Download PDF | (New Approaches to Byzantine History and Culture) Nicholas Baker-Brian, Shaun Tougher - The Sons of Constantine, AD 337-361_ In the Shadows of Constantine and Julian-Springer International Publishing, 2020.
474 Pages
Acknowledgements
This volume is the result of several conference sessions devoted to the Sons of Constantine held between 2011 and 2014. The editors wish to thank all the authors for their contributions, in addition to their time, expertise and tremendous patience in the editing and production of this volume. Thanks are also owed to those who contributed along the way, namely Jill Harries, Josef Lössl, Alberto Quiroga Puertas, Michael Saxby, Benet Salway, Rebecca Usherwood and Muriel Moser, as well as Jean Bouffartigue and Frank Trombley who are both sadly no longer with us. We are happy, however, to record particular gratitude to Jill, who has been a regular source of encouragement for the project, both in Cardiff and in St. Andrews. Greatly appreciated also was the enthusiasm and constructive guidance of Emily Russell at Palgrave Macmillan. We would like to acknowledge the support shown in the research, writing and editing of this volume by our home institution, Cardiff University, and by our colleagues in the School of History, Archaeology and Religion. We would also like to pay particular thanks to Cardiff University graduate Scott Place, who provided invaluable assistance in producing the composite bibliography. Nic would like to thank Sarah, Luke and Amy for their continued support and patience in pursuit of his academic endeavours. Shaun would like to thank Nic for being a model colleague and collaborator, and for keeping him sane. Cardiff, November 2019 Nicholas Baker-Brian Shaun Tougher.
Notes on Contributors
Nicholas Baker-Brian is Reader in Ancient Religions at Cardiff University. He is the author of Manichaeism. An Ancient Faith Rediscovered (2011), and co-editor of Emperor and Author. The Writings of Julian the Apostate (2012) and A Companion to Religion in Late Antiquity (2018). He is presently completing a monograph on the reign of Constantius II, and is involved in a project on religious exceptionalism in Late Antiquity. Caillan Davenport is Senior Lecturer in Roman History at Macquarie University, Sydney, and Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at GoetheUniversität, Frankfurt. He is the co-editor of Fronto: Selected Letters (2014) and author of A History of the Roman Equestrian Order (2019). His current project is a study of rumour and gossip about Roman emperors from Augustus to Late Antiquity. Christine Greenlee is a writer and independent researcher. She has recently completed her PhD at the University of St Andrews. Her research has primarily focused on the life and career of Libanius during the reign of Constantius II. Mark Humphries is Professor of Ancient History at Swansea University. He has published widely on aspects of the political, religious, and social history of Late Antiquity and is an editor of Translated Texts for Historians. He is completing a study of late Roman civil war. Michael Kulikowski is Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Classics at Penn State, where he has served as the Head of the History Department for the past decade. His books include Imperial Triumph: The Roman Empire from Hadrian to Constantine (2016) and Imperial Tragedy: From Constantine’s Empire to the Destruction of Roman Italy (2019). He is presently at work on the Landmark Ammianus Marcellinus. William Lewis received his PhD with a thesis on the Roman empire under the Constantinians from Cardiff University. He specialises in politics, usurpation, and civil war in the later Roman empire, and he is working on the division of the Roman empire between the sons of Constantine. Meaghan McEvoy is Lecturer in Byzantine Studies at Macquarie University, specialising in late Roman political history. Her publications include Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD367–455 (2013) and ‘Constantia: the last Constantinian’, Antichthon 50 (2016): 154–179. She is working on a monograph on the fifth-century Roman empress Licinia Eudoxia for Oxford University Press. Peter Sarris is Professor of Late Antique, Medieval and Byzantine Studies at the University of Cambridge. He is the author of Economy and Society in the Age of Justinian (2006), Empire of Faith. The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam, 500–700 (2011), and co-editor of The Novels of Justinian – A Complete Annotated English Translation, 2 vols (2018). His current research includes the development of Eurasian trading networks between Constantinople, Persia, Central Asia and China, and the emergent contours of the ‘confessional state’ in the age of Justinian. Daniëlle Slootjes (PhD 2004, UNC Chapel Hill) is Associate Professor of Ancient History at the Institute of Historical, Literary and Cultural Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen. She has published extensively on late antique Roman administration, geography, the history of early Christianity and crowd behaviour in the period of Late Antiquity and the Byzantine empire. Jan R. Stenger is Professor of Classical Philology at the University of Würzburg. His research focuses on Greek lyric poetry, literature and culture of Late Antiquity, and ancient Christianity. He has published monographs on the Greek poet Bacchylides (2004), on identity construction in Late Antiquity (2009) and on John Chrysostom (2019). He has just completed a research project on education from 300 to 550 AD.Shaun Tougher is Professor of Late Roman and Byzantine History at Cardiff University. He has published extensively on Julian the Apostate, eunuchs and the Macedonian dynasty. His publications include Julian the Apostate (2007), The Eunuch in Byzantine History and Society (2008), and Emperor and Author: The Writings of Julian the Apostate (2012) (co-edited with Nicholas Baker-Brian). He is completing a monograph on Roman eunuchs. John Vanderspoel is Professor of Roman History at the University of Calgary. He is the author of Themistius and the Imperial Court, as well as numerous articles and reviews. His current projects include work on the emperor Julian, the women of the Tetrarchic period, and Sasanian kingship. Eric R. Varner is Associate Professor of Art History and Classics at Emory University. He is the author of Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture (2004), and is presently completing a monograph entitled Grotesque Aesthetics. Transgression and Transcendence in the Age of Nero.
Introduction: In the Shadows of Constantine and Julian—The Sons of Constantine, AD 337–361 Nicholas Baker-Brian and Shaun Tougher
The voice of the dying emperor had recommended the care of his funeral to the piety of Constantius; and that prince, by the vicinity of his eastern station, could easily prevent the diligence of his brothers, who resided in their distant governments of Italy and Gaul. As soon as he had taken possession of the palace of Constantinople, his first care was to remove the apprehensions of his kinsmen, by a solemn oath which he pledged for their security. His next employment was to find some specious pretence which might release his conscience for the obligation of an imprudent promise. The arts of fraud were made subservient to the designs of cruelty; and a manifest forgery was attested by a person of the most sacred character. From the hands of the bishop of Nicomedia, Constantius received a fatal scroll, affirmed to be the genuine testament of his father; in which the emperor expressed his suspicions that he had been poisoned by his brothers; and conjured his sons to revenge his death, and to consult their own safety by the punishment of the guilty.
Whatever reasons might have been alleged by these unfortunate princes to defend their life and honour against so incredible an accusation, they were silenced by the furious clamours of the soldiers, who declared themselves, at once, their enemies, their judges, and their executioners. The spirit, and even the forms of legal proceedings were repeatedly violated in a promiscuous massacre; which involved the two uncles of Constantius, seven of his cousins, of whom Dalmatius and Hannibalianus were the most illustrious, the Patrician Optatus, who had married a sister of the late emperor, and the Praefect Ablavius, whose power and riches had inspired him with some hopes of obtaining the purple. If it were necessary to aggravate the horrors of this bloody scene, we might add, that Constantius himself had espoused the daughter of his uncle Julius, and that he had bestowed his sister in marriage on his cousin Hannibalianus.
These alliances, which the policy of Constantine, regardless of public prejudice, had formed between the several branches of the imperial house, served only to convince mankind, that these princes were as cold to the endearments of conjugal affection, as they were insensible to the ties of consanguinity, and the moving entreaties of youth and innocence.1 Thus Edward Gibbon in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire characterised the period during and immediately after the death of Constantine I, when the sons of the emperor rose to the rank of Augustus and acquired the empire as an inheritance from their father. As Gibbon had observed earlier in the work—as highlighted by John Pocock2—“in elective monarchies, the vacancy of the throne is a moment big with danger and mischief”.3
Gibbon’s moralising historiography found fertile ground in the case of Constantine’s succession: his creative fusion of his themes and sources, including his revisionist treatment of Philostorgius’ account of Constantine’s will,4 impressed upon his readers the idea that the succession of Constantine’s sons was a time of broken oaths, compromised bishops, gullible emperors, mutinous armies and internecine slaughter. However, the appeal of this brief period to both ancient and modern authors has lain not simply in its seemingly salacious details but also in its explanatory potential.
The circumstances behind the succession of Constantine Caesar, Constantius Caesar and Constans Caesar to the most senior position in the imperial college have been regarded as supplying an explanation both for the dysfunctional nature of the House of Constantine and for the ultimate failure of the dynasty as an imperial enterprise. An early exponent of the family’s dysfunctionality was one of its own members. Julian “the Apostate” (r. 361–363), Constantine’s nephew and a cousin of Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, offered an especially incisive portrait of his relatives’ failings.5 However, while the substance of the portrait was familial, the context was political.
In the super-charged atmosphere following Julian’s acclamation as Augustus by his troops in Paris in spring 360, Julian wrote letters to a number of city councils (including the Senate in Rome) in which he justified his rebellion against Constantius II. Central to Julian’s strategy was the transformation of Constantius II, the reigning emperor, into a tyrant, the antithesis of a just and temperate ruler.6 His role in the “great slaughter”—to quote Libanius’ characterisation7 of the dynastic cull that took place in the weeks following Constantine’s death that removed a host of potential claimants from the lines of succession—was thus paramount in projecting the image of Constantius II as a ruler whose ruthlessness led him to sacrifice his own family: “Six of my cousins and his, and my father who was his own uncle and also another uncle of both of us on the father’s side, and my eldest brother, he put to death without a trial; and as for me and my other brother, he intended to put us to death but finally inflicted exile upon us; and from that exile he released me, but him he stripped of the title Caesar just before he murdered him.”8
However, as Julian also noted, in his later years Constantius II was “stung by remorse”9: his failure to produce a male heir to the throne and his lack of success in his foreign campaigns against the Sasanian Persians on Rome’s eastern frontier were, according to the gossip at court, to be explained by his earlier deeds. This “dark side” of the Constantinian dynasty has tended to take precedence in attempts to write a history of the period following Constantine’s reign and before Julian’s—a period cast into shadow by these colossal historical figures. Repeating the words of Gibbon, it was an episode “big with danger and mischief”, and much of its appeal lies in its potential to reaffirm the perception that Roman imperial politics was a deeply murky, not to say murderous, affair. However, recent studies on the immediate succession of Constantine’s three sons by Fausta, his second wife, have taken a more sober direction,10 and studies on ancestral rule in the Roman Empire11 and comparative analyses of dynasties12 have explored the workings of the process of dynastic succession in more objective terms. As one of the foremost scholars on dynasties has observed on the matter of succession: “A potential for conflict was always present, particularly among the males at the heart of any dynasty.
Dynastic power carried within itself a permanent invitation to violence.”13 In a study of the years 337–361, dynasty clearly matters. However, the focus on the dramatic events arising from the efforts of Constantine’s sons to concentrate power in their hands alone—the prime mover was incontestably Constantius II14—has overshadowed attempts to develop a clearsighted appreciation of the significance of the years between the reigns of Constantine I and Julian for the study of the later Roman Empire. The original ambition of the project that has resulted in this volume was to scrutinise these years more carefully, in order to evaluate with greater cogency their contribution to the political, administrative and cultural dynamics of the empire in the fourth century. This volume has taken inspiration from the industry of many scholars working on the Roman Empire of the fourth century in the period after Constantine’s death. These include the noteworthy Fondation Hardt Entretiens volume from 1989, entitled L’église et l’empire au IVe siècle and edited by Albrecht Dihle (although its focus is largely on Constantius II’s reign as Augustus, as noted by the reviewers of the volume15).
The contributions in this volume assessed a range of themes, including Constantine’s dynastic arrangements (Friedrich Vittinghoff16), the activities of the church in the time of Constantius II (William Frend17), the imperial style and ecclesiastical policies of Constantius II (a near-monograph length article by Charles Pietri18), the social and economic impact of Constantius II’s reign (Lellia Cracco Ruggini19) and the relationship between Christians and pagans during Constantius’ time (Timothy Barnes20). The overall contribution of the Dihle volume lies in its recognition that the period after Constantine’s death is sufficiently important to warrant its own treatment separate from Constantine and Julian. The focus on Constantius II in Dihle’s volume is understandable because he was the longest serving Augustus of Constantine’s sons—having avoided the fate of both his brothers who died in civil wars—and because of the role he took in the debates and direction of the Christian church in the mid-fourth century. In terms of the modern study of Constantius II, Richard Klein’s 1977 monograph Constantius II. und die christliche kirche established the parameters for the possibility of Constantius II’s rehabilitation and his engagement with ecclesiastical affairs of the 340s and 350s.
The work of Hanns Christof Brennecke from 1984 built on and expanded the lines of inquiry established by Klein in the previous decade.21 Concerning matters of law and secular administration, Chantal Vogler’s 1979 study Constance II et l’administration imperiale proved to be path-breaking in its presentation of Constantius as an active legislator and reformer of the empire. A compact volume by Mary Michaels Mudd from 1989 offered a selection of insightful essays on the activities of Constantius’ government.22 A detailed conspectus of the laws of the sons of Constantine was published by Paola Ombretta Cuneo in 1997 (La legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337–361)).23 Discussion of Constantius’ interest in the theological debates of the mid-fourth century and his policies towards the episcopate have been reinvigorated in recent years by the work of Timothy Barnes,24 Steffen Diefenbach25 and Walt Stevenson.26
Pedro Barceló’s monograph on Constantius II from 2004 offered a survey of historical research on the emperor, with a focus on his relationship to the Christian church.27 Responses to the public image and policies of Constantius II with regard to his involvement in the church have been discussed in publications by Mark Humphries28 and Richard Flower.29 Largely as a result of the industrious activities of the Dutch project on Ammianus Marcellinus, the literary portrayal of Constantius II in the context of a pro-Julianic history is now better understood than ever before.30 In addition to the series of commentaries on the books of Ammianus by the Dutch team of scholars, insightful pieces on the portrait of Constantius II in Ammianus have been produced by Hans Teitler31 (himself a member of the Dutch Ammianus group), Timothy Barnes32 and Gavin Kelly.33 Greater attention has been paid more recently to the imperial ideologies and institutional influence of the Constantinian dynasty.
The ancestral construction of Constantine’s family and its promotion across a wide variety of media (coins, inscriptions, art, literature and poetry) has been explored in monographs by François Chausson34 and Olivier Hekster,35 and in a number of articles by Johannes Wienand.36 The internal tensions within the Constantinian dynasty—the clash between the sons of Fausta and Constantine and the offspring of Theodora and Constantius I—have been analysed in articles by Richard Burgess,37 David Woods38 and Moyses Marcos.39 Constantius’ engagement with the intellectual elites of the period was explored in detail by John Vanderspoel’s monograph on Themistius, the Constantinopolitan rhetor, philosopher and senator.40 Continuing this important topic, the considerable (but hitherto neglected) impact of Constantius II on the literature, culture and built environment of the empire in the fourth century forms the basis for a series of studies by Nick Henck.41 Major advances in the rehabilitation of Constantius II’s abilities as a military commander and of the conduct of the Persian campaigns during his reign have been made in the studies of both Christopher Lightfoot42 and Roger Blockley.43
This emperor’s reforms of the imperial administration, in particular his management of relations between the senatorial aristocracies of Rome and Constantinople, has lately been analysed by Muriel Moser.44 Regarding the civil wars fought during this period, a firmer appreciation of their circumstances and events has been reached in the works of John Drinkwater45 and Bruno Bleckmann.46 More recently, the brothers of Constantius—Constantine II and Constans—have in turn emerged from his shadow through the labours of inter alia Paola Ombretta Cuneo47 and George Woudhuysen.48 Around the turn of the 1700th anniversary of Constantine’s victory over Maxentius at the battle of the Milvian Bridge in October 312, and amidst a plethora of scholarship on Constantine’s reign,49 Pierre Maraval published a monograph on the emperor’s sons, Les fils de Constantin, which marked an important contribution in efforts to refocus attention on the years after 337.50 A number of accessible, historical surveys of the Constantinian dynasty, and the reigns of the sons, have also appeared over the years. Robert Frakes’ chapter in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, edited by Noel Lenski, surveyed the Constantinian dynasty down to 363.51
David Hunt’s chapter in volume thirteen of The Cambridge Ancient History offers a valuable introduction to the themes and issues of the years 337–361.52 Important discussions of the sons and their administrations can also be found in David Potter’s The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180–39553 and Jill Harries’ Imperial Rome AD 284 to 363. 54 A rich and diverse range of sources exist for the study of the period of the sons’ reigns—far more than the all-too-dominating voices of Julian and Ammianus Marcellinus, so influential in modern impressions of Constantius II especially. In recent years a greater appreciation of this range of sources has been facilitated by the publication of several editions and translations of key texts.
These include Samuel Lieu’s and Dominic Montserrat’s volume From Constantine to Julian, which contains English translations of, inter alia, Libanius’ panegyric for Constantius II and Constans (Oration 59), and the eighth-century Artemii passio, which borrowed extensively from the lost “Arian” (= non-Nicene) church history of Philostorgius.55 A new edition and French translation of Oration 59 by Pierre-Louis Malosse appeared in 2003.56 Important translations and commentaries of other imperial orations from this period also include Ignazio Tantillo’s Italian translation and commentary of Julian’s Oration 1,57 and Peter Heather’s and David Moncur’s English translation of a selection of the orations of Themistius concerned with Constantius II.58 An important point of contrast to these panegyrics and the imperial personae advertised in them is supplied by Richard Flower’s English translations and commentaries of the invectives of Athanasius of Alexandria, Hilary of Poitiers and Lucifer of Cagliari, all composed towards the end of Constantius II’s reign.59 Moving from epideictic to historiography, Sextus Aurelius Victor’s De Caesaribus and Eutropius’ Breviarium, both translated by H.W. Bird, provide important perspectives from the mid-fourth century.60 Valuable later Roman and Byzantine histories that in all likelihood drew on fourth-century sources for the reigns of Constantine’s sons have also been translated either afresh or anew in recent years.61
An English translation of books twelve and thirteen of John Zonaras’ Epitome of Histories by Thomas Banchich and Eugene Lane appeared in 2009.62 Ronald T. Ridley’s English translation of Zosimus’ New History was republished in 2017. A reconstruction of Philostorgius’ Ecclesiastical History by Philip Amidon appeared in 2007,63 followed in 2013 by a French translation with commentary of the Anomoian historian64 by Édouard des Places, Bruno Bleckmann, Doris Meyer and Jean-Marc Prieur.65 The revision of Hans-Georg Opitz’s Athanasius Werke conducted by Brennecke, Uta Heil, Annette von Stockhausen et al., has resulted in a number of volumes of interest to students of Constantine’s successors.66 Also worth noting in the context of textual studies is the website curated by Glen L. Thompson (Fourth Century Christianity), which is a treasury of sources and essays relating to the ecclesiastical history of the period.67 As noted, the chapters in this volume aim to develop current understandings of the sons’ reigns and to assess their influence on aspects of the imperial, administrative, cultural and religious facets of the empire in the fourth century.
The volume is arranged into four parts. Part I, entitled “Creating a Dynasty”, comprises two chapters whose role in the volume is not only to survey the early years of the sons’ reigns but also to reappraise established ideas about the dynasty in its formative guise. Chapter 2 by John Vanderspoel presents a survey of the issues and controversies surrounding the history of the House of Constantine. Vanderspoel provides a narrative Versuch detailing Constantine I’s emergence from the wreckage of the Tetrarchy and the consolidation of his power, which he realised in part through his efforts to fashion a dynasty, beginning with a number of hybridised collegiate-dynastic arrangements that ended in failure and which included his first-born (and ill-fated) son Crispus from his marriage to Minervina, followed by the dynasty fashioned around the children of the equally doomed Fausta. Constantine’s elimination of Fausta in 326, Vanderspoel argues, may have forced the sons’ hands in the summer of 337, since their legitimacy could now be called into question as a result of their mother’s fate and the memory sanctions applied in the wake of her death.
They were left with little choice but to eliminate their rivals to the throne, comprising in the main the male descendants of Constantius I by Theodora, his second wife. However, both Theodora and Helena, who was Constantius I’s first wife and Constantine I’s mother, were commemorated on coins minted in the early years of the reigns of the three brothers. Vanderspoel examines the complexities of imperial legitimacy that emerged during the sons’ reigns, and he surveys the response of the Constantinian emperors to the challenges of rival imperial claimants. Chapter 3 in this part, by William Lewis, reappraises relations between Constantine II and his brothers, specifically the background to the conflict between Constantine II and Constans in early spring 340 that resulted in the death of the eldest Augustus near Aquileia. Lewis examines the evidence for the workings of the empire’s administration following the conference in Pannonia during September 337 when, in the wake of their dramatic paring down of the dynasty, the sons of Constantine met and revised the territorial divisions originally planned by Constantine I during his lifetime.68
On the basis of particular legal rulings of the Constantinian monarchs in the early period of the dynasty preserved in the Theodosian Code (e.g. Cod. Theod. 12.1.27), Lewis argues that although regional autonomy was very much the daily reality of government under the three Augusti, Constantine II and his court sought to maintain a functional imperial hierarchy with himself as the senior peripatetic figure of authority in the Triarchy. Lewis argues that the received narrative of Constantine II as aggressor in the conflict of April 340 derived from the court of Constans, and was deployed in order to obfuscate what was in effect an act of rebellion by the youngest Augustus against Constantine II’s attempt to realise his seniority across the empire. Part II of the volume is entitled “Representations of Authority”. Chapters by Eric R. Varner and Christine Greenlee examine the presentation of Constantine’s sons in imperial portraiture and in panegyric respectively.
Imperially derived representations of the emperors in art and rhetoric highlight the Augustus, in the words of Peter Stewart, “as an authoritative point of reference towards whom the communities of the empire willingly directed their devotion”69 in both texts and images. Chapter 4 by Eric R. Varner examines the portraiture of Constantine and his successors. Varner notes the dual character of Constantinian art, evident in its highly individualised portrayal of the ruler and also in its conscious duplication of images and styles from earlier rulers (notably Augustus and Trajan). The result is “a carefully layered identity for the emperor”, similar to Constantine and his dynasty’s portrayal in literary works from his reign (principally, the poetry of Optatian). As the sons moved through their Caesarean roles as talismanic figures attending their father on coin legends, their uniformity of appearance as Augusti on solidi has made it very difficult to differentiate between the three of them. By dint of his longevity, Constantius II makes more of a mark in portraiture than his brothers and due consideration is given to his image in statuary and coinage portraiture. Finally, Varner’s analysis of the obelisk dedicated by Constantius II (together with the hexametric verse inscription on its base) to mark the emperor’s visit to Rome in 357, offers a fresh reading of Constantius’ contribution to the monumentality of the capital. Chapter 5 by Christine Greenlee assesses the ideology of unity in panegyrics for the sons from the 340s after the death of Constantine II.
The historic importance of unity as a guiding principle in the governance of the empire was maintained during the sons’ reigns in spite of the fact that the political and religious circumstances of the day often made it more of a pretence than a political reality. Greenlee reads the “strong promotion” in Themistius’ Oration 1 of Constantius as sole ruler in the context of his feud with Constans during the first half of the decade. Improvement in the relations between the two brothers c. 346 is in evidence in Libanius’ Oration 59, a basilikos logos delivered for both rulers (albeit in Nicomedia, where knowledge of details about Constans would have been hazy at best). The portrayal of the brothers’ relationship is evidently idealised and, by extension, the unified empire over which they are presented as ruling by Libanius. Greenlee’s analysis of this important text draws out “the new ideology” propagated by both rulers towards the close of the decade. The two other chapters in “Representations of Authority” consider the flip-side of the portrayal of imperial power by examining pejorative presentations of the sons in literature, especially historiography. Chapter 6 by Mark Humphries examines the role of civil war memories in the legitimisation of Constantius II’s reign. Humphries’ chapter focuses on Constantius’ initial defeat of Magnentius at the Battle of Mursa in September 351.
As Humphries illustrates, Magnentius’ usurpation of Constans’ territory in the first third of the year 350 and the series of damaging campaigns conducted by Constantius that followed placed an enormous strain both on the resources of the state and on the loyalties of the populace, not least those of the senatorial class in Rome. Constantius’ initial defeat of Magnentius was thus a costly war in many ways, and yet it was celebrated in a variety of pro-Constantinian sources as a victory over tyranny. These legitimising war memories were, however, soon eclipsed by reactions against Constantius in a number of pro-Julianic sources, notably in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus. The condemnation of Constantius II as victor in wars against other Romans, achieved at the expense of meaningful success in foreign campaigns, thus entered the historical record as one of the primary ways of evaluating Constantius’ legacy.
The final chapter (Chap. 7) in the part, by Shaun Tougher, examines two aspects of the courts of Constantine’s sons: the roles of eunuchs and imperial women. Beginning with the pejorative treatment of the place of eunuchs and women in Constantius II’s regime in the works of Claudius Mamertinus, Eutropius and Ammianus Marcellinus, Tougher highlights that negative judgements about court eunuchs and imperial women formed part of a wider criticism of Constantius’ court in pro-Julianic sources. Tougher’s analysis unpicks these judgements and considers specific roles taken by these figures in the courts of Constantine’s sons. The chapter explores areas of continuity and difference between the attitudes of the sons to court eunuchs and imperial women and those of their father during his reign.
Tougher investigates in particular the roles occupied in the Constantinian family by imperial women—as wives, sisters, mothers, grandmothers and aunts—and argues, against the prevailing wisdom, that Constantinian women did have political significance, which is especially clear when they are considered as a group. The notion that Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans received the empire as patrimony from their father in a seamless transfer70 was an important aspect of how the sons’ territorial decisions were promoted to a wider audience following their meeting in Pannonia in autumn 337.71 The emergence later of the idea that the division had been inequitable supplied the explanation for the cause of the civil war between Constantine II and Constans,72 and was also—curiously—utilised in the promotion of Constantius II’s imperial image as a magnanimous and wise philosopherruler who willingly accepted a lesser share of the empire than his brothers.73 However, the reality of the divided empire under Constantine I’s successors was far less dramatic.
The sons and their administrations demonstrated a hard-nosed pragmatism regarding the restructured empire, as witnessed by their response to the deepening regionalism brought about by a range of internal and external factors. Their initiatives in turn left an indelible mark on the shape and functioning of the empire for the remainder of the late antique period. Part III, “Administration and Governance”, addresses these issues. Chapter 8 by Caillan Davenport analyses the evolving regionalism of the Roman Empire under the sons. In particular, Davenport examines the enhanced role of Praetorian Prefects in the restructured empire. The chapter also considers the representation and operation of collegiate government: it highlights those instances when the brothers’ administrations worked in unison and discusses those occasions when they did not. Furthermore, Davenport analyses the ways in which the regionalism of the empire affected the careers of senior imperial officials serving under the sons of Constantine.
Chapter 9 by Daniëlle Slootjes examines the configuration of the empire’s administration under the sons. Slootjes sets the scene by discussing both Diocletian’s and Constantine’s reforms to the provincial structures of the empire. Her chapter then discusses Constantine’s dynastic settlement of 335, which the sons overturned in the coup of 337. Slootjes sifts through the disparate evidence for the division of territory by the sons in order to arrive at a better understanding of the sons’ possessions in the early years of their reigns. The chapter also analyses the sons’ impact on matters of legal administration and concludes with a conspectus of the careers of governors and vicarii during the sons’ reigns. Chapter 10 by Meaghan McEvoy examines the sons’ relationships with individual cities across the empire. McEvoy discusses the sons’ early imperial residences and itineraries, before analysing examples of their civic patronage in relation to civic and ecclesiastical building projects.
Additional consideration is also given to the longerterm imperial presence through the modification and building of mausolea for members of the imperial family. McEvoy’s chapter concludes with a discussion of Constantius II’s focus on Rome and Constantinople in the latter years of his reign. Michael Kulikowski in Chap. 11 picks up on one of the drivers of regionalism by analysing the sons’ handling of external threats to the empire’s frontiers. Kulikowski regards both the unfinished business of Constantine’s foreign affairs and the implosion of concerted government in the wake of the Pannonian settlement of 337 as underpinning the problems faced by the sons regarding the management of the empire’s borders. Kulikowski surveys the sons’ engagement with the empire’s key foreign allies and enemies. Beginning with the perennial problem of Persian dominance in west Asia that proved very costly for Constantius II, the chapter proceeds to analyse the situation in the Balkans, Gaul and the West. Kulikowski argues that the Magnentian revolt had a long-term and damaging effect on the integrity of the empire: to all intents and purposes, the Gallic frontier was never again fully under imperial control, and this, he argues, was the single greatest legacy of Constantine I’s successors to the Western Roman Empire.
The final chapter (Chap. 12) in this part on administration, by Peter Sarris, considers the economy of the empire in the mid-fourth century. Sarris begins by reviewing recent scholarship on the topic and suggests a more responsible approach to understanding the social consequences of the period’s economic monetisation.
He then proceeds to argue that the reign of Constantius II was characterised by an acceleration of gold-based fiscalism that furthered the interests of the empire’s new service elite not just in the newly established city of Constantinople but also in the provinces where they built up sizeable property portfolios. Sarris concludes by discussing Constantius’ policy with regard to the ownership of estates and the role of the central government in enriching the new service elites via a policy of centralised redistribution of land through “crown estates”.
The final two chapters of the collection in Part IV examine the topics of religion and culture. The former has traditionally been the principal focus for scholars of the sons’ reigns, largely as a result of the importance of the 340s and 350s to the history of the Christian church.74 More recent research, however, has moved beyond creeds and councils to reappraise the cultural, rhetorical and educational contribution of these decades to the history of the empire. Critical understanding of the impact of the period’s religious transformations—not solely, it should be said confined to Christianity—on late Roman government, social relations, rhetoric and culture has continued to develop apace.75
The contributions of Nicholas Baker-Brian and Jan Stenger analyse some of the effects that the reigns of Constantine’s sons had on the religious landscape of the fourth century. Chapter 13 by Baker-Brian analyses the extension of an epistolary culture from the time of Constantine I’s engagement with the Christian church into the period of the son’s reigns, with a special focus on the role that imperial and synodal letters played in shaping the theological narratives of the 350s.
Baker-Brian’s chapter discusses the seeming preoccupation with imperial letters in the writings of the period’s Nicene authors by considering some reasons for the super-charged “epistolarity” of the works of inter alia Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers. A corollary of this analysis is a discussion of the important role that imperial letters played in enunciating the emperor’s legal rulings on, for example, the exile and recall of key clerics, a theme now identified as central to the political landscape of the mid-fourth century. Rather than dismissing imperial letters in the manner of old, as examples of imperial “bluster”, the chapter argues that these texts played a formative role in shaping both the parameters of religious rhetoric and the theological debates in the time of Constantine’s successors.
Turning from the affairs of the Christian church, Chap. 14 by Jan Stenger revisits prior assumptions about the condition of pagans and paganism in the sons’ territories. Stenger’s contribution reiterates the necessity for careful consideration of primary sources relating to imperial attitudes to pagan practices, as evidenced in the laws issued by the sons that are preserved in redacted forms in collections from a later period (Cod. Theod. 16.10.2; 16.10.3; 16.10.4; 16.10.5; 16.10.6; 9.16.4), and in the works composed by pagan intellectuals (e.g., Firmicus Maternus prior to his conversion, Libanius, Themistius and Eunapius) which in many instances served to substantiate their own identity as members of an educated elite. Stenger analyses the legislation of Constans and Constantius II aimed at criminalising pagan practices, and he argues that their laws targeting sacrifice hardly amounted to a concerted strategy to eradicate paganism across the empire.
Stenger concludes that the image of pagan beliefs and practices in the writings of the educated pagan elite portray a more cohesive religious identity than was present in reality, and which was determined in large part by the challenge that Christianity presented to late antique polytheism. The influence of the historiographical portrayals of Constantine I and Julian, and their reception by scholars, has meant that the reigns of Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans have resided in a hinterland of the historical imagination for a considerable period.
The historiographical shadows cast by the figures of Constantine and Julian have not only impeded a better understanding of the reigns of Constantine’s sons but also prevented a fuller appreciation of Constantine’s own imperial legacy and the immediate context for the decisions taken by Julian during his reign. It is hoped that the chapters in this volume will not only illuminate the twenty-four years between these two imperial giants but also provide a better understanding for the events of the fourth century in toto.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق