Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Dynamics of Imperial Government: Collegiality and Regionalism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Sons of Constantine, AD 337-361

Part of the book series: New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture ((NABHC))

Abstract

This chapter discusses the evolution in the governance of the Roman empire during the reigns of the sons of Constantine. It offers an analysis of the changing nature of the empire in the mid-fourth century, paying particular attention to the consolidation of regionalist trends under Constantine’s sons and the accommodation of these changes in the context of a collegiate system of imperial rule. The impact of these changes is assessed primarily in relation to those roles that were central to the empire’s governance, for example, the transformations affecting the praetorian prefecture in the Constantinian empire, and the chapter presents an analysis of the impact of these changes on the careers of a select number of high-ranking individuals serving in the administrations of the sons.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    All translations are my own. I would like to thank Meaghan McEvoy, Chris Mallan, and the volume’s editors for their helpful advice and feedback on this chapter. This chapter was completed in 2016, prior to the publication of the excellent Moser 2018.

  2. 2.

    On these developments, see Millar 1977: 40–53; Kulikowski 2014. For “imperial cities”, see McEvoy’s chapter in this volume.

  3. 3.

    Barnes 2011: 144–147. His precise age is unknown: see Barnes 1982: 44; Kienast 1996: 305–306, for the possibilities.

  4. 4.

    Barnes 1982: 44–45, 84; Kienast 1996: 310.

  5. 5.

    Barnes 1982: 45, 85; Kienast 1996: 314.

  6. 6.

    Barnes 1982: 45; Kienast 1996: 307, 312. For the reasons behind Constantine’s promotion of his nephew Dalmatius, the son of his half-brother Flavius Dalmatius, see Burgess 2008: 7–8; Barnes 2011: 164–165.

  7. 7.

    Barnes 1982: 84–87, 198.

  8. 8.

    Blockley 1972: 461.

  9. 9.

    Euseb., Vit. Const. 4.51.1–52.1 (though Dalmatius is passed over in silence); Lib., Or. 59.40, 43 (omitting both Dalmatius and Constantine II).

  10. 10.

    The Caesars of the Tetrarchy did not have their own prefects (Corcoran 2000: 87–89; Porena 2003: 131). The first Caesar to receive a prefect in the fourth century was the ill-fated Crispus (Barnes 1982: 128–129; 2011: 158–159). This decision may not have been entirely unprecedented: Saloninus Caesar, the son of Gallienus, was stationed at Cologne with an official called Silvanus, who was possibly a Praetorian Prefect (Zos. 1.38.2; Zonar. 12.24).

  11. 11.

    Burgess 2008: 8–9; Barnes 2011: 165.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Porena 2003: 571–574, who argues that developed regional prefectures were established under Constantine in the late 320s.

  13. 13.

    Burgess 2008: 7–8.

  14. 14.

    Amm. Marc. 21.16.2.

  15. 15.

    Jones 1964: 372; Dillon 2012: 36–37, 108–109. Several constitutions from the mid-fourth century deal with this chain of command, such as Cod. Theod. 1.15.3 (357), 1.15.4 (362), 7.4.3 (357), 8.5.5 (354), 11.16.7 (356), 16.10.9 (356).

  16. 16.

    See the following laws from the period under discussion: Cod. Theod. 1.7.1 (359), 7.1.3 (349), 7.4.2 (355), 7.4.4–6 (361), 7.13.1 (353), 8.1.5 (357), 12.1.38 (346).

  17. 17.

    There are numerous constitutions on appeals against governor’s decisions from the reigns of Constantine and his sons: Cod. Theod. 1.5.1 (325), 1.5.2 (327), 1.5.3 (331), 11.34.1 (331), 11.30.27 (357), 11.34.2 (355). For the transfer of records, see Cod. Theod. 1.16.3 (318). See Jones 1964: 371–372; Dillon 2012: 108–113.

  18. 18.

    Cod. Theod. 11.30.16 (331). On the evolution of the prefect’s judicial responsibilities from the high empire see Eich 2005: 216–257.

  19. 19.

    Eunap., VS 490.

  20. 20.

    Burgess 2008 offers the most thorough recent account.

  21. 21.

    For an analysis of the tensions in these very poorly attested years, relying heavily on numismatic evidence, see Bruun 1987; Maraval 2013: 39–44. See the chapter by Lewis in this volume for a critical reappraisal of the conflict.

  22. 22.

    Our ability to reconstruct the administrative changes which followed this depends above all on the work of Barnes 1987, 1992, 1993 on which I rely heavily throughout.

  23. 23.

    Barnes 1987: 17; 1992: 251–252; PLRE 1: 187–188 (Aco Catullinus 3).

  24. 24.

    Cod. Theod. 8.2.1, 12.1.31. For the identification of Ambrose’s father with Constantine II’s Praetorian Prefect, see Barnes 1992: 251, 253.

  25. 25.

    Szidat 2014: 124.

  26. 26.

    Section II of the Chronograph of 354 features the tyche of four cities: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Trier, highlighting the Gallic city’s importance.

  27. 27.

    Expositio 58. Barnes 1989: 304 n. 7 dates this work to the late 340s. On usurpations occurring in Gaul, see Szidat 2014: 121–122.

  28. 28.

    He had been betrothed to the daughter of Constantine’s Praetorian Prefect Flavius Ablabius, though this relationship was presumably dissolved when Ablabius was murdered in 337 (Barnes 2011: 171–172).

  29. 29.

    See Harries 2012: 190, and Maraval 2013: 46–50, on Constans’ activity. A Danubian campaign is suggested by Cod. Theod. 8.2.1, 12.1.31, issued on 24 June 341 from Lauriacum in Noricum (Maraval 2013: 46).

  30. 30.

    Barnes 1993: 224–225, collects the evidence. This journey to Britain seems to have been prompted by problems on the northern frontier (Birley 2005: 414–416, cf. the more sceptical Hunt 1998: 6–7).

  31. 31.

    Barnes 1987: 21.

  32. 32.

    I. Cret. 323 = LSA 785 (F. Bigi, I. Tantillo, U. Gehn).

  33. 33.

    Eunap., VS 490, 492; Vogler 1979: 117–118; Barnes 1992: 258. Following Norman 1957, Barnes 1992, and Bradbury 2000, I distinguish between Anatolius Azutrio (Prefect of Illyricum under Constans), and Anatolius (Prefect of Illyricum under Constantius II), who are conflated in PLRE 1: 59–60 (Anatolius 3).

  34. 34.

    Thompson 1956; Norman 1957.

  35. 35.

    This occurred during the term of Furius Placidus (PLRE 1: 705–706 (Placidus 2); Barnes 1987: 21; 1992: 257). There was probably not a separate prefecture of Africa, as has been suggested (cf. Vogler 1979: 123–130).

  36. 36.

    The exception is in 346, when he is found at Caesena, just south of Ravenna, on 23 May (Cod. Theod. 12.1.38, with Barnes 1993: 225, 316 n. 52, on the date).

  37. 37.

    PLRE 1: 782–783 (Vulcacius Rufinus 25); CIL VI 32051.

  38. 38.

    Vogler 1979: 113–114; Barnes 1992: 258.

  39. 39.

    Harries 2012: 190 has suggested this appointment was the result of a souring of the relationship between the emperor and the senatorial aristocracy, but not all scholars would interpret it in this way (see Callu 1992: 57; Maraval 2013: 50). The issue is examined fully by Moser 2017.

  40. 40.

    Cod. Theod. 9.17.2 (349).

  41. 41.

    For the uniform of the Praetorian Prefect, see Kelly 2004: 20–21. Constantius II’s Praetorian Prefect Flavius Philippus was commemorated with a statue in Chalcedon showing him wearing a sword (Lydus, Mag. 2.9).

  42. 42.

    This is discussed in further detail in the final section of this chapter, “Courts and Careers”.

  43. 43.

    See Humphries 2003 for an examination of the dynamics of this relationship.

  44. 44.

    Julian., Or. 1.18c–d, 20c–22a; Hunt 1998: 12–13; Maraval 2013: 64–71.

  45. 45.

    PLRE 1: 697 (Philippus 7); Barnes 1992: 254–255.

  46. 46.

    AE 1967, 47 = I. Eph. 41. See Swift and Oliver 1962 for a text, translation, and commentary.

  47. 47.

    PLRE 1: 886 (Thalassius 1); Philostorgius, Hist. eccl. 3.26a; Amm. Marc. 14.1.10. Blockley 1972: 441–445, 464–468, argues that Gallus’ powers were strictly military, and that he had no formal authority over civilian affairs, which would necessitate the appointment of a prefect to handle such matters.

  48. 48.

    Philostorgius, Hist. eccl. 3.26a, 3.28 shows that Constantius II selected all the officials at Gallus’ court, and the Caesar had no powers to make appointments himself. See the discussions of Blockley 1972: 465–466; Vogler 1979: 84–93.

  49. 49.

    Barnes 1987: 22. We know of one empire-wide edict issued to all prefects in 354 (Cod. Theod. 6.27.1, 7.13.1, 7.21.2, 8.4.5, 8.7.4, 8.7.5, 8.7.6, 12.1.14, 12.1.18). For the date, see Matthews 2000: 232–236. Cf. Seeck 1919: 42–43, who dated it to the reign of Constantine. Other examples of collective addresses to all prefects in the Cod. Theod. are cited by Seeck 1919: 6.

  50. 50.

    Barnes 1992: 259; Amm. Marc. 15.13.1.

  51. 51.

    Julian’s appointment in Gaul: Amm. Marc. 15.8.1–14; Zos. 3.2.1–3. Blockley 1972: 444–445 argues that Julian, like Gallus, had no formal powers over the civilian administration assigned to him by Constantius II, but assumed such responsibilities gradually. The first prefect during Julian’s time as Caesar was Honoratus, who had previously been comes Orientis under Gallus (PLRE 1: 438–439 (Honoratus 2)).

  52. 52.

    Flavius Taurus: “praetorian prefect throughout Italy and Africa” (praef(ecto) prate(orio) per Italiam atq(ue) | Africam), a title which accurately reflects his authority in 355–361, even though the text was inscribed much later (CIL 6 41336). For subsequent variations in the prefectures in the later fourth century, see Errington 2006: 81–84.

  53. 53.

    Constantius II was notoriously controlling, expecting his Caesars to obey his commands (Amm. Marc. 14.11.10). He made rulings on Julian’s behalf that were expected to apply to the Caesar’s court as well as his own (Cod. Theod. 9.16.6, on magi in the comitatus). On one level this was standard procedure, as shown by the conduct of government in the Tetrarchic period, when rulings of the Augusti were expected to apply throughout the empire. On the other hand, some Tetrarchic Caesars did have limited legislative competence, and we should not automatically assume that all collegiate governments operated in the same way (Corcoran 2000: 266–275).

  54. 54.

    Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.16.

  55. 55.

    Philippus: Lib., Or. 1.69–70. Constantius II: Barnes 1993: 220; Lib., Or. 1.66 (which specifically mentions the Persian campaign of 348).

  56. 56.

    Szidat 2014: 124.

  57. 57.

    Amm. Marc. 14.5.1, 10.1; Barnes 1993: 221.

  58. 58.

    Cod. Theod. 9.23.1. The manuscripts give the date 356, when Rufinus was no longer prefect. I follow PLRE 1: 782–783 (Rufinus 25), in dating it to 354. Seeck 1919: 45–46, prefers 346, when Rufinus was Prefect of Italy. The place of acceptance is given in the manuscript as Constantina, which Seeck assumed was the city in Africa. But Arles was known officially as Constantina from 328 to 340, then Constantia from 353 onwards (Burgess 1999: 278–279). This indicates that the Gallic city was the place where Rufinus accepted the law.

  59. 59.

    Amm. Marc. 14.10.1–5.

  60. 60.

    PLRE 1: 362 (Florentius 1); Amm. Marc. 16.12.14, 18.2.4, 7.

  61. 61.

    Cod. Theod. 11.7.8 (given by Constantius II at Dinumma on 2 September 356; received by Taurus at Carthage on 12 November 356); Cod. Theod. 13.1.1 (given by Constantius II on 2 December 356, received by Taurus at Rome on 6 February 357); Cod. Theod. 13.1.2 (received by Taurus at Carthage on 10 July 357). Taurus may have been at Rome in February 357 preparing for the emperor’s visit in April/May of that year.

  62. 62.

    Matthews 2000: 182 cites this and other instances of the phenomenon for evidence of emperors and prefects being in the same place.

  63. 63.

    Cod. Theod. 9.42.4.

  64. 64.

    Jones 1964: 401–403, 1161–1163; Matthews 2000: 184.

  65. 65.

    On the ceremonies for imperial representatives in the provinces, see McCormick 1986: 252–258.

  66. 66.

    Eun., VS 491.

  67. 67.

    PLRE 1: 694 (Philagrius 5); Lib., Or. 1.69.

  68. 68.

    Lieu and Montserrat 1996: 153–154, 158, 161–162. On this panegyric see also the chapter by Christine Greenlee in this volume.

  69. 69.

    Lib., Or. 59.75, 147–148.

  70. 70.

    Lib., Or. 1.111–113. On the politics of such commissions, see Cribiore 2013: 80–82.

  71. 71.

    Eunap., VS. 490–491.

  72. 72.

    PLRE 1: 840–841 (Silvanus 2); Amm. Marc. 15.5.2.

  73. 73.

    Amm. Marc. 15.8.1; Blockley 1972: 446–447.

  74. 74.

    Lib., Or. 59.152.

  75. 75.

    Feissel 1991: 439–441; Porena 2003: 150–152, 496. Cf. Vogler 1979: 130–132, who suggests all prefects met to make the dedications.

  76. 76.

    ILTun. 814; AE 1985, 823. These statues were probably dedicated on 1 March 336, when Constantine II celebrated his vicennalia (Feissel 1985: 434; Salway 2007: 1283–1284). Cf. Barnes 2011: 162, who prefers the summer of 335, prior to Dalmatius’ elevation to Caesar on 18 September.

  77. 77.

    CIL 3 12330 = ILS 8944 = LSA 1112 (U. Gehn). Only one statue base for Constans survives, but the inscription suggests that there were originally statues of both Augusti, as Gehn notes.

  78. 78.

    Jones 1964: 325–326, 1131–1132; Feissel 1991.

  79. 79.

    This is the correspondence of Marcus’ Praetorian Prefects Bassaeus Rufus and Macrinius Vindex, who wrote to the magistrates of Saepinum (CIL 9 2438; Eich 2005: 224–228).

  80. 80.

    The inscription featuring the letters has not yet been published, but it is translated into English in Athanassiadi 1989/1990: 276, and Barnes 2011: 143, based on a transcription by Vatin 1962 (non vidi).

  81. 81.

    Athanassiadi 1989/1990: 276–277.

  82. 82.

    Athanasius, Hist. Ar. 8.1–2; Barnes 1993: 34–35; Hunt 1998: 5; Harries 2012: 189.

  83. 83.

    Cod. Theod. 12.1.27. For the argument that it was written by Constantine II, see Seeck 1919: 48; Barnes 1993: 218, 311 n. 5; Hunt 1998: 5. Cf. Maraval 2013: 42, who is more sceptical.

  84. 84.

    On laws in the Cod. Theod. as letters to officials, see Matthews 2000: 13–16, 67–69; Dillon 2012: 157–158.

  85. 85.

    Maraval 2013: 40–41 notes that Constantine II did not exercise formal authority in his brother’s territory. Cf. Lewis in this volume.

  86. 86.

    Barnes 1993: 39–40, 51–52. On letters between emperors and bishops see also the chapter by Nicholas Baker-Brian in this volume.

  87. 87.

    For the meeting, see Barnes 1993: 71–81.

  88. 88.

    Barnes 1993: 89–90. For Constans’ letters, see Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.22.5; Sozom., Hist. eccl. 3.20.1; Philostorgius, Hist. eccl. 3.12.

  89. 89.

    Barnes 1993: 63–68.

  90. 90.

    Harries 2012: 244–245.

  91. 91.

    Salway 2008: 300–309, showing that there was no dispute over the consular nominations in 344, as previously thought.

  92. 92.

    Bagnall et al. 1987: 226–227; Salway 2008: 305.

  93. 93.

    Salway 2008: 305–306. Cf. Barnes 1993: 91, who associates the consular problems with Athanasius.

  94. 94.

    Kent 1967, followed by Hendy 1985: 291–294, 469–470; Abdy 2012: 595–597. See Maraval 2013: 52–58, for an overview of recent scholarly theories regarding the dates of issue and choice of coin types, which suggests that the coins were first minted in Constans’ territories.

  95. 95.

    Salway 2008: 302. For the location of the consular games, see Cameron 2013: 199–205.

  96. 96.

    PLRE 1: 705–706 (Placidus 2), and 510 (Limenius 2).

  97. 97.

    This is explored in the final section of this chapter, “Courts and Careers”.

  98. 98.

    Of all the constitutions issued to Urban Prefects of Rome in 340–350, only one has a place of issue that firmly identifies Constans as the issuer: Cod. Theod. 9.17.1 (given at Milan, on 25 June 340).

  99. 99.

    Cod. Theod. 6.4.5–6. See Skinner 2008: 142–143, on these praetorships. On Constantinople see also the chapter by Meaghan McEvoy in this volume.

  100. 100.

    Cod. Theod. 16.10.2.

  101. 101.

    Cod. Theod. 16.10.5.

  102. 102.

    Cod. Theod. 9.17.1 (340), 9.17.2 (349), 9.17.3–4 (356).

  103. 103.

    Cod. Theod. 11.1.6 (353, issued by Constantius II, but referring back to a law of Constans enforced by Vulcacius Rufinus). For the date, see Barnes 1993: 221, 314, n. 31.

  104. 104.

    Callu 1992: 39–50; Maraval 2013: 196.

  105. 105.

    Callu 1992: 48; Cod. Theod. 7.9.1 (received at Capua, 12 August), 7.9.2 (issued to Constantius II’s Praetorian Prefect Leontius on 11 October).

  106. 106.

    Dillon 2012: 119–191. See also Kelly 2004: 213–215, who draws attention to the purpose of the forceful imperial rhetoric.

  107. 107.

    Cod. Theod. 6.29.2 (356). For the workings of the cursus publicus, see Jones 1964: 830–834.

  108. 108.

    Cod. Theod. 8.5.9.

  109. 109.

    Cod. Theod. 8.5.8 (357).

  110. 110.

    Cod. Theod. 8.5.7 (354); Jones 1964: 832–833. For Constantine’s rulings on the subject, see Dillon 2012: 171–172.

  111. 111.

    See the comments of Schmidt-Hofner 2014: 83–84, discussing the legislation of Valentinian I and Valens on the same matter.

  112. 112.

    PLRE 1: 628 (Nicentius 1).

  113. 113.

    Lib., Ep. F21 = N34.

  114. 114.

    Liebeschuetz 1972: 163; Pollard 2000: 221–223. Libanius himself was motivated at least in part by his desire to keep his own friends in high places: see Kelly 2004: 172–173.

  115. 115.

    This approach would continue throughout the fourth century: see Schmidt-Hofner 2014.

  116. 116.

    Cod. Theod. 11.30.27 (357).

  117. 117.

    Nec vero ulla poterit esse confusio. Praefectus enim urbis nostra responsione conventus praedictis cognitionibus temperandum sibi esse cognovit.

  118. 118.

    Cod. Theod. 11.7.8 (356).

  119. 119.

    Cod. Theod. 11.16.7 (356).

  120. 120.

    Cod. Theod. 1.5.6, with 1.5.7, also part of the same law.

  121. 121.

    Matthews 2000: 281–288; Seeck 1919: 6.

  122. 122.

    Amm. Marc. 16.9.2–4, 10.21.

  123. 123.

    Amm. Marc. 16.5.12.

  124. 124.

    See the masterful survey of Kelly 2004.

  125. 125.

    Harries 2012: 191–192.

  126. 126.

    Furius Placidus: PLRE 1: 705–706 (Placidus 2); CIL 10 1700 = ILS 1231. Vulcacius Rufinus: PLRE 1: 782–783 (Rufinus 25); CIL 6 32051 = ILS 1237.

  127. 127.

    Bradbury 2000: 185. Vicarius: Cod. Theod. 11.30.19, 12.1.28 (339). Constans’ court: Eunap., VS. 490, 492. Illyricum: Barnes 1992: 258.

  128. 128.

    PLRE 1: 510 (Limenius 2). As Callu 1992: 57, remarks, the appointment of Limenius was probably not the result of a dispute between Constans and the Senate in Rome.

  129. 129.

    Cf. Vogler 1979: 140, interpreting the appointments of Limenius and Hermogenes as a product of the post-346 detente between the brothers.

  130. 130.

    Lib., Or. 59.164.

  131. 131.

    The lack of barriers between East and West undoubtedly extended to governorships as well. For example, Scylacius was vicarius of Asiana in 343 (in the territory of Constantius II) and then subsequently proconsul of Achaia (PLRE 1: 811 (Scylacius 1); Himer., Or. 25). There is no reason to assume that Scylacius could not hold the proconsulship of Achaia before 350 simply because the prefecture of Illyricum was in Constans’ territory (cf. Penella 2007: 208).

  132. 132.

    On the composition of the consistorium, see Vogler 1979: 216–219; Maraval 2013: 184–185.

  133. 133.

    PLRE 1: 291–292 (Eugenius 2); CIL 6 1721. Athanasius, Ap. Const. 3, places him at court in 342, when PLRE suggests he may have been magister admissionum. Lib., Or. 14.10–11, portrays him in a negative light, claiming that he seized his relatives’ property.

  134. 134.

    PLRE 1: 310–311 (Eustathius 2); Philostorgius, Hist. eccl. 3.12.

  135. 135.

    Chron. 354 (MGH Chron. min. 1: 68) records an interregnum at this point, but Eustathius evidently received Cod. Theod. 2.1.1, 11.7.6, at Rome (Barnes 1992: 258).

  136. 136.

    On membership of this body, see Jones 1964: 333–334. For comites of Constans, see Callu 1992: 52–53.

  137. 137.

    PLRE 1: 530 (Madalianus); CIL 8 5348 = ILS 1228.

  138. 138.

    PLRE 1: 37 (Albinus 13); CIL 6 1748.

  139. 139.

    See Barnes 1993: 225, for Constans’ itinerary in these years.

  140. 140.

    This is one of the central themes of Matthews 1975, which examines the patterns of the late fourth and early fifth centuries, as well as Humphries 2003.

  141. 141.

    Note the remarks of Barnes 1989: 319–321, on Constans’ relations with the pagan senatorial aristocracy.

  142. 142.

    PLRE 1: 11 (Acindynus 2).

  143. 143.

    Barnes 1989: 313–315, compiles two lists of Constantius II’s comites in 345/346 and 351 from ecclesiastical sources, many of whom later appear in high administrative office under the same emperor.

  144. 144.

    PLRE 1: 243–244 (Datianus 1); Lib., Ep. F1184 = N126.

  145. 145.

    PLRE 1: 262 (Domitianus 1); Amm. Marc. 14.7.9.

  146. 146.

    Callu 1992: 62; Maraval 2013: 180.

  147. 147.

    PLRE 1: 621 (Nemesianus 1); Vogler 1979: 229.

  148. 148.

    Hunt 1998: 10, 21–22; Humphries 2003: 38–39.

  149. 149.

    PLRE 1: 651–653 (Orfitus 3); Vogler 1979: 218.

  150. 150.

    PLRE 1: 433 (Hilarianus 5).

  151. 151.

    PLRE 1: 814–817 (Secundus 3); CIL 6 1764 = ILS 1255. Julian., Ep. ad Ath. 281d, and Zos. 3.2.2, do not give specific posts. Harries 1988: 156 links this service with the posts as quaestor and comes on his career inscription.

  152. 152.

    PLRE 1: 302 (Eusebius 6); Amm. Marc. 15.5.4, 13.

  153. 153.

    It should be pointed out, however, that Secundus Salutius became such a trusted adherent of Julian that he later accompanied him to the East as Praetorian Prefect.

  154. 154.

    Maraval 2013: 190.

  155. 155.

    PLRE 1: 365 (Florentius 10); PLRE 1: 879–880 (Taurus 3).

  156. 156.

    For example, Amm. Marc. 17.3.2–6 (disagreement on provincial taxation); Julian., Ep ad Ath. 280a–b (on payments to barbarians); Julian., Ep. ad Ath. 282c–d; Amm. Marc. 20.4.2 (the prefect asks Constantius II to remove the army from Julian’s command).

  157. 157.

    Amm. Marc. 21.9.4; Zos. 3.10.4.

  158. 158.

    See the discussion of Kelly 2004: 129–137, 158–185.

  159. 159.

    Titianus’ absence from Rome to visit the emperor: Chron. 354 (MGH Chron. min. 1: 68). Constans at Milan: Cod. Theod. 9.17.1 (340). Titianus’ journey shows that it is highly unlikely that Constans himself came to Rome, as suggested by Barnes 1975: 327–328.

  160. 160.

    Chron. 354 (MGH Chron. min. 1 p. 69); CIL 6 1166–1167.

  161. 161.

    On the eastern correspondents, see Vogler 1979: 66–68; Bradbury 2014: 232–233. For governorships, see Liebeschuetz 1972: 111–112; Slootjes 2006: 26–27, 40.

  162. 162.

    Vogler 1979: 230; Bradbury 2004: 32; 2014: 234–235.

  163. 163.

    PLRE 1: 363 (Florentius 3); Bradbury 2014: 236.

  164. 164.

    Bradbury 2004: 65; Lib., Ep. F510 = B36, F351 = B37.

  165. 165.

    PLRE 1: 727 (Priscianus 1).

  166. 166.

    Lib., Ep. F61 = B39; Bradbury 2004: 67–68.

  167. 167.

    Bradbury 2000: 174–175; Kelly 2004: 194; Lib., Ep. F391.13–16 = N4; F512.4–5 = B56.

  168. 168.

    Feissel 1991: 438.

  169. 169.

    PLRE 1: 978–980 (Volusianus 5).

  170. 170.

    Zos. 2.55.3. Ammianus does not name the friends with whom Constantius II consulted when deciding to recall Gallus (Amm. Marc. 14.11.1)

  171. 171.

    Barnes 1993: 221.

  172. 172.

    Amm. Marc. 15.4.13 (Constantius II at Milan), 5.5 (Volusianus hands the letters to Constantius II at Milan).

  173. 173.

    Amm. Marc. 15.5.13. Ammianus does not discuss how Volusianus came to be at Milan, but it is clear that he must have travelled there in order to see Constantius II in the emperor’s private apartments.

  174. 174.

    Barnes 1993: 222–223.

  175. 175.

    Lib., Ep. F563.3 = B59; PLRE 1: 213–214 (Clematius 2).

  176. 176.

    Lib., Ep. F339.3–4 = B62; PLRE 1: 791–792 (Sabinus 5).

  177. 177.

    Bradbury 2000: 177.

  178. 178.

    Bradbury 2014: 239.

References

  • Abdy, R. (2012). Tetrarchy and the House of Constantine. In W. E. Metcalf (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Coinage (pp. 584–600). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Athanassiadi, P. (1989–1990). The Fate of Oracles in Late Antiquity: Didyma and Delphi. Deltion Christianikes Archaiologikes Etaireias, 15, 271–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagnall, R. S., Cameron, A., Schwartz, S. R., & Worp, K. A. (1987). Consuls of the Later Roman Empire. Atlanta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1975). Constans and Gratian in Rome. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 79, 325–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1982). The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1987). Regional Prefectures. In J. Straub (Ed.), Bonner Historia Augusta Colloquium 1984/5 (pp. 13–23). Bonn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1989). Christians and Pagans in the Reign of Constantius. In A. Dihle (Ed.), L’église et l’empire au IVe siècle (pp. 301–337). Geneva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1992). Praetorian Prefects 337–361. ZPE, 94, 249–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (1993). Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, T. D. (2011). Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford and Malden.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birley, A. R. (2005). The Roman Government of Britain. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blockley, R. C. (1972). Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius II. Latomus, 31, 433–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, S. (2000). A Sophistic Prefect: Anatolius of Berytus in the Letters of Libanius. CPh, 95, 172–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, S. (2004). Selected Letters of Libanius from the Age of Constantius and Julian. Liverpool.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury, S. (2014). Libanius’ Networks. In L. van Hoof (Ed.), Libanius: A Critical Introduction (pp. 220–240). Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruun, P. M. (1987). Constans Maximus Augustus. In H. Huvelin, M. Christol, & G. Gautier (Eds.), Mélanges de numismatique offerts à Pierre Bastien à l’occasion de son 75e anniversaire (pp. 187–199). Wetteren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, R. W. (1999). Studies in Eusebian and Post-Eusebian Chronography. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callu, J.-P. (1992). La dyarchie constantinide (340–350): les signes d’évolution. In M. Christol et al. (Eds.), Institutions, société et vie politique dans l’Empire romain au IVe siècle ap. J.-C (pp. 39–68). Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. (2013). The Origin, Context and Function of Consular Diptychs. JRS, 103, 174–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, S. (2000). The Empire of the Tetrarchs: Imperial Pronouncements and Government A.D. 283–324 (Rev. ed.). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cribiore, R. (2013). Libanius the Sophist: Rhetoric, Reality, and Religion in the Fourth Century. Ithaca, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, J. N. (2012). The Justice of Constantine: Law, Communication, and Control. Ann Arbor, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eich, P. (2005). Zur Metamorphose des politischen Systems in der römischen Kaiserzeit. Die Entstehung einer ‘personalen Bürokratie’ im langen dritten Jahrhundert. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Errington, R. M. (2006). Roman Imperial Policy from Julian to Theodosius. Chapel Hill, NC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feissel, D. (1985). Une dédicace en honneur de Constantin II César et les préfets du prétoire de 336. TM, 9, 422–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feissel, D. (1991). Praefatio chartarum publicarum. L’intitulé des actes de la prefecture du prétoire du IVe au VIe siècle. TM, 11, 437–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, J. (1988). The Roman Imperial Questor from Constantine to Theodosius II. JRS, 78, 148–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries, J. (2012). Imperial Rome AD 384 to 363: The New Empire. Edinburgh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendy, M. (1985). Studies in the Byzantine Monetary Economy. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, M. (2003). Roman Senators and Absent Emperors in Late Antiquity. Acta ad archaeologiam et atrium historiam pertinentia, 17, 27–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, A. H. M. (1964). The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social, Economic and Administrative Survey (3 Vols.). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, C. (2004). Ruling the Later Roman Empire. Cambridge, MA and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kent, J. P. C. (1967). FEL. TEMP. REPARATIO. NC, 7, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kienast, D. (1996). Römische Kaisertabelle. Grundzüge einer römischen Kaiserchronologie. Darmstadt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulikowski, M. (2014). Regional Dynasties and Imperial Court. In J. Wienand (Ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century A.D. (pp. 135–148). New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1972). Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieu, S. N. C., & Montserrat, D. (Eds.). (1996). From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. A Source History. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maraval, P. (2013). Les fils de Constantin. Constantin II (337–340), Constance II (337–361) and Constant (337–350). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. (1975). Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 364–425. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, J. (2000). Laying Down the Law. A Study of the Theodosian Code. New Haven and London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. (1986). Eternal Victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, F. (1977). The Emperor in the Roman World (31 BC–AD 337). London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (2017). Ein Kaiser geht auf Distanz: die Rompolitik Constans I. AntTard, 25, 41–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, M. (2018). Emperors and Senators in the Reign of Constantius II. Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, A. F. (1957). The Illyrian Prefecture of Anatolius. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 100, 253–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penella, R. J. (2007). Man and the Word: The Orations of Himerius. Berkeley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, N. (2000). Soldiers, Cities and Civilians in Roman Syria. Ann Arbor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porena, P. (2003). Le Origini della Prefettura del Pretorio Tardoantica. Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salway, R. W. B. (2007). The Praetorian Prefecture of Africa Under Constantine: A Phantom? In M. Mayer et al. (Eds.), Acta XII Congressus Internationalis Epigraphiae Graecae et Latinae (pp. 1281–1284). Barcelona.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salway, R. W. B. (2008). Roman Consuls, Imperial Politics, and Egyptian Papyri: The Consulates of 325 and 344 CE. JLA, 1, 278–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt-Hofner, S. (2014). Ostentatious Legislation: Law and Dynastic Change, A.D. 364–365. In J. Wienand (Ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century A.D. (pp. 67–99). New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seeck, O. (1919). Regesten der Kaiser und Päpste für die Jahre 311 bis 476 n. Chr. Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skinner, A. (2008). The Early Development of the Senate of Constantinople. BMGS, 32, 128–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slootjes, D. (2006). The Governor and His Subjects in the Later Roman Empire. Leiden and Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, L. J., & Oliver, J. H. (1962). Constantius on Flavius Philippus. AJPh, 83, 247–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szidat, J. (2014). Gaul and the Roman Emperors of the Fourth Century. In J. Wienand (Ed.), Contested Monarchy: Integrating the Roman Empire in the Fourth Century AD (pp. 119–133). Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, E. A. (1956). Constantine, Constantius II and the Lower Danube Frontiers. Hermes, 84, 372–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatin, P. (1962). Delphes à l’époque imperiale (PhD dissertation). Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, C. (1979). Constance II et l’administration impériale. Strasbourg.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ancient History, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Caillan Davenport

  2. Abteilung für Alte Geschichte, Historisches Seminar, Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Caillan Davenport

Authors
  1. Caillan Davenport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Caillan Davenport .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Nicholas Baker-Brian

  2. Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

    Shaun Tougher

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Davenport, C. (2020). The Dynamics of Imperial Government: Collegiality and Regionalism. 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_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39898-9_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-39897-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-39898-9

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation