Before Constantine

Simon Corcoran

Throughout Roman history, members of the imperial family featured regularly in central coinage, on reliefs and statues, and in inscriptions – both in Rome and the provinces. Roman emperorship was a de facto dynastic system, which explains the sustained emphasis on imperial fathers, mothers, wives and children. Only very rarely was lineage wholly ignored. This posed major problems for imperial representation under the so-called Tetrachy; an explicitly non-dynastic imperial system, not organised by bloodline but governed through collegiate rule. How could such ‘corporate government’ present itself in a society that was used to dynastic terminology when indicating predecessors and intended successors? This article explores some of the alternative modes through which tetrarchic representation aimed to present non-dynastic rule, and shows how these alternatives proved ultimately unsuccessful. Apparently, the constraints of tradition in imperial imagery were too stringent to overcome.

Modern scholarship, following the template laid down by Lactantius and Eusebius, has viewed the achievements of Constantine chiefly through the prism of his Christianity, with the result that his secular achievements have been comparatively neglected. This article addresses those secular policies, focusing on how Constantine sought to assert his legitimacy during the various stages of his rise to power. It takes as its starting point the modern debate on the legitimacy of Constantine’s elevation to the purple and whether or not he can be justifiably described as a usurper. Through close scrutiny of a variety of documentary sources—particularly inscriptions, but also coins—it establishes how Constantine sought to affirm the legitimacy of his position as emperor at a number of critical moments, and to have that legitimacy accepted both by other members of the imperial college and by the empire’s populace at large. It emerges that Constantine appealed to a variety of means to assert his legitimacy, for example, as a member of a college of emperors, as the preferred candidate of the army or Senate, as victor in civil war, or as a member of a dynasty. Furthermore, he invested considerable effort in buttressing his claims by actively deconstructing the legitimacy of his rivals, notably Maxentius and Licinius, whom he designated instead as tyranni. Thus Constantine made a notable contribution to the articulation of ideas of imperial legitimacy in the fourth century, and his strategies were adopted, most immediately, by his sons.

The figure of Maxentius emerged through interesting circumstances during the Late Tetrarchy, and his status as ‘usurper’ of the title of emperor was criticized and despised by the other leaders, namely the Augustus Galerius. Rome’s Praetorian Guard brought Maxentius into power from imposed retirement primarily to become the conservator urbis suae, which was further emphasized by his coinage and architecture. But Maxentius remained a usurper, as his position was not officially recognized, and he instead sought to legitimize his reign through political propaganda, and through an elaborate building program he instituted in Rome. This program was situated mainly at the eastern end of the Forum Romanum, and was marked most prominently with the Basilica of Maxentius. The massive Basilica was combined with the newly constructed Temple of Romulus and the refurbished Temple of Venus and Roma to create a ‘Forum of Maxentius’ in the pattern of prior emperors Augustus, Vespasian, and Trajan. The Basilica solidified the presence of Maxentius in this section of the Forum, a fact reiterated by the existence of a Republican-era tie to the Velian Hill that it punctuates. I contend that the Basilica’s placement and spatial referencing attempt to change the political and architectural topography of the most visible area of Rome, and that its distinctive construction and material technique was used to enhance and reinforce the status of its creator, thereby legitimizing Maxentius’ status as Rome’s true Emperor. This thesis combines the elements outlined above to create a picture of Maxentius’ hopes for a new and more powerful Rome. I investigate the ability of Maxentius’ program to influence the power of his illegitimate reign in Rome, and how he used allusions to previous Roman monuments to increase their validity, including the basilica building type, and its new attachment of bathhouse concrete vaulting technologies.

2: Before Constantine Simon Corcoran S hen Apharban, envoy from the Persian king Narseh, came before the Caesar Galerius Maximianus to beg favourable terms for his defeated sovereign, his rhetoric met an angry rejoinder from the Caesar: W You observed the rule of victory towards Valerian in a ﬁne way, you who deceived him through stratagems and took him, and did not release him until his extreme old age and dishonourable death. Then after his death, by some loathesome art you preserved his skin and brought an immortal outrage to the mortal body.1 Thus, at his moment of triumph, the Caesar referred back to one of the darkest episodes of recent imperial history. In ad 260, between Carrhae and Edessa, Narseh’s father, Shapur I, had decisively defeated a Roman army and captured the emperor Valerian (see Map 2). He recorded these deeds for posterity in both words and images at Naqsh-i Rustam and on the Kac ba-i Zardus̆t near the ancient Achaemenid capital of Persepolis, preserving for us a vivid image of two Roman emperors, one kneeling (probably Philip the Arab, also defeated by Shapur) and the second (Valerian), uncrowned and held captive at the wrist by a gloriously mounted Persian king (Fig. 6).2 The equally decisive victory of Galerius over Narseh in 297 marked a dramatic reversal of fortune and can indeed stand as symbolic of how the rulers of the ﬁrst Tetrarchy and their immediate predecessors had managed to regain ﬁrm military and political control over the empire. A little over ten years before Valerian’s catastrophe, the emperor Philip had in 248 celebrated Rome’s ﬁrst millennium in grand style, 35 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine little knowing that Rome’s second millennium was to open with a series of disasters. Plague struck Italy. Philip himself was killed the next year in battle against his successor, Decius. With Goths and Carpi (see Map 1) threatening the Danube frontier, Decius, still mindful of the millennial celebrations (during which he may have been urban prefect at Rome), seems to have felt that divine protection for the empire needed to be assured. And so in 250 he commanded universal sacriﬁce from the population, the ﬁrst time the Roman state had made such an ambitious demand, requiring of its subjects proof of obedience in the form of certiﬁcates of sacriﬁce.3 Many Christians did not comply and so were punished, making this the ﬁrst general persecution. Despite his efforts, however, Decius fell in battle with the Goths in the following year. The pressure on the northern frontiers did not lessen, indeed they were repeatedly breached, a powerful force of “Black Sea” Goths became a naval threat in that region, while the king of Persia started operations on the eastern frontier. Becoming emperor in 253, Valerian also sought divine favour in unity around traditional religion, as had Decius. This time, however, he directly attacked the clergy and Christians of high rank in 257 and 258. Then followed his humiliating capture.4 His son Gallienus granted a peace to the Christians that would last for forty years. This did not preserve his authority as emperor intact, as the empire effectively split into three, with Gallienus retaining control of only the central core. Gaul, Britain and Spain were ruled by the so-called Gallic emperors,5 while in the east, the dynasts of the caravan city of Palmyra, who had turned the tide against the Persians, took control of Syria, gradually extending their rule to other eastern provinces.6 Both regimes, however, can be characterized as essentially loyalist rather than separatist. Further, peoples from beyond the Rhine and Danube repeatedly breached the imperial frontiers, reaching as far as northern Italy and even Spain, sacking Athens7 and engaging in pirate raids around the Aegean. The empire, for the ﬁrst time, found itself more or less continuously on the defensive, responding not initiating. The mountain region of Isauria fell into ongoing revolt,8 and some imperial territory even had to be abandoned permanently, such as the Agri Decumates (the reentrant angle between Rhine and Danube) and most importantly Dacia, whose population was evacuated by Aurelian and resettled in a renamed Dacia south of the Danube.9 This essentially military emergency has often been seen as part of an overall crisis in which economic and social factors combined to weaken the empire internally and threaten its disintegration in the face 36 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine of strong external enemies, a crisis which the empire only surmounted by transformation into the grimmer and grittier dirigiste state of late antiquity. Thus plague and depopulation, abandonment of agricultural land by peasants ﬂeeing as taxes weighed ever heavier on the reducing tax base, the decline of slavery, coinage debasement, inﬂation, demonetization of the economy, the demoralization of the educated curial elites who had maintained classical culture, the expansion of new religions: all these and more were woven into a “theory of everything” to explain both crisis and transformation. Current views tend to greater caution. Part of the problem is that, in assessing the crisis, the ancient evidence is essentially thin and uneven, as well as ambiguous. For instance, can we tell whether the plague, which spread across the empire in the 160s and recurred periodically thereafter, had a debilitating effect on the population, thus causing or exacerbating agricultural decline, tax deﬁcits, and military manpower shortage? Was apparent depopulation in Egyptian villages the result of plague mortality, ﬂight, or migration, and might these be temporary or permanent? And if the empire did indeed suffer population decline in the mid-second century, had it in fact largely recovered by the opening of the third century, long before the “crisis”? It is true of course that two mid-third century emperors died of plague at critical moments (Hostilian in 251, Claudius Gothicus in 270), while direct experience of plague was perceived by writers such as Dionysius of Alexandria as a sign of moral decay or divine judgement. But in this, as in other areas, the sense of crisis or doom expressed by contemporary authors is too impressionistic for us to take them as a reliable conﬁrmation of demographic realities.10 The crisis that can be seen most clearly, therefore, is essentially a crisis of emperor and army, brought on by military emergencies. The fault lines of the Roman Principate had been exposed. The empire of the Severan dynasty (193–235) was still in most essentials that of Augustus and the Principate. The Roman republic had foundered on the bloody military rivalry of its leading men. Augustus, the ultimate victor of those civil wars, sought to provide future stability by monopolizing military power and glory to prevent conﬂict on the battleﬁeld. To be sure, he also co-opted the Senate and existing institutions of the “restored” republic to run the empire and even to command the armies themselves, but the old aristocracy always operated under the emperor’s aegis. Thus there was just sufﬁcient honour all round. This sleight of hand worked well for long periods, with politics revolving around the emperor and Senate in Rome and with the army distantly loyal upon the frontiers. 37 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine Unfortunately, the question of the imperial succession and dynastic security was never settled, and times of crisis, such as the fall of Nero and the “Year of the Four Emperors” in ad 68–9 and the aftermath of the murder of Commodus in 193–7, showed what could happen when emperors lost their the grip on the ears of the wolf that was the Roman state.11 After Septimius Severus emerged triumphant from the civil wars of 193–7 and gained glory from emulating Trajan’s capture of the Parthian capital, Ctesiphon, in 198, the military underpinnings of his regime were less cloaked than in earlier periods. Yet the formal pattern of government continued, with the emperor still spending extended periods of time in Rome and central Italy, conducting business through the Senate (to pass legislation) and employing senators (to command provinces and armies). The political story of the third century represents how all this vanished, being refashioned over several decades before being consolidated and given ﬁrm shape by the organizational ability of Diocletian (Coin 5). Given the poor sources for the mid-third century, the details of this process are somewhat obscure, but the broad pattern is clear. In the east, the Parthian Arsacid dynasty, which had always constituted more of a notional than a real threat, was replaced by the Persian Sassanids, ambitious, capable and energised, who saw no reason why they should not covet Syria, just as the Romans had long coveted Mesopotamia. The former shadow-boxing with Parthia was replaced by war in deadly earnest between two adversaries too evenly matched for either to vanquish the other permanently. In the west, German tribes merged to create arguably more formidable new coalitions east across the Rhine (the Franks and Alamanni), while other peoples such as the Goths and Heruli pressed upon the long Danube frontier. The empire was not prepared for war on two fronts. Despite its great territorial size, its army and administration, as also its taxation, were relatively modest. There was little in the way of reserve, in terms of troops or money. With this military situation obtaining on the edges of the empire, the relationship of emperor and army was thrown into sharp relief. Antoninus Pius (138–61) had governed for over twenty years in the mid-second century without leaving Italy (and thus without seeing his armies). This was now a forgotten luxury. Emperors had to ﬁght, and ﬁght effectively. The ﬁrst emperor to suffer from this new reality was Alexander Severus (222–35). Having failed to win decisively over the Persians, he was eliminated at Mainz by his own troops, who had found on their return west that their homes had been ravaged by tribes from across the Rhine. Emperors who failed were swiftly punished, 38 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine those who were absent and seen as neglectful saw usurpers raised to meet regional needs, until eventually military proclamations of emperors became almost casual, as soldiers sought not just effective commanders but personal enrichment from overfrequent donatives. Yet the empire weathered the military crisis. After the assassination of Gallienus (268), a series of emperors, largely from the Danube provinces and not from the traditional senatorial or even equestrian elites, regained the upper hand. Claudius Gothicus (268–70) well earned his name defeating the Goths, while Aurelian (270–5) traversed much of the empire as he brought the Gallic and Palmyrene territories back under central control. Yet even at the height of the crisis, we should not imagine war overwhelming all parts repeatedly. Many areas were largely unaffected by distant ﬁghting or suffered only occasionally.12 In general, Roman forces could and still did win their engagements, only now they could not count on perpetual victory. The most crucial issue, however, was the vulnerability of the emperor, whom compulsory sacriﬁce, tutelary deities, and titles such as dominus et deus (lord and god), did little to protect from arbitrary liquidation. As the empire became more secure, what of the security of the emperors? It was against this background, with the imperial administration and army restructuring even as they weathered and ﬁnally surmounted the crisis, that Diocletian became emperor. The young emperor Numerian (283–4), travelling with his troops westwards from Mesopotamia (where his father had mysteriously died), had reached Nicomedia in Bithynia and then also died (mysteriously as well), his death apparently concealed by his father-in-law, the praetorian prefect Aper. On November 20, 284, the troops acclaimed Diocles, commander of the bodyguard, as emperor, and he promptly and by his own hand “executed” Aper as a regicide. Changing his name to the more Latinate and grand “Diocletianus” shortly after his accession, the new emperor then advanced into the Balkans to confront the already existing emperor Carinus, Numerian’s brother (spring 285). In the ensuing battle, which does not seem to have been going Diocletian’s way, the unpopular Carinus was assassinated by his own side, and Diocletian was left as sole emperor. The truth about the messy disposal of the two sons of Carus and Diocletian’s role in it will never be known. Yet regardless of how he had risen to the top, the new emperor proved to have both the energy and ingenuity to stay in power for two decades and carry out a wide array of reforms, building, it is true, on already existing trends and the efforts of his predecessors, but giving a new coherence and shape, durability and effectiveness to the imperial administration. This earns him a place 39 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine as one of the “great” rulers of the empire, a moulder of a new imperial matrix, even as was Augustus. As the latter stood at the beginning of the Principate, so, conventionally, Diocletian is seen standing at the threshold to the Dominate, a period characterised by a more authoritarian, militaristic, ceremonial, and bureaucratic style of imperial rulership. One of the ﬁrst acts of Diocletian was probably also his most important decision.13 He appointed a comrade-in-arms, Maximian, to be his coruler (Coin 7). The exact chronology is uncertain, but Maximian was made Caesar in 285 and then a full Augustus in 286. The appointment of a coruler was nothing new. Augustus had shared key imperial powers with colleagues, and formal coemperors had from time to time existed from the reign of Marcus Aurelius. Many thirdcentury emperors shared ofﬁce with others (usually their sons) bearing either the lesser title of “Caesar” or the full title of “Augustus.” The appointment of Maximian, however, was to prove crucial. Maximian was not always militarily effective and certainly seems to have had many moral deﬁciencies, but in one area he did not lack: as both contemporary panegyric and invective agreed, he was unswervingly loyal to Diocletian, and so the axis between them provided the necessary stability that allowed their rule to survive and their reforms to be enacted. The assumption of the titles Iovius and Herculius by Diocletian and Maximian c. 287 symbolised their relationship, with Diocletian, Jupiter-like, devising and commanding, and Maximian as Hercules heroically performing his allotted tasks (Coins 6 and 7).14 Maximian’s ﬁrst task was to pacify the revolt in Gaul of the Bagaudae – often seen as rural insurgents although their leaders claimed imperial titles – which he successfully completed. Meanwhile, raiding by Saxon pirates in northern Gaul was suppressed by Carausius, a commander subsequently suspected of inappropriately siphoning off booty – if not collaborating with the enemy. Usurpation still seemed the answer to any local difﬁculty, so Carausius declared himself emperor, seizing control of northern Gaul and Britain, yet claiming to rule as a legitimate colleague. This usurpation Maximian was unable to suppress, especially given barbarian crossings of the Rhine frontier, most memorably during Maximian’s inauguration ceremony as consul on January 1, 287. Campaigning against the German tribes was a priority, which Maximian carried out with success both on his own and later in a joint operation with Diocletian in 288. Diocletian himself was also busy both in the east and on the Danube. When they met again in northern Italy to confer early in 291, it was becoming clear that even two joint-emperors were overstretched.15 40 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine Thus on March 1, 293, two more rulers were appointed, endowed with the lesser rank of Caesar, one in effect to serve under each Augustus: thus the ﬁrst Tetrarchy was born. The men chosen were Constantius (Coin 8) and a second Maximian, usually referred to as Galerius from his nomen (Fig. 7). Diocletian had no son, and Maximian no grown son, and these two men were obvious choices. Each originated from the Balkans, had an army background, and, it seems likely, had already been married to an imperial daughter (Galerius to Diocletian’s daughter Valeria, Constantius to Maximian’s daughter Theodora).16 The new Tetrarchy soon proved itself militarily effective. In 293 Carausius, losing his Gallic territory when Constantius took Boulogne, was murdered by one of his own ofﬁcials, Allectus. In 296 Constantius then invaded Britain, brought the rebel regime to an end, and proudly proclaimed that he had “restored eternal light.”17 Maximian, after a sojourn in Spain, campaigned across North Africa against rebel tribes called in the sources Quinquegentiani, ending up triumphantly in Carthage in 298. Meanwhile Diocletian campaigned successfully on the Danube, and Galerius, having suppressed one Egyptian revolt in 293 or 294, was directed towards the eastern frontier. A second serious rebellion in Egypt in 297 was suppressed by Diocletian, who forced the bloody surrender of Alexandria in 298. In 296, Galerius suffered an initial reverse at the hands of the Persians – being in consequence humiliated by Diocletian – but in 297 he regrouped and went on to win a spectacular victory over the Persian king Narseh, capturing the king’s harem and eventually taking the capital at Ctesiphon. The subsequent peace treaty secured Roman territory in Mesopotamia and even a protectorate over regions beyond the Tigris, as well as the tenure of the Armenian throne by the Roman client Tiridates (Trdat) III.18 The last years of the reign were largely – though not entirely – peaceful, so that when Diocletian and Maximian visited Rome in November 303 for their twentieth anniversary (vicennalia), they could celebrate a well-deserved triumph. Their Prices Edict of 301 describes “the peaceful state of the world seated in the lap of a most profound calm,” a picture of a world at peace that was not optimistic propaganda but a fair description of reality.19 Military needs may have driven Diocletian’s decision to create his imperial college but did not limit his sphere of activity. His reign saw a whole series of reforms enacted that largely set the pattern for the later Roman empire. This does not mean that these all happened at once. Few, indeed, can be exactly dated, although the mid-290s following the creation of the Tetrarchy seems to have been a key period. The four rulers must also have built on what had already been done by 41 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine earlier emperors less well served by the surviving evidence.20 Certainly, however, many things crystallized and took ﬁrm shape, because Diocletian, unlike his immediate predecessors, managed to stay in power for two decades and in control of most of the empire for most of the time. Planning, experimentation, development and implementation became more practicable. The ﬁrst point to note is that the imperial ofﬁce itself had mutated. The origin of emperors had dramatically changed. The ﬁrst emperors were aristocrats of ancient Roman lineage, but as local elites were incorporated into the imperial system, emperors came from all round the empire: Gaul, Spain, North Africa and Syria. Yet no-one became emperor who had not ﬁrst become a senator until the praetorian prefect Macrinus, of equestrian rank, gained the throne in 217. As military proclamations subsequently became the norm, many men became emperors who had risen through the ranks of the army and had little or no connection to existing elites, especially after 268. It was the Danubian provinces, by no means the richest or most cultivated in the empire, which provided most of these third-century “soldier emperors,” men often characterized as rude and unlettered. Following this pattern, Diocletian and his three colleagues in the ﬁrst Tetrarchy were all from the Balkans and seem to have risen through the ranks. Diocletian himself, from Salona in Dalmatia, is said to have been of servile origin, although more likely the son of a freedman (like the emperor Pertinax) than a freedman himself. Whatever his personal education, however, he was happy to encourage the traditional liberal arts, at least in their Latin guise – he summoned the eminent rhetor Lactantius from Africa to be professor of Latin rhetoric at his new capital of Nicomedia. Another obvious change in the imperial ofﬁce was its multiplication. As already noted, there had been joint emperors at various times since the reign of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161–9), and thirdcentury emperors had routinely made their sons Caesars or even coequal Augusti. The constant usurpations and proclamations, especially the fragmentation of the empire under Gallienus, showed clearly how difﬁcult it was for a single emperor to meet all challenges and be in all necessary places at once. It is true that Aurelian as sole ruler managed in a crowded ﬁve years to reunite the empire, but Diocletian does not seem to have considered that reigning alone was a realistic option. The appointment of Maximian as Caesar, then Augustus, was his initial approach, and it took him several years to decide what further manner 42 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine of imperial collegiality was needed. The pattern of the ﬁrst Tetrarchy, with two Augusti and two Caesars, seems too crafted to be simply an unplanned response to crisis. It not only created more princes to deal with multiple emergencies but implied an order of succession ﬁxed in advance within a new dynastic framework – marked also by the appellations Iovius and Herculius in, respectively, east and west. Whether Diocletian had already mapped out all aspects of this system, however, can hardly be known. His eventual abdication was certainly not something that ordinary provincials were led to expect in advance.21 A major change of style took place in the imperial ofﬁce. In place of the quasi-republican “ﬁrst among equals” façade adopted by Augustus (deﬁned as civilitas), the emperor was set apart, purple-robed, diademed, even his shoes studded with gems: subjects now had to prostrate themselves before him, and the most fortunate were permitted to kiss the hem of the imperial robe (adoratio, proskynesis). Eunuchs attained new prominence as palace servants.22 The relatively informal council (consilium) of advisers chosen by the emperor and before whom he conducted much business was still in existence under Diocletian, and indeed under Constantine,23 but the greater formality of court ceremonial must already have been transforming it into the consistory (consistorium) of later emperors, so called because all except the emperor had to stand. We do not know the exact chronology of this development, but it is almost universally attributed in the ancient sources to Diocletian himself. Yet the emperors still seem approachable, given the number of responses to petitions (rescripts) they issued, even to those of low status.24 They spent much time on the dusty road, in motion, on campaign, not permanently immured in tightly controlled palace spaces. People would ﬂock from miles around to see the imperial train pass by, as happened when Diocletian and Maximian came to Milan to confer in the winter of 290/1, and the formal entry of an emperor into a city was a much repeated ceremony.25 Emperors remained highly visible. The position of Rome had also changed, despite the focus that the millennial celebrations of 248 had brought upon the city. The emperors of the mid-third century spent time there when they could, and taking possession of Rome was still a primary aim for any emperor who wanted to be seen as legitimate. Even an emperor as militarily busy as Aurelian found time to intervene in the affairs of the city, and of course he provided the city with its ﬁrst new circuit of walls in more than ﬁve hundred years. However, the succession of invasions and usurpations 43 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine made spending time in Rome increasingly difﬁcult, and with the accession of Diocletian, the imperial presence there largely ceased. Despite his entering northern Italy in 285, it is far from certain that he came down to Rome at this time, so that his only visit would be for the vicennalia celebrations in 303.26 Even Maximian, based in Italy, seems seldom to have been in Rome. Only his son Maxentius, already resident before usurping the purple in 306, made Rome his principal base. For more than a hundred years after Diocletian, Rome was not an imperial seat, only the venue for occasional ceremonial visits. Diocletian’s Rome was still of course the proper capital, privileged, untaxed, fed with free wheat and pork (to maintain its swollen population), kept amused by games and races, and provided with other amenities. It was the seat of the wealthy but largely decorative and impotent Senate and the principal home of the Praetorian Guard, both of which bodies had long since lost their inﬂuence in choosing emperors. A large area of the Forum Romanum had been destroyed by ﬁre under Carinus and was extensively rebuilt – so that the Senate House (Curia Julia) we see today, after thirteen centuries of existence as the Church of S. Adriano, is the building restored to its Tetrarchic form.27 When he returned in triumph from Carthage in 298 or 299, Maximian matched the baths he had had built there in his own name by providing Rome its largest ever bath complex, the Baths of Diocletian (see Map 3.1).28 Yet when Galerius approached Rome to besiege Maxentius in 307, he was, according to Lactantius, surprised at the city’s size, having never seen it before. Perhaps this inadvertence explains also his disastrous decision to try and tax the population of Rome in 306.29 Galerius’s situation was Gallienus’s in reverse, with “legitimate” rulers everywhere but Rome. Rome was still powerfully symbolic, but for an emperor it was more a luxury than a strategic necessity. Since emperors could no longer govern from Rome, they needed other bases, and although emperors had travelled and rested in many places over the years, it was only during the Tetrarchic period that a number of strategic cities around the empire came to serve sufﬁciently often and for sufﬁciently long to be considered as virtually alternative imperial seats, and indeed were adorned with suitable buildings. There were, however, dozens of cities overall which enjoyed occasional or frequent imperial visits, and emperors are better seen as men constantly on the move, not men at rest.30 Further, not every monumental building of the period betokens an emperor’s presence.31 Nevertheless, the typically favoured Tetrarchic residence could boast an imperial palace, often attached to a circus, as well as other newly built amenities such 44 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine as grandiose baths. Imperial mausolea, the permanent resting places for rulers and their dynasties, were also built in such cities or at other sites distant from Rome. Among the most prominent of the new “imperial” cities were now, in Italy, Milan (main capital of Maximian); in Gaul, Trier (capital of Constantius) as well as Arles; in the Balkans, Sirmium (the best launching place for campaigns on the Danube), Serdica and Thessalonica;32 and in the east, Nicomedia33 (Diocletian’s favourite) and Antioch (the main base for overseeing the frontier with Persia). Even in Rome, home of the original palace-circus complex (Palatine-Circus Maximus), Maxentius built himself a Tetrarchic imitation a short way beyond the walls along the Via Appia, comprising a palace, circus and mausoleum.34 With the emperor, wherever he travelled or resided, went his comitatus, the core of the imperial court, administration, and army, and just as there were multiple emperors, so there were multiple comitatus, staffed in a largely identical manner. The chief ofﬁcials at court were now almost exclusively of equestrian rank, holding ofﬁces that were not new, although sometimes restyled. At the top were the praetorian prefects, one at the side of each Augustus, holding the rank of vir eminentissimus (the highest equestrian rank, reserved for them alone) and acting as a college like the emperors they served, although none was ever again elevated to become emperor, as Macrinus, Philip and Carus had been. Although not yet entirely devoid of a military role in the Tetrarchic period (thus Asclepiodotus played a key part in the reconquest of Britain), they were now principally civilian ofﬁcials, with wide powers, even inappellable jurisdiction, and concerned most of all with provisioning of the armies.35 The remaining ofﬁcials were ranked viri perfectissimi. Among these were the chief ﬁnancial ofﬁcers (rationalis summae rei and magister privatae, for respectively public ﬁnances and the imperial estates), below whom was an expanded hierarchy of ofﬁcials at the diocesan and provincial level. There were also the “palatine secretaries,” concerned with the emperor’s correspondence and judicial functions (including the magistri epistularum, one each concerned with correspondence in Latin and in Greek, the magister libellorum, concerned with rescripts issued in reply to petitions, and the magister memoriae, exact duties unspeciﬁed).36 The ofﬁcials in this imperial civil service in fact had a very military appearance. Their service was called “militia,” and their insignia and dress were largely military as well. Coupled with this grew a tendency, discernible though not yet universal under Diocletian, for ofﬁcials to mark their status in the imperial service by adapting their names. Thus, in the Tetrarchic period many governement ofﬁcials 45 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine assumed the nomen “Valerius” (as carried by Diocletian, Galerius and Maximian). This trend became much more marked from Constantine onwards with the widespread adoption of “Flavius” (as carried by Constantius and Constantine).37 As regards the army, Lactantius accused Diocletian of “multiplying the armies, since each of the four [Tetrarchs] strove to have a far larger number of troops than previous emperors had had when they were governing the state alone.” On the other hand, Zosimus praises Diocletian for keeping troops strung out along the borders and strengthening frontier defences, in contrast to Constantine’s withdrawal of troops to distant inland cities.38 Both these views are at least in part true – despite the bias of each writer, and in Zosimus’s case two centuries’ worth of hindsight. There was certainly a marked increase in the overall size of the army, as ﬁghting units were smaller but vastly more numerous. These units generally fell under the control of duces (equestrian generals) rather than provincial governors as previously, although many were also uniﬁed to form the growing mobile ﬁeld armies which followed each emperor’s comitatus. Several emperors, each with an army, meant that multiple military operations could be carried out, but emperors sometimes came together to co-operate (as did Diocletian and Maximian in 288), and some campaigns required the gathering and relocation of troops on an extensive scale, as for the campaign against Narseh.39 As regards provincial administration, the provinces were now “sliced and diced” (in frusta concisae).40 Subdivision of provinces was not new, but Diocletian seems to have undertaken much more extensive reorganization than his predecessors (even if not necessarily as part of a single act). Almost all provinces now had an equestrian praeses, who came to be shorn of any remaining military duties and so was primarily concerned with matters of law and tax. But the provinces were also grouped together into twelve larger administrative units called dioceses, each in the charge of a vicarius or vicar (literally “a deputy”) of the praetorian prefects, representing an intermediate level of jurisdiction between governor and prefect or emperor. In theory, by concentrating the efforts of governors on purely civil matters in smaller provinces and providing an extra-regional layer of government, greater efﬁciency and control should have been achieved. Given the largely parallel provincial/diocesan organization of the ﬁnancial departments, the summa res and the res privata, the size of the civil service was certainly much increased and, with the often minute regulation of seniority and remunerations, gives a strong impression of a “bureaucratic” state apparatus. It is difﬁcult to audit the true effectiveness of this expanded 46 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine administration, but there is no dispute that there was more government than previously.41 This provincial reorganization for the most part excluded senators, who in Diocletian’s reign reached their nadir in terms of participation in administration and government. Gallienus is credited in the sources with banning senators from the army, but this probably stands as symbolic not of a single legislative act but of a longer process during the third century, as more army ofﬁcers rose from within the ranks and aristocrats increasingly avoided an unduly dangerous calling. Thus, by the time of the Tetrarchs, a typical senatorial career was at once civil in nature and largely Italian in setting. Senators might hold the traditional magistracies and other administrative posts in Rome and Italy, including the governorships (often with the title corrector) of the newly created Italian provinces and curatorships of individual cities. The highest magistracy, the consulship, was still held, although 60 percent of consulships in the period 285–305 were held by members of the imperial college and still others by their praetorian prefects promoted into the Senate. The more successful senators would go on to enjoy the traditional proconsulships of Africa and Asia, both much reduced in size by the calving of new provinces.42 The most powerful senatorial post, however, was probably that of urban prefect, in charge of the city of Rome and its environs, a post which was enhanced in importance by the more or less permanent absence of the emperor and which, like the praetorian prefecture, came to entail an inappellable jurisdiction, as if of a surrogate for the emperor.43 In many ways the true administrative unit in the empire had not been the province but the city. In the early empire, the local aristocracies of each city focussed much attention on local politics, with traditional political rivalries limited to competitive extravagance, adorning towns with public buildings, and setting up endowments for games and free distributions (“civic euergetism”). Indeed, much of our sense of what antique cities were like physically – especially the well-preserved cities in Anatolia, Syria, or North Africa – derives from the outburst of building in the ﬁrst two centuries ad. This conﬁdent local activity stalls in the third century. For instance, the imperial letters conﬁrming its traditional privileges sent to Aphrodisias in Caria and proudly inscribed in public come to an end after Valerian and Gallienus. The next imperial texts carved are proactive imperial edicts, set up on the orders of the provincial governor.44 Surplus wealth was now scarcer, or at least more carefully guarded, as the most successful of the local elites joined the imperial aristocracy and redirected their interests. And they were 47 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine certainly glad to gain immunities from various impositions upon their persons and property (munera, or liturgies) required by their city and the central government. There was still sometimes competition to join the city council. After all, decurions (members of the local city councils, or curiae) counted as the lowest level among the honestiores (those citizens entitled to more lenient treatment at the hands of the law, being exempt, for instance, from torture). And Diocletian and Galerius both granted the privilege of city status in response to petitions, with the express wish to foster the increase of the number of cities in the empire.45 At the same time, the burdens on decurions had increased, especially as they often seemed little more than unpaid tax collectors or providers of services for the central government. Cities fell under tighter control by provincial governors, they ceased to mint their own coinages by the 270s, and increasingly they lost any ﬁnancial independence.46 The reign of Diocletian saw the introduction of the new ofﬁces (although with old titles) of curator, defensor, and exactor, tied closely to the imperial administration.47 The long tradition of the self-governing city was severely dented. Indeed, local initiative could be viewed with suspicion. The city council of Antioch was executed by Diocletian for having raised forces to defeat an attempted usurpation in 303.48 In response to these pressures, decurions attempted to ﬁnd some means to gain immunity or exemption from their curial duties (a common theme in petitions to emperors), usually through the acquisition of a higher rank, especially those consequent to holding particular ofﬁces; such promotions were all the better if they could be achieved by notional ofﬁce-holding without the need actually to have performed any duties.49 Indeed, the equestrian order itself, never a truly uniform body, seems to have been changing into an aristocracy of ofﬁce. It was no longer the case that men already possessed of the rank were eligible for the ofﬁce; rather, men who acquired the ofﬁce became appointed to the correct rank. Yet the more who escaped into the higher ranks (usually the wealthier), the greater the burden on those left behind. In extreme cases, decurions might simply ﬂee, in the manner of an oppressed peasant or slave. One particularly severe problem for the emperors was imperial ﬁnance. The principal drain upon resources was paying the soldiers their regular salary, but additional burdens included distributing frequent donatives, now expected rather than being a rare bonus, as well as keeping them supplied and fed. The state had always had fairly shallow reserves, easily squandered by a proﬂigate emperor or eaten up by a prolonged military campaign, and liquidity had been maintained by a gradual adulteration of the main silver coinage. By the mid-third century, this 48 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine had become a base metal coinage coated in a silver wash and thus bore little relationship to its old face value. Coinage never ceased to be generally used, but for the government, direct requisition became more signiﬁcant, making the raising and spending of money taxes of reduced importance. Some such levies had long existed (such as the annona, the grain supply for Rome), but they became more widespread, although extraordinary rather than systematic. This Diocletian sought to regularize. As already noted, the ﬁnancial administration mirrored the provincial, with the central ofﬁcials of the comitatus at the top and subordinates at both the diocesan and provincial levels. There is clear evidence now for state factories established in many provinces, producing arms, clothing, purple dyed cloth, and linen for both types of militia. There now existed a mint in almost every diocese. The ﬁve-year census cycle was revitalized so that the whole empire could be assessed on a more systematic basis, with the previous patchwork of exempt city territories and other anomalies (principally Italy) overwritten. When the various taxes, whether in kind or money, were to be levied, it would be on a census assessment designed to give a theoretically fair estimate of wealth in land and the size of the (rural) population. Urban areas and populations were generally exempt under Diocletian (although certain types of impost did fall upon the urban populations). This new Diocletianic system is generally referred to as iugatio vel capitatio.50 Land of different types was reduced to notional units called iuga, similarly individuals to notional units called capita, and then these were added up to a total for a city or village. How such units were measured or counted, as also the terminology, varied between provinces or dioceses, so the system was not entirely uniform. But it was broadly speaking consistent. It also brought ofﬁcials of the central government into contact with the minutiae of local conditions: censitores in Syria ﬁxed village boundaries, while in the diocese of Asiana (in western Anatolia and the Aegean islands) inscriptions were erected to record the assessed value for various estates in regard to their differing types of agricultural land, their livestock, and their tenants and slaves.51 Lactantius describes the system in typically unforgiving fashion, as characterized by waves of ofﬁcials resorting to torture of the taxable population in order to maximize the value of census returns. This was no distant farming out of taxes (although some indirect taxes were still put out to farm) but the state’s projecting its will directly down to the lowest level.52 In a related area, Diocletian sought to stabilize the currency through a sweeping coinage reform in the mid-290s, which also saw the ending of the last separate coinage in the empire (that of the Alexandrian 49 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine tetradrachm). In addition to a more plentiful gold coin (the aureus, struck at sixty to the pound, valued at 1,000 denarii), a new true silver coin (the argenteus) was introduced, with the low-value copper coins still freely minted, representing vestiges of the old denarius.53 The government tried where possible to pay out in base metal, as with donatives to soldiers mentioned in the Panopolis Papyri of ad 300, or to make compulsory purchases of precious metal.54 But Diocletian’s manipulation was not successful. The coinage had to be retariffed in 301 in a series of decrees, while the most famous of Diocletian’s enactments, the monumental Prices Edict, also of 301, sought to put a ceiling on prices for several hundred categories of goods and services.55 The ambition of this measure is quite staggering, as is the fact that some governors were sufﬁciently behind it to cause at least forty copies to be inscribed on stone across their provinces. The emperor’s perception of the problem was probably distorted, unduly inﬂuenced as it was by temporary price ﬂuctuations wherever his massive and disruptive comitatus appeared. But the aim of price control was certainly valid and operated in the immediate interest of army and administration. The market, by contrast, did not prove amenable to such attempts at ﬁxing. Goods disappeared. Inﬂation continued. The measure was a bold failure. The mass of the free population had been enfranchised and made Roman citizens (carrying the nomen “Aurelius”) by an edict of Caracalla in ad 212 (the Constitutio Antoniniana). Following this, the citizenship, once prized, was no longer so valuable, as the real distinction had come to be that between the upper echelons of society (honestiores: the more honorable) and all the rest (humiliores: the more lowly), who came to suffer the judicial treatment and punishments reserved for subjects and slaves. In theory, however, Roman law was now applicable to entire provincial populations. Even if in practice most people would continue their lives as before, following local custom and remaining distant from legal institutions, the law was there for those who chose to use it. The emperors themselves, aside from the direct hearing of cases and appeals, issued many rescripts on points of law in response to petitions from all manner of their subjects. Diocletian himself seems to have been chauvinistically Roman in approach, with a stress on traditional Roman values and institutions. He set his face against bigamy, incest, and certain other non-Roman practices. Just as he tried to foster Latin in his newly chosen capital Nicomedia by appointing Lactantius as professor of rhetoric, so it is no surprise to ﬁnd that the ﬁrst two Roman law codes, the Gregorian and Hermogenian Codes, consisting largely of 50 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine rescripts in Latin, were issued in the 290s. The extent of Diocletian’s direct involvement is unknown, although the lack of imperial nomenclature for the codes suggests that these were not, strictly speaking, ofﬁcial projects. But both codes comprised principally rescripts of Diocletian, his colleagues and his imperial predecessors, and one of the compilers, Hermogenian, went on to become Diocletian’s praetorian prefect. These new resources would have been tremendously useful for his expanded roster of governors as they attempted to apply Roman law to the mass of theoretical Roman citizens in their provinces, citizens whose legal status and cultural identity interacted in varied and complex ways.56 As regards religion, Diocletian was conservative. However diverse the religions of the empire, and in contrast with a ruler such as Aurelian, who had favoured the cult of the Sun (Sol) with a ﬁne new temple in Rome, Diocletian seems to have sought security in the traditional. To symbolize his rule, as noted above, he chose two tutelary deities, the ruler-god Jupiter and his son Hercules, and adopted the sobriquets for himself and his appointee Maximian, Iovius and Herculius respectively. The imperial colleagues thus assumed the divinized roles of commander and subordinate. Seemingly, this was a matter not simply of seeking divine favour from traditional gods but also of the reverse, of Diocletian publicly asserting his conﬁdence in them. Although not generally used as part of the emperor’s otherwise extensive titulature, these titles recur regularly as a matching pair to designate imperial entities – military units, provinces, buildings. They were also intended to mark out the line of succession in east and west – with Iovius passing to Galerius and Maximin and Herculius to Constantius and Severus. Jupiter and Hercules (also Mars) are, not surprisingly, prominent on the coinage (Coins 6 and 7). So too are images of all four emperors embracing or performing a traditional sacriﬁce in unison (Fig. 8, Coin 9). This emphasis on the Roman manner found in some of Diocletian’s legal rulings includes an emphasis on the consonance of old Roman virtue with divine favour and the importance of both being maintained. This is clearly expressed in an edict issued by Diocletian from Damascus in 295 against incest, which is characterized as both impious and unRoman. But unwarranted religious novelty was also seen as the mark of a subversive ﬁfth column. In a famous rescript sent to the proconsul of Africa from Alexandria in 302, Diocletian decreed strong action against the Manichees – a dualist religious sect that combined elements of Jewish, Christian, and Persian religion – as surrogates of the Persians.57 51 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine Given this attitude, it is perhaps not surprising that, despite the long years of peace for Christians which seem to have brought them deep within both army and court, Diocletian and some around him saw them as endangering the conformity necessary to ensure divine favour. Diocletian is depicted as highly superstitious, constantly seeking divine indications for the future, and thus easily roused against Christians at court blamed for hindering the success of his sacriﬁces. Others at court, such as Sossianus Hierocles and Porphyry, seem to have been engaged for much longer in intellectual battle with Christians, which they were prepared to continue in a more deadly manner.58 And so, with the army already purged of Christians as early as 299,59 an edict was promulgated from Nicomedia in February 303 under which churches were to be pulled down, Christian scriptures surrendered for destruction, Christians of rank stripped of their status, and even those who were imperial freedmen reenslaved. The edict was being enforced in Palestine by March and in Africa by May. There followed later in 303 the arrest of clergy, to be freed if they apostasized by offering sacriﬁce – although many were freed after coerced or even only notional compliance under an amnesty for the vicennalia in November 303. In 304 a further measure requiring universal sacriﬁce was implemented. After Diocletian’s and Maximian’s abdication in 305, the impetus of the persecution seems to have abated, and in the western provinces it was formally terminated by Constantine and then Maxentius in 306.60 The strongest continuation was in the eastern territory of the new Caesar Maximin whose fervour continually renewed the persecution. He used the census registration as a tool to enforce sacriﬁce, ordered the sprinkling of polluting libations in public places, thus effectively denying to Christians participation in civic life, and also attempted to set up a pagan hierarchy in imitation of church organization. He then neutered Galerius’s eventual edict of toleration of April 311, orchestrating a series of petitions as a pretext for expelling Christians entirely from various cities during 312. Even he, however, when defeated and near death, was forced to concede toleration in 313, thus marking the end of the “Great Persecution.”61 The whole enterprise had sought to eviscerate the church by assaulting its fabric, its hierarchy, its holy books, and by making Christianity simply too costly for those of any rank or aspiration. Success in persecution was best assessed not by the numbers tortured to death but by the numbers who apostasized. Nevertheless, enforcement was uneven, depending largely on the enthusiasm of governors or local magistrates, or even on the propensity of eager would-be martyrs seeking confrontation. Not all measures were promulgated equally everywhere, and even 52 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine within the imperial college Constantius seems to have complied only reluctantly and minimally,62 in contrast to Maximin’s later zeal. The persecution had been launched at a time when the empire was more stable and peaceful than for many years, with Christians having enjoyed toleration since the capture of Valerian over forty years before. Indeed, in contrast to spontaneous local outbursts of persecution in the early imperial period, this empire-wide ofﬁcial persecution – as earlier those of Decius and Valerian – does not seem to have rested upon signiﬁcant popular support.63 The most long-lasting effect of the persecution was unintended, the enduring divisions it created between Christians over treatment of the lapsed, most particularly the Donatist schism in Africa. Thus a style of government that was immensely ambitious – not just in rhetoric but in attempts at enforcement, although apparently successful in implementing detailed census arrangements – could not impose its will in other areas, whether the control of prices or the suppression of Christianity. So not all the projects that Diocletian undertook were successful. But our judgement upon him and the Tetrarchy should not rest upon certain failures but take account of their considerable achievements. By surviving for twenty years, Diocletian was able to enact directly or otherwise enable or complete an extensive reorganization of provincial government, taxation and ﬁnance, law and the administration of justice, as well as restyle the very ofﬁce of emperor and enjoy signiﬁcant military success, both controlling internal revolt and external aggression and even extending the empire in Mesopotamia. Diocletian’s last act is one of his most innovative but least successful. There was no close parallel for the voluntary abdication of an emperor – the closest is perhaps Sulla’s surrender of his dictatorship in 80 bc, an act later viewed by some as folly.64 The symmetry of the Tetrarchy, with two Augusti and two Caesars, suggests that Diocletian envisaged not simply a military partnership to deal with multiple emergencies but in due course the promotion of the Caesars to Augusti, with new Caesars appointed to ﬁll their place, thus solving the perennial problem of the succession. There is, however, no way of knowing whether a planned abdication, as opposed to the chances of mortality, was in truth part of Diocletian’s original plan. For instance, we cannot tell when the monumental palace at Split on the Dalmatian coast, to which Diocletian retired, was begun (or ﬁnished), or if it was originally intended for a retired emperor at all.65 It does seem, however, that, during the vicennalia celebrations in Rome in November 303, Diocletian extracted on oath a promise from Maximian to join him in abdication.66 The exact timing, however, 53 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine appears in the end to have resulted from a combination of Diocletian’s failing health and Galerius’s impatient ambition. In May 305, Diocletian surrendered power in his beloved Nicomedia, with Galerius now Augustus and Galerius’s nephew Maximin as Caesar, and Maximian resigned at Milan, with Constantius now Augustus and the otherwise unknown Severus as Caesar.67 In many ways, Galerius is the proper heir of Diocletian, striving to imitate Diocletian’s policy as Tiberius did that of Augustus. Ignoring Constantius the theoretical senior and anticipating his death, Galerius strove to maintain the Tetrarchic structure on his own terms, parodying the pivotal role that Diocletian had played previously, envisaging for himself also an abdication and retirement to a vast palace after twenty years of rule – planned for 312 (see Fig. 5, which shows the model of Galerius’s recently excavated palace Romuliana at Gamzigrad).68 But the simultaneous management of four rulers and four potential lines of succession was too much. Diocletian had been forced to choose colleagues not related by blood, simply because of a lack of alternatives – just as the “adoptive” second-century emperors only adopted so long as they had no sons of their own. But by the time the ﬁrst Tetrarchy was ready to give way to the second, there were two adult sons of existing rulers – Constantine, son of Constantius I, and Maxentius, son of Maximian. While hereditary succession had never safeguarded an emperor against rebellion or assassination, leaving imperial heirs alive but excluded proved an extremely dangerous policy, which may help to explain the brutal extermination of imperial relatives by Licinius in 313 and the sons of Constantine in 337. Within eighteen months of Diocletian’s abdication in May 305, the attempt to replicate Tetrarchic symmetry broke down as the ailing Constantius died in July 306, and ﬁrst Constantine and then Maxentius seized power. Even Maximian undid his abdication. Diocletian, by contrast, famously refused to resume the purple. At a conference held at Carnuntum in 308, he resisted calls for his resumption of power, having limited himself to the assumption of the consulship for that year and lending what prestige he had left to shore up Galerius’s attempt to preserve the Tetrarchic structure. Although the Tetrarchic idea succeeded as a solution to the problems of imperial government as long as Diocletian ruled, it failed to provide a deﬁnitive blueprint for collegiality. Even so, given the undoubted need for multiple emperors, as shown by the non-consensual division of the empire into three parts under Gallienus, Diocletian had demonstrated that harmonious collegiality of some sort was not only necessary but both possible and effective. 54 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine Further Readings Although there is now less optimism about the possibility of deﬁnitive histories for any period, the ﬁrst recourse for the third century and the Tetrarchy is now likely to be the second edition of The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 12, The Crisis of Empire, ad 193–337, ed. A. Bowman, A. Cameron, and P. Garnsey (2005; replacing the previous 1939 volume). There is also the recent volume of the Routledge History of the Ancient World entitled The Roman Empire at Bay ad 180–395 (2004), by D.S. Potter. Many invaluable articles (often in English) are contained in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, vol. 2.2, ed. H. Temporini (1975). For regional views, see J. Drinkwater, The Gallic Empire (1987); R. Stoneman, Palmyra and Its Empire (1992); F. Millar, The Roman Near East, 31 bc–ad 337 (1993); and D. Rathbone, Economic Rationalism and Rural Society in Third Century ad Egypt (1991). The emperor’s legal role from Severus to Diocletian is examined by T. Honoré in Emperors and Lawyers (1994). On Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, S. Williams’s Diocletian and the Roman Recovery (1985) is very serviceable, although Chapter 1 of T. D. Barnes’s Constantine and Eusebius (1981) is the most powerful and succinct account. T. D. Barnes’s The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine (1982), with updates in Barnes, “Emperors, Panegyrics, Prefects, Provinces and Palaces (284–317),” Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996a): 532–52, remains an invaluable reference tool. Volumes 2 and 3 of the journal Antiquité Tardive, ed. J.-M. Carrié (1994, 1995), are devoted to the Tetrarchy and provide a range of up-to-date evidence, views and discussions. Aspects of law and government are covered by S. Corcoran in The Empire of the Tetrarchs (2000). P. J. Casey’s Carausius and Allectus (1994) deals with the ‘British’ usurpers. The paucity of ancient sources makes good editions of important surviving texts crucial for approaching the period. For the mid-third century, D. S. Potter’s Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire (1990) provides an exhaustive commentary on the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle. For Diocletian, C. E. V. Nixon and B. S. Rodgers’s In Praise of Later Roman Emperors (1994) gives a similarly detailed treatment of the Latin Panegyrics, also well covered by R. Rees in Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric (2002). Briefer is J. L. Creed’s Lactantius: De Mortibus Persecutorum (1984). The more plausible Diocletianic martyr acts are included in H. Musurillo Acts of the Christian Martyrs (1972), nos. 17–27. Of documentary material, the Panopolis papyri brightly illuminate Diocletian’s Egypt; these are edited as in T. C. Skeat, Papyri from Panopolis in the Chester Beatty Library (1964). 55 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Petr. Patr. fr. 13 (FHG 4:186). English translation at Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 132. Shapur’s account, ŠKZ 18–39, can be found at Huyse 1999, 1:34–52. See the English translation at Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 57. For a survey of the evidence for Valerian’s defeat, see Potter 1990, 331–41. Potter 1990, 261–8; McKechnie 2002. Christian writers, of course, see divine judgement in the fates of Decius and Valerian, Lact. DMP 4.1–6.7. Drinkwater 1987 . Cf. the important recently discovered inscription of Postumus; Bakker 1993a, 1993b. Stoneman 1992; Millar 1993, 159–73. For the dramatic archaeological evidence for the sack of Athens, see Frantz 1988, Chapter 1; cf. Millar 1969. Lenski 1999; cf. Mitchell 1995, Chapter 6. More details at Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 2, and Christol 1997. The most recent reassessments of the ‘crisis’ in Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005; Potter 2004; Carrié and Rousselle 1999, esp. Chapters 2, 8, and 9. Witschel 1999 reexamines much archaeological information for the western provinces. For the issue of plague, see Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 521–4, and Bagnall 2002. Letters of Dionysius of Alexandria on the plague are preserved at Eus. HE 7.21–2. Alföldy 1974 surveys third-century authors, perhaps with a little more credence than warranted. The wolf metaphor, ﬁrst attested in Latin at Terence Phormio 506, was used for ruling Rome by Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 25.1): saepe lupum se auribus tenere diceret. For instance, Africa (see Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 526–8), and Egypt (see Rathbone 1991). General accounts of Diocletian’s reign at Jones 1964, Chapter 2; T. D. Barnes 1981, Chapter 1; Williams 1985; Demandt 1989; Christol 1997, 4.2–3; Carrié and Rousselle 1999, Chapter 3; Potter 2004, Chapters 7 and 9; Rees 2004; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 3. The chronology is best presented by T. D. Barnes 1982, with some revision at T. D. Barnes 1996a. These various accounts provide the background for the following discussion; detailed references are not provided for all individual statements. For the elevation of Maximian, the ‘dyarchy’, and Iovius and Herculius, see Kolb 1987, Chapters 3 and 5; Kuhoff 2001, Chapter 1.2; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 69–74, 171, 556. For the ideology of the early relationship of Diocletian and Maximian, see especially Rees 2002, Chapters 1–2, on Pan. Lat. 10(2) (289) and 11(3) (291). For a detailed account of the ‘British’ usurpers, see Casey 1994. Kolb 1987, Chapter 4; Kuhoff 2001, Chapter 1.4–5; Potter 2004, 280–90; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 74–8. See Stemma 1 in the Appendix. A famous medallion from the Arras horde depicts Constantius at London, with the legend ‘redditor lucis aeternae,’ RIC 6 Treveri 34. 56 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Before Constantine 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 The sources for the Persian campaign are collected in English translation by Dodgeon and Lieu 1991, 124–35. The chronology as currently accepted is given by Zuckerman 1994b, followed by T. D. Barnes 1996a, 543–4. For the Prices Edict’s claim (tranquillo orbis statu et in gremio altissimae quietis locato), see Corcoran 2000, 208. Note Philip’s reforms in Egypt; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 316–7. There is also new information about the administration of the east, where his brother Priscus held an overall regional command, following the publication of papyri from Syria; Feissel and Gascou 1989, 1995; Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 143; Potter 2004, 239; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 161, 277. To judge by Eus. HE 8.13.10–11; cf. Eus. MP 9.5–6. Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 151–3. Corcoran 2000, 255–6, 260–3. Corcoran 2000, Chapter 5. On Milan, see Pan. Lat. 11(3).10–12. On the imperial adventus (formal arrival), see MacCormack 1981, 17–33. As to controlled spaces, note that during his residence in the palace at Nicomedia (November 304–March 305), Diocletian’s state of health became mired in mystery; Lact. DMP 17.5–9. T. D. Barnes 1981, 5; 1996a, 537. Bartoli 1963. For Maximian in Rome, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 201. For the Baths of Diocletian, CIL 6:1130, 31242; cf. ILS 646. Lact. DMP 26.2–3, 27.2. On imperial journeys, see T. D. Barnes 1982, Chapter 5; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, app. 2. On Tetrarchic ‘residences’, see Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 157–60; Kuhoff 2001, Chapter 2.1.3. E.g., Piazza Armerina (Wilson 1983) or Cordoba (Arce 1997); cf. Lavan 1999. Srejović 1993. Foss 1996, 1–4; cf. Lact. DMP 7.8–10. For late Roman circuses, see Humphrey 1986, Chapter 11 (Nicomedia, Trier, Sirmium, Milan, Aquileia, Thessalonica, Rome). T. D. Barnes 1982, Chapter 8; 1996a, 546–8; cf. Chapter 8 in this volume. Corcoran 2000, Chapter 4. Salway 1994, 137–9. Lact. DMP 7.2; Zos. 2.34. See in general Chapter 14 in this volume; cf. Nicasie 1998, Chapter 1; Carrié and Rouselle 1999, Chapters 3 and 9; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 5. For Tetrarchic defences, see Millar 1993, 174–89, on Syria, and Zahariade 1997, on the Danube frontier. Lact. DMP 7.4. On provincial reorganization and dioceses, see Kuhoff 2001, 327–81; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 6d, Chapter 8, app. 1. On governors and vicars, see T. D. Barnes 1982, Chapters 9 and 12; 1996a, 548–51; Carrié, Feissel, and Duval 1998. On senatorial careers in the period, see T. D. Barnes 1982, Chapter 6; Jacques 1986; Christol 1986; Chastagnol 1992, Chapters 13 and 14; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 7. 57 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 Chastagnol 1962, Chapter 1; T. D. Barnes 1982, Chapter 7. Roueché 1989. See the examples of Tymandus, where civic status was possibly granted by Diocletian (Feissel 1995, 37 no. 14; MAMA 4:236), and Heraclea Sintica, where it was certainly granted by Galerius (Mitrev 2003). Harl 1987, Chapters 8 and 9. Note that there was a brief revival under Maximin c. 312; Corcoran 2000, 149 n. 122. Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapters 9 and 10; Frakes 2001, Chapter 2. Lib. Or. 19.45, 20.17–20. Millar 1983; Corcoran 2000, 101–5. Carrié and Rousselle, 1999, 593–615; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 374–9; cf. below Chapter 10. For Syria, see Millar 1993, 535–44; for Asiana, see Corcoran 2000, 346–7. See also census edicts in Egypt, P. Cair. Isid. 1; CPR 23.20. Lact. DMP 7.3–5, 23. Carrié and Rousselle 1999, 195–208; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, Chapter 11.1. See also Chapter 16 in this volume. On the Panopolis Papyri, see Skeat 1964. On compulsory gold purchase, see P. Oxy. 17:2106. On retarifﬁng, see Roueché 1989, 254–65 no. 230. On the Prices Edict, see Giacchero 1974, with Corcoran 2000, Chapter 8. On the Diocletianic jurists and the law codes, see Honoré 1994, Chapter 4; Corcoran 2000, Chapters 2 and 4; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005 Chapter 7b. For the major cultural divide between Greek and Latin reﬂected in the language chosen to promulgate imperial pronouncements, see Feissel 1995; Corcoran 2002. For issues of cultural identity in the third century, see Clark 1999. For Diocletian’s romanitas, see Corcoran 2000, 173. For the laws on incest and Manichees, see Coll. Mos. et Rom. Leg. 6.4, 15.3, with translation at Lee 2000, 66–7. For the Persians as touchstones of un-Romanness but also as models of both persecutors and proselytizers, see McKechnie 2002. See T. D. Barnes 1976a. See, e.g., T. D. Barnes 1996a, 542–3. On the Great Persecution, see T. D. Barnes 1981, Chapter 2; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 645–63; below Chapters 5 and 6. Mitchell 1988. Lact. DMP 15.7; contrast Eus. HE 8.13.13, VC 1.13.2. Digeser 1998. Sulla is criticized at Suet. Iul. 77.1 but praised at App. B. Civ. 1.12.103–4. Lact. DMP 18.2 has Galerius refer inaccurately to the example of Nerva and Trajan. On Diocletian’s palace, see Wilkes 1993. Pan. Lat. 6(7).15.6; Kolb 1987, 143–50; Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 241; cf. Nixon 1981. Kolb 1987, Chapter 7; Kuhoff 2001, Chapter 1.5.4; Potter 2004, 340–2; Bowman, Cameron, and Garnsey 2005, 86–8. For Gamzigrad, see Srejović and Vasić 1994, with further articles in Carrié 1994. 58 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 figure 5. Model of the imperial villa Romuliana (Gamzigrad), Narodni Muzej, Zajećar, Serbia. Photo B. Dimitrijević, reproduced with permission. figure 6. Monumental rock-cut relief of Shapur I, mounted before Philip the Arab (kneeling in obeisance), and grasping the wrist of the captured Valerian (standing), Naqsh-i-Rustam, Iran. Photo Orinst. P 58746/N 38603. Copyright The Oriental Institute, Chicago. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 figure 7. Porphyry bust of emperor Galerius from the imperial villa Romuliana (Gamzigrad), Narodni Muzej, Zajećar, Serbia. Photo by B. Dimitrijevic, reproduced with permission. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 figure 8. Porphyry Tetrarchs, Piazza San Marco, Venice. Photo by Singer, DAI Inst. Neg. 68.5152. Copyright Deutsches Archäologisches Institut. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Coins Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 coin 1. Ob. IMP CONSTANTINVS PF AVG: Constantine three-quarters facing, with a helmet bearing a Chi-Rho emblem, holding a horse by the bridle and a shield emblazoned with the Roman wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, silver medallion (RIC 7 Ticinum 36). Copyright Hirmer Verlag, Munich. coin 2. Rev. SARMATIA DEVICTA: Victory holding palm branch and trophy, spurning captive on the ground, bronze follis (RIC 7 London 289). Copyright The British Museum. coin 3. Rev. SENATVS: Togate ﬁgure standing, holding globe and scepter, 4.5 solidus gold medallion (RIC 7 Rome 272). Copyright Narodni Muzej, Belgrade. coin 4. Rev. INVICTVS CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG: Constantine and Sol Comes jugate, 9 solidus gold medallion of Ticinum. Copyright Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. coin 5. Ob. DIOCLETIANVS AVGVSTVS: Diocletian laureate, gold aureus (RIC 6 Antioch 1). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 6. Rev. IOVI CONS CAES: Jupiter standing nude holding staff and thunderbolt, gold aureus (RIC 6 Antioch 10). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 coin 7. Ob. MAXIMIANVS PF AVG: Maximian laureate, and Rev. HERCVLI VICTORI: Hercules holding lion skin, leaning on club, gold aureus (RIC 6 Nicomedia 3). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 8. Ob. CONSTANTIVS NOB CAES: Constantius I laureate, gold aureus (RIC 6 Antioch 8). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 9. Rev. VIRTVS MILITVM: Four emperors sacriﬁcing over a tripod before a fortiﬁcation (RIC 6 Trier 102a). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 10. Ob. MAXENTIVS PF AVG: Maxentius facing, bare headed, gold aureus (RIC 7 Ostia 3). Copyright The British Museum. coin 11. Rev. SALVS REI PVBLICAE: The empress Fausta standing, holding two babes in her arms, gold solidus (RIC 7 Ticinum 182). Copyright Hirmer Verlag, Munich. coin 12. Ob. LICINIVS AVG OB D V FILII SVI: Licinius facing, bare headed, gold aureus (RIC 7 Nicomedia 41). Copyright The British Museum. coin 13. Rev. VOTIS XXX MVLTIS XXXX: Inscribed within wreath, silver siliqua (RIC 8 Sirmium 66). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 14. Rev. VIRT EXERC: X-shaped pattern with Sol standing above, holding globe, bronze follis (RIC 7 Thessalonica 71). Copyright The British Museum. coin 15. Rev. SOLI INVICT COM DN: Sol radiate, standing, holding globe with victoriola in left hand, bronze follis (RIC 7 Rome 48). Copyright The British Museum. coin 16. Ob. DD NN CONSTANTINVS ET LICINIVS AVGG: Confronted busts of Licinius and Constantine holding a statuette of Fortuna, bronze follis (RIC 7 Nicomedia 39). Copyright The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. coin 17. Ob. FL CL CONSTANTINVS PF AVG: Constantine II rosette diademed, gold solidus (RIC 8 Siscia 26). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 18. Ob. DN CONSTANTIVS PF AVG: Constantius II pearl diademed, silver siliqua. W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 19. Ob. FLAVIA HELENA AVGVSTA: Empress Helena with elaborate headdress, bronze medallion (RIC 7 Rome 250). Copyright The British Museum. coin 20. Rev. CONSTANTIANA DAPHNE: Victory standing on cippus beside trophy, spurning captive on the ground, bronze follis (RIC 7 Constantinople 32). Copyright The British Museum. coin 21. Ob. CONSTANS AVGVSTVS: Constans pearl diademed, gold solidus (RIC 8 Trier 129). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 22. Rev. No legend: Constantine veiled, rides a chariot heavenward with the hand of God reaching down to him, bronze follis (RIC 8 Alexandria 4). Copyright The British Museum. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 coin 23. Ob. DN IVLIANVS NOB CAES: Julian bare headed, gold solidus (RIC 8 Antioch 163). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 24. Rev. GLORIA EXERCITVS: Two soldiers standing, holding spear and shield, between them two standards, bronze follis (RIC 7 Antioch 86). University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 25. Rev. FEL TEMP REPARATIO: Helmeted soldier bearing shield spears a horseman, bronze (RIC 8 Constantinople 109). University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 26. Ob. CONSTANTINVS NOB C: Constantine square jawed, brow furrowed, with close cropped beard and hair, gold aureus (RIC 6 Rome 141). Copyright Hirmer Verlag, Munich. coin 27. Ob. CONSTANTINVS PF AVG: Constantine facing right, diademed, gold solidus (RIC 7 Trier 21). Copyright The British Museum. coin 28. Ob. CONSTANTINVS PF AVG: Constantine nimbate, facing, gold solidus (RIC 7 Ticinum 41). Copyright The Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. coin 29. Ob. No legend: Constantine with plain diadem, looking upwards, 1.5 solidus gold medallion (RIC 7 Siscia 206). Copyright The British Museum. coin 30. Ob. CONSTANTINVS MAX AVG: Constantine rosette diademed, gold solidus (RIC 7 Thessalonica 174). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 31. Rev. SPES PVBLIC: Labarum crowned by Chi-Rho piercing a serpent, bronze follis (RIC 7 Constantinople 19). Copyright The British Museum. coin 32. Rev. ALAMANNIA DEVICTA: Victory holding trophy and palm branch, spurning captive on the ground, bronze follis (RIC 7 Sirmium 49). Copyright The British Museum. coin 33. Rev. GLORIA SAECVLI VIRTVS CAESS: Constantine seated holding scepter, offering globe with phoenix to Caesar, a panther at his feet, bronze medallion (RIC 7 Rome 279). W. Jaffee Collection, University of Colorado, Boulder. coin 34. Rev. FELICITAS PVBLICA: Euphrates personiﬁed reclining, silver siliqua (RIC 7 Constantinople 100). Copyright Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris. Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Maps 10° 18 0° 10° 20° SAXONS Britanniae FRANKS 44 El 17 27 46 24 ne Rhi 8 be R. R. Germany I N N GI UN LA tes UTH MARCOMANNI a A m I cu QUADI 4 i De Danub 21 e R. Agr Raetia R. Noricum e on 6 13 2 10 Pannoniae 19 28 Cottian 15 S Alps 25 1 40 av u s R 38 . 45 CA RP 5 42 33 I 9 7 20 39 Da 47 3 lm 34 at Dacia 35 23 ia Italia Prima 36 29 37 Moesiae Roma 32 12 43 lonica 26 Lu Thessa 30 cani a Sardinia At he SARMATIANS Sa Galliae A M 22 11 46 Viennensis R mon . 31 Tisza R. 47 Stry Hispaniae Cordoba ns 14 Mauretania 41 Africa 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Aquileia Aquincum (Budapest) Arelate (Arles) Argentoratum (Strasbourg) Augusta Taurinorum (Turin) Augustodunum (Autun) Bononia (Bologna) Bononia (Boulogne) Brigantio (Briançon) Brigantium (Bregenz) Burdigalia (Bordeaux) Capua Carnuntum Carthage Cibalae Cirta/Constantina Colonia (Cologne) Sicily 16 Numidia 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Byzacena Eburacum (York) Emona Fanum Grand (Vosges) Lugdunum (Lyon) Massalia (Marseilles) Mediomatrici (Metz)? Milan (Mediolanum) Misenum Moguntiacum (Mainz) Mursa Naissus Naples (Neapolis) Nemausus (Nîmes) Ostia Placentia (Piacenza) 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Ravenna Romuliana (Gamzigrad) Salona/Split Saxa Rubra Segusio (Susa) Sirmium Siscia Sitifis Ticinum Tres Tabernae (south of Rome) Trier (Augusta Treverorum) Verona Vienne Viminacium map 1. The Western Empire 406 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 SARM AT IANS Maps HERULI Carpathian Mts. (Trajanic) Dacia D GOTHS a n u b R. e 15 R. rus Phasis Bospo Hebrus R . Scythia 49 50 Caucasus Mts. 38 Thraciae Moesiae 9 1 44 Iberia 40° 14 35 Thessalonica Bithynia 11 Pontica Armenia 22 20 34 27 13 Propontis 5 Hellespont Galatia 17 43 Taurus Mts. 39 Cappadocia 4 Aegean Asiana Sea Ephesus 21 Mesopotamia 36 Mt s. 2 8 Taurus 47 25 Lydia i C ili c 48 6 Syria 37 41 Cyprus Eu Crete 24 ph rat es 18 R. 28 51 7 12 Persia 33 46 26 Position 32 23/29 10 30° require 30 Arabia 3 SARACENS 31 a Mts. Ti g ris Chabur R. Zagros 40 45 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Adrianople (Edirne) Aegae Alexandria Amida Ancyra (Ankara) Antioch Aphaca Aphrodisias Beroea (Stara Zagora) Bethlehem Byzantium/Constantinople Caesarea (Palestine) Callipolis Chrysopolis Constantiana Daphne Coptos Cotyaeum 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. Jordan R. Oriens ra t a D ioc l e ti a n a St N il e R. R. 19 42 Egypt 16 Damascus Dionysias Drepanum/Helenopolis Edessa Elaeus Gaza Heliopolis Hierapolis Jerusalem Lampsacus Maiozamalcha Maiuma/Constantia Mamre Memphis Mobene (Qasr Bshir) Namara Nicaea 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. map 2. The Eastern Empire 407 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007 Nicomedia Nisibis Oenoanda Oescus Orcistus Oxyrhynchus Palmyra Panopolis Pessinus Philippopolis Ptolemais Scythopolis Singara Tarsus Transmarisca Tropaium Traiani Tyre Maps 12 Tiber f so n th tia Baiocle D er Riv of e ths tin Ba stan Quirinal n o C Campus Martius ito C 2 4 1 5 3 9 10 Ci 7 Arch of Constantine Temple of Sol 6 Palatine Velia 8 Hill rcu sM Esquiline Flavian Amphitheater (Colosseum) ax im us Sessorian Palace Complex Lateran Basilica Mithraeum at S. Prisca Aventine 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Forum Romanum Curia Temple of Vesta Temple of Vespasian Temple of Antoninus and Faustina Temple of Venus and Roma 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. n lia Licinian Pavilion (Minerva Medica) ap ure 13 e lin fA Forum Boarium so all W Temple of Isis Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus 11 Basilica of Maxentius and Constantine Temple of Apollo Temple of Cybele Janus Quadrifrons S. Marco a Piazza Venezia Temple of Fortuna at the Colline Gate Forum Boarium map 3.1. Rome Inside the Walls 408 Cambridge Collections Online © Cambridge University Press, 2007

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Before Constantine

Before Constantine

Before Constantine

Before Constantine

Before Constantine

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS