THE TRIUMPH OF DYNASTICISM IN THE ROMAN IMPERIAL SUCCESSION FROM THE PROCLAMATION OF DIOCLETIAN TO THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE by EDWARD GEORGE WILSON B.A., University of Victoria, 1965 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Classics We accept this thesis as conforming to the standard required from candidates for the degree of Mas/fce^ of Arts/ The University of British Columbia August, 1968 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Edward G. Wilson Department of Classics The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, B.C., Canada August 12, 1968 ABSTRACT The purpose of this thesis is to trace the constitutional methods by which stability was restored to the Roman Empire after the civil wars of the middle part of the third century. The core of the problem was the lack of any specific laws concerning the appointment of imperial successors and the predominance of the army in the politics of the period. During the first two centuries of the Christian era the hereditary principle, never recognized in law, had brought stability to the imperial succession but the emperor's fundamental role as commander-in-chief of the armies necessitated that the elective principle be invoked by the military in order to oppose the barbarian invasions. The failure of this system became manifest in the decline of imperial unity and indicated that a method had to be devised whereby the succession might become automatic and at the same time might ensure capable military leaders. By an investigation of the ancient literary sources, and especially those which record imperial propaganda, and to a lesser extent the legal codes, inscriptions, and coins, an attempt is made in this thesis to trace the restoration of stability in the imperial succession. This restoration was accomplished in two distinct stages. In the first Diocletian anticipated potential usurpers by associating them with himself in the imperial power. Diocletian's denial of hereditary right led to the downfall of his system, the Tetrarchy, but the restoration of imperial unity enabled the dynastic system to flourish in the second stage under Constantine and his successors. V TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. DIOCLETIAN AND THE TETRARCHY 11 III. THE COLLAPSE OF THE SECOND TETRARCHY ....... 55 IV. CONSTANTINE AND THE TRIUMPH OF DYNASTICISM 151 APPENDICES I. THE FLAVIAN, VALENTINIAN, AND THEODOSIAN DYNASTIES 234 II. MAJOR LITERARY SOURCES FOR THE YEARS A.D. 284-337 239 III. GENEALOGICAL TABLES 250 BIBLIOGRAPHY 253 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The writer would like to express his gratitude and indebtedness to Professors P. C. F. Guthrie and W. J. Dusing, the directors of this thesis, and to Professor J. Russell. Professor Guthrie suggested the title of the thesis and gave several references to books and articles on the period of Constantine. Professor Dusing shed considerable light on the period of the late Republic and early Empire and by so doing assisted in the composition of the first chapter. Finally, by suggesting reference to the recent publication of H. P. L*Orange Professor Russell made possible a more complete description of Diocletian and the Tetrarchy. Vll LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS A Epigr L'Annee Epigraphique CAH Cambridge Ancient History CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum CMH Cambridge Medieval History Cohen H. Cohen, Description Historique des Monnaies Frappees sous 1'Empire Romain CP Classical Philology EHR English Historical Review FHG Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JRS Journal of Roman Studies M. and S. H. Mattingly and E. A. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage MGH;AA Monumenta Germaniae Historica; Auctores Antiquissimi Num Chron Numismatic Chronicle PAPhS Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society" PG Patrologia Graeca PL Patrologia Latina RE Paulys Real-Encyclopadie der classischen Altertumswissenschafty edited by G. Wissowa, et al. Stuttgart from 1894 REA Revue des Etudes Anciennes REL Revue des Etudes Latines Rev Arch Revue Archeologique Rh M Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 1 Chapter One INTRODUCTION The purpose of this thesis is to trace the revival of dynasticism in the imperial succession from the commencement of the reign of Diocletian to the triumphant accession of the three sons of Constantine. The political importance of this period lies primarily in its return to the dynastic principle which had been in effect since the beginning of the principate and which was to remain the predominant influence in the imperial succession for the duration of the Roman Empire. In order to explain the later role of heredity in the imperial succession it is necessary first to trace the political history of the early Empire. ^ The republican system of government, featuring the mixed constitution with its system of checks and balances r was doomed once the legally invested authorities lost control over the armies and the citizen population. In 108 B.C. Marius began to undermine the civil authorities when he found it necessary to remove the l Because this introduction seeks only to illuminate the more important aspects of the succession up to the acclamation of Diocletian it contains little that cannot be found in the standard works on this period; consequently annotation is used for only the more important ancient references. Those who wish to study this period in greater detail are advised to consult the following: the relevant chapters in CAH 9-12; E. T. Salmon, A History of the Roman World ftO $iC~^A':Q.itt (London 1963); T. Rice Holmes, The Architect of the Roman Empxre (Oxford 1928); John Dickinson, Death of a Republic (New York 1963); Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution (Oxford 1960); Leon Homo, Roman Political Institutions from City to State (London 1962); J. B^ranger, "L'Heredite du Principat. Note sur la Transmission du Pouvoir Imperial aux deux premiers Siecles," REL 17 (1939) 171-187* HI. M. D. Parker,, A History of the Roman World A. Us 138-337 (London 1958"). 2 property qualifications for military service in order that sufficient recruits might be available. Heretofore the propertied classes had been eager to be discharged so as to return to their regular occupations, but with the formation of a professional army the need arose to devise some means of providing for the retirement of those who had never been well-to-do. The Senate's failure to accept the responsibility for providing the discharged with pensions and land sealed the doom both of itself and of the republican form of government. Generals such as Marius took advantage of the Senate's sloth and compelled their recruits to take the oath of allegiance to themselves, not to the state. In exchange for the soldiers' years of service the commander guaranteed to ensure that they were amply remunerated both during and after service. Such remuneration could be obtained only by legislative enactment, with the result that the commander occasionally found it necessary to use his army for the intimidation of the civilian authorities. Over the years whole provinces and subject states, as well as the armies, formed the clientele of a few high- ranking commanders. So long as there were several such commanders the Senate could retain considerable control by setting them at odds with one another, but it was inevitable that the day would come to pass when one general would overcome his last remaining competitor and the Senate would be powerless to oppose him. Such a commander was Gaius Julius Caesar. With a mighty army at his back and the resources of many of the provinces as well 3 as those of Egypt, he was able to force the Senate to give him the dictatorship for life. Because of the Senate's incapacity to manage an expanding Empire, Caesar determined that a continuation of what amounted to monarchy must be ensured. His association with the client kingdoms of the East convinced Caesar that only an hereditary monarchy based upon divine right could guarantee continuity of government. Caesar possessed the office of pontifex maximus and placed his own statues in the temples along with those of the kings in order to develop his sanctity. Since he had no son of adequate years he chose his grandnephew Octavius to be his successor. He let his choice be known by causing the Senate to give himself the title of Imperator, with the right to pass it on to his descendants, and, most of all, by adopting Octavius in his will 2 and making him his heir. Caesar did not live long enough to make Octavius his right-hand man in place of Antony; consequently the succession was fraught with difficulties, but one point became clear: this was the all-important role that Octavius' inheritance played in the defeat of the Republicans and Antony. Sheer tenacity and cunning were not enough, because Antony possessed all the glory; it was the adoption, even more than the inheritance, that endeared Octavius to Caesar's veterans; Antony's attempts to put down his rival were constantly frustrated by the refusal of Caesar's veterans to fight against Octavius and by their desertion to his side. Suet. Julius 83. 4 After his victory Octavian became master of the Roman world; the Senate was forced into the same servitude which it had suffered under Caesar and conferred upon him the name of Augustus.