PDF Hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen

PDF hosted at the Radboud Repository of the Radboud University Nijmegen

The following full text is a publisher's version.

For additional information about this publication click this link. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/124181

Please be advised that this information was generated on 2021-10-10 and may be subject to change. The City of Rome in Politics and Representations of Power during the Constantinian Dynasty (306-361)

Sanne van Poppel Urbs et Augustus The City of Rome in Politics and Representations of Power during the Constantinian Dynasty (306-361)

Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen op gezag van de rector magnificus prof. mr. S.C.J J. Kortmann, volgens besluit van het college van decanen in het openbaar te verdedigen op vrijdag 14 februari 2014 om 10.30 uur precies

door

Sanne van Poppel geboren op 15 november 1981 te Tilburg Promotoren Prof. dr. O.J. Hekster Prof. dr. S.L. de Blaauw

Copromotor Dr. S.T.A.M. Mols

Manuscriptcommissie

Prof. dr. E.M. Moormann Prof. dr. P.A. Stephenson Dr. J.W. Drijvers (RUG)

Sanne van Poppel, 2013

Printed by Ipskamp drukkers B.V.

Image on cover: RIC VII 363 (Ticinum) 31. Solidus (reverse). RESTITUTOR1LIBERTATIS, Roma enthroned right, holding sceptre, handing globe to emperor standing left in military dress, holding short sceptre. Courtesy of wildwinds.com and Hans-Joachim Hoeft collection.

ISBN: 978-94-6259-003-8 Urbs et Augustus The City of Rome in Politics and Representations of Power during the Constantinian Dynasty (306-361)

door

Sanne van Poppel geboren op 15 november 1981 te Tilburg Promotoren Prof. dr. O.J. Hekster Prof. dr. S.L. de Blaauw

Copromotor Dr. S.T.A.M. Mols

Manuscriptcommissie

Prof. dr. E.M. Moormann Prof. dr. P.A. Stephenson Dr. J.W. Drijvers (RUG)

Sanne van Poppel, 2013

Printed by Ipskamp drukkers B.V.

Image on cover: RIC VII 363 (Ticinum) 31. Solidus (reverse). RESTITUTORJLIBERTATIS, Roma enthroned right, holding sceptre, handing globe to emperor standing left in military dress, holding short sceptre. Courtesy of wildwinds.com and Hans-Joachim Hoeft collection.

ISBN: 978-94-6259-003-8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

She had always been fond of history, and here [in Rome] was history in the stones of the Street and the atoms of the sunshine. — Henry James, The Portrait o f a Lady

Ever since my first visit to Rome I have had a passion for the Urbs aeterna, her history and her myths. By researching and reading (in) Rome these past years, the city has become part of my own history. Writing and finishing a PhD is a joumey, which, like the road to Rome, can go through many ways. My path proceeded in fits and starts as I saw ‘many bears on the road’. Reaching the final destination and looking back on the process, I can say that the project will be a milestone in my life and that it was a stop on the proper path. It is a marker of years of endurance, flexibility and pressure, lessons in life and inspiring encounters. During these years in academia, I have met wonderfiil people. These pages are dedicated to my guides, fellow-travellers, and old and new friends. Foremost, I must acknowledge the supervision of Olivier Hekster, Sible de Blaauw and Stephan Mols. I am blessed to have had three supervisors who have given me intellectual and moral support and whose expert guidance has steered me in the right direction. I want to thank Olivier for persuading me that this project would be a worthwhile undertaking. I cannot say I regret having embarked upon this path. I especially appreciate the times and ways in which you encouraged me not only to pursue this project to the end, but also to sometimes change the focus on other priorities in life. Your credo to keep a balance between private life and work will remain a valuable lesson. My thanks and appreciation go out to Sible for his critical eye, his calm and open demeanour and stimulating dialogue in person and on paper. Stephan’s careful reading of this manuscript and his efforts to keep my text ‘Poppelian’ and readable at the same time helped to energize its revision. His practical tips and his attachment to this project were important to its completion. During the years of being immersed in academia, I have been fortunate to have been in the good company of the History department at Radboud University Nijmegen. My colleagues in the section of Ancient History gave me advice, support and encouragement: Martijn leks, Erika Manders, Inge Mennen, Lien Foubert, Nathalie de Haan, Daniëlle Slootjes, Ylva Klaassen, Liesbeth Claes, Coen van Galen, Raphael Hunsucker, Paul Stephenson, Gerda de Kleijn, Luuk de Blois, Ellen Kraft and Pamela Doms. I want to thank Daniëlle, Inge and Lien in particular for their critical reading of parts of the manuscript. Ylva, becoming your roommate in 10.11 was not only the beginning of a shared experience, but also of a deep friendship. I find it heartening to have met someone with such intelligence, humour and hope. Ping, thank you for being there in the right ways and at the right points in time. The presence of other kindred spirits in the History department helped to make this process bearable and valuable beyond measure: thank you Saskia, Marieke, Anne, Joris, Wim, Lennert, Thijs, Maaike, Robin, Robert-Jan, Casper, Chris, Marloes, Margriet, Rachel and Sophie for breaths of fresh air in Park Brakkestein, relaxing yoga and tea sessions, drinks and pub quizzes in the Cultuurcafé, sportive initiatives and other memorable distractions. I must also thank colleagues from the Classics Department for their expert advice, cooperation and company: Roald Dijkstra, my co-organizer for the conference on Unity in the Fourth Century; Suzanne van de Liefvoort, Maarten de Pourq and Diederik Burgersdijk; Vincent Hunink for his appreciated help with the Latin passages; and Eric Moormann for his suggestions and corrections to the final draft. I am happy (or should I say gappy?) to have found a new group of nice colleagues at the Kulak in Kortrijk. Frederic, Annelies, Els, Mare, Dirk, Kathy and Hilde, thank you for making me feel at home in West Flanders and for celebrating the approval of this book with me and with home-made tiramisu. I am looking forward to leaming more of your typical words and customs and teaching you mine. A large share of my research was carried out abroad, first and foremost, of course, in the old and new Rome. In Rome, history is indeed in the stones of the Street and I have had the most wonderful times there. I want to thank the directors of the Royal Netherlands Institute in Rome, Marjan Schwegman, Bemard Stolte and Gert-Jan Burgers, for their hospitality and the other members of the staff for making the KNIR feel like my second home and my personal gateway to the Etemal City. Grazie Janet, Angelo, Sandra, Femando and Mohammed. I will cherish the memories and encounters in my heart. Jolanda, Hester, Saskia, Myrthe, Lide, Michelle, Floris, Bart, Dirk, Anne, Noor, Rianne, Ivo and others: let’s have many more reunions. I thank Fokke G erritsen for awarding me a fellowship at the Netherlands Institute in Turkey and enabling an inspiring stay on the shores of the Bosporus. I am equally grateful for the opportunities to visit and work at the Seminar fur Alte Geschichte in Münster, the Seminar fur Alte Geschichte und Epigraphik in Heidelberg and the Netherlands Institute at Athens. For facilitating these visits, I owe my gratitude to Peter Funke, Christian Witschel, Kris Tytgat, André Lardinois and Josh Ober, as well as the VSB-Fonds, the International Office of Radboud University Nijmegen, the Lifelong Leaming Programme of the European Commission and the national research school for Classical Studies in the Netherlands OIKOS. Some other people and institutions deserve to be mentioned for leaving their footprints on my PhD-path by providing comfort, diversions or practical help. Thanks are due to Gwen, Claartje, Marieke, Diane, Willemijn, Bart, Jet, Sandra and Dagmar for their friendship; to the colleagues of Arthouse Lux, Museum het Valkhof and Stichting Vluchtelingenwerk for valuable detours and fresh impulses; to my former flatmates for their company; to Sebastian Schmidt-Holher, Carlos Machado, John Weisweiler and Alexander Skinner for kindly sending me (drafts of) their publications; to Joris for helping me with the distribution of the manuscript; to Katie Gamer for dedicating her time this summer to dive into Constantinian Rome and thoroughly correct my English (and to Victoria for introducing us); to my uncle

iv Niek for reading the Dutch summary with enthusiasm and a sharp eye; and to my brother Robin for letting me reap the benefits of his brilliant computer skills. My last words and most heartfelt thanks are reserved for my family and loved ones. I would like to thank my father Joop and mother Jacqueline for leaving me free to find my way in Nijmegen, Rome and Ghent. Tending sheep in Norway was indeed not really my thing. Knowing that you are proud of me means a lot. I am grateful to Toos and Ria for being my caring ‘sugaraunts’, and for sending me moral support, warm wishes and funny postcards. I would like to extend a dikke merci to my in-laws, Eddy, Anne-Marie, Evy, Nico, Steff, Febe, Karolien and Robin for their support and the welcome they gave me into their family and Belgium. I am very honoured to be a member of the gang of Brosisclean. Meike, Rolph, Robin, Marloes, Amber, Koen, Jeske, Jan and our youngest and extra special member, my lovely little niece Myrthe, my heart is so full of you all. Thank you. You know why. To Femke, my ‘other’ sister, thank you for being there in my highs and lows, for giving advice and for listening. JBDBEDM. Finally, my thanks go out to Jo — meeting him during a master class in Athens as part of the PhD curriculum made this endeavour truly worthwhile. You have given me love, relaxation, reassurance, Belgian chocolate and a wonderfiil life together in Ghent.

I dedicate this book to two fighters: Meike, who showed me that perseverance and hope can work wonders; and Toos, whose generosity and grace touched not only my life. You taught me to dance in the rain. I am so sorry you will not be able to see the fïnal version of this book.

Ghent, November 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEBGEMENTS iii

ABBREVIATIONS, TEXTS AND TRANSLATIONS xi

NOTES TO THE READER xvii

INTROBUCTION 1 Urbs et Augustus — A Historical Overview 1 Aims and Perspectives 3 Status quaestionis 4 Sources 8 Design 16

PART ONE - PRQLOGUE 19

1 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DYNASTY 21 1.1 Designatus imperii? (306) 21 1.2 Constantine, Maximian and Maxentius: Imperatores semper Herculii (307-310) 24 1.3 Divus Claudius (310-312) 29 1.4 Constantine and Licinius (312-317) 32 1.5 Nobilissimi Caesares (317-324) 34 1.6 Extending a Dynasty (324) 36 1.7 Dynastie Crisis (326) 38 1.8 1 Augustus, 4 Caesares (333-335) 40 1.9 The Massacre of the Princes (337) 43 1.10 Divina suboles (337-340) 46 1.11 Constantius and Constans (340-350) 49 1.12 Usurpations and Civil War (350-353) 51 1.13 Gallus (351-354) 53 1.14 Julian (355-361) 54 1.15 Constructing a Dynasty 5 5

PART TWO - PRESENCE 57

2 THE CONSTANTINÏAN DYNASTY AND ROME 59 2.1 Constantine 59 2.1.1 A Triumphal Visit (312) 59 2.1.2 The Opening of the decennalia (315) 69 2.1.3 The Closing of the vicennalia (326) 74 2.2 Constans 83 2.2.1 A Victorious Visit? (340-341) 83 2.2.2 The decennalia in Rome? (342-343) 85 2.2.3 Celebrating Rome’s Eleventh saeculum Urbisl (348) 86

vii 2.2.4 A Visit in 349? 88 2.2.5 An adventus Constantii? 88 2.3 Constantius 91 2.3.1 A Victory and Jubilee Combined (357) 91 2.4 Imperial Visits under the Constantinian Dynasty 100

3 IMPERIAL PRESENCE IN ROME IN LATE-ANTIQUE PANEGYRICS 101 3.1 Genre and Corpus 101 3.2 Panegyrics - Instruments of Propaganda? 102 3.3 Acrior ardor - The Emperor in Rome 105 3.3.1 Rome in August Presence 106 3.3.2 Rome between Hope and Despair 108 3.3.3 Rome in Action 111 3.3.4 The Panegyrist between Praise and Blame 113 3.4 ‘The Ardent Desire of both Senate and People’ 114

PART THREE - PATRONAGE 115

4 IMPERIAL PATRONAGE AND THE CITY OF ROME 117 4.1 Tetrarchic Rome - Genius populi Romani 118 4.2 Maxentian Patronage - Conservator Urbis 119 4.3 Constantine - Restiiutor Urbis 124 4.3.1 Victoria Constantini 124 4.3.2 Ampliflcator Urbis Romae 131 4.3.3 Urbs Sacra 137 4.4 Constans 144 4.4.1 Indirect Patronage - Emperor and Urban Prefects 145 4.4.2 Urbs sacra 148 4.5 Constantius 151 4.5.1 Indirect Patronage - Emperor and Urban Prefects 151 4.5.2 Adventus Augusti 153 4.5.3 Urbs Sacra 155 4.6 Imperial Patronage in Rome under the Constantinian dynasty 157

5 IMPERIAL PATRONAGE IN CONSTANTINOPLE 159 5.1 Constantine 160 5.1.1 Byzantium 160 5.1.2 Renovatio Byzantii 161 5.1.3 Building Constantinople 164 5.1.4 Urbs Sacra 167 5.2 Constantius 170 5.2.1 Heir to a Legacy 170 5.2.2 Urbs Sacra 172 5.3 Nova Roma 173

viii PART FOUR - POLITICS 175

6 EMPEROR AND SENATE IN ROME 177 6.1 Appointment Policy 178 6.1.1 Urban Prefects 178 6.1.2 Consuls 191 6.1.3 Praetorian Prefects 196 6.1.4 Appointing the Higher Offices - Preference and Credentials 200 6.2 The City-Roman Administration - Assistance and Hindrance 202 6.2.1 The Urban Prefecture 202 6.2.2 The officiumpraefecturae Urbanae 204 6.2.3 Other Officials in Rome 205 6.2.4 The vicarius Urbis Romae 206 6.3 The Emperor and the Senate 208

7 THE SENATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE 211 7.1 The Senate in the East 211 7.2 The City-Administration in Constantinople 214 7.2.1 Praetors and Proconsuls 214 7.2.2 Urban Prefects 216 7.2.3 Other Officials in Constantinople 218 7.3 A Senate to rival Rome’s 218

8 SENATE AND EMPEROR IN ROME 221 8.1 Seeking Rapprochement with the Court 222 8.2 Senators’ Self-display 228 8.3 Senatorial Interaction with the Distant Imperial Court 233

CONCLUSION 235

BIBLIOGRAPHY 241

APPENDICES 279 A. 1 Stemma - The Descendants of Constantius Chlorus 281 A.2 Images 283

SAMENVATTING 295

CURRICULUM VTTAE 303

ix Claud. III Cons.Hon. Claudius Claudianus, Panegyricus de Tertio Consulatu Honorii Augusti Ed. LCL 135. Claud. IV Cons.Hon. Claudius Claudianus, Panegyricus de Quarto Consulatu Honorii Augusti Ed. LCL 135. Claud. VI Cons.Hon. Claudius Claudianus, Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti Ed. LCL 136; Dewar 1996. Claud. De Cons.Stil. Claudius Claudianus, De Consulatu Stilichonis Ed. LCL 136. Claud. De Bello Goth. Claudius Claudianus, De Bello Gothico Ed. LCL 136. Claud. In Eutr. Claudius Claudianus, In Eutropium Ed. LCL 135. Claud. Pan.dict.Prob. et Claudius Claudianus, Panegyricus dictus Probino et Olybrio Olyb. consulibus consulibus Ed. LCL 135. Cl Codex Iustinianus Ed. Mommsen e.a. 1904-1906; Spruit, Feenstra and Bongenaar 1993-2011. CTh. Codex Theodosianus Ed. Mommsen e.a. 1904-1905; Pharr e.a. 1952. Coll. Avell. Collectio Avellana Ed. CSEL 35. Cons. Const. Consularia Constantinopolitana Ed. MGH Chron. Min. 1. Digesta Digesta Ed. Mommsen e.a. 1904-1906. Epiph. Haer. Epiphanius, Adversus haereses (Panarion) Ed. GCS 37. Epit. de Caes. Epitome de Caesaribus Ed. Teubner 22. Eunap. VS Eunapius, Vitae sophistarum Ed. LCL 134. Eus. HE Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Ed .LCL 153,265. Eus. Orat.a.sanct. Eusebius, Oratio ad sanctum coetum Ed. GCS 7; NPNF2-X. Eus. Triac. Eusebius, Oratio de laudibus Constantini Ed. GCS 1. Eus. VC Eusebius, Vita Constantini Ed. Drager 2007; Cameron and Hall 2002. Eutr. Brev. Eutropius, Breviarium historiae Romanae Ed. Teubner 1979. Exp.tot.mun. Expositio totius mundi et gentium Ed. SChr 124; Rougé 1966. Firm. Mater. De errore Firmicus Matemus, De errore profanarum religionum prof.rel. Ed. Belles Lettres 1982. Firm.Mat. Math. Firmicus Matemus, Mathesis Ed. Belles Lettres 1992-1997. Geil. Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae Ed. LCL 200. Greg.Naz. Or. Gregorius of Nazianzus, Orationes Ed. CCSG 37. Greg.Tur. Hist. Gregorius of Tours, Historia Francorum Ed. MGHSRMX. Herod. Herodianus, Historia Romana Ed. LCL 454. Hier. Chron. Hieronyms, Chronicon Ed. GCS 47. Hil. A d Const. Hilarius, Liber ad Constantium Augustum Ed. CSEL 65. Jordanes, Get. Jordanes, De origine actibusque Getarum Ed. Giunta and Grillone 1991. Jos. BJ Flavius Josephus, Bellum Judaicum Ed. LCL 210. Jul. Caes. Julianus, Caesares. Ed. LCL 29. Jul. Ep. adAth. Julianus, Epistula ad Athenienses Ed. LCL 29. Jul. Or. Julianus, Orationes Ed. LCL 13. Just. Nov. Justinus, Novella Ed. Mommsen e.a. 1904-1906. Juv. Sat. Juvenalis, Satirae Ed. LCL 91. Lact. Mort.Pers. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum Ed. Creed 1984. Leo Gramm. Chron. Leo Grammaticus, Chronographia Ed. MPG 108. Lib. Ep. Libanius, Epistulae Ed. LCL 478-479; Bradbury 2004. Lib. Or. Libanius, Orationes Ed. LCL 451-452. Lib.Pont. Liber Pontificalis Ed. MGH Gesta pontificum 1; Davis 2010. Liv. Ab urbe cond. Livius, Ab Urbe Condita Ed. LCL 144. Lucian. Hist. Conscr. Lucianus, Quomodo Historia conscribenda sit Ed. LCL 430. Lyd. Mens. Johannes Lydus, De mensibus Ed. Teubner 1967. Malal. Chron. Malalas, Chronicon Ed. CFHB 35. Men.Rhet. Peri epid. Menander Rhetor, Peri epideiktikon Ed. Russell and Wilson 1981. Not.Dig. Notitia dignitatum Ed. Seeck 1876. Abbreviations - Series

AE L'Année épigraphique Anal.Boll. Analecta Bollandiana Belles Lettres Belles Lettres - Librairie Guillaume Budé CBCR Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae CCSG Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca CCSL Corpus Christianorum Series Latina CLL Corpus inscriptionum Latinarum CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum GCS Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller II.Alg. Inscriptions latines de I'Algérie LCL Loeb Classical Library LTUR Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae MGH Monumenta Germaniae Historica - Auctores antiquissimi MGH Chron.Min. Monumenta Germaniae Historica — Chronicon Minora MGH Gesta pontificum Monumenta Germaniae Historica - Gesta pontificum Romanorum MGH SRM Monumenta Germaniae Historica - Scriptores Rerum Merovingicarum MPG Migne Patrologia Graeca MPL Migne Patrologia Latina NPNF Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church NSc. Notizie degli Scavi PLRE Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire RIC Roman Imperial Coinage SChr. Sources Chrétiennes Teubner Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum et romanorum Teubneriana

xvi NOTES TO THE READER

Mint-cities are referred to by their Latin names, with the exeception of the mints of Rome and Constantinople. Roma and Constantinopolis denote the personifications of the respective cities. For enhanced readability, I have refrained from italicising the names of sites and monuments in Rome and Constantinople. Maps of both cities can be found in Appendix A.2. Imperial pronouncements from the Codex Theodosianus or Codex lustinianus are only dated when relevant for the argument. When years are emended or challenged, all options are stated, separated by a semicolon.

X V ll

INTRODUCTION

In his 321 address to the Senate of Rome, the panegyrist Nazarius expressed a strong wish for Constantine to bond with the City:

There is hut one thing by which Rome could be made happier, a very great thing but yet the only one, that it see Constantine its preserver (...) and that it receive you joyously and, when reasons of state made you depart, that it send you away with a promise of your return.1

Despite these praiseworthy and expectant words by the rhetorician, Constantine would visit Rome only once after this address. Under Constantine’s dominion of Rome, a long period of permanent imperial absence and distance between the emperor and the imperial city set in. This study examines the role of the city of Rome in imperial politics and representations of power during the reigns of Constantine, Constans and Constantius, from Constantine’s gain of Rome (312) to the death of Constantius (361). From this perspective, I reconstruct the dynamics between Rome on the one hand, and the absent emperor and the distant imperial court on the other. These decades of the Constantinian dynasty - Constantine conquered Rome from Maxentius, his son Constans succeeded as direct heir to Constantine’s Rome and subsequently Constantius became govemor of both parts and capitals of the Empire - create an appropriate time frame for analysis and appraisal.

Urbs et Augustus — A Historical Overview From the Principate, the destiny of the Urbs, as the seat and symbol of power of the Empire, had been connected with the fate of the ruling emperor. The original imperial residence in the City itself was located on the Palatine.2 The Palatium, together with expansive building programmes and the remodelling of statutory and administrative provisions of urban care, gave Rome imperial stature. The emperor, however, proved not to be sedentary, and nor was the bond between the emperor and the City always physical. Pompeianus’ famous words to Commodus as recorded by Herodian, that Rome was where the emperor was, were apposite in the sense that emperors were not always in Rome.3 Third-century emperors were often engaged in military campaigns in the geographical periphery of the Empire. They merely visited the City on celebratory occasions such as accessions or triumphs, or stayed there in the winter seasons during interbellum periods.4 Maximinus Thrax would be the first emperor to never visit Rome. This residential neglect by several of the soldier-emperors had its effect on their patronage in the City.5 Most dominant in reshaping the urban fabric in the third century were the members of the Severan dynasty and Aurelian, emperors who spent a considerable

1 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.6: Unum modo est quo fieri possit Roma felicior, maximum quidem sed tamen solum, ut Constantium conservatorem suum, (...) videat, (...) ut vos alacris excipiat et, cum rei publicae ratio digredi fecerit, receptura dimittat. For a complete translation and discussion of the quote, see Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. Vell.Pater. 2.81; Suet. Div.Aug. 29.3 and 72. See also Chapter 2, paragraph 1.1. 3 Herod. 1.6.5. 4 Halfmann 1986. 5 Curran 2000: 43-46. 1 time in Rome. Their building activity concentrated mainly on damaged areas, entertainment venues to appease the inhabitants and places for religious worship of oriental deities. The largest and most notable intervention was the building of the Aurelian Wall, a massive defensive bulwark that arose out of exigency, and, at the same time, was full of symbolic resonance.6 In comparison to the High Empire, however, the scale of monumental patronage had diminished considerably.7 In the course of the late third and early fourth century, Rome lost its role as imperial urbs regia, as emperors chose to reside at centres closer to the frontiers. Itineraries show that emperors considered it vital to be present physically and visibly in the provinces, especially those in the outer regions of the Empire which were less secure and important to military strategy.8 Trier was a strategie location for the Rhine-region, as Sirmium and Serdica were for the Danube. Thessalonica functioned as a border station to the eastem frontiers. In Italy, the cities of Milan, Ravenna and Aquileia were less remote from the main military areas than the Urbs. Locations such as Nicomedia and Antioch served not merely as military posts, but became imperial residencies, and, as such, were expanded and embellished. The new emerging imperial residencies were both inspired by and appealed to the pre- eminent position and allure that Rome had once enjoyed for ages on end.9 The City had become the symbolic and ceremonial Capital of the Empire and would be visited only rarely during the reigns of Diocletian and Maximian.10 The almost permanent absence of emperors from Rome no doubt instigated feelings of disappointment and even indignation in the Roman populace.11 The status of Rome declined further after the plans for reform under Diocletian and his successor Galerius. Rome was threatened with the loss of its tax privileges and special guard of praetorians in the city.12 In October 306, discontented people and soldiers in Rome declared Maxentius emperor of the City. With this coup, Rome retrieved its role as Urbs regia for a short period. Maxentius’ basic claim to power was his possession of the City, the traditional Capital of the Empire. In his attempts to revive Rome as the true imperial Capital, he presented himself as the conservator Urbis suae, eelebrating and reinforcing the grandeur of the City and its ancient traditions.13 In the absence of Tetrarchic recognition or lasting imperial alliances, his position tumed out to be weak and his Rome-centred rule short-lived. After wars with various emperors and usurpers, he tasted defeat just outside Rome against Constantine. In October

6 Dey 2011. 7 Claridge 1998: 20-23; Curran 2000: 3-42. 8 For the imperial itineraries, see Barnes 1982: 47-84. 9 Lact. Mort.Pers. 7.10. 10 Diocletian visited Rome only once, in 303: Lact. Mort.Pers. 7.10 and 17.1-3; Maximian came to Rome in the late 290s and 303-304: Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 8.7-8. Nixon 1981. See Chapter 3, paragraph 3. 11 Slootjes 2012. 12 Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.1-3; Aur.Vict. Caes. 39.47 and 40.5; Zos. 2.9.2-3; Eutr. Brev. 10.2.3. See also Chapter 1, paragraph 2. 13 See also Chapter 4, paragraph 2. 2 312, Constantine, the liberator and restitutor Urbis suae, gained control over the City.14 From this date, Rome would be held under the sway of his dynasty for half a century.

Aims and Perspectives Although Rome was of paramount importance for the legitimation of Constantine’s power, the City witnessed an almost constant imperial absence during the fifty years of Constantinian dominion. These central years of the fourth century also saw the foundation and development of the city of Constantinople into a new residence of imperial power. Furthermore, the decades of Constantinian rule witnessed the gradual transformation of Rome from the Capital city of the Roman Empire towards the central seat of Christianity. Constantine’s long reign (312-337) was followed by the rule of his son Constans (337- 350), who most likely never visited Rome. His attachment to the Capital has been ignored by ancient and modem historians. Afiter the suppression of the usurper Magnentius (350-353), Constans’ brother Constantius, the Augustus of the Orient, gained control over both parts of the Empire, and therefore over Rome. During his reign, he resided mainly in Antioch and Constantinople, the city that his father had founded in 324. Constantius’ adventus to the City in the late 350s has received considerable attention,15 but, on the whole, the last decades of Constantinian rule of Rome are like a shadow for the modem historian, darkening the degree of imperial attachment to Rome in years that are inherent to geopolitical and religious developments in the City and the Empire. In order to identify the degree of imperial attachment to the City and the implications for its urban fabric in these decades, I focus on the actions and inactions of the three members of the Constantinian dynasty towards Rome, even when not present in the city. To uncover the City of Constantine, Constans and Constantius, I analyse the following four aspects: (i) the presence of emperors in Rome and the manifestation and meaning of imperial adventus as a means of communication and rapprochement between the emperor and the City; (ii) the degree of imperial patronage reflected in building programmes in Rome, arguing that architecture and the use of public space can serve as signifïers of the political ambitions, religious affiliations, and cultural values of its patron and as reflections of geo-political and city-Roman developments;16 (iii) the relations between the emperors and the senatorial aristocracy in Rome, the traditional pillar within Rome’s administration. This group entails those senators who were members of the Senate of Rome, who resided in the city or had their cursus honorum related to it and acted as agents in the shaping of the political and cultural fabric in the absence of emperors; (iv) and fïnally, framed within these fïrst three perspectives, the representation of Rome as personifïed on coinage, tracing its historical sequence and

14 RIC V I387-388 (Rome) 303, 304 and 312. 15 MacCormack 1972; Edbrooke 1976; Klein 1999; Schmidt-Hofner 2012. See infra. 16 Drerup 1966: 196; Millar 1984: 58; Drake 2000: 65. On imperial patronage as system of visual communication, see also Zanker 1988. 3 development in the imperial propaganda of Constantine, Constans and Constantius.17 For a proper evaluation of these leitmotifs, one needs to take into consideration the political- institutional and urbanistic developments of Constantinople, the new upcoming imperial Capital founded by Constantine, as means of comparison or confrontation with Rome, especially with regard to its patronage and the development of its senate, and the magistrates that were concemed with its urban care. For the analysis of the presence, patronage and city-Roman politics of the Constantinian emperors, I turn not only to transmitted texts that were first composed one or more generations after Constantine, but also to coinage, inscriptions and archaeological remains. The value and limitations of these sources will be discussed in the penultimate paragraph of this introduction. First, an overview of the extant scholarship on (i) Constantine and his dynasty, (ii) the city of Rome in Late Antiquity and (iii) Rome and the Constantinian dynasty is provided.

Status quaestionis (i) Constantine and his dynasty The politics and personality of Constantine have held a constant appeal for historians and authors ever since his reign.18 While modem scholarship has focused on multiple aspects of his rule and persona, Constantine studies saw its latest boom around the time of the recent seventeenth centenary of his dies imperii (2006) and the battle at the Milvian Bridge (2012).19 Particularly valuable contributions for setting the historical framework of this study are Thomas Grünewald’s monograph, which provides an epigraphical catalogue on Constantine’s reign, Noel Lenksi’s Companion to the Age of Constantine and Timothy Barnes’ work on prosopography, historiography and Constantinian chronology.20 In contrast, the extent to which Constantine’s sons Constantius, but especially Constans, have been neglected as biographical subjects is striking. Facets of their reigns are addressed by historical, theological and legal scholars, but to date, both Constans and Constantius, rulers for more than two decades in a century of transformation, await decent studies in their own right.21 Aspects of the strife between Constantinus and Constans, and Constans and Constantius and the intemal govemment of Constantius have received some

171 use the defmition provided by Jowett and O’Donnell 2006: 7: “Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape pereeptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.” 18 For an overview, see Lenski 2006c; Barnes 2011: 6-8. 19 See, among others: Alföldi 1948; Bames 1981; id. 1982; id. 2011; MacMullen 1987; Grünewald 1990; Odahl 2004; Holloway 2004; Lenski 2006a; Girardet 2006a; Hartley e.a. 2006; Van Dam 2007; id. 2011; Demandt and Engemann 2007; Stephenson 2010; Ehling and Weber 2011; Bardill 2012; Hekster and Jansen 2012; Wienand 2012; Potter 2013. 20 Bames 1976a; id. 1976b; id. 1981; id. 1982; 1992; id. 1995; id. 2011; Grünewald 1990; Lenski 2006a. 21 Constans: Bames 1975a: 330-333; Bamard 1981; Weiser 1987; Bruun 1991c; Bleckmann 2003; Constantius: Edbrooke 1976; Klein 1977; id. 1999; Vogler 1979; Barceló 1981; id. 2004; Mudd 1988; Cameron 1989; Bames 1993a; Cuneo 1997; Vittinghoff and Dihle 1997; Henck 2001; id. 2007; Constans and Constantius: Kraft 1958. 4 attention, but, on balance, the decades after Constantine’s rule have been ill-documented in the extant evidence and largely disregarded in modem discourse.22 For my examination of this period in the history of the Roman Empire, which is “both obviously significant and notoriously obscure”, I am gratefully indebted to Barnes’ overview of dates, facts and names.23

(ii) The city of Rome in Late Antiquity The city of Rome in Late Antiquity has been a fertile area of research, resulting in various studies and different approaches.24 Apart from a large share of contributions on the subject of Empire-wide late-antique urbanism, which analyse the implications of political, social and religious changes for the urban fabric of cities in the last phase in the Empire,25 a vast bibliography has Rome itself as its primary focus. Within late-antique Rome-centred studies, five dominant themes can be discemed: (1) The dynamics between the City and the distant imperial court, and, connected to this, the significance of the rare occasions of imperial presence. The transfer of Rome’s powerbase to other centres has been examined by Emanuel Mayer in the light of the imperial building programmes from Diocletian to Theodosius II.26 Mayer’s study départs from Herodian’s notion that Rome was wherever the emperor was, arguing that even when absent from Rome, the emperor’s attachment to the City could be strong and revealing. The authoritative study of imperial adventus has been provided by Sabine McCormack, who analysed the arrival of rulers as expressed in panegyrics and imperial art.27 She set out the scope and significance of the act of an adventus in Late Antiquity, which had emerged out of the civilian and senatorial arrival and imperial and military triumphus. More recently, Stephane Benoist has considered the role of ritual and representation in relations between the emperor and the Capital via ceremonial processions up to the reign of Constantine.28 Sebastian Schmidt-Hofner has explored the symbolic communication of ritualised acts between the emperor and the senate and people of Rome during imperial visits to the City in Late Antiquity.29 (2) The role of the senatorial elite in Rome, as influenced by the absence of the emperors from Rome and other late-antique transformations. The changing socio-political order inherent to the dislocation of imperial power in late-antique Rome was a fruitful area of research in the last decades of the twentieth century, with leading contributions by John Matthews, Michael Amheim, Wolfgang Kuhoff, Beat Naf and Dirk Schlinkert.30 More recently, this theme has been treated extensively by Mark Humphries, Carlos Machado,

22 Mudd 1988; Vogler 1979; Edbrooke 1976. 23 Barnes 1982: vii. 24 For an overview of recent developments in scholarship on Rome, see Ewald and Norena 2010b: 1-2. 25 Ward-Perkins 1984; id. 1998; Rich 1992; Brogiolo and Ward-Perkins 1999; Lavan 2001; Christie 2006. 26 Mayer 2002. 27 MacCormack 1972; id. 1981. See also Dufraigne 1994. 28 Benoist 2005. 29 Schmidt-Hofoer 2012. 30 Amheim 1972; Matthews 1975; Kuhoff 1983; N af 1995; Schlinkert 1996. See also Salzman 2002. 5 Robert Chenault and John Weisweiler, who focus on senatorial-imperial relations, the senatorial involvement in the creation of Rome’s urban space, and aristocratie displays of power.31 In addition, Heike Niquet has provided a valuable inscriptional corpus which reveals the nature of late Roman senatorial self-representation.32 (3) The transition or transformation of Rome from a pagan imperial capital to a papal Christian See.33 The focus in these treatments is the changing role of authority from the emperor to the bishop in late-antique Rome - a transition that was by no means complete at the end of the fourth century, as has been argued by Humphries.34 (4) The topography and archaeology of Rome and the representation of its urban space. As a result of ongoing excavations, rich archaeological data increasingly enables the charting of urban development in Rome in Late Antiquity and the reconstruction of the physical shape of the City under individual emperors.35 As well as these topographical and archaeological developments, the idea of Rome as “Erinnerungslandschafït” has provided thorough and fascinating analyses of the City as a landscape of memories from imperial, senatorial and Christian perspectives.36 (5) The relationship between Rome and Constantinople, the other upcoming imperial capital. Gilbert Dagron’s Naissance d'une capitale provides the first overview of the historical development, urban administration and organisation of Constantine’s city, and has been supplemented by studies on the urban infrastructure, topography and sculptural decoration by Cyril Mango, Albrecht Berger and Sarah Bassett.37 More recently, the trajectories of both cities have been assessed in comparative studies, in particular by Raymond Van Dam, and Lucy Grig and Gavin Kelly who present a collection of essays on the Two Romes.3S Their focus is not only on the topography and politics of Rome and Constantinople, but also on the changing role and perceptions of both cities.

31 Humphries 2003; Machado 2006a; Chenault 2008; id. 2012; Weisweiler 2010; id. 2012a; id. 2012b. 32 Niquet 2000. 33 For the use of paganism as a Greco-Roman tradition in opposition to Christianity in the fourth century, see Beard, North and Price 1998: ix and 312. Other recent contributions are: Fraschetti 1999; Harris 1999; Smith 2000; Ensoli and La Rocca 2000; Curran 2000; Brandt e.a. 2003; Humphries 2007; Cameron 2011: 14-32. 34 Humphries 2007. 35 Tetrarchs: Coarelli 1986: 2-3; Rees 1993: 196-197; Curran 2000: 43-46; Mannell Noel 2003: 31; Bauer 2011; Maxentius: Cullhed 1994; Hekster 1999; Curran 2000: 54-69; Hunt 2002; Drijvers 2007a; Leppin and Ziemssen 2007; Ziemssen 2006; id. 2010b; id. 2011a; id. 2011b; id. 2012; Constantine: Curran 2000: 70-115; Hekster 1999; Hunt 2002; Holloway 2004; Marlowe 2004a; id. 2006; id. 2010; Constans: Henck 2001: 281-284; Valentinian dynasty: Niquet 2001; Humphries 2012. 36 Muth 2006; Diefenbach 2007; Behrwald 2007; Behrwald and Witschel 2012; Haug 2012. 37 Janin 1964; Dagron 1974; Mango 1985; id. 1993; Bauer 1996; Bassett 2004; Berger 2011. 38 Merriman 1980; Tadgell 1998; Ter Haar Romeny and Ameriv 2007; Van Dam 2010; Grig and Kelly 2012. 6 (iii) Rome and the Constantinian dynasty The relationship between the Roman emperor and his Capital city was complex and dynamic. Björn Ewald and Carlos Norena’s volume on the Emperor and Rome is the most recent study to explore the bond between the Augustus and the Urbs,39 Although the editors account for developments in the urban administration of Rome in a changing Empire, the essays address the changes of space, representation and ritual firom the reign of Augustus to Constantine. As in many of the monographs and case studies on the late-antique city of Rome, Constantine serves as an exemplary emperor to show the impact of imperial monarchy on the urban fabric and symbolic world of Rome. In John Curran’s reconstruction of the physical shape of the City, the city-Roman policy of individual emperors is connected to the personalities of the rulers and the social conditions of their time, with special attention to Constantine and his predecessor Maxentius.40 Constantine’s reaction to Maxentius’ policy expressed in his building activities has also been treated extensively by Olivier Hekster, David Hunt and Elizabeth Marlowe.41 The rich treatment of Constantine, however, contrasts strongly with poorer coverage of imperial patronage in Rome in the period afïter his death. Nick Henck and W. Eugene Kleinbauer have tried to identify Constantius as a “builder-emperor” by assessing his activities in various cities including Rome.42 The monumental topography and urban history under Constans have been more difficult to grasp. Literary sources about Roman building activities are sparse and the archaeological material is most complex for this period. The epigraphical data for Constans is scanty, partially because of the damnatio memoriae of Constans by Magnentius in the early 350s.43 On reflection, the relationship between Constantine’s sons and the city of Rome has not received its fair share of analysis. Several prosopographical studies have treated the period 337-361, but these focus foremost on the constitution of the senatorial body and the religiosity, origins and careers of the senatorial aristocracy.44 In the study by Benoist on the relationship of the emperor and Rome as expressed in adventus, Constantine’s fïnal visit in 326 is the fïnal ceremony to be discussed, leaving aside the fact that the last adventus of a member of the Constantinian dynasty took place in 357.45 Although this particular visit of Constantius to the City has in fact been treated elsewhere, the question of Constans’ possible presence in Rome has only received treatment in a short article by Barnes.46 Scholarship on the period after Constantine’s death often tums to the activities of the senators and bishops of the City in

39 Ewald and Norena 2010a. 40 Curran 2000: 70-115. 41 Hekster 1999; Hunt 2002; Marlowe 2004a; id. 2006; id. 2010. 42 Henck 2001; Kleinbauer 2006. 43 CIL VI 1655a-b and 40783A; VIII 7012-7013. Possibly also CIL VI 1721. 44Brown 1961; Haehling 1978; Kuhoff 1983; Barnes 1989b; id. 1992; id. 1994; id. 1995; Salzman 2002; Poglio 2007. 45 Benoist 2005. 46 Constans: Barnes 1975a: 330-333; Constantius: MacCormack 1972; Edbrooke 1976; Cameron 1989; Klein 1999; Schmidt-Hofner 2012. 7 encouraging public buildings and shaping the topography.47 Although scholars of both fields touch on the reigns of the Constantinian emperors, their analyses concentrate for the most part on the later fourth century. This is partly due to the preserved testimonies of the senator Symmachus, a significant spokesman from the senatorial network who interacted with the imperial court. When assessing the bishops’ growing responsibility for Rome’s govemance, the bishop Damasus is often the focal point as a patron of architecture and liturgical projects.48 To assess the degree to which Rome was an imperial Capital during the Constantinian dynasty, several distinctive aspects of the urban fabric, administration and interaction with important collectivities and actors of the city of Rome that were influenced by Constantine, Constans and Constantius are in need of fiirther exploration.

Sources For the historical and historiographical analysis of Constantinian Rome, I turn to a variety of literary (i) and non-literary (ii) sources. These include material sources, which offer primary witnesses in stone, metal and marble, such as archaeological remains, coinage and inscriptions. Their values and limitations will be discussed in this section.

(i) Literary sources For the rule of Constantine, the contemporary works of Lactantius, Eusebius and various Panegyrici Latini provide the main sources. Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum, dated between 313 and 316, is a harsh riposte to the persecution of Christians. Little is known about the life of this “Christian Cicero”. 49 His text is strongly biased as it is extremely condemnatory of Constantine’s adversaries, not in the least about their “Romfeme”.50 According to Lactantius, Constantine was acknowledged as the true emperor of Rome with great rejoicings by the senate and people.51 Eusebius of Caesarea, bom in the 260s in Palestine, was a biblical scholar and bishop of Caesarea from 313 onwards. He outlived Constantine only by a few years.52 Several theological and dogmatic treatises aside, Eusebius wrote extensively about the persona and achievements of Constantine, as well as his bond to Rome.53 The emperor is the main subject of the closing chapters of his Chronicon (ca. 325/326, later extended by Jerome),54 the

47 Curran 2000: 116-157; Trout 2003. 48 Curran 2000: 142-155; Trout 2003; Lizzi Testa 2004: 127-203; Diefenbach 2007: 222-242 and 289 - 329; id. 2012; Bowes 2008: 67-84; Saghy 2012. Cf. McLynn 2012. 49 Roberts and Donaldson 1902-1905: 7. 50 Lact. Mort.Pers. 7.10, 8.2-4, 17.1-3 and 26.2-3. See Behrwald 2009: 216-226. For the concept of “Romfeme”, see Flaig 1997: 23; Niquet 2001: 126. 51 Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.10-11. See also 45.1. 52 It has been reconstructed from the accounts of Socrates and Sozomen that Eusebius died just before Constantinus waged war against Constans. Soc. HE. 2.4; Soz. HE 3.2. 53 For Rome, see, among others: Eus. Triac. 2.5 and 9.8; VC 1.26, 1.39-40 and 4.69; HE 9.9.1-11 and 10.5.18-19. See Behrwald 2009: 226-236. 54 Rebenich 2002: 1-28 and 36-38; Vessey 2010. Historia Ecclesiastica (ca. 325/326), his tricennial orations on Constantine (335-336), and the Vita Constantini (ca. 339). The Historia Ecclesiastica made Eusebius the “father of Church History”.55 It was fïrst published around 313, but was updated to the period of Licinius’ death. Eusebius’ history would be continued and used by later ecclesiastical historians, such as Rufinus, Socrates and Sozomen.56 The climax of his account was the victory over the pagan religion and the conversion of Constantine.57 The Vita Constantini was a mixture of a lavish panegyric and a history of hagiographic nature. In this “imperial theology”, the supreme rule of Constantine embodied the icon of God’s autocracy. His work ended with the assumption that the Empire was ruled in harmony by Constantine’s three sons.58 Although Eusebius has been depicted as a courtier and councillor of Constantine, his encounters with the emperor appear to have been limited.59 He delivered several speeches to Constantine, but the letters from Constantine incorporated in Eusebius’ works offer no real indication for an intimate relationship, nor are there references to a long stay at the imperial court.60 The Panegyrici Latini, a corpus of eulogies on various late-antique emperors, capture their actions or moments of praise. For the early years of the Constantinian dynasty, the orations fill some of the lacunas caused by the loss of (parts of) historical writings.61 None of the Panegyrici Latini are directed to Constans and Constantius, although they are mentioned indirectly in their capacity as Caesares or in retrospect by Claudius Mamertinus in his eulogy to Julian.62 These speeches were not a late-antique phenomenon, but continued a Greek and Roman tradition of praise-discourse in which the deeds and character of the addressee were persuasively amplified and any flaws or imperfections curtailed.63 The value and limitations of the orations ought to be determined within their historical context and should definitely not be seen as official propaganda.64 The authorial independence of the panegyrists and their reaction to imperial absence from Rome will be discussed in Chapter 3.

55 Baur 1852: 9. 56 See infra. 57 Eus. HE 8.14 and 9.9. 5 8 E u s . VC 1.1.3-5 and 4.51-52. See Storch 1971: 145-155; Drake 1988: 20-38; Barnes 1989a; Breisaeh 1994: 81-82. 59 He witnessed Constantine for the fïrst time in the company of Diocletian in the early 300s during the emperor’s travels through Palestine (Eus. VC 1.19.1). It was only in 325, during the council of Nicaea, that Eusebius offïcially met Constantine in his capacity as bishop of Caesarea. During this stay in Nicaea, Constantine rehabilitated Eusebius who was accused of Arianism, a fact that Eusebius himself skips over when assessing the Council in his Vita Constantini. It was probably on this occasion that Constantine told him of his vision before the battle at the Milvian Bridge (Eus. VC 1.28.1). Other opportunities might have been at the Council of Nicomedia in December 327 (Eus. VC 3.23; Phil. HE 2.7), or at the trials against Athanasius in December 335 (Ath. Apol.Sec. 87.1) and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336 during the tricennalia of Constantine, both in Constantinople (Eus. VC 1.1.2). Cameron and Hall 2002: 204-205 also suggest the tricennalia in Constantinople as another occasion for the account of the vision. 60 Barnes 1981:265-267. 61 Warmington 1974; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 33-35. 62 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 36.1; 3 (11) 3.2. A fragmentary panegyric on papyrus was possibly directed to Constantine as well. For more details, see Barnes 1997. 63 Rees 2007; id. 2012a. 64 Mause 1994; Whitby 1998; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994; Rees 2002. 9 Besides this main body of authors, a group of “minor Latin historians” from the fourth century have addressed the rule of Constantine and his sons.65 Aurelius Victor is one of these excerptors, bom around 320. He claims to have been from humble origin, a pagan, and a native of Africa.66 His career in the imperial civil service culminated in his appointment as urban prefect of Rome in 389 under Theodosius.67 Victor’s Liber de Caesaribus, written around 360, treats the history of the emperors from Augustus to Constantius. In his history, he intended to pass judgement on rulers, evaluate regimes and make suggestions for improvement.68 He claims that he heard and read a large amount and considered his views with care.69 Flavius Eutropius was a contemporary of Victor. His Breviarium historiae Romanae, written a decade after Victor’s epitome, only just succeeds the rule of Constantius and ends with the accession of Valens in 364. His career is much debated, but as the court historian of Valens he moved in the highest circles.70 Around 379, Festus completed his Breviarium rerum gestarum populi Romani which also ends with the rule of Valens. However, his account traverses the Constantinian dynasty in two chapters of only a few sentences and fails to treat Constans at all. The writer of the Epitome de Caesaribus is another minor historian from the late fourth century. Like the works of Victor, Eutropius and Festus, the Epitome has a strongly moralistic tone with an emphasis on the ethical values, political institutional developments and military events of imperial rulers. In this way, they aimed to regulate the ethics of emperors and through them, mankind.71 The epitomators made use of a “common pool of information” from extant histories, epitomes and chronicles, combined with oral testimonies and their own perceptions.72 The epitomators, together with Eusebius, describe the direct aftermath of Constantine’s death, but it is fair to say that there is an uneven availability of literary sources which touch on the reigns of Constans and Constantius in comparison to their father.73 The reign of Constans is particularly badly documented in the extant contemporary sources. His characteristics are portrayed briefly by some of the epitomators when they describe his fatal overthrow by Magnentius in 350, but Festus does not mention him and the chapters by Ammianus Marcellinus on the emperor are lost.

65 Bonamente 2003: 91-99. “A minor Roman historian”: Den Boer 1972: ix. 66 For origin: Aur.Vict. Caes. 20.5. He speaks positively about the African province: Aur.Vict. 39.45 and 40.19. For his treatments on pagan practices and devotion, see, among others, Aur.Vict. 4.14, 9.4, 26.4, 28.2-11, 32.3-4, 34.3, 38.4 and 39.45. 67 Under the rule of Julian as Augustus, he was awarded the office of consularis Pannoniae Secundae (Amm.Marc. 21.10.6). CIL VI 1186. See Bird 1984: 5-15. Bird 1994 xxi. 69 Aur.Vict. Caes. 5.9 and 11.13. 70 Burgess 2001:76-81. 71 Dufraigne 1975: xxiii. 72 Nixon 1971: 330. 73 Praxagoras’ history of the reign of Constantine and the early years of his sons is excerpted by Photius; the annals of the historicus disertissimus Nicomachus Flavianus are now lost and it is uncertain which part of Rome’s history he addressed. 10 When it comes to the actions and policy of Constantius, Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian and Themistius are the most revealing contemporaries.74 Ammianus was bom around 330, probably in Antioch, but there has been controversy surrounding his place and date of birth75 and his religious affiliations.76 In the 350s, Ammianus served under Constantius and Julian on several campaigns.77 He probably arrived in Rome shortly after 380, encouraged by Hypatius, his friend and urban prefect from 378-379.78 There, the miles quondam et Graecus completed his Latin Rerum gestae after 390.79 His history commenced with the rule of Nerva but its first thirteen books are lost. The preserved section starts with events from 353 and finishes with the battle of Hadrianople and the death of Valens in August 378. This part appears to be much more extensive than the lost books. Ammianus treats the reign of Constantius (from 353 onwards) extensively and cross-references point to a significant treatment of Constantine and Constans in the lost books.80 It is believed that he used historical works for the books which treat history before his own generation, but for the events of Constantine social intercourse would have been his foremost source, combined with his own observations and reading.81 As a cousin of Constans and Constantius, Julian would be the last - and only pagan - ruling member of the Constantinian dynasty. He was bom in 332 in Constantinople and would soon come under the supervision of Constantius.82 He was appointed Caesar in November 355 in Milan. Early in 360, he was acclaimed Augustus. In the late 350s and early 360s, Julian wrote several works and letters in Greek, which often address his imperial predecessors and relatives, mostly Constantine and Constantius.83 For the latter, he wrote two orations in the late 350s before he was acclaimed Augustus in a rebellion. In these panegyrics, he mostly commended his imperial family members.84 However, Julian’s appraisal transforms around the time of brooding hostilities surrounding Constantius. After the latter’s death, his approach tums from flattery to vilification. In his satirical work, Caesares, in which he reviewed his imperial predecessors, Constantine and his sons were not spared.

74 DiMaio 1981. 75 Libanius describes a Marcellinus from Antioch coming to Rome (Lib. Ep. 1063). Antioch is, together with Rome, a recurring location of special interest in Ammianus’ narrative. Matthews 1989: 67-80; Bowersock 1990; Barnes 1993b: 57; Sabbah 2003: 54. 76 He shows an ambiguity and tolerance towards Christianity, and his paganism has been described as one that acknowledged and tried to reckon with the development of Christianity. Barnes 1993b: 57; Barnes 1998a; Harrison 1999: 187. 77 He first appears as protector domesticus in 354 in the East, which implies an early age and a short career before his service. His position as protector possibly lasted up to the reign of Valens and enabled travels throughout the Empire, from Milan and Nibisus to Cercesium and Antioch. He also visited Egypt and Thrace. Amm.Marc. 17.4.6,22.8.1 and 22.15.1. 78 Bames 1998b: 122. 79 Amm.Marc. 14.6.19 and 31.16.9. 80 Blockley 1975: 8-17; Frakes 1995; Warmington 1999. 81 Amm.Marc. 22.8.1. See Warmington 1999: 167. 82 Jul. Ep.ad.Ath. 270C-D. 83 His letter to the Senate and the People of Rome has not survived, nor have the manifestoes to Sparta and Corinth. For his correspondence with Rome, see Chapter 6, paragraph 3. 84 See, for example: Jul. Or. 1.2C, 4D, 5B-C, 7D-8B and 1.9A; Or. 2.52A, 53C-D, 73D-74C, 76A-77D and 95A-B. 11 Themistius, a philosopher and rhetorician contemporary with Constantius, delivered several speeches to the emperor in the 350s, and, favoured by Constantius, he was adlected to the Senate of Constantinople in 3 5 5.85 Using several recruitment measures, he contributed to enlarging the senatorial body of the city. Through his orations and correspondence with Libanius, one of the other leading rhetoricans of the fourth century, we gain insight into the imperial policy and court life at the time of Constantius.86 Later Byzantine historians such as Zosimus and Zonaras and several ecclesiastical historians from the fifth century cover the Constantinian decades and help to reconstruct details and events. Zosimus probably wrote his Historia Nova in the fïrst decades of the sixth century. A firm pagan, his key theme is the decline of paganism and the barbarisation of the Empire.87 He treats several political and military tuming points during the reigns of Constantine and his sons. For his history, he made extensive use of the work of Eunapius of Sardis, a pagan intellectual from the fourth century. The twelfth-century epitomist Zonaras recounts events from the Constianinian era in his Epitome Historiarum, Consulting various extant and lost works. The ecclesiastical historians Rufïnus, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, continuing the work of Eusebius, wrote their Ecclesiastical Histories in the fifth century. Although political events and affairs are not their primary focus, at times they provide unique details.88 There are numerous other works that inform us about developments in Rome under Constantinian rule. The Chronographus anni 354 provides several useful records of the emperors’ actions, city-Roman officials and events up to 354.89 The Notitia Urbis Romae regionum XIV is a mid-fourth-century source for the administrative structure of the City and lists the buildings and landmarks in the various regiones of Rome.90 The Codex Theodosianus gives insight into the imperial pronouncements issued by Constantine and his sons and provides documentary evidence about the whereabouts of the emperors.91 The Notitia Dignitatum is a valuable though incomplete source for understanding the military and civil hierarchy of late-antique magistracies.92 The reports of Symmachus, prefect of Rome in 384, treat the diplomatic interaction between the highest official of Rome with the distant emperor in the late fourth century, as well as the status and functions connected to the urban prefecture.93 The Liber Pontificalis, a collection of Latin biographies of the bishops of Rome from the sixth century, provides some useful and in several instances unique information about church foundations and endowments by emperors. There are, however, indisputable

85 Vanderspoel 1995: 1-30; Heather and Moncur 2001: 1-41. 86 Liebeschuetz 1972: 1-39. 87 Ridley 1982: xi-xv. 88 Chestnut 1978. On Rufïnus: Amidon 1997: vii-xviii; Philostorgius: DiMaio 1981; Sozomen: Leppin 1996; Urbainczyk 1997b; Socrates: Leppin 1996; Urbainczyk 1997a; id. 1997b; Theodoret: Chestnut 1981; Leppin 1996; Urbainczyk 2002: 3-64. 89 Stem 1953: 7-12; Salzman 1990; Behrwald 2009: 201-205. 90 Behrwald 2009: 185-211. 91 Harries and Wood 1993: xvii-xxii. 92 Seeck 1876; Mann, Goodbum and Bartholomew 1976; Kulikowski 2000; Behrwald 2009: 192-211. 93 Barrow 1973: 1-24. 12 manipulations and errors in some of the Vitae of fourth-century bishops, which have been partly revealed after recent archaeological excavations of the terrains of various churches. In particular, dates conceming patronage show a tendency to enlarge Constantine’s activity, in a clear attempt to stress his Christianity.94 This enumeration is far from complete: besides the body of authors and texts treated above which provide the main narrative source material, numerous other written sources enlighten us by passing on details of Rome’s emperors and the City’s political role, inhabitants, social structure and religious affairs.

(ii) Material sources Archaeological remains The remains of Roman architecture and infrastructure are a vital source for examining the physical setting of Rome and the involvement of emperors and other patrons in shaping the urban fabric.95 The location, dimensions and functions of buildings can reflect the value of Rome’s topography within the emperor’s ideology. The dating of archaeological remains and attributions to certain eras or emperors is made partly on the basis of masonry structures, brickstamps and other inscriptions, although these means of determination can be problematic.96 Excavations (which are still ongoing) help to examine the political, cultural and religious messages inscribed in the projects of imperial (re)building in the City.97 These archaeological projects have culminated in specialised studies of individual monuments or cityscapes, as well as in the latest addition to the genre of the topographical dictionary, the Lexicon Topographicum Urbis Romae (LTUR). This provides historians, art historians and archaeologists of Rome with an indispensable guide to the City’s topography. In addition, various data resources lead to continuing revisions, as digital reconstructions of Rome’s urban landscape visualise the effect of building policy.98 They help reconstruct the topography and public architecture as an instrument or reflection of imperial policy. However, one should not always personalise the role of the emperor in very large projects. As we shall see, in the emperor’s absence, the role of caretaker was taken over by the urban prefect. Aside from buildings, statuary was another monumental medium for propaganda. In the centre of power but also outside it, portraits and statues of rulers were disseminated and exhibited." Like coinage, they were used to introducé and immortalise the emperor to his subjects, glorifying his person as well as his rule. A damnatio memoriae such as that of

94 Davis 1989: i-xl; Blair-Dixon 2007. 95 See App. 2, fig. 1 for a map of Rome in Late Antiquity. 96 Masonry structures: Heres 1982; brickstamps: Bloch 1968; Steinby 1986. See infra for inscriptions. 97 See, among others: Baiani and Ghilardi 2000; Filippi 2001; Egidi, Filippi and Martone 2010; Meneghini and Santangeli 2010. 98 Haselberger and Humprey 2006. Examples are the Digital Roman Forum and Colosseum from the UCLA Cultural VR Lab, the research unit ATH at the University of Virginia, and the project Visualizing Statues in the Late-antique Roman Forum at the UCLA. See Byzantium 1200 for a digital reconstruction of sites in Constantinople. 99 Bruun 1975: 124. 13 Maxentius under Constantine or that of Constans under Magnentius provided proof of the power of statuary. Sculptural decoration in Rome during the Constantinian dynasty was considerable, both in number and dimension. Besides statuary of the emperors, magistrates (and historical and mythological figures) were also honoured. The database attached to the ‘Last Statues of Antiquity’ project at the University of Oxford has documented not only inscriptional evidence from statue bases, but also (fragments) of statues, as well as textual references to statuary, supplying a valuable research tooi. Besides a rich collection of inscriptions, several imperial portraits have survived, though none can be associated with the epigraphic evidence with certainty. Leading studies and catalogues of late-antique portraits are offered by Hans Peter L’Orange and Richard Delbrueck.100 More recent scholarship has focused on the re-use, transformation and damnatio memoriae of sculpted portraiture in Late Antiquity.101 Asserting the extent of building activity in the city of Rome, however, is not without problems, as archaeological remains are not always datable to specific years or reigns, nor can they always be attributed to a specific patron. Tendentious or contaminated literary sources have distorted the true contribution of imperial builders.

Coinage Another indispensable source for this research is the numismatic material from the Constantinian age. As a propagandistic medium, it is even more widespread and dynamic than monuments. The right - or the power - to mint implied the authority to present the ruler and his ambitions through coinage. Not only does it reflect the hierarchical relations between rulers, but their effïgies gave the emperors a face for their subjects.102 The legends were universally circulating formulas which expressed the political developments and the ideology of the emperor. Constantine and his sons all acknowledged the possibilities and advantages that this medium provided and were in the possession of several officinae. Under Constantine, the mint of Rome was for a long time the most influential. After 330, this status gradually shifted to Constantinople. The coinage of the emperors displays their choices, aspirations and achievements and will be particularly useful when reconstructing their political statements and alliances, itineraries, and the role of Roma in imperial propaganda.1031 have tumed to the Roman Imperial Coinage (RIC) as the main reference work, combined with more specialised

100 L’Orange 1933; id. 1984; Delbrueck 1933. See also Von Sydow 1969; Calza 1972; Evers 1991; id. 1992; Ensoli 2000. 101 Hannestad 1994; Kinney 1997; Vamer 2000; id. 2004; Prusac 2011; id. 2012. 102 King 1999. 103 Political statements and alliances: among others: Bruun 1961; id. 1999b; Sutherland 1963; Grünewald 1990; Levick 1999; imperial itineraries: among others: Bruun 1961: 102-104; id. 1966: 76-78; Barnes 1982: 68-87; id. 1993a: 218-228; Roma in imperial propaganda: among others: AlfÖldi 1947; Toynbee 1947; Bühl 1995; id. 1996; Behrwald 2009: 36-45. 14 short studies by Harold Mattingly, Patrick Bruun, Carol Sutherland and John Kent (the compilers of the R IC )}04

Inscriptions Inscriptions constitute a third valuable body of material evidence. They partly support the reconstruction of the topography of a city to date and identify monuments, but their texts and presentation are also useful for research into the interaction between rulers and subjects. Epigraphic material, though restricted by partial recovery, offers multiple opportunities for investigation: consecrational inscriptions and brickstamps complete the reconstruction of building programmes of patrons; the titulature on bases shows the status quo and relations between rulers as well as the cursus honorum of officials in the emperor’s service; the epigraphic phrases, functioning as propagandistic banners, propagate the ideology of the emperor for his subjects and cities; and dedications further attest the status, acts and achievements of honorands, both imperial and official. The inscriptions of (Constantinian) Rome are largely compiled in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL), with concordances and supplementary material in the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (ILS) and l ’Année épigraphique (AE). Several studies assess the possibilities and limitations of inscriptional data, as well as their value for the field of prosopography, and the epigraphic context of monuments or the reuse of inscriptions.105 * The rich and multifaceted data from literary and material sources are revealing and problematic in their own ways. The limitations of this diverse and often dubious and fragmentary corpus should be considered when addressing the sources for the reconstruction of Constantinian Rome which follows. Yet it is the comparison and confrontation of these sources that help to confirm, correct or nuance information and interpretations of the rule of Constantine’s dynasty, the state of Rome and their relations to the City.

104 R1C: Bruun 1966; Sutherland 1967; Kent 1981; specialized studies: Mattingley 1933; Bruun 1958; id. 1961; id. 1991a; id. 1997; 1999a; Kent 1967. See also Koep 1958; Bühl 1995. 105 Historical and technical overview: Giersiepen and Bayer 1995; values and limitations: Bodel 2001; Cooley 2012; Feraudi-Gruénais 2010; possibilities of epigraphic studies for historical sciences: Davies and Wilkes 2012; propographical possibilities: Eek 1996; id. 2002; id. 2009; Mennen 2011: esp. 12-13; titulature: Grünewald 1990; Weisweiler 2012a; id. 2012b; brickstamps: Bloch 1968; Steinby 1986; dedications: Rüpke 2006; Weisweiler 2012a; id. 2012b; monumental context: Niquet 2000; AlfÖldy and Panciera 2001; senatorial self-display: Niquet 2000; memorial epigraphy: Eek 2002; Orlandi 2012; Witschel 2012; epigraphical spolia: Coates-Stephens 2002. 15 Design This study is divided into four parts. Starting with the historical context {part one), an introductory chapter (Chapter 1) pro vides the chronological framework of the study. Based on an examination of literary accounts, inscriptions and coins, this section presents an overview of Constantine’s struggle to power and his subsequent efforts to legitimise his rule and construct a dynasty that would rule Rome for half a century. During Constantine’s thirty-year reign, dynastie claims prevailed over Tetrarchic recognition or alliances with usurpers as a powerfül prerogative for imperial rule. With his programmatic pursuit of dynasticism, Constantine claimed Rome as its true emperor. In subsequent years, this policy had to safeguard the Empire from intemal strife and culminated in the shared, but often disharmonious leadership of his sons over the Empire after his passing. The next three parts constitute the main narrative of this study and cover the relationship between the Roman emperor and the city of Rome during Constantinian times in terms of presence, patronage and politics. Part two focuses on imperial praesentia in Rome, approached from two perspectives. In the first chapter of this part (Chapter 2), I discuss the imperial itineraries, and in particular the dates, circumstances and reception of the attested imperial visits to Rome during the rule of the Constantinian dynasty. Late-antique imperial itineraries can be reconstructed fairly precisely from calendar-recordings, laws, literary references, coinage, inscriptions and monumental art.106 Chronicling much more than the emperors’ movements, actual visits and their characteristics have been charted on the basis of these types of evidence.107 As emperors often resided at centres closer to the frontiers from the third century onwards, the occasional presence of an emperor in Rome marked a unique event. The decision or desire to visit Rome is an indication of the emperor’s attachment and relations to the City. It created opportunities for interaction between the emperor and the senate and people of Rome, each with their own agenda and ambitions in mind.1081 treat the visits of Constantine in 312, 315 and 326 and the visit of Constantius in 357. The section on Constans investigates the historical probability of a visit on his part which is a matter of controversy among scholars. In Chapter 3 ,1 turn to the perceptions on imperial absence and presence in Rome from a particular source, the Latin imperial panegyrics. These orations had to laud the achievements and actions of emperors, but the relations between the distant emperors and Rome were a sore spot, and were addressed in prose and verse in a non-provocative, laudatory fashion. Part three charts the monumental patronage under Constantine, Constans and Constantius. The imperial programme of building in Rome, often supervised and executed by the urban prefects in the emperors’ absence, is investigated in Chapter 4. As heirs of Tetrarchic and Maxentian Rome, their building programmes demand a review of Rome’s

106 The movements of Constantine, Constans and Constantius have been reconstructed by Seeck 1919: 159- 209; Bruun 1961: 102-104; id. 1966: 76-78; Dagron 1974: 77-82; Bames 1982: 68-87; id. 1993a: 218-228. 107 Koeppel 1969; MaeCormack 1972; Bames 1975a; Lehnen 1997; Demandt 1998; Benoist 2005: 25-101. 108 MaeCormack 1972 sets out the scope and significance of the act of an adventus in Late Antiquity. 16 fabric and imperial building policy from the late third century onwards. In particular, I turn to the degree and motives of direct or indirect patronage by the emperors and their City-based officials, and to its impact on the configuration of Rome’s urban image and the perceptions of its residents. The patronage under the Constantinian dynasty in Rome cannot be studied in isolation, but has to be set against the monumental development of the emerging rival Capital Constantinople. The patronage in Constantinople, the new city of Constantine in the East, will be treated in Chapter 5 in order to properly assess and compare the imperial building policy in both capitals. Part four considers the ways in which the emperors interacted and communicated with the Senate, the body of upper-class agents within the late Roman imperial society. Chapter 6 investigates the appointment policies and political-institutional measures and initiatives directed to the Senate, and the urban prefecture in particular in Rome. Using a comparative perspective, I will examine the political trajectory of Constantinople in Chapter 7, by focusing on the foundation and development of its Senate and bureaucracy as a parallel for Rome’s administration. As the fïnal chapter, Chapter 8 traces the implications of the imperial city-Roman policy for the senatorial aristocracy in presence, patronage and politics. This part will entail an interpretation of changing and divergent practices of the senatorial city-Roman élite in Late Antiquity, listing relevant documented individuals, actions and events that articulate the range and depth of aristocratie ideological activity. In particular, it will focus on the motives driving senatorial interaction with the absent emperor, and the ways in which this allowed the Senate to participate in high imperial politics and display their power in the City. The study closes with a conclusion which will pull the strands of all eight chapters together, reflecting on the the role of the city of Rome in imperial politics and representations of power during the reigns of Constantine, Constans and Constantius.

PART ONE PROLOGUE

CHAPTER 1 THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DYNASTY

1.1 Designatus Imperii? (306)

According to the anonymous panegyrist of 310, Constantine ‘entered this sacred palace, not as a candidate for emperor, but as Emperor designate’.1 Indeed, as the son of Constantius Chlorus, Augustus of the West, Flavius Valerius Constantinus had a worthy and exclusive lineage.2 Yet, his descent did not assure him of an imperial career.3 The Tetrarchic system was not based on dynastie principles, but foremost on the Augusti adopting competent and congenial or compliant leaders for the position of Caesar. After the abdication and retirement of Diocletian and Maximian Herculius in 305, Galerius, the new Augustus, together with Constantius, disregarded Constantine as candidate for the Tetrarchic college and opted for Severus and Maximinus Daia.4 The formal exclusion of hereditary succession cannot be verified, and therefore Constantine might well have been considered by Galerius as a nominee for the second Tetrarchy, and with good credentials. Bom no later than the early 280s, he had certainly reached maturity in 305.5 Besides Maxentius, the son of the retired Augustus Maximian, he was the only imperial son of age. Galerius’ son, Candidianus, was an infant at the time, and Constantine’s half-brothers Flavius Dalmatius, Julius Constantius and Hannibalianus from the union of Constantius and his second wife Theodora, were in their teens.6 Furthermore, Constantine’s lengthy stay and training at the courts of Diocletian and Galerius and his military record made him a fit candidate for rule.7

1 Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 4.1. 2 For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 3 Bueno de Mesquita e.a. 2003: 44 and 51. 4 Lact. Mort.Pers. 18.12-13. See Rees 2004: 3-12; Corcoran 1996: 6-7. 5 Anon.Vales. Origo 2.2. Although the youthful age of Constantine at the time of imperial accession has been praised in coinage (Princeps iuventutis) and panegyrics, his exact year of birth is unknown. Ancient and modem estimations range from 272 to 288. Early 270s: Eus. VC 1.5-9 and 4.53; late 280s: Princeps iuventutis: RIC VI 202-204 (Treveri) 615 and 625; 130 (Londinium) 97; Firm.Mat. Math. 1.10.13. Constantine’s impressive military career makes a birth date of around the year 280 the most plausible. The oldest dating stems from Eusebius, who proposes 273 as he compared the age and reign of Constantine with those of Alexander the Great. The propagated youthfulness on coinage was official propaganda instigated by Constantine himself. For modem authors, see: Syme 1974: 237; Barnes 1982: 39-40; id. 2011 : 2-4; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 195. 6 Candidianus was bom around 296: Lact. Mort.Pers. 20.4. See PLRE1 178 s.v. Candidianus 1. Constantius had probably married Theodora, the daughter of Maximian, shortly before 21 April 289 (Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 11.4) and also had three daughters: Constantia, Anastasia and Eutropia. PLRE I 58 s.v. Anastasia 1; 221 s.v. Constantia 1; 316 s.v. Eutropia 2; 895 s.v. Theodora 1. For Constantius’ sons, see: PLRE I 226 s.v. Iulius Constantius 7; 240-241 s.v. Fl. Dalmatius 6; 407 s.v. Hannibalianus 1. For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 7 He was appointed by Diocletian as tribunus primi ordinis: Lact. Mort.Pers. 18.10; Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 5.3 and 6 (7) 3.3. For his military campaigns: Anon.Vales. Origo 2.2; Const. Orat.a.sanct. 16.2 (Egypt and Mesopotamia); Eus. VC 1.19 (Palestina); Zonar. 12.33; Lact. Mort.Pers. 24.4; Anon.Vales. Origo 2.3; Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 6.2 (Sarmatians). 21 Several sources mention Constantine leaving the court of Galerius after his exclusion from the second Tetrarchy. He was either summoned by Constantius to Bononia or left to join his father on his own initiative, frustrated that his political ambitions had been tampered with.8 In the same year, Constantius launched a war in northem Britain against the Picts, in which Constantine participated.9 On 25 July 306, a few months after the victory that made him Britannicus maximus II, Constantius died in York, in the presence of his son. Directly following the death of his father, Constantine expressed his dynastie claims for power. As was probably designed by Constantius himself, Constantine was declared Augustus by succession by his father’s army troops and entourage.10 According to Lactantius, Constantine abided to the protocol for gaining the desired recognition from the remaining Tetrarchs.11 Galerius, senior-Augustus of the East, acknowledged him as the lawful successor of his father, but degraded him to the rank of Caesar}2 Severus, the Caesar of the West, was raised to the rank of Augustus in his stead.13 Now Caesar, Constantine ruled the territories of Gallia, Viennensis, Britannia and Hispania, a diocese gained by Constantius shortly before. After initial expressions of loyalty, he opted for a restrictive attitude towards his imperial peers Galerius, Severus and Maximinus Daia. Constantine coined for his co-emperors through bare courtesy and extant dedications from his realm seem to corroborate this reserve.14 Moreover, he operated outside the confines

8 Summoning by Constantius: Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 7.1; Lact. Mort.Pers. 24.3; Anon.Vales. Origo 2.2 and 2.4; own initiative: Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.2-4; Epit. de Caes. 41.2-3; Zos. 2.8.2-3. 9 Anon.Vales. Origo 2.4; Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 7.1; RIC V I 128 (Londinium) 73. 10 Lact. Mort.Pers. 24.8. According to Zosimus (2.9.1) and the Anonymus Valesianus (Origo 2.4), he was acclaimed Caesar, not Augustus. See also Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 4 and 17.4; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.4; Epit. De Caes. 41.3; Eus. VC 1.21. Kuhoff 2001: 797. 11 Lact. Mort.Pers. 25.1. Grünewald 1990: 13. 12 Lact. Mort.Pers. 25.5: ...de secundo loco (...) in quartum. See also Lact. Mort.Pers. 25.3; Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 5.3; (among others) RIC VI 128-130 (Londinium) 66, 67b, 79, 82 and 92; 207-214 (Treveri) 661b, 679- 680, 724 and 750; 255-259 (Lugdunum) 189, 211, 233 and 236. Constantine’s recognition came swiftly, if one considers the coinage from Rome, Ticinum, Aquileia and Carthago, mint-cities of Severus, before they were taken over by Maxentius. Between July and October 306, Constantine was honoured as Constantinus Nob(ilissimo) Caes(ari), after which Maxentius was raised to power and disassociated himself from the Tetrarchic conventions. Recognition by Severus: RIC VI 290-293 (Ticinum) 63b, 70b, 71-72, 75-79 and 82-83; 323 (Aquileia) 82b, 83, 84b, 85, 86b, 91-91, 92b, 93, 94b, 95-97, 98b and 100b; 371 (Rome) 159b and 160; 429 (Carthago) 44b; Galerius: RIC VI 472-477 (Siscia) 152, 173c, 180b, 184c and 186b; 496-497 (Serdica) 20 and 26; 534 (Heraclea) 31; 559-561 (Nicomedia) 42, 45 and 49b; 583 (Cyzicus) 24b; Maximinus: RIC VI 673-675 (Alexandria) 63 and 85; 628 (Antiochia) 87b and 94b (only from mid 308). See also CILIII 6633, 12121 and 12316; XII 5516 = XVII/2 106. 13 For Severus as Caesar: Lact. Mort.Pers. 18.12 and 19.4; Cons.Const. s.a. 304; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 304; Anon.Vales. Origo 3.5 and 4.9; Eutr. Brev. 10.2; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.6; Epit. de Caes. 40.1; Zos. 2.8.1; for Severus proclaimed Augustus'. Lact. Mort.Pers.25.5; CIL III 6633; RIC VT 127-128 (Londinium) 40, 46 and 52c; 207 (Treveri) 651A, 652c, 653c, 654, 657c and 658b; 255 (Lugdunum) 186c; 292-293 (Ticinum) 73, 81; 322 (Aquileia) 76b, 77b, 78b, 79b, 80b and 81b; 371 (Rome) 158b; 429 (Carthago) 43b; 475-476 (Siscia) 175, 176c, 177c, 178b, 179c; 496-497 (Serdica) 16, 17, 18b, 21 and 24; 534 (Heraclea) 30; 584 (Cyzicus) 25b, 27b and 31b; 672-675 (Alexandria) 62 and 84. For the new order within the imperial college, seeBCTH 1914, 312. 14 Sutherland 1967: 159. See, among others: RIC VI 128-129 (Londinium) 78, 83-84, 86 and 88a-89a; 205- 212 (Treveri) 635, 637, 661a, 665a-b, 667a-b, 668a-b, 669a, 689-690, 708 and 773a; 256-259 (Lugdunum) 203-205, 226-227 and 232. For dedications, see, among others: CIL VII 1147, 1154, 1155 and 1188; XII 5566 = XVII/2 178; XII 5670 = XVII/2 296; X II5881; AE 1981: 546. 22 of Tetrarchic politics-decorum by appropriating the preposition pius in his imperial formula. From the reign of Commodus onwards, this epithet had been reserved for adjectival modifiers of Augusti, not Caesares,15 All Tetrarchic Caesares refrained from using pius, except for Constantine. Furthermore, through his supposedly tolerant attitude towards the local Christian communities in Gaul and his acceptance of Gallic bishops as an official party, he openly distanced himself from the other Tetrarchs, who pursued an anti-Christian policy.16 Constantine thus derived his legitimacy not primarily from Tetrarchic recognition and their strived concordia imperii, but from his own imperial pedigree. His descent became his first claim to power. He showed his pietas17 towards his deceased father in his consecratio- coinage, inscriptions and with the adoption of the GENIUS POPULI ROMANI motif, prevalent in Constantius’ numismatic programme.18 Aside from these means of propaganda, he adopted his father’s main residence in Trier, a city that had become an imperial centre in the western provinces and had received a mint in 293 under Constantius. From there, Constantine prolonged the political line set up by his father. He spent his first years consolidating his rule over the realm he inherited. He continued warfare against the Franks, twice culminating in the title Germanicus Maximus, and he secured the Rhine frontier and crossed to Britain.19

15 See, among others: CIL VII 1147, 1154 and 1155; XIII 9130 = XVII/2 546. See Hammond 1957; Kolb 1987: 85. 16 According to Lactantius (Mort.Pers. 24.9), Constantine aimed ‘to restore the Christians to the exercise of their worship’ from the start of his reign. It has been proposed that he continued his father’s lenient attitude towards the Christian community. Constantius’ naming of his children Anastasius and Anastasia could be explained as Christian reverence. Barceló 1988: 80, 84 and 90; Sordi 1983: 128. For Constantine’s relationship with the Gallic bishops, see Eek 2007; Slootjes 2011: 112. See also Drake 2000; Stephenson 2010: 256-278. 17 Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 5.1; Eus. HE 8.13.14. See Grünewald 1990: 18-25; Rees 2004: 59-71. n DIVO CONSTANTIO PIO, MEMOR1A FELIX: RIC VI 132 (Londinium) 110; 218 (Treveri) 789-790; 262 (Lugdunum) 266-269. See also 261 (Lugdunum) 251. For inscriptions, see, among others: CIL VII 1147, 1154 and 1188; X II667, 5566 = XVII/2 178; X II5584 = XVII/2 190; XII 5881; X III9130; AE 1963: 95; 1981: 546; GENIUS POPULI ROMANI, see, among others: RIC VI 128-129 (Londinium) 66, 67b, 71- 73, 79, 88b and 89b; 207-213 (Treveri) 661b, 662-663, 665c-666, 670, 691, 718, 719b and 737; 255-259 (Lugdunum) 189, 194b-196,198, 199c, 211, 220b-223,231, 233 and 235-236. Sutherland 1963: 18. 19 Franks: Eutr. Brev. 10.3; Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 4.2, 6 (7) 10, 12.1 and 13; 4 (10) 16.5-18.6; RIC VI 221-223 (Treveri) 811, 819 and 824; VII 124 (Lugdunum) 28; 166-167 (Treveri) 27-33 and 38; 363-365 (Ticinum) 28, 33, 34, 37 and 40; Rhine frontier: Riese 1914: 39 nr. 308; Cüppers 1969: 188; Hollstein 1980: 74; Baatz 1977: 175-176; Barnes 1976a: 150; Britain: Eus. VC 1.25; RIC VI 129-135 (Londinium) 82 and 133-145. See Barnes 1976a: 150-151; id. 1976b: 192. Cf. Amaldi 1977a: 192-195. 23 1.2 Constantine, Maximian and Maxentius - Imperatores semper Herculii (307-310)

Constantine’s independent placement within the Tetrarchy would be intensified by developments in the realm of Severus several months later. On 28 October 306, Maxentius, the other imperial son of age, became emperor of Rome. He claimed the city as well as other parts of the Italian peninsula and Africa, i.e. all territory belonging to the Augustus Severus. The Tetrarchs rejected Maxentius’ coup and his regime. To strengthen his position, Maxentius joined forces with his father, who had been compelled by Diocletian to jointly lay down the imperial office in 305. Maximian seized this opportunity to have his power reinvested and resumed his title of Maximian Herculius, the signum that honoured the genius Hercules, to whom his house was dedicated.20 Together with Maxentius, he called on Constantine as a strategie ally in their struggle against the Tetrarchs.21 In the course of 307, an official rapprochement was realised between the three. Maximian, on seniority the auctor imperii, acknowledged Constantine’s authority and recalled him again to the Augustean rank.22 After this alliance, Constantine changed his consular partner from Galerius to Maximian for the last months of 307.23 Undoubtedly, the relative placidity in Constantine’s own realm had fostered this partnership, as had his wish for territorial or nominal expansion.24 Dynastie links might have formed another motivation for Constantine’s benevolence towards a concordia perpetua, as was propagated on a bronze series for Constantine and Maximian from Lugdunum.25 Through his father, Constantine was the grandson of Maximian. As Caesar within Maximian’s realm, Constantius had become his adoptive son and his marriage with Maximian’s daughter Theodora had made him his son-in- law as well.26 During the same ceremony of the Augustean acclamation, most likely held in Trier or Arles, Constantine wedded Maximian’s daughter Fausta.27 She was not Constantine’s first spouse. The panegyric presented to Maximian and Constantine on this double occasion mentions a previous marriage with Minervina, who bore him his first son, the later Caesar

20 For the Herculean, and Jovean House, see Lact. Mort.Pers. 8.1; Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 7.5-7. See Nock 1947; Kolb 1987: 88-114. 21 Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.7; Eutr. Brev. 10.2. Rees 2004: 79-80. 22 Lact. Mort.Pers. 27.1; Pan.Lat 1 (6). Several dates have been proposed: 31 March, the birthday of Constantius Chlorus (Jones 1978: 60); a date in the late summer of 307 (Barnes 1981: 31); or 25 December, the dies natalis solis (Bruun 1991a: 81-95 and Grünewald 1990: 26 and 163-165). According to Bruun, the latter date would then temporarily become Constantine’s new dies imperii. Bruun’s hypothesis seems invalid, since it would negate the legitimacy of the first eighteen months of his reign. See Barnes 2011: 64. For this new title, union and reciprocal recognition in inscriptions and coinage, see irfra. 23 Bagnall 1987: 148-149. 24 Grünewald 1990: 25. 25 Two emperors stand facing each other, clasping hands and leaning on a sceptre. RIC V I261 (Lugdunum) 249-250. See also CONCORDIA FELIXDD NN, coined for Constantine, Maximian and Galerius: RIC VI 261 (Lugdunum) 246-248. 26 Pan.Lat. 10(2) 11.4. 27 For the location, see Chapter 2, paragraph 1; for the wedding, see Lact. Mort.Pers. 27.1; Pan.Lat. 1 (6). 24 Crispus.28 She was of unknown origin and parentage and had probably died before 307.29 Constantine’s second wife Fausta was certainly high-bom and with this matrimony, he strengthened his membership of the Hereulean House. In the eulogy of 307, the - expectedly lasting - alliance between the imperatores semper Herculii was celebrated:

For what more precious thing could you give, or you receive, since with this marriage alliance of yours, Maximian, your youth has been renewed for you through your son-in-law, while you, Constantine, have been enhanced by the name of Emperor through your father-in-law? And so we give you the most heartfelt thanks in the public name, etemal princes, because in rearing children and wishing for grandchildren you are providing for all future ages by extending the succession of your posterity, so that the Roman state, once shaken by the disparate characters and fates of its rulers, may at last may be as immortal as the offspring of its Emperors is perpetual.30

Even in this coalition of three, Constantine maintained a strategy of independence, as can be deduced from coinage. Constantine integrated Maximian and Maxentius in his numismatic programme only on a small scale. Small silver and bronze issues for Maximian and limited bronze series for Maxentius were struck in Treveri and Lugdunum.31 Constantine’s bare courtesy-coinage contrasted heavily with the rich mintage he received from the central mints in the fïrst months of Maxentius’ reign.32 Until the autumn of 307, he shared the golden series HERCULI COMITIA UGG ET CAESS NN from the city-Roman mint with Maxentius.33 This dynastie deity was absent from all three Constantinian mints. In contrast, Mars had a

28 For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 29 The Epitomator and Zosimus call her a concubine which would rule out a lawfiil contract. If this is the case, Crispus would be illegitimate. Her low origins are not mentioned by the eulogist of 307. It is possible that he upgraded what was a simple affair (resulting in the production of offspring) in Constantine’s early manhood to a matrimonium out of flattery. However, defamation of Minervina by the Epitomator and Zosimus is more likely, inspired by their hostility towards Constantine. Her absence on coinage, dedications and forms of art might be explained by her death taking place before Constantine had become emperor and was allowed to employ official propaganda. Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 4.1; Epit. de Caes. 41.4; Zos. 2.20.2; Zonar. 13.2.1. See Barnes 1982: 43. For Crispus, see Pohlsander 1984: 80-82. 30 Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 2.1-2: Quid enim aut tu carius dare aut tu carius potuisti, cum hac adfinitate uestra et tibi, Maximiane, per generum iuuenta renouata sit et tibi, Constantine, per socerum nomen imperatoris accreuerit? Maximas itaque uobis, aetemi prinicipes, publico nomine gratias agimus, quod suscipiendis liberis optandisque nepotibus seriem uestri generis prorogando omnibus in futurum saeculis prouidetis, ut Romana res olim diuersis regentium moribus fatisque iactata tandem perpetuis domus uestrae radicibus conualescat, tamque sit immortale illius imperium quam sempitema suboles imperatorum. See also Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 14.1-2. For imperatores semper Herculii, see Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 2.5. 31 For Maximian: RIC 216-217 (Treveri) 761-762, 766-769 and 772b; 260-264 (Lugdunum) 237, 246, 249, 253, 262, 276, 281, 288, 290 and 292; for Maxentius: 217 (Treveri) 772c; 261-262 (Lugdunum) 256 and 274. 32 As Caesar. RIC V I 293 (Ticinum) 87-88; 324-325 (Aquileia) 107-112 and 117; 368-377 (Rome) 139, 142, 150-151, 154-155, 160, 164, 196, 200 and 203; 430-432 (Carthago) 48c, 49, 51c, 55, 58 and 61; as Augustus: RIC V I294-295 (Ticinum) 90, 93, 98 and 99; 326 (Aquileia) 120 and 121c; 376 (Rome) 197 and 201. 33 RIC VI 367-369 (Rome) 137-139 and 147. 25 prevalent position in his numismatic programme.34 From his rise to power in 306, Constantine’s issues were dominated by his own name and effigy, using disceming legends such as PRINCEPS IUVENTUTIS, VIRTUS PERPETUA CONSTANTINI AUG(USTI) and CONSTANTINO P(IO) AUG(USTO) B(ONO) R(EI) P(UBLICAE) NAT(0).35 Constantine’s independent position also seems to be supported by the lack of dedications to Maxentius within his realm. For Maximian, some twenty milestones from the Gauls and Spain have been preserved.36 The later damnationes memoriae of Maxentius and Maximian, however, render an analysis of the epigraphical recognition by Constantine more diffïcult.37 Dedications to Constantine stemming from Maxentius’ territory are also scarce.38 All known inscriptions and coinage from Maxentius for Constantine predate late 307. As coinage from Maxentius’ realm demonstrates the recognition of Constantine, one would expect dedications to Constantine to have existed in the Italian peninsula, but no inscriptions from Italia are extant. The panegyrist Nazarius partly accounts for this absence when describing Maxentius’ warmongering:

Behold, for sorrow! (words come with difficulty), the violent overthrow of venerable statues and the ugly erasure of the divine visage.39

Constantine showed his inconstancy towards the imperatores Herculii soon after his promotion and marriage, when Galerius launched a punitive expedition against Maxentius. An earlier attempt by Severus to suppress Maxentius had ended with Severus’ captivation and death. When Galerius marched on Rome in late 307, he was soon faced with understaffïng

34 See, among others: RIC VI 130-131 (Londinium) 92-96 and 107-109; 212-218 (Treveri) 724-732, 739- 742 and 772-779; 260-264 (Lugdunum) 240-243, 260-263, 292-296. Constantius Chlorus had also coined for Mars: RIC VI 167-171 (Treveri)31 and 59-64. 35 PRINCIPI IUVENTUTIS: RIC VI 130-132 (Londinium) 97 and 111-112; 202-218 (Treveri) 615, 627, 679, 680, 734-735, 743, 755 and 780-787; 260-264 (Lugdunum) 244, 245, 270, 273 and 298-301; CONSTANTINO P(IO) AUG(USTO) B(ONO) R(EI) P(UBLICAE) NAT(O): RIC VI 261-263 (Lugdunum) 252 and 286; VIRTUS PERPETUA CONSTANTINI AUG(USTI): RIC VI 263-265 (Lugdunum) 285, 302 and 303. A small issue of bronze PRINCEPS IUVENTUTIS-fractions was minted for Severus in Rome around 305: RIC V I365 (Rome) 125 and 127. 36 AE 1981: 520 = 1983: 607. See also CIL XII 5425 = XVII/2 19; XII 5440 = XVII/2 22; XII 5442 = XVII/2 24; XII 5443 = XVII/2 25; XII 5463 = XVII/2 28; XII 5465 = XVII/2 40; XII 5466 = XVII/2 42; XII 5470 = XVII/2 46; XII 5490 = 5491 = XVII/2 206; XII 5506 = XVII/2 97; 5508 - XVII/2 99; XII 5512 = XVII/2 101; X II5513 = XVII/2 102; XII 5540 = XVII/2 146; XII 5552 = XVII/2 163; X II5555 = XVII/2 166 ; X II5662 = XVII/2 282; X II5675 = XVII/2 304; XVII/2 37, 100 and 103. 37 On the act of damnatio memoriae, see Delmaire 2002; Vamer 2004. 38 Several inscriptions from Africa Proconsularis mention Constantine as Caesar, but these might predate the period of his alliance with Maxentius and Maximian, and his accession to Augustus in late 307: CIL VIII 961 = 12439, 10084 = 22075, 10310, 10191, 10228, 10369 = 22483, 10410, 10414, 11804, 18791, 21932, 22223, 22234 and 22347. However, a milestone before this period, found between Theveste and Thala, honours Maxentius as Augustus and Constantine still as Caesar (Il.Alg. I 3949). A dedication from this province honouring Constantine as Augustus was issued under the coup of L. Domitius Alexander (3087-310), the usurper who was loyal to Constantine: CIL VIII 23118. See PLRE I s.v. L. Domitius Alexander 17. 39 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 12.2: Ecce enim, pro dolor! (verba vix suppetunt), venerandarum imaginum acerba deiectio et divini vultus litura deformis. 26 and desertion among his troops and was forced to retreat.40 Afïter his withdrawal from Italia, Constantine refrained from attacking Galerius. A rapprochement - be it moderate - towards his renounced peers was to follow. Constantine accepted, for example, the consular appointments of Galerius in 308. In this period, Galerius also enjoyed his final recognition on coinage from Treveri and Lugdunum.41After the Conference at Camuntum later that year, relations would weaken once more. At this gathering, Galerius’ confidant Licinius, and not Constantine, was appointed as the successor of Severus and Augustus of the West. Constantine was, in his absence, demoted to the rank offilius Augustorum. He denounced this decision and continued to bear the title of Augustus.42 He also rejected Galerius’ consulate for the next year, and Galerius and his primary deity Jupiter would be excluded from his coinage from then on.43 The Constantinian mints only coined for Licinius, Maximinus and the deified Constantius Chlorus.44 Before the Conference of Camuntum, the reciprocal recognition between Constantine and Maxentius had already come to an end. A failed coup of Maximian in Rome in the spring of 308 had driven him to Constantine’s court in the Gauls and had caused a breach between the two brother-in-laws. After the Conference, at which Maximian had been forced to abdicate, his part seems to have been played out. When Frankish threats called Constantine to the North in the summer of 310, Maximian seized the opportunity to recall his retirement and recmit troops to stage a coup. Constantine quickly acted against this usurpation and travelled south to bring Maximian to a halt. This confrontation resulted in the latter’s death.45 The subsequent official damnatio memoriae of Constantine’s father-in-law is a matter of dispute among scholars, although images and statues of Maximian were said to have been destroyed and coinage minted in his honour seems to have been cancelled.46

40 For the expeditions, see: Lact. Mort.Pers. 26-27; Anon.Vales. Origo 3.6; Zos. 2.10.1-3; Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Severus [Chron.Min. 1 148: 31]; Eutr. Brev. 10.2; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.6-7. 41 RIC V I216 (Treveri) 757; 260-263 (Lugdunum) 247, 254, 272 and 277. 42 Lact. Mort.Pers. 32.5; Eutr. Brev. 10.4; RIC VI 220-221 (Treveri) 795-798 and 801-808; 131 (Londinium) 101-104, 107-109 and 111-115; 263-265 (Lugdunum) 286, 287, 289, 291, 293-296 and 298- 312. There are no attestations for the use of the title filius Augustorum for Constantine in his realm. 43 Bagnall 1987: 150 and 152. ^Licinius: RIC VI 132-136 (Londinium) 117b, 121c, 131, 146c, 209c and 210; 220-228 (Treveri) 794, 799, 800, 813, 817c, 825, 844b, 845b, 847, 849b, 850b, 851b, 853 and 909a; Maximinus: RIC VI 132-136 (Londinium) 117a, 121b, 130, 146b, 209b and 211; 222-228 (Treveri) 817b, 826, 841b, 844a, 845a, 846a, 848, 849a, 850a, 851a, 852, 866a and 909b; divus Constantius: RIC V I 132 (Londinium) 110; 221 (Treveri) 809. 45 The sources are not consentient on the cause of the death of Maximian, which predates 25 July 310. According to Eutropius, Constantine forced him to commit suicide to prevent the possibility of reuniting himself with Maxentius (Eutr. Brev. 10.3). Lactantius hinted at an execution after a second plot by Maximian (Lact. Mort.Pers. 29.8). See also Epit. de Caes. 40.5; Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 14.5. Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 247; Bames 2011: 72-74. 46 Lact Mort.Pers. 42; Eus. HE 8.13.15 ; VC 1.47; (among others) CIL XII 5508 = XVII/2 99; XII 5512 = XVII/2 101; 5513 = XVII/2 102; XII 5675 = XVII/2 304; XIII 8978 = XVII/2 459; XVII/2 100. Bames 1973: 34-35; Sutherland 1967: 37. Bruun 1991b: 103. Vamer 2004: 214-215 proposes an official promulgation only after the death of Constantine. 27 Against this background, the hostilities between Constantine and Maxentius would enkindle. The latter, officially an enemy of the state since the Conference of Camuntum, sought retribution for his father’s death, and, according to Lactantius, declared war on his former ally.47 Sources mention a damnatio memoriae of Constantine in Maxentius’ territories. Statues of Constantine were cast and his name would be erased on dedications.48 After the declaration of war from Maxentius, Constantine invaded Italy in 312 and waged war against his brother-in-law in Maxentius’ realm.49 His incentive may simply have been a reaction to Maxentius’ warmongering and acceptance his challenge. Connected to this response is a second possible objective: the urge or desire to possess the central parts of the Empire, especially Rome. He shared this incentive to control the usurper’s realm with Licinius, who had been entitled to these territories since the Conference of Camuntum as the successor of Severus. On the basis of numismatic and epigraphic evidence, it has been proposed that an Italian invasion by Licinius took place in 309-310. Licinius probably annexed the region along the north-eastem border of Italy, but did not pursue his campaign.50 In 310 and 311, he had been occupied with a Sarmatian campaign and the problematical partitioning of the East with Maximinus after Galerius’ death.51 Having Maxentius as a common enemy may have been the fïrst basis for the coalition that arose between Constantine and Licinius.52 The partnership was considered strategie on Constantine’s part because of his failure to create offspring with Fausta.53 Licinius, the junior of the two emperors, willingly joined forces to consolidate his position in an unstable period. As Licinius failed to attack the usurper himself during a period of military and political conflicts, Constantine seized the opportunity to claim Licinius’ original realm in the West before the Augustus could advance himself.54 In the spring of 312, Constantine and a large army invaded North Italy. Afïter the region was taken, they marched southwards in the direction of Rome to encounter Maxentius and his troops for a decisive battle. Constantine claimed victory in Rome after the Battle at the Milvian Bridge on 28 October that year.55 The damnatio memoriae of Maxentius was now executed in his former domains, Italy and Africa, though not to the fullest. Several milestones bearing his name

47 Lact. Mort.Pers. 43.4. Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 247 48 P anlat. 4 (10) 12.2; Zos. 2.14.1; IlAlgl 3949; CIL VIII 11804, 18791, 21932,22223, 22330 and 22347. 49 Susa: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 5.4-6.1; Turin: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 6.2-7.2; Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 22.2; Milan: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 7.5-8; Verona: Pan.Lat. 12 (9)8-9.2, 10.3, 11.1; Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 25; Anon.Vales. Origo 4.12; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.20. For Constantine’s campaign in Italy, see Mannella 2004. 50 CIL V 330. The mints of Ticinum and Aquileia were closed. Sutherland 1967: 276 and 308; Picozzi 1976; Cullhed 1994: 71. 51 Sarmaticus maximus: CIL III6979; struggle with Maximinus: Lact. Mort.Pers. 36.1; Eutr. Brev. 10.4. 52 See infra for coinage for Licinius from Constantine’s mints. Recognition of Constantine by Licinius: RIC V I480-485 (Siscia) 209,213-216, 222c, 225c227c, 228b, 229b, 230b, 231b, 232b, 233c and 234c; 517-519 (Thessalonica) 44b, 45, 47b, 50b, 52b, 58 and 61b; 537-541 (Heraclea) 49b, 54b, 60b, 67, 71-72 and 75. Maxentius and Licinius never recognized each other on coinage or dedications. 53 Barnes 1981:65-66. 54 According to the panegyrist of 313 (Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 2.3), Licinius was unwilling to campaign, but it is more likely that he was occupied in the East. 55 Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.1-9; Eus. VC 1.28-30. 28 remained intact.56 In Rome, the barracks of his troops were destroyed and buildings connected to Maxentius were now dedicated to Constantine.57 On monuments and in texts, Maxentius was presented as hostis rei publicae, and Constantine as the liberator and restitutor,58

1.3 Divus Claudius (310-312)

After the breach with Maximian and Maxentius, Constantine’s authority had to be vested elsewhere and his descent from Constantius grew in significance. He continued the consecrational coinage issues for his father and in the panegyric that was delivered in Constantine’s presence shortly after Maximian’s rebellion, Constantius’ exploits are celebrated.59 Chosen by the gods and backed by the army, Constantine had been the true ruler since the death of his father. Sol Invictus, who has been accepted as Constantius’ patron deity,60 now appears on coinage from Lugdunum, Treveri and Londinium.61 Constantine’s own titular formula was also extended in dedications and - in more limited ways - on coinage with the epithet INVICTUS 62 In the shape of Apollo, the solar deity manifested himself before Constantine as his protector when he marched south to repress the revolt of Maximian. This celestial phenomenon, described in the panegyric of 310 as a pagan vision, was later given a Christian interpretation and connected to Constantine’s victory over Maxentius.63 Aside from divine favour, his right to rule through dynastie succession would also be expanded by redefming his lineage. Through a dynastical verticality, he pursued entering the gens Flavia as descendant of the emperor Claudius II (268-270).64 The renown of Claudius II as Gothicus Maximus and his short and almost spotless regime made him an appropriate ancestor to honour, and even to derive power from.65

56 Damnatio memoriae: CIL VI 1118 = 36885; XI 6635. See Ampolo 1969; Beranger and Fortini 1990; Roncaioli Lamberti 1990. 57 See Chapter 4, paragraph 3.1 and 3.3. 58 Eus. HE 9.9.3-4 and9.9.11; VC 1.33, 35-37 and 40; Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 4.3-5, 14.3, 16.2 and 18; 4 (10) 6.2, 7.4, 30.1, 31.3-4, 32.6 and 33.2-4; Zos. 2.17.1-2; CIL VI 1139 = 31245, 1140, 1145 and 40768. See also CIL VIII 7010 and 18261; IX 6038, 6060 and 6077; X 6932; XI 9, 6648; XIV 131; AE 1974: 693; 1973: 222; 1980: 354a. Grünewald 1990: 64-71; Barnes 1996: 60-63. 59 Consecrational coinage: RIC VI 221 (Treveri) 809; 264 (Lugdunum) 297; panegyrics: Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 4-9 and 14.4. 60 Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 14.3; 8 (4) 2.2, 10.1 and 19.1. See Smith 1997; Lane Fox 1988: 614. Cf. Berrens 2004: 146-150. 61 See, among others: RIC VI 131-137 (Londinium) 101, 113-116, 122-127, 147-193 and 234-240; 226-228 (Treveri) 865, 867-876, 886-895 and 898-900. Constantine was depicted with a radiant crown and a globe, attributes of the solar deity. Grünewald 1990: 53 has considered the worship of Sol a fiiendly gesture towards the Gallic aristocracy. See also Berrens 2004: 23; Bergmann 2006; Hijmans 2009: 609-620. 62 See, among others: CIL XII 5519 = XVII/2 108; XII 5521 = XVII/2 110; XII 5522 = XVII/2 113; XII 5526 = = XVII/2 122; XII 5529 = XVII/2 125; XVII/2 120b and 592-593; RIC VI 221 (Treveri) 806; 133- 139 (Londinium) 120, 150, 151 and 264. 63 Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 21.3-7; Eus. VC 1.29-31; Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.5-6. For the most recent recapitulation of the debate, see Barnes 2011: 74-80. 64 Callu 2002: 113. 65 Hardly anything (negative) was known about Claudius Gothicus, especially in the Gauls, which feil under the rule of the usurper Tetricus in the late 260s. Claudius II was claimed to be the first to restore 29 The avita cognatio between Constantine and Claudius II is unclear in nature. Constantius Chlorus is believed to have been Claudius’ son, grandson or grandnephew.66 Even sources hostile to Constantine do not refute his relation to Claudius II. Contrary to Constantine, his father had refrained from fostering this fïctitious lineage. At the time of the fïrst Tetrarchy, imperial accession had been based on personal merit and loyalty to the senior-Augustus, not ancestry (either invented or true). Dynastie interrelations by marriage and adoption between Tetrarchic members and their kin were to form a guarantee of alliance and allegiance. To seal Constantius’ accession, he had to divorce Helena and remarry to Maximian’s daughter Theodora. Galerius wedded Diocletianus’ daughter Valeria.67 The ancestral relationship to the gens Flavia was propagated as early as 310, in the eulogy to Constantine that also alluded to the vision of Apollo. Delivered shortly after the coup and death of Maximian, the panegyric slanders Constantine’s father-in-law and presents his descent from Claudius II as a prerogative for rule. This relationship had been ignored in the panegyric of Maximian and Constantine three years earlier. The panegyrist of 310 must have been aware that many were skeptical of his advertisement of this genealogy. In his introduction, he refutes fabrication but blames surprised listeners for their ignorance and lack of dedication to Constantine:

And so I shall begin with the divinity who is the origin of your family, of whom most people, perhaps, are still unaware, but whom those who love you know full well. For an ancestral relationship links you with the deified Claudius II, who was the first to restore the discipline of the Roman Empire when it was disordered and in ruins, and destroyed on land and sea huge numbers of Goths who had burst forth from the Straits of the Black Sea and the mouth of the Danube.68

order in the govemmental structure. His veneration allegedly went so far as to attribute calamities to the reign of his direct predecessor, Gallienus (260-268), in order to credit Claudius LI with a flawless reputation and memory. Claudius II’s defeat at Augustodunensis in 269, a low point during his regime, was considered a heroic rescue-operation in a eulogy for Constantine from 310 (Pan.Lat.. 5 (8) 4.2-3). His victories over the Goth tribes brought him near Constantine’s birthplace, Naissus. Also worthy of note is Claudius’ worship of Apollo and Sol. Apollo: RIC V 211-218 (Rome) 2, 20-23 and 97; 229-230 (Antiochia) 216, 219 and 220; 235 (unknown) 271; Sol: RIC V 213-220 (Rome) 16, 17, 76-78, 115 and 116; 223 (Mediolanum) 153-155; 228-230 (Antiochia) 198 and 221; 234-235 (unknown) 270 and 281. SNA Gall.duo 15.3 and Div.Claud 1-2; Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 2. Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 211-217; Lippold 2002; Rosen 2004; Berrens 2004: 86; Potter 2004: 266. 66 Several inscriptions (CIL II 4742 = 6209 and 4844; III 3705 = 10617 and 5207; VI 31564; XI 9; AE 1980: 576) name Constantine the nepos of Claudius. Eutropius considered Constantius the son of Claudius’ daughter (Eutr. Brev. 9.22); the Anonymus Valesianus and Scriptores Historiae Augustae made him a descendant of Claudius’ brother (Anon.Vales. Origo 1.2; SHA Div.Claud. 13.2). Julian is ambiguous about his true ancestiy: Jul. Or. 1.6D and 2.51C and Caes. 313 D; 9.22.1. 61 Pan.Lat. 7 (5) 2.2 and 3.1. 68 Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 2.1-3: Ab illo enim diuo Claudio manat in te auita cognatio, qui Romani imperii solutam et perditam disciplinam primus reformauit, immanesque Gothorum copias Ponti faucibus et Histri ore proruptas terra marique deleuit, utinam diuturnior recreator hominum quam maturior deorum comes. Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 211-217 and 219-220. 30 Constantine did not invoke his new descent from Claudius immediately and regimentally, but gradually through numismatical and epigraphical media. On coinage, Claudius Gothicus was honoured with the legends DIVO CLAUDIO OPT[IMOJ IMP(ERATORI), MEMOR1AE AETERNAE and REQUIES OPT(IMORUM) ME(RITORUM).69 These series seem to postdate 317. Dedications demonstrating a kinship with Claudius Gothicus, though not frequent, have, among others, been attested in Rome, Ravenna and Aquae Flaviae, with several postdating the emperor’s death.70 Constantine fiirthermore fostered the imperial cult by decreeing a college of priests in Africa to the gens and by changing the name of the African city Cirta to Constantina, which was renovated and embellished.71 In Rome, the attribution and adomment of the Flavian piazza on the Velia in the Urbs has been regarded as another act to underline Constantine’s (fictitious) dynastie associations with the Flavians.72 With this new lineage, Constantine tried to validate the legitimacy of his rule, not as candidatus imperii, sed designatus.73 By claiming his hereditary right as Claudius U’s descendant, he distanced himself from his former recognition with the Herculean House of Maximian and Maxentius. Maximian, however, was rehabilitated to a certain extent. The panegyrist of 313 repudiated his patemity of Maxentius, negating a direct kinship with the usurper.74 His bastardy was subsequently propagated in the Epitome de Caesaribus and the Origo Constantini Imperatoris.15 Maximian was deified by the Senate and would, from 317- 318 onwards, reappear on Constantinian coinage as divus Maximianus, alongside divus Constantinus and divus Claudius?6 This consecration probably followed from the birth of Constantine’s sons Constantinus and Constantius in 316 and 317, of whom Maximian was the matemal grandfather.77 Thus Maximian regained a place in Constantine’s dynastie structure not only as his father-in-law, but also, together with Constantius, as the grandparent of

69 RIC V II180 (Treveri) 203 and 207; 252 (Arelate) 173 and 176; 310-312 (Rome) 106, 109, 112, 115-116, 119, 122, 125 and 128; 395 (Aquileia) 23 and 26; 430 (Siscia) 43 and 45; 503 (Thessalonica) 26. See also Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 2.2 and 5 (8) 2.5. 70 CIL VI 31564; XI 9. See also CIL III 5207 and 5208. Other dedications postdate the death of Constantine: CIL I I 4742 = 6209 and 4844; III 3705 = 10617; XII 668. 71 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.28. Pontiflces Gentis Flaviae are only attested under Constans. See paragraph 9 of this chapter. 72 Marlowe 2004a; id. 2004b: 44-45; id. 2006. See Chapter 4, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2. 73 PanLat. 6 (7) 4.1. 74 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 3.4 and 4.3-4. 75 Epit. de Caes. 40.12; Anon.Vales. Origo 4.12. 76 REQUIES OPTIMOR(UM) MERIT(ORUM) and MEMORIAE AETERNAE. For Maximian: RIC VII 180 (Treveri) 200 and 204-205; 252 (Arelate) 174 and 177; 310-312 (Rome) 104, 107, 110, 113, 117, 120, 123 and 126; 395 (Aquileia) 21 and 24; 429-430 (Siscia) 41 and 44; 503 (Thessalonica) 24. For Constantius: RIC VII 180 (Treveri) 201, 202 and 206; 252 (Arelate) 175 and 178; 310-312 (Rome) 105, 108, 111, 114, 118, 121, 124 and 127; 395 (Aquileia) 22 and 25; 430 (Siscia) 42 and 46; 503 (Thessalonica) 25. For Claudius, see supra. See Grünewald 1990: 122-124; Barnes 1973: 34-35. 77 Birth of Constantinus: 7 August 316, in Arles: Epit. de Caes. 41.4; Zos. 2.20.2. For the date: CIL I2 p. 271. According to the PLRE, he is considered illegitimate as his birth there is dated in 317. Barnes 1982: 44-45; id. 100-103; Callu 2002: 116-118; PLRE I 223 s.v. Fl. Claudius Constantinus 3; birth of Constantius: 7 August 317, Illyricum, probably Sirmium: Epit. de Caes. 42.17; Jul. Or. 1.5 D; Soc. HE 2.47; Eutr. Brev. 10.15; CTh. 6.4.10. CIL I2 p. 270. For Sirmum, see CTh. 11.30.7 (317). 31 Constantine’s children with Fausta. His rehabilitation, however, was by no means complete. Not all acts of erasure were restored and no new dedications in his name have been recorded for this period.78

1.4 Constantine and Licinius (312-317)

In his first years as Augustus of the West, Constantine built his power base in Maxentius’ former realm, while continuing to consolidate his position in Gaul and Britain through visits, successful campaigns and fortifications along the Rhine.79 He further affirmed his alliance with Licinius by arranging the marriage between his co -Augustus and his own sister Constantia, which would be contracted in Milan in early 313.80 This meeting offered the opportunity to discuss religious policy in the various realms and, in particular, the legal status of the Christians.81 The concord between Constantine and Licinius, however, proved fragile. From October 312, Constantine ruled territory that had officially belonged to Licinius since the Conference of Camuntum. After his victory over Maxentius, Constantine was awarded the powerful titulus primi nominis by the Senate.82 This superiority was demonstrated in inscriptions, where Constantine was placed in titular hierarchy before Maximinus and Licinius and, from the spring of 313 onwards, only Licinius.83 After the latter had defeated Maximinus in the spring of 313, the Empire was divided between Constantine and Licinius fairly naturally: Constantine retained the West and Licinius claimed the East. Constantine remained the seaiov-Augustus, as can be seen in dedications, and assigned the epithet maximus to his name.84 This appellation was, for example, inscribed on the Arch of Constantine in Rome, celebrating his decennalia of 315-316.85

78 No portraits of Maximian have been securely identified. L’Orange 1984: 24. Only the sons of Constantine rehabilitated him on inscriptions. See, among others: CIL II 4742 = 6209 and 4844; III 3705 and 5207-5208. 79 For Gaul and Britain: Anon.Vales. Origo 5.13; PanXat. 12 (9) 21.5; Eus. VC 1.46; Zos. 2.17.2-3; CTh. 11.3.1 (Cologne; 313), 1.16.1, 9.40.1, 11.30.2, 11.36.1, 1.12.1, 1.12.3, 8.10.1, 10.15.1 and 11.1.2 (Trier; 313-314). See also, among others: RIC VII 97-98 (Londinium) 1-2 and 21; 124 (Lugdunum) 28; 163-167 (Treveri) 3-10, 12, 27-33 and 38; 363-365 (Ticinum) 28 and 37; CIL VIII 8412 and 23116; XIII 8502. m PanXat. 4(10) 10.3-4. 81 Lact. Mort.Pers. 48.2; Eus. HE 10.5.4. For a recent overview of views on the Edict of Milan, see: Barnes 2011:93-97. 82 Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.11. 83 Within the Constantinian regions, the order Constantine, Maximinus, Licinius is witnessed: CIL V 8021, 8060 and 8963 = 8964 = 8965 = 8966; VIII 10090 = 22176, 22179, 22117, 22119; X 6821, 6837, 6843, 6856 and 6874 = 6875; XI 6667. See also CIL VI 6631, 6635, 6644 and 6648. For the order Maximinus, Constantine, Licinius in the realm of Maximinus, see: CIL III 5565 = 11771, 7174 and 13675 and 14405. 84 See, among others: CIL V 8081; Vltl 2241, 8713, 20636; XI 6627; XVII/2 293; AE 1984: 151; 1991: 870; maximus: CIL V III2241 and 10064 = 22017; X I6627; XVII/2 293; AE 1984: 151. 85 See Chapter 4, paragraph 3.1 and App. 2, figs. 5 and 6. 32 According to an episode from the Origo Constantini Imperatoris, Constantine made plans to expand the imperial college at this time. He intended to appoint the senator Bassianus, the husband of his half-sister Anastasia, as additional Caesar over Italia,86 From there, Bassianus would act as a buffer between Constantine and Licinius, who had become the sole ruler of the East in the spring of 313.87 A pending imperial promotion of Constantine’s only son Crispus to complete a new and own family-based Tetrarchy has also been suggested.88 For reasons unknown, Constantine refrained from promoting his son of age, at least for the time being. He also passed over his own half-brothers Fl. Dalmatius, Julius Constantius and Hannibalianus as possible imperial colleagues.89 The promotion of Bassianus, which would have further strengthened the imbalance between Constantine and Licinius, was not put into effect. The Origo Constantini Imperatoris mentions that Licinius, rather than ratifying the nomination of Bassianus, plotted with the Caesar designate. The disclosure of this conspiracy by Constantine would have led to Bassianus’ death and a breach between the two Augusti. It is conceivable that Licinius wanted to frustrate Constantine’s dynastical plans and provoke his colleague all the more after the birth of his son Licinius Junior in August 315.90 However, it is more plausible that Constantine was the aggressor in the execution of Bassianus and in the ensuing war between him and Licinius. The birth of Constantinus, his fïrst son from his marriage to Fausta, in the summer of 316 had provided Constantine with a new heir.91 It also gave him cause to fear Bassianus’ ambitions as emperor and it was probably this development which led to his elimination. He subsequently crossed the borders of Licinius’ territory and launched the bellum Cibalense, presumably in October 316.92 Constantine won this confrontation, but the hostilities were not over. After the battle of Cibalae, Licinius purportedly brought his son Licinius Junior and his wife to safety in Sirmium, and later to Dacia.93

86 PLREI 150 s.v. Bassianus 1. 87 Anon.Vales. Origo 5.13-16; Lact. Mort.Pers. 46.8-47. See Chausson 2002: 133-136. 88 Crispus was a vsavluc in 316/317. His mother’s origin has been questioned. Zos. 2.20.2. Bames 1981: 65-66. See supra, paragraph 2. 89 Dalmatius was presumably bom around 294, and Julius Constantius between 295 and 300. Hannibalianus’ year of birth is unknown. See PLRE I 240-241 s.v. Fl. Dalmatius 6; 226 s.v. Iulius Constantius 7; 407 s.v. Hannibalianus 1; Chausson 2002: 133-136. 90 Licinius only had one son. He may have had several daughters as well. Epit. de Caes. 41.4; Zos. 2.20.2. See PLRE I 509-510 s.v. Val. Licinianus Licinius 4; Frakes 2006: 95. 91 See paragraph 3 of this chapter. 92 Anon.Vales. Origo 5.14-15. There is no consensus on the date of this battle, partly because of the epigraphic vacuum between 314 and 317. The clash occurred before their shared consulate in 314/315 or after Constantine’s decennalia in 315, when he was at war against the Sarmatians and the Goths (ILS 8938). The second dating is the most plausible, as no change in their numismatic programme is to be observed between 313 and 315. Furthermore, Constantine’s predominant presence in the West is attested during these years. It seems that the Balkans were not yet part of his realm at that time. If a war was in progress, or just over, it is unlikely that the concordia of both rulers would be stressed on a relief of the Arch of Constantine, cut between the end of 312 and the summer of 315. See Habicht 1958: 367-368; DiMaio, Zeuge and Bethune 1990; Ehrhardt 1992; Pohlsander 1995. 93 Anon.Vales. Origo 5.16-17. 33 It was Licinius’ nomination of his dux limitis Valens as co-Augustus that would again strain relations. His refusal to revoke this promotion, as ordered by Constantine, launched the bellum Campi Ardiensis in Thracia in early 317. After heavy charges, a truce between the emperors was established with severe repercussions on Licinius’ side. He was forced to transfer a part of his territory to Constantine. Valens had to be extradited. The yielding of Balcania, Pannoniae and Moesia implied not only the loss of Licinius’ residence Sirmium, but also the withdrawal of his garrisons stationed along the Danubian borders. Two of his mints now feil under Constantine’s command.94 Licinius, whose realm had shrunk in area and force, was allowed to resume office after this peace agreement.

1.5 Nobilissimi Caesares (317-324)

The renewed alliance with Licinius would be celebrated by Constantine’s elevation of his sons Crispus and the young Constantinus to Caesares. They were appointed alongside Licinius Junior on 1 March 317, the natalis Caesaris of their grandfather Constantius.95 Judging from the extant numismatic material, one might assume that the appointments of Constantine’s sons predate the promotion of Licinius Junior. Bruun argues that they had already been elevated to the rank of Caesar in the course of the war.96 Between the three Caesares, Crispus, the only mature son, held the senior position. He was the first to be awarded the consulate, in 318.97 On coinage from Sirmium, his effïgy was depicted as larger than that of his brother.98 The three new Caesares were not only introduced to their subjects in the western and central mints in the year of their accession, but also in the new mints gained by Constantine in Siscia and Thessalonica. On coinage from Lugdunum, however, Licinius Junior was not represented, and only shown on coinage from Treveri from 319 onwards. Both Licinii had been ignored in Londinium since the accession of Licinius Junior. More than a renewed alliance with Licinius, Constantine strove to honour the lineage with his father Constantius, Claudius Gothicus and the rehabilitated Maximian.99 The addition and propagation of the fourth generation, the Caesares Crispus and Constantinus, reinforced the ancestral legitimisation of Constantinian rule. The future and fate of Constantine’s divina suboles had been praised in the eulogy celebrating his victories over Maxentius and the Franks.100 Constantine’s ‘divine offspring’ would accumulate four sons and two daughters:

94 Anon.Vales. Origo 5.17-18. See DiMaio, Zeuge and Bethune 1990: 80. 95 Chron.Pasch. s.a. 317; Cons.Const. s.a. 317; Anon.Vales. Origo 5.19; Epit. de Caes. 41.4; Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.6; Zos. 2.20.2. For the new status quo, see, among others: CIL IX 5434 and 6068; X 407 and 6959; XI 6652; AE 1964: 218a = 2006: 440; 1978: 727 and 846. DiMaio, Zeuge and Bethune 1990; Pohlsander 1995. 96 RIC 173-176 (Treveri) 106-107, 124-126 and 136-156. Bruun 1966: 151-152; id. 1958: 17, 20-21 and 37, however, also states that a uniform and concurrent mint-policy was not guaranteed as the individuality of different mints was retained by the scattered officinae and their management by local authorities. 97 Bagnall 1987: 170-171. 98 R/CVn 469-470 (Sirmium) 14, 18 and 20; Pan.Lat. 12(9)26.3. 99 See supra, paragraph 3. 100 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 26.5. 34 Crispus - by Minervina - and Constantinus, Constantius, Constans, Constantina and Helena, by Fausta.101 The existence of a third daughter, Constantia, has been disputed.102 The new generation further intertwined with the family of Constantius Chlorus by marriage, reaehing ‘Oedipan levels of consanguinity’.103 The significant naming of the children from his union with Fausta underlines the importance of creating and presenting a clear and close lineage within the gens Flavia. Crispus held a different position in this respect. At the time of his birth, around 300, Constantine had hopes for an imperial career within the Tetrarchic college. * The truce between Constantine and Licinius tumed out to be an uneasy one. The consular fasti show the prevalence of Constantine and his sons over the Licinii between 318 and 321. From 321, Constantine and Licinius would each appoint consuls within their own jurisdiction.104 The absence of the eastem emperors is apparent in coinage and epigraphic material from 320- 321 onwards.105 In 322, while Constantine was chasing the Sarmatians, a nomadic tribe that originated from present day Iran and raised revolt in the Danube area, he wound up in the territory of Licinius. Constantine eventually celebrated a large victory over the Sarmatians; however, Licinius was not pleased at the incursion into his territory, and even refused to allow the SARMATIA DEVICTA-coinage to circulate in his territory.106 After Constantine’s Sarmatian campaign in 323, arms were taken up again between the two emperors. The eventual casus belli was prompted by Constantine’s Crossing of Licinian borders when the Sarmatians invaded Moesia and Thracia. Assisted by his son Crispus as commander of the imperial fleet, he triumphed over Licinius on 18 September 324 in the

101 Constantina was most likely bom before Constans. Helena, so it is rendered, was the youngest child of Constantine and Fausta (Zonar. 13.3) and should therefore have been bom in or shortly before 326. As her only recorded marriage - to the freshly appointed Caesar Julian - took place in 355, Chausson 2002: 154- 155; id. 2007: 115 argues that she was conceived later than 326. Chausson proposes a birth year around 330, stemming from a third engagement between Constantine and an unknown woman. An earlier engagement of Helena which was not consummated might explain her higher age upon her marriage to Julian. Bames 2011: 151 suggests Dalmatius - the grandson of Constantius Chlorus and Theodora who became Caesar around 335 or 336 and died in 337 - as a suitable candidate. See PLRE I 222 s.v. Constantina 2; 409-410 s.v. Helena 2. For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 102 Constantia is mentioned in Philost. HE 3.22 and 28; Patr. Frag. 16; Lib.Pont. 37, which leads to the assumption by Chausson 2007: 107-116 that Constantine had a third daughter. The references to Constantia, however, are believed to have been (verbal) confusions of Constantina and Helena. Cf. Bames 2011: 150-152. 103 Frakes 2006: 96. For the marital bonds of Constantine’s children from Fausta, see paragraph 1.8. Woods 2004; Chausson 2007: 110-116. 104 3 1 8: Licinius V, Crispus; 319: Constantine V, Licinius Caesar; 320: Constantine VI, Constantinus; 321: Crispus II, Constantinus II (West): CIL VI 315 = 30735d and 1684-1689; RIC VII 131-133 (Lugdunum) 135-137, 141-144, 175 and 178-179; 469-470 (Sirmium) 14, 18 and 20; 682-685 (Antiochia) 37,40 and 46. Licinius VI, Licinius Caesar II (East): Sijpesteijn and Worp 1976: 7.5. See Bagnall 1987: 171-177. 105 See, among others, CIL VIII 15264; AE 1981: 298. In the Constantinian mints, the last dated coinage for Licinius range from 317 (Londinium) to 320 (Lugdunum, Thessalonica), 320-321 (Treveri, Ticinum, Siscia) and 321 (Arelate, Roma, Aquileia). Both Licinii were never recognised on coinage from Sirmium, and Licinius Junior never in Lugdunum and Londinium. 106 Lenski 2006b: 75. 35 battle of Chrysopolis.107 Constantine now claimed the addendum victor. With this alteration, he distanced himself from the association with the deity Sol Invictus, who was gradually ousted by the Christian god.108 This active epithet of victor emphasised his triumphalism, as well as that of his dynasty. Licinius was branded a tyrant and underwent a damnatio memoriae. 109

1.6 Extending a Dynasty (324)

Two months later, on 8 November 324, Constantine’s victory was celebrated with the foundation of Constantinople,110 as well as the promotion of the triumphant emperor’s son Constantius to the imperial rank of Caesar.111 Between the three nobilissimi Caesares, Crispus held the rank of pre-eminence based on his primogeniture.112 Despite the extension of his dynasty, Constantine remained sole ruler, as his sons would never equal his position of Augustus during his lifetime. They were never inaugurated with the tribunicia potestas, nor were they granted to share the cognomina devictarum gentium of Constantine or their brothers.113 For example, of the Caesares only Constantinus received the title Alamannicus for his feat.114 The names of Crispus, Constantinus and Constantius appeared after Constantine’s in imperial pronouncements. 115 Judging from literary sources and their titling in numismatic and epigraphic material, they dealt with mainly military affairs, with some restricted temporary consulary responsibilities. According to Eusebius, they were assisted by advisers in the management of public affairs in their realms, and would only at length become responsible for the public administration of the Empire

Anon.Vales. Origo 5.23-29. 108 This change partly manifested itself in Constantine’s coinage after 320. On reverses, Sol Invictus was less frequent as a motive, and in the new mints at Serdica and Thessalonica the theme was never introduced. Sol was gradually dissipated, but was still referred to after Constantine’s victory over Licinius. On 3 July 321, he celebrated his dies solis. Christian motives, however, were in use from 313. CTh. 2.8.1 (321). See Grünewald 1990: 131; Berrens 2004: 150-162; Hijmans 2009: 609-620. The addenda aetemus and felix were, with a regular occurrence, replaced for the less heathen predicates perpetuus and beatus. However, these more Christian variations had also been used by Aurelian and Maxentius. For Constantine and victor, see: CIL ffl 5725 = 11838 and 5726 = 11839; VI 40770; VHI 26166; AE 1939: 151; and perpetuus: CIL VIII 7005 and 7011; X 677; and beatus: CIL III 5326. For Aurelian and perpetuus, see, among others, CIL V III22132 and 22361; for Maxentius and perpetuus'. CIL X 6816, 6867, 6882, 6952 and 6956. Instinsky 1979: 452-454. 109 Tyrannus: CTh. 15.14.1-4 (324-326); reversal of laws: same pronouncements. 110 Constantinople was chosen over other cities such as Serdica, Ilium, Chalcedonia and Thessalonica. Serdica: Zonar. 13.3.1-4; Ilium: Soz. HE 2.3.2; Zos. 2.30.1; Cassiod. HE 2.18.2; Chalcedonia: Cedr. 1.496 (510C); Zonar. 13.3.1-4; Thessalonica: Cedr. 1.496 (510C). Dagron 1974: 29-31; Alchermes 1991: 20. For the urban development of Constantinople, see Chapter 5. 111 Constantius was bom on 7 August 317. CIL III 12520 = 12521 = 14215; V 8030; IX 6386a; AE 1909: 194 and 1967: 341. See also RIC VII 137 (Lugdunum) 232-233; 204 (Treveri) 448; 263 (Arelate) 275-276; 324 (Rome) 258; 383 (Ticinum) 181; 446 (Siscia) 186. See Barnes 1982: 45. 112 RIC VII 612 (Nicomedia) 68. 113 Amaldi 1972: 28-50; id. 1977a; id. 1977b. 114 CIL V I40776. 115 Amaldi 1981: 76. 36 without control. 1 1 6 As a result, Constantine’s Caesares were more subordinate to their

Augustus than the tetrarchic Caesares who enjoyed civil and administrative responsibilities. 117 During the celebrations in early November 324, Constantine’s mother Helena and his wife

Fausta were awarded the title of Augusta.118 Both had been honoured in the previous decade

as nobilissimae feminae on bronze coinage from Thessalonica. 119 Helena was of special significance in Constantine’s dynastie propaganda programme. Her veneration had to Champion the bloodline of Constantine as the true heir of Constantius. Helena’s role as imperial matriarch had been played out when Constantius replaced Theodora with her. Theodora’s sons, Julius Constantius, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, might challenge the position of Constantine and his own offspring. 120 As they had all come of age, any pretensions from their side to claim their father’s former Empire might prove dangerous, even

catastrophic, and they were kept at a distance from the imperial court. 12 1 Apart from the isolation of the sons of Theodora, it was vital for Constantine to legitimise and validate his own line of the House of Constantius. In dedications, Helena thus appears as uxor or coniunx of Constantius. 12 2 Until her death in 328 or 329, golden and bronze issues with the legend SECUR1TAS REIPUBLICAE were coined for her, which deserved mention by Eusebius and

Sozomen. 123 Different from Fausta’s, Helena’s portraits showed an Augusta with a diadem.

116 Eus. VC 4.52. 117 Eutr. Brev. 10.1; Lact. Mort.Pers. 8.3 and 15.6; Pan.Lat. 4 (8) 9.1-4 and 21.1-2; 5 (9) 4-5 and 21; 7 (6) 6.1-2. See Amaldi 1981. Cf. Blockley 1972: 460-461. 118 Helena: RIC VII 137 (Lugdunum) 234; 205-213 (Treveri) 458, 465, 481 and 515; 264-270 (Arelate) 278, 299, 307, 317, 324 and 340; 323-330 (Rome) 248, 250, 270 and 291; 383-387 (Ticinum) 177, 183, 190, 202 and 209; 447-453 (Siscia) 187, 196, 204 and 218; 475^76 (Sirmium) 54 and 60; 505-519 (Thessalonica) 50, 134, 149 and 159; 551-557 (Heraclea) 79, 85, 89, 95 and 109-110; 571 (Constantinople) 11; 613-626 (Nicomedia) 79-80, 95, 129, 148 and 159; 647-650 (Cyzicus) 28, 39 and 49; 689-691 (Antiochia) 67, 75, 80 and 82; 709-711 (Alexandria) 38, 44, 48, 53 and 57. For inscriptions, see: CIL VI 1134-1136 and 36950; IX 2446; X 517, 678 and 1483-1484; AE 1993: 339a. Fausta: RIC VII 137 (Lugdunum) 235; 203-209 (Treveri) 443-445, 459-460, 466 and 482-484; 263-267 (Arelate) 277, 279, 285, 298, 300 and 308; 323-330 (Rome) 251, 271 and 292-294; 383-387 (Ticinum) 178, 182, 191 and 203-204; 447-450 (Siscia) 188, 197 and 205; 475-476 (Sirmium) 55 and 61; 505-519 (Thessalonica) 51, 135, 137 and 160-162; 551-552 (Heraclea) 80 and 86; 571 (Constantinople) 12; 612-624 (Nicomedia) 69A, 77-78, 96-97, 130-131 and 149-150; 647-650 (Cyzicus) 29, 40 and 50; 689-690 (Antiochia) 68-69 and 76-77; 709 (Alexandria) 39-40; CIL X 678. 119 RIC VII 504 (Thessalonica) 48-49. For the view that the nobilissima femina Helena was the wife of Crispus, not his grandmother, see Maurice 1911: 451-456; AlfÖldi 1959-1960: 82-83. Cf. AlfÖldi 1963: 144; Drijvers 1992a: 38-40. 120 As nothing is known about Hannibalianus, Bames 2011: 163-164 assumes that he must have died very young. Of all the half-siblings of Constantine, only Constantia and Anastasia gained some form of political influence before 333: the first as the bride of Licinius, and the latter during her short marriage to Bassianus. Constantia kept her honorary and influential position at court after Licinius’ death. Around 326-327, she became nobilissima femina and was honoured with a special bronze series from Constantinople. Constantia: RIC VII 571 (Constantinople) 15; CIL VI 1153 = 40777. See Pohlsander 1993: 161-164; Anastasia: Anon.Vales. Origo 5.14. Chausson 2002: 131-155. For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 121 Auson. Prof. 17.8-11; Lib. Or. 14.30. See Bames 1981: 252; id. 1982: 37; id. 2011: 163-164; Burgess 2008: 8. 122 Uxor. CIL X 1483; Coniunx: X 517; Genetrix: CIL VI 1134. CIL X 678 once read Faustae Aug uxori, but was changed to Helena after 326. 123 See supra. Eus. VC 3.47; Soz. HE 2.2. See Drijvers 1992a: 13-15 and 73-76. 37 Dedications to the Augusta or Domina have been attested in Rome and Constantinople. 124 This homage to his mother may have extended to calling his youngest daughter Helena and rededicating cities and provinces in her name. 125 The naming of cities as references to the Constantinian dynasty was also applied both by and to other members of the dynasty throughout the Empire. 126

1.7 Dynastie Crisis (326) The composition of the imperial House after its extension in 324 would not be long-lasting. In

326, both Constantine’s first son Crispus and (later that year) his wife Fausta met their end. 127 Crispus, the successful fleet commander during Constantine’s civil war with Licinius, was supposedly killed in Pola with cold poison. Fausta died in a hot bath either by execution or

suicide. 128 Trier and Rome have been suggested as her place of death, but no source can

confïrm a location. 129 There is no literary or scholarly consensus on the preamble for this

tragedy. 130 No ancient source has provided a detailed account of the actual events and many merely hint or make vague statements or accusations. Eusebius, who offers the most contemporary account, does not mention Crispus and Fausta in his Vita Constantini and his

tricennial orations and apparently expunged them from his earlier Historia Ecclesiastica. 131 In his biography of Constantine, Eusebius explicitly states that the emperor had only three sons, of whom Constantinus was the oldest and the only one to become Caesar in 317.132 Eusebius’ silence on Constantine’s son and wife clearly indicates that they suffered damnationes

memoriae, as the extant numismatic and epigraphical material indeed reflects. 133

124 In Rome: CIL VI 1134-1136 and 36950; AE 1993: 339a. Elsewhere: CIL IX 2446; X 517, 678, 1483- 1484; Chron.Pasch. s.a.328; Parastaseis 11, 16, 34,43, 52 and 58. See Drijvers 1992a: 189-191. 125 Helenopolis (Drepanum): Chron.Pasch. s.a. 327; Amm.Marc. 26.8.1; Eus. VC 4.61.1; Soc. HE 1.17.1; Philost. HE 2.12; Helenopolis (Palestine): Soz. HE 2.2.5; Helenopontus: Just. Nov. 28.1. For the discord over the birthplace of Helena: Drijvers 1992a: 12. 126 Cities were named Constantia, Constantinae and Constantinana in Gallia, Arabia, Pannonia and Phoenicia. Constantia: Antaradus; Antioch (Jul. Or. 1.40D); Antoni(n)opolis (Amm.Marc. 18.7.9; Theoph. Chron. A.M. 5832); Coutances; Maiuma; Salamis (Malal. Chron. 12.48 [313]); Constantina: Antaradus; Arles; Cirta; Coutances; Maximianopolis; Constantiana: Tomis. Unkown variant (renamed after Constantius): Amida (Amm.Marc.18.9.1). For an overview, see Burgess and Witakowski 1997: 275-279. 127 Eutropius (Brev. 10.6) mentions their deaths in a sequence of killings by Constantine: first Crispus was put to death, then Licinius Junior and Fausta, followed by many of Constantine’s friends. 28 Sid.Apol. Ep. 5.8; Greg.Tur. Hist 1.36. See also Zos. 2.29.2. For Pola: Amm.Marc. 11.20. 129 Trier: Frend 1984: 496 and 501; Rome: Drijvers 1992b: 506. 130 See also Zos. 2.29.2. Grünewald 1990: 144. For modem theories, see: Guthrie 1966: 325-331; Pohlsander 1984: 99-106; Drijvers 1992b; Woods 1998; Stephenson 2010: 219-223; Barnes 2011: 144-150. 13' Barnes 1980: 197-198. 132 Eus. VC 1.9, 4.40 and 4.51; Eus. Triac. 3.2. Orosius (7.28.26) mentions the death of Crispus, but not of Fausta. 133 CIL VI 40772; VIII 14436; AE 1938: 85 = 2003: 1685; 1973: 562 and 1976: 638; RIC VII 212-213 (Treveri); 267-270 (Arelate); 331-334 (Rome); 450-453 (Siscia); 519-521 (Thessalonica) and 552-557 (Heraclea). Fausta’s name and image were destroyed from a monument in Surrentum and replaced by Helena’s: CIL X 678. 38 As a damnatio memoriae feil to their lot, Constantine’s first Caesar and honoured Augusta must have committed grave crimes, but the grounds for their deaths remain unresolved. Later sources, composed one or more generations after Constantine, mention the episode - in different versions - only in passing. The execution of Crispus has been attributed in vague terms to the ‘pride of prosperity’, but has also been explained as the outcome of treachery by Fausta, as punishment for him debauching his mother-in-law, or as the result of a detected conspiracy by both Crispus and Fausta against Constantine. 134 Besides this conspiracy, put forward in the sixth century by Gregory of Tours, Fausta has been further accused of adultery and treachery. 13 5 According to another version, expressed by the Epitomator and Zosimus, the order for her death was instigated by a grieving Helena. 136 Clearly, no official version of the episode has been broadcasted or was later accepted, as the scenarios vary greatly in circumstance and reason. This variety does not alter the fact that the elimination of Crispus from the imperial college and the death of Constantine’s Augusta were far from insignificant. The enigmas surrounding the tragedy of 326 keep alluring scholars to attempt to settle the matter, but no theory seems completely solid. Against the lone hypothesis of Woods, who suggests a fatal love-affair between Crispus and Fausta, approaches which put their deaths in a dynastie context largely prevail. 137 Guthrie, for example, proposes that Crispus’ murder had to clear the way for an imperial college consisting only of Constantine’s legitimate sons. His illegitimacy might have provoked a rebellion as it made him ineligible for a promotion to the rank of Augustus. The illegitimate status of Crispus, however, is doubtful138 The appointment in 335 of Dalmatius, who was no direct descendant of the House of Constantius, and Helena as fourth Caesar further weakens the assumption. 139 In 1898, Burckhardt proposed an altemative motivation for a possible uprising by Crispus. By 326, Constantine had reigned for twenty years. Diocletian’s abdication after his vicennalia might have enticed Crispus to force his father into resignation. 140 Based on the murder sequence of Eutropius, who dates the death of Crispus and Licinius Junior to the same timeframe, Frakes even speaks of a Licinian faction which conspired together with Crispus against Constantine. He suggests that the Helena whom

134 ‘Pride of prosperity’: Eutr. Brev. 10.6; Fausta’s ‘fraudulent artifices’: Epit. de Caes. 41.11-12; Philost. HE. 2.4; Zonar. 13.2.38-41 (treachery after Crispus’ rejection of Fausta’s seduction). Austin 1980; debauching Fausta: Zos. 2.29.2; conspiracy: Greg.Tur. Hist. 1.36. 135 Adultery: Philost. HE. 2.4; treachery: Zonar. 13.2.38-41. 136 Epit. de Caes. 41.11-12; Zos. 2.29.2. 137 Legislation conceming the safeguarding of marriage and chastity (among others, CTh. 9.8.1, 9.8.2 and 9.24.1), issued in 326, may support the modem theory of a secret love affair between Constantine’s wife and her stepson. It has been suggested that Pola was located in a region where adulterers were exiled and that Crispus was forced to take his life there with poison. Woods even believes that Fausta died in the bath while attempting to exterminate a pregnancy that would have disclosed her relationship. As Fausta’s noble character was lavishly praised in Julian’s oration to Constantius from 355, improper relations with her stepson have been deemed unlikely. Jul. Or. 1.10B. Woods 1998. 138 For the matrimonium of Constantine and Minervina, see paragraph 1.2. 139 The son of Constantine’s half-brother Dalmatius the Censor, his year of birth is unknown. Chausson 2002: 136 estimates around the year 314. 140 Burckhardt 1898: 33. Cf. Drijvers 1992a: 61. 39 Crispus married was a daughter of Licinius. 141 Constantine might have indeed feared preponderance from his oldest and martially successful son and have expected a coup in his absence or after his death. This concern might have already been present at the time of Bassianus’ rise to Caesar in 315, explaining Crispus’ passing over. Only after Constantinus Junior was born was Crispus awarded imperial rank. It is plausible that the disparity in age between Crispus and his half-brothers, all three infants at the time, eventually inspired fear in Constantine for Crispus’ dominance over Constantine’s other sons. All these versions leave the death and damnatio memoriae of Fausta unexplained. In an attempt to safeguard the fiiture of her own children, Fausta might have encouraged

Constantine’s fear of an overthrow by Crispus by making false accusations. 142 Her hopes for the supremacy of her sons was vain while Crispus was the senior of the Caesares.'42 Her deceit might then have conceivably led to an execution or suicide. 144 However, no indications for a renovatio memoriae of Crispus are to be found in literary sources, coinage or inscriptions, suggesting some kind of crime on his part, and leaving the context for the tragedy of 326 enigmatic. 145 1.8 1 Augustus, 4 Caesares (333-335) In the following years, Constantine would maintain and honour the changed constitution of his imperial college that had emerged after the disappearance of his oldest Caesar and Augusta in 326. After the passing of the remaining Augusta Helena in late 328 or early 329, the body was reduced to three members: the commanding Augustus and his two oldest sons from his marriage to Fausta, Constantinus and Constantius. An expansion was only effected late in 333. Constantine first tumed to the securing of the imperial borders146 and the development and embellishment of his city Constantinople, which would be consecrated on 11 May 330.147 The inauguration was celebrated with the issue of silver medallions of

Constantinople and a bronze series for the Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis, 148

141 The fate of this Helena is unknown. Barnes 1982: 44 identifïed Valentinianus’ wife Justina as the granddaughter of Crispus and Helena (for their child, see CTh. 9.38.1). If this was the case, the extermination of the dangerous dynastie circle around Licinius was neither complete nor thorough. Anon.Vales. Origo 5.28; Eus. HE 10.9.4-6. See PLRE 1409 s.v. Helena 1; Frakes 2006: 95. 142 For this view, see Austin 1980. 143 CTh. 9.1.4 (325). 144 Execution: Drijvers 1992a; id. 1992b; suicide: Barnes 2011: 147-149. 145 There are no attestations for a renovatio memoriae of Crispus in literary sources (e.g. Eusebius’ Vita Constantini), coinage or inscriptions. See Blockley 1972: 457; Drijvers 1992: 60-63. 146 Eutr. Brev. 10.7; Anon.Vales. Origo 6.31; Eus. VC 4.5-6; Zos. 2.31.3; CIL III 14184.19-20; V I1144 and 1146; VIII22577 = 22578; RIC VII 578 (Constantinople) 53. See Stephenson 2010: 223-228. 147 Eus. VC 3.48; Zos. 2.30; Philost. HE 2.9; Malal. Chron. 13.7-8 [319-321]; Lyd. Mens. 4.2; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 328; Patria kata. 41; Parastaseis 55-56; Patria 3.10. See Dagron 1974: 29-31; Alchermes 1991: 20. 148 URBS ROMA : See, among others: RIC VII 138-140 (Lugdunum) 242, 247, 252 and 274-275; 214-218 (Treveri) 522, 547, 553 and 562; 270-279 (Arelate) 343, 373, 379, 407 and 415; 332-346 (Rome) 300, 307, 315-317, 342, 390, 406 and 408; 407-409 (Aquileia) 122, 128 and 136; 453-456 (Siscia) 222-223 and 240; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 187 and 229; 557-561 (Heraclea) 114, 119, 143 and 156; 579-590 (Constantinople) 40 On 25 December 333, after putting the foreign threats on hold, Constantine hailed his youngest son Constans as Caesar and added him to his imperial college. 149 Constans’ dies natalis Caesaris coincided with the dies natalis Invicti.150 According to seniority, he was the lowest in rank after Constantinus and Constantius. Around the time of Constans’ accession, members from the family-branch of Constantius and Theodora had also been brought into prominence. Constantine’s half-brothers Flavius Dalmatius and Julius Constantius, who had spent the preceding years in virtual exile, far from the imperial court, had probably already retumed to favour after the death of Crispus in 326. During this vicennial year of Constantine, which he partly celebrated in Rome, Julius Constantius had exchanged his place of exile in Corinth for Italy and was possibly present in the Urbs during the jubilee festivities. The two brothers only received posts and honours in the early 330s. In 333, Flavius Dalmatius was elected consul and made censor of Antioch the following year. In 335, Julius Constantius was awarded the titles ofpatricius and nobilissimus and filled the consulate in 335. 151 Subsequently, the grandsons of Constantius and his second wife Theodora were brought into power. On 18 September 335, the commemorative day of his final victory over Licinius in Chrysopolis and during his tricennalia, Constantine raised his half cousin Dalmatius to the rank of Caesar.152In this capacity, he successfully suppressed the revolt of

Calocaerus in Cyprus. 153 Dalmatius’ brother Hannibalianus received the protectorate of the buffer states as rex regum Ponticarum gentium. During his tricennial year, Constantine arranged several further marriages between his children and the grandchildren of Constantius and Theodora or trusted officials. Constantius married a daughter of Julius Constantius in July 336 during the latter stages of Constantine’s tricennial celebrations. Constantinus’ wedding had by then already taken place and was probably contracted in 335. His wife has been identified as a daughter of the consul Flavius Optatus, who might have been a distant relation of Helena herself. Constans was engaged to Olympias, the daughter of the consul Flavius

Ablabius, but the marriage was never effectuated. 154 Constantine’s daughter Constantina was

62, 78, 85, 143 and 154; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 195 and 205; 654-658 (Cyzicus) 71-72, 91, 105-106 and 118-119; 693-697 (Antiochia) 91 and 113; 712 (Alexandria) 63 and 70; CONSTANTINOPOLIS: RIC VII 138-141 (Lugdunum) 241, 246, 273 and 279; 214-223 (Treveri) 523, 530, 543 and 589; 271-279 (Arelate) 344, 352, 408 and 416; 331-346 (Rome) 297, 301, 303-305, 332-334, 371, 387 and 407; 407-409 (Aquileia) 123, 129 and 137; 453-456 (Siscia) 224 and 241; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 188 and 230; 557-561 (Heraclea) 115, 120, 144 and 157; 579-590 (Constantinople) 63, 86, 144 and 155; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 196 and 206; 654-659 (Cyzicus) 73-74, 120-121 and 134; 693-697 (Antiochia) 92 and 114; 712 (Alexandria) 64 and 71; silver medallion Constantinople: RIC VII 578 (Constantinople) 53. Alfoldi 1947; Bühl 1995: 21-25. See App. 2, figs. 14, 15 and 16. 14 Constans was bom in 320 or 323. At the time of his death (shortly after 18 January 350) he was 27 (Epit. de Caes. 41.23) or 30 (Eutr. Brev. 10.9). Eus. VC 4.40; RIC VII 580 (Constantinople) 67. lsrf CIL I2p. 278. See PLRE1220 s.v. Fl. Iul. Constans 3. 151 Bagnall 1987: 200-201 and 204-205. 152 Anon.Vales. Origo 6.35; Eus. HE 10.9.4-6. 153PLRE 1177 s.v. Calocaerus. 154 Constantinus: Eus. VC 4.49. Barnes 2011: 171-172; Constantius: Athan. Hist.Ar. 69.1; Jul. Ep. ad Ath. 272; Constans: Athan. Hist.Ar. 69; Amm.Marc. 20.11.3. 41 paired off to Hannibalianus and Dalmatius probably wedded Constantine’s daughter

Helena. 155 Together with the addition of Dalmatius as fourth Caesar, Constantine carried out the regional division of the Empire among his juniors. Constantinus remained ruler of the prefecture Gallia, which he oversaw from 328/329 from Trier. Constans was awarded Italia, as well as the Balkans and probably the African provinces. Dalmatius acquired the territory along the Lower-Danube and Greece, and Constantius received the praefectura Orientis. The regional division of the Empire did not imply regional sovereignty or independence of the

Caesars within their territories. 156 Even now they were not invested with the tribunicia potestas, nor were they granted to assume the cognomina devictarum gentium of Constantine

or their brothers. 157 The Caesares, all still very young at this time, were each appointed a praetorian prefect to assist them. 158 Constantine controlled the entire Empire from his metropolis Constantinople, as ‘charioteer of a quadriga’ . 159 On coinage, Constantine was the central figure, frontally seated on a throne with his sons standing on either side in front of him

in military costume, and himself in a toga with his hands on a sceptre. 160 Between the four Caesares, the seniority still rested with Constantinus, who by 335 had fulfilled almost twenty years of service. Fragmentary epigraphical and numismatic evidence reflects his pre-eminent position. Around 330, he had been awarded the special title

of Alamannicus, following his victory over the Alamanni. 161 Furthermore, he had received

dedications from the realm of Constans and Constantius in his name only. 162 Two different series from various mints, dated 336/337, held effïgies portraying either Constantine or his oldest Caesar. Even though the coinage was intended to celebrate the vicennalia of the latter,

the connection of the Augustus with one particular Caesar was unprecedented. 163 On the basis

155 Constantina: Anon.Vales. Origo 6.35; Eus. VC 4.49; Jul. Ep. ad Ath. 272d. She would later marry Gallus, the son of Julius Constantius. Klein 1979: 109; Helena: Bames 2011: 172. 156 Blockley 1972:461. 157 Amaldi 1977a; id. 1977b. 158 AE 1925: 72. In May 337, the following praetorian prefects were in office: Evagrius for Constantine, whose tenure ended after Constantine’s death; L. Papius Pacatianus for Constans; Flavius Ablabius, prefect of Constantius; C. Annius Tiberianus for Constantinus; Valerius Maximus for Dalmatius (he underwent a damnatio memoriae after the death of his Caesar); and Nestorius Timonianus as independent regional prefect for Africa. See PLRE I 284-285 s.v. Euagrius 2; 590-591 s.v. Valerius Maximus 49; 656 s.v. L. Papius Pacatianus 2; 3-4 s.v. Fl. Ablabius 4; 911-912 s.v. C. Annius Tiberianus 4. For the praetorian prefecture during the reign of Constantine, see Chapter 6, paragraph 1.3. 59 Eus. Triac. 3.4; FC4.51-52; Anon.Vales. Origo 6.35; Epit. de Caes. 41.20; Eutr. Brev. 10.6. 160 See, among others: R1C VII 207-208 (Treveri) 467 and 469; 328 (Rome) 280; 527 (Thessalonica) 204; 577-583 (Constantinople) 44-45 and 89; 631 (Nicomedia) 173-174. Constantius was depicted with a nimbus on the rare occasion of his consulate shared with Constantine in 326: RIC VII 207 (Treveri) 467- 468. Amaldi 1981: 81-83. 161 CIL III352 = 7000. 162 These dedications have also been connected to Constantinus’ marriage in the summer of 335, thus implying a commemoration and not the confirmation of his suggested pre-eminence or predestination as sole heir of the Empire after the death of Constantine. AE 1925: 72. Poinssot and Lantier 1924; Dagron and Feisel 1985: 434; Cara 1993: 178-179. M RIC VII 141 (Lugdunum) 283-284; 278 (Arelate) 409-411; 409 (Aquileia) 138; 459 (Siscia) 259-260; 529 (Thessalonica) 221; 588 (Constantinople) 132; 634 (Nicomedia) 197-198. See Cara 1993: 178. 42 of this material, Cara argued that Constantinus was designated as Constantine’s successor in a constellation of only one Augustus and three Caesares.164 Burgess, however, countered the assumption that Constantinus was his father’s favourite based on coinage depicting Constantinus and Constantius together and the seniority of Constantinus. For him, it was Constantine’s design that the group of four Caesares would one day turn into a family-based

Tetrarchy, with Constantinus and Constantius as Augusti, 165 The extension of the college to a fourth Caesar and the division of territories clearly indicate that Constantine was planning a succession by his junior-emperors after his retirement or death. However, a clear lay-out of his intentions was not established, nor seemed an imperative need. Constantine’s main preoccupation became the launch of a new campaign against the Persians, for which he set out for Antioch in the spring of 337. Then, in May, the emperor feil seriously ill and retreated to an imperial villa in the suburbs of Nicomedia. 166 Constantius, who was nearest of the three brothers to Constantine, hastened to his father’s sickbed after receiving the report, only to fïnd him dead. Constantine left the Empire with four

Caesares and no clear political will. 167

1.9 The Massacre of the Princes (337) After Constantius had joined the army troops guarding the body of his late father in Nicomedia, Constantine was escorted to Constantinople in a golden coffïn. His body was laid in state, open for the people of Constantinople to salute for several days before being buried in his mausoleum in a porphyry sarcophagus. 168 The itineraries of Constantinus and Constans show that they cannot have been present in Constantinople for the funerary ceremony. Dalmatius, who was stationed in Naissus, was probably able to arrive there on time.

Constantine’s sudden death initiated a turbulent period within the imperial House. 169

The Empire was without an Augustus and without an heir apparent. 170 The interregnum that folio wed took up to three months and was not without bloodshed. 17 1 Shortly after the summer of 337, the ‘massacre of the princes’ took place, culminating in the execution and

104 Cara 1993. 165 Burgess 2008: 8-9. 166 Eus. VC 4.61.2 and 4.64; Soc. HE 1.39.75 (178 C-D); Lib. Or. 18.10. See Burgess 1990; Woods 1997; Stephenson2010: 280-284. 167 His construction of a mausoleum in Constantinople, large enough for himself and the members of his House, does not necessarily imply that he foresaw his death. With the dynastie funerary monument, Constantine had followed the tradition of Augustus and Hadrian by preparing for his death and remembrance. Frazer 1966: 387-388. For the varied historiographical tradition on his death, his military campaign and his baptism, see Fowden 1994. 168 Eus. VC 4.70-71; Soc. HE 1.40; Soz. HE 2.34; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 337. See Grierson, Mango and Sevcenko 1962: 39. 169 Eus. VC4.51. See Grünewald 1990: 159-162. 170 Jul. Or. 1.19A-20A and 2.94B-C. 171 See CTh. 13.4.2 (337). Burgess 2008: 29-30. 43 damnationes memoriae of Dalmatius and Hannibalianus. 17 2 This massacre, however, was not limited to the two princes. Flavius Dalmatius, Julius Constantius and other close rivals of

Constantine’s sons, including the praetorian prefect Ablabius, were also murdered. 173 In the ancient sources, the events are either ignored, framed within the official version that passed responsibility for the massacre to the army, or are connected to Constantius as the commander of this mass execution. Eusebius, the earliest source describing the period following the death of Constantine, once again disregards those who suffered a damnatio memoriae}1* Like Crispus, Dalmatius and Hannibalianus are not mentioned in his Life of Constantine}15 According to Eusebius, Constantine had devolved his powers to his sons on his deathbed, and his last will was accepted by the army, and the Senate and people of

Rome. 176 The orations of Libanius and Julian from the 340s and 350s do not record Dalmatius either. They allude to some sort of upheaval after Constantine’s death that was overcome by the true heirs of Constantine, and Constantius in particular. 177 This upheaval is specified by Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, the Epitomator and Jerome as an uprising by the army against

Dalmatius who was subsequently killed. 178 The idea of a mutinous army killing Dalmatius and other possible threats to the Constantinian emperors would eventually be supplanted by a version placing Constantius as the evil genius behind the assassinations. Athanasius is the first source to openly accuse this son of Constantine. 179 Although his hostility towards Constantius cannot be overlooked, his version might have authority as it was based on fïrst-hand reports and was written off the record. His accusations are later backed by Julian and Libanius after they were no longer forced to trumpet the official line, and repeated by Eunapius and

Zosimus. 180 A reconstruction of the events makes it seem very plausible that Constantius was responsible for the execution and that the army backed the son of Constantine. 181 Constantius was present in Constantinople at the time and directed the troops that carried out the operation. It seems that he profited the most when claiming the territories that had belonged to the eliminated princes. 18 2 His dislike of his half cousin and co-Caesar had been nourished by Dalmatius’ accession. The latter’s introduction into the college had not been received with 172 CIL VI 40776. Cf. AE 1976: 663c; CIL XVII/2 163a. For a reconstruction of and timeframe for the executions, see Burgess 2008. 173 Burgess 2008: 10 further identifies as victims Julius Constantius’ eldest son, four other cousins of Dalmatius, Flavius Optatus, Aemilius Magnus Arborius and possibly Virius Nepotianus and Flavius Felicianus. Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.22; Jul. Ep. ad Athen. 270d. The offspring of Crispus would be spared. See PLRE I 98 s.v. Aemilius Magnus Arborius 4; 226 s.v. Iulius Constantius 7; 330-331 s.v. Fl. Felicianus 5; 625 s.v. Virius Nepotianus 7; 650 s.v. Flavius Optatus 3. 174 Burgess 2008: 11-12. 175 Eus. VC 4.51.1 and 65-71. Cf. Eus. Triac. 3.2 and 4. 176 Eus. FC 4.69.2. 177 Lib. Or. 59-48^9; Jul. Or. 1.7D, 1.16D-17A and 18D. 178 Epit. de Caes. 41.18; Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.22. 179 Athan. Hist.Ar. 69.1. 180 Jul. Heracl. 230A; Lib. Or. 18.10; Eun. VS s.v. Maximus; Zos. 2.40.2. 181 For a detailed reconstruction, including literary, epigraphic and numismatic evidence, see Burgess 2008. See also DiMaio and Amold 1992; Nivikov and Mudd 1996. 182 Frakes 2006: 99. For the assumption of Constantinople to Constans, see Bruun 1991c. 44 widespread approval. The three major mints in the territories assigned to Constantinus, Constans and Constantius - Treveri, Roma and Antiochia - refrained from striking precious gold and silver coinage for Dalmatius, and only struck in bronze in his name. Dedications show that loyalty from subjects lay with the House of Constantine, not with that of

Constantius and Theodora. 183 In one manuscript, Aurelius Victor even stated that soldiers had objected to Dalmatius’ promotion. This statement has been questioned by modem scholars and conflicts with Eutropius and Jerome who stress the legitimacy of Constantine’s nephew. 184 It was only Constantine’s authority that safeguarded Dalmatius’ and Hannibalianus’ rule between 335 and 337, as their rise to power was not well received. Soldiers and the imperial comitatus may have shown their true loyalty to his House and guaranteed their acquired privileges and power by arranging themselves behind Constantine’s direct heirs. Since Constantine had been acclaimed emperor in 306, his military backing had familiarised themselves with the heirs apparent during his thirty-year reign. Constantine’s sons had frequently accompanied him on campaigns or were at the borders of the Empire with their own troops. Victories gained by a Caesar were not only remembered in his own titling but his cognomina devictarum gentium were claimed by Constantine as well. 185 The Constantinian coinage had various issues depicting the Augustus or his Caesares in military gear or being crowned by a soldier and a Victoria,186 According to Eusebius, the soldiers’ prayer ended with a phrase directed at Constantine and his ‘divine sons’ . 187 Under his rule, the precious, engraved fidelity rings seem to have been introduced. This special type of imperial donativa was awarded to centuriones and optiones after swearing their soldiers’ oath. 188 After Constantine’s death, Constans at least seems to have continued these donations, as military allegiance and support were clearly desired. Their relation to the late Augustus was furthermore recognised and honoured in official pronouncements and on various memorials and milestones. 189 Consecration coinage was also circulated, though not from the mints of

Constans. 190 The omission of the DIVUS CONSTANTINUS-type from Roma, Siscia and

183 There are dozens of inscriptions attested, dating from 333 until 337. Only a few show the recognition of Dalmatius as Caesar. CIL VI40776; X 8015; XII 5505 = XVII/2 96; XII 5676 = XVII/2 303; AE 1889: 40; 1976: 663; TAM\\\ 944. None are attested for Hannibalianus. See also Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.15. Grünewald 1990: 150-153. 184 Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Hier. Chron. s.a. 338 [316e]. Because of the short time between the death of Constantine and the acclamation of the three, Kent 1968: 7 assumes foreknowledge about the assassination of potential rivals for the throne. 185 Amaldi 1977a; Bames 1992: 83-85. 186 See, among others: RIC VII 219 (Treveri) 569-570; 328 (Rome) 280; 367 (Ticinum) 49; 527 (Thessalonica) 204; 576-583 (Constantinople) 42-45, 65 and 88-89; 612-628 (Nicomedia) 69, 81, 84, 104- 106 and 162-168. 187 Eus. FC 4.20. 188 Popovie 2000. 189 Eus. VC 4.73; CTh. 3.5.7, 8.12.6, 9.24.2, 9.34.5, 10.10.6, 11.30.28, 13.4.2 and 16.10.2 (337-359); CIL VI 1151 = 31248 and 1152; VIII 21934 and 21935; XI 6218 = 6219; XIV 4406; AE 1977: 246 = 2000: 43. See Amici 2000. 190 RIC VIII 143 (Treveri) 37, 44 and 68; 178 (Lugdunum) 1-3, 12 and 17; 205-206 (Arelate) 17, 32 and 40-42; 431-433 (Heraclea) 13, 41, 53 and 58; 447-453 (Constantinople) 1, 37, 68, 71 and 75; 471-475 45 Aquileia has been the basis for the conjecture that the Senate refused to execute a consecratio, or that Constans did not want to torment the Romans who were denied the body and burial of

Constantine. 191 He did, however, continue the mainly base billon bronze issues with the reserve GLORIA EXERCITUS, the last type struck by their father. 192 Two soldiers were depicted with a Standard between them. He further continued the imperial cult of the gens Flavia. Constans authorised the name change of the Umbrian city Hispellum to Flavia

Constans in honour of the imperial house and the city was awarded a new priesthood. 193 These Pontifices Gentis Flaviae had also been introduced in Rome and their existence is attested under Constans. 194 1.10 Divina suboles (337-340) After the elimination of possible threats to their rule, the three brothers addressed the question of succession. Only in the late summer of 337, three months after Constantine’s death, would his sons meet again, in Pannonia, probably in Sirmium. 195 The duration of the interregnum may have been prolonged by the set of assassinations, travel complications of the brothers, and troubling negotiations. Burgess’ proposal that Dalmatius’ death prompted Sarmatian activity in his former realm, which forced Constantius to engage in a campaign in the Danube region, gives another plausible explanation for the delay.1 9 6 0n 9 September 337, the three brothers raised themselves to the rank of Augustus. Their proclamation was forwarded to

Rome for acceptance by the Senate. 197 This constellation of three Augusti clearly differed from ancient and modem readings that suggested either Constantinus, Constantius or both as destined for the imperial throne. 198 As the divisions made by Constantine in 335 had become

(Nicomedia) 4, 18, 54 and 57; 490-494 (Cyzicus) 4, 19, 59 and 62; 515-521 (Antiochia) 37, 64, 112 and 117; 539-541 (Alexandria) 4, 12, 35, 38 and 41. 191 No consecratio: Koep 1958; Schumacher 1989: 527-528; Grünewald 1990: 162; no provocation: Price 1992: 101-102. For the reaction in Rome on the death of Constantine, see Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. 192 See, among others: RIC VIII 143-144 (Treveri) 38-41, 45-46, 49-52, 80-86; 178-179 (Lugdunum) 4-11, 13-16, 18-31; 205 (Arelate) 1-7, 10-14 and 18-24; 249-251 (Rome) 2-3, 24-26 and 50-52; 316 (Aquileia) 10-30; 354-355 (Siscia) 74-104; 384 (Sirmium) 1-9; 401-409 (Thessalonica) 1, 3 and 55-59; 431-432 (Heraclea) 15-39; 449-450 (Constantinople) 23-32 and 40-47; 471-472 (Nicomedia) 5-17 and 19-24; 490- 491 (Cyzicus) 5-18 and 20-24; 514-516 (Antiochia) 40-55 and 56-63; 539 (Alexandria) 5-7 and 13-15. 193 CIL XI 5265. See also CIL XI 5283. Barnes 2011: 21-23. Cf. Gascou 1967: 618-623. 194 CIL VI 1690 and 1691; XI 5265 and 5283. See Gascou 1967: 618-623; Curran 1996: 76. Amann 2002. For the cult of the gens Flavia, see Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.28. 195 Eus. FC 4.51.1 and 4.68; Jul. Or. 1.19a; Philost. HE 3.1 (= Passio Artemii 8); Zonar. 13.5.1-4; Epit. de Caes. 41.19-20; Zos. 2.39.2. For Sirmium as a possible location, see Burgess 2008: 38-40. 196 Burgess 2008: 39-40. 197 Eus. VC 4.69.2. See Burgess 2008: 11. 198 Constantinus: Malal. Chron. 13.15 [324]; Constantius: in literary attestations (Eus. VC 4.49; Jul. Or. 94 a-b), it was Constantius who was regarded the privileged son of Constantine. He was named after his grandfather and his dies imperii coincided with the foundation of Constantine’s eponymous city in the East. It was there that his marriage to the daughter of Julius Constantius was closed during the prestigious celebrations of Constantine’s tricennalia in 336. Jul. Or 1.16D and 2.94A-B; Zonar. 13.4.28. Cf. Zonar. 13.15.1. See Lucien-Brun 1973: 585; Humphries 1997: 450-451; for both, see Burgess 2008: 8-9. In 46 unsettled, the three also repartitioned the Empire after the removal of Dalmatius. The outcome of this division is not entirely clear, but the choices for residence in the following years might reflect the geographical power of the three emperors. 199 Trier remained the residence of Constantinus, who probably gained nothing in the negotiations compared to his allotment in 335. Constans annexed Macedonia and Achaea and several sources explicitly state that he controlled Italy and Rome.200 During the years following his father’s death, he presumably dwelt in Naissus, the former residence of Dalmatius.201 Constantius, who most likely gained Constantinople and the neighbouring provinces, commuted between Antioch in winter and

Mesopotamia for his summer campaigns against the Persians.202 * After the death of Constantine, his sons inherited an Empire with relatively secure borders that were only threatened in the East by the aggression of the Persians. Intemally, the Empire soon faced high-intensity conflicts. There was no balanced accord between the three brothers. Numismatic, legal and epigraphical evidence reflects ambitions by all three emperors to overrule their brothers. As the senior of the three, Constantinus was entitled to validate the proper rights of the Imperator maximus. In dedications from the three realms, his pre- eminence was acknowledged by epithets such as maximus or victor On coinage, the series with the titling of maximus seems to have been reserved for Constantinus only from his own mints, Constans’ mint of Siscia, and from Alexandria. 204 On coinage from Rome, Constantinus received a series with his father’s VIRTUS-type as form of distinction. It is also believed that just after the death of Constantine, special commemorative types for Helena and Theodora were developed at Constantinus’ capital mint Treveri, designed for dissemination in other realms. This homage to both wives of their grandfather Constantius Chlorus seems to have been followed by Constans and Constantius only reluctantly. They adopted the bronze series for distribution from Rome and Constantinople on a smaller scale than from Treveri, and ceased their production when Constantinus died in 340.205 Constantinus thus tried to assert his superiority in his brothers’ realms, but his seniority over his younger brothers must be questioned.206 Judging from one of the scarce extant inscriptions, the three Augusti held on to their own cognomina devictarum gentium and contrast, Constans’ nomination as Caesar was accompanied by astonishing omens prcdicting turmoil undcr his rule, according to the Epitomator (De Caes. 41.13-14). 199 For a detailed reading of this division: Bleckmann 2003: 227-236. 200 Philost. HE 3.1a (Passio Artemio 8) and Zonar. 13.5.1-40. The Epitomator {De Caes. 41.19-20) and Zosimus (2.39.2) only mention Italy and do not specifically name Rome. 20 ‘ Bames 1982: 87. 202 Constantinople has also been attributedto Constans, judging from numismatic evidence. Bruun 1991c. 203 Victor. CIL III 6732; VIII 852 = 12368 = 23984; AE 1933: 86 = 1948: 207; 1975: 473; 1984: 836; Maximus: CIL III 6962 = 6963 and 7175; VIII 22577 = 22578; AE 1933: 86 = 1948: 207. Chastagnol 1976a: 271-274; Mitford 1939: 187-189. 204 RIC Vm 539 (Alexandria) 4-17; 348-355 (Siscia) 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 20, 57, 75, 77, 79, 82-83, 85, 89-90 and 95-96; (Thessalonica) 62. See Bruun 1991c: 170-172. For special issues from Siscia, see Baldus 1994; Mitford 1939: 187. 205 Burgess 2008:21-24. 206 Cuneo 1997: 29-30; Cara 1993. 47 all refrained from assuming those of their peers.207 This independent use was a continuation of the practice when they were Caesares. In consular appointments, Constantinus also failed to assert his seniority. Whereas, traditionally, emperors assumed the fasces in the year of their acclamation, two non-imperial consuls filled the consulate in 338. The following year, Constantinus was apparently not strong enough to dominate his colleagues, as Constantius and Constans took the consulate. 208 Constantinus had by then already been overruled by Constantius in a religious matter. In 337, the oldest Augustus had revocated the banishment of Athanasius, which allowed the bishop to return to his see in Alexandria. Although the initiative was Constantinus’, Alexandria was located in the realm of Constantius. The latter would renew the order for Athanasius’ exile a year later.209 In coinage, one can also detect the emergence of the other Augusti against their older brother. In Constantinople, issues were coined for Constantius as maximus, not the senior- Augustus. In Siscia, it seems that coinage for all three emperors as maximus had been struck before reserving the series for Constantinus only. At a later time, however, the officina of Siscia would coin MAXIMUS-issues again for all three emperors, as happened in Thessalonica and Antioch. Dedications within Constans’ realm honoured their own Augustus with this titling as well,2 10 which might indicate a possible challenge from Constans towards his oldest brother as enmity towards the other grew. The mints of Nicomedia, Cyzicus and Antiochia totally refrained from striking MAXIMUS-issues. Constantinus’ discontent with his position and the regional division of the Empire would ultimately prompt hostilities towards Constans. 2 1 1 His attempt to redress the shifted balance of power seems to have been aimed at gaining hegemony, especially over Italy and Africa. It is believed that he tried to press a claim of authority over his youngest brother by issuing an edict to the proconsul of Africa, Constans’ official.2 1 2 This intention clashed with the ambitions of the other brothers. Early in 340, Constantinus invaded the territories of his brother Constans for an ill-fated challenge. After his violent death near Aquileia, an abolitio nominis and damnatio memoriae followed. 2 1 3 The publicus ac noster inimicus was to be removed from the Neo-Flavian dynasty. 2 14 His name was removed from dedications.

207 CIL III 12483. 208 Bagnall 1987:212-213. 209 Athan. Hist. Ar. 8; Philost. HE 2.18; Soz. HE 3.2.7-8; Soc. HE 2.3.5; Theodoret. HE 2.2.5. See Cara 1993: 179-180. 210 CIL II4742 = 6209; VIII 5178 = 17268. 211 Zos. 2.41.1; Epit. de Caes. 41.21; Philost. HE 3.1. See Bleckmann 2003: 239. 212 CTh. 12.1.27 (339). Aurelius Celsinus, the proconsul of Africa, was also addressed in laws by Constans and seems to have been loyal to the emperor, as he was awarded the urban prefecture in 340. Furthermore, Constans issued imperial pronouncements to other officials in Africa. Probably, the place of issue, Trier, was wrongly emendated. See PLRE1 192 s.v. Aurelius Celsinus 4. 213 See, among others: Hier. Chron. s.a. 340 [317a]; Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.22; Epit. de Caes. 41.21; Eutr. Brev. 10.9.2; Zos. 2.41-42; Jul. Or. 2.94B-C; Soc. HE 2.5; Soz. HE 3.2; Philost. HE 3.1. 214 CTh. 11.12.1 (340). 48 Constantina, the name Arles received circa 328 after Constantinus, was reversed after his death and his name was removed from dedications.2 15

1.11 Constantius and Constans (340-350) The decade of joint rule of the two remaining Augusti is difficult to reconstruct. The scarce literary sources either pass over these years in epitomes or mainly incorporate the period into ecclesiastical histories. From the extant references, a decade of geo-political and religio- political conflicts between the brothers emerges. Although Constans and Constantius both conceded to each other for the sake of concord and collaboration, ecclesiastical and imperial disputes between the two held them on opposite sides for several years. No indications of tensions before the 340s are attested, which may be attributed to the inward-looking attitudes of the emperors in their early years as Augusti. Julian praises Constantius for his modesty and conflict-avoiding position at the time of the division of the Empire in 337 and after the death of Constantinus.216An indication of good relations between the two brothers may be deduced from the issuance of the VICTORJAE DD AUGGQ NN or variations from most mints.2 17 On it, two Victories held wreaths and palms. The death of Constantinus, however, resulted in a territorial preponderance by Constans, who inherited the former realms of his late brother. The period of imperial crisis in the 340s can be linked partly to ecclesiastical disputes amongst bishops, which, because of the different Christian convictions of the emperors, were battled out on the highest level. Constans favoured the Nicene orthodoxy of Athanasius and most of the Western bishops, whereas Constantius supported the Arian cause that was defended by the majority of the eastem bishops. Several church fathers state that Constans sustained a correspondence with his brother to resolve the discord between East and West over the Arian controversy with the banished Athanasius as a central figure.2 18 In a letter from 342, Constans urged his brother of the need for a council and summoned tens of bishops in either 342 or 343 to Serdica.2 19 It tumed out to be a disastrous encounter between the rivalling bishops. The eastem attendants eventually withdrew from the council and organised their own gathering in Philippopolis. The

215 CIL ffl 471 = 472 = 473 = 474 = 475, 477, 5207, 7187 = 7188 and 7197 = 7198 = 7199 = 14201.6; V 8030; VIII 12272; AE 1927: 165 = 1935:4 = 2975 = 472; 1988:217= 1996: 285; CTh. 11.12.1 (340). See Mazzini 1958: pl. 36 and 76; Cahn 1987. 216 Jul. Or. 1.19a-20a and 2.95a. 217 See, among others: RIC VIII 147-150 (Treveri) 128-129 and 164-167; 180-181 (Lugdunum) 38-68; 208- 209 (Lugdunum) 72-98; 253-255 (Rome) 75-102; 322 (Aquileia) 76-93; 363 (Siscia) 182-196; 386 (Sirmium 26-27; 411 (Thessalonica) 99-106; 433 (Heraclea) 42-43; 452 (Constantinople) 63-66; 474 (Nicomedia) 46-47; 491 (Cyzicus) 36-37; 540 (Alexandria) 29-31. 18 Soc. HE 2.18.1-2; Soz. HE 3.10.3, 11 and 20.1; Athan. Hist.Ar. 15.3; Apol.ad Cons. 4.3-4 and 4.6; Theodoret. HE 2.3 and 2.6; Ruf. HE 10.20. Other bishops who were banished in the process were Paul of Constantinople and Marcellus from Ancyra. For Athanasius, see Girardet 1975; Barnes 1993a. 219 Soc. HE 2.20 and 2.22, Soz. HE 3.11.3-3.12.7; Theodoret. HE 2.6; Athan. Hist.Ar. 16-17; Apol.ad Cons. 4.3-4. For the year, see Portmann 1999: 304. 49 Serdican council ended with the restoration of the banished Athanasius, whereas the altemative meeting repeated its condemnation of the Nicene theological questions. The outcome of the Council of Serdica strained relations between the brothers. In 344, both emperors opted for a different consul posterior for the East. Trading ties between East and West seem to have been severed in this period. Several sources reveal that Constans was willing to launch a war as repercussion for this failure. 220 The instalment of a separate praetorian prefecture of Illyricum in 343 or 344 may have been a direct result of this threat.2 21 To arm himself against a possible clash, Constans wished to strengthen his border region. The coinage from Arelate further shows two series of golden coinage in the 340s that were minted only for Constans.222 Probably in an attempt to minimise the threat of a civil war against his brother coinciding with an attack from the Persians who were stirring in the East, rapprochements were made during Constantius’ initiative in the spring of 344. He lifted the banishment of several exiled Alexandrian presbyters and deacons. This gesture probably incited Constans to accept Constantius’ consul Julius Sallustius at the cost of his own earlier consular appointee

Flavius Bonosus. 223 The reconciliation between the brothers, however, was by no means complete, not in the least because the restoration of Athanasius was still not enforced. 345 was another year filled with considerable tensions.2 24 The emperors opted for non-imperial consuls instead of assuming the fasces together, although their joint consulates in 339 and 342 might have given rise their return after another three years.225 Relations between Constans and Constantius were only normalised after the death of Alexandria’s patriarch Gregory in June 345. With Athanasius’ replacement gone, Constantius rescinded the bishop’s status and granted his return to Alexandria, where he would only arrive a full year later.226 In that year (346), Constantius and Constans held their third consular year as Augusti.227 The emission of coins proclaiming the FEl(IX) or FEL(ICIUM) TEMP(ORUM) REPARA TIO throughout the Empire was very likely introduced to stress the renewed alliance and celebrate the restoration of relations. 228 The bronze (and few silver) FEL TEMP

220 Ruf. HE 10.20; Soc. HE 2.22.3-4; Soz. HE 3.20; Theodoret. HE 2.6; Philost. HE 3.12. See Bames 1993a: 63-93; Portmann 1999: 302. 221 Anatolius is the fïrst attested praetorian prefect of Illyricum. See Norman 1957; Bames 1992: 258. 222 RIC VIII317-319 (Arelate) 35-41 and 46. 223 Athan. Hist.Ar. 21.1-3. See PLRE I 164 s.v. Flavius Bonosus 4; 798 s.v. Flavius Iulius Sallustius 7; Bagnall 1987: 222-223. 224 The following year, a similar incident as occurred in Serdica took place at the council of Milan, where eastem bishops left out of conviction. Di Berardino 1992. 225 Bagnall 1987: 212-213,218-219 and 224-226. 226 Athan. Apol.c.Ar. 51; Hist.Ar. 1-22; Apol.ad Cons. 4.5. Around this time, Paul was also allowed to return to Constantinople. See Bames 1993a: 91. 227 Bagnall 1987:226-227. 228 See, among others: RIC Vffl 153-154 (Treveri) 212-244; 190-191 (Lugdunum) 183-200; 210-212 (Arelate) 99-128; 256-260 (Rome) 107-161; 323-325 (Aquileia) 94-121; 364-367 (Siscia) 197-258; 387- 388 (Sirmium) 32, 35-53; 411-412 (Thessalonia) 107-123; 434-435 (Heraclea) 61-80; 453-454 (Constantinople) 78-94; 475-476 (Nicomedia) 60-73; 494-496 (Cyzicus) 65-91; 522 (Antiochia) 121-131; 541-542 (Alexandria) 44-71. See Mattingly 1933; Kent 1967; Grant 1977: 148 and 153; Weiser 1987; Thoma 1996. See App. 2, fig. 17. 50 REPARATIO-series, struek for both Constans and Constantius, were coined in five principal types: the emperor in galley, Virtus spearing a falling horseman, Virtus leading a person from a hut, the emperor with captives, and a phoenix. The series was certainly introduced before 348, around the time of the tenth anniversary of their rule as Augustus, but other actualities may have played a part in the emission of the various types. 229 The hut-type in particular has been connected with the religious events in the years surrounding the council of Serdica in

3 4 3 23° yjjg theme was only minted in the realm of Constans, and might refer to the banishments of bishops which had caused the conflict between the two emperors to be settled in favour of Constans. For the remaining years of the 340s, the brothers recognised each other on coinage and no altercations seem to have occurred. No endeavours by Constans are known for this period except for rare confirmations of his whereabouts, but Constantius was engaged in his Persian campaigns in Mesopotamia in the summers of the late 340s. He was probably wintering in Antioch, or possibly Constantinople (where his presence is attested in October 349), when Constans was killed by troops of the usurper Magnentius in early 350.231

1.12 Usurpations and Civil War (350-353) In January 350, Magnentius was acclaimed emperor in Constans’ absence at Autun. Shortly thereafïter, Constans was imprisoned by Magnentius’ cohorts and put to death in Helena, near the borders of Hispania and Gallia.232 The usurper had built up a career from protector to comes of the Iuliani and Herculiani. His support base was led by Constans’ praetorian prefect of the Gauls, Fabius Titianus, the former urban prefect of Rome from 339 until 341.233 For his loyalty, he was awarded with a second prefecture of the City, from February 350 until March 351. The comes rerum privatarum Marcellinus was promoted to magister officiorum after the coup.234 Given Constans’ relatively successful military campaigns, other forms of misconduct or misbehaviour seem to have motivated the coup as well as the large support under army officers and soldiers of Magnentius. 235 According to Eutropius, Constans had indulged in

229 Kraft 1958: 145-159 and 183; Kent 1967: 84. 230 Kraft 1958: 146. 231 Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Hier. Chron. s.a. 350 [319c], Cons.Const. s.a. 340; Epit. de Caes. 41.23; Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.23; Zos. 2.42.5; Zonar. 13.5.13. 232 It has been suggested that Constantius built a tomb for his deceased brother in Centcelles, near Constanti (close to Tarragona, Spain). This attribution is problematic because of its decoration. Athan. Hist.Ar. 69. See Schlunk 1959: 359; Arbeiter 2006; Johnson 2009: 129-138. 233 PLRE I 918-919 s.v. Fabius Titianus 6. 234 Others also supported the revolt. Anicetus, whose identity is unclear, became praefectus praetorio Italiae. Gerontius served as comes rei militaris, and Romulus as magister militiae. See PLRE I 66-67 s.v. Anicetus 1; 393 s.v. Gerontius 1; 546 s.v. Marcellinus 8; 771 s.v. Romulus 2. 235 See, for example, AE 1999: 1123 =AE 2003: 1253 = ^ 2 0 0 5 : 1104. 51 gravia vitia during his rule.236 Literary sources mention his oppression of provincials, avarice,

moody character and undervaluation of the administrative machinery.237 Magnentius gained dominance over most provinces in the West, controlling Italy,

Gaul, Africa and Illyricum.238 Rome, however, was not easily won. Although several senators, including Fabius Titianus, Aurelius Celsinus and Clodius Celsinus Adelphius, sided with

Magnentius, others eventually fled from Rome.239 In June 350, Julius Nepotianus, a family member from the House of Constantius and Theodora, was acclaimed Caesar by opponents of

Magnentius in Rome.240 His coinage from the City presents him as FL NEP CONSTANTINVS AVG and the reverse honours the Urhs Roma, clear indications that the City belonged to

members of the Constantinan dynasty.241 His revolt lasted only a month as he was killed by

generals of Magnentius.24 2 In the course of the year, the usurper appointed Magnus Decentius

to control Gaul and help him consolidate his powerbase.243 From the outset, Magnentius had presented himself as the restitutor libertatis et rei publicae and conservator militum et provincialium. These were obvious claims to counter the

misrule of Constans, who suffered a damnatio memoriae.244 He further adopted the FEL TEMP REPARA 770-theme after his coup to gain recognition as Augustus of the West by

Constantius.245 For the propagation of these motives, Magnentius opened the mint of Amiens,

and claimed the officinae of Trier, Aquileia and Rome.246 By appropriating this particular

legend, he tried to create a shared emperorship as Constans and Constantius had had. 247 Furthermore, he sent a delegation, led by Fabius Titianus, to Constantius to counter his

rejection of Magnentius and offered his daughter to the Augustus,248 Before Constantius turaed to actively deposing Magnentius, he had to settle another usurpation in Illyricum. The coup by the magister militum Vetranio in 350 was spurred on by Constantia, a sister of Constantius, in reaction to the usurpation of Magnentius and the death

of her brother.249 Constantius was still engaged in warfare against the Persians at Nisibis at the time of the turmoil in the West and would only leave the East in autumn. He was able to regain the loyalty of the Illyrian army and arranged the abdication of Vetranio without violence.

Eutr. Brev. 10.9. 237 Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.23-24; Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Epit. de Caes. 41.22. See Moreau 1959: 180. 238 Eutr. Brev. 10.10. Overview of sources in Ehling 2001a: 145. See also Sasel 1971; Rubin 1998. 239 PLREI 192-193 s.v. Clodius Celsinus signo Adelphius 6. 240 PLRE I 624 s.v. Iul. Nepotianus 5. See Elbem 1984: 50. 241 Ehling 2001a. 242 RIC VUI261 (Rome) 167. See also RIC VIII265-266 (Rome) 200-203. Ehling 2001 a. 243 Bleckmann 1999. PLRE 1244-245 s.v. Magnus Decentius 3. 244 CIL VI40782A; VIII22558; CTh. 16.10.5. 245 .R/C VIII 157-158 (Treveri) 260-261; 184 (Lugdunum) 108; 213-214 (Arelate) 133 and 140-148. 246 RIC VIII 121-124 (Amiens) 1-49; 155-164 (Treveri 245-327A; 184-189 (Lugdunum) 107-176; 212-217 (Aquileia) 129-202. 247 Bruun 1997: 52-53. 248 Zos. 2.49.1-2. 249 PLRE 1954 s.v. Vetranio 1; Bleckmann 1994; Drinkwater 2000. 52 Constantius did, however, take up arms against the other usurper, who was labelled a tyrant by law .250 In September of 351, Magnentius suffered defeat at Mursa and Constantius was able to gradually claim territories in Italy and would settle in Milan in the autumn of 352. After wintering in the former Tetrarchic Capital, he left for his final campaign against Magnentius. After major defeats and defecting soldiers, Magnentius and next Decentius committed suicide in August 353.

1.13 Gallus (351-354)

With Persian threats in Mesopotamia, and Magnentius, Nepotianus and Vetranio usurping in the West, the Empire had clearly been under unruly command in the early 350s.251 To counter any possible new usurpations and to parry threats in the East in his absence, Constantius appointed a Caesar. In the absence of any sons of his own, he decided to appoint Gallus in March 351. He was the son of Galla and Julius Constantius, Constantine’s half-brother who had been executed in the direct aftermath of Constantine’s death.2 5 2 Gallus himself was very young at the time of the massacre in 337 and a fatal-looking illness was thought to soon end his life. However, he was cured and had to spend the rest of his youth in virtual exile in Ephesus. Afterwards, he stayed for a period of time in Macellum before being raised to the rank of emperor by Constantius in Sirmium. He was renamed Fl. Claudius Constantius and was offered Constantina, Constantius’ sister, in marriage. Now Caesar, Gallus was entrusted with the protection of the Eastem frontiers against the Persians, and, according to Philostorgius, was very influential in combating the invaders. To assist him in his duties, he was awarded his own praetorian prefect. During the summer of 352, he furthermore suppressed a Jewish uprising in Palestine. His rule as Caesar, however, was not completely prosperous. Zonaras recounts an assassination plot by Magnentius against

Gallus.253 In Antioch, his main residence, influential opponents such as the praetorian prefect Domitianus and the quaestor sacri palatii Montius Magnus were allegedly devising a plot against him and were arrested, tried and executed 254 Relations between Constantius and the Caesar were uneasy from the start of his rule and the Augustus increasingly doubted Gallus’ loyalty. He summoned him and Constantina to the West where Constantius had resided from 351 onwards, campaigning against Magnentius and the Alamanni. Gallus refused and stayed in Antioch, with Constantina departing alone. She only came as far as Bithynia where she died from an illness.255 Gallus was once again ordered to meet Constantius, but his joumey ended via Constantinople in Petobia in Noricum. Reports of megalomania in Constantinople had further worried Constantius and Gallus was apprehended and stripped of his imperial rank.

CTh. 15.4.5 (352). See also CTh. 16.10.5 (353). 251 For Magnentius, see: Sasel 1971; Rubin 1998; Drinkwater 2000; for Nepotianus, see Ehling 2001a. 252 For the stemma of the family, see App. 1. 253 Zonar. 13.8.25-31. 254 PLRE1262 s.v. Domitianus 3; 535-536 s.v. Montius Magnus 11. 255 Amm.Marc. 14.11.6. 53 From Petobia, he was taken to Pola where he was questioned about his actions. After a disappointing outcome from these interrogations, Gallus was sentenced to death by dispatch from Constantius in October 354.256

1.14 Julian (355-361) For all the bitter experience of appointing a Caesar, the vastness of the Empire forced

Constantius to choose another Caesar in November 3 55.257 He opted for Julian, who was again a member from the House of Constantius and Theodora, as there were no candidates from the branch of Constantius and Helena. Julian was bom in Constantinople in the early 330s and was the second son of Julius Constantius with his second wife Basalina. Like his stepbrother, he had survived the elimination of enemies of Constantine’s son and was raised apart from the imperial court in Nicomedia. He would later join Gallus in Macellum. He was subsequently summoned to Milan and raised to the imperial rank. A few days after the ceremony, Julian was betrothed to Constantius’ sister Helena. Julian would be appointed Caesar of the West and was stationed in Gaul. His presence was needed as invading Alamanni were a cause of threat and an usurpation was pending in Augustodunum. The Franks were another priority for Julian and became his focus in the years after the Alamannic raids in 357. With Julian settled in the West, Constantius slowly left for the East after a stay of more than five years. He culminated his residency in the pars Occidentis with a visit to Rome in May 357, celebrating his jubilee and the victory over Magnentius. Movements along the Syrian borders recalled him to his original domains, in the company of a large share of Julian’s troops. These reinforcements were needed against the Persian threats, but may have also been a precaution against Julian’s success in warfare. His fighting spirit and feats had made the Caesar popular in the Gauls and moved him next into German territory. In the absence of Constantius and a portion of his troops, Julian was proclaimed Augustus in Paris in early 3 60.258 Constantius was engaged in Mesopotamia when he leamed of this development and tried to sway Julian through his missives into laying down the title of Augustus. Julian, however, celebrated his quinquennial games now in the capacity of Augustus and reached out

- in vain - to the Senate of Rome to denounce Constantius and accept his authority. 259 Only after settling the Persian matter was Constantius able to address the usurpation of Julian and make arrangements for a campaign to the west. A fatal illness, however, ended his march in Cilicia in early November 361.260

256 Amm.Marc. 14.11.20-30. See Bleckmann 1994; Barcelo 1999. Damnatio memoriae: CIL VIII 8475. 257 See, for example, the rebellion of Silvanus in August of 355. PLRE I 840-841 s.v. Silvanus 2; Nutt 1973. 258 Jul. Epis. adAth. 283a-285a; Amm.Marc. 20.4.4-22; Zos. 3.9.1. See Rosen 1969; Drinkwater 1983. 259 Amm.Marc. 21.1.4-5 and 21.10.7. See also Chapter 6, paragraph 3. 260 Hier. Chron. s.a. 361 [324b]; Amm.Marc. 21.15.3; Cons.Const. s.a. 361; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 361; Soc. HE 2.47 and 3.1; Soz. HE 5.1; Ruf. HE 10.27. 54 1.15 Constructing a Dynasty In 306, Constantine was raised to the rank of Augustus by the military who had vowed loyalty to his late father. After initial recognition by and rapprochements to the members of the Tetrarchy, Constantine’s political policy was one of independence and well-considered alliances. The Tetrarchic system would limit his ambitions of power and his pursuit of dynasticism. The dynastie principle, culminating in an imperial college of his closest relatives across separate realms, survived the challenges of Empire and proved its effect during his reign. Constantine’s dynastie claims for imperial rule, carried out through various means of propaganda, would be a leading and powerful prerogative from the start of his reign. His initiatives for consent to closing alliances were all pragmatic moves to reinforce or enlarge his power base. As he was not willing or able to legitimate his imperial rule by the Tetrarchic conventions of concordia, he fostered his descent from his father Constantius Chlorus, and, later in his reign, Claudius Gothicus. His coalitions with Maxentius in the early years of his reign, and later Licinius, were given up when they were no longer vital for the consolidation of his power base. After the first hostilities with his co -Augustus Licinius, he confïrmed and extended his dynastie course by raising his own sons Crispus and Constantinus to the rank of Caesar. He continued the nomination of direct family members after his victory over Licinius in 324 which made him sole ruler. He added his son Constantius to the imperial college and awarded his wife Fausta and mother Helena the title of Augusta. For the remaining years of his reign, the concordia between Constantine and his Caesares safeguarded the Empire from intemal strife. The execution of his fïrst-bom Crispus may have had taken place for dynastical reasons, but sources have given other explanations, and retaliations from loyal subjects seemed to have failed to occur. The number of Caesares would only be raised again to three in 333, when Constantine’s youngest son Constans was appointed. Family marriages for Constantine’s sons and daughters were used to fiirther intertwine and strengthen the dynasty. The suggestive naming of his kin, their young age at the time of their dies imperii (most of which were planned on anniversaries of Constantinian victories or other special occasions of Constantinian rule) and his strategie dynastie politics all vouch for Constantine’s predilection to dynasticism. The strength of his constructed dynasty would show itself after Constantine started appointing members of the House of Constantius and Theodora and divided the Empire. His policy stirred rivalry among the emperors and their armies, which would escalate after his death. All possible threats to his direct heirs were eliminated and Constantinus, Constantius and Constans assumed the imperial throne together. The ancestry of the newly acclaimed Augusti had proven its strength, as it evoked an indispensable sense of pietas among the Roman population and army. Aside from the right derivative name and filiation to Constantine, alleged concordia would prove imperative. The lack of fratemal unity and a

55 clear hierarchy between the three brothers, however, resulted in flagging relations and even military mutiny and facilitated usurpations. Within three years from Constantine’s death, a civil war had ensued between the two Augusti in the West, leaving Constans victorious. He assumed his brothers’ territory and the two remaining Augusti each ruled one side of the Empire, although not in complete concord. Their religious convictions impeded a constructive collaboration. Both refrained from appointing successors or co-rulers and the decade of the 340s proved firee of political and military threats, though the concord between the brothers was fragile due to religious differences. In refraining from succession policy, they departed from their father’s precedent. It is understandable that Constantine feit impelled to designate his heirs shortly after his victory over Licinius, which had made him sole emperor. Constantius and his brother, however, had no offspring. In 350, Constans’ position had become untenable and he perished during the usurpation of Magnentius. Others also saw chances to make a bid for the throne in the West and professed their loyalty to Constantius. The various usurpations confronted him with the necessity of a joint rulership. Constantius proceeded to appoint co-rulers, and, like his father, opted for men within the imperial family, from the branch of Constantius and Theodora. These half-brothers, however, did not warrant a joint venture in loyalty. With Julian’s acclamation as Augustus, another civil war was pending. Constantius’ unexpected death before the confrontation marked the end of the Constantinian dynasty that had begun with an usurpation by its founder in 306. A prerogative to rule established on the dynastie principle had clearly proven a basis for imperial rule, but its perpetuation required the embracing and propagation of lineage. * The years of Constantinian rule show how goveming the Empire was influenced by political agendas, religious conflicts and military upheavals, and how policy was often adjusted according to need and necessity. Large periods of time were spent at the borders of the Empire and in new realms to strengthen the emperors’ rules. The city of Rome, however, had a far from peripheral role in the events that shaped the history of the Constantinian dynasty. Between 306 and 361, Rome played a decisive part in policymaking and a number of watershed moments: Constantine’s strife and battle with Maxentius about Rome; the division of the Empire after the death of Constantine; as seat of a council to assess the Arian dispute; the military mutiny under Magnentius and the subsequent usurpation of Nepotianus in Rome; and Julian’s attempt to consolidate a powerbase in Rome after his uprising against Constantius. These key episodes show that the City remained central to the concerns of the emperors and was influenced by their degree of attachment. The following chapters explore the complex relationship between the emperors and the traditional Capital, assessing the spatial politics and practices of Constantine, Constans and Constantius in Rome.

56 PART TWO PRESENCE

CHAPTER 2 THE CONSTANTINIAN DYNASTY IN ROME 2.1 Constantine 2.1.1 A Triumphal Visit (312) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (306-312) On 29 October 312, the day after his victory in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge, Constantine entered Rome. 1 It is his fïrst recorded visit to the etemal city, although it has been presumed that he accompanied Diocletian to Rome in 303.2 Eusebius and the panegyrists who treat Constantine’s visit to Rome, however, make no reference to Constantine having been in the City before 312. Although there had been a brief alliance between Constantine and Maxentius and his father Maximian since the autumn of 307, there are no grounds for the assumption of an official visit to Maxentius in this period. In the early years of his imperial career, Constantine’s primary residence was Trier, possibly alternated with Arles, as is accounted in panegyrics and can be deduced from the use of their locations for important occasions. 3 Trier had been the residence of his late father Constantius and would be the principal Constantinian mint until 312, and Arles would serve as one for Maximian from the breach with his son Maxentius onwards.4 Shortly after being proclaimed emperor in York in July 306, Constantine crossed to the Gauls and went on campaign against the Francs.5 A single issue from Londinium might suggest a return visit to Britain in 307, and one he is likely to have repeated in 310.6 The fïrst probably took place before his investiture as Augustus by Maximian in the autumn of 307. This ceremony, coinciding with his marriage to Maximian’s daughter Fausta, was courted in either Trier or Arles. Arles has been proposed based on references by the panegyrist of 307 and a bulk of milestones concentrated in the area. However, this epigraphical group can be explained by the presence of Maximian in Arles after his breach with Maxentius and his subsequent flight from Rome, and by the increasingly dense military presence in the region when Constantine’s hostilities with Maxentius developed. Arles only became more prominent after Constantine’s victory over Maxentius and his return to Gaul in 313. In the same year,

1 For the date: CIL I2 p. 274. The adventus of 312 would become a ludus votivus, commemorated with circus games. See Salzman 1990: 140-146. 2 Barnes changed his conjecture to certainty in his latest work. Barnes 1982: 42: “Presumably accompanies Diocletian during his visit”; Barnes 2011: 54: “But he surely accompanied Diocletian to Rome in 303”. See also Hartley e.a. 2006: 15. For Diocletian in Rome, see Lact. Mort.Pers. 17.1-3. 3 See infra. 4 Trier: Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 1.1 and 22.5-7; 5 (8) 1. Treveri was the only of the three western mints (Treveri, Londinium, Lugdunum) for gold and silver coinage until 312: R1C VI 202-224 (Treveri). Wightman 1970: 58-59 and 98-123; Stephenson 2010: 124-127; Arles: PanLat. 6 (7) 16 and 18.6; Eutr. Brev. 10.3. Grünewald 1990: 35-38. 5 See Chapter 1, paragraph 1. 6 R1C V I129 (Londinium) 82. See Barnes 1982: 69. Cf. Bames 2011: 208 n. 14. 59 Arles would become a mint-city, and in 314 it would host a council summoned by

Constantine.7 In August 316, Constantine’s son Constantinus was bom there, and later that month, Constantine’s presence is attested in Arles for the first time. 8 Trier has now been deemed the most favourable location for the celebrations and the principal residence of

Constantine at this time.9 After another Crossing to Britain in 310, he visited Augustodunum the following year. His benefactions there, including tax reliefs, would be commemorated in a gratiarum actio by an orator from Autun himself. 10 This oration was delivered before Constantine in Trier at the celebration of the ending of his quinquennalia.11 During the first fïve years of his rule, Constantine had spent considerable time campaigning. Besides battling the Franci in 307 and in the summer of 310, he invaded the territory of the Bructeri in 308, which awarded him his second title of Germanicus Maximus}2 In 312, Constantine invaded Maxentius’ realm, after the latter had declared war. He moved slowly via Susa, Turin, Milan and Verona towards Rome, the power base of

Maxentius, as the hostilities between the former allies were reaching their peak. 13 He would claim victory and dominion of the City on 28 October. Adventus or triumphus? According to Eusebius, Constantine ‘rode into triumph into the imperial city’ after his victory. 14 Although the Roman imperial adventus-ceremony had developed from the triumphal act of victorious generals entering Rome, it has been much debated whether this first arrival of Constantine in Rome really was a ceremonial triumphus or “simply” an adventus. 15 References in literature and art are too vague. 16 Indeed, Eusebius described Constantine’s arrival as a triumphal procession, but, as the panegyrist of 313 rightly exclaims, Constantine had been victorious in a civil war, not a foreign one: O Rome, fortunate at last in a civil victory!17

7 Munier 1963: 3-25; Eek 2007; Slootjes 2011: 112. See also paragraph 1.2 of this chapter. 8 Presence Constantine in Arles: CTh. 11.30.5-6 (316). Grünewald 1990: 36-37; against Arles: Février 1978; Heijmans 2006; mint-city: RIC VII 234-238 (Arelate); birth of Constantinus, see Chapter 1, paragraph 3. For ancient references to Arles, see Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 16.1 and 18.6; Lact. Mort.Pers. 29.3-6. See, among others: Galletier 1952: 41; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 184-185; Bames 1982: 69; id. 2011: 55; Stephenson 2010: 124-127. Lyon is suggested by Sutherland 1973: 29, but without any argumentation. w Pan.Lat. 5(8) 9-12. 11 Nixon 1980. 12 See Chapter 1, paragraph 1. 13 Susa: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 5.4-6.1; Turin: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 6.2-7.2; 4 (10) 22.2; Milan: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 7.5-8; Verona: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 8-9.2, 10.3 and 11.1; 4 (10) 25; Anon.Vales. Origo 4.12; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.20. Mannella 2004. 14 Eus. VC 1.39: ... |xex’ émvndcov eiof|Xawev elq xfiv PaatXeóouaav jtóA.tv. 15 For the ceremony of adventus, see: MaeCormack 1972; id. 1981: 33-61; Dufraigne 1994: 74-83; Benoist 2005: 195-272; Bérenger and Perrin-Saminadayar 2009 ; Schmidt-Hofher 2012. Cf. Stephenson 2010: 146- 147. 16 Künzl 1988: 62 and 106; Curran 2000: 74. 17 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 20.3: O tandem felix civili, Roma, victoria! See also Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19; 4 (10) 30.4-31. 60 In the Calendar of Philoealus, recording celebratory events in Rome, 29 October is simply marked adventus. 18 The iconography on the Arch of Constantine, awarded to the emperor in 315 for his triumph over Maxentius, also depicts an adventus. Although the collection of panels available for incorporation on the arch - once belonging to an arch of Marcus Aurelius - included one panel depicting a triumphus and another a sacrifice, these were excluded in favour of other scenes. 19 Also significant is the Constantinian frieze on which the emperor is not seated in a currus triumphalis but in a regular currus. Neither does the frieze iconography allude to a visit to the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.20 Literary sources are also silent on the ascension of Constantine to the Capitol, an act that was traditionally the culmination of the triumph. 2 1 According to the orator of 313, Constantine approached the palace quickly after entering the city, giving rise to complaints from the populace over his brief appearance.2 2 For Straub, the silence of the panegyrist on a sacrifice on the hill was telling, as the orator was “officially commissioned” and had described the entrance extensively.23 Straub refers to passages in the panegyrics of 289 and 307 which mention the sacrifice to Jupiter by Diocletian and Maximian to argue that only Constantine’s inaction can explain the absence of a sacrifice in the panegyrist’s account of 313.24 MacCormack also deems the silence on a visit to the Capitol in 312 evidence for the end of the practice.25 There are some arguments to counter this. It is highly debatable whether panegyrists were officially briefed, although of course they had to chose their words and message carefully. For example, there could have been religious considerations at stake that led to a deliberate phrasing of (or even silence on) matters which might have caused discomfort for the author or the imperial addressee. It remains to be seen if the orator used the modification tam cito to imply that Constantine deliberately omitted a visit to the Capitol. His description of Constantine’s speedy retreat did indeed marr the festive entrance, but here it appears that he criticised the behaviour of the populace, rather than Constantine’s: Some even dared to ask you to tarry and to complain that you approached the palace so quickly and, after you had entered, dared not only follow you with their eyes but almost to intrude even upon the sacred threshold.26

18 All three Roman visits by Constantine are recorded on the Calendar as an adventus: CIL I2p. 268 (July 315 and 326) and 274 (October 312). 19 Angelicoussis 1984: 152 and 154. See Chapter 4, paragraph 3.1 and App. 2, figs. 5 and 6. 20 Künzl 1988: 62 and 106. 21 Fraschetti 1986; Diefenbach 2007: 133-153. 22Pan.Lat. 12(9) 19.3. 23 Straub 1955; id. 1967:41. 24 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 13.2; 7 (6) 8.7. 25 MacCormack 1972: 726. 26 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.3: Ausi etiam quidam ut resisteres poscere et queri tam cito accessisse palatium et, cum ingressus esses, non solum oculis sequi sed paene etiam sacrum timen inrumpere. For the speeches of praise as rhetorical devices, see Chapter 3. 61 Constantine was not the first emperor who seems to have refrained from sacrificing to Jupiter. Flavius Josephus mentions Vespasian only sacrificing to his household gods after the Jewish rebellion of 66-73 .27 Thus, the silence in this panegyric suggests an abolition but certainly does not confirm it. The most logical argument for the panegyrist’s silence over the sacrifice is the lack of a proper occasion, as was already stated by the panegyrist. The civil hostilities against Maxentius were not legitimate grounds for the practice, and this Standard still prevailed in the 390s.28 Indeed, only Eusebius deemed the arrival a triumph - thus in se worthy of a visit to the Temple. Writing his biography of the Christian emperor more than two decades after the visit, events in the Vita Constantini, including this episode, were Christianised in retrospect. For Eusebius, the triumph was gained by the Christian Constantine, victorious by the grace of God, who was awarded a thanksgiving after the emperor’s vision of the Cross. He specifically states that he was told the story of Constantine’s vision by the emperor himself many years after the event. At that time, the celestial phenomenon - once connected to Apollo in the battle against Maximian - had been converted into a sign from the God of the Christians offering protection against Maxentius.29 In the Eusebian reconstruction, a sacrifice to a pagan central deity had been retrospectively replaced by a thanksgiving to the Christian author of the victory.30 There is one puzzling account in Zosimus’ Historia Nova that alludes to a visit made to the Capital by Constantine. According to the Byzantine historian, Constantine once climbed the Capital, pressured by his army troops, on a ‘traditional feast-day’ . 31 When another occasion presented itself, he refused to ascend the hill. This episode is placed after the dynastie murders of Crispus and Fausta in chronology, thus suggesting an abolition during his visit in 326, and a sacrifice in 312 or 315.32 However, if the occasion of his adventus in 312 was no formal triumph, Constantine was not obliged to sacrifice when entering the city. It may well be possible that Constantine went up the Capital on another occasion during the visit of 312. The obvious ‘traditional feast-day’ would be New Year’s Day of 313, the day that consuls performed a sacrifice to Jupiter. As Constantine assumed the fasces on 1 January 313, it might be on this occasion that he mounted the Capitolium to take the vows pro salute rei publicae,33

27 Jos. BJ 7.4.1 (72). Cf. SI IA Heliog. 15.7 for Heliogabal’s supposed refusal to visit the Capitol. Cracco Rugini 1991. 28 Flor. 2.10; Cic. Deiot. 13; Amm.Marc. 16.10.1-2. 29 Eus. VC 1.28. The opportunities for Eusebius of hearing about the vision firsthand were in 335 (Nicaea) or 336 (Constantinople). For the interpretation of the vision, see Chapter 1, paragraph 3. See Barnes 1981: 47; id. 2011: 76; Kuhoff 1991: 138. 30 Eus. VC 1.38-40. 31 Zos. 2.29.5. 32 According to Paschoud 1971: 350, the year of the refusal must have been 315 at the celebration of his decennalia. If Zosimus is right that Constance once made a sacrifice, this must have been in 312. See also Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 323-324; Bonamente 1981. For the year 326, see: Alföldi 1948: 62 and 101-102; Wiemer 1994: 480-483; Lenski 2008: 207-208. 33 Salzman 1990: 81-82. 62 If Zosimus’ account is to be trusted, Constantine once withdrew from the practice. The author, however, does not state that Constantine terminated the ritual. Yet, at a certain point, the sacrifice had indeed come to an end. It is very likely that this development occurred off the record. For Christian writers, the imperial ceremony was Christianised partly by the omission of the sacrifice; for pagan authors, their resistance in acknowledging the non-act is comprehensible. Although it is very likely that no ascension to the Capitolium took place when Constantine entered Rome on 29 November 312, or at least not in virtue of being a triumphator, this does not imply an abolition of the practice at this time. Entrance With a timeframe of one day between the final battle against Maxentius and Constantine’s adventus into Rome, a proper and elaborate ceremony would hardly have been achievable. Yet apart from the actual date and some elements that had to be improvised, a visit to Rome after a victory must have been anticipated and was furthermore inspired by the entrances of

his imperial predecessors.34 Constantine’s arrival certainly carried connotations of victory. The atmosphere of his visit has been described as elated and festive. The emperor is said to have been hailed by a

huge mass who rejoiced in the death of Maxentius.35 The panegyrist of 313 offers the earliest preserved account of the procession into Rome. The day after the slaying of the ‘false

Romulus’ , 36 Constantine entered a city that stood in awe: The houses themselves, I hear, seemed to move and the rooftops seemed to rise higher, wherever the chariot conveyed your deity with slow effort: so numerous a throng of the people, so numerous an entourage of senators carried you along and at the same time detained you. Those who stood at a distance pronounced fortunate those who had a closer look at you; those whom you had passed by repented of the place which they had occupied.37 Nazarius also feit compelled to describe the entrance of Constantine into the City: Leaders in chains were not driven before the chariot, but the nobility marched along, freed at last. Barbarians were not cast into prison but ex-consuls were led out of it. Captive foreigners did not adom that entrance but Rome now free.38

34 Alfóldi 1970: 79-118; Versnel 1970: 94-96; McCormick 1986: 11-34. 35 Eus. VC 1.39-40; Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.10-12; Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 18.3 and 19.4. See also CIL VI 1139 = 31245, 40768; MC V I386 (Rome) 285-286. 36 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 18.1 -....falsum Romulum... Romulus was also the name of Maxentius’s son, who had passed away in 308. See PLRE I 772 s.v. Valerius Romulus 6. 7 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.1-2: Tecta ipsa, ut audio, commeveri et altitudo culminum videbatur attolli, quacumque numen tuum tardo molimine cursu inveherentur: tanta te populi densitas, tanta senatus stipatio provehebat simul et attinebat. Felices qui te propius aspicerent; longius positi nominabant; quos qraeterieras, loei quem occupaverant poenitebat. Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 31.1: Non agebantur quidem ante currum uincti duces sed incedebat tandem soluta nobilitas. Non coniecti in carcerem barbari sed dedueti e carcere consulares. Non captiui alienigenae introitum illum honestauerunt sed Roma iam libera. See also Pan.Lat. 4(10) 30.4. 63 Eusebius, in his Vita Constantini, elaborates on the eomposition of the joyful crowd. It not only consisted of ‘the whole body of the senate, and others of rank and distinction’, but also ‘the whole Roman populace, their countenances expressive of the gladness of their hearts’, who received him ‘with acclamations and abounding joy’. There were ‘men, women, and children, with countless multitudes of servants, greeting him as deliverer, preserver, and benefactor, with incessant shouts’ .39 Eusebius commends Constantine’s poise: in the midst of these plaudits and praises, Constantine remained humble and calm.40 With their former ruler defeated, it was imperative for the Senate and the people to welcome his conqueror and express their approval of the now-reigning sovereign. For Constantine, a stay in Rome immediately after his victory presented the opportunity to meet and reach a consensus with his new subjects and consolidate his authority in the City. One of the telling elements of his ceremonial entrance was the display of the severed head of Maxentius through the streets of Rome.41 The panegyrist Nazarius later discloses that it was sent to Africa afterwards to satisfy the people that had suffered under Maxentius’ rule there.42 Constantine’s arrival further entailed a traditional tribute to the Senate and generous endowments to the people of Rome from the rostra on the Forum.43 These actions, described by Nazarius, were also displayed on Constantine’s Arch. As an adventus was a celebratory occasion for the delivery of panegyrics, it is most likely that orations were presented to

Constantine, though none have survived.44 According to Nazarius and Eusebius, Constantine retreated to an imperial palace after this parade.45 Imperial dwellings, and particularly their audience halls, had a sacred character with the domus Augustana in Rome as paramount residence.46 The palace on the Palatine Hill had been the symbol of power and instrument of govemment for imperial predecessors since

Augustus.47 This highly symbolic location, situated between and overlooking both the Forum Romanum and the Circus Maximus, was probably Constantine’s foremost residence until his departure early in 313.48

39 Eus. VC 1.39.2: kómizc, 8’ aOpóox; cn’iióv oï x’ arcó xrj<; ctuykWitod PouXfjc; oï x’ oAXük éjiupaveïi; Kai 6iaori|ioi xmv xfjSe, mcrap èq gipy^wv r)teu0Epcc>névoi, Appia (Frazer 1966) and the palace in the Horti Sallustiani, which was occupied by Vespasian and Aurelian and also visited by Maxentius: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 14.4; Cassius Dio 65.10.4; SHA Div.Aurel. 49.1. 64 There is not much evidence for Constantine’s precise actions in and regarding the City, but the variety of gold issues from the city-Roman mint in the months after his victory indicate that the residence of Constantine’s court was firmly established.49 Furthermore, from coinage from Ostia it can be established that his victory and the propaganda of Constantine’s ‘restitution of Rome’ was effected almost immediately. Like other mints, series with legends such asSPQR OPTIMO PR1NCIPI, VICTORIA CONSTANTINI and RESTITUTOR ROMAE were coined in gold and bronze. As the mint near Rome was closed by order of Constantine in the late spring of 313, the span of issuance was short.50 His policy was certainly in part directed to dealing with the aftermath of Maxentius’ rule. The tyrant’s last praetorian prefect, Ruricius Pompeianus, had died in battle, but his active urban prefect remained in office for another month. This Annius Anullinus would be the last known Maxentian official to be replaced by Constantine during the emperor’s stay in Rome, in November 312.51 His successor Aradius Rufinus had already served one tenure as Maxentius’ penultimate urban prefect and had been replaced by Anullinus the day before the

Battle at the Milvian Bridge. 52 For his second tenure, Aradius Rufinus was swom in by Constantine personally. Both prefects were promptly put in supreme charge of setting the conditions for a smooth visit and orchestrating festivities and events.53 It was probably during the same changes in officials that Constantine appointed another Anullinus as proconsul of

Africa.54 A certain Patricius was awarded the post of vicarius of Africa from Rome as well.55 In January 313, Constantine furthermore chose to assume the consulate himself, together with

Augustus Maximinus.56 Games were held to celebrate his consulship.57 In his panegyric, Nazarius complimented Constantine on his humility and approachability, 58 implying that he was receptive of embassies, complaints and petitions from his subjects:

49 RIC VI 385-386 (Rome) 282-286. Cf. Bruun 1966: 281. 50 RIC V I407-410 (Ostia) 65-100. 51 PLRE I 79 s.v. Annius Anullinus 3. His career seems to have ended after filling the urban prefecture. Cf. Bames 2011: 83 who states that Anullinus stayed on for another 13 months. 52 PLRE I 775 s.v. Aradius Rufinus 10. Not only Aradius Rufinus, but also the previous prefect, C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, and other Maxentian officials entered the imperial bureaucracy of Constantine. Other careers seemingly ended with the death of their commander; no attestations survive for the occupations of the former urban and praetorian prefects of Maxentius. See Delmaire 1997: 111-114. 53 Chastagnol 1960: 279-283. 54 Eus. HE 10.5.15-17, 6.4 and 7.1-2. See PLRE 179-79 s.v. Anullinus 2. 55 Eus. HE 10.6.4. See PLRE 1673 s.v. Patricius 1. 56 Bagnall 1987: 160-161. 57 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.6. 58 An emperor’s accessibility was one of the recurring topoi in panegyrics for lauding a mier, prescribed in the basilikos logos by Menander Rhetor, who wrote a handbook on epideictic theory and practice. For Menander Rhetor, see Russell and Wilson 2004; Heath 2004. See also Chapter 3, paragraph 1. 65 What shall I say of his easy access? What of his most patiënt ears, what of his kindly replies, what of his very countenance, in dignity of august grace, with an admixture of cheerfulness, reflecting something venerable and lovable, who could properly describe them? Men were bound so fast by the wonder of these things that everyone grieved not so much that they had bome that tyrant for so long as that they enjoyed such a ruler so late.59 According to Eusebius, Constantine had vowed to restore the Senate to its ancient distinction and splendour.60 The panegyrist of 313 had further expressed his approval of Constantine’s acknowledgment of Rome’s most important political institution. He hints at special actions directed to the Senate during this period: (...) decisions and acts in the curia, by which you restored to the Senate its former authority, refrained from boasting of the salvation which they had received through you, and promised that its memory would rest etemally in your breast.61 Accordingly, in January 313 Constantine promulgated laws to reverse rescripts and demotions against senators by Maxentius, addressed to the prefect of the city guard Antiochus and to the

Senate. In these pronouncements, the latter was branded a tyrant.62 A law was issued in early December 312 condemning informers and posted in the Forum of Trajan, and another in

January 313 on taxation measures might also have followed from revising Maxentian policy.63 Prudentius further records the release of one hundred senators from prison after Constantine had defeated Maxentius, an act to which the panegyrist of 313 also vaguely alludes. 64 Conversely, the Senate awarded Constantine the titulus primi nominis at the cost of

Maximinus and extended its support by dedicating thank-offerings.65 Furthermore, the body supported his defamation of Maxentius.66 Constantine commanded a damnatio memoriae of Maxentius, which had already started with the disfiguration of his body directly after his death. It had been hacked up and carried affixed on a spear through Rome during Constantine’s adventus. Surely still in Constantine’s presence, the legacy of Maxentius in Rome’s fabric was dealt with. According 59 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 34.4: Quid? faciles aditus, quid? aures patientissimas, quid? benigna responsa, quid? vultum ipsum augusti decoris gravitate, hilaritate admixta, venerandum quiddam et amabile renidentem, quis digne exsequi possit? Quarum rerum miraculo sic homines devinciebantur ut non tam omnes dolerent quod illum tyrannum ita diu tulerant quam quod tali principe tam sero fruerentur. See also Epit. de Caes. 41.14. 60 Eus. VC 1.39; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 312. 61 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 20.1: Nam quid ego de tuis in curia sententiis atque actis toquar, quibus senatui auctoritatem pristinam reddidisti, salutem quam per te recepterant non imputasti, memoriam eius in pectore tuo sempitemam fore spopondisti? Jones 1964: 105-107 and 525-527. For the functioning of embassies: Millar 1977: 36-38. 62 CTh. 15.14.3-4. Both were dated to July 326, but were convincingly emended to January 313, when a tyrant in Rome just had been defeated. Seeck 1919: 160. See PLRE 173 s.v. Iulius Antiochus 15. 65 CTh. 10.10.2 and 13.10.1. See also CTh. 10.10.1 (313). Dillon 2012: 29 believes CTh. 11.29.1 was issued on 27 December 312 and posted in Rome in early February 313. As the law is said to be issued from Trier, the issue date of the law has been emended to 314. See also Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.4. 64 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 31.1; Prud. C. Symm. 1.467-471. 65 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 25.4. For dedications from the Senate or high-office holders which may well be dated to 312/313, see: CIL VI 1145,40764, 49764a = 30562,2 and 40768. 66 Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.10-11. See Chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 4. 66 to different sources, he had the supporting troops of Maxentius disbanded or sent away from Rome. They included the praetorian guards, whose depletion under the Tetrarchs had instigated the usurpation of Maxentius, and the equites singulares who had acted as their subsidia.61 Their camps and properties were razed and these delicate locations made space for new projects. One of the fïrst initiatives was the donation of the site of the barracks of the equites singulares to the Church.68 All Maxentius’ former domains were appropriated. The Sessorium, an imperial palace within the Esquiliae-region, for example, would come to serve as the residence of Constantine’s mother Helena, who at some point settled in Rome. Part would be converted into the Basilica Heleniana and the surroundings baths were renamed to the ‘thermae Helenianae’ after repairs.69 Furthermore, Constantine ordered the completion and modification of Maxentian buildings, some of which would be dedicated by the Senate in his name.70 It seems reasonable to assume that the Senate, still in the presence of Constantine and possibly even under his orders, decided to erect the Arch in commemoration of his victory. 7 1 These vast projects would be continued in his absence, supervised by the urban prefect in office. This way, Constantine and the Senate collectively strove to triumph over the monumental heritage left by Maxentius. In the following years, Constantine would be awarded dedications for the defeat of the tyrant.7 2 Eusebius mentions the fïrst of these inscriptions, engraved immediately after his arrival. According to the author, it was ordered by Constantine himself and was attached to the base of a statue representing the emperor with a spear in the fïgure of a cross. The original Latin engraving, in translation from Eusebius’ Greek, reads: By virtue of this salutary sign, which is the true test of valor, I have preserved and liberated your city from the yoke of tyranny. I have also set at liberty the Roman senate and people, and restored them to their ancient distinction and splendor.73 According to the panegyrist Nazarius, Constantine had not only released Rome from misery, but had also heaped benefïts upon the City.74 Foremost, these benefits included the launch of his lavish patronage of profane and sacred works through which Rome would eventually

‘gleam with new work’ .75 He distributed congiaria and attended games and processions at the Circus Maximus in person, much to the delight of the city-Roman populace:

67 Identification: Lact. Mort.Pers. 26.3; Aur.Vict. Caes. 39.47; Zos. 2.16; Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 17.1; disbandment: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 21.1-3; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.25; Zos. 2.17.2. See Speidel 1986: 255-256. However, in the Notitia Regionum Urbis, the existence of praetorian cohorts and barracks of horse-guards is recorded. Not.Reg.Urb. VI. 68 Speidel 1986: 255-256; id. 1988; Brandenburg 2005: 20-37. See also Chapter 4, paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3. 69 CIL VI 1134 = 31243, 1135, 1136 = 31244 (baths) and 36950. See Drijvers 1992a: 45-48. 70 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26. 71 See paragraph 1.1 of this chapter. See further Chapter 4, paragraph 3.1. 72 See Chapter 1, paragraph 2. 73 Eus. VC 1.40.2: Totiiö) tcö acorripiróSei ar||ieï(B rrn a^riGsi Ehfr/XQ avSpe(a<; TfiV7có^.w ï>(j.

met with the Roman bishop and granted privileges to the Christian church and clergy.78 He also gave an account of Constantine’s endowments and building policy, although he does not amplify the nature of these actions in Rome specifically:

16 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.6; Gaudere cuncti spectaculorum mora et familiaribus sibi artificibus ob hoc solum favere quod te praesente certarent. 77 Eus. VC 1.43: navxoiou; xe yprifidxcov Siaöóostc xoü; évSeéat 7Khoi>H£vo<;, xonxcov 5’ èkxó^ Kort xoü; cqoiOev aiixö) itpoaioöoi '/pi]p.axo)v |ióvov oijöé ye xrrjq avayKaiaq xpoqirjq a/Xa Kai aKÉ7rr|c euaxnuovoi; xoO od>|iaxo<; jipoüvÓEt, xot; 8’ su |xèv xa 7tpa>xa ysyovóat piot) 8è ia.exaPoA.fj 8uoxuxnattoi öai(/i>xaxépai; Ttapeïxe zaq yopriyiat;, paaiXiKtö yé xoi cppovijnaxi nsyaXojrpETCEÏ; mq Eimoüa^ xoïi; oüxax; éxouai 7tapéxi(ö aviaxovxt xcöv PacrtXiKffiv oïkcdv jipotpaivópEvo;, (baavd cruvavaiöAcov xq> Kax’ oiipavöv (pmarfjpi, xoïq ei; jipóaamov ai)X(B jtaptownv dnaoi (pojxóq aüyd; xfjq ouceiai; ètqé\a\in£ KaX,OKaya0iac. oi>k rjv x’ (ïkXmq aüxcö ji/„T|oiov yevécGat p.r| ot>xi ayaGon xivoi; arcoAaiicjavxa, oiiS’ rjv jiox’ SKjteaelv ÈA.jtiSo<; Tn

Sol Invictus (25 December) during this visit. 80 Departure

Constantine’s possession of Rome did not herald a period of lengthy sojoum in the Capital. 81

His presence is last attested on 6 January 313, when he issued a law to Antiochus, the praefectus vigilum. According to Lactantius, Constantine left Rome for Milan in the beginning of winter.82 The length of his stay in the Capital has been estimated at about two months, based on a statement made by Nazarius.83 According to the panegyrist, these few weeks were enough to heal the harm caused by Maxentius’ six-year rule. He does not condemn the emperor for leaving, but seems to imply that ‘reasons of state’ had made him depart.84 2.1.2 The Opening of Constantine ’s decennalia (315) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (313-315) Early in February 313, Constantine arranged the marriage between his sister Constantia and

Licinius in Milan and was soon recalled to Gaul to secure the border of lower Germany.85

Barbarian threats on the Rhine kept Constantine near Trier for the subsequent years. 86 Constantine therefore spent considerable periods of time in his residence, in between campaigns against the Franks and overseeing the securing of the Rhine. 87 In Trier, he celebrated a triumphus pulchrior over the Franks and held festive games accordingly. His victory was lauded in a panegyric delivered to him in the summer of 313.88 That autumn, he may have crossed to Britain for a brief expedition, though the evidence is weak. Two

79 Eus. VC 1.42.2: val ht)v Kai tau; ÉKK>.T|cftaii; toü Beoö TtXoucriag xaq nap’ éavxov Jtapeïxev êjtiKOvptcu;, gjiauccov (ièv Kai sic i)\|/o$ aïpwv toiic eÜKxriploTx; oïkoui;, 7t>a'ioToic 5’ava0r||iaai xa aejiva tcöv xfji; SKKA-Tiaïou; KaOriytaanévcov (patöpwcov. 80 Barnes 2011: 83-85. On the development of the Christianised dies solis, see Girardet 2007. 81 Cf. Bruun 1966: 281, who unconvincingly states that Constantine’s stay lasted longer than two months. 82 Lact. Mort.Pers. 45.1. 83 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 33.6. 84Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.6:...cum reipublicae digredifecerit. 85 For Milan: FELIX ADVENTUS AUGG NN: RIC VI 296 (Ticinum) 111; Lact. Mort.Pers. 45.1; Anon.Vales. Origo 5.13. Pan.Lat. 12 (9) is silent on this stop-over. 86 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 21.5-22.6; Anon.Vales. Origo 5.13; Zos. 2.17.2-3. 87 Trier: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 21.5. Several laws are issued from Trier between 313 and 316: CTh. 1.2.1, 1.12.1, I.12.3, 1.16.1, 1.22.1, 3.30.1, 6.35.1, 8.10.1, 9.40.1, 10.15.1, 11.1.2, 11.7.1, 11.29.1, 11.30.1, 11.30.2, II.30.4, 11.36.1, 13.5.2 and 13.5.3; Cl 7.32.10; campaign: Panlat. 6 (7) 13.1; 12 (9) 21.5-22.6; RIC VI 223 (Treveri) 823; RIC V II185 (Treveri) 238-239; 363-365 (Ticinum) 28 and 37. See also CIL XIII 8502. 88 Pan.Lat. 12(9). 69 inscriptions, from 315 and 318, style Constantine as a Brit(annicus) max(imus), a victory title that is absent in a later, authoritative, imperial pronouncement from Constantine. 89 The first two statements have been dismissed as unreliable or contaminated with titles gained by

Constantius.90 Barnes, however, proposes that an expedition to Britain in 313 indeed took place, “with no serious fighting”, which gained Constantine a title that he did not necessarily want to commemorate and advertise later in his reign. 91 Next, there is the issue of the ADVENTUS-coinage from Londinium, struck in 313/314. The act of an adventus would have been celebrated with gold coinage from the mint-city, but the issues from Londinium were struck in bronze. 92 These series of less precious metal therefore might well have commemorated Constantine’s return to Trier, where imperial pronouncements suggest a continuous stay. 93 Only in the summer of 314 is Constantine’s presence attested again. In

August, he convened a council of bishops to settle the Donatist dispute in Arles.94 Adventus In July 315, Rome welcomed Constantine for the second time as its emperor. In the Calendar of 354, visits by Constantine have been recorded on 18 and 21 July, one referring to the year 315 and the other to his third and last adventus, in July of 326. It cannot be deduced which festive day belonged to which adventus, only for the law that was issued on the 18 July in

Aqua Viva, a town northwest of Rome.95 The occasion for the visit was Constantine’s decennalia, the anniversary of which began on 25 July. The celebrations of this jubilee must have concentrated on his victorious leadership in the West, which had been commemorated on coinage and inscriptions and praised in panegyrics. 96 The visit to Rome also provided a convenient opportunity to underline Constantine’s authority over Licinius. As successor of Severus, his domain included Rome and other parts that had been captured by Maxentius. However, it was Constantine who deposed the usurper and made himself sole ruler of the western half of the Empire. As their relations had gradually become more tense after the loss of their rivals Maxentius and Maximinus, a grand celebration in the capital city of Licinius’ original realm presented an opportune moment for Constantine to taunt his co -Augustus. Although no gold coinage was struck for Constantine’s decennalia nor any special adventus coins minted in Rome, his visit was not as casual or unprepared as has been

89 CIL VIII23116 (315) and 8412 (318). Cf. CIL V I40776 (337). 90 Seeok 1893: 200; Bames 1976a: 153. 91 Bames 1976a: 154. 92 RICVII 97-98 (Londinium) 1, 2 and 21. 93 CTh. 1.12.1, 1.12.3, 3.30.1, 8.10.1, 9.40.1, 10.15.1, 11.1.2, 11.7.1, 11.29.1, 11.30.1, 11.30.2, 11.30.4, 11.36.1, 13.5.2 and 13.5.3; CT7.32.10 (313-314). 94 Eus. VC 1.44; Optat. App. 4. See Munier 1963: 3-25; Eek 2007; Slootjes 2011: 112. 95 CTh. 8.18.1 (315). The law stated Aquileia, but was corrected by Seeck 1919: 163 to Aquaviva. 96 PanLat. 6 (7) 10 and 12; 12 (9) 21.5-22.6; RIC VI 221-223 (Treveri) 811, 819 and 824; VII 124 (Lugdunum) 28; 166-167 (Treveri) 27-33 and 38; 363-365 (Ticinum) 28, 33, 34, 37 and 40; CIL VI 1139 = 31245 and 40768; VIII 18261; XI 6648; XIII 8502. See Chapter 1, paragraph 2. For panegyrics, see Chapter 3, paragraph 3.3. 70 suggested by Bruun. 97 He deemed Constantine’s presence in Rome as an almost improvisatory act after he had abandoned Trier (the initial location for his decennial festivities) after 25 July 315. He based this assumption on the gold coinage of the Gallic mint- city from that year. One catalyst for his departure from Trier after the start of his jubilee would have been the plot of Bassianus, Constantine’s brother-in-law, which Bruun dates around Constantine’s dies imperii. After this incident, Bruun believes Constantine moved his headquarters to Milan (Ticinum) in August 315 and - probably - visited Rome in the meantime.98 However, it was after, or possibly even during Constantine’s visit to Rome in the summer of 315, that a position for Bassianus within the imperial college was considered. A preceding attempt by Bassianus to conspire against Constantine is thus most unlikely. Counter to Bruun’s interpretation of the visit, there are some indications that Constantine’s call to Rome was announced and well planned. For one, Constantine arrived just before the exact date of his dies imperii. The urban prefect in office during the visit, Rufius Volusianus, might have already anticipated on Constantine’s adventus in 314, when he put up a dedication in the Forum of Trajan: D(OMNO) N(OSTRO) RESTITUTOR1 HUMANI GENER1S / PROPAGATORI IMPERII DICIONISQ(UE) ROMANAE / FUNDATORIETIAMSECURITATIS AETERNAE / FL(A VIO) VAL(ERIO) CONSTANTINO FELICI / MAXIMO PIO SEMPER AUGUSTO FILIO DIVI / CONSTANTI SEMPER ET UBIQUE VENERABILIS / C. CAEIONIUS RUFIUS VOLUSIANUS V(IR) C(LARISSIMUS) / CONSUL ORDINARIUS PRAEF(ECTUS) URBI VICESACRAIUDICANS / NU MINI MAIESTA TIQ(UE) EIUS DICATISSIMU^9 If the dedication had been imposed by the imperial court to add lustre to a pending arrival, the urban prefect must have received official notification well in advance. As the intermediate between the emperor and the Roman people, he was the agent from Rome who had to make the necessary arrangements for a smooth and meaningful visit. 100 Besides this statuary base, other dedications underline recognition of Constantine as the new leader and were possibly set up in connection to his visit. 101 The arch of Constantine on the Via Triumphalis also suggests a fair anticipation in Rome of Constantine’s coming. With a fixed date for the start of his jubilee, it is very likely that the monument was presented to Constantine during this stay, or at least was already under construction at the time of his visit and nearing completion. With this monument, the Senate honoured Constantine as liberator Urbis and fundator quietis. The inscription VOTIS X VOTIS XX on the north side of the arch under the main entablature evidently refers to the

97 Bruun 1966: 282. 98 Bruun 1966: 65. 99 CIL VI 1140. 100 For an example of the preparations for and impact of an imperial visit, see Adams 2007 on the planned visit to Egypt by Diocletian. 101 CIL VI 1143, 1145,31564, 36952 and 36953. 71 occasion of its erection. 102 This double formula seems ambiguous at first. Richardson interpreted the first votum as a commemorative reference to Constantine’s anniversary in 315 and the second as the actual occasion for the arch, suggesting the celebration of a vicennalia and thus a dedication in 325-326.103 The second votum, however, is a votum susceptum and not a solutum, a preview rather than a concluded and celebrated fact. Such allusions to future celebrations sided by the actual occasion were Standard on vota-commemorations on coinage. 104 With these vota suscepta, the Senate expressed its wish and hope for a repetitive celebration a decade later, in Rome. There is no iconographic or literary evidence for Constantine’s entrance. He was very likely presented with advewfas-panegyrics - which as a rule reveal the ceremonial and circumstances of the visit - though none have survived. Nazarius, who in 321 elaborately recalled Constantine’s visit nineteen years before, is silent on this adventus. Some of the late-antique adventus, however, have been described in great detail in literature or depicted in imperial art and have come to serve as the expression of a generally valid procedure for imperial arrivals and visits. 105 Within this scope, of course, each visit was distinguishable for its particular occasion and character. In the main, an emperor would, with his own entourage, be greeted outside the city by dignitaries and citizens and steered into the city. The entrance was framed within a welcoming ceremony, but probably (just as in 312) Constantine disregarded the Capitolium for a sacrifice. Within the walls, a cheering crowd would join the company in a tour around the city and were treated to pomp and parade. After the parade, he settled in the city and resided probably either at the Palatine or at the Sessorium with his mother, Helena. 106 During his stay, there were speeches, benefactions and interventions - actions that were all depicted as imperial virtues on Constantine’s arch. 107 He formally addressed the Roman citizens and gave audience to senators, orators and delegations from Rome and its surroundings both in his palace and in public places. He subsequently dealt with administrative matters and pressing questions. Just as during his earlier visit, Constantine enforced at least one change of officials and passed legislation from Rome in July and August of 315. In August, after the urban prefect Rufius Volusianus had been discharged, Constantine appointed Vettius Rufïnus as his successor. Rufius Volusianus’ impressive career probably ended dramatically; he has been identified as the fourth-century

102 CIL VI 1139 = 31245: SICXSIC X X (south side), VOTIS (SOLUTIS) X VOTIS (SUSCEPTIS) XX (north side). 103 Richardson 1975. 104 See, for example, Antoninus Pius and Gallienus. Buttrey 1983: 375-378. Grossi Gondi 1913: 22-24 suggested that the arch was built after the visit of Constantine, in 316. His assumption was partly based on the absent reference to Constantine’s consulate in 315, an omission that would easily fit with the lack of other omamental titulature on the arch. 105 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19-20; 4 (10) 30.4-35; 2 (12) 47; Eus. VC 1.39; Amm.Marc. 16.10.5-17; Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 523-639. See MacCormack 1981: 33-61; Dufraigne 1994: 74—83; Benoist 2005: 195-272; Schmidt-Hofner 2012: 34-43. 106 Palatine: paragraph 1 of this chapter; Sessorium: Guidobaldi 2004: 23; id. 2006: 147; Stephenson 2010: 148-149. 107 Adventus, adlocutio, liberalitas, largitio, iustitia. 72 prefect who was exiled by senatorial decree after numerous plots against him . 108 If this conjecture is correct, Rufius Volusianus was not pardoned by Constantine and died in exile. From Rome, Constantine issued a group of edicts. Their relevance to the City is not entirely clear, as none of the extant pronouncements explicitly apply only to inhabitants of Rome. One constitution, from 25 August, was issued to the proconsul of Africa and carried directions for the practice of appeal. The other, promulgated four days later to the people, concemed the validation of rescripts. 109 One fiscal law on the confiseation of property, issued on 13 September 315, seems to have been dispatched by Constantine and his Caesar.™ However, Crispus, his only son at that time, would not become Caesar for another two years. The transmitted heading might be corrupt. There can be no doubt that Constantine also met with the bishop of Rome, Silvester, who had been in office since late January 314. The emperor and the leader of the Roman diocese discussed developments within the Christian community. One item on the imperial and pontifïcal agenda must have been the Donatist schism, an affair that had also preoccupied Silvester’s predecessor Miltiades. In 313, after having received several petitions from concemed bishops, Constantine had summoned a council in Rome to address the status of

Caecilian, the bishop of Carthage, and the proceedings were reported to him . 1 1 1 With the outcome deemed unsatisfactory, a larger council gathered in Arles in August of the next year with Constantine present. ' 12 Silvester was absent as he was forced to stay in Rome, ‘where the

Apostles daily sit’ . 11 3 However, he was represented by the presbyters Claudianus and Vitus and the deacons Eugenius and Cyriacus, and was briefed afïterwards by letter and in person. After this Council, the Donatist problems in Carthage were still not settled. Constantine reached out to the bishops involved and urged them to appear before him in Rome. Several bishops, but not Caecilian, travelled to the City and met with the emperor, and most certainly Silvester, in an imperial or a Christian residence. 11 4 In the absence of the protagonist, Constantine must have tumed to Silvester to consider how to next proceed. He would eventually summon Caecilian to Milan. Notwithstanding his involvement in church affairs during his stay, Constantine also assumed some of the responsibilities attached to the traditional office of pontifex maximus by observing rituals and sacred places, such as taking part in processions, allowing festivals and appropriating the “Maxentian” Temple of Venus and Rome. 11 5 In the following years, Constantine would issue several laws instructing officials and the people of Rome on how to act out certain pagan rites. 116

IU8 Barnes 1975b. Cf. PLRE I 1006-1008 s.v. Anonymus 12. 109 CTh. 1.2.2 and 11.30.3 (315). See also Frag. Vat. 33:274. 110 CTh. 10.1.1 (315). 111 Eus. HE 10.5.21; Optat. 1.21-25 and App. 3. 112 See Eus. HE 10.5.21-24. 113 Eus. HE 10.5.22-23; Optat. App. 4. 114 Optat. App. 6; August. Ep. 43.7.20. 115 Pontifex maximus: Zos. 4.36.4; RIC VI 220 (Treveri) 795; RIC VII 165-185 (Treveri) 18-21 and 242; 363-365 (Ticinum) 30 and 38; processions and festivals: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.6; Eus. VC 1.48; the temple of Venus and Roma: Chapter 4, paragraph 2 and 3.1. For priesthoods in 312 and 313, see Rüpke 2008: 398- 399. See further Stepper 2003: 100-101; Belayche 2005: 349-354; Benoist 2009; Cameron 2011: 51-56. 73 His visit also involved excursions to city-Roman landmarks, of which his arch would be a prominent one. He further attended games and festivities in the Circus Maximus that were held in celebration of his jubilee and other official occasions. U7According to Eusebius (but contrary to pagan tradition), Constantine brought thanks-offerings to the Christian God during these festivities ‘as sacrifices without flame and smoke’ . 118 In consultation with the urban prefect and his officium, he monitored the urban planning of Rome. He supervised building projects, launched the design and construction of new sites and ordered utilitarian improvements and works affecting the infrastructure of the City. 119 Departure Constantine’s period of residence was, once again, short. He left Rome for an unknown destination at the end of September, a month before the anniversary of his first visit. The reason remains a matter for conjecture, but might be connected to the lingering Donatist dispute. A communication from Constantine to the vicar of Africa tells of his intent to travel to Caecilian, as the bishop had failed to answer his call from Rome. 120 When describing the Caecilian affair in a letter from 397, Augustine remains silent about this visit and states that Constantine settled the matter in Caecilianus’ favour in Milan, with the bishop of Carthage present. 121 2.1.3 The Closing of Constantine ’s vicennalia (326) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (315-326) Constantine’s first attested residence after Rome was indeed Milan, where a pronouncement locates him in mid-October. 122 The venue for the concluding celebrations of his decennalia is not confirmed and the reconstruction of his whereabouts during the rest of his festive year shows lacunae. Constantine is in Trier early in 316, Cabillunum in March and Vienna in

May. 123 Two pronouncements place him in Arles in August and the birth of his son

Constantinus might date his presence there as early as 7 August. 124 His next attested activity was less festive, as he marched towards Cibalae for his first confrontation with Licinius, followed by the battle on the Campus Ardientis early in 317.125 After the first war between Constantine and Licinius, a formal peace was maintained between the two until 321. Constantine secured the borders on the Lower-Danube and in the

116 CTh. 9.16.1-3, 16.2.5 and 16.10.1 (318-323). See also Eus. VC 2.44; Lib. Or. 30.6. Curran 2000: 169- 181. See also Chapter 4, paragraph 3.3. 117 CIL I2p. 268, 270 and 272. 118 Eus. VC 1.48. 119 See also Chapter 4, paragraph 3. 120 Optat. App. 8. 121 August. Ep. 43.7.20. 122 Frag. Vat. 273. See also RIC VII368 (Ticinum) 53. 123 Trier: CTh. 1.22.1; Cabillunum: CTh. 9.40.2; Vienna: CTh. 2.6.1. 124 CTh. 11.30.5-6. See Chapter 1, paragraph 4. 125 See Chapter 1, paragraph 4. 74 following years moved between Sirmium, Serdica and Thessalonica, all cities within the territory he had taken from Lieinius. 126 He appears to have only been in the West in 318, commuting between Aquileia and Milan. 127 For his campaign against the Sarmatians, Constantine had to cross the newly set borders of Lieinius’ realm, and another war between the two Augusti was declared. In September 324, Lieinius suffered defeat at Chrysopolis and was forced to retreat to

Nicomedia the day after. 128 Within two months, Constantine had relocated to Byzantium, where he founded his own city and renamed it Constantinople in early November. There, he celebrated his sole rulership, the appointment of Constantius as Caesar and supervised the development of the city. Constantine’s presence there has been attested at least three times before its formal dedication. 129 Golden solidi bearing the legend ADVENTUS AUG N from the mint of Antiochia suggest that Constantine left Constantinople for a stay in Antioch in the winter of 324-325.130 He traversed the East to establish his authority as ruler over this new part of the Empire. Imperial pronouncements in the following months place Constantine successively in Nicomedia, Nicaea in May and June (to attend the council) and Nicomedia once more (to open the formal celebrations of his vicennalia) . 13 1 Rome, the host of the decennalia in 315, was not nearly at travelling distance from Nicaea to arrive there before 25 July. The newly founded city of Constantinople, in close proximity of Nicaea, had not been considered a suitable celebratory location for the opening of his jubilee. The city in the making awaited its dedication for another four years. Instead, the honour of hosting the anniversary celebrations had been partly conferred upon the neighbouring city of Nicomedia. After a stay of several weeks there, he remained in the East for the largest part of his vicennial year. He visited Nassete in late September, followed by Constantinople and Aquae in October, Heraclea in

February and early March of 326 and Constantinople again a few days later. 132 Within these

126 Serdica: Anon.Vales. Origo 5.19; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 317; CTh. 8.12.2, 9.10.1 (February-March 317); CTh. 2.10.1-2, 2.22.1, 3.2.1, 4.12.3, 8.16.1, 9.37.1, 10.1.4 and 11.7.3; Cl 6.7.2, 6.23.15 and 6.37.21 (November 319-March 320); CTh. 9.3.1 and 16.10.1 (December 320); CTh. 2.19.2 and 9.42.1 (February 321); CTh. 3.32.1 (December 322); Sirmium: CTh. 11.30.7; Jul. Or. 1.5d (June-August 317; CTh. 6.22.1; Cl 3.11.3-4 (January? - February 318); CTh. 1.16.3, 2.4.1, 2.6.2-3, 2.19.1, 5.2.1, 10.8.2, 11.29.2 and 14.25.1 (October 318 - April 319); CTh. 7.21.1, 9.1.5 and 15.1.4 (May-August 320); CTh. 11.19.1 (April 321); CTh. 1.4.1, 2.18.1, 9.43.1, 11.30.11 and 13.13.1 (June- September 321); CTh. 2.4.2, 2.18.2 and 4.8.3- 4 ( May-July 322); CTh. 16.2.5 (December 323); Thessalonica: Cl 6.1.4 (December 317); CTh. 4.8.6 (February or May 323); Anon.Vales. Origo 5.21 (spring 323); CTh. 2.17.1 and 13.5.4 (March-April 324). On Sirmium: Popovic 1993. 127 Aquileia: CTh. 7.22.2, 9.16.3, 11.30.9 and 12.1.6; RIC VII 396 (Aquileia) 27 (May-July 318); CTh. 3.17.1 (October 318). For Aquileia, see RieB 2001; Milan: CTh. 8.18.2 (September 318). 128 See Chapter 1, paragraph 4. 129 CTh. 7.20.3 (October 325); 2.10.4 (March 326); 2.24.2 (June 327). 130 RIC Vn 685 (Antiochia) 48. 131 Nicomedia: CTh. 1.15.1 (February 325); Nicaea: CTh. 1.2.5; Eus. VC 3.6-14 (May-June 325); Nicomedia: CTh. 12.5.1, 9.1.4; Hier. Chron. s.a. 326 [313e]; RIC VU 309-610 (Nicomedia) 52 and 58. 132 Nassete: CTh. 11.39.1; Constantinople: CTh. 7.20.3 (October 325); Aquae: CTh. 7.4.1; Heraclea: CTh. 9.3.2, 9.7.1 and 10.4.1 (February-March 326); Constantinople: CTh. 2.10.4 (March 326). 75 intervals, it is eertainly possible that he visited Thessalonica as well, as a special gold fraction was coined there in 325. 133 After this tour, Constantine left the East for Italy, where he was located in Aquileia in early April and Milan in early July. 134 Sirmium might have been an intermediate station on the road to Italy, as the special fraction-type is first attested here and afterwards in Ticinum, the mint near Milan. 135 In several cities he called at during this jubilee, gold solidi and gold fractions were struck. 136 The next attested location of his itinerary was Rome where he would conclude his vicennalia. Adventus Constantine entered Rome in mid-July, possibly on the 21st but more likely on the 18th.137 During the festivities, Constantine was probably accompanied by his son and Caesar of two years, Constantius, who held the consulate with him that year. This assumption has been made based on the gold medallions that allude to the imperial visit to the West and which were struck for both father and son at this time at Treveri. The series, bearing the legend AETERNA

GLORIA SENATP QR, depicted only two emperors. 138 The other Caesar, Constantinus, most likely remained in the East, with the praetorian prefect Evagrius as his guardian. 139 His former praetorian prefect of the East, Flavius Constantius, may have been part of the imperial retinue. 140 The whereabouts of Constans, still very young in 326, are unknown. 14 1 He would not become a member of the imperial college for another seven years and his presence at this time would not have added lustre to the occasion. Bames posits that Constantine’s two half- brothers Flavius Dalmatius and Julius Constantius may have been in Rome during the vicennalia. Both lived in virtual exile before 326, but were brought into power by Constantine in his fourth decade of rule. 142 Bames’ assumption is intriguing, but the lack of information about their exact whereabouts or action means that this hypothesis cannot be pursued further. The visit had been encouraged and anticipated. In 321, Nazarius already alludes to an adventus. He had directed the speech, probably in Rome, in the absence of Constantine and his two Caesares Crispus and Constantinus, whose quinquennalia he celebrated in his

133 This type appeared in 325 from the mints of Nicomedia and Thessalonica: RIC VI 516 (Thessalonica) 140; 617 (Nicomedia) 103 and 107. 134 Aquileia: CTh. 9.8.1 and 9.24.1; Milan: CTh. 9.21.3. 135 RIC VU 477 (Sirmium) 66; 386 (Ticinum) 197. No fractions were struck in Aquileia in this period. From 324/325 onwards, the mint seems to have been closed for more than ten years. Bruun 1966: 390. 136Though only Constantinople without the special legend VOT/XX. RIC VII 617 (Nicomedia) 103; 327 (Rome) 273; 569 (Constantinople) 2-3; 386 (Ticinum) 197; 477 (Sirmium) 66; 646 (Cyzicus) 22-23. See for bronze issues referring to the jubilee: RIC VII 323-324 (Rome) 256 and 257; 382-384 (Ticinum)174- 176; 513 (Thessalonica) 123 and 124; 550-553 (Heraclea) 69-73, 82, 87 and 90-92; 617 (Nicomedia) 103. 137 See previous paragraph. 138 RIC Vïï 207 (Treveri) 467-468. Cf. RIC VI 328 (Rome) 279. 139 CTh. 12.1.13 (326). See PLRE I 284-285 s.v. Euagrius2. 140 PLRE 1225 s.v. Fl. Constantius 5. 141 Lib. Or. 59.42-43. 142 Bames 2011: 164. 76 panegyric. In the finale of his oration, he expressed the wish that Rome would again be visited by Constantine and his progeny: There is but one thing by which Rome could be made happier, a very great thing but yet the only one, that it see Constantine its preserver, that it see the blessed Caesars, that it obtain the means of enjoyment in proportion to the measure of its longing, that it receive you joyously and, when reasons of state made you depart, that it send you away with a promise of your return.143 Indeed, Eusebius gives an indication of the ‘joyous reception’ that Constantine received at the closing of the emperor’s vicennalia. An imperial banquet was organised, attended by officials and bishops, with circumstances ‘splendid beyond description’: Detachments of the body-guard and other troops surrounded the entrance of the palace with drawn swords, and through the midst of these the men of God proceeded without fear into the innermost of the imperial apartments, in which some were the emperor's own companions at table, while others reclined on couches arranged on either side.144 Although no dedications have emerged which announce or commemorate the visit of 326, the intensive security measures and the large entourage of imperial trustees and bishops from all regions of the Empire suggest a clear anticipation of Constantine’s celebratory visit. 145 Furthermore, golden solidi of the type VICTORIA CONSTANTINI AUG/ VOTXX, struck in Nicomedia for the beginning of the vicennial year, also appear to have been reduplicated exactly around this time, and only in Rome. 146 A fractions-counterpart seems to have emerged with adjusted features only after Constantine was present in Rome and his appearance could be verified. 14 7 A second gold type, a multiple designed with the legend SENATUS, was also reduplicated from a Nicomedian series from 325.148 * One may assume that the adventus proceeded according to the ceremonial protocol that was performed during his previous visit to Rome, though framed by the circumstances of the day. Constantine and his retinue were met outside the city by an entourage of representatives and entered together. The procession certainly took him past the arch that was dedicated by the

Senate to Constantine’s victory. 149 The Forum Romanum, the site for the adlocutio would be

143 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.6: Unum modo est quo fieripossit Roma felicior, maximum quidem sed tarnen solum, ut Constantium conservatorem suum, ut beatissimos Caesares videat, ut fruendi copiam pro desiderii modo capiat, ut vos alacris excipiat et, cum rei publicae ratio digredi fecerit, receptura dimittat. See also Introduction. 144 Eus. VC 3.15.2-3: Soputpópoi |xèv yap Kal Ó7tMxcu yufjvati; xaïi; xcöv ^icpcov aK(j.aïg év KÓKtap xa npóGupa xa>v Paaitócov écppoupoDV, [iéooi 8è xoóxcov aSeeiq ol xoü 0eoö Siépaivov avOpcoTioi èv8ox(ixco x’ctvaKxóptov Éyrópouv. sl0’ oi |*èv [auxrö] odvovekMvovxo, oi 8’ a.(j.cpi xai; éicaxépcov 7ipooave7icróovxo KA,iva8a<;. 145 Heite 2000. 146 RIC VII327 (Rome) 273; 617 (Nicomedia) 103. Solidi with a similar reverse, but different obverse were struck from Constantinopolis in 330: RIC VII 577 (Constantinople) 51. 147 RIC VII327 (Rome) 274. See infra for the type in other mints during the vicennial year. 148 RIC VII326 (Rome) 272; 616 (Nicomedia) 102. 149 Marlowe 2006: 225. 77 one of the first stops in the City, as was the imperial palace where he would settle during his stay. The only extant law issued during this visit - directed to the urban prefect Anicius Severus and addressing ownerless property - reaffirmed the Palatium as the headquarters for the handling of political affairs. 150 Eusebius also mentions the vestibule of the palace as the venue for the anniversary banquet. 151 The Sessorium, however, has been suggested by

Stephenson as an altemative temporal imperial residence during this visit. 15 2 It had been in use by Helena, and her encounters with Constantine conceivably took place there. Zosimus alludes to at least one meeting between the two, which took place after the death of Crispus. The grief she expressed to Constantine over her grandson supposedly convinced him to have

Fausta killed earlier that year. 153 According to the author, Crispus’ execution was ordered when Constantine was in Rome and ‘filled with pride and arrogance’ . 15 4 Jerome’s compilation of Eusebius’ Chronicon, however, places the ‘cruel’ death of Crispus before Constantine’s vicennial celebration in Rome. 155 The date of Crispus’ death is uncertain and likely took place well before Fausta’s, who indeed might have met her end in Rome during this visit. 156 Constantine may have passed another judgment in the summer of 326. His sentence to exile a senator from Rome, identifïed as Ceionius Rufius Albinus, has been dated to 326. The convict was tried for magie and adultery and the latter offence might even be related to

Fausta’s death. 15 7 As has been stated, among the scarce traces of Constantinian activity during this visit is the episode in Eusebius’ Vita Constantini that describes an imperial banquet. Eusebius implies that Constantine chose the banquet over the public festivals that were organised on the occasion of his anniversary. His insinuation that the emperor himself kept his distance from these events is, however, unlikely. 158 In all probability, Constantine did visit the Circus Maximus, as his presence was an imperial behavioural norm and the jubilee games were connected to the imperial cult. If his adventus in 315 had in fact taken place on the 21 July, and its occasion had already become a ludus votivus, Constantine was in the position to not only personally attend the concluding festivities of his dies imperii, but also the ceremonial games commemorating his previous visit. 159

150 CTh. 10.8.3 (326). 151 Eus. FC 3.15.2-3. 152 Stephenson 2010: 148-149. On the Sessorium, see LTUR IV: 304-308; Guidobaldi 2004; id. Guidobaldi 2006: 147. See also previous paragraph. 153 See Chapter 1, paragraph 7. 154 Zos. 2.29.1-2: ...|iecrtö<; (...) aXalpvEiw;. 155 Hier. Chron. s.a. 325 [313d-e]: crudelissime. 156 See Chapter 1, paragraph 7. 157 Barnes 1975b: 43 and 48. 158 Eus. VC 3.15.1. 159 CIL I2p. 268. 78 Besides attending the ludi in the circus, an imperial visitor addressed the urban infrastructure and often carried out proclamations and appointments. 160 Although it can be firmly assumed that Constantine resumed supervision of the building projects that had started since his possession of Rome, his precise activities remain undefined. There is no evidence for the erection of statuary or the completion of buildings during his stay. Conclusions about his administrative course of action when in Rome are hard to draw. Apart from the law to Anicius Severus, imperial pronouncements from Rome are not attested. As Constantine had enforced office changes within the urban prefecture during his stays in

312 and 315, the designation of a new prefect of Rome may have been expected. 161 However, the active prefect, Acilius Severus, remained in office until two months after Constantine’s departure. No appointments of office-holders can be confïrmed between mid-July and early

August. 162 Departure Constantine and his entourage left Rome before the autumn and retreated via Milan and

Aquileia back to the East. 163 He would not be the only imperial member to depart from the

City that year, as he also sent his mother on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. 164 Like her son, Helena would not return to the City again. Not long after her sojoum in Palestina, she died in the presence of her son in late 328 or early 329.165 Her body did in fact return to Rome, accompanied by a military escort, but in the absence of her son. She was buried according to her will in the mausoleum ad duas lauros along the Via Labicana. 166 No source states his reason for departing, but Constantine’s return to the East may have been instigated by a need to reconstruct his legitimacy after the elimination of Crispus. The late Caesar had recently eamed his stripes in the pars Orientis as a successful commander in the war against Licinius. Between 326 and 330, Constantine spent considerable amounts of time in the East, with great centres such as Sirmium, Thessalonica and Nicomedia, and his own foundation

Constantinople, as his main bases. 167 He would only return to the West in 328 for a stay in

160 See, among others: Eus. VC 1.39-40; Pan.Lat. 5 (8) 9-12; 12 (9) 19-20; 4 (10) 30.4-35; 3 (11) 9.4; 2 (12) 47.3; Amm.Marc. 15.8.21, 16.10.5-17 and 22.9.5; Claud. VI Cons. Hon. 543-639. 161 See paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3 of this chapter. 162 C. Annius Tiberianus as comes Africae is attested on 30 July. CTh. 12.1.15 and 12.5.1. See PLRE I 911- 912 s.v. C. Annius Tiberianus 4. 163 Milan: CTh. 4.22.1 (326); Aquileia: Cl 2.19.11 (326). 164 Eus. FC 3.42-47; Ruf. HE 10.7. See Drijvers 1992a: 55-72. 165 The location is unknown. Bames 2011: 43 suggests that she travelled to the court of her son, though it is well possible that Constantine himself hastened to her side. Her last presumed location before her death was Antioch, where she supposedly had an altercation with the bishop Eusthathius. Antioch: Athan. Hist.Ar. 4; death: Eus. VC 3.46.1-2. See Drijvers 1992a: 73-76. 166 Eus. FC3.47. 167 Sirmium: Cl 10.1.7 (December 326); CTh. 2.16.1, 2.30.3 and 9.12.2; Cl 5.72.4 (March-April) 329); Thessalonica: CTh. 11.3.2 (February 327); Nicomedia: CTh. 12.5.1 (July 327) and 14.24.1 (March 328); Phil. HE 2.7.7; Athan. Apol.Sec. 59.5 (December 327-January 328); Constantinople: CTh. 2.24.2; RIC VII 576 (Constantinople) 41. 79 Trier and a campaign along the Rhine in the autumn or winter of 328-329 which made him

Germanicus maximus IV. 168 In 329, he retreated to the East once more and would, after a busy itinerary, settle in Constantinople in the spring of 330.169 The city received its formal dedication in May 330 and became Constantine’s base for all of the next year. 170 To celebrate the inauguration, silver multiples were issued from the mint of the new city, the obverse of which depicted the emperor and the reverse the city’s Tyche and the heading D(OMINUS) N(OSTER) CONSTANTINUS MAX(IMUS) TRIUMF(ATOR) AUG(USTUS).m The Tyche of the city was depicted seated on a throne with her feet on a prow and holding a cornucopia. Besides this numismatically honouring of the bond between Constantinople and Constantine, a new type of commemorative coinage was introduced. From 330 onwards, Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis both appeared as city-tychai on obverses of bronze coinage from mints all over the Empire. 17 2 The URBS ROMA-obverses showed an armed Roma with a crested helmet, wearing an imperial mantle and a necklace. The reverses depicted the lupa suckling Romulus and Remus. The CONSTANTINOPOLIS-senes had the city’s Tyche wearing a laureate-crested Corinthian helmet with a sceptre over her left shoulder. On the reverses, a female (identifïed by Bruun as Victoria) was portrayed standing on a prow and holding a spear and shield. 173 Besides these bronze folies, the city-Roman mint issued bronze medallions for the two cities with variations on the reverses. 174 The issues for Rome honoured either the securitas Romae, Roma herself, the she-wolf and twins or the fleeing Aeneas, another remembrance of the earliest roots of Rome. The Constantinopolis-medallions showed either the emperor, with legends expressing VICTORIA AUG(usti) and RESTITUTOR REI P(ublicae), or the personifïed city itself. The titling of the two cities on the obverses can be interpreted in two ways. Either the singular Urbs no longer sufficed for Rome and the City

168 CTh. 1.4.2, 1.16.4 and 7.20.5; CIL VI40776; Zos. 2.34.1. 169 Sirmium: see infra\ Naissus: CTh. 11.27.1 (May 329); Heraclea: CTh. 11.30.13 (August 329) and 12.1.17 (October 329); Bergule: CTh. 16.8.1; Serdica: CTh. 9.9.1 and 11.30.18 (May-June 329) and 16.2.7 (February 330); Bessapara: CTh. 2.26.1 (February 330). 170 Chron.Pasch. s.a. 330; Frag. Vat. 248; CTh. 5.9.1, 16.8.2 and 16.8.4. 171 RIC V II578 (Constantinople) 53. See App. 2, fig. 16. 172 Urbs Roma: RIC VII 138-140 (Lugdunum) 242, 247, 257, 260, 267, 270 and 274-275; 214-218 (Treveri) 522, 524, 529, 541-542, 547, 553 and 561-562; 270-279 (Arelate) 343, 351, 356, 362, 368, 373, 379, 385, 392,400,407 and 415; 336-346 (Rome) 331, 338, 354, 370, 386, 390, 396,406 and 408; 407-409 (Aquileia) 122, 128 and 136; 453-456 (Siscia) 222, 223 and 240; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 187 and 229; 557-561 (Heraclea) 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 143 and 156; 579-590 (Constantinople) 62, 78, 85, 143 and 154; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 195 and 205; 654-658 (Cyzicus) 71-72, 90-91, 105-106 and 118-119; 693-697 (Antiochia) 91 and 113; 712 (Alexandria) 63 and 70; Constantinopolis: RIC VII 138-141 (Lugdunum) 241, 246, 273 and 279; 214-223 (Treveri) 523,529, 543 and 589; 271-279 (Arelate) 344, 352,408 and 416; 331- 346 (Rome) 297, 301, 303-305, 332-334, 371, 387 and 407; 407-409 (Aquileia) 123, 129 and 137; 453-456 (Siscia) 224 and 241; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 188 and 230; 557-561 (Heraclea) 115, 120, 125, 130, 135, 144 and 157; 579-590 (Constantinople) 63, 79, 86, 144 and 155; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 196 and 206; 654- 659 (Cyzicus) 73-74, 92-93, 107-108, 120-121 and 134; 693-697 (Antiochia) 92 and 114; 712 (Alexandria) 64 and 71. See AlfÖldi 1947; Bühl 1995: 21-25; Behrwald 2009: 36-45. See App. 2, figs. 14 and 15. 173 Bruun 1966: 241; Bühl 1995: 24. 174 Urbs Roma-, RIC VII 332-341 (Rome) 300, 307, 315-317, 342, 349 and 361-362; Constantinopolis'. RIC VII 331-340 (Rome) 297, 301, 304-305, 343, 356 and 358. See Kent 1978. 80 was opposed as Urbs Roma against Constantinopolis, or the simple name of Constantinople shows its low value compared to that of the old Capital.175 * According to Stephenson, the limited success of Constantine’s visit in 326 was the reason why the emperor never retumed to the Capital in the West and focused instead on his eastem residence. 176 Indeed, until his death, Constantine spent continuing periods in his new Capital, but was in addition involved in several military operations north of the Danube. He only seems to have travelled as far as the borderland between the eastem and western part of the

Empire for campaigns in the region. 17 7 His presence and activities there are reflected in the re- opening of the mint of Aquileia, which had been closed in the early 320s.178 In Rome, Constantine’s next arrival clearly seems to have been expected, most likely around 335 to celebrate his thirty-year reign. The year before, dedications to Constantine, including an equestrian statue on the Forum Romanum, were set up by the consul and urban prefect Anicius Paulinus to underline his allegiance to Constantine. 179 The erection of the equus Constantini on the Forum in 334, awarded by the Senate and the people of Rome, seems to anticipate an expected visit in the near future. In the same year, Constantine and his sons put up a gilded bronze statue for the active urban prefect on the Forum of Trajan. 180 These benefactions must have been fostered by a very special occasion that might expect his coming. However, Constantine’s tricennalia started and ended in Constantinople, which had become the emperor’s principal residence. 181 There, the vicennalia of his son Constantinus were celebrated simultaneously. In the spring of 337, Constantine prepared for a Persian expedition and left Constantinople. It was at that time that Constantine’s absence and distance from Rome was laid bare in an inscribed imperial correspondence. Constantine had presented an oratio to the Senate in Rome, granting the body permission to erect a gold statue for the recently appointed urban prefect, L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius. 182 The opening lines, introducing Constantine and his Caesares, were set in a larger type than the rest of the dedication. This emphasis had to express a closeness with the emperor, even

175 Georgacas 1947; MaeCormack 1975b: 147. It is striking, however, that Constantinople becomes synonymous for IlóA,i<; by Socrates {HE 6.6). 116 Stephenson 2010: 194. 177 Constantinople: CTh. 1.16.6-7 (November 331); Cl 6.1.6; CTh. 3.30.5, 4.8.8 and 8.12.5; Const.Sirm. (October-May 333); CTh. 1.22.2 (June 334); CTh. 8.9.1, 10.10.3, 11.16.6 and 16.8.5 (March-October 335); Gelasius. HE 3.18.4; Festal Index 8; Eus. VC 4.33 and 46. Bames 1977: 343-344 (November-winter 335); VC 4.60.5 ; CTh. 3.1.2 and 12.1.22 (July 336 - April 337); Gothicus maximus (April 332): CIL VI 40776; RIC VII 333 (Rome) 306; Anon.Vales. Origo 6.31; Hier. Chron. s.a. 332 [315c]; Sarmatian incursions (334): Cons.Const. s.a. 334; CIL VI 40776; Dacian campaign (336): CIL VI 40776; RIC VII 221 (Treveri) 578; Jul. Caes. 329b-d. 178 RIC VU 407-410 (Aquileia) 118-147. SeeBmun 1966: 390. 179 CIL VI 1141 = 31246 and 1142. For possible resemblances of the equus Constantini with the equestrian Constantine on his coins, see: RIC VII 517 (Thessalonica) 145; 616 (Nicomedia) 99 and 100. See LTUR n: 226-227; Kalas 2000: 74-75. 180 CIL VI 1683. 181 Cons.Const. s.a. 335. Bruun 1966: 74 proposes that Nicomedia once again hosted the opening of Constantine’s anniversary year. See supra for attested periods of residence. 182 CIL VI40776. See Weisweiler 2012a. 81 though he was far from the City. The following paragraph, the presentation of Constantine’s formal greeting, made this separation painfully apparent: IMP (ERATOR) CAES(AR) FL(AVIUS) CONSTANTINUS / P(IUS) F(ELIX) VICT(OR) AC TRIUMFAT(OR) AUGUST(US) / PONT(IFEX) MAX(IMUS) GERM(ANICUS) MAX(IMUS) IllI SARM(ATICUS) MAX(IMUS) III / GOTHIC(US) MAX(IMUS) II DAC(ICUS) MAX(IMUS) TRIB(UNICIA) POTEST(ATE) XXXIII / CONSULjl} VIII IMP (ERATOR) XXXII P(ATER) P(ATRIAE) P(ROCONSUL) ET / (F)L(AVIUS) CL(AUDIUS) CONSTANTINUS ALAMANfNICUS) ET / FL(AVIUS) IUL(IUS) CONSTANTIUS ET FL(AVIUS) IUL(IUS) / CONSTANS [[[ET FL(AVIUS) IUL(IUS) DELMA TIUS]]] / NOBB(ILISSIMI) CAESS(ARES) / CONSUL1BUS PRAETORIB US TRIB UNIS PLEBIS / SENA TUI SUO SAL UTEM DICUNT SI VOS LIBERIQUE / VESTRI VALETIS BENE EST NOS EXERCITUSQUE / NOSTRI VALEMUSm Soon after his departure in April 337 from his city, Constantine died. According to Eusebius, his death brought the Roman people immense grief and the Senate demanded his body be interred in Rome. 184 An imperial funeral and the visit of the dead ruler in his mausoleum were impressive events with a similar symbolic and political load as an adventus.m To the great despair of the people in Rome, however, Constantine was buried in his mausoleum in

Constantinople according to his will. 186

183 CIL VI 40776: ‘Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus, pious, fortunate, victor and winner of triumpbs, Augustus, pontifex maximus, Germanicus maximus for the fourth time, Sarmaticus maximus for the third time, Gothicus maximus for the second time, Dacicus maximus, in the thirty-third year of his tribunician power and his eight consulship, in the thirty-second year of his imperial power, father of his country, proconsul; and Flavius Claudius Constantinus Alamannicus and Flavius Julius Constanius and Flavius Julius Constans [and Flavius Julius Dalmatius], most noble Caesars, to the consuls, praetors, tribunes of the plebs, (and) Senate, greetings. If you and your children are well, it is good; We and Our armies are well.’ 184 Eus. FC 4.69. 185 Arce 2010. 186 Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.17. Consecration-coinage: see Chapter 1, paragraph 9. 82 2.2 Constans Constantine’s son Constans, the heir of the territory including Rome, most likely never visited the City. The evidence for a visit to Rome, as will be demonstrated below, is meagre and tendentious at best, although several occasions might be deemed opportune for a call at the ancient capital. 2.2.1 A Victorious Visit? (340-341) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (33 7-340) In the early years of his reign as Caesar, the infant Constans accompanied Constantine on his travels and campaigns, as can be gathered from Libanius’ oration to Constantius and Constans.187 After Constantine’s bestowal of parts of the Empire to his sons, Constans probably settled in Milan, which had been an imperial residence under Maximian and Constantine.188 It was likely there that he heard of his father’s death.189 After his promotion to Augustus in September 337 in Pannonia, Constans resided for several years mainly in Illyricum, perhaps with Naissus as a principal residence. This strategically located city in Dacia mediterranea had been a principal base of Dalmatius when he was ruling the dioceses of Moesia and Thracia as Caesar between 335 and 3 3 7.190 There had been several conflicts in the Danube region in the last years of Constantine’s reign and his death and the removal of Dalmatius required Constans’ presence in his newly acquired territory. 191 Imperial pronouncements between 337 and 340 furthermore locate him in Viminacium, Sirmium and possibly Savaria, but his activities there cannot be specifïed. Only a dedication from Troesmis, Moesia inferior, reveals an exploit. A successful campaign in Dacia awarded him the title Sarmaticus in 338.192 Adventus? There is only one literary source which suggests Constans’ presence at Rome, and even here the fact is only mentioned in passing. The passage comes from the Passio Artemii, deriving from Philostorgius, an ecclesiastical historian from the end of the fourth century. 193 Philostorgius sets Constans on a joumey to Rome at the time of his brother’s invasion in his realm early in 340.194 Despite the detailed and often truthful account of Philostorgius on the

187 Lib. Or. 59.42-43. 188 Burgess 2008: 35 proposes Rome - indeed only as a possibility - but, as will be seen below, there is no indication for his presence. Bames 1982: 86. For Maximian: Bames 1982: 56-60; for Constantine, see paragraph 1.1 of this chapter. 189 Burgess 2008: 35. 190 Petrovic 1993. 191 Eus. VC 4.5-6; Anon.Vales. Origo 6.31-32; CIL V I40776. See Weisweiler 2012a. 192 Kent 1968: 340; Burgess 2008: 34. 193 Bames 1975a: 330. 194 Philost. HE 3.1 (Passio Artemii 9). Until 340, Constans’ realm included Italy, Africa, and the Balkans. 83 post-Constantine period, this hardly seems credible. Imperial pronouneements attest Constans’ presence at the time of Constantinus’ campaign in Naissus, Dacia.195 A stay in Rome not during but after the battle with his brother would be more probable, since his movements between June 340 and June 341 are unclear.196 His victory over Constantinus made the occasion for an adventus opportune.197 Another event some time after his triumph might affïrm Constans’ intention to call at Rome. In May 340, Fabius Titianus, the active urban prefect from Rome, was deputized for a short period by Junius Tertullus, as the former travelled to court.198 Around that period, Constans resided in northem Italy.199 Fabius Titianus’ visit may well have been made in preparation for an adventus Augusti to celebrate Constans’ victory, as is suggested by Barnes who proposes that the urban prefect accompanied the emperor to the City.200 Then again, with Constans within travelling distance, a dispatch by the urban prefect to attend to pressing matters in Rome is just as likely an incentive. A dedication of Aurelius Avianus Symmachus to Constans has been interpreted in favour of a visit of Constans, honouring the Augustus for his pending arrival: FELICITA TEM PUBLICAM / CLEMENTIA ET V1RTUTE / CUMULANTI D(OMINO) N(OSTRO) FL(A VIO) IUL(IO) / CONSTANTIPIO FELICI / VICTORI AC TRIUMPHATORI AUG(USTO) / AURELIUS AVIANIUS SYMMACHUS V(IR) C(LARISSIMUS) / PRAEF(ECTUS) ANNONAE D(EVOTUS) NpJMINI) M(A1ESTA TI)Q(UE) EIUS201 Indeed, dedications seem to have coincided with expected visits from emperors or honoured the occasion after the fact.202 As for the one from Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, however, his dedication was an imperative reaffirmation of his loyalty to Constans and not necessarily an affïrmation of an adventus Augusti. An inscription on his part, found in Ostia, showed his allegiance to Constantinus in the period preceding the civil war between the two emperors. After Constans’ victory, Aurelius Avianius Symmachus had to make amends for his imprudent laus of Constantinus.203

195 C m 12.1.29 (January 340) and 10.10.5 (February 340). 196 Constans was in Milan at the end of June 340. A year later, his presence was attested in Lauriacum: CTh. 9.17.1 (June 340) and 8.2.1 and 12.1.31 (June 341). See Barnes 1975a: 327. 197 After his victory over Constantinus in 340, Constans’ realm was extended to the Gauls, Spain and Britain. See Moreau 1959: 179. 198 Chron. a. 354 s.a. 340 [Chron.Min. 168]. See PLRE 1 884 s.v. Iunius Tertullus 9. 199 Aquileia: CTh. 2.6.5 and 10.15.3 (April 340); Milan: CTh. 9.17.1 (June 340). 200 Barnes 1975a: 328. 201 CIL VI 36954: ‘Full of public happiness, clemency and virtue, to our lord Flavius Julius Constans, pious, fortunate, victor and triumphator Augustus, Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, of clarissimate rank, praefectus annonae, dedicated to his divine authority and majesty.’ Cf. AE 1988: 217 = 1996: 285. PLRE I 863-865 s.v. L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus signo Phosphorius 3; Gasperini 1988. 202 Diocletian: CIL VI 1203 = 1204 = 31261 = 21262; Constantine: CIL VI 1139 = 31245, 1140, 1141 = 31246 and 1142; Constantius: 1160, 1161 = 1162 = 36887, 31395 and 31397; Theodosius: CIL VI 1186 and 36959; Honorius: CIL VI 31987. 203 AE 1988: 217. See Gasperini 1988; Cecconi 1996. It is not clear whether the later vicarius Urbis Romae was rehabilitated by Constans. Possibly, he only assumed this office under Constantius. 84 What is more, the panegyrist Claudian recalls only three imperial visits in the fourth century following a civil war.204 The number of imperial visits after the defeat of a rival in this period surely exceeds three. Although Claudian does not identify these visitors in his panegyric of 404, there are far more firmly attested candidates than Constans visiting Rome after defeating his brother.205 2.2.2 The decennalia in Rome? (342-343) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (340-343) After the territory of Constantinus had passed to Constans in 340, the latter divided his presence between Italy and his recently attained provinces of Gaul and Britain. In late 341 and 342, he engaged in a war against the Franks. That summer, his presence in Trier, the former Capital of his late brother, can be deduced from a passage by Socrates, who describes a meeting between Constans and the bishop Paul of Constantinople.206 The emperor’s next attested place of residence is Milan, where he was based at least in the autumn and early December of the same year.207 One of his preoccupations was interviewing Athanasius, whom he had summoned from Rome, where the bishop spent his exile. Constans’ location at the start of his decennalia several weeks later, on 25 December, is not known. In the early winter, he made a cross-over to Britain, where he possibly resided at the domus Palatina in York if his winter campaign took him that far north in person.208 After retuming to the continent, he can only be located with certainty in Trier during the rest of his jubilee, where he had his second audience with Athanasius.209 Decennalia An imperial anniversary proved a special incentive for an emperor to call at Rome. Diocletian had visited Rome for his vicennalia in November 303 and was later joined by Maximian who left the City in his twentieth year as emperor.210 More recently, Constantine had celebrated the opening of his decennalia in 315 as well as the closing of his anniversary ten years later in the City. Constans’ anniversary celebrations between 25 December 342 and 24 December 343 might thus prove an appropriate moment for a visit, following the example of his father. A law on adultery, issued on 4 December 342, locates him in Milan, from which Rome could perfectly be reached before his dies imperii.211 However, Athanasius refiites Constans’

204 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 392-397. 205 Constantine (312: Maxentius; 326: Licinius), Constantius (357: Magnentius), Theodosius (389: Magnus Maximus; 394: Eugenius). Ensslin 1953; Cameron 1969: 248-265. 206 Soc. HE 2.18. 207 CTh. 9.7.3; Athan. Apol.ad Const. 4. 208 Firm.Mater. De errore profrel. 28.6; Lib. Or. 59.139 and 141; Amm.Marc. 20.1.1. The restoration and construction of several forts at Risingham (Habitancum), Bewcastle (Banna?) and Pevensey (Anderida) have been connected to this period. See Casey 1983; Von Petrikovits 1971: 184. 209 CTh. 12.1.36 (June 343); Athan. Apol.ad Const. 4. 210 Pan.Lat. 7(6) 8.7-8. See Nixon 1981. 211 CTh. 9.7.3. 85 presence in his Apologia ad Constantium. He not only indirectly states that Rome was not the emperor’s headquarters but also denies meeting Constantius’ brother in Rome, which had been the bishop’s place of residence since the spring of 339. Athanasius in fact recalls his meetings there with the aunt of Constantius and several other ‘friends’, but claims that he encountered Constans only outside the City, in Milan and the Gauls. Clearly, Rome was not a likely venue for these interviews, nor for the decennalia-cclcbrdtions. 2.2.3 Celebrating Rome’s Eleventh saeculum urbis? (348) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (343-350) During his second decade of reign, Constans spent his time between Gaul and Italy, and possibly Illyricum. His itinerary, however, shows lacunae that sometimes exceed a full year. In Gaul, he carried out legislative and administrative measures between May and July 345 in the cities Trier and Cologne, while in Italy his presence is attested at Aquileia at Easter in 345 and Milan in June 348.212 After this visit, his whereabouts remain uncertain not only for the remainder of this year, but in fact for the rest of his reign.213 The sources are unanimous about his place of death and burial. Constans was killed shortly after 18 January at Helena, not far from the Gallic borders with Spain. According to the critical Athanasius, Constantius pretended to build a sepulchre for his brother and the grave site deemed most appropriate was a mausoleum in Centcelles, near the village of Costanti in the north-east of Spain. There is no indication that Constantius, after his victory over Magnentius, transferred the body of Constans to Rome to be interred in the mausoleum of their grandmother Helena or on the site where their sister Constantina was laid to rest.214

Natalis Urbis The millennial anniversary of Rome in 248 during the reign of Philippus Arabs had launched a grand celebration including ludi saeculares in the Circus Maximus, theatre plays on the Campus Martius and gladiatorial games in the Colosseum.215 The natalis Urbis Romae was also generously commemorated on coinage, dedications and in literature.216 Secular games, initiated in republican Times, had been resuscitated by Augustus in 17 BC and were since then closely connected to the imperial cult.217 These religious celebrations were subsequently

212 Trier: CTh. 10.10.7; Athan. Apol.ad Const. 4; Cologne: CTh. 3.5.7; Aquileia: Athan. Apol.ad Const. 15; Milan: CTh. 10.14.2. 213 CTh. 7.1.2 and 8.7.3 are issued at the end of May from Sirmium. The year is uncertain and has been emended to either 349 or 352. 214 Athan. Hist.Ar. 69. For interpretations of his place of burial, see: Schlunk 1959: 359; Arbeiter 2006; Johnson 2009: 129-138. 215 Polverini 1988; Kömer 2002: 248-259; Pavan 1995; Ziemssen 2011: 102-108. 216 See, among others: RIC IV.3 (70-71) Rome 12-24c; CIL VI 488 and 1645; VIII 8328; AE 1917-1918: 85; Hier. Chron. s.a. 246 [299d]; Eutr. Brev. 9.3; SHA Gord. 33.1 and 33.3; Oros. 7.20.2 and 7.28; Aur.Vict. Caes. 28.2. The Epitomator (De Caes. 28.3) calls the festivities the Ludi Saeculares. See Grant 1977: 11. 217 Censorinus 17.11. 86 held by Domitian in 88 and Septimius Severus in 204 with intervals of a 100 to 110 years.218 In 47, a new computation by Claudius introduced a variation on Rome’s celebration, which was to be observed every century.219 His altemative games were followed by Antoninus Pius in 147 and Philippus Arabs in 248, who, as we have seen, entertained lavishly on the Parilia of Rome’s thousandth birthday.220 A century later, the natalis Urbis of 348 provided the expected momentum for Constans to be in Rome and celebrate the anniversary of the City. Rome’s birthday in 289 had been the occasion for the delivery of an imperial panegyric to Maximian.221 His oration was pronounced at court, presumably at Trier. The Codex-Calendar of 354 still states Rome’s birthday as a holiday, honoured with a festival and twenty-four circus races.222 The closing of Rome’s eleventh saeculum contrasted sharply with earlier centennial celebrations. Yet in 348, this moment, celebrated with spectacular ceremony and splendour a century before, seems to have passed without any homage or festivity of imperial instigation. For one, no dedicatory monuments or coinage have been attested. The FEL TEMP REP ARA 770-series, minted Empire-wide, which has often been connected to the 1100-year anniversary, more likely underlined the reconciliation and coalition between Constans and Constantius.223 Aurelius Victor is the only one to touch on the centennial anniversary under Constans. In the passage, the author denounced the absence of the customary rites in 348, a neglect unworthy of the City and its traditions: And since the name had reminded me, in my time, too, the eleven-hundredth anniversary passed in the consulship of a Philip but it was celebrated with none of the customary festivities, so drastically has the concern for the city of Rome diminished day-by-day.224 A similar sentiment can be detected in Zosimus who denounces Constantine’s omission to celebrate another variant of the Secular Games in 314: But when Constantine and Licinius were in their third consulship, the 110 years were completed, and the festival ought to have been kept according to custom; but it was neglected, and affairs consequently declined to their present unfortunate condition.225

218 Censorinus 17.11; Suet.£)o/«. 4.3; Herod.3.8.3-4. 219 Censorinus 17.11; Suet. Div.Claud. 21.2; Aur.Vict. Caes. 4.14. 220 Aur.Vict. Caes. 15.4. See Gagé 1934: 77-111; Pavan 1995. 221 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 1.4-5. 222 CIL I2p. 262. 223 See, among others: RIC VIII 153-154 (Treveri) 212-244; 190-191 (Lugdunum) 183-200; 210-212 (Arelate) 99-128; 256-260 (Rome) 107-161; 323-325 (Aquileia) 94-121; 364-367 (Siscia) 197-258; 387- 388 (Sirmium) 32 and 35-53; 411-412 (Thessalonia) 107-123;434-435 (Heraclea) 61-80; 453-454 (Constantinople) 78-94; 475-476 (Nicomedia) 60-73; 494-496 (Cyzicus) 65-91; 522 (Antiochia) 121-131; 541-542 (Alexandria) 44-71. See Mattingly 1933; Kraft 1958: 145-159 and 183; Kent 1967: 84; Grant 1977: 148 and 153; Weiser 1987; Thoma 1996. See App. 2, fig. 17. Aur.Vict. Caes. 28.2: Et quoniam nomen admonuit, mea quoque aetate post mille centesimus consule Philippo excessit nullis, ut solet, sollemnibus frequentatus: adeo in dies cura minima Romanae urbis. 225 Zos. 2.7.2: tpic 8s f|8r| yeyovóxcov wiaxmv Kcovcxavxlvou Kai A ik iw ïo u xcöv 8éKa Kai ÉKaxöv èviauxaiv ó Xpóvoi; CTUvejiXripoöxo, KaO’ öv Ë8st xriv éopxijv Kaxa xö vevonta|iévov a%6rjvar xotiiou öè |if| cpuA.ax9évxoi; ëöei y’&p’ eii; xpv vöv cruvsxowav T)na<; èMteïv xa rcpaynaxa öutTK^ripiav. 87 Imperial pronouncements point to Constantine’s presence in Trier in March and June, and he was most likely also in Gaul on the natalis Urbis of 314. Constans’ whereabouts on 21 April 348 are unknown and his quarters cannot be determined for another two months when he reappeared in Milan. A visit to Rome, however, is most improbable. Aurelius Victor’s reference to the non-performance of customary festivities implies the absence of celebrations, games or coinage. Although the historian was biased against the Constantinian dynasty and would pass over Constantius’ visit to Rome in 357, his overt condemnation of Constans’ ‘diminished concern for the city of Rome’ indicates the emperor’s physical absence in April 348.226 2.2.4 A Visit in 349? Besides the appropriate occasions that presented themselves after Constans’ victory (his jubilee and the natalis Urbis) one further date has been hypothesized for a Roman visit by the emperor. Mommsen has located Constans in Rome in 349. This year has been conjectured based on a law that was posted in Rome dating from March (or possibly May) of that year.227 The place of issuance is not stated in the extant text, and the quarters of Constans around this time cannot be determined either. Although this uncertainty does not disqualify Rome as possible scene for the pronouncement’s delivery, the statement proposita Romae implies another location for its actual proclamation. The law on tax collections was posted in Rome, for it was the residence of the addressee Eusthatius, the agens vicem praetorian prefect of Italy. He acted as agens vicem during the interregnum between the urban and praetorian prefects Limenius and Hermogenes from April to May 349, who had their post in Rome.228 Although a visit in 349 is historically probable, the scarce evidence is most circumstantial. 2.2.5 An adventus Constanti? Opposed to these ambiguous indications, suitable occasions and Constans’ proximity to the Urbs in certain circumstances, stands a lack of convincing attestations of an adventus in literary and legal sources, epigraphical or archaeological evidence and imperial coinage. Ammianus elaborated on the adventus of Constantius in 357, but remained silent on the subject of a possible visit by Constans.229 The Calendar of Philocalus, which recorded all three adventus of Constantine, has made no mention of the emperor’s presence in Rome as a celebratory occasion either, nor do other fasti,230 The corpus of late-antique panegyrics, often

Aur.Vict. Caes. 28.2. 227 CTh. 11.7.6. See also CTh. 2.1.1. See Mommsen 1904: ccxxix. 228 PLRE I 310-311 s.v. Eustathius 2; 510 s.v.Ulpius Limenius 2; 23-424 s.v Hermogenes 2 (and possibly also 3 and 9). 229 Amm.Marc. 16.10. 230 Salzman 1990: 141-142. 88 delivered on the occasion of a visit, does not include any adventus-orations to Constans.231 In fact, the only extant oration to Constans, delivered to him and his brother, remains silent on the subject of Rome. In official documents, attestations to a visit by the emperor are also lacking. Several laws have been emitted by emperors while residing in Rome, but pronouncements issued from Rome during Constans’ rule are lacking.232 Furthermore, imperial visits resulted in the donation of impressive gifts and the erection of statuary, which often overtly alluded to the act of an adventus ad Urb(em).m Arrivals had also been depicted on iconography of monuments, such as arches and columns.234 In Constans’ case, however, inscriptions are of little assistance, apart from the negative fact that there are none extant confirming his presence. The silence surrounding Constans in Rome is equally demonstrable in the numismatic material from the 340s. The series with the legend FELIX ADVENTUS AUGG NN or ADVENTUSAUGUSTI alluded to late-antique imperial visits throughout the Empire, yet none seem to have been issued in Constans’ name.235 These series, furthermore, were not struck from Rome at all during the fourth century. Other references to a visit to the City, such as LIBERATOR URBIS SUAE, SPQR OPTIMO PR1NCIPI or VIRTUS AUGUSTI, are not attested either.236 From the city-Roman mint, the City was glorifïed through the emission of bronze URBS ROMA-coins and medallions, but these emissions should not be seen as an indication of imperial presence.237 Rome had to share this homage with its counterpart Constantinople from 330 onwards, when the first issues were struck to commemorate the dedication of Constantine’s new Capital.238 The series for both cities were continued by Constans and Constantius, but in the West only from Rome.239 The emission of the series from the mints of

231 Constantine (312): Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19-20; 4 (10) 33.6; Constantius (357): Them. Or. 3; Theodosius (389): Pan.Lat. 2 (12). The oration of Libanius to Constantius and Constans does not mention Rome, but in fact alludes to Constans’ visit to Britain. Lib. Or. 59.139 and 141. See also Chapter 3, paragraph 1. 232 Constantine in 312: Cr*. 10.10.2; in 315: CTh. 1.2.2, 9.18.1, 10.1.1 and 11.30.3; Frag. Vat. 33 and 274; in 326: CTh. 10.8.3; Constantius: CTh. 13.5.9; Theodosius: CTh. 2.8.19,9.16.11,9.21.9, 11.30.49, 12.16.1, 14.4.5-6, 14.17.9, 15.1.25, 15.2.5 and 16.5.18; Cl 6.1.8. See Dupont 1969. 233 Decennalia monument on the Forum for visit of Diocletian (303): CIL VI 1203 = 1204 = 31261 = 21262; Arcus Novus for visit of Diocletian (303): Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Diocletianus et Maximianus [Chron.Min. I 148: 23-24]; Not.Reg.Urb. VII. Laubscher 1976; obelisk for visit of Constantius (357): CIL VI 1163 = 31249. Amm.Marc. 17.4; adventus ad Urbem: CIL VI 41332. See on this inscription, Gatti 1969; Mazzarino 1974. 234 Cancelleria reliefs (Rome): Last 1948: 10-12 and pl. 1; Magi 1973; Baumer 2008; arch of Marcus Aurelius (Rome): Angelicoussis 1984: 151; Varner 2004: 142 and 393; arch of Galerius (Salonica): Pond Rothman 1977: 437 and 442-443; Engemann 1979; arch of Constantine: Faust 2011: 383-386. 235 RIC VI296 (Ticinum) 111. 236 Ronning 2007a: 357-370. 237 Folies: RIC VUI 250-289 (Rome) 17-20, 29-31, 39-42, 55; medallions: RIC VII 256 (Rome) 104-106. Kent 1978. 238 For issues under Constantine, see paragraph 1.3 of this chapter; CONSTANTINOPOLIS-issues from Rome under Constans: RIC VIII250-256 (Rome) 18-20, 30-31,40-42 and 105-106. 239 Emissions from Constantius’ mints: RIC VIII 407 (Thessalonica) 58-59; 431-433 (Heraclea) 28-29, 31- 32, 49-50 and 56-57; 449-450 (Constantinople) 31-32 and 46-47; 472-475 (Nicomedia) 16-17 and 53; 515 (Antiochia) 38 and 55A; 539-540 (Alexandria) 8-11 and 26-28. 89 Treveri and Arelate, which had both passed from Constantinus to Constans in 340, ended with the death of Constantinus. 240 The URBS ROMA-folles from Rome were minted mainly between 337 and 340 and the medallions seem to have been struck only around 348, for which probably the eleven-hundredth anniversary was the impetus. The reverses of medallions now expressed the legend VICTORIA AUGUSTI and VIRTUS AUGG NN, depicting either a turreted female or the emperor. Furthermore, another small series from Rome was dedicated to Roma Beata, depicting a helmeted Roma on the obverse.241 The singular position of the city-Roman mint during the Constantinian dynasty, however, deserves consideration. Not only does it seem that its officinae refrained from striking consecration-coinage after Constantine’s death, but Constans also received no gold or silver coinage during his years as

Caesar of Ital ia from the major mint in his realm.2 4 2 What is more, gold emissions during the entire rule of Constans as Augustus are also lacking.243 Clearly, these singularities show that minting was not a one-way process in which the emperor commanded the emissions; rather, it implies the involvement or endorsements of other agents.244 Overall, the scarce documentation about the reign of Constans cannot negate nor confirm a visit by the emperor to Rome. Judging from the various extant forms of media, an adventus in Rome at any time during his reign as Augustus - and as Caesar - is rendered improbable.245 Especially after the death of Constantine and Dalmatius in 337 and his brother three years later, Constans’ presence in his new territories was demanded to consolidate his political and military base in an expanding realm. Constans thus tumed to more convenient quarters, outside Italy, to present himself to and interact with his subjects and counter barbarian threats. Although a stay Rome would give both the emperor and the City grace and would confirm the status of the old Capital, Constans favoured Milan, the Capital of Italia annonaria, when touehing down on the peninsula.

240 RIC VIII 143 (Treveri) 16-17; 205-206 (Arelate) 8-9, 15-16, 25-26, 30-31 and 38-39. 241 RIC VIII286-287 (Rome) 372 and 379-380. See also RIC VIII289 (Rome) 393 and 402-403. U2 Aes-coinage for Constans: RIC 341-346 (Rome) 367, 384, 389, 394 and 404. For an interpretation of gold emissions to celebrate the division of the Empire by Constantine in 335, which leaves Constans’ absence on precious metal still puzzling, see Bruun 1966, 15-16. For an interpretation of the DIVUS CONSTANTINUS-issues, see the previous chapter, paragraph 9. 243 The legend ADVENTUS AUGUSTI might not only refer to the imperial arrival in Rome, but also in other cities or provinces of the Empire. For the visit of Constantine to Antioch, celebrated with adventus- medallions, see RIC VII 695 (Antiochia) 48. For other coins of emperors with (FELIX) ADVENTUS AUGUSTI in the fourth century, see for Constantine: RIC VII 396 (Aquileia) 27; 527 (Thessalonica) 203; 609 (Nicomedia) 52; for Constantius: RIC VIII 220 (Arelate) 227-228; 416 (Thessalonica) 144; 512-517 (Antiochia) 2 and 75; for Valentinian, see: RIC IX 15 (Treveri) 8a-b; 75 (Mediolanum)l; 94 (Aquileia) 1. For the relationship between temporary residence and gold minting, see Bruun 1966: 13-18. 244 Levick 1982; Drake 2000: 65; Ando 2000: 215-228; Manders 2012: 30-33. 245 His presence in Rome during his time as Caesar has also been rejected. This is contrary to his brother Constantius, who accompanied his father in 326. RIC VII207 (Treveri) 467-468; 328 (Rome) 279. 90 In the period of his rule as Caesar and Augustus, Constans maintained a so-called

“Hauptstadtfeme” . 246 His sister Constantina seems to have been the only member of the

House of Constantine to have visited or resided in Rome.247 A statue was erected for her in Rome by the activepraepositus rerum privatarum Flavius Gavianus between 337 and 340, and a dedication from the 340s places a statue of her at the Lateran palace.248 After marrying

Gallus in 351, she resided with her husband in Antioch.249 When she died in 354 in Bithynia, her dead body was transported to a mausoleum along the Via Nomentana in Rome.250

2.3 Constantius 2.3.1 A Victory and Jubilee Combined (357) Imperial Residences - Itinerary (337-357) As a child in the early years of his emperorship, Constantius was part of Constantine’s entourage. He spent considerable periods of time in the East as Caesar, with probably a brief tour in the West when Constantine visited Aquileia, Milan and Rome during his vicennial year.2 5 1 There is uncertainty surrounding his whereabouts for his decennalia in 333; he was either in Constantinople with his father or in the Gallic provinces. When Constantius was awarded Asia Minor and the diocese of Oriens in the years after Constantine’s division of the

Empire, he resided mainly in Antioch.25 2 It was there that he leamed of his father’s illness in the spring of 337, after which he travelled to Nicomedia and thereafter to Constantinople with his father’s dead body. He had probably been in Constantinople many times in the company of his father, and his fïrst marriage, to a daughter of Julius Constantius in July 336, had been solemnized there during his father’s tricennalia.252 Constantius probably stayed in Constantinople for a month to handle his father’s affairs and soon became preoccupied with a campaign against the Sarmatians, which threatened the frontiers of Dalmatius’ former realm. 254 After meeting with his brothers in August, the new Sarmaticus had to face another foreign threat and left Pannonia for the East to respond to the Persian invasion of Shapur II. Socrates places Constantius in Constantinople, before travelling to Antioch to prepare his retributive campaign. 255 During the 340s, the Syrian Capital would serve as his chief residence, although he would return on occasion to

246 For the concept, see Flaig 1997: 23. 247 Eutropia and also probably her son Nepotianus, the usurper of 350, were living in Rome. They belonged, however, to the House of Constantius and Theodora. Athan. Apol.ad Cons. 6; Zos. 2.59. 248 AE 1995: 195; CIL V I40790. 249 Amm.Marc. 14.7.1-4; Soc. HE 2.28.2. 250 Amm.Marc. 14.11.6 and 21.1.5. See Stem 1958: 163; Kunzle 1965: 599; Mackie 1997; Chenault 2008: 55-56; Johnson 2009: 139-155. 251 See paragraph 1.3 of this chapter . 252 Eus. Triac. 3.4; Jul. Or. 1.13b; Soz. HE 3.5.1. 253 Marriage: Eus. VC4.49; Eus. Triac. 3.4. See Drake 1975: 354. 254 See Chapter 1, paragraph 10. 255 Soc. HE 2.7; Jul. Or. 1.20-21. 91 Constantinople, and probably also for the opening of his vicennalia in 343. 256 For his anniversary, a new ROMA and CONSTANTINOPOLIS-type was coined from the Nieomedian and Constantinopolitan mints.257 This special series, presenting both cities side by side with the legend GLORIA REI PUBLICAE or GLORIA ROMANORUM, would be issued from

Cyzicus and Antiochia from 347 as well.258 Antioch presented a convenient headquarters from which to act against Persian hostilities in Mesopotamia and Armenia and his lengthy stays may have accumulated in a name change to Antiochia Constantia.259 These engagements kept him in the East in the summer of 350 and prevented him from immediately acting upon the usurpations of Magnentius and Vetranio. It was not until the autumn that Constantius left for Serdica and first addressed the coup of Vetranio, effecting his abdication in late December in Naissus.260 From 351 onwards, Sirmium and Milan were his primary residences, with Gallus maintaining the imperial presence in the East as the newly acclaimed Caesar. Milan was probably the location of Constantius’ wedding to his second wife Eusebia, contracted before

Magnentius’ fïnal defeat in August 3 53.261 In November of that year, Constantius celebrated the opening of his tricennalia in Arles, where he wintered after his campaign against Magnentius. Constantius gave ‘entertainments in the theatre and the circus with ostentatious magnifïcence’ .262 For this jubilee, the special vota-coinage with reverses of Urbs Roma and

Constantinopolis enthroned was (re-)issued from eastem and westem mints.263 The officinae from Rome, Nicomedia, Thessalonica, Sirmium and Antiochia furthermore introduced golden multiples depicting only a turreted or enthroned Constantinopolis on their reverses, and a

256 The location of the closing ceremony is unknown. Vicennalia: Barnes 1993a: 219-220. 257 RIC VIII451 (Constantinople) 57; 473 (Nicomedia) 29-34. See App. 2, fig. 18. 258 RIC VIII 492 (Cyzicus) 38-39; 517-526 (Antiochia) 72-73, 81-91 and 161-173. The series was issued (almost) Empire-wide from the early 350s onwards. See infra. 259 Festus. Brev. 27. See Warmington 1976; Blockley 1989. For name: Jul. Or. 1.40d; on Constantine’s activity in Antioch, see Henck 2001: 293-297. For Persians threats, see Athan. Hist.Ar. 16.2. 260 Serdica: Zon. 13.7; Naissus: Hier. Chron. s.a. 351 [320c] (place and year); Chron.Pasch. s.a. 351 (year falsely given as 351); Zos. 2.44.3-4. 261 Athan. Hist.Ac. 3.3; CTh. 11.1.6, 12.1.42 (353; 354) and 16.8.7 (353; 357). For Eusebia: Jul. Or. 3.109A-B and 110D. For Eusebia’s role at court, see Juneau 1999. 262 Amm.Marc. 14.5.1: ...Arelate hiemem agens Constantius post theatralis ludos atque circenses ambitioso editos.... 263 GLORIA REI PUBLICAE: RIC VIII 166 (Treveri) 338-347; 189-190 (Lugdunum) 177-179; 220-225 (Arelate) 225-226, 233-239 and 280-287; 233 (Milan) 2; 269-276 (Rome) 225A-230, 232-234, 289-291 and 293-294; 332-335 (Aquileia) 179-181 and 210; 370-376 (Siscia) 297-298, 320-322 and 357-359; 384- 389 (Sirmium) 1-9 and 55-65; 416-420 (Thessalonica) 147-154 and 193-198; 436 (Heraclea) 81; 451-459 (Constantinople) 57, 95-98 and 129; 473-480 (Nicomedia) 29-34, 74-75 and 100; 492 (Cyzicus) 38-39; 518-526 (Antiochia) 81-90 and 162-173; GLORIA ROMANORUM: RIC VIII 221 (Arelate) 231-232; 293 (Rome) 421; 415-416 (Thessalonica) 139 and 142-143; 517-525 (Antiochia) 72-73 and 161; FELICITATS ROMANORUM: RIC 277 (Rome) 296-298. See also FEL TEMP REPARATIO: 276 (Rome) 292 and 295. For other vota-coinage celebrating Constantius’ tricennalia, see: RIC VIII 190 (Lugdunum) 180; 218-224 (Arelate) 203-207-208, 241, 253-254, 259-259, 261-262; 270 (Rome) 234-235, 251-252; 333 (Aquileia) 183-184; 373 (Siscia) 324-325; 382 (Sirmium) 15, 17 and 19-20; 416-417 (Thessalonica) 155, 157, 163; 440 (Constantinople) 99-104; 478 (Nicomedia) 80-81; 519-520 (Antioch) 92-93, 97, 99 and 108. 92 single series from Antiochia for a helmeted Roma.264 The series with Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis on the obverse, launched under Constantine, had been cancelled at this time from the mints of Constantius, except from the city-Roman mint: in the direct aftermath of Constantius’ campaign against Magnentius, medallions of Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis with the legends VICTORIA AUG N, VICTORIA ROMANORUM and VIRTUS AUG were issued.265 In the spring of 354, Constantius crossed the Rhine at Rauracum to campaign against the Alamanni.266 In the subsequent years, Milan remained a city of importance as Constantius’ winter quarters, even receiving its own mint.267 From there, Constantius proclaimed Julian as

Caesar in November of 355.268 After his third winter residence, he left Milan in the early spring of 357, taking a Southern direction. His next attested destination is the Umbrian city

Ocriculi, and then Rome.269 Adventus On 28 April 357, Constantius entered the etemal city in a golden carriage. His visit, recorded in fifth- and seventh-century chronicles, was the occasion of a speech, delivered to the Senate by Themistus as Constantinople’s ambassador.270 The nature of the visit is treated extensively by Ammianus Marcellinus, and supplemented by Symmachus, Theodoret and the compilers of the Liber Pontificalis who touch upon Constantius’ stay in Rome. 2 71 Ammianus even devotes an entire chapter to the emperor’s adventus, describing his entrée, the attended sights, his actions and perceptions, and, finally, his departure. The account of Ammianus, written in the last decades of the fourth century, is an ambivalent testimony of a fourth-century imperial visit. Together with mostly panegyrical treatments, his description has become a paradigmatic portrayal of the late-antique adventus- ceremony. 2 72 Ammianus’ depiction of Constantius’ entry supposedly relies heavily on an adventus that had taken place in his own time and most likely in his presence: that of Theodosius in 3 89.273 Instead of accounting an historical and factual entrance, the chapter reflects an exemplary ceremony of rituals surrounding an imperial visit. Within this canonical sketch, Ammianus remains critical of Constantius’ acts and behaviour. One objection was Ammianus’ moral offence over the unfounded occasion of the visit:

264 Constantinopolis: RIC VIII 275 (Rome) 285-286; 388 (Sirmium) 54; 416 (Thessalonica) 141; 480 (Nicomedia) 99; 517-525 (Antiochia) 69-71a and 157-160; Roma'. RIC VIII 517 (Antiochia) 74. 265 RIC Vni: 293 (Rome) 424-425,433 and 437. 266 Amm.Marc. 14.10.6. 267 RIC VIII 233 (Mediolanum) 1-2. 268 Amm.Marc. 15.8.17; Soc. HE 2.34.5; Cons.Const. s.a. 355; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 355; CIL I2, p. 277. 269 Amm.Marc. 14.10.4. 270 Cons.Const. s.a. 357; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 357; Them. Or. 3. On Themistius, see Vanderspoel 1995. 271 Amm.Marc. 16.10; Symm. Rel. 3.4-6; Theodoret. HE 2.14; Lib.Pont. 37.4. Socrates (HE 2.34.5-6) and Sozomen (HE 4.8) mention Constantius’ travel to Rome, but connect this to the death of Julian and a synod in Rome. 272 Behrwald 2009: 78-86; Schmidt-Hofher 2012: 34-43. 273 Schmidt-Hofher 2012: 38-39. 93 While these events were so being arranged in the Orient and in Gaul in accordance with the times, Constantius, as if the temple of Janus had been closed and all his enemies overthrown, was eager to visit Rome and after the death of Magnentius to celebrate, without a title, a triumph over Roman blood.274 This theme, a visit to ‘the metropolis of triumphs’, was also articulated by Themistius, though in much more extolling and justifying terms.275 In April 357, it had been five years since Constantius had ended Magnentius’ dominion and had assumed control over the entire West. As a parallel to Constantine’s expedition to Rome to free the City from the ‘tyrant’ Maxentius, Constantius had come from Constantinople to free Rome from its new oppressor

Magnentius.276 In Rome, Constantius’ visit was probably expected in the direct aftermath of this civil war to celebrate his victory and his pending tricennalia, in November 353. Naeratius Cerealis, the urban prefect from September 352 to December 353, erected the equus Constantii just months before his dies imperii. The statue of a mounted Constantius hailed the victorious emperor as restitutor Urbis Romae adque orbis et extinctor pestiferae tyrannidis 277 Naeratius Cerealis would be the first appointee for the urban prefecture by Constantius after the emperor gained complete dominance over the Empire. With this gesture, he tried to monumentalize his allegiance with his Augustus after a politically unstable period, anticipating or inducing an adventus at the same time. Four years later, the actual visit coincided with a number of jubilees, a fact recalled in the fasti. The Chronicon Constantinopolitana connects the visit to his thirty-fifth year as

Caesar, an occasion that was also celebrated on coinage. 278 According to the Chronicon Paschale, Constantius came to Rome ‘with great display and pomp for his vicennalia’, and, indeed, 357 witnessed the twenty-year jubilee of Constantine’s death and his own accession to the rank of Augustus,279 Although Ammianus is silent about these anniversaries in connection to the adventus, as is Themistius, he alludes to the pageantry that framed Constantius’ entry. He recounts in detail the meeting of Constantius’ entourage with the processional cortège from Rome. Here, Ammianus’ account is also not without criticism. Constantius had arranged an inordinately long procession of infantry and cavalrymen, with excessive splendour. He also seemed inapproachable, although the latter was also a token ‘of no slight endurance’ .280 Ammianus does not identify any specific members of his revenue at this point, though he later reveals the presence of the Persian Hormisdas as one of the emperor’s companions. The passage in the

274 Amm.Marc. 16.10.1: Haec dum per Eoas partes et Gallias pro captu temporum disponuntur, Constantius quasi recluso lani templo stratisque hostibus cunctis Romam visere gestiebat post Magnenti exitium absque nomine ex sanguine Romano triumphaturus. 275 Them. Or. 3.42b. 276 Them. Or. 3 43 a-c and 44a-b. 277 CIL V I1158; Amm.Marc. 14.5.1. See Bames 1993a: 314. 278 Cons.Const. s.a. 357; RIC VIII 277 (Rome) 296-298; 335 (Aquileia) 210-211; 376 (Siscia) 357-359; 388-389 (Sirmium) 55-64. 279 Chron.Pasch. s.a. 357. 280 Amm.Marc. 16.10.1-12: non mediocris indicia. 94 Chronicon Paschale further discloses that Eusebia, the wife of Constantius, accompanied him into the City. 281 Later on in his chapter, Ammianus confirms Eusebia’s presence when he informs his readers of the arrival of her sister-in-law Helena to Rome, who was subsequently poisoned by Eusebia.282 It is only through Themistius’ account that the orator’s own presence, and that of the delegation from the Senate of Constantinople which he led, is attested. This embassy would present him with aurwn coronarium during their stay. 283 The Liber Pontificalis further names Ursacius and Valens, the bishops of Singidunum and Mursa, as persons present during the visit.* • 284 Sozomen adds Eudoxius • of Germanicia. 285 Bames suggests that Basil of Ancyra was attendant at the festivities.286 Next, Ammianus recalls the emperor’s awe as he entered the ‘most majestic abode of all the world’ and saw its splendour, as if for the first time.287 The author does not allude to a possible earlier visit in the company of Constantine in 326, which, if it had taken place, was by that time more than thirty years ago. Once inside the City, Constantius changed from a distant military leader with unfitting behaviour to a civilian and senatorial partner of the people, a behaviour appropriate for the etemal city. 288 As Gavin Kelly puts it, after the moderation from a monarch to an equal, Rome triumphed over Constantius.289 Constantius acted according to the canonical sequence of actions and events connected to an adventus to Rome. He visited the Fomm and addressed the populace from the rostra and the Senate in the Curia, and then retreated to the Palatium where he received visitors and accepted their attentions.290 Theodoret elaborates on one petition that was presented during such a visit, an act belonging to the imperial routine in a city.29 1 He recounts the successful plea of noble ladies to reinstate the exiled pope Liberius, whom he had banished in 3 5 5 292 During his stay, Constantius held equestrian games, of which most must have corresponded with the ludi recorded in the Calendar of 354. He had arrived a week after the Parilia on 21 April, but besides ludi for his arrival, more than ten games-occasions are chronicled. The date of his father’s death, on 22 May, merited no entry in the Calendar, but might still be an occasion for a commemoration. 293 Once again, Theodoret gives the particulars for such a set of games. He reports the discord that arose in the Circus after the

281 Chron.Pasch. s.a. 357. According to Julian (Or. 3.129B-D), she visited Rome when Constantius was campaigning along the Rhine-borders, which can be dated to 354. She was welcomed warmly by the Senate and was most generous to the residents of the city. 282 Amm.Marc. 16.10.18. 283 Them. Or. 3.40c. 284 Lib.Pont. 37.5. 285 Soz. HEA.U. 286 Bames 1993: 192 and 283-284. 287 Amm.Marc. 16.10.13-16. Amm.Marc. 16.10.20: Augustissima omnium sede. 288 MaeCormack 1981: 42-51. 289 Kelly 2003: 599. 290 Amm.Marc. 16.10.13. 291 Theodoret. HE. 2.14. 292 Ruf. HE 10.23. For the schism, see Diefenbach 2007: 222-223. 293 CIL I2p. 264-265; Amm.Marc. 16.10.13-14. 95 edict to recall the banishment of Liberius was read aloud. It is uncertain, however, if the emperor was present at thisi • event. 294 Furthermore, Constantius surveyed the City and its the landmarks. Ammianus sets the emperor on an antiquarian and historical tour in Rome as the “museum of the past” .295 The monumental sites include the temple of Jupiter (named without any mention of a sacrifice), the amphitheatre, the Pantheon, three imperial columns, the temple of Venus and Roma, the

Forum Pacis, the Theatre of Pompey, the Odeum and the Stadium.296 The climax of his tour was the Forum of Trajan where Constantine stood with awe and amazement, together with

Hormisdas. 297 Not surprisingly, Ammianus does not cite any Christian sites, which Constantius certainly must have visited. There is no mention of public worship by Constantius in any of Rome’s basilicas or martyria or of the celebration of Pentecost during the emperor’s visit298 * A visit to Rome was an expedient act for emperors and had to be thought out carefully. In the case of Constantius, his presence after the oppression of usurpations would confirm his exploits and demonstrate the recovered concordia in the Empire. It would be a powerfiil symbolic reassertion of Constantinian authority in the West and the return of a legitimate emperor from Constantine’s dynasty after thirty years of absence. The last visit, in 326, had witnessed some altercations, and the burial of Constantine in Constantinople instead of Rome had, according to Aurelius Victor, caused outrage among the residents of the City.299 The emperor’s occasional presence would thus become an event of imperial and city- Roman importance and was certainly no spontaneous act. According to Ammianus, much was disbursed in preparation for the regal visit. 300 Projects of restoration and decoration had clearly been undertaken in anticipation of the adventus, which would explicate Constantius’ astonishment. At least three colossal statues of Constantius were put up in front of the Curia on the Forum between 355 and 357, awarded by the urban prefect in office Flavius Leontius and his successor Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus. 301 These honorary statements were very likely timed to coincide with Constantius’ visit to Rome, as was the dedication to Attius Caecilius Maximilianus signo Pancharius. He was the praefectus annonae in office in late April 357 and would be awarded a statue for his concern for the City during the visit.302 As it was Constantius’ first encounter with the old senatorial aristocracy and the populace of Rome as Augustus, it was crucial to strengthen their bonds. It could be disastrous

294 Theodoret. HE. 2.14. 295 Behrwald 2009: 78-86. 296 Amm.Marc. 16.10.14. 297 Amm.Marc. 16.10.15-16. 298 Based on the dates for Easter in the Index of Athanasius’ Festal Letters (no. 29) and the Paschal Cycle in the Codex-Calendar of 354 (Chron.Min. 163), this holiday had to have taken place in mid-May. 299 Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.17. 300 Amm.Marc. 16.10.4. 301 CIL VI 1161 = 1162 = 36887, 31395 and 31397. See also CIL V I1160. 302 CIL V I41332. On this inscription, see Gatti 1969; Mazzarino 1974. 96 to alienate the residents of sueh a Capital city. To prevent this, he employed a number of strategies that demanded thorough preparation. He served Rome’s inhabitants with speeches and games, and, to add lustre to his presence in the City, he would eventually bestow an Egyptian obelisk on the Circus Maximus. According to Ammianus, Constantius tumed to his courtiers for advice about how to leave a lasting impression and decided on the obelisk from

Egypt ‘after much deliberation’ .303 This ambitious undertaking, possibly once begun under Constantine, would be realised within two years. Besides these typical imperial benefactions, Constantius accommodated different groups, with different agendas. One relation that had to be fostered was that with the Senate of Rome. Several months before his visit to Rome, Constantius had been in contact from

Milan with the urban prefect Flavius Leontius to guard Christian privileges in the City. 304 Leontius, an eastem official, had served Constantius well by quelling various riots in Rome and by deporting its bishop Liberius to Milan in 355.305 By January 357, however, the office of the urban prefecture was held by Orfitus, who now served his second term. Constantius had certainly communicated with him before their first encounter in April as one of his

Communications was monumentalised on the Forum of Trajan.306 Furthermore, he needed to correspond with Orfitus about his decision and issue proper instructions to remove the Altar of Victory from the Curia.307 This act receives no mention in Ammianus’ Res gestae, but was attested by Symmachus, the fiiture son-in-law of Orfitus.308 Symmachus mentions further acts by Constantius during his visit. After meeting Rome’s senators at the formal reception outside the city walls, he received a tour from an

‘oveijoyed Senate through all the streets of the Etemal City’ . 309 Ammianus informs his readers of the customary address in the Curia. One agendum must have been the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Curia, which was not well received by some members of the body. The spokesman for the pagan cause must have been Orfitus, who had been notified as one of the first. The emperor, however, did not reconsider his decision. Conversely, Symmachus reports acts on Constantius’ part that eamed him ‘greater respect’ from the pagan aristocrats and which were met with a favourable reception.3 10 He awarded them memberships to priesthoods, allowed pagan practices and subsidised their ceremonies. 3 11 This policy encouraged them to continue practicing their religion and

Amm.Marc. 17.4. See Chapter4, paragraph 5.2. 304 CTh. 16.2.13. 305 Amm.Marc. 15.7.1-10. See PLRE I 503 s.v. Flacius Leontius 22. 306 CTh. 9.17.3 (356). 307 Symm. Rel. 3.4-6; Ambr. Ep. 18.32. Thompson 2005. For Constantius’ building policy in the provinces, see Henck2001. 308 Symm. Rel. 3.3-6. 309 Symm. Rel. 3.7. 310 Symm. Rel. 3.7. 311 Symm. Rel. 3.7. For the priesthoods, see Rüpke 2008: 57-58 and 413. Van Haeperen 2002: 88 presumes he appointed new flamines and vestales. For Constantius’ relation to paganism, see: Leppin 1999; Stepper 2003: 101-102; Belayche 2005: 354-357; Cameron 2011: 33 and 166. 97 supporting their manifestations through priesthoods, dedications and benefactions.3 1 2 Another issue that was addressed was probably the absenteeism of several Roman senators who remained in their private domiciles in the Balkans, far from Rome. Briefly after his departure from the City, Constantius ordered that these men stay in their senatorial domiciles in or around Rome in order to attend the senate meetings in the Curia.3 13 Besides meeting their new emperor, the Senate of Rome was also confronted by the representatives of its eastem counterpart during the emperor’s visit. The ambassador of the Constantinopolitan body was Themistius, who delivered an oration to Constantius and his fellow-senators.3 14 The orator cleverly balances his celebration of his own city with praise for Rome and the policy of his emperor. Themistius does not specify the acts of Constantius in the City, nor do Ammianus or Symmachus allude to further administrative or legislative measures during the visit. Only one imperial pronouncement can be dated with certainty to his time in the City, and is directed to

Taurus, the praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa. 3 15 According to Ammianus, just before travelling to Rome, Constantius had rewarded loyal servants for their support during upheavals in Gaul and the East. Their identity and their munera are unknown, as are the consequences for city-Roman senators.3 16 Constantius also had to deal carefully with the different religious groups in the City. The tone for tolerance of paganism which Constantius had set during his encounters with the

Senate must have been extended to the pagan population in the City.3 17 However, his agenda in the City had a stronger focus on the Christian community in Rome, in particular in relation to the bishop Felix. In December 356, a month after the pronouncement to Leontius, Constantius had repeated the clerical privileges to Felix, who acted as the successor of the exiled bishop Liberius.3 18 This substitution, and the banishment of Liberius, had divided the Christian community and was a matter that had to be addressed during Constantius’ presence. It has even been suggested that Constantius deliberately only arrived in Rome after Easter to prevent unrest in the large Liberian camp.3 19 Liberius himself had met and sent letters to the emperor, but, once in Rome, Constantius also received petitions to recall his exile, supposedly held a council in the presence of Ursacius and Valens on the matter, and fïnally ordered

312 For a dedication by Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus to Apollo, see CIL VI 45; a sacrifice to the Temple of Castor and Pollux at Osttia by the urban prefect Tertullus, see Amm.Marc. 19.10.4; the restoration of the porticus of the Deorum Consentium, see CIL VI 102. Bloch 1963. 513 CTh. 6.4.11 (357). See Skinner2008: 130-131. 314 Them. Or. 3. See Heather and Moncur 2001: 114-125. 315 CTh. 8.1.5. Cf. CTh. 10.1.2. 316 Amm.Marc. 16.10.4. Perhaps these rewards apply to two new praetorian prefects that are attested in Gaul and Illyricum in 357. The parentage for Flavius Florentius, praefectus Galliarum and former comes of Constantius, cannot be determined, but the lllyrican prefect Anatolius certainly came from the East. See PLRE 159-60 s.v. Anatolius 3; 365 s.v. Flavius Florentius 10. 317 Cameron 2011: 33 and 166. 318 CTh. 16.2.14. For the schism, see Diefenbach 2007: 222-223. 319 He also claims that Constantius delayed his arrival until after the lunar eclipse of 20 April. See Thompson 2005: 90. For date of Easter, see supra. 98 Liberius’ reinstating.320 The bishop’s actual return would only occur after the emperor had left, as his stay in Rome was cut short. According to Ammianus, Constantius had no intention of leaving the City, but his stay only lasted a month. Threatening reports of raiding Suebi and Sarmatians urged him to march for the Danube boarders. During his short visit, he had enjoyed ‘freer repose and pleasure’ .321 These emotions suggest a smooth stay and, not surprisingly, Ammianus is silent on the commotion surrounding the removal of the Altar of Victory and the conflicts regarding Liberius. By addressing these issues and engaging in politics of persuasion, Constantius capitalised on his authority as ruler of the West. With his presence and his benefactions he had fulfilled all the traditional imperial prerogatives connected to an adventus. Departure On 29 May, Constantius left Rome for the Danube and his presence in the West is not attested again after the summer of 3 57. 3 22 In the following two years, he battled the Sarmiatians, altemated with stays in Sirmium, mainly for the winter. 323 In the autumn of 359, he exchanged the Parmonian Capital for Constantinople as his winter quarters, fearing a Persian invasion. 324 This threat clearly outweighed the events in Gaul, where Julian had been proclaimed Augustus. According to Ammianus, Constantius leamed of this news during his sojoum in Caesarea, but chose to march eastwards instead of instigating an immediate retaliatory attack against his nephew. Between his campaigns in Mesopotamia, he wintered in

Antioch, where his marriage took place to his third wife Fausta. 3 25 After the Persians had retreated in the summer of 361, Constantius retumed to Antioch. From there, he made preparations to head from Antioch to the West and declared war against Julian. His death in early November 361, however, ended his march. His body was escorted with imperial pomp to Constantinople, where he was interred near to his father Constantine.326 He would be the only one of his siblings to be laid to rest in Constantinople. Apart from his brothers Constans and Constantinus, whose place of burial cannot be determined with certainty, his two other siblings - Helena and Constantina - had been buried on the imperial estate on the Via

Nomentana in Rome. 327

320 Theodoret. HE. 2.14; Lib.Pont. 37.5. 321 Amm.Marc. 16.10.20. 322 CTh. 1.5.6-7, 9.16.6 and 12.1.40; Amm.Marc. 16.10.20; Jul. Epist. adAth. 279d; Zos. 3.2.2. 323 Sarmatian campaigns: Amm.Marc. 13.3.33 and 17.12; winters in Sirmium: Amm.Marc. 16.10.21 and 17.12.1; CTh. 1.15.3, 7.4.3, 8.5.10, 9.42.4 and 11.30.27; Cl 3.26.8 (357-358); Amm.Marc. 18.4.1 and 19.11.1; CTh. 2.21.1 (358-359). 324 Amm.Marc. 19.11.17 and 20.8.1; Soc. HE 2.41.1; Soz. HE 4.23.7; Hil. Ad Const. 2.2; CTh. 4.13.4, 7.4.5, 11.24.1, 11.36.10 and 14.1.1. See Barceló 1992. 325 Amm.Marc. 21.6.4. Eusebia had died before the winter of 360-361: Philost. HE 4.7; Amm.Marc. 21.6.4. 326 Amm.Marc. 21.16.20-21; Greg.Naz. Or. 5.16-17. For Constantine, see paragraph 1.3 of this chapter. 327 Helena and Constantina: Amm.Marc. 14.11.6 and 21.1.5. The body of Constantinus had been cast into the Alsa (Epit. de Caes. 41.21). For Constans, see paragraph 2.3 of this chapter. 99 2.4 Imperial Visits under the Constantinian Dynasty The periods of imperial presence in Rome during the half century of Constantinian rule were short and rare. Constantine visited Rome directly after his victory over Maxentius as the liberator Urbis and stayed for a few months. He would return in 315 for his decennalia and in 326 to end his twenty-year jubilee. Only once, in 357, Constantius honoured Rome with his presence. It has been assumed that between these visits from father and son, Constans also called at Rome. This visit, however, is controversial. None of the available source material - official documents, epigraphic and numismatic material, panegyrics, commemorative architecture - alludes to an adventus Augusti in the 340s, though a visit carried potency for both the emperor and the City. With the emergence of new imperial courts in the third century and a busy imperial itinerary, an emperor residing in Rome was no longer a matter of course. Some visits were well planned, while for others Rome was a more ad hoc destination. Sudden developments elsewhere in the Empire might have impeded the intentions of the emperor to set off for Rome. Not only did the imperial office demanded excessive joumeys, but military campaigns asked for more strategically convenient quarters from which to operate. Other cities served as residences for dynastical and imperial events. Constantine, Constans and Constantius gave preference to other capitals - Trier, Milan, Naissus and Constantinople - for longer stays and quarters for military operations to bolster their rule in the domains which were considered hazardous, relatively unknown or strategie. In Late Antiquity, Rome had become one of the cities that an emperor could call at. This absence, of course, assigned a special value to the rare actual imperial visits to the etemal city. For the emperor, the times of occasional presence, framed within an elaborate adventus-ceremony, were the ideal moments to fulfil traditional imperial prerogatives. During his stay, he was able to confront the Romans with his leadership and provide a sense of security and generosity.328 It gave the Romans the opportunity to remain integrated in the imperial core and express their consent or disapproval with imperial policy. Physical presence in the ancient capital thus was clearly a lasting and expected ideal, and especially desired in a time when it was no longer guaranteed.

328 According to Athanasius (De Inc. 9; 10 and 13), a city was protected when the emperor was present: ‘You know how it is when some great king enters a large city and dwells in one of its houses; because of his dwelling in that single house, the whole city is honored, and enemies and robbers cease to molest it’. 100 CHAPTER 3 IMPERIAL PRESENCE IN ROME IN LATE-ANTIQUE PANEGYRICS The loss of Rome’s role as imperial Capital was a reality that was observed by panegyrists. In his oration to Constantius Chlorus from 297, an anonymous panegyrist pondered: At this point it enters my mind how pampered by good luck in administering the State and obtaining praise were those leaders [emperors of yore] who, while spending their days at Rome, had triumphs and cognomina of nations conquered by their generals accrue to them.1 The bond between the emperor and Rome has been a recurring topos within the genre of late- antique panegyrics. The traditional Capital frequently appeared in imperial orations, presented in different forms and under different names: ‘etemal city’, ‘saered city’, or simply the ‘City’,

‘citadel of all nations, ‘mistress of all nations’, ‘of all lands the queen’ and ‘mother’ . 2 Certainly, Rome was not the only city that was paid tribute. Trier, Constantinople, Milan and

Autun, to name a few, were also honoured.3 As a speech of praise, their address had to commend the behaviour and feats of their powerful recipient and laud his rule. With the emperor as the foremost audience and patron, it was not wise to not trumpet the imperial party line. As such, panegyrists faced a diffïcult task when responding to particular circumstances at the time of their delivery that were not favourable to the emperor. They could be calculatedly imprecise or remain silent on matters that might discomfit their addressee. There was, however, one reality they did not want to gloss over: the relations of their emperor with the City.

3.1 Genre and Corpus The discourse of praise in Late Antiquity has been studied for its historical background, literary techniques, contexts and purposes. 4 The genre is deeply rooted in the Greek and Roman tradition. Already in the fourth century BC, Xenophon and Isocrates eulogised the ideal ruler. They were followed by Cicero, the Younger Pliny and Fronto, to name a few.5 Besides building on the legacy of these authors and their works, the late-antique panegyrics afford abundant examples of the Hellenistic concept of the basilikos logos, the formal

1 Pan.Lat. 8 (5) 14.1: Hoc loco uenit in mentem mihi quam delicata illorum principum fuerit in administranda re publica et adipiscenda [re publica] laude felicitas, quibus Romae degentibus triumphi et cognomina devictarum a ducibus suis gentium proveniebant. 2 Immortalis civitas: Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 1.4; Urbs sacra: Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 1.1; Urbs: Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 8.7; 4 (10) 9.5, 30.5, 33.2 and 33.4; 2 (12) 47.3; arx omnium gentium: Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 35.2; benignus ratiocinator ojficiorum: Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 13.3; gentium domina: Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 14.3; 11 (3) 12.1; 7 (6) 11.7; domina omnium: 11 (3) 19.2; regina terrarum: Pan.Lat. 4(10) 35.2; parens: Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 362. 3 Trier: 10 (2) 6.4; 6 (7) 1.1 and 22.5-6; 5 (8) 1.1 and 2.1; 12 (9) 1.1; Constantinople: Pan.Lat. 3 (11) 2.3; Milan: Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 11; 12 (9) 7.5-8; Autun: Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 21.7-22.4. 4 Rees 2007: 136, 144 and 147; id. 2012. 5 The references to and laudations of these authors are numerous. For the influence of these and other rhetoricians, see: Klotz 1911: 531-565; Russell 1998: 17-50; Morton Braund 1998: 53-76. For Rome in panegyrics before Late Antiquity, see Mundt 2012: 164-171. 101 encomium of the ruler. The themes of ideal rulership have been passed down through two treatises of Menander Rhetor, a Greek specialist of epideictic oratory who laid down the particular formulas for praise.6 In Late Antiquity, the honour of receiving eulogies was frequently conferred upon emperors. Panegyrics were presented to them in celebration of anniversaries, victories or adventus. Pacatus, for example, sang the praise of Theodosius in Rome for defeating the usurper Magnus Maximus in the late 380s.7 The immediate context for his panegyric was Theodosius’ triumphal adventus in the City. Around the turn of the century, the poet Claudian wrote panegyrics on consulships held by Honorius in 396, 398 and 404.8 Considering the frequency of celebratory occasions on which emperors could be presented a eulogy, thousands of them must have been delivered. The extant corpus of Latin late-antique panegyrics in prose and verse, however, is relatively small. The Panegyrici Latini, the Gallic corpus of eleven panegyrics, comprises the majority of extant panegyrics. 9 The orations are preceded by the written account of Pliny’s oration on Trajan, pronounced in the year 100 in Rome. 10 Other (fragments of) imperial panegyrics are passed down from Symmachus and Ausonius and from the poets Publius Optatianus Porfyrius and Claudius

Claudian. The panegyric of Paulinus of Nola to Theodosius has not been preserved. 11 The low survival rate might be explained by the ephemeral relevance of the orations and the precarious ethics of praise. Ancient authors questioned the truthfulness of the genre and showed their aversion for flattery. 12 The panegyrics that have survived owe this presumably to their rhetorical quality and literary-pedagogical value, and to the status and ambitions of their authors. 3.2 Panegyrics - Instruments of Propaganda? The authorial independence of panegyrists has been a subject of controversy, revealing the delicate relationship between the ruler and the orator. Some scholars have accepted the genre as a direct medium of official propaganda, alongside coins, inscriptions and art. MacCormack, for example, has stated that panegyrics were “used to propagate imperial programmes and policies” . 13 She refers to them as “an instrument of propaganda” . 14 Grünewald, in his

6 Bom 1934: 20-35; Seager 1983: 129-165; Russell and Wilson 2004; Heath 2004. For the possible use of Menander’s basilikos logos, see Rees 2007: 146. 7 Pan.Lat. 2 (12). PLRE I 588 s.v. Magnus Maximus 39. 8 Claud. III Cons.Hon., IV Cons.Hon. and VI Cons. Hon.. 9 Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994. 10 Roche 2011a. 11 See Bom 1934: 21-31; Rees 2007: 136 and 144-145; id. 2012b: 7-8. Those from Merobaudes, Sidonius Apollinaris, Priscianus, Venantius Fortunatus, Ennodius, Cassiodorus Senator and Fl. Cresconius Corippus fall outside the chronological scope of this chapter. 12 See Cic. Brutus 62; Quint. Inst.Orat. 3.7.16, 23-25; Tac. Ann. 1.1.2-3, Hist. 1.1; Juv. Sat. 3.41-42; Lucian. Hist.Conscr. 1, 8, 13-15, 20 and 31; Men.Rhet. Peri epid. §371; August. Conf. 6.6.9. See Seager 1983: 129; Rees 2007: 136. 13 MacCormack 1975a: 146 and 154. 102 monograph on Constantine, called panegyries from the Constantinian era “Dokumente der Propaganda Constantins” and “eine autorisierte Version” of imperial aetions and events, used by Constantine to release official situation-reports.15 The high degree of central control exercised by the emperor, as argued by both

MacCormack, Grünewald and others, 16 would have been guaranteed through his patronage of the schools of rhetoric. 17 Even more, instructions, information and approval from the imperial court were necessary to make a laudatory and appropriate address. For these considerations, panegyrists acted as “les reflets de la pensée imperiale et les porte-paroles des princes” . 18 More nuanced is the view that orators were no mere transmitters of imperial propaganda, but navigated between the roles of political commentator, mediator, adviser and propagandist. Nixon and Rees in particular have advocated the panegyrist’s multiple functions to challenge the idea of the panegyrist as simply the emperor’s mouthpiece. They bring several arguments to the table to propose a fair degree of freedom of expression. 19 Menander Rhetor, the specialist in encomiastic rhetoric, recommended the independence and enterprise of the orator.20 Furthermore, it should come as no surprise that the orators themselves lauded their own sincerity and impartiality and denounced flattery in their orations.2 1 For all his flaws, the anonymous panegyrist of Constantine assigned himself considerable scope in his address from 313: But however conscious I am of my natural weaknesses and of a study only begun rather than mastered, I cannot keep silent and restrain myself from making my own attempt to say something about the recovery of the City and the establishment of Roman power at last after a longstanding upheaval, so that amid the thundering sounds of fluent speakers my slender voice appear to have been heard as well.22 Pacatus, the panegyrist of Theodosius, refuted even the semblance of censorship in his orations:

14 MacCormack 1972: 722-723; id. 1981: 9. 15 Grünewald 1990: 11, 26 and 156. 16 Galletier 1952; L’Huillier 1992. 17 For panegyries as teaching material and non-performed products for rhetorical exercise, see Durry 1938: n. 6); imperial patronage: Pan.Lat. 9 (4) 5.4 and 14.3. Haarhoff 1958; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 31-33; the orator as a professor: Pan.Lat. 9 (4) 6.2; 8 (5) 1.1-5; 6 (7) 23; 5 (8) 1.2. See also Hier. Chron. s.a. 324 [313c], 18 Galletier 1952: 114. 19 Rees 2002: 23-25; id. 2007: 136-148; Nixon 1981: 88-99; id. 1993: 229-246; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 26-33. See also Sabbah 1984: 378; Mause 1994: 43-62. 20 Men.Rhet. Peri epid. §369, 370, 378, 379, 388 and 391. 21 See, for example: Plin. Or. 1.1.6; Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 1.5; 4 (10) 4.5 and 15.5; 7 (6) 7.7; 6 (7) 1.3, 7.4, 8.4, 14.1 and 20.4; 11 (3) 3.1 and 5.2; 2 (12) 23.1 and 24.2; Auson. Grat.Act. 1, 2, 6; Symm. Or. 1.10 and 14. 22 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 1.3: Sed quamvis conscius mihi infirmitatis ingenitae et inchoati potius studii quam eruditi, cohibere me silentio nequeo, quominus de recuperata Urbe imperioque Romano [et] tandem ex diutuma convulsione solidato et ipse aliquid coner effari, ut inter tantos sonitus disertorum mea quoque vox tenuis exaudita videatur. 103 And indeed what had impelled me to speak is that no one was coercing me to do so. For panegyric is not extorted anymore [after the defeat of Magnus Maximus in 388], nor do utterances wrung by fear redeem one from the perils of silence. (...) Now there is equal freedom to speak or keep silent and it is safe to have said nothing about the leader as it is easy to praise him.23 Of course, rhetoricians were not completely free from thematic directive: the circumstances (such as a consulate or a victory) set the main theme of the speech. For the specifïc festive occasion, speakers were chosen or offered their own services to add lustre through words.24 It is, however, not very likely that these orations were designed to transmit imperial policy to subjects as part of an official programme of propaganda. The original audience for these speeches was small. 25 The oral performance was foremost intended for the emperor, accompanied or represented by court-officials and chosen local dignitaries.26 These speeches quickly lost their relevance once delivered. Written copies were circulated for rhetorical purposes and the ones that have survived show extracts with no political or religious revisions after the original delivery.2 7 Another argument against the propaganda-thesis relates to the professional background of the rhetoricians in the corpus. Many of them were not in active service at the time of their recitation. Moreover, they were ofïten not fully informed about the festive occasion for their speech or seem to have been unable to elaborate on the details for events.28 Even panegyrists who held an office when they addressed their emperor, as was the case for Claudius Mamertinus and Claudian, surely did not act as figureheads with an official scheme.29 They also wanted to point the way, make appeals and be critical of the emperor in their speeches, as was already pursued by Pliny.30 A conventional propaganda function is thus hardly likely. Instead of instruments of propaganda, it is more apt to see panegyrics as “encoded expressions of contemporary and localized reactions to imperial achievements and ideologies” .31 Although often well-informed and fhll of praise, eulogists gave their interpretation of actual events with specifïc ambitions

23 Pan.Lat. 2 (12) 2.2-4: Quin et illud me impulit ad dicendum quod ut dicerem nullus adigebat. Non enim iam coacta laudatio et expressae metu uocespericulum silentii redimunt. (...) Nuncpar dicendi tacendique libertas, et quam promptum laudare principem, tam tutum siluisse de principe. 24 Chosen: Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 5.1-2; 8 (5) 5.3; 6 (7) 1.1; own initiative: Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 1.1; 5 (8) 1.1-2. 25 Mause 1994: 45; Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 26-27. 26 Emperor with imperial household: Pan.Lat. 8 (5) 1.1; 6 (7) 14.1; emperor represented: Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 3.1. The panegyric of 321 was not declaimed to Constantine personally, as he resided in Serdica at the time and Nazarius held his speech in Rome. See Nixon, Saylor Rodgers and Mynors 1994: 338. For the audience at an address, see also Pan.Lat. 5 (8) 2.1; 12 (9) 1.3. 27 Nixon 1983: 95-96. For the written panegyric tradition, see paragraph 1 of this chapter. 28 See for example, Pan.Lat. 6 (7) 1.1 for very late instructions about the programme and Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 5.3; 7 (6) 4.2; 6 (7) 16.1; 4 (10) 3.3 and 31.1; 3 (11) 4.4 for vague statements about imperial feats. 29 Claudius Mamertinus was elected consul prior in 362 (Pan.Lat. 3 (11) 1.1) and his panegyric was his words of thanks. For the function of Claudian, see paragraph 3.2 of this chapter. 30 Pan.Lat. 9 (4) 2.1-2 and 21.4; 6 (7) 22-23.1; Claud. IV Cons.Hon. 641-642. For Pliny, see Ep. 3.13 and 3.18; Or 1.1.6. 31 Rees 2002: 23-26 and 90. 104 in mind. That they had ample room for their own observations, recommendations, and even critique can be seen when a sensitive matter such as imperial absence from Rome is addressed. In panegyrics, Rome - in the appearance of the City and as goddess — can be seen as conducting a dialogue with its emperor, audibly complaining about and suffering from imperial neglect. Panegyrists employed all available techniques of rhetoric at their disposal to denounce the imperial absence from Rome. By navigating between loyal commending and criticising and correcting their addressees, they sought to re-unite the emperor and the City. These instances of persuasion in late-antique prose and verse show that imperial panegyrists were not mere broadcasters of imperial propaganda, but dared to incorporate reflective, directive and critical notes in their encomium. 3.3 Acrior Ardor - The Emperor in Rome Panegyrists use different approaches to bring imperial negligence of Rome to the attention of their particular emperor and to persuade him to call at the City. One cautious way is to emphasise the wish of the emperor himself to visit the City. This can be clearly witnessed in the panegyric of Maximian from 289, in honour of Rome’s birthday. The speech was not given in Rome, but presumably in Trier, Maximian’s residence at the time. The panegyrist, however, does not refrain from establishing a connection between the emperor and the City: It is therefore right that on this day on which the birth of the etemal City, mistress of nations, is celebrated by your piety, we sing your praises, O invincible Emperor, yours above all, and give thanks to you.32 Instead of actually celebrating an imperial presence in Rome, the panegyrist can only express his hope that Maximian and Diocletian will visit the City. However, he presents it as the rulers’ own wishes: These rulers, as soon as they return to you in triumph, wish to be conveyed in the one chariot, to ascend the Capitol together, to dweil on the Palatine together.33 By asserting the imperial desire to reside in Rome, it is clear that the panegyrist considers this to be the proper action himself. Indeed, he ends his panegyric by stating how much Maximian’s presence will be enjoyed and his return longed for. In this, the orator’s expectations were disappointed. Both Maximian and Diocletian spent little time in Rome. Maximian visited the City in the late 290s, ten years after the speech, following his victory over the ‘fïercest tribes of Mauretania’. Diocletian only called at Rome in 303 for his jubilee. Maximian then joined Diocletian later to celebrate his colleague’s vicennalia.34

32 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 1.4: Iure igitur hoc die quo immortalis ortus dominae gentium civitatis vestra pietate celebratur, tibi potissimum, imperator invicte, laudes canimus et gratias agimus. 33 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 13.2: Hi, cum primum ad te redeant triumphantes, uno cupiunt invehi curru, simul adire Capitolium, simul habitare Palatium. 34 Lact. Mort.Pers. 7.10 and 17.1-3; Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 8.7-8. See Nixon 1981. 105 Claudian, for his part, poeticises Honorius’ love for Rome and his wish to own the City. According to the poet, Honorius was asked at a young age which city and which realm he wanted to attain at the cost of his brother. By presenting the answer in direct speech, as if Claudian was present during a historical conversation, the content carries great importance: “Let him rule over willing Assyrian slaves, let him keep Pharian Nile and Tigris too; let my own dear Rome be my portion.”35 By underlining the imperial desire to reside in Rome and assuming a swift visit, it becomes clear that Claudian thought that this was a decent undertaking for an emperor. 3.3.1 Rome in August Presence Another obvious approach was to stress the rare occasions of actual imperial presence in Rome. In 307, an unknown orator relived the much anticipated visit of Maximian in the late 290s. The passage on this adventus, ten years after the plea of the panegyrist from 289, expands on the exuberance of the inhabitants of Rome at Maximian’s arrival: Upon your first entry the Roman people greeted you with such joy, and in such great numbers, that when they conceived a passion to convey you to the lap of Capitoline Jupiter, if only with their esteem they scarcely allowed you through the gated of the city, such was the press.36 The quote serves as a reminder of the joy of the Roman people described by Pliny when

addressing the entry of Trajan in the year 100.37 In this speech, Pliny praised the emperor for

this visit that made him even ‘more admirable, more perfect’ .38 He was ‘so long awaited and

so much desired’, and welcomed with open arms:39 There were some who cried that they had lived long enough now they had seen and welcomed you, others that this was a reason for longer life. Women rejoiced as never before to bear children now that they knew they had brought forth citizens and soldiers to live and serve under your rule and command. Roofs could be seen sagging under the crowds they bore, not a vacant inch of ground was visible except under a foot poised to step, streets were packed on both sides leaving only a narrow passage for you, on every side the excited populace, cheers and rejoicing everywhere. All feit the same joy at your coming, when you were coming to be he same for all, joy which could still grow as you moved forward, and (one might say) swell with• 1 every step.40

35 Claud. VI Cons. Honorii 85-87: Regat ille volentes / Assyrios; habeat Pharium cum Tigride Nilum; / contingat mea Roma mihi. 36 Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 8.7: Te primo ingressu tuo tanta laetitia, tanta frequentia populus Romanus excepit ut, cum te ad Capitolini Iovis gremium velocius ferre gestiret, stipatione sui vix ad portas urbis admitteret. 37 Roche 201 lb; id. 201 lc. 38 Plin. Or. 1.24.1: ...admirabilioretmelior... 39 Plin. Or. 1.22.1: . ..expectatus desideratusque... 40 Plin. Or. 1.22.3-4: Inde alii se satis vixisse te viso, te recepto, alii nunc magis esse vivendum praedicabant. Feminas etiam tune fecunditatis suae maxima voluptas subiit, cum cemerent cui principi cives, cui imperatori milites peperissent.Videres referta tecta ac laborantia ac ne eum quidem vacantem locum, qui non nisi suspensum et instabile vestigium caperet, oppletas undique vias angustumque tramitem 106 A similar sensation and delight can be discemed in the description of Constantine’s first adventus, which featured in the panegyric of 313: The greatest of orators may have bragged, and truthfiilly, that he was carried back to his country on the shoulders of Italy: the Senate and the people of Rome were in a passion, both on that day and on others, to carry you even with their eyes.41 Similarly, for Nazarius, who wrote nine years after this visit, the emperor’s entrance into the City must be described, and in expressing the greatest rejoicing of the Senate and people of Rome no oration is likely to please unless it is exuberant itself.42 Such high-spirited words can also be discemed in the oration of Pacatus, held in the year 389. He sang Theodosius’ praises during his very first visit to Rome: But what took place in Rome; the impression you made on the day you first entered the city; how you behaved in the Senate house and on the rostra; now in a chariot, now on foot, distinguished in either mode of progress, triumphant now in war, now over pride; how you showed yourself to all as a ruler, to individuals as a senator.43 Pacatus deemed a visit would make the emperor maior and the City felicior. For while it was always fitting to praise you beyond all previous Emperors, now and for the future it is appropriate that you be acclaimed in speech, beyond the measure of praise accorded you elsewhere, in that city whose liberty you defended while in arms, and whose dignity you increased while clad in the toga. How then can I possibly do justice in my speech to the majesty of you both, especially at a time, when both of you in turn have grown so great that you, O Emperor, have never yet been so majestic, nor the city more fortunate?44 The correlation between the greatness of Rome and that of the emperor was also articulated by Claudian. For him, the visit of the emperor Honorius in 404, during which the emperor celebrated his sixth consulship, heralded a mirus ortus of a new year as it had the blessing of both protectors: relictum tibi, alacrem hinc atque inde populum, ubique par gaudium paremque clamorem: tam aequalis ab omnibus ex adventu tuo laetitia percepta est, quam omnibus venisti; quae tamen ipsa cum ingressu tuo crevit ac prope in singulos gradus aucta est. 41 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.5: Gloriatus sit licet, ut vere, summus orator humeris se Italiae in patriam reportatum: te, Constantine, senatus populusque Romanus et illo die et aliis, quacumque progressus es, et oculis ferre gestivit. See in/ra for Pan.Lat. 12 (2) 19-20. 42 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 30.4: Dicendus in Urbem ingressus est imperatoris, et in exprimendo senatus populique Romani maximo gaudio ingrata, nisi et ipsa lascuit, oratio. Pan.Lat. 2 (12) 47.3: Ea vero quae Romae gesta sunt, qualem te XJrbi dies primus invexerit; quis in curia fueris, quis in rostris; ut pompam praeeuntium ferculorum curru modo, modo pedibus subsecutus altemo clarus incessu nunc de bellis, nunc de superbia triumpharis; ut te omnibus prmcipem, singulis exhibueris senatorem. 44 Pan.Lat. 2 (12) 1.2: Nam cum te semper ultra omnes retro principes laudari oportuerit, nunc porro ultra quamalias praedicatus es in ea urbe conveniat dicendo celebrari, cuius et libertatem armatus adservisti et auxisti dignitatem togatus, quo tandem modo consequi maiestatem utriusque vestrum oratione mea potero hoc praecipue in tempore, quo ita mutuo ambo crevistis, ut nec tu fueris adhuc maior nec illa felicior? 107 What face will it show the world, a year bestowed by Evander's mount with omens truly Roman, a year inaugurated by the Tiber? Although all the years that bear your name have always given omens of success that never stumble, and though trophies have always been the companions of your fasces, yet this year, bom from so wonderful a source, promises to be blessed beyond all others under the twinned divinity of the City and of the Augustus?5 This particular consulate year therefore exceeded previous ones and its recurrence was desired: Let this year of office go forth into the world more glorious than all the others (...) Let it be worshipped too by the five that are yours and by any others you will hold, Augustus, in the City in future days.46 * The interval of well over a century between the visits of Maximian and Honorius had witnessed hardly any imperial presence. With the exception of the usurper Maxentius, who resided in Rome during his six-year rule, only ten adventus can be attested with certainty.47

The scarce visits that actually took place were also described vividly by panegyrists.48 Not only the arrival of the emperor and the festive welcome by the Roman people, but also historically and culturally charged locations in Rome - the hills, the city walls, the Palatine Hill, and the circus - were painted in glowing terms. These descriptions - ecphraseis - served a persuasive goal: by enlivening the previous visit, the next arrival of the emperor was encouraged.49 3.3.2 Rome between Hope and Despair In panegyrics, Rome often transcended its guise as physical city and was staged as personification, one with human feelings of desperation, hope and joy. As Roma — regina, domina, dea - she was, even more than the City, a powerful actor in panegyrics. Her elation in imperial presence had to persuade rulers to make a prospective visit. In his panegyric of 321, Nazarius acted as a spokesman for Rome. With gentle insistence, the return of Constantine for which Rome had been anxiously waiting since 315 is positioned as the ‘one thing by which Rome could be made happier, a very great thing but yet the only one. ’ 50

45 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 13-17: Quamquam omnes, quicumque tui cognominis, anni semper inoffensum dederint successibus omen sintque tropaea tuas semper comitata secures, hic tamen ante omnes miro promittitur ortu, urbis et Augusti geminato numine felix. 46 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 649-658: Exeat inpopulos cunctis inlustrior annus (...) hunc et quinque tui vel quos habiturus in urbe post alios, Auguste, colant. 47 Demandt 1989: 376 note 7. 48 For the visits of Maximian in the late 290s and 303-304: Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 8.7-8; Constantine in 312: Eus. VC 1.39-40; Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19-20.2; 4 (10) 30.4-35; the adventus of Constantius: Amm.Marc. 16.10; Symm. Rel. 3.4-6; Theodosius in 389: Pan.Lat. 2 (12) 47.3; Honorius in 403-404: Claud. VI Cons. Hon. 543-639. 49 Behrwald 2009: 70-78. 50 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.6: Unum modo est quo fieri possit Roma felicior, maximum quidem sed tamen solum...See Introduction and Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. 108 Besides feelings of joy, the City eould also display sorrow, despair and even indignation to precipitate an imperial visit. A dejected and grudging Roma manifested herself in a panegyric from 289 to Maximian. The author tried to console her in her anguish over the fact that the emperor celebrated her dies natalis elsewhere: Meanwhile, mistress of nations, since state business keeps this most longed-for ruler in his Gallic realms, we beseech you, if it can be done, that you not be jealous of this city, on whom that man now confers a majesty similar to your own by celebrating your birthday with hat customary magnificence which is your due.51 With the depiction of Rome as a woman who was rightly envious for the loss of her ‘customary magnificence’, the panegyrist produced strong rhetorical effects. In the passage he emphasised the valuable traditions that had been bound to the City. On her birthday, Rome and the emperor should have been united. In other panegyrics, the goddess appeared as a supplicant agent before emperors, lamenting her enfeebled state. Her subsidiary relation to her ruler can be observed in her speech to Honorius in the poem by Claudian from 404: And up to now the ambassadors so often sent had brought back replies saying that he could not come, until, enduring no longer that what the City with one voice was praying for should be delayed, Roma herself leapt from the depth of her sanctuary and openly revealing her flashing countenance, urged him on for all his hesitating.52 The amplificatio that ensues is a charge against the emperor who had neglected her and her people with ‘his hesitating’. By means of the rhetorical technique of prosopopoeia, she addresses the emperor herself and lodges a complaint: “Too long ignored, Augustus, I, mother of you all, complain of sorrow at my rejection in love.”53 Just before, Roma had reminisced about the visit of Honorius, which he paid at an early age with his father Theodosius in 389. There she had objected to the shameful neglect and the

‘arrogance’ of fourth-century emperors:54 In truth no other place was fitting to be the home of the rulers of the World, and on no hill can power’s majesty better take its own measure or sense the pinnacle of highest authority.55

51 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 14.3: Interim tarnen te, gentium domina, quoniam hunc optatissimum principem in Gallis suis retinet ratio rei publicae, quaesumus, si fieri potest, ne huic invideas civitati, cui nunc ille similitudinem maiestatis tuae confert natalem tuum diem celebrando in ea consuetudine magnificentiae tibi debita. 52 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 356-360: lam totiens missi proceres responsa morandi rettulerant, donec dijferri longius urbis communes non passa preces penetralibus altis prosiluit vultusque palam confessa coruscos impulit ipsa suis cunctantem Roma querellis. 53 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 361-362: Dissimulata diu tristes in amore repulsas / vestra parens, Auguste, queror. 4 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 383-395: ...superbi. 55 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 39-41: Non alium certe decuit rectoribus orbis / esse larem, nulloque magis se colle potestas / aestimat et summi sentit fastigia iuris. 109 In particular, Roma waged war against Constantinople: From this time Rome planted her roots firm within your heart, and held you all the more firmly in her grip, wholly grafted on to your being’s inmost depths, and the love of the City you adored, conceived in your first infancy, grew even as you did. Nor did the Bosporus, who nourished you in own palace, have the power to change your feelings when you had retumed.56 With rhetorical questions, she sharpens her demands: “Why do my Palaces, which gave their name to all the others, lie desolate in neglect and decay? And why is it thought that the world cannot be ruled from there?”57 And: “Surely it is enough to have spumed us once already, when the restoration of Africa through war deceived the City with the hope that her Emperor would come to her, and for all our prayers we could not make your obstinate ears listen to us?”58 Her wish, or command, is clear: “Citizen as you are, deign to enter this company and let us see once more the face we saw so long ago.”59 At the time of this speech, the panegyrist Claudian had become a praised court poet. He was chosen to repeatedly versify for members of a longstanding dynasty, and was summoned to their court and appointed by Honorius as tribunus and notarius.60 His imperial patron honoured his praegloriosissimus poetarum with a bronze statue on the Forum of Trajan in

Rome.61 The ‘most glorious of poets’ had clearly satisfied Honorius with his oeuvre, giving him the honour of eulogising once more in 404 in celebration of the emperor’s sixth consulate. Of all the panegyrists in the extant corpus, Claudian is perhaps the most propagandistic, but even he feit room and need for personal utterance. It was not only Rome he eulogised; he also extolled Rome. In the eyes of the court poet, there was no other place suited for the imperial residence but Rome. In the passages above, Claudian’s high hopes and subtle criticism of his patron can be read. Even he could not deny that this bond had been broken for quite some time. To honour the absent Honorius and present him convincingly as the emperor of Rome, he had to justify his lengthy absence. Thus, after the entreating words

56 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 77-81: Et penitus totis inolevit Roma medullis,/ dilectaeque urbis tenero conceptus ab ungue / tecum crevit amor. Nec te mutare reversum / evaluit propria nutritor Bosphorus arce. 57 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 409-411: Cur mea quae cunctis tribuere palatia nomen / Neglecto squalent senio? nec creditor orbis / illinc posse regf! See also Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 362-365, 384-386, 397-398, 408, 411- 416. 58 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 366-368: Nonne semel sprevisse satis, cum reddita bellis/Africa venturi lusit spe principis urbem / nec duras tantis precibus permovimus aures? 59 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 422-423: Hunc civis dignare chorum conspectaque dudum / ora refer. 60 PLRE II299-300 s. v. Claudius Claudianus 5. 61 CIL VI 1710. 110 of the goddess Roma, Claudian tumed to Honorius who ruled that Roma’s grief was unfounded: Never will you grieve at any wish of yours left unfulfilled if I can prevent it, my goddess (...) do not persist in accusing with these unjust complaints those who love you: the curule chair was brought before you when I sent you Stilieho, so that as consul in his Emperor’s place and as father-in-law to his son-in-law he might, Roma, fill my part for you. Me also did you see in him.62 Stilieho, a high-ranking general and guardian of Honorius, had visited Rome in a triumphus in

402 instead of the emperor himself. 63 The insertion of Honorius’ riposte was original and cunning, but the message from Claudian was all too clear. Balancing between praise, subtle criticism and mitigating pleas, he brought forward a delicate matter that preoccupied the citizens of Rome and that did not properly honour the City. It remains a matter of conjecture if this attitude led him to fall out of imperial favour and initiated the end of his career, or if he simply retired or died around the year 404. In any case, the Panegyricus de Sexto Consulatu Honorii Augusti is his last datable work. 3.3.3 Rome in Action Roma did more than weep and complain. She also acted for her emperor and reached out to him. Personified as a powerfiil acting mistress, she made it clear that she was unworthy of imperial neglect. She offered her emperors assistance, actively sought rapprochements and disciplined them. In an oration to Maximian from 291, it is Roma who approaches the emperor and not the other way around: Even Rome herself the mistress of nations, in a transport of extravagant joy at your proximity and in an attempt to get a glimpse of you from the summits of her own mountains, the closer to sate herself with your countenances, advanced as near as she could to get a look.64 Should she, in a state of euphoria, behold her emperor within her own wall, she would wish to make that moment everlasting to avert future calamities: Again, when you were in your twentieth year as Emperor and consul for the eight time, Rome herself wished to detain you in its embrace, so to speak, that she seemed already to have a presentiment and fear of what actually happened.65

62 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 427-434: Numquam aliquidfrustra per me voluisse dolebis, / o dea, nec legum fas est occurrere matri./ Sed nec post Libyam (falsis ne perge querellis / incusare tuos) patriae mandata vocantis / sprevimus: advectae misso Stilichone curules, / ut nostras tibi, Roma, vices pro principe consul / impleret generoque socer. vidistis in illo me quoque. 63 Claud. De Cons.Stil. 11-13, 87-91; De Bello Goth. 450-468. Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 12.1: Ipsa etiam gentium domina Roma immodico propinquitatis vestrae elata gaudio vosque e speculis suorum montium prospicere conata, quo se vultibus vestris propius expleret, ad intuendum cominus quantum potuit accessit. 65 Pan.Lat. 1 (6) 8.8: Te rursus vicesimo anno imperatorem, octavo consulem, ita ipsa amplexu quodam suo Roma voluit detinere, ut videretur augurari iam et timere quodfactum est. 111 This foreboding is a reference to the foreed abdieation of Maximian in 305, a year after he had left Rome.66 Claudian had Rome launch a charm offensive that sought to lure the emperor as a husband: And as a mother, with greater care than ever now that the groom draws near and her hopes of a marriage come closer to fulfilment, adoms a girl’s face in trembling acts of attentiveness, and time and time again re-arranges with her own hand the bride’s dress and girdle, tightening her breast with green jasper and binding back her hairs with gems, putting a necklace around her throat and weighing down her ears with shining pearls; just so did Rome, destined to give pleasure to your eyes, more glorious since now her hills rise higher, and greater than the City that we knew, reveal herself to your vision.67 Claudian believed it to be evident that the City and the emperor were connected. This also becomes clear from other (non-imperial) poems in which he gives Rome the stage. She visits her emperors and asks them for favours, commands armies, offers generals the consulate and

protests before the emperor Honorius over his choice of an unsuited candidate for consul. 68

Indeed, in other further panegyrics, the examples of an acting Rome are numerous.69 She sends delegates, travels through the air to emperors, and visits battlefields and interferes: For Rome itself has acted out of regard for the majesty of her name and demonstrated that she can command even Emperors. She withdrew her armies and restored them to you.70 The fate of the ruler could thus sometimes depend on Rome. More often, however, it was the other way round: Rome was desperate and subordinate, waiting for the emperor to be her benefactor and saviour. In panegyrics after the defeat of Maxentius, Constantine was lavishly lauded for this achievement: Since your divine valour and its companion mercy and adjunct victory did not catch Rome falling headlong, but revived her when she was downcast and completely prostrate, restored her, raised her up, and since your other most prosperous campaigns, before and after, encompassed in themselves no lesser task than the rescue of Rome from the very jaws of Fate, what can be devised or spoken which is worthy of your greatness, in the praises of which that is not the most important thing which is the most excellent thing in the world?71

66 See Chapter 1, paragraph 2. 67 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 523-531: Ac velut officiis trepidantibus ora puellae spe propiore tori mater sollertior omat adveniente proco vestesque et cingula comit saepe manu viridique angustat iaspide pectus substringitque comam gemmis et colla monili circuit et bacis onerat candentibus aures: sic oculis placitum tuis insignior auctis collibus et nota maior se Roma videndam obtulit. 68 Claud. Pan.dict.Prob. et Olyb. consulibus 123-126; 73-176; De Cons. Stil. II 269-407; De Cons.Stil. III 83-871; In Eutr. 1371-513. 69 Pan.Lat. 11 (3) 12.2; 7 (6) 10.3-12.8; 4 (10) 6.1-5, 31.2, 33.2, 33.6 and 36.1. 70 Pan.Lat. 7 (6) 10.5: Fecit enim Roma ipsa pro maiestate nominis sui ut ostenderet posse se etiam imperatoribus imperare. Abduxit exercitus suos ac tibi reddidit. 71 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 3.3: Cuius cum divina virtus et eius misericordia comes appendixque victoria urbem Romam non praecipitantem exceperit, sed adflictam ac plane iacentem excitarit recrearit erexerit, cumque aliae felicissimae tuae prius ac deinceps expeditiones non minus in sese operis amplexae sint quam ex ipsis 112 For the reseue and revival of Rome, the City had to be grateful: O Fortune! O all-powerful Rome! What thanks will you ever return for these extraordinary labours? Except that the most indulgent leader, as if he owed you this very thing, cherishes you the more because of the greatest effort it took to preserve you.72 3.3.4 The Panegyrist between Praise and Blame When Claudian called on Honorius to account for his inactions, he used Rome as a divine shield to air grievances. Other eulogists addressed their emperor in a personal capacity. The unknown rhetor who eulogised Constantius Chlorus in the 290s from Trier used forbearance to discuss the absence of the emperor. First, the panegyrist pictured the blessed times of yore when emperors were able to reside in Rome thanks to their generals. 73 They carried off the palm of glory of victories that had been gained by their military offïcers. For the panegyrist, things had changed much since then and this accounted for Constantius Chlorus’ presence outside Rome: But you, invincible Caesar, were the commander in chief of that whole expedition of yours, both of the actual sailing and the fighting itself, not only by right of your imperium but your personal participation, and by the example of your firm resolve were its instigator and driving force.74

Pliny had given a similar explication of Trajan’s much-earlier absence from Rome.75 These expressions of understanding were not in the least stinging taunts directed to the emperor. Yet these justifications from the panegyrist, even when solid, brought the harsh reality of a distant emperor into the limelight. The orator of Maximian was more concise in discussing the matter of imperial absence, though he did it carefully and with optimism:

O Emperor, how much more majestic would that City now be, how much better would she celebrate this her birthday if she were viewing you, surrounded by your Senate, on that famous citadel of Jupiter Capitolinus.76 The judgement of the panegyrist could however be harsher. Pacatus already wamed Theodosius: faucibus fati Roma servata, quid dignum magnitudine tua excogitari ac dici potest, in cuius laudibus id maximum non est quod in terrarium orbe primarium est? See also Pan Lat. 12 (9). 72 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 26.5: Quam tu umquam gratiam pro tantis his laboribus referes? Nisi quod indulgentissimus princeps, tamquam hoc ipsum tibi debeat, eo cariorem habet quo maiore labore servavit. 73 See infra. 74 Pan.Lat. 8 (5) 14.3: At enim tu, Caesar invicte, omnis istius et navigationis et belli non modo pro imperii iure praeceptor sed rebus ipsis et exemplo constantiae tuae hortator atque impulsor fuisti. 75 According to Pliny {Pan. 1.12.2-4, 16.2 and 20.5-6), Trajan was busy with campaigns on the Danube, diplomatic activities and travels. 76 Pan.Lat. 10 (2) 13.4: O quanto nunc, imperator, illa civitas esset augustior, quanto magis hunc natalem suum diem coleret, si vos stipatos vestro senatu in illa Capitolini Iovis arce conspiceret! 113 Do not think, however, that everything I am about to say will be music to your ears, O Emperor.77 Symmachus was partieularly blunt when he called Valentinian to account for his absence from Rome. The city-Roman senator had travelled several times to Milan and Trier for an imperial audience and was frustrated about his distance from the imperial court. In the late 360s, he urged Valentinian to come to Rome: You deny yourself the repose which you fumish to the rest of men; among so many thousands of victories you have not yet made your way to a triumphal procession [in Rome].78 For Symmachus, this triumphus - and the emperor - belonged to Rome. His appeal, however, was in vain as Valentinian refrained from visiting Rome. The deliverance of a laudatory but pressing address did not guarantee the fulfilment of its wishes. The sharp tone of the panegyrist does not seem to have backfired; his appointment in 372 as proconsul Africae makes retaliations by an aggrieved emperor unlikely. 79 Apparently, Symmachus had achieved the perfect balance between praise and blame. 3.4 ‘The Ardent Desire of both Senate and People’ Late-antique panegyrics were certainly not empty formulae without any relation to reality. Their reality was a court absent from Rome. The City’s call for the emperor’s return looms large in the extant corpus. While its role as imperial residence had been diminished, the City was nonetheless praised for its beauty, history and ancient bond with the emperor. His presence in Rome was still desired by panegyrists who brought this fairly delicately to his attention. From the panegyrist himself or on behalf of Rome as the supplicant agent, there was praise for visits and hope for a return. There was also blame for neglect. In particular, the expressions of reproach can hardly have been the flattery an emperor wanted to hear when celebrating his jubilee, a victory or an actual visit to Rome. Panegyrists did not only trumpet forth the imperial agenda. They were diplomatic spokesmen, with their own agenda. Having won the emperor’s ear, they used their addresses, under the cover of flattery, to call him to account for his actions and inactions. These praises were a way of correcting a ruler and explicating his duty to visit and reside in Rome. With their speeches, they stressed the value of Rome in Late Antiquity and gave voice to ‘the ardent desire of both Senate and people to behold their emperor’ . 80

77 Pan.Lat. 2 (12) 23.1: Nec tamen, imperator, existimes cuncta me ad aurium gratiam locuturum. 78 Symm. Or. 1.16: Quietem tibi negas, quam ceteris praestas. inter tot millia laurearum nondum digrederis ad triumfum. 79 PLREI 865-870 s.v. Quintus Aurelius Symmachus. 80 Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 333-336: Acrior interea visendiprincipis ardor accendit cum plebe patres et saepe negatum flagitat adventum. 114 PART THREE PATRONAGE

CHAPTER 4 IMPERIAL PATRONAGE AND THE CITY OF ROME

According to Vitruvius, the majesty of the Empire was expressed through the eminent dignity of its public buildings, which not only corresponded to the amplitudo of the past, but also functioned as a ‘memorial to future ages’ . 1 Aside from the grandeur which building enterprises awarded to the Empire, the prestige of the imperial patron in question was served by the execution of his particular building programme. Indeed, Pliny compliments Trajan for his impressive constructions which gave the emperor ‘etemal renown and glory’ .2 More than only of future value, imperial benefactions carried significance in the present. To a degree, the scope of urban building programmes revealed the relationship between emperors and cities, not in the least because the procuring of materials and labour made demands on the state budget. 3 Patronage displayed the emperor’s personal generosity. Furthermore, Roman architecture had a “Diaphancharakter”, a transparency which made it a suitable medium in which to convey a patron’s ideology.4 Particular buildings, monuments or statuary within a city - whether motivated by omatus or usus - played a symbolic role in the urban landscape. They expressed the political agenda, religious sympathies and cultural values of the benefactor and were meant to be “stable and lasting structures of meaning” .5 Ever since the rule of Augustus, who left Rome as a city of marble, the Capital was a main - if not the principal - priority within the architectural politics of emperors. His successors further shaped the public spaces of the Capital which made its monumental density unequalled. Significant projects were undertaken under Nero, the Flavians, the adoptive emperors and the Severans, which covered the city with a “tapestry of memory” . 6 When emperors chose to reside at more convenient centres, imperial building activity shiflted partially to these new quarters. To a certain extent, however, Rome remained a grand stage for making an architectural impact, consolidating imperial rule and shaping relations between the emperor and the masses, though frequently through indirect patronage. The urban prefect would come to serve as the main imperial agent to care for and embellish Rome’s tapestry. Monumental Rome in Late Antiquity was not only affected by the legacy of predecessors and influenced by the (distant) emperor and city-Roman officials. The urban

1 Vitr. De Arch. 1 praef. 2-3:... de opportunitate publicorum aedificiorum, ut civitas per te non solum provinciis esset aucta, verum etiam ut maiestas imperii publicorum aedificiorum egregias haberet auctoritates (...) pro amplitudine rerum gestarum utposteris memoriae traderentur. 2 Plin. lip. 10.4.1: ... opera non minus aetemitate tua quam gloria digna, quantumque pulchritudinis tantum utilitatis habitura. 3 MacMullen 1959: 210; Mitchell 1987: 335; Duncan-Jones 1994: 41-42. For an example of the percentage of the state budget used for imperial building, see the overview of Trajan’s estimated income and expenditure in Doms 2010: 41-75, especially 63-65 and 72-75. 4 Diaphancharakter: Drerup 1966: 196. 5 Omatus: CIL VI 1223; usus: CIL VI31564. See Ewald and Norena 2010a: 16. 6 Augustus: Zanker 1988; Favro 1992; Gowing 2005: 132; Severi: Gorrie 1997; Curran 2000: 3-42; Lichtenberger 2011: 281-317. 117 image was shaped further by senatorial and Christian actors who wanted to consolidate their own position and stamp their aristocratie and religious identity on the City. * The monumental topography and urban history of Rome is therefore one of the primary lenses through which the relationship between the emperor and the capital can be assessed. This chapter charts the imperial benefactions under the rule of Constantine, Constans and Constantius in Rome and considers their political significance and ideological value. In order to properly contextualise their contributions to transforming Rome’s urban image, the chapter starts with an overview of the building programmes of their direct predecessors, the Tetrarchs and Maxentius.7

4.1 Tetrarchic Rome - Genius Populi Romani The emergence of new imperial centres under Tetrarchic rule had fostered the architecture in the Empire. The monumental developments in the rising capitals Milan, Trier, Antioch and

Thessalonica were expressions of an imperial ecumenical euergetism. 8 By order of the Augusti and Caesares, the public spaces of their residences were shaped and all four cities were embellished with an imperial palace, connected to a hippodrome and a mausoleum. Rome’s Domus Augustana on the Palatine and the Circus Maximus served as the archetypical combination of the complexes in the new capitals. These palace-circus ensembles had now become part of an Empire-wide ideal.9 Although the presence of Tetrarchic rulers in Rome had been sporadic, and Milan served as residence of the Augustus of the West, imperial patronage was also employed in the old capital. According to the Chronograph of 354, ‘many public works were constructed’ by virtue of Diocletian and Maximian to express the power of the rulers:

The senate, the forum of Caesar, the basilica Julia, the stage of the theatre of Pompey, 2 porticos, 3 nymphaea, 2 temples, the temple of Isis and Serapis, the new arch, and the baths of Diocletian.10 The fïrst buildings named, located in the central part of the city, were part of a renovation and reshaping project launched after the devastating fires under Carinus in 283. Beside repairs to the Curia, the Basilica Julia and the Basilica Aemilia, the Forum’s central square was visibly

7 See App. 2, fig. 1 for a map of Rome in the fourth century. 8 Rees 1993: 196-197; Ward-Perkins 1981: 441-466; Sear 1982: 255-276; Von Hesberg 2006. For a bibliographical account of residences, see Duval 1997. 9 Frazer 1966. 10 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Diocletianus et Maximianus [Chron.Min. 1 148: 21-24]: His imper. multae operae publicae fabricatae sunt: senatum, forum Caesaris, basilica Iulia, scaena Pompei, porticos II, nymfea III, templa II Iseum et Serapeum, arcum novum, thermas Diocletianas. See Coarelli 1986, 2-3; Mannell Noel 2003, 31; Rees 1993: 196-197; Bauer2011. 118 transformed with platforms of columns. 11 These colonnades created an enclosed space between the Curia, the temple of Caesar, the western rostra and the Basilica Julia. 12 Apart from a dedication to the Genius Populi Romani by Diocletian and Maximian and a Tetrarchic building or statuary dedication, all statue-bases from the area had the tetrarchs as honorands, not patrons. 13 Two of the bases, located on the western rostra, celebrated the imperial anniversaries of the Augusti and Caesares in 303.14 Architectural projects were also undertaken outside the political city-core. The actual presence of Diocletian and Maximian during the vicennalia-celebrations in 303 resulted in the erection of the Arcus Novus in Regio VII, along the Via Lata. 15 The most impressive structure and gift to the City were baths patronised by Maximian and Diocletian, one of the commonest architectural expressions of imperial munificence for the people. Their bathing facilities were situated on a plateau between the Quirinal and Viminal Hills. The building of the complex, begun in the 290s, would take years. It was consecrated in 305-306, under the Second Tetrarchy, to the new Augusti and Caesares and the retired Augusti Diocletian and

Maximian. 16 This was the largest and last imperially sponsored benefaction from the Tetrarchs before Maxentius assumed power and launched an impressive building programme in the City to consolidate his rule.

4.2 Maxentian Patronage - Conservator Urbis Maxentius seized power in a period when Rome had become the mere symbolic Capital city and had lost political meaning in favour of booming Tetrarchic residencies. The son of the former Augustus Maximinus, living just outside the city walls, was declared emperor by the discontented people and soldiers of Rome on 28 October 306. Maxentius’ attempt to reclaim Rome’s traditional position as Capital initiated a building programme of impressive splendour and scale in the city. In the absence of lasting imperial alliances or successful military foreign campaigns, Maxentius’ basic power claim was his possession of the Urbs, the traditional Capital of the Imperium, as princeps and patron. Maxentius presented himself as a monarch established by and bound to the etemal city. By celebrating and reinforcing the grandeur of the City and its principal goddess, he attempted to revive Rome as the true and only imperial Capital. The ideological message underlying the Maxentian building programme was also expressed by way of coinage from the Maxentian

11 Work on the Curia: CIL XV 1569a II and 1595a. See Steinby 1986: 140; Rizzo 2001; La Rocca 2001; Bauer 2011; 12-21; Basilica Julia (southem side): Giuliani and Verduchi 1987: 167; Bauer 2011: 21-25; Basilica Aemilia: Steinby 1986: 140. For a possible restoration of the temple of Concord, see CIL VI 89. 12 Temple of Caesar (eastem side): CIL XV 1650. LTUR IV: 217; rostra (western side): Bauer 1996: 21-24; Kahler 1964; Wrede 1981. 13 Genius populi romani: CIL VI 40714. Wrede 1981; Tetrarchic building or statuary dedication: CIL VI 40717. Machado 2006b: 165. 14 CIL VI 1203 = 1204 = 31261 = 21262. See Kahler 1964; Wrede 1981; Diefenbach 2007: 87-90. 15 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Diocletianus et Maximianus [Chron.Min. I 148: 23-24]; Not.Reg.Urb. VII. See Laubscher 1976. 16 CIL VI 1130 = 31242. See Bauer 2011: 46-57. 119 mints, as if they were “monuments in miniature” . 17 Maxentius was presented as the conservator Urbis suae and was often connected with his tutelary deity, Roma aeterna autri\}% His Rome-eentred policy, foremost expressed in his architectural patronage, has been defined as an ideology of romanitas in recent discourse, “a devotion, both to the Urbs Roma or the Dea Roma and to the wider complex of ideas surrounding the renovatio imperii, the rebirth of the glory and power of Rome”. 9 Although the use of this term has also generated objections of a methodological and semantical nature, the architectural productivity under

Maxentius in Rome has been generally accepted.20 Like the Tetrarchs, Maxentius invested in architectural undertakings in the traditional centre of the city. Probably induced by a fire during his reign (as is stated in the Chronograph of 354), he ordered the renovation and enlargement in opus caementicium of the temple of

Venus and Roma on the Velia.2 1 The exact details of this project are still relatively blurry as the structure witnessed several interventions up to the last century. 22 The repair of the templum Urbis showed his reverence to his tutelary deity Roma, who was awarded a statue in the cellaP It is debatable whether the restoration and dedication was fmished by October

312 24 Near the sanctuary of Venus and Roma, on the site of the damaged horrea Piperataria et Vespasiani, emerged a basilica of enormous proportions.25 Material for its construction was gathered from other buildings, including columns from the Serapeum.26 It has been proposed that the interior was embellished with a gigantic statue of the emperor and a sculpture group depicting Romulus and Remus.2 7 The original purpose of the Basilica Nova remains obscure, as no literary source refers explicitly to its funetion or alludes to affairs inside the hall. Scholars argue for a funetion either as a market basilica, an imperial audience hall, or as the

17 Hedlund 2008: 51. 18 For conservator Urbis suae, with Roma on reverse, often in temple, see, among others: RIC VI 293-296 (Ticinum) 84a, 85, 91, 94-95 and 100-110; 324-326 (Aquileia) 113-116, 118A, 119, 121a and 122-126; 367-385 (Rome) 135, 177-178, 204-205, 208-213, 258-263 and 278-280; 400 (Ostia) 2; Roma aeterna autrix: RIC 373 (Rome) 173. On the use of conservator, see Ziemssen 201 la: 62-68; id. 2012: 19-21. 19 Cullhed 1994: 45-46. 20 Curran 2000: 54; Bassett 2004: 22; Oenbrink 2006: 197-199; Diefenbach 2007: 91-92; Drijvers 2007a: 20-21; Stephenson 2010: 152. Cf. Ziemssen 201 la: 37-45. 21 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Maxentius [Chron.Min. I 148: 32J. See LTUR V: 121-123; Cullhed 1994: 52; Taylor 2004: 261-263; Ziemssen 201 la: 134-216. See App. 2, fig. 4. 22 Marlowe 2010: 214-215. 23 RIC VI 293-296 (Ticinum) 84a-86, 91-95 and 100-110; 325-326 (Aquileia) 113-126; 371-378 (Rome) 162-165, 187, 194-205 and 208-213. See Vermeule 1959: 43-44. 24 Gagé 1936: 166-167 believes a dedication to Maxentius had been attached to the temple, the inscription on which was replaced by Constantine for his own. There are, however, no indications for a dedication by the Senate to Maxentius. Cf. Kahler 1952: 5. 25 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26; CIL XV 1569a, 1608a, 1610, 1622 and 1649a-b. See Ziemssen 201 la: 217-240. See App. 2, fig. 2. 26 CIL VI 1696. See LTUR I: 170-173. 27 Colossal statue: Coarelli 1986: 32; Deckers 2005: 174-177; Curran 2000: 82; Ziemssen 201 la: 233-235; monument of Romulus and Remus: Whitehead 1927: 2. Whitehead bases this assumption on Maxentian coinage that depicted the twins. See Maurice 1908-1912:1307, plate VII, 8. 120 judicial seat of the urban prefect. 28 The construction work was probably interrupted when hostilities between Maxentius and Constantine reached their peak in October 312.29 As both the Temple of Venus and Rome and the Basilica are mentioned by Aurelius Victor as

Maxentian works, the basilica may already have been dedicated under Maxentius.30 The enigmatic rotunda complex next to the basilica has been classified as another Maxentian initiative. This assumption was based mainly on a dedicatory inscription of Constantine that was (at least during the Renaissance) attached to the fapade. According to a sketch by the antiquarian Ligorio, the inscription reads: IMP (ERATOR) CAES (AR) CONSTANTINUS MAXIMUS TRIUMPH(ATOR) \ PIUS FELIXA UGUSTUS31 The dedication has been interpreted as an attestation for Constantinian interventions to a Maxentian structure. The building has been variously identified as a cult centre for Romulus, the deified son of Maxentius, a religious and dynastie monument dedicated to the penates and the Gens Valeria, a vestibule, or an office. 3 2 The complex was, however, not listed by Aurelius Victor as one of the public works built under Maxentius and is also lacking from the Chronica Urbis Romae, which names only two undertakings by the emperor apart from the temple.33 Therefore, Maxentius’ patronage of the building cannot be confïrmed. Nonetheless, together with the sacred and profane structures in modem discourse, the rotunda has been marked as an area labelled the ‘Forum Maxentii’, though in an open setting.34 The Maxentian programme of patronage also affected other parts of the Forum. He not only ordered the raising of a marble shrine for Mars and the mythical City founders near the lapis niger on the dies natalis of Rome, but also allowed the erection of his own statues.35 Inscriptions and brick work further suggest interventions to the Basilica Aemilia, secretarium

Senatus, statio municipiorum and lapis niger.36 The most significant intervention to express the permanence and beneficia of Maxentius would be his complex on the Via Appia, approximately three miles outside the

28 Market basilica: Giavarini 2005: 12; imperial audience hall: Von Hesberg 2005: 137-138; id. 2006: 161- 162; Ziemssen 2012: 23-26; seat of the urban prefect: Coarelli 1986: 22-35. See LTUR I: 170-173. 29 Sear 1982: 271; Amici 2005: 60. 30 Bauer 1996: 58. Cf. Kahler 1952: 5. 31 ‘The Emperor Caesar Constantinus Maximus, the pious and blessed Augustus.’ Coarelli 1986: 11. CIL V I1147 reflects the description by Panvinio: [-] Constantin[o] maximo [...] ME [-]. 32 LTUR IV: 210-212; Whitehead 1927: 4; Frazer 1966: 389-391; Cullhed 1994: 52-55; Brenk 2012: 172- 173; Ziemssen 2011a: 31-35; temple for Maxentius’ deified son Romulus: Paolo Fiore 1981; Stephenson 2010: 144; Penates and Gens Valeria: Coarelli 1986: 17-22; vestibule: Whitehead 1927: 17-18; Brenk 2012: 172-173; Dumser 2006: 118; “Ambtslokal”: Diefenbach 2007: 94. 33 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Maxentius [Chron.Min. 1 148: 32-33]; Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26. 34 Paolo Fiore 1981: 65; Stephenson 2010: 144. Cf. Ziemssen 2006: 402. 35 Monument for Mars and Romulus and Remus: CIL VI 1220 = 10300 = 31394a = 33857b = 36891 and 33856. See LTUR EI: 229-230; statues: CIL VI 36949 and 40726. Bauer 1996: 48-49 and 402. For Maxentius’ portraiture, see Evers 1992. 36 Basilica Aemilia: Heres 1982: 218-222; secretarium Senatus: CIL VI 1718. See LTUR III: 231-232; Platner and Ashby 1929: 145-146; statio municipiorum: Heres 1982: 106 and 351-352; lapis niger: Vaglieri 1903: 143; Platner and Ashby 1929: 136 and 483-484; Bauer 1996: 104. 121 Porta Appia. Instead of enhancing his villa publica along the Via Labicana, he remodelled a second-century villa on ‘the queen of the long roads’ into an imperial residence.37 His palace- hippodrome ensemble created a similar combination to the imperial palaces on the Palatine and the Circus Maximus inside the city. The Maxentian circus was used for ludi associated with his emperorship and the imperial cult. 38 The third component of the complex was a dynastie mausoleum, in which it is most likely Maxentius’ son Romulus was interred. 39 Through the combination of a mausoleum and villa, a permanent residence was created for the living and deceased imperial family. The archetypical ensemble of the Circus Maximus and the Palatinus Mons, however, was not relinquished. The hippodrome was in use during Maxentius’ reign, even up to the anniversary of his rule which coincided with the battle at the Milvian Bridge. 40 On the Palatine Hill, the palatial structure was enhanced by renovating structures within the Domus Severiana. The Severan baths were extended and their platform enlarged, connecting its fafade to the Circus Maximus 41 Other imperial property that underwent early-fourth-century interventions were the horti Liciniani on the Esquiline and the Sessorium, located in the vicinity of the castra nova equitum singularium.42 The camps of Maxentius’ guards must have been in a good state during his rule to maintain their special backing.43 As another defensive measure, the restoration and fortification of the city walls have also been credited as a

Maxentian initiative, as has the maintenance of principal roads leading from the city.44 His claim as conservator Urbis was further promoted by other benefactions within the city walls. One nucleus in the Maxentian building programme was entertainment structures. On the Quirinal Hill, a new bath complex was constructed, together with repairs at the public

Horti Sallustiani. 45 The Aqua Claudia and possibly the thermae Agrippae on the Campus Martius were renovated during Maxentian rule.46Aside from these constructions, which have been literally or archaeologically confirmed, several buildings have been ascribed to

37 Villa publica: Eutr. Brev. 10. 2; Epit. de Caes. 40.2; regina longarum viarum: Stat. Silv. 2.12. 38 Beard 1998: 32; Humphrey 1986: 601; Ziemssen 201 lb: 89-94. 39 CIL V I1138. See Frazer 1966: 385-387; Beard 1998: 32; Humphrey 1986: 601. Geiger’s proposal (2004: 250-251) that Romulus was interred in a pyramid near the Mausoleum of Hadrian is most unlikely. 40 Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.7. 41 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Maxentius [Chron.Min. I 148: 32-33]; CIL XV 1569a-b, 1580a-b, 1615a, 1622, 1649b and 1650. SeeLTURl; 157: IV 33-35; V 60. HermannJr. 1976. Cf. Hoffinann and Wulf 2004: 168- 170; Wulf and Riedel 2006: 225-228. On the Circus Maximus in Late Antiquity, see Lim 2012. 42 Horti Liciniani: LTUR III: 64-66; Cima 1998: 430-433; Claridge 1998: 357; Sessorium: LTUR IV: 304- 308; Platner and Ashby 1929: 488-489. 43 Castra equitum singularium: Frazer 1966: 386 and plate 6. For ground plans: Liverani 1998: 6-11; castra praetoria: Platner and Ashby 1929: 106-108. CIL XV 1569a-b, 1578a, 1615a-b, 1622 and 1634. For its fate, see paragraph 3.1. For other barracks in the city, the castra peregrine: Amm.Marc. 16.12.66; Not.Reg.Urb. III. 44 Walls: Lact. Mort.Pers. 27.2. See Richmond 1971: 30 and 251-256; Coates-Stephens 2012: 86-87. Cf. Heres 1982: 103-105. CIL XV 1578b, 1579a, 1580a-b, 1581a, 1609, 1610 and 1613; road maintenance: (among others) CIL X 6816, 6836, 6847, 6867-6868, 6882 and 6886. See Beranger and Fortini 1990; Ampolo 1968-1969; Roncaioli Lamberti 1990. 45 Baths: LTUR V: 49-51; Steinby 1986: 142. CIL XV 1570d, 1579a, 1596a and 1610; horti: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 14.4. See Platner and Ashby 1929: 271-272. 46 Aqua Claudia: LTUR I: 63-64; thermae Agrippae: LTUR V: 40-42; Cullhed 1994: 56. 122 Maxentius, but usually based on meagre evidence. The Arcus Constantini, the monument that would come to commemorate Maxentius’ defeat, is suggested to have been erected between 306 and 312.47 Although the construction of the arch under Maxentian rule is - in principle - possible and explicable, as Maxentius claimed a victory in 309, there are no clear stylistic or architectural indications for a pre-Constantinian dating. 48 The colossal statue in the Colosseum-valley, created under Nero to embellish his palatial complex, was probably rededicated to Maxentius’ deifïed son, as might be inferred from a sizable fragmentary inscription to divus Romulus, found on the Arch of Constantine in the 1980s.49 The dedicatory act might have included a reworking of the statue’s face into Romulus, possibly the ‘ugly erasure of the divine visage’ mentioned by the panegyrist Nazarius, but this is pure conjecture. 50 Further attributions include restorations to the Ara Pacis and the construction of the

Janus Quadrifrons in the Velabrum, which was an early fourth-century monument.51 These initiatives would have served Maxentius’ interests in the ancient Capital and enhanced his power base, as did the restoration of the temple of Venus and Roma, the construction of the basilica or his palatial complex on the Via Appia, but hard evidence is lacking. The ambiguities surrounding these architectural interventions stem partly from the efforts of Constantine and his biographers to transform Maxentius into a tyrant and undo his legacy in the architecture of the city. The leading values of his Rome-oriented ideology - imperial permanence in the City, pietas and care for the City and its past - demonstrated his claim as conservator Urbis suae and had left his successor a city with a strong Maxentian imprint and heritage.

47 LTUR I: 86-91; Knudsen 1989; Ensoli 2000: 87; Holloway 2003; Stephenson 2010: 151-152. 48 VICTORIA (AETERNA) AUG N: RIC V I379-384 (Rome) 223, 227-236 and 272-274; 401-406 (Ostia) 7- 10, 21-22, 53-54 and 60-64. See Panella and Pensabene 1997; Pensabene 1999; Wilson Jones 2000: 51-57; Ziemssen 2011a: 36, n. 125. 49 Peirce 1989: 404; Marlowe 2006: 228 and 239 n.34 . 50Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 12.2: ...divini vultus litura deformis. See Marlowe 2006: 228-229. Cf. Chenault 2008: 15; Stephenson 2010: 151-152; Lavan2011: 458. 51 Ara Pacis: Hannestad 1994: 66-67; Janus quadrifrons: Marlowe 2003; id. 2010: 204. See also paragraph 3.1 of this chapter. See App. 2, fig. 7. 123 4.3 Constantine - Restitutor Urbis From his domination of Rome in 312 until his death in 337, Constantine’s building programme in Rome maintained a precarious balance between the damnatio memoriae of Maxentius, and his duties as emperor to the Senate, the people of Rome, and the growing Christian community. 4.3.1 Victoria Constantini In 321, the panegyrist Nazarius shouted for joy about the architectural impulses in Rome by his imperial addressee: All the most celebrated things in the city gleam with new work, and not only are those which have been wom out through age distinguished with renewed splendor, but the very ones which were formerly considered the most magnificent betray the unseemly parsimony of the ancients now that they shine with golden light.52 Indeed, in the years following Constantine’s assumption of power over Rome, the urban fabric was heavily transformed. Many interventions were not new enterprises, but reactions to Maxentian initiatives at the expense of Maxentius’ memory. With an impressive building programme during his six-year rule, Maxentius had left a monumental legacy that was hard to surpass. The damnatio memoriae of Maxentius in Rome took effect directly after his overthrow. His mutilated body was paraded through Rome as part of the adventus-ceremony, in which Constantine was hailed as the redeemer of the City. His roles as liberator Urbis suae, and even more as restitutor Urbis suae, propagated on coinage from Rome, were carefully chosen attributions against Maxentius’ claim as conservator Urbis suae.53 Constantine capitalised on these claims for a liberator and restorer during his stay by disbanding Maxentius’ power troops and by appropriating his buildings. 54 His architectural agenda reveals a spatial policy centred on the display of his own selfhimself as conqueror over Maxentius and Champion of Rome. In the traditional city centre, this pragmatic policy was pursued in the area along the Via Sacra where Maxentius had created a group of monumental sacral and profane structures. According to Aurelius Victor, Constantine connected his own name to this area by ordering the Senate to dedicate these buildings to himself:

52 Pan Lat. 4 (10) 35.4: Celeberrima quaeque urbis novis operibus enitescunt; nec obsoleta modo per vetustatem redivivo cultu insigniuntur, sed illa ipsa, quae antehac magnificentissima putabantur, nunc, auri luce fulgentia, indecoram majorum parsimoniam prodiderunt. 53 For conservator Urbis suae, see paragraph 2 of this chapter; liberator Urbis suae: RIC VI 387 (Rome) 303-304; restitutor Urbis suae: RIC VI 388 (Rome) 312. See also RIC VI 409 (Ostia) 81. Cf. CIL XI 6648 (restitutor orbis). 4 Speidel 1986: 255-256; id. 1988; Brandenburg 2005: 20-37. See also Chapter 2, paragraph 1.1, and paragraphs 3.1 and 3.3 of this chapter. 124 In addition, all the monuments which Maxentius had constructed in magnificent manner, the temple of the city and the basilica, were dedicated by the senate to the meritorious services of Flavius [Constantine] . 55 The rededication of the temple of Venus and Rome, the Urbis fanum, probably involved a dedicatory inscription to Constantine and a statue of the emperor.56 The testimony of Aurelius Victor, however, reveals a Constantinian response that would be hard to deduce from archaeological research alone, as interventions to the temple afïter Maxentius are hard to classify.57 Recent surveys suggest the instalment of an architrave and work on the niches on either side of the central apse. 58 Although it had been one of the monumental apogees of Maxentius’ architectural policy, demolishing or rebuilding of the temple of the patroness would probably have been regarded as an act of impietas. Constantine thus appropriated the building and, furthermore, gave prominence himself to the patroness of the City on his coinage from the city-Roman mint. She appears seated in a hexastyle temple, with corresponding expressive motives as liberator and restitutor Urbis suae.59 Wilson Jones presumes that the cella of Venus became the altar of Constantine’s family, the gens Flavia.60 Vermeule states that the cella of Venus came to serve as shrine for the Tyche of Constantinople. Although Constantine seemingly did not mint for Venus - and minted for

Constantinople - there is no support for this alteration claimed by Vermeule.61 The preservation of the Basilica Nova was a pure act of clementia and expediency on Constantine’s part. The demolition of this Maxentian initiative would be another insult and punishment for the City and the Romans because of its grandeur. 62 Instead, by rededicating the basilica to Constantine, the theme of Constantine as defeater of Maxentius and patron of Rome could be exploited. The interventions during the Constantinian building phase have long been deemed commanding, consisting of mainly ideological and autonomously developed additions to the Maxentian structure.63 Although adaptations indeed took place, the intensity of this project has been overvalued by scholars who attribute the construction of the Southern entrance portico (and thus a reorientation of the complex) to the Constantinian phase. The most recent study of the basilica has proposed that Constantinian interventions were mainly structural reinforcements and complemented works to the Maxentian project.64 Some structural alterations, such as the addition of an apse to the north wall to the newly

55 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26: Adhuc cuncta opera, quae magnifice construxerat, urbis fanum atque basilicam Flavii meritis patres sacravere. 56 Marlowe 2010: 214-215; Ziemssen 201 la: 171-172. See App. 2, fig. 4. 57 Gagé 1936: 166-167; Kahler 1964: 38. 58 Monaco 2000: 59. 59 RIC VI 387-388 (Rome) 303, 304 and 312. 60 Wilson Jones 2000: 69. 61 Vermeule 1959: 51-52. There is only one coin-type depicting Venus, coined for Helena from Treveri between the autumn of 307 and the end of 308: RIC V I216 (Treveri) 756. 62 Hekster 1999: 738. See App. 2, fig. 2. 63 E.g. Nibby 1819: 14-16; Minoprio 1932: 4; Nash 1961: 180; Kultermann 1996: 60-61; Bauer 1996: 57- 58; Claridge 1998: 115-116; Curran 2000: 81; Marlowe 2006: 231; Johnson 2006: 280. 64 Amici 2005: 38-42, 58 and 60. See also Buranelli Le Pera and D'Elia 1986: 247-249. 125 consecrated Basilica Constantiniana, may have had ideological implications. In the western apse, the focus of the Maxentian basilica, a colossus of Constantine was erected.65 Judging from the location of the gigantic sculpture in the original centre of the complex and the evidence of reuse, it is possible that this sculpture once personified Maxentius himself. 66 The renaming of the building, the dedication to its patron (probably visualised on an inscription) and the colossal statue of Constantine make it plausible to assume that one of the Basilica’s functions was to serve as an imperial honorary hall.67 The rotunda that has been attributed as the third building of the “Forum Maxentii” was no work of Constantine’s according to Aurelius Victor. Sixteenth-century testimonies of a dedication above the entrance, however, suggest the complex was or had become

Constantinian.68 The renaissance inscription has been the basis for assuming that the complex had two building phases: one under Maxentius, and one under Constantine, the latter as part of his programme of damnatio memoriae of Maxentius. Brickstamps, disceming masonry and other archaeological findings seem to confirm activities under Constantine, in particular to the fafade of the rotunda.69 It is unclear which function the rotunda had, let alone if it altered after an operation under Constantine.70 Furthermore, directly outside the so-called “Forum of Maxentius”, Constantine tried to show off his own power base at the expense of Maxentius with attributions of his buildings. The southem part of the portico framing the monument-rich area, reconstructed from the Horrea Piperataria, has also been connected to Constantinian interventions. The portico would lose its open setting by the enclosure of the columns and the extension of rooms. Two marble bases with dedications to Maxentius and Maximian were probably used as building material for the alteration.71 The Maxentian marble base on the Forum dedicated to Mars and Romulus and Remus was preserved by Constantine. The name of Maxentius on the inscription to Mars was removed and the statue group of Maxentius and Romulus was pulled down, deleting the

65 Kahler 1952: 12; Marlowe 2006b. 66 Zanker in Fittschen and Zanker 1985: 148-149 surmised a deity statue; Evers 1991: 795-799 argued for a reworking of a statue of Hadrian. Initially, Constantine had been portrayed according to the Tetrarchic tradition with stubble and a harsh appearance. In a later phase, during his dominion of Rome, Constantine adopted a new official portrait. With this, he reverted to the grand emperors of the second century, especially Trajan. Characteristic of Constantinian heads are a coiffured fringe, sidcbums and a clean shaven face. A smaller copy of a similar statue, which it has been assumed belonged to the colossus in the Colosseum valley, is now displayed in the Capitoline Museums. Ensoli 2000: 71-90, no. 209. Cf. Marlowe 2006: 239, n.39; Stephenson 2010: 151-152. See App. 2, fig. 3 for a possible reconstruction. 67 Monoprio 1932: 4 suggests the frieze of the portico along the south fagadc of the basilica as a suitable place for a dedication. Ziemssen 201 la: 251-260. 8 CIL VI 1147. See Coarelli 1986: 11. For the inscriptions, see paragraph 2 of this chapter. 69 CIL XV 1574b and 1577. See LTUR IV: 210-212; Frazer 1964: 120; Paolo Fiore 1981: 81; Heres 1982: 106. 70 Jupiter Stator: Coarelli 1986: 10, arguing that this temple was mentioned in the fourth region in the Curiosum and the Notitia (Not.Reg.Urb. IV) and the temple of Romulus was not. The temple of Jupiter was probably situated at the foot of the Velia. See Platner and Ashby 1929: 303-305; Gens Flavia: Paolo Fiore 1981: 66; Stephenson 2010: 150. 71 Vaglieri 1903: 25; D’Elia and Le Pera Buranelli 1985: 98. 126 reference between him and the historical and mythological roots of the City. 72 Constantine, the Marti conservator, was probably perpetuated in marble.73 The Maxentian inscription on the base was used as building material for the Basilica Julia.74 The same may be the case for a dedication found near the Basilica Aemilia.75 * On the Forum Boarium, the Janus Quadrifrons was possibly completed, or built, by order of Constantine. The monument might be identified as the arcus divi Constantini from the Notitia regionum Urbis, the fourth-century gazetteer for the City’s topography and architecture. 76 With the presence of the goddess Roma on the arch, the Janus Quadrifrons fltted well as Maxentian propaganda. A completion under Constantine would be understandable and in line with his damnatio memoria-politics. The initiative for the construction of the arch could also well have been Constantine’s. Marlowe interprets the monument for Janus, the ancient god of the waterways, as a suitable acknowledgement and remembrance for Constantine’s victories over Maxentius and Lieinius. The fatal battles against both emperors were situated near water. She further underlines the connection between the arch and the sanctuary of Hercules nearby. Hercules Invictus, whom Marlowe connects to Constantine’s main deity Sol Invictus, was represented on coinage from Roma and Ostia issued just after Maxentius’ death.77 One of the Maxentian initiatives that proved him to be a benefactor of Rome’s populace, the construction of a bath complex on the Quirinal, was finished after his death and claimed by Constantine as his own.78 Remains of this complex may have been connected to a portico from the mid-fourth century. Together they may have been part of a possible Palatium

Constantini. 79 Another project that has been identified as a Maxentian initiative, his renovation of Ara Pacis, was probably recalled or left unfmished. 80 Near the monumental centre of gravity of Maxentius’ patronage on the Via Sacra, the most obvious public display of Constantine’s victory came to fruition.81 On the stretch of the triumphal road which came down from the Circus Maximus and ran to the Amphitheatrum

Flavium, the twenty-one-metre high Arcus Constantini was placed. 82 The arch was dedicated to Constantine for his decennalia on 25 June 315.83 Although he probably sanctioned its

72 CIL V I33856. For the monument to Mars, Romulus and Remus, see paragraph 2 of this chapter. 73 MARTI CONSERVATOR: RIC V I387-391 (Rome) 305, 306a, 307-311, 364, 365 and 367. 74OLVI 1220= 10300 = 31394a = 33857 = 36891. 75 CIL V I40726. 76 Not.Reg.Urb. XI. See App. 2, fig. 7. 77 Marlowe 2003: 31-33. RIC VI 387 (Rome) 298-302; 409 (Ostia) 79. For his strength and potency as the founder of a dynasty, Nazarius (Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 16.6 and 36.2) links Constantine to Hercules. 78 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26; Amm.Marc. 27.3.8; CIL VI 1148-1150. 79 LTUR IV: 42-43. See also paragraph 4.1 of this chapter. 80 Hannestad 1994: 66-67. 81 The arch is located along the Via Triumphalis, at the intersection of five regions. Just as the arches in the northem and Southern part of Rome seem to allude to feats of arms from the northem and eastem regions of the Empire respectively, the centrality of the arch seems to indicate a victory in Rome. Even more, the arch was located in the direct vicinity of the ‘Forum Maxentii’. 82 For the plan of the Colosseum valley, see Marlowe 2006:224, figs. 1 and 2. See App. 2, figs. 5 and 6. 83 For this visit, see Chapter 2, paragraph 1.2. 127 execution, the arch was consecrated by the Senate, as had been the case for the Basilica and the Temple of Venus and Roma. Because of its presence in the city, the senatorial body was able to play an active part in the commissioning of architects, the selection of a suitable workplace and the supervision of its progress. 84 Constantine’s direct involvement as the second agent behind the construction, however, is not in doubt, as the arch would be the most potent symbol of the destruction of Maxentius’ power during his short stay in the city: IMP(ERA TORI) CAES(ARI) FL(A VIO) CONSTANTINO MAXIMO / P(IO) F(ELICI) AUGUSTO S(ENATUS) P(OPULUS)Q(UE) R(OMANUS) / QUOD INSTINCTU DIVIN1TA TIS MENTIS / MA GNITUDINE CUMEXERCITU SUO / TAM DE TYRANNO QUAMDE OMNI EIUS / FACTIONE UNO TEMPORE IUSTIS / REMPUBLICAM ULTUS EST ARMIS / ARCUM TRIUMPHIS INSIGNEM DICA VI f 5 In addition to this dedication, Constantine was honoured in the central passageway as liberator Urbis and fundator quietis. These laudatory expressions were placed above two reused relief fragments from the time of Trajan on the walls of the central passageway, visualising the Roman-Dacian conflicts. A third and fourth panel from the same original were incorporated on the short sides of the arch above. Other Trajanic components were eight pavonazzetto statues of barbaric captives, placed on the Corinthian giallo anlico columns on the arch. The original location of the reliefs and statues cannot be determined. The frieze may come from a Trajanic building or a deposit in the Campus Martius, although the former castra priora of Trajan or Trajan’s Forum have also been put forward as original stands. 86 Although similar statues to those on the arch have been found on the Forum Traiani, the pomp and circumstance of the site as described by Ammianus Marcellinus during Constantius’ adventus in 357 are not consonant with a pillaging of the area under Constantine. 87 The Trajanic statues and relief fragments were part of a composition consisting of contemporary elements and spolia from other second-century imperial monuments. Eight tondi, originating from a Hadrianic monument, depicted the righteous nature of an emperor. The package presents pietas and virtus, virtues that were demanded from a competent ruler, and which had been embodied by Hadrian. 88

84 Zanker 2012. 85 CIL VI 1139 = 31245. ‘To the Emperor Caesar Flavius Constantinus the greatest, dutiful and blessed, Augustus, the Senate and people of Rome dedicated this arch, distinguished by his victories, because, by the inspiration of divinity and by greatness of his mind, with his army he evenged the state with righteous arms against both the tyrant and all of his faction at one and the same time.’ (translation at Lee 2000: 83). 86 Building on Campus Martius: Gauer 1995: 134. Cf. Pensabene 1999: 32; deposit: Coates-Stephens 2003b: 342 n. 1; Castra priora: Barceló 1991-1992: 150-155; Forum of Trajan: LTUR I 88-89; Ellingsen 2003: 40. Holloway 2004: 32 suggests the altar of Antoninus in Ephesus as an original stand, but without any argumentation. 87 Statue: CIL VI 36617; description of the site by Ammianus: Amm.Marc. 16.10.15. For the statuary scene in the Forum of Trajan, see Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 88 Wallace-Hadrill 1981: 311-314. 128 The reliefs of Marcus Aurelius recapitulated the ideology of the charismatic emperor and ruler. These panels were almost certainly derived from an Aurelian quadrifrons, situated in the vicinity of the Curia or the Campus Martius and dedicated to him after his victories over the Germans and Sarmatians. 89 The heads of Trajan, Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius on the reliefs were replaced with Constantine’s countenance. 90 The ideological signifïcance of the reused sculpture has been subject for debate. It remains to be seen how identifiable the spolia were for the fourth-century viewer as products of the patronage of the boni, the emperors of the golden age. One obvious reservation lies in the fact that it cannot be determined whether these elements originated from public spaces and thus appealed to the public memory. Without any clarifïcation (for example, by way of inscriptions), only the commissioners and architects of the projects may have been aware of the context for the spolia.91 They may have been chosen from sculpture that was available for reuse, but it is far more likely that a deliberate selection was made of the messages in stone they wanted to convey. Although several scholars have rejected a retrospective message behind the spolia, questioning the ability to discem the origins and possible motives behind the choice of elements, the sculptural stories in themselves told a clear narrative to its spectator, even without any awareness of its historical context.92 The Trajanic, Hadrianic and Antonine imagery presented the viewer of the Arch with a virtuous and victorious emperor who defeated his enemy and visited Rome. The message that spoke outwards from the spolia was enhanced by contemporary elements. Atop the arch stood a triumphal quadrigaP Besides winged Victories and river gods in the spandrels and victories and captives on the pedestal bases, eight portrait busts were placed in the lateral passageways. On the short sides of the arch, two roundels were carved, depicting Sol in the East and Luna in the West.94 Above the lateral passageways and below the two medallions on the short sides, a newly made panel frieze alluded to Constantine’s liberatio of Rome from Maxentius in four acts. The narrative starts on the western short side with Constantine’s army leaving Milan, continues on the Southern fagadc with the battle of Verona and Constantine’s victory at the Milvian Bridge, resumes on the eastem side with Constantine’s entry into Rome, and ends on the northem faxjade with Constantine’s oratio and donatio in the City - all scenes which were later referred to and clarified by Nazarius in his panegyric to Constantine in 321.95

89 Angelicoussis 1984: 199-204; De Maria 1988: 303-305. 90 Brenk 1987: 104-105; Elsner 2000: 174; Prusac 2011: 64-67. 91 Gowing 2005: 113. Note, for example, the epigraphical sources of information attached to the statues of the summi viri on the Forum of Augustus: Gowing 2005: 139-140; Geiger 2008: 137-162; Shaya 2013. 92 No ideology: Kinney 1997: 129; Liverani 2004a; id. 2005; transformative memories: Panella 1993-1994; Elsner 2000: 152; Wilson Jones 2000; Marlowe 2006; Prusac 2011: 65-67; Faust 2011. 93 Marlowe 2006: 230. 94 Wilson Jones 2000: 65-67. 95 Pan.Lat. 4 (12). See Van Dam 2011: 140-146. 129 Although the Senate was the stated benefactor of the arch, the surrounding monumental Colosseum valley was subjected to Constantine’s own patronage. Situated in very close to the arch stood the Neronian Colossus of Sol, which during Maxentius’ rule had probably been dedicated to Maxentius’ son, or possibly even refashioned with his features.96A dedicatory inscription to Romulus - apparently attached to the statue’s base - was later removed from its location and would be reworked as building material in the attic of Constantine’s arch.97 This revisionary act must have taken place in the immediate aftermath of the civil war. The gigantic statue was certainly appropriated by Constantine, as it came to serve as the framing point for the location of his arch.98 If the Solar colossus had indeed represented Romulus, as has been assumed, the statue’s image underwent recarving and was reworked into the sun- god, who had become Constantine’s patron around 310.99 When approaching the valley from the Circus Maximus, the Colossus of Sol towered over the monument that celebrated Constantine’s victory over Maxentius. * More invasive acts that marked the end of Maxentius’ rule were executed outside the city centre, probably authorised by Constantine directly post-bellum. Following his abolition of the equites singulares, Constantine destroyed the castra of this pro-Maxentian guard in the

Lateran area, 100 just as he possibly plundered its former castra priora. 101 At the site of the camp of Maxentius’ troops on the Campus Lateranensis, a Christian church basilica and a residence for the city-Roman bishop was constructed. 102 In the suburbium of Rome, building interventions were initiated which can also be interpreted as motivated by anti-propaganda against Maxentius. In line with Constantine’s punitive expedition, the active cemetery of Maxentius’ equites on the Via Labicana was demolished. The desecrated site of the cavalry was appropriated for the erection of the Santi

Marcellino e Pietro. 103 The same lot feil to the base of the praetorian guard, whose troops had been sent to the most northem borders of the Empire. 104 The cemetery of the guardsmen on the Via Nomentana was exterminated and the land was donated to the church. 105 As the castra of the praetorian guard had been incorporated into the fabric of the Aurelian Wall, this 96 See paragraph 2 of this chapter. 97 Peirce 1989: 404; Marlowe 2006: 228 and 239 n.34 . 98 Marlowe 2006: 225. Marlowe 2006: 229-230 argues further that the arch was framed by the temple of Sol Invictus on the Palatine and the temple of the deifïed Claudius on the Caelian Hill. They supposcdly served as visual relations to the arch and as monuments of Constantine’s patron deity and dynastie forebear. The second temple, however, has no connection to Claudius Gothicus, who is only a coincidental namesake of the dedicatee. 99 Wilson Jones 2000: 69. For Sol see Chapter 1, paragraph 3. Cf. Stephenson 2010: 151-152 who states that the colossus was reworked into Constantine’s form. 100 Liverani 2004b: 17-20. See paragraph 3.3 of this chapter 101 Josi 1934: 347-349, figure 8. 102 Basilica: Lib.Pont. 34.14-18. See CBCR V: 1-92; Brandenburg 2005: 20-37; font: Heres 1982: 215-217; Brandenburg 2005: 37-54. See paragraph 3.3 of this chapter. 103 See paragraph 3.3 of this chapter for the Santi Marcellino e Pietro. 104 On the elimination of the praetorian guard: Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.25. See Speidel 1986: 256. See also Chapter 2, paragraph 1.1. 105 See paragraph 3.3 of this chapter. 130 complex would be preserved. By demolishing the inner walls, however, it was placed outside of its military function. 106 Memorial monuments of Maxentius, dedicated to the Cohors

Romana Palatina on the Forum of Trajan, were demolished. 107 Such measures had to ensure that the memory of Maxentius was eradicated. It is unclear whether the circus of Maxentius in his complex on the Via Appia remained in use under Constantine. The discovery of statues identifïed as Constantinus and Claudius Gothicus, and the relatively good state of the hippodrome today, seem to suggest the site was not razed, but a discontinuance of its use is likely. 108 It appears that a cemetery arose around the circus during the rule of Constantine and the area would at a much later date become church property, donated to the monastery of St. Erasmus. 109 The villa publica of Maxentius along the Via Labicana just outside the city was either appropriated by Constantine or destroyed. 11 0 The anti-propaganda against Maxentius was limited to Rome itself. Milestones in the surroundings of Rome, accounting for his improvements to the main roads on the Italic peninsula, were kept unharmed. 1 1 1 Constantinian infrastructural interventions after 312 were directed considerably to the north/south connections over the Alps, where Constantine’s early centre of power had been. 1 1 2 4.3.2 Amplificator Urbis Romae Constantine’s interventions to the urban fabric of Rome were not confined to eliminating the legacy of Maxentius. In the years after his dominion over the City, he also tried to propagate his own identity as caretaker of Rome and amplificator Urbis Romae. 113 With his orders for the restoration, completion and launch of building projects, he fulfilled a traditional imperial expectation. These impulses of patronage were of less immediate necessity than the acts following the damnatio memoriae, and were probably authorised by Constantine either during his short stays in 315 and 326 or by official order when absent from Rome. During his periods of absence, these projects were supervised by the urban prefect. This supreme magistrate of

106 Zos. 2.17.2. See Platner and Ashby 1929: 106-108. The castra was still mentioned in the Notitia Urbis Romae regionum XIV(Not.Reg.Urb. VI). 107 AE 1934: 157; CIL V I2943. See Speidel 1988; Cosme 1994: 184. 108 Pisani Sartorio andCalza 1976: 147, 162-163 and 184-185; Rasch 1984: 4-5. 109 Symm. II, LEX 1. See Ferrari 1957: 120. 110 See paragraph 2 of this chapter. 111 A milestone dedicated to Constantine in Italia, near Herculaneum still displays an inscription to Maxentius: CIL X 6937 and 6938. For unharmed Maxentian milestones, see, among others: CIL X 6816, 6836, 6847, 6867-6868, 6882 and 6886. Ampolo 1968-1969; Roncaioli Lamberti 1990; Beranger and Fortini 1990. See also paragraph 2 of this chapter. 112 For example, the road between Autun and Rome was paved again. See, among others: CIL V 8013- 8014, 8021, 8027, 8048, 8060, 8081-8082, 8108-8909, 8963 = 8964 = 8965 = 8966; AE 1976: 234. Chevallier 1976: 77 and 138. 113 Amplificator Urbis romae'. CIL V I1142. See also Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26-28. 131 Rome had been authorised to execute smaller-scale building initiatives in the emperor’s

absence. 114 On and around the Forum Romanum, where Constantine had actively tried to erase the memory of Maxentius, large public buildings were kept intact. Repairs and honorary works were executed mainly in this venerated setting which was deeply charged with

historical, political and cultural associations. 115 Epigraphic evidence suggests Constantinian activity to the Basilica Aemilia. Four of the seven honorary columns fronting this basilica

could also be ascribed to Constantine’s rule on the basis of retrieved brickstamps. 116 This area was marked by the traditional rostra, the renewal of which may also have been a

Constantinian initiative. 1 1 7 Furthermore, alterations to the Atrium Vestae have been suggested

during this period. 118 The umbilicus Urbis Romae, near the rostra and the Temple of Satum and Concordia, has also been attributed to the rule of Constantine. The (official) marker of the centre of Rome and the Empire surely was a powerful monument, but its patron is unknown

and evidence for it being a Constantinian intervention is lacking. 119 Several dignitaries under Constantinian rule dedicated statues to their emperor in the

area near the Curia as expressions of loyalty. 120 These were placed between republican and early imperial buildings on the square that (with these historical markers) served as a “lieu de

mémoire” . 12 1 The Senate put up a plaque and a dedication to Constantine and another emperor,

most likely Licinius. 12 2 Along the Via Sacra, the urban prefect Anicius Paulinus would in 334 erect the equus Constantini, a gift for his considerations to the Senate and the people of

Rome. 12 3 Other dedications to Constantine on the Forum were bestowed by Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus (curator of the water-supply), the rationalis Appius Primianus, and an

114 Chastagnol 1960: 43-53; Behrwald 2009: 140-146. For his duty as caretaker, see CIL VI 45, 102, 1786 and 3866. For the office of urban prefect, see Chapter 6, sections 1.1 and 2.1. 115 For late-antique developments in the Roman Forum, see Kalas 2000. 116 Basilica Aemilia: CIL XV 1575 and 1637. Steinby 1986: 120 and 125; honorary columns: CIL XV 1569a, 1590, 1622 and 1643b. 117 According to Kahler 1964: 36, the rostra in front of the temple of Caesar lost its value with the erection of the honorary columns. The renewed traditional rostra, near the decennalia-monument, has a resemblance to the columns in regard to its brickstamps, mortar and brick joints: CIL XV 1615, 1622 and 1634. Steinby 1986: 119 dates the process of re-orientation of the Forum to Tetrarchic and Maxentian times. Similar stamps have been found in the baths of Constantine on the Quirinal, the tempel of Venus and Roma, the villa of Maxentius along the Via Appia, the rotunda and the basilica. See Zanker 1972: 28; Claridge 1998: 88-89. 118 Platner and Ashby 1929: 60. Cf. LTUR I: 138-142. 119 Not.Reg.Urb. VIII. Except for Walser 1987: 165, no one connects the umbilicus to Constantine. The predominantly ideological argument also applies to Maxentius. 20 None of these epigraphical fragments can be connected to extant imperial portraits with certainty. For the portraits of Constantine, see Delbrueck 1933: 137-139; L’Orange 1984, 118-128. 121 Coarelli 1983-1985; Freyberger and Ertel 2009. 122 Plaque: CIL VI 40764; dedication with other emperor: CIL V I40768. 123 The equus Constantini possibly shares similarities with the horseman Constantine depicted on coins: RIC VII 517 (Thessalonica) 145; 616 (Nicomedia) 99 and 100. See also CIL VI 1141 = 31246. LTUR II: 226-227. See for other dedications and works by Anicius Paulinus: CIL VI 1142, 1652 and 37020 = 40775. 132 unknown donor. 124 In 324, Versenus Fortunatus, a curator of the aqueducts and of the porticus Minucia, erected a statue for Constantine. A second dedication by the same curator was awarded to an imperial honorand, either Constantine or one of his sons. 125 The recipient of a re-erected statue by the consul Maecilius Hilarianus in 332 is also not stated by name, but may (considering the date and location of the benefaction) very well have been

Constantine. 12 6 Besides dedications to Constantine on the Forum, his sons were recognised in marble in the public areas of the square. Constantinus Junior received a statue during his years as Caesar from Flavius Ursacius, tribune of the urban cohorts. 127 This honour was also conferred on Crispus in 317 by an unknown awarder. The statue of the Caesar would later suffer from the damnatio memoriae after his death in 326.128 Constantinian interventions traversed the Forum Romanum to the imperial fora nearby. Activity in the Basilica Argentaria on the Forum Julium has been suggested based on the masonry of the arches on both sides of the pronaos.129 On the Forum of Trajan, Constantine’s signature was connected to the emperor from the aureum saeculum. The two-hundred-year anniversary of this imperial forum in 312-313 was celebrated by Constantine with a special issue in honour of the Optimus Princeps,130 Under Trajan, this area had become the decor for a consular court where senatorial trials were held. 13 1 Statues dedicated by and to consuls under Constantine testify to the existence of this function at least until the middle of the fourth century. In 314, Constantine was monumentalised on the Forum of Trajan by the consul and urban prefect Caius Caeionius Rufius Volusianus. 132 He received another statue from Quintus Attius Granius Caelestinus, curator alvei Tiberis et cloacarum sacrae Urbis between 312 and 324.133 These expressions of loyalty from officials were facilitated by the curator statuarum, who is attested for the first time around 337. 134 Constantine countered this act of erecting statues on Trajan’s Forum. At the request of the Roman people and the Senate, Amnius Anicius Paulinus, the consul of 334, was awarded

124 Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus: CIL VI 36951. Appius Primianus: CIL VI 36952. Unknown: CIL VI 36953 and 40768a. 125 CIL V I31513 = 37133a = 40771 and 37133. 126 CIL V I32016 = 37116 = 41320. See also CIL VI 1792. 127 CIL VI 1156a. 128 CIL VI 3909 = 32760 = 40778b. The urban prefect Ovinius Gallicanus had also dedicated a statue to Constantine’s oldest son, though in an unknown location: CZL VI 1155. 129 Anderson Jr. 1984: 62. 130 Dedication on Forum of Trajan: Fast. Ost. 20; SPQR Optimo Principi: RIC VI 222 (Treveri) 815; 297 (Ticinum) 114; 390 (Rome) 345- 352; 407-410 (Ostia) 69 and 94-99. RIC VII 235 (Arelate) 7-12. See Alfóldi 1963: 57-69; Harrison 1967: 93-95. 131 Geil. 13.25.2. For recent studies of the Forum, see: Doms 2010: 107-128; Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. l32C/Z,VI 1140. 133 Caius Caeionius Rufius Volusianus: CIL V I1140; Quintus Attius Granius Caelestinus: CIL V I1143. 134 CIL VI 1708 = 31906 = 41318. See PLRE 1454 s.v. Fl. Magnus I(a)nuarius 8. 133 a gilded bronze statue by Constantine and his sons. 135 Shortly before his death, Constantine had dedicated a cippus to L. Aradius Valerius Proculus, urban prefect in 337-338.136 The statuary munificence boomed under Constantine. According to Aurelius Victor, statues were erected in the busiest places and most of them in gold or silvcr. 137 Indeed, the panegyrist of 313 mentions the dedication of a gold-covered statue to Constantine, and the find of a bronze portrait head, now in the Capitoline Museums, conflrms the existence of rich

Constantinian statuary in Rome. 138 Besides the confirmed dedications from the Forum Romanum and Forum Traiani, Constantine received several further statues, two after his death, in other - mostly unidentified - locations in Rome from urban prefects, praefecti annonae, rationales, curatores Tiberis et cloacarum and collegia,139 His Caesares and his mother Helena also received dedications from magistrates outside the administrative centre. 140 Furthermore, there are a large number of Constantinian inscriptions from unknown awarders and on material from unidentified locations in the city. 14 1 The emperor for his part commissioned the erection of honorary statues for officials as rewards for special merits. 142 * In various ways, Constantine tried to present himself as a good emperor by cherishing ancient traditions and locations. He emphasised the old connection between the Mons Palatinus and the Circus Maximus, the archetypical combination of palace and hippodrome. After the evictio tyranni, 143 Constantine most likely resided on the Palatine for a short period. 144 Although densely built in this period with streets and private buildings, in this way the hill retained its symbolic funetion as the traditional residence of the emperor when he was present in Rome. 145 Constantinian works were added to the vestibule of the domus Palatina, the contemporary Santa Maria Antiqua. 146 The maintenance of structures on the hill signified the manifestation of Constantine’s authority, even when absent from the city. He was furthermore awarded a statue by the praefectus vigilum Postumius Isidorus on the hill, which portrayed his imperial presence in marble. 147

135 CIL VI 1683. 136 CIL VI 40776. The inscription continues with an answer from the emperor to the senate of Rome. Anderson Jr. 1984: 171; Weisweiler 2012a. See Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. For the statuary on the Forum of Trajan, see Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 137 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.28: Statuae locis quam celeberrimis, quarum plures ex auro aut argenteae sunt. 138 Gold: Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 5.4; bronze: Ensoli 2000: no. 209. 139 CIL VI 1144-1145, 37020 = 40775 and 40770. Posthumous: CIL VI 1151 = 31248 and 1152. 140C/LVI 1134 = 31234, 1135, 1155, 1157 = 40840 and 36950. 141 CIL VI 1136 = 31233, 1142, 1146, 1148-1150, 30562.2 = 40764a, 31393 = 40766, 31520 = 40779, 40767,40769 and 40773-40774. 142 Symm. Rel. 12.2; CIL VI 1652, 1682-1683, 1707, 40776 and 41319. See Niquet 2000; Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 143 CIL I2 p. 274. 144 See Chapter 2, paragraph 1. 145 CTh. 10.8.3 and 16.10.1; Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 19.3. See LTUR IV: 34-35. The Notitia regionum Urbis (Not.Reg.Urb. X) mentions 20 vici, 89 domus and 2472 insulae. 146 Heres 1982: 298-302; Lucey 1999: 33. 147 Postumius Isidorus: CIL VI 1144. 134 Constantine furthermore ordered the restoration and enlargement of the Circus Maximus, one of the oldest and premier locations for entertainment. 148 After part had collapsed during the reign of Diocletian, the circus must have been in need of repairs and consolidation. 149 According to Aurelius Victor, Constantine also ‘completed the decorations on the Circus

Maximus in a marvellous fashion’ . 150 Nazarius dwelt on the adomment which included iofty porticoes and columns glowing red with gold’ . 15 1 This work to a site which was long established as a significant location in Rome’s topography reinforced his portrayal as restorer of the City. Many ludi circenses and ludi votivi were organised to celebrate imperial and commemorative occasions which united the emperor and the Roman population. 152 Constantine’s adventus must have instigated games and his consulship in 313 was celebrated with processions and ‘etemal games’ in his presence. 153 The temple of Sol, located near the finish of the circus, was probably kept in perfect condition. 154 The hippodrome’s dedication to Sol, claimed by Tertullian, may even have instigated the plan to erect a second obelisk, the paragon of the solar cult. Augustus had strengthened the bond between the solar deity and the arena with the erection of its first pillar. According to Ammianus, Constantine had wishes to place a second obelisk in the circus, for which he only had the means after his possession of Aegyptus, in 324. The (now lost) inscription on the monolith, however, claims

Constantine had intended it to be sent to Constantinople. 155 Supposedly, Constantine had indeed dismantled a second obelisk from the Kamak temple complex of Thebes, destined for

Constantinople. 156 The transport of the columns supposedly came to a halt in Alexandria when Constantine died. It would be twenty years before one of the pair finally arrived at its intended location in Rome. Only after May 357 was the obelisk placed in the Circus Maximus by his son Constantius. 15 7 The obelisk for the hippodrome in Constantinople had to wait a few decades further. 158 Constantinian interventions to other venues of entertainment can also be deduced. The legislation for games and, more concrete for Rome, the damaging fire and lightning strike in 320, make repair works to the Amphiteatrum Flavium, the immense bastion of amusement,

Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.27; Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 35. See Humphrey 1986: 129 and figure 44. 149 Chron.Urb.Rom. s.v. Diocletianus et Maximianus [Chron.Min. 1 148: 24-25]. 150 Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.27: A quo etiam post Circus maximus excultus mirifice atque ad lavandum institutum ojms ceteris haud multo dispar. Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 35.5: Circo ipsi maximo sublimesporticus et rutilantes auro columnae tantum inusitati omatus dederunt... After the death of Constantine, the maintenance of the hippodrome continued, judging the inscriptions from urban prefects. CIL VI4138 and 40782A. Cancio Rossetto 1982. Ludi were held on Constantine’s natalis, his dies natalis, the natalis Urbis and on days of temple consecrations. The days of his adventus and profectio and of his victories on the Goths, the Francs and the Germans were also designated as feast-days. CIL I2p. 256-279. 153 Pan.Lat. 12(9) 19.6. 15iLTUR IV: 333-334; Quinn Schofield 1969. 155 C/L VI 1163 = 31249. 156 Jul. Ep. 48.443B. See Sorek2010: 107-114; Dagron 2011: 90-92. See also Chapter 5, paragraph 2.1. 157 Tert. Speet. 8.1. See Fowden 1994: 91-94 and 129; Sorek 2010: 101-106. 158 See Chapter 5, paragraph 2.1. 135 probable during Constantinian rule. 159 Another structure was refurbished in the monumental Colosseum-valley, in which the Arch and Colossus had been visibly connected to the emperor. The Flavian Meta Sudans, flanking the amphitheatre, underwent several repairs. The fountain was refaced and its diameter enlarged through the construction of a low wall. 160 It is furthermore suggested that the Amphitheatrum Castrense, the arena incorporated in the

Sessorium, was in use in Constantinian times as an arena for an exclusive audience. 161 Another kind of recreational building enjoyed further patronage under Constantine. Besides the completion of the baths on the Quirinal, an apse was added to the large caldarium of the baths of Caracalla, which was probably a repair work. 162 Between 312 and 324, the republican aqueduct, the Aqua Virgo, was restored by the curator aquarum et Miniciae

Centullius Valerianus. 163 These interventions highlighted Constantine’s theme of restitutor Urbis. Aside from during Constantine’s visits to the City, when he was able to act as direct patron, these embellishing and utilitarian measures were executed by his urban prefects. 164 Inscriptions from Anicius Amnius Paulinus, for example, announce (repair) works on a monument during his tenure between April 334 and December 335, although the details of the nature and locations are no longer disclosed. 165 A dedication to the donor of the equus Constantii further affïrms his repair and adomment of the insulae of the collegium of tanners. 166 Caius Ceionius Rufius Volusianus may have been hailed for similar interventions, although the dedications to this urban prefect no longer bear the name of their awarder. 167 Although the fïnance of imperial architectural interventions was organised through the state treasury, the patronage by the urban prefect was also part of senatorial euergetism and an act of self-promotion. 168 Epigraphical examples show prefects claiming an intervention through their own personal title instead of the office, representing themselves as builders when actually restoring, and others who omit the name of the emperor (as was commanded) and only mention their own. 169 The urge to underline their contribution as patron extended the acts of urban prefects. For their commitments to the cura Urbis, they had numerous officials at their command. The foremost concern of the quaestores and praetores was the provision of

PanLat. 12 (9) 19.6; CTh. 9.18.1, 9.40.2, 15.12.1 and 16.10.1-2. See LTUR I: 31. 160 LTUR III: 247-249; Zeggio 1996; Marlowe 2004b. 161 Bomgardner 2000: 200. 162 For baths of Constantine, see paragraph 3.1 of this chapter; for baths of Caracalla, see CIL XV 1542. See DeLaine 1997: 37-38. 163 CIL V I31564. See LTUR I: 72. 164 For the urban prefecture, see Chapter 6, sections 1.1 and 2.1. 165 CIL VI 1652 and 37020 = 40775. 166 CIL VI 1682. 167 CIL VI 1707 and 41319. 168 Treasury: CTh. 15.1.27 (390). 169 Individual rather than the office: CIL VI 1712 and 31402-31404; builder instead of restorer: Amm.Marc. 27.3.7; omission of emperor’s name: CTh. 15.1.31; CIL VI 102. 136 spectacles and public works. 170 The Notitia Dignitatum also mentions a curator operum maximorum, a curator operum publicorum and a curator statuarum}ix The existence of the latter function, charged with the care for the statuary, has been attested from Constantine’s reign onwards. Other aristocrats tumed to self-display through the private financing of monuments, as did Junius Bassus. During his consulate year in 331, he sponsored the building of a basilica on the Esquiline. 172 With initiatives such as these, patrons like Bassus not only underlined their capacity as an official of state, but also stressed their own glory and generosity as a private donor.

4.3.3 Urbs Sacra Patronage of the Ancient Cults Constantine’s polemic policy directed to the ancient Urbs sacra is best described as a pax deorum, a policy in which he balanced the status of the traditional cults with his own personal Christian affiliation and ambitions. Shortly after his victory over Maxentius, Constantine developed a policy for his non-Christian subjects. 173 He propagated an attitude of tolerance and respect for the old cults in the East and West of the Empire, but especially in Rome. 174 The officially sanctioned pantheon continued to receive its reverence on behalf of the state by priests175 and the emperor as pontifex maximus.116 The temples for these gods were kept and maintained, and public ceremonies were continued. 17 7 Pagan aristocrats continued to be appointed to the high offices. 178 After his victory over Licinius, Constantine further shaped the framework in which pagans were allowed to practice the traditional cults. 179 When his orientation tumed eastwards, he gradually reduced his respect for the protocol of the pagan religion, with exception of the Urbs sacra. 180 Out of religious, aesthetical or financial considerations, he

170 The former office was still fïlled by the emperor’s choice until the reign of Constantine; the latter until 359 at the latest. CTh. 6.4.14-15 (359). See Chastagnol 1960: 38, 74-75 and 278-281; Giglio 2007. 171 Not.Dign.Occ. IV. Holders of these offices canbe identified only to a certain extent: PLRE I 1058-1059. 172 CIL VI 1737. See PLRE 154-155 s.v. Iunius Bassus 14. 173 Sheperd Jr. 1967: 68-69; Curran 1996: 68; id. 2000: 169-181; Clauss 2006. 174 Lact. Mort.Pers. 48.2-12. 175 Kuhoff 1983: tables 2-6; Novak 1979. 176 See, among others: CIL V 8004, 8011 and 8041; V I40776. See Cameron 2011: 51-56. 177 Eusebius, a problematic source in this respect, mentions Constantine’s personal condemnation of elements of these processions, such as blood sacrifices. He remained conservative with regard to the public execution of the magicae artes for positive aims. Gradually, he imposed restrictions to the practice of the cult in the private domain. Eus. VC 1.48. See also CTh. 9.16.1-3 and 16.10.1; CIL VI 508 (319). Curran 2000: 169-181. Cf. Carandini and Bruno 2008, who claim the Lupercal was integrated under Constantine in the S. Anastasia on the Palatine to remove the pagan connotations of the site. 178 See Chapter 6, paragraph 1. 179 Eus. FC2.44-45. 180 AlfÖldi 1947: 15. 137 gave orders to transport religious artefacts from temples for the decoration of Constantinople, but the ancient temples and sacred locations in Rome seem to have been spared. 181 Patronage for the Christian Church Constantine presented himself as a Christian-minded emperor in Rome. From the early 31 Os, he had endeavoured to return land and properties to the Christian communities in his realms.

He extended privileges to the church community and intervened in church matters. 182 His policy was furthermore directed towards strengthening the judicial and material position of the Christian community by endowing land, buildings and gifts. The sponsorship of Christian building projects in Rome during the emperor’s reign was considerable. These cult buildings were by no means the first in the city, but the extensive building programme under Constantine would materialise the Christian presence in

Rome and colour the city’s religious landscape. 183 The Constantinian foundations, all aligned to an East/West axis, impelled the architectonical framework for Christian worship in the city. 184 Ideologically and architectonically related to the profane basilicas by their public nature and imperial patronage, the Constantinian basilicas served as gathering halls for

Christian liturgy. 185 Based on references in literary accounts (most notably the Liber Pontificalis), archaeological data and building inscriptions, several attestations and assumptions for imperial church-building projects in Rome can be made for the period of Constantinian rule. 186 Three initiatives of church-building under Constantine’s rule in Rome best demonstrate the architectural dialogue between his representation as liberator Urbis and Christian patron. The first foundation in the emperor’s programme was the Basilica

Constantiniana, located just inside the walls in the Lateran area. 187 This district in the south- east of the city was not situated in the city centre, nor does it seem to have been one of the quarters where Christians concentrated. 188 The basilica was built on the former camp of Maxentius’ equites.m The destruction of their barracks in the direct aftermath of the battle at the Milvian Bridge vacated a vast space to build an impressive house of worship which would come to serve as the location for papal masses in Rome and accommodate a large community of Christians. 181 Eus. VC 3.54; Lib. Or. 30.6; Zos. 2.31.1-3; Pall. Anth.Pal. 9.528. See Bassett 2004: 152-154; Wilkinson 2009: 54-55. See also Chapter 5, paragraph 1.2 and 1.4. 182 Drake 2000: 192-231; Girardet 2006b; Stephenson 2010: 256-278; Barnes 2011: 131-143. 183 Diefenbach 2007: 81-214; De Blaauw 2012: 151-153. On the Christianisation of Rome, see Curran 2000. On the Christianisation of the late-antique city, see Brands 2003. 184 On the positioning of the structures, see De Blaauw 2006. For the early Christian communities before the fourth century, see De Blaauw 2012: 142-151. 185 CTh. 1.27.1 and 4.7.1. See Sheperd 1967: 70; Krautheimer 1967: 130; Armstrong 1967: 6; Liverani 2003; Brandenburg 2005: 28-36. 186 Lib.Pont. 34.9-27 and 35.1-4. See Curran 2000: 90-114; Armstrong 1967: 4-5; Holloway 2004: 57-119; Thacker 2007: 23-30. Brandenburg 2005: 16-108. 187 Lib.Pont 34.9 and 37.6. 188 Lampe 2003: 19-66. 189 See Chapter 2, paragraph 1.1, and paragraph 3 of this chapter. 138 A terminus ante quem of 324 for the basilica’s foundation and construction might be conjectured from a passage in the Liber Pontificalis, the well-known papal chronicle containing quotations from authentic archival documents. The donations of land listed there were all located in the West and may indicate that the eastem part of the Empire was not yet in Constantine’s possession. 190 The church was a fïve-aisled hall of generous dimensions, with four colonnades consisting of precious marbles. 19 1 Constantine supposedly donated a pedimented colonnade with statues in front of the presbytery, the fastigium, which was supported by reused bronze columns and Hadrianic capitals. Brandenburg argues that it was executed by an imperial workshop, which must have had the technique, dimensions, material and the personnel available for such an undertaking. 192 The papal chronicle further lists an impressive group of endowments by the emperor to the church. During the pontificate of Silvester, a separate baptistery was built near the Basilica Constantinia, which facilitated the rite of baptism for the Christian community and connected this sacrament strongly with the bishop of Rome. 193 Like the church nearby, the centralised building was lavishly decorated with imperial gifts. 194 The imperial land ad duas lauros on the Via Labicana was also appropriated to communicate Constantine’s care for the Christian community and his victory over Maxentius. The founding of a cemeterial basilica and mausoleum near the catacombs of Santi Marcellino e Pietro on the site did not only contribute to the development of Christian topography in

Rome, but the siting of the church carried ideological significance. 195 As the basilica was constructed on top of the razed cemetery of the equites, the memory of Maxentius was erased.

In the monument, steles of equites singulares were reused as building material. 196 Conceived in one design with the basilica, a circular mausoleum was erected adjacent to the church, which came to serve as the resting-place of Constantine’s mother Helena. The tomb was possibly once intended to house the remains of Constantine himself, as the imagery of the gigantic red porphyry sarcophagus inside depicted warrior scenes more fitting for the emperor than his mother. 197 For proponents of this idea, Helena’s sudden death may have been the reason why the sarcophagus was appropriated for her and was not shipped to

Constantine’s mausoleum in Constantinople, which was still under construction. 198 Johnson

190 Lib.Pont. 34.12. 191 Lib.Ponl. 34.9. See Brandenburg 2005: 26; Diefenbach 2007: 103-104; Logan 2011: 33-35; Liverani 2012. 192 Brandenburg 2005: 29. 193 The assignation of the island Cephalonia to the baptistery, as recorded in the Liber Pontificalis (Lib.Pont. 34.15), was only possible after the first reconciliation between Constantine and Licinius, providing a terminus post quem of 317. See Brandenburg 2005: 37-54. 194 Lib.Pont. 34.13-15. 195 On cemeterial basilicas in Rome, see Diefenbach 2007: 155-165. 196 Lib.Pont. 34.25. See Speidel 1994: 2, 12-163, 293-294; Heres 1982: 309-311; Guyon 1987: 19, 30-33 and 362-367; Guyon, Strüber and Manacorda 1981; Brandenburg 2005: 55-60; Diefenbach 2007: 105-106; Logan 2011:35-37. 197 Lib.Pont. 34.25. See Franchi De’ Cavalieri 1916: 245-246; Guyon 1987: 256-258; Brandenburg 2005: 56-60; Johnson 2009: 117-118. 198 See Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3 for the death of Helena. 139 has suggested that the sarcophagus might initially be Maxentian and was confiscated from the mausoleum of Maxentius on the Via Appia.199 Although the presence of a sarcophagus in the Maxentian memorial complex and an appropriation by Constantine as another architectural triumph over Maxentius are both plausible, Johnson’s suggestion cannot be confïrmed by hard evidence. According to the Liber Pontificalis, Constantine further ordered the construction of a basilica to the martyr Saint Agnes at the request of his daughter Constantina.200 Although the land (formerly serving as cemetery of the praetorian guard) had indeed become imperial property during Constantine’s programme of damnatio memoriae, the initiative for the construction of the ambulatory basilica and the adjacent mausoleum was more likely Constantina’s.201 * Besides the erection of churches on locations charged with Maxentian connotations, Constantine has been - sometimes debatably - associated with the construction of several other church buildings in and just outside the city. Hardly doubtful, however, is the attribution by the compilers of the Liber Pontificalis to Constantine as the founder of the basilica at the Vatican dedicated to Peter, the prince of the apostles. 202 The construction of St. Peter’s was one of the major building projects in late-antique Rome. For this, the Via Comelia had to be closed off and the pagan burial site there (still in use at the time) had to be eliminated. The date of the construction of the basilica is hard to determine with precision. Based on numismatic findings, the levelling of the hill may have been undertaken in the 320s and would have been a time-consuming project. Bowersock attributes the building to the rule of Constans, but inscriptions dedicated to Constantine and the Augusta Helena date activities surrounding the apse in the basilica to the later years of Constantine’s reign.203 It is dubious, however, whether the enormous shrine for the veneration of Peter was completed under Constantine’s rule.204 Several extant brickstamps from Constans’ time and the dedication honouring the generosity of the sons of Constantine - which grounded Bowersock’s thesis for a later date - imply interventions after Constantine’s death. The reference in the Liber Pontificalis to Liberius, bishop from 354 until 366, and his possession of the church, seems to indicate that the basilica was in active use at least during the rule of Constantius.205

199 Johnson 2009: 118. 200 Lib.Pont. 34.23; Amm.Marc. 21.1.5; Prud. Steph. 14. See Heres 1982: 110, 192-194 and 305-311; Rasch e.a. 2007; CBCRI: 14-38. See also paragraph 3.1 of this chapter. 201 Lib.Pont. 34.23; ILCV1768. See Stem 1958: 163; Brandenburg 2005: 69-86; Logan 2011: 43-44. 202 Lib.Pont. 34.19-20. See CBCR V: 165-279; Toynbee 1953: 6-12; Heres 1982: 319-322; Arbeiter 1988: 75-122; Brandenburg 2005: 91-102; Diefenbach: 109-110; Logan 2011: 44-48. 203 ICUR I 4095. See Bowersock 2002; id. 2005. Cf. Johnson 2006: 287; Brandenburg 2005: 94; Bauer 2012: 155. 204 Socrates {HE 4.23), for example, mentions that the shrine of Peter and Paul on the Via Appia was still in use around 339. See Bames 2011: 88-89. 205 Lib.Pont. 37.6. For an attribution to Constantius, see Krautheimer 1987: 318. 140 Constantine has further been connected to the veneration of the second apostle in Rome. He is said to have built a memorial church over the tomb assigned to the apostle Paul on the Via Ostiense, which was presented with a number of endowments.206 Prudentius speaks of this predecessor of the then newly built five-aisled basilica of St. Paul’s as a small and sober church, and the scarce fïndings seem to support this claim.207 Apart from these separate cult sites for Peter and Paul, a memoria of both apostles was located on the Via Appia, undemeath a church built in the first half of the fourth century.208 The initial phase of the later San Sebastiano has been connected to either Maxentius, Constantine or his sons Constans or Constantius.209 The scholarly consensus for an early fourth-century date was based on the omission of the complex in the Liber Pontificalis, and its masonry comparable to the villa-complex of Maxentius. The most recent analysis by Logan, offered on the basis of numismatic, epigraphical and architectural evidence, as well as the dating of tombs at the site, proposes the initiative as Constantine’s at the end of his reign.210 The activities by Constantine to the ‘ecclesia Hierusalem’, as attested in the Liber Pontificalis, were also part of Constantine’s programme. The memorial church, built in a hall within the Sessorian palace, was dedicated to the Holy Cross and was endowed with cross relics. The later S. Croce may well have been executed partly on the wishes of Constantine’s mother Helena, who resided on the imperial estate in the south-eastem part of the city 211 Together with the nearby Basilica Constantiana, the church was the only Christian imperial project during Constantine’s rule which was realised within the city walls. Furthermore, within the typology of cult buildings during the Constantinian dynasty, it was unique for its setting in a palatial complex.212 The first construction phase of San Lorenzo fuori le mura, initiated between 314 and 335, has also been ascribed to the emperor. The cemeterial basilica was built on top of the catacombs of the Campo Verano, where the martyred deacon Laurentius had been laid to rest in the late 250s.213 Furthermore, the San Clemente, the San Ermete and an anonymous basilica on the via Praenestina have been connected to the rule of Constantine, based on archaeological (though not indisputable) evidence.214

206 Lib.Pont. 34.21. See CBCR V: 93-164; Brandenburg 2005: 103; Diefenbach 2007: 110; Logan 2011: 48- 49. Cf. De Blaauw 2012: 149. 207 Prud. Lib.Perist. 12.47-49. 208 CBCR IV: 99-147; Chadwick 1957; Brandenburg 2005: 63-69; Nieddu 2009; Logan 2011: 40-41. 205 Maxentius: CBCR IV: 145; Jastrzebowska 2002: 1146-1148; Constantine: Styger 1935: 26-27; Constans: Ferrua 1961: 230; Constantius: Denis Boulet 1967. For a recent overview, see Diefenbach 2007: 97-101. 210 A monogram might refer to Constans’ completion of the site. Codex Parisinus 8071. See Styger 1935: 27; Logan 2007; id. 2011: 40-41; CBCR IV: 99-147. 211 This phase dates from between 326 to 330. See, among others: CIL VI 1134-1136, possibly 36950 and XV 1648 and 1654a; Lib.Pont. 34.22. See CBCR I: 165-195; Heres 1982: 262-265; Brandenburg 2005: 103-108. 212 Diefenbach 2007: 97; De Blaauw 2012: 152. 213 CBCR II: 1-140; Krautheimer 1934; Lugli 1938: 459; Bovini 1968: 210; Brandenburg 2005: 87-8; Diefenbach 2007: 104-105 and 108-109; Logan 2011: 37-38. 214 San Clemente: Heres 1982: 245-254; CBCR I: 196-209; via Praenestina: Diefenbach 2007: 101-103. 141 The endowments by Constantine to “his” churches in Rome (according to the Liber Pontificalis) reveal his care for the different categories of church buildings. The churches on the sites of former strongholds of Maxentius, underlining Constantine’s triumph, were awarded land, collegia and decorations in the aftermath of his victory over Maxentius. The wealth and land from the former territories of the tyrannus were abundantly invested into the Basilica Constantinia and the Ss. Marcellino e Pietro-complex. The cult sites of the apostles, which transformed and dominated the religious identity of the City in the later years of Constantine’s reign, received rich donations in gold, silver and land after 324.215 * The scale of Constantinian ecclesiastical undertakings implied strong economical and technical input, for which the emperor was the commissioner and one of the prominent sponsors.216 Even more, he was the only person who was allowed to order the destruction of active sepulchral areas for the execution of these initiatives, as was the case for the cemetery of the equites on the Via Labicana and the site of St. Peter’s.217 Constantine’s patronage for the Christian church was encouraged by the bishop of Rome, who was probably committed to supervise the imperially commissioned projects, seeing to their completion and maintenance.218 The involvement of bishops by imperial order has been described by Eusebius.219 Passages from the papal chronicle, celebrating the authority and accomplishments of the bishops, reflect their contribution to imperial church munificence as well their presence and activities on imperial church estates.220 The Lateran, the fïrst Christian project under Constantinian patronage in Rome, swiftly became of great significance for the bishops as the centre of liturgical performance and church administration.221 St. Paul’s is said to have been built by Constantine at Silvester’s bidding.222 Silvester’s successor Mark, bishop in 336, petitioned the emperor to embellish his basilica on the Via Ardeatina on the outskirts of Rome.223 The Liber Pontificalis mentions further initiatives from the bishops Silvester and Mark. It is said that Silvester endowed a titular foundation during his pontifïcate ‘next to the baths of 215 Guyon 1987: 248-250 calculates the relative ratio of revenue given to the churches according to the Liber Pontificalis as follows: Lateran basilica (35.5%), Lateran baptistery (15.2%), St. Paul’s (14.1%), Santi Marcellino e Pietro (13.1%), St. Peter’s (12.9%), Santa Croce (3.8%), San Lorenzo (3%) and Sant’Agnese (2.4%); ratio of gold: Lateran basilica (50.4%), St. Peter’s (13.1%) St. Paul’s (13.1%), Santi Marcellino e Pietro (12.6%), Lateran baptistery (4.4%), Sant’Agnese (2.7%), San Lorenzo (2.5%), Santa Croce (1.2%); ratio of silver: Lateran basilica (49.5%), San Lorenzo (11.7%), Santi Marcellino e Pietro (9.1%), St. Peter’s (8%) St. Paul’s (8%), Santa Croce (7.5%), Lateran baptistery (4.5%), Sant’Agnese (1.7%). 216 Liverani 2003. 217 On the violatio sepulchri, see CTh. 9.17. See Kunderwicz 1971: 142; Diefenbach 2007: 119. 218 Liverani 2003; Diefenbach 2007: 104-105 and 249-251. 219 Eus. VC 3.31. 220 The Liber Pontificalis also mentions the cooperation of officials in the endowment of churches: Lib. Pont. 34.29. 221 De Blaauw 2012: 151. 222 Lib.Pont. 34.21. See also 34.16 and 34.28. 223 Lib.Pont. 35.3. See also Lib.Pont. 34.3 for donations from the emperor for bishopric foundations. 142 Domitian, called those of Trajan’, on the Oppian hill. 2 2 4 This titulus of Equitius, one of

Silvester’s priests who had owned the place, received several gifits and territories. 2 2 5 Such tituli - centres of liturgy and pastoral care in the quarters of the city - were established on ecclesiastical property and administered by the bishop. 2 2 6 In 336, his successor Mark would become the patron of a basilica iuxta Pallacinis, a quarter in the vicinity of the Via Lata, very close to the symbolic ‘pagan’ centre of the city. The titulus had been identifïed as today’s San

Marco. 2 2 7 The bishop further founded a basilica which was established at the cemetery on the

Via Ardeatina on imperial property, which would also come to serve as his place of burial. 2 2 8 Miltiades, Silvester, Mark and finally Julius probably acted as caretakers for the Christian sites in Constantine’s absence, though relieved by members of the imperial family when resident in Rome. The urban prefect, when embodied by a Christian senator, was another agent to encourage and support Christian initiatives. 2 2 9 Ovinius Gallicanus, urban prefect in 316-317, may have been the Gallicanus mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis who presented gifts to the basilica dedicated to Peter, Paul and John in Ostia. 2 3 0 Tenures by pagan urban prefects, however, were in the majority. We may expect that these prefects oversaw the execution of imperial building policy more passively when regarding Christian projects. 2 3 1 * It was the imperial initiatives, together with contributions by the Roman bishops, which marked and expanded Christian presence in Rome and its direct surroundings. The siting of Christian monuments outside the city centre was in part related to the function and identity of the former locations. 2 3 2 The martyrdom sites of Peter and Paul were monumentalised with memorial churches dedicated to the apostles and several burial areas were marked by cemeterial basilicas. The destruction of the former strongholds of Maxentius demonstrated Constantine’s supremacy at the expense of Maxentius’ legacy. It simultaneously provided suitable building lots for the expansion the Christian urban fabric, ever more pressing as the city centre itself was overcrowded with public and private construction. Constantine’s conservatism as a patron may have been another factor in the construction of churches mainly on the outskirts of the city, this way keeping the symbolic ‘pagan’ centre intact. 2 3 3 The other principal fïgure in the City’s Christianisation, the bishop of Rome, did turn to the city centre

224Lib.Pont. 34.33: ... iuxta thermas Domitianas qui cognominantur Traianas... See also Lib.Pont. 34.3. For tituli, see Diefenbach 2007: 332-333. 225 Brandenburg 2005: 111. 226 Hillner 2007; Bowes 2008: 68. 227 Lib.Pont. 35.3. See CBCR II: 216-247; Brandenburg 2005: 111-112. 228 Lib.Pont. 35.3. See Brandenburg 2005: 86-87; Diefenbach 2007: 106. 229 For the dedication of the rebuilt St. Paul’s by the urban prefect Flavius Philippus in 383-384, see AE 1959: 64 = 2000: 187 = 2003: 202. 230 Lib.Pont. 34.29. 231 Cf. the order from Constantine to the bishop Macarius of Jerusalem to erect the church complex of the Holy Sepulchre and the administrative instructions directed to the praetorian prefect Dracilianus to assist the bishop (Eus. VC 3.31-32). See Liverani 2006. See Chapter 6, section 1.1. 232 For the relation centre-periphery, see Diefenbach 2007: 84-85. See also Kalas 2000:24-26; Curran 2000: 322. 233 Diefenbach 2007: 112-114. 143 as a location for church building. In the following decades, this focus inward would be prolonged by other leaders of the city-Roman Christian community who appropriated sites within the city to transform Rome’s religious landscape.

4.4 Constans After a period of intensive restoration and building activity under Tetrarchic, Maxentian and Constantinian power, Rome would enter a period of monumental stagnation in the 330s. The various profane and sacred projects that were not completed under Constantine continued under the required prefect’s supervision or the charge of the bishop in the absence of the new emperor Constans. However, until the visit of Constantius to Rome in 357, there were no significant imperial building projects in the city, except for a Christian foundation outside the walls. The building intensity in the first decades of the fourth century leads one to doubt the necessity and opportunity of large projects in the following years. Fires in 283 and 307 had damaged large areas of the city, leaving scope for new interventions and repairs under the Tetrarchs and Maxentius. The earthquake in 346 in Central-South Italy, feit in Rome and its surroundings as well, was less destructive, and offered no ground for new architectonical impulses. 2 3 4 The limited patronage in Rome under Constans may have followed from an actual lack of interest in the capital by the emperor, or a lack of passion for architecture. 2 3 5 Particularly illustrative is the history of the obelisk that was erected by Constantius in the Circus Maximus. In both the official version (recorded on the inscription of the monolith) and the story by Ammianus, the transport of the column - to either Rome or Constantinople - was brought to a halt after Constantine’s death and was resumed only on Constantius’ initiative to Rome, by which he followed or altered his father’s intentions. 2 3 6 No successful efforts on Constans’ part seem to have been made in the late 330s or 340s to ship the monument from his brother’s realm to Rome. The dedication on the obelisk reveals that Constantius had sent the monolith to Italy before or during the usurpation of Magnentius. Other than his brother Constantius, who was praised for his passion for architecture, the sources remain fairly silent on Constans’ attitude towards building, and his building policy in the provinces is hard to chart. 2 3 7 During his lengthy stays in Naissus, Milan, Sirmium and Trier, he probably allocated public funds for the construction and development of these cities, as imperial presence and the installation of his court demanded suitable structures for administration and status. With regard to Rome, the diminishing concern for the Urbs around the time of the City’s anniversary in 348 was denounced by Aurelius Victor. 2 3 8 According to Zosimus, Fabius Titianus, when serving a

Hier. Chron. s.a. 345 (318f). Galadini and Galli 2004: 886. 235 LaBranche 1968: 10. Lack of passion: Henck2001: 280. 236 Amm.Marc. 17.4.12-16; CIL VI 1163 = 31249. 237 Henck 2001: 280. For an (incomplete) overview of fourth-century imperial building in the provinces, see MacMullen 1959. 238 Aur.Vict. Caes. 28.2. 144 second tenure as urban prefect under Magnentius, condemned Constans and his family for their negligence which destroyed the cities. 2 3 9 4.4.1 Indirect Patronage - Emperor and Urban Prefects With Constans’ complete “Hauptstadtfeme”, the responsibility and care for the urban environment of Rome was left to a greater extent with the urban prefects. 2 4 0 As the high concentration of old buildings demanded maintenance, campaigns for public Utilities and small restoration projects were mainly undertaken. Several laws were issued to protect monuments in Rome against dilapidation or destruction on euergetic, aesthetic and cultural grounds. 2 4 1 There is hardly any evidence for interventions in the late 330s and 340s on the Forum Romanum, the Via Sacra or the imperial fora, the core locations of architectonical activity during Tetrarchic, Maxentian and Constantinian reign. However, these spaces in the city centre, the locus of Rome’s administration, maintained their original functions or remained intact until early medieval times. 2 4 2 The fïnding of a single brickstamp from the 340s in the Basilica Aemilia offers a terminus post quem for building interventions at this site on the Forum. 24jAlong the Via Sacra between the Basilica Aemilia and the so-called Temple of Romulus, several statues were restored by Fabius Titianus, urban prefect from 339 to 341, meaning either a repair of a standing base, or a movement of a statue to or inside the Forum. Judging from their formulaic CU RA VIT on the inscription, this row of statues underwent mere repair measurements during his tenure. 2 4 4 In the case of an imperial initiative and directive to the urban prefect, these measures only underlined the absence of the emperor, as the urban prefect had to act as deputised patron. L. Turcius Apronianus, the prefect who served a tenure of three months in 339, has been dubiously connected with activity around the Forum Aproniani, of which the location is uncertain. 2 4 5 A statue base, found near the Santa Maria della Pace, was relocated by a Turcius Apronianus. The dedication might refer to the urban prefect of 339 but also to his son, who was urban prefect in the early 360s.246 A dedication to Constans by the urban prefect Aurelius Celsinus, who served his tenure between 25 February 341 and 1 April 342, in the Circus Maximus makes constructional activity at that site likely. 2 4 7 The responsibility of city-Roman officials to

239 Zos. 2.49.1. 240 Bauer 2001. 241 CTh. 6.4.4 (339; 354), 9.17.1 (340), 9.17.2 (349) and 16.10.3 (342; 346). Kunderwicz 1971; Behrwald 2009: 99-127. The Flavial praetorship was connected to the finance and organisation of the games. CTh. 6.4.5-6. See also 6.4.7 and 6.4.13; Amm.Marc. 27.3.6. 242 Augenti 2000. 243 CIL VI 1563. LTUR I: 167-168. Steinby 1986: 113 and 140. 244 CIL VI 1653a-c, 31879-31880 and 37107-37108. Possibly also CIL VI 31881 (339-341 or 350-351). 245 CTh. 13.5.29. See LTUR II: 287. 246 CIL VI 1655a-b. See PLREI 88-89 s.v. L. Turcius Apronianus signo Asterius 10. 247 CIL VI40782A. See Cancio Rossetto 1982. 145 provide for games had increased with the absence of the imperial court. In 342, the duty of the urban prefect to preserve temple complexes outside the city as locations for games was laid down by law, ‘since from them is provided the regular performance of long established amusements for the Roman people’ . 2 4 8 Constans’ name on the inscription by Aurelius Celsinus in the Circus Maximus would be erased during the years of usurpation by

Magnentius. 2 4 9 After the dedication was reversed by the same Magnentius, it was later restored again under Constantius. During the tenure of urban prefect Q. Rusticus (344-345), the baths of Agrippa, which were vetustate labefactae, were restored in the name of Constans and his brother

Constantius. 2 5 0 A firmly dated brickstamp and an inscription on an architrave from the time of their reign found in the bath complex of Caracalla imply activity in that area. 2 5 1 At various locations in these baths, typical Constantinian brickwork has been discovered. 2 5 2 A similar argument can be made for the baths of Decius on the Aventine, where an inscription was found referring to a period of joint rule. 2 5 3 It had been suggested that this pair was Constans and Constantius, but also Diocletian and Maximian, or Theodosius and Honorius. All pairs showed interest and care for imperial bath complexes in Rome, essential Utilities in a metropolis. 2 5 4 Lanciani prefers the Constantinian period, suggesting that the repair works in the 340s triggered the erection of a series of statues by urban prefects in the area from the

350s onwards. 2 5 5 An argument for the reign of Constans and his brother is the inscription from the thermae Agrippae with similar wording. 2 5 6 Other baths, on the Caelius, might have been erected or restored in the late 330s or 340s. 2 5 7 The embellishment and possible completion of the baths of Constantine, supported by the urban prefect, is not unlikely either. 2 5 8 This complex has been connected to a portico dating from the Constantinian period.

Together, they may have formed part of a Palatium Constantini or Palatium Constantii. 2 5 9 This portico, which is mentioned in the Notitia Urbis Romae regionum XIV, has also been located erroneously near the church of the Holy Apostles, north of Trajan’s Forum, where it would have served as the church’s monumental entrance. Not only does this not fit the orientation of this church, but the remains around it also predate the Constantinian period. 2 6 0 Ulpius Limenius, urban prefect from 347 until 349, had undertaken restoration activity of an

248 CTh. 16.10.3. 249 CIL VI40782A. See also CTh. 16.10.5. 250 CIL V I1165. See LTUR V: 40-42. 251 CIL XV 1542.3; NSc. 1939: 211. See LTUR V: 42-48; Steinby 1986: 113-114. 252 DeLaine 1997: 37-38. 253 La Follette 1994: 83 (appendix I, no.6). 254 Diocletian and Maximian: CIL V I646 and 11736; Theodosius and Honorius: CIL VI 1703. 255 See, among others: CIL VI 1159-1160, 1167, 1172, 1192, 1659 and 1672. 256 Lanciani 1897: 542. 257 CIL VI31394 = 40789 reads ‘nstant’, possibly a reference to a member of the Constantinian family. 258 LTUR V: 49-51. 259 LTUR IV: 42-43. See also paragraph 3.1 of this chapter. 260 Castagnoli 1949. 146 unclear nature, judging from an inscription found near the Capitoline Hill. 2 6 1 Conceivably, maintenance or repair works on aqueducts had been executed in this period, as well as the construction of a new branch line of an Aqua or a new distribution castellum to guarantee water supply to the new baths. The Aqua Appia, Aqua Claudia, Aqua Marcia, Aqua Pinciana, Aqua Traiana and Aqua Virgo were all in function well into the fïfth century, providing water for the bath complexes in Rome. 2 6 2 Constans probably also contributed to the fostering of statuary for prefects and other officials who derived their social status from their recognition and appointment by the emperor. The venue for these tributes had for a long time been the Forum Traiani. 2 6 3 Twenty dedications found on the site cannot be determined further than belonging to the fourth or fifth century, but a titulus for a certain Rusticus might refer to the urban prefect of 344-345,

Quintus Rusticus. The dedicator is unknown, but is very likely Constans. 2 6 4 The tabula could, however, also have been dedicated to the urban prefect of 387-388, Sextius Rusticus Julianus. A statua sub auro was erected for Flavius Eugenius by Constans for his services as senator and influential adviser, which would later be brought down under Magnentius. 2 6 5 Even when not the awarder of the statuary, Constans was involved in the provisioning of statues in the city, as imperial permission was required for statuary display and limelight ever since Augustus. 2 6 6 For the honouring of aristocrats as dignitaries and patrons of the City by non-imperial members, the domus had become a common setting. 2 6 7 Constans had received a statue from the praefectus vigilum Rupilius Pisonianus during his years as Caesar,268 This honour was continued after 337. Besides the already mentioned statue of Constans in the area of the Circus Maximus awarded by Aurelius Celsinus, a titulus for Constans has been discovered near the baths of Titus. 2 6 9 The base was erected by a further unknown comes primi ordinis et pronconsul provinciae. The name of Constans was erased during Magnentius’ rule and the statue was rededicated in the usurper’s name. On a dedication byAurelius Avianius Symmachus, the emperor was praised as being ‘fixll of public happiness, clemency and virtue’ . 2 7 0 Furthermore, Flavius Gavianus, a further unknown vir

261 CIL VI 31892. 262 Coates-Stephens 2003a. 263 Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 264 Rusticus: CIL VI 41343. Undetermined dedications: CIL VI41345-41347, 41352-41358, 41361, 41363, 41365-41371 and 41373-41374. For tituli from unknown locations: CIL VI 41349-41350, 41359, 41362 and 41374a. 265 C/L VI 1721. 266 Cassius Dio 53.27.3; Plin. Ep. 1.17, 10.8-9. At the end of the fourth century, the imperial authorisation for the erection of specifïc statues would be recorded or reaffirmed: Cl 1.24.1. See also CIL VI 1698 = 1368 = 1369 and 176; VIII 7013. See Feissel 1984: 547-549. 267 CIL VI 1690-1694, 1700, 1704-1705, 1717, 1739-1741,1748, 1751-1752, 1754-1755, 1768-1769, 1772- 1773, 31904, 31961, 32051 and 37112. See Guidobaldi 1999; Hillner 2003; Machado 2012. 268 CIL VI 1157 = 40840. 269 CIL V I40782 and 40783a. 270 CIL V I36954. See Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1, and Chapter 8, paragraph 2. 147 perfectissimus, dedicated a statue in the Lateran area to Constans’ sister Constantina in the 340s.271 4.4.2 Urbs Sacra Patronage of the Ancient Cults Constans followed the policy towards paganism set by Constantine in Rome and Italy. In 341, a law was issued directed to the vicar of Italy and Afïrica, which (in imitation of code from

Constantine) banned sacrifices. 2 7 2 One year later, the prefect of Rome was instructed to guard the temples outside the city walls, which by law were now forbidden grounds for the performance of the ancient cults 2 7 3 These shrines apparently faced pillaging and destruction and were in need of legal protection to maintain their function as ‘long established amusements for the Roman people’ . 2 7 4 These religious structures just outside the City were to be up kept and reused. The consequences and effectiveness of the decree of 341 inside Rome is more elusive. In 349, the ‘divine law’ which protected tombs was reaffïrmed to Ulpius Limenius, the praetorian prefect and prefect of the city of Rome, and possibly follows from the demolition of monuments in the City. 2 7 5 The official cease of public funding for cults and temples and expropriation of temple properties may further be advanced as evidence that the ancient cults and their temples were tolerated. 2 7 6 Though not offïcially patronised, these sanctuaries retained a special status. Patronage for the Christian Church When Constantine died in May 337, church-building was thriving in Rome. After the imperial visit in 326, when the emperor had been able to carry out a final supervision of the Christian building sites he had authorised, the bishops Silvester and Mark may have taken major responsibility for the provision and preservation of places of Christian worship in the city in his absence. After Mark’s death, Julius would guide the diocese throughout Constans’ reign until 353, and see to the expansion of the Christian community. The contribution to the development of Christian architecture by urban prefects in the decades of late Constantinian rule is harder to determine. Although every urban prefect was instructed to execute orders, including proclaimed legislation regarding religious issues, the Christian officials are likely to have defended and served the Christian cause on their own accord. 2 7 7 This way, they may have made a substantial contribution to the Christianisation in the City. However, between

2/1 CIL V I40790. 272 CTh. 16.10.2 (341). See Salzman 1987: 179-180; Curran 2000: 183-186. 273 CTh. 16.10.3 (342). See Salzman 1987: 180— 181; Curran 2000: 186. 274 CTh. 16.10.3 (342): ... populo romano praebeaturpriscarum sollemnitas voluptatum. 275 CTh. 16.10.2 (341): ... legem divi...; CTh. 9.17.2 (349). 276 Cease of public funding: CTh. 16.5.5 (379) and 16.10.10 (391); expropriation: Symm. Rel. 3.11; Ambr. Epist. 17 and 18. 277 CTh. 16.2.13-14 and 16.10.3. 148 337 and 350, the office of the urban prefect was notably filled by pagans. 2 7 8 Several prefects were members of the traditional priesthoods in Rome and seven prefects have been confirmed pagan. 2 7 9 Aconius Catullinus had probably dedicated himself to the protection of temple buildings outside the city, which Constans indeed safeguarded in a law issued to the prefect in 342.280 It is hard to conceive of them sponsoring ecclesiastical life and architecture by donating land or funds or by providing for the administrative needs of the church in the same way that they cared for the maintenance of the ancient cults. Of the other five prefects who served under Constans, only Petronius Probinus has been identified as a possible Christian. 2 8 1 Bishops and clerics, who had become engaged with initiatives of imperial church- building launched from the 31 Os onwards, continued their involvement. Near or at the breach of the reigns of Constantine and Constans, several cemeterial basilicas were constructed. The endowments to churches, set up by Constantine, were very likely continued by Constans, as Athanasius described him as a generous patron of the church, who ‘filled our churches with sacred offerings’ . 2 8 2 The completion of the S. Sebastiano on the Via Appia has been dated to the reign of Constans. partly based on the graves forming the pavement which date far into Constantius’ reign, but these findings only allude to the use of the basilica. Epigraphic and literary evidence might indicate the earliest completion of St. Peter’s after 3 3 9 . 2 8 3 Most likely, Constantine had intended to construct St. Paul’s as part of his programme, but failed to carry out his plans to completion. It is well possible that the small basilica on the Via Ostiense may not have been begun until after Constantine’s death. 2 8 4 The large basilica on the Via Nomentana, near the tomb of Saint Agnes, is a more affirmed initiative from the imperial family post-Constantine. The church was certainly not finished under Constantine’s rule, as is claimed by the Liber Pontificalis, although the work may have started during his reign. 2 8 5 A dedicatory inscription in the apse of the basilica connected the building with Constantina. The inscription mentions Constans’ sister, who resided on imperial estates nearby in the 340s, as the basilica’s founder. 2 8 6 After her death in

278 L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius, Fabius Titianus, Aurelius Celsinus, Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus, Aco Catullinus, Furius Baburius Plaeidus, Ulpius Limenius. See Barnes 1995; Kuhoff 1983: 155-159 and 181-183. 279 L. Aradius Valerius Proculus (CIL VI 1694 and VIII 24521); Fabius Titianus (ILS 8983 Cumae); Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus (CIL X 4752, 1695 and 1696); Furius Plaeidus (CIL X 1700); Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus (CIL VI 1739-1742). For the Christianity of office-holders, see Cameron 2011: 177-178 and 182-183. 280 CTh. 16.10.3. 281 Von Haehling 1978: 370-373; Barnes 1995. 282 Athan. Apol.ad Cons. 7. For church-building under Constans in the West, see Athan. Apol.ad Cons. 15. Henck 2001: 282 and 300; Krautheimer 1983: 77; Kinney 1972: 107; Davis 2010: xxix. 283 See paragraph 3.3 of this chapter. 284 Lib.Pont. 34.21. See CBCR V: 93-164; Curran 2000: 105-109. 285 Lib.Pont. 34.23.108. Heres 1982: 110, 192-193, 305-311; CBCR I: 14-38. 286 Lib.Pont. 34.23, and for Constantina’s inscription, ILCV I 344-5, no. 1768. Curran 2000: 128-129; Holloway 2004: 93-104; Diefenbach 2007: 106-107. 149 Bithynia in 354, her body was transported to Rome and she was laid to rest at the site. 2 8 7 Similar to the mausoleum of their grandmother Helena, which was attached to the basilica on the Via Labicana, the association of the imperial tomb of Constantina, and later Helena, with a cemeterial basilica linked the complex to the Constantinian dynasty for etemity. 2 8 8 The interventions to ecclesiastical building projects in Rome in the 330s and 340s are to be credited to the efforts and resources of the bishops, assisted by clerics and lay patrons. 2 8 9 The bishops’ influence on the urban fabric extended these interventions, as the Catalogus Liberianus states Julian multas fabricas fecit. This part of the manuscript (by the hand of the Chronographer of 354) on the reigns and deeds of the city-Roman bishops attributes five basilicas to him. Two were built inside the city, near the Forum of Trajan and across the Tiber near the titulus of Callixtus. The basilica near the Forum of Trajan has been located on the site of the present church of the Holy Apostles. 2 9 0 It would be the setting of hostilities between

Damasus and Ursinus during the episcopal elections of 3 6 6 . 2 9 1 The basilica iuxta Callistum was located on the site of (or near) the present Santa Maria in Trastevere. 2 9 2 Callixtus was its bishop in the early third century and a famous non-apostolic martyr and patron of a Christian community across the Tiber. 2 9 3 The Catalogue further lists three suburban basilicas: on the Via Flaminia, called the

Valentinian; the Via Portuensis; and one on the Via Aurelia. 2 9 4 In the Liber Pontificalis, these three foundations are listed as cymeteria. On the basis of this sixth-century designation, scholars such as Krautheimer, Fiocchi Nicolai and Wallraff have labelled them as coemeteria subteglata (covered cemeteries with a primarily sepulchral funetion) . 2 9 5 There are several arguments to be made contra this one-sided view. For one, the Catalogus Liberianus lists the foundations as basilicae. 2 9 6 Furthermore, the cemeterial basilica of St. Agnes is mentioned on an inscription as templum, and therefore as a specific location for liturgical celebrations. 2 9 7

287 Stanley 2004; Magnani Cianetti and Pavolini 2004. 288 Amm.Marc. 21.1.5. See Stem 1958: 163. 289 Accounts of a council attended by Athanasius and several other bishops in the early 340s in the episcopium of the presbyter Vitus, most likely on the Esquiline Hill, suggest the existence of another dwelling of special importance for the Christian community in this period (Athan. Hist.Ar. 15; Apol.c.Ar. 20). See Bames 1993a: 47-55; Curran 2000: 123-124; Hillner2007. 290 CBCRI: 79; Curran 2000: 120-122. 291 Collectio Avellana 1. On the conflict, see Lizzi Testa 2004: 137-170. 292 MGHI 76; Lib.Pont. 1117.2 and 36.2. See CBCR III: 67-68; Curran 2000: 124-125. 293 Lib.Pont. I 141. 294 CBCR IV: 289-312; Curran 2000: 125-127 and 137-142. 295 Krautheimer 1970; Fiocchi Nicolai 1995-1996: 92-102; id. 2002; Wallraff 2002: 135; Christie 2006: 128. 296 Cat.Lib. s.v. Iulius. 297 Lehmann 2003. 150 4.5 Constantius In his glorification of Rome, Ammianus Mareellinus recalled Constantius’ awe as the emperor entered Rome and saw its splendour in May 357. 2 9 8 Symmachus also alluded to the emperor’s interest in and admiration for the temples and their builders in Rome during this visit. 2 9 9 Partly based on these testimonies and the reconstruction of building projects under Constantius in his most notable residences - in the East, Antioch and Constantinople and in the West, Milan, Arles, Sirmium and Rome - Constantius has recently been awarded the epithet philoktistes (fond of building) by Henck. 3 0 0 There is indeed evidence for “considerable building activity” in Rome under

Constantius, though mostly in his absence. 3 0 1 Projects launched in the years before his dominion over the West may have continued in the 350s, and, in the public spaces of the city, a damnatio memoriae was executed against Magnentius. 3 0 2 During the latter’s rule, his urban prefect Fabius Titianus dedicated statues to the usurper and erected statuary on the Forum. 3 0 3 Here cease the indications for building activities under Magnentius. Interventions during the short period of rule by Nepotianus can only be conjectured. 4.5.1 Indirect Patronage - Emperor and Urban Prefects In Constantius’ absence, the urban fabric was notably defïned through benefactions of the urban prefect and other city-Roman officials. Their projects were mostly directed towards the maintenance of buildings and sites, one being the imperial palace. In 355, this had served as the venue for the election and consecration of the bishop Felix. 3 0 4 Significant projects of restoration must have been undertaken in anticipation of Constantius’ adventus, primarily geared towards the landmarks that would be visited and used during his stay. The erection of honorific statuary for Constantius by the prefects Vitrasius Orfitus and Flavius Leontius in the baths of Decius might imply works of repair in this area on the Aventine Hill. 3 0 5 Such acts of homage would contrast sharply with dilapidated sites and would lose their value in bad or non functioning baths. Vitrasius Orfitus was further praised by the collegium of contractors of Ostia and Portus for his ‘outstanding and salutary provision in most difficult times and for the

Amm.Marc. 16.10.13-16. 299 Symm. Rel. 3.8. 300 Henck 2001. Antioch: Hier. Chron. s.a. 346 (318g); Jul. Or. 1.40d-41a; Eus. Triac. 9.15; Eus. VC 3.50; Malal. Chron. 13.17 [325]; Soz. HE 35.1-2; Theoph. Chron. A.M. 5819. See also Downey 1961: 342-345. Constantinople: see Chapter 5, paragraph 2; Milan: McLynn 1994: 29; Chierici 1951: 184; Kinney 1987; Sirmium: Duval 1979; Mirkoviae 2004; Arles: Amm.Marc.14.5.1. Février 1978; Heijmans 2006; Rome: see infra. 301 Henck 2001:280. 302 CIL VI 1167. Szidat 2010. 303 Re-erected statues by Fabius Titianus: CIL VI 1654 and 40783b = 41355a. Possibly also CIL VI 31881. Statues for Magnentius: CILW1 1166a = 31882b, 1167, 1220 = 31394a = 33857b and 40791. 304 Athan. Hist.Ar. 75. 305 Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus: CIL VI 1159; Flavius Leontius: CIL VI 1160. 151 restored utility in the city of Rome’ . 3 0 6 The former urban prefect and consul of 358 Naeratius Cerealis furthermore built his balneum Nereatii Cerealis on the Esquiline Hill during his consulate year. 3 0 7 He has also been connected to the restoration of the Ludus Gladiatorium and the Spoliarium, near the Amphiteatrum Flavium. 3 0 8 In the mid-fourth century, an unidentified urban prefect repaired and omamented a large part of the Circus Maximus. 3 0 9 A connection between these interventions and Constantius’ adventus in 357 or placement of the obelisk comes to mind, but the inscription is too fragmented to identify the prefect or the nature of the works. Surviving legislation against the urban prefect and the Roman populace from the 350s further ruled on the protection of tombs in the city. 3 1 0 The condemnation of the use of building material from destructed tombs was posted on the Forum of Trajan. The restoration initiatives in the 350s, however, should not be overestimated. In 364, the emperors Valentinian and Valens forbade new constructions by the urban prefect and ordered him instead to concentrate on restoration and maintenance of ageing public monuments. This law was proclaimed by the emperors after reports of buildings ‘fallen into unsightly ruins’ . 3 1 1 The Forum Romanum remained an area of prefectural activity. Like his father,

Constantius was immortalised as a horseman on the Forum. 3 1 2 The equus Constantii was awarded by Naeratius Cerealis in 352 or 353 for his extinction pestiferae tyrannidis Magnentius. During their tenures as urban prefects, Flavius Leontius and Memmius Vitrasius Orfïtus contributed to the statuary scenery for Constantius in this monumental zone of the city. 3 1 3 The latter also erected a statue for his Caesar Julian between 357 and 359. 3 1 4 Both prefects also put up statues for their Augustus on the Aventine Hill. 3 1 5 Conversely, a dedication to Magnentius, erected by the prefect Fabius Titianus in the early 350s, underwent a damnatio memoriae, 3 1 6 Apart from the representation of members of the Constantinian dynasty in the public domain, the statuary scenery in the fourth century was also embellished with dedications to city-Roman officials and outstanding citizens for extraordinary merit or service. On the Forum of Trajan, Constantius dedicated a statue to Flavius Taurus, the praetorian prefect of

CIL V I1741. 307 CIL VI 1744 a-f and h-1 — 31916 b-f and h-1, 1745 and 1746 = 31918. 308 LaBranche 1968: 10, 184 and 222. 309 CIL VI4138. 310 CTh. 9.17.3 (356) and 9.17.4 (356; 357). 311 CTh. 15.1.11: ea tamen instaurandi, quae iam deformibus ruinis intercidisse dicuntur, universis licentiam damus. See also 14.6.3 (365). 312 CIL VI 1158. See Kalas 2000: 74-75. 313 Flavius Leontius: CIL VI 31397; Memmius Vitrasius Orfïtus: Constantius: CIL VI 1161-1162 = 36887 and 31395. 314 Julian: CIL VI 1168. See also CIL VI 1164 for a dedication to Constantius and Julian together on an unidentified location from an unknown awarder. 315 CIL VI 1159-1160. For another dedication, presumably for Constantius from an unidentified awarder: CIL VI 1166b. 316 CIL V I1167. See CIL VI 1654 and 40783b = 41335a for other dedications by Fabius Titianus from 350- 351. 152 Italy and Africa, which would be taken down under Julian’s rule. 3 1 7 Between 355 and 361, he furthermore ordered the re-erection of the gilded bronze statue to Constans’ late advisor

Flavius Eugenius on the Forum of Trajan, which had been pulled down under Magnentius. 3 1 8 In the same area, the philosopher and rhetor Marius Victorinus was awarded a statue as a joint gift from the Senate and Constantius.3 1 9 Not long after the visit of Constantius to Rome in 357, the praefectus annonae Attius Caecilius Maximilianus was honoured in the vicinity of the imperial fora. 3 2 0 During the imperial stay, he had apparently shown his diligentia and provisio for which he was praised. The statue’s donor is unknown but was very likely Constantius himself. Besides the public fora, the aristocratie domus served as another venue for dedicatory statuary. 3 2 1 The decorative arts produced out of private initiative are believed to have been of better quality than the artistic workmanship under imperial patronage. The bases of statues for the emperors were badly supported compared to those erected out of aristocratie euergetism. 3 2 2 The prefect possibly lacked the resources to compete with the standards of wealthy residents of Rome, as material and workmen had been employed for the development of Constantinople. Several city-Roman office holders and members of priesthoods further continued to contribute to the cult building in the city. Besides some private initiatives, a dedication confirms the restoration of the temple of Apollo Sosianus on the Campus Martius, carried out by Vitrasius Orfitus between 357 and 359, who then served his second tenure as urban prefect. 3 2 3 4.5.2 Adventus Augusti Although Constantius was more absent than resident in the Capital, one project was ordered just before his coming to Rome and had to be executed before his stay. He had commanded the prefect Orfitus to remove the Altar of Victory from the Curia, which disturbed the pagan senators in the assembly. 3 2 4 Another project in the city was launched under his direct patronage. According to Ammianus, Constantius decided during his visit to bestow an obelisk for the Circus Maximus, which validated the importance of the venue. His decision to donate an obelisk to the venerated area of entertainment gave the emperor occasion to present himself as a true patron

317 CIL VI 41336. It would be re-erected under Valentinian and Valens, with the agreement of the Senate. PLRE I 879-880 s.v. Flavius Taurus 3. 318 CIL V I1721. For statuary on the Forum of Trajan, see Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 319 Eus. Chron. 283e. CIL VI 30130 = 31934 = 37113. See PLRE 1964; Pekaiy 1968: 144-148. 320 CiZ, V I41332. 321 Guidobaldi 1999; Hillner 2003; Machado 2012. See Chapter 8, paragraph 2. 322 Merriman 1980: 40; LaBranche 1968: 11-12. 323 Private patronage: CIL VI 498 = 30779b and 749-754; temple of Apollo: CIL VI 45. For pagan dedications, see Machado 2009. 324 Symm. Rel. 3.4-6; Ambr. Ep. i 8.32. See Kalas 2000: 83-89; Thompson 2005. For Constantius’ building policy in the provinces, see Henck 2001. 153 of Rome. It would become the largest monolith in the city. 3 2 5 Ammianus dates the erection to the second prefecture of Orfitus, which ended before March 3 59. 3 2 6 The chronology of this episode in the Res gestae seems to imply that the transferral of the obelisk to Rome occurred in the last year of his tenure. The inscription on the obelisk’s pediment presents another course in the procedure:

INTEREA ROMAM TA[ET]RO VASTANTE TYRANNO / AUGUSTI IACUIT DONUM STUDIUMQUE LOCANDI / NON FASTU SPRETISED QUOD NON CREDERET ULLUS / TANTAE MOLIS OPUS SUPERAS CONSURGERE IN AURAS // NUNC VELUTI RURSUS RUFfISJ AVULSA METALLIS/ EMCUITPULSATQUE POLOS HAEC GLORIA DUDUM/ AUCTORI SERVATA SUO CU[M CJAEDE TYRANNI / REDDITUR ATQUE ADITU RO[MAE VIJRTVTE REPERTO / VICTOR OVANS URBIQ[UE LOCAT SUBLIMJE TROPAEUM/ PRINCIPIS ET MUNUS COND[IGNIS USJQUE TRIUMF1S327 The official version implies that the obelisk had already been shipped from Alexandria to Rome before or during the rebellion of Magnentius. If so, the actual transport and even possibly the erection may have been witnessed by Constantius himself, as the lifting of a large monolith took about thirty days. 3 2 8 For Ammianus, the gift was an act of vanitas, for Constantius tried to surpass

Augustus by endowing Rome with the largest obelisk in the city. 3 2 9 However, his accomplishment might also be interpreted as a sense of duty on his part as he fulfilled the intention of his father. In Ammianus’ version, Constantine wished to donate an obelisk from Thebes to Rome. The inscription on the obelisk reminded its viewers that the monolith was originally intended to be placed in Constantinople, a remembrance that would have underlined Constantius’ devotion to Rome as he changed the destination. Julian, however, states that a second obelisk was intended for the hippodrome of Constantinople by both Constantine and

Constantius, whose objectives were not realised during their reigns. 3 3 0 The gift has also been read as a gesture to either the pagan or the Christian community in the City. The pagan nature of the obelisk has been interpreted as proof of Constantius’ intent to appease the pagan senators who had been affected by the removal of the Altar of

Tert. Speet. 8.1; Amm.Marc.17.4.12. See Fowden 1987: 56; Humphrey 1986: 91-94 and 129. 326 Amm.Marc. 17.4.1. 327 CIL VI 1163 =31249: ‘Meanwhile, when Roma was raped by the vilest of Tyrants/ Long lay the gift in its dock-yard, deserted but never disdained / Nobody dared to believe that this gift of the glorious God could/ Ever be raised among mortals again, and as promised, once more/ Vie with the heaven in purple and gold as it used to/ But, Lo! After the swift and inglorious death of the tyrant/ Soon it retumed to the master to whom it by justice belonged/ Pure and sublime as when first made to rise from its rose-coloured rock- bed/ Proud to point at the pole star; and the victorious hero/ Opened its way unto Rome where he raised it again as a trophy/ Never surpassed, and truly the tribute was worthy his triumph.’ (translation at Iversen 1968: 59.) On the two versions, see Kelly 2009: 225-230. Vitiello 1999. 328 CIL III737. See Traquair and Wace 1909: 63; Wallis Budge 1926: 160-165. 329 Amm.Marc. 17.4.12. 330 Jul. Ep. 48.443B. See Sorek2010: 107-114; Dagron 2011: 90-92. See also Chapter 5, paragraph 2.1. 154 Victory. 3 3 1 In reaction to this view, other scholars have proposed that the obelisk might have carried Christian connotations. 3 3 2 The bestowal of the Egyptian monument was probably foremost an undertaking of political expedience. The scale (‘a huge mass’) - and decoration (capped with ‘a bronze figure of a torch, likewise overlaid with gold foil and glowing like a mass of flame’) must have impressed the city-Roman populace. 3 3 3 Its erection had been an immense exploit and offered a unique sight as the Circus Maximus had become the only hippodrome with two obelisks. By donating this exceptional gift, Constantius expressed his connection to and respect for this venerated emblem of Rome’s past. 4.5.3 Urbs Sacra Patronage of the Ancient Cults Although several imperial pronouncements had banned sacrifice and sanctioned the closure of temples, the ancient cults and their shrines (except for the Altar of Victory), they were by no means banished from Rome’s cityscape in the 350s.334 In July of 357, Constantius himself issued a law to the urban prefect which, according to ‘ancient statutes’, penalised the destruction of tombs in the city. 3 3 5 This decree was posted on the Forum of Trajan to disseminate the prohibition of tomb demolition. An inscription honouring the restoration of the temple of Apollo Sosianus on the Campus Martius by the pagan prefect Vitrasius Orfitus confïrms that religious pagan structures were indeed cared for. 3 3 6 The decree of Constantius on the destruction of tombs was likely inspired by his own visit to Rome two months earlier. While touring Rome’s landmarks, Constantius was purportedly ‘dazzled by the array of marvellous sights’, including the sanctuaries of Tarpeian Jove and the temple of Venus and

Roma. 3 3 7 According to Symmachus, the emperor ‘read the names of the gods inscribed on the pediments, asked about the origins of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders’ . 3 3 8 Still speaking of Constantius, Symmachus continues: Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites.3 3 9 331 Fowden 1987: 54-55. 332 Nicholson 1989: 200. 333 Amm.Marc. 17.4.13: molem; 17.4.15: imitamentum (...) aereum, itidem auro imbracteatum velut abundanti flamma candentis. 334 See paragraph 4.2 of this chapter. CTh. 16.10.4 (346; 354; 356), 16.10.6 (356), 9.16.5 (356), 9.16.4 (357), 9.16.6 (357), 9.17.3 (356) and 9.17.4 (357). For the Altar of Victory, see Chapter 2, paragraph 3.1 and the previous paragraph. 335 CTh. 9.17.4(357). 336 Private patronage: CIL VI 498 = 30779b and 749-754; temple of Apollo: CIL VI 45. For pagan dedications, see Machado 2009. 337 Amm.Marc. 16.10.13-14:... obstupuit perque omne latus quo se oculi contulissent miraculorum densitate praestrictus. 338 Symm. Rel. 3.7: . ..legit inscripta fastigiis deorum nomina, percontatus templorum origines est, miratus est conditores... 339 Symm. Rel. 3.7-8: ... alias religiones ipse sequeretur, has servavit imperio. Suus enim cuique mos, suus cuique ritus est. Varios custodes urbïbus cultus mens divina distribuit. 155 These customs and rites became increasingly restrained and the ancient places of worship were disposed of their religious function. The removal of the Altar in the Curia cleared the Senate’s House of a powerful pagan artifact. As historical locations, the former sites of worship were incorporated into the fabric of Rome as part of its monumental heritage. This way, they retained a special place within the ‘dazzling array of marvellous sights’ in the City. Patronage for the Christian Church There are no clear indications for new Christian projects by order of Constantius. Although authorial prejudice or inaccuracy may have led to various constructions being dubbed Constantinian instead of Constantian, the hard evidence makes it unlikely that the ecclesiastical buildings attributed to Constantine by our major sources belonged to the reign of Constantius. Rather, these sites were maintained or decorated during his rule. A figural mosaic in the apse vault of Saint Peter may be dated to the 350s.340 Mosaics in the mausoleum of Constantina on the Via Nomentana have led scholars to suppose the building, completion

or embellishment of Santa Costanza took place under Constantius. 3 4 1 Although Ammianus does not mention any Christian building in the itinerary of the emperor during his visit in May 357, it is very likely that Constantius visited the shrine of his sister. During the emperor’s absence, the supervision and maintenance of the material property was the responsibility of the bishops Liberius and Felix. In the late 350s, the

privileges granted to the church and their leaders in the city of Rome were reaffirmed. 3 4 2 They also commissioned their own architectural projects for the Christian cause. Liberius purportedly decorated the tomb of the martyr Saint Agnes. He was also claimed to have built a basilica on the Esquiline, supposedly the predecessor of Santa Maria Maggiore. This ‘basilica of his own name’ was no titulus, but served as one of the main churches in the

episcopal liturgical system. 3 4 3 This foundation demonstrates the extent to which the bishop received and took on the process of Christianisation. Liberius’ relations with Constantius had, however, been strained from the start of his episcopacy, which must have hindered Communications between both parties on ecclesiastical and building matters. Their divergence of views would eventually lead to Liberius’ temporary exile for two years. Felix, the active bishop during Constantius’ visit to Rome, erected a basilica on the Via Aurelia, where he would be laid to rest in November 365.344

Krautheimer 1987. 341 CBCR 1 14-39; Kleinbauer 1988; Stanley 1994: 257; Rasch e.a. 2007. 342 CTh. 16.2.13 (356; 357). 343 Lib.Pont. 37.8: Hic fecit basilicam nomini suo iuxta macellum Libiae... 344 Lib.Pont. 38.2-3. 156 4.6 Imperial Patronage in Rome under the Constantinian Dynasty During the six-year reign of Maxentius, Rome had again become an imperial residence. The usurper celebrated the traditional imperial ideal of Roma aetema as a reaction to the Tetrarchic regard towards the City, when mainly areas that had been destroyed in the fire of 283 were renovated. The impressive splendour and scale of the building programme of the conservator Urbis suae had to express his permanence and beneficia in terms of stability and safety, orderly govemment, pietas for the gods and dynastie ceremony. Constantine’s take-over of Rome after his victory over Maxentius in 312 instigated a profound transformation of the city-Roman urban fabric. Constantine’s policy in the Urbs was motivated by his damnatio memoriae-campaign against Maxentius and his imperial ideology focused on the pagan and Christian communities. The monumental centre of the city that was so strongly associated with the tyrannus was erased from memory in a damnatio memoriae- campaign. There, Constantine hardly had space to start new monumental impulses. Around the centre of Maxentius’ building programme, Constantine tried to connect his name to the buildings and area at the cost of Maxentius by refined or extensive changes and expressions of providentia and pietas for gods and previous emperors. The Arcus Constantini, inaugurated by the Senate in 315, came to symbolise the victory of Constantine as liberator Urbis and fundator quietis. With the completion and construction of various beneficia,

Constantine pursued his duty as patron for the City and people of Rome. 3 4 5 Outside the centre, in suburban locations, Constantine wished to overrule the monumental legacy of the defeated tyrant. He destroyed his strongholds and awarded these sites a new, Christian signature and future as churches. These churches were not kept out of the pagan centre out of a traditional pietas, but were well-thought out expressions of anti-propaganda and political pragmatism. The Christian patronage of Constantine was not confined to these charged sites, however. His programme of Christianisation in the City would change the appearance and organisation of Rome’s urban fabric in the following decades. Although several of the projects appropriated or initiated by Constantine were carried on after his death, Rome changed from a “monumentalité dynamique” to a “monumentalité statique” . 3 4 6 Little direct imperial action conceming the architecture of Rome was undertaken by his sons Constans and Constantius (in whose reigns the City was visited by the emperor only once) and their projects did not match the scale of their predecessors. 3 4 7 In the absence of Constans, all interventions in the public sphere - mainly related to the restoration or reconstruction of damaged buildings - were acts of indirect patronage, carried out by the urban prefect in office. Constans refrained from significant benefactions which would have equalled or rivalled the legacy of his predecessors who used the City as stage to express their imperial ideology and construct their legitimacy through architectural patronage. This way,

Marlowe 2006; Lenski 2008. 346 Guidobaldi 1997: 58. 347 Guidobaldi 2006: 146-149. 157 much room became available under Constans for secular and clerical aristocratie patrons to shape the urban fabric. The city-Roman elite, most notably the urban prefect, dominated the public and private spheres, indulging in benefactions as an official or as a private individual, whereas the bishop achieved more control over the Christianisation of Rome’s topography. Where Constans clearly seems to have exercised restraint in enhancing the splendour of the City with large secular or pagan building projects instigated by himself or his urban prefects, he nevertheless attended to the needs and wishes of the Christian community. The urban prefect remained one of the principal actors in maintaining the physical operation of the City under Constantius. Together with other officials in the city, he provided and cared for the baths and games. His resources were largely directed to the upkeep of essential public Utilities such as aqueducts, roads, baths and the repair or embellishment of the traditional seats of power. By appropriating public and semi-private space, he hoped to secure the cultural heritage and identity of Rome in architecture, the decoration of aristocratie residences and (depending on their religious affiliation) through the maintenance of ancient pagan cults or the extension of Christian buildings. His responsibilities in protecting and preserving sites were laid down by law. The bishop was another benefactor who dispensed his largesse to extend the Christian community in Rome and is the only actor who can be actively connected to grand new monuments in the city. During what was only a short visit, Constantius manifested himself as the third active patron during the 350s by bestowing a second obelisk on the Circus Maximus.

158 CHAPTER 5 IMPERIAL PATRONAGE IN CONSTANTINOPLE

Rome was no longer the only Capital in the late-antique Empire and should therefore not be treated in isolation. Ever since the foundation of Constantinople in 324, this city in the East was a Capital in the making. On the site of the old Byzantium, a colony from the seventh century BC, Constantine launched one of the largest projects of urban renewal. 3 4 8 Material and workmen were acquired for the development of the city on the Bosporus. Six years after its foundation, Constantinopolis was inaugurated with much ceremony on 1 May 3 3 0. 3 4 9 Constantinople would come to serve as the seat of imperial power under Constantine and Constantius. On the surface, the city was a traditional imperial foundation with the

Tetrarchic capitals as its precedent and Rome as the archetype for its lay-out. 3 5 0 The contributions of both emperors to the topographical and institutional development of the city would, in time, make Constantinople into a second or new Rome. 3 5 1 The city’s identity as altera Roma, deutera Roma or nea Roma is already attested by the poet Optatianus Porfyrius,

Themistius and Socrates. 3 5 2 Constantinople’s Tyche appeared (just as the Dea Roma) on coinage Empire-wide from 330 onwards. A law from Constantine, issued in 334, hints at the etemal status Constantinople had received under his rule, a prominence which was in part expressed in the monumentalisation of the city. 3 5 3 * To assess the true value of imperial patronage in Rome one cannot overlook the monumental topography and urban history of this new political arena. This chapter treats the physical construction and layout of Constantinople as comparandum and mirror-city to the ancient Capital. It starts by tracing the historical background of Constantine’s foundation on the Bosporus and subsequently tums to the transformations of the urban space of the city under

Constantine and his son and the ‘Roman’ character of these interventions. 3 5 4 Contrary to Rome, only the general urban development is known for Constantinople. The relatively blurred knowledge of the scope and funetion of the building programme of Constantine and Constantius can be attributed to the various fïres and earthquakes, the lootings of the city during the fourth crusade and the Ottoman hegemony from 1453. Archaeological remains from the late-antique townscape are still surfacing, but remaiti

348 Constantinople was supposedly chosen over other competing options for a new imperial city, such as Serdica, Hium, Chalcedonia and Thessalonica. Serdica: Zonar. 13.3.1-4; Ilium: Soz. HE 2.3.2; Zos. 2.30.1; Cassiod. HE 2.18.2; Chalcedonia: Cedr. 1.496 (510C); Zonar. 13.3.1-4; Thessalonica: Cedr. 1.496 (510C). Dagron 1974: 29-31; Alchermes 1991: 20. 349 Eus. VC 3.48; Zos. 2.30; Philost. HE 2.9; Malal. Chron. 13.7 [319-320]; Lyd. Mens. 4.2; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 328 and 330; Patria.kata. 41; Parastaseis 56; Patria UI 10. See Berger 2011: 110-119. 350 Berger 2011: 8. 351 Grig and Kelly 2012b: 6-12. 352Altera Roma'. OptatPorf. Carm. 4.6 and 18.34; deutera Roma'. Them. Or. 14.184a; nea Roma: Them. Or. 3.42c; Socr. HE 1.16. 353 CTh. 13.5.7. 354 See App. 2, fig. 8 for a map of Constantinople in Late Antiquity. 159 incomplete, and the epigraphical data is very scarce. 3 5 5 The paucity in the source material should, however, not result in an undervaluation of the building activity under the members of Constantinian dynasty. Here the literary sources prove their value. The Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitanae and the Scriptores originum Constantinopolitanarum are the most informative. Like the city-Roman version, the Notitia provides a list of the physical and administrative organisation of the city, drawn up in the early fifth century. 3 5 6 The corpus of authors writing on the origins of Constantinople contains accounts originating from the sixth to the tenth century. It stems from a period in which the hagiographic mythologising of Constantine as the first Christian emperor reigned supreme. It is this combination of myth and history that complicates an accurate assessment of the many references to the urbanistic policy of the emperors. 3 5 7 For Constantius’ specific attachment to the city, Themistius, Julian and the Chronicon Paschale prove the most revealing sources. 3 5 8 5.1 Constantine 5.1.1 Byzantium Although (according to the sources) Constantine founded an entirely new city in reaction to his achieved sovereignty over the Empire, Constantinople took shape in a location that had been inhabited and cultivated for ages. 3 5 9 The legendary founder Byzas of Megara supposedly established a colony around 660 BC on the banks of the Bosporus that developed into a successful economical core. 3 6 0 Until the second century AD, its centre was located on the northem side of the area, embellished with several temples, harbours, theatres and baths and enclosed by walls. 3 6 1 At the end of that century, the city was destroyed by Septimius Severus in reaction to its former ruler Piscennius Niger. After this punitive expedition, the city was rebuilt under the name of Colonia Antonina?62 On the south and the west of the old akropolis, a start was made by the construction of a hippodrome, the so-called bath complex of

Zeuxippus, a basilica, the Tetrastoon and various emboloi (colonnaded streets) . 3 6 3 The city of Severus with all initiated architectonical impulses was not completed during his rule. After his death in 2 1 1 , these projects were not finished by his successors, due to either lack of interest or financial means. Besides strategie, geographical and military benefits, Severus’ monumental legacy would have contributed to Constantine’s choice for this Colonia Antonina

355 Grünewald 1990: 144; Berger 1988: 35-86; Vroom 2011; Ward-Perkins 2012: 55-57. 356 Behrwald 2009: 206-211; Matthews 2012. 357 Preger 1901-1907; Kazhdan 1987: 200; Cameron and Herrin 1984: 1-53. 358 See the section on ‘Literary sources’ in the Introduction. 359 Zos. 2.30.1; Soz. HE 2.3.2; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 328; Zonar. 13.2.1. 360 Patria.kata. 20. See Georgacas 1947: 348-353. 361 Bassett 2004: 18-19; Berger 2011: 1-2. 362 Cassius Dio 75 (74).6-14; Herod. 2.14.3-6. See Berger 2011: 2-4. 363 Not.Urb.Const. 231-234 (regiones II-IV). See for emboloi: Schneider 1950: 71; Mango 1959: 78-80; Dagron 1974: 13-19. 160 to develop his Roman city-ideal. 3 6 4 From this architectonical framework, he created (with spolia and a large army of artists and architeets) the new city that would become his predominant residence. 3 6 5 A recent intriguing hypothesis by Stephenson has offered an extra layer of urban history for the city, and an additional motivation for Constantine’s claim of this site for the development of his own city. Stephenson suggests that Byzantium was used as an imperial residence by Licinius in the period of war against Constantine and was close to the location of the decisive battle which made Constantine sole ruler. The defeat of Licinius may have given Constantine the incentive to make his imprint on this Nikopolis, as it would eradicate the emperor’s memory. 3 6 6 A comparison with Constantine’s approach to Maxentius’ legacy immediately comes to mind. Although this theory is fascinating and plausible, several objections should be raised. Although Licinius’ presence in Byzantium can indeed be attested for the period prior to the war, to award the city the status of an imperial residence may be overstatement. Imperial residences distinguished themselves from cities that were visited on occasion by emperors and his court by their infrastructure, resplendent layout and the housing of an imperial mint. 3 6 7 There is no hard evidence for Licinian interventions - whether repair works to the Severan cityscape or new enterprises - and the mint of Byzantium, now Constantinople, was only opened in 326. However, the victory of Licinius was capitalised on in the construction of Constantine’s city in at least one way: spoils of war were used by Constantine to initiate his building programme. 3 6 8 5.1.2 Renovatio Byzantii What is certain is that urban development in Constantinople was partially based on the potential of Severus’ legacy. The new boundaries of Constantine’s city were demarcated, which almost quadrupled its surface. The existing fortifications of the city were also strengthened and extended. According to sources, fortune-tellers and horoscopes were consulted for this traditional limitatio. 3 6 9 With its new walls, Constantinople received a physical boundary once again, after the mural destruction during Severus’ command. 3 7 0 In tra muros, Constantine created his eponymous city and through his protracted and frequent stays in the fmal years of his reign, he was able to oversee the architectural progress directly. 3 7 1

364 For disadvantages conceming Constantinople see Mango 1993a: 118-120. 365 There has been a true mobilisation of workers, architeets and artists, who received tax exemption (CTh. 13.4.1-2 (334-337); Eus. HE 232.224-25). See Dagron 1974: 78-79. 366 Stephenson 2010: 192-194. 367 Riefl 2001: 276-276. 368 Jul. Or. 1.6; Soz. HE 2.5.3. See Dagron 1974: 34-35. 369 Philost. HE2.9; Lyd. Mens. 4.2; Zos. 2.31.1-3. 370 Preger 1910; Bauer 1996: 243-244. 371 No proconsul is attested for Constantinople at this time. Note, however, the existence of a consularis Europae et Thraciae after the mid-320s. See Chapter 7, paragraph 2.2. For Constantine’s stays in Constantinople, see Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. 161 be considered a politieal statement rather than a religious manifestation to pursue a policy of 'an concord between the pagan cults and Christianity. ror The double cult fïtted into Constantine’s ideological programme, in which he >st honoured both imperial centres. It was an alliance that was also celebrated on statues and of coinage. 4 3 5 Various sculptures of the Tyche of Constantinople were erected in the city, sided It by statuary that was associated with the cult of the Dea Roma and the history of the Urbs a Roma,436 From 330 onwards, both city-tychai appeared on coinage from mints all over the Empire.r ■ 437 In addition, the construction of pagan temples during the regime of Constantine is surmised on two sites in the city where new building projects were initiated at the time. On the traditional Capitolium, the Trias Capitolina would have been dedicated, although the complex most likely had a Christian signature. 4 3 8 The cult of the Trias Capitolina was irreversibly connected to the hill that had a mainly symbolic function for Constantine. The temple probably had, like the temple in Rome, a high podium with one entrance to the pronaos,439 The other sanctuary is thought to have been located on the Forum of Constantine, near to the centrally placed column of Constantine with corona radiata. It is supposed to have been dedicated to Pallas Athena and held the Palladion.440 According to the sources, the old statue of the armed Athena, associated with the past and future of Rome, originated from the old capital. 4 4 1 The enormously diverse sculptural decoration in the city consisted of historical figures, many (demi-)gods, mythical personas and representations of the rich history of Rome. The baths of Zeuxippus, and most likely those of Achilleus, were embellished with statues of Poseidon, Heracles, Aphrodite, Artemis and Hermaphroditus, figures that were all associated with water and physical health. 4 4 2 In the hippodrome, statues of the Dioscuri and Heracles

435 Urbs Roma: See, among others: RIC VII 138-140 (Lugdunum) 242, 247, 252, 274 and 275; 214-218 (Treveri) 522, 524, 547, 553 and 562; 270-279 (Arelate) 343, 373, 379, 407 and 415; 332-346 (Rome) 300, 307, 315-317, 390, 396, 406 and 408; 407-409 (Aquileia) 122, 128 and 136; 453^56 (Siscia) 222, 223 and 240; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 187 and 229; 557-561 (Heraclea) 114, 119, 143 and 156; 579-590 (Constantinople) 62, 78, 85, 143 and 154; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 195 and 205; 654-658 (Cyzicus) 71, 72, 91, 105, 118 and 119; 693-697 (Antiochia) 91 and 113; 712 (Alexandria) 63 and 70; Constantinopolis: See, among others: RIC VII 138-141 (Lugdunum) 241, 246, 273 and 279; 214-223 (Treveri) 523, 529, 543 and 589; 271-279 (Arelate) 344, 352, 408 and 416; 331-346 (Rome) 297, 301, 303-305, 332-334, 371, 387 and 407; 407-409 (Aquileia) 123, 129 and 137; 453-456 (Siscia) 224 and 241; 524-530 (Thessalonica) 188 and 230; 557-561 (Heraclea) 115, 120, 144 and 157; 579-590 (Constantinople) 63, 86, 144 and 155; 634-635 (Nicomedia) 196 and 206; 654-659 (Cyzicus) 73, 74, 120, 121 and 134; 693-697 (Antiochia) 92 and 114; 712 (Alexandria) 64 and 71. Alfóldi 1947: 16; Bühl 1995: 21-25. 436 Statues of Constantinople’s Tyche were erected on the Forum Constantini, near the Strategeion and on the Milion, among others. Roma was possibly depicted near the Palace. Statuary of Aeneas, Romulus and Remus, the Dioscuri and the lupa stood in the hippodrome and in the baths of Zeuxippus. See Bühl 1995: 26-35; Bassett 2004. 437 See Chapter 2, paragraphs 1.3, 2.5 and 3.1. 438 Mango 2000: 177; Speek 1995: 146-149. Dagron makes no mention of the Capitolium. 439 For possible reconstructions, see Speek 1995: 152; Bassett 2004: 31. 440 Bassett 2004: 205-206. 441 Procop. Goth. 1.15; Malal. Chron. 13.7 [320]; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 328; Patria II45. 442 Guberti Bassett 1996: 501-504. 168 were placed. The twins Castor and Pollux, both famous charioteers, were common figures within the circus-decor. Heracles, the personification of physical strength, was represented at least twice. 4 4 3 On the Forum stood a mythical hero represented as Paris next to Athena and Aphrodite. The incorporation of the statues, originating from various parts of the Empire, was a traditional implantation of classical sculpture within the urban fabric of Constantinople. The spolia bear witness of the absorption of Roman tradition by the city, and of the transmission of the culture from the old Capital to the new. Patronage for the Christian Church The foundation of Constantinople took place at a time when Constantine’s Christian policy had already been developed and propagated. The monumental architecture for the Christian church in New Rome may have shaped its religious urban topography after 324. The sources on the establishments of churches by or under Constantine in the ‘Christ-loving city’, however, are scarce, often not contemporary and too coloured to fully reconstruct his activities regarding the physical promotion of Christianity. 4 4 4 Most certainly dated to his reign is the foundation of Hagia Eirene on the old akropolis. The small church, dedicated to the Peace, is mentioned in the Notitia Urbis Constantinopolitana as the ecclesia antiqua,445 The Hagia Eirene was a main (if not the principal) church of the early

Christian community of Constantinople. 4 4 6 A more significant contribution to Constantine’s imperial ideology was the foundation along the embolos shooting off from the Milion that held a church dedicated to the Apostles and the emperor’s own mausoleum. Eusebius mentions the construction of a single vecó<;, which must have housed both functions. With this project, Constantine honoured the Christian community in Constantinople and guaranteed remembrance and reverence after his death. 4 4 7 As in Rome, imperial burial was overtly linked to Christian worship. The churches of Saint Acacia and Saint Mocius, both martyrs from old Byzantium, are believed to date from the reign of Constantine. Their cult was tied with the city in such a way that both churches were thought to have been patronised by the first Christian emperor of Constantinople as part of his Christian programme in the city. The veneration of the martyrs Menas, Agathanonikos and Dynamis has also been connected to Constantine by later sources. Their martyria certainly are old, but cannot be attributed to the reign of Constantine with certainty. The same is the case for the sanctuaries for Prokopios, Metrophanes, Nicholas, Carpus and Papylus, and the churches for the Archangel Michael that are supposed to have

443 Guberti Bassett 1991: 90-91. 444 Pall. Anth.Plan 282: .. .rfj cpiloxpfcxtp JtóAei. For Palladas on the foundation of Constantinople, see Wilkinson 2010. 445 Not.Urb.Const. 231 (regio II). 446 Soc. HE 1.16.45 (117A), 1.37.73 (174C) and 2.6.83 (192B); Theoph. Chron. 18. SeeDagron 1974: 392- 393; Peschlow 1977: 21-22; Berger 2011: 18. 447 Downey 1951; Grierson, Mango and Sevcenko 1962; Frazer 1966: 387-388; Dagron 1974: 403-405; Krautheimer 1983: 56-58; Mango 1993c; Effenberger 2000; Johnson 2009: 119-129; Berger 2011: 15-16. See also paragraph 2.3 of this chapter. 169 been built or renovated under Constantine. One of the scriptores originum Constantinopolitarum added the churches of Philemon and Emilianus, as well as the Hagia

Sophia, to this growing series. 4 4 8 The assignation of these churches should all be considered within the historiographical tradition in which the mythification of Constantine as first

Christian city-founder soared. 4 4 9 During Constantine’s rule, the active bishop of Byzantium, Alexander, tumed bishop of Constantinople. His contribution to the Christianisation of Constantinople until 337, the year of his death, is unknown. 4 5 0

5.2 Constantius 5.2.1 Heir to a Legacy The extension of Constantinople was by no means fïnished when Constantine died. One may believe that the Constantinian city dates for a part to the years preceding 361, because the constructions under Constantine had been undertaken in haste and were in need of restoration, as Zosimus suggests. 4 5 1 Indeed, Themistius praises Constantius for continuing and improving the urban fabric of Constantinople: For not only did you preserve intact the inheritance from your father, but you increased and augmented it, not resting content with what you received from him but making further additions on your own behalf, and engaging in a noble rivalry with the founder as to who could surpass the other in his benefactions.452 After the burial ceremony of his father, Constantius left Constantinople, but he would soon return. This was the first of many visits and long periods of residence in the city where he could oversee the monumental development and continue shaping the décor of the city as it was left by his father. The exact nature of Constantius’ interventions in Constantinople, however, is not easily defined. Various literary sources are vague and generalising and (depending on the

448 Acacia: Soc. HE 6.23.341 (732A); Patria 150 and III 1, 18 and 116; Mokios: Parastaseis 1. See Dagron 1974: 393-396; Janin 1953: 13-15 and 354-358; Menas: Patria.kata 15; Patria I 51 and 111 2. Dagron 1974: 395-396; Janin 1953: 333-335; Agathanonikos: Patria 150 and III 1. Dagron 1974: 396-397; Janin 1953: 7- 8; Dynamis: Janin 1953: 101; Prokopios: Patria III 18 and 115. Janin 1953: 443-444; Metrophanes: Patria III 115 and 210. Janin 1953: 336-337; Nicholas: Papadopolous-Kerameus 1891-1898: 4.18.34-36; Janin 1953: 368; Carpus and Papylus: Barsanti Costantinopoli 145-146; Michael: Soz. HE 2.3.8-13. Janin 1953: 337-350; Philemon: Patria III 16. Janin 1953: 492; Emilianus: Patria III 88. Janin 1953: 12-13; Hagia Sophia: Patria 149 and III1; Theoph. Chron. 18; Chron.Pasch. s.a. 360. See Mathews 1971: 11. 449 Kazhdan 1987: 200. 450 Theodoret. HE 1.18; Soc. HE 2.6. 451 Zos. 2.32.1. See also Jul. Or.133. 452 Them. Or. 3.47a-b: ou yap écpi>Xai;a<; |ióvov rr|v jiapaKaxaOr|KT|v aicépaiov xf]v 7taxpcóav, aXk’ ènoXvnXaaiaaat; K al sjn]üi;T|aa<;, oü8è owExcópriacu; p.óvov xa nap’ èkeïvou KEtcrfjoOai, alXa xa jtapa aai)xof) jtXsto 7tpoaxs0EiKaq, Kal xf|v koat|v ëpiv ècpiXoveócricac; Jipóc; xöv &pxTïyéxnv,Ó7uóxspO!; üpfflv xaïq eimouau; jtapaSpaneïxai. See also 3.40c and 44b. 170 religious sympathies of their authors) either pro-Constantius or pro-Julian when attributing architectonieal projects. 4 5 3 Conversely, the Chronicon Paschale and the orations of Themistius and Julian are clear about several initiatives by Constantine’s son. Constantius allegedly authorised the construction of the baths constantinianae or constantianae in 345, which were possibly only inaugurated in 427 and renamed as the baths theodosianae. 4 5 4 Themistius expands on the emperor’s pursuit to increase the city and add to its beauty through the instalment of abundant fountains, luxurious colonnades and a market place, and also attributes to him the erection of a library. 4 5 5 Dagron connects the latter construction to the foundation of an imperial scriptorium, 4 5 6 Julian praises Constantius on finishing the wall that was still under construction, an act that enhanced the safety of the city’s inhabitants, and for restoring dilapidated buildings. 4 5 7 In the absence of the emperor, the proconsul and later the urban prefect acted as supervisor of these projects, assisted by the Constantinian and Flavial praetors ‘to profit the public works of the aforesaid city’ . 4 5 8 The first urban prefect Honoratus was praised for his contributions to the development of Constantinople by Libanius: Many things in Constantinople have now changed for the better - how could they not with you in charge? - the distinction of the senatorial office, the beauty of its buildings, the fact that public interests are no less important than private interest, the abundant reservoirs of waters, by which it’s possible for you to rival even us.459 According to Julian, his uncle Constantine had further intended to erect an obelisk in the hippodrome and had his eye on the obelisk that was one of a pair from Thebes. The transport of both monoliths was, however, halted in Alexandria. One was bestowed to Rome around the time of Constantius’ visit to the city. For the other, Constantius allegedly had a freight-boat built to transport it to Constantinople around 361, but the progress was frustrated with his death. In a letter to the Alexandrians, probably written in 362, Julian promised to pursue the dream of Constantius. 4 6 0 The obelisk, however, would only reach Constantinople under Theodosius II. Although the wish to parallel his gift of an obelisk to Rome with one in Constantinople’s hippodrome would not be completed in his lifetime, Constantius nonetheless

453 Henck 2001: 284-285. 454 The works started under Constantius on 17 April 345: Chron.Pasch. s.a. 345. In 357, Themistius (Or. 4.58b-c.) hoped that the beauty of the monument would rise up to the scale of its proportions. It was thus not completed at that time. The construction continued under Valens, who used stones from the destroyed walls in Chalcedone (Soc. HE 4.8). The baths seem to have fimctioned in the times of John Chrysostom when he was charged in Constantinople for his religious views in 404 (Soz. HE 8.21). Possibly the designation of the baths to Theodosius referred to the completion of the renewal of the baths. 455 Them. Or. 4.58b-c and 59d-61d. 456 Dagron 1974: 89. 457 Jul. Or. 1.41a. 458 Cm 6.4.13(361). 459 Lib. Ep. 251.11: jtoAXa xfl jtóXei vüv raii tö pétaxov hetsotti, rt 8è owc s^eA^e aoö ye écpEorriKÓTOi;; a'/fïua apxffe, oiKoSonTindTWV k ó Xa t], tö ut] r a Srinócna xcöv iöioiv elvat èX&TTm, xanistov üSaxojv, 8t’ oï> Kai npöi; %&<; scmv ujxTv a|iiAA,aa0at. 460 Jul. Ep. 48.443B. See Sorek 2010: 107-114; Dagron 2011: 90-92. See Chapter 4, paragraphs 3.2 and 5.2. 171 engaged in the function and embellishment of the venue. Public entertainment in the hippodrome was seen as a necessary facility for the city and three of the five praetors were in charge of the exhibition of games. 4 6 1 The hippodrome would, however, be decorated under

Constantius with statuary, taken from other cities. 4 6 2 This implementation of statuary spolia, also practiced under Constantine, was continued under his son. Statues representing mythological figures from Iconium, for example, were transferred to the Constantinian baths. 4 6 3 The removal of the bronze statue of Heracles from the Capitol in Rome has also been attributed to Constantius. 4 6 4 Henck surmises that the emperor’s confrontation with the

Colossus during his stay in Rome was the catalyst for this transfer. 4 6 5 These adomments, ‘designed for lasting beauty’, had embellished the city which now surpassed the most ancient times in her permanence, ‘outstripping the ephemeral in her fresh bloom ’ . 4 6 6 Honorific statuary, however, a monumental category that was prevalent in Rome, is not attested for the reign of Constantius. 5.2.2 Urbs Sacra Aside from the mythological statuary which Constantius, in imitation of his father, fumished to important sites in the city, no forms of patronage of the ancient cults can be isolated and identified for the reign of Constantius. 4 6 7 The focus in this section will be solely on the emperor’s patronage for the Christian church. Constantius’ contribution to the ecclesiastical architecture in Constantinople has two points in common with his general role in shaping the profane scape of the city: Archaeological and literary references are contaminated and ambiguous, and several interventions were, as was also the case in Rome, the continuation of work started in previous decades. 4 6 8 Perhaps the most significant Christian, and at the same time imperial, project in the city initiated during Constantius’ rule was the church of the Apostoleion and

Constantine’s mausoleum in the west of the Constantinian city. 4 6 9 The emperor’s involvement with the site may have been instigated by the decision by Constantinople’s bishop Macedonius to transport Constantine’s coffin to the church of St. Acacius after its original

461 CTh. 6.4.13(361). 462 Guberti Bassett 1991: 88; Dagron 2011: 94-107. 463 Parastaseis 85. 464 Henck 2001: 287-288. Cf. Guberti Bassett 1991: 90 n. 35. 465 Henck 2001: 288. 466 Them. Or. 3.47c-d: öv 8s oi) KÓafxov m’nfj jtepraOTi^, &jra xö köWxi Kal Jtpög xöv xpóvov 7tapaoKf:udCsxai, rai xfj co pa vtKC&v xa È(pf|(j.8pa nXé ov Stacpépet xöv jtaXaioxaxcov xfj PePatóxrixi. 467 See the previous paragraph. 468 See infra for churches begun under Constantine. 469 Constantine: Eus. VC 4.58-60, 70-71; Soc. HE 1.16; Soz. HE 2.34; Theoph. Chron. AM. 5816; Leo Gramm. Chron. 87.19-21 and 89.2-7. See for a complete overview of the sources Downey 1951; Constantius: Philost. HE 3.2; Procop. Aed. 1.4.19. See further the list in Henck 2001: 289. Different theories have been proposed by Downey 1951; Dagron 1974: 403-405; Krautheimer 1983: 56-58; Mango 1993c; Effenberger 2000. For an overview of the different scenarios, see Johnson 2009: 119-129. 172 resting place had almost fallen to ruin, as Sozomen and Socrates report. 4 7 0 This alleged intervention by the city’s patriarch has been one of the few source-references for patronage by the bishops of Constantinople under the reign of Constantius. 4 7 1 This decision was purportedly condemned by Constantius and caused uproar in the city. At the end of Constantius’ reign, a second phase of Constantine’s Apostoleian complex was initiated. The exact interventions to the functionality or architecture of the site are a matter for conjecture. The church was called the church of the Holy Apostles after the translation of relics of Luke, Andrew and Timothy, probably in the early 360s under Eudoxius, who had replaced the deposed Macedonius. 4 7 2 The bodies of Constantius and his wife would also be laid to rest on the site. 4 7 3 The attribution of the Hagia Sophia, deemed |^eydA.r| by Philostorgius, is surrounded by controversy and conjecture arising from conflicting sources. 4 7 4 Constantine either founded the church, devised the building and left the actual construction to the supervision of Constantius, or had no impact whatsoever on the site which makes Constantius its original patron. 4 7 5 The latter view emanates from sources that are closest to the reign of the Constantinian dynasty and may be the most accurate. According to Socrates, the church was dedicated by the active patriarch Eudoxius 4 7 6 The involvement of Constantius in constructing a Christian topography in Constantinople (which is still far from fully established) seems to have been moderate. His ecclesiastical building activities, however, were directed towards churches which for their status, relics and dimensions were to hold a unique position in the city, and, as the burial site of Constantinople’s founders, the Empire as a whole. 5.3 Nova Roma

On the shores of the Bosporus, Constantine was able to properly exploit the cityscape to present himself as a traditional pious and munificent emperor. There he laid the foundations of a Constantinian city and a new imperial residence after the example of Rome. The grid- shaped city-plan spread over fourteen regions on and between the seven hills of nova Roma. Although Constantine based his city partially on the architectonical heritage of the old Byzantium, through costly building projects he could attach his name and furthermore his dynasty to the growth and flowering of the new “GroBstadt”. Also, through imperial statuary, distinctive sites in the city were connected with the person of the emperor, whereas Greek and Roman treasures provided the intellectual and cultural scenery of the city. In the short period

4/u Soc. HE 2.38; Soz. HE 4.21. 471 The bishops were Paul, Eusebius, Macedonius and Eudoxius. 472 Philost. HE 3.2. See Woods 1991. 473 Amm.Marc. 21.16.20. See Grierson, Mango and Sevcenko 1962: 23-24; Johnson 2009: 119-129. 474 Philost. HE 3.2. 475 Constantine and Constantius: Vasiliev 1952: 53. Similarly, Krautheimer 1983: 53; Constantius: Mango 1959: 51; Dagron 1974: 397-399. For an overview of the debate: Henck 2001: 293. 476 Soc. HE2.43. 173 in which Constantine developed his new residence, Rome served as a topographical and monumental example. Constantinople was awarded its own miliarium aureum, a Forum, a Capitolium, a Curia, an imperial palace connecting the old Severan hippodrome and a mausoleum to commemorate the ruler. All of this was constructed within city walls, the symbol of Roman defensive powers. Through his building activity in the city, he exploited important institutions and sites to legitimise his rule in the East and validate his presence in this part of the Mediterranean. Within the walls, Constantine acknowledged the value of temples as part of the cultural heritage. These buildings should not be regarded as locations for devotion, but as symbolic and traditional manifestations. No pagan centre was established in the city, but the sanctuaries were separately integrated within the Street plan of emboloi. The Dea Roma and the Urbs Roma were cultivated by Constantine in monuments, statuary and coinage, sided by the Tyche of Constantinople. Constantine’s foundation of the churches intra and extra muros saw him depart as active builder from the archetypical city plan of the old Urbs. Unlike in Rome, he was not forced to manipulate locations with historical connotations by appropriating buildings from a former emperor or erecting Christian sanctuaries on charged sites in Constantinople. The building projects, however, were functionally orientated like in Rome. Besides a centre of the bishop’s congregational liturgy, erected near the imperial palace, marterial churches were founded. Furthermore, a sanctuary was built connected to an imperial residence: Constantine’s mausoleum served as a site for the worship of saints, but foremost of the cult of the deceased and divinised emperor. The initiatives of Constantine were completed and reinforced under Constantius. His frequent presence and intense patronage were of paramount importance for the development of the eastem Capital. By his concern for the physical fabric of the Capital, Constantius became the second major patron of architecture in Constantinople. Besides the continuation of his father’s architectonical designs, he initiated several profane and ecclesiastical impulses of his own which made Constantinople a worthy counterpart of Rome. Just like the circus, the baths and the extension of Utilities, the churches erected under Constantius were part of the public imperial beneficia for the people of Constantinople. Hagia Sophia would in time become the city’s ecclesia magna and the new church of the Holy Apostles also shaped the cult of the Apostles in the eastem metropolis, especially after the translation of relics. The completions, repairs and new building initiatives under Constantius granted him the prestige of a good and pious govemor, as he carried on his father’s building work and mission to create a new imperial residence. This ambition was not confïned to monumental impulses alone, but would also entail a policy of political-institutional reforms from both emperors for Constantinople to grow into the imperial seat of emperors of the Constantinian dynasty and their successors, and into nova Roma.411

477 See Chapter 7. 174 PART FOUR POLITICS

CHAPTER 6 EMPEROR AND SENATE IN ROME The different (but not exclusive) strata of Rome’s population - the senatorial aristocracy, the growing Christian community and the plebs Urbana - were affected by the changing status of Rome and the ways in which the emperors shaped their relationships with the City. Most notably, their treatment of Rome as a temporary residence changed perceptions of the longstanding bond between the emperors and the people of Rome. Of all the inhabitants in the City, city-Roman senators - who during the Republic and Principate had been able to move within the centre of power which was Rome - were affected most profoundly because of the new political geography of the Empire. With the dislocation of the imperial court from Rome, the emperors also moved away from the Senate, the members of which divided their time between the Capital and their rural estates. The absence of emperors expanded the opportunities by which the aristocrats, when present in the City, could present themselves as the benefactors and guardians of Rome. But for any political prominence, whether stationed in Rome or elsewhere in the Empire, senators were at the mercy of the emperor. This chapter focuses on the social status and political authority of the highest-ranking representatives of imperial power in and from Rome. An understanding of the relationship between the emperor and the city-Roman senatorial aristocracy and of the realities of its political power can for one be achieved by analysing the appointment policy of the rulers. 1 1 will focus on three of the most defining posts within the high administration of Rome and the Empire: (i) the urban prefecture, the highest administrative and most honourable office in Rome and the acme of a senatorial career; (ii) the consulate, an honorary position, reserved not only for emperors and members of the imperial family, but which also brought status to distinguished non-imperial individuals; and (iii) the praetorian prefecture, the highest civil office in the Empire. Emperors had to consider a variety of factors when making appointments. The nominations, signalling imperial approval of the official, could be inspired by administrative competence, loyalty and religious affiliation, but city-Roman origins and status may also have come into play. After investigating the share of city-Roman senators participating in the higher politics of Rome and the Empire as orchestrated by the emperors, I turn to the composition, functions and activity of the city-Roman administration. Starting with the office of the urban prefect, the position and obligations of city-Roman administrators will be assessed. A synthesis gives a short overview of the city-Roman administrative and institutional imperial gestures, actions and strategies, as well as other developments that affected the city-Roman Senate in their status, power and relationship with the emperor. It will become clear that rulers sought to define their bond with Rome, in particular with its highest-ranking representatives, and could

1 See Barnes 1994; id. 1995; Von Haehling 1978. See Mennen 2011 for imperial appointment policies in the third century. 177 strengthen this rapport by capitalising on one’s opportunities during accessions, jubilees, victories, or even death. Conversely, imperial actions or inactions that were disadvantageous for the senators based in Rome could - even as they owed their allegiance to the emperor - alienate or even disqualify an emperor as ruler of Rome.

6.1 Appointment Policy 6.1.1 Urban Prefects For the traditional elite from Rome, the urban prefecture formed the pinnacle of a senator’s career. The office had been designed by Augustus as a unique urban magistracy, only for the city of Rome. Already in monarchical and republican times, an official would be temporarily appointed to administer the City in the eventual absence of kings or consuls. 2 Augustus devised the position of the urban prefect to be employed in the administration of the state, together with surveyors of the city’s amenities. 3 Contrary to other earlier (republican) magistrates, the prefect was not elected by the people, but by the emperor and, instead of a limited tenure, for a variable period of time. With the emperor at a distant court during Constantinian rule, the highest interests of the civil administration pertained to the prefect of the City. 4 In the Notitia Dignitatum, the late-antique hierarchical enumeration of civil and military dignitaries, the urban prefect ranked as the highest but one official in the later Roman Empire, below the praetorian prefect. 5 As an exclusive magistracy of long standing, the urban prefecture was, according to the city-Roman aristocrat Symmachus, ‘the ambition of many’, especially for men of senatorial rank originating from Rome. 6 In order to lay bare the power and prestige of Rome within the Empire, this office therefore deserves the most consideration.

2 Tac. Anrt. 6.11.1 and 11.3; Liv. Ab urbe cond. 1.59.12. Every year during the Latin Festival, the consuls’ duties were taken over by a deputy (Digesta 1.2.2.33). For Augustus’ installation of urban prefecture, see Suet. Div.Aug. 37. In 13 AD, the magistracy of the urban prefecture was firmly established with the tenure of L. Calpumius Piso, who served as prefect for almost twenty years under Augustus and Tiberius (Tac. Ann. 6.11.3). See Vitucci 1956; Cadoux 1959. 3 Suet. Div.Aug. 37. 4 From the reign of Valentinian I onwards, the urban prefect was entitled vir illustris, ranking other officials with the title of vir spectabilis and vir clarissimus. See, among others: CIL VI 512, 1718 = 31911 and 1777; Not.Dig. [Ed. O. Seeck 1876, repr. 1962], See Barnes 1992; Kulikowski 2000; Porena 2003. Chastagnol 1960 was the last to provide an extensive study of the later Roman urban prefects. See also Chastagnol 1962. 5 Not.Dig. Kulikowski 2000. 6 Symm .Rei. 1.1: .. .praefecturam multis cupitam.... 178 * For the urban prefeeture all names and dates of the officials can be reconstructed, although not all prefects have a well-documented career. 7 The work of the Chronographer of 354, who lists all the names and dates of the urban prefects from 254 up to the year of his recording, and Ammianus’ special attention to city-Roman affairs exist alongside other, more fragmentary evidence and casual references to the prefeeture and its officials. 8

Constantine

Urban prefect Date Aradius Rufïnus (III) 312, 29 Nov. -313, 8 Dec. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus (II) 313, 8Dec.-315, 20Aug. Gaius Vettius Cossinius Rufïnus 315,20 Aug. - 316,4 Aug. Ovinius Gallicanus 316.4 Aug.-317, 15 May Septimius Bassus 317,15 May-319, 1 Sept. Valerius Maximus Basilius 319, 1 Sept.-323, 13 Sept. Locrius Verinus 323,13 Sept. 325,4 Jan. Acilius Severus 325.4 Jan. - 326, 13 Nov. Amnius Anicius Julianus 326, 13 Nov. - 329, 7 Sept. Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius 329, 7 Sept.-329, 8 Oct. Petronius Probianus 329, 8 0 ct.-3 3 l, 12 April Sextus Anicius Faustus Paulinus 331, 12 April-333, 7 April Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius (IT) 333, 7 April-333, 10 May Marcus Ceionius Julianus 333, 10 May-334,27 April Amnius Manius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus 334,27 April - 335, 30 Dec. Ceionius Rufius Albinus 335, 30 Dec.-337, lOMarch L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 337, 10 March - 338,13 Jan. Table UP1. Urban prefects under Constantine (312-337) During the reign of Constantine, eighteen urban prefectural tenures were held by seventeen different prefects. As he did not discharge Maxentius’ prefect for another month after his victory, he appointed sixteen of them. Contrary to Maxentius, Constantine (and later his sons) did not appoint his urban prefects annually, but for irregular periods of time. He selected predominantly city-Roman senators as urban prefects. The officials who were appointed from 312 until 316 were nobles from renowned families from Rome who had also served under Maxentian rule. Constantine retained C. Annius Anullinus as urban prefect until the end of November. He had been appointed by Maxentius the day before his final defeat and had presumably been Maxentius’ praetorian prefect in 307. He would be the last appointee of Maxentius to lose his office. 9 Subsequently, Constantine awarded the pagan Aradius Rufïnus the prefeeture during his first stay as Augustus in Rome. Aradius Rufïnus had been urban prefect under Maxentius as well, until

7 Bames 1974. 8 Chron. a. 354 [Chron.Min. I 65-68]. See Kelly 2006: 184; Salzman 1990: 41-42; Ammianus: De Jonge 1935-1939; id. 1948-1982; Den Boeft, Den Hengst and Teitler 1987-1991; Den Boeft, Drijvers, Den Hengst and Teitler 1995-1998; id. 2001-2009; Kelly 2003: esp. 597. 9 PLRE I 79 s.v. Anullinus 3. 179 just before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge.10 Next was C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus, most probably a member from the gens Rufia that had risen into prominence under the Severi.11 He was a former praetorian and urban prefect of Maxentius, who had transferred his loyalty to Constantine and was rewarded with the urban prefecture for a second term.12 He concurrently became an ordinary consul during this tenure in 314. His prefecture, which lasted twenty months, most likely ended in disaster, as he has been identified as the senator who was tormented by ‘a great many enemies’ and ‘constant plots’ during his long tenure. His former service to Maxentius may have caused hostility amongst other senators, leading to an exile by senatorial decree.13 Although Constantine probably did not instigate the discharge and exile, he certainly did not prevent his expulsion and had him replaced. The pagan C. Vettius Cossinius Rufinus was appointed as his successor by Constantine in person during the emperor’s stay in Rome. His service for Maxentius as corrector of Campania has been celebrated on a dedication.14 During his tenure, which lasted almost a year, he was elected consul for the year 316. After 316, Constantine continued appointing city-Roman aristocrats for relatively long tenures but no longer drew from the pool of former Maxentian officials. Ovinius Gallicanus, probably the first Christian urban prefect under Constantine, would serve for almost a year.15 Little of his career before his prefecture is known. He was recognised as consul with a delay of one month in February 317, probably due to Constantine’s preoccupation in his first war with Licinius.16 Bassus, who served as second consul, has been identified as Septimius Bassus, who acted as Gallicanus’ successor for more than two years.17 In the summer of 318, he was replaced by Julius Cassius for one month, whose background remains unknown.18 Little is known about the tenure and past career of Valerius Maximus Basilius who assumed the prefecture for four long years.19 He was presumably a pagan.20 Around this term, animosity between the emperor and the senatorial elite of Rome began to rise. Constantine had not visited Rome since 315. Furthermore, the first imperial pronouncements (partly directed to the pagan urban prefect) are attested, which were favourable to Christians and spoke against haruspices and public sacrifices. These measures must have caused inquietude within the senatorial pagan circles.21 After the long term of Valerius Maximus, a series of prefects followed with backgrounds or affiliations which made them less likely join in with the long-established families who adhered to the traditional cults. In September 323, Constantine appointed L.

10 PLRE 1775 s.v. Aradius Rufinus 10. "Bames 1975b: 44-45. 12 PLRE I 976-977 s.v. C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus 4. 13 Firm.Mat. Math. 2.29.11-13. See Bames 1975b. 14 CIL X 5061. See PLRE 1777 s.v. C. Vettius Cossinius Rufinus 15. 15 See Chapter 4, paragraph 3.3. Bames 1995: 142. Cf. Cameron 2011: 181. 16 PLRE 1383 s.v. Ovinius Gallicanus 3. Gilliam 1967. 17 PLRE 1 154 s.v. Caesonius Bassus 12; 157 s.v. Septimius Bassus 19. 18 Chron. a. 354. PLRE I 184-185 s.v. Iulius Cassius 2. 19 PLRE I 590 s.v. Valerius Maximus signo Basilius 48. 20 CTh. 16.10.1. 21 CTh. 2.8.1, 9.16.1, 16. 2.1-2,4 and 16.10.1; C7 3.12.2. Curran 2000: 169-181. 180 Verinus, a military man who had changed to a civil imperial career with the post of vicarius Africae. He served until early 325.22 During this tenure, Constantine became emperor over the entire Empire, but refrained from appointing men from the East for the urban prefecture. He opted for men from powerful families from the West. Constantine’s choices for these men with standing in Rome occurred in the aftermath of the emperor’s victory over Licinius, and his orders were mainly instigated from the East, where Constantine was preoccupied in consolidating a powerbase in his new realm.23 The first three of this group are assumed or affirmed to have had Christian affiliations. Acilius Severus, presumably the consul of 323, held the tenure during which Constantine visited Rome for the last time. It cannot be determined if he was a member of the Italic patrician gens Acillia or from another branch from Brixia.24 The next urban prefecture was certainly a member of one of the illustrious families of Rome. Amnius Anicius Julianus, a former proconsul of Africa and the consul posterior in 322, was appointed within three months of Constantine’s departure from Rome, but with the emperor still present in Italy (326-329).25 His date of accession coincided with the dies natalis imperii of Caesar Constantius. The prefect’s noble birth - he was presumably the son of the senator Anicius Faustus (urban prefect and consul in the late 290s) and belonged to the gens Anicia - was praised by Symmachus.26 His tenure was followed by a brief term by Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius. He was a former proconsul of Achaea descending from Africa who had been exiled from Rome, probably by the Senate and possibly simultaneously with Volusianus.27 The panegyrical poems he sent to Constantine during his banishment helped his rehabilitation. Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius was recalled to Rome early in 325 and would serve as urban prefect for one month in the fall of 329.28 The reason for this short period of office is unknown. His successor Petronius Probianus was a city-Roman senator and presumably Christian, just as his predecessors. He seems to have filled no offices between his consulate in 322 and the urban prefecture.29 Petronius Probianus served his tenure when Constantinople was formally dedicated by Constantine in 330. In the years until the emperor’s death, with Constantine commuting between the East and the east-west borderland to strengthen his authority in the pars Orientis and campaign on the Danube-frontier, powerful nobles from the West again occupied Rome’s main office. Petronius Probianus’ successor, Sextus Anicius Paulinus, was possibly the brother of Amnius

22 PLRE 1 951-952 s.v. Locrius Verinus 2. 23 See Chapter 2, paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3. 24 PLRE I 834 s.v. Acilius Severus 16. See Mennen 2011: 86. For his Christianity, see Bames 1995: 143. Cf. Cameron 2011: 178-179. 25 PLRE 1473-474 s.v. Amnius Anicius Iulianus 23. 26 Father: PLRE 1329 s.v. Anicius Faustus 6. Symm. Ep. 12. PLRE I 1133 s.v. stemma of the Anicii. 27 Bames 1975c; id. 1981; 119. 28 PLRE 1649 s.v. Publilius Optatianus signo Porphyrius 3. 29 PLRE I 733-734 s.v. Petronius Probianus 3. 181 Anicius Julianus, who had filled the prefecture from 326 to 329.30 The former proconsul of Africa had served the consulate in 325. He is believed to be the Anicius mentioned by Prudentius who had openly converted to Christianity during his tenure.31 In late December 333, the poet Publilius Optatianus Porphyrius served his second term, which once again lasted one month. He probably acted as a stopgap before Ceionius Julianus Kamenius was able to take over his responsibility. This pagan, probably from the gens Ceionia Iuliana, may have been still been on active service as proconsul of Africa in April 333 when Petronius Probianus’ tenure ended.32 His strong ties to Africa are attested from dedications.33 After this, Constantine tumed again to a member from the city-Roman gentes by appointing Anicius Paulinus junior, a Christian from the gens Anicia. He was the son of Amnius Anicius Julianus who had served as consul and urban prefect in the 320s.34 His tenure was honoured with a gilded bronze statue by Constantine, set up in the Forum of Trajan.35 At this time, Constantine had appointed his fourth Caesar Dalmatius and had divided the Empire, with Constans ruling Italy and Pannonia. It is diffïcult to assess if Constantine had delegated the power to appoint urban prefects to Constans. The Caesarean responsibilities would not initially extend the consular and military sphere, but it is unknown when or if the Caesares eventually became regionally sovereign after the division. There are no extant imperial pronouncements directed to the urban prefects between November 335 and the death of Constantine to assess which emperor gave orders to the deputy in Rome. Coinage and dedications from Rome seem to settle this issue to the detriment of Constans. The Caesar received no gold or silver coinage, contrary to his brothers.36 He was honoured in Rome with dedications, but so were Crispus, Constantinus and Constantius before 3 3 7.37 The gift of a cippus to the prefect L. Aradius Valerius Proculus in 336 or 337 by Constantine and his sons seems to suggest that the Augustus was still in charge of the nominations for the office.38 As Caesar, the young Constans remained legally subordinate to his father and hence incapable of acting independently in regard to city-Roman appointments to high offices. The next, and penultimate, urban prefect under Constantine was the son of C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus, the prefect who was most probably exiled by the Senate in 315.39 Ceionius Rufius Albinus was exiled by Constantine - probably during his imperial visit - on charges of magie and adultery in 326 when he was in his early twenties. Although he met the same fate

30 PLRE1679 s.v. Sextus Anicius Paulinus Honorius 15. 31 Prud. C.Summ. 1 552-553. 32 PLRE 1476 s.v. M. Ceionius Iulianus signo Kamenius 26; 1137 s.v. stemma of the Ceionii Iuliani. 33 CIL VIII25525; AE 1922: 16. 34 PLRE 1679 s.v. Amnius Manius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus iunior signo Honorius 14. 35 CIL VI 1683. For the statuary scene on the Forum of Trajan, see Chenault 2012; Weisweiler 2012b. 36 See Chapter 2, paragraph 2.5. 37 Constantine, Constantinus and Constantius: CIL V I40773-40774; Constantine and sons: CIL VI 31520 = 40779; Crispus: CIL VI 1155 and 3909 = 32760 = 40778b; Constantinus: CIL VI 1148 = 1149 = 1150 = 31247 and 1156 = 1658c = 31248a; Crispus and Constantinus: CIL VI 1792; Constans: CIL VI 1157 = 40840. 38 CIL VI40776. See Weisweiler 2012a. See Chapter 2, paragraph 1.3. 39 PLRE 137 s.v. Ceionius Rufius Albinus 14. 182 as his father, he was rehabilitated after his banishment and had a distinguished eareer.40 After being recalled, he served as consularis of Campania, proconsul of Achaea and Asia, and consul in 335 before being appointed prefect in December of the same year. His pagan affiliation is attested.41 In March of 337, two months before Constantine’s death, Ceionius Rufius Albinus was replaced for L. Aradius Valerius Proculus, a pagan member of the city- Roman gens Valeria Procula (337-338), who had an impressive career before serving his first tenure as urban prefect. In the early 330s, he acted as proconsul of Africa and praetorian prefect of the African provinces.42 He would later serve under Constans in 340 as consul and repeat his urban prefecture under Magnentius in 351. Constans

Urban prefect Date L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 337, 10 March -338, 13 Jan. Maecilius Hilarianus 338, 13 Jan. - 339, 14 July L. Turcius Apronianus 339, 14 July - 339, 25 Oct. Fabius Titianus 339, 25 Oct. - 341, 25 Feb. Aurelius Celsinus 341, 25 Feb. - 342, 1 April 0- Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus signo Mavortius 342, 1 April-342, 6 July Aco Catullinus signo Philomathius 342, 6 July 344, 11 April Quintus Rusticus 344, 11 April - 345, 5 July Petronius Probinus 345, 5 July 346,26 Dec. M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 346, 26 Dec.-347, 12 June Ulpius Limenius 347, 12 June - 349, 8 April Hermogenes 349, 19 May-350, 27 Feb. Table UP2. Urban prefects under Constans (337-350) Literary sources criticise Constans’ character. His yielding disposition, intolerance, arrogance and his questionable appointment policy - selling offices instead of appointment by merit - were denounced by the nobles of Rome.43 A prosopographical study of the high-office- holders does not confirm the accusations uttered in the sources, but Constans’ disposition towards the city-Roman aristocracy, especially in the last years of his rule, most likely made him suffer a loss of acquiescence, or even support from the side of city-Roman senators. Although he had supervised Italy, the African provinces and Illyricum from 335 onwards, it was, as argued above, most probably not until after his father’s death that he gained fiill civil-administrative authority in this realm and thus the power to appoint urban prefects. In his early years as Augustus, Constans acknowledged the status and aspirations of the city-Roman aristocracy filling the prefecture.44

40 Barnes 1975b: 47-49. 41 Firm.Mat. Math. 2.29. See Barnes 1975b. 42 PLRE1747-749 s.v. L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 11. 43 Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.23; Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Epit. de Caes. 41.22; Zos. 2.42.1; Oros. 7.29.7. See Moreau 1959: 180; Elbem 1984: 42; Ehling 2001a: 143-144. 44 Bames 1989b. 183 In January 338, Constans appointed Maecilius Hilarianus as his first urban prefect, a senator who previously had been proconsul Africae and consul under Constantine.45 Standing in Constantine’s confidence, it is not unlikely that Maecilius Hilarianus had been prefect designatus under Constantine. The senator’s loyal service and abilities made him a trustworthy candidate for Constans as well. From July until October 339, L. Turcius Apronianus, a member of the gens Turcia, held the urban prefecture.46 The reason for his short tenure is unknown. After three months, he was replaced by the former consul and pagan senator Fabius Titianus.47 Several pagan senators originating from Rome succeeded in the early 340s. Aurelius Celsinus, former proconsul Africae and perhaps related to Titianus, was his successor.48 He must have been a supporter of Constans during his civil war against his brother Constantinus and, as an expression of his loyalty, the prefect erected a statue in the emperor’s honour in the Circus Maximus.49 After a thirteen-month term, Celsinus’ successor Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus would serve for only three months.50 Again, the reason for the brevity of his term is unclear. Only during the 350s under Constantius does Lollianus seem to have risen to prominence again. From July 342, the former praetorian prefect Aco Catullinus attained the prefecture for more than a year and a half.51 The origin and career of his successor Quintus Rusticus is largely unknown.52 The former consul Petronius Probinus, a member from the Probi-Anicii, was appointed next.53 He was probably a Christian. M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus, an ex-praetorian prefect and consul, would be the last member of the city-Roman aristocratie gentes to be elected by Constans.54 What is more, he was the last prefect under Constans and the last to serve a sole tenure as Rome’s care-taker, before it became part of a dual office. From 347 onwards, men from outside the pars Occidentis filled the office. In June 347, the prefecture was consigned to the pagan eastemer Ulpius Limenius.55 He has been identified as the Limenius who served a term as proconsul of Constantinople in the early 340s. Coinciding with his urban prefecture, he held the praetorian prefecture of Italy and Africa, and in 349 also the consulate. In pronouncements, he was addressed only in his capacity as praetorian prefect, whose duties were exercised most likely from Rome, not Milan.56 After his tenure, Eustathius, the former comes rerum privatarum of Constans, possibly acted as stand-in

45 PLRE 433 s.v. Maecilius Hilarianus 5 46 PLRE I 88 s.v. L. Turcius Apronianus 9. 47 PLRE 1918-919 s.v. Fabius Titianus 6. 48 PLRE I 192 s.v. Aurelius Celsinus 4. 49 CIL V I40782. 50 PLRE I 512-514 s.v. Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus signo Mavortius 5. 51 PLRE 1 187-188 s.v. Aco Catullinus signo Philomathius 3. 52 PLRE 1787 s.v. Quintus Rusticus 2. 53 PLRE 1735 s.v. Petronius Probinus 2. 54 PLRE I 705-706 s.v. M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 2. 55 PLRE 1510 s.v. Ulpius Limenius 2. 56 CTh. 9.17.2 and 9.21.6. 184 Constantius

Urban prefect Date Naeratius Cerealis 352, 26 Sept. - 353, 8 Dec. Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus signo Honorius 353, 8 Dec. - 355, 6 July Fl. Leontius 355, summer- 356, 10 Nov. Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus signo Honorius (II) 357, spring - 359, 25 March Junius Bassus 359, 25 March - 359, 25 Aug. Tertullus 359, - 361, summer Table UP4. Urban prefects under Constantius (352-361) Constantius would appoint five different urban prefects, of whom Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus would be honoured with the office twice. During Magnentius’ usurpation, his loyal military and political supporters - including several senators who had served under Constans - had been awarded high positions. From the autumn of 352 onwards, other leading men and members of prominent families who were residing in or around Rome were offered elevated positions in the administrative apparatus by Constantius. Before his urban prefecture, the last known position of the Christian Naeratius Cerealis had been the praefectura annonae in 328 under Constantine. Through the marriage of his sister Galla with Julius Constantius, the half-brother of Constantine and father of the Caesar Gallus, he was related to the imperial house.72 His brother Vulcacius Rufinus was the active praetorian prefect of Illyricum and Gallia during his whole tenure.73 Cerealis was succeeded by the pagan Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, serving his first term. Narrow reciprocal correlations of kinship and friendship existed between Constantius’ first two prefects.74 The status and power of Cerealis and Orfitus seem to have waivered temporarily after the execution of Gallus in 354. Cerealis was not awarded with a new position until 358, when he was appointed consulposterior. Orfitus, the active urban prefect at the time of Gallus’ fall, held office for another six months before being relieved of office. In the summer of 355, Flavius Leontius took up the prefecture.75 Originally, Constantius offered the position to Anatolius, a pagan senator from Berytus who had risen in his service to the post of proconsul of Constantinople in 354. According to Libanius, he declined the offer on grounds of fear of failure.76 Leontius was presumably a Christian of

72 PLRE 1382 s.v. Galla 1; 226 s.v. Iulius Constantius 7. Chausson 2007: 169-174. 73 Rufinus held the praetorian prefecture of Italy from ca. 345 until 347, but there is no precise evidence to date the beginning and end of this particular tenure. This is also the case for his prefectures in Illyricum and Gauls. See PLRE 1782-783 s.v. Vulcacius Rufinus 25; Palanque 1969; Barnes 1992: 256, 257, and 259. 74 They were connected by relation to Vulcacius Rufinus. Cerealis was his brother; Vitrasius Orfitus appears to have been part of the same friendly circles as Rufinus. Ammianus (27.7.3) recalled the intervention or conciliation of Vulcacius Rufinus at the address of emperor Valentinian I to prevent the impending confiscation of goods or the exile of Vitrasius Orfitus, for which he was condemned by the same emperor in 364. 75 Leontius’ tenure is attested for on 10 November 356. He was probably already in office in the summer of 355. See PLRE I 503 s.v. Flavius Leontius 22. 76 Lib. £p.391 and 423. In 357, he became praetorian prefect of Illyricum, being regarded with respect by Ammianus (19.11.2-3). See PLRE 159-60 s.v. Anatolius 3; Norman 1957. 187 unknown parentage, originating from the East. The ‘foreign’ Leontius had shown his loyalty to Constantius as comes Orientis in 349 and as quaestor sacri palatii. His religious affiliation may have been the deciding factor in his candidature, as it enabled Constantius to smoothen the realisation of religious policies, such as the arrest of the bishop Liberius.77 This nomination by Constantius, like those by Constans between 347 and 350, affected the aristocratie gentes of Rome directly.78 A representation from within the city-roman senatorial circles only occurred from the spring of 357, with the second term of Vitrasius Orfitus. He was the prefect in office during the adventus of Constantius to Rome and, as a Roman resident, he was well able to make the proper arrangements for an imperial visit. Like the appointment of Leontius, Vitrasius Orfitus’ nomination also may have been induced by his religious convictions. His pagan affiliation as well as his record of service possibly facilitated the execution of Constantius’ sensitive order to remove the Altar of Victory from the Curia. His successor was the Christian city-Roman senator Junius Bassus, who died shortly after his installation in 359, as the inscription on his sarcophagus reveals.79 After his death, the further unknown Artemius was deputised for a short period of time.80 The interval, marked by popular unrest and turbulence, ended with the appointment of Tertullus. He was possibly the son of the Tertullus who had been proconsul Africae of 326, and the grandson of Attius Insteius Tertullus, the urban prefect of 307-308.81 After a tempestuous start because of a food-shortage in Rome, he stayed on until at least the summer of 361. By the end of 361, he was replaced for Maximus by the new Augustus Julian.82 It was during Tertullus’ tenure that the city of Constantinople was awarded the urban prefecture as well, a development that would mark the end of the uniqueness of the office. The senatorial body, inextricably connected to the imperial Capital, consisted mainly of senators who had followed Constantine to the East.83

77 See Chapter 2, paragraph 3.1. 78 Poglio 2007: 28-31. 79 PLRE I 155 s.v. Iunius Bassus signo Theotecnius 15; 882-883 s.v. Tertullus 2.CIL V I41341 a-b = 32005. He would be honoured with a public funeral, like several predecessors who had also died while in office: L. Calpumius Piso (32), Aelius Lamia (32/33), L. Volusius Satuminus (56) and Flavius Sabinus (70). Cameron 2002. Later examples are Sextius Rusticus Julianus (387) and Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus (408-409). See PLRE I 479-480 s.v. Sextius Rusticus Iulianus 37; PLRE II 897 s.v. Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus 2. 80 Amm.Marc. 17.11.5. See PLRE I 112 s.v. Artemius 1. 81 PLRE I 882 s.v. Tertullus 1; 883-884 s.v. Attius Insteius Tertullus 6. 82 Maximus was the nephew of Vulcacius Rufinus and Naeratius Cerealis. Amm.Marc. 19.10.1-4 and 21.12.24. See PLRE 1582 s.v. Maximus 17. 83 The senators from Constantinople were awarded the title of viri clari in stead of viri clarissimi. Anon.Vales. Origo 6.30; Zos. 2.31.3. For a detailed transgression on the Senate of Constantinople, see Dagron 1974: 119-210; Skinner 2000; id. 2008. See also Chapter 7, paragraph 1. 188 Pagans and Christians in the Urban Prefeeture The religious sympathies of office-holders have become a topic of central importance within the study of Late Antiquity in the last decades, not only as a way of charting the historical development of Christianisation within the senatorial aristocracy, but also to interpret the emperors’ roles in this process by favouring a certain religious group.84 However, it remains to be seen if religiosity was a criterion which surpassed imperial loyalty, political expertise or skill. Although the religious affiliation of several prefects cannot be determined, the remaining group shows a slightly higher number of Christians, especially in the period 326- 333. Eusebius’ statement that Constantine favoured Christians in his administration, however, does not apply to the urban prefeeture.85 In the direct aftermath of Maxentius’ overthrow, he opted for pagan senators from Rome. These men had served under Maxentius and their participation in the political arena in Rome facilitated a smooth transition of power. In the years after 335, he tumed once again to pagan city-Roman nobles. Rufius Volusianus probably had altercations with Constantine for a short time in the 320s but was quickly restored in favour. L. Aradius Valerius Proculus had served as comes ordinis primi intra palatium under Constantine in the years preceding his prefeeture and had clearly eamed his stripes. Alföldi’s view that Constantine wanted to infiltrate Christian high-office-holders to dilute the influence of the old guard in the Senate seems to be overstated.86 The pool of candidates for the prefeeture of the City consisted both of apt pagan and Christian senators. From the beginning of his reign as Augustus, Constans’ appointments reveal a dominance of pagans in the city-Roman high administrative machinery. This policy marks a discontinuation of Constantine’s nominations. Prosopographical research into the filling of the consulatus et praefeeturae by Von Haehling, Kuhoff and Barnes, among others, also shows this prevalence in the consulate and the praetorian prefeeture.87 The office of urban prefect, the highest administrative and most honourable post in Rome, was notably filled by pagans. Between 338 and 350, no Christians are attested with certainty among the urban prefects.88 Constans’ numerous nominations of pagans are difficult to link to specific political or dynastical loyalties and have been explained as a religious statement.89 His policy was either a gesture of reconciliation from the emperor towards the pagan gentes in Rome, or reflected an

84Brown 1961; Haehling 1978; Kuhoff 1983; Barnes 1989b; id. 1992; id. 1994; id. 1995; Salzman 2002; Poglio 2007; Cameron2011: 177-178 and 182-183. 85 Eus. VC 2.44. 86 AlfÖldi 1969: 75. 87 Analysis shows a proportion of twelve to two between afïïrmed pagans and Christians under his rule. See Von Haehling 1978; Kuhoff 1983: 112-29; Barnes 1995: 135-147; Poglio 2007. See also paragraph 1.2 and 1.3 of this chapter. 88 Fabius Titianus, Aurelius Celsinus, Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus signo Mavortius, Aco Catullinus signo Philomathius, M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus and Ulpius Limenius have all been confïrmed pagan with confidence. L. Turcius Apronianus was probably pagan. See Barnes 1995, 135-147; Kuhoff 1983: 155-159 and 181-183. 89 Bames 1995: 144; Poglio 2007: 56-57. 189 inability to actively propagate a Christian policy in Rome.90 The possible lack of suitable Christians with the same orthodox convictions as the emperor may be a factor in the second case. The preponderance of pagans may have displeased the Christian community in Rome from the early years of his reign. Allegedly, at the time of Constantinus’ invasion, a victorious outcome of the civil war for the latter was favoured over support for Constans by at least one bishop residing in Rome: Athanasius.91 Bames proposes an indifference on Constans’ part towards the urban offices and aristocracy, or an inability to restrain the influence of the pagan aristocracy.92 Opposing this theory, however, are the emperor’s attempts to secure the knowledge of the agency and city- Roman developments, and to exercise supervision over the City and its prefect. He limited the prefect’s jurisdiction and deployed political surveillance and state intelligence to Rome.93 Constans’ depiction as a miser for selling offices may have been valid in terms of the provincial govemorships, but is less likely for the high administrative machinery, considering the previous careers and noble birth of his chosen dignitaries. As he preferred political skill and convenience over religious affiliation, Constans’ appointment of senators who were pagan were acts undertaken to obtain future tacit allegiance or to avert grave resistance from the senatorial body. Under Constantius’ rule, the urban prefecture changed with each tenure from Christian to pagan, starting with the Christian Naeratius Cerealis. Of the six tenures, each religious group was represented by three prefects, of which the pagan Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus served twice. The choice for these particular pagans and Christians may have been partly motivated by the emperor’s own convictions. As Naeratius Cerealis held his last known post under Constantine, one may hypothesise that the urban prefect had Arian sympathies and was disregarded by Constans for this reason. The arianism of Leontius is even more likely, as he originated from the East and had been a loyal servant of Constantius for many years. Constantius either carefully chose available and apt kindred spirits to fill the urban prefecture, or opted for non-Christians who had proven their loyalty or service or were connected to the House of Constantine.

90 Bames 1993a: 52. 91 Theodoret. HE 2.1.6.21. Bames 1993a: 52. See Chapter 1, paragraph 10. 92 Bames 1995: 144. 93 See paragraph 2 of this chapter. 190 6.1.2 Consuls From republican times, the chairmanship of the Senate had been reserved for the consul, a supreme distinctive position in the Roman administrative system.94 In Late Antiquity, the consul ordinarius had become even more prestigious - summum bonum primumque in mundo decus - being the supreme mark of imperial favour and the culmination of the senatorial career.95 Both the urban and praetorian prefecture served as intermediate stations towards the consulate. The distribution of the western consulate between imperial, senior military and civilian holders shifted during the reigns of Constantine, Constans and Constantius. Several non- imperial consuls were appointed and even outshone the consular years of emperors, especially from the 330s onwards. Several of these officials, as well as the emperors and imperial family members, operated outside Rome and therefore were not able to actually fulfil the consular social and symbolic responsibilities in the Urbs, which included opening the year (which was named after the freshly appointed consuls) and attending the consular games they were supposed to sponsor.96 * The consular offices during the relevant decades are recorded up to 354 in the list by the Chronographer of 354, and supplemented by entries from several other chronicles and lists.97

94 For the consulate in republican times, see Beek 2011; Pina Polo 2011. 95 The consulate was a honos sine labore: Pan.Lat. 3 (11) 2.2. Both consuls for the year were proclaimed iointly as a pair until the beginning of the fifth century. See Bagnall 1987: 1-18. 6 Sguaitamatti 2012: 1-50. 97 Jordanes, Get. 57.289. For a detailed overview of the consular documentation, see Bagnall 1987: 47-57. 191 Constantine Year Consul ordinarius Consul posterior 312 Conslantine (11) Lieinius (II) 313 January May Constantine (III) Maximinus (III) May - late summer Constantine (III) Late summer December Constantine (III) Lieinius (III) 314 C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus (11) Petronius Annianus 315 Constantine (IV) Lieinius (IV) 316 Antonius Caecinius Sabinus Vettius Rufïnus 317 Consules quos iusseril dd. nn. A ugusti From 17 February Ovinius Gallicanus Caesonius Bassus 318 Lieinius (V) Crispus 319 Constantine (V) Lieinius Caesar 320 Constantinus (VI) Constantius 321 Crispus (II) Constantinus (II) 322 Petronius Probianus Amnius Anicius Julianus 323 Acilius Severus Vettius Rufïnus 324 Crispus (III) Constantinus (III) 325 January May Valerius Proculus Sex. Anicius Paulinus May - December Sex. Anicius Paulinus f ioniusf Julianus 326 Constantine (VI1) Constantius 327 Flavius Constantius Valerius Maximus 328 Flavius Januarinus Vettius Justus 329 Constantine (VIII) Constantinus (IV) 330 Flavius Gallicanus Aurelius Valerius Tullianus Symmachus [Phospho]rius 331 Junius Annius Bassus Flavius Ablabius 332 Lucius Papius Pacatianus Maecilius Hilarianus 333 Flavius Dalmatius Domitius Zenophilus 334 Flavius Optatus Amnius M. Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus Honorius 335 Julius Constantius Caeionius Rufius Albinus 336 Virius Nepotianus Tettius Facundus 337 Flavius Felicianus Fabius Titianus Table C l. Consuls under Constantine (312-337)

192 After his early years as emperor of Britain, Gaul and Spain, during which he had a preference for imperial appointments, Constantine altemated between imperial and civil consuls in his first years as emperor of the entire West. He started off with a joint consulate in 313 with Maximinus, proclaimed from Rome. In 317, at the time of his first civil war with Licinius, Constantine opted for another consulate held by private citizens. In the following years, the peace agreement between the two Augusti was confirmed in the consular appointments. In 318, 319 and 320, both emperors and the three Caesares at the time - Crispus, Constantinus and Licinius Junior - altemated the consulate. From 321 onwards, however, Constantine and Licinus both chose their own consuls. In the following years, the non-imperial consuls became a majority, culminating after 330 in eight subsequent tenures of civil consuls. These included Flavius Dalmatius and Julius Constantius, who were both half-brothers of Constantine but were not in imperial functions. From the group of civilian consuls, a fair share originated from senatorial families from Rome who had often held the urban prefecture simultaneously or prior to the consulate.98 Other consuls had served as praetorian prefect and were of senatorial or humble birth." One prefect, L. Papius Pacatianus (consul in 332), was of equestrian rank.100 The rhetor Flavius Optatus had not had a career in the high administrative machinery but was awarded the honorary rank of patrician - a title reintroduced by Constantine. His relations with Constantine and his position at court were established in such a way that he was appointed consul in 334.101 Only five of Constantine’s urban prefects were never appointed to consul.102 Of the eight non- imperial consuls, no further office or parentage is attested.103 Ammianus’ accusing statement, however, that Constantine appointed barbarians as consuls, can be refuted.104

98 Senatorial origin: Aurelius Valerius Tullianus Symmachus [Phospho]rius (330), Maecilius Hilarianus (332; urban prefect under Constans). Simultanuously: C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus (314; 313-315), C. Vettius Cossinius Rufmus (316; 315-316); Ovinius Gallicanus (317; 316-317); Amnius Manius Caesonius Nicomachus Anicius Paulinus (334; 334-335; 334); Ceionius Rufius Albinus (335; 335-337; 335); Consul before urban prefecture: Petronius Probianus (322; 329-331), Amnius Anicius Julianus (323; 326-329) and Sex. Anicius Paulinus (325; 331-333). Possibly the consul Severus can be identified as Acilius Severus (323; 325-326). Flavius Julianus has been identified as the vicarius Urbis Romae of 320 (328; 320). 99 Praetorian prefects: Petronius Annianus (314; 315-317); Flavius Constantius (327; 324-327), Valerius Maximus (327; 327/328, 332/333, 337), Flavius Ablabius (331; 329-337), Papius Pacatianus (332; 329/332-337). Probably also Julianus, a former praetorian prefect of Licinius (325; 315-324). 100 PLRE1656 s.v. L. Papius Pacatianus 2. 101 PLRE 1650 Fl. Optatus 3. He is attested as the first man with the patrician title. Kelly 2006: 197-198. Septimius Bassus, Valerius Maximus Basilius, Lucer. Verinus, Publius Optatianus Porfhyrius, Ceionius Julianus Kamenius. Aradius Rufinus was possibly a consul under Maxentius. Valerius Proculus would become a consul under Constans in 340. 103 Antonius Caecinius Sabinus, Vettius Rufmus, Vettius Justus, Flavius Gallicanus, Domitius Zenophilus, Virius Nepotianus, Tettius Facundus, Flavius Felicianus. 104 Amm.Marc. 21.10.8. 193 Constans Year Consul ordinarius Consul posterior 337 Flavius Felicianus Fabius Titianus 338 Flavius Ursus Flavius Polemius 339 Constantius (II) Constans 340 Septimius Acindynus L. Aradius Valerius Proculus Populonius 341 Antonius Marcellinus Petronius Probinus 342 Constantius (III) Constans (II) 343 M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Flavius Romulus Caecilianus Placidus 344 East Domitius Leontius Julius Sallustius West Domitius Leontius Flavius Bonosus (until April/May) Julius Sallustius (after April /May) 345 Flavius Amantius M. Nummius Albinus 346 Constantius (IV) Constans (III) 347 Vulcacius Rufinus Flavius Eusebius 348 Flavius Philippus Flavius Salia 349 Ulpius Limenius Aconius Catullinus Philomathius 350 Flavius Sergius Flavius Nigrinianus

Table C2. Consuls under Constans and Constantius (337-350)

During the period 337-350, the civilian consuls outbalanced Constans and Constantius as imperial office-holders. Only three times did they serve the consulate together as Augusti. They appointed consuls together, and it is only in 344, the year of their temporal breach, that there seems to have been a discord in the filling of the consulate. Within the non-imperial group, the men from Constans’ realm held a majority, although the late 340s showed a preponderance of men from the East.105 Several city-Roman senators can be attested, as well as homines novi and one equestrian.106 Predominant were the consuls who served a praetorian

105 Lucius Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius, Antonius Marcellinus, Petronius Probinus, M.Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus, Flavius Bonosus, Vulcacius Rufinus, Ulpius Limenius and Fabius Aconius Catullinus Philomathius. Probably M. Nummius Albinus signo Triturrius, Flavius Salia; Constantius’s servants: Flavius Polemius, Septimius Acindynus, Flavius Domitius Leontius, Flavius Philippus, probably Flavius Julius Sallustius and probably Flavius Eusebius. Eastemers: Flavius Eusebius (consul posterior in 347) from Thessalonica; Flavius Philippus (consul 348), coming from Cyprus; Ulpius Limenius (consul prior 349). 106 Senators: Septimius Acindynus (340), Proculus (340), Antonius Marcellinus (341), Petronius Probinus (341), M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus (343), M. Nummius Albinus (345), Vulcacius Rufinus (347), Fabius Aconius Catullinus Philomathius (349); hommes novi: Domitius Leontius (344); equestrian: Flavius Bonosus (344). 194 or an urban prefecture before, during or after their consulate.107 Ulpius Limenius held the consulate and the urban and praetorian prefecture simultaneously.108 Constantius Year Consul ordinarius Consul posterior 350 Flavius Sergius Flavius Nigrinianus 351 Post consulatum Sergii et Nigriniani 352 Constantius (V) Gallus 353 Constantius (VI) Gallus (II) 354 Constantius (VII) Gallus (III) 355 Flavius Arbitio Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Mavortius 356 Constantius (VIII) Julian 357 Constantius (IX) Julian (II) 358 Censorius Datianus Neratius Cerealis 359 Flavius Eusebius Flavius Hypatius 360 Constantius (X) Julian (III) 361 Flavius Taurus Flavius Florentius Table C3. Consuls under Constantius (350-361) After the death of Constans, the Empire witnessed two jurisdictions again. Constantius opted for the consulate with his Caesar Gallus between 351 and 353. Magnentius either assumed the consulate himself or chose his Caesar Decentius or other loyal supporters. From 354 until his death, Constantius divided the imperial consulate years - one time with Gallus and three times with Julian - and the privates equally, though in varying succession. From the group of consuls in the 350s and early 360s, attestations can be made for two senators, Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Mavortius and Naeratius Cerealis, and three homines novi: Fl. Florentius, Fl. Taurus and Censorius Datianus (who hadbecome a patricius). Twice Constantine opted for former urban prefects from the 340s and early 350s. Of these two, Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus was attested as praetorian prefect of Illyricum in the same year of his consulate in 355. The other would be consul posterior to Datianus, a senator from Constantinople. In 355, the former urban prefect of Constans, Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Mavortius, became consul posterior. In the same year he was first attested as praetorian prefect of Illyricum. His colleague was the magister equitum, Flavius

107 Lucius Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius (praefectus Urbi 337-338; consul 340); Petronius Probinus (consul 341; praefectus Urbi 345-346); M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Plaeidus {praefectus praetorio Italiae 342-344; consul 343; praefectus Urbi 346-347); Aconius Catullinus Philomathius {praefectus praetorio Galliarum 341; praefectus Urbi 342-344; consul 349). Career and parentage unknown: Flavius Ursus (338), Flavius Romulus (343) , Flavius Amantius (345) , Flavius Sergius (350), Flavius Nigrinianus (350). 108 PLRE 1510 s.v. Ulpius Limenius 2. 195 Arbitio. In 359, the fasces were assumed by Flavius Eusebius, a former govemor from the East, and Flavius Hypatius, a fellow eastemer who would serve as urban prefect and praetorian prefect under Theodosius.109 Only in 361 did Constantius honour praetorian prefects of his own again: Flavius Taurus, the prefect of Italy and Africa, was elected as consul prior. Flavius Florentius, who had laid down the prefecture of Gaul the previous year, became consul posterior.110 6.1.3 Praetorian Prefects The praetorian prefecture, for a long time the top of the military career path, had become the highest civil office in the Empire. The prefects were drawn not only from imperial bureaucrats, but were also elected from senators. The office defined a senatorial career, as it gave high prestige. The role of the praetorian prefect, which was (like its urban equivalent) an invention of Augustus, differed from the urban prefecture in three respects. Its officials were originally drawn from the pool of equestrians; their main concern was not the city of Rome but the emperor; and their duties extended to the legal and civil-administrative sphere and were foremost within the military domain. The power and status of the highest equestrian officers grew in the third century when they were often deployed to troubled regions in the Empire to act as trouble-shooters, an evolution that led to the imperial ward of senatorial honours to the high-equestrian officials.111 * For the period 312-361, a precise reconstruction of the praetorian prefects and their tenures is problematic as the documentation is unsatisfactory. Several prefects are only known through imperial pronouncements and cannot be identified further.112 Imperial or Regional Prefects According to Zosimus, Constantine divested the praetorian prefects of their military authority and created the posts of magister militum, magister equitum and magister peditum as new commanders of the army.113 The author furthermore claims that Constantine abandoned the prefectures that were attached to emperors and created four regional prefectures.114 Although the magistri are not attested until the reigns of Constans and Constantius, and the regional prefectures only came into existence in the 340s and 350s, there were indeed impulses under Constantine that led to the developments within the praetorian prefecture.

109 PLRE 1308-309 s.v. Fl. Eusebius 40; 448-449 s.v. Flavius Flypatius. 110 PLRE 1365 s.v. Flavius Florentius 10; 879-880 s.v. Flavius Taurus 3. 111 Mennen 2011: 135-191. 112 Evagrius (326/ 336), Flavius Constantius (324/327), Aemilianus (328), Felix (333/336) and Gregorius (336). PLRE I 22 s.v. Aemilianus 3; 225 s.v. Fl. Constantius 5; 284-285 s.v. Euagrius 2; 331-332 s.v. Felix 2; 403 s.v. Gregorius 3. Bames 1982: 123-139; id. 1992; id. 2011: 158-163; Porena2003. 113 Zos. 2.33.3. 114 Zos. 2.33.1-2. 196 With the extension of the imperial college through Caesares from 317 onwards, praetorian prefects were attached to the young emperors to guide them. As the Caesares were each bound to a certain territory, these prefects were often temporarily employed in that particular region. To compensate for the Caesares youth and inexperience in goveming, Constantine appointed these officials to help administer the specific geographical areas. Probably in the early to mid 330s, a separate prefeeture was instated, directed to the province of Africa, alongside the prefectures that were attached to Constantine and his Caesares.'15 Constantine Range of Praetorian prefect Years attested Attached to Attached to region tenure in office emperor 312-317 Petronms Annianus 314; 315; 316; 317 Constantine 317-335 Junius Bassus 319; 320; 321; 326; Constantine Gaul 330-331 Crispus (320-324); Constantinus Junior (326-329); Constantius (330-) 324-327 Fl. Constantius 324; 325; 326; 327 Constantine Oriens Constantius? Italy (326-327?) 326-331 Evagrius 326; 329; 331; 336 Oriens116 (326;329) Unknown sphere of activity (331 ;336) 327-337 Valerius Maximus 327; 328; 332-333; Oriens (327-328) 337? Unknown sphere of activity (332-333; 337) 328 Aemilianus 328 Constantius? Italy 329-337 Fl. Ablabius 329; 330; 331; 332; Constantine (330- Italy (329-330) 333; 335;337 335) Oriens (335-337) Constantius (329- 330; 335-337) 332-337 L. Papius Pacatianus 332; 334; 335; 337 Constantinus Junior; Italy (+ Africa after Constans (335-) 337) 333-336 Valerius Felix 333; 334; 335/336 Africa 333-334 C. Caelius Satuminus 334-335 Constantinus Junior Gaul [324-337] 335-337 Nestorius 335 Constantine? Oriens? Timonianus 335-337 C. Annius Tiberianus 335;337 Constantinus Junior Gaul 336-337 Gregorius 336 Oriens? Africa Controversial tenures 318-320 Vettius Rufïnus Possible prefect, unknown sphere of activity (much disputed) 321 Petronius Probianus Possible prefect, unknown sphere of activity 321 Volusianus Vicarius or possible prefect, unknown sphere of activity 321-326 Menander Comes or possible prefect, Africa 322-323 Severus Possible prefect, unknown sphere of activity 332-333 Proculus Proconsul or possible prefect, Africa Table PP1. Praetorian prefects under Constantine (312-337) 117

115 AE 1925: 72 and 1985: 823. 116 Barnes 1982: 131; Porena 2003: 421. 197 The prefeets of Constantine mostly have an uncertain origin and only one, L. Aradius Valerius Proeulus (332/333), can be identified as a senator with confidence.118 Two are attested as homines novi, C. Caelius Satuminus (before May 337) and Flavius Ablabius (329- 337), and one as equestrian, L. Papius Pacatianus (329-337).119 From the Constantinian group of prefeets, almost half of the men would serve a consulate during their tenure. One, L. Aradius Valerius Proeulus, was appointed consul under Constans in 340, but was assigned the urban prefecture in 337 after he had held a prefecture, probably in Africa. Constans Year Praetorian prefect Attached to emperor Attached to region 340-342 Antonius Marcel linus Constans 341 Aconius Catullinus Gaul 342-344 M. Maecius Memmius Furius Constans Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 342-350 Fabius Titianus Gaul 343-C.345 M. Maecius Memmius Furius Gaul Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 343/344-346 Anatolius Illyricum c. 345-347 Vulcacius Rufïnus Italy 347-7353 Vulcacius Rufïnus Illyricum 347 -349 Ulpius Limenius Italy; Prefect of Rome simultaneously 349 Eusthatius (stand-in ?) Italy; Prefect of Rome simultaneously 349-350 Hermogenes Italy; Prefect of Rome simultaneously

Table PP2. Praetorian prefeets under Constans (340-350) After the death of Constantine, the three new Augusti all had their own realm and their own prefect attached to them, although these officials became more and more territory-bound. After 340, Constans appointed a second prefect within his realm to govem the provinces that he gained after the civil war with Constantinus. Some years later, he created a third prefecture in his realm. In 347, a prefect for Italy and Africa and one for Illyricum are attested.120 Approximately a third of the prefeets appointed by Constans and Constantius were drawn from the pool of senators. Both emperors tumed on occasion to prefeets who had served under Constantine or Constans respectively.

117 Bames 1982: 127-134 ; id. 2011 : 160-164; Porena2003: 342-473. 118 See section 1.1 of this chapter. 119 PLRE I 3-4 s.v. Fl. Ablabius 4; 806 s.v. C. Caelius Satuminus signo Dograatius 9. For L. Papius Pacatianus, see paragraph 1.2 of this chapter. 120 However, Salutius Secundus, a prefect under Julian, was no regional prefect but a deputy prefect. Bames 2011: 249. 198 From the group of prefects employed by Constans, four are attested as senator. The remaining share of prefects have unknown parentage. Constans continued his father’s policy in appoiprefnting his praetorian prefects during their tenure for the consulate and conferred this honour to six of his eight known prefects. Fabius Titianus, however, had been appointed consul under Constans in 337 and Aconius Catullinus, who served as prefect of Gaul at least in 341, was not awarded the consulate until 349. This prefect held the urban prefecture between both posts. There seems to have been no pattem of tenure. Furius Placidus also assumed the position of urban prefect after serving as praetorian prefect from 346 until 347, having been fïrst attached to Constans between 342 and 344, and next as prefect of Italy until 345.121 Fabius Titianus acted as urban prefect from 339 to 341 before his praetorian prefecture of Gaul from 342 to 350 and would serve another tenure in Rome under Magnentius. The last known prefects to be appointed by Constans (Ulpius Limenius, Hermogenes and possibly the brief stand-in Eustathius) held the combined position of praefecti praetorio et Urbis during their entire tenure. Constantius Year Praetorian prefect Attached to emperor Attached to region 338-340 Septimius Acindynus Constantius 341/342-344 Flavius Domitius Leontius Constantius 344-351 Flavius Philippus Constantius 351-353 Thalassius Gallus 351-354 Maiorinus Constantius 353-354 Domitianus Gallus 354 Maecilius Hilarianus Italy 354-355 C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus Gaul 354-358 Strategius Musonianus Oriens 355-356 Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus Illyricum 355-357 Honoratus Gaul 355-361 Flavius Taurus Italy and Africa 357-360 Flavius Florentius Gaul 357-360 Anatolius Illyricum 358-360 Hermogenes Oriens 360-361 Nebridius Gaul 360-361 Helpidius Oriens 360-361 Flavius Florentius Illyricum Table PP3. Praetorian prefects under Constantius (338-361)

121 PLRE I 705-706 s.v. M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 2. See section 1.1 of this chapter. 199 Until the mid-350s, Constantius retained the emperor-bound prefecture. He appointed a second prefect of this type between 351 and 354 to assist his Caesar Gallus. From 354 onwards, the prefecture of the Oriens became active. Like his father, Constantius furthermore appointed a substantial number of homines novi. The prefects elected to support Gallus and to serve in the territories ruled by the Caesar Gallus were predominantly men who had proven their loyalty to Constantius as comités}22 Only one bom senator, Septimius Acindynus, a former agens vices praefectorum praetorio in the Diocesis Hispaniarum, can be attested.123 None of his own prefects would serve as urban prefect during their career, but three out of four were appointed consul during their tenure.124 The prefects attached to Gallus never received a consulary nomination. In the last years of Constantius’ rule, from 354 onwards, more senators are attested as praetorian prefects. The assignation of another high-office position as consul or urban prefecture declined. Only three - Fl. Florentius, Fl. Taurus and Lollianus - served a consulate during their tenure, of whom the first only during his second term as prefect of Illyricum. Maecilius had fïlled the consular position under Constantine and the urban prefecture under Constans. Vulcacius Rufius had become consul under the latter emperor. C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus signo Lampadius, prefect of Gaul in the mid 350s, was discharged after suspicion of a plot against the emperor.125 He was only offered the urban prefecture under the Valentinian dynasty. 6.1.4 Appointing the Higher Offices - Preference and Credentials During the middle decades of the fourth century, the senators from Rome continued to fulfil an important role within the administration of the Empire and the City. Their domain of power during the reign of Constantine was mainly limited to the Capital itself. The emperor clearly used the pool of city-Roman senators as candidates for the urban prefecture, the most prestigious position for senators with bonds to Rome or Italy. No men from the East are attested as prefects of the City, although not all regional origins can be identified. The city- Roman nobles were also frequently appointed to the honorary post of consul, but were represented in the praetorian prefecture only to a lesser degree. Constans seems to have met the aspirations of the city-Roman aristocracy during his early years as Augustus.126 Numerous men of clarissimate rank from Rome or the surrounding provinces were awarded high and renowned offices of the consulate and the urban or praetorian prefectures.127 Although not anti-senatorial nor anti-pagan in his filling of the

122 Constantine: Flavius Ablabius and C. Caelius Satuminus signo Dogmatius; Gallus: Domitianus and Thalassius; Gaul: Honoratus, Flavius Florentius and Nebridius. 123 CIL II4107. See PLRE 1 11 s.v. Septimius Acindynus 2. Saquete 2000. 124 Septimius Acindynus, Fl. Domitius Leontius and Fl. Philippus. Maiorinus is the exception. 125 Amm.Marc. 15.5.4-5 and 5.13. See PLRE I 978-980 s.v. C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus signo Lampadius 5; Barnes 1975b: 47. 126 Barnes 1989b. 127 L. Aradius Valerius Proculus Populonius (praefectus Urbi 337-338; consul 340); Maecilius Hilarianus (praefectus Urbi 338-339); L. Turcius Apronianus (praefectus Urbi 339); Fabius Titianus (consul 337; 200 consulship and the prefectures, the condemnation by literary sources for Constans’ lack of respect for the offices seems valid with regard to Rome’s upper classes.128 Leaving the allegation of his selling of offices aside, he combined the praetorian with the urban prefecture. From 347 onwards, officials from outside Rome would be dominantly represented in the urban and praetorian prefecture, at the expense of members from the city-Roman aristocratie gentes. Men from the pars Orientis, with previous careers as dignitaries of Constantius, were not only awarded the consulate or one of the praetorian prefectures within the West, but also the urban prefecture of the city of Rome. From 347 until 349, the office was held even simultaneously with the praetorian prefecture. The city-Roman senators were sidelined, downgrading their effective power in the last years of Constans’ reign.129 The practice of the dual office, held by eastemers, was abandoned under Magnentius who opted for city-Roman senators for his high-offices. Constantius did not make any appeals to these officials, but tumed to another group of city-Roman senators for the urban prefecture and (to a smaller extent) for the consular and praetorian positions. On the whole, the city-Roman nobles were allowed to exercise power and influence at the top level of the Empire. Altemated with homines novi and a single known equestrian, they acted as praetorian prefects. They also shared the consulate with emperors and military and civil senior officers. The post that enabled the senators from Rome to participate in imperial high politics the most was that which offered them the scope to affect the government of their City and articulated the relationship between Rome and the emperor: the prefecture of Rome, the chief administrative office in their own city.

praefectus Urbi 339-341 and 350-351; praefectus praetorio Galliarum 342(?)-349/350), Aurelius Celsinus (praefectus Urbi 341), Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus signo Mavortius (praefectus Urbi 342), Aco Catullinus signo Philomathius (praefectus praetorio Galliarum 341; praefectus Urbi 342-344, consul 349), Petronius Probinus (consul 341; praefectus Urbi 345-346), M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus (praefectus praetorio Italiae (?) 342-344; consul 343), Vulcacius Rufinus (praefectus praetorio Galliarum ca. 345-347; consul 347). See for prosopography: PLRE I 747-749 s.v. L. Aradius Valerius Proculus signo Populonius 11; 433 s.v. Maecilius Hilarianus 5; 88 s.v. L. Turcius Apronianus 9; 918-919 s.v. Fabius Titianus 6; 192 s.v. Aurelius Celsinus 4; 512-514 s.v. Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus signo Mavortius 5; 187-188 s.v. Aco Catullinus signo Philomathius 3; 735 s.v. Petronius Probinus 2; 705-706 s.v. M. Maecius Memmius Furius Baburius Caecilianus Placidus 2; 782-783 s.v. Vulcacius Rufinus 25. 128 Aur.Vict. Caes. 41.23-24; Eutr. Brev. 10.9; Epit. de Caes. 42.3; Oros. 7.29.11; Jul. Or. 2.58c; Zos. 2.42.1-3. 129 Flavius Eusebius (consul posterior in 347) from Thessalonica; Flavius Philippus (consul 348,praefectus praetorio Orientis, 344-351), coming from Cyprus; Ulpius Limenius {praefectus Urbi 347-349; praefectus praetorio Italiae 347-349; consul prior 349) and Hermogenes {praefectus Urbi 350, praefectus praetorio 349-350). See for prosopography: PLRE I 307-308 s.v. Flavius Eusebius 39; 696-697 s.v. Flavius Philippus 7; 510 s.v. Ulpius Limenius 2; 423 s.v. Hermogenes 2 (possibly also Hermogenes 3 and 9); 311 s.v. Eustathius. 201 6.2 The City-Roman Administration - Assistance and Hindrance 6.2.1 The Urban Prefecture The office of the urban prefect of Rome had been closely tied to the imperial court ever since the start of the Principate.130 With the prevailing absence of the emperor in the old capital of the Empire, the ruler retreated from his role as controller of material resources and patron of the City. Rome was govemed foremost by the praefectus Urbis. The withdrawal of the imperial court from Rome and the concentration of imperial power elsewhere had implications for the role of the prefect in the political process in the fourth century. Although it impeded relations between the emperor and the city-Roman govemor, the latter did not refrain from showing his aspirations and those of Rome. The cura Urbis was his nuclear role, with the scope of his public service limited to the city of Rome itself and the regions closely dependent on it. Acting on behalf of the City by imperial order, he was the symbolic representative of the emperor in the old capital. The crowning appointment for a senatorial career was simultaneously a time- and money-consuming occupation with a wide range of duties, responsibilities and limitations. Not only was the prefect (for a variable period of time) the foremost guard of the City, but he was in the centre of political power when the emperor was present in Rome. The Digesta of Justinian show the prerogatives and responsibilities of the urban prefect as recorded by Ulpian, a third-century jurist.131 As the highest dignitary in Rome, the prefect was given responsibility for the care of the City by the emperor himself.132 He had an extensive range of duties and jurisdiction in the city and the zone of one hundred miles surrounding it.133 To carry out his various duties in and around the city, he had his official seat, the secretarium Tellurense, and, noticeable in a vestis Romulea, was allowed to traverse the city in a special vehiculum,134 He bore the responsibility for public order and law enforcement, especially when awarded the post of vice sacra iudicans or iudex sacrarum cognitionumP5 He supervised the provisioning

130 See section 1.1 of this chapter. 131 Digesta 1.12.1. 132 Amm.Marc. 21.12.24 and 23.1.4; Symm. Rel. 1.1 and 2.2. See Chastagnol 1960: 188-193. 133 Digesta 1.12.4. To a certain degree, his authority extended Empire-wide, since senatorial taxes were calculated and paid through him. For these reports, he was informed by censuales, who supervised senatorial taxes and wills (Symm. Rel. 23.2, 30 and 45-46). See Sinnigen 1957: 70-73. 134 The name ‘secretarium Tellurense’ implied a location within the district of the templum Telluris on the Esquiline Hill. The secretarium has been closely linked in epigraphically data with the area near the Baths of Trajan, where its scrinia, the archives, were probably located, but its vicinity to the Basilica Nova on the Forum Romanum has also been suggested. See, among others: CIL VI 37114 = 31959 and 248 = 3794 = 3814 = 31419a-d = 36904 = 37136a. See LTUR I: 170-173; IV: 159-160; Richardson 1992: 379; Marlowe 2004a: 50-52; Farber 2012. For the toga, see Cassiod. Var. 6.4.7. Chastagnol 1960: 196-203. For the prefect’s carriage, see Symm. Rel. 4 and 20; CTh. 14.12.1. This was also the right of the praetorian prefect. The earliest example is C. Caeionius Rufius Volusianus, urban prefect from December 313 until August 315. CIL VI 1707. PLRE I 976-978 s.v. C. Ceionus Rufius Volusianus 4. Urban prefeets with the post during the reigns of Constans and Constantius were L. Aradius Valerius Proeulus (CIL VI 1690, 1691 and 1693), Q. Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus (CIL VI 1723 = 1757 = 37112), Flavius Leontius (CIL VI 1160 and 31397), Junius Bassus (MHA 74 (1962) 607-), Naeratius Cerealis (CIL VI 1158) and Memmius 202 of the city, the performance of city services (such as fire fïghting and night watch under the praefecti vigilum) and the maintenance of Rome’s public works and ports. Although present in the Curia and (in all probability) the president of the assembly, he was surpassed in dignitary hierarchy by (former) consuls, former urban prefects, praetorian prefects and others decorated with the patrician rank. These most eminent senators were awarded the task of reading imperial Communications.136 With the absence of the emperor from the City, the sphere of the prefect’s accountability for Rome’s welfare expanded. Appreciation by the populace for the prefect’s performance was related to the living conditions in Rome. When supplies were in abundance, complaints or demands, ‘which were often wont to arise’, ceased.137 In times of crisis, the prefect was judged personally.138 Vitrasius Orfitus, who was criticised by Ammianus for his inadequate background in the liberal arts, had been under attack during his initial prefecture when wine reserves in the city ran out.139 Flavius Leontius’ tenure was also marked by popular unrest when first a conflict with a charioteer escalated, and later wine became too great a demand.140 This same prefect was allegedly ordered by Constantius to arrest the bishop Liberius and take him before the emperor in Milan.141 Tertullus saw his reputation and position threatened when disturbances began to rise as bread became in short supply.142 The responsibility of the prefect in times of shortages has been reported by Symmachus. During his prefecture in the 380s, the grave situation of an ensuing shortage of grain forced him to repeatedly appeal to the philanthropy of the emperors Theodosius and Arcadius to avert a further escalation of the crisis.143 Gabinius Barbarus Pompeianus, prefect during the first siege of Rome by Alaric (408-409), was killed by the mob of Rome in such a bread riot feared by Symmachus.144 The prefect’s responsibility for Rome grew, whereas his powers were limited. During late-Constantinian rule, the scope of the prefect would be reduced. In 345, the right for men of clarissimate rank to appeal a decision of the prefect was reinstated in order to restore the ‘authority of ancient times’.145 A decade later, Constantius installed himself as judge of the

Vitrasius Orfitus (CIL VI 1161 = 1162 = 36887, 770 = 1168 and 31395). Furius Placidus had already held the office of iudex sacrarum cognitionum three times before his urban prefecture (CIL X 1700). Fabius Titianus was a iudex sacrarum cognitionum during the usurpation of Magnentius (CIL VI 1165 = 1666a = 31882b and 1167). SeePeachin 1996: 188-191. 136 Porena2005. 137 Amm.Marc. 21.12.24 and 26.3.6. 138 Africa 1971: 19-20; Gregory 1983: 141-143; Erdkamp 2002: 102-104. 139 Amm.Marc. 14.6.1. 140 Amm.Marc. 15.7.2-5. 141 Amm.Marc. 15.7.6-10. 142 Amm.Marc. 19.10. 143 Symm. Rel. 9, 18 and 37. 144 V.Mei.Gr. 19; VMel.La. II. 1. 145 CTh. 11.30.23 (345): Idem aa. ad rusticum praefectum urbi. dudum meminimus sancientibus nobis esse decretum, ut iuris veteris auctoritate submota nullus clarissimus a praefecti urbis sententia provocandi usurparet licentius facultatem. sed cunctas nobis partes publicae utilitatis atque communis iuris videntibus praestare visum est, ut vetustatis auctoritas et appellandi facultas et origo repetatur, scilicet consenescente 203 appellate court for decisions pronouneed by the urban prefect of Rome and the proconsul of Constantinople. 1 4 6 From December 357, the appellate jurisdiction from several Italian provinces was transferred from the urban prefect to the praetorian prefect of Italy. 1 4 7 The first would only act as appellate judge in Latium, Tuscia, Umbria and Valeria. This reduction of the judicial autonomy of the prefect, as well as the increased supervision from several officials (a strategy of divide and rule), increased the emperor’s own control of the city- Roman administration during imperial absence. The prefect’s authority within the urban administration was undermined by the permanent officium of which he was only the temporal head, and was further weakened by the surveillance ordered by the emperor. Equally, the urban prefect was forced to collaborate and share jurisdiction with the vicarius Urbis Romae, the vicar of the praetorian prefect residing in Rome. 6.2.2 The officium praefecturae Urbanae As in every high office, a subordinate staff was attached to the urban prefect, assembled by means of imperial appointment. According to the Notitia Dignitatum, the officium of the urban prefecture was led by a princeps and further included a cornicularius, an adiutor, a commentariensis, an ab actis, numerarii, a primiscrinius, subadiuvae, a cura epistolarum, a regerendarius, exceptores, adiutores, censuales, nomenculatores and singularii.1 From at least the 340s, the emperor commissioned senior agentes in rebus as principes of the urban officium and not intemally promoted officiales. These members of the corps, in charge of intemal security and subordinate to the magister offïciorum, were specialised individuals trained to keep a close watch over the execution of imperial policy. This deployment spread expertise and skills, and monitored the officium by outside officials at the same time. 1 4 9 The urban prefect commanded the allegiance of the princeps for the benefit of Rome, while the imperial court expected his supervision of city-Roman policy. This construction was consistent with other reforms to secure the emperor’s control over regions where imperial presence was infrequent or impossible. 1 5 0 priore lege, qua istius modi potestas videbatur exclusa. proposita romae vi non. iul. amantio et albino conss. 146 CTh. 11.34.2 (355). 147 CTh. 11.30.27(357). 148 Not.Dign.Occ. IV. ‘A chief of staff, a chief deputy, a chief assistant, a custodian, a keeper of the records, receivers of taxes, a chief clerk (or receiver), assistants, a curator of correspondence, a registrar, secretaries, aids, clerks of the census, ushers and notaries.’ For the offices, see Sinnigen 1957; Chastagnol 1960: 214-253. 149 A law in the Theodosian Code from 382 (CTh. 1.6.8) records the assignment by Constantine of several offices, as well as the restoration of some by Sextus Claudius Petronius Probus, praetorian prefect of Italy in the 380s. See PLRE I 736-740 s.v. Sex. Claudius Petronius Probus 5. 150 For example, comités diocesium or comités qui per provincias constituti sunt, c.q. comités provinciarum for at least Spain, Africa and the Orients were appointed to inform the emperor and probably also to participate in appeal courts for sentences of the govemors. Dupont 1973: 318-319; Gaudemet 1981; Löhken 1982; Scharf 1994. 204 Contrary to the prefect, officiales held long tenures and often made careers within the officium. Symmachus reports friction between the prefect and officiales. He incriminates officiales who made decisions without reference to him . 1 5 1 Their loyalty towards the prefect was not guaranteed since he had no part in their admission, but only in the ratifïcation of the candidates elected. He did, however, supposedly countersign the imperial appointments of officiales. 1 5 2 The prefect was under constant supervision, especially by the chief of the officium, but subordinates could also criticise his policy and report their evaluations to the emperor. 1 5 3 If he committed an offence or was pronounced unsuitable, he might be liable for reprimand, or even discharge. 1 5 4 One such violation was the appeal by prefects against preliminary decisions. The number of imperial pronouncements condemning appeals against these praeiudicia presumes the practice. 1 5 5 Symmachus was publicly cautioned by Valentinian after charges of maltreatment towards Christians, after which he offered his resignation. 1 5 6 The strong opposition and his progressae insidiae aemulorum had forced him to lay down the prefecture. 1 5 7 Clodius Celsinus Adelfïus, prefect of Magnentius, was dismissed and most likely convicted after charges of treason. 1 5 8 Vitrasius Orfitus was replaced by Constantius with Flavius Leontius after the wine crisis during his fïrst tenure. 1 5 9 Conversely, the prefect could dismiss an officialis from the department following incompetence or ill-will. 1 6 0 According to Symmachus, the burden of the whole administration lay on the shoulders of the prefect. 1 6 1 Thus, in practice, the office of the urban prefecture, though the highest post within the city-Roman administration, experienced a fair degree of limitations. 6.2.3 Other Officials in Rome Several other magistracies were under the control of the prefect, such as the praefectus vigilum, praefectus annonae and the magister census. Through these administrative positions, the prefect controlled the census, markets and granaries, as well as corporations and guilds in the city. The demarcations of the fimctions and jurisdiction of the late-Roman prefect and these officials are blurred. The transmitted texts of the Theodosian Code conceming the offices are far from complete. The earliest preserved edict De officio praefecti Urbis, dated 3

131 Symm. Rel. 23.1-2 and 37.2. See also CTh. 1.6.12. 152 CTh. 8.7.22. See Sinnigen 1957: 10-11. 153 Symm. Rel. 21,23 and 36. See also Amm.Marc. 15.3.7-11. Sinnigen 1952: 14-32. 154 Symm. Rel. 21.2-3 and 23.4. For the supervision of urban prefects: Symm. Rel. 23.1, 23.4, 23.8, 24.2, 31.2, 38.4 and 49.2. 155 CTh. 11.36.2 (315), 11.36.3 (313; 315; 320-326), 11.36.5 (341), 11.36.10 (354; 360), 11.36.11 (355; 356), 11.36.1 (355) and 11.36.13 (358). 156 Symm. Rel. 21.1-6. 157 Symm. Rel. 21.4. 158 Amm.Marc. 16.6.2. See Barnes 2006: 249-256. 159 Graeber 1984. 16° Qj'fj j g j2 and 8.7.20. Symm. Rel. 17. See Sinnigen 1952: 12. 161 Symm. Rel. 17.2. 205 May 361, was applied to the urban prefect of Constantinople, not Rome. 1 6 2 In the late 350s, Constantius confirmed the duty of tax collection as the responsibility of the prefects of the annona and not of the prefects or the vicars. 1 6 3 Constitutions of later date, set out by the emperors Valens, Gratian and Valentinian, were to regulate the spheres of the prefect and the praefectus annonae and their respective officiales.164 For his commitments to the cura Urbis, he was assisted by numerous curatores who cared for public works, Utilities and statuary. 1 6 5 Quaestores and praetores were in charge of the provision of spectacles and public works. 1 6 6 Owing to circumstances such as a required presence at the imperial court, illness or even death, the prefect might be deputised for a period of time. The existence of a permanent vicariate for the urban prefeeture is, however, debatable. 6.2.4 The vicarius Urbis Romae During the Tetrarchic reign, Rome held the post of the vicarius in Urbe, a representative of the praetorian prefect administrating Italia suburbicaria.1 6 7 It has been assumed by modem scholars that, until the 350s, there was a permanent post of vicar of the urban prefect as well, to act as his substitute. 1 6 8 His post supposedly underwent several reforms in administration, and was eventually abolished under Constantine and Constantius. 1 6 9 Most claims and examples for a permanent official assisting the urban prefect are, however, refutable. 1 7 0 Sources attest that in absence or during illness of the prefect a replacement acted in his stead. When Septimius Bassus left Rome to visit Constantine in the summer of 318, Julius Cassius temporarily held office. 1 7 1 Fabius Titianus was deputised in 340 by Junius Tertullus. 1 7 2 Abellius, Januarius and C. Caelius Satuminus also functioned as acting urban prefects in the first half of the fourth century. 1 7 3 Previous functions of this group of deputees can only be reconstructed for the latter two: Januarius had been stationed at Corinth, probably as vicar of the praetorian prefect; Satuminus had held several posts at the imperial court and had acted as vicar of praetorian prefects. These occasions, however, neither affirm the existence - nor the absence - of a permanent vicariate of the urban prefeeture. A law conceming the legal age 162 CTh. 1.6.1. 163 CTh. 11.7.8 (355 or 356). 164 CTh. 1.6.5 (365; 368) and 1.6.7 (376). 165 The first attested curator statuarum was Flavius Magnus Januarius, who had his tenure around 337 {CIL VI 1708 = 31906 = 41318). The only known curator during the reigns of Constans and Constantius was P. Publilius Ceionius Julianus, in 353/355 {CIL VI 1159). PLRE 1 454 s.v. Fl. Magnus I(a)nuarius 8; 476 s.v. P. Publilius Ceionius Iulianus 27. Not.Dign.Occ. TV. 166 CTh. 6.4.14-15 (359). See Chastagnol 1960: 38, 74-75 and 278-281; Giglio 2007. 167 Septimius Valentio was agens vicem around 293/296. CIL VI 1125. PLRE I 937 s.v. Septimius Valentio. 168 Chastagnol 1960: 28-37; Sinnigen 1959: 99-100; Porena2003: 244-249. 169 Chastagnol 1960: 28-37. 170 Amheim 1970: 603-606. 171 Chron. a. 354 s.a. 318 [Chron.Min. 167]. See PLRE I 184-185 s.v. Iulius Cassius 2. 172 Chron. a. 354 s.a. 340 [Chron.Min. 168]. See PLRE I 884 s.v. Iunius Tertullus 9. 173 Abellius (306): Zos. 2.9.3. PLRE I 1 s.v. Abellius; Januarius (319 and 320): CTh. 9.21.2 (320; 321) and 9.34.3 (320). PLRE I 453 s.v. Ianuarius 1; C. Caelius Satuminus (before 334): CIL VI 1704. PLRE I 806 s.v. C. Caelius Satuminus signo Dogmatius 9. 206 from the early 320s states the existence of a praefectura vicaria, but lacks the essential addition to identify the office as the vicariate of the urban prefecture or the praetorian vicariate of Rome. 1 7 4 Most likely, it referred to the latter, as the officium vicarii which is mentioned in the Theodosian code concemed the praetorian prefecture. 1 7 5 No proper evidence for the existence of a permanent vicariate of the urban prefect exists. * Within the praetorian prefecture, the head of the administration of the southem part of the dioceses Italiae was awarded the misleading title of vicarius Urbis Romae under Constantine. This position was not formally connected to the urban prefecture. Acting from Rome, however, he shared legal jurisdiction with the urban prefect for the City. The vicarius Italiae, his colleague for the area north of the Apennines, had his seat in Milan. 1 7 6 The responsibilities of the vicars of the praetorian prefecture extended to the realms of fïnance, military recruitment, state post and law. 1 7 7 The vicarius Urbis Romae distinguished himself from his fellow vicars by his additional responsibilities to the urban prefecture. 1 7 8 After the death of Junius Bassus in 359, the active vicarius Urbis Romae Artemius entered into office. He took over the administration until the new prefect, Tertullus, was appointed, who acted as urban prefect until Julian replaced him for Maximus. 1 7 9 As central and decentralist authority and responsibilities crossed each other in Rome, the power of the urban prefect was circumscribed by the vicarius in the city. 1 8 0 Edicts from the late-fourth century conceming public maintenance, finance and guilds show close relations between the spheres of influence of both dignitaries. 1 8 1 Co-operation had valuable potential when the two officials joined their forces of competence, resources and expertise. Their collaboration is attested in numerous instances. In 374, a decree was issued to the urban prefect Flavius Eupraxius which authorised both parties to settle disagreements between tax- payers and imperial tax investigators. 1 8 2 Several edicts show the responsibility of the vicar and the urban prefect or his subordinates for the provisioning of the city. 1 8 3 During pontifical rivalry in the late-fourth and early-fifth century, the urban prefect and vicar in office both cared for the settlement of the disturbances. 1 8 4 In times when class interests or familial or

174 CTh. 2 17.1.2 (321; 324). 175 CTh. 1.15. 176 See Kuhoff 1983: 361. 177 CTh. 1.15.7, 7.13.3-4, 8.5.12 and 10.4.1. 178 Sinnigen 1959: 100. 179 Amm.Marc. 21.12.24. 180 Sinnigen 1957: 101-110. 181 CTh. 10.19.9 (378), 12.1.162 (399), 14.6.3 (365) and 14.8.2 (369). An inscription from the early 380s (CIL VI 3865 = 31945) records the repair of the Aqua Anienis by the vicarius Urbis Romae Valerius Anthidius. See PLRE 170 s.v. Valerius Anthidius. 182 CTh.l 1.30.36. See PLRE 1299-300 s.v. Flavius Eupraxius. 183 CTh. 12.6.24 (397), 12.6.26 (400), 12.11.2 (386), 13.9.5 (397) and 14.4.10 (419). 184 For Ursinus and Damasus: Coll. Avell. 1 and 8-13; Ruf. HE 11.10; Bonifatius and Eulalius: Coll. Avell. 14-37, 29.4-5 and 32.3. 207 amicable relations between the officials were existent, a further tendency for the vicar to approach and collaborate with the urban prefect may have emerged. 1 8 5 However, the vicar’s presence in Rome more likely caused friction with the prefect in office, as he was not only his competitor, but also the main subordinate to the praetorian prefect. His deployment as an imperial agent was valuable, as it was possible to undermine the power of the prefect in unsettled times, especially with the continuing absence of the imperial court in Rome. 1 8 6 Attestations of tension or conflicts between the two administrators during the Constantinian period are lacking, but there are explicit references for the Valentinian period, during the tenure of Symmachus. 1 8 7 Symmachus’s father, urban prefect in the 360s, successfully upheld his right of sacrum iudicium for appeals conceming decisions by the vicar. 1 8 8 Despite words of appraisal by the prefect for the vicar, he remained on his guard when defending his privileges and jurisdictions. 1 8 9

6.3 The Emperor and the Senate The emperors of the Constantinian dynasty had an ambiguous attitude towards the traditional pillar of the City and collected both rewards and retributions. The value of their political support or landed wealth made the senators a group to be reckoned with. In first instance, Constantine had secured the future loyalty of the Senate, as the body awarded him imperial seniority over Licinius and Maximinus after his victory over Maxentius. 1 9 0 He acknowledged the city-Roman senators in his appointments of the urban prefecture and consulates and honoured them on coinage during two brief periods. In the direct afïtermath of the war with Maxentius, he presented himself as the SPQR optimus princeps on coins from the central mints from Rome, Ostia, Trier, Ticinum and Arelate. 191 Around 325-326, Constantine temporarily emitted special medallions for the Senate as gifts to the ancient body. The SENATUS-type, minted in Rome, Thessalonica and Nicomedia around 325-326, depicted either a togate emperor or senator with the universal insignia of power. 1 9 2 Another series, from the Treveran mints, commemorated the aetema gloria senatus populique

185 Little is known about the occupation of the vicariate of the city of Rome. Valentinian supposedly preferred men who had different interests to the senatorial urban prefects for the vicariate so as to contain the senatorial city Roman elite, using them as judges in trials. Symmachus is known to have held good relations with vicarii in office, although attestations are only preserved for the period after his tenure as urban prefect (Symm. Ep. 1.19; 2.33; 9.10 and 9.29). See AlfÖldi 1952: 23, 54 and 72-79. 186 Sinnigen 1959: 102-103. 187 Symm. Rel. 23. The identity of this vicar is unknown: PLRE 11014 s.v. Anonymus 53. 188 CTh. 1.6.2-3. 189 Symm. Rel. 23.3 and 26.3. 190 See Chapter 1, paragraphs 2 and 3. 191 RIC VI 222 (Treveri) 815; 297 (Ticinum) 114; 390 (Rome) 345- 352; 407-410 (Ostia) 69 and 94-99. RICVII235 (Arelate) 7-12. See Harrison 1967: 93-95; Alfóldi 1963: 57-69. 192 SENATUS: RIC VII 326 (Rome) 272; 517 (Thessalonica) 146; 616 (Nicomedia) 102. Also in this series: EQUES/EQUIS: 517 (Thessalonica) 145; 616 (Nicomedia) 99-100; GENIUMP(OPULI) R(OMANI): 327: (Rome) 276. 208 Romani and was issued to initiate the consular year of Constantine and Constantius in 326.193 These were combined with symbols of power such as the globe and the sceptre. This way, the notable standing of these social classes was respected. However, Constantine also touched some sore spots. His token visits to the City and his celebration of several anniversaries and triumphs outside Rome must have affected his relationship with the senators from Rome, as did his increase of the size of the senate by granting senatorial status to homines novi, 1 9 4 The fïrst development rendered the emperor’s accessibility more difficult and diminished the importance of Rome; the second tainted the nobility of the bom members of the order and reduced their chances for nomination, as the pool of candidates expanded. The panegyrist Nazarius manages to show this development in the best possible light for the city of Rome: You feit at last, Rome, that you were the citadel of all nations and of all lands the queen, when you were promised the best men out of every provinces for your curia, so that the dignity of the Senate be no more illustrious in name than in fact, since it was composed of the flower of the whole world.195 The foundation of Constantinople in 324 and the corresponding development of its urban fabric and administration were another torment for the nobles. The emperor remained in Constantinople while Italy was awarded to the very young Caesar Constans. Rome was one of the cities stripped of treasures, employees and cash for the city on the Bosporus. Constantine’s impulses further put an end to the uniqueness of the assembly in Rome. Zosimus mentions three other incidents which may have concemed the city-Roman senators. Constantine failed to celebrate the Secular Games in 313 and at a certain point refused to visit the Capitol, a long-standing tradition of emperors entering Rome. After his death, his burial place was not in Rome but Constantinople. Constans refrained from celebrating his anniversaries and victories with the Senate in Rome throughout his reign. Even though he continued several themes of his father in his coinage, he seemingly revoked Constantine’s special SENATUS-issues which depicted a senator with the globe and sceptre, insignia of universal power. This cancellation must have strained relations with the senatorial body even more, as did the appointment of Eastemers for the urban and praetorian prefecture simultaneously. According to Eunapius of Sardis, Constans’ arrogant attitude towards the senators in Rome was apparent and must have angered the nobles who awaited their emperor in vain. He recalled the Athenian sophist Prohaeresius being summoned by Constans to visit him in the Gauls in 343, whereupon he was sent to Rome by the emperor, ‘ambitious to show them there what great men he ruled

I J AETERNA GLORIA SENAT(US) P(OPULI)Q(UE) R(OMANI): RIC VU 207 (Treveri) 467-468. 194 As suffect consuls: C. Caelius Satuminus signo Dogmatius (PLRE I 808 s.v. Satuminus 9); C. Julius Rufmianus Ablabius Tatianus (PLRE I 875-876 s.v. Tatianus 4). As praetors: L. Papius Pacatianus {PLRE I 656 s.v. Pacatianus 2); Julius Julianus {PLRE 1478-479 s.v. Iulianus 35). 195 Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 35.1: Sensisti, Roma, tandem arcem te omnium gentium et terrarum esse reginam, cum ex omnibus provinciis optimates viros curiae tuae pignerareris, ut senatus dignitas non nomine quam re esset inlustrior, cum ex totius orbis flore constaret. 209 over’ . 1 9 6 Some of Constans’ political-institutional measures and initiatives undeniably eaused discontent among members of the aristocratie gentes, as several offered their allegiance to Magnentius. 1 9 7 Others, however, sided with Nepotianus, the nephew of Constans who briefly usurped the throne in Rome and propagated his Constantinian kinship and the Urbs Roma on golden coins. Some were persecuted or forced to flee because of their antagonism towards Magnentius. 1 9 8 Constantius’ visit to Rome, fïve years after gaining dominance over the West, generated momentum. The Senate met its Augustus for the fïrst time and had shortly before been faced with the removal of the Altar of Victory from the Curia. 1 9 9 According to Ammianus, the emperor acted civilly inside the city, as he was approachable for senators and the people and touched by his fïrst impressions of Rome as Augustus. As a colleague senator, Constantius respected the traditional priesthoods and even bestowed an obelisk on the Circus Maximus. 2 0 0 These acts met the expectations of a substantial share of senators and, after his departure, at least one statue to their imperial visitor was added to the series of senatorial dedications to Constantius. 2 0 1 Constantius’ visit, however, was short. His continuation of his father’s policy in Constantinople put a distance between the emperor and the City, whereas the two capitals rivalled each other in grandeur and administrative infrastructure. The increase of the eastem senate and the installation of a proconsulate and eventually an urban prefecture in Constantinople, discussed in the next chapter (Chapter 7), marked the decline of Rome’s geopolitical significance, but also the importance and value of the prefect for the City and the Empire 2 0 2 Nonetheless, the Senate’s loyalty remained with Constantius as many members sided with him in the civil war against Julian. 2 0 3 Openly siding with an emperor enabled senators to obtain access to the imperial centre and emphasise their link with the distant court. Their pledge of loyalty was one of the imperatives for senators to remain integrated in the govemment of the Empire and to uphold their social status. To round out this study of the role of the city of Rome in imperial politics and representations of power under the Constantinian dynasty, the concluding chapter (Chapter 8 ) will trace the dynamics between the ruler and the ancient Capital from the perspective of its most perceptible and powerful mediator, the City’s senatorial aristocracy.

196Eunap. VS 10.7.3: fatécrcetXe yaüv aiixöv ó (3aat)xiic sü; tt|v neyaA-Tyv 'Pa>HT|v, (piAoxinoónevoi; oïcov BaaiAeéeiv &m % e v 97 For example, Constans’ praetorian prefect of the Gauls Fabius Titianus. See Chapter 1, paragraph 12. 198 Nepotianus: RIC VIII 265-266 (Rome) 198-203. Ehling 2001a: 149 and 157; persecution or escape: Athan. Apol.ad Const. 6; Theoph. Chron I s44 5f; Jul. Or. I 38 C; 48 B; II 97 B; Soc. HE 2.32; Soz. HE 4.7; Eutr. Brev. 10.11; Hier. Chron. s.a. 350 [320a-b]. See Ehling 2001a: 153. 199 See Chapter 2, paragraph 3.1 and Chapter 4, paragraph 5.2. 200 For the importance of civilised behaviour, see Schmidt-Hofner 2012 201 CIL VI 1164 (358); Amm.Marc. 21.10.7. 202 See Chapter 7. 203 Amm.Marc. 21.10.7. For Julian’srelationship with Rome and its Senate, see: Ehling 2001b: 292-293; Drijvers 2007b: 9-13; Chenault 2008: 68. 210 CHAPTER 7 THE SENATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE The development of Constantinople under the dynasty of Constantine was not confïned to its physical enhancement. The city distinguished itself from Tetrarchic residences through unique political-institutional developments. Constantine established a Senate in the East. This body was not yet an imperial Senate or an exact equivalent of the Roman original, but developments under Constantine started a process which would lead to this status under his successor Constantius. In 359, Constantius installed a second urban prefeeture, located in Constantinople. 1 Like its western counterpart, the urban prefeeture of Constantinople was outranked only by the praetorian prefectures. Rome now had to share the magistracy, which had been unrivalled ever since its instalment by Augustus, notwithstanding the rise and blossoming of new imperial residences such as Trier, Nicomedia and Antioch.2 The replication of the senatorial body and dignitary for a city other than Rome was thus without precedent, but the notion made sense for the development of a new customary imperial residence. It confirmed an intention to make Constantinople the new Capital of the Empire. For maximum efficiency, the eastem metropolis was in need of a worthy administration and a leading magistrate to control all departments of activity for the maintenance of public buildings and Utilities, and the liveability, provision, infrastructure and public order within the emergent metropole. The imperial presence in Constantinople enabled Constantine and Constantius to keep a close watch on the fulfïlment of the required institutional framework, which in many ways was similar to that of Rome. This chapter defmes the organisation and development of the city’s administration and the political and social profïle of its highest officials as designed by Constantine and Constantius.

7.1 The Senate in the East According to the Origo Constantini Imperatoris, Constantine installed in Constantinople a Senate of clari, the lower rank of the clarissimi from the city-Roman Senate. 3 A group of local city councillors who had likely fïlled the boulè of Byzantium and eastem provincials were indeed awarded the status of clari, but did not fill the entire body.4 Other seats were complemented with the higher-ranking viri clarissimi from the East and West. The enrolment of senators from the East into the Senate of Constantinople has been assumed at the outset of the foundation of the Senate. 5 During the dedication of Constantinople, senators from the West had already transferred to the other pars and the eastem Senate. Flavius Ablabius, a

1 The date is uncertain: either 11 September (Chron.Pasch. s.a. 359) or December (Cons.Const. s.a. 359). Direct evidence about the urban prefeeture in Constantinople is scarce. See Dagron 1974: 226-273. 2 Duval 1997. 3 Anon.Vales. Origo 6.30. 4 Eus. FC 4.1. See Skinner2008: 144-146. 5 Skinner 2008: 144. 211 former praetorian prefect of Constantinus in 329, would serve the subsequent years as prefect attached to Constantine, and (after the emperor’s death) to Constantius for a brief period.6 Tychamenes, a homo novus, was another Westemer who entered the Senate in the East. 7 The presence of two western senators has been confirmed further. Valerius Maximus Basilius, the urban prefect of 319-323, was a vicarius Orientis in 325 and served Constantine in the East as his praetorian prefect in 327-328. After this tenure, he exchanged the East for Gaul for a second prefecture. 8 L. Aradius Valerius Proeulus, Constantine’s last urban prefect, had acted as consularis Europae et Thraciae after 324 and was presumably with him in Constantinople between 333 and 337 before retuming to the West.9 It is well possible that they enrolled in the Senate of Constantinople for a short period. Recruitment from the pool of western administration was nonetheless clearly part of the protocol in the years under Constantine. 1 0 The hostile Zosimus discloses his negative vision of the enrolment under the emperor. According to him, Constantine bribed men to move to Constantinople and tried to entice them with land, money and other privileges. 11 The recruitment of members continued under Constantius. For an enrolment, a possession of the rank of clarus or clarissimus, an approval by the Senate and the payment of a senatorial follis were required. 12 Libanius mentions several viri clarissimi from the provinces who entered the Senate in Constantinople. 13 The body would eventually be raised in honour and would parallel its Roman counterpart. In 355, Constantius addressed an assembly of clarissimi in his letter to the Senate. 1 4 A year later, an imperial pronouncement to the Senate confirmed that senators from Constantinople were of the ‘Most Noble’ rank. 1 5 The expansion of the body has been interpreted as an act of retaliation directed towards those city- Roman senators who had supported the usurpation of Magnentius. More probably, the ever- growing city and its increasing importance as the capital city in the East demanded a larger body. The growth of the Senate had several factors. From a law from 357, it emerges that senators with private domiciles in the East were no longer obliged to attend the Senate in the West, as it only mentions the obliged presence of senators from Achaea, Macedonia and Illyricum. 1 6 These Hellenic senators from administratively western provinces probably also aspired to enrolment at the senate of Constantinople, as it was their absenteeism in Rome

6 PLRE 13-4 s.v. Fl. Ablabius 4. 7 PLRE 1927 s.v. Tychamenes. 8 PLRE I 590 s.v. Valerius Maximus signo Basilius 48. See also Chapter 6, section 1.1. 9 PLRE I 747-749 s.v. L. Aradius Valerius Proeulus signo Populonius 11. See Chapter 6, section 1.1. 10 Skinner 2008: 133-134. 11 Zos. 2.31.2-32.1. Cf. Them. Or. 3.48a. 12 Them. Or.34.13. See Dagron 1974: 154-163. 13 Lib. Or. 42.23-24. Flavius Philippus, Datianus, Flavius Taurus, Domitianus, Helpidius and Dulcitius. For prosopography, see: PLRE I 243-244 s.v. Datianus 1; 262 s.v. Domitianus 3; 274 s.v. Aelius Claudius Dulcitius 5; 471 s.v. Helpidius 6; 696-697 s.v. Flavius Phillipus; 879-880 s.v. Flavius Taurus 3. 14 Downey and Norman 1965-1974: 19b. 15 CTh. 6.4.9 (356). 16 CTh. 6.4.11 (357). 212 which spurred the law. 17 It was probably fostered by concerns from city-Roman senators, but also by needs from senators in the Balkan-area. Another catalyst may have been the developments in the West in the early 350s. According to several ancient authors, a group of senators living in Rome and the West fled to the East after the usurpation of Magnentius. Part of this group may well have had their private domicile there and chose to enrol in the Senate of Constantinople. 18 Themistius may have been another instigator of the growth of the Senate. This orator was enrolled into the Senate in 355 and was authorised to recruit new men. Two years later, during the visit of Constantius to Rome, he orated about the stream of great men who willingly opted for a membership in the eastem Senate and who brought their wealth to Constantinople. 1 9 This was not only to the credit of Themistius himself, but also to Constantius who had changed the climate, did not bribe candidates and made the Senate tmly an equivalent of Rome. Most of these administrative reforms were embarked upon after Constantius’ visit to Rome in 357 in favour of Constantinople.2 0 The highest office in the city, the proconsulate, was changed for the urban prefecture with an extending jurisdiction. 21 The status of the body was further boosted by the presence of Constantius for considerable periods of time.2 2 Furthermore, the uncertain status of Valerius Proculus in the East between 325 and 337 probably foreshadowed a development of temporal transfers of senators between the East and West. The Eastemer Olympius enrolled at the Senate of Rome in the years before 358/359 as he was appointed govemor of Macedonia. His physical presence explains his attendance at the western Senate, although his private domicile lay in Antioch. For the duration of their imperial offices, senators thus changed senates to minimise delays and expenses. Olympius transferred in 358/359 to Constantinople. 2 3 Flavius Taurus was most likely enrolled in the Roman Senate after 355 when his praetorian prefecture of Italy and Africa began. Flavius Taurus had received the clarissimate rank through service in the East and enrolled at Rome as a result of his appointment as praetorian prefect of Italy and Africa. However, he remained privately domiciled in the East and attended the Senate there.2 4 In an oration decades later, Themistius boasts of an increase from 300 to 2000 members.2 5

17 Skinner 2008: 130-131. 18 See paragraph 4 of this chapter. 19 Them. Or. 3.48a. 20 CTh. 1.6.1 (361), 1.28.1 (361), 6.4.11 (357), 6.4.12-13 (361), 7.8.1 (361), 11.1.7 (361), 11.15.1 (361), 11.23.1 (361), 11.30.27 (357), 13.1.3 (361) and 15.1.7 (361). 21 CTh. 1.6.1. 22 See Chapter 2, paragraph 3.1. 23 Lib. Ep. 70.3 and 251.5. See PLRE 1643-644 s.v. Olympius 3. 2 4 PLRE I 879-880 s.v. Flavius Taurus 3. AE 1934: 159, omitting the viri. Correctly, NSc. 1933: 492, pl. xv. Conversely, the eastemer Publius Ampelius held the urban prefecture of Rome and settled permanently in the West. See Amm.Marc. 28.4.3-4; Syntm. Ep. 5.54, 66. 25 Them. Or. 34.13. 213 7.2 The City-Administration in Constantinople 7.2.1 Praetors and Proconsuls In 326, the year that the senate of Constantinople was created by Constantine according to the Chronicon Paschale, there seems to have been no dedicated official who directly represented the emperor in the city in his absence and maintained order. As the praetorian prefects under Constantine were attached to emperors and were not yet regional prefects, it can be assumed that there was no prefect permanently stationed in Constantinople, which would eventually become the seat of the praetorian prefects of the East.2 6 Nonetheless, in the late 320s and early 330s, the prefects Fl. Constantius, Evagrius and Flavius Ablabius can be located in Constantinople, or in the East. 2 7 The attestation of a consularis provinciae Europae et Thraciae shortly after 324 may have been an initial measure to expand the administration and augment the jurisdiction of the areas in and surrounding Constantinople.2 8 Which officials were in active service in Constantinople from 326 onwards? Two imperial pronouncements from 326 attest the presence of a praetor Flavialis and a praetor Constantinianus in Constantinople, the latter being unknown elsewhere in the Empire, and even in Rome. 2 9 A third praetorship, the office of the praetor triumphalis, was certainly created before 340.30 Its installation has been dated to 330 (the year of Constantinople’s formal dedication), when Constantine resided in the city for months and celebrated his bond as triumphator with his new city. 3 1 The scope of responsibilities given to these praetors before the early 340s is unknown, except for their judicial role. Already in 326, their official decisions had to be appealed only before the urban prefect of Rome, which assigned a certain authority to the Constantinopolitan prefects. 3 2 After the creation of the proconsulate, and later the urban prefecture, the praetors of Constantinople assisted the highest official of the city. 3 3 * In the early 340s, Constantinople was honoured with the dignitary of a proconsul, the fourth in the Empire, who was entrusted with administrative and ceremonial responsibilities as govemor of the city and president of its Senate. The Theodosian Code records the reading of two precepts by the proconsul Araxius in 356, an act also performed by the proconsul of 355, Justinus, with a letter of Constantius to the Senate.3 4

See Chapter 6, paragraph 1.3. 27 Fl. Constantius: CTh. 1.5.1 (325); Evagrius: CTh. 12.1.13 (326); Cl 2.19.11; Flavius Ablabius: Eunap. VS 6.2 . 10- 12. 28 The office was fïlled by L. Aradius Valerius Proculus. See paragraph 1 of this chapter. 29 Giglio 2007; Skinner 2008: 142-143. 30 CTh. 6.4.5 (340). Giglio 2007; Skinner 2008: 142-143. 31 See RIC VII 578 (Constantinople) 53. 32 Skinner 2008: 143. 33 CTh. 6.4.13 (361). 34 CTh. 6.4.8-9 (356); Them. Dem.Const.. 214 The exact tenures of the proconsuls cannot be determined. The names of the officials and dates of their service, which can often only be fixed up to the year of their term, depend on chance references to individual office-holders. The careers, origins and religious affiliations of the few attested proconsuls are even harder to reconstruct. 3 5

Proconsul Date Alexander 342 Ulpius Limenius 342 Donatus c. 343 Montius Magnus before 351 Strategius Musonianus before 353 Anatolius 354 Justinus 355, 1 Sept. Photius 355/356 Araxius 356, 9 May Themistius 358-359 Table PCI. Proconsuls under Constantius (342-359) The African Montius Magnus, proconsul before 351, acted as quaestor sacri palatii in the early 350s, supervising the Caesar Gallus. Araxius was a govemor of Palestine and a vicar of a diocese close to Constantinople before taking up the city’s highest office. Strategius Musionus, a comes under Constantine and Constantius before his proconsulate, and Anatalius, a former vicarius Asianae, were both awarded the praetorian prefeeture after their tenure as proconsul. The identification of the proconsul Limenius with the Ulpius Limenius who filled the urban prefeeture of Rome in 347 is not certain. It has been proposed that Themistius, a member of the Constantinopolitan Senate since 355, was the last proconsul of Constantinople. In a law from the Theodosian Code, Themistius was not classified as a mere former proconsul, but distinguished as ‘the Philosopher’. No source mentions him as such, but his influence and status was certainly considerable. 3 6 He was able to convince Constantius to reverse the reduction of the grain distribution for Constantinople from 342.37 The city had enjoyed the grain dole from Egypt at least from 332, but it was moderated as a disciplinary measure after the populace had lynched the magister equitum Hermogenes. 3 8 It was not until 383-384 that Themistius would occupy the highest Constantinopolitan urban office, which by then had become the urban prefeeture. 3 9

35 PLRE I 40 s.v. Alexander 3; 268 s.v. Donatus 1; 535-536 s.v. Montius Magnus 11; 611-612 s.v. Strategius Musonianus; 59-60 s.v. Anatolius 3; 489 s.v. Iustinus 2; 700-701 s.v. Photius; 94 s.v. Araxius; 889-894 s.v. Themistius 1. 36 CTh. 6.4.12; Lib. EpAO, 99,252 and 793. Heather and Moncur 2001: 44-45. 37 Them. Or. 34.13. See Vanderspoel 1995: 105. 38 Soc. HE 2.13; Soz. HE 3.7. See also Lib. Or. 59.94-98. For the grain distribution in Constantinople, see Sirks 1991a; id. 1991b. 39 PLRE I 889-894 s.v. Themistius 2. 215 Some elaboration is possible on the nature of proconsular tenures. While Ammianus treats several of the urban prefectures of Rome under Constantius extensively but remains silent on the proconsulates of Constantinople, Libanius and Athanasius dweil on some of the proconsulates. As the highest civil official in the city, the proconsul had prime responsibility for its welfare, appealed to the emperor in case of distress and judged for any adversities. Alexander, proconsul in 342, was wounded in riots which forced him to flee the city.4 0 Shortly after his return, he was replaced by Ulpius Limenius, who forced Libanius to leave Constantinople on charges of magie and treason. 4 1 His appointment may have been executed in Constantius’s presence, as the emperor had travelled to Constantinople in 342 to quell an uproar and expel one of its instigators, the bishop Paul.4 2 Around the time of the Council of Serdica in 343, Limenius’ successor Donatus was ordered to arrest Olympius, the bishop of Aeni. For his opposition to certain eastem bishops by exiling several colleagues, a Capital punishment was to be imposed by the proconsul of Constantinople.4 3

7.2.2 Urban Prefects

Urban prefect Date Honoratus 359, 11 Dec. - 361 Table UP5. Urban prefects of Constantinople under Constantius (359-361) The substitution of the proconsular govemor by the urban prefect followed the instalment of the eastem Senate. A fair share of reforms conceming Constantinople’s administrative machinery were implemented after Constantius’ adventus to Rome in 357.4 4 In December 359, Honoratus was the fïrst to be inaugurated as urban prefect in the eastem metropolis. He was personally swom into office by Constantius, whose presence in the city has been attested during the winter of 359-360. The prefecture of Constantinople was predominantly exercised by senators after they had pursued a career in the provincial sphere, as the scarce evidence of Honoratus’ successors shows. Honoratus himself had held offices in the provincial administration as consularis of Syria before 353, comes Orientis in 353-354, and praetorian prefect of the Gauls in 355-357 4 5 He would hold office for two years. Like the proconsulates, the nature of his tenure as urban

40 Lib. Or. 1.44-45. 41 Lib. Or. 1.45-47. 42 Soz. HE 2.13.7. 43 Athan. Apol.de fuga 3 (=Theod. HE 2.12). u CTh. 1.6.1 (361), 1.28.1 (361), 6.4.11 (357), 6.4.12-13 (361), 7.8.1 (361), 11.1.7 (361), 11.15.1 (361), 11.23.1 (361), 11.30.27 (357), 13.1.3 (361) and 15.1.7 (361). See paragraph 1 of this chapter. 45 PLRE I 438-439 s.v. Honoratus 2. 216 prefect is beyond conjecture.4 6 Although several edicts were issued from the eastem Capital during the emperor’s stay, no legislation directed to Constantinople’s first prefect has been preserved. 4 7 * The Constantinopolitan prefect seems to have equalled his Roman colleague, being rewarded a place directly below the praetorian prefects in the Notitia Dignitatum. The promotion of the highest city-offïcial in Constantinople to the rank of prefect lightened the load and, at the same time, reduced the authority of the praetorian prefect of the East, who resided mainly at Constantinople. No accounts of friction between the two offices, however, are attested. Like the proconsul before him, the urban prefect was first responsible for the administration of Constantinople and its direct surroundings. The city was his primary concern, especially since it was still under construction. Building activities by prefects, however, are only attested from the 360s onwards. Domitius Modestus, prefect in 362-363, was claimed to have supervised the work on a water reservoir for the city. 4 8 During the tenure of Clearchus in 373, an aqueduct and a ‘stately bath’ were constructed.4 9 In 375, the prefect Vindaonius Magnus dedicated the thermae Carosianae. 5 0 The city-Roman prefect had a one-hundred-mile radius that defined his jurisdiction. Within Italy, he exercised the appellate jurisdiction until Constantius transferred it almost entirely to the praetorian prefect of Italy after 357. Conversely, the power of the prefecture of Constantinople was increased by Constantius two years after the prefecture’s instalment by allotting Bithynia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Hellespontus, the islands, Phrygia Salutaris, Europa, Rhodope and Haemimontus.51 The prefect’s political role on a govemmental level as legal partner or imperial councillor must have equalled that of his Roman counterpart. Yet, the vicinity of the imperial court and the augmentation of his jurisdiction may have given him easier access to the emperor and influence over policymaking.

46 Ammianus does not mention Honoratus, but later on introducés two subsequent prefects in passing: Caesarius and Sophronias (26.7.2 and 26.7.4). 47 CTh. 4.13.4 (356; 360), 7.4.5 (359; 360; 361), 11.24.1 (360), 11.36.10 (354; 360) and 14.1.1 (357; 360). 48 Cons.Const. s.a. 369 = Chron. Min. 1241. See PLRE I 605-608 s.v. Domitius Modestus 2. 49 Soc. HE 4.8.8: toö üSpaycoyoü yap ekraxOsvroi; ei<; xfiv jióMv KA.éapxo? éïiapxoi; a>v trji; TtóXfax; üöpsïov HÉyurcov KaxscjKeóaasv év xrj vüv ©eoSocrïou ayopa KaXoi>|aévT|, & êtpeilicóaOri 8cn|flXè<; fiScop- Hier. Chron. s.a. 373 [329b], See PLRE 1211-212 s.v. Clearchus 1. 50 Cons.Const. s.a. 375 [Chron. Min. 1242], PLRE I 536 s.v. Vindaonius Magnus 12. 51 CTh. 1.6.1 (361). Theodosius reformulated this law in the 380s (CTh. 1.6.10). 217 7.2.3 Other Officials in Constantinople The position of vice-urban prefect, or earlier, vice-proconsul, has not been attested, although its existence is suggested by Chastagnol. 5 2 Based on the model of Rome, the Senate of Constantinople ought to have had the position of princeps senatus as well. Themistius claimed to have enjoyed the honour ofprostasia from 357 until at least 385.53 The passages in the Notitia Dignitatum on the positions under the control of the prefect of Constantinople are wanting. In 340, the designation of the praetura Flavialis, praetura Constantiniana and the praetura Triumphalis was recorded by law, but the offices were created under Constantine. 5 4 In the early 360s, their body had grown to fïve, bestowed with specific juridical duties. 5 5 Sources further mention a magister census and a praefectus vigilum.56 The function of the praefectus annonae seems to have never existed in Constantinople, although the institution of a com dole under Constantine must have required a good organisational structure and supervision. 5 7 Other lower officials assisted the prefect with the distribution of food in the city.5 8 It is believed that not all departments of the officium were comparable in size or scope to Rome, as the presence of the emperor and his comitatus in the east implied assistance and relief and the urban prefecture was still in its growth stage. 7.3 A Senate to Rival Rome’s During Constantius’s stay in Rome in 357, the eastem senator Themistius delivered an oration to Rome’s Senate as ambassador of the body of nea Roma.59 Humbled by and aware of his audience, he places Constantinople second in rank to Rome, but emphasises the ties between both cities.6 0 On other occasions, he is less obsequious and prides himself on his contribution to the growth of the senate and his recruitment drive.61 Five years after Themistius’ address, in the opening of the panegyric to Julian by Claudius Mamertinus, the ‘new Rome’ is said to have the ‘most august sanctuary of public counsel’ . 6 2 At the time of the speech, Constantine’s senate at Constantinople had indeed become an imperial one, on a par with the body of Rome. Although the body was initially secondary to Rome, its creation in Constantinople made the city institutionally different from other cities and increased its affinities with the western capital. Constantine furthermorc

52 Chastagnol 1976b: 350. 53 Them. Or. 34.12-13. See Dagron 1974: 143-144. 54 CTh. 6.4.5 (340). See paragraph 2.1 of this chapter. 55 CTh. 6.4.13 (361) and 6.4.14-6.4.16 (359). 56 Praetor: CTh. 6.4.5-6 (340); magister census: CTh. 14.9.1 (370); praefectus vigilum: Cl 1.43.1 (385/389). 7 Jones 1964: 697 and n. 20. 58 Sirks 1991a: 15. 59 Them. Or. 3.42c. 60 Them. Or. 3.42c-43a. 61 Them. Or. 34.13. See Skinner2000. 62 Pan.Lat. 3 (11) 2.3: ...augustissimum consiliipublici templum... 218 redefined the existing urban administration of Byzantium by creating special praetorships which were unknown at Rome. Constantine’s initiatives were developed further under his son Constantius. He expanded the senate and appointed one official to supervise the city’s administration in the person of a proconsul and (from 359 onwards) an urban prefect, which further diminished the exclusivity of Rome. In some of these key moments, the presence of Constantine and Constantius in the city can be presumed. Their closeness to Constantinople made structures in need of consolidation manifest and facilitated these reforms. Their actions would eventually make Constantinople exceed its status as a normal “GroBstadt” to become a second imperial capital and competing rival of Rome.

219

CHAPTER 8 SENATE AND EMPEROR IN ROME In one of his orations, the late-fourth-century senator Quintus Aurelius Symmachus analyses the changed socio-political order of Rome in his days. Reflecting on the perceptions and the ambitions of the senatorial elite, he wonders: Is it not a fact that the fate of the aristocracy corresponds to the character of the times in which it lives?1 The times were characterised by an almost permanent imperial absence from Rome and the emergence of new imperial centres, especially at Constantinople. These developments stirred the dynamics between the ruler and the ancient capital in Late Antiquity, not in the least with regard to the City’s senatorial élite. In the early Empire, the emperor had gained a monopoly in the exercise of power and the field of self-display. 2 He supervised and appointed the magistrates for the high offices, controlled material resources and excelled in his role as patron of the City. He organised games and shaped the city with the erection of monumental buildings and public statuary. Concurrently, because of the emperor’s close encounters with members of the aristocracy in the city, personal relationships existed between both parties. Aristocrats held high positions within the imperial administration, moved within the circle of power and influenced policy-making. They were regularly appreciated for their consultative value as amici through personal interactions such as dinner parties and councils. The bond between the ruler and the aristocracy was strong and reciprocal (as it could prove worthy for both emperor and nobles) but at the same time might be hostile and competitive. 3 The emperor accepted no challenges to his supremacy in authority or munificence. To display their standing in city-Roman society and celebrate the ancient traditions of the City, nobles tumed to their private domains, which, according to the fifth-century historian Olympiodorus, had become miniature cities in themselves.4 The imperial withdrawal from Rome created opportunities for members of the City’s prominent families to regain political, economic and social control and to appropriate Rome’s public space for self- and Roman-representation. Having control over most of the landed wealth and resources, they came to offer large-scale spectacles for the people of Rome, undertook building projects and placed commemorative statuary in the public domain.5 On this understanding, their actions in shaping the urban landscape might be interpreted as acts of resistance against a distant court. Study of literary and legal texts and epigraphic evidence, however, counters this view of an emerging rivalry. The City’s ancient traditions and

1 Symm. Or. 4.9. See PLREI 865-871 s.v. Q. Aurelius Symmachus signo Eusebius 4. Sogno 2006. 2 Eek 1992; AlfÖldy and Panciera 2001; Weber and Zimmermann 2003; Eek and Heil 2005; Eek 2010. 3 Crook 1955; Roller 2001. 4 Olymp. Frag. 41.1. See Matthews 1970; Treadgold 2004. 5 See Chapter 4 and Chapter 6, paragraph 2. 221 distinguished origin did not hold enough currency for city-Roman senators to express their social status, but remaining integrated in the govemment of the Empire did. As will be argued below, in a time when access to the imperial centre was no longer guaranteed and imperial visits to Rome were rare, closeness to the emperor was what nobles aspired to most. Their strive to participate in high imperial politics, either through public office or by political or financial support, offered numerous compensations in the form of immunities and privileges and provided promotions in interests, title and status. Extending dedicatory expressions of loyalty to the emperor, especially in times of political crisis or a possible adventus Augusti, was another platform to reach out to the absent emperor and show off their closeness. The exercise of patronage enabled them to play a further important role in a time when Rome was no longer the real caput mundi, but deprived of privileges and imperial presence. 8.1 Seeking Rapprochement with the Court The acceptance and execution of the urban prefecture and other offices were by eminence the most advantageous means to claim a connection to the emperor and participate in politics. The cursus honorum of city-Roman senators was Rome-centred, at times ambitious, then passive. Tenures in and around the city were altemated with periods of otium, ofïten staying at their private domiciles in the provinces. 6 Although it was the crown on their career for members of the city-Roman gentes to govem and care for their own city, the post involved considerable personal financial burden and was a precarious position in times of food shortage or disturbances. 7 There are several expressions in contemporary texts of nobles reluctant to hold office. The Expositio totius mundi, a middle-fourth-century source, records that Rome had a great senate of rich men, whom, if you were to examine the credentials of each, you would fïnd them to be men who have been, will be, or, at least, are able to be judges, although some may not wish the position because they want to enjoy with no cares.8 It is the tenure of the late-fourth-century senator and urban prefect Symmachus that provides us with the best example of the ambiguity connected to the office. In his Relationes, sent to the imperial court during his tenure as urban prefect in 384-385, he repeatedly stated that he had not aspired to public office, ‘a dangerous expectation’ . 9 Nonetheless, he was grateful for the good will the emperors bore him and strove to fulfil a worthy tenure. His claimed reluctance can be seen as an act of false modesty, not in the least to safeguard cohesion within the senatorial circles. 10

Matthews 1975:388. 7 See paragraph 3.1 of this chapter. 8 Exp.tot.mun. XIII, 415-419: Habet autem et senatum maximum virorum divitum. Quos si per singulos probare volueris, invenies omnes iudices aut factos aut futuros esse aut potentes quidem, nolentes autem propter suum ‘frui cum securitate ’ veile. Symm. Rel. 1.1: .. .periculum expectationis... 10 Symm. Rel. 1.1-2, 2.3, 8.12 and 12.3. See Matthews 1975: 1-12. 222 In the early Empire, the urban prefect and his direct colleagues had been in close proximity to the emperor. This closeness facilitated opportunities for city-Roman senators to influence or help develop govemmental policy. For one, they had contributed to the process of policy- forming by writing consultations or petitions, as did praetorian prefects, provincial govemors or palatine ministers. The senatus consultum is still attested in 533 in a letter from king Athalaric to the urban prefect in office Salventius. 11 Thus, the act of senatorial counselling was still in practice in late-Roman times, although the distance from the imperial centre impeded the exercise of the ancient privilege. Only at the end of the fourth century, under the reign of Honorius and Stilicho, did the opportunities for Roman aristocrats to influence policy and legislation become considerably manifest. When the imperial court resided in Milan, the emperor again came into approachable distance. However, the more direct involvement with the court also created obligations and preoccupations for senators. 12 During the Principate, senators had also been regularly summoned by the emperor to attend a consilium principis as confidants and experts. The semi-informal magisterial council of mostly administrative and judicial advisers, or amici, lacked a regulated and fixed constitution. It included a miscellaneous group of magistrates and other persons entrusted by the emperor. 13 The consultative body apparently endured through the Tetrarchy, as Maxentius honoured two of his urban prefects as amici.1 4 The panegyrist of 311 mentions the presence of Constantine’s advisers during the celebration of his quinquennalia in Trier. 15 In the fourth century, the assembly was replaced by the consistorium, a regular and formal organ for legislative, jurisdictional, financial and military advice. 1 6 The term consistorium is attested as such from the reign of Constantius onwards, appearing for the first time in dedications to Vitrasius Orfitus. 17 Even though the emperor only consulted the body and was therefore not bound to its advice, members of the council were capable of influencing imperial policy. 1 8 A fixed group of comités ordinis primi iterum intra consistorium (comités consistoriani) was derived from ex officio members and other officials and trustworthy experts. 19 Vulcacius Rufmus, the first

11 Cass. Var. 9.16.3. See PLRE III 1333 s.v. Praetextatus Salventius Verecundus Traianus; Garbarino 1984. 12 Matthews 1975: 264-270. Amici were, among others, consuls, proconsuls, praetorian prefects, physicians, poets, jurists, philosophers and relatives of the imperial family. See Crook 1955; Graves 1973; Warmington 1989. 4 PLRE I 79 s.v. C. Annius Anullinus 3; 976-978 s.v. C. Ceionius Rufius Volusianus 4. 15 Pan.Lat. 5 (8) 2.1. 16 Cl 1.14.8 (466) and 9.47.12; CTh. 12.1.33 (342); Pan.Lat. 5 (8) 2.1; Amm.Marc. 15.5.5; CIL VI 1739- 1742; ILCV 748. See PLRE I 6 s.v. Acacius 3 and 4; 378 s.v. Gaianus 4; 530 s.v. Lucius Crepereius Madalianus. 17 CIL VI 1739-1742. The earliest literary reference to the consistorium can be found in Ammianus’ Res Gestae: Amm.Marc. 15.5.5. 18 Crook 1955: 115-128. 19 Ex officio members were the magister ojficiorum, the quaestor sacri palatii, the comes sacrarum largitionum, the comes rerum privatarum and otherproceres nostripalatii. Cl 1.14.8 pr. (446). See also Cl 12.10. Graves 1973. 223 known councillor, was appointed before his tenure as comes Orientis by April 342.20 Gaianus was probably one of the other first comités consistoriani, acting as legal adviser to Constantine or Constans.2 1 Vitrasius Orfïtus was certainly a member of the imperial council before (and, perhaps, also whilst and afïter) holding the magistracy of urban prefect in 353.2 2 The residence of the emperor elsewhere, far away from Rome, had implications for the setting of the council and the role of city-Roman senators in this body. Although sources mention the senators’ wish and willingness to be of consultative value, their contribution seems to have been marginal. 2 3 There are no documented cases describing Constantine, Constans or Constantius making an appeal to their active urban prefects and staffmg them for a council. As the govemor of Rome, the prefect’s presence there was required. 2 4 Only during sickness or warranted absence was he temporarily deputised. The absence of the urban prefects Septimius Bassus in 318 and Fabius Titianus in May and June 340 from Rome may have resulted from an imperial request for consultation, as their subsequent emperors were at travelling distance during these periods, but their status as amici cannot be determined.2 5 Ammianus records how Constantius summoned the consistorium in Milan in 355 after rumours of a pending rebellion of the magister peditum Silvanus in the Gauls.2 6 The active urban prefect, Leontius, is not mentioned as a member, even though he was a loyal servant of the emperor as former comes Orientis in 349 and quaestor sacri palatii for Gallus in 354. According to Ammianus, Leontius was goveming Rome ‘while the dire confusion was causing these calamities of general destruction’ . 2 7 His competence as a spectabilis iudex was apparently not retrieved in 355, contrary to 351. That year he was possibly one of the judges present in the Photinus-trial at Sirmium to consider the orthodoxy of the city’s bishop.2 8 One of the men summoned to advise Constantius was Naeratius Cerealis, the primary appointee for the urban prefeeture by Constantius two years later.2 9 He may have fiinctioned as a formal adviser during this tenure, but there is no real evidence. An explanation for the apparent absence of urban prefects in the consistorium lies in the imperial absence from Rome, which had implications for the setting of the council. Urban prefects of Maxentius had been amici of the usurper whose diplomatic advice was easily

20 CTh. 12.1.33 (342). It is argued that Acacius was a comes consistorianus in 327. See PLRE I 6 s.v. Acacius 3 and 4. 217LCF748. PLRE 1378 s.v. Gaianus 4. 22 Another member of the consistorium was an unknown magister officiorum. Woods 1993: 123. 23 See, for example, Symm. Rel. 3.1 and 3.20; Ep. 3.52 and 3.63; Or. 1 and possibly 3. 24 Digesta 1.12.3. 25 Chron. a. 354 s.a. 318 and 340 [Chron.Min. I 67-68]. Constantine was in Aquileia: CTh. 7.22.2, 9.16.3, 11.30.9 and 12.1.6. Constans was in northem Italy: Aquileia: CTh. 2.6.5 and 10.15.3 (9 April 340); Milan: CTh. 9.17.1 (25 June 340). 26 Amm.Marc. 15.5.5; Jul. Or. 1.48C and 2.98C-99A. See PLRE I 840-841 s.v. Silvanus 2. 27 Amm.Marc. 15.7.1. 28 Socr. HE 2.30; Soz. HE 4.6. 29 Besides Leontius, Epiphanius mentions Thalassius, Datianus, Flavius Taurus, Marcellinus, Evanthius, Olympius and Naeratius Cerealis. Epiph. Adv.Haer. 71.1.5. For prosopography, see: PLRE I 886 s.v. Thalassius 1; 243-244 s.v. Datianus 1; 879-880 s.v. Flavius Taurus 3; 546 s.v. Marcellinus 7 (and possibly 545 s.v. Marcellinus 6); 287 s.v. Evanthius 1; 645 s.v. Olympius 5. 224 obtainable, as Maxentius was residing in Rome during his reign. During Constantius’ adventus in 357, there is no reference to a gathering of the consistorium for pending govemmental matters.3 0 Praetorian prefects were probably one group of the council’s most frequent members. The numerous accounts in Ammianus’ Res Gestae of men giving advice to the emperor relate mostly to military affairs, in areas of the Empire immediately in need of a policy review. 3 1 One passage describes a meeting of the consistorium in 355 in Milan, the residence of the praetorian prefect of Italy. 3 2 The author also recalls the deciding strategie recommendation from the praetorian prefect Florentius during Julian’s struggle against the Alamanni in 357, and the prefect’s advice two years later, when the war was still ongoing. 3 3 Legal partners In their capacity as magistrates, officials (including the ones stationed in Rome) acted as legal partners of the emperor. A considerable part of imperial pronouncements from the Codices were aimed towards the city of Rome and directed to the Senate, its urban prefect and other officials at Rome, or the people. Of these texts, some were solely applicable to Rome. 3 4 When issues did concern more than just the City alone, the urban prefect was not the only official to whom the emperor communicated his decision. A pressing question might be reported by the urban prefect, then settled in a law to be enacted Empire-wide. Conversely, matters pertaining to the city of Rome might be settled in laws directed to the urban prefect as well as the praetorian prefect. 3 5 The protocol or manner of reporting to the emperor was quite likely through the magister officiorum, as mentioned in a rescript from 320 addressed to the urban prefect Valerius Maximus. 3 6 Up to the late 320s, a substantial share of the extant constitutions issued by Constantine were sent to the urban prefect. 3 7 A number of pronouncements were addressed directly to city-Roman officials or to the Senate, although these were rare. 3 8 Constantine’s urge to develop city-Roman legislation after his victory over Maxentius might partly explain this (apparent) concentration. After the wars with Licinius, this proportion substantially declined. 3 9 The imperial presence and interest in the eastem part of the Empire, and especially Constantine’s care for the development of Constantinople as a future residence, seem to have made the urban prefect and his direct colleagues secondary legal recipients.

30 Amm.Marc. 16.10. 31 E.g.: Amm.Marc. 24.7.1, 26.5.8-13, 30.3.1-3, 30.6 and 31.12.5-7. 32 Bames 1992: 252. 33 Amm.Marc. 16.12.14 and 18.2.7. 34 CTh. 2.17.1 (321; 324), 13.5.1-3 (314) 13.5.4 (324),14.4.1 (334) and 14.4.2 (324; 326). 35 CTh. 6.4.4 (339; 354) and 6.4.7 (353; 354). 36 CTh. 16.10.1 (321). See PLRE 1590 s.v. Valerius Maximus signo Basilius 48. 37 For all the laws from Constantine addressed to his urban prefects, see Dupont 1969. 38 Praefectus annonae: CTh. 3.1.1 (319), 14.3.1 (319), 14.24.1 (328); praefectus vigilum: CTh. 1.2.1 (314) and 2.10.1-2 (313); rationalis Urbis Romae: CTh. 11.30.14 (327); Senate: CTh. 8.18.1 (318); AE 1934: 158. Corcoran 1996: 154. 39 Dupont 1969. 225 After 337, a further decrease in the laws addressed to the prefect set in. Few edicts subscribed by Constans and Constantius for or on the city of Rome have been preserved. 4 0 For the period of Constantius’ sole rule, fourteen laws addressed to the urban prefect have survived. 4 1 Another small group was directed to the body of the Senate, that of Rome and Constantinople. 4 2 Those to the urban prefect are dated predominantly to the early 350s, whereas edicts to the Senate were mostly issued after Constantius’ visit to Rome in May 357. Probably only one law, conceming shipmasters, was emitted there with Constantius present: a meagre outcome compared to Constantine’s enactments during his visits to Rome in 312, 315 and 326.43 The importance of the urban prefect in the legal sphere of enactment, however, seems to have become secondary in the fourth century, especially compared to the role reserved for praetorian prefeets. A large share of the pronouncements that followed a suggestio or report were issued from their hands. As the praetorian prefeets were divided over the whole Empire, they controlled a larger area of jurisdiction and body of officials who served and reported to them. To carry out their govemmental tasks accordingly, they were more vital as a legal partner of the emperor than the prefect of the City. Despite this decline of senatorial weight in terms of “Realpolitik”, members of the late-antique Senate still enjoyed power within the state administration. As a collective, the body could award the titulus primi nominis which feil to Constantine at the cost of Licinius and Maximinus Daia, and declare a consecratio.44 It was also sufficiently powerful to remove an urban prefect from office and exile him by decree, which was the lot of Rufïnus during the visit of Constantine to Rome in the summer of 315.45 The Senate was also authorised to designate suffect consuls, quaestors and praetors, although they did not refrain from asking the emperor’s advice on these matters. Symmachus asked for imperial approval or advice on various occasions when he was ‘disturbed by (...) conflicting views’ . 4 6 Officials clearly feared the consequences of making an unpopular or incorrect decision, such as reprimands by imperial decree or even discharge.

40 Praefectus Urbis: CTh. 8.12.6 (341), 11.30.23 (345) and 16.10.3 (342; 346). CTh. 9.17.1 (340) and 11.30.18 (329; 339) probably erroneously name Constantius as the enaetor. One law was issued by Constantius ad Severum p.uC T h. 15.8.1 (343). Severus was, however, no urban prefect during the mentioned non-imperial consulship. More likely, he was a provincial govemor. PLRE 1 831-832 s.v. Severus 5. Senate: CTh. 6.4.5-6 (340). 41 CTh. 3.18.1 (357), 6.4.7 (353; 354), 8.12.7 (355), 8.13.3 (355), 8.13.4 (358), 9.17.3 (356), 9.25.1 (354), 9.38.2 (353; 354), 11.36.9 (353), 13.5.9 (357; 370), 14.3.2 (355), 14.6.1 (359), 15.12.2 (357) and 16.10.5 (353). CTh. 1.6.1 (361), 1.28.1 (361), 6.4.8-10 (356), 6.4.11 (357), 6.4.12-13 (361), 6.4.14-16 (359), 7.8.1 (361), 11.1.7 (361), 11.15.1 (361), 11.23.1 (361), 12.1.48(361); 13.1.3 (361) and 15.1.7(361). 43 Constantius: CTh. 13.5.9 (357; 370); Constantine in 312: CTh. 10.10.2 (312; 319); in 315: CTh. 1.2.2 (315), 9.18.1 (315), 10.1.1 (315) andl 1.30.3 (315); FV 33 and 274 (315); in 326: CTh. 10.8.3 (326). Titulus: Lact. Mort.Pers. 44.11; consecratio, see Arce 1988: 125-157. 45 For the discharge of urban prefeets, see Firm.Mat. Math. 2.29.13. See Bames 1975b: 47. 46 For the appointment of consules suffecti, praetores and quaestores'. CIL I 1.257; CTh. 6.4.8 (356), 6.4.14 (359), 6.4.12 (361) and 6.4.15-16 (359); Symm. Rel. 22,27 and 44. See Chastagnol 1960: 74. 226 The urban prefect, as primary caretaker of the City, reported the transactions of the Senate to the emperor and informed him about actions, events and tendencies in the city. These relationes entailed petitions, proposals and presents from Rome. The famous dispatches of Symmachus included congratulatory messages on imperial victories and assurances of loyalty in times of conflict. He sent strenae, or New Year presents, as symbols of allegiance from the magistrates of Rome. Conversely, he cautiously reminded the emperor of his promise to provide games or wamed him about gram scarcity when the emperor had cut off supplies from Spain and Alexandria. Reports could entail criticism, even to the point where Symmachus offered his resignation. After being publicly reprimanded by Valentinian after ‘malicious rumours’ about the prefect’s policy against Christians, Symmachus laid down his office because he feit isolated amid growing hostility and purportedly false accusations. 4 7 Other forms of correspondence, besides official dispatches, were directed to the emperor by senators. Not only personal letters, but also panegyrics were directed to the emperor hoping to appeal to him and sway politics in their favour. Again, it is Symmachus who has left us his epistles and orations as testimonies of senatorial relations with the emperor.4 8 He delivered these orations during his envoys to the courts of Valentinian, Gratian and Magnus Maximus. Besides laudationes for the emperors’ characters and accomplishments, Symmachus expressed his wish for an imperial adventus to Rome.4 9 His appeal, however, was in vain as Valentinian refrained from visiting Rome. The testimonies of Symmachus further show how pancgyrical correspondence might even jeopardise a senatorial career when a ruler feil out of favour. He was held accountable for ill-judgement in the late 380s. In Milan, he had delivered a panegyric to the usurper Magnus Maximus who was defeated later that year by Theodosius. For his imprudent support, ‘he was afterwards impeached for high treason’ . 5 0 To escape Capital punishment, the eulogist not only took sanctuary in a church, but also appealed personally to the emperor during his visit to Rome. Only after he had renounced Maximus’ rule was he granted an imperial pardon.51 From these tools, the most active and direct form of communication with the emperor was established through envoys to the imperial court. More than official dispatches, consultative appeals, gifts and panegyrics, this traffic helped maintain the political cohesion. Numerous examples of diplomatic visits to the imperial courts have survived. In the summer of 318, Septimius Bassus, the prefect in office, left Rome to visit Constantine in Aquileia, possibly to advocate against Constantine’s prohibition of haruspices. 5 2 In 351, the usurper Magnentius sent a delegation of senators, led by his urban prefect Fabius Titianus, to Constantius to negotiate the threat of a civil war. 5 3 In the summer of 361, Maximus and Symmachus’ father Aurelius Avianius Symmachus were sent to Constantius by the Senate. 47 Symm. Rel. 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 15, 17,21,23,37, 43 and 45-46. 48 Symm. Or. 1-4. 49 Symm. Or. 1.16. See also Chapter 3, paragraph 3.4. 50 Soc. HE 5.14. 51 Symm. Ep. 2.31; Socr. HESA4. See Sogno 2006: 68-69. 52 Chron. a. 354 s.a. 318 [Chron.Min. 167]. PLRE 1 157 s.v. Septimius Bassus 19. 53 Pet.Pat.16; Zon. 13.8; Zos. 2.49.1-2. 227 Afterwards the senators paid a visit to the Caesar Julian at Naissus. By the end of that year, Maximus was appointed urban prefect by Julian who had become the new Augustus after the death of Constantius. Some years later, the other envoy, Aurelius Avianius Symmachus, was awarded the post of urban prefect. 5 4 The presence of the younger Symmachus at the imperial court is attested in Trier in 369-370 and in Milan in 382 (when he was not admitted to the presence of Gratian), 387 and 388. On these occasions, he expressed his wish to be of consultative value to the emperor. 5 5 On his fïrst visit, Symmachus offered the emperor an aurum oblaticum, a voluntary senatorial tax, and delivered orations to Valentinian and Gratian. Because of the distance to the court, diplomatic visits or consultative appeals from city- Roman nobles were very infrequent, although the hopes and aspirations for it were clearly still very much alive and the benefits significant. Only under the regime of Stilicho would the Roman aristocracy and the imperial court grow closer for a short time, much to the satisfaction of Symmachus. 5 6

8.2 Senators’ Self-display In republican times, aristocrats had used Rome’s public spaces to present themselves as virtuous and prestigious patrons of Rome. 5 7 Care for the City was one of their main municipal duties, and included constructing and maintaining public buildings and erecting honorifïc statuary. With the advent of the emperor as the individual ruler, Rome was appropriated as a showcase for imperial ceremony and ideological pretentions. 5 8 The role of aristocrats as powerful actors in shaping the City diminished and was confïned to their luxurious residences, which became “landmarks of urban social life” . 5 9 As the emperor gradually withdrew as an active initiator or participant in the process of building and restoration in late-antique Rome, nobles regained space and resources to display their own standing and wealth, and to secure Rome’s cultural heritage and identity. In ‘their’ city, they had means to show off and act out their consensus with or disapproval of imperial politics. The responsibility and care for the urban environment of Rome was foremost left to the urban prefect, assisted by other resident officials. Surviving legislation from the late- Constantintian period concentrates on the protection of monuments in Rome against dilapidation or destruction on euergetic, aesthetical and cultural grounds. The prefect’s resources were thus directed largely towards the maintenance of essential public Utilities such as aqueducts, roads, baths and the repair or embellishment of the traditional seats of power. Several buildings and public spaces in the city centre concemed with the administration

5 4 PLRE I 582 s.v. Maximus 17; 863-865 s.v. L. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus signo Phosphorius 3. Amm.Marc. 21.12.24. 55 Symm. Rel. 3.1 and 3.20; Ep. 3.52 and 3.63; Or. 1-3. 56 Symm. Ep. 4.20. 57 Strong 1968; Zanker 1988: 18-25; Erkelenz 2003. 58 Zanker 1988; Favro 1996; Gowing 2005: 132. 59 Hillner 2003. 228 maintained their original functions or remained intact until early medieval times. 6 0 By law, senators further had to provide the funds that were ‘demanded for the production of the theatrical performances, the games of the circus, or for the accounts of their compulsory public services’ . 6 1 Furthermore, temple buildings outside the city had to be preserved as locations for spectacles. These lavish entertainments, connected to the imperial cult and Rome, generated ‘favour and approbation of senate and people’ . 6 2 Although the imperial treasury contributed to these enjoyments, the burden of expenditure was with the senators in Rome. 63 Epigraphic evidence refers to concrete initiatives for building or restoration activities on public sites in the fourth and early fifth centuries.6 4 One was the constraction of the Pons Gratiani, dedicated by the Senate and the people of Rome in 369 or 370. The body of senators further had the authority to declare the erection of commemorative architecture, such as the arches of Septimius Severus and Constantine, or the dedication of temples. 6 5 Other endowments by officials and wealthy private citizens entailed public baths, a stable and a water reservoir for an aqueduct. 6 6 However, these patrons could not claim sole credit for their activities. In order for them not to be impeached for high treason, they had to recognise the emperor as benefactor.6 7 Aristocrats furthermore fostered the monumental provisioning of statues in the City, both as awarders and as honorands. Most eminent were the dedications granted to them by the emperor himself, with the imperial fora as their main stage. 6 8 The honour that befell the elect was enhanced by the listing of honorary titles and imperial letters of praise. These statues and epigraphic formulas demonstrated an approbation from and closeness to the absent emperor.6 9 As the highest official in the Empire, he appointed the magistracies which made a successfiil political career and thus elevated the social status of the magistrate, also in marble. Sarcophagi, bowls and gems with affïxed imperial portraits and ivory diptychs with imperial letters of appointment had the same resonance, and expressed the connection of their owners with the distant court.7 0 At the same time it conveyed their respect for the traditional offices and their claimed scope and responsibility as office holders.

60 Augenti 2000. 61 CTh. 6.4.4 (339; 354): Omnes clarissimi, qui [per dijoecesim sublimitatis tuae degunt, nostri auctori[tat]e praecepti ad urbem Romam venire cum impensis, [qua]s ludi scaenicorum vel circensium vel muneris ra[ti]o poscit, cogantur. See also CTh. 6.4.5-6.4.6 (340), 6.4.7 (353; 354) and 6.4.13 (361). 62 Symm. Rel. 8. 63 CTh. 9.17.1 (340), 9.17.2 (349), 9.17.3 (356), 9.17.4 (356; 357), 9.17.5 (363) and 16.10.3 (342; 346). Kunderwicz 1971. 64 See, among others: CIL VI 45, 102, 1156b, 1653, 1655, 1658a-b, 1658e, 1672a-b, 1774, 3664a-c, 3866=31963, 31879, 31880 and 31916. See LaBranche 1968; Merriman 1975. 65 Arch of Severus: CIL VI 1033 = 31230 = 36881; arch of Constantine: CIL VI 1139 = 31245; temple of Satum: CIL VI 937; temple of deified Marcus Aurelius: Aur.Vict. Caes. 16.15; temple of deified Gordiani; SHA Max.duo 26.2; temple of Venus and Rome: Aur.Vict. Caes. 40.26. 66 CIL VI 3866=31963, 31916 and 1774. 61 CTh. 15.1.31. 68 Chenault2012; Weisweiler 2012b. See also Chapter 4, paragraphs 3.2, 4.1 and 5.1. 69 Eek 2009; Weisweiler 2012a. 70 Delbrueck 1933: 227-228, 228-229, 134, 137 and 154; Richter 1971: n.602-604, 606, 607 and 609-610; Dalton 1901: n. 916; Weisweiler 2012a; id. 2012b. 229 The visibility of the status and power of aristocrats increased as the aristocratie domus invaded the public domain. These residences housed the ancestry of the gens and as such were protected by law to safeguard the patrimonial continuity. The copious epigraphical evidence of statues erected in aristocratie homes shows the pervasiveness of honouring aristocrats as dignitaries or patrons of the City. 7 1 The dedications conveyed the honorands’ religious functions and intellectual and patemal achievements, but foremost their professional history, as they were named with their full cursus honorum and sacrae litterae from the emperor.7 2 Munificence and erudition were desired virtues of every magistrate, but not least of the urban prefect, when not ousted out of megalomania or exhibitionism. Ammianus elucidated on the possible imbalance between patronage and the display of status: Some of these men eagerly strive for statues, thinking that by them they can be made immortal, as if they would gain a greater reward from senseless brazen images than from the consciousness of honorable and virtuous conduct.73 These acts of ambitio were an obvious expression of the aristocratie pursuit of status and honour. As the political prominence of senatorial gentes could be short (as they were at the mercy of the length and nature of imperial rule), such statuary and epigraphic display might be essential to making a lasting impression. Epigraphic spokesmen The contribution of magistrates to the honorific statuary in late-antique Rome was considerable. 7 4 Apart from the statues to the urban prefect and other city-Roman officials, the statuary scenery in the fourth century was embellished with dedications to the emperors. The aristocratie bequests were to demonstrate allegiance and ambitions in marble. The Forum Romanum was an area rife with expressions of loyalty to the emperor. At the same time, it served as a core location for manifestations of self-display by late-antique aristocrats. 7 5 In

71 CIL VI 1690-1694, 1700, 1704-1705, 1717, 1723 + 1757 = 37112, 1739-1741, 1748, 1751-1752, 1754- 1755, 1768-1769, 1772-1773, 31904, 31961, 32051 and 37112. See Guidobaldi 1999; Hillner 2003; Machado 2012. 72 Eek 2009; Weisweiler 2012a. 73 Amm.Marc. 14.6.8: Ex his quidam aetemitati se commendariposseper statuas aestimantes eas ardenter adfectant quasi plus praemii de Jïgmentis aereis sensu carentibus adepturi, quam ex conscientia honeste recteque factorum.... 74 Urban prefects: Turcius Apronianus: CIL VI 1768 and 1769; Flavius Maesius Egnatius Lollianus: CIL VI 37112 (=1723 and 1757). LTUR II: 132; Fabius Titianus: CIL VI 1717; L. Aradius Valerius Proculus: CIL VI 1690-1694. LTUR II: 207; Vitrasius Orfitus: CIL VI 1739-1742; Quintus Rusticus (?): CIL VI 41343. This tabula could, however, have also been dedicated to the urban prefect of 387-388, Sextius Rusticus Julianus. PLRE I 479-480 s.v. Sextius Rusticus Iulianus 37. For Flavius Eugenius by Constans: CIL VI 1721; Flavius Taurus by Constantius: CIL V I41336; Attius Caecilius Maximilianus: CIL V I41332; Lucius Turcius Secundus: CIL VI 1772; Paterna Eumonia: CIL VI 1773; Vulcacius Rufmus: CIL VI 32051; M. Aurelius Consius Quartus Junior: CIL VI 1700. 75 Constantius Chlorus or Constantius: CIL VI 1133; Constantine: CIL VI 1141 = 31246; 36951-36953; Crispus: CIL VI 3909 = 32760 = 40778b; Constantinus: CIL VI 1156a = 01658e = 31248a; Constantius: CIL VI 1158, 1161 = 1162 = 36887, 30562, 2 = 40764a, 31395-31397, 31513 = 37133a = 40771, 37133, 40764 and 40768a; Valens: CIL VI 1174 and 36956a-b; Theodosius: CIL VI 36959; Arcadius: CIL VI 03791a = 31413 = 36959a and 3791b = 31414 = 36959b ; Honorius: CIL VI 1193 and 36962; Honorius and 230 close proximity to the Curia, several dedications were set up honouring the emperor for his triumphs and his safeguarding or extension of the Empire. Yet emperors and members of the imperial family were also awarded statues by prefects on the imperial fora and elsewhere in the City, as visualisations of affirmed loyalty. 7 6 Late antiquity experienced various usurpations, civil wars, victories and (to a lesser degree) imperial visits to Rome. All these occasions were grounds to erect statuary by members of the city-Roman gentes. A few examples from the decades of Constantinian rule will suffice. An inscription of the urban prefect Rufius Volusianus recorded Constantine’s decennalia and visit to Rome in 315.77 Dedications by the prefect Anicius Paulinus in the 330s underlined his allegiance to the emperor. One was the erection of the equus Constantini, anticipating (in vain) the arrival of Constantine to celebrate his trecennalia the next year. 7 8 Only a few commemorative statues have been preserved for Constantine’s son and successor Constans. His support base, who would act as his epigraphic spokesmen in his absence, was minimal. Despite his dynastie claims, which normally appealed to the nobles (as they also used marriage alliances to cement political long-lasting relationships within the Roman aristocracy), loyalty was not guaranteed. Constans had been criticised for his attitude towards the aristocracy of Rome, as he had cancelled the distinctive SENA TT/S-coinage of his father, chosen men from outside Rome for the urban prefecture in the late 340s, and combined the office with the praetorian prefecture. 7 9 Already in the early years of his rule, Constans was not assured of loyalty from the city-Roman gentes. Aurelius Avianius Symmachus had favoured Constantinus as ruler of Rome in the late 330s. Before the civil war between Constans and his brother, he had shown his allegiance on dedications to Constans’ nemesis. Hoping for clemency after his imprudent loyalty to Constantinus, he tried to redress the balance, but he was possibly not rehabilitated by Constans. 8 0 At the end of Constans’ rule, there was still discontent among members from the aristocratie gentes, as several (even his former urban prefect Fabius Titianus) supported the coup and regime of Magnentius. 81 Dedications to Constans underwent a damnatio memoriae after his death. His name was erased during Magnentius’ rule and rededicated in the usurper’s

Arcadius: CIL VI 1187=31256a. Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius: CIL VI 1184; Valentinian II and Theodosius: CIL VI1154 = 36958; Valentinian I: CIL VI 36955; Valentinian II: CIL VI 03791a = 31413 = 36959a. See Bauer 1996; Marchese 2007. 76 For Constantine, see, among others: CIL VI 1117, 1140, 1142-1143, 1145-1146, 1151-1152 and 30562, 2 = 40764a; Crispus: CIL VI 1155; Constantinus: CIL VI 1118 = 36885; Constantine and Constantinus: CIL VI 1148 = 1149 = 1150; Constans: CIL VI 1157 = 40840, 40782a and 40783a; Theodosius: CIL VI 1186; Honorius: CIL VI 1194. For Constantius: CIL VI = 36887 40780-40781 and 40782a; unknown emperor: CIL VI 31387a=40633b. Imperial members: Constantia: CIL VI; 1153=40777; Helena: CIL VI 1134 and 36950. 77 CIL V I1140. 78OXVI 1141 and 31246. 79 See Chapter 6, section 1.1. 80 AE 1988: 217; CIL VI 36954. See Gasperini 1988; Cecconi 1996. See Chapter 2, paragraph 2.1, and Chapter 6, paragraph 3.2. 81 CIL VI 1166-1167. 231 name. 8 2 This lot also feil to inseriptions to Magnentius and his dedicator Fabius Titianus after Constantius’ suppression. In the early 350s, Naeratius Cerealis erected an equestrian statue for Constantius, honouring him as ‘the restorer of the city of Rome and the world and the suppressor of the disastrous tyrant’ . 8 3 Naeratius Cerealis was the first appointee for the urban prefeeture by Constantius after the emperor gained complete dominance over the western half of the Empire. With this gesture, he tried to monumentalise his allegiance with the victorious Augustus after a politically unstable period. The tendency for commemorative statuary clearly manifested itself especially at moments of celebration or political crisis. Although the senate no longer actively selected emperors, the body still extended expressions of confirmation, consent or denouncement. As it appears, the death of Constantine was not followed by an official consecratio of the Senate and coins for the divus Constantinus failed to be issued in Rome. 8 4 Envoys were commissioned and carried out on behalf of the body, as were panegyrics. Dedications were another clear medium in which to state the political leanings of senators in Rome, not least of the urban prefect. These benefactions were communicated in dispatches to convey the fausta suffragia from Rome enjoyed by the emperors. Their intention was ‘that the well-deserved inseriptions celebrating leaders (of earlier times) should stimulate the present generation to be loyal to you’ . 8 5 Siding with a candidate with an unfortunate fate, however, could turn out to be disastrous for a senator. The change of imperial rule, even when forced, did not automatically imply an immediate change of officials. After Constantine’s victory over Maxentius, it took a month before the prefect Anullinus was replaced, making him the last appointee of Maxentius to lose his office. It also took time before Hermogenes, the last urban prefect of Constans, was replaced by Fabius Titianus after Magnentius had proclaimed himself emperor. 8 6 Yet, the emperor whom prevailed reckoned with those who had opposed him and pursued his policy of rewarding public and powerful supporters for their allegiance. Symmachus’ father, who had shown his allegiance on dedications to Constantinus in the period preceding the civil war, feit it necessary to reaffirm his loyalty to Constans. It is not clear if he was rehabilitated by Constans. He assumed office only under Constantius. All officials who had backed Magnentius against Constans saw their career come to an end with his death. 8 7 A short revolt against the usurper, led by Nepotianus, had been embraced by a group of senators. After the expulsion of Nepotianus by the troops of Magnentius, many of them fled from Rome to the eastem part of the Empire and ‘dreadful proscriptions and massacres of the nobility ensued’ . 8 8 Seeking closeness and articulating links with the emperor clearly had effect. It could generate

82 CIL VI 40783a-b = 41335a. See also CIL VI 40782a. 83Cft VI 1158. 84 Grünewald 1990: 159-162. 85 Symm. Rel. 9 and 43.2. 86 PLRE 179 s.v. C. Annius Anullinus 3; 918-919 s.v. Fabius Titianus 6. 87 Delmaire 1997: 115. 88 See Chapter 1, paragraph 12, and Chapter 6, section 1.1. 232 an upgrade in status, title and interests, but might conversely ruin a career and the reputation of a senator and his prominent gens. 8.3 Senatorial Interaction with the Distant Imperial Court With the emperor at a distant court, the cura Urbis more than ever pertained to the members of the aristocracy of Rome. They celebrated their own standing with dedications, architectural projects and games (though all conditioned through imperial pronouncements). At the same time, they secured the cultural heritage and identity of Rome through dedications and private benefactions. While the concentration of imperial power far from Rome created opportunities for the nobles to appropriate Rome’s public space for self- and Roman-representation, it forced them at the same time to redefine their relationship with the emperor. As imperial policymaking occurred mainly at the imperial court, the aristocrats were no longer able to have a substantial effect on govemment policy and their influence within the circles of power declined. Their consultative role in the distant consistorium seems to have been marginalised and their importance in the legal sphere of enactment seems to have become secondary in the fourth century. With the absence of imperial power in Rome, remaining integrated in the imperial core thus became more difficult. Claiming a link with the distant emperor, however, appears to have been aspired to ardently. As such, the Roman aristocrats invested substantially in gaining access to the imperial centre and in articulating their links to the ruler. This connection was naturally expressed by accepting the nomination of the honourable but burdensome office of the urban prefecture and other city-Roman posts and by delivering official reports to the emperor. Several other strategies were employed to gain social and political advantages. The dispatch of gifits and correspondence to the emperor further articulated aristocratic loyalty and cooperation and kept the aristocratic circles integrated in govemment. Dynamic interactions between the emperor and the senatorial aristocracy were further pursued by direct contact, just like personal engagements in the early Empire. Nobles aspired to gain political encounters with the emperor, preferably in Rome, although these occasions were rare. Various senatorial embassies to the imperial court have been recorded. On statue- bases, sarcophagi and diptychs of Roman nobles, honorifïc titles, letters of praise and official insignia as imperial marks of approval were displayed. Other engagements claiming a link with the ruler involved commemorative statuary in his honour. These expressions of loyalty to the emperor were especially extended during a jubilee, awaiting a possible adventus Augusti, but also in times of usurpation and rivalry. Dedications were an unambiguous medium in which to state the political leanings of senators in Rome. In the fourth and early fifth century, the area of the Forum Romanum served as a core location for these confïrmations of allegiance and, at the same time, self-display. Furthermore, games were funded and held in the city to commemorate imperial celebrations and building projects were undertaken by city- Roman officials and patrons, associated with the emperor’s name.

233 According to Symmachus, who observed the changing nature and perception of senatorial activity, all orders of life could be shaken by vicissitudes of time and by changes in the political situation. 8 9 In assuming their role as caretakers of the City without a ruler, the members of the aristocracy did not refrain from seeking and demonstrating imperial closeness in a bid to stay at the centre of the symbolic process between the absent emperor and the old capital.

89 Symm. Or. 1.6. 234 C ON CLUSION

‘And while [Maxentius] enjoyed the majesty of that city which he had taken... ’ 1

The majesty of Rome proved an effective weapon of regime power. Maxentius ruled a small realm, centred on the city which had become second in rank under the Tetrarchy. As conservator Urbis suae, he employed its prestige and tried to restore Rome as a political bastion, imperial residence and monumental trophy-cabinet. The ideological significance, or maiestas, of Rome also allured others. This dissertation has aimed to reconstruct the relationships of Maxentius’ direct successors - Constantine, Constans and Constantius - with Rome, investigating the meaning of imperial presence, patronage and politics for the identity of the City during the Constantinian dynasty. Through the study of Rome under Constantine’s direct descendants to the City, a lacuna in current discourse, I hope to have broken new ground in the area of late- antique studies that focuses on the bond between the Urbs and the Augustus. * The downfall of Maxentius and Constantine’s subsequent gain of Rome were part of the power aspirations that Constantine seems to have held from the time of his accession. Constantine had been claimed Augustus in Britannia in 306 by the troops of his deceased father Constantius Chlorus, the Augustus of the West. Afterinitial recognition from the senior-Augustus Galerius, Constantine set an independent and distinctive political course, distancing himself from his imperial peers. This course would cause the system of Tetrarchy to founder. His detached attitude towards the imperial college included independent consulary appointments, a disceming title and an alliance with the usurpers from Rome, Maxentius and his father Maximian. Constantine’s relations with Maxentius, however, were reserved and after the death of Maximian a power struggle ensued. Rome was at stake in the battle, in which Constantine emerged the victor. In October 312, he became Augustus of the West. To strengthen his changed power base, Constantine opted again for an alliance with an emperor with whom he had no blood ties. This union with Licinius, emperor of the East, was sealed by the marriage between Constantine’s new ally and Constantine’s sister Constantia. However, soon discontent arose between the two emperors. From the moment of his dominion over Rome, and even from the time of his wars with Licinius, Constantine clearly set out a new line in his pursuit of dynasticism. Constantine’s descent from Constantius Chlorus, and later his claimed ancestral relationship to Claudius Gothicus, was at the core of his rule and propaganda. Besides emphasising his ancestry through various forms of media, he created a new generation to the gens Flavia by raising his sons Crispus, Constantinus and Constantius to the rank of Caesar. The year 324 was a tuming point for the dynasty of Constantine as well

1 Pan.Lat. 12 (9) 3.6: Et inter haec utebatur eius urbis maiestate quam ceperat... 235 as for the city of Rome. Constantine became sole ruler over the Empire and founded Constantinople, a new imperial residence in the East. Aside from one major interfamilial conflict, resulting in the death of his first son Crispus and his wife Fausta, the last decade of his rule was without intemal strife. Constantine expanded the imperial college with his son Constans and his nephews Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, and strengthened these relations through official appointments and marriage connections. The sudden death of Constantine in May 337 initiated a turbulent period within the imperial succession. Commanding a powerful dynastie charisma, his direct heirs Constantinus, Constantius and Constans were raised to the rank and title of Augustus by the military. Possible threats to their rule were eliminated. The Empire, which after a long period of division had only been briefly united by Constantine since 324, was again split up, now between the three brothers. A prerogative based on lineage was to be embraced and propagated not only to establish but also perpetuate imperial rule. The initial unity of the state changed to discord as a result of imperial and ecclesiastical disputes between the three emperors. The lack of fratemal unity and a clear hierarchy between the brothers resulted in military confrontations and usurpations, during which Rome changed ownership several times. * Constantine sealed his dominion over Rome with a visit of several weeks, during which he presented himself as restitutor Urbis, the restorer of the City. After this brief period of residence, he would return to the capital only twice. His main preoccupation was consolidating his powerbase in the West, and after 324, in the East, having Constantinople as one of his headquarters. In the last years of his reign, the latter city served as the emperor’s residence and would become his resting place in 337. The imperial distance from Rome after 326, the year of Constantine’s final visit, was maintained under the rule of his son Constans. Although several scholars have argued that Rome’s emperor from 337 until 350 called at the City at one point during his reign, and although several occasions might have been opportune, his “Hauptstadtfeme” can be assumed. Between the campaigns against his brother Constantinus, and the Sarmatians and Franks, Constans settled mainly in Trier, Milan and Sirmium. Only in 357 did his brother unite the City with its emperor, favouring Rome with a visit to celebrate his victory over the usurper Magnentius and his jubilee as emperor. Following his father, Constantius resided predominantly in the East, in particular in Antioch and Constantinople. With Constantine’s dominion of but absence from Rome, a long period of permanent distance between the emperor and the imperial city set in. During the fifty years of Constantinian rule, the imperial adventus in Rome took on great significance as the critical state ceremony in the City. In the scarce periods of imperial presence in Rome, the City was used as décor for imperial representation and monarchie ritual, and more practically, as a control centre from which to define the emperor’s relationship with the city of Rome and his subjects: senators and plebs, Christians and pagans. In these moments, Rome held the grand stage of the Empire and had its centrality re-affirmed. The City’s residents had opportunities

236 to claim closeness to the visiting ruler and plead their particular cause. The occasional moments of imperial presence were the ‘ardent desire’ of city-Roman senators especially. Although they no longer the primary actors to develop govemment policy, they tried to emphasise their links with the distant imperial centre and participate in imperial politics, striving for office and extending expressions of loyalty to the emperor. An actual encounter in Rome provided a home advantage and an opening both for personal gain and the glory of their City. In the concluding section of Nazarius’ speech (cited in the Introduction to this study), the presence of Constantine and his progeny is the dominant theme. The acrior ardor of the Romans for an emperor within their walls found particular expression in late-antique Latin panegyrics. These orations were intended to delight the emperor’s ear with lofty praises, but his disappointing commitment to Rome was noticed and articulated by the panegyrists, who hoped that their covert criticism struck the imperial addressee such in a way that Rome would behold its emperor once more. * Physical presence in Rome was not the only way for an emperor to lend glory to the etemal city and express his duty and affection towards the City. Through monumental patronage, he could create an architectural presence and express imperial grandeur. During his first years as ruler of Rome, Maxentius’ building activities - the monumental expression of his claim as ‘preserver of the City’ - provided the context for Constantine’s building policy in the City. His victory over Maxentius and Maxentius’ subsequent damnatio memoriae resulted in a thorough review of the cityscape. Former buildings and locations built patronized under Maxentius were appropriated, discarded and altered, which Consolidated Constantine’s position in Rome. Constantine’s triumph was celebrated with an arch in the Colosseum-valley, a gift from the Senate. Through patronage of various beneficia and statuary decoration, Constantine pursued his traditional imperial duty as patron for the City and people of Rome. He further made a substantial change to Rome’s religious landscape with a pervasive programme of church building. He exploited locations close to, or just outside the walls of the Urbs to provide a network of monumental architecture for the Christian church, including a liturgical centre within the city and several extramural martyr shrines. The ongoing construction work under Constantine offsets the idea that Rome was a triviality for the emperor. Constantine made significant contributions to profane and religious architecture in the City. However, his efforts and resources were gradually extended to his city in the East. In the years in which Constantine developed his new residence, Rome served as a topographical and monumental example. Constantinople was awarded its own Forum and Capital, an imperial palace connected to a hippodrome, a mint, and a mausoleum to commemorate the ruler after his passing. Furthermore, the Christianisation of the city on the Bosporus was another dominant theme in Constantine’s programme. During the periods of imperial residency in Rome, Constantine had more or less actively participated as patron. For the greater part, however, the projects were supervised by

237 the urban prefects of Rome. The exercise of patronage enabled these magistrates - and other city-Roman sponsors - to play a further important role in a time when Rome was no longer the real ‘head of the world’, deprived of privileges and imperial presence. The endowments and immunities which were showered on the Church were managed by the City’s bishops in the emperor’s absence. Urban prefects and bishops remained the dominant actors in shaping the City during the rule of Constans, a long decade in which the degree of imperial munificence declined and the construction of new buildings subsided. Constans was no cultural producer. In the emperor’s absence, his urban prefects continued to oversee the building projects initiated under Constantine. Furthermore, their activities were mainly related to the restoration or reconstruction of damaged pre-existing fabric. The bishop leading the diocese in the 340s enhanced the Christian topography in the City. Statuary from and for Constans was the most common type of intervention to the cityscape. Through these dedications, he was made visible as a powerful and generous emperor and was symbolically represented in the City. Concurrently, these statues also credited the status of other parties: the city-official donors and honorands of these statuary monuments received honour as well. Constantius did not match the scale of patronage shown by his father to Rome either, although he was able to manifest himself as an active patron during his brief presence in the City in 357. With the bestowal of an obelisk to the Circus Maximus and various statuary dedications, he fulfïlled his imperial prerogative as benefactor. Ancient buildings were attentively kept in good repair by city-Roman officials for remembrance, beautification and expression of their own merits and benefactions. Like his father, however, Constantius’ munificence was mainly projected onto Constantine’s city in the East, which was in need of completion and perfection. This focus on Constantinople by both Constantine and his son Constantius was ambiguous; the imitation of Rome was flattering and confïrmed the ideological meaning of the City, but, at the same time, it constructed a rival to be reckoned with which diverted the attention of the emperors from the traditional Capital to the Christian metropolis. * The most personal level by which an emperor could defïne his relationship with the city of Rome was through its residents. For the maintenance of the monarchie regime, senators had played a crucial role institutionally, administratively, socially and ideologically. During the Principate, when the imperial residence was Rome, they had been able to move within the centre of power. The interaction and communication between the emperor and this important collectivity in the City, however, grew increasingly complicated as a result of the new political geography of the Empire. Constantine allowed senators from Rome to fulfïl a worthy role within the administration of the Empire and the City. Their domain of power during his reign was mainly limited to the Capital itself. The emperor clearly used the pool of city-Roman senators as candidates for the urban prefecture, the most prestigious position for senators with bonds to

238 Rome or Italy. This post, the chief administrative office in their own city, mostly enabled senators from Rome to participate in imperial high politics. During Constantinian rule, the urban prefect’s responsibility for Rome grew. The city-Roman nobles also took up the honorary post of consul, but were only represented to a lesser degree in the praetorian prefecture. In defining his relationship with the senate, Constantine had started off well. He was awarded seniority over his imperial peers and, for his part, he honoured the senatorial body on coinage. His preference for Constantinople as a residence and burial place, and his foundation of a second Senate in the East sent an unmistakable signal: senatorship was no longer reserved for Rome and the best opportunities to gain access to the imperial centre expanded in the East. Constans seems to have met the aspirations of the city-Roman aristocracy during his early years as Augustus. Numerous men of clarissimate rank from Rome or the surrounding provinces were awarded high and renowned offices of the consulate and the urban or praetorian prefectures. In the last years of his reign, however, officials from outside Rome would be represented dominantly in the urban and praetorian prefecture, at the expense of members from the city-Roman aristocratie gentes. Men from the East with previous careers as dignitaries of Constantius were not only awarded the consulate or one of the praetorian prefectures within the West, but also the urban prefecture of the city of Rome; from 347 until 349, the office was even held simultaneously with the praetorian prefecture. The city-Roman senators were sidelined and their effective power was downgraded in the last years of Constans’ reign. He seems to have made no effort to improve his standing with the senators in Rome, as he refrained from visiting Rome and its Curia and cancelled the coinage of the honorary mint-series for the senate. Contrary to his brother, Constantius arranged an opportunity for senators to meet their emperor on their own ground when he visited Rome in person. He fiirther retumed to a group of city-Roman senators for the single office of the urban prefecture, an office with decreasing powers but growing responsibilities. In addition, to a lesser extent, he appointed senators from Rome for the consular and praetorian positions. The increase of the eastem senate and the installation of a proconsulate and eventually an urban prefecture in Constantinople marked the decline of Rome’s geopolitical significance, but also the importance and value of the Senate and the prefect for the City and the Empire. At the end of his reign, Constantius retained the Senate’s loyalty in his struggle with Julian. * The relationship between the Augustus and the Urbs was complex and dynamic, especially after the ruler retreated from Rome and created new imperial residencies. Under the dynasty of Constantine, the bond between the Roman emperor and his Capital city was strengthened, and at the same time weakened. On the one hand, the dynastie founder honoured the City through imperial presence, patronage and politics, and paid tribute to a symbolic Rome on coinage. On the other, the physical Rome and the Dea Roma had to share this homage with Constantinople and its Tyche, the countertype of Rome’s divine personification. The

239 development of the rivalling upcoming city in the East was by no means complete at the time of Constantine’s death. In the following years, while Constans maintained a political and ideological “Romfeme”, nova Roma was put on a par with Rome by Constantius. The bond between the emperor and Rome as his residence and political centre was now broken, but the concept of Urbs et Augustus had been reinvented. The relational development between Constantine, Constans and Constantius and Rome is best expressed in their numismatic programme. Where Constantine celebrated the old and new Roma on separate solidus-issues Empire-wide, these city-commemoratives were struck during Constans’ rule only in Rome, the place he never visited and whose mint seems to have had its own agenda. Rome and Constantinople appeared again Empire-wide after Constantius became sole-ruler. Urbs Roma, holding a spear, and Constantinopolis, holding a sceptre, were now represented on a single coin as sister-cities.2

2 Toynbee 1947. See App. 2, fïgs. 14, 15 and 18. 240 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, C. 2007. ‘Irregular Levies and the Impact of the Roman Army in Egypt’, in: L. de Blois, Elio lo Cascio and O.J. Hekster eds. The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC-AD 476). Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International NetWork Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 BC- AD 476) Capri, March 29-April 2, 2005, Leiden: 281-291. Africa, T.W. 1971. ‘Urban Violence in Imperial Rome’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2: 3-21. Alchermes, J. 1991. ‘Constantinople and the Empire ofNew Rome’, in: L. Safran ed. Heaven on Earth. Art and the Church in Byzantium, University Park: 13-38. Alföldi, A. 1947. ‘On the Foundation of Constantinople. A Few Notes’, Journal of Roman Studies 37: 10-16. ------1948. The Conversion of Constantine the Great and Pagan Rome, Oxford. ------1952. A Conflict of Ideas in the Late Roman Empire, Oxford. ------1970. Die monarchische Reprasentation im römischen Kaiserreiche, Darmstadt. Alföldi, M.R. 1959-1960. ‘Helena nobilissima femina. Zur Deutung der Trierer Deckengemalde’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 10: 79-90. ------1963. Die constantinische Goldpragung. Untersuchungen zu ihrer Bedeutung für Kaiserpolitik und Hofkunst, Mainz. Alföldy, G., and S. Panciera eds. 2001. Inschriftliche Denkmaler als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt, .S'tuttgart. Amann, P. 2002. ‘Das Konstantinische “Reskript von Hispellum” (CIL XI 5265)’, Tyche 17: 1-27. Amici, A. 2000. ‘Divus Constantinus. Le testimonianze epigrafiche’, Rivista storia dell’antichita 30: 186-216. Amici, C.M. 2005. ‘From Project to Monument’, in: C. Giavarini ed. The Basilica of Maxentius. The Monument, its Materials, Construction and Stability, Rome: 21-74. Amidon, P.R. 1997. The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11, New York - Oxford. Amirav, H., and B. ter Haar Romeny eds. 2007. From Rome to Constantinople. Studies in Honour ofAveril Cameron, Leuven - Dudley. Ampolo, C. 1968-1969. ‘Un miliario di Massenzio della via Prenestina’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 81: 179-181. Anderson Jr., J.C. 1984. The Historical Topography of the Imperial Fora, Brussels. Ando, C. 2000. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire, Berkely. Angelicoussis, E. 1984. ‘The Panel Reliefs of Marcus Aurelius’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts. Römische Abteilung 91: 142-205. Arbeiter, A. 1988. Alt-St. Peter in Geschichte und Wissenschaft, Berlin. ------2006. ‘Das Kuppelmosaik von Centcelles. Ein Bildprogramm und die Versuch seiner Deutung1, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Internationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Universitat Trier zur Landesaustellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 "Konstantin der Grosse”, Trier: 109-125. Arce, J. 1988. Funus imperatorum. Los funerales de los emperadores romanos, Madrid.

241 ------2010. ‘Roman Imperial Funerals in effigie', in: B. Ewald and C.F. Noreiia eds. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge - New York: 303-323. Armstrong, G.T. 1967. ‘Imperial Church Building and Church State Relations, A.D. 313-363’, Church History 36: 3-17. Amaldi, A. 1972. ‘La successione dei cognomina devictarum gentium e le loro iterazioni nella titolatura dei primi Tetrarchi’, Rendiconti Istituto Lombardo 106: 28-50. ------1977a. ‘La successione dei cognomina devictarum gentium e le loro iterazioni nella titolatura di Costantino il Grande’, in: Contributi di Storia antica in onore di Albino Garzetti, Geneva: 175-202. ------1977b. ‘I cognomina devictarum gentium dei successori di Costantino il Grande’, Epigraphica. Rivista italiana di epigrafia 39: 91-102. ------1981. ‘Osservazioni sui Cesari di eta costantiniana’, Rivista italiana di numismatica 8 8 : 75-86. Arnheim, M.T.W. 1970. ‘Vicars in the Later Roman Empire’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 19: 593-606. ------1972. The Senatorial Aristocracy in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford. Amold, F. e.a. eds. 2012. Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren. Menschen - Kuituren - Traditionen, Bd. 3, Rahden. Augenti, A. 2000. ‘Continuity and Discontinuity of a Seat of Power. The Palatine Hill from the Fifth to the Tenth Century’, in: J.M.H. Smith ed. Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West. Essays in theHonourofDonaldBullough, Leiden: 43-53. Austin, N.J.E. 1980. ‘Constantine and Crispus’, Acta Classica 23: 133-138. * Baatz, D. 1977. ‘Bemerkungen zur Jahrringchronologie in der römischen Zeit’, Germania. Anzeiger der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 55: 173-179. Bagnall, R.S. 1987. Consuls of the Later Roman Empire, Atlanta. Baiani, S., and M. Ghilardi eds. 2000. Crypta Balbi - Fori imperiali. Archeologia urbana a Roma e interventi di restauro nell'anno del Grande Giubileo, Rome. Baldus, H.R. 1994. ‘Ein Sonderfall höfischer Reprasentation der spatconstantinischen Zeit’, in: R. Günther and S. Rebenich eds. E fontibus haurire. Beitrage zur römischen Geschichte undzu ihren Hilfswissenschaften, Paderbom: 255-262. Barceló, P.A. 1981. Roms auswartige Beziehungen unter der Constantinischen Dynastie (306- 363), Regensburg. ------1988. ‘Die Religionspolitik Kaiser Constantins des Groflen vor der Schlacht an der Milvischen Brücke (312)’, Hermes. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 116: 76-94. ------1991-1992. ‘Trajan, Maxentius und Constantin. Ein Beitrag zur Deutung des Jahres 312’, Boreas. Münstersche Beitrage zur Archaologie 14-15: 145-156. ------1992. ‘Constantius II. und die Limiganten. Einige Prazisierungen zu Ammianus Marcellinus. XIX, 11 ’, Klio. Beitrage zur alten Geschichte 74: 422-430. ------1999. ‘Caesar Gallus und Constantius II., ein gescheitertes Experiment?’, Acta Classica 42: 23-34. ------2004. Constantinus II. und seine Zeit. Die Anfange des Staatskirchentums, Stuttgart. Bardill, J. 2012. Constantine, Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age, Cambridge - New York.

242 Bamard, L.W. 1981. ‘The Emperor Constans and the Christian Church’, Rivista storica dell'Antichita 11: 205-214. Bames, T.D. 1973. ‘Lactantius and Constantine’, Journal of Roman Studies 63: 29-46. ------1974. ‘Who were the Nobility of the Roman Empire?’, Phoenix. The Classical Association of Canada 8 : 444-449. ------1975a. ‘Constans and Gratian in Rome’, HarvardStudies in Classical Philology 79: 325-333. ------1975b. ‘Two Senators under Constantine’, Journal of Roman Studies 65: 40-49. ------1975c. ‘Publilius Optatianus Vorïynus’, American Journal of Philology 96: 173-186. ------1976a. ‘The Victories of Constantine’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 20: 149-155. ------1976b. ‘Imperial Campaigns, A.D. 285-311’, Phoenix. The Classical Association of Canada 30: 174-193. ------1977. ‘Two Speeches by Eusebius’, Greek, Roman andByzantine Studies 18: 341 - 345. ------1980. ‘The Editions of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 21: 191-201. ------1981. Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge. ------1982. The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, Cambridge - London. ------1989a. ‘Panegyric, History and Historiography in Eusebius’ Life of Constantine’, in: R. Williams ed. The Making of Orthodoxy. Essays in Honour of Henry Chadwick, Cambridge: 94-123. ------1989b. ‘Christians and Pagans in the Reign of Constantius’, in: F. Vittinghoff and A. Dihle eds. L'église et l'empire au IVe siècle. Sept exposés suivis de discussions, Geneva: 301-343. ------1992. ‘Praetorian Prefects, 337-361 ’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 94: 249-260. ------1993a. Athanasius and Constantius. Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire, Cambridge. ------1993b. ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and his World’, Classical Philology 8 8 : 55-70. ------1994. ‘Religious Affiliations of Consuls and Prefects, 317-361 ’, in: T.D. Bames, From Eusebius to Augustine. Selected Papers 1982-1993, London: VII. 1-11. ------1995. ‘Statistics and Conversion of the Roman Aristocracy’, Journal of Roman Studies 85: 135-147. ------1996. ‘Oppressor, Persecutor, Usurper. The Meaning of ‘tyrannus’ in the Fourth Century’, Historiae Augustae Colloquium Barcinonense, Bari: 55-65. ------1997. ‘Julian or Constantine? Observations on a Fragmentary Imperial Panegyric’, in: B. Kramer, W. Luppe, H. Maehler and G. Poethke eds. Akten des 21. International Papyrologencongresses in Berlin 1995, Archiv für Papyrusforschung, Beiheft 3, Leipzig: 67-70. ------1998a. ‘Review of S. Corcoran, The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Govemment, A.D. 284-324’, American Journal of Philology 119: 145-149. ------1998b. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality, Ithaca. ------2006. ‘An Urban Prefect and his Wife’, Classical Quarterly 56: 249-256.

243 ------2011. Constantine. Dynasty, Religion and Power in the Later Roman Empire, Chichester - Malden, MA. Barrow, R.H. 1973. Prefect and Emperor. The Relationes of Symmachus A.D. 384, Oxford. Bassett, S. 2004. The Urban Image of Late Antique Constantinople, Cambridge. Bauer, F.A. 1996. Stadt, Platz und Denkmal in der Spatantike. Untersuchungen zur Ausstattung des öffentlichen Raums in den spatantiken Stadten Rom, Konstantinopel und Ephesos, Mainz. ------2001. ‘Beatituo Temporum. Die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit im Stadtbild des spatantiken Rom’, in: F.A. Bauer and N. Zimmermann eds. Epochenwandel? Kunst und Kultur zwischen Antike und Mittelalter, Mainz: 75-94. ------2011. ‘Stadt ohne Kaiser Rom im Zeitalter der Dyarchie und Tetrarchie (285-306 n. Chr.)’ in: T. Fuhrer ed. Rom und Mailand in der Spatantike. Reprasentationen stadtischer Raume in Literatur, Architektur und Kunst, Berlin - Boston: 3-85. ------2012. ‘Saint Peter’s as a Place of Collective Memory in Late Antiquity’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 155-170. Baumer, L.E. 2008. ‘L’iconographie politique de Domitien, essai d'interprétation des reliefs dits “de la Cancelleria’”, Revue archéologique ou recueil de documents et de mémoires relatifs a l'étude des monuments et a la philologie de l'antiquité et du moyen age 45: 189-192. Baur, F.C. 1582. Die Epochen der kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung, Tübingen. Beard, M. 1982. ‘Imagenary Horti', or up the Garden Path’, in: E. La Rocca and M. Cima eds. Horti Romani. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 4-6 maggio 1995, Rome: 23-32. Beard, M., J. North and S. Price. 1998. Religions of Rome, Cambridge. Beek, H. ed. 2011. Consuls and Res Publica. Holding High Office in the Roman Republic, Cambridge - New York. Beckmann, M. 2012. ‘The Column of Marcus Aurelius’, in: M. Van Ackeren ed. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Malden, MA: 251-263. Behrwald, R. 2009. Die Stadt als Museum? Die Wahrnehmung der Monumente Roms in der Spatantike, Berlin. Behrwald, R., and C. Witschel eds. 2012. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart. Belayche, N. 2005. ‘Realia versus leges? Les sacrifices de la religion d’Etat au IVe siècle’, in: S. Georgoudi, R. Koch Piettre and F. Schmidt eds. La cuisine et l’autel. Les sacrifices en questions dans les sociétés de la Méditerranée ancienne, Turnhout: 343-370. Benoist, S. 2005. Rome, le Prince et la Cité. Pouvoir imperial et cérémonies publiques (Ier siècle av. J.-C. - début du IVe siècle ap. J.-C.), Paris. ------2009. ‘Du pontifex maximus a 1'élu de Dieu. L'Empereur et les sacra (Ier s. av. n. e.- Ve s. de n. e.)’, in: O.J. Hekster, S. Schmidt-Hofner and C. Witschel eds. Ritual Dynamics and Religious Change in the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Eighth Workshop of the International NetWork Impact of Empire (Heidelberg, July 5-7, 2007), Leiden - Boston: 33-51. Beranger, E.M., and P. Fortini. 1990. ‘Contributo alla pubblicazione del CIL, XVII’, Epigraphica. Rivista italiana di epigrafia 52: 129-133.

244 Bérenger, A., and E. Perrin-Saminadayar eds. 2009. Les entrées royales et impériales. Histoire, représentation et diffusion d'une cérémoniepublique, de l’Orient ancien a Byzance. De l'archéologie a l'histoire, Paris. Berger, A. 1988. Untersuchungen zu den Patria Konstantinupoleos, Bonn. ------1995. ‘Die Senate von Konstantinopel’, Boreas. Münstersche Beitrage zur Archaologie 18: 131-142. Bergmann, M. 2006. ‘Konstantin und der Sonnengott. Die Aussagen der Bilszeugnisse’, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Intemationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Univesitat Trier zur LandesausstellungRheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse", Trier: 143-161. Berrens, S. 2004. Sonnenkult undKaisertum von den Severem bis zu Constantin I. (193-337 n. Chr., Stuttgart. Beste, H.-J. 2012. ‘Betrachtung, Analyse und Überlegungen zur Wahl des Standorts der Domus Aurea’, in: F. Amold e.a. eds. Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren. Menschen - Kuituren - Traditionen, Bd. 3, Rahden: 73-80. Bird, H.W. 1984. Sextus Aurelius Victor. A historiographical Study, Liverpool. ------1994. Liber de Caesaribus of Sextus Aurelius Victor, Liverpool. Blair-Dixon, K. 2007. ‘Memory and Authority in Sixth-century Rome. The Liber Pontificalis and the Collectio Avellana’, in: K. Cooper and J. Hillner eds. Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300-900, Cambridge - New York: 58-76. Bleckmann, B. 1994. ‘Constantina, Vetranio und Gallus Caesar’, Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 24: 29-68. ------1999. ‘Decentius, Bruder oder Cousin des Magnentius’, Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 2: 85-87. ------2003. ‘Der Bürgerkrieg zwischen Constantin II. und Constans (340 n. Chr.)’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 52: 225-250. Bloch, H. 1963. ‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the Fourth Century’, in: A. Momigliano ed. The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity, Oxford: 193-218. Blockley, R.C. 1972. ‘Constantius Gallus and Julian as Caesars of Constantius’, Latomus. Revue d'études latines 31: 433-468. ------1975. Ammianus Marcellinus. A Study of his Historiography and Political Thought, Brussels. ------1989. ‘Constantius and Persia’, in: C. Deroux ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 5, Brussels: 465-490. Bonamente, G. 1981. ‘Eusebio, Storia Ecclesiastica” IX, 9 e la versione Cristiana del trionfo di Costantino nel 312’, in: L. Gasperini ed. Scritti sul mondo antico in memoria di Fulvio Grosso, Rome: 55-76. ------2003. ‘Minor Latin Historians of the Fourth Century A.D.’, in: G. Marasco ed. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Leiden - Boston, MA: 85-125. Bomgardner, D.L. 2000. The Story of the Roman Amphitheatre, London - New York. Bom, L.K. 1934. ‘The Perfect Prince according to the Latin Panegyrists’, American Journal of Philology 55: 20-35. Boschung, D., and W. Eek eds. 2006. Die Tetrarchie. Ein neues Regierungssystem undseine mediale Prasentation, Kolloquium Köln 2004, Wiesbaden. 245 Bovini, G. 1968. Edifici cristiani di culto d'eta constantiniana a Roma, Bologna. Bowersock, G.W. 1990. ‘Review of J.F. Matthews, The Roman World of Ammianus', Journal of Roman Studies 80: 244-250. ------2002. ‘Peter and Constantine’, in: J.M. Carrié and R.L.Testa eds. Humana Sapit. Études d'Antiquité Tardive offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout: 209-217. ------2005. ‘Peter and Constantine’, in: W. Tronzo ed. St. Peter's in The Vatican, Cambridge: 2-15. Bowes, K. 2008. Private Worship, Public Values, and Religious Change in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Bradbury, S. 2004. Selected Letters of Libanius, Liverpool. Brands, G. 2003. ‘Die spatantike Stadt und ihre Christianisierung’, in: G. Brands and H.-G Severin eds. Die Spatantike Stadt und ihre Christianisierung. Symposion vom 14.-16. Febr. 2000 in Halle/Saale, Wiesbaden: 1-26. Brandt, J.R. e.a. 2003. Rome AD 300-800. Power and Symbol - Image and Reality, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 17, Rome. Breisach, E. 1994. Historiography. Ancient, Medieval & Modern, Chicago - London. Brennecke, H.C, U. Heil and A. von Stockhousen eds. 2006. Athanasius’ Werke Brenk, B. 1987. ‘Spolia from Constantine to Charlemagne. Aesthetics versus Ideology’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 41: 103-109. ------2012. ‘Kirche und Strasse im frühchristlichen Rom’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 171- 191. Brogiolo, G.P., and B. Ward-Perkins eds. 1999. The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden. Brown, P.R.L. 1961. ‘Aspects of the Christianization of the Roman Aristocracy’, Journal of Roman Studies 51: 1-11. Bruun, P.M. 1958. ‘The Disappearance of Sol from the Coins of Constantine’, Arctos 2: 15- 37. ------1961. Studies in Constantinian Chronology. Numismatic Notes and Monographs 146, New York. ------1966. RIC VJI. Constantine and Licinius A.D. 313-337, London. ------1975. ‘Notes on the Transmission of Imperial Images in Late Antiquity’, Studia Romana in Honorem Petri Krarup Septuagenarii, Copenhagen: 122-131. ------1991b. ‘Constantine’s dies imperii and quinquennalia in the Light of the Early Solidi of Trier’, in: P. M. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Numismatics. Papers from 1954 to 1988. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XII, Rome: 81-95. ------1991c. ‘Constantine’s Change of dies imperii', in: P. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Numismatics. Papers from 1954 to 1988. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XII, Rome: 97- 105. ------1991d. ‘Constans Maximus Augustus’, in: P. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Numismatics. Papers from 1954 to 1988. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XII, Rome: 167-174. ------1997. ‘The Victorious Signs of Constantine. A Reappraisal’, Numismatic Chronicle N.S. 7 157: 41-59. ------1999a. Studies in Constantinian Numismatics. Papers from 1954 to 1988. Acta Instituti Romani Finlandiae XII, Rome. 246 ------1999b. ‘Coins and the Roman Imperial Government’, in: G.M. Paul ed. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II, Ann Arbor: 19-40. Bueno de Mesquita, B. e.a. 2003. The Logic of Political Survival, Cambridge. Bühl, G. 1995. Constantinopolis und Roma. Stadtpersonifikationen der Spatantike, Kilchberg - Zürich. Buranelli Le Pera, S., and L. D’Elia. 1986. ‘Via Sacra. Note topografiche’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 91: 241-262. Burckhardt, J. 1898. Die Zeit Constantins des Grofien, Leipzig. Burgess, R.W., and W. Witakowski. 1997. Studies in Eusebian andPost-Eusebian Chronography, Stuttgart. Burgess, R.W. 1999. ‘AXÏPÜN or ÜPOAXTEION the Location and Circumstances Of Constantine’s Death’, Journal of Theological Studies 50: 153-161. ------2001. ‘Eutropius V.C. “Magister Memoriae?”’, Classical Philology 96: 76-81. ------2008. ‘The “Great Massacre” of 337 and the Promotion of the Sons of Constantine’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 62: 5-51. Buttrey, T.V. 1983. ‘The Dates of the Arches of “Diocletian” and Constantine’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 32: 375-383. * Cadoux, T.J. 1959. ‘Review of G. Vitucci, Ricerche sullapraefectura urbi in eta imperiale (sec. 1-1II)\ Journal of Roman Studies 49: 152-160. Cahn, H.A. 1987. ‘Abolitio nominis de Constantin II’, in: H. Huvelin, M. Christol and G. Gautier eds. Mélanges de numismatique offerts a Pierre Bastien a l'occasion de son 75e anniversaire, Wetteren: 201-202. Callu, J.P. 2002. ‘Naissance de la dynastie constantinienne. Le toumant de 314-316’, in: J.M. Carrié and R.L.Testa eds. Humana Sapit. Etudes d' Antiquité Tardive offertes aLellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout: 111-120. Calza, R. 1972. Iconografia romana imperiale da Carausio a Giuliano (287-363 d.C.), Rome. Cameron, A. 1969. ‘Theodosius the Great and the Regency of Stilico’, HarvardStudies in Classical Philology 73: 247-280. ------1989. ‘Biondo’s Ammianus. Constantius and Hormisdas at Rome’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 112: 423—436. ------2002. ‘The Funeral of Junius Bassus’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 139: 288-292. ------2011. The Last Pagans of Rome, New York. Cameron, A., and J. Herrin eds. 1984. Constantinople in the Early Eighth Century. Parastaseis Syntomoi Chronikai, Leiden. Cameron, A., and S.G. Hall. 2002. Life of Constantine. Eusebius, Introduction, Translation and Commentary, Oxford. Cancio Rossetto, P. 1982. ‘Due epigrafi prefettizie dal Circo Massimo’, Tituli 4. Epigrafia e ordine senatorio. Atti del Colloquio internazionale AIEGL. Roma. 14-20 maggio 1981, Rome: 571-573. Cara, P. 1993. ‘La successione di Costantino’, Aevum. Rassegna di scienze storiche, linguistiche e filologiche 67: 173-180. Carandini, A., and D. Bruno. 2008. La casa di Augusto. Dai "Lupercalia" al Natale, Bari - Rome.

247 Casey, J. 1983. ‘Imperial Campaigns and 4th Century Defenses in Britain’, Council for British Archaeology Research report 51: 121-124. Castagnoli, F. 1949. ‘II portico di Costantino’, Estratto dall'Archivio della Societa romana di Storia patria 72: 189-191. ------1958. Topografia e urbanistica di Roma, Bologna. Ceeeoni, G.A. 1996. ‘Aviano Simmaeo, Costante e 1’andamento delle earriere senatorie nel tardo Impero (in margine all’interpretazione di AE. 1988, 217)’, Studia et Documenta Historiae etluris 62: 343-355. Chadwick, H. 1957. ‘St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. The Problem of the Memoria Apostolorum ad Catacumbas’, Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 8: 31-52. Chastagnol, A. 1960. Lapréfecture urbaine a Rome sous le Bas-Empire, Paris. ------1962. Les Fastes de la Préfecture de Rome au Bas-Empire, Paris. ------1976a. ‘Les inseriptions constantiniennes du Cirque de Mérida’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 88: 259-276. ------1976b. ‘Remarques sur les senateurs orientaux au IVe siècle’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 24: 341-356. Chausson, F. 2002. ‘Une soeur de Constantin. Anastasia’, in: J. M. Carrié and R. L.Testa eds. Humana Sapit. Etudes d' Antiquité Tardive offertes a Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Turnhout: 131-155. ------2007. Stemmata Aurea. Constantine, Justine, Théodose. Revendications généalogiques et idéologie impériale au IVe siècle ap. J.-C., Rome. Chenault, R. 2008., Rome Without Emperors. The Revival of a Senatorial City in the Fourth Century CE., Ph.D. University of Michigan. ------2012. ‘Statues of Senators in the Forum of Trajan and the Roman Forum in Late Antiquity \ Journal of Roman Studies 102: 103-132. Chestnut, G.F. 1978. The First Christian Histories. Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Euagrius, Paris. ------1981. ‘The Date of Composition of Theodoret's Church History’, Vigiliae Christianae. A Review of early Christian life and language 35: 245-252. Chevallier, R. 1976. Roman Roads, London. Chierici, G. 1951. La Basilica di SanLorenzo Maggiore in Milano, Milan. Christie, N. 2006. From Constantine to Charlemagne. An Archaeology of Italy, AD 300-800, Aldershot. Cima, M. 1998. ‘Gli Horti Liciniani. Una residenza imperiale della tarda antichita’, in: E. La Rocca and M. Cima eds. Horti Romani. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Roma, 4-6 maggio 1995, Rome: 425-452. Claridge, A. 1998. Rome. An OxfordArchaeological Guide, New York. Clauss, M. 2006.’Die alten Kulte in konstantinischer Zeit’, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Intemationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Univesitat Trier zur Landesausstellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse”, Trier: 39-48. Coarelli, F. 1974. Guida archeologica di Roma, Milan. ------1983-1985. IIforo Romano, Rome. ------1986. ‘L’ Urbs e il suburbio’, Societa Romana e impero tardoantico II. Roma. Politica, economia, paesaggio urbano, Bari: 1-58.

248 ------1999. ‘L’edilizia pubblica a Roma in eta tetrarchica’, in: W.V. Harris ed. The Transformation of “urbs Roma” in Late Antiquity, Portsmouth, RI: 23-33. Coates-Stephens, R. 2002. ‘Epigraphy as spolia. The Reuse of Inscriptions in Early Medieval Buildings’, Papers of the British School at Rome 70: 275-296. ------2003a. ‘The water-supply of Rome from Late Antiquity to the early Middle Ages’, in: J.R. Brandt e.a. eds. Rome AD 300-800, Power and Symbol - Image and Reality, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiampertinentia 17, Rome: 165-186. ------2003b. ‘Attitudes to spolia in late antique texts’, in: L. Lavan and W. Bowden eds. Theory and Practice in Late Antique Archaeology, Leiden - Boston: 341-358. ------2012. ‘The Walls of Aurelian’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 83-109. Corcoran, S. 1996. The Empire of the Tetrarchs. Imperial Pronouncements and Government, AD 284-324, Oxford. Cosme, P. 1994. ‘Les légions romaines sur le Forum. Recherches sur la Colonnette Mafféienne’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Ecole Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 106: 167-196. Cracco Rugini, L. 1991. ‘Elagabalo, Costantino e I culti “Siriaci” nelle Historia Augusta', Historia Augusta Colloquium MCMXC, Macerata: 123-146. Crook, J. 1955. Consilium Principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian, Cambridge. Cullhed, M. 1994. Conservator Urbis suae. Studies in the Politics and Propaganda of the Emperor Maxentius, Stockholm. Cuneo, P.O. 1997. La legislazione di Costantino II, Costanzo II e Costante (337-361), Milan. Cüppers, H. 1969. ‘Die Trierer Römerbrucken’, Trierer Grabungen undForschungen 5. Curran, J.R. 1996. ‘Constantine and the Ancient Cults of Rome’, Greece and Rome 43: 68-80. ------2000. Pagan City and Christian Capital. Rome in the Fourth Century, Oxford. * Dagron, G. 1974. Naissance d’une capitale. Constantinople et ses Institutions de 330 a 451, Paris. ------2011. L ’hippodrome de Constantinople. Jeux, peuple etpolitique, Paris. Dagron, G., and D. Feisel 1985. ‘Inscriptions inédites du Musée d’Antioche’, Travaux et Mémoires 9: 421-461. Dalton, O.M. 1901. Catalogue of Early Christian Antiquities and Objects from the Christian East in the Department of British and Medieaeval Antiquities and Ethnography of the British Museum, London. Dark, K., and F. Özgümü§ 2002. ‘New Evidence for the Byzantine Church of the Holy Apostles from Fatih Camii, Istanbul’, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 21: 393-413. Davies, J., and J. Wilkes eds. 2012. Epigraphy and the Historical Sciences, Oxford - New York. Davis, R. 2010. The Book of Pontiffs (Liber Pontificalis). The Ancient Biographies of the First Ninety Roman Bishops to AD 715, Liverpool. De Blaauw, S. 2006. ‘Konstantin als Kirchenstifter’, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Intemationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Univesitat Trier zur Landesausstellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse”, Trier: 163-172.

249 ------2012. ‘Erinnerungen als Zeugnisse der Christianiesieung Roms’, in: O. Heinrich- Tamaska, N. Krohn and S. Ristow eds. Christianisierung Europas. Entstehung, Entwicklung und Konsolidierung im archaologischen Befund. Internationale Tagung im Dezember 2010 in Bergisch-Gladbach, Regensburg: 141-159. De Boor, C. ed. 1980. Theophanis Chronographia, Hildesheim-New York. Deckers, J.G. 2005. ‘Der Koloss des Konstantin’, in: L. Giuliani ed. Meisterwerke der antiken Kunst, Munich: 159-177. De Jonge, P. 1935-1939. Sprachlicher undHistorischer Kommentar zu Ammianus Marcellinus XIV, Groningen. ------1948-1982. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XV-XIX, Groningen. Delaine, J. 1997. The Baths of Caracalla. A Study in the Design, Construction, and Economics of Large-scale Building Projects in Imperial Rome, Portsmouth, RI. Delbrueck, R. 1933. Spatantike Kaiserportrats von Constantinus Magnus bis zum Ende des Westreichs, Bonn. Delehaye, H. 1902. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice sirmondiano nunc Berolinensi adiectis synaxariis selectis, Brussels. D’Elia, L., and S. Ie Pera Buranelli. 1985. ‘Relievi eseguiti nell’area della Via Sacra’, in: A.M. Bietti Sestieri et al. eds. Roma. Archeologia nel centro I , Rome: 97-98. Delmaire, R. 1997. ‘Les usurpateurs du Bas-Empire et le recrutement des fonctionnaires (Essai de reflexion sur les assises du pouvoir et leurs limites’, in: F. Paschoud and J. Szidat, eds. Usurpationen in der Spatantike. Akten des Kolloquiums “Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit” 6.1-10. Marz 1996 Solothurn/Bem, Stuttgart: 111-126. ------2003. ‘La damnatio memoriae au Bas-Empire a travers les textes, la législation et les inscriptions’, Cahiers du Centre Gustave Glotz 14: 299-310. Demandt, A. 1989. Die Spatantike. Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian, 284- 565 n.Chr., Munich. Demandt, A., and J. Engemann eds. 2006. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Intemationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Universitat Trier zur Landesaustellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 ‘Konstantin der Grosse', Trier. De Maria, S. 1988. Gli archi onorari di Roma e dell'Italia romana, Rome. Den Boeft, J., D. den Hengst and H.C. Teitler eds. 1987-1991. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XX-XXI, Groningen. Den Boeft, J., D. den Hengst, J.W. Drijvers and H.C. Teitler eds. 1995-1998. Philological and Historical Commentaries on Ammianus Marcellinus XXII-XXIII, Groningen. ------2001-2009. Philological and Historical Commentary on Ammianus Marcellinus XXIV-XXV-XXVI-XXVII, Leiden. Den Boer, W. 1972. Some Minor Roman Historians, Leiden. Denis Boulet, N.M. 1967. ‘L’inscription Damasienne “Ad Catacumbas’”, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 43: 111-124. De Rossi, G.B. 1864-1877. La Roma sotterranea Cristiana, Rome. Dewar, M. ed. 1996. Claudian. Panegyricus de sexto consulatu Honorii Augusti, Oxford. Dey, H.W. 2011. The Aurelian Wall and the Refashioning of Imperial Rome, A.D. 271-855, Cambridge. D’Hane-Scheltema, M. 2008. Claudius Claudianus. Verzamelde gedichten, Amsterdam.

250 Di Berardino, A. 1992. ‘Milan’, in: A. di Berardino e.a. The Encyclopedia of the Early Church, Cambridge: 559. Diefenbach, S. 2007. Römische Erinnerungsraume. Heiligenmemoria undKollektive Identiteiten im Rom des 3. bis 5. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., Berlin - New York. ------2012. ‘ Urhs und Ecclesia. Bezugpunkte kollektiver Heiligenerinnerung im Rom des Bischofs Damasus (366-384)’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 193-249. Dillon, J.N. 2012. The Justice of Constantine. Law, Commentary, and Control, Ann Arbor. DiMaio, M. 1981. ‘Zonaras, Julian, and Philostorgios on the Death of the Emperor Constantine’, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 26: 118-124. DiMaio, M., J. Zeuge and J. Bethune. 1990. ‘’Proelium Cibalense et Proelium Campi Ardiensis. The First Civil War of Constantine I and Licinius I’, The Ancient World 21: 67- 91. DiMaio, M., and D.W.H. Amold. 1992. ‘Per vim, per caedem, per bellum. A Study of Murder and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Year 337 A.D.’, Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines 62: 158-211. Doms, P. Keizer Trajanus en zijn bouwprogramma in Rome. De voorwaarden en betekenis van het stedenbouwkundige landschap in Rome zoals vormgegeven onder Trajanus (98- 117) voor stad en bewoners, Ph.D. Radboud University Nijmegen, Eindhoven. Downey, G. 1951. ‘The Builder of the Original Church of the Apostles at Constantinople. A Contribution to the Criticism of the “Vita Constantini” attributed to Eusebius’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 6 : 51-80. ------1961 .A History of Antioch in Syria, Princeton, NJ. Downey, G., and A. Norman eds. 1965-1974. Demegoria Constantii, in Themistii Orationes, Leipzig. Drake, H.A. 1975. ‘When was the De Laudibus Constantini delivered?’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 24: 345-356. ------1988. ‘What Eusebius knew. The Genesis of the “Vita Constantini’”, Classical Philology 83: 20-38. ------2000. Constantine and the Bishops. The Politics of Intolerance, Baltimore. Drerup, H. 1966. ‘Architektur als Symbol. Zur zeitgenössischen Bewertung der römischen Architektur’, Gymnasium. Zeitschrift für Kultur der Antike und Bildung 73: 181-196. Drijvers, J.W. 1992a. Helena Augusta. The Mother of Constantine the Great and the Legend of her Finding the True Cross, Leiden. ------1992b. ‘Flavia Maxima Fausta. Some Remarks’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 41: 500-506. ------2007a. ‘Eusebius’ Vita Constantini and the Construction of the Image of Maxentius’, in: H. Amirav and B. ter Haar Romeny eds. From Rome to Constantinople. Studies in Honour of Averil Cameron, Leuven - Dudley, MA: 11-27. ------2007b. ‘Julian the Apostate and the City of Rome. Pagan-Christian Polemics in the Syriac Julian Romance’, in: WJ. van Bekkum, J.W. Drijvers and A.C. Kluglist eds. Syriac Polemics. Studies in honour of Gerrit Jan Reinink, Leuven: 1-20. Drinkwater, J.F. 1983. ‘The Pagan Underground, Constantius ITs Secret Service and the Survival and the Usurpation of Julian the Apostate’, in: C. Deroux ed. Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 3, Brussels: 348-387.

251 ------2000. ‘The Revolt and Ethnic Origin of the Usurper Magnentius (350-353), and the Rebellion of Vetranio (350)’, Chiron. Mitteilungen der Kommission für alte Geschichte und Epigraphik des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts 30: 131-159. Dufraigne, P. 1975. Livre des Césars, Paris. ------1994. Adventus Augusti, adventus Christi. Recherche sur l’exploitation idéologique et littéraire d ’un cérémonial dans l’Antiquité tardive, Paris. Dumser, E.A. 2006. ‘The Aetema Memoriae Coinage of Maxentius. An Issue of Symbolic Intent’, in: L. Haselberger and J. Humphrey eds. Imaging Ancient Rome. Documentation, Visualization, Imagination, Portsmouth, RI: 107-118. Dupont, C. 1969. ‘Les texts constantiniens et le préfet de la ville’, Revue d'histoire du droit 47: 613-644. ------1973. ‘Constantin et les Diocèse.v’, in: B. Albanese ed. Studi in memoria di Guido Donatuti I, Milan: 309-336. Durry, M. 1938. Pline le Jeune. Panégyrique de Trajan, Paris. Duval, N. 1979. ‘Sirmium ville impériale ou capitale?’, XXVI Corso di cultura suil’arte ravennate e bizantina, Ravenna 6-18 maggio 1979, Ravenna: 53-90. ------1997. ‘Les résidences impériales. Leur rapport avec les problèmes de légitimité, les partages de 1’Empire et la chronologie des combinaisons dynastiques’, in: F. Paschoud and J. Szidat eds. Usurpationen in der Spatantike. Akten des Kolloquiums "Staatsreich und Staatlichkeit", 6.-10. Marz 1996 Solothurn/Bern, Stuttgart: 126-153. * Eek, W. 1992. ‘Ehrungen für Personen hohen soziopolitischen Ranges im öffentlichen und privaten Bereich’, in: H.-J. Schalies, H. von Hesberg and P. Zanker eds. Die römische Stadt im 2. Jh. n. Chr.. Funktionswandel der Öffentlichkeit. Koll. inXanten Mai 1990. Xantener Forschungen 2, Cologne: 359-376. ------2002. ‘Imperial Administration and Epigraphy. In Defence of Prosopogaphy’, in: A.K. Bowman and F. Millar eds. Representations of Empire. Rome and the Mediterranean World, Oxford: 131-152. ------2007. ‘Eine historische Zeitenwende. Kaiser Constantins Hinwendung zum Christentum und die gallische Bischofe’, in: F. Schuller and H. Wolff eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Kaiser ein Epochenwende, Lindenberg: 69-94. ------2009. ‘There are no cursus honorum Inscriptions. The Function of the cursus honorum in Epigraphic Communication’, Scripta classica Israelica. Yearbook of the Israël Society for the Promotion of Cassical Studies 28: 79-92. ------2010. ‘The Emperor and Senatorial Aristocracy in Competition for Public Space’, in: B.C. Ewald and C.F. Norena eds. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge - New York: 89-110. ------2012. ‘Administation and Jurisdiction in Rome and the Provinces’, in: M. Van Ackeren ed. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Malden, MA: 185-199. Eek, W., and M. Heil eds. 2005. Senator es populi Romani. Realitat und mediale Prasentation einer Führungsschicht. Kolloquium der Prosopographia Imperii Romani vom 11.-13. Juni 2004, Stuttgart. Edbrooke, R.O. 1976. ‘The Visit of Constantius to Rome in 357 and its Effect on the Pagan Roman Senatorial Aristocracy’, American Journal ofPhilology 97: 40-61.

252 Effenberger, A. 2000. ‘Konstantinsmausoleum, Apostelkirche, und kein Ende?’, in: B. Borkopp and T. Steppan eds. AiOóaxpcoTOV. Studiën zur byzantinischen Kunst und Geschichte. Festschrift für Marcell Restle, Stuttgart: 67-78. Egidi, R., F. Filippi and S. Martone eds. 2010. Archeologia e infrastrutture. II tracciato fondamentale della linea C della metropolitana di Roma. Prime indagini archeologiche, Florence. Ehling, K. 2001a. ‘Die Erhebung des Nepotianus in Rom im Juni 350 n. Chr. und sein Programm der urbs Roma christiana', Göttinger Forum für Altertumswissenschaft 4: 141— 158. ------2001b. ‘Kaiser Julian, der Senat und die Stadt Rom’, Zeitschriftfür Papyrologie und Epigraphik 137: 292-296. Ehling, K., and G. Weber eds. 2011. Konstantin der Grosse. Zwischen Sol und Christus, Darmstadt. Ehrhardt, C. 1992. ‘Monumental Evidence for the Date of Constantine’s First War against Licinius’, TheAncient World 23: 87-94. Elbem, S. 1984. Usurpationen im spatrömischen Reich, Bonn. Ellingsen, G. 2003. ‘Some Functions of Imperial Images in Tetrarchic Politics’, Symbolae Osloenses, auspiciis Societatis Graeco-Latine 73: 30-44. Elsner, J. 2000. ‘From the Culture of spolia to the Cult of Relics. The Arch of Constantine and the Genesis of Late Antique Forms’, Papers of the British School at Rome 6 8 : 149- 184. Engemann, J. 1979. ‘Akklamationsrichtung, Sieger- und Besiegtenrichtung auf dem Galeriusbogen in Saloniki (mit Textabbildungen 1/3 und Tafeln 1/4)’, JahrbuchfürAntike und Christentum 22: 150-160. Ensoli, S. 2000. ‘I colossi bronzei a Roma in eta tardoantica. Dal colosso di Nerone al colosso di Costantino’, in S. Ensoli and E. La Rocca eds. Aurea Roma. Dalla cittapagana alla citta cristiana, Rome: 71-90. Ensoli, S., and E. La Rocca eds. 2000. Aurea Roma. Dalla citta pagana alla citta cristiana, Rome. Ensslin, W. 1953. ‘War Kaiser Theodosius I zweimal in Rom?’, Hermes. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 81: 500-507. Erdkamp, P.P.M. 2002. ‘A Starving Mob has no Respect. Urban Markets and Food Riots in Rome, 100 B.C.- A.D. 400’, in: L. de Blois and J. Rich eds. The Transformation of Economic Life under the Roman Empire. Proceedings of the Second Workshop of the International NetWork Impact of Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum Empire (Roman Empire, c. 200 B.C.- A.D. 476), Nottingham, July 4-7, 2001, Amsterdam: 93-115. Erkelens, D. 2003. Optimo praesidi. Untersuchungen zu den Ehrenmonumenten für Amtstrager der römischen Provinzen in Republik und Kaiserzeit, Bonn. Evers, C. 1991. ‘Remarques sur 1'iconographie the Constantin. A propos du remploi de portraits des bons empereurs’, Mélanges d’Archéologie et d'Histoire de l’École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 103: 785-806. ------1992. ‘Considérations sur 1'iconographie de Maxence. A propos d’une nouvelle réplique au Kestner-Museum de Hanovre’, Niederdeutsche Beitrage zur Kunstgeschichte 31: 9-22. Ewald, B.C., and C.F. Norena eds. 2010a. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge - New York. 253 ------2010b. ‘Introduction’, in: B.C. Ewald and C.F. Norena eds. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, and Ritual, Cambridge - New York: 1-43. * Farber, R. 2012. ‘Die Amtssitze der Stadtprafekten im spatantiken Rom und Konstantinopel’, in: F. Amold e.a. eds. Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren. Menschen - Kuituren - Traditionen, Bd. 3, Rahden: 49-72. Faust, S. 2011. ‘Original und Spolie. Interaktive Strategien im Bildprogramm des Konstantinsbogens’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 117: 377-408. Favro, D. 1992. “‘Pater Urbis”. Augustus as City Father of Rome’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 51: 61-84. Feissel, D. 1984. ‘Notes d’épigraphie chrétienne VII’, Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 108: 545-579. Ferrari, G. 1957. Early Roman Monasteries. Notes for the history of the Monasteries and Convents at Rome from the V through the X century, Rome. Ferrua, A. 1961. ‘Lavori a S. Sebastiano’, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 37: 203-236. Février, P.A. 1978. ‘Arles aux IVe et Ve siècle. Ville impériale et Capital régionale’, in: XXV corso di cultura suil’arte ravennate e bizantina, Ravenna 5-15 marzo 1978, Ravenna: 127-158. Filippi, F. 2001. Archeologia e giubileo. Gli interventi a Roma e nel Lazio nel piano per il Grande Giubileo del 2000, Naples. Fiocchi Nicolai, V. 1995-1996. ‘La nuova basilica circiforme della via Ardeatina’, in: Atti della Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia. Rendiconti 6 8 : 69-233. ------2002. ‘Basilica Marei, coemeterium Marei, basilica coemeterii Balbinae. A proposito della nuova basilica circiforme della via Ardeatina e della funzione funeraria delle chiese a deambulatorio del suburbio romano’, in: Ecclesiae urbis. Atti del congresso internazionale di studi sulle chiese di Roma, IV - Xsecolo, Roma 4-10 settembre 2000, Rome - Vatican City: 1175-1201. Fittschen, K., and P. Zanker 1985. Katalog der römischen Portrats in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom I. Kaiser- und Prinzenbildnisse, Mainz am Rhein. Flaccomio, G. 1981. II "tempio di Romolo" alForo romano, Rome. Flaig, E. 1997. ‘Für eine Konzeptionalisierung des Usurpation im Spatrömischen Reich’, in: F. Paschoud and J. Szidat eds. Usurpationen in der Spatantike. Akten des Kolloquiums "Staatsstreich und Staatlichkeit" 6.-10. Marz 1996 Solothurn/Bem, Stuttgart: 15-34. Fowden, G. 1987. ‘Nicagoras of Athens and the Lateran Obelisk’, Journal ofHellenic Studies 107: 51-57. ------1994. ‘The Last Days of Constantine. Oppositional Versions and their Influence’, Journal of Roman Studies 84: 146-170. Frakes, R.M. 1995. ‘Cross-References to the Lost Books of Ammianus Marcellinus’, Phoenix. The Classical Association of Canada 49: 232-246. ------2006. ‘The Dynasty of Constantine down to 363’, in: N.E. Lenski, ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge - New York: 91-107. Franchi, P. De’ Cavalieri. 1916. ‘I funerali ed il sepolcro di Constantino Magno', Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Ecole Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 36: 205-261.

254 Fraschetti, A. 1999. ‘Costantino e 1’abbondono del Campidoglio’, in: A. Giardina, ed. Societa romana e impero tardoantico II, Rome: 59-98. ------1999. La conversione da Roma pagana a Roma Cristiana, Rome - Bari. Frazer, A.K. 1964. Four Late Antique Rotundas of Fourth Century Architectural Style in Rome, New York. ------1966. ‘The Iconography of the Emperor Maxentius’ Buildings in Via Appia’, The Art Bulletin 48: 385-392. ------1976. ‘The Peribolos of the Mausoleum of Maxentius’, In memoriam Otto J. Brendel. Essays in Archaeology and Humanities, Mainz: 185-190. Frend, W.H.C. 1984. The Rise of Christianity, London. Freyberger, K.S., and C. Ertel 2009. Das Forum Romanum. Spiegel der Stadtgeschichte des antiken Rom, Mainz am Rhein. * Garbarino, P. 1984. ‘Appunti sulla conferma imperiale di senato-consulti nel tardo impero romano’, Archivio giuridico 204: 505-546. Gagé, J. 1934. Recherches sur les jeux séculaires, Paris. ------1936. ‘Le “Templum Urbis”, in: F.V.M. Cumont ed. Mélanges Franz Cumont, Brussels: 151-187. Galadini, F., and P. Galli. 2004. ‘The 346 A.D. Earthquake (Central-Southem Italy). An Archaeoseismological Approach’, Annals of Geophysics 47: 885-905. Galletier, E. 1952. Panégyriques latins II, Paris. Gascou, J. 1967. ‘Le Rescrit d'Hispellum’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Ecole Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 79: 609-659. Gasperini, L. 1988. ‘Dedica ostiense di Aurelio Avianio Simmaco all’imperatore Costante’, Miscellanae Greca e Romana 13: 242-250. Gatti, L. 1969. ‘Un nuovo senatore del basso impero. Attius (?) Caecilius Maximilianus’, in Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Rendiconti N.S. 24: 321-327. Gaudemet, J. 1981. ‘Constitutions constantiniennes relatives a 1’appel’, Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftungfür Rechtsgeschichte 98: 47-76. Gauer, W. 1995. ‘Konstantin und die Geschichte. Zu den “Spolien”am Konstantinsbogen und zur Schlangensaule’, in: M. Wacht ed. Panchaia. Festschriftfür Klaus Thraede, Münster: 131-140. Geiger, J. 2004. ‘The Tombs of Remus and Romulus. An Overlooked Source and its Implications’, Athenaeum. Studiperiodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichita, Universita di Pavia 92: 245-254. ------2008. The First Hall of Fame. A Study of the Statues in the Forum Augustum. Mnemosyne Supplements 295. History and Archaeology of Classical Antiquity, Leiden. Georgacas, D.J. 1947. ‘The Names of Constantinople’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 78: 347-367. Giavarini, C. 2005. ‘General Background’, in: C. Giavarini ed. The Basilica of Maxentius.The Monument, its Materials, Construction, and Stability, Rome: 11-29. Giersiepen, H., and C. Bayer 1995. Inschriften, Schriftdenkmaler. Techniken, Geschichte, Anlasse; mit zahlreichen Beispielen und Hinweisen zum Sammeln und Deuten, Niedemhausen, Ts. Giglio, S. 2007. ‘II munus della pretura a Roma e a Costantinopoli nel corso del tardo impero romano’, Antiquité Tardive 15: 65-88. 255 Gilliam, J.F. 1967. ‘Caesonius Bassus. Cos. ord. A. D. 317’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 16: 252-254. Girardet, K.M. 1975. Kaisergericht und Bischofsgericht. Studiën zu den Anfangen des Donatistenstreites (313-315) und zum Prozess des Athanasius von Alexandrien (328-346), Bonn. ------2006a. Die konstantinische Wende. Voraussetzungen und geistige Grundlagen der Religionspolitik Konstantins des Grof en, Darmstadt. ------2006b. ‘Konstantin und das Christentum. Die Jahre der Entscheidung 310 bis 314’, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Internationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Univesitat Trier zur LandesausstellungRheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse", Trier: 69-81. ------2007. Vom Sonnen-Tag zum Sonntag. Der dies solis in Gesetzgebung und Politik Konstantins d. Gr.’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 11: 279-310. Giuliani, C., and P. Verduchi. 1987. L ’area central del Foro Romano, Florence. Giunta, F., and A. Grillone eds. 1991. Iordanes. De origine actibusque Getarum, Rome. Gorrie, C.L. 1997. The Building Programme of Septimius Severus in the City of Rome, Ph.D. University of British Columbia. Gowing, A.M. 2005. Empire and Memory. The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture, Cambridge - New York. Graeber, A. 1984. ‘Ein Problem des staatlich gelenkten Handels. Memmius Vitrasius Orfitus, praefectus urbis Romae und die Versorgungskrise 353-359’, Münsterische Beitrage zur antiken Handelsgeschichte 3: 59-68. Grant, M. 1977. Roman Anniversary Issues. An Exploration Study of the Numismatic and Medallic Commemoration of Anniversary Years 49 B. C. - A. D. 375, New York. Graves, D. A. 1973. Consistorium Domini. Imperial Councils of State in the Later Roman Empire, Ann Arbor. Gregory, T.E. 1983. ‘Urban Violence in Late Antiquity’, in: R.T. Marchese ed. Aspects of Graeco-Roman Urbanism. Essays on the Classical City, Oxford: 138-161. Grierson, P., C. Mango and I. Sevcenko. 1962. ‘The Tombs and Obits of the Byzantine Emperors (337-1042). With an Additional Note’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 16: 1-63. Griffith, A.J. 2000. ‘Mithraism in the Private and Public Lives of 4th-c. Senators in Rome’, Electronic Journal of Mithraic Studies 1: 1-27. Grig, L., and G. Kelly eds. 2012a. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York. ------2012b. ‘Introduction. From Rome to Constantinople,’ in: L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York: 1-30. Grossi Gondi, F. 1913. L ’arco di Costantino, Rome. Grünewald, T. 1990. Constantinus Maximus Augustus. Herrschaftspropaganda in der Zeitgenossischen Uberlieferung, Stuttgart. Guberti Bassett, S. 1991. ‘The Antiquities in the Hippodrome of Constantinople’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 45: 87-96. ------1996. ‘Historiae custos. Sculpture and Tradition in the baths ofZeuxippos’, American Journal of Archaeology 100: 491-506.

256 Guidobaldi, F. 1997. ‘Transformations urbaines, sociales et religieuses a Rome au IVeme siècle’, in: H.W. Pleket and A. M. F. W. Verhoogt eds. Aspects of the Fourth Century A.D.. Proceedings of the Symposium Power & Possession. State, Society, and Church in the Fourth Century A.D., held on the Occasion of the Fifth Anniversary of the Interdisciplinary Debating Society AGAPE, Leiden, 3-5 June 1993, Leiden: 53-65. ------1999. ‘Le domus tardoantiche di Roma’, in: W. Harris ed. The Transformations of'urbs Roma" in Late Antiquity, Portsmouth, RI: 53-68. ------2004. ‘Sessorium e Laterano. II nuovo polo cristiano della Roma costantiniana’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 116: 11-15. ------2006. ‘Da Roma a Costantinopoli. Trasmissione e tramiti di una cultura architettonica’, in: R. Harreither, Ph. Pergola, R. Pillinger and A. Pülz eds. Acta congressus internationalis XTVArchaeologiae Christianae LXII. Frühes Christentum zwischen Rom und Konstantinopel, Rome: 145-157. Guilland, R. 1953. ‘Les Ports de Byzance sur la Propontide II’, Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines 23: 205-238. Guthrie, P. 1966. ‘The Execution of Crispus’, Phoenix. The Classical Association of Canada 20:325-331. Guyon, J. 1987. Le Cimetière aux deux Lauriers, Rome. Guyon, J., L. Strüber and D. Manacorda. 1981. ‘Recherches autour the la basilique constantinienne des Saints Pierre et Marcellin sur la Via Labicana a Rome. Le mausolée et 1’enclos au nord de la basilique’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 93: 999-1056. * Haarhoff, T.J. 1958. Schools of Gaul. A Study ofPagan and Christian Education in the Last Century of the Western Empire, Johannesburg. Habicht, Ch. 1958. ‘Zur Geschichte des Kaisers Konstantin’, Hermes. Zeitschrift für klassische Philologie 86: 360-378. Halfmann, H. 1986. Itinera principum. Geschichte und Typologie der Kaiserreisen im Römischen Reich, Stuttgart. Hammond, M. 1957. ‘Imperial Elements in the Formula of the Roman Emperors during the First Two and a Half Centuries of the Empire’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 25: 17+19-64. Hannestad, N. 1994. Tradition in Late Antique Sculpture. Conservation - Modemization - Production, Aarhus. Harries, J.D. 1988. ‘The Roman Imperial quaestor from Constantine to Theodosius II’, Journal of Roman Studies 78: 148-172. Harries, J.D., and I.N. Wood eds. 1993. The Theodosian Code, Ithaca, NY. Harris, W.V. ed. 1993. The Transformations o /“urbs Roma” in Late Antiquity, Portsmouth, RI. Harrison, E.B. 1967. ‘The Constantinian Portrait’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21: 79-96. Harrison, T. 1999. ‘Templum mundi totius. Ammianus and a Religious Ideal of Rome’, in J.W. Drijvers and D. Hunt eds. The Late Roman World and its Historian. Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, London - New York: 178-190. Hartley, E. 2006. ‘Introduction’, in: E. Hartley e.a. eds. Constantine the Great. York's Roman Emperor, Marygate, York-Aldershot: 15-17.

257 Hartley, E. e.a. eds. 2006. Constantine the Great. York's Roman Emperor, Marygate, York- Aldershot. Haselberger, L., and J. Humphrey eds. Imaging Ancient Rome. Documentation, Visualization, Imagination, Portsmouth, RI. Haug, A. 2012. ‘Die Stadt als Reprasentationsraum. Rom und Mailand im 4. Jh. n. Chr.’, in: T. Fuhrer ed. Rom und Mailand in der Spatantike. Reprasentationen stadtischer Raume in Literatur, Architektur und Kunst, Berlin - Boston: 111-136. Heather, P.J., and D. Moncur 2001 .Politics, Philosophy, and Empire in the Fourth Century. Select Orations of Themistius, Liverpool. Hedlund, R. 2008. "...Achieved Nothing Worthy of Memory". Coinage andAuthority in the Roman Empire c. AD 260-295. Studia Numismatica Upsaliensia 5, Uppsala. Heijmans, M. 2006. ‘Constantina urbs. Arles Durant le IVe siècle. Une autre residence imperiale?, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte - Archaologie - Rezeption. Internationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Univesitat Trier zur Landesausstellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 “Konstantin der Grosse ”, Trier: 209-220. Hekster, O.J. 1999. ‘The City of Rome in Late Imperial Ideology. The Tetrarchs, Maxentius, and Constantine’, Mediterraneo Antico 2: 717-748. Hekster, O.J., and C.J.H. Jansen eds. 2012. Constantijn de Grote. Traditie en verandering, Nijmegen. Henck, N. 2001. ‘Constantius ó (piAOKxtcTT|c;?’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55: 279-304. ------2007. ‘Constantius II and the Cities’, in: J. Drinkwater and B. Salway eds. Wolf Liebeschuetz Reflected. Essays Presented by Colleagues, Friends, and Pupils, London: 147-156. Heres, T.L. 1982. Paries. A Proposalfor a dating System of late-Antique Masonry Structures in Rome and Ostia. [AD 235-600], Amsterdam. Hermann Jr., J.J. 1976. ‘Observations on the Baths of Maxentius in the Palace’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 83: 403-424. Hesberg, H. von. 2005. Römische Baukunst, Munich. ------2006. ‘Residenzstadte und ihre höfische Infrastruktur. Traditionelle und neue Raumkonzepte’, in: D. Boschung and W. Eek eds. Die Tetrarchie. Ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale Prasentation, Kolloquium Köln 2004, Wiesbaden: 133-167. Heucke, C. 1994. Circus und Hippodrom als politischer Raum. Untersuchungen zum grossen Hippodrom von Konstantinopel und zu entsprechenden Anlagen in spatantiken Kaiserresidenzen, Hildesheim. Hijmans, S.E. 2009. Sol. The Sun in the Art and Religions of Rome, Ph.D. University of Groningen. Hillner, J. 2003. ‘Domus, Family, and Inheritance. The Senatorial Family House in Late Antique Rome’, Journal of Roman Studies 93: 129-145. ------2007. ‘Families, Patronage, and the Titular Churches of Rome’, in: K. Cooper and J. Hillner eds. Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300-900, Cambridge: 225-261. Hoffmann, A., and U. Wulf. 2004. ‘Bade-oder Villenluxus? Zur Neinterpretation des Domus Severiana’, in: A. Hoffmann and U. Wulf eds. Die Kaiserpalaste auf dem Palatin in Rom. Das Zentrum der römischen Welt und seine Bauten, Mainz am Rhein: 153-172. 258 Holloway, R.R. 2003. ‘Maxentius and the Arch of Constantine’, Orizonti 4: 61-65. ------2004. Constantine & Rome, New Haven - London. Hollstein, E. 1980. Mitteleuropaische Eichenchronologie. Trierer Grabungen und Forschungen 11, Mainz am Rhein. Humphrey, J.H. 1986. Roman Circuses. Arenas for Chariot Racing, Berkely- Los Angeles. Humphries, M. 1997. ‘In nominepatris. Constantine the Great and Constantius in Christological Polemic’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 46: 448-464. ------2003. ‘Roman Senators and Absent Emperors in Late Antiquity’, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiampertinentia 17: 27-46. ------2007. ‘From Emperor to Pope? Ceremonial, Space, and Authority in Rome from Constantine to Gregory the Great’, in: K. Cooper and J. Hillner eds. Religion, Dynasty, and Patronage in Early Christian Rome, 300-900, Cambridge: 21-58. ------2012. ‘Valentinian III and the City of Rome (AD 425-55). Patronage, Politics, and Power’, in L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York: 161 -182. Hunt, E.D. 2002. ‘Imperial Building in Rome’, in: K. Lomas and T. Comell eds. ‘Bread and Circuses ’. Euergetism and municipal Patronage in Roman Italy, London - New York: 105-124. * Instinsky, H.U. 1979. ‘Kaiser und Ewigkeit’, in: H. Kloft ed. Ideologie undHerrschaft in der Antike, Darmstadt: 416- 472. Iversen, E. 1968. Obelisks in Exile. The Obelisks of Rome, Copenhagen. * Janin, R. 1953. La Géographie ecclésiastique de l’Empire Byzantin 1:111. Les Eglises et les Monastères, Paris. ------1964. Constantinople Byzantine. Développement urbain et repertoire topographique, Paris. Jastrzebowska, E. 2002. ‘S. Sebastiano, La piü antica basilica cristiana di Roma’, in: F. Guidobaldi and A. Guiglia Guidobaldi eds. Ecclesiae Urbis. Atti del congresso intemazionale di studi sulle chiese di Roma (IV-Xsecolo), Vatican City: 1143-1155. Johnson, M.R. 2006. ‘Architecture of Empire’, in: N.E. Lenski ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge - New York: 278-297. ------2009. The Roman Imperial Mausoleum in Late Antiquity, Cambridge. Jones, A.H.M. 1955. ‘The Career of Flavius Philippus’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 4: 229-233. ------1964. The Later Roman Empire, 284-602, Oxford. ------1978. Constantine and the Conversion ofEurope, Toronto. Josi, E. 1934. ‘Scoperte nella basilica constantiniana al Laterano’, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 11: 335-358. Jowett, G.S., and V. O’Donnell. 1986. Propaganda andPersuasion, Newbury Park. Juneau, J. 1999. ‘Pietas and Politics. Eusebia and Constantius at Court’, Classical Quarterly 49: 641-644.

259 * Kahler, H. 1952. ‘Konstantin 313’, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archaologischen lnstituts 67: 1- 30. ------1964. Das Fünfsdulendenkmal für die Tetrarchen auf dem Forum Romanum, Cologne. Kazhdan, A. P. 1987. “‘Constantine imaginaire”. Byzantine legends of the ninth century about Constantine the Great’, Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines 57: 196- 250. Kelly, C. 2006. ‘Bureaucracy and Government’, in: N.E. Lenski ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge: 183-204. Kelly, G. 2003. ‘The New Rome and the Old. Ammianus Marcellinus’ Silences on Constantinople’, Classical Quarterly 53: 588-607. ------2009. Ammianus Marcellinus. The Allusive Historian, Cambridge. Kent, J.P.C. 1967. ‘Fel Temp Reparatio’, Numismatic Chronicle N.S.1 7: 83-90. ------1968. Roman Imperial Coinage VIII. The family of Constantine I (A. D. 337-364), London. ------1978. ‘ Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis Medallions at the Mint of Rome’, in: R.A.G. Carson and C.M. Kraay eds. Scripta nummaria Romana. Essays presented to Humphrey Sutherland, London: 105-113. Kindt, B., and F. van Haeperen eds. 2008. Thesaurus Zosimi. Historia nova, Turnhout. King, C.E. 1999. ‘Roman Portraiture. Images of Power?’, in: G.M. Paul ed. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II, Ann Arbor: 123-136. Kinney, D. 1972. ‘The Evidence for the Dating of S. Lorenzo in Milan’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 31: 92-107. ------1987. ‘La chiese paleocristiane di Mediolanum’, in: C. Bertelle ed. Milano, una capitale da Ambrogio ai Carolingi, Milan: 48-79. ------1997. ‘Spolia. Damnatio and renovatio memoriae’’, Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome 42: 117-148. Klein, R. 1977. Constantius II. und die christliche Kirche, Darmstadt. ------1979. ‘Die Kampfe um die Nachfolge nach dem Tode Constantins d. Gr.’, Byzantinische Forschungen 6 : 101-150. ------1999. ‘Der Rombesuch des Kaisers Constantius II. im Jahre 357’, in: R. Klein, Roma versa per aevum. Ausgewahlte Schriften zur heidnischen und christlichen Spatantike. Edd. Raban von Haehling andKlaus Scherberich, Hildesheim: 50-71. Kleinbauer, W.E. 1988. ‘The Anastasis Rotunda and Christian Architectural Invention’, Journal of the Centre for Jewish Art 23/24: 140-146. ------2006. ‘Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome. The Patronage of Emperor Constantius II and Architectural Invention’, Gesta 45: 125-145. Klotz, A. 1911. ‘Studiën zu den Panegyrici Latini’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 66: 513-572. Knudsen, S.E. 1989. ‘Spolia. The So-called Historical Frieze on the Arch of Constantine’, American Journal of Archaeology 93: 267-268. Koep, L 1958. ‘Die Konsekrationsmünzen Kaiser Konstantins und ihre religions-politische Bedeutung’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 1: 94-104.

260 Koeppel, G. 1969. ‘Profectio und adventus’, Bonner Jahrbücher des rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 169: 130- 193. Kolb, F. 1987. Diocletian und die Erste Tetrarchie. Improvisation oder Experiment in der Organisation monarchischer Herrschaft?, Berlin. Kömer, C. 2002. Philippus Arabs. Ein Soldatenkaiser in der Tradition des antoninisch- severischen Prinzipats, Berlin a.o.. Kraft, K. 1958. ‘Die Taten der Kaiser Constans und Constantius’, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 9: 141-186. Krautheimer, R. 1934. ‘Contributi per la storia della Basilica di S. Lorenzo fuori le mura’, Rivista di archeologia cristiana 11: 285-334. ------1967. ‘The Constantinian Basilica’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21: 115-140. ------1970. ‘Mensa - coemeterium - martyrium’, Cahiers archéologiques 11: 15-40. ------1983. Three Christian Capitals. Topography and Politics, Berkely. ------1987. ‘A Note on the Inscription in the Apse of Old St. Peter’s’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 317-320. Kuhoff, W. 1983. Studiën zur zivilen senatorischen Laufbahn im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.. Amter undAmtsinhaber in Clarissimat und Spektabilitat, Frankfurt am Mhein - Bern. ------1991. ‘Ein Mythos in der römischen Geschichte. Der Sieg Konstantins des Grossen über Maxentius vor den Toren Roms am 28. Oktober 312 n. Chr.’, Chiron 21: 127-174. ------2001. Diokletian und die Epoche der Tetrarchie. Das römische Reich zwischen Krisenbewaltigung und Neuaufbau (284-313 n. Chr.), Frankfurt am Main. Kulikowski, M. 2000. ‘The Notitia Dignitatum as a Historical Source’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 49: 358-377. Kultermann, U. 1996. Die Maxentius-Basilika. Ein Schlüsswerk spatantiker Architektur, Weimar. Kunderwicz, C. 1971. ‘La protection des monumentes d’architecture antique dans le code Théodosien’, in: Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra IV, Milan: 137-154. Künzl, E. 1988. Der römische Triumph. Siegesfeiem im antiken Rom, Munich. Kunzle, P. 1965. ‘Ein Kaiser unter den Martyrem?’, Studi di antichita cristiana. Pontificio istituto di archeologia cristiana. Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für christliche Archaologie. Trier 5.-11. September 1965, Rome - Berlin: 595-606. * LaBranche, C.L. 1968. Roma Nobilis. The Public Architecture of Rome, 330-476, Ann Arbor. La Follette, L. 1994. ‘The Baths of Trajan Decius on the Aventine, in: L. La Follette e.a. Rome Papers. The Baths of Trajan Decius, Iside e Serapide nel palazzo, a late domus on the Palatine and Nero's golden house. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 11, 6-88. Lampe, P. 2003. Christians at Rome in the First Two centuries. From Paul to Valentinus, London. Lanciani, R. 1897. The Ruins and Excavations of Ancient Rome, Boston - New York. Lane Fox, R. 1988. Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean Worldfrom the Second Century A.D. to the Conversion of Constantine, London. La Rocca, E. 2001. ‘La nuova immagine dei fori Imperiali. Appunti in margine agli scavi’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 108: 171 - 213. 261 Last, H. 1948. ‘On the Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleria’, Journal of Roman Studies 38: 9-14. Laubscher, H.P. 1976. Arcus Novus und Arcus Claudii, zwei Triumphbögen an der Vita Lata in Rom, Göttingen. Lavan, L. ed. 2001. Recent Research in Late Antique Urbanism, Portsmouth, RI. ------2011. ‘Political Talismans? Residual ‘Pagan’ Statues in Late Antique Public Space’, in: L. Lavan and M. Mulryan eds. The Archaeology of Late Antique "Paganism", Leiden - Boston: 439-477. Lee, A.D. 2000. Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity. A Sourcebook, New York. Lehmann, T. 2003. ‘“Circus basilicas”, “coemeteria subteglata” and Church Buildings in the Suburbium of Rome’, in: J.R. Brandt ed. Rome AD 300-800. Power and Symbol, Image andReality, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 17, Rome: 57-78. Lehnen, J. 1997. Adventus Principis. Untersuchungen zu Sinngehalt und Zeremoniell der Kaiserankunft in den Stadten des Imperium Romanum, Frankfurt. Lenski, N.E. ed. 2006a. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge - New York. ------2006b. ‘The Reign of Constantine’, in: N.E. Lenski ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge - New York: 59-90. ------2006c. ‘Introduction’, N.E. Lenski ed. The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine, Cambridge - New York: 1-13. ------2008. ‘Evoking the Pagan Past. Instinctu divintatis and Constantine’s capture of Rome’, Journal of Late Antiquity 1: 204-257. Leppin, H. 1996. Von Constantin dem Grossen zu Theodosius II.. Das christliche Kaisertum bei den Kirchenhistorikern Socrates, Sozomenus und Theodoret, Göttingen. ------1999. ‘Constantius II. und das Heidentum’, Athenaeum. Studiperiodici di letteratura e storia dell'antichita, Universita di Pavia 87: 457-480. Leppin, H., and H. Ziemssen. 2007. Maxentius. Der letzte Kaiser in Rom, Mainz. Levick, B. 1982. ‘Propaganda and the Imperial Coinage’, Antichton 16: 104-116. ------1999. ‘Messages on the Roman Coinage. Types and Inscriptions’, in: G.M. Paul ed. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II, Ann Arbor, 41-60. L’Huillier, M.-C. 1992. Vempire des mots. Orateurs gaulois et empereurs romains aux 3e et 4e siècles, Paris. Lichtenberger, A. 2011. Severus Pius Augustus. Studiën zur sakralen Reprasentation und Rezeption der Herrschaft des Septimius Severus und seiner Familie (193-211 n. chr.). Impact of Empire 14, Leiden - Boston. Liebeschuetz, J.H.W.G. 1972. Antioch. City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire, Oxford. Lim, R. 2012. ‘Inventing Secular Space in the Late Antique City. Reading the Circus Maximus', in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 61-80. Lippold, A. 2002. ‘Claudius, Constantius, Constantinus. Die V. Claudii der HA. Ein Beitrag zur Legitimierung der Herrschaft Konstantins aus stadtrömischer Sicht’, in: G. Bonamente and F. Paschoud eds. Historiae Augustae colloquium Perusinum, Bari: 309-343. Liverani, P. 1998. Laterano 1. Scavi sotto la basilica di S. Giovanni in Laterano. I materiali, Vatican City. 262 ------2003. ‘Progetto architettonico e percezione comune in eta tardoantica’, Bulletin Antieke Beschaving 78: 205-219. ------2004a ‘Reimpiego senza ideologia. La lettura antica degli spolia dall’arco di Costantino all’eta carolingia’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 111: 383-434. ------2004b. ‘L’area Lateranense in eta tardoantica e le origine del patriarcho’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d’Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 116: 17-49. ------2005. ‘L’arco di Costantino’, in: A. Donati and G. Gentili eds. Costantino ilgrande. La civilta al bivio tra Occidente e Oriente, Milan: 64-69. ------2006. ‘L’architettura costantiniana, tra committenza imperiale e contribuo delle élites locali’, in: A. Demandt and J. Engemann eds. Konstantin der Grosse. Geschichte, Archaologie, Rezeption. Intemationales Kolloquium vom 10.-15. Oktober 2005 an der Universitat Trier zur Landesausstellung Rheinland-Pfalz 2007 "Konstantin der Grosse”, Trier: 235-244. ------2012. ‘Roma, il Laterano e San Pietro’, in: P. Biscottini and G. Sena Chiesa eds. L’editto di Milano e il tempo della tolleranza. Costantino 313 d.c., Milano, Milan: 90-93. Lizzi Testa, R. 2004. Senatori, popolo, papi. II governo di Roma al tempo dei Valentiniani, Bari. Logan, A. 2007. ‘When and by whom was the Roman Basilica Apostolorum built?’, Journal of the Oxford University History Society 5: 1-14. ------2011. ‘Constantine, the Liber Pontificalis and the Christian Basilicas of Rome’, in: A. Brent and M. Vinzent eds. Studia Patristica 50. Including Papers presented at the National Conference on Patristic Studies held at Cambridge in the Faculty of Divinity 2009, Leuven: 31-54. Löhken, H. 1982. Ordines dignitatum. Untersuchungen zurformalen Konstituierung der spatantiken Führungsschicht, Cologne - Vienna. L’Orange, H.P. 1933. Studiën zur Geschichte des spatantiken Portrats, Leipzig. ------1984. Das spatantike Herrscherbild von Diokletian bis zu den Konstantin-Söhnen 284-361 n. Chr., Berlin. Lucien-Brun, X. 1973. ‘Constance II et le massacre des princes’, Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Budé 4: 585-602. Lucey, S.J. 1999. The Church of Santa Maria Antiqua, Rome. Context, Continuity, and Change. Ph.D. Rutgers University, New Brunswick. Lugli, G. 1938.1 monumenti antichi di Roma e suburbio III. A traverso le regioni, Rome. * MacCormack, S.G. 1972. ‘Change and Continuity in Late Antiquity. The Ceremony of adventus’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 21: 721-753. ------1975a. ‘Latin Prose Panegyrics’, in: T.A. Dorey ed. Empire and Aftermath, London: 159-199. ------1975b. ‘Roma, Constantinopolis, the Emperor, and his Genius’, Classical Quarterly 25: 131-150. ------1981. Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity, Berkely. Machado, C. 2006a. Urban Space and Power in Late Antique Rome (284-535), Ph.D. University of Oxford.

263 ------2006b. ‘Building the Past. Monuments and Memory in the Forum Romanum’, in: W. Bowden, A. Gutteridge and C. Machado eds. Social and Political Life in Late Antiquity, Leiden - Boston: 157-192. ------2009. ‘Religion as Antiquarianism. Pagan Dedications in Late Antique Rome’, in: J. Bodel and M. Kajava eds. Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano. Diffusione, funzioni, tipologie = Religious Dedications in the Greco-Roman World. Distribution, Typology, Use. Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, American Academy in Rome, 19-20 aprile 2006, Rome: 331-354. ------2012. ‘Aristocratie Houses and the Making of Late Antique Rome and Constantinople’, in: L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford-New York: 136-158. Mackie, G.V. 1977. ‘A New Look at the Patronage of Santa Costanza, Rome’, Byzantion. Revue internationale des études byzantines 67: 383-406. MacMullen, R. 1959. ‘Roman Imperial Building in the Provinces’, HarvardStudies in ClassicalPhilology 64: 207-235. ------1987. Constantine, London - New York. Magi, F. 1973. ‘Brevi osservazioni su di una nuova datazione dei rilievi della Cancellaria’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 80: 289-291. Magnani Cianetti, M and C. Pavolini eds. 2004. La basilica costantiniana di Sant’Agnese, lavori archeologici e di restauro, Milan. Manders, E.E.J. 2012. Co ining Images of Power. Patterns in the Representation of Roman Emperors on Imperial Coinage, A.D. 193-284, Leiden - Boston. Mango, C. 1959. The Brazen House. A Study of the Vestibule of the Imperial Palace of Constantinople, Copenhagen. ------1985. Le développement urbain de Constantinople (IVe-VIIe siècles), Paris. ------1993. Studies on Constantinople, Aldershot - Brookfield. ------1993a. ‘The Development of Constantinople as an Urban Centre’, in: C. Mango, Studies on Constantinople, Aldershot - Brookfield: 1.117-136. ------1993b. ‘Constantine’s Column’, in: C. Mango, Studies on Constantinople, Aldershot -Brookfield: III. 1-6. ------1993c. ‘Constantine’s Mausoleum and the Translation of Relics’, in: C. Mango, Studies on Constantinople, Aldershot - Brookfield: V.51-63. ------2000. ‘The Triumphal Way of Constantinople and the Golden Gate’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 54: 173-188. Mann, J.C., R. Goodbum and P. Bartholomew eds. 1976. Aspects of the Notitia dignitatum. Papers presented to the Conference in Oxford, December 13 to 15, 1974, Oxford. Mannell Noel, J. 2003. ‘Ritual, Religion and Law. Transformations in Architecture under the Tetrarchy’, in: L. Jones Hall ed. Confrontation in Late Antiquity. Imperial Presentation and Regional Adaptation, Cambridge: 29-46. Mannella, G. 2004. ‘La campagna di Costantino nell’Italia nord-occidentale. La documentazione epigrafica’, in: Y. le Bohec and C. Wolff eds. L ’armée romaine de Dioclétien a Valentinien ler. Actes du congrès de Lyon, 12-14 septembre 2002, Lyon - Paris: 359-369. Mar, R. 2005. El Palati. La formació dels palaus imperials a Roma, Tarragona.

264 Marchese, M.E. 2007. ‘La prefettura urbana a Roma. Un tentativo di localizzazione attraverso le epigrafi’, Mélanges d Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'Ecole Franqaise de Rome, Antiquité 119: 613-634. Marlowe, E. M. 2003. ‘Liberator Urbis Suae. Constantine, Maxentius and the Velabrum Quadrifrons’, Bollettino informativo dell'Associazione Internazionale di Archeologia Classica 36: 31-33. ------2004a. "That Customary Magnificence which is your due Constantine and the Symbolic Capital of Rome, Ph.D, Colombia University. ------2004b. “‘The Mutability of All Things”. The Rise, Fall and Rise of the Meta Sudans Fountain in Rome’, in: D. Amold and A. Ballantyne eds. Architecture as experience. Radical change in spatialpractice, London - New York: 36-56. ------2006. ‘Framing the Sun. The Arch of Constantine and the Roman Cityscape’, Art Bulletin 88: 223-242. ------2010. ‘Liberator Urbis suae. Constantine and the ghost of Maxentius’, in: B.C. Ewald and C.F. Norena eds. The Emperor and Rome. Space, Representation, andRitual, Cambridge - New York: 199-219. Mathews, T.F. 1971. The Early Churches of Constantinople. Architecture and Liturgy, University Park - London. Matthews, J.F. 1970. ‘Olympiodorus of Thebes and the History of the West (A.D. 407-425)’, Journal of Roman Studies 60: 79-97. ------1975. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court, AD 264-425, Oxford. ------1989. The Roman Empire of Ammianus, Baltimore. ------2012. ‘‘Notitia Urbis Constantinopolotinae', in: L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York: 81-115. Mattingly, H. 1933. ‘FEL.TEMP. REPARATIONumismatic Chronicle N.S.5 13: 182-202. Maurice, J. 1908-1912. Numismatique constantinienne, Paris. Mause, M. 1994. Die Darstellung des Kaisers in der Lateinischen Panegyrik, Stuttgart. Mayer, E. 2002. Rom ist dort, wo der Kaiser ist. Untersuchungen zu den Staatsdenkmalern des dezentralisierten Reiches von Diocletian bis zu Theodosius II., Mainz. Mazzarino, S. 1974. ‘L’adventus di Costanzo II e la carriera di Pancharius’, in: S. Mazzarino, Antico, tardoantico ed era costantiniana I, Bari: 197-220. Mazzini, G. 1958. Monete imperiali romane V, Milan. McCormick, M. 1986. Etemal victory. Triumphal Rulership in Late Antiquity, Byzantium, and the Early Medieval West, Cambridge. McLynn, N. 1994. Ambrose of Milan, Berkeley. ------2012. ‘Damasus of Rome. A Fourth-Century Pope in Context’, in: L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York: 305-325. Meneghini, R., and R. Santangeli eds. 2010. Scavi dei Fori Imperiali. II Foro di Augusto. L'area centrale, Rome. Mennen, I. 2011. Power and Status in the Roman Empire, AD 193-284, Leiden. Merriman, J.F. 1977. ‘The Empress Helena and the Aqua Augustea’, Archeologia classica. Rivista della Scuola naz. di Archeologia, pubbl. a cura degli Ist. di Archeologia e Storia dell'arte greca e romana e di Etruscologia e antichita italiche dell'Univ. di Roma 29: 436- 446.

265 ------1980. Aristocratie and imperial Patronage of the Decorative Arts in Rome and Constantinople, A.D. 337-395. The Role of Sculpture, Painting, Mosaics and the Minor Arts in Fourth Century Society, Ph.D. University of Illinois. Millar, F. 1966. ‘The Emperor, the Senate, and the Provinces’, Journal of Roman Studies 56: 156-166. ------1977. The Emperor in the Roman World, London. ------1984. ‘State and Subject. The Impact of Monarchy’, in: F. Millar and E. Segal eds. Caesar Augustus. Seven Aspects, Oxford: 37-60. Minoprio, A. 1932. ‘A Restoration of the Basilica of Constantine, Rome’, Papers of the British School at Rome 12: 1-25. Mirkoviae, M. 2004. ‘Sirmium’, in: M. Sasel Kos and P. Scherrer eds. The Autonomous Towns ofNoricum andPannonia. Noricum Pannonia II, Situla 42, Ljubljana: 145-156. Mitford, T.B. 1939. ‘Milestones in Western Cyprus’, Journal of Roman Studies 29: 184-198. Mittchell, S. 1987. ‘Imperial Building Policy in the Eastem Roman Provinces’, Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 91: 333-365. Mommsen, T. e.a. ed. 1904-1905. Theodosiani libri XVI cum Constitutionibus Sirmondianis et Leges novellae ad Theodosianum pertinentes, Berlin. ------1904-1906 Corpus Iuris Civilis. Berlin. Monaco, E. 2000. ‘II Tempio di Venere e Roma. Appunti sulla fase del IV secolo’, in: S. Ensoli and E. la Rocca eds. Aurea Roma. Dalla citta pagana alla citta cristiana, Rome: 58-60. Moreau, J. 1959. ‘Constantius I, Constantinus II, Constantius, Constans’, Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum 2: 158-184. Morton Braund, S. 1998. ‘Praise and Protreptic in Early Imperial Panegyric. Cicero, Seneca, Pliny’, in: M. Whitby ed. The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden: 53-76. Mudd, M.M. 1988. Aspects of the Intemal Government of the Later Roman Empire in the Reign of Constantius, A.D. 337-361. Ph.D. Rutgers University, Ann Arbor. Müller-Wiener, W. 1977. Bildlexikon zur Topographie Istanbuls. Byzantion, Konstantinupolis, Istanbul, bis zum Beginn des 17.Jahrhunderts, Tübingen. Mundt, F. 2011. ‘Die Rolle der Stadt in der lateinischen Herrscherpanegyrik am Beispiel Roms und Mailands’, in: T. Fuhrer ed. Rom undMailandin der Spatantïke. Reprasentationen stadtischer Raume in Literatur, Architektur und Kunst, Berlin - Boston: 163-188. Munier, C. 1963. Concilia Galliae, A. 314 - A. 506, Turnhout. Muth, S. 2006. ‘Rom in der Spatantike. Die Stadt als Erinnerungslandschaft’, in: E. Stein- Hölkeskamp and K.-J. Hölkeskamp eds. Erinnerungsorte der Antike. Die römische Welt, Munich: 438-456. * Naf, B. 1995. Senatorisches Standesbewufitsein in spatrömischer Zeit, Freiburg. Nash, E. 1961. Bildlexikon zur Topographie des antiken Rom I, Tübingen. Nibby, A. 1819. Del Foro romano, Rome. Nicholson, C., and O. Nicholson 1989. ‘Lactantius, Hermes Trismegistus and Constantinian Obelisks’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 109: 198-200. Nieddu, A.M. 2009. La 'Basilica Apostolorum' sulla via Appia e l'area cimiteriale circostante, Vatican City. 266 Nielsen, I. 1990. Thermae et balnea. The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths, Aarhus. Niquet, H. 2000. Monumenta virtutum titulique. Senatorische Selbstdarstellung im spatantiken Rom im Spiegel der epigraphischen Denkmaler, Stuttgart. ------2001. ‘Die valentinianisehe Dynastie und Rom. Das Selbstverstandnis der Kaiser und ihre Haltung zur Senatsaristokratie im Licht von Bau- und Ehreninschriften’, in: G. Alföldy and S. Panciera eds. Inschriftliche Denkmaler als Medien der Selbstdarstellung in der römischen Welt, Stuttgart: 125-147. Nixon, C.E.V. 1971. An Historiographical Study of the Caesares ofSextus Aurelisu Victor. Ph.D. Michigan University. ------1980. ‘The Occasion and Date of Panegyric VIII (V), and the Celebration of Constantine’s quinquennalia', Antichthon 14: 157-169. ------1981. ‘The Panegyric of 307 and Maximian’s Visits to Rome’, Phoenix. The Classical Association of Canada 35: 70-76. ------1983. ‘Latin Panegyric in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian Period’, in: B. Croke and A.M. Emmett eds. History and Historians in Late Antiquity, Sidney: 88-99. ------1993. ‘Constantinus Oriens Imperator. Propaganda and Panegyric. On Reading Panegyric 7 (307)’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 42: 229-246. Nixon, C.E.V., B. Saylor Rodgers and R.A.B. Mynors. 1994. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors. The Panegyrici Latini, Berkely. Nock, A.D. 1947. ‘The Emperor’s Divine comes’, Journal of Roman Studies 37: 102-116. Norman, A.F. 1957. ‘The Illyrian Prefecture of Anatolius’, Rheinisches Museum 100: 253- 259. Novak, D.M. 1979. ‘Constantine and the Senate. An Early Phase of the Christianisation of the Roman Aristocracy’, Ancient Society 10: 271-310. Novikov, A., and M. M. Mudd. 1996. ‘Reconsidering the Role of Constantius II in the “Massacre of the Princes’”, Byzantinoslavica. Revue internationale des etudes byzantines 57: 26-32. Nutt, D.C. 1973. ‘Silvanus and the Emperor Constantius II’, Antichthon 79: 80-89. * Odahl, C.M. 2004. Constantine and the Christian Empire, London. Oenbrink, W. 2006. ‘Maxentius als conservator Urbis suae. Ein antitetrarchisches Herrschaftskonzept tetrarchischer Zeit’, in: D. Boschung and W. Eek eds. Die Tetrarchie. Ein neues Regierungssystem und seine mediale Prasentation, Kolloquium Köln 2004, Wiesbaden: 169-204. Opitz, H.-G. ed. 1935. Athanasius’ Werke, Berlin. Orlandi, S. 2012. ‘Passato e presente neU’epigrafia tardoantica di Roma’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 293-307. * Pabst, A. ed. 1989. Reden. Quintus Aurelius Symmachus, Darmstadt. Palanque, J.R. 1969. ‘Du nouveau sur la préfecture d’Illyricum au IVe siècle’, Hommages a M. Renardll, Brussels: 600-606. Panella, C., and P. Pensabene 1997. ‘Riempiego e progettazione architettonica nei monumenti tardo-antichi di Roma’, Atti della Pontificia accademia romana di archeologia, Rendiconti 66: 111-283. 267 Paolo Fiore, F. 1981. ‘L’impianto architettonico antico’, in: G. Flaccomio, II "tempio di Romolo”, Rome: 63-90. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, A. 1891-1898. Analekta Hierosolymitikes Stachyologias, n.p. Paschoud, F. 1971. ‘Zosime 2, 29 et la version païenne de la conversion de Constantin’, in: Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 20: 334-353. Paul, G.M. ed. 1999. Roman Coins and Public Life under the Empire. E. Togo Salmon Papers II, Ann Arbor. Pavan, M. 1995. ‘Filippo 1'Arabo e il millenario dell'Urbe’, in: G. Bonamente ed. Tra Classicita e cristianesimo. Scritti raccolti in memoria di M. Pavan II, Rome: 349-360. Peachin, M. 1996. Iudex vice Caesaris. Deputy Emperors and the Administration of Justice during the Principate, Stuttgart. Peirce, P. 1989. ‘The Arch of Constantine. Propaganda and Ideology in Late Roman Art’, Art History 12: 387-418. Pekary, T. 1968. ‘Goldende Statuen der Kaiserzeit’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 75: 144-148. Pensabene, P. 1999. ‘Progetto unitario e reimpiego nell’Arco di Costantino’, in P. Pensabene and C. Panella eds. Arco di Costantino. Tra archeologia e archeometria, Rome: 13-42. Peschlow, U. 1977. Die Irenenkirche in Istanbul. Untersuchungen zur Architektur, Tübingen. Petrovic, P. 1993. ‘Naissus. A Foundation of Emperor Constantine’, in: D. Srejovic ed. Roman Imperial Towns and Palaces in Serbia [Sirmium, Romuliana, Naissus. Catalog], Belgrade: 55-81. Pharr, C. e.a. 1952. The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions, a Translation with a Commentary, Glossary and Bibliography, Princeton. Pichon, M.R. 1906. Les demiers écrivains profanes, Paris. Picozzi, V. 1976. ‘Una campagna di Licinio contro Massenzio nel 310 non attestata delle fonti letterarie’, Numismatica e antichita classiche: quaderni ticinesi 5: 267-275. Pina Polo, F. 2011. The Consul at Rome. The Civil Functions of the Consuls in the Roman Republic, Cambridge - New York. Pisani Sartorio, G., and R. Calza. 1976. La Villa di Massenzio sulla Via Appia. IIpalazzo - le opere d ’arte, Rome. Platner, S.B., and T. Ashby. 1929. A Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Oxford. Poglio, F.A. 2007. Gruppi dipotere nella Roma tardoantica (350-395 d.C.), Turin. Pohlsander, H.A. 1984. ‘Crispus. Brilliant Career and Tragic End’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 33: 79-106. ------1993. ‘Constantia’, Ancient Society 24: 151-167. ------1995. ‘The Date of the Bellum Cibalense. A Reexamination’, The Ancient World 25: 89-101. Poinssot, L., and R. Lantier. 1924. ‘Quatre préfets du prétoire contemporains de Constantin’, Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 68: 229-233. Polverini, L. 1988. ‘II primo millenario di Roma nella coscienza dei contemporanei’, in: P. Kneissl and V. Losemann eds. Alte Geschichte und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Festschrift für Karl Christ zum 65. Geburtstag, Darmstadt: 344-357. Pond Rothman, M.S. 1977. ‘The Thematic Organization of the Panel Reliefs on the Arch of Galerius’, American Journal of Archaeology 81: 427-454. Popovic, I. 2000. “‘Fidelity Rings” to the Emperors of the Constantinian House’, Starinar N.S. 50: 187-199. 268 Popovi, V. 1993. ‘Sirmium. A Town of Emperors and Martyrs’, in: D. Srejovic ed. Roman Imperial Towns and Palaces in Serbia [Sirmium, Romuliana, Naissus. Catalog], Belgrade: 13-27. Porena, P. 2003. Le origini dellaprefettura delpretorio tardoantica, Rome. ------2005. ‘Problemi di cronologia costantiniana. L’imperatore, Vettius Rufmus e il senato’, Antiquité Tardive 13: 205-246. Potter, D.S. 2004. The Roman Empire at Bay AD 180-395, London - New York. ------2013. Constantine the Emperor, Oxford - New York. Preger, T. 1910. ‘Studiën zur Topographie Konstantinopels III. Konstantinsmauer’, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 19: 450-461. — ------ed. 1901-1907. Scriptores Originum Constantinopolitanarum, Leipzig. Price, S. 1992. ‘FromNoble Funerals to Divine Cult. The Consecration of Roman Emperors’, in: S. Price and D. Cannadine eds. Rituals of Royalty. Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies Cambridge - New York: 56-105. Prusac, M. 2011. From Face to Face. Recarving of Roman portraits and the late-antique Portrait Arts, Leiden - Boston. ------2012. ‘The Arch of Constantine. Continuity and Commemoration Through Reuse’, Acta ad archaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 25: 127-157. * Quinn Schofield, W. 1969. ‘Sol in the Circus Maximus’, Hommages a Marcel Renard 102, Brussels: 639-649. * Rapisarda, C.A. ed. 1990. Censorini De die natali liber ad Q. Caerellivm, Bologna. Rasch, J.J. 1984. Das Maxentius-Mausoleum an der ViaAppia in Rom, Mainz am Rhein. Rasch, J.J. e.a. 2007. Das Mausoleum der Constantina in Rom, Mainz am Rhein. Rees, R. 1993. ‘Images and Image. A Re-examination of Tetrarchie Iconography’, Greece and Rome 40: 181-200. ------2002. Layers of Loyalty in Latin Panegyric AD 289-307, Oxford - New York. ------2004. Diocletian and the Tetrarchy, Edinburgh. ------2007. ‘Panegyric’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall eds. A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Oxford: 136-148. ------2011. ‘Afterwords of Praise’, in P. Roche ed. Pliny's Praise. The Panegyricus in the Roman World, Cambridge: 175-188. ------ed. 2012a. Latin Panegyric, Oxford. ------2012b. ‘The Modem History of Latin Panegyric’, in: R. Rees ed. Latin Panegyric, Oxford: 3-48. Rich, J. ed. 1992. The City in Late Antiquity , London. Richardson, L. 1975. ‘The Date and Programme of the Arch of Constantine’, Archeologia Classica21\ 72-78. ------1992. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore. Richmond, I.A. 1971. The City Wall of Imperial Rome, Maryland. Richter, G. M. A. 1971. Engraved Gems of the Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans II, London. Ridley, R. T. 1982. Zosimus. New History, Camberra. Riese, A. 1914. Das rheinische Germanien in den antiken Inschriften, Leipzig - Berlin. Riefi, W. 2001. ‘Konstantin und seine Söhne in Aquileia’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135: 267-283. 269 Rizzo, S. 2001. ‘Indagini nei fori Imperiali. Oroidografia, foro di Cesare, foro di Augusto, templum Pacis’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 108: 215-244. Roberts, A., and J. Donaldson eds. 1902-1905. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325 VII. Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries, New York. Roche, P. ed. 201 la. Pliny's Praise. The Panegyricus in the Roman World, Cambridge. ------201 lb. ‘Pliny’s Thanksgiving. An Introduction to the Panegryricus’, in P. Roche ed. Pliny's Praise. The Panegyricus in the Roman World, Cambridge: 1-28. ------201 lc. ‘The Panegyricus and the Monuments of Rome’, in: P. Roche ed. Pliny's Praise. The Panegyricus in the Roman World, Cambridge: 45-60. Roller, M.B. 2001. Constructing Autocracy. Aristocrats and Emperors in Julio-Claudian Rome, Princeton, NJ - Oxford. Roncaioli Lamberti, C. 1990. ‘L’appellativo sacrosanctus su un nuovo miliario massenziano della Valeria’, Epigraphica. Rivista italiana di epigrafia 52: 77-84. Ronning, C. 2007a. Herrscherpanegyrik unter Trajan und Konstantin. Studiën zur symbolischen Kommunikation in der römischen Kaiserzeit, Tübingen. ------2007b. ‘Pontifex maximus, charismatischer Herrscher, “allen gemeinsamer Bischof ’ oder “dreizehnter Apostel”?’, in: F. Schuller and H. Wolff eds. Konstantin der Grofie. Kaiser einer Epochenwende, Lindenberg: 125-149. Rosen, K. 1969. ‘Beobachtungen zur Erhebung Julians 360-362 n. Chr.’, Acta Classica 12: 121-149. ------2004. ‘Zum Sonnenkult in der constantinischen Dynastie’, in: H. Heftner and K. Tomaschitz eds. Ad fontes/ Festschrift für Gerhard Dobesch zum 65. Geburtstag, Vienna: 809-810. Rougé, J. 1966. Expositio totius mundi et gentium. Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes et commentaire, Paris. Royo, M. 1994. ‘Le palais dans la ville. Formes et structures topographiques du pouvoir impérial d'Auguste a Néron’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 106: 219-245. Rubin, Z. 1998. ‘Pagan Propaganda during the Usurpation of Magnentius (350-353)’, Scripta Classica Israelica 17: 121-141. Rüpke, J. 2006. ‘Dedications Accompanied by Inseriptions in the Roman Empire. Functions, Intentions, Modes of Communication’, in: J. Bodel and M. Kajava eds. Dediche sacre nel mondo greco-romano. Dijfusione, funzioni, tipologie = Religious Dedications in the Greco-Roman World. Distribution, Typology, Use. Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, American Academy in Rome, 19-20 aprile 2006, Rome: 31-41. ------2008. Fasti Sacerdotum. A Prosopography of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian Religious Officials in the City of Rome, 300 BC to AD 499, Oxford. Russell, D.A. 1998. ‘The Panegyrists and their Teachers’, in: M. Whitby ed. The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden: 17-50. Russell, D.A., andN.G. Wilson eds. 1981. Menander Rhetor. Text, Translation and Commentary’, Oxford.

270 * Sabbah, G. 1984. ‘De la Rhétorique a la communication politique. Les panegyrics latins’, Bulletin de l'Association Guillaume Bude 43: 363-388. ------2003. ‘Ammianus Mareellinus’, in: G. Marasco ed. Greek and Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity. Fourth to Sixth Century A.D, Leiden: 43-84. Saghy, M. 2012. ‘Renovatio memoriae. Pope Damasus and the Martyrs of Rome’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 251-265. Salzman, M.R. 1990. On Roman Time. The Codex-calendar of354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity, Berkely. Salzman, M.R. 2002. The Making of a Christian Aristocracy. Social and Religious Change in the Western Roman Empire, Cambridge, MA - London. Sasel, J. 1971. ‘The Struggle between Magnentius and Constantius for Italy and Illyricum’, ZivaAntika (Antiquité vivante) 21: 205-216. Saquete, J.C. 2000. ‘Septimius Acindynus, corrector Tusciae et Umbriae. Notes on a New Inscription from Augusta Emerita (Mérida, Spain)’, Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 129: 281-286. Saradi-Mendelovici, H. 1990. ‘Christian Attitudes Toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44: 47-61. Scharf, R. 1994. Comités und comitiva primi ordinis, Mainz. ------1996. ‘Zur comitiva Flavialis', Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 114: 151- 152. Scheithauer, A. 2000. Kaiserliche Bautatigkeit in Rom. Das Echo in der antiken Literatur, Stuttgart. Schlinkert, D. 1996. Ordo senatorius und nobïlitas. Die Konstitution des Senatsadels in der Spatantike, Stuttgart. Schlunk, H. 1959. ‘Untersuchungen im frühchristlichen Mausoleum von Centcelles’, in: Neue deutsche Ausgrabungen im Mittelmeergebiet und im Vorderen Orient, Berlin: 344-365. Schmidt-Hofner, S. 2012. ‘Trajan und die symbolische Kommunikation bei kaiserlichen Rombesuchen in der Spatantike’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum. Rom in der Spatantike, Stuttgart: 33-59. Schneider, A.M. 1950. ‘Strassen und Quartiere Konstantinopels’, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaologischen Instituts, Römische Abteilung 3: 68-79. Schumacher, L. 1989. ‘Review from J. Arce, 1988’, Gnomon. Kritische Zeitschrift für die gesamte klassische Altertumswissenschaft 61: 523-528. Seager, R. 1983. ‘Some Imperial Virtues in the Latin Prose Panegyrics. The Demands of Propaganda and the Dynamics of Literary Composition’, in: F. Caims ed. Papers of the Liverpool Latin Seminar IV, Liverpool: 129-165. Sear, F. 1982. Roman Architecture, London. Seeck, O. 1876. Notitia dignitatum. Accedunt notitia urbis Constantinopolitanae et latercula provinciarum, Berlin. ------1893. ‘Die imperatorischen acclamationen im vierten Jahrhundert’, Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 48: 196-207. ------1919. Regesten derKaiser undPapste für dieJahre 311 bis 476 .Chr. Vorarbeit zur einer Prosopographie der christlichen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart. 271 Shaya, J. 2013. ‘The Public Life of Monuments. The Summi Viri of the Forum of Augustus’, American Journal of Archaeology 117: 83-110. Sheperd Jr., M.H. 1967. ‘Liturgical Expressions of the Constantinian Triumph’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21: 57-78. Sijpesteijn, P.J., andK. A. Worp. 1976. FünfunddreiJUig Wiener Papyri, Vienna. Sirks, A.J.B. 1991a. Foodfor Rome. The Legal Structure of the Transportation and Processing of Supplies for the Imperial Distributions in Rome and Constantinople, Amsterdam. ------1991b. ‘The Size of the Grain Distributions in Imperial Rome and Constantinople’, Athenaeum. Studiperiodici di letteratura e storia dell’antichitd, Universita di Pavia 79: 215-237. Sinnigen, W.G. 1957. The Officium of the Urban Prefecture during the Later Roman Empire, Rome. ------1959. ‘The vicarius urbis Romae and the Urban Prefecture’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 8: 97-112. Skinner, A. 2000. ‘The Birth of a “Byzantine” Senatorial Perspective’, Arethusa 33: 363-377. ------2008. ‘The Early Development of the Senate of Constantinople’, Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 32: 128-148. Slootjes, D. 2011. ‘Bishops and their Position of Power in the Late Third Century CE. The Cases of Gregory Thaumaturgus and Paul of Samosata’, Journal of Late Antiquity 4: 100- 115. ------2012. ‘Het volk van Rome in de late oudheid’, Lampas. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse classici 45: 213-226. Smith, J.M.H. ed. 2000. Early Medieval Rome and the Christian West. Essays in Honour of Donald Bullough, Leiden. Smith, M.D. 1997. ‘The Religion of Constantius I’, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 38: 187-208. Sogno, C. 2006. Q. Aurelius Symmachus. A Political Biography, Ann Arbor. Sordi, M. 1983. The Christians and the Roman Empire, London - Sydney. Sorek, S. 2010. The Emperors' Needles. Egyptian Obelisks and Rome, Exeter. Speek, P. 1995. 'Urbs, quam Deo donavimus. Konstantins der Grossen Konzept fur KonstantinopeP, Boreas. Münstersche Beitrage zur Archaologie 18: 143-173. Speidel, M.P. 1986. ‘Maxentius and his Equites Singulares in the Battle at the Milvian Bridge’, Classical Antiquity 5: 253-259. ------1988. ‘Les prétoriennes de Maxence. Les cohorts palatines romaines’, Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire de l'École Frangaise de Rome, Antiquité 100: 183-186. ------1994. Die Denkmaler der Kaiserreit. Equites singulares Augusti, Cologne. Spruit, J.E., R. Feenstra and K.E.M. Bongenaar eds. 1993-2011. Corpus juris civilis. Tekst en vertaling, Zutphen. Stanley, D.J. 1994. ‘New Discoveries at Santa Costanza’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 48: 257- 261. ------2004. ‘Santa Costanza. History, Archaeology, Function, Patronage and Dating’, Arte Medievale N.S. 3: 119-140. Steinby, E.M. 1986. ‘L’industria laterizia di Roma nel tardo impero’, in: A. Giardina ed. Societa Romana e impero tardoantico II. Roma. politica, economia, paesaggio urbano, Bari: 99-164. 272 Stephenson, P. 2010. Constantine. Roman Emperor, Christian Victor, New York. Stepper, R. 2003. Augustus et sacerdos. Untersuchungen zur römischen Kaiser als Priester, Stuttgart. Stem, H. 1953. Le calendrier de 354. Etude sur son texte et sur ses illustrations, Paris. ------1958. ‘Les mosaïques de 1'église de Sainte-Constance a Rome’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 12: 157-218. Stewart, P. 2012. ‘The Equestrian Statue of Marcus Aurelius’, in: M. Van Ackeren ed. A Companion to Marcus Aurelius, Malden, MA: 264-277. Storch, R.H. 1971. ‘The “Eusebian Constantine’”, Church History 40: 145-155. Straub, J.A. 1955. ‘Konstantins Verzicht auf den Gang zum Kapitol’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 4: 297-313. ------1967. ‘Constantine as KOINOE ElIlZKOnOZ. Tradition and Innovation in the Representation of the First Christian Emperor’s Majesty’, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21: 39-55. Strong, D. 1968. ‘The Administration of Public Buildings in Rome during the Late Republic and Early Empire’, The Institute of Classical Studies Bulletin 15: 97-109. Styger, P. 1935. Römische Mdrtyrergriifte, Berlin. Sutherland, C.H.V. 1963. ‘Some Political Notions in Coin Types between 294 and 313’, Journal of Roman Studies 53: 14-20. ------1967. The Roman Imperial Coinage VI. From Diocletian ’s Reform (A.D. 294) to the Death of Maximinus (A.D. 313), London. Swift, L.J., and J. H. Oliver. 1962. ‘Constantius on Flavius Philippus’, American Journal of Philology 83: 247-264. Syme, R. 1974. ‘The Ancestry of Constantine’, Bonner Historia-Colloquium 1971, Bonn: 237-253. * Tadgell, C. 1998. Imperial Space. Rome, Constantinople and the Early Church, London. Taylor, R. 2004. ‘Hadrian’s Serapeum in Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 108: 223- 266. Thacker, A. 2007. ‘Rome of the Martyrs. Saints, Cults, and Relics, Fourth to Seventh Centuries’, in: É.Ó. Carragain and C. Neuman de Vegvar eds. Roma Felix. Formation and Reflections of Medieval Rome, Aldershot: 13-49. Thoma, W. 1996. ‘Nochmals zum Thema “FEL TEMP REPARATIO”, Jahrbuch für Numismatik und Geldgeschichte 46: 77-84. Thompson, G. 2005. ‘Constantius and the First Removal of the Altar of Victory’, in: J. Aubert and Z. Varhelyi eds. A Tall Order. Writing the Social History of the Ancient World, Munich - Leipzig: 85-106. Tomei, M.A. 2004. ‘Die Residenz des ersten Kaisers. Der Palatin in augusteischer Zeit’, in: A. Hoffmann and U. Wulf eds. Die Kaiserpalaste auf dem Palatin in Rom. Das Zentrum der römischen Welt undseine Bauten, Mainz am Rhein: 6-17. Toynbee, J.M.C. 1947. ‘Roma and Constantinopolis in Late-Antique Art from 312 to 365’, Journal of Roman Studies 37: 135-144. ------1953. ‘The Shrine of St. Peter and its Setting’, Journal of Roman Studies 43: 1-26. Traquair, R., and A. J. B. Wace 1909. ‘The Base of the Obelisk of Theodosius’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 29: 60-69.

273 Treadgold, W. 2004. ‘The Diplomatic Career and Historical Work of Olympiodorus of Thebes’, The International History Review 26: 709-733. Trout, D. E. 2003. ‘Damasus and the Invention of Early Christian Rome’, The Journal of medieval and early modern studies 33: 517-536. * Urbainczyk, T 1997a. Socrates of Constantinople. Historian of Church and State, Ann Arbor. ------1997b. ‘Observations on the Differences Between the Church Histories of Socrates and Sozomen’, Historia. Zeitschriftfür alte Geschichte 46: 355-373. ------2002. Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The Bishop and the Holy Man, Ann Arbor. * Vaglieri, D. 1903. ‘Gli scavi recenti del Foro Romano’, Bullettino della Commissione archeologica Comunale di Roma 31: 3-239. Van Dam, R. 2007. The Roman Revolution of Constantine, Cambridge. ------2010. Rome and Constantinople. Rewriting Roman History during Late Antiquity,Wnco, TX. ------2011. Remembering Constantine at the Milvian Bridge, New York. Vanderspoel, J. 1995. Themistius and the Imperial Court. Oratory, Civic Duty, andPaideia from Constantius to Theodosius, Ann Arbor. Vamer, E.R. ed. 2000. From Caligula to Constantine. Tyranny & Transformation in Roman Portraiture, Atlanta. ------2004. Mutilation and Transformation. Damnatio Memoriae and Roman Imperial Portraiture, Leiden. Vasiliev, A.A. 1952. History of the Byzantine Empire 324-1453, Oxford. Vermeule, C.C. 1959. The Goddess Roma in the Art of the Roman Empire, Cambridge. Versnel, H.S. 1970. Triumphus. An Inquiry into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph, Leiden. Vessey, M. 2010. ‘Reinventing History. Jerome’s Chronicle and the Writing of the Post- Roman West’, in: S. McGill, C. Sogno and E. Watts eds. The Roman Empire from the Tetrarchy to Theodosius II, Cambridge: 265-289. Vitiello, M. 1999. ‘La vicenda dell’obelisco lateranense tra versione uffïciale e tradizione senatoria. Magnenzio, Costanzo e il senato di Roma’, Mediterraneo Antico 2: 359-408. Vittinghoff, F., and A. Dihle eds. 1989. L'église et l'empire au IVe siècle. Sept exposés suivis de discussions, Geneva. Vitucci, G. 1956. Ricerche sulla praefectura urbi in eta imperiale (sec. 1-111), Rome. Vogler, C. 1979. Constance II et l'administration impériale, Strasbourg. Von Haehling, R. 1978. Die Religionszugehörigkeit der hohen Amtstrdger des Römischen Reiches seit Constantius I. Alleinherrschaft bis zum Ende der Theodosianischen Dynastie (324-450 bzw. 455 n. Chr.), Bonn. Von Petrikovits, H. 1971. ‘Fortifïcations in the North-Westem Roman Empire from the Third to the Fifth Centuries A.D.’, Journal of Roman Studies 61: 178-218. Von Sydow, W. 1969. Zur Kunstgeschichte des spatantiken Portrats im 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Bonn.

274 Vroom, J. 2011. ‘Het oude Constantinopel onder het moderne Istanbul. Archeologische sensaties dankzij een nieuwe metrolijn’, in: D. Burgersdijk and W. Waal eds. Constantinopel. Een mozaïek van de Byzantijnse metropool (Mededelingen en Verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux”/ Mémoires de la Société d ’Etudes Orientales “Ex Oriente Lux” 36), Leuven: 229-239. * Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1981. ‘The Emperor and his Virtues’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 30: 298-323. Wallis Budge, E.A. 1926. Cleopatra's Needles and Other Egyptian Obelisks. The Religious Tract Society, London. Wallraff, M. 2002. ‘Rezension zu Aurea Roma. Dalla cittapagana alla citta cristiana, hrsg. v. Serena Ensoli und Eugenio La Rocca’, Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum 6: 133-135. Walser, G. 1987. Die Einsiedler Inschriftensammlung und der Pilgerführer durch Rom (Codex Einsidlensis 326). Faksimile, Umschrift, Übersetzung und Kommentar, Stuttgart. Ward-Perkins, B. 1984. From Classical Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Urban Public Building in Northern and Central Italy AD 300-850, Oxford. ------1998. ‘The Cities’, in: A. Cameron and P. Gamsey eds. The Cambridge Ancient History 13. The Late Empire, AD 337-425, Cambridge: 371-410. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture, New Haven, CT - London. ------2012. ‘The Rise of Constantinople. Old and new Rome compared’, in: L. Grig and G. Kelly eds. Two Romes. Rome and Constantinople in Late Antiquity, Oxford - New York: 53-78. Warmington, B.H. 1974. ‘Aspects of Constantinian Propaganda in the Panegyrici Latini’, Transactions of the American Philological Association 104: 371-384. ------1976. ‘Objectives and Strategy in the Persian War of Constantius’, in: J. Fitz ed. Limes. Akten des XI. Internationalen Limeskongresses (Székesfehérvar, 30/8-6/9/1976), Budapest: 509-520. ------1989. ‘Did Constantine have “Religious Advisers?”’, Studia Patristica 19: 117-129. ------1999. ‘Some Constantinian References in Ammianus’, in: J.W. Drijvers and D. Hunt eds. The Late Roman World and its Historian. Interpreting Ammianus Marcellinus, London-New York: 166-177. Weber, G., and M. Zimmermann eds. 2003. Propaganda—Selbstdarstellung—Reprasentation im römischen Kaiserreich des 1 Jhs. n. Chr., Stuttgart. Weisweiler, J. 2010. State Aristocracy. Resident Senators and Absent Emperors in Late- Antique Rome (c. 320-400), Ph.D. University of Cambridge. ------2012a. ‘Inscribing Imperial Power. Letters from Emperors in Late-Antique Rome’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spatantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 309-330. ------2012b. ‘From Equality to Asymmetry. Honorifïc Statues, Imperial Power, and Senatorial Identity in Late-Antique Rome’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 25: 319-350. Weiser, W. 1987. ‘Felicium Temporum Reparatio. Kaiser Constans ftihrt gefangene Franken aus ihren Dörfem ab’, Schweizerische numismatische Rundschau. Revue suisse de numismatique 66: 161-174. Whitby, M. ed. The Propaganda of Power. The Role of Panegyric in Late Antiquity, Leiden - Boston.

275 Whitehead, P.B. 1927. ‘The Church of SS. Cosma e Damiano in Rome’, American Journal of Archaeology 21: 1-18. Wiemer, H.-U. 1994. ‘Libanios und Zosimos über den Rom-Besuch Konstantins I. im Jahre 326’, Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 43: 469-494. Wienand, J. 2012. Der Kaiser als Sieger. Metamorphosen triumphaler Herrschaft unter Constantin I., Berlin. Wightman, E.M. 1970. Roman Trier and the Treveri, London. Wilkinson, K.W. 2009. ‘Palladas and the Age of Constantine’, Journal of Roman Studies 99: 36-60. ------2010. ‘Palladas and the Foundation of Constantinople’, Journal of Roman Studies 100: 179-194. Wilson-Jones, M. 2000. ‘ Genesis and mimesis. The Design of the Arch of Constantine in Rome’, Journal of Society ofArchitectural Historians 59: 50-77. Witschel, C. 2012. ‘Alte und neue Errinerungsmodi in den spatantiken Inschriften Roms’, in: R. Behrwald and C. Witschel eds. Rom in der Spdtantike. Historische Erinnerung im stadtischen Raum, Stuttgart: 357-406. Woods, D. 1991. ‘The Date of the Translation of the Relics of SS. Luke and Andrew to Constantinople’, Vigiliae Christianae 45: 286-292. ------1993. ‘Some Addenda to PLRE', Historia. Zeitschrift für alte Geschichte 42: 122- 125. ------1997. ‘Where did Constantine I die?’, Journal of Theological Studies 48: 531-535. ------1998. ‘On the Death of the Empress Fausta’, Greece and Rome 45: 70-86. ------2002. ‘Eusebius on some Constantinian Officials’, Irish Theological Quarterly 67: 195-223. ------2004. ‘The Constantinian Origin of Justina (Themistius, Or.3.43b)’, Classical Quarterly 54: 325-327. Wrede, H. 1981. ‘Der genius populi Romani und das Fünfsaulendenkmal der Tetrarchen auf dem Forum Romanum’, Bonner Jahrbücher des Rheinischen Landesmuseums in Bonn und des Vereins von Altertumsfreunden im Rheinlande 181: 121-142. Wulf-Rheidt, U. 2012a. ‘Augustus und das Gespür fur den richtigen Ort - die Situierung der ersten Kaiserresidenz auf dem Palatin in Rom’, in: F. Amold e.a. eds. Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren. Menschen - Kuituren - Traditionen, Bd. 3, Rahden: 97-112. ------2012b. ‘Nutzungsbereiche des flavischen Palastes auf dem Palatin in Rom’, in: F. Amold e.a. eds. Orte der Herrschaft. Charakteristika von antiken Machtzentren. Menschen - Kuituren - Traditionen, Bd. 3, Rahden: 33-40. Wulf, U., and A. Riedel. 2006. ‘Investigating Buildings Three-dimensionally. The ‘Domus Severiana’ on the Palatine’, in: L. Haselberger and J. Humphrey eds. Imaging Ancient Rome. Documentation, Visualization, Imagination, Portsmouth, RI: 221-234. * Zanker, P. 1972. Forum Romanum. Die Neugestaltung durch Augustus, Tübingen. ------1988. The Power of Images in the Age ofAugustus, Ann Arbor. ------2012. ‘Der Konstantinsbogen als Monument des Senate’, Acta adarchaeologiam et artium historiam pertinentia 25: 77-105. Zeggio, S. 1996. ‘L’intervento Costantiano’, in: C. Panella ed. Meta Sudans I. Un ’area sacra in Palatio e la valle del Colosseo prima e dopo Nerone, Rome: 189-196. 276 Ziemssen, H. 2006. ‘Maxentius and the City of Rome. Imperial Building Policy in an Urban Context’, in: C. Mattusch, A.A. Donohue and A. Brauer eds. Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Classical Archaeology, Boston, August 23-26, 2003. Common Ground. Archaeology, Art, Science, and Humanities, Oxford: 400-404. ------2010a. ‘Palast und stadtischer Raum. Wandel und Kontinuitat des römischen Stadtzentrums (1.-4. Jh. n. Chr.)’, Hephaistos. Kritische Zeitschrift zur Theorie und Praxis der Archaologie und angrenzendes Wissenschaften 26: 189-204. ------2010b. ‘Roma Auctrix Augusti. Die Veranderungen des römischen Stadtbilds unter Kaiser Maxentius (306-312 n.Chr.)’, in: N. Burkhardt and R.H.W. Stichel eds. Die antike Stadtim Umbruch (Kolloquium Darmstadt 2006), Wiesbaden: 16-27. ------201 la. Das Rom des Maxentius. Stadtebau undHerrscherbildzu Beginn des 4. Jh. n.Chr., Ph.D. Universitat Hamburg. ------201 lb. ‘Die Kaiserresidenz Rom in der Zeit der Tetrarchie. Architektur und Zeremoniell (306-312 n. Chr.)’, in: T. Fuhrer ed. Rom undMailand in der Spatantike. Reprasentationen stadtischer Raume in Literatur, Architektur und Kunst, Berlin - Boston: 87-110.

277

APPENDICES

A.l STEMMA THE DESCENDANTS OF CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS

? = (1) Maximian (2) = Eutropia

Fausta Maxentius = Constantine

Helena = (1) Constantius Chlorus (2) = Theodora

Julius Constantius (1) Constantia Anastasia = Galla = Licinius = Bassianus Fl. Dalmatius Hannibalianus | Eutropia Licinius II = Virius Nepotianus? son daughter Gallus | = CONSTANTIUS = Constantina (2) Nepotianus Dalmatius Hannibalianus = Constantina (1)

Julius Constantius (2) = Basalina Julian = Helena

Minervina = (1) CONSTANTINE (2) = Fausta

Crispus CONSTANTINUS CONSTANTIUS Constantina CONSTANS Helena JUNIOR (1) = daughter (1) = Hannibalianus = Julian (2) = Eusebia (2) = Gallus

Source: Burgess 2008: 6

281

A.2 IMAGES ROME Fig. 1 Map of Rome under the Constantinian dynasty 284 Fig. 2 Basilica Nova 285 Fig. 3 3D-Scanning & Reconstruction of the Constantine Coloss 285 Fig. 4 Temple of Venus and Roma 286 Fig. 5 Arch of Constantine 286 Fig. 6 Arch of Constantine 287 Fig. 7 Janus Quadrifrons in the Velabrum 287 CONSTANTINOPLE

Fig. 8 Map of Constantinople in Late Antiquity 288 Fig. 9 Reconstruction of the Forum of Constantine 289 Fig. 10 Reconstruction of the column of Constantine 289 Fig. 11 Reconstruction of the Milion 290 Fig. 12 Reconstruction of the hippodrome 291 Fig. 13 Reconstruction of the Capitolium 291 Fig. 14 Coinage - URBS ROMA 292 Fig. 15 Coinage - CONSTANTINOPOLIS 292 Fig. 16 Coinage - Dedication-medallion of Constantinople 293 Fig. 17 Coinage - FEL TEMP REPARA TIO 293 Fig. 18 Coinage - Roma and Constantinopolis 294

283 Fig. 1 Map of Rome under the Constantinian dynasty

ROME 0______500______1000 m

M ausoleum of Augustus

Mausoleum of Hadnan

Stadium of Domman Pantheon lepta Jufca

Baifiserf Tiius WaAur«fla "n LudusMagnus Porum Sessonana Tempte of the «Santa Crace complei Jfiitneatrum

1 Forum of Trajan 2 Forum of Augustus 3 Forum of JuliusCeasar 4 Tempte of Pax 5 Basilica Nova 6 Temple of Venus and Roma 7 Arch of Constantine 8 ArchofTitus 9 Basilica Aemilia 10 Arch of Septimius Severus 11 Basilica Julia 12 Temple of Jupiter 13 Temple of JunoMoneta Basilica |_ Apostoloium

Design by Marius Rieff

284 Fig. 2 Basilica Nova

Courtesy of Stephan Mols

Fig. 3 3D-Scanning & Reconstruction of the Constantine Coloss

285 Fig. 4 Temple of Venus and Roma

Image retrieved from http://c0mm0ns.wikimedia.0rg/wiki/File:Temple_0f_Venus_and_R0ma.jpg Fig. 5 Arch of Constantine

Courtesy of Stephan Mols 286 Fig. 6 Arch of Constantine

Courtesy of Jeske van Poppel Fig. 7 Janus Quadrifrons in the Velabrum

Courtesy of Stephan Mols 287 Fig. 8 Map of Constantinople in Late Antiquity

IM Golden Horn

Bosporus

Hartjoui Hartjour tléonon of Prosphorion

Wans ot Septiïmus Sevenjs

«W yie. ^ Me*u>aii n a g a Soptua orum | ip-.dsio<'-''A,iau‘ ciori

ams ol /euwppus

Sea of Marmara

Design by Marius Rieff

288 Fig. 9 Reconstruction of the Forum of Constantine

290 Fig. 12 Reconstruction of the hippodrome

Fig. 13 Reconstruction of the Capitolium

291 Fig. 14 URBS ROMA

Aes from Antiochia, 330-335 AD. URBS ROMA, helmeted head of Roma left, in imperial cloak, and omamental necklace. She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus, two stars above RIC VII 693 (Antiochia) 91. With permission of wildwinds.com

Fig. 15 CONSTANTINOPOLIS

Aes from Arelate, 332-333 AD. CONSTANTINOPOLIS, laureate, helmeted and mantled bust left holding sceptre Victory standing left on prow, holding long sceptre and resting left hand on shield; three-branched palm branch in left field. RIC 273 (Arelate) 369. With permission of Den of Antiquity and wildwinds.com 292 Fig. 16 Dedication-medaliion of Constantinople

Silver medallion from Constantinople, 330 AD. Head of Constantine right, in jewelled diadem D N CONSTANTINVS MAX TRIVM F AVG, Tyche of Constantinople, turreted and veiled, seated right, head facing, right foot on prow, holding comucopiae. RIC VII 578 (Constantinople) 53. Courtesy of Gemini Auctions, 2005, freemanandsear.com and harlanjberk.com

Fig. 17 FEL TEMPREPARATIO

Aes from Aquileia, 348-350 AD. DN CONSTANS P F AVG, diademed bust left, holding globe FEL TEMP REPAR-ATIO, Helmeted soldier, spear in left hand, advancing right, head tumed to left. With his right hand he is leading a small bare-headed figure from a hut beneath a tree with long spear-head shaped leaves with a spinal ridge. The spear points upwards. RIC VIII 323 (Aquileia) 103. With permission of cngcoins.com and wildwinds.com

293 Fig. 18 Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis

Solidus from Antiochia, 347-355 AD. FL IVL CONSTAN-TIVS PERP A VG, pearl-diademed, draped and cuirassed bust right. GLORLA-REI-PVBLICAE, Urbs Roma and Constantinopolis enthroned. Roma, facing, holds spear in left hand. Constantinopolis, tumed to the left, holds sceptre in left hand and rests right foot on prow. Between them they support a shield inscribed VOTXX MVLTXXX. RIC VIII 518 (Antiochia) 83. Courtesy of TimeLine Auctions and wildwinds.com

294 SAMENVATTING In zijn lofrede van 321 aan de Senaat van Rome koesterde de panegyrist Nazarius de vurige wens dat Constantijn van Rome zijn residentie zou maken:

Er is slechts één ding waardoor Rome vreugdevoller zou kunnen worden gemaakt, iets heel groots, maar ook slechts het enige: dat het Constantijn, zijn bewaarder, en zijn meest zalige Caesaren ziet, dat het van u mag genieten naar de maat van zijn verlangen, dat het u blij ontvangt en dat het u, als staatsredenen u doen vertrekken, laat gaan met de belofte van uw terugkeer {Pan.Lat. 4 (10) 38.6). Zijn prijzenswaardige en verwachtingsvolle woorden werden niet gehoord. Constantijn zou Rome nog slechts eenmaal bezoeken en een lange periode van keizerlijke afwezigheid brak aan. Gedurende deze periode, de middenjaren van de vierde eeuw, transformeerde Rome zich geleidelijk van hoofdstad van het Romeinse Rijk naar een van de hoofdzetels van het christendom, terwijl in het Oosten de stad Constantinopel gesticht en uitgebouwd werd tot een nieuwe keizerlijke residentie. Dit proefschrift richt zich op de ontwikkelingen in de verhouding tussen Rome en de keizerlijke politiek en de machtsrepresentatie onder Constantijn (306-337) en zijn zonen Constans (333-350) en Constantius (324-361). Vanaf het principaat van Augustus was het voortbestaan van de stad Rome verbonden met het lot van de keizer, als symbool en zetel van de macht van het Imperium. Rome was de plek waar keizers in de eerste eeuw van het principaat bijna permanent verbleven en de stad vormde een belangrijke etalage van keizerlijk ceremonieel en ideologische pretenties. Na de periode ca. 230-305, waarin keizers, vanwege oorlogen, grotendeels buiten Rome vertoefden, was Rome aan het begin van de vierde eeuw onder Maxentius en in mindere mate onder Constantijn, tijdelijk opnieuw een residentiestad met keizerlijk ceremonieel en de centrale locatie van het rijksbestuur. De decennia onder Constantijns erfvolgers, inherent aan geopolitieke en religieuze ontwikkelingen in Rome en het Romeinse Rijk, zijn niet uitvoerig behandeld door antieke historici en zijn eveneens in het wetenschappelijk discours onderbelicht gebleven. Met de studie naar de plaats en de betekenis van Rome in de dagelijkse bestuurspraktijk en de keizerlijke beeldvorming van 306 tot 361, heb ik gepoogd een leemte te vullen in het veld van laatantieke studies, dat zich toespitst op de band tussen de Urbs en de Augustus. Om de relaties van Constantijn, Constans en Constantius met Rome te kunnen duiden, zijn, aan de hand van uiteenlopend primair bronnenmateriaal (literatuur, inscripties, munten, archeologische resten), de volgende aspecten geanalyseerd: de keizerlijke aanwezigheid in Rome, de keizerlijke patronage, de relaties tussen de keizers en de senatoriale aristocratie in Rome en de stad als symbool en middel van machtsrepresentatie.

295 * Het proefschrift wordt ingeleid door een proloog (Deel een, Hoofdstuk een) die het chronologisch raamwerk biedt. Deze ontvouwt hoe de dynastie van Constantijn geconstrueerd werd. In 306 werd hij in Britannia verheven tot Augustus door de legertroepen van zijn overleden vader Constantius Chlorus. Na de aanvankelijke erkenning van senior-Augustus Galerius en zijn toenadering tot de tetrarchen, bedreef Constantijn een onafhankelijke en onderscheidende politiek. Het systeem van de tetrarchie zou stranden op zijn machtspretenties en dynasticisme. Zijn terughoudende opstelling ten opzichte van het keizerscollege toonde hij onder meer door zijn distantiëring van de tetrarchische consulbenoemingen, in zijn titulatuur en door zijn alliantie met de usurpatoren en staatsvijanden Maxentius en Maximianus. Constantijns verhouding met Maxentius was gereserveerd, tot zich na de dood van diens vader Maximianus een machtsstrijd ontspon met Rome als inzet. Constantijn zegevierde en in oktober 312 werd hij keizer over het Westen. Om zijn machtsbasis te consolideren sloot Constantijn een alliantie met Licinius, keizer van het oostelijk deel van het Rijk. Nog nadrukkelijker legitimeerde hij zijn positie door zich te beroepen op zijn afkomst. Hij presenteerde zich in zijn propagandaprogramma bovenal als zoon van keizer Constantius Chlorus en als (fictieve) bloedverwant van keizer Claudius Gothicus. Niet alleen benadrukte hij zijn afkomst via diverse media, hij voegde bovendien een nieuwe generatie toe aan de gens Flavia, door zijn zonen Crispus, Constantinus en Constantius tot Caesar uit te roepen. Het jaar 324 vormde een keerpunt voor zijn dynastie en tevens voor Rome. Constantijn werd alleenheerser en stichtte Constantinopel, een nieuwe keizerlijke residentie in het Oosten. Afgezien van een duister gebleven familiaal conflict, resulterend in de dood van zijn zoon Crispus en Constantijns vrouw Fausta, was het laatste decennium van diens heerschappij er een zonder interne strijd. De Augustus breidde het keizerscollege uit met zijn zoon Constans en zijn neven Dalmatius and Hannibalianus en poogde de eendracht te versterken door hun ereambten toe te kennen en een huwelijkspolitiek te bedrijven. De onverwachte dood van Constantijn in mei 337, een jaar na zijn dertigjarig keizerschap, zou een onzekere periode inluiden voor de rijksopvolging, al was er geen sprake van een interregnum. Zijn zoons konden zich beroepen op een machtig dynastiek charisma en zij werden verheven tot de rang van Augustus. Mogelijke bedreigers van hun heerschappij, onder wie Dalmatius en Hannibalianus, werden geëxecuteerd. Het Rijk, dat pas in 324 onder Constantijn weer één was geworden, werd verdeeld onder de drie broers. De aanvankelijke eenheid onder de keizers, gebaseerd op verwantschap, werd niet behouden en als gevolg van politieke en religieuze twisten, raakte het drietal verdeeld. Het gebrek aan broederschap en de afwezigheid van een duidelijke hiërarchie resulteerden in militaire confrontaties en usurpaties, waarbij Rome herhaaldelijk van keizer wisselde.

296 De volgende twee hoofdstukken (Deel twee) hebben de aanwezigheid van Constantijn, Constans en Constantius in Rome als uitgangspunt. Allereerst zijn de reizen en in het bijzonder de bezoeken aan Rome van de keizers in kaart gebracht (Hoofdstuk twee). In de loop van de derde eeuw had Rome zijn rol als keizerlijke hoofdstad verloren. Heersers verbleven in centra aan de rijksgrenzen cn de momenten van keizerlijke aanwezigheid in Rome werden zeldzamer. Een adventus werd hierdoor een zaak van gewicht voor de bezoeker en voor de ontvangende partijen in Rome. Een staatsbezoek creëerde mogelijkheden tot interactie tussen de keizer en de Senaat en het volk van de hoofdstad, die ieder hun eigen prioriteiten en ambities hadden. Constantijn bezocht Rome direct na zijn overwinning op Maxentius, waardoor hij het gezag over de stad had verworven. Tijdens zijn adventus presenteerde hij zich als keizer in en van Rome. Een treffend onderdeel van zijn overwinningsceremonie vormde de tentoonstelling van het afgehakte hoofd van de verslagen tyrannus Maxentius. Constantijn, de restitutor Urbis, sloot zijn indrukwekkende intocht af met een traditioneel eerbetoon aan de Senaat en gulle schenkingen aan het volk vanaf de Rostra op het Forum. Het verblijf duurde enkele weken en Constantijn zou slechts tweemaal terugkeren: in 315, voor de viering van de opening van zijn decennalia, en in 326, voor de sluiting van zijn vicennalia. Zijn kernactiviteit in deze periode was het consolideren van zijn machtsbasis in het westelijk deel en, vanaf 324, in het Oosten, wat veel reizen vereiste. Constantinopel fungeerde in de laatste fase van zijn heerschappij als een voorname residentie en de stad werd na zijn dood zijn rustplaats. De periode van de keizerlijke afwezigheid in Rome na 326 werd verlengd tot in de jaren vijftig van de vierde eeuw. Constantijns zoon Constans zou Rome nooit bezoeken. De historische waarschijnlijkheid van een keizerlijke adventus tussen 337 en 350 is nog altijd een twistpunt onder moderne historici. Verschillende gelegenheden waren opportuun voor een bezoek, maar de bronnen wijzen op een “Hauptstadtfeme” bij Constans. Afgewisseld met militaire campagnes tegen de Sarmaten, de Franken en zijn broer Constantinus, hield hij voornamelijk residentie in Trier, Milaan en Sirmium. In 357 verenigde Constantius de stad met haar keizer. Rome was uitverkoren om zijn overwinning op Magnentius en zijn bestuursjubileum te vieren. Net als zijn vader in zijn laatste jaren hield Constantius zich hoofdzakelijk op in het Oosten, met Antiochië en Constantinopel als bases. De schaarse momenten van keizerlijke aanwezigheid in Rome werden gebruikt als decor van keizerlijke representatie, monarchaal ritueel en rijksbestuur. Bij deze gelegenheden stond de stad in het brandpunt van de belangstelling en werd haar bijzondere positie bevestigd. Haar inwoners: senatoren en plebs, paganen en christenen, hadden de mogelijkheid om hun persoonlijke band met de bezoekende keizer te versterken en hun eigen zaak te bepleiten. De absentie van de keizer bleef niet onopgemerkt en onbeschreven. In Hoofdstuk drie richt ik me op de percepties van de keizerlijke af- en aanwezigheid in Rome op basis van een specifieke bron: de Latijnse panegyrieken. Als onderdeel van ceremoniële gelegenheden waren de lofredes in eerste instantie bedoeld om de keizerlijke heerschappij te roemen. De band tussen de keizer en Rome keert hierin als topos veelvuldig terug. De keizerlijke afwezigheid in Rome sprak niet ten gunste van de keizer. Panegyristen gebruikten alle beschikbare literair-retorische 297 technieken om die aan de kaak te stellen en zij wilden op die wijze een reünie van de keizer met Rome aanmoedigen. Er was lof namens de redenaar en de stad voor de schaarse keizerlijke bezoeken, begrip voor hun verhindering en hoop op hun temgkeer. Maar er was evenzeer kritiek te bespeuren op de langdurige keizerlijke verwaarlozing van de eeuwige stad. Vooral deze voorzichtige uitingen van afkeuring, uit naam van de redenaar en Roma als stnekelinge, kunnen niet de vleierij geweest zijn, die een keizer wilde aanhoren tijdens de viering van zijn jubileum, een overwinning of een daadwerkelijk bezoek. De nadruk op de eeuwige stad, verlaten door haar keizer, is een indicatie dat de lofredenaars geen spreekbuis waren van de keizerlijke propaganda, zoals wordt verondersteld. Panegyristen waren diplomatieke woordvoerders met een eigen agenda. Met hun speeches benadrukten zij de waarde van Rome in de late oudheid en gaven zij een stem aan ‘een vurig verlangen om de keizer te zien’ (Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 333-336). * De fysieke aanwezigheid in Rome was niet de enige manier waarop keizers glans konden geven aan de eeuwige stad en hun eerbied en affectie voor de Urbs konden tonen. Door een monumentale patronage kon er evenzeer een architectonische aanwezigheid gecreëerd worden. De keizerlijke bouwprogramma’s worden behandeld in Deel drie. Architectuur bezit een transparantie, waardoor ze een geschikt medium was om de keizersideologie, de politieke agenda of de religieuze sympathieën van de bouwheer over te brengen. Het bouwprogramma van de heersers in Rome, voornamelijk uitgevoerd door de stadsprefecten tijdens de afwezigheid van de keizer, wordt uiteengezet in Hoofdstuk vier. Centraal staan de omvang en de motieven van directe en indirecte patronage door keizers en de in Rome gezetelde beambten die belast waren met de stedelijke ontwikkeling. Bovendien wordt de impact ervan op de publieke ruimte en de inwoners onderzocht. De bouwactiviteiten in de stad tussen 312 en 361 stonden niet op zichzelf en waren doorgaans een reactie op de architectonische impulsen van directe voorgangers. Constantijns urbanistieke beleid in Rome was in de jaren na zijn overwinning op Maxentius allereerst een antwoord op diens bouwactiviteiten in de stad. Als conservator Urbis suae had Maxentius een bouwprogramma gelanceerd van indrukwekkende pracht en grootschaligheid, dat de permanentie en beneficia van de keizer moest uitdrukken. Constantijns herovering van Rome op de ‘tiran’ in 312 en de uitgevaardigde damnatio memoriae op Maxentius resulteerden in een grondige herziening van het stadsbeeld van Rome. Het monumentale centrum van de stad, dat zo sterk met Maxentius werd geassocieerd, werd ontdaan van iedere herinnering aan hem. Zijn beelden en inscripties werden omgevormd, vernietigd of als bouwmateriaal verwerkt in nieuwe structuren. Bouwwerken werden opgedragen in naam van Constantijn, wiens naam op de wijdingsinscripties op de gevels prijkte. De Arcus Constantini, een geschenk van de Senaat aan de keizer, werd het symbool van de overwinning van Constantijn, de ‘hersteller van de Stad’. Door de patronage van verschillende beneficia en beelddecoratie toonde hij zijn traditionele keizerlijke plicht als weldoener en presenteerde hij zijn dynastie.

298 Buiten het hart van de stad wenste Constantijn meer dan waar ook fysiek te heersen over de monumentale nalatenschap van zijn voorganger, door diens bolwerken van macht te vernietigen en in te wisselen voor een nieuwe signatuur en toekomst: die van een christelijk Rome met de waarborg van oude tradities. Op vrijgekomen bouwgrond werd een netwerk van monumentale architectuur voor de Kerk aangelegd met een liturgisch centrum binnen de stadsmuren en vereringsplaatsen voor martelaren erbuiten. De inpassing van zijn omvangrijk christelijk bouwprogramma aan de rand van de stad houdt niet zozeer verband met zijn eerbied voor het traditionele, pagane stadscentrum, als wel dat ze veeleer gemotiveerd is vanuit politiek pragmatisme. Tijdens zijn verblijven in Rome was Constantijn in de gelegenheid de bouwprojecten persoonlijk te overzien. Tijdens zijn afwezigheid was het allereerst de stadsprefect die toezag op de start, de voortgang en de voltooiing van de werkzaamheden. De patronage voor de Kerk werd waargenomen door de bisschop van de stad. Deze twee actoren bleven de dominante spelers voor de stadsontwikkeling onder Constans en Constantius. Tussen 337 en 350 nam de keizerlijke bouwdrift af en werden er nauwelijks nog nieuwe projecten aangevangen. De stadsprefecten onder Constans waren met name belast met de afronding van impulsen, begonnen onder Constantijn, en met de restauratie van vervallen gebouwen en de infrastructuur. De bisschop die het diocees leidde rond het jaar 340 verzorgde de christelijke topografie van de stad. De meest voorkomende vorm van interventie betrof standbeelden, opgericht voor en in naam van de keizer. Constantius evenaarde de mate van patronage onder zijn vader evenmin, maar hij was wel in de gelegenheid om als actieve patroonheer op te treden tijdens zijn bezoek aan Rome in 357. Door zijn schenking van een obelisk en diverse standbeelden stelde hij zich op als weldoener. Bestaande gebouwen werden goed onderhouden door zijn beambten, werkzaam in de stad. Een beschrijving en duiding van de patronage onder de dynastie van Constantijn in Rome vereist uiteraard tevens een analyse van het stedenbouwkundige landschap en de keizerlijke bouwprogramma’s in Constantinopel, Constantijns nieuwe stad en hoofdstad in opkomst (Hoofdstuk vijf). De impulsen van Constantijn en Constantius in Rome, hun aanzienlijke bijdragen aan de profane en religieuze architectuur, tonen aan dat Rome geen trivialiteit was voor de keizer. Hun aandacht en middelen werden echter geleidelijk verschoven naar de nieuwe stad in het Oosten. In de jaren waarin Constantijn zijn residentie uitbouwde, diende Rome als topografisch en monumentaal voorbeeld. Constantinopel kreeg een eigen Forum en Capitool, een keizerlijk paleis verbonden met een hippodroom en een mausoleum om de gedachtenis van de heersers te bewaren na hun dood. Net als in Rome werden er kerken gebouwd en de stad kreeg een duidelijk christelijke signatuur. Constantius zette de expansie van Constantinopel na zijn vaders overlijden voort en maakte van het oude Byzantium een echte “GroRstadt”. De veranderingen in de organisatie en de status van de stad Rome worden weerspiegeld in de urbanistieke ontwikkeling van beide hoofdsteden. De architectuur van Rome vormde in de laatste decennia van Constantijns dynastie geen zwaartepunt meer. De imitatie van de Urbs in Constantinopel bevestigde de ideologische kracht van Rome, maar introduceerde tegelijkertijd een rivaal in het Oosten.

299 * Deel vier van het proefschrift beschrijft de wijzen waarop keizers zich verhielden tot en communiceerden met de Senaat, het orgaan van de aristocratie in Rome. Hoofdstuk zes onderzoekt de benoemingspolitiek en de politiek-institutionele maatregelen en initiatieven die gericht zijn op de Senaat en met name vraagt het ambt van de stadsprefectuur aandacht. Vanuit een vergelijkend perspectief wordt in dit deel tevens Constantinopel behandeld. In Hoofdstuk zeven wordt ingegaan op de politieke ontwikkeling en de creatie van een eigen Senaat in Constantinopel. Hoofdstuk acht rondt de studie naar de rol van Rome in de politiek en de machtsrepresentatie af door de implicaties van het keizerlijk handelen in en met betrekking tot Rome te belichten voor de senatoren in Rome. Het hoofdstuk beschrijft de motieven van de senatoriale interactie met de afwezige keizer en de wijzen waarop de senatoren betrokken waren bij de rijkspolitiek en ze hun hun macht en status in de stad tentoonspreidden. Constantijn kende de senatoren uit Rome een waardige rol toe binnen het bestuur van het Rijk en de stad. Zij bezetten met name het ambt van stadsprefect, een prestigieuze post voor senatoren met banden in Rome of Italië. Op deze positie, de hoogste functie in ‘hun’ stad, betraden zij de politieke arena en konden zij, tot op zekere hoogte, keizerlijk beleid sturen. Tevens werden senatoren benoemd tot consul, en op kleinere schaal, tot pretoriaans prefect. Constantijns bevoorrechting van de senatoren uit Rome via benoemingen en eerbetoon op standbeelden en munten werd beantwoord met loyaliteitsbetuigingen van hun kant. Niettemin werd in de dagelijkse bestuurspraktijk een duidelijk signaal gegeven van de veranderde status van Rome. Constantijn stichtte in Constantinopel een tweede Senaat en verbleef veelvuldig in dit nieuwe bestuurlijke centrum. Het ambt van senator was sindsdien niet langer gereserveerd voor Rome en de beste kansen voor toegang tot de keizer lagen voortaan in het Oosten. Constans zette het beleid van zijn vader voort in zijn eerste jaren als Augustus. Vanaf 347 kregen magistraten uit het Oosten echter een overwicht in de stadsprefectuur, de pretoriaanse prefectuur en het consulaat. De eerste twee posten werden zelfs gelijktijdig vervuld door een persoon. Constans’ afwezigheid, zijn matige betrokkenheid en beperkte symboolpolitiek hadden een verwijdering tussen de keizer en een groep senatoren tot gevolg, die meermaals Constans de rug toekeerde op momenten van oorlog. Constantius daarentegen was wel in de gelegenheid om de senatoren in Rome op hun terrein te ontmoeten. Hij deed bovendien veelvuldig een beroep op hen voor de belangrijke functies in de stad en het Rijk. Constantius richtte zijn politieke blik echter vooral op het Oosten. Constantinopel kreeg een proconsul en, een aantal jaren later, een stadsprefect en het aantal leden van de Senaat werd uitgebreid. Deze keizerlijke initiatieven markeerden de verminderde geopolitieke betekenis van Rome en benadrukten tegelijkertijd het belang van de stadsprefect en de Senaat voor Rome en het Rijk. Constantius behield de steun van de Senaat in Rome tot in zijn strijd tegen Julianus.

300 Niet alleen in haar hoedanigheid als keizerlijke residentie en architectonische pronkkast, maar eveneens als bestuurscentrum maakte Rome een transformatie door. Tijdens de afwezigheid van de heerser kregen senatoren de gelegenheid om in de openbare ruimte van de stad er zelf hun stempel op te drukken en zich te profileren. De stadsprefect speelde hierbij een leidende rol. Met name in de vorm van standbeelden probeerden rivaliserende senatoren eer te verwerven als weldoeners en hoeders van de stad. De afstand tot het keizerlijk hof dwong hen er echter eveneens toe hun relatie met hun keizer te herdefiniëren. Door het vervullen van ambten, het houden van audiënties en door uitingen van loyaliteit aan de afwezige keizer trachtten zij met hem verbonden te blijven. * De band tussen Augustus en Urbs was complex en dynamisch, met name toen heersers zich terugtrokken uit Rome en nieuwe residenties stichtten en bevolkten. Onder de dynastie van Constantijn werd deze band versterkt maar tegelijkertijd verzwakt. Aan de ene kant eerde de stichter van het keizershuis de stad door bezoeken, patronage en politieke erkenning en betoonde hij respect aan Dea Roma op munten. Aan de andere kant moest het fysieke en symbolische Rome dit eerbetoon delen met Constantinopel en diens Tyche, de tegenhanger van Rome’s personificatie. De ontwikkeling van nova Roma was geenszins voltooid toen Constantijn overleed. Terwijl Constans in de volgende jaren een politieke en ideologische “Romfeme” in stand hield, werd Constantinopel door Constantius op gelijke hoogte gebracht met Rome. De band tussen de keizer en Rome als residentie en monumentaal en politiek centrum was nu verbroken, maar het concept van Urbs et Augustus werd heruitgevonden. De relatie tussen Rome en Constantijn, Constans en Constantius toont zich visueel sterk in hun muntprogramma. Terwijl Constantijn het oude en nieuwe Rome vierde op afzonderlijke solidi, rijksbreed aangemunt, werden deze speciale geldstukken onder Constans slechts geslagen in Rome zelf, de stad die hij nooit bezocht. Rome en Constantinopel verschenen pas weer op munten door heel het Rijk, nadat Constantius alleenheerser werd. Urbs Roma, met speer, en Constantinopolis, met scepter, werden gezamenlijk afgebeeld als zustersteden (Appendix 2, afbeeldingen 14, 15 en 18).

301

CURRICULUM VITAE Sanne van Poppel was bom on 15 November 1981 in Tilburg. She completed her secondary school in 1999 at the Sint Odulphuslyceum in Tilburg, after which she went to the Radboud University Nijmegen (then Catholic University of Nijmegen) to study History, with a specialisation in Ancient History. After graduating cum laude in 2005, she travelled to Rome and Münster to prepare a research proposal. In September 2008, she started her PhD project on the role of Rome in imperial politics and respresentations of power under the Constantinian dynasty at the department of History in Nijmegen. During her time as Junior Researcher, she stayed at the University of Heidelberg, the Royal Netherlands Institute of Rome and the Dutch Institutes in Athens and Istanbul for short research periods. Furthermore, she was a member of the teaching staff at the History department and co-organised a conference on the concept of unity in the fourth century (with Roald Dijkstra). As from June 2013, she works in the library of the Catholic University of Louvain in Kortrijk, Belgium.

303

STELLINGEN BIJ HET PROEFSCHRIFT VAN SANNE VAN POPPEL 1. De decennia onder Constantijns erfvolgers zijn niet uitvoerig behandeld door antieke historici en zijn eveneens in het wetenschappelijk discours onderbelicht gebleven. 2. Het systeem van de tetrarchie strandde op Constantijns machtspretenties en dynasticisme. 3. Verschillende gelegenheden waren voor Constans opportuun voor een bezoek aan Rome, maar hij lijkt Rome nooit bezocht te hebben gedurende zijn heerschappij. 4. Panegyristen waren diplomatieke woordvoerders met een eigen agenda. Met hun speeches benadrukten gaven zij een stem aan ‘een vurig verlangen om de keizer te zien’ in Rome (Claud. VI Cons.Hon. 333-336). 5. De impulsen van Constantijn en Constantius in Rome aan de profane en religieuze architectuur tonen aan dat de stad geen trivialiteit was voor de keizers. 6. De keizerlijke initiatieven van Constantijn en Constantius in Constantinopel markeerden de verminderde geopolitieke betekenis van Rome en benadrukten tegelijkertijd het belang van de stadsprefect en de Senaat voor Rome en het Rijk. 7. Tijdens de afwezigheid van de keizer uit Rome kregen senatoren de gelegenheid zelf hun stempel te drukken op de openbare ruimte van de stad en er zich te profileren. De afstand tot het keizerlijk hof dwong senatoren uit Rome er tegelijkertijd toe hun relatie met hun keizer te herdefiniëren. 8. Begin met het noodzakelijke, doe dan het mogelijke en plotseling doe je het onmogelijke - Bill Gates. 9. Vriendschap, energie en doorzettingsvermogen overwinnen alles. 10. Een lange afstandsrelatie laat zien hoe ver de liefde gaat (verhuizen voor de liefde naar een ander land ook).

From the Principate, the destiny of the Urbs, as the seat and symbol of power of the Empire, had been connected with the fate of the ruling emperor. Although Rome was of paramount importance for the legitimation of the power of the emperor Constantine, the City witnessed an almost constant imperial absence during the fifty years of dominion under the Constantinian dynasty. These central years of the fourth century saw the foundation and development of the city of Constantinople into a new residence of imperial power. Furthermore, the decades of Constantinian rule witnessed the gradual transformation of Rome from the Capital city of the Roman Empire towards the central seat of Christianity.

This study examines the role of the city of Rome in imperial politics and representations of power during the reigns of Constantine, Constans and Constantius. To uncover the City of Constantine, Constans and Constantius, I analyse the following four aspects: (i) the presence of emperors in Rome; (ii) the degree of imperial patronage reflected in building programmes in Rome; (iii) the relations between the emperors and the senatorial aristocracy in Rome; (iv) and finally, the representation of Rome in the imperial propaganda of Constantine, Constans and Constantius. For a proper evaluation of these leitmotifs, one needs to take into consideration the political-institutional and urbanistic developments of Constantinople, the new upcoming imperial Capital founded by Constantine.

ISBN: 978-94-6259-003-8