegyric for Constantine in 321 remarks that Rome was already rejoicing in the Caesars and their brothers, in the plural (Pan. Lat. 4 (10) 36.1). The Caesars are Crispus and Constantine II, while the brothers are Constantius II and either Constans or another brother who presumably did not live much beyond 321. Anyone who recalled the birth of a son in 320 might easily later assume that this was Constans, that is, the third birth announcement for the third surviving son. It seems less likely that the birthdate of Constans would be confused with that of a younger brother who did not survive infancy; this, in combination with the other evidence, makes a birthdate for Constans in 323 most likely.
- 51.
See, for a survey of evidence and views, Pohlsander 1984.
- 52.
On this specific point, see Pohlsander 1995: 23.
- 53.
So too Barnes 2011: 148.
- 54.
Woods 1998. If, as he assumes, the pregnancy was unwanted, surely she would have attempted to induce an abortion long before her condition became obvious. If she was known to be pregnant, she presumably expected to pass off the child as Constantine’s.
- 55.
Barnes 2011: 147–148, suggests suicide, since an execution would leave as witnesses the slaves who might gossip. But the slaves could equally gossip in a case of suicide; and the damnatio memoriae is equally difficult to explain on this solution, unless Constantine heartlessly used a suicide as justification of the execution of Crispus. Though death by bath was unknown to Roman law as a method of execution, so was the pouring of molten lead [liquentis plumbi] down a nurse’s throat in cases of raptus marriage; cf. Cod. Theod. 9.24.1, enacted by Constantine in 320.
- 56.
As Barnes 1981: 220, points out, given their respective residences and travels, it would have been almost impossible for Fausta and Crispus to have committed adultery in the normal manner—and in vitro adultery had not yet been invented. But the inhabitants of the empire would not necessarily have been aware enough of this difficulty to question the charge.
- 57.
It would be more than a little Machiavellian for Constantine to suggest to Fausta that she could assist in the post eventum justification of Crispus’ execution by accusing him of (attempted?) adultery and then to eliminate her because she was the other partner in the adultery!
- 58.
Descendants in the female line might survive, e.g. Nepotianus (as emphasized by Tougher 2012a: esp.188). He was also still very young, as were Gallus and Julian, descendants in the male line who survived; perhaps their youth was the primary key to survival, since they had not had any thoughts of participation in imperial administration.
- 59.
- 60.
For example, it is not noted at PLRE 1: 895 (Theodora 1). Burgess 2008: 22–24, does treat the coinage, and suggests (24) that it was produced primarily by Constantine II at Trier, as an act of expiation, to show that the deaths of her descendants were not intended to “reflect poorly on her as a mother”. That is not inconsistent with the view that the sons of Constantine needed her as a surrogate mother.
- 61.
Cf. the chapter on imperial women by Shaun Tougher in this volume.
- 62.
That is presumably why PLRE 1: 223 (Flavius Claudius Constantinus 3), can suggest that Constantine II may have been illegitimate because no source suggests descent from Maximian.
- 63.
Vanderspoel and Mann 2002.
- 64.
See, briefly, Drijvers 1992: 43–44, who also mentions the coinage of Theodora and notes that she was commemorated as an ancestress of a branch of the Constantinian family but does not address the oddity of commemoration in the very period that her actual descendants were being slaughtered. The reverse legend for Helena in this context is PAX PUBLICA; examples from Trier and Constantinople identify her as FL IVL HELENAE AVG, in the dative form, as noted by Vida 2014: 174, who considers various series of coins for one or more family members named Helena; IVL does not appear on her earlier coins.
- 65.
Since Helena certainly had died, but neither appears as DIVA, the use of the dedicatory dative for both empresses presumably suggests that Theodora was also no longer alive.
- 66.
See Vanderspoel 1995: 51–70.
- 67.
Hunt 1998: 3, suggests that Constantine intended a succession by the two families stemming from Constantius I. That is not incompatible with a suggestion that some sense of dynasty lay behind the renewed favour granted to his (half-) relatives, but it is brutally evident that Constantine’s sons held a different perspective.
- 68.
- 69.
On the re-emergence of Constantine’s half-siblings and particularly on Dalmatius, see Marcos 2014.
- 70.
If Baynes 1910 was correct to transfer that event, dated to the reign of Valens, to this period.
- 71.
The source is Faustus of Byzantium, History of the Armenians 20–21 (trans. in Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 303–309; their remarks at 380–381, n. 22, are the basis for the reconstruction offered here).
- 72.
Julian, Or. 1.18d–21a, notes that Constantius was meeting with his brothers when the unrest broke out, but restored order upon his return to the East.
- 73.
The sources for Romano-Persian relations in this period are collected in Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 164–210.
- 74.
The pattern need not, of course, be inevitable. Maraval 2013: 14, suggests that he was married “probablement à une fille de Flavius Optatus”, but neither cites evidence nor argues the point. Chausson 2007: 110–111, has no suggestion on the identity of Constantine II’s wife. See the discussion, in the next paragraph below, of Constantia, perhaps a cousin who married Constantine or the daughter of Julius Constantius who married Constantius II.
- 75.
Constantius dismissed him in the aftermath of Constantine’s death. Whether or not he had imperial ambitions, he was apparently tricked into committing himself and executed. Chausson 2007: 152, implies that he may have been a son-in-law of a half-brother of Constantine; on that view, Olympias was a descendant of Constantius I and a cousin of Constans. Fl. Ablabius is not, however, to be included among the nine familial murders in 337, since he lacked the requisite DNA to be included in that group.
- 76.
Hist. Ar. 69, where the bishop also claims that Constantius handed Olympias over to barbarians. Ascribing responsibility for her survival to Constans is merely an element of Athanasius’ attack on Constantius. For a study of invectives against emperors by bishops, see Flower 2013.
- 77.
Since her betrothal to his son was presumably arranged by Constantine, Olympias was born before Constantine’s death and was thus probably old enough to marry by 350; if so, some other explanation is needed. She eventually married Arsaces II of Armenia, perhaps in 354; see Baynes 1910: 631–632. According to Faustus of Byzantium (4.15) and Moses of Chorene, Hist. Armen. 3.24, she was poisoned by rival consorts. Despite the tendentious remark of Athanasius, she clearly was not reduced to marriage with a barbarian; instead, she married into the royal house of a people once briefly ruled by Constantius’ sister Constantina and his cousin Hannibalianus.
- 78.
This would also apply to the wife of Constantine II, if she too were a cousin, but nothing beyond the fact of his marriage by 335 is known. If Constantine II had married a daughter of Flavius Optatus (see n. 74 above), she too would be the daughter of a disgraced official, since Flavius Optatus was another of the victims in 337.
- 79.
Chausson 2007: 111, with n. 22, wonders whether Ammianus Marcellinus’ remark (21.16.6) that Constantius was chaste his entire life might indicate a long period during which he was not married, hinting that he repudiated his first wife in 337 and did not remarry until c. 353. That is not the only possible reason, as will be evident below.
- 80.
Ep. ad Ath. 272d.
- 81.
It is possible that the girl herself chose to leave Constantius, with or without a divorce, perhaps by expressing a voluntary preference for an ascetic life, though she will have had difficulty finding a male relative to intercede on her behalf. Constantine’s law on divorce (Cod. Theod. 3.16.1) permitted a woman to divorce a murderer; for discussion, see Evans Grubbs 1995: 228–234. Julian called Constantius a murderer, but it is unlikely that his half-sister could have used that label to obtain a divorce in 337.
- 82.
Lib. pont. 37.4.
- 83.
PLRE 1: 410–411 (Helena 3), claims that Helena is mistakenly called Constanti[n]a at Lib. pont. 37.4.
- 84.
Constantina Augusta did, of course, outrank her husband Hannibalianus, so this was not impossible. See Vida 2014 for the suggestion that she was Augusta as the wife of Dalmatius, just as her sister was Augusta as wife of Dalmatius’ brother Hannibalianus. As noted above (n. 68), no evidence for a marriage between Dalmatius and Helena has survived.
- 85.
- 86.
If she was indeed Julian’s half-sister living in Rome, an orthodox bishop might have granted her a divorce from a heretical husband. Liberius became bishop at Rome in May 352; he was subsequently sent into exile by Constantius (who had previously denied his request for a council at Aquileia) and returned to Rome after Constantius’ visit in 357. Since Constantius is usually thought to have married Eusebia c. 353, is it possible that he had recently been divorced by Constantia with Liberius’ support and that his attitude to the bishop was partly a reaction to this and not only a religious response to Liberius’ orthodoxy?
- 87.
Since he notes that Constantia knew of Constantius’ plans for the see of Rome, the author may have known of some connection between them and assumed that she was his sister, rather than the more unusual ex-wife or former sister-in-law.
- 88.
- 89.
See Amm. Marc. 16.10.18–19.
- 90.
Julian, Ep. ad Ath. 272d, is the only source for her existence, when he accuses Constantius of killing the father of his niece, which suggests that she was still alive. Chausson 2007: 114, suggests that her name was Anastasia.
- 91.
Barnes 1982: 84.
- 92.
For a critical reappraisal of the conflict between Constantine II and Constans, see the chapter by William Lewis in this volume.
- 93.
According to Theodoret, Hist. eccl. 2.16.21, Constantius remarked to Liberius that Athanasius had cost him his brother Constantine II, presumably by encouraging the attempt against Constans (see Barnes 1993: 52), and instilled in Constans a hatred for Constantius himself. Since Athanasius appears to have been at Rome, in Constans’ territory, and wrote to both brothers (Barnes 1993: 51–55), that seems more than a little unlikely. Rather, Constantius appears to be engaging in the kind of slander favoured by bishops in this period. See Flower 2013: 78–126.
- 94.
See Barnes 1993: 34, 51–52.
- 95.
See Barnes 1993: 129, with 279, n. 37.
- 96.
Attested at Ancyra in spring 347; probably at Constantinople in 349.
- 97.
There is no hint of military or political trouble serious enough to require an immediate visit, though Ammianus Marcellinus notes (28.3.8) that his (lost) account of the incident mentioned some group called the areani, that was later disbanded by the general Theodosius on grounds of corruption. Was it, therefore, personal, perhaps connected with the death of the so-called Spital Lady whose sarcophagus, bones and surviving grave goods are now in the Museum of London? Discovered during excavations in the Spitalfields area in London, she belonged to the highest of the elite, judging from the almost imperial quality of her grave goods and attire. She has not generated much bibliographic attention and is barely mentioned at http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/london-wall/whats-on/galleries/roman-london/. The BBC programme “Pagans of Roman Britain” revealed that lead isotope analysis of her teeth (conducted by Dr. Janet Montgomery of Durham University) suggests an origin in south-west Europe, possibly Spain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s74g9). See also “Noble Roman body discovered in London” at http://www.britannia.com/history/londonhistory/spitbod.html for an account of her discovery and a description of the finds.
- 98.
This is not as far-fetched as it may at first seem: Magnentius’ wife Justina was related to the dynasty; her mother was probably an otherwise unknown daughter of Julius Constantius who married Justus in the early 330s; see Chausson 2007: 104–105, 160–165. Barnes 1982: 44, had suggested that she was a daughter of Crispus. Justus, who, as the spouse of a cousin, presumably belonged to Constantina’s Roman circle, was executed by Constantius in 352/3 for disclosing a dream that he would have an imperial grandson (Socrates, Hist. eccl. 4.31.11–13). Most likely, his affiliation with Magnentius through his daughter was the reason, with the dream as pretext; see Barnes 1993: 270, n. 11. That might imply that Justina was pregnant at the time. No child with Magnentius is known, and John of Antioch (fr. 187) claims that she was too young to bear children during her first marriage; see Chausson 2007: 100, but pregnancies did not always result in surviving children. Justus did indeed have an imperial grandson (Valentinian II), but his dream presumably did not anticipate an outcome that far into the future.
- 99.
It is more than a little curious that the key role was not assumed by Vulcacius Rufinus, the current Praetorian Prefect in Illyricum, a brother-in-law of Julius Constantius and thus an imperial relative of sorts; perhaps that is exactly why Constantina left him on the sidelines. If he was, in fact, the uncle of Justina (see n. 98 above), Constantina may have deliberately sabotaged his eligibility by offering his daughter Justina to Magnentius; see n. 101 below). Presumably, Vulcacius Rufinus did play a supporting role, and Constantius subsequently appointed him Praetorian Prefect of Gaul.
- 100.
On both the role of Constantina and Vetranio’s position, see Drinkwater 2000: 149–158.
- 101.
Was Magnentius’ marriage to Justina a link to the imperial family offered by Constantina as a consolation prize to disguise her larger purpose?
- 102.
See, for example, Them., Or. 2.37a–b; Julian, Or. 1.31c–32a, 2.76d–78c.
- 103.
Barnes 1993: 101, suggests that he was attempting to reach the Mediterranean to take ship to Italy. But Magnentius had support there, and thus Africa or the East (despite disharmony with Constantius) would seem to be more beneficial destinations. Drinkwater 2000: 136, suggests that the oddness of Constans’ journey from Autun to Spain implies that his attempt to escape was deliberately managed by Magnentius in the hope that he would commit suicide in despair of rescue. If so, why was the path to Spain also not blocked?
- 104.
Too little is known about the occupants of the place and any potential connection with the imperial family to judge the validity of any suggestion that this was his initial destination or, indeed, his final one. Schlunk 1988 as cited by Remolá Vallverdú and Pérez Martínez 2013: 168, was apparently the first to suggest that the mausoleum was that of Constans. Any connection with Centcelles at this point also raises the issue of the “Spital Lady”, possibly of Spanish origin; see n. 97 above.
- 105.
For a recent detailed treatment (arguing that the site was the praetorium of the comes Hispaniarum Asterius, c. 420), see Remolá Vallverdú and Pérez Martínez 2013: 161–186.
- 106.
Eutropia , half-sister of Constantine, had married (?)Virius Nepotianus. Her son was presumably spared in 337 because he was not a descendant of Constantius in a direct male line or because he was too young to be a threat.
- 107.
For the interpretation of Julian’s activities outlined in this paragraph, see Vanderspoel 2013.
- 108.
She and Gallus had produced a daughter, whom Julian mentions (Ep. ad Ath. 273d), orphaned by the death of her mother and the execution of her father. Chausson 2007: 138–141, conjectures that she was named Anastasia and was the mother of a Gallus (natus Anastasiae) mentioned on an inscription (ICUR, 4122 = ILCV 1759) in St. Peter’s Basilica.
- 109.
Amm. Marc. 14.11.23, notes that Constantius became so enraged when Gallus laid blame on Constantina that he sent officials to inform Gallus that he had been sentenced to death. Zonar. 13.9.20, claims that Constantius subsequently changed his mind and that his praepositus sacri cubiuli Eusebius (PLRE 1: 302–303 (Eusebius 11)) made certain that executioners did not receive that information. On Eusebius see also the chapter by Tougher in this volume.
- 110.
Bowersock 1978 remains a concise biography of Julian that attempts to overcome the excesses of Julian’s supporters and detractors, ancient and modern; his treatments of Julian’s early Gallic campaigns and his usurpation were among the first to realize that Julianic propaganda had been absorbed uncritically by too many earlier scholars. See also Tougher 2007.
- 111.
For the sources see Dodgeon and Lieu 1991: 211–230.
- 112.
Constantia had previously been displayed by the usurper Procopius to advertise a link to the previous dynasty of Constantine (Amm. Marc. 26.7.10). Valentinian and Gratian dedicated (AE 1913.227) a bath complex in Calabria to their queens (reginis suis) on 27 June 374; the marriage thus presumably occurred in 374, when Constantia was twelve years of age. See Lenski 2002: 102–103, n. 210. Presumably she died c. 383, since her remains arrived at Constantinople on 31 August 383, according to the Chronicon Paschale. If she gave birth to a child or children, they have completely disappeared from the historical record.
References
Barnes, T. D. (1981). Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, MA.
Barnes, T. D. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA.
Barnes, T. D. (1993). Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA.
Barnes, T. D. (1995). Statistics and the Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy. JRS, 85, 135–147.
Barnes, T. D. (2011). Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford and Malden.
Barnes, T. D., & Vanderspoel, J. (1984). Julian on the Sons of Fausta. Phoenix, 38, 175–176.
Barnes, T. D., & Westall, R. W. (1991). The Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy in Prudentius’ Contra Symmachum. Phoenix, 45, 50–61.
Baynes, N. H. (1910). Rome and Armenia in the Fourth Century. EHR, 25, 625–643.
Birley, A. R. (2003). The Vision of Constantine. JRA, 16, 237–259.
Bowersock, G. W. (1978). Julian the Apostate. London.
Burgess, R. W. (2008). The Summer of Blood: The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine. DOP, 62, 5–51.
Cameron, A. (1996). Orfitus and Constantius: A Note on Roman Gold-Glasses. JRA, 9, 295–301.
Champlin, E. J. (1982). Saint Gallicanus. Phoenix, 36, 70–76.
Chausson, F. (2007). Stemmata Aurea: Constantin, Justine, Théodose: revendications généalogiques et l’idéologie impériale au IVe siècle ap. J.-C. Rome.
Dodgeon, M. H., & Lieu, S. N. C. (1991). The Roman Eastern Frontier and the Persian Wars AD 226–363: A Documentary History. London and New York.
Donciu, R. (2012). L’empereur Maxence. Bari.
Drake, H. A. (2012). The Impact of Constantine on Christianity. In N. Lenki (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (2nd ed., pp. 111–136). Cambridge.
Drijvers, J. W. (1992). Helena Augusta: The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of Her Finding of the True Cross. Leiden.
Drinkwater, J. F. (2000). The Revolt and Ethnic Origin of the Usurper Magnentius (350–353) and the Revolt of Vetranio (350). Chiron, 30, 131–159.
Edwards, M. (2012). The Beginnings of Christianity. In N. Lenski (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (2nd ed., pp. 137–158). Cambridge.
Evans Grubbs, J. (1995). Law and Family in Late Antiquity: The Emperor Constantine’s Marriage Legislation. Oxford.
Flower, R. (2013). Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective. Cambridge.
Hunt, D. (1998). The Successors of Constantine. In A. Cameron & P. Garnsey (Eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History (The Late Empire, AD 337–425) (Vol. 13, pp. 1–43). Cambridge.
Leadbetter, B. (2009). Galerius and the Will of Diocletian. London and New York.
Lenski, N. (2002). Failure of Empire: Valens and the Roman State in the Fourth Century AD. Berkeley and London.
Lenski, N. (2017). The Significance of the Edict of Milan. In E. Siecienski (Ed.), Constantine: Religious Faith and Imperial Policy (pp. 27–56). London.
Maraval, P. (2013). Les fils de Constantin. Constantin II (337–340), Constance II (337–361) and Constant (337–350). Paris.
Marcos, M. (2014). Constantine, Dalmatius Caesar, and the Summer of A.D. 337. Latomus, 73, 748–774.
Pohlsander, H. A. (1984). Crispus: Brilliant Career and Tragic End. Historia, 33, 79–106.
Pohlsander, H. A. (1995). Helena: Empress and Saint. Chicago.
Porena, P. (2003). Le Origini della Prefettura del Pretorio Tardoantica. Rome.
Rees, R. (2002). Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric, A.D. 289–307. Oxford.
Rees, R. (2004). Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Edinburgh.
Remolá Vallverdú, J. A., & Pérez Martínez, M. (2013). Centcelles y el praetorium del comes Hispaniarum Asterius en Tarraco. Archivo Español de Arqueología, 86, 161–186.
Schlunk, H. (1988). Die Mosaikkupel von Centcelles (aus dem Nachlass für den Druck bearbeitet und mit Anmerkungen versehen von A. Arbeiter). Mainz.
Shaw, B. D. (2011). Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine. Cambridge and New York.
Tougher, S. (2007). Julian the Apostate. Edinburgh.
Tougher, S. (2012a). Imperial Blood: Family Relationships in the Dynasty of Constantine the Great. In M. Harlow & L. Larsson Lovén (Eds.), Families in the Roman and Late Antique World (pp. 181–198). London.
Van Dam, R. (2011). Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge. Cambridge.
Vanderspoel, J. (1995). Themistius and the Imperial Court: Oratory, Civic Duty and Paideia from Constantius to Theodosius. Ann Arbor, MI.
Vanderspoel, J. (2012). A Tale of Two Cities: Themistius on Rome and Constantinople. In L. Grig & G. Kelly (Eds.), Two Romes: Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity (pp. 223–240). New York.
Vanderspoel, J. (2013). The Longetivity of Falsehood: Julian’s Political Purpose and the Historical Tradition. In D. Coté & P. Fleury (Eds.), Dialogues d’histoire ancienne. supplément no. 8. Discours politique et Histoire dans l’Antiquité (pp. 327–336). Besançon.
Vanderspoel, J., & Mann, M. L. (2002). The empress Fausta as Romano-Celtic dea nutrix. NC, 162, 350–355.
Vida, I. (2014). The Coinage of Flavia Maxima Helena. Dissertationes Archaeologicae (Budapest), 171–177.
Weiss, P. (1993). Die Vision Constantins. In J. Bleicken (Ed.), Colloquium aus Anlass des 80. Geburtstages von Alfred Heuss (Frankfurter Althistorische Studien 13) (pp. 143–169).
Woods, D. (1998). On the Death of the Empress Fausta. G&R, 45, 70–86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vanderspoel, J. (2020). From the Tetrarchy to the Constantinian Dynasty: A Narrative Introduction. In: Baker-Brian, N., Tougher, S. (eds) The Sons of Constantine, AD 337-361. New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39898-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39898-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39897-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39898-9
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)