Roman Governors of Syria in Late Antiquity: Problems and Perspectives of Prosopographic Research1 Pawel FILIPCZAK University of Lodz1 Aziz al-Azmeh claims that the origins of Islam are ultimately traceable to the profound evolution that occurred in the eastern part of the Mediterranean and consisted in the adoption of Greek elements into Roman civilisation. One of these, characteristic of the Hellenistic period, was the deification of the ruler: in accordance with this idea, the Romans came to regard their emperors as the worldly emanations of the divine. From the fourth century AD, with the development of the Christian theory of power, the emperor acted as both the head and guardian of the Church, while the monotheistic Christian religion accommodated the imperial and centralist needs of the state. It has been a long-established view among scholars, mentioned also by al-Azmeh, that Galerius, Diocletian and Constantine “instituted something like Caliphate”2. Even if evidently exaggerated (and captivating), both in terms of facts and chronology, the above statement accurately captures general parallelisms between the Roman empire of late antiquity and the Umayyad state with regard to the symbiotic relationship of religion and state. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the distance between theory and practice in this respect: it could have been (and often was) remarkably significant. Even the most peremptory of rulers had to depend on people executing his orders; likewise, even the best thought- out idea depended on people as regards its implementation. The people dealing with these “mundane” matters were the officials: they embodied the Romanitas and represented it in the provinces, including, of course, (1) This article has been written under the research project financed by the National Science Center (Poland). Decision number: DEC-2016/23//B/HS3/01891. (2) A. Al-Azmeh, The Emergence of Islam in Late Antiquity. Allāh and his people, Cambridge 2014, p. 94. 18 Pawel Filipczak Syria, Palestine and Arabia. If indeed, as Aziz al-Azmeh believes, “Islam was the end product of translation of Romanity to the East”3, then we should focus even more attentively on the officials who governed the eastern lands of the Roman Empire where a large part of the population was of Arab stock. There is another reason why the identity of the governors of Syro- Palestine should be seen as vital – the province was surrendered by the Byzantines so rapidly that we must inquire into the actual state of affairs in the administration of these regions on the eve of the Arab conquest. The issue lies not only in the question of the geographical aspects of administration, but most of all in the question of who governed these geopolitically important lands and in the quality of that government. Administrative divisions In Late Antiquity, the area of these two modern-day states, Syria and Lebanon, was divided into several smaller administrative units. From Septimius Severus to Diocletian, there were two provinces: the fairly large province of Celesyria (Syria Coele) and the relatively small province of Phoenician Syria (Syria Phoenices). Celesyria survived as an administrative unit throughout the fourth century, even though it was reduced with the separation of its eastern fringes, which formed the province of Euphratensis. As regards Phoenician Syria, Diocletian divided it into two smaller provinces: Augusta Libanensis and Phoenice. Under Theodosius II, Celesyria was divided into two smaller units: Syria I (Syria Prima) and Syria II (Syria Secunda). This territorial division survived until Justinian I, when it was subject to a minor correction: the small coastal region known as Theodorias was separated at the time from within the borders of the two Syrias. While it is probable that Syria’s administrative divisions remained unchanged until Heraclius, it is not easy to answer the question of when the old provincial system came to an end. If, as proposed by Irfan Shahîd, Heraclius established the division into themes as early as about AD 628–636, he should have removed the provinces at the same time. If the themes had not been established under Heraclius, but much later, as argued by a number of (3) Ibid p. 4. Roman Governors of Syria in Late Antiquity 19 critics of Shahîd’s theory, the provincial system must have survived at least until the Persian conquest (c. AD 613), or, if the provinces were re-established after the Persians had reversed, until the Arab conquest.4 The problem of sources in prosopographic research The most serious problem in prosopographic research concerning the governors of Syria is the availability and nature of the sources.5 They are indeed very unevenly distributed. The best covered of all is the fourth century, while the worst is by far the first half of the seventh century, which in fact remains a blind spot. To take a more detailed view, one should note that with reference to the fourth century we have the accounts of the “Antiochene” authors who were born in Syrian Antioch and stayed there for a long time (Libanius, John Chrysostom, Ammianus Marcellinus, and John Malalas). Most of them, with the exception of Malalas, lived in the fourth century and were mostly focused on describing contemporary events they were familiar with. With regard to the subject in question, the by far best documented historical period spans about forty years from roughly 353 and 393. From that time, there have survived 1,544 letters of Libanius the Rhetor, of which as many as 1,250 are dated to the decade AD 355–365; about 270 letters date back to the years 388–393 (other individual letters cover the years 353– 354 and 365–388).6 Riddled with ambiguities and extremely difficult (4) For more on the administrative geography of Syria in Late Antiquity and on the discussion about Irfan Shahîd’s theory, see my book An Introduction to Byzantine Administration in Syro-Palestine on the Eve of the Arab Conquest, Łódź 2015, pp. 1–6, 86–94. Among the many earlier works on the subject, see in particular these two: J.-R. Coquais, “Syrie romaine de Pompée à Diocletien”, Journal of Roman Studies 68, 1978, pp. 44–73; J. Balty, Sur la date de création de la Syria Secunda, Syria, 57, 1980, pp. 465–481. (5) For a comprehensive, detailed and competent discussion of the sources for late antique history dealing with classical historiography and Church history, as well as the normative, papyrological, numismatic and epigraphic types of evidence, cf. Vademecum historyka starożytnej Grecji i Rzymu, vol. III – Źródłoznawstwo późnego antyku, ed. E. Wipszycka, Warszawa 1999, pp. 657. (6) I use the classic edition: Libanii Opera, vol. X: Epistulae 1–839, rec. R. Foerster, Lipsiae 1921 (reprint: Hildesheim 1963); Libanii Opera, vol. XI: Epistulae 840–1544 una cum pseudepigraphis et Basilii cum Libanio commercio epistolico. Fragmenta, rec. R. Foerster, Lipsiae 1922 (reprint Hildesheim 1963; hereinafter: Libanius, Ep.); translations into modern languages: Libanii Sophistae Epistolae greace et latine, ed. J. Ch. Wolf, Amstelodamum 1738; Libanius, Autobiography and Selected Letters, vols. I–II, ed., transl. A.F. Norman, Cambridge 20 Pawel Filipczak to interpret, they nevertheless constitute the basis for our knowledge about the administrators of the Middle Eastern provinces (particularly the Syrian provinces) in Late Antiquity. This is mainly due to the fact that in many cases these letters were addressed to provincial governors, while the issues raised in these letters directly concerned those officials. Many letters were sent to other imperial officials, including diocese governors, praefecti pretorio, even the imperial court, but also to members of the city council of Antioch. It is in these texts, addressed to the ruling elite in the broadest sense, that we find a great deal of information on Syrian governors. Thus, if for the fourth century as a whole we know of almost 90 governors (48 governors of Syria, 30 governors of Phoenicia, and 11 governors of Euphratesia), then as many as 67 of them were in office between 353 and 394 (including 34 governors of Syria, 23 governors of Phoenicia, and 10 governors of Euphratesia).7 It is no wonder then that Libanius’ correspondence has served as the basis for most scholarly studies on this subject.8 In statistical terms, none of the subsequent centuries is even remotely as rich in information as the time when Libanius wrote his (Mass.) 1992; Selected Letters of Libanius from the Age of Constantius and Julian, transl., introd. S. Bradbury, Liverpool 2004; Letres aux hommes de son temps. Libanius. Lettres choisies, trad., comm. B. Cabouret, Paris 2000; Libanio, Cartas, introd., trad. y notas Á. González Gálvez, Madrid 2005. (7) A.H.M. Jones, J.R. Martindale, J. Morris, Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, vol. I: AD 260–395, Cambridge 1971 (hereinafter: PLRE I), pp. 1105–1110 (fasti). For the reviews, often negative, and corrections to the first volume of PLRE, cf. A.H.M. Jones, “Fifteen years of Late Roman Prosopography in the West” (1981–95), [in:] Medieval Prosopography 17/1, 1996, pp. 263–274. (8) Cf. G. Sievers, Das Leben des Libanius, Berlin 1868, pp. 324; O. Seeck, Die Briefe des Libanius zeitlich geordnet, Lepizig 1906, pp. 493; P. Petit, Les sénateurs de Constantinople dans l’oeuvre de Libanius, “L’antiquité classique”, t. 26, fasc. 2, 1957, pp. 347–382; P. Petit, Les étudiants de Libanius, Paris 1957, pp. 206; R. Pack, Curiales in the correspondence of Libanius, [in:] Libanius, hrsg. G. Fatouros, T. Krischer, Darmstadt 1983, pp. 185–205; P. Petit, Les fonctionnaires dans l’oeuvre de Libanius. Analyse prosopographique, Paris 1994; S. Bradbury, A Sophistic Prefect: Anatolius of Berytus in the Letters of Libanius, Classical Philology 95.2, 2000, pp. 172–186. Letters and speeches of Libanius are used, along with many other sources, by G.