UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Studies in the lives of the sons of Constantine Wilson, Edward George 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A1 W54_9.pdf [ 17.56MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094238.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094238-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094238-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094238-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094238-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094238-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094238-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094238-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094238.ris

Full Text

STUDIES IN THE LIVES OF THE SONS OF CONSTANTINE by EDWARD GEORGE WILSON B.A., University of V i c t o r i a , 1965 M.A., University of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Cla s s i c s ) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1 9 7 7 Edward George Wilson, 1 9 7 7 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of C l a s s i c s The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia Dominion of Canada V6T 1W5 Research Supervisors: J . A. S. Evans and M. F. McGregor ABSTRACT The reigns of the emperor Constantine the Great and of h i s nephew J u l i a n the Apostate have fascinated scholars from the fourth century to the present day. Some have seen i n Constantine the founder of the Middle Ages and i n J u l i a n the l a s t flowering of the pagan world. However, the eighteen years that passed between the death of Constantine i n 337 and the proclamation of J u l i a n as Caesar i n 355 have received very l i t t l e a t tention because of the paucity of the sources f o r t h i s period. Only 0. Seeck, i n his monumental Gesckichte des Untevgang dev antiken Welt (Stuttgart 1922), and G. G i g l i , i n h i s notes e n t i t l e d La dinastia dei seeondi Flavii: Costantino II, Costante, Costanzo II (337-361) (Rome 1959), have attempted a d e t a i l e d analysis of t h i s period, but Seeck's volume, though s t i l l e s s e n t i a l , has been rendered somewhat dated by recent numismatic and prosopographical studies while G i g l i ' s , which i s far l e s s thorough, emphasizes the r e l i g i o u s problems of the age at the expense of the p o l i t i c a l . The task undertaken i n t h i s study i s to determine the workings of the court during the period for which source-material i s poorest (i.e., 337-353) and to show how the government ruled with an ir o n hand by Constantine I degenerated into the weak administration of Constantius II as revealed i n the f i r s t s u r v iving books of Ammianus Marcellinus. Because the period under consideration i s poorly documented i n i v the l i t e r a r y sources, thorough use has been made of the epigraphical, numismatic, and l e g a l sources. The study of the p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c e s of the sons of Constantine i s aided to a great extent by an examination of the careers of both t h e i r appointees and t h e i r opponents. At times the p o l i t i c s of the period are r e f l e c t e d i n the contemporary r e l i g i o u s disputes, e s p e c i a l l y i n the struggle of Athanasius to overcome the Arian heresy. In other cases the workings of the government can be discerned i n the careers of prominent bureaucrats, e s p e c i a l l y the grand chamber-l a i n Eusebius and the praetorian prefects Ablabius, F l a v i u s Philippus, and Fabius T i t i a n u s . These chapters encompass the t r a i n i n g of the sons (including Crispus, Constantine I I , Constantius I I , and Constans), the massacre of t h e i r r e l a t i v e s upon the death of t h e i r father, the dispute between Constantine II and Constans, the j o i n t reign of Constantius II and Constans, the overthrow of Constans by Magnentius, and the recovery of the West by Constantius I I . The main conclusion reached i s that the characters and reigns of the sons of Constantine were determined for the most part not by heredity, nor by the i n s t r u c t i o n s of t h e i r father, but by t h e i r teachers during t h e i r youth and by t h e i r advisers at court a f t e r the death of t h e i r father. Constantine the Great both reigned and ruled, since he had the t r a i n i n g of a s o l d i e r and achieved supremacy by c a r e f u l strategy against considerable odds. His sons, however, succeeded to the throne before they were old enough to shake off the influence of t h e i r c o u r t i e r s and can be said only to have reigned, not to have ruled. The executions of t h e i r half-brother Crispus and t h e i r mother Fausta rendered them suspicious and insecure, to the end that they trusted only the bureaucrats at court and feared the prefects and generals i n the provinces and even one another. A great b a r r i e r arose between the thr sons and the problems of t h e i r subjects. This b a r r i e r , the c e n t r a l bureaucracy, grew more corrupt while the i n i t i a t i v e of the armies and p r o v i n c i a l s was sapped. The weakness of the three sons foreshadows that of Arcadius and Honorius i n the t w i l i g h t of the Roman Empire. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix DEDICATIO x ABBREVIATIONS x i CHAPTER ONE: THE SONS AS CAESARS (1) Problem of the Imperial Succession 1 (2) Crispus, L i c i n i u s I I , and Constantine II Made Caesars 7 1 (3) The Training of the New Caesars 13 (4) The War Against L i c i n i u s 19 (5) Constantius II Made Caesar 21 (6) The Death of Crispus 27 (7) Constantine II and Constantius II 327-333 33 (8) Constans Made Caesar 34 (9) Dalmatius Made Caesar' and Hannibalianus Made King of Kings 38 (10) The Training of the Caesars 43 (11) The Death of Constantine 46 Notes to Chapter One 48 CHAPTER TWO: THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE I AND THE MURDER OF CONSTANTINE II (1) Eusebius and the Massacre of 337 64 (2) Traditions Surrounding the Massacre of 337 66 v i v i i Page (3) The Victims of the Massacre of 337 78 (4) Summary of Events Surrounding the Death of Constantine the Great 92 (5) The Meeting of the Three Sons i n 337 97 (6) The D i v i s i o n of Authority i n 337 100 (7) The Problem of the I n i t i a t i o n of L e g i s l a t i o n 105 (8) The Nomination of the Consuls 338-340 106 (9) The Authority of Constantine II and Constantius II . . . . 108 (10) The Honours Paid to Constantine 1 110 (11) The Praetorian Prefects 337-340 114 (12) Urban Prefects and Other O f f i c i a l s 337-340 120 (13) The Return of Athanasius and His Second E x i l e 122 (14) Constantius II i n the East 337-340 124 (15) Constantine II and Constans 337-338 125 (16) The Revolt of Constans 128 (17) The Death of Constantine II 136 Notes to Chapter Two ( 141 CHAPTER THREE: THE JOINT RULE OF CONSTANTIUS II AND CONSTANS (1) Constantius II i n the East 340-349 163 (2) Constans i n the West 340-349 170 (3) The Relationship between Constantius II and Constans 181 (4) The Fate of the Survivors of the Massacre of 337 184 (5) The Struggle of Athanasius and the Triumph of To l e r a t i o n 188 (6) The Consuls 340-350 198 v i i i Page (7) The Praetorian Prefects 340-350. 211 (8) The Urban Prefects 340-350 218 (9) Other O f f i c i a l s 340-350 223 (10) Libanius and the Anniversary of 348 227 Notes to Chapter Three 230 CHAPTER FOUR: THE DEATH OF CONSTANS AND THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST MAGNENTIUS (1) The Revolt of Magnentius 250 (2) The Revolt of Vetranio 261 (3) The O f f i c i a l s of Magnentius 264 (4) Preparations and Negotiations before Mursa 270 (5) The Campaign of 351 279 (6) The Last Months of Magnentius 284 Notes to Chapter Four 293 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 311 Notes to Chapter Five 330 BIBLIOGRAPHY . 331 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S I should l i k e to express my gratitude and indebtedness to Professors J . A. S. Evans and Malcolm F. McGregor, the d i r e c t o r s of t h i s study. Professor Evans shed considerable l i g h t upon the coinage of the fourth century and, i n h i s absence, Professor McGregor turned from the study of the age of P e r i c l e s and devoted himself to t h i s l a t e r , and more decadent, period. I also thank Professors W. J. Dusing and K. A. Dusing for a s s i s t i n g i n t h i s study and for i n s t r u c t i n g me i n the p o l i t i c s of the Late Republic and the chaos of the t h i r d century. My colleagues i n the Faculty of Graduate Studies at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia were frequently h e l p f u l , most of a l l Gary B. Ferngren by the example he set and David G. 0. Smith by h i s penetrating analysis of Roman h i s t o r y . I am indebted also to the l a t e P. C. F. Guthrie of t h i s u n i v e r s i t y , who instru c t e d me i n Ammianus Marcellinus and L a t i n epigraphy and also suggested the t i t l e of t h i s work. I appreciate the advice of J . P. C. Kent, of the B r i t i s h Museum, who provided valuable assistance i n evaluating the rare coins of t h i s period, and also the incitement given by Professor Geoffrey Archbold, of the U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , who was the f i r s t to acquaint me, then an undergraduate, with the h i s t o r y of the Roman Empire. F i n a l l y , I express my thanks to my parents and my great aunt, Audrey M. Ginn, without whose kindness and support t h i s t r e a t i s e would never have been completed. E. G. W. i x DEDICATIO In Memoriam P. C. F. Guthrie V i r i Docti atque Amicissimi x ABBREVIATIONS For the most part, ancient authors and texts are given according to the standard abbreviations found i n L i d d e l l and Scott and Lewis and Short. References to modern works are frequently given by author and short t i t l e . Both ancient and modern works are l i s t e d i n t h e i r complete forms i n the bibliography, where d e t a i l s for the following abbreviations can be found. Whenever possible, the standard abbreviations l i s t e d i n L'Annee Philologique are u t i l i z e d . AAT A t t i d e l l a Accademia delle Scienze di Torino AE L 'Ann&e Epigraphique AlPhO Annuaive de I'Institut de Philologie et d'Histoire Orientates de V,"Univevsite" Libre de Bruxelles AJP American Journal of Philology Art. Pass. Johannes Damascenus, Sancti Artemii Passio BAGB B u l l e t i n de 1'Association Guiltaume Bud§ BSAF B u l l e t i n de la Socie'te' nationale des Antiquaires de France BSAP B u l l e t i n de la Societe des Antiquaires de Picardie BSFN B u l l e t i n de la Socie'te' franqaise de Numismatique Bude Les belles lettres: C o l l e c t i o n des universit£s de France publi£e sous te patronage de 1'association Guillaume Bud& ByzZ Byzantinische Zeitschrift CAAH Cahiers alsaciens d1 Arch&ologie, d'Art et d'Histoire CAH Cambridge Ancient History x i x i i CIL Corpus Ins criptionum Latinarum CJ Codex Justinianus CUE Cambridge Mediaeval History Cohen H. Cohen, Description historique des monnaies frappees sous I 'empire romain CPh Classical Philology CRAI Comptes Rendus de I'Acadimie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres CSCA California Studies in Classical Antiquity CSHB Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae CTh Codex Theodosianus Degrassi A. Degrassi, I fasti consolari dell'impero romano EHR English Historical Review FHG Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum Gibbon E. Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire IGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad Res Romanas Pertinentes ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies JNG Jahrbuch fur Numismatik und Geldgeschichte JRS Journal of Roman Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LRBC Late Roman Bronze Coinage LRE A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 284-602. MGH-.AA Monumenta Germaniae Historical Auctores Antiquissimi NC Numismatic Chronicle x i i i NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the C h r i s t i a n Church NZ Numismatische Zeitschrift PBA Proceedings of the B r i t i s h Academy PG Patrologia Graeca PL Patrologia Latina PLRE A. H. M. Jones, J . R. Martindale, and J . Morris, The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, Vol. I RBN Revue Beige de Numismatique RE A. Pauly et a l . , Real-Encyclop'ddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft REA Revue des Etudes Anciennes RFIC R i v i s t a di F i l o l o g i a e d'Istruzione Classica RIC Roman Imperial Coinage RhM Rheinisches Museum fur P h i l o l o g i e RN Revue Numismatique San Journal of the Society of Ancient Numismatics SNR Schweizerische Numismatische Rundschau SPFB Sbornik Praci F i l o s o f i c k e Fak Stein-Palanque E. Stein and J.-R. Palanque, Histoire du bas-empire I Teubner Bibliotheca Teubneriana ZAnt Ziva Antike 0 CHAPTER ONE THE SONS AS CAESARS (1) Problem of the Imperial Succession On 22 May 337 Constantine the Great died at Nicomedia while making preparations for an expedition against the Persian forces of Sapor II . For some twenty years he had been making provisions f o r the succession i n the event of his sudden demise and i t was now that they would come to the t e s t . His s o l u t i o n to the problem of ensuring a peaceful t r a n s i t i o n of the imperial authority was based upon h i s own successful r i s e to power a f t e r the death of h i s father Constantius I. Seeing the strong appeal of dynastic l o y a l t y i n h i s own case, Constantine had determined to place h i s confidence i n the members of h i s own family, thereby r e j e c t i n g the a r t i f i c i a l system of D i o c l e t i a n , i t s e l f a r e s u l t of Di o c l e t i a n ' s lack of a son, and the forced m i l i t a r y proclamations of the t h i r d century. Constantine did succeed i n eliminating the a c t i v e r o l e of the army immediately a f t e r h i s death, but he f a i l e d to s t i f l e completely the machinations of the o f f i c e r s at court, themselves eager to make use of the army for t h e i r own ends. In order to put the imperial succession of 337 into i t s context, i t w i l l be necessary f i r s t to survey the p r a c t i c e s that had evolved during the f i r s t three centuries of the Empire and, secondly, to describe the changes i n plans for the succession, changes di c t a t e d p a r t l y by p o l i t i c a l considerations 1 2 and p a r t l y by the growth of the imperial family. This w i l l lead to an appreciation of the problems faced by the administration upon the death of the elder statesman. During the course of the Empire few methods had been u t i l i z e d i n order to achieve change and cont i n u i t y i n administration. The primary weakness was that, apart from natural death, the only means of securing a change was the v i o l e n t one of revolution. The growth of absolutism rendered in c r e a s i n g l y impractical the continued existence of the rejected autocrat. Thus there was no a l t e r n a t i v e to the outright murder of such as Gaius and Domitian. There were no s p e c i f i e d r u l e s , agreed upon by the major segments of the community, f or ensuring continuity i n administration, but c e r t a i n influences achieved a primary place. The hereditary p r i n c i p l e , so powerful i n the great f a m i l i e s of the Republic, continued to be dominant i n the Principate, being transferred simply from the pri v a t e to the pu b l i c sphere. Claudius was chosen despite h i s enforced obscurity, but the common p r a c t i c e was for the intended successor, u s u a l l y the close s t male r e l a t i o n , to be granted at l e a s t some of the chief powers and, above a l l , public acclaim i n preparation f o r h i s future r u l e . In t h i s way Augustus reinf o r c e d the p r i n c i p l e of heredity, and most of h i s successors followed s u i t . The Senate of Rome preferred to think that i t played a primary part i n determining the executive branch i n government, but i t could enjoy success only when i t s members acted as one, as, for instance, when i t succeeded i n r a l l y i n g public support behind Balbinus and Pupienus. Under normal circumstances, however, the senators themselves were leading contenders for the executive post; t h i s s i t u a t i o n merely r e f l e c t e d the 3 competition among the great f a m i l i e s during the l a t e Republic."'' The Assembly of Rome played no r o l e during the imperial period. In an empire that owed both i t s beginning and i t s continued existence to m i l i t a r y might, the army can be expected to have played a fundamental r o l e , and so i t did. M i l i t a r y d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n was the main reason for Nero's suic i d e ; the Senate condemned him only a f t e r hearing of Galba's r e v o l t . Whenever there was a r e v o l t against the l a s t surviving member of a dynasty, m i l i t a r y anarchy was bound to ensue u n t i l one commander should emerge supreme. If he had o f f s p r i n g of h i s own, as Vdspasian had, he was bound by p r a c t i c a l considerations, i f not by paternal a f f e c t i o n , to groom them f o r the succession. I f , l i k e Hadrian, he had no male h e i r s , he could resort to the adoption of a f a v o u r i t e i n 2 order to ensure continuity. The army showed a strong tendency to favour the dynastic system, supporting Elagabalus a f t e r the murder of Caracalla and Severus Alexander i n turn a f t e r the sudden demise of i t s former favourite. Crises were bound to a r i s e whenever dynasties ended, e s p e c i a l l y when many outstanding candidates were a v a i l a b l e and pressure on the f r o n t i e r s made a rapid choice desirable. This was the case a f t e r the murder of Alexander, and i n the ensuing years several emperors, such as P h i l i p the Arab, attempted to provide a peaceful succession by the nomination of t h e i r sons to the post of Caesar, but did so i n vain because of the weakness of t h e i r own p o s i t i o n ; the son was i n v a r i a b l y slaughtered with the father. D i o c l e t i a n was the f i r s t to consolidate h i s power for an extended period. He did t h i s by a n t i c i p a t i n g the action of the army, appointing a colleague i n the administration. When t h i s diarchy proved to be incapable of managing a l l the concerns, i t was 4 enlarged to the status of a tetrarchy by the addition of two Caesars. D i o c l e t i a n had no son and was compelled to choose outside h i s family for a j u n i o r partner. His fellow Augustus, Maximian, had a son but was persuaded to bypass him on the ground of h i s i n s u f f i c i e n t years. Two outsiders, Constantius I and Galerius, were adopted and each was forced to repudiate h i s own spouse and to marry the daughter of h i s Augustus. We can be c e r t a i n that D i o c l e t i a n acted as he did as a r e s u l t of necessity; he had no son and had to choose another. Maximian's son was excluded because of h i s youth; the time had not yet arrived when 3 conditions were so s e t t l e d that s t r i p l i n g s could succeed to the throne. The tetrarchy worked well but D i o c l e t i a n determined that he and his colleague should abdicate and entrust t h e i r powers to younger men. This being the case, new Caesars had to be chosen. If the standard e a r l i e r p r a c t i c e has been followed, Maximian's son Maxentius and Constantius l ' s son Constantine would have been chosen. Galerius had a son Candidianus who was s t i l l a mere boy. Maxentius and Constantine were now old enough but were rejected as lacking i n subservience to Galerius. The hereditary method was abandoned once again and D i o c l e t i a n resorted to Maximin Daia, a nephew of Galerius, and to Severus, both l o y a l supporters of the eastern r u l e r s . D i o c l e t i a n l i v e d to see h i s house of cards i n ruins. The second tetrarchy (with Constantius I and Galerius as Augusti and Severus and Maximin Daia as Caesars) was soon seen to v i o l a t e the basic i n s t i n c t s of the army. When Constantius I died suddenly at York i n 306, his army t o t a l l y neglected the Caesar Severus and h a i l e d as Augustus Constantius l ' s own son Constantine. Thus early i n h i s career Constantine beheld the strength of dynastic 5 l o y a l t y i n the army; i t was t h i s experience that was to shape his own plans f o r the succession. The successful r e v o l t of Maxentius at Rome l a t e r i n the same year served to confirm t h i s l o y a l t y . Ten years passed, during which time the members of the f i r s t and second t e t r a r c h i e s succumbed to disease, o l d age, murder, and c i v i l war u n t i l only Constantine and L i c i n i u s , a nominee of Galerius, were l e f t as Augusti. D i o c l e t i a n had died i n retirement. Maximian, a f t e r three unsuccessful attempts to regain the imperial power at the expense of h i s son or of h i s son-in-law Constantine, was ordered by the l a t t e r to y i e l d to the ultimate necessity. Galerius had died of disease, having entrusted h i s realm to his f r i e n d L i c i n i u s . Maxentius l o s t h i s elder son Romulus i n 309 by natural causes and, when he himself was k i l l e d at the Milvian Bridge, h i s wife and younger son were put to death by Constantine, two of the few victims i n a purge more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Constantine's moderation i n h i s early years than of h i s suspicion and 4 b r u t a l i t y at a l a t e r time. Maximin Daia, defeated on the f i e l d of b a t t l e by L i c i n i u s , f l e d to Tarsus, where he f e l l i l l and died. L i c i n i u s , also respecting the strength of dynastic l o y a l t y , next indulged i n the greatest imperial bloodbath since the dawn of the Principate. Just as Constantine had eliminated the family of Maxentius, so now L i c i n i u s , having gained c o n t r o l of the survivors i n the East, set out to destroy a l l possible claimants to the army's l o y a l t y . A l l who were i n any way rel a t e d to Maximin Daia or who had taken refuge at his court were endangered. Daia's wife, h i s eight-year old son, and h i s seven-year old daughter who had been betrothed to Galerius' son Candidianus, were a l l put to death. D i o c l e t i a n ' s wife P r i s c a , Galerius' wife V a l e r i a and son 6 Candidianus, and Severus' son Severianus had a l l f l e d to Daia's court, either a n t i c i p a t i n g that he would emerge the ultimate v i c t o r or fearing the suspicious nature of L i c i n i u s even before the contest. Candidianus and Severianus were put to death immediately. V a l e r i a and P r i s c a managed to escape for f i f t e e n months but were found hiding i n Thessalonica and put to death; i t i s quite l i k e l y that they were attempting to f l e e to the court of Constantine, who was i n c r e a s i n g l y at enmity with L i c i n i u s . In t h i s way L i c i n i u s eliminated a l l possible contenders for h i s power i n the East."* Several of the chief ministers of Daia, including the f i n a n c i a l prefect Peucetius and the former prefect of Egypt, Culcianus, were also put to death.^ In t h i s way L i c i n i u s set a precedent for the mass slaughter that was to follow the death of Constantine, the only d i f f e r e n c e being that he butchered those outside his own family on the ground that they had dynastic claims of t h e i r own. The elimination of Maxentius and Daia l e f t Constantine i n possession of I t a l y , A f r i c a , Raetia, and the rest of the West, while L i c i n i u s c o n t r o l l e d Pannonia, Moesia, Thrace, and the rest of the East. The two imperial f a m i l i e s were united by the marriage of Constantine's s i s t e r Constantia with L i c i n i u s , an event celebrated during the conference at Milan i n January 313.^ This unity, d i c t a t e d by the exigencies of war, was f a r weaker than the bond between D i o c l e t i a n and Maximian had been; Maximian and the Caesars had owed t h e i r imperial rank to D i o c l e t i a n alone, but Constantine owed his p o s i t i o n to h i s father and the army, while L i c i n i u s derived h i s from Galerius. An attempt was made to create a buffer zone of sorts by the establishment of a supposedly 7 neutral Caesar i n charge of I t a l y and Il l y r i c u m . The p o t e n t i a l Caesar, Bassianus, panicked when the two Augusti were unable to agree on the t e r r i t o r y that each would surrender and, when he t r i e d to r e v o l t against g Constantine, he was arrested and executed. Thus the attempt to secure a modus Vivendi between the Augusti resulted i n open warfare. Constantine was at f i r s t v i c t o r i o u s but a stalemate arose at the Campus Mardiensis i n Thrace, compelling both to reach an accommodation. Constantine was allowed to keep h i s i l l - g o t t e n gains, Pannonia and 9 Moesia, while L i c i n i u s retained Thrace and the rest of the East. (2) Crispus, L i c i n i u s I I , and  Constantine II Made Caesars Once peace had been restored, Constantine and L i c i n i u s were able to give attention to the problem of the succession. There was no attempt to res o r t to D i o c l e t i a n ' s system of a tetrarchy; that had been a r e s u l t of Di o c l e t i a n ' s lack of a male heir and of the unsettled conditions at the time. In the present case both Augusti had sons. Nor was there an attempt to resort to the system of a t r i a r c h y , which had already proved abortive i n the case of Bassianus. Instead, Constantine and L i c i n i u s resorted to the purely dynastic p r a c t i c e of an e a r l i e r period, the main di f f e r e n c e being that t h e i r sons were s t i l l c h i l d r e n , quite incapable of playing an act i v e r o l e i n the administration for at lea s t several years. The expectation was that t h e i r sons would serve merely as he i r s apparent and would not be required to render a c t i v e service, as had been the case for D i o c l e t i a n ' s Caesars. On 1 March 317 at Serdica, near the boundary of the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the Augusti, 8 Constantine decreed i n the absence of L i c i n i u s that his own sons, Fl a v i u s J u l i u s Crispus and F l a v i u s Claudius Constantinus, and L i c i n i u s ' son, V a l e r i u s L i c i n i a n u s L i c i n i u s , should be given the rank of Caesar."^ Since the background and f a t e of these Caesars were to have some bearing on the period subsequent to Constantine's death, a b r i e f account w i l l now be given of each of them. Crispus was by far the eldest of the three Caesars. We do not know the precise date of h i s b i r t h but, since he had an o f f s p r i n g of h i s own during 322,"*"^  we can be c e r t a i n that he was born no l a t e r than 305, probably i n 303. He was the son of Minervina, referred to unanimously 12 as a concubine by those sources that deign to mention her at a l l . It i s quite l i k e l y that she died i n c h i l d b i r t h , since no mention i s made of her thereafter. When Constantine married Fausta on 31 March 307 for 13 what were manifestly p o l i t i c a l ends, Crispus became her step-son. Fausta h e r s e l f was about twenty years of age at the time of her 14 marriage. Since the childhood of Constantine II i s of greater importance f o r t h i s study, more emphasis must be given to the problems surrounding his early l i f e . Otto Seeck, whose opinion has been treated as gospel even recently by the editors of the PLRE, was of the opinion that Constantine II was not a son of Fausta and that, therefore, he was a bastard o f f s p r i n g of Constantine."'""' If true, t h i s opinion would do much to explain the l a t e r enmity between Constantine II and h i s younger brothers. However, i t i s my opinion that Constantine II was the eldest son of Fausta and that J.-R. Palanque and P. C. F. Guthrie adduce good 16 evidence for t h i s conclusion. Seeck's opinion was based p r i m a r i l y on 9 the evidence given by Zosimus and the Epitome a t t r i b u t e d to V i c t o r . Zosimus i n his hatred for Constantine declares that Constantine I I , together with h i s younger brothers Constantius II and Constans, were born O U K ai\b $aOaxris Tns xou 'EpjcouMou Ma^iyiavou euyctTpos, aAA' *» < ' ' 17 aAAns, n yoixefas eTTayayaiv y£y'ijuv a i r e i c T e i v e v . This statement i s manifestly f a l s e , since Zosimus confuses Fausta with Minervina; also, when Zosimus describes the appointment of the Caesars he i s c a r e f u l to point out Crispus' parentage but makes no e f f o r t to show that Constant-18 ine II's was s i m i l a r ; i n e f f e c t , then, Zosimus contradicts himself and his evidence can be excluded. There i s , of course, the remote p o s s i b i l i t y that a l l Constantine's o f f s p r i n g born a f t e r h i s marriage to Fausta were not hers but rather the products of a concubine; t h i s could well have been the case had Fausta been i n f e r t i l e . Fausta's l a t e r a ction i n protecting her three sons from her step - s o n Crispus excludes t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y . Besides, what was important was that i t should be conceivable that Fausta was the mother, that i s , that she should be of adequate years and that the c h i l d r e n concerned should be born at s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r v a l s . Born i n approximately 287, Fausta was quite o l d enough to have c h i l d r e n as many as t h i r t e e n years before the appointment of the Caesars. What troubled Seeck was the i n t e r v a l between the b i r t h s of Constantine II and Constantius I I . It i s c e r t a i n that Constantius II was born on 7 August 317, only some f i v e months a f t e r the appointment of the three Caesars."*"^ Zosimus states that Constantine II was born ou irpb * 20 iroAAwv nyepwv the appointment of the Caesars and the Epitome that he 21 was born iisdem diebus, that i s , that he was born, i n February of 317. If t h i s were the case he could not be a son of Fausta. Seeck also 10 adopted Mommsen's reading of JLS 710, thereby accepting the i n s c r i p t i o n as one dedicated to Fausta and as r e f e r r i n g to her as the noverea of 22 Crispus, Constantine I I , and Constantius I I . As Guthrie reveals, t h i s i n s c r i p t i o n cannot be used as a r e l i a b l e guide since much of i t has been thoroughly erased; we cannot even be c e r t a i n that the i n s c r i p t i o n was 23 dedicated to Fausta. The remaining i n s c r i p t i o n s and the coins give no cause to doubt the legitimacy of Constantine II or of either of his 24 younger brothers, and J u l i a n i s c a r e f u l to emphasize that a l l three 25 were sons of Fausta. There i s a further i n d i c a t i o n that Constantine II was a legitimate son of Fausta, and that i s the statement of the 26 Epitome that Constantius II died i n h i s f o r t y - f o u r t h year. A l l the other sources, including Ammianus and Eutropius, agree that he died i n his f o r t y - f i f t h year. From t h i s i t appears that the author of the Epitome and Zosimus, who seems to have followed the same t r a d i t i o n f o r t h i s period, were under the impression that Constantius II was born i n 27 318; t h i s being the case, they would have seen no c o n f l i c t between the birth-dates of the two Caesars. If they were mistaken about the b i r t h -date of Constantius I I , the chances are that t h i s led them to confuse that of Constantine II as w e l l . Though they may have been mistaken regarding the dates, t h i s does not mean that they erred i n s t a t i n g Arelate to be the b i r t h p l a c e of Constantine I I , and therein l i e s a guide 28 to h i s dies natalis. Constantine was at Arelate on 13 August 316, whither he had gone from Vienna; thereafter he went to Serdica and Sirmium. In those troubled times of c i v i l war and incursions on the f r o n t i e r s i t was most unusual for Constantine to journey to the more peaceful areas of the Empire except f o r a set purpose; i n t h i s case i t 11 i s possible that he journeyed to Ar e l a t e i n order to behold h i s newborn son; t h i s leads us to believe that Constantine II was born i n Arelate i n July or early August of 316, one year e a r l i e r than his younger brother. 29 Here l i e s further evidence of the leg i t i m a t e status of Constantine II. But i f , by some chance, Constantine II was born as l a t e as February of 317, Constantine was quite capable of u t i l i z i n g his bureaucratic machine to convince the populace of h i s son's legitimacy, f o r he could r e c a l l that t e l l i n g quotation handed down by Suetonius: to is euxuxouo"1 <a -^< x< 3 0 xplynva iraiola. The o r i g i n s of L i c i n i u s II remain to be discussed. They would not merit a t t e n t i o n were i t not for h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p to Constantine and his common fate with Crispus. The question i s whether he was d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to Constantine. The l i t e r a r y sources are unanimous i n r e f e r r i n g 31 to him as the son of Constantia by L i c i n i u s . The conviction that he was not a son of Constantia but rather the bastard o f f s p r i n g of a union between L i c i n i u s and a slave-woman arose from two entries i n the 32 Theodosian Code, dated to 336, which state that the son of L i c i n i a n u s (so c a l l e d out of Constantine's contempt for h i s former partner), qui . 3 3 per resoriptum sane[tissi]mum dignitatis oulmen asoendit, should be deprived of a l l h i s property on the ground that the property of a l l those without l i v i n g father, consanguineous brother or s i s t e r , or lawful o f f s p r i n g should be confiscated to the f i s c . The f i r s t also decreed that the son of L i c i n i a n u s (sic) should be scourged, bound with f e t t e r s , 34 and reduced to h i s o r i g i n a l b i r t h - s t a t u s . It appears that t h i s son escaped, for less than three months l a t e r a second e d i c t , l i k e the f i r s t posted at Carthage, declared as follows: L i c i n i a n i autem f i l i u s , qui fugiens comprehensus est, conpe[dibus vinc]tus ad gynaecei Carthaginis ministerium deputetur. These two entries i n the code gave r i s e to the theory that L i c i n i u s II was not the legitimate son of Constantia and that he survived, a l b e i t i n obscurity, u n t i l 336. However, dignitatis culmen more l i k e l y r e f e r s to s e n a t o r i a l rank than to the post of Caesar. Other sources state that L i c i n i u s I I , the Caesar, survived the death of his father but was 36 murdered along with Crispus i n 326. There i s an i n s c r i p t i o n (on a milestone from Constantine's t e r r i t o r y i n Viennensis) r e f e r r i n g to L i c i n i u s II as d. n. Constantini Maximi et Perpetui Aug. sovoves [sic] 37 filio', t h i s does not r e f e r to the same son mentioned i n the code but rather to the one recorded by the l i t e r a r y sources. The problem can be solved e a s i l y i f we postulate two sons. The elder would be the one mentioned i n the code; he was probably born before L i c i n i u s ' betrothal 38 to Constantia i n the winter of 311/312; possibly because of fear of offending Constantine at such a c r i t i c a l time (i.e., 1 March 317), L i c i n i u s did not i n s i s t on r a i s i n g t h i s son to the Caesarship but l e f t him i n r e l a t i v e obscurity; a f t e r L i c i n i u s ' death, Constantine appears to have kept him as a v i r t u a l prisoner i n A f r i c a u n t i l , with his f a c u l t i e s s l i p p i n g l a t e i n l i f e , Constantine sentenced him to the weaving-establishment at Carthage, where he could be worked to death unbeknown to the people. The younger son, L i c i n i u s I I , was born of Constantia's union with L i c i n i u s ; since t h e i r marriage took place at Milan i n 39 January 313, L i c i n i u s II could have been born as early as the autumn of that year. Zosimus and the Epitome state that he was about twenty months of age when appointed Caesar, thereby placing h i s b i r t h about 40 Jul y 315. Since these sources erred i n the birth-date of Constantine I I , they may well have done so f o r L i c i n i u s II as w e l l . We can be c e r t a i n that L i c i n i u s II was born of Constantia at some time 41 between October 313 and July 315. The i n s c r i p t i o n s , l i s t i n g him 42 between Crispus and Constantine I I , imply that he was older than Constantine's younger son. Although Constantine's sons were not made Caesars u n t i l 1 March 317, there appears to have been persuasion applied to Constantine to grant Crispus a r o l e i n the government at an e a r l i e r period. In the panegyric delivered to Constantine at T r i e r i n the autumn of 313, the orator, while congratulating Constantine for the elimination of Maxentius, nevertheless i n a reference both f l a t t e r i n g and h o r t a t i v e concludes by saying that the emperor could make himself greater s t i l l by enlarging his progeny and giving them a share i n the ru l e : Quamvis enim, imperator i n v i c t e , iam d i v i n a suboles tua ad r e i publicae vota successerit et adhuc speretur futura numerosior, i l i a tamen e r i t vere beata p o s t e r i t a s ut, cum l i b e r o s tuos gubernaculis or b i s admoveris, tu s i s omnium maximus imperator.^ Herein the orator a n t i c i p a t e s Fausta's c h i l d r e n ; by t h i s time she was quite capable of motherhood. In 317, however, only Crispus was o l d 44 enough to play anything resembling an a c t i v e r o l e i n government. (3) The Training of the New Caesars Constantine turned to Lactantius, now i n old age, for a tutor for Crispus, and sent his eldest son to Gaul to be instructed i n L a t i n 45 studies. Constantine seems to have spent most of h i s time i n 14 I l l y r l c u m , p a r t l y to secure the f r o n t i e r there and p a r t l y to keep an eye on L i c i n i u s . Crispus probably took no s i g n i f i c a n t part i n the administration u n t i l the year 320, when increasing pressures on the Rhine caused Constantine to appoint a separate praetorian prefect as an 46 adviser f o r his eldest son. On 1 March 321 Nazarius delivered h i s panegyric i n honour of Constantine and h i s sons, celebrating the beginning of the quinquermdlia of the Caesars. The o r a t i o n was delivered at Rome i n the presence of Constantine's Caesars but 47 Constantine himself was absent. This panegyric, vague and r h e t o r i c a l though i t may be, i s by far the main source for Crispus' early career. Nazarius f i r s t apologizes f o r the recurrence of the Frankish incursions by a l l e g i n g that Constantine had allowed a few of them to survive i n order that that nation might f u r n i s h experience f o r Crispus 48 and grant him the f i r s t - f r u i t s of a g l o r i u s v i c t o r y . Crispus i s complimented further by being c a l l e d the greatest of Caesars, for his bravery was capable of great accomplishments i n s p i t e of his pueviles 49 annos. Nazarius portrays Crispus as enjoying the admiring glances of a l l h i s brothers. The campaign i t s e l f took place during the previous winter and i s b r i e f l y described: Cruda adhuc hieme i t e r gelu i n t r a c t a b i l e , immensum spatio, nivibus infestum i n c r e d i b i l i c e l e r i t a t e c o n f e c i t , ut intelligamus [sic] a l a c r i t a t i eius n i h i l asperum qui ipsam quam a suis petebat tam laboriosam i n s t i t u e r i t voluntatem.^ Crispus' accomplishments i n the previous winter made Nazarius' task much easier. Thanks to the panegyric, Crispus' fame would be spread and h i s p o s i t i o n as Constantine's heir would be enhanced. Nazarius found the 15 case of the c h i l d Constantine II much more d i f f i c u l t . There was l i t t l e to do but to associate him with the glory of h i s elder brother: Audivit haec f r a t e r intentus et puerilem animum spes l a e t a et blanda gaudia t i t i l l a r u n t , cumque miraretur fratrem, etiam s i b i f a v i t quod ex annis eius quam proximus tantae g l o r i a e esset agnovit.,^ Towards the end of h i s panegyric, Nazarius f e l t obliged to c r e d i t the younger Caesar with at l e a s t some independent accomplishment; i n so doing he resorted to f l a t t e r y even more far-fetched than that of Crispus: Te vero, Constantine Caesar, incrementum maximum boni p u b l i c i , quibus v o t i s amplectitur Romana f e l i c i t a s , quae de te tantum exspectat quantum nomine p o l l i c e r i s ! Et l i c e t aetas adhuc avocet ab imitatione v i r t u t i s paternae, iam tamen ad pietatem eius natura deducit: iam maturato studio l i t t e r i s h a b i l i s , iam f e l i x dextera fructuosa subscriptione la e t a t u r . Delegat multa indulgentissimus parens et quae per te concedit r e f e r r i ad gratiam tuam mavult.,.^ 54 G a l l e t i e r ' s comment may s u f f i c e : "La v e r i t e en souffre un peu." Nazarius, however, was quite correct i n p r a i s i n g the younger Caesar for his consulship and the successful beginning of his quinquennalia.^ I t i s i n t h i s panegyric that we f i n d the f i r s t contemporary mention of Constantine's younger sons, F l a v i u s J u l i u s Constantius and 56 F l a v i u s J u l i u s Constans. The former was at the time at l e a s t a year younger than Constantine II; the l a t t e r was but a few months o l d . It would not have been p o l i t i c for Nazarius to omit them, as they were sons of Constantine and Fausta, yet i t would not have been desirable f o r him to give them any prominence, since Constantine had not yet chosen to clothe them with imperial rank. Nazarius was a master i n such d e l i c a t e s i t u a t i o n s : Tantorum Roma compos bonorum, quae quidem e i sunt cum toto orbe communia, haurit insuper ingentis s p e i fructum quam praepositam s i b i ex Caesaribus n o b i l i s s i m i s habet eorumque f r a t r i b u s . Quorum iam nomina ipsa veneramur, e t s i vota nostra interim p r o f e r u n t u r . ^ Nazarius was capable of looking further ahead, from Constantine's sons to his grandsons: Tuos, Constantine maxime, tuos l i b e r o s ac deinceps nepotes tecum [Roma] optat ut tanto e p l u r i b u s petantur quanto maiora noscuntur. It i s l i k e l y that at t h i s time Constantine was contemplating the marriage of his eldest son to Helena i n order to ensure the co n t i n u i t y of h i s dynasty. If the marriage had been celebrated j u s t before or during the quinquermalia, we can suspect that Nazarius would have given a d e t a i l e d d e s c r i p t i o n of i t . We can be sure that the marriage had taken place by early i n 322, for on October 30 of that year Constantine celebrated the b i r t h of an o f f s p r i n g to Crispus and h i s wife Helena by 59 granting pardon to a l l except sorcerers, homicides, and adulterers. Thus i t came about that Crispus was far ahead of h i s brothers i n accomplishments and public acclaim. We cannot be c e r t a i n how much authority was delegated to him, but t h i s i s of l i t t l e moment. The fa c t remains that he had experienced a c t i v e service and was following c l o s e l y i n h i s father's footsteps. This was only natural, since he was at l e ast ten years older than his brothers. Almost simultaneously with Nazarius' panegyric, coins were struck commemorating the second consulship of Crispus and Constantine 6 0 II; t h i s consulship i t s e l f coincided with t h e i r quinquennal'ia. However, the coinage paid r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e a t tention to Constantine II i n these early years before the death of the elder brother. Coins issued at t h i s period also paid t r i b u t e to Crispus' v i c t o r i e s over the Franks and the Alamanni.^ Crispus appears to have spent most of the succeeding years i n Gaul, possibly returning b r i e f l y to Rome for the b i r t h of his c h i l d i n the autumn of 322 and then journeying back to his 62 headquarters at T r i e r . Both Crispus and Constantine II shared i n the 63 glory of t h e i r father's Sarmatian v i c t o r y i n 322. What i s s u r p r i s i n g i s that there i s no surviving reference to commemorate the marriage of Crispus and Helena or the b i r t h of t h e i r c h i l d apart from the b r i e f entry i n the Code. Bruun denies that any of the coins with the legend Eetena N. F. can be referred to Crispus' wife on the ground that they date to the period before the m a r r i a g e . I n f a c t , even Helena's o r i g i n i s shrouded i n mystery. Gibbon preferred to regard her as a daughter of L i c i n i u s . This may well have been the case, but there i s no d i r e c t evidence. Against t h i s theory i s the f a c t that the name "Helena" appears to have been confined to the family of Constantius I. It may be that she was a r e l a t i v e of Constantine, perhaps a daughter of Flav i u s Constantius, consul i n 327. The s i l e n c e regarding her and her of f s p r i n g after October 322 might be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r death soon a f t e r the c h i l d ' s b i r t h . This would have been a temporary setback for Crispus. A further opportunity for Crispus to prove h i s mettle was becoming evident even as Nazarius delivered his oration. The r e l a t i o n s between Constantine and L i c i n i u s were never a model of perfect harmony. It was quite evident that Constantia's marriage to L i c i n i u s was not adequate to d i s p e l the suspicion each Augustus entertained f o r the other. In addition to t h e i r personal goals, t h e i r chief administrators would surely not have f a i l e d to encourage each to assume sole c o n t r o l . There i s no evidence that Constantia made any attempt to r e c o n c i l e brother and husband as she was to do l a t e r a f t e r the defeat of her spouse. By as early as 321 r e l a t i o n s were r a p i d l y worsening. The panegyric f a i l s to make any mention of L i c i n i u s and h i s son, s i l e n c e i t s e l f being the equivalent of a damnat-io memoviae. The consular l i s t s 66 are also t e l l i n g , since f o r a Caesar to be nominated consul was to heighten h i s prestige; a nomination was part of h i s preparation f o r the succession. The l i s t runs as follows: 318 L i c i n i u s Aug. V Crispus Caes. I 319 Constantine Aug. V L i c i n i u s Caes. I 320 Constantine Aug. VI Constantine Caes. I 321 Crispus Caes. II Constantine Caes. I I (West) L i c i n i u s Aug. VI L i c i n i u s Caes. II (East) 322 Petronius Probianus Anicius Iulianus (neither recognized by L i c i n i u s ) 323 A c i l i u s Severus Vettius Rufinus (neither recognized by L i c i n i u s ) 324 Crispus Caes. I l l Constantine Caes. I l l (neither recognized by L i c i n i u s ) In appointing consuls for 318 and 319 Constantine observed the p r i n c i p l e that the new Caesars should acquire the consulship according to t h e i r age and that on each occasion the Augustus of the other part of the Empire should become the colleague of his "brother's" Caesar. This res u l t e d i n L i c i n i u s ' r e ceiving his f i f t h consulship before Constantine, and r e l a t i o n s remained c o r d i a l u n t i l the time came to name consuls for 320, when i t was necessary that Constantine II receive h i s f i r s t consulship. If Constantine wished to maintain imperial accord he was bound to name L i c i n i u s to be Constantine II's colleague, but he had already given L i c i n i u s precedence i n the f i f t h consulship and resolved to a f f i r m h i s s u p e r i o r i t y over L i c i n i u s by naming himself as his son's colleague. This was a severe blow to L i c i n i u s ' p r e s t i g e but he did not react noticeably u n t i l the following year, when Constantine named Crispus and Constantine II to be consuls. This second s l i g h t was directed against L i c i n i u s I I , who was older than Constantine II and should have been named i n h i s stead. L i c i n i u s could not brook t h i s i n s u l t and named himself and h i s son consuls for 321. Relations deteriorated so badly that i n 322 and 323 L i c i n i u s refused to recognize the consuls, even though they were not members of Constantine's family, s o l e l y on the ground that they were chosen by Constantine. F i n a l l y Constantine symbolized the collapse of the diarchy by appointing only his own sons as consuls for 324. (4) The War Against L i c i n i u s The war against L i c i n i u s was to demand much greater e f f o r t than that against Maxentius and required a l l the resources at Constantine's disposal. The most d e t a i l e d , and yet i n many ways the most confused, source for t h i s war i s Zosimus, who makes no mention of Crispus i n t h i s 67 context and f a i l s to name any of Constantine's commanders. However, 68 he does r e f e r to L i c i n i u s ' admiral Amandus and to h i s fellow Augustus Martinianus. Crispus' r o l e i n the war i s a c e r t a i n t y . The most 20 contemporary source, Eusebius i n h i s Historia Ecclesiastica, composed i n i t s present form sho r t l y a f t e r the war, states that Crispus shared the 69 command and the v i c t o r y with h i s father. J u l i a n remarks that one of Constantine's sons aided him i n the war against the t y r a n t h e f a i l s to mention Crispus by name, but t h i s omission i s understandable i n view of the damnatio memoviae l a t e r suffered by Crispus. Several other sources a l l u d e to Crispus' r o l e i n the war.^ Therefore, we can be c e r t a i n that Crispus did take an a c t i v e part. He who had enjoyed a nominal command against the Franks and Alamanni four years e a r l i e r was now o l d enough to assume a more a c t i v e function i n c i v i l war. Zosimus' f a i l u r e to mention Crispus i n t h i s context can best be a t t r i b u t e d to h i s desire to portray Constantine as the sole aggressor. The naval campaign against L i c i n i u s was to e s t a b l i s h Crispus a l l the more securely as the de facto pre-eminent Caesar. At some time before the summer of 324 Crispus was r e c a l l e d from Gaul to j o i n his father i n preparations for the campaign. Constantine used Thessalonica as h i s main base, gathering h i s armies there and also providing i t with a harbour. While the harbour was being prepared, Crispus assembled a large f l e e t i n the Piraeus. When Constantine set out from Thessalonica into Thrace, Crispus moved the naval forces up to the new harbour. 72 L i c i n i u s , defeated at Adrianople on 3 Ju l y 324, f l e d across Thrace and f o r t i f i e d himself i n Byzantium. While Constantine pursued L i c i n i u s by land, Crispus s a i l e d toward the Hellespont, where he encountered the f l e e t of Amandus j u s t as Constantine was lay i n g siege to Byzantium. On the f i r s t day Crispus, although greatly outnumbered, succeeded i n using the confined space to his advantage and got the better of Amandus' forces near Elaeus i n the Chersonese. The following day, r e i n f o r c e d by a d d i t i o n a l ships from Thrace and aided by the winds, Crispus won a convincing v i c t o r y o f f C a l l i p o l i s . On hearing of the defeat of Amandus, 73 L i c i n i u s , having already chosen Martinianus as h i s fellow Augustus, abandoned hope on the sea, by way of which he saw that he would be blockaded, and f l e d with h i s treasures to Chalcedon. Since L i c i n i u s l e f t only h i s weaker forces i n Byzantium as a rearguard measure, Constantine was soon able to capture that c i t y ; Crispus' advance by sea on Byzantium doubtless convinced L i c i n i u s ' forces there that t h e i r cause was hopeless and they surrendered. On entering Byzantium, Constantine met Crispus and learned the d e t a i l s of h i s naval v i c t o r y . L i c i n i u s ' forces were defeated once again at Chrysopolis on 18 September 74 324 a f t e r the f l e e t had conveyed Constantine's army across; subsequently the survivors surrendered or f l e d with L i c i n i u s to Nicomedia.^ L i c i n i u s r e a l i z e d the hopelessness of h i s p o s i t i o n and sent Constantia to arrange the terms of surrender with her brother. (5) Constantius II Made Caesar Constantine consented for the moment to spare the l i v e s of L i c i n i u s and Martinianus and, a f t e r they had abdicated i n h i s presence, 7 6 he sent them to Thessalonica as a place of retirement. The Caesar L i c i n i u s II was spared, probably because of the entreaties of h i s mother, but was stripped of the rank of C a e s a r . ^ Constantine now chose to replace L i c i n i u s II with one of h i s own sons, and on 8 November 324 he r a i s e d h i s t h i r d son, F l a v i u s J u l i u s Constantius, to the rank of C a e s a r . ^ Constantius II had been born on 7 August 3 1 7 ^ i n I l l y r i c u m , 80 probably at Sirmlum. There can be no doubt regarding the legitimacy 81 of Constantius I I ; one i n s c r i p t i o n i d e n t i f i e s him as the grandson of Maximian, and J u l i a n s p e c i f i c a l l y states that Constantius II's mother 82 was the daughter of an emperor, that i s , Fausta, daughter of Maximian. Only Zosimus i n s i s t s on the i l l e g i t i m a c y of Constantius II and his younger brother Constans, but h i s account i s exceedingly confused, saying that the three sons were born not of Fausta but of another woman 83 whom Constantine l a t e r charged with adultery and put to death, whereas he had e a r l i e r given an account of how Fausta was the one who was 84 charged and put to death. Zosimus' antipathy to Constantine d i c t a t e d that that emperor's favourites should, l i k e him, be shown i n a bad l i g h t , and h i s testimony, eclipsed by the more contemporary evidence as well as lacking i n c r e d i b i l i t y , should be rejected. Constantius II had been given l i t t l e p u b l i c i t y before h i s elevation to imperial rank. In his panegyric of 1 March 321 Nazarius dwelt p r i m a r i l y on the e x p l o i t s of Constantine and Crispus. The praise of the Caesar Constantine II had been d i f f i c u l t enough without including that of the privati, Constantius II and Constans, quorum iam nomina ipsa veneramur, etsi vota 85 nostra interim proferuntur. Now that a l l opposition had been ended, Constantine f e l t free to promote his t h i r d son to imperial rank. A replacement for L i c i n i u s II was not s t r i c t l y necessary, but Constantine had already made one i n f a n t {i.e., Constantine II) a Caesar and Constantius II was now at least s i x years older than h i s brother had been when appointed Caesar. Bruun's argument that Constantius II was appointed Caesar i n reply to L i c i n i u s ' promotion of Martinianus to the 86 rank of Augustus c a r r i e s l i t t l e weight; Martinianus was to serve as a 23 m i l i t a r y commander and Crispus was to be b i s antidote, whereas Constantius II was too young to be anything other than a figure-head. On 8 November 324 Constantine took advantage of h i s newly-won supremacy to promote i n a d d i t i o n h i s mother Helena and his wife Fausta to the 87 rank of Augusta. Coins were minted depicting Constantius II i n ass o c i a t i o n with h i s father and h i s two elder brothers, thereby 88 proclaiming his promotion to the inhabitants of the Empire. The youngest brother, Constans, although only three years younger than Constantius I I , was not yet given the rank of Caesar and was to remain a privatus for nine years. Of the three Caesars, i t was Crispus who was the favo u r i t e . Eusebius of Caesarea made his f i n a l r e v i s i o n of his Historia Ecclesiastica p a r t l y i n order to p r a i s e the father and son f o r t h e i r v i c t o r y over the l a s t of the persecutors, thereby commencing h i s r o l e as the spokesman of Constantine's dynastic p o l i c y ; Eusebius was to continue t h i s task u n t i l s h o r t l y a f t e r Constantine's death, c a r e f u l l y adapting his p raise to the changing circumstances. It i s quite l i k e l y that Eusebius completed t h i s r e v i s i o n of h i s h i s t o r y during the winter of 89 324/325 i n order to present i t to Constantine on 20 May 325, when the Council of Nicaea was convoked. Eusebius praises Constantine f o r coming to the aid of the C h r i s t i a n s i n the East aya T r a i 6 i Kptair/o gaaiXei c <|>iAav9p(DTroTCtTa>". He next describes how iraxnp aya K a i uios ay<j)0) KUKAW - i » , 91 6ieA6vxes TT)V Kara XOOV 6eoyiau)V irapaxa^iv, pafifav XFTV V I K N V a-rrocjiepo vxai. c Eusebius-gives praise to Crispus as 'BaaiAei 8eo<t>iAeo"XC<XU) Kai xa iravxa xou ttaxpbs ouofcu and for a s s i s t i n g h i s father i n the r e s t o r a t i o n of the 91 unity of the Roman Empire. Eusebius never mentions the other sons of 24 Constantine by name i n t h i s context, not even the Caesar Constantine I I , but he does declare that now, when a l l tyranny has been purged away, u o v o i s e < f > u A & T T £ T O x c l x n s i r p o a n K o u a r i s g a a i X e t a s g e g c u d x e rat a v £ T r i ' < j > 0 o v a » - . 9 2 R w v a x a v x i v a 3 < a i T O I S a u x o u i r a i a t v . c Praise of a more private nature of the Second Flavians was also composed by the exiled poet P u b l i l i u s Optatianus Porphyrius. His carm-tna have sometimes been dated to 328 on the ground that Jerome dated 93 his r e c a l l from e x i l e to that year, but they were c l e a r l y w r itten i n l a t e 324 or early 325, since they constantly r e f e r to the vicennalia 94 ( s t a r t i n g on 25 J u l y 325) i n the future sense. We can, therefore, be quite c e r t a i n that the presentation of h i s eavmina dated to about the same time as the p u b l i c a t i o n of Eusebius' Eistovia Eeolesiastica. Like Eusebius, Optatianus reserves most of his p r a i s e f o r Constantine himself and a l l o c a t e s nearly a l l of what remains to Crispus. In f a c t , i t i s quite l i k e l y that he composed most of h i s verses before hearing of the appointment, dated 8 November 324, of Constantius II to the rank of Caesar. At l e a s t , he recognized only two Caesars, that i s , Crispus and Constantine I I : virtutum m e r i t i s vicennia praecipe vota. ^ saeclorum c r e v i t gemino spes Caesare certa. Whereas Eusebius had praised Crispus for h i s r o l e i n the overthrow of L i c i n i u s , Optatianus, probably knowing l i t t l e about eastern a f f a i r s , preferred to dwell upon his e a r l i e r ventures i n the West, e s p e c i a l l y h i s successes against the Franks: en! Auguste, t u i s praesens et tantus ubique imperils fecunde, paras nunc omine C r i s p i Oceani intactas oras, quibus eruta Fra n c i dat regio procul ecce deum, c u i devia l a t i s tota parent campis.g^ Crispus was praised for h i s deeds of valour against the Franks, but Constantine II was included only with d i f f i c u l t y : Sed C r i s p i i n f o r t i a v i r e s non dubiae r i p a Rhenum Rhodanumque t u e r i u l t e r i o r e parant et Francis t r i s t i a i u r a . iam tu, sancte puer, spes tantae r i t e q u i e t i missa p o l o . ^ It was r e a l l y to Crispus, and Crispus alone, that Optatianus looked so far as future government was concerned: sancte, salus mundi, armis insignibus ardens, Crispe, avis melior, te carmina l a e t a secundo C l i o Musa sonans tua fatur pulchra iuventae. n o b i l e tu decus es p a t r i , tuque alme Quiritum et spes o r b i s e r i s . ^ g It i s clear that both Eusebius and Optatianus, i n the period immediately following the defeat of L i c i n i u s , regarded Crispus as the source of future government and that they paid scant regard to the other, f ar younger, sons of Constantine. The pub l i c nature of both works indicates that Constantine, too, had the greatest confidence i n h i s eldest son. The two years following L i c i n i u s ' f i n a l defeat brought about a d r a s t i c change i n Constantine's plans for the succession. Family tragedies were not dated with the p r e c i s i o n of triumphs by the chronographers and the evidence of the codes and the coinage remains uncertain, but a tent a t i v e account of the period can be attempted. Constantine and his family appear to have remained i n the v i c i n i t y of 99 Nicomedia u n t i l l a t e i n the summer of 325. During the winter of 324, Constantine issued two laws, one abolishing a l l the laws and 26 constitutions of L i c i n i u s and the other r e s t r i c t i n g t h i s invalidation."'"^ There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n these laws that would imply that L i c i n i u s and Martinianus had already been executed. On 20 May 325 the synod was commenced at Nicaea and was attended i n part by Constantine."'"^"'" On 19 July 325"*"^ he was making arrangements f o r the i n i t i a l celebration of h i s vioenndlia, which were held at Nicomedia on 103 25 J u l y 325. It i s not known for c e r t a i n , but we can assume that most of Constantine's r e l a t i v e s , i f not a l l , were present f o r the event. The occasion was a joyous one for the e n t i r e family now that the l a s t of the opponents had been crushed, but the l a t t e r part of the year cast upon these f e s t i v i t i e s a shadow that was eventually to prove the r u i n of the dynasty. The f i r s t hint that has come down to us that Constantine was becoming more apprehensive about his own security i s the entry i n the Theodosian Code f o r 17 September 325. Since t h i s r e s c r i p t i s noteworthy for i t s s t y l e as well as for i t s content, I quote i t i n i t s e n t i r e t y : Si quis est cuiuscumque l o c i o r d i n i s d i g n i t a t i s , qui se i n quemcumque iudicum comitum amicorum v e l palatinorum meorum a l i q u i d v e r a c i t e r et manifeste probare posse c o n f i d i t , quod non integre adque iu s t e gessisse videatur, intrepidus et securus accedat, i n t e r p e l l e t me: ipse audiam omnia, ipse cognoscam et s i f u e r i t conprobatum, ipse me vindicabo. Dicat, securus et bene s i b i conscius d i c a t : s i probaverit, ut d i x i , ipse me vindicabo de eo, qui me usque ad hoc tempus simulata i n t e g r i t a t e deceperit, i l i u m autem, qui hoc p r o d i d e r i t et conprobaverit, et d i g n i t a t i b u s et rebus augebo. Ita mihi summa d i v i n i t a s semper p r o p i t i a s i t et me incolumen praestet, ut cupio, f e l i c i s s i m a et f l o r e n t e re publica.^Q^ It i s evident that someone had given Constantine the impression that h i s l i f e was endangered and had thrown him into a state of panic that i l l became a holder of the imperial power. The reason for h i s sudden fondness f o r informers i s not d i f f i c u l t to f i n d . It lay i n h i s fear of a r e v i v a l of the Jovian dynasty. We cannot be c e r t a i n that L i c i n i u s was seeking to e s t a b l i s h an a l l i a n c e with the barbarians of the Danube, but i t i s p l a u s i b l e that Martinianus had escaped custody at Thessalonica and f l e d to Cappadocia. Whether or not the al l e g a t i o n s were true i s of l i t t l e importance. What matters i s that Constantine, EeveuHi Maximiani, socevi sui, motus exempto, ne itevum depositam puvpuram in pevnioiem rei publioae sumeret, believed that they were and ordered the execution of L i c i n i u s at Thessalonica and of Martinianus i n C a p p a d o c i a . I t i s quite possible that they were k i l l e d s h o r t l y before the r e s c r i p t was issued and that the c a l l went out to arre s t a l l t h e i r associates. The r e s c r i p t i s most important i n revealing Constantine's suspicious and impulsive nature, which had been l a r g e l y responsible for ensuring h i s s u r v i v a l thus f a r . L i c i n i u s , however, had himself to blame f o r h i s own execution, since he had set a precedent f o r 108 such action by h i s bloodbath upon the death of Maximin Daia. Surprising as i t may seem from the foregoing r e s c r i p t , Constantine did 109 u t i l i z e some moderation, sparing Constantia and the boy L i c i n i u s I I , the former because she was h i s own s i s t e r and the l a t t e r because h i s youth and his membership i n the Second F l a v i a n dynasty were h i s salv a t i o n . (6) The Death of Crispus Constantine made Constantius I I j o i n t consul with himself f o r the year 326,"'""'"^  thereby ensuring that the new Caesar should share i n the celebrations of that year, for on 1 March 326 Crispus and 28 Constantine II were to celebrate the beginning of t h e i r decennalia while on 25 July 326 Constantine was to commemorate the end of h i s vicenndlia. A f t e r 8 March,"'""''''' Constantine and his family set out from Byzantium on t h e i r way to Rome, but, before they arr i v e d there, tragedy struck twice, r e s u l t i n g i n the f i r s t instance i n the executions of 112 Crispus and L i c i n i u s I I , and l a t e r i n the murder of Fausta. This gruesome family tragedy was never p u b l i c i z e d and Eusebius, the main contemporary C h r i s t i a n authority for Constantine's l i f e , thought i t best to eliminate a l l references to an act that he was unable to j u s t i f y . Pagan a u t h o r i t i e s , on the other hand, r e v e l l e d w i l d l y through t h e i r pages as they saw the f i r s t gaping cracks appearing i n the Second 113 Flavian dynasty, and even l a t e r C h r i s t i a n a u t h o r i t i e s could not 114 r e s i s t the temptation to adopt t h e i r version. The general consensus of those sources that go into any d e t a i l i s that Fausta for reasons of her own accused Crispus of attempting to commit adultery with her and, since adultery with the Augusta amounted to high treason, thereby secured h i s execution, and that Helena, mother of Constantine, was incensed at the action of the younger s i s t e r of her old enemy, Theodora, convinced Constantine of the innocence of Crispus, informed him that Fausta herself was g u i l t y of adultery with a common courier, and brought i t about that Fausta was put to death by suffocation i n an overheated bath. The more contemporary a u t h o r i t i e s , however, do not give any such d e t a i l s ; A urelius V i c t o r states only that Crispus died incevtum qua causa, patris iudiaio, and Eutropius simply declares that Constantine k i l l e d egvegium vivum filium et sorovis f i l i u m oommodae indolis iuvenem . . . } mox uxovem, post numeros amiaos, thereby implying some sort of 29 conspiracy, actual or suspected. That Constantine was greatly suspicious of a conspiracy at t h i s time can be gathered from the entry i n the Theodosian Code for 17 September 325 quoted above,"'""'""' and c e r t a i n entries i n the codes for the f i r s t h a l f of 326 ind i c a t e what might w e l l have been a s i m i l a r preoccupation. Guthrie i s of the opinion that Constantine himself, and not Fausta, was the one who arranged Crispus' execution and that i n so doing he "was d e l i b e r a t e l y following a p o l i c y that may be described as 'dynastic legitimacy'.""'""^ It i s quite conceivable that Crispus was put to death for dynastic reasons and not because of petty scandal, but i t i s f a r more l i k e l y that the reasons were those of Fausta and not those of Constantine. Guthrie's theory f a i l s to account for the execution of Fausta and also assumes that Constantine was g u i l t y of a strange inconsistency i f he put Crispus to death i n order to ensure a purely dynastic succession and l a t e r gave his nephews a r o l e i n the succession. There i s no evidence that Crispus had done anything to incur Constantine's displeasure,"'""'"^ but Fausta had good reason to fear her step-son, since i n age, prestige, and accomplishments he far surpassed her own three sons. At l e a s t ten years older than her own sons, he had already held three consulships and had been praised by Nazarius for h i s v i c t o r i e s over the Franks and Alamanni; i n 322 he had had by h i s wife Helena a son, thereby giving proof of h i s a b i l i t y to continue the Second Flav i a n dynasty; f i n a l l y , he had played a prominent r o l e i n the overthrow of L i c i n i u s and had received copious praise for 118 his e f f o r t s from Eusebius and Optatianus Porphyrius. Fausta's own sons, with the exception of Constans, had been earmarked for the succession by the t i t l e of Caesar and, lacking the maturity and fame of 30 Crispus, were i n a most dangerous p o s i t i o n should Constantine suddenly die. They were young enough to lack authority and yet o l d enough to pose a threat to t h e i r step-brother. When Constantius I had died i n 306 Constantine had enjoyed a s i m i l a r advantage i n age over his three step-brothers, but they posed no threat since they were devoid of imperial rank. In 306 a general was required for emperor, and i n 326, with unity barely restored a f t e r years of c i v i l war, one was s t i l l of prime necessity. Therefore, i f Constantine were to die suddenly, Crispus was the l o g i c a l choice to replace him. However, Crispus would have had d i f f i c u l t y i n dealing with Constantine II and Constantius I I , for they too had been earmarked f o r r u l e and might be used by h i s enemies, e s p e c i a l l y when they became a l i t t l e older. Fausta, r e c a l l i n g as w e l l the slaughter that L i c i n i u s had engaged i n a f t e r the death of Daia, must have feared greatly for her own sons and so decided to act while time allowed. Constantine's suspicious mood, as revealed i n the r e s c r i p t of 17 September 325, was probably s t i l l a c t i v e ; Fausta simply took advantage of t h i s to charge Crispus with high treason. We cannot be c e r t a i n about the exact nature of the charge, but i t seems that she implicated Crispus i n the supposed treasonous designs of L i c i n i u s and Martinianus. Whether she also accused him of an attempt upon her person, as Zosimus, Zonaras, and P h i l o s t o r g i u s recount, cannot be 119 c e r t a i n . However, the spring of 326 was marked by l e g i s l a t i o n concerning adultery and rape and, i f t h i s was not i n s t i g a t e d by Fausta's accusation, i t may even have given her the idea for her charge against 120 Crispus. One law, concerning adultery and serving wenches, was issued from Heraclea on 3 February 326; another, on the rape of v i r g i n s , 31 and a t h i r d law, on the tutors of v i r g i n s , were issued from A q u i l e i a on 121 1 A p r i l and 4 A p r i l r e s pectively. Since Crispus was executed at 122 Pola, less than 100 miles from A q u i l e i a , i t i s most l i k e l y that h i s death occurred shortly before or a f t e r t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n was enacted. For a l i t t l e while Fausta and her three sons could breathe e a s i l y ; Constantine believed her accusation because she had e a r l i e r saved h i s 123 l i f e when i t was threatened by her own father, Maximian. That her accusation had something to do with the elder L i c i n i u s seems l i k e l y , f o r 124 hi s son, L i c i n i u s I I , was executed at about the same time as Crispus. This time Constantia was unable to save her son, but she hers e l f . . . . 125 survived him for some time with the rank of nobi-Zissima femina and so must not have been implicated i n the a f f a i r . Fausta's triumph was s h o r t - l i v e d . The sources h o s t i l e to Constantine report that Helena, the mother of Constantine, vouched f o r the innocence of Crispus and prevailed upon her son to punish the g u i l t y party, Fausta, with death on the ground 1 that Fausta herself was g u i l t y 126 of adultery with a common courier. Sidonius A p o l l i n a r i s claims that, whereas Crispus had been k i l l e d by cold poison, Fausta was eliminated by 127 being suffocated i n a hot bath. Helena's denunciation of Fausta can be a t t r i b u t e d to her hatred of the s i s t e r of that Theodora who had replaced her as the wife of Constantius I. On the other hand, Helena favoured Crispus because he was not re l a t e d by blood to Theodora and Fausta. She had been able to secure the v i r t u a l banishment of Constantine's half-brothers Dalmatius and J u l i u s Constantius, both sons of Theodora, but Fausta had prevented her from securing a s i m i l a r f a t e for Constantine I I , Constantius I I , and Constans. Fausta was probably 32 k i l l e d before 25 A p r i l 326, for on that day Constantine posted a law to the e f f e c t that the ri g h t to denounce a woman for adultery should be r e s t r i c t e d to her closest male r e l a t i o n s , ne volentibus temeve Uceat 128 foedare oonubia. Immediately a f t e r t h e i r deaths Crispus and Fausta suffered the customary damnatio memoriae; t h e i r coins ceased to be 129 minted and t h e i r names were erased from i n s c r i p t i o n s . Constantine l a t e r repented of h i s impetuous a c t i o n but the damage had been done. In an edict dated 22 May 326 he stated that any accusation given v e r b a l l y should be considered i n v a l i d u n t i l substantiated i n w r i t i n g , ut sopita iva et per haec spatia mentis t r a n q u i l l i t a t e reoepta ad supremam . . 130 actionem cum vatione veniant adque constZio. This domestic tragedy was to leave an i n d e l i b l e impression on the minds of Constantine's three remaining sons and to kindle i n them a deep-seated fear and suspicion that would plague t h e i r own careers. Constantine moved to protect t h e i r i n t e r e s t s by decreeing that the inheritance of a woman engaged i n 131 adultery should be granted to her legitimate sons. What remained of 132 the entourage proceeded to Rome, entering that c i t y on 18 J u l y 326. 133 There on 25 Jul y Constantine celebrated h i s vicennalia, but there was l i t t l e cause f o r r e j o i c i n g now that he no longer possessed any heir o l d enough to take over should he die within the next few years. Ablabius, who was l a t e r to serve under Constantine as praetorian prefect, h i t the mark when he se c r e t l y posted the following verse upon the door of the palace: Saturni aurea saecla quis requirat? sunt haec gemmea, sed Neroniana. ^ 33 (7) Constantine II and Constantius I I 327-333 Afte r the abortive vicennalia at Rome, Constantine set out toward the East by way of Sirmium and Thessalonica and arr i v e d at 135 Nicomedia by the end of J u l y 327. Here he commenced preparations for the enlargement and adornment of Byzantium. Meanwhile, Constantine II was dispatched to Gaul i n place of the deceased Crispus, while Constantius II remained i n I t a l y . Rumours of trouble i n the West caused Constantine to cut short h i s v i s i t to the East. Although s t i l l at 136 Nicomedia on 1 March 328, by 5 J u l y he had advanced as far as Oescus 137 138 on the Danube and by 27 September he was i n T r i e r . It was most l i k e l y i n August or September that Constantine II was given nominal command over the expedition that d e c i s i v e l y routed an incursion of the 139 Alamanni. This v i c t o r y served to enhance the reputation of h i s eldest son i n the eyes of the m i l i t a r y there and to depict him as a capable successor. In order to enhance the reputation of h i s son 140 throughout Gaul, Constantine now renamed Arelate as Constantina. He 141 also bestowed upon h i s son the t i t l e Alamannicus and nominated him to 142 share the consulship of 329 with himself. The l a t t e r proved to be a p a r t i c u l a r honour, f o r that year marked the l a s t time that Constantine and any of h i s sons held the consulship before h i s death. Thus Constantine I I , though s t i l l only twelve years old, was r a p i d l y acquiring the pre-eminent p o s i t i o n among the Caesars once possessed by Crispus. It seems that for the next three years Constantine II remained i n nominal command of Gaul while h i s father spent the spring and summer of 329 f o r t i f y i n g the Danube f r o n t i e r and most of the years 330 and 331 34 143 i n the neighbourhood of Constantinople. It was probably i n the l a t t e r part of 331 that the Sarmatians appealed to Constantine f o r aid against the Goths. Constantine took advantage of t h i s opportunity to give h i s sons a d d i t i o n a l experience. He sent Constantius II to assume the nominal command i n Gaul, where he could impress his inheritance upon 144 the armies there. In turn, Constantine II was summoned from Gaul to undertake nominal command of the campaign against the Goths. While 145 Constantine himself remained at Marcianopolis i n reserve, the younger Constantine crossed the Danube and on 20 A p r i l 332 i n f l i c t e d a dec i s i v e defeat upon the Goths. Nearly one hundred thousand of them were destroyed by hunger and cold and, among others, the son of the Gothic 146 king A r i a r i c u s was taken as a hostage. The v i c t o r y was so complete that the Goths ceased to be a menace to the Empire for many years. Constantine II was rewarded by being granted the t i t l e Gothicus and h i s 147 younger brother, Constantius I I , was allowed a share i n the t i t l e . It i s probable that as an a d d i t i o n a l reward for t h i s v i c t o r y Constantine II was permitted to marry. We have no knowledge of whom he married, but we can be c e r t a i n that the bride was one of Theodora's descendants. (8) Constans Made Caesar Although a s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n had been found for the Gothic problem, the year 333 brought rumours of unrest among the Sarmatians and the Persians. Whether he was influenced by consideration of these matters or merely thought the time to be opportune, on 25 December 333 Constantine invested with the rank of Caesar h i s youngest son, Fla v i u s 35 149 J u l i u s Constans. Since Constantine was at Aquae on 11 November 223150 a t c o n s t a n t - L n 0 p i e o n 30 March 334,"'""'"'" there i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that Constans was formally invested at the new c a p i t a l . Constans was 152 153 the l a s t son of Constantine and Fausta. The Epitome of V i c t o r , stating that Constans died at the age of twenty-seven, implies that he had been born i n 323. However, the other sources are of the opinion that he died i n h i s t h i r t i e t h year, concluding that he must have been 154 born i n 320. Confirmation of the e a r l i e r date i s provided by the only contemporary reference to Constans i n h i s years as a privatus. On 1 March 321, Nazarius, d e l i v e r i n g his panegyric to Constantine, speaks of the great hope that Rome derives from the most noble Caesars and from t h e i r brothers."'""'"' These "brothers" could only have been Constantius II and Constans, quorum icon nomina ipsa veneramur, etsi vota nostra interim 156 proferuntur. Coins were minted i n honour of the new Caesar, with t h e i r obverses showing a l l three sons.^'' I t was probably at t h i s time that Constans was betrothed to Olympias, daughter of Ablabius, consul i n 158 331 and now prefect at Constantine's court. The year 334 was marked by further d i f f i c u l t i e s , which were to influence the plans for the succession. When the Argaragantes, the leading t r i b e of the Sarmatians, had been attacked by the Goths two years e a r l i e r , they had armed t h e i r dependants, the Limogantes, i n order to strengthen t h e i r p o s i t i o n . Now the Limogantes rose against t h e i r masters, d r i v i n g some northward but many into the Roman Empire. Constantine, having previously dispatched h i s eldest son, Constantine II, back to Gaul, ordered Constantius II to proceed thence to the Balkans. Constantine himself, together with the new Caesar Constans, set out west from Constantinople and met Constantius II i n the region of Singidunum and Viminacium. Constantine, together with h i s youngest sons, welcomed the exiled Sarmatians and d i s t r i b u t e d more than three hundred thousand of them through Thrace, Scythia, Macedonia, and 159 I t a l y . Constans was sent west to h i s new headquarters i n I t a l y ; i t i s quite l i k e l y that he escorted some of the s e t t l e r s there. Hence-fo r t h , u n t i l the death of his father, he was to remain i n I t a l y . There i s no record of his r e c e i v i n g any s p e c i a l mark of d i s t i n c t i o n as a r e s u l t of the Sarmatian campaign. Constantius I I , on the other hand, was granted the t i t l e Sarmaticus for h i s r o l e i n the settlement and proceeded with h i s father back to the East, where further troubles were 160 brewing. It was probably while Constantine and Constantius II were occupied with the settlement of the Sarmatians that Calocaerus, the magister pecoris camelovwn, i n s t i g a t e d a r e v o l t on Cyprus. There had been a serious earthquake on that i s l a n d s h o r t l y before and the r e v o l t may be a t t r i b u t e d to the s u f f e r i n g r e s u l t i n g from i t . The r e v o l t was of short duration. F l a v i u s Dalmatius, the eldest half-brother of Constantine, by then probably holding the post of magistev mi.Htum i n the East, quickly took the matter i n hand and sentenced Calocaerus to be burnt a l i v e at Tarsus i n C i l i c i a . T h e speedy downfall of Calocaerus i s evinced by the fact that no coins or i n s c r i p t i o n s have been recorded i n h i s name. Much more serious was the growing threat of Persia. Sapor I I , king of Persia, was determined to regain the t e r r i t o r y that Galerius had seized i n 297. In 334 Tiran, king of the buffer state of Armenia, was 37 treacherously captured by a satrap of Sapor and blinded. The Persian forces overran Armenia and an Armenian delegation a r r i v e d asking f o r Roman support. Constantine r e a d i l y agreed to a s s i s t them and dispatched to Antioch Constantius I I , who had recently returned with him from the Sarmatian campaign. By the time he a r r i v e d there, Armenia had been absorbed and Amida captured by the Persians. Constantius I I , j o i n i n g forces with the Armenian refugees, was able to i n f l i c t a d e c i s i v e defeat on the Persians and succeeded i n r e f o r t i f y i n g Antoninopolis and Amida, 162 although he continued to be harassed by g u e r i l l a r a i d s . The precise r o l e of Constantius II i n t h i s campaign cannot be ascertained. The v i c t o r y was not deemed adequate to warrant the conferring upon him of the t i t l e Persicus. B a s i c a l l y , the operation was devised as a holding measure u n t i l Constantine himself could j o i n the campaign. It has commonly been held that i t was not Constantius I I , but rather h i s cousin Hannibalianus, who was responsible for the defeat of the Persian army. However, several sources lead us to b e l i e v e that Constantius I I , under the guidance of h i s father and other advisers, was responsible. Festus i s the most e x p l i c i t : Constantinus rerum dominus extremo v i t a e suae tempore expeditionem paravit i n Persas. Toto enim orbe pacatis gentibus et r e c e n t i de Gothis v i c t o r i a g l o r i o s i o r cunctis i n Persas descendebat agminibus. Sub cuius adventu Babyloniae i n tantum regna trepidarunt, ut supplex ad eum l e g a t i o Persarum adcurreret, facturos se imperata promitterent, nec tamen pro adsiduis eruptionibus, quae sub Constantio Caesare per Orientem temptaverant, veniam mererentur..,„ 163 Eusebius vouches for the Persian embassy to Constantine's court and 164 dates i t to the winter of 336/337. Theophanes also mentions Constantius II's v i c t o r y over the Persians as well as confirming his 38 165 f o r t i f i c a t i o n of Amida and Antoninopolis. No l i t e r a r y sources r e f e r to any campaign on the part of Hannibalianus against the Persians. F i n a l l y , the mint at Antioch, the c l o s e s t to the Persian front, struck no coins i n honour of Hannibalianus. There i s a p o s s i b i l i t y that Constantine v i s i t e d Antioch i n the spring of 336, but i t i s remote. S u f f i c e i t that Constantius I I retained nominal command on the eastern front during the campaigns of 335. His presence there rendered him unable to attend his father's f i r s t c elebration of h i s tricennatia at Nicomedia on Ju l y 25 of that year."*"^ (9) Dalmatius Made Caesar and Hannibalianus Made King of Kings A f t e r celebrating the beginning of h i s tricennalia at Nicomedia, Constantine made a d r a s t i c change i n his plans for the succession. Heretofore he had conferred the t i t l e of Caesar upon h i s own sons only, but the growing threat from Persia demanded his presence on the eastern front, f a r removed from the Rhine and Danube. Once Constantius I I had suc c e s s f u l l y weathered the campaigning season of 335, Constantine headed west from Nicomedia and toured the Balkans as far as S i s c i a , doubtless intending to impress the Goths and Sarmatians with his continued 168 v i g i l a n c e . On 18 September 335, while s t i l l i n the Balkans, Constantine conferred the rank of Caesar upon Fl a v i u s J u l i u s Dalmatius, son of his half-brother Dalmatius, and placed him i n charge of the vvpa 169 Gothi-ea. The new Caesar had not held any distinguished o f f i c e before but was now about the same age as Constantine II or Constantius 11."'"^ ^ The reason f o r the appointment of an a d d i t i o n a l Caesar was cl e a r at t h i s c r i t i c a l period. Constantine could a n t i c i p a t e a long and d i f f i c u l t campaign against the Persians, a campaign that would demand a l l h i s attention. Although there i s no evidence for any trouble on the northern f r o n t i e r a f t e r the settlement of the Sarmatians i n 334, s t i l l that area demanded constant v i g i l a n c e . Constantine II was i n charge of the defence of B r i t a i n and the Rhine, and Constans could r e a d i l y manage the dioceses of A f r i c a , I t a l y , and I l l y r i c u m , but Constantine himself had normally attended to the dioceses of Dacia, Macedonia, and Thrace. Dalmatius' task was simply to show the imperial colours along the lower reaches of the Danube while Constantine made ready h i s Persian campaign. Returning to Constantinople, "^ "*" Constantine turned h i s a t t e n t i o n once again to the Armenian problem. Since the Armenian r o y a l house was i n the hands of Sapor, Constantine determined to appoint Hannibalianus, brother of the younger Dalmatius, king of kings over Armenia and the neighbouring peoples and gave him i n marriage h i s eldest daughter, 172 Constantina. Hannibalianus was dispatched to Caesarea i n 173 Cappadocia u n t i l such time as his uncle's campaign should allow him to assume h i s r o l e i n Armenia. Coins were minted throughout the Empire i n honour of the new Caesar, Dalmatius, but only Constantinople struck f o r Hannibalianus; as a c l i e n t - k i n g and not a Caesar, he was not 174 e n t i t l e d to a r o l e i n the succession. The younger Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, together with t h e i r uncle J u l i u s Constantius, were granted the t i t l e riobiZissimus by Constantine."*"^ The appointment of Hannibalianus was no r e f l e c t i o n on the a b i l i t y of Constantius II to deal with the eastern problem; a monarch was required to replace Tiran and Constantine preferred that i t be one of his own r e l a t i v e s on whom he could r e l y . The death of h i s mother Helena i n 329 had removed the main obstacle to the promotion of her arch-enemies, the descendants of Theodora. The success of Constantius II i n r e p e l l i n g the Persian attacks and the appointment of Hannibalianus produced a temporary peace, as the Persians sent a delegation to Constantinople shortly 176 before Easter of 336. The l u l l i n f i g h t i n g enabled Constantius II to journey to Constantinople, there to j o i n with his father i n the f i n a l c elebration of the tvicervnalia on 25 July 336.'''^ As part of the f e s t i v i t i e s , Constantius II solemnized h i s marriage with the daughter oJ 178 J u l i u s Constantius, Constantine's half-brother, and of G a l l a . This was an occasion for great r e j o i c i n g : 'Eireidn Se wxX o xp iaKovxae"xns -ctuxaj xfjs BaaiAefas 6ieTrepa'fvexo Xpovos, xu> 6eux£pa) xaiv TTOII'SUJV auvexe'Aei y&uous, iraAaixaxous xe KOITTi xoG irpeaguxSpou xftv r|AiKiav 6ictTrpaScxyevos. OaAiai 6n Kai eaxi&aeis 'fjyovxo, vuy<j>oaxoAouvxos auxou 3aaiA£ws xbv na tSa , eaxiciivx6s xe Aaynpuis <ai ayyiroaid<;ovxos, uxSe yev av6pojv 6 i&aois, YUvaiKaiv 6 ' a<f>a)piayivois aAAaxo6i x°P° l s " <5ta66aeis xe iTAoOaiai Xctpiayaxuv, onyois sya iroAeaiv eocopouvxo. By t h i s marriage, the descendants of Helena (i.e., Constantine's own sons and daughters) and those of Theodora (i.e., the o f f s p r i n g of Constantine's half-brothers and h a l f - s i s t e r s ) were united into one family. The name of the wife of Constantius II i s unknown. By t h i s time Constans, the youngest son, had been betrothed to Olympias, the 180 daughter of the praetorian prefect Ablabius. The reason for t h i s commitment outside the F l a v i a n dynasty i s doubtless to be found i n the a b s e n c e o f a n y a d d i t i o n a l e l i g i b l e d e s c e n d a n t s o f T h e o d o r a . S h o r t l y before t h e e n d o f h i s tvicennalia, C o n s t a n t i n e m a d e o n e f u r t h e r p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e s u c c e s s i o n . O n 2 9 A p r i l 3 3 6 , i n a r e s c r i p t p o s t e d a t C a r t h a g e , h e s e n t e n c e d t h e b a s t a r d s o n o f L i c i n i u s t o b e s c o u r g e d , 1 8 1 b o u n d w i t h f e t t e r s , a n d reduced t o h i s o r i g i n a l b i r t h - s t a t u s . T h e youth e s c a p e d b u t w a s a p p r e h e n d e d . I n a n o t h e r r e s c r i p t , p o s t e d a t C a r t h a g e o n 2 1 J u l y 3 3 6 , C o n s t a n t i n e s e n t e n c e d h i m t o b e b o u n d i n f e t t e r s a n d c o n s i g n e d t o s e r v i c e i n t h e i m p e r i a l w e a v i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t 1 8 2 a t C a r t h a g e . I n t h i s w a y t h e F l a v i a n d y n a s t y w a s f r e e d f r o m p o s s i b l e c o m p e t i t i o n o n t h e p a r t o f s u p p o r t e r s o f t h e o l d J o v i a n d y n a s t y . A l t h o u g h t h i s a c t s e r v e d t o reassure C o n s t a n t i n e ' s s o n s , i t c o u l d n o t h a v e f a i l e d t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r c h a r a c t e r , j u s t a s t h e e x e c u t i o n s o f C r i s p u s a n d L i c i n i u s I I h a d done a decade before. T h e p r i m a r y s o u r c e f o r o u r k n o w l e d g e o f C o n s t a n t i n e ' s p r o p a g a n d a a t t h i s t i m e i s t h e Laudatio Constantin-L d e l i v e r e d b y E u s e b i u s o f C a e s a r e a a t C o n s t a n t i n o p l e t o w a r d s t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e 1 8 3 tr-Lcermal'ia. E u s e b i u s looked u p o n t h e g r a n t i n g o f a n i m p e r i a l r o l e t o C o n s t a n t i n e ' s s o n s a n d n e p h e w s w i t h f a v o u r : n<5ri 6e <ai xex&pxns avaKOKAouuevns 7repid6ou, ois av rav xP°"va)V eis UTIKOS E K T E I V O U£vu ) V , auva\3£u)V xhv gaaiAefav OKJ>06VU) Kavwvia T O U yevovs, Kaiaapwv xe ava6ef££ai, TTpotfinxwv Oe'icov ctTroTrAnpo i 0 eajr i ay a xa, a fin u&Aai KCU irpdiraAai wfie irn. eSoa • Kai 6laXf^ovxai TI*]V BaaiAefav 'dyioi 'y^taxou .... 6 ,6' i s <J>OJS f)\\ov yapyapuyous xais xuv Kaiaapwv em AayiJ>eai, xobs Tfoppwxdxco xois XOTTOXS aiuoKiayevoys, x a i s e i s yaKpov e£ auxpu irapaTreyiroyevais a K x i a i Kaxau^dt^ei, ajfie yev riy iv x.oxs xhv ecoav Aaxouai x5v 42 eirct^iov auxou rapnbv, 0dxepov 6e XU)V TTaiSwv 0axepu) yevei xu>v avepaJTTCjJv, Kai ndAiv aAAov aAAax60i, Aay.Trxnpas oia Kai <j>toaxnpas xtov e£ auxou irpoxeoy evwv <f>uixu)V, cuevefyexo. ei0' {mb yfav CetiyAnv BaaiAiKoG xeSpiTnrou xexxapas uiro^euCas auxos eauxw oia xivas TTCOAOUS toils avSpeloxdxous Kaioapas, n v i a i s xe auxous ev.Qeou auytjjwvi'as xe Kai oyovoias apyoadyevos, dvooSev uifinAws nvioxwv eAa\5vei, oyou xftv atiyTraaav, '6oriv o riA.ios ecjiopa, < 611TTTTe\3(jjv, auxos xe xois T r a a i v e m T r a p o i i v , KCLX xa irdvxa 184 6 laaKoiTouy evos • Eusebius, i n mentioning the appointment of more of Constantine's kindred, i s r e f e r r i n g to the recent promotions of Dalmatius and Hannibalianus. Only Dalmatius, however, has been made a Caesar, as i s manifest from the reference to the four most noble Caesars as horses i n the imperial chariot. One must be c a r e f u l to notice that Eusebius i s portraying the Caesars as Constantine's a s s i s t a n t s , not as h i s successors. In a speech designed to praise and g l o r i f y the sovereign, mention of h i s m o r t a l i t y would have been most i m p o l i t i c . Proof that Eusebius considered the Caesars to be merely the a s s i s t a n t s of, and not the equals of, t h e i r father the Augustus i s contained i n the subsequent paragraphs, wherein the i m i t a t i o n of the heavenly empire by the t e r r e s t r i a l one i s emphasized: Kcbreixa xns oupavtou BaaiAefas C I K 6 V I KeKoaynyevos, avu BAeircjv, kaxSi xr)v apxexuirov i6eav xous Kdxw 6iaKu3epvaiv i0\3vei, yovdpxou dSuvaaxeias yiyfiyaxi KpaxaioOyevos • xouxo yap av9pwpa)V (JiOaei xuv eni yr]s yovn, xuv airdvxwv Seoupnxai BaaiAeus • vdyos yap ouxos BaaiAiKns e^ouafas, o xhv Kaxa ir&VTtdv yfav ctpxnv opi^oyevos . . . . 610 6>T) eas Gebs, aAA' ou 6 i 3 o , o u 6 e xpeis , o u 6 e exi TrAeioves • aKpiBojs yap aBeov TO TroAuOeov. eis BaaiAeus, Kat 6 T O U T O U Aoyos KOLX voyos Q , . "c 185 paaiAiKos e i s . . . . If the Empire could be governed only by one, as creation i s governed by One, then surely t h i s state of a f f a i r s was to continue. The d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n the immortality of God and the m o r t a l i t y of Constantine. If only one were to govern a f t e r h i s death, surely t h i s was to be his eldest son, j u s t as Constantius I died, xbv KAripov tns gaaiAefas, * - S * - - o -* 186 "n 4-voya) cpuaeoos, TCJ xn nAiKia TTpoayovTi TOJV Traiocov irapaoous. But Constantine had given h i s other sons and h i s eldest nephews a share i n the imperivan as well, whereas Constantius I had not bestowed any such command upon his other sons, l a r g e l y because of t h e i r youth. If Constantine were to adhere to his own p o l i c y , which advocated that there be only one monarch, he s t i l l had the opportunity to make t h i s c l e a r by conferring the t i t l e of Augustus upon his eldest son and by tempering the authority of the remaining Caesars. This, however, he f a i l e d to do. For the moment he put h i s t r u s t i n his own health and i n the t r a i n i n g undergone by h i s sons and nephews. (10) The Training of the Caesars Of the t r a i n i n g of the younger Dalmatius and Hannibalianus l i t t l e i s known. Before t h e i r appointments to the court, they had studied r h e t o r i c at Narbo under Exuperius; a f t e r being granted the t i t l e of Caesar, Dalmatius prevailed upon h i s uncle to grant Exuperius a 187 governorship i n Spain. Their education at that c i t y should come as no surprise, since Constantine's brothers spent several years i n 188 nominal e x i l e at nearby Tolosa, probably as l a t e as 330. In the case of Hannibalianus, nothing i s known regarding his authority or t r a i n i n g a f t e r h i s appointment to Caesarea i n Cappadocia. His brother, Dalmatius, must have enjoyed the prerogatives that h i s fellow Caesars obtained, including a court of h i s own; whether he had his own • 189 praetorian prefect or not we cannot say for c e r t a i n . Regarding the education of the three surviving sons of Constantine there i s l i t t l e s p e c i f i c information. Aemilius Magnus Arborius, the r h e t o r i c i a n , was the tutor of a Caesar at 190 Constantinople; we cannot be c e r t a i n which son was involved, but i t was most l i k e l y either Constans or Constantius I I , since Constantine II had spent most of h i s time i n the West a f t e r the defeat of L i c i n i u s . The two primary sources for the education and t r a i n i n g of the sons of Constantine are the f i f t y - n i n t h o r a t i o n of Libanius and the Vita Constantini of Eusebius. The former, composed long a f t e r the death of 191 Constantine II i n 340, r e l a t e s s p e c i f i c a l l y only to Constantius II and Constans but i t s general nature enables i t to be u s e f u l as a guide to the up-bringing of Constantine II as w e l l . Eusebius wrote his biography of Constantine at some time between the death of the elder 192 statesman and the murder of h i s eldest son; l i k e Libanius, he i s c a r e f u l to omit any mention of Constantine's nephews a f t e r the tragedy of 337, j u s t as a f t e r 326 he pretended that Crispus had never existed. Both sources r e f r a i n from s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s but s t i l l serve as a u s e f u l guide. Libanius i s of the opinion that the Caesars received a twofold education, being equipped for both the management of the Empire and 4 5 1 9 3 e x c e l l e n c e i n r h e t o r i c ; t h e i r t r a i n i n g i n r e g a l m a t t e r s w a s d e r i v e d p r i m a r i l y f r o m t h e i r o w n f a t h e r , w h o e n s u r e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e c o m e a d e p t a s s o l d i e r s a n d a t t h e s a m e t i m e m o u l d e d t h e i r m i n d s i n t h e i m a g e 1 9 4 o f j u s t i c e . L i b a n i u s a d d s t h a t , w h e n t h e y w e r e m a d e C a e s a r s , t h e y w e r e g i v e n c o u r t s a n d a r m i e s s i m i l a r t o h i s o w n , b e i n g i n f e r i o r o n l y i n 1 9 5 t h e i r t i t l e . A c c o r d i n g t o L i b a n i u s , C o n s t a n t i n e w a s c a r e f u l t o k e e p e a c h o f h i s s o n s c l o s e t o h i s o w n c o u r t i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s o f t h e i r t r a i n i n g , s o t h a t h e w o u l d b e a b l e t o c o m e t o t h e i r a i d s h o u l d a n y t h i n g g o a m i s s ; o n c e t h e y h a d p r o v e d t h e m s e l v e s , t h e y w e r e d i s p a t c h e d t o t h e 1 9 6 f r o n t i e r s w h e r e t h e y c o u l d e x p e r i e n c e t h e a c t u a l t a s k s o f g o v e r n m e n t . T h a t t h i s w a s t h e c a s e i s e v i d e n t f r o m t h e c a r e e r s o f t h e t h r e e s o n s a f t e r t h e d e a t h o f C r i s p u s , a l t h o u g h L i b a n i u s p r e t e n d s t h a t C o n s t a n t i n e I I h a d n e v e r e x i s t e d a n d t r e a t s t h e r e m a i n i n g s o n s a s p r o c e e d i n g i n u n i s o n a l o n g t h e i r c a r e e r s . C o n s t a n t i n e I I h a d b e e n a i d e d b y h i s f a t h e r i n t h e G o t h i c c a m p a i g n o f 3 3 2 a n d i t w a s o n l y a f t e r t h a t y e a r t h a t h e 1 9 7 r e m a i n e d i n s o l e c h a r g e o f G a u l . C o n s t a n t i u s I I h a d j o i n e d w i t h h i s f a t h e r i n t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f t h e S a r m a t i a n s i n 3 3 4 a n d i t w a s n o t u n t i l t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r t h a t h e w a s g i v e n c o m m a n d o f t h e f o r c e s o n t h e 1 9 8 e a s t e r n f r o n t . C o n s t a n s , i t a p p e a r s , h a d b e e n d i s p a t c h e d t o I t a l y i n 3 3 4 » l e s s t h a n a y e a r a f t e r a c q u i r i n g t h e r a n k o f C a e s a r ; b e c a u s e o f t h e m o r e p a c i f i c n a t u r e o f h i s t e r r i t o r y , t h e r e w a s l i t t l e n e e d f o r t h e 1 9 9 i m m e d i a t e p r e s e n c e o f h i s f a t h e r . E u s e b i u s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e t r a i n i n g o f t h e C a e s a r s s e r v e s t o s u p p l e m e n t , r a t h e r t h a n t o c o n t r a d i c t , t h e o r a t i o n o f L i b a n i u s . E u s e b i u s , w r i t i n g a f t e r t h e s l a u g h t e r o f 3 3 7 a n d b e f o r e t h e d e a t h o f C o n s t a n t i n e I I , e x c l u d e s t h e c o u s i n s f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n b u t i s a b l e t o s p e a k o f a l l t h r e e b r o t h e r s . H e e m p h a s i z e s 46 the appointment of C h r i s t i a n men as t h e i r teachers and administrators, agreeing with Libanius regarding the appointment of a court and m i l i t a r y forces to each."^^ According to Eusebius, the three sons were aided by advisers i n t h e i r early years but l a t e r were subject only to 201 t h e i r father's i n s t r u c t i o n s . Libanius and Eusebius, although f a i l i n g to give s p e c i f i c d e t a i l s , are correct i n the o v e r a l l impression. It was natural that Constantine would ensure that h i s sons should receive the best t r a i n i n g for government, i f only to secure t h e i r s u r v i v a l a f t e r his death, and also that they should be granted , - _ t ,,202 xncreasxng xndependence as they matured. (11) The Death of Constantine L i t t l e i s known about the a c t i v i t i e s of Constantine's sons during h i s few remaining months a f t e r the completion of the tvioennalia i n Constantinople. The f r o n t i e r s of the Rhine and Danube appear, from the lack of any evidence to the contrary, to have been peaceful at t h i s time. Constantine II was probably spending most of h i s time i n the v i c i n i t y of T r i e r , where he could keep a close watch along the e n t i r e Rhine for any signs of unrest among the Franks and Alamanni; he may, too, have as s i s t e d Constans i n protecting the upper reaches of the Danube from any Sarmatian threat. Constans himself probably resided at A q u i l e i a during most of t h i s period. The younger Dalmatius guarded the lower reaches of the Danube, probably operating out of Thessalonica; with the exception of his uncle, he was the clo s e s t to Constantinople of a l l those with imperial rank. At some time a f t e r the trioennalia had ended i n Constantinople, probably i n the l a t e summer of 336 or c e r t a i n l y no l a t e r than the early spring of 337, Constantius II l e f t the c a p i t a l and returned to Antioch i n order to guard the eastern f r o n t i e r while his father prepared an expedition against the 203 Persians. Hannibalianus, so f a r as i s known, • continued to reside i n Cappadocian Caesarea. Constantine himself, having taken adequate precautions elsewhere i n the Empire, continued his preparations f o r the eastern campaign from the c a p i t a l . A f t e r celebrating Easter there, he f e l l i l l and resorted to the hot baths at Constantinople and l a t e r to 204 those at Helenopolis. It was at approximately t h i s time that he dispatched h i s l a s t edict, t h i s one being to the c o u n c i l of the 205 province of A f r i c a . Whether or not he informed h i s family of his condition at t h i s stage cannot be ascertained. Proceeding thence towards Nicomedia, he f e l l s e r i o u s l y i l l at Ancyra i n the suburbs of 206 that c i t y and, a f t e r being baptized, died there on 22 May 337. 48 Notes to Chapter One """We must never lose sight of the f a c t that Galba, Otho, V i t e l l i u s , and Vespasian were, l i k e Caesar and Pompey many years before them, members of the s e n a t o r i a l order, e n t i t l e d by t h e i r rank to s i t i n the Senate, even though they owed much of t h e i r auctoritas to t h e i r m i l i t a r y experience. Macrinus (217-218 A.D.) was the f i r s t Augustus who was not a member of the s e n a t o r i a l order (Herod. 5.1.5). 2 Nerva, being c h i l d l e s s , had adopted Trajan as his successor. Trajan i n turn i s reported to have adopted Hadrian. But i t was Hadrian who c a r r i e d the p r i n c i p l e of adoption to an extreme, for he not only adopted Antoninus as h i s successor but also compelled the l a t t e r to adopt the youths Marcus Aurelius and Verus, thereby ensuring the succession to the second generation. 3 Maxentius was regarded as s t i l l too young for i n s t r u c t i o n when Pan. Lat. 2.14.1 was delivered i n 289. Therefore, he was probably no more than eight years old when D i o c l e t i a n and Maximian appointed t h e i r Caesars i n 293. 4 Thus I in t e r p r e t Pan. Lat. 10.6.6 (omnibus qui statum e^us tabefactare poterant cum stirpe deletis) i n conjunction with Pan. Lat. 9.16.5 (cum uxove ac filio in privatam domum sponte concesserat). Even i f they were not k i l l e d , Maxentius' wife and younger son were condemned to an obscurity almost tantamount to death. ^Lact. Mort. Pers. 50-51. 6Eus. HE 9.11.3-4. Lact. Mort. Pers. 45.1. 8 Anon. Val. 5.14-15. yAnon. Val. 5.18; Zos. 2.20.1. T. D. Barnes, "Lactantius and Constantine," JRS 63 (1973) 36-38, dates the war to 316, not to the t r a d i t i o n a l year of 314. "^Hieron. Chron. for 317; Cons. Const, f o r 317; Chron. Pasch. for 317; Anon. V a l . 5.19; V i c t . Caes. 41.6; V i c t . Epit. 41.4; Oros. 7.28.22; Zos. 2.20.2. The evidence for dating the promotion of the Caesars to 316 i s very s l i g h t , as i s shown by M. T h i r i o n , "Les vota imperiaux sur l e s monnaies entre 337 et 364," SNR 44 (1965) 16-17. ^CTh 9.38.1 of 30 October 322, pardoning most criminals because of the b i r t h of a c h i l d to Crispus and Helena. 49 12 V i c t . Epit. 41.4; Zos. 2.20.2; Zon. 13.2.5D. Whether Minervina was the f i r s t wife or merely the concubine of Constantine does not concern us at t h i s point. What matters i s that he was a son of Constantine, but not of his wife Fausta, to whom Constantine was married on 31 March 307 (Pan. Lat. 6). Pan. Lat. 6.4.1 can very w e l l be interpreted as r e f e r r i n g to Constantine's marriage to Minervina; for th i s view see J.-R. Palanque, "Chronologie constantinienne," REA 40 (1938) 245-248. Anon. V. Const. 9 r e f e r s to Constantine's f i r s t Y U V O U K 6 S . For the view that Minervina was i n a state of legitimate concubinage with Constantine see X. Lucien-Brun, "Minervina, epouse ou concubine?," BAGB 29. (1970) 391-406. 13 Pan. Lat. 6. 14 E. G a l l e t i e r , Pankgyrxques latvns (Paris 1952) 2.7, i n conjunction with Pan. Lat. 6.6.2, follows Seeck i n favouring the year 298 for her b i r t h . But X. Lucien-Brun, "Minervina, epouse ou concubine?" BAGB 29 (1970) 393, shows good reason for dating the b i r t h of Fausta to 287; i f she had met Constantine while she was s t i l l a c h i l d , t h i s must have been before 293, when he was sent east to Di o c l e t i a n ' s court. 1 5Seeck, Gesohiehte 4.3 and 377; PLRE 223. This i s also the opinion of W. Blum, "Die Jugend des Constantius II. b i s zu seinem Regierungsantritt. Eine chronologische Untersuchung," Classiea et Mediaevalia 30 (1969) 389-391. "^J.-R. Palanque, "Chronologie constantinienne," REA 40 (1938) 249-250; P. C. F. Guthrie, "The Execution of Crispus," Phoenix 20 (1966) 329-331. 1 7 Z o s . 2.39.1. 1 Q Zos. 2.20.2. II. 19 For t h i s date see below under the discussion of Constantius 20 Zos. 2.20.2. 2 1 V i c t . Epit. 41.4. 2 2 G u t h r i e , "The Execution of Crispus," 329-331. 23 I have seen t h i s IS at Surrentum ( i n September 1970). There i s no trace of the word novaevcae [sia] and, i n any case, as a re s t o r a t i o n i t involves excessive crowding. Far more l i k e l y i s genetrici, of which I saw traces (. . . .TR. .1). A. O l i v e t t i , "I f i g l i d e l l a imperatrice Fausta," AAT 49 (1913-1914) 1242-1251, considers t h i s IS to have been dedicated to Fausta as the novevoa of Crispus and the mater of Constantine II and Constantius I I . 50 24 AE (1952) 107 confirms Constantine II as the o f f s p r i n g of Constantine and Fausta. 25 J u l . Cv. 1.9D. Anon. V. Const. 9 affirms that Constantine had four o f f s p r i n g by Fausta, namely Constantine I I , Constantius I I , Constans, and Constantina. Zon. 13.2.5D vouches f o r the three sons. 2 6 V i c t . Epit. 42.17. 27 F. Paschoud, Zosime (Paris 1971) 1.212. Paschoud prefers to solve the problem by r e t a i n i n g the date of February 317 for Constantine II and changing that of Constantius I I to 7 August 318, but i n so doing he i s v i o l a t i n g the evidence of Amm. 21.15.3 and Eutr. 10.15.2. Phot. Bibl. 258 (483b), an extract from a biography of Athanasius, also states that Constantius II died i n h i s f o r t y - f i f t h year. 2 8 CTh 11.30.5-6. 29 J.-R. Palanque, "Chronologie constantinienne," REA 40 (1938) 249-250. 30 Suet. Claud. 1. I am indebted to D. G. 0. Smith f or t h i s reference. 3 1 E u t r . 10.6.3; V i c t . Caes. 41.6; Anon. Val. 5.19, 28, 29; 'Hieron. Chvon. for 317; Oros. 7.28.22. V i c t . Epit. 41.4 and Zos. 2.20.2 only imply that he was a son of Constantia i n that they do not specify that he was a bastard, although at the same time they do s t i p u l a t e t h i s status f o r Crispus. 32CTh 4.6.2-3. 3 3 CTh 4.6.2 of 29 A p r i l 336. 3^ad suae originis pvimovdia. 35CTh 4.6.3 of 21 July 336. 7.28.26. 3 6Anon. Val. 5.19; Hieron. Chvon. for 317; Eutr. 10.6.3; Oros. 31AE (1969/1970) 375. O Q Lact. Movt. Revs. 43.2 and Zos. 2.17.2 f o r the betrothal of Constantia. 39 Lact. Movt. Revs. 45.1 et al. 40 Zos. 2.20.3; V i c t . Ep%t. 41.4. This i s the opinion of A. Chastagnol, "Propos sur L i c i n i u s l e Jeune," BSFN 27 (1972) 264-267, who has concluded that L i c i n i u s II was the legitimate son of Constantia. 51 41 If the filio referred to i n Anon. V a l . 5.17 i s L i c i n i u s II and not his i l l e g i t i m a t e brother, the e a r l i e r date becomes necessary, since L i c i n i u s had t h i s filio and his wife with him when he f l e d from Cibalae on 8 October 314 (Cons. Const, for 314). 42 e.g.,ILS 712-714. AE (1948) 40 i s an exception, l i s t i n g L i c i n i u s II a f t e r Constantine I I . 4 3Pan. Lat. 9.26.5. 44 > » Zos. 2.20.2: ri6n veavtav 6vxa. ^ H i e r o n . Chron. for 318; Hieron. de vir. -ill. 80. 46 The prefect may have been V e t t i u s Rufinus or Junius Bassus. The i d e n t i t y of the prefects i s confused by the u n r e l i a b l e state of the codes. See J.-R. Palanque, "Les prefets du p r e t o i r e de Constantin," AIFhO 10 (1950) 483-485, 491, and PLRE 1.154, 1048. ^E. G a l l e t i e r , Pan£gyriques latins (Paris 1952) 2.149. P. Bruun, i n RIC 7.52, believes that the quinquennalia were celebrated i n Sirmium at that time; i n his Studies in Constantinian Chronology (New York 1961) 59, he gives further good evidence i n favour of Sirmium. Perhaps the panegyric was composed at Rome and delivered at Sirmium. 48 Pan. Lat. 10.17.1-2. 49 Pan. Lat. 10.36.3. ~*®Pan. Lat. 10.36.4: fratrum suorumque omnium fruitur aspeotu; the brothers included Constantine I I , Constantius II (born on 7 August 317 and s t i l l a privatus), and Constans, now an infant (born i n 320). ^Pan. Lat. 10.36.5. 52 Pan. Lat. 10.37.3. 53 Pan. Lat. 10.37.5-6. "^E. G a l l e t i e r , Panegyriques latins. (Paris 1952) 2.197. 55Pan. Lat. 10.3.5, 10.1.1, 10.2.3. 56 For t h e i r o r i g i n s see below under t h e i r promotion to the rank of Caesar 57 Pan. Lat. 10.36.1. 58Pan. Lat. 10.36.2. 52 59 CTh 9.38.1. Nazarius' panegyric (Pan. Lat. 10), delivered on 1 March 321, concentrates on the accomplishments and g l o r i e s of Crispus towards the beginning and the end of the panegyric i t s e l f . His marriage would have been one of them, i f he had been married then. Pan. Lat. 6, delivered on 31 March 307 i n honour of Maximian and Constantine on the occasion of the marriage of Constantine with Fausta, i l l u s t r a t e s the importance conceded to an imperial wedding. 6 0Cohen #2 (7.320), #1 (7.360). 6 1Cohen #1 (7.339), #74 (7.346), #75 (7.346). 62 For Crispus at T r i e r see RIC 7.144. 63RIC 7.52; Cohen #132 (7.353), #109 (7.377). 6 4 i ? I C 7.493-494. 6 5 E. Gibbon, The Decline and Pall of the Roman Empire (London 1909) 2.222. 66 Degrassi 79. 6 7 Z o s . 2.22-26. 68 Called Agavxos by Zos. and Amandus by Anon. Val. 5.23-26. 6 9 E u s . HE 10.9.4-6. 7 0 J u l . Or. 1.9D. 71 Chron. Pasch. for 324; Anon, post Dion. frg. 14; Zon. 13.2.5D. 72Cons. Const, for 324; CIL 1, 268; CTh 7.20.1. Entries i n the CTh (i.e., 7.20.1 and 15.14.1) imply that the war took place i n 323, but i t i s now generally agreed that L i c i n i u s was defeated i n 324; see Stein -Palanque 465. 73 Martinianus had heretofore been L i c i n i u s ' magister officiorum: V i c t . Epit. 41.6; Zos. 2.25.2. The l i t e r a r y sources state that he was made a Caesar, but the coins are unanimous i n r e f e r r i n g to him as an Augustus: RIC 7.25, 607, 645. PLRE 563 ignores the numismatic evidence and r e f e r s to him as a Caesar. 74 Cons. Const, for 324. 7 ^ F o r the campaign, Anon. V a l . 5.23-28 i s followed; some d e t a i l s from Zos. 2.22-26 are added when they do not c o n f l i c t with the account i n Anon. V a l . 53 7 6Anon. Val. 5.28-29; Zos. 2.28; V i c t . 'Epit. 41.7; Eutr. 10.6. Anon. Val. states that Martinianus was l a t e r k i l l e d i n Cappadocia, but Constantine probably sent him along with L i c i n i u s to Thessalonica. Martinianus would have had f a r le s s influence i n one of Constantine's strongholds than near the eastern f r o n t i e r . 7 7Anon. Val. 5.29; Theoph. for 323 (A.M. 5815). 7 8 Cons. Const, for 324, where Constantius should be read for Constantinus; CIL 1, page 276; V i c t . Caes. 41.10; Hieron. Chvon. for 323 errs i n the year, for he died i n the t h i r t y - e i g h t h year of h i s reig n (Amm. 21.15.3); Amm. 14.5.1 gives 10 October, e r r i n g here as i n the case of h i s death (21.15.3) by l i s t i n g the month "October" instead of "November"; the reading of the Cons. Const, and of CIL i s preferred by most scholars; on t h i s problem see E. G a l l e t i e r , Ammien Mavoetlin (Paris 1968) 1.202. Constantius w i l l henceforth be r e f e r r e d to as Constantius II i n order that he may not be confused with his other r e l a t i o n s . AE (1937) 119 reads: natale Idibus Nob. [sic], i.e., 13 November, but i s f u l l of minor errors, as here i t omits VI before Idibus; see A. Chastagnol, "Un governeur constantinien de T r i p o l i t a i n e , " Latomus 25 (1966) 545. Them. Ov. 4.58B states that Constantine defined the boundary of Constantinople and made Constantius II Caesar at the same time; therefore, i t i s quite l i k e l y that Constantius II was o f f i c i a l l y invested with his new t i t l e at Byzantium. The youth of Constantius I I i s discussed i n d e t a i l by W. Blum, "Die Jugend des Constantius I I , " 389-402. 79 CIL 1, page 270; CIL 1, page 271 errs i n reading t h i s date as natalis Constantini minovis; CTh 6.4.10 gives 13 August, reading die natali meo Constanti A. id. Aug. , but Mommsen ( i n h i s e d i t i o n of the CTh) prefers the reading of CIL 1, page 270. F. Paschoud, Zosime (Paris 1971) 1.211-212, prefers the year 318 on the ground that V i c t . Epit. (a source that has much i n common with Zosimus) states that Constantius II died i n his f o r t y - f o u r t h year; however, the other sources, including Amm. 21.15.3 (which Paschoud neglects to c i t e ) , are agreed i n s t a t i n g that Constantius II died i n h i s f o r t y - f i f t h year. 80 J u l . Ov. 1.5D. Constantine was at Sirmium on 6 June 317 (CTh 11.30.7) and stayed i n that v i c i n i t y for quite some time. 81ILS 730. 82 J u l . Ov. 1.9C. On the legitimacy of Constantius II see Guthrie, "The Execution of Crispus," 330-331. Q T Zos. 2.39.1. 84 Zos. 2.29.2. This confusion may have a r i s e n from a scr i b e rather than from Zosimus: see F. Paschoud, Zosime (Paris 1971) 1.244-245. 54 Q c Pan. Lat. 10.36.1. At t h i s time (8 November 324) Constantine I I was eight years of age, Constantius I I seven, and Constans four; Crispus was about twenty-one. 86RIC 7.69. 87RIC 7.69. 8 8Cohen #1 (7.321), #1 (7.321); these = RIC #68 (7.612) and #70 (7.689) re s p e c t i v e l y . The former coin served to introduce Constantius II to the imperial household i n 324/325, but the l a t t e r was not minted u n t i l early 326 i n order to commemorate his f i r s t consulship. 89 Soc. 1.13 for the date of the Council of Nicaea. 90 Eus. HE 10.9.4. 91 Eus. HE 10.9.6. 9 2 E u s . HE 10.9.9. 93 Hieron. Chron. for 328. 9 4 0 p t . Porph. 4.1, 9.35^36, 16.35, 19.33. 95 Opt. Porph. 16.35-36. 9 6 0 p t . Porph. 10.24-28. 9 7 0 p t . Porph. 5.30-34. 9 8 0 p t . Porph. 9.23-27. 99CTh 1.15.1; CJ 6.21.15; CTh 9.1.4. 100CTh 15.14.1, 15.14.2. 1 0 1 C 1 1 1 Soc. 1.13. 10? CTh 12.6.2, 12.7.1. 103 Cons. Const, for 326; Hieron. Chron. for 326; Eus. V. Const. 1.1. 104 CTh 9.1.4. 105_ , . Soc. 1.4. 1 0 6 o 7, See note 76. 55 1 0 7Anon. Val. 5.29; Cons. Const, for 325; V i c t . Caes. 41.9; V i c t . Epit. 41.7-8; Eutr. 10.6; Oros. 7.28.20-21; Soz. 1.7; Zos. 2.28.2; Zon. 13.1.3B. Anon. Val. 5.29 i s the source f o r the d e t a i l s and the quotation. The Cons. Const, dates the death of L i c i n i u s to 325. V i c t . Caes. 41.9 allows for no time-lag between L i c i n i u s ' f i n a l defeat and his execution, but V i c t . Epit. 41.8 states that he was executed a f t e r (paulo post) being sent to Thessalonica. Eutr. 10.6 condemns the deed: contra religionem sacramenti privatus occisus est. Zos. 2.28.2 implies that Martinianus was k i l l e d immediately while L i c i n i u s was spared u n t i l he could be removed to Thessalonica. 108 Lact. Mort. Pers. 50-51 and above, pages 5-6. 109 Anon. Val. 5.29: fxlio et uxore superstate; the death of L i c i n i u s II i s associated with that of Crispus i n the following year. "'""'"^Degrassi 79. 111CTh 2.10.4. 112 Various scholars have established d i f f e r e n t dates for these executions. Most favour the period before Constantine's a r r i v a l i n Rome, namely Seeck Regesten 176 (between 15 March and 1 A p r i l ) , A. P i g a n i o l , L'Empire chretien (325-395) (Paris 1947) 35 (between 15 May and 17 June), F. Paschoud, Zosime (Paris 1971) 1.221 (before 18 J u l y ) . However, P. Bruun, RIC 7.71 and 563, favours the period September-November 326, when Constantine t r a v e l l e d from Rome to S i s c i a ; he bases h i s conclusion l a r g e l y on Zos. 2.29 and the panegyric of Optatianus Porphyrius. Zosimus dates the murders to Constantine's sojourn i n Rome but his chronology i s t e r r i b l y confused here, for he dates Constantine's conversion to t h i s , h i s l a s t stay at Rome; Optatianus' panegyric was probably composed i n the winter of 324/325 f o r the vicennalia at Nicomedia and not for those at Rome (see PLRE 1.649 and page 24 above). Zosimus' account, dating the executions to Constantine's sojourn i n Rome, i s based on an old pagan t r a d i t i o n that strove to associate Constantine's conversion to C h r i s t i a n i t y with h i s most reprehensible deeds rather than with his v i c t o r y at the M i l v i a n Bridge some fourteen years e a r l i e r . This pagan t r a d i t i o n , that Constantine turned to C h r i s t i a n i t y because only that r e l i g i o n ' s p r i e s t s would grant him absolution for the murder of his son and wife, had already been refuted by Soz. 1.5. If we can place any f a i t h i n the r e l i a b i l i t y of the S. Artemii Passio, the dispute regarding the date of Constantine's conversion was a l i v e l y issue i n 362, when Artemius was t r i e d by J u l i a n ; a f t e r J u l i a n claimed that Constantine was rejected by the gods because of the murder of Crispus and Fausta (Art. Pass. 43), Artemius r e p l i e d that the executions were j u s t i f i e d i n the context of contemporary a f f a i r s and that, i n any case, Constantine had adopted the C h r i s t i a n r e l i g i o n as a r e s u l t of his v i c t o r y at the M i l v i a n Bridge (Art. Pass. 45). The pagan a r i s t o c r a c y of Rome, disappointed i n the f a i l u r e of the vicennalia there and angered by Constantine's concentration on the new c a p i t a l at Byzantium (Zos. 2.30.1: O U K evejK&v 6e T & S uapa irctvpuv cos 56 £ ITT £ i v B A C t o c j j r i p f a s T T 6 A . I V a v x i p p o T r o v x f i s ' P a J p n s e g f i x E i , K a 6 ' r f v a u x o v eSei BaaiAexa Kaxaaxf)aao8ou) , sought to connect h i s conversion to C h r i s t i a n i t y with the t r a g i c events of that year. This pagan t r a d i t i o n soon spread to the Greek-speaking East, there to be adopted by the pagans such as Eunapius and Zosimus and to be refuted by C h r i s t i a n s such as Sozomenus. It i s quite l i k e l y that the pagan t r a d i t i o n was given greater currency by J u l i a n the Apostate, who states e x p l i c i t l y that Constantine turned to Jesus because, of a l l the gods, only He would grant repeated forgiveness for sins such as murder ( J u l . Caes. 336A-B). For further information on t h i s topic see F. Paschoud, Zosime (Paris 1971) 1.219-224, and h i s "Zosime 2.29 et l a version pa'ienne de l a conversion de Constantin," Histovia 20 (1971) 334-353. 113 E s p e c i a l l y Zos. 2.29.1-2; f a r le s s enthusiasm i s shown by V i c t . Caes. 41.11, V i c t . Epit. 41.11-12, Eutr. 10.6.3, and Amm. 14.11.20. 114 E s p e c i a l l y P h i l o s t . 2.4 and Anon. V. Const. 35-36; also Soz. 1.5, Oros. 7.28.26, Sid. Ap. Ep. 5.8.2., Zon. 13.2.5D-6A, Hieron. Chvon. for 325 and 328, Cons. Const, for 326, and Chvon. Pasah. for 325. 115CTh 9.1.4 on page 26. 1 1 6 G u t h r i e , "The Execution of Crispus," 325. R. C. Blockley, "Constantius Gallus and J u l i a n as Caesars of Constantius I I , " Latomus 31 (1972) 457-458, believes that Constantine k i l l e d Crispus because the l a t t e r was constantly increasing i n power and threatening to e c l i p s e not only h i s younger half-brothers but also the Augustus himself. "^^J. Maurice, "Les c a p i t a l e s imperiales de Constantin et l e meurtre de Crispus," CRAI (1914) 325-327, dates c e r t a i n coins with the legend Pvovidentiae Augg. to the period immediately following the death of L i c i n i u s and concludes that Constantine planned to set up Crispus as a fellow Augustus i n Rome. However, there i s no other evidence r e f e r r i n g to Crispus as an Augustus. It i s most l i k e l y that t h i s reverse legend was c a r r i e d over from the j o i n t reign of Constantine and L i c i n i u s . 118 Optatianus, looking forward to the vioennalia (4.1, 4.7, 9.35-36) and looking back on the defeat of L i c i n i u s (toto viotovia in ovbe: 7.29), must have composed his poems about the same time as Eusebius' Histovia Ecclesiastica, we. , i n the winter of 324/325. He has considerable praise for Crispus' v i c t o r i e s over the Franks (5.30-32, 10.24-28), but of Constantine II he can say only that he i s spes tantae vite quieti missa polo (5.33-34). What i s more, Optatianus mentions only a gemino Caesave (16.36), thereby f a i l i n g to recognize the recent promotion of Constantius I I . A l l t h i s did not bode well so far as Fausta was concerned f o r her own o f f s p r i n g . If Crispus' wife and son had died, t h i s would have been only a temporary setback for him. It did not mean that thereafter he would be unable to beget a son. 57 1 1 Q Zos. 2.29.1-2; Zon. 13.2.5D-6A; P h l l o s t . 2.4; Anon. V. Const. 35-36. 120CTh 9.7.1. 121 CTh 9.24.1, 9.8.1. Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology 42, prefers to date these two laws to 318 i n order to support the evidence of his coinage. Nevertheless, the MSS give the choice of 320 or 326 for the f i r s t law and s t i p u l a t e 326 for the second. Seeck, Regesten 176, prefers 326 for both laws. 122 Amm. 14.11.20. The execution could be managed more d i s c r e e t l y at some distance from the court. Constantine feared an upr i s i n g on behalf of his son i f he d i d not act quickly enough. 123 Lact. Mort Pers. 30.2-3. 1 24 Hieron. Chron. for 325; Eutr. 10.6.3; Oros. 7.28.26. 125 ILS 111, dated a f t e r the murder of Crispus by the reference to only two Caesars (amitae dd. nn. baeatissimorum C[aess].); f o r her rank see RIC 7.570-571. 1 2 6 Z o s . 2.29.1-2; P h i l o s t . 2.4; Anon. V. Const. 36; Zon. 13.2.6A; V i c t . Epit. 41.11-12. Hieron. Chron. puts her death i n 328, but the numismatic evidence indicates only a short time-lag between the executions: see RIC 7.71-72. 127 Sid. Ap. Ep. 5.8.2 i s the only source to mention that Crispus was poisoned; Zosimus, P h i l o s t o r g i u s , and Zonaras agree with him regarding the use of a hot bath for Fausta. 128CTh 9.7.2. 119e.g., ILS 708, 710. 130 CTh 9.1.5. 131 CTh 9.9.1 of 29 May 326 (thus the MSS and Mommsen; Seeck, Regesten 179, prefers 329). 132 CIL 1, page 268. 133 Cons. Const, for 325; Hieron. Chron. for 326. 1 3 4 S i d . Ap. Ep. 5.8.2. 135CTh 3.32.2, 10.1.5, 11.3.2, 12.5.1. 136CTh 14.24.1. 58 117 CTh 6.35.5. 138CTh 1.4.2. 139 ^RIC 7.72,147. 140 RIC 7.232; proof that the c i t y was named a f t e r Constantine II and not a f t e r one of h i s r e l a t i v e s i s the f a c t that Constans, a f t e r defeating h i s eldest brother, resorted to the o r i g i n a l name i n 340 and that Constantius I I invoked the name Constantia a f t e r the defeat of Magnentius i n 353: LRBC 9 and 54. H. Rolland, "Deux dates de chronologie arlesienne," Latomus 13 (1954) 203, proposes that the renaming of Arelate should be dated to 1 March 327, thereby celebrating the end of the deoennalia of Constantine I I . What i s important i s that the c i t y was named i n honour of Constantine I I , and of no one else, at t h i s early point i n h i s career. A r e l a t e was chosen because i t was h i s bir t h - p l a c e : Zos. 2.20.2, V i c t . Epit. 41.4. 141 Constantine II possessed t h i s t i t l e by 30 June 331 at the l a t e s t : ILS 6091; the t i t l e i s also recorded i n AE (1934) 158 and ILS 724. 142 Dd. Nn. Constantinus VIII, Constantinus Caesar IIII: Degrassi 80. 141 e.g.,CTh 6.4.1, 2.16.1, 11.27.1, 9.9.1 for the Balkans; CTh 11.30.13, 12.1.17, 16.8.2, 16.8.4, 5.9.1, 1.16.6, 1.16.7 for the area around Constantinople. Constantinople was dedicated on 11 May 330: Cons. Const, for 330, Chron. Pasch. f o r 330. 144 J u l . Or. 1.12A; RIC 7.74. 3.5.4-5. "'"^Constantine was at Marcianopolis on 12 A p r i l 332: CTh 146 Anon. Val. 6.31; Cons. Const, f o r 332; Hieron. Chron. f o r 332; J u l . Or. 1.9D. Seeck, Geschichte 4.382, prefers to change the date from 20 A p r i l to 18 February because of the fame et frigore mentioned by the Anon. Val. U7RIC 7.147-148. ILS 6091 of 30 June 331 gives the t i t l e of Guth. victor ac trium[f]ator to Constantine I alone. The t i t l e conferred upon Constantine II may have been Germanious: ILS page CLXXII, a c o r r e c t i o n of ILS 724. 148 According to Eus. V. Const. 4.49, Constantine II was married long before the trioennalia of h i s father ended i n 336. 149 Cons. Const, for 333; Hieron. Chron. for 333; Anon. V. Const. 64; V i c t . Caes. 41.13-14; V i c t . Epit. 41.23; Eus. Laud. Const. 3.2; Eus. V. Const. 4.40; Zos. 2.35.1. 59 150CTh 1.2.6. 151CTh 8.13.3. 152 Constans was c e r t a i n l y a son of Fausta: J u l . Or. 1.9D; ILS 725; Guthrie, "The Execution of Crispus," 330-331. V i c t . Epit. 41.23. Seeck, Gesohiehte 4.3 and 378, dates the b i r t h of Constans to 323. 1 5 4 H i e r o n , Chron. for 350; Zon. 13.6.14A; Eutr. 10.9.3-4. J.-R. Palanque, "Chronologie constantinienne," REA 40 (1938) 250, favours the year 320 on the ground that Eutropius i s a more r e l i a b l e source than the Epitome. ^^Pan. Lat. 10.36.1: eorumque fratribus. 156Pan. Lat. 10.36.1. 157RIC 7.564-565. 158Amm. 20.11.3; Athan. Hist. Ar. 69. 159 For the date: Cons. Const, for 334; Hieron. Chron. for 334. Constantine was at Singidunum on 5 J u l y 334 (CTh 10.15.2), at Viminacium on 4 August 334 (CTh 12.1.21), and at Naissus on 25 August 334 (CTh 11.39.3). Other sources include: Anon. Val. 6.32; Eus. V. Const. 4.6; Amm. 17.12.17-18, 17.13.1. 1 6 0 F o r the t i t l e of Sarmaticus: RIC 7.74; Amm. 17.13.25; ILS 724. For Constantius II's journey from Gaul to the East: J u l . Or. 1.13B. " ^ F o r the date: Hieron. Chron. for 334. Other sources include: Anon. Val. 6.35; V i c t . Caes. 41.11-12; Oros. 7.28.30; Theoph. for 332 and 333 (A.M. 5824 and 5825); Pol. S i l v . Latereulus 63 (page 522). The sources a t t r i b u t e the deed to Constantine d i r e c t l y or to h i s nephew Dalmatius; however, i t was the elder Dalmatius who was i n charge; for the evidence see the following chapter. 162 For the campaign i n general: N. H. Baynes, MRome and Armenia i n the Fourth Century," EHR 25 (1910) 627-629, who a t t r i b u t e s the campaign to Hannibalianus; W. E n s s l i n , "Zu dem vermuteten Perserfeldzug des rex Hannibalianus," Klio 29 (1936) 102-110, who a t t r i b u t e s i t to Constantius I I . For Amida and Antoninopolis: Amm. 18.9.1; Theoph. for 340 (A.M. 5832). 163 Festus 26. In h i s commentary on Festus, J . W. Eadie (page 149) contradicts h i s own author by a t t r i b u t i n g the success to Hannibalianus. 60 1 6 4 E u s . V. Const. 4.8, 4.56-57. 1 6 5Theoph. for 340 (A.M. 5832). J u l . Or. 1.13B r e f e r s to Constantius II's sole command against the Parthians and the Medes. 166 Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology 74. 1 6 7 B r u u n , 71-72. Bruun 72. 169 18 September i s given by Cons. Const, for 335; the Chron. Pasah. for 335, confused at t h i s point, dates the event to 24 September; Hieron. Chron. for 335 i s i n d e f i n i t e , dating i t to the triaennalibus Constantini. For ripam Gothiqam see Anon. V a l . 6.35. Other sources include V i c t . Caes. 41.15, V i c t . Epit. 41.15, Zos. 2.39.2, and Oros. 7.28.30. The subjects treated i n the l a s t part of t h i s chapter, including the promotion of Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, the education of the Caesars, and the death of Constantine I, are discussed b r i e f l y by G. G i g l i , La dinastia dei secondi Flavii: Costantino II, Costanto, Costanzo II (337-361) (Rome 1959) 3-6. ^ 7^The elder Dalmatius, perhaps the eldest son of Constantius I and Theodora, could not have been born e a r l i e r than 294, about a year a f t e r the promotion of Constantius I. His son, therefore, was probably born i n the period 312-320. For the elevation of Constantius I to the rank of Caesar (on 1 March 293) and h i s marriage to Theodora see Stein-Palanque 68. The only po s s i b l e evidence for an e a r l i e r date f o r the marriage (Pan. Lat. 2.11.4 of 21 A p r i l 289) i s too vague to be use f u l ; f or the various points of view see X. Lucien-Brun, "Minervina, epouse ou concubine?" BAGB 29 (1970) 404, note 6. ^^CTh 16.8.5 and 16.9.1 were issued from Constantinople on 21 October 335. 172 Anon. Val. 6.35; Pol. S i l v . Lateroulus 63 (page 522); Amm. 14.1.2; P h i l o s t . 3.22; Chron. Pasah. for 335; V i c t . Epit. 41.20; Zos. 2.39.2. Constantine made him regem regum et Ponticarum gentium (Anon. Val. 6.35). 173 Chron. Pasah. for 335. 174 Coins of Dalmatius are recorded for a l l a c t i v e mints i n RIC 7; the coins of Hannibalianus (RIC 7.584, 589) depict him as rex and portray a r i v e r , generally considered to be the Euphrates. "''^^Zos. 2.39.2. This t i t l e was normally conferred upon a Caesar, but i t s a p p l i c a t i o n to Hannibalianus and J u l i u s Constantius, who were not such, i s exceptional. 176 Eus. V. Const. 4.57. On the date see RIC 7.75, note 4. 61 "*"77Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology 71-72. 1 7 8 E u s . V. Const. 4.49; J u l . Ep. ad Ath. 272D; Athan. Hist. Ar. 69. Being the s i s t e r of Gallus, she was therefore the daughter of J u l i u s Constantius' f i r s t wife, G a l l a (on Galla as the mother of Gallus see Amm. 14.11.27); none of the sources ventures to mention her name. 179 Eus. V. Const. 4.49. A f t e r the death of Crispus, Eusebius pretended that he had never existed, thereby regarding Constantine II as the f i r s t son and Constantius I I as the second son. 180Amm. 20.11.3; Athan. Hist. Ar. 69. 181 CTh 4.6.2. For information on the sons of L i c i n i u s see pages 11-13 of t h i s chapter. 182CTh 4.6.3. 183 Eusebius' o r a t i o n was delivered i n 336, not 335, since within i t he. r e f e r s to Dalmatius as a Caesar; Dalmatius was not given t h i s rank u n t i l 18 September 335. For the place and date of t h i s o r a t i o n see Bruun, Studies in Constantinian Chronology 71-72, whose conclusion i s supported i n d e t a i l by H. A. Drake, "When Was the 'de laudibus Constantini' Delivered?," Historia 24 (1975) 345-356. 184 Eus. Laud. Const. 3.2-4. 185 Eus. Laud. Const. 3.5-6. 18 6 Eus. V. Const. 1.21. 1 8 7 A u s . Prof. 17.8-13. 188 Aus. Prof. 16.9-12. It i s noteworthy that Constantine's half-brothers remained i n obscurity u n t i l about 330; the death of Constantine's mother Helena i n 329 (RIC 7.72-73) appears to have enabled Constantine to treat the descendants of Theodora, the arch-enemy of Helena, with greater d i s t i n c t i o n . The f i r s t sign of favour towards the descendants of Theodora was the nomination of the elder Dalmatius to the consulship of 333. S. Mazzarino, "Note Costantiniane," Aegyptus 20 (1940) 298, writes: "Dopo l a morte d i Elena, l a p o l i t i c a d i Costantino r i s p e t t o a i suoi f r a t e l l a s t r i s i e sostanzialmente trasformata; nel 333, i l consolato d i Dalmazio I segna 1 ' i n i z i o d i questo nuovo attegiamento d i n a s t i c o , che incidera' profondamente s u l l a p o l i t i c a interna d e l l ' impero." 189 PLRE 1.1048 l i s t s V a l e r i u s Maximus and Nestorius Timonianus as prefects i n I l l y r i c u m under Dalmatius Caesar. However, J.-R. Palanque, Essai sur la prefecture du pretoire du bas-empire (Paris 1933) 8-9, has shown good reason for l i s t i n g Timonianus as prefect of A f r i c a at that time. Our ignorance of the prefectures i s due as much to t h e i r 62 t r a n s i t o r y character, e s p e c i a l l y under the r e i g n of Constantine, as to the deplorable state of the codes. The author of the l a t e s t d e t a i l e d study of the problem A. Chastagnol, "Les prefets du p r e t o i r e de Constantin," REA 70 (1968) 321-352 i s of the opinion that Nestorius Timonianus became prefect of A f r i c a i n the spring of 337 and that he could not be Dalmatius' prefect. However, he does bel i e v e (page 347) that a l o c a l praetorian prefect did replace the comes i n Macedonia-Thrace when Dalmatius was appointed Caesar there but considers the person to be anonymous; he believes that t h i s man was the t h i r d praetorian prefect (whose name was erased) l i s t e d on the i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc, i.e., AE (1925) 72. Each of the other Caesars and Constantine himself had a praetorian prefect, but Hannibalianus, lacking the rank of Caesar, had no such o f f i c i a l . 190 Aus. Prof. 16.13-16. 191 In 349: thus A. F. Norman i n the introduction (page 1) to his e d i t i o n of Libanius' Selected Works (Vol 1: London 1969). 192 Soc. 2.4-5 and Soz. 3.2 place the death of Eusebius s h o r t l y before the war between Constantine II and Constans, i.e., no l a t e r than the l a t e winter of 339/340. 193 L i b . Or. 59.33. 1 9 4 L i b . Or. 59.34t-36. 195 Lib. Or. 59.40. 1 9 6 L i b . Or. 59.42-43. 197 Above, page 35. 198 Above, pages 35 and 36. 199 Above, page 36. 2 0 0 E u s . V. Const. 4.51-52. 2 0 1 E u s . V. Const. 4.52. 202 For the increasing independence of the Caesars a f t e r 335 regarding the minting of coins see RIC 7.15-16; t h i s independence was most noticeable i n Gaul. 203 Soz. 2.34; Soc. 1.39-40; Chron. Pasch. for 337. These three sources a l l agree that Constantius II was i n the far east when he heard of h i s father's death. Zon. 13.4.10C s p e c i f i e s that he was i n Antioch. 204 Eus. V. Const. 4.60-61; Soz. 2.34; Soc. 1.39. 63 CTh 12.5.2, posted at Carthage on 21 May 337. Cons. Const, for 337; Chron. Pasah. for 337; Hieron. Chron. for 337; Athan. Pest. Ind. 10; Anon. Val. 6.35; V i c t . Caes. 41.16; V i c t . Epit. 41.15; Eutr. 10.8.2; Oros. 7.28.31; Zos. 2.39.1; Eus. V. Const. 4.64; Soz. 2.34; Soc. 1.39-40; Theod. 1.30; Zon. 13.4.IOC. CHAPTER TWO THE DEATH OF CONSTANTINE I AND THE MURDER OF CONSTANTINE II (1) Eusebius and the Massacre of 337 Constantine the Great bequeathed to h i s subjects a state r e l a t i v e l y secure on i t s f r o n t i e r s and welded together by a bureaucracy that had become accustomed to obey but one master. The death of that one r u l e r was to reveal the divergent i n t e r e s t s of the members of the administration, p a r t i c u l a r l y those of h i s own household. If Constantine i s to be faulted on any one point, surely that i s h i s excessive thoroughness i n grooming his younger r e l a t i o n s to succeed to the imperial power. Having learned from the fa t e of Crispus not to put a l l his hope i n one person, he had e f f e c t i v e l y designated three sons and one nephew to administer a tetrarchy of sorts and had granted his other male r e l a t i o n s considerable authority. The c o n f l i c t among the members of h i s household was soon to resolve i t s e l f i n a massacre that would leave only his own three sons, Constantine I I , Constantius I I , and Constans, to be recognized as Augusti on 9 September 337."'" For the events of the intervening four months we have only one contemporary source, the highly r h e t o r i c a l Vita Constantini of Eusebius of Caesarea. In t h i s work, composed sho r t l y before his own death i n 338, Eusebius makes no mention of any massacre. Rather, he portrays the 64 administrat ion as possessing so much respect for Constantine as to continue to do obeisance before h i s corpse u n t i l the a r r i v a l of his 2 sons. Eusebius strove to please the sons as r e a d i l y as the father and adapted h is biography of Constantine to accord with t h e i r des ires . Any references to Crispus, Dalmatius, and Hannibalianus were omitted and Constantine was spoken of as ouxo) &T) xpidfios A6ya) xpixxfiv Y ° V ^ V TOICJCOV 6eod>iAn Kxriodyevos, xaOxnv 6' £<))' eKdaxn nepiofia) Seicae'xous X P ^ V 0 U < c eiairoifiaei xfjs BaaiAefas xiyfiaas. According to Eusebius, who, i t must be remembered, was w r i t i n g after the event, Constantine w i l l e d t h a t only his sons should succeed him: 'fis ouv eKaxe"pcov xuiv 'dKpwv xfis (5Ar|s oiKouyfivns eKpdxei, xftv atjyiraaav xfis gaaiAefas apxnv x p i a i x o i s auxou oinpei i r a i a i v , o i a x i v a iraxpaiav ouafav xots auxou KAripo6oxa>v cJnAxdxois. 4 Eusebius adds that upon Constantine's death messengers were immediately dispatched to the Caesars to inform them of the event: Taiv 6e axpaxicjxiKoiv xayydxiov eKKpixous 'dv6pas, trtaxei Kai; euvo'Ta irdAai BaaiAet Y V A )P ^ P ° U S > ° ^ x a ^ i a p x o i 6ieireyTrovxo, xa TreiTpaYy £va xots Kaiaapaiv eK6nAa Ka0 laxcovxes. Kai; o'i6e yev xdS' enpaxxov • aicnTep 6' e£ eirnrvo'ias Kpeixxovos, x a iravxaxou axpaxdire6a xbv BaaiAews iru66yeva 0dvaxov, y i a s eKpdxei Y v ^ y n s , <I)aave\ ?uivxos auxots xou yeydAou BaaiA^ws, yn6£va yvupi^eiv 'gxepov, 'n ydvous xous auxou Trai6as 'Ptoyafwv auxoicpdxopas. O U K e is yaKpbv 6' f)5^°uv, yft Kafaapas, evxeuGev 6' r\6r\ xous ' d i T a v x a s x P n y a x f £ e i v Auyouaxous • *b 6h <ai yeYicrxov T^\s avojxdxu) gaaiAe'ias Y ^ Y V 0 1 T ' aiiygoAov. Oi yev ouv xaux' 'eVpaxxov, xas o ixeias f^l<J)OUs xe KO.\ cj>u)vas 6ia 66 Ypacj)f|s ctAAriAois 6layyeAovxES • U T T 6 y i a v xe Kaipou poiThv xots o t T r a v x a x o u ir&aiv E y v o j p i?exo n x&v axpaxoTreScov a u y c j j w v i a . " ' According to Eusebius, the Senate of Rome also declared for the three sons alone and thereby they were confirmed i n the imperial power. Eusebius makes no mention of Dalmatius and Hannibalianus, whom, before Constantine's death, he had portrayed as two of the rays of l i g h t transmitting his glory to the corners of the Empire. 7 This omission i n i t s e l f i s enough to render Eusebius' account suspect. Later a u t h o r i t i e s are unanimous i n admitting that a massacre did take place, probably before the sons were declared Augusti i n September, but some go to great lengths to exonerate Constantius II from any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y whereas others defend the butchery on the grounds of p o l i t i c a l and m i l i t a r y necessity. It i s my purpose to show that the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l a y with Constantius II but that h i s e a r l i e r upbringing and subsequent actions dictated that he should be at the mercy of his advisers at court, who, for reasons of t h e i r own, preferred to depreciate others i n his presence. F i r s t , however, the separate t r a d i t i o n s surrounding the events of 337 should be summarized. (2) Traditions Surrounding the Massacre of 337 The pagan t r a d i t i o n , confirmed by J u l i a n the Apostate, a cousin of Constantius I I , and de t a i l e d by Zosimus, put a l l the blame for the slaughter of 337 upon the shoulders of Constantius I I . Zosimus i s the most e x p l i c i t , h i s hatred for the father being transferred to the sons: ' A A A a xns a p x n s OVJXOJS E K & O X O J VEynGEiaris, Kwvaxctvxios c J O T r e p e^eiTixriSES yr"i KCXXOTTIV yeveoQa\ TT\S X O U iraxpos aoEgsfas 67 eoT7ou6aK(jJs, at))' e a x i a s a p ? d y e v o s c u y a a u y y e v e s av<5peiou X P O I T O U 6 e t y y a T R C T P A A X E ' T V S i r a a i v riBouAfi8ri. K a i Trp&xov y e v Kaivaxavxico jraxpos a6eXcj)fi 6 i d XOJV axpaxiwxiov K a x a T r p d x x e x - a i 6 d v a x o v , '^Treixa K a i A a A y a x i w XFI K a f a a p i p d i r x e i xhv o y o f a v < t e m B o u A f i v , a u v a v a i p e O r i v a l xouxto K a i ' O T R X D X O V TrapaaKeudaas, 'os ^9 irapd Kojvaxa.vx .TVOU x n s a ^ i a s xexuxt lKei x o u T r a x p i K i o u , T R P A I X O U x a u x n v £TT i vo f iaavxos xf iv X I Y F I V , Kat T f p o K a 8 r i o 8 a i x o u s x a u x n s r ^ I F J J Y I D V O U S X & V X R J S ayAris tnrdpxojv v o y o S e x f i a a v x o s . ' A v n p e 8 r i 6e x o x e A B A a B i o s O xris auAns u i r a p x o s , x n s A i K n s a £ i a v a u i i o Troivnv 9 9 *i 9 ^ e T r i 9 e i a r i s a v 8 ' a>v eTreBotjAeuae S d v a x o v EcoTrdxpw xui <j> iAoao^ai <f>8ova) c < t t xns K w v a x a v x i v o u Trpbs A U X O V o i K e i d x n x o s • u>OTrep Se Kaxd T R A O N S Xcopffiv X F I S a u Y Y E v e f a s , Kat ' A v v i B a A A L A V O V X O U X O I S E T R E S N K E V , U T T O S E Y E V O S eKBoav x o x s a x p a x i w x a i s ws OUK a v a p x o v x o s exepou TTAT"|V XWV K a i v a x a v x i v o u TraiSojv a v d a x o i v x o • x a u x a Y E V OUXOJ g Kojvaxavx io) 6 i e T r o v f i 0 n . J u l i a n , a son of J u l i u s Constantius, adds to t h i s l i s t of victims another uncle ( i . e . , the elder Dalmatius), h i s own eldest brother, and 9 four cousins i n addition to the younger Dalmatius and Hannibalianus. In short, the known male descendants of Theodora were executed with only three exceptions. Gallus, J u l i a n ' s remaining brother, was spared on the ground that he was about to succumb to i l l n e s s . Youth i t s e l f saved J u l i a n . " ^ Nepotianus, the son of Constantine's h a l f - s i s t e r Eutropia, was also spared; h i s age i s not s p e c i f i e d but, since h i s mother must have been born before the death of Constantius I i n 306 and since Nepotianus himself was old enough i n 350 to take the i n i t i a t i v e and proclaim himself emperor at Rome, we can s a f e l y assume that at the time of the massacre he was at l e a s t as o l d as Gallus. While Constantius II l i v e d , however, J u l i a n adopted what became the o f f i c i a l explanation when i t became cl e a r that Eusebius' s i l e n c e was i n e f f e c t i v e , namely, that Constantius II was at the mercy of his s o l d i e r s and unable to prevent the massacre of his r e l a t i o n s and c e r t a i n bureaucrats. In h i s f i r s t o r a t i o n i n honour of Constantius I I , probably delivered j u s t a f t e r h i s appointment as Caesar i n 355, J u l i a n praises the emperor for his j u s t i c e and moderation with a s l i g h t q u a l i f i c a t i o n : T r A f i v e i TTOU B i a a B e i s UTTO XOJV K c t i p w v o t K c o v e x e p o u s e ^ a u a p x e ' i " v o u o i E K o j A u a a s . The same sentiment, expressed far l e s s r h e t o r i c a l l y , i s given by o f f i -c i a l sources from a s l i g h t l y l a t e r period. Eutropius, w r i t i n g i n the reig n of Valens, states that Dalmatius Caesar was k i l l e d by a m i l i t a r y 13 f a c t i o n , Constantio patrueti suo sinente potius quam iubente. V i c t o r goes even further to remove the blame from Constantius I I , saying that 14 Dalmatius was k i l l e d znoertwn quo suasore. A hint of what may have been the r e a l cause i s given i n Jerome's Ch.roni.ele: Dalmatius was k i l l e d faotione Constantii p a t r u e l i s et tumultu m i l i t a r i . ^ The key word i s faotione, to which we s h a l l return at a l a t e r stage. The Fathers of the Church, such as Socrates, preferred for the most part to adopt t h i s version, which s h i f t s the greater part of the blame from the sons of Constantine and places i t upon the s o l d i e r y , whether acting spontaneously or under the influence of a f a c t i o n . The Orthodox t r a d i t i o n of h i s own day was not so c h a r i t a b l e to Constantius I I . Athanasius, h i s implacable enemy on account of the emperor's sympathy with the Arian f a c t i o n , b l u n t l y accused him of managing the whole gory business: Tous yev yap Oeious K A X E A I J J A ^ e , Kai toils aveijuous aveiAe • Kai TrevOepou ('taws, irev0epbv) yev, exi xnv Ouyaxepa yaywv auxou, ovyyeveXs St irdaxovxas O U K e'Xefiaev*aAX5 Kat opKwv ae\ irpos itavtas 17 Trapapaxns Y£Y°vev. A t r a d i t i o n surrounding the events of 337 that has received very l i t t l e serious attention i s that handed down by the Arian source Philo s t o r g i u s . According to t h i s t r a d i t i o n , Constantine the Great was poisoned by his brothers and, r e a l i z i n g t h i s while on h i s death-bed, instructed i n his w i l l that revenge be i n f l i c t e d on his murderers and that whichever of his sons should come f i r s t should exact t h i s revenge, for he feared l e s t they too should be overcome by them i n a l i k e manner. Phil o s t o r g i u s states that Constantine gave the w i l l to Eusebius of Nicomedia and that Eusebius, fearing l e s t the brothers of the emperor should ever look for the w i l l and desire to lea r n what had been written, placed the book i n the hand of the corpse and hid i t amid the cl o t h i n g . The t r a d i t i o n concludes with Constantius II's a r r i v a l before the other sons, his r e c e i p t of the w i l l from Bishop Eusebius, and h i s success i n 18 acting i n accordance with the i n s t r u c t i o n s of h i s father. In the Arian opinion the poisoning of Constantine the Great had been j u s t i f i e d 19 by h i s own murder of Crispus. C l e a r l y the Arians believed that i t took three wrongs, and not two, to make a r i g h t , thereby condoning the murder of Constantius II's uncles and cousins. The Arian viewpoint was refuted by those of the Orthodox persuasion. They discounted the poisoning completely and put the blame 70 for the massacre upon the Arian Constantius II rather than on h i s father, whose r e l i g i o u s views were of a somewhat ambiguous nature. It i s i n t h i s Orthodox t r a d i t i o n that we can see the machinery of government at work during the interregnum a f t e r Constantine's death: T E A E U X W V S E xu> xfis aipeffeois TrpEaguxEpw xriv <5ia0f)Knv iTapaxiOrioiv, evxEiA&uevos syx£ 1Pf a ai Kwvaxavx tvui xauxirv xto naiSt, 'ov Kai TI < < SiaOfiKTi xns Traxpwas yotpas Kai apxns 6iaSoxov Kat gaaiAsa £ypa<j>EV. 0 6E Ka^ t Trpos Oeov Kai Trpos avQpwTrous x6 Tuax5v biJK"e"x u v TrpEagdxspos ETT1616u)Oiv EV Kpu<j>f| xhv 6ia0fiKTiv Kwvaxavxtco, rrpoSoxris cj>av£is 'aya iraxpos X E 6ia8fiKr|s Kai iraifios KAnpovoytas. HuvsxpExov Se xfi Trpo6oaia EuaeBios X E 6 Suaaegns ifpanroaixos, < c Kai 'dAAoi xives Kai xfis 6uaa£B£ias Kai xfjs avfipoyOvou (JJUOEUS a u v 6 laaaixai. 'AAASt yap T r p o f i i f i w a i y&v xa Triax£u6£vxa Kcovaxavxiw, xns 6e Trpds avOpanrous auxou amaxtas a i x e i y i a 6 a T r o 6 o a t a v Ktovaxavx I O V xfis opOfis auxou Trtaxews irpcidoafav. KaX auvExaipiCsxai > 20 xov NiKoyn6£tas E U O E B I O V . . . . In short, t h i s Orthodox t r a d i t i o n affirms that both Constantine I and Constantius II were deceived by the Ari a n f a c t i o n at court, the w i l l of the former being v i o l a t e d and being used to win over the l a t t e r . This i s the story that was re l a t e d to Gallus and J u l i a n during t h e i r sojourn i n Cappadocia, namely, that Constantius II had approved the massacre because he had been deceived and had yielded to the viol e n c e and tumult 21 of an u n d i s c i p l i n e d and mutinous army. These aforementioned diverse t r a d i t i o n s surrounding the massacre of 337 c l e a r l y arose from the various fac t i o n s that either benefited or suffered from the s t r i f e f o r the succession. The t r a d i t i o n of Eusebius i s our most contemporary and r e l i a b l e but, i n assuming that Dalmatius Caesar and h i s k i n simply disappeared, gives r i s e to many questions. Unable to s a t i s f y public c u r i o s i t y , i t was soon superseded by a new o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n presented by both pagan and C h r i s t i a n w r i t e r s , namely that many were k i l l e d a f t e r Constantine's death by an u p r i s i n g of the s o l d i e r s . Gradually the truth was leaking out. But s o l d i e r s do not act b l i n d l y without some sort of leadership, and e s p e c i a l l y so against the d i c t a t e s of t h e i r l a t e commander-in-chief, for whom they f e l t the greatest l o y a l t y . The s o l d i e r s required someone to convince them that a t o t a l l y new p o l i c y must be invoked. Jerome's Chronicle for 338 sheds further l i g h t on the case when i t states that Dalmatius was k i l l e d by a f a c t i o n of h i s cousin Constantius I I and by a m i l i t a r y u p r i s i n g . The extant h i s t o r y recorded by Ammianus Marcellinus 22 i s dominated to a great extent by the r o l e of fact i o n s , and the church h i s t o r y of the en t i r e period i s coloured by the c o n f l i c t between the members of the Arian and Orthodox persuasions. The e c c l e s i a s t i c a l dispute i s well-documented f o r most of our period, and we can s a f e l y assume that the facti o n s of 353 A.D. revealed by Ammianus did not appear overnight. C l e a r l y , i t was a f a c t i o n of some sort that i n c i t e d the so l d i e r s to butcher so many of high s t a t i o n . But which f a c t i o n was i t ? Were Constantius II and h i s brothers merely approving already-existing plans or rather did they (or at l e a s t one of them) i n i t i a t e the massacre? J u l i a n , who before the death of Constantius II mouthed the o f f i c i a l version portraying h i s cousin as a v i c t i m of m i l i t a r y enthusiasm, openly accused him of planning and carrying out the whole gory business once his own r e v o l t was well-established, thereby founding a more s p e c i f i c pagan t r a d i t i o n that continued to t h r i v e l a r g e l y because of the s t r i f e within the C h r i s t i a n community. If J u l i a n ' s l a t e r version i s accepted, there i s no p a r t i c u l a r reason to look for a f a c t i o n : Constantius I I , the nearest surviving son of Constantine the Great, simply ordered the massacre and i t was done. Yet i t i s hard to believe that the s o l d i e r s would have v i o l a t e d Constantine's arrangements unless they had been presented with a good reason to do so. If the Arian t r a d i t i o n , that Constantine had been poisoned by h i s brothers and had l i v e d long enough to note t h i s i n his w i l l , was true, then Constantius II c e r t a i n l y had what he needed to inflame the s o l d i e r s . The Orthodox t r a d i t i o n , that the poisoning was a falsehood invented by the Arian f a c t i o n at court to eliminate i t s own 23 enemies, brings us at long l a s t to our main t h e s i s . The eunuchs at court, acting i n concert with the Arians of whom some of them were members, decided that with so many competitors i n the F l a v i a n house c i v i l war was almost i n e v i t a b l e and that they should throw i n t h e i r l o t with Constantine's sons alone, e s p e c i a l l y Constantius I I , for they had at l e a s t nominal control over the greater part of the Empire and stood the better chance of emerging v i c t o r i o u s from any struggle; the ultimate v i c t o r y of t h i s f a c t i o n was to lead to i t s domination of the imperial court, e s p e c i a l l y i n the East, u n t i l the death of Constantius II i n 361. By revealing each other's d i r t y l i n e n , the Arian and Orthodox fact i o n s give us an ins i g h t into the struggle of 337. Heretofore the rather s i m p l i s t i c explanation given by Eutropius and V i c t o r has been generally accepted, but i t s weakness i s that i t gives r i s e to more questions than i t answers. Although Constantine the Great had worked for C h r i s t i a n unity since his defeat of Maxentius and had t r i e d to r e c o n c i l e the various heresies with the Orthodox church, nevertheless h i s court came under Arian influence at an early stage l a r g e l y through h i s h a l f - s i s t e r Constantia. While staying with her husband L i c i n i u s at Nicomedia, she had been won over to the Arian cause by Eusebius, the bishop of that c i t y , and by a c e r t a i n anonymous presbyter. From her death-bed she 24 recommended the presbyter to Constantine as a trustworthy adviser, and towards the end of his own l i f e Constantine, spending most of h i s time i n the region around Constantinople, also came under strong A r i a n influence. The same holds true for Constantius I I , who l i v e d c h i e f l y i n the East a f t e r 333, but not for Constantine II and Constans, who spent t h e i r years as Caesars i n the predominately Orthodox West. In the l a t e r years of his l i f e , Constantine the Great also f e l l under the influence of the eunuch Eusebius, who, i f not already grand chamberlain, was soon 25 to be so and must already have been a notary at l e a s t . Since t h i s Eusebius was loathed by the Orthodox and generally associated by them with the Arians, i t i s most l i k e l y that he was a supporter of the Arian 26 f a c t i o n . This f a c t i o n does not seem to have opposed the descendants of Theodora; quite to the contrary, the fortunes of that branch of the household fared very well i n the l a s t years of Constantine's l i f e , l a r g e l y as a r e s u l t of the death of Helena o. 329. The f i r s t great triumph for the A r i a n f a c t i o n was the e x i l e of Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, to the West. Athanasius, the leader of the Orthodox f a c t i o n i n the East, had been accused of having withheld the grain supply from 27 Constantinople. Constantine preferred to believe the charge and on 5 February 336 exiled him to T r i e r , the headquarters of his eldest 28 son. The main reason for Constantine's a c t i o n was doubtless to reduce the d i s u n i t y i n the East while the Persian war was threatening. It had always been h i s intention to enhance imperial unity and to 29 control the various f a c t i o n s . When Constantine f e l l s e r i o u s l y i l l at Ancyra, a suburb of Nicomedia, he exhorted the c l e r i c s present to grant him baptism. 30 Thereupon he was duly baptized by the bishop of Nicomedia, Eusebius. 31 Shortly a f t e r , on 22 May 337, he died. A l a t e r t r a d i t i o n , designed to portray Constantius II as both the most l o y a l and the favoured son, r e l a t e s that he a r r i v e d at h i s father's bedside before the aging emperor died, much as Constantine himself had done i n the case of h i s 32 own father. This was not the case, as i s c l e a r l y shown i n the contemporary account of Eusebius, w r i t i n g when Constantius II was only one of three Augusti. Had any one of the sons been present i n Constantine's l a s t hours, i t i s probable that most of the subsequent confusion and i n t r i g u e would have been eliminated. Messengers were sent to n o t i f y a l l three sons, but only Constantius II was close enough to make the t r i p . The other two hesitated to stray too far from the f r o n t i e r s . While the pretence of obeisance before the dead emperor continued to be performed and the a r r i v a l of Constantius II was an t i c i p a t e d , the A r i a n f a c t i o n , l e d by Eusebius of Nicomedia and the praepositus Eusebius, c a r e f u l l y analysed t h e i r future. Constantius I I and h i s brothers were young and impressionable; what i s more, Constantius II at l e a s t was sympathetic to t h e i r cause. Constantine's two surviving step-brothers were a d i f f e r e n t matter. Their long semi-e x i l e i n Gaul, I t a l y , and Greece had embittered them against Helena and, perhaps, her descendants; being older men schooled i n misfortune, they might not prove to be p l i a b l e , yet t h e i r recent honours conferred by t h e i r step-brother might give them considerable support among the troops. Their own sons were less of a threat. But the greatest threat of a l l was posed by the praetorian prefect of the East, Ablabius, who not only had vast experience i n the East and had acquired great influence with Constantine but also was a f r i e n d of Athanasius, the 33 leader of the Orthodox f a c t i o n . We can be c e r t a i n that at t h i s time Ablabius was praetorian prefect of the East but i t i s uncertain whether at the time of Constantine's death he was resident at Constantinople or a s s i s t i n g Constantius I I . His subsequent fate makes i t quite c l e a r that he was unable to undertake a c r i t i c a l part i n the schemes of 337. It i s important to keep in mind that the Eusebian f a c t i o n was not the only one a c t i v e or p o t e n t i a l i n 337. Ablabius, an experienced administrator, must have had a large following, e s p e c i a l l y among the Orthodox. Athanasius was i n nominal e x i l e ; the return of t h i s f a n a t i c must be prevented at a l l costs. Then too there were the descendants of Theodora, e s p e c i a l l y the two surviving brothers of Constantine the Great; they, l i k e him, could appeal to t h e i r descent from Constantius I. Would the favours they had received over the past f i v e years remove any bitterness produced by the long and dangerous semi-exile proposed by Helena and her favourites at court? Then, too, there were the prefects, commanders, and l e s s e r o f f i c i a l s not present at the court to be taken into consideration. The c r i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n was simply that Constantine had b u i l t up too large an experienced bureaucracy and had presented too 76 m a n y p o s s i b l e s u c c e s s o r s t o h i s p o s i t i o n . T h e c o m p e t i t i o n w a s s o k e e n t h a t e v e n b r o t h e r s m i s t r u s t e d o n e a n o t h e r , a s w a s s o o n t o b e c o m e e v i d e n t . I n s h o r t , i f c i v i l w a r w a s t o b e a v o i d e d , t h e s u c c e s s i o n h a d t o b e d e c i d e d q u i c k l y . T h e E u s e b i a n f a c t i o n , u n i t e d a t c o u r t a n d p r e s e n t b e s i d e C o n s t a n t i n e ' s d e a t h - b e d , w a s t h e o n l y o n e g i f t e d w i t h a n i d e a l o p p o r t u n i t y . Y e t , t h o u g h i t p o s s e s s e d e x p e r i e n c e , i t l a c k e d a u t h o r i t y a n d r e q u i r e d a f i g u r e - h e a d . T h a t f i g u r e - h e a d w a s t o b e C o n s t a n t i u s I I , t h e n e a r e s t o f C o n s t a n t i n e ' s s o n s a n d t h e o n e m o s t u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e E u s e b i a n f a c t i o n i n r e c e n t y e a r s . A l l t h a t w a s r e q u i r e d w a s t o p e r s u a d e h i m o f t h e n e e d t o r e m o v e t h e i r a c t u a l a n d p o t e n t i a l e n e m i e s . O n c e i n t h e i r d e b t , h e w o u l d b e f o r e v e r i n t h e i r p o c k e t . C o n s t a n t i u s I I w a s n o t p r e s e n t a t h i s f a t h e r ' s d e a t h b u t a r r i v e d s o o n a f t e r a n d m a d e r e a d y t o e s c o r t t h e c o r p s e t o C o n s t a n t i n o p l e , w h e r e C o n s t a n t i n e h a d a l r e a d y p r e p a r e d h i s t o m b i n t h e C h u r c h o f t h e 3 4 H o l y A p o s t l e s . E u s e b i u s t h e g r a n d c h a m b e r l a i n , E u s e b i u s B i s h o p o f N i c o m e d i a , a n d t h e A r i a n p r e s b y t e r f a v o u r e d b y C o n s t a n t i a a l l g a v e h i m t h e i r c o n d o l e n c e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e p r e s b y t e r r e v e a l e d t o h i m t h e w i l l o f t h e d e c e a s e d s o v e r e i g n . T h e t r a d i t i o n t h a t i n h i s w i l l C o n s t a n t i n e l e f t t h e E m p i r e a s a w h o l e t o h i s e l d e s t s o n , C o n s t a n t i n e I I , w i t h t h e o t h e r C a e s a r s t o p l a y s u b s i d i a r y r o l e s , i s q u i t e l i k e l y , j u s t a s h i s o w n 3 5 f a t h e r h a d e n t r u s t e d t h e e l d e s t a l o n e w i t h t h e s u p r e m e p o w e r . H o w e v e r , t h i s s t i p u l a t i o n w o u l d h a r d l y h a v e b e e n t h e s o r t t o e n d e a r t h e E u s e b i a n f a c t i o n t o C o n s t a n t i u s I I . T h e r e f o r e , t h e w i l l m u s t h a v e u n d e r g o n e a l t e r a t i o n s b y t h e v e r y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s c h a r g e d w i t h d r a w i n g i t u p . T h e w i l l p r e s e n t e d t o C o n s t a n t i u s I I s t i p u l a t e d t h a t h e w a s t o share the governance of the Empire with Constantine II and, to a l e s s e r extent, with Constans. It also r e l a t e d that Constantine I, l a t e i n h i s i l l n e s s , had discovered that he had been poisoned by h i s half-brothers and had s t i p u l a t e d that h i s sons should avenge him i n order to save 3 6 t h e i r own l i v e s . There i s a remote p o s s i b i l i t y that t h i s A r i a n excuse, that Constantine had been poisoned, was true. But one wonders why the half-brothers would have eliminated the father, who at long l a s t had given them d i s t i n c t i o n i n the Empire, i n favour of the sons, who had shown no evidence of s p e c i a l favour. If anything, i t was i n the i n t e r e s t s of the o f f s p r i n g of Theodora to keep the o l d man a l i v e u n t i l such time as t h e i r own p o s i t i o n was more secure. In f a c t , i f any element was i n a p o s i t i o n to poison Constantine, that was the Eusebian f a c t i o n . Thus we can discount the story of the poisoning by the h a l f -brothers as a f i c t i o n designed for t h e i r elimination. In any case, i t should be assumed that Constantine died from natural causes unless there i s s u b s t a n t i a l evidence to the contrary. Constantius I I , on the other hand, was quite ready to believe that the w i l l was genuine, for he had no reason to d i s t r u s t Eusebius and his friends. Fearing for h i s own safety and that of h i s brothers, he released the contents of the w i l l to the various c i v i l and m i l i t a r y administrators. They, enraged that t h e i r beloved emperor should have been poisoned, immediately resorted to the ar r e s t , and possibly the execution, of a l l who were i n any way implicated. Some sources a l l e g e that Constantius II himself, and not 37 the ministers at court, engineered the massacre. This might well have been the case, had he been present at h i s father's demise and had he been older and more experienced. The discovery of poisoning several 78 days a f t e r the death would have been suspicious. Thus to some extent one can approve of Eutropius' statement, that the butchery took place 38 with Constantius II allowing i t rather than ordering i t . The l i s t of victims i s lengthy. (3) The Victims of the Massacre of 337 The f i r s t to be seized by the s o l d i e r s must have been those resident at Constantinople. Among these almost c e r t a i n l y were the two surviving half-brothers of Constantine, Dalmatius and J u l i u s Constantius. A t h i r d half-brother, Hannibalianus, had already died, 39 probably several years previously, and so escaped the massacre. His two surviving brothers might have fared better had they not been brought before the public eye. While hounded by Constantine's mother 40 Helena, they had l i v e d i n obscurity, f i r s t at Tolosa i n Gaul and 41 l a t e r at Corinth. Had they and t h e i r o f f s p r i n g s t i l l resided i n a pri v a t e capacity away from the court, they would hardly have been noticed when Constantine died. However, a f t e r the death of Helena c. 329, Constantine had taken them incr e a s i n g l y into h i s confidence, The 42 elder remaining half-brother was Dalmatius. He was f i r s t r aised from 43 obscurity when he was appointed consul for 333. At some time i n t h i s year or perhaps e a r l i e r , he was appointed censor and dispatched to Antioch i n order to preside at the t r i a l of Athanasius for the alleged 44 murder of Arsenius. The t r i a l came to nought when Arsenius was discovered to be very much a l i v e but i t was followed by an appointment of greater consequence. In 334 the so-called magisteT pecovis camelorum of Cyprus, Calocaerus, indulged i n the f i r s t r e v o l t of consequence against the regime of Constantine. Whether Dalmatius was the one who crushed the r e v o l t i s not known for c e r t a i n , but he was the 45 judge who sentenced him to be burnt a l i v e at Tarsus i n C i l i c i a . During the following year his services were required once again, t h i s time to summon an armed band to rescue Athanasius from h i s enemies a f t e r 46 the Council of Tyre. We know nothing further about Dalmatius' career a f t e r t h i s , but i t i s highly l i k e l y that he went to Nicomedia i n 335 and to Constantinople i n 336 to j o i n i n the celebration of Constantine's tr-icennalia. The Paschal Chronicle mentions the o f f i c e of OTpaxnyos 'Pwuaiajv, which may r e f e r to the post of mdgister militvm or to his r o l e 47 as a judge (praetor). The known career of Dalmatius implies that from 333 onwards he was one to be entrusted with important a f f a i r s of state. Most of the source-material r e f e r s to h i s son Dalmatius, made Caesar i n 335, as holding the above o f f i c e s except for that of censor, but there are good reasons to refute t h i s conclusion. In so f a r as the o f f i c e of consul i s concerned, i t was standard p r a c t i c e for i t to be granted only to experienced administrators or, i n the case of imperial progeny, only a f t e r t h e i r receipt of the t i t l e of Caesar. Thus Constantine I I , Caesar i n 317, held h i s f i r s t consulship i n 320; Constantius I I , Caesar i n 324, was consul i n 326. However, Constans, Caesar i n 333, was not given the consulship by h i s father and had to wait u n t i l 339. That the Caesar Dalmatius, only a nephew, should have been granted the consulship before Constantine's own son, i s highly improbable. The o f f i c e of censor and the duties entailed i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g the Athanasian dispute c l e a r l y required someone of considerable maturity. This might also have been the case for the elimination of Calocaerus, although here the command of 80 the "Dalmatius" could have been nominal. What, then, were the ages of the elder Dalmatius and h i s eponymous son? The elder Dalmatius, the eldest son of Constantius I and Theodora, must have been born within a 48 few years of the marriage and promotion of the l a t t e r i n 293. This being the case, he would have been approximately t h i r t y - e i g h t years of age when made consul and censor i n 333. His son Dalmatius must have been born i n the period 313-325 and so was probably about the same age as Constantius I I . C l e a r l y , then, i t was the father who held o f f i c e s involving r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Although the consulship was purely honorary, the censorship involved considerable j u d i c i a l authority. The t i t l e O T p a T n y b s 'Pwuafiov and the use of troops to rescue Athanasius together imply some sort of m i l i t a r y capacity. It has often been assumed that he was a m i l i t a r y commander on the eastern front, perhaps even the magistev m-ili-turn. E n s s l i n , however, prefers to interpret the Greek as praetor, thereby emphasizing the c i v i l nature of the o f f i c e . In any case, Dalmatius had enough experience and exposure to render himself prominent without enough to safeguard himself against the wiles of the c o u r t i e r s . Perhaps the Eusebian f a c t i o n interpreted h i s defence of Athanasius as support for the Orthodox cause and opposition to t h e i r own A r i a n b e l i e f s , whereas i n fact he was only f u l f i l l i n g the duty of his position. The Eusebian f a c t i o n could e a s i l y i n s t i l fear of the elder uncle into the hearts of Constantine's sons. L i t t l e confusion e x i s t s regarding the younger surviving h a l f -brother of Constantine the Great, J u l i u s Constantius. He too had 49 endured nominal e x i l e i n Gaul and Corinth during Helena's l i f e t i m e and came into prominence not long a f t e r h i s elder brother. In a l l 81 l i k e l i h o o d he was two years younger than Dalmatius, for he was nominated for the consulship of 335."^ At about the same time he was invested with the h o n o r i f i c t i t l e s of p a t r i c i a n and nobilissimus. Nothing i s known about h i s actual duties or about h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with the factions at court. However, i n 336 he had given his daughter i n 51 marriage to Constantius I I . In a l l l i k e l i h o o d Constantine himself was the i n s t i g a t o r of t h i s i n an attempt to unite the i n t e r e s t s of both branches of his family. The attempt was doomed to f a i l u r e , for Constantius II was not one to allow f i l i a l p i e t y to take precedence over the advice of h i s c o u r t i e r s . The Eusebian f a c t i o n , once committed to the elimination of Dalmatius, had to launch a rear-guard a c t i o n i n order to eliminate any p o s s i b i l i t y of revenge on the part of the other 52 descendants of Theodora. Like Dalmatius, he had been removed from the influences of the eastern court f or many years and could not be r e l i e d upon. He might have used the p r e s t i g e of h i s p o s i t i o n and r e l a t i o n s h i p to take revenge upon the f a c t i o n that had developed around Helena's c i r c l e . Within the imperial family, the remaining victims of the purge consisted of the older o f f s p r i n g of the elder Dalmatius and J u l i u s Constantius. These, e s p e c i a l l y the younger Dalmatius, would otherwise seek revenge. Dalmatius, as we have already seen, was probably about the same age as h i s cousins Constantine II and Constantius I I . Caesar since 335 along the lower Danube, he must have held the same power as the other Caesars, e s p e c i a l l y i n view of h i s age. This authority was l a r g e l y nominal, for Constantine the Great ruled as sole Augustus with an iron hand. Be that as i t may, coins of Dalmatius had been issued 82 from every extant mint i n the Empire, which gave him valuable popularity. What i s more, the area of which he was i n charge was one of 53 the most vulnerable and, therefore, heavily armed i n the Empire. The danger that he posed against the sons of Constantine and t h e i r supporters was considerable. Upon Constantine's death, the Caesars o f f i c i a l l y retained t h e i r t i t l e s and governed i n the name of the deceased emperor, but the news of his death t r a v e l l e d r a p i d l y and there remained the r i s k that functionaries might assume that a l l the Caesars were automatically to be promoted to Augusti on the instant. Such a one was F l a v i u s Octavianus, the governor of Sardinia, who erected a milestone i n honour of Ft. Delmatio [sic] betissimo [sic] Aug. 54 nobili-ssimo Caes. Uncertain how he should r e f e r to the Caesar, he u t i l i z e d both t i t l e s ; i t was a common p r a c t i c e to safeguard oneself i n t h i s way, but t h i s acknowledgement was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n s u l t i n g to Constans, inasmuch as Sardinia was under h i s nominal command, not that of D almatius.^ The Caesar Dalmatius simply had to be eliminated before t h i s recognition became widespread. It has commonly been supposed that he was resident at Constantinople with h i s father and his uncle J u l i u s Constantius, but t h i s need not have been the case. His duties on the lower Danube would have kept him i n the v i c i n i t y of Serdica or Naissus most of the time, although he almost c e r t a i n l y joined Constantius I I , the elder Dalmatius, and J u l i u s Constantius at the celebration of Constantine's tvveennaZia i n Constantinople i n 336. The problem for those who would eliminate the father was c l e a r l y how to undo the l o y a l t y of the troops of the lower Danube towards the son."^ Their s o l u t i o n w i l l be described a f t e r the remaining victims of the purge have been discussed. The elimination of the elder Dalmatius also required that of his younger son, Hannibalianus, whom Constantine had planned to i n s t a l l as King of Armenia af t e r the completion of h i s Persian campaign i n 3 3 7 . H i s marriage to Constantine's eldest daughter Constantina had been yet another attempt to unite the i n t e r e s t s of the descendants of 58 Theodora and Helena. Once again, Constantius II was not to be swayed by f r a t e r n a l a f f e c t i o n once he had been convinced of the necessity to remove possible r i v a l s . However, on h i s t r i p from Antioch to Nicomedia Constantius I I , though he probably met Hannibalianus at 59 Caesarea i n Cappadocia, probably did not take any action against him at the time, for he had not yet been subjected to the wiles of the Eusebian f a c t i o n . The elimination of J u l i u s Constantius rendered necessary the close scrutiny of h i s three sons. A l l three, lacking o f f i c i a l appoint-ments, were resident at Constantinople with t h e i r father. The eldest was old enough to warrant fear on the part of the conspirators and so 60 was put to death. He was probably about the same age as Constans, i.e. , 17, since his father must have been born about 300 A.D.^ Like the second son, he was an' issue of J u l i u s Constantius' f i r s t marriage, with Galla. The second son, Gallus, was to survive the massacre, p a r t l y because of h i s age (for he was only twelve years old at the time) 62 and p a r t l y on account of h i s supposedly f a t a l i l l n e s s . He had been 63 born i n E t r u r i a i n 325, before h i s father J u l i u s Constantius had been allowed to proceed to Corinth, and, l a t e r s t i l l , to advance to imperial favour upon the death of Helena. The t h i r d son, J u l i a n , had been born 84 64 to J u l i u s Constantius and his second wife, B a s i l i n a , i n 332. Since he was born i n Cons t a n t i n o p l e , ^ i t i s c l e a r that by that time Constantine's half-brothers and t h e i r f a m i l i e s had been welcomed back into the imperial f o l d . Because J u l i a n was only s i x years of age, he was considered harmless and thereby saved from p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the massacre. He and perhaps his brother Gallus as we l l were under the 66 tutelage of Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, and doubtless t h e i r i n s t r u c t o r i n holy w r i t was unwilling to destroy his own f l o c k . One other nephew of Constantine i s known to have survived the massacre of 337, and t h i s was J u l i u s Nepotianus. He was the son of Constantine's s i s t e r Eutropia and was to perish with her i n a f u t i l e r e v o l t at Rome several years l a t e r . ^ 7 It i s highly probable that h i s father was 68 V i r i u s Nepotianus, consul i n 336. The coins produced at Rome during 69 his b r i e f reign i n 350 portray a man at l e a s t 30 years of age; h i s mother was probably born about 300 A.D., and so i t i s l i k e l y that i n 337 he was about the same age as Constantius I I . One wonders how, i n view of his age, he survived the massacre of 337. The fact that several years l a t e r he was to obtain h i s support at Rome indicates that he and his mother spent most of t h e i r time i n I t a l y . There he would be beyond the sphere of influence of the Eusebian f a c t i o n , who could hope to eliminate him only by e n l i s t i n g the support of Constantine II or of Constans. His s u r v i v a l i n the West ind i c a t e s that there was no sudden impulse on the part of the s o l d i e r s to k i l l a l l the descendants of Theodora, but rather that t h i s was the e f f o r t of a f a c t i o n whose power was confined to the eastern part of the Empire. Had he been resident i n Constantinople, he would have been k i l l e d . The very fact that 85 Constantine had not yet conferred upon him any prestigious t i t l e or o f f i c e also rendered him more obscure. J u l i a n informed the Athenians that i n the massacre of 337 s i x of h i s cousins p e r i s h e d . 7 ^ We have already accounted for two of them, Dalmatius Caesar and Hannibalianus. With regard to the other four, we can only indulge i n speculation. They were probably younger sons of Dalmatius, of the elder Hannibalianus, and of Anastasia, the t h i r d s i s t e r of Constantine the Great. A l l had four marks against them: they were descendants of Theodora; they were old enough to prove troublesome; unlike Gallus, they were healthy; they also doubtless resided near Constantinople, that i s , near the headquarters of the Eusebian f a c t i o n . The descendants of Theodora were not the only victims of the dynastic purge of 337. According to Jerome, many nobles were k i l l e d as well. 7"'' Of these, however, we possess the names of only two, F l a v i u s Optatus and F l a v i u s Ablabius; a t h i r d , V a l e r i u s Maximus, can be postulated as a v i c t i m . The rest remain unknown: the fa c t that our record of a man's career does not extend beyond 338 does not mean that he was executed. Doubtless many were due for retirement, whereas others found the change of administration to be a convenient time for with-drawal from public l i f e . S t i l l others may have died of natural causes. In the case of most administrators, our knowledge of t h e i r careers i s fragmentary at best. F l a v i u s Optatus was k i l l e d along with Constantine's brothers 72 and nephews i n 337. He had taught L i c i n i u s ' son and had remained i n the lowly s t a t i o n of YP aViy^ T a )v 6i<5&ai<aAos u n t i l Constantine seized the East. Then, more by v i r t u e of h i s wife's charms than through any 86 73 a b i l i t y of h i s own, he ascended to the supreme height of the consul-ship, holding that o f f i c e i n 334, a year a f t e r Dalmatius the Elder and a 74 year before J u l i u s Constantius. He i s the f i r s t recorded holder of the t i t l e of pa t r i c i a n ; 7 " * t h i s t i t l e , conferred on J u l i u s Constantius about a year l a t e r , may not have granted any s p e c i f i c power but i t did endow the holder with great prestige. This p r e s t i g e was deemed a threat by the Eusebian f a c t i o n at court, e s p e c i a l l y since J u l i u s Constantius held the same t i t l e . Only these two p a t r i c i a n s are recorded before 350, and both perished i n the massacre. The t i t l e i t s e l f was the greatest danger to Optatus. 7^ The other v i c t i m of whom we have d e f i n i t e knowledge i s F l a v i u s Ablabius. Ablabius was of very humble o r i g i n , a native of Crete, where he enjoyed h i s f i r s t o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n as an assistant of the governor of that i s l a n d . 7 7 Once Constantine the Great had defeated L i c i n i u s , Ablabius, ever eager for r i c h e r pastures, headed for A s i a Minor, where he made his way into the confidence of the conqueror. Constantine enrolled him into the Senate and made him v i c a r of the diocese of 78 Asiana. A f t e r Constantine returned from the slaughter of Crispus and Fausta i n 326, Ablabius was promoted to the rank of praetorian prefect; as such, he was to have greater influence at the court than any other i n d i v i d u a l , l a r g e l y because he held the o f f i c e not for j u s t a few years 79 but u n t i l Constantine's death. His main competitor for influence at court was the pagan philosopher Sopater, whose downfall he engineered by calumny, deceit, and f a l s e accusation, t a c t i c s that were l a t e r to be 80 used against him by h i s own enemies. His daughter Olympias was betrothed to Constans, probably i n 333 when the l a t t e r was made 87 81 Caesar. Although he probably served as praetorian prefect of Constantius II i n I t a l y i n 329, Ablabius was to spend most of h i s l i f e i n the East. Consequently, he was to have but l i t t l e d i r e c t contact with Constantine I I . Ablabius probably accompanied Constantine I back to the East i n order to a s s i s t with the dedication of Constantinople i n 82 330 and remained there u n t i l 336, when, a f t e r the completion of the tvi.cennal'La, he accompanied Constantius II to Antioch i n order to 83 prepare the Persian campaign. Thus, a f t e r Constantine I, h i s greatest influence was upon Constantius II. The extent of h i s power can be gauged from the remarks of those who despised him f o r h i s lowly b i r t h . Libanius, writing i n 390, says that Ablabius, once he had entered the 84 court, ruled the r u l e r himself and that, whenever he entered the 85 Senate, he was a god among men. Eunapius, w r i t i n g a few years l a t e r than Libanius, says that Ablabius proved to be so much the d a r l i n g of Fortune, which de l i g h t s i n a l l things new, that he became even more 86 powerful than the emperor himself, influencing the emperor as though 87 the l a t t e r were an u n d i s c i p l i n e d mob. C l e a r l y , Ablabius was a power to reckon with once Constantine died. Yet, powerful as he was, he did not lead the Eusebian f a c t i o n . His r o l e as a prefect tended to separate h i s i n t e r e s t s from those of the eunuchs at court who had no o f f i c i a l c i v i l duties. But what mostly set him at odds with them was hi s sympathy with Athanasius and the Orthodox cause. In 332 Athanasius had entrusted h i s Easter l e t t e r to Ablabius, whom he 88 describes as one of the godly, that i s , the Orthodox. Had Ablabius been present at Constantine's death-bed,, he would have been able to take charge of the s i t u a t i o n as the highest-ranking o f f i c i a l i n attendance 88 and thereby secure h i s personal s u r v i v a l , i f nothing else. But his ultimate fate, delayed though i t may have been to the spring of 338, indicates that he was not privy to the p l o t s hatched while Constantine lay dying but rather was i n Antioch with Constantius II. The eunuchs at the court were thus able to add him to t h e i r l i s t of intended victims; he was unsympathetic and, worst of a l l , exceedingly i n f l u e n t i a l , and they f e l t compelled to eliminate him i n order to secure t h e i r own futures. That there was a t h i r d v i c t i m among the chief administrators i s implied by an erasure on an important i n s c r i p t i o n from Tubernuc i n 89 A f r i c a Proconsularis. Because of i t s importance for the imperial succession of 337 i t i s quoted here i n f u l l : v i f t u t e dementia m[emor]ando p i e -tate omnes afntecedenti] d. n. F l . Clau-dio Consta[n]t[ino i u ] n i o r i Aug. L. Papius Pacatianus F l . Ablabius //// ////C. Annius Tiberianus Nes-[ t o ] r i [ u ] s Timonianus v i r i c l a -[ r i s s i m i p ] r a e f e c t i p r e t o r i o . The dedication was ins c r i b e d when Constantine II was s t i l l only a 90 nobilissimus Caesar and was a l t e r e d s h o r t l y a f t e r 9 September 337, when he and h i s two brothers were o f f i c i a l l y recognized as Augusti. It i s quite l i k e l y that s i m i l a r i n s c r i p t i o n s were also set up i n honour of the other Caesars and of Constantine I, i f he was s t i l l a l i v e at the time, for A f r i c a was part of the nominal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Constans, not of Constantine II. Four prefects are l i s t e d , but one or two words have been erased i n the midst of t h e i r names. It has sometimes been supposed 89 that the o r i g i n a l words expressed Ablabius' r e l a t i o n s h i p to the imperial house through the betrothal of his daughter Olympias to Constans: adfin[is]Caes[arum] i s a favoured reading. The supposition i s that, when Ablabius f e l l into disgrace a f t e r the massacre, only h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was erased. But the common p r a c t i c e i n the case of damnatio memoriae had always been to erase the name i t s e l f , leaving the t i t l e s and descriptions untouched i n most cases. Besides, to have expressed such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the case of Ablabius without granting h o n o r i f i c t i t l e s to the other prefects would have been undiplomatic. Also, during the years 335 to 337 there must have been at le a s t f i v e , and sometimes s i x , praetorian prefects, f or the Augustus and each of the Caesars (now including Dalmatius) had one and there i s good evidence that, i n addition, f o r the period 327 to 338 the regular v i c a r of A f r i c a 91 had been replaced by a prefect. This being the case, i t i s almost a c e r t a i n t y that the name of one of the prefects was erased. The question i s , which one? Pacatianus was prefect of I t a l y and probably had held t h i s o f f i c e since 330, serving Constans a f t e r 333. Ablabius had been prefect at the court of Constantine I since at le a s t 330 and had probably gone to Antioch with Constantius II a f t e r the celebration of the tricennalia i n the summer of 336. Next follow the erased words. Tiberianus had been prefect of Gaul, B r i t a i n , and Spain since 336. We are l e f t with Timonianus, the l a s t of the prefects i n our l i s t to be appointed. He was the new prefect of A f r i c a , succeeding Gregorius there a f t e r 4 February 337. It could be argued that he was a new appointment to the prefecture of Macedonia and that i t was Gregorius' name that has 9 0 been erased from the i n s c r i p t i o n (Gregorius being prefect of A f r i c a from at l e a s t 21 J u l y 336 to 4 February 337), but i t would be strange i f the prefect l a r g e l y responsible for the e r e c t i o n of the dedication i n the f i r s t place was suddenly put to one side while the prefect serving the i l l - f a t e d Dalmatius Caesar survived t i l l a f t e r the promotion of the three remaining Caesars to Augusti. Rather, Timonianus replaced Gregorius as prefect of A f r i c a soon a f t e r 4 February 337. The l a s t praetorian prefect to be appointed, he appears l a s t i n the l i s t . There i s no reason to believe that Dalmatius was the only Caesar without a prefect; we can therefore conclude that the i n d i v i d u a l whose name was erased was the prefect of Macedonia. Who was he? Three d i s t i n c t p o s s i b i l i t i e s emerge. Gregorius himself might have been transferred to Macedonia immediately a f t e r h i s retirement from A f r i c a , but two objections can be made to t h i s theory, one being that too l i t t l e time i s l e f t between h i s abandonment of h i s o l d post and h i s receipt of the new one (c. 4 February 337 - 1 March 337), the other being that we are l e f t i n ignorance with regard to Dalmatius' prefect from September 335 to March 337. Another p o s s i b i l i t y i s the veteran administrator Evagrius, 92 l a s t attested as praetorian prefect of Constantine I on 22 August 336. He might very well have taken up the post i n Macedonia soon thereafter, but again two objections come to mind: i n the f i r s t instance, i t would have been somewhat demeaning for a chief counsellor of the Augustus to be reduced to the service of the lowest-ranking Caesar, and i n the second place Evagrius, v e r i f i e d as praetorian prefect at l e a s t as early 93 as 326, should, i f s t i l l prefect at the time the stone was i n s c r i b e d , 94 have been l i s t e d f i r s t , not t h i r d , among the prefects; as well, we are 91 s t i l l l e f t i n the dark with regard to the i d e n t i t y of the f i r s t prefect of Dalmatius Caesar. The t h i r d candidate for the prefecture of Macedonia i s V a l e r i u s Maximus, and i t i s h i s name that i s the most l i k e l y to have been erased from the i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc. The main objection to the choice of h i s name i s that he was probably senior to both Pacatianus and Ablabius, having held the rank of praetorian prefect as early as 95 21 January 327, although by 337 he may not have served as prefect f or 96 as many years as Pacatianus and Ablabius. However, he could r e a d i l y have been assigned to Dalmatius i n the autumn of 335 because, unlike the 97 others, he appears to have held no other o f f i c i a l post a f t e r 333, thereby being a v a i l a b l e to serve i n t h i s new capacity. He was c e r t a i n l y serving as a praetorian prefect on 2 August 337, when he 98 received a r e s c r i p t i n the name of Constantine Augustus, since laws continued to be issued i n the name of the deceased emperor u n t i l h i s three sons were declared Augusti i n September. Had t h i s appointment been a very recent one, the name of Maximus should have been added to the l i s t of prefects when the t i t l e of Constantine II was changed, but t h i s was not the case. Rather, i t was o b l i t e r a t e d . By some means Maximus escaped the purge of June - July 337; perhaps he had even assis t e d i n the elimination of Dalmatius. But between 2 August and 9 September he was removed from o f f i c e . It may be that f i n a l l y , with Dalmatius dead, his o f f i c e had been rendered redundant and he had merely been forced into retirement. On the other hand, i f t h i s was so, h i s name need not have been erased, for i t was s t i l l v a l i d for the o r i g i n a l dedication. The erasure of h i s name renders i t far more l i k e l y that he 92 suffered damnatio memoriae and i t s i n e v i t a b l e consequence, death. At f i r s t Constantius I I may have trusted him on the ground that, about f i v e 99 years e a r l i e r , Maximus had been his own prefect and mentor i n Gaul. But i t i s very l i k e l y that, a f t e r the main purge, the eunuchs, fearing t h i s experienced administrator, s t i r r e d up Constantius II's suspicions of Dalmatius' prefect and caused him to be executed, much as they were to eliminate Ablabius i n the early part of 338. Doubtless there were other victims of the purge, but they cannot be i d e n t i f i e d with any c e r t a i n t y . I t now remains to summarize the order of events on the basis of the preceding conclusions. (4) Summary of Events Surrounding the Death of Constantine the Great As was stated e a r l i e r , the account given by Eusebius of Caesarea of the death and funeral of Constantine I i s cl e a r and l u c i d but, when i t i s compared with his e a r l i e r writings, many questions a r i s e . Our attempt now i s to follow h i s account'^"'* and at the same time to f i l l i n the gaps that were omitted for p o l i t i c a l reasons. Constantine I was a s s a i l e d by h i s f i n a l i l l n e s s s h o r t l y a f t e r 102 Easter Day at Constantinople, that i s , soon a f t e r 3 A p r i l 337. When he took a turn f o r the worse, he resorted f i r s t to the baths of h i s own 103 c i t y and next to those at Helenopolis. Since he had made such c a r e f u l preparations for the succession, devising a tetrarchy of sorts, i t i s almost c e r t a i n that he took the precaution of n o t i f y i n g the four Caesars and Hannibalianus of h i s i l l n e s s . There was as yet no good reason for them to desert t h e i r posts and rush to the Augustus, even i f they were able to do so. Had not D i o c l e t i a n recovered from a serious 9 3 i l l n e s s ? I t w a s p r o b a b l y w e l l i n t o M a y w h e n C o n s t a n t i n e I , r e a l i z i n g t h a t h i s e n d w a s n e a r , m e t w i t h s e v e r a l b i s h o p s i n t h e s u b u r b s o f 1 0 4 N i c o m e d i a . H e h a d b e e n p o s t p o n i n g b a p t i s m a s l o n g a s p o s s i b l e , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h c o m m o n p r a c t i c e a t t h e t i m e , a n d n o w f e l t r e a d y f o r t h a t r i t e . H e w a s d u l y b a p t i z e d t h e r e b y E u s e b i u s , b i s h o p o f N i c o m e d i a a n d l e a d e r o f t h e A r i a n f a c t i o n . " * " ^ T h e r e u p o n h e m a d e t h e f i n a l a r r a n g e m e n t o f h i s a f f a i r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e a l l o t m e n t o f t h e E m p i r e t o h i s h e i r s . F i n a l l y , o n 2 2 M a y 3 3 7 , C o n s t a n t i n e d i e d a t m i d d a y . " ^ 7 T h e n u m e r o u s f o l l o w i n g e v e n t s , i n s o m e d e g r e e c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s , a r e d e a l t w i t h b y E u s e b i u s i n n o s t r i c t c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r b u t r a t h e r a c c o r d i n g t o t o p i c . G r i e f i m m e d i a t e l y t o o k h o l d o f t h e c o u r t a n d , a s t h e s o l d i e r s a n d b u r e a u c r a t s c a m e t o p a y t h e i r r e s p e c t s , t h e n e w s s p r e a d r a p i d l y t o 1 0 8 t h e p e o p l e o u t s i d e t h e p a l a c e . C l e a r l y , R u m o u r h e r s e l f w o u l d h a v e r a p i d l y p u b l i c i z e d t h e e v e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e E m p i r e , b u t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r s r e s o l v e d t o d i s p a t c h o f f i c e r s t o i n f o r m t h e C a e s a r s o f 1 0 9 t h e e v e n t . T h i s i n i t s e l f w a s u n u s u a l : c u s t o m h a d a l w a y s b e e n f o r t h e t r o o p s a n d a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , u p o n t h e d e a t h o f a n e m p e r o r , t o d e c l a r e h i s e l d e s t s o n A u g u s t u s , j u s t a s h a d h a p p e n e d w h e n C o n s t a n t i u s I h a d d i e d a t Y o r k a n d t h e t i t l e h a d b e e n c o n f e r r e d u p o n C o n s t a n t i n e I . ^ ^ T h e v e r y f a c t t h a t t h e n e w A u g u s t i w e r e n o t s o d e c l a r e d u n t i l 9 S e p t e m b e r 3 3 7 , o v e r t h r e e m o n t h s l a t e r , i s c l e a r p r o o f o f t h e d i s s e n s i o n a m o n g t h e d i f f e r e n t f a c t i o n s o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . T h e s e f a c t i o n s , a c c u s t o m e d f o r s o l o n g t o t h e r u l e o f o n e A u g u s t u s , c o u l d n o t s e e t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f a n e w t e t r a r c h y . H o w e v e r , t h o s e w h o w e r e p r e s e n t a t t h e d e a t h - b e d , e s p e c i a l l y E u s e b i u s t h e g r a n d - c h a m b e r l a i n a n d E u s e b i u s B i s h o p o f N i c o m e d i a , w e r e i n t h e b e s t p o s i t i o n t o a c t . C o n f i d e n t t h a t 94 c i v i l war would ensue i f a l l Constantine's r e l a t i v e s were given shares i n the r u l e , they resolved to back the Caesar most amenable to t h e i r cause and one of the cl o s e s t , Constantius I I . They could do nothing to prevent the other Caesars and Hannibalianus from f i n d i n g out at an early stage about Constantine's death, and they had good reason to hope that Constantius II would not delay h i s a r r i v a l . If we assume that the news t r a v e l l e d as f a s t as 250 kilometres a day, i t would have reached Hannibalianus at Caesarea and Dalmatius, probably at Naissus, f i r s t , i n about three days. Constantius II would have received the news i n four days, Constans i n s i x days, and Constantine II i n nine days. Of the three sons, only Constantius II hastened to C o n s t a n t i n o p l e . F o r Constantine I I , the journey would have been a lengthy one and h i s absence from the f r o n t i e r might have encouraged incursions. The same was true f o r Constans, but to a l e s s e r extent. It i s possible that they informed the court that a meeting should be held i n the Balkans early i n the autumn when the r i s k of attack was l e s s . Dalmatius and Hannibalianus might r e a d i l y have set out for Constantinople to j o i n 112 t h e i r father. The journey would have taken each of them about a week. Constantius II must have taken about twelve days, a r r i v i n g i n Constantinople about 7 June. In leaving Antioch he was taking the great r i s k of a Persian offensive, but he would have l e f t prominent commanders on the eastern front, possibly including Ablabius. By the time Constantius II a r r i v e d i n Nicomedia, the body of h i s father had already 113 been removed to Constantinople. Here the same honours were paid to the deceased as when he was a l i v e and l e g i s l a t i o n continued to be issued 114 i n h i s name. The l a t t e r act was a r e s u l t not so much of reverence f o r Constantine I as of the i n a b i l i t y of the factions at court•to agree on the succession. A r r i v i n g i n Constantinople, Constantius II proceeded to pay respects to h i s father."'""'''' It i s at t h i s point that Eusebius f a i l s to inform us of the machinations at court. Among the f i r s t to greet him were the grand-chamberlain Eusebius, Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia, and the Arian presbyter. Taking him aside, the presbyter revealed the forged w i l l , which pretended that the deceased had been poisoned by h i s own brothers and urged that the three sons of the Augustus should save 116 themselves by eliminating the descendants of Theodora. Heretofore Constantius II had always been able to consult his father when faced with a dilemma. Now, s t i l l i n only his twentieth year, he panicked and put h i s f a i t h i n h i s father's advisers, that i s , i n the Eusebian f a c t i o n . Had he been compelled to struggle i n order to a t t a i n h i s present p o s i t i o n , h i s a t t i t u d e might have been much more independent. With the supposed criminals present i n the same palace, he had no time to consult h i s brothers. The " w i l l " was proclaimed before the troops; a great uproar arose; the s o l d i e r s swept through the c i t y and arrested Dalmatius the Elder, h i s sons Dalmatius Caesar"'""'"7 and Hannibalianus, J u l i u s Constantius and h i s three sons, and the p a t r i c i a n Optatus. Not a l l were k i l l e d . J u l i u s Constantius' younger sons. Gallus and J u l i a n were spared on the ground that they were yet harmless; Nepotianus, son of Eutropia, was far o f f i n I t a l y and could not i n any way be connected with the alleged poisoning. The prefect Ablabius could not be implicated r e a d i l y e i t h e r ; the Eusebian f a c t i o n required more time to deal with him. It i s most l i k e l y that the others were put to death 96 inrmediately, before they had any chance to defend themselves. Vale r i u s Maximus survived as the prefect of I l l y r i c u m for the time being, since the only reason for the murder of Dalmatius Caesar (and of Hannibalianus and the eldest son of J u l i u s Constantius for that matter) was the fear that they might seek to avenge t h e i r fathers. Therefore, when Eusebius r e l a t e s that the s o l d i e r s fccrrrep 6 ' E G e T r i T T V o f c t s Kpefxxovos, xa T r a v x a x o u a x p a x o T r e 6 a xov gaoiXews TruOoyeva Oavaxov, yias eicpaxei yvajyris, W A A V E I COJVTOS auiots xou Y E Y A A O U G A A I A E T O S , yn<5£va yvaipiCeiv t , ,v ^ ' " ^ . r . l r . y ' ' 118 , exepov, n yovous xous auxou Traioas Paiyaiaiv auxoKpaxopas, he i s r e f e r r i n g to the state of a f f a i r s immediately a f t e r the massacre. It i s quite possible that Constantius I I , rather than engineering the massacre, merely condoned i t as a necessity and strove to save the youngest descendants of Theodora from the executioner. As events were to show, the grand-chamberlain Eusebius had good reason to desir e the elimination of Gallus and J u l i a n . The massacre perpetrated by L i c i n i u s i n 313 had set a precedent and, to the extent that he had engineered i t himself, i t was the more outrageous. But Constantius II had been deceived into the murder not of members of a d i f f e r e n t family but of those to whom he was connected by t i e s of blood and marriage. Soon a f t e r the massacre, Constantius I I and h i s supporters put on the mask of piety and escorted the corpse of h i s father to the Church of the Holy Apostles, where, a f t e r the due r i t e s of the C h r i s t i a n 119 Church, he was int e r r e d as the t h i r t e e n t h apostle. The succession, however, was f a r from being s e t t l e d . The elimination of Dalmatius had confused the j u r i s d i c t i o n s of the Caesars. As well, t h e i r r e l a t i v e r o l e s had to be decided. Was one to have p r i o r i t y as sole Augustus or 97 were a l l to share the t i t l e with varying r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and powers? (5) The Meeting of the Three Sons i n 337 In order to s e t t l e the problems of state, Constantius I I and his brothers agreed to meet i n the Balkans i n the early autumn, when the r i s k of a major barbarian or Persian incursion was diminished. It has frequently been affirmed that the brothers did not meet u n t i l the summer of 338 and that the general massacre also occurred i n that 120 year. The main evidence adduced f o r t h i s theory consists of three enactments i n the Theodosian Code, one of which was issued from 121 Viminacium and another from Sirmium. It i s c l e a r from these enactments that one (or more) of the brothers was present i n the Balkans i n 338, and Jerome's dating of the murders of Dalmatius Caesar and Ablabius to 338 might imply that the conference did not take place u n t i l that year, but the evidence for an imperial conference i n 337 i s i t s e l f based on more than the mere p r a c t i c a l i t y of such a date. In the f i r s t place, the proclamation of the three sons as 122 Augusti on 9 September 337 implies not only a previous conference to determine t h e i r respective r o l e s but also a meeting that took place towards the end, rather than the beginning, of the summer. J u l i a n , 123 p r a i s i n g Constantius II i n 355, suggests that the conference, which he locates i n Pannonia, occurred very soon a f t e r the death of Constantine the Great, when the East was i n a turmoil and Constantius II was uncertain which way to turn. He also states that, a f t e r the conference, Constantius II rushed back to Syria i n order to deal with the Persian threat. 98 Far more t e l l i n g evidence i s given by Athanasius, soon to become one of Constantius II's b i t t e r e s t enemies. The bishop of Alexandria, when hard pressed by h i s Aria n foes including Eusebius of Nicomedia, had appealed to Constantine I without success and had been 124 exiled from Constantinople to T r i e r on 7 November 335. There i n the West, few Arians existed with whom he could quarrel; Constantine II was 125 himself of Orthodox leaning and sympathetic to Athanasius' cause. When news of h i s father's death reached T r i e r , Constantine II determined upon the r e s t o r a t i o n of at l e a s t t h i s one ex i l e d bishop to h i s see. This p o l i c y , though well-intentioned and p r a c t i c a l i n Athanasius' case because no successor had been appointed to h i s see, was nevertheless to give r i s e to even greater r e l i g i o u s f r i c t i o n . In a l e t t e r dated 17 June 126 337, Constantine II wrote to the church at Alexandria, urging the people there to welcome back Athanasius as t h e i r bishop. Athanasius, whose struggle to dominate the church i n Egypt became almost legendary, must have set out toward the East soon a f t e r the e p i s t l e was sent, 127 before even waiting f o r a reply. In his Apologia ad Constantium, composed about twenty years l a t e r , Athanasius r e c a l l s meeting Constantius II for the f i r s t time at Viminacium i n Moesia and conversing with him l a t e r at Caesarea i n Cappadocia and Antioch i n Syria. Since 128 Athanasius returned triumphantly to Alexandria on 23 November 337, he must have enjoyed these audiences with Constantius II i n the summer and autumn of 337, not of 338. It follows, therefore, that Constantius II journeyed to the Balkans i n 337, not i n 338,. there to meet with h i s two brothers. Further evidence for the presence of one or more of the 99 brothers i n the Balkans i n 337 i s provided by two entries i n the codes for that year, namely CTh 11.1.4 issued from Thessalonica on 6 December and CJ 5.17.7 issued from Naissus on an unstipulated day i n that year. Since Constantine I was not present i n the Balkans i n 337, the l a t t e r enactment must date either to the interregnum a f t e r his death or to the period following the proclamation of the three sons as Augusti. It has frequently been considered that t h i s law was addressed either to 129 Dalmatius the Elder or to h i s son Dalmatius Caesar, and that therefore the law should be dated to the summer of 337, since i t i s highly u n l i k e l y that either Dalmatius could have held any important post a f t e r the proclamation of the Augusti. However, edicts were not addressed to Caesars but to t h e i r o f f i c i a l s . Also, as we have already shown, Dalmatius the Elder was one of the f i r s t victims i n the massacre of June 337. Therefore, t h i s edict was addressed to some other Dalmatius, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d the pvaepositus F l a v i u s Dalmatius who died 130 near Viminacium. As i n the case of other edicts issued during the interregnum, i t was published i n the name of the deceased Augustus. To sum up, during the summer of 337 the three brothers made preparations f o r t h e i r meeting. Constantine II was probably the f i r s t to move, having i n his company Athanasius. At A q u i l e i a or thereabouts Constans was added to the t r a i n . Constantius II i n the meantime was held back f i r s t by the massacre of h i s r e l a t i v e s and secondly by Sapor's 131 unsuccessful two-month siege of N i s i b i s . On 2 August 337 either Constantius II or his elder brother Constantine II issued, i n the name 132 of t h e i r l a t e father, an edict addressed to Vale r i u s Maximus, the prefect on the lower Danube of the recently murdered Dalmatius Caesar. 100 U n t i l the d i v i s i o n of the Empire was decided, the r o l e of the f i f t h prefect was continued as i f h i s Caesar s t i l l l i v e d . Late i n August or early i n September the three brothers met at Viminacium. The western Caesars had to acknowledge the massacre of t h e i r r e l a t i v e s as a fa-it 133 accompli and a l l assumed the t i t l e of Augustus on 9 September 337. This was probably the f i r s t occasion on which a l l three brothers had been together since before 333, when Constans had been made a Caesar, and now much had to be decided. Constantine II was now twenty-one years of age, Constantius II was twenty, and Constans was only seventeen. (6) The D i v i s i o n of Authority i n 337 Several questions faced the three brothers and t h e i r advisers when they met at Viminacium. F i r s t and most pressing was the allotment of powers i n the new administration. Now that Dalmatius had been eliminated, there could not be a tetrarchy of sorts as Constantine I seems to have envisaged. Was only the eldest son to become an Augustus, or were a l l three to share the t i t l e ? The question was answered e f f e c t i v e l y on 9 September. It had always been customary f o r the Caesars to be promoted to the rank of Augusti upon the death of the senior emperor and, no matter how much Constantine II and Constantius II may have wanted to exclude t h e i r "baby" brother from a share i n the inheritance, the t r a d i t i o n was too strong to be broken and he attained an equal t i t l e . It next behooved them to determine what to do about both the memory and the t e r r i t o r y of Dalmatius Caesar. The former was e a s i l y decided: h i s memory was condemned and h i s name was erased from 134 c e r t a i n i n s c r i p t i o n s , although the programme was far from thorough 101 135 and h i s name survived on many stones. The problem of his t e r r i t o r y , which included the dioceses of Thrace and Moesia, was f a r more d i f f i c u l t . I f Constans was to enjoy equal authority with h i s elder brothers, the most equitable arrangement would have been to a l l o t to him, i n addi t i o n to h i s current nominal command over A f r i c a , I t a l y , and Pannonia, a l l the t e r r i t o r y of Dalmatius, that i s , a l l the Balkans as far as Constantinople. This was not to be the case. As J.-R. Palanque 136 has shown, the two older brothers could not envisage a three- f o l d d i v i s i o n of the Empire. As w i l l be demonstrated presently, Constantine II found i t grievous enough to endure any partner of equal standing. The s o l u t i o n was found i n the settlement reached between Constantine I and L i c i n i u s a f t e r t h e i r f i r s t c i v i l war. A l l the East and the diocese of Thrace were a l l o t t e d to Constantius I I , whereas Constantine II assumed control of the enti r e West as f a r as Thrace. Constans was l e f t 137 with the empty t i t l e of Augustus and became an emperor "sans t e r r e . " The o f f i c i a l s who had only nominally been under h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n as Caesar continued to be so now that he was an Augustus. The d i f f e r e n c e was that they were now supposed to follow the d i c t a t e s not of Constantine I, but of the new Augustus Constantine I I . As events were to prove, however, Constans s t i l l enjoyed considerable support i n I t a l y , where he had represented h i s father since 334. How long t h i s s i t u a t i o n was to endure i s uncertain. The p o s i t i o n of Constans would become more 138 embarrassing as he grew older. It i s possible that the brothers had great expectations of success on the Persian front and ant i c i p a t e d that one of them might eventually administer Armenia and Mesopotamia. However, while Sapor was lay i n g siege to N i s i b i s , they had l i t t l e reason 102 to enjoy such hopes. Far more l i k e l y i s the theory that the elder brothers were constrained to admit Constans as a fellow Augustus by the dynastic l o y a l t y of the administration and the army. Constans could have had nothing to do with the alleged plot against Constantine I, and so he could not be brushed aside as Dalmatius Caesar had been. So long as he remained subservient to h i s eldest brother, a l l went we l l . But i n les s than three years he asserted h i s independence. Another cause of f r i c t i o n at the meeting of the brothers was the problem of the r e l a t i v e r o l e s of Constantine II and Constantius II. The t r a d i t i o n a l approach, notable e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of D i o c l e t i a n and his tetrarchy, had been for the senior Augustus to assume the i n i t i a t i v e i n l e g i s l a t i o n and imperial p o l i c y and to enjoy a c e r t a i n authority over h i s j u n i o r colleagues. Constantine II was the eldest brother and had also been a Caesar for some seven years longer than Constantius I I , and so there i s reason to expect that he planned to dominate the new administration. The very f a c t that h i s father had entrusted him with one of the most vulnerable parts of the Empire and, moreover, the part farthest removed from him i n his l a s t years goes to 139 show that Constantine I had greater confidence i n h i s eldest son. Further evidence f o r Constantine l ' s marked favour towards his eldest son i s provided by a s e r i e s of s i l v e r medallions minted during the l a s t 140 year or so of h i s l i f e . Constantine I, hounded by i n t r i g u e i n favour of each of the Caesars, decided to take advantage of the vieennalia of 141 Constantine II's appointment as Caesar to issue these s p e c i a l coins i n h i s honour without giving the other Caesars any share, as was normally the p r a c t i c e . These coins were minted i n the West and as far 103 east as at l e a s t Thessalonica and served to show Constantine II "comme h e r i t i e r s p i r i t u e l de 1'empire, grace auquel 1'unite, que seule l a f o r t e personnalite de l'empereur a pu conserver, s e r a i t affermie et 142 perpetuee." The i n s c r i p t i o n s , however, normally l i s t Constantine I I f i r s t among the Caesars as b e f i t t i n g h i s age but i n other respects give him no pre-eminence. A f t e r the death of Constantine I, h i s eldest son attempted almost immediately to exercise h i s father's authority by authorizing Athanasius' return to Alexandria. This act amounted to interference i n a t e r r i t o r y over which as Caesar he had no c o n t r o l . In short, he considered himself alone to be the sole h e i r to a l l the prerogatives of h i s father, though he was w i l l i n g to l e t his brothers share the t i t l e of Augustus and some nominal authority. The coins minted a f t e r the conference at Viminacium r e f l e c t the new p o l i c y i n s t i t u t e d so recently by Constantine I. Constantine I I struck gold and s i l v e r medallions at S i s c i a , the nearest mint, soon a f t e r the conference. On these medallions a l l three Augusti wear the normal state r e g a l i a , but only Constantine II has the nimbus, the f o o t s t o o l , and the prominent ce n t r a l p o s i t i o n ; as w e l l , he i s depicted 143 as larger than his brothers. On h i s own coins minted a f t e r the conference, Constantine II continued to u t i l i z e the legend vota XX multa XXX, thereby dating h i s imperium from the year i n which he had been appointed Caesar. Constantius II and Constans, on the other hand, inaugurated new vows as Augusti. As Caesar Constans had celebrated no vows and Constantius I I , even though he had been Caesar since 324, had celebrated them only on occasion; rather, i t was customary for them to share i n t h e i r father's vows. H. B. Mattingly has concluded from t h i s 1 0 4 e v i d e n c e t h a t a s C a e s a r s C o n s t a n s d i d n o t p o s s e s s t h e imperium a n d C o n s t a n t i u s I I , t h o u g h h e m a y h a v e h a d i t n o m i n a l l y , r a r e l y m a d e u s e o f 1 4 4 i t . T h a t t h i s h a d b e e n t h e c a s e i n r e c e n t y e a r s m a y h a v e b e e n t r u e f o r C o n s t a n s b u t h a r d l y s o f o r C o n s t a n t i u s I I , w h o , t h o u g h f r e q u e n t l y a c c o m p a n i e d b y h i s f a t h e r , h a d b e e n f o r c e d t o b e a r t h e b r u n t o f t h e P e r s i a n o f f e n s i v e i n 3 3 6 . I n s p i t e o f h i s e x p e r i e n c e , t h o u g h , C o n s t a n t i u s I I f o l l o w e d t h e s a m e p r a c t i c e a s h i s y o u n g e r b r o t h e r a f t e r t h e c o n f e r e n c e a t V i m i n a c i u m i n t h a t b o t h d a t e d t h e i r v o w s f r o m t h e i r p r o c l a m a t i o n a s A u g u s t i , u t i l i z i n g t h e l e g e n d vota V multa X. T h i s a p p a r e n t e q u a l i t y o f t h e t w o y o u n g e r A u g u s t i r e f l e c t s t h e i r e q u a l s t a t u r e , i n f e r i o r t o t h a t o f t h e i r e l d e s t b r o t h e r , o n t h e m e d a l l i o n s m i n t e d b y C o n s t a n t i n e I i n h o n o u r o f h i s s o n ' s vicennalia. T h e i n s c r i p t i o n s a r e m o r e c l e a r - c u t i n r e v e a l i n g t h e a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t o f C o n s t a n t i n e I I a s t h e s e n i o r A u g u s t u s e v e n i n t h e E a s t . O n e G r e e k i n s c r i p t i o n f r o m A c h a e a i s n o t p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i n n a m i n g C o n s t a n t i n e I I a l o n e , f o r i t w a s q u i t e c o m m o n f o r s e p a r a t e i n s c r i p t i o n s t o b e d e d i c a t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l A u g u s t i a n d C a e s a r s ; h o w e v e r , i t i m p l i e s h i s s u p e r i o r i t y , r e f e r r i n g t o h i m a s x b v y e y i a x o v K a t , 1 4 5 B e i o x a x o v A u x o K p d x o p a . Y e t a n o t h e r i n s c r i p t i o n , f r o m P h r y g i a , r e f e r s t o C o n s t a n t i n e I I a s Maximo Aug(usto) a n d t o h i s b r o t h e r s o n l y a s 1 4 6 Aug(ustis). M o v i n g e a s t w a r d s t o C y p r u s , w e e n c o u n t e r t h r e e i n s c r i p t i o n s s h o w i n g t h e a d v a n c e m e n t o f C o n s t a n t i n e I I i n t h e I m p e r i a l 1 4 7 h i e r a r c h y . I n o n e i n s c r i p t i o n , d a t e d 3 3 3 - 3 3 5 , C o n s t a n t i n e I i s r e f e r r e d t o a s victori maximo ac triumfatori3 semper Aug (usto) w h i l e h i s s o n s a r e a l l r e f e r r e d t o a s nob(ilissimis) Caes(aribus) a n d a r e l i s t e d i n o r d e r o f t h e i r a g e s . I n a n o t h e r i n s c r i p t i o n , d a t e d 9 S e p t e m b e r 3 3 7 -105 March 340, Constantine II i s c l e a r l y given precedence over h i s brothers, being c a l l e d [ma]ximo triumfatori Aug[usto] while h i s brothers are referred to as [v~\ictoribus semper Aug[ustis]. This d i s t i n c t i o n i s a l l the more s t r i k i n g i n that the i n s c r i p t i o n was set up deep i n the t e r r i t o r y of Constantius I I , i n a part of the Empire that could not have seen Constantine II since he was a mere boy. F i n a l l y , even further east, near Antioch was set up another i n s c r i p t i o n i n honour of the three Augusti: herein Constantine II i s re f e r r e d to as 148 Maximo while h i s brothers are viatorib(us) semper Aug(ustis). S u f f i c e i t to say that Constantine II not only portrayed himself as but also was recognized as the primus inter pares i n the new t r i a r c h y . However, as events were to prove, he could not command the profound respect and b l i n d obedience that had been enjoyed by h i s father. (7) The Problem of the I n i t i a t i o n of  L e g i s l a t i o n As w e l l as the d i v i s i o n of t e r r i t o r y among the brothers, the i n i t i a t i o n of l e g i s l a t i o n has to be discussed. During the period of the tetrarchy led f i r s t by D i o c l e t i a n and l a t e r by Constantius I and f i n a l l y by Galerius, l e g i s l a t i o n had been the exclusive prerogative of the senior Augustus. Af t e r the defeat of Maxentius, Constantine I had been recognized as senior Augustus by L i c i n i u s , and l e g i s l a t i o n continued to o r i g i n a t e from the western court u n t i l the end of t h e i r f i r s t c i v i l war, when Constantine I renounced h i s sole r i g h t to l e g i s l a t e i n the 149 Empire. This s i t u a t i o n had las t e d f o r ten years u n t i l the defeat of L i c i n i u s enabled Constantine I to become the sole l e g i s l a t o r . Whatever 106 the d e c i s i o n reached at Viminacium, Constantius II published h i s own edicts i n the East i n 338 and l a t e r years. The members of the court of Constantius II may have been w i l l i n g to grant Constantine II the appearance of absolute authority but not the substance, for t h i s would reduce t h e i r own i n i t i a t i v e . Since Constantius II had been i n the East with h i s father since at l e a s t 335, whereas Constantine II had been i n the West, i t was natural that Constantius II should i n h e r i t his father's advisers, men most unwilling to play second f i d d l e to t h e i r western counterparts once they had tasted the ambrosia of power. Thus the laws promulgated show c l e a r l y that two emperors were exercising l e g i s l a t i v e authority and that consequently the Empire had been s p l i t much as i t had been between the c i v i l wars of Constantine I and L i c i n i u s . C o n s t a n t i n e II issued laws from Thessalonica (6 December 337: CTh 11.1.4), from Viminacium (12 June 338: CTh 10.10.4), from Sirmium (27 July 338: CTh 15.1.5), and from T r i e r ; (8 January 339: CTh 12.1.27),"'""'"'' while Constantius II issued laws from Antioch (11 October 338: CTh 12.1.23), 1 5 2 from Emesa (28 October 338: CTh 12.1.25), 1 5 3 and 154 again from Emesa (27 December 338: CTh 2.6.4). A l l the laws of Constantine II p e r t a i n to the West, whereas those of Constantius II almost c e r t a i n l y p e r t a i n to the East. It would not be u n t i l very early i n 340 that Constans would attempt to exercise his own l e g i s l a t i v e authority. (8) The Nomination of the Consuls 338-340 If Constantine II abdicated the r i g h t of the senior Augustus to l e g i s l a t e e x c l u s i v e l y i n the Empire, did he r e t a i n the prerogative of naming the consuls? Since the three brothers were together i n the 107 autumn of 337, i t i s most l i k e l y that they discussed the problem and came up with a mutually s a t i s f a c t o r y s o l u t i o n . One would expect that they would have chosen two of t h e i r own number to be consuls, but the weakness of t h i s s o l u t i o n was that one would thereby s u f f e r a loss of prestige. None of them, except for Constantine II i n h i s early years, had ever been c l o s e l y associated with the o f f i c e . Constantine II had held the o f f i c e four times, but the l a s t occasion was i n 329 and he must have f e l t the need for h i s name to date the records for another year. Constantius II was i n even more d i r e s t r a i t s ; he had been consul only once, i n 326. But Constans, though he had been a Caesar for nearly four years, had not been deemed worthy of the o f f i c e . Instead, i t had gone to J u l i u s Constantius and other favourites of Constans' father. The 155 consuls chosen for 338 were not men of great reputation. About one, F l a v i u s Ursus, l i t t l e i s known; he may have served as magistev utriusque milit'lae under Constantine I along the Danube a few years previously, but t h i s i s f a r from c e r t a i n . T h e second, F l a v i u s Polemius, was almost c e r t a i n l y supported by Constantine II i n that he favoured the Orthodox cause. Indeed, i t i s quite possible that Athanasius himself, then at Viminacium with the brothers, recommended him for the consul-ship, for some eight years l a t e r Polemius, by then a comes under Constantius I I , was one of those who wrote to Athanasius and urged him to return from what was then his second e x i l e . T h e appointment of Polemius would not have been pleasing to the Eusebian f a c t i o n , but for the time being there was l i t t l e they could do about i t . The consulships of the two succeeding years i n d i c a t e that, even i f Constantine II did exercise the exclusive r i g h t of naming consuls, he consulted the 108 i n t e r e s t s of both of h i s brothers and the opinion of Constantius I I . For 339 he named both brothers to the consulship. For 340, two 158 prominent nobles were chosen. One, Lucius Aradius V a l e r i u s Proculus, 159 was c l e a r l y the choice of Constantine I I . Proculus, a devout pagan, was not the sort to be favoured by either Constans, the decidedly Orthodox sympathizer, or by Constantius I I , the devout Arian. What i s more, nearly his e n t i r e career had been devoted to administration i n the West, e s p e c i a l l y i n I t a l y and Africa,^® and he had been appointed urban prefect of Rome by Constantine I i n 337 and had held that o f f i c e into 161 the new year, 338. A f t e r the death of Constantine II i n the early part of 340, he appears to have f a l l e n into obscurity u n t i l made urban 162 prefect for a second time by Magnentius, the murderer of Constans. C l e a r l y , therefore, Proculus at l e a s t was a fav o u r i t e of Constantine II. His colleague, Septimius Acindynus, however, was i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d appointed to the consulship at the suggestion of Constantius I I . Although seemingly of western origin,' he was praetorian prefect of the East from at l e a s t 27 December 338 to 24 August 340 and as such the 163 choice of Constantius II. Therefore we cannot conclude with any c e r t a i n t y that Constantine II i n h e r i t e d from h i s father the r i g h t of 164 designating the consuls. I f , perchance, he did, he consulted h i s brothers, e s p e c i a l l y Constantius I I , before a c t u a l l y appointing the consuls. (9) The Authority of Constantine II and  Constantius II In view of the evidence c i t e d , which indicates that Constantine I I claimed and to some extent, enjoyed a c e r t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n superior to 109 that of h i s brothers, we can soon dispense with the base f l a t t e r y of a l a t e r period that pretended that Constantine I had wanted h i s own p o s i t i o n to be assumed by the second brother, Constantius II. J u l i a n , d e l i v e r i n g h i s f i r s t o r a t i o n i n honour of h i s cousin Constantius II soon a f t e r being appointed Caesar i n 355, was able to take advantage of the fact that Constantine II had become by now a mere memory (having died i n 340). Addressing Constantius I I , he says: rax x n s y e v e v T r a x a x au)<j>po0uvris y d p x u s 6 Traxftp y e y o v e v a ^ x o x p e a i s , oox x d irepx xftv apxxiv Kax x d Trpos xous aSeAtjious 6xoxKexv e-rrixpeijjas y o v c o , o v x x y e o u o e TrpeoBuxdxu) xcov e K e i v o u Traxowv. < < But J u l i a n had e a r l i e r i n the same or a t i o n admitted that Constantius I I had become master of but a t h i r d of the Empire, xou xpxxou yopxou . . . ouoayws Trpos x o v TroAeyov eppcoaOax O O K O U V X O S , and by contradicting himself renders h i s information i n v a l i d . A year or two l a t e r , while campaigning i n Gaul, J u l i a n composed a second panegyric of Constantius II, l i k e n i n g him to the Homeric heroes. In t h i s he embellished the theme that Constantius II was the favoured son: xuxbv 6e rax 'f\Sr\ x o u Aeyoyevou £ u v x e x e , e x x e OUTTGJ 6fiAov, a u x x K a ydAa Cuvfjaexe e v v o f j a a v x e s -rrpaixov yev OJS auxbv 6" Traxftp nyaTra oT)a<f>epovxu)s . . . . K a x a u x o u o n y e x o v X T I S y v u i y n s , TTpaixov y e v 6xx Koovaxavxxoj x a u x n v e £ e x A e xftv y o x p a v , riv auxcia Trp6xepov T r p o a f i K e x v 'e"xexv U T r g A a B e v , ex6' o x x xeAeuxwv x5v Btov, x b v i r p e o B t J x a x o v Kax x b v veuxaxov acfiexs axoAftv ' d y o v x a s , xouxov 6h a a x o A o v e K d A e x K a x e u e x p e p e x d ' T r e p x X T ) V a p x ^ v ^uyiravxa.^ 7 The reason for J u l i a n ' s f l a t t e r y and exaggeration i s e a s i l y discerned. His elder brother, Gallus Caesar, had j u s t been put to death by 110 Constantius I I , and J u l i a n , the new Caesar, had to tread very c a r e f u l l y . Since Constantine II had been dead for more than f i f t e e n years, few would have remembered him we l l , and those who did would have every reason to f l a t t e r the quick and to debase the dead. In short, J u l i a n ' s panegyrics i n no way i n v a l i d a t e the theory that Constantine II enjoyed a c e r t a i n pre-eminence over h i s younger brothers. (10) The Honours Paid to Constantine I Before the three brothers departed from Viminacium, the honours to be paid to t h e i r l a t e father had to be decided upon. Some numismatic commemoration was c a l l e d f o r , but the old pagan p r a c t i c e of r e f e r r i n g to the deceased sovereign as divus might offend C h r i s t i a n s e n s i b i l i t i e s . When Eusebius of Caesarea describes the coins that were minted i n Constantine's honour, he mentions the v e i l e d head on the obverse and the scene on the reverse (Constantine I as a charioteer, drawn by four horses, with a hand stretched downward from above to receive him up to heaven) but omits the legend Divus Constantinus.^^ Constantine II and Constantius II were not troubled by t h i s manifestly pagan slogan on a C h r i s t i a n coin. Doubtless they hoped i n t h i s way to appease both r e l i g i o u s elements and also, by honouring t h e i r father, to strengthen the l o y a l t y of the armies to themselves. Constantine II minted such coins at T r i e r , Lugdunum, and Arelate ( s t i l l c a l l e d Constantina). Constantius II was even more enthusiastic, minting them at Heraclea, Constantinople, Nicomedia, Cyzicus, Antioch, and Alexandria. It w i l l be noticed from the above l i s t that the I t a l i a n and Balkan mints are absent, namely, A q u i l e i a , Rome, S i s c i a , and I l l Thessalonica. It was no coincidence that a l l these mints (with the exception of the one at Thessalonica) were located i n the t e r r i t o r y that had been under the nominal control of Constans as a Caesar. One would have expected the posthumous coins to have been minted at S i s c i a f i r s t of a l l , for t h i s mint was nearest to the conference of the brothers, but t h i s was not the case. Posthumous coins of Constantine I were minted at A q u i l e i a , but they d i f f e r e d markedly from the rest i n that they were merely continuations of the normal types, with no reference to 170 Constantine I as divus. What conclusions can be deduced from t h i s situation? In the f i r s t place, the posthumous coins were probably not minted u n t i l 338, for Constantine II spent at l e a s t part of the winter 337/8 i n the Balkans and did not return to Gaul u n t i l 338; i f they had been minted e a r l i e r , we should be able to f i n d a consistency throughout the West. Thus i t was that Constantine II and Constantius II p u b l i c i z e d t h e i r respect for t h e i r father openly. Constans, on the other hand, revealed h i s independent tendencies at an early stage. Once his brothers had departed, he refused to allow the mints to publish any posthumous coins. Doubtless the standard issues from A q u i l e i a were minted only as a concession to h i s eldest brother, who might have otherwise wheeled about and enforced h i s own p o l i c y . But why was Constans so u n w i l l i n g to respect the memory of his own father? The usual answer i s that Constans was opposed to posthumous coins on r e l i g i o u s grounds, but surely Eusebius and the elder brothers were no les s C h r i s t i a n than Constans and yet they were able to r e c o n c i l e post-humous coins with t h e i r r e l i g i o u s p r i n c i p l e s . A far more l i k e l y reason i s the assumption that Constans l e f t the conference at Viminacium f a r 112 more embittered against h i s own father than against h i s brothers. After a l l , had not Constantine I waited u n t i l Constans was t h i r t e e n years old before appointing him Caesar, whereas Constantine I I had been only one year old and Constantius II s i x years old when they were made Caesars? What i s more, Constans had been appointed to the most p a c i f i c part of the Empire and had never been granted a share i n h i s father's campaigns. In short, Constans, doubtless spurred on by h i s remaining court, refused to pay homage to the memory of h i s own father because the arrangements made by him had ensured that Constans would have an i n f e r i o r p o s i t i o n i n the succession. The master of the mint at A q u i l e i a , caught i n the midst of the dispute, decided to compromise by continuing to mint the regular coins of Constantine I; those far t h e r east took solace i n the absence of the other brothers and minted no commemorative coins. Posthumous coins i n honour of a recently deceased Augustus had always been commonplace when he was succeeded by h i s own son and so the coins of Divus Constantinus should have come as no surprise. However, the coins minted i n T r i e r , Rome, and Constantinople i n honour of F l a v i a J u l i a Helena Augusta and F l a v i a Maxima Theodora Augusta were 171 highly unusual. Minted soon a f t e r the conference at Viminacium, these coins must have constituted part of the agreement among the three brothers. The coins do not r e f e r to the l a d i e s i n question as di-vae and thereby depart to some extent from the pagan t r a d i t i o n , but nevertheless they carry the p r a c t i c e of posthumous coinage to an extreme. Why did the sons bother to commemorate Helena, the f i r s t wife of Constantius I, 172 for she had died more than seven years e a r l i e r ? And why did they 113 mint coins i n honour of h i s second wife, Theodora, who had probably been 173 dead f o r about twenty-five years? Why did the sons not pay homage to the memory of t h e i r own mother, Fausta, or of t h e i r aunt, Constantia, 174 the former deceased i n 326 and the l a t t e r dead f o r some f i v e to ten years?"'"7^ The answer to these questions i s to be found i n Constantine l ' s dynastic p o l i c y , which sought to unite the descendants of h i s mother, Helena, and of h i s step-mother, Theodora. We know that the l a t e rex regim Hannibalianus, a grandson of Theodora, had been married to Constantina, a grand-daughter of Helena, i n 335, and, what i s more important, that Constantius I I , a grandson of Helena, had married a grand-daughter of Theodora (i.e., a daughter of J u l i u s Constantius and Galla) i n the following year. We can also be quite c e r t a i n that Constantine I I , married before his younger brother, had been united by Constantine I with some other descendant of Theodora, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d a daughter of h i s half-brother Dalmatius the Elder."*" 7^ The d i f f i c u l t aspect was that the male l i n e of Theodora, with the exception of the youngest members, had j u s t been k i l l e d i n the massacre. The death of Constantine I, which aroused Sapor to renewed a c t i v i t y , had also shaken the Empire i n t e r n a l l y , as witnessed by the delay i n the proclamation of the new Augusti. Under these circumstances, the three sons required a l l the support they could get. In sum, the posthumous coins of Helena and Theodora were an attempt to gain the support of the fa c t i o n s l o y a l to both households. At the same time, the coins of Helena served to pay homage as well to her son, Constantine I, and those of Theodora to honour the wives of the two older brothers. Constans, betrothed to Olympias, the daughter of 114 the praetorian prefect Ablabius, did not have t h i s motive."''7'7 On the other hand, he had no grudge against Helena and Theodora and consequently no objection to the minting of t h e i r coins. The three brothers found i t more p o l i t i c to appeal to the memory of the two older women than to that of t h e i r mother Fausta, who represented both households (one by blood, the other by marriage) but had already 17 8 suffered dnxmatio memoviae. Constantia, a daughter of Theodora and t h e i r own aunt, d i d not merit consideration as she represented only a 179 part of the household of Theodora. Once the brothers had consolidated t h e i r support by appealing to the memory of t h e i r ancestors, they turned to the appointment of new administrators. (11) The Praetorian Prefects 337 - 340 Our information for most of the o f f i c e s of state before 353, the f i r s t year recorded i n the extant h i s t o r y of Ammianus Marcellinus, i s very scanty. Even the o f f i c e of the praetorian prefecture i s poorly documented, p a r t l y because so few of the e d i c t s survived u n t i l the compilation of the Theodosian Code and p a r t l y because so many discrepancies exist i n the code i t s e l f . We s h a l l deal f i r s t with the praetorian prefects and then b r i e f l y with other prominent o f f i c i a l s of the day. The i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc, mentioned e a r l i e r , i ndicates that i n the summer of 337 the Empire was managed by f i v e prefects. However, an i n s c r i p t i o n from Thrace, dated to the spring of 341, shows a 180 s t a b i l i z e d s i t u a t i o n with only three regional prefects. C l e a r l y , the administration had undergone a considerable overhaul i n those four 181 years, one dictated by the changing circumstances. The existence of 115 only three prefects can be traced back to the conference at Viminacium i n September 337. With regard to A f r i c a , i t was decided to revert to the old system by the replacement of the praetorian prefect Nestorius Timonianus with the v i c a r Aco C a t u l l i n u s ; thereby A f r i c a f e l l once again under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the prefect of I t a l y , where i t was to remain. That t h i s was an attempt to co-ordinate the administration of these two highly interdependent areas and not simply a r e s u l t of the massacre of 337 i s evident from the subsequent f a t e of Timonianus: h i s name was l e f t upon the o r i g i n a l dedication at Tubernuc and, lacking any further information, we must assume that for the present at l e a s t he enjoyed an honourable retirement. Another case, however, was not so pleasant. Once Dalmatius Caesar had been eliminated i n the purge and h i s t e r r i t o r y along the lower Danube had been divided more or less equally between Constantine II and Constantius I I , h i s own praetorian prefect, V a l e r i u s Maximus, was no longer required since the diocese of Thrace came under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the prefect of the East while the rest of I l l y r i c u m came under the prefect of I t a l y . But the name of the f i f t h prefect, i.e., V a l e r i u s Maximus, was not l e f t i n t a c t upon the i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc when the stone was a l t e r e d soon a f t e r 9 September 337, but rather i t was c h i s e l l e d out. Such an erasure i n nearly every case indicates damnatio memoriae and not mere retirement, and so we must assume that Maximus, i n favour as l a t e as 2 August 337, had either spoken out against the massacre or, i n view of h i s great experience i n administration, had succumbed to the i n t r i g u e of h i s enemies at court. 116 What, then, was the fa t e of the three remaining p r e f e c t s , Tiberianus i n Gaul, Pacatianus i n I t a l y , and Ablabius i n the East? At some time before 340, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d l a t e i n 337 or i n 338, Tiberianus relinquished the o f f i c e of prefect of Gaul. The i d e n t i t y of his successor i s not known for c e r t a i n , but he may have been Ambrosius, 18 2 quite n a t u r a l l y a favourite and appointee of Constantine I I . Pacatianus, who had served under Constans ever since the Caesar f i r s t a r r i v e d i n I t a l y i n 334, benefited g r e a t l y by the addition of A f r i c a and I l l y r i c u m to his j u r i s d i c t i o n . His ultimate f a t e i s unknown, but his 183 successor, Antonius Marcellinus, was i n o f f i c e by 29 A p r i l 340 and i t i s tempting to believe that Pacatianus, whose prefecture dated back at le a s t as f a r as 12 A p r i l 332, served at f i r s t as prefect of Constantine II and remained i n power u n t i l the l a t t e r ' s death brought about the appointment of Marcellinus by Constans. We leave the realm of speculation and approximation only when we turn to the prefecture of the East. There Evagrius had r e t i r e d , probably l a t e i n 336, leaving F l a v i u s Ablabius as the sole prefect. Ablabius' ultimate fate leads us to beli e v e that he was with Constantius II at Antioch when the news of the death of Constantine I was announced, f or he played no r o l e i n the plot s hatched at Constantinople before the a r r i v a l there of the second son. His name remained unaltered on the i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc, so that we can conclude that, u n l i k e V a l e r i u s Maximus, he was s t i l l i n favour at court i n September 337. Yet l a t e i n 337 or early i n 338 he f e l l out of favour and was put to death. His downfall i s v i v i d l y described by Eunapius: ' A B A a B f w 6 e x b v T r a i 6 a KaxeAiTre K w v o x & v x i o v , a u y . B a c u A e u . o a v x a y e v 117 a u x w , 6 i a 6 e £ d y e v o v 6e xfiv apxriv x o u T r a x p b s a u v K w v a x a v x f v u j c « KaX K a i v a x a v x i x o t s a 6 e A t f > o i s . . . . 6 xa<5e£dy evos 6e o K w v a x d v x i o s xnv B a a x A e t a v Kat K A r i p w e e i s '6aa y e eKAnpcoOri , x a u x a S e fjv xa e£ ' I A A u p i w v e i s x n v e & a v Ka0fiKOVxa, x b v y e v ' A B A d g i o v a u x t i c a i t a p a A u e i x f i s a p x n s , 'dAAo Se r r e p i a u x b v e x a x p i K b v a u v e a x n a e . k a i o y e v ' A B A & B x o s x a i r e p x B i 6 u v i"av X w p t a t rdAax T r a p e a i c e u d a y e v o s , B a a x A x K d s x e Kaxac j juyas <ax p a O u y a a s exovxa, 6 x e x p x g e v ev a<j>66voxs, Trdvxiov av6pcoTra3V Oauya^ovxwv ' o x x B a a i A e u e i v o u B o u A e x a i . o <5e K w v a x d v x x o s eyytiQev EK x r i s xoO r r a x p b s rrSAews £x<j>n<j>6"pous x x v d s exr' a u x b v e K T r e y i J j a s OUK o A x y o u s , x o t s y e v Trpioxoxs e i c e A e u a e v a 7 T o S x 6 6 v a x y p d y y a x a . K a x T r p o a e K t j v r i a d v ye a u x 6 v , 'ooaTrep v o y x £ o u a x ' P w y a x o x B a a i A e a T r p o a K U v e t v , o i x a y p a y y a x a e y x e ' L P , i ? 0 V T e s " K a i o s y a A a a o B a p w s ( S e g d y e v o s x a y p a y y a x a <ax r r a v x b s aTroAu0exs <j)6Bou, x h v x e a A o u p y x ' S a x o u s eX.G'ov.xas a i r t i x e i , B a p t j x e p o s rj<Sri y x v 6 y e v o s , Kai <j)oBepbs r\v x o x s opooyevoxs. oi 6e e<j>aaav i r p b s a u x p v , a u x o x yev x a y p a y y a x a K o y t C e x v , Trpb 0upaiv 6e e x v a x x o u s x a u x a IT e r r x a x e u y e v o u s . Kat o y e v e K e i v o u s eicdAex y e y a cfjpovwv <ax xn y v w y n S x n p y e v o s • oi Se a u Y X ^ P n 8 e v x e s exaeAOe'tv TrAf|06s x e fiaav K a x £x<J>n<j>6'pox T r d v x e s , K a x a v x t x f i s a A o u p x S o s eTrfiYOV a u x w " x b v Tr.o'.p'<j)(J"pe'o.v O d v a x o v , " K p e o u p y n S o v , aiairep T I XOJV e v x a t s eucoxxaxs £a>ov, raxaKOibavxes. K a x x a i j x n v e x x a e /ScoTrdxpw S f K n v o T r d v x a e u S a x y w v ' A B A d g x o s . "*~84 For t h i s d e t a i l e d account of the workings of the court we are to be exceedingly g r a t e f u l , although i t does f a i l to answer two questions. How was i t that Ablabius f e l l out of favour so suddenly? Was the d e c i s i o n to put him out to pasture reached during or a f t e r the 118 185 conference at Viminacium? As has been shown e a r l i e r , Ablabius was one of the most i n f l u e n t i a l f igures i n the administration during the l a s t years of Constantine I. From h i s humble beginnings i n Crete, he had r i s e n to become v i c a r of Asiana soon a f t e r Constantine l ' s f i n a l v i c t o r y over L i c i n i u s (324 A.D.) and had been praetorian prefect (at f i r s t of I t a l y , but for the most part of the East) since 329. In 333 h i s daughter Olympias had been betrothed to Constans, t h i s a c t i o n being a d e c i s i v e mark of imperial favour. For several years his influence had been counter-balanced by that of the pagan philosopher Sopater, but, by persuading the s u p e r s t i t i o u s Constantine I that Sopater was responsible for holding back the grain transports from Constantinople by the magical device of f e t t e r i n g the winds, Ablabius had managed to secure the execution of h i s strongest competitor. The Arian f a c t i o n , led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, had no use f o r Ablabius, a sympathizer of Athanasius. Even those eunuchs at court who were not of the Arian persuasion must have been alienated from him, since t h e i r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were so diverse. In sum, Ablabius, p r i m a r i l y because of h i s great influence, had made many enemies within and without the bureaucracy, pagan and A r i a n 186 a l i k e . The Eusebian f a c t i o n doubtless decided to press for his retirement while Constantius II was s t i l l at Antioch with Ablabius. If Ablabius and most of the other prefects remained i n t h e i r appointed areas instead of accompanying the sons of Constantine I to the conference at Viminacium, the task of the Eusebian f a c t i o n would have been rendered much easier. They could argue, with some degree of v e r a c i t y , that the sons could render themselves more secure i f they replaced the appointees of t h e i r father with new administrators who would be indebted to the new order. That t h i s was true i n t h e i r own case as well was a thought that was c a r e f u l l y obscured. I f , on the other hand, the praetorian prefects d i d attend the meeting at Viminacium, the task of the Arians would have been rendered more d i f f i c u l t but f a r from impossible. A f t e r a l l , the older administrators may a c t u a l l y have welcomed retirement. Eunapius states that Ablabius was r e l i e v e d of h i s authority soon a f t e r the death of Constantine I, and so we must conclude that his retirement occurred no l a t e r than the conference at Viminacium. His replacement was i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d 187 Septimius Acindynus, i n o f f i c e by 27 December 338 at the l a t e s t . 188 Since Acindynus had a western background, whereas that of Ablabius had been eastern, the chances are good that he was an appointee of 189 Constantine I I . This being the case, i t i s most l i k e l y that h i s appointment, and consequently Ablabius' retirement, can be dated to the conference at Viminacium. Mere retirement was no disgrace, and the name of Ablabius, j u s t l i k e that of Timonianus, remained in t a c t on the i n s c r i p t i o n of Tubernuc. However, once the conference was over and Constantius II was returning to the eastern front and Ablabius was withdrawing to h i s Bithynian estate, the Eusebian f a c t i o n had an i d e a l opportunity to i n s t i l i n Constantius II fear of h i s former administrator: would the prefect who had almost ruled Constantine the Great be content with a private, r u r a l existence? Ablabius was t r i c k e d into declaring imperial aspirations. It i s possible that, fearing h i s enemies at court, he had decided on revolt as the only means of safety. Whatever the case, the 120 suspicions of Constantius II had been aroused and were appeased only by the murder of Ablabius. Even i f he suffered damnatio memoriae, no one bothered to c h i s e l out h i s name from the i n s c r i p t i o n at Tubernuc. (12) Urban Prefects and Other O f f i c i a l s 337-340 L i t t l e i s known about the other o f f i c i a l s during the period 337-340 with the exception of the praefecti urbis Romae. The l a t e s t appointee of Constantine I, Lucius Aradius Valerius Proculus, remained 190 i n o f f i c e throughout the c r i s i s , from 10 March 337 to 13 January 338. 191 Though a pagan, he did not suff e r at the hands of the new administration. His career i s further evidence that by f a r the greatest part of the i n t r i g u e occurred i n the East, at the court of Constantius II. When appointed to t h i s o f f i c e , he was honoured by the Augustus and 192 Caesars with a statue i n the Forum of Trajan. Later he was nominated 193 to the consulship of 340 together with Septimius Acindynus. Thereafter he remained i n obscurity u n t i l 351, when he chose to serve as 194 urban prefect once again, t h i s time under the usurper Magnentius. His v i r t u a l retirement from the death of Constantine II i n 340 to that of Constans i n 350 may be best ascribed to Constans' mistrust of the favourites of his eldest brother. For h i s e a r l i e r good fortune he was indebted p r i m a r i l y to Constantine I and Constantine I I , even though he served i n t e r r i t o r y under the nominal control of Constans. Once Constans had eliminated his eldest brother, Proculus f e l l from favour. His successor i n the o f f i c e of urban, prefect, Maecilius Hilarianus, held the p o s i t i o n from 13 January 338 to 14 July 339 and, having already held 195 the consulship i n 332, was c l e a r l y a f a v o u r i t e of Constantine I. We 121 do not have s u f f i c i e n t information to determine whether he was the choice of Constantine II or of Constans. S u f f i c e i t that h i s retirement was an honourable one, for i n 354, at an advanced age, he was appointed 196 praetorian prefect by the surviving brother, Constantxus I I . Hilarianus was succeeded i n the urban praefecture by Lucius Turcius Apronianus, who held that o f f i c e for only a short period, from 14 July 197 339 to 25 October 339. Since Apronianus was never promoted to the consulship or any other high o f f i c e under Constans, i t i s possible that he was shunned by that Augustus as a f a v o u r i t e of Constantine II. It i s j u s t as possible, however, that he was the choice of Constans, since h i s death during the j o i n t reign of Constantius II and Constans may have 198 precluded any further promotion, and since both of h i s sons prospered 199 under Constans. As i n the case of Hi l a r i a n u s , we cannot be c e r t a i n whether he acquired the urban prefecture through the favour of Constantine II or through Constans. During the period now under consideration (337-340), we have no d e f i n i t e information on such important o f f i c e r s as the magistvi offiaiorum, the magistvi militum, the oomites sacrarum largitionum, the oomites rerum privatarum, and the agentes in rebus. The r o l e of the infamous praepositus saori cubieuli, Eusebius, i n the succession of the sons and i n the massacre has already been discussed at length. His pernicious influence at the court of Constantius II w i l l be traced u n t i l he began to plot the elimination of Gallus Caesar i n 353. Since our information about Eusebius and l e s s e r o f f i c i a l s , such as the oubiculavii and notarii, i s based p r i m a r i l y upon e c c l e s i a s t i c a l sources for t h i s period, we would do well to turn to the fa t e of Athanasius, so c l o s e l y i s i t r e l a t e d to the p o l i t i c s of the 122 period. (13) The Return of Athanasius and His Second E x i l e Once the death of Constantine I had been made known i n the West, Constantine II wrote a l e t t e r , dated 17 June 337, to the Alexandrians, urging them to welcome back as bishop A t h a n a s i u s . I n a l l l i k e l i h o o d Athanasius t r a v e l l e d with Constantine II as f a r as Viminacium where he had h i s f i r s t interview with Constantius I I . The Arians of the East, most notably Eusebius of Nicomedia, had no desire to see the return to t h e i r midst of t h e i r most b i t t e r enemy but were powerless when confronted with the resolve of the eldest Caesar. The meeting at Viminacium must have ended very soon a f t e r 9 September, for Constantius II was urgently required on the eastern front, where Sapor was conducting r a i d s . We cannot be sure whether Athanasius a c t u a l l y t r a v e l l e d with Constantius II but we do know that they twice had formal interviews, one at Caesarea i n Cappadocia and another at Antioch. On 201 23 November 337, Athanasius returned to Alexandria, to the joy of the Orthodox and the g r i e f of the Arians. His sojourn was to be a short one, for i n the absence of Constantine II and Athanasius, the Arians were free to s t i r up the suspicions of Constantius II against the Bishop of Alexandria. The Arians' r e l i a n c e , l i k e that of t h e i r opponents, upon the secular arm was an i n t e g r a l part of the p o l i t i c s of the period. F i n a l l y , i n 338 they were able to persuade Constantius II to appoint as prefect of Egypt one P h i l a g r i u s , a strong supporter of t h e i r f a c t i o n who had held that same o f f i c e once before i n the l a s t years of Constantine I and had been r e l i e v e d of h i s command i n l a t e 337, doubtless i n order to 123 202 further Constantine II's p o l i c y of the r e s t o r a t i o n of e x i l e s . The new bishop was not to be chosen by the clergy of Egypt; rather, the Arians chose Gregorius to be the new bishop and persuaded Constantius II to dispatch him together with P h i l a g r i u s to Egypt. Doubtless Eusebius of Nicomedia was the main i n s t i g a t o r behind t h i s i n t r u s i o n of the secular arm into e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a f f a i r s . However, since a eunuch, Arsacius by name, was sent together with P h i l a g r i u s , i t i s quite possible that the grand chamberlain Eusebius had a share i n the p l o t ; 203 Arsacius was probably one of h i s cubioulavii.. Athanasius and his followers were no match for a m i l i t a r y force. On 18 March 339 he was forced to f l e e from h i s church, and four days l a t e r Gregorius entered 204 Alexandria as bishop. Athanasius dared not r i s k an appeal to Constantius II but instead set out f o r Rome, where he could a n t i c i p a t e a f r i e n d l y reception from Bishop J u l i u s and protection from the Orthodox 205 Constantine II and Constans. In securing the deposition of Athanasius the Arians had appealed to Constantius II's love of c i v i l order; they had fostered r i o t s i n Alexandria and then had a t t r i b u t e d them to a f i c t i t i o u s attempt by Athanasius to crush h i s enemies. Although possessing stronger Arian sympathies than h i s father had had, Constantius II was very much l i k e him i n giving the highest p r i o r i t y to pu b l i c order; he did not desire that the strength of the Empire should be drained by c i v i l discord, 206 e s p e c i a l l y when the Persians were launching a major offensive. Likewise, the Arians at court were able to persuade him to intervene i n the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a f f a i r s of Constantinople i t s e l f . There, upon the death of Bishop Alexander, Paul and Macedonius had struggled for the 124 bishopric and the s p o i l s had gone to Paul, a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed, although disturbances remained. Now that Constantinople was r a p i d l y e c l i p s i n g Nicomedia as the chief c i t y i n the area of the Bosporus, Eusebius, the bishop of Nicomedia, desired to acquire control of the newer, more pres t i g i o u s , see. Persuading Constantius II that only a strong personality such as his own could bring peace to e c c l e s i a s t i c a l a f f a i r s there, Eusebius secured the expulsion of Paul and the bishopric for himself. Paul, along with other Orthodox e x i l e s , joined Athanasius i n the West, where a major catastrophe was brewing i n i 2 0 7 the secular arena. (14) Constantius I I i n the East 337-340 Af t e r the conclusion of the meeting of the three brothers at Viminacium, Constantius II hastened to the eastern front by way of Caesarea and Antioch, where he found to h i s r e l i e f that the Persian offe n s i v e had not enjoyed any marked success. In a l l l i k e l i h o o d Constantius II spent most of h i s time during the next few years i n the v i c i n i t y of Antioch, although he may have occ a s i o n a l l y ventured as f a r as Constantinople. For t h i s period there are extant no edicts issued from Constantinople (nor from Rome, for that matter), and the s i t u a t i o n appears to have resulted from two causes. In the f i r s t place, h o s t i l i t i e s between the brothers i n the West and against the Persians i n the East compelled the Augusti to r e f r a i n from enjoying the luxuries of the t i t u l a r c a p i t a l s . In the second place, there may well have been an agreement at Viminacium to the e f f e c t that they would tre a t t h e i r c a p i t a l s as common property i n order not to cause each other offence. 125 In any case, Constantius II had l i t t l e opportunity to bother with Constantinople or to dispute the a l l o c a t i o n of t e r r i t o r y as agreed upon at Viminacium, for even while he was at the conference with h i s brothers the s i t u a t i o n i n the East was d e t e r i o r a t i n g r a p i d l y . The Persians, taking advantage of the uncertainty i n the Empire following the death of Constantine I and also of dissension i n Rome's a l l y Armenia, had succeeded i n capturing the Armenian king and i n se t t i n g up t h e i r favourites i n Armenia. As well, they overran Mesopotamia and besieged N i s i b i s for two months, though they were unable to take that c i t y . The return of Constantius II to the eastern front i n the winter of 337/8 led to the regrouping of the Roman forces. It was clear that Constantius II did not dare to stray f ar from the f r o n t i e r without encouraging further Persian aggression. Besides, any neglect of the war on h i s part could very well lead to the usurpation of one of h i s own commanders. In 338 Constantius II took the offensive, drove the Persian forces from Armenia, and re-established there a regime sympathetic to the Roman cause. However, continued Persian r a i d s were to demand most of h i s att e n t i o n throughout the following decade and to render him incapable of any concerted e f f o r t i n 208 western a f f a i r s . Entries i n the Theodosian Code enable us to v e r i f y Constantius II's presence on the eastern front for the autumn and winter 209 210 of 338. He can s t i l l be found there i n the l a t e summer of 340, af t e r the c r i s i s i n the West had been resolved. (15) Constantine II and Constans 337-338 In the West, Constantine II and Constans sought to make do as best they could with the d i f f i c u l t agreement reached at Viminacium. The 126 question was not how much longer Constans could endure to content himself with only the trappings, but not the substance, of an Augustus, for he was now e s s e n t i a l l y s t i l l a Caesar with the t i t l e of an Augustus, but rather how long i t would be before h i s o f f i c e r s , most of whom had been appointed by Constantine I, would r e v o l t , now that t h e i r 211 independence had been undermined by the o f f i c i a l s of Constantine I I . So long as Constantine II remained i n the Balkans, he was able to manage a f f a i r s i n his own r i g h t . Meanwhile, h i s entourage doubtless made i t s presence f e l t as i t undermined the authority of the former administrators of Constans and Dalmatius. A f t e r the conference at Viminacium, Constantine I I , to judge from h i s a c t i v i t i e s during the following year, resolved to undertake the inspection of his own t e r r i t o r y , doubtless to r e i n f o r c e h i s claim to the e n t i r e West as well as to ensure the security of the f r o n t i e r s . It i s quite possible that he and Constans accompanied Constantius II as f a r as Thessalonica, where they spent the winter while Constantius II rushed on through to Antioch, for we can be c e r t a i n that i n early December at 212 le a s t Constantine II resided at Thessalonica. In 338 Constantine I I , probably s t i l l accompanied by Constans, returned to Viminacium, favouring t h i s town as one where his presence would be most noticeable to the t r i b e s across the Danube. While he resided there i n June, he decided that the time had a r r i v e d to put an end to the witch-hunt that had been taking place ever since the death of Constantine I. By now the massacre of the brothers and nephews of Constantine I had been completed, and even Ablabius.was dead i n the East. There can be l i t t l e doubt that the dynastic slaughter of 337 had 127 originated i n the eastern court. Constantine II had been unable to stop i t , f o r most had been k i l l e d before he had a chance to intervene. In his edict of 12 June 338, Constantine I I prohibited the lodging of secret informations, considering that thereby he and h i s colleagues would be innooentiam seeuvitate fivmantes et quorundam audaciam 213 pvohibentes. On 18 June 338, he turned to those anonymous denunciations that already existed and ordered that, i n accordance with 214 an e a r l i e r law of h i s father, they a l l be destroyed by f i r e . Both these e d i c t s are directed to A f r i c a , the former to Aurelius Celsinus, 215 the proconsul of A f r i c a , and the l a t t e r to the A f r i c a n s i n general. A f r i c a i s one of the most remote areas, and there i s no evidence that any of the r e l a t i v e s of Constantine I l i v e d there or that any of his brothers or nephews had ever so much as v i s i t e d that diocese. It i s most l i k e l y that edicts s i m i l a r to these were dispatched to a l l areas of the western part of the Empire, and that the d e s i r e of Constantine II was to ensure an end to the i n t r i g u e following upon the death of h i s father. However, there i s another p o s s i b i l i t y , namely that c e r t a i n o f f i c i a l s there, under the nominal command of Constans while his father was s t i l l a l i v e , were t r y i n g to engineer a r e v o l t i n h i s favour and i n opposition to Constantine II i n order to regain t h e i r influence. These o f f i c i a l s could have made use of the supporters of the Donatist heresy, 216 s t i l l a force to reckon with. A r e v o l t i n A f r i c a would have been c r i t i c a l since, by cutting o f f the grain-supply to Rome, i t could have extended i t s e l f to southern I t a l y as w e l l . In any case, Constantine I I had no use for anonymous denunciations and determined to put an end to i n t r i g u e under his j u r i s d i c t i o n . 128 There i s no evidence that at t h i s time Constantius II passed any edict condemning anonymous denunciations. However, l a t e r i n the same year, Constantius II did give vent to h i s impatience with regard to the protracted imprisonment of those charged with, but not convicted of, 217 criminal offences; i n h i s edict he declared that a l l such cases were to be heard and judged within the space of one month and that any judge f a i l i n g to act i n t h i s way would be v i s i t e d with l i k e imprisonment. Later, a f t e r the death of his younger brother, Constantius II was to make considerable use of anonymous denunciations. Constantine I I , a f t e r attempting to end i n t r i g u e , moved i n the 218 middle of the summer a short distance west to Sirmium. A f t e r ensuring the sec u r i t y of the Danube f r o n t i e r , Constantine II journeyed to T r i e r i n order to spend the winter of 338/9 i n the c i t y that had been 219 h i s most common abode for several years. Before a c t u a l l y journeying to T r i e r , Constantine II honoured Constantius II and Constans with the 220 consulship for 339. He himself had already held the o f f i c e four times, but Constantius II had held i t only once before and Constans had 221 never enjoyed i t s prestige. But by leaving Constans alone with h i s advisers i n the Balkans, Constantine II was making a f a t a l mistake. (16) The Revolt of Constans To the best of our knowledge Constantine II spent the year 339 and the winter of 339/40 i n Gaul. It was during the summer of 339 that an upheaval occurred on the Danube that destroyed the precarious r e l a t i o n s h i p of the eldest and youngest brothers. The Sarmatians attacked, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d taking advantage of the preoccupation of 129 Constantine II with the defence of the Rhine and of Constantius II with 222 the raids of Sapor. The s o l d i e r s already had t h e i r Augustus i n Constans, and under his leadership the Sarmatians were driven back. Thus i t came to pass that i n an emergency the army, unable to wait for Constantine I I , turned to Constans and thereby rendered him an Augustus i n more than j u s t name. He was h a i l e d Sarmaticus, j u s t as Constantine 223 II had been named Gothicus i n 332 f o r a s i m i l a r accomplishment. The f i r s t great step toward a breach between the brothers had been taken. As w e l l as a f f r o n t i n g Constantine II by f a i l i n g to make him a p a r t i c i p a n t i n the honour, Constans also may have trespassed upon the 224 j u r i s d i c t i o n of Constantius II. An i n s c r i p t i o n from Troesmis, near the mouth of the Danube, indicates that the f o r t i f i c a t i o n s were strengthened there at t h i s time by Sappo, the dux Um-itis of Scythia. Since Scythia, part of the diocese of Thrace, was under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of Constantius II and yet the l a t t e r , harassed on the eastern front, could not have responded quickly to the threat on the Danube, i t i s quite possible that Constans had assumed the i n i t i a t i v e here as well. One thing led to another, e s p e c i a l l y when Constantine II showed no i n d i c a t i o n of intervening on the Danube. Constans, doubtless urged on by his advisers, proceeded to take the i n i t i a t i v e . He struck a medallion to celebrate h i s v i c t o r y , and on i t he portrayed himself and Constantius II as equals, both wearing the consular dress while Constantine II was depicted with the conventional state-costume. A l l three brothers were depicted as of equal s i z e , whereas before Constantine II had towered above the others. In t h i s way Constans proclaimed himself the t h i r d r u l i n g Augustus. However, he s t i l l 130 recognized the precedence of Constantine I I , for he granted him the cen t r a l p o s i t i o n and depicted himself and Constantius II as turning 225 towards him. It was i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d t h i s c o n c i l i a t o r y gesture that caused Constantine II to consider any intervention at t h i s time merely superfluous. So long as Constans did not appoint new o f f i c i a l s or publish e d i c t s of h i s own, there was no r e a l challenge to Constantine II's domination of the West. In so f a r as independent l e g i s l a t i o n i s concerned, J.-R 226 Palanque would l i k e to date i t to as early as 6 A p r i l 339, for he declares that an edict of t h i s date and another of 23 Jul y 339 were issued by Constans from the neighbourhood of Savaria i n western Pannonia and that both edicts contradicted previous l e g i s l a t i o n of the elder brothers. In so dating these e d i c t s , he accepts the conclusions 227 reached e a r l i e r by Otto Seeck, conclusions based upon c a r e f u l reasoning but, though probable, not so well-founded as to allow one to base other arguments upon them. The manuscripts are unanimous i n dating CTh 10.10.6 to 6 A p r i l 342 and i n lo c a t i n g i t at Savaria. Seeck's argument that Constans could not have been at Savaria i n 342 i s based on the ground that he was campaigning against the Franks i n that year. However, Savaria i s not so far from the Rhine that Constans could not have journeyed thither i n the spring before waging a campaign to the north-west, and scholars both e a r l i e r and l a t e r than Seeck have cast 228 t h e i r votes i n favour of the manuscripts' t r a d i t i o n . It i s a p i t y that CTh 10.10.6 cannot be ascribed with c e r t a i n t y to the year 339, for otherwise we could r e a d i l y accept Palanque's conclusion that the comes rei pvivatae Eusebius, to whom i t was addressed, was an appointee of the 131 new sovereign and that, as early as t h i s date, Constans was co n s t i t u t i n g a court and ministry of h i s own. The edi c t , confirming the donations of h i s father, does contradict e a r l i e r l e g i s l a t i o n of 229 Constantine II and of Constantius I I , but th i s f a c t o r does not i n any way influence the dating. The other edict upon which Palanque bases h i s argument i s CTh 12.1.41, dated to 23 Jul y 353 by the manuscripts. Palanque and Seeck again prefer to change the year to 339, l a r g e l y because t h i s edict, addressed to the senate of Carthage, i s s i m i l a r to CTh 10.10.6 i n being of somewhat a conservative nature: t i t l e s of rank are to remain v a l i d i f granted by s p e c i a l imperial favour. However, the place of o r i g i n of t h i s edict i s unknown and, even i f dated to 339, i t could have been given by Constantine I I . Mommsen prefers to r e t a i n t h i s edict i n . 230 353, and t h i s appears to be the best approach; i t was part of Constantius II's attempt to s e t t l e western a f f a i r s a f t e r the defeat and ju s t before the sui c i d e of Magnentius. What, then, was the s i t u a t i o n with regard to the other western edicts of 339? We do not know th e i r place of o r i g i n , but none of them needs have been derived from the court of Constans. Two are addressed to the urban prefect of Rome, Hila r i a n u s , and pertain to the regular 231 o b l i g a t i o n s of praetors and other senators. The other i s addressed 232 to the v i c a r of A f r i c a , C a t u l l i n u s , c l e a r l y an appointee of Constantine I I , for he had been part of the general settlement reached at Viminacium, wherein the praetorian p r e f e c t s of A f r i c a and the lower Danube had been replaced by v i c a r s . It i s not u n t i l we reach the early part of 340 that we can fi n d 132 any c e r t a i n evidence of l e g i s l a t i v e independence on the part of Constans. Two entries i n the Theodosian Code, one for 19 January 233 234 340 and the other f o r 2 February 340, originated from Naissus. Since Constantine II was i n Gaul and Constantius I I was s t i l l near the eastern front, we can be quite c e r t a i n th