Constantine, the Tetrarchy, and the Emperor Augustus

Chapter 5 Constantine, the Tetrarchy, and the Emperor Augustus

Catherine Ware

A strong case can be made for regarding Constantine as the most significant figure in the Panegyrici Latini corpus. He features in five of the twelve orations, and the collection closes with a speech in his honour. A reader of the collection begins with the juxtaposition of Pliny’s Trajan from a.d. 100 and Pacatus’ Theodosius of 389, is then led back through a century of emperors, from Julian (iii[11] of 362) to Maximian and the Tetrarchy (x[2]‌, xi[3] c. 291),1 and is finally redirected to the Constantine of 313 (xii[9]), a striking conclusion to a corpus which is presented, with the exception of the first and last orations, in reverse chronological order.2 As the final honorand of the collection, Constantine balanced Trajan but if Trajan was optimus, Constantine matched and even surpassed him with the last word: tu sis omnium maximus imperator (‘you are the greatest emperor of all’, xii[9]26.5).3 Taking the speeches as a macrotext, the reader can examine in detail Constantine’s evolving image on his journey to maximus imperator as he is uniquely presented at different and significant stages in his career. Within the sub-collection of the panegyrici vii diuersorum,4 he emerges as the single successor to the Tetrarchs; in the collection as a whole he is shown variously as the new Heraclian Augustus (vii[6]),‌ the patron of Autun (v[8]), the sav- iour of Rome (xii[9]), and a mature ruler whose sons were celebrating their own quinquennalia (iv[10]). No other emperor in the collection received such

1 On dating, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 42–3, 76–9. 2 On the addition of this speech to the Panegyrici diuersorum vii, see Pichon 1906, 284–5, 289–30; Galletier 1949, xi; Barnes 2011, 183. 3 It is difficult not to arrive at this interpretation if these words are read as a sphragis in a speech deliberately placed at the end of the collection. In the context of the speech itself, as a document of a.d. 313, the phrase most likely refers to Constantine’s superiority over Licinius, see Nixon and Rodgers 1994, 333. 4 Several manuscripts give the heading panegyrici diuersorum vii to v(8) and it is thought that v(8) to xi(3) form the nucleus of the entire collection, originally compiled in 311–12.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | DOI 10.1163/9789004370920_007 114 Ware detailed, even biographical, treatment,5 and as each panegyric was written for a different occasion and in response to different political circumstances, the reader of the corpus is presented with an in-depth portrayal of this one emperor and his exercise of imperium. The coherent structure of these speeches makes plausible, even tempting, the notion that Constantine’s image was carefully crafted throughout his career. There are intertextual links between all the panegyrics and intertextuality is utilised to particular purpose in the speech of 310 which derives much of its impact through rejection of the oration of 307.6 The earlier speech had introduced Constantine as a new Augustus, honouring his elevation to Augustus, his marriage to the daughter of Maximian, his entry to the imperial college and the eternal reign of the Tetrarchy, immortale … imperium (vii[6]2.2).‌ He and Maximian were hailed as emperors forever under the protection of Hercules, imperatores semper Herculii (2.5). Three years later, Constantine had defeated his father-in-law and stood alone. The panegyric of 310 claims for him a new right to rule through descent from Claudius ii and a new divine patron in his vision of Apollo. With hindsight, one could argue that Constantine had begun his journey to sole ruler of Rome and had already put himself under the protection of the solar deity with whom he would be associated for much of his career. While there is no direct evidence for such a conclusion, it can certainly be argued that there is strong evidence in vi(7) of Constantine’s desire to sep- arate himself from Tetrarchic influence and ideology and to establish his own distinct identity, a new identity which was being created in this speech. It was a persona which would be consistent with his presentation in the later panegyrics and indeed throughout his career.7 The question remains, however, as to who was responsible for the creation of this new identity in the speech of 310. The panegyrist himself declared that the information he presented was unfamiliar to most,8 and this has prompted considerable scholarly discussion as to whether Constantine or the orator was

5 Constantius I features in two of the orations and Maximian in three but the goal of Tetrarchic panegyrics is to honour an individual in terms of his group identity. There is very little asser- tion of individuality and no question of an evolving image. 6 Ware 2014, 90–4. 7 On solar imagery in Constantinian artefacts, see Bardill 2012, 169–202, for the separation of the emperor from Sol, 326–31. 8 Descent from Claudius ii is introduced by quod plerique adhuc fortasse nesciunt (‘which many still perhaps do not know’, vi[7]‌2.1) while the vision of Constantine is described in terms of (rhetorical) disbelief: immo quid dico ‘credo’? (‘but why do I say “I believe”?’, 21.5); see Barnes 1981, 36.